Say Anything Blog

While browsing through Michael Savage.com I came across a link to something called a "sex contract." I clicked and much to my surprise came to a website designed to let you create a document clearly laying out exactly how far that individual is willing to go. You then apparently print this contract and have it signed by your intended partner.

From the website:

You wouldn't get married without a prenuptial agreement or jump out of a plane without a parachute. So why have sex without a contract? This site makes it quick and easy to generate a sex consent form, detailing what you and your partner are willing, and not willing, to do.

Answer some simple questions and we will generate a custom sex contract tailored just for you and your partner. Best of all, this service is free.

The contract itself is divide into sections entitled "kissing" and "touching," with each section enumerating which actions will be allowed and which will not. Believe me, it is very detailed.

I don't know if this website is some kind of a joke or if it is really intended to protect people from being accused of sex crimes. If it is real it is an indicator of just how out of whack our society has become. I can't even imagine being so worried about being accused of a sex crime that I would present my intended partner with a contract to sign. And how exactly would you expect said partner to react?

I really hope this is a joke.

From the Sacramento Bee via Electric Venom:

Senate leader John Burton charged that attempts to overturn a new law allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses were being fueled by racism, but he stopped short of saying that was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's motivation.

"I say the issue is racism," the San Francisco Democrat told reporters Tuesday. "Do you think if these people were white and not brown skinned we would be talking about it? I don't.

Not so much racists, Mr. Burton, but rather concerned tax payers not wanting to see an influx of terrorists and non-tax-paying persons enjoying the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

A diver's license is, by default, the key to gaining everything from a job and video club membership to airplane tickets. The law Mr. Burton is talking about would allow any person to obtain such a license. The cost of licensing these people alone would put an enourmous additional burden on the already collapsing budget for the State of California.

Supporters of the law say that it will allow illegal immigrants to take their children to school and travel to work. I would imagine that most of them are doing this already, so what good is giving them a license? Is a photo id going to make them better drivers? Is it going to ensure that they have insurance on their vehicles? I don't think so.

This law is a bad idea. The benefits are doubtful and the negative repercussions are enourmous.

From Griffany Online via Instapundit:

There was a peacenik demonstration next to the war memorial in the centre of Swindon this lunchtime: all of a dozen middle-aged protestors. So far, so normal. After all today was a work day. The amusing thing was that the demonstrators were outnumbered two to one by an ad hoc crowd of teenagers and young people who were jeering and heckling them, along with shouting out pro-war slogans. In fact the protestors chanting was drowned out despite their having a loud hailer.

Could it be that the media may have hyped the British public's resentment of Bush just a little bit? Its starting to look that way.

From the Associated Press via the Agitator:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has delayed a new ad campaign with the slogan "Get Neutered, It Didn't Hurt Clay Aiken," while it waits to see if Aiken will apologize for negative comments he made about cats, PETA officials said Tuesday.

"If Clay Aiken intends on staying famous, he has to learn to take a joke," said Dan Mathews, vice president of the Norfolk, Va.-based animal rights group.

The ad features the crass puppet Triumph the Insult Comic dog from "Late Night" with Conan O'Brien urging pet owners to spay or neuter their animals. The barb came from Triumph, but PETA allowed the ad because of an interview Aiken gave to Rolling Stone Magazine in June where he said he didn't like cats.

"There's nothing worse to me than a house cat. When I was about sixteen, I had a kitten and ran over it. Seeing that cat die, I actually think that its spirit has haunted me. I wasn't afraid of cats before. But now they scare me to death," Aiken told Rolling Stone.

Clay Aiken needs to learn how to take a joke? And PETA is the group telling him this? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

All Aiken did was insinuate that he did not like cats, is that so bad? Is that really enough to warrant claiming that he has no genetalia?

The people over at PETA get crazier each and every day.

Here are some of my favorite excerpts from the President's speech in London:

...

Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well. (Applause.)

...

The fellowship of generations is the cause of common beliefs. We believe in open societies ordered by moral conviction. We believe in private markets, humanized by compassionate government. We believe in economies that reward effort, communities that protect the weak, and the duty of nations to respect the dignity and the rights of all. And whether one learns these ideals in County Durham or in West Texas, they instill mutual respect and they inspire common purpose.

More than an alliance of security and commerce, the British and American peoples have an alliance of values. And, today, this old and tested alliance is very strong. (Applause.)

The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease. The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters of Britain.

