Tuesday, October 30, 2007


A short time ago I witnessed a curious incident. I had walked up front about 11:45 am (Central) to check on some irrigation, when I observed a WFEC truck with boom bucket back up to their utility pole in front of my neighbors. The driver and his assistant were the only ones in the truck. The driver got into the bucket, which was raised up to the transformer, and I saw him remove something from it. When the bucket was lowered to the ground, the driver and his helper then made a big production about something. They had a new transformer, which was thinner and longer than the one on the pole, and I watched them raise it with the bucket. I figured that they were “upgrading” transformers, but I was mistaken. They installed this new transformer on the same pole to service the mobile home across the street, which had been serviced by the existing transformer. However, they didn’t remove the existing one. I was surprised that the utility hadn’t installed an additional transformer when they first ran an electric line to the new mobile home a few months back. At any rate, there’s now two transformers serving both residences. Also, my neighbors’ dogs weren’t around as usual to bark at the utility workers and their truck. Well, it’s about time that WFEC supplied better service to their customers by installing another transformer. I’m surprised that they hadn’t done so earlier.

I still haven’t received a reply to my Jacksonville FBI complaint or FOIA. It’s easy to substantiate my charges, just check the FDLE’s and area Sheriff Departments’ serial numbered inventory for unaccounted bugs and tracking devices. However, “they” make it difficult to prove. For example, I took Bill (I have a loofah and I’m not afraid to use it) O’Reilly’s challenge regarding if you were subject to privacy abuse. Bill was bloviating (sp?) through his O’Tuckus when he said that he didn’t have one case of such abuse. At any rate, Bill took my call, said that “we’ve got one,” cut me off while I was trying to say that there were “no checks and balances,” and connected me to one of his producers, who took my phone number and email address. Realize that I had not sent any evidence of my charges to O’Reilly. When I didn’t hear from his producer after two weeks, I figured that they killed the story.

O’Reilly is not only smart, but very smart. Some of his “librul” critics are calling him “nuts.” He’s not “nuts,” but probably does have some reason to be paranoid. I don’t listen to him regularly, so one day I was amused to hear him admit that he had “ONLY ONE” such surveillance abuse victim, but that the victim was a “REAL LOSER” and in “LITIGATION.” If O’Reilly was referring to me, I’ll concede the “LOSER” point, but disagree with the in litigation one. They don’t let you litigate these things. Incidentally, the power was cut to the residence a short time ago- about 1:20 p.m.- and then shortly came back on. Hmmm, I wonder what that was about? My only question is- if Bill was referring to me: Why are all these law enforcement "winners" so interested in surveilling a loser?


No comments: