"I'm the liquor"

So I'm finally making another entry. At least it hasn't been 4 weeks this time. Not too much has happened except I may finally be getting a job. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I got two more calls for jobs on Monday: one from a Christian radio station and one from a local ISP. And this is besides the call back from Apple Computer I received last Thursday. Still trying to figure that one out. It was only a phone-screening interview (at least they told me that up front). I tried to let my talkative, personable personality shine through but it's hard to explain how I left "the company" to employers. I submitted my resume to apple like 4 months ago ya see. I have since removed all mention of that unfortunate experience from my resume. But the Apple guy already knew about it so I had to go into it. That probably cost me the position. They may not have called me at all had it not been there however.

Now about the other two places: Ok so I'm not actually that Christian. It's not like I'm trying out for bible study class or something. I just want to be the IT specialist type. I'm more the agnostic when it comes to religion. Or couldn't you tell from the language I use commonly? The phone interviewer for her asked me what I would say if a caller asked me to prey for them. And I said I would say yes, but I didn't say it very well. I'm still not sure the relevance. I mean I realize the environment I'll be in I'll be surrounded with a particular environment and if I am to at all interact with people it's only expected it'll come up at a Christian radio station but seriously. I don't know if I'll get that one.

So that just leaves the local ISP. From the extremely extensive description of the job it appears too much more than merely answering a phone for 8 hours straight every day. I might get to interact and help people in person. Brain exercise from more than one angle! So I have an interview for that on Thursday. Apparently all they had left was some sort of part time position, which is fine to start out anyway. I wanted to take an "ethical hacking" class on the college for the second nine weeks anyway.

So I *hope* to be employed soon. For the love of all that is holy I need employment! I describe my current situation as "a week from blockbuster". As in I'll be working at blockbuster inside of a week if I don't get a damned job. See my rational was I can say "yes, start immediately!!" to any employer as opposed to doing the polite "two week notice" thing most employers seem to expect. Also I'm a little trapped at home right now. Because if I don't have a job my Dad will say "why don't you have a job" but if I get some generic job like blockbuster he'll say "why did you take that job? I told you to get one with benefits!!". Of course he doesn't seem to remember saying the other statement when he's telling me any one of those statements. So it's lose-lose. Although Dad has been very mellow and much nicer the last month and a half or so. No money sucks any way so irregardless I'll be at Blockbuster soon if I don't have a real job.

Now about the stuff that pissing me off. I think I watch TV too much. It's you know, pissing me off. Like Bill Mahr for instance. He's so high-and-mighty; so full righteous indignation about how "smart" he is and "stupid" the president is. And yet on his show he's talking to a southerner about the civil war and states that war had the sole purpose of putting an end to slavery. OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!. How can he be THAT stupid?!?!? The Civil War had NOTHING to do with slavery at the outset. That fucking idiot is SO FULL OF SHIT!

Ok perhaps I should take a breath. Ya see it's very easy to prove the Civil War was not about slavery. Not at the outset anyway. The president at the time, Abe Lincoln, wrote a doctrine entitled "The Emancipation Proclamation" effectively freeing all the slaves as the union army came upon them. However this doctrine was not authored until several years into the War. So you see the Civil War was not fought souly to "stop all slavery" as he said. It was actually to prevent the southern states from breaking away from the union to form "The Confederacy"; Abe and congress thought was a bad idea, providing us the quote "United we stand, divided we fall". That's what he was referring to. So there's your proof about the Civil War. Simple dates, mathematics and...common-fucking-sense. Am I the last one to actually know this?

This reminds me of this memory from high school. I was in this Government/Econ class, it was towards the end of the school year (I was a senior). The teacher was extremely eccentric and did things in weird ways. He was asking the class different random quiz questions and rewarding correct answers with donuts. When he asked the question "what was the true reason for the civil war?" I raised my hand and said, "to prevent the southern states from succeeding from the Union". All my classmates seemed rather apathetic about me and my answering but the teacher looks at me and says "this is exactly right". The shock and gasps of the classmates was quite palpable. But why was everyone so shocked I could actually retain one minor little random question like that? Though minor it may have been it's still one of those few positive memories I have from high school. And I do remember enjoying that donut.

