Thursday, February 24, 2011

God's Apple Pie

I recently came across a blog post at a site called Daddy Hogwash that discussed God's desire for a hot apple pie, and the 13 billion year wait he had to first endure before it was ready for him to ear. The post is entitled: "What God Wants".

Since it (the post) was so short, it would be difficult to use a truncated citation without losing an important part of the message. I quoted the entire post, and linked to it as well (the link appears at the end of this post).

Anyway, here are the contents of the post:
It turns out, all God really wanted was an apple pie. Unfortunately for him, he had to wait a little over 13 billion years for all of the ingredients to ripen they way he wanted.

You would think that if God wanted an apple pie, he would have just created an apple pie.

Can you imagine the finger-tapping at the table waiting for the apple pie for 13.7 billion years?

“A watched universe never bakes a pie,” his auntie told him in some language that no one understands.

While the author certainly brings up a good point, the post is lacking a crucial piece of information that I know would at least leave me feeling unfulfilled upon reading the post if I didn't already know the answer to the obvious question raised by the above.

[Image: Almighty God and his Angels enjoy some divine apple pie]

No Longer Hungry

The worst part about it is that by the time the pie was finally ready, the overwhelming likelihood is that he wasn't even hungry and didn't want it anymore. Since he is infallible, we can deduce that he would not have eaten the pie out of gluttony. This begs the question of what exactly happened to the pie if God didn't eat it.

So what ultimately became of the pie?

Being in that he's God, he most likely donated it to a homeless shelter instead. That way, those who really need it would have been able to enjoy it, and the food would not have gone to waste.

My guess would be that if God for whatever couldn't make it to the homeless shelter, he most likely fed it to his dog. And yes, God's pet can indule on treats that our earth-bound pets cannot. If one of them ever does happen to eat enough of something harmful to potentiall hurt or kill the animal, Jesus can always go and pray over (which completely heals it).

How do you know all this?

How do I know all this? I was recently hired to build God's website and serve as his webmaster once it is complete.  The site should be ready in a couple of weeks.  The domain name at which God's website will reside is either going to be or

For what it's worth, as best I could discern during my first and only visit to the site, Daddy Hogwash seems to be a blog about religion, as seen through the eyes of an atheist. I could be wrong I suppose (although it's not likely), as I only spent a couple of minutes on the site after I finished reading the article.

The post from Daddy Hogwash referenced within this article can be viewed here.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

TSA Scanners More Dangerous Than Smoking

I just came across a video of an interview with two scientists with backgrounds in the study of radiation. Both said that they would be unwilling to subject themselves to the TSA's airport porno scanners not because they're uncomfortable with Uncle Sam becoming a peeping Tom, but because they believe the radiation emitting devices are extremely dangerous.

The scanners are just plain wrong on so many levels, and it goes far beyond the fact that they can be hazardous to your health.

It speaks volumes that the two radiation scientists refuse to go through the machines. The technology hasn't even been around long enough to have had adequate time to study the mid to long term effects of this type of radiation on passengers. What's more, they have no idea how the people who operate the devices will fare. If these machines are dangerous for the normal air traveler, they could be a death sentence for the TSA workers being subjected to repeat exposure.

All that aside, there is still the issue of these machines constituting a pervert's wonderland and a peeping Tom's dream come true. The role of the government as sexual predator in the nation's airports has got to be illegal. The right lawyers just haven't stepped up to the plate yet to bring down the porno scanners.

Big Sis Janetalia may be a-okay with being ogled while naked or being groped by strangers, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to put up with it.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Date's Bieber Fever a Red Flag?

The Context

A couple of weeks ago while driving home one evening after work, I decided to pull into my favorite convenience store (Spell's Grocery on Lee Road in Covington, LA for anyone wondering) to pick up a cold beverage and a pack of smokes just as I have done hundreds if not thousands of times over the years.  This was no ordinary pit-stop however, as I would soon find out.

