Thomas Fullmer, 1962-2012

I got caught in the worst kind of traffic yesterday. It took over 30 minutes to go 1/4 mile. I thought that was the worst thing I would experience on a Friday. It wasn't.

When I got home, DeadEye told me the bad news: my brother, Tom was dead.

Talking to my mom on the phone, it took every ounce of strength for me to choke back tears -- hell, what I feared would be SOBS -- to be strong for her. I thought I was prepared for this. I wasn't. There's no such thing as being prepared for the loss of someone you love so much.

Understand, Tom had been dying or in the throws of death for 20+ years. First it was the ultra-rare blood disorder that knocked his white cell count down to around 35. Then, after a near-miraculous recovery as a result of an experimental drug, the so-called "side effects" of said miracle drug began to finish the job the blood disease started.

After a few short years of good health, Tom developed polycystic kidney disease. Literally hundreds of cysts grew in and around his kidneys, most small, but some as large as grapefruit. The tumors pressed against his internal organs, crushing them and causing incredible pain. Worse, they made it difficult for him to keep his meals down.

And yet, he lived another 15 years. For 15 years he defied death. Even when his kidneys began to fail, he defied death. It took liver failure to finally bring him down.

It's fitting that he defied death for 15 years. Because the man Tom Fullmer was one tough hombre. In his youth, when he was healthy, he was the manliest of men. Women wanted him. Men wanted to be him. Hell, I wanted to be him.

His was a life filled with irony. He was terrible in school. But, after taking an entry-level job as a laborer, he worked his way up to carpenter, and then to licensed electrician. I've looked at schematics. There are no stupid electricians. He wasn't dumb. He just didn't get school, and school didn't get him.

He read voraciously, particularly books of history. He was as knowledgeable about the history of Europe from Roman times to the present as anyone I've ever known. He was even knowledgeable about Nordic mythology: he is the only person I've known besides Internet Superintelligence Vox Day who could speak knowledgeably about Radnarok.

His diseases were especially cruel. He was robbed of his home, his marriage, his ability to work...but never his dignity. His mind remained strong, albeit dulled by the drugs, right up until just recently.

He had the ability to make everyone around him comfortable. He made everyone laugh with his funny stories, goofy faces, and general outgoing nature. He remained upbeat even in the face of incredible suffering.

I loved and respected Tom. We weren't especially close as kids, due to the fact he was 4 years younger than I and 5 grades behind me (do YOU know any high school seniors who hang out with their 7th grade brother?). That was my mistake. Tom, it turns out, was an indispensable friend and mentor.

Tom helped me through the tough times I experienced after I got dumped by my girlfriend of several years, dropped out of college, and lost my faith in God (and pretty much everything else). He shepherded me through times when I didn't much care if I lived or died, until I could get my feet back under me. We effectively swapped roles; he was the big brother, and I followed his example.

I will miss Tom, more than I can express in mere words. If there is a heaven...if there is salvation (and I believe there is)...then Tom is in the loving embrace of his Savior right now.

Tom, your 50 years on this earth were too short, and too filled with pain. But what you left behind -- your legacy -- will live on and on.

You once told DeadEye that you loved her and thought of her as a sister. She was lying in bed last night SMILING at that memory. Your legacy lives on with her.

You taught my boys how to handle weapons and shoot. They loved and admired you with all of their hearts. The men they have become -- that, too, is your legacy.

As for me? I might not be here now if it wasn't for you. I certainly wouldn't be the man I am now without your influence. 

Tom is free of the pain now. Free from suffering. Free from this maddening world. Rest, strong man. Know you were respected in this life. Know you were loved by family and friends. And know that you WILL be missed.

I love you, my brother, my friend, forever.

Not a dummy after all

Vox Day wrote a post about Big Media's surprise at Sarah Palin's writing ability. Her overall level was 8.5 on the Flesch Kincaid scale. However, it was Vox's own rating that piqued my attention, not Sarah's.

Out of curiosity, I popped my most recent column into the Readability Calculator: "Flesch Kincaid Grade level: 13.10". And my recent email to KW came in at 14.74.

It made me curious. So I popped a few of my blog posts in to see how I fare. This is the scorecard.

The Eisenhower Warnings - 10.50
An idea whose time has come - 10.07
Taking credit - 8.74
Prosecutorial misconduct - Texas style - 8.39
Maryland's Lost Icon - 7.61
Who to believe? - 8.38
The Circus is in Town - 9.00
A Retraction of Sorts - 8.59

That last one was a puzzler to me. I used the words "plausible deniability" and "habitue" in it! And STILL couldn't make a 9th grade level! My average score for the 8 posts was 8.91, not a whole lot higher than Sarah Palin's. And these posts were more or less cherry picked; I only included longer posts with minimal slang in my sampling. Sarah Palin's sampling was 24,000 fricking pages!!!!

If my writing, which hardly qualifies as simplistic, can't make it out of High School, what's a moron like Al Gorebells score? 3rd grade?

Kinda puts all of those "stoopid Sarah" stereotypes in perspective, doesn't it?

Vulture Droppings: "Check your bag, sir?"

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

Not content to merely annoy and harass, the TSSA (you can't spell Schutzstaffel without the double S) has moved on to actual assault.  Their new policy - submit to the nudie ray or get groped - has a lot of people in high dudgeon.

The Germans staged an innovative protest of the scanners -- you wanna see me naked?  I'll come to the airport naked!

Vox Day has opined.  So have Will Grigg and Ye Olde Journalist.

Now it's my turn.  This edition of Vulture Droppings is brought to you by the letter "G", as in "grope"

---

"What's the big deal?", I hear some so-called "conservatives" ask.  We NEED the government to keep us safe in the airports.  Even if that WERE true (I believe wholeheartedly that it isn't), how is groping 13-year-old girls for sport keeping us safe?  Yeah, you read that right - only children over the age of 12 get groped. Bet that makes all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters happy.

