Politics (The Edwards)

This may be a little early, but let's get this one out there right now.

John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, especially Elizabeth, have been in the news recently, since her announcement that her cancer had returned and had been found in her bones, confined to a rib and hip. Remember, shortly after the last presidential election, she announced she had breast cancer, that she'd found a lump a few weeks earlier during the campaign.

While grateful for the support of family, friends and strangers from around the world, Elizabeth and John do not want "sympathy votes":

"Do not vote for us because you feel some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake,” Edwards told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in an interview airing Sunday night. “The vote for the presidency is far too important for any of those things to influence it. (source: MSNBC - AP Story)

I am also sure that I heard one of them state that just as you shouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman and you shouldn't vote for Barrack because he's black, then you shouldn't vote for John (Edwards) because his wife has cancer. This is about as clear as it gets.

Don't vote for someone just because of their race, gender, religion, illness, or ANYTHING, other than your belief in them and the way they will handle the issues important to YOU. Don't let anyone bully you, tease you, threaten you, or do ANYTHING that will sway your vote, if you don't want to. Don't NOT vote for someone because of an email (normally false or VERY slanted), or online video, or comedians, or anyone else has said they are not the right person. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. VOTE FOR WHOMEVER YOU BELIEVE IN.

A Little Civics Lesson

There's only ONE election during a presidential campaign when you MUST vote for a party, in general - If you're Republican, you can only vote for Republican candidates; If you're Democrat you can only vote for Democratic candidates. This is the PRIMARY election. The party is deciding, by democratic means, who the people in given areas want as a candidate for various offices.

In the GENERAL ELECTION (November), again, you should ALWAYS vote (regardless of the candidate's party or party-line) for the candidate YOU believe in. Here, you are deciding between two or more individual candidates (normally differing parties), who should run the office for the next few years (normally 2-4).

Then, whether you win or lose, whether you like what they're doing or not, you should SUPPORT the winners, because they were elected democratically, meaning the majority of the people believed in them.

Think of it like brothers, who are constantly bickering. They can say anything they want about each other, they can punch and fight each other, but if someone else says anything bad or punches one, the other will rush to his brother's defense. In America, it's more like we can complain, protest, bitch and moan about the way the government's being run, but if someone outside the US says or does anything to try to change that, we should rise to the defense of the government. After all, they are OUR duly-elected officials. Some we don't like we can change in two years, some in four. But again, it's MAJORITY RULE.

Summary

Again, don't vote for Hillary because she's a woman and "it's time" for a woman president. Don't vote for Barrack because he's black and "it's time" for a black president. Don't vote for John Edwards because his wife has cancer, and you're sympathetic. (Support Cancer Research if that's the case.)

ONLY VOTE FOR A PERSON BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE THE RIGHT ONE AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THE JOB.

Bill Sanders

Politics and Elections 2008

The political ads are coming. They're already here on the internet. There are plenty of anti-[name-a-party or name-a-candidate] pages out there in internet-land, especially for the more popular candidates. Democrat or Republican, Independent or whatever, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE out there has some type of grudge against them, or simply doesn't like what they believe they or their party believe in (make sense?).

And, there are a lot of lies and half-truths going around in email about them, too. Heck, I was receiving emails in 2005 that said "Don't wait until 2008", lambasting BOTH parties for Social Security problems (which were all lies, btw).

What can you do?

