Shots Across the Bow

A Reality Based Blog

 
Thursday, June 30, 2005

We Interrupt the Rants to Bring you the Following Review:  War of the Worlds

Hey, just because I'm highly pissed off right now doesn't mean I'm always bitching. I still go out and have a good time from time to time, and I'll write about it here as always.

I took my youngest son out last night to see War of the Worlds, Spielberg's latest alien adventure. It's kind of ironic that Spielberg chose this one since the critters in War are not nearly as cuddly as E.T. In fact, they're downright nasty, looking to exterminate humanity in order to take over the planet. Which begs the question, how could critters who evolved under 1/3 the gravity, with little to know atmosphere to speak of, survive on a planet with a thick soupy atmosphere, 3 times the gravity, a lot higher temoeratures, and all that free water standing around?

But this is a science fiction film, so we'll ignore small quibbles like, you know, actual science, and just enjoy the movie.

And it is enjoyable, although bleak. It follows the H.G.Wells novel faithfully for the most part, and since it was a morality tale that reminds us that we are not lords of all creation, that bleakness is appropriate.

While the movie was OK, there were a few jarring elements that keep me from endorsing it whole heartedly. Dakota Fanning was annoying, not endearing. The John Williams score seemed recycled; in fact, the dominant theme comes straight out of The Empire Strikes Back, virtually unchanged. (It's the opening bars from the "Imperial Storm Troopers March.") And finally, for all you conspiracy theorists out there, the aliens look remarkably like the ones from ID4. Is Spielberg paying tribute to his forerunners, or does Hollywood know something they're not telling us?

6 out of 10

Posted by Rich
Reviews • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The 3rd Circle of Slime:Governent

I was going to focus this post on the judiciary alone, but as I wrote, I began to realize that it was all of a piece. Whether it is a judge, a congress critter, or some nameless, faceless bureaucrat buried in some dusty cubicle in the depths of some Washington mausoleum writing regulations that automatically and without review become law, they are all working in concert to limit our freedoms.

So I lumped them all together, making what Marines call a "target rich environment." So stand by for the shotgun blast.

Yep, the next stop on our tour of the depths of American Hell stops in Washington DC, as well as every courtroom and every legislative chamber in every city, county and state in this nation. And what will we see here?

Parasitic scoundrels who feed off of us like bloated ticks, sucking us dry while swelling up to loathsome gray blobs of poisonous corrupt flesh. They see themselves as our betters, and as long as we keep giving them power (again, more on this to follow) they're right.

Think about it for a minute, has a single sane decision come out of the federal government in the last couple of decades? We're involved in a war against a shadowy opponent, a war which is redefining the way we wage war, and one that is creating tremendous pressure on our liberties, yet our Supreme Court is deciding weighty issues like "Can the words 'Under God' be part of the Pledge of Allegiance? and "Should marriage be limited to a man and a woman?"

Are they serious? Is that really what's important now? Hell, just a short while ago, our national government was consumed in an investigation into whether their was a drug problem in baseball!

This is a matter for the federal government?

And the rot extends down to states, cities, counties, and villages. Government at every level appears hell-bent on destroying every limitation the Constitution put into place. Every where we go, every time we turn around, someone somewhere is telling us we can't do something. No smoking in a bar. No riding a motorcycle without a helmet. No dancing nekkid. No riding in a car without your seat belt. no drinking unless you're over 21. No marriage unless you apply for a license and the city fathers approve of your choice. No walking down the street at 3am. (Try it in Gatlinburg. There's no law against it, but the local police will stop you and harass you, under the suspicion that you might have been having a good time.)

Not only are our freedoms being eroded, but the intolerable invasions into our privacy keep coming. How is it that the right to privacy extends to a woman killing her baby, but we have to surrender our papers to any police officer who asks, for any reason? How is it that the federal government has passed and expanded the Patriot Act, giving them the right to tap my phone, come into my house without my knowledge or consent, and read my mail, all without any recourse by me.

And once again, it isn't just the feds. How about roadblocks checking for papers? Sounds very East Germanic, doesn't it? I drove through one a few years back. Some county mounty had gotten the bright idea to set up a road block on the main road and he stopped every car, checking for license and registration. During the stop, he took a quick look around the vehicle, looking for anything worth a further search. Legal? It is now. Outrageous? You betcha!

It's come to the point now where if you want to go anywhere outside your home, you are subject to being stopped and questioned by the police for no reason whatsoever!.

"Just checking" is reason enough.

And don't think you're safe inside your home either. If some developer doesn't covet your property, some government agency will be wanting to know just what you do in there. Some laws that have been proposed and/or passed include:
  • No smoking at home
  • No drinking at home
  • No loaded weapons in the home
  • No corporeal punishment of any type
  • Mandatory safety equipment
  • Forcing your home to follow OSHA regulations if you have a home business

And so it goes.

I have two questions for all of you:

When was the last time you heard of a decision in Washington, or your state capitol for that matter, that increased your freedom?

How long are you going to stand for this?

Posted by Rich
84.5 miles • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Next Up On the Hit Parade

Liberal Democrats. Yes they're a notch below Republicans on the slime wagon, not because they are more corrupt. They aren't, not really. A corrupt politician is a corrupt politician, whether there's a "D" or an "R" after their name.

No, liberal Democrats rate lower simply because they continue to peddle a doctrine that has failed every single time it's been tried. While some would tend to give them high marks for consistency, I refuse to reward a man for consistently rejecting reality, ignoring the facts, or for cynically manipulating others into doing so for their own personal gain, and that, folks, describes every single liberal Democrat, bar none.

Now that I've raised some more blood pressures, let's examine this absolute statement a little bit closer. First, note that I said liberal Democrat, and not just Democrat. There's a reason for that; not all Democrats have gone insane. Some are still attached to the real world the rest of us live in. While their priorities are different than conservatives, leading them to different policy directions, they are still grounded in reality. Sadly, since the inmates have taken over the Democratic Party (cf Howard "Yeeeeaaarrrgghhhhh!" Dean, a man I had some hopes for early in his tenure as DNC chair) most moderate Democrats are no longer welcome in their own party. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

So if I'm not talking about the moderates, who am I talking about?
  • The guy who thinks we need to set a date to leave Iraq, thus insuring defeat, as well as the bloody deaths of tens of thousands of Shia Iraqis.
  • The guy who thinks playing loud music to terrorists caught on the field of battle is equivalent to gassing millions of people based on their religion.
  • The guy who will lie, cheat, steal, or distort history because his side needs to win "by any means necessary."
  • The guy who looks at the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and sees, "Citizens are not allowed to keep or bear arms."
  • The guy who thinks that 1500 casualties over a 2 year period is equivalent to hundreds of casualties a day.
  • The guy who thinks private property is a privilege, not a right.
  • The guy who thinks 9/11 was our fault.
  • The guy who thinks 9/11 was a good thing.
  • The guy who thinks the world owes him a living just because his dumb ass was lucky enough to be born in the wealthiest society in history. (More on this particular moron in a couple of days.)
  • The guy who....but you get the point.


There was a time not too long ago when liberalism was a good thing. Remember JFK? Remember "Ask not what your country can do for you...?" Heard any liberals singing that tune in the last decade or so? Hell, any that tried would be drummed out of the party in a heartbeat. That's all modern liberals are about anymore, what your country can do for you. According to them, it is the government's responsibility to provide housing, job security, healthcare, education, a comfortable standard of living, food, clothing, and every other basic need to every citizen. After all, everybody has a right to these things; just ask a liberal and he'll tell you. Except for those dirty rotten rich people, who get to pay for everything.

Serves them right for going out and making more than everybody else.

Forget about the corrosive nature of welfare on the human spirit for a moment; let's just deal with the basic assumption implicit in progressive taxation. When you say that those who make more should pay not just proportionally more but a higher percentage of their earnings because "they can afford it," what you are really saying is that somehow what they've worked for is not really theirs, and that other people who are totally uninvolved in earning that money have a higher claim on it than the people who made it.

So how is it that the same folks who are all in favor of progressive taxation scream bloody murder when the exact same philosophy is applied to their house? i.e. the Kelo decision. Taking is taking whether it's income or real estate. The answer is simple; modern liberals are all in favor of taking the fruits of somebody else's labors, but when it comes to theirs, you'd better back off bubba! Not everyone makes a 6 figure income, but damn near everybody owns a house, or dreams of buying one. It brings that "taking" a little too close to home for some liberals.

