Category Archives: Brain Bucket

Exercise for the gray matter

Most Important Windows Security Patch Ever | PC Pitstop

I’m writing about this referenced article because it is a prime example of why software developers should be supporting and developing software for Unix/Linux/Mac operating systems.

Aside from the fact that Bill Gates and his engineers refuse to develop an OS that properly handles system resources, they still haven’t given proper attention to preventing exploits and security issues before releasing an OS.

Instead, a deadline is set for the release of the next version of windows, and then a mad rush ensues to meet that deadline at the expense of the consumers. The mindset of the Gates’ family is to get the product out first, and then patch the hell out of it later to keep in step with Apple and Linux.

This is a huge message to the public. First and foremost the focus is in the wrong place (on beating the competition) and second there is a reason why they feel they need to stay ahead or beat others to the cutting edge. It is because others are on the cutting edge first with an OS that is not vulnerable to hackers and those others have an OS that properly handles system resources and memory calls that far exceeds what Gates and Microsoft have ever offered…ever.

This is not to say Gates isn’t smart because he does understand that the only way to beat better technology and engineering (machine language architecture) is to beat them to the store shelves. Unfortunately the people that pay the price for this kind of “beating the competition to the line” is the consumer.

So why are software developers giving more attention and focus to Microsoft and their OS? Because they know that a profit is made from being first to the line, not from supporting a better architecture. Developers understand money in the pocket now, not long term investment returns.

What exactly will turn this tide of backward thinking in the software industry? The answer is in the proliferation of incidents like the cyber attack on the nuclear power plant in Iran this year. The more times an incident like this makes the news showing the vulnerability of the OS and network, the more obvious it will become to software developers that they are supporting the wrong system and shift to supporting a system that cant be hacked. Once they recognize they are on the wrong ship (the one sinking every year) they will gladly jump over to the ship they never have to jump off.

Until then, as a consumer who wishes to be rid of the need for anti-virus software and not have to buy a new computer every year that has a system that slows to a snails pace, and doesn’t want to worry about the information on their computers being compromised regularly, they have options like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and other unix/linux/debian based Operating Systems to give them what they need. Eventually consumers and software developers will be profoundly happy to have switched away from the chaos of Microsoft and the Gates family.

On a side note, Windows costs money, Ubuntu is free as well as Debian, and Knoppix and a host of other Open Source operating systems.

Most Important Windows Security Patch Ever | PC Pitstop

Judges have Bonified Brainfart – order thousands of Calif. inmates released

Special panel says there is no other way to improve poor prison conditions.

updated 9:32 p.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 9, 2009

AP – SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A special panel of federal judges tentatively ruled Monday that California must release tens of thousands of inmates to relieve overcrowding.

The judges said no other solution will improve conditions so poor that inmates die regularly of suicides or lack of proper care.

“There are simply too many prisoners for the existing capacity,” they wrote. “Evidence offered at trial was overwhelmingly to the effect that overcrowding is the primary cause of the unconstitutional conditions that have been found to exist in the California prisons.”

via Judges order Calif. inmates released – Life-

I know California has a serious budget problem. OK,, lots of states do. California’s prisons are overcrowded, but then I am sure if they deported the illegal immigrant inmates, that would help a bit.

What really gets me is this solution. I don’t think I have ever heard anything as absurd as our prisons are overcrowded and we have a budget problem, so lets release thousands of criminals into the public streets.

Does anyone else see a problem with this brain storm? I laughed at the wording as well, that the overcrowding is the primary cause of unconstitutional conditions. Give me a flippin break. They are crooks, incarcerated and have no rights. They gave up their rights when they decided they didn’t want to be law abiding citizens.

I also saw a perfect solution in their statement “conditions so poor that inmates die regularly of suicides or lack of proper care.” And the downside to this is what? Let em die, let em kill each other, let em kill themselves. I see a huge cost savings and a big “good riddance” of the criminal element in our society.

Not to mention, what a great idea for deterrence. Maybe someone thinking of committing a crime will first think “wait, there is no room in prison, lack of health care, I might die in prison, I better not sell these drugs, or rape this person, or rob this bank, etc.”

I’d like to know what you think about this. Make a comment, take the poll.

Fixing America

You may have heard our new fearless leader proclaim that change is what we need and that change must start with fixing America.

Two things come to mind almost immediately with one being that change brings two schools of thought , change for the better, and change for the worse. Change is a great flash word and it was used heavily in President Obama’s campaign, however it is merely a flash word while overstating the obvious that occurs in our lives and our country all the time. Evolution is change. Growth is change. Getting married is change. We have plenty of change already, both good and bad.

The next flashy statement was that America needs to be fixed. Really? I didn’t know America was broken. Congress is broken, yes. The SEC is broken, yes. Government and corporate policies are broken, yes. Our goverment is trying to break its citizens, yes, but America is not broken.

Americans were outraged when the big 3 auto makers flew to Washington D.C. on their expensive corporate jets to extort our government with “give us some bail out money or we will fire 3,000,000 employees” and now we have the President of the United States flying from Andrews AFB to Williamsburgh (155 miles – 12 minute flight) to listen to and speak to the Democtratic Conference.

This is not a cheap flight. When Air Force 1(747) flies, so does the backup 747. The cost of both jets flying 155 miles and then the return trip is huge. The President touts his tech saviness all the time. There is no reason why he couldn’t have video conferenced.

Published: February 6, 2009

WILLIAMSBURG — President Barack Obama made a quick trip to Virginia last night…

…Aboard the plane, the president wore a new blue jacket stitched with the words Air Force One in cursive and the presidential seal on his right side and “Barack Obama” on the left side.

“I’ve got my spiffy jacket so I thought I’d come and show it off,” he joked with reporters.

