Mike's Home Page




This is from a writer who is unnamed, but some of you may identify. He's talking to a friend of mine.  Now, to give him his due, he's not just blocking people who disagree like so many of the pussies are.  Still, the sneering condescension, self-aggrandizement and posturing is almost tin-pot:


Behold! He risked his life as a civilian government employee in the depths of a TOC, analyzing how best to drop drone-bombs on illiterate peasants who threaten our precious, bodily fluids. His entire adult life has been devoted to a system whereby SecState can define whatever SecState wants as a terror threat and ban the domestic production thereof (ITAR), with secret watch and terror lists, exempt herself from the same security protocols he and everyone else is held to, confiscatory tax regs, imposed fascist health care and literal hordes of illegals. He worked really hard for that vision of America, and Trump wants to end it!

Wait, did he actually mean that? Because that's certainly what his history SAYS.

Besides, those drone strikes are still happening: "The strikes, which were later confirmed by the Pentagon, did not require Trump to sign off on them. Under then-President Barack Obama, the authority to order such strikes in Yemen was devolved to the four-star commander of US Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel." http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/drone-strikes-president-trump/

But I guess Trump might stop them, that monster!

And we're so polite while we talk about it.

That's because we're not the fucking Nazis in this debate, you Nazi piece of shit. The fucking Nazi lost the election, but your side refuses to accept the legitimate process, and is re-enacting Kristallnacht to show how bad your opponents are...except you prove exactly the opposite.

And he really believes he loves and bled for the previous administration (because he certainly isn't talking about Bush and he's not old enough for Reagan) and all the great things it did...like tripling the debt, MOAR drone strikes, three more wars we really shouldn't have gotten involved in, but are somehow more ethical than two other wars...hyperbole much?

Also, a lot of other people fought, and bled, to avoid the utopia he's achieved and keep that fucking Nazi from winning the election, but of course, they don't count, because only one side can be utterly evil and have apologists, and he'll tell you which side it is. So politely.

Note that he can't actually detail what Trump has done in under a month that is so devastatingly terrible. None of them can. In that month, Trump has done some good, some bad, none of it amounting to much yet, because the President is relatively limited in power scope and these things take time.

What he means is he'd have sucked Hillary's cock if she had one. And he's willing to overlook anything utterly evil she might do. Only the other side is held to account. That's the real danger of extremists on both sides, and how we got into this mess. Which he fought and bled for. (Where's his Purple Heart, btw?)

And then like a textbook narcissist, he projects his own blind worship, devoid of criticality, onto the man who says, "People have different viewpoints." Apparently, saying so is refusing to "own" the "Fact" that Trump is Hitler.

I guess it needs to be said again, and often, because the actual fucking Nazis in this debate can't grasp it: You're the fucking Nazis (yes, that's a two-word noun) and the fucking Nazi lost the election.

And I for one will be very glad if everything you "worked so hard for" is flushed down the shitter.

Because it doesn't matter how hard you work for evil. It remains evil.


Correspondence with the people running that show, regarding our home:

Mike and Jessica,
I was contacted a couple of days ago by Carrie, the woman who does 2nd home visits for ISE. She was very concerned about the disarray of your home. I explained to her that you both are very busy individuals who have a small child in the home (who I'm sure makes messes faster than one can pick up) and that I would feel comfortable living in your home, even if it were a bit untidy (as is everyone's at times). However, she was so concerned that she recommended to the ISE district manager, Pauline Pipkins, that Boris be found a different home. I contacted Boris (I didn't mention what Carrie had said, just checking in with him to see how he was doing) and he said that he really likes you all and enjoys spending time with your family. He also said he was making friends and likes school. I spoke with Pauline and asked her to please give you guys a chance to tidy up a bit before making a final decision of having Boris removed, since he likes you guys and is happy in your home. She informed me that if the home tidiness situation improves, then Boris can continue to live with you all for the duration of his time here. Carrie Roberts will be making another home visit in the near future to see if the situation has improved. I'm sure that she'll call a day or so ahead of time to make sure that you all will be available. Boris seems to be a nice kid and I hope your family is enjoying hosting him. I look forward to seeing him on Sunday for skiing! smile

Thanks for hosting,


Jessica Schlenker said:
Jan 29

As I was obviously not here when this visit occurred or aware that it was scheduled, I am unsure what “disarray” is the cause of the concern.
Clarification as to what caused her concern would be helpful. I have been ill the last few weeks with an on-going migraine, and my routine has been scrambled accordingly. However, I will note that none of Cassandra’s weekly in-home therapists, who are mandatory reporters, have expressed any concerns, quite the opposite.
I believe Mike said this occurred on Wednesday, and no mention was made at the time of any concerns. I do know that I received several boxes that day, household goods (Amazon), which were in the living-room when I got home. Mike believes it was neater than when you were last inside, as well.
And, yes, Cassandra actively takes things off shelves and out of boxes at every opportunity. It’s a full time job to keep her toys in one area only. We endeavor to keep her out of the office (non-living area) of the building. However, thanks to things like having to replace the furnace, we have not yet purchased and installed the planned separating doors between the “house” and “office” area. The office is not, however, “living” space.
We have enjoyed having Boris here, and believe it would be detrimental to him to move him for concerns neither he (nor his family, who have had a couple of video “tours” when Boris has Facetime’d them while walking around) have expressed.
Since this is our first time hosting, and we are still settling into the house from moving in (and combining two households), we would appreciate the guidance and clarification first rather than overreaction.

Mike Williamson said
Jan 29

In fact, given that statement, I would appreciate if Pauline came and saw for herself.


Jessica Schlenker
Jan 31 (12 days ago)

Is there any further information or follow up?
We're all rather fretful, as you might expect.



On Jan 29, 2017 6:57 PM, Janel wrote:
I can understand your frustration. I think you all have a beautiful home and saw no problems while I was there. I would feel very comfortable with my own child living there. I forwarded your email to Pauline and told her the same. I also explained to Carrie when she called me that the office wasn't living space and you all were still getting settled in from the move. I'm fighting for you guys because I believe that you're an awesome host family and that Boris really enjoys being there. I hope that you're feeling better. Moms don't have time to be sick. smile
I'll let you know what I find out.

Melissa Plunkett says:
5:31 PM (47 minutes ago)

Hello. Sorry for the delay. I have a day job and was gone for training all weekend plus I've been having conversations with my manager about your particular situation. I am sorry to say that we are going to need to move Boris. Due to the report coming back as it did and your surprise at the report, it seems we may have different standards of a clean and tidy host environment. I had asked janel to speak with you and wanted to set up a second visit but there is concern that you don't see it as a problem and unfortunately Boris does see it as a concern for him as well. He would never say that to you guys, as he does think you are very nice and would not want to hurt your feelings or make you angry with him. He appreciates all that you've done and we do as well, but we do have state standards that we have to meet (different than what the department of state for child welfare ) and our standards are very rigid for exchange students. I am sorry to have to send this to you and please know that we all know that you are good people who really wanted to host a student as we know many others who do and are unable to for many different reasons and situations. I encourage you to consider trying again with a student next year if you are willing/able to tidy and keep tidy your home. I can share our definition of that if you'd like. Again I am sorry and I will keep you advised of a move date but I expect it would be before the end of the week.
Take care.

Jessica says:
Hi, Melissa,
Per Janel's below instructions, I am contacting you. If you have any information regarding when a second visit will happen, that would be appreciated. We have not had any contact regarding it.
We are still pending a response to our original questions regarding clarification as to what caused the "concern" about "disarray," as well as the request for clearer guidelines. I have looked through everything possible on the ISE website and handbooks, and found nothing specific or clear. As noted to Janel previously, we have two mandatory reporters -- my 2 year old's speech and occupational therapists, via the state's First Steps program -- in the house weekly, and they have not voiced concerns. (Three different individuals now, as one of her regular therapists is on maternity leave, and there is a substitute therapist here on a different schedule than before until she's back.)
I am bothered by the vacuum that appears to have happened in regards to information. Mike and I are absolutely willing to follow guidance insofar as possible and reasonable, but that guidance has not been made available.
Feeling it fair to Boris, we apprised him of the information that there was an issue when we were informed (which surprised and flabbergasted him), and he has asked a few times if we have any further information as to what would happen. I would like to be able to reassure him, but so far all I've been able to do is say "I don't know."

From: Janel
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I usually try to return emails in a timely manner. I was attempting to get a definite answer from someone about what exactly is going on. Melissa Plunkett, my supervisor, has been speaking to Pauline about when a second visit would happen. It would be best for you to contact Melissa. Her email is [redacted]. I'm sorry that I can't be more help.

