The True Story Of The Cowardly Lion.

You may remember the old nursery tale of the lion raised as a sheep, who, when danger struck, realized his true nature as a lion and saved the day, to the immense gratitude of the sheep.

Yeah.

Most people, not just here, but in the world, are sheep. They are raised as sheep, taught to believe they're sheep, and frown violently on anything un-sheeplike.

The operative word there is "most."

Some people are wolves, some are sheepdogs, and some...

...Well, some are lions.

Now before I spell things right out, I want to tell you the true story of the Cowardly Lion.

Note before I begin that this story IS NOT about me. I served in the 82nd Airborne, and was in Kosovo, but I've never been to Iraq, and would rather not, if I had a choice.

Despite the name, there wasn't any cowardice in my friend - let's call him "Joe," because he probably wouldn't appreciate my reference otherwise - or in his upbringing. He was brought up in a nice, suburban, middle-class family, good, solid left-wing moonbats, as seems to be all the rage these days.

He was by all accounts, a nice, respectful young man; he got good grades in school, did enough after-school crap to stay with the pack but not get a lot of attention, and generally behaved like a good sheepie, like his parents before him.

Then he turned 18.

You may remember that year; that was 2001. In September of that year, some very crazy, very bad people did something so awful that even now, five and a half years later, people are still trying to pretend it didn't happen, or was someone else's fault.

His parents ranted about how our government had failed, blah blah. But Joe found within himself some very un-sheeplike urges.

And Joe joined the Army. Not only that, Joe joined as an infantry ground-pounder; the very antithesis of everything his parents believed. They were, unquestionably, shocked by this demonstration of non-sheepieness.

And when 2003 came rolling around, Joe got himself sent to Iraq.

Iraq is violent. This is true. Iraq also has created casualties among our soldiers. While this is true, the news media loves to make much of the numbers, without bothering to note - just for comparison - that there have been fewer U. S. casualties in Iraq than homicides in Washington, D.C. during the same time period.

During his time in Iraq, Joe watched the news, and got more and more confused as to why the media was portraying Iraq, and the troops, in such a negative light; especially considering that he was in an extra-violent province and wasn't seeing the same things that the reporters were apparently witnessing daily.

But something else happened, while Joe was in Iraq. Joe learned self-discipline; restraint; a good bit of tolerance for the differences of others; he learned to rely on himself, and how to use his strength of will to overcome difficult situations.

Used to be, we'd call that "growing up," or maybe "becoming a man," if you want to go way back to where men were assumed to be tolerant, disciplined, and self-reliant.

But what really happened was that Joe figured out that he wasn't a sheep at all, but a lion.

A lion isn't a sheepdog.

And soon enough, his rotation was over, as was his time in the Army; he chose not to re-enlist, and went home, having served his country in honorable fashion, and acquitted himself well in said service. DD-214 stamped "Honorable" and such, he got home, and found himself in a different country than the one he'd left.

He found himself in a nation of terrified sheep, who had been trained to believe that lions are wolves, and sheepdogs are wolves, and everything that's not a sheep is a wolf.

A lion isn't a sheepdog.

A lion isn't a wolf, either.

Now Joe was home, with firsthand experience of what was really going on in Iraq. He knew that the claims of hundreds of thousands of casualties were simply not true; he knew that WMDs were found; he knew that the insurgency was coming from Iran and Syria; and he found out quickly what happens when sheep don't like something.

They ignored him.

Joe has no place at home, now. His family has reacted in ways ranging from calling him a liar to his face, despite his first-hand knowledge, to ignoring and refusing to discuss the entire situation.

Because his experiences overseas changed his outlook on the situation, he now believes that although it's unpleasant, we SHOULD BE in Iraq. His family and friends are unable to understand this. They claim the war "traumatized" him, or that he's been "brainwashed" by the military establishment.

Because they're sheep; they are unable to understand a worldview in which their nonsensical ideology simply doesn't work. They are unable to understand that all the piffle about non-violence goes out the window when bullets zing! past your ear. They are unable to understand that they managed to raise a lion instead of a sheep, and because of this, Joe has basically lost his family and the friends he had outside the military.

Joe is seriously considering joining back up, despite the great likelihood that he would get sent back to Iraq. This is because, as he told me a while back, "these folks just plain don't understand things. I gotta have someone I can talk to."

I really hope he doesn't. Because we need more of the lions to tell the world what's really going on.

There are sheep. Most people are sheep. There are wolves; those are the folks who bomb buildings just to kill a lot of sheep they don't even know.

There are sheepdogs. These are the guardians we have here at home; the cops and firemen who were going up the stairs when the WTC buildings came down. I've said before how deeply I honor them, and their sacrifice.

And then, there are lions. Our soldiers aren't all lions, although most of them at least manage sheepdog; but there are a hell of a lot of lions in the military.

And the sheep forget that they serve a purpose.

And more importantly, they forget that lions aren't sheepdogs; or, for that matter, sheep. They are LIONS.

A lion has no place in a herd of sheep.

It is a sad truth that throughout our country's history, we have treated our veterans very poorly indeed. Warfare IS traumatic; even those relatively functional when they return home have a - sometimes lengthy - period of adjustment before they are able to fake being a sheep well enough to get along in society, and some - maybe a lot - of them never really make it.

Go find a vet. It doesn't matter what war, conflict, or "police action;" go find a vet. Male or female, black, white, brown, or green; it doesn't matter. Go find a vet, and thank them.

Because it wasn't just their lives they risked in your defense; it wasn't just their jobs or their families they gave up to protect your liberty; they risked the very great possibility that they will never again HAVE a home - not a real one - with the herd, ever again, so that we would have the privilege of armchair-quarterbacking their actions.

They risked their reality, and their place in our society, to protect that society.

If you die, you're just dead. It sucks for those you leave behind, but for you, not so much.

If you lose your place in the herd forever, that is a lifetime of punishment in exchange for honorable service.

We owe the lions more than that.

Go find a vet and thank them. The sheep owe them that.

Yet Another Doubleheader, Part 2

You all know how much I love blatant hypocrisy on the part of anyone.



Really. I do.



