Thursday, August 30, 2007

Laughworthy

The truth about internet whackos.

C’mon… you know this is exactly what you’re thinking any time you visit a website or blog with comments.

Technical bleg

I’m a hardware type, not software, but I have run into a software issue and am stumped.

I just bought Da Missus and I some new mp3 players. 2Gb with video capacity (about 1 1/2” screens, but still pretty cool), and we love them.

But for some reason, unless there is some kind of tag data, the player won’t recognize them. It knows that there is data there, but is apparently unable to play the song unless there is some additional data.

The manual says that it will still recognize - and play - “unknown” songs, but I haven’t found this to be true yet. It even recognizes some of the data from the “unknown” songs, such as artist and album, but unless it has the title and song length, it won’t even let me get at the songs.

Does anyone have - or know of - a freeware mp3 idtag program with a very easy learning curve, yet will still allow for “batch” replacements?

(I would just HATE to have to work my way through over 3,000 songs, replacing/updating the data one file at a time.)

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Interesting question

I know there are probably a few attorneys out there, so I want to know something…

Can the Federal Government require a State to enforce purely Federal laws?

I’m not talking about a Federal murder statute or immigration or anything like that.

I’m wondering if the Feds can force a State to prosecute something that is illegal under Federal Law, but not illegal under State Law.

I mean, can the FBI show up, commandeer a few local PD flatfoots for a raid, and use them to enforce something that the State has not identified as illegal?

The reason I’m asking is if the Feds require local help to provide manpower, isn’t that a violation of the executive power of the State? The militias of the various States can be called up to enforce Federal Law, we all know that, but the militias effectively work for the President, via the Secretary of Defense. All it takes is a signature, and they are suddenly active-duty.

But while police might be a paramilitary force, they are still civilians, and their authority to enforce the laws are derived from the State Constitution, not the COTUS.

Right?

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Mandatory MP3 Post

So what are you listening to?

Here are my most recent ten, randomly chosen from the top 250 of “Top 500 Classic Rock Songs"…

• Fleetwood Mac - “The Chain”
• Bob Dylan - “Like A Rolling Stone”
• Joe Walsh - “Life’s Been Good”
• Elton John - “Rocket Man”
• The Who - “Behind Blue Eyes”
• Van Morrison - “Brown-Eyed Girl”
• Bruce Springsteen - “Born In The U.S.A.”
• Chicago - Color My World
• The Doors - Break On Through
• Aerosmith - Sweet Emotion

  PS: I defy anyone to listen to the Allman Brothers playing ”Jessica” and not be smiling and tapping your toes before the song is through. (Ignore the attempts at art and just listen to the music.)

  Interesting side note - I just noticed that there are a shitload of colors in the entire list of 500, both in band names and song titles. See for yourself…
  

  Read more...

  Pink Floyd - various songs
  Cream - White Room and various songs
  Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze
  Moody Blues - Nights In White Satin and other songs
  The Who - Behind Blue Eyes
  The Doors - Roadhouse Blues
  Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit
  Jethro Tull - Aqualung
  Led Zeppelin - Black Dog
  The Rolling Stones - Brown Sugar/Paint It Black
  Deep Purple - Smoke On The Water and various songs
  Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road/Bennie And The Jets
  Van Morrison - Brown Eyed Girl
  Procol Harum - Whiter Shade of Pale
  Grateful Dead - Touch Of Grey
  The Rolling Stones - Ruby Tuesday
  Doobie Brothers - China Grove/Black Water
  Iron Butterfly - In-A-Gadda-Da-Vita
  Black Sabbath - various songs
  Crosby, Still and Nash - Suite: Judy Blue Eyes
  Jackson Browne - Running On Empty
  Neil Young - Cinnamon Girl
  Bob Dylan - Tangled Up In Blue
  The Beatles - Golden Slumbers Melody/Strawberry Fields Forever
  Steely Dan - various songs
  Strawberry Alarm Clock - Incense And Peppermints
  Creedence Clearwater Revival - Green River
  Allman Brothers Band - Midnight Rider
  Derek And the Dominos - Bell Bottom Blues
  Jethro Tull - Thick As A Brick
  America - Sister Golden Hair
  Neil Young - Heart Of Gold
  Hollies - Long Cool Woman In A Black Dress
  Styx - Blue Collar Man
  Golden Earring - Radar Love
  Paul McCartney - Jet
  Bruce Springsteen - Pink Cadillac
  Blue Oyster Cult - Burning For You
  Outlaws - Green Grass And High Tides
  Norman Greenbaum - Spirit In The Sky
  Foreigner - Cold As Ice
  Santana - Black Magic Woman
  Sugarloaf - Green Eyed Lady
  

  Less...
  
