Posts (page 2)

WASHINGTON – The most common deals under the government's $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program... replaced old Ford or Chevrolet pickups with new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage.

The single most common swap (8,200 times) involved Ford 150 pickup owners who traded old trucks for new Ford 150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks were an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.

Owners of thousands more large old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage. Those deals helped the Ford 150 and Chevy Silverado — along with Ford's Escape midsize SUV — climb into the Top 10 most-popular vehicles purchased with the government rebates - totaling at least $911 million.

In scores of deals, the government reported spending a total of $562,500 in rebates for new cars and trucks that got worse or the same mileage as the trade-ins — in apparent violation of the program's requirements. The government said in some cases they were probably entered incorrectly by dealers or based on outdated fuel economy figures.

The new data, obtained by the AP under the Freedom of Information Act, include details of 677,081 clunker trade-ins. More than 95,000 of the new vehicles purchased under the program — or about one in seven — got less than 20 mpg, according to the data.

More...

I got so tired of telling my wife about the many and varied ways Britain's National Health Service can kill you that I decided to just post examples here and let her read for herself...

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"X Factor judge Simon Cowell showed his more generous side [yesterday] when he gave £100,000 [about $160,000] to help save the life of a cancer-stricken youngster," reports London's Daily Mail:

The pop Svengali donated the money for 18-month-old Sophie Atay--from Birtley, Gateshead--to fly to the US for pioneering treatment at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in New York.

He acted after learning the youngster's family launched a last-ditch appeal for £500,000 to pay for the treatment last week after they were told Sophie was suffering from a rare form of neuroblastoma and needed treatment within days.

Alexandra Burke, last year's X Factor winner, broke the news to Sophie's mum Karine, 33, on the telephone today that Simon had now dipped into his own pocket to top up the total to the necessary amount.

Wait, we're confused! Why does a little English girl have to come all the way to the U.S. to get medical care, and why does this Cowell fellow have to pay for it? We thought Britain had free medical care!

But wait, another Daily Mail story reports on what happens to older people who get cancer in Britain:

Alarming research is showing that elderly cancer patients are missing out on the breakthroughs in chemotherapy and surgery that have dramatically improved the outcome of younger patients.

In fact, up to 15,000 elderly people with cancer in the UK are dying prematurely every year when compared to the rest of Europe and the U.S., according to a report published by the North West Cancer Intelligence Service (NWCIS) which compiles cancer statistics. . . .

A major concern is that the NHS Cancer Plan, introduced in 2000 to improve cancer survival in the UK, has a cut-off point at 70. This results in hospitals having less interest in the elderly. "Yet half of all those diagnosed with cancer are over 70," says Dr Tony Moran, NWCIS research director. "It's an area that has been grossly neglected. . . ."

Yet according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

 

I can't get liberal jackasses (apologies for the redundancy) to read Taranto, but we know some do read what I post here, so here's another dose of reality...

Two Papers in One!
Virginia is one of two states that elect statewide officials a year after presidential elections, and in the governor's race, Republican Bob McDonnell looks to win big over Democrat Creigh Deeds. (We're not sure whether Creigh rhymes with "gay" or "brie.") The Washington Post, Northern Virginia's biggest paper despite being published out of state, endorsed Deeds, in part citing McDonnell's views on social issues:

We worry that Mr. McDonnell's Virginia would be one where abortion rights would be curtailed; where homosexuals would be treated as second-class citizens; where information about birth control would be hidden; and where the line between church and state could get awfully porous. That is a prescription for yesterday's Virginia, not tomorrow's.

The Post also endorses the Democrat for state attorney general, in part because the Republican, Kenneth Cuccinelli, is "a provocative hard-liner":

Given his sometimes bizarre and incendiary ideas, we worry that Mr. Cuccinelli would drive qualified and nonpartisan lawyers away, transform the attorney general's office into a staging ground for his pet peeves and causes, and make it an object of ridicule in a state where it has enjoyed a long run of respect.

What the Post doesn't tell you is the name of the attorney general under which the office "enjoyed a long run of respect" between January 2006 and February of this year: Bob McDonnell.

She died yesterday after being run down by a hit and run driver...

Her father.

It was no accident, she had become "too Westernized."

She was brought up Muslim, and daddy felt she was better off dead.

And it happened right here in America.

It's not the first time, but this happened in Phoenix.

The Wild West!

Where daddy chose to live.

I assume.

And as a result, a beautiful girl is dead.

The headline for the story - on our local... very liberal... paper's site - reads: Hit-and-run victim dies of injuries

But the article isn't liberal, it's objective.

Today on some blog, some liberal will be railing against the bigotry we have toward Muslims...

And their stinking "religion."

Too harsh? Read the article...

If you are one of the few who doesn't hate Bill O'Reilly yet, watch his opening segment tonight and welcome to the club.

Meanwhile, there's apparently some big collaboration with Glenn Beck that's going to be announced on Friday's O'Reilly. Maybe it's that Beck is taking O'Reilly's place and Billy will become his producer?

Well, I can hope, can't I?

I knew that windbag, Gingrich, supported Scuzzifava, but did you know congressional dirtbags, Boehner and Cantor also supported that turncoat?

I've pleaded with everyone, conservative and liberal scum alike to read James Taranto's daily Best of the Web column, but it would appear that my exhortations have been in vain. I know it's a lot to ask since his columns are long, and there's much throwaway humor, so I thought that, from time to time, I'd simply post the best aspects. And we begin with a recurring Taranto theme.

The always idiotic Paul Krugman, an economist who should even be writing about THAT subject, wrote a column back when in which he states categorically that all the horror stories we hear about the British health system "are false."

Mr. Taranto now cites many of them on a weekly basis and clearly intends to never let Krugman escape his outrageous pronouncement...

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"Patients who do not get the treatment that they need from the NHS within 18 weeks are to be given the legal right to free private care," reports London's Times:

The Cabinet agreed this week that the legislation, placing maximum waiting times on the statute book for the first time, should be rushed through Parliament before the next election.

Cancer patients, in particular, will receive funding for private treatment if they have not seen an NHS specialist within two weeks of GP referral.

Downing Street says that the two legal rights, which will be unveiled in next month's Queen's Speech, are designed to entrench the dramatic reduction of NHS waiting lists over recent years.

Hmm, so the British medical system has waiting lists. It also has death panels, another Times story suggests:

A father whose son was born with a rare neuromuscular condition will go to the High Court today to try to stop a hospital withdrawing support that keeps the child alive.

Doctors treating the one-year-old boy say that his quality of life is so poor that it would not be in his best interests to keep him alive. They say that they are supported in their action by the baby's mother. The couple are separated.

The child, known for legal reasons as Baby RB, was born with congenital myasthenic syndrome, a muscle condition that severely limits movement and the ability to breathe independently. He has been in hospital since birth.

If the hospital doctors succeed in their application it will be the first time that a British court has gone against the wishes of a parent and ruled that life support can be discontinued or withdrawn from a child who does not have brain damage.

And the Independent, a left-wing London paper, reports that "NHS whistleblowers are routinely gagged in order to cover up dangerous and even dishonest practices that could attract bad publicity and damage a hospital's reputation":

Some local NHS bodies are spending millions of taxpayers' money to pay off and silence whistleblowers with "super gags" to stop them going public with patient safety incidents. Experts warn that patients' lives are being endangered by the use of intimidatory tactics to force out whistleblowers and deter other professionals from coming forward.

On the other hand, according to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false." That's a relief!

No matter the outcome of New York 23 tomorrow, I'm very pleased that the liberal Republican was forced to drop out. And that she made the point for all conservatives by turning around and endorsing her Demoscum challenger over the conservative Hoffman. Here's how Taranto sees it...

 

It looks as if we were right on Wednesday when we suggested that the Democrats had written off Dede Scozzafava, the Republican nominee for a special election to a New York state House seat tomorrow, and were waging a two-man race against the Conservative, Doug Hoffman. It was a busy weekend for Scozzafava, as the Washington Post reports. On Saturday, she dropped out of the race, and on Sunday, she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens

The Associated Press, reporting Saturday on Scozzafava's withdrawal from the campaign, described the larger implications this way:

Some have called the race a test of the GOP's future: whether traditional conservative ideology would lead the way forward or if a more inclusive approach would draw more people back to the party. Hoffman and his backers said Scozzafava was too liberal to truly represent the Republican party, specifically noting her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.

There's a scene in the 1984 rock mockumentary "This Is Spinal Tap" in which the band's manager is asked about its dwindling audience, and he says that "their appeal is becoming more selective." Before Scozzafava withdrew, her appeal was rapidly becoming more selective, with her poll numbers almost down to 11.

