COWARDLY MIDGET DOT COM

R.I.P. Corey Haim

2010-03-15T02:45:00.006-04:00

Say what you will, I am a Corey Haim fan... I once wrote about Heath Ledger and the American Press... and on the day Corey died, I thought about it... Because the same bullshit was happening - although this time - maybe it was a bit more justified... because my pseudo friend was an addict. I grew up loving the two coreys - in a total heterosexual way you sick fuck...

I have waited for years for them to return in all of their glory ala John Travolta... It’s not as far fetched as some people may think. Corey was very talented and an awesome actor - I think in recent years he proved this(again)... most of all in lost boys 2... I do not want to take anything away from Mr. Feldman in that movie... However, the best part of it was the cameo or deleted scene of Haim - at the beach with Feldman... Those that follow Corey - know that he was FUCKED UP on the set (those of you that know me, know I do not judge people that have issues with drugs - but that’s a different post) Yet, he managed to be the only part of that movie where the acting in this B movie made me feel like it was an A release. Trust me; I know this is fucked up that I am writing this now - because just maybe Corey would have seen this before he died... And perhaps it could have made a difference.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that I am hurt and upset by his death… As I write that I know the people that do not know me IRL (in real life) are thinking what a pussy, but I dare you to meet one of my real friends and try to pass that statement off… I’m not writing this to brag, I’m writing this for those tough guys out there, that turned your back on your childhood heroes – to tell you – you never have to, you can be a tough guy and have feelings. For me, I’m human, I miss Patrick Swayze, I miss MJ, and I miss Corey Haim, and I am no chump.

I wrote to Feldman today, on his blog (check it out if you like (if it ever gets past the moderators) but don’t whore my blog on his please) Asking him to carry on the torch for us… Asking him to once and a while remind us of Haim in his art, I apologized to him for asking him to do this and I thanked him for doing it…. At least I hope that is how it came across….

Its funny how the 80s were a more innocent time, a time when we were bad asses – but there was an innocence and intelligence about us that made us bad asses – I’ll miss ya 80’s - I’ll miss ya Corey Haim - RIP homey - the ultimate 80s badass – I think I would have tried to save you if we were friends.

Let's talk....

2009-11-19T11:53:00.002-05:00

Strange how priorities change in life and at one time how something that seemed so important to you became secondary and all of a sudden a nuisance. This is true in my life, and I imagine in yours as well, throughout it. Childhood priorities, turn into adolescent priorities that turn in to pre-teen priorities etc. etc. When does it end? Do you ever become content even in your wants? In this life it is hard to set goals and indeed reach them, when every time you come close to attaining them, you realize your goals changed a while back...

I don’t know if it is still called growing up, since I am essentially getting old at this point in my life. It sure feels the same as growing up; things just continually become less cool, and eventually you just end up sitting on the couch doing nothing. Is it laziness? Have they won? Has every bit of rebellion been torn from me by the powers that be in this great conspiracy of control that we all sometimes know exists in the back of our mind yet ignore so we can keep limping through this life with our blinders on? … or am I just getting old?

I'm distraught while you rejoice…

2008-11-23T02:14:00.003-05:00

Most of you sit there in your oblivious minds – and think that you have made some great victory… need I remind you?

The economy was fine until the democrats took over congress – look at the facts – that’s what you voted for- is it a great day in history? – OHHH AHH A BLACK (oh excuse me) An African American President!!! I could care the fuck less – it’s not history to me when Muslims have sworn to destroy us from the inside out – and the blind sheep that I call my fellow Americans vote him for president… I would honor a Black president (Oh excuse me) African American in every way I could – (Jesse Jackson where are you now?) but not this one... And not now – YOU people are blind – in one breath you blame the Bush administration for everything and in the next you call him retarded… well which is it? neither... I know this is hard for you to grasp – but read some fucking books for a change … The President is in charge of foreign policy – the rest is up to congress – and on top of that – the congress has been in charge for the last two years – YES the LAST TWO YEARS THAT LOST ALL OF YOUR FUCKING MONEY… read something - a book - a newspaper - something… and get your facts straight – it’s too late now I know – but at least if you educate yourself now – you’ll know what a shit you were at the election polls – I feel for you I really do…

Now most of you are going to say well.. the midget is a republican and that’s the way it goes – but the truth is – I’m an independent I hate politicians and I hate what they have done to America – but the truth and facts are what they are and maybe you should figure them out before you stumble your stupid ass to the voting polls.. goodbye America – we are close to the end – Rome fell – and I swore it would never happen to us – but now – I see no alternative – please by the grace of god produce that birth certificate that says you’re an alien ---- please...

Should I speak my mind on the war - and Cuba - and what this asshole plans to do? do you already know and like it? OMFG

Abandoned Blog?

2008-04-16T12:05:00.002-04:00

We regret to inform you that the cowardlymidget is in a coma. He is alive and breathing and expected to make a full recovery. The problem is that doctors cannot confirm that he will make a recovery, they can only give an opinion. In addition, they cannot speculate when. They say he could wake up tomorrow or it could be a year, the truth is they just don't know.

One thing we do know is that with a will as strong as a midgets he is bound to pull through

Heath Ledger - and the American Press

2008-01-23T08:56:00.001-05:00

Another typical lead you by the nose bullshit tactic to get ratings by the press. At this point everyone is calling Heath Ledger's (R.I.P) death a suicide or overdose, because they found pills in the room he was in. The initial reports said they were spread around the room. This is all false. . . they have no idea why he is dead, the pills were not spread about the room, there was a bottle of fucking sleeping pills in the room, there are bottles of sleeping pills in 80% of the American populations bedrooms - yet this is what they hop on... Now everyone thinks that he either commited suicide or died of an overdose because of this - they did not say if they were perscription or over the counter, but if they are over the counter than it's going to take on awful lot of fucking pills to kill yourself and no one gets "HiGH" off of benadryl... at least not with the money Heath Ledger has. . . This disgusts me the complete lack of morals that the media possesses to get ratings - the complete disregard for his family and friends and legacy - why don't we just give the facts and wait for the truth instead of speculating? - that's retoracal the answer is that doesn't sell - what sell's is bullshit speculation about someone in the public eye - the worst part about it is the press will forget all about him in a few days and what is left is there aftermath on the legacy of a poor kid that passed before his time - personally I don't care how he died - I don't see that as the issue - I just see that he's is gone and that sucks . . . rest in piece Mr. Ledger - you will be missed

The Bigger Man

2008-01-08T14:08:00.000-05:00

I recently got a request from an X-friend on myspace, who wants to be my friend. It isn't hard to find me there especially since I have been using the same handle almost since I started on the internet. However, that isn't the issue... the issue is I have extreme distaste for this person and his whole family, his family has caused nothing but pain to mine and just knowing how these people are, they probably still assume we owe them something when the opposite would be a more accurate explanation. So what's the dilemma? Well at one point this person was a good friend of mine, and we had some good times... He is obviously doing the reaching out, the best way this shit neck knows how. . . would I have rather got an email with some kind words in it - yes - but again I would have to assume he doesn't feel he did anything wrong. So what did he do. . . well this is the question or the dilemma. . . he took something away from me that was the most important thing in my life (no it wasn't a girl). . . I invited him into something that was sacred to me and through manipulation and backstabbing he had me removed - and it became clear later on why - he wanted what I had - he couldn't stand being second fiddle - he never could. . . and I hate him for it. . . Friends do not do that to each other - do they? The thing is, humans make mistakes, they are not infallible, and I have made my fair share and sought forgiveness and still have not received it. So do I ignore the request and act like what some may perceive as a child would, is it really a childish act to disconnect from people that have caused you pain. . . ? the whole situation would be easier to handle if I received some correspondence instead of a simple friend request - but that did not happen - And I am almost certain an apology or even a "sorry about the way things turned out" is not headed my way - most guys don't talk like that - they would assume that the apology is understood from the initial effort - but what was taken from me, in what amounts to a hostile take-over situation, was sacred to me and to date - one of the most if not the most important thing in my life. . .

Pissed off house wife

2007-12-07T14:48:00.000-05:00

All right I received this in my email and I think it speaks for itself... Haven't posted in a while and still don't feel like it - so I am posting this... I'm not sure if all of this is patriotic... some of it may be scary

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

(This woman should run for president)

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don 't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the me antime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran."
Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !!

And may I add:

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by.. Ronald Reagan

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Ode to Biggy B

2007-10-16T11:15:00.001-04:00

These picture are from at least 10 years ago... The guy in the middle has since passed... I miss him a lot... oh to be young again

I'm getting older too

2007-10-16T08:34:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was yet another birthday... Oh boy am I sick of these... I suppose I would be a little less sick of them if I had accomlished anything I thought I would have by now... Does the little boy that had so many dreams still exist?... probably... and that is probably the problem. While the grown up inside is doing the "right" thing and trying to improve his adult life... the child still lurks inside... The child wants it all... he wants the money... he wants the fame... and he wants to be special... unfortunatley so few people are really truly special, and so few people are truly famous... I have resigned myself to the sheep life and have decided it is the best course of action... and I do try to involve myself entirley into that choice... but the child still lurks.. the child still wants and the child is still needy... It's funny that we are supposed to constantly tell our children that they are special and give them that false sense that all their dream will come true as long "as you work hard and never give up you can be anything you want to be"... its not true and it is, in my opinion, damaging tothe psyche of the children, I believe that children need the truth as does anyone... maybe not the cruel hard truth... but selling the youth delusions of grandure only promotes disappointment and depresession... Life is tough... you have to work... Most people won't no your name... and all of you can't be stars... sorry

Fuck Off And Die

2007-10-02T18:32:00.000-04:00

I don't care if you don't like me.. but don't pretend you do if you don't.

I don't care if you are fucking stupid... but don't pretend you're smart when you're not

I don't care if you don't show up... but don't pretend it's because of circumstances you don't control

I don't care if you have an opinion... as long as you know I am entitled to mine

I don't care if your morals suck... but don't pretend you walk on water while judging mine

I don't care if you have a party... but don't schedule it the day you say you are coming to mine

I don't care if you hold ill will toward me... I probably don't like you either

I don't care if you think that I am too blunt... I probably am - so fuck you

Bottom line is I don't need you and you don't need me... so why pretend otherwise?

A MADD Agenda

2007-09-16T10:27:00.000-04:00

The once honorable organization known as MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) has lost sight of the original goal it set out to achieve. The Anti drunk driving organization that the American people have come to know as MADD is gone; it is now an organization that will only be satisfied with one outcome: prohibition. Though MADD adamantly denies the fact that they are a neo prohibitionist group the evidence clearly shows that they will use any tactics found essential to create public sympathy in order to achieve their goal of criminalizing the consumption of any amount of alcohol.
When the statistics that MADD reports are researched by another party the numbers are often proven to be inflated or false. According to an article published at activistcash.com (2007):
In a three-page 1998 report, sociologist and MADD national board member Ralph Hingson claimed that lowering the nationwide drunk-driving arrest threshold from .10% to 0.08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) would save 500 lives a year (¶14).
Ralph Hingson conducted his survey with prejudice, choosing which states to compare in the survey. Hingson claimed he used neighbouring states to conduct his research. However, when a renowned traffic research scientist, Dr Robert Scopatz looked at the study, it revealed some irregularities in the definition of “neighbouring states”. Scopatz found that Hingons compared California, a .08% Blood Alcohol Level (BAC) state to Texas a .08% BAC state. If Hingon had compared actual neighbouring states such as Arizona, which is a .08% state, to California the study would have shown that there were no life saving qualities for lowering the BAC from .10% to.08% (Pena, n.d.). “Despite the challenges introduced by reality, MADD still manages to cite studies claiming that the .08% BAC law saves lives” (Pena, n.d., p 3).
It is apparent that the general public confuses the term alcohol-related with drunken driving and if the representatives of MADD are not the cause of this confusion they undoubtedly capitalize on it. The President of MADD, while addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations, cited figures from NHTSA’s study claiming “Alcohol-involved [or alcohol-related] crashes accounted for 21 percent of nonfatal injury crash costs, and an overwhelming 46 percent of all fatal injury crash costs. In order to reverse this trend, the nation cannot maintain the status quo and expect a different result.” (Hamilton, 2003) However, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) own definition the term, alcohol-related, is vague and extremely inaccurate:
NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver Or A nonmotorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.01 Grams Per Deciliter (g/dl) or above. NHTSA defines a nonfatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. The code does not necessarily mean that a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol.
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005)
Without further explanation of NHTSA’s definition it is nearly impossible to perceive the numbers to be accurate. Another disclaimer made public by NHTSA is “NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown.” (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005) If NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when the results of an alcohol test are unknown than would that not make everyone subject to the estimation calculation?
Regardless of the obvious discrepancies found in the studies conducted by NHTSA the numbers have hardly reduced over the most recent three year statistics available. According to NHSTA’s own studies the alcohol-related deaths for 2003 were 40% of the entire motor vehicle fatal accidents, while at first glance this appears to be way too high, taking a further look at the numbers one can deduct that this is grossly exaggerated. For the year 2003 60% percent of the reported 31% of deaths in fatal motor vehicle accidents were reported to have a party involved with a BAC of 0.00% (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). 0.00% is not drunk at all, yet the accidents are reported to have alcohol involved. As shown in Figure 1, removing the unsubstantiated 60% from the overall 40% gives us a much less shocking percentage of 24% and one still has to keep in mind that an undeterminable amount of these percentages can involve anyone other than the driver using the term “alcohol-related” as defined by NHTSA.
The alcohol-related accident statistics remain almost identical through the years 2004 and 2005 while the alcohol-related fatalities reportedly increased by 1% in 2004 and 2005 the percentage of alcohol-related fatalities with a party having a BAC level of 0.00% also increased by 1%. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). This should conclude that the antics performed by MADD and the increased punishments for anyone who may have taken a drink and decided to drive are essentially ineffective. Furthermore, the reported percentage of persons involved in fatal alcohol-related accidents with BAC levels between .01% and .07% is 5% and 6%. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005) Undoubtedly this is a broad scale; but nevertheless if these numbers are even remotely accurate than why is MADD pursuing an even lower BAC rate? While some may consider any number of motor vehicle deaths related to alcohol too high, society has to consider the risks of persecuting the wrong people for the crime.
While addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations the National President of MADD, Wendy J. Hamilton, cites DOT and NHTSA statistics that includes all deaths that occurred on American highways between 2001 and 2002:
According to DOT, motor vehicle crashes are responsible for 95 percent of transportation sector deaths and 99 percent of all transportation-related injuries within the United States as well as the leading cause of death for people ages 4 through 33. In 2002, an estimated 42,850 people died on the nation’s highways, up from 42,116 in 2001.
(Hamilton, 2003)
The argument has no bearing on the alcohol-related accidents excluding the fact that somewhere in the statistics that she cites are the inaccurate statistics of alcohol-related motor-vehicle deaths. Yet, it is another example of the tactics used by MADD to use any means necessary to conjure up sympathy and public outrage to further their agenda. Considering the President of MADD is addressing the Senate Committee on Appropriations would it not be prudent to conclude that the statistics that she is citing have a direct association with the agenda that MADD is promoting? Instead of citing the statistics on Alcohol-related injuries and deaths the President of MADD chooses to cite the entire death toll. Furthermore, the argument that motor vehicles are responsible for 95% of all transportation sector deaths and 99% of all transportation related deaths is frivolous. Motor vehicles are the transportation sector; and how can anything but motor-vehicles be the cause of injuries in transportation-related injuries?
The use of bias and confusing statistics are only one device used in the anti alcohol movement made by MADD. One is left to wonder why an organization such as MADD, that claims to be an advocate against drunk-driving, would allow high-ranking officials to make statements that clearly condemn the consumption of any amount of alcohol. “In Arlington, Texas MADD opposed any beer drinking by golfers at a public course ‘I’ve seen how alcohol can destroy lives,’ said a MADD spokesman. ‘Life is risky enough on its own’” (Pena, n.d., p 9). This statement goes well-beyond golfers drinking publicly at a course and a natural reaction would be to wonder why an anti drunk driving organization gets involved in the situation.
MADD uses bias research to create public sympathy to increase the laws that punish not only the habitual drunk drivers but the social drinker as well. Criminalizing a good parent that has a drink socially is unjust but appears to be another issue that MADD intends to pursue. The use of the word “any” is a subtle reminder that MADD has contempt for the consumption of alcohol beverages in any form as this quote from a MADD representative posted on neoprohibition.com (n.d.) reveals “‘Any drinking before driving,’ MADD insisted, ‘should result in penalties that should include, but are not limited to – incarceration, change of primary custody, or termination of parental rights’” (¶1). Some drinking before driving is completely legal and people who fall within the guidelines of the law should undoubtedly be afforded the right to do so without consequence. Yet MADD continuously pursues all drinking as criminal. The President of MADD has been quoted as saying “‘lowering the legal arrest standard will be a deterrent for light drinkers as well as heavy’”(Pena, n.d., p.1) This statement essentially says that MADD would like to deter all alcohol consumption making criminals out of anyone who drinks it.
MADD associates the consumption of alcohol with the use of illegal drugs. An indication of the association between illegal drugs and legal alcohol that MADD tries to make is the fact that MADD has petitioned the Whitehouse aggressively to allocate at least 50% of the illegal drug education budget to educate the public about the dangers of underage alcohol consumption. While the Whitehouse and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America opposed this idea for what appears to be good reasons “’we share a concern about the terribly serious problem of underage alcohol use,’' Mr. McCaffrey said in a statement last week. `’However, it would be a serious mistake to simply add alcohol messages. The effectiveness of paid alcohol ads without new funds, staff and research would only hamper the effectiveness of our campaign’.'' (Teinowitz, 1999) The response was not openly received by MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee who even “accuse[d] the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the White House drug czar of being part of a “twisted alliance” with alcoholic beverage groups to keep anti-alcohol ads off TV.” (Teinowitz, 1999) When did the subject change from educating the public about the dangers of underage drinking to anti-alcohol campaigns? If MADD is an organization with only the good intentions of lowering the drunken driving deaths then why are they pursuing anti-alcohol campaigns? In addition to the accusations made by Karolyn Nunnallee showing MADD’s less then humble response to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America for not associating Alcohol with drugs, later that year MADD went on to fund:
A 1999 MADD television spot [that] shows heroin being boiled in a spoon and sucked into a syringe while the voice-over intones that alcohol kills more people under [the age of] 21 than all illegal drugs combined. Message: just as there is no safe amount of heroin or crack cocaine there is no safe [amount of] drinking [alcohol]
(Pena, n.d. p 9).
The inflated statistics and controversial research used by MADD shows MADD has an agenda that reaches further then preventing deaths from drunk driving. Continuing on the pursuit of prohibition MADD tries to have the government allocate funds to support an anti-alcohol campaign and is less than humble when a decision is made that does not coincide with their objective. Representatives of MADD publicly condemn all consumption of alcohol, and have no regard for the people who drink it within the guidelines of the laws. The adverse effects on parents or social drinkers due to the laws that are invoked by the rallying of the organization MADD are detrimental and are far from the original goal of MADD which was to prevent deaths from drunken driving accidents. MADD continues to adamantly deny the notion that they are a neo prohibitionist group. However, the evidence clearly indicates that they will use any tactics found essential to create public sympathy in order to achieve their goal of criminalizing the consumption of any amount of alcohol.

STFU about the IPHONE

2007-08-25T00:22:00.000-04:00

Will you shut the fuck up about the damn IPHONE first you morons are all hot and bothered and you just have to have a phone that does everything.... great whatever go get it pay nine million dollars for it... yee ha more power too ya... now you have it and it has problems... well duh if you weren't a poser tech geek than you would fucking know not to by the first run of techncal equipment... but you are and you are just a yuppy that wants fucking things because they are expensive and new... guess what its got some bugs... the real kicker is they are very minor and if you weren't technically illiterate you would be able to work around them with ease but instead you can't... oh well boo fucking hoo... shut up we don't care... in the future wait until the second release comes out of something.. of course then you won't be the first one at your fucking country club to have it...

What's in a wave? Part 3 A bad sequel

2007-08-03T22:09:00.000-04:00

You know those movies that have a bad sequel that comes out ten or twenty years from the originals that people have been waiting for but they are an absolute disappointment? ... well this is one of them . . . only it’s not a movie and the original wasn’t a blockbuster . . . I don’t know where to begin so I am just going to try and let it flow . . . One of my best friends in the world showed up today. He lives in a different state and has for a very long time . . . he has very little idea about what has happened with me and the rest of my “best friends” that have been around the whole time . . . the cool thing is (which is what friends are made of) he does not care about things that do not involve him . . . I mean he may have an opinion and he may think that I was wrong in the actions that lead to the demise of my friendships . . . but he loves me just the same . . . I am leaving the state tomorrow. And it just figures he’d show up today. Of course there will be a party thrown for him. That’s what we do. And he could only visit with me for about an hour . . . it hurt . . . I won’t lie. It hurt when he was leaving . . . because I belong at that party . . . but I couldn’t hold him up from going . . . and of course I wouldn’t try . . . He brought his wife when he came to see me . . . and it should have been of little significance but it wasn’t . . . I have never met his wife . . . and we spent a mere hour together . . . but while I was at the computer trying to burn him a CD of my music (which never worked . . . some tech huh?) She came up and sat next to me . . . and said . . . without being prompt . . . “maybe you should come with us” . . . that touched me . . . she must have liked me which means people still do like me . . . I had to reply with a heavy heart (she almost brought me to tears with that statement) “I don’t think that will workout sweetheart” . . . and she said something like “oh . . . Well okay . . . I don’t know what’s going on” (which did sound like a bit of a lie but she obviously didn’t know everything . . . But then again who does?) And the subject changed . . . so what’s in a wave you ask? I don’t know . . . I suppose nothing. I have spent years realizing that things will never be as they were and have grown to accept that . . . it just grows so much more difficult when you are face to face with the past . . . I would like to be there with him . . . I would like to change the past . . . I would like things to be different . . . but then again I would like to be a super hero that wears his underwear on the outside of his pants . . .

Banning Smoking (no swimming at the beach)

2007-07-17T10:04:00.000-04:00

There seems to be some confusion as to what a public place is. Public places owned by the taxpayer are 100% public and therefore subject to laws imposed by the people. Bars and restaurants are privately owned establishments open to a focused public. When there is no line drawn between the two, the freedoms of every citizen are at risk. The federal government sits idly by, as a smoking ban spreads nationwide. A nationwide smoking ban is unethical because it infringes on the rights of business owners, takes away the rights of taxpaying smokers, and gives the government too much control over our personal choices and individual habits--control that
could essentially destroy the fabric of America.
Business owners have a vested interest in satisfying all their customers; and regulating the air quality inside bars and restaurants may be an adequate solution to the problem that the unethical smoking bans are trying to solve. The primary reason an owner has a business is to make a profit; the only way to do that is to assure their customers continue to patronize the establishment:
Customers comfort and happiness are primary concerns in the hospitality industry, and the fact remains some customers like to smoke in restaurants, and restaurants and other venues feel it’s their responsibility to accommodate those customers as well as the ones who don't smoke. They want to be able to please everyone.
(Turpin, 2002, p. 44)
When smoking is one of the primary reason people frequent an establishment, forbidding smoking in that establishment infringes on the owners ability to make a profit. Smoking bans are imposed with the belief that smoking makes all patrons feel uncomfortable. In truth, smoking makes only a small percentage of customers feel uncomfortable. An indoor air quality, ventilation and smoking activity study was performed by six contributors in six nations. Midrange quality and priced restaurants were surveyed at peak hours, one of the main goals was to find the occupants’ view of the indoor air quality as it pertained to several areas one of which being cigarette smoke. The survey found in America a mere 12.9% were dissatisfied with air-quality as it relates to cigarette smoke while the noise and the draft rates of dissatisfaction where substantially higher (Bohanon, Piade, Saintjalm, Schorp, 1999, p. 2-6). Requiring owners to obtain a license to allow smoking in establishments would be less imposing on business owners’ rights than restricting smoking completely. If the federal government set guidelines for the amount of clean air necessary in an establishment in accordance with health related data and the local government required business owners to adhere to these requirements before receiving a license than the needs of all the customers may be satisfied.
The federal government has an obligation to protect all Americans, which includes tax-paying smokers, without the bias of revenue interfering with the federal government’s decision to intervene when the state and local governments are imposing unethical laws. On September 11, 2001, this country endured an immense tragedy, losing thousands of innocent lives, changing American lives forever. The government paid out billions of dollars in restitution to the families of the victims of “9/11”. The federal government paid restitution because they failed to protect Americans and were aware of the tragic mistake. Protecting the freedoms of all Americans is as important as protecting their lives; and smoking bans impose upon the freedoms that the federal government is obligated to protect. So why does the federal government avoid the issue of smoking bans across the nation? One can only be left to assume that the millions of dollars incurred through the big tobacco companies and the revenue produced from the sale of cigarettes compromises the federal government’s ability to be unbiased. “If all second hand smoke presents a health risk, then make it illegal to grow, sell or use all tobacco products. We don't think that will happen because government is too dependent on the taxes generated by tobacco sales” (Rauner, 2004, p.7). Allowing state and local governments to legislate smoking laws seems to be a perfect solution for the federal government to not appear hypocritical to the citizen or alienate one of its biggest financial providers. However, allowing local governments to impose a smoking ban is another failure by the federal government to protect Americans. Nonsmoking laws are written with the understanding that they are protecting the rights of the nonsmoker. Laws should preserve the rights of all Americans, yet the federal government allows state and local laws to be written, infringing on the rights of the taxpaying citizens who choose to smoke and the business owners who want to allow smoking in their establishments.
American citizens benefit from the ability to make personal choices about what businesses they patronize, where they are employed and their personal wellbeing; laws that remove personal choice give the government too much control over an individual’s habits. Making personal choices that coincide with personal beliefs is not always convenient; and going miles out of ones way to find an establishment that forbids smoking appears to be unfair. However, if nonsmokers choose not to patronize a place that allowed smoking, than more places might then cater to the nonsmoking group. Potential employees for the hospitality industry may incur some of the same difficulties as the nonsmoking group does while trying to find an establishment that does not allow smoking. The argument can be made that this is America, and just as one does not have to patronize a place, one is certainly not obligated to work in any particular place. Finding employment may be difficult, especially for people without a formal education. The hospitality industry is a convenient place for people with limited education but promising integrity to find employment. Increasing the choice one has to find employment by banning smoking in all hospitality based businesses may be morally correct. However, according to Cotti and Adams (2007) bars subject to smoking bans suffer a decrease in employment while restaurant employment remains virtually unchanged (p.1). Instead of making laws that completely restrict smoking and consequently impeding on the rights of so many people, it might be more effective to regulate smoking, preserving the rights of smokers, nonsmokers and business owners.
Both sides of the issue have strong standpoints. Nonsmokers believe their rights are being infringed upon where a smoking ban is not in effect and smokers feel the exact same way where it is. The answer is to find common ground. Guidelines can be imposed to preserve all ways of life without destroying the fabric on which this country is built. Allowing smoking in all public places is unfair to a particular group. Why is it so hard to see that banning smoking in all public areas is also unfair to a particular group? Requiring business owners to obtain licenses to allow smoking would create both smoking and nonsmoking establishments. Requiring a minimum clean-air standard in places that allow smoking would create a comfortable working environment for employees. Contrary to popular belief voting ones rights away is not the idea of a democratic practice. If the majority of the country is Christian then is it democratic to outlaw Hanukkah by a majority vote? If the majority of people find Rap Music detrimental to their psyche then is it all right to outlaw certain types of music by a majority vote? The bottom line is that this is not a smoking debate; the debate is about the freedom of choice. Offering any freedoms up for sacrifice due to personal preference is dangerous, and can pave the way for extreme government control which will lead to the loss of freedoms that countless people of this country have given their lives to preserve.

I'm not one to forward emails

2007-07-14T23:18:00.000-04:00

<>

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="440">

Persuasive Essays

2007-07-14T14:28:00.000-04:00

Well... by noticing the amount of comments I got on my last post (none) I can see the Internet community is really into long reading (I knew you weren't)... well that was a rough draft for a school paper... Now... I did get a good grade on it... but it was also hacked to bits (in a (somewhat) good way) by the professor I have recently done about nine million (or so) revisions to it and I am at the point where I am calling it finished... The class is at its end and I believe I learned a lot about persuasive writing... all though some people would say all of my writing was persuasive writing and I would have too... prior to taking this class... I can now see that most of my blog posts where I think I am being persuasive are really just opinionated posts... I think they are a close relative but they are definitely not the same... I ramble at times because I am writing while I am thinking the words and believe it to be as close to speech as one can come while writing... anyway I am not going to completely change my writing style but from time to time you will see the persuasive essay type writing posts come up... I am also going to post my final draft of the paper here (under a new title... which I though was great because it WAS confusing but others disagreed) whether you people read it or NOT :)

No Swimming at the Beach

2007-06-24T04:27:00.000-04:00

There seems to be some confusion as to what a public place is. Public places owned by the taxpayer are 100% public and therefore subject to laws imposed by the people. Bars and restaurants are privately owned establishments open to a focused public. When there is no line drawn between the two, the freedoms of every citizen are at risk. The federal government sits idly by as a nationwide smoking ban spreads. A nationwide smoking ban is unethical because it infringes on the rights of business owners, takes away the rights of taxpaying smokers, and gives the government too much control over our personal choices and individual habits--control that could essentially destroy the fabric of America.
Most people would agree the owner of a bar has an obligation to remove an unruly customer who may have had too much to drink.
Customers comfort and happiness are primary concerns in the hospitality industry, and the fact remains some customers like to smoke in restaurants, and restaurants and other venues feel it’s their responsibility to accommodate those customers as well as the ones who don't smoke. They want to be able to please everyone. (Turpin, 2002.)
The primary reason an owner has a business is to turn a profit, the only way to do that is to keep their customers content. Why is all right to turn away a disorderly customer to satisfy the majority but not a nonsmoker? Is that not a matter of taste? Is it unethical to make laws based upon personal preference?
“No shoes, no shirts, no service,” is a common sign people have seen at the local convenience store, obviously there for the comfort and health of all patrons. No one would conceivably argue that this was not a necessary precaution taken to promote the equality of all customers. Has this sign ever been posted at the beach? Of course not, because it would not make sense. So why is it all right to forbid smoking in all establishments when smoking is one of the primary reasons people frequent it? An indoor air quality, ventilation and smoking activity study was performed by six contributors in six nations. Midrange quality and priced restaurants were surveyed at peak hours, one of the main goals was to find the occupants’ view of the indoor air quality as it pertained to several areas one of which being cigarette smoke. The survey found in America a mere 12.9% were dissatisfied with air-quality as it relates to cigarette smoke while the noise and the draft rates of dissatisfaction where substantially higher. (Bohanon, Piade, Saintjalm, Schorp, 1999, p. 2-6) Requiring owners to obtain a license to allow smoking in establishments would be less imposing on business owners’ rights. Setting guidelines for the amount of clean air necessary in an establishment in accordance with health related data then requiring the business owner to adhere to these requirements before receiving a license would solve any health issue argument one would have.
Protecting every American is the responsibility of the Federal government. On September 11, 2001, this country endured an immense tragedy, losing thousands of innocent lives, changing American lives forever. The government paid out billions of dollars of restitution to the families of the victims of “9/11”. They paid this because they failed to protect Americans and were aware of the tragic mistake. If the preservation of freedom takes a backseat to anything, it would only be to life itself. So why does the federal government avoid the issue of smoking bans across the nation? One can only be left to assume the millions of dollars incurred through the big tobacco companies and the revenue produced from the sale of cigarettes compromises the Governments ability to be unbiased. “If all second hand smoke presents a health risk, then make it illegal to grow, sell or use all tobacco products. We don't think that will happen because government is too dependent on the taxes generated by tobacco sales.”(Rauner, 2004, p.7)
Avoiding the issue by allowing states to legislate laws seems to be a perfect solution to not appear hypocritical to the citizen or alienate one of the biggest financial providers. However, avoiding the issue is another failure of the Government to protect Americans. Laws should preserve the rights of all Americans yet the Government allows laws to be written, infringing on the rights of the taxpaying business owners and citizens that happen to smoke.
No one is forced to patronize any business, it is a matter of choice. Choosing to enter an establishment that allows smoking then complaining about it almost appears that one is patronizing the establishment only to complain. Why would one support a business that goes against such a strong belief? Would an African American buy a bumper sticker from the Ku Klutz Klan even if that sticker was something the African American wanted? If a statement was made by nonsmoker by not patronizing a place that allowed smoking than some places would obviously cater to the nonsmoking group.
The “no smoking” laws that pass are often written as if they are to protect the health of employees. The argument can be made, this is America and just as one does not have to patronize a place, one is certainly not obligated to work in any particular place. Finding work can be difficult especially for people with limited education. The hospitality industry is a convenient place for people with limited education but promising integrity to find employment. These types of choices may be narrow and can become narrower if the choices are restricted to places that do not allow smoking. However, according to Chad Cotti and Scott Adams (2007) bars subject to smoking bans suffer a decrease in employment while restaurant employment remains virtually unchanged. (p.1). Instead of making laws that completely restrict smoking consequently impeding on the rights of so many would it not be more effective and more American to regulate it?
If laws can be made that restrict smoking in an establishment to protect the employee; what prevents the same argument to be made by a cable person entering a home? How would one like to be told to take down a Crucifix or Star of David inside their home before the cable person arrived because it was offensive? Perhaps one should not play Rap music inside one’s home because the cable person finds it psychologically unhealthy. If laws can be made to restrict smoking inside establishments for health reasons why not Rap music? If laws can be made to restrict Rap music inside establishments than why not personal homes? If Rap music is offensive and unhealthy then why are not more famous works of art such as the Statue of David? Where does it all end?
Both sides of the issue have strong standpoints. Nonsmokers believe their rights are being infringed upon where a law is not in effect and smokers feel the exact same way where it is. The answer is to find common ground. Guidelines can be imposed to preserve all ways of life without destroying the fabric on which this country was built. Allowing smoking in all public places is unfair to a particular group. Why is it so hard to see that banning smoking in all public areas is also unfair to a particular group? Requiring business owners to obtain licenses to allow smoking would create both smoking and nonsmoking establishments. Requiring a minimum clean-air standard in places that allow smoking would make a safe working environment for employees. Contrary to popular belief voting ones rights away is not the idea of a democratic practice. If the majority of the country is Christian, is it democratic to outlaw Hanukkah by a majority vote? If the majority of people find Rap Music detrimental to their psyche is it all right to outlaw it by a majority vote? The bottom line is this is not a smoking debate it is a freedom of choice debate. Offering any freedoms up for sacrifice simply over personal preference is dangerous, and can pave the way for extreme government control which will lead to the loss of freedoms that countless people of this country have given their life to preserve.

I'm Alive

2007-06-17T13:45:00.000-04:00

I know I have been neglecting my blog lately and I apologize... for sure I am going to lose some regulars but that's okay... I think you'll be back for the love of the midget.... I have been attending college and I am in a writing class... I spend a lot of time writing in this class and can't muster up the energy to write for fun as much... but I am trying.... between that and working on other various projects - my time seems to be limited... anyway I wanted to drop a line and say I am alive and I will bitch about something soon... thanks for hanging in there!!!

Is nothing sacred?

2007-06-01T14:05:00.000-04:00

Have you ever heard of a cowardlymidget before me? of course not I've been here since at least 05 and have had the email since about 2002... well I recently have seen someone else on the internet with the name Cowardlymidget... what a scum bag... it

REALLY CHAPS MY ASS!!

FREE SEARCH ENGINE

2007-05-24T20:52:00.000-04:00

I am so sick of people or organizations offering something for free for your website... and it starts off great... only to find out a week - month - or year later they change it and add a link to their website on it... As you may have noticed I have a random java script to the right that says stupid proverb... its a simple java script that used to point to another website and read a new saying everyday... well I popped on my own website for a minute just to check it out and noticed something that said the script has moved go "here" to get the new code blah blah blah... okay fine I go there and get it... use the new code and at the end of every saying they have an ugly picture and a link to their website ow.. how irritating... I took the script... changed it and hosted it on my own website... sorry... I don't think it is unethical at all... what they did is... if they give me a hard time about it I'll rewrite it and offer it for free to everyone.... anyway since this episode has happened and I know that people claiming to give away free search engines do the same thing... I am for a limited time only willing to make you a FREE.. NO STRINGS ATTACHED SEARCH ENGINE... that's right its Java based but I love the way it works... its primitive it does not update itself so if you constantly update your site it won't update on its own but other than that its perfect and if you email me (its right over to the right - click on contact the midget) and tell me you want a free search engine for your site and the address of the site (so I can index it) and that's it I will send you the java scripts that make it work and the HTML code for your site... yeah... NO STRINGS ATTACHED.. no hidden link - nothing... FREE

Paris Hilton Again?

2007-05-18T07:07:00.000-04:00

A friend and reader of this blog recently asked me to write something about the whole Paris Hilton thing that is going on... They said "if anyone can do it you can" quite flattering yet I suppose anyone can write about it... You can find the friends blog here MOOD MOLE .
The problem with taking the request into consideration and setting my writing into action is this... I assume that they would want me to slam Mrs. Hilton and say that she should take responsibility for her actions and stop trying to blame it on her publicist.... Well first I am late... and she has... second SCREW THAT... This is pure human survival instinct... When faced with jail - say and do anything to try to avoid it... The people that want to put you there will... They'll lie, fabricate, over exaggerate, and anything else, to destroy you, and further their career and/or agenda. Paris did do something wrong (I'm not going to address the DUI again you can read about that HERE) She drove with a suspended license... Not too bright since she's in the spotlight (bright - spotlight ... he he) all the time... Did she know her license was suspended?... Of course she knew... She ignored it because being spoiled little rich girl she has always done whatever she wanted with no consequences... Well this time there is consequences and jail is going to suck (trust me I know). Should she go... Was her crime so bad that she belongs in jail? well the problem here is that the answer is no and yes... First no one deserves to go to jail just for driving with a suspended license unless of course another crime goes with it such as driving without a license and say... Manslaughter, or even a lesser charge like reckless driving or excessive speed you could argue the point that maybe they deserve to go to jail... But just driving with a suspended license to me sending you to jail is a little excessive... This is another doing of the corrupt MADD crusades... While driving under a suspended license that has been suspended for a driving under the influence charge... Everyone goes to jail... That's the way it is... If you want to rally against it I commend you, but for now that's the way it is. SO Paris Hilton is not being treated any different then anyone else... She should go to jail... I am actually surprised she is... I'm surprised money didn't buy her way out of it... At least not yet... And remember, this whole thing could last years she could end up going to jail for this years later (I went FOUR years, after the fact with no other trouble or charges... right to a speedy trial?) Anyway... so yes Paris Hilton should go to jail if we are grading on the scale that everyone is equal but OJ bought is way out of a murder rap which is what I would have expected to happen with Paris...

Return of the old template but cooler

2007-05-12T22:50:00.000-04:00

The new template was short lived I prefer this one... It isn't exactly the same I made some cool changes and I am pretty happy about the search engine. I have also been looking for a way to post comments from my page instead of the pop up... I did find a way had it all set up... just to find out that it doesn't work anymore.... now that Blogger has switched its format... they prevent that type of posting... I am however a bit confused everyone is talking about the new blogger and all this new code... I haven't seen it... nothing has changed for me here... there are no new features or anything that I see... I have switched to logging in using my Google account and that's about the extent of it... obviously I do not use bloggers HTML templates so that I have to assume is part of the reason i haven't seen any new code but I don't know I don't see any new features what so ever... not that I need any... All I really want is expandable comments for my main page which I will find some hack eventually... The problem is that everyone that is doing the hacks are changing to the new code and I am not rewriting this again no way... Unless I screwed something up because my Main page hasn't archived in quite sometime... lol... just have to wait and see on that one... Anyway this is the last of the boring computer posts... I'll be ranting again soon I am sure...

"This site best viewed" update

2007-05-11T07:43:00.000-04:00

"the website a slave to the viewers resolution"
FIXED (sort of) transparent gifs and flash backgrounds fixed this, it still changes due to resolution but looks fine at 1024x768 and above... and doable at 800x600.
"can see the square on the guys hand"
FIXED transparent gif... DUH

Everything I wanted to do is pretty much done... Looking at it now I know my other one was more classy... But this one is fun... I don't know I will keep this one a while but may change back eventually... I spent about 2 days trying to figure out how to make a search engine just for my site without the regular amenities.. eg. .cgi bin etc.... The answer was obviously in JAVA but I had a hell of time getting it to work... Finally it is done.... And for all of you that know... The answer is in the index... That's the toughest part... The script is relatively simple but the index takes some time... After a few days of searching... There is help out there that makes it painless... When you finally find it.

This site best viewed at 1024 x 768

2007-05-08T16:42:00.000-04:00

All right I am almost finished with my new format... of course I have had some problems... and the fact that the way the website looks is a slave to the way the viewer has their screen resolution is disturbing... I hate sites that have the title of this blog on their site.. it seems so cheesy... I am looking for a javascript that will detect the viewers screen size and adjust the page accordingly... the closest thing I have found is a java script that detects the screen resolution and forwards you to a separate page that I would have to optimize for their screen... but that just won't work with this whole blogging thing... I have found this http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2006/01/19/ but have yet to understand it... If anyone else can and help me out that'd be cool. Also a few other things... my first attempt at the flash movie of the guy writing came out visual perfect but the background was backwards and it was too fast.... Now the background is the right way but you can see the square on the guys hand... Now looking back I should have done it in yellow and made it a post it note... maybe I'll redo it some other time... I'll be making changes I am sure periodically... Anyway I hope you like it... let me know...

How Old Is Too Old?

2007-04-29T19:15:00.000-04:00

I'm starting college next week... I am officially thirty years old, this is not my first attempt at higher learning about seven years ago I signed up and attended a technical school, which was basically the same thing I am going to learn this time around, but this time we are adding the courses I don't need for this particular field... Yet you have to take them in order to get the degree. I probably already know everything I will be being taught (in my second year) yet I don't get the credit for it in the real world. The problem with having a technical school education for working in the IT industry in my opinion is this... The people hiring you have know idea what the hell it is they are hiring you for... So the only thing they can go by is the equivalent to their degree eg. Associates - Bachelors - Masters... I usually get "what is A plus certified? or what is a MCP?" Grr... Well Bozo these are tough certifications to get in the field you are thinking (or maybe not) of hiring me for. See I have been doing Computer work on and off for approximately six years and have met all types in the field... It is unfortunate that the conversations most worth being held are the ones that are with the people that go to technical school. The college people usually think they know everything and talk down at you, and really have no idea what it is they are talking about... Yet they have the money and the jobs... I hopefully will be joining the ranks of these people... But promise if I ever get back to a position of authority that I will be hiring the people from technical schools.

Not all college people are idiots... Don't get me wrong I have met some good ones... Just seems the Technical School people know their stuff more...