Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live

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.

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

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!

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!

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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