"You don't HAVE to get groped!  You can go through the scanner, you know!"  Yeah.  Not any better.  The scanner shows everything God gave you in graphic detail.  Think I'm kidding?  Check this out - not only can you see dude's junk, you can tell that he's not circumcised.  Again, the question to all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters -- you want your little girl leered at by Tommy TSSA like she's some sort of common whore just because she's flying to see grandma?

---

"But the pictures are purged after they've been viewed! The embarrassment is only temporary!"  No, no they're not - at least not all of them.  Body scan pictures are starting to crop up in various places; one courthouse in Florida (figures!) has over 35,000 saved images!  Now, fathers, ask yourself this: how would you feel about scanned images of your hot 15-year-old daughter showing up on the internet?  Are you STILL a supporter of the scanners?  I can't see how.

---

TSSA, naturally, stands by the scanners and their new grope-down procedures.  They deny that any groping is going on, notwithstanding the growing number of complaints from the molested (see here, here, and here also).  Nor are they too happy with those who protest against being scanned or groped - this guy faces possible criminal charges.

---

The issue is apparent. So is the solution, IMO. Abolish the TSSA. Let the airlines handle their own security. You may not feel safer, but you'll feel less violated.  And you'll get back the freedom you once had to enter an airport without being molested.

Of course, if you like that sort of thing....in which case, I say - TO THE AIRPORT WITH YOU!

---

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.

---

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.

Suckers!

More anti-atheist blowback

Buzzfeed, a site where pretty much anything and everything and everyone is mocked (particularly Christians and Tea Party types) really doesn't play favorites.  Or.......perhaps even people in the "hipster, agnostic, anti-Tea Party" crowd are sick to death of militant atheists.  Either way, this was the result.

Top 10 Reasons Atheists Suck

1. Atheists really enjoy being smarter and more rational than everyone else. Have you noticed that about Atheists? I have.

2. Atheists tend to be haters who don't believe in anything. You get excited about something cool and they are always all skeptical, asking lots of critical questions, and basically kill the positive energy.

3. They love reading Reddit.com, which is a perfectly good site, but they get all smug about how Reddit is better than other sites. Like is there some rule that if you don't worship the real God, you have to worship Reddit instead?!? WTF?

4. Atheists love to mock hard working, religious Americans who love their kids, work hard, and go to church.

5. Atheists think they are rational and scientific but isn't it more rational and open minded to say that God *might* exist? Should real scientists keep an open mind?

6. Atheists are some of the biggest trolls on the Internet. They will probably start trolling me just for writing this post.

7. Have you ever known someone who would rather be right than loved? And eventually you are like, “dude, ok, ok, you are right” but you are also thinking “what an a-hole!” That a-hole is almost certainly an atheist.

8. Atheists are the kind of people who enjoy telling small children that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are all fake. Thanks for ruining all the fun, atheist! I guess you think a 5 year old knowing “the truth” is more important than them having a happy childhood.

9. Atheists are selfish. Instead of praising God for good things that happen in their life, they just praise themselves. Like “wow, I really deserved that raise. Praise myself!”

10. They just suck. You don't even need a reason. It is obvious. Just accept it.

I have to add, so you know where I'm coming from, that most atheists are perfectly normal, likable people.  I have no problem with them.  I have no beef with them.  I'm live-and-let-live.  They're live-and-let live.  It's those militant Richard Dawkins wannabe assholes who fit the "type" described in this list.  You know, the people that Vox Day so loves to pillory.

The amazing thing about this list is not the list itself.  It's that it made Buzzfeed.  Things don't just end up on Buzzfeed.  They end up there because a sufficient contingent of "hipsters" think it merits the attention.

Being the consummate connoisseur of schadenfreude, I have to opine that the idea of militant atheists being subjected to increasing ridicule warms the cockles of my dark heart.

Now go say 10 "Hail Darwin"'s and contemplate the total purposelessness of your wretched existance.

Liberals and atheists are smarter than us (and other popular myths)

As if militant atheists aren't annoying enough.  Now there is a study that purports to prove that liberals and atheists are more intelligent than conservatives (I suppose that includes libertarians) and people of faith.  This is a sampling of the paper-thin "logic" employed in this "proof".

Before reviewing the specific findings related to atheism and intelligence we should note that Kanazawa takes it as settled that, “it is evolutionarily familiar and natural to believe in God, and evolutionarily novel not to be religious.” Kanazawa maintains this based on recent research in evolutionary psychology that suggests a hyperactive perception of intentionality in the brain that is adaptively paranoid about unknown causes and thus attributes quasi- or supernatural causation as an explanation.

I presuppose it, hence it is true. Tool.

The great divide in intelligence between the "smart" group and the "stupid" group:

[A]dult subjects who identify as “not at all religious” had a mean intelligence as adolescents of 103.09 while the “very religious” had a mean intelligence of 97.14.

Uh huh. Allowing for sampling errors and standard deviation, there's about a credit card's width between the two groups.  And given that the "scientist" who conducted this "study" had a preconception going in - that atheists are more "evolved" than the religious - who's to doubt his "findings"?  [/sarcasm]

As Vox Day ably demonstrated in his excellent book The Irrational Atheist, which I reviewed shortly after it came out, atheists are not only NOT smarter than believers, but also tend to overestimate their own intelligence.  It is not unusual for an atheist of slightly above-average intelligence (IQ in the 115-120 range) to consider themselves highly intelligent.

Not to rub anyone's nose in it, but this libertarian Christian with a Mensa-eligible IQ of over 140 (tested) isn't impressed nor swayed by this idiotic excuse for "science".

Atheists aren't smarter than believers.  They're just more annoying.

Lucid Truth

About a week or so ago my favorite Aussie, Bingbing, announced that his blog, James Board, had been accepted as a featured blog by LucidTruth.com.  Since I'm an attention whore of the worst kind, for whom the words "Me too!  Me too!" have been life's subplot, I decided to submit my meager little blog for consideration.  Imagine my surprise when they accepted my request!

So I not only join the legendary Bingbing as a featured blogger, I join Instapundit, Vox Popoli, Atlas Shrugs, The Other McCain, Ace of Spades HQ, Human Events, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, La Shawn Barber, Town Hall, and other big-time blogs.

So go out to LucidTruth.com and check out the scene. Better yet, cast your vote for The Vulture Lurks and visit the site by clicking the 'Click to Vote' button in the widget to your right. The more votes the blog gets, the more attention it gets.  And the more attention the blog gets, the more attention the ultimate attention whore, me, gets.

Maryland, my Maryland

What is it about my adopted home state that it attracts so many.....odd.....people? Or is it just that they're of a collectivist mentality? After all, Maryland has two of the ten most liberal Senators according to the National Journal. I mean, it's not like we got that pair by accident -- they were elected by people who, apparently, like collectivist policies and the loss of personal freedoms they precipitate.

But this is a new low, even for the People's Republic of Maryland.

How far out of touch with reality are women legislators anyway? That’s exactly the question being asked by citizens (women and men) regarding a proposed bill in the Maryland General Assembly, that would restrict men’s rights to use dating sites to meet foreign women and will likely spur copycat legislation in other states.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Vice President of the women’s caucus is leading 35 other delegates (all women) on a campaign for passage of HB 65, that would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their fingerprints and other background information before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use an “International Marriage Broker”.

Yeah. It seems that the Cougar population isn't happy that men have options apart from their bitter, sagging asses. And, as is sadly the inborn inclination of women, they want to take away those options, by force of law if necessary.

Vox Day had a field day with this.

Frankly, I don't see why they're starting with what can't even reasonably be described as half-measures. This is pathetically insufficient! What is the point of only making it vaguely difficult for Maryland men to talk to foreign women? Obviously the law should forbid men to date or even talk to any woman without a license specifying what strata of women is permissible for them to have contact. These strata would be set on an annual basis by a panel of women and each community would have its own panel of judges who would interview every male individual over the age of 16 decide what license would be assigned to him. Licenses would require renewal every five years, they would be color coded, and the licensed man would be required to produce it upon the request of any adult woman. And no contact of any kind with foreign women will be permitted at any time; a first violation will result in a fine, the second in the loss of a man's license.*

The insane thing is that at least half the women who will read this will find themselves thinking, "you know, a system like that really would make society a much better place." But they're not fascists. No, not even a little bit. They're just strong, independent, beautiful, intelligent snowflakes who care too much about the planet to permit those bestial American men to oppress and abuse foreign women too.

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO embarrassed.

Of course, it could be worse. I could live in Kahleefornia and have to live down the moonbattery perpetuated by the legislature there...

RGD: A scary look at what awaits

Anyone who has read this blog for more than 5 minutes knows that I have a great deal of respect – nay, admiration – for Vox Day. It was Vox Day, after all, who opened my eyes to the realities of American politics, which made my eventual conversion from "conservative" to libertarian possible.

I read his previous book, The Irrational Atheist, back in 2008. It was because of that exceptional book that I decided to take a chance on The Return of the Great Depression, notwithstanding my lack of economic knowledge.

The book is eminently readable, even for those lacking economics training. Vox was able to describe the economic mess in which we find ourselves, the steps that got us into that mess in the first place, and the likelihood that the steps currently being taken by our ruling class will exacerbate the situation, in terminology that wasn’t overwhelming. This book is understandable by ANYONE, regardless of economic background, prior study, or existing expertise. I consider this to be quite an accomplishment on Vox's part.

Some parts of the book were true eye-openers. Call me economically naïve, but I had NO idea that our economy was such a house of cards, the “cards” being our dependence on the issuance of new debt. Just as a shark cannot survive unless it is moving forward, our economy will collapse without the issuance of new debt. It finally made sense to me why the government bailed out the financial institutions in 2008, and why they made some of the other counter-intuitive decisions of the past two years.

Vox takes aim at the “blue skys and sunshine” financial “analysts” (read: stock pimps) that host the various investment shows. He points out the logical fallacies in their reasoning and explains why their pie-in-the-sky predictions for a short recession are way off the mark.

I came away from reading this book extremely concerned for the future. I am convinced that Vox is 100% right when he asserts that the path Keynesian economists are recommending will only make the economic contraction worse and will result in a lot of unnecessary pain for ordinary Americans.

This is a book I would heartily recommend to anyone concerned about our economic future.

The pecking order

Vox Day had a post today in which he commented on Roissy in DC's theories regarding male/female interactions. Vox quite correctly identified Roissy's world of Alpha men and Beta men as an invalid binary construct. He posited that there are a much larger number of categories into which men can be grouped. The categories, as laid out by Vox, are these (I'm paraphrasing his descriptions in the interest of space).

• Alpha. Leaders of men. Women want them. Men want to be them.
  


• Beta. The 'almost Alpha' men. Similar to Alphas in many ways, usually successful, attractive to women, etc. But Betas lack the character and confidence of Alphas.
  


• Delta. The ordinary man. Most men are Deltas. They have no "game", hence women aren't particularly attracted to them if attracted to them at all. Yet Deltas CAN succeed in life if they recognize who they are and make appropriate behavioral changes.
  


