Swamproot

Stupid Statement of the Day

2008-05-29T18:42:00.001-05:00

I've been saving this up all day. As if some of the voter interviews from the Democratic primary weren't enough to make West Virginia look bad enough, along comes West Virginia Racing Association President John Cavacini.

West Virginia's Department of Health and Human Resources is working on a plan that garnish the winnings of casino gamblers who owe child support.

"A person could actually come to the casino, purchase $2,000 worth of chips, cash out $1,000 worth of chips, and it would look like he won $1,000. But the truth is, he lost $1,000. There's no system in place that would compute winning and losing."

What makes this so incredibly stupid is who gives a shit? Take the fucking deadbeat's money and give it to the kids that the deadbeat is not man enough to support. Maybe this will keep skumbag deadbeats out of fucking casinos that they have no damn right to be in the first place! Impound the frigging car they drove to the casino with!

High Gas Might Be a Good Thing, Maybe Now We Will Do Something About it

2008-05-22T19:20:00.000-05:00

I was pretty young at the time, and I don't have a high opinion of much of what Jimmy Carter did as a President, but one of the things that I thought was a good idea was promoting and making research money available to alternative energy projects. He did this not as a feel good, tree hugging environmentalist, but to help insure we were never at the mercy of OPEC ever again. I have always thought of it as a matter of national security.

Ronald Reagan did not think this was a good idea and cut all that funding because the Arabs, at least the ones with oil, were our friends again. I remember my father explaining to me at the time that the free market viability of alternative energy would determine whether or not private industry would develop those technologies.

But one thing put in place at that time also helped make gas cheap: CAFE standards increasing the miles per gallon expected from autos. That ended in 1987, but its effect lasted through the nineties. It worked so well in fact, that Americans then decided it would be a good idea for every family of 3 to buy a 5000 pound SUV with atrocious gas mileage.

When the CAFE standards were attempted to be raised in the nineties, I distinctly remembered the impassioned cries from a certain side of the aisle which said that the ONLY way to increase MPG is to make cars less safe. I'm sure that was the concern and not shilly pimping for certain industries who might be negatively effected by such a move. But I thought it gave short shrift to the engineering capability of Americans.

So now we find ourselves in the same boat. If only our resolve to fix this problem had not dimmed in the intervening time since those gas rationing seventies, those "years [it would take] to have an effect" would be behind us instead of in front of us. Sure we could drill some more for this finite resource, but we are only delaying the inevitable. There is only so much of it and the rest of the world is demanding more of what is left.

The fight with environmentalist was not conceded, it was merely determined that at that time environmental costs outweighed the economic benefits. It was an easier choice to make before $135 barrels of oil were a fact of life. I would be that ANWR oil is as good as gone now.

Price controls would be disastrous because it would, once more, lessen our resolve for energy self reliance. I've seen editorials in the Sun poo-pooing solar energy, and instead promote nuclear energy, without noting that the cost of solar panels has been cut in half in the last quarter century and they have increased in efficiency. I remember, because I never finished the LTTE that I started in response to that staff written editorial.

While I'm not anti-nuclear energy, I don't seem to understand how the Sun's editorialists don't recognize that we might not have nuclear energy if it were not for a massive government subsidy called The Manhattan Project. Perhaps the key is to figure out how to use solar energy to kill people. It would then get all the research money it needs and there would be solar panels on every home within a decade.

I'm of course being slightly sarcastic, but the bottom line is that we, as a nation, made this bed and now we lie in it. Manipulating the price back down might be politically expedient, but we would once again lose our will to shake off our junky-like dependence on other oil producing countries, the majority of whom want to destroy us.(Libya, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and let us not forget the birthplace of 3/4ths of the 911 hijackers, Saudi Arabia).

(non)Blogging Excuses and a Yet Another Response

2008-05-02T01:18:00.005-05:00

Although I haven't been doing any blogging since Febuary, I have been writing some shit. Mostly in other peoples blogs. I"ll probably try to collect some of it up and post it, either for my later amusement or for further ponering.

I still love the Murray Ledger message board. Not really because of the content, but really just a chance to engage other members in the community.

The Paducah Sun has created a few blogs for there writers and I have posted a few comments in them.

They got me fired up to write a letter to one of their editors (as opposed to a Letter To The Editor), and we had a respectful exchange that I would like to get around to documenting.

I try not to miss the steady blogging Grimsaburger, whose thoughtful postings and my own responses to them sometimes would probably preoccupy my lunch time even if I didn't know her.

But todays post is going to be about my response to this exchange on the Murray Ledger Message Board:

If anyone thinks that the war in Iraq is protecting America from "bad guys" they may be from outer space.

the sleeping gringo

He was answered by:
Sleeping Gringo. You do not know what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing to stem the religious zealotry against the 'infidels", the non-Orthodox Muslims. Become informed before you comment.And as always, if you don't like American policies, move somewhere else. God Bless the USA and all Servicemen and Servicewomen who serve in uniform.

Been there, done that

This was my response on that:
While I would agree that 'the sleeping gringo' may be short on any substantive claim, YOU might not know what the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing to INFLAME the religious zealotry against the 'infidels". I think we could both could agree that people in other countries don't think exactly like Americans. For being able to speak about what we don't agree on, God Bless the USA and all Servicemen and Servicewomen who serve in uniform.

For the "we got to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" crowd I have a question. Would the Hamburg Cell, the 19 guys who were implanted here by Bin Laden himself for 9/11, have done anything different if we had invaded Iraq in the summer of 1999? I don't think so. They will attack us at the cost of their own lives and I'm not so sure that where our troops are deployed even enters into that equation.

Personally, I think that America's greatest defense against that is to make sure this country keeps being the most free "land of opportunity" that this world has ever seen. We need to live in an America where the terrorist they send over here to infiltrate us would decide they would rather get a job, make a decent living, and raise their kids up in a safe environment like Murray than fulfill such a mission. Extremists are hardly ever successful where oppression is uncommon and economic opportunity is abundant.

Seven years ago, 19 deluded men were convinced otherwise. 300 million Americans weren't. Those terrorists had already lost before the first tower fell. That is true regardless of where our troops are deployed. I have nothing but respect for those who wear the uniform, and from that respect I feel a sense of duty as a citizen to question the policies which put them in harms way, because they themselves have voluntarily subjugated that right to fulfill a duty to their country. I will never cease to be grateful to those that have done that but that freedom they are sworn to defend is worth absolutely nothing if I am ever unable to "like American policies" or "move somewhere else".

Man, I hope that came out alright.

Be my luck they wouldn't even publish it.

What the hell am I doing this for anyway?

2008-05-02T01:08:00.003-05:00

I've recently thought in hind sight it was probably inappropriate to create a tag called S.T.A.R.O.M.B., but I won't dwell on it. I have posted nothing since Febuary because A) Sprintime is the busiest time of my year, B) the last thing I want to do in the busiest time of the year is type on a friggin keyboard when I get home, and C) I of course really don't give a shit if I publish things on my blog.

C) there is kind of actually for my mom and dad. I have had conversations about from both of them about crazy people writing crap on the internet that really nobody else could give a crap about and the motivation for doing so. My prime motive is really to keep like a diary or journal for myself so I can remember things that might have been happening. Or to look back on what I might have been thinking at a particular time.

So to me its just kind of like a diary that I keep when I want to keep. But google has to keep up with it. :-)

Figuring Out My Traditional Tax Deduction

2008-02-14T23:22:00.001-06:00

I wanted to know where and how and what I needed to document to take the tax deduction on the money that I'm putting into my Traditional IRA that I just opened. But with my wife getting a raise this year, I know that I'm dangerously close to the cutoff where the deduction is phased out for people participating in an employer sponsored plan(ESP), such as my SIMPLE-IRA. About the last part, apparently none, that is reported directly to the IRA. About the first part, (ironically, because of the phrasing, found on About.com) is line 32 on the 1040.

But where was the cut-off? As I interpret IRS Publication 590, what I think it boils down to in my case, a married filing jointly, is this. Take the upper limit they give you, which in my case is $103,000, subtract your Modified AGI and multiply the result by 0.2. For $83,000, it is the full $4000. For $90,000 AGI its $2600, and for $100,000 AGI, it is only $600 dollars a year that can be deducted. You can still put more in up to the limit of $4000 for 2007 (it goes to 5K in 08), it is just not deductible on your taxes. The numbers are different for people who file singly or separately, or who aren't covered by an ESP.

So in going forward, I will need to consider this possibility if our income rises. Since I only have $100 a month going into it currently, I should be good for awhile. But this is not something I had anticipated when I decided to work towards bringing my SIMPLE-IRA contributions down and putting more into a self directed IRA, while still deferring the taxation on that same amount of money. Which is the only reason that I even consider it in addition to the Roth, except with regard to the idea of earning money on Uncle Sam's dollar for a change.

It is an interesting quandary. Compared to some previous periods in my life, it is a actually a good quandary to be in. It is indicative that the good Lord has been good to us, even if the IRS hasn't.

[Update: 5/2/08] I closed the sucker. I got tax deferment with the simple IRA and no-tax with the ROTH. Bases covered.

S.T.A.R.D.O.M.B.*, Part Deux

2008-02-14T21:41:00.008-06:00

I have found that the biggest trouble with debating politics with rednecks is how they have that savant-level mastery in the fine art of completely missing the point. In response to yesterday's post on the Murray Ledger board, I got this response:

Since you think Obama is qualified because he has 4 years in the US Senate and 8 in the IL senate, I wasn't sure what he was in in the IL government. I guess because I never heard his name till he run for the US Senate. Anyway, wouldn't that make McCain more qualified since he's been in the US Senate longer. I'm not crazy about McCain but not being liberal, I will have to vote for him. Obama is the most liberal voting person in congress.
Jay

The great thing about a moderated message board is that it forces me to be more tactful than I might be otherwise. Restraint and tact were what I was going for in this reply:

Jay, the point was in comparing political experience. If I had thought longer about, I could have said Eisenhower, who never held a political office at all before becoming President, although Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WW2 would count as some major experience in my book.

I never said length of political career was a good indication of anything. But if you actually feel that way, you would have to concede Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were more "qualified" than John McCain, something I'm sure your are not willing to do, and neither would I. I guess if Fox news says the Obama is the most liberal member of Congress it might be true.

However I have noticed that particular label seems to follow whoever is the biggest threat to the Republicans at the time. In 2004 it was John Kerry, then it was Hillary, now its Obama, and what I find insulting is that they actually expect us to believe it when there are far more bona fide liberal whackos out there like Kucinich, Barney Frank, and the previously mentioned Ted Kennedy.

Tomorrow, there will be another "most liberal member of Congress", and maybe one day you will realize that by using and buying into such rhetoric you have been manipulated by the right wing media to an extent far more sinister and extreme than what you could have ever been by the so called left wing media. But I won't be putting money on that happening.

When will I learn to just keep my mouth shut?

Hopefully never. ;-)

*S.T.A.R.D.O.M.B. = Stooping To Answer Redneck Dumbasses On Message Boards

The S.T.A.R.D.O.M.B. Sees No Sign of Abaiting

2008-02-14T20:31:00.000-06:00

More excitement from the Murray Ledger Message Board.

A guy calling himself "History Lesson" tried enlighted one of the previous posters who thought the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves at the thought of a Congressman getting sworn in on a Koran. To which another redneck replied:

That may or may not be, History Lesson. No one can deny, though, that the only ones who don't have religious "freedom" are the ones that were here first.

I tried to let it slide. But I have a sore spot for fellow Americans who think they are losing religious freedom, just because they get called bigots for using terms like "Godless Sodomite".

Citizen, I would deny that the only ones who don't have religious "freedom" are the ones that were here first. Who has stopped you from going to Church? Who has denied you from ever saying a prayer anywhere? Who has confiscated and burned your Bible? Prayer in school?

Usually the folks that fear the overwhelming role of Government in our lives are the first to bemoan the loss of State-sponsored prayer in our schools, and would also be the first to complain if their children were led in prayer by Catholic Priest, or a Jehovah's Witness or for some, even a woman. I say if you want your children to pray at the start of each school day, you should be hitting your knees with them before they get out the door.

Merchants saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is usually done in the spirit of inclusion to all people and not as part of some secular humanist plot to remove Jesus from public view. To imply Christians are persecuted in this country is to make a mockery of every true martyr for Christ and the truly oppressed. Unless I misunderstood your statement, and by "the ones that were here first", you are talking about the Native Americans, in which case I might be agreeable, but I still think they are doing OK.

dmc

Healthcare rant

2008-02-13T15:28:00.003-06:00

When I think about how America might adopt Universal Healthcare, I don't think it will come in the hands of Liberal Socialists wanting to style our healthcare system after Canada or Great Britian. I think it will be in response to the callous greed of the Health Insurance industry. Things like this. It will be the outrage of the multimillion dollar bonuses of CEO's in charge of companies who deny coverage, or who rescind coverage on uninsurable people.

Stooping To Answer Redneck Dumbasses On Message Boards

2008-02-13T15:01:00.006-06:00

This is what passes for excitement for me I reckon.

I had to go off on some redneck on the Murray Ledger message board. You never know with them what is going to get through and what won't (the moderator, not the thick skulled head of rednecks), so I will post it here for posterity. This particular redneck named Julie is...well, just read it:

First she says this:

I wonder if most of the Christian people considering voting for Obama have considered the fact that he was born and raised by an Atheist and a Muslim?!?! His mother did not believe in God and his step dad sent him to a Muslim school. A part of me (crazy as it may sound) wonders if he was not born and bred to assume the roll of President to totally screw our country over. When you look back at 9-11 they used our own planes to destroy us from the inside out. Why not use a person to do the same thing. Obama keeps talking about CHANGE but has nothing to say what he will do. I also have a problem with the fact that he calls himself an African American... the last time I checked I was just an AMERICAN! I think all of us should drop the Asian American, Hispanic American, and African American. Because if you are not proud to be just an AMERICAN....they should all go back to where they came from. I will not vote for anyone no matter what color of their skin if God is not their leader first and foremost. If they are pro choice, what kind of Christian does that make them? The Bible I read says Homosexuality and Murder are sins, and I won't vote for any one that does not stand for the Bible. The Bible says "if you are not for me you are against me" people need to remember that when they vote

"Homosexuality and Murder", what a pair! I might have left her alone if she also included the abominable sin of having sex with menstruating women, which I feel is the single most, least talked about sin in the Bible. Or if she'd just left it at that, but she had to continue. In response to some other voice of reason calling her out , she replied to them:

....I did search before I posted so please don't insult me. I will not vote for Obama either. When you go to his web site and it lists the church he attends if you search that church on line you will also find their mission statement where they basically swear their allegance to Africa. Also, on Obama's web site it talks about his past and he did attend Muslim school. I think everything we experience in life effects us, and I personally will not take a chance with this man. He has no experience what so ever.I hear the word change, but he says nothing about what or how he is gonna bring change about....SOMETIMES Change is not what it is cracked up to be

Yeah, change like black people getting the right to vote. I felt compelled to answer. I had had enough:

Julie, I am almost embarrassed to answer your post. But the Christ I worship has the power to redeam and bring salvation to anyone, regardless of their upbringing. While many, even on this board, have stated that they feel his conversion to Christianity was politically expedient, some have said as much about our current president, as well as many other politicians.

I can only wonder if the same part of your paranoid mind that imagines Obama was "born and bread" to destroy America from the inside out would find it more likely that the Communist brainwashed John McCain into being a Manchurian Candidate during the six years he was held in their captivity. But that would probably be harder for you to accept because McCain is a White American. McCain is also an Episcopalian, which has recently taken some positions that someone like you would probably find just as offensive as Obama's church allegedly has, but that seems to give you no pause.

Personally, I think African Americans are entitled to be called whatever they want without it being a slight to their patriotism. After all, less than a mere 50 years ago, it was usually something far less flattering, you know back when they weren't able to even vote around here? Or even have their white murderers brought to justice because the all-white juries of the time would not convict them? Ever heard of Medgar Evers? You should be proud they are claiming their American identity because not so long ago America didn't claim them. You might not belong to a culture that you can be proud of in addition to your being American, but you have absolutely no right to deny anybody else that pride, and still call yourself a freedom loving American. I notice in your list of hyphenated-Americans you only included people of different races, but left out Irish Americans and Italian Americans, both of which are groups with the same strong cultural pride of those groups you mention. I'm sure that was just a lapse in memory and not a reflection of your biases.

As for "no experience what so ever", his 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the US Senate give him a political career 85% as long as John F. Kennedy had when he became President. In conclusion, the Bible also says among the things that the Lord hates are "a lying tongue,... a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. It also says that too.

Wouldn't it be nice if politics was just about discussing Ideas logically, and with facts? And less about the spreading of baseless propaganda? Oh to dare to dream.

My Message to Citibank

2008-02-10T23:57:00.001-06:00

Wow, I just realized I haven't posted anything in almost two months. I'm such a lame blogger. Not that I really give a shit about that. But maybe I should try to do a little better there. I've just been so damn busy. But anyways, here is an unacceptable rant. It was deemed unacceptable by Citibank. Apparently if you want to bitch them out, you must limit it to 20 lines, what ever a "line" is.

But while setting up my monthly payment it just started to fly all over me that they don't have automatic monthly minimum payments to set up. So I tried to tell them about it. But they wouldn't have it, I guess they don't have the time. Assuming whoever might read this does, here it is:

Dear Sirs: // <-- I actually didn't bother with a salutation. While I am currently enjoying a very low interest rate on the balance that I owe on my CitiBank account, I do feel compelled to register a complaint. This is the only credit card that I have which does not provide a means for either a set amount to be paid each month automatically, or for the minimum payment to be paid automatically. Just so you know, I am becoming ever more and more unsatisfied as a credit card user and have started using my newly acquired, interest-bearing(!) debit card from ING for almost all of my monthly expenses. I don't have to worry about changing terms, payment dates, whether or not I have to pay by the payment date or at least a couple of days before. I am starting to find it hard to believe that the only reason Citibank does not provide the functionality to at least schedule payments more than one month into the future, like Chase does, or automatically schedule the minimum payment to be made, as I get with Bank of America or any affiliate of CheckFree, is that they want customers to occasionally forget to make their online payments so that they can ding them a fee. I plan on having this debt paid off in less than one year. If you have not added this feature to your website within that time, it will factor heavily on whether or not I will keep this account open, and continue to do business with CitiBank. I'm sure that this will little communique will have little influence on your decision to do so when you are probably making so much money with those dings, and the automatic rate increases that would most certainly come from it. Just be aware that I'm sick of the ever changing service agreements, I'm sick that you people would engage in Universal Default and penalize someone for what could be the accounting mistake of a competitor at the expense of a customer, I'm sick of online account management that I feel doesn't help me do the single most important thing I want to do, which is to pay my bill on time, aka pay you people money I owe you. Personally, I don't put roadblocks on people trying to pay me what they owe me. But for all I know doing the opposite is a good a way to run a credit card business, but it does seem counter intuitive. The bean counters might even have some formula as to what level you can make your customers unhappy without affecting your bottom line. But for what its worth, you are probably going to lose this one or at the very least maintain an empty account, no big deal I'm sure.

I worked on that particular composition and they were just not interested. Oh well, at least I know now how much they actually care about this particular customer. Somewhat less than 20 lines of text. Oh man, I can't wait to pay those usurers off.