“What do you think about this spiffy ride? It’s not bad.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but I am getting the severe impression that our new President thinks this is fun and games at the tax payers expense.

Stay tuned for:

“Immoral Mothers against Immoral Athletes”

“An Oil Barrel of Monkeys”

“Stimulus Package Stimulates Debt and Abuse”

“Illegal Immigrants Employed, Americans Unemployed”

“$75 Billion to Keep you on Welfare”

“D- Gary Ackerman Blasts the SEC into speechlessness”

Welfare Addiction

Many times I have talked with friends about the idea an anonymous man had for trimming the fat from our welfare system. All too often we have heard how much of our hard earned money from the “working Americans” is going into the welfare system, and how few people actually deserve the check.

I wont go into how many illegal immigrants are earning money in America and not paying a single penny into the federal system that pays for welfare and other community programs. I will save that for another post. Right now is as good a time as any to start trimming the fat from the welfare system.

welfare reformOne way we can do that is to change a small way the welfare system works, and that is to require each welfare applicant to take a drug test during the submission of their application and to take a drug test once a month, on a random date, while they are on the program. The first time someone fails the drug test, they lose their welfare and are banned from collecting welfare ever again, ever. The money that would be saved from paying drug addicts to be on welfare would more than pay for the new testing, and the rest could go to people who actually need the assistance or other programs.

welfare780579.gifNow as it would happen, I was talking to a friend of mine that I used to chat with in public chat rooms frequently, and we agreed we had both seen many conversations of people that are on welfare, in a chat room. These people were supporting , of course, how necessary the welfare system is and how it helps so many people. A great many of us did agree it is important to an extent, however, how is it possible that a welfare recipient can pay for an internet connection and a computer, if they are on welfare? Welfare is meant to give assistance to those who can not afford the basic necessities for survival.

Access to the Internet and purchasing a computer, is a luxury, not a necessity. So it would stand to reason that the welfare department should be doing random inspections of the homes of welfare recipients, and a review of their utility bills to verify that no luxuries are being purchased such as internet access and computers.

The whole idea is not to enable an addict, even someone addicted to welfare. If someone needs Internet access to find a job instead of using their feet, then it isn’t an unsurmountable task to walk up to the public library and use their computers, or even go to the employment office and use their computers.

It’s time to stop funneling money into the hands of addicts through government programs. How can you help? Elect an official to oversee where your hard earned money is going, and stop electing politicians who thrive on special interest groups and padding their own pockets.

The Dilemma

Why is the question of gay marriage such a dilemma? To the majority of the world (85% Christian), it’s not, it’s simply wrong. Two issues arise from this dilemma. 1) Who are the lawmakers, and 2) why is it being debated? I am not going to address the first one (who are the lawmakers) in this post, but instead address the question of why is it being debated or contemplated at all.

From a religious standpoint the origin of marriage can be identified with the first two human beings, Adam and Eve. The father and mother of life. A man and a woman created in order to procreate and populate the world. A physical manifestation of God’s love. God outlined Adam’s duties and responsibilities to his wife, Eve, and also outlined Eve’s responsibilities and duties to her husband, Adam.

There is probably good reason why God didn’t create two men first and tell them to love one another as I have loved you and to go forth and procreate as well as not creating two women first and telling them the same thing.

Now Adam and Eve would be the symbolic origin of marriage, however, the sacrament of Holy Matrimony didn’t come into play until some time later. In the Old Testament, marriage is most frequently treated as a patriarchal institution for the perpetuation of the tribe. However, late in the history of Israel, we can see signs of a growing sacramental awareness in the creation stories of Genesis and in the prophetic literature. In the New Testament, all three Synoptic Gospels record Jesus affirming the permanence of marriage. In both Mark and Matthew, Jesus makes reference to Gen. 2:24 which speaks of the union of man and woman as part of God’s divine plan. Similar references are outlined in the Qur’an (Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. 7:80-81, homosexual activities are condemned as unnatural. 26:165-6, homosexuals commit abominations and act senselessly. 27:54-55).
One significant development which occurred in the Middle Ages, was the rise of ecclesiastical marriage ceremonies and legislation. Prior to this period, it was left to civil authorities to legislate marriages. The Church concerned itself with only the moral dimension of the marriage relationship. In the Roman culture, a marriage was legal and binding on the basis of consent between the spouses and their guardians. In the Frankish and Germanic traditions, a marriage was not considered binding until consummated by sexual intercourse.

Throughout the Church’s history, theologians have been somewhat skittish about the religious significance of the marriage institution. The attacks of the Albigensians and Waldensians on the goodness of sexuality, much like the Gnostics and Manichaeans of an earlier time, led the Church to speak explicitly of the sacramentality of marriage. It was included as a sacrament in Pope Innocent III’s Profession of Faith in 1208 and was listed definitively by the Council of Trent in 1563.

Now, I don’t know a single religion that recognizes or condones gay relationships or marriages, but I only say that because I can’t name one that does. There might be one out there somewhere, but there is always an exception to every rule.

Now for the social and legal ramification and basis of the socially acceptable union of a man and a woman. It is generally accepted that our civil laws are based in whole or in part on religious laws (i.e. the ten commandments, the bible in general). However, I see two significant reasons for the civil marriage (outside of religious grounds) and that is the importance of identifying a person as a “naturally born citizen” of a particular country, born of two citizens married in said country. The other issue being the legality of having sex as it pertains to the illegal act of sex called prostitution. This brings to mind a number of interesting situations. Outside of homosexuality being wrong to 85% of the population that has a Christian or religious upbringing, if gay marriages are made legal ( as has been the case in a couple of states) they can’t bring any children into this world (between two men) as natural born citizens. Obviously two gay women married to each other can bring a child into the world as a natural born citizen but wont be a product of their marriage, since one or both would have to be impregnated artificially or have sex outside the marriage constituting a natural act of heterosexuality. The only other option is to adopt a child.