• Gamma. The obsequious ass-kisser. Mr. Nice Guy. Like Deltas, not attractive to the ladies. Distinct from Deltas in that they think they're doing things the right way.
  


• Lamda. Gay men.
  


• Sigma. The lone wolf. Very much an Alpha in every way except that they are not leaders and go to great lengths to avoid being thrust into leadership roles. The Sigma views interaction with other people as pure torture. Or, as Vox put it, "Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell."
  


• Omega. Losers. With a capital 'L'. Even Gammas despise them. They are social rejects. Women are creeped out by them.
  

Now, far be it for me to dispute the opinion of an Internet Superintelligence and someone who's writings have had a major influence on my views in life. But my view of the male hierarchy goes something like this.

• Alpha. These are the leaders, the achievers. Women want them. Men want to be them. On this one, Vox and I are in complete agreement.
  


• Beta. Pain in the ass wannabe Alphas. Their lives are a constant cycle of aggression and butting heads with any Alpha they come in contact with. When they come up against a real Alpha, a humiliating beatdown is in store.
  
  They tend to be bullies. They tend to be extraordinarily bad leaders. Women are attracted to their faux-Alphaness...and end up eventually divorcing them.
  
  No one likes them, not even other Betas. They can only be described as tools.
  
  Betas tend to work as salesmen, lawyers, or politicians.
  


• Gamma. Intellectual Alphas lacking the confidence and mojo to be a real Alpha. Gammas know who they are and behave accordingly. They are the true lieutenants - Vox's Betas - who work with, admire, and support Alphas in every way.
  
  Gammas have a natural enmity with Betas; they see through their phony BS right away. They will actively subvert Betas by any means necessary, including passive-aggressive subversion.
  
  A Gamma thrust into a position of leadership will either founder or do just well enough to get the job done. In either case, Gammas HATE being in leadership positions. It's just not in their personality to be a leader.
  
  Gammas won't score any 10's, but they'll do well with the ladies if they don't set their sights too high. They are great relationship material.
  


• Epsilon. The faux Gamma. These men are either ass kissers extraordinaire or total Mr. Nice Guy types. Unlike the Gamma, they do NOT support the Alpha, but seek to subvert him with passive-aggressive tactics. They will support a Beta if it serves their purposes; otherwise, they are as repelled by the Beta as everyone else. Women are definitely NOT attracted to the Epsilon.
  
  Epsilon men tend to believe in Global Warming and to support collectivist politicians.
  


• Omegas. The clueless losers. Not bright. Not talented. Not attractive to the ladies. God help them.

Now, I'll admit that my definitions are incomplete, and Vox has done a better job of filling in the missing types I've sort of glossed over. I particularly like the Lamda and Sigma definitions. They were not types I had considered before.

In my spectrum there are overlaps. Every Gamma will occasionally exhibit Epsilon-like behavior. It's a personality trait they have to actively watch for and nip in the bud. Every Alpha will occasionally exhibit Beta-like behavior. It's inevitable that their combination of intelligence, leadership, and confidence will sometimes give them the opportunity to be a jerk.

So, what do you think? Are you more in line with Vox's taxonomy, mine, or do have have one of your own that you like better? Comment on my friend!

Week 4 - Crown them?

This is an actual exchange between the Vulture and a superintelligence over at Vox Popoli:

Vulture: San Francisco vs. Rams - they are who we thought they were. SF is 3-1 in the pitiful West...playoffs here we come!

VD: If you want to crown them, then go ahead and crown their asses!

For those of you unfamiliar with the Dennis Green reference, here is the link to his epic meltdown. It's a classic. An absolute classic.

But the question bears asking: is it time to crown the 49ers NFC West champions? Look at the opposition. The Cardinals are struggling, the Seahawks are old and injured, and the Rams...?

Ah, yes, the Lambs. They could do little right yesterday, and what little they did right was usually wiped out by stupid penalties. The final score, 35-0, doesn't even BEGIN to reflect the beatdown the Niners laid on the woeful Lambs. Even with the Niners only ahead by 7 late in the 3rd quarter, I wasn't the slightest bit worried. The Rams are a horrible, horrible team. Horrible on a Biblical scale. Only Cecil B. DeMille was capable of capturing an epic FUBAR such as the Rams are right now.

Defense and special teams played an inspired game for the Niners. Patrick Willis and company were MONSTER. There were two touchdowns scored by the defense and one scored by special teams. But the offense? Dude, the offense is S-T-R-U-G-G-L-I-N-G. 90% of the offensive problems can be traced to a single source: offensive line play. Our line is just plain not getting it done. They can't run block. They can't pass block. If we hadn't blown our first round draft pick on that puto Michael Crabtree and had drafted Michael Oher instead, we might not be in this pickle.

So, how long can our defense carry us? I'm not sure. No defense is so strong that it can completely negate a poor offense (one exception: the 2000 Ravens). But I'm confident that Coach Singletary will come up with some way to overcome our weakness and get the team to where it needs to be.

The season is at the 25% completed mark. The Niners are 3-1, 3-0 in division. Unless the Cardinals can right the ship and get on a roll, or the Niners experience an epic collapse, the Niners winning the West is pretty much a foregone conclusion. How the team does in the playoffs beyond that remains to be seen.

Still, there's a level of excitement in 49er-land that I haven't felt in 7 long years.

Vulture Droppings - catching up

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

The past month it's been pretty hard to keep up with all of the stuff happening out there in the world. It's coming at us fast and furious, and it's not showing any signs of let up. As such, I wanted to 'drop' a bunch of items here so that I could clear some of the backlog.

---

I've made the big time. I've been added to the Voxologisti - the blogger links on Vox Popoli, Vox Day's blog. Okay, so there are about 100 other blogs featured there. But I'm one of them!

