ouch

Nerd humor.

666 - The number of the Beast

668 - The neighbor of the Beast

666 1/2 - The rental property of the Beast

670 - Approximate number of the Beast

DCLXVI - Roman numeral of the Beast

666.0000000 - Number of the High Precision Beast

665.9999954 - Number of the Pentium Beast <-(You are extra nerdy if you get this one.)
I got it   :(


0.666 - Number of the Millibeast

666 x sq. rt (-1) - Imaginary number of the Beast

1010011010 - Binary of the Beast 6

1-666 - Area code of the Beast

00666 - Zip code of the Beast

$665.95 - Retail price of the Beast

$699.25 - Price of the Beast plus 5% state sales tax

$606.66 - Wal-Mart price of the Beast

$566.66 - Costco/Price Club price of the Beast

Phillips 666 - Gasoline of the Beast

Route 666 - Way of the Beast

666k - Retirement plan of the Beast

666 mg - Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of the Beast
Penguin cymbals

Snipped from www.rasmussenreports.com

Me>> Dubya gets lowest rating ... ever ! Of ANYBODY to hold the job ! This is old news to some.


"For the full month of May, just 33% of Americans gave the President their approval. Sixty-five percent (65%) disapproved. Those figures include only 13% who Strongly Approve of the President’s performance along with 47% who Strongly Disapprove.

Prior to this month and last, the President’s lowest approval rating was 35%, recorded in June, 2007. In two other months, his approval has been as low as 36% (May 2007 and March 2008).

Sometimes it is difficult to keep the ratings in perspective. In February 2005, at the beginning of the President’s second term, the number who Strongly Approved (28%) was very close to the number who Strongly Disapproved (33%). Now, three years later, just 13% Strongly Approve while more than three times as many—47%--Strongly Disapprove.

The President earns approval from 35% of men and 30% of women. Just 68% of Republicans now voice approval for the President, also an all-time low. Only once before has this figure fallen below 70%. That was in June 2007 when the President was actively promoting an unpopular immigration reform proposal. Just 11% of Democrats and 24% of those not affiliated with either major party give the President their approval.

Rasmussen Reports updates the President's Job Approval on a weekly basis based upon nightly telephone interviews with 500 adults. Weekly results include interviews with 3,500 adults. Full month results are based upon interviews with 15,000 adults. In any review of Job Approval data, the trends are more important than the precise number. Many factors, especially question wording, can impact the particular approval rating percentage."

Me>> With an approval rating like this, it makes me wonder why we have no mechanism in the constitution (or anywhere else for that matter) to get rid of a president directly. We have to rely on Congress to do it for us. This is why "Hot Pants" Clinton was impeached when nobody cared much, yet Pelosi says impeachment is 'off the table' when 2/3 rds of the population says Bush is doing a terrible job.

What happened to the "by the people" part of our government ?

  • Current Mood
    ecstatic snarky
cat bath

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannons.

Today, I have decided that all lifes worries can be solved by a Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.

Some asshole cuts you off...

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.

Somebody snake your parking spot...

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.


Jerk in the elevator let the door close (even though he saw you running)...

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.


Boss won't shut the hell up...

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.


Somebody leave the 98% empty milk carton in the refrigerator...

Proton-wave-hyper-beam-death-cannon.



Think about it. You know I'm right.
run with scissors

Blind Faith

So , I'm having issues of faith again.

Every so often , I start to wonder why people believe the stuff that they do. Especially myself. The only answer I get, is because that is what I was taught to believe. Somehow that no longer cuts it. I think some middle eastern beliefs are all screwed up. They think the same of mine. Who is right ?

While I'm pretty sure I still believe in the Almighty, I'm not so sure about the institutions of religion that have propagated themselves among us humans. Frankly, I'm starting to think that we created religion, beliefs, and practices that make us feel better, give us some sort of meaning, and basically let us sleep at night with the warm, fuzzy thought that if life sucks... it must be for a reason, some grand plan or design, or for some semblance of reward in the end.

I don't know for sure, and better minds than mine have pondered the same type of stuff since we developed coherent thought and the means to communicate with another human being.

Anyhow, I ran across this story where a little girl died and I couldn't help but start wondering what kind of nutjobs do this kind of thing. Then I realized, that I do ... just not to the same degree. It kinda defines what faith is. Belief in something that defies rational thought even though it lacks evidence to be proven. Face it, if you could prove it... we'd call it fact, not faith. Well, it made me start thinking. Why if I say that I believe in an invisible 6 foot rabbit, I get locked up; yet if I say I believe in God, nobody really bats an eye ? Can't prove either of them, so what's the difference ? The idea of a 6 foot rabbit is silly ? Ok, what about Wicca ? Paganism ? Shamanism ? Shinto ? Buddhism ? Scientology ? or the boogie man for that matter ? Actually, my favorite thing to bring up is the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion and the infamous open letter to the Kansas City School Board .