It’s interesting to note that most prostitution is between a man and a woman. How often do you hear or read or see a situation where a man pays for sex from another man and is arrested for prostitution, or a woman paying another woman for that matter? Heterosexual prostitution, yes, child pornography, yes, rape of a woman by a man, yes, rape of a man by another man?(usually restricted to prisons) rape of a woman by another woman? Where are these stories?

There are a whole slew of issues and problems and situations that are going to be created from legalizing gay marriages just from a civil standpoint. Obviously from a religious standpoint it is and always will be wrong in the eyes of God. Probably a darn good reason for that. God said it’s wrong. Who am I to put myself above God and say otherwise. How much of an idiot would I have to be, not knowing what comes after this life, to take the risk of superseding, preempting, or rescinding God’s law?

Now, the judges, politicians, lawmakers who make a ruling from a legal/civil standpoint, what must be going through their minds if they are at all religious? Supposing there is nothing after this life, how important is their career or their job or their social status to use it to preempt God’s law if that judge or politician or lawmaker is a Christian or religious and takes that risk?

We all talk about separation of church and state. But how in the world does a judge, a governor, a president or ANYONE separate their religious belief and upbringing from civil law, especially if the law is in contradiction to the religion? This certainly sounds like a conflict of interest in view of the fact that civil law is based in whole or in part on religious law.

Email Etiquette

Email has been a part of our lives for many years now. In the beginning of the Internet we [geeks] used email to inform the person running their server or BBS (bulletin board service) that we were looking for certain programs or files, and in turn we would also let them know what files we had to share. Email was simple and it was safe.

Email has come a long way since those days and many types of email programs have shown up since then. With the growth of the Internet and email services also came the growth of users on the Internet. Growth in numbers yes, but not the growth of responsible computer geeks using the services. Today, with the simplicity of the Graphical Interface built into our computers, anyone with zero experience using a computer can surf the web and email their friends and family. Even a 10 year old can use a computer to surf the web.

Here-in lies the problem of today’s discussion. Persons of ill repute conduct “data mining” by preying on the inexperienced users of the Internet to mine their data from and use that data to spread viruses and spam advertise. Security holes are exploited very easily but most importantly, the number of people freely and innocently disclosing private email addresses due to basic computer inexperience, is out of control in epidemic proportions.

Here is an example of how it happens:

Sally Smith has had a computer for about 6 months and though she hasn’t had it very long has managed to make use of it to accommodate her need of being in touch with her friends and family. Sally uses a messenger like MSN Messenger and Yahoo Messenger and she emails all her friends and family quite frequently. When Sally first got her computer, her emails resembled an actual letter to a friend or family member depicting how her day went and how frustrating the organization of the PTA meetings have become and so on. It is now 6 months later and Sally has hundreds of email addresses of friends and family, and her emails have declined to a majority of forwarding chain letters, spreading urban legends (unintentionally of course because she doesn’t know how to verify the validity of urban legend emails she receives before forwarding them on), forwarding cool web sites she has visited, and sending photos of the family pet and the new quilt she just made. Sally’s emails look like this:

From: Sally Smith <>

To: Joe Public <>, Jane Doe <>, (insert 74 more friends and family members)

Subject: <fwd><fwd><fwd>Mickey and Minnie Mouse are brother and sister, not boyfriend and girlfriend.

Message: (insert urban legend)

The problem with Sally’s email is that emails are typically passed along to hundreds of more friends that Sally doesn’t know, and that hundred or so friends each pass it along to hundreds of their friends, and so on. Now literally thousands of people Sally will never know, have her email address, AND all the email addresses of her friends AND family. Why? Because Sally is not experienced in the basic use of the Internet and not educated on maintaining privacy and securing the privacy of her friends and family members over the Internet.

The very first order of business is to obtain a free “virtual email” address such as hotmail, or yahoo, or any one of a large list of other virtual email providers. A virtual email address is your security door on the Internet. Sally provided her ISP assigned email address giving data miners her general physical location. Using the virtual email address protects the privacy of your ISP assigned email address. From the Virtual email you can view your mail on the web, keep it stored on the web or download it into your favorite email program on your computer (commonly called POP mail forwarding).

The second and most important order of business, is protecting your friends and family’s privacy by using BCC (blind carbon copy) to send or forward email to. Sally publicly sent all those email addresses over the web which will get sent all over the world. When sending an e-mail to multiple recipients, you can hide their e-mail addresses from each other. This is a sensible anti-spam precaution because it avoids making a long list of e-mail addresses available to all the recipients.

Here is how you use BCC:

To set up Blind Carbon Copy in Outlook 2000, select “Bcc Field” from the “View” menu, as shown below. This will cause the “Bcc:” field to be displayed from this moment on.

To use Blind Carbon Copy in Outlook Express, choose “All headers” from the “View” menu. This will cause the “Bcc:” field to be displayed from this moment on.

Now for actually using BCC in your emails. I have found the most effective way to send email and protect your privacy, your friend’s privacy and that of your family, is to use a dummy virtual email. I created a free email account called e(dot)dump@**********(dot)com. [For this post I used the word (dot) instead of the actual punctuation mark to prevent email harvesting.] Every single email I send anywhere is addressed to this virtual email address. Every single email that goes to this email address gets deleted/trashed without question. Then the actual people I want the email to go to besides the e.dump address gets put in the BCC: field, and the message is filled in accordingly.

If you are forwarding a message, do not use “forward” or “forward message.” Take the extra time to copy the portion of the email you want to forward, then create a new message to yourself (or a dummy email address like I created), paste the message into the message field, then add the addresses of the people you want to receive the email, into the BCC: field.

Your email should look like this (click image for full size view):email1

When your email is received, it should look something like this:


You will notice that all the important information is left out of the email, such as ALL email addresses, yours, your friend’s, and your family’s.

Now you can go to your dummy email account at the end of the day or week and delete everything in it, unless you want to save it all as your sent emails.

The most important thing you want to remember is, an email is like a phone number. If you are in the habit of keeping your phone number and other phone numbers private, so should you be in the habit of doing the same with email addresses.

If this information was helpful, please leave a comment saying so, and if you have any suggestions or care to add something, please do that as well.

Free Porn – Totally 100% Free

It’s all over the “world wide” web in a quantity so vast that I am sure if digital porn was converted into an alternative fuel source, this planet would never again need a drop of gasoline, oil, propane, lump of coal or even electricity for the next million years.

I am almost certain Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler saw HUGE drops in profits and subscribers and never imagined the internet possibly interfering or even being the culprit for their losses. The question arises, “how do you get people to subscribe when it’s free in such vast quantity”?

Thankfully I could care less how they do it because this post is only slightly more about the pros and cons of prostitution, this country’s oldest profession and quite possibly the world’s oldest.

So I am pondering sex, prostitution, pay for and free, marriages and single folks, and how these are all related. I realized like most folks have, that

  1. if you are married and you go to your spouse for sex, it’s perfectly fine and legal.
  2. if you are single and you find a willing partner for sex, it’s free and legal.
  3. married or single aside, if you go looking for a willing sex partner and you pull out your wallet/purse (not to get the condom), that as soon as you hand someone any amount of money before or after the sex act, it becomes instantly illegal.

Now I have to wonder, if a person is attracted to someone and he/she engages in sex with that someone, and there is no exchange of money, it’s perfectly fine and legal, but suppose some person approaches another and the person being approached doesn’t find this first person very attractive or maybe even put off by their looks, but would consider sex with that person if there were some sort of compensation. The act is still pleasurable (to at least one of the two involved), and they are both consenting adults, and lets just throw into the mix that both people are single, as soon as there is a gift be it monetary or otherwise, it’s suddenly illegal.

Heck, I know some guys that buy their girlfriend an expensive gift after every single sexual occurrence between them. I know some wives that spend a little extra on their husbands hobbies for a wonderful night of sex. The list goes on in the number of different ways that sex is rewarded for the intensity of the experience or just the experience alone. Are they all prostitutes because there is “compensation”? Heck no. So why is it still illegal here in the United States?

Then I think about all the little kids or young men and women who are sexually abused or raped because the perpetrator either couldn’t find a prostitute or found it was too easy to get caught with a prostitute and hence easier to accost a helpless child or teen. I wonder how far the sexual crime rate would drop if prostitution were legalized.

A 2005 research study of legalizing prostitution (updated in 2005)* shows that The United States has 3.2 rapes per 10,000 citizens compared to the UK which has only 1.4 per 10,000 persons. Amazingly enough the U.S. has 64 prisoners per 10,000 persons where the UK only has 11 per 10,000. Canada is embarrassingly at 7.5 rapes per 10,000 and only 11 prisoners per 10,000. Rapists sure know how to get away with it in Canada. These are very significant numbers to be sure.

Now for the real reason for this meaningless post. I average about 150 viewers a day here at The Dragon Tail (since it’s inception in April of 2007), and it is my hope that I am presenting a variety of topics to entertain a wide variety of people. I thought I would run an experiment and see what my viewership would increase to if I dragged a bunch of perverts away from their normal searches for porn with my title.

For an accurate comparison I am taking my average daily views for the month of October (154) and will compare them in an update on the end of the month. I think a two week range should be sufficient.

Until next time….

*Liberator, M. (2004) Legalized Prostitution: Regulating the Oldest Profession. The Liberator.

Left or Right Brain Dominant?

Do you see the dancer turning clockwise or counterclockwise?

If clockwise, then you use more of the right side of the brain. If you see the image rotating counterclockwise, then you are using more of your left brain.

Most of us would see the dancer turning counterclockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it.


spinning woman

uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies

uses feeling
“big picture” oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can “get it” (i.e. meaning)
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
risk taking

The author of this blog (me) saw the image rotating clockwise. I could not change it’s direction.

Please remember that we use both sides of our brain switching back and forth. One side does get more exercise than the other which gives us the primarily “dominant” side but we can also train ourselves to switch dominant sides with effort. In a number of tests I have taken, I have been described as either “whole brain” dominant or “right brain” dominant equally. It depends on the type of test, and the mood you are in.

I am not sure who created this particular visual test, but I dare say it was a guy. I am sure just about any silhouetted object would have worked fine, but not many guys would take the test if it didn’t appeal to them visually, which I am sure many women understand already.

Hope you had fun.

Private Email Made Public

It’s amazing how deep stupidity runs. I visited a Bush bashing, ranting based on ignorance, website recently. There is a post [among a great many] that shows just how ignorant this bart guy is and he tries to pass as intelligent through humor or satire. There are several ways provided to voice an opinion, i.e. email, commenting on the blog, or commenting on the forum provided at the website.

I chose the private form of commenting as I had some choice words for this guy and it wasn’t necessary to “broadcast” my opinion of this idiot on his blog or forum since it would have served no purpose and it would have come across exactly as he does, purely bashing and nothing more.

The result was that I hit bone so severely that it caused him to take my private email to him, and post it on his website along with my name AND my alias, not that either of them are secret but its his ignorant actions that shows his true colors.

To make matters worse for himself, a recent post shows ignorance in its purest form on his blog as follows:

The “Democrat” Party

For the past several months, conservatives have been referring to the Democratic Party as the Democrat party. The term has “slipped” in to the president’s speeches, and may be on its way to becoming “natural” for some to use. There has been nary a peep from Democrats in regards to this. What should we do, before the name of our party has been taken away from us? Do we do as the leaders of our party have done and do nothing? This seems to be their answer to every slander, because it is not nice to call names. Do we become whiners, and say, “that’s not nice! It is Democratic Party”?

Whatever we do needs to be agreed upon and used. I am for using another name for the Republic Party. I have seen several mentioned over time, some may be considered in bad taste. I do not think we need to go over the line.

I propose we refer to the other party as the Repo Party.
Given the real estate foreclosure issues going on now, it is fitting.

The above is so typical of Democrats and a result of our failing education system. Anyone with an education would know that both Democrat Party and Democratic Party are correct.

As an adjective – democratic |ˌdeməˈkratik| adjective
1 of, relating to, or supporting democracy or its principles : democratic reforms | democratic government.

As a noun – democrat |ˈdeməˌkrat| noun
1 an advocate or supporter of democracy. ORIGIN late 18th cent.(originally denoting an opponent of the aristocrats in the French Revolution of 1790).

I’m sorry to inform the lessor educated Democrats that there is only one form of “Republican” and that is as an adejctive. (referring to the political party)

republican |riˈpəblikən| adjective
(of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to, or characteristic of a republic.
• advocating or supporting republican government : the republican movement.

The mildly educated would know that the Democratic Republican Party was the name of the Democrats original party when it was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson.

More not so shockingly, is that this Bart guy offers no solutions to anything he bitches about. Whereas his total worth is to find something wrong with the President, the Republicans, the educated, the way the military operates, the way the government operates, talk show hosts, etc. The list is endless to what this guy will bitch about, all in an attempt to make himself look better by berating and bashing. I think it’s obvious why he doesn’t qualify to run for President of the United States. He also finds solace in playing semantics as a defense rather than offering up anything of value or worth when he is confronted. In my email to him I purely guessed when I said he should stick to being president of his local bar, to my surprise, he retorted with the fact he owned two bars (I supposed at some time in the past). That just about sums him up as going into detail would be extremely lengthy and I have already dedicated far too much air time to his … cause? It’s just typical rhetoric from people trying to make a reputation for themselves based on their “bashing ability.” Now that I have lowered myself to his level, there will be no more posts of this type on this blog.

Donna Jean Summers, Rewarded Criminal at Large.

It’s hard to believe that grown adults could not recognize a seriously wrong situation, let alone adults that were trusted enough to be hired as an assistant manager of a restaurant. Good judgment out the window. Morals, out the window. Intelligence, zero.

April 9th, 2004 – Mt Washington, Kentucky

Asst. Manager Donna Jean Summers [51] gets a call from an unidentified caller telling her that an employee, Louise Ogborn [18], is being accused of stealing a purse. The “caller” tells Donna Jean Summers that he is a police officer. Without any proof of any kind who the person is on the other end of the phone, Donna Jean Summers begins to do everything the caller asks of her. As Donna is instructed by “caller”, she tells Louise she is to be searched, then strip searched or be taken to the police.

After watching this video (originally airing on ABC News Now and edited by Opie and Anthony) you may have about 100 questions popping into your head about the entire incident. Before we get into some of them, the following are the facts as they are today:

  1. Louise Ogborn sued McDonalds for $200 million and is awarded $6.1 million.
  2. Donna Jean Summers was fired and plead guilty to wrongful imprisonment and given 1 year probation.
  3. Donna Jean Summers sues McDonalds for $50 million and is awarded $1 million by the jury.
  4. Walter Nix Jr[42] is arrested and convicted for his part in this crime and other related crimes.
  5. David Stewart[38] a prison guard in Panama City, Florida is arrested and acquitted of being the culprit in this crime. (other charges pending in other similar cases) [special note, all calls of this nature to fast food restaurants have stopped since Stewart’s arrest]
  6. McDonalds did send warnings to their stores about prank phone calls two weeks prior to this incident (confirmed).

Now to the questions that came to mind while watching this. A store manager arbitrarily follows the instructions of an unidentified caller to perform police work knowing full well she is not qualified to perform police work, such as a strip search, let alone any kind of search of another person without a warrant. Not even reasonable suspicion will authorize Donna Jean Summers since she is not a law enforcement officer or even remotely trained as one. Donna Jean Summers illegally detains a subordinate, an employee under her care, and removes her victim (Louise Ogborn) of all possible defenses and means to defend herself and imprisons Louise using an effective means that prison guards employ to reduce the number of attempts to escape custody. A psychological ploy that reaches deep into the human psyche is the embarrassment and humiliation of being in public naked/nude and challenging authority. On an 18 year old female, this would be especially effective in keeping her prisoner without any effort. Donna Jean Summers, being an adult female, should have recognized the helplessness of this feeling immediately.

Donna Jean Summers took Louise’ car keys, cell phone and clothes, effectively imprisoning Louise in her office. Was Donna Jean Summers under a spell? Was she drugged? Was she being commanded to perform these acts with a gun held to her head? Why didn’t Donna Jean Summers just ask the “caller” to come to the store and do this himself, if he was truly a law enforcement officer, since the police station was only 5 minutes down the road from that particular McDonalds.

Donna Jean Summers was then instructed to bring her boyfriend/fiancé (Walter Nix Jr.) to the restaurant and perform guard duty. The second unqualified person to perform police work and Donna Jean Summers still doesn’t question anything that she is doing at the command of an “unknown” person on a phone. Keep in mind, this all transpired over the course of approximately 3 hours. Jason Bradley, 27, a cook who Donna Jean Summers at one point called in to watch Ogborn, refused to go along with the caller’s instructions to remove her apron and describe her.

While Louise was held prisoner against her will in a McDonalds store office, stripped of her defenses, stripped of her dignity, the 42 year old Walter Nix Jr (an adult) comes to take over by the “caller’s” request. Why would a 42 year old male, upon witnessing the situation, not immediately question this activity or the authenticity of the caller? We now know why and we now see the true colors of Donna Jean Summers and her judgment of those she “trusts.” What law enforcement authority would command one person to perform sexual acts on another? What idiot would follow such an order?

While Walter Nix Jr is enjoying the commands of his new boss “the caller”, Donna Jean Summers is more interested in keeping her subordinates out of the area of the office by attending to what must have been an “onslaught” of customers that were more important than the seriousness of the supposed situation in the office. If Donna Jean Summers had any true conviction that she was dealing with a real officer on the phone, and believed in her heart that this situation was legitimate and real, why wasn’t she at the side of her subordinate the entire time tending to this supposed more important issue, rather than feeding hungry people, which she had employees for? Donna Jean Summers enters the office at one point and ignoring that Louise is naked walks right past her to fiddle with the computer and looks for gift certificates at which point Walter Nix Jr then tosses Louise the apron to cover herself. Donna Jean Summers had abandoned a defenseless, helpless 18 year old female under her care [who Donna Jean Summers had personally rendered helpless and defenseless] to two adult male strangers, one with physical contact and the other on a phone giving commands. Donna Jean Summers was then shocked and surprised that anything “wrong” was going on even when she walked in on a fully nude Louise at one point.

Some time later, one Thomas Simms [58] was asked into the office and spoke with the “caller” to which he also refused to comply with a stranger on the phone. Donna Jean Summers was shocked and surprised to hear he was asked to remove Louise’ apron as well. Still Donna Jean Summers found nothing wrong with this entire incident, found no reason to stop it and never questioned the morality or violation of a subordinate Donna Jean Summers was responsible for or that persons rights and freedoms, including due process. Donna Jean Summers was in fact a willing participant.

Eventually other managers arrive on the scene (apparently contacted by Donna Jean Summers herself) and the real police were called to the scene who arrive in, you guessed it, 5 minutes.

McDonalds claims they sent warnings about phone pranks and hoaxes to all stores via voice/email two weeks prior to this particular event. This has been confirmed, however, whoever was the first to see this voice/email, somehow discarded it and “forgot” to tell the other managers or employees of this warning. Lisa Siddons, the manager there, said in her deposition that it didn’t mention strip-searches (see special note at the bottom). Apparently it was more important to get the word out that the McRib was back or that happy meals have a better prize in them.

If you look at just how bizarre this incident is in relation to Donna Jean Summers participation and her fiancé’s participation and how they both willingly believed the “caller” was law enforcement, but yet Walter Nix Jr had no problem with an officer telling him to command an 18 year old girl to perform sexual acts with him, and Donna Jean Summer had no problem strip searching one of her own subordinates without question or cause or a flicker of skepticism. Maybe the whole idea of Donna Jean Summers being commanded by a stranger to perform sexually exciting things to an 18 year old female turned Donna Jean Summers on. Maybe it turned on Donna Jean Summers AND her fiancé to have a stranger on the phone command them both to perform sexual acts with an 18 year old female. Maybe it was their secret fantasy to spike their own relationship, but it had to be with someone at least 18 but not old enough to fight back. Wait, that can’t be. There aren’t any people in this world that are that sick and demented, and there is no way that Donna Jean Summers and Walter Nix Jr could ever have been in league with or in partnership with this mysterious “caller” and set this whole thing up so that Walter Nix Jr would be readily available at a moments notice and that it would only be a matter of time before Donna Jean Summers called for some extra help at the end of a particular shift of a person that had already expressed her willingness to help out whenever she could for the extra spending money. Naw………too ridiculous……..or……….is it?

Special Note – McDonald’s employee manual clearly notes its policy against strip-searches. It also notes that no non-employee of McDonalds will be allowed into the restaurant offices.

”The only requirement for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing”

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He said, “Son, stand there and tell me what you see?”

“Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out of his house with his wife, he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death.

I start to cry. My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husband’s questions and he says…”Son.”

“Yes, Daddy.”

“Open the blinds, son, because that evil man…. now he’s at our front door…”WHAT WILL YOU DO NOW?”

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: “I’LL DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD! I’M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD! I’M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I’M GONNA FIGHT HIM!”…

The preceding are excerpts from a story you can read on the “My Papers” page here. You can go there from the navigation tabs at the top of this blog, or follow this link [here]

Sex Offender or Earth Conscious?

Green Good or Green Bad?

Recently the Ontario environment minister Laurel Broten announced that Ontario will be rewarding motorists for driving environmentally-friendly vehicles with a green license plate.

The Ontario Liberals said motorists who drive a low-emission car will soon get a green-hued license plate and access to perks like free parking or access to car-pool [HOV] lanes.

This could pose a problem for Ontarians traveling to the United States with their “eco-license” plates, especially in the states of Alabama, Ohio and Wisconsin. Earlier this year these states have proposed fluorescent green plates for their “registered sex offenders.” OOOPS!

So now we have a question. Which do you think is going to be more acceptable, Canada and the “Green Earth” plates or the U.S. and their “Green Sex Offenders” plates?

Personally, we in the U.S., have been going “green” in so many different ways in recognition of energy conservation and environmentally friendly habits for so long, that I don’t understand the individual states proposing green plates for sex offenders. It just doesn’t make any sense that they would pick green and purposely confuse the issues. Maybe its just the states that don’t really have any real “green earth” programs or attitudes.


What are your thoughts on this situation?

Ignorance Vs Intolerance

Where is the thirst for knowledge? Where is the energy to do our own research and fact finding? There seems to be a correlation between the level of ignorance and level of intolerance when it comes to people taking a stand on something. The higher the level of intolerance seems to be in parallel with the level of ignorance, for example:

Once again, someone is taking a stand with a public outcry of “injustice” and “unfairness” that hotels and motels have a copy of the Gideon bible in the nightstands and not a copy of the Qur’an (for those infected with the Ebonic Plague and the ignorant, you might recognize what I am referring to if I transliterated it as “Koran”).

The fact that “anyone” would be offended or upset or hurt by a bible in a hotel, in a drawer, for anyone who wishes to read it is absurd, idiotic and selfish. It is not there to push religion on anyone, nor is it discrimination, nor is it a plot or conspiracy. The Gideons asked the hotel owners if they could place a copy, free of charge, in the rooms and the owners agreed. It is not favoritism. You are not required to read it, nor are you charged if you don’t. You are also not given a discount if you do read it. You are not even charged if you take it.

The Gideons supply approximately 60 million copies a year to replace the ones taken and the worn out ones. Guess what? No charge.

If you wanted to supply and distribute the Qur’an or some other kind of literature to the hotels, I am sure you are allowed to ask to do so. But that does not mean the owners have to agree to let you. It is not a right. It is a personal preference by the hotel owners and are not required by any law to allow “any” free distribution or products in their hotels.

If you don’t like the Bible being there, don’t read it, don’t even look at it, leave it in the drawer out of sight. You are still “free” to bring your own reading material and read it any time you want while you are there.

To me, this is a simple case of ignorance driving intolerance.

**Disclaimer: I am not a Gideon, or a distributor of Gideon International products.**

Another problem is the out of control smoking ban. First lets talk about proportion. A lab rat (mouse) is injected with the nicotine from a single cigarette every day for a specified amount of time to see if it will develop cancer. That would be the equivalent of a single cigarette six feet tall and eight inches across (diameter). In realistic terms, that is 11,200 cigarettes taking into consideration that 2 feet of that cigarette would be a filter. Now, take the nicotine from that giant cigarette (11,200 real cigarettes), extract the nicotine from it, and inject it into a persons blood stream. Not inhale it mind you, inject it. Do yo suppose one might get cancer from it? Gosh, ya think?

Ok, that aside, lets just talk about the smoke, or second hand smoke which is the cause for the smoking bans. All across America, smoking bans are going into effect to reduce the amount of smoke that non-smokers inhale. Obviously the smokers don’t mind the smoke, but the reason this is happening is because non-smokers don’t like the smell of it, OR they have jumped on the propaganda bandwagon that the smoke is harmful to them.

Let’s be realistic and talk about proportions again. If someone decides to directly inhale from a cigarette, they are obviously directly ingesting a concentrated amount of smoke “in place of” air into their lungs. There are a number of things that, in large quantity, are bad for you (not everything). Eating too much, eating just grapes, drinking (water and alcohol alike, and a good example is the person that died from drinking too much water during a radio contest), etc. Inhaling too much smoke can be harmful, like too much of anything else. However, the human body is an amazing, and on some levels, mysterious organism. We don’t live in what people perceive to be a perfect environment. For example, the air we breathe, though seemingly harmless, contains many harmful elements (in varying quantities) but our bodies are made to filter out what it doesn’t need, and extract the approximately 21% oxygen in the air. What else is in the air we breathe? well..the basics are Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Argon, Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, and all the other pollutants such as DDT, cyanide, smoke from forest fires, factory pollutants, etc. The list is huge. Now, if you had a large enough quantity of any one of the other elements in the air we breathe, then yes it would be bad for us. We exhale carbon dioxide and someone else inhales it with everything else in the air. It’s bad for us, but we can’t smell it, so do we ban it too? Forest fires smell bad, but we inhale the smoke from it as well, do we ban forest fires?

Keeping things in perspective, if you stood in a forest fire and tried inhaling too much of the smoke, yes it would definitely be bad for you, like anything else you inhale too much of. A room full of smokers puts a lot of smoke in the air, and for that matter, depending on the size of the room, just one smoker can fill a room with smoke and I would say that is bad. I don’t have a problem with banning smoking in confined spaces, or where the smoke from a single smoker produces a large enough quantity of smoke. However, if it is one smoker in a warehouse, then it doesn’t bother me. Can I smell it? yes. Am I inhaling some of it? Yes. does it smell bad? yes (to me). Is it hurting me to smell it? no. Is it harming me? probably not because my body is filtering the smoke directly from the cigarette, and the smoke that was filtered and exhaled from the person smoking (which passed through a filter before it entered that person’s lungs, filtered by his/her body, then exhaled and mixed with the air before it was filtered by my body and went into my lungs). On the other side of the coin, if there were enough smokers, producing enough smoke, confined in a small enough space, without circulating air, then at some point it would become harmful to me. There are all kinds of variables that affect the amount of smoke in the air (and other kinds of gases and pollutants) but the least of which I am worried about, is outdoor smoking or in well ventilated areas where I might be able to smell the smoke, but not be inhaling a significant amount of it. If it were an every day occurrence, I would also be concerned. But it’s not. So to me, the smoking ban is WAY out of control.

One last example is the use of cell phones while driving. The short of it is, CB (Citizens Band) radio’s were not banned from vehicles, nor were we required to have hands free devices to use them while driving, even if it was found in a vehicle that was involved in an accident. Listening to or talking to someone in the seat next to you, or behind you, or listening to the radio, or singing along with the radio, or talking to someone on a cell phone (or CB radio) is not the problem. The problem is not the devices, it is having “too much” of those things replacing your attention on your driving and control of your vehicle. Period. Guns don’t kill people, people do. Cell phones don’t kill people, people do. Cigarettes don’t kill people, people do. (more smoke than what the human body is already capable of filtering out)

Question: If cigar and cigarette smoke smelled good, like strawberries, or chocolate, or honey, or fresh baked bread, would people be pushing for an immediate ban?

