Sadly, Benny Hinn is not a joke, he is for real. I watch his show late at night instead of smoking a joint like most losers. He has been called by God to minister the Gospel to the nations of the world. In order to do that his ministry needed to find "the most cost-efficient, safe, and long-range plane" they could find. The "significant, needed ministry tool" Benny settled on, a Gulfstream G4 (I assume he means GIV).

This thing literally reads like a bad SNL skit poking fun at televangelists:

Now we must pay the remainder of the down payment, and I am asking the Lord Jesus to speak to 6,000 of my precious partners to sow a seed of $1,000 in the next ninety days. And I am praying, even as I write this letter, that you will be one of them!

In Isaiah 6:8 the Lord asks, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Long ago I said, "I will go, Lord. Send me!" But I cannot do it without you, nor can I do all our wonderful Lord has called me to do without Dove One! (the name of his new toy)

The plane costs over $35 million. The GIV burns around 3,000 pounds of fuel per hour in cruise. I'm not exactly sure what Jet Fuel is going for these days, but let's say its about $3.50 a gallon (which is a low estimate.) How many little ministries around the country could do with that $10,000 bucks it costs to run his jet for an hour?

1) Will this USC hype please go away? They did not win the national championship in 2003, LSU did. I'm sorry, but when the AP rankings and the BCS rankings differ, I will defer to the one where an ACTUAL GAME determines the champ not a bunch of sportswriters and their biased opinions. In any event, I'm absolutely positive that LSU would have beaten USC that year anyway. Yeah, they won the 2004 championship in convincing fashion. But when the 2005 national championship rolled around, when every single talking head was saying "Three-peat," when everyone was talking about Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart, Texas toppled the reigning champion USC Trojans. One championship in the last 15 years is nothing special.

2) So the Denver Broncos went ahead an benched Jake Plummer. In God's name, WHY? All he's done since he's been the Broncos starting quarterback is take them to the playoffs three straight years, and once to the AFC Championship. He's had his three best pro seasons as a Denver Bronco. No, he's not played that well this year. But then again, the Broncos defense was outstanding for the first part of the season. They haven't been able to stop anyone in the last couple of games. Plummer is not a pocket passer, he's the kind of guy that is better on the move. He's not as good as Micheal Vick as a runner, but he's always a running threat. He certainly throws better than Vick. There's been an awflul lot of standing around in the pocket for Plummer here lately, and that's coaching. For Plummer to be effective, you've got to have a legitimate running threat. You can't do that when you start one guy one week, then start a different guy. When defenses are keyed up to stop the run, that's when Plummer can kill them.

I don't think sticking Jay Cutler is a wise move. Yes, the Broncos are third in the AFC West. But things change quickly. Two weeks ago, they were leading the division. They were in the game and driving to win it until Plummer (once again) was scrambling for his life, hit from behind, and fumbled the ball. It's a tight race. Get back to doing the things you do well, running the ball and rolling out your quarterback, and the team will be fine. Cutler may be the next John Elway, but more than likely he is going to be the next unproven rookie to step on the field.

Wonderful. I've talked to so many people about this (I am vehemently opposed to this) who all tell me the same thing "I don't want myself (or my kids) to be exposed to second hand smoke." Folks, this is the reason why our country is going to the dogs. We expect the government to step in and protect us from the behavior of others.

Nevermind the fact that there has never been any conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke harms us (my dad grew up in a home where both of his parents smoked, he has no respiratory problems.) The most disturbing thing about this to me is that yet another one of our liberties has been taken away "for our protection." Here are the arguments I've heard so far:

"I don't want myself (or my kids) to be exposed to second hand smoke."
Don't take go to that restaurant, then. You are FREE to choose where you want to eat. If you go to a restaurant where the smoke is overwhelming, you are FREE to leave. You are FREE to inform the manager why you are leaving. Smokers were FREE to go eat and light up at the same time. See the pattern here? (FREE, for those of you slow to catch on.)

"I ought to be able to go eat at any restaurant I want without having to worry about second hand smoke."
You are free to go to any restaurant you wish and not worry about smoke. It's when you start "worrying" about it that it becomes a problem.

