Monday, July 28, 2014

I officially have a new dog

Up until about 2.5 months ago, I had owned at least one dog for 25 straight years (I think 28 to be more precise). The one I had put down 2.5 months ago was my favorite of the lot. She was an all white Siberian Husky, and while she wasn't void of her share of quirks, she was a bundle full of joy and energy, always seeming to have a big smile on her face. It took 2.5 months before I thought I may be ready to research and potentially get another. A couple of dog shelter volunteers stopped by Saturday morning with a 1.5-year-old Siberian Husky (a combination of white, black, grey, and red), and unless she has a bad check-up which confirms an earlier doctor's worry about cataracts (a later check-up countered that belief, and from what I can see, she doesn't have any problems with her sight), she's found herself a new home. 

To this point, it's honestly been a rather surreal and draining experience. I was so busy with my college courses when my first husky was a puppy, my father, whom worked at home at the time, took the brunt of the responsibility. That's not the case this time, and with me working at home, it's been quite the couple of days for me, especially on the sleeping front (or lack there of). I was able to take her for three walks today, so I'm praying to the puppy gods that she's had enough exercise to warrant more sleep this evening (for both she and I). 

As I mentioned, along with being quite tiring, it's been a surreal couple of days too, and that's because this dog reminds me so much of my last one. From her eyes, to her smile, to her energy, and knack for chewing up things, to some of her other antics, there are times I look over and I see my old dog. That's difficult at times, and I'm beginning to wonder if I got another dog too soon. After my last one was diagnosed with cancer and had to be put down, I kept telling myself I'd never allow myself to get that close to a dog again. Hopefully, before too terribly long, I'm able to get over my last dog suddenly passing away, and this one will start distinguishing herself, so I'm not always reminded of the old one when spending time with this one. This might be a bigger adjustment than I had anticipated, but hopefully before too long, this will be the start of a good life change for me, and I'll be able to move forward and grow as a result.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

According to a new study, guns kill more than cars in 14 states (and D.C.)

Often times when gun rights activists get confronted by gun-control advocates, they respond with something like this:

"Well, people die in car accidents every year too. What are we going to do, take away cars from people? I bet you more people die by way of car accident than by gunfire ever year. Maybe we should worry more about making driving safer with laws than making guns safer."

This argument is, of course, quite flawed. First off, many more laws and regulations are already in place to limit car accidents as much as possible - much more so than with regard to firearms. Secondly, many more people own cars and drive them than own and shoot guns in this country. So, even without going into numbers, that argument doesn't hold much, if any, merit.

Even if we take the gun rights activists' argument seriously, however, a new study shows that their assumption isn't 100% accurate. A new Violence Police Center (VPC) study shows that while vehicle-related deaths have been on the decline in this country, gun-related deaths have held rather steady, and in 2011, gun-related deaths actually exceeded vehicle-related deaths in 14 states (and D.C.), including: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. In these 14 states (and D.C.), the motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 was 10.25, while the gun death rate per 100,000 was 12.30.

Not only that, but with all the laws and regulations put into place with regard to motor vehicles and the lack of them in many states with regard to firearms, the overall numbers with regard to deaths from both sources are inching closer together. In 1999, there were approximately 43,000 motor vehicle deaths and 29,000 firearm deaths. In 2011, there were about 36,000 motor vehicle deaths and 33,000 firearm deaths.

So, yeah, going back to that initial argument made by gun rights activists, perhaps it's time to think up a new one...

When the temperature on Earth and Mars was exactly the same...

Earlier this month, Republican Kentucky State Senator Brandon Smith, whom is the owner of a coal company, had this to say to Louisville NPR affiliate WFPL:

"I don't want to get into the debate about climate change. But I'll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There's no factories on Mars that I'm aware of."

Yeah, I'm not sure which "academia" Mr. Smith is talking about, but I have a hunch it's made up of one person and his name happens to be Brandon Smith.

According to NASA, the average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit. So, according to State Senator Smith, Mars should be around that same number, correct? Okay, so Smith may be just a little off with his estimation. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees Fahrenheit - a difference of 138 degrees. My, those numbers are close. Maybe Smith has a point...

So, with these kinds of numbers and Smith's inability to read them, he'll probably get into the following discussion at some point in the future:

Setting: Smith's home during winter

Smith's wife: "My, oh my, honey... Did you hear the news?"

Smith: "What news?"

Smith's wife: "About the weather?"

Smith: "No. What about it?"

Smith's wife: "It's supposed to get down to 0 degrees today. Can you believe it?"

Smith: "Wow - is that a record high for this time of year or something?"

Smith's wife: "Did you hear what I said? Zero..."

Smith: "Yeah, I know. Wow... I can't believe it's going to be 138 degrees in the middle of January. I'm going to go grab a t-shirt and shorts. Thanks for the update, babe. I love you."

Smith's wife: "Wait a minute... Honey? Where are you...? Oh dear..."

Marco Rubio: "Intolerance should be tolerated!"

Florida Republican Senator and man voted most likely to become an elderly superhero by the name of Mr. Dry-Mouth - Marco Rubio - recently made the following remarks at Catholic University:

"[While recognizing that] our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians, traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children.

Today, there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage. And I promise you that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay. This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy."

He also added this:

"Supporting the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election."

I've touched on this issue before, so I'll try to condense this as much as possible. What Marco Rubio and those like him are missing is the fact that 99.9% of people whom believe in gay marriage also believe in traditional marriage. This isn't a this or that type of situation. My mother and father have been married for over 30 years, and guess what? I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I also believe gay couples should be afforded equal marriage rights under the law. The fact that Rubio doesn't believe this does make him anti-gay. Let's look at the breakdown, shall we?

Traditional marriage

Marco Rubio: "I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman."

LGBT supporters: "We believe in marriage rights for 'traditional' couples - between one man and one woman."

Gay marriage

Marco Rubio: "I don't believe in gay marriage! I believe it's between one man and one woman!"

LGBT supporters: "We believe gay couples should have equal rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage."

Now, Marco, do you see the difference there? The LGBT couples are scoring a perfect 2 for 2 (100%) when it comes to believing that both straight and gay couples should have a right to marriage. In other words, they're pro-straight couple and pro-gay couple. You, on the other hand, are 1 for 2 (50%), because while you believe in straight couples' right to marriage, and are therefore pro-straight couple, you are against gay couples' right to marriage, and are therefore anti-gay couple. Get it? Need me to run it by you again? Need another bottle of water, or perhaps three or four? Okay then...

Also, Rubio may be at least partially accurate about President Barack Obama not believing in gays' right to marry until too terribly long ago, and could perhaps have been labeled as anti-gay until that time. However, there is such a thing as changing one's opinion on an issue, or evolving as a person. With Rubio's mentality, he also would say things like, "Well, X must have been a racist before he agreed with the Civil Rights Act being passed!" That's quite possible, but again, people can change. Also, if before that law was signed, someone stood up and said, "I'm not a racist; I'm pro-traditional America, where whites are the leaders and rulers!" I'm sorry, but that would indeed make that person a racist.

Lastly, this hypocrisy bit some on the far-right like to spout makes me chuckle some. They like to claim that not tolerating intolerance is the same as not tolerating tolerance. Just think where this country would be if we continually tolerated intolerance. Women would still be house-slaves. African-Americans wouldn't be able to vote. Muslims wouldn't be able to practice Islam. The list could go on for days. What if Susan B. Anthony didn't fight intolerance? What if Rosa Parks didn't fight intolerance? What if Martin Luther King didn't fight intolerance? That's another thing Marco Rubio and his ilk seem to miss. Most members of the LGBT community don't care whether or not Senator Rubio is tolerant or intolerant of them. They don't care if Rick Santorum despises them, or if Rick Perry makes a disgusted look when he hears a word affiliated with their community. They're not looking for 100% tolerance via people's opinions, because we all have the right to our own opinion. What they're seeking is equal rights and tolerance under the law. A racist congressman can think whatever he wants. A sexist governor can think whatever he wants. An anti-gay senator like Marco Rubio can think whatever he wants. At the end of the day, however, these opinions should not thwart a group of people from having equal rights under the law. Hypocrisy isn't standing up for people attaining equal rights in the face of prejudice. Hypocrisy is voting against people attaining equal rights, all the while claiming that America is the "land of the free."

Tony Dungy's Distraction-Gate

Former Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy has come under fire recently for a comment he made with regard to St. Louis Rams draft pick Michael Sam, whom came out as being gay prior to the draft.

Dungy told the Tampa Tribune that he wouldn't have drafted Sam, "not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."

In response, most of the media has been rather critical of Dungy's comment(s). Michael Sam, himself, responded very well, and lightened the mood a bit with a joke when asked about Dungy's quote. I, for one, have mixed feelings on the matter. Tony Dungy has a right to his own opinion, just like we all do. The problem here isn't that, however. The problem is that Dungy makes it sound like players whom attract a lot of media attention, for whatever reason, aren't worth the trouble. They cause a distraction and teams don't need that. The problem with that reasoning is the fact Tony Dungy stood up for quarterback Michael Vick after he got out of prison, and has stood up for Tim Tebow being given another chance as a starting quarterback in the NFL. What do these two players have in common? They draw a lot of media attention. The media was in love with Tim Tebow for the one season he was the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos (part of the season anyway). When Michael Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles, some animal rights groups said they were going to organize protests against the team for signing the embattled quarterback. Some Eagles fans said they'd never go to another game. Even though Vick wasn't the team's starter for his first year there, it seemed as if then head coach Andy Reid got more questions about Vick than any other player on the team. So, the question should be, why the double-standard? Why is a player, whom was convicted of being involved in a dog-fighting operation, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? Why is a player, whom is a die-hard Christian that can't throw the ball very well yet wants to be a starting quarterback, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? If Tony Dungy had been consistent in all three scenarios (and others), this wouldn't be as big of a story, and most people would probably say, "I don't agree with him on the matter, but I understand." However, when the guy stood up for media-attention giants Michael Vick and Tim Tebow, only to shoot down Michael Sam, that makes one wonder what Tony Dungy is really saying.

Given Dungy's before-mentioned history on the topic, his comment could probably be translated as, "As a Christian, I believe in second chances, so if I were coaching, I'd happily give a convicted man like Michael Vick that second chance. Also, while Tim Tebow may not be the conventional type of quarterback, he's got a great heart, is a good Christian man, and is a winner of a person, so I'd happily sign him too. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, though, so I'd rather not sign Michael Sam."

Tony Dungy has every right to his own opinion, but it appears as if he's battling an inner-conflict with regard to the concept of a team distraction, so he may want to go back to the drawing-board and attempt to find some consistency on the matter. If he's unable to do that, he may have to deny himself the reality that he doesn't believe in equal opportunity for certain players in the NFL. Ironically enough, minorities like him were in that same boat not too terribly long ago. Due to that, I think he'd be more understanding of the matter. I can only imagine what Dungy's reaction would have been many years ago when a team thought about signing an African-American player, and someone in the front office said, "No, no, no! He'd be too much of a distraction!"

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Why I hate texting...

Sometimes I wonder if I was born in the wrong year or perhaps born on the wrong planet. Selfies, duck-faces, planking, fake mustaches, and other such trends, I just can't get into. Now, if an actual duck took a selfie of himself with a fake mustache on while planking, then I might be interested in seeing that picture. Reality television doesn't tickle my fancy. Neither does cable news or a good portion of talk radio. Yes, perhaps I'm a bit old school. Speaking of which, I didn't own a smart phone (I believe it has average intelligence most days, but that's just me) until two or three years ago. Even now, I only use the thing to call friends, answer calls, perhaps check email if I'm out and about, or play a word game or two. That's right - I don't text. I know what you're thinking... "What in the hell is wrong with that guy? Get with the times, slick!" Eh, no thanks...

I honestly haven't been a fan of texting since its inception. For most of my life, I've worked at the computer. Emails have been my version of texting. I can type 120 words per minute, do so with minimal typos, and in conjunction with being a writer, emails work well for me as far as communication goes when I feel like taking a short break from work. It's the perfect set-up for me. With six or seven windows open simultaneously, I can multi-task. I can: Work, respond to business-related emails, respond to friends' emails, research, and even chat with a friend or family member if time allows for it. If I get an important phone call, I'll answer it. But, otherwise, during work hours, I have pretty much everything I need right on the computer monitor.

When comparing emails to texting, I see emails as being the better form of communication. Unless a person is a professional texter, chances are he or she will be able to type much more quickly and efficiently on the larger keyboard than on their phone. No matter how skinny a person's fingers may be, there will come a time when that tiny finger will hit two letters at once on the phone and they'll have to explain their mistake after receiving a response back. Speaking of which, that's another reason why I prefer emails to texting - auto-correct. Have you seen some of those text errors due to auto-correct? Some of those senders had a lot of explaining to do... That's another thing - since people tend to be much quicker at typing on a keyboard than on a phone, this allows them to elaborate their messages more clearly to minimize the potential for misunderstandings. With all of those text abbreviations, I misunderstand some messages that are probably written correctly, just because I have no idea what in the heck they're talking about. With the abbreviations, the emoticons, and the short messages, texting just comes across to me as a lazy person's version of emailing.

Both emailing and texting are inferior to phone conversations, however. Sadly, though, it seems as if 75% of people in this country claim they're too busy to talk on the phone, yet have time to type 25 messages over the course of a couple hours via texting These messages would have likely taken just a few minutes to convey if they called the other person instead. With both emails and text messages, the tone of voice can not be heard like it can over the phone. Laughter can not be heard. Without these elements, misunderstandings become much more frequent. If someone doesn't believe me that there's really a difference between texting and conversing over the phone, read a loved one tell you they love you versus hearing them actually say it, and then tell me with a straight face there wasn't a difference... It really is amazing to see what some people seem to have no problem typing over the computer or on their phone, yet if they actually have to tell the person, they suddenly get choked up and can't get the words out.

Lastly, the best form of communication, of course, is talking to a person face-to-face. While conversing over the phone is certain superior to both emailing and texting, even it lacks in some areas when compared to speaking to a person face-to-face. Body language is a huge part of communication. When it comes to showing interest, flirting, giving affection, etc., the body language witnessed and expressed when talking to a person face-to-face is leaps and bounds more important than any communication which can be expressed via the computer or phone. Facial expressions can't be seen in any other form of communication. Laughter can't be seen. Eye-contact is absent. Yes, while emails and phone conversations can be very useful at times when communication with someone you care about, they're really nothing compared to face-to-face interaction with the person.

Maybe I'm old school, but I'd rather hear a person's voice and listen to them tell me a story than to read a very abbreviated, impersonal version of it via text. I'd rather see the look in a person's eyes when they're opening up to me than to read them tell me, "Im sad. Wish u were here." I'd rather hear a person laugh than to read "lol," and would rather see them smile and blush in front of me than to simply read about it on my phone. I want to feel the power and passion through their voice and their body language, and I can't feel that through a text message. Perhaps I'm not with the times, but I refuse to let today's trends deprive me from sharing special moments with the people I love, and to allow my thoughts and emotions to be abbreviated.

Standing up for the nice guys (nice people in general)! ...well, to a point...

I'm not sure what the deal is exactly, but I can't tell you how many articles I've read or rants I've heard lately regarding the "nice guy."

These rants typically include the following statements:

- "'Nice guys' aren't really that nice!"

- "What's the big deal about nice guys being nice? Isn't everyone nice? They're just doing things all guys do, but not all guys talk about it like they do!"

- "These 'nice guys' are simply sexists looking for an excuse to blame women for their problems!"

- "Look, nice guys - she's not into you because you're a loser, because you're ugly, and because, did I mention you're a loser? It's not because you're nice, so get over it!"

Yes, it appears as if a fairly decent sized segment of the population is anti-"nice guy." They feel these "nice guys" are either fake, weak, or a bit of both. So, what's the deal here exactly?

The basic story goes like this. Many people whom label themselves as "nice guys" (or nice women) have felt, at one time or another, they've been friend-zoned by a person they had feelings for, whom went on to date a jerk. Here are my thoughts on the whole thing.

First off, friend-zoning does exist. It's not the worst thing in the world. There are many worse things than being a friend to someone you care about. However, if a person starts developing stronger feelings for another, who has friend-zoned them, it can be incredibly difficult to progress the relationship to where he or she would like. It's not all about physical attraction either. I've had female friends before, whom I felt were attractive, yet our relationship reached such a stage where we kind of felt like brother and sister and it would have felt extremely odd and even wrong to have started dating. In other words, we friend-zoned each other. When the friend-zoning is mutual, the relationship should be able to roll merrily along. However, when it's one-sided, that's when trouble can start brewing.

Secondly, I heard one guy rant that, "If a nice guy was truly nice, he wouldn't try to act like a friend to a woman in order to get in her pants. That's not nice. If you're acting like a friend, why not be, you know, a friend? That's fake nice right there."

If the ranter were 100% correct, then I'd fully agree with him. However, he's not. Many people don't immediately garner feelings for another person. They may feel a sense of attraction or lust at first, but if they start getting to know the person and build a friendship with them, they tend to start seeing the person as a true friend and not someone they immediately drooled over when first seeing them. However, even if the person initially sees another as just a friend, stronger feelings can develop for him or her. This happened to me several years ago. While I, at first, found the woman attractive, I had absolutely no interest in her beyond a friendship. However, down the line a ways, I started garnering stronger feelings for her. Also, maybe I'm strange, but not all guys want to have sex with every attractive woman they see. I didn't grow stronger feelings for the before-mentioned woman in hopes of getting in her pants. I grew stronger feelings because I got to know her better and hoped to take her out sometime. These kinds of things commonly happen. The more we get to know someone, the more certain we'll be on how we feel about him or her.

One problem is that some "nice guys" aren't as nice as they label themselves to be, and another problem is the not so nice guys like to point to such men and say, "You see? They're just as bad as we are! All they want you for is sex!" The main problem, though, I think is that, for multiple reasons, it's often times difficult for nice men and nice women to showcase they're interested in a person without being too obvious, and it's often times difficult for them (us) to read others' flirtations and interests.

While I think it's often times true that young adult women like the bad-boy type, like a challenge, like a certain risk (rebellion), and fear losing their "nice guy" friends if they were to start dating them, I also believe that most of them grow out of that stage when they're ready to settle down. However, the biggest problem with regard to nice people of both sexes is accurately reading others' interests and showcasing their own. If a nice man and nice woman are friends, chances are, even if there's a certain attraction and chemistry present, neither one wants to potentially damage the friendship, so they tend to reserve those feelings. In their minds, they think, "Well, if I tell him/her I like them as more than a friend and they don't feel the same, then that could make things really awkward. If they do feel the same, though, and things don't work out, that could be the end of the friendship. With those options, I think I might as well continue to hide these feelings." Even if they want to garner a slight hint of whether or not their feelings are reciprocated by trying to flirt with the other person, the clues are typically so subtle, not even God could pick up on them, so they then feel rejected and decide not to open up more. That may not be the case at all, though. Nice people tend to come across as friends to most everyone. If they flirt, the other may say, "Oh, he was just being nice. He's so sweet." On the other side of things, if another flirts with him, he'll probably think the same thing - "She was just being nice. She's always nice."

Perhaps it partially has to do with a fear of rejection or the fear of losing a friendship, but often times, these "nice" people showcase themselves as friends and see other people in such a manner as well. I think this is often times why both nice men and women wind up with jerks. Maybe part of them does want a challenge and to try and mold a bad-boy/girl into what they envision the person being. However, another part of them probably feels that those "nice" people won't step forward and show the necessary interest to potentially move the relationship forward, so they have to make the best of the options they've been given.

My response to a Columbus Dispatch letter-to-the-editor

Recently, I read the following letter-to-the-editor in the Columbus Dispatch and felt the need to respond. The letter was entitled, "Young people have lost their sense of values." Here it is:

"In his Thursday letter 'Young people more flexible on gay marriage,' Ben Meacham said, 'The younger generation is adapting to an ever-changing society.'

Well, either it is adapting to an ever-changing society, or it is changing society itself.

I recall that back in the 1940s and 1950s (I am 81), abortion, euthanasia, cohabiting before marriage, children born out of wedlock and — gasp! — same-sex marriage were simply unheard of. The problem, as I see it, is the members of the current generation, because many, if not most, are completely comfortable with these developments.

Does anyone really think our society is better off by virtue of allowing 54 million abortions to have taken place?

It’s really not a question of society evolving or traditions changing. We’ve lost a good part of our moral values and, at the risk of being old-fashioned, I must ask: Whatever happened to sin?



First off, even if young people are "changing society itself," as Mr. Wolock implies, what he appears to forget is that change in society isn't always a bad thing. When African-Americans fought for voting rights, was this a bad change for society? When women fought for similar rights, was this a bad change for society? When mixed-race couples fought for equal marriage rights, was this a bad change for society? So, now that homosexuals are fighting for equal marriage rights, is that a bad change for society? Maybe the problem here isn't the younger generation "changing society itself," so much as it's people like Mr. Wolock whom refuse to adapt to change due to their prejudices.

Secondly, the writer attempts to throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks by listing all the changes he's seen in his lifetime or may potentially see down the road which he feels to be immoral, yet the list is so random and full of false equivalence, I have a great deal of trouble not picturing this man outside his home, yelling, "Get off my lawn! Wait, where am I?" So, abortion is to euthanasia is to cohabiting before marriage is to having children born out of wedlock is to same-sex marriage, eh? ...and the 1940s and 1950s were the good old days because Mr. Wolock didn't hear about such things occurring? Could this partly be due to there being less media outlets and no Internet? No matter what Mr. Wolock would like to believe, homosexuals were around during those two decades, couples lived together before being wed, and children were born out of wedlock. Also, the Civil Rights Act had yet to be signed. After those two decades, women and minorities continued seeing non-discrimination laws passed, as well as rape laws, equal pay laws, etc. So, yes, the 1940s and 1950s were the good old days, for heterosexual Christian white men. Shame on everyone else for wanting to "change society" by obtaining equal rights. Isn't that right, Mr. Wolock?

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 11.2 K followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link:

Weekly update of my book information

For new readers (and regular ones, I suppose), here's some information pertaining to my books.

All twelve of my books can be purchased in paperback form at the following site (and others):

The ten books I've written and released in the past 3 years (yes, I've been on a roll) can be purchased for much cheaper in Kindle form at the following link:

As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me by either commenting on this blog or e-mailing me at Unless I'm out of town, I'm typically very good at responding rather quickly.

Monday, July 21, 2014

Guess what? Republicans like Obamacare!

Remember how much money conservative groups spent on "Obamacare" attack ads? How much time Republican candidates spent telling potential voters they were going to repeal the healthcare law? How many times far-right Congressional Republicans claimed that the Affordable Care Act was going to destroy the fabric of this country? Well, strangely enough, the world didn't end, and according to a new Commonwealth Fund poll, the attack ads and hyperbolic rhetoric were only effective for a limited period of time.

According to this new poll, 73% of people whom bought health plans were either somewhat or very satisfied with their new insurance. This includes 87% whom signed up for Medicaid and were at least somewhat satisfied. Not only that, but 74% of newly insured Republicans liked their plans.

With numbers like these, it makes the Tea Party/Ted Cruz-led government shutdown look even more ridiculous.

Cruz: "I'm going to stand up for the people, the Constitution, and all the hard-working conservative Republicans out there by saying no to Obamacare and yes to freedom! This is for all of you!"

Three-fourths of newly insured Republicans: "But we like our new plans..."

Cruz: "Screw you guys! I'm standing up for that other quarter, and am, in essence, standing up for all of you! You'll thank me one of these days."

Three-fourths of newly insured Republicans: "But..."

Cruz: "But, nothing! Now let's get down to business, and support me while I try to take away your healthcare, end jobs, waste money, and ruin lives! You're welcome!"

How Americans see Jesus...

It amazes me that approximately 95% of the people seem to believe that their beliefs coincide with a higher power's. Since no two people's opinions are exactly the same, this creates a bit of a dilemma. It also amazes me that while many people may see Jesus as being omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, they appear to believe he's an uber-capitalist whom would be anything but benevolent if he were growing up in the United States today.

The non-partisan organization YouGov just released poll results with regard to how Americans feel about certain contemporary political issues and where they feel Jesus would line up on those same issues. Here were the results:

Legal abortion: 48% support it/36% oppose (net +12%), 20% believe Jesus would support it/52% oppose (net -32%)

Gay marriage: 48% support it/40% oppose (net +8%), 32% believe Jesus would support it/45% oppose (net -13%)

Death penalty: 58% support it/23% oppose (net +35%), 34% believe Jesus would support it/41% oppose (net -7%)

High taxes on wealthy: 56% support it/28% oppose (net +28%), 45% believe Jesus would support it/23% oppose (net +22%)

Stricter gun laws: 51% support it/36% oppose (net +15%), 46% believe Jesus would support it/25% oppose (net +21%)

Reducing carbon emissions: 64% support it/17% oppose (net +47%), 52% believe Jesus would support it/13% oppose (net +39%)

Universal healthcare: 56% support it/30% oppose (net +26%), 55% believe Jesus would support it/19% oppose (net +36%)

So, according to these numbers, even though it's believed that Jesus was a lover of all, stood up for the poor, was Mr. Anti-Violence himself, and is responsible for the world being what it is, less than 1 in 3 believe he'd support gays' rights, slightly more than 1 in 3 believe he'd support the death penalty, less than half believe he'd support high taxes on the rich and stricter gun laws, and slightly more than half believe he'd support reducing carbon emissions and universal healthcare. Fascinating...

Vikings special teams coach Mike Priefer - "Nuke the gays!"

In January, former Minnesota Vikings punter and LGBT rights activist Chris Kluwe published an article on Deadspin where he made the claim that special teams coach Mike Priefer one time told him, "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows."

This led to the Vikings launching an independent investigation, with the summary of the results being released this past Friday. The report concluded that Priefer did indeed make the comment about nuking gays, and he has since been suspended for the first three games of the season. The team also plans on donating $100,000 to an LGBT organization.

Humorously enough, the team's lawyers said that even though Priefer made the nuke-the-gays comment, he has otherwise been very respectful of the LGBT community, saying that, "...other than Kluwe's allegations, there is no support in the record of Priefer made any additional statements of this nature."

Let's review the comment again, shall we?

Priefer: "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows."

Lawyers' defense: "Other than this comment, Priefer has been very respectful of the LGBT community."


Priefer: "All gays should be killed at once, and as soon as possible!"

Lawyers' defense: "Outside of Priefer saying all gays deserve to die, he's been very respectful of them."

On that note, I can just imagine Priefer engaging in the following conversation with a gay man:

Samuel Noyoudint: "Aren't you that Vikings coach? Preffer, or something like that?"

Mike Priefer: "Yes, that's me. Mike Priefer - special teams coach for the Minnesota Vikings."

Noyoudint: "I read that Deadspin article, and as a gay man, I have to say I was horribly offended by your comments."

Priefer: "Comment"

Noyoudint: "What?"

Priefer: "I just made that one comment. Other than that, I've been all about the gays."

Noyoudint: "You said we should all be nuked!"

Priefer: "Yeah, so?"

Noyoudint: "So, did you really mean that?"

Priefer: "I wouldn't have said it if I didn't mean it."

Noyoudint: "So, you think me and all of the other gays should die?"

Priefer: "Yeah, but let's not blow this thing out of proportion here. Sure, I think you should all be killed at once, but besides that, I'm all for queers' rights."

Noyoudint: "If we were all dead, we wouldn't have any rights..."

Priefer: "Don't twist my words any more than the liberal media already has. Do I think all gays should die? Yes. However, do I think they should be given the right to marry after they're dead? Yes."

Noyoudint: "What?"

Priefer: "Surprised, aren't you? You see? I told you I was on your side."

Noyoudint: "Ugh!" ::storms off::

Priefer: "What the hell was his problem? You see? You try to be nice, decent, and even politically correct, and this happens. Geez..."

Thursday, July 17, 2014


What is it with the poor, bad, or "redneck" parts of a state being nicknamed after Kentucky? It seems to be a national trend. Regardless of where in the country a person is, chances are he or she will hear a resident of the area utter something negative about a place they refer to as "-tucky." When I lived in Omaha, Nebraska, about 20 minutes east of where I lived was Council Bluffs, Iowa. What did most Omaha residents refer to Council Bluffs as? Counciltucky, of course. So, in light of this, I thought I'd have some fun with the word "Kentucky" and nickname certain parts of every state after it. Here we go...

1. Alabama: Kentuckabama

2. Alaska: Kentuska

3. Arizona: Kentuckizona

4. Arkansas: Arkansucky

5. California: Calitucky

6. Colorado: Kentuckorado

7. Connecticut: Connectitucky

8. Delaware: Kentuckaware

9. Florida: Floritucky

10. Georgia: Georgitucky

11. Hawaii: Kentuckawaii

12. Idaho: Kentuckaho

13. Illinois: Illitucky

14. Indiana: Kentuckiana

15. Iowa: Kentuckowa

16. Kansas: Kansasucky

17. Kentucky: Kentuckyucky

18. Louisiana: Louisiucky

19. Maine: Mainetucky

20. Maryland: Marytucky

21. Massachusetts: Kentuckachusetts

22. Michigan: Kentuckigan

23. Minnesota: Minnesucky

24. Mississippi: Mississucky

25. Missouri: Kentuckouri

26. Montana: Montanucky

27. Nebraska: Nebrasucky

28. Nevada: Kentuckada

29. New Hamsphire: New Hamsucky

30. New Jersey: New Jersucky

31. New Mexico: New Kentuckxico

32. New York: New Yorkucky

33. North Carolina: North Kentuckolina

34. North Dakota: North Dakotucky

35. Ohio: Okentuckio

36. Oklahoma: Kentuckahoma

37. Oregon: Kentuckegon

38. Pennsylvania: Pennsyltucky

39. Rhode Island: Rhodetucky Island

40. South Carolina: South Kentuckolina

41. South Dakota: South Dakotucky

42. Tennessee: Tennessucky

43. Texas: Kentuckxas

44. Utah: Utuckyah

45. Vermont: Vermonucky

46. Virginia: Virgintucky

47. Washington: Washingtucky

48. West Virginia: West Virgintucky

49. Wisconsin: Wisconsucky

50. Wyoming: Wyotucky

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 11 K followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link:

Weekly update of my book information

For new readers (and regular ones, I suppose), here's some information pertaining to my books.

All twelve of my books can be purchased in paperback form at the following site (and others):

The ten books I've written and released in the past 3 years (yes, I've been on a roll) can be purchased for much cheaper in Kindle form at the following link:

As always, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me by either commenting on this blog or e-mailing me at Unless I'm out of town, I'm typically very good at responding rather quickly.