Question 2: If a gun could shoot both a bullet and a happy pill, would you still ban the gun or teach people to be responsible in using it?

Question 3: If cell phones could only call God, would you ban them from being used in cars or only with hands free devices?


The Big Picture on Gasoline Prices

What is the big picture on gas prices? They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Below is the big pciture, but remember, there are plenty of details and circumstances that ultimately affect the meaning of the picture.

The first column shows the actual national average price per gallon for that year. The most important factor you have to take into account is the cost of living or the status of the economy in any particular year. The column on the right shows the price you would pay for that gallon of gas today, with todays dollar.

Also keep in mind when looking at the fluctuation between a span of years or in any given year, the events of that day such as the great oil crisis, or the Korean War, or natural disasters, etc.

One of the first things that caught my eye was that, in 1998 gas was $1.06 per gallon and if gasoline was priced today with 1998 oil prices, we would be paying $1.27 today for a gallon of gas. The second thing that caught my eye was that between 1920 and 1973 (53 years) the price of gas only increased 9 cents a gallon making a 23.1% increase (overall, taking into consideration it had both ups and downs), and in the next 25 years (1973 to 1998) it rose $0.67 per gallon making a 63.25% increase (again, overall).

Hang on to your knickers, because here is where my stomach starts to churn for a decent hurl. In the last 9 years (1998 to 2007) gas has gone from $1.06 a gallon to a national average of $2.97 a gallon (April 24th, 2007 national average) which is an increase of $1.91 a gallon or a 64.3% increase. IN 9 YEARS! not 25 years, and not 53 years. Does anyone see the danger of this kind of trend? If I just roughly estimate another 64% increase, it would happen in another 3 to 4 years (53 years in half to 25 years, 25 years roughly in half to 9 years (actual 12.5) and 9 years (roughly in half) to 3-4 years) making gas costing us $4.65 a gallon in 2010-2011.

One thing that will give the Oil Companies the perfect excuse to justify raising the oil prices equal to $4.65 a gallon for gasoline? The Democrats having their way and increasing minimum wages so the oil companies can say “the American household budget can easily “handle” it. Aside from that, when does the trend stop or change? With Mrs Slick Willy as president? LOL
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program: Fact #426: May 29, 2006

The Year Retail Gasoline Price
(current dollars/gallon)
Retail Gasoline Price
(constant 2005 dollars/gallon)
1920 0.30 2.91
1921 0.26 2.87
1922 0.25 2.93
1923 0.22 2.51
1924 0.21 2.39
1925 0.22 2.48
1926 0.23 2.58
1927 0.21 2.37
1928 0.21 2.39
1929 0.21 2.45
1930 0.20 2.33
1931 0.17 2.18
1932 0.18 2.56
1933 0.18 2.68
1934 0.19 2.75
1935 0.19 2.69
1936 0.19 2.73
1937 0.20 2.71
1938 0.20 2.70
1939 0.19 2.63
1940 0.18 2.57
1941 0.19 2.55
1942 0.20 2.45
1943 0.21 2.32
1944 0.21 2.28
1945 0.21 2.22
1946 0.21 2.08
1947 0.23 2.02
1948 0.26 2.10
1949 0.27 2.20
1950 0.27 2.17
1951 0.27 2.04
1952 0.28 2.03
1953 0.29 2.10
1954 0.29 2.11
1955 0.29 2.12
1956 0.30 2.15
1957 0.31 2.15
1958 0.30 2.05
1959 0.31 2.05
1960 0.31 2.05
1961 0.31 2.01
1962 0.31 1.98
1963 0.30 1.94
1964 0.30 1.91
1965 0.31 1.93
1966 0.32 1.93
1967 0.33 1.94
1968 0.34 1.89
1969 0.35 1.85
1970 0.36 1.80
1971 0.36 1.76
1972 0.36 1.69
1973 0.39 1.70
1974 0.52 2.08
1975 0.57 2.06
1976 0.61 2.11
1977 0.66 2.11
1978 0.67 2.01
1979 0.90 2.43
1980 1.25 2.95
1981 1.38 2.96
1982 1.30 2.62
1983 1.24 2.43
1984 1.21 2.28
1985 1.20 2.18
1986 0.93 1.65
1987 0.95 1.63
1988 0.95 1.56
1989 1.02 1.61
1990 1.16 1.74
1991 1.14 1.63
1992 1.13 1.57
1993 1.11 1.50
1994 1.11 1.47
1995 1.15 1.47
1996 1.23 1.53
1997 1.23 1.50
1998 1.06 1.27
1999 1.17 1.37
2000 1.51 1.71
2001 1.46 1.61
2002 1.36 1.47
2003 1.59 1.69
2004 1.88 1.94
2005 2.30 2.30
2006* 2.40 2.35
* March 2006 only.
Source: Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, April 2006, Table 9.4. Historical data from 1920-1975 are from other EIA sources.
Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was used to calculate constant dollars.


And Death Shall Have No Dominion

I think one of the fascinating things about good poetry, is not having an explanation of what the author intended to divine in his words. But it’s still a shame that Mr Thomas being long gone, we can’t go back and ask “what did you mean by this?”. So it’s left up to us, to associate whatever meaning we get from the poetry. This is one I like:

And Death Shall Have No Dominion
by: Dylan Thomas

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead men naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan’t crack;
And death shall have no dominion.

And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Now this one says TONS in such a short, to the point, poem. My kinda guy, D.H. Lawrence.

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself
A small bird will drop frozen from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.


%d bloggers like this: