The Article
"Dr Graham-Cumming was at pains to point out that errors made by the office do not alter the big picture on climate change.
''It does not change the scientific story, and that is that the world is getting hotter,'' he said."
---
Ok, self-described "computer geek" finds a significant error in the method used to calculate average temperature. He then says, quoted above, that it doesn't alter the finding that the earth is warming up.
Hello? Anyone home? The question isn't whether there is global warming, but whether there is AGW... global warming as a result of human activity. In that light, a 1 degree skew is very significant, it's freekin huge.
Dear Dr Grahm-Cumming-miss-the-real-question, step away from the computer... slowly... that's right... now... look at what's really being argued. We know you're not a Doc of Poly Sci or whatnot, but it doesn't take one to know the right question that's being asked and so hotly (pun intended) debated.
But wait, there's more.
Another problem, most of the data is probably tainted. How can that be, you ask? Well, if you're inclined to prove AGW, you need some significant increases in global temperature. Now, let's pretend you're not the most objective of scientists even in your gathering of data, what are you going to do? Well, you're going to gather data that will more than likely show higher temps. How will you do that? Simple, just place you temperature monitors/stations at locations that will more likely than not show higher temperatures.
No? You don't think this vast array of data is tainted? Think again, one person even says 90% of the stations gathering data in the US fail in that they are within 100 feet of something that can influence temperature, like concrete, pavement, buildings, A/C exhaust, etc.
Let's face it. The data gathered to date is simply unreliable... junk. There are new stations being set up with better monitors, etc. so maybe in a few years we'll have better data on our current situation, but right now, forget about it, so many holes it's like swiss cheese.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Stupid Crazy
The following is the "manifesto" of a guy who decided to ram his plane into the side of a building here in Austin today, along with some of my comments.
If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably [more like definitely] pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. [Hmm, as a child I don't think I knew what anarchy was] Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed [Yes, the same person who can't articulate his thoughts is now proclaiming we've been brainwashed, probably in a conspiracy by "the government"] to believe that, in return for our dedication and service [Oh, we were brainwashed into a contract, is that it?], our government stands for justice for all [So, as long was we're patriotic, "the government" will be fair to us... yeah, you know, "the government" being this separate entity that the people have no control over and all...]. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place [Yeah, because freedom in the USA is obviously non-existent since nobody is allowed to speak their mind, take trips to wherever they want, protest, etc., yeah right], and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers [if you're able to join and serve in the military (Go Navy!)]. Remember? [Remember all that? Getting brainwashed? Remember having a sense of patriotism? Remember being taught your, not my, beliefs? Well, I do remember being patriotic, I like to think I still am. I don't remember being brainwashed, but then I work for "the government" so maybe some psychic knew I'd work for the government one day and told my parents and teachers to not brainwash me? Yeah, that must be how it works.] One of these was “no taxation without representation” [Yep, that was because we were being taxed by the Brits and had no voice in their Parliment. They claimed that we had "virtual representation" which we found to be total BS]. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood [I'm sure you're parents are proud of that accomplishment and the life it brought you, and look at how you ended up, wow, great advertising for unlearning that "crap" which is the reason so many people came, and continue to come to the USA]. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse [Yes, the Supreme Court, the President, Congress, and all those who swear an oath to defend those things, including those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, are labeled crackpots and traitors... Ok... that makes no sense to me, but let's read more].
While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I) [Huh? Name one "working" person who doesn't think they don't pay their fair share... besides the ones that simply don't pay like that asshat former police commissioner in New York who's going to jail for it], in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind [It's not all about you now, is it? It's not about the individual you, but the community, the constituents of the elected people, it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if they only catered to your personal issues all the time. They aren't required to do so, so whining about it doesn't do anyone any good and only makes you a little nuttier]. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say [There's a difference between being interested in what you had to say, and being able to understand wtf you're talking about, and being able to help. I'm going to guess that you told them a bunch of BS, similar to what you've already stated, and they were probably thinking that you were off your rocker... and they were correct].
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? [Not that I agree with what happened, but the excuse was "too big to fail." I hate that it happened too, most people aren't happy about it, but we're not taking it out by committing criminal, if not terroristic, acts] Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system [the best medical system on the planet... a joke?], including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies [Yes, the bailout stinks]. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? [I like white elephant Christmas parties] Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand [It may be complex, but it's not so complicated that nobody understands it, there's plenty of people who understand it and that's how they earn their living]. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims [Ahh, you're a victim! We're to have pity on you because you've been victimized into... what... having to pay taxes?], claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing [I understand what I'm signing when I sign a tax return, it says something along the lines of I'm taking responsibility for the truthfulness of what I'm sending, there's a statement in the box that's maybe one sentence long that says what is being indicated by the signature]; if that’s not “duress” than what is [That's not duress, duress is when someone is holding a gun to your head and telling you to sign on the line or they're going to blow your brains out]. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is [Requiring a signature... totalitarian? Ok...].
How did I get here? [Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.
Same as it ever was...]
My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English [Not surprising, I read professional engineers' stuff from time to time, and they're all terrible at writing]. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy [I'm not Catholic, but I respect them as fellow Christians, as the "original" Christians, the Church to which Jesus made Peter his foundation. The Church has had a few bad apples, but those few should not be used to condemn the entire Church, but then, the continued persecution of the Church must mean they're doing something right... which is why I consider becoming a Catholic time to time]. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done. [But... you were wrong? Just a guess, seeing as how unhappy you became and how you went all "9/11" on the IRS]
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us [Yes, your experts were probably not as expert as you thought, and an honest living includes paying your fair share of taxes]… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country [The Inquisition was in Spain, it's called the "Spanish Inquisition" and was a way of trying to convert people to Christianity, but I don't think the IRS really cares what religion you are, if any].
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie [Ok, please, oh wise one, tell us this great lie]. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom” [Freedom, in case this what you consider to be the great lie, does not mean "free from taxes." Taxes is what it takes to help ensure your freedom, freedom isn't free, it costs blood, sweat, and tears]… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.
On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age. [I'm sure you made him proud, you might have made him even prouder if you'd sought help for your anxiety and taken whatever medications were indicated]
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on. [So, social security has served its purpose in her case]
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) [Cat Food Lady] rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.
For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
· “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.
· “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.
· “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes. [So... you decide to kill yourself by ramming your plane into that building, because of an exception that the IRS said you couldn't have... brilliant]
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did [Clue, get one], and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time [you were]. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and [of?] any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles [Really? You discovered moles? Or was this another great thing you decided must be true?] from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing [losing] income that I couldn’t bill clients. [So, instead of working and making enough money over time to pay off what you owed in back taxes, you decided to spend what would have been billable hours, to go gain pity from others about the situation you just want to complain about. Brilliant]
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.
Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back. [If you're that dumb, then yes, you should have left engineering]
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government ["the government!"] caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! [It wasn't just your money, especially if you're dodging taxes] After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done [Oh really? News to me]. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash [cost of living is much cheaper in Texas than in California, most people either know this or find out before they decide to move], because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion [Yes, another conspiracy, the only possible explanation] to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take [Yes, obviously because they're all in it together... right...] and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies [well, on that point, sure seems that way doesn't it, I'm sure many of those voting for the bailout had interests in those companies, pretty sure that was on PBS news].
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice. [Depends on the IRA, but yeah, that can count as income... and that denial of due process sounds sketchy since courts bend over backwards to hear cases, and you can appeal the denial, if ya hadn't killed yourself]
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income [So after all that's already happened, the pattern continues, a sort of passive aggressive response], not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to XXXX XXXX, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, XXXX knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me. [Unreported, as in, you need to report it on your taxes, as in you should have made sure it was included. That's your taxes, you can't withhold information and expect someone else to magically pull it out of the air, that's just a total lack of personal responsibility, it wreaks of a continued effort to get away with something from "the government" in order to get back at them. Well, the only people you can screw with is either you, or the public. It's not the IRS's money, they just collect it so our military gets paid, for one, and to generally keep the government running. This diatribe does nothing but further show to be the nutjob you are, you keep trying to screw the IRS and they keep catching you. You keep hoping for a different result, but continue to do the same things over and over. Maybe you should have eaten the cat food, maybe all that peanut butter messed you up]
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution. [Yeah, a lot of people feel this way right now, but that doesn't mean it's hopeless or that people won't get booted out come election time]
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws. [Unfortunately, I don't think W was a puppet, he was large and in charge, and he screwed up a lot... it take a special kind of asshat to get our country from a budget surplus to a huge deficit]
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less [Yeah, I actually agree, we need a lot of new people in Congress, and if they decide to cash in instead of represent the people, then they need to be quickly voted out as well]. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well. [That's certainly one way to stop the cycle, the better way would have been to simply stay on top of your taxes, especially if you know they're complicated, the IRS has resources to help if you ask. If you're in a business, it makes no sense to not have someone keep track of tax issues, especially if you've had problems with them before and don't know how to handle them yourself]
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed. [To the last... at least you're consistent, and maybe that's why nothing of yours got by the IRS since they can easily flag people who try to screw over the US taxpayers]
Joe Stack (1956-2010)
02/18/2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Texas v. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
If it's caused by humans, we don't know. I believe Texas is right, that right now, the IPCC and CRU have... well, screwed up big time. Their study, undone. An undergraduate would have received a D or worse as a grade. Their data, who the hell knows how valid it is, they certainly don't. Supposed facts found within the report, proven false. It's pathetic.
I like what the AG wrote in his petition for reconsideration. The whole foundation upon which the EPA decided to base its Endangerment Finding is crumbling. The lead on the project, Phil Jones, a Brit, was obviously biased and is at the heart of the bungle. He really wanted to prove AGW, because I think he really believe it to be true. So, he sort of let the ends dictate the means to a degree. He wanted to reach that end, and quickly. So, instead of doing purely professional work to find out the truth of whether there is AGW, he sought to prove AGW. Even in recent interviews, he still shows that bias. He doesn't care about objective truth, he just wants to serve his own selfish interests. He even talked about suicide, and those are the most selfish types of all.
So yeah, it's all bunk, start over, verify original data from monitors that don't change locations... you know, the basics. If you can't get the basics right, just give up and let someone else do it, stop wasting our time because if there really is AGW, we need to know sooner than later... you dumbasses at IPCC and CRU.
I like what the AG wrote in his petition for reconsideration. The whole foundation upon which the EPA decided to base its Endangerment Finding is crumbling. The lead on the project, Phil Jones, a Brit, was obviously biased and is at the heart of the bungle. He really wanted to prove AGW, because I think he really believe it to be true. So, he sort of let the ends dictate the means to a degree. He wanted to reach that end, and quickly. So, instead of doing purely professional work to find out the truth of whether there is AGW, he sought to prove AGW. Even in recent interviews, he still shows that bias. He doesn't care about objective truth, he just wants to serve his own selfish interests. He even talked about suicide, and those are the most selfish types of all.
So yeah, it's all bunk, start over, verify original data from monitors that don't change locations... you know, the basics. If you can't get the basics right, just give up and let someone else do it, stop wasting our time because if there really is AGW, we need to know sooner than later... you dumbasses at IPCC and CRU.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Medina Shows True Colors
Perry, KBH blast Medina - First Read - msnbc.com: "“I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn, so I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that,” Medina said. “I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard, there are some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there, so I have not taken a position on that.'"
----
That's a quote from a woman, last name Medina, who I won't even bother finding out her first name because she's obviously nuttier than peanuts. She's running for governor, has been gaining in polls and popularity, I even heard talk about her on the radio this morning saying she'd "won" a debate between the three GOP candidates.
But this? THIS? Oh my, sorry, but no thanks. The last thing Texas needs is someone who actually panders to conspiracy theories regarding the events of 9/11/01. "Very good arguments"? ... I mean, I haven't heard ANY arguments indicating that our government had anything to do with 9/11, but the mere suggestion is reprehensible.
Sure, she's free to her opinion, but her opinion just so happens to run contrary to most people's reality, that it was foreign Muslims, not Americans, that caused the events of 9/11.
I'm so sick of the "the government did it" types of conspiracies, the people who propagate it are people who lack personal responsibility or are otherwise looking for nebulous excuses. This is something a Governor of Texas should lean to, rather the person should come out and say, "HELL NO" to wacky conspiracy theories.
Beware of smooth talkers like John Edwards, and apparently now, a woman with the last name of Medina.
----
That's a quote from a woman, last name Medina, who I won't even bother finding out her first name because she's obviously nuttier than peanuts. She's running for governor, has been gaining in polls and popularity, I even heard talk about her on the radio this morning saying she'd "won" a debate between the three GOP candidates.
But this? THIS? Oh my, sorry, but no thanks. The last thing Texas needs is someone who actually panders to conspiracy theories regarding the events of 9/11/01. "Very good arguments"? ... I mean, I haven't heard ANY arguments indicating that our government had anything to do with 9/11, but the mere suggestion is reprehensible.
Sure, she's free to her opinion, but her opinion just so happens to run contrary to most people's reality, that it was foreign Muslims, not Americans, that caused the events of 9/11.
I'm so sick of the "the government did it" types of conspiracies, the people who propagate it are people who lack personal responsibility or are otherwise looking for nebulous excuses. This is something a Governor of Texas should lean to, rather the person should come out and say, "HELL NO" to wacky conspiracy theories.
Beware of smooth talkers like John Edwards, and apparently now, a woman with the last name of Medina.
Friday, February 05, 2010
US Missionaries in Haiti - Kidnapping
It's been on the new for a few days now, and right now I'm of the opinion that the authorities over there are more right than wrong about the situation. The thing is, I don't care how much you care about something, if you go about doing something illegally, then you are committing a crime. Let's say, shortly after Katrina hit, a bunch of Haitians came over and were taking 30 American children to Mexico, or Canada even. That's the same thing. Or even better, additionally imagine that the US is a lot smaller, but still an independent nation, and these foreigners come along at a time of crisis and are trying to take children out of the country without any sort of permission.
To me it's pretty cut and dry. The only grey area is if all of them knew and were actively a part of the crime. It sounds like maybe just one person may have known that they were acting illegally, but then she may just be sacrificing herself for the others since she was mostly responsible for the act.
When in Haiti, you're under their laws. That's no different than what Jesus said about acting under Roman laws. Just because you are a Christian and are trying to do something good in Haiti, does not mean you can break Haitian law.
So yeah, if I were Haitian I'd be pissed too and wanting these people prosecuted. How very disrespectful of them to just try and abscond a bunch of children, disaster or no. Yeah, that's kidnapping.
So, unlike what the media may be trying to do, I don't have much sympathy for the missionaries. Even if some of them didn't actually know that some sort of permission was needed, they should have known. Any reasonable person should know that they needed some sort of permission to do that.
People, you need to think about what you're doing before just acting on what you feel like is right. Feelings are fallible, you need to exercise good judgment... especially if you're in a foreign country. I just can't help but think these are kind people, but probably just a bit on the ignorant side. Not sure how else one can explain the stupidity of the actions with the good intent.
I'm really curious though if they had already reserved room in the Dominican Rep. before taking the children, because if they didn't do that, then that means they were just acting totally willy nilly and thank God they got caught.
To me it's pretty cut and dry. The only grey area is if all of them knew and were actively a part of the crime. It sounds like maybe just one person may have known that they were acting illegally, but then she may just be sacrificing herself for the others since she was mostly responsible for the act.
When in Haiti, you're under their laws. That's no different than what Jesus said about acting under Roman laws. Just because you are a Christian and are trying to do something good in Haiti, does not mean you can break Haitian law.
So yeah, if I were Haitian I'd be pissed too and wanting these people prosecuted. How very disrespectful of them to just try and abscond a bunch of children, disaster or no. Yeah, that's kidnapping.
So, unlike what the media may be trying to do, I don't have much sympathy for the missionaries. Even if some of them didn't actually know that some sort of permission was needed, they should have known. Any reasonable person should know that they needed some sort of permission to do that.
People, you need to think about what you're doing before just acting on what you feel like is right. Feelings are fallible, you need to exercise good judgment... especially if you're in a foreign country. I just can't help but think these are kind people, but probably just a bit on the ignorant side. Not sure how else one can explain the stupidity of the actions with the good intent.
I'm really curious though if they had already reserved room in the Dominican Rep. before taking the children, because if they didn't do that, then that means they were just acting totally willy nilly and thank God they got caught.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Emmitt, Rice both great, but the greatest?
The Article
The article gives a nod to Rice, but disrespects Smith by saying he wasn't great at anything, but good at a lot.
That's some stupid bullshit. Smith's greatness, the thing he was GREAT at, was determination. Barry Sanders?... please. If Barry had half the heart Emmitt had, then maybe Barry would have done better and be considered the greatest. Walter Peyton, was good, no doubt, but Emmitt faced far superior defenses, much faster and more athletic players, etc. Same thing with Jim Brown, sure he was a great, but it's clear to me the greatest was definitely, without any doubts or hesitation, Emmitt Smith.
Emmitt wasn't a loudmouth, he didn't try to draw attention to himself, he simply let his game speak for itself. His quiet determination would shout at you though. When he had a hurt shoulder and ran the ball down, play after play against the Giants, my God, what more proof do you need? That drive was all Emmitt, hurt shoulder and all, he single-handedly punished the Giants defense. The G-men's defense back then was nothing to sneeze at either. It's not like they were playing Tampa Bay, they were playing a top team... I don't remember if it was the NFC Championship game or what, but that drive showcased Emmitt and left no doubt to anyone on or off the field, that Emmitt was without a doubt, one tough sonofabitch.
Even more proof of his determination is the number of years he played. Sanders' determination? His determination was to try and retire and keep a bunch of signing bonus money. You want to talk about the greatest, don't forget integrity. Walter Peyton and Emmitt Smith kept their integrity, Sanders didn't. Sanders had a lot of rushing yards, as was definitely hard to tackle sometimes, but so was Emmitt. Where Barry was dodging and moving around, Emmitt would do that too, but he'd also power through when needed, and wouldn't be shy about blocking or taking/giving hits. Smith had an all around game, the complete package. Barry, not so much. Barry is definitely one of the greatest, for sure, but Emmitt was definitely better.
So, yeah, without hesitation everyone knows Emmitt deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Greatest ever? That requires comparing different eras when considering Walter Peyton, but there's no question that Emmitt is more deserving of that than Barry Sanders. For the article to slight Emmitt in that is stupid. They get some defensive guy from Tampa to comment... please.
But let me say this, I also watched plenty of Walter Peyton growing up. I liked Peyton. And from my perspective, having watched both players, I've got to say I really do think Emmitt is, hands down, the better of the two.
Brown was known is his time, was surely a great, but definitely not the greatest. OJ Simpson, likewise, was one of the greats, but he killed two people, and then later robbed some people at gunpoint... so... integrity took a massive hit.
However you want to look at it, Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back to ever play football, to date.
I just hope before I die that another great back emerges that is compared to Emmitt.
Oh, and Rice, yeah of course. There's not even a close 2nd to Rice as far as receivers go.
The article gives a nod to Rice, but disrespects Smith by saying he wasn't great at anything, but good at a lot.
That's some stupid bullshit. Smith's greatness, the thing he was GREAT at, was determination. Barry Sanders?... please. If Barry had half the heart Emmitt had, then maybe Barry would have done better and be considered the greatest. Walter Peyton, was good, no doubt, but Emmitt faced far superior defenses, much faster and more athletic players, etc. Same thing with Jim Brown, sure he was a great, but it's clear to me the greatest was definitely, without any doubts or hesitation, Emmitt Smith.
Emmitt wasn't a loudmouth, he didn't try to draw attention to himself, he simply let his game speak for itself. His quiet determination would shout at you though. When he had a hurt shoulder and ran the ball down, play after play against the Giants, my God, what more proof do you need? That drive was all Emmitt, hurt shoulder and all, he single-handedly punished the Giants defense. The G-men's defense back then was nothing to sneeze at either. It's not like they were playing Tampa Bay, they were playing a top team... I don't remember if it was the NFC Championship game or what, but that drive showcased Emmitt and left no doubt to anyone on or off the field, that Emmitt was without a doubt, one tough sonofabitch.
Even more proof of his determination is the number of years he played. Sanders' determination? His determination was to try and retire and keep a bunch of signing bonus money. You want to talk about the greatest, don't forget integrity. Walter Peyton and Emmitt Smith kept their integrity, Sanders didn't. Sanders had a lot of rushing yards, as was definitely hard to tackle sometimes, but so was Emmitt. Where Barry was dodging and moving around, Emmitt would do that too, but he'd also power through when needed, and wouldn't be shy about blocking or taking/giving hits. Smith had an all around game, the complete package. Barry, not so much. Barry is definitely one of the greatest, for sure, but Emmitt was definitely better.
So, yeah, without hesitation everyone knows Emmitt deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Greatest ever? That requires comparing different eras when considering Walter Peyton, but there's no question that Emmitt is more deserving of that than Barry Sanders. For the article to slight Emmitt in that is stupid. They get some defensive guy from Tampa to comment... please.
But let me say this, I also watched plenty of Walter Peyton growing up. I liked Peyton. And from my perspective, having watched both players, I've got to say I really do think Emmitt is, hands down, the better of the two.
Brown was known is his time, was surely a great, but definitely not the greatest. OJ Simpson, likewise, was one of the greats, but he killed two people, and then later robbed some people at gunpoint... so... integrity took a massive hit.
However you want to look at it, Emmitt Smith is the greatest running back to ever play football, to date.
I just hope before I die that another great back emerges that is compared to Emmitt.
Oh, and Rice, yeah of course. There's not even a close 2nd to Rice as far as receivers go.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Build your system for the future
So I'm reading a review in Amazon regarding the Kaspersky 3-user internet security software. This reviewer gives it a poor rating, saying it's slow, slows down everything, etc. It was giving me pause. Then he says going from Kaspersky 2009 to 2010 is like going from XP to Vista. Umm... hmm. Then he details his computer, a P4 with 1 gig of RAM. He later comments that he's never upgraded to Vista or Win7, and that he believes in not fixing something that isn't broken. Umm... hmm.
So, the review wasn't really helpful for me. But here's the thing, he's trying to run a modern program on a dinosaur computer. My granny has him beat, she still runs the computer I got her 12 years ago. It still has Win 98 for crying out loud. But, it connects to the internet, and does everything she wants it to do. And this weekend I'm giving her an HDTV, go granny... go granny!
Anyway, here's the thing, if YOU need to update your system, or need a new system today, then think in terms of the future. Most people, I hope, want to be able to run things that come out in the future because that means not having to upgrade soon after getting a new system.
Well, that's sort of what happened to me once. You see, my first computer that I bought with my own money and all that, was a Mac. I liked it. Played a game called Myst on it, which sort of had an impact on my view of computer games. Anyway, being the loyal guy I am, my next computer was Mac too, a G3 or G4, something like that. The only thing is, shortly after buying the computer, they released another computer that had a certain something that I wanted on mine. However, the only way to get it, was to buy a whole new computer. I talked with friends on the internet about it, and they said that if they wanted to change something in their computers, all they had to do was buy the part, and stick it in. So I called a couple of Mac places and asked if they could do something like that, nope, won't fit or somesuch answer. So, I was pissed. I hadn't had the computer for more than a few months, and already needed to buy a whole new one, if I stayed with Apple.
Fool me once, shame on you. Not going to fool me twice, so I bought a Dell. And wow, cheaper and more powerful, and just more professional in every way. Sure enough, I had it a while and discovered I wanted more RAM, no problem. A new sound card, no problem. However, after a while I simply needed something more powerful, with a bigger hard drive, all sorts of stuff. Yeah, it's like 3 years old and it's time to be replaced. By this time though, I'm pretty savvy. So, I decide to build my own. I made a mistake though, and it wouldn't be the last time I make it. I didn't build it for the future, I built it for right now.
That's fine, for now, but that means it's going to be lackluster in about 2 years, more or less, definitely less if you play games. And I play games. So almost 2 years after that I build another system, use some parts of my old, later on I buy some new parts and can have 2 systems. Did that for a while, started having problems with my main system, and guess what, it's ancient. Specifically, RAM had changed, and AGP video cards were suddenly gone.
So, what I had done was partially built for the future, and added on as needed, and that worked out long enough to not know that AGP vid cards, which had been awesome before, suddenly extinct. What I remember though, was that years before, when I was building the system, that people were talking about the new pcie video cards. If I had only listened and bought that stuff back then, then I wouldn't be building a completely new system today.
So, mistake realized, this time I built for the future. Keep in mind, I did this nearly a year ago, but even now most people would be hard pressed to beat the system I built. Most of which is what I would recommend even today. The only thing I would change now is the particular video card, but they are always coming out with new ones so it's no surprise.
So, if you want a computer that will last you for more than a couple of years, then this is what you need, and you probably need to build it yourself:
1) A new quad core cpu. i7 920 at a minimum, with x58 chipset, a definite for OCing.
2) A motherboard that can fit your cpu, can handle ddr3 at a minimum of 6 gb. Onboard sound seems fine to me these days. ASRock has a couple of good ones, Asus Rampage II or one of their P6Ts are probably good.
3) At least 6 gigs of RAM, ddr3. Corsair dominator GT 2000 or 1866 should be fine.
4) A power supply of at least 750W, more if you have a lot of things to attach. I believe Corsair still has a web page where you can input all your devices and it tells you how much power you should get. However, in the future you may need more power than you use now, so anticipate. 750W minimum.
5) A pair of video cards, or something like Radeon's x2 stuff, 2-in-1 card, that can handle DirectX 12, with 2 gb of memory.
6) A non-stock CPU cooler. Be sure that it will fit in your case because they get big. Do research, do it twice to make sure you know that it'll keep your CPU cool. Take a look at the CoolerMaster V8.
7) A big case that will keep everything cool and has room for expansion. In the future, you may want dual blu-ray drives or something else that comes out. Don't go cheap on the case, it's important to get something sturdy, preferably on wheels, with slots for additional fans.
8) Additional fans
9) A 24" HD monitor. Probably don't want to go bigger than this, but to each his own. Check out the Asus MK24
10) A fast wireless N router so that you can make your future TV wireless if it has an etherport, and can wirelessly watch HD movies via a wireless bridge. Other stuff like DVD players can also be turned into wireless via the bridge, just plug the devices into the bridge, and it will relay the signals to/from the router/internet. The PS3 is already wireless, if you want to go that route.
11) At least one fast Hard Drive. Look at Velociraptor for starters. Other HDs for storage can be slower.
12) A blu-ray read/write drive. Lots of USBs. Keyboard and mouse that "fits" you and your needs. Check out Logitech's line.
13) A 64bit operating system (OS). This is fast approaching to be the norm because you need a 64bit OS to take advantage of more than 3 gigs of RAM, and 3 gigs of RAM isn't going to cut it for very much longer. Go ahead and get Windows 7 64 bit if you don't mind potential bugs before their first service pack. Else, get Vista 64bit ultimate and you'll be happy.
14) Internet security software such as Kaspersky 2010. Don't waste time with the free stuff, they're meant to protect a Ford, you're driving something akin to a tough Mercedes.
15) Schedule your updates. Maybe once a month, every couple of months, or at least whenever things don't seem right, you need to check and update your drivers. This includes your motherboard's chipset drivers, your video card's driver, dvd driver, directX, motherboard bios, router bios, windows update, other software updates, etc. This is especially true with new products because the manufacturer figures out what needs to be fixed after the initial version has been released.
The drawback is, being on the forefront means a slightly different release of the same product might be slightly better. For instance, I got the i7 920 early on. It's a C0, and later came a D0. The D0 can handle overclocking a little better, with less heat due to slightly different architecture. So, if I had waited a little longer then I could have gotten the D0. However, the C0 is just fine, and if I ever decide I really do need that little bit more umph, well guess what, something is going be even better than the D0, or maybe I'll just stick in a i7 extreme, who knows. The difference isn't that big of deal, but because I'm set up to handle better things already, I won't have to buy a new computer to do that.
If in the future I want more umph and there's a whole new CPU that, like the i7, is a leap in technology, then I will likely only need to buy a new mobo and the CPU, as everything else should still work just fine for a number of years. That said, the i7 should be "it" for a while.
Yes, I've tried AMD. The i7 is simply a leap forward and AMD is trying to catch up now. I'm a fan of ATI though, which AMD owns. I even worked for AMD one summer and liked the people. So, it's nothing personal, and the competition is good for us all.
Now, another drawback is that this is expensive on the front end. However, a system like this, built today, should last you a lot longer than any Dell, including XPS, or HP being sold. The only thing I know of that's close, is Alienware. You won't save any money, but you'll get a good system that even has a unique look.
If you decide to build your own, beware of a couple of things. One, buy from a reputable place. If you buy parts from Newegg, that's fine. If you buy from Amazon, that's fine, as long as Amazon is the one sending the item. I would not trust 3rd parties that sell through and ship outside of Amazon. Why? Personal experience of course.
I bought a power supply from Amazon, but it was actually sold by ANTonline. Well, the power supply I received did not work... and the nightmare began. It basically took me a couple of months to get a power supply that worked. I will never ever never make that mistake again on something so vital to a project. In general, it may be in your interest to actually pay a little more to buy at a local store in case you get a bad a part. That way you can probably exchange it very quickly instead of mailing things back and forth. In my case, I received two dead power supplies before finally getting one that worked.
Two, the second thing to beware, are the specifications. Is that big fan going to fit? Is the case that's $100 cheaper really as good? (no, it isn't) Look at not only what they tell you, but what they don't tell you. And then figure out the answer anyway... looking at online manuals, etc. For instance, a motherboard may have 6 slots for ddr3 RAM, and not mention how much it can effectively utilize. The answer may be because it can only handle 6 gigs of ddr3 when you want one that can handle at least 12 for future growth. Not that 6 will be insufficient anytime soon. So, just be careful and know exactly what you're getting before you start buying. Make a list, check it twice, see what component is naughty or nice.
One more thing, have a working, internet connected computer while you're building your system so that you can refer to it with any questions, if you need to check out images, etc.
Google is your friend. Lots of people are building their own systems so there's information out there that tells you what you need to know about installing everything. Read your manuals if you're unsure, they have good info too. Don't be afraid to call support to answer a question, especially if you thing something isn't working... I had to call support about pin placement. The case wanted 3 pins but the mobo only had 2 pins. I called and emailed the support for the mobo, ASRock, and they told me they had the answer already on the web, that I never could find, and he told me that I simply needed to detach one of the leads and stick it in the empty middle slot, and then I'd have the 2-pin slots that the mobo called for. I was like, duhh, why didn't I think of that on my own?
So, do your research and go build your new system. Try not to smile too much when you're done, and know that bad boy is going to serve you well for a long time. And don't go cheap on surge protection!
So, the review wasn't really helpful for me. But here's the thing, he's trying to run a modern program on a dinosaur computer. My granny has him beat, she still runs the computer I got her 12 years ago. It still has Win 98 for crying out loud. But, it connects to the internet, and does everything she wants it to do. And this weekend I'm giving her an HDTV, go granny... go granny!
Anyway, here's the thing, if YOU need to update your system, or need a new system today, then think in terms of the future. Most people, I hope, want to be able to run things that come out in the future because that means not having to upgrade soon after getting a new system.
Well, that's sort of what happened to me once. You see, my first computer that I bought with my own money and all that, was a Mac. I liked it. Played a game called Myst on it, which sort of had an impact on my view of computer games. Anyway, being the loyal guy I am, my next computer was Mac too, a G3 or G4, something like that. The only thing is, shortly after buying the computer, they released another computer that had a certain something that I wanted on mine. However, the only way to get it, was to buy a whole new computer. I talked with friends on the internet about it, and they said that if they wanted to change something in their computers, all they had to do was buy the part, and stick it in. So I called a couple of Mac places and asked if they could do something like that, nope, won't fit or somesuch answer. So, I was pissed. I hadn't had the computer for more than a few months, and already needed to buy a whole new one, if I stayed with Apple.
Fool me once, shame on you. Not going to fool me twice, so I bought a Dell. And wow, cheaper and more powerful, and just more professional in every way. Sure enough, I had it a while and discovered I wanted more RAM, no problem. A new sound card, no problem. However, after a while I simply needed something more powerful, with a bigger hard drive, all sorts of stuff. Yeah, it's like 3 years old and it's time to be replaced. By this time though, I'm pretty savvy. So, I decide to build my own. I made a mistake though, and it wouldn't be the last time I make it. I didn't build it for the future, I built it for right now.
That's fine, for now, but that means it's going to be lackluster in about 2 years, more or less, definitely less if you play games. And I play games. So almost 2 years after that I build another system, use some parts of my old, later on I buy some new parts and can have 2 systems. Did that for a while, started having problems with my main system, and guess what, it's ancient. Specifically, RAM had changed, and AGP video cards were suddenly gone.
So, what I had done was partially built for the future, and added on as needed, and that worked out long enough to not know that AGP vid cards, which had been awesome before, suddenly extinct. What I remember though, was that years before, when I was building the system, that people were talking about the new pcie video cards. If I had only listened and bought that stuff back then, then I wouldn't be building a completely new system today.
So, mistake realized, this time I built for the future. Keep in mind, I did this nearly a year ago, but even now most people would be hard pressed to beat the system I built. Most of which is what I would recommend even today. The only thing I would change now is the particular video card, but they are always coming out with new ones so it's no surprise.
So, if you want a computer that will last you for more than a couple of years, then this is what you need, and you probably need to build it yourself:
1) A new quad core cpu. i7 920 at a minimum, with x58 chipset, a definite for OCing.
2) A motherboard that can fit your cpu, can handle ddr3 at a minimum of 6 gb. Onboard sound seems fine to me these days. ASRock has a couple of good ones, Asus Rampage II or one of their P6Ts are probably good.
3) At least 6 gigs of RAM, ddr3. Corsair dominator GT 2000 or 1866 should be fine.
4) A power supply of at least 750W, more if you have a lot of things to attach. I believe Corsair still has a web page where you can input all your devices and it tells you how much power you should get. However, in the future you may need more power than you use now, so anticipate. 750W minimum.
5) A pair of video cards, or something like Radeon's x2 stuff, 2-in-1 card, that can handle DirectX 12, with 2 gb of memory.
6) A non-stock CPU cooler. Be sure that it will fit in your case because they get big. Do research, do it twice to make sure you know that it'll keep your CPU cool. Take a look at the CoolerMaster V8.
7) A big case that will keep everything cool and has room for expansion. In the future, you may want dual blu-ray drives or something else that comes out. Don't go cheap on the case, it's important to get something sturdy, preferably on wheels, with slots for additional fans.
8) Additional fans
9) A 24" HD monitor. Probably don't want to go bigger than this, but to each his own. Check out the Asus MK24
10) A fast wireless N router so that you can make your future TV wireless if it has an etherport, and can wirelessly watch HD movies via a wireless bridge. Other stuff like DVD players can also be turned into wireless via the bridge, just plug the devices into the bridge, and it will relay the signals to/from the router/internet. The PS3 is already wireless, if you want to go that route.
11) At least one fast Hard Drive. Look at Velociraptor for starters. Other HDs for storage can be slower.
12) A blu-ray read/write drive. Lots of USBs. Keyboard and mouse that "fits" you and your needs. Check out Logitech's line.
13) A 64bit operating system (OS). This is fast approaching to be the norm because you need a 64bit OS to take advantage of more than 3 gigs of RAM, and 3 gigs of RAM isn't going to cut it for very much longer. Go ahead and get Windows 7 64 bit if you don't mind potential bugs before their first service pack. Else, get Vista 64bit ultimate and you'll be happy.
14) Internet security software such as Kaspersky 2010. Don't waste time with the free stuff, they're meant to protect a Ford, you're driving something akin to a tough Mercedes.
15) Schedule your updates. Maybe once a month, every couple of months, or at least whenever things don't seem right, you need to check and update your drivers. This includes your motherboard's chipset drivers, your video card's driver, dvd driver, directX, motherboard bios, router bios, windows update, other software updates, etc. This is especially true with new products because the manufacturer figures out what needs to be fixed after the initial version has been released.
The drawback is, being on the forefront means a slightly different release of the same product might be slightly better. For instance, I got the i7 920 early on. It's a C0, and later came a D0. The D0 can handle overclocking a little better, with less heat due to slightly different architecture. So, if I had waited a little longer then I could have gotten the D0. However, the C0 is just fine, and if I ever decide I really do need that little bit more umph, well guess what, something is going be even better than the D0, or maybe I'll just stick in a i7 extreme, who knows. The difference isn't that big of deal, but because I'm set up to handle better things already, I won't have to buy a new computer to do that.
If in the future I want more umph and there's a whole new CPU that, like the i7, is a leap in technology, then I will likely only need to buy a new mobo and the CPU, as everything else should still work just fine for a number of years. That said, the i7 should be "it" for a while.
Yes, I've tried AMD. The i7 is simply a leap forward and AMD is trying to catch up now. I'm a fan of ATI though, which AMD owns. I even worked for AMD one summer and liked the people. So, it's nothing personal, and the competition is good for us all.
Now, another drawback is that this is expensive on the front end. However, a system like this, built today, should last you a lot longer than any Dell, including XPS, or HP being sold. The only thing I know of that's close, is Alienware. You won't save any money, but you'll get a good system that even has a unique look.
If you decide to build your own, beware of a couple of things. One, buy from a reputable place. If you buy parts from Newegg, that's fine. If you buy from Amazon, that's fine, as long as Amazon is the one sending the item. I would not trust 3rd parties that sell through and ship outside of Amazon. Why? Personal experience of course.
I bought a power supply from Amazon, but it was actually sold by ANTonline. Well, the power supply I received did not work... and the nightmare began. It basically took me a couple of months to get a power supply that worked. I will never ever never make that mistake again on something so vital to a project. In general, it may be in your interest to actually pay a little more to buy at a local store in case you get a bad a part. That way you can probably exchange it very quickly instead of mailing things back and forth. In my case, I received two dead power supplies before finally getting one that worked.
Two, the second thing to beware, are the specifications. Is that big fan going to fit? Is the case that's $100 cheaper really as good? (no, it isn't) Look at not only what they tell you, but what they don't tell you. And then figure out the answer anyway... looking at online manuals, etc. For instance, a motherboard may have 6 slots for ddr3 RAM, and not mention how much it can effectively utilize. The answer may be because it can only handle 6 gigs of ddr3 when you want one that can handle at least 12 for future growth. Not that 6 will be insufficient anytime soon. So, just be careful and know exactly what you're getting before you start buying. Make a list, check it twice, see what component is naughty or nice.
One more thing, have a working, internet connected computer while you're building your system so that you can refer to it with any questions, if you need to check out images, etc.
Google is your friend. Lots of people are building their own systems so there's information out there that tells you what you need to know about installing everything. Read your manuals if you're unsure, they have good info too. Don't be afraid to call support to answer a question, especially if you thing something isn't working... I had to call support about pin placement. The case wanted 3 pins but the mobo only had 2 pins. I called and emailed the support for the mobo, ASRock, and they told me they had the answer already on the web, that I never could find, and he told me that I simply needed to detach one of the leads and stick it in the empty middle slot, and then I'd have the 2-pin slots that the mobo called for. I was like, duhh, why didn't I think of that on my own?
So, do your research and go build your new system. Try not to smile too much when you're done, and know that bad boy is going to serve you well for a long time. And don't go cheap on surge protection!
Monday, February 01, 2010
Obama Calls for End to New Moon
The Article
Ok, apparently the movie "New Moon" is so bad, Obama wants to cancel our return to the moon.
Fine, because honestly, when George W. announced the new mission to reinvigorate NASA, I was unimpressed with the mission itself, but all for NASA coming up with new or updated technology for space travel.
So, not going to the moon again is fine... BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
Not only does Hussain the Insane Obomba want to scrap the new moon mission, he wants to fundamentally change NASA into... something not NASA. No longer would NASA be spearhead of American space flight and missions, but it would be turned into a cog of the international community wheel.
WTF?
Yeah, exactly. It's given a cheery side of more money, but the money will have to be spent technology that will be used in international collaborations. So, if there's a human landing on Mars, they won't be setting up a big lone American flag... nope, they'll just stick in bunch of tiny flags from all sorts of countries that donated to the cause. No more credit for doing anything, it'll be an international achievement instead. American pride and recognition... nah, we'll just blend ourselves in with the rest.
Russia agreed to an "international" space station because it couldn't afford to maintain it. It didn't do so to try and be friends with everyone, they had to do it because they really didn't have much of choice. So what the real reason we are suddenly going to change NASA? Chinese debt.
Yeah, that's my theory. Right now, we owe China a lot of money because they're bankrolling these fucking bailouts. So in turn, we are going to appease them by making a internationally communist space agency so that they, China, can further their space travel goals. Yeah, China. I have absolutely no proof, of course, but it's plausible enough I suppose. Not really a theory I guess, more like an hypothesis waiting to be tested.
Write your Federal Legislators, House and Senate, and tell them you're against the international communizing of our space agency. While you're at it, tell them the only thing that is broken and needs to be fixed, is the idea of giving tons of money to failed companies. That's so fail, both parties let it happen too... wonder why... oh, yeah, personal interests. (My God, we desperately need more honorable people in the legislature that put God and country before themselves.)
Ok, apparently the movie "New Moon" is so bad, Obama wants to cancel our return to the moon.
Fine, because honestly, when George W. announced the new mission to reinvigorate NASA, I was unimpressed with the mission itself, but all for NASA coming up with new or updated technology for space travel.
So, not going to the moon again is fine... BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
Not only does Hussain the Insane Obomba want to scrap the new moon mission, he wants to fundamentally change NASA into... something not NASA. No longer would NASA be spearhead of American space flight and missions, but it would be turned into a cog of the international community wheel.
WTF?
Yeah, exactly. It's given a cheery side of more money, but the money will have to be spent technology that will be used in international collaborations. So, if there's a human landing on Mars, they won't be setting up a big lone American flag... nope, they'll just stick in bunch of tiny flags from all sorts of countries that donated to the cause. No more credit for doing anything, it'll be an international achievement instead. American pride and recognition... nah, we'll just blend ourselves in with the rest.
Russia agreed to an "international" space station because it couldn't afford to maintain it. It didn't do so to try and be friends with everyone, they had to do it because they really didn't have much of choice. So what the real reason we are suddenly going to change NASA? Chinese debt.
Yeah, that's my theory. Right now, we owe China a lot of money because they're bankrolling these fucking bailouts. So in turn, we are going to appease them by making a internationally communist space agency so that they, China, can further their space travel goals. Yeah, China. I have absolutely no proof, of course, but it's plausible enough I suppose. Not really a theory I guess, more like an hypothesis waiting to be tested.
Write your Federal Legislators, House and Senate, and tell them you're against the international communizing of our space agency. While you're at it, tell them the only thing that is broken and needs to be fixed, is the idea of giving tons of money to failed companies. That's so fail, both parties let it happen too... wonder why... oh, yeah, personal interests. (My God, we desperately need more honorable people in the legislature that put God and country before themselves.)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Republican Senator in Massachusetts, Illegal Aliens, Obamacare
FOXNews.com - Excuses, Excuses: Democrats Dig Deep to Explain Loss in Massachusetts: "Democrats are offering a wide variety of excuses to explain why a truck-driving, war-supporting, health care reform-opposing Republican will be sitting in 'Ted Kennedy's seat' in the U.S. Senate."
Ok, aside from my ignorance on what truck driving has to do with anything, here's the answer to those that are baffled by the epic Republican win, epic Democrat failure, in the now-defunct democrat bastion State of Massachusetts. Drum roll please...
The economy.
Wow, who'd a thunk it? The issue that appears to always determine modern elections. Yep, the economy. But wait, George W. you say? Nope, sorry, that doesn't wash anymore, because now there's a new factor affecting the economy. Drum roll please...
Bailout money, and bailout bonuses.
Yeah, the bailout isn't working, has been epic mismanaged, and is an epic failure by itself. Add to that the bonus money given to those who SCREWED us over in the first place... and yeah, there's a lot of people pissed off, and out of work no matter their political lean.
So there you have it, not too shocking. The only real surprise is that the Democratic un-elect was ever in the lead. I can only suppose that it was just a temporary difference in exposure to the public, since the Republican candidate was some unknown truck driver.
That said, it also probably didn't help that Martha Coakley does not look like, appearance only, someone who will fight for a constituency. She looks like someone who should be home baking cookies. I base this off one photograph that I've seen of her. :)
Sure, other people will say this or that, making the election results as some sort of complicated tale. It's not. People are pissed off. Things aren't turning around yet, though to be fair, it has only been a year since Obama's oath.
WARNING: The U.S. President is not about the person, it's about the nation. Any President who fails to realize this or acts outside the national interest, will not be elected to a 2nd term.
The U.S. public understands the idea behind the bailouts. We also understand that it is failing, and will continue to fail. I believe most people wish the market economy would have been allowed to continue... AIG failure, "Banks too big to fail" failure, etc. Yes, they should have been allowed to fail, it would have been a lesson learned, we'd have gone through as bad a time as we have, but would likely recover faster.
But no, we allow these monstrosities to continue, and they screw us over even more with higher interest rates and fees. It's just pathetic. They should have died. Other companies would have filled the void, companies that have survived by not sucking in the then-current economy. Companies that could have had their shot at serving a much larger market with their business model. But no... we all got the shaft.
Hope? Yeah, here's your hope, just bend over. That's the Obama hope, or at least what it has become. Poor decisions. Why he continued with George W.'s bailout I'll never know for sure, but I suspect personal interests of his or his staff. People wanted change, not a continuation. Pathetic.
So, big picture, what the Massachusetts election really signals is that Obama's first year in office is a failure.
What he should have done... let them die. It was not the government's responsibility until Obama decided to continue with the bailout program. Had he let them die, that would simply be the market forces at work. Sure, we'd go through a rough time, but the government could have been in a "helping the people" mode then, not the current "helping epic-fail corporations continue to live" mode.
Either way, I'm sure if McCain had been elected, we'd be in the same boat. I can see Reagan letting the market work as intended, but I just don't see many other people with balls that big.
Did anyone else get a sick feeling when it was decided that WE would bail out these failed corporations? That was the Holy Spirit talking, saying, "WTF, r U sToopiD?!" Well, maybe not exactly that, but something like that. And here we are still bailing them out, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same, as, it, ever, was.
A very wise man once told me a very wise saying... when it appears to you that you're digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. Hello? If losing Mass. isn't a big enough sign that Obama is digging his own grave, then, well, we're all screwed until we can get a real leader, who's qualified, can make the tough decisions, etc. So what else is Obama digging?
Healthcare reform, hmm. I kinda like it the way it is, we just need to stop illegals from abusing it. Stopping the flow from Mexico would be a nice start toward real healthcare cost savings. After securing our border (that sounds so bad, funny how it's true) we would then need to deport illegals from within, or have them pay restitution and go through proper immigration channels before making them legal, or something along those lines.
Point blank, illegal aliens are hurting more than helping. They come here, go to the emergency room for all medical needs, don't pay, have their babies, don't pay, send their profits to another country, refuse to learn English, have no allegiance to the U.S., create environmental problems, and more. So not only healthcare would be affected by controlling illegal immigration, but society in general would be affected, mostly in a positive way.
Let's say Obamacare somehow passes. Guess what, it's still fail. Why? Because the same problems affecting the current method will now plague the new method. Worse, illegals will no longer be isolated to emergency room waiting rooms. Yeah, Obamacare will not only be a U.S. healthplan, it'll be a worldwide health plan. We can now brag that not only does America feed the world, but that we are also the world's hospital.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Yeah, have the entrance to all the Obamacare facilities be a golden door.
So there you go. Obama's bailouts and bungling of the economy has lead to a win for Republicans in Massachusetts. Healthcare reform, "Obamacare," is similarly bungled. Obama needs to pause, reassess his footing and what the U.S. wants for the U.S., ie no Obamacare, and then take steps to really solve the root of the problem with any healthcare system in America, ie illegal aliens, and those that don't pay for the medical services received. That would at least be a positive starting point for a first term, addressing a root issue instead of a derivative problem.
Ok, aside from my ignorance on what truck driving has to do with anything, here's the answer to those that are baffled by the epic Republican win, epic Democrat failure, in the now-defunct democrat bastion State of Massachusetts. Drum roll please...
The economy.
Wow, who'd a thunk it? The issue that appears to always determine modern elections. Yep, the economy. But wait, George W. you say? Nope, sorry, that doesn't wash anymore, because now there's a new factor affecting the economy. Drum roll please...
Bailout money, and bailout bonuses.
Yeah, the bailout isn't working, has been epic mismanaged, and is an epic failure by itself. Add to that the bonus money given to those who SCREWED us over in the first place... and yeah, there's a lot of people pissed off, and out of work no matter their political lean.
So there you have it, not too shocking. The only real surprise is that the Democratic un-elect was ever in the lead. I can only suppose that it was just a temporary difference in exposure to the public, since the Republican candidate was some unknown truck driver.
That said, it also probably didn't help that Martha Coakley does not look like, appearance only, someone who will fight for a constituency. She looks like someone who should be home baking cookies. I base this off one photograph that I've seen of her. :)
Sure, other people will say this or that, making the election results as some sort of complicated tale. It's not. People are pissed off. Things aren't turning around yet, though to be fair, it has only been a year since Obama's oath.
WARNING: The U.S. President is not about the person, it's about the nation. Any President who fails to realize this or acts outside the national interest, will not be elected to a 2nd term.
The U.S. public understands the idea behind the bailouts. We also understand that it is failing, and will continue to fail. I believe most people wish the market economy would have been allowed to continue... AIG failure, "Banks too big to fail" failure, etc. Yes, they should have been allowed to fail, it would have been a lesson learned, we'd have gone through as bad a time as we have, but would likely recover faster.
But no, we allow these monstrosities to continue, and they screw us over even more with higher interest rates and fees. It's just pathetic. They should have died. Other companies would have filled the void, companies that have survived by not sucking in the then-current economy. Companies that could have had their shot at serving a much larger market with their business model. But no... we all got the shaft.
Hope? Yeah, here's your hope, just bend over. That's the Obama hope, or at least what it has become. Poor decisions. Why he continued with George W.'s bailout I'll never know for sure, but I suspect personal interests of his or his staff. People wanted change, not a continuation. Pathetic.
So, big picture, what the Massachusetts election really signals is that Obama's first year in office is a failure.
What he should have done... let them die. It was not the government's responsibility until Obama decided to continue with the bailout program. Had he let them die, that would simply be the market forces at work. Sure, we'd go through a rough time, but the government could have been in a "helping the people" mode then, not the current "helping epic-fail corporations continue to live" mode.
Either way, I'm sure if McCain had been elected, we'd be in the same boat. I can see Reagan letting the market work as intended, but I just don't see many other people with balls that big.
Did anyone else get a sick feeling when it was decided that WE would bail out these failed corporations? That was the Holy Spirit talking, saying, "WTF, r U sToopiD?!" Well, maybe not exactly that, but something like that. And here we are still bailing them out, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same, as, it, ever, was.
A very wise man once told me a very wise saying... when it appears to you that you're digging yourself into a hole, stop digging. Hello? If losing Mass. isn't a big enough sign that Obama is digging his own grave, then, well, we're all screwed until we can get a real leader, who's qualified, can make the tough decisions, etc. So what else is Obama digging?
Healthcare reform, hmm. I kinda like it the way it is, we just need to stop illegals from abusing it. Stopping the flow from Mexico would be a nice start toward real healthcare cost savings. After securing our border (that sounds so bad, funny how it's true) we would then need to deport illegals from within, or have them pay restitution and go through proper immigration channels before making them legal, or something along those lines.
Point blank, illegal aliens are hurting more than helping. They come here, go to the emergency room for all medical needs, don't pay, have their babies, don't pay, send their profits to another country, refuse to learn English, have no allegiance to the U.S., create environmental problems, and more. So not only healthcare would be affected by controlling illegal immigration, but society in general would be affected, mostly in a positive way.
Let's say Obamacare somehow passes. Guess what, it's still fail. Why? Because the same problems affecting the current method will now plague the new method. Worse, illegals will no longer be isolated to emergency room waiting rooms. Yeah, Obamacare will not only be a U.S. healthplan, it'll be a worldwide health plan. We can now brag that not only does America feed the world, but that we are also the world's hospital.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Yeah, have the entrance to all the Obamacare facilities be a golden door.
So there you go. Obama's bailouts and bungling of the economy has lead to a win for Republicans in Massachusetts. Healthcare reform, "Obamacare," is similarly bungled. Obama needs to pause, reassess his footing and what the U.S. wants for the U.S., ie no Obamacare, and then take steps to really solve the root of the problem with any healthcare system in America, ie illegal aliens, and those that don't pay for the medical services received. That would at least be a positive starting point for a first term, addressing a root issue instead of a derivative problem.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Gathering Storm - Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson
Amazon.com: The Gathering Storm (Wheel of Time)
Unlike Wikipedia, I'm not going to tell you the story and ruin a great chapter in the Wheel of Time series. As a fan, you already know this is the first volume of the final "book" in the series. Well, if you haven't read it yet, get to it, now, yes it's really good.
First off, a couple of minor complaints. The first is that Jordan, throughout the series used, "had had" in sentences. Sometimes it would make sense, other times it was just pointless, one "had" will always suffice in any case. Now, Jordan died and Sanderson picked up the pieces and is making the final volumes whole, and in the pieces are parts of the story that Jordan had written. Obviously, the part I read that has the "had had" was written by Jordan because, if I recall correctly, there was only one instance.
The second mistake I caught because it's a pet peeve of mine, the erroneous use of some words that are spelled differently, but close to the same. In this book, I only noticed one such mistake, which is actually pretty good, and it came pretty late in the book so it was a little shocking to finally see this type of error when most of the book was error free. It comes about 3/4 of the way through, and the printed word is "where" but it should be "were."
So, minor mistakes, and very few... in fact one could really say there's only one technical mistake in the whole book. However, I'm a little confused... for some reason I thought the Ogier constructed the white tower using cuendillar. I'm pretty sure they didn't do that now, they're just really good at constructing using whatever material they used in building the white tower. If my thinking was correct, then part of the story would not make sense. So, there was a mistake on MY part. I got over it, I've looked up instances of cuendillar and I think I just assumed, and you know what happens when you ass-u-&-me.
Positive things... it's a great book. Period. The story, the flow, things are happening, good descriptions, it's got it all folks. I laughed, I cried (well, not cry, but you know what I mean) and I love that Sanderson correctly spelled "judgment." Not the British version "judgement," but the American, and correct, version of the word.
The editing. Like I said, "had had" was used once, and there was only one real word mistake. Comparing that to every other book in the series, it's a freekin miracle! Finally, I'm not wincing ever other chapter at some wierd mistake that should have been picked up. Great grammar, spelling, and, oh yeah, story. It all clicked thanks to great editing probably done by Sanderson himself.
SUMMARY: Get the book, read it, love it, and I told you so.
That is all.
Unlike Wikipedia, I'm not going to tell you the story and ruin a great chapter in the Wheel of Time series. As a fan, you already know this is the first volume of the final "book" in the series. Well, if you haven't read it yet, get to it, now, yes it's really good.
First off, a couple of minor complaints. The first is that Jordan, throughout the series used, "had had" in sentences. Sometimes it would make sense, other times it was just pointless, one "had" will always suffice in any case. Now, Jordan died and Sanderson picked up the pieces and is making the final volumes whole, and in the pieces are parts of the story that Jordan had written. Obviously, the part I read that has the "had had" was written by Jordan because, if I recall correctly, there was only one instance.
The second mistake I caught because it's a pet peeve of mine, the erroneous use of some words that are spelled differently, but close to the same. In this book, I only noticed one such mistake, which is actually pretty good, and it came pretty late in the book so it was a little shocking to finally see this type of error when most of the book was error free. It comes about 3/4 of the way through, and the printed word is "where" but it should be "were."
So, minor mistakes, and very few... in fact one could really say there's only one technical mistake in the whole book. However, I'm a little confused... for some reason I thought the Ogier constructed the white tower using cuendillar. I'm pretty sure they didn't do that now, they're just really good at constructing using whatever material they used in building the white tower. If my thinking was correct, then part of the story would not make sense. So, there was a mistake on MY part. I got over it, I've looked up instances of cuendillar and I think I just assumed, and you know what happens when you ass-u-&-me.
Positive things... it's a great book. Period. The story, the flow, things are happening, good descriptions, it's got it all folks. I laughed, I cried (well, not cry, but you know what I mean) and I love that Sanderson correctly spelled "judgment." Not the British version "judgement," but the American, and correct, version of the word.
The editing. Like I said, "had had" was used once, and there was only one real word mistake. Comparing that to every other book in the series, it's a freekin miracle! Finally, I'm not wincing ever other chapter at some wierd mistake that should have been picked up. Great grammar, spelling, and, oh yeah, story. It all clicked thanks to great editing probably done by Sanderson himself.
SUMMARY: Get the book, read it, love it, and I told you so.
That is all.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Iranian Protests
It's odd, isn't it? Protests aren't odd in Iran, of course, but they're not protesting America, the great satan, or whatever, they're protesting their own government. The same government that came into power after protesting the former government. And yet, it appears nothing was learned last time.
One of the big mistakes of the old government was to crack down hard on the protestors. This lead to deaths. In Iranian, or maybe it's a muslim thing, after 40 days there's a big to-do about mourning a death, which would lead to protests, which the government cracked down on and involved more deaths. It happened enough that finally most people rebelled.
Now, 30 years later, we see somewhat of the same thing, except it appears to be a little deeper in that the continuation of the protests does not need to be predicated by a death. It's as if, no matter what the government does, whether they crack down on their own people or not, the people want a change of government. They want their votes to count, sure, but is that all? Is this just about one failed election? Will acquiescence of that one issue, a re-vote, subside the protests?
In my American thinking, I don't think a re-vote would be enough as it appears that maybe it is just a pretext to much more prevalent problem at the heart of the government. Corruption.
When the current government took over, they gave themselves a lot of power. Their Revolutionary Guard may actually have most of the power, even though the ideology was for their top cleric to be the one calling the shots. It doesn't appear to be working that way though.
For some reason I'm thinking their Revolutionary Guard is going to try and crush them, but that it will eventually backfire. I'm not sure if you could call it a civil war, but maybe a second revolution, of sorts. It's hard to read them because their culture is so different, I'm not sure if the people would implicate the whole government or just parts. Ultimately, I'm not even sure it the people will really win unless they change the whole structure, which gives itself much too much power, which will always lead to corruption.
Anyway, it's just odd how history seems to be repeating itself so soon. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the biggest thing that should be changed in Iran is the anger, because everything since the 70s from Iran appears to be motivated by anger. How about looking at the realities?
For instance, Iran currently blames the USA for all their woes under the Shahs. Why? Well, Madeleine Albright said (from wikipedia):
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Simply put, we wanted to develop Iranian resources, Massadegh didn't. So, at Britan's urging, we got rid of him. That was a different era, we clearly wouldn't do something like that today.
Unfortunately, forgiveness does not seem to have a place with muslims. I mean, they still hate people over things that happened 1500 years ago. They even still dress like people did 2000 years ago.
