Attention Fashion moronic: Lay off the Giant Sunglasses

Left: How people who wear giant sunglasses think they look.
Right: How people who wear giant sunglasses actually look.

Okay, I know a lot of people are sitting at home right now wondering: what does CowboyLaw think about the current trend towards wearing sunglasses that are only slightly smaller than the windshield of a 1961 Cadillac? Well, to serve the needs of that small portion of society, allow me to present the answer: I think it's one of the worst abominations of fashion since elephant bells briefly came back. As with most fashion atrocities, this one strikes the nation's most vulnerable citizens: young women. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: no one looks good wearing oversized sunglasses. At best, you look like Jeff Goldblum halfway through The Fly, when he starts developing those bulging bugeyes. Is that really the look you're trying to emulate? In fact, scrutinize the picture above on the left. The conceit of the layout is that she looks good. The fact is, she doesn't look that great. And I crawled through A LOT of internet pictures to find that one.

This trend is only part of a growing tendency to borrow fashion trends from the 1970s. WHY???? The 70s was a ugly decade (and I should know: I was born smack dab in the middle of it). Not as dirty and earnest as the 60s, nor as clean and structured as the 80s. Like a party guest who is drunk enough to be obnoxious but not yet drunk enough to be funny and entertaining, the 70s was a tweener decade. It was the functional equipment of America's 13th birthday. No one was cool and hip when they were 13. It's a transitional period. Same thing for America in the 70s. As a nation, we need to develop the same shame vis a vie the 70s that each of us individually feels regarding the 365 days between when we turned 13 and when we turned 14. We don't talk about that year, just like we don't talk about Uncle Larry's drinking problem, the year Cousin Cleo spent as a male prostitute, or about "Aunt" Frank. At all. Ditto the 70s. Everyone on the same page?

The purpose of fashion accessories is to either compliment or camouflage. Case in point: I have a giant, oval, watermelon-shaped head. It generates its own weather. So, I wear glasses that are horizontally oval, to make my face seem a bit broader and less like I'm a Conehead. That's camouflage, courtesy of a fashion accessory. What, exactly, do giant sunglasses compliment or camouflage? I guess if your eyes actually came out of your sockets on eyestalks, giant sunglasses would help hide that fact and keep your alien identity a secret. But I doubt that's the issue here. If you were disfigured when a protestor threw acid on you at a G8 summit and consequently need to cover as much of your face as possible, the giant sunglasses would, once again, be the way to go. But the women I see wearing them generally appear to be incapable of balancing their own checkbook, so I doubt they've attended a lot of G8 or World Bank meetings.

In closing, let me just say this. If giant sunglasses really are the hottest thing going, let me suggest we cut the bullshit and really escalate this thing. Stylish and functional. Spark me up, Misti!

Not Another Post About Globalization!!!

This is the stock photo CNN uses to make it look like the Donkey and the Elephant are going to have a showdown on the roof of the Capitol Building with a giant flat in the sky overhead.

As CowboyLaw pointed out, I was going to make my next post about globalization, but I think it's never a good thing when one falls asleep while writing a post, so I scrapped that one. Instead I wanted to point out this article on CNN.com, which sounds like a great thing. It makes it sound like the Republicans are in trouble in Congress, which would be fantastic. Not that Democrats have been too fantastic lately either, but when the Senate Majority Leader steps down during an ethics investigation, the economy is in the toilet, and we're debating flag burning while US soldiers are actually on fire in Iraq, we need a change.

Which is the gist of the CNN.com article. Through a variety of polls, they attempt to make the claim that because 81% of self-described liberals, 56% of self-described moderates, and 24% of self-described conservatives have said they will vote Democratic in the November mid-term Congressional Elections, that the Republicans are doomed.

Unfortunately, this is incredibly tenuous logic. The survey cited in the article has 1000 respondents. Let's give the surveyors the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had at least one respondent from each Congressional District in the United States, which they probably didn't even have. Even if they had this, they are comparing the opinions of voters who will not be voting against each others candidates in mid-term elections.

For example, they call Aunt Martha out in Wyoming, and she is supporting the Democrat in her district. And they call Uncle Vinnie out in New York, and he's supporting the Democrat in his district. And they call Cousin Bodie out in California who will support the Democrat in his district. Wow! That's one hundred percent support for the Democrats. That means that Democrats will win all three races, simply because we got opinions from someone in that district.

Wrong. You see Aunt Martha may be the lone respondent from her district, but everyone else may be supporting Barbara Cubin, the worst Congress person in the history of the universe. It's a logcial fallacy that comparing voters across congressional districts will tell you very much about how the outcome of the election will be in each congressional district, which is the only thing that matters.

So, are Republicans in trouble? I hope so. They've been awfully pompous, considering the state of the nation and how crappy things have been going on their watch, and I think they deserve to be beaten, just on that basis. However, this CNN report is a classic example of overgeneralizing poll numbers, thinking that the polls can tell you more than they really are able.

No more 'Mister Bling'...

