Theo[logical] Universe

SpongeBob Commie Pants

2010-09-22T11:32:00.002-05:00

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh who lives in a bright white house down in DC?
President Commie Pants!
Socialist, Tovarisch, Marxist is he!
President Commie Pants!
If liberal nonsense be something you wish
...Then come stand in line with your government dish
Ready kids?
President Commie Pants!
President Commie Pants!
Presideeeeeeeeent Commie Pants!

Hey! Teacher! Leave those banks alone!

2010-01-21T17:04:00.003-05:00

The markets fell. All because B. Hussein Obama is continuing to try and dip his fingers into the private pie. Good one!

President Obama wants to curb banks risk-taking, so that "the taxpayer will never be at the mercy of a bank too big to fail." I wish the taxpayers were not at risk of a government too stupid not to fail.

It's not the government's job to tell the banks what risks they can and can't take. The only people who should be determining that are the shareholders. Banks are not going to take moronic financial risks, because they are in business TO MAKE A PROFIT. Furthermore, if a bank *does* fail, I don't want to pay for it.

Now there were myriad reasons that so many did fail. Admittedly, some of them took risks, maybe even moronic ones. Especially with mortgages. Of course, the fed's manipulation of the dollar and the interest rates didn't help. The beauty of private industry, or "capitalism", is that it takes care of itself. Government intervention is *not* required.

If a bank, or a car company, or anything else, fails, that's a *good* thing. Propping it up, or nationalizing it is a BAD idea. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars. When a company fails, it means one of two things. 1)The management had no clue what they were doing, or 2)The product was not in enough demand.

So, who should regulate banks, car companies, and any other business? THE MARKET.

Not the government, the market.

Government = no. Market = yes.

Government bad. Market good.

Government < Market.

Government {BUZZ}. Market {DING DING DING} Show him what he's won, Johnny!

Is that clear enough for you?

It's so bad, I have to blog again

2010-01-20T23:21:00.002-05:00

So after a short hiatus, I have returned to the blogosphere with a renewed sense of urgency. Things are terribly awry and I just have to comment about them. Besides, you know you missed me!

My new official theme is personal responsibility. I know, I know. I've said it all before. However, it needs to be said again.

As many of you know, I am now a [fully certified by the State of Ohio and yes I can intubate you] EMT. I was parked at UH a few weeks ago with my partner, in the designated ambulance parking, when a car pulled up and parked next to us. I got out and politely informed the driver that this parking was for ambulances only, and that she would have to park in one of the parking garages. She said that she would just be a minute and would I watch her car?

Suuuuuuuuure, lady. I told her I would keep an eye on her car, but I couldn't do anything if the UH Police (oops, I mean: Protective Services) showed up to give her a ticket. I also informed her that if we got a call I would have to leave. She said, "OK, thanks!" and walked away.

Sure enough, not 3 minutes later, a UHPS officer came by and wrote her a ticket. She walked out as he was putting it under her wiper, and the first words out of her mouth were, "It's not my fault!" She then looked accusingly at me, pointed her finely manicured index finger and whined, "You said you would watch my car!" The policeman (oops, I mean: Protective Services Officer) looked at the lady and said, "Ma'am, you are responsible for where you park." She then went into a tirade about how she was only inside for a minute, she had a heart condition, and something about baby seals and clubs. She grabbed the ticket and drove off in a huff onto Cornell Dr, where she was promptly pulled over by one of Cleveland's finest and (I assume) given a ticket for reckless operation or something like it.

Ever since then, "It's not my fault" has been a favorite catchphrase of my partner and me. We joke about it constantly, but the reality is that too many people have a sense that it really isn't their fault.

More adventures tomorrow. Until then, rest well and dream of large women.

Support your local police and firefighters

2007-09-20T17:51:00.000-05:00

I'd just like to take a few minutes and remind everyone of why we should support our police, since its so easy to forget.

Our police officers go out everyday, for (IMHO) peanuts, and put their lives on the line so that we can be safe and sound in our homes. Discard any sarcastic comments about whether or not the streets are safe. The fact is, without the police around, life would be a lot worse. I know police officers have to deal with a lot of sh** everyday. A LOT. EVERY DAY.

The same goes for firefighters. Firefighters and police have the strange vocation of rushing in to emergency situations, while everyone else is rushing out. Firefighters also put their lives on the line in order to save people from horrible deaths and injuries by fire.

As an interesting side note, imagine going into a burning fire and dying to save someone's life as a firefighter may do. That is an imperfect representation of what Christ did for us. Christ dies and descended into the fire (hell) in order to save us.

We should also note the service of Emergency Medical Technicians. Though people don't often think of their work as dangerous, it certainly has its evils. The possibility of accidental exposure to disease, especially in situations where every second counts and time is compressed, is ever present. EMTs also charge into what some might call war zones to ply their trade, even when they are at risk, because it is their duty.

