My ex-girlfriend is accusing me of stalking, and has filed a complaint for a domestic violence restraining order against me. We had our first hearing on June 2, and I appeared there with my attorney. He announced in court that we want to have a full hearing, where we will present subpoenaed witnesses in my defense.
I received a call on June 4th from my attorney. She called his office that morning looking for an attorney to represent her. She appears to be running through the phone book, and didn't realize that this particular attorney was mine. I guess she is worried that I have a lawyer, and now she wants one, too.
She claims that I showed up at her workplace. That is true. She worked at a hospital, but she was not at work during the time that I was there. I had a legitimate reason for being there. In Florida, stalking can only be alleged if there is "no legitimate purpose" for the behavior.
She also claims that she was fired after I was there. That is also true. What she left out is that she was fired for stealing medical equipment and pharmaceuticals from her employer, not because of any alleged stalking on my part.
The complaint is without merit, and I believe that I have enough evidence that she has perjured herself to prevail in this case. There are a few facts that we have in our possession that I am not yet at liberty to discuss. As soon as we have the evidenciary hearing, I will release more details.
Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying. This needs to change. Sign the petition here:
Friday, May 30, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Trouble
I have had to edit and remove all posts on this blog that have to do with my ex girlfriend, the one that broke up with me more than 6 months ago. For my regular readers, you remember the story. The data breaches, and the other incidents that I thought were in my past.
Last week, I was served with a Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order. I have not spoken with, nor have I had any contact with this woman in four months, yet she went to the courthouse and filed for an injunction. It was granted at an ex parte hearing.
In her complaint, she alleges that we lived together (we did not), and that I am stalking her (I am not), and that I showed up at her workplace, and this got her fired. (edited to add: now that the case is done, I can say that the last part is true, I did show up at her workplace, and that did get her fired, but not because I was stalking her. See this post) There are no allegations that I committed any violent act, nor are there any claims that I threatened any violent acts. The basis of her claim is that I own a lot of guns, and she is afraid that I might "snap" one day.
We had our first hearing, and asked for a continuance, so that we could subpoena witnesses for my defense. It was granted.
Upon the advice of my attorney, I cannot give any further details on the specifics of this case until after the next hearing, which will be held in three weeks. Until then, I cannot possess firearms or ammunition. I have to make sure that I have witnesses that can attest to whereabouts at all times, so that I am not accused of being near her.
I can, however, give you details about how the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:
25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men
In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words to threaten her during his television show. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit, and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.
The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence, and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time, his guns have been taken, and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.
She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued.
Generally, I will leave you with the words of the Florida State Supreme Court:
This blog will be down until this can be cleared up.
Last week, I was served with a Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order. I have not spoken with, nor have I had any contact with this woman in four months, yet she went to the courthouse and filed for an injunction. It was granted at an ex parte hearing.
In her complaint, she alleges that we lived together (we did not), and that I am stalking her (I am not), and that I showed up at her workplace, and this got her fired. (edited to add: now that the case is done, I can say that the last part is true, I did show up at her workplace, and that did get her fired, but not because I was stalking her. See this post) There are no allegations that I committed any violent act, nor are there any claims that I threatened any violent acts. The basis of her claim is that I own a lot of guns, and she is afraid that I might "snap" one day.
We had our first hearing, and asked for a continuance, so that we could subpoena witnesses for my defense. It was granted.
Upon the advice of my attorney, I cannot give any further details on the specifics of this case until after the next hearing, which will be held in three weeks. Until then, I cannot possess firearms or ammunition. I have to make sure that I have witnesses that can attest to whereabouts at all times, so that I am not accused of being near her.
I can, however, give you details about how the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:
25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men
In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words to threaten her during his television show. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit, and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.
The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence, and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time, his guns have been taken, and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.
She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued.
Generally, I will leave you with the words of the Florida State Supreme Court:
Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that "[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time." (Emphasis added.) The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties' emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:
Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.
This blog will be down until this can be cleared up.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Feelings matter, not solutions
Every one of us has had this conversation at some point in our lives, whether we are a man who wants to fix a problem, or the woman who just wants us to listen. This video sums up both relationships and today's politics.
Many women would rather wallow in self pity and sorrow, than to actually DO anything proactive to solve the problem. It isn't about the nail, it is about how they FEEL about the nail.
This is why so many political issues today involve showing that you CARE about a problem, than they do about actually FIXING the problem.
