Clarity in a world of chaos

So, whose fault is it?

I don’t know about you Dallas- but I for one, am tired of these $2.00, $3.00, and now near $4.00/gallon prices.  More than that- I am sick and tired of hearing everyone who may be at fault, lie to us by repeatedly saying, they’re not at fault. Well, if it’s not the trader’s on Wall Street’s fault, if it’s not Big Oil’s fault, if it’s not OPEC’s fault, and it’s not our government’s fault, then whose fault is it?

Moreover, please- don’t say it’s the consumer’s fault.  We all have to get from A to Z, be it in a Prius or F-450 dualie. Don’t say it’s due to increased demand from China. The VAST majority of Chinese people are still walking or bicycling where they want to go. Yes, they have a LOT of people, but America is still the number one consumer. Why aren’t we still getting our OPEC Protector employee discount?

There is some good news, it seems the House passed a bill to sue OPEC over their decision to restrict supply. But, guess what- the White House threatened to Veto that bill…  Anyone surprised?

Source: ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec
_dc )

While trucks and SUV’s are popular today, they've been popular since 1991. In April 1999,  I bought my first full size truck, and 87 octane was $0.79 - $0.89 a gallon. I could barely squeeze $22 into the tank. Today, $25 is less than a quarter tank in my truck. Shortly thereafter, an article ran in the news (Must’ve been on Fox 4, since that’s who I usually watch) where they said, “Gas hasn’t been this cheap since the 1970’s”.  It’s as if someone was listening, and fuel has been on the rise since that day.

When it reached $1.79 in 2000, I thought that was bad, but soon it dropped back into the $1.29 - $1.49 range for the next 2-3 years.  In Dallas, we neared $2.00/gallon in December 2003, while California was at $2.39 a gallon when we went out there for Christmas that year.

If memory serves, ExxonMobil denied any implication- all the way to the bank that year, raking in more dough than even Wal-Mart. However, it was no one’s fault they were doing so well. Surely, it’s not the fault of “Big Oil” for not building new and more efficient refineries to ensure adequate supply in the US. It's not their fault for creating our dependency on foreign oil by firing US employees, and importing the oil from overseas.  Oh no, as a multi-billion dollar corporation, they are just on for the ride.  There’s nothing they can do to help (or at least not hurt) average Americans.

It’s not the government’s fault for making it illegal for a precious commodity, such as oil & gas, be traded on the stock market. Why is that allowed? Why let people bid on, and invest in a product (any product) that is the life’s blood of this nation, and indeed- the world. If ever Government regulation was needed over in industry, the Petroleum industry is it.

Let it be known, I have no problem with companies making money, even if it’s insane and obnoxious amounts of money. As long as it’s done in a way that’s fair to the consumer- and that we as consumers are not manipulated through intentional gestures, such as reducing supply in the face of increasing demand.  Play supply & demand games with X-Box’s, and Playstations, even with cars- but not with gas. Rich or poor, we all rely on fuel to get us from A to Z, and much more.

August 2005, Hurricane Katrina showed “Big Oil” (Or the stock market, or OPEC, or someone) that they really had us (consumers) over a barrel (No pun intended). It showed them they could exploit us mercilessly, relentlessly, and publicly, with no retaliation- and all we could do is grit our teeth, open our wallets, and pay for them to do it to us.

We watched as gas prices soared from $1.89 to $3.05 in the DFW area and higher in other places, due to supply and/or demand fears.  After a month or so of public fleecing under the guise of damaged refineries, reduced supply, and heightened demands due to “fears”,  prices stabilized, and returned to normal (If you call $2.00 - $2.50/gallon normal). Little did we know- it was the beginning of a paradigm shift in the cost of fuel in the USA. Today, we would feel LUCKY, indeed blessed- if we could find gas for $3.00 a gallon.  Why? Why does gas have to be so expensive?

People like to say, “Well- a gallon of milk costs $4.00/gallon and no one’s complaining about that”.  Yeah, well- I don’t have to buy 10 - 30 gallons of milk every week.

Since August 2005, we have been flirting with $3.00 a gallon, in a reckless manner. Now, we’re looking at $4.00. If you drive something with a more fuel-efficient diesel engine, it’s as if, since you can go further on a gallon and wouldn’t normally have to buy as much, we’ll just have you pay more for each gallon. I saw diesel fuel recently as high as $4.75/gallon.  I know the GM and Dodge 2500, 3500, and Ford F-250 & 350 owners cringe every time they pull up to the pump. Not to mention the OTR big rig owner/operators- and their 200 ($800) – 300 ($1,200) gallon tanks (fill-ups).