Of course in the artistic and commercial worlds, it is quite common to seek out a selective audience. But electoral politics is inevitably a form of mass marketing: A candidate wins not by carving out a niche but by getting more votes than anyone else. Call it being "inclusive."

So how is it that the AP's Valeria Bauman credits Scozzafava with "a more inclusive approach" than those of the candidates who actually seemed to be persuading people to vote for them? That's actually partly explained in the paragraph quoted above. "Her support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage" apparently were central to what made her "inclusive" in the Bauman's view. In practice, that support alienated people who disagreed on those subjects, but it seems Bauman doesn't consider those people worth including. The AP itself may be aspiring for a more selective appeal.

And Bauman isn't the only reporter to editorialize against Scozzafava's conservative detractors. The phrase: "too moderate" turns up four times in stories about Scozzafava on the New York Times Web site, three times in Times stories and once in an AP dispatch. All describe the reason that conservatives supposedly bucked Scozzafava--but all are the reporters' words. We'd be surprised if any actual conservative put the complaint in these terms.

To be sure, the question here is not whether conservatives would agree with the characterization of their views but whether it is accurate and fair. Let the following datum inform your evaluation of this question: A Factiva search shows that in the 2006 Connecticut Senate campaign, neither the Times nor the AP ever described Joe Lieberman's Democratic opponents as deserting him because he was "too moderate."

With reporters busy editorializing against conservative Republicans, liberal editorialists are forced to step things up to hold onto their own selective appeal. The Times's Frank Rich, a onetime drama critic who seems to have lost the sense that it's possible to be overly dramatic, describes the contretemps as "a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war" and "a G.O.P. killing field." He claims that "the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy [President] Obama." He says that conservatives "would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross," want to send Scozzafava "to the guillotine," and are committing "a double-barreled suicide." Also, they "are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode."

Oh, and they are exhibiting "seething rage . . . and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes." Frank also twice uses antigay slurs to describe tea-party protesters.

Sorry Frank, but you're way too moderate for us.

Here's a question to ponder... what are we doing writing on our views about things when Taranto usually says it all so much better?

One last thing... no less than the New York Times reports that half the jobs the Bobo administration is counting as saved are TEACHERS. You can draw your own conclusions.

The instructions basically said, "Stick this in your drive and wait."

So I did.

Setup initiated and before long I was looking as a screen that warned me to uninstall four programs before continuing. Since all of them are programs I don't use, like Dell Modem Diagnostics, I naturally ignored the warning. Windows also warned me that the installation would take up to... "several" hours. Those of you who have installed a significant number of programs (defined as: more than zero) know that "several" could mean anywhere from a half hour to... infinity!

So the first bit of good news is that it took exactly "several" hours "more or less."

There were a number of reboots and too many moments when I didn't know whether the install was going OK or whether the screen had frozen. Luckily, the overall progress was smooth and flawless...

Until the very end.

That's when I was asked out of the Microsoft blue for the "Product Key." That's the string of numbers and letters Microsoft uses to validate your windows install... and which I didn't have because Vista had come pre-installed.

No problem, the message tells you where to find it - "a multi-colored label on the side or bottom of your computer."

So I looked at the sides - no label, of course. So now I have to look on the BOTTOM? Of my running computer that I dare not interrupt? Well, I took the pile of debris off the top of the case and... it was like when they found the "Big W" in Mad, Mad, World. There... right on top... was that beautiful multi-colored label! I was never so happy to see a sticker in my life!

I entered the code and mere moments later... I was told the key was invalid.

No problem, I put the Caps Lock on and re-entered the crap.

Same result.

Being a baseball fan, I carefully entered the string a third time and... struck out. Hey, I said I was a fan, not a player!

Now here's where it gets interesting....

There was a checked box below for "Automatic authorization from the Net" That sounded GREAT!

One problem,,, the "Next" button was grayed out. Amazingly, unchecking the "automatic..." caused the "Next" button to be clickable.

So I clicked it...

And my desktop appeared!

Am I validated? Who knows. Am I concerned that I'm invalid? HELL YES! I saw something somewhere about a thirty-day test ride, and besides, this is MICROSOFT, you fool!

I'm sorry, my frustration was showing... you're not a fool, I was transferring because I hate being the fool - so regularly.

So let's deal with the good for now....

As I said, there was my desktop in all it's blue glory! The trouble is, my desktop had been a shade of medium brown two hours ago! So I brought up my browser and... there was the familiar battleship gray... which had been gold two hours ago!

And the desktop and browser fonts were a lot smaller...

The bottom line is, Windows 7 has returned all my settings to default, including the welcome screen that had been a lovely scene of the view out my back door. No problem, it should only take a week or so to get all the settings back to the way they were. My desktop and browser are already back... except that I couldn't just click the theme I'd been using - because that's gone. I had to obtain the colors from a networked computer using a color picker.

And there's more bad news (that I know about). Windows Mail is also gone... Let me put that another way... the email program I'd been using is GONE!

OK, that's not completely accurate. It's still there, it just won't run... no mater how much administrative approval I lump on it! I learned from the web that the emails and settings are still there - just waiting to be imported by "your new email program"... which I, of course, don't have!

But at least Microsoft is consistent - they did the same thing when they eliminated the great Outlook Express from Vista... and replaced it with WINDOWS MAIL! This time there's not even a replacement, something about an anti-trust settlement...

But there is a bit of actual good news - I haven't had any programs not work yet (other that's Microsoft's own Windows Mail, of course) and Windows 7 does seem to be the slightest bit faster than Vista, even if it boots slower. But I may be able to tweak that slow boot, and the tweaking starts as soon as this posts.

But get this, When I went to save this column to my usual folder, I got a message that said, "You don't have permission to save to this folder, would you like to save to My Documents?" This is what drives me nuts. I'M THE ADMINISTRATOR! Who do I need to get approval from? And they said the security restraints that I turned completely off in Vista were less troublesome in Windows 7? All I know is that I never had to have someone approve my saves in crummy old Vista!

So will that person please identify himself already?

One last thing... the Windows taskbar that used to be populated with rectangular icons of running programs that took up a lot of horizontal space when "several" programs were running? That's gone too.... replaced by square icons of the running programs... That transforms the horizontal space the icons used to take up into VERTICAL SPACE they now take up! (see below) So... more taskbar space, less screen space... does that seem like a great tradeoff to you?

Windows 7

Windows - Normal

Pictures are not to scale, they are merely meant to show the difference in height between old and new, and if you look at the clock on the right, you get the best idea. The Windows 7 taskbar is about 50% taller.

Edit: My Windows 7 is activated! Unless I misread something, the installation directions were incorrect - they wanted the product key for 7 - inside THE BOX!, not ON THE COMPUTER!

How could I have misread that?!?

Also, you can shrink the taskbar by using SMALL ICONS. That makes the running programs icons the same size as every other icon. Now THERE'S change you can believe in!

Which reminds me.. screw Scumbama!

Edit 2: Damn, I forgot to add "politics" to the keywords

NEW YORK Here are the top 25 newspapers in the country ranked by daily (Monday-Friday) circulation. The percent change compares the same six-month period ending September 2008.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 2,024,269 -- +0.61%

USA TODAY -- 1,900,116 -- (-17.15%)

THE NEW YORK TIMES -- 927,851 -- (-7.28%)

LOS ANGELES TIMES -- 657,467 -- (-11.05%)

THE WASHINGTON POST -- 582,844 -- (-6.40%)

DAILY NEWS (NEW YORK) -- 544,167 -- (-13.98%)

NEW YORK POST -- 508,042 -- (-18.77%)

CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- 465,892 -- (-9.72%)

HOUSTON CHRONICLE -- 384,419 -- (-14.24%)

THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER -- 361,480 -- N/A

NEWSDAY -- 357,124 -- (-5.40%)

THE DENVER POST -- 340,949 -- N/A

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 316,874 -- (-12.30%)

STAR TRIBUNE, MINNEAPOLIS -- 304,543 -- (-5.53%)

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES -- 275,641 -- (-11.98%)

The PLAIN DEALER, CLEVELAND -- 271,180 -- (-11.24%)

DETROIT FREE PRESS (e) -- 269,729 -- (-9.56%)

THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 264,105 -- (-18.48%)

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 263,810 -- (-22.16%)

THE SEATTLE TIMES -- 263,588 -- N/A

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE -- 251,782 -- (-25.82%)

THE OREGONIAN -- 249,163 -- (-12.06%)

THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK -- 246,006 -- (-22.22%)

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE -- 242,705 -- (-10.05%)

ST. PETERSBURG (FLA.) TIMES -- 240,147 -- (-10.70%)

　

　NEW YORK Here are the top 25 newspapers in the country ranked by Sunday circulation.

THE NEW YORK TIMES -- 1,400,302 -- (-2.66%)

LOS ANGELES TIMES -- 983,702 -- (-6.76%)

THE WASHINGTON POST -- 822,208 -- (-5.06%)

CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- 803,220 -- (-7.13%)

DAILY NEWS (NEW YORK) -- 603,671 -- (-10.45%)

DETROIT FREE PRESS -- 560,188 -- (-7.46%)

HOUSTON CHRONICLE -- 547,387 -- (-6.30%)

THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER -- 499,140 -- N/A

THE DENVER POST -- 495,485 -- (-9.16%)

STAR TRIBUNE, MINNEAPOLIS -- 477,562 -- (-8.31%)

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC -- 458,992 -- (-0.87%)

THE BOSTON GLOBE -- 418,529 -- (-16.90%)

NEWSDAY -- 413,830 -- (-4.62%)

THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION -- 405,549 -- (-12.75%)

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH -- 401,427 --(-5.23%)

THE PLAIN DEALER, CLEVELAND -- 390,636 -- (-4.97%)

THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS -- 390,520 -- (-19.29%)

THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK, N.J. -- 371,060 -- (-18.57%)

ST. PETERSBURG (FLA.) TIMES -- 370,050 -- (-5.19%)

THE SEATTLE TIMES -- 359,672 -- (-5.93%)

On a personal note, I was very disappointed to see that the Arizona Republic was down so little on Sunday. Ours is a truly rotten (as in "liberal") paper, but I guess I should take heart in that it's daily circulation was down bbig and the the Sunday circulation wasn't up considering that Phoenix continues to grow in population.

NEW YORK And here are the top 10 newspapers to gain daily circulation.

YORK (PA.) DAILY RECORD -- 55,370 -- 16.45%

WOMEN'S WEAR DAILY -- 53,142 -- 14.31%

THE OAKLAND (MICH.) PRESS -- 68,067 -- 7.26%

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL -- 175,841 -- 6.56%

CHATTANOOGA (TENN.) TIMES FREE PRESS -- 69,569 -- 2.18%

OGDEN (UTAH) STANDARD-EXAMINER -- 62,062 -- 1.89%

NEW HAVEN (CONN.) REGISTER -- 70,559 -- 0.79%

MOBILE (ALA.) PRESS-REGISTER -- 92,849 -- 0.75%

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL -- 2,024,269 -- 0.61%

THE FORUM, FARGO, N.D. -- 50,131 -- 0.39%

NEW YORK POST -- 343,361 -- (-11.07%)

MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL -- 334,240 -- (-10.97%)

THE BALTIMORE SUN -- 322,491 -- (-8.03%)

THE COLUMBUS (OHIO) DISPATCH -- 316,202 -- (-4.75%)

THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE -- 309,571 -- (-9.58%)

Of particular note here is the fact that there are no big liberal papers that grew in circulation, and the little paper that took on Hairy Reid, the Vegas Review-Journal, grew significantly.

I was also pleased to see that the liberal big three, Times, Times, Post were hefty losers.

One bit of bad news is the big drop in numbers at the New York Post, but it's a small price to pay to have so many others foundering.

Hey, it's a small sliver of good news and hope, but it's all I got.

I mean right here, as in a box sitting next to me, and I don't mind saying that I'm apprehensive. And not just because this is the first time since DOS 6.0 that I've upgraded to the newest Microsoft version immediately upon release.

In fact, I never even saw Windows XP. I stayed with Windows 98 right up until I got a new computer last year that came loaded with Vista - and trouble!

See, Vista was an initial calamity for me. So much so that I sent back the first computer I'd bought because of it and I waited five months until I felt I was psychologically prepared to tackle Vista again.

And when I got the computer I'm using now, I really was prepared. I had relived the horror that was Vista again and again in my mind, and I'd gained more coping ability with each flashback. Of course I'd also done some reading and learned about the things I was doing wrong, as well as the Vista quirks, and I'd reconciled with the fact that Microsoft had arbitrarily moved and hidden everyday aspects I was used to accessing routinely.

And even then, as I detailed last year, I still suffered serious attacks after I thought I'd tamed the beast. But that's the nature of a wild animal, isn't it? It's the prime reason why we're advised not to have them as pets, much less running our computers!

Now, I do an incredible amount of tinkering with my OS, and I'm a freeware junkie, so I'm constantly trying new and relatively untested programs. Thus a lot of my troubles are my own doing, but at least some of the major ones aren't - like the time I turned on my computer one morning and it wouldn't boot.

Because something had become corrupted or because Vista was on vacation, I never was able to determine which. Luckily, I had downloaded a wonderful freeware backup program literally days before, and amazingly, it worked flawlessly. My computer was restored in about an hour.

Except that you never know if the backup will work until you need to use it. If it hadn't, all would not have been lost, but I would have had to start from scratch with factory settings, reinstall SP! and SP2, DotNet3.5, all the Microsoft security upgrades, my programs, and reconfigure my settings - a multi-day operation involving much screaming and several silent strokes!

Now if you're unfamiliar with the Microsoft intricacies, you may not know that you don't get a backup program with home editions of Windows. There is something MSFT calls "backup," but it only works if your installation hasn't been totally corrupted.

Luckily, and only recently, free programs have become available that do restore your C-drive from scratch - three programs to be exact, and I've only found one that works.

I say that because I've since tried the other two. One may work, but the backup took up too much space and required nine hours to back up, so I never tried to restore anything, and the other literally took four days nonstop to restore the drive. Of course, I didn't wait that long, I stopped it after nine hours when it was 9% complete. When I wrote the author, he advised that apparently the bootable CD the program created didn't recognize something on my computer... like a CLOCK?!?

I mean, mine is a Dell with Vista HP. What could be more mainstream?

Anyway, that brings me back to the box containing Windows 7. Everything I've read says that Win7 is a welcome relief, but these observations are made by actual geeks, not schlubs who know just enough about Windows to be a danger to themselves and their family.

I so want to just rip open this box and install my Lucky...



...but I already know that there are changes that I'll see immediately and which the geeks have assured me are for the better. I'll be the judge of that!

Because I've also heard that some of my favorite little programs may no longer work, and that unlike Vista, there's no "compatibility mode" that allows old programs to run under old rules, and while I was able to get 99% of my old programs to run under Vista, there were several that I loved which are now history, and the absence of two of them causes me no end of nuisance to this day.

And my life-saving backup program? Will I only be restored to Vista, or will it work with the upgrade? You know when I'll find out...?

So I wonder how many of you will feel the apprehension I'm feeling? I mean, I know Windows 7 will be an improvement... it almost has to be, but how much agony will I have to endure before I'm 'enhanced?"

THAT is the question Hamlet never had to ask, and he STILL almost killed himself!

So what are my chances?!?

I want to be clear and say that I like Snowy. And that's bigger than it may seem, because, to my knowledge, he's the only liberal I like, and I intend to keep it that way. And when he's gone...

But I like Snowy because:

A) He means well
2) He's un-American

I'm sorry, make that "non-American."

And so I'm able to accept comments from Snowy that would get other liberals unceremoniously blown out of here, and with that, I refer you to his remarks here.

Having railed against Fox, the Right, and opposition to Obamacare, you will note how little real knowledge he has and how non-specific are his charges. And when I offer to engage him and try to get him to focus, he begs off. Because he has to... he's smarter than your average liberal.

The problem is that what passes for argument in Liberaland is anything but. To liberals, all it takes to make a case is to string together a bunch of generalities, and it matters little whether they are factual or even related. It's Argument By Deluge!

And when Snowy makes such statements in Liberaland, the truly mindless stand up and cheer. But every once in a wile, a liberal such as he thinks he has the ability to take his argument to a venue where people actually think, and before long, he either realizes, as Snowy has, that he's in over his head, or he gets run out of town for being, shall we say, less than serious.

Please forgive me for being redundant, but there is simply no liberal argument that can stand up to scrutiny, and there is no rational liberal. That doesn't mean you have to be like me and hope they all die horrible deaths (including their families, their pets, and their landscaping) in some manner that befits the beliefs they hold, but you have simply got to stop treating liberals as if they were human!

But seriously, folks, if you don't know, Snowy could be far worse. I mean, have you met John...?