KevinWillis.net

Athra Is a Very Groovy Online Graphic Novel

2009-09-03T16:42:00.003-05:00

Don't cry. There's a groovy online graphic novel that you can read much of for free. And, if you want to, you can buy the hardcopy. And it's worth it. It's totally, totally awesome.

Athra is hard as granite and tough as nails. Women love him, and those who harbor evil in their heart fear him. Strike that, everybody fears him. Because he's the man.

So, go get yourself some groovy online graphic novel (or the hardcopy) from Athra.net now.

ExtraBux.com is a Way To Get Money Back For Buying The Stuff You Were Going to Buy Anyway

2009-08-18T10:34:00.004-05:00

Looking for an easy way to find coupons online, do some comparison shopping, and find all the cool cash back rebates? Then you need to check out ExtraBux.com.

I do a fair amount of shopping online, and ExtraBux is a great way to not only find great online shopping deals, but to buy what I was going to buy anyway and get some money back, get a great discount, or find out a rebate I would have missed out on, if I hadn't gone through ExtraBux.

I dunno about you, but I am currently under-employed, and need to make my shopping dollar go as far as humanly possible. Sites like Extrabux.com make that happen by helping me find the best deals, rebates, coupons, and even providing a mechanism nobody else does for getting a little of the money I spend (and was going to spend, anyway) back. They can also let me know about the best deals currently available, which is very handy.

I gotta go get a couple of things I need. And then get money back for them. Later, my friends.

The New DME Supply Group Search Engine

2009-07-28T15:42:00.006-05:00

We've got a new search engine at DME Supply Group, though, due to the cost, it may end up being temporary. But it's certainly better than the old Yahoo! Store search engine.

I was surprised how few products actually contain the word "hospital", but there it is. Much more stuff for "clinical" and a fair amount for "medical". Same for "healthcare".

And here's the search for "stool softener". We don't have a lot, but we sure run into that search term often enough.

Well, speaking of healthcare, I'm not feeling so well myself. I need to go home. So, later, my friends.

All About Ostomy and Urostomy

2009-07-23T09:12:00.006-05:00

I've mentioned elsewhere the complete line of ostomy and ileostomy products we carry at DME, but I thought I'd mentioned it here, too. Because I haven't mentioned it here, and you never know, do you?

Such as the New Image Pouch 2-Piece Closed pictured above. For example. One of our numerous 2-piece closed ostomy systems. Like these Pouchkins 2-piece skin barriers, for example. Pouchkins feature SoftFlex skin barrier is flexible and genlte, and sized for a child. Features a floating flange and provides complete security with the patented locking system that audibly clicks into place. From Hollister, Inc. Or if you need the Assura 2 Piece Closed Pouch from Coloplast, we have that, too.

Click here for more information on Ostomies.

But don't go yet. We also offer a full selection of Ostomy Skin Barriers, like the FlexWear Skin Barrier or these Hollihesive Skin barriers.

We also have a complete selection of 2-Piece Urostomy bags and pouches, like the Securi-T Urostomy Pouch or the New Image 9" Urostomy Pouch, or the SUR-FIT Natural Small Pouch. That one comes with one-sided comfort panel and includes Accuseal tap and 2 Accuseal adapters.

Jeeze! I'm barely scratching the surface here. 2-Piece Flange Skin Barriers, like the Coloplast Convex Light Pouch 2 Piece.

We've got Ostomy Faceplates (not a lot, but some), Ostomy Accessories like Osto-Gel, which is Designed specifically to absorb ileostomy pouch contents. Conveniently packaged in a dissolvable film packet, which is dropped into the pouch each time the pouch is emptied or cleaned. As the pouch fills, the packet dissolves, releasing granules, which form a gel with the liquid fecal output. The gel remains at the bottom of the pouch away from the stoma. Reduces pouch noise, odor, leakage and peristomal skin irritation.

We've also got this Urinary Night Drainage set from Torbot, Securi-T Secu-Rings, Surgical Cement and more. There's too much. I can't begin to cover it all. Come on by and check us out.

And even more on ostomy procedures and conditions, in case you were curious.

More later. Probably not medical. But, come on. Kevin gotta eat.

Now Blogging at Tumblr, Too. You Just Can't Stop Me!

2009-07-17T10:35:00.002-05:00

My Tumble Log (TumbleLog, Tumblog?) at Tumblr.com . . . find it here.

Later.

Restraint Straps and Test Strips and Backnobbers! Oh, my!

2009-07-15T13:17:00.007-05:00

Not sure if you need it, but if you do, I know where you can get them. A Restraint Strap--such as the Restraint Strap 46 Quick-Clip.

If you're looking for sterile isopropyl alcohol. Isopropyl alcohol cleans minor scrapes, cuts and burns while it reduces the risk of infection. It can be used--in small amounts, mind you--on affected areas one to three times daily. Once alcohol dries, wounds can be covered with sterile bandages. 70% U.S.P. isopropyl alcohol by volume.

I also know where you can get Easy Check Glucose Test Strips, a box of 50, at a great price. Only 0.7ul of blood is required and the reaction time is 7 seconds. They have, of course, capillary action strip. So if you're looking for 'em, come on by.

But that just scrapes the surface. I know where you can buy Rollators and Rollator Accessories, including Bariatric Rollators. In this same place you can also find a full selection of Pediatric Walkers and Rollers. They have crutches, and more crutches. My, is there anything those people don't have or cannot do?

They have massagers, like the Original Backnobber. Check that out. What about Hip Chairs? What are Hip Chairs? Well, they have them. So there. Denture, dental, and general oral care products. That's a big 10-4, good buddy. Such as these Toothette Plus Oral Swabs.

What about Medication Helpers? Like the Medi-Planner II or the Pillbox With an Electronic Timer? What about Dia-pak Deluxe Diabetic Organizer? They have them. And well beyond, so far beyond.

And lets not forget the importance of travel products. I'm going on a trip soon, so I know it's handy to have some Travel John Disposable Urinary Pouches (don't ask why), Neat Seat Toilet Protectors, and etcetera, etcetera.

Looking for Bathtub rails? Look no further. Bathroom grab bars. Check. Commode Splash Shields? But of course!

All right. More stuff, but later.

My Facebook URL

2009-07-13T09:05:00.002-05:00

Just a quick note, see what I'm up to on Facebook here, if you're so inclined:

http://www.facebook.com/kevin.s.willis

In other news, find your Coccyx Gel Seat Cushion with Fleece Top here. In case you are looking for one.

Mo' later. Chills to my bunnies.

New Chattanooga Products on DME Supply Group

2009-07-10T15:49:00.009-05:00

Got some new stuff up at DME Supply Group (we sell medical supplies, just so ya know). Such as S'port Supports, like these Lare Black Women's S'port All Shorts. No pictures, yet. Working on that.

We've also added a large selection of Adapta Treatment Tables, like the Adapta Mesa 2-Section.

Might be time to link to the Magical Durable Medical Equipment Supply Group Site Map. We've got a lot of stuff on there now, so it takes forever to load. Seriously.

Also, we've added other Treatment Tables, like this Plynth One-Section. We've got Traction Products, of course, and have for a while, but we added some others, like this Saunders Traction Replacement Cervical Pump.

We also have a Gel Medex SP Ultra Wheelchair Cushion.

Yeah, this isn't exactly the same stuff I usually post in my bloggity-blog-blog, but Obama has set the economy on fire and it's burning quickly so I'm trying to keep our company in business so I remain employed. Best of luck to me, on that. But I'm trying.

Some Things We Sell At the Place I Work

2009-07-02T11:25:00.009-05:00

http://www.dmesupplygroup.com/ozium-air-sanitizer-mds092965.htmlPerhaps I'm grasping for straws today, but it's what I'm thinking about. So I'm gonna blog it!

Feather Sterile Surgical Blades from Graham-Field. The demonstrate superior cutting quality, strength and corrosion resistance. They are made of superior stainless steel, and are, of course, completely disposable and recyclable blades. The come individually wrapped and sealed in aluminum foil to maintain sterility, insure long shelf-life. Blades are available in several sizes.

Medline Translucent 900mL Standard Speci-Pan Professional Medical Specimen Collector. Speci-Pan specimen collectors feature a graduated measuring device that includes reinforced ribbing for extra durability (but, let's be honest, not for her pleasure. Or anyones). Fits any standard size commode. Can't beat it. The Speci-Pan Is Designed for the Efficient and clean Collection of Urine and Stool Specimens.

Hydrocolloid Medihoney Wound and Burn DressingsThe MEDIHONEY© hydrocolloid dressings contain 95% active Leptospermum Honey, which has been demonstrated to have numerous properties that assist in promoting an ideal healing environment for chronic and severe wounds and burns that have not improved with basic, first attempt treatments. Through the use of materials and dressing gels of high osmolarity, these dressings cleanse the wound and remove devitalized and dessicated tissues. These dressings are create to manage varying degrees of multiple exudates.

Ozium 21 Air Sanitizer effectively reduces and eliminates smoke and odors and destroys airborne bacteria. This one is the original Ozium scent.

High Temp Surgical Cautery Pen. It reaches 220 to 2300 degrees fahrenheit in milliseconds, and it has an easy to remove locking cap that covers the fine-tip point while locking down the on/off switch. Check it out.

Medline Razors Shave Prep Razor, 2-sided - Shave Prep Trays & Razors (100 of
em). It's the Same Razor that Clinipad used to sell. So you know.

And don't forget Crypton Gold Food and Protein Stain Remover (Protein Stain Remover? I Bet Bill Clinton Wished He had Kept some of that Around!). It's a professional strength clear that was formulated to break down the dissolve the tough stains that come from beverages, food, and proteins such as grass, wine, urine and blood. Crypton Gold can be used in combination with Crpyton Purple for stains like Mayonnaise and Salad Dressing (salad dressing, not colostomy dressing).

A Few Chapters from my Blog-Based Book, Book of Magic

2009-06-24T14:29:00.003-05:00

Book of Magic, the main page, find it here.

The last chapter I've posted thus far is Chapter 44 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 1 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 2 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 3 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 4 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 5 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 6 of Book of Magic.

Chapter 7 of Book of Magic.

Oscar-Winning Songwriter Joseph Brooks Indicted on Sex Assault Charges

2009-06-23T13:35:00.004-05:00

Apparently, there are some women out there whose lives he most decidedly did not light up.

Google news covers it, too. He wrote and directed You Light Up My Life, including the award winning song. He produced Eddie and the Cruisers. And who can forget Sweater Girls?

He lured the girls in on the false pretense that he still had any kind of career, then apparently used drugs, including possible date rape drugs, and then had his way with them. Ah, Hollywood.

In other news, if you're looking for Feather Sterile Scalpels, I work for a company that sells such sterile, disposable scalpels with heat-treated stainless steel blades, chemically resistant plastic handles.

Kate Gosselin Caught Hitting Daughter, Because Jon's No Longer Around and She Has To Hit Someone

2009-06-19T12:46:00.006-05:00

Old Kate:

New Kate:

My, how things change.

And while I'm sure she doesn't need any Medline Translucent Standard Speci-Pan Specimen Collectors, but you might, so I'm mentioning it now. Just in case.

In related issues, Kate Gosselin spanked one of her children, and people think it's child abuse.

Experimenting With Embedding MP3 Files

2009-05-26T15:12:00.004-05:00

I'm experimenting with embedding MP3 files, so bare with me. Maybe listen to this, and jam on it, while looking at the rest:

This is Terebulius, from Al Phlipp and the Woo Team's Experimental Album II. Which I've talked about before, but I'm now actually embedding the .mp3 audio. Which I find extra cool.

Another from the same album, called "I Love You":

That, in turned, was based on a oft-repeated motif song for Al Phlipp, "I Hate You". One of the many versions of that song was first heard in 1986, on the original Experimental Album.

And here's the album art for that:

Okay, One More Thing On ShopWiki, and I'm Done

2009-05-24T17:38:00.003-05:00

Which is that they also have region-localized version of the service, like ShopWiki UK (look for Complete Outfits for Women there now, for example). Remember, the folks listed on ShopWiki don't pay for placement, the way people at PriceGrabber and Shopping.com have to. So they have thousands up thousands of stores to choose from, not just those that charge you high enough that they can afford to pay expensive sites like PriceGrabber top-dollar.

And, if you're in the UK (I'm not, but I'd like to be) you could search for Women's Petite Clothing or Women's Blazers and get great result that will actually ship in/to the UK, and you'll get a lot more options than you would from PriceGrabber. Uh-huh. You know what I'm saying.

That woman could have saved money, I bet, if she'd used ShopWiki.Co.UK to search for it. That's all I'm saying, here.

All right. Enough ShopWiki. More other stuff soon. There'd be more other stuff, now, but I had a rotten day. Just so ya know.

Finding Stuff on ShopWiki is Cool. Just Saying

2009-05-23T08:17:00.005-05:00

I like the idea, a lot. I'm a big fan of Google Products (people who know me already know this), although I was a bigger fan when it was called Froogle (just saying; I think going the "Google Products" boring route was a cop-out).

But, my kudos to the free and powerful Google Products aside, I must tell you, too, that I'm fining ShopWiki pretty awesome.

I recently had to look for some Low Voltage Halogen Lamps (yes, I really did, but, no, I won't tell you what for). I tried Google Products. Lots of great results. But I ended up making the purchase from the links I got at ShopWiki. That also served my need for finding Desk Lamps, and also when I was looking to shop for a new torch lamp, which I also had to do, recently.

Comparison shopping is the way to get the best price on the web, and ShopWiki does it well. But I'm not dissing Google Products, which I also love.

PriceGrabber and Shopping.com? Not so much. You want the best prices on stuff, they often stink--because advertisers have to pay confiscatory rates to get listed. Not so with ShopWiki or Google Products.

Active Care Mobility Scooters and Power Wheelchairs

2009-04-20T16:47:00.005-05:00

We've carried them for a while, in our personal mobility scooters and accessories section, but we've recently added more specifically in Active Care Mobility Scooters and Power Wheelchairs.

We've got the metallic gray Prowler 3410 Mid-size Mobility Scooter, as pictured above, as well as the Medical Pilot 2310 Standard Mobility Scooter (burgundy, very pretty).

Were very pleased to add the Metallic Gray Osprey 4410 Large Mobility Scooter, we didn't have that before. That's a good, solid scooter. And it looks great.

We've also added several of their power wheelchairs, like the Renegade Power Wheelchair with 22" seat. Pictured below.

Check out the Medalist Power Wheelchair with 80" seat, too, while you're at it.

That's it for now. More later.

Milon's Secret Castle, The Angry Video Game Nerd, Downland and More

2009-04-13T14:10:00.005-05:00

The highly profant, and highly entertaining, Angry Video Game Nerd keeps turning 'em out.

I just watched him review Milon's Secret Castle. You know, I don't remember having this game, didn't remember the name . . . but once I saw it, like so many thing AVGN has reviewed, I swear I remember having played it. When? I' m getting too old. My memory is waning.

Here the Angry Video Game Nerd waxed poetic over his huge NES collection, and without too much scatalogical references or profanity. Almost a PG video from the Nerd.

Anyway, I love the Angry Video Game Nerd. And if you can put up with constant profanity and cursing and scatalogical language, you will, too.

In other news, I've got most of the tunes for Music to Listen To While Playing 'Downland' on a TRS-80 Color Computer in 1985, as well as the album art, as you might note.

A tune from the album I've recommened, and will recommend again, is Thomas Dolby's Evil Twin. Cuz, you know, it rocks.

TR2N (now Tron) Trailer to Debut At San Diego Comi-Con

2009-02-10T13:44:00.003-06:00

The real teaser trailer that they allow the regular folks to see for TR2N, now just called Tron instead of TR2N or Tron 2 or what have you, will be debuted at the San Diego Comi-Con Convention. Given the reception the original teaser trailer (which was test footage, not anything intended for the actual movie, but will probably finally be revealed in full quality as a DVD extra--just as a guess) received at last Summer's convention, it's a no-brainer.

You can see the original Comic-Con Trailer, a bootlet version, here.

Just so ya know.

I Do Have a Real Job

2009-02-05T13:33:00.006-06:00

Other than than the blogs. Although some of the blogs I do are job related. Then, some of the posts to some of the blogs I do are also job related, like the posts about the great one-day-only Woot! style ultra-awesome deals you can get right now at SnaggStuff.com. Funny how that works out.

In this case, I'm more interesting in showcasing recent updates to DME Medical Supply Group. Because we've got some great stuff, and more people should by buying it. If you're shopping for medical or healthcare supplies, or to furnish and appoint a clinic, hospice or hospital, you shouldn't shop anywhere else. Ever. Seriously.

What's collest? Well, Personal Mobility Scooters, like the Spitfire 1410 and 1420 are totally awesome. Most definitely.

And our prices are great. Just check out our great prices on the Prowler and Spitfire Scooters.

And, check out our Exam Room Furniture, and our full line of Activity Room Accessories. Which includes Antique Theater Style Popcorn Poppers. Seriously.

Awright. Gotta go. More later. Ciao!

Christian Bale Goes On a Profane Tirade

2009-02-03T08:45:00.004-06:00

Oh, the Big Mean Christian Bale. Like there aren't desk jockeys in middle-management jobs who aren't meaner and more profane than Christian Bale, who delivers millions of dollars and great performances to his studio overlord masters. Just saying.

More here.

In other news, I know where you can get some Personal Mobility Electric Scooters, such as the Spitfire EX 1420 4-Wheel Travel Scooter.

Fester's Quest for the Nintendo Entertainment System

2009-01-20T15:29:00.005-06:00

Back when I was in college, I got my first dedicated video game console, the Nintendo Entertainment System. I probably had as many titles for that system as I have ever had for any system. Loved the Mario Titles. The Legend of Zelda (with the pretty gold cartridge), a long with dozens of lesser titles. In fact, when watching the Profanity-Laden Retro Game Reviews of The Angry Video Game Nerd, I'm surprised how many of the NES titles he reviews that I had and played.

Speaking of The Angry Video Game Nerd, he did a review of the titular game I love-hated so much my senior year of college, Fester's Quest. Find his excellent video review of the title here.

Yeah, that's a trailer for AVGN's Moonwalker Review. Which was excellent. Go see that one, too. With lots of scatalogical humor and profanity, just so you know. Angry Video Game Nerd is for adults.

Theoretically, you can play Fester's Quest Online. Right Now. Awesome.

Or, you can watch a guy play the whole thing and talk about it while he does it. Extra-awesome. Man, I love the Internet.

In other news, I may have recommened already that you get great deals on disount electronics and software from SnaggStuff.com. But I'm doing it again. Or, get yourself a great deal on McAfee 2009 Virus Scan--only $13.67 as of this posting, from Software Supply Group.

Have a nice day. And Fester's Quest rocks. Except for having to start from the beginning if you ever die.

Later.

Short Stories, Software, The Atari 5200, Online Novels, and Great Tech Deals from SnaggStuff.com

2009-01-17T08:04:00.007-06:00

Just a quick post to mention, my good friends at Software Supply Group have Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional, a Full Version Retail DVD, and for only $180.95. Pretty cool, eh? I blog endlessly about Software Supply Group at my Software Supply Group Blog. My most recent post was on The Atari 5200, believe it or not. I love the Atari 5200.

I've also added a few more chapter to my Blog Novel, Book of Magic. Most recently, the action-packed Chapter 43.

I'm posting most of my (few) finished short stories at Interstitiums.

Check out Rain on Mars. This is also the first time ever I've made my violence-and-profanity riddled short story, Felt Tip, available for mass public consumption. Kinda Rated R. You've been warned, if you read it. If you dare. Also, my classic, and one of my personal favorites, Mud.

Am I humble? The answer is: no, not really. Sorry 'bout that.