So, it would be foolish to think that their hate will ever subside. Even if Iranians form a new government, so what? Do you think it will suddenly be amenable to the USA? Well, maybe, but here's the catch... no matter what we do, no matter how much money we invest, no matter anything, the Iranians hate us, they always will, and anything you have with them, you better be prepared to lose it. Just say no, to trusting Iran. After all, look at how corrupt they are, they're near the bottom of the list.
No, don't get your hopes up. Things could change for the better, sure, and maybe it's good to hope for that and act in a way to encourage that... but don't expect it anytime soon. Maybe in another 3000 years, Iranians, or whatever Iranians are called then, will be less angry. Until then, watch the protestors and hope that things go right for once over there.
One of the big mistakes of the old government was to crack down hard on the protestors. This lead to deaths. In Iranian, or maybe it's a muslim thing, after 40 days there's a big to-do about mourning a death, which would lead to protests, which the government cracked down on and involved more deaths. It happened enough that finally most people rebelled.
Now, 30 years later, we see somewhat of the same thing, except it appears to be a little deeper in that the continuation of the protests does not need to be predicated by a death. It's as if, no matter what the government does, whether they crack down on their own people or not, the people want a change of government. They want their votes to count, sure, but is that all? Is this just about one failed election? Will acquiescence of that one issue, a re-vote, subside the protests?
In my American thinking, I don't think a re-vote would be enough as it appears that maybe it is just a pretext to much more prevalent problem at the heart of the government. Corruption.
When the current government took over, they gave themselves a lot of power. Their Revolutionary Guard may actually have most of the power, even though the ideology was for their top cleric to be the one calling the shots. It doesn't appear to be working that way though.
For some reason I'm thinking their Revolutionary Guard is going to try and crush them, but that it will eventually backfire. I'm not sure if you could call it a civil war, but maybe a second revolution, of sorts. It's hard to read them because their culture is so different, I'm not sure if the people would implicate the whole government or just parts. Ultimately, I'm not even sure it the people will really win unless they change the whole structure, which gives itself much too much power, which will always lead to corruption.
Anyway, it's just odd how history seems to be repeating itself so soon. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the biggest thing that should be changed in Iran is the anger, because everything since the 70s from Iran appears to be motivated by anger. How about looking at the realities?
For instance, Iran currently blames the USA for all their woes under the Shahs. Why? Well, Madeleine Albright said (from wikipedia):
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."
Simply put, we wanted to develop Iranian resources, Massadegh didn't. So, at Britan's urging, we got rid of him. That was a different era, we clearly wouldn't do something like that today.
Unfortunately, forgiveness does not seem to have a place with muslims. I mean, they still hate people over things that happened 1500 years ago. They even still dress like people did 2000 years ago.
So, it would be foolish to think that their hate will ever subside. Even if Iranians form a new government, so what? Do you think it will suddenly be amenable to the USA? Well, maybe, but here's the catch... no matter what we do, no matter how much money we invest, no matter anything, the Iranians hate us, they always will, and anything you have with them, you better be prepared to lose it. Just say no, to trusting Iran. After all, look at how corrupt they are, they're near the bottom of the list.
No, don't get your hopes up. Things could change for the better, sure, and maybe it's good to hope for that and act in a way to encourage that... but don't expect it anytime soon. Maybe in another 3000 years, Iranians, or whatever Iranians are called then, will be less angry. Until then, watch the protestors and hope that things go right for once over there.
The Heisman 2009
Ok, now... first off, the Heisman is not just about the best college athlete, it's also part popularity contest. What it should or shouldn't be is neither here nor there, that's just the way it is.
That said, one of these is going to win it:
Colt McCoy - He put on some big numbers, but towards the end of the season he threw some interceptions. People talk of a cream puff schedule, I suspect those same haven't seen him play except for the Nebraska game. And, oh yeah, there was the Nebraska game. The offense was non-existent, Colt made errors, and the only thing that allowed them to win was Nebraska's two costly penalties that allowed Texas to be in field goal range almost instantly.
Ndamukong Suh - Oh... My... God... Is there anything else you can say when a single person seems to completely shut down one of the best college offenses? Colt McCoy and the Texas offense had been putting up some good numbers, rolling over some good teams. But none of those other teams had this guy, and what a difference a team with Suh makes. Obviously deserving of the Heisman, but did the Big 12 championship game have a big enough spotlight?
Mark Ingram - He had a good season, 1500 yards rushing, 18 TDs. Somewhat the opposite of Suh in many ways. In the SEC championship game, he did fine and all, but he wasn't a overwhelming factor. However, he's in the spotlight big time.
The other candidates are all really good players, but when you look at their schedule, or in Tebow's case his simple failure to perform in his last game, and a tiny spotlight if any, they simply will not likely win.
So who will win? My order:
3. Colt McCoy - I simply do not think he can overcome the Nebraska game. UT won, but Colt lost. True, Nebraska has a great defense, but a great player worthy of the Heisman will have beaten another Heisman candidate on the field, in this case it was Suh. Sorry Colt, be like Vince Young and prove it in the title game.
2. Mark Ingram - I think, like Colt McCoy, Ingram really didn't shine in his last game, and if anything, lots of people watched and were underwhelmed, thinking that all this talk was just hype. Don't get me wrong, he did well, but the key to that win was McElroy. No doubt about it.
1. Ndamukong Suh - Why is Nebraska's defense so good... he's the answer. I think the Big 12 championship was a big enough spotlight to show most people what a terrific, stand out, man among boys, player he is. Suh, wow, definitely deserving. Even if you take out the spotlight factor, there is no competition. This guy is #1, period.
So there you have it. These are the top 3 no matter what anyone else says. Any deviation from this is just wrong. That is all.
That said, one of these is going to win it:
Colt McCoy - He put on some big numbers, but towards the end of the season he threw some interceptions. People talk of a cream puff schedule, I suspect those same haven't seen him play except for the Nebraska game. And, oh yeah, there was the Nebraska game. The offense was non-existent, Colt made errors, and the only thing that allowed them to win was Nebraska's two costly penalties that allowed Texas to be in field goal range almost instantly.
Ndamukong Suh - Oh... My... God... Is there anything else you can say when a single person seems to completely shut down one of the best college offenses? Colt McCoy and the Texas offense had been putting up some good numbers, rolling over some good teams. But none of those other teams had this guy, and what a difference a team with Suh makes. Obviously deserving of the Heisman, but did the Big 12 championship game have a big enough spotlight?
Mark Ingram - He had a good season, 1500 yards rushing, 18 TDs. Somewhat the opposite of Suh in many ways. In the SEC championship game, he did fine and all, but he wasn't a overwhelming factor. However, he's in the spotlight big time.
The other candidates are all really good players, but when you look at their schedule, or in Tebow's case his simple failure to perform in his last game, and a tiny spotlight if any, they simply will not likely win.
So who will win? My order:
3. Colt McCoy - I simply do not think he can overcome the Nebraska game. UT won, but Colt lost. True, Nebraska has a great defense, but a great player worthy of the Heisman will have beaten another Heisman candidate on the field, in this case it was Suh. Sorry Colt, be like Vince Young and prove it in the title game.
2. Mark Ingram - I think, like Colt McCoy, Ingram really didn't shine in his last game, and if anything, lots of people watched and were underwhelmed, thinking that all this talk was just hype. Don't get me wrong, he did well, but the key to that win was McElroy. No doubt about it.
1. Ndamukong Suh - Why is Nebraska's defense so good... he's the answer. I think the Big 12 championship was a big enough spotlight to show most people what a terrific, stand out, man among boys, player he is. Suh, wow, definitely deserving. Even if you take out the spotlight factor, there is no competition. This guy is #1, period.
So there you have it. These are the top 3 no matter what anyone else says. Any deviation from this is just wrong. That is all.
Monday, December 07, 2009
BCS Bowl Games 2009
For the title game it's #1 Bama v. #2 Texas. Texas barely beat Nebraska in a controversial, but hard fought game. With less than 2 minutes to go, Nebraska shoots itself by first kicking the ball out of bounds, putting UT on the 40 yard line. Then, in another very stupid move, Nebraska commits a personal file on a 19 yard pass reception. Granted, he would have ran for more if not for the penalty, but the penalty adds 15 yards and I'm not sure if he would gone that much farther. So, within seconds, Texas is in field goal range to win it.
That's when things got stupid. Time is running out, you're in field goal range, you have an unused time out, so what SHOULD you do? If you think you should run down the clock a little more, keep the ball safe, call a time out with about 2 to 5 seconds left to play... well in UT terms, you're wrong. Instead, they try running some plays, lose yardage, and with just a handful of seconds on the game clock... are trying to pass the ball. That's just stupid and it almost, and maybe should have, cost them game.
The controversy is that the game clock went to zero seconds, meaning game over, after their last play, the pass attempt that went out of bounds. Now, the time keeper did nothing wrong because a play isn't dead until the whistle blows. On the replay, I didn't hear a whistle until after the clock was at zero seconds. But, the officials did a review and decided to stop the clock at the instant when the ball hit out of bounds. I don't know if that should have been the case, how many other plays throughout all games do the officials rule on whether the ground crew blew the whistle as soon as a ball is thrown incomplete? I'm sure "none" is a pretty close, if not dead on answer.
But let's hear if for Nebraska, what an outstanding defensive effort that came up a second short on winning a big game for their team. Usually defensive battles are boring games, but both UT's and Nebraska's defenses made it enjoyable to watch, and got hearts beating.
That said, Texas won, and will now face Bama for the Title. It's actually good that Texas won in that the Big 12 will be present in the title game. If Texas had lost, then the Big would not have a chance to upset the best conference out there, the SEC. But if there's a Big 12 team that can do it, it's definitely UT. Just like a few years ago when nobody thought Texas could beat USC, with it's two Heisman winners, Texas won. Now, it's a matchup against the SEC's best. And considering Bama's domination over Florida, well, it should be interesting. Bama simply looks like it's getting better, and Texas looked pretty flat against Nebraska. But then, I think Nebraska could give any team's offense fits... so it's tough to say who's really better. Additionally, there's like a month's wait.
A month's wait. Yeah... to me, when the teams are close in talent, that means the it's up to the coach. The better coach will have his team better prepared, and inspired to play some great ball. Oddly enough, these two coaches are both really, really good. Bama is favored by three points, but that's only because they've been ranked higher all season and those same people aren't going to suddenly indicate that Texas will win.
So who knows, just root for Alabama if you like them more, or root for the underdog, giant-killers. I'm hoping for a Big 12 win because a Big 12 win would help take away that mystique of the SEC somewhat and maybe people wouldn't automatically rank SEC teams ahead of equally good Big 12 teams in the future. Strength of schedule, yeah, Big 12 has strength, Nebraska proved it for sure, as did A&M.
Oregon against Ohio State in the Rose Bowl - bleh. Ohio State always plays tough and have a lot of support wherever they go. They get invited to bowl games because of that, hard playing and lots of fans to buy tickets and spend money. I'm not a fan of the Rose Bowl because I really don't care much for the Pac or Big East.
Iowa against Georgia Tech in the Orange - bleh. I dunno, I like Tech. Not sure why, except that maybe while serving in Pensacola I watched them play a couple of times on TV. Of course the players I watched back then probably have their kids playing in this game.
Florida against Cincinnati in the Sugar - Stupid. Really, it is. Cincy barely wins games against unranked teams, and they get to play Florida? That's BS. TCU deserved to play Florida by its utter domination over teams. In fact, I predict that TCU would have beaten Florida. As it is, look for Cincy to get wiped all over the field.
TCU against Boise State in the Fiesta - This would appear to be a good game... but appearances can be deceiving. The only thing Boise State has going for it that maybe (along with the disappointment of not playing Florida) with all this time off that TCU has had, that they'll be overweight and sloppy come game time. Unless that happens, even though Boise State is a good team, look for TCU to dominate, again. No doubt, with a convincing performance even over Boise State, TCU may very well be considered, unofficially, the best team this year.
