My regular readers already know about the huge tax increases already coming from Raleigh. They're still working out the details, but we are clearly going to see massive tax increases on everything from 25-cent candy to cable television to movies to cigarettes. At the same time, they're forcing other taxes that will show up likely next year.

The current budget proposal removes $15 million of spending from the state level for Medicaid, but still requires the counties to pay that money. In other words, the state is telling the county that they MUST spend this $15 million on Medicaid, but the state is not giving them the money to spend. Therefore the counties are going to have to raise their own taxes to meet the state's requirements.

And to let you know how confused the Democrats in Raleigh are, they actually think they're giving the counties a GIFT in doing this! Senator David Hoyle (D):

We are good to local governments. We give them sales tax. We give them franchise tax. They need to thank us instead of condemn us.

Operation Clean Sweep is aimed at one simple goal: cleaning house in the Pennsylvania General Assembly by defeating every single incumbent officeholder up for re-election in 2006.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Weird stuff. One of these days I'm going to have to get a job at Google, just to see how their search engines work from the inside. I somehow think there must be some serious random number generators at work in there.

It seems I'm now the number ONE hit when you search for "ODing on marijuana."

I'm really not sure how I can add to that.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:40 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Dude! Sweet! Thats gotta be some party at your house!

Posted by: Jay at August 03, 2005 12:41 AM (BKqRl)

2 Do you get the feeling that your 15 minutes of fame would be somewhat different?

Posted by: Tomslick at August 03, 2005 05:21 AM (xNjHI)

3 Wait, this is my 15 minutes? Damn. Can I have a recount?

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:47 AM (L0IGK)

4 One hit overdose? Must be some killer, uh, stuff. Now that you're famous, just don't bogart. :-)

Posted by: MarkT at August 03, 2005 06:05 AM (l/pMD)

5 LOL!

Posted by: vw bug at August 03, 2005 06:37 AM (dkZJv)

6 Dude, I'm not bogarting, it's my turn!

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 06:55 AM (/k+l4)

7 *Psssst!* wanna buy some . . . "5-0! 5-0!"

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 03, 2005 09:30 AM (6Gm0j)

8 "Five-oh?" I guess I'm really off in my terminology these days. Is that 5 Js for nothing?

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 10:02 AM (/k+l4)

9 Ha Ha Ha!!!! You must have gotten Google Bombed!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 03, 2005 12:06 PM (K+h36)

10 HAHAHA! wow, I see high times way below you.(.* o *.)

Posted by: mensa B at August 03, 2005 01:26 PM (TOHVc)

11 Below me? But, but... oh, never mind!

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 01:41 PM (/k+l4)

12 Do ogres get the munchies a lot, too? (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 03, 2005 02:10 PM (vR7Sl)

13 mMMMMmmm...munchies...

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 04:32 PM (L0IGK)

14 *brings large bag of Oreos to share* Pass it this way, dude...

Posted by: Harvey at August 03, 2005 05:01 PM (ubhj8)

15 Oreos...dude, sweeeeeet!

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:08 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's not often that I can post a headline like that. As far as I've seen, this is the first elected politician that has finally said, "Enough!" Dov Hikind, from Brooklyn, finally agrees that it doesn't make any sense to search 95-year old grandmothers for bombs!

Mr. Hikind has proposed a law to allow profiling! Good job! He actually said what everyone knows, but no one will publicly say:

There is a terrorist profile for a potential suicide bomber, and it's not the 75-year-old grandmother.
Every case of recent terrorism has been committed by individuals [from a] Middle Eastern country.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

This week is the 30th question from the Homespun Bloggers! This week they're asking about the CAFTA:

Today, President Bush is expected to sign the Central American Free Trade Agreement. How do you feel about it and why?

Today on the Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Walter Williams entertained a number of callers that were dead set against it...how about you?

Posted by: Ogre at 01:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks, the Health Care industry needs help. We need to find a way to lower health care costs. As usual, the primary reason health care is so expensive is government. Government regulation forces insurers to cover things that people do not want or need, and therefore everyone pays more. For example, depending upon which state you live in, you might be forced to get insurance coverage for AIDS, mental health, and aromatherapy, even if you don't want it. That's wrong.

