motorized shopping carts
for fat people:
our national disgrace

When you are so fat and so lazy that you don't even have the will to walk around the store to buy the crap that is making you fat ...
God forbid you might get a few minutes of exercise by walking and actually burn off a calorie!

I just came back from running a few errands (to the grocery store, gas station, etc.). Two out of every three people I saw were obese. This is a national disgrace. It is disgusting and pathetic and ... disgraceful.

I am so sick of tip-toeing around the subject of obesity. It is not a disease! Its not a "diability". Its not a "condition". It is, in fact, something you have chosen to become (in 99.99% of cases). Yes, this is a "free society" -- for the time being -- but if you are going to keep choosing, day after day, to disdain exercise and eat like a self-destructive glutton, then you should be required to pay four or five times as much for your health care as people who choose to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle. That's what they do with smokers. They penalize them for their unhealthy choice. So ... why is this same principle not applied to gluttons? Obesity probably "costs" our society more than cigarette smoking.

Everyone wants to join the debate about health care, so here's my two cents worth. People who choose obesity over self-control should be made responsible for a greater portion of the cost of health care -- especially if health care becomes "universally" available. If you want to let your appetite be your god, then you may choose to do so in a rich, free society. But, by God, you should have to pay for it ... and not just figuratively, but also literally. Why should I have to work to pay for the consequences of your unbridled appetite?

In the vast majority of cases, obesity is not the result of any "disease" or medical condition, as some would have us believe. It is simply the result, in most cases, not all, of a lack of self-discipline. It is the result of unbridled self-indulgence. And if you want to claim that you are "addicted" to food, go ahead. So what? I've been addicted to a few things in my life, too. I'm not addicted to them any more. Do you know why? Because I made a choice (actually many choices over a long period of time) to stop feeding my addictions. It is a matter of choice.

The Bible refers to the kind of self-indulgence that leads to obesity as "gluttony", but gluttony has become so prevalent that even pastors of fundamentalist churches are afraid to speak or preach against it any more. Why? Because they would probably lose more than half their congregation, all people ready to run away to a different church if anyone so much as suggests that maybe they need to think about developing a little more self-discipline.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think people who are dealing with obvious and uncontrolleddrug abuse or alcohol abuse problems are usually installed into "ministry" or leadership positions in the church. So why do we allow obese people to serve in those same positions. Obesity (gluttony) is evidence of the very same character flaws that produce all kinds of other sin. Why is everyone afraid to say, "Hey, Pastor, you don't have much credibility because you are obviously a self-indulgent glutton. You're a big fatty. Go sit down and be quiet until you lose about 75 pounds. Try skipping one of your five meals or ten snacks tomorrow. That would be a good start. Have you ever heard of 'fasting'? I didn't think so."

Its all about self-indulgence versus self-denial.
It really is that simple folks.

We just try to make it complicated so we can hide behind all the speculative theories and fancy rationalizations, behind all the ridiculous excuses and psychological jargon that substitutes for the plain, simple truth:
You're FAT. You need to control your appetite. Period.

Many people who are obese don't even realize that they are, by definition, "obese". "Oh ... yeah ... I'm over weight." NO. You are obese! It's just that when you only compare yourself to the other overweight and obese people around you, you seem almost average. And now, with 60% of our population obese, that's an easy distortion of reality to adopt. It also feels better to all our sensitive little psyches to delude ourselves than it does to accept reality.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this national disgrace is the prevalence of obesity among children. There are many types of abuse, but one that is being overlooked is the abuse of making food so constantly accessible to your children that they become obese before they even get through puberty. That is more than lazy parenting. It is child abuse. Obesity, as I'm sure you already know is a major contributing factor to numerous medical problems, not to mention the poor self-esteem and related psychological and social adjustment problems that usually accompany child obesity.

All right ... I'm done for the moment. Now you can go get into your motorized shopping cart and buy yourself another five gallons of ice cream. Be careful not to accidentally throw a fresh vegetable or a piece of fruit into your cart. Wouldn't wanna waste good money on something like that! Oh, and don't forget to stop by that fast-food drive-through on your way home and get a couple of those giant, grease-dripping piles of fat they affectionately refer to as "burgers".

The main point of this rant once more, so you'll get it: if you are going to keep choosing, day after day, to disdain exercise and eat like a gluttonous, self-destructive fool, then ...
you should be required to pay four or five times as much for your health care as people who choose to live a reasonably healthy lifestyle.

Who will blink first?

Does Barak Obama really believe he can "talk" the leader of Iran (a long-time narcissist and psychotic with delusions of grandeur) out of following through with his plans? Because if Baa-aa-rock does believe that, then that may be strong evidence that Obama is even more narcissistic and has even greater (more irrational) delusions than Mr. Cooky Iran Man does.

By the way, don't get distracted by North Korea's cooky man, Kim Jong Il. His recent threats are just attempts to gain concessions of oil and other needed supplies for his government and for his country in general. He appears to be playing from the Muhamar Kadafi and Saddam Hussein play books: bluster, huff, make threats, and then accept bribes to shut up and go away for a little while. So, don't let "the Il-man" distract you from the real danger: the psycho in Tehran. The real psycho has expressed his intentions many times and will soon (perhaps by the end of this calendar year) have the means to realize those intentions (to "annihilate Israel" and "bring America to its knees".) President "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" has consistently asserted that "the nuclear question is closed", as far as he is concerned. He is not going to stop building up his nuclear capabilities just because Baa-aa-rock wants to play a soccer game.

My opinion is that Kim Jong Il is blowin' more smoke, as he has been known to do from time to time. Il seems to have a personality disorder with borderline traits that makes him likely to threaten to do extremely crazy things ... until he finally gets the level of attention he seeks from whomever he seeks it. Obviously, his parents neglected him as he was growing up, and his adult life is one long attempt to get the attention (and respect - a form of love) that his parents never gave to him. He might blow up something (or someone) in the China Sea, but he will quickly calm down after that and then withdraw back into his basement playroom for the duration.

In Iran, on the other hand, Mahmood I'm-a-dinner-jacket seems to have evil principles giving structure to his grandiose thought processes. He seems to have darkness as his guide and death to Israeli and American societies as the primary objectives in his life. He does not seem to be merely posturing or posing like so many other world figures do in these kinds of mutual exchanges of threats and warnings. Mr. I'm-a-dinner-jacket does not waiver from his long held position. He just keeps moving forward toward his stated goals, while the rest of us do nothing to stop him from reaching those goals. And he will probably reach them in the very near future (within a year or two).

What is Baa-aa-rock planning to do? Play soccer until "the Dinner-jacket" has a fully functional nuclear weapon ready to launch... with his psychotic fingers twitching with glee on the launch code buttons before he takes effective action? Somehow that does not seem like a good end-game strategy Baa-aa-rock! And if we beat them in that soccer game? You don't think that will just tick them off even more?

So let's do the difficult thing now, because what is difficult now may be impossible later ... Let's act NOW to reduce I'm-a-dinner-jacket's ability to "bring America to its knees". Later might be a little too late. All we have to do is keep our mouths shut except to express full support for the Isrealis, and then either help them or stay out of their way when the time comes. And after Isreal does its thing -- that thing that none of the rest of us have the courage to do, we can do our usual thing in response (publicly condemn Israel, while privately patting them on their collective backs for having the cahones to do what needed to be done). But we will all be quietly relieved and grateful when the Isreali Air Force effectively relieves Iran of its nuclear capabilities. All of us. Including the most vehement and far left critics. They just won't be honest enough to admit it.

Hey! I have a cool idea! Since we don’t have any fake oil crisis to double the cost of gasoline this year, let’s all obsess about the right to randomly kill each other with handguns and automatic rifles while Iran moves steadily toward its stated goal of annihilating Israel and “bringing America to its knees”.

Wait. Let me ask Glenn Beck if that’s okay with him.

Here are some obscure (in fact, almost totally ignored) news clips from today’s raw AP news:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (phonetically pronounced: “Ma-[hock up a chunk of phlegm]-mood I’m-a-dinner-jacket”) proposed on Monday a face-to-face debate with President Ba-aa-aa-rock Obama at the United Nations if he is re-elected next month as Iran's president. Did you catch that one? “IF he is re-elected next month...”. Yeah, right. I’m pretty sure if he is not re-elected there will be a lot of unexpected death in Iran soon after the election ... and then a ballot recount.

Anyway, Mr. Ma-phlegm-mood I’m-a-dinner-jacket has made it very clear that the nuclear issue "is closed". Of course, Ba-aa-aa-rock (pronounced as if being spoken by a bleating sheep, blindly calling out its master’s name), who still thinks he can talk this guy out of his life-long psychotic episode, said the U.S. was prepared to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it did not respond positively to the attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. [Ooooo! That oughta get some action. Sanctions!] Obama set a year-end deadline for Iran to show it wanted to engage with Washington.

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program, according to an Israeli government report obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The two South American countries are known to have close ties with Iran, but this is the first allegation that they are involved in the development of Iran's nuclear program, considered a strategic threat by Israel.

Venezuela and Bolivia are close allies, and both regimes have a history of opposing U.S. foreign policy and Israeli actions. Venezuela expelled the Israeli ambassador during Israel's offensive in Gaza this year, and Israel retaliated by expelling the Venezuelan envoy. Bolivia cut ties with Israel over the offensive.

Israel considers Iran a serious threat because of its nuclear program, development of long-range missiles and frequent references by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Israel's destruction. Israel dismisses Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, charging that the Iranians are building nuclear weapons.

While saying it prefers diplomatic action, Israel has not taken its military option off the table. Experts believe Israel is capable of destroying some of Iran's nuclear facilities in airstrikes.

The Israeli government report also charges that the Iran-backed Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have set up cells in Latin America. It says Venezuela has issued permits that allow Iranian residents to travel freely in South America.

The report concludes, "Since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of 'bringing America to its knees.'"

As allies against the U.S., Ahmadinejad and Chavez have set up a $200 billion fund aimed at garnering the support of more South American countries for the cause of "liberation from the American imperialism," according to the report.

Oh wait! There’s one more report out of Tehran today.

Never mind about that stuff I just wrote. Everything’s gonna be okay, because we’re going to play soccer with them. Thank goodness we have Baa-aa-rock making these foreign policy decisions now:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A soccer game between the United States and Iran this fall could be in the works. The possibility exists after the head of Iran's soccer federation said Monday he received a proposal from his U.S. counterpart about an exhibtion game in October or November.

This wouldn't be the first time that sports has cut through the nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze between the U.S. and Iran. Weightlifters, basketball players and other athletes have taken part in exchanges in recent years. But a soccer match would be an extremely high-profile event in Iran, where the sport is a national passion.

So ... to summarize:
Iran’s psychotic leader may just be is probably the one who will finally trigger Armageddon, and Ba-aa-aa-rock wants to “talk”. In fact, he wants to arrange a soccer game between the United States and Iran. That’s swell. Will we play that game just before or just after Israel bombs the enriched uranium crap out of them?

The gun laws debate Part 3

TU wrote:
I agree no one needs a fully automatic rifle. Now pistols are arguable, a side arm can be very useful in many hunting situations. But I think they could be limited to certain calibers and maybe only in revolvers. I am thinking you might be underestimating the power of the black market arms trade in America, the thugs will get their guns its just a matter of where. Yes I know taking guns off the streets would reduce shootings and crime rates to a degree. But the larger more organized gangs and groups will always get their guns. Just like how they will always get their drugs (a lot of good those STRICT drug laws did...). One more thing, you and I, as well as the thugs on the street, can not legally buy an automatic assault rifle without a very hard to get permit. Most "gangstas" get their autos on the black market anyway so taking guns away from law abiding citizens along with the thugs is not going to keep people from killing each other.

Mr. Grumpy responded to that with:
Thanks for the thoughtful counter-arguments TU.
I see your point about a side arm (revolver, certain calibers, etc.), but disagree with you about the black market supply. Where do you think black market guns come from? If all these fully automatic handguns and assault rifles weren't being manufactured for and sold to law-abiding citizens (private sales, not law enforcement and military use), I am certain there would be far fewer on the street for gang-bangers to buy and sell out of the trunks of their cars. If they weren't being sold out of gun shops on every other city block and at every other rural crossroads in America, I have a feeling it would be a lot harder for Gangsta-Wanna-Bee to keep his posse armed. Maybe these statistics will help make my point: From 1985 to 1994, 270,000 firearms were stolen annually, all from gun shops and legitimate registered gun owners, totaling 1.26 million handguns, 470,000 rifles and 356,000 shotguns. In 1995 alone, 240,000 automatic weapons were registered with ATF, including machine guns and submachine guns. 7,700 (about one out of every 30) of those weapons were stolen.

the Gun Laws Debate

(part 2)

Regarding my support of stricter gun laws (see my previous post, the 2nd Amendment..., below this one, or see Blog Archive at bottom of page), one friend wrote:

It's unfortunate that banning guns doesn't solve the problem...check out New York City & the state of New York [guns of all sorts have been banned for decades] and then there's Massachusetts...gun ownership [guns of any sort including air rifles] have been banned for years & years. And then of course there's Ireland...in the good old days guns were also banned...they resorted to using bombs and explosive devices [much cheaper than guns and stuff is available in any pharmacy, grocery or garden center].

When the family becomes the center of society with a healthy dose of responsibility and respect taught to children, we may stand a chance. Making excuses for both parents who work being the cause of family decay is nonsense...there are too many examples of families with both parents working [and working hard] who value their children, teach them moral values, teach them about accepting responsibility for their behavior and the consequences of their choices. They don't run down to the school and inform the world that "MY child would not have done that," or "I'm going to sue you..." They don't expect the school to teach their children what should be taught at home [respect, value of life, sex education, etc.]. They teach them how to become a man and a woman of integrity and strength. It is unfortunate that these families are probably in the minority at this point, but don't use that as a cop out...use it as an example of a goal to strive for and work toward. It is very sad that people in this day and age blame everyone and everything else for their "unhappiness," whatever it may be, rather than being reflective and accepting responsibility for oneself and taking action to correct the situation.

My response to that was:

Yes. It is unfortunate that banning guns might not completely address the problem, but it is even more unfortunate, in my opinion, that so many people have simply thrown up their hands in surrender to the problem. You're right. Banning guns won't solve the problem, but I think it would be a major step in the right direction. Using individual bans in New York and Massachusetts as examples (proof?) that a nationwide ban on certain guns would fail to address the problem is not a sound argument in my opinion, because it is too easy to carry banned firearms across state lines from any of the neighboring states. Yes, I know federal borders can be fairly easily breached, too, but if the ban was in place in all fifty states, it would be quite different than having a ban in a single state (surrounded by other states with no ban). The difference in rates (from America's world leading rates) of murder and violent crime in countries where private ownership of handguns is prohibited seems to prove this point. Besides, why simply argue that it wouldn't work without even having tried it first?

I think the better opposing argument is probably an analogy to the failed 18th Amendment (prohibition against the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages). But I'm not going to spend my time making arguments opposed to my own views. The NRA is about boosting gun sales (and the myriad of paraphernalia associated with guns). The NRA is all about money, not about constitutional rights, and it is certainly not about what is good for the citizens of this country.

I'll repeat it again, because it bears repeating: You can either serve God or you can serve Mammon (money, profit, greed), but you can not serve both simultaneously. The NRA can either choose to sacrifice profit to save lives, or it can keep helping its affiliates to make money hand over fist on gun sales in this country, while continuing to buy votes in Congress and blame everything and everyone else for the obscenely high rate of gun-related crimes. Every time you choose to repeat the NRA’s clever little slogan (that guns don’t kill people; people kill people), you are choosing to make the problem even more difficult to solve, as opposed to being a part of the solution.

Here is a true statement: People with guns kill people much more often than people with steak knives kill people ... or people with box cutters kill people, or people with arsenic, or people with baseball bats ... should I continue? Guns make killing people easier, more convenient, less personal. If everyone who had ever hated to the point of wanting to murder someone had only the options of beating or stabbing that person to death, or strangling that person with his bare hands, I am fairly certain there would be many fewer murders on the books. In fact, there would probably have been many fewer attempted murders. Why? There are a number of reasons why. First: have you ever heard of a drive-by stabbing? Second: there would be far fewer 2^nd degree murders (in the heat of passion; without premeditation). 2^nd degree murders are spur of the moment, impulse killings. Pulling the trigger on a gun makes effectively translating an impulse into a murder much more likely. Third: Columbine and Virginia Tech. How many fewer people would be dead in those cases had there been a different weapon involved? Fourth: Accidental shootings. There wouldn’t be any (or almost none). Fifth: Shooting someone is a relatively impersonal act. Ask any sniper. Stabbing or beating or strangling a person to death is an intimate and gruesome act that requires a much more sustained intent. Sixth: ... Come on! How many reasons do you need to be persuaded that the NRA’s little slogan is for people who don’t take the time to really think this thing through?

No. Banning handguns and automatic assault weapons would not completely solve the problem, but it sure would improve the murder rate in this country.

[In my next post, I will address the question -- raised by another friend -- of availability and the "black market".]

the 2nd Amendment should be repealed

or, maybe, its time to ratify a 28th Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This unending debate is not about "resisting government tyranny" or about "militias" or the erosion of "civil liberties". It is not about the law or the Constitution or about "patriotism" or right and wrong.

This is about the NRA valuing dollars more than lives,
and buying votes on the floor of Congress. Period.

And if you believe this is about anything more noble than that, then you are naive at best.

There are no valid reasons (at least none grounded in wisdom) why ANYONE -- other than law enforcement or military personnel -- should own an automatic weapon or a handgun. You want to go shoot wildlife for recreation? Fine. We'll allow shotguns and rifles -- along with some very strict registration laws -- and VERY strict enforcement of those laws. But no more automatic weapons and no handguns. What game is it legal to hunt with an automatic weapon? And who needs a handgun other than a criminal?

The narrow-minded refusal of some people to distinguish between long guns and handguns is keeping all those criminals well stocked with easy to conceal weapons. Just in case you haven't noticed, those are the only private citizens who seem to need handguns to conduct their daily affairs. There is only one reason handguns have ever existed: to provide people with a convenient way to kill other people. So why in God's name does a modern, civilized society continue to allow its citizens to own, carry, buy and sell handguns?! It makes no sense.

The law should provide for:
No private ownership of handguns, and no private ownership of automatic weapons.
Anything else is just terrible, terrible public policy. The murder rate in this country (and the rate of other felonies involving the use of a handgun) is through the roof. Our prisons are so crowded that we're letting inmates go free early. And yet, we have seemingly intelligent people relying on an all but meaningless provision in the Constitution to argue that the government does not have the authority to prohibit the purchase, sale, ownership and/or possession of certain kinds of guns. What a bunch of misguided NRA hogwash!

I'm sorry if it offends your ego to be told that you're wrong, but if you believe the federal government does not have full constitutional authority to regulate your guns, then you are just plain wrong. ...You're just wrong.

To anyone who has studied constitutional law in the 21st century -- (and I have studied it and taught it) -- the next two statements seem almost self-evident, but they are central to this essay and to someday ending the debate about federal gun control laws, so read them carefully:

• The states would have the same degree of authority to legislate their own gun laws without the 2nd Amendment;
  

• and, the federal government's power to dictate to the states regarding gun laws is not diminished in the least by the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

The federal government's (and Supreme Court's) power over state gun laws has been long settled, not by interpretation or enforcement of the 2nd Amendment, but by interpretation of the all-encompassing and all-consuming Commerce Clause (as incorporated through the 14th Amendment). Over the years, activist/revisionist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have used the Commerce Clause (or misused and exploited the Commerce Clause) to make anything and everything the business of the federal government. There is so much precedent piled on top of precedent at this point regarding the Commerce Clause that it simply doesn't matter what the 2nd Amendment states, or what the intent of the framers was, or what "clever" law some state legislature passes. Two things are clear to any unbiased and honest constitutional scholar: 1) The 2nd Amendment no longer has any real meaning; and 2) the federal government has the legal authority to regulate whatever it chooses to regulate (including our guns).

A little historical context: The second Amendment only exists at all because in 1787 Anti-Federalists feared that the creation of a standing (federal) army not under civilian control might eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened in the American colonies and in Europe at that time. So ... is that why you are in favor of private ownership of guns?
Come on. Be honest. Your "support of the 2nd Amendment" has nothing to do with the U.S. military threatening democracy and civil liberties. Its waaaay too late for that worn out argument. What are you gonna do, Bubba? You gonna take on a tank with a Beretta? I don't think your "well regulated militia" would be very effective against the tanks and rocket-launchers and helicopter gunships of the oppressive government if handguns were your weapon of choice anyway. I suspect the only reason you "support the 2nd Amendment" is because you enjoy hunting, and because you mistakenly believe that somehow, if the "liberals" have their way, you won't have "the right" to go hunting any more. But that is not true.

...

More detailed context:
In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a close alliance of sovereign states under the Articles of Confederation. This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shay's Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Constitutional Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles. When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps; the Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution) and the Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).
Among their objections to the Constitution, Anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army not under civilian control that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American colonies and Europe. Although the Anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

Interesting Note: Federalists such as James Madison on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, arguing that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia. Similarly, Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army. I guess Mr. Madison and Mr. Webster weren't quite as smart as they thought they were.
[Oooo! I may have just lost the JMU alumni ... and the Noah Webster ... dictionary reader/fans?]

The 2nd Amendment is an archaic and meaningless relic of colonial days.
As a matter of public policy, the gun laws in this country are asinine. We don't need to carry guns to defend ourselves against the "tyranny of the government". We need to defend ourselves against criminals by outlawing the private ownership of handguns and automatic weapons.

And don't try to argue that there would be just as many guns and murders if the law prohibited private ownership of handguns, because that tired assertion has been proven to be categorically untrue by the dramatically lower incidence of murder and other gun-related violent crimes in countries where private ownership of handguns is prohibited.

To all the thinking people out there: We can not afford to allow the NRA to continue to prevent us from taking handguns and automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Owning a gun will neither change the nature of the government, nor save you from its "tyranny". But there is something that might just do both: Inundate your congressional representatives with voice-mail and e-mail messages demanding that campaign finance laws and related political rules be changed to allow for more than two political parties to share the political pie (the public money). Better still, here is a concept that would actually level the playing field: enact a law that caps the number of dollars a candidate for political office can spend in direct support of any given political campaign. The emphasis would not be on the contributions, but rather on the expenditures.

Imagine five (or seven, or ten) candidates from five or seven or ten different political parties, all offering different philosophies of how to govern. Imagine that during the four years prior to the election (or six years, in the case of U.S. Senators), each candidate was permitted to spend no more than a pre-determined number of dollars -- a moderate amount of money (waaaay fewer dollars than folks have been spending in recent years). The candidate could spend his share any way he wanted to spend it, but when the maximum amount was reached, no more. No exceptions.

Do you think that might change the nature of elections in this country a little? Do you think maybe that kind of reform would allow our elections to be about more than which candidate has a bigger pile of money at his or her disposal. Maybe a few non-career politicians would actually have a fighting chance? Maybe another Abraham Lincoln could get elected some day. I'm sure the politicians can rattle off a dozen reasons, right off the tops of their heads, why that idea would never work. Fine. Then maybe we should start organizing constitutional conventions in each state so we can enact the necessary campaign finance reforms as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution!

Or maybe I should stop bothering you with all this common sense and rational thinking and let you continue to exercise your constitutional right to just sit there on your f....

After all, you need to conserve your energy so you can go out and gun down that giant three-point buck with your fully automatic rifle.
I'm sure Navy Seals are shaking in their boots at your skill and bravery.

Are You a NUSLA Lover?

Get a clue American people. ...... A dog is a dog, not a human being. They stink and they bark too much. Their lives consist of eating, barking and defecating. Most dogs kept as pets in this country spend their lives ignoring any and all instructions, eating their own vomit, obsessively licking their own scrotums and rectums ... and then licking you idiots on the mouths. Why don't you just skip the middle step and spend few minutes a day licking your dog's scrotum and rectum yourself?

Yeah, I realize they give you friendless, anti-social types a "buddy", but, you know, its not really that big a compliment when a dog takes a liking to you. In terms of personal affirmation, being liked by a dog is right up there with ... well ... being humped by a dog. It doesn't mean they like you for your personality traits! They also hump pillows, old car tires, tree trunks, and small children who have been unfortunate enough to have stumbled and fallen within humping range. They "like" anyone who feeds them.

I, personally, do not refer to them as "dogs" any more. I refer to them as NUSLAs (Nasty, Useless, Scrotum-Licking Animals). Dogs are good at disturbing the peace, soiling the carpet, and making it unsafe walk or ride a bicycle around the block without carrying a big stick and being on constant alert for the unleashed ambush dogs that lie quietly in wait at the edge of their neglectful owners' yards. The little ones are usually worse than the big ones. These yappy little butt-lickers tend to wait until innocent passersby get close before they leap out into the street snarling and barking and bearing teeth, rushing in toward the ankles of anyone not ready for the ambush. If the owner of the dog reacts at all, it is usually with some token and completely ineffective verbal comment, like: "Don't worry. He doesn't bite. ... Get back here Fluffy, you bad doggy." Meanwhile, the innocent passerby is trying to recover from heart failure while walking backwards and fending off the nasty, snarling nips at his ankles as nonchalantly as possible. In reality, the passerby has a very strong (and justified) urge to kick the dog's teeth in, breaking its nasty little neck in the process, while loudly advising the owner that there are laws against allowing dogs to run loose within the city limits ... and that "Fluffy" doesn't seem to be moving anymore ... except for that post mortem twitch in one of its paws.

Yes, I know, there are exceptions to every rule, and so there is a small minority of dogs that serve a purpose, and, therefore, should be allowed to co-exist with humans in a civilized society. Seeing-eye dogs are the obvious example. Working sheep dogs are another example. Guard dogs ... that one is debatable. The cost to society may not be worth the benefit (just like hand guns).

And no, there won't be any dogs in heaven. Dogs do not have souls or spirits, just small rudimentary brains. In fact, you may not be there either, if you don't stop caring more about and spending more money on your dog than you spend on helping to feed starving human beings! Do you know what the Bible says about dogs? Nothing good. Among the Bible’s forty references to dogs, not one reference says anything good or complimentary about a dog. The scriptures refer to dogs licking up blood (1 Kings 21:19), licking sores (Luke 16:21) and returning to their own vomit (Proverbs 26:11; 2 Peter 2:22). “Dog” is a title of contempt in scripture (Isaiah 56:10-11; Matthew 15:26), figurative of sinners and of male prostitutes (Philippians 3:2; Deuteronomy 23:18).

Are you an NUSLA lover? If you are, please don’t move into my neighborhood. You should be taken against your will to be "re-educated" in a camp for NUSLA lovers, while somone with an ounce of common sense puts your annoying NUSLA to "sleep". Don't worry. Principles of abnormal psychology and experience with "de-programming" techniques tell us that you can, in fact, recover from your obsession -- from your bizarre, co-dependant relationship with that dirty animal that regularly licks its own balls and then licks you on the mouth.

So please, all you NUSLA lovers: bring it on. Let the hate-mail begin. I think its about time someone in this warped American society we live in stood up and proclaimed that the emperor is not wearing any clothes ... and that dog lovers (especially the ones who love dogs more than they love human beings) are, for the most part, pathetic and ridiculous.

Affectionately but Firmly,
Mr. Grumpy

Survival Classes for Married Men

Survival Classes
FOR MARRIED MEN
AT THE LEARNING CENTER FOR ADULTS
REGISTRATION MUST BE COMPLETED BY April 5th

NOTE: DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY AND DIFFICULTY LEVEL OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, CLASS SIZES WILL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE PARTICIPANTS EACH

Class 1
How To Fill Up The Ice Cube Trays --- Step by Step, with Slide Presentation.
Meets 4 weeks, Monday and Wednesday for 2 hours beginning at 7:00 PM.

Class 2
The Toilet Paper Roll --- Does It Change Itself?
Round Table Discussion.
Meets 2 weeks, Saturday 12:00 for 2 hours.

Class 3
Is It Possible To Urinate Using The Technique Of Lifting The Seat and Avoiding The Floor, Walls and Nearby Bathtub? --- Group Practice.
Meets 4 weeks, Saturday 10:00 PM for 2 hours.

Class 4
Fundamental Differences Between The Laundry Hamper and The Floor --- Pictures and Explanatory Graphics.
Meets Saturdays at 2:00 PM for 3 weeks.

Class 5
After Dinner Dishes --- Can They Levitate and Fly Into The Kitchen Sink?
Examples on Video.
Meets 4 weeks, Tuesday and Thursday for 2 hours beginning at 7:00 PM

Class 6
Loss Of Identity --- Losing The Remote To Your Significant Other.
Help Line Support and Support Groups.
Meets 4 Weeks, Friday and Sunday 7:00 PM

Class 7
Learning How To Find Things --- Starting With Looking In The Right Places And Not Turning The House Upside Down While Screaming.
Open Forum.
Monday at 8:00 PM, 2 hours.

Class 8
Health Watch --- Bringing Her Flowers Is Not Harmful To Your Health.
Graphics and Audio Tapes.
Three nights; Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 7:00 PM for 2 hours.

Class 9
Real Men Ask For Directions When Lost --- Real Life Testimonials.
Tuesdays at 6pm; Location to b e determined.

Class 10
Is It Genetically Impossible To Sit Quietly While She Parallel Parks?
Driving Simulations.
4 weeks, Saturday's noon, 2 hours.

Class 11
Learning to Live --- Basic Differences Between Mother and Wife.
Online Classes and role-playing .
Tuesdays at 7:00 PM, location to be determined

Class 12
How to be the Ideal Shopping Companion
Relaxation Exercises, Meditation and Breathing Techniques.
Meets 4 weeks, Tuesday and Thursday for 2 hours beginning at 7:00 PM.

Class 13
How to Fight Cerebral Atrophy --- Remembering Birthdays, Anniversaries and Other Important Dates and Calling When You're Going To Be Late.
Cerebral Shock Therapy Sessions and Full Lobotomies Offered.
Three nights; Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 7:00 PM for 2 hours.

Class 14
The Stove/Oven --- What It Is and How It Is Used.
Live Demonstration.
Tuesdays at 6:00 PM, location to be determined.

Upon completion of any of the above courses, diplomas will be issued to the survivors.