Monday, April 25, 2016

I just received my DMV registration renewal and there are 2 violations at $105 each from Easter Sunday, 4/05/15. There is no reference number. Only violation numbers. Those numbers are 29812345 and 29812347. I went on the toll road that day with money to pay the toll. There was no opportunity to do so. I was informed a few days later that I need to go online and pay that. I tried. Your computer told me it was too late to pay you and that I would have to wait for my violation notice to arrive and that I now would owe 40 or 70 bucks or something like that which is a very high penalty. However, no notice ever arrived. 
I presumed that perhaps it was free on holidays or something. I've since taken the toll road twice and paid you in the manner which you require, which is a very lazy way to be on your part, by the way. Thanksgiving and Easter this year. My plate is P555222
I tell you this to illustrate that I have no qualm with paying the toll. I was unfamiliar with the process initially. When I realized my mistake, you already refused my payment stating I'd get a notice in the mail, I didn't. Now you have turned this into a $210 problem. Now this shows up on my DMV renewal over a year later. My address has been current on my registration since I bought the car so I have no idea why I would not have received at least one of the notices you stated that I was going to get. Charging me $210 because you were unwilling to accept payment at the time of service, unwilling to accept payment over 5 days following, is ludicrous and ought to be illegal. 
Where did you send initial violation notices? Why was I not given an opportunity to pay the toll prior to sending it to the DMV? The toll roads hide behind your lobbyists and questionable legislation allowing you to fleece people under the guise of a faceless entity but every soul working in that muck is responsible . You reading this. You may think, "I'm a clerk. I don't make the laws. You're the idiot who didn't pay his toll." and all that is true. It is equally true though that you become just as responsible for the wholesale fleecing of your neighbors as the schmucks who passed whatever act of God it took to make this legal.
 There's another group that rationalized that what they did was ok because it was just their job. They were called Nazis and eventually many of them, some just rank and file paper pushers, were held responsible for their parts in what turned out to be not-so-okay stuff like systematically killing many people. An extreme example perhaps but still relevant. 
At what point when asked to do something we don't agree with do we say I'm not doing it? I'm not assisting this organization to take 10 times what it was entitled to take from working people because of a new process that they didn't understand and an overly short window in which to pay anyways. But I digress.
 I'm not rich and I don't live in south county. I take the road twice a year at best. I would like you to correct this and turn it into something that resembles fair and decent instead of systematic predation on those who aren't as tech savvy as the rest. Can we do that? Can we?

Friday, June 19, 2015

Why America needs guns (A response to our friends down under)

""We don't understand America's need for guns," said Philip Alpers, director of the University of Sydney's project that compares gun laws across the world. "It is very puzzling for non-Americans."" as quoted from (hence the double quotes).

The Badger's response:

I love to help people. I would like to try to help Mr. Alpers solve this puzzle. This is all conjecture, of course, but maybe he can google this stuff to see if any of it makes any sense. I can't name one Australian firearms manufacturer, the country is an island, and as far as I know, you aren't waging a 15 year-long war with a poorly-defined ever-changing enemy, requiring copious amounts of small arms, nor is your country exporting small arms to every despot and cartel that feels the need to take over the world or handle their local genocide. I am also going to guess that in Australia, I can't purchase a small easily concealable semi-automatic pistol, with a clip that holds 10 or more rounds, just about as easily, or more easily, than a 15 year-old kid can buy beer. Therefore, as a pragmatic people, I think Americans realize that any form of gun control will fail at controlling criminals from having guns, thereby jeopardizing our safety even more. Gun control will succeed at limiting our ability to take on the out-of-control law-enforcement and government military forces that are turning our country in Big Brother, eventually resulting in Australia becoming the 50th - 59th states in the Australo-American Empire which will then take over the world. This is speculation of course but I'd imagine that half the people would live as not much more than slaves to the state, paying taxes and eating nothing but soylent green. The rest of the population would be split between prison inmates and prison guards. A wild wild conjecture I know. It would seem more ludicrous though if we didn't seem to be hurtling at full speed towards this type of dystopian future. Guns are a key element in that scenario. That's why we have the second amendment. Currently, because of things called "lack of character", lobbyists and money, America is, in some areas, in a state of taxation without representation. This was the reason for the second amendment. To prevent that. So .....perhaps when these mitigating factors cease, Americans will be more apt to agree with some type of gun control. Until then, could you please put a shrimp on the barby for me and save me a cold Foster's? That would be great.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Donald Duck in the breakaway role that you probably never saw

Donald Duck became famous in this short cartoon from 1943 that has him dressed as a Nazi and working overtime assembling shells for Hitler's war machine. Listen to what the singer says from 1:16 - 1:20


Saturday, August 24, 2013

You Better Watch Out!

Transcript from an actual interview between the Badger and one of those people that doesn't believe in Santa:

BADGER: Why do you think that Santa Clause does not actually exist? That's sad. I mean, has anyone ever proven that he doesn't exist?
Negative Nancy: When I was 8 I saw my mom and dad putting the presents under the tree. In the morning, those presents said "from Santa clause", so I know he isn't real. I also know that Santa did not make those presents. They still had price tags from Kmart and May company and were manufactured by Parker Bros and Mattel. Santa is a lie. A hoax perpetrated on the young and impressionable.
TMfK: That's not really proof. By your reasoning, if I called my mom who is in France, and asked her to put a couple presents under the tree for my cousins with a tag that said "from TMFK", I would cease to exist because I didn't place the gifts myself. That would be an epic loophole in the space time continuum. You should call Stephen Hawking or someone on that. I think you're on to something. Or on something. Just don't use that logic in a courtroom and you'll be fine:)
Negative Nancy: Come on man. Everyone knows Santa is just made up. He's from that poem with the sash and the reindeer or something...the Night Before Christmas...that's it. He's from that! He's fiction.
TMFK: Prove it. The atheists want proof that God exists...well I want proof that Santa Doesn't. Every year he brings me presents. Every year he's in every mall. He’s in movies. He's in books and on cards. He leaves stuff in my stocking and thousands or maybe millions of kids write him letters. There are songs about him. A whole lot of them. Why would so many people write songs about and letters to someone who doesn't exist? If you think Santa Clause doesn't exist, or isn't real, I've got news for you. I have a…..well...a lot, of evidence that he does. Perhaps Santa Clause just doesn't fit into your preconceived notions about what constitutes existence. Maybe you need to change your concept of Santa Clause. It seems to me that this non-existence idea is fairly silly in light of the evidence.

 You may see this, thinking that this is cute and all, but Santa is still a fable. You know this like you know water is wet and the sky is blue. What is the source of that knowledge though? When you were very young, you believed in Santa. Maybe your parents told you about him. You knew that Santa was real. You believed them. Then you got older and some cousin or kid down the street told you Santa was fake. You were crushed. You believed them. Both beliefs were based on faith and trust in the source of your information. You stuck with the second belief because as you got older, more and more people held this belief and the original idea began to sound more and more far-fetched. Why? Because as you began to assemble your synthetic knowledge, you made sure it agreed with what you were being taught. If everyone thought Santa was real, you would have rejected what the older kids said, because it would have eventually been at odds with "common" knowledge. In this case, that would have been the idea that everyone knows Santa is real. Since "common" knowledge is the opposite, that there is no Santa, it becomes easier to reject belief that he is real. If you suspend your "buy-in" to the conventional though, a new realm of existence opens. 
Did you know that not very long ago, people knew that there were witches, that the earth was flat, and that tomatoes were poisonous. Sneezing released evil spirits from you. Leaches cured people of ailments by sucking off their blood. The sun revolved around the earth. They didn't suspect these things, they knew. It seems to open the strong possibility of our "common" knowledge being wrong in an area or two. If we suspend that, we then have a much broader realm to reside in and we become open to possibilities of truth in that which we once rejected.
 Besides, what benefit is there in not believing? I'll answer that for you. None. Not a one. If you still want to go believe in nothing and have Christmases filled with nothing but snow and disbelief while other people stay awake, leave milk, cookies and carrots for some fat guy and his cattle, and then open presents the next morning....well...that's your right. Have fun with that.  Seriously. I hope that it works out. Personally, I prefer the second option in this case. Then again, in a recent survey asking me to choose between Bruce Lee, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and Christian Bale, I went for the obvious choice: Dennis Hopper. Some would say that means I don't think right. They don't understand that time is an illusion and language is a constraint to expression though so I try to be patient. Just don't try to tell me Santa doesn't exist. I don't have THAT much patience.