Fair is fair

According to an article I found on Yahoo, a scientist has found a possible explanation for syphilis. It might have been brought back to Europe by Columbus and his merry men.

If true, this ought to bring an end to all the whining about how terrible Columbus was to the Indians. He brought them smallpox and civilization. They (presumably) gave him venereal disease, gold, and chocolate.

Civilization and disease versus hedonistic sensual delights. Quite a trade-off, no?

I suppose I could make a comment about American Indian culture leading to rap "music", but it would be too easy.

Bravo!!

Thanks to a link from GoV, I found an article by the terrific George Macdonald Frasier, creator of the Flashman series.

Here's a link to it. In it, the author rails against political correctness and liberal politicians. In fact, he also rails against conservative politicians, with good reason.

Read it, know it, live it.

And not just this article, but the entire Flashman series, and his wonderful Pyrates.

Offering my services

Wow. So Harvard, carrying on their great tradition of intellect, has just found out something incredible: Most of the newest security measures at airports.... doesn't make flying any more secure.

Wow again. I wonder how long it took them to figure that out. And how much money. But hey- it was likely worth every dime to find out that forcing an 80 year old man to remove his shoes and belt probably won't prevent him from hijacking a plane and flying it into a building.

Sometime after September 11, I recall reading that a senior Israeli intelligence official testified before Congress. He asserted that airport security in the US was excellent for what it was intended to do- make people feel more secure. As for the reality of security, versus the perception?

Not so much.

Oh, and here's another brilliant piece of information that the Harvard group ferreted out:

"We noticed that new airport screening protocols were implemented immediately after news reports of terror threats,"

Wow cubed. I never would have seen that one coming either.

If the TSA is willing to fork over a large sum of money- say $10 million or more- I promise to study the incidences of airport hijackings over the past 10 years or so, and find a darned effective way of finding out whether somebody is a higher risk than others for being a hijacker. It'll take some serious research, and might step on a few toes (though they'll all still have shoes on), and might come to a completely un-PC conclusion, but I have a theory in my mind regarding potential hijackers. And a way to possibly even identify them.

And I could have the results back before say, the end of the year. Or I could drag it out- er, study it more in depth- for another 6 months.

Or, for $20 million, I could study it in a conclusive manner, and take an entire year. And I guarantee my results: I'll manage to root out at least one thing that terrorists have in common. Probably even more.

Toss in a few more millions, and I'll come up with viable methods to protect passengers.

Here let me point out an important fact. Not once has a flight been hijacked and flown into a building with me on board.

Oh, and a final note: Just to show that my services are the best available, I'll give TSA a piece of free advice. Exceptional cases make bad law. Or to put it another way, passing regulations to prevent an incident that already occurred, simply to ensure that you're seen doing something, is a really bad idea.

You're welcome.

One more thing. Just to show how clever I am, and to demonstrate my final point above, here's another quote from the article:

"The U.S. Transportation Security Administration told research teams requesting information their need for quick new security measures trumped the usefulness of evaluating them, Eleni Linos, Elizabeth Linos, and Graham Colditz reported in the British Medical Journal."


Image courtesy of someone I don't recall. Probably either Ace of Spades or Gates of Vienna.

The Hell you say!

Wow. Didn't realize it had been almost six weeks since I posted. I've been trying to find something to write about, but much of what I've seen online has been too boring.

At any rate, here's something new. The Mitchell Report just came out on steroids in baseball. And the top name on the list? Roger Clemens.

Huh. Who would ever have thought that a player, who saw a significant improvement in performance when his numbers should have gone down, might be juicing? Assuming of course his name wasn't Bonds?

It's hardly the first time Clemens has been fingered, but it is the first time he's been officially and with solid evidence, named. At least to my knowledge.

Even I have to scratch my head here. I'm not usually one to look for a racist conspiracy of ex-Klanners behind every tree, but it is kinda odd. Black player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages, and everyone knows he's juicing. White player sees his numbers improve (or at worst, not drop off as they normally do) as he ages; and everyone shrugs.

So now a couple of the biggest names in Major League Baseball have been officially tainted. What to do....

There will be a lot of discussion about banning Clemens and Bonds (and others) from their place in the Hall of Fame. Normally, I'd be all for it- I still think that Pete Rose deserves to be locked out- but in this case, there's a problem. The steroid problem has been around for years, and everyone knew it. As I mentioned, rumors about Clemens are hardly new, and as for Bonds, everyone knew he was guilty. Ditto for some of the others mentioned.

The problem is, juicing was never looked on with the same sense of outrage as gambling. The owners knew it was happening, but they ignored it, since home run chases and records get fans into the seats. The players knew it, but most ignored it- why criticize someone when you might end up in their footsteps a few years down the road? And the Player's Union ignored it because that's what unions do.

So now the dirty linen is hanging out on the line. My thought is that the players who are named- or the players to be named later- should be allowed into the Hall of Fame, if their careers support it. Clemens was a shoo-in anyway, as was Bonds. Others, perhaps. Even Jose Canseco can make a strong claim to membership. Let them in, perhaps with an asterisk. Or even better, put their plaques front and center in a wing of the Hall devoted to Cheaters. Give them a shot, but make sure that everyone knows their inflated numbers (particularly for those like Clemens and Bonds, whose numbers got ridiculous at the end of their career) were the result of cheating.

Maybe just come right out and call it "the Hall of Shame".

It's too bad it came to this. But everybody knew what was happening, and thus everyone must bear a bit of the blame. Don't sanction those who did it, because they felt it was necessary. Would any of us do the same, if we had the opportunity to lengthen a very very profitable career? Not to mention the fact that inflated statistics mean inflated paychecks.

It's a mess. Baseball had it coming, and they can't play innocent anymore. The Mitchell Report blames everyone, and it should. Now let's just get the game fixed, and prevent it from happening again.

That way, the next time someone cheats, the people in charge will have an easier choice. After a cheating scandal rocked baseball many years ago, they made gambling illegal. Thus when that piece of slimy crap named Pete Rose was caught, there was no difficulty in deciding what to do.

Let's make it just as easy for the future commissioners. Sanction the guilty here, start a serious testing regimen, and make the rules explicit.

Problem solved.

Damn Al Qaeda to Hell

Found this picture linked at a great and usually funny site.

Beautiful. And tragic.

In the comments on the original post, there was some discussion of what the image brings to mind. One commenter, Mad Insomniac, said the following:

'I keep thinking about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address when I look at that photo, especially the last two sentences:

"It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."'

Amen brother, amen.

Best. Video. Ever

Funniest thing to ever come out of JibJab.

And scary true!!



Oh, and a special Tip to the charming and delightful Emily Zanotti at The American Princess, who apparently actually created this version...

...Or perhaps stole it from another blog. Don't know for sure, but a big thank you to Whomever it was.

A shoe-in winner

Here's a prime example of why I came up with the "WTF were they thinking?" award.

Thanks to Dymphna at Gates of Vienna.

Parents abusing children

I decided to go out today and wander around the shopping mall. Quite exciting, if you're into watching zombies walk around and spend money. It was a nice reminder of why I so rarely go to the mall anymore.

But there was one interesting moment. I was walking past one of the ear-piercing carts (I estimate there were about 428 of them), and saw a guy just taking a seat in their chair, with an infant in his arms. I remember thinking that he was probably getting the baby's ears pierced. A few minutes later, I was walking past again, and I saw that the obvious conclusion was correct. The baby was screaming like her (?) little heart was breaking- I have no doubt that getting this done was pretty painful.

And next to them stood Mom, smiling proudly at her crying baby.

What the hell is wrong with these people? This child was literally an infant- I would question whether the baby was even a year old- and I doubt very much that she was able to communicate to her parents that she wanted her ears pierced. So they did it on their own, to satisfy their own egos.

At the expense of their child.

I wonder how often there are complications from ear-piercing. Because if there is any risk at all- and I wonder how well trained a 20 year old woman is- then I'd suspect it's worse for a baby. And I for one would never subject a baby to that.

But the other thought that crossed my mind was whether this could harm the child in any lasting, psychological sense. A child, especially one that young, is incapable of taking care of him or herself. She trusts Mommy and Daddy to do what it best for her. And then they pay someone to shove a needle through their ears. For what? Again, their own ego, I guess.

I would intuitively suspect that this sort of thing goes deep into a baby's memory bank, and stays there whispering "don't trust them, they'll do things to hurt you" at certain times.

If it weren't for the fact that I would never wish that outcome on anyone, I'd almost hope that this poor little girl grows up to cause massive problems for her parents.

Because they deserve it. I don't know why this is allowed- shouldn't it be considered child abuse? If it's wrong to spank a child on the rear for misbehaving, then why is it acceptable to pay somebody to shove a needle through their tiny and still not quite completely developed ear. Without their consent or knowledge.

Sick, sick, sick.

Do the Democrats read Steyn?

Here's an article by Mark Steyn, discussing health care in Canada. Scary stuff. I just hope that people look over this article and see what it is that Hillary, Obama and all their cronies want to give us.

Especially read the part describing the medical emergency of Mrs. Steyn.

No way do I want any part of this.

Bureaucrats suck!!

Came across this tale today. Thanks to Ace for linking to this tale.

The guy sounds almost too good to be true. He deserves a new nickname, with a nod to Elton John (who wouldn't understand) and Bernie Taupin (who would):

R.I.P. Ben Salomon, aka Captain Fantastic.

Unbelievable

Yet another bit of Islamic stupidity.

Or, perhaps it isn't the Muslims that are stupid, but Britain as a whole. Last week, it was a grocery store that decided to let them decide what they'll sell. Now, it's medical students who refuse to learn about things that offend them- like alcohol, venereal disease, women, and on and on.

And they aren't getting bitch-slapped for it, which is kind of amazing to me. I suppose that, in the end, if they're booted from school, that kinda accomplishes the end result, but still.

What is it with these people? If you're so messed up that you can't control yourself when you see a woman's ankle, chin or whatever, then you need to be locked up, and subjected to serious therapy.

And I suspect most people would be. But not if you're Muslim. Then, you complain to the authorities, and they'll support you. It's happened at least once that I recall- a woman was "blamed" for her own rape, because the man couldn't control himself.

It's becoming intolerable. In some communities in Scandinavia, women are forced to cover their heads to keep from being physically and verbally abused. Others are dying their hair brown, so they don't look European.

And yet, the Islamists still are being allowed to make even more rules for the rest of us.

Britain is very close to the tipping point, if not actually beyond it. It's now an Islamic nation, but it simply refuses to admit it yet.

And I used to be a complete Anglophile. Sigh.

A quick course in reality

This one comes from a great and funny site.

Now one of my favorite internet reads.

Read it, live it, be it.

The Basics of War and Terrorism

Posted by Frank J. at 04:08 PM

A lot of people wonder how the war is making us safer since there are still terrorists out there who want to kill us. Well, when the terrorists come to kill me, I'm like, "Why are you guys trying to kill me?"

And they're like, "Because of the war in Iraq!"

And I'm like, "I didn't have anything to do with that. I've been here in America the whole time minding my own business. You should take this up with the soldiers in Iraq."

And the terrorists are like, "We will!"

So they go to Iraq to kill the soldiers, but the soldiers have lots of guns and they kill the terrorists back. And that's why we've had no terrorist attacks in America in the past couple years but lots of dead terrorists.

I've probably explained this before, but it's always worth repeating.

The 6 P's in action

Remember the six P's? Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance...? I think we might have actual proof of that here.

Once again we have some wacked-out kid going to a school and starting to shoot people. Fortunately, the only person killed was the shooter, who offed himself.

At this point, insert the obligatory "sorry for his family, poor child had problems and was ignored by the system and whatever else" comments.

What strikes me though, is the fact that nobody else was killed. Why? Well, probably there are a number of explanations, but the fact that struck me on reading the article is that there seemed to be a plan for this.

At last! A school that seems to understand that bad things happen, and that if you prepare for it and it never happens, you're better off than if you do nothing and disaster strikes.


'...Student Latisha Hill told one television station students began taking cover when the emergency command was announced and she locked herself in a bathroom until police knocked on the door and let her out.

"All I know is I heard the principal yell 'code blue,"' Hill said.'

The school had a "code word" and when it was announced, it appears that students reacted properly- seeking cover and concealment, like well-trained soldiers do, and waiting for the authorities to arrive. No indications of mass panic, or little sheep sitting there waiting for the wolf to come and get them.

And that's not all: There's another, even more amazing piece of information in the article. The CEO of the school district seems to have a sense of perspective also.

'[School district CEO Eugene] Sanders said he was canceling classes at all Cleveland public schools on Thursday so that parents, students and faculty could "take a breather" and "put this in perspective."'

No bleating about "grief councilors" or any of that drivel. They're simply talking about "put[ting] this in perspective".

Wow. Simply wow. I am so impressed right now with the Cleveland School District. I hope that they keep this up, and don't give in to the whiny leftists who will want an army of councilors to come in and have healing circles for the victims, or whatever else they do.

Someone with an obvious problem came into the school and did something insane. The school district was prepared for it, and apparently helped prevent things from getting too out of hand.

That's the advantage of planning, folks.

I salute the Cleveland School District, and the faculty, staff and students at SuccessTech.

Plan for the worst, and you just might prevent it.

The future of health care

Just got an email from my friend Ed. He linked to this article.

Scary stuff indeed. The absolute best points made about the whole thing are in the comments. Specifically, comments 7, and especially 37.

Not sure how this is even remotely legal. Or ethical. Which takes me back to comment 37.

It's all reminiscent of the whole issue of fathers being unjustly accused of child abuse by bitter, vengeful, psychotic wives, which hopefully peaked back in the late 80s and early 90s. (An issue with which my family unfortunately became quite familiar).

The ultimate example of stupidity with the abuse issue was a man who was almost sent to jail for molesting his daughter. Why? Because when she was being grilled by the authorities (mind you, the girl was about 5 years old) she said that she and Daddy went swimming. They asked her if she and Daddy wore clothes, and she replied that they didn't.

Of course, being 5 years old, she didn't get the nuance: no, they didn't wear clothes. When you go swimming, you wear bathing suits, not clothes.

Fortunately that guy was lucky.

I confess that I don't understand how this doctor could do such a thing. Asking about their parents seems pretty far out of line anyway. Reporting it to the police seems illegal on at least 2 or 3 levels. Not to mention, incredibly unethical.

But hey. Gotta protect the kids, even from Mommy and Daddy. Regardless of whether they're doing anything wrong or not.

God, I hate liberals.

Shine on you crazy diamond

Some time ago- back in February, to be precise- I did a post on the meltdown of Britney Spears. I personally liked that post then, and still do. But I've steered away from talking about her problems since. However, I think it's about time to make a few observations. Because at this point, she's heading for complete destruction, and everyone seems to know it except her.

At the time, I said that her problems were due to her success at an early age, her desire to "have it all", substance abuse (presumed), the entertainment "system", her messed up family, yadda yadda yadda. I stand by that.

The problem is that she still had a solid chance to recover, both personally and professionally. Now, while miracles do happen, she's far worse off than she was 8 months ago.

Which is pretty amazing, considering where she was at back then.

Her comeback-thus far- is a disaster. Her kids have been taken from her, she might be charged with abuse, and yet another dirtbag "lover" is telling tales about their night of sex. And this one might have the video evidence.

Supposedly, she's going to be touring in support of her latest musical offering. At this point, it looks as though it'll be a disaster, if it even happens. Early reviews of her latest songs are pretty poor, and she's embarrassed herself every time she's performed publicly.

Of course, she's also embarrassed herself pretty much every time she's set foot in public, so that last point isn't terribly surprising.

She's closing in on a professional Black Hole. She's right on the event horizon, circling the drain, etc. If, or more likely when, her latest album flops, she'll be pretty much finished professionally. With no trace of a career left, she'll be more and more irrelevant than ever, and the shambles that is her personal life will also go downhill. She could well be heading for Dana Plato territory.

This is all more or less background. In reading more about what she's up to these days, I think she's only got a couple good options left. Even after the disaster that's probably imminent, she might be able to get it together. But how?

I think the first Good Thing that could happen would be a spiritual awakening of some kind. I'm not terribly religious, but if she had some kind of revelation, it would be great. Suddenly waking up one morning and realizing that she's kind of a loser- and definitely a bimbo- and deciding to look for something better is the sort of thing that would salvage her life, if not her career.

The next possibility would be for her to find a new manager. A nice Drill Sergeant type: somebody who's willing and able to kick her butt. What she needs is a lot of tough love. She needs to get into rehab- and stay there until she's actually beaten her addictions. Then she needs to get her lazy, chunky butt into shape (not that I'm in a great position to criticize, but I'm also not an entertainer). After that, she'd need to mend fences with family and friends, and finish up with a "contrition tour" of various magazines and TV shows. Oprah would of course be the crowning moment. Go on Oprah, admit to your mistakes, cry (hopefully with complete sincerity), show off your new look- sexy but understated and more mature (wearing underwear and keeping it hidden is a necessity), perform your newest song (which needs to be written and produced by the best talent money can buy), and you're golden.

The third option is finding A Good Man. This one is pretty unlikely, since she's been pretty bad on this count. But if she could find someone that she could really truly care for- and who really cared for her in return- it might inspire her. But he'd probably have to be similar to the Drill Sergeant. He'd have to be willing to put his foot down and tell her "if you want me, you have to earn me, cuz at this point you're a mess."

I'm a complete cynic, but I'm also a bit of a romantic at heart. It's worked before, right? But her new man has to be both tough and supportive. And as someone who spent most of his military career around Drill Sergeants, I have to say that's kind of their job. (The good ones, at any rate.) So options 2 and 3 seem to go together.

She needs to be lucky enough to find someone, and smart enough to trust him (or her) completely, whether as a lover or as a manager. Which again, sadly, takes us back to the realm of shaking our heads and doubting her judgment.

Here's hoping she finds at least a couple of the above. Unfortunately for her though, you don't usually meet them in tanning salons and nightclubs.

*************
If she doesn't get lucky and find one of the three Good Things, then where will she end up? Well, we've already mentioned the Dana Plato "child star" suicide or accidental death disaster. Hopefully she'll avoid that one. But then what's left?

Well she can always go onto the reality show circuit. I'd say that in a few years, she'll be a strong candidate to appear on Survivor, Big Brother, or one of those other garbage shows that I never ever watch (really).

Or I bet Playboy would give her a shot- assuming she loses some weight (though airbrushing can fix a lot). Penthouse would also love to have her, but they'd probably want a bit more "action".

Both of those would be an admission that she's desperate, and as a career move, historically posing nude doesn't work out. Need proof? See Dana Plato again.

Retirement is the least bad choice, assuming she manages to hold onto her money without giving it all to her Ex for child support. Then perhaps in a decade or two, she can write a book (well... collect money from a publisher to have somebody write a book) about her rise and fall. Who knows? By that point, she might be forgotten enough to stage a genuine comeback. Especially if she were to get coaching in singing, acting, and dancing so that her new act would impress people.

Of course, she could always just take some time and try to better herself. Enroll in college, travel the world, work for charity, or enter a convent. But I don't see her having the desire for anything like that.

In any case, she's going to have to make a major choice soon. Disaster looms, and a successful album supported by a successful tour will only delay the inevitable fall. And make it that much worse when it does come.

As I said back in February, "Good luck kid. You need it."

And finally, as a postscript, here's a comment posted back then. With a nod to Pink Floyd, of course:

Remember when you were young, you shone like the sun.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
You were caught on the crossfire of childhood and stardom,
blown on the steel breeze.
Come on you target for faraway laughter,
come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!
You reached for the secret too soon, you cried for the moon.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Threatened by shadows at night, and exposed in the light.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Well you wore out your welcome with random precision,
rode on the steel breeze.
Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!

Sigh

I'd like to think this is a joke, but apparently not. "Munich syndrome" is running rampant in the UK.

One would think that Britain of all places would understand the problem with appeasement, but sadly, they don't. It's now become the cornerstone of their national policy, both domestic and international.

I can't think of anything to say about this. It's messed up, and there's nothing more to add.

A proud moment for America

This truly warms the cockles of my heart. I understand the reaction of our hero Jim Brossard, and salute him. From the depths of my being.





Thanks Jim, for doing what nobody else had the guts to do.

Hat tip: Gates of Vienna.

Update: Here's an interview with Jim.

Homesick Blues

Here's one that I'll toss in for Nick at RightMichigan. And anybody else that wants to see what happens when liberals run amuck.

Michigan is my home. I was born there, and have lived there most of my life. But right now, I'm in New Mexico. Part of it is personal, but things in Michigan are completely screwed up. The governor is clueless, and thinks it's a good idea to fly to Europe for a week or two, and come back with a promise of 150 new jobs for the State..

Of course, while she was gone the State lost a couple thousand jobs, not to mention the money that it cost to send her there. (And sadly, to bring her back).

But she and her fellow Dummocrats came up with a plan. Just raise taxes, and the problems will be solved! Sure, there's the whole thing about people having less money to spend. And the part where businesses have to cut jobs to save money. And the part where the spending by the State Government is still high...

But hey, raising taxes will fix everything, right? And even if it doesn't, well she's only been in office for 5 years, so it's clearly the fault of her predecessor. That's the argument made by all good Dummocrats, including one of my siblings. Of course, she works in education, so that could be part of her problem. And she is the one that once told me that if Bin Laden demands the US become a Muslim nation, then we should just declare it, and he'd leave us alone.

So you can imagine how much attention I pay to her political musings.

In any case, it's been interesting to see the "progress" that Michigan has made in the last few years. Most of the larger cities are dying, people are making less money, companies are moving out, and the government works on the logic that throwing water on a drowning man is the way to save him. Sure, because the fact that Michigan is economically worse off than any other state is just a coincidence.

Which is not to claim that everything is Jenny-Poo's fault. I rode a Greyhound from Michigan to Colorado some 20 years ago, visiting another sister. I sat for a while with a guy that was moving from Michigan back to his home state of Nebraska. As I recall the tale, he had moved up there a few years before, for whatever reason. While in Michigan, he opened a small shop. After a few years, it went under, and he was bailing out. The one thing that has stayed in my mind all these years is his comment "Michigan is a horrible place for small business".

Friends of mine that own small businesses today agree with that statement. So there is a problem with the system, and it isn't all the fault of the current administration. But it does need to be fixed.

(Of course, my brilliant sister says that it's all the fault of the previous governor, and that Jenny-Poo can't be held responsible. When I point out that she's in charge and thus has to fix things, she retorts that Jenny-Poo shouldn't be held responsible for the failings of another. At which point I mention that she has the job, things are broken, and therefore it's her responsibility to try and fix it; which earns me a "well it shouldn't be". I make the observation that things are worse now than when J-P took office, and are getting worse every day, and she says that it's proof of how bad things really were when J-P came in. I'm honestly not sure why I even bother, except that I hate stupidity.)

I could go on, but it would take forever to explain the problems. All I can say is that I greatly prefer Michigan to New Mexico, and I want to be back there with my family and friends, but I just don't know if it's possible. Next year, I'll probably be heading someplace different- this whole New Mexico thing was prompted by a deployment to Iraq in my family- but I just don't know if heading home is a valid option. Higher taxes, high unemployment, high crime, and so on just isn't a strong environment for someone who needs to start over at the point when he should be able to take things easier.

I wish I could head back today. Instead, I might not be able to ever return. And that breaks my heart.

A child's playground

I found links to this photo essay all over the Web today. Thanks to both Ace of Spades and Little Green Footballs, the ones that I read faithfully.

It's about the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. It's a fun family event, sponsored by Miller. Miller Beer: The official beer of public orgies.

I'm tossing in the link, but I cannot stress enough that this link deserves the highest possible grade of NSFW. If you aren't into public masturbation, oral sex, and men abusing themselves in ways that God didn't really intend, then DO NOT click through.

The saddest part is that my headline isn't a joke. If you do click and you make it through far enough, you will see small children dressed "appropriately" for the events. The outfits aren't really disgusting, but seeing a couple of cute little 5 year old girls wearing leather and surrounded by this sort of thing is disconcerting to say the least.

Look, I'm all about personal choice and personal freedom. If a person is gay, terrific. I don't roll that way, but I'm not gonna judge you if you do. If you like to be spanked, whipped or whatever, good for you. Again, it ain't my thing, but roll on. I have my little quirks as well, and I don't want to be judged for them.

But then, I don't run around advertising my sexual fantasies. And especially not on public streets. With little children around.

Though I admit this last point is questionable- after all, the kids are there because their parents take them. Which to my mind opens up a whole other can of worms regarding their suitability as parents. But I suppose that if social services looked into the parenting of the men in question, that would be "homophobia", so they get a pass.

This is just too much. I don't understand how this is supposed to convince anybody that homosexuality is okay. To my mind, it shows how out of touch these people are, and gets them shunted further and further out of the mainstream. Fine, I get it: celebrate who you are, and don't feel guilty about it, because you aren't alone. But it's 2007, and if someone still feels abnormal because he or she is an exhibitionist, then he/she certainly has never been on the internet.

Go ahead and do your thing. Just don't shove it in the faces of the rest of us. Because it's too much for some of us to take. I have no problem with gay rights, but this is turning me from neutrality to opposition.

I wish I drank beer, just so I could swear off Miller products forever.

Turning the tide?

Thanks to Ace of Spades, which linked to this editorial. A journalist has apparently found an old copy of the Constitution, and then read it. And found something amazing: The Bill of Rights has an amendment in there (I think it's the second one down, but don't quote me) which allows people to own guns!!

I think the exact words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Anyway, the journalist in question- Johnathon Turley- thinks that this amendment was intended by the Framers to work in the exact same way as the one above it, which apparently allows people to exercise their religion freely, and also allows them to speak and assemble freely.

Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but can this be? After all, the media (when they aren't trumpeting their importance to "Truth, Justice, and... all that" (a big "hello" to the 4 people that saw the new Superman movie this year and get the point) has long said that this notional "right to keep and bear arms" doesn't really exist.

So perhaps some liberals are starting to read beyond the First Amendment. Trust me, there's a lot more to the Constitution than just that first part. Who knows, if they read a bit farther perhaps they'll discover a couple other interesting facts. Like the fact that "the wall of separation between church and state" that they so love to lecture people on isn't actually in the Constitution. Or, if they keep reading, they might notice a very distinct oversight: I have it on good authority (i.e my own lying eyes) that the word "abortion" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. And even more amazing, there is a line in the Document that implies very strongly (i.e. explicitly states) that any power not mentioned is reserved to the states and the people.

Which would seem to suggest (and any liberals, try to follow along here) that if abortion isn't mentioned, it isn't a matter that the Federal Government has any business discussing. And therefore, the legality of abortion should be decided by each individual state. Thus suggesting that "a woman's constitutional right to choose" is a complete load of hooey.

It's all there, folks. Read it and understand.