anaconda-dan's Blog

My toast burned this morning. Do you think Randi could relate it to the earthquake?

The last time my toast burned was in 1982. It could be smelled all the way into the next room.

I volunteer to take the test.

I'll get one of the African Americans I work with to take the test with me.

We are NOT firefiighters, but we are effective managers. Lets see how racially biased it is. Wouldn't everyone be interested in a non-racial evaluation? Aren't you just the least bit curoius?

Bring Al and Jessie in.

Anybody with me? It's OUR city for cryin' out loud!

You gotta be kiddn' me! Well if nothing else, it meant a slow news day. Since when do we have to worry about what every nit-wit and attention BLEEP finds offensive? Shame on the store in question for even reacting. And for the crybaby who was offended? Get a life, and get over it. It's a "costume" for cryin' out loud. What's next?

Problem with giving this story any coverage at all is, the whiners will be comin' out of the woodwork.

Now, perhaps if they showed Bin Laden SMOKING, that would be a different story...

How exciting is this? Sept 29th at 6PM CT.

Quest for Sunken Warships
Torpedo Alley
TV-PG, CC

In 1942 German U-boats turned the waters off Cape Hatteras North Carolina into a sea of death. For six months the marauding U-boats patrolled the area unchallenged, sinking countless ships that littered the ocean and beaches with oil, cargo and bodies.

You will notice as you watch, that the subplot of this show is the danger of wrek diving and decompression sickness (DCS).

So happens, as I was a part of the dive team, and ended up with a mild case of DCS, I got at least 15 seconds of airtime on the show.

The story about the police officer in St. George is generating a lot of blog traffic. Seems everyone has a story about a run-in with the law. Why is that? I remember when I was a kid, growing up in South St. Louis, we actually had a 'beat cop'. As kids we always respected and admired the police, with the understanding that, as long as you behaved yourself, you've got nothing to worry about. Does it seem that we're seeing more and more incidences of police abuse of power? I think so. At first, I wrote it off as just another case of more media in every aspect of our lives, but now I wonder. I was watching "World's Wildest Police Chases" with John Walsh narrating, the other day (mostly because I am constantly amused at the way some people behave), and got to thinking. It seemed every time the police involved in a high-speed pursuit endangered the lives of innocent people, Walsh piped up with how noble and brave and pick-you-favorite-adjective, the police were. They were not. Car theft does not justify endangering the lives of innocent people, in my opinion.

On another show, depicting several days in the live of various city's SWAT teams, numerous mistakes were made, no-knock entries made into residences that turned up nothing, and while they were depicted as well organized and well equipped, their bravado was most evident. I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on military-style operations being executed in residential neighborhoods, by adrenalin-fueled paramilitary types. I really question the benefit/risk in those situations. And if they make a mistake? "Well we're protecting you, you should be glad we're there. Mistakes happen". Sure they do, but when exercising these types of operations, mistakes can have tragic consequences.

How about the State Trooper that was killed recently in an auto accident while driving 90 miles to assist in a stand-off situation? Drinking or not drinking, tired or whatever, that situation should never have happened. Where is the common sense anymore?

Seeing a pattern where the risks start to outweigh the benefits? I do.

"But Anaconda, the police are there to protect us!"

Wrong.

The SCOTUS has rendered several decisions over the past several years absolving governments, and specifically police departments, of any responsibility to protect its citizens. How does THAT make you feel? It makes me a little uneasy. Civilian oversight into police policies and procedures is routinely shrugged off as unnecessary and seen as a hindrance to effective policing of the community. When politically motivated, I would agree. However, letting government make all of our decisions for us, especially when employees are making lethal-force decisions, using paramilitary tactics, and bulling and intimidating citizens, is not the path we should take.

This tuned into a long blog, triggered by a seemingly innocuous event of a cop bullying a kid, but it's becoming a pattern.

St. George's police department has been this way ever since I was a kid. It's a well-known speed trap (revenue-generator). It's about time for a spanking. They deserve it. But I think we need to start thinking long-term to find solutions to our crime problems, and that doesn't necessarily mean, larger numbers of police, or more stringent enforcement.

Let's use a little more common sense, and make sure when we say no, we mean no.

...and I'm NOT happy.

No. This doesn't belong in the news category. So sue me.

 

 

As some of you may know, the band I play in, "The Expressions", is a corporate-sponsored rock and roll band, formed in 2004. We were originally conscripted by our CEO, Barrett Toan, of Express Scripts fame, to perform at conferences put on for our clients. From there, we started performing for various charities, and always for free. (well, we do need to be fed and 'watered') We've helped raise money for The Arthritis Foundation, The United Way, CASA, CHIPS (one of Bonita Cornute's favorites), New City School, and just about anyone else who asked. It's been a lot of hard work, but also a lot of fun. We've had the opportunity to play on Fox2 in the morning (I still have my autographed picture of Pertz), at Mississippi Nights, before it closed, The Key Club in LA, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and the Odium in Cleveland, parks, bars and backyards.

It's time to announce our retirement.

Our last performance will be Friday night, June 1 at the BS Bar and Grill, 10471 St. Charles Rock Road, http://bsbarandgrill.com/. No particular charity event this time, this one's mostly for us. If any of my friends in blogland have the opportunity, come on out and see us one last time.

Yes, this is a shameless plug.

Well, I finally got tired of having my responses deleted over on all of the "Mother Church blogs" so here's mine.

I've read blog after blog on the Crow/Burke debate and I have to tell you, I'm amazed at the number of people who have come to the aid of the elderly archbishop. Apparently the Catholic Church still weilds some sort of mind-numbing power over it's members. To the extent that one blogger "fears retribution from Burke and his staff." Are you kidding me? This isn't the fifteen hundreds is it? I mean, back then you could be tortured or burned at the stake, but now?

Wow.

It's a benefit to bring money to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. Burke should be happy, no thrilled, to see money flowing into the institution for the good of sick children. But no.

He would rather attempt to use his clout as a church leader to condemn the convictions of the people who are doing the most to further the church's cause. Pure political agenda. Screw the sick kids. Ms Crow wants people to conduct medical reseach with embryonic stem cells to enhance and extend the lives of other sick people, maybe even catholics. (Oh, by the way, neither God nor Jesus EVER said "when you find out about them, don't EVER try to use embryonic stem cells to cure disease. You know, like the apple in the garden that I told you about?").

This is another case of the church using it's power of control over it's members to further it's own agenda.

"Another case, you say?"

Certainly.

The Inquisition, what a show, the inquisition, here we go...The spanish inquisition was largely concieved in the later 12th century to unify a multi-religous region consisting of Jews, Catholics, and Islam to one big happy catholic family. With historically devastating results. Around 1492 The catholic church joined forces with Ferdinand and Isabella. Why?  To establish political and religious unity.  To weaken local political opposition to the Catholic monarchs, and ta da! Profit, as the properties of those convicted were confiscated. "those Jews were always getting in our way..."

Throughout the church's history, they have denied, to the point of calling it blasphemy or witchcraft, any scientific discovery that was counter to the church's current doctrine. Remember Galileo? You know, the guy who's theory about the earth revolving around the sun caused him to be imprisoned, and excommunicated, even AFTER the theory was proven to be fact? In 1992 pope Paul II FINALLY expressed regret at the way the whole thing was handled, after the results of a study by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Pretty progressive, huh?

Birth control. Here's a good one. Nearly every practicing catholic I know, practices birth control. Blasphemers. Good thing it's not 1500. "Burn her, she's a witch! She turned me into a newt..."

Whatever happened to the Letter of Fatima? Weren't we supposed to find out? Maybe I missed it, but it was supposed to be a spectacular event, that we as non-priests couldn't possibly fathom. All of the catholic kids in the neighborhood were soooo smug. Say 3 hail mary's and 1 our father...

How come you guys can eat meat on Fridays now?  Me and my brother used to eat hot dogs in front of the neighborhood catholic kids on Fridays, just to watch 'em choke down their fish sticks so they wouldn't spend eternity in the fires of damnation. Good times.

That's a short list of the controlling opression of the Catholic Church. And the marching orders of guys like Burke and his child-molesting brethren. And yet, in this day and age, some of you think it's still ok to comdemn someone because they don't believe the same way as you. Here's an idea, we'll outlaw abortions if you agree to take in all of the unwanted children. We'll create cures for disease from embryonic stem cells, but we won't force the cures on you. We'll shut up if you shut up.

But you wont.

Thanks Bob and Cheryl. Thanks for caring more about others than yourselves.

Go ahead. Add a comment. I won't delete it.

In light of the recent shootings in Virginia, and some of the heated discussion regarding Charles Jaco's commentary, I have to ask the question. I typically watch the local news for just that. Local news. FOX 2 seems to be able to present a balanced report of the tragedies and triumphs in the greater metro area. For local news events only. For a more widespread look at the world in general, I tend to use a variety of sources. UPI, API, Least of all network television. I think I may be in the minority. In this age of 40 second sound-byte information dissemination, people tend to take what they hear on the television as rote. The only problem with this, as I see it, is that the media controls the content. Attention-getting, flashy graphics, over-dramatic "news casters", and self-proclaimed experts, all designed to impart a "spin" on the "tragic" event or events.
To create "water-cooler buzz". Why do we allow this to happen? Is it because we have become too lazy to think for ourselves, and let the media draw our conclusions for us? I think it is.
Take Mr. Jaco's commentary, for example. He states of the NRA board meeting, "Not only did they not have any comment, their meeting was apparently swathed in extra security, including a protective force composed of former Secret Service agents." In fact, the story read, "Security at the board meeting was tight, with former Secret Service agents providing security detail." No mention of "Extra Security". Swathed? Come on. "Protective Force"? What, maybe the same type of security that Oprah travels with? He deliberately uses the term "High-capacity clips". As a self-professed gun expert, he's knows that terinology is incorrect. But he dumbs-down his pseudo-reporting to draw the most attention.

Why do we let them get away with this?

For many people, their only exposure to events outside of their immediate area is television. We as viewers, should expect, no, demand, accurate reporting of facts, unclouded by editorial content.

Let's talk about editorial content for a moment. Certainly J.C. Corcoran's spots are intended as entertainment, after all JC's credentials consist of a spotted history in St. Louis radio. He's probably been fired from as many radio stations as have existed in St. Louis over the years. He carries no real credibility as a newscaster, but as such, provides entertainment and the basis for an occasional thought-provoking discourse at the water cooler, or in the blog space here. I'm certain that JC's commentary doesn't necessarily reflect the views of FOX 2.

Charles Jaco, on the other hand, is a highly-credentialed, experienced newscaster. His achievements during the first Persian Gulf war were well known, and highly rated. Does that make him a bell weather of American opinion? No. Are his opinions indicative of the views of FOX 2? That would be the way I see it. Put a respected newscaster's opinion on display for all to see and hear. He's not smarter than you or I, yet that's the way it's presented to us.

So, the only way you or I can express an opposing opinion, is to post a couple of paragrphs on a blog. That's great, but we might reach a couple of hundred people at best. (After all there aren't a lot of people willing to sift through all of the crap that get's spewed forth on the blogs). The airwaves belong to the American people. Television stations are obligated to provide a public service. We need to start demanding that they serve the greater public good, and not their own interests. John Pertzborn made a great comment on Jaco's blog. It's freedom of speech. It certainly is John. But you guys control the freedom.

Today is my wife's birthday.

Since last summer, when I had to put our 16 year-old cat, baby down, she's been talking about getting another. Perfect, I think. I shoot over to the local shelter and get her a rescue kitten. It'll be purrrfect!

WHERE ARE ALL OF THE CATS?

You would think, to hear all of the PETA people, that we are up to our necks in unwanted animals! Here I am people! Ready to take one of the millions of stray felines out of welfare and into the role of house pet.

But noooooo!

Oh well, not much I can do. But I'm afraid candy and a card aren't going to cut it this year...

 

Quite a bit of chatter on the web yesterday and today regarding the Kevin Johnson mistrial. Unfortunately, much of it has boiled down to cries of racism and prejudice. Some pretty heated discussions and accusations out there. Regardless, the declaration of a mistrial doesn't mean Johnson walks. The trial resulted in a hung jury while deliberating over a first or second-degree conviction. This isn't all that unusual, this simply shows that the system, as it is in place now, works. When considering cases where the death penalty my be incurred, state law requires a unanimous decision be reached by the jury. It is possible for the jury to become "hung" by one person who for religious or moral reasons, refuses to impose that sentence. Right or wrong, by your way of thinking, that's what we have in place in the state of Missouri. Even in a blatant case such as this, where a confession to the crime has been made, the laws for conviction and sentencing must be followed. It's easier to convict than sentence, in most cases.
Some states do not require a unanimous decision, rather a majority rule can impose sentence. This helps eliminate the possibility of a 'rogue' juror causing disruption in the proceedings.

Kevin Johnson will be tried again. Hopefully convicted and sentenced appropriately. Remember, for all of your outrage, we control how our courts work. So, faking sick to get out of jury duty, not voting, and not getting involved in your community are some of the reasons these things happen. So instead of whining on a blog, or calling people names from the safety of your computer, get involved.

Shoes.

Hundreds of shoes.

I was having a discussion with Randi at the 'palooza, and the subject of shoes came up. Randi's quite the fashionable gal, and as expected, took the opportunity to model a striking pair of pointy-toed marvels. As most of you know, my wife possesses a copious amount of footwear, but I am told she could be considered a piker when it comes to the selection of dead animal skins, and synthetics she has acquired over the years. Randi was careful to point out, that while she maintains a sizeable stable of pedometric accoutrements, her husband, by the way, keeps a large number of DVD's in residence. "Now what does someone need with all of those DVD's?" she pondered.

Indeed.

I, like many of my male counterparts, seem to be perfectly happy with plodding along in life, with the bare minimum of a pair of sneakers, some work shoes, and perhaps a sandal or two to wear in a more 'tropical' environment.

However, when one wished to escape the mundane world of practical footwear, what better conveyance than one of our favorite movies? A trip to Wally World? Pop in "Vacation". Feeling nostalgic and sporty? Slap Shot. (Especially when I feel like "puttin' on the foil, coach.")

Here are some more advantages to collecting DVD's over shoes….

1. Sappy, girlie DVD's can be used as coasters.

2. In an emergency, they can be used to signal the search and rescue helicopter.

3, Frisbee land on the roof? No problem. Pull out that copy of "Yentl", and practice the one-hop…

4. Out of appetizer plates? Ya Ya sisterhood, Steel Magnolias, and the like, make perfect serving dishes with a convenient hole in the middle for a shot glass.

5. Birds bothering your garden? Any DVD starring Leonardo DiCapprio can be tied to a stake with string to frighten them away.

I'm sure there are more ideas out there.

For me and Randi's husband's sake, let's hear some of yours!

Well, it's 3:21 am and I'm on a conferece call to make sure all of our systems are not being affected by the change. What a HUGE waste of time. Our company has expended at least 8000 hours of work to make sure that nothing bad happens. Do people not understand that if something is off by an hour, we AS HUMAN BEINGS can figure it out for ourselves?

Do we rely too much on technolgy to do our thinking?

I think so.

I went straight from closing time to work.

That's just wrong.

 

Hi.

I'm anaconda Dan and I'm a Fox 2 blogger.

All: "Hello Anaconda Dan."

I'm here tonight to discuss some of the side effects of this addiction called "blogging".

I notice a lot of new faces tonight. For some of you this is really your first time as a user ID in Cyberspace (tm), right?

All: murmur, murmur...

Well great! As some of you are relatively new to this, let me point out a few interesting facts you may not know about this experience.

It's called "The Internet". It wasn't invented by Al Gore though. It was conceived by Bob Kahn and Vinton (Vint) Cerf in the early 70's who then created a protocol to link many independent networks to produce what was then called ARPANET. It wasn't very user friendly back then. In fact, my first foray onto the net was back in the early 80's and believe me, there wasn't a lot there, and what was, wasn't easy to get to. Now we have PC's, windows, high-speed access, all of the thing that have brought us all together tonight. Yes, even J.C. (Corchran, not the other JC). No doubt, everyone here has been enjoying their experience, forming new friendships, exchanging ideas, engaging in debate, some even heated. What a wonderful medium!

All: "yes! yes! Murmur, murmur.."

Except.

All: (Hush)

Like all good things, there are a few 'gotcha's.

REALITY

1. The internet is not real. It's not a place. That's right. you can't touch it or hold it. Most laws, as we know them, do not apply, or are unenforceable. The login ID's or nicknames, or aliases you have met, while they ARE USUALLY real people, are not as you would meet them in a real place. Not universally true, but generally. You see, one of the good things that the Internet provides is anonymity. One of the bad things it provides is anonymity. Shielding a real person from reality, and all of it's consequences, can bring out some interesting traits in the average person. Without reality, there's no chance of a physical arse-kicking. This is really what keeps many people in line in the real world. It also prevents people from really saying what's on their mind.

All: "But Mr. Anaconda, that's a BAD thing".

In my way of thinking yes. To a degree. Anyone who knows me personally, will tell you that I'm rather a straight-shooter. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes not. You see, most people don't want to know what others REALLY think. Especially if it's unflattering. "She's fat" may be a truthful statement, but totally unacceptable to the fatty you're referring to. So we don't say it out loud, to keep her from kicking our arse. (I don't know where the gender came from, so don't ask). So we politely keep it to ourselves. There. A polite society.

The internet is not polite. It's brutally honest. People will say EXACTLY what's on their minds at times. You have to understand this, and react appropriately. You can't call the teacher, your Mom, or the Police. YOU have to deal with it. Or not. You can always close your browser. Or you can chose to square off with the offender, and "Let 'er fly"! Sometimes it's fun, other times it can be exhausting. Which brings me to the other 'gotcha'.

TROLLS

We all know of trolls from our childhood as the ugly little buggars who lived under bridges (and ate goats, if you're up on your troll history). They would harass people and not allow people to cross the bridge. They really don't exist in real life. They DO exist on the internet. They don't eat goats, they exist only to harass and irritate. Many time they are young people, but sometimes they can be the old guy down the street who always takes your kid's ball when it lands in his yard. They can also be the nice lady who hands you the program at church. Anonymity. They especially like to prey on new internet citizens, for they are most likely to refer to the rules of reality. The trolls know this and pop up on bulletin board systems, harassing user ID's involved in a normal discussion, name calling, and generally making a nuisance of themselves. They add entries to your blogs, they usually don't go much farther than that. They're opportunists. They're lazy. Trolls pop up everywhere. They only exist to annoy.

All: "But Mr. Anaconda, what can we do about this?"

Ignore them. Trolls only exist when they are fed. When you respond to something nasty a troll has said bout you, you've fed him a tasty morsel. He'll continue to feed until you quit giving him food. Then he'll move on. You're no longer any fun. Remember Trolls are lazy. They'll hunt for food, but they won't open the package.

All: "But can't we have the webmaster ban them?"

Sometimes that works for a while, but remember what I said earlier about the anonymity of the Internet. It's pretty easy to identify a troll by IP or ISP, and them ban them, but trolls are clever. There are ways around that. They'll keep coming back 'til the food is all gone.

I have enjoyed writing this blog tonight, and I hope some of you found it at least mildly entertaining, if not informative. I'm off to the bar now. Perhaps I'll run into a Troll or two there...

Impossible.

St. Louis Mayors have never had balls.

 

I Slay me....