I would certainly be remiss without mentioning the members of our Armed Forces. Politics aside, these people defend our freedoms every day. Countless number of them have died so that we can enjoy the greatest country in the world.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friend." John 14:15

Prayer:

Lord God, Heavenly Father, thank you for giving us police officers, firefighters, EMTs and Armed Forces to defend us from harm and danger. Please bless their work and defend them and uphold them while they defend us. In Jesus' Name,

AMEN.

What happened to responsibility?

2007-09-17T06:47:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me yesterday (not for the first time) that personal responsibility has been defenestrated. Though it's no surprise, since blaming others has been a byproduct of sin ("She gave me the apple!") starting roughly at the time God created the world.

A recent Thugs, Inc. poll shows that taking responsibility for one's actions has dropped drastically in the last 30 years, down to 41% today, versus nearly 70% in 1977.

Seriously, this is no surprise. Besides being human nature, the slowly-heading-towards-socialist government has encouraged it with things like welfare, business subsidization and other such nonsense. Free money + human laziness = great human laziness.

Yesterday, I was playing with Thug Jr, and holding onto his shirt. He started to pull away and his shirt began to rip. He said, "Daddy, you made me rip my shirt!". This following a string of "you made me......" and "he made me...." that I've been noticing all week long. So, I sat Thug Jr and Mini Thug and said to them, "Repeat after me: 'I am responsible for my own actions.'" Hopefully laying the foundation early will give them a shield against the world's take on the subject. Mini Thug was quite amusing in his repetition: "I am sponsible for my own accidents." LOL! An interesting way of putting it!

There are still people in authority who appreciate taking responsibility. When the subject comes up, I often tell of an occurrence when I was working for Papa John's.

I had worked (so far) an 8 hour day, and had just found out that the closing manager was sick, so I would have to make it a 14+ hour day. I decided after the dinner rush that I would go across the street and have a beer and relax a bit. On the clock. In my uniform. Oops!

When the GM heard about it the next day, he told me, in the nicest possible voice, "WHAT THE **** WERE YOU THINKING?" After his tirade, he paused to give me a chance to say something. I simply said, "You're right. I was totally wrong. I apologize, and it won't happen again." He stood there stunned that I hadn't argued or made excuses. The next day I got promoted.

How do you win buddies and influence others? Repeat after me: "I am responsible for my own actions."

G'day!

Back and lovin it

2007-09-15T07:32:00.000-05:00

I've finally figured out the whole Blogger/Google/whatever thing, so I was able -- and have the time -- to log into my account again. Stay tuned for more of my rapier sharp wit, coming soon to a computer near you!

Contrarian anyone?

2007-02-14T23:03:00.000-05:00

Today was another fine day in south eastern Bali. There was a record high today, and all businesses were open. Schools were open. People were driving. Swimming. Boating. Yay!

Whaddya think of this?

2007-01-30T20:22:00.000-05:00

I have to do some more research on this, but someone directed me to the website
for Terror Free Oil. (I really like the logo.)

So what do you think?

Emergency Room Visit

2007-01-17T18:26:00.000-05:00

The other day, I needed to go to the emergency room. Not wanting to sit there for 4 hours, I put on my old Army fatigues and stuck a patch that I had downloaded off the internet onto the front of my shirt. When I went into the E. R., I noticed that 3/4 of the people got up and left. I guess they decided that they weren't that sick after all. Click here to see the patch. Feel free to use it the next time you're in need of quicker emergency service.

Cute? How about, um, NO!

2006-12-13T18:04:00.000-05:00

I saw this hat at Walmart the other day:

For those of you living in caves accessing the internet, this is a pun on Subway's logo, instead advertising Jesus as "the way". Referencing John 14:6 (Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."), it proposes to get people to heaven.

I have three problems here. One, Jesus doesn't need to be, nor should He be, advertised. Two, the verse that the hat references is Law, not Gospel.

The main problem I have, however, is the idea of being "cute" in regards to Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. There is nothing cute about it. The cold, hard reality is that we are evil to the core, born sinful and destined for everlasting damnation, yet, in spite of this, God the Father showered boundless mercy upon us by sending His Son, Jesus, to die and take away the sins of the world. That is NOT a cute story.

This is all representative of a larger movement of being cute to "sell" Jesus. Punny church signs, bumper stickers and now hats are popping up everywhere.

E'en so Lord Jesus quickly come!

Jacob's Law

2006-12-05T11:56:00.000-05:00

In response to a near tragedy in a small Cleveland suburb, Democrat leaders in Congress have finished a bill called "Jacob's Law", which they will send to the President tomorrow.

Jacob Smith (last name changed for privacy) was setting up the family Christmas Tree, when the tree toppled on him. Fortunately, his family was nearby and was able to extract him from underneath the tree.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts said, "Poor Jacob could have been killed by that Christmas Tree. It is incumbent upon the members of Congress to protect Jacob and all other children."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona said, "I am disgusted by the lack of parental responsibility in Jacob's household, as well as households across the country. Parents need to take care of their children. Allowing an 11 year old child to handle a large tree is practically child endangerment. I'm calling upon the local police department to initiate a full investigation. I have also asked Congress to commit $14 million in federal grants to the local police department, so that they may complete their investigation."

