Real Strength

I used to think that in order to be strong I had to be cool and tough and cynical. I'd heard about 'the meek shall inherit the earth', but I thought that it was more an empty promise than anything else. I thought that the strong and the rich and the cynical would really inherit the earth. Ah, but I was wrong. At least in a way. The strong really will inherit the earth, but the strong aren't the people with the biggest sticks. Real strength doesn't come in a weapons locker or a gym, or a smart comment, for that matter, and meek doesn't mean you let everyone push you around.

Meek, in this sense means humble. Deeds rather than words. A person who feels the need to blow their own trumpet and brag about everything they do, or even shout others down because they think that's the only way they can make a point is not really strong. That person is really afraid that what they have to offer isn't good enough to stand on its own. Real strength means working hard or doing the right thing even when it isn't easy. It means showing people what you can do rather than padding your resume. People who can do that really will inherit the earth.

Kapact's Rant: Fear and Manipulation Part One

It's been a long time since I've written a rant, due to various and sundry RL issues. Not that there hasn't been plenty to rant about. But I also think that there are plenty of angry bloggers on both side of the great partisan schism that has really paralyzed our country. I think I've got a good voice and a fairly balanced viewpoint, but I also have to question the value of any single angry rant. So I'll talk not specifically about the wrongs perpetrated by all of our politicians (because we all know about them anyway) from a partisan standpoint, but hopefully from a non-partisan point of view. I mean, as much as I think we were safer when George W Bush left office than when he came in, there is really no question that he was ineffectual domestically. There are others more responsible for our current economic mess than he, but he played a part.

I'd actually like to talk about the role that fear plays in how politicians manipulate us. Politicians have since the dawn of time used fear to control their subjects, and our government today is no change. The extreme right makes us fear things like gay marriage and alternate lifestyles, really things that we may think is wrong, but don't in fact threaten the country. I believe myself that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I don't feel threatened by people who feel otherwise, and I don't think that the government needs to weigh in on the subject. I also don't like the idea of abortion, unless in case of rape or if the life of the mother is threatened, and I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. But I also don't care for the government weighing in on the matter with its clumsy hands. It's a complex issue, for sure, because there is no question that a fetus is alive. It has a heartbeat, it moves and it kicks. If that is the case, then abortion, killing it, is murder. So maybe the debate we need to have and resolve is not whether or not women should have the right to choose, but whether or not they should have the right to choose to murder the lifeform that they helped to create. Maybe the debate should be at what point the fetus is entitled to protection under the law. There are serious rights and wrongs there, and again, the issue is not simple. A person's right to choose is vital to a free nation, and any restriction of that right needs to be undertaken only after the most careful deliberation. On the other hand, at what point is abortion murder? It is a fiendishly complicated issue, but it is also a weapon used by extreme far right politicians to manipulate the public. We must fear, and therefore put a stop to these evil people who are destroying the moral fibre of the country.

The far right, however, is not alone in using fear to manipulate the public. I'll talk about that next time.




Repeating From Last Time:


The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:


From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."


From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)


Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)


YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)


YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)


YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)


Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

What's New Here?

You might notice the Twitter updat e on the sidebar. I decided I was curious enough to sign up. I'm also thinking about a good recession depression beater. Free, simple games. Mrs Kapact and I are making a basketball hoop out of an old coat hanger. We'll use the hook to hang it over the door. Not life-changing, but free and simple and fun. My Fantasy Trek game fits into the same category. :)


Kapact

Kapact's Rant: O.B.A.M.A. (Oh Boy Another Mistake A$S&\#@)

I'm finding it harder and harder to support our President, and I'm really trying. Despite the good that George W Bush tried to do, nobody can really say that he left the country in better shape after eight years in office. Safer, yes, though it cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. But he is no more a fiscal conservative than Hillary is. Just as you can't tax your way to prosperity, you also can't spend your way there. And Bush spent irresponsibly. Compassionate Conservativism, as Bush tried it, was just fiscal liberalism. Real conservativism, which is compassionate by definition, knows that the government that does least is the government that does best. Every time government tries to improve something by getting its big, clumsy, greedy hands into it, it just makes a mess. And yet, compared to Obama, George W was a dream. Obama embarrasses us at home and abroad in front of foreign leaders. (If you don't believe that, google Obama and Churchill bust, Obama and HMS Resolute, Obama and speaking Austrian, and Obama bowing to Saudi King). Not only that, but he has done wise things like refusing to let some banks pay back stimulus money. No kidding. He says he has no interest in the government running private businesses until a business tries to get out from under the Obama boot. Several banks have tried to pay money back to the government, but the government has refused. Kind of like when a mob 'invests' a little cash into a small mom and pop store as a way of taking it over. The main difference is that the mob isn't taxpayer funded and supposed to be representing mom and pop. And of course, the mob would be more honest. Mr. Obama talks a very good game when he has a teleprompter, but I'm predicting that he's nothing but Jimmy Carter with a socialist bent. I just hope that we're blessed with another Reagan to pick up the pieces in four years.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:


From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."


From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)


Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)


YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)


YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)


YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)


Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.






Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com/
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Kapact's Rant: What Mr Obama's Gift Will Cost You

Like most people, I've found a little extra money in my paycheck this week, thanks to Mister Obama. Well, not really. See, the extra cash isn't there because the fat cats in DC decided that they didn't need to get rich for creating and then exploiting crises. And don't try to pretend that they don't exploit crises. Hillary herself said "Don't let a good crisis go to waste." No, this extra cash in my paycheck actually comes from..... me! And you. And every other taxpayer. The Federal government doesn't have any money that we don't give it. So before you fall down on your knees and thank Mister Obama for giving you money, stop. He just did what liberals have been telling us for years is a bad idea. He's letting us keep more of our money. But don't think that he's changed into a conservative. He's just taking money from one hand and putting it in another. He's spending your money to give it to you. By "taxing the rich" he is taking money from corporations, just like the one that issued the check that had the tax cut on it. The same one that will have to raise its prices and/or lay people off and/or cut hours to make up the difference. So when you pump your fist in the air and chant "OBAMA!" like a true believer, think about what that is going to cost you. And hope and pray that it doesn't push your groceries out of your price range, or cost you the hours you need to survive on, or even your job.

And don't cry about giving Obama a chance. The two years that Obama spent in Congress were used to help create this problem and to run for President. They were used to condone the disposal of 'failed abortions' (live babies thrown in the garbage in Chicago hospitals), and to take in more money from unions and lobbyists than most other legislators have in a lifetime of exploiting crises. He spent the time voting 'present' and deciding which issues were above his paygrade. He's had plenty of time to fix the problem.



Repeating From Last Week:


The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:


From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."


From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)


Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)


YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)


YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)


YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)


Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.






Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Kapact's Rant: Which Weekly "News" Magazine Wiped Israel Off The Map?

I've always had a pretty low opinion of the weekly "news" magazines, and Newsweek has just helped to keep that opinion low. In its recent issue telling us that Radical Islam is a fact of life that we have to learn to live with, they featured a world map online that labeled the country of Israel as "Palestinian Territory". After the appropriate uproar from everyone except for the mainstream liberal propamedia (propaganda media), Newsweek quietly changed it. No apology, no explanation, no comment. Just a quick rewrite. Now, I have to assume that Newsweek actually knows that the state of Israel exists, and where it is, so the only alternative is that part of Newsweek's plan to 'learn to live with Radical Islam" is remove Israel from the map. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe despite the evidence presented by the picture, the editorial position of Newsweek magazine isn't anti-semitic. I don't see how, but it could be. Oh, and if you believe that the 9/11 attack was an act of war by Radical Islam, then Newsweek has not only declared that we've lost the war, they could be seen as giving aid and comfort to the enemy by means of propaganda.

Here's another foodstamp horror story. Just a brief one really, that needs no explanation. Two girls, maybe twenty years old, picking out steak, soda, and potato chips to buy with their EBT foodstamp card while chatting on their I-Phone. As far as I know, the I-Phone costs about a hundred dollars a month to run. So please, sell your fancy phone and stop stealing my tax dollars.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.

Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Kapact's Rant: If Bush Had Done It... Dissing The British

There are things that our new president is doing that definitely fall under the 'if-Bush-had-done-it' category that somehow the liberal media somehow manages to miss. Did you know, for example, that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently visited the Obamas? Yes, he did. First off, Obama decides that there would be no British flags anywhere in the White House when they met. Okay. Not an outright insult, but certainly a lack of diplomacy. But it gets worse. As a gift,  He was kind enough to bring with an amazing gift, a pen made from wood from the HMS Resolute. I'll tell you about the HMS Resolute. The Resolute was one of their warships in the 1850's, and it went with another ship into the Arctic Circle. Both ships got stuck in the ice. The other ship made it out, but the Resolute didn't. The Captain of the Resolute ordered his crew to board the other ship to get home. When he got home, he was court-martialed for abandoning his ship. When the ice finally started to break up, America went up and pulled the Resolute out of the ice and sailed it to England. The point was that we were trying to make a gesture of reconciliation with England after the Revolution and the War of 1812. It was a way of showing that we were brothers. This is a big thing. A historic thing. So when the Resolute was decommissioned, Queen Elizabeth decided to have two desks made from the wood of the ship. One was for her, and the other she gave to the President. This, again, is really significant. It is a symbol of the close relationship we share. And now, Gordon Brown comes over and gives Barack Obama a pen made from the wood of the HMS Resolute. So what does our President give him in return? He gives him a basket... seriously, a basket filled with 25 DVD's of American movies. Rather than something special that says something about the close and special relationship between this country and its greatest ally, Obama gives Gordon Brown 25 DVD's that, unless Brown has a multizone DVD player, he won't be able to play anyway. It's cheap and low-class. Ah, but we're not finished.

Mrs. Brown has brought children's clothing from the best designer in England for the kids, and Michelle goes downstairs and grabs a couple of boxes of Marine One helicopter models and hands them to Mrs. Brown, saying, "Here, this is for you." Is this hatred for England? Could be. Michelle Obama wrote in a term paper that England was just a linchpin for slavery. This, remember, is our greatest, most stalwart ally. But that still is not the worst. Here's the worst.

Something else that England has done in two's. There are two famous busts of Winston Churchill. One was given to the President after 9/11 as a way of saying that they stand with us. So what does Obama do with this gift? When Gordon Brown visits, Obama puts the bust in a box and tells Brown we don't want it anymore. Brown says, "No, Mr President, this wasn't a loan, it was a gift. If you don't want it in the White House, put it in a musuem. Mister Obama just says "No, we don't want it anymore." I'd say that we aren't yet into the 'rebuilding our image abroad' phase, because this was an embarrassment that the British media and people went nuts over, but Brian Williams et al just seemed to have missed. If it Bush had done it....

