Wednesday, September 29, 2010

I'm not the only one...

...who thinks that NWA was right.
When the police are shooting military vets with MBAs in public and pregnant women in their own bedrooms, the war is not on drugs. It is on the American people.


Disregarding the people's wishes

xfloggingkylex sent me this via email.

This is a pretty interesting read, especially since Oct 1 these laws go into effect in MD. Looks to me like government doing what it does, a view that contradicts their views gets presented and is then criticized, and government keeps on doing its thing. I can't believe the guy is calling the study flawed just because it goes against his campaign... actually I can.
xfloggingkylex is absolutely right: this is government being government.
Are texting bans working?

Road deaths due to texting behind the wheel, a topic widely reported on in recent months, has taken a new twist.

In a report released Tuesday, the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that texting bans are not reducing crashes.

The claims that the anti-texting laws do not reduce crashes touched a nerve with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who responded harshly to the report, calling it misleading and flawed.

“Last Thursday, I blogged about misleading claims from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) disparaging the effectiveness of good laws and good enforcement in our campaign to end distracted driving,” LaHood wrote in his blog “The FastLane,” this morning. “Unfortunately, they're at it again today with another misleading ‘study,’ ” LaHood continued. “There are numerous flaws with this ‘study,’ but the most obvious is that they have created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist.”
The question needs to be asked: WHO is it who has "created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist"?  Seems to me that it's the folks seeking to ban text messaging and to force the use of hands-free devices in order to use your cell phone in the car who have done so, NOT the IHS.  The nanny state WILL tell us how to behave, and we WILL like it!

But that's just Vulture being Vulture.


Sunday, September 26, 2010

Pledge to America is lame

Nearly assured of a massive victory at the polls in November, Team Elephant did what it does best: it undermined its own chances for success.  Their chosen mode of self-immolation this election: Son of Contract With America.

This propaganda masterpiece, called  A Pledge to America, is a real head-scratcher.  There is no reference to nor acknowledgment of the Tea Party.  Why would the Elephant elites give any credit to people they both loath and seek to discredit?

A lot of slick pictures accompany the propaganda piece.  These are images meant to elicit an emotional, patriotic response from the reader.  It made me sick.

The document is divided into sections tailored at issues the elitists think are important to ordinary Americans. The promise in the preface to "honor the Constitution" and "those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment", is broken right away in the Foreword, where they state that, when it comes to spending cuts, "common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops" will be made.  Business as usual, anyone?

Here's the worst from each section.

Section 1, Job Creation.  Job creation.  Job creation.  They still think the GOVERNMENT creates jobs.  Nevertheless, the steps they propose to take, while hardly representing job creation, do at least improve the business environment to where employers MIGHT consider hiring.

Grade: B

Section 2, Reduce the Size of Government.  The people who gave us King George the Dim's War Without End are trying to sell us reduced government spending and the size of government?  That's rich. 

They promise to "act immediately to reduce spending" (yawn).  They promise to cut government spending to "pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels".   Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]   Pre-bailout levels?  That's it?  WTF!  I think the American people -- and particularly the people who make up the Tea Parties -- want more than that.  Much more.  This "promise" is a joke.

They want to put "limits" on the growth of Government.  Limits?!?!? On growth?!?!?  Are you effin' kidding me!  A real plan would seek to reduce the size of government by at least 15% JUST FOR STARTERS.

They plan to hold weekly votes on spending. Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm] And this dog and pony show will achieve what exactly? 

But it's the last "promise" that really set my teeth on edge.  "We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations".  You can't make this stuff up. 

Grade: F

Section 3, Health Care.  They promise "repeal and replace".  70% of Americans support repeal.  But replace

Part of what constitutes "replace" is to "ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions."  I kid you not.

Grade: D-

Section 4, Reform Congress and Restore Trust.  I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Seriously?  Among the promises in this section is a promise to "adhere to the Constitution".  How, precisely, do you plan to do that AND "ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions" AND "maintain entitlements", neither of which is Constitutionally permitted?

Grade: F

Section 5, National Security.  I can summarize this in two sentences.  Spend more money on defense systems like missile defense.  And continue the War Without End.  There is also a hollow promise to "enforce our immigration laws".  Nobody believes that.  Nobody. 

Grade: F

Section 6, Checks and Balances.  The shortest section, this is yet another attempt by the Elephant elites to sucker us.  I can sum this section up in two words: "Trust me".  The right answer -- No way!

Grade: F

There you have it.  Aren't you impressed?  Doesn't this steaming POS make you just long to rush to the polls to vote for the guy with the 'R' by his name?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll get a shower.  I feel dirty.


Friday, September 24, 2010

What am I, chopped liver?

For those of you keeping score in the ongoing blogwar between the forces of good (The Pharisee, Ye Olde Journalist, and Free the FLDS Children) vs. the forces of evil (the Mall Cop a Palos, et al), yet another shot has been fired across the bow in the form of a cease-and-desist order from the wannabe lawyer to the aforementioned forces of good (see full text here).

I have just one question.  How come I wasn't included in the cease-and-desist?  What am I, chopped liver?  I've also been quite vocal in my disgust and disdain for the Mall Cop a Palos.  Is it because ole Greggie views me as small potatoes, since I get a fraction of the site hits that the bloggers ordered to cease and desist get?

C'mon, Greggie!  Where's the love for the Vulture?


Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Fraud? Not a problem!

Deadeye was reading the Frederick News-Post yesterday and found this news item that made her more than a little miffed.  She told me that I absolutely MUST blog about it.  When Deadeye speaks, Vulture listens.

The long and short of it?  Crime pays.
Ignoring calls to scrutinize troubled contractors, the U.S. military has awarded a portion of a $490 million contract to an American corporation that's under investigation for possible fraud.

The Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to Louis Berger Group, a New Jersey-based company that federal prosecutors have acknowledged is being investigated for allegedly overbilling the U.S. government.
Two months after the government learned of the employee's allegations, the U.S. Agency for International Development tapped Louis Berger to oversee another $1.4 billion in reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan.

Court documents reveal that the Justice Department is negotiating a deal that could "aid in preserving the company's continuing eligibility to participate" in federal contracting in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The obvious question that springs to mind here is: WTF?

What exactly does a crooked company have to do to merit exclusion from future government contract work?  Overbilling the customer is the #1 cardinal sin of government contracting.  NOTHING else comes close.  Most companies lose all of their current contracts and have zero chance of being awarded any future contracts if found guilty.  Most.

So what is it about this company that they're allowed to skate?  It's a New Jersey company...does that mean it's skating due to Union ties?  Mob ties (JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!  I DON'T LIKE CEMENT OVERSHOES!!!!!!)?  "Help" from congressional arm twisting?

It's yet another demonstration of the principal ill affecting the USA at this point in its decline.  There are two systems of Justice.  The first one, for the Mundanes, inflicts punishment without regard for common sense or human decency.  The second one exists to exonerate the Elites when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.


Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Moral victory? Still, it's 0-2

Whoever said there are no moral victories in the NFL must have had last night's game in mind.  Following a cringe-inducing loss to Seattle last week, I gave the 49ers zero chance of posting even a respectable showing against the defending world champion Saints.  Then the Niners go and post a showing that was WAY beyond respectable: they tied the defending champs at 22-22 with 1:19 to go, only to lose on the last play of the game, 25-22.

I really don't understand the NFL.  At all.  How the deuce could the 49ers look so cover-your-eyes gawd-awful against the mediocre Seahawks (who were trounced on Sunday by the equally mediocre Broncos) and look so damn good against a Saints team that wiped the floor with the Niners last year?

Oh sure, there's a LOT of room for improvement.  The Niners went down 9-0 right away because David Baas thinks Alex Smith is 7'9".  Honestly, that snap over Smith's head was the absolute worst I've ever seen.  But then, seemly having gotten the jitters out of their system, the 49ers turned around and played near flawless football for the rest of the game.

Let me amend that.  Near flawless except for the four turnovers.  Four.  You just can't do that.  The offense moved at will, but a pair of tipped balls ended up intercepted.  Dulaney Walker, fast becoming one of my favorite players, made a costly fumble inside the 10 yard line with the team driving for the go-ahead score.  Phillip Adams muffed a punt inside the 15 yard line.

The defense played very well.  Patrick Willis put on a show, including a crushing sack of Drew Brees and a tackle of Reggie Bush that had Bush's head whipping around like a bobble head doll.  Twice the defense held the Saints to a field goal after they advanced the ball into the red zone.

Even the "turd twins", Michael Crabtree and Nate Clemons, made plays.

Frank Gore was amazing.  Alex Smith played the game of his career.

And yet.  Yet.  It still shows up in the 'L' column.

Damn it.


Monday, September 20, 2010


Ron in Houston has apparently LOST IT.  Check out the comments he made about my last post which, paradoxically, had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM OR HIS VILE ILK.  It's even worse over at FLDS Texas.  Here is a sampling of what Ron wrote there.
Oh, no, no. None of you mess with me tonight. I’m not in the mood. If you want to mess with me, read this first.