Jessica Schlenker says:
5:58 PM (20 minutes ago)

Yes, obviously, which is why I requested standards and information, because I could not find anything when the concern came up.
It seems that Boris suddenly became okay with moving into a new location after finding out he'd be moving in with a friend.
When Janel contacted him originally, without any discussion about why she was, he had nothing bad to say. When we told him there was a concern, he was shocked, surprised, and immediately said he has no issues or worries. We *asked*. All that Janel would say is that there would be another inspection.
I am sorry that my desire to be cooperative and helpful has been found to be offensive. I requested guidance as to how to meet these undocumented standards, so that there wouldn't be a misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, as these standards are apparently beyond what daily vacuuming, cleaning, and general pickup can accomplish, I believe we will not ever be "fit" for this program.
My apologies for our efforts.


Mike Williamson says:

I just spoke to Boris, politely. He was very embarrassed about all of this. He also seemed very unsure, as if he'd been told it was "for the best," not given a choice, and was trying to convince himself it was of benefit.
It seems he was told he was moving, and in with a friend, and felt that would be more fun. He did express that the 2 year old makes a bit more mess than he is comfortable with. We do clean regularly. We have vacuumed three times this week. Had he ever mentioned this, and I asked frequently, we would have made additional cleanup efforts, though it appears you're not actually aware of what a 2 year old can do in a half hour.
Pauline [actually, Carrie. I have trouble keeping track of all the voices in this, one of whom I met for two minutes, most of whom never even spoke to me directly] deceitfully did not express any concerns at all during her visit. If she had an issue, that would be the time to tell us. She failed to do so.
It's been three weeks since then. Clearly, urgency in this case was lacking.
It's been three weeks. You still have failed to provide guidelines on what is considered acceptable. It seems one person's word with no criteria or photos is enough to cause all this uproar. BTW, yes, the outside of the house was a bit disorganized. It's called a "windstorm" and my industrial stuff from my former office is not yet fully situated in the garage. It in no way affected liveability, and again, if that was a concern, it would be both polite and professional to make mention at the time.

Carrie didn't even actually enter any room other than Boris' and the living room. It appears she entered the house, decided she was done, and left in about two minutes.

As mentioned before, our daughter has a speech therapist and a occupational therapist in the house weekly. They have mandatory reporting guidelines to the State of Indiana for any issues they see. When queried, they informed me our house is far above average and they have zero concerns.

I note:

Carrie's complete failure to act in a courteous and professional manner, and her deceitfulness.

The inability of the rest of your organization to provide any sort of examples or guidelines as to what was deemed wrong, suggesting that they are arbitrary and capricious.

Your refusal to follow through with the re-inspection you promised, even without furnishing more criteria.

Your apparent dishonesty in promising the above, then refusing to do so.

Your inability to follow through in a timely manner, regarding this alleged problem.

Your complaint that our inability to understand and comply with mysterious guidelines IN ADDITION to the written guidelines, that you cannot provide in this timeframe.

The stress Boris is undergoing, after settling in, and now being moved, and without any real feedback we are aware of.

It appears your organization does not meet the standards I require, in terms of maintaining standards, communication, and professionalism.

Accordingly, we most certainly will not involve ourselves with you again.

I feel sorry for Boris, the victim in all of this. I wish him well and hope the rest of his stay is positive. It's a shame he won't get to see Chicago, Columbus OH, Nashville and Louisville, as we had planned with my professional appearance schedule. Hopefully his other hosts can offer him some travel opportunities.

Our thanks to Janel for being the only professional voice in this discourse.

By the way, this is how Boris got the money for his New York, DC and skiing trips: https://www.gofundme.com/send-boris-to-new-york-and-dc



UPDATE 13 Feb. 17: Melissa informed Boris via text that he was moving today. He told me, I explained the concerns, he texted her to phone me. She refused. I contacted ISE headquarters at 1620, who said they were unaware of the issue, and are investigating. The rep on the phone agreed the procedure sounds nonstandard, but didn't say more, pending investigation.

At 1815 Melissa showed up with a police officer (for which I'm actually grateful--at least there was some sort of official logging.  She brought no documentation.  I invited her into the house to see it and offer feedback if she had any complaints. She refused.  The officer came in at my request and said he saw nothing out of the ordinary or of concern, and that he would ensure to log the fact that she did not have documentation with her.

In case you were wondering, this is what our house looks like after dinner. This was 12 Feb.  The areas you see are all the inspector saw, plus the kitchen which she did not actually look at. https://www.dropbox.com/s/23phczjfx24b0lp/20170212_232157.mp4?dl=0

As some of you know, I recently concluded a lengthy divorce.
Now, in any divorce, there may be a good party and a bad party, two good parties that just aren't compatible, or two bad parties. And there's really no need to go into that here.  We were married almost 22 years and eventually had to part ways. Enough said.
What I am going to address is two things:  Lawyers, and involvement.
Now, I understood from an early age, possibly because my parents got divorced, not to get involved in other people's drama.
My advice is this: When two friends or acquaintances are getting divorced, stay the hell out of it.  It's not your fight. Listen and be supportive to either or both, but DO NOT relay any information from one to the other. Don't try to "help save their marriage," as one friend did, based on meeting us for two weeks a year at an event. No, you don't know us well enough, and "God" doesn't want you to do that.  God wants you to stay the hell out of it.
The exceptions fall into two categories.  If you're aware of documentable, actual abuse or criminal activity, then by all means help the victim. "Documentable," is key, because no matter how "reliable" your friend is, subjective opinion is not objective.  This was not a factor in our divorce, btw.
The other is, "I know these people well enough to know their birthdays, former (or in some cases, current) partners, other friends, parents, and what underwear styles they wear."

Because if you don't know them that well, no, you really don't know them well enough to get involved.
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but a lot of people apparently don't grasp it.  If you give money or other assistance to one party, YOU HAVE CHOSEN SIDES IN A FIGHT.  If you do this, and are surprised that the other party regards it as a hostile act, you're not just naive, you're an idiot.
And no, you're not "Helping."  Any money you give to one side for legal bills, for example, has to be matched by the other party.  All you're doing is feeding ammo to a civil war.  Remember that classic Star Trek episode, "A Private Little War"?
"Oh, but my friend is the poorer of the two and needs help or they'll be homeless."
You don't know this.  And it's not your problem. See above. Unless you have deep personal knowledge of the relationship, you have no way of knowing what the circumstances are, or why. Especially if you're basing it off social media posts. How many trials have we seen where everyone is "positive" of a set of facts from the news and Facebook, and how dare the jury decide "wrongly"?
HINT: The jury saw evidence you didn't. They're not wrong. You're misinformed.
Possibly your friend is the victim. Possibly they're playing the victim. Possibly both are victims. Possibly both are self-destructive assholes. YOU DO NOT KNOW.  
"But I'm SURE!..."
No you're not.
I'm aware of another divorce where marital rape was involved.  But after the dust settled, the victim admitted that possibly they'd misinterpreted an action and given a signal that could be taken as consenting. And if that sounds ridiculously complicated, you're right, it is.
Eventually, it turned out both of them had problems, neither of them had ill intent, and each of them needed someone entirely different to suit their personalities.
I knew these people reasonably well as friends, and had detailed info from both. I considered one a victim at the time, but that information was subjective.
As I was smart, I didn't try to "help them fix the misunderstanding," and I didn't give either of them money, even when the "victim" was couch surfing.
So here's an incident from my divorce, as illustration, and I'm going to name a name.
My ex's first attorney wasn't bad, but lacked some of the skills needed to get things moving.  Eventually, the attorney/client relationship ended.
My ex needed a new attorney. And this is when a "friend," "helped."
Actually, the friend was a tutor I'd hired for one of the kids, who was aware, "My ex has moved out. I have filed for divorce. I have custody of the children and interim possession of the house."
And that is all the information they were entitled to or would ever need.  Also, if you know much about divorce, there's a lot of pertinent information in that statement.
So, this person recommended an attorney friend of theirs to my ex. One Michael Schoen.
Michael Schoen is in my opinion an illiterate idiot.  I offer the below document (readily available in the court's public records) as evidence:
This official communication has no letterhead.  It is badly written to the point of incomprehensibility, and has atrocious grammar, spelling, and terminology (Contact/contract, Williams/Williamson). WTF is a "website display" and how would I show it other than to provide a URL?  How would I show changes that weren't archived, and there's no reason to archive them?  The Wayback Machine is available, please avail yourself of it. And this from a man who claims his undergrad degree was in English Lit.
When I responded that I couldn't answer these questions because I couldn't comprehend them, he refused to clarify informally, demanded trial, dragged me and my attorney into court, attempted to lambast us, was forced to admit his queries were nonsensical, and got the judge irritated--the judge we BOTH needed to be calm and reasoned for a fair settlement.
Then he insisted that by "contact" he meant "Contract" and by "Contract" he meant every receipt I'd ever written for a sale from my secondary business, ever, and every cable, internet or other bill, ever, to determine the"value" of things.
Hey, Schoet for brains, those are in my tax filings with the IRS.
Then he misquoted state law regarding custody, and insisted he was correct.
The judge then demanded his party, meaning my ex, pay for an evaluator to determine the value of the business.  In case you're not aware, that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars.
At mediation, with none of these issues resolved because they can't be, he then tried to argue tax and IP law and showed he had even less knowledge of those subjects, and hindered a deal (Which we eventually achieved through a better attorney) by which I willingly GAVE HER THE HOUSE and the accumulated equity (I moved to a new house.  There was no reason to waste the old one, but he seemed determined it was some sort of trick), BTW, this was the deal I'd offered originally. 
Then after four hours we had to call mediation unresolved because he had to leave to go to "his job." He wasn't even a full time attorney at that point.
The end result was, he was involved in the case for a year, cost her whatever he billed her, cost me $50,000 responding to his idiocy through my attorney (Andrew Bartelt with Hollingsworth and Zivitz, who managed to keep track of all this and respond methodically to complete idiocy.  Thank you, Andy).
So, I'm estimating, even if he worked cheap, $70,000-$80,000 we should have spent on our family and kids, wasted. All because someone "wanted to help."
And to prove the point, her third attorney Chris Barrows, whom I will also personally recommend, sat down with Andy and got this all resolved in a month and about 5 billable hours. Again, this was close to the deal I'd offered originally. Thanks, Chris.
Now, I'm going to do the tutor a favor and not mention them publicly. But I hope they realize that there will be no further work for them through my family, and no endorsement,.  It was none of their business, and their "help" wrecked both party's financial future for months if not years.
Everyone else should learn from this.
"Oh, you're getting divorced?  I am so sorry to hear that. Do you need a hug and a drink?"
And that's as much involvement as you should ever have.