1. Don't believe everything you read in email or on the internet.
   Just because a "friend of a friend" sent it to you, just because there's a famous name associated with it, just because it appears to come from an authority who's signature is on it, doesn't make it true. Read on to see why.
2. Be careful about news stories, even from trusted sources.
   Even they can be duped. Believe me it's happened in the past, and it continues to happen on a fairly regular basis. DO NOT believe tabloid "news" stories. While they purport to have sources, sometimes that source is simply the writer's imagination. And remember that every party or individual have been known to "mention" propaganda about themselves or their opponents. Sometimes it's people lower on the totem pole that passes it on, sometimes prompted by party/candidate or managers, who will normally then have plenty of "plausible deniability", meaning "You can't blame ME for that".
3. Remember that Politics is a realm of false promises.
   The idea of each party and individual in the race is to get elected and try to get their agenda run. They will make as many plausible promises as they can. Sometimes, they, themselves, actually believe that they can do what they promise. HOWEVER, remember that government has a lot of "checks-and-balances" (sometimes "red-tape"), which means that a LOT of people have to sign-off on those promises before they can be kept.
4. Don't perpetuate false emails.
   If you get an email that says something bad about someone else; that seems a little "funny"; that trivializes good deeds or glorifies bad; that may even be something you, yourself firmly believe, CHECK IT OUT. There are PLENTY of sites out there refuting these emails daily. I have a page of them and will tell you where it is, shortly. Use keywords from the emails in the search boxes, and see if they've already investigated it. See what they already have for each person, each subject, etc. The names (individual and party) in forwarded emails are subject to change at the whimsey of any sender who received it.
5. Don't CREATE false emails.
   Many people read pages and boards that go along with their own idealogy and beliefs. When someone at those sites or boards writes or "passes on" something they think is funny, true or not, sometimes just a simple joke, others will believe it as Gospel, cut-and-paste it into an email and send it off to friends, who send it off to their friends, who... (get the idea), most everyone adding their comments. Have you ever played the game (I forget the name) where you get 10-20 people together. One whispers something to someone, who (supposedly) repeats it to the next person, who repeats it to the next, who... and so on? The vast majority of the time, by the time it gets to the last person, the information has changed so much that it's almost unrecognizable. Emails are the same. While forwarding and cut-and-paste negate some of the changes, some people add their own comments, things they believe are related, cut-and-paste signatures that weren't on the original, etc., until the email you get is completely unrecognizable from the original. This happens regularly. Don't send an unsourced email. Don't send anything but the link, itself. That way, everyone can read it, and it doesn't go through the morphing that most of the negative emails go through.
6. Whether you start or wish to forward emails, INCLUDE SOURCES.
   If you do what I suggested you NOT do in #5, INCLUDE THE PAGE FROM WHICH YOU COPIED IT, and realize that somewhere in the forwarding process that source will probably disappear. Try to put it where it CANNOT be removed. If it's something you get that you wish to forward, try to find out if it's true or not. If not, include your source(s), and send it back to the person who sent it to you. If you believe in it, include comments of your own, but be sure you can differentiate between your comments and the original email, again realizing that somewhere down the road, they will probably either disappear or be merged into the original. About the only way you can be sure that anything you write does not get changed/forwarded is to write a webpage yourself and only send a link. Remember, though, that someone down the road will probably cut-and-paste what you wrote, either claiming themselves to be the author (I've seen things that started in USENET (think of the old-style computer bulletin boards) appear in articles, editorials and letters to the editor, verbatum, with the one that included it being the only "author".)

Email is a wonderful way to connect with new and old friends and family, but can also be used to sow and perpetuate dissent and anger. (See all the emails about blacks, Muslims, the Middle-East, Celebrities, etc.) The internet has a LOT of valid information out there, but there are a lot of ture-sounding jokes, half-truths and lies about almost very subject, especially politics.

Remember this every time you want to create or forward an email about politial issues and people.

Some of the sites to find out the TRUTH about emails can be found at my main site's Flim-Flam (Rumors/Urban Legends/Virus Hoax) Links (page section) and some of the articles and many-forwarded emails can be found in my Flim-Flams Subsection. Check them out.

BigDaddyBS (Bill Sanders)

Honors for Our Iraq War Heroes

I have found out that there are many heroes of this war who have not received medals. (See Iraq has heroes, so where are their medals? - Nightly News with Brian Williams - MSNBC.com)

Am I the only one who finds this callous and unfeeling? Why are we waiting? With the reporting plethora of embedded reporters, the daily reports on action, the many still- and video-cameras held by our own soldiers, you cannot use the argument that there is not enough proof.

To me, this is as bad as the way many treated the Vietnam vets when they came home. These guys and gals are putting their lives on the line. Many are wounded and want to go back to help their buddies. Many DO return. I'm not saying that everyone who goes to Iraq needs a medal (even if just going makes them a hero), but those like the one described in the article above should get the ones they deserve immediately.

So, what's keeping them? Well, I could show my Republican side and say that it's the Democrats in congress... After all, though a congressional majority voted for the war, the Dems have all decided that since it's so unpopular, they should be against it. (Votes, ya know?) And, like passing out condoms in school can make some people believe that that means we condone teen sex, giving medals to Iraq war heroes COULD make it seem that they condone the war. No... I don't believe that this is the case. (At least I HOPE not!) However, I can see where SOME may believe that.

It's been four (4) years since the war started (March 19, 2003). How long do some of the heroes and/or their families have to wait? Why aren't medal ceremonies (and the stories behind them) reported by any but the local media, if at all?

These men and women deserve recognition, though most will humbly say its the ones they saved that deserve it.

Let's make sure it's not because it's an unpopular war that they don't seem to be getting it. I call on the major news networks and other media to start pushing congress and whoever else is responsible to review the cases and get these people their medals, and to show the world we HONOR OUR HEROES.

Bill Sanders

Veterans Against the Iraq War

There's a new commercial playing around Indiana, and I'm sure, elsewhere, where Senators and House members have professed support for the presidents planned escalation surge.

It goes, "One the one hand... " listing those who've come out AGAINST the build-up - "2/3 of the American people", the bi-partisan majority in congress, the Iraq Study Group, and "veterans like us...". THEN, they show a veteran (apparently) who's lost an arm in the war. He says "On the other hand, there's George Bush...", as if ONLY he is for escalation.

There are a few things I don't like about it:

1. Where do they get the 2/3 number?
   • Those who don't approve of the job the President is doing? Not all of them are against the war. They more disapprove based on other foreign or domestic policies.
   • Those who voted in the last election? Dems won, but not by a 2/3 margin, by any stretch of the imagination, and while the idea of a "new direction" for certain policies was the platform and that voted on, has ANYONE seen ANYTHING but bitching and complaining about the war, drafting of referendums about the war and escalation, or almost anything else the president promotes? I haven't. If they REALLY wanted to take all they talked about before the election in a new direction, they need to work on IT, too. Hmmm?
2. It makes it seem that ONLY the president is FOR the escalation, and EVERYONE else is against it, which is not true. Otherwise, they why do they need the commercial, right?
3. The last line said by the one-armed vet: "If you support escalation, you don't support the troops." WRONG! That is just so patently wrong, I can't believe they're even using it.

It ends with another vet exhorting you to call your congressman (by name - apparently only those FOR the escalation) and tell him/her you're against it.

Now, I understand that there are vets against the war. I understand that the media reports (MUCH) more on those who are against the war than those vets FOR the war and why. (Showing wounded vets who believe we shouldn't be there... Remember, they shoot for ratings, and vets against the war is controversial and news.

But I also understand that many who have been there, many who are injured, some grievously, WANT TO RETURN. They BELIEVE in what the president and others are trying to do. The BELIEVE in their fellow soldiers. They BELIEVE in the Iraqis general population. They BELIEVE in what we/they are there for. For example:

Pete Herrick, 39, who was paralyzed from the neck down after three weeks in Iraq, says many members of the media won't talk to him because of their liberal slant, which doesn't mesh with his views."When they find out I don't want to bash the president," says Herrick, who lives in Fort White, "the interview's over."A political and military junkie, Herrick thinks that years of sectarian religious violence would have continued in the region without U.S. intervention.

[Source: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/NEWS/611130408/1004/RSS&source=RSS]

I believe it is unconscionable for the US Press (I could almost understand the rest of the world doing it, but...) being totally unwilling to talk to ANY and ALL vets, and get their views, even if they don't want to "bash the President", "bash the war", or talk to those who've actually thought about it, especially those who have been there. It would be even worse if they DID talk to them, getting their views about wanting to return, then only reported about their injuries, including FULL interviews with only others who are against the war.

What happened to reporters' objectivities? What happened to "fair and balanced" reporting, no matter what the reporter or their editors believe?

And, as far as that commercial goes, DO NOT EVER believe that "if you are FOR the escalation you are against the troops" crap in general. Being allowed to believe anything we want, no matter how right or wrong it is, is one of our freedoms. In other words, DO NOT EVER assume that those FOR the escalation ARE NOT for the troops.

You have the right to your opinion as much as the next guy. If you're against the war, you have the right to say so. Conversely, if you're for that war, you should also have the right to say so, too. BOTH cases should be reported by the media, especially an IMPARTIAL media.

