search
top

Why Do Strawberries Have ‘Seeds’ On The Outside?

Okay, this is odd and amazing in a way.

What we think are “seeds” are actually the ovaries of the plant itself, and the part we eat is holding them together.

We’ve grown, eaten and canned more than our fair share of strawberries, and we had no idea what is put forth in this video.

Learn sumtin’ new every day.



Palm Bay: Mr. Holton Goes to Tallahassee.

Palm Bay City Councilman Tres Holton went up to Tallahassee the other day to lobby support for Representative Randy Fine’s Bill HB971.

More on the bill in a moment, but how do we know that Holton went to the State capital? He self-promoted told us, of course.

Fine’s bill is well intentioned but ultimately flawed. It is one of those bills that sounds great but in practice appears to be a disaster.

The bill seems so simple. In essence if you don’t have your trash picked up on a certain day and still haven’t had trash picked up four days later, you can’t be charged and if you have paid for the service in advance, you get a refund that is generated by the trash company or the municipality if they have their own trash services.

The same applies to telecommunication and audio / video services. If your service goes off for 24 hours or more through no fault of your own, you get a refund or you are not billed on a pro-rated basis for the time missed.

Yay!! More money for the common man who just wants their trash picked up and the ability to watch TV!!

But will it work out that way?

We don’t think so.

Let’s examine the services and impact separately.
(more…)

Response To An Email.

One of the reasons for our post yesterday was to set up this post. We want people to feel free to contact us and that the contact does not have to be through a post. We do respond to emails and if we think the email raises a good point, we will ask for permission to respond to the email on the blog. We always ask if we can use the person’s name or if they want their name and or email address be left off the post. As we said yesterday, we are interested in the exchange of ideas, and not so much the name of a person.


With that as a background, we got an email from a reader and thought it deserved a response. We asked the reader if we could use their email as a basis for a response and they agreed as long as we did not use their name.

Here’s the email from the reader:

The difference you are missing is that the AR in the hands of a misguided / or mentally ill person “Emboldens” him as a warrior. That is toned down a bit with a traditional hunting style rifle, and might make the difference between tripping his trigger to act on whatever troubles are pushing him in that direction.

To prove the point, take a look at the two weapons below.

Vepr-AR-15-ROH

The bottom weapon is the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle firing the standard .223 caliber round. It has the capacity to hold large capacity magazines.

The top weapon is the Verp Pioneer. The Pioneer is a semi-automatic rifle firing the .223 round – the same round as the AR-15. It too has the ability to use large capacity magazines.

The AR-15 would be banned under most proposals currently being considered. The Pioneer would not be.

It seems clear that people are more interested in giving the appearance of doing something, even if that something is ineffective and based on false information.

We find that appalling and wrong on so many levels.


This post is getting long so tomorrow we will address some of the arguments used by those seeking to ban guns.

The section starting with “To prove the point, take a look at the two weapons below.” is from a three part post we did on the Newtown, Conn. shooting over five years ago. Feel free to go back and read all three posts if you like.


We have given the reader’s email a great deal of thought and had a great deal of discussion amongst the staff here on the point the reader is trying to make.
(more…)

A Reminder On Comments.

As there have been a few comments from new people (or rather people who have not commented before) we wanted to take this time to reiterate and explain our commenting policy.

You can find the long, verbose version of the blog’s policies on commenting here. However, if you don’t want to take the time to read that page, here are the “Cliff Notes” version of our policies.

1) You don’t have to use your real name when commenting. Generally speaking, we don’t care who you are but we do care a great deal about the ideas you present. There are people who will attack those who speak anonymously, but we aren’t those people. We know from past experience that there are those who want to know who people are so they can start making ad hominem attacks and not address what was said. Our position is simple: the Founding Fathers of this country often debated in public using non de plumes and we figure if it was good enough for them, it is good enough for us.

2) Be somewhat polite. Yeah, we know that is a grey line, but most people know when they cross it. “Politeness” includes cursing. We don’t have an issue with some curse words, but others to us cross a line. There is no need to drop f-bombs, or even yell at people using slang for anatomical parts of the human body. Don’t go down the racial or ethnic slur path either.

3) If you don’t want to have you comment published but wish to tell us that you agree or disagree with us, you can contact us and send us an email. We generally respond and if we think that the comment you make is the basis of a post or something, we will ask you if we can use what you said in the email without attribution. We get lots of emails where people want to say something and just don’t want to be identified in any manner. We think anonymous posting allows for that, but if you want to take it a step further, write us.
(more…)

A Discussion Does Not Mean Limiting Points Of View.

Bill Wittle

One of our staff members here likes author, speaker, director and conservative pundit Bill Whittle. Whittle came to our attention back in the day when he had a popular blog called “Eject! Eject! Eject!”

Whittle has moved onto other projects but has a very popular YouTube channel where he speaks on a variety of topics.

Whittle was one of the panelists invited to a debate entitled “Fake News: What It is and Who Decides” at the University of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. The event was going to be sponsored by the College Republicans and College Democrats and billed as a “thought-provoking discussion between panelists and an interactive Q&A session where audience members may offer questions to the panelists.”

Notice we said “was going to be.”

A debate co-organized by the College Republicans and College Democrats at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has been canceled after students protested the involvement of conservative pundit Bill Whittle, accusing him of racism and Islamophobia.

Whittle, who was invited by the Cal Poly College Republicans to take part in a “Fake News Panel: What is it and who decides,” has been accused by some students of being a white supremacist, prompting outrage that ultimately led to the event being canceled after panelists and organizers began to back out.

“The organizers of the Feb. 13 Fake News Panel at Cal Poly have decided collectively to cancel the event following continued withdrawals and uncertainty surrounding the participation of the announced panelists,” said campus spokesman Matt Lazier in an email to The College Fix.

“The intent of the program was to bring together a wide variety of perspectives on the topic. However, organizers decided this was no longer possible with the continued withdrawals, including those of the Republican and Democrat clubs’ respective panelists,” Lazier said.

Students objected to Whittle’s views that he had previously stated on his YouTube channel:

At issue is a YouTube interview Whittle gave in 2016 regarding the 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” co-authored by Charles Murray, which included a chapter on race and intelligence. Although Whittle said during the interview he cares about the black community and wants to see them succeed, he’s been accused of believing whites are superior to blacks.

In particular this vague comment of Whittle’s is flagged as proof: “Since it so closely correlates to both poverty and crime on one hand and generally success and wealth on the other, it would be useful to be thinking about what a society that was recognizing these differences look like.”

Whittle also drew criticism from Cal Poly students for his statements about Islam, which included this column written after the Orlando massacre: “At present, Islam is at war with non-Muslims in Orlando, Paris, Brussels, Munich, Rome, and in fact in every western country.”

“… Muslims are throwing homosexuals to their deaths from the tops of buildings; they are using knives to stab Jews in Israel, and they are using stones to kill not the rapist but rather the victims of rape. You can write all the laws against guns, or knives, or stones or even gravity that you want to. They will find a way to keep killing what they hate, and as we have seen, they hate pretty much everything that is not them.”

After the student backlash, the College Democrats pulled out of the event.

We find that interesting. Instead of perhaps taking to the time to confront Whittle or get a clarification as to what he meant, the College Democrats decided to walk away.

The message is clear: We won’t discuss or debate anything with you unless your panelists meet our approval.

With the withdrawal of the College Democrats from the event, it was canceled. Amazingly, people on campus blamed the College Republicans:

“Why not leave it to the Cal Poly College Republicans to have their own event? Why does the university need to get involved in this?” Bruckner said.

The University got involved as Whittle’s views are protected by the First Amendment. The college has the duty and responsibility to protect Whittle’s and other speakers’ viewpoints.

That won’t happen now because in this world, if you have different or opposing views, not only will you be shouted down, but a thought provoking event will be cancelled.

Such is the “tolerance” from those on the left.



Are More Laws The Answer?

(courtesy A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect.)

With the horrific shooting that occurred at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fl., many people are calling for more laws for controls on weapons.

The shooter in this case was a person who had made viable and true threats against those at the school. By law, those threats would have disqualified him from owning a gun and resulted in his weapon being confiscated. The school had also issued a “no trespass” order against him and yet he walked right onto the campus, pulled fire alarms and started shooting. He didn’t care about the laws of the land.

Criminals don’t care about the law.

It’s illegal to carry a weapon onto school grounds in the state of Florida, yet the killer didn’t care about that law either.

So someone needs to explain to us how more laws would make a difference.

The same people that are crying out for more laws are the ones who say that people won’t stop using marijuana even though it’s use is illegal (in more cases.) People cite the failure of Prohibition all the time. It is illegal to drink to excess and drive yet laws don’t stop people from doing just that. In fact, alcohol use kills three times the number of people killed with a gun every year.

Not only will criminals not follow the law, it doesn’t help when law enforcement and other governmental agencies don’t follow through to make sure that suspects are stopped before the shooting starts. That is what happened in Florida. The FBI had credible information on how dangerous this shooter was and did little or nothing.
(more…)

How Real Is Fake News?

A TEDx talk by author Sharyl Attkisson.

Was the effort to focus America’s attention on the idea of “fake news”—itself a propaganda effort? Connect the dots and learn who’s behind it and why. It’s not what you think. Sharyl Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting and author of two New York Times bestsellers: “The Smear” and “Stonewalled.” Attkisson hosts the Sunday national TV news program “Full Measure,” which focuses on investigative and accountability reporting. For thirty years, Attkisson was a correspondent and anchor at PBS, CNN and CBS News, where the Washington Post described her as “a persistent voice of news-media skepticism about the government’s story.” She’s a fourth degree blackbelt in TaeKwonDo. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.




Palm Bay: Approval Required For Seeking Redress.

There are two interesting stories going on in Palm Bay that we want to discuss as they may be related. (Okay, there are lots more than two, but these caught our eye.)

First, there is now a group seeking to have an initiative on the ballot which would restrict and or require citizen approval when special assessments are made.

In 2016, Palm Bay residents voted to allow the City Council to increase assessments on property in order to help address some infrastructure needs or desires. Because people want the best for their community, the measure passed but that was not the end of it.

Instead of coming back with reasonable assessments, the City Council voted to increase the assessment fees by almost 400 percent.

You read that right. Four HUNDRED percent. To put that into perspective and to get a sense as to why people were upset, imagine the citizens voting to allow a sales tax increase and then the increase is announced to go up to 27 cents on every dollar you spend. You’d be upset and rightfully so.

When the assessment increase was passed by a vote of 3-2 in 2017, people were not happy. They felt they had been lied to and deceived. The City put out a video which started with the statement that the stormwater infrastructure within the City has been around for 45 years. The obvious intent was to get people to think that all infrastructure was that old and in need of replacement. It was another instance of the City being less than honest with the people.

Instead of a reasonable increase, the City – which was and is facing all sorts of ethical violations and concerns – decided to shoot for the moon and get the huge increase. While the Council constantly talked about the need for the increase, what was missing was any discussion as to how past monies had been spent.

We even sent one of our staff members up to a Council meeting to talk about the increase and the callousness of the City Council’s votes and comments. We wrote about the facts here.

After the dishonest campaign to change the law which allowed the exorbitant fee increase, a group is seeking to have the issue back on the ballot.
(more…)

« Previous Entries

top