Now then how about I look something up I know is probably going to piss me off but do it anyway. I'm going to visit the web site of that really scary commie, Dennis Kucinich. Ok first I'll try to think of what he might say then I'll visit his site and see how close I came.

Lets see. I'm expecting something approaching a document from Mao Tse Tung himself. Endless dribble about the poor and upper classes, the evil rich, the infamous "socioeconomic conditions" and the endless prattling about raising taxes and distributing money evenly to everyone...like communists. I personally find that class warfare the most offensive thing imaginable, much worse that everyone's apparent universal villain of the South in the 19th century (point and hiss). Ok let?s check out his site and see what it says...

My I am some what surprised by what I came across. It wasn't nearly as scary as I would expect. As with all the Democrats these days every line seems universally focus group tested and approved. Is there even one legitimate thought on that entire web site? I imagine not. At least he does come out and say, "I'm going to be raising everybody's taxes". He also goes on about environmental policy (e.g. socialism) and the Kyoto treaty (e.g. socialism) and a number of things.

I found his "department of peace" rather humorous. So we're not interested in defense any more? Just peace under all circumstances? I really liked the following quote:

Domestically, the Department of Peace would address violence in the home, spousal abuse, child abuse, gangs, police-community relations conflicts and work with individuals and groups to achieve changes in attitudes that examine the mythologies of cherished world views, such as 'violence is inevitable' or 'war is inevitable'. Thus it will help with the discovery of new selves and new paths toward peaceful consensus.

Shall we try to cut through the euphemisms and translate this paragraph? So this new governmental agency of "peace" would what? Look into every household? Solve every personal problem? How would it "address" police-community relations? Is that code for "take away all authority from police" and "never, ever arrest a minority again"? And what is this "mythologies of cherished world views" about violence and war being inevitable? Who thinks that?

I should mention at this point (and I'm assuming he's referring to the more conservative view) that this is not accurate. Rather we think a strong defense and occasional show of force actually deters aggressors, thus avoiding violence. Occasionally this proposed strong defense takes the form of force and violence. But the best and most proven method of *avoiding* violence is a strong show of force and a strong defensive stance. For instance do you think Palestinians would continue suicide bombing Israel if Israel flattened an entire section of the Palestinian territory every time one happened? But on with the translation.

Discover of "new selves"? What the fuck does that mean?! New paths toward peaceful consensus?! Pfffff. I think means locking the population in rooms for "new thinking seminars" to quiet all dissenting voices about strong defenses and deterring attacks. If I had to guess.

Then there's this quote:

"Its work in violence control will be to support disarmament, treaties, peaceful coexistence and peaceful consensus building. Its focus on economic and political justice will examine and enhance resource distribution, human and economic rights and strengthen democratic values."

See I knew he was a commie. Why can't he just come out and say the things he believes? Focus on economic and political justice?! I think we can all read between the lines. Enhance resource distribution? Go ahead, figure out what that means in real words. He wants to completely socialize the economy, establish some sort of 1940s era soviet style production method. He may as well say, "transform the United States to the socialist utopia worker's paradise" for God's sake. But he just can't come out and say so can he? Even though he's getting less than 1% of the voters in all areas and has nothing to lose by coming and saying what he thinks in no uncertain terms.

The only the last thing to say is my question of Democrat's constant contention they're superior when it comes to "education". What that real means is "we've been purchased wholesale by the teacher unions and will continue to support the union leaders no matter what". Another between-the-lines sort of a message. If Democrats/liberals were really so great in "education"; the learning kind not the teacher union pandering kind; the San Francisco/bay area/Marin County would have the best educational system in the whole world. So would California for that matter. Governor Davis had a blank check, a whole every possible high elected office held by one of his co-horts. So what's the excuse for the worst educational system in the whole country? I could say the same for Washington D.C., who's had nothing but liberals running it for many, many decades. And yet it also has the worst educational system imaginable. But does anyone point this out? For some reason not. I hope I made some sense in this posting.

The last title was a quote from Whose Line. The episode that should be famous involving Richard Simmons acting "a little gay". I won't go into it. Lets just say it wasn't subtle and it was extremely funny.

  ¶ 12:21 AM