So, who’s going to help us?  Don’t expect Wall Street too. They use every excuse to drive the prices.

• A “predicted” busy Hurricane season (Prices rise).
• Venezuela said they don’t like America (Prices rise).
• Middle East instability (Prices rise). When was the last time the Middle East was stable?
• Iran is out of control (Prices rise).
• Colder than normal winter may increase demand for heating oil (Prices rise). 
• M*A*S*H reruns are out of order (Prices rise).

   

Even though there have been no serious hurricanes, warmer than normal winters in most of the US since 2005, and no military concern at all from any threats from Venezuela. None of those fears, once they failed to materialize, resulted in lower prices.

At least when fuel costs began to soar- President Clinton opened the strategic reserve to bring prices down.  President Bush hasn’t even tried to help us out. I guess when you’re a multi-millionaire, or better yet- your gas is free, you forget or are out of touch with what it’s like when a necessary commodity (like fuel) have its price tripled and in some cases, quadrupled under your watch. Now we get a $300 - $1,300 stimulus bone thrown at us.  Thank you, but that's going to help no one for more than a week or two- maybe.  If you want to help, refund all the taxes (income and purchase) we paid for one year.  That's help.

Folks now say Clinton’s decision to open the reserves was detrimental, because the refineries intentionally scaled back production to keep costs stable.  If that is true, then explain to me again how Big Oil bears no fault for fuel prices being what they are.  If they were doing what they could to keep costs down, they’d INCREASE supply when the strategic reserve opened, not reduce it.  Intentionally reducing supply, in my opinion, makes them guilty of fleecing Americans.

OPEC, knowing we’re entering the travel season, was reported today (YaHoo! News) as saying they WILL NOT increase supply at least until their next meeting on Sept. 9, 2008. (Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080520/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_pri
ces  )

 Increased demand (some people will still travel), and reduced supply (because it’s not in Big Oil’s interest to stockpile fuel, or increase refined supplies) will only drive prices higher. Therefore, they’re guilty too. However, does anyone expect non-American’s consider American interests?  No- we have to look out for ourselves. We need to put American’s in Lubbock, Odessa, and other West Texas towns, as well as Louisiana, and California’s oil fields back to work, and wean ourselves from OPEC’s petroleum udders.

I don’t know about you, but if I have to pay $3.50 - $4.00/gallon (with some analysts saying it could be $10.00/gallon within 2 years), I’d feel better knowing it put thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of American’s back to work in our own oil fields, than for it to be the way it is now. I’d mush prefer that, than to have our money absorbed by OPEC, a few billionaire and millionaire investors, and their corporate and wall street minions, raking in record profits, record dividends, and all the while claiming no responsibility in why things are, they way they are.

Just last week I had to make a 1,000-mile trip on family business.  That trip cost me $200.00 in fuel, to drive my F-150 1,000 miles, all highway driving. That same trip in May of 1999 would have cost me $60.00.  For the first time in my adult life, flying is less expensive than driving. The only reason I didn’t fly, is because I’d still have to rent a car when I got there, and pay rental and fuel costs for it. Therefore, I spent 16 hours behind the wheel instead.

• Are you tired of $45 - $120 fill-ups every few days?
• Are you tired of excuses of why it’s no one’s fault?
• Are you tired of no one doing anything about it?

   

Well, say something then.  Maybe this will get the right person’s attention, and maybe someone, somewhere can get a grip on the reins, and stop this horse before it runs off the cliff, and takes us off with it.

I know this might rub some the wrong way, and the chances that it will change anything is 0.000000000000001%, but I think something needs to be said.

Like many I know, including myself- I am the product of a single parent home.  My father was one of those sorry men who rolled out on the mother, and didn't send a nickel in support for 18 years.  We did well without it; would have done well with it- but didn't get it.  I doubt many kids in my class, at least 90% of which were in the same category.  Mom raised the kids; dad was off doing his thing. My dad was so slick; he'd deny being who he was, anytime someone tried to serve him with a subpoena. He'd say he was "his brother" (he was an only child), and therefore, never went to court, and never paid a nickel.  I've never seen him, and only talked to him on the phone once. Back then, child support was what- $50 a week. ($200/month)? Yet, men still shirked that financial responsibility. 

Back on task though,

Fast forward 38 years later, and I'm proud to say every man I know, whether with the woman or not- is taking care of his children- be it through private arrangement with the mother, or through court order.  While I'm sure there are still sorry, child-support dodging men out there- there are some who handle their business, and could not be torn away from their child's lives, let alone willingly depart from it.

