November 30, 2005
Drinking Funnies
From
VW Bug, who apparently has more jokes than even she can post on her Wacky Humor for Dreaded Wednesday, a few gems about drinking:
"Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams If I didn't drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, "It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
~ Jack Handy
I like and support capitalism.
"When we drink, we get drunk. When we get drunk, we fall asleep. When we fall asleep, we commit no sin. When we commit no sin, we go to heaven. So, let's all get drunk and go to heaven!"
~ Brian O'Rourke
Well, I've never heard it put quite that way before...
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Hard to argue with that one.
mmMMMmm....Beer
~Homer Simpson
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I can't argue with Ben Franklin. I mean, he is the father of our nation. A brilliant man.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 07:36 PM (LfL8N)
2
Just go with the flow....
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 07:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
Hee hee hee. Nice to see you liked it.
Posted by: vw bug at November 30, 2005 11:41 PM (Xl/Yt)
4
That Ben Franklin quote is a classic amongst Early American re-enactors. It's quoted at just about every event I do.
Posted by: Contagion at December 01, 2005 01:51 PM (Q5WxB)
5
And Contagion, *I* can certainly understand why!
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:34 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oddy's Anniversary
Today is
Oddybobo's 9th
wedding anniversary.
First, let me offer my congratulations. That's really awesome in a day and age where marriage vows are less and less important to some. Many groups are working to completely destroy the idea of marriage, so for two people to honor their commitments for so many years is truly good.
Next, let me offer a present. Oddy claims that the 9th anniversary gifts are supposed to be drugs, whips, chains, and other assorted oddities. I think she got the anniversary gift list mixed up with her Christmas list...
The traditional gift (and I'm a traditional kind of Ogre) is pottery, so I present to her my gift on the occasion of her 9th wedding anniversary:
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
03:46 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
OOO, a Chia-Homer, does he drool too? *donuts . . .*
Posted by: oddybobo at November 30, 2005 04:47 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Yes. Yes he does.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 04:58 PM (/k+l4)
3
I would have opted for the Chia-Scooby. Not only does it grow a beautiful green greatdane-fro, but it also solves mysteries.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 06:27 PM (LfL8N)
4
As long as it's pottery, it counts for the anniversary!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 06:38 PM (/k+l4)
5
YOu won't believe this, but last year, all my boys wanted for Christmas were Chia Pets. So we owned three. Lovely.
Posted by: Bou at December 01, 2005 03:48 AM (iHxT3)
6
I will admit it. I'm a little disappointed. I was thinkin' it's be a pottery llama. But this is still nice. *grin*
Posted by: Tammi at December 01, 2005 12:59 PM (fG4Jz)
7
Yes, Bou, after reading about your kids, I WOULD believe it!
And Tammi, I looked for one, but I just couldn't find one -- I don't know why...
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:44 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Show me your papers
Have you seen
this story yet about the woman who was forced to show her identification to ride a "public" bus? I've used this image in posts before, and unfortunately, it's getting too common.
This woman is defended by the ACLU -- so I'm already very suspicious of the case. However, on it's face, a woman ejected from public transportation for refusing to show id is just plain wrong.
However, I don't think any rights have actually been violated here. If the bus service is being provided, don't you have to follow the rules to use that service? My solution is the right one: don't demand id for a "public" bus -- get rid of the damn public bus and the problem goes away.
Once again, this is an example where government is the cause of the problem and MORE government involvement will make the problem worse, not better. You have NO right to me buying you gasoline and buses so you can get anywhere you want to go.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:05 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.
1
don't you have to pay to ride the public bus? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by: oddybobo at November 30, 2005 03:23 PM (6Gm0j)
2
Yes, I do, dammit, and I don't even ride the bus.
Oh, you meant the people who ride the bus who pay 1/100th of the cost of the actual ride while I pick up the rest of the tab? Yes, yes they do.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:31 PM (/k+l4)
3
Of course, that bus reduces your costs -- by creating less traffic congestion letting you drive your car where you're going faster, burning less gasoline, causing less damage to the roads thereby keeping your gasoline taxes lower, and allowing people to burn less gas thereby keeping gas prices lower.
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 30, 2005 05:55 PM (LQJdM)
4
Just a minor correction:
The bus creates MORE congestion because it takes wider roads to travel upon, moves slower, and takes up more space when changing lanes, blocking other traffic.
The rest of your statement, as written, is actually true (and I can't tell if you intended it that way) -- in my car I AM going faster, burning less gasoline, and causing less damage to the roads.
So, if it's worded as you intended, the more people that ride the bus, the better off I am -- except for the fact that I have to PAY for them to ride the bus, so my costs are higher than they would be without the bus.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 06:57 PM (/k+l4)
5
I'd ride the bus, but the homeless guy with the foody beard and the bird-like snore is disconcerting. I'll just drive myself, thanks.
Posted by: Stevin at November 30, 2005 07:47 PM (LfL8N)
6
My snore does NOT sound like a bird!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 07:56 PM (/k+l4)
7
The lady, just like the rest of us, supports public transportation through her taxes therefore is entitled to use the system without reserve (I own it therefore I use it as I please).
The real problem, whether supported by ACLU or not, is that government has created the scenario from the futuristic novel "1984" (futuristic when I was a kid).
So, either we agree that government has the right to ask anyone at any time for papers, thus we are required to carry papers as in all of Europe, or we do not agree thus government under no circumstances can ask for papers for utilization of public services.
This is the question. Do we want Big Brother or not?
Posted by: David Anderson at December 01, 2005 01:23 PM (SoNKe)
8
If you really did own it, David, then you'd be correct. However, in today's society, YOU and The Government are no longer one and the same. If government owns it, YOU do not.
And we are very, very rapidly moving to being required to carry our papers everywhere. There are court cases now, such as this one, that will determine if we are indeed required to carry identification everywhere. I think freedom will be on the losing end of this battle.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:47 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Layout?
Did you notice?
Posted by: Ogre at
10:56 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes - and I like it.
As cool as the other one is - it was very hard for me to read. This, this works perfectly for me. And I do realize it is alllll about me. Right? *grin*
Posted by: Tammi at November 30, 2005 12:24 PM (xNIYr)
Posted by: Jo at November 30, 2005 12:25 PM (xlos6)
3
Yes, Tammi, it's ALWAYS all about you!
Thanks, Jo!
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 12:28 PM (/k+l4)
4
I guess with the new formats I will have to change my computer again. I get a "change the resolution on your monitor" error.
Posted by: Travel Italy at November 30, 2005 02:03 PM (SoNKe)
5
The green and the blue are very... who am I kidding. I'm color blind anyway.
Posted by: Contagion at November 30, 2005 03:01 PM (e8b4J)
6
Sorry about that, Travel Italy -- the last layout was made for 800x600 monitors, but this new one is just plain too wide to fit on those. I put the redirect to the old layout in there so people who wanted to continue to read would be able to without a strange (and mashed) layout.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:02 PM (/k+l4)
7
Well how'd you know they were green and blue then?
(Actually, I did consider color blindness when designing this layout. That's one of the big reasons the text is black on white. The only place I think color blind people might have a little trouble is the blogroll section on the right, as it's a bit of blue on blue).
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:05 PM (/k+l4)
8
Open wider? I have to open wider? Geeze, who do you think you are??? An ogre? I thought only my dentist would ask me that. GRIN.
Looks very festive. Nice.
Posted by: VW Bug at November 30, 2005 04:12 PM (Xl/Yt)
9
Open.
Say Ah.
Say AH.
Say ARRGGGH.
Thanks.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 04:16 PM (/k+l4)
10
Looks good. I like it.
Posted by: joated at December 01, 2005 04:19 AM (6krEN)
11
yeah i like it, makes the page load easier, and makes it so that it dosent slow my machine down any more.
Posted by: chris at December 01, 2005 06:26 AM (ZvsM5)
12
Thanks joated. And glad to hear that, Chris, I was going for quicker load time on this one -- and now the slowest loading part (the blogrolls) are last to load on the far right.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:45 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
What gang problem?
On Monday afternoon in Charlotte, NC, there was a gang confrontation that resulted in a shooting. But you'd never know it from
the news reports.
12 men were "shopping" in the mall. Does anyone believe that, even for a second? It's rare you'll find 2 men shopping at the same time, much less 12. That's a gang, for those of you who need a clue.
There was an argument and a fight. One gang member pulled a gun and fired. Everyone ran away. The one who got shot ran away. When he was admitted to the hospital, the police questioned him -- he is absolutely refusing to name anyone or provide any assistance to the police in the shooting. This IS gang violence.
But in the PC news stories, it's "an altercation." It's a "minor brawl."
Charlotte police have a "Public Information Officer." This officer send other officers to stores "to reassure customers and employees following the incident."
In other words, the police are being dispatched to tell people that there was NOT a gang fight in the mall! George Orwell, how right you were.
Also, for those not familiar with the area, this is a mall where fights and gunfights are actually commonplace. There are a number of gangs that use public transportation to meet at the mall.
In the words of an employee at the mall, "You'll see fights every other day. The guys, they usually take it outside."
Yeah, there's no crime problem in Charlotte. Nice clothes, emperor.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:03 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.
November 29, 2005
Santa?
My old pirate pal
William Teach supplies us with directions to this quiz:
I love you. You're santa but you still manage to be
a pirate. You're crazy enough to throw a couple
of yo ho's in the general xmas-ness
What kind of Santa are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
He claims he only took the quiz once to get his piractical result...
Posted by: Ogre at
09:02 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yay! I finally like my results. Heh heh heh. I got, "Naughty Santa". That should make up for frickin' Yoda... Bah!
Posted by: Bou at November 29, 2005 09:41 PM (iHxT3)
2
I got Naughty Santa too, Big surprise there! HA!
Posted by: ODDYBOBO at November 29, 2005 11:19 PM (6Gm0j)
Posted by: William Teach at November 29, 2005 11:47 PM (AkiXU)
4
Ogre - I'm going to either have to accept my quiz-a-holic nature, or find a way to keep you FROM FINDING THESE! That said, I'm at school, so I'll take the quiz later.
Posted by: Smoke Eater at November 30, 2005 12:23 AM (kvpK7)
5
Bou, combining Yoda and Naughty Santa in the same sentence is just not right. Stop that.
Oddy, I'm absolutely SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell ya!
Grog is good. Very good.
Smokey? Quizzy... here's the quiz... take the quiz...
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 01:17 AM (uSCkp)
6
I refuse to put this up at my site because I look NOTHING like that woman. Ohhhh... I got:
you are one Naughty Santa. Your Santa suit is no doubt skimpier than all the rest, you are prolly sexy though I'll give you that... You're fave catch phrase this year will be "Come over here and sit on me lap"
Like I should bother taking it... I should have just said "See Bou's answer"
Posted by: VW Bug at November 30, 2005 02:35 AM (Xl/Yt)
7
Every time. Whenever one of you takes a quiz, just sign it with both your names -- it'll save time.
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 02:58 AM (uSCkp)
8
Yo-HO-HO! It's the pirates life for me. But I'd rather have the naughty santa sitting on my lap instead of the freakish elf looking thing.
Posted by: Contagion at November 30, 2005 03:03 PM (e8b4J)
9
I don't think you're supposed to notice it's face...
Posted by: Ogre at November 30, 2005 03:06 PM (/k+l4)
10
I wonder what grog is like with rum in it...
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:37 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carnival, carnival!
Time for more reading fun!
I'd like to point my readers first to the Tarheel Tavern, hosted by Slowly She Turned (man, I crack up every time I read or type that blog name. See here for why).
The Tarheel Tavern is a blog for and about North Carolina bloggers. Even if you're not from (or near) North Carolina, head on over and read, if you've the time -- plenty of good stuff there all about the Turpentine State.
The Carnival of Liberty is up as well. This is a collection of blog posts that are all concerned with and about liberty. Absolutely excellent stuff on this one, as usual.
This week's New Blog Showcase Carnival is... well, I don't know where it is... oh wait, there it is! Only a day late
That's always a fun carnival because it highlights new blogs that have appeared. Do head on over and read the latest entrants into the blog world!
Posted by: Ogre at
06:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
Who's Alive?
This week for the Christian Views Symposium (sponsored by
Cross Blogging, the letter "A", and the number
, Lennie asks
quite a question.
Now, I'm going to provide my answer to this one. However, the more I see, read, and talk to people, the more I realize that most people are completely locked into one point of view on this issue and NOTHING will change their view.
Ok, that's fine. If you've already got a position, and you're not interested in changing your position, it's a (somewhat) free country. If your position is opposite mine, please don't take this time to rant and rave and tell me how wrong I am. Count me in the camp of having made my mind up and you're not going to change it.
This issue is quite a sensitive one, and by answering the question, I'm probably going to lose some readers. Well, if that's the case, then that's the case. Blogs are about opinions, so I'm giving mine. I might regret posting this, but what they heck, right?
Ok, on to the question (with lots of context about it here):
1. If a fetus (baby) is incapable of living outside the womb, do you believe that it is okay to have the choice to abort it? Please explain.
2. If your answer was noÂ… is there ever a time when the choice to abort is okay? Please explain.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
04:15 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Well. I'm a woman, and a mom, but my own viewpoints seem to diverge greatly from those of most women I know.
To me it's a no-brainer that life begins at conception. There. That's out of the way.
Roe/Wade should never have been entwined in the S. Court to begin with, I'm sick of it being the primary issue every blasted time there's an S. Court nominee (as if no other issues exist in this world), abortion has zero to do with the Constitution and vice-versa, and it should be returned to the individual state legislatures and their residents to decide, which they are PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING. Sorry. Sore subject.
Now. Here's a little story I rarely tell. In 1977 I had one. I have regretted it all my life. I was in the 1% failure window while on the Pill (no, I did not forget to take it.) I have a lifelong heart condition which said that pregnancy could kill me. Believe me, I remembered to take it. Sword over head.
Here's the thing - I felt then and I feel today that it was all too easy for me to obtain. I got earfuls from feminist medicos (1977, remember, the zenith of Rabid Feminism) that I should be ever so grateful for the safe option. I received zero counseling about other options. I received only the most cursory look at whether or not my health could actually sustain a pregnancy.
I also inquired about getting my tubes tied - I was trying to be responsible - every medical person I spoke with refused me based on my age and having not had children yet - the very thing they themselves were telling me I should/could never do. So - the medical establishment knows I have a heart condition making pregnancy unwise - yet they would not give me the most sensible solution to the problem. Years later I went on to have one successful pregnancy, (again while having been on birth control - I would have gladly died trying it rather than ever have another abortion) and I'm ever grateful to God, the angels, whomever pulled the spiritual strings for that.
I make zero excuses for myself, this is not a blame-the-system diatribe. But I was very young, I'd done everything right in terms of prevention, and I could have used much more constructive guidance. Instead I was zipped through the whole process quicker than it takes to get anything done at the DMV. I'm the one who has had to live with the regrets, and it's a very high price to pay, I can assure anyone.
I don't want to see a return to back-alley butchers. I don't want to see free-for-all abortion either. I'd like to see carefully-weighed cases each and every time, and limited frames of use. I'd like to see people using birth control more effectively to begin with, which they obviously are not. I'm in a tiny minority for whom it frequently fails.
Gah. Now I don't know if I've even answered the damn questions. This subject . . .
Anyway. We need to dial back the whole thing considerably, trim it down, keep safe abortion available for some cases. But it's being used as post-brith control these days, and I'm sick over that.
Posted by: Laura at November 29, 2005 05:23 PM (tV5tG)
2
We diverge in our opinions a bit. But for the most part I am against abortion. I, however, refuse to get involved in what someone else wants to do with her own life and the consequences that fall from the decisions she makes. It is not for me to decide, or to judge.
Now, as to the medically necessary question. I had a friend who was pregnant and developed a very aggressive cancer. She needed to begin treatment immediately. She could not receive treatment without first terminating her pregnancy. Now, she could have stuck it out, but all the opinions she got were that she would likely die prior to the birth of her child. Her choice was to terminate her pregnancy. The cancer, the treatment and the trauma her body sustained have left her sterile. She lives with the decision to choose her own life over the potential that she might bring a child into the world before succumbing to cancer. But, in her case, I guess it was medically necessary. She is alive today, but dead inside.
Posted by: oddybobo at November 29, 2005 06:07 PM (6Gm0j)
3
Yes, this is why judgments, imo, shouldn't be leapt to. The situation you've described is not uncommon and it is a terrible, terrible burden of decision. Your friend has my sympathy and my empathy.
Posted by: Laura at November 29, 2005 06:29 PM (tV5tG)
4
Thanks for answering Ogre. It was actually my wife, Lisa, who asked the questions this week.
Posted by: Lennie at December 01, 2005 03:01 AM (3eRXR)
5
So it was, Lennie. I read that, but forgot it when I started typing up this response!
Thank you Laura and Oddy, for sharing such heart-wrenching stories. That's one reason I hesitate to even post on this topic -- it will ALWAYS bring out extreme emotional positions becuase that's the nature of the topic.
Posted by: Ogre at December 04, 2005 10:39 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
1st Amendment and Schools
The whiners are out again, this time
complaining that there is no free speech in schools. Guess what? They're right. There IS no free speech in schools -- and there's NOT supposed to be!
Freedom of speech is an individual right that you can choose to exercise when you want to -- keeping in mind that all rights have consequences when you choose to or not to exercise them.
In the case of schools, their primary mission is supposed to be education (I know I live in a dream world, but once upon a time, in a land far away, schools really did have something to do with education) -- and anything that interferes with that mission cannot exist. So when "free speech" works to undermine the education process, the free speech loses.
What? That's not fair? Tough. Think about how it would be if that were not the case. I would be free to walk down the hallways of any school, yelling about anything I wanted to -- free speech, right? Your individual rights to free speech end, especially in a school, when your exercise of them makes other functions impossible -- and if government didn't have a monopoly on education, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've always taken Freedom of Speech as a time sensitive freedom. There are appropriate and inappropriate times for such speech. IE classrooms, courtrooms, the middle of movies, etc. If you have something to say, you have the right to say it... but not when it is disrupting the main activity of what is going on.
I was on my schools paper, the school paper is an educational paper. It's to teach the basics of journalism. It is not to get the next big "scoop" or story.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:52 PM (Q5WxB)
2
Good point -- the purpose of a school newspaper is not to exercise freedom of derogatory or inflammatory speech!
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
3
Once upon a time, I was not a conservative. I was also very naive about the ACLU. I became quite disgusted in High School at the fact that I was taught over and over again how great the Bill of Rights are, but was denied those rights from 7:00 AM to 2:30 PM, the time they most mattered to me.
My Junior year, I was given en assignment in English class to do a 5 minute speech, on anything I wanted. I decided to do it on Free Speech. I researched long and hard all I could about freedom of speech, and even looked into several SCOTUS cases. The day came that I had to give the speech. I wore a T-Shirt that said "Phuc Censorship". I was docked points because my 5 minute speech was 14 minutes long. I was told to turn my shirt inside out, and then later had it confiscated (I was told I could pick it up at the Vice-Principle's office at the end of the day - When I went there and she wasn't there I just took it).
I was so upset that my rights were trampled that I called the ACLU seeking help. They referred me to the MCLU (Minnesota CLU). The MCLU wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. They said the judiciary precedent was not in my favor.
Looking back, being older and wiser, I am surprised the ACLU didn't jump on that one. I got into trouble for wearing a distasteful t-shirt to school. Since the ACLU loves things that are in bad taste, I don't understand why they turned me away.
In the end, I am a wiser person, and am glad they didn't touch it. The problem isn't that schools limit speech, it's that government schools exist at all.
As far as the time issue, that sounds great, but the schools go out of their way to make sure there isn't an appropriate time to speak when they know that speech will run contrary to their liberal agenda. The only way to get true freedom of speech in regards to government schools is to get out of them.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 29, 2005 04:09 PM (K+h36)
4
You are dead on target with this one, Echo. I love that line: "The only way to get true freedom of speech in regards to government schools is to get out of them."
I asked the ACLU for help once -- with the red-light cameras. They wouldn't touch that one, either.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 04:25 PM (/k+l4)
5
The only Free Speech that a student is entitled to is critisizing the gov't. Other then that, they need to go back and read the 1st Amendment. It just amazes me how many of these Dem Surrender Monkey's yap on about Free Speech, but couldn't cite or find the First Amendment.
Posted by: William Teach at November 29, 2005 04:41 PM (TFSHk)
6
Free speech to those loons include the right to say anything, anytime, anywhere, without ANY consquences, AND with financial support of that speech by the government... as long as your speech has nothing to do with Christianity or anything good.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 04:45 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Government Employees
Word on the street is that government employee health care costs are high. If you're a government employee in North Carolina, you have NO IDEA how good you have it.
