Wake me when November Ends

Sweet Jebus I can't wait until November is over. As is the case with any election year (especially presidential ones) the ads are out of control. This year, though, seems worse. Maybe it's because the race is so close. Maybe because both candidates are more desperate to get into office than usual. I really couldn't say.

In any case, it makes me wonder how many people out there really are influenced by these ads. Of course every ad (for either side) states that candidate X did this, or didn't do that. How many people take the ads at face value, without considering the full story? How many voters base their vote on what they hear and see in advertising and not on individual thought?

Prime example; A radio ad came on today professing Mccain's support of stem-cell research and how much good that can do. Immediately following that was an Obama ad claiming his support for the same issue plus Mccain's supposed opposition to it. Hmmmm...

Frankly I probably don't want to know the answer to any of these questions. I'm guessing I'd either have to kill myself or hunt down all those that base their votes on political ads. You know, clean the gene pool a bit. While the latter would be a lot of fun, the former is easier. Or maybe I'll plan on spending the next 6 weeks drunk and immersed in a media free zone. Perhaps somewhere like Azeroth...

Dumbocrats.org

A few days ago, my wife sent some comments to the Democratic party. Unfortunately she used her actual email address, which put her on their email list. And boy-howdy do do they use the email list. She's been getting 2 to 3 emails a day, all giving her the latest news from the DNC. Which may be interesting IF she cared about the DNC and IF we didn't live in Denver and hear about it on the TV constantly.

This wouldn't have been a big deal, except that it's frakking ridiculous to get off of the list. Sure, each email has an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom. This link takes her to a webpage that asks her to verify the email. The next screen then requires a 4 digit "confirmation code" that was supposedly emailed to her. The code didn't arrive for over 24 hours. When it finally did, the website claimed it was invalid.

Turns out, if the webpage requiring the confirmation code is closed, the code is invalidated. Basically this webpage needs to be kept open until the code can be entered, which is fine if the system actually sends the code promptly, but a day later is anything but prompt.

I have resorted to replying to every email with "For the love of all that's holy UNSUBSCRIBE ME." and spamming the webmasters with "Unsubscribe" emails until they finally take care of it.

I would ask the party how their candidates will be able to run the country when they can't even run a website, but I don't want this to start over again...

Inconvenient to the Truth

A coworker turned me on to this website. It's an article written by Christopher Monckton, a former British advisor to Margaret Thatcher. The article is a refute to An Inconvenient Truth,
Al Gore's self-fellating movie about the global warming "problem".

When the movie came out, my first reaction was, "What the frell does Gore know about global warming?" and "This is a great publicity stunt for him." To which the answers are, "Jack-scheisse" and "Ayup".

I'll admit, I had no desire to see this film, and never have. I don't need a hypocritical ass telling me how I should change my everyday habits. After reading the above article though, I'll probably watch it now, with this article as a reference.

Anyway, Lord Monckton's article takes Gore's movie point by point. While I'm sure that this paper is just as right-wing as Gore's movie is left, the points it raises are good ones. As always I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I don't mean it to sound like I don't believe in global warming, I simply don't know. As with all major controversies the facts get buried in political ideals and emotions. I can say that despite the claim of "undisputed facts" of global warning, there are a lot of disputed facts. By no means do all scientists believe global warming is an issue.

I still say it was a great move of Gore's to advance his career, no one can convince me he knows jack or shit about global warming, but suddenly he finds himself with a position in the British government.

And to everyone that argues "He must be right, he won a Nobel Peace Prize." I say, so did Arafat, and Hitler was a nominee. The Nobel Peace Prize is hardly more meaningful than winning an Oscar. Remember, the commitee that selects the winner is a whopping 5 people, hardly a fair and impartial group. Hell, President Bush received a nomination, as did Stanley Williams (founder of the Crips street gang) and singer Bob Geldof. For God's sake Bono got a damned nomination. Plus, let's look at who didn't win, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Pope John Paul II and The International Solidarity Movement.

Bottom line? Gore's a self-motivated, publicity seeking asshat. Someone whom I'm apparently supposed to change my life for? Suck it Gore...

Californian Nazis

According to MSN, a Californian councilwoman wants to stop any new fast food restaurants from opening fo rhte next two years. According to her, "The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there,".

Are you frakking kidding me? People eat there because it's convenient, cheap and tastes good. Granted it's not always healthy, but I hear there's this new thing out there called "Self-control". Maybe Ms. Himmler should promote this and personal accountability. It's not McDonald's fault that people can't control themselves and eat four Big Macs, large fry and a vat of chocolate shake.

According to Ms. Perry, though, it is McDonald's fault - how dare they sell food people like to eat. These poor people are getting fat because they're forced to eat the fast food instead of bringing a frakking salad.

Stupid Californians....

Scuba Diligence

For those not in the know, I work at a SCUBA diving shop. Every now and then we receive interesting notices from manufacturers and such. The most interesting to date has been a recent FBI notice.

We are to have a heightened "situational awareness to the scuba industry regarding behavior that may indicate an individual(s) is involved in nefarious activity."

Indicators that we're supposed to look for?

" Requests to dive in murky water or sewer pipes."

First of all, we live in Colorado, there's nothing but murky waters out here. Secondly, I think I'd hang up on someone that asked about diving in a sewer (lord knows I wouldn't want the rental gear back).

"Inquires about procedures such as diver towing."

This is a tricky one, our beginning class, teaches diver towing. Rescue Diver has a whole section on it.

"Requests to learn advanced skills associated with combat swimming, including:

> Use of re-breathers and diver propulsion vehicles (DPVs).
> Deep diving.
> Conducting kick counts.
> Receiving extra navigation training."

OK, the first one isn't too common, but we do get questions about both rebreather and DPVs (hell, we sell some).

The last three are all involved in the Advanced class, and we get questions about further training in Deep and Navigation diving (no one likes getting lost).

Bottom line? Apparently I should report about 80% of the customers that come into or call our shop.

The thing that makes me wonder the most is that we're getting this now, over five years after 9/11. Is there something they know that we're not being told?

Hm......

Stupid Lawyers...

I know my last post was a political rant, and I really don't want this to be a political blog, but I have to get this off my chest.

A couple of weeks ago, NBC had this story about some senator in New York that wants to ban the use of cell phones, blackberries and iPODs while walking across the street. This started a discussion with my coworkers about other legislation in the works, such as;

• Texas wants to make it a misdemeanor to miss a parent/teacher conference (story).
  
• Various states are trying to ban smoking in a car with a child in it - even if it's your car(story).
• Mandatory traffic stops if a police officer sees that seat belts aren't being worn (story).
• Florida would like to make the term "Illegal Alien" illegal(story).
• A bill that would make video game makers responsible for any crime committed by a minor - if they think that the game had any influence (story).
• Arizona tried to force teachers to have "alternate assignments" for students that were offended by their reading material (story).
  

The list could go on ad nauseum. While there are certainly a few things that I agree with (wearing seat belts, not smoking around children for example), I really don't feel they need to be laws. If you're not willing/too stubborn to wear a seat belt - then don't. It's your life. Even the smoking thing bothers me, is it the government's place to control every aspect of our life?

I understand and agree that the government is in place to protect and rule us. However, at what point should the line be drawn? Do we really need the boneheads in Washington to go out of their way to protect us from ourselves? Is it necessary to have a law to remind me that I need to watch where I'm going when I'm on a cell phone?

Being a gamer, I'm REALLY offended by the bill to make game makers responsible for the actions of their customers. I suppose I should be happy, I can now play GTA and go steal cars and assault police - but it wouldn't be my fault. The game made me do it.

Didn't we go through this with heavy metal and D&D a couple of decades ago?

Stupid politicians.....

Strange ads

Yesterday morning, on my way to work, I heard an advertisement that made me go "Hmmm..."

It was an add for food stamps. The advertisement's premise was that "You too may qualify for Food Stamps. Isn't that great news?" It makes it sound like anyone in almost any walk of life could get food stamps.

This raised a few questions in my mind:

Does the welfare department really need to advertise? Are there people that can't afford food that don't know about the food stamp program? Should we be telling those that are getting by with their current income that they might qualify for food stamps?

Don't get me wrong, welfare and food stamps have their place. Everyone needs help once in a while, but I feel that the welfare program is already abused. Are advertisements for those that may not truly need it necessary?

If there's a surplus of funds in the welfare program, shouldn't it go other places? Maybe the agencies in charge of these programs are finding themselves with less to do? Seems to me they should reduce the program and divert the monies to other programs (schools, police, roads) instead of trying to drum up more people to use the food stamps.

Maybe there are other factors I'm missing. Maybe I just caught a slight case of conservatism. the world may never know...