Ron in Houston said this on September 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM


I know that apparently I “control” you guys.

You evil a$$hats are nothing more than my sycophants.

I’d love to claim your collective hatred for people that view sex with 14 year old girls as socially acceptable but unfortunately I cant.

My advice to you? Be active. When you see dickheads like Vulture, don’t be afraid to speak out. If the (deleted) tries to suppress your free speech rights then send an email to his employer an ask them if they support Michael Fulmer’s positions on sex with 12 year old girls.

These dickheads deserve it. Go for it.

Ron in Houston said this on September 20, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Hey Mike – where do you work? Want to play anymore with me?

Ron in Houston said this on September 20, 2010 at 12:41 AM

The greatest irony to this?

I’m a freaking pacifist.

However, there comes a point where you can even piss off a pacifist.

I will say this. Don’t be evil. However, sometimes the only way to stop evil is to meet it with evil of equal or stronger force.

Sometimes evil (deleted) -tards need to be smacked down. I’m must aaying….

Ron in Houston said this on September 20, 2010 at 1:01 AM

So, where I am now is willing to fight against the proxies. See, no one can fire me. I work for myself. However, if Michael Fulmer of Frederick Maryland wants to screw with me and call me an “asshole” well perhaps his employer needs to see how he’s spending his time at work.

See, I didn’t start this fight with these assholes. However, if they want to fight, then I’m more than willing to get it on with them.

In the end, all I want is to be left alone. I think another of Hugh’s proxies get’s that and actually respects it. I have no problem at all with him. After resolving our disputes, the guy has treated me with a fair degree of dignity and respect. I more than intent to repay that in kind.

The bottom line with Ron is that he doesn’t want to hurt anyone. You leave me alone, and I’ll be more than happy to leave you alone. I actually don’t necessarily agree with the 75 year sentence for Michael Emacks. I don’t disagree with it, but I do appreciate that 75 years is an awful long time. Really, is the guy that evil that he deserves to be locked away the rest of his life? Like I say, whether you agree or disagree, that is a very harsh sentence. The bottom line is that I don’t disagree with the premise of the guy being punished I’m just not sure that 75 years is really in the long term interests of society.

Obviously folks feel quite strongly on both sides of that issue, and I’ll let all you guys have at it. I’m just not certain that from a public policy standpoint it’s wise.

Ron in Houston said this on September 20, 2010 at 2:48 AM
Emphasis mine

Ron has threatened me. He has threatened my employment. He has slandered my good name by AGAIN accusing me of being pro-pedophilia (something I have NEVER supported and am on record as being FULLY AGAINST).

Do you have any further doubt about the kind of people we're dealing with here?  All I've ever done is bring up the Constitutional issues I see with regard to the raid on YFZ ranch.  And I've been called everything but a Child of God.  I've been called pedophile, pro-polygamy, and everything else you can think of.  These vile cowards threaten real people from a position of anonymity.  They are the worst.

I left every one of Ron's foul comments intact.  Yet EVERY LAST COMMENT I've made at the FLDS Texas site over the past few days has been summarily deleted, including this.
Mr. Lawyer,

I'm sure you'll delete this, like have all of my previous comments. But I wish to go on record as warning you that if you ever accuse me of wanting to marry 12-year-olds and threaten my employment again, I will retain a REAL lawyer and sue your sorry ass.

Put that in your culus and smoke it, palos.

Anonymity.  Threats.  Silencing opposing viewpoints.  Who's the bad guy here?  Me?  Or them?

If there are any real lawyers out there reading this (not wannabe almost high school teachers like Ron in Houston or the Mall Cop a Palos, please weigh in here.  I want to know if I have grounds to sue that asshole.

NO ONE threatens Michael Fullmer of Frederick, MD (yeah, asshole, I DON'T HIDE WHO I AM -- NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL) and gets away with it.


Sunday, September 19, 2010

The OC responds

I really like Hal (the OntologicalComedian, or OC for short).  He is smart and makes solid, effective arguments.

He and I recently got into a little back-and-forth over AGW (renamed yet AGAIN this week from 'Climate Change' to 'Climate Disruption' in an effort to mask the fact that there is no warming occurring in the 21st century).  His latest comment posts inspired me to make this entry.