News reports claim that recently the insurance costs for government employees who want to insure their family have RISEN to a whopping $480 per month. Man, what a damn DEAL!
Seriously. I just checked with the people where I work. For an employee to add their family to the health insurance, it's $780 per month. I asked an employee of one of the big banks in Charlotte their costs -- $340 per paycheck (2x per mo) -- or $680 per month.
But the NC government, with so many damn (mostly not essential) employees, gets to force insurers into lower rates -- so at $480 a month, they are FAR below the private sector. If you're a NC government employee and you think you're getting screwed on health care costs -- try getting a real job and see what it costs you.
Oh, and when those of us in the private sector stop working? 0% coverage for the vast majority of us. When those in many areas of NC government stop working? Up to 100% coverage for life. Yeah, YOU'RE the ones getting the raw deal.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:07 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My Dad will agree with you on that but don't forget that all state employees are not paid their private sector equivalents. Although the retirement is quite nice.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 29, 2005 12:14 PM (/k+l4)
2
I agree -- most are paid MORE when you consider all the benefits (and yes, massive retirement benefits).
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:18 PM (/k+l4)
3
GREAT SCOT! What the hell is going on in NC that their Health Care costs are THAT high.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:54 PM (Q5WxB)
4
It's called state-mandated coverages that force insurers to only be allowed to sell acres of insurance if you want any.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:00 PM (/k+l4)
5
There is a catch to that price though. If you have someone else on it it goes up $200 or $300. Also when it was underwritten by BlueCrap & BlueSh*t they would hardly cover anything.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 29, 2005 02:52 PM (/k+l4)
6
Again, it's a sweet deal for state employees. $480 per month is the maximum cost for state employees who include their entire family! The $200 increase is from $180 or $280 -- the cost for a state employee to insure themselves.
Other places of employment will typically add $400-$600 for covering families.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 28, 2005
Mythical Characters?
Smoke Eater, the quiz-o-holic of the blogosphere, sends a quiz about mythical characters:
What do you know, I'm the same as him.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:04 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yoda... unbelievable... I got Yoda! Wonder what Bou will get.
A venerated sage with vast power and knowledge, you gently guide forces around you while serving as a champion of the light.
Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not - for my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life greets it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us, and binds us. Luminescent beings are we, not this crude matter! You must feel the Force around you, everywhere.
Posted by: vw bug at November 28, 2005 08:28 PM (Xl/Yt)
Posted by: Dan Kauffman at November 29, 2005 02:49 AM (hxRR8)
3
Yeah, I got yer back, Smokey!
And VW, just email her your results and be done with it.
Thanks for stopping by, Dan!
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:13 PM (/k+l4)
4
Yoda. Dammit. I so wanted to live on the edge and be something different. And it didn't even ask me if I was small! Sheesh.
Posted by: Bou at November 29, 2005 12:34 PM (iHxT3)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:51 PM (/k+l4)
6
Aragorn... hmmm... that' can't be right.
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 01:55 PM (Q5WxB)
7
Is there a "dark" Aragorn?
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:01 PM (/k+l4)
8
Actually, Aragorn does have a dark side, seeing as he decided to be a ranger in stead of leading, until the end of course, and anyone with a sword can be as dark as they want, I guess.
Posted by: Monty Leverett at November 29, 2005 02:03 PM (y2PwN)
9
Contagion: The Dark Aragon.
ROFL.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 02:56 PM (/k+l4)
10
I guess it's better then being the "Dork" Aragon
Posted by: Contagion at November 29, 2005 07:50 PM (Q5WxB)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 07:57 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Guard Our Borders!
More on my previous post about the 14th Amendment from the Guard Our Borders blogburst:
Right now, if an illegal immigrant makes it across the border in time to have a baby, that child is automatically a U.S. citizen according to current law. Never mind that it's completely against the point of the original Constitutional amendment. We're dealing with "living documents" and all that, right moonbats? Freedom Folks explains.
This language was added to the constitution after the Civil War to provide protection against blacks being denied their rights as newly recognized citizens. The widespread abuse of this misinterpretation is a crime we have allowed to go on for far too long. It should never have been interpreted as an invitation to sneak into the country to give birth as a way of circumventing the process of legally attaining citizenship.
Apparently someone in Congress finally woke up and smelled the day laborers. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) is sponsoring a bill that would deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. Well, God bless that man. May his tribes increase (especially if they end up being productive members of society).
Of course, something as 'radical' as limiting citizenship to actual Americans who have chosen to give their allegiance to the United States of America couldn't go without being panned by the pro-immigrant lobby.
"It would be just wrong for us to deny such a basic right to just this population," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 924 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Good post.
I just have to wonder if any response or comment on this subject from Bush was triggered by his current job approval rating.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 01:56 PM (xNjHI)
2
Thanks. If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win -- no matter their party. I mean a real stand, promising a fence, deportations, and punishments for criminals. That's a winning issue and NO ONE will touch it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 02:41 PM (/k+l4)
3
"If a presidential candidate for 2008 actually takes a firm stand on immigration, I bet they win"
I think you are right. And not only me.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal" label and appeal to traditionally Republican states."
