My Drive

I see you
Mr. Millennial
with your horned rim glasses and neckbeard
the wind whistling through the bike rack on your Subaru Outback
while you sing along to Mumford and Sons
I see you
Mrs. Millennial
with your cup of Starbucks and cellphone
texting away while your kids watch Netflix in the back seat
where did you get that stick figure family sticker?
I see you
Mr. Generation X
with your goatee and Ray Bans
the sun reflecting off your bald head and white teeth
are you late for golf or a cross burning?
I see you
Mrs. Generation X
with that desperate, unsatisfied look on your face
the shine of your right blinker, left on for the last 3 miles
the edge of your “I love Wine” sticker is peeling off
I see you
Mr. Baby Boomer
with your tan face, thin silver hair and sun spots
keeping death at bay with your window cracked while you smoke
I didn’t realize they made a Mercedes station wagon.
I see you
Ms. Baby Boomer
with a genuine look of confidence and control
checking your make up in the rear view mirror
thinking of him seems to only verify you are better off alone
– TLF 02/17/2016

Response to Jason Nigg’s Facebook post

The original post here.

Jason, I appreciate the response, there is much to deconstruct here.  Additionally, I believe a level set is due on some of the ideas and terms.  This may appear as I am questioning every point you made, partly because I am.  This is in hopes to better understand your position.  The following is intended to create a respectful discourse by and between us.   It is NOT intended to be disrespectful.  I believe our history and friendship will allow for this discourse.
J:  As I see social media platforms blow up with rainbows celebrating a newly won “right” and redefining of a word, I just can’t get into the same celebratory mood.
How do you define right”, meaning what is a right?  You claim it has been redefined, please help me understand how so.
J:  Look, I really don’t have a problem that Chris & Chris, as a couple, now have the same legal protections & benefits as a traditionally married couple.
Ok, I assume this includes protection from discrimination?  If not, please explain how you see if differently.
J:   I tend to believe government should be out of the marriage business anyway.
On this we agree.
J:  However, when this debate started gaining steam what, 8-10 years ago, I remember a gay rights activist on tv rejecting the idea of a civil union or legal partnership in favor of pushing a new definition of marriage because, in his words, “…the end goal is to destroy the old Christian idea of a traditional family”.
I am not sure what to make of this statement and how it fits into your argument.  There is not enough context and reference here for me to account for this beyond conjecture.  My pure opinion and reaction to this is, if it is indeed an accurate quotation, I find it unfortunate as it likely does not align with the disposition of the majority of homosexuals.
J:  Then we see businesses in the wedding industry getting sued and put out of business because they have reservations serving Chris & Chris based on religious grounds.
This is a broad and unspecific claim.  You may be spot on, but understand the breadth and depth of this problem is key to the conversation.  Where these business sued before legislation was in place to prohibit discrimination?  If no, then it is a moral challenge.  If yes, then it is a legal challenge.  I get you are trying to make a point, so I am only concerned about the aforementioned statement insofar as it related to better understand your specific concern.
J:  I can’t help but believe this whole thing isn’t about Chris & Chris’s individual freedom and happiness, but an overall means to use PC mindset to hammer & bludgeon those with different & maybe opposing beliefs.
Again, I get where you want to go with this, I am unsure how it is substantiated.    You are speculating on the intent of an large group of people (i.e an overall means to use PC mindset to hammer and bludgeon those with a different & maybe opposing beliefs).  I believe you and I both agree that dissenting opinions and beliefs exist on this topic.  However, I feel as though we may be at odds regarding how they are exercised.
Chris & Chris (the use of androgynous names here kicks ass!) have a right to individual freedom and happiness, in this you are correct.  Transversely is has been decided that religious beliefs are not justification for discrimination.  Put another way, an individuals 
J:  As a result has overall liberty really increased?
A bit of a red herring.  My answer, to your fundamentally rhetorical inquiry, is I don’t know.
J:  Finally, now that the slippery slope is good & greased up, how long is it before we are litigating rights to multiple spouses or marrying a sister or marrying a pet?
This is interesting as it presents what is inherently speculation as an imminent result.  Seems you were after some shock value here.  Ironically, it is religion(s) that promote and discourage polygamy on moral grounds.  The new testament, 1 Timothy discouraged church leaders from taking more than one wife.  However, the torah appears to allow and promote polygamy (Exodus 21:10: “If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish”).  So this in mind, I believe the “slipper slope” belongs to those with, at best inconsistent religious doctrine.
It would appear that the foundation for the argument that legalization of gay marriage is somehow the first step to decent into moral disrepair is wholly based upon faulty premise.  This is substantiation for my claim that the argument from religion is lost on me.