HR 2355 can change all that! This bill, which is strong opposed by special interests in the health care industry (who only want your money), would simply allow you to choose any health care you wanted, instead of what your state required. It absolutely doesn't interfere with state's rights, because it actually has to do with interstate commerce.

This bill would allow you to buy insurance coverage from an insurer in any state. Currently you can only buy insurance from companies that your state approves -- and your state may have literally hundreds of mandates, or requirements, that insurers must meet to sell insurance in your state.

For example, I don't want full health care coverage. I don't want every possible coverage for anything that could ever happen to me. Instead, I just want catastrophic coverage -- if I'm in a serious accident and hospitalized, I want that covered, but that's all. I don't want AIDS, aromatherapy, alcoholism, mental health, Viagra, and smoking cessation coverage -- but I cannot do that because the state will not let me. That's wrong.

Contact your legislators on this one. The bill has 68 cosponsors and it recently passed out of committee, but on a party-line vote. The special interests are really opposed to this one because it WILL make things cheaper for everyone and WILL take money out of their pockets -- please get out there and support this bill, we all need it.

Update: The above link isn't working. To see the bill text, go to Thomas.loc.gov and enter HR2355 in the search box -- it will take you to the bill.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:01 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

Some people either just won't get it, or they refuse to get it. The ACLU is suing the state of North Carolina to get the Bible removed from the courtroom. They are doing it in the name of the religion of terrorists, Islam. And they've got their supporters, like The Wilmington Star.

The editors at the Wilmington Star actually believe that if they force every courtroom in the state to have a Quaran in it that terrorists will tell the truth in court, as long as they're allowed to swear on their own book. The editors at the Wilmington Star either don't like reality, like most on the left, or they absolutely refuse to see it.

Islamic terrorists will never tell the truth. They do not believe our form of government. They only want us dead. The editors also refuse to admit that Islam includes "Al-Takeyya":

The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates.*

* From The Islam Commentaries, H/T to Cao's Blog.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

I think I'm going to have to move my weekly carnival notices to Tuesdays or Wednesdays because there's more carnivals now starting to post later in the week.

No matter, I'll post what I've got so far for this week:

Tarheel Tavern #23 is up at Snort a Sprocket (no, really, that's the name of the blog!)

Harvey's got the Carnival of Kids (the Bad Uncle Edition).

Basil's Blog has got this week's New Showcase Carnival. The pickings have been rather slim for this one lately -- folks, if YOU see a blog that you notice is less than 3 months old, let the people know about the New Blog Showcase, or just submit them yourself with The Carnival Submission Form. This is a fun Carnival and we really want to keep it going!

There's more carnivals to come, but they'll be posted later in the week!

Posted by: Ogre at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Every now and then I get one of these "offers" from utility companies. I wonder, is there anyone who actually takes them up on the "deal?" If so, let me know, as I've got some financial "deals" I'd like to offer you, too.

Here's how it works: Duke Power offers:

No Surprise...No Risk...No Settle Up...No Kidding payment plan... It's called Duke Power's Fixed Payment Plan... only select Duke Power customers may enroll... you get a guaranteed fixed monthly payments ... no matter how cold or hot the weather is outside... your [bill] amount won't fluctuate with the weather.

Your Fixed Payment Plan Monthly Amount: $200.00.
Your Average Amount*: $160.00.
Your Highest Amount*: $250.00.
Your Lowest Amount*: $100.00.

*Amounts were calculated using all available history, up to 24 months at this residence.

Seriously, does anyone actually sign up for these things? Are people really that stupid or ignorant? Sorry, I forgot. They are.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:59 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

1 They were using tricky words, and fuzzy math! It's not that other people are stupid, it is just not that many people are as smart as you.