Bush is long overdue to take a stand on this. He can't continue to "give the farm away" and still call himself a conservative. The whispers are out there though. It seems some immigration policy changes are coming our way soon. And the sooner the better.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 28, 2005 03:20 PM (xNjHI)
4
Wow. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I would actually vote for Clinton if she honestly declared that she would start mass deportations and would build a fence. Of course, I'd have to believe her, which is nigh impossible...
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:12 PM (/k+l4)
5
GASP - Don't ever say that. I almost fell out of my chair.
The Clintons are as shrewd as they come. They will say absolutely anything to get elected. Not that they are any different than the vast majority of politicians.
It just seems to me that even if HC would seal the borders, the forced march towards socialism would far outweigh any successes with the border policy.
Then again, our choices really suck. It is like voting for death by burning or drowning.
Posted by: Tomslick at November 29, 2005 01:22 PM (xNjHI)
6
Now that's a good one to remember at election time! Select one:
Death by burning (R)
Death by drowning (D)
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Take special note of that second phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
The Supreme court incorrectly ruled that illegal aliens who give birth in this country create citizens. The law states all persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Currently some members of Congress are making moves to correct this mistake by the Supreme Court. They are correct and should be supported. This move is not anti-children, anti-immigrant, or anti-anything. Instead, this move is pro-freedom, pro-law enforcement. Remove some of the incentives that others pay for and there will be a reduction in criminals entering this country.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:06 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I agree in theory, however, simply being within the borders of this country gives rise to jurisdiction, legal or not, so the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Amendment, all those years ago, was actually correct. I do, however, support this push to change the interpretation.
Posted by: oddybobo at November 28, 2005 10:48 AM (6Gm0j)
2
Well, their interpretation was based on slaves being denied citizenship -- and then that decision has been applied to criminals (illegals) who enter the country. That's the part about it that's wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 10:52 AM (/k+l4)
3
Good idea. I'd love to see the courts of the US tell illegal aliens that they cannot participate in the court system because they're not allowed to -- that would be awesome. And yes, I CAN dream!!
And thanks for the rental!
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 11:14 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Advertiser
I'd like all you good readers to welcome a new advertiser here at Ogre's View. The ad only runs for one week and it started over the Thanksgiving holiday, so let's try and make it worth their time by checking them out.
These ads appear in the upper left corner there in a little rectangle. However, these are not just massive marketing ads, they're just other everyday people who have blogs who are looking for some exposure. In each case, they have taken a look at this little blog and wanted to place an ad and appear on it.
This week it's Sanity's Bluff who's bought some space on this blog.
And look at that darn ad box! Yes, that IS a pig with wings! How can you resist going to read what that's all about? Go on, click away and see what stories and posts await you there!
Oh, and if you are interested in renting that space way up there at the top of the left column here, all you need is a Blog Explosion account (it's free!).
Posted by: Ogre at
08:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.
Charlotte Observer Wants Prohibition
The socialist severely anti-freedom Observer once again uses a tragic death to make repeated calls for prohibition and reductions of freedom at any costs in North Carolina.
The tragedy used is the death of a college student killed by a repeat-offender illegal immigrant who was drunk and going over 100 mph the wrong way on an interstate who collided head-on with the student. The student was killed instantly.
So, the Observer says that because of this death North Carolina should require a permit to buy a certain quantity of beer (a keg). Of course, the illegal in this case didn't have or drink from a keg.
The Observer wants the penalty for death by vehicle increased -- something an illegal would never know because they don't really keep up on the laws of the various states in which they are appearing illegally.
They want to tighten the law on commercial drivers who drink -- and no, the illegal was not a commercial driver. Instead, the illegal had already been arrested repeatedly in various different states for drunk driving. He had no driver's license, never mind a commercial license.
Oh, and the Observer wants the 0.08 BAC level to be more strictly enforced -- despite the FACT that there is ZERO evidence that keeping those with a 0.08 BAC level will have ANY effect on drunk drivers. If the law were designed to keep dangerously drunk drivers off the road, the legal level would be about 0.17 -- which is what it should be.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:05 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But the Observer has zero interest in enforcing border laws. They want zero borders -- and a world government. They freely admit that.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 05:10 AM (uSCkp)
2
Isn't that just typical. Someone does something wrong, and they twist it so they can use that person as an example to get what they want.
The local politicians and media are doing the same thing with Home Rule in Rockford.
Posted by: Contagion at November 28, 2005 09:11 AM (Q5WxB)
3
There are no statesmen left -- only politicians whose PRIMARY object is to get re-elected, and secondary mission is to spend as much money as they can steal.
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 10:04 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 27, 2005
Weekend Wrap-up
Wow. I'm humbled by the number of people who stopped by, read, and posted here on Saturday. 24 different comments from different people. I expected 10, tops. If I extrapolate the numbers like politicians do (each contact is 100 people), then over 2,400 people were here Saturday! Wow, I need to do some better writing for the weekends!
Thanks again for everyone stopping by and commenting. If nothing else, it lets me know I shouldn't give up blogging on the weekends (which I was considering).
And as an added feature for those stopping by this evening, I've got a free sneak peek at the next layout for Ogre's Views. The page is currently testing here. The logon section is not turned on yet, it's still testing. If you feel like it, take a peek and see if anything looks incorrect.
The layout is designed for a wide screen -- if you're viewing at 800x600, there's going to be some odd overlap of images -- I think I'm going to insert a redirect if you try and view it with a window width too small (<1000). Other than than, let me know if there's anything you can't read or if it looks odd!