This particular example, though, is a bit much even for me; I had a tough time believing that this was a serious news story, but apparently it is.



San Francisco State University's Associated Students group has passed a resolution banning flag burning.



You're thinking "HUH!?!"



But just wait.



It's not the U. S. flag they're worried about.



It's the HAMAS and Hezbollah flags they're concerned with. See, desecrating the U. S. flag is "protected free political expression," while desecrating the flags of known and acknowledged terrorist groups is "hateful religious intolerance" which is not ok, at all.



I'm not sure how supporting known terrorist groups is supposed to NOT be offensive to the huge, overwhelming majority of Americans, but somehow, it's ok.



I'm not sure how desecrating the United States flag is supposed to NOT be offensive to the huge, overwhelming majority of Americans, but somehow, it's ok.



Some days I wonder why we persist as a nation at letting the fucktards rule us all.

Yet Another Doubleheader, Part 1

So, today we went to the baby doc.



The good news (#1 of 2) is that the baby seems to be doing fine, and objected to the ultrasound wand being pressed against Tara's belly by kicking the crap out of the doctor. Way to go, kid! You're learning already.



The bad news is that we couldn't find out which it was, boy or girl. The doc just couldn't get a good enough look; not because the baby's shy, but just because of the way it's facing.



The good news (#2 of 2) is that he winked, nudged us, and said he's gonna get us an appointment at the medical center in Hershey, to get the super-ultra-really-wacked-out-crazy-cool ultrasound that's all like 3D and shit.



So, no news really for now, BUT, in a couple more weeks when we go to Hershey, we should hopefully have a really kickass not-at-all grainy very very clear pic of the baby to post.



And we should know which kind we're getting, blue or pink.



Ain't it grand? Remember, patience is a virtue.

Fine, Damn, I'll Do Your Stinkin' Survey...

...since I've been tagged twice for it.



Ok, let's see.



1)  Where were you 1 hour ago? Trying to survive the OMGWTF that is inventory.



2)  Who will be your next kiss? Tara is making smoochy lips at me right now. I'm guessing that's a hint.



3)  Is there anything pink within 10 feet of you? Yes. I have a wife, you know. She has girly things.



4)  When is the last time you went to the mall? WTF is this "mall" of which you speak?



5)  Are you wearing socks right now? Yes, long grey ones that seemed like a great idea in my combat boots but suck in my hikers. OMGWTF@ my huge, immovable ankle roll.



6)  When was the last time you went out of town? Define "out of town." Around here, that's a five minute drive.



7)  Have you been to the movies in the last 5 days? "Been to?" HELL no. "Had a momentary urge to violate international copyright law?" I'm not saying.



8)  What was the last thing you had to drink? Water. I'm too sick right now to chance anything else.



9)  What are you wearing right now? A t-shirt and jeans. I am dead sexy, boy.



10)  Have you been in a car wash? Somehow I read this question differently than Sheila did. *pictures her in a bikini covered with soap.* *Pictures himself in a bikini covered with soap.* GOOD GOD NO.



11)  Last food you ate? PIZZA!!! And it was pretty damn good, too - I've finally got the pizza shop properly trained to manufacture a pizza the way I like it.



12)  Where were you last week on Saturday? I AM ALWAYS AT WORK.



13)  Have you bought any clothing items in the last week? There are places where clothing is sold?



14)  When was the last time you ran? I don't "run." I either charge, or chase. There is no third way.



15)  What's the last sporting event you watched?  I dunno, but I listened to the Saints pwning the Niners with violence and hatred last night. I thought, "poor Sheila. But wait, I hate both those teams. HAHA!"



16)  What is your favorite class? I have no class.



17)  Your dream vacation? OKTOBERFEST IN GERMANY. Bring on the brew.



18)  Last 3 people's houses you were in? Ummmmm... Tara's sister's, Tara's grandma's, and errrrrr.... I don't get out much. Ask me this again on Saturday.



19)  How old are your parents? My mother is old enough that she doesn't want to admit it and still passes for 45. My father died last year, at 72.



20)  Do you miss anyone? Yeah. I miss my father - who is pretty much irretrievable - and my brother, who thankfully isn't. HEY JON!! GET YOUR ASS UP HERE FOR A VISIT BIOTCH!!



21)  Last play you saw? Die Fledermaus. Definitely brings the LOL.



22)  What are your plans for today? I am going to produce as much OMGWTF as I possibly can, then sleep like the dead. Until my phone rings at 3 am.



23)  Who is the last person that commented on your page? Sheila! (In quick comments. Renee hit my blog last.)



24)  Ever go to camp? OMGWTF@ Paesano Baptist Encampment for the win!



25)  Were you an honor roll student in school? When I wasn't stoned, yes. Believe it or not, I actually was.



26)  What do you want to know about the future? I had a really good idea that Tara started yakking right through and erased completely from my consciousness. So, you are deprived of my wit and wisdom of this one. Everybody, on three, one, two, three, "THANKS TARA!!!" (Yes, she stuck her tongue out at me for that. I am considering it an invitation to be taken advantage of at a later but as yet unspecified time.)



27)  Are you wearing any perfume or cologne?  Brut aftershave. Later probably Drakkar, though.



28)  Where is your best friend located? Aside from Tara, who is the titleholder,  California. You know who you are.



29)  Do you have a tan? I have the pasty complexion of every gamer who's ever lived. And freckles. Go figure.



30)  How old do you want to be when you have kids? Somehow, I'm counting on "31" being a big winner here.



31)  Do you collect anything? Do video games and books count? I have huge quantities of both.



32)  Last time you got stopped by a cop or pulled over? Got hit by a swoop and scoot while driving a cab, that was the last time I was actually even really spoken to by a big-city cop. Our one cop says "Hi!" and waves when he passes, though, so if that counts, about a week ago.



33)  Have you ever drank your soda from a straw? Why in the hell would I want to do that?



34)  How do you like your drinks? Loaded with alcohol.



35)  Do you like hot sauce? HAHAHAHAHAHA. I peel fresh habaneros and eat them raw. Hot sauce is my bitch.



36)  Last time you took a shower? About nine hours ago.



