Cowboy Confessional

Cowboy Confessional
Guy Smith – writer, songwriter, political provocateur
Email This Post Email This Post

Boom Box

January 31st, 2010

A nod to my dear old dad, a person whose life has been spent thinking so far outside of the box that [censored] pays him to invent things.  He has an interesting idea for handling terrorist who want to bomb airplanes (these concepts are copyrighted by one, the other, or both Guy Smiths, so you can forget about marketing this goodie).

Papasan envisions installing blast proof Plexiglas boxes in all airport security lines.  Every passenger enters the box alone.  Once the doors are locked, a sweeping transmission scan will commence covering all frequencies and with varying amplitudes.  The goal is to detonate any explosives a terrorist might be packing under his clothes or even in a body cavity.  Other frequencies could melt explosive components or boil fluids.

My old man thought that the one downside might be the unappetizing display of exploding jihadists, but I disagree.  After all, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the entertainment taste of the American public.  Just watch NASCAR, or more precisely NASCAR fans.  A game of pop-goes-Achmed might liven-up an otherwise boring itinerary.

Email This Post Email This Post

Mexi-Franco Food

January 26th, 2010

A good part of French cuisine is based on sauces. A lot of Mexican food is based on salsa. Both the Mexicans and the French resort to gastric add-ons because you can’t find a decent cut of beef in either country.

Email This Post Email This Post

Devine Discretion

January 25th, 2010

Has Allah turned his back on Usama?

Being one of those rare critters who believes there is a God, but who also realizes mine is merely a belief, I shake my head at people who are frighteningly certain.  No mortal can prove or disprove the existence of a being beyond human comprehension – it is a logical impossibility.  Thus the atheist is as ignorant as the Pope, though the Pope’s line of work appears to be a bit more profitable.

You would think with all the Vatican’s money they could afford to buy the Pope a better looking hat.

Thus, every flavor of religious zealot postulating on God’s will is, ipso facto, an imbecile, charlatan or professional thief.  Pat Robertson’s claim that Haiti suffers due to an unprovable deal with the Devil assumes either God a passive aggressive with homicidal tendencies, or that the Devil actually has muscle.  Either way it is pure speculation designed not to increase enlightenment but to increase revenue.

Pat is a discount version of the Pope.

The inability of theologians to admit their collective cluelessness makes giving kudos to Islamic madmen painful.  Yet I am forced to acknowledge that jihadist psychopaths have the minor advantage of uncertainty.  While promoting their mass murder, they routinely utter “Allah willing,” a sign that they understand God’s will is both uncertain and indeterminable.

Which is why it is safe to say that Allah has abandoned Usama.

If we stipulate that there is a God and that he/she/it is active in the daily mismanagement of the human race, then Usama bin Laden’s latest radio rant is further evidence that Allah is unwilling to help Usama or his cruel cause.  While claiming to be behind the failed “underwear bomber”, and to be the sponsor of Palestinian violence, bin Laden says quite bluntly “God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support for the Israelis continues.”

So Usama, how’s that going for you?  Let’s tally a scorecard, shall we?  After 9/11 and your slaughtering 3,000 people who were guilty only of arriving at work on time, what has happened to your cause?

• Your base in Afghanistan was eradicated and your central command was cast to the winds, thrown into disarray.

• Allah willed that Iraq be invaded, and that by exposure to American soldiers, lies about Americans were unmasked.

• Your top field commanders have been killed or captured, including the stout Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (really, given the desert diet he was on before capture, you would think he would have dropped a few pounds).

• The kill ratio between soldiers and your men in Pakistan is 10:1 against you.

• Iran, the progenitor of Islamic revolution and state-sponsored terror, is surrounded by coalition forces and on the verge of being bombed by the Israelis.

Your boy on the flight 253 couldn’t even ignite his britches correctly, scorching his junk (talk about a hot date).

So Usama, what has been Allah’s will?  Unless God is on a prolonged nap, it would appear that his/her/its will opposes yours.  Allah is whizzing in your face and having hearty laugh while doing so (well, if I were God I certainly would be).  If the Old Testament is anywhere near accurate, locust swarms exiting your arse will be next, and your 72 virgins will all be teenage male computer nerds with Star Trek fetishes.

Or if Allah has a really warped sense of humor, your own men will kill you in your sleep and dump your carcass into an unmarked grave.  Cold, inconspicuous death for the world’s most prolific living mass murderer has the subtle irony that only a divine being could carry out.

Email This Post Email This Post

Dem Deux

January 22nd, 2010

History is its own recycling bin.

Soon we may see an unraveling of Democrat control over the country.  In a resurrection of similar mistakes made a decade ago, the Democrat party is engineering their own defeat, and in a hurry.  Democrats tend to go for broke and in the process break themselves, unlike Republicans who patiently shoot off one toe at a time.

This toe targeting analogy brings to fore the latest failing of dunderheaded donkeys.  For all their ideological alignment, Democrats time and again demonstrate indifference to The People.  This is important since all power derives from the consent of the masses, which explains why the Democrats support taking guns away from the rabble – Democrats prefer to operate without consent.

This desire to rule instead of being ruled is what caused alleged people like Pelosi and Halfwit Harry to plow ahead with their ideological designs whilst The People yelled “no” directly into elected faces.  No WABAC Machine is required to dredge up newscast-images of working wonk moms, armed with a 1,000 inkjet pages of proposed legislation and confronting their representatives at town hall meetings.  Despite polls staggeringly opposed to the rigging of health insurance and near violent confrontations with angry, informed mothers, Democrats continued pushing the unpopular while engineering snaky deals in order to reach their end goal of total government health care control.

The last time they operated this way was the year 2000, and the subject then was gun control (a topic of which I know a little).

Gun control has been an increasingly loosing political issue in America for three decades.  Recurring public opinion polls show fewer people supporting more of the stuff.  Little wonder.  In that same period America has gone from a mere ten states allowing concealed carry of weapons to forty.  Yet despite polling, regardless of states loosening local gun control laws, and notwithstanding a growing satisfaction among increasingly armed people, Democrats committed a full frontal assault to enact more gun control.  No less of a man than Bill Clinton (and there are no lesser men) led the charge, with his imbecilic acolyte Al Gore aping the agenda while campaigning for the presidency (you know, Al Gore, the fellow whose Earth in the Balance Armageddon book proved to be as accurate as William Miller).

Gore lost that election, Bush took the White House, and the GOP removed their shoes and started firing.

Americans have three nasty tendencies.  The read, they talk, and they vote. Even in ages before the Internet, voters wrestled with issues and debated the merits of all enactments (People with limited perspective use the phrase “Founding Fathers” to glorify a handful of Americans who authored the U.S. constitution, while ignoring that nearly every colonist read, debated and only then, ratified the same.  In the aftermath of ratification, one visitor to The States said – and I heavily paraphrase – “Every American is a bloody lawyer!”)  Today, armed with the Internet, every American has vastly expanded abilities to research and debate, if digital partisan flame throwing can be called debate.

Thus the fate of our nation has never been in the hands of elites, and it is even less so today.

These observation are related to this week’s election in Massachusetts; the elevation of a Republican to a Senate seat involuntarily vacated by the very vanguard of the Democrat party, and in a state where jackasses outnumber pacaderms by three-to-one.  Accepting the fact that Scott Brown’s opponent was a rhetorical weakling with the charisma of a cave bat, it is still stunning that he won.  Numerically the odds were against him and the Massachusetts Democrat machinery was menacing.  Obama carried 62% of Massachusetts voters in his rise to the White House. He and his policies should have carried weight in this election.

Neither did.

Foremost, Brown campaigned openly against Obama’s Soviet-style HMO plan.  Brown’s strategy was one of hopeful audacity.  This is no small aside.  Realigning health insurance is the signature item of the wounded Obama agenda.  To openly campaign against the president’s foremost initiative was not the gamble some pundits assume.  According to surveys, 85% of American have health insurance, 80% of them are happy with their coverage, and with each passing month more voters became unhappy with how the Democrats planned on changing that.  Indeed, 56% of Massachusetts voters said health care was their primary concern, and 78% of voters that backed Brown did so specifically to abort Obamacare.  Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, borderline criminal deals cut with soon-to-be former members of the Senate, offering their constituents amelioration not afforded to everyone else, turned voter resistance into open anger.

This included Massachusetts voters.  It takes some mightily shady dealings to make Boston Democrats vote GOP.

As with gun control in 2000, the Democrats are attempting to do to the people what the people do not want done to them (in a sexual context, this would be called rape, which would carry on a proud Kennedy tradition).  As in 2000 the people responded with their first two boxes – the soap box and the ballot box.  This leaves Democrats a mere nine months to make voters think that the majority party should remain such, that they are not a band of heavy handed hooligans who are openly indifferent to the source of true power.

They will fail.

The source of their defeat is in the White House.  Instead of administering to pressing issues of war and economy, Obama instead sought to remove the prerogative of the people concerning their health.  In the smolder of defeat, he claims he will continue his inept battle while also refocusing his obsessions on banks who, despite mythology, were not responsible for our current economic woes.  In a misguided attempt to channel voter discontent over the economy (which Obama amplified through his mismanagement thereof), Barack wants to turn screws on banks.  In his best faux Chicago street-tough façade, Obama said of the banks “If these folks want a fight, it’s a fight I’m ready to have.” Of course, five days before Brown’s election Obama said “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done … that is a fight I want to have.”

Gotta give the man credit for tenacity.  Brain-dead, bulldog, bite everybody until the dog pound takes you away tenacity.

But the real fight now comes from fellow Democrats.  No less of a mind than Robert Scheer (and there are no lesser minds than his) railed against Obama.  First Obama’s policies and tactics caused a revolt among The People.  Now his policies are causing revolt within the ranks.  All wars and battles are lost when one or another army enters a state of disarray.  Obama opposed the will of the people, which lost his party an iconic Massachusetts battle, and now his troops have started shooting one another.

Republicans, start unlacing your shoes – your turn at target practice is soon coming.

Email This Post Email This Post

Google is …

January 15th, 2010

Google is evil.

Sorry Sergey, Lawrence. You know as well as I that your manta of “don’t be evil” is transparent, and that like any powerful entity – be it corporate or government – it succumbs to sins of opportunity and convenience.

How has Google gone evil? Let me compute the ways.

First and foremost are multiple modes of censorship. A recent spate of reports showed Google playing religious games by censoring insults to Islam (note to Brin and Page – that is actually an insult to your customers). When one typed into Google’s search engine a phrase such as “Christianity is” or “Judaism is”, Google most helpfully filled in the top suggestions from its vast database, most of which were derogatory. Yet when the search phrase began “Islam is”, Google was oddly silent.

Some PR flack at Google suggested it is was programming bug, which this former hacker knows is not. Data queries operate on four simple models, and no others can exist. A search dumps nothing, dumps everything (obviously not the case here), allows a defined subset of information out (the general Google operation based on keywords) or dumps everything but disallows certain data to escape.

That last mode is the system that filtered insults to Islam but not to any other religion. This is not caused by a bug, it is caused by a configuration decision. Ipso facto, someone in Google took specific and premeditated action to avoid displaying what people think about Islam, yet leaving uncensored what people think of other faiths. I have my suspicions that Google was prostrating itself before yet another brutal government.

Evil.

It should not surprise us then that Sergey and Lawrence unevenly endorse censorship and other forms of evil. Google’s relationship with one of the most evil entities in the known world – the tank rolling, protestor squashing, summary executing, labor camping and (yes) censoring government of mainland China. With better than a billion head and a growing middle class, China is an obvious place for advertising companies (like Google) to make a dime. Thus, Google bent over forwards for their PRC puppeteers, willfully excluding information for consumption by the average Chinese netitizen. Searching for “tiananmen square massacre” in google.cn produces a highly redacted set of responses than for google.com.

Evil.

Yet Brin and Page threw a harmonized hissy fit when the same source of evil (the Chinese government, not Google, though it is increasing difficult to decide which is more ruthless) hacked into Google’s systems to troll for dissident data – emails to and from human rights activists. Google stomped its corporate feet and threatened to exit the Chinese market, where unlike the rest of the world, Google is not the market leader.

To summarize, it is OK for Google to unilaterally (Islam) and collaboratively (China) perform evil acts on the world at large, but it is not OK for evil to be committed against Google.

But Google won’t leave China. Instead, Google is ‘discussing’ with tyrants what can be done to accommodate freedom, which is nothing. As evidence, China issued a most interesting quote about the incident, saying “Properly guiding Internet opinion is a major measure for protecting Internet information security.” In the end Google will accept their 35% share of 1.3 billion people because that’s real money, something more important to Silicon Valley than right and wrong.

Evil.

Google’s grotesqueness is greater than just its major non-movements. They have taken lessons from other organization and engineered recurring forms of minor mass thievery. After all, most of Google’s wealth comes from advertisers, and numerically most of their advertisers are small operations. The past year brought light to a tiny Google scam where by Sergey and Lawrence recruited new advertisers with a teaser of 100 free pay-per-click dollars. Readily available coupons allow new account owners to start running Google ads everywhere. Just give Google your credit card number (in case you go over your $100) and everything is set in motion.

The problem is that the usage and click rates are initially not shown in the new user’s account, leaving them to think that their ads ineffective. Newbies continue to tweak their ads, and many stop tracking performance daily. They are delighted somewhat later when click-through begin to appear. Nuevo advertisers are equally undelighted when they get a hefty bill from Google. The oddly silent initial ineffectualness of Google’s ads cause new users to believe that subsequent clicks are billed against the free $100. In fact, that gift has been spent on the unreported clicks, and the surge of activity seen by Google’s new users is billed to their credit cards. Since the initial $100 basically costs Google nothing, it is an elaborate scam to suck money from otherwise attentive people who previously had no interest in advertising via Google.

Evil.

I myself encountered an odd issue with Google advertising. Having decided to pimp my book AFTERLIFE in multiple ways, I ran some Google display ads. The campaign’s end occurred at the start of the Christmas holiday travel season, and I disabled all campaigns before boarding the whisperjet. Naturally I was somewhat surprised to receive a bill from Google for advertising that ran during the holidays, and to discover that one of my campaigns had been reactivated without my permission.

Evil.

I can suffer this minor economic rear-ender. What cannot be suffered is a witch in corporate clothing. Google’s transgressions – petty theft, mass censorships of the masses – are sins against the common man. Powerful as Brin and Page may be, they cannot abuse governments because governments have the off switch for data routers. But the caustic indifference to Google shown by governments is the same indifference Google shows to people, the ones that directly and indirectly made Sergey and Lawrence wealthy and powerful. Until they quit being evil, it is up to the people to quit aiding said evil. Maybe we need to ping Bing.

« Previous Entries




Copyright 2006 - 2010 -- Guy Smith -- All Rights Reserved