[Update] My mistake. They replied and I was all upset for nothing. They DO have AutoPay. They just apparently don't want anyone to use it, since they don't display it anywhere in my account settings or like in the "Pay Bill" Section. They might now want you to know this if you are a CitiBank customer, but if you know that their system is called "AutoPay", and you do a search in their Online Answers section for that word you can get some information about it. They are going to mail me a form to fill out, mail it (the old fashion kind) back to them, have some buffoon type my application into the internets and in a month or two I should have AutoPay set up. Ain't the wired up, electronic information age great? This is the same level of service that I would have expected in 1990. Ain't the wired up, electronic information age great?

Sending My Money to Orangeburg

2007-12-19T20:03:00.000-06:00

So I have an ING Electric Orange account. I have a few ING savings accounts that I sink funds into. I love how they let you open multiple savings accounts and nickname them what you want to call them. I like to name them like cute little places that my savings dollars can go to, some go to 'The Money Park', which is my general savings account, some of them are unfortunate enough that through no fault of their own, they go to the 'IRA Prison', where they await processing until they go off to be sequestered away from everything for the next 30 or 40 years.

Currently however, and somewhat ironically, most of my current savings dollars are stuck in Orangeburg. Orangeburg is a real bad place for a dollar to be, full of uncertainty of the possibility of being uprooted at any moment. It was named after the pipe material that constitutes my sewage tap. It turns out that way back in the 1950's, you know that grand utopia the neo-cons are trying to get us back to, there was a shortage of piping materials because all of the good stuff had been used in the wars and PVC hadn't been invented yet.

So some genius thought up this great idea that you could just take a bunch of paper, and basically roll it up, and coat it with tar, and THEN USE THE RESULT AS A PIPE MATERIAL. Crazy as it sounds the stuff last for 30 or 40 years. All of which is not really a such a big deal, except that some was used in my house. And Orangeburg was last used in the 70's.

Combine all that with the fact that it runs underneath my concrete driveway and you have the makings for a serious financial crisis in the making. It certainly is a liability as far as should I need to sell the house.

I just don't want to replace it before I have to.

My wife takes the opposite stance that it should be taken care of before it causes an inconvenience. A rather smelly and expensive inconvenience. There is much wisdom in considering that position. And no small percentage of that wisdom comes from the fact that it is simply my wife's opinion.

But the quandary is that fixing it outright would drain our emergency reserves when it is not quite yet an emergency. This is a foreseeable expense and could be planned for, until of course it actually became an emergency.

So I've started this savings account called Orangeburg. My dollars go there to await the day they get called upon to replace my sewer pipe. On that day, I am afraid, many will be lost. But with the ING accounts, I can set up an automatic draft to round up and conscript some of them each month that are currently wondering around without a purpose, until one day their time will come.

It will not be the most glorious way for one of my dollars to go out. But it will have to be done. Better that it earns me money now, than cost me money later. At least that's what I got to tell myself.

Hopefully I will believe it.

A Phone Call From Paul Merriman!

2007-12-05T17:02:00.000-06:00

I normally wouldn't post about something while I am still at work but I couldn't help myself today. I am so psyched. My phone rang a few minutes ago, and though there was an unfamiliar number on the caller ID, the voice on the phone was VERY familiar, at least to me. It was none other than author and financial counselor Paul Merriman!

On his FundAdvice site, I had asked him about if I should work my existing American Funds Simple-IRA choices into a properly diversified portfolio, as he recommends what that should be. I didn't know whether to balance the American Funds to try to match a "whole market" allocation and then do the model T. Rowe Price portfolio in my Roth, or whether to use the American Funds as the Large Cap Value component of a broader portfolio and use the Roth for "filling in" the missing parts with TRP funds. I didn't really expect an answer and even went and analyzed what I thought I should do.

Like I said, I didn't think I would actually get a direct answer from him, but then my phone rang and there he was. I was real nervous cause I've been listening to him and reading his articles and most of all, I really didn't want to sound like an idiot. He was very nice and asked me to clarify my question a little.

His advice was use the TRP Roth to get exposure to the asset classes that American Funds lacks. This would be stuff like small cap value and growth, emerging markets, etc. He also recommended I quit paying the extra money on my house in order to get my Roth up to full allocation. I didn't have time to explain my reasons for not doing so already, but sheepishly said that I just hadn't bothered to change my automatic draft yet, to which he told me that a couple hours work now could mean a big difference down the road.

What I thought was cool, was just that he seemed really interested in what I had done and what I was planning financial-wise. Of course, that is his chosen profession, but he was very gracious to be that way with a non-paying advice seeker. He was just a great guy all around it seemed like. But to me, it was like talking to a Rock Star, geek that I am. (Kind of like the time I met a guy who had worked and hung out with Grady Booch. If you have to ask, you probably wouldn't understand.)

It was perhaps the greatest five or so minutes I ever spent on the phone, at least with someone I'd never met before. I would love to attend one of his workshops. I was considering it before, but I will definitely be buying his book "Live it Up Without Outliving Your Money". I guess I'm easy that way. :-)

Now if I can only get that Roth IRA up to snuff.

Morninstar Analysis of My New Proposed Portfolio and Some Modifications to It

2007-11-26T15:54:00.000-06:00

So here is the Morningstar Instant X-Ray analysis of the portfolios I previously discussed.

The Portfolio Paul Merriman recommends (with reservations) in his blog:

20% American Mutual AMRMX
20% Growth Fund of America AGTHX
20% EuroPacific Growth AEPGX
30% Small Cap World SMCWX
10% New World NEWFX

My Current Portfolio (as withheld, not as currently allocated from growth):

10% AMCAP Fund AMCPX
15% American Balanced ABALX
15% American Mutual AMRMX
15% Capitol Income Builder CAIBX
15% Income Fund of America AMECX
15% Investment Company of America AIVSX
15% Washington Mutual Investors AWSHX

The Portfolio that I settled on:

15% American Mutual AMRMX
10% Growth Fund of America AGTHX
15% Capitol Income Builder CAIBX
20% EuroPacific Growth AEPGX
30% Small Cap World SMCWX
10% New World NEWFX

So I "analyzed" each of these with Morningstars Instant X-Ray tool, if you even want to call what I did analyzing, and here are the results:

Paul's Recommendations with Reservations:
41% Domestic / 47% Foreign
66% Large / 34% Small-Mid
40% Growth / 27% Value

My Current Portfolio:
65% Domestic / 12% Foreign
91% Large / 9% Mid
26% Growth / 37% Value

My Hybrid Portfolio:
33% Domestic / 50% Foreign
64% Large / 35% Small-Mid
36% Growth / 31% Value

Wow, I didn't expect Capitol Income Builder to be such a swayer towards international. It made me want to do CIB by itself:
27% Domestic / 38.5% Foreign (35% Cash&Bonds)
88% Large / 12% Small(1%)-Mid(11%)
12% Growth / 56% Value

As a result, I think I will change my allocation to this:

15% American Mutual AMRMX
20% Growth Fund of America AGTHX
10% Capitol Income Builder CAIBX
10% EuroPacific Growth AEPGX
35% Small Cap World SMCWX
10% New World NEWFX

The analysis splits out like this:
40% Domestic / 43% Foreign
61% Large / 39% Small-Mid
41% Growth / 37% Value

This will change the way I redistribute my current portfolio.
10% AMCAP Fund ==> New World(10/10)
15% American Balanced
==> EuroPacific(10/10)
==> Small Cap (5/35)
15% American Mutual - KEEP (15/40)
15% Capitol Income Builder - KEEP (10/40)
==> Growth Fund of America (5/20)
15% Income Fund of America
==> Growth Fund of America (15/20)
15% Investment Company of America ==> Small Cap (15/35)
15% Washington Mutual Investors ==> Small Cap (15/35)

This might just work. Now if I can only remember to fill out the paperwork.

Changing Up My SIMPLE-IRA Portfolio

2007-11-26T14:51:00.000-06:00

I've been listening a lot to the Sound Investing podcast by Paul Merriman. It has been real informative and I have to say I'm starting to buy what he is saying. What Paul and the rest of the Sound Investing crew advocate is diversification, and one should spread their portfolio among the available funds that would best represent the most profitable sectors of the market. Towards that end they have set up FundAdvice.com where you can find what they call their "Ultimate Buy and Hold" portfolios, with variants for a variety of fund families and ETF's. At least that is how I understand it.

I have already talked about opening my Roth IRA with T. Rowe Price. Lucky for me, TRP is one of the fund companies represented at FA. Unluckily for me, TRP's Growth Stock was not one of them. But it seems to me to be a good strategy for diversifying my Roth and possibly Traditional IRA holdings as I build them up. I have also talked about wanting to ramp up my personal IRA contributions at the expense of my current SIMPLE-IRA contributions, which I intend to scale back.

Why? Because my SIMPLE-IRA plan at work restricts me to American Funds which carry a load. Our company has a large enough of a contribution pool our loads are down to 2.5%. But still that seems enough of an incentive for me to convert these contributions to my own no load IRAs. Which is another thing that Paul and gang advocate (no-load funds).
But what should I do with the funds that are in it? I don't want to take them out because it will impact the current loads for everybody including myself. Also I need to make sure that I properly allocate the funds I will continue to make contributions to in order to get the employer match.

I have recently figured out that my current portfolio is weighted very heavily towards domestic large value companies. Not a bad horse to hitch your wagon to, but not exactly diversified either. What Paul and the FA gang advocate is diversifying between domestic and international, small cap and large cap, which my own portfolio is most certainly not. But FundAdvice doesn't have an American Funds portfolio because they don't recommend loaded funds.

Well, I found the answer on Paul Merriman's personal blog, Merriman on Money. On it he answers a question from a reader who is also stuck with American Funds but at least doesn't have to deal with the load. On it he recommends the following allocation which in the following months I am going to try and match my portfolio up to:

20% American Mutual AMRMX
20% Growth Fund of America AGTHX
20% EuroPacific Growth AEPGX
30% Small Cap World SMCWX
10% New World NEWFX

My Current Portfolio (as withheld, not as currently allocated from growth):

10% AMCAP Fund AMCPX
15% American Balanced ABALX
15% American Mutual AMRMX
15% Capitol Income Builder CAIBX
15% Income Fund of America AMECX
15% Investment Company of America AIVSX
15% Washington Mutual Investors AWSHX

Of these funds that Paul suggests, the only one that I only currently own is American Mutual. I may keep Capitol Income Builder as part of the 40% that he allocates to American Mutual and Growth Fund of America, because I just like it and I think it covers pretty much the same asset classes as those funds. Perhaps a future post could explore that position.

But what is totally apparent without even doing some fancy MorningStar X-Ray thing on these funds compared to my current portfolio is how small caps and international are obviously represented in his suggestion and totally absent from my current funds.

So I believe reallocation is in order. What I could do:
10% AMCAP Fund ==> New World(10/10)
15% American Balanced ==> EuroPacific(15/20)
15% American Mutual - KEEP (15/40)
15% Capitol Income Builder - KEEP (15/40)
15% Income Fund of America
==> Growth Fund of America (10/40)
==> EuroPacific (5/20)
15% Investment Company of America ==> Small Cap (15/30)
15% Washington Mutual Investors ==> Small Cap (15/30)

For a final Portfolio of:
15% American Mutual AMRMX
10% Growth Fund of America AGTHX
15% Capitol Income Builder CAIBX
20% EuroPacific Growth AEPGX
30% Small Cap World SMCWX
10% New World NEWFX

Hopefully, this will properly allocate my SIMPLE-IRA into representing the right asset classes. Exploring this might make a good future post as well.

"The Incident"

2007-11-01T23:11:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted anything in a while as my hands have been a little achy and I didn't want to overdo my typing while off the job. "Need that cash to feed that jones" after all. But for my own personal journaling I wanted to write about something that recently happened to me. I will call it "The Incident".

Last weekend we had our good couple friends over, J & L I will call them. I think married people reading this can appreciate that there are some people who fall into the "couple friends" category that you treasure. These are those rare couple where you like him and she likes her, and you can spend a good time together and everybody is friends.

We are lucky to have such friends and we really love them. We hang out often and its great that I am comfortable enough to enjoy a pleasant conversation with his wife, and him with mine and we are all just good friends. I value their friendship almost enough to call it an asset.

So the other night we were just hanging out, and we all had had a few beers, and to be course I had gone to the bathroom to make room for more. It was after all Friday, and we had our "drinking pants" on. I came out and walking back into the room, being the sorta frisky guy that I am, I gave my wife a little slap and grab on the ass when I came by her standing in the hallway. Now, my head was down at the time but it only took me about two steps to come to this realization: that wasn't my wife's ass.

It wasn't really the feel of it or anything that clued me in, it was a much too quick and fleeting an experience to have resulted in a positive qualification of that fact based upon previous handling, or rather lack their of, as it happened to be. It had been after all an almost reflexive action upon an impulse that just popped into my brain at that particular moment. It was the mounting horror at the realization when I THEN remembered who had been standing in the doorway of the room that actually clued me in.

It was not my wife, it was good "couple friend" L, the esteemed Dr. L. I thought "Oh shit, J is gonna kick my ass!". But I immediately turned a very dark shade of beet red and started apologizing. I was positively and absolutely mortified by this little chain of events to be sure.

But that is the great thing about great friends, if they are worth keeping the small and casual infractions are quickly forgotten (if they are rare enough). They knew how out of character it was for me to just casually grab a woman-not-my-wife's butt and that it was totally an accident. After all, you just can't fake that freaky combination of shame, embarrassment and stupefying laughter-fit that follows such an absurd circumstance when that is the case.

I'm so glad that J & L saw it that way too. When you are married or seriously coupled, it really means something to find other couples you can relate to together. We are very blessed to have met J & L. And if I can refrain from grabbing my good friend's ass in the future, hopefully they feel the same as well.

It's just that now all of our friend's wives are on the alert that I am a molesting ass grabber and they, to their credit, are quick to bring it up, perhaps as some prophylactic measure against it happening to them. I can only assume that is the case. Such now is my bane in life.

To that end I can only say: There are much worse fates to be had. ;-)

My One Money Advice

2007-10-21T22:34:00.000-05:00

Kyle over at Rather Be Shopping tagged me with one of those memes and I was honored to respond. The meme in particular is the title of this post. His suggestion was to have cash and buy things with it instead of charging. I will vouch that it is very good advice. I was once one of those "but I pay it off each month and get points for using it" types. As a consequence, I spent too much. To paraphrase Snoop Dogg, I didn't have my mind on my money, nor my money on my mind.

Credit Cards do that to you, lull you into thinking that you don't have to worry about it. If you spend too much you can always make it up next month or some similarly seductive justification goes through your head. I just got my first debit card (never wanted one before), and have surprised myself at how much more conscious I am of how much I am putting on it, which in my mind has now become 'taking from it', an important distinction, if only psychological. If you change your thinking, you can change your habits. But that was Kyle's One Money Advice. Here is mine:

Save your money.

Sorry, nothing very profound here. But people aren't doing it. I haven't been doing it like I should. But nothing will put you back in the clutches of debt like not having money to fall back on when you need it.

Paying off debt is almost a form of saving as it reduces your liabilities and frees more of your money to save. But once you get on top of debt, save like crazy. Get obsessed about it. Make it a priority. Pay yourself first. Trick yourself into having money if you have too.

Save a thousand dollars. Save a month's pay. Then save three to six. Save for Christmas. Save for vacations. Save for the things you know you are going to need. Save for those special somethings and surprises. Save for those nasty somethings and surprises.

I do have to "trick myself" a little into actually having money when I need it. I must confess that I used to be a little too much grasshopper and not enough ant. But to make sure that I should always have next month's mortgage payment when I bought my house (only 5% down!), I set up a Money Market Account with a $1000 minimum that my mortgage payment is drafted from. I don't dip past that minimum or else I get dinged $7. I'm cheap enough that I don't ever do that if I can help it, plus the fact that this account is almost exclusively dedicated to my mortgage also gives it a sort of "off limits" aura for me.

It seemed like a good idea, so I set another one up when I got a car payment again (not such a good idea, but it was pre-financial epiphany, and I'm keeping my sweet 2004 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited). This other money market gets fed each month with an automatic transfer that I set up. When I pay it off, I plan to keep transferring the same money into it, and hopefully SAVE up for my next car purchase. But this other money money market account forces me to keep another $1000 minimum laying around, and I have it purposed for automobile related emergencies and repairs. But that 7$ ding keeps my hands off of it when I don't need it, and is not enough to bother me when I do.

Online savings accounts are another great tool for sequestering money for specific purposes. They are real easy to open, and they also put those savings a little farther out of reach and temptation. I've just opened one myself, and I can say ING at least makes it real easy to set up automatic monthly transfers so that these savings goals or budgeting categories that I might want to have can be funded with no further participation from me.

You can even have multiple accounts for different categories with their own automatic transfers, so that the things you want to save for can become bills you pay now, but you pay yourself and profit from the interest involved, instead of some banker.

That is not even beginning to talk about retirement savings, which is really beyond the scope of this post. But take it from a reformed grasshopper, save now and save often.

If you are Kyle: Thanks for the tag and the bond advice.

Another Devient Twist on My Debt Snowball

2007-10-18T22:01:00.000-05:00

One of the things that most inspired me to start taking my personal finances seriously was the realization that all the money I'm paying to the credit cards and my car payment in interest, could be money that I was investing. Take my rather modest car payment of $350, currently $70 of which is interest. I could be opening mutual fund with just that and paying myself instead of a bank. So I really got pumped about getting out of debt thinking about how it was eating away at other better uses for my money and my potential to be prepared for things.

While the credit cards are my main concern, there is also that previously mentioned payment on my sweet 2004 Jeep Unlimited (you can tell I'm not going to sell it, can't you?). Plus the wife's student loan. I'm just not convinced that waiting until all of that is paid off to start my IRA going is a good idea. I do want it gone and have been making a lot of headway, but building a slow momentum towards investing as the debt clears might not be a bad idea.

So I had an idea, and I think it is a good compromise to the situation. I will celebrate killing off each credit card debt with an enrollment in another mutual fund in my IRA (and my wife's). This will only take $50 dollars out of what I can apply to other debts, and I can get some rewarding satisfaction of meeting two goals at the same time. Dave Ramsey would say that would detract from your focus on paying off debt, but it he also says the psychological element is the most important thing in personal finance.

But this will give me an emotional payoff now, and hopefully a financial one later. It is also giving me a major incentive to payoff the next creditor in the debt snowball, because let's face it, investing is SO much more fun than paying off debt. Of course, it would be a bad idea if I had crushing debt, the kind that makes you want to call The Dave Ramsey Show. But this is only slightly encumbering debt, and I do have a plan to get rid of it. I'm also trimming the fat and trying to earn more, so it's not like I'm completely robbing the snowball's momentum to do this.

So this month's IRA fund selection is in honor of the retiring of my beloved Lowes card. I guess since I put it in a block of ice at the bottom of my deep freeze, it's already retired, but I am paying it off this month. I love my new kitchen though, and still don't regret it too much. I will thaw that card out and close it when I have that Fully Funded Emergency Fund. Until then let me say I own a very old house and that is probably enough said.

Next up is the Sam's Discover Card, when its paid off I will replace the bill with another $50 automatic monthly deposit into another T Rowe Price fund like I did when I opened my IRA. Of course, the holidays are coming up, and cash flowing them (for a change) may mean delaying that double payoff until after the new year. The good thing is that I'm already working and carrying through on what would probably be my resolutions. I've even lost 20 pounds!