BTW, I can't recommend Vox Popoli strongly enough. He's always got a strong take on the issues, and it's always a great read.

---

Mark has a beef with Obama's early proclamations.

Subject: Gas

Heard on the news last night that one of Obama's 1st acts as pres. will be to overturn Bush's efforts to explore and drill for more oil & natural gas. Hello $5.00 gasoline and higher utility rates!! Boy I love Lefties!!!

I hadn't heard about this. I did a quick web-blast, and found stories saying that BHO was "considering" overturning this edict of the Rex Americana. To me, it seems that BHO is following in the footsteps of the Clintons by sending up trial balloons to see exactly what he can get away with. If there isn't a general public outcry about a particular "balloon", he'll know that it's something he can get away with.

Another trial balloon floating about is in regards to the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. I want to emphasize in the strongest possible language that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, coupled with the extraordinary powers now vested in the Office of the President thanks to King George the Dim, could very likely spell the end of freedom of speech in this country. Don't think that the Lefties will limit its implementation to just TV and radio -- the Internet will be included, too -- maybe not right away, but eventually.

For a guy who's supposed to be a visionary and a uniter, he's sure quick to embrace (a) rule by edict, (b) sneaky Clintonista tactics, and (c) suppression of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Whether it's King George the Dim doing it, or BHO doing it, rule by Executive Order runs contrary to everything our founding fathers believed in. The fact that he's already deciding which edicts he will issue two months before he takes office leads me to believe that he'll follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and use the Constitution as toilet paper.

---

dw also chimes in, on a different theme. This was obviously written before I had a chance to review the game.

Subject: WTF VULTURE

A Monday night like no other. Yes, I am talking the 9ers. OMG, were they something else. Down to the last 4 seconds. Oh, I forgot, you Eastern sleepy heads were fast asleep while this loyal fan in AZ watched the whole firggin game. A disappointment - NO!! I love Singletary - He walks the sidelines with AUTHORITY! I like the Cards since moving here but THE 9ERS LIVE ON and on my walls. So sad to see the Vulture swooped right over that one. Hey Vulture, take time to smell the desert. Great game and actually some hope for my beloved 9ers!!!

dw, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, the result of the game was disappointing. But you can see a palpable difference in the attitudes of the players. Their attitudes are starting to mirror the attitude of the Head Coach. Mike Singletary is a man among men, a giant, a legend of the game of professional football. I love what he is doing with the team. I think that, ultimately, after he's done making all of his rookie coaching mistakes, he'll end up being one of the top-notch Head Coaches in the league. Mark. My. Words.

The Niners, like the South, shall rise again!

---

Have you noticed the slew of articles pointing out that there is zero accountability over the financial bail-out money being distributed hither-and-yon to Friends of Henry Paulson, Inc? Have you noticed that, rather than purchasing the worthless mortgages from financial institutions, as Congress had promised they would do when they passed that steaming pile of legislation, they are, instead, purchasing stock in the financial institutions themselves? I wish I was making that up. I really do.

Fascist economics: Fascists believe in joint ownership of business/industry between private interests and the government, or private ownership with government oversight of said businesses.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

---

Last item: the people who are constantly telling us how bigoted and intolerant we are seem to think its okay to threaten and harass those whose viewpoints don't match their own.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

Let's just imagine, if you will, that the roles were reversed. Let's imagine that Prop 8 had WON, and the Mormons were picketing and heckling the gays. Then a package of white powder is received by a gay organization, requiring evacuation of the building and perhaps immediate medical attention for the poor clerk who opened the package. Under those conditions, would the news story have been buried about 12 column inches down the page on the Drudge Report? Or would it have been the headline? Would it be completely ignored by the websites of ABC news, CBS news, and NBC news? Would it be ignored by CNN.com, and hidden in the 'US news' page on MSNBC.com? Because that's the treatment the story of the Mormon temples receiving white powder is receiving as of 2:30 EST today.

I'm just saying...

Vulture Droppings - the second debate, voting, etc

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

I didn't watch the second debate. Are you kidding? I only made it though about a 1/2 hour of the VP debate, and I actually like one of the two people involved in that debate. Why in the name of all that is holy would I watch a Marxist debate a Social Democrat? Particularly when the SD is so freaking unpalatable.

---

The debate turned out to be yet another look at the real John McCommie. He has no core beliefs. He simply supports whatever issues serve to increase his popularity. The idea that the government should buy up bad homeowner mortgages is the absolute apex of asshat non-thought. Ron Smith of WBAL in Baltimore has a saying, "That which you subsidize you get more of". By effectively subsidizing bad mortgages, McCommie would guarantee even more mortgage irresponsibility.

But if it gets him elected...why should he care?

---

Obama was fine, from what I read. He was also predictable. Like the good Marxist he is, Obama promised that the government would provide the sun, the moon, and the stars to every American now and forever more. The clincher: [on health care] "Well, I think it should be a right for every American". A right. Nice. And predictable.

---

It saddens me that the American public can't see through the sparkle of the promises to the reality of the costs. A major part of the world-wide meltdown is the debt that was run up by our government "servants" who were using goodies in an effort to buy every available vote.

These guys are engaged in an effort to "out-goodie" the other. They don't give a rat's ass about the consequences of those reckless plans that, once implemented and turned over to the bureaucrats, will result in nightmarish costs that will further exacerbate the financial crisis. If it will get them elected, they'll promise it.

