Dogs Baaaark

Some people shouldn't be pet owners.

link

I suppose it is possible they wanted a sheepdog...

Spare a square?

From the global warming crowd, we have more proof that having fame doesn't necessarily mean you have any brains.

Sheryl Crow wants to eliminate paper napkins. She knows people are messy, and need to wipe their faces with something. To replace napkins, she has designed clothing with changeable sleeves. While eating, you wipe with your sleeve, then just change it. Blow your nose on it, too.

More; she wants to put a limit on toilet paper usage;

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

And Laurie David provided an example of how little she understands how the world works. She was giving her 'Stop Global Warming' speech as the opening act of a rock concert, and some people weren't happy.

Tonight, I spoke outside the gorgeous Charlottesville pavilion, in front of a couple of thousand slightly inebriated college men (there to see the wonderful Robert Randolph and the Family Band) who were forced to sit through the opening act . . . me. Truly, it was one of the most challenging 20 minutes of my life. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw guys yawning, I heard kids saying "where's the music?" and I think I heard the "b" word. I rushed through the speech and when I walked off the stage I immediately burst into tears.

Those inconsiderate meanies, wanting to hear music at a concert.

Our other surprise was a visit by former Vice President Al Gore who sat and talked with us on the bus about what he hopes to see happen in this country as the stop global warming movement catches fire.

Wouldn't that raise his carbon footprint?


Read the whole WaPo article here.

Gun Free Zones

How many shootings have there been in gun free zones? The Amish School was a gun-free zone. Virginia Tech was a gun free zone. I am pretty sure NASA is a gun free zone. Columbine probably was, too. Pick some others.

It has always been illegal to drive into the front window of any Luby's. It was also illegal to carry a gun in Texas, which Suzanne Hupp knew. She watched George Hennard shoot and kill her parents, while her gun was locked in the trunk of her car in the parking lot, because she didn't want to break the law.

Add that to the fact it was probably illegal for any of these shooters to be carrying anywhere. I doubt any of these guys were licensed to carry; I imagine at least some of them were felons early on. The Columbine shooters built bombs, which has been illegal for a long time.

I am sure some of them broke some parking restrictions when they went to shoot up their targets.

It was also against the law for them to shoot people.

Once more; every one of these events involved multiple laws being broken. More laws are not going to do anything other than stop a law abiding person from defending themselves.

There is a similarity with suicide bombings here, too; when you don't expect to outlive the event, you really don't care about being prosecuted or serving jail time. That is the whole key, here; some people just don't give a damn about the law. One-gun-a-month laws and high-capacity magazine bans won't inconvenience anyone except those people who choose to obey them. You cannot fix this problem by stopping bullies, or anger management classes, or by taking all the guns away. Ask Britain or Australia.

The shooter at Virginia Tech wasn't even a citizen, but amazingly enough, that does not disqualify him from owning a gun; I would actually agree to that gun restriction. I realize it is unfair to use hindsight, but had authorities in that case had their thumbs out, he would have been locked up for stalking.

The Predictable New York Times

I do not know anyone who gets news from the New York Times. Among the people I know and respect, the Times is a punchline - more useful to demonstrate media bias than anything else.

We see the disgusting destruction of innocent life today in Virginia. But some on the left immediately see a chance to shill for gun control - and the buzzword this time, the target, is the gun show loophole.

Never mind the fact that the second amendment says specifically there can't be any restrictions on guns. Never mind that no matter what firearm restrictions are passed, there is not any corresponding drop in gun crimes.

There have been laws to reduce gun violence that work - project exile punishes crimes committed with a gun severely. Where it has been used, it works. But the NRA pushed it, and folks on the left can't afford to admit that the NRA might have a workable solution to this problem that does not involve more gun restrictions.

From the lead editorial in the NYT Tuesday: (lifted from Ankle Biting Pundits)

Yesterday’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech — the worst in American history — is another horrifying reminder that some of the gravest dangers Americans face come from killers at home armed with guns that are frighteningly easy to obtain.

Not much is known about the gunman, who killed himself, or about his motives or how he got his weapons, so it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy. But it seems a safe bet that in one way or another, this will turn out to be another instance in which an unstable or criminally minded individual had no trouble arming himself and harming defenseless people.

Our hearts and the hearts of all Americans go out to the victims and their families. Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

So, it is too soon to know anything, except that we need more gun laws? Here is an idea; enforce the ones you have, and consider more if those don't work. But they would, if enforced.

Plus, isn't it illegal for a person on a student visa to have a gun? What makes you think a law would stop him?

Most bizzarre thing ever thought of

They want to plug a volcano with poo.

No, really.

The double entendre possibilities alone are enough to love this story

The face of evil

Stories like this always make the bile rise in my throat.

This 17 year old gave birth to a baby girl on the floor, saw the kid move, and stabbed her one hundred and thirty five times. After that, she bagged the baby up and chucked it into a dumpster. That is nothing short of evil. I defy anyone to defend this behavior, or explain it as anything other than maniacal, pathological evil. All she had to do was drop the kid off anywhere, and be done with it. That's the law; you can, if you want, drop the kid at a hospital, police department, fire station, probably even a post office, and walk away, no questions asked. Kid gets adopted out, mom goes on with her life.

Maybe she had a problem with adoption.

You can find someone to eat anything

This one you just have to read for yourself

Cry me a river

In the continuing saga of the decline of society and the feminizing of the world, we have a new page.

In the UK, we now have "Misery Clubs." See the Daily Mail story here.

You go in and cry. They even have a designated slicer, cutting buckets of onions to help bring forth the waterworks. You pay a cover, go in, find a corner, and weep. I guess that's better than crying all balled up in the shower. This way, you can wear your makeup.

Against a backdrop of crashing choral music and candlelight, a group of elaborately costumed young women are dabbing their eyes with a handkerchief, their mascara running to form black rivulets down their cheeks.

Whatthehell?

There is science to back it up, of course; seems like there is always some jackass to back up just about any claim.

It has long been a widely-held belief that crying is therapeutic - and conversely that failure to cry is a danger to our health. Experimental psychologist Alex Goetz, who founded leading health risk management company General Health Inc, says: "Tears serve an important purpose.

"Emotional tears, shed in moments of intense feeling, carry stress hormones and are a way of getting rid of them. Even if crying embarrasses you, it signals that you've reached a level of stress that's detrimental to your health."

Yeah, but shouldn't grief be kind of, well, private? I don't want to see this...

Crying in public seems to have caught on in the United States, too.

Great.

New American website, cryingwhileeating.com allows users to post pictures of themselves weeping into their food alongside a short explanation of the cause of their distress ('global warming', 'always expects the worst and is never disappointed').

I knew global warming would pop up in this story...

"I don't like parties where everyone has fun. I don't want to dance and be cheerful, I'd much rather sit in a corner and mope as it's what I'm good at," he says.

I am thinking some of the Anti-Adoption-Bunny-Boilers like the Lamers wouldn't need the onions.

Happy Easter

This one is too good to not share.