December 28, 2009

Power of an Employer

Buona sera. I was able to catch some of the usual Christmas movies that I like to watch every year. Now, wait a minute! I am not going to be going on about Christmas, exactly, and then I'll drop it. I'm as glad the season is winding down as much as almost everyone else. So anyway. Hard-hearted and heavy-handed employers make labor burdensome. Labor, by its nature, is seldom a joy. But treating your employees poorly, or even neglecting opportunities to bring them a little joy, is a good part of what causes labor to be a burden.

In National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, Mr. Shirley suspended the Christmas bonuses. He was becoming a miser and was more interested in saving a few dollars than in the best interests of his employees. In this case, the Christmas bonus was expected every year, and they counted on it as part of their salaries. When he had to look at the Griswold family, he said, "Look, uh, sometimes things look good on paper, but lose their luster when you see how it affects real folks. I guess a healthy bottom line doesn't mean much, if to get it you have to hurt the ones you depend on. It's people that make the difference, little people like you." I want that emblazoned on a sign over every employer's personal office door!

Now, let's go back to an older movie, Scrooge. (By the way, after hearing the audio book of the original story, I am thoroughly impressed with this version, as it actually improved on the work of Charles Dickens.) The Ghost of Christmas Past took Scrooge back to his younger days, where he was a happy apprentice. Mr. Fezziwig threw a shindig that brought him the praise of his employees.

The Ghost said, "He has spent but a few pounds of your mortal money: three or four perhaps. Is th
at so much that he deserves this praise?" Right. He spend some money to make people happy. Is that really such a difficulty? People complain about the modern economy, but they should realize the economy of people like Fezziwig in Victorian England!

Scrooge said to the Ghost, "He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil. Say that his power lies in words and looks; in things so slight and insignificant that it is impossible to add and count ’em up: what then? The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune." Yes! A thousand times, yes! Learn this, employers!

As Lee Iacocca said, "Give your employees your best, and they'll give you their best". Is this so difficult? Things do not necessarily add up on paper, but treating people properly and actually treating them like people has its own intangible dividends, capice?

December 23, 2009

Cowboy as a Pejorative

Buon giorno, Pardners!

Do you ever have that experience where something occurs to you and you ponder it for a while, then it finds its way to the back of your mind and camps out for a while, then it comes back so you can consider it again? It happens to me occasionally. Sometimes, the cycle repeats itself several times. Well, one of those thoughts seems to have come to fruition.

Tommy the Knocker and Nicky hate it when I talk that way ("comes to fruition"), and they don't like my title. Too bad.

There are people that put "The State" above all else. Your liberties do not matter to these Statists. All that matters is government control, making you bow to the state. According to Mark Levin, Statists are not necessarily liberals. I see it that liberals are more likely to be Statists (so I have a slight disagreement with the great one), and in America the extreme leftist liberals do not believe in the rights of the individual. All that matters are their own political power, and also increasing control of the state over our lives.

I was remeCalling someone a "cowboy" is sometimes intended as an insult and a pejorative. Digging deeper, we see that such a handle is a complement.mbering how enemies of George W. Bush referred to him as a "cowboy". Also, Ronald Reagan was called a "cowboy". These were not complements. Rather, they were used in a pejorative sense. That is, they were not only making "cowboy" a dirty word, they were also applying it to each president. It would convey a meaning of stupidity and recklessness. (Yes, cowboys could be stupid and reckless, but that was usually saved up for riding into town at the end of a successful cattle drive or something. The rest of the time, cowboys were and are hard working people.)

But I realized something else: These people hate individualism. Cowboys can be very individualistic. While loyal to the employer and working as a team ("ride for the brand"), they had their own temperaments. They also had values and a code of ethics (although not actually written down on a wallet card).

"Is there are point to this stuff, Cowboy Bob?"

Yup. Statists and leftists hate individuals because they stand in the way of the leftist insistence on state control. And cowboys are strong individualists. To me, it stands to reason that calling Reagan and Bush "cowboys" indicates that they dislike real cowboys, past and present. And they hated those presidents who were individuals, and respected the rights of individuals. Capice? You may want to consider that perhaps cowboys, by their individualistic nature, represent Conservative values!

Calling Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush "cowboys" is, to me, a high complement.

December 21, 2009

Projection of Arrogance

Buon giorno. While doing some follow-up research on my "Arrogant Atheist" series, I came across some interesting bits of projection (where you do something, deny doing it, and then say that someone else is doing it). Also, I find some interesting rationalizations for arrogance.

While skimming an atheist group, I saw some comments by someone that is a "Christian" (I put the term in quotes because this person is so liberal in theology, it's pretty much "anything goes") tells the atheists, "You're so much nicer than the so-called 'Christians' that I run across", and how Christians shame themselves, etc. Meanwhile, the sneering and condescending approaches of the atheists is excused. Why? Because the ultra-liberal "Christian" had more in common with the atheists than with people that believe the Bible to be true. Of course there was agreement! Also, use of deliberately antagonistic expressions such as "xians" is ignored.

I have said that I do not care what someone believes. That is their right. I do care when your unbelief is thrown in my face, and you attempt to make yourself look clever.

I will remind you that I have a problem with the atheists playing intellectual games. They want God to play by their rules (and boy, do they get upset when I point out that the creator of the universe does not have to do that). Further, they play mind games: "Give me evidence for...", and when you offer something for them to think about, it is not admissible because their "rules" are so rigid and narrow, nobody can come up with something worthwhile. Many know enough theology and history to be annoying, and they throw that material at you to make you squirm (because it is a distraction). Then, they analyze you with feigned innocence: "What? Why are you offended? Why are you saying these things? It must be because..." I can spot manipulation from a long ways away, I have an understanding of psychology, and I've studied theology for years. (Ironic, isn't it, that Christians are held to a higher standard to follow what arrogant atheists think it means, but they have no higher standard to follow themselves.) So, that manipulation crap won't work on me, Bubbles. Frankly, I have met very, very few atheists who are intellectually honest.

Another problem that I have with them is that these "intellectual" atheists hold "believers" to a higher standard. That is, they want us to have the character of Jesus himself, and exhibit the intellect of, say Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. They conveniently forget that believers are people, too, and have the same problems that beset the rest of humanity. So, if you show any kind of flaw, your arguments are invalid, and you are invalid.