Many women would rather wallow in self pity and sorrow, than to actually DO anything proactive to solve the problem. It isn't about the nail, it is about how they FEEL about the nail.
This is why so many political issues today involve showing that you CARE about a problem, than they do about actually FIXING the problem.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Standing with corrupt cops
Governor Rick Scott will veto a change to Florida's law that would have given the state transportation agency permission to increase speed limits on the state's highways by 5 miles per hour (from 70 to 75), if the agency deemed that it was safe to do so. Why the veto? Because police asked him to.
Increasing or decreasing the speed limit doesn't matter to the cops. They don't obey the speed limit anyway. They know that they aren't going to get a ticket. That is why they have all of the "Blue line" bumper stickers, so other cops know that they are cops and will let them off.
The Orlando Sentinel did a story in February about an honest trooper in Miami that gave another cop a ticket. Since the traffic stop, Trooper Watts claims that she has been harassed by prank calls and threats. According to her lawyer, over a three-month period, at least 88 law enforcement officers from 25 different agencies accessed Watts' driver's license information more than 200 times. She has had fecal matter left on her personal car at home. She has filed suit against the police agencies involved.
All because she gave another cop a ticket.
A three-month investigation by Miami's Sun Sentinel (pdf warning) found almost 800 cops from a dozen agencies driving 90 to 130 mph on Florida highways. They weren’t even on duty — they were commuting to and from work in their take-home patrol cars.
The evidence came from police SunPass toll records. The Sun Sentinel obtained a year’s worth, hit the highways with a GPS device and figured out how fast the cops were driving based on the distance and time it took to go from one toll plaza to the next.
Speeding cops can kill. Since 2004, Florida officers exceeding the speed limit have caused at least 320 crashes and 19 deaths. Only one officer went to jail — for just 60 days. At least 320 law enforcement officers across Florida were involved in crashes from 2004 through 2010 that were blamed on the officers’ speeding. But only 37 — 12 percent — were ticketed, an analysis of crash reports shows. As a cop, even leading police on a high speed pursuit only gets your take home patrol car taken away for three months.
After the article came out, the police chief said that he plans to fire the worst offenders. Some of them were exceeding the speed limit by over 50 mph- that is enough to get a regular citizen thrown in jail, not just fired. Even after firing, they will retain their state LEO certification, and will be free to break the laws while they enforce them upon the rest of us.
The third part of the Sun Sentinel article (pdf warning) states that one in five off duty police officers exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 mph. Robert Pusins, a retired major with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. was quoted in the article as saying: “The problem is the attitude . . . ‘because we can.’ ”
Even in their personal vehicles, officers can easily “badge their way out” of getting tickets,former cops told the Sun Sentinel. The same professional courtesy extends to family members,the ex-cops said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Badges imprinted with “police officer’s son or daughter” are available online for as little as $12.
On one forum, a cop commented on all of this, and this is what he said:
Governor Scott, instead of standing with Law Enforcement, why don't you try representing the voters, you know, the ones who put you in office?
Scott said Tuesday that he will "stand with law enforcement" who urged him to veto the legislation that narrowly passed the Florida Legislature. Earlier this month, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper who was mourning a colleague killed after being struck by a vehicle urged Scott to veto the bill.
Increasing or decreasing the speed limit doesn't matter to the cops. They don't obey the speed limit anyway. They know that they aren't going to get a ticket. That is why they have all of the "Blue line" bumper stickers, so other cops know that they are cops and will let them off.
The Orlando Sentinel did a story in February about an honest trooper in Miami that gave another cop a ticket. Since the traffic stop, Trooper Watts claims that she has been harassed by prank calls and threats. According to her lawyer, over a three-month period, at least 88 law enforcement officers from 25 different agencies accessed Watts' driver's license information more than 200 times. She has had fecal matter left on her personal car at home. She has filed suit against the police agencies involved.
All because she gave another cop a ticket.
A three-month investigation by Miami's Sun Sentinel (pdf warning) found almost 800 cops from a dozen agencies driving 90 to 130 mph on Florida highways. They weren’t even on duty — they were commuting to and from work in their take-home patrol cars.
The evidence came from police SunPass toll records. The Sun Sentinel obtained a year’s worth, hit the highways with a GPS device and figured out how fast the cops were driving based on the distance and time it took to go from one toll plaza to the next.
