"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."
- Barack Hussein Obama - regarding the recent Supreme Court decision to not remove non-news corporations' First Amendment rights to free speech

I can think of MANY things worse:
1. Crushing public debt
2. Endless entitlement programs (leading to point #1.)
3. A public at extreme risk of terrorist attack due to piss-poor foreign policy
4. A complete lack of public confidence in national leadership
5. A currency devalued by retarded fiscal policy
6. A health care system demolished by government take-over
7. A White House that silences any and all voices of opposition through any means necessary.
8. Increasing government restrictions on a financial system almost ruined by government restrictions.
9. Devastating the tattered economy with retarded cap-n-trade laws
10. Ignoring the public and their more-than-thoroughly documented disdain for your polices designed to bring about a new New Deal.



The left hates this ruling purely because it allows voices other than the unbearably biased media to speak to the common man; they love to champion free speech so long as the free speech is "their" free speech.

"The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations on Wednesday said the continued use of the [optical gun] sights with the religious references would send a negative message to the Muslim world."
- press release regarding Trijicon's Biblical references in their serial numbers on gun sites

Seriously? No, I mean, seriously?

The guns are killing Muslims, and the Biblical references send a negative message?

I am still, whole-heartedly, a believer that we should be sending the message that every Muslim killed will be dismembered and buried in pig blood. These cowards hide behind women and children, they hide in mosques and schools and hospitals, they kill innocents, and I am to be concerned they might be upset by optical sites with Biblical references?

Rather than jump in the fray and give my "unique" and informed summary of why Coakley lost (bitch) and why Brown won (anti-Obama), I'd like to address a different - though tangential - topic: why I prefer colored briefs to white briefs or boxers.


First, no boxers for me.
I am a freedom-loving individual, understanding that my freedoms cannot, by definition, infringe upon the freedoms of others - but believing that few other limitations apply. The seemingly obvious "too much freedom" doesn't apply here, as it implies a need for some restraint or controls on freedom. To those who prefer boxers: have at it. For those fans of commando: rock on, it is your right. For me, it begins and ends with comfort. In the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer, "My boys need a house."

As for why "tighty whitey" ain't my thing, the reality of a fast-paced man's life is that I simply do not have time to sit and ponder throughout the day; I'm constantly moving and shaking (pun intended) and sometimes small annoyances must be accepted. And, as a married man with a full-time maid, I seldom wash my own clothes, and women (who do sit and ponder the days away) just don't understand.

So, till the pace of life slows (and till I go full Brazilian) it will be colored briefs for me. And, as I learned so very long ago, in my beloved Corps, if you turn them inside out, they are clean!

1. You drive one of these




2. You own one of these




3. You want one of these


Act accordingly.

It ain't about respect or equality or "harassment. I do not what it is about, but I know what it ain't.

You see, I was on an air plane yesterday and a very hot (hottest I've ever seen) flight attendant called me "sweetie", and later called me "honey." I tried to feel harassed and violated, I just couldn't. Did I mention she was hot?

Maybe that's it: sexual harassment is something only unattractive people can do, it wasn't harassing BECAUSE she was attractive. If she were ugly and fat, perhaps I'd be filing a complaint with Continental Airlines today, but she ain't, so I'm not.

So, this begs the obvious question: how much "harassing" can I do (as a function of my attractiveness) without crossing a proverbial line?

Additionally, and any female reader can chime in here, do the same rules apply from the female perspective? If "honey" and "sweetie" are acceptable for women to say to men, are they acceptable for men to say to women?

Is "sugar-pants" over the line?