---

The reasons I won't vote for the "lesser evil" major party candidate any more hearken back to around 2002, when I started reading Vox Day's excellent WorldNetDaily column and then started following his blog, Vox Popoli. I entered 2004 ready to hold my nose and vote to re-elect King George the Dim. By election day I was convinced that to do so would be immoral. His latest column does an excellent job of summarizing his voting philosophy. I can't do it justice with random quotes, but I do want to leave you with his last paragraph. A more succinct explanation of my position on voting cannot be found.

It would be a massive mistake for conservatives, libertarians and capitalists to continue supporting Republicans when there is clearly nothing conservative, libertarian or capitalist about the Republican Party. The Republican Party does not value freedom, it does not value capitalism, it does not abide by its republican principles and it does not honor the Constitution. Regardless of whether you vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or do not vote at all, you can be sure that your vote will not be wasted. – because, as events have proven time and time again over the last eight years, the only wasted vote is the vote that is cast for a Republican politician.

Preach it, Brother Vox!

---

Steve Czaban is joining the ranks of the disgruntled. In a blog entry that I couldn't BEGIN to do justice with mere excerpts, he lays out his case against McCommie.

"The Maverick" is so afraid of ruffling his pious sense of always "reaching across the aisle", he won't blast those who deserve it and make this case.

In the process he's doing incredible damage to the Team Elephant football program going forward. Remember, the "Oval Office Bowl" only comes around once every four years, and I do hate losing it.

But the coach of the winning team is given a no-cut 4 year contract for that win, and the fight for ideas is far from over. That coach has to keep recruiting, keep winning the small games, keep booster money coming into the program, and on and on.

Four years of McCain, flush with even MORE hubris as President, might just kill the Republican party as we know it. He would almost surely be the worst head coach our team ever had in my lifetime.

Even those who worry about up to 3 new Obama picked Supreme court justices should have been staggered by McCain's suggestion that he would sack Republican SEC Chairman Chris Cox and appoint Democrat Andrew Cuomo if he were President.

McCain: "Let's go find 3 more David Souters!"

Tell me again why anyone would want a McCommie presidency?

---

I'll leave you with this last item. This guy is the front runner as of right now for the Wiener of the Year award.

A Marianna middle-school teacher has been suspended for 10 days without pay after he wrote a racially charged interpretation of a commonly used phrase in the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.

---

It said, "C.H.A.N.G.E. — Come Help A (N-word) Get Elected."

OMG! Can a person really be THAT stupid? I'm telling you, he's going to be hard to beat.

---

The sky is falling

You may be saying, "Gee, the Vulture has been awfully quiet about the whole financial bailout situation". If you're saying that, please get a life. :)

I did opine already about the build up to the disastrous bill that, thank God, flamed out earlier this week. Now, as Vox Day presciently predicted, King George the Dim and his bumbling Congress have employed the Brussels method to try to ram through their hideous plan to reward the very scoundrels who effed up the economy in the first place.

Now for the big do-over. House members get another chance to vote on a bill that many would like to avoid: a massive financial rescue plan that has infuriated millions of voters but is described by President Bush and congressional leaders as vital to keeping the economy from sliding into a deep recession.

This time, it comes back to the House loaded with billions of dollars worth of tax cuts and other sweeteners. They are meant to attract at least a dozen House members who voted against the measure Monday, when it failed, 228-205, triggering a record drop in the stock market.

Do NOT be deceived. This is NOT about saving the economy. This is NOT about helping the American people. This is about a group of out-of-touch elitists taking care of themselves and their well-connected friends. The rest of us can go pound sand as far as they are concerned.

One last FYI: the 25 Senators who voted "Nay" to this did so against the direction of their leadership, and party affiliation was NOT a factor. The breakdown: 15 Team Elephant, 9 Team Donkey, 1 "Independent" (it's Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who is technically a Democratic Socialist).

You'll note that both Senators from The People's Republic of Maryland voted "Yea" to this steaming pile. So did both "mainstream" candidates for president. I wish I could say that I was shocked.

On voting

I had originally planned to do a major screed on the philosophy of voting prior to the elections in November, but an ongoing discussion thread has convinced me that the time is now.

However you want to boil it down, there are three predominant philosophies for voting in an election where two unpalatable candidates are representing the major political parties:

1. Boycott the election - it's futile, because the elites have stacked the deck. Major proponents: Vox Day and Nate (Der Hausfraurer).
2. YOU HAVE TO VOTE!!!!!!! Vote the lesser of two evils! Hold your nose and vote for the guy with the 'R' or 'D' after their name, regardless of whether you like, respect, or agree with them, because this is the most importantest election ever and the future of the Supreme Court depends on it!!!!! Major proponents: Rachel Lucas and Dr. Helen.
3. Vote for anyone BUT the major party candidates. Major proponent: the Vulture.

Each approach has its pros and cons. But only one is a winner.

Boycott the election!

The "boycott" crowd gets to stand up and say, "This government is illegitimate and I refuse to participate in its sham elections." They get to stand off to the side and (rightfully) point out that whether you vote for the guy with the 'R' after his name or the guy with the 'D' after his name, you'll get the same results, because the president isn't really "running" things, the elites are.

But this is where the "boycott" crowd has it all wrong. The elites don't give two shits whether you vote or not. In fact, the statist media will point to your non-vote as "apathy among the electorate". Your "boycott" will be viewed by the elite as a de facto acquiescence to "the system". You meant to send a message saying the process is illegitimate. The message that is received is "we don't care who's in charge". That's a very bad message, trust me.

Vote for 'our' guy

The "OMGs YOU HAFTA VOTE FOR 'OUR' GUY!!!!!!!!!" crowd is just a little too tightly wound for their own good (sorry mark and dw). I know that Limbaugh and other blatherers have you all wound up because of the Supreme Court. It's the trump card for the pro-status quo crowd. "Sure, Candidate A sucks...but at least we can count on him to appoint the right judges to the Supreme Court".