And that's the core hypocrisy that makes liberal Democrats so slimy; not only do they espouse a fatally flawed doctrine of entitlement, but when the consequences of that doctrine turn around and bite them in the ass, they cry foul.

Now then, lest my liberal readers feel the need to commit seppuku, allow me to point out that we've only just begun our Dantean journey. This particular tour still has three more levels of slime before we hit bottom. So cheer up boys and girls, you're not even close to the worst. We've levels of depravity undreamed of yet to explore.

But there's always tomorrow!

Posted by Rich
84.5 miles • (2) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Monday, June 27, 2005

Let’s Start at the Top, and Work Our Way Down

Not because Republicans are any worse than the Democrats; quite the opposite in fact.

But they're plenty bad enough.

Remember when Republicans were actually conservative? Neither do I. It's just that now, with Bush in office, they no longer even pretend to be conservative.

I get a huge laugh out of listening to liberals complain about how Republicans are evil because they are too conservative because anyone with half a brain (an unfair requirement for many liberals, I know) knows that the Republican Party has not pursued a true conservative agenda for quite some time.

Look, key conservative principles aren't that complicated or hard to recognize. Classical conservatism is based on three general principles:
  1. A Strong National Defense
  2. Fiscal Responsibility
  3. A Limited Role for Federal Government

You simply cannot argue that the Bush administration has pursued any of these goals, either effectively in the case of the first, or at all in the case of the second two.

Yeah, we're fighting the war on terror, a war I support by the way, but at the same time our borders are a joke. I respect the job our troops are doing in Iraq, and despite all attempts to hide the facts, I know they are achieving their mission, which by the way, is not to pacify the insurgents but to help the Iraqi government attain the ability to pacify the insurgents themselves. (Stick that in your quagmire pipe Mr. Kennedy.) I'm also certain that our intelligence community and our Special Forces are hard at work and that the fact that there hasn't been another successful attack on US soil (despite the paranoid delusions of some who like to claim that every railroad accident may be a terrorist plot) can be attributed to their hard work. But the fact remains that our borders are basically undefended, and to make matters worse, when average citizens try to do their part to help secure them, the President calls them vigilantes and disparages their efforts. How can you be strong on defense when armed criminals can cross our borders virtually at will?

You can't.

Illegal immigration is not just an economic issue anymore, it's a security issue, and one that today's Republicans refuse to address seriously.

As for fiscal responsibility and limited government, well, the exploding debt, increasing deficits, and exploding public spending coupled with the proposed marriage amendment, Real ID programs, and the expanding Patriot Act bury those notions in the dust. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that, adjusting for inflation, we haven't increased spending at this clip since Roosevelt ran the White House.

So what do Republicans stand for today?

Well, based on their actions, Republicans stand against accepting homosexuality in the mainstream, against allowing people to make up their own minds about who they'll have sex with and who they won't, or what substances they want to put into their bodies, and what they won't, and against people being able to conduct their lives without an invasive government looking over their shoulders, for their own good. Other than that, it's hard to pin the Republicans down. For a group that gets regularly accused of holding a party line and never dissenting, Republicans seem to break ranks with much more regularity than they're Democratic counterparts. Just look at the recent struggle over the Senate confirmation votes.

In truth, it doesn't matter what they stand for. These guys in Washington who call themselves conservative come election time sure as hell don't act like it once the votes are counted. If they were true conservatives, illegal immmigration would be slowed to a trickle. Instead of staging water and aid so the illegals don't die on their way in, instead of civilians manning the border trying to stem a flood tide of illegals, we'd have a truly secure border, one that terrorists would not be able to cross with impunity. If they were true conservatives, the Marriage Amendment wouldn't even have come up. If they were true conservatives, the Patriot Act would have taken extreme pains to reduce the infringement of our rights, instead of feeding those rights into a paper shredder. If they were true conservatives, private property rights would not have just been extinguished by the Supreme Court. If they were true conservatives, ...but you get the point. Instead of acting in accordance with true conservative principles, Republicans have been following an agenda driven in large part by religion. While I agree with portions of that agenda (ie the ban on Federal funding for expanding the lines of embryonic stem cell research) using religious beliefs as a foundation for that agenda leads it into directions that our federal government should not go.

Into my bedroom, for example. As an adult, who or how many I sleep with is no business of the government. Who or how many I decide to "marry" again is no business of the government. Give me one good reason why I should have to get a license from the government in order to get married?

To drive a car, sure, but to get married? I have to have permission from some government bureacrat? I DON'T THINK SO!

And now Republicans want to take it further and decide who can and who cannot be licensed based on factors that are none of their damn business. That's not conservative, folks; that's tyranny in the making.

Now, I'm conservative, and proud of it. I believe in a strong national defense, and that if you're going to be in a fight, it's better to fight in your enemy's yard than in your own. I believe in a fiscally responsible government. That doesn't mean no deficits; part of fiscal responsibility is knowing when you need to incur debt, and when to pay it down. But it does mean that explosive growth in spending with no end in sight is a bad thing, and this Congress and President don't seem to agree with that. I also believe that the Federal Government should have a very limited role in the day to day lives of its citizens. Fortunately, we even have a Constitution that strictly lays out the limits of the Fed's powers. Unfortunately, we have a judiciary that has decided that the Constitution is more of an obstacle than an asset, and work to circumvent it's every provision at nearly every turn. Hell, the 2nd amendment "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is routinely interpreted to mean that the people may not own a gun!

What the bloody hell is the matter with these fools?

So, while I am a conservative, I am not a Republican. Not anymore. I have no idea who I'll vote for next year, or in 2008. I may well vote Republican just because the Democrat candidate is likely to be so much worse. If the Libertarians can stop running candidates who dye themselves blue, I might seriously consider voting for them. Hell, if the Dems get smart and nominate a reasonable candidate (Lieberman maybe, or Obama) I might even vote for them.

One thing's for certain though; I will be voting, if not for somebody, then against somebody.

Posted by Rich
84.5 miles • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Sunday, June 26, 2005

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Observant readers will have already noticed that I changed the Cox and Forkum cartoon Iíve carried since the beginning of the year.
That change is only one of many that are coming over the next few days.
  • Iíll be posting a lot more.
  • I will be writing on politics and philosophy much more.
  • All posts will be open for comments for two weeks, at which time they will close for spam prevention.
  • I will be pissing a lot of folks off.

The gloves are coming off folks, and itís about damn time.

I put myself on the sidelines after the election. I wasnít sure if the time Iíd spent had made any difference in anyoneís mind. I questioned whether writing on politics and political theory was even something people wanted to read. After all, ďBush lied; people diedĒ is much catchier, and a whole lot easier to teach the proles to chant as they march in the street. The truth is difficult; itís complex. If you can distill something down to a 30 second soundbite, odds are it doesnít even bear a faint resemblance to reality.

But it makes for good TV, so weíll run with it.

So I tried to step back from the fight. I figured I could leave the field to other writers and only write about fun stuff, stuff that wouldnít make people mad at me. Unfortunately, Iíve discovered what many writers before me have discovered; I donít get to pick and choose what I write. I write what comes or I donít write at all. Iíd see things in the news, or read about them, and Iíd want to say something, react someway, put in my two cents worth, but I wouldnít. Iíd try to write something light and friendly and essentially meaningless.

And it would suck.

It was only after I wrote a piece about whatever moved me that I could write the fluffy one and have it come out halfway decent. I know now that if I want to write, and write well, I have to let it all come out. I have to write what is important to me, regardless of how other people feel about it. Itís going to anger a lot of people, more than any of you suspect right now, but thatís the way it goes.
A long while back, I found myself writing to get traffic. I would watch my hit counter, and check which posts got the most traffic, and I would write more like them. Running the site became a chore, not a hobby, as I was becoming obsessed with building traffic. Once I noticed what I was doing, I took down my sitemeter and have never looked back. Unfortunately, now I know I was doing something similar, writing to not offend. I wanted to be liked by everybody, even those folks who disagreed with me. Censoring myself was the wrong way to achieve that goal, and to tell you the truth, Iím not sure anymore that the goal itself wasnít a mistake.

Anyway, recent events, many of which Iím going to discuss in detail, have caused me to reassess both the goals I set for this blog, and the methods I hose to meet them. The short version is I trashed all of them to start over again.