No, I'm not going away. I won't make you all happy that easily. I just wanted to let you all know that I've changed my Xbox Live name from 'Mister Bling' to 'Lord Bling.' Consider it a promotion, if you will. :) So in keeping with the change, I've updated the name on this site as well.

Basically, I got tired of people online always calling me 'Master Bling'. It was funny at first, but got old quick. But anyone with a 2nd-grade education from a public school other than in Arkansas should be able to not misread 'Lord' as opposed to 'Mister.' Well, that, and I think people were just assuming I was Master, as in 'Master Chief' from the Halo games.


And the 'Lord' thing is a bit of an inside joke with a friend of mine. Oh, and I can also use it for blasphemy. So, multiple uses. Okay, that's enough of an update. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Finally, a presidential candidate I can stand behind. Or kneel before.

People sometimes ask me, 'Mister Bling, who's gonna get your vote for President in 2008?' Well, I've made my decision. Most of the likely Republican candidates are either too right-wing, they're flip-floppers on major issues (McCain, you never should've made nice with Falwell), or they talk the family values game, but sleep around in their marriages. And most of the Democrats either don't get it, or they try to tow the line as a 'centrist' or make attempts to steal votes from the right by trying to legislate how parents raise their children (Senators Clinton and Lieberman, I'm talking to you). I respect the Libertarian party for being completely ape-shit on things like drug legalization and automatic weapons for all, but until they get more than 200,000 registered voters, they're never going to make a difference at the national level.

That's why I'm supporting THIS man:


Expanded freedom? No more Iraq war? Universal health care? Corporate reform? Almost sounds too good to be true, but it's all laid out on his website, found here.

2008 can't come soon enough.

Primer on Libel and Slander law for Bloggers

Now, back to the show.

It seems like every couple of months, another blogger gets sued, or is threatened with a lawsuit, because of something they wrote in their blog. The most recent and hilarious example involves a blogger who had some interesting things to say about a former (veeeeeeery former) Playboy playmate. I won't weigh in on the exact issues presented, either in the blog in question or in the (theoretically upcoming) lawsuit. But I will say that bloggers need to have a decent, working understanding of libel and slander law here in the U. S. And so, in the spirit of helping my fellow Bloggers, I, CowboyLaw, hereby present this PRIMER ON LIBEL AND SLANDER LAW FOR BLOGGERS.

There are really only three things you need to remember about libel and slander law (which, for the sake of convenience, we'll just call defamation law): (1) only defame public figures; (2) make sure you have some basis for your defamation; and (3) the truth is always a defense. I will demonstrate each in turn.

1. Only defame public figures.

I can freely and openly state that President Bush recently murdered four children. This is not defamation (in part, for reasons I'll discuss below), and I won't get in trouble. However, if I was to say that my good friend Shaun Jackson is actually a crack man-ho, I would probably be committing defamation. Defamation is a statement about someone that is untrue and which damages their reputation. Obviously, both of the above statements count (more or less). However, people who are "public figures" like Bush get substantially less protection against defamatory statements. Why? Because we want the press to be free to criticize them without having to worry about constant defamation lawsuits (like they have in England). Public figure status isn't just limited to political figures, either. Thus, I can say things like "Tom Cruise finds the idea of sex with a man far more palatable than does Ann Coulter, who prefers the soft, yielding flesh of women," and fear no repercussion. Private people like Shaun Jackson, however, get a lot of protection.

2. Have a reasonable basis for what you say.

It's not enough just to pick on public figures. You also need to have some shred of evidence to back up your ludicrous claims. That should be no problem, because the internet will support almost any contention you want to make. Thus, for example, this website supports my comment above that Bush killed four children recently. As for Tom Cruise liking the taste of man-steak, Google turns up 2,780,000 webpages dedicated to talking about Tom's obvious preference for the hairier sex. My theory about Ann Coulter is strictly of my own devising, but c'mon: it's OBVIOUS this woman LOVES a good, New England clam bake. And this fact drives her insane homophobia (p.s., Google only reports 406,000 webpages which address the question of whether Ann Coulter frequently finds herself elbow-deep in another woman, probably because Ann Coulter is, amazingly, even more annoying than Tom Cruise). See, if you just go off spouting completely basis lies about a public figure (like, "Mr. Pennybags is a huge fan of glass plating), you can still get sued (and yes, I did just rip on the guy from Monopoly). So, have something to back up your outrageous statements.

3. Remember: if it's true, it's not defamatory.

I can call O. J. Simpson a killer all I want, and he can never (successfully) sue me. Why? Because even though a Los Angeles jury found there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of murder (mostly because the jury members had their heads shoved entirely up their own asses), another Los Angeles jury (in the civil lawsuit brought by Nicole Brown-Simpson's family) found that there was sufficient proof to satisfy them that O. J. killed Nicole (by the way, for those of you baffled, remember that the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the burden of proof in a civil case is 51% of the evidence supports it). True statements, no matter how damaging they are to the subject's reputation, are never defamatory. But, they're also not that entertaining. It's much more interesting to speculate about how many double-dongs Ann Coulter owns, and whether she and Tom Cruise have ever shared one.

Remember, boys and girls: this isn't legal advice, and I don't advise you to defame anyone. Rather, this is an amusing (mildly) and accurate (mildly) picture of the state of the law. If you want real advice, you need to hire me.

CowboyLaw can predict the farking future!

I predict that, in the near future, the Midget will dedicate an entire post to my comments on the globalization issue.

3...2.....1......

Too bad they couldn't get this down to the reading level of My Pet Goat

President Bush is an avid reader.

Every once in a while there is a book that I read that I think every person who has the ability to read should pick up and consider regardless of political ideology, education, career etc. I recently finished the updated and expanded edition of The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, and this book is not only well-written but has some fabulous ideas related to globalization, the economy and the future viability of America's competitiveness abroad. I tend to be quite stubborn about my viewpoints, but reading this book completely changed how I thought about globalization.

The conventional wisdom about globalization is that it's generally a bad thing. After all, we lose jobs every day to developing countries where companies can make their athletic shoes by paying a 6 year-old 5 cents an hour to work 80 hours a week in poor conditions. While Friedman doesn't take the opposite viewpoint, since he does acknowledge many of the negative aspects of globalization, he does take the viewpoint that globalization is here, and it's in our best interest to figure out how to work within it, rather than opposing it and falling further behind competitively.

I am not writing a book report here, so if you want to know more about the book, take your curious ass on over to Amazon and order a copy or visit your local public library. This website is not a replacement for actual reading.

The main point that I wish people would understand and could get if they took the time to read Friedman's book is how critical education is to our economic competitiveness. India and China are kicking our asses right now in science and engineering. This should scare the shit out of us, but the public outcry has been pretty limited. Our complacency about education is going to put us massively behind other countries in terms of innovation, so that essentially if we continue to fall behind, we're going to be someone's bitch economically speaking. Our dependence on other countries for oil is already hosing us economically, and our lack of concern for the declining quality of education is only going to stifle economic progress in the long run.

The other fantastic point that Friedman makes as a positive aspect of globalization is that countries that are linked together economically, primarily through global supply chains, are highly unlikely to start wars against each other because of the vested economic interest each country has in the other. If you look at the countries that we tend to fight, they're not our economic partners. Globalization increases those linkages between countries, and will decrease military conflict in the future as more countries get a piece of the pie.

It's one of those times when I wish the President would read something other than the Bible and children's books, because I think he could take some ideas an really make improvements in his economic policy. Unfortunately, it looks like we've still got a few more years of "run and gun" left before we see the end of this era.

Make a Mental Note Conservatives!

Seattle in September?

I just wanted to post a reminder to our friends on the right, so that when this becomes an issue down the road, they can't deny it as they did when we invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

First of all, the Bush Administration obviously has changed their tune on the UN. Seems like they're relying on the UN quite a bit when it comes to the whole problem with Iran's nuclear capabilities. Why make note of this? Because I know in 9 months, the Bush Administration will be trashing the UN for it's effectiveness (again). Keep in mind, as well, that Iran doesn't have any nukes (yet) that we know of.

Move one news item down, and notice that North Korea is threatening the US with all out nuclear war. North Korea is not saying we will develop nukes, they're not saying we will someday have these capabilities, but rather "If you interfere with our nuclear test launches, we're going to put out nukes up your ass and pull the trigger 'til it goes click."

The interesting thing about these stories is that the Bush Administration is using completely different tactics than it did with Iraq, despite the fact that there are some significant similarities between North Korea and Iraq.

Crazy dictator - Check.

Citizens being killed and oppressed - Check.

Media controlled by regime - Check.

Functioning nuclear program - Check for North Korea, not for Iraq.

Do I think we will invade North Korea like we did Iraq? No. But, I think the Bush Administration's justification for going to war in Iraq, would also apply to North Korea. I realize there are strategic military issues here as well, but that's not the reasons that the President gave for his invasion of Iraq. He said it was because Saddam was a brutal dictator and because he had WMDs. Seems like the same could be said on a much more verifiable and threatening scale for our friends in North Korea. Interesting anyway.

Women Looking to Assert Your Individuality: Try a Butt Crack Tattoo

Okay, I hate to look like I'm copying the Midget, but I had an experience almost exactly like his, and I just had to share it. The other day, I saw a woman who appeared to have some kind of tattoo at the top of the crack of her ass. I was so stunned I had to take the above picture of it with my handy camera phone. I have to say that I have never seen any woman sporting a tattoo over the top of the crack of her ass. I was instantly intrigued. Here was a woman of sophistication. Intelligence. Individuality. An independent thinker. Not the sort of person to jump on some sort of bandwagon.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: it's going to be very distracting when we're having sex. You're absolutely wrong. There is no way in hell that you're going to find yourself obsessively staring at that tattoo during what should be an intimate moment. And I know some of you are also thinking that, once the woman in question hits 40 or 50, the tattoo is not going to look so hot. But, you're totally missing the point: why think about the future? Why wonder if you'll look ridiculous in the nursing home with 22 facial piercings and those awesome tribal ear-loops? The point is, you look totally killer NOW!

I hate to have to get into this, but in the interests of fairness, I also need to head-off another mistaken assumption you may be having. You may think that a woman sporting such a tattoo may be of questionable sexual morals. You couldn't be more wrong. Having seen the woman myself, I can tell you without a doubt that she was saving herself for marriage. She would be totally unacquainted with concepts such as fingercuffs, trains, and the Cleveland Steamer. She definitely does not go all the way on the first date. No, you'll have to meet her parents, pass a credit check, and have a good job with prospects before you two will have sex. And even then, it will be subdued, safe sex utilizing only the missionary position. She definitely will not blow you in the restroom of a truck stop. So don't even think about asking.

West Coast Holla! (or something)

Not that anyone's noticed, or cared, but I haven't really been posting anything on this site for some time. This is because I've been busy relocating from Minneapolis to San Francisco. And, given that I had only 4 weeks to do so, it took an all-out effort. Indeed, Mrs. CowboyLaw is still in Minneapolis, tying up loose ends.

Having now begun my residency by the Bay, allow me to share the following preliminary thoughts on my new hometown, and its features (such as I know them).

1. This is no revelation, but I don't enjoy paying more to rent a small apartment than I paid for my 20-year mortgage on my palatal estate in Minneapolis. I have promised myself that I won't complaint about the price of housing, because, frankly, I'M why housing in SF is expensive: young professionals like me keep moving to SF, taking high-paying jobs (see below) and buying up all the housing. The City has enacted various laws which have the effect of holding the supply of housing essentially static. Meanwhile, the population keeps growing. It doesn't take an economics PhD to figure out that when supply is held constant and demand continues to grow, price will steadily increase.

2. Additionally, I certainly don't enjoy paying $250/month for the pleasure of parking my car two blocks from my apartment. However, it is marginally more enjoyable than circling the block for 20 minutes waiting for a spot to open up. There are few human endeavors I enjoy less than searching for a parking spot. If you gave me a choice between searching for a parking spot and being anally raped by a mountain gorilla, I would ask you the following questions before making my choice: (1) searching for a parking space for how long? (2) how well-endowed is the gorilla? (3) will I get lube if I chose the gorilla? (4) is the gorilla well-groomed? (5) is the gorilla diseased? and (6) will the gorilla hold me after it's over?

3. However, I love the ease and cost of public transportation. While it is technically accurate that I can walk to work (about 20 blocks), it bears noting that the commute involves approximately 750 feet of elevation change. And there's a significant uphill component no matter which direction you're traveling in. In Minneapolis, a 30-day pass for the bus costs $75. In SF, a 30-day pass for the bus, the Muni train, the cablecars, and BART (the subway) trips inside metro SF costs $45. In Minneapolis, the bus I could have caught to go to work arrived 5 blocks from my house every 20 minutes or so. In SF, the bus I catch to go to work arrives 2 blocks away every 2 minutes. It drops me off 5 blocks from work.

4. The relative costs of public transportation vs. my car, and the accessibility of the former, is leading me to believe that when the lease on my current car expires, I will be joining ZipCar, or another "car on demand" club. I haven't driven my car in a week, but that hasn't stopped it from costing my about $200 (1 week of lease + 1 week of parking + 1 week of insurance).

5. I like that I can walk a block to a decent local market where I can buy most of the groceries I need, or a fully-cooked chicken, or about a dozen different pasta salads, or (and here's where it's really better than Minnesota) one of about 200 bottles of wine they have, or beer (and the market has Fat Tire, which is awesome).

6. I do not yet like living in an apartment again. The apartment is in a great, beautiful old building, but the building was apparently built before sound-proofing (or even sound-reducing) building materials were invented. If I chose, I could probably have a conversation with my neighbor upstairs without raising my voice significantly. I anticipate that I will grow accustomed to this. I also pray that I will grow accustomed to this.

7. I like that my current job pays me about 50% more than my last job did. Frankly, it more than offsets the stuff listed above.

8. However, my current job is also a lot more work than my old job. Which is okay, but not flamingly awesome.

Enough of my thoughts for now. Even I get tired of my thoughts eventually. More updates as events warrant. Or when I feel like it.

Guantanamo Bay Supreme Court Ruling Stuns Bush

Suspected Terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Bush Administration's military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the legal procedures surrounding those incarcerations were illegal. President Bush was obviously stunned when he discovered this yesterday, while leading the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi through a tour of Graceland.

His shock was best captured in his answer to a question posed by reporters:

Asked whether Guantanamo would be closed, Bush thought about this for several seconds before saying that he hadn't had a chance to review the ruling. "I wish I could have given you a better answer," he said, almost pleading for no further questions on the issue, questions he couldn't answer.

I'm no legal analyst and hardly an expert on the Supreme Court, so I can't tell you what the ruling will mean for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I'm not sure legal analysts can even agree on what will happen.

What I can tell you is that Bush's shock is evidence that he felt that his decision was not only right in a moral sense, but also right with the law. President Bush BELIEVED that the Supreme Court that he and his father and Reagan essentially hand-picked would side with him on this case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia all sided with the Administration, while new Chief Justice John Roberts was sidelined because of a previous ruling he made as an appeals court judge on this case.

The President has acknowledged that this ruling will not put suspected terrorists out into the World. The bottom line is that the government needs to offer these detainees the opportunity to have transparency in their legal proceedings. Secret military tribunals do not protect us from terrorism. If anything, holding 400 people without officially charging them provides terrorists with more fodder to recruit and incite Muslims for their cause against our country.

Like many of the other facets of the Administration's "War on Terror", keeping things secret does little to make us safer. The Administration wants us to trust that they will make the right decisions about what to do with intelligence and secret information gathered through these programs. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration doesn't have the kind of track record that puts us at ease when it comes to intelligence and handling it. Remember this is the group of bozos that outed a CIA operative working against Al Qaeda, had intelligence about credible threats prior to 9/11 and claimed that it had proof the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Forgive me if I want them to be more transparent, since I think information is the safest when their not the only ones with access to it.

Welfare-to-Work in the Bush Administration

Her kids on the other hand......

It might surprise some of you to learn my opinions on so-called Welfare-to-work programs. You probably think that I'm some bleeding heart, give the poor people their money, kind of guy because of my liberal leanings. But, you would be dead wrong. Not only do I think that public assistance should require some accountability on the part of the recipient (like having a job), I hold the even more controversial belief that if I'm paying your bills, then I can demand that you be put on non-participitory birth control, such as Norplant or the shot. And you thought I was just another bleeding heart.

Welfare-to-work is how welfare SHOULD work. Welfare should not be a retirement program for lazy people. Believe me, I'd rather sit at home and collect a check any day of the week, but that tiny shred of dignity I have left won't allow me to do that. Research has shown time and time again that WELL-DESIGNED Welfare-to-work programs (most have been implemented by individual states, and not the feds) actually are very effective in combating poverty. These programs help people get out of poverty instead of simply maintaining it. Crazy idea, eh?

The Bush Administration recently introduced new federal regulations that will increase the work requirements for people on such programs. Weight management and smoking cessation programs will also be excluded from the new federal regs. This sounds like a fantastic thing to me, except that if you look a little bit deeper you see the following problem: (Source)

"The Bush administration provided an additional $500 million for child care over the five-year program, a fraction of the $4 billion that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said was necessary for parents to meet the new work requirements."This is going to be very expensive for the states," said Elaine Ryan deputy director of the American Public Human Services Association, which is made up of state welfare officials. "How are they going to pay for this?" she asked."

Elaine raises a critical point with this issue, and one that most states have done a great job answering on their own in the past: When we send people with kids back to work, we have to have someplace for their kids to go. When the CBO reviewed the issue, they estimated that we would need $4 billion to pay for childcare for these people who are moving from Welfare-to-work. Bush allocated about 12% of that amount. You don't have to be a mathmatician to see the problem with that.

The Bush Administration wonders why people criticize its domestic policies, and this is a fine example of how they take a great idea that states have made incredibly successful and cost-effective, and underfund it into ineffectiveness. We have seen the Bush Administration do this with funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Medicaid programs. The federal contributions for these programs continue to fall in Bush's annual budget allocations. Whether you like these programs or not, if we're going to dump billions of dollars into them, we should at least require the federal government to fund them adequately enough so that they actually function.

If you think that welfare recipients will move off of welfare and get jobs if they can't afford childcare, you're an idiot. What incentive do people have to get a job if doing so is going to put their family further into poverty? Childcare is horrendously expensive, and because no one on the right or the left wants to implement my required birth control for welfare mothers program, people on welfare have expensive childcare needs.

If we want these people to get jobs, earn their keep, and contribute to society, we cannot create a federal program that is a disincentive to going back to work. It's nice to see that when the President takes on a domestic issue for a change, it's only to make those programs work better. Keep up the good work, asshole.

Time to Clean House in Congress

Thousand die in flag burning-related accidents every day

Forgive me, if you are one of those pseudo-patriotic dickholes who believes that prevention of flag burning should be a national priority. If you fit into that category, you have way too much time on your hands. Congress wasted a lot of time this week, debating and posturing to protect the American Flag from people who lack the creativity to express their freedom of speech in an original way.

I think that flag burning is a huge waste of time. If you want to make a political statement or affect REAL change, try running for political office at a local level or even just writing a letter to your elected officials. When someone burns a flag, the net effect on society is nothing. Preventing flag burning isn't going to stop genocide in Sudan, improve the US economy, make us more competitive in the world market.

I would bet that if as a country we said tomorrow, "We don't care if you burn our flag, we have real, actual problems that need to be solved.", flag burning in this country would decrease significantly, because doing it wouldn't seem so damned controversial. As an aside, there's nothing we can do to prevent flag burning in other countries, except maybe leaving the rest of the world the fuck alone.

With all the problems we're currently facing at home and abroad, you'd think that Congress would find more important things to worry about. And do not think for a minute that I'm letting the Democrats off the hook here by criticizing a primarily Republican effort. Democrats were supporting this huge waste of time as well. It was a bipartisan shit show, in my opinion. If there's ever been a need for a third, fourth and fifth party, it's now.

The FCC Knows Best

So you probably know about the Fascist Cuntbag Commission increasing the fine for 'indecency' on over-the-air TV. Of course, our wonderful House of Representatives approved the bill, with only 35 members voting against it, after our fantastic Senate approved it unanimously.

So what will be made of THIS little incident from last night's Game Seven of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals?


Okay, so it wasn't Rod Brind'Amour who said the expletive, but I thought it made for a better picture. I'm not sure exactly who said it, as I was only half-paying attention at the time (it was either the third or fourth player to hoist the Cup, if memory serves). But here's what I wanna know: Was the FCC paying attention? Or do they only watch programs with more than a 5.0 Nielsen rating? I guess we'll see in the coming days if NBC gets fined. After the player said it, there was about a two-second audio drop-out, so someone tried to catch it, but they missed. Do they get a reduction in the fine for at least making an effort? Or maybe a mulligan? I'm sure Lefty would've liked one this past weekend...

Personally, I don't care what I hear on TV or the radio, and that even goes for that windbag Michael Savage (whom I will not post a link to his site, lest he receive any free hits). I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death blah blah blah. And even if I had children, I still wouldn't care. While kids should be taught that swearing is not acceptable in most areas of life, it's still a part of life. People cuss. No FCC fine is going to change that. Lil' Timmy is going to hear the word 'fuck' at some point in his life. Lil' Mister Bling heard the word long before he was in junior high school, but he was also taught not to say it in public.

Does this website count as 'public?' Regardless, here we have yet another example of politicians who think they know better than we do when it comes to our personal lives. They try to tell us what video games we can or can't play. They try to tell us what we can or can't do in the bedroom. And some of them love children so darned much, they're willing to raise them for us.

Years of sheltering children can be erased in an afternoon. Just let Ryan the Angry Midget babysit for you.

Looking to Assert your Individuality: Try a Barbed Wire Tattoo

It's the most individual, unique tattoo I've ever seen....

I play in a sand volleyball league on Monday nights, which is essentially a cover for drinking beer on a work night. The league that we play in is like the G League, as in A league is the best and as the letters go, well, you get the idea. Our league is for people who do not wish to compete, they simply want a way to have their habitual drinking during the work week to seem more socially acceptable. I was sitting there this evening, drinking a beer and examining my surroudings, when I started to notice the newest trend among blue collar males: a tattoo of barbed wire around the upper arm. I've never seen anything so original in my entire life.

It's so rare and cutting edge, that I had to take the above picture of a guy's arm in my league, just so that I KNEW that you all would know what I was talking about. It's not like you can just type barbed wire arm tattoo in Google Images and get like 540,000 results. I knew if I said, "I saw several guys with a barbed wire tattoo around their arms in my volleyball league.", you would have all been like "I can't even wrap my mind around something so tough and unorthidoxed. Ryan must be full of shit. No human being is so crazy and out of the box that they would even think of doing that."

At first, I will admit, I was completely intimidated by these individuals. Does the barbed wire tattoo mean that their arm might cut me in half during an impromtu game of Red Rover? Or does it mean that this individual is SUPER FUCKING TOUGH. Just like a roll of barbed wire?

I would think that this might become incredibly popular among very mean and strong people. Almost like a calling card that says "I am someone who is not to be trifled with. My arm has barbed wire on it, which can only mean that cattle and other livestock, as well as prison inmates, cannot cross my bicep muscle." I am still in awe that so many dudes in my volleyball league have done something so original that it says "I want to assert my individuality with others, who are different like me."

I'm not sure if I'll even be able to go back and play next Monday night. I get goosebumps just thinking about those pasty white arms and black lines of ink. I thought about getting my own barbed wire tattoo, but I am such a creature of conformity, that I couldn't possibly do something like that. And my arm might explode the next time I flex my bicep.

Something has to be done, or the next thing you know, every plumber and journeyman electrician will have a barbed wire tattoo, and those of us without one will be left alone, while our girlfriends and wives flock to these obviously superior individuals, like lemmings into the sea.

al-Zarqawi Autopsy Results Not Surprising

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's autopsy results are in! Guess what? The cause of death was getting hit with a giant fucking bomb! I think the military investigators probably used more medical and scientific lingo in their description, but I guess I am a little surprised they even bothered to do the autopsy. Although the fact that he was alive when we got to him was interesting, I wouldn't have given a crap if the cause of death was "additional ass kicking at the hands of coalition forces". Good riddance.

Conservatives cannot stop giving each other the virtual reach-around on this one though. I have heard cries from the neo-cons on how this event is equivalent to victory, and how this is a huge loss for Al Qaeda in Iraq. I think it's great anytime a terrorist goes down, but let's keep this in perspective here.

First of all, al-Zarqawi was not affiliated with the same Al Qaeda that ran planes into the World Trade Center. He didn't even start calling his radical Islamic movement Al Qaeda in Iraq until late in 2004. So those of you wanting to make a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam with this information, need to consider the facts. The guy was a horrible terrorist and inspired a lot of people to kill US soldiers, but to think that this will in any way negatively impact the insurgency in Iraq is to ignore the larger picture here.

A lot of people are stuck in the mindset that we have used to fight wars in the past. In the past, if you killed a leader of an opposing country, it was an enormous deal. Terrorist organizations, as I keep reminding my neo-con friends, are not countries. They do not have governmental hierarchies. The organization of a terrorist group is much more horizontal than it is vertical, which is one of the reasons that terrorist groups are so tough to fight. You can kill really important people, and it will have very little impact because it's very difficulty to characterize the actual role and connections that individuals within terrorist organizations have, how decisions are made etc.

Before we go making bold proclaimations about the impact this will have on global terrorism or even terrorism in Iraq, we should consider that we're not dealing with a conventional leader of a conventional country. al-Zarqawi's death may in fact have the polarizing effect of increasing and inspring more terrorist violence. Only time will tell.

The death of al-Zarqawi was a good thing for Iraq, but let's be careful not to overstate the significance of it in the grand scheme of things, particularly using it as a metric for success in war, when there really isn't ever success in an operation where people are losing their lives.

Raptor Jesus!

I have found my new god.

Behold him.

Raptor Jesus.

You're Still not all that Pro Life

I was trying to think back to a time when a single post generated as much hoopla as my Why you really can't be all that Pro Life post from last week. I received a number of emails and comments, and I felt the issue needed further clarification. I am going to directly answer some of the comments and emails that I received.

First of all, there were a number of emails and comments accusing me of twisting facts to support my viewpoint. And yet, none of these individuals were able to say exactly how I was misrepresenting those facts or what facts were misrepresented. A lot of comments were specifically about the immunizations issue, so I wanted to address that directly.

People who consider themselves to be Pro Life view the issue as black and white. You either have respect for human life or you do not. The irony about this stance is that it is an impossible one to take and not be a complete fucking hypocrite. We have government programs, like immunizations, that are predicated on the fact that we sacrifice a few kids, so that the rest of society doesn't perish from small pox or mumps. People would call you a crazy donkey-raping shit eater if you spoke out against immunization programs. And yet, people who are Pro Life miss the punchline on this one. They think abortions are the only way that innocent people die, and by opposing them, they absolve themselves of any responsibility for all the other killing that goes on with their tax dollars every single day.

My point was that you cannot be a moral absolutist about anything, unless you are completely ignorant of what is going on in the world around you. The only thing moral absolutism does, is make is a little easier to judge other people who don't conform to the impossible standards that you or your religious sect have created for the rest of us. Being a black and white moral absolutist, as so many Pro Lifers are, only shows that you're too stupid to consider all the possibilities.

Another great example of our willingness to accept less than perfection when it comes to saving lives is car safety. As a society, we purchase cars every single day that we know could kill someone. Could we make cars safer by investing tons of money in safety technology? We could save thousands of lives every year by doing that, but we choose not to for the simple reason that cars would be horrifically expensive. We accept cars that are a balance between safety and affordability. While cars will never be 100% safe, we could certainly invest more money in making them safer, but as consumers, we don't think of it that way. And if a car came out that was significantly safer, but also significantly more expensive, very few people would actually choose to drive that car (as emperically proven by Mercedes Benz).

The bottom line is that every single one of us accepts some margin of acceptable death so that things remain affordable, convenient and safe for the rest of us. To ignore this fact is to demonstrate a lack of comprehension and acceptance for what we do as a society. I am not condoning this practice, but we should at least recognize it is out there. If people did acknowledge that, no one would be able to sit here and say "I am Pro Life and you are not." because they would understand that we're all in the same boat, where death and killing are Ok as long as it benefits us in some demonstrable way.

I <3 NY!

I guess I need to call the Angry Midget any time I leave the D/FW metroplex, because neither of us had any clue that we'd both be in NYC on Memorial Day weekend! I'm sure we'd have gotten kicked out of more than one of the countless Irish pubs in Manhattan, so maybe it's not a bad thing.

My girlfriend and I spent three nights in NY. It was our first time there, so it was a little overwhelming. Fortunately, we had a friend who recently moved to Long Island, and he showed us around, and even brought us with him on Saturday to a Fire Island beach house that a friend of a friend had for the weekend. The last thing I thought I'd do in NY is practice kung-fu on a beach, but there's so much to do there that thinking back, it shouldn't have surprised me.

Anyway, I'll post a few pics, just for the hell of it:


When you combine my misanthropic tendencies with my subtle claustrophobia, Manhattan probably wasn't the best vacation idea for me. Shitloads of people, and skyscrapers everywhere. I think I handled it pretty well though. I didn't throw a single Muay Thai elbow at anyone.


Hey, whaddya know? A big fucking hole in the ground. Honestly though, Ground Zero was kind of eerie. Tons of people all around, and a deafening silence surrounded the entire area. I heard a couple of people whispering behind me, and it sounded like they were on a bullhorn.


We had lunch in Battery Park, which was nice. We didn't have time to go over to Lady Liberty, because the wait in line was around four hours, so this is as close as I got. Works for me though, because I wasn't in the mood to climb up that bitch.


Grand Central Station is a busy place? I thought it was just a figure of speech!

I had a few other pics I wanted to post, but honestly, I don't want to turn this into some estranged uncle's vacation slide show. I'm not sure if I could live on Manhattan island, but it was fun for a getaway, and I'd love to go back for longer than a three-day weekend. The whole time, I had Bill Hicks quotes running through my head:

"They say if you quit smoking, you get your sense of smell back. Well, I've got news for ya. I live in New York. I don't WANT my sense of smell back. 'Is that urine?' 'I think I smell a dead guy.'"

And even with the strong smell of urine on every other city block, I'd still take NYC over Los Angeles. People in NYC weren't all that rude. They were just always in a hurry. On the other hand, L.A. reeks of smug. I've never been to San Francisco or San Diego though, and I hear they're both beautiful. Maybe next time...

The Truman Show

The closest President Bush will ever be to actual combat

First of all, I am going to post an update on my Pro Life post I put up last week. Lots and lots of good emails on that one, and I want to let those trickle in a little more before I put more up. Be patient, there are some great emails that I am going to post on the subject, not all of which are in accordance with my viewpoint.

While many of you were enjoying a long weekend, I was enjoying a particularly long weekend that started last Thursday when I left for New York to see my cousin graduate from West Point. My cousin is an amazing guy. He started out at a private college out of high school, wanting to be a dentist. He was in Army ROTC, because he wanted to be in the military and for the obvious benefit that it payed for his schooling. After 9/11, he made a decision that if he was going to be in the military, why not go all in. He applied to West Point and was accepted in the Class of 2006, which started the year following 9/11.

I, for one, never had and still don't have the smarts or the cajones to cut it in that sort of environment. Being around these people this weekend made me appreciate that there is hope for our future military policy. If you talk to the West Point graduates, you will find that many have reservations about President Bush and particularly his military policies. Like all good soldiers they will fight for their country regardless of who is calling the shots, but I was encouraged that they weren't just blindly in agreement with whatever policy agenda the President sets forth.

President Bush ended up being the commencement speaker for the graduation, which initially made me want to grit my teeth. The irony of a man who has never actually served in the military, let alone in combat, making decisions about if my cousin is going to war is frustrating. Nevermind that his campaign funded private organizations to trash John McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 for their military service. President Bush speaking at West Point on Memorial Day weekend really can't get much more ironic. Seriously.

Some of you may have heard about the President's speech, but here is the brief version. President Bush realizes that his approval right now is historically low. While some diehard Republicans are saying that this is some vast conspiracy, it's just proof that the American people are not idiots. President Bush has done virtually nothing for the average American. If you disagree, PLEASE send me an email or post something under comments. I have spent a long time trying to think of at least one good thing that has come from this presidency, and I can't put my finger on a single thing. If you can, it would at least be an interesting discussion.

Historically, there was another US President with similar poor job approval: Harry Truman. President Bush seized the opportunity at West Point to compare himself and the current geopolitical landscape to what Truman faced after World War II.

There are some definite similarities between Truman and Bush. Both are male, for example. Aside from that, however, the correlaries that Bush attempted to create between his administration and Truman's were pretty weak. Bush admitted during his speech that the enemy in the Cold War and the enemy today are completely different. Truman was up against governments with borders and governments, while today we fight a war without borders or other identifiable characteristics. Bush compared the work we're doing in Iraq to the Marshall Plan, which provided US aid to European countries after World War II to help rebuild those countries and keep the spread of communism at bay.

When scholars discuss the Marshall Plan, the effectiveness of the Marshall Plan as a tool to prevent the spread of communism is highly questionable, but we'll leave that to people who are much better informed. Check this link out if you're interested in that debate. The whole analogy of the war against radical islamists being like the war against communism is interesting because in both cases it deals with ideology. President Bush, as President Truman did, that you can change ideology through military action or aid. What the Cold War demonstrated empirically is that you cannot fight ideology, be it fundamentalist islamic belief or communism, by simply attacking those who support it and funding those who don't.

Essentially, President Bush, by using the example of the Marshall Plan and comparing himself to Harry Truman, destroyed any support he had for his policy. The Cold War went on for over 30 years after the Truman Doctrine. While Bush obviously feels that those first 8 years in the 1940s and 1950s were crucial in destroying communism in the 1980s, I would argue that perhaps a better foreign policy, one that wasn't based on military build-up, could have prevented a lot of death.