Category: Social Issues
HP Makes Killer Printers… Literally?
Written by Ted West
Saturday, 04 August 2007 05:45
2 Comments

By Ted West
MTW contributing writer

I'm really excited today about computer printers, but I know full well how boring that subject can be. So before we get to the mundane, I would like to alert you to some good news and bad news on the fitness front.

First the good news: did you know that muscles are not the only things which can be toned? That's right; researchers have found that your lungs can now be toned as well.

But here's the bad news: It turns out that lung toning can be hazardous to your health.

Don’t laugh; you might just see a warning to that effect on your next printer?

An Australian medical study has found that a third of laser printers emit unsafe levels of toner dust that may be more hazardous than cigarette smoking.

But who cares, you don't own a laser printer, and even if you did, you'd use it so sparingly that stray dust particles would hardly be significant, right?

Don’t be so sure: The researchers found that HP made half of the worst dust emitting printers, and that's an ominous tone… er.. I mean, if you work in an office that uses HP printers, you should be aware that the toner dust is small and light, so that lovely toner residue can linger in the air for fifteen minutes – before it finally settles – into your lungs.

And in an office environment, where the printer might get a lot of use all day, everyday, let's just say you might be experiencing Purple Haze, but without the words and music.

And while no one really knows what toner dust might do in your lungs, we can assume it doesn't resemble a printed page, so it might be good if you started wearing a dust mask in the office.

And/or brought in your own air cleaner.

And alerted your company to the potential hazard.

That way, at least you can hold your employer liable (for knowing about a hazard and not affecting a cleanup) when you get that incurable disease you've always wanted.

Of course, your boss… and his boss… and your industry may come to regard you as a troublemaker, and you might find yourself jobless as a result, and forever unable to find employment in your field…

But look on the bright side; you'll still have your health. And you'll breathe easier when the CDC announces its first cases of Hewlett Pulminosis. If that doesn’t cheer you up, consider this: Laser printers, even color ones, have become very affordable, so messy and clogging ink cartridges may soon be a thing of the past.

 

 
Generating Genocide: You ain’t seen nothin’ yet
Written by Ted West
Tuesday, 31 July 2007 04:23
No Comments

By Ted West
MTW contributing writer

What's your favorite genocide? Darfur? Cambodia? I know the Holocaust would be hard to top, but a silver medal is nothing to be ashamed of…

I've said many, many things over the years in an attempt to accurately characterize leftist reprobates, and I was very proud to be one of the first to say that liberals are far more dangerous to the security of America than Islamic terrorists are, but lately, something has happened that has left me at a loss for ugly adjectives.

As if on cue there happens to be a report on CNN right now about the dire conditions in Darfur and the liberal lament that America hasn't done anything to end the horror. Don't get me wrong, someone should have intervened long ago, but isn't this a prime reason why the United Nations was established? America could almost certainly stop the mayhem, but we're a tad busy in Iraq, that little exercise that everyone approved of back when, but from which one side now wants out, no strings attached.

And that's what's left me in a state of shock. Liberals cannot deny that they voted to authorize force against Iraq so they say they were misled. But even if they were, do they deny that the Iraqi people were being terrorized and killed in manner and numbers similar to Darfur?

So how could it matter why we're there as long as we stopped that? Apparently because liberals have the attention span of a gnat and the spine of a jellyfish. But it's one thing to lack fortitude, and it's another to ignore the consequences of being spineless, even if indifference must be an essential ingredient of cowardice.

Recall how liberals screamed about civilian deaths we were supposedly responsible for in Iraq? What's the number, half a million? I don't know, but it's somewhere between the fictitious number accorded the Serbs in their Kosovo "genocide" and the all too real number tallied in the Rwandan genocide.

The actual number for Iraq doesn't matter anyway since liberals are not only prepared to add to it, they literally don't care what the final tally of dead Iraqis turns out to be. Barry Hussein Obama was short and succinct – he said that the possibility of genocide does not justify keeping troops there.

So let's be very clear. Obama, speaking on behalf of leftists everywhere, is not just unconcerned that Iraqis might die in numbers sufficient to make the current count seem like the good old days, Mr. Obama is even less concerned that we, by our abrupt withdrawal, might be the primary cause of it.

This, of course, is not new. It's a precedent Democrats set in Southeast Asia, and thus Obama is a proud liberal traditionalist. And of course, in liberal history books, there was no gruesome aftermath to our Asian exit.

What's most appalling (and I apologize for not being able to come up with a more fitting adjective) is the sheer callousness. Liberals couldn't possibly have been concerned about those innocent dead Iraqis they lamented, it was all just a tactic, apparently to make George Bush and America look bad. All's fair in love and war, but who turns their backs on depravity as easily as the depraved do?

We often see mass murderers being interviewed on television and they are devoid of remorse. Their eyes show no emotion. If we pull out of Iraq and genocide follows, you'll be able to see the hollow look of a mass murderer firsthand – just look any liberal in the eye.

 
2008 Candidate Selector
Written by Ray Robinson
Monday, 16 July 2007 16:05
2 Comments

By Ray Robinson
MTW contributing writer

Having trouble deciding who to vote for in the next election? Want to see how your beliefs fall amongst the candidates (or some potential candidates)? Or just bored?

Here is an interesting link anyone politically active should check out.

You'll be asked your choice on 25 political topics, and to rank the topics themselves as High or Low Priority. When you click "Show My Results," just pan down the page to read your results – ignore all the ads at the top. The results will list how candidates rank in comparison to your choices, showing a percentage of matching. The top candidate is always "Theoretical Ideal Candidate – 100%" – this is the person that, were you Dr. Frankenstein and could build a candidate, you agree completely with. All your choices have a link to basic information about the candidates, so you can begin your research as to who to vote for next year. The results may surprise you – I know I was surprised with my results! My highest match was Hillary Clinton, at 52%. Mind you, I have no intention of letting this quiz sway my voting preference at all, but I was severely disappointed to discover that my closest match only subscribed to half of my beliefs. A challenge to all the regular posters and readers – post your top results and reactions, why you agree or disagree, and even debate the accuracy or choices of the quiz itself. You have nothing to lose but misconceptions!