Posted by: Jay at August 01, 2005 04:09 PM (2FcUc)

2 So I take you'd pass on the deal, too, Jay, huh?

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 04:26 PM (L0IGK)

3 Sounds great! Sign up, leave all your lights / TV / Computers / Dryer / Coffee Pot on, leave your AC set to 60 (and run a space heater to get rooms back up to 6 ((or, int he winter, set your furnace to 80 and run window AC units to get it back to 6 ) ... hell, run extension cords to neighbors' houses and let them drink your power up too! /TJ

Posted by: TJ at August 01, 2005 09:50 PM (PL7dL)

4 Is that really how Duke Power works it? Here in Colorado, Xcel Energy offers a plan called Averaged Monthly Payment. Based on your usage history, they even out your payments so you don't pay way more in winter than summer. But, once a year, they have a "settlement month" where your payments and your actual usage are reconciled. If you used more than you payed, your bill for that month includes the difference that you owe. If you used less, the difference they owe you is credited to your next month's bill. So the only "excess profit" they make is the interest earned on any extra money collected in the course of the year. Seems fair to me. You might want to see if Duke has some kind of reconciliation of payments and usage. And if not, helpfully suggest that they copy Xcel's plan. ;-)

Posted by: Richard G. Combs at August 01, 2005 11:46 PM (vse8V)

5 GOod idea, TJ! And Richard, this is all they've got (or at least all they'll make public). That seems like a good idea from Xcel, but doesn't the reconciliation month sort of defeat the purpose of level payments?

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 05:48 AM (L0IGK)

6 We have something like that from our Natural Gas company, it reads a lot like what you have there. I passed on it, but I know people that did it. When I asked them why the answer I recieved was, "We can just barely afford the high heating bills in the winter, especially with Christmas. At least this way we can budget better." All three that did this plan are on a very fixed income.

Posted by: Contagion at August 02, 2005 08:41 AM (Q5WxB)

7 I don't understand how people can budget to spend more money -- why can't people simply save the money they would have spent in the winter THEMSELVES, instead of paying more to allow someone else to do it? I should offer my financial services advice to these people...at $200 a day or $500 an hour...

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)

8 Wow, for a single Ogre, you sure do use a lot of power! I'd say, "Do it!" and then crank the A/C down to 65 in the summer and the heat to 80 in the winter... and keep the windows open. Oh, TJ beat me to it...

Posted by: Bou at August 02, 2005 03:43 PM (5JHEt)

9 It's tempting -- maybe run the bills WAY up for a year, then get off the plan and hardly use it for awhile...

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 04:14 PM (L0IGK)

10 "[We want] to insure that in the future all citizens can be self-sufficient in all calculations related to their interests; without which they can be neither really equal in rights... nor really free." --Condorcet How far down has our public education system sunk, when people cannot multiply their average utility bill by 12 to produce their annual usage cost-- and a utility company can bank on it?

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at August 10, 2005 01:02 PM (1OwrP)

11 A long way, Wacky Hermit, a LONG, sad way. Heck, you wouldn't believe the number of 18-year old GRADUATES of high school that I deal with that have absolutely no clue how to calculate overtime or even percentages (for taxes).

Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 01:36 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

So, how does everyone like the new layout? Oh. Yes, you're right, there was no change in the layout this month. Sorry, it's not coming soon, either.

The next layout I'm working on is relatively complex. I'm experimenting with quite a few features that will work behind the scenes, so don't worry, it won't be a diagonal layout or anything. It will be a pretty different layout, however.

The idea is to have a relatively informative "above the fold" section. From there, there will be links and teasers to articles. I know Harvey won't like it, at least at first, because it is going to be designed to make you click some, not just scroll. But it should be very user-friendly, unlike the horizontal layout.

I'm setting it up based on cookies and larger screen layouts. If you're one of the 15% viewing with 800x600 monitor settings, sorry, you're not getting the fancy stuff. I'm going to set up an auto-detect that will send small screen viewers to a different layout. I'm also considering having very primitive logins (optional, of course) and a few other features that "remember" your visits.

The big thing that will make a difference will be cookies and computers. I'm wondering how many people visit this site from more than one computer? I can only track cookies on a computer-basis, so if you visit from home and work, the cookies idea won't work, but logins might. So...