Speeding cops can kill. Since 2004, Florida officers exceeding the speed limit have caused at least 320 crashes and 19 deaths. Only one officer went to jail — for just 60 days. At least 320 law enforcement officers across Florida were involved in crashes from 2004 through 2010 that were blamed on the officers’ speeding. But only 37 — 12 percent — were ticketed, an analysis of crash reports shows. As a cop, even leading police on a high speed pursuit only gets your take home patrol car taken away for three months.
After the article came out, the police chief said that he plans to fire the worst offenders. Some of them were exceeding the speed limit by over 50 mph- that is enough to get a regular citizen thrown in jail, not just fired. Even after firing, they will retain their state LEO certification, and will be free to break the laws while they enforce them upon the rest of us.
The third part of the Sun Sentinel article (pdf warning) states that one in five off duty police officers exceeded the speed limit by more than 20 mph. Robert Pusins, a retired major with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. was quoted in the article as saying: “The problem is the attitude . . . ‘because we can.’ ”
Even in their personal vehicles, officers can easily “badge their way out” of getting tickets,former cops told the Sun Sentinel. The same professional courtesy extends to family members,the ex-cops said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Badges imprinted with “police officer’s son or daughter” are available online for as little as $12.
On one forum, a cop commented on all of this, and this is what he said:
Most companies give some type of breaks to their employees anyway. Car companies give their employees bigger discounts when they purchase a new cars, doctors give their staff free medical treatment, dentists give their employees and their family members free dental work, financial institutions give their employees lower interest rates and the list goes on and on.
Governor Scott, instead of standing with Law Enforcement, why don't you try representing the voters, you know, the ones who put you in office?
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Complain your way out of a job
Fast food workers are striking again, demanding $15 an hour. This is a coordinated effort, being bankrolled by the left. The problem here is that workers who demand too much money will eventually get to a cost point where automation is cheaper than hiring a worker.
McDonald's has 7,000 electronic cashiers in Europe, where hiring humans is more expensive because employers are required by law to give a month's vacation a year, three month's or more paid maternity leave, and other costly benefits to their employees. Just like ATMs, these machines are cheaper to operate than the employees that they are replacing.
An automated teller, like the ones being used by McDonald's, have a number of advantages over employees:
- They can speak as many languages as the employer needs them to, to serve a larger customer base.
- They are never rude or insulting to customers
- They will always get the order correct
- They will not steal, or "skim" money from the register
- They do not require ObamaCare insurance.
- They do not call in sick, come in late, leave early, take long breaks, demand a raise, take vacation, get pregnant, or any of the other things that human employees do that cost an employer money.
Next, look for machines to replace the kitchen help, as well.
A $15 an hour minimum wage would be very close to the tipping point, if not already beyond it. In fact, an executive order signed by President Obama issued last fall for fast food workers on federal contracts under the Service Contract Act require an increase in the minimum wage for such employees, varying by region. The rules also require payment of new, additional “health and welfare” fringe benefits at a rate of $3.81 per hour to those employees.
Contractor-operated fast food concessions on military installations fall under those regulations. This increases costs to operate restaurants, and this has resulted in the shut down of fast eateries on military bases all over the world.
As for the striking workers, I would simply fire any one who is a no call no show, or anyone who calls in sick and is seen outside protesting. Healthy enough to protest, healthy enough to come into work. A worker who protests on his own time is fine by me, as long as he is not in my uniform, on my property, or reflecting poorly on my company while holding himself out as an employee.
You are free to protest, I am free to fire you.
Freedom, a wonderful thing.
McDonald's has 7,000 electronic cashiers in Europe, where hiring humans is more expensive because employers are required by law to give a month's vacation a year, three month's or more paid maternity leave, and other costly benefits to their employees. Just like ATMs, these machines are cheaper to operate than the employees that they are replacing.
An automated teller, like the ones being used by McDonald's, have a number of advantages over employees:
- They can speak as many languages as the employer needs them to, to serve a larger customer base.
- They are never rude or insulting to customers
- They will always get the order correct
- They will not steal, or "skim" money from the register
- They do not require ObamaCare insurance.
- They do not call in sick, come in late, leave early, take long breaks, demand a raise, take vacation, get pregnant, or any of the other things that human employees do that cost an employer money.
Next, look for machines to replace the kitchen help, as well.