In a more professional vein, may I recommend the Spitfire 1410 4-Wheel Travel Scooter for only $776 Dollars? Or the 500W Stainless Steel Sterilizer for only $792.56, as of this posting? That is hundreds of dollars below the competition, people. Seriously.

Most recenly on my Whassup, Peoples? blog, I expound upon The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and L. Frank Baum. Because that's just how I roll.

Oh, and I should mention he great, one-day-only deals and bargains you can get at SnaggStuff.com. I'd mention one of the specific amazing frickin' deals as seen on SlickDeals, FatWallet, TechBargains, DealCatcher, etc--but it changes every day. Every day! So get to it while you can. And Snagg (see, with the two Gs, ain't that clever?) Yourself a Great Tech Deal!

More later. Have a great, and blessed, day!

It's a Hot Dog Vending Machine

2009-01-08T11:04:00.002-06:00

The hot stays hot and the cool stays cool.

The whole hot dog vending machine idea just seems very cool to me. Of course, I've always loved vending machines. Especially strange ones.

It's Been a While, And Will Remain a While

2009-01-02T23:31:00.006-06:00

But I've lost one blog I was using as a general "aggregator" of what I've done most recently, so I'm going to use here, instead.

First, the latest music from Al Phlipp and the Woo Team can be found in The Experimental Album II. Mainly called that, because we call it that. By which I mean, I decided not to limit myself to any definition about what the album would be or what kind of music or noise I would try to make, and this is the Album that came out of that. Technically, is still coming out, but there are almost two discs worth of songs done now, so I thought I'd go ahead and spring it on an unsuspecting public.

Do I have a favorite? I Love You is a particularly compelling incarnation of the I Hate You Song which appeared originally on the original Experimental Album, titled, "I Hate You". And then it reappeared again as "I Hate You" on the Instrumental Album. In both places, I have them as "(Original Version)", but actually the one on the original 1986 Experimental Album is the really original "I Hate You", but I didn't know I still had a copy of The Experimental Album (1986) until I had done all the MP3 ripping for The Instrumental Album.

Finally, the very longest "I Hate You" ever was put on Broken Narrative from 1989, and uses many of the same samples (thanks to Elisa/Elisse/Elissa Helt for those, way back when) that I use on 2008's "I Love You".

Even more cool is my recent attempt to finish a novel I started back in late 2002/early 2003, and I'm still working on finishing, called Book of Magic. By turning it into a blog. Wish me luck on that! Either start at the beginning, or pick a chapter to sample the tone. Today I'm recommending Chapter 26. Some other day, I'd just as easily recommend another chapter. It's really my paean to the 80s, and my take on writing a tween+ romance from a more adolescent male perspective. Take that for what you will. It's also actually a prequel to the story that I originally was thinking about writing, and started as background for that story--for which I haven't written word one. And will never, if I don't finish this. So help me. Read it. Say you want it finished. And maybe I will.

I also recommend Chapter 23 right now. Just saying.

Additionally, I may have noted before that DME--where I work--sells Durable Medical Equipment. But we've also added a wide variety of very groove Exercise Therapy Equipment just recently. Just thought you should know.

Also--a little schozophrenic this evening--I'm a big fan of the tune, Terebulius, off the Experimental Album II. Although tunes like Sesquipedalian are probably more in keeping with the spirit of the original Experimental Album (by Al Phlipp and the Woo Team).

Pssst. I'm also cool with Thomas Dolby's Evil Twin from the still-kinda-work-in-progress Music To Listen To While Playing Downland on a TRS-80 Color Computer in 1985. Just so you know.

More later.

Links to Medical Supplies from DME Medical Supply Group

2009-01-02T11:45:00.000-06:00

Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live

2008-10-19T07:44:00.003-05:00

I can only imagine what the fall-out of this is going to be. I'll have to start searching it up, I guess.

Palin Rap. Oh, dear. Dear, dear, dear.

I still love this woman. You will not sway me, SNL, with your humorous antics!

Obama Bucks! Oh, Good Golly.

2008-10-17T10:45:00.001-05:00

Apparently, the Chaffey Community Republican Women, led by Diane Fedele, have been distributing Obama Bucks--$10 Food Stamps with a Very Racist depcition of Obama.

I swear. With friends like these, who needs enemas? Not good, peoples, not good. Not that John McLame has any chance of winning this thing, but did you actually think this would help? Didn't anybody around you say, "Hey, maybe this isn't a good idea?" Crikey.

Diane Fedele has since apologized, but the damage has been done. What a nin-cow-poop.

Not that there aren't other Republican groups trying to torpedo John McCain and marginalize the Republican party by being dipshizzles.

In other memes, you Internets is searching on about constipation. Why are you searching for that? Actually, after seeing those Obama bucks, I feel a little constipated. Maybe we all need some enemas.

In entertaining news, Eminem (Marshall Mathers, Slim Shady) has apparently had a Relapse. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

The Perot Factor

2008-10-16T12:40:00.005-05:00

Years ago, I did an analysis of the 1992 election returns in order to demonstrate the statistical certainty that Perot was a spoiler in that election, handing it to Clinton, despite protests from the MSM, liberals and Perot himself. I finally dusted it off and put it up here, years after having first meant to do this.

General Medical Supplies from DME Supply Group. We carry Invacare, Medline, Graham-Field and More! Check it out today!

I recently engaged in an exchange on a liberal blog about Ross Perot and the '92 election. It went the same way such exchanges always do:

Me: It was Ross Perot that put him in the White House.

Them: A lie. Perot drew votes about equally from Bush and Clinton. Certainly he was not the difference maker despite the Republicans' assertions otherwise.

Then, me again:

Actually, it's true. I did a lengthy analysis of the '92 election results and there is no way that Perot was not a spoiler for Bush senior. Now, in fairness, that was the landscape of that political year, and Bush could not keep Clinton and Perot at bay. But Perot acted as a spoiler, if by no other measure (such as the extra ad buys he made and press coverage he got where he spent 80% of the time attacking H.W. Bush) then electorally--while it may not be impossible, it is statistically highly improbable that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race. Even if you accept the notion that Perot drew evenly from both candidates, which you should not (were Blue Dog Democrats who had voted for Reagan and Bush really going to vote for Clinton, if Perot had not been in the mix? Probably not, but those folks are counted on the Democrat side of "drawing evenly between the two parties") . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, there were enough states with enough electoral votes where the smallest shift in Bush's favor would give Bush the election.

I calculated it as something around 35% of the Perot votes going to H.W. Bush gives him the election in 1992. I'd have to go back through the stats again, it's been a long time, but . . . am I really supposed to believe liberal Democrats were enamored with Perot? The Texas Billionaire who talked like a Kentucky Fried chicken? Yes, he had a populist streak, but still . . .

Okee-dokee.

Nader was a spoiler for Gore in 2000, with much less of the vote than Perot got. Whaddaya think about that bald assertion? Without Nader, Gore wins in 2000. No recounts. Done.

This originally came up on a mailing list I subscribed to in the days before blogging, debating the relative obsession the media had at the time with how bad it was Nader would be a spoiler in the 2000 election, when they had no problem with Perot being in it. Even though Perot was clearly a "spoiler", because he was not going to win the election and was clearly going to draw more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats. My argument at the time was that it was because Perot was going to hurt Bush's chance at winning a 2nd term that Perot never got the question: "Aren't you worried about throwing the election to Clinton?" Which was, of course, exactly the sort of question that Nader got about throwing the election to the junior Bush, since he would clearly take potential votes away from Gore.

So, there was a call, when Nader was running, that he drop out, so only the two parties who had a chance of winning would be running, and it would be more fair. Yet they didn't call for only two parties when Perot was running because the press, and partisan Democrats, knew
Perot was not a serious threat to the Democrats, but could easily spoil the election for Bush.

That Nader's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was this huge deal compared to Perot's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was just silly.

Perot got a larger percentage of the vote both times he ran than Nader did in 2000. And the difference almost certainly cost Bush, Sr. the election, even with some crossover. He was obviously going to get more of the vote. And he was a lunatic billionaire to boot. The difference is, he obviously was a big siphoner of Republican voters who respond well to the Perot-style Texas-fried southern populism. He certainly cost George, Sr. the '92 election as Nader cost Gore in 2000. And Nader got a much smaller number of votes, overall. And he never polled as high as Perot did, nowhere near it. But during the run up to 2000, there was all sorts of concern in the media about Nader. With Perot? They gave him a soapbox on Larry King. There were no concerned questions about his distorting the elections. Because Perot was most likely to hurt Bush, and they knew it.

The response from the left:

He's in the race. He's out of the race. He's back in the race. There was no "Perot factor" in either of the elections he ran in. Bush and Dole didn't lose to Clinton because Perot siphoned off votes; if 100 percent of the Perot vote would have gone to the GOP, Clinton would have still won both elections.
That was an actual, quoted response from a liberal on the issue, btw. They don't all make the empircally false claim that if 100% of the vote had gone to Bush, he still would have lost both elections (Republicans would have won 1992, and might have squeaked by electorally in 1996, in that case, actually). But it's not entirely atypical of the revisionist history they employ around this issue, either.

Simply put, the numbers show that Perot was a major factor in both elections. In 1992, Clinton got 44,908,233 votes. George H. W. Bush got 39,102,282 votes. H. Ross Perot got 19,741,048 votes. If you add Perot and Bush's votes together, the number you get is . . tada . . . 58,843,330 votes. That's a margin of victory of 24%. If Bush had gotten all of that, which he wouldn't have but Gore would not have gotten all of Ralph Nader's votes, either, as most of those people would have voted for the next socialist candidate on the ballot, or another greenish or liberal-communist party. But that's an election night landslide, put together, that would have nuked Clinton. Statistically, the electoral votes would have gone, in a clear and decisive victory, to George Herbert Walker Bush. In comparison, Nader was a gnat.

Ronald Reagan got 53,428,357 votes in 1984, to Walter Mondale's 36,930,923 votes. That was a victory margin for Reagan of 31%. A huge landslide in a presidential race. 24% is less, but still in popular landslide territory, historically.

As a comparative, John Anderson got 5,588,014 votes in 1980. Ralph Nader got 2,695,696 votes in 2000. That is a pathetic turn out for a 3rd party candidate . . . nearly 3 million less votes than John Anderson in 1980. And the media wasn't wringing their hands about John Anderson--indeed, CNN took the previous unheard of step of the delaying the Carter/Reagan debates to give John Anderson time to respond, during the debates, as if he was actually at the debates. Which he was not.

Even in 1996, Perot got 8,085,294 votes. Dole got 39,197,469. Together, that would have been 47,282,763 to Clinton's 47,401,185. Enough to have the Supreme Court award the election to Dole. Still, 8,085,294 is a much larger factor than 2,695,696. And Perot polled higher than Nader ever did . . . something like 18% at one point.

So the statement that Clinton would have won both elections is patently false. Against Dole, with CLinton running as an incumbent, yes. Without Perot, it is enormously unlikely that Clinton would have beat Bush. Again, Nader is this big deal, polling at 5% and with a final total of 2 million votes, 3 million less than John Anderson in 1980 and 17 million less than Perot . . . Well, the argument that Nader presented this huge threat to the 2 party system while Perot didn't does not hold water. The deciding factor is the political party negatively affected, at least in popular perception.

Nader, OTOH, probably did put Bush in the White House by splitting the
Democratic ticket in Florida.

Yup. Just like Perot put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992 (look at the state by state returns for the electoral breakdown--Clinton would have been nuked if less than half the Perot voters went to Bush and Perot courted likely Bush voters like nobody's business). Payback's a bitch, isn't it? ;)

The next liberal objection: Not that I care, but your example depends on all of the people who
voted for Perot voting for Bush or Dole.

The fact is, it depends on less that half the people in several states that went for Perot going for Bush, which exit polling at the time and subsequent polls have indicated would be an underestimate. Even if 1/3rd of the vote that went to Perot went to Bush in the popular election, if Clinton still took it it would be the only time in history there was that large a discrepancy between the final electoral count and the popular vote. It seems very unlikely, and intellectually dishonest, to say Perot was a lesser effect than Nader because a particular state was split dead even and Nader made the difference. While heated and close, so more visible and emotionally impactful, Perot did that same thing to Bush in '92, with a hell of a lot more votes, state after state after state. Add that to the fact that Perot spent a ton of money trashing George Bush and a lot less energy (and money) trashing Clinton and had a personal animus against George Herbert Walker, and went so far as to buy an hour of prime time television on ABC to pimp his candidacy and spent almost all of his money courting likely Bush voters, Republicans, evangelicals and disaffected conservatives, and it's just not rational to assert that Perot didn't cost Bush the 1992 election.

As I have documented, it would have taken all of them voting for Dole (which would not have happened) but it would have only taken 1/3rd of them voting for Bush. Given the circumstances, that's a very reasonable expectation.

Anecdote from the left: I know a
couple who voted for Perot who would have voted for Clinton and I
assume there must be others.

Oh, no doubt, it takes all kinds. There are people who would have voted for one or the other if Harry Browne hadn't run, etc., etc. Some Perotistas would have voted for Clinton. Less likely that many Naderites would have voted for Bush . . . a lot more likely that those, unconvinced by the constant and public attacks on Nader to abandon him, would have stayed home and not voted, period, or voted for another eco-ultra-liberal-socialist. But the 1/3rd threshold, given both the active extra negative campaigning (almost 2 against one at some points) and the appeal of southern-fried populist to the Christian Right and a lot of other Grand Old Party types. I knew plenty of people who were all Bushy, until they found lust in their heart for Perot. If that pretty pair of eyes hadn't shown up, they would have stayed faithful and true. ;)

Another objection from the left to the Perot factor idea: It also does not allow for the number of people who would have said, "Screw it" and not voted at all.

It does. It accommodates 2/3rds of them. Not to mention the statistical probability of at least one big state going for Bush without the Perot factor . . . I am specific not to require all., but just a percentage (about 35%) of Perot voters going for Bush to give Bush the victory in '92.

Now, I'm not saying Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000. Statistically, enough votes would have gone to Gore, in Florida, that Gore would have won Florida with thousands of votes to spare. No recounts. Only 3% of the votes for Nader, as few as they were, would have had to have gone to Gore, in Florida, for Gore to take the Whitehouse in the 2000 election. Probably at minimum 10% of those votes would have gone to Gore instead, as the lesser of two evils in the minds of those voters.

The next objection (from folks who embrace erratic and inconclusive models for global warming as hard fact): No one knows what the numbers
would have been in 92 or 96.

Well, no, you can't know for sure, in 92, 96, or 2000, but statistical likelihood makes to a frickin' good bet, and my central argument regarding the existence of a "Perot Factor" is about the disparity between the attacks and concerns over Nader and the lack thereof over Perot, and the attempt to assert that Perot was irrelevant to the results while Nader was crucial.

My assertion is that Perot was so influential that the Clinton victory was so decisive that it would be tough to notice, even if you wanted to. Without an exhaustive trip through the numbers, which I will make below.

More to the point, unless you knew Florida was going to happen before hand, all the polling data indicated Perot was going to be a much bigger factor than Nader, while still having no chance in hell of winning, so he would just be a spoiler, almost certainly for Bush. The idea that there was no big issue with Perot like there was with Nader because Perot "clearly" wasn't a "factor" . . . well, that's just absurd. There's nothing to back that up with.

Not that I object at all the the outcome on that basis, as Bush and Clinton had to earn their votes, just like Dubya and Gore, and if Nader or Perot was a factor, they didn't do their job convincing enough of the people that they were a better choice.

...

So, how do we establish that Perot was a spoiler? Really and tuly? Read the state returns. Perot cost Bush the election, period. To deny it is wishful thinking. To say Nader did it, but Perot didn't, is to apply an obvious double-standard. 19 million votes to 2 million votes. If half of Perot's votes went to Bush, it's a popular victory of 12%! There hasn't been an election in history where the electoral vote was the opposite of a 12% margin of popular victory. And the state returns bear it out. With even with half of what Perot got, Bush would have gotten some 30-odd or more electoral votes than Clinton, and taken the election. Even if 1/3rd of the Perot voters
swung to Bush, he would have taken it. If 1/3 of the Nader voters swung to Gore, he still could have lost the election as it recount stands (if the other Nader voters voted instead for Bush, which is not likely, but still, it's the argument the anti-Perot-Factor people make: that Perot split the vote evenly between Democrats and Republicans so, in truth, "it was like he wasn't even there at all".

While Florida went Bush, anyway, by 100,000 votes in 1992, it's worth noting that Perot picked up over 1 million votes in Florida . . . Clinton and Bush both got a few hundred thousand over 2 million . . . had the ballots been extra confusing in Palm Beach County that year, that million votes could have made the difference. By contrast, Nader picked up 97,488 votes in Florida . . . less than 10% of what Perot managed. It was decisive in this case, but if you go through state-by-state returns, Perot, with 3/4 to 1/2 of the vote going to Bush, if not him, was decisive in '92. Just, your guy was in, and benefited from it, so why complain?

Unless the MSM and liberals were psychic, and could see a 300 vote difference in Florida determining the presidency, there is no way that the bitching about Nader was an objective, bi-partisan protest against diluting the two-party system. Perot cost Bush the election in '92, and the risk of that was very clear in '92--Perot was polling at 18% in some polls at one point in time, light years above anything Nader could even hope to have managed (and if you did the same math--Clinton's numbers vs. Bush's numbers vs. Perots, you could see that a 1/2 to 3/4 shift of Perot voters to Bush could easily make the difference in the election). There were almost no complaints about that, because most of the news media, if not overtly supporting Clinton, was at least plenty happy to have him win, vs. Bush, Sr. Certainly, I recall no interviews of Perot that took on the tone of the 11th hours interviews of Nader: "So, the election is tomorrow, and you wake up, and Bush is president because of you. Can you live with yourself?" "For the good of the
country, shouldn't you withdraw?" Yada, yada.

I haven't done an exhaustive state by state for 1996, because I figured Clinton probably took it no matter, but it is interesting to note the returns of one state . . . Florida!

In 1996, Clinton won Florida, 2,546,600 to 2,224,164 over Dole, or a
difference of 322,436 votes. Perot got 483,841 votes. If 3/4 of those
votes went to Dole, that would have been 362,881 extra votes for
Dole, giving Dole a lead of 40,445 votes, which would have given Dole
Florida. And some spiffy electoral votes, to boot.

Activity Room Accessories for Clinical, Nursing Home and Hospice Applications from DME Supply Group

And here they come. Just some quick numbers for '92:

Arizona went to Clinton, 653,288 to 622,073. Perot got 112,072. If just 1/3 of those Perot votes went to George H. W. Bush, Bush takes Arizona and it's 8 electoral votes.

California went to Clinton, 5,121,325 to 3,630,574. A tidy victory of 1,490,751 votes. However, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in CA in '92. If 3/4 of those votes went to Bush instead of Perot, Bush would have taken CA, and its 54 honkin' electoral votes.

Colarado went to Clinton, 629,681 to 562,850. A fairly decent victory for Clinton of 66,831 votes. Perot got 366,010 votes. If just a paltry 1/4 of those votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken Colorado by some 25,000 odd votes. That would have given Colorado to Bush, and its 8 electoral votes.

Connecticut went to Clinton, 682,318 to 578,313. Perot got 348,771 votes. Same as Colorado: a meager 1/4 of Perot voters voting for Bush, Bush takes Connecticut and its 8 electoral votes.

Delaware: 126,054 to 102,313, Clinton. Perot took 59,213. If half that went to Bush, Delaware goes Bush, and 3 more electoral votes.

Georgia went to Clinton in '92, 1,008,966 to 995,252. Perot took 308,657. If less than 1/3 of that vote went to Bush, Bush would have taken Georgia, and its 13 electoral votes.