"It's for the good of the children (or me)"
Do you take your kids to the restaurant and order chicken strips, french fries, cheeseburgers? What's going to affect your child's health more, 30 minutes exposure to second-hand smoke, or that greasy batch of fries you're stuffing into their mouth? What if they decide to make a law forbidding you from ordering that kind of food for your kid, or restaurants from making that kind of food in the first place? How would you feel, then? Like I said earlier, if the smoke is too overwhelming, you are always FREE to leave the restaurant and go elsewhere. If enough people do this, the restaurant may consider a change. Or they may become a smoker's haven. I'm happy either way because the government is keeping their bid nose out of it.

"It's for our own good/It's in our best interest."
It would also be in our best interest to stop people from driving while drunk. It would be in our best interest to not stuff our kids full of candy after Halloween. It would have been in my best interest not to eat too much turkey, dressing and sweet potatos for Thanksgiving. It would be in your best interest to wear a jacket when it's cold outside. Should there be laws mandating this?

I am not a smoker. I smoke a cigar every now and then. I do it outside. If I go to a restaurant and cigarette smoke is bothering me, I ask to be moved to another table or I leave. But dammit, where does this stop. People support this anti-smoking measure because they don't like the behavior it is trying to curtail. But what happens when they try to curtail your own harmful behavior? What will you do then?

Get this, the law does not prohibit smoking in tobacco retail stores, or in facilities that manufacture or process tobacco for consumption. Shouldn't people who work in these places be entitled to the same protection? I mean, what about the mother of three who doesn't smoke, but the only job she can find is as a cashier down at the local tobacco mart?

Also, this measure only prohibits smoking INDOORS. What about outdoors? My office is located right next to two areas where employees gather to smoke. Smoke comes into the office all the time. I have to walk through all that smoke to get to other areas. Maybe there needs to be legislation to prevent that, too. I saw a lady driving on the interstate with a kid strapped in a carseat, she was smoking. What about that poor kid? Maybe we need a law prohibiting smoking in your vehicle while a child is present. And you know that shit gets in the upholstery, so maybe we should just ban smoking in cars altogether, since they could possibly be used to transport an individual that does not wish to be exposed to second-hand smoke. Sounds ridiculous, but these are all measures in consideration.

If you have a LOGICAL argument over why you think this is okay, I'd love to hear it.

Thanksgiving
So, everyone has heard the standard Thanksgiving story. Pilgrims set sail for the new world to seek religious freedom. They landed in America to find a cold and unforgiving place. They had to rely on the Indians, who showed them how to grow corn. They had a nice meal and invited the Indians, blah blah blah...

Did you know...?

The first official Thanksgiving was held in on Dec. 4, 1619 in the Virginia colony.

The Pilgrims set aside days of thanksgiving after successful harvests, and these were not necessarily celebrated on the same day nor were they simply an annual event. Thanksgiving day did not become an annual event until the mid 1600's.

The Indians present at the thanksgiving feasts from which we derive most of our Thanksgiving feasts were from the Wampanoag tribe. In the late 1600's, a group of Wampanoag attacked some settlements and burned them to the ground, starting a war between the Wampanoag and other New England tribes on one side, and the settlers on the other. Over 600 colonists and 11,000 indians were killed. Today, there are only about 3,000 members of the Wampanoag tribe.

Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until 1863, when President Lincoln declared that the last Thursday in November would be set aside for its observance. He did so on October 3, right in the middle of the American Civil War (or, more properly, the War of Nothern Aggression.)

In 1939, President Roosevelt moved the holiday to the next to last Thursday in November. The holdiay was moved to earlier in the month to give merchants more time to sell goods before Christmas. Roosevelt felt this would help boost America's economy out of the Great Depression. At the time, it was considered taboo to advertise goods for sale for Christmas before Thanksgiving. Imagine that! However, this move was not considered mandatory, with only half the states in the union observing the new day. Texas couldn't decide and so took both days as a government holiday. In 1941, the US Congress finally decided that Thanksgiving would be observed on the 4th Thursday in November. Sometimes the 4th Thursday would be the next to last, sometimes it would be the last.

Canadians also celebrate Thanksgiving on the second Monday in October.

I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving.

Just for Fun What's your favorite Thanksgiving dish? For me, it's the turkey if the person cooking it knows what they're doing (like me.) Otherwise, you can never go wrong with sweet potato casserole with a crunchy caramel pecan topping.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

However, unlike the episode "Mirror, Mirror," this episode hasn't held up very well over time. There are just some things I don't buy. (And yes, I CAN buy that there is an parallel universe where our doppleganger (Sp?) walks around with a goatee.):

1) Vulcans are the first alien species Humans ever met (as we learn in Star Trek: First Contact.) Seeing as how Humans and Vulcans had been interacting for a couple hundred years, and Spock is hardly the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet, you'd they'd all be aware of a condition that make Vulcan males act like steroid-abusing hormonal teenagers. Or Charlie Sheen.

2) Spock asks Kirk to divert the Enterprise from its current course to Vulcan and drop him off on leave so he can get some. Kirk does so. However, Starfleet contacts Kirk and tells him to delay his detour and proceed directly on his current course, warp factor six. Kirk tells Spock that his leave will have to be delayed. Later, Kirk calls Cmdr. Chekov and asks how far behind they would be if they increased speed to warp factor 9 and diverted to Vulcan on the way. Why didn't he go ahead and consider this in the first place?

See, Democrats in power don't bother. Islamic nutjobs with nuclear weapons don't bother. Logical plot holes in a 40 year old science fiction show, THAT bothers me.

What happened to waiting until Thanksgiving was done to start pumping out the Christmas spirit? Used to be, I couldn't wait until the Saturday after Christmas to start getting down the tree and defying death by putting up the lights on my house. Last year, I was so burnt out on Christmas that I put up my lights the week before because we were the only house on the block without them up.

Thanksgiving used to be my favorite time of year. We'd have the whole week off school. I'd get up every morning to go squirrel hunting. In Louisiana, it's cold and damp and there's nothing like being out in the forest as the sun comes up with the sky gray, and smelling the wet foliage and decaying leaves. The only sound wind blown leaves, the occasional woodpecker knocking, boots on the forest carpet, and the occasional acorn being dropped by some unlucky Rocky.

The whole week would be a build up of anticipation. I loved going hunting on Thanksgiving day with my Grandaddy and Sugar. Returning home to the smell of roasted (or, if we were lucky, smoked) turkey, dressing, and sweet potatoes. Eating an unhealthy amount of food. Plopping on the couch with a full belly to root for the Lions and against the Cowboys. Leftover turkey and dressing sanwiches (with leftover sweet potato casserole spread on the bread) for dinner, if you had room.

Now, all that is gone. You hear Christmas songs on the radio immediately after Halloween. Best Buy is already advertising for you to come buy your Christmas presents. I hate this time of year now. We've dedicated Christmas to a materialistic holiday. People are consumed with greed. We've lumped all the important days this time of year into a general "Holiday Season." And worst of all, we're totally glancing over Thanksgiving.

Part of the reason why Democrats won the election over a week ago was that they were promising to clean up corruption. Fine. Corruption is bad (mkay?) So why, then, are they likely going to elect John Murtha as the Majority Leader in the house?

Murtha is one of the leading opponents to house ethics reform. He doesn't want to clean up corruption at all. He has been a barrier to any legislation that limits earmarks in legislation. In 1997, Murtha blocked outside groups from filing complaints with the House Ethics Committee. There's also Murtha's involvement in the Abscam probe back in the late 70's. (If you don't know what that is, you can Google it.) Basically, Murtha acted as a broker for members of congress to accept bribes from FBI agents posing as Saudi citizens seeking asylum. Murtha escaped punishment only because of then-Speaker Tip O'Neill's intervention.

WSJ opinion peice on John Murtha
And one from Michelle Malkin

I told you, business as usual. Except now, instead of weak-willed, unethical people who were irresponsible with our money but were not going to raise our taxes running the show, we've got a group of weak-willed, unethical people who will be irresponsible with our money and have no compunction whatsoever about bilking you for every tax dollar they can get. (Unless you're "poor." The "poor" don't have to pay their fair share. And just to make it even MORE fair, we take tax money from those who actually DO pay taxes and give it to the "poor." You can expect more of that.)

Toys for Tots Rejects Toy Donation
So, a toy company offered to donate 4,000 12in. toy Jesus figures to the United States Marine Corps Toys for Tots Program. The Marine Corps rejected the offer because "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family," says the programs VP Bill Grein.

Ummmm, okay. The Toys for Tots Program's stated purpose is:

...to collect new, unwrapped toys during October, November and December each year, and distribute those toys AS CHRISTMAS GIFTS (emphasis added) to needy children in the community in which the campaign is conducted.

This just in...
The Toys for Tots programs says that this issue has been resolved and the Jesus toys have been accepted. Crown of Thorns and Old Rugged Cross accessories sold separately.

New for the Holiday Season
Kids! Its the hottest new action figure of the year...the Islamic Jihadist figure! Jihad Jamaal is 12 inches tall, and comes with AK-47, Bomb-laden vest, a towel...errr...turban, and "Torso Exploding Action!" Be the first kid on your block with one and DECLARE JIHAD ON THE INFIDELS!!!!!

The host says, "I don't know about that. Remember when he gassed the Kurds?" The caller replies "Yeah, but we know what that was all about...Sadaam was trying to put a pipeline through Iraq and the Kurds would not give him the land."

Let's look at the illogic and hypocrisy behind this caller's statements:
1) First, he admits knowing that Sadaam gassed Kurds. I thought there weren't any WMDs. So how did he gas the Kurds?
2) Second, hedoesn't think we should be in Iraq for oil, but then when it is pointed out that Sadaam gassed Kurds OVER AN OIL PIPELINE, he seems to excuse it as legitimate (he later goes on to say that "It didn't have anything to do with the United States. Well, neither did the Holocaust.) 3) Of course there were no terrorists blowing people up in Iraq under Sadaam. It was as close to an Islamic facist state as you can get. In other words, paradise for Islamic nutjobs.

By the way, the guy was calling in to gloat that Democrats won this years election.

Chinese Submarine Stalks USS Kitty Hawk. I don't know what is worse, the fact that a Chinese sub was playing hostile with one of our aircraft carriers, or the fact that an entire carrier battle group was unaware of one diesel submarine. All this while the US is trying to make nice with the Chinese. That sub commander has balls. Unfortunately, the commander of the battle group does not, or that sub commander and his balls would be shark food by now. We need to stop trying to be China's friends. We also need to inform the world that any unidentified submarines that come within attack range of an United States Navy ship will be sunk, and we need to start actively patrolling for threats.

"It could not be learned whether the U.S. government lodged a protest with China's government over the incident or otherwise raised the matter in official channels."

UPDATE:
WMDs have been found in Iraq.

I like games. I'm especially fond of the Metal Gear Solid series, but I like racers, sports games, action games, platformers, FPS's, you name it. I shudder to think how much money I've spent on video games in the last 10 years (my wife probably knows down to the dollar.)

But I'm done with them. It's not that I think I'm too old to play, or that I have too many other responsibilities and obligations. I think the videogaming industry has pushed me out. A couple of years ago, Electronic Arts (EA Sports) announced that it had purchased the sole rights to publish NFL games. Up until that point, gamers always had a choice over various systems, NFL Quaterback club, NFL Gameday, NFL 2KX. Now we are stuck with Madden NFL. That's it. And most gamers didn't care. They couldn't see that competition was what drove the Madden franchise to be one of the best, now they don't have to fight with anyone. Guess what, Madden hasn't been very innovative since.

There has also been an emphasis on the "M" rated type games, which are usually very violent, bloody, gory, and vulgar. Don't get me wrong, I do like these types of games. But I grew up in the "golden age" of gaming. I like my game world gritty and grimy sometimes, but sometimes I miss the brightly colored palette of Super Mario Brothers. I like to play a game with a gripping story, but sometimes I just want to plug in and play like I used to with Castlevania. All I needed to know was that I was Simon Belmont, Vampire Killer, grabbed my whip and moved out.

I think the final straw, however, is the news that the new PS3 is going to cost $600. $500 if you want the "bare bones" version. What audacity! I'm not buying a fucking guitar amp, or making three car note payments, I'm buying something that lets me waste a couple of hours every week. I can't afford that. Who can? I'm afraid that with the emphasis on the new, hardcore gamers, the gaming industry is pushing away all but the most hardcore gamers.

Now, I'm sure there will be plenty of rappers and spoiled little brats that get the latest and greatest in gaming technology, but count me out. My PS2 is good enough, thank you. I may take a look at the Nintendo Wii when it's price drops in a year or two (it will debut around $250, I believe, which is less than the PS2 cost when it first came out.) But it's hard to get excited about games when you have to take out a second mortgage to play.

