Conspiracy About My Electrical System

Posted by on 5:00 pm in Blog | 1 comment

Conspiracy Afoot: Right, Like My Electrical System is Really Overloaded My home was built in 1928. Somewhere along the line it had electrical installed. The service panels are small, but what do I care. I noticed recently that when my oven was on, and both my daughters were using the blow dryer, and I was arc-welding all at the same time that the breakers would blow. I had an electrician come over and his report was that the wiring in my home was installed in the 1950’s and was not designed to handle such large loads at one time. He said that the whole house was heating up from the inside out when such large draws of current were made on the system. In fact, the panel got hot to the touch during such usage. He said that if I did not change the way I used electricity in my home that it would eventually catch fire and burn to the ground. Yeah right! What is this guy’s problem, what is his agenda? I suppose he just wants the job of re-wiring my home. But I’m no fool. I called a second, then a third, then a fourth, and finally a fifth electrician who each came to examine my house. What the heck is up? Is there some database somewhere that collects these idiots’ opinions and this is what guides them to all report the same? They are probably in a union that gets a split for each dollar they make. Each of these guys said that they were sure they were right, but for the simple price to pay of not using all my electrical devices at once I could have the comfort that my house would not burn down. They said it is a “small price to pay for safety.” Horse manure—my house is fine, dammit! And by the way, this is America—I should be able to do what I want, when I what, to hell with the so-called consequences made up by quacks with an agenda! So I called up a guy I know who knows what a plug looks like and he said his brother-in-law used to work for an electrician. The guy called me and I explained the nonsense I had been told by those five previous quacks. I told him that I wanted a report that said my house was fine and which also said that I could use whatever amount of electricity I wanted to, anytime I wanted. After some negotiation we agreed on a price. For only $500 I got the report. Ah ha! See, I knew those previous electricians were nothing but quacks, after all, I got a report! Now I don’t have to worry about the house burning down. Oh, and about that climate change nonsense…don’t even get me...

Read More

Gay Marriage is Not an Attack on Religion

Posted by on 7:54 am in Blog | 1 comment

Another Letter to My Daughters: Gay Marriage is Not an Attack on Religion July 3, 2015 Dear Kids: Gay marriage and homosexual behavior are not choices I would make for myself.  Frankly, I don’t see the appeal.  But I also do not see the appeal in clog dancing, pickles, cauliflower, menudo, sky diving, tube socks, or scary movies.  It is fair to say, though, that there are others to whom all these things do appeal.  There is no right or wrong, there is merely personal appeal which should be zealously guarded in the name of individual freedom. The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing the freedom to marry whomever you like is a fabulous example of preserving freedoms, not oppressing religion as some would have you believe.  It is a red herring to argue that allowing gay people to marry will infringe on the religious beliefs of others who oppose it.  Just think about it logically.  How does a couple’s choice to marry affect you at all?  It doesn’t!  It merely ratifies others’ ability to make their own decision about how they live their life.  If you don’t want to marry someone of your own gender, or eat cauliflower for that matter, then don’t.  But telling someone that they cannot marry a person of their choosing is certainly imposing religious beliefs upon another—unacceptable! There are too many real issues in this world to focus on without wasting energy trying to “fix” the “wrong beliefs” belonging to other people.  To do so would be oppressive.  In the words of the great Aldous Snow, “I was going to do that but then, um, I just carried on living my...

Read More

Humble Response to the “No Evidence that Fracking Fluid is Harmful” Crowd

Posted by on 3:04 pm in Blog | 0 comments

Consider the following:  a man complains that his drinking water smells like oil and the fumes coming from his faucet can literally be lit on fire.  As soon as it is reported, the disapprovers come out of the woodwork with several fallacious and immaterial statements.  Has common sense really taken a sabbatical in the United States?  Okay, I am not going to argue the science, because people who live their lives “inside the bubble” aren’t impressed with science.  Instead, let’s boil it down to nothing more than good ole fashioned common sense. Crazy Statement No. 1: “Plenty of articles have been written which disprove that fracking fluid is bad.  In fact, just watch the movie ‘Frack Nation’ which explains it all.” Common Sense Response: Not surprisingly, when you have the billions of dollars that the oil magnate Koch brothers have, hiring a film crew to preach your own version of the gospel isn’t that hard.  But even more to the point is this little factoid:  Movies do not always equal reality.  Giving credence to a position merely because you saw it on Netflix is silly—nay, asinine.  Now, excuse me while I go prepare for the arrival of ET.  And, for what it’s worth, have you seen the movie Gasland?  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.) Crazy Statement No. 2: “The guy just wants money and will file a frivolous lawsuit.” Common Sense Response: I don’t know if he will sue or not, but he is a fool if he doesn’t.  Go find a private corner someplace where no one from FOX News can hear you and honestly ask yourself if you wouldn’t also sue if your kids were bathing in petroleum laced water, which has also significantly de-valued the homestead that has been in your family for centuries.  Yes, you would—and you should!  Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.  Oh, and for the record—such a lawsuit would be incredibly merit based—not frivolous. Crazy Statement No. 3: “There is no evidence that ground-injected fracking fluid actually leaks into our drinking water.” Common Sense Response: No evidence?  How about the guy’s flaming water faucet!  Get real—choosing to ignore the evidence is not the same thing as evidence not existing. Crazy Statement No. 4: “Even if fracking fluid did leak into our drinking water, there is no evidence that it is harmful to humans.” Common Sense Response: Really?  This is almost laughable, but since it has actually been uttered, we will tackle it with common sense.  The time tested adage goes like this: Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  Now, let’s apply it. For many years it was claimed that Japan had sent mini submarines toward Pearl Harbor to sink American ships on that fateful day.  Yet, for decades no submarine remains had been found.  Those who were light on common sense (think, “I can see Russia from my kitchen window”) stupidly proclaimed that since we hadn’t found any mini sub remains, it is clear that it never happened.  Then, of course, the subs were found.  These naysayers looked silly because they didn’t follow the old adage—absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.  The religious surely know this.  Lacking tangible evidence of God’s existence notwithstanding, the devout are quick to say that this proves nothing—and they are right.  Not that God exists...

Read More

When Did Politics Become a Measure of Character?

Posted by on 10:05 pm in Blog | 1 comment

One headline described how an Arizona gun store owner posted a sign saying that those who voted for President Obama are “Not Welcome” in his store. SEE IT HERE! While another headline, also from Arizona, told of a woman who ran over her husband with a car because he didn’t vote for Romney. Ouch! SEE IT HERE! Have you noticed that politics has really become personal in the last decade? Amazingly, it is now a badge of honor for many to wave the flag of their party while castigating their very neighbors for wearing the Scarlet Letter of the other party. It isn’t funny and it isn’t cute. Instead it is driving a wedge between human beings on issues of personal preference. Ladies and Gentlemen, our society is not more civilized for drawing irrational lines in the sand merely to defend a notion that exists solely in the eye of the beholder. Science cannot determine the “correct” political party any more than it can determine what makes a woman beautiful, or what the objectively best food is. The simple fact is that going to war over politics is just as stupid as battling to prove that beef tastes better than chicken. Simply put, things upon which reasonable minds can differ cannot, as a matter of law, be considered objective—for example, political preference. (What’s that? I can hear someone in the audience telling me that anyone who doesn’t believe as he does isn’t reasonable, so his differing opinion doesn’t count. Okay, I am going to excuse this brainiac to consider what he just said—let’s the rest of us move on.) The pitch I am making is that it is okay to think differently than your neighbor. To do so is, or used to be, the major hallmark of the American way of life. But now the water has turned to cider and hate and vilification are unceremoniously shining through. Political signs now appear at places of business—once a major societal taboo for fear of alienating paying customers. I wrote of this “civil discourse” disappearance last year as a commentary which appeared in three major newspapers: San Antonio Express-News Corpus Christi Caller-Times Houston Chronicle As if to prove the point that civility in politics is disappearing, responses I received to that article ranged from bad language calling me a rabble-rouser, to outright threats to my safety. Exactly which party do you suppose gets all lathered up if they don’t get exactly what they want—even if the result is that of a democratic vote?  Hmmm.  Want a hint? Just click here. By the way, if you are getting red in the face and physically mad by simply reading this blog post, then I suggest that you may have just proven my point. I’m sure you’ll find some grownup way to vent your frustrations—like signing a petition asking your state to secede from the union.  This link will get you started....

Read More

Start Rowing, Dammit!

Posted by on 8:56 pm in Blog | 0 comments

So the election is over and the Democrats hold two-thirds of the legislative making process (the Presidency and the Senate), and the Republicans hold one-third (the House of Representatives). But don’t worry, the House Republicans won’t let a little thing like a national referendum on policy get in the way of protecting the right of billionaires to make even more while paying less in taxes. Oh no. The popular vote for the President and his very clear platform to raise taxes on the uber-wealthy doesn’t count. Rather than getting in line and gearing up to do America’s business, Republican leaders are already forming an obstructionist platform to hurt every American and point the finger at the Democrats. Just listen to Mitch McConnell who said that the burden is now on the President to submit legislation that will pass in the House of Representatives. How ridiculous! The message from America’s voters was to grease the gears to get this country moving again, not find new ways to throw a pipe wrench into the works. News flash: Being an obstructionist doesn’t work for anybody. Such cry-baby tactics are despicable. Former first lady Barbara Bush said it best. “They won. Get over it.” Right now we need all of Congress on deck to help row this nation to stability. And those who would rather pout with their arms crossed while the other 2/3rds of the Congress put their backs into the oars should be ashamed of themselves. Our nation deserves...

Read More

Beware the Generic Drug…Again

Posted by on 9:00 am in Blog | 0 comments

A year ago on this show (November 27, 2011) we focused on the legal dangers of generic drugs after the US Supreme Court’s absurd ruling which gave absolute immunity to the manufacturers of dangerous generic drugs. The basis of the court’s decision was that generic drug manufacturers are only copying the dangerous brand name drug. How about giving immunity to serial killers as long as they are only copying the work of a previous serial killer? Pretty absurd. This ruling makes about as much sense as investing in Arizona coastal real estate. But now we have to pay attention not just to the legal dangers of generics, but the medical ones as well. For years generic drug manufacturers have boasted that their drugs are EXACTLY the same as the brand name. To “prove” it, such companies point to the fact that the FDA requires them to use the same chemical formulation (or recipe) as the brand name drug. Well, this always made me suspect because it takes more than a recipe to get it the same. Many times I have used grandma’s cookie recipe—and followed it completely—but the cookies still weren’t like grandma’s. Now there is support for my hypothesis. The New York Times recently reported that one particular generic drug was found not to act in the same way as its brand name counterpart. In response, the director of the FDA’s office of generic drugs said the report “has actually prompted a change in [the FDA’s] policy,” and that the agency would look more closely at the techniques used by generic manufacturers. How are they going to do this? Position “recipe monitors” in every laboratory? And how effective will they be? Without grandma in the kitchen herself, the cookie baking process just isn’t the same. To do otherwise is like directing a brain surgery via Morse code. If you’ve got the answer, let me know. But for now, I have a headache. I think I’ll go take some Motrin…no, Wal-buprofin…argh! Which is it? For the November 27, 2011 episode of the Wyatt Wright Show dealing with generics, go here: For the New York Times Article, go here:...

Read More

Frankenstorm Sandy vs. Mitt the Romster

Posted by on 9:14 am in Blog | 0 comments

Time and time again Mitt Romney has professed his vision to get the federal government out of state business. What is state business? Well, virtually everything, according to his campaign. At the top of Mr. Romney’s list of programs that need to go are federal assistance programs—including FEMA, the federal agency that oversees the cleanup and mitigation of damages caused by natural (and unnatural) disasters. So, let me pretend for a moment that I have a WWRD bumper sticker on my car and ask the tough question: What Would Romney Do if he were currently President? To help figure it out, let’s take a simple multiple choice exam 1. What would President Romney have done to assist in the days preceding the arrival of the storm? a. Commanded his legions to hit the ground and position themselves for a quick post-storm response. –OR– b. Issued an Executive Order to New England states to “Duck and Cover.” 2. After watching the storm coverage on Fox News (which explained it as an act of God to punish the Democrats), what would President Romney have said on the telephone to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? a. Help is on the way. Tell me where to send it and how much. –OR– b. Tell the Governor that this is New Jersey’s problem, not America’s problem, and suggest that the state should rename the “Jersey Shore” to the “Jersey Sore.” So here’s the answer key: If Romney picks both “b” answers, then he is directly in line with his base and will have proved himself to be a trustworthy man who meant every word in his campaign promises. He will have also proven himself to be a heartless plutocrat whose only allegiance is to his tax bracket and not the lives of those who live outside of his bubble. Not very American. If Romney picks both “a” answers, then he is making the morally correct American decision, while at the same time exposing himself as a snake oil salesman who will lie and manipulate in his campaigns just to get elected. So if we vote for Romney we have to hope like crazy, with our fingers crossed, that he emerges from behind the campaign veil as just that one shining version of the Romster we might each prefer. Who knows, we could get Godzilla, but we could always get Mothra. Or…and are you ready for this…we could simply elect an American who doesn’t flip flop, does what he says he is going to do, and is not beholden to the special interests of corporate America. Hmm, what a choice. Too bad I can’t check in with a Zen-like spiritual being who can existentially rise above it all and bring clarity to the campaign. You know, someone like...

Read More

If Vicious Crimes are the Will of God—Who are We to Argue?

Posted by on 6:27 pm in Blog | 1 comment

Indiana candidate for the U.S. Senate Richard Mourdock (Republican) is a brilliant man. At a debate Tuesday night, candidate Mourdock said that women who get pregnant from being raped have no right to consider an abortion because it was “…something that God intended to happen.” Never mind that criminalizing abortion would violate every rational notion of freedom, vis-à-vis establishment of religion and rights to privacy. Hmm, makes sense. In fact, I wonder if we should even punish the rapist? The rapist must have been compelled to do the raping—after all, who can argue that free will is any match for the will of God? Furthermore, using this newly discovered Mourdock-ian logic, we should do absolutely nothing to attempt to put things back in their place after a horrible event occurs. I mean, if aborting a rape-created fetus is taboo, then so too must we disallow other forms of remediation. Richard Mourdock’s statement made me realize that we need to change this country from top to bottom. For instance: When bank robbers get caught, they shouldn’t have to return the money. It was God’s will that they have it. When a drunk driver swerves onto a sidewalk and kills a five year old girl, no bother—it was God’s will. Let’s give the drunk a courtesy ride home. After all, we can’t just say that some things are God’s will and others aren’t.  (Although, if asked, I presume Mourdock would tell us that successful abortions don’t count as the will of God.)  Therefore it goes without saying that our God fearing nation should immediately repeal ALL LAWS. Live and let live! Que sera, sera! Indiana, elect this genius as quickly as you can so he can get to Washington and begin unleashing the chaos that must be, quite clearly, the will of...

Read More

More Election Shenanigans in Texas!

Posted by on 2:02 pm in Blog | 2 comments

Not long ago the federal courts ruled that Texas could not use its discriminatory Voter ID plan to keep Texans from the polls. But that hasn’t stopped Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade (appointed by Republican Governor Rick Perry) from making it harder to find a polling place. In fact, a visitor to the state’s website will find that they are REQUIRED to enter either their Voter Registration number, their driver license number, or their name on the registration rolls…JUST TO FIND OUT WHERE THE POLLING LOCATIONS ARE!  How sinister is that? So, Texas can’t require such ID to vote…but they can require it to tell you where to go vote? That is crooked all day long. To make matters worse, I am told that just two days ago the Secretary of State’s website allowed such searches merely by entering an address (to find the closest poll to your location).  No other information was required.  So why now?  What changed to justify this extra hurdle? And by the way, what happened to open government?  I should be able to know the locations of polling places whether or not I intend to vote, or whether or not I am even registered.  Or what if I am registered, but the computer can’t find me?  Can I not know where to appear to contest the situation? Texas, unfortunately you remain under attack by those who want to do their perverse will upon you… Here is the website at issue:...

Read More

The Wait is Over—Super PACS are on the Loose!

Posted by on 12:53 pm in Blog | 1 comment

Last year on the Wyatt Wright Show we covered the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC which opened the floodgates allowing unlimited amounts of money to flow in support of a candidate for office.  The ruling struck down a federal law limiting amounts and requiring disclosure of who was behind the money. But the ruling basically said the corporations (and the Super PACS) have the same “Free Speech” rights that humans have and that spending their money is protected speech.  While the ruling does not allow these Super PACS to give unlimited money directly to a candidate, they are free to run their own advertisements in support of their candidate, or against the opposing candidate.  The last vestige of responsibility following the ruling was the continued prohibition on “coordination of campaigns.”  That is, while the Super PACS are free to spend ten gazillion dollars on their man or woman, they can’t call up the candidate and share ideas or develop a coordinated strategy.   Some of you may be saying, “yeah right, I’m sure they don’t talk.”  Perhaps they do, but what may have been done in secret before is now being pushed into the open to test the limits of what is legal.  Ok, so talking on the phone and sharing notes is clearly illegal.  But what would you say if the candidate and the Super PAC endorsing him or her both hired the SAME market research firm to give target audience advice?  Does this cross the line?  What if the political consulting firms hired by the PAC and the candidate had different names, but shared the same office?  Not enough for you?  How about if the founder of the candidate’s consulting firm is married to the chief executive of the market research firm working for both the candidate and the PAC?  There is no question that this tramples the intention of the law, but does it violate it? This is the situation as it currently exists in the Mitt Romney campaign.  Would it make you feel better if I told you that the market research firm has promised that it isn’t sharing ideas with its two clients and that its employees have been instructed to pretend there is a wall between them? Yet, even if it Romney’s situation is innocent and the firms are able to keep things separate, by allowing this to occur aren’t we setting the stage for corruption in future cases?  Further, even if innocent, isn’t each client entitled to get the best work from its market research company?  How, then, can the market research company do anything other than give the same reports and the same advice to clients sharing an identical agenda—to elect a certain candidate? For more check out the New York Times article found...

Read More