Photo: Spell's Grocery (right) and Amy's Place (left) on Lee Road in Covington
Everything seemed normal enough at first.  I went inside the store, got what I needed and checked out.  As I was walking to my car (a black '95 Mercedes Benz 300E - Diesel), I heard a pounding on the glass coming from the beauty salon next door to Spell's.  I abruptly turned around to find Holly (that's not her real name, but that's what we'll call her), one of the hairdressers, aggressively motioning me to come into the beauty salon.

The Ladies at the Beauty Parlor Told Me... (that I had a hot date)

Upon entering, she promptly and in no uncertain terms informed me that I would be taking her Cousin Daisy (that's not her real name either, but you get the point) out on a date.  Naturally, I was a bit taken aback by all of this, so I in a noncommittal but polite way asked if she had any photos of her cousin.  She did.  Much to my surprise, the girl in the photos was not the one with the 'nice personality' I was expecting, but much to the contrary was quite attractive.

Without giving pause, I agreed to the date.  It wouldn't happen for a couple of weeks, as she attends college several hours away from where I reside, and any date would have to occur on a weekend when she came home to visit her family.

Sure, I figured there must be something very wrong with the girl.  I mean, what kind of gorgeous female college student has so much trouble meeting guys that she needs her cousin back in her hometown to set her up on a date?  Beats me too, but several weeks ago I decided to stop questioning it.

The Girl

Anyway, so I call her, and we go out.  The date went well enough.  Our waitress at the restaurant was incompetent, which put us on a tight time-frame, but she handled being forced to rush through her dinner with class and elegance, and somehow managed to turn the negative into an overall positive as she impressed me with her ability to roll with the punches as I did her when I took control of the situation (which I eventually did do).

All-in-all, she's a delightful girl.  For one thing, she's downright beautiful.  She's intelligent, classy, graceful, popular (she has over 1,600 Facebook friends and is not a professional social media marketer, web publisher or SEO), somewhat charming and definitely a whole lot of fun to be around.  We have plans to go out again the next time she's in town, and she has told me her plans are to move back home at the end of the semester and transfer to a school that's closer to home.

For a while there I suspected her age may become an issue.  She's a young one, still a few months away from being of legal drinking age (that's age 20 for those of you in Rio Linda).  However, even those things I initially saw as likely drawbacks had not materialized as such --- at least until now.

The Problem: She Has "Bieber Fever"

You see, it was with great regret that I recently came across an extremely unsettling status update on her Facebook page that has me rethinking my entire assessment of this girl and questioning whether or not she's even date-worthy material.

She has the Bieber Fever and appears to be perfectly content with it.  I just don't know how safe I would feel being alone with a young woman who suffers from Bieber Fever.

We've all seen the headlines: "Teen Survives Justin Bieber-Inspired Death Threats;" "Selena Gomez (and/or Kim Kardashian) Getting Death Threats From Bieber Fans;" "Bieber Fans Go On Grammy-Fueled Wikipedia Rampage."

Can I really feel safe around this girl?  What if I slip up and make some joke about the androgynous singer (See! Like that) that she doesn't find to be funny?  What if it just downright offends her and angers her so much she feels compelled to take action?  Would she actually attack me physically, or would her assaults be confined to the world of the social web?  Which of the two (being attacked physically or staring down angry hoards of teenage girls online) would be more harmful to my wellbeing?

Right now I'm just not sure what to do.  This could be a passing phase, but then again there's never before been a Justin Bieber and science has found no cure to date for Bieber Fever.  Is it likely to happen at some point in the future?  Maybe, but how sure can a guy be?

I have more questions than answers at this point.  If I had to make a decision today, I suppose it would be to proceed with caution, but that could change at any moment.

Any advice on what to do would be greatly appreciated.  Please share any insights you may have in the comments.

Happy Valentines Day to all my family, friends, readers and fans!