Choosing Funds for My Roth IRA

2007-10-16T23:28:00.000-05:00

I'm trying to decide on another T. Rowe Price fund for my wife's Roth. My plan is to reduce my SIMPLE-IRA or at least contribute more to my Roth. I thought I might be able to shoot for maxing out both Roth and the SIMPLE-IRA (higher than a regular IRA contribution maximum, $10,500). Then I realized that my dear wife could also have a Roth that I could contribute to and more of OUR money can grow tax-free. So the better option would be to fully fund her Roth as well. But that is still a ways down the road to consider.

Some of the cynics out there might be thinking "but what if you split up?" (Or is it "?, I always forget.) The truth of the matter is she will get it anyway, even if she runs off with her boyfriend. Divorce is a bitch, make sure you don't marry one. But my wife asked me to move in with her when I was unemployed, homeless, and without even a car. After one date. I'm pretty sure she's not after my money. And no, she was neither desparate nor homely, we just hit it off. But I digress.

As I have said before, I'm concentrating on paying off some debts, but I think it is good to get an IRA opened up so that the channels are in place to ramp up later. That is what I like about T Rowe Price, they will let you open an IRA without a minimum investment for only committing to a $50 contribution a month.

Until more debt is paid off, I'm going to put the minimum investment into one fund, and my wife will put one into another. Then as we pay off debt we will both add another fund to diversify our portfolio, I'm thinking emerging market or international. Hopefully we can add them at the same time, and then have an "IRA race" between them.

So in the spirit of just going out there and getting started, I opted to just go for what Dave Ramsey generalizes to a "good growth stock" mutual fund. With barely more research than a quick lookover, TRP's Growth Stock (PRGFX) fund seemed appropriate for those goals. After later researching it, I could have done worse. It has a good Morningstar rating, gotten some good press in Kipplinger, although there is also the downside of a recent manager change.[UPDATE: The MarketWatch guy said sell it. Now ain't that just my luck. This is why I don't gamble.]

I also had to figure out how to make contributions on her IRA. Was I able to direct it from my account? Did I have to get my Luddite better half to sign up and just give her a check if I wanted to contribute? A quick call to a friendly TRP operator got my answers for me. She sets up her own account, but then we can establish "trading privileges" between us. I didn't explore that further but was satisfied it could be done, Luddite's not withstanding.

But for my wife's Roth, I thought I might want to go with another fund, but with the same general criteria, a "good growth stock mutual fund" from T. Rowe. Under consideration:

PERSONAL STRATEGY GROWTH (TRSGX) - Stats and press seam good. High turnover rate (85%!). Composition has 15% in bonds. This is their "Lower risk" growth stock mutual fund. Morningstar gave them a 5.

BLUE CHIP GROWTH (TRBCX) - Along with Spectrum Growth, comparable to Growth Stock (PRGFX) in TRP's ranking in terms of Risk/Reward. Large Cap. Turnover rate ~ 30%. 91% Domestic stock, 9% foreign.

SPECTRUM GROWTH (PRSGX) - Split 25/72 foreign against domestic stock. Very low turnover rate (4.5%). This is because it actually is composed of holdings of TRP Funds. A fund of funds. This is why they have a low turnover rate. The funds they hold do it for them. It is a "one-stop approach to broad diversification". What I don't get is the high expense ratios. I would think that a fund composed of in-house funds that don't turnover much would have a lower expense ratio. But I don't run a mutual fund. This guy with a 'III' in his name does, just like Thurston Howell. If I need to link who that is, it probably dates me. :-)

MidCap Growth (RPMGX) is closed to new investors. I won't even bother.

NEW AMERICA GROWTH (PRWAX) High Turnover rate (59%). Kind of a high expense ratio for the returns (0.89%).

The "Riskiest Funds" according to this:
DIVERSIFIED MID-CAP GROWTH (PRDMX) - A very young pup with not much of a track record. Slightly lagging the Lipper index for Mids. A VERY HIGH expense ratio (1.29). Turnover rate is ~30%.

DIVERSIFIED SMALL-CAP GROWTH (PRDSX) - Ditto but a little older. Heavily lagging the Lipper Index for Smalls.

There are probably many other "growth stock mutual funds" that I just didn't consider because they didn't have 'growth' in their name. But why complicate it too much? I don't have to pick the best one, just a good one. Best is the enemy of good enough when the real enemy is time.

This is also not a sound investment strategy, it was merely a goal. Open a Roth IRA was the important thing. Armed with a little knowledge and maybe I can do well enough. But I'm positive that it is better than doing nothing.

Because I'm just not quite sold on the Fund of (in house) Funds that is Spectrum Growth, I think I'm going to decide between Personal Strategy Growth and Blue Chip Growth. I might revisit one of the alleged "risker" funds later as we diversify. Or I might consider putting Spectrum Growth up against EQUITY INDEX 500 (PRSGX) in our next "IRA race". I have read or invented in my mind having read that too much diversivication in mutual funds is really just getting yourself to the point of being spread across the market like an index, except you pay more for it. So maybe we shall see.

But that is for some other late night.

Weekend at the WigWams

2007-10-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

I spent last Friday and Saturday night in Cave City Kentucky at the world famous WigWam Villiage. One of only two (or maybe three) of the remnants of a chain that marked the glory years of car travel. They are by no means fancy accommodations but there is something so Americana-ish about the experience. We met up with family and friends there. Friday, we sat around the campfire, drinking too much beer, with me annoying the neighbors with my alchohol addled renditions of some old Gordon Lightfoot song on the ol' six string.

Saturday we got up and did a little caving, then looked around at the antique shops there. I added an item to my compulsive collection of antique juicers. Yes, I have THAT monkey on my back.

Back at the Wigwam we grilled up some burgers. After that, we sat around the campfire, drinking too much beer, with me annoying the neighbors with my alchohol addled renditions of some old Gordon Lightfoot song on the ol' six string. It was like deja vu, all over again.

But I will say a good thing about those massive concrete Wigwams is that they can block the noise. My wigwam neighbors were most grateful I'm sure.

American Funds: My Choices, My Selections

2007-10-11T19:29:00.000-05:00

just in case you stumbled here from the "internets", I should probably say that I have no idea what I'm talking about here, and if you are looking to be seriously informed you should definitely look elsewhere. This is my own personal journey through my own personal SIMPLE-IRA and it is a discovery process for learning about mutual funds, IRAs and personal finance in general, and I'm really writing this just for myself, hoping it will be a good reference in the future and at the very least a benchmark for a particular point in my life. That being said, you are more than welcome to come along and if you find it informative I couldn't be happier. But if you don't, well, I won't be any less happier I'll just say.

So I have a SIMPLE-IRA at work and I have a somewhat limited list of mutual funds to pick from. I have been investing in them for 5 years this month in them so far. These funds are provided through American Funds. I will first go over what led me to pick the funds I did, some recently discovered concerns, and then why I am seriously considering changing my strategy here lately.

A SIMPLE-IRA is probably off the radar of a lot of Americans and the its differences make me hesitant to just refer to it as just an IRA. Its a plan available to small businesses that kind of like a "Poor man's 401k" if you will. Employees can contribute up to $10,500 (?) , which is more than a regular IRA, but not quite as high as a 401k. There is Employer matching up to 3%. I believe it has lower administration costs than a 401k, and there might be some tax incentive for the small business. I have just opened up a regular ol' Roth, but that is already another post.

So I have progressed from a starting point of 3%, and made my way up to 9%, trying to get myself up to 12 or 15 originally thinking it was just better if I didn't see it in the first place. But that was before I actually started worrying about this stuff. Now it seems a more informed strategy might be to contribute up to the match, then max out my Roth each year and go back to contributing to the SIMPLE-IRA if there is anything left over, or ideally what I would need to get to 15% or beyond. I hadn't even thought about the option until recently that American Funds will probably let me write them a check at the end of the year (or in April of the next) to fill in what I might want to. I'm not for sure if I can, but I can't imagine why not. Especially if I owe some taxes. But I won't have to worry about that anytime soon.

But even as I may move to apply less to this plan and more to the Roth, I still need to make sure that it is properly positioned. So here are the original choices:

American Funds Amcap A (AMCPX) B(AMPBX)
American Funds American Balanced A (ABALX) B(BALBX)
American Funds American Hi Inc Tr A (AHITX) B(AHTBX)
American Funds American Mutual A (AMRMX) B(AMFBX)
American Funds Bond Fund of America A (ABNDX) B(BFABX)
American Funds Capital Inc Bldr A(CAIBX) B(CIBBX)
American Funds Capital World Bd A (CWBFX) B(WBFBX)
American Funds Capital World Growth & Income A (CWGIX) B(CWGBX)
American Funds EuroPacific Gr A (AEPGX) B(AEGBX)
American Funds Fundamental Invs A (ANCFX) B(AFIBX)
American Funds Grth Fund of Amer A (AGTHX) B(AGRBX)
American Funds Inc Fund of Amer A (AMECX) B(IFABX)
American Funds Intm Bd Fd of Amer A (AIBAX) B(IBFBX)
American Funds Invmt Co of Amer A (AIVSX) B(AICBX)
American Funds New Economy A (ANEFX) B(ANFBX)
American Funds New Perspective A (ANWPX) B(NPFBX)
American Funds New World A (NEWFX) B(NEWBX)
American Funds Smallcap World A (SMCWX) B(SCWBX)
American Funds US Government Sec A (AMUSX) B(UGSBX)
American Funds Washington Mutual A (AWSHX) B(WSHBX)

Before I knew much but needed to decide what to get into, what rudimentary research I did do led me to believe I should look at some historical returns, long track records and the often overlooked by the new investor expense ratio. The expense ratio is important because it will be lopped off the top of any gains. So an investment that gives you an 11% return but has a 1.75% expense ration is actually worse than getting a 10% gain with a 0.5% expense ratio.

So what research I did at the time led me to pick the 7 funds I have in bold. Most of the bond funds were out right away. I'm too young (but no spring chicken) to have anything in something so conservative besides a savings account. But the ones I picked seemed to have the best combination of lower expense ratios and the highest consistent historical gains. In the coming weeks I plan on analyzing these choices and possibly refining my choices for the first of the year. That way I have plenty of time and won't go off all half cocked again without being better informed.

Notice there are two ticker symbols, one for A and one for B. When I first got in, there was a miscommunication and I thought I HAD to get B shares. So I based my assumptions on the B-share ticket information. The difference is that American has loaded funds, particularly what are called Front Loaded Funds. This means you have to pay a sales charge before you can invest your money. With A shares, you pay it all at once in the beginning. B-Shares kind of spread out the payment over 7 years in the form of a higher expense ratio, significantly higher. Like maybe a whole percentage. But then they turn into A-Shares. After a year or so of this I discovered that I could put them into A-Shares so I did, but kept my fund choices the same.

This was slightly fortuitous for me because I then tracked these shares shares separately. I have a variable income, so it is kind of hard to extrapolate gains on the A share portfolio because I am still contributing and it's kind of hard to back it out. But the B-Shares are just sitting there growing without contributions so I can see how they perform, and the A-shares should do better with the lower expense ratios. But when I analyzed the last three years of what was going in and what the gains were they were actually horribly low in comparison. While the B-Shares were collectively up 11% over the last 3 years, the A-Shares were around 8% when I annualized the gain.

It sort of freaked me out until I realized this is the effect the front end load causes. In a portfolio effectively less than 3 years old the sales charge is putting a massive hurt on where this money could be making in a comparable no-load fund. No load funds don't charge these fees. These particular fees anyway. I also found out that the brokers might also be getting a cut of it. So that really inspired me to see if I could somehow do better on this situation.

It is also is what is making that no-load Roth look attractive. It also might make a traditional IRA look better if you have better choices, like perhaps more no load and Index funds (which have extremely low expense ratios). One thing that I noticed was that a lot of the funds that I chose seemed to just follow the S&P if you look it on a graph. So it would seem like I'm getting an Index fund, but I just pay more for them in expenses.

I plan on doing more research into these fund choices and my picks over the next several weeks to see if these choices still make sense. I have already done one thing, and rather recklessly I might add. In the B-Share portfolio I traded all of the shares of the worst performer (American Balanced Fund) and traded it all for the best performer in the selected bunch (Capitol Income Builder). A normal investment account would have tax implications for that I believe but retirement accounts don't. I was also afraid of those mysterious charges they talk about, but I think I held them long enough.

But that ought to be enough for tonight.

A Quick Post: More Experiences with ING Direct

2007-10-10T18:36:00.000-05:00

So my ING Direct Electric Orange Checking Account is open now. Despite their warnings and my previously stated concerns, I had no problems hooking it up with MY bank's Money Market Accounts. I have done this a lot (draft from my MMA, and wonder if either ING is being particular about that or if maybe my Bank just dresses up a regular checking account with a MMA name, gives it a shitty interest rate, and then fee me every time I use it more than 6 times a month). But it is done now.

My plan is to keep most of my money there earning a little bit of interest and then dole it out to accounts at my two brick and mortar banks as needed. So I was eager to set up my second link. According to the FAQ, there should be an Add a Link link in the My Links tab but I have yet to see it. There were only instructions for adding them by mail. I wasn't sure what was happening but I did figure there was something that triggered it's appearance. But I wasn't sure if it was just a minimum deposit, a cleared credit and identity check, or a certain waiting period. Seems like something they might want to put in there FAQ for the curious.

While I was waiting for that to happen, I went ahead and opened a savings account with them. What sealed that decision was the slightly higher interest rate for long term parking and the fact that you needed one of their savings accounts to open an investment account with them. I'm nowhere near ready to do that, and given the high expense ratios on the limited selection of in house funds they have, I might not.

I definitely won't open an IRA with them, preferring to have more choices with one of the other guys. But I might consider an investment account, some of their funds seemed capable of producing a "better than savings account" return (avg. of course) for money I might put away for that camper or boat or lakehouse. But that is a ways down the road.

Anyway, setting up the Savings account was just as simple. My new Orange Savings Account (OSA) was automatically linked to not only my Orange Checking Account but also to my Brick & Mortar Bank as well. The OCA doesn't count as one of the 3 linked accounts you have. The limit is on 3 external accounts.

But to get back to "Add a Link". I called their customer service # (make sure you dial 888 instead of 800), and very shortly got a rather pleasant American on the line (or a close enough facsimile of one) who told me that the answer was: 30 days you must be a customer. Although she didn't say it all Yoda-ish like that. That would have been cool.

Looks like my other checking account will still be dependent upon the US Mail for now. But hey, in the 10 years I've done that, they've only lost one! (and it was just crazy late to get there)

Personal Finance Blogs that I Read

2007-10-09T01:01:00.000-05:00

I'm always looking at personal finance blogs these days since it has become my latest obsession. I thought it would be a good post to list my present favorites that I check and occasionally comment on, and occasionally anonymously. I can't hardly stand to read about politics much anymore. At least my personal finances are something I can change.

So here they are.

Get Rich Slowly - One of my favorites.
The Simple Dollar - Ditto. I love how they get down and dirty on the math sometimes.
Five Cent Nickel - I like, but I think he's a little obsessed with credit cards and freebies.
Blueprint for Financial Prosperity - The Devil's Advocate series is interesting.
All Financial Matters - A little right-wingish but that's par for the course.
The Sun's Financial Matters - Looks like some good analysis.
Generation X Finance - I guess mostly because thats my generation...baby. (Who ref.)
My Money Blog - I don't have the risk tolerance or discipline for CC arbitrage but theres more.
The Digerati Life - Reminds me of my time in San Fransisco. Not in the way your thinking.
Money Socket - Not as frequent a poster as some, but who am I to talk?
Wise Bread - Its like personal finance you can read on the John. If you have a computer and internet connection in your John.
Zen Habits - A little light on the PF, and too strong on the Zen, but occasionally useful to me.

And I would have to add, since she agreed with me on a comment in another blog and has commented on this blog, Mrs. Micah, which used to be here. We both apparently agree on modifying our Dave Ramsey plan to be a little harder on the other debts, house, and investing early. She just figured it out much earlier in life.

As for regular sites of course there is Dave's myTMMO, on which forums I sometimes post on, mostly to get my tagline changed. I also check out Liz Pulliam Weston's syndicated column and sometimes the MSN forums that she hosts. I also usually go through the articles listed as the latest from Yahoo's Finance experts. If I read anyone there, it is usually David Bach, Suze Orman, and Laura Rowley (and Ben Stein if I want to get pissed off).

So that is what I'm reading regularly, at least in the PF world. On my iPod, I've got subscriptions to The Dave Ramsey Show (3 hour, commercial free), Kiplinger's podcast, and Money Girl's Quit and Dirty Tips for a Richer Life, as well as David Bach's podcast. I'm looking for more of them, but as with blogs they have to appelal to me just right to keep me interested.

My T Rowe Price Account is Set Up

2007-10-03T22:58:00.000-05:00

I checked out my T Rowe Price login and it looks like my account is now set up. Haven't put any money in it yet. I guess that will happen on the day that I scheduled. Or they might have just changed it for all I know. Anyway, the "Dashboard" as they call it is pretty busy but also very tight, lots of tools and research at your finger tips and you can customize it. The view is dominated by your portfolio which is nice except mine is empty. ;-(

But there was a short video that walks you through the site and its features. Probably worth the eight minutes of your time.

I had a conversation during a sushi dinner (I know, lost some focus, but I did pay cash) with a coworker, and I was telling him about this and he asked about fees and I'm still not sure if there might not be some fee when you do a transaction. I'll just wait to see next month. But here is their wording that seems to relate: "A short-term trading fee of $5 applies to shares purchased systematically and held less than six months. These fees are in addition to any short term trading fee charged by the fund. The short-term trading fee is waived for T. Rowe Price funds, however individual fund redemption fees still apply." I think this means I'm safe unless I sell them in less than 6 months.

Speaking of fees, In my B Class share portfolio (mistake, thought I had to, I stopped and moved to A shares) I traded all the shares for the under performing fund(BALBX) for the biggest performing fund(CIBBX). I'm no expert but I looked at the performance of all of the funds that I have against the market indexes and they really just followed them. It is not the case of this fund being down when the others were up. So this wasn't a reduction of diversity. It was shucking a loser (compared to the others). But that is my asshole opinion on it. If I do not incur any fees from the deal, I will not shed a tear for BALBX. I do however miss having no load and index mutual funds available in my SIMPLE-IRA.

So anyway, it is probably a good thing that I had B shares to begin with. When I started my contributions, I was I put money into 7 different B class funds - split 6@%15 + 1@%10. I then figured out that I was in fact able to buy A class funds instead, I moved contributions to those. So I have a pretty clean break on where I ended contributions on these funds and any and all growth from those funds I can simply annualize and get a proper return on my investment. I even have a clean break when it happened between December and January 2005.

So I was doing some analysis on my portfolios and was figuring out true anualized total returns for the two portfolios. This means that I was comparing the money going in, and dividing where it was at today. I realized that the B share portfolio was kicking the A share portfolios ass using this math, which shouldn't be possible because of the higher expense ratios of the B share class. Then it hit me were the A-Share porfolio was taking it. THE LOADS! and I don't even know if that includes a sales commision for our local administrator.

The B-Share portfolio does get added to anymore and its growth is all, well actual growth. The A share porfolio's growth (hopefully!) is a combination of growth, contributions, and fees. I make variable amounts each month so that limits trying to figure out how much might be getting sucked out because of that. But it is also less that 3 years old so these fees have a much larger impact than it should in the future. I need to investigate if there is a difference from the contribution to the actual purchase that occurs.

Some good news that I discovered about the A share sales charge is that it diminishes more as your portfolio grows. But thats at big numbers. But when you are in a SIMPLE-IRA, your portfolio is lumped with everybody else in your company that participates, and you get a discount on the total.

Something to figure out: Is the reduced sales charge applied by the fund or by total of all funds?