Hal believes the AGW science.  I do not.  I won't be convinced that the frauds in East Anglia are doing anything but manufacturing propaganda to help bring about the glorious One-World Socialist Utopia.  Does this make me anti-science?  Hal intimates as much.
In the 60s/early 70s, when some idiots went around calling police "pigs" and that sort of thing, there was the saying "OK, when you get mugged, call a hippie". By the same token, since you don't seem to believe there is a real pursuit of truth in scientific institutions, if you get cancer, call a blogger.
But I haven't criticized medical science...or physical science...or any other branch of science.  The practitioners of those branches of science actually practice the scientific method - results are falsified, tested, and retested, until the findings are a certain as can be possible in this imperfect world.  No one shouts down scientists who deny that coffee is health food.  No one prevents the publishing of contradictory articles claiming that coffee is good for you or bad for you.  No one tries to deny funding to studies of pain management.  Or those trying to falsify the results of those studying it.  Yet those techniques are employed and applauded by AGW true believers!  If that doesn't make one suspicious, then I have no further argument that might possibly convince them.

Hal takes issue with my references to the Propagandist-in-Chief of the AGW crowd as "Al Gorebells".  Yet, can ANYONE deny that Gorebells is the best propagandist this world has seen since the master, Joseph Goebbels?  His movie is a monument to propaganda and quack science.  I will not cease to refer to Mr. Gorebells by that name until it is universally acknowledged that the man is a fraud seeking to cash in, not a prophet seeking to "save the planet".

Hal and I agree on one very important thing: government, in league with large multinational corporations, is a power to be feared.  Where we differ is in degree of guilt.  Prior to the 1850's there was no such thing as a giganticus mega-corporation.  What happened to change that?  Railroads.  The government started choosing winners and losers among those endeavoring to build America's railroads.  It was government that created the monster...and, before long, it was government in bed with that monster against We the People.  Hal believes it is the corporations who are the power behind the monster.  I disagree.  But only in degrees; after all, the people who power the multinationals are the same people occupying positions of power in our corrupt government.  See Chaney, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernanke, et al. 

One thing Hal said that I wish to correct, posthaste:
There is nothing magically virtuous or magically demonic about government, and you can't just trust a government with the power to redistribute all wealth, and expect good things to happen. The government is simply the Res Public, (ironically the party that took its name from that now goes around mouthing the belief that you can't trust anything to a Res Public, except the ability to wage war and seize people by force and put them in jail -- don't trust them with health care or you'll inevitably get a totalitarian society).
If by any stretch Hal thinks that I'm one of those "except the ability to wage war and seize people by force and put them in jail" people, I want to categorically disabuse him of that notion - right now. A true small-"L" libertarian wants neither government health care NOR a government running amok among the nations inflicting Democracy at bayonet point.  A libertarian wants the ridiculous laws that unnecessarily put people in jail for what are truly victimless crimes revoked.  Drug laws?  Not a Federal issue.  Prostitution?  I don't like it...but I don't want people in jail for it, either.  I, like other libertarians, simply want to be left alone to live our lives without the uncertainty of government sticking its nose into our lives.

Government is a necessary evil.  Without government, the "society of contract" cannot exist.  Without the "society of contract", trade cannot exist, and we're back to feudalism.  But when government starts to dictate winners and losers, especially via a tax structure that specifically targets small businessmen and the upper middle class as "losers", that is a government that must be changed.


Friday, September 17, 2010

Topic revisited -- Team Elephant's "reformation"

I last spoke on this subject some days before the primary elections.  Now the primaries for Delaware, Maryland, New York, and various other states are complete.  Let's see what Team Elephant has been up to in the time since my last taunt post.

Wanna see true colors?  See this.
In an extraordinary move, the state Republican Party began automated phone calls attacking O'Donnell in the campaign's final hours. The calls feature the voice of a woman who identifies herself as Kristin Murray, O'Donnell's campaign manager in her 2008 unsuccessful Senate campaign, accusing the candidate of "living on campaign donations — using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."

O'Donnell's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Republican officials have said privately they intend to write off the seat if O'Donnell is victorious against Castle.
The establishment would rather lose than support a candidate whose views aren't those of John McCommie, Lincoln Chafee, and other stalwart "conservatives".  What is it you're not seeing here, conservatives?  These people hate you and hate everything you believe in.

Most telling was the establishment response to O'Donnell's win.
However, a top Republican official told CNN on Tuesday night that O'Donnell will have to show she can generate viable support before the national party will give her money.

"It is now incumbent on Sarah Palin, (U.S. Sen.) Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express to help support her," the official said on condition of not being identified by name. "They got her here. Now make it happen."
After the establishment said they wouldn't support O'Donnell financially, she made her own pitch -- and picked up $1.5 million dollars just since Tuesday!  You're looking bad, Rockefellerites!

New York posted a stunning upset as well.  Carl Paladino upset RINO Rick Lazio.

The Team Elephant establishment is grossly out of touch with its base.  I would say DELIBERATELY out of touch; they really would rather see grassroots candidates lose.  They will only support "their kind".  WHY you people still affiliate yourselves with that party, I cannot understand.


Thursday, September 16, 2010

Additions to the Blog List

I added two new entries to my blog list.

The first, Free the FLDS Children, is an entry that is WAY past due.  Bill Medvecky is not only a champion against the injustice that was done to the FLDS people in El Dorado, but also shines the light on abuses by CPS around the country.  He's a little profane for my liking. *sound of hysterical laughter*.  I should have known that I, a professional potty-mouth, couldn't say that with a straight face.  Let's just say Bill Medvecky doesn't pull any punches, and, thankfully, he's punching all the right people.

The other new entry is Ye Olde Journalist.  I don't know why it took me so long to discover this blog, since it is one of the Pharisee's Phaves, but it wasn't until the Mall Cop a Palos was outed that I read Ye Olde for the first time.  It's good stuff.  Scotty L., the proprietor of said blog, has a nice mix of news and opinion that makes for a good source of information and provokes thought in the reader.

I recommend these sites to all as a great addition to your daily diet of Internet information.


Tuesday, September 14, 2010


The Modern Pharisee has done it!  He not only unmasked the execrable Ron in Houston but now he's hit the ultimate target - the Caput a Palos himself!

Via Free the FLDS Children, Bill Medvecky's excellent blog:
Hugh McBryde has flushed TBM out of the woodwork, the cockroach is a rent-a-cop for the University of North Texas (UNT).

His name is Greg Prickett (What a surprise), and he and Natalie have been running around erasing all the e-mails and incriminating evidence (Also illegal) they can locate to try to thwart the on-going investigation of their criminal State and Federal violations of Law.

I REALLY wanted to keep the knowledge of his discovery quiet until the investigations were complete, but sadly, he was called by an over-zealous investigator of ours prematurely. Since the cat is now out of the bag, he’ll be happy to know that we’ve already stockpiled all the e mails and correspondence between himself, Natalie, The Banana, Lover boy and Wisan needed, and those we don’t have, can’t be erased from the net anyway.

He reports that he walks around with a gun. Be careful Greg, you don’t want to shoot your Prickett off before we send your ass to prison.
I can hardly contain my joy at the thought that this flaming asshole has finally been outed!

THIS is the guy who called ME a wannabe lawyer?  Who mocked ME for being "just a programmer"?  Who accused ME of being a pedophile?  THIS hayseed POS?  This clown who put the "prick" in "Prickett"?

He's not only NOT a lawyer, he's not even a REAL law-enforcement officer.  His job is one step above Mall Cop.  Worse yet, he's the kind of nightmare cop Will Grigg writes about.

Wait.  It gets better.  From the comments of the referenced Medvecky post, an open letter to the Prick's employer:
Dear Mr. Price,

It is my understanding that you employ Mr. Prickett as your Chief of Security.

In view of the findings of the Appeals Court concerning his involvement in the assault of a student of the school a few years ago, I can honestly say I don’t understand the University’s continued support of this person, but that is not the main purpose of this letter.

I am here to address Mr. Prickett’s blatant use of the University’s name and his position with it, as well as his use of the Universities computers to repeatedly violate the Privacy Act with regards to HIPPA Laws, both State and Federal.

Mr. Prickett authors a site on the web entitled “Coram Non Judice”. He fancies himself a legal expert and, with the assistance of a rogue Attorney named Natalie Malonis, distributes the private, confidential Medical and Psychological Records of children and adults he opposes on his site as well as on a site entitled “FLDSTexas”.

Further, calling himself “Texas Blue’s Man” Mr. Prickett uses his position and the equipment of the University to disseminate on his and other websites what he pro-ports to be “Child porn”. They are un-redacted pictures of children which he claims are in sexually explicit poses. As you may know, presenting a picture of a child as a sexual object or in a sexual light is illegal and considered child porn even if the child is fully clothed.

In a recent letter of explanation to Wikipedia concerning his conduct, Mr. Prickett self reported that he has now taken to wearing a concealed weapon at all times.

Mr. Prickett is running around your campus and is, frankly, a lit fuse ready to explode at those he fears “Might kill me”.

What you do about Mr. Prickett is up to you, but you HAVE been advised that he is potentially a far greater liability for the University than he was in the case of the student he allowed to be assaulted by Campus Security.

We intend to bring charges against Mr. Prickett for the HIPPA violations and for attempting to portray the children of a religion he does not favor in a sexual light, as well as bringing charges against those who aid and abet him in his perverted goals.

Thank you,

W.J. Medvecky
Is this simply the greatest thing ever? If the 49ers had beaten the Seahawks 49-0 I wouldn't be as happy as I am right now.  Sweet, sweet, schadenfreude!

Check it out, bigots!  Your champion, your hero, your great legal mind, is nothing but a glorified Mall Cop with a bad attitude and a sociopathic need to throw his weight around.  At least Ron in Houston is almost a lawyer, almost a professor, almost SOMETHING.  The Caput a Palos is a gigantic fraud.  And a colossal pussy; once he caught wind that he had been outed, he marked his execrable blog "private".

Hey Prickett!  I got yer Coram Non Judice hangin' RIGHT HERE!


One more thing. I went over to FLDS Texas to see what the bigots had to say about their legal hero (and, let's be honest, to poke a stick through the bars and laugh at them). Apparently Ron in Houston (if that is, in fact, his site) is every bit the coward that the Mall Cop a Palos is: all of my attempts to post comments were deleted.


Monday, September 13, 2010

Weekend wrapup - queue Ned Beatty

Stop me if you've heard this one before.
Mountain Man: I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!
Bobby: Weee!
Mountain Man: Weeeeeeee!
Bobby: Weee!
Substitute "Seahawks" for "Mountain Man" and "49ers" for "Bobby", and you get a full, complete understanding of what happened yesterday afternoon in Seattle.

And to think I entered this season as full of optimism as before any season since 2002.  I think it was optimism badly misplaced.

The Niners stink.  On ice.  We're a bad, bad team.

Coach Singletary may be the worst coach in the league at clock management.

Alex Smith has regressed.

Michael Crabtree is a turd; he may be the worst route-runner ever.  He may be as bad as any of the turd WRs Detroit drafted under Matt Millen.

Nate Clemons may be the single most overrated player ever.  He seriously sux.  He got the early interception, which made him cocky.  From that point on, Hasselbeck played him like a Stradivarius.

Our offensive line got treated like Seattle's bitch.  So much for the #1 draft choices.

There is so little talent on this team.  Patrick Willis, Vernon Davis, Frank Gore, and Delaney Walker.  Stop me if I missed anybody.  That's what I thought.

Rather than sign a bunch of players to contract extensions, it might be time to blow this team up and start over. 

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

The rest of the weekend was nice.  I got to watch football with my boys.  We enjoyed the early game, in which the Bucs scraped out a win against the Browns.  We went through a 50 pack of hot wings in record time.  A nice time was had by all.  That is, until the second quarter of the Niners game.

I read Vox Day's column this morning and got super depressed. Give it a read if you want to feel likewise.  Makes what the 49ers did yesterday seem almost pleasant.

The Modern Pharisee is up to something BIG. You may want to pop over there every so often. There could be big news - and it could be soon.


Sunday, September 12, 2010

I told you so!

Some people think I'm a little over-the-top in my distrust and dislike of Das Überwachenden.  And yet the things I predict regarding seemingly innocent moves by various organs of government are proved accurate again and again.  The latest? A seemingly innocent article detailing Frederick County's move to quietly issue new recycling bins with built-in RFID.
If you think for one minute that the RFID data won't be used to persuade coerce people to recycle, you're out of your mind. Government only knows how to do two things: (1) get bigger, and (2) use force. Be on the lookout for a County-wide campaign in the very near future "urging" us to be more diligent in recycling. This will be followed later on by a campaign to assess fines against those who don't recycle.
Oh how right I was!
Beware the green police. They don't carry guns and there's no police academy to train them, but if you don't recycle your trash properly, they can walk up your driveway and give you a $100 ticket.

They know what's in your trash, they know what you eat, they know how often you bring your recycles to the curb -- and they may be coming to your town soon. That is, if they're not already there.

In a growing number of cities across the U.S., local governments are placing computer chips in recycling bins to collect data on refuse disposal, and then fining residents who don't participate in recycling efforts and forcing others into educational programs meant to instill respect for the environment.
Did I not tell you? DID I NOT TELL YOU?!?!?

Beware those who try to sell you altruism.  Because if you're not buying, they'll be back -- with bayonets. 


Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Still believe? Fool!

You silly Republicans!  You really believe that your party has, like Jake Blues, "seen....the....LIGHT!"

I'd like to take this opportunity to shatter that illusion.
Forty Jim DeMints or 60 Lindsey Grahams? Forty Christine O’Donnell’s or 60 Mike Castles?

These are questions conservatives have to think about when they see polls like the latest Rasmussen, which has Rep. Mike Castle, a moderate Republican thoroughly unloved by tea partiers, leading Democratic nominee Chris Coons 48-37 while conservative Republican Christine O’Donnell trails Coons by the same eleven-point margin, 47-36.

And if you think that O’Donnell can turn those numbers around in two months, you owe me a pretty good argument.

So, again: would conservatives in Delaware rather win, or send a message?
"Win"? Win WHAT exactly?  What in the name of all that is good is remotely "victorious" in electing someone who is 180 degrees opposed to everything you believe in just because he has an "R" next to his name?

Vox Day has the correct answer to Mr. Foster's question.
For actual conservatives, the only rational answer is 40 DeMints. Daniel Foster has asked a misleading question. The correct one is, would conservatives rather elect a false conservative majority that will vote against conservative principles while ensuring that a Democratic majority succeeds it when the inevitable reaction comes, or continue building towards a genuine and committed conservative majority?
You Elephants go right on believing in your John McCommies, your Lindsay Grahams, your Olympia Dukakases.



Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Annual NFL Predictions

It's that time again, kiddies!  Time for the Vulture's Guaranteed-to-be-wrong picks for the the NFL Season.  Last year I predicted a Giants-Patriots rematch in the Super Bowl.  That was, as they say, not a very astute pick.  I also picked the 49ers to win the West.  Suffice it to say that the Cardinals had one last fling left due to their future Hall of Fame quarterback.

But this year is going to be different.  This year I'm gonna nail my picks.  You'll see!

Okay, I'm back on planet Earth.  These picks haven't got a snowball's chance in Arizona of coming to pass.  Yet pick them I must.  It's the very definition of insanity.

NFC East: Cowboys (11-5)
NFC North: Packers (11-5)
NFC South: Saints (12-4)
NFC West: 49ers (10-6)
NFC W/C: Vikings (11-5) and Eagles (9-7)

AFC East: Jets (11-5)
AFC North: Ravens (12-4)
AFC South: Colts (13-3)
AFC West: Chargers (11-5)
AFC W/C: Patriots (11-5) and Titans (11-5)

NFC Championship Game: Packers at Saints
AFC Championship Game: Ravens at Colts

NFC Champion: Saints
AFC Champion: Ravens
Super Bowl Champion: Saints

The 49ers will win the gawd-awful West by default. The Cardinals will return to playing Cardinals football (cover your eyes awful). The Rams are pitiful. And the Seabags are too old and brittle.

So what of my picks for the Super Bowl?  It wasn't easy this year, let me tell you.  The "experts" are all leaning to the Cowboys from the NFC.  I can't go there.  The Cowboys have to prove to me that they can get through a post season w/o choking.  And the Saints are, if anything, even better this year than last year.

The Colts are the trendy pick in the AFC -- that is, among those not picking the Jets.  I can't go there.  Mark Sanchez hasn't proved to me that he can win games.  It's one thing to stay out of the way to keep your team from losing (the 2000 Ravens Trent Dilfer model for winning).  It's another to actually be able to lead your team to victory.  The Ravens have that guy.  Joe Flacco is on the verge of emerging as a first-tier quarterback.  That, along with the Ravens tough defense, will be the difference that will get them back to the Super Bowl.

Think I'm wrong?  Think I'm full of it?  Let me know what you think.


Monday, September 6, 2010

An appeal to my fair-mindedness

Hal (OC) writes:
We've gotten way too used to engaging pictures, whether of unicorns, polar bears on ice flows, as a substitute for thinking. I'm sure a lot of climate scientists by now wish Al Gore had never been born.

Yes, it's true, the IAC has critiqued the IPCC on some counts.

Another report of theirs, which can be accessed at which makes, among other conclusions:

·At current emission rates models suggest that all coral reefs and polar ecosystems will be severely affected by 2050 or potentially even earlier;

·Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and well being;

·Ocean acidification is irreversible on time scales of at least tens of thousands of years;

·Even with stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm, ocean acidification will have profound impacts on many marine systems. Large and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions are needed globally by at least 50% by 2050.

