OTOH
On The Other Hand
# – # – # – # – #
INITIALISMS: OTOH — On The Other Hand
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Leave a Comment » | 
INITIALISMS | Tagged: On The Other Hand, OTOH | 
Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
TECH: the Osborne Syndrome — augers into the ground
Wednesday, September 20, 2006The Post Money Value: Pissed Off Customer 2.0
http://ricksegal.typepad.com/pmv/2006/09/pissed_off_cust.html
***Begin Quote***
The capable logo and the (rapidly approaching) free upgrade coupon in the box promotion is designed to keep computers flying off the shelves, thus avoiding the Osborne Syndrome. (Short History: Osborne Computers pre-announced a new model, killing sales of old model, new model late, company augers into the ground.)
***End Quote***
Never heard that before. Akin to spin, crash, and burn.
Leave a Comment » | Technology | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
RANT: I doubt ex-guv McSleezey’s corruption even registered on the nujerzee voters
Wednesday, September 20, 2006http://channel-surfing.blogspot.com/2006/09/mcgreevey-with-context.html
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
McGreevey with the context
***Begin Quote***
New Jersey would have accepted a gay governor; it just couldn’t accept the slime that came with the McGreevey administration.
***End Quote***
I don’t think that McSleezey’s corruption even registered on the NuJerzee voters. I bet if he ran again a la Lieberman, then he’d win. And, the people get the gubamint they deserve. I vote every election against incumbents. yet they win. Nationally 98% get returned to office. So like the school budget votes, it’s rigged. (And, maybe after all the voting machine scandals, it is really really rigged!) Rigged in the sense that the powers that be figure out the rules to keep themselves in power. Just look at the kulture of korruption in NuJerzee. It’s not something new. And, unfortunately, I don’t see anything changing anytime soon.
Leave a Comment » | Ranting | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
FUN: Fear of flying | Welcome aboard | Economist.com
Wednesday, September 20, 2006http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884654
Fear of flying | Welcome aboard | Economist.com
Sep 7th 2006
From The Economist print edition
In-flight announcements are not entirely truthful. What might an honest one sound like?
***Begin Quote***
“GOOD morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are delighted to welcome you aboard Veritas Airways, the airline that tells it like it is. Please ensure that your seat belt is fastened, your seat back is upright and your tray-table is stowed. At Veritas Airways, your safety is our first priority. Actually, that is not quite true: if it were, our seats would be rear-facing, like those in military aircraft, since they are safer in the event of an emergency landing. But then hardly anybody would buy our tickets and we would go bust.
***End Quote***
Hmmm, this could set a trend? The Veritas Gubamint! The Veritas Phone Company! The Veritas Cable Company! :-) The Veritas Post Office. The Veritas DMV. The Veritas Spouse.
Some one could start a whole series of humorous articles about this.
Leave a Comment » | FUN | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
TECH: FEEDBLITZ gives a daily feed of any blog
Wednesday, September 20, 2006For example, to get this one use the link on the side or http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=98446
It’s free for all. And, works very nicely!
Leave a Comment » | Technology | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
LIBERTY: Gubamint is a study in unintended consequences. But are they unintended?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006Hi Guys,
Loyal amp podie here with feedback on Tuesday’s 12 Sept hour#2 show specifically the caller form Montana (I think):
(1) LBJ took office after Kennedy’s assassination. SO he was in office in 1964, then elected on his own in 64 taking office in 65. Don’t be so quick to denigrate the caller’s take on historical events.
(2) The caller the tried to talk about how the Civil Rights Act of 64 broke the family.
May I elaborate, because I think I understood his comment and there is some basis in fact for what he is saying. (I too lived in this era. And you youngsters may not appreciate the nuances)
Let’s remember the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Especially where government is concerned, there are ALWAYS those unintended consequences.
Let me set the stage for the caller’s point.
(A) The Social Security Insurance, a giant Ponzi scheme (but that is another matter for another day), had the unintended consequence of weakening the multi-generational family. (I charitably say “unintended”. A strong family, like strong churches, fraternal organizations, and a strong civil society can obviate the need for government to take power over the people. For the government to grow out of its Constitutional bounds, it needs crises and kill alternatives.) By giving welfare to old folks, it took them out of the multi-generational family. Grandma and Grandpa retire and move to Florida. In the old days, they would live on the family farm or, in my family’s case, in the same apartment building, where they could provide help and support to the family unit. Old folks “need” their children’s help for certain tasks (i.e., things that require strength and agility) and the children need the old folk’s help for certain tasks (i.e., watch the kids while Mom runs to the store). Have a problem, you can always borrow a few bucks from Grandma or Mom. No need for gubamint, if you can get all the help from the family living in close proximity. Social Security Insurance welfare gave the old folks the financial freedom to abdicate this essential familial responsibility. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child; it does take a family to raise everyone’s standard of living. SSI allows the old folks to abscond with the SSI money and who takes their place? The gubamint is empowered to do all sorts of things — “public” “education” (that’s neither public; nor educational), Welfare, AFDIC, Food stamps, rent control, yada yada.
(B) The War on Poverty further broke the family by UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of its “requirements”. A woman with children could draw welfare if there was no man living in the home. Men were then thus freed of their familial responsibilities. Another consequence was that women became farmers of children. More kids; more welfare. Young girls could get more “stuff” by getting pregnant. It spawned an “immoral” generation. “Immoral” not in the church sense, but in the sense that the family unit served no further purpose. The gubamint would do it all for you. Men could fornicate with abandon. Women were encouraged to be “liberated”. That broke the backs of the churches.
(C) LBJ’s GUNS AND BUTTER tried to spend for welfare to win the war on poverty and the Viet Nam “ersatz war”. Gubamint spending went thru the roof, taxes went thru the roof, and wealth plummeted. This increased taxation and lowering the standard of living thru inflation, induced women to leave the home in droves to maintain a standard of living.
(D) Affirmative Action was passed as remedial for the discrimination against black. The woman’s lib, which wanted to be womyn’s lib, “horned in” on Affirmative Action. That diluted the effectiveness of the government’s program for blacks and institutionalize the “ima victim” mentality. Womyn became prized in the corporate world where one had to deliver numbers. This drove up the wages paid women and allowed them to leave the home and earn, in some cases, far better money than their spouse. There goes another nail in the coffin containing the notion of a nuclear family.
SOOOOOOO
What the caller was TRYING to say was the gubamint, either deliberately or unintendedly, destroyed the american family by:
(1) stripping the old folks away by social security thus empowering the gubamint to solve people’s problems;
(2) nuked the church as source of support and moral authority by the war on poverty and the liberalization of morality thus empowering the government by removing the church as an alternative and counter weight to gubamint;
(3) broke the economics of the family unit by throwing men out, making them worthless, and demeaning them in the eyes of their women thus empowering the gubamint to become the ersatz father to these women and children;
(4) put everyone, by inflation and higher taxes, on a gerbil wheel to try to maintain the same standard of living thus empowering the gubamint with more money to spend;
(5) using affirmative action to increase artificially increase the value of women in the marketplace thus empowering the gubamint to “protect” women from “discrimination” and putting gubamint in the role of “child care”;
(6) using affirmative action to create a permanent culture of race sex “discrimination” empowering the gubamint to be the arbiter of “fairness”.
I think that is what the caller was trying to get out.
Gubamint bad! And, while there may be no going back without a bloody revolution, these problems need to be addressed.
LIBERTY: FIFTEEN REASONS TO LEGALIZE DRUGS
Tuesday, September 19, 2006http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/policy/policy_writing1.shtml
FIFTEEN REASONS TO LEGALIZE DRUGS
1. Legalizing drugs would make our streets and homes safer.
2. It would put an end to prison overcrowding.
3. Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight crimes
against people and property.
4. It would unclog the court system.
5. It would reduce official corruption.
6. Legalization would save tax money.
7. It would cripple organized crime.
8. Legal drugs would be safer. Legalization is a consumer protection
issue.
9. Legalization would help stem the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other personal liberties.
11. It would stabilize foreign countries and make them safer to live in
and travel to.
12. Legalization would repair U.S. relations with other countries and
curtail anti-American sentiment around the world.
13. Legalization would prevent children from consuming drugs.
14. Legalization would encourage pharmaceutical companies the research
of safer and healthier drugs.
15. Legalization could teach people to live safe with drugs.
Leave a Comment » | LIBERTY | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
LINUX: KNOPPIX50 doesn’t recognize LUGGABLE’s inboard wireless
Tuesday, September 19, 2006Arghhh! Have to do some poking around!
Leave a Comment » | LINUX | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
LIBERTY: Security Theater is a jole — on us!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7ECP03.html
Businesses Adapt to Airport Restrictions
Sep 18 2:32 PM US/Eastern
By ANNA JO BRATTON Associated Press Writer
OMAHA, Neb.
***Begin Quote***
Fifteen live lobsters? Those you can take on a plane. But the ice or gel packs to keep the lobsters cold are not allowed under the recent ban on liquids and gels in carryon luggage
***End Quote***
I like their solution frozen vegetables. I don’t like that we allow the gubamint to “run” security at the airports. What we have is what Bruce Schneier calls “security theater” http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/more_than_10_wa.html Nothing of what we are seeing would make an iotas difference. What it does do is to put the gubamint firmly in control of the population. Real Id, sneak ‘n’ peek, imprisonment without trial, and even more restrictions on our liberties are all steps on the way to the next genocide. It can happen here. Think the Civil War, the Indian Wars, and the Japanese Internment. We need to object. I don’t consent.
Leave a Comment » | LIBERTY | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
LIBERTY: Gubamint at work — sort of — another gubamint crime!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7F8580.html
Report: N.J. Senator Had No-Work Job
Sep 18 3:31 PM US/Eastern
***Begin Quote***
A powerful southern New Jersey politician was paid for a no-work job at a scandal-ridden state university while helping the school garner millions of dollars in new state funding, according to a report released Monday.
The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey paid state Sen. Wayne Bryant, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, $35,000 a year “to lobby himself in his capacity of state senator,” according to the report of a federal monitor who had investigated the school’s finances.
***End Quote***
Ahh, only in the Peeple’s Repulik of Nu Jerzee, does a politican not get rebuked by the voters. But, it’s business as usual. His party doesn’t roast him like the sacrificial pig that he should be. And, the voters just reward all the incumbent by returning them to power. We condemn the Soviet Union for one party Communism. What’s the difference here? Hey, with McSleezzey hitting Oprah. Christie being nailed for lying about WTC air. It’s just a joke. On the voters and taxpayers. There’s just no hope here.
Leave a Comment » | LIBERTY | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj
Reinke Faces Life 
You must be logged in to post a comment.