Then, we have the atheists that cry about how Christians are arrogant. "You shove your religion down my throat!" Yeah, sure. Frankly, there are not very many Christians that share their faith. In the earliest days, the Apostles went door-to-door. If actual Christians do that today, people think that they are with a cult! At any rate, sure, there are rambunctious Christians that have no tact and do not know when to shut up, but they are in the minority. Other Christians share their faith in a kind and loving spirit, but overly-sensitive people will take every utterance as "forcing it on me"; they are projecting their own arrogance on believers. Keep crying, Skippy. Here's a tissue.

Although it is rare, it is possible to have a rational discussion with an atheist, because not all of them are arrogant, wanting to destroy the faith of believers. But one thing I learned long ago, when someone is showing considerable resistance and hostility, just drop it. The conversation is a waste of your time. If they want to talk again later and do not have the attitude or play mental gymnastic games with you, perhaps you will want to try again.

Listen up, Joe Atheist. I keep saying that I do not care what you believe, and I stand by that because where I live (in America), we have that right. Did you notice that it is actually easy to claim to be an atheist? The rest of us have to endure attacks from people like you. Do us all a couple of favors, OK? First, don't come around crying because someone didn't fall for your manipulation and psychological projection tricks. Second, don't try to humiliate those of us who have the courage to believe in God; people like me will make you cry. If you cooperate and get civil, we can get along better.

December 11, 2009

Intellectualism and Reality

Buoa sera. Not too long ago, I was involved in a discussion in an online forum regarding things that we find irritating. One fellow is upset about anti-intellectualism, and wondered why it exists in the first place.

I felt that I was bright enough to attempt to offer a bit of an answer (it was a public forum, after all). After I gave that answer, I kept thinking about the subject and have more ideas to offer. Why are people anti-intellectual (or dislike those who call themselves intellectuals)?

  • Smug. The "intellectual class" is so much more clever than those of us who actually have to work for a living, and they let us mere mortals know it. Here is a smug, arrogant article that is just reeking of attitude and helps prove my point.
  • Impractical. They gather together to discuss "ideas" and "knowledge", but appear to be unable to take care of even their own needs. Hey, Mr. Brain! Can you change a tire, or only discuss the physics involved? Torque this, Pal!
  • Disassociated. Intellectuals are usually supportive of leftist causes, including socialism and communism (for instance, see William Ayers, terrorist and professor). Ironically, when The Revolution comes, academics and intellectuals are among the first to be executed. Hell's bells, Lenin believed that the "working classes" were unable to understand socialism!
  • Religious. Love of thought, learning and intellectual process become a religion in and of themselves. Further, there is some kind of an unwritten law that intellectuals are atheists. Of course, that is nonsense. Some of the most intelligent people, past and present, in all walks of life, are "believers". Because God doesn't respond to your criteria, he doesn't exist? I reject you, because you cannot understand that God, by his very nature, is not understandable by your proud clique.
  • Persecution. Yes, they feel sorry for themselves. Not only do they misunderstand (I suspect it is deliberately) regular people, but they have such a high value on themselves that they are offended when we do not bow down and worship their wisdom. After all, we're clinging to our errors, and they want to save us from ourselves. Arrogant cazzos.
  • Loftiness. The affectation of an impractical vocabulary insulates intellectual types from regular people; "Let me show you how bright I am by using big words". I prefer they cowboy approach: "You don't need decorated words to make your meanin' clear. Say it plain and save some breath for breathin'." Me, I'd rather be understood by as many people as possible rather than impress a few.
Folks in the "intellectual class", in the traditional sense, seem to talk about things that the rest of us supposedly cannot understand, and congratulate themselves on being so frightfully clever. Frankly, most of us have no interest in debating the merits of the great philosophers, or "pure" mathematics. We have work to do. But I'll wager that if we were exposed to such discussions and concepts in the first place, and wished to expend our intellectual energies and time on them, we could understand those things. We choose not to, and leave those concepts to those who hold us in contempt.

The truth is, they just don't "get it". People have their beliefs, many of them logical and useful. We don't need to have self-congratulating brain worshipers swoop down and save us from ourselves because we're not thinking their way. Sorry, Mr. Brain, I don't have to think your way, or have you tell me what thoughts I can think, or what beliefs that I can have.

To add more fuel to the "attitude" fire, they believe that they are to be the conscience of the age, and to speak out. That sets them up into a godlike role, because they are oh so right, they are clever, they must be obeyed.

Please pay attention Mr. Brain, this is important. And it is also painfully obvious.

In my travels and adventures, I have helped people with their computers. Several make me their "go-to" guy. They say, "Gosh, Cowboy Bob, you're so clever. How do you know all this stuff?" Well, I'm not being clever! I happen to know something that they do not know. Big freakin' deal. Yeah, I'm so clever with computers, but my associate Hal the Hacker makes me look like a trained monkey on computer stuff.

Knowledge is relative. Still with me, Cyril Cerebellum? I know stuff that I don't dare tell you, things that you'll never know. Fact of life. And I know a dame that works with the mentally retarded (or, to use modern, politically correct lingo, "developmentally disabled") people. I'd be standing there looking just as retarded as her clients while she does her job. And a babe I knew that owned horses...fuggedaboudit, I'm a cowboy at heart, not with my hands. She said I was a smart guy, but I'm as smart as a box of rocks when it comes to what she has to do with her horses. For that matter, I know some auto mechanics that I would put their brain power against yours. No, they don't know "that stuff" you know about. But boy, can they diagnose and fix a problem in my car!

Let me tell you something, Mikey Mind. I am not anti-intellectual. I am anti-attitude. People are not asking to be "dumb", or to be stupid. They just don't think like you, and don't want you interfering by shoving your intellectual "religion" down their throats. Just because they don't know things that you have decided are important, and meet the intelligentsia criteria, does not mean they — or I — do not measure up in the brightness department. Capice?

November 23, 2009

Being a Rocket Surgeon

Edited content for clarity on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.

Buon giorno.
Yes, I think my title is funny. This past weekend was an emotional, mental and physical roller coaster.

It was time to reformat my hard drive. Dump the scraps of leftover software and things I really do not need, reload it with stuff that I know is better and go at it with my increased knowledge.

Reformatting has been a source of bad news for me for a long time, mainly from trying to get the computer to resemble what I had before. I have no problem helping someone else with it, but for me, I get anxiety attacks based on experiences with my first Windows computer (HP does this to people). It happened again.

First, I could not get anything to show up on my monitor. After checking some things on Nicky's computer, I decided to reformat it again. Still nothing, just a flashing cursor in the upper left corner. I looked up some more "solutions" online and tried them. No dice. I connected with a Hewlett Packard online tech representative. Oh, boy, this one was a real genius! He? She? asked me questions I had just answered, told me to read things off a screen that I had told him? her? twice before. Then this "technician" told me to take it back to the store. Huh?

