And Then, There Were The Lawsuits...

And this has been a banner year for them, so far.

Here are a few of my personal favorites, in no particular order.

Jeffrey Doles, of Gillette, Wyoming is trying to recover over 130 bongs the city confiscated from him in a botched attempt to put him in jail for trafficking in drug paraphernalia. Astonishingly, considering they confiscated over 130 bongs from him, they FAILED to secure a conviction, and prosecutors are planning to file a civil lawsuit asking for permission to destroy the pipes, as they are in fact clearly meant for use as dope smokin' tools.

David Little, an anti-abortion activist in Canada, is seeking a continuance in his trial for tax evasion so that he can get his wife and stepdaughter exorcised. Yeah, as in "Judeo-Christian ritualized casting out of demonic possession." How long is he asking for? Well, as long as it takes -

Little said some exorcism rituals resolve the problem after only one session, but he's also aware of one exorcism that has been ongoing in Rome for 16 years.

"Lucifer was the most intelligent of all the angels," he said, and the Devil won't be "pigeonholed" into a timetable.

James R. Robinson, a program executive with NASA's In-Space Propulsion labs, was arrested and is being charged with kiddie porn possession - on his WORK computer. Maybe he didn't think that they'd really check. I mean, it's only NASA. They don't, like, know anything about computers, or anything. Fortunately, TheSmokingGun was there!

Delphi, GM's former subsidiary and main parts supplier, is bankrupt. They are currently in Chapter 11 - as a part of which, they have requested a court injunction to allow them to void their union contracts with UAW. UAW, in a completely normal total lack of good sense, is vowing to strike:

"Today it appears there is no basis for continuing discussions," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and union VP Richard Shoemaker, the top negotiator with Delphi, said in a statement.

"In the event the court rejects the UAW-Delphi contract and Delphi imposes the terms of its last proposal, it appears that it will be impossible to avoid a long strike," they said.

"The UAW has worked diligently in good faith to resolve the Delphi situation through collective bargaining instead of through a lawyer-driven court process or confrontation. Regrettably, Delphi has chosen another path."

Of course, if Delphi gets shut down by a strike, this will drive GM into bankruptcy as well, causing.... well... thousands, anyway, of Dodge Neon owners to shriek in anguish at the sudden total lack of repairs available for their vehicles, as well as essentially bankrupting UAW as well. Too bad UAW can't see past their $27/hr salaries to realize they're killing the Golden Goose.

An Australian appeals court proved its worth by upholding the ruling of the traffic Magistrate, who said that a speed camera photo depicting two cars did not constitute proof as to which of the cars was the speeder, and therefore threw out the case. The appeals court went one better, though, and not only explained at some great length WHY the car could not be proven to be the offender, but went on to demand that the prosecution pay the defendant's costs for wasting his time. That's pimp. I wish our judges were smart, and stuff. Maybe, then they'd be able to say things like this:

"So I have to say I am not convinced ... that the Authority has identified the Lexus [the defendant's motor vehicle] as being the offending car."

Thomas Burns, of New Castle, PA, is suing PennDOT for malicious prosecution after flipping the bird at a construction worker who was working on an interminable-delay-causing construction site, and getting cited for it. The original case was dropped after the worker and the citing officer never bothered to show up in court when Burns asked for a trial.

This isn't really a "trial," per se, but Aftab Ansari, of New Delhi, India, has been divorced from his wife, over his objections and hers, after his wife told a friend that he had mumbled the word for divorce three times in his sleep. Maybe next time she'll keep her mouth shut: the friend ran to a mullah, and now the couple is being ostracised by their village for violating the Shar'ia (Islamic law,) which states that they are divorced, must remain apart for 100 days, and cannot remarry until the wife marries another man, sleeps with him, and gets divorced from him, too.

For some odd reason, the Supreme Court of Canada didn't buy the bullshit story of the Mountie who claimed he shot his girlfriend to death because he was a mentally deranged robot. You think I'm kidding? I never kid™. I will say sarcastic things about this kind of news, however. Not kidding, though. Don't the Canadians have enough problems, without dreaming up all new and different mental disorders to suffer from? Maybe not, they DO spend an awful lot of time snowbound up there.

A German court prescribed Viagra for a horse. Apparently, the horse was sold as a stud, but was then unable to perform, and the buyer sued the seller.

Pepsi, demonstrating a whole generation of executives with too much free time, sued Coke over an ad depicting a Amish drag race.

"In other words, Coca-Cola is telling consumers that Powerade Option's fewer calories literally make you go faster. However, Coca-Cola cannot possibly substantiate this overall superiority claim," the suit says.

Of course, just to continue the ridiculousness of this whole item, Coke caved, agreeing to change their advertising to one that doesn't feature Amish drag racers, or presumably, any information about their product, as that might make it sell, or something, and that would be bad.

"Our advertising will maintain the central theme of the campaign, which is that Powerade Option has fewer calories than Gatorade," Garrett said.

Barry Bonds' lawyers are suing the authors of "Game Of Shadows," a book about steroid use in baseball, not because they lied about Bonds using juice, but because of where they got their information.

This isn't a lawsuit yet, but soon will be: Vonage put a 911 caller on hold long enough for his house to burn to the ground before the Fire Department was called.

Fire department officials say that by the time fire crews arrived on the scene, the fire had become a five-alarm blaze. No one was injured, but they described the dwelling as a total loss.

A woman in Cardiff, Australia, got a massive breast enhancement, and promptly sued her boss for staring. She went - no kidding - from a B cup to a DD cup, and is somehow surprised that he's having trouble focusing. Fortunately, the court decided she was full of crap.

And then, there's this, which gives you a bit of a rundown of the current state of insanity reigning over U. S. intellectual property law today.
I'd say most of these people deserve a lovely gift from AssInTheBox.com. Won't you send them one?

Never Burgle Without Scouting.

This is today's lesson, friends.

Never burgle without scouting.

Why?



Because the house you burgle may be hosting 17 sumo wrestlers, that's why.



And Konoshin Kawabata learned that valuable lesson the hard way, as his rummaging around in the house waked up the visiting sumo team, who promptly explained to him the meaning of the term "citizen's arrest" by bearhugging him until he collapsed in a tiny whimpering puddle. Ok, I admit, I'm guessing at that last part, but jailarity did indeed ensue. I can just picture it.



Oooo, look, shiny. *rustle rustle*

"Hey, WTF?!?"

"OMG EEEEEEEKKKKKMPPPPHhhhhhh!"

"Hey look what I caught! It used to be a burglar!"





HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The Chupacabra Speaks!

This is quite possibly the funniest letter to Congress I've ever read.



Click, and read of the trials and travails of the once-proud Chupacabra, the Mexican goat-sucker lizard.

Sometimes, There's Someone SO STUPID...

...That it almost defies belief.



Meet John Claassen, of Alameda, California. He's suing eHarmony.com, the popular online dating site, for discrimination.



The catch?



He's married.



He says that he's legally separated, whatever that means in real life, and that he anticipates a divorce soon, but eHarmony said "We'll welcome you back once your divorce is final."



Oh, man, that's like, so not cool, they want people being fixed up for dates to be SINGLE? OMG, how unfair, WTF.



Now, see, most people would have understood that this was gonna happen based on eHarmony's on FAQ, which

says it is in the business of matching singles "free of relationship commitments."

Now, that seems clear enough to ME. But Not enough for Claasen, noooooo:

Citing California civil code, section 51, Claassen alleges eHarmony, based in Pasadena, is breaking state law because it is denying him access to its matching service based on marital status. He seeks $12,000 in civil penalties.

Wanna know what's funny? eHarmony just launched an online marriage counseling program: eHarmony for Marrieds. Some people, I guess, just don't feel like looking around at a website, you know? They're only interested in a quick, revenue-generating lawsuit. The revenue model for the new millennium, I tell you.

And Just To Conclude The Dick Cheney Shooting Saga...

Comes.... This.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You Won't Be Surprised To Know...

...That the media's trying to cover up their bias, along with their total, abject failure to determine the truth, because they can't admit they were wrong.

Remember a few days ago I reported that Saddam did, in fact, have WMDs after all?

Well, nobody else is reporting it.

Apparently the notion that the President lied about it is faaaaar more important than, say, the TRUTH about what happened. However, thanks to the internet, the word is gradually getting out, and sites like NewsMax are starting to wonder why the MSM haven't said a word yet. I wonder how bad the fallout will be for the MSM once they finally admit it - and it comes out that the bloggers beat them to it by weeks?

Hopefully very bad indeed.

See, the purpose behind journalistic freedom is to allow the public to know the truth - not the bias, to either side - about current events. If the MSM is going to exist as a giant political action group, rather than as reporters, they should be allowed no greater freedom than any Washington lobbyist. The whole point of "the people have a right to know" implies that WHAT they have a right to know is the TRUTH, not lies.

And before anyone tries to say it, don't. There is such a thing as "the truth" which exists outside of your opinions. People's perspectives on events may be different, true, but that doesn't change the facts of the events.

Ok, Guys, It's 2006. Can We Get Past The Fairy Tales Now, Please?

Evidently, not if you live in Zimbabwe. Edina Chizema of Zimbabwe has been charged with fraud after conning a local businesswoman out of $30,000 - to hire mermaids to find her stolen car. No, really! Plus, on top of that, some of the money went to buy bull genitals to "help the mermaids find it" and mobile phones "to contact the mermaids."



Some people will believe anything.



Local magistrate Sandra Nhau isn't one of them, however; she thought the story was obviously a load of fish poop.

The USA-PATRIOT Act: Now In Your Living Room!

As if the PATRIOT Act wasn't bad enough.

Now there's a home version!

That's right: somebody made a PATRIOT Act board game.

Well, what does a PATRIOT Act board game play like? Let's see.

The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties.
"I've had people complain to me that when they play, nobody wins. They say 'We're all in Guantanamo and nobody has any civil liberties left,' " he said. "I'm like 'Yeah, that's the point.' "

Now, that's funny.
But wait, there's more!

Players roll the dice to determine how many civil liberties they start out with, accumulating them from a variety of categories: U.S. citizens get five; non-citizens one. Whites and Asians get five; Arabs one. Ultra right-wingers get six; Democrats three or four.

Now, I must admit that I'm curious as to which civil liberties "right-wingers" enjoy that Democrats don't, but still. Love it. Download it. Play it.

Try if you can to ignore the rest of the leftist wack-job yammering on the site; unfortunately some people are still hung up on "Saddam had no WMDs" which we discussed not too long ago, and "Bush lied," which he didn't.

Attention Democrats: Why the FUCK can't you manage to get mad at Bush for the things he HAS done wrong? Why are you so married to the idea that he was wrong about things that he patently wasn't wrong about? If all of you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALA" when people point out that Iraq is in fact pretty much a win for us, and instead start yelling about the PATRIOT Act, which is what you should have been mad about all along, you MIGHT have gotten something done by now.

But then, that requires thought; and sadly, too many people, on either side of the aisle, find that to be too much of a challenge, and so don't bother.

The Nature Of Human Communication, Or: Why We're Not Still Living In Trees

Let me start off by saying that this is likely to be fairly long. I will try to keep it interesting, but if you're not prepared for it, this may seem fairly academic. It is, however, very, very important, so I hope that you read it; you might get something from it, or not, but if you don't, it won't be from lack of trying on my part.
That said, here goes.

We don't live in trees.

We, that is, the entire human race with the exception of a few stubborn holdouts who do it just to spite the rest of us, don't live in caves, either.

As a species, we have largely adapted our toolusing to an extent allowing us to survive in the harshest environments our planet has to offer; people live at both poles, people live at the equator, and on top of mountains; people even, to a limited extent, live underwater.

Why are we able to do this? It is not an idle question. The reason that we are able to do all these things, as a species, is because we have communication. Not the primitive hoots and howls of the chimpanzee, or the gestures and movements used by non-vocalizing species, but a highly adapted speech consisting of very abstract concepts allowing for quick transfer of ideas from one member of the species to another. Not only that, but we've adapted the methods of communication to extend to regional dialects; that is to say, we have separate languages based on the vocal transmission of data, each with its own vocabulary of ideas which it is capable of transferring.

Central to the mechanism, however, is the fact that in order for it to work, the participants all have to agree on the same meanings for words. If I say "go get ice cream," meaning "leave this location, go to another location, and bring back to this location a tasty dairy confection made from milk, sugar, flavorings, and ice crystals mixed into a semi-solid colloid" and you hear "go rob a liquor store" it just won't work. (This is, as you may have guessed, a bit of an extreme example. The point, however, is nonetheless valid, for all that.)

Now, human language is an interesting thing, because it has more than one level of data traffic. The way it works is as follows:

1. I formulate a thought.


2. I select, based on denotation - absolute objective meaning - words that express in the clearest terms possible the idea which I wish to convey.


3. I say those words, in the pattern dictated by their meaning.


4. You hear those words.


5. Your brain splits the verbal message into two separate sets of meanings: the denotation - the absolute objective meaning of the words - and the connotation - the associations those concepts have for you as an individual.


6. Based upon context, your brain interpolates those data sets to interpret my intended meaning from my verbal message.


7. You react according to your brain's interpretation, correct or not.

Now, as you can guess from the last item, in order for communication to be a success, the closer both of us are to the denoted meaning of the words used, the more accurate our cross-translations will be, and therefore, the lower the percentage of error introduced by our differing viewpoints.

Play the telephone game sometime, and let me know how that works out for you.

For those of you who don't know, the telephone game is very simple, and it illustrates the differences between connotation and denotation rather dramatically. Get together a group of 15 or 20 people. Have them stand in a circle. Write down a sentence, as simple as "there is a cat" or as complex as the preamble to the Constitution, and read it to the person to your right. They then go on, without the written version, to pass the message around the circle to their right, never seeing the original message as a referent. By the time the "telephone" gets back to you, you will see differences between what you sent out, and what you got back.

Now, a simple denotative sentence, "there is a cat," will not evolve too much; it's simple, and doesn't involve a lot of free association. However, by the time you get the Preamble to the Constitution back, you will likely not even recognize it. The reason for this is, again, the difference between connotation and denotation: "there is a cat," doesn't have connotations, really; it's a simple statement of a fact which is binary in validity: it is either true, or not. There's no partial cat, no shadings of cat present: there is, or is not, a cat. The Preamble, on the other hand, contains some highly abstract concepts, most of which are not immediately verifiable as a factual determination: you cannot tell if there is, or is not, "Liberty," without thinking about it, which means that the message will inevitably be passed on with shadings introduced by your translation.

That said, connotations are unique to an individual. The concept of ice cream, to me, conjures a memory of when I was about 6, "helping" my father, who was the tallest man in the world, hand-churn milk and sugar in a brine bath to produce something that I thought was the sweetest thing in the whole world until I met my wife. To you, it may invoke a sense of dreamy relaxation, or a lazy summer afternoon, or ANYthing that has been in your experience, and related to the concept of ice cream, because your brain stores data in a relational quasi-database, in which data can be accessed and crossreferenced with incredible speed because it can be accessed in multiple ways, rather than sequentially.

DEnotations, on the other hand, don't change from individual to individual; they are absolute. Ice cream can connote anything it wants to to either of us, but either way it refers by denotation to a sweet or semi-sweet dairy confection made of milk, sugar, and flavorings mixed with ice crystals into a semi-solid colloid.

The reason for this is so that when Thag the caveman wants to lift a boulder, and says so to his friend Grag, (they're cavemen, and therefore don't care what I call them; Geico ads notwithstanding, they're extinct,) Grag helps, instead of watching and grunting. Or, more recently, so that when we want to build a vehicle that can take us to the moon, we can all agree what each part is supposed to DO.

The United States political system is a horrendous mess. Everyone pretty much agrees on that, although I tend to use less temperate language when describing it, myself; the phrase "Mongolian clusterfuck" just LEAPS to mind.

A question that gets asked, in a rhetorical sense, by people who don't care what the answer is, fairly often is "Why?"

Why are things so profoundly fucked up?

The answer is, in itself, also the reason the question is rarely asked seriously - the people who ask it don't WANT the public to think about it. And it is - without further fanfare - our language is changing, but more importantly, our concept of what language is is being changed by people who have an agenda.

It is important at this point to note that I do not espouse the professed or actual views of either of the major political parties in any way, shape, fashion, or form; we will discuss what views I personally hold in a bit. I am also not intending to point a finger at ANY single group and say "THERE! THEY are the ones responsible!" because ALL of the groups are responsible - each has its agendas, and they are ALL using the same methods to achieve them.

What is the change? Very simple. The change being pushed by each and every political group, all of them, even mine, is that the connotations of words - your personal, individual, private mental associations with the words used - are more important than their denotations.

How does this work? Well, here are a few examples.

Term		Denotation		Intended Connotation
Liberal		One who believes in enacting necessary changes to the social and governmental structure.		One who believes that everyone has a right to everything, and that the state knows best.
Conservative		One who believes in avoiding unnecessary changes to the social and governmental structure.		One who believes that God Is Good™ and that He knows best for everyone, and the state does too.
Libertarian		One who believes that your right to say or do anything you want should only be limited in that it cannot infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.		One who believes you ought to get a bigger tax refund, and boot the other groups out of Washington.
Anarchist		One who believes in as little government as possible.		One who believes in no government at all, and you should too, by God.

See? The differences between the actual meanings of the words, and how they are currently represented, are profound. Maybe you, as a reader, don't agree with my interpretations; you're certainly free to do so. However, you have to admit that my base premise is in fact sound; the meanings of the words, as perceived by the public, are changing, and they are changing away from their literal meanings in favor of emotional appeal.

The problem with this is that if we allow ourselves to get away from actual meanings, then we're back in the trees, more quickly than you might expect. It's outside the bounds of possibility for one person to fully understand every aspect of every technology and its manufacture involved in everything in our society - I know, I've tried. But what is possible - IF we have absolute, objective meanings to our language - is for you to read a car repair manual and fix your own water pump, despite never having fixed one before, and despite never having really even looked underneath your car any more than absolutely necessary. (You motorheads please leave me alone; I'm not picking on you, it's called an EXAMPLE.) If we have no absolute meanings, however, and are solely dependent upon connotation for our communications, than a repair manual for your car becomes country directions: "Turn left at what used to be the fairgrounds before they built Old Man McGee's barn on it, that burned down a few years ago, and you'll find..." If you don't understand fully and completely the entire thought process used by the writer of the manual, it is useless to you.

Telepathy does not exist in reliable form. This is a fact. There are studies that indicate some very interesting things, but nothing concrete that we can use on a day to day basis. Without the ability to reliably, repeatedly, on demand, read and understand the entire contents of the mind of another human being, communication on a connotative basis is totally useless.

Now: I promised a little bit of discussion about my personal politics, and here it is.

In denotative terms, I am an Anarcho-Federalized Capitalist. What this means is that I believe the government does not permit me to do things, it exists for the purpose of protecting my right to do them; that the government should follow a distributed, minimally centralized model and be as small as possible; and that if I work harder than someone else, or just plain do my job better, I ought to get paid more, because my labor is worth more than my competitor's. Meritocracy is the true equality: you are worth as much as you deserve based solely on your actions, not on an accident of birth, your race, your religious beliefs, or any other such twaddle. If you and I get hired at the same time, and you do a better job than I do, you are worth more to the company, and should be compensated accordingly, regardless of any other considerations, period.

I also believe that it is in the nature of humans - indeed, of any living thing - to be self-interested to an extent, because without self-interest, you have no motivation to eat, drink, sleep, reproduce, or find shelter in a rainstorm.

I also believe that the current generation of executives of all stripes are, with few exceptions, and across all industries, incapable of divining the location of their asses, even with the assistance of both hands and a mining light - and I'll tell you why.

My elite education in economics, consisting of two one-semester classes, allows me to understand a basic, simple truth of economics that seems to elude almost all current executives: as your margins increase, the rate at which you lose customers increases faster than does your revenue from the increased margin.

Put simply: if you take a tenth of a pie each as your profit, and nine-tenths of a pie as your costs, you will sell more pies than the guy who has the same costs but adds enough margin to make a fifth-of-a-pie profit on each one. Not only will you sell more pies, but you will sell so many more pies, that you will end up with larger profit in the long term than will the gentleman with a higher individual profit-per-unit.

What does this mean? It means that the record companies would quit hemorrhaging money if they'd lower their prices. It means that Hollywood would make more each year on $3.50 movie tickets than they do at $8+. It means, ultimately, that the reason our economy is in shitty shape isn't that our executives are greedy; it's that they're not greedy enough.

What does this have to do with communication? Communication is learned. It is NOT innate. If it were, children would be born knowing how to speak and read. Can they? No. They must be taught.

A renowned, now deceased, science fiction writer named Robert Heinlein was famous for saying, repeatedly and in many different ways, that the education system sucks and didn't used to; it's great to think that he's exaggerating, but he wasn't. Children in the late 1800's typically learned Latin, upon which our language is based, as well as Amer-English; mathematics to a point where they could solve today's college-level maths in their heads; history to a much greater degree than do we; science to a greater degree than do we, (for all that what we learn today is more advanced, less of it is actually retained,) and most of all, critical thinking skills.

These days, our schools are falling apart. The political groups exist in the schools as well, and are so intent on pushing their agendas that they are neglecting to push an EDUCATION, with the result that students graduating high school in 1955 had received approximately the degree of education achieved by a current college senior. Our economy is falling apart because we, as a society, have allowed the ideologists in our schools to produce a generation of executives so poorly-equipped to understand the real world that they cannot understand that 5 pies is more than 1. (A tenth part each of fifty pies is five pies; a fifth apiece of five is one.)

If you are unable to understand that this is bad, and that our basis for communications is teetering on a fine edge, then support your local partisans, regardless of which side; the sides won't matter any more once we run out of aircraft mechanics and the people who can teach them. But if you get it, and can understand that an understanding of the objective nature of reality is necessary for our society to continue to function, then get busy and demand of your community that the schools do away with the ideology - of ALL kinds, from creationism to political theory - and instead get down to the business of educating our children with FACTS, because facts are the basis of human communication, and without them, we are nothing but mute, irrational, though oddly hairless, monkeys.

OMG I Hate These Friggin Things...

...which, of course, explains why I almost invariably fill them out, doesn't it? Blame Apey for this, btw.




1.Where were you when the ball dropped for 2006!
I was fucken well asleep, because _I_ didn't have off work the day before OR after.

2. How did you get the idea for your profile name?
Xeno's Paradox - XenodoX. Not that hard, when you think about it. It's also a sort of made-up word, stemming from the root xeno - meaning alien - and paradox, meaning a contradictory state. Xenodox means a paradoxical situation imposed by forces outside your control, which is usually where I am, thus the name. Think I have a bit too much free time? (Go look at my last couple of entries if you're still on the fence about that.)

3. What time were you born?
9:37 PM.

3. What song are you playing now, or wish you were playing?
Immortal, by Adema

4. Has the death of a celebrity ever made you cry?
. o 0 (I don't give a damn about celebrities, even when they're alive.)

5. What color underwear are you wearing?
Underwear?

6. Do you want a baby?
 Not since my daughter died, no, but thanks for asking.

7. What did you do this morning?
Took my wife to a job interview, then ate Reese's Pieces.

8. What does your mom do for a living?
WTF knows from day to day? mostly she's a teacher.

9. Where do you work?
I am a purveyor of fine cryogenically preserved lactating ungulate products.

10. What ended your last relationship(s)?

Before Tara? ummmm... she was a bitch?


11. What are the last 2 digits of your phone number?

36


12. What was the last concert you attended?
Marilyn Manson and it ROCKED.

13. Who was with you?
My brother, his wife and our friend Val.

14. What was the last movie you watched?
In about 20 minutes it will be "A History Of Violence."

15. Who do you dislike at the moment?
 Most  humans.



16. What food do you crave right now?
Shuriken Quesadillas from Taco Ninja.

17. Did you dream last night?
Nope.

18. What was the last TV show you watched?
The Battlestar Galactica Season Finale!

19. What is your favorite piece of jewelry?
I don't wear any.

20. What is to the left of you?
Basically everybody.

21. What was the last thing you ate?
My wife. Heh.

22. Who is your best friend of the opposite sex? 
Best friend that's NOT Tara... my sister-in-law Beth.

23. Write a song lyric that's in your head?
You really don't want to hear what's going on in my head.

25. Are you on any meds?
Coffee and Excedrin are ALL THE FUEL I NEED!!!

26. What side of the bed do you sleep on?
The  side I fall asleep on.

27. What shirt are you wearing?
I'm only wearing shorts.  So, that's kinda a trick question, for me, isn't it?

28. What color is your razor?

Black and silver. And rust.


29. What is your favorite frozen treat?

Peanut Butter Cup ice cream.

30. How many tattoos/piercings do you have?
 None of the above that I will show you.

31. What's your favorite store?
It's 1873 miles away :(( but the Best Buy by my house in Houston.

32. Are you thirsty right now?
Brb while I get a beer.

33. Can you imagine yourself ever getting married?
um..... already took care of that...

34. Who's someone you haven't seen in a while and miss?

My brother.


35. What did you do last night?
Had hot monkey sex with my wife. Three times.

36. Do you care what people think about you?
I don't care about PEOPLE. WTF would I care what they THINK?

37. Have you ever done something to instigate trouble?
Now THAT'S a silly question. Of course I have. Haven't you ever talked to me before?

38. What song(s) do you think ur bf, gf/ex's listen to and think of you?
Who gives a fuck?

39. What song(s) do you listen to and think of your bf, gf/ex's?
I don't think of my exes, because my wife is vastly superior to any of them, so I have no reason to.

40. What is one thing you wish you were better at?
Bowling. I am a terrible bowler.

41. Do you like the person who posted this last?

If I didn't like April she wouldn't be in my friends list, now would she? GOD!


42. What is across the room from you?
My wife. Oooooo. Wife. *strokes her*

Hmmmm, I will add a few to this, I think:

43. What's the best kind of food in the world?
Texas Barbecue. Or maybe chili. Tex-Mex food in general, anyway.

44. Are you happy?
Yes.

45. If not, why haven't you fixed it yet?
N/A

46. Have you ever had a really great business idea?
Yes.

47. Why haven't you put it in practice yet?
Because I'm basically lazy.

48. Is that an excuse?
Yes.

Ok, that's enough, and I have to go. My wife wants me for something, and I pretty much do whatever she says. Mostly. Sometimes. Ok, living with me is like herding cats, so what? YOU don't have to do it.
=P

Just A Quick Note...

You knew it was going to happen; people are starting to say that we ought to impeach President Bush.

Like these yahoos, and are you surprised the blue states are heavily represented?
The reasons, we're going to talk about, like so:

“The fraudulent basis on which the President got us into the war in Iraq;

Like what, Saddam having WMD and wanting to use them on us? Or was it

the obvious criminality of the warrantless wiretapping; indefinite detention in violation of the Constitution; torture as a part of indefinite detention and other ways; special rendition and torture, which is the outsourcing of torture...

Now, wait, didn't these same Congressmen vote for the USA-PATRIOT Act, which made all of that legal? Oh, yes they did, which makes this something called "passing the buck" by people who know what they're talking about. But this isn't important, because

All of these violate various laws of the US, and they also violate his oath office which he swears to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and he’s doing just the opposite, he’s undermining the Constitution and attempting to destroy certain parts of it,” Goodman said.

I hate to have to be the one to point this out, but the U. S. Constitution contains provisions on how to change itself; it isn't immutable. Plus, if you want the clauses of the USA-PATRIOT Act that violate it removed, the clauses YOU VOTED FOR, YOU BRAINLESS ASSHAT, all you have to do is sue someone over them and take the case to the Supreme Court. No way the warrantless searches and wiretaps will survive the test of Constitutionality, right? Then take 'em to court.

Now, remember how I'm always saying that you're mad about the wrong things? This is a prime example. Instead of being wrong about Iraq, and hollering loudly about the warantless searches and wiretaps while voting FOR the laws that make this legal, why don't you impeach the President for, oh, I don't know, violations of campaign finance law? Or, maybe, the fact that he has a blatant religious agenda, and is giving literally BILLIONS of tax dollars to faith-based charities, in direct contravention of the establishment clause? Or, maybe, the bribes, kickbacks, and general malfeasance of his corporate sponsors?

You see my problem here? This is just more of the same. The left isn't interested in actually removing him from office; they merely want to make a lot of noise without actually having to do anything. They know as well as anybody that an impeachment for the reasons cited above simply won't go anywhere; the special investigators will dick around for months and conclude that he acted within the scope of the law, and recommend - as Ken Starr did, with Clinton - that the laws be amended to make that kind of behavior illegal in the future. (Anybody curious, by the way, can email me and ask - I have an actual copy of the Starr Report, and I am more than willing to share.)

It's a damn shame that they're all in cahoots in Washington, despite how they try to portray themselves, because this President can, and should, be impeached for the very real illegal things he's done, and can and should be removed from office for those same malfeasances, and won't, because nobody's willing to challenge him on anything other than his own turf. Way to go, Washington politicoes!

Oh, one last little thing: were you curious who signed up for this, so you can not vote for them next time? Great! They are:

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Thank them for me, won't you?

Oh, Galactica, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me...

UNTIL FUCKING OCTOBER?!?



ARRRRRRGH!!!



No, it's not out of my system, but I will calm down eventually.

For those of you who either don't watch the show, or missed the season finale, the end of Season 2 seemed very rushed - the last several episodes (16-20) have featured time jumps as long as a YEAR in the timeline between episodes, which means that Season 3, at least 3.1, will be largely populated with flashback episodes.

I realize that LOST has made the format popular, but I stopped watching LOST when I realized that no matter what develops on the island, they are never gonna get past "life before the crash." I'd really appreciate it, oh mighty SF gods, if you'd get back to the more linear episode format from Season 1.

I don't want to give away anything to anyone who missed it,  so I will give a short, spoiler-free review of the Season 2 finale: "Lay Down Your Burdens," in list format. Ready? Good.

1. Starbuck is hot with long hair.
2. A nuke looks like it would HURT.
3. Goddamn, Helo, give up already.
4. Being as I have more than a passing familiarity with pneumonia, I will vouch for the fact that it SUCKS.
5. I had no idea Dualla was that vindictive.
6. Baltar, you friggin' pimp.
7. Nice 'stache, Admiral.
8. Ok, 6 is... 6, Sharon is 8, Lucy Lawless is 9, the new one is... what? WTF didn't they tell us his number?
9. That's a LOT of base stars.

       and finally, 10. OMGWTF.



This has been a spoiler-free review of the Galactica Season 2 finale.

My thumbs will be very, very tired from the endless twiddling by the time October rolls around.

The SECOND Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER!

First things first.
This is about abortion.
If you cannot restrain yourself from swearing and jumping up and down at the very mention of the term, no matter which "team" you find yourself on, skip this. Click here and leave the hell on outta' here.
I have some things to say, and I'm frankly not interested in a whole lot of incoherent jibberjabber, from either side.
If, on the other hand, you think you MIGHT just be able to hear a few things you haven't heard before and retain control of your faculties, read on. I will try to entertain you, without offending you. (Just kidding. Why bother? Chances are you will be offended, no matter what.)

Today, in Michigan, a lawsuit was filed by the National Center for Men.
At the very, very least, it will ignite a shitstorm. Most likely, it will get swept under the rug to avoid the shitstorm it rightfully deserves.
More on this, with linkage, in a minute.

Now. Abortion as an issue exists with two questions: who has the right to make the decision, and is the procedure illegal / immoral / whatever.

My gut, and my brain, agree on the second: you, all of you who get so worked up over this, are missing the point. The question is not whether it's illegal, it's WHEN it's illegal, because no matter how you dance around it, at some point in the pregnancy, the fetus is sufficiently developed that what you are doing is murdering a human being. At that point, it's ALREADY illegal - murder has been against the law as long as there have been human civilizations.

Now, the pro-life folks will tell you, loudly, over and over, that "life begins at conception," which is technically true, but also misses the point. The pro-choicers are more varied, as some of them think there's a certain developmental point at which it's no longer "ok," and some feel that pulling the baby part-way out and sucking its brains out with a vacuum tube IN THE DELIVERY ROOM is "ok." For me, so-called "partial-birth" abortion is so obviously murder, specifically infanticide, that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Now: the fact is, medical science may not know everything, but we're not back in the Dark Ages, either. The amount of knowledge that doctors are able to gather about a human fetus is amazing. Which leads me to my first of several points: when DOES the baby stop being a "non-viable tissue mass" and start being a BABY, anyway?

Well, we know for a fact that premature infants can survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks of gestation - a typical pregnancy being 38-40 weeks. Is it likely? No. But it's possible, and at that point, they may be small, but they're clearly babies. Let me be clear, folks: a baby is not an "unintended side effect." It is a HUMAN BEING. Your right to "terminate a pregnancy" ends when it becomes a HUMAN BEING. This is because killing a human being is murder. Destroying a non-viable tissue mass is, well, gross.

Now, the question is still unanswered: when is it a human? Clearly, earlier than 5 1/2 months, because the prematures at that developmental stage are clearly, recognizably human. Medical science can observe facial features, a heartbeat, and liver function as early as 2 1/2 months; for the sake of discussion, let's call it the first trimester. At the end of that time, the fetus is developed enough that the child can be observed to move independently, which sure indicates something other than a "non-viable tissue mass" to me.

Ok: we've succesfully answered one of the great questions surounding this issue: when is it legal, and when isn't it: very simply, it's fine, until the baby becomes human, which is in the vicinity of the first trimester. If abortion is going to take place, for any reason other than the life of the mother, this is when to do it. After that point it is already covered by the United States Code, which says you can't murder humans. (I have my quibbles with the methodology of the "health of the mother" determinations, but as they're strictly a matter of my personal opinion, I won't go into it.)

Well, that HUGE HURDLE overcome, let's talk about the real quandary: who gets to make the decision? Women's groups would have you believe that because the male does not physically carry the fetus, he should have no say, despite the fact that the fetus exists in part due to his actions, and 50% due to his biology; I think this is utter, arrant nonsense. A male that wants to have some say in the life or death of his child is not "oppressing women," he is taking voluntary responsibility for the results of his actions. Does that mean he gets to make the decision by himself? No, and that's my whole point: a child is a being which cannot, of its nature, exist without the efforts and biology of more than one person. (Barring clones, which are an entirely different issue.) Allowing EITHER of the parents, regardless of gender, to make a decision to destroy the child without the agreement of the other is simply morally wrong.

(OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER FOR ANY DUMBFUCKS WHO'VE MADE IT THIS FAR: Clearly, if a woman is raped, the father does not get a say. Also clearly, if the father just bails and doesn't want to hear about it, he doesn't get a say, because he HAD his say when he walked away. Neither of these points are germane to the discussion.)

Now. Now we get to the crux of the issue, which is: under the current state of the law in most of the United States, women do not have to consult the father at all. They can make the decision to keep the child, put the child up for adoption, or kill the child, all on their own. This is not "a triumph of empowerment," it is a statement to men that their role in the creation of the child is lesser, and their rights and responsibilities with regard to the child are lesser, than those of the mother.

Which brings me to the lawsuit.
The National Center for Men has filed suit on behalf of Matt Dubay, of Saginaw, Michigan, against his ex-girlfriend, requesting relief from his responsibility to pay child support. Why? Because, he claims,

the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant.

In other words, she made the decision to get pregnant without consulting him, thus denying him his right to choose; that denial therefore relieves him of any responsibility for the consequences.

Now, NCM is arguing that if decisions regarding pregnancy are, as Roe v. Wade states, up to the woman and not the man, then it is unjust for the woman to retroactively saddle the man with responsibility for decisions she made without his consent.

Here's the problem with all this. Everything about this issue has been approached in the wrong way. Like I said before, if a child exists, it's due to the actions of not one, but two people. Moral responsibility therefore devolves upon BOTH parents. If either parent chooses to disavow the child, they have made their decision, and it should be a legally enforceable, irreversible one. Neither parent should be able to sue for custody or support, years later, of a child that they voluntarily walked away from. A woman's position here is somewhat more complicated by virtue of the fact that the child is physically attached to her, and as such a decision to abandon the child has to be a choice between carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption, or abortion, but the decision is still the same: keep it, or don't. At that point, the pregnancy must factor into a woman's thinking, in terms of whether it's worth it, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy; but that doesn't absolve her of the responsibility of consulting the male.

(ONCE AGAIN FOR THE DUMBFUCKS: Rape, clearly, does not count. In a case of rape, the male has, by leaving, disavowed his consequences in advance. There are criminal penalties for the sexual assault; the penalty inherent in the act of rape, with regard to parenthood, is total, irrevocable loss of any parental rights whatsoever.)

Currently, the state of the law enforces a double standard of monumental, hideous proportions. The father does not have to be consulted by the mother, despite his equal responsibility in the actions which occasioned the decision; yet he can be called on years later to provide financial support for children in whose lives he has had no say whatsoever. This has gone to completely outlandish proportions in some places; there was a case in Sweden recently where two lesbians had themselves artificially inseminated via a sperm bank, and then sued the sperm donor for child support.

The NCM lawsuit is predicated on this same principle. If the mother can voluntarily, summarily banish the father from the child's life, the father can voluntarily, summarily banish the mother from his life. It is a moral evil of profound proportions to require someone to accept consequences stemming from the actions of someone else; any five-year-old can tell you this, if you try to punish them for something someone else did.

But, if the connection there seems a bit tenuous to you, let me illustrate it in the following fashion: Imagine, for a moment, that you work in a giant retail store. Call it "Brand X."
Now, you hold a position at Brand X where you do not place orders, choose product lines, buy product, or in fact do anything other than hand the product to customers and say "Thank you, have a nice day." Suddenly, one day, the Loss Prevention officers at your store come to you and say,

We've discovered that another department has ordered a product that doesn't sell well. Because you work at Brand X, we're docking your pay until all the non-selling product is paid for.

The moral principle involved is exactly the same. A decision for which you are allowed no responsibility has suddenly become the justification for punishment directed at you.

This is morally wrong.
Now, to me, a rapist is already a criminal, and a man who does not want to take responsibility for a child he created, using his dick, is a reprehensible shitball who should be spat upon publically; but that does not change the fact that the gentleman from Michigan is exactly right. If he was, in fact, told that no child would result, and did in fact state in advance that he wanted no children, and the woman proceeded to have one anyway, despite her assurances to him and her foreknowledge of his disinclination towards parenthood, then he should bear no responsibility, financial or otherwise, for the child. More importantly, if the woman flatly took the decision out of his hands - and the law says she can - then it is injustice of the highest order to claim that he is irrevocably bound to support the child.

My personal feeling is that you shouldn't stick your dick in a woman that you're not willing to take the risk of having a child with; this guarantees that no matter the outcome, you are at least to some degree prepared for it. And frankly, as my father used to say,

people will go places with a hard-on that I wouldn't go with a shotgun.

But his point is nonetheless true for all its sliminess, weaselliness, and general shitheadedness: he shouldn't have to pay for the kid, as long as the state of the law says that fathers don't need to be consulted.

No doubt there are some very angry people right now: and no doubt they will email me to tell me so. Too damn bad. I'll read your emails, send one in reply that says "Thank you for your comments," and otherwise ignore you.
If, on the other hand, you are one of the 4 or 5 people I know capable of rational argument that doesn't agree with me, feel free to send me any rational comments you choose to make on the subject, or feel free to post them in my comments section; that's what it's there for.
With that, I will say, have a good evening and good night.

Hamas To Israel: Suck It, Blue!

Hamas reacts to Israeli Threats

"We will make the Israeli Zionists drown in a sea of blood," the statement said.

Just a quick note.

This is a pseudo-entry, only because I've been waiting for a while to use that title. Heh. Those of you who aren't familiar with the joke should check out Red Vs. Blue, Season One.
Why am I not making a huge rant out of this? Well, simply, because you knew damn well that Hamas wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut, so this was inevitable.

A WARNING!

I will be making an entry in Xeno's Paradox tonight that will no doubt piss everyone - and I mean EVERYONE - off. This is because I am going to talk about abortion. Abortion pisses people off, no matter which side they're on. Be aware of this; reading tonight's article is very, very likely to piss you off if you read it.

That said, obviously I think it's an important one, or I wouldn't post it.

I assure you, the site will return to its regularly scheduled mocking of the headlines with the next entry; I don't anticipate having more to say about it than I will say later tonight.



For right now, wish Tara luck, we're about to leave to take her to her job interview.

Teh Funnay, We Want It!

Ok. Bearing in mind that the things I think are funny are usually also loud, offensive, profane, and generally unpleasant, check this out. Foamy has some things to say about your cell phone and your used car.  Two guesses as to whether they conform to my normal standard of humor.

Israel To Hamas: Quit Screwing Around Or We'll Kill You!

Think I'm kidding?

Israel's defense minister warned Tuesday the incoming Hamas prime minister would be assassinated if the Islamic militant group resumes attacks, but the acting Israeli premier also pledged a drastic cut in spending on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

That's right. The defense minister - one of the top government oficials of a sovereign nation - told the duly elected leader of another sovereign nation that if he didn't behave, they'd kill him. That's way outside what constitutes the norm for international diplomatic communication, and should serve as some indication of how Israel views the Hamas election. They are basically saying that if Hamas feels froggy, they should jump - and heads of state don't usually get to say things like that.

Five boys in Fontana, California, who tried to cheer up a recently-dumped friend of theirs by having a fictitious "girl" chat him up accidentally managed to snare a child molester, instead. Good hunting, guys!


In a not-too-surprising case of "old people knowing life is supposed to be fun," Irene Alice Goguen, of Leominster, MA, who turned 100 on Monday, recommends beer as a health tonic, and says that her husband died years ago because he DIDN'T drink beer.
I'd just like to point out that not too many nutritionists, vegans, dieticians, or doctors have lived to be 100 years old and not yet senile - but there sure seem to be quite a few centenarians who drink and smoke, don't there? Some days it seems like every time you turn around there's some oldster telling the world that hooch and smokes are the secret to long life. (50% of them, according to this study.) My local bar will be pleased to know that I am taking their advice.

Attention, cops: if you don't read the instructions for your speed cameras, chances are drivers will get their fines reversed in court. That is all.

A little more on the guy I was talking about at Xeno's Bastard Love Child who got caught trying to molest a sheep; he has been placed on indefinite leave pending an internal investigation by the Mesa Fire Department.

"I think it's disgusting," Sheriff Joe Arpaio said. "I think of Ghandi who said you judge the morality of a country by the way they treat their animals. . . . I do look at (bestiality) as some type of animal cruelty."

In a stunning turn of events, people are choosing cremation over burial in ever-increasing numbers. This is because it's cheaper. In desperation, funeral home directors are desperately trying to make cremation just as expensive, so people will go buy caskets again.

The average cremation - without the cost of burial and other fees - is about $1,850, said Jack Springer, executive director of the Cremation Association of North America. But add an elaborate urn, a hand-carved wooden casket, full funeral or fees for space in a columbarium and the price can rival, if not exceed, a traditional burial, which runs about $6,000 not including a plot and other fees.

That's right. If you don't buy all the additional crap, getting burned is about $1,850, and getting buried is about $6,000. Gee, in this day and age, I'm only surprised that anyone is left who's seriously surprised people don't want to pay that much.

Do you think Miller beer sucks? I do. And I'm not alone, either. But apparently, the Miller CEO doesn't get that we'd probably buy his company's products if they were, you know, good. Instead, says he, his company's product line is falling on its ass because...

as consumers began to look for more personalization and sophistication, Adami noted, the business failed to catch on quickly enough. Brewers stuck to the formulas that had worked before: mass-advertising campaigns with lots of bikinis and bad jokes.

In other words, we didn't buy your beer because there were too many bikini models. Um... earth to Miller Guys... the ads don't count for jack if your beer tastes like week-stale ass. Which it does. Notice that microbrews are growing quite well, thanks, despite in most cases having NO ADVERTISING AT ALL other than signs INSIDE BARS. Think your connection to reality might need a bit of adjustment?

Not as much as CBS News, evidently; CBS is all worked up about one of ABC's reporters getting hurt in Iraq. Love their concern for the other people injured in the same explosion, don't you? But what I find truly amusing in this article was the following snippet:

Both were wearing body armor, which doctors say likely saved their lives.

Especially since CBS has been portraying our body armor as crap. In fact, they've been making a LOT of noise about it. Just a bit ironic, that. A bit.

The British are joining the Japanese as world-class perverts, something which I, as a professional pervert myself, applaud: they are now selling sex toys in vending machines. Why is this a good thing? Well, because sex shops are, well, gross.

"The younger generation isn't phased by sex toys. They don't believe they equal pornography. Vending machines allow them to buy such products anonymously without going to a seedy sex shops to do so," Lucas said.

Your sea sponge wants a spell check. Oh wait, that's not right - your sua sponte HAD one. Dumbass. Here's a hint: Microsoft Word cannot deal with legal terminology. Running a spell-check is less effective than just READING OVER YOUR OWN CRAP.

You can all rest assured that if the President of the United States gets his nuts licked by a cow, I will know about it. Now, the question that occurs to me is - can we get HIM put on indefinite suspension, pending an investigation? I'm just asking, you know.

Remember all those dollars you gave the Red Cross for Katrina relief? I do. Well, guess what? The Red Cross used 'em to pay movie stars to ask for more donations for the Red Cross. But wait, it's better than that: take a look at some of the salaries the Red Cross is offering on its own webpage. They are actually advertising for applicants for a $150,000 / year job - the CEO of the San Diego Chapter. If they have regional chapter officers making over $100,000, how much of your hard-earned contribution made it to Katrina relief, do you think? I have to be highly suspicious of any "non-profit" organization whose officers are making such a VAST profit. Like the United Way, whose current CEO makes $500,000 a year; the ASPCA, whose CEO makes $186,000; the Christian Children's Fund (only pennies a day add up to $179,000 a year for President John F. Schultz;) Greenpeace, whose Executive Director saved the world to the tune of $162,125 last year; MADD, whose National Executive Director earned $238,139 last year; the Sierra Club, whose Executive Director rescued the snowy warbler for $204,983 last year; and the United Negro College Fund, whose President sent the kiddies to school last year, because those kiddies paid him half a million bucks.
And you guys wonder why I'm cynical.

Well, part of it is because GEICO won't save me any money on car insurance because I'm too poor. What, you didn't think the gecko was SERIOUS, did you? Oh, I see you did. Sorry to shatter your pleasant fantasies.

Well, just to round things out - anyone remember Bubb Rubb? The woot-woot guy? Well, he just got served: there's a company in Miami putting TRAIN WHISTLES in cars, which have "whistle tips" in the exhaust beat, hands down. The horns are louder than a jet taking off from 80 feet away. That's - faintly ridiculous. Their marketing is pretty good, too:

His horns range in price from the modest PsychoBlaster for just $42.95 (Web site: "These things pack some serious punch ... the loudest, most annoying thing you've ever heard.") to the Nathan Airchime K5, at $1,649.95 ("They'll hear you coming for miles with `The Godfather' of all train horns ... (the) loudest thing I've ever heard.").

That's right: the most annoying thing you've ever heard. Great. You know who will install these? Assholes. That's who. Glad to see they now have YET ANOTHER new tool to pester the rest of us.
Ok. That's enough "WTF?!?" for one day. I'm going to bed.

And Let Me Just Say...

...that nobody, but NOBODY, can get arrested for attempted sexual assault of a farm animal without me knowing about it...and mocking it ruthlessly.



Leroy Johnson, a Deputy Chief with the Mesa, Arizona Fire Department, was caught stinking drunk in a local barn after the owner's children saw Johnson dragging a lamb into the barn. When the owner confronted him, Johnson said - wait for it - "You caught me Alan, I tried to fuck your sheep."



Wow.

Maybe next time he should wait until the sheep is above the age of consent, then MAYBE it won't kick up such a RUCKUS.

It also helps if you try to avoid letting little kids SEE YOU DO IT.



Drunks are so much fun, aren't they?

Don't Worry, Hermione. You'll Get Used To It.

Hermione Granger Drinks Corona Extra, Why Don't You?

This doesn't need any help, but be aware that the song this page plays is loud, and repeats. Might want to mute before you go see the 15-year-old boozehound goodness. I wonder if Harry Potter knows Hermione's a lush?

Now, THIS Is Silly...

The Internet Song

Warning. This link requires a sense of humor. If you don't have one, and click it, then what ensues is NOT MY FAULT.
Not for small eyes, either. Your kids really shouldn't watch it. But it's pretty damn funny.

Yet Another Slap In The Face With A Big Fat Reality Stick

Remember how ever since Hurricane Katrina hit, the media have been howling for blood, declaring that the catastrophic damage done to New Orleans was a result of FEMA being too slow to respond to the breaches in the levees?

Remember how they said everything that went wrong at FEMA was Michael Brown, Bush-appointed head of FEMA's fault?

Remember how they said that made it Bush's fault?

Wrong again.

"We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video. "We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time."

Now, if you were the president, and you had been told in advance that the levees might be at risk, but the person in charge on the ground at the site said "they're not breached," then how would YOU respond? Hmmm?
Well, probably the same way that President Bush, and FEMA, actually did.

They didn't begin repair operations until the levee breaches were out of control because the governor of the state of Louisiana assured them that the levees were, in fact, not breached, and they didn't need to start repairs, despite the fact that

In fact, the National Weather Service received a report of a levee breach and issued a flash-flood warning as early as 9:12 a.m. that day, according to the White House's formal recounting of events the day Katrina struck.

That's right, kids. The governor had her head in the sand, didn't want to believe the NWS, and lied to the president, resulting in catastrophic damage to her state and the city of New Orleans.

Somehow, that doesn't come across as Bush's fault.
Remember me saying, often, that people are mad at Bush about the wrong things?
You should.
Here's a GOOD reason to be pissed off at him.

Today, the Senate voted, and made the USA-PATRIOT act permanent.

The spying, wiretapping, intrusive searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and general harassment of the population, not to mention torture of prisoners, unlawful detention without charges, confiscation of property of suspects, and general maladaptive behavior, are now officially part of the United States law.

God help us all.

No WMDs In Iraq? Boy Do You Ever Feel Like A Jackass Now, I Bet

...Because Saddam did in fact have WMDs, and freely admitted it, on tape. That's gotta sting a little, there, huh?

Not only IBD has this, either; apparently one of Saddam's former advisers wrote a book about it. You can get it at Amazon.com, if you feel like knowing what really happened, or you can just read what Saddam and his ministers were discussing yourself.

As this story develops, more and more sources of this information are turning up, each of which corroborates the others, each of which brings new facts into the equation.

First, Saddam had WMDs. Really. He did. Just like Bush said.
Second, the WMDs weren't there when we got there, because Russian Spetsnaz troopers helped move them to other countries, like Syria and Lebanon. In fact, you may recall me saying that's what happened, (although I admit the Spetsnaz bit was a surprise; I've met some of those guys and wouldn't have pegged them as the type) in "The Most Anger-Inducing Article EVER," in November of last year.
Third, Saddam candidly discusses on the tapes his plans to use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allied nations through proxies (which, as described, sound a lot like Al-Quaeda) who cannot be traced back to Iraq.

I know it hurts to face up to it, but you were wrong, and President Bush wasn't. Like I've said before, you're mad at President Bush about the wrong things, and glorifying our enemies only tarnishes your image and destroys your credibility with the American public.