Thank you so much for the letter informing us that we have to repay the unemployment that you already sent us. This makes complete sense, because we already went through a dispute and won, because the employer didn’t have any evidence. But since the employer was able to MANUFACTURE evidence after the fact, I can see how you would take his word for everything. That makes total sense.

Of course, employers never lie… only employees do that. Employers are truthful by their very nature. Just because the person who trained my wife in the job was the one who showed (by her example) her what was acceptable and what wasn’t. But that isn’t the employers problem, even if he IS sleeping with the person who trained my wife. I’m sure that had nothing to do with the double standard.

I’m sure your decision to only talk to the employer and not the employee was based on a completely fair set of criteria. Our legal system is based on an accuser being able to say whatever they want, and the accused not being allowed to be present. Right? Sure, you can lean on your thin argument of technical difficulties, but that hardly makes a one-sided legal decision fair, don’t you think?

Yes, Kansas, your decision to reverse the unemployment will definitely help the economy. The scumbag employer will save a few hundred bucks. Your unemployment fund will save a few thousand. And you don’t have to worry about what happens to the citizen you’re taking the money away from, because that’s not your problem.

I blame the employer for being a lying scumbag who has one set of standards for normal employees and another set for employees he sleeps with. But it’s you, Kansas, that I blame for having a ridiculous, arbitrary, and moronic system in place that allows decent people to be screwed by lying scumbags.

Keep up the good work!

Your loyal taxpaying citizen,

Pete

Click here to donate to the Pete & Jenna Unemployment Replacement Fund. Sorry, donations are not tax deductible. But they are appreciated.

This is really not smart on his part, since I could post anything I felt like on his website. However, the businessman in me says “Pete, you are running a business, you can’t be unprofessional, even to a turbotool like this guy.” So rather than potentially give my business a black eye, it gave me great pleasure to write the following letter, terminating his hosting with my company (click to enlarge):

Against the advice of my dad, I decided to write him a refund check for the unused portion of his hosting. I probably don’t have to legally, and I definitely don’t have to morally, but I still want to keep my business totally on the up-and-up. Unlike him. The main benefit of writing a refund check to this bozo is that I got to write the letter you just read. It just wouldn’t have the same flair if I wasn’t sending him money.

I think of it as a payment on continuing education… I learned never to work with Chiropractors. Legitimate medicine has been proving over and over that Chiropractic Subluxation is total BS for the past 110 years. Why would I think that someone who charged people money to do something that doesn’t fix what he claims it fixes while also risking serious injury or death (strokes, etc.) is a good person? Don’t take my word for it:

Don’t Let Chiropractic Fool You

He terminated her for violating a policy which he did not have, had never mentioned, and made up only AFTER she pushed him to explain his reason for terminating her. He lost the initial dispute for unemployment because he didn’t have any documentation.

Then, as if by magic, he produced a photocopied page from “a” policy manual, which Jenna had never seen, and another page from somewhere else (that didn’t even have the same font or font size) that he ALSO claimed was part of his policy manual. Jenna was never given a copy of this document (probably because it didn’t exist), and EVEN IF THE DOCUMENT DID EXIST, HE DIDN’T FOLLOW THE DISCIPLINE STEPS IN THE FRIGGIN DOCUMENTS! It said two written warnings would be given, then possible termination. Well, he didn’t give written warnings.

His other point in his appeal was that Jenna had a job and was, in essence, scamming the unemployment system. He was referring to Jenna being on the radio… which she is. However, what he didn’t know (since it was none of his damn business) was that she is a volunteer. She’s killing time while she looks for work. She’s never been paid a cent.

He sent a page from her blog on the radio station’s website claiming it proved that she was working.

The fact that he won this appeal only proves that he must have lied through his teeth to the judge. There’s no other way he could have won. The facts were not on his side. He couldn’t produce one solid piece of evidence that she violated a policy, and he didn’t even follow the policy that he submitted (which was apparently downloaded from the Internet) to the judge as evidence. And his second claim of her being employed was just bunk. He assumed.

If you just go by the “facts” that were presented in the documentation, he can’t win. He must have just lied and lied and lied.

We could fight it, but frankly it wouldn’t help. The next appeal step doesn’t allow any new information to be added, a panel just reviews the current file to make sure the JUDGE didn’t break any rules with the judgment. Which I’m sure she didn’t.

We could hire an attorney and sue the idiot. But Jenna and I have already had 4 months of this guy trying to cause us sleepless nights, stress, and just general anger. I think 4 months of him upsetting us is enough, and so my decision is to let it go.

It’s not fair, in fact it may be criminal. It’s DEFINITELY jerky, for someone who acted like he was friends with Jenna up till the day he fired her then fought tooth and nail to stop her unemployment. And the thing is, it might have cost him a few hundred bucks on his unemployment rates, but the money was coming from the state, not from him. If he had any understanding of the system he’d know that it was only a few bucks to him but ten THOUSAND bucks to us.

Either he’s evil and trying to ruin us, or he’s a complete moron who doesn’t understand how the system works. Before the appeal hearing, I might have guessed moron, but after all the lies, it has to be evil.

Anyhow, we will be accepting donations, because we have to pay back the unemployment money they paid us for the last 4 months. Talk about adding insult to injury!

But truthfully, we will be fine. We will even be fine financially. It’s a temporary (and brief) setback. And in the end, I can still say that I never got a DIME from the government, ever. When I was laid off back in the 90’s, they wouldn’t let me have unemployment because I signed up for classes. Now, we’re paying back what we got for Jenna, with interest I’m sure.

I can preserve my pristine record of never getting a handout. I hope he’s happy with his 3.2% UE rate instead of it going to 3.3%.

And yes, I did tag this post in the category “Gay Stuff.” LOL

So my question is this.

If Democrats want my tax money to pay for something I believe is immoral, shouldn’t the Democrat taxpayers have to pay for something for me that THEY think is immoral? I’m thinking the government should hand out fully automatic machine guns to all Americans.

I’m pro-gun, and I think an armed society is a polite society. I certainly don’t have any girly notion that guns are bad. Democrats are always whining and wussing (yes, I did make up a new word) about guns, and I’d imagine they’d be pretty ticked if their tax dollars were spent arming people.

Then I thought about it some more. I believe a “fetus” is a baby, and now they’re planning to use MY money to kill babies. The gun idea isn’t really equivalent, because they are killing people and I’m just getting a new toy.

My second plan is to have taxpayer funding of mass-killing of homosexuals. (I hope you’re smart enough to get that I’m being sarcastic) A large percentage of the country seems to have issues with them, so let’s make it fair. You get to use my money to kill babies, but Conservatives get to use YOUR money to kill gay people.

Ridiculous, right?

That’s what we’ve come to in this country. Whatever bull-headedness W had is nothing compared with what the Democrats are up to now. Republicans have been completely shut out of the process.

But Pete, W took us to war that we all disagreed with!

Wrong. W had the backing of congress, and backing of the vast majority of Americans before invading Iraq. You just forgot you were in support of it because the spin doctors have been twisting the message for so long.

Stop rewriting history. Free insurance is not going to be free, you idiots.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are going to take this country to its knees before this is all over. I fear for our children.

Of course those are generalities, but this is my blog and I’ll stereotype if I feel like it.

So given the assumption that most gay men are hunks of beef, doesn’t that make them ready-made for the military? Think about it… hundreds of thousands of hunky men all sleeping, showering, and working out together. If one didn’t know better, one would assume that the ENTIRE military is gay.

Hetero guys join the military because chicks dig a man in uniform, and it’s cool to carry a gun. Gay guys may very well join the military to meet men. I’d say that both are legitimate goals. The hetero guys get to have their reward when they’re on leave, and the gay guys get to have theirs while they’re deployed.

I’ve always thought the don’t ask, don’t tell policy was ridiculous, because frankly, there’s a strong homo-erotic overtone to the entire military. Unlike guys in the military, I’ve never shared a room with a bunch of guys, I’ve never showered with a bunch of guys… that doesn’t happen in the real world.

Some of you will now tell me that womyn make up a growing percentage of the armed forces. And that’s true. And I’m fine with womyn joining the military to find other butch womyn. That’s just as fair as men joining to meet men.

But Pete, you’re implying that most of the military is gay or lesbian!

Yup.

So why do you have a problem with that? Are you biased against gays?

Many are calling for him to apologize for his statements. Is Tom Cruise going to apologize for the retarded things he keeps saying? How about Rosie?

Can we all agree, if nothing else, that this guy has the right to think whatever he wants and to say what he thinks to whomever he chooses?

Strongly anti-Christian (liberal) people have a tendency to tell Christians to “Stop being judgemental, you narrow-minded scumbags.” Which if you actually think about it for two seconds will sound remarkably judgemental.

This country was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. You can try and say it’s about whatever you want, but historical facts are facts. Religion, by its very nature, teaches that there are immoral behaviors. To try and stop someone from condemning immoral behavior is… well… un-American. Go figure.

Many people think so. Jenna is one of them.

I beg to differ.

I think he’s at best, mediocre, and at worst… just plain boring. Go ahead, sue me. I am entertained by the likes of Ron White, so perhaps my humor taste is just lowbrow compared to most of America.

I’ve always contended that if “most” of America likes something, it’s very likely a bad idea. That’s because of what I call the “Bell Curve of Bad Taste (BCOBT).” On whatever topic you can think of… most Americans will prefer the thing that sucks the most.

For example. Adam Sandler is not funny. Yet he pulls down 20 million per movie, because BCOBT dictates he must. Bill Maher. Not funny. He used to be somewhat entertaining, but now he’s become a drag to watch. He’s more popular than ever.

So, when I say Dane Cook sucks about as bad as any comedian I can think of, I know that he will indeed be declared the funniest man in America. BCOBT.

Drudge Report is carrying a story right now in which Elton John calls for a total ban on religion, because religion is intolerant.

Uhhh…. Elton, I don’t think you fully grasp the concept of “intolerance.”

Can we all say a big “Duh” in unison for him? I mean, come ON.

It points out a very common occurance, though. How many times have I heard “We shouldn’t tolerate religion, because religion is intolerant” in one form or another. It’s probably the single most moronic things that Athiests and Liberals spout. (Please note that I differentiated between the two, despite their many simliarities.)

Ok, I fully acknowledge that religion as a whole is intolerant of certain behaviors. That’s… kinda the point, guys. Religion is all about teaching right from wrong. Which means that some things are wrong. Which we shouldn’t tolerate.

You may disagree on what those things are, and I think that’s just fine.

However, it’s rather damaging to your “accepting and all inclusive” relativistic BS argument when you say that we should therefore be intolerant of religion.

Duh.

So, my genius brother emailed me yesterday with an interesting “proof” of why homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, regardless whether you believe in Darwinism or Creationism. I thought it was good, so I’m posting it, followed by my own comments on the topic of genetic traits. Also, comments in [brackets] are my additions to his arguments.

——————————————

If homosexuality is supposedly genetic, why do we still see homosexuality today? Since homosexuals de facto cannot reproduce [assuming human cloning remains illegal], they cannot pass on their “different” genes to any next generation. With that in mind, even if we assume more people are coming out all the time and adopting a homosexual lifestyle as it becomes socially or morally acceptable, the number of gays would still be ultimately shrinking as they die off young (from disease) and (biologically) childless.

And truly any gay genes should have been eliminated in past times when homosexuality was previously acceptable, as in Rome and other parts of the ancient world. Their argument of genetic ties is kind of like saying that being born a-sexual (as a biological eunuch) is a hereditary, genetic fact of life. If it ever was, it would either been eliminated after a single generation, or it would have to be tied to frequent singular genetic mutations (occurring regularly but never being able to reproduce to pass on the mutations directly), which is biologically unheard-of and simply improbable.

So whether you look at it from God-genetics or Darwin-genetics, homosexuality simply cannot be tied to genetics.

Eat that, Darwin

The only other answer might be that homosexuality is found in certain mother’s genes, but even here there is a problem. As per the second law of thermodynamics, over time (or generations), un-useful genetic material like homosexual genes would eventually be lost because it would serve no purpose or advantage to the mother.

It has been proven that genetic material becomes increasingly less complex with each generation as information is lost in DNA production. With that, non-essential information like homosexual genes would surely be among the first to be eliminated.

—————————————–

Interesting. You see, most of you already know, I’m a staunch believer that most, if not all, destructive or “alternative” lifestyles are a product of environment and experiences. I’m not going to sit here and try and tell you what you should and shouldn’t do. I’m not here to do that, but I am here to say we should call things what they are. A choice.

One example I’ve used before is the idea of the “obesity gene.” Are there some people who have diseases and disorders which make them gain and maintain extra weight? Of course. I’m not talking about those people whatsoever. But what about people who don’t have a disease causing it? Is it a genetic predisposition to overeat?

Not likely, given that obesity is a leading cause of death. It would seem that if it were a genetic trait, it would be getting more and more rare, not more and more prevalent. Call me crazy.

The same is true of drug addiction. Are people genetically predisposed, or did they just start down a bad path and can’t figure out how to change?

So, what am I saying? Well, genetic traits that are damaging or harmful to a species are always eliminated over time through natural selection. This is observable science. I do not believe for an instant that one can blame bad decision-making on genes.

Pete

Phelps of course QUICKLY took up the offer. So the picket is off. However, I don’t like the idea of him getting heard on the radio, either. At least this way he’s not directly hurting innocent girls’ families like he was planning to do, all for publicity.

His website says all material can be used for any reason, so here is a sign held outside a soldier’s funeral in Independence, MO, September 28th. Keep in mind that the soldier was NOT in fact gay.

Since his entire family is lawyers, I will list the source of this photo, but I ask that you NOT visit the site. If publicity is his game, then don’t give him the satisfaction of giving him hits on his website. http://godhatesfags.com

It’s completely inexcusable (not to mention the fact that the graphics are hysterical.) Actually, seeing that signs mostly makes me snort Cherry Pepsi out my nose, because it’s just too darned funny seeing gay stick people in compromising positions.

Imagine you have a little kid and they ask you what the people in the picture are doing… would you want to explain ANY sex act to your child? I sure wouldn’t. Phelps and his posse of 3 family members need to find something constructive to do.

I seem to recall Jesus acting a tad differently than the Phelps family. Two examples come to mind. One, Jesus drove the PHARISEES out of the temple with a whip. They were the religious leaders of the time, and they had become judgemental twits… people who saw nothing but the letter of the law, rather than seeing the person. Sounds familiar, eh?

The second example is Jesus’ friend Mary Magdelene… a prostitute. Now, the law of the Bible says that prostitutes should be stoned. Hmmm…. doesn’t sound like God is big on prostitution. If you were a twit, you might expect that Jesus, the son of God, would want her dead. However, what really happened was that Jesus was friends with her, and hung out with her, and she washed his feet with her expensive perfume. Sounds like perhaps his love had a positive impact and helped to turn her from her prostitution. Doesn’t sound like our friends from Westboro Baptist Church, does it?

Yes, the Bible teaches right and wrong. God condemns certain behavior. But the example from the Bible set by Jesus NEVER involved hatred or threats towards people who really just needed an example of real love. Jesus only really got ticked off at the religious leaders who were too thickheaded to understand the difference between witnessing and judging.

It’s God’s job to judge, Fred. Let’s leave the heavy lifting to Him, eh?

Pete