In the last three years, three men I know have been NAILED TO THE WALL with child support payments. Another I know, if he hasn't been served or if arrangements haven't been made, will probably get that knock on the door any day now.  My question is, WHY SO MUCH?

One guy was hit for $775 for one kid, another was hit for $1,200 for two, and the last one was nailed for $1,200 for his twins.  About 25% of their bring-home pay.

Having recently left the formula and diapers phase of parenthood, and knowing what I know about daycare, I know it's not cheap.  In fact, take your child to a daycare such as Crème De-la Crème, and you'll fork over +/- $250 a week in daycare- for infants anyway.  But- to hit a joker (who prior to a court date, could not afford that) with a bill like that is incredible.  Once a child is out of diapers, not drinking Similac, and starts preschool- they don't cost that much to raise. (I've raised another child from 5 - 18, wasn't mine- but I raised him...) so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

So, can someone tell me why a judge would see fit for a man (or woman) to part ways with 20 - 25% of their net income as a child support payment?  While I'm sure Troy Aikman, Deion Sanders and guys like that may spend hundreds of dollars a month on their children.  However, the average Joe & Jane do not.  This man (or woman) still has to live- so, can someone explain why the custody winning parent needs $600, $700, $1,200 or more in child-support? 

Splitting everything 50/50 is understandable, or even percentage wise based on income is to (Say the man makes 80K, woman makes 40K; the man would pay 66.6% of the normal monthly expenditures, while the wife paid 33.3%. That would be fair.  I just do think today's system is fair at all.

I think it's just as much "Wife (or husband) Support" as it is child support.  Another girl I know, as soon as the child support payments started coming in, went from a Kia Spectra to a loaded Chevy Tahoe.  Somehow, I doubt Junior is seeing much of that $725 a month she's getting in child support- other than riding in Mom's new Tahoe on the weekends.  What are Tahoe's now a day, $35,000 - $40,000?  Even on a lease, she's paying $525 - $600 a month.

Those are just examples.  Thank God, I don't have that problem; but I know anything can happen to anyone.  I know losing 25% of my net would be "lifestyle changing" money for me.  The man still has to find a place to stay, and pay the bills he already has.  Bills they probably made together.

I'm sure some of the financial suffrage men endure today, is due to the lack of responsibility in the parenting men of the 60's, 70's, and 80's. The problem is, the screws are being put to the responsible men who step up, today.

I'm not saying our kids aren't worth the money.  I'm sure if we all had the $, there's nothing we wouldn't do for our kids.  However, the vast majority of us aren't millionaires, so responsibility needs to be taken with a dose of reason. 

Call me crazy, but I think the man gets the short end of the stick, when it comes to child support., 20% - 25%?   Why? I owe you an SUV because you have my child?  That’s not right.  Judges?  What are you thinking about?

What do you think Dallas?  How much is enough?  How much is too much?

On top of everything you have on your plate today- how easy would it be for you to lose 20% - 25% of your bring home pay? Is that reasonable?

I often hear (and read) how the media tends to support leftist ideals and the right only has conservative talk radio to get their message out.  Like Obi-Wan Kenobi told Luke Skywalker, “Luke, many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view”.  That’s what it’s really all about- personal perspective.  If you agree with what’s being said.  Then media is great.  If you don’t agree, then several media outlets, and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of competing news agency reporters, producers, and writers- came together to lie to the people in order to push a political (or personal) agenda.  

Now, it may sound like I believe in the media.  For the most part I do. I mean, I can’t be everywhere in the world, every minute of the day- so I have to rely on the media to keep me informed about what’s happening beyond what’s within my own eyesight and earshot.  Am I being lied to?  Maybe, maybe not.  However, I can’t prove they are lying…  I can’t prove there’s even a possibility they are trying to skew the news- without doing what?  That’s right- going to a different media outlet.  One with their own agenda as well.  Therefore, what I chose to believe, or discount depends greatly on my personal point of view.  It doesn’t make my point of view right.  Nevertheless, it’s my point of view. Then, it comes down to statistics- presented as “facts”. From my first QC class, I have been taught that you can take statistics, and make them say whatever you want to say.  Informative, yet- meaningless.
 

So, what’s the regular Joe to do?  What are we to believe?  Do we believe CNN or Fox? Do we believe Bryan Williams or Katie Couric?
 

While I agree the media tends to exaggerate up whatever will get viewers watching- whether that involves spinning it, using inflammatory words, or keeping viewers in suspense until the 10 o'clock show, when the facts were available for the noon show. Honestly: What else would you have the media do? 
 