A $15 an hour minimum wage would be very close to the tipping point, if not already beyond it. In fact, an executive order signed by President Obama issued last fall for fast food workers on federal contracts under the Service Contract Act require an increase in the minimum wage for such employees, varying by region. The rules also require payment of new, additional “health and welfare” fringe benefits at a rate of $3.81 per hour to those employees.
Contractor-operated fast food concessions on military installations fall under those regulations. This increases costs to operate restaurants, and this has resulted in the shut down of fast eateries on military bases all over the world.
As for the striking workers, I would simply fire any one who is a no call no show, or anyone who calls in sick and is seen outside protesting. Healthy enough to protest, healthy enough to come into work. A worker who protests on his own time is fine by me, as long as he is not in my uniform, on my property, or reflecting poorly on my company while holding himself out as an employee.
You are free to protest, I am free to fire you.
Freedom, a wonderful thing.
Militia
There are many people who claim that the Second Amendment is useless for allowing a citizen militia to oppose a tyrannical government, because the US government of today has machine guns, tanks, warships, artillery, and fighter jets. They claim that no citizen militia could oppose a modern military armed with such weapons.
To me, this makes a good case for citizens owning bigger weapons, but even if this isn't your cup of tea, history doesn't support the belief that rifle armed militias can't oppose modern military forces. The Mexican government's response to the Zimmerman Telegram is a good example of this.
In the Zimmerman telegram, the German government proposed that Mexico should enter the war on the side of the Germans. This would have prevented the US from sending troops to Europe in opposition to Germany, and prevented the British from using Mexican oil to fuel their war machine. The Mexicans didn't feel that their military was up to the task, because they could not defeat the US military in the field, and even if they could, the Mexican military did not feel that they could control the large, primarily English-speaking population who were well supplied with guns and ammunition.
In short, a large group of citizens who are armed with personal weapons cannot be governed without their consent. It isn't as though the Mexican army was poorly equipped in those times, either. The German military had been supplying arms, advisors, and money to the Mexican military for over three years.
In fact, one single munitions ship, the SS Ypiranga, carried a large cargo of German ordinance to Mexico. The ship contained more than 15,000 cases of small arms ammunition, twenty heavy machine guns, and 250,000 rifles, in addition to other arms. In all, the ammunition and arms occupied 30 freight rail cars, and that was just one shipment.
German advisors were allegedly found at the scene of the battle of Nogales, and $12 million in military aid had been given to Mexico by the Germans in 1915. Twelve million dollars in 1915 is 272 million dollars today. This represents a fairly large sum for the time. In 1915, the US budget for the military was $426 million (1915 dollars), so the $12 million represented 3% of the US budget.
To me, this makes a good case for citizens owning bigger weapons, but even if this isn't your cup of tea, history doesn't support the belief that rifle armed militias can't oppose modern military forces. The Mexican government's response to the Zimmerman Telegram is a good example of this.
In the Zimmerman telegram, the German government proposed that Mexico should enter the war on the side of the Germans. This would have prevented the US from sending troops to Europe in opposition to Germany, and prevented the British from using Mexican oil to fuel their war machine. The Mexicans didn't feel that their military was up to the task, because they could not defeat the US military in the field, and even if they could, the Mexican military did not feel that they could control the large, primarily English-speaking population who were well supplied with guns and ammunition.
In short, a large group of citizens who are armed with personal weapons cannot be governed without their consent. It isn't as though the Mexican army was poorly equipped in those times, either. The German military had been supplying arms, advisors, and money to the Mexican military for over three years.
In fact, one single munitions ship, the SS Ypiranga, carried a large cargo of German ordinance to Mexico. The ship contained more than 15,000 cases of small arms ammunition, twenty heavy machine guns, and 250,000 rifles, in addition to other arms. In all, the ammunition and arms occupied 30 freight rail cars, and that was just one shipment.
German advisors were allegedly found at the scene of the battle of Nogales, and $12 million in military aid had been given to Mexico by the Germans in 1915. Twelve million dollars in 1915 is 272 million dollars today. This represents a fairly large sum for the time. In 1915, the US budget for the military was $426 million (1915 dollars), so the $12 million represented 3% of the US budget.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Free stuff
This is being touted by the left in an obvious election year ploy:
If paying an increased entry level wage actually increased profitability by itself, then there would be no need to have a minimum wage, as companies would pay the higher wage on their own.