Ooooh Ooooh! Last night, I got a hit on my page from a google search of "responding to a sexist redneck!" Hell yeah!

On a congressional note, Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN's always intellectual Tuesday Morning Quarterback column writes concerning the current lobbyist/special interest culture in Washington DC:

Wouldn't taxpayers come out way ahead if the salaries of members of Congress were raised to, say, $1 million per year, but in return all forms of outside income were banned for senators and representatives while retired members were permanently banned from lobbying? Raising congressional salaries to $1 million per year would cost the federal taxpayer $535 million -- a bargain compared to $60 billion in earmarks and other wasteful spending that Congress approves for reasons of cronyism.

I know I promised a recap of the election this year. Here it is. The Republicans deserved to get bounced. Back when the Republicans took control of Congress, they ran on actual republican ideals...cut taxes, reduce the size/waste/spending of government. Since then, they adopted the ideals of national security, Social Security reform, and cutting down on illegal immigration. Since they originally came to power, however, they've done NOTHING about any of these issues other than that superficial $400 tax rebate we all got a couple of years ago. They've become no different than the big taxing, big spending, busy-body Democrat party. Things will only get worse under the Democrats, but maybe this will be like when I put my son in time out. "Get in the corner and think about what you've done. When you're ready to come out, you better be acting the way I EXPECT you to act." I hope they're ready to get out of the corner in two years. I doubt it.

Heard about this on Rush Limbaugh. Well-known science fiction author, Orson Scott Card, penned this article on Monday. In it he writes that, even though he is an avowed Democrat, the only thing that matters in this year's election is the war on terror. He writes that should the Democrats come to power, there is no hope to succeed in this war and that, even though he disagrees philosphically with the rest of the GOPs platform, at least with them in power there is a chance to win this war.

"But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages."

World sees vote as start of new foreign policy
'The end of a six-year nightmare for the world,' EU parliamentarians say
My question is, "Who the fuck asked them?"
And in case any of you agree with them, let me just point out that you are agreeing with Socialists (the "EU parliamentarians" mentioned above") and Hugo Chavez. And the French. Go you!

I'm not going to go the typical route and implore you all to "Get out the Vote," though. Some of you are simply too fucking stupid to be voting in the first place. I don't believe that you have a "right" to vote, anyway. (Go find in the US Constitution where it says you have the right to vote...it doesn't.)

If you cannot name your Representative and two Senators, do us all a favor and stay home tomorrow. If you are going to vote for Democrats because you think George Bush is "enriching his oil buddies," don't even get out of bed in the morning. If you don't know how many branches of government we have, or if you can't name them, just go to Starbucks and skip the polling place. This country is screwed up enough by incompetent leadership, and we don't need your dumb ass making it worse.

Why vote on Tuesday? Does anyone know why we have to vote on Tuesday? It was decided to hold the vote on Tuesday to give people time to travel to their polling place on Monday (people went to church on Sunday and couldn't travel.) Considering that EVERY other election is held on Saturday, that people usually have to work on Tuesdays, and that NO ONE takes a whole day to get to their polling place anymore, maybe it's about time we changed this. As it is, I'm going to have to leave work early and miss class Tuesday evening so I can vote. Want to increase voter turn out? Quit having it on a day when most people have to work.

If you get in the right lane on the interstate to pass a slower car, and then move over in front of them (beause they wouldn't get the FUCK out of the way), is it wrong to slow WAAAAY down because they got mad and turned their brights on at you?

Is it wrong to scream at the television because the ref made a bad call or didn't make a call at all?

Is it wrong to be happy when you find out some dirtbag got shot by the cops, or did the act himself?

Is it wrong that I want to ____ my ____ _____?

(Is it wrong to tease people with unfinished and incomplete thoughts?)

When you start expecting your kids to figure some things out for themselves, is that wrong?

Yet another earworm
I want to taste dirty
A stinging pistol
In my mouth, on my tongue
I want you to scrape me
From the walls
And go crazy, like you made me

"You know, if you make the most of it (education)...you study hard...you do your homework...and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

"If you make the most of it, study hard, do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get US stuck in Iraq."