Monday, December 31, 2007
$ooner
I decided to call Sooner to see if his new found wealth had gone to his head. Rita his maid answered so I asked her if his money was making him act differently, she said she didn't think so but that Jives the butler and James the chauffeur might disagree.
Armed robber blasts woman officer
Bamber Bridge, Preston, United Kingdom
A man has been arrested by police investigating the shooting of a woman officer during a robbery at a pub.
Police dog handler Katie Johnson, 29, had been sent to a reported raid at the Hospital Inn in Bamber Bridge, Preston.
The Pc received 12 pellets in her leg when she was shot by a man wearing a balaclava, after colleagues ordered him to drop his weapon as he tried to flee.
The United Kingdom, has what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world.
US Supreme Court ponders gun law
The debate over handguns is politically charged in the US
The US Supreme Court is to consider Americans' right to bear arms for the first time in nearly 70 years.
It has agreed to rule on whether a ban on handguns by the city of Washington, DC complies with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
The US capital has banned handguns since 1976.
Supporters of gun rights point out that having one of the toughest laws in the US has not stopped Washington being one of its most murder-ridden cities - with 169 killings in 2006.
A man has been arrested by police investigating the shooting of a woman officer during a robbery at a pub.
Police dog handler Katie Johnson, 29, had been sent to a reported raid at the Hospital Inn in Bamber Bridge, Preston.
The Pc received 12 pellets in her leg when she was shot by a man wearing a balaclava, after colleagues ordered him to drop his weapon as he tried to flee.
The United Kingdom, has what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world.
US Supreme Court ponders gun law
The debate over handguns is politically charged in the US
The US Supreme Court is to consider Americans' right to bear arms for the first time in nearly 70 years.
It has agreed to rule on whether a ban on handguns by the city of Washington, DC complies with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
The US capital has banned handguns since 1976.
Supporters of gun rights point out that having one of the toughest laws in the US has not stopped Washington being one of its most murder-ridden cities - with 169 killings in 2006.
Australia Plans Tough Web Rules
Internet providers will be expected to filter all their content
Australia is planning tough new rules to protect children from online pornography and violence.
The new Labor government wants internet service providers to filter content to ensure households and schools do not receive "inappropriate" material.
"Pornography and violence" is defined as any material critical of the new Labor government.
Australia is planning tough new rules to protect children from online pornography and violence.
The new Labor government wants internet service providers to filter content to ensure households and schools do not receive "inappropriate" material.
"Pornography and violence" is defined as any material critical of the new Labor government.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Ten Rules for Being Human
by Cherie Carter-Scott
1. You will receive a body. You may like it or hate it, but it's yours to keep for the entire period.
2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in a full-time informal school called, "life."
3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial, error, and experimentation. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiments that ultimately "work."
4. Lessons are repeated until they are learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson.
5. Learning lessons does not end. There's no part of life that doesn't contain its lessons. If you're alive, that means there are still lessons to be learned.
6. "There" is no better a place than "here." When your "there" has become a "here", you will simply obtain another "there" that will again look better than "here."
7. Other people are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.
8. What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours.
9. Your answers lie within you. The answers to life's questions lie within you. All you need to do is look, listen, and trust.
10. You will forget all this.
1. You will receive a body. You may like it or hate it, but it's yours to keep for the entire period.
2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in a full-time informal school called, "life."
3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial, error, and experimentation. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiments that ultimately "work."
4. Lessons are repeated until they are learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson.
5. Learning lessons does not end. There's no part of life that doesn't contain its lessons. If you're alive, that means there are still lessons to be learned.
6. "There" is no better a place than "here." When your "there" has become a "here", you will simply obtain another "there" that will again look better than "here."
7. Other people are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.
8. What you make of your life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours.
9. Your answers lie within you. The answers to life's questions lie within you. All you need to do is look, listen, and trust.
10. You will forget all this.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Morning Thoughts
7:45 I've got to get to work. Turn off the TV, the door's locked. Damn, it's cold, sorry car no time to let you warm up. Thank god for these gloves, I hate it when my hands get cold. Hey dude, scoot over a little, I just want my half of the road, fuckin' retard. No, 94.7 sucks in the morning, yeah the Katt 100.5, it's commercials, must have missed Rick & Brad. Ah they left me a parking spot, door's locked.
"Gun 'er Down" "Gun her down?" Who puts a sticker saying gun her down on there pickup?
Oh, "Git 'er Done" whew, that was weird, 7:59 better walk fast.
"Gun 'er Down" "Gun her down?" Who puts a sticker saying gun her down on there pickup?
Oh, "Git 'er Done" whew, that was weird, 7:59 better walk fast.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
I GOT MEME'D
When people say Christmas you immediately think: "What do I want?"
Favorite Christmas memory: I remember my Grampa trying to talk me into staying up late and seeing Santa when he brought the presents. I said there was no way I was going to risk making Santa mad, I wanted the presents too bad.
Favorite Christmas song/carol: Nat King Cole singing "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire".
Favorite Christmas movie: Christmas Vacation
Your favorite Christmas character..: The wise men, they knew what was up, plus I look a little like one of them.
Your favorite ornament/object: We have an old ornament with a snowman on snow skis I guess that's my favorite.
Favorite Christmas memory: I remember my Grampa trying to talk me into staying up late and seeing Santa when he brought the presents. I said there was no way I was going to risk making Santa mad, I wanted the presents too bad.