And then there's the Super Bowl... well, that's not collegiate and no teams have been scheduled yet to appear... but my prediction is that the Cowboys will not be there. Even if by some miracle they were to get into a playoff game, they'd find a way to lose it. Romo, Wade, or both need to get kicked out. Romo has sucked all season. He used to be inconsistent between games, not he's inconsistent even within games. Sorry, but rare flashes of good passing should not be good enough to keep your job as a QB within the NFL, and will definitely not get you to, much less win, a Superbowl.
Come on Jerry Jones, you're good at getting rid of coaches, what makes Wade worth hanging on to? Seriously, why? I don't see it. Is it something personal? The Cowboys need a stern coach, that's been proven. Landry, Johnson, Parcels... those are the types that made the Cowboys great. Notice I didn't include Switzer, he inherited a team that my dog, very smart dog I might add, could have coached to a championship. It'd be like taking credit for coaching MJ, Shak and Kobe to a NBA championship. Sorry, not going to happen.
Sorry, it's hard to not express my disappointment with the Cowboys while talking football.
That's when things got stupid. Time is running out, you're in field goal range, you have an unused time out, so what SHOULD you do? If you think you should run down the clock a little more, keep the ball safe, call a time out with about 2 to 5 seconds left to play... well in UT terms, you're wrong. Instead, they try running some plays, lose yardage, and with just a handful of seconds on the game clock... are trying to pass the ball. That's just stupid and it almost, and maybe should have, cost them game.
The controversy is that the game clock went to zero seconds, meaning game over, after their last play, the pass attempt that went out of bounds. Now, the time keeper did nothing wrong because a play isn't dead until the whistle blows. On the replay, I didn't hear a whistle until after the clock was at zero seconds. But, the officials did a review and decided to stop the clock at the instant when the ball hit out of bounds. I don't know if that should have been the case, how many other plays throughout all games do the officials rule on whether the ground crew blew the whistle as soon as a ball is thrown incomplete? I'm sure "none" is a pretty close, if not dead on answer.
But let's hear if for Nebraska, what an outstanding defensive effort that came up a second short on winning a big game for their team. Usually defensive battles are boring games, but both UT's and Nebraska's defenses made it enjoyable to watch, and got hearts beating.
That said, Texas won, and will now face Bama for the Title. It's actually good that Texas won in that the Big 12 will be present in the title game. If Texas had lost, then the Big would not have a chance to upset the best conference out there, the SEC. But if there's a Big 12 team that can do it, it's definitely UT. Just like a few years ago when nobody thought Texas could beat USC, with it's two Heisman winners, Texas won. Now, it's a matchup against the SEC's best. And considering Bama's domination over Florida, well, it should be interesting. Bama simply looks like it's getting better, and Texas looked pretty flat against Nebraska. But then, I think Nebraska could give any team's offense fits... so it's tough to say who's really better. Additionally, there's like a month's wait.
A month's wait. Yeah... to me, when the teams are close in talent, that means the it's up to the coach. The better coach will have his team better prepared, and inspired to play some great ball. Oddly enough, these two coaches are both really, really good. Bama is favored by three points, but that's only because they've been ranked higher all season and those same people aren't going to suddenly indicate that Texas will win.
So who knows, just root for Alabama if you like them more, or root for the underdog, giant-killers. I'm hoping for a Big 12 win because a Big 12 win would help take away that mystique of the SEC somewhat and maybe people wouldn't automatically rank SEC teams ahead of equally good Big 12 teams in the future. Strength of schedule, yeah, Big 12 has strength, Nebraska proved it for sure, as did A&M.
Oregon against Ohio State in the Rose Bowl - bleh. Ohio State always plays tough and have a lot of support wherever they go. They get invited to bowl games because of that, hard playing and lots of fans to buy tickets and spend money. I'm not a fan of the Rose Bowl because I really don't care much for the Pac or Big East.
Iowa against Georgia Tech in the Orange - bleh. I dunno, I like Tech. Not sure why, except that maybe while serving in Pensacola I watched them play a couple of times on TV. Of course the players I watched back then probably have their kids playing in this game.
Florida against Cincinnati in the Sugar - Stupid. Really, it is. Cincy barely wins games against unranked teams, and they get to play Florida? That's BS. TCU deserved to play Florida by its utter domination over teams. In fact, I predict that TCU would have beaten Florida. As it is, look for Cincy to get wiped all over the field.
TCU against Boise State in the Fiesta - This would appear to be a good game... but appearances can be deceiving. The only thing Boise State has going for it that maybe (along with the disappointment of not playing Florida) with all this time off that TCU has had, that they'll be overweight and sloppy come game time. Unless that happens, even though Boise State is a good team, look for TCU to dominate, again. No doubt, with a convincing performance even over Boise State, TCU may very well be considered, unofficially, the best team this year.
And then there's the Super Bowl... well, that's not collegiate and no teams have been scheduled yet to appear... but my prediction is that the Cowboys will not be there. Even if by some miracle they were to get into a playoff game, they'd find a way to lose it. Romo, Wade, or both need to get kicked out. Romo has sucked all season. He used to be inconsistent between games, not he's inconsistent even within games. Sorry, but rare flashes of good passing should not be good enough to keep your job as a QB within the NFL, and will definitely not get you to, much less win, a Superbowl.
Come on Jerry Jones, you're good at getting rid of coaches, what makes Wade worth hanging on to? Seriously, why? I don't see it. Is it something personal? The Cowboys need a stern coach, that's been proven. Landry, Johnson, Parcels... those are the types that made the Cowboys great. Notice I didn't include Switzer, he inherited a team that my dog, very smart dog I might add, could have coached to a championship. It'd be like taking credit for coaching MJ, Shak and Kobe to a NBA championship. Sorry, not going to happen.
Sorry, it's hard to not express my disappointment with the Cowboys while talking football.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
The Amanda Knox Lesson
One of these people is a murderer.
The Story
She went to study abroad, in Italy, and ended up teaching us all a lesson. That lesson is this: If you are outside of the USA, and it looks like you might be involved in a crime, get your ass back to the USA. Amanda could have come back at one point, but didn't. Maybe she thought that because she is innocent, that she was safe.
I repeat, if you are outside the USA and it looks like you might be involved in a crime, get your ass back to the USA. The more serious the crime, the more you need to pack your bags and get back.
Listen, the "birthplace" of civilization is by no means an example of a modern society. The birthplace is usually associated with the middle east, fertile crescent... which as anyone knows is a pretty ass backwards place. A baby is by no means an example of an adult.
Italy contained the capitol of the Roman Republic/Empire. They were very influential, and all that stuff... but by no means is Italy a country that you should have any faith in their judiciary. For one, they are known for being corrupt. Heard of the mafia? Heard of payoffs? Heard of Mussolini? It's been in the news, has made headlines, etc., enough to where one should know going in there, that despite the great beauty in the place, it's not America, they'll torture you.
Democracy, fairness, individual rights, it's newer there than it is here. You can be innocent and get convicted anywhere, but it's less likely you'll get convicted here if you're innocent than most other countries. So if you find a roommate dead in your apartment with her throat slit and semi-nude, or otherwise find out about it, get out. Get out now. Who cares if it makes you look guilty, it's better than actually being found guilty in their corrupt system. So get out.
This girl is obviously innocent. For one, she was a college student that smoked pot. No college girl smoking pot can get into a rage or angry enough to kill someone. The defense should just admit that into evidence somehow and rest their case because it's almost like a natural law.
That, and she's hot. What hot chick is going to commit murder? - When you get out of there, Amanda, look me up whenever you're in Austin. ;) - Sorry, she just doesn't look or act like someone who can do it. Plus, and maybe slightly more importantly, I saw a news program talking about this case which showed the prosecutors' theory on how and why she did it as being very flimsy and it simply doesn't make sense. One guy admitted guilt already to some charge in the murder, and it looks much more plausible that he did a rape/murder.
Anyway, no matter the outcome, learn from this and get the hell out of whatever foreign country you're in when it looks like you could get accused of a serious crime.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Pay for News? Again?
"To thrive in the digital age, media companies need to persuade consumers to pay for news online by providing compelling information in any form they want, News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch said Tuesday.
Murdoch said the future is promising for publishers that can adapt to the ongoing migration of audiences and advertisers to the Web. Key to survival, he said, is giving consumers what they want how they want it — be it on a computer, mobile device or e-reader — and then charging for it, as his company already does with The Wall Street Journal.
'We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free,' Murdoch said. 'Good journalism is an expensive commodity.'"
----
This has been tried before, and it failed. People will flock to sites that give news for free. That free site will have enough traffic to lure advertisement dollars. The pay sites will not flourish, will never flourish, because any competitive news org will see it as an opportunity to gain some fast ad revenue. And if you think they will get away with collusion, I believe you will be mistaken.
If anything, maybe news orgs will pay Google News or Yahoo News a modest fee to feature their articles in order to lure people to their site, to turn a profit via ads. That seems more like a solution that revisiting the old attempt of making people subscribe to read news online. That's just silly... you'd have to get the BBC and every other news org to participate, willingly, without collusion. Ain't gonna happen.
Rupert is a smart guy, but he's apparently stuck in a paradigm. Either that... or he's working to get federal money. Hmm....
Murdoch said the future is promising for publishers that can adapt to the ongoing migration of audiences and advertisers to the Web. Key to survival, he said, is giving consumers what they want how they want it — be it on a computer, mobile device or e-reader — and then charging for it, as his company already does with The Wall Street Journal.
'We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free,' Murdoch said. 'Good journalism is an expensive commodity.'"
----
This has been tried before, and it failed. People will flock to sites that give news for free. That free site will have enough traffic to lure advertisement dollars. The pay sites will not flourish, will never flourish, because any competitive news org will see it as an opportunity to gain some fast ad revenue. And if you think they will get away with collusion, I believe you will be mistaken.
If anything, maybe news orgs will pay Google News or Yahoo News a modest fee to feature their articles in order to lure people to their site, to turn a profit via ads. That seems more like a solution that revisiting the old attempt of making people subscribe to read news online. That's just silly... you'd have to get the BBC and every other news org to participate, willingly, without collusion. Ain't gonna happen.
Rupert is a smart guy, but he's apparently stuck in a paradigm. Either that... or he's working to get federal money. Hmm....
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Robert Lee Thompson
It's the law. If you are involved in a crime with someone else, and your partner in crime kills somebody... you are just as liable for that murder as the guy who pulled the trigger.What, you think that's unfair? Well, you're wrong. It's very fair because there this thing called a jury. And if you're so involved in the act that the jury thinks you should get the death penalty, well there you go.
But what if the actual shooter only got life? So what? Maybe the shooter didn't really want to shoot, but only did so because you were using some influence or otherwise encouraging the him to shoot the victim. Again, the jury is there to hear the facts and if they find him guilty, decide if the death penalty is applicable.
In Robert Lee Thompson's case, here are the facts:
---
On December 5, 1996, Thompson, armed with a .25 caliber semiautomatic, and Sammy Butler, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, entered a 7-Evenings Food Store in Houston.
Thompson pointed his pistol at store clerk Mubarakali Meredia, who was at the counter, and told him to open the cash register and hand over all of the money. Thompson shot Meredia in the abdomen when he did not move quickly enough. Thompson also shot at Meredia’s cousin, Mansor Bhai Rahim Mohammed, who also worked at the shop, when Rahim began running toward the rear of the store. At Butler’s trial, the State offered evidence that Butler also shot at Rahim, and threatened several other customers.
Thompson then shot Meredia three more times as he lay on the floor. Thompson ordered Meredia to get up and get the money for him. Meredia did so. Then Thompson put his pistol to Meredia’s neck and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened because Thompson had run out of bullets. Thompson hit Meredia on the head with the butt of his gun and struck him with the cash register drawer. Nonetheless, Meredia survived.
Thompson took the money and ran out of the store, while Butler grabbed a stack of lottery tickets and followed behind Thompson. Thompson jumped into the driver’s seat of their car, while Butler got into the passenger’s seat, rolled down his window, and fired two shots at Rahim who had run to the front door. One bullet hit Rahim in the chest, and he died.
Based upon this evidence, the jury convicted applicant of capital murder. During the punishment phase, the jury heard evidence that this robbery-murder was only one part of a robbery-murder spree during which applicant, as the triggerman, had committed two additional capital murders.
Based upon all of the evidence submitted, the jury found that applicant would pose a future risk of danger and that there were no mitigating circumstances that would call for a life sentence. The judge sentenced him to death.
---
The dude is bad. It takes a certain kind of someone to shoot people, and he shot people like it was nothing. He's killed people. He only wants off because his accomplice didn't get convicted of capital murder, but then his accomplice wasn't shooting everything that moved either. Thompson was in the lead, he wanted to make a bloody statement, and boy did he. Does he deserve the death penalty. HELL YES!
And then I get an email today:
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles today voted to recommend that the death sentence of Robert Thompson be commuted to life. Thompson's execution is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, November 19. Governor Perry will be deciding tonight or tomorrow morning whether to accept the recommendation and grant clemency to Thompson. Perry could accept or reject the recommendation from the BPP.WTF? Umm, no... ah HELL NO! This is SO misleading. It makes it look like Thompson was just standing around, maybe holding the money bag while his accomplice was calling the shots and killed someone. It was THOMPSON who was shooting everyone, he's definitely deserving of the death penalty. No doubt about it. At the time of Thompson's trial, he had three, THREE, capital murder trials pending.
Call the Governor and leave a voice message at 512 463 1782 or email him through his website at http://governor.state.tx.us/contact. Urge him to accept the recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant Robert Thompson clemency and commute his sentence to life.
Thompson was sentenced to death under the Law of Parties even though he did not kill the victim. Thompson's accomplice fired the bullet that killed the victim. The accomplice received life in prison.
During the 2009 session of the Texas Legislature, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would have banned executions of people convicted solely under the Law of Parties for people who do not actually kill anyone. The bill died in the Senate, but its passage in the House showed that many legislators want Texas to stop executing people convicted under the Law of Parties.
If Thompson's execution is commuted, then other people sentenced to death under the Law of Parties could also be commuted in the future, including Jeff Wood.
Butler, his accomplice, fired two shots and was unlucky enough to have fired the fatal shot while they were driving off. Guilty? Of course. Enough for the death penalty... well, when you compare Butler with the depravity of Thompson, probably not, so the jury gave him life in prison.
I believe anti-death penalty people would have a stronger leg to stand on if they limited their pleas to cases that don't involve these monsters who have absolutely no regard for any human life, including their own. But, I also believe in forgiveness, and I hope Thompson somehow got to know Jesus and has accepted Him as his saviour before he goes to the death chamber.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Corruption by Country Index
CPI 2009 Table/2009/cpi/surveys_indices/policy_research
Wow. This is interesting. The most corrupt country, #180 out of 180 in the list, is of course... Somalia! Piracy, no real government, not even sure if they really qualify as being a country anymore, but there they are at the bottom of the list.
But wait, there's more!
Just above Somalia, #179 is... Afghanistan! That's right, Afghanistan just barely beat out piracy. #178 is Myanmar (Burma) which is headed by a junta and oppresses people... and they are LESS corrupt than Afghanistan! #176 is Sudan, genocide in the work and all, beat out Afghanistan.
What to make of this, as far as Afghanistan? In simple terms, it looks to me like the government is more concerned about getting what they can get right now. They're being coddled, they know it won't last forever, and so they're taking what they can get while the getting is good, instead of trying to stabilize their country. ...just barely less corrupt than Somalia... wow.
Iran is #168 of 180, slightly more corrupt than Haiti. Nice job with the revolution of yours, way to take things into your own hands.
Venezuela is #162 of 180. Chavez... not surprising. Still, they have some hot women there.
Russia is #146, slightly more corrupt than Kenya. It's funny because a friend at work, who is from Kenya, has told me that about how bad corruption is in his country. And Russia is even worse... wow.
Nigeria is #130, which is a little surprising. "I'm a Nigerian prince with lots of money, but I need you to give me some money so I can claim my wealth and I'll gladly pay you Tuesday." Strangely, I figured Nigeria to be much lower in the list.
Mexico is #89... that might be about right. It's pretty well known you have to bribe the police there if you don't want to go to jail. A relative of mine who lives in Del Rio, really nice guy, somehow got arrested in Mexico and it was a little like holding him for ransom. Once they get their money, you're free to go. You also have to bribe officials if you want anything done.
China is #79. There, if you're caught or exposed as being corrupt or taking bribes... they take you out back and shoot you, unless you kill yourself first. That said, isn't it strange, in philosophical terms, that a socialist society can have corruption?
Cuba is #61... this surprises me a little. They are definitely more communistic than China, so that they beat China in terms of corruption isn't surprising, but I thought they'd be even less corrupt. Fidel Castro, in an interview, showed off some old checks the US has given him over the years for the use for Gitmo. He simply refuses to take money from the US. So, corruption takes all kinds of forms, but it still seems a little strange.
Israel is #32. US is #19. Canada is #8 along with Australia, founded by criminals. Ironic eh?
Wow. This is interesting. The most corrupt country, #180 out of 180 in the list, is of course... Somalia! Piracy, no real government, not even sure if they really qualify as being a country anymore, but there they are at the bottom of the list.
But wait, there's more!
Just above Somalia, #179 is... Afghanistan! That's right, Afghanistan just barely beat out piracy. #178 is Myanmar (Burma) which is headed by a junta and oppresses people... and they are LESS corrupt than Afghanistan! #176 is Sudan, genocide in the work and all, beat out Afghanistan.
What to make of this, as far as Afghanistan? In simple terms, it looks to me like the government is more concerned about getting what they can get right now. They're being coddled, they know it won't last forever, and so they're taking what they can get while the getting is good, instead of trying to stabilize their country. ...just barely less corrupt than Somalia... wow.
Iran is #168 of 180, slightly more corrupt than Haiti. Nice job with the revolution of yours, way to take things into your own hands.
Venezuela is #162 of 180. Chavez... not surprising. Still, they have some hot women there.
Russia is #146, slightly more corrupt than Kenya. It's funny because a friend at work, who is from Kenya, has told me that about how bad corruption is in his country. And Russia is even worse... wow.
Nigeria is #130, which is a little surprising. "I'm a Nigerian prince with lots of money, but I need you to give me some money so I can claim my wealth and I'll gladly pay you Tuesday." Strangely, I figured Nigeria to be much lower in the list.
Mexico is #89... that might be about right. It's pretty well known you have to bribe the police there if you don't want to go to jail. A relative of mine who lives in Del Rio, really nice guy, somehow got arrested in Mexico and it was a little like holding him for ransom. Once they get their money, you're free to go. You also have to bribe officials if you want anything done.
China is #79. There, if you're caught or exposed as being corrupt or taking bribes... they take you out back and shoot you, unless you kill yourself first. That said, isn't it strange, in philosophical terms, that a socialist society can have corruption?
Cuba is #61... this surprises me a little. They are definitely more communistic than China, so that they beat China in terms of corruption isn't surprising, but I thought they'd be even less corrupt. Fidel Castro, in an interview, showed off some old checks the US has given him over the years for the use for Gitmo. He simply refuses to take money from the US. So, corruption takes all kinds of forms, but it still seems a little strange.
Israel is #32. US is #19. Canada is #8 along with Australia, founded by criminals. Ironic eh?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Afghanistan Strategists Turn Focus to Pakistan - NYTimes.com
Afghanistan Strategists Turn Focus to Pakistan - NYTimes.com: "As the president traveled to Asia, his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, was quietly sent to Islamabad, its capital.
His message, officials said, was that the new American strategy would work only if Pakistan broadened its fight beyond the militants attacking its cities and security forces and went after the groups that use havens in Pakistan for plotting and carrying out attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, as well as support networks for Al Qaeda."
---
Today's forecast, a .10% (yes, that is a point in there) chance on Pak being able to do all that. That means, this so called "plan" of ours is more like a recipe for failure. Yes, that's obvious, so why present and publicly give this plan... to blame Pak when it fails or to pressure Pak to do it and then we take all the credit. Considering how much money we give Pak, it's not a bad deal for them if they decide to participate and manage to somehow succeed (see the .10% above).
This simply can't be the real plan. The real plan must be to give McChrystal the troops he asked for, and rely on him to win. In other words, nothing is really changing, and Obama waited all this time for... nothing. Maybe he really wanted to study the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hopefully he will now trust his admirals and generals a little more.
--
"Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.
His message, officials said, was that the new American strategy would work only if Pakistan broadened its fight beyond the militants attacking its cities and security forces and went after the groups that use havens in Pakistan for plotting and carrying out attacks against American troops in Afghanistan, as well as support networks for Al Qaeda."
---
Today's forecast, a .10% (yes, that is a point in there) chance on Pak being able to do all that. That means, this so called "plan" of ours is more like a recipe for failure. Yes, that's obvious, so why present and publicly give this plan... to blame Pak when it fails or to pressure Pak to do it and then we take all the credit. Considering how much money we give Pak, it's not a bad deal for them if they decide to participate and manage to somehow succeed (see the .10% above).
This simply can't be the real plan. The real plan must be to give McChrystal the troops he asked for, and rely on him to win. In other words, nothing is really changing, and Obama waited all this time for... nothing. Maybe he really wanted to study the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hopefully he will now trust his admirals and generals a little more.
--
"Every time Mr. Obama declares that the United States will not have an “open-ended” military commitment in Afghanistan, he fuels a second concern of the powerful Pakistani military and intelligence establishment, which believes the United States commitment is fleeting.
It is a concern that some of them say justifies Pakistan’s continuing ties to the militants who fight American troops in Afghanistan."
--
I feel your pain. However, terrorists left to live within Pak will fester. It would be better to eliminate them than let the wound spread. If Pak provides a safe haven for terrorists, then Pak may be the next Afghanistan.
Friday, November 13, 2009
White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010 - NYTimes.com
White House to Begin Push on Immigration Overhaul in 2010 - NYTimes.com: "Laying out the administration’s bottom line, she said it will argue for a “three-legged stool” that includes enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, and streamlining the system for legal immigration, but also what she called a “tough and fair pathway to earned legal status.”"
---
Yeah... so you expect illegal immigrants who snuck into this country to avoid the tough and fair way currently in place, to take a new tough and fair pathway to become legal? Sounds a little... I dunno... insane maybe? Yeah, insane. More likely, the "tough and fair pathway" is actually going to be an "easy and free highway" to legal status, which is totally unfair to those who came here without breaking the law.
Maybe if there was a fine involved? You know, for breaking the law. So, instead of deportation, you pay your fine, give your address and all that stuff and go through a process. If your address or other information is faked, then you get deported with no future chance at becoming legal. The amount of the fine could be scaled on income, on whether they paid income taxes, etc. But a fine is to be had no matter what. If you don't pay the fine, then you get deported, unless there is a just cause.
The fines should go to Social Security. No, not border patrol or anything else, just SS. SS should be a locked box that can receive money, and only give out money to those who are eligible to receive it. Not that this will save SS, it'll just keep it alive long enough for me to get my share after I retire in like 15 years. :)
---
Yeah... so you expect illegal immigrants who snuck into this country to avoid the tough and fair way currently in place, to take a new tough and fair pathway to become legal? Sounds a little... I dunno... insane maybe? Yeah, insane. More likely, the "tough and fair pathway" is actually going to be an "easy and free highway" to legal status, which is totally unfair to those who came here without breaking the law.
Maybe if there was a fine involved? You know, for breaking the law. So, instead of deportation, you pay your fine, give your address and all that stuff and go through a process. If your address or other information is faked, then you get deported with no future chance at becoming legal. The amount of the fine could be scaled on income, on whether they paid income taxes, etc. But a fine is to be had no matter what. If you don't pay the fine, then you get deported, unless there is a just cause.
The fines should go to Social Security. No, not border patrol or anything else, just SS. SS should be a locked box that can receive money, and only give out money to those who are eligible to receive it. Not that this will save SS, it'll just keep it alive long enough for me to get my share after I retire in like 15 years. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