  
  Posted by Drumwaster at 07:36 PM |

  Monday, August 27, 2007

  ---

  I attempted to post this at Right-Thinking…..

  ....but length limitations got in the way.  I’ll put my comment under the fold, and I’ll accept your comments.  It is a rant of sorts, so here’s the link to Lee’s site for their comments, and you can go and see ours. 

  Do so without reservation. 

  UPDATE (8-28, 5:07 pm EDT):  Please go and read Lee’s response.  I took my postings in his response thread and pasted them together at the end of my post under the fold. 

  Read more...

  I am having a really tough time understanding this...probably because what most people are saying about the POTUS.  Calling Bush ‘President Massa’ is not....not...proof that there is no personal and emotional animosity where he is concerned. 

  However, it is logical to assume that a doctrinal libertarian would have serious problems with an extension of executive power on the federal level.  Such an extension would put most of the people at Reason.com into tizzy-mode. 

  However, this is where I break down, because there is a whole mess of history where wartime extensions of executive power have occurred.  In this country.  Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Federalists....name it.  It occurs.  And, after the war is over, powers are generally reduced and the executive retains it’s original scope. 

  Two things exist now, in this day and age, that are different, and they have nothing to do with the COTUS, this President, or the AG, for that matter. 

  First off, the echo chamber that is the Internet allows people (Lee, myself, Drummie, Kos, etc.) to instantaneously fire off a verbose opinion about what is going on, and find immediate supporting info or people.  Our opinions on this subject are just as important as those of someone in 1942, but we have the electronic media to reinforce it.  Lee’s opinion, like mine, isn’t that important.  We find, however, a certain impersonal ease in levying charges and obtuse verbalizations based on our opinions over the Internet, because we have no consequence, and no responsibility. 

  Secondly, few 38-year olds of my father’s generation (he was born in 1934) would have had the audacity to call the President of the United States “President Massa”.  We are an immature generation, aren’t we?  We think it foolish to wear a tie to work.  We assign all the worst connotations to this current war, while ignoring that, in historic terms, this has been an exceedingly successful campaign.  In fact, most people are going along with their lives experiencing no impact from this war at all.  That is by choice....I have had to fight the temptation that rises every so often to give in to frustration at the prosecution of the war to date, for a variety of reasons. 

  Why?  Because there was a need to sell it to us with several caveats.  Bush told us the truth all throughout 2002 and 2003....this was going to be the challenge of our generation....this was a war that had to be fought now, and that it would not be a short war....that there would be things going on that we would not know about, there would be active combat, and there would be other things going on under the radar.  However, there was always the inherently understood promise of rapidity....that we would go, get it done, and get out.  We would not face another Vietnam, we were told...and we haven’t, except in one crucial way. 

  The sociological traits that caused us to let Vietnam lose that war are at work now, and they are quite pervasive in the generation that dominates the internet.  The impatience, the quest for self-gratification and the shirking of sacrifice for a greater ideal.  The rejection of discipline and that there are higher principles than those that get us to work and get us the latest DVD.  That personal comfort, physical and emotional, must sometimes be subjugated for the greater good.  As Americans, we were willing to give that freely for the principles that made this country great.  Now, we’re not so free to give. 

  Anyone that thought this war would be won and done by now had to have been on crack cocaine.  We all were told this would be a long war, and any statements to the contrary....any blame on Bush that the war is isn’t finished yet, or that the entirety of the Middle East hasn’t unconditionally surrendered, is completely lacking in intellectual resource. He has made missteps on the way, I would freely admit that.  However, the abject disdain for him that is shown in many of the comments here is neither mature, nor does it pass the litmus of history. 

  FDR imprisoned Japanese on the West Coast.  Wilson created the Committee of Public Information.  Truman got us into a 3-year war that claimed 10 times as many soldiers that have died thus far in Iraq.  Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon were all questionable, and did questionable things in their terms.  What’s the difference now?  We have the Internet, and a really easy way available to us to complain about the current guy, even though what he is doing is, in fact and in effect, no different than what many US Presidents have done before him.  We have a forum now, and instead of talking to our friends, or debating someone publicly, we can sit in our darkened offices or dens and bloviate about the injustice and incompetence of the current POTUS and his staff.  NO thought to history...we just sit with our ears to the echoes, telling us we’re right, that our way is the best way, that it has never been as bad as it is right now because it is an insult to us that the POTUS would dare appoint someone he trusts and likes into a Cabinet position!  Holy cow!  It’s never happened before. 

  No.  It never happened before we had this binary microphone.  It is the Great Here and Now, and we have the RIGHT to call Bush ‘Massa’.  The ever-over-whelming Right to Express. 

  The social death of discipline.  The loss of the greater ideal.  Why have faith in something greater than you if it that belief doesn’t allow you to do what you want?  Why be limited?  If there is no consequence, it must be right! 

  I have been vexed by many of the opinions on this site, and it bothered me greatly because of the respect that I have for Lee.  Even when he and Drumwaster were lobbing mortars at each other, I said nothing, because I respect both, no matter my opinion on who is/was right or wrong. 

  But here’s the kicker; I can’t find anyone who is my age, and who is an adult. 

  We’re marketed to like we are all in a perpetual second childhood.  People aren’t told to go to Dinseyworld because their kids will enjoy it, but because it will make them feel like their kids.  We aren’t marketed minivans anymore, we’re marketed SUV’s.  We are told that we should be able to to whatever we want, that we deserve more than we have, and that easier is better. 

  Bullshit.  Suffering builds character.  Lee....you know that.  You know that.  The greatest generation was the one that lived through the Depression.  The worst?  The one that came after, that had everything given to them.  The generation that gave us Howard Dean and John Kerry, GWB and Bill Clinton.  It is from them that we are bequeathed impatience, a sense of entitlement, and a distinct lack of fortitude. 

  We were all patriotic on 9-12-2001, because it was an emotional comfort.  Now, I see few flags.  The bumper stickers are faded and picked off.  Who supports the war?  Not the college-bound intellectuals, who eschew all violence because it doesn’t pass their arrogant and cloistered muster.  Not the youth, who are too busy watching reality TV and looking for meaning in their spoiled and empty lives.  The people that support the war are those who look and see that the enemy is still there.  They understand that the enemy is looking at us through an 8th-century window that is reflective of the barbarism of their faith.  They see the difference between a personal relationship with a Creator, and the submission of one to a violent jihad based on a bastardization of the ToRaH by an Arab warlord.  They understand the responsibility, the bumps in the road, and what actually is important to the United States.  Gonzo being fired?  Truman had 4 AG’s.  Teddy Roosevelt had 3. 

  They also understand that this post, and all the ones like it, are insignificant noises in the beautiful cacophony that is our society.  I’m more confident of that then ever.  Reality...cold, sure reality...is writing itself into the history books right now.  Gonzo will be a by-line to us in 20 years.  He doesn’t matter.  How we conduct ourselves....what we say, how we say it, and what we do...matters more.  We need to grow up, into our place in history, and begin to further improve this great nation, or let the comfort of the echo chamber, and the false warmth of persistent dependency and the rejection of adulthood sap us of our strength and leave us to stagnation and rot. 

  And that’s all I have to say.  And I cross-posted it on Drumwaster’s Rants.

  Response to Lee’s post: 

  OK...where to begin.

  OK...to address the ‘President Massa’...to call the POTUS such a name does not show personal respect.  The term is meant as an insult....there is no question about it.  And it is indicative of our culture as a whole to easily insult people under the guise of having the right to.  Having an opportunity to insult someone doesn’t mean that you have to do it.  Making a decision to self-censure in the name of respect or propriety isn’t a hallmark of being old-fashioned, it is a mark of maturity.