Favorite Christmas song/carol: Nat King Cole singing "Chestnuts roasting on an open fire".
Favorite Christmas movie: Christmas Vacation
Your favorite Christmas character..: The wise men, they knew what was up, plus I look a little like one of them.
Your favorite ornament/object: We have an old ornament with a snowman on snow skis I guess that's my favorite.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Should Your Grandma be Driving?
I was driving along the other day, on the way to the hospital to meet my grandson for the first time, my daughter-in-law was in labor. As I passed by my wifes grandmothers place I saw an older model Ford Taurus heading the opposite way on the highway. As it got closer I saw that it was her grandma driving. She didn't really seem to be looking at the road but was driving fine. She had a big smile on her face but paid no attention to me as our cars passed. What makes this worth writing about? She died about three years ago. I think I saw a ghost, and what a neat day to see a ghost. On the day that her great-great grandchild was born!
I would think that it was just another old lady except for three things. It looked exactly like her, the far off look - not looking at the road at all yet driving fine and the topper, it was right in front of the house where she had lived for the last sixty years.
I would think that it was just another old lady except for three things. It looked exactly like her, the far off look - not looking at the road at all yet driving fine and the topper, it was right in front of the house where she had lived for the last sixty years.
Monday, December 17, 2007
I was watching a guy on the Today Show try to interview Hillary Clinton, not an easy thing to do. I think if he would have asked her
"What time is it Senator Clinton?"
she would have replied
"I have a strong record of knowing what time it is."
"I have known how to tell time since I was just a little girl."
"Other candidates might not believe in time but Bill and I are strong supporters of time and I think my record reflects that."
I mean if she won't even give a straight answer as a candidate, just imagine how she would dance around questions as president. I thought I might actually vote for her at one point and I still might as a "lesser evil" but I hope she's not the Democratic candidate.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Thanks Jack
I'd like to know who this guy Jack is, apparently he donates porn magazines to inmates nationwide.
Every time I hear an inmate talking about a Playboy or Hustler, they call it a "Jack book".
Well Jack, I salute you for helping those less fortunate than yourself, I'd like to shake your hand.
I think the inmates would also like to shake his hand because they kind of make a shaking motion with their hands whenever they mention a "Jack book".
Every time I hear an inmate talking about a Playboy or Hustler, they call it a "Jack book".
Well Jack, I salute you for helping those less fortunate than yourself, I'd like to shake your hand.
I think the inmates would also like to shake his hand because they kind of make a shaking motion with their hands whenever they mention a "Jack book".
Friday, December 14, 2007
Don't Ask - Don't Tell
Kids that look up to professional athletes know that they use steroids, human growth hormones and other drugs. This makes some of them think that to be real good you need to use these substances. So if our goal is to keep the kids off of these drugs, we need a whole new approach. A "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy would bring us much closer to our goal. No drug testing of any kind on professional athletes.
PS- Maybe they should drug test the very worst pro athletes, if they tested positive it would send a strong anti-drug message.
PS- Maybe they should drug test the very worst pro athletes, if they tested positive it would send a strong anti-drug message.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Little tex has sex, makes big tex a grampa
Yep, it's official I'm a grampa. How can something only 8lbs and a little over 19 inches turn your whole world upside down? At least it's upside down in a good way.
Little tex, his wife and son are staying with us for a few days so that shelly can help with the baby. Bob is so happy he doesn't know what to do, other than be on his best behavior. At least it's a good time of year to have family staying with you. I'm sure my fellow bloggers will understand my lack of comments and original posts. I'm very busy right now, hopefully things will slow down before too long.
Blog ya' later.
Little tex, his wife and son are staying with us for a few days so that shelly can help with the baby. Bob is so happy he doesn't know what to do, other than be on his best behavior. At least it's a good time of year to have family staying with you. I'm sure my fellow bloggers will understand my lack of comments and original posts. I'm very busy right now, hopefully things will slow down before too long.
Blog ya' later.
Gun-Free Zone
The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.
A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.
Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?
Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.
Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."
There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.
No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.
People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.
All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.
In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.
The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.
The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.
A Google news search using the phrase "Omaha Mall Shooting" finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.
But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.
Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?
Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.
The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.
Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."
There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.
Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.
No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the "gun-free zones," not other public places, where the attacks happen.
People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.
All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.
In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.
The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday's attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.
The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Can Pot Stop Breast Cancer?
New hope for patients with aggressive breast cancer may come in the form of an isolated compound found in cannabis, said researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, a nonprofit Sutter Health affiliate.
The study, released in the medical journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, discovered that the CBD compound found in cannabis can slow the activity of a gene that causes the spread of cancer cells.
Researchers announced the finding with hope that the compound could be part of a non-toxic treatment for metastatic breast cancer.
"Right now we have a limited range of options in treating aggressive forms of cancer," said Dr. Sean McAllister, lead author of the study. "Those treatments, such as chemotherapy, can be effective but they can also be extremely toxic and difficult for patients. This compound offers the hope of a non-toxic therapy that could achieve the same results without any of the painful side effects."
CBD is not like THC, found in marijuana, and can be used without the psychoactive side effects of marijuana so its use does not violate anti-drug laws, according to researchers.
Researchers remind patients that, "this is not a recommendation for people with breast cancer to smoke marijuana," because the levels of CBD necessary for treatment are not attainable through smoking marijuana, according to researchers.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)