Archive of Soapbox Ramblings Opinions from other people
My opinions of various topics
Contact Me
Humorous Images and Video
My Church
Deals & Coupons

Soapbox Archive

I started this page in November of 2004 but don't write a whole lot.  But every now and then something gets me going and I have to express myself.  Here are those expressions.  I have a continued beef against the global warming people who are simply WRONG.  There's way too much evidence against the arguments they raise.  Read about that ongoing beef on the main page...

August 14, 2007 - An Important History Lesson
There is a real good article written by Raymond Kraft reminding us why we have troops in Iraq and what the consequences are if we withdraw them.  For answers, all we have to do is look back at history and see the near misses that could have led to disaster for America.  It compares World War I to the Iraq war and how America really didn't want to join in "somebody else's" war.  Good thing we did or the world would most likely have been overrun by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.

The article was written a while ago but is an excellent reminder.  Please read it!

I won't reprint the entire article here but rather provide some links to the article.  I provided several in case some of them become dead links in the future.

August 7, 2007 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I am against embryonic stem cell research.  I am not against stem cell research.  There is a difference.  There are three basic types of stem cells--embryonic, fetal and adult.  Embryonic involves destroying an embryo to retrieve the stem cells.  This is the one I am against.  I am in full support of adult stem cell research.  There is little if any problem with ethics in adult stem cell research. It's similar to drawing blood from somebody--nothing is destroyed, and it is extracted with consent of the adult patient.  There have been wonderful advancements in the area of adult stem cell research.  In fact we have found 76 categories in which we can help people with this type of research.  Yes, I said categories, not just 76 therapies but categories of therapies in which we help people.  Categories include cancer, diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease, eye diseases, etc.  That means hundreds and thousands of good things have come from adult stem cell research.  However, to date, there have been zero therapies that have been developed from embryonic stem cell research.  That's right, ZERO.  Not even a single therapy has been developed let alone a category of therapies.

What's more is that there really is no reason for embryonic stem cell research as admitted by researchers themselves.  Let me give you a quote from an authority on stem cell research, Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

" stem cells are already closer to the kinds of cells that patients already need. So there is really no need to use human embryonic stem cells at all. This has been acknowledged by major researchers, companies, and massive numbers of medical research journal articles recently published in this field." source

The liberal media constantly loses sight of the difference and lumps them both together calling it "stem cell research."  They would have you believe that anybody who is against "stem cell research" is against medical advancement.  It's simply not true.  In fact, they have gone so far as to fake embryonic stem cell research to make it look like there have been breakthroughs.  Here are some examples:

Another Stem Cell Fast One
Congress Overlooks Stem Cell Fraud And Futility

February 12, 2007 - The Dixie Chicks, Really??
OK, here we go swinging the pendulum the other way.  The Dixie Chicks were rising stars a few years ago when one of their idiot singers decided to get political and bash President George Bush onstage.  Their ratings dropped, concerts were cancelled, and they struggled as musicians for a while.  I listened to interviews with them saying they never should have said those things on stage.

Fast forward to the Grammy Awards on Feb 11, 2007 when it's politically correct to bash Bush.  Now they win 5 Grammy awards.  Really?  5 of them?  Why didn't they win those awards before bashing President Bush when their music really was popular?

Just another example of how the music industry doesn't really give out awards for "the best of..." but rather "the most politically correct at the time we want our agenda pushed..."  Don't worry Grammies, you're not alone.  The Academy awards will join you soon in promoting their agenda with worthless awards too...

March 3, 2006 - Teacher in Colorado Goes Awry
Here in Colorado, a fairly conservative state where I live, we have a teacher who thinks he can say anything he wants in the guise of freedom of speech.  Jay Bennish, a social studies teacher teaching geography at Overland High School during this incident, has been put on administrative leave pending an investigation.  What started this whole thing is that one of the students recorded his lecture and his father complained to the principal of the school (whom I happen to know).  Then Mike Rosen played it on his show on a prominent Denver news station and had the student, Sean Allen, there in the studio with his father.  Sean often recorded lectures and took notes later from the recordings.  This particular day, the day after the state of the union address from President Bush, February 1, 2006, he went on a tirade, saying things like capitalism is bad, terrorists have rights to do what they do, and more.  At one point he even compared Adolf Hitler's comments to President Bush's comments.

There are a few issues here.  The first is that along with free speech comes responsibility.  People forget that one.  You will learn the lesson quickly if you board an airplane and yell "bomb" or "hijack."  There are certain things that when said will provoke action and change thinking.

Second, what the heck is he doing talking politics in a geography class?  I know you can find reasons but it really doesn't belong here.  Maybe providing a countries dominant political views or parties would be appropriate but Mr. Bennish went over the line.

Third, where is the opposing view?  He did not balance the story so that the students could make their own decisions.  He, undoubtedly, gave his opinion and presented it as near fact.  After listening to the recording, it is clear what the intention was.  Then, at the very end he claims that these aren't necessarily his views.  BOLOGNA!!!!

Do I have a problem with a teacher making anti-Bush remarks? No.  But I have a serious problem if they are not stated clearly as an opinion and are not balanced by the opposing view.

And back off the comparison of Hitler and the United States President.  It's ridiculous that it was even brought up.  Even the worst presidents, and presidents I really can't stand, never entered into the same category as Hitler.

On a side note, the teacher claimed how bad capitalism is because all people want to do is make money.  What a moron.  That is the very strength of capitalism, that people spend their money on products and services that benefit themselves.  Those businesses who are in it only for the money soon die off because it becomes obvious when they don't care about the customer.  Also, there are numerous businesses that started out solely to help people and made it a business only after the demand for their services or product became greater.  But let's not get started on that...

The other thing that perturbs me is how the media can spin this story.  CNN headlines read, "Teacher on leave for anti-Bush remarks."  That's not at all what this story is about but they try to make the general public believe that if you say anything against President Bush, you will be punished.  HOGWASH!

CNN Article
CBS News Article
Denver Post Article
9 News Story      9 News video of the student protest and more
A Conservative's Blog (with lots of links to different articles)
Listen to Jay Bennish's Lecture   ( Here is an alternate link )

February 13, 2006 - Liberals!
There's been something nagging at me for a while.  Liberals are never happy.  They would rather whine about what the current administration does rather than present solutions to fix what they perceive as being broken.

Specifically, here's what bothers me.  Many liberals complained that the Bush administration and FEMA were too slow to act.  Then they turn around and also criticize President Bush for authorizing wiretaps on suspected terrorists.  They claim that there is already a system in place and Bush tried to circumvent it because he wants to "spy" on American citizens.  The problem is that the current system is too slow to act when fast-moving terrorist activity takes place.  Everybody agreed that FISA had bureaucracy issues.

So which is it?  Do you liberals want Bush to respond quickly or do you want him to slow down?  Quit your constant whining!

More info on why Bush approved wiretaps (National Review Online opinion)

February 9, 2006 - The Islam Violence
Many people do not understand the power of a religious force.  I've heard people say many times that there have been more wars fought over religion than any other reason.  So what would a religious person do if somebody made fun of the godhead of your religion?  How about looking to the teachings of that godhead?

The violence in Europe right now over some political cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper four months ago containing images of Muhammad.  Danish embassies were burned down, and there was rioting across Europe toward anything that was Danish.  All because of a few cartoons that weren't a big deal at the time but they are now.  The followers of the Islam faith, Muslims, claim that the Islam faith forbids the use of any image of Muhammad and that joking about religion is not allowed.  This simply isn't true.  There are many works of art in museums across Muslim countries that have been there for years and even Muhammad himself forgave a poet who constantly ridiculed him.

So this means that instead of looking inward at what the true beliefs of Islam are, it has become a political force rather than a religious one.  Followers blindly follow the leaders who shout for action rather than tell those to pray and ask their god for guidance.

Is this any different in Christianity?  No.  There are squabbles all the time between different denominations within Christianity.  Take the Baptists and the Pentecostals for example.  Or Catholics and Lutherans.  They bad-mouth each other all the time.  But don't they claim to worship the same God who declares this wrong?

And what about the radical so-called Christians that kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics?  As a Christian, I hope others don't judge all Christians by the acts of these radicals.  We should not judge all Muslims for the same reason.  As Paul Harvey said on the radio this morning, the radical few have found a way to get the attention of the media.  Most Muslims disapprove of this behavior.

Yet, if you make fun of my God, I get offended.  You can call me any name in the book and I can let it go but make fun of my God and we have a fight brewing.  You may disagree with my beliefs, or not even believe in my God and it will not be in issue to me.  But to lack respect for my God is much more difficult for me to let go.  I certainly understand why the Muslims are doing what they are doing but I in no way condone it.  I must always look to the words of the God I worship who declares this as sin.

A better action would be to sign petitions, or even better yet, don't support those who show lack of respect.  For example, recently a television show appeared on NBC that basically mocked Christianity.  As one viewer describes it:

The so called pastor takes drugs, smokes, drinks, takes the Lord's name in vain. He supports homosexuality and drug use. He broke the law by giving out prescription drugs to a Bishop. Two Bishops were committing adultery. They mis-quoted the Bible. The program portrayed our Savior in a joking way. There was a corrupt Catholic priest. The maid smokes pot. The Bishop drinks, the pastor's wife is a drunk and her sister is a lesbian and the son is a homosexual. One son sleeps around. I found this program very offensive to my Christian beliefs.

I sent a letter to several of the companies sponsoring the program.  They eventually dropped their sponsorship because hundreds of thousands of people sent them mail and soon "The Book of Daniel" was cancelled after only four episodes due to lack of funding.  This is the better way.

The power of a religious force, right or wrong, can be mountain-moving!

An interesting article with examples of both images of Muhammad and laughter at religion can be found at:

February 3, 2006 - State of the union speech
I was pleased with President Bush's speech last Tuesday.  I continue to have high respect for a president who governs by principle and not popularity.  We can count on Bush doing what he says he will do, unless of course, congress can't agree.

Diverting from the speech a bit, here are some criticisms of Bush that I'd like to add my two cents worth:

  • Bush nominated Harriet Myers to the US Supreme Court.  What a stupid thing to do.  First of all, not all supreme court justices have been judges in the past.  That's not the ONLY requirement.

But let's think about this a moment and just speculate as to one possibility.  Bush had already nominated a white male.  The democrats were calling for a woman or a minority for the next nomination.  So Bush gets together with a close friend and asks her, "Harriet, we've been friends for a long, long time.  Would you do something for me?  Would you agree to start the process of being confirmed to the supreme court and then withdraw when it gets rough?"  Harriet agrees and then Bush can put in another VERY qualified white male in Sam Alito.  If the democrats complain, Bush can say, "I tried to put in a woman but you didn't like it!"  I think that's rather genius!  Of course this is speculation on my part but it certainly is a possibility.  Kind of takes away the "Bush is stupid" argument.

  • Bush mismanaged Hurricane Katrina.  Wow.  Does anybody REALLY believe this?  For example, FEMA had supplies ready to send into the superdome but it was the Governor Blano of Louisiana who refused to let them take control and disperse needed goods and services.  She didn't want to appear out of control so she didn't federalize them, thereby stalling the whole thing.  The mayor of New Orleans, Nagin, continues to show he's stupid on a stick and yet we are to blame the federal government?  I don't think so.  The governor and the mayor didn't even get along so there was a constant power struggle there.  FEMA director Brown said his biggest mistake was in not recognizing that Louisiana was dysfunctional.  Sure, there were some mistakes made but not to the degree that it was all Bush's fault.  Brown had worked with many disasters up to that point so he knew what he was doing.  The processes that were in place came from past administrations and they worked find with disasters up that point.  We've never had to deal with this large of disaster before.  We are bound to take learnings away from something like this regardless of who is in charge.
  • Bush outsources everything to Halliburton.  Did you ever ask who else does the kind of work Halliburton does?  Halliburton is the ONLY company that does some of the things they do.  So do we expect our government to spend US dollars on a foreign company to do it just because Chaney used to be involved with it?  Chaney removed himself from all operations before becoming Vice President and has done NOTHING ethically wrong with Halliburton since he took the office.  If you think outsourcing to Halliburton is because Bush is an oil man and he helps his friends read the next point.
  • Bush is an oil man and helps his oil buddies.  Okay, here's where the speech dispels that.  Bush said we are too dependent on oil and therefore he proposed to move toward alternate energy methods such as solar, wind power, and switch grass which is renewable and is a high yield crop.  Do you think his oil friends were happy with that one?  Quite a statement from an oil man don't you think?

When it's all said and done, I believe Bush will go down in history as one of the greats.  Let's not forget Abraham Lincoln.  He was NOT a popular president at the time.  Yet we look at some of his accomplishments as the greatest acts of all presidents.  A free Iraq will be an example to other countries in the middle east and could really change the world.  When Iraq finally settles down and shows the world it can govern itself and lets freedom reign, let us not forget who helped them get to that point.  Let us not forget the millions of people who are not killed by their own leader any more.  Let us not forget that women have freedom.  Let us not forget that they can vote freely for their own leaders.  Let us not forget that an "unpopular" president helped them get to that point.

January 31, 2006 - Alito is confirmed to the supreme court
I was very pleased to see another fantastic individual make it to the supreme court. today.  President Bush nominated two very find individuals and both were confirmed.  The democrats have to be furious because they couldn't find enough wrong with Alito to filibuster.  In fact, they tried and got only 25 of the necessary 41 votes.  Even many of the democrats couldn't find fault with Alito.  The dems complained that the two nominees would swing the court to the right.  DUH!!!  Every president who has ever nominated somebody has nominated somebody they thought would swing to their side.  Clinton did it.  But somehow it's sooooo bad if Bush does it.  The truth is, the democrats have to complain about something because they don't have their act together.

July 1, 2005 - Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner Retires
My first thought was, "that's just great--make a stupid decision like the eminent domain issue (below) and then split" but then I realized she voted against it and actually had some intelligent things to say about how the wealthy and powerful can abuse the decision.

Now if we can just get those liberal clowns to retire...

June 28, 2005 - Justice Is Served!
The wrong way to fight the stupid supreme court decision is to get vigilant and hold out with a gun while your property is to be seized.  There is a better way!

Seems that a hotel developer decided he wanted to take a citizen's private property and build a hotel there.  The address would be 34 Cilley Hill Road, Weare, New Hampshire.  This just happens to be the home of David Souter--one of the supreme court justices that voted FOR the ruling.

This is nothing short of brilliance!  Hit these liberals right where it hurts and get them to think a little bit before making idiot decisions.

To add salt to the wounds the developer wants to name it "The Lost Liberty Hotel."  He will include such things as the "Just Desserts Café" and a museum, which will be open to all and have a permanent exhibit showing the loss of freedom in America.  Each guest of the hotel will receive a booklet that exposes the lost freedoms even further.

If I ever visit Weare, New Hampshire I know exactly where I'll stay...

June 23, 2005 - The Supreme Court Blunder
Today I am sad.  I'm ashamed of our supreme court that today ignored all references in the constitution that gives individuals rights.  Our constitution was designed so that individuals wouldn't get trounced on by government and for the most part that has been upheld throughout our history.

The one area where individual rights are a little soft is when it comes to eminent domain as outlined in the 5th amendment.  This means that if the government feels something will benefit society more than an individual they have the right to offer fair market value for property to be used for government purposes.  An example might be when a road needs to widen and a house sits too close to the current road.  The government has the right to offer fair market value for the house and force the owner to vacate.  This is a necessary law because if we didn't have it, a person could stall an entire project like a highway.

However, never has there been any rights to individuals to do the same.  So if I was a builder and wanted to build a shopping mall where your house sat and you didn't want to sell then I'm hosed--no shopping center.

But today the supreme court ruled that an individual CAN take your property under the eminent domain law if they can show that the taxes raised will be more than the individual currently pays for that property.

This is simply WRONG on many levels.  Let's supposed that a builder does show that he can get several thousand dollars a month when I only pay a thousand dollars a year for the property.  He takes my house after offering fair market value and then goes bankrupt (gosh imagine a builder going bankrupt--does that ever happen?).  I'm forced out of my home so the property can sit vacant.

Now, let's suppose he does get a shopping center built.  How much would my little chunk of land be worth NOW?  Instead of giving me fair market value at the time I occupied the house, why not give me the value that it will be worth once I vacate?  I might just be WILLING to leave if that were the case.

But no, the supreme court by a 5-4 vote will allow individuals to force their business ventures down the throat of individual property owners whether the owners like it or not.

My only hope is that if that really does happen the community would not shop at those places.

May 12, 2005 - Update on Donnie Young
Come to find out, Donnie turned out to be quite a police officer.  He was awarded the highest honor that an officer can get--the Medal of Honor, given to those who show extraordinary acts of heroism.  Add to that the Distinguished Service Cross Award, 10 Official Commendations, and 2 Commendatory Letters.

Video on Donnie's Distinguished awards (popup window)


They have identified the shooter of my friend Donnie Young and the car he was driving.  The suspect confessed to his girlfriend that he was the shooter and the car was found in Los Angeles where he has family.  He is a citizen of Mexico so the authorities think he might try to flee the country.

Click Here to read about the shooter and see his picture.

May 8, 2005 - My Friend Donnie Young Killed
I was watching the news tonight about the top story of a police officer getting shot while providing security at a baptism celebration for a family.  I normally don't pay too much attention to these stories because they happen all the time in Denver.  However, they put a picture on the screen of the fallen officer.  I immediately recognized him as one of my friends from high school!!!  His name was Donald Young but in high school he went by Donnie.  He looked exactly the same in the recent photo as he did in high school except back in the 70s he had a little longer hair.

He was off-duty but in full uniform at the time according to policy that mandates full uniform while working in an establishment with alcohol.  Apparently some attendees left the party and came back but the Donnie and another police officer wouldn't let them back into the party so one of them got a gun and came back to shoot both of them in the back.  Donnie was shot in the back of the head and back, and the other officer in the back but he had a bullet-proof vest on so he survived.

I remember Donnie as a guy who got along with everybody.  He wasn't extraordinary in any way but he was friendly and always had time to talk to you.  He always seemed happy and smiled a lot.

Donnie is survived by his wife and 13 and 5 year old daughters.

Channel 9News
Channel 7 News
Channel 4 News
Denver Post

May 2, 2005 - Maurice Clarett
The Broncos drafted Maurice Clarett last weekend.  He's the guy who only played a year for Ohio State and led them to a championship then sued the NFL to enter the draft.  He eventually lost the case and spent two years away from football.  His off field problems made him a high risk but the Broncos picked him up in the third round much to the dismay sports fans everywhere.  Denver currently has Tatum Bell who I think will start this season.  He is a very quick runner but Maurice gets the 4 to 6 yards every carry.  That's what the game of football is all about.  It's rare to use the speed and break open for 60 yards.  If Clarett's off-field life is upstanding, I predict he will eventually work up to a good enough player to either replace Tatum Bell in a year or two or be traded for high value.  There's just not room for both.

April 1, 2005 - Terri Shaivo
The Terri Shaivo story got a lot of attention when her husband decided to remove life support after what doctors termed a persistent vegetative state.  Terri's parents offered to pay for all the medical expenses to keep her alive and thus began a seven year legal battle for Terri's life.

This is one of those stories that is difficult to choose who is right and who is wrong.  After all, her husband did promise "for better or for worse" didn't he?  He had been seeing another woman and they couldn't get married because he was still married to Terri.  Many say he needed to move on because she would never recover.  Others said there have been lots of people in a worse state than Terri was in and that they recovered.  Never the less, she is now dead--starved to death by removing the feeding tube that kept her alive.

In Colorado we have had cases where an animal owner, horses in most cases, have neglected the animals and they are found malnourished.  The animal owners get fined and sometimes thrown in jail.  Why is it OK to do it to a human but not to animals?  Some say that if she would have had a living will she could have avoided all the controversy by stating that she wanted to live or die based on meeting certain criteria  like so many years in a vegetative state.  But since there was no living will I must ask, where is the paper that says she wanted to die?  Her husband claims this but remember, he wants to get remarried.

I had a family member in a similar situation.  On her wedding day, my aunt was involved in a head on collision that left her mind in a limited capacity much like a child.  She saw all men and thought they were her husband.  She would throw temper tantrums like a child.  I remember my uncle hanging in there for years thinking she would snap out of it and they could continue a normal life.  It never happened.  He eventually divorced her, much to the dismay of other family members, and remarried and had kids.  She died in a nursing home where she lived the rest of her life after the divorce.

Where do I stand on this issue?  The same as all issues like this--LIFE IS PRECIOUS.  I cannot even begin to assume that I should decide if a person lives or dies based on their quality of life.  Not for euthanasia, not for abortion, not for any reason.  It's a tough call but you must live by your values and I value life highly.

And before you want to marry and say "I do" think about the what ifs.  What if your wife ended up like Terri Shaivo or my aunt?  Would you still marry her knowing that ahead of time?  If you can't say yes, don't get married.  It took me a while to come to that conclusion with my own marriage.  Yes, my wife and I loved each other but I couldn't bring myself to say that I would take care of her no matter what for the longest time.  I remembered my aunt.  When I could finally say I would, I knew it was REAL love.

February 28, 2005 - Hollywood Politics
Yesterday was the Academy Awards or Oscar presentations for the best in the field of big screen movies.  Most of the experts agreed on who would win and they ended up being correct in almost every category.

I have never cared for the Oscars because it's Hollywood voting for Hollywood.  They aren't always in touch with reality when it comes to what the public likes.  Without the public dollars, the actors would be nothing.  The People's Choice Awards holds much more weight in my opinion.

So I have a question:  Where was "The Passion Of The Christ" in the list of nominees for best movie?  This movie was a huge blockbuster and goes down as one of the largest attended and money-making films of all time.  Why wouldn't it at least get nominated? Of course, we all know the answer to that one--It's religious in nature!  It's clear that Hollywood, again, isn't in touch with the general public.  Surveys even show how the majority of Americans believe there is a God and the largest religion in America is Christianity.  Yet Hollywood ignored the impact it had on America last year around Easter.  The big movie executives didn't even go see this movie!

I have a friend who writes movie scripts and has submitted several of them.  His contact person told him to stay away from religious scripts because nobody wants to make those movies.

Do you think maybe Hollywood has an agenda?

February 23, 2005 - The Sport of Baseball Finally Gets Smart
Recently, baseball has actually looked at banning steroid use from its sport.  Duh!  Other sports like American football have made steroid use illegal for years.  Why did it take baseball so long?  The controversy now is how we look at the accomplishments of the athletes who have excelled at the game of baseball.  For example, Barry Bonds has the record for most home runs in a season.  No doubt he's been on steroids for many of his seasons.  But there are some who want to discount the home run record because of steroid use.  After all, Babe Ruth and Roger Maris set home run records without steroid use.  Why should Barry Bonds be in the same category?

Here's my take.  I absolutely hate steroid use.  I also dislike Barry Bonds considerably because I think he's a jerk.  I don't like it one bit that he used steroids to help achieve his goal.  BUT HE STAYED WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME TO ACCOMPLISH HIS RECORD!!!!

Bonds didn't cheat.  He didn't cook the books.  He didn't use special equipment (here that Sammy Sosa with your cork bat?).  And he didn't just hit the ball over the fence.  He smacked the snot out of the ball, sending it out of the ballpark in some cases.  He accomplished all this while teams wouldn't even pitch to him by intentionally walking him to first base.  But he didn't do drugs, and he wasn't drunk on the field.  He simply used steroids which baseball allowed in their sport.  I can't discount his record because of this.  I can fault the overseers of the game of baseball who took so long to make steroid use illegal in their game!  It's ridiculous that it took this long.  What were they thinking?

February 23, 2005 - Cancer Surgery Anniversary
It was 12 years ago today I had surgery to remove a cancer tumor.  The doctor tried to frighten me when I didn't go through a second surgery which would have removed my entire thyroid.  I decided not to do the second surgery and look at me now--I'M ALIVE!!!!

February 9, 2005 - Party At HP
I work for a contract company at Hewlett-Packard and early today they announced that the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina, was fired.  It was a party atmosphere all day long.  People were high-fiving each other, singing "ding dong the witch is dead" from the Wizard of Oz, and dancing in the hallways.  One guy even brought in a bottle of champagne to work and shared it with everybody.  Another had a "Carly got fired" party after work hours at his house.

As you've probably already guessed, Carly was not well liked among the employees.  She forced a merger with Compaq and HP that nobody agreed with.  Her bitter fight with one of the co-founder's sons, Walter Hewlett, was all over the news.  She promised stock would go up but instead it tanked and never recovered.  The board kept supporting her and covering their tracks even when it was obvious they made a mistake.  But they finally bowed to stockholder pressure and fired the loser.

So what did she get out of the deal?  21 million dollars in severance!  Yes, they paid 21 million dollars to get rid of her and they may still face a lawsuit.  Given her track record of losing money for HP I would say that's a pretty cheap deal.  Spend 21 big ones now to save lots more later.

But how would I feel if I got fired and the entire company rejoiced over my dismissal?  I'll give you a hint:  $21,000,000 + over a $100,000 yearly pension.  I think I could live with the dislike.

More info:

February 4, 2005 - Ward Churchill
Here in Colorado the radio stations are buzzing with the latest scandal involving the CU professor Ward Churchill who compared the victims of 911 to Nazis in Germany saying that it was partially their fault for the attack.  Now the CU board of regents are apologizing and contemplating firing him.  See related story.

So is it a violation of free speech if a professor gets fired for saying what's on his mind?  I say a resounding "NO."  Fire the guy.

Sure we have the right to free speech in this country.  The first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Along with rights comes responsibility.  I learned a long time ago that when you work for a company or represent a certain group of people, speech isn't so free any more.  Mistakes in judgment come at some cost.  I cannot stand in front of an audience and denounce my employer and elaborate how terrible the CEO is or degrade the company in any way without expecting consequences.  I wouldn't get thrown in jail but I should be expected to be fired.

The professor will not go to jail for his comments but he should be expected to be fired because as a representative of his employer he put the university in a terrible light.  CU has already had its share of controversy over the last year so this only elevates the black marks it has in the public eye.

We don't have absolute freedom of speech in this country and we shouldn't.  Try standing up in the middle of an airplane flight and yell "Hijack" or say that you want to kill the president while you're standing next to a secret service agent.  Those guys don't have a sense of humor.  You will find very quickly how "free" speech is defined.

January 28, 2005 - No Such Thing As Authentic Ethnic Food
OK, it's time to explain something that I've explained to many of my friends (and they've been kind enough to let me rant and rave).  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE WORD AUTHENTIC WHEN DESCRIBING ETHNIC FOOD.

There are several Mexican restaurants in the town where I live and it always kind of gripes me when somebody tells me that I should try a particular Mexican restaurant because they have "authentic" Mexican food.  There are many different tastes when it comes to Mexican food so which one is authentic?  Let's first examine the word Authentic as found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.  There are several explanations so I'll just show one:

"Authentic implies being fully trustworthy as according with fact <an authentic account of the perilous journey>; it can also stress painstaking or faithful imitation of an original."

So the real question here is, "What is the original?"  How can you imitate something that is so diverse?  If my wife were to make meatloaf and my friend's wife also made meatloaf, they would taste totally different.  There are all kinds of recipes for lasagna, spaghetti sauce, apple pie, etc.  There are even several ways to prepare a simple hamburger but which one would you call authentic?  Is a McDonald's hamburger authentic?  Do people in Japan go to McDonalds and say, "this is authentic American food?"  What about Wendy's?  Burger King?  And don't forget the mom and pop diner up the street (who I always thing make the best hamburgers anyway).  What did the original hamburger taste like?  How do we know which of these restaurant chains "stressed painstaking or faithful imitation of an original?"

There is just no such thing as authentic.  My mother-in-law and I have completely different tastes when it comes to Mexican food.  She has a Mexican heritage and I do not.  Does that make her an expert?  Who would be the expert on hamburgers?  If I eat out with my mother-in-law, either I like the food and have to hear how bad it is from her, or I listen to how much she likes the food while I'm choking it down (with LOTS of water).

I've learned to do two things:

1)  Bite my lip real hard when somebody tells me a restaurant has an authentic taste.
2)  Don't eat at a Mexican Restaurant with my mother-in-law.

January 28, 2005 - NFL is Greedy
What the heck am I going to do this weekend?  There are no football games!  The NFL changed the rules a while back and put two weeks between the last playoff game and the Super Bowl.  The ONLY reason for this is simple--money!  The networks will pay more money to get stupid interviews about why a player chooses to wear a particular kind of shoelace or what's a player's favorite color, etc.  DUMB stuff I couldn't care less about.  I hate that crap and it's all because there is now such a waste of time that reporters have to dig up something from uninteresting players.

As for the Super Bowl outcome I have conflicting things going on between my head and my heart.  I don't dislike the Patriots but I like to see other teams in the Super Bowl than those who have been in it several times in the recent past.  So I'm cheering on the Eagles and hoping, just hoping that they can beat what my head calls the next dynasty football team.

Head Prediction: Heart Prediction:
Patriots: 34 Eagles: 52
Eagles:   24 Patriots: 3

January 19, 2005 - First Entry - Anna Nicole Smith is a Moron
Wow, I kind of forgot about this page with the Christmas season and all.  I got a real server up and running at my house so I've been configuring it and having fun setting up all the network permissions and file sharing stuff.

Anyway, I've been laughing at Anna Nicole Smith and her "performance" at the 32nd annual American Music Awards.  As you may know, Anna Nicole Smith was Vicki Smith until she posed for Playboy and after that Hugh Hefner told her to change her name if she wanted to be famous.  So she did.  Only thing is she's famous for all the wrong reasons.  She married a 90 year old multi-millionaire to get his money.  He died and left it all to her but her late husband's children sued and now she gets nothing.  This gave the tabloids, bars, coffee houses and water cooler visitors something to talk about.  Then she gained a ton of weight which always makes for good pictures in a tabloid.  But the American Music Awards night she was a presenter.  She wasn't up for an award but her presentation wins in my book.  She came out so drunk that she made an entire fool of herself, yelling phrases that have become popular in my household lately.  She lost weight so the first thing she does is get into a seductive pose and ask, "Like my body?"  At an awards show!!!  But what took the cake was when she started ranting and raving about the guy she was presenting saying that if she EVER records an album she'd want him to help her produce hers and make "beauuuuuutiful duets" 'cause he's "freakin' geennniouuuus!"  Oh man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing.  She then stood there and the band had to start playing to try and give her the hook.

So I ask myself.  Did she do this on purpose?  Was it self-promotion?  Everybody was talking about her afterward.  In fact, the host made fun of her the rest of the evening saying he had warned her to stay away from Snoop Dog's brownies and so on.  Then I have to also ask, "why do they keep asking her to appear at all these events?"  What else does she do?  Is she good for ANYTHING else?

Oh well, at least it gave my family something to say around the house for a few weeks.  Very entertaining.

Click here to see the video of Anna Nicole Smith at the American Music Awards, January, 2005.

November 19, 2004
Oh my gosh, am I getting tired of the low carb (carbohydrates) products out there.  Seems everywhere you go you get blasted with the advertisements.  It's such a fad right now.  My wife even felt pressure to cook low carb food for our invited guests because one of them was on a low carb diet (even though the guest told her not to worry about it).  Criminy.  It's just a fad.  I remember the good ol' days when sugar was evil and the ads touted low calories.  I even understand the idea of low fat diets more than low carbs although I once bought a bag of Twizzlers and on the front of the bag it said "Contains Low Fat."  Yipes, what about all the sugar?

Truth is that carbohydrates provide fuel for the body.  We know that too much of certain kinds can lead to diabetes, vascular disease or coronary heart disease but then isn't that true for just about anything?  Foods rich in whole-grain carbohydrates can provide lots of vitamins & minerals.  Athletes watch their carbs and make sure they have fuel before a big event but do I have to lower my carb intake just to lose weight?  I know that I'm overweight because I eat more than I release (nice word for crap huh?).  I have a desk job so I don't exercise much which makes my metabolism next to nothing.  I don't eat a whole lot but because I don't exercise it doesn't go away easily.  I'm not stupid and I don't blame anybody but myself.

If you want to lose weight then exercise and eat less, for crying out loud, and get your hand out of the potato chip bag!

Info on carbohydrates:
Harvard School of Public Health
Doctor's Medical Library

November 14, 2004
Ok, it's been almost two weeks now since the election and I'm getting real tired of all the whining from the anti-Bush people.  I wish all the people who wanted to move to Canada if Bush got re-elected would follow through and LEAVE.   I call that addition by subtraction.  A Denver radio station was collecting donations to send one of those people on a one way ticket to anywhere but America.  Funny thing is everybody backed down when it came right down to it.  There was one guy who was serious and the number of volunteers who called in and offered money to send him away was enormous.

Oh well, I guess I understand what the whiners are going through.  I felt physically sick the entire day that Clinton got re-elected so I understand their pain.  Why people can think he was a good president is beyond me.  His supporters always bring his presidency down to two things--the economy and "it was only sex."  Truth is, the economy was driven by the explosive boom of the internet startups.  Money and investments were being thrown at them in large quantities.  Then when the expectations of internet companies didn't live up to the hype, they folded sending the economy in a sharp downturn.  Both the rise and fall of the economy happened on Clinton's watch so if you attribute the boom you must also attribute the bust to him.  As for the second reason, I say it's not about the sex as much as what he did after that.  Clinton lied before a grand jury which makes him a federal criminal.  He should have been thrown in jail and stripped of his presidency for committing a federal crime.  Bush hasn't done anything even remotely similar to this.