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Louisiana DWI Law Double-Standard

In the State of Louisiana, a driver has the legal right to refuse a breathalyzer test should he or she get pulled over by an officer of the law, and should that law enforcement officer attempt to issue the test.  HOWEVER, upon the enactment of HB-445 into law, the penalty for refusing such a test (which is technically legal to do) is the loss of driving privileges for a year for a first-time offense, and two years for any subsequent incidents.

As I found out recently, the standard of openness and transparency so embraced by the state so long as it involves a driver refusing to take the test, is not uniformly applied to situations in which the administration of a breathalyzer test would work to the driver's benefit.

While returning home from a night out with friends in New Orleans, I was pulled over by a St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's deputy near Claiborne Hill in Covington.  I was speeding, and I was caught.  I had not been drinking that evening, a fact the officer called into question.

The officer asked where I was coming from, where I was going, and what I had been doing.  I answered him as straightforward and honestly as I could.  I told him where I had been, what I'd been doing and where I was heading.  Unfortunately for me, while true, my story didn't seem believable.  While it was evident that I was not intoxicated (I hadn't even been drinking --- not even a little), the officer nonetheless put me through an extensive field sobriety test, which I passed with flying colors.

Clearly, something about this situation wasn't registering.  How could it be that a single, 29-year old-man could be driving home alone at 1:00 in the morning from a night out in New Orleans, LA, and NOT be drunk?  This at least was how the deputy decided to view the situation.

Eventually, he decided to let me go home on the condition I leave my car in the Walgreens parking lot at Claiborne Hill.  I had to call a taxi, as both of my brothers and all of my friends within an hour's drive whom I was able to reach by phone were in fact intoxicated, and none of them was anywhere close to being in better shape to drive the car home by myself.

Sure, the cop could have been an even bigger dick.  He could have arrested me anyway, brought me to jail and booked me, only to release me shortly thereafter when results from breath and/or blood tests confirmed that I was in fact sober and free of any and all mood-altering chemicals.

The real irony in Louisiana's zero-tolerance DWI policies mandating twelve months of driver's license suspension for refusing to take a breathalyzer test is that police are under no such obligation to administer the test when doing so would confirm a driver's sobriety.

Throughout the course of the ordeal, I requested not less than three times that the officer administer a breathalyzer test.  All three times, he refused.  The third time I asked, he said that he was "doing me a favor" and that he "(did not) want to hear another word about it."  I interpreted this as his way of telling me that despite the fact that I was (and still am) 100% sober, he could arrest me anyway, and that if I wished to avoid such fate I should stop asking for a means of proving to him that I had not been drinking.

It seems to me that if Louisiana is going to have a law mandating the loss of driving privileges for an entire year for anyone who refuses a breathalyzer test, it would only be fair to grant the citizens the right to take a breathalyzer exam upon the citizen's request if the officer administering the traffic stop suspects the driver of driving while intoxicated.

Field sobriety tests are subjective, often convoluted and frequently require gymnastics that simply cannot be performed while wearing certain types of shoes.  Some are extremely difficult to perform regardless of whether or not a person is sober.  A citizens' right to a breathalyzer exam solves this problem by requiring the officer to administer a test which would quantifiably confirm or remove all suspicions as to a driver's prospective sobriety should the driver request the exam.  If citizens cannot refuse the test without consequences, than law-abiding drivers who have not been drinking should have the right to a test if an officer suspects he or she has been drinking.

What is good for the goose is good for the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office.  While I fully support tough laws aimed at getting drunk drivers off the road, such laws must be a two-way street.  If the test can be required of the driver when it could potentially lead to self-incrimination, it should be required of the officer in circumstances when the driver is indeed sober and willing and able to prove it.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Governor Haley Barbour Tests Presidential Waters at CPAC

Haley Barbour, the Republican Governor of Mississippi, appeared by all accounts to be testing the political waters with GOP voters in preparation for a potential 2012 presidential run when he addressed a youthful and exuberant crowd during CPAC's (Conservative Political Action Conference) 2011 annual gathering.