37)  Who do you have a crush on?  I have no crush. My wife is my one true love.



38)  What is your mood? "OMGWTFLOLZ!!"



39)  Are you someones best friend? Anyone who counts me as a friend. There must be at least three of you by now.



40)  Are you rich? OMGWTF WE AER TEH BROEK!!1! LOLZ1! But, I have massive genitalia, so that makes up for it.



SO OK THEN ARE YOU SATISFIED CHRIS AND SHEILA?!?! I DID YER STEENKENG SURVEY!!!

...But TWO Blog Posts Today!

This one is straight-out opinion, with which you are free to disagree.



Be warned, though, that in the event of disagreement I will reply with a huge volley of facts and figures. The only reason I'm not trotting them out is because I'm currently exhausted and therefore lazy. (BAD blogger! BAD!!!)



So, ok.



Is there an actual REASON that so many people are retarded over power generation?



I'm referring to electrical power, of course. The overwhelming majority of our power generation, not just in the U. S., but globally, is oil-based.



For those of you "the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC" eco-warriors, you really ought to be hot on this.



Why, oh why, are we all so terrified of nuclear power?



When I ask this question, usually I get one of two responses. Either my victim says "because of the danger of meltdown," or, and sometimes ALSO, "nuclear waste."



Mmmmmkay.



First: meltdown has happened in the past. OOOOooooooo, scaaaaaary. However, the terror and hysteria over the half-life of radioactivity and its horrible legacy... has simply not been borne out by fact. Three Mile Island is not only inhabitable, but INHABITED, today. Those folks aren't scary Hills Have Eyes twitchy mutant freaks, either.



However, this isn't really relevant. If we had spent the intervening years developing reactor technology instead of spending time with our heads in the sand, our reactors would be safer, more efficient, cheaper, and smaller, by a huge margin, than they are today.



Maybe we'd be better off trying to solve safety issues than screaming that they exist and using them as an excuse not to use a proven technology.



Secondly, there's reactor waste.



This is a problem that utterly mystifies me.



Not as to how to solve it - I'll explain that in a second - but as to WHY IT'S A PROBLEM AT ALL.



Here's how to deal with nuclear waste, guys.



Take solid rocket boosters - cheap and easy to build, especially if they don't need a WHOLE lot of guidance. Or a huge railgun, but rockets would be easier.



Load your toxic OMGWTF reactor crap into them.



Shoot them bitches into the sun.



OMG! WTF! THERE ARE NO MOER TOXIC WAEST!!

If you are REALLY WORRIED that we might figure out how to recycle the stuff at some future day and be desperately in need of it, try shooting it at, say, Mars, or Venus, or even the Moon - somewhere where we can still go get it if we REALLY REALLY NEED IT but otherwise can safely ignore. None of the three places listed above HAVE ecosystems; no known forms of life exist on any of them. We can contaminate to our hearts' content.



Suddenly, you've reduced petrochemical pollution, averted the dangers of peak oil ("Everybody panic!!!!1!") and prevented radioactive leaks into our ground water.



At the same time, you've reduced our oil consumption by a huge amount, created much more stable, long-term generating capacity, and since nukes like the pebble-bed reactor can be clustered, done so much more cheaply than you might expect.



So why the hell aren't we using more?



The Governator - Arnold Schwartzenegger, for those of you not pop-culture literate - was presented with this problem when he took office in California. The eco-warriors had prevented any nukes for decades because of the "danger" and the radioactive waste, and yet demanded reduction in petrochemical pollution from conventional power stations. The result? Rolling blackouts. Waaaaaaay to go.



In California, the land of never coming to their senses, they still haven't come to their senses.



Hopefully we can manage it in the rest of the United States, at some point. Just think, if we close the oil-fired and coal-fired power plants in favor of nukes, prices at the pump will drop, because they will no longer be propped up by gigantic bulk purchases of oil by the power utilities.



Maybe it's time someone with some sense had a look at the problem, you think?

Not One...

There are a lot of charities vying for your attention come holiday time.



There are a lot of them that purport to be supporting our troops.



A lot of those, like the Red Cross, accept donations, and after paying their executives huge sums of money, dole out supplies to the troops, for which the troops are often charged.



Fuck all that.



There's a charity _I_ want to tell you about.



It's small. It's in fact run by two people, both of whom work for free. Their total "for the expenses of the charity" expenditures in six years has been the cost of a single laptop computer to track what they do.



In that six years, they've grown beyond their own wildest expectations. When LBEH started, it was just one guy, a gentleman named Ernie Stewart.



Ernie runs a frequently raunchy, always sarcastic, often hilarious website called EHOWA, short for Ernie's House Of Whoop-Ass.



I know; "oh, THIS sounds like a legitimate charity, and stuff." Oh ye of little faith.



Ernie is a veteran. Like many veterans, he remembered many holidays when he could have taken leave to go hang with his family, but was unable to go due to transportation expenses. Now, the military IN THEORY provides transportation to G.I.s for free, via MAC flights, but in reality those are what's called space-available transportation. Which means if there's no room, you're outta luck. What's worse, you can get stuck on the way BACK, and come in late - and that's against the UCMJ - you can get in serious hot water for it.



Not many G.I.s chance it. Especially with the ever-increasing stretch on the Military Airlift Command.



So, six years ago, Ernie decided that he had gotten enough emails from G.I.s complaining about being unable to take leave, and set up a Paypal account. He posted initially just within the forums of his own website, asking for donations to buy tickets for G.I.s stationed overseas to get home for the holidays.



Let's Bring 'Em Home was born.



Ernie got a wake-up call. The first time - December, 2001 - that he had the PP account open, he got $13,000 from his readers, and was suddenly totally out of his depth. Which brings us to the second member of LBEH - Kathryn Jensen. Kat works in the reservations department of Continental Airlines, and totally saved Ernie's bacon.



The second year, they had so many ticket requests that Kat took a week of vacation time to process them all; Kat and Ernie managed to produce 161 tickets for deployed military personnel.



They also got noticed, a little.



This year, they've received - so far - donations of $25,645.74, and 75,000 frequent flyer miles. They're accepting donations of cash or miles, and donations are tax-deductible.



They've already completed 45 tickets this year, and it's just starting the first week of December.



I can understand if you've never heard of them.



But if there's a charity that deserves our attention this year, guys, it's LBEH. ESPECIALLY all you Democrat "bring home our troops at any cost OMG" folks. You REALLY ought to be giving Ernie a hand.



I damn well will be.



[*Edited to add: I, clearly, am not the only one talking about this. This is good; more people need to be talking about it.*]

If This Is Where Political Correctness Takes Us, I'm In If It Ends In A Threesome

...And you will understand the title in juuuuuust a minute.






\r\n
\r\nWith me now?
\r\n
\r\n[*Edited to add: after viewing, Samara B. pointed out that at no point did either "legal team" mention possible pregnancy. LMFAO.*]

WOOHOOO! MORE FAKE NEWS!!! YOU LOVE IT, I KNOW YOU DO!!

...But this time, it's REALLY fun.

See, in the past, I've made a bit of a stink about so-called VNRs - "video news releases," which same are video segments bought, paid for, and usually filmed by big companies, or the government - and then aired by news stations as though they were legitimate news stories, often without attribution of any kind.

This isn't those.

Oh no.

It's MUCH better.

See, for the past several YEARS now, the West has been inundated by a flood of propaganda from the news media about how much the war in Iraq sucks.

Not that this counts under evidentiary rules, but every friend I have, which is quite a few, who has come back from Iraq, has said the same thing: "They're full of shit."

And now we know why.

The fauxtography and "rocket ride" scams in Lebanon weren't enough.

Nooooo.

The Associated Press has just been caught falsifying whole news reports specifically to make the U. S. look bad. Not "some," dozens and dozens. And this is only the ones we know for sure about.

Now, the lefty cookie-cutter reply is "So? That doesn't make things over there any better."

But it does mean there's doubt.

The comments on the blog I found this on originally are interesting; somehow, the fact that the AP got caught falsifying news stories was deemed irrelevant by the lefty posters, who immediately started their fingers-in-ears chanting of "Bush lied! Bush lied!"

Let's clear this up. No he didn't. The world community, and its various intelligence apparata, as well as the Clinton administration, all reported that Saddam had WMDs.

Our Congressmen - practically all the Republicans, and at least half the Democrats - voted to go to war based on this resolution, which features 23 separate points justifying the war.

So far, NONE of them have been proven wrong.

There's been a whole lot of yelling, and much is made of unsubstantiated STATEMENTS that various points were wrong, but no actual evidence whatsoever.

There has, however, been a flood of evidence that they weren't. Let's see. We FOUND chemical weapons over there. FIVE HUNDRED of them. There've been eyewitness reports that the bulk of the stockpiles were simply moved. We know for a FACT that huge stocks of military hardware were simply buried - because we've been digging them up. We don't know where most of it is, either; they'll be combing that crap out of the sands for generations. EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES admitted Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.

The evidence that there were terrorist links is equally compelling. If there wasn't any kind of connection, then why is there a leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to issue statements?

Saddam's own rhetoric stated his intent to destroy Israel, and attack the West.

Yet somehow, the chanting of "Bush lied!" keeps on, and on, and on.

Let me just drive a stake through its fucking heart right now. If your notion is that Bush lied, and your source is an industry that openly falsifies even the most routine domestic coverage, you simply have no evidence whatsoever.

Are we clear on this? There is such a thing as FACT. There is such a thing as FICTION. The FACT is that the war resolution was fully justified as voted upon. The FACT is that a huge coalition of international forces aided and participated in the invasion. The FICTION is that we went in alone - leaving France and Germany out does not equate to "alone," sorry. The FICTION is that Bush lied about anything. The FICTION is that the AP and Reuters produce a product that can be used to substantiate, well, anything.

In reality, the situation in Iraq is shitty. This is not because we went in for no reason; it's because we went in with insufficient forces, and have since day one allowed our troops to be controlled by opinion poll, rather than military reality.

In reality, the coalition of nations that went to Iraq this time around was one of the biggest alliances of nations ever forged. 41 countries contributed troops and support to the invasion of Iraq. Woooo, we were sure fucking lonely.

In reality, the biggest detractors of the efforts in Iraq have been its biggest payees: Chirac, Annan, and all those who stole from the "oil-for-food" program.

In reality, we - none of us, lefty, righty, wingnut, moonbat, centrist, libertarian, NONE OF US - actually have any idea what's going on over there, aside from those with their boots on the ground, by which I mean actual ground troops. A general in the States is what we used to call a REMF - rear-echelon motherfucker. A RETIRED general, who has not served during this conflict, is ten times worse. And yet, this is the type of commentator the media is presenting to us: not troops, not the Iraqis, but retired officers who have never even served in the theater of operations.

WE HAVE NO IDEA what's going on in Iraq. What we do know is that our news organizations are deliberately falsifying their coverage to make the situation appear MORE, rather than LESS, dire. We do know that every report carried by Reuters or the AP is suspect; we do know that those opposed to the war have consistently falsified their data, or just outright made shit up, to "justify" their views, and then chanted in circles about it as loudly as possible, as though saying something over and over means it's true.

It doesn't. And we ought to stop letting them get away with it.

In This Post: Domestic Violence

I have a friend, Becky C. Her blogs are well-thought out, interesting, and very rarely do I disagree with her. However, I am a bit more of a rabble-rouser (Gee, you think?) than she is, and I try - I don't always succeed, but I do try - to keep in mind that other people's web spaces are just that; other people's.

So when a touchy subject comes up, and domestic violence is certainly that, sometimes I would prefer to leave my thoughts on my own page, rather than leave them as a comment.

Becky posted an entry about domestic violence today, and I wanted to comment. I REALLY wanted to comment after reading someone else's comment about how domestic violence laws favor women. But I realized, after reading what I wrote, that it might not be appropriate for her page. So I sent it to her as a 360 message - it being her web space, and all - so she could read it and decide if she wanted me to post it or not.

Either way, you're gonna get to read the less tame version here. Because this is MY web space, and I don't have to censor myself here.

And I actually feel quite strongly about this.

Ready?

Good.

I think the feminist movement is all fucked up.

WHOA!!! Big bad thought there. Throws you for a loop, doesn't it? But wait. Patience is a virtue, and if I get comments based solely on that line, without reading the rest, I will be disappointed.

The reason I think the feminist movement is AFU is because it has been co-opted. Originally, the feminist movement was about equal treatment under the law, and advancing the rights of women.

It isn't, anymore. Now, it's about vilifying men, ignoring biological realities, and advancing a political agenda only acceptable to those who are in fact insane.

This is why, back in the day, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "feminazis": specifically for the purpose of distinguishing women who are "pro-woman" from women who are "anti-men."

Of course, many, many women who are themselves unable to make that distinction got all pissed off. That's too bad, because he was right: there needs to be a distinction.

Becky's opinions, for example, are by no means hateful towards men; she is a FEMINIST. Gloria Steinem, for example, hates men and wants them all in cages, like the dangerous animals they so clearly are; she is a FEMINAZI.

That's the whole point of the term.

But it pisses people off, so let's not use it.

Let's instead use the acronym FUDAI: Fucked Up Dumb Ass Individuals.

Moving right along, what the HELL does this have to do with domestic violence?

I'm getting there.

Domestic violence laws, like any other laws, exist because someone got pissed off about something. In this case, such anger is more justified than it is in most such cases; a battered woman has an absolute right to be pissed as hell.

The reason they overwhelmingly favor the women is simple. Women get beat more.

Aha, now we come to it, don't we? Why, oh why, is that?

Because nature doesn't give a shit if we "feel" like something ought to be different. That's why.

Physical facts speak for themselves. Women are smaller than men; they have less bone density and muscle mass; they are genetically designed to carry children, which makes their leverage and joint structure different. All these are simple facts.

Saying "women can do anything men can," is naive, simple, and frankly, stupid. No they can't. Men can't do everything women can do, either. Because we're NOT THE SAME. Something that dumb fucking people - not just feminists, this crosses the issues and is a general problem, FUDAI of all stripes - simply cannot grasp is that inherent limitations are not evidence of discrimination.

If you have no legs, you're gonna be a shitty fireman.

Blind people shouldn't drive.

The mute make terrible telephone operators.

The deaf aren't all that great as vocal interpreters.

See how this works?

One of those inherent limitations is that women are not genetically structured for physical violence, the way men are. That doesn't mean a woman can't go to the gym and toughen up, or learn martial arts; it does, however, mean that there are consequences.

A woman who spends too much time in the gym begins to develop an overabundance of testosterone. You may recognize the name; it's the primary MALE hormone. It's also the hormone that stimulates muscle growth. And body hair. And facial hair. And deep voices.

Women who over-exercise get all of those, as well as losing their breasts and hips, and often their menstrual cycles. A woman who overexercises too much for too long can in fact become infertile.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT.

It is simple biological fact that women and men are not the same. Women have faster reflexes; better vision overall; better aerobic capacity, pound-for-pound; they can bear children; they require less food, and are better equipped to deal with cold than men.

Men are stronger, have better bursts of speed, are better at spotting certain kinds of details, have greater stamina, greater bone density, and can deal with heat more efficiently.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.

I'm not sure where we got the idea that the fact that men and women are different somehow implies some kind of discrimination. However we got that idea, it's bullshit.

It is a FACT that men and women are different. Denying that means that you're simply closing your eyes to reality.

Now, a part of that package goes together to affect - not explain, but affect - domestic violence.

Men are bigger and stronger. Which means that if a woman is beating a man, and he finally decides he's had enough, by and large a single return punch will end the fight. I've been in fist fights, and I've never had a MAN stay on his feet if I hit him squarely, as hard as I can. There is no such thing as a woman who could.

Dodge? Sure. Use incredible judo skills to use my own strength against me? Most likely. But straight out get hit in the face and not fall ass over teakettle? Not a chance. I'm a big guy, and I know how to punch, and there's simply no way in hell a female could take that.

And that's part and parcel of why I DON'T hit women. Ever. Even under great provocation. The only way I'd hit a woman is if my life were actually threatened. Sorry, but if you're coming after me with a gun, I'm gonna have to say "No," there. But other than that, never.

You know why?

Because I COULD knock a woman ass over teakettle. See, BECAUSE WE'RE DIFFERENT, we have different roles to play. You can dislike those roles, you can whine about those roles, you can fight them all you like, but ultimately, on a genetic level, men were designed to protect women. Not vice versa.

Part of being designed that way is a responsibility to do so. Only a coward attacks those weaker than himself. Or herself, I guess, although most women don't go for fisticuffs.

That notwithstanding, a man has a responsibility - BECAUSE HE'S A MAN - to defend women. Beating a woman is the greatest perversion possible of your design; it is directly contrary to nature's intent for you.

All of that is only marginally relevant.

In today's society, people - not just women - have been trained from a young age to believe - erroneously - that equal treatment under the law is the same as homogeneity.

It isn't. All races, genders, creeds, whatever, should receive equal treatment under the law, because we're all human beings. But I'd be the first one to admit that regardless of law, there are people out there smarter than I am. There are people more physically fit, more ambitious, certainly richer, maybe faster, maybe a better driver, whatever. Just as there are people who are less adept at any of those things than I am.

We are NOT equal.

We're not EQUAL, because we're not IDENTICAL. The notion of equality is silly. Equal treatment under the law should be the only goal of any "ist" movement.

But because we're not equal, there is responsibility inherent in that inequality towards one another. The strong defend the weak.

The moral equivalent of refusing to defend those weaker than yourself is performing the harm yourself. If you see a woman being raped and you don't try to help, YOU RAPED HER. If you see someone being mugged and you don't help, YOU MUGGED THEM. If you see people being murdered in boxcar lots and you don't stop it, YOU KILLED THEM.

Domestic violence is even worse. It is more than a defender standing aside; it is as though a king's personal bodyguard were the one to drive a dagger into his chest. When you beat your wife, you not only allow harm to come to her, despite your responsibility to protect her - you perform the violence yourself, in defiance of that responsibility. And to do that, you had to make a CHOICE.

Your parents didn't decide for you. Your teachers didn't decide for you. YOU decided.

I love and treasure women. The overwhelming majority of my friends are female; I spend as much time around women as I can. Because they're different from myself. They think differently; they emote differently; they make decisions differently; they are different. I, personally, need that contrast in my life.

Some of you may not; that's up to you.

Some of you no doubt think my urge to protect and defend women is somehow belittling, rather than empowering; that my willingness to lay down my life on behalf of my wife somehow denigrates her ability to do things herself.

Sure, she can open a jar that's stuck, if she fights with it long enough. My question is, why should she have to?

She can hold a door as well as I can. I'm still gonna save her the effort, if I get there first.

Because I love her. That's part of what love IS.

If you are an abused woman - listen closely. I'm gonna tell you the secret to it all. Are you ready?

IF HE BEATS YOU, HE DOES NOT LOVE YOU.

HE NEVER WILL.

HE WILL NOT CHANGE, EVEN IF HE PROMISES HE WILL.

Don't fall for the age-old predator's trick. "But if I've really changed, and you walk away, you will be the one to ruin our relationship. And if you don't come back, you'll always wonder."

No, you won't, because I can solve that problem for you right now. People CAN change. Most of them don't. If a guy abuses you, and then delivers that kind of line, that IN ITSELF is a sign that he's just trying to victimize you again. A guy who's actually changed will WALK AWAY, and try to lead a better life, rather than risk hurting you again.

Just so you know.

I'm pretty much out of steam, here. You can vituperate me endlessly about how I'm such a chauvinist bastard all you want, now.

It won't change the fact that I would take a bullet for my wife in a heartbeat, and try my damnedest to keep her from doing that for me, even though I know she would. My job as a man is to make sure she never has to.

[*Edited to add: a link to Chipmkr420's excellent blog about a coward, and the notion of male obligation and duty.*]

Reminiscing...

You guys may or may not know that my father died last year, in the week before Christmas.



You may or may not have read what I said about it.



But I've been thinking about him a lot, not just because we're coming up to that time of year, but because of the things I see changing in the world today. I know what he would have said.



He'd hate it. Because we've forgotten how to do so much.



I remember, more than once, making ice cream with my father.



We'd get a couple of chairs, go sit out front of the garage, and pour salt and ice into the bucket. Once we had a good pool of brine, put the tank with the milk, cream, sugar, and flavor in it - Dad and I both loved vanilla, so that's what we usually made - and start cranking.



My arms would get sore, my butt would hurt from the hard-ass folding chairs, it was hotter than hell on earth - Houston, in summer - but the payoff was a whole afternoon of shooting the shit with my father, sitting in front of the garage, and a big tub of the best ice cream ever.



When did we all forget how to do that?



My turns got longer as I got older, obviously. The last time we made ice cream, my father was 70, and I was 28. I did most of the cranking, he did most of the talking. I'm very glad I decided to do most of the listening that day. He was talking about this very subject; all the things that people used to know how to do, and have forgotten, or didn't think to pass along.



I was just talking to Samara, and we were trading recipes (yes, I can cook. Shut up.) and we realized just how many things our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents knew how to do that they just never passed on to us.



My grandmother makes the best pecan pies known to man. She's been making them for a large portion of her 92 years, and she's the expert. Grew the pecans on the ranch my grandfather built her, baked pies with her own fresh pecans.



I don't know the recipe. I can find out - and I intend to - but somehow that one just slipped by.



Samara's great grandmother used to make biscuits so good the kids would fight over the chance to lick the bowl when she was done. Of BISCUIT BATTER. And not one, not ONE, of her kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids, knows the recipe.



When the fuck did we decide that we didn't need to know this stuff?



And WHY?



I know one thing. Girl or boy, no matter what else I do right or wrong, no matter what mistakes I make, no matter what lessons I teach, even if I don't intend to, my child will goddamned well know how to make ice cream.



And they will learn the way I did. Sitting with their dad, in front of the garage, in the middle of the hottest part of summer, sipping on a soda and turning a hand crank for as long as it takes.



Because there are some things we ought not to forget how to do.

We're All Supposed To Know About Islam By Now!

So, a couple of days ago, a group of six imams returning from a convention boarded a U.S. Air flight to Phoenix. They sat in different sections of the plane, all apart from one another.



Suddenly, for no reason at all, air marshals boarded the plane, removed the imams, and detained them, asking them lots and lots of rude questions, and stuff. This is an offense against Islam, and blatant discrimination, blah, blah, blah.



Or, at least that was the reporting yesterday.



However, once the folks at the airport started coming forward about what actually happened, several witnesses said that the imams joined hands and started chanting in Arabic before boarding the flight.



The imams' response? "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," Omar Shahin, apparently the spokesman for the imams, told reporters yesterday.



Mkay, I hate to say this, but _I_ wouldn't react well to seeing a bunch of Arabs joining hands and chanting before boarding my flight, after 9/11 - and I DO know about daily prayers, and bowing to Mecca and all that.



But that notwithstanding, if that was the ONLY THING, I could understand the imams getting upset.



...But wait...



See, it turns out that they weren't just praying. They were also talking about how America is acting evil, and how Saddam should have been left alone. They're also - let's not forget this part that they didn't feel like sharing - supporters of organizations that raise funds for HAMAS.



They are supporters of terrorism.



THIS SPECIFIC GROUP of imams, has contributed to terrorist fundraising.



Funny how they forgot to mention that.



Suddenly, the whole overdramatic display in the airport seems clear; they did it on purpose, to try to make DHS look like anti-PC discrimination thugs.



Funny how CNN and the Star-Tribune missed that, isn't it?

Body Counts, And More Damn Lies... Errr, I Mean Statistics

First things first.
For those of you who don't know, the Lancet, a medical journal, has published a study in which they claim that their best guess as to the numbers of Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war is about 655,000.

I was gonna do a whole long post about how this is obviously bullshit.

Until it turned out that someone else already did it for me.
So, instead, I'm going to post big chunks of their article with my snide commentary just to help it along. Sound like fun? Good.
As Stephen Colbert puts it: "Strap yourselves in, America, you're about to get a truth-o-cution!"

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

Before we get started, this article whose content I am reposting is from Iraq Body Count, a site which has been keeping a triple-fact-checked body count of Iraqi casualties since the war began. Note that unlike the Lancet study, IBC's work comes from death certificates issued; witnessed deaths; police and media reports; and is cross-checked by no less than three different team members before its data is added to the body count.

As such, I am more inclined to trust their estimate of figures than that of the Lancet, which according to their own article, covers a range of 392, 979 – 942, 636 for excess deaths since the invasion. (An excess death being one over the statistical norm for a peacetime period in the same area.)

Let's address this in several steps, shall we? First, the margin of error. This is the big bugaboo in this study; the margin of error in the study's results is 549,657. That is, for those of you not math- or calculator-equipped, a 58.3 % margin of error.

FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT.

The defenders of this study have gone on and on about the fact that "cluster-sampling" (the method used to come up with these numbers,) is a standard, acceptable statistical practice. This is true; however, to those staunch defenders I would note that if properly used, it usually results in a margin of error closer to FIVE percent. Look at the election day "guesses" on TV; this same method is used to determine their numbers. Note the little blurb at the bottom of the screen, saying the margin of error - 5%. 3%. 4%. Tiny percentages of error.

This says that although the methodology of the study might very well have been a standard, valid method, it was misapplied with a vengeance by the Lancet researchers.

I want to emphasize that number again. FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT margin of error.

The much ballyhooed 655,000 number that the Lancet is using as their official "estimate" of excess deaths in Iraq is the median number.

Now, the lowest estimate number, the not - quite - 400, 000 one, is already vastly higher than any estimate thus far published, even by those speculating wildly, but I'd actually be prepared to accept it as somewhat believable, simply because the Iraqis don't like us much and don't report in when they're injured; but 650, 000? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Let me put it in perspective.

The Lancet study delivers a guesstimate of 1,000 deaths per day in Iraq. The U. N. figures, and those of the Iraqi Ministry of Health, come to about 80 per day. I'm prepared to accept that a lot of deaths go unreported, but 920 per day? 12 times as many as ARE reported?

Bullshit.

You know what I'm gonna say.

But Wait, There's More!™

IBC points out this gem:

If 600,000 people have died violent deaths, then the 3:1 ratio implies that 1,800,000 Iraqis have by now been wounded. This would correspond to 1 in every 15 Iraqis.

And follows that up with this:

This yields a revised Lancet-based estimate of 800,000 wounded over the equivalent period for which the MoH has been collecting this information centrally. In that same two-year period the official total of wounded treated in Iraqi hospitals is recorded as 59,372.

Whether hospitals can provide a comprehensive tally of violent deaths or not, their knowledge of seriously injured should be much more complete.

Accepting the Lancet estimate would entail concluding that at least 740,000 wounded Iraqis (90% of the total) were not treated or, if treated, not recorded in any way, throughout a 2-year period beginning in mid-2004. It may be that many injured anti-occupation combatants have avoided hospitals to prevent identification or arrest, but they are hardly likely to account for more than a small fraction of this discrepancy. It would further imply that approaching 90% of Lancet's deaths are also of combatants.

Note that this implies that far, far, far more injured Iraqis have been simply walking around, wounded, rather than being treated. The Ministry of Health estimates 60,000 injured have been treated in the Iraqi hospitals.

Not 1.8 million. 60,000. That's a HUGE difference, and makes the Lancet study questionable in and of itself.

But Wait, There's More!™

The Lancet study also assumes that the Ministry of Health figures are false, anyway; they claim that they relied on death certificates for 81% of their "confirmed" deaths, but in fact the Ministry of Health has records of issuing only about a tenth of the death certificates counted by the Lancet researchers. The Lancet dismisses this as unimportant, claiming that:

"Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government's surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1,000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today."

Except they're lying outright; the Ministry of Health recorded 84, 205 deaths in 2002, excluding Kurdistan. Which means that the Ministry of Health figures are 70% of the Lancet's estimate for that year, not a third.

This means that unless the accuracy of the Ministry of Health's recordkeeping has completely fallen off - and there's no evidence that it has; they use the same methods now that they did 4 years ago - the Lancet study's figures should be reflected in a Ministry of Health casualty figure of about 460, 000.

Sadly, it's not. The Ministry of Health recorded 115, 785 deaths in 2005 - 320 per day. Note that this isn't "war deaths," but TOTAL deaths. The Lancet study, which purports to be estimating the number of WAR DEATHS, is estimating at a minimum - a MINIMUM - four times that many.

Let's take a look at what happens when you add the other 30% to the MoH's figures, shall we? According to the existing correlation between the MoH's figures and those of the Lancet's BAD-ASS SCIENCE, you'd get a figure of approximately 165, 407 total deaths in Iraq for 2005. That's a lot, but that is ALL deaths, not "war deaths."

Let's see how that adds up, shall we? If we assume that this death rate has held relatively steady - it hasn't, but let's anyway - since we invaded in 2003, we get a total since - the - invasion death toll of 496, 221. That's just over the absolute lowest figure the Lancet study estimates as the number MORE deaths there have been since the war started than there normally are.

The Lancet is estimating that there were more war deaths in Iraq in 2005 than there were actual, total deaths in Iraq in 2005. Read that again, more carefully.

THE LANCET IS ESTIMATING MORE WAR DEATHS THAN THERE WERE TOTAL DEATHS.

Does anyone still believe this study isn't completely full of shit?

The Great 360 Playlist Challenge.

So, I have friends. Not as many as some, but quite a few nonetheless.



And today has been sort of a day for theme music.



So: I've decided to create a playlist of music, with videos depending on YouTube, for my friends.



But Wait, There's More. â„¢



See, what I'm gonna do is one song per person, granted not for EVERYONE on my friends list, but for the ones I cross-comment with the most. You know who you are.



I'm not tagging anybody, or anything retarded like that; this is my idea, but if anyone else feels like doing the same thing, feel free. I was just thinking about how people are always saying that such-and-such song reminds them of so-and-so, and figured "Why not try it out?"



So, without further ado: The Great 360 Playlist.





April. Because even if there's no Amish where you are, you know EXACTLY what living in the sticks is all about.


\r\n
\r\nBill. Because dammit, you just say anything that crosses your mind. And that should be applauded.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nJim. Because if there's anyone who lives in his own world, dude, it's you - but you're interesting and cool anyway.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nKJ. Because you're a total pervert, and EVERYONE wants you. BECAUSE you're a total pervert. That rocks.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nLinda. Because yours is. And it's cool, and funny.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nRina. Because you claim to be evil, despite the fact that you're actually just cool.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nSamara. This was such a toss-up... this one, or Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap. This one edged it out.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nSheila. This song only because I know this is your guilty pleasure band, or one of them anyway. You're way cooler than this song, IMO.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nAmy. Because if there's anyone EVER, in ALL THE WORLD, who's familiar with the subject of this song, it's you, babe.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nWendy. Because you always make me laugh, and if there's anything sillier than this song, I've never heard it.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nAnd last, but most definitely not least, Tara. Because you have; you do; you will; and most likely, you are right now.
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nIf you're not on this list, don't think I don't care; it's most likely just that I wanted a videos-only list and couldn't find a video for you.

Thinking Outside The Box

You've no doubt heard people use that phrase. "You gotta think outside the box." They explain it, correctly, as a demand that you orient your thinking outside of your pre-conceived limitations.



However, WTF does that have to do with a box?



Well, I'll tell you. Or rather, show you.



In the beginning, there's a thought puzzle, which takes the form of a square of dots, as follows:





The object being to connect the dots using the fewest number of lines, without ever lifting your pencil from the paper. Or, in this case, your Line Tool off the "canvas" in Photoshop.



The conventional wisdom is that 4 lines is the correct solution, as follows:





Notice this solution having been achieved by drawing the lines outside the boundaries of the box itself, thus the term "thinking outside the box," as the box shape does not imply a boundary, yet we tend to think in terms of pre-conceived limitations, and as such wrack our brains ferociously trying to find a solution with less than 5 lines.



Unless you're me. In which case, you can solve it with 3 lines.



See, the "conventional wisdom" is still subject to preconceived limitations itself. If you're thinking outside the box, why think only a little outside the box?



Why not think WAAAAAAAAAAAY outside the box?



Like this:





Now, THAT is thinking outside the box. And now all of you know the solution to that puzzle, and if you ever see this in some meaningless corporate presentation, or as a classroom exercise of some kind, when the teacher tells you "but, see, you can solve it in four lines," you can tell them "it's only a solution if it has the smallest number of possible lines. The smallest number of possible lines is three."



And then demonstrate.

Ok, Now That's Funny...

Probably not work safe, but funny as hell.



Gotta love Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I'd vote for them in '08 - I don't personally agree with most of Jon Stewart's personal politics, but his bullshit detector is unparalleled.



Without further ado:









Now THAT's funny.

Remember That Trifecta? Good Luck With That.

Well, apparently, there's not gonna be a trifecta in the works after all.



For those of you who missed it, not one, but two different Australian high schoolers asked out Miss Universe 2004 and 2006 respectively, and got "yes," as their answers.



Way to go, and bragging rights forever, right?



Until it leaks on the Internet, and Miss Universe 2004 backs out because of the publicity.



"It's not supposed to be about celebrities," my ass. Miss Hawkins, you are breaking a young man's heart, and spoiling an opportunity few will ever achieve, because you're afraid of reporters?



Well, you must have hated this moment, then. Maybe you're just afraid it'll happen again?

Gee, Welcome To Being Right On Top Of Things, MSM...

Remember I blogged about finding out The Prez is Google's #1 result for the word "failure" a few weeks ago? Yeah.



I love it when the MSM is way behind the times.



Now, honesty compels me to admit that this was old news when I posted it, too; a bit of digging makes me go "Gee, Z, Welcome to 2003, and stuff," because that's when the Google-bombing resulting in this silly situation originally happened.



That just makes it worse. I'm a latecomer, getting the story in 2006, anyway; for the MSM to be behind my already-late-so-there's-no-damn-excuse ass is just pitiful.



Anyway. Just thought you'd like to know.

The Music Challenge!

Since I'm in a good mood, I will share.



I read and commented on Sheila's blog post about this, so here goes:



When you comment, and ask for a letter, I assign you one. You have to ask - I'm not tagging, because it's irritating. But I give you a letter, and then you have to come up with 10 song titles starting with that letter. Then, if anyone wants a letter, you assign them one.



Sheila gave me "O," so here goes.

1. Omens - King Diamond, Abigail
2. Out From The Asylum - King Diamond, Them
3. Overlord - Bolt Thrower, Who Dares Wins
4. The Oath - Mercyful Fate, Don't Break The Oath
5. Obsolete - Fear Factory, Obsolete
6. One Last Sunset - Killswitch Engage, Killswitch Engage

Now give me a sec...






Only - Nine Inch Nails, With Teeth
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nOnly - Anthrax, Sound of White Noise
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nOf Mice And Men - Megadeth, The System Has Failed
\r\n
\r\n
\r\nOf One Blood - Shadows Fall, Of One Blood
\r\n
\r\nNow that's more like it. Any takers?

You're Busted: Minimum Wage Myths.

You have to love it when someone is caught in blatant hypocrisy.



Especially when it's someone who consistently accuses their opponents of the exact behavior they get caught in.



For example: it's damn funny when a Democratic pro-minimum wage increase group pays its canvassers less than the minimum wage.



I mean, come ON, guys! If you seriously expect to convince the public that you're looking out for their interests, rather than merely grandstanding for an election year, then you can NOT be caught doing something like this.



I could go into a huge rant about this, but there's no real point; the story itself is silly enough that it doesn't need my help.

We May Have A Trifecta In The Works...

So, remember my mentioning the Australian kid who got Miss Universe 2004 to be his prom date?



He may have started a trend.



Because a DIFFERENT Australian kid has just gotten Miss Universe 2006 to be HIS prom date.



I can only say one thing about this, as it seems wildly unlikely, and yet it happened:



Pack up, honey, we're moving to Australia. Then, we're going to buy lotto tickets.