So I looked up the restaraunt, and they sell sandwiches for $13 each. Fountain sodas cost $2.50 each. Then they require tipping!
Compare that to Subway: A foot long sub for $5, and soda is $1.5. No tipping. I have no problem with a business VOLUNTARILY paying their employees more than the minimum. Just understand that requiring all businesses to do so will raise prices to the point where the increased wages mean nothing. Increasing the minimum wage to $10 an hour, as they are advocating, would increase labor costs in these types of businesses by 45%. Since labor is the biggest expense of most of these businesses, an immediate price increase of about 50-60% would be needed to keep these businesses afloat.
Since the minimum wage would be high, this would remove the desire for skilled trades to go to school and learn skills, because no one would want to work hard to learn a skill, only to earn the same money as a burger flipper. This wage increase would send shock waves through the entire economy and cause incredible inflation as companies struggled to afford the new wages. The Fed would be forced to raise interest rates to tighten the money supply in response. This would slow the economy and eliminate jobs.
I got in a similar conversation with my girlfriend last night. She showed me an article that pointed out how the US is the nearly only country that does not mandate paid maternity leave. She used Canada as an example. She said that Canadian law mandates that an employer pay for 52 weeks of parental leave: For the first 17 weeks, 55% of a woman's pay ($500 a week maximum), and the remaining 35 weeks can be taken by either parent, and must be paid by the employer at a rate of 55% (maximum $485 a week). To be eligible, an employee must have been employed for 600 hours.
She teaches courses in how to run a business, and I can't believe that she did not see the obvious problem: A business is obligated, after 15 weeks, to pay for a woman to take a year off with pay at a cost of over $26,000, or a man 8 months off with pay at a cost of $17,000. The result is obvious: Don't hire women.
So then she asked, "What about Mexico? Surely the US can match Mexico? They require that women receive 12 weeks of paid maternity leave!"
You mean the Mexico that is currently flooding the US with illegal immigrants that are willing to risk death to sneak through the desert because there are no jobs to be had? The Mexico where the female labor participation rate is only 34%, while the male labor participation rate is 62%? The Mexico where the average household income is less than half of the US average?
People need to stop demanding that the government force others to give them free stuff.
Paul Saginaw, co-founder of Zingerman's Deli in Michigan, pays his 630 employees up to $21/hour, offers health and dental benefits to all workers, provides paid time off, and 401k retirement plans. This week, Mr. Saginaw is in Washington lobbying Congress and the restaurant industry to raise wages for all workers!In the article, Saginaw had this to say:
Paying entry wages our employees can live on has contributed to our profitability and our annual compounded growth rate of 10 percent. Raising the minimum wage is long overdue.
If paying an increased entry level wage actually increased profitability by itself, then there would be no need to have a minimum wage, as companies would pay the higher wage on their own.
So I looked up the restaraunt, and they sell sandwiches for $13 each. Fountain sodas cost $2.50 each. Then they require tipping!
Compare that to Subway: A foot long sub for $5, and soda is $1.5. No tipping. I have no problem with a business VOLUNTARILY paying their employees more than the minimum. Just understand that requiring all businesses to do so will raise prices to the point where the increased wages mean nothing. Increasing the minimum wage to $10 an hour, as they are advocating, would increase labor costs in these types of businesses by 45%. Since labor is the biggest expense of most of these businesses, an immediate price increase of about 50-60% would be needed to keep these businesses afloat.
Since the minimum wage would be high, this would remove the desire for skilled trades to go to school and learn skills, because no one would want to work hard to learn a skill, only to earn the same money as a burger flipper. This wage increase would send shock waves through the entire economy and cause incredible inflation as companies struggled to afford the new wages. The Fed would be forced to raise interest rates to tighten the money supply in response. This would slow the economy and eliminate jobs.
I got in a similar conversation with my girlfriend last night. She showed me an article that pointed out how the US is the nearly only country that does not mandate paid maternity leave. She used Canada as an example. She said that Canadian law mandates that an employer pay for 52 weeks of parental leave: For the first 17 weeks, 55% of a woman's pay ($500 a week maximum), and the remaining 35 weeks can be taken by either parent, and must be paid by the employer at a rate of 55% (maximum $485 a week). To be eligible, an employee must have been employed for 600 hours.