Counting on your fairmindednes, as I've gotten accustomed to doing.
I appreciate the OC's comments, as always. He and I can be described as being polar opposites politically.  Yet we are able to engage in meaningful discussion without rancor.  Would that all such discussions could be handled so amicably.

Okay, enough of the mutual admiration society.  Let me address the substance of your comment.

You post four "evidences" of the damage wreaked by mankind on our environment by our emissions of carbon dioxide.  Given that these "proofs" originate from the very people I cite as having bitch-slapped the scientists con men at the East Anglia University Propaganda Factory, one would think that I would give those "proofs" some weight.  One would be wrong.

It boils down, sadly, to a matter of faith.  Because, for every "proof" you or others produce, I can produce one (or more) contradicting or refuting that "proof".  Many more.  These links are just those accumulated prior to 2010; there are many, many more in the aftermath of the IPCC email-gate scandal.

As I wrote in my first post in the Death Knell series:
Never mind that ALL of the scientists working for alternate energy companies, for the government, or on projects that are government-funded are part of the 'consensus'.

Never mind? Let me take that back. It DOES matter that the 'consensus' emanates from those sources. Why? Like they say in all of the detective shows: follow the money.
ALL of the money going into grants to study warming comes from those with much to gain from that warming being "true".  All of it.  There is NO government or Quango (Quasi-governmental organization) money going into ANY study to try to falsify the findings of those claiming AGW is true.  Falsification - proving something is correct by first trying to prove that it isn't - is the bedrock of science and the scientific method.  Funding only studies that seek to PROVE warming and to identify its "effects" gives the impression that the science isn't serious.  It's the scientific equivalent of a Soviet show trial (Verdict first, then trial!).  

Approaching the issue from a common sense perspective, it's hard to get behind man-made carbon as a factor in warming when:
  • The #1 cause of warming and cooling of the planet activity.  Period.  Everything else is incidental.  There was high solar activity in the 90's: there were high temperatures in the 90's.  There has been extremely reduced solar activity in the 00's: there have been colder temperatures in the 00's.  These colder temperature have been noticed; the name change from "warming" to "climate change" is a lame attempt to address this.

  • The #2 cause of warming of the planet is....carbon?  Nope.  Water vapor.  Yeah.  Water vapor.  From evaporation.

  • The "unprecedented" warming of the 90's?  Can't even touch the Great Medieval Warming.  Not even close.  What has the receding ice in Iceland uncovered?  Farms.  From....wait for it....the Great Medieval Warming.  Warming that, so far as we know, wasn't caused by factories, internal combustion engines, or AGW.
I made mention earlier to faith. I have believed AGW to be a fraud and a scam from Kyoto on.  How can anyone take seriously a crisis whose answer is to demand that the developed world commit economic suicide while exempting mega-polluters China and India?

Those who "deny" AGW are bullied and shouted down.  They're call "flat earthers" and equated with Holocaust deniers.  Scientists whose studies "prove" the warming get fat funding.  Scientist who don't toe the line get bupkis.  

AGW is just another arrow in the quiver of scamming and bullying employed by governments to drag us back to the Good Olde Days of Feudalism.  They get to rule and control all of the wealth.  We get to work at the jobs they let us work at, live where they let us live, for as long as they choose to let us live, and we get to like it or lump it.


Thursday, September 2, 2010

Worlds apart - UPDATED

It's funny how two people can look at the same set of facts and come to complete opposite conclusions.

Reporter #1 looks upon the IPCC findings and declares a grand fraud exposed.
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
Reporter #2 looks upon the upcoming Cancun AGW summit and declares it humanity's last chance.
Cancun, or "COP 16" as it is officially known, will again see ministers and officials from nearly 200 nations grapple with the politics of global warming, but no one thinks they will be able to close a widening breach in the world's defences against dangerously rising temperatures – the "gigatonne gap".

A gigatonne is a billion tonnes of carbon, and the emissions cuts currently promised by the nations of the world in the Copenhagen Accord – the last-minute agreement patched together by leaders after the conference in the Danish capital all but collapsed – will mean that, by 2020, when global emissions should be on a firmly downward trend, they will be several gigatonnes too high to limit the warming to C above the pre-industrial level. This is widely considered the most that human society can stand without serious consequences.
Remember this the next time someone tries to feed you that BS about news sources being "objective".

Update: Another news source has picked up on the growing lack of public confidence in the charlatans scientists behind the AGW "science".  It looks like the wheels are finally coming off of Al Gorebells' cart.