How to link to our posts

Someone in the comments asked us how to link to our posts. We use Blogger, which is absolutely free; your favorite blog entry program will also work (and even though we work with Windows, this can also be done in Mac and Linux).

1. Pick a post and click on it.
2. On the top of your web browser, there should be a bunch of text on top, beginning with http://onlyinboston2.blogspot.com. The entry should be also there.
3. Click the text, and all of it should be highlighted.
4. Right click, and then click COPY. Tip: Paste this entry into Wordpad or Notepad.
5. Write what you normally do, then select any text you wish.
6. Click the LINK button (in Blogspot it's right between the T with the color checkerboard and the left justify alignment). This will bring up the URL board.
7. Paste the link by right clicking and then clicking PASTE.
8. Publish...and you're all set!
9. Please tip your host.

Resist the Illegal Occupation in Vermont!

Bill O'Reilly wants the public to boycott Vermont for having a lenient judge letting off a molester off with a light sentence.

The Vermont media hates Bill O'Reilly's guts, telling him he doesn't know what he'd talking about, when in fact they're afraid if there really is an O'Reilly-led boycott, the tourist and skiing money goes out the window.

Maybe we shouldn't mention that Vermont is occupied by New York City's furthest of the far left, huh?

Tale of two health schemes

If you're a supporter of government-sponsored (aka single payor or universal) health care, or an opponent of government-sponsored (aka socialized medicine or HilaryCare) healthcare, please read this article, comparing and contrasting both systems.

Hint: "free" healthcare isn't free. It might be free when you get to the desk of a hospital, but it's paid by taxes - in Britain's case, those 17.5% Value Added Taxes contribute to their "free" healthcare.

Which UGGS bunnies had spray on tans?

The South End is Over hates UGGS worse than we do.

We have a brand-spanking new term for the wearer of UGGS...the UGGS bunny. Allow us to be stereotypical to what an UGGS bunny is...

1. Dirty blonde hair, put into an ugly, messy ponytail or strung through a metal barrette, with her bangs pulled back so severely you see her hair extensions.

2. A down jacket that drowns the woman in an unsightly swath of material.

3. A dark tan, a fake tan, or a ghastly white complexion.

4. Colored tights (tan pantyhose for the Back Bay Sloane Rangers) or bare legs

5. A denim skirt (the shorter and more ripped, the better)

6. A top-of-the-line cell phone glued to her ear, paid by mommy and daddy, carrying on a conversation about superficial things

Make Income Redistribution History, Parts OHN, THN, TRN, FRN and FHN*

You know him just by his voice - the voice that could take the hardest cheese on earth and grate it finely. It's the voice that could be heard from Riverside Station - all the way from Park Street.

He looks like he needs several hot showers, plus a delousing or three.

Yes, true believers, it's the "you got any spare change?" guy, the bane of police, VB from Fox 25's ultra-special friend, the man who receives coins just so people can get away from him as far as they can.

According to the Weekly Dig and the Metrowest Daily News, you won't hear voice for awhile - as Framingham's finest hauled him to jail for - what else? Asking for spare change - on Routes 126 and 135.

Funny thing is...your spare change is going right back to the Commonwealth. Why, you ask?

BECAUSE THE SPARE CHANGE GUY USES HIS SPARE CHANGE FOR THE LOTTERY!

And how do we know?

Because he's asked US for change in the stores that sell lottery tickets!

That's right, folks...your pity is being played like a fine violin by this scummy con man. Any time you see this con man, do NOT give him any money. Walk fast and get away from this scammer - and contact the nearest police officer.

If you see a person selling the Spare Change newspaper, however, they are legitimate and worthy of your spare change. At least it won't be spent on tonight's Cash Winfall.

* The codes above represent $100, $200, $300, $400, and $500. We play the lottery once in a while, but we do it in moderation. That is, we don't pull the scams like this turd does do to get their lottery 'fix.'

And before the prudes out there start screaming about the lottery being a 'stupid' tax or go into your little white guilt 'people who can least afford it' spiel, remember that you also drop money whenever Madonna or a few celebrities snap their fingers to 'make poverty history,' yet you don't know that the 'stupid' tax these people participate in pays for your fire stations, schools, and other things. On the other hand, people have fallen under the spell of gambling and have sold everything short of their first born for that "one big hit." Our advice: a buck or two for a chance is fine, but if you do win anything, save it.

Pay more to be stuck in a massive jam, or pay less for crappy transit

We read this post in the Universal Hub, regarding a soon-to-be-ex MBTA rider who will now choose to drive to Boston.

When we read that "they're raising my Subway pass from $44 to $59," we consulted our Fare Hike of 2007 worksheet. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with her statement.

First, the Subway Pass, Combo, and Combo Plus passes no longer exist, as the T is eliminating them in favor of the singular LinkPass. The three older passes, at $44, $71, and $79, will all be replaced by a Link Pass for $59 per month. The elimination of her Subway Pass, and herding her to the new LinkPass, does make her monthly purchase go up $15. Perhaps she didn't know about this, or perhaps wanted to make her statement more appealing to the anti-MBTA crowd, but we want to make sure this got cleared up. (This is why we do the research, kids!)

Moreover, riders who usually bought the Combo or Combo Plus pass will see their monthly rate go down by $12-20 - a huge savings. The $15 extra for the LinkPass also includes bus service, which would cost her $40 if she purchased a Bus pass seperately - so she would have saved money regardless.

Prop 2-1/2 is already in the crosshairs!

The more and more we read into the SJC's decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, the more and more we get confused.

We were going to write a screed last night, but after reading Jon Keller's article, we pulled a Jay Severin - allow us to retract and rephrase. (And we agree with Jon Keller - Prop 2-1/2 is not just in the crosshairs, but ready to be attacked like Fort Wagner. And all couples and families will be facing much larger property tax increases should Prop 2-1/2 be repealed.)

Who, exactly, is on the wrong side of this issue? Not the couples who want to marry and have it legally in the books as Mrs. and Mrs. Smith or Mr. and Mr. Jones. The very act of betrothal is an legal act of commitment, in the books of the county seat, that if married person A dies or gets sick or divorces, married person B is not required to jump ugly with the county probate court - where children or property might be involved.

The SJC, in their wisdom, took an approach that the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage have bent and twisted way out of proportion. It is neither "the courts have spoken and can never be voted on" nor "the courts have overstepped their boundaries and violated the Constitution." The SJC took pains to say, "This same-sex marriage law looks all right, but make sure all the bases are covered."

The bases, sadly to say, are covered - with ginned up lawyers, crooked pols, and militant activists. The real issue is for one side to convince the public that their position is right, and if they win, would they mind keeping up their winning streak with a donation or two, or perhaps a vote for me in the primaries?

What doesn't help is that the Massachusetts state legislature has become more like the Soviet Politburo, mixed in with Mafia crime family machinations for good measure. The same yahoos who are clamoring for these Legislature to defy the SJC's request to do something, other than dance and babble in front of a camera, either put too much trust in their pols, or don't have enough smarts to know they're being bamboozled.

Remember the Clean Elections Law, in which candidates would only receive public money if they accepted no contributions or private or personal funds? After the hacks got really scared that a "Clean Elections" candidate didn't have to work hard or press the flesh as often as the tried-and-true back-room dealings, where pork and committee chairmanships could be bought and sold with a glass of scotch and a handshake, Tom Finneran & Co. killed it off.

Who's to say that if same-sex marriage did come to a vote and became truly legal as the SJC intended it, the legislature wouldn't hesitate to suffocate that law too - and effectively giving the anti-same-sex crowd an unintentional victory - and immediately making same-sex marriages null and void. Caveat emptor.