She teaches courses in how to run a business, and I can't believe that she did not see the obvious problem: A business is obligated, after 15 weeks, to pay for a woman to take a year off with pay at a cost of over $26,000, or a man 8 months off with pay at a cost of $17,000. The result is obvious: Don't hire women.
So then she asked, "What about Mexico? Surely the US can match Mexico? They require that women receive 12 weeks of paid maternity leave!"
You mean the Mexico that is currently flooding the US with illegal immigrants that are willing to risk death to sneak through the desert because there are no jobs to be had? The Mexico where the female labor participation rate is only 34%, while the male labor participation rate is 62%? The Mexico where the average household income is less than half of the US average?
People need to stop demanding that the government force others to give them free stuff.
Quote of the day
The quote of the day comes from user Elroy53, who was commenting on this article about the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International trade show, which
continues through Thursday at the Orange County Convention Center. The money quote:
"NV-OS is developing a system that will fly its aircraft using an Xbox 360 controller" - that way, they open jobs up for at LEAST two million potential operators. Most won't be happy with the job because they won't be able to kill anything and say something about another operator's mother.That is comedy gold, right there.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
OxyCheq
Sadly, there are not many companies out there that surprise me with great products and excellent customer service. I am happy to say that I have found one.
In January, the nylon cover of the inflation bladder on my buoyancy compensator began to tear. That didn't surprise me, as it has seen more than a decade of hard use. It has been on dives in pools, oceans, caves, and lakes. It is supposed to be rinsed with fresh water after each use, and I must admit that I rarely do so.
I tried to repair it locally and was unable to find anyone that could do the job. I contacted the factory, OxyCheq, and they informed me that due to the age and condition of the wing, any repair that they attempted would be ultimately unsuccessful, and they also informed me that the model I had been using had been discontinued some years before. Now they could have left things there, and they would still have had a satisfied customer. After all, I had gotten more than ten years of use out of their product.
Instead, the company offered to sell me a new model at cost: I would get a replacement valued at $440, for only the factory cost of $250. I took them up on the offer, and it arrived within 2 days.
I can tell you that the new one looks great, and I look forward to another decade of use.
I highly recommend OxyCheq and their products. They are quality pieces of equipment, made in America (right here in Florida), tough as nails, and the company has a great attitude on customer service.
Well done, OxyCheq.
In January, the nylon cover of the inflation bladder on my buoyancy compensator began to tear. That didn't surprise me, as it has seen more than a decade of hard use. It has been on dives in pools, oceans, caves, and lakes. It is supposed to be rinsed with fresh water after each use, and I must admit that I rarely do so.
I tried to repair it locally and was unable to find anyone that could do the job. I contacted the factory, OxyCheq, and they informed me that due to the age and condition of the wing, any repair that they attempted would be ultimately unsuccessful, and they also informed me that the model I had been using had been discontinued some years before. Now they could have left things there, and they would still have had a satisfied customer. After all, I had gotten more than ten years of use out of their product.
Instead, the company offered to sell me a new model at cost: I would get a replacement valued at $440, for only the factory cost of $250. I took them up on the offer, and it arrived within 2 days.
I can tell you that the new one looks great, and I look forward to another decade of use.
I highly recommend OxyCheq and their products. They are quality pieces of equipment, made in America (right here in Florida), tough as nails, and the company has a great attitude on customer service.
Well done, OxyCheq.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Work is for suckers
Government benefits are intended to, according to the government, "help disadvantaged people," but how disadvantaged are these people, really? Let me use my sister as an example. She is a single mother in her early thirties that has two children by two different fathers. She lives with her current boyfriend, who is not the father of either of her children, as well as their two roommates: the father of her first child, and his current girlfriend.
She is my sister, and I love her, and while I cannot condone her lifestyle, it is her life. The biggest problem that I have is their financial state, and the fact that they are being funded my tax money in the form welfare dollars.
You see, she works as a waitress at a local chain restaurant, and makes quite a bit of money when you count her tips. She takes home about $70-100 a day in tips, most of it as unreported income. If you talk to her, she will tell you that this is because she doesn't get a paycheck, because taxes take that from her. I reply that I pay far more than that in taxes, and she is getting off easy by not reporting all of her tips.
Her boyfriend makes $12 an hour at his job, but since they are not married, this does not affect her reported income when it comes time to apply for government benefits.
Their roommates include the father of my sister's first child, and his girlfriend. The two of them pay my sister $300 a month to live in the third bedroom of the apartment. My sister's two daughters share the second bedroom.