I'm seeing this myth more and more--that fewer people own guns, and just own more of them, yadda yadda.


Even if true, so what?

I bet .05% of individuals own 90% of the newspapers. What does that have to do with the First Amendment?

2: I'm well-placed to debunk this.  If millions of people were getting rid of their guns, then one of two things would happen.  

2a} your local police station would have people lined up to turn in guns for destruction. Call them and ask. They're going to laugh at you.

2b] your local gun store would have people lined up to sell their guns, the market value would plummet, and I'd be buying used guns for twenty bucks a pop.  I only wish that were the case.

c; If this were a thing, it would mean fewer gun owners, so why the urgent panic to pass more laws?  The "problem" would be correcting itself, just as smoking is a dying habit.

IV: In other words, it's morally corrupt, intellectually dishonest bullshit from left wing cowards with small penises. As usual.

The Math of Church Shootings
Jul 26, 201612:07AM

Category: General

Taken from various sources and lists, including Wikipedia. Archiving for reference as a secondary source.

February 14, 2010 - Richmond, California - Three hooded men walk into Gethsemane Church of God in Christ and opened fire and then fled the scene, as the singing of the choir was replaced by frightened screams. The two victims, a 14-year-old boy and a 19-year-old man, were hospitalized.--shooters were hooded, unknown race. Town is mixed demographically, unknown victims.

March 8, 2009 - Maryville, Illinois - Suspect Terry Joe Sedlacek, 27, of Troy, walks into the First Baptist Church, and shoots pastor Fred Winters dead, point blank. Several church members are injured by a knife in the struggle to capture after the attack, The suspect also had stabbed himself, but survived, when his gun jams.--white attacker, probable white victims, per names and local demographics

July 27, 2008 - Knoxville, Tennessee - A gunman opens fire in a church during a youth performance, killing two people and injuring seven.--Jim D. Adkisson.  White shooter, white victims.

Dec. 9, 2007 - Colorado - Three people are killed and five wounded in two shooting rampages, one at a missionary school in suburban Denver and one at a church in Colorado Springs. The gunman in the second incident is killed by a guard.--probable white gunman and victim, per names

May 20, 2007 - Moscow, Idaho - A standoff between police and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one police officer.--white shooter, white victims

Aug. 12, 2007 - Neosho, Missouri - First Congregational Church - 3 killed - Eiken Elam Saimon shot and killed the pastor and two deacons and wounded five others.--Micronesian shooter, probably white victims

May 21, 2006 - Baton Rouge, Louisiana - The Ministry of Jesus Christ Church - 4 killed - The four at the church who were shot were members of Erica Bell's family; she was abducted and murdered elsewhere; Bell's mother, church pastor Claudia Brown, was seriously wounded - Anthony Bell, 25, was the shooter.--black shooter, black victims

Feb. 26, 2006 - Detroit, Michigan - Zion Hope Missionary Baptist Church - 2 killed + shooter - Kevin L. Collins, who reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend, later killed himself.--black shooter, black victims

April 9, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - A 27-year-old airman died after being shot at a church, where he had once worked as a security guard.--given the demographics of the area, probably a black shooter and black victims

March 12, 2005 - Brookfield, Wisconsin - Living Church of God - 7 killed + shooter - Terry Ratzmann opened fire on the congregation, killing seven and wounding four before taking his own life.--white shooter and victims

July 30, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - World Changers Church International - shooter killed - Air Force Staff Sgt. John Givens was shot five times by a police officer after charging the officer, following violent behavior.--from article, attacker probably black

 Second more recent shooting at same church--black shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v8Y_pY4sIE

Dec. 17, 2004, Garden Grove, Calif.: A veteran musician at the Crystal Cathedral shoots himself to death after a nine -hour standoff.--suicide

Oct. 5, 2003 - Atlanta, Georgia - Turner Monumental AME Church - 2 killed + shooter - Shelia Wilson walked into the church while preparations are being made for service and shot the pastor, her mother and then herself.-black on black violence, domestic incident

June 10, 2002 - Conception, Missouri - Benedictine monastery - 2 killed + shooter - Lloyd Robert Jeffress shot four monks in the monastery killing two and wounding two, before killing himself.

March 12, 2002 - Lynbrook, New York - Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church - 2 killed - Peter Troy, a former mental patient, opens fire during Mass, killing the priest and a parishioner. He later receives a life sentence.--unknown, names and location suggest white

May 18, 2001 - Hopkinsville, Kentucky - Greater Oak Missionary Baptist Church - 2 killed - Frederick Radford stood up in the middle of a revival service and began shooting at his estranged wife, Nicole Radford,  killing her and a woman trying to help her.--black on black domestic incident.

Sept. 15, 1999 - Fort Worth, Texas - Wedgewood Baptist Church - 7 killed + shooter - Larry Gene Ashbrook shot dead seven people and injured a further seven at a concert by Christian rock group Forty Days in Fort Worth, Texas before killing himself.--victims appear to be mostly white

April 15, 1999 - Salt Lake City, Utah - LDS Church Family History Library - 2 killed + shooter - Sergei Babarin, 70, with a history of mental illness, entered the library, killed two people and wounded four others before he was gunned down by police.--victims white

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/18/from-bombings-to-fires-to-shootings-partial-list-attacks-on-black-churches-in/ — June 1996: Then-President Bill Clinton appoints a task force to investigate a spate of church fires, particularly at black churches in the rural South. Of 670 incidents that were investigated nationwide by October 1998, 225 involved black churches.

Looks like blacks kill a lot more black worshippers than whites. black shooters. And whites tend to target other whites. THAT is your pattern.  You can dislike facts, but you can't ignore them.  But doesn't it make sense that they're usually pissed off at someone in their own community?

As to burnings, it will take more time than available to ID the perps in those cases, but the sheer number suggests a small group dedicated to the task, and even then, black churches are only slightly over-represented on a demographic basis.

Does not include the more recent SC church shooting that was definitely racial in nature, with a white shooter and black victims.

A Song!
Mar 15, 201611:13PM

Category: General

Chris Dow came up with this catchy tune in response to the term "Trumpeteers."

Who's the leader of the club that hates our whole country? D-O-N---A-L-D---T-R-U-M-P!

Come along and join the club that's filled with bigotry.




Forever let us hold our hands up high! HEIL HEIL HEIL!

This needs some more work.


You can get a free sampler at the above URL, and the complete book will have my story, "The Digital Kid."

We're trying for 2113 pre-orders, for the symmetry.


This is the story of four naive urban socialists, unfamiliar with the processes that feed and support them, winding up in "the Wild."

The Wild is a libertarian paradise where no one has toilets or toilet paper, and occasionally feral creatures eat one of the residents due to the complete lack of national defense or police functions. They throw some bitchin parties, however.

The socialists, in classic fashion, demand to talk to "The people," code for the bureaucrats they expect to handle all their life issues for them.

Meanwhile, a group of right-wing extremist penguins hijacks the ship and head for their native paradise, only to find it sucks a lot more than an industrial society in the temperate zone.

They head back to Madagascar, where the socialists have finally learned to somewhat fend for themselves, but are still dependent upon others for the necessities of living.

Ultimately, everyone winds up On The Beach, with no drinking water, toilets or way to get home, but declare a win because the party is a lot of fun.

Palpatine Was a Wuss
Jan 25, 201609:49PM

Category: General

The Emperor talks too much.

Luke was clearly never trained in repartee.  As soon as it was clear Emps was going to monologue, he should have just fired back.

EMPEROR:  monologues about the Dark Side.

LUKE:  Forcedamnit old man, are you fucking trying to talk me to death? Shut up already.

EMPEROR: monologues louder.

LUKE: Seriously, dude, the first "Death Star" (finger quotes) got splattered, just like those drone control ships from the Trade Federation.  You weren't even original, and wasted a shit ton of money.  Is your dick as shriveled as the rest of you?

EMPEROR: monologues about "insignificant rebellion."

LUKE: Yeah?  So why did you bring an entire fleet AND a "Death Star" (more finger quotes)?  It's pretty clear you're scared. And why a second "Death Star"?  The first was Viagra Star and this is Cialis Star?  What's next?   Some sort of planetoid that drains suns or something? How original.

EMPEROR: Angrily monologues about the power of the Dark Side.

Luke:  Are you still blathering?  If it's so damned powerful, why the shriveled face, shriveled dick, reliance on mundane weapons and unoriginal thinking? You don't even have a harem?  It's pretty clear why it's "Dark." It's the opposite of "Bright." 'Look at me! I rule the galaxy!  I have to send entire fleets around to get the shit kicked out of them by wookies, retired Jedi, half-witted smugglers and gamblers and bumpkin farm boys.  I'm ugly, shriveled and don't have a woman. I have a creepy relationship with this orphan I helped mutilate. But trust me, this is as awesome as it gets!' You are one disturbingly pathetic geezer.

EMPEROR: throws ruling the galaxy out there one more time.

Luke: Yeah, you keep on with that. It's like you're Amway or something, multi-level marketing your repression.  'Oh, please! Take over in my downline!  I'm all powerful but need help ruling!' What have you done with the galaxy?  Is GDP up?  What about GINI index?  You're like the eight year old bully who steals all the balls in the neighborhood, but throws like a girl and can't bat even with the balls, in more ways than one. If this is the best the "Dark Side" has, I'm yawning.  Rent yourself one of those blue chicks with the head-handles and get blown. When you can accomplish just that, come back and we'll talk. From here, I see nothing worth my time.  You're old and need a replacement.  I don't need you. Go force choke your chicken.

First world problem:  Too much food. Both deep freezes and the fridge/freezer are stuffed, and 90% of it is meat, as it should be.

Complication:  Great deals on meat locally.

Scene: Local yuppie "organic" store, with wild caught sockeye salmon for $6.99/lb.

I say, "We'll take ten pounds."

Meat cutter says, "Ten pounds of salmon?" He stares at me as if I couldn't possibly have said that.

"Yes.  And then some bacon."

The sign specified it was "pork bacon," which is redundant, since only pork can be bacon.

He asks, "Do you just want a 15 lb box of that, then?"

"Sure, that will work."

He seems game, and tags our salmon and hands over a box of bacon.

Back at the house, there's not enough room. So, TIME TO COOK!

We now have 6 quarts of Morrocan chicken tajine, 8 quarts of tomato beef soup, 3 meatloafs, two beef and squash lasagna (since the other person can't eat grains), two more meatloafs, a whole smoked salmon and some bacon.

You know what separates us from the animals? The ability to damage entire ecosystems for dinner.

That's why we're awesome.