How many people visit this site from different computers -- and if so, would you be opposed to a login to remember your readings?

Posted by: Ogre at 12:00 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I visit from different computers, but would not necessarily be opposed to logins, assuming my browser remembers my login info so I don't have to keep typing it in. I am lazy, afterall.

Posted by: oddybobo at August 01, 2005 01:27 PM (6Gm0j)

2 It would certainly be a very simplistic logon -- probably without a password -- and you'd only end up typing it once on each machine.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 01:32 PM (/k+l4)

3 I use typically, only one machine... but I delete my cookies pretty frequently. So, I'll have to continually reinput my data. No sweat really. If it's a big pain in the neck, I'll let you know.

Posted by: Bou at August 01, 2005 02:29 PM (5JHEt)

4 This layout is really good. I like how the comments just drop down without opening a new window. No problem with the login idea here.

Posted by: Tomslick at August 01, 2005 02:34 PM (xNjHI)

5 What I'm working on would use the cookies primarily to track which posts are new since your last visit, which ones you've read, and perhaps even which ones you'd commented upon.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 02:48 PM (L0IGK)

6 And I'm not sure if the comments are going to stay in place with the new layout, Tomslick. I'm experimenting with some ideas to allow people to log in and have custom options like having comments open in place or not, but I'm not sure that's going to make it to the final version. But since you like it this way, I'll be sure to keep that in mind as it develops.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 02:53 PM (L0IGK)

7 I mostly only read from work and even then mostly in Thunderbird via RSS. Will that have an affect on things?

Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 01, 2005 02:57 PM (K+h36)

8 It's much better Ogre!

Posted by: Michael Churchill at August 01, 2005 03:32 PM (eqaaP)

9 No, the RSS feeds won't change much. I might play with them a bit, and it will look different when you load the entire page in the reader, but that's it, Echo. Thanks, Michael!

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 03:33 PM (L0IGK)

10 I'm always up for a change. Bring it on! I have 3 different computers I might use to browse your site, but no biggie.

Posted by: VW Bug at August 01, 2005 04:12 PM (dkZJv)

11 3 computers? What are you, a computer geek or something?

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 04:26 PM (L0IGK)

12 AAAAAAAAAH! Not extended entries! NOOOOOOOOO! Anyway, I'm a single-machine surfer, so the cookie thing won't bug me too much.

Posted by: Harvey at August 01, 2005 04:28 PM (ubhj8)

13 The content matters more to me than the layout, but since the content is nearly always excellent, I'm more than happy to play 'layout roulette'. I usually use Safari/Mac, but I'm willing to check it out on Linux/Firefox and XP/Exploder. I'm curious now!

Posted by: MarkT at August 01, 2005 04:33 PM (l/pMD)

14 Yup, that's it Harvey -- your worst nightmare: ALL Extended entries! No click-y = no read-y. Thanks, Mark, for the kind words. I'm going for all platforms capability...and I can't test Safari as I don't have access to a Mac (but those mini-macs sure are tempting with their $499 price tag)...

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 05:14 PM (L0IGK)

15 You're going to give us a plethora of choices on things, aren't you? It's going to be like the going to get your eyes checked... "Which is clearer... this or this. Now.. this or this?" and on and on it goes... Bah! I'm dichotomous. Make sure you give me yes no choices! I don't use my brain anymore! I have KIDS!

Posted by: Bou at August 02, 2005 03:46 PM (5JHEt)

16 It depends on how well I can get the php session variables working and how long I can effectively store them on your system. And heck, let the kids choose!

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 04:16 PM (L0IGK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ever heard of it? Well, you should have. The Agitator writes about it in his weekly Fox column. Jury nullification is well defined by Clay S. Conrad in his book, "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" as

"Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust."

(1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury's reasoning.

Serving on a jury may be the last, great hope for this country. If you are called to serve, serve -- but feel free to ignore the judge as YOU are the one in charge, NOT him.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:00 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

John Snow (D) has introduced a bill, S247 that would ban helicopters. Well, technically, it would only ban landing pads for helicopters. And, as any good Democrat bill does, it bans landing pads for helicopters where one already exists and has been in existance for many years.

