March 25, 2005
A Few Things To Prove I`m Not Dead
I don`t want to end up like Terri Schiavo and have a judge kill me just because I haven`t shown many signs of life around here recently, so I figured I`d better post something.
Even if the State Nazis were to decide that I should "Die With Dignity" I would hope that they would follow my definitions of "quick and painless" and "humane" and just put a bullet in my brain, instead of their definitions by starving me to death.
So here`s my proof that all is well and I ain`t dead yet.
Thanks to Schadenfreude I`ve got a sports question.
How many points do you get when you make a basket like This?
2? 3? Or possibly 4?
On This Day
March 25, 1957: European Common Market Founded
"On March 25, 1957, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg sign a treaty in Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market. The EEC, which came into operation in January 1958, was a major step in Europe's movement toward economic and political union."
Let us know how that works our for you.
This next Flash© video has a story to go with it from the creators of the video.
"A military mom named Millie sent me an email which explained how she was sent a link to our "Until Then" presentation on Christmas eve. She had lost her son in Iraq in March of 2003. As she watched, she saw one of the last pictures taken of her son, sitting relaxed, reading a newspaper. I have pondered greatly on that happenstance and of the many families that have lost loved ones in this conflict. Some have spoken against our presence in Iraq. But I believe that those who have given their lives in this war have done so for a great and noble purpose. One only needs to look at the faces of those who voted in the first free Iraqi election in 50 years."
This next one is my personal favorite. I had it up when I first began the blog, but that link went dead, so I found a new one.
Joatmoaf (I ain't dead yet)
March 10, 2005
A Matter Of Priorities
These kids have their priorities straight.
Little did they know that when they took this picture in Iraq over a year ago it would turn out to be so prophetic today.
- Joatmoaf -
March 06, 2005
So you think you have what it takes to write a Hollywood script do you?
You think you can do better than such literary works as this?
"Lips that touched meat would never touch hers...Tastes change.
An animal rights activist, an altruistic woman, confronts the hedonistic king of burger franchises. Her vehement protests rock the CEO's carefree world. When his significant other/company president launches a "Meat Builds Strong Bodies" campaign, she grabs the apathetic man's attention by herding cattle through his office. Her compatriots carry signs proclaiming, 'Get To Know Your Dinner.' The pampered CEO stands for everything the ardent crusader hates. But that doesn't stop them from falling in love. Their worlds collide, creating comic conflict and chaos."
I`d pay good money to see something like that, especially if it were an Action/Adventure starring Arnold Schwartzenneger, James Garner, Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.
Good money I say.
Or you think you could do better than this Sci-Fi/Adventure plot?
"There is a shark planet formed by water only, in another galaxy! Its ruler king, together with his evil sharkies, which have now been upgraded, but still have red eyes and chicken feet, send a starship to earth, to kidnap a boy and his friends, bringing them to Sharkos, to sit trial before all evil sharkies! But, the king is betrayed by his own cousin, who in fact, is Space Shark! Will the boy and his friends be able to persuade the king that he can become a major rock star on earth, with his band THE SHARKS? How will the kids ever return home? Will Space Shark help them?"
If you really, really, really, really want to know what kind of plots get sent in for Hollyweird movies, go here.
If you think you can come up with better stuff than that but don`t want to send it in, post your movie plot idea in the comments.
Try to keep them semi-short, and if there`s more than one by Friday the panel of judges (not chosen yet) will select a winner.
If there`s more than 2 the winner will recieve a PRIZE!!! (also, not chosen yet)
Thanks to Chris for this very cool tip.
What are you waiting for?
Get busy writing ideas.
- Joatmoaf -
March 01, 2005
How Can You Support The Troops But Not The War?
Recently the subject of supporting our troops has been comming to a head.
For conservatives our support is obvious and automatic, but for liberals it`s not quite so easy.
Sure they say they support the troops but true support comes from an individuals actions, not just their words.
So how does one justify saying "I support the troops" while at the same time tearing off yellow magnetic ribbons or joining a "No Blood For Oil" protest?
I think the cold hard reality is that they have to say they support the troops. It`s not a matter of moral principals, compassion, patriotism or any such silly notion. No, it boils down to the bottom line.
This decade isn`t the same as the 60s. In the 60s companies had money to burn and could afford to throw money at a frivolous cause in order to get a tax break whether they agreed with the cause or not.
Many radical 60s political orginizations were financed by these companies. Companies who gambled that the immediate benifits would outweigh any possible future consequences.
Well in this day and age, the 21st century, those kind of deep pocket, Daddy Warbucks companies are extinct and the liberals of the moonbat variety found that out shortly after the invasion of Iraq.
Due to increased competition and some de regulation todays companies have a slimmer profit margin and as a result they are more discerning about who gets donations.
A companies first priority is always the bottom line. They`re in buisness to make money.
In the 60s they could afford to support a questionable cause and absorb a loss, with the hope of recouping it in the future.
Today they can`t. Profit margins are too slim and budgets are too tight to take a gamble on anything other than a sure thing.
Ask some of the companies and industries in Phrance how well they have been doing since they decided to alienate us.