In a way, Iím going back to my roots. Iíll be writing about what interests me, giving you my unvarnished and immoderate opinions and analysis. Stupidity, lies, greed, and hypocrisy will be called exactly that, as well as incompetence, evasion, empty rhetoric, and all the other tools some folks use to cloud the issue when they know their argument is weak.

Several months ago, I made a statement that America was in big trouble, and that, barring some major changes, we were heading down a path that would lead to the end of America as a world power within a decade or two. It appears I may have been optimistic. The recent activity on both sides of the political aisle, coupled with the actions of the Supreme Court, has accelerated trends Iíd already noted significantly. Weíre getting to a very dangerous place where the majority of people have no respect for the people who make and enforce our laws. To continue on in the same manner as we have for the past few decades will, without any doubt or possibility of error, lead us into a position of weakness, one that our enemies will not hesitate to exploit.

And thatís why Iíve changed the picture. The threat is no longer external; we know the terrorists cannot beat us. They can hurt us; they can make us angry; but they canít beat us. The enemy that can beat us is among us, and no, Iím not talking about liberals. Yes they are a big part of the problem, but the Republicans have quite a bit to answer for themselves. The divide is no longer one of left and right, but authoritarianism and libertarianism, and friends and neighbors, the authoritarians have damn near won the war before we woke up enough to fight the first battle.

Now, Iím not egotistical enough to think that the things I write here will make a difference (Then again, maybe I am; why else would I write them?), but I can make sure that at least there will be a fight. I truly believe that we are now in a fight for the continued existence of freedom in America, and that we are in grave danger of losing everything that made us great, and so I can do no less.
So, expect sacred cows from both the left and the right to be slaughtered and carved into steaks. Iíve always had very little patience for hypocrisy anyway; now I have even less. Anyone who wants to lay the blame exclusively on one side or the other, head over to Freeperland or the DUcks; I have absolutely no patience for your ignorance.

OK, enough of the pretentious chest thumping. Letís get on with it.

Posted by Rich
84.5 miles • (1) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Why is John Kerry dressed like a surgeon and holding a bone saw?

twin1.jpg


Posted by Rich
Humor2 • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Was His Mother Psychic?

Dick Durbin--what did his mother know and when did she know it?

"Hmmm. That's what they'll call him anyway; might as well make it his real name..."

Posted by Rich
Politics • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Knoxville Titty Council Update

In the spirit of civic good-mindedness, I decided to help Knoxville in its efforts to rid itself of vice. I figured my best way of helping was to try and sniff out vice, as it were. After all, I had 9 years of extensive training in the Navy for just such a pursuit. Now my highly experienced vice detector told me I was probably wasting my time, but I decided to follow the lead of the Titty Council, and check out some of the adult businesses. (By the way, you can get into a topless bar at 18, but you have to be 21 to get into a bar; doesn't that make all bars adult businesses?)

First, I headed out around midnight to Th' Katch to meet with a dancer friend of mine. (She's writing a children's book that I'm going to help her publish. No, seriously. Why else would I know a topless dancer?) I figured that since the city didn't want them operating after midnight, that the real fun stuff must start about then. I pictured slinky dancers leading men off into quiet back rooms where they performed wild acts of forbidden sex for $20 and a can of Coca Cola.

Nope.

I was the only guy there who wasn't an undercover cop, and since I don't have the budget the City of Knoxville does, I couldn't get near a dancer. Of course, due to too many late night donut runs, neither could most of the police officers. It's hard to get a lap dance when you don't have an actual lap. And the only "back room" was a toilet with a trough urinal, no TP, and a cracked mirror. Nothing slinky about that.

So I moved on.

Still searching for some signs of the vice that the Titty Council is saving us from, I headed over to one of the adult book stores. Now that was a happening kind of place. Othe than myself and the s/he behind the counter, there was only one other person in the store and while seeing a guy checking out a disembodied fist the size of Lennox Lewis's is a bit offputting, it's hardly criminal. Or exciting.

I made a quick exit, and deciding that the nose always knows, followed my baser instincts, which lead me to the east side of town. I cruised up and down the street at about 1AM, and within just a few blocks I saw several drug deals, a stabbing, one guy running naked down the middle of the street for no apparent reason, and countless women of questionable virtue plying their trade from the street, cars, and in one case, a motel balcony.