  Let’s address ties and fedoras for a minute.

  When my dad went to work, he wore a tie.  My grandfather wore a tie to work.  In fact, everyone who worked in an office (or, maybe better, who didn’t work at a machine or at manual labor) wore a tie to work.  Why?  Because it was fashion?  Maybe so....but also because it was expected that when you presented yourself to others, you did so in a formal manner.  You desired respect, so you both showed and gave respect, and there was a clear knowledge that first impressions lasted.  You represented yourself, your family, your company....and that was important.  It was important how people thought of you, and you worked to make sure their impression of you was a good one.

  But, see, that took work.  That took self-censure.  You couldn’t bitch about the boss to people in the workplace.  You repaired your clothes to look good, and used starch.  You hung your clothes and hat up.  You ironed your clothes.  You shook hands, and looked at gossip as a bad thing.  You didn’t talk about the problems in your family, and you kept private thoughts private.  It wasn’t a fashion so much as it was a way of looking at things, based on Puritan reserve and our unique individualism.  We took responsibility for our actions.  We didn’t talk about faith and politics, in order to avoid both inflaming others and ourselves.  You talk about conservative?  That was conservative.

  But the kids of the WWII generation did not want that.  They were born into plenty, and felt as if they deserved it, because it was given to them, with good intentions, by a generation that had been through a hard run.  The Baby Boomers are, to a considerable degree, a very large group of spoiled brats.  They also gave us little culturally....John and Robert Kennedy, MLK, WFB...they were all WWII generation men, with expansive ideals and the ability to put them into motion, with hard work and sacrifice.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are Baby Boomers, and they have put their generation’s spin on the message of MLK; they have turned it from equality to entitlement.  That’s just one example.

  Now, these Boomers are in control.  And they are, to a large extent, our parents.  (My dad is something of an exception, having been born and having a memory of the Depression.) So, they set the tone for our society.  They have pushed their opinions of society and government into the mainstream, and, as in the 60’s, the vocal minority get the headlines and control the dialogue.  They don’t trust the government....not because it is too invasive, but because it doesn’t focus on those things that make our lives easier, like health care and welfare.  This way of thinking is almost totally self-directed.  We have gone from being private, yet concerned about how others perceive us, to open and uncaring about how others see us.

  Is being polite old-fashioned?  Is being respectful and not insulting to those that disagree with you archaic?  Or did those traits go out with the fedora and tie?  When I said that people think it is foolish to wear a tie to work unless it is part of the work rules, I was being completely forthright...I decided to start wearing dress shirts and a tie to work after I received a up/lateral promotion.  People asked me for weeks why I did it, and my answer was that my dad did it, my granddad did it, and I wanted to convey that I was a professional.

  They thought I was slightly ill.  Quaint, but ill.

  But it’s less about clothes than it is about conduct.  How you acted, and how you spoke.  It wasn’t so much about the status quo as it was about maintaining high standards.  You went out and did your best, and that included dressing well and speaking well.  You didn’t curse in public discourse, you didn’t speak of religion or politics in general company, and you kept your mouth shut about someone’s negative qualities unless they were harmful to others.  It was considered mature to speak out when you had to face what you believed the problem was....many of us would keep our mouth shut if we were forced to say the things we write here in a public assembly, surrounded by people that didn’t sound as an echo chamber.  We asked if our words and actions were dignified.

  So, if you have the opinion that the way people dressed and acted was wrong, then you are saying you reject those things I have described.  I believe society, in general, has done so.  It places more import on feeling, rather than thinking.  It tells us that playing is more important than working.  It tells is that the outcome is more important than the rules.  You want to know why there was torture?  Lack of discipline, Lee.  Not some assumed, dark order from McChimpyBushCheneyRumsfeldHalliburton, but a complete lack of discipline.  Bush never ordered anyone to torture, as I have said, but rules were broken and bent by those who decided to follow their emotions, not the established proof that torture was/is ineffective.  Following emotions is amoral and produces nothing long-term.  It ignores fact and social constraints, and is not ‘conservative’ or indicative of conservatism.

  Ah...useful segue!

  Lee, you think conservatism has been hijacked, but you’re not looking at conservatism...you’re looking at the end result of the Moral Majority, a movement that I reject wholeheartedly.  Faith is private, and I attempt to keep a discussion of it in general, non-private terms.  I can discuss canon, but not how I pray, or what I teach my kids about how to address the things they see on TV.

  Using religion to get votes is an age-old tradition....for four or five elections now, I have seen candidates on pulpits preaching on the evils of their opponent, no matter their ideology.  That isn’t conservatism as I see it.  That is exploitative, because people trust in the authority of their faith.  Conservatism appeals to the intellect, and to maturity.

  Conservatism, as you said, is a type of mistrust of government.  I would say that conservatism is more the belief that government must be limited to it’s essential duties, whatever the people define them to be.  I read Locke, and I firmly believe that the powers the government holds are dictated by the people.

  HOWEVER...if the people are not mature, then it breaks down.  We cede too much to the government because we want life to be easy, even though Locke warned us that expansion of the government comes at the cost of our rights.  The problems we face with our bloated government are not the result of Bush’s policies, much as people want to blame it on him, but if the society we are a part of.  We want it to continue to be easy for us.....hell, I do, too.  However, the belief that we will keep our rights as they existed 100 years ago with the government in it’s current condition is fallacy.  That belief isn’t conservatism, and as I have said before, Bush is not a conservative, but a hash of centrism and federalsm.

  Now, to Bush himself.

  I can see your opinion on the subject, i.e. I understand it.  If Bush is hamhanded, then he is.  If he can’t tack the political winds as we all had hoped he would, then fine.  He can’t run again.  If he breaks the law, and goes against the SCOTUS’ interpretation of the COTUS, I will oppose him.  I also can’t speak to non-public discussions between the ex-AG and GWB, so I can’t prove anything to you one way or the other.

  But it is reasonable to assume that none of us know everything about Bush, his government, his plans, his ideals.  Right?  It is also reasonable to assume the following:

  --If the Intel estimate of Iraq’s WMD program was incorrect, then it makes sense that the estimate of how to deal with a post-war Iraq would be incorrect as well.  After several tactic changes, we have finally found one (the ‘Surge’) that is effective.

  --That Bush would only put people that he knew well and agreed with into positions within his Administration.  I am pretty sure that happens with every CEO in every company, and with every POTUS.  Bush put people into place that he trusted, and that he believed were competent; it is not rational to believe that he would put fools into positions just because they agreed with him on everything.  Doing so in a time of war would be idiotic.  AND, to be clear, I will not agree with the idea that because someone disagreed with the majority opinions on this webpage, they were a complete idiot.

  --That Bush had to work hard to protect himself from the political environment built during the Clinton Presidency.

  ---That Bush is not particularly politically astute, and that he does not present himself well to us, save for flashes of brilliance.  The main reason he won two terms was because of his opponents.

  Is he a conservative, in the sense of the word we can agree on?  Nope.  And he never has been, but he won elections because of the people he was running against.  He ran against two quasi-Socialists in Gore and Kerry, and it wasn’t hard to stay to the right of them.  Looking at his record in Texas, it was clear that he was no ‘Reagan’ conservative.  He was a result of his upbringing....like most of the people his age are.  Not so much a man who wanted to compensate for his failings, but someone that never personally experienced hard times, and learned that government existed to aid people, albeit to do things themselves.

  In my opinion, it’s the difference between a block grant to a state and a federal welfare program.  One is more efficient than the other, and results in less waste, but both are expenditures of money from the federal government.  Can you say one is more conservative than the other?  Maybe, but if it an increase of $10 billion to the federal government’s budget, it doesn’t matter how it is spent.  A conservative would question the need for the expansion no matter the spending plan. Hence, Bush is no ‘conservative’, just more conservative than many on Capitol Hill.

  Moving on...I made the argument that conservatism is intellectual, and ‘liberalism’ is emotional.  I used the War on Terror as an example, and I will stick by it.

  Liberalism is a slave to emotional appeals.  The weeks after 9-11 are very, very indicative of this...we were the most patriotic country on the planet.  Flags were everywhere.  However, as time went on, the flags dried up.  Patriotism waned.  The emotion that was produced by the attacks was expended, and there was little in the way of intellectual understanding about the enemy we faced.  It was a lot to do about revenge, and not much to do with looking at the whole situation.  Invading Iraq had an emotional allure (hence Bush’s popularity ratings), but that was short-lived as well. 

  Leftists, already steeped in emotionalism and the use of it, appealed to the American sense of fair play, and started portraying the enemy as the victim (Guantanamo Bay), without looking at the intellectual reasons behind such a facility (to remove enemy combatants from the battle).  They began hyping isolated instances of bigotry, and assigning the negative aspects of Islam to all religions.  They assigned every negative connotation to the POTUS they could, because it fit both their worldview and their political goals.  It is no accident that Islamists, Anarchists, and Socialists make up the bulk of ‘peace’ protesters...they are appealing to the emotionalism of our society, because we feel badly when innocents are killed.  In short, they are using our social mores (a strength of ours) to exploit the Baby Boomers and their reactionary traits.

  This would not have worked in WWII, because in addition to the emotionalism involved, our siciety was working towards a higher ideal...that of defeating totalitarianism.  We managed to do that, but because of the sociological changes we were going through (losing our fedoras and neckties, so to speak), the meaningfulness of sacrificing for a higher ideal was reduced to vassalage under the idea that we didn’t need to sacrifice.  That 60’s political sea change produced Vietnam and Jimmy Carter.  We acted as we felt....sorrowful for fighting communism and for making people sacrifice to do so.

  It was all emotion, and that is what drives liberalism.  However, emotions are short-lived, and transient, and change all the time.  They do not last, and that is why basing a social system on emotions and reactions to emotions is foolhardy.  That is what we do today, to be honest....we react emotionally to debate, to problems, and we don’t exhibit self-control.

  We don’t do these things because we reject control.  “You can’t make me!” Liberalism rejects restrictions on behavior, but clamors also for lessened responsibility for those behaviors.

  Like children do.

  Children act this way because they have no inherent discipline.  They haven’t developed the intellect or the experience to understand why one needs to control themselves.  They are impulsive and lack restraint.  They only learn control and restraint from their parents, the people in the home that have these learned qualities.

  The adults.

  The ones who show you how to dress, how to act, how to keep your mouth shut.  The ones that teach you respect and how to earn it.  The ones that set a good example, if they’re worth their salt, by being calm, reserved, hard-working, intellectual, and private.

  Coming around full circle.....

  Behaving like an adult is to be conservative...measured, intellectual, and controlled.  It is to be self-sufficient and responsible and have pride in being able to be as such.  It is to appreciate the authorities in place, but not to cede personal responsibility to them.  It is to be personable yet private, giving yet insightful, dignified yet humble.  It is to accept sacrifice with understanding, yet be mature enough to discern correct and incorrect from right and wrong.  It is to realize the importance of how one carries one’s self.  It is to be able to put off a reward now for a more meaningful one later, even if that reward will not be bestowed onto you personally.  It is the root of professionalism and the idea of self-determination, and it is the foundation of just governance.

  There you go.

  Less...
  
  
  Posted by John Cross at 07:35 PM |

  Alberto Gonzalez resigns

  You want to see liberal heads asplode all over the place?

  Four words.

  Attorney.

  General.
  

  Read more...

  Anne.

  Coulter.

  Ka-boooooooooooooooooooooommmmmm.

  I just want to hear her say, “We’ll drive off that bridge when we come to it, Senator Kennedy.”

  Less...
  
  
  Posted by Drumwaster at 02:39 PM |

  Saturday, August 25, 2007

  ---

  1-18-08 Spoof Trailer

  Good humor gets laughs.

  Anyone following the 1-18-08 hoopla knows it is out of control. Thankfully these guys decided to make a spoof of the trailer and the entire culture surrounding it to give us all a few laughs.