What this means is that my sister and her boyfriend have an after tax income of about $3500 a month. That equates to an income of over $50,000 a year for the couple. She and her boyfriend have annual passes to Universal Studios, and they go out for drinks and dinner 2-3 nights a week. Now I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is this:
She collects welfare, food stamps, reduced school lunch for the kids, and lives in a government subsidized apartment. In total, she also receives another $900 a month or so in government benefits. This means that her little family takes home about the same amount of money as a family that earns about $64,000 a year.
How is that disadvantaged? This amount of money puts them far above Orlando's median income of $35,732 a year, and above the US median income of $51,017.
When the US government calculates the poverty rate, they always exclude government benefits. The reason is simple: Most people who work for a living actually make far less money than America's new entrepreneurs. The most lucrative business is young women having children out of wedlock. Forget college, the average college graduate only makes $44,000 a year upon graduation, which takes four years. By the age of 20, a young woman can be living the high life with almost no effort. All she has to do is get pregnant a few times.
My sister is proof of that. This story is repeated millions of times all over this country, and it is the reason why we will be a third world nation before the middle of this century.
She is my sister, and I love her, and while I cannot condone her lifestyle, it is her life. The biggest problem that I have is their financial state, and the fact that they are being funded my tax money in the form welfare dollars.
You see, she works as a waitress at a local chain restaurant, and makes quite a bit of money when you count her tips. She takes home about $70-100 a day in tips, most of it as unreported income. If you talk to her, she will tell you that this is because she doesn't get a paycheck, because taxes take that from her. I reply that I pay far more than that in taxes, and she is getting off easy by not reporting all of her tips.
Her boyfriend makes $12 an hour at his job, but since they are not married, this does not affect her reported income when it comes time to apply for government benefits.
Their roommates include the father of my sister's first child, and his girlfriend. The two of them pay my sister $300 a month to live in the third bedroom of the apartment. My sister's two daughters share the second bedroom.
What this means is that my sister and her boyfriend have an after tax income of about $3500 a month. That equates to an income of over $50,000 a year for the couple. She and her boyfriend have annual passes to Universal Studios, and they go out for drinks and dinner 2-3 nights a week. Now I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is this:
She collects welfare, food stamps, reduced school lunch for the kids, and lives in a government subsidized apartment. In total, she also receives another $900 a month or so in government benefits. This means that her little family takes home about the same amount of money as a family that earns about $64,000 a year.
How is that disadvantaged? This amount of money puts them far above Orlando's median income of $35,732 a year, and above the US median income of $51,017.
When the US government calculates the poverty rate, they always exclude government benefits. The reason is simple: Most people who work for a living actually make far less money than America's new entrepreneurs. The most lucrative business is young women having children out of wedlock. Forget college, the average college graduate only makes $44,000 a year upon graduation, which takes four years. By the age of 20, a young woman can be living the high life with almost no effort. All she has to do is get pregnant a few times.
My sister is proof of that. This story is repeated millions of times all over this country, and it is the reason why we will be a third world nation before the middle of this century.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Mortgage bank again
Today is an important day. I have been in a four year fight with SunTrust. It seems like they will never learn. The lawsuit that I filed against them in December has been settled. Although the exact terms of the settlement are confidential, I can say that I received a 5 figure settlement. That is the second time that they have paid me 5 figures within the past year. In the settlement, I agreed to hold them harmless for everything that they had done as of the date of the settlement.
The day after the settlement was signed, they again violated the court's order. I am going to wait a couple of months for them to do it a few more times, and I will sue them again. Sooner or later, they will get the message.
The day after the settlement was signed, they again violated the court's order. I am going to wait a couple of months for them to do it a few more times, and I will sue them again. Sooner or later, they will get the message.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Laugh of the day
A teen taking a selfie with a squirrel in Palm Harbor was visiting when his family decided to go for a hike in a park after the flash of the camera, the squirrel climbed down his shirt. The resulting pictures were hilarious.
Only One
To all of those people who claim that police are the only ones we can trust to carry a weapon, because they are so much more trustworthy than everyone else, explain this:
The Orlando Police Department on Wednesday released a 911 call of a witness who says a marked police cruiser left the scene of an accident that injured a bicyclist.
The Orlando Police Department on Wednesday released a 911 call of a witness who says a marked police cruiser left the scene of an accident that injured a bicyclist.