However, there was one thing that this alleged technician asked me that caused me to think of my own solution: Was there anything added to the computer? Yes, yes there was. One of the modifications was a new video card. It eventually came back to me that I had this problem when I first installed that card. I had to go back into the computer and change some settings so that the new card would work. To get back to work on the computer, I had to unplug the monitor from the card and replug it into the original equipment. That was my "Duh!" moment; I lost at two or three hours in fighting that machine. If I had not been all agitated about it, I may have remembered and saved myself a great deal of time and anger (good thing nobody was around to learn the new words I would have taught them).

After reinstalling software, including new stuff that is superior to what I had before (extensively using Revo Uninstaller to really rip out the sucktacular crapware that HP bundled with the machine), I decided to make some changes. I used to like Windows Live Mail, it handled IMAP better than Mozilla's Thunderbird (ironic, because I am a big proponent of Mozilla's Firefox), plus WLM had some other features that I preferred. Then they changed it. I decided to try Thunderbird.

It turns out that Mozilla's Thunderbird had been upgraded since I used it last, but I was reluctant to use it now because I was still angry over a previous version causing me to lose a chunk of important mail. But I was in a position (and the right temperament) to try again. So, I installed Thunderbird, and I am thrilled with it! Not only was I able to set it up to use different e-mail accounts and outgoing (SMTP) servers, I had a bonus: Lightning. Stormbringer likes lightning, but in this case, it's an extension of Thunderbird. (Isn't that cool, Thunderbird and Lightning? Ha!)

Wait, it gets better. (Lightning has a big brother named Sunbird. That is the desktop calendar that stands alone.) In Thunderbird, click on the switch for the Lightning extension and you'd think that you were running Sunbird itself. In fact, think of this: Calendar, "tasks" list, e-mail — kind of reminds you of a free version of Outlook, doesn't it? Regular readers know that I am a proponent on using calendars for organization and to get things done.

Brief tangent now. There are bunches of online calendar applications for you to organize your life. Yahoo was one of the early ones. Google has a good calendar going, too. You can subscribe to other calendars, including those of friends, friendly enemies and colleagues. Since my Palm Tungsten E is old and may fail, I started using this one as Plan B. It's available wherever there is an Internet connection.

OK, back from the tangent. Or am I? If you install Lightning and/or Sunbird, you can install the Provider add-on. This will synchronize Lighting and/or Sunbird with Google Calendar. In my case, my home computer has Thunderbird and Lightning. My main office computer has Sunbird Google has its own cranking away, and all three synchronize together. That means you can have this mind-blowing electronical group thing happening.

This is really fun if you want to know about the next level: Thunderbird Portable with the Lightning extension. Be careful, because hooking up portable Thunderbird on a flash drive can cause you some confusion if you do not configure it right, because you can lose track of your mail. (Hint: When you set up the portable version of T-bird, tell it "no" to connect each account at start-up, and "no" for getting mail every few minutes. Once you're sure you can keep track of things, feel free.) This is great to have if you need to send something from a remote location and do not have Web mail (heh, like that's going to happen). If you're inclined and adventurous, you can take a look at Thunderbird Portable plus the Lightning extension. Yes, it works. I have it on a flash drive.

Fortunately, Firefox, Thunderbird and other things can be backed up with a tool called MozBackup. This little dandy saved me a tremendous amount of work in putting my version of Firefox, with all of its customizations and add-ons, back together again. Now Firefox, Thunderbird and company are backed up in case of the next computer disaster.

Addendum 11-25-2009: I just learned that there is a "release candidate", a preview, of the newest version of Thunderbird available. Soon, the new version will be ready for general release and I will have work to do. It sounds good, and will probably be worth it.

Addendum 1-28-2009: Thunderbird 3 is now installed, and we are getting along rather well.


What if it all crashes? My computer is showing signs of death, and I'm hoping to coax a little more time out of it before I have to buy a new one. All that time and effort will be lost. Actually, I have to cling to one positive thing, and that is my learning experiences. After all, nothing lasts forever.

October 28, 2009

No Life to Give

This post is long overdue. I am going to go on record and say flat out that I am against abortion. If you have the courage, hear me out. Warning: This discussion is going to be very direct and some people may find it offensive. "Offended" in this case is wimp talk for "I can't handle the truth".

My facts are confined to the United States. The principles still apply wherever you are, though.

But first, I have to tell you that I am not so extreme that I say "no" to all abortions at all times. The exceptions that I accept are when the life of the mother is in actual danger (none of this philosophical nonsense, I want facts), rape or incest (only one percent of abortions occur because of these factors).

Ninety three percent of abortions are for social convenience. Millions of abortions are performed, and most of those are because women can't keep their legs together. Sure, it's OK in their lust-crazed minds to do the bang tango, unprotected, with a man that they do not want to actually have children with. Then they have the child exterminated.

I can hear it already: "A woman has a right to choose. Men have no right to legislate our bodies." In this discussion, men are told to clam up, that they have no rights and no say at all in this matter.

Are you sitting down, Bubbles? No, don't lay down, you've done that enough already. The fact is, abortion is murder. No, not my opinion. Medical fact. But since feminazis make so much noise and influence legislation, this murder is legal. At nine weeks of age, the fetus can respond to being lightly touched. Fingerprints, those life-long identifying marks, begin at ten weeks. Brainwave activity begins very early. The heart begins beating, also very early — and the unborn child may have a different blood type than the mother that is carrying it. And what if you are carrying a female child? Who speaks for her? What about her rights? Of course, the guy you did the wild thing with does not have any rights or say in the matter except to pay child support — but what do you care?

Women who have abortions have other problems, including depression, thoughts of suicide and medical complications. Suppose you have that abortion because it is "inconvenient" or will be "too upsetting" for you to continue. There is a chance that you may not be able to conceive again. It may be legal, but it's not always safe. And that "back alley abortion" myth, where so many women died? That's another lie, big time.

Looks like you have some counseling to get. The first step is to get right with God.

The biggest abortion mill is Planned Parenthood. In 2008, they performed over 315,000 abortions (with a dismal five thousand adoption referrals). Their profits in 2008 were (insert Doctor Evil voice here) one billion dollars. They pretend that they're doing a public service, but instead, they are simply a money-making business.

Ever notice that most Planned Parenthood centers are in predominantly black neighborhoods? Their founder was Margaret Sanger, a proponent of eugenics. Eugenics is a process to weed out the unfit in the population. Hitler loved it; eugenics is a way to speed up human evolution. Obviously, they consider blacks to be unfit. Maggie said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population".