  (video after the jump)

  Read more...

  Here is the original trailer for comparison:

  Less...
  
  
  Posted by Helo at 10:22 PM |

  Helo’s “What the hell!?” for 08-25-07

  Good ol’ commie propaganda.

  Seriously, what in the hell is up with this crap?

  Posted by Helo at 11:46 AM |

  Two Wheel Motion

  Go to the freakin’ park.

  I understand that bike (meaning bicycle) riders can roll around on the public streets and be given the same rights of passage as cars, but seriously, use your heads and stay out of the way of cars. Just don’t sit there or cruise around at ten miles per hour in a place where cars are going at least thirty-five. Oh, and another thing, I’ll keep honking and enjoy every minute of it if you decide to sit there in the right hand turn lane and block traffic until the light changes. That’s my right as well, asshats.

  Posted by Helo at 10:57 AM |

  Have you ever

  had one of those days?

  Well, I seem to be having one of those months.

  Very little energy, sleeping a lot more than I normally do, insomnia at odd hours, pain so bad it wakes me up and won’t let me get back to sleep. At three o’clock in the morning…

  I actually passed out one day last month at a customer’s home. As in “lost consciousness and control of voluntary muscles, falling to the ground like a bag of rocks”. I don’t even know why.

  Not only is that devastatingly embarrassing on a business and personal level - I have never had that happen to me before. EVAH. - it has caused my wife to freak out every time I leave the house to run errands or meet other customers for fear that it could happen again.

  What’s worse is that I don’t honestly know if these symptoms are a result of the Fibromyalgia or of the meds they are prescribing me for it. Or - God forbid - whether it is the first indication of some other as-yet-undiagnosed problems…

  I hope it isn’t that last, because I think I have quite enough on my plate to be coping with physically.

  Posted by Drumwaster at 09:46 AM |

  Thursday, August 23, 2007

  ---

  Ooga Booga

  C’mon… are you serious?

  I guess this explains why so many of us are single - we’re just not ugly enough.

  Guys with bulldog-like faces have been chick magnets throughout human evolutionary history.

  A recent study of the skulls of human ancestors and modern humans finds that women, and thereby evolution, selected for males with relatively short upper faces.

  The region between the brow and the upper-lip is scrunched proportionately to the overall size of their heads.

  Among the men who fit the bill: Will Smith and Brad Pitt.

  In a past study, researchers found a similar facial pattern in chimpanzees, with males having relatively shorter and broader faces compared with females, controlling for body size.

  Men with “mini mugs” might have been most attractive to the opposite sex and thus most likely to attract mates for reproduction, passing along the striking features to the next generation and so forth, said lead study author Eleanor Weston, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London.

  “The evolution of facial appearance is central to understanding what makes men and women attractive to each other,” Weston said. “We have found the distance between the lip and brow was probably immensely important to what made us attractive in the past, as it does now.”

  Whereas past studies have suggested facial symmetry and facial masculinity play roles in this game of desire, none have provided evidence of an evolutionary shaping of male and female faces.

  “I think it’s a very nice approach,” said Randy Thornhill, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, referring to the study.

  Though not involved in it, Thornhill agrees with the finding that certain facial features evolved due to sexual selection.

  Were you ever sitting down eating a ham sandwich, looking at the table next to you saying, “How did that ugly mofo get that bombshell of a gal?” I guess this answers that question.

  Note: I’m still not ruling out gold and platinum credit cards as the ultimate attraction for women. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to go put on my bulletproof vest.

  Posted by Helo at 10:56 PM |

  Setting Wood Ablaze

  Ouch! Somebody get some water!

  Talk about a burning desire.

  A woman set fire to her ex-husband’s penis as he sat naked watching television and drinking vodka, Moscow police said Wednesday.

  Asked if the man would make a full recovery, a police spokeswoman said it was “difficult to predict.”

  The attack climaxed three years of acrimonious enforced co-habitation. The couple divorced three years ago but continued to share a small flat, something common in Russia where property costs are very high.

  “It was monstrously painful,” the wounded ex-husband told Tvoi Den newspaper. “I was burning like a torch. I don’t know what I did to deserve this.”

  Words cannot explain torture like this.

  Posted by Helo at 10:31 PM |

  That’s Just Sick

  Time to take that multivitamin.

  It’s worth nothing that the vast majority of these nasty diseases come from some dirty third world country.

  Infectious diseases are emerging more quickly and spreading faster around the globe than ever and becoming increasingly difficult to treat, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Thursday.

  With billions of people moving around the planet every year, the U.N. agency said in its annual World Health Report: “An outbreak or epidemic in one part of the world is only a few hours away from becoming an imminent threat somewhere else.”

  WHO director-general Margaret Chan said mass travel could facilitate the rapid spread of infectious diseases.

  “No country can shield itself from invasion by a pathogen incubating in an airline passenger or an insect hiding in a cargo hold,” Chan told reporters.

  The U.N. agency warned that there was a good possibility of another major scourge like AIDS, SARS or Ebola fever with the potential of killing millions appearing in the coming years.

  “Infectious diseases are now spreading geographically much faster than at any time in history,” the WHO said.

  It said it was vital to keep watch for new threats like the emergence in 2003 of SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which spread from China to 30 countries and killed 800 people.

  “It would be extremely naive and complacent to assume that there will not be another disease like AIDS, another Ebola, or another SARS, sooner or later,” the report warned.

  Since the 1970s, the WHO said, new threats have been identified at an “unprecedented rate” of one or more every year, meaning that nearly 40 diseases exist today which were unknown just over a generation ago.

  Over the last five years alone, WHO experts had verified more than 1,100 epidemics of different diseases.

  It was therefore vital for countries to share information on outbreaks so risks can be assessed and mitigated, Chan said.

  MONITORING VITAL

  The report called for renewed efforts to monitor, prevent and control epidemic-prone illnesses such as cholera, yellow fever and meningococcal diseases.

  International assistance may be required to help health workers in poorer countries identify and contain outbreaks of emerging viral diseases such as Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever, the WHO said.

  It warned global efforts to control infectious diseases had been “seriously jeopardized” by widespread drug resistance, a consequence of poor medical treatment and misuse of antibiotics.

  This is a particular problem with tuberculosis. Extensively drug-resistant (XDR-TB) strains of the contagious respiratory ailment have emerged worldwide.

  Although the H5N1 bird flu virus has not mutated into a form that passes easily between humans, as many scientists had feared, the next influenza pandemic was “likely to be of an avian variety” and could affect some 1.5 billion people.

  Chan noted that the last influenza pandemic was in 1968 and had killed about 1 million people. “We have learned from previous pandemics that even the mildest pandemic causes too many premature deaths. We don’t want to see that,” she said.

  She urged countries affected by human cases of bird flu, including Indonesia, to continue sharing virus samples, deemed crucial to tracking the virus and to developing a pandemic vaccine.
  

  I’m not saying that we need to do anything drastic like nuke the third world or quarantine them, but it would be great if they were smart enough to not step on a plane if they’re coughing up blood or something of the sort. I’m just saying…

  Posted by Helo at 10:27 PM |

  Hotness Alert

  I give her an 8.5.

  I was watching Red Eye and a really pretty gal appeared as one of Gutfield’s guests. Her name is Alison M. Rosen. I don’t know who she is, but at least she’s pretty.

  Posted by Helo at 04:32 PM |

  Wednesday, August 22, 2007

  ---

  If you had to

  If you had to publicly identify yourself as a member of whatever political party, religion, social group, fan club or private organization, with the results of that registration to be made public knowledge to anyone who wants to ask…

  Would you?

  Not that membership in the hypothetical group under question is considered illegal, immoral, or even remotely unethical, it would just no longer be your own private business. Not that anything would necessarily be done with that information. They just want it “on the record”, so to speak.

  Would you ignore the requirement?
  Would you render it moot by quitting membership in any of those groups?
  Or would you file papers to tell the government who you choose to spend time with and what you are likely to be discussing?

  Tell me which, then why or why not.

  Posted by Drumwaster at 02:27 PM |
  Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »