DISQUS

That's flippin' hilarious!

Don't you know what this refers to? Some woman's chimpanzee went nuts and cops shot it dead. So they're saying that the stimulus bill was written by a chimpanzee and they just killed him. They're not calling Obama a chimp.

<abbr>Richard Catto´s last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part IV</abbr>

So long as the ex-judges get thrown in with the common prison population, get to wear a tee that reads, "Corrupt ex-Judge", free shanks handed out to all other inmates and they hold a Stab-a-Judge and win your freedom every Friday.

Justice is served.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part III</abbr>

The reason why America is bailing out key banks and corporations is because the consequences of just letting them fail are too awful to contemplate. That is in fact what happened during the early 1930s and precipitated the Great Depression.

The GD was caused by a domino effect of one large failure taking down the next, until failure became endemic and the system fell apart and had to be painstakingly rebuilt. The GD was not just an American phenomenon. Although it began in the United States, it spread to the rest of the world because economies depend upon each other.

Roosevelt's New Deal was essentially one large stimulus package, but it took the onset of WWII to finally cure it. The reason that WWII cured the GD was because war is all about spending enormous amounts of public money to build up an economy designed to deliver the maximum amount of war materiel (sic).

If Palin is doing such a great job for Alaska, let her continue doing it, but she proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is not fit to occupy the Whitehouse in any executive position. A POTUS has to be eloquent and appear knowledgeable. She didn't even know what the position of Vice President entailed. She thought she would be sitting around on her ass all day long knitting.

Bush was the most ineloquent POTUS the American people have ever elected, and let me tell you it made you look like a horse's ass to the entire world. So far, Bill Clinton has been the best US President ever. During his two terms, America experienced unprecedented economic prosperity.

Typically, in recent times, Democratic Party Presidents will build the economy and Americans will become richer, even though they also typically impose higher taxes, especially on the higher earners. Republic Presidents will burn the economy down and make the lower earners pay more tax and give tax breaks to the rich.

Nevermind shutting down Rush, Americans need to shut down all Americans who continually vote in Republicans, because they are the root cause of all your ills.

The only Republican president who did some good was Ronald Reagan.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part III</abbr>

When John McCain first chose Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin as his running mate, I thought he might have found the angle to beat Obama. It was an inspired move - to choose a female VP candidate and court all those disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters who might, out of spite, vote for Palin / McCain.

Except he chose a woman who is a completely hopeless lost cause. That Alaskans could vote such a person into their governor's office reveals much about them. Most of the rest of America was appalled at the possibility that this woman could represent them in any way.

She is so absolutely dumb and clueless that I can't conceive of a good reason anyone would vote for her or McCain after the way she totally bombed on every interview. She is utterly and completely unfit to lead a nation, of any size. She is a bad joke in politics. She ought to be baking cakes for little league, not holding any important position in government.

So, that being the case, what reason would anyone choose to vote for her and John McCain, who is a missed heartbeat away from the grave? I have to assume that the biggest reason that motivated voters to vote for this idiot woman was because they didn't want a black person to lead America. Deny it as much as you like. This is my opinion and until you can convince me of any good reason why you'd rather have such a moron such as Palin in office, rather than the superbly excellent Barack Obama, than I think the description of racist fits you to a Tee.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part III</abbr>

@Aaron: RL specifically refers to Obama being black. It's all about race for RL. I haven't yet come across a person who is against Obama who is not a racist.

@Kathy: it's a gay reference. It's just pure ridicule. Nothing much to understand. It's just plain juvenile. I think RL is probably (still) on drugs.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part III</abbr>

@Kathy: I believe that what RL is expressing is his extreme jealousy for the immense popularity that President Obama enjoys.

I just feel sorry for the people who hate President Obama. They're sore losers. They're racists. They're pitiful people who don't warrant a response or any emotion besides pity.

They are the poor in spirit and their suffering is all of their own making. They are unable to appreciate how good they have it.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..An old man in a ditch - Part III</abbr>

Maybe take up a safer hobby, such as becoming a test pilot, perhaps? ;)

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..How to avoid roadblocks in South Africa</abbr>

I think this post is all about finding where you fit in life, who you fit with and how badly things can go when you stand on your principles. I'm all for standing for my principles and clearly this woman had as her principle that this holiday be recognised as Christmas, not some generic alternative.

I think a lot of Christians are more and more adopting this as their own principle as a stand against the secularisation of the Birth of Christ. Where I stay, a Jewish convert to Christianity is promoting a move to end using Santa Claus as a symbol of Christmas, saying it detracts from the central Christian message. I think when Christians adopted Santa Claus, they opened the door to the dilution of the message of Christmas.

Maybe that's what Christians need to do on a wider scale - reject Santa Claus, and get back to celebrating the birth of Christ and nothing else?

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Domain Name System (DNS) tweaks</abbr>

The manager was callous in his bitter parting remarks. That was unnecessary.

However the reason to terminate her employment was sound. An employee has to follow the policies of their employer - it's the basic contract between employee and employer. I've left two positions when I couldn't agree with the policies of my employer.

One guy I worked for wanted me to install new network cards for a customer which was unnecessary because I had discovered how to make their existing ones work. The customer had agreed to purchase new cards upon being advised that they had incompatible hardware. My employer didn't want to lose his sale and so when I refused to install new network cards, he terminated me. However, if he had followed my advice the customer would have been very impressed by his honesty and his loyalty would have increased. He lost the customer anyway, because I contacted the customer and told them that my former employer was fraudulently selling them and I got hired by the customer on the spot to sort them out.

Some years later I was working in a sales position for a local ISP which was selling "business class" dial up connections for about 4 times the standard rate. When I refused to sell his overpriced Internet accounts, he terminated me too. That same year, I found another ISP product to sell which sold very well.

So, it's really all about finding the right people to work for. This woman should look for a company that shares her religious beliefs about Christmas, or a company where it doesn't matter how you greet people over the Christmas season.

@Ryan Kazinec: No, I have iBurst in South Africa. I pay nearly US$70 per month too! There are cheaper alternatives now, but the trick that SA ISPs use is to lock people into 24 month contracts so they don't have to worry about losing customers until their contracts expire. Without a contract, I'd have to pay an exorbitant amount for hardware that only works with their networks.

@Tom: it is very similar to the lock in that cell phone companies use.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Domain Name System (DNS) tweaks</abbr>

As a kid my family got the Intellivision game console. Atari was seen as inferior. Haha. But when the first hobby computers came out, I traded Intellivision for a BBC computer. My school got the ZX81 and later the ZX Spectrum which I learnt how to program on, but I hated the small keyboards.

I haven't played on any of the modern game consoles. My game platform is my PC. I think the consoles and the games made for them are too expensive. And forget online game play - my ISP only allocates 5GB of broadband speed per month before I drop down to 64Kbps (slightly higher than a 56K modem). I usually enjoy broadband speed for only 15 days of each month. Unlimited I would probably consume 15 - 20GB each month, perhaps more if I watched movies online.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Domain Name System (DNS) tweaks</abbr>

Here's an interesting url I found about Obama and his stance on gay rights:
tinyurl dot com/3dkhum

Here's some quotes from that web page:

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

I agree with that fully. Members of the British military, for instance, take part in gay parades in uniform to show that the Royal Armed Forces don't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

Agreed.

Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

I think that this is where Obama cops out and fails to follow his previous arguments through logically.

For starters, marriage has nothing to do with religion or morality. Marriage is a legal contract enforced by the government, not by any religious organisation.

Religious ceremonies which surround SOME marriages are mere window dressing. They are not the substance of marriage. If you allow religious arguments to be entertained, then that leads you logically to the place where those heterosexual couples whose marriages do not involve religion are rendered null and void.

Marriage and religion have nothing to do with each other. Marriage is a contract between two people to make a life together. Even the sharing of property is no longer an essential part of the marriage contract.

Whatever marriage used to be it is no longer that. Modern marriage is very different from "traditional marriage".

@Kim: I agree that Obama has a right to his personal choice. He can choose whoever he pleases, however, his choices are now in the public spotlight and every little thing he does is nuanced.

Being a public figure means he can't choose a dog without that choice being discussed.

His choice of pastor sends out a not so subtle message to Americans and to anyone watching in the world. The gay community is understandably unhappy with his choice. He chose someone who is anti their political agenda to secure more rights for gays in America. Imagine for a moment if he got some pastor who in the past has been guilty of making racial slurs against black people. Not that he would, but just imagine that he did. That would make many Americans unhappy.

I'm sure every political appointment he makes will receive similar scrutiny. It's all about who you are and what your personal agenda is. It's tough to be president, I don't envy him his job, and I hope that he makes more appropriate choices in future. Everyone is watching him for the changes he promised. I think he made a mistake this time.

It does seem like a betrayal of the Gay and Lesbian community, though.

Most Americans didn't vote for another 4 years of conservatist Bush style "family values" policies which is just code for discrimination against people who wish to pursue alternative lifestyles.

Pursuit of the so-called American dream is not just for Christians. It's for all Americans, including homosexuals and their right to pursue happiness even if religious groups morally disapprove of their lifestyle choices.

Separation between Church and State became blurred under the Bush Administration, and I was hoping that Obama would make a clear distinction. By inviting an openly anti-gay pastor, he is sending the wrong message to gays and a message that he intends to continue the discrimination against homosexuals to the rest of the world.

Not a very auspicious start for him.

Oh, here's an interesting article: tinyurl dot com/5k6tg3

One hotel, The Mandarin Oriental, has booked out its presidential suite for $209 000 per night. And another, the Omni Shoreham Hotel , is offering a $440 000 package deal.

Fascinating to see how the rich live, and totally not unexpected.

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Uniforum SA’s non benign rule of the co.za SLD</abbr>

Well this America, land of the capitalist and home of the rich. :)

But, seriously, no I don't think that is an excessive amount, no. If ticket prices floated on the open market and were auctioned off, they'd probably top out at over $1 million, especially for this president.

I'm not sure what they do with the surplus, but I'm sure they have a lot of staff and suppliers to pay. Maybe they'll donate what's left over to charity?

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Uniforum SA’s non benign rule of the co.za SLD</abbr>

Excellent story idea! This is, of course, the reason more people should get your blog delivered to their inbox every day! :)

There's so much going on in this story. It's like a juicy morsel that you don't quite know where to wade in first and start biting. But here I go...

Okay, so the first thing that struck me after reading the comments is the bit about $1000 bills no longer being in print. So I had to make a brief detour to research that angle and discovered some links which contain useful background info:
tinyurl dot com/2lt5xh
tinyurl dot com/6aregv
tinyurl dot com/55dhlz
tinyurl dot com/2kb2yz

Turns out that $1,000 bills were last printed in 1945 and in 1969 they were officially taken out of circulation. They are still legal tender but as the Federal Reserve Banks receives them, they are destroyed. This means that any surviving $1,000 bills are actually worth more than their face value due to the value to collectors. This other value is known as the numismatic value.

Knowing this background information allows one to evaluate this story and deduce that the person who claimed the money highly likely told a lie. She most likely did not receive 97 $1,000 bills as payment for her house and belongings from anyone, although there is a small outside chance that she did. So there remains an unsolved mystery about this story. How did the woman actually come by that amount of cash? We may never know unless she starts spending it or selling it to collectors.

These bills were taken out of circulation to combat organised crime.

If I found a bag containing a large amount of money, I'd take it home and make discreet inquiries to see if I could trace the owner. I would not go to the cops with the bag of money because I don't trust them to do the right thing. I perceive them as a high risk of making some bureaucratic blunder. Also I don't want to run the risk of being arrested by them, which is a possibility even though I am coming forward with evidence. I just don't trust cops.

If I could not trace the owner, I would not try to redeem any of it or change any of it at a bank or buy anything at a shop with them. I also would not be calling any reporters. I'd keep my mouth shut and make discreet inquiries with dealers to ascertain the numismatic value. If it was worth something, I might try auctioning off a single $1,000 note on eBay and see what I get for it. If that worked, I'd auction every note off individually and set as a reserve value, the moving average of each winning bid to maximise my return.

I would spend and invest the money I got from auctioning the notes off. And every night I'd pray to God that my door doesn't get kicked in at 2AM by the DEA or FBI in some kind of sting operation. :)

<abbr>Richard Cattos last blog post..Uniforum SA’s non benign rule of the co.za SLD</abbr>

I love that video of his. There's a longer version. It was a really entertaining speech he gave. I watched it just before the election and tried to see who looked the most presidential - Obama or McCain - and it just seemed to fit Obama so well. He just looked the part.

Richard Cattos last blog post..Google FriendConnect

Btw when you drink alcohol or chew gum (with Xylitol) you're consuming yeast poop.

Yeasts are living organisms, not plants, that consume sugars and produce alcohol (ethanol), carbon dioxide and xylitol (a sugar alcohol used for sweetening).

Every drop of water you drink is processed. This planet recycles all its water. The water that we drink today is the same water that the dinosaurs drank and peed out.

@ clydemartinlll: I'm not sure that this is a gay rights issue. This is about the right of a web site owner to cater to a particular niche. As I said in my previous comment, there are web sites which cater exclusively to homosexual dating. There are also web sites that cater to Jewish dating and Muslim dating and every type of niche there is.

When it comes to who people choose to date, people, by nature, discriminate and they have a full right to do so. eHarmony most likely would have won if they had had the will to fight the lawsuit. The real issue here, I believe, is why did they choose not to?

The other question is why did this person sue eHarmony when they had plenty of alternatives open to them? Even if eHarmony had offered homosexual dating, there's no guarantee that this person would have found a suitable partner. No dating web site offers any guarantees.

It's strange that this person sued in the first place and stranger still that eHarmony chose to settle.

I don't think this blog post was intended to bash gays and I think that bashing them is wrong. I believe they are entitled to their personal choice, even if others hold moral views about them. I believe that the Gay community has a right to the same freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy.

Richard Cattos last blog post..Rossouw Modern cordially invites you to an Art Exhibition

I agree that that is a ridiculous situation, but eHarmony also did not seem to possess the courage of their convictions to resist this lawsuit.

There are plenty of web sites that cater to homosexuals only. I believe a web site owner has the full right to decide what market segement they are going to cater to.

Incidentally, I've signed up with eHarmony in the past and just flaked out because of the grind to answer the hundreds of questions they present you with in a seemingly unending questionnaire that you have to get through before you can use the site.

Richard Cattos last blog post..It’s better to help than to hate: Niall Mellon Township Trust

It's always sad when someone takes their own life, especially a young person. Doing it online via a horde of gaping idiots does not seem to me to be a very dignified way of checking out.

I believe that every suicide is a tragedy that could be avoided if people contemplating it would only realise that it takes courage to live at times and that their life is a precious gift that they should be grateful for. We only get one life and to end it prematurely is a tragic waste.

Richard Cattos last blog post..It’s better to help than to hate: Niall Mellon Township Trust

@Tom: You want brutal honesty?

How about I say, "I'm going to sit on my ass all day doing as little as possible except solicit bribes, feel up any woman who comes near me and smoke crack as often as possible. Vote for me!"

Yeah.

I think I want a little more sophistication from the leaders I vote for. Brutal honesty doesn't cut it. I can get a truckload of brutal honesty by spending a couple of hours with drunk homeless people, doesn't mean I'm going to give them a dime, much less a vote.