J:  On the religious front, we do still have a supposed free exercise thereof so I don’t understand how this argument is lost on you scholars.
While a entertaining inflammatory remark, it has already been deemed that the free exercise of religion is limited.  It is limited insofar as, forgive me for not citing the numerous examples, religious beliefs and freedoms make not usurp or undermine the law of the land.  Simply put, an individuals right to freedom of religion does not legal justify their discrimination.
I am not an expert on constitutional law or procedure so I can only speak to it at the most basic level.  Here are some of the references I used to form my position:
J:  It isn’t a problem of a clouded mind or misunderstanding or an emotional response. 
Whose mind?  I am not sure there is anything wrong with an emotional response, this is a topic bursting with emotion:)
J:  It is the distinct possibility that the religious will be prohibited their exercise by government,…
Yes, we agree here.  The difference is whether or not we perceive this as a negative or positive.
J:  …because it has already happened: bakers and photographers and facilities forced to serve same-sex ceremonies when they claim it goes against their beliefs.
Again, specific instances would be helpful.   I am not denying your claim, just asking for examples to wrap my head around.
J:  So it’s not that businesses are denying service & dealing with boycotts or bad press, they are dealing with the government ruling that catering to same-sex services trumps their free expression of religion and enforcing fines, shuttering businesses, directing business owners to attend sensitivity training.
See the previous statement.
J:  I’ll try to answer both your questions. 1. No – obviously I’m not too keen about ISIS beheading “infidels”; and 2. No – this is a different situation entirely.
Please elaborate on my 1. position.
Regarding 2., it is only different in it’s stimulus (challenge to beliefs) but identical in it’s response (discrimination of an attribute of a human being).
J:  I didn’t choose to be a white male, but yet here I am, so color & gender are characteristics you are born with and had no say in choosing (much to the chagrin of Michael Jackson, Bruce Jenner & Rachel Dolezal!). Whomever I marry constitutes a lifestyle choice and that’s the difference: discriminating against an innate characteristic or a lifestyle choice.
Before I tackle this one, are you stating that marriage or homosexuality is a choice, or both?
J:  As an aside, the Obergefell v. Hodges did not grant “equal rights” to gays, it granted an additional right to everyone. Previously, every one of us had the right to marry another provided they met certain conditions. None of us had the right to marry another of the same sex. The court case now says we can do just that; we have an extra condition of people who are eligible for marriage.
This is an aside.  I would need to read the decision referenced in Obergefell v. Hodges.  However, if you believe this to be vital to the conversation I will comment later.
J:  As for the business owners, they didn’t turn the customers away because they were gay. In fact, they were offered alternatives. As an example, the farm owners who were fined $13k & ordered to attend re-education training offered to host the couple’s reception but not the actual ceremony. Same with the baker – they offered to make them cakes & cookies, but refused when the clients wanted a specific message. So they didn’t simply refuse service because the clients were gay, they refused the specificity of their request
I would like to hear the specifics on this instance.
J:  I’m so tempted just to reply that your response was simply your experience and didn’t gain any insight… 
Not sure how to respond here.
J:  I don’t see this as a freedom of speech issue & totally agree with the notion that we all have to deal with the consequences of our freedoms. Again, as I said in reply to Tony, these businesses did not discriminate based on a person’s characteristics, such as skin color, but on their ideas – quite a difference from the instances that you bring up.
They did in fact discriminate on a person’s characteristics.  The couple’s sexual orientation is in fact a characteristic their relationship and individualism.  You are claiming that because it is not “innate”, which is highly debated and debatable.  There is significant research suggesting homosexuality is in fact NOT a choice and is linked to a portion of the X Chromosome referred to as Xq28.  I submit the following as an indicator and not an exhaustive view into the aforementioned position:
To note, my expertise is not in genetics or the study of the biological basis for sexuality.  These are just a few of the resources I found that provide perspectives on the topic.
J:  Look how easy, and possibly natural, it is for someone to accuse me of being a bigot, or condoning bigotry, when I’m basing my opinions on religious grounds.
Are you basing your opinions on religious grounds?  If no, then what are you basing them on.  If yes, then we have the makings for our next wonderful and lengthy discussion:)
J:  If I don’t APPROVE of same-sex marriage, then I’m a bigot. I know, you didn’t accuse me of such, but I was rambling & couldn’t stop.
Neither John or I have accused you of being a bigot.  I certainly don’t believe you to be a bigot.  In actuality your comments don’t support even the basic definition:
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
The question remains, do you or do you not approve of gay marriage?  I ask because some of your first comments stated your indifference for Chris and Chris and their union.