I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to meet Governor Barbour back in 2004 at a fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's '04 Congressional campaign, for whom worked as a grassroots intern.

Granted, back then he was just "Bobby" as at that time had never held elected office, and he insisted back then that his staff and interns refer to him only as "Bobby", not "Mr. Jindal", not "Soon-To-Be-Congressman-Elect," just Bobby.  At the time, the current LA Governor was all of 33 years of age.

Anyway, it was an honor and privilege to meet the newly-elected Governor of Mississippi back in 2004 while working for the current Governor of neighboring Louisiana.

I can honestly say that I've met no less than three of the top seven or eight names mentioned in terms of possibilities for the 2012 GOP Presidential ticket, although one of those would most likely only appear on any prospective ticket as the VP nominee.  For anyone who may be tempted to question by credibility when I make bold statements about my involvement and association with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Read more about Governor Barbour's CPAC speech:

Friday, February 4, 2011

Vitamin D3: It's More Important Than You Think

Vitamin D3: It's More Important Than You Think

Vitamin D3, also known as (cholecalciferol), is the most bio-available form of Vitamin D, which is essential for skin, bone and immune health.

Vitamin D3 is far more important to every day health and the prevention of long-term illness than a vast (but rapidly shrinking) majority of people currently understand. In moderation, the sun can be both extremely therapeutic as well as a major force helping to ward off illness. Of course, you don't want to overdo it. As we all know, too much sun exposure can be hazardous to your health and to your skin.

It has long been established that supplementing with Vitamin D3 may help lower blood pressure and cholesterol in patients struggling with high levels of either and/or both.

Vitamin D3 is the single most important vitamin for bone health. It plays a vital role in the synthesis of calcium and magnesium in the bones. A few of the many, many diseases resulting from Vitamin D Deficiency are rickets, osteoporosis and heart disease.

I personally do not supplement with D3 during the summer months when I wear as little as possible when outdoors (I have relatively dark skin for a white guy, and I generally do not burn). However, come winter, Vitamin D3 is a daily staple and a major part of my nutritional supplementation regimen.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Ebay and Paypal's Nonsensical Policies

Attention online shoppers: For Heaven's sake, please STOP using Ebay and PayPal! These companies are so poorly run it is virtually impossible for an online merchant to successfully utilize their "services" (and that's being generous).

Ebay and PayPal are dead-end destinations for vendors specializing in e-commerce sales, and in the opinion of this author, both have the capacity to kill new start-up firms by draining their human resources, which must be invested entirely into waiting on hold for a customer disservice representative to hang up on them once one finally manages to get them on the phone.

To start with, PayPal has got a set of some of the stupidest rules conceivable. For example, you cannot use the same email address for more than one PayPal account. You cannot add new email addresses to an account, even though there is a link on PayPal's site claiming to do just that. Unfortunately, PayPal creates a mystery password that if you want to actually log in using the new email address, you must first successfully guess what it is. Sure, they provide a field where you can enter a new password of your own choosing, but it does not work when one tries to log in using the new email address and password.

You cannot use the same credit card with more than one PayPal account, the same goes for checking accounts. Once a credit card is associated with an account, it can never be successfully removed from that account and added to another. If you wish to set up a second PayPal account for a different purpose, you must first activate a brand-new credit card to associate with the account. This is pathetic and beyond asinine on the behalf of PayPal.

Now onto Ebay. Ebay requires that all sellers have a credit card and checking account associated with their Ebay accounts. However, Ebay provides no mechanism for actually providing them with that information. That is correct, Ebay is apparently not accepting any new sellers, as there is apparently no place on the site to enter credit card/checking account information, and the company will not allow new sellers to actually sell without providing this information Ebay won't allow you to provide.

Naturally, customer service at both of these organizations is more like a disservice.

Both companies were founded by Meg Whitman, which explains why both are so convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.

Build Your Own Website in Minutes