Amusing articles aside, the faith thing is really rearing its ugly head. How can I point the finger at someone else, when I'm on the same ruler as them; just not as far over. Is it all a lie ? Or instead, is the price of intelligence the ripping away of all the safety nets we've collectively strung for ourselves ?
  • Current Mood
    thoughtful thoughtful
hop doom

Dating foibles

So, I've been dating a chick for about two months. She is two years older than me, but we enjoy a lot of the same stuff, share views on weird things, similar political outlooks, etc. Up until now, things have been great; I've been taking it slow cause she said up front that she's shy and just getting around to dating again after a two year hiatus of being alone on purpose. Fine. We're deep into the cuddly phase, but that is about it when out the the blue she says that she wants to break it off and be friends.

Now I think this is her insecurity popping up. Like I said , she is hesitant about getting into a heavy relationship. I've told her already that it's cool, and if she wants to date other people ... it's fine by me. Really it is. I think half the problem with relationships are that people don't date anymore; they just hop from committed relationship to committed relationship , latching on to veritable strangers one after another thinking it will all work out somehow. So meeting a chick who wants to keep it light is refreshing. I thought.

So she tells me (over the phone, not to my face) that being with me confuses her. (WTF does that mean ?) She likes being with me, but too much and she wants to back off. Now while I try to figure that out, it occurs to me that a 37 year old woman should have these things figured out by this time in her life. If this is the gentle breakup, I'd much rather her say something straight-forward like "I don't think this is going to work out, I'd like our relationship to be friendly only." See ? To the point, leaves no room misinterpretation, and still cordial. If this is her being wishy-washy, well ... at 35 (soon to be 36 later this year) I'd rather look for someone else. I hate being confused, especially when I think that there is an easy answer to something.

Honestly, this has to rank among the most confusing things that a chick has ever said to me before.
hop doom

Bush, The Navy, sonar, and whales.

"If the administration can just wave a magic wand and do away with the will of Congress and do away with the will of the courts, that raises a very serious question about how our democracy is functioning," said Daniel Hinerfeld, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued to curtail the use of sonar.

This article is where I found this little gem of a quote. It seems that the Navy has been conducting sonar exercises . This isn't new. What's new , is that in light of new technology in submarines, the Navy has to now account for quieter enemy submarines. This changes the type of sonar used and the places where they intend to conduct training. More specifically, they are training in areas where whale populations are abound. I won't go into the long version , read the article listed above ... and this one too , to get a good view of the story. Suffice it to say that sonar was listed as a cause to hemorrhaging around the brain and ears of whales examined by experts.

California courts issued an order that the Navy stop drills in a 12 mile area near the coast, and other measures to protect the whales. (There are other areas involved as well). However, in January of this year , ol' Bushy decreed that the Navy is exempt from these laws including a Federal mandate on the protection of Orca who are on the endangered species list. How does he do this ? Well, technically he can't; or at least shouldn't be able to. Contrary to most high-school beliefs, the President doesn't make laws. That is what Congress is for. The President is more a policeman, he is supposed to enforce laws ... not make up his own on the fly. He can veto something he doesn't like, but his veto can be overridden. I digress.

The point is, we have gotten used to the idea of the President being above the law. So much so, that he believes it to be true as much as most of the population. We impeach a guy for having non-marital sex, but we let Bush change the very functioning of our government without challenge. (Ok, some challenge... but not nearly enough for the groundbreaking damage he has done.) Here he flaunts his will in the face of California Judges, voters, and officials. How far, then, will future politicians in power go ?
  • Current Mood
    angry Anti-Bush
self burn

In case you didn't realize, you've been kicked square in the "freedom".

WASHINGTON — After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers after giving legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program.
----------------------------------------------------


So that is the first paragraph from this NY Times article. What this means is that a few years ago after 9/11 , the government asked the phone companies to turn over their records of your phone habits (in particular cellphones). They more than complied, turning over reams of data. Why is this a problem ? Because it is illegal. This violates your right to privacy under the guise of "we can find terrorist this way".

Now personally , I think that is a load of crap. But even if I do, I can see if the government thinks they need to do so. You see, there is a provision for the government to spy on you. They have to go to the FISA court to get a warrant, which basically requires them to prove why they want to wiretap. The don't have to get a warrant first, they can do it up to 72 hours after they've already begun. This is to ensure that they can do what they need immediately , while providing a mechanism that prevents abuse and random , willy-nilly tapping at their whims. Naturally, the Bush administration doesn't like this. They want to tap whoever, where ever, whenever and more importantly why-ever they want. All without accountability. It's a "I'm the President, and I say so." kind of mentality.

So whether we need it or not, it doesn't change the fact that your email, phone logs, text messages, and whatever media is covered under FCC regulation were illegally given without your consent. In direct contradiction of decade-standing communication regulations at the time, I might add. There are several lawsuits pending, totalling what could be millions of dollars in damages. But the Bush admin has stepped in from the start and downplayed the fact that they've been breaking the law and specifically side-stepping the regulatory process for gaining permission to wiretap. Now the Senate has retroactively given immunity to the phone companies for breaking the law while granting wider powers to the President to spy, tap, whatever all without the oversight of the FISA board.

And while this unprecedented event occurred, did you see it on the news ? No, of course not. What did the majority of news outlets report that day ?

The results of a damn dog show.

  • Current Mood
    cynical Hateful