Again, wrong. Ronald Reagan, the gold standard for Republicans, appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, and Anthony Kennedy. One dud, one excellent choice, one statist/leftist. In fairness, it must be noted that Reagan also nominated Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate because he actually believed in the Constitution. Bush 41 appointed David Souter and Clarence Thomas. One ultra-leftist, one excellent choice. King George the Dim succeeded in getting John Roberts and Samuel Alito appointed. Both are generally conservative, sure, but both are pro-Homeland Security apparatchiks. And let's not forget that he originally nominated the gawdawful Harriett Miers before Alito. Call that three bad choices.

So the scorecard reads: 2 excellent choices (and 1 excellent choice rejected), 2 bad choices (and an additional horrendous nominee), 1 dud, and 2 leftists. And this is from the last three presidents from Team Elephant!

How'd Clinton do? He appointed Ruth Vader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer - two gawdawful ultra-leftists.

The previous Team Donkey president, the peerlessly awful Jimmy Carter, didn't have the opportunity to appoint any justices. Thank God! The way he effed up everything else, there's no telling who he would have nominated!

Aha, you say! You just made my point! No, sadly, I didn't. With Team Donkey, you know what you're getting with the Supreme Court: Ultra-leftist nominees. A Senate with any stones will REJECT those nominees; sadly, the Team Elephant-dominated Senate of the 90's approved Clinton's nominees. Aha, I say! I just made my point!

Team Elephant gets about 1 in 4 nominees right. Team Donkey gets all of theirs wrong...but it doesn't matter because Team Elephant doesn't have the spine to oppose gawdawful candidates! Voting based on who will appoint Supreme Court justices is a losing argument.

Last point: there is no such thing as voting for the lesser of two evils. Once elected, the "lesser evil" becomes "the evil". If you wouldn't have voted for candidate A in the primaries, based on their unsuitablity for the office, then don't vote for candidate A in the general election, either. Be consistent and vote your conscience, always.

Vote for anyone BUT the mainstream candidates

The Vulture's way is simple: vote contrarian. Send the elites this message: "I care enough to vote...and I reject your hand-picked BS candidates!" No ambiguity, as is the case with the boycott crowd. No "I'm perfectly fine with the elite's choices of candidates" message, as with the "VOTE OUR GUY!!!!" crowd. Just a protest vote, pure and simple.

The downside? If the Vulture goes to the polls and casts his one lonely protest vote, he's just a crank and can be easily dismissed by the elite. But if the Vulture is joined by several million of his fellow citizens? THEN the elite has to sit up and take notice! My way only works if it becomes a grass-roots movement; sadly, in 21st century America, my way isn't even on the cultural radar.

So what's a curmudgeonly avian to do? I'm voting my conscience. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. I'm writing in Ron Paul in the general election. He won't win. I know that. But I won't send a message of apathy to the elites, and I won't send a message of "your candidates are swell!" to them, either. It'll be one lonely vote. But it will be done with a clear conscience and without compromise to my principles.

Really, should a person ever vote any other way?

Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart

I'm a firm believer in pointing out writers and bloggers who are doing a commendable job of drawing attention to the issues of freedom and government corruption that are the predominant theme of this blog. Anyone who's ever read this blog knows that I have a major man-crush on Vox Day and Steve Czaban. I've always enjoyed the wit and wisdom of Der Hausfraurer, Nate. In the past year, I've added William Grigg (Pro Libertate) and Andrew Bolt to my list of those who "get it" and are fighters against over-grasping government.

Today I'd like to call your attention to a lady who is fighting the good fight against a singularly corrupt and evil organ of government -- Child Protective Services (CPS). I'd like to introduce you to Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart, a blog that caught fire during the FLDS fiasco.

Contrary to the name, "Sore Toes" is NOT a bleeding heart in the traditional, Upper West Side Limousine Liberal sense of the term. Her heart bleeds for the children being yanked away from family and home on the flimsiest of excuses. She's got a very good grasp of the issues, and a real nose for digging up the dirt on the "civil servants" behind Der Staat's malevolent claim on our children.

She's a talented writer and is significantly nicer in her treatment of the foul vermin she reports on than, say, Vox Day, Nate, or I. It's not a chick blog -- she addresses hard issues and does it well. Give her a read -- you'll be glad you did.

Wiener of the Week

The WotW this week is a group of people that feels persecuted and hated. They're constantly whining about how the culture is being taken over by those who think differently than themselves. They take every display of this group's beliefs as a personal assault. And, no, I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about strident atheists.

Vox Day calls them "socially autistic". I'll buy that. These clowns think that the display of any Christian symbol anywhere is a direct threat to their person, and they're not afraid to be vocal about it.

Their latest crusade (ironic choice of words, no?) is to ban Christian-themed license plates.

You've seen the dopey "theme" plates. Penn State Alumna. Miami Dolphins. Save the bay. Choose life. It seems like every imaginable group is pushing to get its own particular personalization. And, trust me, if Maryland ever came out with a 49ers-themed plate, I'd be all over it.

I rather doubt that anyone thinks that by putting out a Miami Dolphins-themed plate the state of Florida is endorsing the Dolphins over any other football team. You don't see Tampa Bay fans panicking over that, do you?

But the autistic atheists think that one Christian-themed plate is one too many.

[T]he plates may constitute a state sanctioning of one religion over another, and that raises the ire of non-Christians and free speech advocates.

"Free speech advocates". Now there's an oxymoron!

These people don't want free speech for anyone but themselves. Express your love for Christ, expect to be shouted down by the "free speech advocates".

For putting their little tender sensibilities ahead of the free-speech rights of Christians, strident atheists are the Wiener of the Week.

Atheist hate

Why is it that so many of those who identify themselves as atheists are major a-holes? Vox Day refers to them as Socially Autistic, but I'm not quite so nice (BTW, Vox also blogged on this same "event" today, in case you want to check out what he had to say.

There's a young woman from Texas named Rachel Lucas who blogs about various themes and issues. She's quite popular (hold the jealousy, Vulture!). Over the weekend, her boyfriend's dad was involved in a bad motorcycle accident. He's pretty mangled. The doctors put him into a coma for his own protection (he was thrashing pretty badly) and to help with the cerebral swelling. This is the context within which this little episode occurred.

Rachel made the mistake of titling a post, "There are no atheists in a fox hole". Everyone over a certain age (trust me, I'm over a certain age) knows that this truism dates back to WW II. Well, almost everyone knows -- certainly the asshat atheists didn't, either that or they were just spoiling for a fight. She received page after page of hate- and profanity-filled shinola from the "intellectuals" who comprise the atheist community. Here's Rachel in her own defense.

The update I posted about Rupert’s dad was titled “There are no atheists in a foxhole.” Which anyone who reads here regularly would understand is my way of poking fun at myself, seeing as how publicly, on this blog, I’ve repeatedly identified myself as feeling like either an atheist or an agnostic, depending on my mood. I’ve regularly criticized Christians and their beliefs and have asked them to defend themselves, which they did, some nicely and some not. I’ve been very open about the fact that I simply don’t know the truth even though I’d like to, and that I find debates about religion interesting because they give you such a window into how other people think and view the world. There’s a whole category here called “Religion” but the point is, I have no religion. I reject organized Christianity and every other religion that’s ever been.

So I used that quote to describe the way I was feeling at that moment, while writing about a loved one who is in a coma. I was feeling down and sad and worried, and I used that quote because whenever I’m in a scary situation, I think about whether there’s a God, and I almost always find myself believing that there is because it helps me and comforts me to do so. The belief diminishes my suffering, simple as that. It may be wishful thinking but so what? It helps me and hurts no one.

Well. That post title really, really, really pissed off some atheists.

---

So I hope the atheists have gotten what they wanted from me. That’s what I’m here for, to use “offensive” quotes during emotional times and to be instructed with great gusto and attention about what a bigoted jackass I am so that I’ll never use such quotes again and all the world will learn what happens to you when you make that mistake. It’s really quite marvelous and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m ready to join their organization RIGHT NOW, if they’ll have me.

They just seem like such kind and considerate people, out there teaching the world about tolerance and overcoming bigotry, spreading their word wherever they think it’s necessary for the furtherance of enlightenment and elimination of negative stereotypes about atheists, even if it means hijacking a thread on a personal blog about someone in a coma. Because TRUTH is all that matters, people. Learn it and live it.

Actually, the quoted material above doesn't do the post justice; she handled herself very well. You should read it for yourself.

I know there are REALLY clueless Christians who would have confronted Rachel with a whole sermonette full of fire and brimstone to "convert" her in her hour of pain and anxiety. They're jerks -- it's not the time nor the place.

But I'm pretty sure -- REALLY sure -- that no Christian would treat her like these two paragons of intellectualism.

If you are going to pray “just in case”, I suggest you pray to as many different gods as possible. If not, you may be praying to the wrong one. And don’t forget to gather a few additional lucky charms while you’re at it. I suggest a rabbit’s foot, 4 leaf clover, and a horseshoe for starters. Then you might want to do a Google search for lucky charms. There may be a number of them recognized by other cultures which are effective that we don’t know about.

Then you might want to tackle eliminating all the bad luck charms. You never know, that might make a difference as well.

If you are comforted by these measures which give the appearance of ‘doing something’, then why limit them to simply praying to one potential god when there are so many other acts of magical thinking which are comforting in situations where there is little else one can control.
- Skeptigirl

Your opening post is a lie. There ARE atheists in foxholes… even if you don’t “believe” there are. Pat Tilman was just such an atheist. Educate yourself and quit deleting posts who try to lessen the bigotry you spread. http://www.atheistfoxholes.org/

Lying for Jesus is still lying. I hope your friend gets better. I hope he never is the bigot you are.

Just because your faith makes you feel all humble and honest… doesn’t make it true, you know.
- A Third Atheist (articulett)

Doesn't it make you warm all over to see the concern they have for...right. No concern. No thought for her injured family member ("get better so you can represent non-bigotry" hardly counts). No thought for her feelings as she goes through a tough time. Only hatred, contempt, and vitriol. Kinda makes you hope with all your might that there IS a hell, just so those a-holes can go there.

Vox on the FLDS debaucle

I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm piling on here. Okay, I'm piling on here. This is what Vox Day had to say in his WorldNetDaily.com column today:

[N]ot since the Waco massacre have I been so completely appalled by an American government action. The recent kidnapping of 416 children from their Fundamentalist LDS parents by Texas Child Protective Service agents is a unconscionable abnegation of not only the United States and Texas constitutions, but a rejection of the very meaning of what it is to be an American. For as P.J. O'Rourke rightly declares: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please."

Amen, brother. Amen. And there's more.

Contrary to what a disturbing percentage of the voting population appears to believe, "protecting the children" is not a legitimate function of government. The concept appears nowhere in any constitution, and the very idea that the most lethal institution in human history, an institution that has killed more children than any other, can even be used to protect children is inherently oxymoronic. The state does not own the children whose families happen to reside within its boundaries and it does not possess the right to dictate what is and what is not a proper way for a family to raise its children.

Yeah buddy! And, finally, this.

And as history has shown, the next time it may not be some weird and heretical Mormons in the government's gun sights, but Jews, homeschoolers or evangelical Christians.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole article - it's well work it.