So before the invasion, the liberals were all eager to get some financial backing from their old reliable financial supporters, they assumed that it would be an eternal source of free money and never entertained the notion that they would suddenly be cut off.
Imagine their suprise when they realized that captains of industry were in fact, realists.
Imagine the betrayal they must have felt when it was made clear to them that a company survives by making money and it could easily fail by backing an un popular cause such as theirs.
Imagine their shock when they were taught that un popular = unprofitable in the shark infested competitive world of buisness and that companies can no longer afford to absorb such losses as they did in the 60s.
Just for laughs, imagine also that some companies even approved of the war on terror.
With all that taken into consideration the liberals had to come up with something that wouldn`t offend too many people, yet would still allow them to beg for money, albeit on a much smaller scale.
What they came up with was "We Support The Troops But Not The War".
Well, FYI you can`t have one without the other. I don`t care how you try to justify a statement like that with chop logic psycho-babble it is still meaningless.
Liberals DO NOT support the troops. It`s impossible to support something while at the same time trying to undermine it.
They say they support the troops out of financial necessity and for no other reason.
The liberals and their financial supporters learned a hard lesson from the 60s. The lesson wasn`t immediatley obvious and it didn`t rush upon them all at one.
It took years to nurture and grow while at the same time it was slowly and almost imperceptibly becomming a part of the American psyche.
The lesson was Shame, Guilt and Outrage.
It took years to learn that lesson because it took years to learn the truth about those who orginized and supported the Vietnam War protesters.
It took years to search and compare news reports, government reports, academic reports and political rhetoric, to sort the wheat from the chaffe and arrive at a kernel of truth.
When it was discovered, for instance, that some protester orginizations at that time were actually communist fronts designed to undermine American society there was denial from the orginizations (of course) but outrage from most conservatives.
As more and more of the truth began to become apparent over time, some of those very same protesters who were open minded enough to look at the facts, became ashamed of what they did, they became ashamed of being so naive, and then they became outraged also, and as a result, came over to the right side.
During this slow lesson learning experience America underwent a decided shift to the right and has remained there since Reagan.
The liberals learned that things are not as they were. In their happy state of self centered exploration reality passed them by, and when they attempted to "Take Back The Streets" once again they found very few supporters.
They had to adapt.
"We support the troops but not the war" became their slogan.
Unfortunately for them, they never learned to grasp the concept of free thinkers.
That the average American was well educated and well informed was incomprehensible to them, and they learned that propaganda doesn`t work on a well informed society.
They became complacent from their glory days of the 60s and as a result, fell asleep at the wheel while American society passed them by.
When they finally woke up they simply assumed that nothing had changed.
"Americans are gullible. A few slogans, a few loud protests, get the media on our side and we should have them eating out of our hands again."
Well it didn`t happen. If you wonder why, it`s simple.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Americans don`t like to be made fools of.
This is just my personal opinion based on nothing more than observation of events, but I honestly believe that I`m 100% on taget here.
To prove my point, the next time a liberal tells you they support the troops but not the war, ask them for examples.
I`m almost positive that their replies will have to do with protesting the war in one form or another which, in effect, doesn`t answer the question since it`s not supporting the troops in any way shape or form.
I got a little carried away on this post. It was supposed to be a short lead in paragraph and then some copy and pasting with a couple of links thrown in and then a special treat at the end, but I get passionate about my convictions sometimes and this went a little long.
Since I didn`t get around to that yet, you, the readers, will just have to sit on the edge of you seat in anticipation until tomorrow.
- Joatmoaf -
Fasten Your Seatbelt Please
Look at this picture.
Do you notice that there`s no canopy?
There`s also no RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) or backseater.
When I first got this picture I wondered what the heck happened because normally F-14 Tomcats have a 2 man crew and when they eject they do it in tandem.
So when I saw this picture of a pilot flying a Tomcat without the canopy and no RIO in the backseat I knew it was highly unusual and decided to find out what happened.
A Navy Commander and CO of an F-18 squadron knew exactly what happened and gave me the details.
The Tomcat was from VF-213 and was on a training exercise at NAS Fallon, NM, which is Topgun school.
Before each simulated air combat mission the pilots do what`s called a "G warm up".
In a G warm up the pilot pulls a 4 G left bank, a 4 G right bank ( port and starboard ) and then flies inverted to test out the aircraft.
On this particular flight the pilot didn`t have his regular RIO but rather a ship Captain flying backseat.
The Captain in the backseat didn`t strap himself in properly so when they went into the G warm up manuevers he started slipping out of his seat and when the aircraft went inverted ( upside down ) he ended up on the canopy.
In an attempt to get himself back down to his seat he grabbed the only thing he could reach and pulled.
What he grabbed just happened to be the ejection ring on the seat, so when he pulled it.....
The aircraft was doing 350 knots when he ejected upside down. It`s doing that speed in the picture and the pilot didn`t slow down until he started his approach.
It`s a wonder he didn`t freeze to death.
I thought it was hilarious when he told me that and the squadron CO couldn`t help from grinning while he was telling it.
The next time you do something stupid just remember that even the best and brightest that our nation has to offer has an occasional brain fart.
- Joatmoaf -