Something to figure out: The B shares convert to A shares after a certain time. Do they all convert at once or in the sequence you bought them? Is that a stupid question?

But it was learning all this, and seeing the effect that has really inspired me to get psyched about opening a separate IRA and taking more control of where my retirement money goes. I currently contribute 9% to my SIMPLE-IRA, and I bought into the belief that I need %15 going to retirement. I'm torn between reducing that to just the match and putting the rest in my new Roth IRA. Or using that money to accelerate the debt snowball and then maxing the Roth when that is done (or much lower). Or leave it because, as the B-Share portfolio is performing ok with its crappy expense ratios, its A-Share counter part should be as well, except for the fees.

Inertia is a powerful force and the goal of leaving it at nine and maxing out the Roth seems doable as well. Maxing out the SIMPLE-IRA would actually be less costly, but it would mean less for the Roth. Maxing out both? Not an option. There are also spousal IRA considerations. If my wife has one too that is another $5000 (2008) that could go into Roth land that I could help her achieve with money that is now or might in the future go into the SIMPLE-IRA.

So there is still a lot of figuring out what to do.

I Opened an ING Electric Orange Checking Account

2007-10-02T23:31:00.000-05:00

As the title suggests, I just opened an ING Electric Orange checking account. It seems silly not to, since they pay nearly 4% for a checking account than I currently get at my local Money Market account. I currently keep my checking account at my formerly local hometown bank and I will probably keep it open.

It is Citizens Deposit Bank in Arlington Kentucky. I feel like I have a strong tie to the community that I grew up in. I kinda want to give something back to it even if in a small way. So I do it by keeping an account open in the local bank and I send my insurance check to that counties KFB office instead of the county that I live in, which isn't really any big deal. The bank is just a small hometown bank, and they give me free checking, which might be by accident, but is enough to keep me there. I think they probably even lose money by having to mail me a deposit slip but it is also valuable to me to be able to just walk in there and know I can walk out with $10000 in an unsecured loan just because they know me. But I'd have to drive 50 miles to do that.

Since I've recently jumped on the Dave Ramsey plan, or my own deviant mutation of it, I felt like I needed another option to move myself from using a credit card to a debit card. Prior to drinking the DR Koolaid, I resisted getting a debit card for my checking account even though it was available. Considering it was 50 miles away, I wanted to limit it to just checks. I thought previously that I would just use my credit cards and pay them off each month. But that just doesn't always work out, does it? I like the convenience of plastic, so by giving up the credit cards, I felt like I really needed to move to debit or else I might "backslide". But not on the account that I pay my utilities with!

So I opened an Electric Orange account with ING. I rarely have found customer experience story posted about them that was negative. So I seized the day and opened an account. My main goal with this account is to provide an one that I can allocate money to where I used to just assume to put on a credit card. ING gives you, or at least it gave me the option, of having a $165 overdraft protection or $500. I chose the $165, but worried if it was not some kind of psych test that they might compare with my credit history. Oh yeah, they check your credit history, the kind of "hard pull" that shows up as a credit check for borrowing money. I haven't opened a new account that would do that in over a year so I wasn't worried about that.

You have to have an existing account in another bank to pull funds from. I decided to pull money from the same money market account that I set up for T. Rowe Price. [UPDATE: They say you can't open it with a money market account. But only because "institutions put restrictions on these types of accounts that prevent electronic transfers". I have plenty of electronic transfers coming out of mine. Perhaps that is ok because they are monthly bill things. Maybe they won't even notice. Still waiting on that.] The EO account may actually one day replace it in this scheme. Heck, it ought to, the interest is about 3X as better.

Also if you start out with $250, and a referral from someone, they might give you $25. Like I said, I was seizing the day, which is really more important in the long run, and opened with less. I feel like inertia is better at this stage than $25. But your mileage may vary.

I'm now awaiting the approval and arrival of snail mail stuff that will complete the process. Once the EO account is open, I might veer into their Investment or Savings accounts. I'm not sure yet if it is a Savings account only option, but you can sign up to have regular withdrawals for you starter account. I might do that too.

They even have a few funds that might make sense for an investment account. Seems like a good spectrum of No-Load, low expense ratio funds (for all I know). I might even prefer them to the loaded funds my SIMPLE-IRA has available. But that is for a much later day.

I'll plan on posting more about completing this process later and possibly utilizing their investment accounts.

What to do with my SIMPLE-IRA

2007-10-02T00:42:00.000-05:00

For those of you that don't know, a SIMPLE-IRA is an IRA account for employees of Small business that provide a Match for retirement accounts. Its kinda like a poor man's 401-k. A SIMPLE-IRA has smaller administrative costs than a 401, but may also be more limited in its options. At my company, you can only invest in loaded American Funds funds. I have tried to find the right combination of historical returns vs. expense ratio with the funds that I have available.

When I first got into our s-IRA, I was under the misguided impression that I had to get the B-Class shares because of my lowly status. This was a miscomunication as it turns out so I have half of my portfolio in some suck-ass B-shares, but they should convert to A-Shares after 7 years so that mistake can be quickly forgotten about. I may actually have benefitted by getting into the A-Class level later when the total IRA holdings of my small company were larger, hence the sales charge was lower.

My contributions now go into the A-Class shares that have a steep up front sales charge. But at least now it is somewhat lower because as a SIMPLE-IRA participant I am discounted at the rate of the holdings of my entire company's contributions. This is were being in a SIMPLE-IRA plan really helps when you are stuck with loaded funds I think. At least you are discounted on the holdings of the group, as opposed to just yourself.

Regardless, I am now on my way to funding my Roth, even if its just a small amount right now. Hopefully it is easy to increase the monthly allotment. If not, I should be able to buy into other funds easily and diversify this IRA a little. But Roth's max out with 4K in 2007, and 5K in 2008 so those are the ultimate goals, no matter how much you are making. So thats only $417 a month/apiece. Plus, the beauty of the Roth is that, since you have already paid taxes on it, you could withdraw what you put into it without penalty, should the need arise.

One final note that I would add is be prepared to allocate to which year you wish to put the funds you allocate into. With these "Asset Builder" plans you may apply funds extracted all the way up to April 15th on the previous year. With regards to Roths, I see no reason not to apply as much as I can to the previous year. Until you regularly max it out, it seems you should always play catch up unless you are unelgible to contribute. Traditional IRA's will have tax concerns to account for that will have to be considered that are beyond the scope of this post.

So that's all I have to say about my first attempt at opening a Roth. I'll let you know how it progresses. I also don't know how screwed I might possibly be if I can't make the contribution each month. But thats why I went with a low amount to get the account set up.

Opening a Roth IRA

2007-10-01T22:23:00.000-05:00

While I am not completely through with my debt snowball, I've been actively researching the options for opening a Roth IRA. I have also almost convince myself that I could get into one of the "monthly commitment" styled mutual fund companies for a small monthly contribution that wouldn't detract from getting much debt payed off. I actually think that in my case getting the inertia rolling early for contributing to the Roth would be better because I would have the "channels" open for when I could start contributing more.

I'm talking about monthly commitments of $25 or $50 dollars. If that is not a significant part of your budget, I think there can be a case made for getting that set up and treating it just like another bill if your budget allows for it. In mine, I think it does. I will start out with $50 and then crank it up to a lot more when my debts are all paid (except the house (and maybe my sweet 2004 Jeep Unlimited that I owe $12K on)).

My first immediate goal is to have my higher interest debt, about $5K paid off by the end of the year. Christmas complicates that. I do enjoy the holiday. I do enjoy buying presents. The difference this year is that I will budget and plan to have the CASH to pay for them this year. This might push this goal back to January 2008.

But in the mean time, I'm going to set up a Roth IRA and contribute $50 dollars a month. I want to also get a monthly contribution of $50 set up for my wife as well. Because she makes less, I will want to contribute to her IRA as well as mine, spousal IRAs were an important factor with me choosing to go with T. Rowe Price. Their sponsorship of NPR was also a factor with choosing them as well I am not ashamed to say. But this is the tale of me setting up my IRA with TRP.

First off I took advantage of the free membership benefits that Morningstar will provide anybody who fills out some form on their website. I am a long way from being able to justify their $140 annual premium membership, but they provide a lot of research value for free. I had decided to go with TRP, so first off I had to choose a fund from TRP.

Since I only wanted to test the waters, I chose one of their 5 star Growth funds,
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock (PRGFX). It looked like it could at least keep up with the market so it seemed like not a bad place to put $50 a month into. So with that pick, and a $50 dollar commitment I was off and running.

I needed a checking account that the money would be drawn from each month, I chose the Money Market account that I have set aside for Auto expenses. The thing about MM accounts is that the limited amount of transfers might lead you to use an underutilized one for a purpose you didn't intend to. But I can usually get by having a surplus in this account so it made sense.

That and getting through the verification process were the biggest hurdles, but not that big, especially if your are well aware of what is on your credit report. They use this info to verify you are who you say you are.

So I have completed this process, and excluding research into the fund that I wanted to choose, the process was shorter than twenty or thirty minutes. Now I have a $50 bill each month for a contribution but I don't have to think about it. It's gone from my money market account on the day of the month that I set up. This will utilize the "so-called" strategy of Dollar Cost Averaging. DCA is a popular, but actually not all that effective, strategy. But as long as you are investing, as opposed to NOT investing, it still makes sense. But it generally makes MORE sense to invest when you can, what you can, considering the cost of trading at levels which make it cost effective, as far as I can tell from what I've read.

So I've got a start on my Roth IRA. The current contribution rate will put me at a mere $600 dollars a year right now (with $4400 left to go), but hopefully I can really crank it up when the debts are paid off. I can also set my wife up with a similar IRA (probably will go with a different growth fund) that she can contribute to. I plan on setting up a similar deduction from her this month as well. Like I said, the inertia needs to be ready to go as quickly into savings as possible.

You know, much against the advice of Dave, my wife and I do have separate checking accounts. But I look at checking accounts like I do a pocket book. It's just something you put money into so I want to have a different checking account that I only have to keep up with the particulars of. I don't buy that they have to be combined, but that is an argument for another post. Otherwise its all about OUR money.

So thats my plan somewhat. Wish me luck. Unless of course you are some trolling hater. :-)

Personal Finance - Swamproot Style

2007-10-01T21:56:00.000-05:00

I've gotten real keen on Personal Finance here lately. Part of that is my fear is that Baby Boomers like my 'rents are gonna blead social security dry and it will be up to me to provide for a dignified retirement. A lot of this realization comes from the fact that I am 37 and I have missed out on doubling just about everything that I stick in my retirement account from now on. But this is spilt milk. And this is the last time I'm going to cry about it.
I have recently become a rabid fan of Dave Ramsey. I subscribed to the commercial free 3-hour* subscription of his show (3 hours without commercials is 3X38 minutes). I post random crap on their myTMMO forums. I have drank the Kool-Aid. I am pissed off at debt and I'm not gonna take it. I've made my budget and set my goals.
It seems a lot of people who bother blogging about personal finance post their financial goals. I thought why not, nobody actually reads this fucking blog. I can say whatever the hell I want. But the idea is posting your financial goals and updating them in such a public forum will help to keep you on track.

So I'm trying to start off with a debt snowball, ala Dave Ramsey. I don't mind deviating though. I'm not actually "gazelle intense" but I am "really nervous antelope at the watering hole". I currently have 14000 dollars of credit card debt to pay off. I had accumalated about 7 thousand and my wife had accumalated another 7 thousand. Now "we" owe fourteen thousand. She was paying some high interest rate that was costing her around $100 a month. I transfered it to one of mine that offered a balance transfer at 4% and the interest is around $30. That, and combining our efforts has helped to pay off about $2000 in the first month or two of our endeavor.

I recently posted about where I deviated from the "pure" Dave Ramsey plan. I think I have room to manuveur as I have outlined without giving too much up to focus. I have a two tiered approach to the credit card debt that I would like to apply. First off is to get the balances on 3 higher interest cards (which have the lowest balances, btw), then pay a little more to an emergency fund, then pay off some lower interest balance transfers.

According to Dave's plan I shouldn't save for retirement while paying for debt, but I respectfully disagree if you have a small hole to dig yourself out of. I am currently thinking of opening IRA's using a minimum monthly deposit option that will allow a small monthly deduction to go to a mutual fund for as little as $25 or $50 dollars. I am going to do my next post on my analysis of this.

So that is the set up for the new series of personal finance articles that I am about to post about. They are really only of interest to myself and serve as a means to keep up with my research about my my investments. If they serve any purpose to any body else that might not be casing me or stealing my identity, that is merely a coincidence. So look for the yellowish rooster for personal finance.

My Letter to the Republican Governors Association

2007-09-10T22:02:00.000-05:00

I'm not really that enthused about the coming governor's race. I'm not sure if Fletcher is all that bad. I've even met his nephew, who looks just like him, but with a ponytail. He had nice things to say about his fairly famous uncle. But I hate hyperbolic rhetoric, which is not a good trait in someone who follows politics. So something about a mailer that I got in the mail today just got me incensed. It was from the Republican Governors Association, and it inspired me to write them a letter. Here is that letter, which I mailed tonight (yes, indeed I mailed it).

September 10, 2007

In reply to: With Steve Beshear...Nothing is Sacred Mailing
Republican Governors Association
1747 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington DC 20006

Dear Sir or Madam:
I just received your recent mailing “With Steve Beshear…Nothing is Sacred” and from what I can gather from it, it is either your organization’s wish to install a fundamentalist theocracy here in the United States or you believe that a State Attorney General has the power or obligation to ignore Supreme Court rulings. While I will concede that we might all be better off if Bush v. Gore had been ignored, in general I believe that their decisions should be followed as a matter of respect for the law.

This mailing had 288 square inches that you could have used to address the real issues that affect my life. You could have also used that space to quote the material that you supposedly source, instead of expecting anyone who desired to check your facts to shell out $13.90 to a supposedly liberally biased newspaper in order to access their archives. But instead you gave me emotional nonsense.

As for your charges, here is my opinion of them:

1) Abortion is a divisive issue, but all you Republicans seem to be able to do about it is make it harder for poor people to get them. Even with the Administration and both houses of Congress controlled by your team, you can’t get anything done about it. Why? Because people with strong beliefs will vote against their personal interests, while you make it easier for them to get fleeced by corporate greed, as long as abortion remains legal.

2) “Protecting party bosses”, do you even read the news about YOUR candidate? Or have you, like Mitch
McConnell, ignored that Governor Fletcher even existed until he won the Primary? It’s always just a partisan witch-hunt when it’s YOUR candidate.

3) Gambling expansion. As for statistics that Casino’s economic benefits are a wash when compared to their societal costs, the same could be said about payday loans and giving credit cards to people who can’t afford them. But Republicans don’t seem to be on that bandwagon yet, probably because they are too busy reading about homosexuals and the Ten Commandments in their Bibles to notice what it says about usury. My guess is that the usury lobbyists contribute more than gay lobbyists to the Republican Party.

4)“Benefits for homosexuals”. Are you saying homosexuals are not entitled to have their interests considered by elected officials? Do they not also pay taxes? Regardless of how you feel about their lifestyle being against your morals, especially when it is so politically convenient, we must be careful that in taking our moral stands we do not trample the rights of minorities. One might make the case that Mormons are apostates to the Christian faith and are following a false prophet, and regardless of their lifestyle, should not be tolerated, accepted, or condoned. That is not the America that I want to live in. Homosexual couples, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson “neither break my leg nor pick my pocket”. I also wonder how many more closeted Republican politicians have to be scandalously exposed in airport bathrooms before you all want to stop making it a campaign issue. Some are starting to find it insincere.

While I am sure the Democratic Governors Association is equally capable of producing such blatant Goebel-lesque propaganda, I would prefer that you save the stamp and refrain from sending me such insults to my intelligence, (which I am sure the Hannity-wannabe reading this letter questions, no doubt).

Sincerely,
My Name Went Here

Hopefully, some Hannity-Wannabe will reply some day.

Go to Hell Mattel, partie deux, deuxième partie, or some crap like that*

2007-08-14T22:07:00.000-05:00

$30 Million Dollars. That is the answer to a rhetorical question alluded to in my last post. That is what the last recall will cost Mattel to recall all or the Made-In-China treats they've been feeding us, in a rhetorical way of course. It could have been spent paying Americans to build toys here. But Mr. Eckert gots to get paid, his services are expensive after all. You can't outsource executives....or can you?

Well, it doesn't take long for more news to come out about Mattel preferring the cheaper standards of a developing nation and higher profits in deference to ..., well, something I couldn't imagine happening in Murray Kentucky. It might have cost them more, but they decided it was not worth it. Also, as it turns out, someone will not be benefiting from the organs harvested from at least one soon to be Chinese prisoner, as I recently callously predicted. Imagine if we treated convicted criminals, such as the former leadership of Enron, in such a way that they would prefer death? A lot of people would still have their retirement savings I would bet.

To be fair, Mattel is not the only multinational corporation that prefers the higher profits of cheap production to the safety standards they would have been forced to follow if they had manufactured the same thing here in the good ol' US of A. I recently stumbled upon this blog that apparently exist for the purpose of stories such as this, the aptly-named Who Sucks blog has compiled a list of similar Sad Sacks of Corporate Shit such as the American-Job-Dumping Mattel. Behold the time line they compiled for just this year!!!

Mattel hasn't even made the list yet.

*I would have used Chinese, but you know, there is that thing with character sets, blabetty blah, blah, which would have rendered the translation useless on most non-Western browsers.

Go to Hell Mattel

2007-08-01T23:24:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago Murray Kentucky became the last plant in the United States that Mattel owned, which it closed. Today brings a report about them selling products made overseas that contain a little more lead than you might care your children handling.

Maybe it's just a communist plot to make our children a little touched in the head. Maybe some corrupt Chinese official took Yet Another Bribe to look the other way and we can take solace that he will soon be donating organs, and how wonderful it is that Mattel chooses to do business with such people over the fine folks here in Murray who have this crazy idea they should get paid enough to not have to live in poverty in a third world country.

So it is with some sick, sad, sadistic glee that I laugh at the expense in which Mattel will incur with this recall and can only hope that it affects Mattel's profits enough to reduce the insane bonuses they like to give their executives such as former Chairwoman Jill Barad's $23.9 million in long term compensation or the 16 million Robert Eckert is paid in salary and stock options. But I'm sure they deserved it, more than the poor slob down at the factory here deserved to have a job after working for Fisher-Price much longer than Robert Eckert.

I wonder if he has kids or grandkids that played with these lead tainted toys. I wonder if such a rich and powerful man would even know if they did. Maybe he can get a full report from their nanny. I'm sure she could include it in her TPS Report, that is if she even speaks English.

So, in conclusion I offer this consumer's message to Mattel: slather my browneye with jelly and toss my salad you sad sack of corporate shit. Thanks for the lead poisoning, assholes. Oh, and while I'm at it, thanks for turning American Girl into Just Another Doll.

Update: Experts Say You'd Better Blood Test Yo' Kids (for Lead) if they played with one of the 967,000 Chinese Made Death Toys!

Update II: A reader responds:

I was at American Girl during the transition of it being purchased by Mattel and changes in quality were immediate. Everything did ship to China and there was a noticeable difference not to mention the immediate firings of anyone who had been with the company since it's inception. That was harsh seeing people led out of the building crying. They didn't even give them a chance to clean out their desks.