The last President to stay at Buckingham Palace was an idealist, without question. At a dinner hosted by King George V, in 1918, Woodrow Wilson made a pledge; with typical American understatement, he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world.

President Wilson had come to Europe with his 14 Points for Peace. Many complimented him on his vision; yet some were dubious. Take, for example, the Prime Minister of France. He complained that God, himself, had only 10 commandments. (Laughter.) Sounds familiar. (Laughter.)

At Wilson's high point of idealism, however, Europe was one short generation from Munich and Auschwitz and the Blitz. Looking back, we see the reasons why. The League of Nations, lacking both credibility and will, collapsed at the first challenge of the dictators. Free nations failed to recognize, much less confront, the aggressive evil in plain sight. And so dictators went about their business, feeding resentments and anti-Semitism, bringing death to innocent people in this city and across the world, and filling the last century with violence and genocide.

...

On September the 11th, 2001, terrorists left their mark of murder on my country, and took the lives of 67 British citizens. With the passing of months and years, it is the natural human desire to resume a quiet life and to put that day behind us, as if waking from a dark dream. The hope that danger has passed is comforting, is understanding, and it is false. The attacks that followed -- on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. They're part of the global campaign by terrorist networks to intimidate and demoralize all who oppose them.

These terrorists target the innocent, and they kill by the thousands. And they would, if they gain the weapons they seek, kill by the millions and not be finished. The greatest threat of our age is nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists, and the dictators who aid them. The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face these threats with open eyes, and we will defeat them. (Applause.)

...

America and Great Britain have done, and will do, all in their power to prevent the United Nations from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance and inviting the fate of the League of Nations. It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.

...

Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.

Most in the peaceful West have no living memory of that kind of world. Yet in some countries, the memories are recent: The victims of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, those who survived the rapists and the death squads, have few qualms when NATO applied force to help end those crimes. The women of Afghanistan, imprisoned in their homes and beaten in the streets and executed in public spectacles, did not reproach us for routing the Taliban. The inhabitants of Iraq's Baathist hell, with its lavish palaces and its torture chambers, with its massive statues and its mass graves, do not miss their fugitive dictator. They rejoiced at his fall.

In all these cases, military action was proceeded by diplomatic initiatives and negotiations and ultimatums, and final chances until the final moment. In Iraq, year after year, the dictator was given the chance to account for his weapons programs, and end the nightmare for his people. Now the resolutions he defied have been enforced.

And who will say that Iraq was better off when Saddam Hussein was strutting and killing, or that the world was safer when he held power? Who doubts that Afghanistan is a more just society and less dangerous without Mullah Omar playing host to terrorists from around the world. And Europe, too, is plainly better off with Milosevic answering for his crimes, instead of committing more.

It's been said that those who live near a police station find it hard to believe in the triumph of violence, in the same way free peoples might be tempted to take for granted the orderly societies we have come to know. Europe's peaceful unity is one of the great achievements of the last half-century. And because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget how Europe's unity was achieved -- by allied armies of liberation and NATO armies of defense. And let us never forget, beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders.

...

Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty. This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.

Yet the violence we are seeing in Iraq today is serious. And it comes from Baathist holdouts and Jihadists from other countries, and terrorists drawn to the prospect of innocent bloodshed. It is the nature of terrorism and the cruelty of a few to try to bring grief in the loss to many. The armed forces of both our countries have taken losses, felt deeply by our citizens. Some families now live with a burden of great sorrow. We cannot take the pain away. But these families can know they are not alone. We pray for their strength; we pray for their comfort; and we will never forget the courage of the ones they loved.

...

Americans gained a certain image of Britain, as well. We saw an island threatened on every side, a leader who did not waver, and a country of the firmest character. And that has not changed. The British people are the sort of partners you want when serious work needs doing. The men and women of this Kingdom are kind and steadfast and generous and brave. And America is fortunate to call this country our closest friend in the world.

He did exactly what I expected him to do. He didn't apologize for liberating Iraq. He didn't apologize for not finding weapons of mass destruction. He showed how the forces in Iraq and the middle east are making the entire world a safer place. I know a lot of people will discount anything the President says, but I have to admire a man who can stand up and speak simply about what his intetions were and are. Its a rare quality in politicians.

I feel very confident in having the type of leader who says what he is going to do, and then does it.

From CNN:

Law enforcement officers responding to allegations of child molestation, according to one source with knowledge of the investigation, searched pop star Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch for several hours Tuesday.

There was no official confirmation of what prompted what one official called an "ongoing criminal investigation" or what as many as 70 officials from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department and District Attorney's office were searching for or may have found.

"We cannot comment on law enforcement's investigation because we do not yet know what it is about," a spokesman for the entertainer said.

But a source with knowledge of the investigation said it involved allegations of child molestation -- nearly a decade after Jackson, now 45, settled a lawsuit filed on behalf of a boy who had done sleepovers at Neverland Ranch while he was 13 and accused Jackson of molesting him. No criminal charges were filed in that case.

This isn't a surprise. Lately the public has been anticipating the next Michael Jackson controversy more than they anticipate his next album. It has been obvious, to me at least, that Jackson has a very suspect orientation towards children. The fact that it has taken until now for a full-fledged investigation to be launched is ridiculous.

Ten years ago a child accused Michael Jackson of molesting him. If it had been any normal citizen and thorough invesigation would have been conducted by law enforcement, social services or both. Due to Jackson's money, however, and the greed of the child's parents the matter was settled out of court. How can that happen? How can a person be accused of such a heinous crime be allowed to settle the matter for money? Its disgusting.

What is even more disgusting are the parents who have allowed their children to be around Jackson since the first accusation. Would you let your child sleep overnight with somebody who has been accused of molestation? Why would they allow their children to go over there unsupervised anyway? I would certainly be suspicious if some strange man wanted my child to come over for "sleep overs," I don't care who he is.

But we all know why nothing has been done about this situation and why the parents still let their children go over there. Money, plain and simple. Perhaps Michael has been able to pave the way for his perversions in the past with money, but from the outside it looks like the vault is drying up and maybe the time has finally come when he couldn't throw money at his accusers.

Not only should Michael Jackson be investigated, but the parents of the children he's been with should go under the microscope as well. I've got to question the sanity of any parent who would willingly let their child go to Jackson's house.

This whole thing makes me want to go and take a shower.

From Fox News:

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled (pdf) that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state Constitution, but stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," the court ruled, according to a posting on its Web site.

The court is giving the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision," which means the decision will not take affect until then.

...

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

...

"They said, basically, to the Legislature, 'we really think this is your job,'" Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor and victims advocate, told Fox News, adding that the court took an activist role in its decision but backed up enough to give the Legislature the authority to make same-sex marriages legal.

To me this is a very positive ruling for two reasons:

• The courts acknowledged that gay marriage is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with.


• The court recognized the legislature's need to deal with the issue.

Gay marriage is going to happen and it should be embraced and regulated by our government just like straight marriage. We should never stop a union like marriage from happening between two consenting adults. Granted, the additional civil case load on our courts will more than likely increase due to same-sex couples splitting up, but its still a right that must be allowed to the gay community. The right of companionship and marriage is one of the most basic human rights.

I should also note that I'm not implying that gay couples are more likely to divorce but only that some of them will likely divorce and it will add to the existing civil case load.

It is also refreshing to see a judge who is not willing to create new laws from the bench. He has done the right thing by putting the ball in the court of the state legislature. Laws must be written concerning gay marriage. There are a lot of issues to to consider like whether or not the married gay couples should be allowed to adopt children and how the taxes of the couples will be handled.

Once our state legislatures have sorted out the marriage issue I think that gay adoption is going to be next. This is an issue where I'm torn. On one hand there are thousands of children in need of a good home and the majority of these gay couples could undobtedly meet the emotional and fiscal responsiblities that come with a child. Where I see a problem happening is when the child gets a little older and starts to develop its own sexual identity.

We hear a lot of talk about how hard it is to grow up gay in a straight household, I cannot imagine how it would be to grow up straight in a gay household. And lets not forget junior high, as if any kid needs another reason to be made fun of there. Kids can be crule.

Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe it wouldn't even be an issue. I really haven't seen any convincing empirical data favoring gay adoption or against it. Not many children have been adopted by gay parents so any data that is out there is sketchy, at best.

I plan on supporting the gay marriage movement and will be encouraging my law makers to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Hopefully more information will make itself available regarding the adoption issue so that when the time comes to make a decision in that regard the right one is made.

From the Boulder Daily Camera via Wizbang:

That's the idea being floated by some lawmakers, who contend many seniors spend the year marking time because they already have enough credits to graduate.

...

"I'd really like to see if we might change the model. We've been operating under the same education model for the last 100 years," Sen. Ron Teck, R-Grand Junction, said.

"Things have changed. A lot of society has changed. I think the model for education certainly is well past the point of being looked at."

The lawmakers considering this are looking at the issue from the wrong angle.

Teachers and schools are not going to be happy about a change like this because it will eliminate jobs and funding, even with the addition of a pre-school. Eliminating the senior year would be a mistake. Kids going off to college are young enough after their senior year, we don't need to send them off any younger. College freshmen face enough temptation at 17 and 18 years old, I can't imagine the type of disasters that would ensue should we start sending students that are even younger. In addition to this, the younger students from districts without a senior year would be less mature and less prepared than their peers putting them at a disadvantage that could have an adverse effect on their college careers.

Perhaps a better solution would be to offer more advanced classes for the students who have essentially completed their high school education early. An even better solution would be to have these students participate in other, lower-level classes as tutors or teacher assistants. I would imagine that the experience learned in that type of evironment would serve them well into college and it would also be beneficial to the students in the lower-level classes.

I don't see why the senior year of these students is being considered a waste. Lets face it, American students have not been measuring up to students from other countries. Wouldn't a situation like this be a good oppurtunity to "raise the bar" as it were? To challenge these students who are able to finish their high school educations early? Perhaps the classes being taken by students in their sophomore or junior years should be more challenging.

Anything would be better than simply eliminating a year of education.

From Independent News via the Drudge Report:

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".

His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush's arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to readmit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.

...

Mr Livingstone recalled a visit at Easter to California, where he was denounced for an attack he had made on what he called "the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years".

The mayor said: "Some US journalist came up to me and said: 'How can you say this about President Bush?' Well, I think what I said then was quite mild. I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction."

Saddam Hussein paid money to the families of suicide bombers. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda plotted and executed the largest terrorist attack on any country since the begining of history. All over the globe there are rogue countries and terrorist groups devoting themselves to the defeat of democracy.

But none of that matters to Mr. Livingstone. He doesn't care that President Bush has devoted so many resources to keeping the entire world safe. What would he have us do, leave the middle east alone and watch as the events of 9/11 happen again and again all over the world?

What he doesn't realize is that something has to be done. Its not a problem that can be handled passively.

While President Bush's methods may not be perfect it should be noted that most of the strategies have only been started since 9/11. We are fighting a new type of war against an enemy we have never had to face before. That takes time, and it certainly doesn't get any easier with people like Mr. Livingstone gumming up the works.

Rush Limbaugh returned to the airways on Monday. He has undergone five weeks of drug therapy and appears to be ready to start where he left off.

I sincerely hope that Rush has reformed and rid himself of his drug addiction. I have not been following the story close enough to tell whether or not any criminal charges or pending, but if they are I hope Rush faces them with the same attitude he faced his addiction with. He knows he has done wrong, he has admitted it and accepted responsibility. What else can we ask him to do besides continue to co-operate with law enforcement until they finish their investigation?

Personally, I don't think this event in Rush's life should be held against his radio show or his opinions. Yes, he had a drug problem. No, that doesn't make him wrong about economic policy. It will be easy now for his opponents to dismiss him as a "drug addict," but such barbs will be cheap shots. I challenge anyone making that assertation to argue against Rush issue by issue, based on facts.

I welcome Rush back and hope that he can move on with his life and find happiness. I, for one, am glad to have him back.

Not that I'm assuming any of your were waiting with bated breath, but I'm happy to announce that I've returned from my conference in Kansas City and will resume posting tomorrow. I found both Topeka, where the conference was actually staged, and Kansas City, where I caught my flight, to be charming cities. I was uncertain as to what sort of diversions I would be able to find in Kansas and was pleasantly surprised to find there was not enough time to get to all that I wanted to do.

I had the oppurtunity to visit Union Station, a grand old train station with ceilings ninety feet high and the type of arcitecture found only around the turn of the century. Not only does the station offer history but it is filled with shops, theaters, gourmet restaurants and even a working Amtrak depot.

Across the street is the World War I memorial, a must-see for any visitors to Kansas City. The Liberty Memorial is a 217 foot tall tower with two exhibit halls on either side. The view from the top of the tower alone is more than worth the trip, but you will stay for the fascinating displays in the exhibit buildings. While there one of the security guards told me that they're building additionaly museum space under the monument which will be completed in approximately 3 years. I plan on making a trip back at that time.

