Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Next Point: FBI Warnings on the DVD I paid for!

"The lemmings that voted for this assclown have no clue as to what they have done."

(I borrowed the title from JOCO SOB, thanks!)

How many new posts on blogs tonight are discussing the 44th President of The United States of America? How many blogs are discussing how many blogs are discussing the 44th President of the United States of America? (No, that's not a typo, it's two legit questions.)

Is the country as we know it coming to an end because of this? Part of me says, "yes," but the more sensible and logical part of me says, "no." We'll survive. Our republic has been through worse; or has it?

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and now Barry Hussein (NOTE: from this point forward any reference I make to Barack Obama will be some form of Barry Hussein, and I mean from this point forward!)

Fascists of the US unite! Or should I say, United Socialist States of America!

-HypnotistOfLadies :-\


Next Point: Hopefully I can make many more points here before the "Fairness Doctrine" is re-enacted.

PS. One prediction for November 5: Stock market, you know the Dow Industrials; yea, that'll be down.

"Remember Remember, The Fifth Of November,

Gunpowder, treason, and plot..."


Remember the following quote if Adam Sutler (AKA Barry Hussein) is 'elected' president on Tuesday (oh, and buy this movie):

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

Next Point: Tuesday night Celebration

Boo... Zombies...

No Point today, just some fun!

From the 1940 movie The Ghost Breakers starring Bob Hope. Greatest Movie Line Ever

You Asked! Okay... You Didn't

But you're getting it anyway...

My friend led me to an article posted by Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish. And I see some problems with it and it's basic premise.

First of all, a true Conservative (as understood in the United States today) will NEVER vote for a Democrat. Simply reading this document should prove my point. A conservative DOES NOT share those ideas.

Secondly, I am sick and tired of hearing, "I'm conservative economically, but more liberal socially." This line is complete bullshit. The two viewpoints CANNOT overlap. You cannot be economically conservative and socially liberal AT THE SAME TIME!!! It does not work! You can't at least from the governmental point of view.

Personally, one can do with his money what he pleases - this is a point of a free society. If you want to give half of it to a charity so they can help the homeless or get a family back on it's feet, God bless you. But when the government starts taking my money, involuntarily, and thinking they are going to make those decisions for me... fuck them.

But back to the article. The main difference between the presidential candidates is their tax policies. It may sound like small potatoes, but taxes have a big effect on the economy and employment. This is the basis in which I disagree with Barry Hussein's 'plan' for his presidency.


Here's the link again to the article I'm going to opine about. Give 'er a glance, then come read...

10. Maybe the end of Jesse Jackson in black America is a good thing. But racial identify politics only come about when you speak OF them. I'm not a black man unless you call me a black man, I'm just a man, maybe just a person. What does my penis/vagina have anything to do with my politics. Why suddenly a 'black' man is a candidate for president is some historic event I'll never know. Maybe I'm just not old enough.

9. Less debt. Tax revenue has little to do with debt. Federal revenue has been a constant percentage of GDP for 50 years. But Barry says he's only going to raise taxes on the rich. THIS IS A BOLD FACED LIE. What is Barry up to? He's going to raise taxes on EVERYONE. Debt will not be decreased, because government revenue will DECREASE, and spending will continue to INCREASE. Simple second grade math should tell you this will not work.

8. The one line in this group that gets me is, "McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict." McCain was spot on on this remark. BHO was twiddling and waiting for polls to tell him what to say. Georgia is a burgeoning free republic in the middle of the old USSR. Their president was educated and worked in the USA before becoming president. He respects and admires the founding principles of our country - which more Americans should also. Saying that both sides should have restraint is complete bullshit when another country invades a free republic to attempt to control energy flow. Georgia had every right to do what was necessary to defend itself, and the US should have been there with them. I would trust McCain with foreign policy over a community organizer and junior senator from Illinois any day.

7. The office of President of the United States of America comes with another title: commander-in-chief. One may not like it, but he/she has the decision making power over the US military. This isn't a fuhrer-like system, but still a very rigid structure. And again, a decorated (and tortured) veteran would be light years better at the helm of that system then Barry. I don't know why this is even an argument.

6. "The irrational impulsiveness of McCain." Ignorance brings with it a calm temperament that would only be exemplified by the most inexperienced Presidential candidate in a long time... I enjoy McCain's temperament, it assures me that he's also 'feeling' what he's saying, not just spitting out talking points.

5. The very idea that a presidents faith is some sort of 'bridge' to unite those on either side of religion is the very argument that his supporters would use. Americans have the faith they practice because they are free to do so. If one thinks that "Christianity and reason" are somehow separated, you welcome some theological education.

4. "Truce in the culture war." I don't even know what this means, and I don't have time to read the linked document he has posted. But seems like another saving grace of 'The One' that has been attributed to him by 'his followers.'

3. Two words: President Obama (shudder)

2. I sort of agree with this one. REAL Conservatism has lost is focus and needs a kick in the pants. This is something that can come within the party, but people need to be on board. Electing Barry would be a sign to this point, but not the sign I want to see.

1. I completely disagree with this point. Research the history of the Iraq and Afghanistan 'wars' and you'll see that things are going well in Iraq, and Afghanistan could use a boost. This boost only comes with completion in Iraq, not a cut-and-run. As Iraq goes, so goes the region.


Does any of this change my vote, my opinions on the candidates or the future of this country? No. I felt it prudent to share my thoughts on these topics and hope you can see my point.

My final point of the Presidential election of 2008: If Barry Hussein is elected, it will be quickly shown (to intelligent Americans) to be one of the biggest mistakes of the early 21st century. That sounds prophetic and quite bold, but I can only hope that I don't have to be proven right.

-HypnotistOfLadies :-\


Next Point: I will make my point on Taxes as relating to the 2008 Presidential candidates and what it means for the US.

The Map Says: Yeah Yeah Yeah!

What I'm presenting here are the results for the 2008 US Presidential election. I have zero political education beyond what I have found out myself and my own political preferences. So I don't pretend that these selections are educated in any fashion, but who's ever are:

Below are two situations that could erupt in this years presidential election: (I created these maps with NPR's 2008 Election Map)

First - A McCain win

This would be my preferred outcome, and how I cast my vote.

Second - A Tie

With all states but two (Nebraska and Maine) casting all their electoral votes for the popular vote winner, and barring any faithless electors, this could be the electoral map when we wake up on Wednesday. Which then is the House of Representatives decision (oh no!).
Will we know who the president is on Tuesday night? No. We won't. I will make that call now.

Will we know who the president is on Wednesday? Possibly, but could be a long day.

BUT: There is always that chance that the Democrats (read: socialists) are hoping (Hope for Change of the Change of Hope) for: a 'landslide' for Barry Hussein... what would that look like? I really don't want to know.

-HypnotistOfLadies :-\

Next Point: A rant before election day 2008

Nucleation: The Counterproductive Marxist Suit

I was going to outline my own thoughts on what a Barack Obama presidency would bring to this country, but NRO did it for me! Read on patriots!

Next Point: "Kill Whitey!"

You Mean Shenanigans?

"Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?"

(I know it's been quite a while, but I've been yelling at my TV too much lately to have the time to type here.)

[NOTE: If the layout of this post is fucked up, I'm sorry, the 'Post Blog' thing is wacky spacing today.]


You have your choices for President, I have mine. I will say yours is wrong, as will you - lest you agree with me, as you probably should. But this is little to do with who you should choose versus who you shouldn't. It's really a comparison of all the major candidates' for president web sites. Or, the introduction page, to be more specific. I will point out the differences and similarities between them and an amateur analysis of why they are set up this way.

Most of the candidates sites start with an introduction page that allows you to fill in some information and sign up for notifications from the candidate and/or party. What I will be pointing out is the quite different (and similar) methods undertaken for these introduction pages, and how they are presented to the visitor.