Either way, DO NOT tell me I am "for" or "against" anything, based on my belief on the war.

Another Annoying Commercial & Voting

Ok... I'm sick and tired of the two General Insurance commercials we see fairly regularly on our local stations. If you haven't seen it, the commercial starts with ... a commercial ... more specifically, the end of a commercial, giving the number in a fast cadence: "Call 1-800-general NOW!" In one commercial, the guy is laying under his car, working on it, grabs the handy cordless phone laying by his side and calls. In the other, a cute girl is watching TV, picks up the phone, flips her long hair out of the way, and puts the phone to her ear. In both, they say they'd like to speak to "the general". The commercial goes on to describe some of the services offered, then a funky-looking animated general, driving a car toward the camera is displayed, and the phone number with cadence is repeated. Ok. so far, huh? Well, the in come the spouses. They both act somewhat suspicious, throwing their arms out, looking mad/disgusted/something like that, and say "[Honey] WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?" (the male spouse says "Honey".) The person on the phone looks and smiles at the spouse, saying "The General!"

Why is this annoying? One - the cadence. I understand that it makes the number unforgettable. But even Gieko (sp?) has mixed up their commercials - the caveman, the gecko, and I think I've see even a different approach. I don't remember any other commercial for "the General". Safe Auto doesn't do an R Lee Ermey ("Mail Call") to DEMAND we call. Maybe the animated General logo is to soften the approach. But the other reason, REALLY gets on my nerves. Two - the spouses' attitudes when they ask who their significant other is calling. As I said, they act like "WHAT are you doing on the phone? Talking to your girl/boy-friend?" GEEZE! If I asked my wife (or she, me) that way, I doubt either of us would just smile and say "the General", and I don't know anyone else who would. Why is it that we would find this appealing? YES, all concerned are handsome/pretty young men and women, but those ATTITUDES...

On another note, before the election this past Tuesday, November 7, 2006, I wrote a piece I sent to a couple of papers (no response). It's about Politics - "Who's "best" for the position, the party, America? The dynamics of political ads, IMHO," and called Politics - Politicos and Parties. After I voted, I came home, and wrote a piece describing my experience (sent to the editors local newspaper - "The Lebanon (IN) Reporter") called Handicapped Voting at the National Guard Armory in Lebanon, Indiana. Check them out.

TTYL -BS

Political Ads and Criminals Among Us

Political Ads

Have you noticed? It seems like the vast majority of the negative political ads are by the parties' national commitees. Sure, there are local ads where the opposing individuals approve the slamming commercials. (Heck... Indianapolis' prosecutor race is at least 90% negative.) And some of the things said...

People wonder where our kids are getting this type of attitude? Yes, the scoudrels on the TV shows we all watch can be "nasty", but we can always point out to our kids that they are not real people. But the nastiness in those pervasive political ads, which gets even worse around election day, has to take SOME of the blame. These are REAL people saying these things about each other. GEEZE!

One of our news channels also interviewed a few kids about them. They were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up. A few said they'd thought about being a Mayor, Governor, etc., but they didn't think they'd ever want to run, because of the negative ads.

And the ads are one thing, but if the press should EVER find out about ANYTHING that person did when they were growing up... WATCH OUT!

Criminals Among Us

In Indiana, this week, a 16-year-old waitress was killed by a co-worker, who'd recently been let out of a Kansas prison for killing a 5-year-old, after spending 20+ years as a model prisoner. He had family in Indiana, and the paperwork was OK'd allowing him to move in with them, transferring his parole from Kansas to Indiana.

The story is that his truck broke down, she stopped to help, he "got a feeling", and strangled her to death, then stabbed her with a hunting knife to "make sure she was dead". He left her body in a field. An amber alert was issued the next morning, and the search was on. After a day or so, the police arrested him, apparently after he confessed and led them to the body. Of course, everyone is asking how this could happen? How could a child-killer (he also stabbed the child's mother, but she lived) be released from a Kansas prison, move to Indiana without the police knowing, live in a neighborhood where no one knew, and be free enough to kill again.