The last two days I was gone I was able to check my email via a public internet station at my hotel. I couldn't help but notice an argument which has exploded over one of my posts at Blogcritics. Mac Diva has once again accused me of being stupid among other more unsavory things. The comments are now nearing 40 and she is now saying that I called her a "bitch" and an "asshole" here on Say Anything. While I did do a post about her attacks a while back, never once did I use either of those terms. I have responded as such. I'm sure her next accusation will include me modifying my post, to wich I'm not exactly sure how to defend myself or if it even matters.

Mac Diva has hounded me since I first posted on Blogcritics, and evidenced by my earlier post. While I have never been fond of her hysterical style in disagreeing with me I did hold her in a certain amount of respect for at least standing up for her opinions, as ill-informed as they are. As she has now resorted to blatant lies I feel that I can no longer hold any sort of respect for her.

Ms. Diva has a lot of growing up to do. I learned a long time ago that if you want people to listen to you, you cannot attack them or call them names. We all believe passionately in our opinions and can get carried away while defending them. Most adults learn to respect the opinions of others, but once you attack them they're going to lose that respect.

I have lost mine for Mac Diva. I certainly hope that she sees the error of her ways before everybody stops listening.

This is a novel about loneliness and the effects of mental disease.

Daniel Pecan Cambridge is a very smart man whose age varies depending on how he feels when he is asked. He lives in a normal appartment in a normal neighborhood. His life is, normal, except that he is plagued by silly fears and needs which seem odd to most of his neighbors. He cannot cross curbs so he is forced to navigate the city by finding driveways which connect with the street but only if there is another driveway directly across allowing him to get back onto the sidewalk. The total wattage of light in his partment must equal, at all times, 1125 watts.

He lives his life to serve these little pecadillos and for the most part is happy. He is, however, lonely and longs to be in love with one of the three women in his life: Zandy the pharmicist at Rite-Aid, Clarissa his therapist or Rachel, a real estate agent he often sees from his window.

Steve Martin gives a warm glow to all the characters in this book much as in Shopgirl, his earlier novel. His characters are never really good or bad but simply human. They all seem to be looking for love and happiness with some achieving this goal and others failing.

Martin seems to be finding his voice. Many of the themes in this work are similar to Shopgirl, yet in the end this book is much more plot driven which in the end makes for a much more enjoyable read.

There is nothing profound in this book. If you're looking for a deeper meaning read something else. If you're looking for something to make you feel more in touch with the human race then you've found your book.

Frequent visitors to my Blog, Tom's Nap Room may recall a story of an 81 year old woman who forgot to pay a tax bill of $572 to her Dauphin County, Pennsylvania local government. The Government foreclosed on her 41 acre property and farmhouse and sold to a developer who intended to put 41 or so single family houses on that same land.

I contended that Dauphin County did this so to gain more revenue. You see 41 homes bring more revenue than a single house on 41 acres.

Well, it appears that there are nice people in the world.



From The Harrisburg Patriot News

Helene Shue has lived on her 41-acre farm near Hershey for 50 years, and it is where she wants to spend her remaining days.

Last night, the 89-year-old widow learned that she will get her wish.

Shue's land and home in South Hanover Twp. was sold at a tax sale in September because of $572 in unpaid taxes from 2001. She had paid her taxes in full every other year, including this year.

Philip Dobson of Middle Paxton Twp. paid $15,000 for the land on Route 39. But he met yesterday with Shue's nephew, John Arndt, and agreed to give back the land. The county has agreed to reimburse Dobson.



I guess there are good people in the world. It also shows the power of alternative media like talk radio, the WWW, and cable news. This was covered a lot in the blogsphere and was mentioned by Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Would this have turned out happily if alll we had were CBS, ABC, and NBC?

Where we're from is a big part of who we are. Fugitives and Refugees is about where Chuck Palahniuk is from. Through the descriptions and memoirs contained within the book we get a glimpse at who Mr. Palahniuk is, possibly the only glimpse we're ever going to get.

The book takes you on a bizarre tour of a Portland little known to those of us living elsewhere. Included are places like the Apocalypse Cafe and the Scum Center. Old ghost stories are recounted along with unusual attractions like the Self Cleaning House. You would have never guessed that Portland could be so interesting.

Some of the memories Palahniuk recounds are R-rated making this book an adults-only read. The entire book, memories and descriptions, are written in his trademark jilted prose letting you settle into this travel book much as you would settle into one of his novels. The book is engrossing and short meaning that you will more than likely read the entire work in one sitting, or at least in a day or two.

