Bing Weekly News Quiz

I check out the Bing home page nearly every day, not only for their fantastic daily changing themes, but also because I accumulate points towards Amazon gift cards.  It's not all that much, but I can usually get enough each month for a $5 Amazon credit.  (I just redeemed several months worth and paid for nearly half of a 5TB external hard drive)

I also like to take the Weekly News Quiz and after finishing up and getting my score, enjoy seeing - depending upon how well I did - what "kind of week" I'm having.  If my score is good, it tells me I'm having a week as good as - for example - some latest sports champion or record breaker and if it's NOT a good score, it compares my week to some poor slob who just had his world crash down around him.

I aced this week's quiz and this was my result:

To be honest, I wish I had missed a few just so I wouldn't be compared to THAT S.O.B. 

I wouldn't want to be like him, even if I had five times his money.   I don't have much hair either, but at least I buzz mine off w/ clippers and don't try some ridiculous comb over.  I'm also proud to say I don't whine if things don't go my way or tell lies about those who oppose me.

"The Trump train rolls on."  Sadly, yes.  I'd cheer if a train ran OVER Trump,  though. 

cryophobia

cryophobia - fear of extreme cold, frost or ice.

I don't "fear" those things but intensely dislike them...and it's not so much dislike of them but rather a hatred of the huge heating bills that accompany extreme cold, frost or ice.

Sometimes they make me want to cry...and that's a phobia I can do without.

Swimming in Conspiracy Theories

I subscribe to Alex Jones on Facebook, not that I'm such a big fan of conspiracy theories, but because I used to listen to his radio shows on late at night and found them both amusing and entertaining. (Along with Art Bell's Coast to Coast AM) It was also a good way for me to fall asleep, much better than listening to music. It wasn't the show or subject manner that amused me the most, but rather the callers.

The Alex Jones Facebook page is no different; just the other day there was a post about the recent Clintonville "booms" and it brought the crazies out of the woodwork.  Some posters claimed the govt. was responsible (which makes up the highest percentage of blame in most conspiracy theories) while others said it was aliens and a few blamed fracking (the hydraulic fracturing of formations to release the oil or gas.  Fracking is one of the latest controversial subjects that serves as the blame for people's water catching on fire, pollution of water aquifers and gingivitis. OK, just kidding on that last.  Fracking will be the subject of a future rant, so stay tuned!)

As is nearly always the case, there were posters who disregarded the subject at hand and wanted to bring up their own pet conspiracy theory.  One guy said we all should Google "New Navy Maps".  Usually these things don't interest me (as a Ron Paul supporter who frequents several forums devoted to him, I've grown extremely weary of this stuff), but I never had heard of that, so I did some quick research.

In a nutshell, this is supposed to be one of the new maps the U.S. Navy will use in the near-future.  As you can see by the graphic below, large sections of America will be flooded.

---

NOTE:  Image was removed, prob. by Google/Blogger because I used it without permission.  To be honest. I didn't think it was such a big deal;  it was a crudely drawn map with areas of America underwater.  I tell ya, these conspiracy nutjobs don't have a sense of humor.   If whoever turned me in is reading this:  sorry you got upset, sorry you can't make a better graphic and sorry that you're such an anal retentive asshat.

---

Many theories were put forth as to why so much of the U.S. will be submerged; Fracking (again ), global warming, intentional diverting of the Mississippi river (which doesn't account for the east and west coasts being under water) as well as many others.

I'd have to look at a topographical map, but it looks to me like the water just blows right through part of the Rocky Mountains.

If this comes to pass, it might be a good idea to buy stock in a boat building company or maybe get some of that good-for-nothing-else desert land in Arizona and New Mexico...which will be ocean front property then.

Maybe it would be better to invest in a company that makes tin foil?

Finder's Keepers

Losers weepers, so goes the old saying.  That was also said in this recent Amarillo Globe-News article:

Good Samaritans turn in $1,200 lost cash

There wasn't the usual comment section at the website, but their Facebook page linked to it with this comment:

If you randomly found $1,200 on the ground at the mall, would you keep it or turn it in? Be honest!

I found that ironic after reading the comments; many were "honest" and said they'd keep the money. Here's my comment:

I wouldn't turn it in; I'd inform the mgr. of the store where I found it that I had found a sum of money and give him my contact information. If someone called me and told me they had lost that specific amt. of money, then I'd return it to him. Otherwise, the mgr. might very well keep it - I've seen that happen before with smaller amts.

This was a lesson I learned a long time ago; my sister found a bill (forget what it was, but I think it was a ten) on the floor of a dept. store and turned it in to the service desk. My folks were proud of her for being honest, but also told her that they bet the clerk probably kept the money and the next time she should do just as I commented. That always stuck with me.

I've found money and wallets and in the case of the latter, always managed to get it back to the rightful owner. The times I've found money, it wasn't by or in a store, so I figured there wasn't any way to find who had lost it. One time I found a twenty stuck to a weed while I was out walking!

Like most controversial subjects, the comments on the Facebook page were varied. Some, as I mentioned, said they'd keep the money, but most said they'd return it. (I got something like 15 thumbs up for my comment). And, is the case, there were self-righteous people criticizing those who said they'd keep the money and a few snarky comments in reply. Far be it from me to judge them - if I was really hurting for money, I would probably justify my new-found windfall some way.

I've not lost total hope in my fellow man, but my half century plus on this world has made me a cynic in human nature. Not long ago, a local EMT was arrested for stealing the wallet of an injured man; another fairly recent case was of a fireman responding to a vehicle fatality and taking a Rolex off of the victim's wrist.

One of the replies on the Facebook post was by an Amarillo TV news anchor; he said he'd turn it in to the police. (naming the officers he trusted) I thought that was all well and good, but like the emergency responders who stole, cops can be thieves, too. It reminded me of the case of a local man who, while driving to work, saw a briefcase in the weeds by the side of the road. He stopped and got it, then when he got home, jimmied the lock and found a couple ounces of cocaine and something like $14,000. He did the "right" thing and turned it into the police.

Texas law states that, if no one claims it, the finder gets the found property after 90 days. (Of course, he wasn't going to get to keep the drugs). The three months came and went and the sheriff's office stonewalled him, claiming it might be needed for a trial. They kept putting him off for close to a year and the man had to go to court to force the law to hand over the money. Rumors were hot and heavy about why the sheriff didn't want to hand over the money, but I figured he thought he could bluff the guy out of his find. (the Sheriff was a beloved figure here in town for many years, one of Texas' longest serving law enforcement officials, but he ignored civil rights and enforced only those laws he wanted to enforce. It was said that many times he would bust someone for a large amount of pot, then in a few months the weed found its way onto the street..."somehow". )

Due to many betrayals of trust, I have found it hard to trust people. The last straw for me was about three years ago at this time of year and learning from the wife of a friend that one of my sister's classmates had terminal cancer. I got a Christmas card, put a hundred dollar bill in it plus a $25 WalMart gift card and the next time I was visiting my friend, told them I was going to go over to her house and give it to her.

My friend's wife told me that wouldn't be a good idea, that she was very sick and having visitors wouldn't be good for her, that she would give it to her the next time she saw her. So, I gave the wife the envelope.

A few weeks later, I was visiting again and asked what the woman thought of the present. The wife stuttered and stammered and said she was thrilled. Something about her attitude struck me as odd, but I shook the feeling off. Surely my friend's wife wouldn't be so low as to steal from a dying woman. Noticing a new TV, I asked about it and my friend said they had just got it from WalMart.  Hmmm....

Anyway, long, sad story short, the woman passed away. I later became Facebook friends with her brother, an older guy I had always liked. I private messaged him, told him what I had done and asked if his sister had ever mentioned my gift. He told me no, but it was unlike her to have not told him. I told him the arrangement I had made and he asked for my number and called me just a few minutes later, telling me he had heard my friend's wife had been a little shady in her dealings with some people he knew.

A few weeks after that, I had messaged another Facebook friend I had gone to school with, asked her what she thought of my friend's wife. (I didn't mention the suspected theft) She told me a story of some money going missing from a purse at a party they had both attended and her being fairly sure that it was the woman that stole it.

So...forgive me for being cynical. I wouldn't want to keep money that didn't belong to me and I'd hate to think that if I did, it would cause extreme hardship to the person who lost it. As far as the $125 I'm sure my (now ex) friend's wife stole...well, that's an awfully low price for which to sell her soul.

Cat Food For Thought

Up until last night I "liked" a Facebook page, "And My Cat". I don't know why I ever subscribed to the feed because it was mostly full of people posting photos of their cats. I love cats, but the attitude of *some* people regarding their cats really irks me. (never been a fan of "cutesy", y'know?) Pets can be a child substitute, but they're still animals. (and so can be some children, but that's for another rant)

The post that made me "unlike" the page was when the creator of the page wrote that she had recently discovered that Amazon sold cat food and that she had signed up for Amazon Prime and scheduled regular deliveries of Fancy Feast^TM. I've also thought of signing up for regular shipments, but of McCann's Oatmeal. Anyway....

I didn't think deeply about the post; that brand of cat food is OK, I suppose...it's a little too expensive for my budget and frankly, the Beej will eat it but seems to prefer the WalMart brand or even the discount store kind that's about 40% cheaper. However, when I visited the post again because I saw there had been 40+ responses, I got a little angry, then a LOT angry.

Most of the posts immediately following were thanking the page owner for the information, while others mentioned their own cat's preferences. Then came the self-righteous asshats, saying that the cat foods being mentioned were garbage, that THEY bought such and such brand. I took an hour or so to research the brands being touted, even pricing them through various online outlets.

All of the brands were outrageously expensive, costing from $30-40/case. Whoa! At first I was a little ashamed of the cheaper food I bought my cat and even more ashamed when I read some of the comments on the 'net about it being garbage. B eats it up, though, and I can't see any ill-effects from him eating the "garbage". I'm happy he deigns to eat it, being one of the more finicky pets I've ever owned. He prefers the pouch food to chicken or beef that I buy for myself at the supermarket deli.

Reading more about cat food, I perused an article about how dry food is bad for cats - how cats were genetically programmed to eat "wet" food and that's how they get the bulk of their water. Hmmmm....the Beej drinks quite a bit of water; in fact, all cats I've ever owned drank a lot of water. (I once noticed his water was a little dirty from food falling off his mouth into the bowl, so I changed it with fresh. He then wanted outside and went directly to a mud puddle in the driveway to drink) I also read about "no-no" foods for cats - grapes were one, which I found odd - and that milk wasn't good f/ cats, either, same for tuna.

THEN I read another few articles that said hard food was GOOD for cats and that - unless the cat has an obesity problem - owners should have hard food out f/ their cat all the time. That's what I do w/ a gravity feeder, plus feed a pouch or two of wet food daily. I also read that tuna isn't bad if fed in moderation. I feed it to the Beej on the weekends - "Sunday dinner", I joke to myself. I also will mix a bit in w/ the types of food that he doesn't like as well as others just so it won't be wasted.

What I found out was there is a LOT of contradictory information about cat food on the 'net. I really wasn't all that surprised, but one poster in the Facebook page said she had done her research and insinuated she was right and everyone else posting was wrong.

(And you probably know there are "facts" on the 'net that "prove" 9/11 was an inside job, the CIA killed Kennedy and that we really never landed on the moon)

Then came this guy that said "It's sad to see so many people in this thread that don't care about their cats."

It made me wish I could magically transport myself to where he was just so I could slap him. I cannot stand self-righteous people. It's OK to have strong opinions, but his statement crossed the line. I don't think it's abusing your pet to feed them a cheaper food. What's abuse is not feeding them at all, or keeping them tied up in the back yard, or kicking them when you're angry. My cat might eat cheap food, but he eats better than a large percentage of people in the world. He certainly eats more regularly than I do!

I just can't stand the jerkwads who feel the need to criticize others for something that - considering the massive misery in the world - is so trivial. We should gather all these holier-than-thou people together, then grind them up for pet food.

On second thought, probably not. I bet the Beej would turn up his nose at them.

A Titanic Gripe

I just got through watching the last of Titanic; I didn't watch the entire thing because I was watching Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World which ended fifteen minutes before Titanic. It's a movie I've seen about the same number of times as I have Titanic although I could watch Master and Commander again sometime soon in the future, I've had just about all I want from Titanic, even though I could look at Kate Winslet a thousand hours and never grow tired of her face.


I've got a huge gripe with Titanic; two of them actually, but one is much larger than the other.  My lessor gripe first:

How did Gloria Stuart get nominated for an Oscar for her performance in the movie? Her part was tiny, even though she did the narration during the cutaways back to the salvage ship. I don't think she did all that good of a job - I felt she said her lines rather woodenly and without much believability.  Surely there was some other movie that year that had a better supporting actress nominee. Kathy Bates in her role as Molly Brown did a much better job than did Stuart in Titanic.

Which directly leads me to my main gripe: Why did Stuart's character Rose DeWitt Bukater throw the "The Heart of the Ocean" blue diamond necklace overboard? It seemed such a selfish thing to do. She could have given it to Brock Lovett, the man trying to find it (played by Bill Paxton). After all, he had invested millions in his salvage effort, spent more to bring the old bag woman out to the ship and if anyone deserved it, he did. Why didn't she give it to her daughter? The sale of the gem would be enough to pay college tuition for several generations after she passed away.

I know it's just a movie, but sometimes these things really piss me off. I had so much emotion and sympathy invested in the Rose character as an old lady only to have her do such a selfish and senseless act as throwing the priceless diamond into the sea. Even though the salvage ship was positioned directly over the Titanic, the currents probably would have carried the necklace miles away from the ship. It really is the single thing that nearly ruined the movie for me and one of the reasons I don't care to watch it again. If I had been Lovett and saw her doing it, I'd have tied a chain to her wrinkly old ass and chucked her overboard after the diamond.