Well, my understanding is that when someone serves the minimum time for their crime (notice that most sentences are "10-25 years"? "25-life"? etc.?), they are eligible for parole. They go before a parole board to plead their case for release. Victims families are allowed to speak and/or send letters to the board, pleading against release. The parole board decides, based on testimony and their actions as a prisoner, and maybe they are released. (Everyone knows that CHARLES MANSON has been before the parole board a number of times, right? If you don't know who he is, search for his name.) From my understanding, normally release on parole is contingent on probation, where if they are caught doing anything against the law (I assume something like speeding is ok).

It's been very recently that those convicted of sex-crimes had to report to a registry, which everyone can view online, and see where they are living. If you don't notice, apparently, there's a time-period for their reporting. In other words, it appears that after they have reported for a length of time, and stayed out of trouble, they don't have to report any more.

Now, they are saying that the same type of registry should be created (why not the same one, so it's easier?) for "child killers". (I'm sure this will be expanded to include other violent crimes.)
Personally, I'd like to know. I know that I wouldn't do anything to them but watch them like a hawk. (Same with the sex-crime people.)

But what of those who have served their time, served their probation and are now actually "rehabilitated". I've seen cases where the criminal becomes an advocate. (Anyone else watch "It Takes a Thief" show on Discovery?) And there are many more former criminals (some sexual, some violent) who have turned around and become advocates. Of course, I'm not dumb enough to suggest that ANYONE but the ex-con themselves would KNOW that they are rehabilitated. And, I'm sure that Discovery and Allstate (who now sponser ITAT) realize that they are taking a chance. However, I'm also sure that the guys on the show also know that this is one of the very few chances they have to "ply their wares" and get away with it, by helping homeowners with their security.

What about all those former drug addicts? We glorify the stars who have "cleaned up their acts", even when they have relapses. Do we track them forever, too? How 'bout all those former hookers? Do we keep track of them, too? How 'bout the kids who commit crimes as kids, then have their files sealed when they reach a certain age? Should ALL of them have their files sealed? Should they be monitered? Who will pay for the manpower to do this? We are having problems keeping up with all of those who are arrested and NEED to be put in prison. (That's where the "early release" and/or "minimum sentencing" came from.)

Truth is, we never know most of our neighbors well enough to know whether they've ever been in prison for anything. (In this case, "jail" and "prison" are the same.)

Remember when we, as kids, had the "run of the neighborhood"? Neighbors actually WATCHED OUT for everyone's kid. Hillary's right about her quote of the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." Now-days, it's "It takes a neighborhood", "town", "city", etc. And it seems it's NEVER anyone's fault but the parents.

Hell, I rode a bike or WALKED a mile to school each day, from second grade through 10th, when I got a car. Oh, and home for lunch and back to school, 2nd-6th). We played outside all over the neighborhood. Mom just yelled out the door for us when it was time to come in. There was no (or very little) worry about child molestors, no worry about kidnappers, killers, drug dealers, gangs, etc. in our neighborhood. I don't remember ANY stories (and I read the paper) of kids being killed or abused (and we were SPANKED when we were bad). I'm sure it happened, but not in our town.

Our generation was probably the last who will see that freedom as kids.

Ok... I rambled off the subject for a second... How did it happen? He did everything he was supposed to do to get out before he died. (I know that the parents of the kid he killed years ago, and the parents of the kid killed recently will object.) He went through all the legalities and was allowed to move to Indiana. The cops say they didn't know he was in the area. And what would they have done differently if they did? There are too few cops to handle the traffic, special events, patrolling, etc. AND to watch every ex-con who moves to town. The one thing it's unsure of is if anything was done about psychiatric treatment that was recommended.

What would I do if it was my kid? I'd want to kill the bastard. Thank God it wasn't. And I'm praying for the victims and the families (both the victims' and the killer's) involved.

Something has happened to our society to produce these criminals. Part has to do with the fact that very few families can live on one salary, so both parents have to work. Part has to do with not being allowed to punish our kids physically (well short of abuse) without the fear of being arrested. (Remember the wooden spoon? the yard stick? the brush? Hell, I even got whacked in Jr High by the vice-principle. I had the fear of God in me that my parents would find out. Too busy, too permissive, too... Is TV to blame? Personally, I don't think so, but the shows the parents watch WITH the kids, without explaining about "special effects" is may be... How 'bout the video games getting more and more violent? Yes, I'm sure that doesn't help. Personally, we played the more "lame" games, and the kids killed MONSTERS, not other people, at least until they were 16 or more, and KNEW it was a game... Is it the fact we don't go to church near as much? That could be, too.

So anyone have a solution short of putting them all to death? (DNA has proved that some of those convicted of crimes weren't involved, even years later.) Are we getting ready for an "Escape from New York" scenario, where we wall off complete cities, and send all the criminals there? What happens when THAT fills up?

I have no clue how to end this... I just needed to ramble... about dumb questions, about how we are no longer as safe (read free) as we used to be... about other observations.

So, that's it, for now.

Sports, Politics, Etc.

Sports

We spent the day watching the Colts and NASCAR (two TVs going at the same time...) And I have a few observations:

Colts Win

The Indianapolis Colts beat the Tennessee Titans, 14-13. Why is it that everyone is making such a big deal of "the winless Titans" almost beating "the undefeated Colts"? On any given day, any NFL team, from the ones with the worst records to the ones with the best can win. This means that one team has to lose. Duh! Why can't anyone remember, in one of the Indianapolis Colts' worst seasons, in the 80s, (I always remembered it as the ONLY game they won, but they may have won a couple of others... Thought it was the Dolphins they beat, and they were after another undefeated season...), must have been in early-mid November, they beat a team that was undefeated to that point. (At least that's the way I remember it!) It can happen... And, as was proved last year, they can't "sit back" and "rest on their laurals(sp?), assuming they can beat teams having a tough time, and they can't "let the starters rest" in the final games of a season. They need to keep the momentum going for the finals. (I'll stop there... Don't wanna jinx anything!)

NASCAR

Talladega, October 8, 2006 - Dale Earnhardt Jr is leading in the last few laps. Jimmy Johnson and Brian Vickers (teammates) are directly behind, with Johnson waiting for the last (white flag) lap to get a run and try to pass Jr. The white flag falls... Johnson drops back to get the run, Vickers still behind him... They take off, Johnson drops below Jr, is about half-way past, and Vickers follows. But he was moving faster than Johnson by just that tick, taps Johnson's back end as he gets behind, which turns Johnson up into Jr's door, and wrecks them both. Vickers goes on to win.

My wife almost screamed out "He did that on purpose!", though you could see by the replays that it didn't appear to be so. She kept saying "Jr better be the winner!", though it was obvious that that was not going to be the case. Even Jr said nothing looked "purposeful" in the replay. Johnson, on the other hand, without seeing the replay, pretty much put the blame on Vickers, saying, without actually saying it, that he'd done it on purpose. I guess this will be up to NASCAR to figure out, but, again, it didn't happen at the finish line, so there's no way that Earnhardt or Johnson will be scored the winner.

Oh... Another "friendly arguement" I have with my wife has to do with certain other drivers. (I don't root for ONE driver... I root for a few, usually Stewart, Jr, and Jeff Gordon - probably because no one else likes him (I always like the underdog!)) What's strange is the illogic of TRUE NASCAR fans! (Apparently, I'm not one, because I see logic in a lot of places others don't.) Here's the point: If Jeff Gordon says anything in interviews about ANY favored driver (especially Jr!), my wife says he's whining. Where, if Jr says exactly the same thing about ANY other driver, he's NOT whining. What's the difference? Jr has a Southern accent, and Gordon's speech is nasally (therefore "whiney" to some). Hell, I even understand the fanaticism of race drivers.

I used to watch Wild World of Sports and loved the "Stock Car Races". I knew some of the drivers' names, and watched them go. I loved Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt (Sr), and others. Was I "fanatical" about it? No, but I did enjoy it, and usually decided sometime at the beginning of the race who I would root for. SOME fans, obviously, love THEIR drivers. I wish I could get that deep into it, but to me, it was just "fun". Now, it's even more "fun" to watch the race. My wife is a die-hard Earnhardt fan. She works nights, so tends to fall asleep during races, but if Jr's in the lead (or near) WATCH OUT!

The thing today? See, when Jeff (Gordon) went out of the race in a wreck (not caused by what he was complaining about), he said the "bump drafting" (where one car goes nose-to-tail with the car in front, literally "bumping" him forward, or raising the rear tires slightly off the pavement, where the lead car loses traction - sometimes causing a wreck, depending on where it happens), especially by JR (OMG!), which NASCAR said it was going to watch carefully, was really bad. My wife immediately goes "WAH! WAH WAH! Such a baby"... I kept trying to point out that if Jr said the same thing, she wouldn't have said that... She said "Jr never would"... BS! I've seen it with my own eyes! Everyone, but Jr, drives dirty, and everyone but Jr (and a few of the older drivers) is a baby! See the "logic" in this? I don't! GEEZE! (We were both grinning about the "arguements" we were making, so, no... no worries about that, but she was pretty adamant! LOL)

Politics

Oh, gawd! They're at it again... If you didn't know it, this is an election year (and if you don't, you need to get off the internet and watch TV more! ;-)

It seemed to start fairly nicely... Local prosecutor wanna-be put an ad on TV asking for your vote. Nothing negative there. Then (I can't remember who started it) one of them pointed out the other's record, then one pointed out the other's record (or lack thereof), and it's off to the races.

I understand. The saying is "If you can't find something nice to say about someone, don't say anything." However, in Politics, it's "If you can't find dirt on someone (or make some up) you will lose." The "make some up" part is not strictly true. They find ANYTHING they can make negative comments about and put it on. No wonder people don't want to be politicians any more... Even if you make it, you are up for more and more and more scrutiny. There aren't a lot of people out there that want EVERYTHING in their past (from when they were about 12 or so on) detailed in public! Even if it built their values to be those others would respect.

BTW: Various political ads report the opponent voted AGAINST various legislation apparently desired by those who would vote for that person. Think about this: MANY, MANY times, desirable legislation is added to - usually items that favor one small area (as in "pork barrel" projects) - and the only way to keep the "pork" out is to vote against the desirable legislation. Who knows? It COULD even be a strategy of certain parties (individuals or the whole group) to add this "pork" in, knowing certain congressmen will vote against it, thereby giving them "fodder" for these political ads. By the same token, if the desirable legislation is voted FOR by the opponent, THEN they could say they voted FOR various pork barrel projects.

Politics is a nasty business. Actually, politics, itself, may not be nasty, but the tactics used in political ads DEFINITELY is.

Other Stuff

Bad Ads

Some of the ones previously discussed are still out there (or trotted out for occassional play). Thank GOD it's not as often as before. There are others... I can't think of them at the moment... Apparently, I just "put them out of my head" as soon as I see them. (Defeats the purpose, doesn't it!)

Infomercials

Looks like a new crop of infomercials have arrived at Discovery and History Channels. Some are new versions for many I've already researched at www.orangefrogproductions.com (Scams, Shams and More Flim-Flams button.) Some are new things. Soon as I get the following up and running CORRECTLY, I will have to get on to researching them.

Orange Frog Productions

Version 2 will be out soon. I have not made major changes to OFP since it went up in 2003. This revamping will (hopefully):

• I am dividing it into three logical sections - Main; Owner; and Scams, Shams and More Flim-Flams (scams = various types of scams, shams = Infomercials, Flim-Flams = Rumors = Trivia lists, Urban Legends, etc.; and it includes information on Spam.) There are probably other ways that I SHOULD have done it, but it works for me, for now.
• I am making it more "accessible" (the print is designed to enlarge - or shrink - if you wish) - The sidebar buttons will currently overlap the content area, but it will work.
• I am adding buttons to all external links, allowing users to open that link in the current or a new window)
• I am adding definitions (glossary entries and tool tips)
• The background is a bit lighter, so the contrast will make it easier to read
• I'm trying to be more careful, so it works in both IE and Firefox. I know there are other browsers out there, but they seem to follow the lead of those two. I've already found and fixed some things. Hopefully there are few others. Most have had to do with the styles used to format things.

While it's not completely done, I believe it's ready to debut as OFP's main site. I have also included a Sitemap for the new site, and a Sitemap from the old site that links to the new pages.

A little more work (want to use Google Sitemap to let Google know there are changes, and have to make sure the old links will go to new pages via .htaccess file), and I will republish the site.

Keep an eye on it. www.orangefrogproductions.com. The new version is currently at www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2/index.html, but will be moved "down", soon. Let me know what you think.

That should do it for now.

TTYL

BigDaddyBS (Bill S)