Origin of CPT Asshole or why Jesus was an asshole
Ahoy from the Captain. Not sure where this is going or what I'm doing, but I'll try not to put you to sleep. First, some of you may wonder why I call myself CPT Asshole. Well, it's none of your business. But I'll tell you anyway. The way I figure it, if Jesus was an asshole, how can any of us not be?
I don't want to get too far off the track, or scare people off because they think I'm going off on a religous rant, but I'll tell you why I think Jesus was an asshole. See, Jesus, like Abraham, the Prophet Mohammed, Buddha, and the rest of us, was human. So he made mistakes, and it's not really what he did, but what people thought about him, that qualifies him as an asshole.
The way I see it, there had to be at least one Roman somewhere, sometime, who once said, "I wonder what that asshole Jesus is up to?" That's all it takes, and Jesus becomes an asshole forever. Of course, that means everyone from Mother Theresa and Princess Di, to our grandmothers, are assholes. What makes us any different? Who among us can say no one has ever thought we were an asshole? (If you raise your hand, someone will think you're an asshole) I must admit, people who point these things out are probably bigger assholes than your average asshole, so I call myself CPT Asshole.
OK, now that that's out of the way, we can get on to the exciting topic of traffic safety. (Please check out the Captain's quick driving tips elsewhere on this site)
It's ignorance if you don't know you're supposed to wear a seat belt. If you know you're supposed to wear a seat belt, but you don't, you can't claim ignorance, you've done something stupid. It's ignorance if you don't know you're supposed to signal before turning. If you know you're supposed to signal, but don't, you've done something stupid. Each and every time you do...It's ignorance if you don't know you're supposed to wear a condom...People, please, don't end up with "Here lies stupid" in the back of everyone's mind, if you end up dead because you did something stupid.
I know, I know. People turn without signalling, drive or ride without buckling up, and do it hundreds, thousands of times, and no one is hurt or killed. But that doesn't mean it wasn't stupid, each and every time we did it. Wouldn't it be a good thing to cut down on the number of stupid things we do, instead of ignoring them? Aren't ignorance and stupidity our real enemies?
I'm beginning to wonder if writing this was ignorance, or stupidity?
Please feel free to comment and add to the list of things like:
Ignorance is not knowing you're supposed to wear a condom. Knowing you're supposed to wear a condom, and not wearing one, is really doing something stupid.. (you don't have to stick to traffic examples, apply it to anything that fits)
Ahoy from the Captain.
Spotter, the watch-cat, standing guard
Yes, they're the same cat. Depends on the light. At night he might as well be black. 18 lbs, Faux Korat/Blue Siamese???? Whatever,........ he's a lover, a climber and a killer.
What would happen today to the Prophet Mohammed
For all the sense they make, this might as well be the Prophet Mohammed these infidels have tied up.
And why do I find Mohammed spelled Mohammad, as much as I find it spelled Mohammed? That really bugs me, I don't want to misspell anything, especially someone's name. Maybe it has something to do with the translation. English must look as strange to Middle Easterners as their languages do to English speakers like myself.
This is what would have to be done to the Prophet Mohammed if he were here today, since I don't believe he would support terrorism. He would have to be silenced, so that terrorists could provide their own version of his message.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Footprint of Allah bumper sticker, or The Captain's updated driving tips
Updated driving tips from the Captain
First, when it's your turn, take it. Whoever stops behind the white
line at a stop sign controlled intersection first, should be the first
to start again. Pay attention so you know when it's your turn, and take
your turn when it comes. Believe me, if you don't take it, someone else
will. Remember, it's only your turn if you take it, if you don't,
someone else will.
Never stop for something that's not moving if you have room to go
around safely. That's why they put steering wheels on the car, so you can go
around things. Try to do it without stopping or hitting anything.
When wondering when it's safe to enter traffic, or cross a street,
trust your eyes. If you don't see anything that you will hit or will hit
you, then go. Don't wait until you see someone coming, and then pull
out in front of them. If you can't trust your own eyes, you shouldn't be
driving.
If someone passes you on the right, it's your fault for allowing them
room to do so. You're supposed to be driving on the right side of the
road in America, and you use the left lane to pass, not to cruise. If you
do your job properly, no one will ever be able to pass you on the
right.
If someone pulls in front of you, it's your fault for leaving them
room. Remember, if you leave the room, someone will use it. Since one must
leave distance between them and the car in front, don't get mad at
anyone for using that space, when it's your fault the space is there in the
first place.
When making a right turn, especially in a city with pedestrians
crossing the street, get as far to the right as possible, and let the people
behind you have enough room to go past you. If you don't leave the
people behind you enough room and someone hits you, you could get shoved
right into that woman pushing her baby stroller across the street.
Ignorance is
not knowing you're supposed to signal before turning.
If you know you're supposed to signal, but don't do it, that's not
ignorance, you've done something stupid. Ignorance is
not knowing you're
supposed to wear a seat belt. If you know you're supposed to wear a seat
belt, but don't do it, you've done something stupid. I know, people
turn without signalling, drive or ride without wearing seat belts,
hundreds, thousands of times, and no one is hurt or killed. But that doesn't
mean it wasn't stupid, each and every time we did it. (This works for
everything, not just driving, it's ignorance if you
don't know you're
supposed to wear a condom. If you know you're supposed to wear a
condom, but don't, that's really doing something stupid.) Anyone who died
because they weren't wearing a seat belt, because I find it almost
impossible to believe there is anyone who doesn't know they're supposed to
wear one, died of stupidity. Don't be one of them.
If someone is driving improperly, due to their talking on a cell
phone, and if you can get next to them safely, hold your horn down until
they hang up, or are out of hearing. They will have a hard time hearing,
and the best part is the person they're talking to will hear your horn
as well, and wonder what's going on. This works best if you keep a
small sign in your car to hold up while doing this, the sign should say,
"CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?" Usually, you can get other drivers to join you in
honking.
And, with my apologies to all peaceful, true believers of Islam,
don't put one of those "Footprint of Allah" bumper stickers on your car
(you know, the one with the Prophet Mohammed's face with a footprint on it). You'll
probably get blown up, along with anyone near you.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Prophet Mohammed doormats
They're not exactly selling like hotcakes, probably because if you lived upstairs from someone with a prophet Mohammed doormat, you and your family could die in a fire or explosion not even meant for you. So no matter how much I would like to show my support for freedom of speech, it would be stupid and unforgiveable of me to jeopardize my neighbors' safety for my desire to express myself.
This is yet another example of how our real enemies in this world are ignorance and stupidity. I am so angry, yet frustrated, because I feel like responding in kind. But I know better, for it is my own soul I destroy if I let myself act like them, yet I feel some response is called for. Talk about conficting emotions...Isn't this one of those situations where our government should respond, so that individuals who speak out don't become easy targets? Let the government take the heat and say the things that might cause violence.
Even though it would be politically incorrect, so what? They hate the U.S. anyway. The government should have an office of "Political Incorrectness" whose job would be to offend our enemies. In this way, terrorists looking to attack someone who writes, says, prints something won't have anyone's name, they will have to settle for hating an intangible concept they can never touch, like "the government", "the country", "the people" or "the office of political incorrectness." That's pretty much the way it is already. Let the office of political incorrectness sell Mohammed doormats, Mohammed floor tiles, Mohammed toilet paper, etc. We should provide an apology to the true believers of Islam, while making clear the apology does not cover these Islamic terrorists who insult Islam, and who are the real infidels.
I mean, if this is a war, and I mean a war on Islamic terrorists, not on Islam itself, then why be nice? Maybe we're too nice. If there were Americans who burned embassies, if peaceful Muslims started getting hurt or killed by American civilians, then maybe they'd understand. Maybe then they would realize terrorism and violence is just terrorism and violence, no matter what side is using it.
There I go again, that's my anger coming out. I'm angry at them for causing these thoughts and feelings.
There was an Israeli leader, I can't remember who, who said something like, "I can forgive you for killing my children, but I can never forgive you for making me kill yours." I pray we in America never have to personally experience the horrors that would bring us to say those words.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Prince Charles and Hugo Chavez
Check out the photo of Prince Charles and Venezuela's Saddam, Hugo Chavez. They're hugging and smiling like the best of friends.
Whoops, that's not Prince Charles, no matter how much it looks like him. It's really Cindy Sheehan. Never mind....
Ahoy from the Captain.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
On Drudge's page today, these two headlines, this one about halfway down the left column says, "Iranian President Bans Western Music". While over near the bottom of the right hand column is a headline saying "Eminem Music Allegedly Used As Torture Device".
And I like what I've heard of Eminem. I guess one man's music is another's torture.
Good thing Bush ordered spying
As far as I'm concerned, Bush is just doing his job, and if he didn't do this, he'd be criticized by the same people criticizing him now. But I'm glad he ordered the NSA to spy on US citizens, because he ordered it done under certain limited circumstances, and used the authority of the executive branch under war to do it. And he did it for the benefit of our country. Which means he did it to protect everyone, even those who hate him. Which is, dare I say, noble.
I was taught there were 3 branches of government. Each branch's job was not to obey, or break laws, but to
use laws to push the envelope. And if there was no law pertaining to a particular circumstance, to
use that to their advantage as well. Each branch trying to become more powerful than the other. Yet always being held back by the other 2, if they went too far (which sometimes happened). Checks and balances.
This is an example of the executive branch flexing it muscles, and if it has gone too far, it is up to the legislative and judiciary branches to rein them in. If anyone has been injured, or damaged by any surveillance, there are plenty of attorneys who will have a field day with their case. But I haven't heard of anyone claiming injuries, or damages, from this. No harm, no foul.
Besides, today there is an unofficial fourth branch of government. It's called the media, and the court of public opinion. I'm not afraid of any branch of government becoming too powerful anymore, because the media, and court of public opinion will expose them. I mean, look at the amount of criticism against Bush, and he hasn't even broken the law. Imagine how everyone would tear him up if he did break the law?
Today someone can be tried, convicted and executed in the media, and court of public opinion. I'm more afraid of that, than I am of the NSA listening.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong,
Ahoy from the Captain.
Hillary just warming up
Hillary is just warming up. Realizing she cannot continue to misjudge the American voters, as Gore, Peolosi, Kennedy, Dean, Boxer, etc have been doing, she's remaking her image. The only way the Democrats take the White House is to be tougher than the Republicans on immigration (sealing our borders), and dealing with Iran. Once Iraq is not page 1, these issues, and others, will have to be dealt with.
Illegal immigrants don't vote, so support for sealing our borders won't cost many votes, and the party will probably gain votes from moderates who support a strong border policy.
Instead of letting Republicans take the lead and define these issues, the Democrats must beat them to the punch. The Democrats can be just as tough as the Republicans, but the country doesn't know that, and should be reminded every now and then.
So don't be surprised if Hillary supports sealing our borders, coming down hard on Iran, and continuing to support an American military presence in the Middle East. These are just some of the things one must do to retake the White House.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Misc stuff
To say Sen Lieberman's recent comments about staying the course, and support for Bush's plan in Iraq, are divisive, and may even hurt the Democratic efforts to present a unified voice on the Iraq issue (which is bad for Democratic Party troop morale), is to admit Democratic remarks which leave the impression they might pull troops from Iraq before the job is finished, are also divisive, and hurt the nation's efforts to present a unified voice (which is bad for troop morale). You can't have it both ways, either both of these are examples of healthy discourse, or they're not.
Say you've got cancer. They're going to operate. Do you want a doctor who cuts out some of your living tissues in order to insure he gets all the cancerous tissues? Or do you want one who stops short of taking any living tissue, but is sure he got all of the cancerous tissues?
Sure we're going to suffer losses, and we have. Our casualties have been relatively minor, as far as wars go. How many civilian casualities since 9/11? Our casualties have been military, not civilian. They're paid to be shot at, and they shoot back. Maybe we forget, that they have their jobs to do, and we have ours. That's what having an army is all about, so they get shot at, while we can do our jobs without getting shot at.
When we really look at what both sides are saying, they pretty much agree on doing the same things. But the Republicans are calling the plan a success. While the Democrats say it's Bush's fault the plan isn't working. Since both sides are talking about the same plan, the truth, as usual, lies somewhere between these two views.
Man did I get off track. Well I'm about to go further off track... Ever hear of those games where they take a TV program, and re-cast the characters with other well known people? Here's what I'm talking about:
Which popular TV police/crime shows best depict the Democratic and Republican parties? I say, the Republican Party would be The Shield, and the Democratic Party would be, like...Monk. Yeah, one side touchy-feely, the other kickin' ass and takin' names.
Yeah, Bush would be Vic Mackey, bustin' in doors. Shoving faces onto red hot stoves. Taking shots from all sides, and bending a few laws. Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld would be Mackey's tactical team. See how this works? You match up the characters on the show with who they best fit in the respective parties.
This is where I need help, I can't really place who would be Monk. I figure Monk is the character created by the images of Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, Gore, etc, all rolled into one weird dude. I mean Monk is a pretty weird, shifting in and out of reality, type dude. Kind of like the Democratic message.
The Governor of Louisiana (sorry, I can't remember her name, I'm drawing a blank) could be Monk's aide, someone carried along for the ride, by events out of her control, but isn't willing to admit it. How do you know which one I'm talking about? See, that's how you tell if it's a fit, or not.
Dean would be perfect as Randy the idiot lieutenant.
The media could play itself.
Harry Reid could be an attorney for the mob.
Ahoy from the Captain.
The problem with politics today in the U.S.
This may be harsh, but one of the worst things parents can do to their children, is to fight in front of them. I'm not talking about arguments, but even these should be waged away from the children whenever possible. I don't know, is it ignorance or stupidity? It seems pretty clear that if the parents fight in front of their children, they have failed as parents. Parents who cause their children to believe they love each other, turn out to be selfish liars, more interested in their own short term gratification, than anything else. There really are no winners of these fights.
That's what I see today between the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. The level and tone has just gotten so nasty, I wish they'd keep their arguments private, and present a unified voice to the nation. Sure they can disagree, but they need to show the nation that they really are more alike, than they are different. They need to show the rest of the family they care about us, not just each other. Otherwise, they just reveal their ignorance and stupidity, and their lack of respect for the rest of the family. They also reveal their failure as leaders.
So I say to them, what they are basically saying to us: Fuck them all.
Now I ask, is this any way to converse?
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Atheism is a religion, just as secularism is a religion
If religions are belief systems created by man, then so is atheism and secularism. All religions, all beliefs, come from man. Sure there are old stories about how God
gave particular beliefs to particular individuals, so that they would spread these beliefs. But these stories weren't written by God, they were written by men who say they were
inspired by God. I haven't spoken with any of these people who say they were inspired by God, so how do I know if God inspired them or not?
Whether there is a God or not makes no difference when talking about beliefs. Some people believe in a God, some people don't. Both groups believe something, and both groups are entitled to their beliefs. One group's beliefs should not interfere with, or be placed superior to the others'. But to say that a non-belief, is not a belief is clearly wrong. Just because there's no formal house of worship for non-believers makes no difference, many believers do not attend any formal services, or belong to any particular church. Sure, it's easy to be a non-believer, you don't have to do anything, believe in anything, remember anything, in order to be one. But that doesn't mean it's not a belief system, or a religion.
I believe our founding fathers created a way for church to be separate from state, and yet allow believers and non-belivers to each express their own beliefs. The separation of church and state is not threatened by references to God or to a creator. It is only threatened when the power of the state is used to promote one set of beliefs over another. I believe this refers to any legislation that promotes one set of beliefs over another.
For example, let's say a student in a federally financed school draws a picture of Jesus praying. The school did not tell the student to draw this picture, the school did not promote the picture once it was drawn, in fact the school proved this by not allowing the student to display this picture. Yet the school went too far, and actually promoted one set of beliefs over another by making the student remove the picture. The state must protect the right of the people to express their personal beliefs, while not imposing any particular belief system in the process.
People have the right to express religious views, even public figures. To silence them is to violate the separation of church and state. That would promote one set of beliefs over another, using the law, using the force of the state to establish a belief system. Isn't that exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid?
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
GPS in NFL?
There was a game this year when the 49ers played, I believe, Chicago. A Chicago player returned a missed field goal. He caught the ball 8 yards deep in the end zone, ran to his left out to the 20 yard line or so, and was to the left of the numbers on the field when he reversed direction. He ran all the way across the field to his right, and then ran the length of the field. He was credited with a 108 yard return, but if there had been a GPS chip in the ball, I'll be he had more like a 158 yard return.
If there were a GPS chip in the ball, and all the out-of-bounds and goal lines were GPS tracked as well, it could speed up replays where it's not clear if the ball broke the plane, or was in or out of bounds. Hang time of a punt? Old school. With GPS we would know hang time, average speed, highest speed, slowest speed, height of kick, and if it went out of bounds on the fly we'd know exactly where to spot it. We would know how fast centers snap it, how fast QB's throw it, and how fast runners run with it.
That's with a chip just in ball, now if we put chips on all the players as well...But maybe no one cares about all this. Maybe owners, coaches and players don't want this information available to everyone, like, what if Ted Washington
is faster than Kerry Collins? It would be harder to hide an injury to a key player if everyone knew he wasn't running or throwing as fast as he had been, and this information could be available instantly so that announcers could mention it after each play.
On a completely different subject, how about this? If Peyton and Eli Manning each have 2 boys who grow up to be NFL QB's, and they each have 2 boys who grow up to be NFL QB's, and so on. In just over a hundred years, every team could have a Manning QB, even if the league expands to 64 teams.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Was I dreaming?
Yesterday on Fox news I heard that some Professor named John Daly (SP?) made some remarks to the effect that we won't really see freedom at work until some of our soldiers start shooting their officers.
Today, I find no articles in the Daily Review about it. I find nothing on the Fox website, I find nothing on Drudge, Malkin, Drudge Retort, what happened? Did I imagine this?
I mean as far as ignorance and stupidity go, these remarks are right up there. I mean, doesn't this professor realize the giant target he just put on his head? After all, more students shoot their teachers, than soldiers shoot their officers. Even if he isn't shot or attacked physically, he just made himself fair game for verbal assaults, while simultaneously making himself impotent.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Ahoy from the Captain.
NJ wants to ban smoking in cars? Ignorance, or stupidity?
New Jersey may be the first state to ban smoking in cars. In the name of safety, of course.
Seeing as how I have actual experience with accident prevention, and risky behavior, I do feel more than qualified to address this one. My job with the 82d Airborne Division was to reduce accidents. Quite a job when you're dealing with people who volunteer to jump out of perfectly good airplanes. These are not your average young men and women, they are willing to take risks the average person wouldn't. You learn that even with the best training, and knowledge of how to minimize the risks, things still go wrong.
It is always commendable to try to reduce accidental deaths and injuries. However, there must be a balance between personal freedom, and the state's right to regulate behavior. Regarding smoking while driving, and I just heard about this today, I don't know if only the driver is prohibited from smoking, or if everyone in the vehicle is to be prohibited from smoking. I guess they'll have to ban everyone, so the driver doesn't just hand the cigarette to a passenger (see open container laws), to avoid the citation. If distraction is the reason to ban smoking, then talking to passengers, changing the channel on the radio, even looking at something other than the road ahead, should also be banned.
Let's make it a crime to have passengers, be they humans, or pets. Let's make it a crime to look for addresses (seeing as how they're never where they should be, in plain sight), or even looking at GPS devices designed to help a driver find his way. While you're at it, make it a crime to roll down the windows since a bee might fly in, and cause the driver to lose control.
How far are we willing to go to legislate behavior? Some people can drive just fine while they use a cellphone, but others shouldn't be allowed to have passengers, because talking to them is just as dangerous as using a cellphone.
Why not just make ignorance and stupidity a crime? Oh, yeah, then whoever thought of this would be guilty, along with the rest of us.
Ahoy from the Captain.
