On Friday, I was chided by a golf partner that my posts were getting too long. To my ADD readers – the genuine tards of the site – my apologies; I’ll try to be more brief in my angst and its justifications.

In Arlington, Texas, the school board has adopted the following verbiage:
“The display of cleavage is unacceptable. Low cut blouses, tops, sweaters, etc. with plunging necklines are not allowed."

A local news station ran a story on the change with several female mothers, teachers, and administrators applauding the new rule. Who was the lone voice of dissent: Tom Pederson, local parent and obvious fan of exposed teenage cleavage.

Tom contends, “I think that's going to be a little tricky, because it puts a little bit of a policeman approach to the educators, and they really need to focus more on teaching.” Tom’s reasoning, if carried to its logical conclusion, would say teachers have no right to prevent violence in their classrooms as well – since that leads to “a policeman approach to the educators. Tom wants the school board to immediately dismiss this new rule and take a more proactive stance on protecting Tom’s right to ogle teens.

Maybe they could replace the rule with a “topless day for hot chicks”; would that make you happy, Tom – you pervert.

"Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said on Thursday the wave of scorching temperatures across the United States has converted him into a believer in global warming.
"We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels," Robertson said on his "700 Club" broadcast. "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air."
Morons! All are morons!

Again, and please listen, Pat: there is an immense difference between causation and correlation! Because it is hot today does not mean the globe is warming."

Let me give my little tards a brief run-down:

Global warming refers to a heating of the atmosphere – not necessarily the earth’s surface temperature. The “convention wisdom” (which, as said before, is frequently wrong) says first the atmosphere will heat, then the surface. This is simply not happening.

If “greenhouse gases’ are to blame, the mechanism through which they impact the globe is by absorbing heat in the atmosphere. These contrast to molecules like ozone that, rather than absorbing solar radiation, reflect it back into space. As carbon dioxide builds, it absorbs more solar radiation and the atmosphere heats.

Problem number 1 with global warming is that the atmosphere, since 1998, has actually been on a cooling trend with temperatures around the planet falling.

Because today is a hot day does not mean global warming is upon us; and if there is one thing we should all have learned by now, if Pat Robertson says it, it is idiotic.

If all that is needed to convince this moron of something is minor correlation, look for his belief set to change immensely in the coming years. If he meets one nice Muslim, he might do a complete “about face” (that’s a 180 for you tards, NOT a 360!) and decide to embrace Muslim pig-dogs rather than pray for their rapid demise and their eternal damnation.



In other news, I’ve spent a good part of the last few days considering the true nature of freedom. What are its limits, what price is too high?

On the one hand, there is anarchy characterized by no rule of law and all possible freedom – even the freedom to infringe upon the freedoms of others. Such is not a good social structure. However, on the other extreme there is totalitarianism: subjugating the individual and relinquishing his freedoms for the good of the state.

So, with the obvious limitations, what then suits mankind best? Of all possible options, I think our Founding Fathers demonstrated remarkable insight. We have freedoms of speech, of assembly, freedoms to not incriminate ourselves and, most of all, freedom to do almost anything SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS.

But, although those (and more) are enumerated in our Constitution, those freedoms have been limited – sometimes dramatically, in the name of the greater good.

In many ways, I favor that political process and structure that allows man to live free and only punishes when one individual or group destroys the freedoms of another individual or group.
A case in point: marijuana. It is a plant. Some choose to smoke it. I do not. In my ideal society, you may smoke anything you wish, with the understanding that, while exercising your freedoms – or as a direct result of your exercising your freedoms –should you harm the freedoms of others, you will be held to account. **And should my child read this: marijuana is illegal, so till things change, it is against the law and you have, now as always before, no recourse for its use. You smoke the dooby, you die.


As such, marijuana is known to have a few effects: it causes diminished response time and it causes a general sense of lethargy. If marijuana causes you to lose your job and become homeless and hungry, perhaps I will, in charity, help; but the government owes you nothing – no housing, no welfare, no cable television, no health benefits – you have created, via personal freedom, circumstances for which you alone are responsible.

And there, dear readers, is the problem. In a society which has long since abandoned personal accountability, freedom cannot go unpunished. Your liberties must be curtailed to prevent your potential abuse. And freedom, as a result, diminishes – not because it must, not because you have betrayed the freedoms of others, but because you MIGHT.

A great example of this is the Texas helmet law. If you, a motorcycle rider in the great state of Texas, decide to ride without a helmet, it is permitted; however, should you fall and injure your brain-housing, your insurance company is obligated to pay exactly nothing. You made a choice; they will not pay for your poor decision. But wait, can a state hospital deny service because you were an idiot and chose looking cool over being safe? No. So you exercise the freedom to not wear a helmet while, simultaneously hamstringing me into paying your medical bills, via taxation, when your idiocy injures you. You are not held to account, you get a pass for stupidity and I pay for it. Such situations infringe upon my freedom.

I favor a system where I can choose to wear a helmet or not, but NO ONE is responsible for my self-inflicted injury. This is not our system. Personal injury lawyers make certain I am never responsible for my own actions but that I am always responsible for the actions of others. If a murderous burglar breaks into my home and injures himself on the way to killing me, I am liable for the injuries he sustains on my property – assuming, of course, he fails to kill me. That is why the police will never arrive at my home to find a wounded or “restrained” burglar. They will find what was a perceived threat to my family or me – but is now a threat to no one. Dead people don’t sue you.

So, at the end of the day, where are we? We are, in my personal opinion, already in our handbasket and well on our way to histories, “Can you believe these people were this stupid!” list.

“In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-back group Hezbollah.”Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site.

The Islamic world's biggest bloc on Thursday demanded that the United Nations implement an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon and investigate what it called flagrant human rights violations by Israel.”

- excerpt pulled from article on Haaretz.com

So, the President of Iran – who says Iranian troops and Iranian weapons are not involved in this fight Israel is having with an Iranian-backed organization – says an immediate cease-fire is needed. Note to tard: if you genuinely want a cease-fire with a group you arm, stop arming them! Without Iranian and Syrian weapons, Hezbollah would be using native Muslim weapons: rocks.

And the answer to the problem is the elimination of the Zionist regime? Does anyone actually believe Iran isn’t behind this orchestrated war?

The best part of the entire article has to be, “and investigate what it called flagrant human rights violations by Israel.” Muslims kill those with whom they disagree, they kill women who are victims of rape, they rape women with impunity, women are their property – suitable for beating and abuse, they lie, they coware behind their women and children rather than fight, and they announce – with great pride – that all will bow to their god (the Satan of Christianity) or die. By Muslim definition, a “human rights” violation is a non-Muslim killing a Muslim and possibly the woman or child that Muslim is cowering behind.

Sting wrote a song back in the late ‘80s saying that nuclear war could be averted if “the Russians love their children too.” Russia was a worthy adversary, Islam is a pack of cowardly, intentionally uneducated, lazy losers who take no responsibility for their actions (since everything that happens is Allah’s will – except when Allah bitch-slaps them by letting their enemies take them to the proverbial wood-shed.) Muslims don’t love their children, or your children, or their wives (but they kinda wanna love your wife) and until we face the fact that the enemy isn’t “terrorism”, we have no hope of winning this war.

As I’ve said before, this will end in mushroom clouds.

And, one last note: Hezbollah says the rockets will stop when Israel leaves Lebanon; right. The rockets are a big part of the reason why Israel is in Lebanon. Note to tard Muslims: in the game of “cause and effect” the effect cannot precede the cause, else “cause and effect” isn’t.

My character is stunted by two primary flaws:

1. I tend to over-think things. A simple problem many times evades solution because there simply must be more to it.
2. Even in the most worthless of places and circumstances, something can be learned.


Tonight I watched the new movie, “V for Vendetta.” I kinda have a Natalie Portman thing. And, in case you are wondering: I think the film had an important message; a message that, in articulation, is false, but in principle, is true.

The foundation of the movie is that the government perpetrated crimes upon its people to protect them from themselves, to rule them, to subjugate them, and eventually to strip them of humanity itself.

I agree with the hero’s assertion that the people should not fear the government but it is the government that should fear the people. It was meant to sound profound and intelligent, and it did – very much, I presume – when Thomas Jefferson said it some time ago – though he was not given credit for the verbiage in the film. Many movies and plays and books are quoted –all with due credit, but Thomas somehow missed his due. Maybe that has something to do with Thomas advancing the civilization the movie so much hates. Damn, I hate it when the message is sullied by the messenger. Though the words of Thomas Jefferson are in the movie, they are twisted; in some small way, it’s probably best: the movie’s message is not imbued with Jeffersonian thought nor was Jefferson imbued with “V for Vendetta” idiocy.

In the end, it was the typical BS: a guy is killed by the government for owning a Koran; people disappear in the night because they disagree, and a seemingly free government takes its own people hostage.

The major problem with the film is its obvious embrace of Islam (with references to the Koran, and with the downfall of the United States being the result of “their” war.) Funny thing: the society the fictional government causes, the society the movie portrays as the result of not embracing Islam and homosexuality – that is exactly the society Islam pursues and, in many societies today, has realized. The enemy is what they portray as salvation. A sheep in wolf’s clothing, as it were.

The movie sucked. It went far beyond itself trying to make a statement about the destructive West but, in the process, demonstrated what the West is fighting: society where government (or religion) controls the people, the flow of information, the capacity to live, and the freedom to dissent.

And, it would seem, I am somewhat famous. During a round of golf with my brother-in-law (the admin through whom I get this site and secure my web host) informed me that, not only was I getting hits from Africa, across the Middle East, and all over the Americas, but most of the hits were coming from Google and from searchers phrases such as, “Islam sucks,” “I hate France”, “Mohammed was a camel jockeying manwhore,”: things of that bend. So you see, what you stand against is as important as what you stand for.

So this 19-year old, relatively attractive blond comes to my door yesterday to sell me something. (I have a genetic disorder that makes me incompatible with all blond females.) Due to the aforementioned disorder, and the fact that I hate people trying to sell me something at my front door; I disregarded her knocking and ringing of the doorbell, and she eventually gave up and went away.

In a fit of despair, I presume, she drove her car down my driveway and off my driveway over the ditch. You see, on either side of my driveway is about a 3-foot drop-off – it scares the hell out of most people the first few times they encounter it.

So, I have a relatively attractive blond standing in my driveway with her car half in the street and half hanging over a ditch and completely immobile. I walked out to help and she immediately starts trying to sell me her widgets. Typical blond, huh?

I told her we might want to focus on the car first as the problem was more severe, in my opinion, than she seemed to accept. She agreed and we immediately combined forces to arrive at a solution. Her input was that if I sat on the back bumper, the weight would raise the font end enough to pull it out (she said she had done this before and it had worked. I took, “done it before” to mean driven her car off a designated driving surface and either onto a designated non-driving surface on into thin air with no surface, designated driving or otherwise, on which friction can cause mobility in a motor vehicle.) I told her it wouldn’t work, she insisted, I tried it, it didn’t work.

As I surveyed the situation, looking for a useful solution; I began walking around her car and evaluating the scene. The first thing I noticed was that she was indeed attractive. Next, I noticed, starting on the passenger front side, that her front bumper was caved in as though she had struck something low on the front end. Progressing down the passenger side, there was a large, deep gash in the passenger door, and the passenger-side rear bumper had been caved in and the tail light was knocked out. The trunk, surprisingly, was without damage; but, progressing to the driver’s side: the rear bumper had been hit and was barely hanging on (kinda floating over the rear tire - much like the front tire was floating over my ditch: perilously perched over nothing and clinging to the last vestiges of security), and the front driver’s side bumper had been bashed in. Needless to say, it seemed she had indeed encountered problems such as these before.

So, now the part you won’t believe: I felt bad for her. I had my camera phone and was about to begin documenting the scene and thought she might be upset by some old guy taking pictures of her damaged and immobile car. I know, it’s difficult to believe, “I felt…” but there are no pictures to accompany this tale because I felt bad for her.

Anyway, about that time, it started to rain. She called a tow truck to pull her out (a guess her many adventures had served her well, she had an AAA card readily accessible in her purse.) So, there we are, an attractive blond 19-year old and me – in my driveway, in the rain, with her car hanging both out into the street and over my ditch: it was kinda awkward. My initial thoughts, “Hey, you can wait in my house. I have some wine coolers, maybe we could play Twister then have a tickle fight!” didn’t seem appropriate, so I opted for silence. She said she would continue down the street, hocking her wares, and would return when she saw the tow truck.

To end the story, a neighbor in an F-350 came by and pulled her out and she was able to go on about her crazy blond business. But it was a learning experience for me. What did I learn?
1. I am still incompatible with blonds.
2. I can “feel”, given the right circumstances and a pathetic enough victim – even if she was an attractive victim of her own retardation.



Also, I noticed yesterday in the news that the French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy thinks Iran is great nation, great civilization, and a “stabilizing” force in the Middle East. He encouraged the world to acknowledge Iran’s greatness and accept that the crisis in Lebanon can only be diminished if we allow Iran to intervene. And, in case you were wondering, I still hate the French – possibly more today than yesterday.

And I’ll leave you with a quote from one of Iran’s ruling clerics, Ahmad Jannati:
"We are expecting Muslim nations to provide various kinds of support, including arms, medicine and food to Hizbollah,"

Yep, they hold the keys to this sinking ship. Imagine what could be achieved if we allowed them to intervene. The French are morons. And surrender monkeys.