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.



Fleet Action. Head-To-Head Bare Knuckles Naval Combat. Boarding Party Action. Solid Interactive Storytelling Like No Commercial Game Can Offer. How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com
The Only Rebel Underground Star Trek PBEMMMORPG

Headlines From The Edge: Feb 28 2009

Obama Proposes Starfleet as Part of Stimulus

President Barack Obama revealed an ambitious part of his stimulus plan today, ordering the construction of twelve Constitution Class starships. "This is just the sort of bold thinking we need to take us into the next several centuries," he said. "And don't worry about the price tag. You've seen Star Trek. By the time our Starfleet is finished, money won't exist anyway. It's a win-win proposition. And this should put an end to the talk about me changing the constitution. C'mon. They're called 'Constitution Class' for a reason."

Increase in Alien Visitors Due to Recession

Alien Ambassador #@")€¥123007 spoke before a joint session of Congress today, making the case for alien university students. He explained that the world-wide recession is a boon for students in his home galaxy. He said, through an interpreter, that students would typically have trouble abducting subjects for their research projects, but with times so tough on Earth, a few dollars or a can of pork and beans have volunteers lining up for miles. The ambassador added that any attempt to ease the recession could set the study of humans back by at least fifty years.

Man Literally Laughs All the Way to the Bank

A man who refused to identify himself left his small house in Americus, Georgia and walked to a local Bank of America branch, literally laughing all the way to the bank. Witnesses said that he was laughing when he stepped out of his house, and kept laughing as he walked down the sidewalk. He safely crossed three intersections and then a full city block, and was still laughing when he walked into the bank. There was noone walking with him, and the local CTU (Counter-Terrorism Unit) office reported that he was not using a cellphone or mobile device of any kind. Whether he is actually off his rocker, or might be the bank CEO is still a matter of speculation.



How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Kapact's Rant: Hope You Enjoy Your Change

I saw a curious thing at the grocery store the other day, and it really just speaks to something I see often and try not to be bothered by. That's a person using their EBT card at the store (that's what they get so they can feel better about using foodstamps, and so its harder to trade them for booze and cigarettes), proudly wearing an Obama t-shirt. People can have their opinions and beliefs. I don't care. But it is just so perfectly summed up when they get their expensive deli meat, swiss cheese, french fries, chips, and soda on my tax dollar, and are then reminded that they can't use it for the Red Bull. Well, sorry, Obama supporter. Hope he can change that for you. On my tax dollar. I can't afford expensive deli meat, swiss cheese, french fries, chips, and soda, because I'm busy paying for yours. Enjoy.

Repeating From Last Week:

The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.




How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Kapact's Rant: We Know What's Best, Even When We're Wrong

I'm talking this week about the wisdom of government making snap decisions, the most glaring and life-changing of which is the trillion-dollar rushed-through-congress, unexamined, unstudied, don't-read-it-just-sign-it bailout bill. There is no question that we need jobs, and creating them by fixing our infrastructure seems like a good idea. There is also no question that we still need a middle-class tax break. But being a student of American history, I have to say that I have trouble finding an instance where a hastily conceived and rammed-down-our-throats massive government program ever really provided a sustainable solution to an entrenched and serious problem. Here's a good example of liberal reporting on one such knee-jerk, over-the-top government solution to a "problem", taken from the New York Times website.

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

While I was never a fan of Bill Clinton, I will admit to appreciating the fact that he studies relentlessly. He does his homework. While he has the morals of an alley cat, he is without a doubt a very clever, hard-working person. He has a big, usually out-of-control mouth, but he also has a high IQ. But he blew it big that time. His short-sighted pandering to low-income voters (in an attempt, no doubt, to buy the election for Al Gore), stuffed this country but good, and now Obama has sold us a trillion dollar bottle of snake oil/magic elixir to cure the problem that Bush is supposed to have caused. Bush sure as heck let it grow, but Clinton started it.

It's the same kind of shoved-down-our-throats solution to the on-again, off-again, depends-on-who-you-ask issue of climate change. And you note we don't hear 'global warming' nearly as much, since 2008 was globally the coolest year in more than a decade. No, it's 'climate change' now. Just like 'liberal' is now 'progressive'. Folks, call it what you want, a cr@p sandwich by any other name would smell as bad. I even heard local meteorologist Kevin Janison say that global warming didn't actually refer to the temperature, but to weather instabilitty. I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "warming" is. Come on Kevin, get with the times. It isn't global warming, it's climate change. I'll just say something about meteorologists. Discounting what I think about Weather Channel Chief Stormtrooper Heidi Cullen, I find it interesting that these supposed experts think nothing of repeatedly getting it wrong on a daily basis, explaining that it's just a forecast, and things can always change. But they still call themselves experts and think that they can tell us what's going to happen thirty years from now. Forgive me Heidi and Kevin, but if you can't say what's going to happen three days from now, how can you say with authority what will happen a year from now, much less thirty years from now. I don't have a problem with cleaning the air and/or getting off of fossil fuels. We need to do both. I don't even mind an honest debate on climate change. What I have a problem with is, again, a decision made by a few elite liberal stormtroopers who use their jackboots to crush the necks of anyone who dares to debate the issue. Not even disagree, but just debate. Dissent is healthy, even when liberals are making the decision.

Mark my words, we will be told in the next four years that questioning the decrees of the Obama administration is unpatriotic. Big Brother just got bigger. They're from the government and they're here to help. And may God have mercy on your soul.


Now here are my weekly reminders of who got us in our current mess:


The housing meltdown which is at the heart of our crisis started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. No question that both sides ignored the problem but got rich off the over-inflated bubble, but it started under Bill Clinton. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)

And my weekly comments on P'resident Obama:

First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.




How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Kapact's Rant: Read The Fine Print

It's pretty easy to take shots at crooked politicians not paying taxes, with no penalty for most but a minor dip in poll ratings. But that's because they make it easy. How in the heck can you gang of thugs so easily spend tax dollars on huge ideas that you hope will work but refuse to pay your fair share. Here's an idea. Gamble your own money on this idea and see how it works before you waste mine. Forgive me, but your record so far doesn't inspire any confidence. And I'll tell you something else. It wasn't long ago when the liberals were reminding us that dissent and discussion are healthy. Now, according to them, we don't have time to question or examine a trillion dollars being spent in the hopes that this idea will work. Anytime a salesman tells you that you don't have time to think about buying something, that's when you should find the time. This problem has been brewing since Bill Clinton was president. It can wait another week or two while WE THE PEOPLE read the fine print.

Here's another reason to love our politicians. You all see these heroes insisting that execs accepting taxpayer dollars now be subject to salary caps. Well here's a thought. How about you taking a salary cap? I know that we couldn't live without you, and it just tortures you to have to vote yourselves endless unjustified raises, but how about some of that responsibility and transparency that you're demanding from people taking taxpayer dollars? I mean, it's just that, well, you accept taxpayer dollars, don't you? Here's a thought. How about merit pay for politicians? If your next paycheck depended on your results, how do you think you would do? Would you have to worry about your financial future like most people in this country do?

I watched the president's first press conference with interest. I know that President Obama does poorly when he's unscripted. This didn't seem to be any different. There seemed to be nothing but softball questions that the president already magically had prepared five-minute speeches for. Hardly surprising. But the memorable moment, the payoff for the hour was Helen Thomas (who has outstayed her welcome and outlived her legitimacy by at least a decade) referring to the Taliban and Al Qeada as 'so-called terrorists'. Kind of like saying that Hitler was a so-called killer.

I'll finish this off with a reminder of where this problem started:

This problem started in earnest in 1992 when Mister Clinton had the great idea to sell houses to low-income voters who couldn't afford them. The records are there. Here are a few links that show just what I'm talking about:

From The New York Times in 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all) "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..."

From the New York Post: Alarms and Denial (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09262008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/alarms__denial_130763.htm)

Bloomberg Financial News: "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)

YouTube: Democrats in their own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs)

YouTube: Burning Down the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487)

YouTube: Obama Ranks Second In Freddie/Fannie Contributions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA&feature=related)


Now I'll repeat what I said last week. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.


How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Kapact's Rant: Three Rants and a Note About Our President

I have three subjects to talk about, with a note at the end about our new President and the economic crisis he has pledged to solve.

I was fascinated to watch unrepentant crook and Chicago politics posterboy Rod Blagojevich 'make his case' without actually making a case. He was all defiant righteous anger and indignation, telling us just how much he's done for the state, and how the people elected him twice. And even having the nerve to warn the people of the dangers of a legislature removing a governor without a trial. Well, mister blagojevich, your actions have in every case spoken louder than your words. You have shown the danger of government not caring about the wishes of the people. You demonstrated a contempt for the rule of law with your own taped words, interspersed with more vulgarity than HBO spouts on a Saturday night, talking about how much this power is worth, and how much you want for it, and what you think of those not willing to pay your price. You need to understand, mister blagojevich, that public office is not a prize, it's a responsibility. A duty. An honor. You don't buy or sell or win your office, you are granted stewardship over it, and the condition in which you leave it says a great deal about you. You have managed to embarrass, with the depth of your graft and arrogance, a criminal machine that puts the mafia to shame. You managed to make a den of criminals look angelic by comparison.

I'm frightened. Truly I am. President Obama signed into law good legislation designed to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. That is good and just and way overdue. So, yes, I'm frightened that Obama has done something else that I agree with. However, I must take slight exception to remarks that he made during the accompanying photo-op. He said that he doesn't want to limit his daughters' dreams. On the surface, that is a good, sensible, honorable thought. But it doesn't bear close examination. Because just as Joe the Plumber is limited in his dreams of small business ownership, so must the Obama girls if they ever try the same thing. In a way, mister obama, we're all your children. You took an oath to make sure that none of our dreams are limited. So remember that as you are redistributing our success.

I saw a very sad story on the news the other day, about a 93 year old World War Two veteran dying in his Michigan home during a winter storm because the power company had put a power limiter on his house. He was said to be a thousand dollars behind on his power bill. Well, I'll just say that the power company is not in business to lose money. Bills are serious things, and have to be paid. Let's be honest. The bill didn't get that big overnight. (You'd have to be Al Gore to use that much electricity in a month). I'm not dishonoring this hero. I''m telling the truth, and the truth never dishonored anyone. At the same time, sometimes numbers and bottomline must give way to compassion, and according to the story, nobody took the time to explain to him how the power limiter worked So both parties share responsibility here. But there is more responsibility to go around. That is, and most glaringly to the family that is suddenly so concerned with this deceased hero. Where were you before he died? Where were the phone calls to check on him during the winter storm that killed him? I don't doubt the complicity of the power company that cared more about money than people, and I don't doubt that his family loved him and cared about him. But where were you before he died? According to reports he had enough money to pay his bill, and he may have had dementia. So tell me, indignant family, did you know he had dementia? If so, again, where were you before he died? How long had it been since you checked on him? I'm not trying to be cruel here. I know that good, caring, honorable people make mistakes. I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm just saying that people are often better at appointing blame than taking responsibility. We're all guilty of that. Nobody's perfect. But it's also true that we'll never improve before we acknowledge that.

I'm going to add something here about President Obama and our  economy, and I plan on repeating this in every rant. First and foremost, this economic crisis has roots in the Clinton administration. Clinton ordered that home loans be given to families that could not pay them. Granted, Bush should have seen the meltdown coming, but it's a time bomb that Bill Clinton planted under the house. It's up to President Obama to set the tone and the course to rebuild our house. We all share responsibility for doing the hard work, but the President is the boss. The buck stops in the Oval Office. And speaking of the Oval Office, I have to admit that I have liked a fair amount of what I've seen of our new President. Words are cheap, and politicians are good at saying things people want to hear. At the same time, we need this presidency to be successful, and he can't succeed without our support. So while I'll be quick to point out everything that I see him do wrong, I'll also try my hardest to point out everything that I see him do right. I saw him talking to Matt Lauer just before the Superbowl, and he looked, unlike candidate Obama, like a man with humor and compassion and an appreciation for the humanity of the people that make up this country. He was funny and self-deprecating and seemingly unscripted. That man will have my support for as long as he occupies the White House. When he stops being that man, I'll stop supporting him.


How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

Kapact's Rant: Mister Obama's First Week

I don't want to sound like I'm beating up on Mister Obama just barely a week into his administration, and in fact I cautiously agree with more than one decision he's made. The country is nowhere near ready for the switch to digital television. Guantanamo needs to be closed as a prison facility, but we need a real credible plan for what to do with the inmates. We need to remember that the inmates are there because they deserve to be there. They aren't innocent, nor are they victims. They are unapologetic terrorists. Mister Obama is also right to reach out to Republicans, if in fact he's not lying about that. It might cost him liberal friends, but he's supposed to represent the whole country. If he wants the whole country to support him, he's going to have to support them. I don't like Mister Obama, and I don't trust him. I think he's a crook and a marxist. But he is our President, and we need him to be a strong one. We can't afford another weak President. Now for the negative column. Crook. Liar. Marxist. Racist. (Remember the whole 'they'll try to make you afraid of me because of the way I look' thing?) Elitist. (Remember the whole 'bitterly clinging to guns and religion' thing?) The treasury secretary who evades taxes and has a liberal immigration policy. Joe Biden. William Ayers. Jeremiah Wright. (I know those last two are in the past, but it shows his poor judgement) The $600 million to 'prepare' the country for socialized medicine, er, um, universal healthcare. The conciliatory tone towards our enemies. The pretentious, 'everyone watch me make history' attitude. Above all, people in power need humility. Otherwise they forget that they work for WE THE PEOPLE.


How Much Star Trek Can You Handle?
Fantasy Trek. Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Rant: Enjoy The Party

Tempting as it may be to talk about the coronation of Barack Obama.... no, sorry, I mean the inauguration of Barack Obama, I'll leave it alone for the most part. There is no question that the country needs a fresh start and a reason to celebrate something. I simply continue to question whether Mr Obama is that fresh start and cause for celebration. Regardless of my opinion of the man, it is an historic occasion, and certainly, if for only that reason, a good thing for the country. Of course, unlike the liberal elite, now rescued from the need to flee the country in protest (much like their draft-dodging peers from the past), I am not dancing and singing, nor am I blind to the questionable people Mr Obama has surrounded himself with, from Mr Biden down. You are far from change. You are old-school liberal/fascist/state-run politics in a new suit. Enjoy the party America, you need one. Liberals, don't strain your voices singing protest songs, and don't strain your arms patting yourself on the back. But still, enjoy the party. If John McCain had won, I don't imagine Bruce Springsteen, Mary J Blige and Beyonce would be singing. But enjoy, because after you've sobered up, slept off the hangover and paid some illegal (sorry... undocumented worker) to wash the smell of pot out of your Armani suit, you'll have to either fix the country or find someone else to blame. You've got a liberal Congress, a liberal President, and a liberal press. You don't want to look too hard at the greedy rich on Wall Street, because most of them have members of Congress (and the new president) in their pockets. The mortgage meltdown has Bill Clinton at its roots, and liberals have already run Congress for two years. So you'll have to work hard to blame someone else. So really, seriously, enjoy yourselves. Then surprise me. Do something right.



What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Rant: Hurting Me, Hurting You

I have a friend in his mid to late fifties who is going through a bit of depression. He's in a rut, he doesn't have too much money, and really, he just kind of needs direction in his life. He's even acknowledged this. The thing is, he's now planning to try to get disability from the government for a mental disability. He's not mentally disabled. He's in a rut. He's forgotten how to pick himself up and push himself through life. He's even stopped shaving. But the fact that he wants to convince some civil servant that he's mentally disabled so he can pad his budget is dangerous, and is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that is killing our society. I told him, as a friend, that not only would he be taking money from people who actually need it, but that the money that he's scamming for (which he is) comes from taxpayer dollars, which comes from me, and I simply don't have the money to give to him. I can't afford to give him mental disability money that he doesn't need. And that really is something that lots of people should think about. These days, when most are struggling to just get by, think before you find a way to take money from the government that you don't deserve. That money is there for a reason, for people who need it, and it's provided by real people who look at a paystub and see how much money Uncle Sam takes off the top from the wages they earn. There is a disconnect in this country between the idea of taking every cent we can from the government, and the fact that those cents actually come from WE THE PEOPLE rather than some miracle of government. If you pay taxes, you are cheating yourself when you cheat the government. If you work in a store of any kind, you would know that if you stole something from that store, you would actually be hurting yourself by diminishing the financial health of the company that provided your livelihood. If you removed panes of glass from your own house, you wouldn't be surprised to get wet the next time it rained. It's the same with tax dollars. If you remove them from the treasury when you shouldn't, they won't be there when you need them.


What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Rant: Food Stamp Fraud and Who Runs the Media?

Working in a supermarket, you meet a wide variety of people. I'll just relay one experience to you. A mother, daughter, and (I'm presuming) granddaughter came in the other day, and loaded up a shopping cart with meat, chips, soda, etc. Very little baby food or baby products. They pay with an 'EBT' card, which is the little debit card replacement for food stamps. The card is supposed to reduce food stamp fraud, but also to ease the ego-bruising that food stamp users suffer. That method of ego stroking is not as efficient as, say, earning a living, but I suppose since the government (and most often the liberal government) doesn't want people to try to be self-sufficient, being dependents of the government (and just coincidentally hard-working, tax-paying wage earners) means that a pat on the head and the occasional table scrap from big brother is all we can really depend on. Anyway, my point here is that these people tried to buy two starbucks double shots and a Best Buy gift card with their food stamp allotment. And when they were turned down they had the nerve to be insulted. And finally, as their total came up, I saw that it was more than a hundred dollars higher than the previous week's paycheck that I had worked my butt off for. These people were young and healthy and fit enough to work for a living, but they were taking everything they could from their food stamps that I work to provide. And quite honestly, that simply infuriates me. I understand people sometimes need help. I've needed help. But I took only what I needed for as long as I needed it, and didn't count among my necessities two starbucks double shots and a Best Buy gift card.

Rant Number Two. Just a short one. Considering that Hamas has lobbed more than 6,000 missiles into Israel in the last year, why have there been no protests in the street until Israel started fighting back? The media has been nearly silent on the subject until now, and now they're 'shocked, shocked'. The old ignorant liberal rant, generally best represented on men's room walls, that "Jews own the media" has never been so obviously and patently ridiculous.



What is Fantasy Trek?
Not Just a Game. It's a Star Trek Experience
http://fantasytrek.blogspot.com

The Job Warrior: My Experience Losing a Job and Getting Another During a Hiring Freeze

I walked into my job a few weeks ago and was informed that I was unemployed. Pretty much that was it. Merry Christmas and good luck paying rent and buying groceries. Without getting into particulars, I went from being the top salesman to being a former employee. Not an easy thing to walk home and tell my wife when just about the entire country is on a hiring freeze. The first thing I did... in fact, the same day, I went to see my previous employer, a man who had not wanted me to leave in the first place. In fact, the only reason I left was because I was working both jobs at the same time, and the assistant manager making the schedule couldn't or wouldn't reconcile the two schedules. But what I did was leave on good terms with plenty of notice, and I kept in touch and on friendly terms with the previous employer. Granted, it was easy, because the previous job was in a supermarket. But my wife and I talked to the manager, a great guy named Matthew, like a friend. Sometimes it was no more than a greeting, a 'How are things, Matthew?', but my wife and I both kept him in our orbit. Part of the family. We genuinely like Matthew, and he has always been a friend regardless of the job. At the same time, I knew that my first responsibility when faced with unemployment was to get another job. And the obvious first move was to go back to the man who said that he'd love to have me back. So I put on some smart clothes (as my wife really taught me well, put your best foot forward. Dress for what you want to be) and went to see Matthew. I didn't try to BS Matthew. I didn't beat around the bushes. I told him I needed a job. He said that the company had a district-wide hiring freeze, but that he would see what he could do. He said I should come back in a few days and talk to him. At that point I have to admit I was let down. I'd walked in figuring I'd walk out with a job. Then I had to assumed that the hiring freeze would be non-negotiable. So I went home (I even stopped on the way home to try to pick up an application. No dice. This place that had a help wanted sign wouldn't even let me apply because they weren't hiring) and got onto Monster.com. I updated my resume and started searching for jobs that I am qualified. 'Retail' and 'customer service' were my keywords. That's because for the last 18 years I've been in the retail/customer service trenches. I have extensive experience in that arena, and most of those 18 years in fastfood, which is, to my experience, the most challenging customer service arena. My wife and I even considered leaving town while we had some savings to work with, but we were also concerned that we wouldn't find the job situation any better where we went. We settled on giving our town a week or two before we gave up on it and left. With that in mind, I opened up my job search parameters for some places we considered moving to. With all of that in mind, I set about applying for jobs via Monster.com. I should note that before I started job hunting, I got up early, had a good breakfast, showered, shaved, and dressed as if I was going to work. I thought it was important to approach the job search as a job itself. It might be tempting to sleep in and give up shaving and sit around in sweat pants and a ratty old shirt, but that is too much vacation mode for the serious work of job hunting. I also set a minimum of four applications filled out each day before I stopped. Discipline was vitally important for my motivation and mindset, and was necessary to get another job quickly. And I knew that I had to get another job quickly. And something else. I was told by many friends that I should apply for unemployment. Maybe I should have, but to be honest, I didn't want to ask for any kind of financial assistance unless I absolutely needed it, and at that moment I didn't think we did. I was paid for vacation time that I had coming (almost a week), plus a paycheck, plus a bit of savings. If we hadn't had that, or if it had taken too long to get another job, it would have been different. But I thought that to apply for unemployment would also have been bad in a motivational sense. And, to be honest, pride got in the way. It wouldn't have remained in the way for long, but it was there at that point. I didn't want to see myself on the news as part of the huge number of jobless claims making headlines.So, on to the job search. Monster.com showed (what was for me) a surprising lack of opportunity for retail/customer service specialists. What I had failed to take into account was that one of the hardest hit sectors of our economy is retail. People are simply less and less encouraged to go out and spend money if they don't have to. And of course, especially close to the end of the year, companies don't tend to hire full-time, permanent people. I did get a quick response from a local advertising firm, and dressed up nicely and took 3 buses to get to their office for an interview. It turned out that they were hiring people to sell things from booths (I won't get any more specific, as I don't want to identitfy the firm in question) on a strictly commission basis. That is okay for some, and they said that people could make quite a bit of money doing it, but I have regular bills and a family that depends on me. I need a regular paycheck that I can depend on. But the point is, I tried. I put my best foot forward. I went to a bit of effort.At this point, the few days that Matthew had said to wait had gone by. I called the supermarket to make sure he was in, and dressed nicely again and went to see him. Then the really bad news. Matthew said that the hiring freeze was still on. He couldn't hire me. I was pretty disappointed at that point, but I thanked him for trying and tried to not show my disappointment. That was really the worst moment of the job search, because I'd put a lot of hope in getting that job back. Ah, but then two days later, I found out that Matthew hadn't given up. He went to bat for me with human resources and managed to arrange to bring me back as a rehire rather than a new hire. To start, I would actually have to take an almost 4 dollar an hour pay cut, but after the first of the year there should be a departmental manager position opening that needed to be an in-house promotion. It was just important that I get my foot in the door. I took the offer without hesitation, and my job search that really had me scared only lasted one week. I was very lucky. I know that people have spent six months or more looking for work and not found any. I know that there are lessons to be learned from my situation. First and foremost, don't burn your bridges. Give plenty of notice, treat employers with respect, and don't be afraid to go back to them. Treat your job search like a job, not a vacation. Listen to your spouse. They are intelligent and resourceful, and can help you. I know mine helps me. I wouldn't take this world on without her. Don't dismiss jobs that you think are below you. There is no such thing as a bad job if it is honest and supports your family. For example, I was prepared to go back to fastfood if I had to. I wasn't enthusiastic about the possibility, but I was prepared to do it anyway. Pride is important, but you can't support a family on pride. In fact, Matthew was concerned that I might not want to take the pay cut and come back as a courtesy clerk (among other things, we bag groceries and retrieve shopping carts). My wife and I both said that I'd take anything. I'm happy to have it. And one other thing. If you have the opportunity to go to college, take it. Get yourself a degree in a subject that interests you but that is also marketable. I was in the military, but failed to sign up for the G.I. Bill, and I have regretted it ever since. I'm not saying that my professional life would be better if I had a degree (because there are plenty of unemployed college graduates), but I certainly would have had more opportunities.

The House Abukoff Lexicon

Just on the odd chance anyone might be reading, I;m starting a lexicon
noteworthy things. For example:

Quoted from Thelma (family member, last name omitted)

"Let your air be free where ere you be"

comments welcome

Good and Bad Founding Fathers

I've been reading David McCullough's John Adams, and aside from a fantastic
history lesson, I'm getting a picture of our early Congress that is, as hard
as it is to believe, almost as bad as that nest of vipers we have now. I'm
also learning of some of the truly brave men and women who gave us this
opportunity that our representatives now seem to be squandering. Rather than
try to explain each excerpt, I'll just present the words of David McCullough
and John Adams.

...Outraged by Dickinson's insistence on petitions to the King as essential
to restoring peace, even after Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill, Adams
had strongly denounced any such step. Like many other delegates, he had been
infuriated by Congress's humble petition of July 8, 1775, the so-called
Olive Branch Petition, that had been Dickinson's major contribution. From
the day he saw with his own eyes what the British had done at Lexington and
Concord, Adams failed to understand how anyone could have any misconception
or naïve hope about what to expect from the British. "Powder and artillery
are the most efficacious, sure and infallible conciliatory measures we can
adopt," Adams wrote privately...

*****

...The greatest minds agreed, Adams continued, that all good government was
republican, and the "true idea" of a republic was "an empire of laws and not
of men," a phrase not original with Adams but that he had borrowed from the
writings of the seventeenth-century philosopher James Harrington. A
government with a single legislative body would never do. There should be a
representative assembly, "an exact portrait in miniature of the people at
large," but it must not have the whole legislative power, for the reason
that like an individual with unchecked power, it could be subject to "fits
of humor, transports of passion, partialities of prejudice." A single
assembly could "grow avaricious . . . exempt itself from burdens . . .
become ambitious and after some time vote itself perpetual."...

******

...But when later that evening a preliminary vote was taken, four colonies
unexpectedly held back, refusing to proclaim independence. The all-important
Pennsylvania delegation, despite popular opinion in Pennsylvania, stood with
John Dickinson and voted no. The New York delegates abstained, saying they
favored the motion but lacked specific instructions. South Carolina, too,
surprisingly, voted no, while Delaware, with only two delegates present, was
divided. The missing Delaware delegate was Caesar Rodney, one of the most
ardent of the independence faction. Where he was or when he might reappear
was unclear, but a rider had been sent racing off to find him. When Edward
Rutledge rescued the moment by moving that a final vote be postponed until
the next day, implying that for the sake of unanimity South Carolina might
change its mind, Adams and the others immediately agreed. For while the nine
colonies supporting independence made a clear majority, it was hardly the
show of solidarity that such a step ought to have.The atmosphere that night
at City Tavern and in the lodging houses of the delegates was extremely
tense. The crux of the matter was the Pennsylvania delegation, for in the
preliminary vote three of the seven Pennsylvania delegates had gone against
John Dickinson and declared in the affirmative, and it was of utmost
interest that one of the three, along with Franklin and John Morton, was
James Wilson, who, though a friend and ally of Dickinson, had switched sides
to vote for independence. The question now was how many of the rest who were
in league with Dickinson would on the morrow continue, in Adams's words, to
"vote point blank against the known and declared sense of their
constituents." To compound the tension that night, word reached Philadelphia
of the sighting off New York of a hundred British ships, the first arrivals
of a fleet that would number over four hundred. Though the record of all
that happened the following day,Tuesday, July 2, is regrettably sparse, it
appears that just as the doors to Congress were about to be closed at the
usual hour of nine o'clock, Caesar Rodney, mud-spattered, "booted and
spurred," made his dramatic entrance. The tall, thin Rodney - the
"oddest-looking man in the world,"Adams once described him - had been made
to appear stranger still, and more to be pitied, by a skin cancer on one
side of his face that he kept hidden behind a scarf of green silk. But, as
Adams had also recognized, Rodney was a man of spirit, of "fire." Almost
unimaginably, he had ridden eighty miles through the night, changing horses
several times, to be there in time to cast his vote...

*****

..."Unfaithfulness" was something he could not abide, and in his spells of
gloom he pondered whether the fault was in the times. Unfaithfulness in
public stations is deeply criminal [he wrote to Abigail]. But there is no
encouragement to be faithful. Neither profit, nor honor, nor applause is
acquired by faithfulness. . . . There is too much corruption, even in this
infant age of our Republic. Virtue is not in fashion. Vice is not
infamous...

*****

...Then, just as agreement seemed near, Henry Strachey proposed to amend the
line specifying the American "right" of fishing to read "liberty" of
fishing, to which young Fitzherbert declared the word "right" to be "an
obnoxious expression." The moment was one made for Adams. Rising from his
chair, smoldering with indignation, he addressed the British: Gentlemen, is
there or can there be a clearer right? In former treaties, that of Utrecht
and that of Paris, France and England have claimed the right and used the
word. When God Almighty made the Banks of Newfoundland at 300 leagues
distant from the people of America and at 600 leagues distance from those of
France and England, did he not give as food a right to the former as to the
latter. If Heaven in the Creation have a right, it is ours at least as much
as yours. If occupation, use, and possession have a right, we have it as
clearly as you. If war and blood and treasure give a right, ours is as good
as yours. We have been constantly fighting in Canada, Cape Breton, and Nova
Scotia for the defense of the fishery, and have expanded beyond all
proportion more than you. If then the right cannot be denied, why then
should it not be acknowledged? And put out of dispute? It was settled -
almost. Article III of the treaty would read, "It is agreed that the people
of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take
fish of every kind on the Grand Bank." However, on the matter of taking fish
along the coast of Newfoundland and "all other of his Britannic Majesty's
Dominions in America," the people of the United States were to have the
"liberty," which, insisted the British negotiators, amounted to the same
thing. "We did not think it necessary to contend for a word," wrote a more
mellow John Adams years afterward. By the end of the day there was agreement
on everything. Dining that evening at his hotel with Matthew Ridley,Adams
was in high spirits. Asked if he would have fish, he laughed and declined,
saying he had had "a pretty good meal of them" already that day. Adams
generously praised his fellow negotiators. Franklin, he told Ridley, had
performed "nobly." But to Jay belonged the greatest credit, Adams said. Jay
had played the leading part, Adams felt then and later, never failing to
give Jay credit. The following day, Saturday, November 30, 1782, all parties
made their way through still another damp Paris snowfall, again to Oswald's
quarters at the Grand Hôtel Muscovite for the signing of the preliminary
treaty. Oswald was first to fix his name, followed by the four Americans in
alphabetical order. In effect, the Americans had signed a separate peace
with the British. They had acted in direct violation of both the
French-American alliance and their specific instructions from Congress to
abide by the advice of the French foreign minister. To Adams there was no
conflict in what they had done. The decision to break with the orders from
Congress, and thus break faith with the French, had been clear-cut, the only
honorable course. Congress had left them no choice. Congress had
"prostituted" its own honor by surrendering its sovereignty to the French
Foreign Minister. "It is glory to have broken such infamous orders," Adams
wrote in his diary. "Infamous I say, for so they will be to all
posterity."...

How Stephen King supports the troops

"Reading -- I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV but the fact is that if you can read, you can walk into a job later on.  If you don't, then you got the army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that.  It's not as bright.  So that's my little commercial for that."

 

Stephen King on the intelligence of American Troops, and apparently how he "supports the troops".