Really this book has two audiences it will appeal to, those thinking about traveling in or around Portland and those of us who are fans of Palahniuk to begin with. Either way you're sure to be shocked, befuddled, grossed out and in the end, entertained.

What more can you ask?

Finally I found something that I can side with the U.N. on. Believe it or not, its smoking.

From the Washington Times:


NEW YORK -- The United Nations is perhaps the last public space in New York where one can light up a Camel over coffee, or even a Cuban cigar after lunch. And diplomats from a dozen foreign nations are working to keep it that way.
    Earlier this year, New York City passed one of the most restrictive smoking laws in the country. But the statute has done nothing to stop diplomats from lighting up in the delegates' bar and coffee lounges at the U.N. headquarters building, and New York authorities have no jurisdiction to stop them.


I do not agree with the smoking ban in New York or anywhere else. I smoke Cigars occasionally, and don't think The Government should use it's power to protect us in this matter. Socialist Mayor Bloomburg does not agree.


"The mayor believes that secondhand smoke is dangerous and people deserve protection from it as they would any other dangerous substance. It's up to the U.N. to decide on a policy."


What's next? Fried food. Oh, right, I forgot. They are already attacking fried food.

What this comes down to is the right of privately owned restaurants and bars to set their own rules regarding smoking. If a bar wants to cater specifically to smokers, like some cigar bars do, than they should do so. If a bar wants to cater to non smokers, than they should have the right to do so.

Government should not be regulating this. It's about choice.

On the evening of Halloween KFGO out of Fargo re-broadcast War of the Worlds. Once again the nation, or at least the midwest, got to here Orson Welles and his Mercury Theater perform this radio classic.

For those not familiar with this landmark work, originally broadcast on October 30th, 1938, it is an adaption of the H.G. Welles novel made to sound like a series of news broadcasts about an invasion from Mars. Presumably this change was to heighten dramatic effect but instead it fooled hundreds of Americans into thinking that martians had actually landed in New Jersey. Many of those fooled evacuated their homes and in some unfortunate instances even committed suicide. The ensuing chaos nearly ended Orson Welles' career yet many say that in the long run it solidified his fame as an entertainment genius.

Until Halloween 2003 I had never gotten a chance to listen to the broadcast in its entirety. Despite some slang and production techniques which have lost favor in the 65 years since the show originally broadcast it was very entertaining. Its hard to imagine a radio broadcast having the type of effect this one did on the population in today's era of 24 hour news yet the mind wanders back to those darkened living rooms in 1938 where often the only outside voice heard was that of the radio announcer. What a great concept! Its sad that it was so effective that people paniced and ended their lives but the genius of the broadcast shines through even by today's standards.

Thanks to today's technology you can now listen to the original broadcast any time you want. Enjoy, and let's all hope that another person with Orson Welles' talent comes along soon to save our current entertainment industry from mediocrity.

The senate yesterday embarked on a 30 hour talkfest, led by senate Republicans who were dismayed at Senate Democrats who are using the filibuster to block several Bush court nominees.

Republicans were pressing votes to break the Democratic blockade of three pending Bush nominees: California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated for the nation's second most powerful court, the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit; Carolyn Kuhl, nominated to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, chosen for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 


According the the Constitution, only a simple majority is needed to approve judges. These judges would have all been approved on a simple up and down vote, but were never given the chance. Democrats refused to allow cloture for the votes to take place. Left wingers like Chuck Schumer, Robert Byrd, and Ted Kennedy have led the charge against these judges.

"The American people, when they realize that we have approved 169 judges and blocked four -- four of those out of the mainstream -- they are going to say, 'What is all the fuss about?'" said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Well, this doesn't tell the whole story that until the Senate was shifted to Republican rule, that number was much lower. Many judges weren't even brought up for discussions.

Don't people like Schumer see how insulting this is? They think that if you don't agree with abortion on demand and socialized medicine you are outside the mainstream. If judges he thought were inside the "mainstream" were always approved we would have a nation of 9th Circuit court types. Also, most Americans fit what he defines as "outside the mainstream". If he would actually spend some time in flyover country he would see that the average working American is not as far left as he is.

What we have here is a party losing ground. They don't have the White House, Senate, or House. Most governorships are Republicans as are most state legislatures. It makes them angry. The only way they can get their agenda across is through activist judges. When the partial birth abortion bill passed and was signed, they went to activist judges they feel are in the mainstream to overturn it.

They are also angry at you as Americans. They think they are superior to you. In their elitist minds they think they, not you, can decide what is best for you. They think you are stupid.

By insulting these judges who actually are with the majority of Americans, they are insulting you. They think you are outside the mainstream, and they want to control your lives.

For more fun reading, visit Tom's Nap Room

Well folks, I'm off to Topeka, Kansas for a private investigator's conference. Some of the presenters will be showing off new surveillance technology and they've set aside some time for the attendees to get some hands-on experience. They weren't specific on the type of technology they'd be presenting, but I'm stoked anyway. I love new technology.

I'm a dork like that.

While I'm gone, Tom from the Nap Room will be taking over for me. Tom's Nap Room is one of the first blogs I linked to when I started Say Anything and its been a daily read ever since.

Anyway, enjoy Tom's posts.

From Maine Today via the Smarter Cop:

The buzz surrounding this city's first Veterans Day parade in nearly 60 years isn't about color guards or marching bands. It's about the yellow ribbons attached to utility poles that line the parade's route down Broadway.

Representatives of local veterans organizations want the ribbons to stay up long after the parade ends - to acknowledge troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what seems like a simple decision for local veterans has become an increasingly complex and contentious issue during the past four months. It has put elected officials between a mother whose son is fighting in Iraq and free speech rights outlined in the First Amendment.

Sam Flint, commander of Post 832 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, wants the ribbons to stay. "As far as I am concerned, it should not have been an issue," he said.

But some residents, city councilors and City Attorney Mary Kahl disagree. They say the posting of ribbons raises free speech issues, one of the rights that almost 1,000 veterans living in South Portland have fought to protect all over the globe, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opponents say the ribbons are a political symbol that show support for President Bush - not just American troops.

"I was offended by people saying people against yellow ribbons were not patriotic," said Kathy Cabana, a resident who spoke during a recent city meeting on the issue.

In this situation a mother whose son is in Iraq went out and tied a bunch of yellow ribbons around some pubilic utility poles. As is the case in a lot of towns posting any sort of private decorations, fliers or advertisements is not allowed. The city asked the woman to take down her decorations, which did not make her happy.

It sounds like a lot of local politics may be involved in this one. In the article, it says that one of the council members could not serve in the military because he was gay. That may be a reason why the council is not being lenient in this situation.

When something like this arises all you can do is expect the city council to stick to the law. The law states that no decorations can be posted on city property, so as much as it probably hurts those wishing to support our troops the decorations have to go down. Perhaps the veteran's groups and the mother could petition the council to modify the law, but from the impression I get from the article it doesn't sound like the council is pro-military.

Which brings me to the issue of the quote from Kathy Cabana. First, lets look at the definition of patriotism from Dictionary.com:

patriotism

n : love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it

Yellow ribbons symbolizes a wish for the safe return of a soldier. Now its no secret that not everybody is enamored with the war in Iraq, but being against the safe return of a soldier doesn't exactly exude a "love of country." If patriotism is a "love of country" than being against somebody symbolizing the wish for the safe return of a soldier is very unpatriotic.

There's just no two ways about that.

Craig at Lead and Gold has an interesting post today about the way men are portrayed in commercials:

The middle class guy as doofus is one of the most popular themes in advertising. Chevy uses it to sell cars, Circuit City to sell electronics. Frozen pizza, cereal, cleaning supplies-- all of them use men as the butt of their jokes.

To go further, while men of all types are on the receiving end, husbands are the ones who get it worse

I don't doubt that if you totaled all the spending on these commercials you would conclude that "husbands are dumb" is the most popular advertising message in America. If TV commercials can shape the image of a sneaker or beer, what is it doing to the image of marriage.

Craig is right on target with his comments. I would go even further and say that men are also portrayed as morons in many popular shows and movies today. Chevy Chase has made a career out of his Clark Griswold character from the National Lampoon Family Vacation movies. Even Ross, Chandler and Joey from Friends are often depicted as simpletons obsessed with beer, sex and television.

These images also throw a dim light on the institution of marriage. Men are often depicted as people who would have fun if it weren't for their battle-axe wives. As Craig alluded to in his post, the only people having fun in these shows and commercials are those who are single.

TV's recent poor ratings could be a symptom of men, and to a lesser extent women, forsaking a medium where they are often portrayed as louts.