Ted Rall is, supposedly, a liberal commentator. But after reading this article, especially the quote below, it makes you wonder whose side he is on.

"There are plenty of solid reasons to vote for Clinton over McCain--which candidate would be more likely to let Bush's reprehensible tax giveaways to the ultrarich expire? withdraw troops from Iraq? close Gitmo? address the healthcare crisis?--but electing a woman to the White House trumps them all."

Catch this crap!

The U.S. Senate now has a bill in front of it that is going to subsidize doing away with traditional analog TV transmissions and going all digital!

Let me remind you what the word "subsidize" means. The US government will take the money that comes out of your paycheck each pay period to insure that everyone can have the latest in television technology.

Read this!

"The draft does not specify how much money the government will set aside to subsidize the set-top boxes or just how this will be done. One idea under discussion is for consumers to make a co-payment and for retailers to bill the government for the remaining cost.

The House and Senate Commerce Committees are under pressure to set the date because the budget resolution requires them to raise revenue, or cut spending, to reduce the budget deficit. The sale of analog spectrum could provide at least $10 billion, according to an informal estimate by the Congressional Budget Office."

Now, I can understand how going digital is going to help the government. They are going to take the portion of the airwaves that they sold to broadcast TV years ago, and sell them to other people to use. That is where that $10 billion figure comes from.

But, when did it become the business of the Federal government to insure that every Tom, Dick and welfare recipient could get the latest in TV technology?

Last time I looked, cable TV was taxed, not subsidized. Now, the Federal government is going to cough up your hard earned cash to give, basically, the entire nation satellite TV.

Remember, the government has no money that was not yours first. The government's only income is taxes. Money that they take from you and me. (Yes, that's right, as a soldier, I pay Federal income tax, Social Security taxes, etc.)

BTW, have you looked at the label on the gas pump that tells you how much of the cost of each gallon of gas is taxes? If our government really thought that gas prices were too high and that oil companies were gouging us, couldn't they forego some of that for at least a few months?

Just thinking out loud.

You really should ask them. Look up your reps at the link and ask them.

Things have been kind of hectic, lately. Lots of stuff to tell. But the big thing is that the Robertson household has a new member.

His ID says that his name is Bart von Schafershof. We call him Gimli (for those of you who have not seen the Lord of the Rings, it rhymes with Kim Lee ... hard "g" sound) He is a "grosse saufarben dackel".

(Pictures with the black border, and size information, are thumbnails. Click on them for the full-size version.)




That translates to standard, wire-haired, black and tan dachshund. He is 15 weeks old. As a standard, instead of a mini, like the two old men, at 15 weeks old, Gimli weighs about as much, and is almost as big as the two "Old Farts". The "Old Farts weigh between 13 and 14 pounds a piece, and Gimli weighs about 12-13 pounds.

Gimli and the "Old Men", our two red short-haired miniature dachshunds, are getting along pretty well. They are still figuring who is who, in regard to pack "hierarchy".

Tasselhof, who is most like him in character, doesn't like the pup much. Radar and Gimli play all the time.



It hasn't been entirely smooth, and it's not entirely resolved. But, I can say that we are one big, happy family.

Let's have "Fun with History" for a bit, and compare and contrast two countries.

Okay, we have country "A" and country "B". Both were under a tyrannical regime. Both, through the aid of foreign powers, gained independence. In the process of gaining independence, they both formed interim governments that had their ups and downs. They both struggled to form contemporary militaries and security forces. They struggled with dissent from their "rebellion" from both their own citizens and foreign outsiders. Both governments struggled to gain international acceptance. Both struggled to build infrastructure and a fledgling economy. Both sets of "Founding Fathers" were highly religious, in modern terms. Both countries, in crucial elections, recently, have had similar eligible voter turnouts.

That is most of what countries "A" and "B" have in common.

Country "A" voted into being a viable constitution 15 years after the "interim" government took power. Country "B" voted into being a viable constitution within 1 year of taking power.

Which one would you consider more successful, in terms of democracy and establishing a stable government, given what you have just read?

Country "B" is Iraq.

Country "A"?

The United States of America.

Makes you think doesn't it? Especially given how things are supposed to going so terribly in Iraq.

This was forwarded to one of my many email accounts. The person that sent it claims it was an Andy Rooney editorial. Some of it really sounds like him, and then parts really don't.

I thought it was worth reading, anyway.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can
kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you
from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there
are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING
MARTHA BURKE?

I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different,
weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of
the population is black that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of
Probability. Same with any race.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a
newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact,
if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries
you were born in to come over and disrespect ours. I think the police
should have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after
they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word "freeze" or "stop"
in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you are
qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans or
tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or
any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in
wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over
here and tell us our constitution is a living document -- and open to their
interpretations.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That
doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue
to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system
that's better, and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a
parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when
necessary, and say "NO!"

I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't
pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that
new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly infected mouth as you
serve me French fries!

I am sick of "Political Correctness." I know a lot of black people, and not
a single one of them was born in Africa, so how can they be
"African-Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around
saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great,
great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and
nowhere else.

And if you don't like my point of view, delete it and...
DON'T PASS IT ON!!

The article this is linked to is by David Warren, a columnist with the Ottawa Citizen. One of the newspapers published in the capital of Canada.

After listening to so many commentators in the States talk about Katrina and Rita, and the offers we have received for foreign aid, it is very interesting to hear this Canadian's take on things.

No matter where you sit in the political spectrum, with all the things going on in America (Katrina, Rita, Iraq, the Speaker of the House being indicted, political partisanship seeming to be at it's highest point since shortly before the Civil War, etc.), it is easy to think that America is a mess. Too a certain extent that is true. The Founding Fathers did not design a completed work, or, even, a work that was ever meant to have been completed. It is a flexible design that is meant to be worked out by the people of America in every generation.

However, after reading David Warren's article, you get the impression that maybe things aren't as bad as we thought, comparatively.

At first, I read the headline, and thought, "No, they aren't going to go there. They can't. They are just opening themselves up for so much trash in the media, that they wouldn't." Then, I skimmed the article. And, guess what? Yes, they did.

That's right. The people in charge of figuring out why the Ethan Allen tour boat capsized this last weekend are pulling out all stops to figure out why this terrible event happened. One possible explanation that is being seriously considered ... so much so that the investigators are talking to the press about it, is that the passengers were too fat for the boat.

I found this story this evening after work on Yahoo. It turns out the story is from the Associated Press. The AP apparently is on a "fat" kick. I skimmed over this article today in the Stars and Stripes over lunch, also from the AP.

What happened on the Ethan Allen is a tragedy? I offer my condolences to everyone that lost people they cared for.

However, there is a darkly funny, and sad possibility that, when the National Transportation Safety Board releases it findings for the cause of the accident, their answer is going to be, basically, that there were too many fat people together in one place.

First, the article states that : "California taxpayers will no longer help pay the cost of impotency drugs for registered sex offenders under legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."

A little further down, it states that : "Federal support for subsidized Viagra was curtailed earlier this year when a New York state audit found nearly 200 sex offenders benefiting from the program."

According to the FDA's website, "The FDA approved Viagra on March 27, 1998." That's over seven years ago!

So, finally, somebody came up with the bright idea that giving registered sex offenders Viagra was a bad idea. It's not bad enough that it was happening, when you think about it. But, in California, it wasn't enough to just create an administrative rule that sex offenders couldn't get Viagra from the state for free, they, actually, had to pass a law! Then, when it went to the Governor's desk for signature, the fact that he actually signed it was considered newsworthy!

You have to remember how government works, in the US. Legislatures make laws that, among other things, create government programs. They don't run them, they just create, give purpose and general direction, and, sometimes, provide funding. It is, then, up to the Executive Branch (the President leads the Federal Executive branch, state governors head the Executive Branch of their respective state's government) to "execute" the law, and create a framework to make the legislative intent happen. That includes making administrative rules for each program.

So, to recap, in California, it wasn't enough for Governor Scharzenegger (or someone below him with the appropriately delegated authority to make the decision) to say, "Giving Viagra to rapists and child molesters is a bad idea, let's not do it.(or stop doing it)" The issue had to be brought before the state legislature where it was written into a suggested law, discussed, and, no doubt, debated.

Where is the discussion or debate in this issue? Did anyone really think that keeping rapists and child molesters from getting free Viagra was a bad idea?

There are only two things that I can think of that are missing from this article, though:

1) Why did it take so long for this to be decided? Why wasn't this an "Oh! Of course!" idea from the moment that Viagra started being covered by whatever health coverage the state provides?

2) So, the registered sex offenders are no longer being given free Viagra by the state, is there anything being done to prevent them from purchasing it on their own? A felon convicted on firearm related charges is no longer eligible to legally own a firearm upon release from prison, ever. Read that last carefully. The felon mentioned above is not able to purchase or own a firearm, ever. It's not that the state doesn't give him one, he can't have one, period. So, why are sex offenders allowed to procure ammunition for their "weapon of choice"?

I am not going to commment on this, at all.

I will tell you about the author, though.

A black minister, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. The miniature bio at the end of the piece reads:
The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of “Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America.�

The page on this at the Urban Legends Reference Pages describes Reverend Peterson as "a nationally syndicated radio talk show host" and "an outspoken critic of the American civil rights establishment". According this page Reverend Peterson has, also, "urged a national boycott of the NAACP because he believes that 'the organization's true intent appears to be to divide America by irritating resentments in the black community.'"

Reverend Peterson's bio on the BOND (Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny), an alternative civil rights group that founded.

Just trying to provide information that you can use ...

Let's start with the question: "Who is Aaron Swartz?"

Aaron Swartz is a student at Stanford. I think he is a sophomore, now. Not sure. He is one of the creators of, what we know of, now, XML. RSS and Atom feeds of sites. If you have a "My Yahoo!" page, then you have seen what XML can do. I've had a "My Yahoo!" page, pretty much, since they started the service. The content available shot through the roof some time last year. The reason was that Yahoo found a way to make XML work for them.

It's a great way to get all of the text from a site without anything else. That makes for a very small document that loads very fast into your computer. Generally, it includes links to the full version. That way you can see all the graphics, and what have you, if you want.

(As a sidenote, for years, developments in the internet were measured in how rich you could make something in multimedia content. RSS and Atom feeds are an innovation that simplifies things ... takes things back to the "old days" of the internet. In fact, most RSS pages remind me of the the way that the online service Prodigy presented information circa 1995.)

XML has, also, been a part of the blog world. Most of the blogs that I know of have some type of XML feed.

Aaron was part of that. In fact, he was one of the first major voices to be heard from the blog world by more traditional media.

The kid has a voice that is insightful, thought-provoking, humorous, and modest.

As an almost-40 year old fart, I have been reading this kid's stuff for a while. In fact, Aaron Swartz is one of the people that I was thinking of when I wrote this. We don't, necessarily, agree on things. However, what he has to say is ... I would have guessed that he had at least a Masters degree, and was, at least, 10 years older, when I first read his stuff.

He has started an online magazine. The article, linked in the title, lays out how he is going to make his magazine conform to the norms of contemporary journalistic integrity, in regards to the traditional sources.