Testing animated .gif



It is about time…

Jim Morrison may win indecent exposure pardon 40 years on –

WOOOOT Shit balls!

Powered by ScribeFire.


Time Warner Cable…double bills anyone on autopay

On 9/3/2010, I was checking my bank account to monitor how close I was to $0.00, when I noticed a bill for $351.22 from Time Warner Cable.  After shitting in my pants about $351.22, I noticed a second item from Time Warner Cable processing for the same amount.  Subsequently, I had a heart attack with shit in my pants…

It seems that anyone who was signed up for Time Warner Cable “Autopay” was double-billed for the September 4th bill due date.

So I call TWC to voice my objection, not to the $351.22, but to the $702.44 being “processed” from my checking account.  I spoke with a super nice lady named April.  She seemed genuinely interested in helping me.  She mentioned the call she had right before mine had a similar issue.

I asked her when the second debt would be reversed, she stated she was not sure, but with the weekend coming up it might be next week.  Apparently computers cannot process anything on Saturday’s or the “biblical day of rest” (Sunday for you pagans).  This was compounded by the “labor day” celebration on Monday…yes the fucking irony is killing me as well…

Nonetheless, April and I agreed that I would check back with her on Wednesday (9/8/2010), as she was off on Tuesday.  I figured no worries, she deserves an extra day off like. She gave me her number and extension so I could call her back directly. She suggested we give it a few days to see if it would reverse itself.  She sent an email to the “people” in accounting and would wait for a response.

9-4-2010 – two transactions for $351.22…still processing, NO REVERSAL of PAYMENT

9-5-2010 – two transactions for $351.22…still processing, NO REVERSAL of PAYMENT

9-6-2010 – two transactions for $351.22…still processing, NO REVERSAL of PAYMENT

9-7-2010 – two transactions for $351.22 CLEARED and PAID to TIME WARNER CABLE, NO REVERSAL of PAYMENT

9-8-2010 – two transactions for $351.22 CLEARED and PAID to TIME WARNER CABLE, NO REVERSAL of PAYMENT

I called April on the 8th like agreed.  She explained that in fact it was an error on their end and the “people” in accounting were aware of the issue, but had issued a memo to the customer service reps to “not send anymore emails to accounting”.  I wish I were joking about that part…

I explained to April that I understood she had done what she could for me.  She was upset and apologized several times.  I asked her for the name of the Vice President of Customer Service and said person’s contact information.  She gave me the person’s name, but did not have the telephone number and would need to ask her supervisor for it.  She put me on hold…

FOR THE RECORD:  The VP of Customer Service name I was given is Vickie Miner.

I explained to April there was no need to put me on hold, just email me Vickie’s contact info.  April agreed she would.

This morning 9/9/2010, after not receiving an email from April, I called Time Warner Cable Customer Service number (816-358-8833).  Before I could speak with a “representative” one of those “call deflection” messages explained that TWC was aware of the issue and that those impacted should expect a credit to their bank accounts sometime within the next 3-10 days…

It appears the “people” in accounting will need that much time to pull their collective heads out of Vickie’s ass and push the button to send the funds back.  At the end of it, I TWC has $351.22 of my money.  They have no right to these funds and their lack of urgency in rectifying this situation speaks to their arrogance.

The saga is ongoing…


The State I Love to HATE

I hate that our trips to TX require us to drive through Jokelahoma as nothing good seems to come from traversing the red dirt filled hell.  Or so I thought…

We needed to refuel our OverlandPark cruiser with petrol and Ardmore, Fuklahoma seemed as good a place as any, given the fact that the fuel light had been on since Fort Worth…

So I pulled the ol’ soccer mom-mobile into a filling station right off I-whatchutalkinboutwillis35.  Jill and the kids wandered inside to visit the local pisser, while I fueled up the car/truck/whatever a Honda Pilot is.