(I've got 1/2 the logon part done and hope to complete it this week).
Posted by: Ogre at
10:21 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Indeed, that would be really cool. I'll have to look into trying that!
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 05:10 AM (uSCkp)
2
The new lay out is so Christmassy!!! Very festive. There will be no Christmas decorations at my blog home. I have to leave that to the IT bloggers. ;-)
Posted by: Bou at November 28, 2005 07:34 AM (iHxT3)
3
Thanks, Bou, that's what I was going for!
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 07:56 AM (/k+l4)
4
I'm on a Mac, everything looks good when you've got a Mac, including this site.
Since you were curious about who was stopping by on weekends, I thought I'd also mention how I initially found your site - from somebody's bloglist, but I can't for the life of me remember whose, sorry. I saw the word Ogre and I thought, this has got to be my kind of guy. I was right.
Posted by: Laura at November 28, 2005 12:26 PM (L4nFZ)
5
Hey thanks for the kind words! And you don't know how many blogs I find that way -- I really should map out where I'm going, but it's too easy to get lost in the blog world, isn't it!?
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 01:48 PM (/k+l4)
6
Yes, it is easy to get lost out there.
But when I find a site or blog I really like I bookmark it.
This was bugging me - it's akin to not remembering someone's name - and I finally remembered - I found you on Moonbattery's blogroll. Credit where it's due.
Posted by: Laura at November 28, 2005 02:04 PM (L4nFZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Neighbor #35
Hello, good Sunday morning to you, and welcome to this week's New Neighbor!
Each Sunday I randomly select a blog from the enormous Evangelical blogroll over there on the left side (scroll down, it's over there somewhere) and introduce it -- as suggested by the owner of the blogroll, Joe Carter.
This week's neighbor is
The Happy Mills blog is a blog by Brad and Carrie Mills. It appears Brad started
an about page, but really leaves us hanging. That page ends with
When we first came back to FresnoÂ…
I'm wondering if that sentence ends with something good or something bad...
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
08:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.
November 26, 2005
Saturday Readings
I'll be spending most of the day Saturday putting up MORE Christmas decorations. Mostly I'll be getting them out of the attic and putting them up indoors, but I'm also working on some decorations for the blog here.
In the meantime, I'm curious as to how many people stop by and read this blog on a 4-day weekend Saturday. If you read this (on Saturday), could you please just leave a comment so I can tell you were here? Just a one-word "Bleh" would be fine.
And if you read this more than once, you can leave more than one comment, too!
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:42 AM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Brock at November 26, 2005 09:36 AM (582rg)
Posted by: David at November 26, 2005 09:36 AM (IkhFC)
3
I finally got to check my RSS feeds today.
Posted by: Justin Thibault at November 26, 2005 10:25 AM (XK1Nc)
Posted by: Cicero at November 26, 2005 10:40 AM (LaBgD)
5
bleh
Posted by: Jo at November 26, 2005 11:06 AM (eXI8W)
6
Bleh.
(Which I mean in the nicest possible way.)
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at November 26, 2005 11:29 AM (PzL/5)
7
TaDa! I'm here!!!
(you know I had to be different!)
Posted by: Tammi at November 26, 2005 12:06 PM (7tCra)
8
Season's Greetings!
from Dave
the blogosphere's anonyMoses
Posted by: anonyMoses at November 26, 2005 12:07 PM (1hOei)
9
Put Edwina back in bowl!
Posted by: Stevin at November 26, 2005 01:03 PM (688sS)
10
Bleh Blech Bleah
How's that.
I read here every day. One of my islands of sanity where I go to be reassured that Socialists, lefties in general, and headhunters wearing tablecloths on their heads are not going to drag us all back to the Year 700. Am a writer working from home so I can look in every day.
Posted by: Laura at November 26, 2005 01:23 PM (kLb+Y)
11
I look here everyday if the computer lets me.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at November 26, 2005 02:06 PM (5+Jvh)
12
Um... Howdy? By which I mean, "bleh".
Posted by: Johnny - Oh at November 26, 2005 02:17 PM (aPsUA)
13
Here again, and yesterday, too....
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at November 26, 2005 02:28 PM (nfMo3)
14
I came, I saw, I posted.
Posted by: Mindflame at November 26, 2005 02:58 PM (kJZEb)
Posted by: David at November 26, 2005 02:58 PM (H0TFG)
Posted by: vw bug at November 26, 2005 03:50 PM (Xl/Yt)
17
Hmmm.
What part of speech, exactly, is "bleh"?
It may be noted that along with "yes," "no," and a few four letter jobbers, "bleh" can be employed as an entire sentence and is, in fact, usually used just so.
:-)
Posted by: Seth at November 26, 2005 08:32 PM (w7wka)
18
Tammi sent me over to look at your decorations. You will have to go to video.google.com and search for "A house with Christmas lights set to music by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra".
Posted by: cin at November 26, 2005 08:49 PM (QxGMD)
Posted by: Bou at November 26, 2005 10:43 PM (iHxT3)
20
We all wonder who looks at our blog. And especially on long weekends. Good idea to just ask folks to leave a post.