For those of you who have never seen an actual prostitute, let me just state for the record that they don't look anything like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. They look more like Julia Roberts in a blender.

What I didn't see on my travels up and down the street were any police officers.

They were all still getting undercover lap dances on the city's dime at Th' Katch.

Posted by Rich
News • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Monday, June 20, 2005

Anonymity vs Accountability

This post may make Bubba angry, and if so, I apologize in advance; it isn't meant as questioning his decision to blog under a pseudonym, but a quick exploration of the whole issue of anonymity and accountability in the blogosphere.

First the background, for anyone who hasn't heard it already; Brian Conley of Metro Pulse, over-reacting to some fairly harsh criticism of a piece two of his writers had in the MP, made a thinly veiled threat to:
  • Expose SKB's real identity
  • Release his credit history, police record, and Sunday School attendance sheet

Bubba turned the tables on Conley by going public on his own, proving once again that the best way to deal with a blackmailing bastard is to ignore the asshole. Publish and be damned to you, sir!
Conley has since penned an apology, the sincerity of which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.(no links because of a past dustup, Bubba now redirects all my links to freeperville)

Now anyone who reads me knows that Bubba and I agree on very little, and that both of us have been very vocal in that disagreement. However, what most people don't know is that I've met Bubba's alter ego more than once, and in each case, we got along. He's a very cordial and personable gentleman; as he's said himself several times, in the real world he's nowhere near as outspoken as Bubba. This doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't share the same convictions; just that in the real world, he seems to be more accomodating of differing points of view.

And that's kind of what bugs me about the whole anonymous blogging thing. When you create an internet identity, it becomes a character you play. Put enough work into it and it takes on a life of it's own. You may find yourself saying and doing things you'd never imagine saying or doing in the real world. The freedom is exhilarating, but like everything, there is a downside as well. Anonymity brings not only the freedom to say virtually anything, but also removes accountability, or at least pushes it step or two away.

And this can be a bad thing.

Consider that both the Sons of Liberty and the KKK made extensive use of anonymous broadsides and psuedonymous pamphleteers. We already know that words have the power to cause tremendous damage. Our hate speech laws and sexual harassment laws have codfied that damage and apportioned penalties for engaging in unlawfully damaging speech. We know that a continued atmosphere of hostility increases the likelihood of violence against the target of the hostility. Unfortunately, anonymity can be abused to create just such a dangerous atmosphere.

Now Conley accused Bubba of abusing anonymity, which implies that he thought Bubba was creating a dangerous atmosphere. Obviously, Conley was totally wrong. Laying aside for moment the fact that most of the harsher criticisms came from third party comments, pointing out bad writing as bad writing hardly creates a hostile atmosphere where the writer would feel fear for their lives. Their jobs maybe, but not their lives. This whole flap is a lot of worry over nothing.

But still, the fact remains that anonymous writers can do a lot of real damage, and never be held accountable and that bugs me. But how do you go about protecting society from the irresponsible twits who can't be trusted not to yell "Fire" in the movie theater without clamping down on those of us who can play by the rules?

Damned if I know. Anonymous commentary is vital to our freedom; it may very well be that abuse of that freedom is an unavoidable price we'll have to pay. All I know for sure is that when I started this thing, I made a decision to blog under my name, in part just to avoid having to deal with the whole accountability thing. Anything I say here, and for that matter, any comments I allow to stay here, are my responsibility. That knowledge has kept me from going off the deep end more than once.

That and the fact that my mom reads this stuff.

Posted by Rich
Commentary • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Excuses

Why haven't I posted anything this month?

Well, I spent a week on the beach in North Carolina, doing my best impersonation of a beached whale.

I'll spare you the pictures.

I turned 42.

Again, no pictures. You can thank me later.

I wrote a 40 hour HAZWOPER training course from scratch, and helped train the first class.

I rewired 2 apartments.

I published a new book.

I wrote three chapters of my book.

I started playing poker online (rhailey at PokerStars.com. Look me up and donate to my Christmas Club account.

And somewhere in there, I slept for a few hours.

I know; I'm a lazy bastard, but what are you gonna do?

Tell you what; you want more posting, send me a paycheck.

Posted by Rich
Personal • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Quote

Bible Verse of the Day

Monthly Archives