Someone made an agonizingly stupid remark to me: "So what? That was years ago, it's different now." Sort of like saying, "Stalin was a bit radical, but we can continue his work." How convenient! The past does not matter, the motives behind the founding of the organization do not matter either. How ludicrous! And have they forgotten their brutal origins, really? Nope. They still give out their Margaret Sanger award. It went to Hillary Clinton in 2009.

If you want some fast facts about abortion in America (and some numbers for the rest of the world), click here. There's a pamphlet by Planned Parenthood from 1952 that says "abortion kills the life of a baby". For a glimpse of that, click here.

Now I'm officially on the record as being Pro Life. Click here for additional information by my friend Gypsy.

September 26, 2009

Mexico Complaining About Mexicans

This came from my patriotic ex-marine buddy. (Hey, Don! I'm using your material again!) I am very selective on the scores of e-mails that I receive. Many are inaccurate or out of date. I checked this one and read a good portion of the text that is below is reproduced here.


The shoe is on the other foot and the Mexicans from Sonora don't like it. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's almost funny.


State of Sonora (Mexico) is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico.


Nine state legislators from the Mexican state of Sonora traveled to Tucson in 2008 to complain about Arizona 's new employer crack down on illegals from Mexico.


It seems that many Mexican illegals are now returning to their hometowns and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it.


The delegation from Sonora said that Arizona's new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state.

At a news conference, the legislators said Sonora (Arizona 's southern neighbor) made up of mostly small towns cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers here return to their hometowns without jobs or money.


The law punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States . Penalties include suspension of, or loss of, their business license.

The Mexican legislators are angry because their own citizens are returning to their hometowns, placing a burden on their state government.


'How can they pass a law like this?' asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano-Gamez, who represents Nogales.


'There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona ,' she said, speaking only in Spanish.


'Mexico is not prepared for this--for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs,' she said.


'We are one family, socially and economically,' she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.


Wrong!


The United States is a sovereign nation, Cupcake, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and its taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico 's citizens.


It's time for the Mexican government and its citizens to stop parasitically feeding off of the United States and to start taking care of its own needs.

Too bad all the US states don't pass a laws just like Sonora (see below). Maybe that's the answer, since our own Congress will not do anything:


New Immigration Laws: Read to the bottom or you will miss the message..

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
* * * * * * * *
2. All ballots will be in this nation's language.
* * * * * * * *
3. All government business will be conducted in our language.
* * * * * * * *
4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.
* * * * * * * *
5.. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office.
* * * * * * * *
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care or other government assistance pro grams. Any burden will be deported.
* * * * * * * *
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
* * * * * * * *
8. If foreigners come here and buy land.... options will be restricted. Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
* * * * * * * *
9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
* * * * * * * *
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Too strict ???


The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!


These sound fine to me. NOW, how can we get these laws to be America's immigration laws?


If we don't wake up, we'll lose our country!


More about this kind of topic can be found here.



August 24, 2009

Crying Woman Syndrome

Let me get something out of the way straight away. I am not saying that there are not bad people who call themselves Christians, both now and in the past. And I am not saying that there are not good people who call themselves Muslims, both now and in the past. I'm saying that Islam promotes violence and condones murder much more readily than Christianity. Capice?

While re-listening to an audio book of Godless: The Church of Liberalism by my One True Love, I'm still pondering the situation involving Rifqa Bary. (Listening to Ann Coulter and thinking about Leftists makes me even more dangerous than usual.) In fact, I had a bit of a scare this morning when I saw a headline that said something like, "Fugitive Found Dead", but it was about someone that probably deserved it.

Annie was talking about how liberals will often trot out a crying woman, or women, to make their case when logic doesn't work (and logic doesn't work for leftists most of the time). The World Trade Center widows (the "Jersey Girls"), Cindy Sheehan dishonoring her heroic fallen son in her lunatic protests of the war on terror, etc. Coulter's point about using sobbing, hysterical women is, "You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering".

Right! Sort of like an emotional human shield. And who wants to be the bad guy that tries to argue with facts and reason? You'll look like a hearless cad.

But that only works with leftist causes. Hearing the very genuine fear and sobbing of Rifqa Barry went right through me. Yes, I was moved. Did you see Agam's comment in the previous post?

You know what burned me up most in that video? The interviewer treating her like maybe she's a bit kooky for going off to Florida to find this Christian group. "Do you really think that this is true?" I don't know if this is a media person, but it sure sounds like one of those. Rifqa gets more upset at that point, thinking she isn't even being believed, and frustrated that the questioner seems not to have any background education on the issue at all.

Then the lady - she talks just like a damn social worker, if she isn't a "reporter" - says, "So what do you want at this point now?"

All the Christians present were just too well-mannered to have slapped that woman on the face, which is what she really needed. Rifqa has been telling her for six minutes. She doesn't want to die. She wants religious freedom, which for her means Christ. Simple. She doesn't want to be sent back to a family which will probably murder her, as other families have done to thousands of girls like her. Finally she just blurts it out - "I don't want to die."

And the social worker / journalist hootchie says, "Alright."
Do you know why the, uh, "journalist" was so callous? It was a Muslim girl that had converted to Christianity! This is not a leftist cause! Who cares about her feelings? Now, if she was afraid to return to her Christian parents, liberals would be interested. After all, the "Islam is a religion of peace" mantra is one of their pet projects, as is "tolerance" (which is "tolerance" of everything except the Judeo-Christian ethic, heterosexuals, Caucasians, etc.)

Perhaps that is why this intellectually castrated "journalist" was not moved, either. His own liberal bias is prevalent in his piece, but he may have cared if this was about a leftist cause. If you can stand to read it, see how the commenters let him have it. Bam! He should be barred from ever doing this kind of "work" ever again. Not because I disagree with him, but because of his obvious bias.

August 22, 2009

Outrageous Spam

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised anymore. After all, I've been around for quite a few years and seen many things.

But I'm going to be a rat and squeak loudly.

This one is something. The sender claims to be "Benny Crocker" . False sense of security, huh? The nice lady image in your mind of someone that helps you with good food and feeds you brownies or something. The other part is a dead giveaway, however.

The headers say more about the sender: Received: from mail.haosen.com.cn (unknown [59.46.168.60]). "CN" is "China". ChiComs are trying to trick me? The boys in the crew are laughing almost as hard as I am.

The loser's subject line is, "List of small companies in the USA".

And the rest is: "many different fields such as company income, email, number of employees and more

There are 17 million total records and 2 million emails

Reduced to only: $299 - from today until this Friday

Email us at: Jerome@BestAccurateReliable.com".

Riiiiight. I'm going to e-mail a spammer and do business with him. A spammer with fake headers, probably from the ChiComs, that's even worse. "Jerome"? Yeah, Jerome Jintao or something.

Most of my readers are bright, but this is important, especially if you're going to send this to someone with less experience than you or I have: Never do business with a spammer. Never even contact them. Capice? It only encourages them, and you'll probably be ripped off, anyway.

In this case, the spammer is selling names and addresses so that I can be a spammer as well.

"But Cowboy Bob, how do they get addresses to sell?"

One way is when the unwashed masses will keep forwarding e-mails. Look at some of the subject lines: "FWD:FWD:FWD:RE:FWD Happy gushy nonsense you don't want to see anyway". Then you have to scroll through about five thousand previous readers... Yeah, those letters fall into the hands of spammers and make us all miserable. They have software to extract valid addresses, too.

Responsible citizens like you and I will copy and paste the good part of the e-mail, or delete the old addresses, before we forward it. Then, when we send it to our own group of forty five special close friends, we use the "BCC" field so that everyone else's name doesn't show. In the "To" line, send it to yourself or one person that doesn't mind having their name broadcast to the world. Oh, you didn't know that trick? Now you do. Use it.

Another method to send you spam is using software that will generate names on a hit or miss approach. They don't care, they're disposing of their real e-mail address later, anyway. So when you get e-mail that includes, say, "Doctor5@Hotmail, Doctor005@Hotmail, Doctor123@Yahoo.cn, TheDoctor@Gallifrey.com.cz", and so on, and so on, you know you're not special to this sender; it's automated sending.

At the bottom is the line, "To invoke no further correspondence status please send an email to exit@BestAccurateReliable.com". Never do that! You'll validate your address to a spammer. Many of them don't even know you're really out there (like in the above example).

Wow, I turned a simple rant about silly e-mail that I received into a "teachable moment". I hope you will copy and paste this article and send it to your friends, or use the "e-mail" button near the bottom. Any little bit of edjamakation to reduce spam is helpful.

Addendum: Found this in the Spam folder of another account. "The same thing, only different", as the saying goes. This one appears to have been sent from Germany. Since the last one had the appearance of China, this one Germany, neither may be true:

15 sortable fields including contact names, phone, email ETC...

Thousands of emails for every state - very fresh data

This week only you pay only: $291 - during this week only

send and email to: Marion@BestAccurateReliable.com

August 18, 2009

Two Links on Atheism

Buona sera. I've been going on about "humanists" and atheists lately, and off and on for several months. Those people irritate me with their smug "I'm smarter than you" attitudes, and their efforts to tear down the beliefs of others.

Here are links to a two-part article by Frederick Meekins. This is more scholarly and less caustic than my articles (here are a few if you want to have some fun), but contain a great deal of truth. I won't invite atheists to read them, because the number of atheists who have the intellectual honesty to examine the evidence against them, well, I can count them on one hand. (For instance, mention Intelligent Design and just sit back and watch them rant. Extra points if they turn red in the face.)

Take it away, Mr. Meekins!

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74565

http://www.newsbull.com/forum/more.asp?TOPIC_ID=74637

August 13, 2009

This Ain't Human

Buon giorno. While poking around some online forums and communities, I happened across a nest of "Humanists". Humanists are essentially atheists; they believe there is no God, and have antipathy for organized religions, especially Christianity. They'll use derogatory terms like "Xtians" and refer to "Jeebus", and are more than happy to tell you how much smarter they are than the millions of us who believe in a higher power.

They believe in "reason" and science, and constantly slam anything religious as being ignorance and superstition. As I constantly maintain, they do not bother to seriously examine the scientific basis for belief in God and the Bible. Some of the greatest scientific minds in history have been Christians, or "believers" to some degree (that is, being an atheist does not make you a better scientist).

What do Humanists stand for? Oh, they say that they believe in people, or humanity or whatever similar word you want. It's a bit difficult to determine their tenents, because they have nothing to direct them other then their own consciences and opinions. And everyone has their own opinions, so it looks like it would lead to anarchy.

But these people get so smug, I want to slap them. They worship reason, but their logic is faulty because it's based on preconceptions and emotion. The main one is, essentially, "If you're a believer, then you're an idiot". (Just like with Intelligent Design or Creation Science, they will put it down as being unscientific, but will not be able to discuss it because they have not had the intellectual honesty and integrity to investigate it.) And these smug cafones in one particular forum were gathering insults to use on believers. One was, "You remind me of myself, when I was young and stupid." Yep, that really shows their intellectual and moral superiority, doesn't it?

Let me ask you two questions, Captain Humanist: If you're so much smarter, or just plain better, than I am, why am I a threat to you? Why can't you just have a quiet self-assurance in your "rightness" and clam up? I think those are fair questions.

Addendum: Since words like "atheist" have negative connotations (ya think?), Richard "Daffy" Dawkins is suggesting that the term "bright" be used in its place. Yep, still have to slam everyone else because they're so much smarter than we are.

August 11, 2009

Say What You Mean

Buona sera. I'm going to keep this short and to the point.

In my lines of work as well as my personal lives, I don't have much tolerance for having people waste my time or toy with my emotions. I think some of that is because I'm getting older, too. If my time is going to be wasted or my emotions are going to be toyed with, I'm going to be the one choosing to do it.

What I'm going on about is having to guess what people mean. When one of my goomahs says, "We don't have to go out tonight", then fine, she doesn't want to go out tonight. If Tommy the Knocker says that he doesn't want the last piece of pizza, then it's fair game for me or one of the others in the crew to grab it. I don't want the babe whining at me later that she really did want to go out, or Tommy to grumble because he didn't get the last slice.

What, I'm supposed to read between the lines? I'm a freakin' mind reader? (Besides, mind reading is illegal on dozens of civilized planets, as well as being a violation of privacy.) When someone gets bothered because I took him at his word, I get bothered right back.

And I will not accept a guilt trip.

I know, I know, sometimes in a relationship you figure out how the other person ticks, and you do learn to figure out what they mean instead of what they say. When it's a regular thing, then it's a manipulation tool.

Somewhere deep down, I also feel like it's dishonest to play guessing games by making people try to figure out what you meant because you did not say it. Be honest with me and you have a much better chance of earning my respect.

I know a woman who does this kind of thing, too, but it's more subtle. When she was living with her mother and my pal Neil, she would make a remark like, "It's hot in here." He mother would have to get up and open the windows, adjust fans, whatever, just so that lazy bones did not have to get up off her lazy tail and actually do something for herself. Neil wanted her mother to just say, "Yes, it is hot in here" and leave it at that. But the poor broad has such low self-esteem and has been manipulated by the control freak for so many years, she couldn't help herself.

I guess one of the reasons I get along with Lela and the guys in the crew that know me is because they take a direct approach; there's no guessing games. And I have the basic viewpoint of, "Here I am. If you don't like it, well, sorry. But I'm not changing just to please you." (With the possible exception of a hottie, I may make a little extra effort before I remember my basic vows to myself.)

There's wistful thinking about the Old West, or maybe just the old days in general, when a man's word was his bond and a handshake was as good as a written contract. People could be more direct. That's a concept that I wish we had today. My own integrity is important to me, and I prefer to say what I mean and not make people guess what I mean, instead. Capice?

July 26, 2009

Glimmers of the Cowboy Code?

Buona sera. This article is taking a different approach, and I'm posting it in several places at once because it doesn't fit just one Weblog theme.


I’m suspicious of AskMen.com. Instead of trying to help men be better men, it often has articles written by women that tell men how to please women. And they have those online surveys. These are nowhere near scientific (like the “Top 48 Most Influential Men of 2008” putting B. Hussein Obama ahead of many other tried and true contenders; it was obviously repeat voting done to influence the election). Their “Top 99 Women” can also be influenced by repeat voting, but the motive is fan based.


“...Our 2009 Great Male Survey, a poll that drew over 50,000 participants and more than 2 million responses. We asked our male readers more than 100 questions about their love lives, their jobs, how they spend their leisure time, and their thoughts on current events. The final results paint a surprising picture of the modern man -- and shows just how much he has changed since last year’s edition of the survey...”


This one has a bit more promise for my suspicious mind. Some of the trends caught this cowboy’s eye.


One that made me very happy is that the term “metrosexual” seems to be dying off. According to the survey, men are concerned about their appearances, but not acting feminine about it. Looking good is fine, obsessing about grooming is not. Style and trendiness are still influences in clothing purchases, however. That always bothered me because trends come and go; you can be a slave of trends and spend a small fortune in trying to stay current. Looking neat and being classy are always acceptable, however.


“77% of men surveyed thought that moral standards in business were on the decline”. Well, I have several articles railing against the morality (and incompetence) of business, often to the Michael Corleone level of, “I have to kill you. Nothing personal, it’s just business”. I’m glad to see that I’m not alone in my condemnation of modern business practices! The “Code of the West” had a cornerstone of, “A man’s word is his bond, and a handshake is a binding contract”. (Even if you have something in writing, there’s no guarantee that a hotshot lawyer and four-flushing judge won’t negate your contract anyway.) Those handshake days are gone, but some of us have integrity and live to make our own words have meaning.


It turns out that modern movies and the pr0n industry are wrong: According to the survey, loyalty is in fashion after all. Even if there was no chance of being found out after cheating. Some versions of the Cowboy Code actually spell out respect for women (I think that some do not mention it because it should not have to be said). Now, if we can get respect for parents and the nation’s laws added, we’ll definitely be onto a good trend!


It appears that men are traditional in other areas. Marriage is not dead after all, and men consider themselves “old school” in relationships. Most want to pay for the dates, and also make an effort to be romantic. Men want soul mates with sex appeal. That’s understandable.

I consider myself a cowboy at heart, and old school. Traditional values and all that. So, this comment that AskMen.com inserted was encouraging: “The 2009 Great Male Survey in short? Men are putting a bigger emphasis on home life, returning to traditionalism and dressing the part. Sure, the economy might be on the rocks, but so is our scotch. Let’s toast to the return of the past.”


I’ll drink to that. Barkeep, I’m buying a round for the house!

June 9, 2009

Blame God

Buona sera. Today's rant is a bit different. It's from the heart (I do have one despite what my ex will tell you), there are no hard facts — but some reasoning.

Lemme 'splain, Lucy. I'm going to connect my conclusions with my observations, and I'm going to show a bit of "two can play at that game".

Due to circumstances that I will not discuss, I had to watch some of a soap opera. (To be politically correct, "daytime drama". To be honest, "waste of time".) But I have to give some credit to the actors, actresses, writers and director because the cast was doing quite well in looking like the infant on the show really was in imminent danger of dying from a virulent disease. I almost wanted to reach out and comfort the sobbing babes.

One scene set off a mental chain reaction for me. She was in a hospital chapel and saying to God, "Is this what you want? What are you doing? Spare the child" and that sort of thing. Well, that sort of reaction has bothered me for years. I cannot believe in, and I do not find Scriptural support for, the idea that God causes illnesses to teach you, or someone else, a lesson. Perhaps that can be inferred in the Bible with some isolated cases, but it's not a general rule.

I'm going to interject that people say some amazingly stupid things when a child dies. They want to be comforting, and sometimes they want to look like they're full of wisdom. Yes, I can get along with "He's in a better place". Stuff like "God wanted one more angel, so he took your baby up to Heaven..." I have to walk away! Besides, angels are not dead people, capice?

Now I'm going to tie this in with a conversation I had with Tommy the Knocker. The conversation was more civil that it looks on the screen, and he was playing Devil's Advocate to help give me a mental workout. And no, I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers. But I do have some of the answers, and also offer alternatives to what some people say. No way am I going to make this an extended theological treatise!

TK: If God made everything, why is there death and disease?

Me: Everything was perfect at first. There were physical consequences to the sin of Adam and Eve. That "free will" thing has a lot of responsibility. We are the created beings, we cannot fully understand the creator.

TK: People want God to stop the suffering because he's supposed to be all-powerful and all-loving. That's why the woman in the show was crying and praying that way.

Me: We make demands of the creator of the universe and expect him to be a cosmic Santa Claus; if we don't get everything we want, the way we want it, when we want it, we think he doesn't care or isn't even real.

TK: If there was a God, he could stop all illness, war, evil and all that. So there must not be a God.

Me: You can also say that the results of (blank) election prove that there is no God. It's always amazed me that people want to blame God or assume he's not real. But the facts also add up the other way: The existence of all the evils that you see in the world are evidence that there is a Satan and his minions. The Bible tells about him, too, you know. And I think the existence of Satan should be obvious if someone bothers to think.

TK: Give another answer for evil in the world adding up to belief in "no God".

Me: People with this narrow view forget all the good that has happened, even in our daily lives. Little things count, and there are big things...ever hear of St. Jude's Children's Hospital? World Vision? Samaritan's Purse? Good old Salvation Army? Bright Hope International? Church specific, denomination specific on the local level? Or other research and medical outfits? Those were started by Christians. "You know them by their fruits", and Christians have been doing good for others for centuries. Sure, there are Jewish organizations as well, I don't want to claim a monopoly. But I don't know of Muslims doing anything for those outside of their religion. Hey, have you ever known of an atheist organization that did anything for anyone? Maybe atheists are good people, but they don't have history on their side for doing good deeds.

OK, that's enough. My point is that the "evil in the world" is a biased world view, and there is plenty of evidence for people doing good in God's name. Evil does not rule. Yes, there is suffering and sickness. We try to overcome it, and I believe that God inspires people to discover cures and advances in medicine. But remember, the created cannot fully understand the creator. No, it's not a cop-out, it's the truth.

Back to the usual snarkiness and sarcasm later.

June 5, 2009

Western Digital Disaster


Buon giorno. First, I wanted to say that I had a "rodeo visitor" the other day. I call it that because he only lasted eight seconds.

Time for some thunder today, since yours truly is very angry indeed. This has been going on for a while, and now I'm going to let it out.

A few months ago, I purchased a 500 mb "My Book Essential" by Western Digital. (Cowboys usually like westerns, right?) It's an external hard drive that runs through the USB. These are a great idea: Back up your regular hard drive, install a second operating system, store all of that music that you downloaded illegally, store all of that music that you purchased legally, save the scanned photos of your ancestors, hide pictures you don't want your kids to see in an encrypted partition next to the government secrets you're hiding, store whatever you have downloaded or created over the years. I say again that it's a great idea.

It's a great idea until it fails, that is. Then all of your precious work and everything you've collected is not available. The problem is, you were trusting a product to work. You wanted it to be there for a long time, and maybe give some indication that it was nearing the end of its life cycle.

That's what Western Digital did to me. One day, it simply did not come on. Sure, it was getting power. I could tell by the insistent flashing of the light. Following all of the suggestions on their site and also using my own vast experience, I still came up zero.

I lost data. Lots of it. But it could have been worse if I wasn't double-backing with my portable Toshiba hard drive! Yes, some was lost forever. Western Digital has "partners" that will help you recover data from one of these pieces of merda, but the price is very high. If I had lost everything, I may have considered it. Briefly.

"Gosh, Uncle Bob, any company can have a product go bad!"

Do you really think I don't know that? It's why I did my other backup. But the thing that I'm so furious about is their total lack of customer service. These stronzos were sent two e-mails, and they have a promise to get back to you in one business day. They never got back to me at all. (That's when I went out and bought Seagate's "Free Agent" external hard drive. Hope that works better than this one did.) Now dig this: They sent me a customer satisfaction survey! Ohhhhhh, yes, I let them have it in there. But you know those things are a joke, because there was no response.

A few days ago, I went through the process again and really let them have it. I demanded a refund, not an exchange, because I replaced the hard drive. Those cafones never answered, so I'm using my small electronic corner of justice here to expose them and tell people stay away from Western Digital products. They betray your trust, and they do not stand behind their products.

Hal the Hacker wants to use my old hard drive for target practice. Maybe I'll let him, he needs the practice more than Lela, Nicky and the others.

June 3, 2009

Angry Women

First of all, I want to say that there seem to be quite a few people in Arab-type countries that don't seem to like women. They wind up hitting my article called "Man Bad, Woman Good" when they are searching with terms like "bad women" and so forth. I bet they're disappointed!

Anyway, quite a few of my articles come about from discussions that I have. This one happened at bed time. (No, I'm not giving you her name.) And I'm sure that there will be people that get angry with what I say here. It's the truth as I see it.

There are many American women that simply wind up hating men. They get angry and confused.

"Where does the anger and confusion come from, Cowboy Bob?"

Several sources. One of the main sources is the modern femi-Nazi movement. These are leftovers from the "women's liberation" movement that began in the 1960s. On the surface, it was "equal pay for equal work". But the broader (heh!) perspective was based on ideology. Not only was it "men are evil, so let's hate men, sisters", but it was hardcore liberal victimization.

Another source is the liberal media that keeps propagating the hatred for men. The proper term is misandry. You hear about "deadbeat dads", child abuse, domestic violence and so much more. But the truth is very different.

  • Fathers have to pay exorbitant child support payments. Sixty six percent of the "deadbeats" are at or below poverty level, and have to choose between eating and paying.
  • Non-custodial mothers are twenty percent more likely to default on support payments than men.
  • Although there are exceptions, the courts are overwhelmingly biased in favor of women. Not only in divorce and child support, but look what happens when a woman has sex with an underage boy as opposed to when a man has sex with an underage girl: He goes to prison for years, she gets media attention and a slap on the wrist.
  • Spousal abuse and domestic violence against men is very high, but not reported.
  • Violence in lesbian relationships at least at the same level as heterosexual relationships.
  • Women's shelters actually discriminate against boys, and are often simply palaces of liberal propaganda and are not true to their stated purpose.
Just try to find this in the liberal media. It doesn't exist there, only in reality and special sites.

I want to go further. There are some lesbian relationships that I know of personally and have read about. I'm not talking about a fling or experimentation. Rather, it seems to me that many women become bitter and confused, and embrace (heh!) lesbianism because they have had failed heterosexual relationships. So, they take themselves off the market; they want to punish males by making themselves unavailable (in many cases, it's no loss, believe me). Yes, there are some that have made an honest lifestyle choice. (Addendum: And some is simply perversion. Unfortunately, it starts young. Click here.) I'm bothered by the others, however, because they're confused by hatred and propaganda.

Another point to consider is that women enter into those relationships to be shocking, daring or "naughty". Bad motive. You can catch STDs from women, so you're taking a risk just because you want attention.

Perhaps that is why so many lesbian relationships are abusive. They are confused, angry and bitter. They do not really know what they want. When a woman moves from one abusive relationship to another (and I don't care if she's a lesbian or not), serious self-examination is in order. And she is probably in need of a good mental health professional.

Similar to something I have stated before, don't hate me because I'm a man. If you want to hate me, find better reasons.

These are just observations. I do not have much wisdom to offer these women. Well, one thing: Ask yourself what you really want, and be honest with yourself. But blaming and hating men for all of the ills that you have experienced (or imagine that you have experienced) is not hurting the male gender. And it's certainly not realistic, capice?

Addendum: How Feminism Hurts Women

May 27, 2009

Bandwagon Convictions

Buon giorno. I was having a discussion with a co-worker from a sister agency, and that discussion sparked some thoughts that simply cascaded in my mind. And now, you're about to reap the benefits of that process. Consider yourselves fortunate.

I believe that personal opinions can be "seasonal". They are not real because they only last for a season, and are not true convictions based on thought, experience and the heart. The easiest example of this was the disastrous attitude of, "Let's vote for the half black guy! Yeah! He's different! And the old white guy is more of the same. CNN and the New York Times told me so." That was simply jumping on the popular bandwagon, and I did not find many people who could find any actual substance in B. Hussein Obama.

On a slightly aside note, I think one reason that I've been doing the cowboy thing is that those values (integrity, honesty, faith, standing for something in the first place, etc.) have always been inside me. Now I'm bringing enthusiasm for cowboy values to the forefront because my interest in, and fondness for, those things has grown.

Another seasonal bandwagon conviction is atheism. The popularity of it rises and falls over the years, and it seems to stem from rebellion instead of an honest conviction. After all, if it was an honest intellectual choice, you would not have the venomous arrogant atheists that seek to destroy the faith of those who believe in a higher power. Of course, it doesn't help that colleges are hotbeds of atheism and liberalism. Kids are not being taught how to think (that is, with logic and problem-solving skills). Instead, they're being taught what to think.

I have stated that Liberalism is a position based on lack of morality, and that liberal theology, atheism and so forth gravitate towards Liberalism. Conservatives tend to believe in God and attend church. (Or, at least they believe what their churches stand for.) But the vehemence and violence between the two positions is almost always directed from Liberals toward Conservatives. That is, the vitriol and actual physical violence almost always flows one way. As far as I'm concerned, it's a symptom of the Liberal belief system. And that belief system does not have a solid foundation that brings confidence, comfort, consistency, sanity and joy to its adherents.

And now, Leftists are lecturing us about morality. Huh? They have no basis for it, and everything is situational or relative for them. They want to appear moral to the rest of us (and they act like they are somehow "better" than us). I suspect it's to deceive the more conservative people in the population. Once deceived, they can have more power in future elections.

One way that you can spot these "convictions" of passing fancy are the rabid enthusiasm of the people that proclaim them. They get rambunctious and unwilling to show consideration to an opposing viewpoint, so it's best to simply let them blow off steam. If they still believe what they're saying or doing later (and sometimes, it may take a couple of years), then you may want to think that they're honest.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with enthusiasm. It's just that it is often uninformed and poorly thought out.

In the meantime, know what and why you believe and keep strong in your own faith. Don't be deceived, capice?

May 13, 2009

Some Questions for Atheists

No time for gay banter, I'm simply going to launch.

I would like to know something. What foundation do atheists have for their morality? (I'm not talking to the arrogant atheists that simply want to destroy the faith of others and prove that they're so much smarter than the rest of us. This is for honest atheists that are capable of rational dialogue.) Since you believe that there is no God, what is your basis for any sense of right and wrong? You can't base it on "civilization" for several reasons, especially the fact that the values of individual countries in a civilization change over time, and differ over distance as well.

You can't base your morality on your own conscience and beliefs, because it's highly subjective. You may feel that it's wrong for me to put a bullet in your head, and I may feel that executing you is for the good of humanity. No, we have to appeal to someone higher up to settle that dispute.

Also, I'd like to know how atheism has made you a better person. Does it give you comfort? Does it make you worthwhile for humanity? What motivation do you have to do good to others? Do you have something to pass along to your children to cling to after you're gone?

These things frequently burble inside me, and reading Bill O'Reilly made this part burst forth. On Page 254 of A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity, Bill made some interesting comments:
Also, I say prayers of thanks for the miracle of the life I have lived. No kidding about that. Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there. Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

May 11, 2009

Rating Hotels

Buona sera. Nothing to thunder about this time, just some speculation.

I had some things to deal with in Michigan, so I left Lela and Nicky in charge of operations in my absence. (I'm not blaming them for the CD/DVD on my primary computer not being able to "recognize" CDs, but still play DVDs. Any advice out there? And the external hard drive quit right after I got back, so my collection of hot cowgirls is gone. No more Western Digital products for me!) Things are running well, so my confidence in them was well-founded again.

You've seen those commercials saying, "We know why you fly" for one of the airlines. Cute, but unrealistic. It would be nice, though. And it would be nice that hotels and motels knew why we used their services as well. The main thing that most of us expect is a dark, quiet, safe place to sleep. Other things come secondary. But the reasons we end up at a sleeping establishment are as varied as there are individuals to have those reasons, capice?

The hotel people have no way of knowing what's going on in people's lives. They hope and expect that we travel for a good time, to meet friends (and my goomahs), have a holiday, whatever.

In my case, it was a mix. First of all, we were there because I came to bury my oldest brother. It took about fifteen hours to drive to Michigan, so we're dog tired. And stressed. After the ceremony, there was more family time, some recreation, some catching up with old friends.

Again, the hotel people can hope for people to be doing well when they arrive, but they really don't know why people travel. So what are they supposed to do? They perform their duties to make the stay as pleasant as possible.

I used an online service to book this Best Western hotel. The reviews were confusing, because the service did not rate them very highly, but "real people" did rate them highly. My opinion is that they performed their expected duties very well, and there were some extras that I did not expect.

Perhaps the people that review hotels that are not "real people", but are professional critics are expecting too much. No, there were no mints on the pillows or other amenities that some people may be expecting from hotels that charge in excess of $200 a night. (For that price, I almost expect some, uh, "extra" services from the hotel's hotties.)

In my years of travel, I've had some very unpleasant surprises at hotels and motels. So when I get what I'm expecting, and more, I'm very happy about it. (And I'm not just saying this because this hotel has some babes working there.) The staff performed their jobs well, even the woman that had to keep the breakfast service running each morning. Sure, I could be ultra-picky and find things to complain about, but I have had those bad experiences elsewhere to put things in perspective. And people could find things to complain about with the extremely expensive luxury hotels.

My advice to you is to be happy when you get the service you're expecting, and be very happy when the service is more than you expect. I know I was, and I'll go back to this Best Western. Remember, I'm a cowboy at heart, and cowboys love westerns. Ha! I made a funny. The truth is, I did not choose it for the novelty of the name, but because of what the online service said I could expect. Also, Best Western has a good reputation. And you know how I am about reputations!

Subscribe in a reader