This analysis will start with three numbers from 0-10 (zero to ten):

Appeal: is this an appealing page? Does it look professional?
(0: my mom laid this out; 10: this must have cost a fortune)

Usability: Can I sign up quickly and easily? Is everything presented in a quick-to-find format and easy to read?
(0: ahh, seizures; 10: clicky, clicky)

Hidden: This is the sole reason I started this "analysis." Is the "continue to site" link easy to find and readable?
(0: where the fuck is it, 10: OMG there it is)


The candidates I chose to include in this analysis (yea right!) were all the Major Candidates listed on the Project Vote Smart site that have an introduction page on their web site. Here's the names and major party affiliation (these candidates will not appear on all ballots in all states):

• Robert L. Barr Jr. - Libertarian
• John S. McCain, III - Republican
• Ralph Nader - Independent
• Barack H. Obama, Jr. - Democratic

Robert L. Barr Jr. - Libertarian

Appeal: 9
Usability: 7
Hidden: 7
Total: 23

This site only has two options: "sign up" and "continue." In this case, both links are right next to each other and not separated by anything prominent. The "continue" link is easy to find and takes you right to the site. The "sign up" link is a red - albeit classy - button that stands out but doesn't scream at me.Note: this is one of two that actually have the candidates picture on the intro page.




John S. McCain, III - Republican
Appeal: 8 Usability: 9

Hidden: 8
Total: 25



This page has multiple options: the normal "continue" and "sign up," as well as "Why John McCain," "Recruit Friends," and "Call Voters." The sheer number of options on this simple page warrants the higher Usability rating. All are topics and things that a campaign needs from the people to succeed. Two of these options take you to other sign up pages, and the "why" page provides a text and video summary of the candidate.

A video is provided on this into page, giving the visitor an option to hang around a while and watch. Very good, in my opinion, as this will give a longer view of the contents, and could lead to more contacts for the candidate.

Note: This is the only page with a video. Is that a plus? I don't know.




Ralph Nader - Independent

Appeal: 6
Usability: 6
Hidden: 3
Total: 15

This page contains five (5) separate options for the visitor; "sign up," "continue," "contribute," and two I didn't see at first, "volunteer," and "spread the word." Not being one of the two (2) "major parties" in US politics, actually getting on the ballot in all fifty states is a priority.

The main problem with this page is the odd layout and weird blue and black map. I can see this confusing some of the "less-intelligent" (and that's being polite) Americans who look at it as a electoral map.

"Sign up" and "contribute" are the major options on the page. But, as is common with others, the "sign up" is the most prominent, in an odd green star burst hanging on the corner of the main section. The "continue" link is there, but is simply text on the page background and blends in so as to not look like anything important. This is most likely on purpose to get more sign ups from visitors not paying complete attention.

Note: This is the only candidate listed here not yet on the ballot in all 50 states.

Barack H. Obama, Jr. - Democratic

Appeal: 7

Usability: 6Hidden: 0.5Total: 11.5Of all the sites 'analyzed' here, this one is by far the worst. The layout is good, logo at the top, [propaganda] slogan in huge letters at the top of the candidates picture - with his family - sign up link beneath that with the big 'ol button. The only other color on the page is red, and this color is completely contained within the "sign up" button. This button, at first glance, appears to be the only option on this page, and has probably fooled many a [democratic, read: stupid] visitor into giving up their information when not necessary. It does draw your eye right to it though, which is the point of most of these sites.

Here we come to the very reason for this analysis in the first place. Go ahead and try to find the "continue" link on that page.... I'll wait........ really........... go ahead...................... what? you can't find it? Look again, it's there, I promise.............. find it yet? Well, if you didn't, it's on the bottom right of the box and it says, "Skip sign up, go to the website." I bet you couldn't find it at first...

The reason for hiding this link so blatantly speaks a lot for this specific candidate and his interactions with the people. (That's as far as I'll take that for now.)

Note: Don't vote for this candidate, you will get change, but not the way you think.



----------
I would welcome an official psychological analysis/discussion as to why one candidate would make this link so much harder to find than another. My 'analysis' is merely a subjective observation, but I think it shows what each candidate expects from visitors to their site and how they decide to truely interact with them.


Some candidates apparently believe visitors are intelligent people who can handle themselves whichever option they decide to go with. Others, however, feel they need to guide the visitor to the correct place, either by accentuating one part, or blatantly hiding others.


Do I believe the intro page will change the mind of 'undecided' (read: stupid) voters? No, they're already dumb enough, if a pretty web site is all it takes for them to make up their mind, then fuck 'em.


God bless a country where the dumbest among us can sway the decisions that affect hard-working intelligent (read: conservative) Americans. :-\




Next Point: Remember "The Empty Suit?" Oh yea, he's next.

Nucleation: Seatbacks and Traytables

Four bucks a gallon? If only planes could fly on milk...

So what is happening? The airlines are finding ways to save money everywhere; charge to check an extra bag, even a single bag, or multiple carry-ons, a fuel surcharge, less ice, food, drinks, less water! Why? To attempt to reduce weight would be the obvious conclusion, but the bigger one is that they are trying to make money and reduce costs. The 'fees' imposed on the flying public is the most noticeable way this is happening.

These are all well and good, and I understand why the industry is going in this direction these days, but I have another idea: Limit the weight per person that is allowed on the plane including the weight of the passenger. I don't claim to be a business or airline expert, so don't treat this as such.

Here's my Example: Three people who have purchased tickets on the same flight for the same price - for this discussion, $250:

Person 1:

• a 360 lb 6' 2" fat-ass who just barely fits in one seat, according to the airlines rules, brings with him 60 lbs of checked baggage and carry-ons. Not to mention he also has a burrito or two he's probably purchased before he got on the plane. So this guy has 420 lbs of total weight on this plane and absolutely no extra fees!
• 420 lbs total
• $250 total
• 0.595 C/W (Cost to Weight ratio)

Person 2:

• a 120 lb 5' 8" woman who can comfortably fit in one seat, but probably will have to sit next to the fat-ass, brings with her two checked bags, totalling 100 lbs. She also has a 8 lb carry-on and a bottled water. This is a mere total of 230 lbs and she was charged with an extra checked bag fee (let's say $50)!
• 230lbs total
• $300 total
• 1.304 C/W

Person 3:

• a 240 lb 6' 5" man with one checked bag and a carry-on at maybe 50 lbs. Sitting on the window side of the fat-ass with his knees jammed in the seat in front of him and rolls of the lardo next to him. Again, a mere total of 290 lbs and no extra fees. He could have spent $40 extra on an emergency row seat with more legroom, but he can't afford it!
• 290 lbs total
• $250 total
• 0.862 C/W

I have brought up a few points with my 'example' passengers, but I am going to concentrate on weight. If you notice my simple math for the Cost to Weight Ratio (CW), the airline is making the most money with Person 2! But they're losing more with Person 1!

What is the solution? That's the sticky wicket. I'm sure having scales in the airport and charging based on your weight would not make people happy. But it's a solution that could be a good excuse to lose weight AND pack less shit in your bag when you fly! No, you don't need all that stuff! This is a VACATION!!

At first glance, a static C/W ratio or even fuel to weight ratio seems like the best way to limit weight. Fat-asses can bring less stuff on the plane or they'll be charged for the extra weight. Those who are well below the ratio are fine, but will still be charged for an overweight or extra bag. That's necessary for the extra strain and work the airline and airport employees have to go through.

So what the fuck is the solution here? I don't think it is as concrete as it appears. This is not a rock-solid option ready for the board to vote on. It is merely discussion points to get things started (why do you think my blog is named as it is).


Please, the next time you fly and you see that fat fucker getting on the plane, or the short-ass shithead in the emergency row, or that greasy goombah wearing the overpowering fragrance, or even that ass-face who sleeps in a window seat with the shade down... Give them a good solid "fuck you" for me please!

Thanks, and "fuck you!"


Next Point: The Empty Suit

Nucleation: The Lights Are On...

...but nobody's home.


Why would one post a blog? Why do I write this stuff here? As of this post, I don't think anyone has read this besides myself. Is this just the 21st century method of talking to one's self?

I ask this because this blogging stuff is so easy and prolific on the internets in this new century that every Joe-keyboard-owner feels he has a valid and informed opinion on any subject they run across on the six o'clock local news. Do I read these blogs? Yes, I enjoy seeing everyone's opinion from every angle. I begin to have a problem with it when the arguments devolve to spin and specious arguments having little to do with the topic at hand. Arguments which are more suited to a drunken bar discussion than intelligent human conversation.

Does this make me special? No, I never said that. I will often succumb to the spin and emotional rationalization that comes with various topics, but I do my damnest to quell that and objectify my arguments. It makes me sound smarter. :)

Back to the prolific opinion pool called the Internet: A place where anyone can post an opinion, a thought, have a discussion on any topic imaginable with any person around the world. This was unheard of when I was brought to this planet. But most of what one finds is often an incoherent jumble of letters one might consider a thought if they didn't have to fuck their cousin and ask their one-armed offspring what it was trying to say. This is where I get upset. Why do I have to sort through the tons of absolute shit before getting anything useful? Since when is StarBug456's opinion about a random vacation picture one has posted mean anything? Why do I ask so many rhetorical questions?

The Internet has brought communication and information in volumes never even imagined. But when a very large majority of that information is complete shit, is is really that useful? This, by no means, endorses any type of censorship or intervention on the Internet or it's users; a box of 9mm and a list of names would take care of that...

YouTube has become the epitome of my point. Read most any comment to 98% of the videos posted there, they are all complete garbage. Here's some examples of the quality:

Heres a tip.it only works on homosexuals

lol hes cute

I feel dumber for having typed this.

Get the boat pointing in any one direction and you can have everyone rowing that way in no time, just don't tell them they are rowing into the reef. :-\


Next Point: Do I dare spout off on this year's presidential campaign? Are you ready for that?

Fuck Ethanol (continued)

Ethanol. Not a bad thing. Let me get that straight. We have lots of fuels in this country. Ethanol is just another one. My problem with it is it's continual insistence through taxpayer dollars down the throats of Americans. I live in an area with one of the many 'boutique' gasolines created in this country for 'pollution' reasons. My fuel contains, as the pumps say, "Up to 10% ethanol." Why exactly is this?

Ethanol is in our gas because the air's 'polluted' here, so let's put a tiny bit of 'cleaner burning' (not really) fuel into our normal gasoline. That should help! I don't pretend to be an expert (okay, maybe I pretend, but I'm no expert), and I won't bore you with statistics and facts; you can look those up yourself. But this addition reduces the efficiency of my fuel, making already rather high priced gasoline, even more expensive!

What is the solution?

Wisconsin's 1st congressional district is served by Paul Ryan (VP on the McCain ticket by the way). A quite remarkable man who works quite hard has laid out the exact problems as to why our gas costs what it does today. An excellent read: Moving Toward a More Coherent Energy Policy

Ryan's point four (4) is what I'm talking about. Corn ethanol is a terribly inefficient use of corn, yet government mandates and incredible increase in corn ethanol production have basically caused the price of everything to increase. Sounds a bit far-fetched, I know, but it's basically true. Just about every processed food (even meat & dairy) contains - in some fashion - corn. When corn costs more, milk costs more, beef costs more, cereal costs more, and on and on.

Is corn in abundance in the United States? Yes, with a but. But, not enough for the ethanol mandate and to feed everyone, not to mention the countries that buy food from us and even those that we give it too! Corn is food, not fuel. If you want to make ethanol, use cellulosic ethanol, easier to make, better return on energy in/energy out, and we have plenty of spare grass and cellulose product that, as far as I know, we don't eat!

Am I for no ethanol at all? No, I'm not. Ethanol is a relatively good fuel. The problem is the mixing. E85, E10, E25, there are all sorts of gasoline/ethanol combinations. This needs to stop! One fuel or the other please! Design an engine that can run solely on ethanol and nothing else. Ignoring the distribution issues and availability of 100% ethanol, why not create such a thing. It's done in racing; there are vehicles that run on pure ethanol. When the vehicle is designed from the beginning to burn ethanol, it can be harnessed for all the available power without regard to gasoline. Fuel cells, hydrogen, electric cars; none of them will be feasible and inexpensive enough to mass produce; an ethanol vehicle might. If a gallon of (cellulosic) ethanol costs less than gasoline, people will start to switch. The economy produces results, not mandates. The next time government solves a problem with a mandate instead of creating them, you let me know.

Give me my 100% gasoline again! My car will get better mileage and run cleaner (because of the efficiency increase). And I know it will last longer. Americans will be burning gasoline in their vehicles well into the 22nd century, but it will still cost $50+ to fill up, even though you'll get 100+mpg.

Short answer: fuck it, "I want my gas-o-liiiiine" :-\

Next Point: Stupid Americans (could be anything, huh)

Nucleation: Fuck Ethanol

Yes, that's right, ethanol. It's the biggest waste of taxpayer money ever... Pick a fuel, gasoline or ethanol. I'll buy a vehicle that will run on one or the other; stop mixing that shit in my gasoline!! It's not good for anybody; energy, mileage, wear & tear, environment. Nobody's being helped.

I will ramble on further about this later.

Next Point: more ethanol

Nucleation: "Ow, my sperm!"

My recent partially misleading ramblings were quite the experiment. I think I may continue this little project. That is at least when I get the gusto to sit and type into this little Internet box to post my thoughts in a place where I'm sure few will be reading.
---------

Apparently involuntary human sterilization (or Compulsory Sterilization) has been an issue on and off in the United States for some time. Wikipedia link: Compulsory Sterilization. Why has it fallen out of popular favor? I'm not sure, but I am sure that it has something to do with the perceived ethical implications it brings and the peer pressure and complaints it would bring when paraded out in the mass media. But it has remained largely taboo because of the way that America perceives life and the value and rights of every human being.

There are many positive implications for society with compulsory sterilization implemented in a large scale. Because of the American viewpoint on life and the lack of natural selection ever making a dent in the populace as it was once envisioned, what better way to help nature along in the 21st century!

Yes, yes, I know. You're saying, "that's crazy, how is that going to work? It's nobodys right to do that to another person." And you would be right. I don't think it can be implemented in large scale in the United States. But you would have to agree with me about the following:

Check any neonatal intensive care unit in a large urban area. These facilities do their damnedest to save the life of babies born WAY before they should be. Often due to drug problems (there are other more reasonable reasons for premature birth, but they are not necessary in this discussion). These poor babies come into this world with any number of various illegal (or legal) drugs in their system and experience things that one can only imagine in a body often weighing not more than a few pounds.

Why do these mothers deserve to have these children? They will be forced onto the goverment teat - if they're not already on it - and be a bear on all of us. God bless these teams of people for their hard work and the value they do put on every human life. But why allow these mothers to fill the hospitals with sick babies only to increase their government check. This is the type of person that should be the first 'volunteers' for compulsory sterilization. I'm no medial or anatomy expert in any fashion, but I can't imagine it too complicated to mux up the works while your in there getting out a baby...

Other quite different, and much harder to track down candidates include those who post replies or comments to articles and forums containing either something along the lines of "first post" or any "yes" or "no" or any other single word response offering nothing to the discussion other than the apparent need to be a part of the discussion.

I have seen far too many "first post" comment replies to articles and news posts from those that think they have earned some type of reward. As if the community would praise someone like that and welcome him into their bosom after such an intelligent contribution. Maybe all computers could be designed to self destruct and take out anyone within a five foot radius any time such a post is submitted. Death is also an incredible sterilization technique.

God bless you who post the responses denouncing such activities on the web. You have the time and patience that I would be unable to endure. Plus, the use of CAPS makes it easier and faster to get your point across.

Maybe I should start a new type of "high." Jam Your Junk In The Microwave the fliers would say...

Next Point: Maybe a topic with a definitive structure, and less blathering.

Nucleation: Amendment the Second

I'm sure anyone who has a firm grasp on the news of late is aware of the Washington D.C. handgun ban that is before the Supreme Court right now and what it may mean for D.C. (I predict little effect on nationwide laws because of it). This isn't a point on gun ownership, or concealed carry or the constitutionality of a gun ban, or any of those points the title may have led you to believe. It's about the low class (usually NO class) boobs the media apparently finds wandering the streets to inquire about the issue at hand.

Take one side or the other: pro-ban, anti-ban; democrat, republican; gay, straight; it doesn't matter. The common denominator seems to be the intelligence of the average American (and in some cases, NOT American) paraded in front of the camera for nothing more than a sound bite - so the reporter can feel like he's investigating, in-depth, getting the 'pulse' of the people. Whatever you call it, I'm embarrassed.

But I have a couple theories:

a. They can't actually find anyone to give an intelligent comment during the day because people like that have JOBS! An interestingly simple concept, I think. When I'm at work, I can't be parading down the street available to any Joe Newsman who needs a quip for the nightly news.

b. The people they do find on the street DON'T have jobs. Okay, that's not really a second theory, it's the first restated. But I see no other major reasons for this.

Sure, second shift jobs, working mothers, etc, there are other reasons people will be out during the day; but this is, I believe, the major reason.

A prime example was the multitude of 'immigration rallies' that were held around the country this past summer. Did I have time to march the streets all day? They didn't even know what they were 'marching' for! "We're not going to work today to show what impact we immigrants have on the economy," they would say. If I said that to my boss, I would be greeted with a, "Let's see how much it effects your economy when you can't come back."

Does a job make the person? No. I don't believe so. Many people don't like their jobs, but they do them anyway; for their family, bills, just simply money. Anyone can work... okay, not anyone, but I can dream, right?

Another fine example was on about the gun ban case before the Supreme Court. A gentlemen of the darker-skinned persuasion was on the street showing off his gunshot scars that seemed to be in a number greater than any one person should have. Following the show-and-tell was a statement, obviously written by his speechwriters and revised many times about, (paraphrase) "how ending the ban would put more guns out there and there'd be anarchy" (or chaos, or wild-west shootings, or something like that).

I don't feel sorry for these people; not one bit. I do feel sorry for our great country. The complacency of the people has turned it to a place where are freedoms are slowly removed to make way for governmental control and a semi-communist state, where everyone is special and nobody should be ignored. Bullshit! Plain and simple.

Idiots like these frighten and worry me. A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but was never actually uttered by him, makes a good point and should wake up those who don't get bothered by the simpletons paraded on the boob tube (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin):

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Next Point: Involuntary human sterilization

Nucleation: Counter Strike (Source) As An Adult

What do you call something that only get's worse with age? Counter-Strike: Source (CSS), is the same impressive transformation from the first Counter-Strike (CS) that Half-Life 2 was from Half-Life! But I'm afraid the players have not made the same transformation.

Team Fortress 2 (TF2), only months old, is probably in it's prime now, which is sad. TF2 is now what CS was in the late 90's. Let me rephrase that: TF2 players are now what CS players were in the late 90's. Most TF2 games are fun, engaging, and often entertaining. Never do I see a LOL, ROFL, STFU, n00b, etc. The poor man's keyboard is not necessary for mature online gaming. Since when is it okay to insult your fellow players, run off and pretend your Rambo? While your score may be at the top of the list, your respect - both earned and given - is not.

Red vs. Blue, Terrorists vs. Counter-Terrorists, Axis vs. Allies; team games require just that, TEAM! More importantly, TEAMWORK! Alas, I find myself at the mercy of people who could barely construct a sandwich let alone a cohesive offense or defense.

Today, I'm afraid, it's a marked effort to search out intelligent, mature players willing to give it their all for the team! If you are one of them, let me know. I'd be happy to join you on a server anytime! It's the rodomontade (word-of-the-day) I can't stand.

Mr. Christopher C. Livingston nails the proverbial nail on the head with his Half-Life comic: Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman. (http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2005-08-15) Kudos to you sir! Your humorous observations are an entertaining but sadly true reflection on the online community.

Don't take this as an anti-CS or anti-online gaming rant. It's just a reflection on the maturity and class of the players you meet online. Perhaps only the most immature are the loudest, putting an unfair guise on the rest of the community. Please, grow up.
:-/

Next Point: The AK?

Nucleation: First Post

How exciting!

A new blog. I thought you'd be interested. But this isn't going to be a blog - per se. I will not be discussing my day, how work went today, whether or not the mail man delivered my package, the latest movie I saw, or that rash the doctor looked at agape - even my cats adventures in the house. That's all boring shit, and you don't really care. And that's okay!

What I am going to to is try and continue a rambling train of thought throughout posts starting with 'Nucleation:'. I've always had a rambling head and now it's time to put this to paper (or 'cyber-paper' if you will) by adding to the already pointless and incoherent.

The 'experiment' part is whether or not I will keep this 'updated' on any type of regular basis. And stick to my pre-defined format for clarity's sake.

This is a mere introduction and the rambling will begin soon. 'Hi!'