I cannot say the media is right, but- once you cut through the BS & fluff, the story is there. 
 

There is no escape from media- and no matter whether you get your news from BBC, CNN, and Al Jazerra-; you are still getting someone's VERSION of the news.  You view/hear/read a version, which received a draft from the writers, followed by additional polishing & tweaking by everyone downstream who had to approve it. This was again polished by their boss, which was polished again by the segment producer, before it gets to our ears.  Same with before it goes to print for our eyes.

 So, how can we change media?  I don't believe we can...

Media has been around since the gazettes of Greek & Roman times, up to and including the internet. It's interwoven into our very being.  Moreover, it's revenue generating- so there is going to be a bit of a slant to get viewers watching...  How else will CBS pay Katie Couric all those millions?  Advertisement dollars.  How will they pull in advertisement dollars?  VIEWERS.

So, with that said- How can we change the media?  I don't think we can, and media has no incentive to change to fit what some believe it should be.  Media has existed since there were more than three people- so one could tell the other- what the third person did.  Media has been a part of humanity since writing and reading became commonplace.

What can be done, in 2007- to "change" media?

I don't know about you guys, but back in 1985, 86, 87- A few years after I proclaimed myself”too old to watch cartoons anymore" I heard kids talking about "Transformers".  We didn't have cable at the time, but my great aunt did- so, I asked- and she let me come over to check it out.  I loved it.

So, for the next 2 years, everyday (after football season, and between basketball games) from 3:30 - 5:00 I was over there, watching Transformers, Thundercats, and G.I. Joe.  The Transformers Movie came out- Optimus Prime was killed, and I lost interest.

In the series, the Autobots were now lead by Rodimus Prime, and the Decepticons by Galvatron (Instead of Megatron).  Right before I left to join the Army (August 1987), Optimus Prime was resurrected- but it Rodimus Prime, and Optimus Prime- it just wasn't the same- and again, my interest fell off.  From that point on- having a chance to watch Transformers was rare.

Since news of the new movie came out- I began to takeinterest again. When I saw it, I bought my son one of the Optimus Prime toys from Target.  He loves it. so I wanted to get him the original DVD  box set.  I heard they had the original series at Frye's, so I went there to get that for him, they didn't have it-  all they had was the anime versions of Transformers (WHICH I CAN"T STAND). But, I wanted to show him Transformers- so I bought Transformers: Armada and Transformers: Energon for him. 

The most recent artwork and animation is far superior to the 80's work, but excessive in its delivery. There is so much background crap, only a discerning eye can pick out the "robot" from all the "add-ons".  There's so much add-on, cyberkey-crap there, with super huge guns, super-modes, heavy-attack modes, and attacks with no results, that it gets annoying (or- I’m just getting too old)… The new cartoons are delivered in a very Pokemonish– but typically anime-fashion. They all have to "chant" in order to call on their “powers” ; even telling themselves to “transform” before they do anything. Fans of the original series may be sickened by this display (As we were when Alien -vs- Predator came out, PG-13) but my son, and my brother-in-law/son both enjoys it. (I hate anime’).

Anyone who grew up watching the original, will have to muscle their way through the gag reflex to watch the new cartoons.

But, getting back to the MOVIE:  It debuts July 3, 2007.  The previews have been very well done. Megatron looks crazy and cool at the same time, albeit without his massive fusion cannon. He looks far more evil than the original Megatron.  I certainly hope the previews don't tell the whole movie-(as the previews of most bad movies do).  With Spielberg involved, my hopes and exp[ectations are high. The only way they could possibly be higher, is if Spielberg, Bruckheimer, and Lucas did this together, rather than Spielberg and Michael Bay.

The question becomes:  How are us guys aged 26 - 40, going to be able to tell our wives/girlfriends- we're taking our children (who know nothing about Transformers- or probably have little interest) to go see Transformers, and not have it written across our faces, that it's really for us to see- not the kids!  :) 

I don't know about you folks, but I get so tired of hearing about people who have gotten in trouble with the law, all of a sudden, they have "found God".  

Among other things Paris Hilton recently announced she planned to change, if memory serves- she has also "found God", and plans to turn her life around, stop acting dumb, etc...  All of these years have passed, and non-believers have questioned the existence of God.  Little did anyone know- all one had to do was be convicted of a serious crime, and within days of arriving in jail or prison-, they would find God.  

I was home a few weeks ago, and found out a good friend of mine from high school is in prison. Nothing too serious, but- serious enough to land him in prison for a few years.  His brother was talking to me about him  He told me he called the house, promising to change his ways when he's set free; how he'd found God- etcetera.  His brother replied, "You found God? Well, I'm sorry little brother- but, I didn't know God was lost..."  I was trying to maintain a serious face when he told me that- seeing that his brother and my friend is in prison. However, when he said that- I ended up cracking a smile, and the next thing you know- we were laughing.  

Why is it that so many people, wait until they are in prison, to seek God?  Why do so many not "find" Him, until the door goes, "clink".  Why not find Him before you steal that car? Why not find Him before you rob the gas station? Why not find Him before you take someone's life? Why not find Him before you rape someone?  

Finding God, once the sentence is pronounced- is a little too late, for it to matter in your walk with society. Finding Him after the fact, will not stop you from being an inmate.  

I know I'm not the only one, sick of hearing about these folks who have "found God" in prison. 

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things not seen."  If you have faith- you don't have to "find God" you don't have to look for God, because God will be with you. Moreover, if God is with you, then chances are- you won't do something so stupid, that you end up in prison- and find God there.  

I know he's in prison too; but- it's just sad and tiring- to hear of so many people "finding God" in jail...  There's plenty of other places to walk with God, aside from Huntsville, Rikers Island, San Quentin, Angola- and other places... 

Just when I thought I had heard everything.  I hear about this.

Click or Paste into your browser:  Link to a CBS station's article: cbs5.com

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cc_1181459168&p=1

It was a bomb, to be filled with chemicals, that would make enemy soldiers, sexually irresistable to each other. You have to excuse me, I have a pretty vivid imagination, so after a few seconds- I was already getting images of soldiers charging across a battlefield, inhale this gas, then look at the guys beside them.  Lay down their weapons, and started disrobing... 

To borrow a quote from Larry The Cable Guy:  That's funny right there...  I don't care who you are...

What if the wind shifted?

~LOL~

Who makes this stuff up?!

Why is there such disdain for Rosie O’Donnell?

There is another blog about the exchange between Rosie and Elisabeth (Is she cute, or what?), but I thought I would chime in, on a separate blog- just to see what keeps so many people’s pilot light ablaze, where Rosie is concerned. 

I was home yesterday, and I actually saw the entire exchange on The View, as it happened. After all the caterwauling, and finger pointing was done (Which came from out of know where), it was simply a loud display of nothing. They kept making a point of the fact that in an apparent previous discussion/criticism, no one made a point, when given the chance to make a point / take a stand / come to the defense, etc…  Although it was somewhat loud, it wasn’t NEARLY as bad as what went down between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly.

I've heard Ford F-150 versus Chevy Silverado arguments that were worse...

In my opinion, what has happened to Rosie, is the result of a 10-year slide to this point. Once the ostracism began, people pretended to be “shocked" by Rosie's sexual orientation. While one doesn’t have to condone it, that lifestyle choice has gone on for centuries, and has been pretty much in our faces since 1990. It’s to the point now that when I hear of a person’s orientation it no longer shocks me.

I love comedy, and I’ve watched Rosie’s career blossom and fade from the comedy channel circa 1990, to the major broadcast networks today.  If you watch comedy at all, Rosie’s revelation should have been no more shocking than Ellen Degeneres'. In fact, if one was shocked, it should have been of hearing news of an inclination in the other direction. To the observant, this was no secret, but I guess the confession made it worse.  For Rosie anyway.

Fast-forward a few years, and Rosie’s career leapt from the stage to the big screen, and on to the little screen of daytime TV. Out from the comedy clubs, and into broadcast television, daily. Consequently, Rosie had (has) a public forum through which to voice her opinions. This allows the entire country judge her every time she opens her mouth. I’m sure some would say the simple solution would be for her to close her mouth then, right. However, just because people don’t like to hear what she has to say, doesn't mean she is wrong to voice her opinion. That’s the great thing about America. “In a free state, tongues too, should be free” (Erasmus, circa 1516). While I don’t know everything Rosie has said over the years, what has she said that’s really so bad? Can anyone provide examples?

1.  Rosie said she's against the war, but supports the troops. I can understand that. Many Americans feel the same way. However, Rosie is a public figure, so her opinions about seeing the war end and the troops come home makes national news, more than does the opinion of the average Jane or Joe.

2.  Rosie isn't thrilled about the job performance of the President. According to the most recent Newsweek poll, it seems 64% of America agrees with Rosie, considering the fact that the President's approval rating at 28%, with 8% undecided. Even at the height of the Lewinski Scandal with Impeachment looming, Clinton still managed a 72% approval rating, which was actually- increasing.

Therefore, the question becomes- is Rosie the embodiment of what’s wrong in America, or is she being blamed for what’s wrong in America, simply for voicing her opinion?

When I think back on it, what really drew fire (and public ire) for Rosie, and what I believe was the death blow for her talk show, is when she had Tom Selleck on her show, and she BLASTED him for his belief in guns, his support for NRA, etcetera. A LOT of Americans love their guns, and you aren't going to take 'em away, by God... Before that, it seems the powers that be, were trying to dethrone Oprah, with Rosie. However,  on that day, I think Rosie sealed her fate in public opinion of some (or many). Soon thereafter, the empire that was Rosie- began to crumble into oblivion. The dethroning of Oprah, didn’t happen.

So, while Rosie can be boisterous and presumptuous with her rants (Donald Trump, Tom Selleck), we all have our moments, don’t we? Is she not entitled to her opinion? Doesn’t the First Amendment give her the right to state her opinion?

The right may exist, but- once you commit yourself, you have to be willing to deal with the consequences. Rosie’s been under fire a LONG time.

The argument between Rosie and Elisabeth yesterday, made no more sense to me than the folks on here who continually bash Democrats, and the few who bash Republicans for their differing views. In my opinion, they were both wrong to bring that kind of heat to the job, but- that was MILD compared to Geraldo & Bill O'Reilly's public debate on immigration.

Can you imagine Tim & Megan going at it like that? 

What do you think about Rosie, Dallas?

I used to watch Channel 8 news out of Dallas, more than I watched FOX (KCEN) out of Waco, of Channel 2 from Austin. I just liked the way Dallas did their thing. The only reason I watched KCEN (when I did) was for the weather (local).

After moving to Dallas in Jan. 1997, I still watched Channel 8, but in time (don't know exactly when) I found myself watching Channel 4 news. I still remember Tim, Julia, and Glen Moray (Pseudo Matt Lauer). We enjoyed watching the news with Fox 4. Next thing you know, Channel 8 was rarely on (Unless there was bad weather in the area. Sorry, but- back then Channel 8 had the lock on weather- with Troy Dungan, and Kristina Kahaneck(sp), but- that was pre-Dan & Evan).

When I first started watching, I didn't notice Tim’s edginess, eventually I did. Julia was the good cop, Tim was the bad cop, and Glen was Glen- the coolest weatherman on the planet. Back then, it was like I was watching to see/hear what Tim would do/say next.

Before long, Glen was gone and Evan was in. Evan’s cool too.  Soon thereafter Julia was gone to the largest ER in the country, Florida.  (LOL)

After many rounds of musical chairs at Fox, Dan sat down the longest.  I knew he wouldn’t get it- three guys just wouldn’t sell…  Three ladies, yes- but, not three men. I thought for sure Katherine Craig or Shirley would get it, but before long Megan came in. Megan's cool as well. At first, she seemed somewhat uncomfortable, and I wondered if she knew what she was getting into. Today, she seems to have blended in better than sugar blends into coffee.

Since we’re all here, it’s obvious we all watch Channel 4. I rarely miss it on Friday’s, because I don't want to miss “Car Guy Ed Wallace” (That should really be my job~ I LOVE cars…) and I don't want to miss Tell it to Tim. There was one Friday, someone called in with something regarding cell phones, and when they came back to the studio, Tim was on his cell phone, Megan was on hers... Hilarious. Something very similar happened on another Friday regarding empty seats, and when they panned back, Tim’s seat was empty, so was Megan's, as was Evan's...

Those Good Day folks are so "real". I hate to use the term "real", but- there's no single word to describe them, and their atmosphere.  Any news team that would take the tape of a story, and rip it to shreds on National TV, has got to be worth watching. You gotta love that.

The only funnier newscasts are on Comedy Central, Bill Maher, and Dennis Miller (When he was on SNL). A great crowd to be in, from my perspective.  Serious, in a humorous sort of way.

I love that in a professional atmosphere, Fox lets Tim, Megan & Evan, be themselves...

Why do you tune into Fox4, more than the other stations?

This comes up periodically, on other forums- so I figured I'd try it here.  It started innocently enough, after reading an article that mentioned "the late" Peter Jennings.  So, I looked there- and read about Peter, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Walter Kronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, so forth, and so on...  None of whom I think are hot, by the way.

I decided to look for some local talent, turned big- and that led me to Rene Syler, whom I just became aware is no longer on the CBS morning news. Then on to Sara Sidner, whom I recently saw on TV on a trip to Oakland, CA back in November. Everyone else had a write up in Wikipedia, but Sara Sidner was on the "Wanderlist" for hottest TV news Anchors. Sara was indeed, a looker.  A deeper glance at the list found Natasha Curry.  I don't get up as early as I used to, so I was surprised to see that Natasha has moved on as well.  I knew she was cute (OK: seriously cute) but I didn't know she was Miss Washington!  Wow.  Heather Hays was Miss Hawaii.  I knew being "good looking" could help get a job on TV, but wow- two pageant winners in the same studio?  KDFW has some pull!  :) My favorite was Katherine Craig, who is now in New York (Last I saw).

On a side note, Casey Steagall has left KDFW too, I saw Megan and Tim joking on his today, regardign his report fron a landfill in L.A.  LOL, Hilarious...  You gotta love Tim & Megan.

Anyway, while i think  (Patel) from that new station, and Robin, from Robin & Co. is the hottest anchor out there right now (No offense Megan & Natasha)- here's the list, in case you're interested, of who voters think are the hottest anchors i Nationally, and in the Dallas area.

Most of these people I have never heard of...  Ginger Allen beat Megan?!  Say it isn't so!

Newy Scruggs made the list too! LOL

National: http://www.wanderlist.com/sexynewsanchor

Local:  http://www.wanderlist.com/dallastvbabes

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...

I've heard of people reporting the news- and I've heard of people saying they can't stand CNN, because it seems CNN tries to make the news (I agree). But, when it comes to MAKING the news, never has it shone so brightly as the "monkey poop" I just heard on Fox.

Before today, April 20, 2007- I have never watched Hannity & Colmes before, (and never will again). I just happened to have to TV on that station, and heard a number of shows in the background.  It seems all day today, it's been Alec Baldwin this, Virgina Tech, Democrats,  Alec Baldwin that. 

So, Alec had some harsh words for his daughter?  Well, Boo-Freaking Hoo.  Whatever happened to tough love? Now Hannidy and this lady Melanie- whatever, are crying on each others shoulders.  "He's making terroristic threats" etcetera. The Police shoudl be called. Say what? Parents can't get upset?  Once a child is born, parents become perfect human beings?  Get a grip. You two are capitalizing on the Virginia Tech Massacre, using key words to sensationalize something that's not a big deal. "Warning signs" "Terroristic threats" etc.. 

Growing up in the 70's and 80's, my folks (Mom, Grandmother, Grandfather) were tough. They were on me like white on rice, every time I messed up. In my house, there was no doubt about who the boss was, and it sure was not me.  That point was very clear. Maybe it happened, but back then you didn't hear about drugs in school, kids having sex in school, teachers having sex with students... Why?  Because parents were tough, and expectations were high.

They weren't our friends. They weren't supposed to be.  You can't lead a friend. Why would they listen to you, if you are their equal? .

I'm 37, and my mother has only heard me curse twice.  1985, when the Lakers got swept in 4 games by the Rockets, and the second time (1994) when I spilled a 44 ounce coke all over me, my white clothes, and my brand new car. But, today you see and hear of young kids cursing their parents, trying to kill their parents, killing their parents, divorcing their parents, Nanny 911, Super-Nanny, Maury Povich ' My Child's Out of Control ', and all sorts of stuff?  Why? Maybe because parents treat their children as equals. In my childhood, my friends and I knew we weren't equals with our parents. We knew who the boss(es) were.

I don't think being yelled at is a big deal.  Uncomfortable, maybe- but not news worthy. A parent calling their child a name out of frustration, is no big deal.  Parents lose their tempers at times.  It doesn't mean they don't love their children.  It doesn't mean they wouldn't die for their children. My folks talked tough to me at times, using much stronger words than that.  It doesn't mean my Mom didn't love me, and I certainly love my Mom. 

People get mad, and say things sometimes. We got spankings and everything else, from parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, neighbors, and teachers. But, today- that's sacreligious, even though the Bible says, spare the rod and spoil the child. I guess it doesn't take a village to raise a child anymore, but- witness the results...

People are mad at what Alec said, yet, no one wonders why he said it. I don't know for sure, but, from what I heard, he (apparently) bought (or approved of) his daughter having a cell phone, so he could talk to her. It seems they had certain times they were to speak to each other, yet- he cannot reach her.  He was probably hurt, feeling cut off from his child, he probably feels like his daughter is taking sides, and he lashed out, verbally. Anyone who loves their child would be highly upset, even with their child, if they can't reach their child for extended periods. I'm not Doctor Phil, but I'm just tryign to think about what Alec may be thinking. I realize it's all guess-work, but my opinion.

So, Alec went off.  Big deal.  Nothing he said is one shred of proof that he doesn't love his daughter. "He's threatening her".  So?  What's a threat?  Son, if you bring home another "C", I'm going to get you...  "If I hear you talk like that to your Mom again, it's going to be me and you, buddy! "  Those are threats, but, what's it really mean?

Besides, who really did the child the greatest disservice here?  Alec for his tough love, or Kim Baisinger, who probably publicized (or made available) the audio? How did it get leaked?  If that had not happened, only Alec, his daughter, and maybe Kim would have known.  Now the world knows- and you know how nice, and understanding teenagers (her classmates) can be...  It wouldn't surprise me if one of her classmates didn't use it as a ringtone.

I think leaking the audio will do FAR more damage to the child, (who's probably heard it 60 times now) rather than the one time she would have otherwise heard her father say it.

I know it's not the 70's anymore, but I think we, as a society, are in some ways weaker today, than we were in years past.  Where's the discipline? Where's getting knocked down, then getting up again? Now it's get knocked down- and sue, blame others, or cry.  Not dust yourself off an try again. Didn't make the cheerleading squad?  Don't try harder next time. Protest! Sue!

Too slow to play high school football?!  Don't work harder, don't do wind sprints, work out, and try next year. Protest! Sue!

The news-making taking place today is just one of the things that make me go, Hmmmm...

See excerpt (video) from Apple's introduction of new i Technology.

I'm a PC guy, but from what I can tell, it looks pretty impressive.

Click me >>>  Trade Show

Sure, GEICO leads the way in the "best" commercials...

But, when it comes to funny, this one, in my opinion, takes the cake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s26z6I8RBFs

If clicking doesn't work, just cut & paste it into your browser...

I'm sure this has hapened to many of us at some point in life...  Jamming back, then... BUSTED...

OK, I think we were all aware of the law that came out circa 2003, making having a frame around you license plate a ticketable offense, if that frame in any way obscured the letters on the plate, or the letters in the word TEXAS.

So, gone are the days when we could proudly display our affiliation with, or love for any specific NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, Military, Car Dealership, Fraternity, Sorority, or College Alma Maters.  Well, you can still do it, after all- it is your car; and you might get away with it for years, but if you are stopped- I hear that's a $200.00 ticket.

How stupid of a rule is that?

I can understand the smoked covers over the plates, or anything that stops one from seeing the plate- but just for having a license plate frame???  Surely, you jest?! Give me a break!!!

I never went to a police academy, was never trained in reading license plates, but from 60 paces, I can read a license plate, and tell you if that car has Texas plates.  If I can do it with an untrained eye, why would a law enforcement official have a problem doing the same?  After all, this law only applies to Texas state residents... 

I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I’m certain Louisiana/Oklahoma/Arkansas residents are pulled over in Texas for speeding on occasion. Surely, some of them have their Delta Sigma Theta, Omega Phi Phi, OU, OSU, LSU, Louisiana Tech, or Grambling, plates on their license. Surely, they aren't ticketed for that. Right? Right? How would they know we had such an asinine law in place? 

I wonder what the real motivation was for this law.  To generate more revenue, perhaps?

There are people committing real crimes out there. Breaking real laws, hurting people. Yet, we as citizens are not allowed to put a frame on our license plate? Who's that hurting?  How is not having the frame helping law enforcement?  What happens if a car with Arkansas plates has a frame blocking the letters "ARKANSAS"- can you still not tell where that car is from?

I still see 3 out of 5 cars with the frame on the plate, so at least the police don't seem to be actively pursuing this silly law. Nevertheless, because I don't want a ticket, or to be pulled over for any reason, I took my US ARMY frame off.

What do you people think about this law?

Had you heard of it?

You might want to get it off your car.  A friend of my wife was nailed for having hers on, to the tune of $200.00... Or, so she says...

A judge, who upheld the law (shakes head) stated this...

"This is an uncommonly bad law," wrote Judge Cathy Cochran, who voted with the majority. "It is a 'gotcha' law because it allows the police to arbitrarily stop, ticket, arrest, and search any person who is driving a car whose license plate frame covers up any portion of that plate's design. Look around you -- the vast majority of drivers on Texas roads and highways can be stopped and arrested at any given moment."

 Maybe that's what they (the state) was after...

"The opinions are critical of the Texas Legislature, but they're going to allow it to be enforced," lawyer George Scharmen said.  "I think the message was pretty clear: No man's life or property is safe while the Texas Legislature is in session," he said, adding that he didn't think the court's criticism of the law would prompt the Legislature to change it this year."

Stupid Law: http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/local_story_046134143.html