To which I can only say they should be grateful that they didn't get stuck working for such a "Sad Sack of Corporate Shit". Here's another piece of unsolicited advice Mattel, quit suing everyone who makes a joke about your stupid, silly doll (that's 12 separate links). Just how sick are the lawyer fucks at Mattel? Well, they once sued a "The Stupid Doll that Must Not Be Named" Collector's Group for using "The Stupid Doll that Must Not Be Named"'s Name in a charity event that raised over $100,000 for sick kids in Troy, Michigan. One of their biggest asshole litigators once said "We have an intellectual property, not a doll", which I hope doesn't make it feel any better should he take "That Stupid Doll that Must Not Be Named" and shove it right up his own ass.

My Kitchen Remodel

2007-07-19T23:09:00.000-05:00

Here are the pictures I have been threatening to put up somewhere of my latest project on the house.

Jim Bunning: Chicken Shit

2007-07-18T11:21:00.000-05:00

The Paducah Sun had an article today saying that our half-mad Senator Jim Bunning will not be coming to this years Fancy Farm picnic because he "doesn't feel safe" down there. Puh-leease. You have got to be kidding me. In his last election he brought up this bogus issue two months after the fact, I think just as a dirty trick to try and score some cheep points in a tight race. Or perhaps, the Senator was uncomfortable being that close to the actual people he represents, and in the hot summer sun, they probably sweat a little more than the lobbyists he is used to seeing. Or perhaps, given the crowding he might have even been jostled, and that could have been a little overwhelming for a rich, pampered Senator.

Here was the response I sent to the Paducah Sun. The Courier Journal too.

Editor,
It was not without some amusement that I read about Senator Bunning's reluctance to come to Fancy Farm to speak because he feared for his safety. I would think that as much as he supports sending our sons and daughters into harms way and away from their families that maybe he could suck it up enough to actually speak to a group of people that he represents that didn't sign a loyalty oath or pay a thousand dollars a plate to come listen to him. I've feared for my safety more on the streets of Washington DC more than I ever have in Fancy Farm, yet I would bet that the Senator will continue going there.

Unfortunately, until 2010, Senator Bunning will probably continue to do so, and to our very detriment.

Update: While the Courier-Journal published this letter, the Paducah Sun did not. It might be because the Paducah Sun is aligned with the Republican party tighter than anything Rupert Murdoch owns and is a tool of Big Business, but it also might have been because Ms. Cooke was on vacation or that I had an earlier draft accidentally sent out that did not include my contact information (but the later one did).

Update to Update: I was wrong. The Paducah Sun was just slow about calling me. They just called today to try and get it into tomorrow's paper, which is the day before the Fancy Farm picnic.

Update to Update of Update: I was wrong about being wrong, The Paducah Sun did NOT include it in today's paper. However the letters included were about the picnic. One in support of our lamest Senator and one critical. I guess they wanted to look fair and balanced.

Update to Update to Update of Update: I was wrong about being wrong about being wrong. They did publish it on August 4th, the day of the picnic, and my aniversary to boot.

Clinton's Pardons v. Bush's Pardons, What The Murray Ledger and Times Doesn't Want You to Know

2007-07-06T15:53:00.000-05:00

I still cannot for the life of me figure out what standards if any that the Murray Ledger & Times uses to cull its posts. There just doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. Like today, some lefty had posted something like "can anyone believe that bush had the nerve to pull that stunt with scooter libby?". To which this guy Former Murray Resident replied, "Ann, what is the difference between the "stunt" Bush pulled with Scooter Libby and all of the drug dealers (including his brother) Clinton pardoned when he left office?" to which I had to reply. He did ask after all.

Attempt #1:

Former Murray Resident, the difference between Clinton's pardons and Bush's recent one is that Clinton had a Federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the pardons (who found no cause to indict). Bush has yet to receive such treatment. What is good for one lame duck ought to be as good for another. Perhaps you also might be interested your president has pardoned "drug dealers" already himself. The list of drug dealers Bush has pardoned so far is Jerry Dean Walker, Wendy St. Charles, Phillip Anthony Emmert, Bobby Mac Berry, Geraldine Gordon, John Gregory Schillace, John Louis Ribando, James Edward Reed, Eric William Olson, Harper James Finucan, Patricia Ann Hultman, George Thomas Harley, Marie Georgette Ginette Briere, and William Sidney Baldwin Sr. It's all public record should you want to look them up.

I left off the link to the list of pardons because that has in the past seemed to be a thing that keeps it from being posted. But this doesn't make it. However, this does:

"HEY IF ANY OF YOU THINK YOU SORRY A---- WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED THEN KEEP THINKING IT IS ALRIGHT FOR BUSH TO KEEP HIM OUT OF JAIL. FOR ME AND MY FAMILY WE WANT EVEN THE RICH TO GET THEIR DUES. IT SHOULD NOT BE JUST THE COMAN EVERY DAY MAN AND WOMAN WHO HAS TO PAY FOR A CRIME BUT IT SHOULD BE THE RICH AND POWERFUL AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRANT."

Which if I may say is certainly worded a little strong, if not too terribly well. But my reply doesn't. My response was not deemed worthy, but this one and the following were considered as contributing to the discussion:

"If you believe the movie SICKO by Fat A-- Michael Moore, then you would believe anything. Can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge before it gets blown down...."

It must be because of the list of names. They don't want to take the time to verify it so they have just excluded it. But that's why I made sure to say "It's all public record".

So here is attempt #2:

Former Murray Resident, the difference between Clinton's pardons and Bush's recent one is that Clinton had a Federal prosecutor assigned to investigate the pardons (who found no cause to indict). Bush has yet to receive such treatment. What is good for one lame duck ought to be as good for another. Perhaps you also might be interested your president has already pardoned "drug dealers" himself. I listed 14 of them here already but apparently that was too much for the sensibilities of this message board. So just google for the list of the people who George W. Bush has pardoned and there are plenty of people with drug convictions on that list. This is a fact! At least that is what I think what stopped my last message or perhaps the editors think I am crazy and are too lazy to verify this simple fact.

I probably should have left off the insult off the end, but dang when you have a moderated message board, at least have some published standards that people can purposely adhere to instead of throwing up a hail mary.

Special Rights and the Gay Agenda

2007-06-18T20:11:00.000-05:00

The Paducah Sun had a recent letter to the editor who was reponding to another recent letter. The original letter writer had complained about a speaker at a recent prayer breakfast attended by local officials. This speaker had lamented about the gays getting married and how that was destroying the country and this person took offense. Favorite quote from that letter:

The gist of the message was that “Increasing rates of abortion and divorce, along with the demands of rights by homosexuals, have placed the nation, and families, in perilous times.”

So, let me get this straight — terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, fanaticism, the looming oil shortage, food supply concerns, overpopulation, drug abuse, alcoholism, war, lying politicians, opportunism, dishonest CEOs, etc., are not the real threats? However, gays getting married could spell disaster? Or perhaps gay marriage has actually caused these problems? Get real! I have yet to see a gay marriage result in a war, murder or any other crime or act not also perpetrated in the main by “normal” heterosexuals as well.

So the guy who sponsored the prayer breakfast felt challenged to come to the defense of this woman. Most ironic quote from that letter:

human rights are not about how we feel.

Unless you feel gay people are godless sodomites looking to recruit your children into their lifestyle, I guess.

There are plenty of those who those "who believe in God’s Word to stand up for it without compromise, and to be salt and light in the community" that desire to see gays treated fairly.

Some other red herrings he mentions:
Special Rights and the homosexual agenda? What exactly is that besides wanting to be treated like other human beings and American citizens.

Here is the response I'm working on:

In a recent letter, Mr. Bill Hughes wrote to discuss another recent letter by Ron Dierolf concerning a speaker at a recent prayer breakfast. I was glad that he responded however in his "desire is to bring clarity to his concern", I wish he had addressed the particular concern Mr. Dierolf actually mentioned: "So, let me get this straight — terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, fanaticism, the looming oil shortage, food supply concerns, overpopulation, drug abuse, alcoholism, war, lying politicians, opportunism, dishonest CEOs, etc., are not the real threats? However, gays getting married could spell disaster?". I would like to have seen some clarity brought to that.

He also mentions "special rights" for homosexuals and how "gay rights advocates have constantly brought legislation and protests against anything resembling our Creator’s standards for family and sexuality in society". I'm not sure what laws he is talking about, unless he means the "legislating from the bench" done by certain "activist judges" who went way out on a limb and said the Government has no business legislating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home (Lawrence v. Texas). Almost anything I've seen them protest about has been about being treated like a human being. I wish Mr. Hughes had also brought some clarity to that.

Do homosexuals not have the right to expect that their politicians and laws represent them as well? But politicians love to tap into the fears of the devout with one hand while they got their other hand in everyone's wallets. When was the last time you saw J. R. Gray say that adulterers shouldn't be able to adopt children? I doubt that constitutional amendment would get far and that's breaking a commandment.

I fear that this is an issue that leads to what Madison termed the "tyranny of the majority" and anybody that thinks it's ok to legislate and codify discrimination probably didn't have to worry about which drinking fountain they used 50 years ago. Taking a stand against "giving special rights to homosexuals" is about as easy as taking a stand against the northern interlopers who were "promoting mongrelization and miscegenation" was in the 50s and 60s. It's popularity does not make it right and as Mr. Hughes himself stated "human rights are not about how we feel".

Christians who are taking a stand against this "rising tide of homosexuality" because they are standing up for what they believe in seem to me disingenuous at best, unless they speak out against other groups that I know are well within their sphere of "abandoning God's standards". For example, we seem to have gotten past the fact that menstruating women are Biblically unclean. Personally I blame feminism for that one.

But consider that if Mrs. Parker had replaced gay and homosexual with "Mormon", or "Buddhists" or "Hindu", she might not have such eager defenders. But the Mormons, Buddhists and Hindus, even though they might be considered idolaters or apostates by "the faithful", enjoy CONSTITUTIONAL legal protections against being discriminated against that gays do not. They have for over two hundred years and to quote Thomas Jefferson that "neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket".

If only I could say the same about Christian Right pandering politicians.

I hope the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't get wind of this and come protest my house. I get enough religious wackos standing in my yard every year for the town's annual Fourth of July parade.

The Thing about Portfolios

2007-06-11T17:47:00.000-05:00

This is a post I did over at Kentucky Progress about a story David Adams did about "Making Our Schools Better Starts Here".

Mr. Adams, I realize I am a little late to this debate, but I was catching up after a vacation last week, and wanted to contribute some perspective on this issue. And please forgive my lack of concisiveness.

My wife is a teacher, one of those who became a teacher because of friends that she knew in college that couldn't read, not because of the awesome pay and benefits everyone is so envious of. She teaches fourth grade, one of the primary grades for writing portfolio evaluations.

Her stance on them is that writing should be tested and evaluated, but the materials that they put into them are pretty useless. They work on reflections, memoirs, and narratives for these portfolios, when they need to be emphasizing research papers, essays, and persuasive writing techniques that will actually serve them later in their jobs or acedamia.

A dear friend of mine is one of those horrible ivory-tower liberal elites who teaches that deplorable non-science of Psychology, and even she says her biggest gripe with students entering college is that they can't write, they can't research, they have no concept of the proper way to put words to paper.

If there is one good thing to come from these portfolios however, it is that it forces schools (that want to score highly) to provide individualized writing coaching for all students, and that is coaching in the encouraging and instructing sense and not the "here are the answers" sense.

However, the downside of this from my wife's perspective is that a lot of her fellow teachers who are involved with this coaching resist her efforts to push students to achieve more. Not because they agree with you and think these portfolios are a waste of time, but because of their own low expectations of the performance of some, along with a heaping helping of just plain laziness.

So my wife has turned to retired teachers in our church to volunteer to help with this coaching, because her colleagues aren't up to doing anything above the minimum effort required.

I am not so much for the elimination of tenure not because of the way it props up bad people, but because it now allows my wife (the outsider) to prod these people(mostly local) and rock the boat without fear that their Brother-in-law down at the Board office can get her fired.

But if they (portfolios and lazy colleagues) can't be improved, they certainly should be eliminated, as they totally suck a lot of resources from those that have to teach them.

Also, in her school it practically takes an act of Congress to get a kid held back, even if they really need to. I think 11:57 is making or buying the excuses of a dim (or lazy) bulb.

Mr. Adams was gracious enough to repond:

One problem with a discussion about improving education is that there are at least three sides to every story. Thanks for your perspective on tenure; I had never thought about it that way.

The good old boy system in schools really hurts. That's why I think school choice would force a lot of the abuse out of the system by making the corruption too expensive.

And if we can agree to get rid of the CATS writing portfolios for 4th graders, let's do it without getting stuck on why we should.

That's why I like KP. Just as willing to concede a point as I like to think that I am. For a Republican, he is alright.

I hope the lazier and bitchier of my wife's colleagues never find out about this blog and what I'm saying to them.

Ed Whitfield's Response

2007-05-31T01:30:00.000-05:00

Well I had been waiting for Ed Whitfield's response to a previous enquiry and was starting to get a little miffed that he hadn't responded. It turns out my wife had just hid that snail mail in a stack to be sorted later. Here is his response, with the names changed to protect the guilty:

Dear Mr. Swamproot,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the decision by the Copyright Royalty Board(CRB) to increase royalty payments for the streaming of music offered on the Internet.

I understand your strong opposition to this decision and your concerns about the effect that it will have on Internet music sites. Several options are being pursued to address the actions of the CRB. Public radio stations have asked the CRB to rehear its decision and they intend to appeal the Board's action to the United States Court of Appeals. Also, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress in response to the CRB's decision. Specifically, the Internet Radio Equality Act would reverse the recent CRB ruling and change the royalty rate-setting standard that applies to commercial Internet radio so that it is the same standard that applies to satellite radio. For public radio, the bill would set a royalty standard designed for noncommercial entities.

As a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, I look forward to participating in any hearings we may have on the matter. Furthermore, I will continue to follow this issue and will crefully consider the points you made should any relevant legislation be considered in my Committee or voted on by the full House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to hearing from you on this or any other issue of importance to you.

Sincerely,
Ed Whitfield
Member of Congress

It was typed by one 'mb'. They probably wrote it as well, and I am sure the Congress Member is a busy man. I just wanted to make my opinion known on the matter to the fellow who is supposed to represent me. Having taken the trouble of writing the guy, you might say that I might be a little ticked that his staff person didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I actually was as concerned about his position as well as mine. I guess it's not to be certain one way or another.

For example, I may be a registered Democrat (if only because the Repugs piss me off right now), but I sure do respect Melvin Henley. He isn't afraid to tell you exactly what he thinks, the way he's gonna vote, and how much he appreciates your input on the matter at hand. I can disagree and still vote for a man like that.

Do Minimum Wage Increase Consequences Match Those of Immigration Reform

2007-05-30T00:40:00.000-05:00

The Murray Ledger and Times has a guest book that functions like a forum that they moderate People leave comments and sometimes discuss issues in a not so timely manner there. I've mentioned it before. Being that its a pretty conservative town there is a lot of the typical hyperbole that drives me crazy.

But I have no idea by what standard they allow posts to go through. There is truly no sensible rhyme or reason to it that can be ascertained from post that I've written that they excluded and those that they do let through. I know you can't talk about how bad you think the Murray Calloway County Hospital sucks, particularly Primary Care. Sometime, I need to do a post documenting some of their more egregious offenses, but I will say that they should invest some time and money either in training or hiring their staff so that they won't be known as the meanest bitches in all of the broken health care system of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Anyway, I got to try out the new "If minimum wage increases go up, so do costs" spin on the immigration debate again. Since they probably won't post it, I thought I would publish it here.

It was in response to a post by one "Socially Conscious", and here was there post in response to some previous pro-min-wage post:

"Sorry to insert my two cents here, but raising the minimum wage comes with its problems. First, if you're paying a guy more to make you a burger, you're going to pay more for the burger. The price of everything will increase, and then the guy making "more" minimum wage finds that he still can't afford anything. A higher education would go much further, and don't yell at me, I realize those obstacles. Second, if the guy is making "more" money, he is no longer eligible for social programs that benefit his/her family and children, such as WIC, food stamps, MediCaid, TANF, etc. So, just giving someone a dollar more an hour is not all that easy. It comes with its own price. I didn't learn that in my economics class . . . I learned it in my social work classes."

Here was my response:

Socially Conscious, as you point out, if the minimum wage goes up you might have to pay more for a burger. But what if we deported all of the illegal immigrants? Wouldn't that also cause the wages that companies pay to rise as well, thereby also increasing the cost of goods?

Maybe not the burgers you buy, but that dirt cheap chicken you get at the supermarket will certainly go up. The price of vegetables will go up. If the increase in the price of consumer goods is justification for not raising the minimum wage is it also justification for keeping illegal immigrants around, maybe even giving them amnesty so they can then pay taxes on the money earn or so we can recoup the expense of the social programs they utilize?

I'm a lousy gambler but I would wager that you probably don't think so.

I think its a valid counter point. Even though I'm aware that there are other social costs in play. I have yet to use it face to face with one of the talking point repeaters.

Reaction to Reaction over Creationist Museam

2007-05-29T11:22:00.000-05:00

I normally avoid creationism vs. evolution debates but I got sucked into one on the CJ Forum. I'm very much a Faith is Faith and Science is Science and never the two shall cross kind of guy. Creationist are so unreasonable though and they always say stuff like "If you would just look at the evidence objectively...." all the while pointing fingers at the other side saying "THEY do it too". Its the whole "secular humanist fundamentalist liberal" conspiracy idea that scientist will ignore the "Truth" just because it doesn't agree with the "dogma" that is driven into them by the "ivory tower liberal elites" or if they do agree they are afraid of the repercussions for questioning "the party line".
That I find really ironic, because as a young man in a fundamentalist church, I was made to feel guilty about questioning things in the Bible, not stuff like creation or even Noah's flood, but more like why does the Bible say THIS here and THAT there. Nope, those questions come from pride or an unwillingness to accept the Holy Spirit, or even the devil himself.
I guess they were probably the source for my arguments in this debate as well.

Some Guy with the Handle of 4Him:

A crystal glass cover, springs, screws, nuts, cogs, sprockets and 100 other indiscriminate parts fall off of the table and suddenly become a man's Rolex wristwatch.

or

Several trillion molecules just happened to come together one by one by one over millions of years until they form a living breathing, thinking functional human life?

Which is more plausible? Which is more complex?

Use all the evolutionary science you want but some things are just inexplicable until you add the concept of Intelligent Design. Specifically, a Creator. God Almighty.

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom." Isaiah 40:28

Here was my response:

I think 4Him grossly distorts the argument with the watch or trillion molecules question. Only creationist assert that the non-creationist view is one of "Several trillion molecules coming together over millions of years" or worse as a totally random process that just happened to produce all life as we know it or frame it as supposedly the results of mutations. This totally ignores how natural selection optimizes the process so that life does not evolve from random happenings but from having advantages over ones competitors.

Other creationists like to claim how there are no missing links when actually there are plenty, when one is found creationists just insist on finding the new missing link between the old missing links. The natural conditions for fossilization are actually quite rare and in certain climates and locations would be impossible to form. So gaps there are aplenty.

Still others use the old "Nobody has ever seen one species turn into another" argument, which is kind of like saying "Nobody has actually seen the exact time when a child becomes an adult". The time scale we are talking about here is staggering. A million years is 100 times longer than almost all of recorded history. Yet it is only alluded to by creationist as part of the "ridiculousnous of it all".

A dog is pretty much the same thing genetically as a wolf, but even if you used the "Young Earth" creationist age of the planet, the immense variation in dogs are the result of radically altering the selective traits the dogs would pass to their offspring in a mere few thousand years. This variation was caused by man and progressed to where dogs are today fairly quickly in historical terms. I'm pretty sure there were no dachshunds on Noah's Arc. But in a relatively few years, we get dachshunds from what genetically is a wolf, which a dachshund can even impregnate should it be so inclined and most likely assisted.

Creationist look at that and say, "See, you can't make a new species", where the nonCreationists see that and think "Look how much that animal was able to change through a couple hundred generations, in a million years it won't even be the same species". I don't see what is so crazy about thinking that over time the genes of dachshunds and wolves will drift more and more over time, and they will share less and less until one day dachshunds and wolves will no longer be able to breed. But I wouldn't expect to see it in my lifetime.

I am no atheist, but I figure if I was an omnipotent God whose chosen people were really bugging me to tell them where they came from, and the answer involves tiny things they can't see, time periods they cannot fathom, and even some scientific principles they as a people hadn't matured enough to handle, I'd probably give them the short story and let them figure out the rest on their own.

Here is a good article on the subject. Got the link from BoingBoing.

Immigration, The Illegal Variation

2007-05-23T21:44:00.000-05:00

I have this rather outspoken conservative uncle who is of the type to forward some of the more outrageous chain-emails, I'm sure if your on the net and have more than two friends you know what I'm talking about. I have this belief that the internet places the capacity to check the "facts" that someone tells you, if you are so compelled, at your fingertips and if you are going to even pretend to care as much as hitting your forward button you should at least take the 10 seconds it might take to validate the bogusness of such an email. So convenient is this ability that I have short patience for folks who forward things that are forwarded to them.

It is almost a responsibility as a "netizen" that you would do so, if you are capable. And by capable I mean grasping enough of a concept to be able to google it, I mean as long as you are connected to the internets and all that.

So I have made great sport out of responding to such "truth rogues" and like to point such people to sites like snopes.com and a personal favorite of mine BreakTheChain.org. Let me add at this time that I think snopes sucks because of that funky anti-copying script that they use to prevent being quoted and thwarting me in my quest to disprove stuff.

So anyways today the latest outrage was some snopes "verified" email about some dumbass flying a Mexican flag over an upside down American flag. And as I typically do I responded to it (with the ReplyAll button, and as always the names have been changed to protect the guilty):

Uncle Johnny,
Maybe we should approach the immigration problem in the same manner as we approach the drug problem. Heck, we could even combine the problems and just make illegal immigrants a Schedule One narcotic. Then we could start imprisoning all of the people who use them, in the same way we lock up pot smokers and drug addicts. Look at what a wonderful success that has been.
The only problem I see with that is that, like taxing the rich, is that it punishes success, as it would mostly target the owners of small and large businesses alike. Of course, since Democrats are usually unemployed and lazy, and just sit around waiting for their government checks, this solution would unfairly penalize Republicans, so it is probably a bad idea.
It was after all the liberal labor unions, with their pinko members expecting to have rights and decent pay, that probably drove them to hiring illegal immigrants in the first place. Once again, liberals are at the root of the problem as they are with any and all problems facing America today. Just ask Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or Micheal Savage, or Glen Beck, or Laura Ingraham or Neal Borsch or David Horowitz or any number of pundits who make a very good living by saying so.
But if we raise the minimum wage, oops, I mean get rid of illegal immigrants, then the cost of goods and services will rise for everyone and businesses will have to employ less people because they have to pay the workers that they are able to retain more. This means poor people have less opportunities for employment and the money they do manage to earn will not go as far as it once did.
I predict nothing will happen on this issue, not because of the some diabolical liberal plot to "redistribute" all that you have worked for, but because the people who hire illegals contribute more to campaign funds than the people who get fired up by some silly stunt a high school kid pulled off that got caught on camera (as the snopes link 'verifies'). Unfortunately, the primary tool of democracy in our nation has been transfered from the voting booth to the pocket book.

But what the heck, I can still play along and be "involved". Do you want to get even more fired up about illegal immigrants? Then watch this video of police beating a man for simply flipping off a bunch of protesters and then getting his face bloodied for it. Where is the ACLU fighting for HIS right to free speech? If this ticks YOU off, THEN PASS IT ON!
http://blog.t1production.com/illegals-cheer-as-police-beat-amnesty-protester

Trying to be a righteous conservative and not an American hating, terrorist comforting, illegal-amnestizing Democrat,
Me

Now I have this conservative cousin, with whom I have argued "Sure, we can just keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere forever and at an ever increasing rate and never suffer ill consequences from it, that makes sense", but whom is otherwise not a bad guy, responded to my little diatribe against his father:

Me,
I generally just sit back and laugh and the two of you going at it, and while I do agree that the power has moved from the voting booth to the pocket book, I have to point out that you only present one side of this story.

You are correct that labor costs will rise and the price of goods will rise, that will be a direct result of getting rid of illegal immigrants, but let’s not forget the costs associated with illegal immigrants in this country. Federally less than 1/2 of illegal immigrants contribute payroll taxes, this results in a cost of 10 billion dollars annually that exceeds their contribution. The largest costs are incurred by Medicaid, the treatment of uninsured, and participation in food assistance programs. Hmmmmm……wonder where the funding for these programs comes from.

Locally, and I can speak to this because North Carolina has had a 692% increase in illegal immigration in the last ten years, the largest of any state by 300%, our school system has been strained to the breaking point and our tax burden has increased. The next election will have a $642 million school bond on it and I will vote for it and pay for it because my kids go to school. Again, I wonder whose pocket this money is coming out of.

Let’s not forget that our country has a process for gaining LEGAL entry, and let’s not forget that we are speaking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

This is a perfect example of why sometimes the diatribes are worth it. To actually engage someone on the other side of the fence in a discussion. Oh, the novelty of it all. Here was my response:

John,
This is the kind of political letter that I do like to see in my inbox, one that provides facts and information, and advances the discussion. I used the "cost of goods" argument only because I could neatly coopt it from the Minimum Wage debate that went on a few months back. Using the words of pundits against them, if you will. I also deliberately left off the "associated costs", which I was aware of, in the argument as another nod to the Fox News school of journalism, as was presenting only one side of the story.
As a matter of fact, I don't really have much sympathy for illegal aliens. As you pointed out, I do think they drain our social services and, to quote our President, "take the jobs that Americans don't want to do" only because their presence depresses the wage market for that job. It is a lie that keeps being repeated. Even in the IT industry corporate interests clamor for more more H-1B visas to bring in Russians, Indians and Chinese people, not because they can't find the workers but because they don't want to pay what the market would demand.
I just get sickened to see this framed as an "us against the evil liberal democrats" problem, when there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. I would rather see the debate framed in the terms of a discussion such as this rather than in the inflammatory commentary to a photograph of the actions of a few misguided individuals. Much as I feel that any debate about the War in Iraq should not be centered around anything nut job Cindy Sheehan says or does.

As for North Carolina's appeal to illegal immigrants, it must just be a nicer place to be now that Jesse Helms is retired and locked up in a home.

And that was the immigration debate in my family.

Education Kinda Sucks, But It Ain't the Agendas, Part 1

2007-05-22T15:59:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite blogs to read is Nicholasville resident Douglas Adam's Kentucky Progress. Like I've said before, I don't like to read blogs to have my beliefs affirmed, I would much rather have them challenged. Mr. Adam's is in my opinion fair, conscientious, well reasoned, and even willing to admit when he is wrong. He is usually cordial and willing to discuss an issue with anyone who wants to reasonably discuss it back. Basically, Kentucky Progress is everything I have found lacking in other conservative bloggers.
The message board lurkers run the gambit between the somewhat abused liberals, to the rabid rightists who think the the Republicans are too liberal for them. I like how its very state centric and the issues effecting the commonwealth are highlighted. The other day I was inspired to write a lengthy diatribe against the supposed "social agendas" being pushed in our schools, which seem to be a conservative tenant, but one that I just don't believe in. I thought I would fill one of my posts with what I posted over there.

"Kentucky schools are run by administrators who can choose to focus ... on promoting a social agenda."

Mr. Progress, exactly what is this social agenda that is being promoted? I know that their are some folks who read this blog who think the entire education system is run by Communist holdouts and 'secular fundamentalists' but as the husband of a teacher, I can say that, at least in Western Kentucky, the teachers and administrators are some of the most conservative people I know. Maybe it applies mostly to the "educrats in the union."

I am also aware that there are plenty of conservative writers who like to string every dumb and heavy handed action by school administrators and teachers into some atheist plot to destroy Christianity or at least go to "War ON Christmas", when most of the time it is just fear of ACLU lawsuits or the simple accomadation of people of other faiths.

Sure, you can't have school sponsored prayer, but I've said it before and I will say it again: the people who complain most about this issue are the ones who would scream bloody murder to find out that it was being led by a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, or a Jehovah's Witness.

Maybe the more populous regions of the state are awash with 'social agendas'. But down here in the Jackson Purchase, as one principal told my wife, "We cannot legally ask you this, so it is always a good idea for you to mention the name of your Sunday School if you interview with us".

But then again, we did have the former porn star teaching down this way, and it probably didn't matter what Sunday School she was in.

That being an exception among a few others, I still don't see many 'crazy liberals' pushing 'social agendas' in the halls of my wife's school.

So what are these agenda's that you are most worried about?

Also, if you were one whom the Lord has chosen not to bless with children, in your perfect world what kind of right to "remove their money from the school district they live in", would you enjoy? I believe even childless couples have a responsibility to provide for the educations of future generations, but if I had the choice, I might want my school tax dollars to go to my alma mater back in Carlise County, which the last time I checked was the second smallest county in the state, with an ever shrinking tax base, so they probably could use it. Or is it only parents that get the choice?

The point was about the supposed "social agenda" and would the whole "school choice" idea provide childless people with a right of participation in the whole process of improving schools by making them compete for school dollars. This seems to be a big issue that the school choice crowd tends to ignore, perhaps it might show the movement as either undemocratic at best and absurd at its worst. Not that there isn't room for improvement.

Education Kinda Sucks, But It Ain't the Agendas, Part 2

2007-05-21T16:27:00.000-05:00

I didn't recieve an answer to my previous post, but I was respectfully challenged by one "nicholasville conservative":

Swamproot, that's a mouthful. The fact is, mediocrity is the norm in our public schools.

If you doubt this, acquire a set of the original McGuffey readers and pass it around to a sample of teachers. See how many of them can master the contents of the 4th and 5th grade volumes that were used at the time of publication. Or, pull a typical elementary teacher aside and ask the teacher to explain how to add fractions (let alone topics you would find in a 9th grade algebra text). How many teachers can demonstrate a majority of the historical and literary knowledge in ED Hirsch's Cultural Literacy: What Every American Should Know? In fact, how many could even correctly recite the names of our 20th century US presidents?

Our Colleges of Education, those deadening certification mills, need to receive a stiff dose of competition themselves. The education professors aren't getting the job done; we need to allow "uncertified" individuals who possess quality educational and career records, to enter our schools as teachers.

The establishment is afraid of competition because it will reveal that the Educational Emperor has no clothes.

Here, for what it's worth is my answer:

Sorry, about my long screed Mr. Conservative, and here is another in answering, but I was addressing the advancement of social agendas, not the competency of the teachers that there are.

I will certainly acknowledge that plenty of elementary school teachers are, quite frankly, incompetent dweebs who became elementary teachers because they thought they only had to learn as much as a elementary school child in order to get a degree and a job and they "like children".

I will also acknowledge that the institutions responsible for education are not "getting the job done". Education undergraduates might as well be Safety majors with all the football players given the less-than-challenging curriculum they follow.

Yet for all that, there is more to teaching than standing in front of a group of kids and talking. I, personally, feel that even though I posses "quality educational and career records", I would not have any business being a teacher.

Not until I could prove somehow, (perhaps by taking a test or getting some type of document administered by a testing authority, what ever you call that), that I knew something about classroom management, disciplining kids, educational law, core curriculum among a great many other things that the education professors DID talk about.
Competition may indeed by the answer, maybe we do need vouchers. I and my very, hard working wife, ( who is better than most, in my judgment), would be more than happy to see more pay tied to performance.

But if that is the case, be prepared that teachers who will take the hit will be those "family values"-conservative types who wouldn't dream of working after 3:00 because their daughter has soccer practice, or who don't give homework on Wednesdays because of "the kids who have to go to church".

But in the end, I feel that the biggest problem with education today is the lack of buy-in from too many parents who don't thing they have a role to play in their child's learning.

I also had to use his question for a cheep shot:

As for your test or cultural literacy, I missed Harding. But I figure that's probably OK, few on this board seem to have a memory for scandal-plagued Republican administrations anyway. :-)

The question was, can you name all of the U.S. presidents of the 20th century, and for the record my answers were:

Bush 2
Clinton
Bush 1
Reagan
Carter
Ford
Nixon
Johnson
Ike
Truman
FDR
Hoover
Coolidge
X - missed Harding
Wilson
Taft
Teddy Roosevelt
McKinley

Looking back, I now realize George 2 was in the wrong century. Oops. Oh well, I guess I just traded one corrupt Republican administration for another.

Education Kinda Sucks, But It Ain't the Agendas, Part 3

2007-05-20T22:18:00.000-05:00

In the end, the final response was this from 'nicholasville conservative':

Swamproot: Sounds like you and your spouse are ahead of most.
I think one of the things KP is referring to by "a social agenda" is the elevation of "self-esteem" over tangible measurements of learning. I've noticed that type of mushy sentiment is pervasive even in the Bible belt.

nicholasville conservative may have a point with this. Take it from the spouse of a teacher woman, some kids are possibly advanced against what should be in their better interest and getting held back. Their are often political pressures associated with these choices that are not in the best interest of the children. Some of this is not due to some socialist conspiracy, but actually accountability measures that might not properly reflect the needs of the local constituency.

What I mean by this is that if schools are pressured not to have failing students who do not repeat grades, then in some demographics or locals schools might be penalized for having a more disenfranchised population and as a result "bend the rules", yet . Yet I agree with the so called conservative belief that there should be greater accountability.

Milloinare Candidates: Successfull(R) & Hypocrite(D)

2007-05-18T16:59:00.000-05:00

Bowling Green (KY) blogger Osi Onyekwuluje asks "Do Millionare Candidates Bother You or Not"?

It struck a nerve because of something that I've been feeling for a long time and only had to listen to WNBS 1340 talk radio yesterday to be reminded that it's still a prevalent tactic with the conservo-pundits.

The only thing that bothers me about millionaire politicians is the way Faux News and its imitators always point out that when the Democratic candidate is rich, like that makes them a hypocrite. But if a Republican is rich, then it just goes to show how successful they were.

Just look at how everyone talked about John Kerry in 2004 as some kind of elitist, which I will grant you he most certainly is, but no mention was hardly ever made of his opponent being from a long line of Yale-attending elites.

For some reason having money seems to be a sin that conservatives like to paint their opponents with while considering it a virtue within themselves.

I would imagine the first Democrat who tries attacking a conservative for having money will get hit with "Of course, I'm rich. I don't sit around the house waiting to draw a welfare check. I work hard. I've invested wisely. I spent frugally". But Democrats must have done something crooked to have money, if you listen to conservative pundits.

My guess is that they consider them ingrates for not belonging to the party that "allowed them to keep more of the money they have earned" and passing our current fiscal responsibilities off on our children down the road.

Osi's response: "LOL".

I take that to mean he either agrees or he thinks I'm a puddin' headed liberal.

A Very Long Rant About Republicans - WIP, but its late

2007-05-15T21:51:00.000-05:00

I like to read a lot of conservative bloggers. I really do. Though I might be classified by some as left of center, I tend to avoid the "leftist" sites, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, Air America. You know, none of those really appeal to me because, I guess as a reformed fundamentalist, I don't like the choir getting preached at. Nope, I actually want and like my ideas challenged, unlike some conservatives. As one so succinctly put: "if there is one thing a conservative can't stand is to be disagreed with". Of course that guy doesn't really count, but I have found in some blogs this attitude about Barack Obama that he was always talking about his black heritage and was somehow ashamed of his white heritage.

This surprises me. Much in the same way some weird sect of Republicans like to bring up that it was Democrats who blocked a lot of civil rights legislation in the 40s and 50s and how that Senator Byrd from West Virginia was a Klansmen at one time. They conveniently forget THOSE Democrats were only Democrats because Lincoln freed the slaves, and who, like STROM THURMAN, left the party for the Republicans once the "judicial activist" were "legislating from the bench" when the "liberal intellectuals" thrust the horror of "racial integration and mongrelization" upon us.

"They" wanted then to "tear down the natural order of things" by letting black kids ride the same busses and use the same bathrooms as white kids. They seem to keep using the same arguments. Maybe its just convenient, and the Democrat's continual assumption of Black voter loyalty leaves them ripe for conversion should the Republican message be put in some kind of light that might actually serve the average African American.

The other day I learned about how someone I know from Alabama, now living in Kentucky, didn't think they were in "the South" anymore. But as far as I am concerned, my daddy went to Whites-Only bathrooms, drank from the Whites-Only water fountains and sat in Whites-Only seats below the balcony. Kentuckians have the guilt, they should have the label if they want it. Even I remember, but didn't think anything at the time, that the place my mom was a waitress at had that curious window in the back of the kitchen, like a concession stand. I'm not too sure that those windows weren't entirely closed even within my lifetime (though I was REALLY young then).

That logic, thank God, was alien in my family's house. I might guess that my dad's family suffered too much as Catholics among the 'anti-papist' Protestants to have put too much stock in the 'established place' of a person as might have been set by the majority of folks around.

But it is in that light that I know Mr. Obama is entitled call himself as black as he wants to be. Because in my father's lifetime, there was a time and a place in America, where it didn't matter a damn bit how white he was. People younger than I(37) just don't seem to realize just how close that time was it seems.

But getting back to Republicans, it just seems that a consistent message that I seem to get from the Republican party or at least the conservative movement is this: My civil liberties, my expectations of fairness, my rights as a stakeholder in all things public are subservient to the interests of big business. I have this perception, fair or not, and probably influenced by the "biased liberal media", that Republicans are for anything that Big Business is for, and that's ok they say, because they provide jobs and the free market is the answer for all ills great and small and don't EVER forget that rich people pay the most taxes. But I say they also pay more campaign contributions and as a consequence get better representation but that is something that should be counted as "intangible" I guess for the purposes of, well pretty much any discussion if you let them lead it.

I just don't buy that the free market is the answer to every problem. I might concede that it probably is a good solution ninety percent of the time. But some things just don't make economic sense. Take health insurance for the uninsurable. Take the totally unsupported fact that college tuition is growing at the rate of 7 percent while inflation grows at four and if that continues college will soon again be out priced for some of the poorest Americans or even the lower middle class. Take having the largest military expenditure of any country in the world even before we went to Iraq, that is definitely not a free market sustaining thing. These are things that seem to need a taxpayer supported solution. I will concede that these should include contracting private enterprise to provide support services where such contracting can be quantifiably more efficient, if it provides the taxpayers with more bang for their buck.

If free markets and unbridled capitalism were all Republicans were about, that would be OK, but they have co-opted all of these social causes and melded them into some kind of righteous front, so that they can co-opt a whole segment of the population that they have no interest in serving. Call me paranoid, but I think there is a portion of the conservative movement that hopes Roe is never overturned because it is one issue, like guns, that some people will not compromise on. And regardless of my opinion on the subject, I don't think they should. That is what being American is all about. But if abortion was illegal tomorrow, would the GOP be as appealing to some of its members who do not have significant investments that might be subjected to capitol gains tax? "Some people say" they wouldn't.

The sad thing is I agree with so much of what they say when I know its not a nod to corporate interests that, through sheer depth of their pocketbook alone, do not need the depth of "'republican' representation" in the small 'r' sense of the word that the ordinary citizen needs.

I believe that the best thing a person can do is learn to be self sufficient and independent and responsible for the things they do in life, the decisions they make, and even that they may be judged in a life to come for the things they do right now. I believe that the government needs to be smaller and we should keep more of the money we earn. I even believe that consumption, rather than income, should be the main thing from which our government's income is derived so that thrift and saving and conservation become incentivised by our tax system instead of being depressed by it.

I believe that a little capitalism goes a long way. Economics is a great way of working out inefficiencies, which ironically the faith in which is derived from Darwin. But I never was bothered by shoe factories going overseas because there was no reason someone in Indonesia couldn't be contracted to work on building shoes. One hundred dollar Nikes notwithstanding, shoe technology doesn't really change by leaps and bounds. I actually thought that given the depth of our schooling, Americans shouldn't be making shoes, we should be leading the frontiers of science and industry. I have started to back away from such "exuberance" now that IT jobs are being outsourced overseas.

That might have influenced my anti-corporate biasness tho'. I thought here you have the unsung IT worker, who suddenly becomes valuable, whose country's math and science investment was paying dividends in the form of higher pay and a larger and wealthier middle class, which should lead more of that country's workers to careers in IT. But corporations seem to abhor increasing the pay of anyone not a CPA or MBA or a lawyer so they go to the extreme of unloading substantial business interests on people who don't even speak the same native language! Not that there isn't sometimes a business case for it sometimes but it hardly seems a stroke of genius: Lets take something we can barely understand and have people we can hardly understand take care of it for us!!!

I'm starting to sound xenophobic, but really I'm just frustrated. I have nothing but respect for the Indians, Russians, Chinese, and, being involved with Agriculture, the Brazilians, who are my competitors and fellow IT compatriots but I don't like it when the local talent isn't utilized when it could be. Tech companies in the Bay area used to bitch about not being able to fill jobs with qualified applicants so the H-1 visa limits could be increased, yet plenty of IT people went extended periods not getting work. Did they suck? Were they acting all "entitled"? Did corporations exert some influence to get more H-1 visas allowed so that wages would be depressed?

In that vein I feel like the local Chicken processing plant might be able to get by without illegal immigrants if they actually paid more and chicken didn't cost the same thing my mother paid for it when I was a kid. You know Republicans always bitch that the price of goods is gonna go up and life will suck if the minimum wage goes up, but they don't give a damn that the inneffectual CEO who performed lousy gets a golden parachute that would have kept hundreds of people on the payroll who do provide shareholders with value-added services while working and paying to provide for their families. Shareholders should have some rights with regard to their companies handing out millions to people who already earned millions for losing their company millions.

I believe there is a balance of injustice in the world, and that it leans heavier on the poor side of humanity. Yet I read all the time that there is some horrible conspiracy that has filled the ranks of scientists with secular fundamentalist atheists, our journalists and reporters with liberals and our schools with communists who all are motivated to advance this humanist agenda for what I can only imagine is a higher rank in hell.

If there are actually any vast conspiracies out there, my money would be that they were not composed within the walls of any government, but rather within the walls of corporate board rooms, and their motivations will not include a love of the proletariat, but rather a love of the almighty dollar. Or Euro. Or Yen. Or whatever the case may be.

Save Internet Radio!

2007-04-30T16:39:00.000-05:00

I sent the following letter to my representative. You should do the same. Unless, of course, you are a soulless, real-music hating ClearChannel executive. I fully expect Whitfield will vote against it though. Mitch will probably tell him to go the other way. Funny thing about Republicans, if the FCC was collecting the money, they would be screaming holy hell against it. But when some big multi million dollar industry-backed front group does it, they have their hand out for a campaign contribution.

Rep. Whitfield,
I am writing to you to encourage you to support H.R. 2060, otherwise known as the "Internet Radio Equality Act". As the internet has become the last bastion of independent music, this bill will help insure that people will continue to have alternatives to the heavily promoted, over played, lowest-common-denominated tripe that is currently served over "the people's airwaves".
As it currently stands, as a result of a decision by the Copyright Royalty Board, web broadcasters must pay royalties far in excess of what satellite and broadcast media have to pay, while they target a much more selective niche of listeners who are not being served by those other media.
I would also ask that you do not fall victim to the falsehoods being spread by the most vocal opposition to this bill, SoundExchange, who is tasked with collecting these royalties. SoundExchange keeps 50% of the royalties for themselves, before the other half is split between the recording studio, performing artist and session musicians. In that light, their arguments on behalf of "the Artists" seem disengenuine at best.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

If he bothers to answer with any substance I will post it. But don't hold your breath.

HowTo: Create a Timestamp in a bat file

2007-04-23T11:37:00.000-05:00

I may be one of only two or three people I know that might still write a batch file to do something. Hopefully not, but it does seem to be a dying art. One of my collegues turned me on to this particular piece of code that will create a timestamp for a file. I didn't know how to do that and this would be one way to do it.

Just look at it in all its ugly syntax, this is Old School, pocket protector wearer stuff:

for /F "tokens=1-4 delims=/ " %%i IN ('date /t') DO (
set DT_DAY=%%i
set DT_MM=%%j
set DT_DD=%%k
SET DT_YYYY=%%l)

doSomething.exe > "%DT_YYYY%_%DT_MM%_%DT_DD%.txt"

UGLY. Where in the hell does the j,k, & l come from? Some sort of crazy auto-magicness? This is from the times when it was best not to question how it works. I still don't know but at least I got this trick card in the deck now.

Google: Conspiring with the Enemy of All that is Good

2007-04-16T12:25:00.000-05:00

eWeek just came out with a story about Google making a deal with ClearChannel.

If you ask me, they might as well go down to hell and work for the Devil, to paraphrase Hank Hill. The article in question does not mention ClearChannel's previous deals with the Prince of Darkness, but I am sure that there have been a lot of back room deals and off the record inquiries from both sides. One would only have to look at their programming to find the evidence. I would be surprised if Mephisto was not a major shareholder.

I am not sure if ClearChannel actually at one time sold it's corporate soul to Satan or whether it initially began as a Hell-Spawned enterprise incorporated by the very forces of evil themselves. Either way, the effect is the same: the "public's" airwaves polluted with the lowest common denominator of the same old commercial-filled crap they've been forcing down our throats for years.

ClearChannel is one of the most evil, soul-killing corporate entities this side of the banking industry or Military-Industrial complex. Thanks to them, I squirm everytime I hear the term "Classic Rock" and think "For the love of God, please don't make me listen to 'Old Time Rock and Roll' or 'Sweet Home Alabama' or anything by Foreigner one more fucking time (ever)!!!"

So now Google, Mr. "Don't Be Evil" of the Corporate world, is going to dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight. For them I have this warning, taken appropriately from the words of an awesome musician who won't ever have airplay on any ClearChannel vommit-fest excuse for a radio station: Ry Cooder. "If you let him ride, The Devil sure as hell gonna' wanna' drive."

ClearChannel == Evil Incarnate and the Best Thing that Ever Happened to Public Radio.

"Whats the point of waging war for freedom when some corporation can simply point their finger and silence a musician." - Todd Butler, "Hard to Be a Hero"

So It Goes

2007-04-13T12:30:00.000-05:00

I've dreaded the news I heard yesterday, ever since that time a long, long time ago when I first picked up this particular novel "Hocus-Pocus". I read it fast, from cover to cover, and had an epiphiny: here at last was THE novelist who most expressed the things I wanted to say in the way I would want them said.
Here was the perfect combination of rightous smartass and reflective philosopher for my liking. Since finishing that first book, I have regretted finishing every other Kurt Vonnegut novel that I have read, only because that meant that there was one less Vonnegut novel to discover and the appeal of literature was somewhat diminished for me because of it.
I was even thrilled to see him in that Rodney Dangerfield movie where he played himself writing a book report on one of his books for the Dangerfield character. Rodney is later told by his professor and potential love interest that "Whoever wrote that book report doesn't know the first thing about Vonnegut". I'm sure ol' Kurt loved that bit. He probably have even agreed with her.
What I took from Vonnegut was mostly this: we are all crazy. We are crazy for paying any attention to that crazy world outside of our homes where the people we love and all that is important resides. We are crazy for not paying attention to that crazy world outside our homes where fellow people suffer, where if we can do anything to stop the madness, as we see it, we should. Above all, Vonnegut said we should be nice to one another and that made him a radical.
Of course, some crazy Jew out in the desert said the same thing two thousand years ago, and we keep ignoring Him. We will probably keep on ignoring Kurt Vonnegut asking us to as well.

But thank you, Mr. Vonnegut for trying. I will surely miss you.

So it goes.

Fun with MapServer

2006-12-06T00:49:00.000-06:00

I just started a project trying to implement a mapping solution on the web using MapServer. I like it a lot. Not only is it very powerful in itself but the ability to add in data from WMS and WFS servers from all across the world make it just awesome.

I originally started with the CGI implementation. It seemed like the quickest wayt to get going in a hurry. The learning curve is based around learnng which instructions to pass into it in a GET request The other option is using Mapscript. Being in a .NET shop, I didn't want to dabble with php or perl as I thought it was limited to. As it turns out there is a c# version that was produced through a neat little utility called SWIG, a description of which is beyond the scope of this article.

The Mapscript API is a little intimidating at first. A lot of the examples are in PHP for more of the obscure functions. But a tutorial and headstart provided by Paolo Corti, proved most helpful. I pretty much just adapted his tutorial to suit my needs. I only had to hack around those stupid checkbox errors that keep popping up without reason.

His technique is to give each user their own mapObj, which represents a map in MS and to store it in Session. One page controls the map and possibly modifies it (setting zoom values, turning on layers, setting queries) and another page writes to the Reponse.outputStream(???). So instead of having to define html templates and link to them in the map file like you would with the CGI based apps, you make requests of the mapObj's drawing functions. You can make it draw your legends, which it will read from the defined layers in the map file. You can make it draw a queried area.

At the heart of mapServer is the map file. It tells mapserver what data makes what layers and how to output them, and configures little extras, such as legend, scale(which it can embed within the map).

The mapObj layer takes the path to the map file in its constructor. Once you have created a mapObj this way you can do all kinds of fun stuff:

using(imageObj image = map.draw()){
byte[] img = image.getBytes();
using (MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream(img))
{
System.Drawing.Image mapimage = System.Drawing.Image.FromStream(ms);
Bitmap bitmap = (Bitmap)mapimage;
bitmap.Save(Response.OutputStream, System.Drawing.Imaging.ImageFormat.Jpeg);
}
}

NOTE: The draw method can be replaced with drawQuery() to draw the result of a query, or drawLegend(), to get an image of the embeded layers described in color. One thing I thought was neat was I could have two layers defined for say the same shp file, but I could have one check a particular attribute and color them accordingly. So I could have one layer of just fields, and one where the fields are a different color based on the crops planted on them.

In order to set up a query you need to set up the query first:

layerObj qLayer = map.getLayerByName("fields");
qLayer.queryByAttributes(map, "Crop", "Corn", mapscript.MS_MULTIPLE);

NOTE: This will query the map's layer called "fields" and search for an attribute called "Crop" for the value "Corn" and select all of them instead of the closest or first. When the drawQuery method is called it will draw the results as you have defined the class in the QUERYMAP entry in the map file. Be careful about the order of the layers if two reference the same data. If you query "fields" and "fields2" is after it (like the previously described colored by crop layer), the class for "fields2" overrides the querymap highlighting.

I have played around with mapserver before but this is my first time really learning stuff for later use, as opposed to just trying out. I thought it was need to be able to add lables to the map, with just a few lines in the map file. The following entry adds a little notice at the bottom left hand side of a 600X600 image. Notice you can use pixes there. Another example that I came across put a point on a lat long instead, but that was a point type feature instead of an annotation type.

LAYER
NAME Copyright
STATUS DEFAULT
TYPE annotation
TRANSFORM false
FEATURE
POINTS 100 590 END
TEXT "MyCompany 2006"
END
CLASS
STYLE
COLOR 0 0 0
END
LABEL
TYPE bitmap
END
END
END

WMS Layers
The ability to simply configure and use MS as a WMS clintis maybe the most exiting thing for me about MapServer. We can provide our clients with really relevant information from a variety of sources from all across the world. Matt Perry has a wonderful list and demonstration (as well as the map file that produces them) on his blog PerryGeo.

I'm vaguely aware of what Projections are but here is a little more about them:

We can set our map file PROJECTION object using either “raw” Proj.4
parameters or specifying an EPSG reference number. This “reference system”
was created by the European Petroleum Survey Group (EPSG, hence the name)
and contains geodetic parameters for several projections. It’s become a standard
reference system, used in WMS applications. Unfortunately, most of the
projections defined in the EPSG file are for smaller areas (larger scale maps) than
[larger areas].

Sometimes I would add WMS layers and they seemed to not have any effect. This was either from selecting a feature layer or the scale wasn't at the point where the features are visible.

One Error I got while trying different wms layers was this: "EPPL7 support is not available". This is somewhat misleading. This is just the last driver tried on the returning result. It could be failing for any number of reasons.

Continuing.....

Some Useful Mapserver Links
UM Site

MapServer Tutorial for C# mapscript (ASP .NET)

Glossary from MapMart (at the bottom of the FAQ)

WIP

Bill O'Rielly Hates Me and My iPod

2006-11-20T23:48:00.000-06:00

That Bill Orielly, you got to love such an "independent" sort who is not alligned with any political party. He reminds me of the crotchety old uncle that everybody has that is always bitching about stuff. Except of course Bill is a lot nuttier. So today he comes out and insults me two ways, as a 'computer geek' and an iPod lover.

"I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod...If this is your primary focus in life - the machines...it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America...did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them?"

Not that I would want Bill O'Rielly to have a conversation with me. I mean what could be possibly talk about? Maybe something I heard on the Real Time w/Bill Maher podcast, or some liberal biasness that I heard on one of NPRs many podcasts, or the liberal invectum of Democacy Now or any one of several 'left wing smear sites'. But 'the machines' are not my primary focus in life. That would be, like Mr. ORielly's, poon-tang, of course.

I just don't see where he gets all these "staggeringly negative effects for America" with what is really just an alternative radio. I suppose I should chuck the ol' iPod and go back to listening to the same old tired shit that Clear Channel would have me listen to. Clear Channel and their insistence on extremely bland and safe playlisting are what inspired me to buy an iPod in the first place. Besides NPR, the only other option to said blandness was the talk radio of Murray's 1340AM, where if I so desired I could listen to Mr. Orielly. About the only times I ever did that was when NPR had some classical crap on and I could not, for the love of God, listen to Old Time Rockin' Roll or Sweet Home Alabama one more fucking time!!!!!! You know, I really liked those songs the first couple thousand times that I heard them. But now thanks to Clear Channel, I equate "Classic Rock" to "boring suckage that I've heard way too many times before".

But I digress. About the only thing in common CC and BO have in common is that they both suck and they both pollute the nation's airwaves with crap. And they both made me want to get an iPod.

So to all my fellow iPod lovers, I provide the following link only out of sheer irony, I sure as hell wouldn't want you to actually listen to this goon. Behold the link to the Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points podcast! Tune in, the "War on Christmas" is about to escalate I'm sure.

Christmas Pictures

2006-11-17T21:01:00.000-06:00

So the other day, my wife and I went down to this thing at the library where the Calloway County Humane Society was taking Christmas Pictures of people and their pets as a fund raiser. We took our dog down there thinking we would at least get some cards out of the deal to send to all the relatives. Well, we just got them back yesterday.

I could be described as 'less that satisfied' with how I might have turned out in the photo, and I suppose I could have shared the picture with you. As you can see from the previous post, I am capable of uploading an image. But believe me, gentle reader, I spare your delicate sensibilities by leaving it to your imagination, at least with regards as to where my own participation lies.

Few people I know would describe me as a vain man. But I must confess that the full extent of my current creeping baldness has some how eluded me until now. That is, until I got that Christmas picture back. The first thing I thought when I saw it was "Oh, my Gosh, I have turned into one big forehead!" So I ended up dwelling on this a little bit. I actually got out the wife's hand mirror so I could take a good look at the top of my head. Flash back to high school and those early Rush albums that I haven't heard in years: "I think I'm Going Bald". Then on top of this issue of the exposure of my scalp to ever increasing sunlight, I've noticed that my winter beard is suddenly awash with gray hair that wasn't there the last time I had one.

Not like I was depressed or anything, but the next night I say to my wife something about my ever increasing forehead. She says something about what she didn't like about herself in the picture. Then she says to me "But you know as much as you don't like that about you and I don't like that about me, the only thing anybody else that I showed that picture to said was 'You both look so happy'".

Like an epiphany I was immediately hit with the realization that 1) I was being very, very shallow, 2) bare scalp or not, I am still a very, very, lucky man, and 3) my wife is a wise, wise, woman.

Well, a lot of the time she is, anyway. She did marry me after all.

I made the switch to Blogger Beta!

2006-11-17T17:28:00.000-06:00

Well, they have been bugging me for months but I finally did it. As I first described in my "Hello World" post, I had some trouble in the whole blogspot - blogger transition and was some what leary of doing it. It would seem my fears are unfounded, it was quite painless. Haven't really played with any of the new features though. But for a start, I will label this one. We will call this my first 'tech' post.

Saturday Night with Buddy Guy

2006-11-17T00:01:00.000-06:00

Last Saturday night I had one of the best times I have had all year. I went to see Buddy Guy at Harrah's Casino in Metropolis. I managed to get backstage and get in on the "meet & greet", got his autograph and Dad and I had our pictures taken with him. They allowed the fans to take pictures for the first ten minutes of the show, which I thought was neat. My buddy John took the following:

A good time was had by all. It was an awesome show, if your into that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind seeing him again.

Frat Boys Sue Borat for Being an Asshole. Kettle, thy Name is Black

2006-11-10T10:31:00.000-06:00

I read this with some amusement. Some frat boys get conned into acting like their typical Saturday night selves in front of a camera and now they are mad because it was used in a scene in the biggest movie in the country. They claim "humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community...".

OMG, SOMEONE GOT THOSE POOR FRAT BOYS DRUNK AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THEM!!! Give me a freaking break here.

They actually got $200 for it, which is $200 dollars more than those girls on the Girls Gone Wild videos that are plastered all over late night TV (minus the t-shirt).

I know I can't be the only one who sees the irony here. I haven't seen the movie yet but I hope to, and when I do, I'm gonna take particular glee in the scene where the drunk frat guys wish they had their own slaves and "the minorities got all the power."

What a couple of dumbass fuckwads. Future Republican leaders in the making I am sure.

Wow. I Didn't Really Expect This

2006-11-10T00:39:00.000-06:00

You know, folks (all 2 of you reading this), I just don't know what to think about these election results. I come from a family of gamblers. A family that got through college working the local poker scene. I learned the game of craps in the corner of my saintly grandmother's kitchen. I inherited a spirit of gaming from my genes, but myself has always stayed away from any serious gambling, and by serious I mean 5$ blackjack tables (Where did all the $2 tables go?).

I would have never suspected we had a Democratic congress in the cards if you had asked me last Monday night. That is probably why it is a good thing that I didn't get the gambling jones that a lot of the rest of my family did. Personally, I am just too cheap for it. But I think in a free society it should be regulated instead of outlawing it. Sure there are plenty of compulsive personalities who manage to make themselves a burden on society because of it, but like drugs or sex or easy money, the lure of vice will be there regardless of the rule of law. Some of those things are better left outlawed but I don't think that gaming is one of them, it should be regulated to keep it fair, you know like the stock markets are.

But I digress. I started writing about the election. I'm thrilled at the outcome only because I think a bunch of corrupt, entrenched power-mongers/theocrats, along with a bunch of energy company apologists, drug company lobbyists, and defense industry pawns have been served, with walking papers to be exact. But I worry that the pressure to maintain this hold on Democratic power will drive these same long ignored Democrats straight into the arms of the "donors" who will finance their next election. That seems to be the way things work up there.

To the Democrats coming into power, remember this: Halibuton will finance your campaign more than anyone making minimum wage. Insurance companies will write more campaign checks than people who can't afford their prescribed medication. HMOs will finance more campaigns than sick people ever will. Bankrupt persons will never match the re-election contributions of predatory lenders. Corporate polluter will pay more for political contributions than they ever will in fines. The longer you hold on to power the less the people who put you into power will matter to you.

I guess we can only thank God and the founding fathers that in the end, it all boils down to our votes, and not our pocketbooks, and I will concede that the founding fathers had a much more restrictive version of "our" (the "our" of the time being almost exclusively white males of the Christian persuasion).

"Some kind of balance" has been restored to DC. I make no predictions on its outcome, happy days are most likely not here again, but the pale horse rider is probably not yet ready to make an appearance. I don't think over 200 years of Democracy is going to be destroyed because free elections put the wrong guy in office. It has happened before and the only time it really became a serious problem was when the basic democratic liberties and freedoms became a lesser goal of a "more secure" state.

I believe in personal accountability. I believe in hard work making a better life for yourself and your family. I believe in fiscal responsibility. So why am I not a Republican? Because they have failed with the very things they have said they champion. Every thing they seem to have done in the last twelve years seems to have been in the interest of people with money, be it "death tax" reform (which I understand to be UN-INCORPORATED incomes in excess of 6 figure salaries the likes of which most Americans will never see) and lowering taxes for people earning in excess of $300,000. Way to appeal to your so-called BASE.

I do think that a 35% tax rate should be the top end of the tax rates though. A lot of people don't know that until the 80s, they went all the way up to 70%. Rich people put a stop to that real quick, and I can't say that I blame them. But I will be hard pressed to think that they should be taxed at the same 10% that the poorest among us are taxed at. Unless there wasn't a Federal budget deficit of ... what was it again 7-70 TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ASK!!!!!!

I have no expectations that the Democrats will do better though. It is only a matter of time before monied interest buy them out and I will be looking for the Republicans, who after maybe a decade of grubbing for money from THE PEOPLE (instead of big moneyed corporations) might pull another "Contract with America" thing, to get us to buy what they're selling again for the time being.

That is my only prediction. One side gonna get the power until they start to suck, then it goes to some one else. When that happens, it's not the end of the world. It is the realization of an observation that Ben Franklin made over 200 years ago, we have the worst possible form of government, but it's the best thing we got so far.

May God Bless the United States of America and all the people in it (REGARDLESS of party affiliation*).

* or race, creed, color, religion, gender or, dare I say it, Sexual Preferance (gasp**).

I had no idea I wanted to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY

2006-10-27T22:47:00.000-05:00

An obviously maladjusted person recently sent the Courier-Journal what might be the most paranoid editorial letter to have ever broken from this far from reality. I have come to expect the typical "Democrats want to kill babies, take our guns, and promote the gay agenda" letters during the election seasons, but 'Destroy our country' takes the cake.

If you want to erase the borders of our country, vote Democrat.

If you want our soldiers who died in Iraq to have died in vain, then vote Democrat. If you want to fight the terrorists in our country, cities and streets, then vote Democrat.

If you want to have a socialistic country, then vote Democrat. If you want to lose everything you have worked for, then vote Democrat.

If you want to be forced to worship a foreign God, then vote Democrat. If you want to lose all the freedoms we have, that Americans have fought and died for, then vote Democrat.

Face it, the Democrats want to destroy our country.

[A Clueless Republican Tool]

Louisville 40272

I could hardly take it. This guy is crazier than that Sonny Bardin guy in the Paducah Sun. I had to reply:

Wow, that Darrell Carlisle is one paranoid, tinfoil hat wearing, koolaid drinking psycho. I think I will write a paranoid rant in response:

If you want to have all your civil liberties stripped from you in the name of keeping you safe, vote Republican. Trust us, if your not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to worry about,

If you want a fundamentalist theocracy implemented in the United States, vote Republican.

If you want industrial poluters to not bear any responsibility for damaging the environment or be free from any and all nonvoluntary oversight, vote Republican.

If you want the blood of our patriots spilled for people who kill their own daughters after they are raped (Google: "honor killings"), while the mastermind of the biggest domestic attack of the last century walks free, vote Republican.

If you want leaders who say they oppose illegal immigration but really encourage it so businesses can avoid paying American citizen's a decent wage, vote Republican.

If you want social security gutted, vote Republican.

Face it, Republicans are out to destroy this country. And get rich trying.

That was fun. Its so much easier to write editorials when you don't have to stay grounded in reality. But personally, I would rather talk about real issues, there are enough of those to go around without having to invent some boogey man who is going to make you "worship a foreign God".

---
I don't know why I bothered. But I figured it needed saying.

Response to a Letter from a Republican Tool

2006-10-10T17:43:00.000-05:00

Todays Courier Journal had a reader letter from another "When a Republican gets caught doing what a Democrat does..." letter. I had to post this in the forums:

I have been very amused of late of those on the right complaining about how when a Republican is caught doing something wrong he resigns and the Democrat who did the same thing stays in office. I take from it all that Republicans must be pretty incompetent if they can't beat a guy who leaves a girl in a car to drown, or has sex with a 17 year old like Studds did in 1983(?) or have your boyfriend run a gay prostitution ring like Frank did.

I mean for gosh sakes they have THAT to work with and they can't beat these guys? Is it because the 'Liberal Media', is aligned with the Democrats and ignore Pulitzer worthy stories because they would rather advance some secular-fundamentalist agenda? Is it because those particular Congress critters represent enclaves of crazed degenerate Liberals who want to destroy America? Is it because the sodomites who make up most of the Democratic party tolerate deviancy more than the upstanding, righteous and chaste tea-totalers who make up the GOP?

That's the story I would stick with, and, oh yeah, the Democrats set Foley up. Whatever, I hope the tinfoil hat fits. I think a lot of partisans out there need to realize most Americans are aware that, as I believe Strom Thurmond once said, "There is not a dime's bit of difference" between the two. When they get up to the Hill, Republican or Democrat, they start caring more and more about the people who buy those $500 plates at their fundraising luncheons and less and less about the people pulling the levers that got them there. I would just as soon send every dang one of them packing this November.

The Hours of Foley are Measured by the Clock, but of Wisdom no Clock can Measure

2006-10-03T23:15:00.000-05:00

Please forgive me William Blake. I'm sure your spinning in your grave from that little misappropriation. But when I first saw that Foley had resigned and with his name being unfamiliar, my first thought was "Please, oh please, let him be be a Republican. This is going to be so much fun if he is a Republican". I knew I was going to have to write about it. It is just too rich. Here we have a member of the party of Virtue, defenders of traditional society from the radical encroachment of homosexuals, and the party of personal responsibility, let us not forget, talking dirty to some young boys. I could feel the spin machines revving up to full throttle, with a stressed out Scottsmen down below yelling up "I'm giving it all she's got, Captain, any more and she's boun' to blow".

We ARE talking spin machines here, not Monica Lewinsky this time. But what can I say when so many are saying it for me or in spite of reality in the case of some apologists.

Scarborough tells Democrats to Shut Up or We'll Bring up Studds*:

I would suggest that Democrats remember Napoleon’s advice that one should never interfere when your enemy is destroying himself. Dems should keep quiet so not to open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy. After all, their party did little when one of their colleagues had a homosexual affair with a 17 year old intern—engaging in sex with the teen in his Georgetown apartment and then taking him to Portugal to carry on the illicit affair. The disgraced representative remained in Congress for another decade and was never stripped of anything other than his clothes by the teenage boy.

Matt Drudge: It’s the slutty little fag-bitches fault:
(some psychic friends of mine were kind enough to provide Drudges thoughts in brackets)

And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old [hot, sweaty and bareskinned] beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah [you filthy little boy-sluts] — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture [ and I tune in every possible chance I get]. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies [they are hot filthy boy toys, just how I like'em]. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? [I have, over and over, each and every perverse, disgusting minute of it] The kids are
egging the Congressman on [harder and faster]! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this. [ and I'm not gonna stop investigating it till I get the money shot]

AND

You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." [And if he was a Democrat, I would be too.] Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages [every filthy, disgusting word of it, over and over]. This was two ways [front door and back door, oh yeah], ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah [, the dirty little boy fags, I would like to give them everything I was worth, I would give them an up and down vote on my bill]. Oh, I haven't…[but I sure would like to] they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know? [I know that's what I was thinking, how many times those hot young boys were masturbating, shirtless.]

Drudge, your sick dude.

The Let's Look Like We are OK with Gays, Just not THOSE Gays Strategy:
"All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive"

The Same Strategy with a Hint of Did the Democrats do this as an October Surprise:
From Mr. Tolerance himself, Orielly: "It wasn't an issue at all until now"

The Same Strategy with a We Care about Gay People Smidgen Thrown In:
GOP would have "been accused of gay bashing"

Michelle Malkin eats her own:
At Least She Is Consistent, No Apologies, None of her typical Right-Wing Slack Cutting.
Possibly the first time I had a modicum of respect for this particular cup of crazy.

WSJ: Democrats are hypocrites, Or Lets Bring Up Studds*
(and Barney Frank, even though it was his boyfriend who was the pimp).

It was the booze talking, Tony Snow chastises Democrats
He considered it unfortunate that "people are thinking, 'OK, can I get political advantage out of this'." Republicans would never try to get a political advantage from a sex scandal, OH NOOOOOOOOOO. If I had been at that press conference, I'd be doing that thing from Animal House where you say "bullshit" when you cough.

The Oxycontin has Made Rush paranoid
Limbaugh: "Democrats set Foley up" or the anal cysts that kept him out of Vietnam are eating into his brain.

Page's Parents at Fault says some idiot poster
While just a simple message board troll, proof that idiocy is across the board.

A product of Dianetics?
It was the Thetons that made him do it.

Party of Responsibility, my Ass
Botox Queen and self righteous ass says Repugs didn't know, but the media and Democrats did, and heads will roll because "our children were at stake."

It’s the Democrats fault again.
They did it first, and didn't have the decency to resign.
AKA: The Republicans-do-the-abominable-things-before-they-do-the-decent-thing-and-resign,
Democrats-do-the-abominable-things,-and-then-do-more-abominable-things,-like-keep-beating-Republicans
Strategy. I mean you must really suck to get beat repeatably by a guy who gets caught banging a 17 year old boy*.

GOP Hack gets pwned.
I wish the rest of the Democratic Party would grow a set of testicles like this dude. Fat chance I know, but a guy's got to dream, not in the same way Foley dreamed about "growing" sets of testicles though.

Foley Contributes big around the same time his previous "overly friendly" emails were "ignored".
Move along now, there is nothing to see here.

It's a priests fault:
If I had known he was an altar boy, I would have seen this coming.

Ben Stein: Democrats being the party of Gays should shut up and 22 is "barely legal".
He says Clinton had barely legal Monica "give him oral sex kneeling under his desk in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone to a Congressional Committee Chairman, took great pleasure in putting a cigar in her orifice and then smelling it and tasting it, and having her fellate him". Orifice? Me thinks Ben needs to get laid. But "misguided" Republican had a "romantic thing for young boys" & "a big part of male homosexual behavior is interest in young boys" Boy, and they say that defending Clinton is defending the indefensible. Its ok for him to say that because his best friend is gay. He doesn't mention who this is, I wonder why? Maybe it was that pedophile Jeffrey Jones who played the principal in "Ferris Bueller".

James Buchanan. Wow.
"Even worse, there are plans to change the Republican Party to make it just as Gay-friendly as the Democrats." He should borrow some Oxycontin off of Rush and get laid with Ben Stein.

I (nor they) just can't stop!
Gary Bauer is the guy the blogger at Jesus' General is always reminding is not a homosexual.

*In Case you don't remember the Studds Scandal from 23 years ago:
BTW, It doesn't end 23 years ago. "Studds and his longtime partner, Dean Hara, who had been together since 1991, applied for one of the first gay-marriage licenses and were married in Boston in 2005, one week after same-sex marriages became legal in Massachusetts." See this comes full circle around to Gay Marriage!

Proof You Won't Stereotype Me as a Liberal

2006-10-01T22:23:00.000-05:00

In case you don't know me, let me tell you that my wife and I do not have children. It was not by choice. We know that there are other options available to us, but at this time we do not wish to go through with them, for reasons I do not wish to discuss with anyone except my wife. But this particular "trial" that we have endured has certainly made us hold to higher standards those that the Lord has blessed with children. We have very little sympathy for those that would not treasure the most precious gift that they could ever receive.

Personally, I am very squeamish about abortion. But because of what my wife and I went through I am hesitant to call a fertilized egg a baby, knowing how many were likely flushed down our toilet as my wife endured ever more painful periods as endometrial tissue buildup upon not only her uterus but here intestines as well. It is because of what we went through that we both generally feel that if you decide to get so far as to actually have children, given that you still have options to do otherwise, I mean even after a baby is born you can leave it at a fire station, if
you after that fail at doing the very basic decent thing for that child, well then something might need to be done.

There was this story this weekend about a group of juveniles, all under 14, who go out and rob a video store. But the big point of the story is about a City Councilman, Larry Shirley, making some statement about how their mothers ought to be sterilized if they can't take care of them. "What we've got is a failure in society, whether it's in Mount Pleasant with yuppie parents or whether it's on the East Side with poor crackhead parents."

The Democratic response is under whelming. According to State Sen. Robert Ford: "What Larry Shirley needs to talk about is getting City Council to provide some recreational facilities and activities for these kids." If only these kids had had some activities they would not have pulled a gun on a video store clerk. Please.

If they can't prevent their 12 and nine year old boys from robbing video stores at gun point, I personally wouldn't find much concern over their parents (NOT JUST THE MOTHERS) getting sterilized, especially nowadays that such operations are becoming more successfully reversible. It's not like it's a death sentence, if they are able to afford to reverse it, they might be able to provide for the kids they have. I actually think that the specter of vasectomization would be quite the motivating factor for the "casual dad".

So sorry to disappoint anyone who might think that's a little too close to eugenics or some other bull crap. You have to get a license to drive a car but not to have a baby. Not that I would advocate requiring a license to have children, that would be scarily Orwellian. But just so you know where my lack of sympathy comes from, that's it.

People, do right by your kids. There are a lot of folks out there that just wish they had got the chance.

Does Whitfield Support Illegal Immigrants or is Geoff Davis a Liar?

2006-09-27T16:08:00.000-05:00

I usually find Mark Nicholas' blog The Blugrass Report kind of boring. It's usually involved with political issues and politicians that I don't care about. But I did find this post particularly interesting. It's election time, there is lots of mudslinging, but one of the great things about the whole blogosphere is how hypocrisies contained in the 30 second attack ads can be exposed. I welcome that on both sides, and have this naive dream that perhaps it might lead to greater honesty during election time.

Anyway, Geoff Davis accuses his opponent Ken Lucas of voting for "food stamps for illegal aliens." This in regards to a piece of legislation called house bill 367. The hypocrisy comes in that plenty of Republicans voted for it too, including Kentucky First Congressional District's own Ed Whitfield. So I sent my congressman this little note:

Dear Sir,
Having just seen Geoff Davis' latest campaign ad in which he distorts Ken Lucas' vote for House Bill 367 as "tax dollars for illegal aliens", a bill that you also voted for, I am writing to you for clarification. Is Geoff Davis a liar or did you vote to give tax dollars to illegal immigrants?

I am eagerly awaiting his response and will surely post it if/when I get it.

The Democrats are out of Their Freaking Mind on This

2006-09-21T10:33:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows me, knows I, while conservative in some aspects, hold most Republican Policy makers in contempt. I often seek out opinions that are opposed to my own, and take note when I see a valid point, but too often I when seeking out conservative opinion, I just see a lot of "Liberals think..." and "Liberals want to..." blobbidy, blobbidy, blah, blah.

There seems to be a market for that kind of talk, a holdover from when the Republicans were the minority party, where all of the opposition is painted with the same brush. It might be an OK strategy for a minority party, but now that they have been in control for over a decade, it just seems tired and sad and like the party of personal responsibility is just looking to pass the buck.

So I often find myself on the opposite side of the aisle, not so much in support of Democrats, but in opposition to Republicans. Well not so with regards to the latest stink over the Federal Election Integrity Act, which would require a person to show ID when they voted. According to this story in the Washington post, Democrats have called it a "modern day poll tax." As a conceincous Southerner, I am well aware of what Poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests were, and what they were reprehensibly used for. I even find it ironic that some of the same people who now think English should be the only language used in our government are a few of the same people who had no problem with the previously mentioned literacy tests being administered in Mandarin Chinese to keep even the minorities who could pass the English version from voting.

I know very well racism is alive and well, but come on, requiring a voter show ID? Funny thing is I have often times had to show my ID when I voted here in Kentucky. I never fealt disenfranchised. Now I believe in Georgia there is the issue where a non-Driver has limited recourse to getting proper ID, and it does cost 20 bucks and that is a lot of money when your broke. But what about cashing checks or collecting benefits or recieving health care, how is this done with out ID? Why would the standards for the eligibility of casting votes be held to a lower standard than cashing a $10 check at the bank, or writing a check at the grocery market.

"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people."
A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.
Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.

Criminal convictions do not answer how 1500 dead people voted! I have an idea, how about passing mandatory minimum prison sentences for people engaged in vote fraud? How about seizing their property in the manner we do drug dealers? Defrauding the voting process is treason, and those engaged in it deliberately should be shot.

Treason is a word that is getting thrown around a lot these days. A lot of folks on the right are saying it's treason to bad-mouth the president (at least in a time of war, or when they are Republican), it's treason to publish a news story about something the government is actually doing, it is treason to want to "cut & run" from Iraq, it is treason to protest where the terrorist can see it on TV. That is all bullshit.

Thwarting the voting process is a crime that should be punished with the same severity we reserve for the most heinous criminal offenders. We the people fought and died for that right when this country was founded. We the people fought, died and suffered for it in the subsequent years since then, opening the right to vote up first for the non-land owning white males, then for all men who were either grandfathered in and could pay a poll tax and pass a literacy test. Later, it was fought for and won for women once it was realized that the desire to vote in women was not a mental illness nor criminal offense. Then with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, after bloodshed from the clan and "citizen committees", to everyone over 21. The final bought with blood right to vote was granted to those who were expected to be called up to arms to fight our nations enemies when the 26th amendment granted it to those over 18.

Comparing something you got to do to cash a check with something you have to do to decide the fate of this nation to "an attack on the voting rights of millions of Americans", is just silly. It should be just common sense.

Hello World

2006-09-14T22:24:00.000-05:00

I'm kind of new to this whole blogging thing. In computer science, when you learn a new language or technology, you often write a simple program that will simply output "Hello World!". I thought long and hard about something profound to post. And I never posted anything. Then somehow in the swith from blogspot to blogger or blogger beta I lost access to this one and thought dang I missed out! But Blogger was actually pretty quick about restoring it.

So here is my first post in all its simple and unprofound Glory.