While I was standing there, breathing air that didn’t smell like sweaty feet sprinkled in shit, I made my usual survey of the surrounding area.  A mere two pumps over from me was a 1/2 ton Chevy shit-hauler painted that ever-so unique color…primer gray.

Standing to the far side of this blessed vessel was, what had to be a local beauty queen, circa 1974.  She was busy putting a $1.62 worth of 87 octane in the aforementioned 1/2 ton Chevy shit-hauler.  She glanced over noticing me watching her.  This was a sure sign of trouble.

She smiled showing me her methamphetamine created smile.  The gray of the four teeth she possessed elegantly matched the grey of the aforementioned 1/2 ton Chevy shit-hauler.  I could tell she was engaging her feminine charms.  She quickly straightened her sleeveless Dale Redneck Sr. NASCAR t-shirt, lightly brushing the bottom edge to whisk away the Burger King Whopper remnants.

She then turned her body, still smiling at me with her primer colored teeth and what I can only assume where her gums.  I watched as the sun caught the top of her pock marked inner forearm.  My eyes moved slow and painfully up her arm to what was once her bicep, now a skinbag decorated with a tribalbarbedwire tattoo.  I am not sure, it could have been a tattoo of I-35 from San Antonio to Wichita, it was difficult to discern as the fumes from the gas running on the ground were clouding my eyes and mind.

I can only assume she deduced her “feminine charms” were not working on me as I had not yelled to her, “Hey whore, lift your shirt and show me those chewed on dog toys.  Play with their noses some, it really does it for me”.  One cannot make too many assumptions regarding situations like these.  However it was clear she was switching tactics.

It seemed since her beauty was not to seduce me, the siren then tried to bedazzle me with her intellect.  Still employing the omni-present gray fleshy smile she reached into her left back pocket and pulled out a package of some sort.  I distinctly remember it was her left back pocket as a leather wallet attached to a chain that was subsequently attached to a belt loop, occupied her right back pocket.  I have no idea what was in her front pockets, but I am sure it has to smell like catfish bait.

I digress….

Oh yes, the package from the left back pocket.  I could tell she wanted to impress me with her Poklahoma intellect, something beyond the rudimentary reedin’ an’ rightin’ an’ ritmatick she had attained.  Apparently she wanted to demonstrate her knowledge of chemistry, likely something she learned from her kin.  The package she retrieved from her left rear pocket was a package of Marlboro Lights.   I am unsure if the tobacco product in question was specifically 100’s or menthols as I am not a smoker.  Nonetheless with the grace of a crackhead holding a bag full of assholes, she packed the smokes on the palm of her hand and tossed one straight from the pack into her awaiting gums.

Then came the impressive part…while tapping out the last $.13 of the aforementioned $1.62, into her tank, she simultaneously and notably with her free claw, lit her cigarette.  Noticeably proud of the fact that she successfully lit the cigarette with one hand (not to mention not blowing me, herself and 2 others into the wal-mart parking lot across the street) she flashed me a “ohyeahigotitgoingontakemetothetribalcasino” look.  Pfft tribal casinos…don’t get me started on those red devils….again I digress.

By this time I am praying Jill will exit the store and the gas pumping banshee would be afeared and flee.  To my surprise it was not Jill exiting the store that hastened the crones retreat, but the crones “20-something” girl friend.  That is right my friend, that old 1/2 ton Chevy drivin’, skinbag tattoo havin’, Marlboro smokin’, gas pumpin’ reptile was a lesbian.  A lesbian with a SMOKIN’ HOT “20-something” girlfriend.   At this point my hypocrisy kicked in and I admit the whole scenario was hotter than a monkey’s ass on the savannah.

With all my love,



Ayn Rand…one crazy bitch

Her philosophy was at the very least flawed and inconsistent…

supporting abortion rights,[75] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning draft dodgers as “bums”),[76] supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 as “civilized men fighting savages”,[77] saying European colonists had the right to take land from American Indians,[78] and calling homosexuality “immoral” and “disgusting”.[79] She also endorsed several Republican candidates for President of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.[80] – wikipedia

I suppose in the era in which she was published she was regarded as a creative thinker…