Thursday, October 13, 2005

Let's Get Serious

If "talking" to "regular" people is all it takes to be President, then I'm voting for Mickey Mouse. Remember that the Generals on the ground in Iraq have recently stated that one (ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!) Iraqi battalion is ready for operations sans American military supervision and accompaniment. ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
In this "talk" the "grunts (read: officers and one Iraqi soldier)" are much more upbeat. Hmmm....why might that be? Because maybe (just maybe) they were vetted, coached and threatened? Nah...couldn't be. our president would never stoop to such levels, such abrogation of moral honesty. Why, if a leader of our society were to do something such as that then he should pilloried. And Bush is not an immoral man. Look at what he's done to find the culprit who outed Valerie Plame. Look at what he's done to find the person who fabricated the Niger uranium claims. Look at what he's done to corner the Iraq/Al-quaeda link liar. Look at what he's done to stop poverty. And AIDS. And genocide in the Sudan. And global warming (have you heard that the Northwest Passage may be open again within the next decade?). Look at what he's done to slow the bank accounts of the corporate mightys. Look at what he's done to ensure our domestic tranquility at the expense of "spreading" "democra-fascism" throughout the world. I mean, come on. People, this President has pushed us further toward global likeism than any leader since...uh...well, you get the point. A heck of a guy. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! BOO-YAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the Democrats, Liberals, Europeans, Africans, Asians, Canadians, Russians (and all of those damn new countries under their sway), UNers, World Courters, World Bankers, World Tribunalers, and all of the other global thinking people are full of ess-aytch-eye-tee. Poo Poo.
P.S. And Greenpeace is anti-human.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Why'd I Even Blog?

From Murray Waas in the National Journal comes this breaking story.
From Democracy Now comes Amy Goodman's interview with Murray Waas this morning.
And from 9/29/03 we get a White House press conference with Scott McClellan soon after this story hit the media.
...You know, I was going to spend my time today researching political stories and see what caught my fancy. I was in the mood and feeling ornery. Ready to spew forth my own little brand of venom on the Bush badministration for its hypocricy and discomboobulated conswervatism. Man, I was there. In the zone. Locked and loaded. A 5000 pound missile with words stenciled on it that read "Say Hi To Nixon For Me". or "Benedict Arnold Shoulda Had A Hung Jury". Or "My Bosses Went To Iraq And All I Got Was Bombed". But noooooooo.......! I find that I'm bored and all I want to do is watch TV. So, that's what I'm going to do. Ta.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005


it's a funny pickle. harriet miers is nominated by bush to the supreme court and the group that goes ape-banana-shit over it is the right wing. obviously, her lack of ANY judicial experience should raise two eyebrows straight to heaven. obviously, her statement that bush is a genius should cause ANOTHER tsunami to happen and this time roll right over the biblical lands. obviously, she is strong on rolling back abortion rights...or is she? obviously, she's big on constitutional interpretation...or is she? obviously, she has no track record on anything...or does she? james dobson claims that (from conversations he's not allowed to discuss) she's anti-abortion. other pundits claim they've been told that "on background" she falls right in line with the Right. democrats look up from the foxholes they've chosen to inhabit for the last five years and can't seem to find the weapons they brought into battle with them. instead of talking about her lack of judicial experience, why aren't they rattling sabres over bush's claim that her faith is enough? why aren't they agreeing with the Right who opposes her and then informing the public that the reason george will is against her is because she hasn't proven herself conservative enough? that is the real reason the Right is against her. it's not the lack of good lawyering or the lack of ever having been a judge. it's that her paper trail isn't cohesive. the conservatives don't consider john roberts a true conservative. he's not religious enough. now they have a fundamentalist, but she's not legal enough? come on. bull....shit. the Right realizes it bought a pig in a poke with roberts. he may turn out to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who will work to overturn every "liberal" ruling from the past 300 years or so, but they can't bank the farm on it. they feel that they are OWED. owed by this administration that they helped elect. owed by bush who claims visions from god (no one else seems to be that close to the Almighty other than him in the administration, though. noticed?). now they want a justice who will tell the congress in nomination hearings that god will kill all of their firstborns if he/she is not voted onto the bench.
and the dems sit by and wonder what the next step in acting more civilized is. note to dems: civilized is a word 86'd by webster's because it's "archaic, nondemonstrable and naive to the max". get on board the reality bus. miers shouldn't be on the court, because she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. whose wolf is what everyone is debating. but it's clear to me that she is bush's wolf. he's nominated her on the "trust me" ticket. in other words, he will not give out any concrete specs for her viability. why? that is the question. it may be that she has none other than her unswerving loyalty to bush. and the possibility that she helped cover up his national guard days.
necessity is the mother of invention, but
graft is the bastard of hubris.

Monday, October 10, 2005

No Title, Because That Would Most Likely Be Misleading And I would Never Want To Do That To You And (After All) I Am Already The Cosmic Gallactic Univ

(ersal Big Head In The Sky Who Loves A Huge Hummer Of A Post Title)
wow. it seems today's my day. if you know my previous posts, then you know that i posted a resume on that was when? Saturday or Sunday? Maybe last Friday? Yeah, I think it was Friday. Hmmm...took longer than I thought.
When I got home today from work I found a message on my phone from a materials supplier who wanted to talk to me, because he has two openings. His is a company I know well. I test against it all of the time. I create asphalt mix designs (actually making asphalt in my lab) from its material and specifications in order to see if the material will do what it wants it to do. He called from L.A. Who knows where he has openings for. It could be L.A. It could be San Jose. Or Fresno.
Then I logged in to my email. On the bulk mail page I found two messages of interest. One was from the guy who called me. Very good so far. I decided to talk to my boss before answering that one. But then I read the second one. It was from a "head hunter" who may have not read my resume all of the way through. It's for a job in San Jose. I have most of the prerequisates, but I don't have a "Degree in Science or something equivalent". I wrote her back to tell her this. I also wrote that if the degree had any waiverability to it I would be interested. She wrote back almost immediately that the degree waiver had been lifted if the applicant had good enough experience (and, unfortunately, has experience in word, excel and something else). she says the pay should be $45-55,000 with benefits and a company car. i know i'm already either:
a) out of my depth
b) dealing with a company that is desparate for qualified talent.
Either and both could be the case. Don't even think for a moment that I know how to downplay my expertise. I love my knowledge and talent in the lab. I'm one of a rare breed who chooses to stay in the lab. A lab technician by definition makes the least amount of money per hour. Most technicians start in the lab and move on, because they want state wages when they can get on field job. Lab techs who stick it out become valuable commodities. As an example, I know more about asphalt and how to make it then my degreed managers do. I also know more about soil than most engineers do, because i used to deal with it every day. I looked at it, kneaded it, compressed it, stretched it, tore it apart, broke it down, reassembled it, theorized about it. Engineers know what it's supposed to do. Technicians know what it does. An amazing concept in many ways.
Engineers spend so much money to attain a piece of paper that states they know soil or asphalt or concrete. With that paper they can earn $50,000 right out of college. But they may not know what friable clay actually looks like. They may not understand what "heavy flushing" means when they look at asphalt. They may not know how to recognize "rootlet voids". When looking at a blueish soil from the foothills what would they say? Can they tell you what the Valley normally uses for an asphalt emolliant on highways? What is the minimal degree faranheit atmosperically allowed when paving in the Valley? When are you allowed to use a laser temperature gun as opposed to a metal asphalt thermometer when inspecting paving on the mat?
I can answer these questions. An engineer can't always. But an engineer can use a calculator to solve for an angle on a slope. An engineer can tell you how steep your hill can be and still build on it. He can formulate a theory based on my tests that lets you manifest your dreams.
I can't do that. I can only help. I can only provide reality. And both are equally important. But the engineer can look at what I've done and extrapolate. I cannot look at what he's done and interpolate.
So, the Astros will be playing the Cardinals. Who will be playing the White Sox? It's still up to chance.