Blessings, Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Harpel at November 27, 2005 01:24 AM (RJ2It)
21
Well, I didn't read it on Saturday, but I am reading my RSS feeds nice and early on Sunday morning, pre-shower.
Ogre stink!
Posted by: Lockjaw the Ogre at November 27, 2005 07:16 AM (aYZ2h)
Posted by: Laurie at November 27, 2005 08:07 AM (hT4+I)
23
Yeah, it's Monday, but you're a regular stop on my "Annoying Neighbors" blogrounds, which I complete once or twice a week.
Posted by: Harvey at November 28, 2005 03:17 PM (ubhj8)
24
Thanks again, EVERYONE! I'm humbled.
Posted by: Ogre at November 29, 2005 12:11 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 25, 2005
Christmas Decorations
Some of my good readers (all 10 of you) might be wondering what the Ogre does on Black Friday (other than complain about printers). After wandering about and doing some shopping (why not? It's loads of fun watching everyone else), he spent the afternoon putting up outdoor Christmas decorations. Have a look:
(Click to enlarge)
That's 3 large blow-up decorations, and what didn't make the picture -- see those candy canes in the foreground? There's another 45 of them off to the right. Really. It's totally Griswald. On the right, that's Santa coming up out of the ditch and a 12' tall Moose behind him.
The snow globe on the left is new this year, but I still need one more new thing (I'm limited to 2 new things a year...)
Oh, and tomorrow will be indoor decorations -- blog decorations are in the works.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:45 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Wow, I'm almost too overcome with competetiveness and wondering if I've been visiting long enough to count as a "good" reader to comment on the shiny decorations.
I said almost. Totally shiny decorations, I love the snow globe!
Posted by: uber at November 25, 2005 07:30 PM (8LdKN)
2
Would you please come decorate my yard? The kids would love it. BTW, what flag is flying? Steelers?
Posted by: vw bug at November 25, 2005 09:01 PM (Xl/Yt)
3
And I thought adding two porch Christmas trees was going overboard ... j/k -- looks wonderful.
Posted by: Jo at November 25, 2005 09:09 PM (eXI8W)
4
Heh. Shiny things are always good! The snow globe is really cool. If you haven't seen them this year, they have popcorn stuff flying around in them like real snow globes -- really cool.
Flag? The only flag on the pole is out of the picture -- The American Flag.
Thanks for the kind words, everyone!
Posted by: Ogre at November 25, 2005 10:43 PM (uSCkp)
5
I love to see the houses all lit up and decorated for Christmas. It's amazing how excited we can still get just by plugging in a string of lights and having them actually light up! ;-)
Your house looks happy and festive. Nice job!
Posted by: Patty-Jo at November 26, 2005 06:11 AM (tIPJZ)
6
It is fun, isn't it, Patty-Jo! Thank you!
Posted by: Ogre at November 26, 2005 07:39 AM (uSCkp)
7
I'm soooo jealous! I'm very limited this year and there are NO out door decorations - but still - that's beyond my wildest imagination!!
You Rock Ogre!!!
Posted by: Tammi at November 26, 2005 12:08 PM (7tCra)
8
Um...I'm confused. First I thought Ogre's lived in caves and second, if the first is true...then how do they get electricity?
Inquiring mind and all.
Seriously, looks lovely. The decorations battle part II have begun here. And I just got a shiny new digital camera. The better to take pictures with my dear!
Posted by: Lee Ann at November 26, 2005 12:21 PM (wqPlW)
9
Thanks you two!
And Lee Ann -- it's called an extension cord. The neighbors won't notice until the January electric bill...
Posted by: Ogre at November 26, 2005 01:25 PM (uSCkp)
10
Oh.My.Lord, you could compete with my husband. People have joked that the airport uses us at Christmas to direct air traffic. One year I called Florida Power and Light to see about getting a power pole.
Holy crap. We start tomorrow.
Posted by: Bou at November 26, 2005 10:46 PM (iHxT3)
11
You'll need your own hydroelectric dam if you keep that up, Ogre!
Posted by: Laurie at November 27, 2005 08:10 AM (hT4+I)
12
Yay, Griswald lights!
And Laurie, I'm in NC -- with all the sun we get I'm thinking solar power all day to store the energy used at night...
Posted by: Ogre at November 27, 2005 09:17 AM (uSCkp)
13
Stay away from my house... stupid christmas lights.
BTW, you have NOTHING on my father... who was the model for the Griswald house.
Posted by: Contagion at November 28, 2005 09:09 AM (Q5WxB)
14
You know, yesterday evening while watching the Dolphins and eating more turkey, I thought of a way and a place to add a giant (about 8' tall and 14' wide) manger scene to the yard...involving plywood and lumber...
*DROOL*
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 10:03 AM (/k+l4)
15
One thing you're missing, Ogre. You need some good old fashion white fluffy snow.
Cold weather sucks, but Christmas decorations without snow just don't seem right!
Posted by: Echo Zoe at November 28, 2005 10:36 AM (K+h36)
16
Oh, and I MISS snow. I'm going to WV this weekend to see some up close.
And there's a company that makes powdered snow (just add water) that lasts for awhile (until it rains a lot), but man would it be expensive to cover the whole yard!
Posted by: Ogre at November 28, 2005 10:43 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
103kb generated in CPU 0.0701, elapsed 0.1725 seconds.
102 queries taking 0.1551 seconds, 354 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