The law, officially called the "Child Holiday Protection Act of 2006", but dubbed "Jacob's Law", would require that children under age 16 cannot set up Christmas Trees taller than 3.5 feet. The law also requires that these children cannot set up Hanukkah menorahs or Kwanzaa Kinara, unless the weight of the menorah/Kinara is less than 2 pounds, or the area in which it is being set up is lower than a child's waist. This provision stems from an incident in New York City in which David Berkowitz suffered a head injury, when the brass menorah he was setting up for his parents fell off the window sill, striking him near the left temple. The Kwanzaa kinara provision was inserted by Congressman Nibugo Gumbana, who said, "Children who celebrate Kwanzaa should be protected also."

There is a graduated table for those under 16:
Age---------Max Height of Tree ---------Max Weight of Menorah/Kinara
8----------- 6 inches---------------------8 ounces
9 ----------- 9 inches-------------------- 14 ounces
10---------- 1 foot----------------------- 1 pound
11---------- 1.5 feet----------------------1.5 pounds
12 ----------1.5944 feet -----------------1.6 pounds
13---------- 2 feet----------------------- 1.7 pounds
14 --------- 2.5 feet----------------------1.8 pounds
15---------- 2.9999999999999 feet ------1.99999999999999 pounds
16---------- No restriction ---------------- No restriction

The law allows for children younger than the above limits to set up a larger tree/kinara/menorah if : 1) The child is a member of a protected class -or- 2) The child's parents promise that he won't get hurt -or- 3) The child signs an affidavit stating that he/she can set up the tree without injury -or- 4) The parents fill out a DOJ form 4952/4953/4954 "Application for child to set up a [Christmas Tree/Hannukah Menorah/Kwanzaa Kinara]/ larger than the allowed limits stated in the Child Holiday Protection Act of 2006" and pay the required $465.00 fee.

President Bush is expected to sign the measure when it reaches his desk on Thursday. President Bush's spokesman Tony Snow said, "The President hopes to save children before this holiday season is over."

Penalties for parents who break the law range from a $2500 fine up to 12 years in jail, depending on the severity of the child's injury. In single parent households, the children would be turned over to the Department of Family Services. Senator Charles Wrangle said, "If just one child is turned over to Family Services, and gets a better life, then we've done our jobs."

Critics of the new law were not available for comment.

This has been satire.

My wonderful wife

2006-11-30T20:54:00.000-05:00

In the tradition of the Chaplain , I present this tribute to my wonderful wife.

Today I started school again, attending Kaplan University online. I'm studying for an A.S. in Criminal Justice, to go with my B.S. in BS.

Amidst 4 wild children, I began again my foray into education. Whilst I attended my first weekly class "seminar", my wife managed to:

1) Keep the children out of my hair (no small task in itself)
2) Offer words of encouragement
3) Put the children to bed
4) Present me with freshly-baked chocolate chip cookies. mmmmmmm.

Thank you sweetheart!

To top it all of, my wife tells me how much she loves the smell of G96.

What a woman!

I love you.

Crap! Craps!

2006-10-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

Sometimes Bob Frantz is nuts. Most of the time, he's a pretty smart guy, preaching "CS, not BS." (Common Sense). This morning he made mincemeat of Senator Voinovich in an interview about Ohio Issue 3. (The link is the first hour podcast of the show. Scroll to the middle of the podcast for the start of the interview.)

One thing I found particularly laughable, was that Sen. Voinovich said that the casino operators would keep 61% of the money. He said it incredulously, too. Hello!! It's a BUSINESS. I'm surprised they're giving up 39%. Ask any other business owner about keeping only 61% of the money. They'll probably ask you if you used to live in the USSR, comrade. Aside from that, the main argument against this proposal is that it will create (supposedly) 109,000 new addicts in the State of Ohio. I'm gonna tell you why that's quite a specious argument. Let me first say that I personally will not vote in favor of Issue 3. I think it's poorly written, and the campaign was so shady, that I'm not sure people like that should be running casinos. Now, here's why the "addict" card doesn't play.

1)109,000 new addicts are predicted. Assuming the normal governmental margin of error, this actually means anywhere from 10 addicts - 86 billion addicts. For simplicity's sake, let's use 109,000. This is just a shade under 1% of the population. It makes no sense to prevent something because it affects 1% of the population. Nationwide, 5.7% of the population 12 and older are considered alcoholics. So should we ban alcohol? No! Why not? Well, besides the fact that I'm UAC Lutheran, it's very simple. Alcohol, like almost anything else is something responsible people can enjoy in moderation. The same is true of gambling. If someone has disposable income, they're free to spend it how they want to. What's the difference between spending $600 for a new TV, and spending $600 in a casino on a day trip?

2)Addicts destroy families. That's true. So can dads who ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Or drive without a seatbelt. (See my post on that here, if you haven't already -- it's the second one down) Regardless, the government is NOT the head of the family. It's not their job. The same points I made regarding seatbelt laws generally apply here. I'm too lazy to retype them. :-)

3)New addicts will be created with 'x' miles of the casino. This probably isn't even likely. If someone is addicted to gambling, they'll find a way to do it. If you don't put a casino in their backyard, they'll build one. Or they'll go on the internet. Or they'll drive 3 hours in (just about) any direction to get to one. If you have time, I highly recommend you listen to the podcast above. Bob Frantz does a good job tearing up the opposition. I'd also like it duly noted that I think Sen. Voinovich has generally done a pretty good job in the Senate. It's just this issue he's wrong on.

Let's play "GTD"

2006-10-15T22:44:00.000-05:00

Can you guess the denomination of these church signs?

Forgiveness is a choice, but not an option.

Ch rch. It's not the same without U.

God is Love. Are you?

Sign broken. Stop in for message.

If we say we have no sin, WE'RE WRONG!

Here are your choices: Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Non-Denom, and Presbyterian. All are represented once. Extra credit for ranking them in order from most useful to least.

Arm them all!

2006-10-14T13:34:00.000-05:00

On Chaplain to the World's blog, he suggested that arming bank tellers would have prevented the horrible incident yesterday at Charter One Bank in Euclid.

Let's take the idea futher. How about allowing guns on airplanes for licensed, trained citizens, as well as the flight attendants. (Normally, I don't like the idea of training requirements, but in the confines of an airplane, it's probably a good idea.)

How about teachers?

How about church workers?

As it stands now, a bank that has a "no carry" sign is asking for trouble. That means that the only people who are going to bring guns in are criminals. Law abiding concealed carry permit holders will obey the sign. Regardless of what you do, criminals will bring guns. So, the "no carry" sign might as well say "criminal protection zone". Which would you rather have if you're a bank teller? Criminals only, or criminals and the "good guys"?

It's the same thing on airplanes. I know that it's very difficult for a terrorist to sneak guns/bombs/kinves onto a plane, but it's not impossible. Wouldn't you want to fly knowing that, in the unlikely case that someone has brought a weapon aboard with evil intentions, you can defend yourself? Or others can defend you? I would.

The recent rash of school shootings is another example. Teachers should be trained and armed, just in case. I've heard it argued that this is a bad idea, because then there would be a shootout around the children! That's specious. Again, which would you rather have? Criminals doing all the shooting, or teachers who can neutralize the threat?

ARM THEM ALL!

The other shoe

2006-10-13T17:42:00.000-05:00

SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't read the post below, read that *first*!!!!

You know what the news is. In a minute, you're going to hear.........the rest of the story.

First, the thought of the day answer (see Thought of the Day on the sidebar): The unstoppable force cannot collide with the immovable object, because they can't both occur in the same existance. If there is an "unstoppable force", there cannot be an "immovable object" and vice versa.

And now........the rest of the story.

Let me try and guess the emotions (!!the 'e' word!!) of some of you, reading my plan. Outrage, shock, etc. Right?

Well, save for point #10, which is "unofficial law", the plan I gave you was taken directly from Mexican immigration law.

[insert innocent smile from me]

My proposals for immigration reform

2006-10-11T17:11:00.000-05:00

I got to thinking. I came up with a 10 point plan for immigration reform. Tell me what you think.

Only allow people if they can contribute to the progress of the country.
Only allow people who can financially support themselves and their dependents.
Kick them out if they're unhealthy -- mentally or physically.
Create a National Population Register that will keep track of every single person in the country, including citizens, immigrants, etc. When someone is born, add their name. When someone dies, take it off. This also includes giving everyone a "tracking number", or perhaps a National ID card.
If anyone marries an immigrant just to get them citizenship, they will go to prison for 5 years.
If someone is deported, and they attempt to reenter, jail them for 10 years.
For illegal entry: 2 years in prison, and a $300-$5000 fine.
Fine airlines who bring illegals into the country.
Don't allow foriegners the 1st ammendment right of free speech. They may not talk about or express any opinion of politics in public. They can't demonstrate, either.
Allow police officers to beat, rape and otherwise mistreat any non-U.S. Citizen. If they can't prove they're American, it's fair game for the police.

So, what are your thoughts? Bring it on!

Bonus!! Have you read the thought of the day? Do you know the answer?

Shame on you Mizzzzz Greer

2006-09-05T17:23:00.000-05:00

What a you know what! Feminazi Germaine Greer's comment upon Steve Irwin's death:

"the animal world has finally taken its revenge."

and, in her Guardian column:

he [Irwin] displays the "sort of self-delusion it takes to be a real Aussie larrikin"

Greer managed to make herself the story, and isn't that what all good liberal retards do? Did you ever notice that liberals absolutely have no respect for death, unless it's one of their own? Sometimes not even then! For example: at the funeral of Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter took the opportunity to bash President Bush. At the infamous Wellstone Memorial, what should have been a memorial was turned into nothing more than a pep rally. ("Do it for Paul!")

I would think it goes without saying that one should never rejoice in another person's death, with the single exception that said death is God's Justice, delivered by the left hand kingdom's means. (i.e. execution of a killer, war, etc.) Even then, I'm not sure "rejoice" is the right word. Well, except in the case of militant Islamo-fascists. That's definitely worthy of rejoicing in God's protection of us through the might of the U.S. Military.

Silly old me, thinking common sense abounds. As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "Common sense ain't so common".

Anyhow, as to Germaine Greer, and feminazis everywhere, I have only one thing to say. "GO AHEAD.......MAKE MY DINNER!"

And finally, for my fellow feminazi deplorers, a joke: (If you don't like it, tough) Q: Why don't women wear watches? A: There's a clock on the stove. Feel free to add your own!

RIP Officer Schroeder

2006-08-31T22:11:00.000-05:00

Cleveland Police Officer Jonathan Schroeder was killed in the line of duty early Thursday morning while serving an arrest warrant. Story here.

Dear Lord,

Bless all police officers, especially those mourning the loss of a comrade, as they fill their daily vocation of defending citizens from the evils of this earth. Please protect and defend Officer Schroeder's wife Amy, and son Eric. Support them in their time of grief, and comfort them in the saving Grace you have freely provided all of us, through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Continue to give strength and courage to the members of all safety forces, as they daily risk their lives to protect ours.

AMEN

I'm but a stranger here,
Heav'n is my home;
Earth is a desert drear,
Heav'n is my home.
Danger and sorrow stand
Round me on every hand;
Heav'n is my fatherland,
Heav'n is my home.

Do you want fries with that?

2006-07-31T19:00:00.000-05:00

I've written a few times about the dumbing down of America. I had to share this experience with you. Today for lunch, I went to a well-known fast food chain in Mentor. I won't reveal which one, because they've served billions and billions under their golden arches, and I don't want to embarrass them.

I made my order, and the total came to $6.91. Since I hadn't had a chance to get change, all I had was a $50 and two ones. I hate ones, so I gave the girl (16, maybe) $52, looking for even change. ($45.09, of course) She said, "out of $7? Your change is 9 cents." I politely said, "No, ma'am, I gave you $52." She looked down and said, "Oh! I thought this was a $5!".

"OK, your change is, um, well..........Crystal??"

"I thought he gave me $7, and he gave me $52."

Crystal hands the two ones back to me. "The total was $6.91 sir. All we need is the $50."

I patiently explained my dislike for singles, and asked for $45.09 back.

"OK, hold on." Crystal turns around to a blank piece of paper, writes for the better part of 90 seconds, and says, "Alright sir, your change is $44.19." I said, "I'm sorry, I came up with $45.09."

"David????", whines Crystal, "can you bring a caculator up here?". While waiting for David, I said to Crystal, "If you add $6.91 and $45.09, you get $52, so it should be $45.09."

"I know, but I want to ask the manager." OK, I understand......they don't want to get scammed.

"No, look", I say. If you add 9 cents to 91 cents, you get $1, right?"

"Yes."

"So add $1 and $6, and you get $7, right?"

"Yes."

"Then add $45, and you get $52, right?"

"Yes, but hold on."

At this point, the original cashier butts in and says, "Let me add it." She proceeds to spend a minute subtracting to tell me, "I'm sorry sir, I was wrong. Your change is $54.09."

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Anyway, the manager came out with a calculator and proved me correct, at which point I looked at Crystal and said, "Sorry for the confusion....I just want to make sure it's right. I understand you don't want to get scammed."
She replied, "That's not it. I just was sure I was right." ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

American Dumbness Indicator for July 31, 2006: 47

MURDER, er, Stem-Cell Research

2006-07-19T18:56:00.000-05:00

So I'm sure you've heard that King Bush used his veto power for the first time in office today. It's about time. I hope he uses it more. This issue, in particular though, is great. Although Bush could be doing more, it's a start, at least.

I'm sure you know all about the much-debated stem-cell research. We're speaking here of Embryonic stem-cells, as opposed to adult stem-cells or umbilical/placental blood. ESC's come from "left-overs" -- failed attempts at InVitro Fertilization, or from murdered babies "donated for science".

Proponents of ESC's claim that we can "cure terrible diseases" with the research stemming from ESC's. (Pardon the pun) The thing is, we already have cured some with ASC and UPB. Check out this article for a more complete explanation.

The point is, the backers are really just promoting a way to keep abortions going. They use junk science to make it sound important, and to condemn those who oppose it. "What gives yoooooooooou the right to decide who gets cured??!?!!?! You cold-hearted racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe!! This woman donated the aborted thing for science!! It's her choice."

In celebration of the pseudo-science of the abortionists, I present to you:

LuvGlock's 5 Highly Scientifically-Valid Infalliable Truths

1. Carrots are deadly. Everyone who has had a heart attack, gotten into a horrible car accident, been murdered, or otherwise died has had carrots. Therefore, carrots are deadly.

2. Fire is a living organism. Fire exhibits all five properties of life. the ability to take in energy and convert it, the ability to reproduce (just put a piece of wood in a fire for a while, then take it out), the ability to produce waste (ash), The ability to respond to stimuli (give it water, and it will respond by dying) and the ability to grow. Therefore fire is alive.

3. All "freeze-babies" have anorexia. Anorexia is not eating, and not eating eventually produces a decrease in body temperature. Therefore, all cold people have anorexia.

4. It was cooler today than yesterday. Therefore global warming has reversed.

5. If you enjoy this blog, you are extremely intelligent. Only intelligent people can enjoy my blog.

Until next time.......

Reparations!! (WARNING: Political Correctness Level: 0)

2006-07-10T16:46:00.000-05:00

To my great-great grandchildren:

I want you to know that I was sorely oppressed by the black people in the early part of the 2nd millenium. You should DEMAND reparations from the black people of your time. Most especially (actually, exclusively) the liberals, such as those at the NAA(L)CP, who made me suffer through their complaining about being in slavery over 100 years earlier. (I refused to pay one red cent, since my ancestors came from Greece and Germany, and did not enslave blacks.)

However, you should see that their liberal logic was right, and now demand some compensation from *them* for making me listen to the whining. After all, it's only right when it benefits *you*!

With love,

The son of your father's father's father's father's father

Up in smoke

2006-06-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

As promised, the answer to the bonus question:
Hyperpolysesquipedalianistic: The overuse of long words.

And now.......today's dim-witted entry!

You've probably heard by now that the SGOTUS has come out with a report saying that second-hand smoke is really, really bad. Locally, the head of the Taussig Cancer Center at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Derek Raghavan, has been quoted as saying that "Politicians need to have some balls" and pass a smoking ban in Cleveland to protect the people. The good doctor's comment is fine with me. If he were saying the opposite in his position, I'd be a little worried.

The issue here, once again, is government interference. Just as with the seatbelt law, it's not the government's job. The difference here is that they are interfering with people and market forces. Proponents of a smoking ban have said that when businesses such as bars and restaurants go smoke free, their business goes up. There is still debate on this point, but, for the sake of discussion, let's say it does. Why not then offer a tax credit to businesses that go smoke free? Then, they can decide for themselves, based on the numbers, if it makes more sense to ban smoking and take the credit, or decline the credit and allow smoking.

Or, better yet, don't do anything at all. If enough people really had that much problem with smoke when they walked into, say, TGI Friday's, they would eventually stop going there and start going to a smoke-free establishment like Red Robin. (Which is an outstanding restaurant, by the way. Really, really good food.)

Then, free markets would function without interference. [pause]

Whiny Liberal: I love to eat at TGI Friday's.
Theo[logical] Thug: Then go. Enjoy. Eat, drink and be merry.
Whiny Liberal: But I can't. It's smoky in there. I'm offended by smoke. I think I'll ask the government to pass a law to ban smoking.
Theo[logical] Thug: Why don't you just not go there? Why trouble everyone else?
Whiny Liberal: Because I don't like the smoke.
Theo[logical] Thug: Then don't go.
Whiny Liberal: But I like the food.
Theo[logical] Thug: Looky here pal. You can't have it both ways. Either you eat there and put up with the smoke, or you don't eat there and put up with the withdrawl. Oh, by the way......King Bush rocks!

If I go into a restaurant and they're playing really loud music, I just go find another restaurant to eat at. Suppose we ask the government to pass a law banning loud music in public places?? Hmm??? How about it.

What too many people don't understand is that a business is not really a public place, per se. The owner can refuse service/entry to anyone he wants. He can make pretty much any rule,regulation etc. that he wants. (Provided that it is not illegal, of course.) Remember the lady who got kicked off the plane for the t-shirt she was wearing? She sued because she said the airline violated her 1st amendment rights. [BUZZER] Wrong. It was a private business, and absolutely had the right to tell her to cover it up or get off.

The 1st amendment says that the government cannot regulate free speech. This also ties in to the controversy at Gino's restaurant in Philadelphia. I would like to shake that guy's hand!

At any rate, the overriding point is that the government just needs to quit meddling. There are far too many examples of the government screwing up what it was trying to fix. If they would let market forces and people's voices determine what happens here, we'd all be a lot better off.

This rant brought to you by the letter 'Q' and the number '6'.

We now return to your regularly scheduled blog -or- The Adventures of the Grammar Nazi

2006-06-28T17:37:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a heck of a week. As you all know, we moved a week and a half ago. Kudos to Mrs. Theo[logical] Universe for all of her hard work. She's been an organizing and cleaning nut! The house is in great shape, thanks to her. I love you honey!

Now to the issue at hand. I've gotta say that I've about had it with the grammar, etc. in our society. Check out this sign posted at the employee entrance of one of the customers I service:
I realize you may not be able to read it, since it's a camera phone pic so here's the translation for those of you without 20/1 vision: "We only hire the best & Your It!" Apparently, that doesn't apply to the employee who created the sign.

Besides your/you're, here's a few other common mistakes that make me crazy:

Myriad: LuvGlock has a myriad of talents. [Insert game show buzzer sound] The correct use of this word does not include a/of. The sentence should read: "LuvGlock has myriad talents". Myriad is similar in meaning to the word "many".

Adverbs: I feel very strong about abortion. [BUZZER] Adjectives always end in 'ly', as in: "I feel very strongly about abortion.

Another things that drives me crazy is speling erors. I don't expect everyone to know how to spell "fibromyalgia" or "hyperpolysesquipedalianism". I think though, that most people should be able to spell "computer" and "plywood" and other such common, easy words.

Good/well You don't feel good. You feel well. You don't do something good. You do something well.

Lastly, when people use quotes on posted signs incorrectly. A sign should read No Trespassing not "No Trespassing" or Employees Only not "Employees Only".

OK, so I'm a little picky. Maybe, but honestly, America is really getting dumbed down, and that's a problem. Standards have lowered for everything, not just intellect. We've all heard the stories about 4% of high school seniors being able to locate Germany on a map, and other such things.

How about this: "If you show up to work on time, every day, and do the job you've been assigned, you'll go far." I've heard that on more than one occasion from employers. It's not just talk, either. I've seen people get promoted for doing nothing more than that. Remember when you had to go the extra mile to get noticed and be appreciated? Not anymore.

Where does it end? If we continue to lower the standards, how long until the President of the United States is a college dropout? Or even a high school dropout? How long until CEO's have as much sense of how to do a good job as any of the 46 janitors that came through the company last year? How long until you can get a degree in a year of 12 credit hours?

OK, so maybe I'm an alarmist and really picky. But at least I spelled it correct.

Tune in tomorrow for: Smoking Bans; a new Jack Bauer FOD, a new thought of the day, and the answer to today's bonus question: What is the definition of "hyperpolysesquipedalianism"?

Coming soon to a blog near you.......

2006-06-20T20:28:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't know, I've been busy getting ready for, executing, and arranging after a move. We'll return to your regularly scheduled blog in a few days.

In the meanwhile, I'd like to thank Schreiben von Schreiber, the Quipper, SamPen, and of course, the dh to Barb the Evil Genius for all their help. It was, ahem, a picture of perfection.

Ding Dong the *itch is dead! [Warning: PG-13]

2006-06-08T18:44:00.000-05:00

Zarchawi the evil *******
(with apologies to Rudolph)

Zarchawi the evil $*%@$#!
had an old Russian A-K.
And if you were Iraqi
you would run and hide away

All of the other terrorists
paid allegiance to this Baal
they never let poor Zarchawi
know that he was bound to fail.

Then one humid Baghdad eve,
the Rangers came to say,
Zarchawi with your serin gas
Have a .223 and KISS OUR ***!

Then all the soldiers killed him
as they shouted out woo-hoo!
Osama, you best keep runnin'
Cause we're comin for you too!

Holy cow! It's Nina!

2006-06-06T17:45:00.000-05:00

"If Jack Bauer was in a room with Adolf Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, and Nina Myers and he only had two bullets, he'd shoot Nina twice. " - Anonymous

Now I understand. I almost fell off my chair when I found out Nina was the second mole. This show rocks! We've since started on season two, and, I gotta tell you, it's sweeeeeeeeeet.

I think we'll manage to catch up with all the "old" seasons before the show starts again, but I'm dreading watching it live. How do you people get through a whole week waiting to see what happens next?

22 episodes down, 2 to go

2006-06-02T05:13:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, I decided to rent 24 (1st season) on DVD. Well, I'm sure most of you know this, but WOW. I can hardly wait until tonight to watch the last two episodes and see how it ends up.

This show absolutely rocks! The twists and turns are amazing, thrill-packed and ever less predictable. I just can't get enough. Thank goodness for NetFlix!!

To celebrate the end of the beginning of my 24 addiction: Jack Bauer Facts (WARNING!!! Some of the list is rather explicit.) Also, starting today, there will be a new feature on my blog. You've already seen the thought of the day (right?? haven't you?? down on the side bar, under the archives??) I now present [insert drumroll] the Jack Bauer Fact of the Day, or JBFOD.

Lastly, if you have a blog, and I haven't listed it in my links, e-mail me so I can put it there!

If pro is the opposite of con......

2006-05-31T15:32:00.000-05:00

What is the opposite of progress?

Have you heard that our esteemed (read, retarded) members of Congress are all afire over the William Jefferson incident? Catch up here if you haven't. (Story of the raid) (congressional reaction)

Now they're claiming that offices of legislators should be exempt from these types of things. They're invoking the constitution (Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 1) which says,

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a thinker. (Thank you Mr. Beck) It seems to me that this clearly states the following:
1. Lawmakers will get paid
2. The amount they are paid will be determined by law (don't get me started!)
3. Their salary will come from the US Treasury.
4. Unless they commit treason, a felony, or a breach of the peace, they can't be arrested while going to, being at, or returning from a legislative session.
5. Except for the exceptions noted in (4), a lawmaker's words during a speech or debate in session can not be used to arrest them.

As far as I can tell, most constitutional scholars agree that this provision exists to prevent the executive branch from preventing a congressman from doing something "displeasing." i.e. President Bush doesn't want a Senator to vote for this bill or that bill, so the President has him arrested on his way to the Senate.

Insofar as the FBI is part of the executive branch, I can see where the senators and representatives might have a problem. The similarity ends there, however. First, the FBI obtained the necessary warrant, and it was stonewalled and ignored by House counsel and Rep. Jefferson. Second, they took great pains to avoid confiscating documents related to legislative matters, concentrating only on those related to the bribary scandal.

Some members of Congress have gone so far as to say that their offices should be absolutely immune from inspection/raid/etc by law enforcement. Isn't that a little ridiculous? (For those of you who reside in Stupidville, yes, it is ridiculous.) Imagine the possibilities! Driven off a bridge and killed a hooker? No problem! Stash the body in your office.

Here's to term limits!

Is there a sophomore jinx on blogs?

2006-05-27T07:02:00.000-05:00

If there is, I will avoid it with my superior blogging skills. That, and my modesty.

I've got to tell you, I've about had it with this click it or ticket campaign. What a way to hemorrhage the taxpayers money. Ughh. Here's my take on it. (If you want to read another great piece on this subject - oh, there goes my modesty again - check out Walter Williams' take)

If you breathe, you are quite familiar with the phrase "Click it or Ticket". In case you're one of the hermits among us, the phrase refers to the Department of Transportation's safety initiative to encourage people to wear their seatbelts.

If you live near Cleveland, you've heard about the seatbelt law for a long time. It actually originated in Brooklyn, a suburb of Cleveland with a population of about 11,000 people. Brooklyn Mayor John Coyne introduced the law in 1966, and ever since, you can't drive into the city without seeing a "Welcome to Brooklyn, Ohio, home of the Seatbelt Law" sign. (Incidentally, Brooklyn was also the first city to enact a cell phone ban, which prohibits drivers from talking on their cell phones unless they have both hands on the wheel. For complete text, click here and scroll down to section 331.45)

Here's the problem with the seatbelt laws. It is hardly the government's place to get involved. A person is perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves.

I should stop here to note that I personally do wear my seatbelt, from the moment I turn the car on until I turn it off. Any monkey can look at the statistics and know that if you don't wear your seatbelt, you're a moron. And, frankly, though I may sometimes act like a birdbrain, I'm actually not.

That being said, it's my decision. If I decide to endanger my life by not wearing my seatbelt, that's up to me. I do not bring danger to others by not wearing my seatbelt. If I have a predilection for flying through windshields and other such exciting events, I can. The government should not be telling me not to. Frankly, it's rather communist of them to do so.

So, should we abandon the DUI and cell phone and other such traffic related laws? After all, it's a drunk's choice to drive and maybe kill himself. Right? Wrong. These laws are different. A drunk can (and they often have, sadly) hurt, maim and kill many others when he gets behind the wheel. An idiot who can't talk on a phone and drive at the same time could easily hit someone. (Which, incidentally, was the impetus for Brooklyn's cell phone law.)

However, I'm not going to be more likely to hit someone or cause an accident just because I don't wear my seat belt. I am more likely to hurt, maim, or kill myself. So what? My choice.

Do I tell my kids to wear their seatbelts, and in fact force them to? Absolutely. That's because it's my responsibility to protect my kids. Not because the government tells me to. The onus for keeping my children safe falls on my wife and me.

So shouldn't the government tell and force me to wear my seatbelt? Nope. The government is not responsible for my safety here. I don't and shouldn't have to or want to depend on the government for much more than defense (military/police). Not to tell me to wear my seatbelt. Not to support me. Not to school me or my kids.

The main problem here is the government mentality of lording over it's citizens is wrong. The government stems from the citizens, not the other way around. Any politician who thinks so is, admittedly, normal, but way off-base.

And again I say, ughhhh.

Welcome, welcome, to me

2006-05-26T22:47:00.000-05:00

OK, so I suppose this is the exception to the rule. I'm giving in and jumping on the band wagon.

I've found that following the crowd is usually a bad idea, but then, the crowd I'm following is good people.

Wow. That had to be the best blog opening EVER.

LuvGlock