What's so bad about this bill (which is highly likely to pass) is that the Democrats know that they absolutely cannot pass laws regarding airspace in North Carolina -- only the FAA can do that. So instead, they use zoning to regulate the company out of business! Yes, that same zoning thing used in Kelo vs. New London.

I do wonder how they can pass a law that applies retroactively to a business that is already in place. However, this wouldn't be the first time they've passed a law like that -- things like the Constitution are only obstacles to Democrats, not to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:40 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well that doesn't make much sense. This couldn't possibly effect life flight helicoptors could it?

Posted by: tomslick at August 01, 2005 08:10 AM (xNjHI)

2 What the hell is the purpose behind this? do you have flocks of helicoptors cloggin up your airways in NC?

Posted by: Contagion at August 01, 2005 08:21 AM (Q5WxB)

3 The given reason is because some people complain about sightseeing helicopters that fly over their houses. So, no, lifefights would be OK (as long as they only land where they are told to land, of course!).

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 08:56 AM (/k+l4)

4 If everyone would be willing, email me clues, and I will take a quick drive to downtown Raleigh and deliver them to Mr. Snow. I think Mr. Snow is worrying about all those black helicopters that keep buzzing him.

Posted by: William Teach at August 01, 2005 09:53 AM (IRsCk)

5 That's eeeeeevil black helicopters, Teach!

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 09:56 AM (/k+l4)

6 "The provisions of this Article shall not apply to any heliport operated by the State of North Carolina, any of its political subdivisions, any law enforcement, fire or rescue agency, or a health care institution licensed by the State to operate an air ambulance." Oh, I see... as long as the owner of the helicopter is in biz with the NC State Government, they've got two thumbs up. It's only the PRIVATE helo companies NC State Democrats want to send packing to other states to employ the citizens of those OTHER states. I can see why this torques you off. This is just freaking rediculous!

Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 01, 2005 10:09 AM (Er9BL)

7 Good catch, GTL -- I think that's a standard paragraph that's added at the end of every single law that's propsed in North Carolina: This law applies to everyone but the government.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 10:12 AM (/k+l4)

8 Is it going to be so generic that it will stop Emergency copters?

Posted by: vw bug at August 01, 2005 11:37 AM (dkZJv)

9 This wouldn't fly in FL. Too many wealthy with their own private choppers.

Posted by: Bou at August 01, 2005 12:38 PM (5JHEt)

10 It's very specific, VW, designed to only stop sightseeing helicopters.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 12:49 PM (/k+l4)

11 Normally at this point I would say that the private Helicopter companies should fight this in court, it would be a no brainer and they would win. However, after the eminate domain BS, I'm not so sure what is common sense anymore.

Posted by: Contagion at August 01, 2005 03:23 PM (Q5WxB)

12 And you have to have money to fight in court -- and when you sue the state, they have quite literally unlimited funds to drag, delay, and force you to spend lots and lots of money. I don't think the small operators that this is aimed at have anywhere near the cash to fight it.

Posted by: Ogre at August 01, 2005 03:35 PM (L0IGK)

13 This just makes no sense... they want to keep private helicopters from clogging the airways, but yet, THEY'LL HAVE NO PLACE TO LAND! That means they'll ALL be flying around waiting for landing pads. Dumb.

Posted by: That 1 Guy at August 02, 2005 08:01 AM (lwwNF)

14 I wonder if there were some crashes of helicopters due to lack of landing facilities would make a difference to these people...

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 08:57 AM (/k+l4)

15 Ok, tell me you don't have a tourism bureau within your monstrous govt. (I know PA does). Get those guys on the side of the sight-seeing choppers. govt vs govt smackdown. could be interesting. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at August 02, 2005 09:56 AM (vR7Sl)

16 Sure, THAT'S what we need - MORE government to solve the problem of government. As much as I like the idea of government having to fight government, I know that when they do, it's MY DAMN MONEY they're using in their fight!

Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 10:19 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment