Bye Bye Amazon

Following on from my previous entry about Amazon selling a child molesting book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," I have removed all Amazon links and have written the following to them...

Dear Amazon:

It has come to my attention that you sell a book about homosexual child molesting called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers".

I also understand you have no qualms about selling such a work.

As a private/public company (not a government run/owned company) what you sell is totally up to you and doesn't infringe upon anybodies rights. Your decision to sell this book is a poor reflection on your moral standards and shows you will stoop to any depth for the sake of a dollar.

I want no part of your business any longer and have removed all affiliate links to products you stock. And have, instead, replaced them with Barnes and Nobel links - who have higher moral standards than you and don't sell such vile works.

And as soon as I can figure out how to cancel my account with your confusing user-unfriendly account system, I will do so. Of course, if you could do it in the meantime it would be appreciated.

Michael Ross

I also urge you to do the same - to cancel your Amazon accounts and to not do business with them anymore, and let them know about it and why.

No More Business Please, We're Stupid

The business I mentioned four days ago which would not speak to me unless I was an existing customer, and which transferred me to a message machine to leave my name and number so they could call me back, has still not returned my call. I guess they don't need business after all.

As you may have guessed, I resolved my needs elsewhere.

In business, Speed Kills, the competition.

Hostage-opoly

The terrorists have decided to try to play a new game - we capture one of your guys and then hold him to ransom in exchange for one of our guys which you have.

What's really interesting about this new strategy is, it is not new. It's centuries old. And it was a common strategy employed during the wars between England and France. The nobles would proudly display their crests. And it was a unwritten rule of the warfare of the day, you didn't try to kill the other guy (noble), you tried to capture him and ransom him. Thus making war profitable - or at least trying to make it profitable.

Of course, that was then and this is now. And there is no way that the U.S. is going to buy back one of their guys. Imagine if they did. Suddenly, people all over the place would be taken hostage for hopes of ransom money.

The terrorists have made a blunder doing this too. If they don't hand the soldier back and instead murder him, then it will re-invigorate the American resolve to "get the bastards" because you just don't do that kind of thing to an American. No way. No how. And if you do, then you had better watch it.

Horse Schmorse

Newsworthiness. What exactly is it?

I personally thought it was anything that had an effect on the general population. It seems, I am mistaken. For everywhere I turn today I see footage of some race horse I've never heard of before, having its last race.

Of all the things that happened today, the media thinks this story is worthy of running, using some of their precious half hour time limit.

If I was into racing I already new of this horse's last race and the result of the race, so didn't need to watch the news to find out. If I wasn't into racing, I didn't care. Either way you look at it, the running of that story was a waste of valuable news time.

Some People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Breed

What an utter moron she is. First, she decides she is gonna be a "human shield" and hops it on over to Iraq. That's the first indication she isn't quite right in the head.

Next, after the main war bit is done, she hops on into the Iraqi city "Full-Of-Losers" otherwise known as Falluja. And there she decides she will be an aid worker. More evidence she isn't right in the head.

Next, she gets kidnapped and held hostage - so she says. And then... and this is the best part... she blames her kidnapping on our Prime Minister John Howard claiming his recent comments put her in danger.

WHAT!? What kind of stupid, no brain to think of, total, utter, silly, leftist, bloviating crap is this? SHE goes into a war zone - of her own accord. SHE then goes into the most violent city in the war zone - of her own accord. How on earth does this brainless moron conclude her safety was put in danger by what someone said over 20,000 miles away?

Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed in case they pass on their complete lack of intelligence.

How Are YOUR Morals?

We all have heard part of the debates about newsstands and the "adult" magazines they sell. Some people complain the magazines on the low shelves are not suitable for their children who have to walk past them to buy other magazines and newspapers, so want them put on higher shelves. Some want all those magazines put in sealed plastic to "protect the children".

*I* say, forget about legislating plastic covers and higher shelf placement, let it be known that it is up to the newsstand owner, and what he stocks is a reflection on him. Then, let them know about your decision to do business with them based on their morals at stocking what you deem as objectionable.

If I owned a newsstand business, I would refuse to stock magazines I deemed unsuitable. And I would let the mass media know about. Word would quickly spread that my newsstand business was a family friendly business that didn't cater to the sexual perversions of yobbos.

Why stop at the newsstand owner though? How about the distributor? Shouldn't they have a guiding set of standards which dictates what they will and won't distribute? If I owned a magazine distribution business I would refuse to distribute publications I deemed objectionable.

Why stop at the distributor though? How about the printer? Should a printer have a guiding set of standards which determines what they will and won't print? I know of one printer in the US who refused to print homosexual stuff, and the homos accused him of the usual discrimination. Bravo to him, I say.

At each step of the chain, it is possible for the business involved to stand up and say "NO. I will not handle that."

And so it should be with Amazon. Clayton Cramer has discovered that Amazon is selling a book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers". A work which, for all intents and purposes, appears to try to bring justification to men molesting children, and bring them together as some kind of "group" who need understanding and... other loads of bullshit.

Clayton sent Amazon an email asking why they stocked the book. He got a response and also posted it - you can get to it from the post I linked to above.

Apply the rules I just described to Amazon. What Amazon sells and stocks is a reflection on Amazon. It has nothing to do with censorship of freedom of speech because, the book can still be sold by whatever method they find to sell it - and - Amazon is a private company, not the government deciding what we can and can't print and distribute.

Apply the rules I just described to the book's publisher, SafeHaven Foundation Press. What they publish is a reflection of them. Same goes for the printer, whoever they are.

If we now apply Clayton's suggestion and boycott those associated with such a work (like we boycott French products because of France's actions), we must NOT buy anything from Amazon, nor any book published by SafeHaven Foundation Press. AND, we must let them know of our decisions. Vote with our dollars - or lack of them - and let them know of it.

Financials On The Nightly News

For as long as I can remember, the nightly news has always shown us a brief rundown of how the stockmarket has done over the day; shown a few shares and whether they went up or down; revealed the current international exchange rate of our currency compared with other currencies, and let us know whether the major index went up or down.

My question is, "Why?"

If I have stock, I could be waiting a lo-o-o-o-ong time before the three or four stocks they show include my stocks. If I have one of the stocks they do show, I can't do anything with the information - I can't buy more if I think it is a bargain and I can't sell if I don't like the direction of the price. And I can't do anything because the market has closed.

The way I see it is: If you are a stockmarket investor and the prices matter, then you are a foolish investor if you wait for the news to let you know what's going on. If you are a serious investor, you already know what went on during the day, and won't bother with the news' financial section. Thus, the news' financial section is useless.

If you don't have stock, the segment is also useless to you.

No matter which way you look at it, that segment is useless.

What our currency is worth is only of interest to people who will be exchanging our currency for another. However, as the news' segment is on after banks close, then the information is also useless. And, the televised rates are not the rates you get from the bank. And even if they were close, when you get your money changed the next day, the rate will be different again. Besides, the reason you need the money changed will see you knowing the rate anyway. Making that part useless still

To the average person on the street, what our dollar is worth compared to another currency has no effect on anything. It won't help them pay their mortgage, or give us cheaper telephone calls. It may mean something to an importer... but they don't wait for the nightly news to know what the exchange rate is.

So no matter which way you look at it, revealing the exchange rate of our currency at 6pm at night is useless as well.

I Just Got "Witnessed"

How odd. The woman said, "I don't think I've witnessed you yet" then handed me a business card which had the words "Commit to the Lord" written in big letters on one side, and the word "Message" on the other side - together with very small text which mentioned that the card was a "pass it on" card.

Then she said, "no, this is better" and gave me a small flyer which urged me to submit to Jesus, pray to Jesus, tell people about Jesus and admit I was a sinner because I couldn't save myself.

I looked at her puzzled. Kind of like how a dog looks, with my head tilted to one side. And she said, "I'm a Christian". I asked her if she was a Jehovah's Witness because she had mentioned that she hadn't witnessed me yet.

Boy. She really showed her Christianity then. And went right off about them - and the Mormons - in a bad way. How "Christian" of her. NOT.

And what was extra surreal about it was, she was smiling the whole time. Both her and her husband. Gave me the creeps.

I actually like it when the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door. I have a good old chat with them. And in the end, it's like they are begging to get away. They always ask if they can come back and chat some more, to which I say "yes". But they never come back. Oh well. Maybe they fear I will unconvert them.

Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish

Our illustrious leader, John Howard, has finally done what needed to be done and put an end to ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), and will NOT replace it. The body which was created under the previous lefty government and which was supposed to enable Aboriginals to look after themselves, became, instead, a source of money and power for those at its head.

People like Geoff Clarke (ATSIC's chairman), look whiter than me! And even his name reveals no hint of his supposed Aboriginal ancestry. What is he? 7/8ths white and 1/8th Aboriginal? And yet he will moan on about HIS culture and homelands. Being so white I can only assume he really means Europe - but there would not be any money coming his way in proclaiming European ancestry, so I conclude he has jumped onto the "I'm Aboriginal, I'm repressed, so you owe me money." bandwagon.

If they want "equality" then let's give it to them. Take away all their free university and other "benefits", so they have to get off their butt and do something productive to get ahead, and let's see how they enjoy the equality.

Brown, Bob Brown

I'm puzzled. Baffled even. Perplexed too. Over WHY the news media feels the need to get Senator Bob Brown's opinion on anything and everything. The man is as left as they come - being a "Green" and all. WHO CARES what he thinks about anything? He can't make policy. He doesn't lead a party that can make policy or even question policy effectively. He is just your typical "all humans should be wiped off the face of the planet" greenie.

Why won't he just go away? Why does the media flock to hear his opinions?

OH! I've got it. It's sheer brilliance. Here is how we get his mug off of out TV screens: we complain to the different channels that we find his face offensive. If enough of us complain, they won't show his face any more - just like they take off TV Ads which people complain about. Hmmm. The draw back could be that the TV will run a story on this tactic and then get Bob Brown's opinions of it - Aaarrrggghhhh.

Fobbing Responsibility, Again

Dear oh dear. It seems there is just a never-ending supply of people who complain about what the government isn't doing for them. And the complaints always seem to be monetary-based. As in, the government should spend money so I don't have to.

The latest example being some vaccine. The whiners want the government to fund the nationwide vaccination for something which doctors claim kills only 5 children a year.

What insanity is this? The government should spend $430 per child on vaccination to "possibly" save 5 lives? With 240,000+ babies being born in Australia each year, that comes to over $103,200,000.00.

Why not a "user pays" system? If you want your child to have this vaccine in case your child is one of the 5 in the entire country who gets sick from this "disease" which is preventable without vaccine, then you pay for it. And if you cannot afford the $430 spread out over three injections, then you have no business having a child in the first place.

I need to ask though...

How many children die each year from car crashes? (12 a year from being reversed over, often in their own driveway!)
How many die from other accidents? (300+)
How many are treated for self-ingested poison? (2,800 per year under 5)
How many die from drowning in pools? (350+ a year)
How many die from choking? (14 a year)
How many die from injury? (365+ a year)

There are LOADS more child deaths from these causes alone. But we don't hear cries for the government to fund kitchen cabinet locks to prevent poisoning, or funding swimming lessons.

Reporting Folly

For days now the talking heads have been telling us that the three Japanese people who were taken hostage in Iraq are safe - even though no-one has seen them. Which means, the news media is reporting unsubstantiated rumors as facts.

Only recently have they been adding that their safety is yet to be confirmed - but - it is assured by the Muslim Clerics Association (whoever they are).

Though there is something odd about their kidnapping. Apparently, one of the three is a staunch anti-war protestor and another is a reporter. Hardly the type of people I would expect to be working together providing aid in Iraq. Could their abduction be a hoax? Only time will tell.

Iraq vs Beckham

Following on from news about Iraq, the talking heads went straight into the latest sex claims about soccer player David Beckham. And here I was thinking the format of the news was most important story to least important over the course of the news. But they threw me by going from the most important directly to the least important.

And what's with the girl making the claims. She says she just wants to get on with her life and to be left alone. Then why did she make the claims of having a two year relationship with Beckham?

And what of that relationship? Saw him once in Singapore and then elsewhere two years later. And she has been waiting by the phone for him to call.

Oh what a pathetic individual. Nothing better to do then claim to have an affair with a famous person, then run away and hide when people come a calling to find out more. Me thinks there is a 15 minutes of fame thing happening here. And look at me giving her some attention. Oh well, no more then.

Moron Politicians

Our newly elected Mayor has spat the dummy - and I hazard a guess, he has also lost his marbles. He says he is going to campaign against the current leader of the country at election time later this year, UNLESS the leader steps in and fixes the traffic congestion at a local intersection.

Don't mind the big issues that effect the country. This polly wants the current leader out because the state government can't agree with the state next door about building a new road.

That's like someone saying they are going to campaign against their state leader because they have a pot-hole in their street. And that is ridiculous.

Oh well, I suppose he feels he needs to make some noise so it looks like he is doing something for the locals. Even though that road has nothing to do with local government and is a state government responsibility.

How To Lose Allies And Be Influenced

Mark Latham is doing a really good job of campaigning at the moment. And his number one priority at the moment, it seems, is to tell the U.S. exactly what he thinks of them. And he's not even the leader!?

What's up with that? What kind of idiocy is this? That'd be like John Kerry telling Tony Blair a thing or two, or telling John Howard he's doing everything wrong.

But hey, this isn't the first time a leftist Aussie politician has done something stupid like this. Last I recall was Paul Keating telling the Malaysian leader that he was recalcitrant because he wouldn't do what the Aussie politician wanted him to do.

Man oh man. This is just the kind of thing you don't do ever. Let alone to your friends and allies. What is Latham trying to do... break our alliance with the US?

Of course! That's it. The socialists want no US influence at all - not even as an ally. That way, their comrades can come right on in un-opposed Oh, it is so obvious now.

Business Smarts

So there is this business with a website. And like most businesses with a website, they have information about their "products" as a way to entice people to become customers. Even having "For further information please call 555-5555" at the end of their information.

Well, I wanted to know a little more. In fact, I wanted to ask one simple question. So I called the number. And when the phone was answered I told the girl, "I want to ask a question about ______" - and mentioned the exact "product" I wanted to ask about.

Her response was... are you an existing client?

I told her "no" and she told me she couldn't speak with me because I wasn't an existing client, was going to put me through to an answering machine and to leave a message so maybe someone would call me back.

I told her I called the number because your info said to call if I wanted to know more. So I am calling because I want to know more.

She acknowledged that and said she could only speak with existing clients.

I told her I've never heard of anything so ridiculous and to fob me off to the answering machine then. And she was gone in a jiffy.

I did leave a message - which is yet to be returned - and I don't expect anyone to call at all. I certainly haven't received a call for the last six hours. I assume they don't want extra business.

If you are in business let this be a lesson in what NOT to do. When you have a prospect on the phone, NEVER pass them off to an answering machine on purpose.

Well Bugger Me

I sent an email to a guy whose blog I had (past tense) been linking to. The email said...

"Thanks for blogging. So you know, I am linking to your blog from my blog."

That is all. No request for a link back. Nothing asked of him. I just let him know I was linking to him. I didn't even say whether I liked his blog or not.

What do I get in return?

An email? A request to remove the link, or use a graphic to link instead?

Nope. I get insulted on his blog. He calls me cranky, makes a big deal that he isn't going to link back here, and then goes on a rant about a biologist's website I link to - and draws totally erroneous conclusions from visiting the biologist's website (accidentally or on purpose, I assume the latter), and basically enters a belittling mode.

Because that biologist has a different take on AIDS - a take I agree with based on my research into diseases, and one which goes against the media hype and the liberal "gay" view of it - this guy gets upset. Focusing his anti-blog blog around that one entry. (Must have hit too close to home with that blog.)

Oh well. A simple "please don't link to me" would have sufficed. Nevermind, I took the link down anyway - I don't link to people who insult me.

I suppose the one plus side is, he has to revert to calling me a name. And I always like when someone calls me a name because it means they have no sensible logical arguments left. (The other two pluses are: I have a space available to link to someone else and I got a bit of traffic from his blog.)