Iowa went to Clinton, 586,353 to 504,891 for G.H.W.Bush . . . Perot scored 253,468 votes. If a little less than 1/3rd of those went to Bush, Bush would have taken Iowa, and it's 7 electoral votes.

Kentucky? 665,104 for Clinton to 617,178 for Bush. Perot got 203,994 votes. Less than 1/4th of those tips Kentucky in Bush country, and Bush would have taken Kentucky's 8 electoral votes.

Louisianna: 815,971 Clinton to 733,386 Bush, 211,478 Perot. You do the math. If Bush scored half of the Perotistas, Bush takes Lousiana and its 9 votes.

Maine went Clinton, 263,420 to 206,504 for Bush. Perot took 206,820. 1/4th of those to Bush, Bush takes Maine and 4 more electorals.

Maryland went to Clinton, 988,571 to 707,094 for Bush. If pretty much all of Perot's 281,414 votes went to Bush, it would have been a dead heat, with Clinton still taking it by 63 votes.

If all of Massachusetts' Perot votes went to Bush, Bush would have won the state by 100,000 votes.

Michigan went to Clinton, 1,871,182 to 1,554,940. 1/3 of Perot's 824,813 votes bring Michigan, and its 18 electoral votes, into Bush country.

Minnesota went to Clinton, 1,020,997 to 747,841. However, 3/4 of Perot's 562,506 votes would have swung Minnesota, and it's 10 electorals, for Bush. Missouri went to Clinton, 1,053,873 to 811,159. Half of Perot's 518,741 votes, and Missouri and its 11 electoral votes go Bush.

Clinton took Montana by 10,000 votes. Perot got 107,225 votes. If 10 percent of Perot voters took Bush instead, Bush takes Montana in 92, and it's 3 electoral votes.

Nevada went Clinton, 189,148 to 175,828 . . . about 14,000 votes. Perot got 132,580 in Nevada. If 12% of that had gone to Bush instead, Bush takes Nevada, and the 4 Electoral votes.

New Hampshire went to Clinton. 209,040 to 202,484, a difference of some 7000 votes. Perot won 121,337 votes in New Hampshire. In this case, about 8% of the vote that went to Perot going to Bush gives Bush the victory, and NH's 4 electoral votes.

New Jersey went Clinton with 1,436,206 to 1,356,865. A difference of 79,341 votes. Perot got 521,829 votes in NJ in '92. Less than 1/4th of that to Bush, and Bush would have taken New Jersey and its 15 electoral votes.

New Mexico went to Clinton, 261,617 to 212,824. If a little more than half of Perot's 91,895 votes went to Bush instead, Bush takes New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes. At this point, even not counting California, Bush wins with Perot, and we aren't even done yet.

Ohio and it's 21 electoral votes went to Clinton, with a 90,000 vote victory. However, Perot got over a million votes. 1/10th of that vote to Bush, and Bush takes the state instead. At this point, without the Perot factor, Bush has beat Clinton.

Oregon went to Clinton, 621,314 to 475,757. Perot got 354,091. If most of that had gone Bush, Bush would have taken Oregon. But, assuming he didn't, he would still beat Clinton, absent the Perot factor.

Pennsylvania goes Clinton, 2,239,164 to 1,791,841. Perot wins 902,667 votes. A little under half that to Bush, and Bush would have taken Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island goes Clinton, 213,299 to 131,601. A decisive victory, although if Perot's 105,045 votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have won (although, in cases where all of Perot's vote would have gone to the GOP, I assume Clinton gets it . . . 1/2 or under is the yard stick, and Bush wins using that measure).

Tennessee goes Clinton, 933,521 to 841,300. Perot scored 199,968 votes. Half that to Bush, Bush takes Tennessee, and its 11 electoral votes.

In Vermont, 133,592 to 88,122 Clinton. If most of Perot's 65,991 had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken it.

Washington State: 993,037 Clinton, 731,234 Bush, 541,780 Perot. Just a hair over half of Perot votes to Bush, Bush takes the state. And 11 more electoral votes . . .

West Virginia, 331,001 Clinton, 241,974 Bush, 108,829 Perot. If Bush had gotten all the Perot voters, he wins.

Wisconsin, 1,041,066 to 930,855. 544,479 to Perot, Bush takes the state if under half the Perot vote went to him. And 11 more electoral votes. Additionally, if half the popular Perot vote went to Bush, he would have won with a 12% margin of victory, making the win decisive.

By contrast, there were very few states where the Nader vote could have possibly made the difference. Florida, yes, and he did make the difference. But Perot made the difference in a dozen states, and effectively put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992.

State returns + Perot courting Bush voters + Perot targeting most of his advertising against the Bush administration + Perot's Kentucky-Fried-Billionaire-Populism = Perot was a spoiler, and cost Bush the election.

No Perot factor, my ass. ;)

A full line of Surgical Supplies from DME Supply Group! If you're in the medical profession, check them out today!

Tim Mahoney in Sex Scandal? Nah, It's Not A Scandal! He's a Democrat!

2008-10-16T10:49:00.000-05:00

Congressman Tim Mahoney, who replaced Mark Foley (the Republican congressman who was a little too friendly in his IMs to certain staffers), has an inconvenient scandal of his own. Of course, it's nothing like sending suggestive IMs to certain staffers, but having a mistress that you bribe with a job and who then blackmails you for a payoff to avoid a lawsuit . . . heck, that's okay, cuz Mahoney is a Democrat. Sex scandals are cool when you're a Democrat.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="164" caption="Tim Mahoney. I hope his mistress was cuter than he is. Eww."][/caption]

Says in the article (click Tim Mahoney's ugly mug to read it) that Mahoney is also calling for a probe into himself. He wants them to probe him. Dude is messed up. Seriously. A major perv. This is what they dumped Mark Foley for? Good thinking, voters.

Remember how terrible and evil and insidious Mark Foley's sexually suggestive text messages were? Remember what a horrible, terrible thing George Allen's macaca was? But Tim Mahoney was paying hush money to an ex-mistress and the defense is: well, it wasn't campaign funds. So it's okay. I'm sorry, George Allen was using campaign funds to buy macacas? Mark Foley was using campaign funds to solicit interns?

Double-standard? Yes. Surprising. Nope.

Ah, here's the homewrecker, Patricia Allen:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="Here she is. Jeesh, she's about as hard to look at as he is."][/caption]

More on the Mahoney Scandal from Right Pundits. Ace of Spades notes that Tim Mahoney does have a Republican challenger. That would be Tom Rooney. Tom looks more All-American, and is just Better Looking, than Tim Mahoney. By a long shot. Vote Tom Rooney, you people in Florida who can vote for him. Send Obama to the Whitehouse if you must, but kick old Tim Mahoney the heck out.

Update: Now you folks are searching a lot on Patricia Allen. More news and views on the whole mess here. For you folks who think I got my head up my arse, and there ain't no difference in how Republicrats and Demogogicals get treated in these sexy, sexy scandals, I don't care what you think. You're just wrong with a capital 'P', and that's hard to do, but you've done it.

He may get the heave-ho, but the Dems already tried to cover it up--when complaining about how Hastert tried to cover up Foley--and they aren't getting called out on it, or calling out themselves. They get treated different.

But, when it comes down to it, they are all Politicians, which are basically just Lawyers who already have all your money, so they are all pretty much full of shiznit. They just prove themselves to be monumentally stupid, too.

Still Searching for Karla Escobar? Be Carefully, Pipples!

2008-10-15T14:37:00.002-05:00

Here's my post on my WordPress Blog about Karla Escobar. I didn't copy that one over here, since it has an embedded video, and I don't like spending time changing how the video is embedded for Blogger. Otherwise, I woulda. But you can see it, anyway, so why complaint?

But be careful when searching for Karla. Absolute top search result on The Google as of the time I am posting this is a spyware/malware hijacking type site.

Link Title is "Montpelier KARLA ESCOBAR".

Link says "business.vermonttoday.com/search.pg?q=KARLA+ESCOBAR%3C/title%3E%3Cscript%3Edocument.locati..." but it redirects and attempts to hijack your computer. Shows a fake "Virus Checking" screen and tries to bully you into downloading some kind of trojan horse. Apparently, no easy place to complain about such things to The Google, so I'm warning you.

: Karla Escobar. Don't know where they got this photo. Don't click on the little Play Button Icon. It button does nothing!

A few others do similar things. Don't add any software. Don't click Okay. Don't let websites run "the following add-ons". Don't let any of them install new active-x controls, etc. Just run! Run fast as you can! Force quite as necessary.

Want worthy Karla Escobar articles, check the news search results, or you can just go here.

Karla Escobar coverage at Mahalo.

Janet Jackson Suffers From Vestibular Migraines

2008-10-15T14:35:00.000-05:00

Headaches you get from standing in the vestibule? Apparently not. Vestibular Migraines are is a nuerological events characterized by altered bodily experiences, painful headaches, and nausea and, in the case of vestibular migraines, dizziness and loss of balance.

Janet Jackson, like many folks, suffer from them.

: Janet Jackson Suffers from Vestibular Migraines. And Multiple Wardrobe Malfunction Syndrome.

There are a coupla things I'd recommend for migraines. First, see your doctor. There are lots of prescription meds that do wonders.

Second, something like a Pain Relief Mask with Magical Massaging Ergo Beads.

Hold up, hold up, I ain't done. You might try instant cold compresses. They are portable, handy dandy, and for some people really help relieve migraine pain.

There are plenty of other cold and hot therapies for pain to consider for headache or other pain. Just sayin'.

You know who else suffered from migraines? Founding father and brilliant thinker and writer, Thomas Jefferson.

: Thomas Jefferson suffered from migraines, too. Wasn't much he could do put draw the shades and lay down for a few days. Sucks. Imagine what he could have gotten done if he could have just taken a Migrazone and cleared that shiznit right up?

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson has a Podcast? It's true. The man's still keeping busy, 182 years after he died. That's what you call a true patriot.

Jenny McCarthy: You Pipples Continue to Like Her

2008-10-15T14:34:00.000-05:00

Lots of people showing up on my blog are coming on the term "Jenny McCarthy".

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. Well, never mind, the point is I'm not sure I get it. Not much new with her mouthing off about vaccines and autism since last week.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="524" caption="Jenny McCarthy Cools Herself Down With a Completely Innocent Hose-Based Metaphor."][/caption]

Not that you need a reason to search out Jenny McCarthy. She is a classic. Although Dirty Love, her 2005 movie, sucked donkey balloons.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="The movie poster was reasonably enticing. It was, as it turns out, the only good thing about the movie."][/caption]

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Jenny McCarthy taking a bath. Just console yourself with the knowledge that beautiful people, and the folks married to or involved with the beautiful people, all tend to have really effed up lives. That's all you got."][/caption]

And on and on it goes.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Here, Jenny McCarthy Innocently Mustards up a Hotdog, In a Scene That Cannot Possibly Be Misconstrued as a Metaphor for Something Else."][/caption]

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Jenny is thirsty. What a playful scene of All-American innocence. "][/caption]

Laterz, Internets. I'm getting tired. Sleep well, see ya tomorrow sometime. Or Monday, if I get busy mowing the lawn and shiznit.

Jenny McCarthy Finds Steve Fossett, Alive on Desert Island, Thanks to His Coconut Based Satellite Phone

2008-10-15T14:31:00.001-05:00

: Steve Fossett faked his own death? And where did he go? Could be, I guess.

So you pipples think that Steve Fossett faked his own death? Hmmm. Why did you care so much? Don't you have work to be doing?

Here's the coconut phone he should be using to contact civilization, on his uncharted desert isle:

: Steve Fossett's Coconut Phone is In Progress

In other news, you people don't know how to spell Gwen Eiffel. It's Iffil, by the way.

Yawn. Travis Henry is trouble with the law. You peoples love yourselves some footballs. Double-extra-yawn.

: Jenny McCarthy still on about the autism. Are you searching because of the autism debate, or have you got something else on your mind?

And who needs an excuse for another pic of Jenny McCarthy? Amanda Peet, no so much.

Update: More Jenny McCarthy. Since you're looking for her so hard.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Tim Hasselbeck: Is This The Same Story?

2008-10-15T14:24:00.001-05:00

Not quite sure, but you Internetsers are sure looking for the both of them. Elisabeth Hasselbeck is annoyed by the liberals on "The View". Like, duh.

Nothing is going on with Tim Hasselbeck. Whatchu people care about 'em for?

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="292" caption="This is the Tim and the Elisabeth, Apparently. What you so interested in them for?"][/caption]

I can guess why you're interested in Ashley Force. She's a looker.

: Yeah, Ashley Force is cute. And she's got a great name. But what suddenly piqued your interest, Internets? Tell me that.

Jenny McCarthy to Wrestle Amanda Peet in Bikinis

2008-10-15T14:21:00.001-05:00

So, Jenny McCarthy is on about autism.

: Jenny McCarthy is opposed to vaccinations, because maybe they cause Autism. She's a scientist, right?

So, she slams Amanda Peet.

: Amanda Peet says people who don't get their kids vaccinated are parasites. She's a scientist, right?

I think this important conflict will only be settled if Jenny and Amanda work out there differences, while wearing bikinis, by wrestling in a vat of hot oil. They are both scientists, right, and that's how we normally work out these kind of analytical inconsistencies. Right?

You're also interesting in Summer Bailey. There's also a Summer Bailey who does porno, I'm guessing they aren't the same Summer Bailey.

You've also developed a sudden interest in the Alternative Minimum Tax out there on the Internets. You people must be rich, if you're paying that. It's just for rich people, right?

And Lou Dobbs on the Bailout. Good for you. Making you Internets are getting smarter. Lou Dobbs has a much better idea what he's talking about than most of the Talking Heads out there.

Also, you pipples are apparently very interested in the Senate version of the bailout bill. It's not that complicated. First, you bend over. Second, you grab the ankles. Third, the government takes your money and gives it to their big leftist friends running Wall Street. Done and done.

And you want to know about The Hampton Coliseum. Why? Phish again. Jeeze, you Phish-heads out there. A lot of you are, apparently. They broke up, what, four years ago? Some bands don't do a tour or come out with an album for five or six years. Settle down, people.

So, are you people doing the Googlification out there for the latest Quinnipiac Poll because you're all about reading how Obama is ahead in the polls, or just because you like saying the word Quinnipiac?

A sudden interest in Robert Kardashian because of what exactly? Whatever, Internets. Whatever.

Hewlett Packard is buying LeftHand Networks. They are rumored to be in talks with one Ned Flanders to buy The Leftorium at the Springfield Mall. Because it would make about as much sense.

I think you Womens out there must be the ones searching for Yummie Tummie. Watching the Oprah again?

: Yummie Tummie. Don't think they actually work on hard plastic mannequins.

Laters, Internets.

* This is a sub-selection of my blog, Whassup, People? Just so you know.

Aubrey O'Day Naked with Danity Kane, Playing Lingerie Football With Jayde Nicole . . . Plus Bacon

2008-10-14T15:36:00.000-05:00

Hah. Made you look. No, seriously, she's almost naked. That's as far as I go here.

And why am I going there? Lots of you are searching for Aubrey O'Day. I can't figure it out. Oh, wait. I just did.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="431" caption="Hamana-hamana-hamana. Wholly Owned Subsidiary, She's Hot! Some accuse her of being dumb as a box of rocks. Like that would matter. Please see above."][/caption]

There's Aubrey O'Day. Lovely Name. Might also explain you Internets perpetual fascination with frackin' Danity Kane.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Danity Kane, Go Away, Come Again Some Other Day. Or Don't. In fact, We'd Rather You Not."][/caption]

Proof Aubrey O'Day is, indeed, as dumb as a box of rocks? She just recently endorsed Obamarama for Presidential of These United Snakes. As a way of taking attention away from skankiness, which she apparently spent a lot of time originally trying to draw attention to. Well, it takes all kinds, I guess.

You're also exhibiting a growing interest in Lingerie Football. There are seriously Lingerie Football Teams and a League, now? Well, well, well. Maybe football could be more interesting than I thought.

[caption id="attachment_197" align="aligncenter" width="267" caption="If This is the New Face of Football, Count Me In."][/caption]

They must be doing this just to get people like me to watch football. Cuz if anything would do it, this probably would.

Heh. I said "wood".

Your interest in Savannah Guthrie proves not to be nearly so prurient, but, of course, leads back to Sarah Palin. The short story is: NBC was jealous, so ran a smear story on Palin. More likely, NBC is just full of the genus Waccus Liberalis, and so ran a smear story on Palin. Though, regarding Savannah Guthrie, I'd say she's pretty cute . . .

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="174" caption="Savannah Guthrie. She's a Professional Journalists. A Cute Professional Journalist. Or Former Journalist. Whatever."][/caption]

BTW, Savannah Guthrie also did one of NBC's so-called "fact checks" on Sarah Palin, and Newsbusters takes issue with her objectivity and accuracy.

Also, there is a certain amount of growing interest in Playboy Playmate Jayde Nicole out there.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="357" caption="Jayde Nicole is some sort of Playdate of This Year in some sort of Magazine for Discerning Young Gentlemen. I Get a Very Maternal Vibe Off Her. Don't You?"][/caption]

Again, I can't figure it out. Some kind of flannel vest fetish? You like the name "Jayde"? Sometimes, you peeples out in the Internets are very hard to read. You're all like a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in bacon. Mmmmm. Bacon.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Mmmmm. Delicious, delicious bacon. Aubrey O'Who, Now?"][/caption]

My Loony Bun is Fine Benny Lava

2008-09-30T17:22:00.001-05:00

You just to need to see it. Very few thinks are so nearly perfect in life as this.

Mandy Blank, Lynndie England, Amy Cohen (Old Maid) And You’re Still Looking for the Naked Sarah Palin Painting

2008-09-30T16:59:00.001-05:00

Wassup, my homefries? Well, lemme lay it down for ya.

You're suddenly interested in Lynndie England again. I can guess why.

You're also lookin' all around for Mandy Blank. I definitely know what's up there.

: Mandy Blank. She's buff, ain't she? No Sarah Palin, tho.

You're also still looking for that nude Sarah Palin painting. You nasty Internets, you. And it's an ugly painting, too.

Is this the Amy Cohen you pipples are looking for? Mostly crusty old maids doing this search, I'm guessing.

: This is Amy Cohen. She's an old maid, and says that's just how she likes it.

Is it just me, or does she look like Lisa Kudrow's less attractive older sister?

: Yeah, Lisa Kudrow's a whole lot cuter. Sorta the same mouth, tho.

You're also all about Tony Mandarich. Cuz he did steroids. But, of course, it's football again. What's it with you Internets and footballs? Yawning. Lots.

: Here's Tony. Yeah, he did steroids. Shock!

You Nasty Internets! Nude Sarah Palin Paintings? Puh-leeese.

2008-09-30T16:39:00.001-05:00

Right now, everybody is looking for Tara Grinstead. Maybe this was why the poor Amber alert girl was a meme yesterday. Though Tara is apparently a lot older. Also, she's been missing since 2005. That's usually not a good sign, but I hope they find her.

This is Tara:

: Tara Grinstead is missing. Apparently, she's a popular meme today. Maybe that means they've found something out. Hope it's good news, but I don't know yet.

Why are you so interested in Windsteam Email? Must've been a news story I missed. I do that a lot, apparently.

I'm not showing the badly painted nude portrait of Sarah Palin at the Old Towne Ale House in Chicago. An Obama supporter painted it . . . and had his daughter pose nude for the really bad painting. Ewww. Just, ewww. You Internets, why are you so interested in that?

UPDATE: Much Better Picture of a Nude Sarah Palin Here. Definitely NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

Like Dan Rather might say: Fake, but accurate.

The rest is all sports peoples and things like the mark to market definition. Haven't you figured that out yet?

It's Morning (of Doom!) In America. We're Talking HR 7175 Here. And the Vril Society. Oooo, Scary, Internets

2008-09-30T16:36:00.000-05:00

What, nobody cares about hot chicks on the Inter-Tubes in the morning? But you're still all into the Vril Society?

Okay, weirdos. Whatever.

Your priorities are all mess up. Just saying.

The Pelosi speech I guess I can see why you all keep looking for it. Even The Guardian over there in Old Britania is more busy writing about that the Princess Charles latest hairstyle.

But HR 3997? Isn't that awfully wonky, political-geeky for you? And look at you! Also big into HR 7175. What the heck is that? On Motion to Suspend the Rules and PassSmall Business Financing Improvements Act of 2008, that's what The Google is telling me. That doesn't sound promising. Apparently, I can find out how the people voted, but not what it all means. And I guess that's why you're looking for it, too. Well, sorry, Internets, but we're on the same boat this time.

Go look for it on THOMAS. Maybe it will get there. If the government isn't trying to hide something.

You are all still on about the Terrell Owens controversy, whatever it is. Why do you people care so much about the football? You're suppose to care about computer geekery and women who dress like elves and superhero chicks. In fact, here's seventeen girls dressed up like Supergirl. That's what you Internets are supposed to be looking at, not HR 666 and Terrell "The Boring Football Guy" Owens or Nancy "The Blabber" Pelosi speeches. Jeeze, you people.

Is She Not Like the Hottest Supergirl Ever. I Love Her. This is What You Internets Ought To Be All About This Morning. Not Nancy-frumpin-Pelosi. Sheesh.

Other stuff you're all about this morning? Bailout Vote! Bailout Fail! Bailout Bill! The economy is crashing. What you gonna do? Nothing. Look at the Supergirl up there. That's all you got, Internets. That's all you got now.

You Internets Is So Crazy, Seriously

2008-09-30T16:32:00.002-05:00

Suddenly a big deal? Amber Hagerman. She of the Amber Alert. Man, that is a tragic story. But why the sudden interest? Could it have something to do with Kelsey Peterson? You know, the teacher who recently "ran away" with her 13 year old lover?

Seriously, where were these chicks when I was growing up? I knew guys who fantasized about it, but it never happened. Why are these teacher chicks so crazy now? I blame the Internets. All sorts of stuff has gone crazy since the Internets.

Speaking of the fantasies, all-of-the-sudden-like all of you are interested in Sarah Shahi. Can't say that I'm blaming you.

You guys are all interested in the Sarah Shahi tonight? Yes, she is quite lovely.

You weirdos really want to know about the Vril Society. Why? Doesn't look like you ever cared about it before. Somehow, I'm sure there's some sort of leftist kook conspiracy crap at the bottom of this one. I'm sure I'll be delighted to learn the awful truth of it.

But on the Inter-Tubes tonight is . . . uh, ArginMax. Well, you cheeky little devils. Wanting to boost the girlfriend or wife's sex drive, presumably by hiding some ArginMax in that killer Kung Pao you're fixing her up. Well, best of luck with that. Unless the woman is already a bit randy, she's not likely to be taking that stuff voluntarily--she don't miss her sex drive, you do, you horny bastard. You selfish horny bastard. Best of luck hiding it in her food, like a fellow trying to feed a heartworm pill to a stubborn pooch. Yeah, I know what you're up to, you crazy Internets. I know you cold.

Sarah Shahi is not interested in eating your brownies you made her special. Trust me.

In addition to trying a slip a little Spanish Fly to your womenfolk, you people are all a tizzy over John Harbaugh.

Seriously, what is up with you Internets peoples and the football? I'm lost. That's what I mean when I'm saying you're crazy. It just ain't that interesting. Is it? I'm reading about the Harbaugh now, who I had never heard of, and I'm getting sleepy.

You are also all crazy like over The Gilliand Ranch, because it's about UFOs and stuff. That's my Art Bell, Coast-to-Coast AM late night freakies I'm expecting from the Internets this time of night.

Youse guys is also very interesting in mark-to-market accounting. Look, it ain't that complicated. It means companies have to say something is worth what is actually worth that day instead of what it might be worth at some point down the road. There are good reasons for this, many stemming from the Enron scandal (thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, the problem is mark-to-market is making accurate valuations of certain financial instruments very tough, thus contributing the current financial crisis . . . you know, maybe it is more complicated than I was thinking. Look it up on the Wikipedia. They know everything there!

Also look up commercial paper there, in case you were wondering about that.

Here's Sarah Shahi again:

Yes, this was necessary. Very, very necessary. No, I'm not the one doing all the Internet Searchings for Shahi tonight. But I understand why it's happening. I understand very well.

[/caption]

You're interested in Life TV right now? And why? No, don't tell me, you never make sense anyway.

Heather Locklear: 47 Years Old, on Drugs, Arrested, No Makeup, Been Crying and . . . Still Looks Way Better Than You

Speaking of TV, no love on the Internets for Heather Locklear and her mugshot? Are you just jealous that she's 47, high, been out partying all night, just got busted, is getting her mugshot made by the friendly LA police people, and she looks better than you do after spending a day at the salon? Yeah, well, sorry, but she does. And that's just the ugly truth of it, Internets.

But you do like 17 Kids and Counting. Good for you. I prefer Jon and Kate Plus Eight.

More in five minutes. Be more patient, Internets.

Ray Lewis, Haruki Nakamura, and the Kim Kardashian Mambo

2008-09-30T16:27:00.002-05:00

I'm posting these on my Wordpress blog, thought I'd post it here, too. So here it is:

Whassup, Peoples?

Right now, the big meme seems to be Ray Lewis. Why? Because the world likes football more than I do.

People also seems suddenly very interested in The Kim Kardashian Mambo.

Who is Haruki Nakamura? More football? What's wrong with you internet peoples? Football, football, and more football.

The Pelosi speech regarding the bailout is still a big deal. Why? Do you people really think she has something useful, relevant, or remotely interesting to say? Boy, I've got more I could say about that, but I gotta put the kids and then myself to bed. One day, I will truly tell you whassup with dat.

Apparently, all you football loving, Kim Kardashian watching folks also want Nancy Pelosi's email address, too. I hope you're emailing her that you plan to fire her come November, because whatever we got instead, it'd be better than what we got right now. True, dat. Double true.

Who is Glen McDuffie?

2008-09-29T20:18:00.010-05:00

I ask, because it's apparently a big search term all of a sudden, yet I can see no reason for it. Oh, he's just claiming that sailor in that famous "kiss" photo, although he's apparently not the only one to claim such a thing.

Well, he's old now. Looks like he could use some walkers or some rollators. I happen to work for a company that sells them, thus the connection.

Then there's Kelsey Peterson, who apparently a 25 year old teacher from Lexington, Nebraska who has kidnapped a 13 year old student she's been having sex with. Where were those kinds of teachers when I was a kid? So, when he's middle-aged, she's gonna need a wheelchair (hah, there's that connection again, get it?). Although there's some pretty darned cool wheelchairs out there. I wouldn't mind one like that.

So what is Terrell Owens saying? Actually, I just don't care.

I'm guessing he doesn't need a Nano-Neb Portable Nebulizer. I'm betting that, by now, you're beginning to see a pattern.

Is Eisenstaedt big news? As in Alfred Eisenstaedt? Really? Why? Oh, he also claims to be the guy in the famous Life Magazine picture. Jeeze. The things that become internet memes.

You know what never seems to become an internet meme? Lymphedema Garments. I'm just saying.

Alexei Ramirez is also big news right now. Good for him.

I'd just be happy if somebody were talking about the great deals that DME (the company I work for) offers on Ostomy products, skin barriers, 1- and 2-piece drainable and closed bags, supports, faceplates and more.

Also, big right now apparently is Stills Disease. That's this hour, I'm sure it will change, you fickle internet folk. And while I can't promise to cure Stills Disease, I can recommend some excellent pain management for arthritis pain and ambulatory products to help the arthritic get around.

Look, the economy is crashing around us (can you say roll call bailout vote), and I gotta make a living. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Help me out, folks. Buy something.

The Software Supply Group Sitemap

2008-07-22T12:05:00.003-05:00

The Site Map (Index) for Software Supply Group. Automatically generated via Yahoo!'s proprietary RTML "scripting" language. Nice job, if I do say so myself.

Microsoft Software

Microsoft Operating Systems
Windows Vista
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit Full Version OEM - 66R-00765
Microsoft Windows Vista Business 32-bit Full Version OEM - 66J-02289
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit Full Version OEM - 66I-00715
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit Full Version OEM - 66G-00576
Microsoft Windows Vista Business 32-Bit Restore DVD for Dell Computers - JP341
Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade Retail Box - 66I-00003
Windows XP
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition w/ SP3 OEM Version - N09-00984-oem
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Edition 32-bit w/ SP3 OEM Version - E85-02665-oem
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition SP2 Full Version OEM - M93-00411
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Edition w/ SP2 OEM 64-BIT
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Professional SP1 Restore CD for Dell Computers - 6U814
Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Full Version OEM - B23-00079-OEM
Windows NT
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation OEM - 236-01563-oem
Windows 95
Microsoft Windows 95 2.1 OEM with USB - A23-00021
Microsoft Windows 95 Upgrade Retail Box - 362-00243
Microsoft Office & Works
Office 2007 Products
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional OEM Pro Version with media- 269-11094-oem
Microsoft Office 2007 SBE Small Business Edition OEM Version
Microsoft Office 2007 Basic OEM Version with media - S55-01347-oem
Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student OEM - 79G-00007-OEM
Microsoft Office 2007 Professional Pro DSP - 269-11618
Microsoft Office 2007 Small Business SBE DSP - 9QA-00444
Microsoft Office 2007 Basic DSP - S55-01347
Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Studnet DSP - 79G-00752
Microsoft Office 2007 Pro Professional 3-User Full Version DSP - 269-11936
Microsoft Office 2007 Master Kit (OEM Media Only) - 269-11521
Office 2003 Products
Microsoft Office 2003 Professional Pro Full OEM - 269-06738-OEM
Microsoft Office 2003 Small Business SBE Full OEM - 588-02636-OEM
Microsoft Office 2003 Basic Full OEM - S55-00099
Microsoft Office 2003 Pro Professional Upgrade Retail Box - 269-06752
Office XP 2002 Products
Microsoft Office XP 2002 Pro OEM - 269-04508-oem
Microsoft Office XP 2002 Small Business Edition SBE Full Version OEM - 021-04493-OEM
Microsoft Office XP 2002 Standard for Students and Teachers Retial Box - H14-00004
Office 2000 Products
Microsoft Office 2000 Pro Professional Full Version OEM - 269-02188-OEM
Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business Edition SBE OEM Version
Microsoft Word 2000 oem with cd and booklet
Works Products
Microsoft Works Suite 2006 OEM on DVD - B11-01215
Microsoft Works Suite 2006 OEM on CD - OKG-014
Microsoft Works 8.0 Promo - 070-02596
Office 2008 Products
Microsoft Office 2008 Special Media Edition for MAC Full Version Retail Box - FWA-00062
Microsoft Server Products
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Standard 5 Cals Full Version OEM - P73-04001
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition 25-Cal New Sealed Full Retail Box - 810-05186
Microsoft Exchange 2007 Enterprise Edition x64 25-Cal Full Version Retail Box - 395-03824
Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 OEM DSP R2 standard with Windows 2003 server and Exchange Server
Microsoft Small Business Server Premium 2003 R2 5 CALs Transition Pack License Only T75-01258
Microsoft Windows 2003 Server R2a 5 Cal DSP oem - P73-02766
Windows 2008 Server Enterprise 25 CAL Full retail box P72-02906
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Small Business Server - License - 5 user CALs - English - T74-00002
Microsoft Windows 2003 Server 5 Device Cal OEM Dell - R18-00907-dell
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 5-CAL Retail - R18-00907
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64-bit Enterprise Edition 25-CAL OEM - R23-00028
Microsoft Business Products
Microsoft Money Deluxe 2005 oem with Encarta Deluxe 2005
Microsoft Money 2008 Plus Home and Business Retail Box - KGA-00003
Microsoft Money 2008 Plus Premium Retail Box - KFA-00004

Adobe Software

Adobe Acrobat
Adobe Acrobat 8 Standard Full Retail Version for Windows - 22002184
Adobe Acrobat 8 Standard Full Version OEM for Windows - 22002184-oem
Adobe Acrobat 8.1 Pro Professional Full Version Retail for Windows with FREE Upgrade to Version 9 - 22020403
Adobe Acrobat 8.1 Pro Professional Full Version OEM in DVD Case for Windows with FREE Upgrade to Version 9 - 22020403-OEM
Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional Academic DVD Pro - 22020369
Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Standard OEM - 22001631
Adobe Creative Suites
Adobe Creative Suite 2 Standard Upgrade Retail Box for Windows - 28030226
Adobe Creative Suite 3 CS3 Design Premium AE Academic for MAC - 19500129
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop CS2 Full Retail Box for Mac - 13102124

Symantec Software

Symantec Norton Antivirus 2008 OEM with 1 Year Free Updates
Symantec Norton Internet Security 2008 OEM with 1 Year Free Updates
Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 - 10 Users 12098243 - Retail Box
Symantec Endpoint Protection 11 - 5 Users 12755358 - Retail Box
Symantec 12813860 Norton SystemWorks 2008 Standard Edition Retail Box
Symantec Norton Internet Security 2005 - OEM Version
Symantec Norton AntiVirus 10.0 with Groupware Protection Business Pack 10 User Retail Box - 10362845

Kaspersky Software

Kaspersky Internet Security 7.0 OEM Version - KIS70BOX-oem
Kaspersky Internet Security 7.0 3-User Retail Box - KIS70BOX
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 Retail Box - KAV70BOX
Kaspersky 7.0 Internet Security 3-User Retail License with Download with 1 Year Updates - KIS7DL3
Kaspersky 7.0 Internet Security 1-User Retail License with Download with 1 Year Updates - KIS7DL1

Trend Micro Software

Trend Micro PC-Cillin Internet Security 2008 1-User OEM - TIS085671
Trend Micro PC-Cillin 2008 Internet Security 3-User OEM - TIS085598-oem

Panda Software

Panda Internet Security 2007 OEM with 1 Year Free Updates
Panda Antivirus 2008 - CD only one year Free updates [OEM]
Panda Antivirus + Firewall 2008 - CD only one year Free updates [OEM]
Panda Internet Security 2008 - CD only one year Free updates [OEM]
Panda 2006 Titanium AntiVirus plus Antispyware OEM - PAV06

Cyberlink Software

Cyberlink Power DVD 7 Software OEM Version

Roxio Software

Roxio easymedia7basic Easy Media Creator 7 Basic Edition OEM Version
Roxio Easy CD Creator 9.1 OEM - 236700

Sage Software

Peachtree Complete Accounting 2008 - Retail Box - PCW2008RT
Peachtree Premium Accounting 2008 - Retail Box - PPA2008RT
Peachtree Premium Accounting 2008 - 5 Users - PPAM2008RT
Sage ACTX2008RT ACT! 2008 Premium EX Single User

Intuit Software

Intuit Turbo Tax Business 2007 New Retail Box - 404212
Quickbooks Simple Start 2005 Edition Full Retail Version - 306382
Quicken 2008 Home and Business Retail Box - 403616
Quicken 2008 Premier Retail Box - 403615

Miscellaneous Software

Business Plan Pro 11 - bppx1 - Palo Alto Software version 2008
CA Internet Security Suite Plus 2008 Single User OEM - 1932342
CA Anti-Virus 2008 Single User OEM - 1932336
McAfee 2008 VirusScan Plus OEM - VSF08EMB1RUAoem
InterVideo WinDVD 5 OEM - 6222310
Corel WordPerfect Office X3 Standard Edition Full Version OEM - Create and Edit PDF Files - WPX3STDENGPC-OEMExcess Software
SQL Server 2000 5 CAL Std Win Full
System Management Server 2003 Ent 10 CAL Full
Windows 2000 Server 10 CAL Full
Windows 2000 Server 5 CAL Full
Windows 2008 Server Enterprise 25 CAL
Windows SBE 2003 Premium 5 CAL Full
Adobe Ovation 1.0 Win
Office Standard 2007 Full CD
Acrobat 5.0 Win Full
Acrobat 6.0 Std Full
Windows XP Home W/SP2 Full
Windows XP Pro Full
Windows XP Pro Upgrade
Windows XP Pro Upgrade W/SP2
Acrobat 7.0 Standard For Windows
Office 2000 Pro OEM
Office XP Pro OEM with Publisher
Office XP SBE OEM 1 Pack
Windows XP Pro OEM
Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 R2 Std
Project 2003 Server
Small Business Server 2003 Premium R2 with 5 CALs
Windows Vista Home Premium Full
Windows Vista Home Premium Full SP1
Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade Retail Box - 66I-00003
Windows Vista Ultimate Full
Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade
Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade SP1
Windows XP Home W/SP2 Full
Windows XP Pro Full
Windows XP Pro Upgrade
Windows XP Pro Upgrade W/SP2
Word 2007 Full
Word 2007 Upgrade
Adobe Acrobat Pro 8 Mac Full
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Pro Win
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Web Standard Win
Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 Mac Full
Adobe Flash Professional CS3 Mac
Excel 2007 Upgrade
Excel 2007 Win Full
Expression Studio
Mappoint GPS 2006
Office 2004 Pro Mac Full
Office 2007 Pro Full
Office 2008 Mac Full
Office 2007 Home and Student
Office Mac 2008 W/Expression Media
Office Mac 2008 W/Expression Media Upgrade
Office Professional 2007 Upgrade
Office 2007 Standard Full
Office 2007 Standard Upgrade
Office 2007 Ultimate Upgrade
Onenote 2007 Full
Powerpoint 2007 Upgrade
Project 2007 Professional Full
Project 2007 Professional Upgrade
Project Standard 2007 Upgrade
Publisher 2007
Sharepoint Designer 2007
Student 2007 with Encarta Premium 2007
Visio Standard 2007 Upgrade
Visio Professional 2007 Upgrade
Access 2007 Full
Expression Web Upgrade
Mappoint 2006
Office 2003 Pro Upgrade
Office 2007 Small Business Full
Office Small Business Accounting 2006
Powerpoint 2007 Full
Project 2007 Standard Full
Visual Studio 6.0 Enterprise Win Full
Visual Studio 6.0 Pro Win Full
Windows Vista Ultimate Full SP1
Windows XP Pro W/SP2 Full
Adobe After Effects CS3 Pro Mac Full
Adobe Audition 3.0 Win
Adobe Director 11 Full
Adobe Framemaker 8 Win Full
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Win Full
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Full
Adobe Premier CS3 Mac
Adobe Production Studio Premium Win.
Adobe Soundbooth CS3 Mac Full
Adobe Systems Premiere Elements 4.0 Win
Office 2007 Small Business OEM
Office Pro 2007 W32 DSP OEI (MLK)
Windows XP Pro SP2 OEM
Exchange Server 2007 Enterprise 25 Cal Full 395-03824
Windows 2008 Server Std 5 CAL
Windows Server 2003 R2 Std 5-CAL OEM SP2 English 1-4CPU
Windows XP Home W/SP2 Full
Windows XP Pro Upgrade W/SP2
Windows XP Home W/SP2 Full
Windows XP Pro Upgrade W/SP2
Office Mac 2008 W/Expression Media
Office Mac 2008 W/Expression Media Upgrade
Office 2007 Pro Upgrade
Windows XP Pro W/SP2 Full
Windows Vista Business Upgrade
Microsoft Expression WEB Designer 1.0
Publisher 2007 Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Web Standard Mac
Adobe Flash Professional CS3 Win
Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade SP1
Visio Professional 2007 Full
Adobe Premier CS3 Win
Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 Mac Full
Adobe Flex Builder v2.0 for Windows with Charting
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Mac Full
Acrobat 6.0 Std Win Upgrade
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Pro Win
Project 2003 Std Win Full
Publisher 2007 Upgrade
Office 2007 Small Business Upgrade
Windows 2003 Ent 25 CAL SP1
Visual Studio 2008 Professional
Adobe After Effects CS3 Pro
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Pro Mac
Office 2003 Student and Teacher
Office 2007 Ultimate Win Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Web Premium Mac
Office 2003 Basic OEM
Office 2003 Pro OEM
Windows Vista Business Upgrade SP1
Office 2007 Basic OEM
Office 2007 Pro OEM
Visio Std 2007 Full
Windows 2003 Server Std 5 CAL OEM
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Std Win
Exchange Server 2007 Enterprise 25 Cal Full
ACT! Premium 2008 EX Edition 5 User
Office 2007 Ultimate
Office XP Pro Win Full
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Std Win
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Pro Mac
SQL Sever 2000 10 CAL Std Win Full
Office 2003 Pro Win
Office XP Std Win Full
Adobe Dreamweaver CS3 Win Full
Win XP Pro SP1 OEM
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Production Premium Win Full
Visio 2002 Professional
Office 2003 SBE Win OEM 1 Pack
Office 2007 Groove Full
FrontPage 2003 Win Full
Windows XP Pro OEM
Office XP Std Win Full
Apple MAC OS X 10.5 Leopard 5CAL Full
Windows Vista Home Basic Upgrade SP1
Windows 2003 Server Std 5 CAL Full
Office XP Pro Win Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Master Collection Mac
Adobe Indesign CS3 Win Full
Adobe Photoshop Extended CS3 10 Win Full
Windows 2003 Ent 25 CAL R2 x64 Full
Office 2007 Infopath Full
Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design Suite Standard Mac
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Master Collection Win
Windows 2003 Server Std 5 CAL w/SP1 OEM
Windows Server 2003 5 User CALs License Pack
Windows Server ENT 2003 R2 25 CAL
Windows XP Pro W/SP2 Full
Windows Vista Business Full Version
FrontPage 2003 Win Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Design Premium Win
Office 2003 Pro Win Full
Office XP Pro Win Upgrade
Office Small Business 2007
Windows XP Pro W/SP2 Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 Production Bundle Mac
Office 2003 Std Student and Teacher
Office 2007 Pro Full
Windows 2000 Pro Full
Expression Web Full
Adobe Illustrator CS3 Mac Full
Adobe Illustrator CS3 Win Full
Adobe Technical Communication Suite Win Full
Office 2003 Pro OEM
Windows 2003 Server 5 CAL R2 SP2 x 64bit OEM
Office 2003 Std Win Full
Visio 2003 Pro Win Full
Office 2007 Standard Academic
Windows Vista Home Basic SP1
Adobe Flex Builder 3 Standard
Windows 2003 Ent 25 CAL R2 SP2 x 64bit Full
Adobe Contribute CS3
Adobe Acrobat 8.0 Pro Win
Office SB 2007 W32 EN 1pk DSP OEI W/OfcProTri(MLK)
Office 2007 Basic OEM License Only
SQL 2005 Std 5 CAL Full
Adobe Creative Suite CS3.3 Design Standard Mac
Adobe Flash Professional CS3 Mac
Visual Studio 2008 Standard

Hardware

AC Adapters
Dell PA9 Ac Adapter PN 6G356 Latitude 20V 4.5amp 6G356100-240V 50-50HZ 20V 4.5A Latitude C640 C840 Inspiron 8200 and 4150 PA-9 New with 90 Day Warranty
DELL 5U092 AC ADAPTER Family: PA-12 / PA12 , Dell P/N: 5U092 / N2765 / 310-2862 / 7W104 / 310-3149 / 310-2860 / 310-4002 / V1277 / 1X917 Compatible models: Dell Inspiron: 300M, 500M, 600M Dell Latitude: X300 / D400 / D500 / D505 / D600 / Refurbished / Clean Pulls / Like new , 30 Day Warranty
Dell 9T215 D Series AC Adapter PA-10 / PA10 for Dell Latitude D Series and Inspiron 8500, 8600 Series, equivelent part numbers: 310-2862 / 7W104 / 310-399 / 09T215 / and 5U092 / Refurbished / Clean Pulls / Like new, 30 Day Warranty
IBM ThinkPad 02K6699 72W Notebook AC Adapter compatible parts: 02K6657, 02K6749, 02K6753 or 02K6665 New with 90 Day Warranty
Dell pa1 81407 AC Adapter for Dell Latitude XP, XPi, XPi CD & others PA-1 New OEM with 30 Day Warranty
PSCV360104A AC-DC Power Adapter AC-DC Power Adapter for LCD Monitor New with 90 Day Warranty
SYS2011-6016 IBM's Brand New OEM AC adapter for IBM 600, 560,380, 560, and Several More Models
2011-6019 Brand New OEM - AC Adapter for Sony - works for SONY notebooks: Z505 Series, R505 Series, All-in-One F and FX Series, and XG Series
Laptop Batteries
Sony VGP-BPL4 Large Capacity Battery for VAIO BX/AX Series - New Sealed with Full Manf. Warranty
Cables / Adapters
USB 1.1 Cable A to B - 6 Foot
3' USB to Serial Adapter RS232 (9-pin) Cable USB-RS232
Misc Hardware
Q-Pad Keyboard For PALM M5 - Series PN : 103-3152-01 - Retail
HP iPAQ FA113A#AC3 H1900 Stylus 3-Pack
Lenovo ThinkPad X60 Tablet Sleeve - 41U3142
IBM - 9.5MM DVD/CD-RW COMBO DRIVE FOR THINKPAD Z60/T60 SERIES (39T2687) 41N8327 - New with 90 Day Warranty
Intel PRO/1000 MT Quad Port Server Adapter - network adapter - 4 ports - Retail Box with Manf. Warranty
Arkon Sound-Feeder SF100 CD / MP3 / ipod Player Powered Car Audio Adapter - FM Transmitter New with 1 Year Warranty SF100
Buffalo Technology 1GB USB Flash Drive / with 3 foot USB extension cable (MPN: RUF2E1GBK) New Retail, 2 Year Manf. Direct Warranty
High Sierra Carry-On Laptop Computer Tote Case 8050-31
Mustang MV-TILT3 Tilt Wall Mount Adjustable for TV's up to 50-inches
Mustang MV-STAT2 Universal LCD/Plasma Wall Mount for 26" to 36" TVs

A New Post on my Software Supply Group Blog

2008-07-21T14:41:00.002-05:00

I really am still here, just busy on other things (right now). I will be back. This I pledge. In the meantime . . .

My post of Microsoft Office 2008 for the Mac, that's mostly me waxing nostalgic about the TRS-80 Color Computer (of which I had several, and was my first real exposure to the world of computing--and online BBSes, the precursors to the Internet--in 1981). Also, an opportunity to pimp some of our Microsoft Office Software at Software Supply Group.

Also, I've started working on a DME Supply Group blog for, naturally, DME Supply Group. I'm using LiveJournal for this one, which I'm still not entirely sure about but I'm going to keep on it for a while.

Other stuff? Check out The Dell Store at Software Supply Group. And our full line of Microsoft Office and Works products.

Also, here's a link to a manufacturers list of medical suppliers at JRS Medical. The main reason for this is to encourage search engines to browse those links, or do so more frequently, because my tiny little blog has linked to that page. Does it really work? I don't know. But when you've got kids to feed, you'll try all sorts of things!

More in the future. I promise!

I'm Doing a Different Kind of Blog Now

2008-04-25T10:26:00.002-05:00

For Software Supply Group! Though I'm still doing this blog, any time something occurs to me.

Come see this "other" blog at SoftwareSupply.blogspot.com, and see what I have to say about the software we sell, and, on occasion, the daily grind of dong an ecommerce site and developing on the Yahoo! Store platform. Then come over to Software Supply Group, and buy some software.

BTW, I do have one other blog, that's pretty much a verbatim repeat of this blog over at www.KevinWillis.net, though I don't post everything over here that I do there, and I'm sometimes several months behind in the updating of this blogspot blog. So, this is probably not the best place to check me out. If you do. But, you can leave comments here, so that's different.

BTW, as you may or may not recall, I also work with a company called JRS Medical. There's a blog for it, as well, at blog.JRSMedical.com, but I'm not the one maintaining that blog, so it's not nearly as entertaining or informative as my own.

Have a blessed day!

I Picked HD DVD Again, And Here's Why . . .

2008-01-08T12:28:00.004-06:00

Even though it looks like bad news for HD DVD right now! But, I don't feel bad. Still, if you haven't bought an HD DVD player yet, you might want to go Blu-Ray.

BTW, I just had to mention that for a great DVD watching experience on your PC, you oughta get Cyberlink Power DVD 7.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I had to return to Venturer HD DVD player because there was something flakey with that unit. At first it didn't want to play the HD DVD discs, then finally it did, but after I hooked it up to the HD TV with the HDMI cable, it plays about 30 seconds of a regular DVD . . . and then wouldn't play DVDs at all anymore. Huh?

Just a flakey unit. We returned it, which was a huge headache--never buy anything you might want to return from Walmart.com--got the refund, spent a little more buying the same unit, only under the parent Toshiba brand, and now it works. And, so far (knock on laminated plastic faux wood) it's working great.

This actually turned out to be a pretty good deal--comes with the two HD DVDs (Bourne and 300, which I love, so I'm stoked with that), and then three more we could order from Amazon.com as part of the order--Sky Captain, 2001, and Terminator 3 is what I ordered. Then, we send in the receipt and the UPC from the package, and we will theoretically get five more DVDs--Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, The Frightners, Darkman, Aeon Flux and Pitch Black. Not too bad for $198 + shipping.

On the down side, Blu-Ray is buying up the studios and getting the most exclusive content, which is going to hurt HD DVD. The recent exclusive deal with Warners is going to do serious damage HD DVD as a long term format. If you shop around, you can get reasonably priced Blu-Ray players, which bodes well as they only recently broke the $500 barrier, and now some resellers are selling them for $260 or so. Plus, Blu-Ray is built in to the PS3, and so that's going to help the numbers, in the long run.

But I'm not worried. I've got an HD DVD players that works with the HDTV, we shopped almost entirely on price, so we have the most inexpensive set-up we could manage. Under $600 for the TV, HD DVD players, and 10 HD DVD titles . . . Free would have been better, but I can live with that.

By the time the legacy titles I would most like--Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future, and the Indiana Jones films--hit Hi-Def (and they will almost certainly be Blu-Ray), Blu-Ray players will be under $200 bucks. There will probably be an HD DVD player available for under $100 (which will make a good purchase for those of us with minor HD DVD libraries, to keep a backup machine). In the meantime, the success of Blu-Ray may mean some deals on HD DVD titles.

Oh, and I should say--the cheapest upsampling regular DVD players are around $90. Any HD DVD player (or Blu-Ray, for that matter) will, by default, also be an upsampling DVD converter, and upsampled regular DVDs look a lot better on hi-def TVs than straight video from a plain vanilla DVD player. So, my HD DVD player will always be a good upsampling traditional DVD player, and we have a lot of regular DVDs that aren't going anywhere any time soon.

In the end, Blu-Ray is a solid format, and can store more data. It's more expensive to develop for than HD DVD, but eventually, that hurdle will be overcome. If Blu-Ray wins the format war decisively, that will help the market--more folks will start buying Blu-Ray players, more titles will make it to Blu-Ray, and so there will be more hi-def content out there, and it will be cheaper to access--and this will also drive down the prices of the flat-screen TVs which (I'm predicting here) will in 10 years be significantly cheaper than their cathode-ray counterparts today. It's all good.

So, if you haven't bought yet, you might want to wait a few months, or just go ahead and buy a Blu-Ray. But if you just recently got an HD DVD player, don't worry. It'll hang on for a while, new titles will come out, and for as long as the player lasts, it'll be great for upsampling (upconverting) your existing DVDs. Which ain't too shabby.

Update, 4/20/08: I got a $50 credit from Amazon, since Toshiba decided to kill the HD-DVD format. I bought some more HD-DVDs with it. I figure by the time the player dies, I will have watched them enough that I've more than gotten my money's worth. And, it's a great up-sampling DVD player.

And, BTW, for Great Deals on Microsoft Office 2007, and more, check out Software Supply Group. Thanks!

The Golden Compass Falls Flat

2007-12-19T12:23:00.000-06:00

Because it wasn't a very good movie, overall. The Anti-Christian overtones might have had something to do with it, but I doubt it.

I saw it, and it wasn't bad, though the first half-hour is really kind of bland. I wouldn't have thought much of it, I don't think, as a young child. The rest is pretty good, although the ending is sheered off, and I don't know that it should have been. I don't think what they did worked any better than doing what they did in the book (apparently kill the lead character).

The anti-Christian stuff is toned down, and mostly anti-Authoritarian and anti-Fascist in nature. But what is there is simplistic, silly, and clearly seems to imply that monotheism begets simplistic fascism and authoritarianism. This is ground that has been trod dozens of times before, in ways more interesting, and it makes the bits with the Maegesterium and Ms. Coulter more tedious than engaging.

Still, worldwide grosses for the first two weeks have been $133 million, for a film that cost about $180 million, and which probably had another $20 million in marketing (I'm pulling that figure out of my butt, fyi, but I suspect it's conservative). By the time it's gone, it can easily hit $160 million, possibly $180 or higher, worldwide, then there will be cable and DVD sales and so on, and it will make a profit, but a guaranteed blockbuster franchise, ala LOTR, it clearly is not.

Yet, as a Christian, I don't blame this on the anti-religious themes, nor would I encourage people to avoid His Dark Materials because of Pullman's boring and predictable atheism. If the story doesn't appeal to you, fine, but the questions and objections Pullman raises should be answered by Christians (or the religious, generally), rather than run from. Or boycotted. As I have mentioned in other circumstances, I think boycotts are only a level above the burning of books or CDs, and burning things (whether Dixie Chick CDs or American flags) as a form of political statement is just retarded.

Really, there is nothing in the Golden Compass for anybody to be afraid of. Pullman's depiction of religious authority is boring and predictable. The metaphor of Ms. Coulter wanting to "cut off" children's souls is so silly, given thought, it's laughable--not frightening. It's certainly not a deep theological question.

If you want a reason to avoid Philip Pullman's novels, I suggest you avoid them based on his arrogance and hubris. I happen to be a huge J.R.R. Tolkien fan--and I came late to it, only having first read the Lord of the Rings in 2003--and Pullman's condescension towards Tolkien is breathtaking, considering the shallowness, and the sloppiness, of his own work. Pullman says of Tokien:

'The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work. Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.

Elsewhere, Pullman calls Tolkien "trivial", which is not a rational statement, even if you hate his work (which would make me consider you clinically insane, but that's not the point right now). He also says Tolkien didn't ask the right questions in his work . . . Pullman's hubris is breathtaking, and I think a little humility could have done a lot to inform his work, give it greater depth, and, in the end, it could have resulted in a decent story and some good movies; the religiosity, or lack of it, notwithstanding.

Of course, one could speculate about Pullman's antipathy to Tolkien (and, of course, C.S. Lewis): Tolkien was deeply religious. He did not engage in apologetics or allegory, but, certainly, it informed his work. Pullman's distaste for religion, and even moreso for the religious, taints his view of the works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and, in the end, I think it makes His Dark Materials (and the movie based on the first book in the series) a smaller, less serious work than it could have been. And a much smaller work than any random thought Tolkien ever scribbled on a cocktail napkin.

BTW, I Am Legend is tearing it up at the box office and, in addition to action and adventure, I Am Legend is a movie that believes in God. I'm just saying.

I'm Choosing HD DVD, And Here's Why . . .

2007-12-17T12:26:00.000-06:00

For those of you don't read Aint It Cool News, the syntax of that is a too-hip reference to that site. But it's true, cuz I have an HD DVD player.

It's the Venture SHD7000, which we ordered from Wal-Mart.com for $189, but I'm linking to the one on Amazon cuz just in case someone buys it, I get a few bucks.

So far, so good. I was dismayed at first: nothing would play! But it turns out that it was condensation. The player had gotten cold in shipment, and the few hours it had sat around in its box hadn't been nearly enough to get all the inside guts back up to room temperature. So there was condensation on the lenses, and possibly other problems related to the temperature, and it just wouldn't work right. It came with too excellent HD DVD discs: 300, which I love, and Bourne Identity, which is also very good, and neither of them would play but for a few minutes. I was really worried I was going to have to send the thing back or find some way to stretch and ethernet cable over to it so I could plug it into the internet and force a firmware update . . .

Oh, and welcome to the modern age, where everything from the Playstation 3 to your cable box to your DVD player is a computer that can lock up or crash or needs to be rebooted for decent performance, and may require updates that are about as complicated to pull off as a firmware update on your computer and, if something goes wrong, you can brick your DVD player or your game console. Yikes!

However, I didn't have to do the firmware update: after a few hours, everything started playing great. But there are other minor issues that I worry may be larger, in time: DRM (Digital Rights Management), or copy-protection, for one. For example, I was looking forward to seeing how regular DVDs got upsampled to our high-definition screen (I'm ashamed to say, I think it's 720p rather than 1080p, but I don't actually remember, and I should look it up but it doesn't really matter because it was the cheapest HD TV we could find so that was the one we were going to buy). But I still don't know how well it upsamples, because it didn't upsample them--because I wasn't using at HDMI cable (I'm using component video), apparently, and the default assumption for DVDs that don't have the current generation of DRM in them is that they have to be low-resolution out (it's a weird form of copy protection to prevent certain discs from going out at their highest resolution, if there is some fear it may be copied). That it does this with the regular output of DVDs and prevents upsampling . . . I don't get that. But, soon I will get an HDMI cable and see if the pictures look better in pure digital.

And here's why . . . because it's cheaper. The players are cheaper than Blu-Ray, and the next one we buy will be, too, no matter where they are in the development process. Not everything I want to see in hi-def is in HD, but neither is everything in Blu-Ray, so that's a wash. Most things, I believe, will end up on both formats. And more things will be available on HD, over time, and at better prices, because it's much easier and cheaper to retrofit existing facilities to make HD DVDs, the media is cheaper, and it's cheaper to make the readers, too. Everything about HD DVDs is easier and less expensive than Blu-Ray, so HD DVD is going to have the price advantage for a long time.

That doesn't mean that Blu-Ray is going to lose and HD DVD is going to win, only that it's going to be cheaper to own HD DVD for a long time, and the "cheaper to manufacture" makes it more likely that older titles (other than those owned by Sony) will start appearing on HD DVD earlier, and that HD DVD will enjoy greater market penetration--thus being more attractive as a market for older titles.

Blu-Ray isn't going to go the way of the Beta, though, as the more expensive and technologically superior failure. Blu-Ray will build a market as a high-capacity computer DVD technology, do more stuff to distinguish itself on the high-end for videophiles, and, of course, by the disc technology used in current and future Sony game consoles. HD DVD, however, is going to be with us for a long while, too: it's the cheaper and easier technology, market penetration will be higher, and players and media will be cheaper. As the price for Blu-Ray gets in line, it will be relatively trivial for consumers to own both formats, or buy multi-format players (right now, the only multi-format players are more expensive than buying to separate players).

So, as a consumer, I'm going with--and would have to recommend--HD DVD. Yes, it pisses me off everytime I seen a title I want that's coming out for Blu-Ray, but not HD DVD (at least, not yet). But . . . man, does 300 look sweet! And it came for free with the player.

In case I don't post again before the 25th, Merry Christmas, to all, and to all, a good night.

God bless.

Updated!! I'm Returning my HD DVD Player, And Here's Why . . .

It's not playing regular DVDs. It did for a minute and, once I had an HDMI cable plugged in, the upsampling looked really good. Not as good as the HD-DVD, but much better on the Hi-Def TV than a regular DVD player. I was stoked, then it stopped playing the disc, and wouldn't play another regular DVD. While it continued to play HD DVDs, for now, I had to decide that there is something peculiarly wrong with this particular unit (maybe in shipping, maybe exposed to extreme temperatures in shipping or too much moisture), so back it goes. I will use the credit to perhaps purchase another one. Maybe the same model (reading online convinces me that my problems may have been peculiar to my unit, not the model line overall), or maybe a different one, and hope for better luck. Still, I'm convinced HD DVD is, price/performance, still the best performance and that if Blu-Ray wins the format wars, by the time it wins definitively Blu-Ray players will be available for less than $100, so who cares?

Sigh . . . I wish it had just worked, tho.

And don't forget, Medical supplies at JRS Medical, that's a great place for medical supplies, knee walkers, foot massagers, female urinals (ewww!) and more!

I Don't Want To Sound Nutty, But . . .

2007-11-30T12:21:00.000-06:00

After a certain age, Knee Walkers can be a handy thing, especially if you don't know about them. JRS Medical has a great knee walker, and since I'm doing some work with them I've gotten to see how well they sell.

Yes, this is kind of an advertisement for knee walkers, but just wait until you get old and need one. Then you'll be glad I told you about them. Seriously, I'm amazed at how well these do, or how popular they are: do a search for kneewalker just about anywhere, and see how many results you get. It's an extraordinarily popular item.

And, ahem, JRS Medical just happens to have the best price on them (and free shipping). I'm just saying is, all.

The Amazon Kindle: The Edsel of the Internet Age

2007-11-26T12:25:00.000-06:00

And, as much as I'd like a good e-reader, this doesn't look like this is it. But Amazon is going to push it hard.

Talk about the Edsel of e-book readers. The Amazon Kindle is Amazon's first hardware product, their first real product launch, and it looks, uh, bulky and wonky and . . . I don't think so.

It's got great features--more than Sony's somewhat more attractive and less bulky, but still not quite "there" e-book reader--but it's both uglier and $100 more. For an e-book reader. Wireless? Cool. The ability to subscribe to RSS feeds (but only ones that cost money? Is that right?) . . . and qualified "cool". Amazon.com intergration? Pretty groovy. Tons of titles in the Kindle format, and books in the Kindle format are attractively priced. All good.

But Fake Steve Jobs sums up the problems, and the probable flop that version 1.0 of the Amazon e-book reader will be, in this blog post. Gotta love Fake Steve.

As Fake Steve says:

Amazonians, remember this: people have to put these things in their homes! It's called design. Have you heard of it? Apparently my dear friend Jeff Bezos hasn't.

Here's hoping that Kindle becomes what it oughta be with version 2.0.

Forbes has a pretty comprehensive article on the Kindle here.

Debunking Global Warming, Part 5: Comparing Global Warming to Teen Slasher Movies

2007-04-04T12:20:00.000-05:00

And the Frankestein monster. Or why things will never get better, and problems can never be solved, at The First Church of Climate Change.

Rush Limbaugh, when sassing the Global Warming True Believers, likes to say this: "When you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything." Which is why otherwise intelligent people can believe that, given sufficient complication and obfuscation, 2+2 can actually, really, for-sure-n-doubt equal 5 when it comes to the environment.

I don't know if that's entirely true--there are plenty of agnostics and atheists who don't sign up for the Global Warming mythology--but it certainly doesn't help.

While I make the argument myself previously that global warming and environmentalism is a secular religion, (and extensively quote Michael Crichton, who made the argument well before me) it is, more particularly, an excellent example of magical thinking.

What is "magical thinking"? To quote Wikipedia:

In psychology and cognitive science, magical thinking is non-scientific causal reasoning (e.g. superstition). James George Frazer and Bronislaw K. Malinowski said that magic is more like science than religion, and that societies with magical beliefs often had separate religious beliefs and practices. Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation.

Which is an excellent description of the nature of the consensus "science" that "proves" man-made Global Warming.

I've always loved this cartoon by Sidney Harris, where the middle of a complicated mathematical proof is "and then a miracle happens".

While I found an amazing number of liberals citing that cartoon as example of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy, I couldn't find anybody citing it as an example of the science used to "prove" the religious contentions of Global Warming. Yet I think it is much more apropos to the junk science of Man-Made Climate Change than it does to military strategy (or, as one liberal used it, as a way of discrediting the supply side idea that tax cuts lead to economic growth, although that use is inaccurate, at least such a comparison makes more sense to me than to military strategy, but I digress).

Ahem. The point is, with magical thinking: it's magic! It can be anything! Causal relationships are anything you want them to be. Correlations mean anything you want them to. It's magic!

When it's negative magical thinking--as is the doomsday alarmism of man-made Global Warming--there is no real solution, and the problem is all your fault. The problem is a well-greased pig that can never be really caught, can never really be restrained, although we are all supposed to try, because we're the dumbasses who greased the pig up in the first place.

There is not a lot on the web specifically about negative magical thinking (Google it yourself, if you don't believe me), but I found this excerpt from Building Resilience in Children Affected by HIV/AIDS by Silke-Andrea Mallmann, CPS, that will serve as a sufficient explanation:

Three months ago, six-year-old Petrus came home from school to be told by his mother that his father had died suddenly. He was sick only for a few days ... He has been withdrawn and quiet since the death of his father. He doesn’t like leaving the house to go to school. When he gets to school he is very shy....When he makes a mistake he seems frightened, compulsively erasing the mistake so that his exercise books are full of holes.

When his teacher confronted him about the holes in his books, he started to cry. When his mother asked him why he had rubbed holes in his books, he said that if he didn’t rub his mistakes out properly, his mother would die too. When his mother asked him why he thought that, Petrus said that his father had died on the day that he got into trouble for not listening at school and he had been told to repeat a whole exercise.

The example of Petrus is a typical example of a child who engages in magical thinking...Children Petrus’s age think that their own actions have a direct impact on the events that take place in their lives. In Petrus’s case, he believes that making a mistake and being scolded in school had a direct impact on his father’s death...Negative magical thinking (as in Petrus’s case) can lead to feelings of guilt and failure and have a negative impact on the child’s coping capability.

All grown up, negative magic thinking has liberals, lefties, and even well-intentioned middle-of-the-roaders buying carbon offsets, buying hybrid cars, agitating to outlaw incadescent lightbulbs, demanding biofuels, and so on, so that the planet doesn't die. Even though there is no relationship between the warming--much less the "death" of--planet earth and whether or not they buy products with recycled packaing or compost at their house, they think they are saving the planet, and demand that you do the same. Yet, just as the boy in the example above was tearing up his workbook that he was erasing so much, so are the unintended consequences of the magical thinking of environmentalists prone to cause more problems than they solve. If they solve any problems, which they usually don't, because the initial problems are imaginary, and only the unintended problems caused by trying to "solve" the imaginary problems are real.

And as often as not, the real or imagined problems that liberals and lefties end up agitating about are the direct product of their previously legislated solutions to imaginary problems. Because, with negative magical thinking, there is no real solution. You can never erase enough, hard enough, fast enough. Enough is never enough.

For example: although the problem is imminent and the consequences will be disasterous, there is, at least, a promised solution--outlaw incadescent light bulbs, replace fossil fuels with bio-fuels, put solar panels on everybody's houses, get power from windmills, erase all your mistakes until the paper tears, and so on. But negative magical thinking is like one of those teenage slasher movies: you can't ever really kill the bogeyman.

So if everybody replaces their lightbulbs with fluroescent lamps, suddenly the cost and energy of manufacturing, the mercury in them, even the very wavelength of the light (I'm sure most of you remember the accusation that fluroescent lights were making people sick, or depressed and suicidal, because of the "kind of light" they put out)--all that will become an environmental disaster in the making. The solution will suddenly become the problem. Because with negative magical thinking, there can be no solution. Only the promise of one.

Since billions have been spent on nuclear energy and we were well on the way to having meaningful nuclear power that would help us become more energy indepent, it became a huge problem. It became a bogeyman for a long time--even though the only problems, ever, with nuclear plants have all been due to government mismanagement, and when the government has stepped out of direct management of nuclear power, there have been zero mishaps.

Right now, biofuels are the rage. But there is a high cost in producing them, there are energy and polution issues, refining biofuels skips all the zillions of insane regulations liberals have irrationally heaped onto the the gas and oil industry (which, I guarantee you, will be a "Big Problem" as biofuels become mainstream), ethanol adversely effects the price of staple grains in the 3rd world, and on and on and on. There are hints of it already, but biofuels will eventually be worse than oil. Because, of course, there are real problems with all energy alternatives, and because the negative magical thinking involved in Global Warming alarmism requires that the problems be insoluble, and that the cure always be worse than the disease.

And also, of course, that they never see this repeating pattern in their behavior.

If solar power was deployed widely--that is, Joe and Jane Six-Pack were using solar panels on their house--then suddenly solar power would not be a solution, it would be a problem. The heat envelope generated by the absorption of solar radiation would be causing glacial melting ten-thousand miles away that was killing the aquatic polar ice monkey. And it would all be because we hadn't outlawed SUVs and heavily taxed excessive breathing.

Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees are Global Warming.

If you've ever watched a teen slasher movie and for the umpteenth time wondered: why isn't she running? Why is she just standing there while he advances with the axe? The answer is: because there is no point. They will not get away. Even if they manage to survive this movie, they'll get killed in the sequel.

Because you cannot kill the bogeyman. And Global Warming is the current incarnation of the left's perpetual bogeyman. It will always have two unchanging aspects: it is disasterous, and it is humanity's fault. Just as Victor Von Frankenstein was to blame for the monster his scientific curiosity unleashed upon the world, so is the desire to progress, to invent, to create, to start a business and live a good life, always going to somehow, in the mind of the left, spawn some terrible palpable consequence, and one frequently global in scope. Global warming, or a new ice age, or acid rain, or the ozone hole, or Y2K, or second hand smoke, or towering infernos--whatever it is, it's a disaster, and it is humanity's fault.

M. Knight Shamaylan is currently working on a movie that, in essence, is about the earth acting as a vengeful Goddess and killing off humanity (and perhaps animal life, I'm not sure) because Man has been a poor steward of nature, what with the polluting and the SUVs and the incadescent light bulb. At one point in time the working title was, apparently, The Green Effect.

And it matches the negative thinking mythology of Global Warming perfectly. A disaster is imminent, it is apocolyptic in nature, it is largely unavoidable, it will destroy mankind as we know it: and we deserve it, because it is all our fault, and only the liberals were smart and good enough to save us, but even they--in all their power and wisdom--could not pass enough laws, nationalize enough industries, outlaw enough companies, regulate enough consumers, and imprison enough Global Warming deniers to save the world in time.

While there is an absurd presumption of center-of-the-universe power with most in the Global Warming movement (as many people, amazed at the hubris of assuming that we control the weather and have more power over the temperature of our planet than the sun, will point out), it is, like most egotism or narcissism, an illusion.

It always turns out that we are powerless to put the genie back in the bottle. We replace the old light bulbs, and the new ones will be worse. We replace fossil fuels, and the new fuels will be worse. We finally prove the planet isn't warming, and it will be cooling--so fast that an ice age is imminent. And, strangely, the culprit will always be something symbolic of man's scientific and spiritual triumphs: technology and capitalism, generally, or things like the automobile, the factory, or the light bulb in particular.

It's never, say, Hollywood movies or Cable News Networks or ecological activists that are destroying the world. It's always the meaningful achievements of man where we actually have "subdued" nature: whether it's domesticated live stock or "catching lightning in a bottle" (the electric light!), those who are Global Warming alarmists will always find some doomsday scenario in which to believe, and some area of real human progress and achievement upon which to blame their fantastical doomsday.

And, as is often the case the negative magical thinking in adults, their personal guilt and resposibility about their imagined power over the planet will manifest in them pointing the finger of blame at you, and demanding that you change your life, your lifestyle, your business, and surrender your autonomy.

So, when you have to give up your SUV, your light bulbs, your land, your right to own private property, start a business, or keep the money you earn, just remember: perserving the environment requires sacrifices from everybody.

Because everyone knows the environmental gods are angry. And angry gods demand sacrifices. So, if we just sacrifice your freedom and liberty to them, the God's will be appeased.

That's the consensus, at any rate.

Debunking Global Warming, Part 4: Environmentalism as Religion, Silencing the Critics

2007-02-28T12:18:00.000-06:00

Previously, I mentioned that there are several red flags associated with the predictions of catastrophe, and the quasi-religious modern day belief in Global Warming, that I believe should make you very suspicious about the veracity of the claims made by climate change activists . . .

The first, discussed at length, is the tendency of the majority of Climate Change catastrophists to dismiss critics, attack them, discredit them—in short, do anything but answer the questions they raise or convincingly argue against their objections.

The second red flag is not just the desire but the active advocacy of silencing the critics. The Global Warming crowd is full of folks who want to make it impossible for dissent to be heard. For example, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen recently advocated that the American Meteorological Society revoke their Seal of Approval for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating climate catastrophe! Read more here.

I find it peculiarly revealing that Cullen compared allowing meteorologists who are skeptical of Global Warming to stay on the air to allowing meteorologists who say that hurricanes rotate clockwise to stay on the air, apparently unaware herself, for all her climate expertise, that hurricanes to rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Which would encompass an entire half of the planet that Cullen forgot about, there. Hmmm. Maybe she should be stripped of her credentials.

Global Warming Deniers

For those who haven’t given the history and purpose behind War Crimes trials much thought, you might be interested to learn (although, if you are reading me, then you are no doubt smart enough to already know) that the primary reason for War Crimes tribunals, and for discussing the likelihood of having them, is to effect and curtail the behavior of those we are at war with presently or might be at war with in the future, and specifically effect the treatment of their own citizens and the soldiers they capture, before there is anybody we can put on trial.

So when environmental activists like David Roberts advocate that we have War Crimes trials for people who are skeptical about the insanely divergent and inconsistent predictions of Global Warming doom, the intent is to silence present day critics. To be clear, what Roberts is advocating is the death penalty, in the future, for people who disagree with the predictions (or the prophesies, which would be a more accurate term given the faith-based nature of the Global Warming belief system) of global climate disaster caused by the free market and the astounding productivity and progress enabled by capitalism. And the reason that such a suggestion would even be floated would be as an attempt to silence present day critics, right now. Since getting the death penalty for the capital crime of disagreeing with liberals, leftists, and socialists is still extremely difficult. Stupid constitution!

Just recently, renowned environmental scientists—oh, no, I’m sorry, I meant: “windbag politicians”—Olympia Snow and Jay Rockefeller wrote a letter telling Exxon to start towing the Global Warming alarmist line on climate change, or face negative consequences. Read more here.

When The Church is so desperate to have critics silenced, one might well be forgiven for suspecting that not only is the evidence simply not there, but that even their faith is shaky.

In Aliens Cause Global Warming, Michael Crichton relays what happened to author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg:

We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called

The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?

Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?

When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic.

Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.And that, in a nut shell, is the main reason that there is an effort to silence even casual critics of Global Warming: because they are heretics, and when your religion is nascent and struggling to establish and then maintain power, you cannot tolerate heretics, critics, or skeptics. And most of what goes on regarding Global Warming in the mainstream media, in politics, and with environmental activism, is religious and philosophical rather than scientific.

In Environmentalism as a Religion, Crichton argues just that point: that modern environmentalism is a religion, rather than an objective field of science, and he makes the case:

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

…

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

And he says a great deal more. It’s a must read.

Crichton is not the only one who sees modern-day environmentalism as a religion: so does self-described “green” David Orrell in his book, Apollo’s Arrow. Orrell addresses with some specificity the religious nature of the prediction—i.e., prophesies—of modern day Environmentalism.

David G. Danielson was giving Environmentalism as Religion serious thought back in 1995.

MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen also likens fear of Global Warming to a religious belief. H. Sterling Burnett makes the same point in Human Events. And you know what radical right-wingers those MIT meteorologists are!

So does Tom DeWeese make the argument that environmentalism is a religion, in Capitalism Magazine. Also, The California Conservative makes the point pretty well, as well. Debra Saunders does a great job covering it at Real Clear Politics.

And there is more. You can find your own. Global Warming is a product of modern-day secularism and the human need for religion, rather than the product of rigorous science. I can say this without a doubt, because there is clearly a consensus among Global Warming skeptics, and even some non-skeptics, that most of modern day environmentalism is religious in nature. And we all know that consensus is all the proof we need to establish something as indisputable, undeniable fact.

Debunking Global Warming, Part 3: The Myths of Consensus

2007-02-23T12:16:00.000-06:00

Michael Crichton also chews up and spits out the entire idea of "scientific consensus", and I make the point--mostly by citing others who have made the point before me--that the so-called "scientific consensus", even if it had any actual value, is not so obvious and clear cut as the High Priests and Priestesses of the First Church of Climate Change would have you believe.

First, just a note that the academic and reasoned refutation/clarification of Crichton’s State of Fear by Gavin Schmidt comes up as an advertised link, via Google AdWords, and is the only AdWord on the search term Michael Crichton as of this writing. Which could perhaps suggest that others are aware that the typical strategy of: discredit the messenger, call him a hack, and—if a scientist or meteorologists, threaten to strip his or her credentials—may hurt more than it helps the First Church of the Global Warming.

So. Just a little more on Michael Crichton. While numerous scientists and even more non-scientist environmental “advocates” have attacked Crichton for his views of Global Warming and environmental alarmism, and have bemoaned that a “hack science fiction writer” would actually be testifying before the United States Senate (although its fine and makes sense to have Hollywood actors and actresses testifying in support of liberal causes they know less about than Crichton does regarding the issues are talking about), it’s interesting that they neglect what Crichton specifically said in his testimony. His central point is that science is becoming highly politicized, and that independent verification of assertions is critical for the long-term credibility of the conclusions being presented to the public by the “scientific community”.

What right-wing, anti-environmental screed does Crichton open his testimony to the Senate with? Try this:

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says an assertion is valid-and merits universal acceptance-only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method means it is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It's verifiable whether you like the results of a study, or you don't.

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. And the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests.

What is so objectionable about that, one could be forgiven for wondering, to Global Warming advocates?

Well, it goes on, and it becomes clear what they don’t like, and why they don’t quote it, or link to it, when they criticize:

Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s.

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million dollar study invalid because of this chance contact.

For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.

In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fair-mindedness of climate scientists. Rather, what is at issue is whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result. At the very least we should want the reassurance of independent verification by another lab, in which they make their own decisions about how to handle the data, and yet arrive at a similar result.

One can see why Climate Change advocates don’t want to have to meet anything approaching that kind of rigor in their science: they can’t. There is a reason why Global Warming advocates don’t want to meet that sort of standard in regards to their science, just as there is a reason why homeopathic remedies don’t want to be subject to control and review by the FDA. Simply put, neither homeopathic remedies, or Global Warming believers, could make the sort of claims they do if subjected to the standard of clinical trials and double-blind studies.

Read the whole thing and you, too, will understand why the Global Warming crowd apparently thought it best not to draw any attention to what Crichton actually said in his Senate testimony.

The Argument of Consensus

Crichton makes a most excellent argument against the entire idea of consensus as science in Aliens Cause Global Warming. I mentioned previously that Naomi Oreskes attempts to refute his contention that consensus is not only not science, but is pernicious and hostile to science, by selectively arguing against his use of eugenics as an example of consensus science at work. But Crichton cites consensus as science on a number of issues having nothing to do with eugenics, and the results of using consensus, rather than science, were uniformly, demonstrably negative. Crichton writes:

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Perhaps Oreskes didn’t want to tackle this particular example of consensus science because it would be more difficult to point to the advantages of ignoring demonstrable scientific results, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of women over more than a century, the way she argued that eugenics was somehow important to the eventual science of genetics (which is a wholly specious and unhistorical argument that I may come back to deconstruct at a later date).

Oserkes also didn’t address a few of Crichton’s other examples (or even acknowledge they existed, or provide a link to the original article that she was “refuting”). For example:

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees . . .

Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Of course, when you read stuff like this, you understand why critics like Oserkes do not quote or link to the original text, and why protests against Crichton’s senate testimony never address what he actually said when he testified. These are tough, cogent arguments that could possibly provoke skepticism even in some present day True Believers.

But the fact that consensus is not science, and that the consequences of so-called “consensus science” are usually negative, doesn’t really touch on another problem with the Global Warming consensus, one that Naomi Oserkes also argues for most vigorously: that there is, in fact, a large majority consensus that believes in anthropogenic climate change.

Tim Edison, writing in The Collegiate Times, amongst several other points, makes the point that the “consensus” is less something less than overwhelming. David Ridenour, writing in 1997, makes the point that claims for consensus were, at the very least, premature. He writes:

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided. Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based. Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models.

Another survey, conducted by American Viewpoint for Citizens for a Sound Economy, found that, by a margin of 44% to 17%, state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed with President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real," while only 36% agreed with the assertion. Thirty-six of the nation's 48 official state climatologists participated in the survey.

Those words were written almost ten years ago. Certainly, those numbers could have changed in favor of Global Warming advocacy. But activists were claiming consensus back then, in the face of those numbers, and the way to address contention over the claim of consensus has, generally, been to simply deny that there is any contention. And also, not coincidentally, to attempt to ostracize those who don’t fall in line with the consensus and (of course) threaten their credentials, reputations and livelihoods in order to prevent them from speaking out in a public manner. After all, what better way to build a consensus than to make sure that those who don’t go along with the consensus view cannot get grants, get jobs, build careers, keep their credentials, or get papers published. I’m just saying.

Thomas Sowell has also recently done a good job of deconstructing the Scientific Consensus myth regarding Global Warming. A reasonably objective history of scientific consensus can be found on Wikipedia, and it’s worth noting that it makes the point that few actual surveys have been taken to establish the validity of the consensus claim, although the claim of scientific consensus has been made very often. The most recent establishment of the consensus view that anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening now was accomplished by reviewing the abstracts of published papers an extrapolating from that the percentage of scientists that believe in the Great Global Warming, and the published policy positions of a number of advocacy groups that included numerous scientist and climatologists in their ranks, rather than actual surveys of climatologists and scientists, preferably anonymous in order to avoid weighting responses with fear of reprisal. I wonder why there aren’t more surveys regarding the actual consensus view of Global Warming, considering how often we are told it exists. Yet, like many things in the First Church of Climate Change, this is apparently an article of faith. Of the actual surveys of scientists and climatologists, there is no pro-Global Warming consensus, and there are precious few recent surveys in regards to the scientific consensus on Global warming at all. The opinion of consensus is drawn by analysis of published papers by folks like Naomi Oreskes, a geologist and science historian who is a 100% true believer in anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, rather than from independent surveys of climatologists and scientists. Odd, that.

Next: That Second Red Flag and Revisionist Histories and Ice Ages . . .

Debunking Global Warming, Part 2: More on Crichton, his Critics and the Tedium of Factual Debate

2007-02-16T12:14:00.000-06:00

More on Crichton, his critics, and The First Church of Climate Change. And don't forget that Hockey Stick.

Previously, I asserted that when discussing issues of hard data, or even issues that make points via logic and rhetoric, that if there is a tendency to address those making arguments of data and rhetoric by discrediting them, attacking their character, or attacking their motivations, or using other strategies that completely ignore the actual data, and the actual rhetoric, it’s a red flag. It’s a red flag that suggests there is something wrong with the opposing argument, in that they either cannot or will not address the issue of the data, or the logic of their opponent’s assertions. Then I note this is common approach to the arguments of Global Warming skeptics. One notable case would be Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.

My second red flag, which will be discussed in greater detail in my next post, is when one side of the argument consistently attempt to silence and punish critics and skeptics, rather than addressing and refuting their arguments in honest and open debate. And there were several attempts to prevent the original publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, the English language version, and to keep Bjorn Lomborg from speaking in a variety of venues. In one, where he was speaking, he got a cream pie (from a caring environmentalist) in the face. But Lomborg was also attacked based on accusations of incompetence, of insufficient training in many of the fields of study he was researching (what is known as a fresh, outside-the-box perspective when leftists agree with the conclusions), and attempts were made to discredit him based on the fact that conservative publications and pundits frequently cited his book!

Another notable case would be Michael Crichton, who makes a number of specific points regarding environmental science that are glossed over, or completely ignored—see the Michael Crowley post, previously.

In Fear, Complexity, and Environmental Management in the 21st Century Crichton makes a number of salient points. He notes that Chernobyl, which was supposed to have been a global disaster, and certainly a local environmental disaster, was nothing of the sort—despite the doom and gloom prediction of the pundit class. Reports, he notes, have anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people dying, now or in the future, but the actual number turned out to be 56. Now, is that number wrong? Might be. But the critics seem to focus on how Michael Crichton, desperate for fame and attention and importance he really doesn’t deserve, puts sex scenes in his sci-fi novels and got an award from a petroleum association.

Crichton writes:

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

For the moment, let’s presume these statistics are irrefutable, or at least independently confirmable, because, thus far, Crichton’s harshest critics—as far as I can find—have not disputed them, although they’ve have very mean or disparaging things to say about Crichton the man. His larger point is one that is deductive, and rhetorical—it’s a logical conclusion, rather than specifically a recitation of facts, and thus even more open to debate or a good, solid logical refutation:

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard. But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.

In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.

These are logical, or rhetorical arguments, specifically addressing the danger of alarmism regarding subjects like environmental “disasters”, or global warming. If the facts are difficult to successfully challenge without straining credibility, certainly the logic can be attacked. So why are critics so quick to instead try to dismiss Crichton as a hack, a dilettante, and an anti-intellectual rabble-rouser?

Part of the problem is, no doubt, a factor the anti-Global Warming, and generally conservative, side of the argument has going for it: doomsayers, end-of-the-worlders, and doom-and-gloomers have a long history, and the main thing they share in common is being uniformly wrong. While this is not in and of itself mean that Global Warming is wrong, it does suggest that the latest prophesies of doom from environmental soothsayers should be taken for a grain of salt. And Crichton points out the poor predictive record of environmental alarmist quite often:

Once I looked at Chernobyl, I began to recall other fears in my life that had never come true. The population bomb, for one. Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s. Sixty million Americans starving to death. Didn’t happen. Other scientists warned of mass species extinctions by the year 2000. Ehrlich himself predicted that half of all species would become extinct by 2000. Didn’t happen. The Club of Rome told us we would run out of raw materials ranging from oil to copper by the 1990s. That didn’t happen, either.

It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true. But such big ones! And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

Crichton goes on to quote Lowell Ponte demanding action to prevent the imminent, perhaps unstoppable, man-made ice age in The Cooling, and environmental treatise warning of global cooling published in 1978. He quotes Paul Ehrlich, and 1972 study called The Limits of Growth regarding predictions of imminent disaster in the 1970s and 1980s that didn’t happen—that didn’t even come close to happening. Then, closer to our own time, he recounts the numerous prediction of doom, even a complete meltdown of civilization, from the UN Working Group on Informatics, The Y2K Personal Survival Guide, and The Y2K Survival Guide and Cookbook, predicting the end civilization, widespread unemployment, rioting, food shortages, a complete telecommunications breakdown, starvation, no police force . . . all because of some bugs in some software revolving around Y2K.

I don’t know about you, but when I read that I recalled hearing predictions that some power plants might blow up, that some missiles might automatically launch, and that the Air Traffic Control system might fail and that airplanes might start dropping from the sky—with the warning that we had to make sure no aircraft were flying over cities on the midnight of Y2K. Yet, what happened? Nothing. It’s a good example of how alarmism operates, of the dire predictions it makes, and the fact that it’s consistently, invariably mistaken. As Crichton writes:

What actually happened on January 1, 2000? Essentially, nothing.

But once again, notice the urgent language. The situation is desperate, unprecedented action is necessary, ordinary values must be pushed aside, anyone who disagrees is dangerous and reactionary. Terror, fear, and the end of civilization.

Perhaps Crichton is mistaken when he relates these past events of alarmism to Global Warming, perhaps he is not. But what is sure, he makes a compelling and, for those not already true believers in the Church of Environmentalism, a persuasive argument. But, surely, such a rhetorical and associative argument could be at least challenge with counter-examples, or additional information about Y2K or Paul Ehrlich Crichton does not present, rather than attacks on Crichton’s credentials and character. If someone has made such arguments, I can’t find them. Please point me to them, and I will amend this post, with credit.

Amendment: Searching hard, I found one, which links to another one: Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion at RealClimate.org.

Although, I must note, the critique, in many ways, could be said to be "praising with faint damns".

Back to the speech: Crichton then addresses the hubris of people attempting to “manage” the environment, regarding our hundred years and change of trying to manage nature at Yellowstone National Park. This is a long passage, but well worth reading, and should give any casual supporter of modern-day environmental management, which, like Kyoto, would spread the sort of disastrous hubris exhibited regarding the environmental management of Yellowstone into the world economy. The repeating fallacy of thinking we see a problem, coming up a fix, ham-handedly applying the fix, and causing more problems than the original problem, is hard to miss. And should certainly resonate with many environmentalists.

The First Church of Global Warming

This is also a story that gets full treatment in Crichton’s novel, State of Fear. So this might be a good place to look at how all the scientific data and logical, rhetorical arguments made in State of Fear are refuted. For example, David Roberts reviews State of Fear in Grist is an excellent example of how critics respond to Crichton’s logical (and I mean logical as a description of the form of argument, rather than as an assessment of quality; logical arguments can also be specious and entirely incorrect, or predicated on bad data) and presentation and analysis of data.

While Kenner reels off statistics and cites scientific journals, his interlocutor's job is to say things like, "But of course Antarctica is melting! Trust me." Kenner references a paper, and a dippy enviro makes the opposing argument in the most naive, flat-footed, dim-witted way possible -- with no recourse to scientific citation. Rinse. Repeat.

A relevant criticism, and an excellent point for a more substantial argument, citing papers and data—even selectively—that would argue against Crichton’s statistics and citations. But, no. And why not? Because they don’t exist? Of course they do. There are a lot of scientific papers and data analysis that, at least on the surface, support the idea of man-made Global Warming quite nicely. Their conclusions may be arguable, but that material is certainly out there. So why don’t folks like Crowley and Roberts address Crichton’s obsessive use of reports and statistical data with equal-but-opposite reports and analyses?

It could be because believers in Global Warming are True Believers; it is a matter of faith, and to argue about the specifics of geological evidence for a flood or evidence of the exodus from Egypt is entirely beside the point. I believe in God, and Christian apologetics hold no charm for me—arguing about physical evidence of Noah’s ark or the Ark of the Covenant is entirely besides the point, for me, and for many people in regards to their religious beliefs. For many in the First Church of Climate Change, arguing data and statistics is besides the point.

It could also be because they don’t want to argue on the data anymore. Arguments on statistics often end up problematical. Things change. Temperature trends or ice flows or hurricane frequency can be cited as evidence for Global Warming, and then, when the trends move in a different direction, what once was used to prove man-made climate change is now used to disprove it. The fact is, when trying to make specific causal conclusions and predictions regarding huge organic systems with hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions, or billions) of inputs, outputs, interactions, and randomizing factors, it very hard to be accurate in terms of causation or prediction. The same reason the meteorologists can be, and often are, radically wrong about the weather three days from now is the same reason specific predictions and statistical data are not the friends of the Global Warming faithful. The presumption that a certain set of data indicates man-made global warming is a leap of faith; there is simply no way to be sure that that data will remain consistent over time, that it will remain correlative with other factors, or that an expanded analysis of the data won’t indicate the exact reverse of what Global Warming advocates believe it actually proves. As such, even the most dramatic and impressive data—the fabled Hockey Stick Graph, for example—could easily end up working against Global Warming advocates, even if man-made Global Warming turns out to be the hard fact so many seem to think it is. So it’s better to avoid the specifics.

I tend to suspect it is some of both. Accompanied by the fact that human nature would make defending the obviously true seem a pointless task. If Global Warming is such an obvious thing, what’s the point of doing all the work and statistical analysis and complicated scientific refutations just to prove that the sky is blue? But I think it is primarily because modern day environmentalism is largely religious in nature, the motivations and rewards almost entirely emotional and even spiritual, and thus data analysis and logical arguments are irrelevant compared to emotional rewards, peer pressure, social proof, environmental fellowship, and “consensus”.

Which is why that is the most common defense of Global Warming mounted. As David Roberts writes in his Grist review of

A broad and robust scientific consensus exists on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, embodied by thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed studies. How is it that Crichton thinks so many scientists are so wrong, so willing to go along with the baseless hysteria?

I don’t recall if Crichton addresses that in the novel, but in the speech referenced above, he gives several reasons why people—and scientists are, at the end of the day, fallible human beings like the rest of us—go along with the hysteria. Additionally, Crichton never suggests that the Global Warming alarmism is baseless, or unprecedented—just wrong, and potentially more negative in its consequences than Global Warming, if real, would be.

Naomi Oreskes reviewed State of Fear in the San Francisco Chronicle, with a typical title: “Fear-Mongering Crichton Wrong on Science”.

Yet, there’s lots of hyperbole, confident assurances he’s wrong and mistaken, and a return to the touchstone of the Global Warming religion, consensus. But no specific refutation. Indeed, she sets up a straw man, saying that Crichton has, in public speeches, said that because scientists were wrong about eugenics, then they must be wrong about global warming. Which is not Crichton’s argument: rather, it’s that history indicates science can be flawed, and that policy based on flawed science can be destructive force, and that social policy predicated on fad science is usually bad. His point is also that history can teach us much about the current First Church of Climate Change, as eugenics was also embraced by scientists, academics, politicians, celebrities, and businessmen with the same sort of vigor and inevitable correctness that man-made climate change enjoys now.

And she proceeds to argue that Crichton was arguing against genes or genetic research, all the time not quoting a single thing Crichton has said on the issue, in State of Fear or elsewhere.

Oreskes writes: “Crichton has got his science, his history and his politics wrong.” But offers no specific refutations, instead saying:

Climate scientists have been in agreement for some time that global climate change is real and happening now. We know that humans have changed the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere, most measurably through the addition of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossils fuels. We also know that these changes are having a detectable effect on Earth's climate. These are not speculations, guesses or predictions, but observations over which there is no significant scientific argument.

Like so much in regards in the Church of Climate Change, this is not entirely true. We do know that global Climate Change is real. It always has been, and always will be. We know that humans do effect the environment, at least on the micro level, and it is reasonable to assume, but impossible to prove conclusively, that we also effect the earth on the macro level—though the idea that we might affect the earth more than, say, the temperature and activity of the sun does seem, to some, ill-considered. We know that we have been adding to the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels, in such a matter that it may not all be processed in the same manner as it has been historically, and this may or may not effect climate to some degree. But to say that it is all hard science is to stretch the truth. There are some indications that even the scientific consensus on global warming is neither scientific, nor a consensus—but more on that later.

Oreskes continues to argue thusly:

Moreover, given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the theory of greenhouse gases is well established, it is nearly certain that a continued rise in carbon dioxide will lead to more changes: increased average temperatures, melting of polar ice (and a subsequent rise in sea levels), and, perhaps, an increase in floods, droughts and hurricanes. Finally, we know that the predicted changes could occur rapidly, giving both humans and nonhumans little time to adapt. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.

Note the language—like consensus, you will hear certain things again and again from the Global Warming faithful. “No significant scientific argument against it”,”climate change is real and happening now”,”it is well established”,”it is nearly certain”,”Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.”

That is a powerful argument. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong. So satellite data, emissions data, long term temperature trends, scientific and political history, environmental management failures of the past, statistical data from past and present-day environmental disasters, and so on—all easily ignored, because, we are assured, anyone who denies that disaster is imminent, thanks to the free market, capitalism, and the ownership of the SUV, has “simply got the science wrong”.

Oh, and Oserkes ends with a common refrain in regards to Global Warming skeptics. That is, if you don’t agree with me, then shut up.
Crichton is a novelist, and he knows how to write fiction. But he should leave the scientific facts to scientists, the historical facts to historians and the politics to all of us to debate.
Presumably, Crichton is supposed to debate the politics of it, with everybody, without bring up history or science!

Reiterating my addena far above: In my research, I have found someone actually addressing Crichton on the data, and he does a good job, and comes to the conclusion that Crichton's data is actually pretty good, but incomplete, and tends to be selective, often ignoring the fact that the papers he cites comes up with entirely different conclusions than he does. It's Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion. Gavin, the poster, does a evenhanded job of addressing potential issues of Crichton’s science, and offers—ala Crichton himself—copious links and footnotes. Like much of Crichton’s skepticism, I have to say, I think this is the level at which the debate should be happening. Personal attacks, discrediting contrarians because of their personal associations, careers, friends, or childhoods is not only insubstantial, but actually a contraindication when it comes to accepting the assertions of Global Warming supporters. I would certainly be more swayed by Gavin, the poster of this article, than any of the people who, ostensibly supporting and praising him, comment on the article—and, again, attacking “the deniers”.

Ah, well. There’s just not enough time in the day. More in a few days. In the interim, make sure you check out The Hockey Stick Graph. And review the article on The Temperature Record for the past 1000 Years on Wikipedia. If you drink the Kool-Aid and think, because it’s science, this stuff is more than a good guess based on widely variable data, perhaps even established, incontrovertible fact, go right ahead. I remain skeptical. And will resist Chicken-Little political policy based on the sky-is-falling alarmism of The First Church of Climate Change.

Next Time . . . More Crichton, Critics, Red Flags, and Alarmism

Debunking Global Warming, Part I: Red Flags, Crichton, Crowley and the Tedium of Factual Debate

2007-02-15T12:11:00.000-06:00

I've been putting this off for a long time--an indepth discussion of global warming--because I knew just how big it was going to be, and how much of my time it was going to take. To make it a little easier, I'm breaking it down into bite size chunks, and this one is the first . . .

One red flag that should give anyone pause, when something is under dispute, is if the argument encompasses too many other things beyond the data specifically under dispute: who is paying for what, who knows whom, who benefits from this, and so on. Anything that is not about the data, such as it is, but is instead information (or disinformation) meant to either discredit opponents or benefit supporters, is a clear indicator that the dispute is about more than what it appears to be about on the surface.

That is not to say these things are irrelevant. Many in the petroleum industry are going to be biased in their viewpoint by what they do, and from where they get their money (and also sometimes their personal identities, and, indeed, their joie de vivre. Just as many in politics, in the environmental movement, and in various research institutes and academic centers, will have equally biased viewpoints in the opposing direction, based, again, on from where they receive funding, what they have to do to get grants, what raises their donations, and what informs their personal opinions of themselves and feeds their egos.

But if you are arguing about the temperature on Mars and Pluto, or the history of agriculture in Greenland, or the actual level of carbon output and the relative volume of water vapor in comparison to carbon dioxide and their relative properties as greenhouse gases, and the pro-Global Warming crowd starts talking about how the scientist gets funding from an oil company or this researcher once worked for a petroleum lobby, this is an indication that their argument is inconclusive at best, flawed or even intentionally disingenuous at worst.

The Devil and Michael Crichton

One person who raises a lot of salient points in regards to Global Warming is Michael Crichton, whose tough questions and razor-sharp arguments have mostly been answered by personal attacks dismissing him as a hack science-fiction writer with delusions of grandeur, accusations of being in bed with big oil or big fossil fuel, and insinuations that he is motivated entirely by ego and a very, very thin skin (a tactic most recently exhibited by Michael Crowley, regarding his belief Crichton was attacking him via a character named Mick Crowley in his most recent novel). Thus, none of his arguments have to be addressed. Lucky them! Because is arguments, grounded deeply in science and history, raise a lot of powerful points.

Indeed, Michael Crichton might have been indulging in an immature bit of critic-bashing with his inclusion of the slightly endowed child molester, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, but—while purporting to address Crichton’s arguments against Global Warming specifically and the fantastical religion of Environmentalism generally—Michael Crowley spends the entire article that he feels inspired Crichton’s grade-school wrath by maligning Crichton in a similar, if much more direct, manner.

He starts the article by quoting a sex scene from State of Fear--because such tawdriness should immediately discredit anything he has to say about anything else, of course. Crowley writes, disingenuously as he must know many leading scientists largely agree with Crichton, and Crichton sources many of them in his speeches and even in State of Fear, "It may be hard to fathom that someone capable of writing the above passage is also capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists." Even if he did not know that many climatologists, meteorologists, geologists and general scientists are skeptical of, or completely reject, the theory of man-made Global Warming, it would still point to the fact that he’s starting his argument by trying to minimize and dismiss Crichton, rather than addressing any of his arguments.

Later, when recounting his phone interview with Crichton, Crowley does mention that Crichton sinisterly does not want to discuss his meeting with president Bush, and instead, for some crazy reason, wants to keep talking about satellite data, the Kyoto protocol, nation-by-nation emissions data, the anti-windmill movement in England, the greenhouse properties of water vapor, the infamous Hockey Stick graph ,etc. Does Crowley quote any of that? Respond to any of that? Refute any of that? Hardly! Here are a few quotes from his article that, I think, pretty much demonstrate Crowley’s substantive refutation of Crichton:

. . . he says in a slightly jaded monotone that belies his breathless potboiler prose.

Global warming--or, specifically, the massive hoax by scientists and environmentalists that it allegedly represents and the resulting sexual conquests of nubile women that inevitably flow from the uncovering of this conspiracy . . .

So Crichton's ravings on the subject might be excusable as just a bad case of authorial self-promotion . . .

Crichton has relentlessly propagandized . . .

Crichton has helped create an anti-intellectual ethos where the country's most powerful political leaders can embrace a science-fiction writer as a great authority. . .

Through the 1970s up to the early '90s, Crichton offered few serious ideas . . .

Crichton's device was not an innovation: These were mere versions of the Frankenstein story . . .

Though his books are pulp for the coach-class set . . .

… almost as if aping the reported social commentary of, say, Tom Wolfe.

Crichton has never been known for nuanced character development

But, since then, Crichton has delighted in bashing a wide class of media and intellectual elites here at home.

. . . And that worldview has reached its bitter, frothing apex with State of Fear.

And it's no wonder: State of Fear is by far Crichton's most aggressive polemic.

. . . and we are meant to follow along with the help of graphs, copious footnotes referencing scientific studies, and long, pedantic exchanges between the characters.

. . . And now, like a mighty t-rex that has escaped from Jurassic Park, Crichton stomps across the public policy landscape, finally claiming the influence he has always sought. In this sense, he himself is like an experiment gone wrong--a creation of the publishing industry and Hollywood who has unexpectedly mutated into a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms, and even the Oval Office.

He does not address any of Crichton’s arguments, any of his points, or any of his data—he doesn’t ever respond to a single argument, in regards to the environment, or the dismal history of environmental policy, that Crichton makes, in State of Fear or elsewhere. He explains that Crichton, longing for stature and importance, is insinuating himself into the Global Warming debate, and he’s a shitty writer, to boot. Indeed, Crichton is so tedious that Crowley complains about how Crichton kept wanting to talk about environmental data and graphs and satellite imagery and the science of greenhouse gases, when the real issue is that Karl Rove set up a meeting between Crichton and Bush, and that Crichton doesn’t kiss the boots of smart media elites. Like, I dunno, Crowley.

While one could reasonably argue that it was not Crowley’s intent to debunk Crichton’s "faulty science" or address Crichton’s points on Global Warming, all you need to do is search on Crichton and Crowley on Google, and you will see that Crichton’s personal attack on Crichton and his writing—and his sinister meeting with President Bush, initiated by the even-more-sinister Karl Rove—is referred to by 3rd parties as proof that Crichton was "making up science to debunk global warming"., as an article "hitting blockbuster novelist Michael Crichton's very public denials that global warming was a proved phenomenon" and so on—although some correctly identify it as a critique of Crichton.

Of all the references to the Crichton/Crowley flap I reviews, only The New York Times, registration required, actually touch on the fundamental content of Michael Crowley’s original piece—a 3,700 word article dismissing Crichton as an egotistical, anti-intellectual hack. The New York Times being even-handed. Go figure.

Numerous message board references to the flap are similar to this one posted at The Official Michael Crichton Message Board:

I understand that Crowley printed an evaluation of the poor science of Crichton's previous book and, rather than refute the actual claims that the journalist made, Crichton created a character in his book "Next" identical to Crowley in almost every way -but also made that character a child rapist with a small penis.

I wonder why Crichton responded in this way instead of refuting the claims if he is so sure of the science of his position.

As I noted, there wasn’t a single shred of "evaluation" in Mick Crowley’s story, something that has been very common with most of the criticism of Crichton’s assertions: they attack the man, rather than his data and his arguments and, when they occasionally do actually address the hard data, they produce the most minor technical arguments that simply do not address the substance of what he says. Still, the "meme" regarding the Crowley flap has largely (and, to some extent, I think intentionally) been spread that Crowley wrote a reasoned and detailed argument scientifically refuting Crichton’s arguments, and Crichton responded by saying Crowley had a small penis. When Crowley never made one single fact-based refutation of anything Crichton has ever said—in fact, was apparently too bored to pay attention to all the tedious science and data Crichton kept on about when Crichton was gracious enough to grant him an interview and earnestly try to address and explain this issues he raises in State of Fear with hard data and real history.

As an aside, I find it ironic and the few sentences Crichton devotes to the child molesting political pundit, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, Next, inspired this retort from Crowley:

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.

As for "substantive criticism", Crowley was mostly accusing Crichton of being anti-science, anti-intellectual, overly-ambitious, polemical, and bitter. Oh, and Crichton’s novels are formulaic. He doesn’t directly address any of Crichton’s points—indeed, he regards the anti-science, anti-intellectual Crichton’s obsession with factual data, reports, correlative factors, history, and policy-specifics as tedious and besides the point (or "ravings", as he also refers to them)—the point is that Crichton is anti-intellectual and ego-maniacal and should be dismissed and disregarded, rather that feted and rewarded with tremendous books sales. According to Crowley, Crichton is "an experiment gone wrong", "a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms", of aping Tom Wolfe, of re-writing the Frankenstein story with every book, of never offering serious ideas, of is worldview having "reached its bitter, frothing apex", his books are all for "the coach class set", Crichton "relentlessly propagandizes".

Perhaps calling Crowley, by proxy, a pharmaceutical profiteer and a child molester with a small penis is a worse, and less substantive, thing to do. But not by much. Also, I think that kind of obsessive, highly-personalized reaction was actually what Crichton was looking for and, far from being embarrassed, thinks the author has won and the critic got punk’d, sucker. Given that Crowley is almost certainly not a child molester, pharmaceutical trust-fund baby, or so shabbily endowed, that he launched into such an impressive diatribe in response indicates that his ending, asserting that Crichton is conceding that the critic has won, is entirely backwards. Crowley’s response indicates that Crichton has won. Indeed, in his retort, Michael Crowley writes, "It is impossible not to be grossed out on some level--particularly by the creepy image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child." That’s better than Crichton including a toss-off character named Mick Crowley who, other than being a Yale graduate and a political pundit, doesn’t actually have anything in common with Michael Crowley? And still, for all the ink spilt, not one single refutation of Crichton’s data, his thesis, or his skepticism regarding Global Warming.

Hmm. Maybe the critic has won, after all. Instead of talking about Global Warming, the scientific data, and the consequences of public policy predicated upon junk science, it’s all about Michael Crichton being thin-skinned and Michael Crowley actually not having a small penis at all!

Next, more red flags, and more Michael Crichton . . .

Shut Up and Sing!

2006-09-13T12:08:00.000-05:00

Read it on KevinWillis.net

Since the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted and we have no freedom of speech in King George BusHitler's America, how come they are still mouthing off, bad mouthing their former fans and most of the rest of America, starring in a new documentary, getting articles written about them, having videos in number one rotation on VH1 for weeks, and on the cover of magazines? And how come they are still way richer than me?

Being blacklisted and having no freedom of speech must mean something very different from what I always thought it meant.

Obviously, as a conservative, I'm going to tend to think that more people on the right just "get it" about more things than folks on the left.

That's part and parcel of aligning yourself ideologically with other people. You aren't going to align yourself with people you consider amoral morons, and you aren't going to align yourself in opposition to people you consider smart, thoughtful, moral folks.

But, no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, some things just seem so obvious and so "common-sensical" that you believe that acceptance of these ideas should simply transcend political boundaries.

Whether or not you are my sworn enemy in almost every area, we should be able to agree on, say, the general color of the sky, the current temperature, the existence of gravity, or our mutual need for oxygen.

Yet, on political issues that would seem to the partisan idealogue to be such transcendent, "common sense" matters, there are fundamental disagreements. On the left, such an issue might be global warming. Many on the left consider global warming a rigorously proven fact, and the "fact" that man is the cause of it so obvious as to be beyond questioning or review. Yet many on the right consider global warming to be unproven, that man's impact on the environment could cause such change extremely questionable, and the advocates of global warming remarkably similar to all doomsayers of all previous ages. Whose predictions of incipient destruction also failed to materialize.

Another more contemporary issue might be the one of "torture". To many on the left, anything remotely harsh in dealing with prisoners should be considered, common-sensically, to be torture. Additionally, it's simply self-evident to many of those folks that torture is immoral, and should never be used under any circumstances, no matter who was being tortured and how many lives might be saved by the revelation of valuable information. Another self-evident truth in that mix is that "torture doesn't work", because people will say anything to make the torture stop.

The conservative might argue that this would logically include disclosing any actual information they might have that would save lives, because if they would say anything, that would include verifiable data that would stop the current torture and carry with it promises of future protection--and a future resumption of "torture", should his information turn out to be false. Additionally, the conservative might argue that rough and psychologically manipulative techniques are not torture in the same way that cutting off fingers or wiring up car batteries to nipples are torture, and to equate them is both irrational and irresponsible. But these arguments don't make a great deal of headway against the wide-eyed disbelief that these extra-chromosome right-wing simians are actually defending torture! My God, they're worse than we thought!

Which brings me to the main subject of the article, which is the Dixie Chicks. As a conservative, it is just common sense to most of us that freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from criticism for what you say. It just "makes sense" that if you make public statements about controversial subjects, some folks might decide not to do business with you for that reason, and they have every right to decide to do business with (or buy the albums of) whoever they choose. Businesses, including radio stations, have the right to play whatever music they want to. If you say things in public that make those businesses uncomfortable about doing business with you, don't be surprised if that business dries up.

Do I really care what the Dixie Chicks think about anything? No. Why should I? It's clear they have zero influence in changing the political views of their fans and former fans. Do I think they should have been boycotted or--for pete's sake--had their albums burned? No. All I have to say to people who burn anything as a form of political statement, whether it's record albums or flags or conservative college newspapers is: grow up. Have something intelligent to say about the issue you are so inflamed about, and communicate it. Join some grass-roots organization to effect change. Any moron can set something on fire (or run over it with a bulldozer) and, when it comes to political statements, people who burn things to make a point are, in my mind, uniformly morons.

And if I found out a company I did business with was burning a bunch of Dixie Chick's albums, and I could get what they supplied somewhere else, I'd go somewhere else. Because that's my right, and the First Amendment does not prevent me from deciding not to do business with, or buy the product of, people who demonstrate to me in a public manner that they are, in fact, twits.

So why do so many on the left consider the guarantee of free speech to be a guarantee of a captive audience? Why do they believe that freedom of speech should prevent negative reaction to and criticism of that speech? Another question might be why most folks on the left applauded McCain-Fiengold, which was actually the government passing laws to regulate political speech, which is an actual abridgement of our First Amendment rights by the entity--the government--that the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect our free speech rights from. It can't be because it was a strictly Democrat initiative--John McCain authored it with Democrat Russ Fiengold, and the evil George Dubya Bush signed that piece of crap into law. But that digresses into another "common sense" issue that really isn't (that abridgement of political speech by any individual or group, for any reason, no matter how noble, is unconstitutional and, in the long run, a negative). And I should probably just stick to the main issue. And that's mouthy southern women.

So. Let's play a game. Can you guess what the editorial slant of Shut up and Sing, which cribs its name from a superior book by Laura Ingraham of the same name, a movie tracing the history of the Dixie Chick controversy, from singing the national anthem of the fallout from Natalie Maines' comments about president Bush? Liberal or conservative? Left or right? Come on. Guess. It'll be fun.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen the trailer for the movie. And from the silly tagline on the poster ("Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don't do it in public.") to implication that the nutjobs sending death threats to the Dixie Chick's are somehow typically conservative (or, let's be honest, typically American) or are unique to any one side of the political spectrum (try and find a prominent conservative who has not received death threats specifically for what they believe and what they speak publically about), I think the editorial slant is pretty clear.

In the trailer, there is a quote from Bush on the Dixieflap that is exactly right: "They shouldn't have their feelings hurt because some people don't want to buy their records." Natalie Maines was offended and indignant, but Bush was dead on. The anti-Bush comment was one of many Natalie Maines has directed at the many folks in redstate America that she clearly has such distaste for, and when you offend your primary audience, and clearly don't care if you offend your primary audience ("Not Ready to Make Nice"), and then move on to become even more offensive, don't be surprised that people don't buy (or sometimes even stock) your albums, and don't be surprised that the radio doesn't want to play you. And don't expect a lot of sympathy. There are thousands of talented country acts out there, and most of them don't get airplay and most of them can't get stocked at Wal-Mart, and most of them have never had the kind of money that Natalie Maines used to have to spend on her shoes.

Of course, most of those acts never said some other things either. Like:

I don't want to be played on those [Country radio] stations. And when I watched people smashing our CDs I just thought, Good. Smash 'em. Please don't listen to me. I had no idea you thought I was one of you, because I'm not.

Which is not only calculated to offend her main audience, but is clearly an endorsement of exactly what they were doing. She didn't want the dumb redstate hicks that had been making her rich to buy her music. She only wants smart liberals and urban elites to buy her music, or she doesn't want anybody to buy it. She's getting exactly what she wants. Really, it couldn't have turned out better for her.

Wait, though. She's not done.

And I don't want to go to any [country music] award shows. And if we did win, what would I get up there and say? I have nothing to say to these people.

And by "these people", she means the people who used to buy her music, before they found out she hated them and thought they were idiots.

And, while she wouldn't take back what she said about Bush, or the hicks that bought her music against her will, she would take back her already back-handed apology:

It was all mine--nobody made me apologize and nobody wrote it for me--but when I look back and read it, I don't stand behind what I said. That will make people extra-mad, because some were like, "Well, at least she apologized."

Martie Maguire, one of the other Chicks, said:

We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore.

Maguire also had this excellent thing to say with her free speech:

I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do.

Again, making the point that they don't want any of the folks who were buying their music to have bought it in the first place, and that they are now in a much better situation since they have freed themselves from the redneck menace. Good for them.

In June 2006 Emily Robison made this comment to the Telegraph in the UK about country music videos that showed soldiers and American flags (eww!):

A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.

In same interview, Natalie Maines said:

The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country ... I don't see why people care about patriotism.

In 2003, the American Red Cross refused a million dollar "donation" from the Dixie Chicks, something that is apparently made issue of in the movie, because it's in the trailer. And it's implied that refusal was because there were Bush administration people on the board, and that it was a string-free donation. The reality is a little more complicatecd.

According to National Red Cross spokesperson Julie Thermond Whitmer, the band would make the donation "only if the American Red Cross would embrace the band's summer tour". That summer tour being the one where Natalie Maines had recently revealed her penchant for controversial political statements. Julie Thermond Whitmer explained:

The Dixie Chicks controversy made it impossible for the American Red Cross to associate itself with the band because such association would have violated two of the founding principles of the organization: impartiality and neutrality... Should the Dixie Chicks like to make an unconditional financial donation to the American Red Cross, we will gladly accept it.

Interestingly, not only do the Dixie Chicks, despite being so terribly oppressed (although they like that better because it was actually more oppressive when all those backwards rednecks were buying their records), still have a wide audience, are still richer than you or me, still get to say whatever they want to all sorts of people, and still get their words (many of them critical not just of Bush but of redstate America and America generally) in national and international publications.

But apparently, if you piss people off with what you say--even if you also say that you wanted to piss those kinds of people off and didn't want them listening to you in the first place--your free speech rights have been abridged or taken away from you. I think that's one of those things where I'm going to have to say, from my point of view, most of the folks on the left just don't "get it".

And they aren't going to. Just last month, an ad for Shut up and Sing was turned down by NBC (part of a publically held media company that has always reserved the right to turn down in advertising they deemed inappropriate). The smaller CW--which needs money--also rejected the ads. Oppression! Discrimination! But, local affiliate stations of all five major broadcasters, including NBC and the CW, ran ads for the film in Los Angeles and New York, the only two cities the film actually opened in on the day of the ads. Nevertheless, Harvey Weinstein complained in a press release:

It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.

Wow. The Dixie Chicks get on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and Time, get interviewed by The Telegraph and Dier Speigel and a dozen other national and international magazines, get their latest video on the top spot on VH1 for two weeks, are still selling plenty if not going platinum and having more trouble with the tours, but are still richer than any of us are ever likely to be while getting to freely insult the people (and their beliefs and lifestyles) that helped make them so rich in the first place . . . well, hell's bells, I want to be blacklisted like that, too!

You want to talk blacklisted? Talk to M.C. Hammer. Talk to Vanilla Ice. Talk to C&C Music Factory. Talk to Donny Osmond. That list goes on and on and on. And I don't see them on the cover of time, or with a million in pocket change to bribe the Red Cross with.

Politicizing 9/11

2006-09-13T12:07:00.001-05:00

Read it on KevinWillis.net

Bush makes a speech that is about the War on Terror, and he's accused of politicizing 9/11. And the Democrats proceed with a organized, talking-points filled campaign to gain political advantage from Bush's speech.

But it's not going to work. I'm sure, for the true believers, this is what they want to hear. Or maybe not even angry and whacky enough.

But what fence-sitter out there is going to say, "Well, I was going to vote for Republicans come November until Bush mentioned the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in regards to 9/11, which Bush has always said he sees as being all part of the same thing. Now I'm definitely voting for Democrats only. Definitely Democrats.

What voter unsure about the Republicans is going to be moved by the hissy fit Democrats are throwing about Bush asking for unity and support in regards to the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq on 9/11, when he's clearly seen them as being all part of the same thing?

And he does. Mentioning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in a speech about 9/11 isn't a cynical political move, insofar as Bush has always seen them (as having many conservatives) as being all part of the same battle. Bush might be wrong about that, certainly Democrats and liberals man disagree with his belief, but the accusation of politicization--and the coordinated, talking-pointed manner in which it is being protested--seems to be the real politicization, to me.

BTW, I know I haven't blogged a lot recently. Just busy. Have some books I want to review, and can't seem to get finished with them! And always working on other projects. So, time gets consumed. But I haven't abandoned the blog.

Have a great day!