It is very disheartening to me that so many Americans are losing sight of the democratic principles this country was founded upon. They openly applaud the likes of the Reverend Dennis Terry who espouse the “America is for Christians only” sludge and believe that this country was founded by Christians for Christians. People of his ilk, whether misinformed, or just unlucky to have terrible U.S. History and government teachers, take this as the cornerstone of our democracy.
      Obviously, they are confusing the U.S. Constitution, which does not directly mention God anywhere, with the Declaration of Independence, which does. One thing is clear – the founding fathers were very much aware of the dangers of state-sponsored religion. They fought a revolution to break away from a king who was also head of church. Even after the ratification of the Constitution, the document was seen by the majority of statesmen of the time to be deficient in this regard. The first change to the document was the First Amendment, which enshrined the freedom of religion – along with freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
      One of the truly great religious leaders of our time, John Paul II, deeply understood the importance of human autonomy and he firmly rejected any notion that religious truth should be imposed on others or that modern democracies should be dominated by the Church. He understood that one of the greatest gifts that our Creator gives us is free will – free will to seek Him out or to reject Him. Both choices are to be made without the imposition of will from others or governments.
It seems to me that those who are yelling from the rooftops the message, “If you don’t like a Christian America, then leave,” should reflect on the actions of Jesus. I would think that they would find that Jesus would welcome all with a message of love….not coercion and hate.

Teabagging? That’s the best they can come up with?

By Jeff Hagedorn

Those wacky Republicans, conservatives and asylum escapees … they were out in force on April 15, otherwise known as Tax Day. Of course that’s really nothing new. There are always a few nutters out there on tax day protesting the confiscation of their hard-earned dollars by “Big Government” but this year was special since a whole new group of whack-jobs joined the protest.

The usual idiots are the ones that seem to believe there should be no taxation by our government. Of course those same folks drive to their protest on out government-provided and (occasionally) maintained roads. They are protected by our government-provided police, and they are largely the same folks that want our government to lock up anybody who breaks a law in our government-provided prisons, or execute them in our government-provided death chambers (which are a topic unto themselves). They also want our government-provided military to have all the newest gadgets so that we can blow up both real and imagined enemies.

Obviously they are fringe lunatics, as most people realize each year. They have their little protest and then slink back to their Mothers’ basements until next April.

But this year was indeed different. You see, this year we have a new President. A BLACK President that is popular with two thirds of the population. It doesn’t make any difference that this new President’s tax policies had no influence on the 2008 taxes due and payable in 2009, the new tax protesters weren’t really protesting taxes anyway. They were protesting what they’ve lost: control.


“Where’s Waldo? Find the non-Caucasian”

These new protesters, which included some Republican elected officials, were using tax day as a protest vehicle because they’ve got almost nothing left. They’re out of power, they’re extremely unpopular, they have no real ideas about how to get us out of the many messes that they got us into, and they’re hopping mad that their power ran off with a black guy, so they have no choice but to latch onto the nearest protest movement, no matter how goofy it may be. Irrelevance does that to a guy … or a mostly white, male political party.


“This is what it would look like if Barack Obama was a brown dog and the Republican Party was a grey cat”

And as an aside, while there were some unbelievably asinine things being said, Texas Governor (or is that Guverner?) Rick Perry actually said that Texas may have to secede from the Union if Barack Obama’s policy proposals are enacted into law. Secession? How’d that work out the last time the Southern States tried it? Actually, I’d gladly let Texas go if they decided to do it. In fact, I’d change my position on the border fence, and maybe even make an extra tax donation to fund it!

Probably the funniest thing about the teabaggers (yes, I’m going to type it as many times as I possibly can) is that the vast majority of them will see their taxes go down next year under the tax policies laid out by Barack Obama because it’s only the richest of the rich that will see real tax increases. You know the ones, the folks that got over 90% of the Bush tax cuts, the same ones that wrecked Wall Street like a drunken teenager on a joyride in Daddy’s pickup truck and then got a nice fat government bailout because the rest of us peons couldn’t afford to let their companies bring our entire economic system to ruin. And to add insult to injury, many of them got bonuses to reward them for their ineptitude. Pardon me for not feeling too bad about Daddy Warbucks paying an extra 3%.

And you know another funny thing about these newly-converted tax protesters? They didn’t let out a peep when some dumb, white redneck was President! They sat back and watched King George spend our country into oblivion with unnecessary wars, a so-called Medicaid prescription plan that was actually a gift to his insurance and pharmaceutical buddies, and irresponsible tax cuts for the Uber-wealthy. And any time a Democrat (or genuine Conservative) complained about any of that, they were shouted down as a traitor.


“Hmmmmmmmmmm?”

Here’s the fact of the matter. America is broken (and broke). The folks in power right now didn’t break it. The folks in power right now are trying to fix it. Their plans may work … or they may not. But doing nothing is not an answer. We’re headed off the cliff if we don’t change course. And if it takes some spending on top of the mountains of debt piled up by the people responsible for this train wreck, so be it. After all, if we’re gonna default on trillions of dollars of debt, what’s a few more on top of that spent with the goal of improving America for the tens of millions of people that got the shaft for most of the last decade?

And for those who disagree:

DOUBLE STANDARD, YOU SAY

By Jay Van Hoosier

I, for one, am getting pretty sick and tired of listening to all those baseball “purists” out there screaming about the so called double standard that exists within the sports writing community when discussing the “national pastime,” more commonly called professional baseball, and the game of professional football. Their argument goes, to varying degrees, something like this. Sports writers are picking on baseball by focusing on the perceived rampant use of steroids. Pages and pages, blogs and more blogs, web pages and more web pages, their argument postulates, spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on the steroid use in their beloved game of baseball while ignoring the obvious amount of juicing that is going on in the game of rockem sockem football. Hell, just look at those guys on the offensive and defensive lines – how could they not be bloated on bovine growth serum???? while you pick on, for days and days, it seems on each baseball player’s steroid foilables. The coverage just seems to go on forever.

I will admit that sports writers do grab onto any baseball player who admits to the usage (or lying under oath about not using – you choose) of steroids and will drone on and on about it for weeks at a time – closely hanging onto any and every word and statement uttered by the player in question – just looking for a trip-up or a contradiction. With that being said, I will say unequivocally that there is no double standard in their coverage.

The reason is simple – ask yourself this question: Who is the face of professional baseball? Or maybe even a better question to ask would be, what position is the “glamour” position in major league baseball? You know, the position that represents the sport and what draws people to the ball parks. This is easy to answer for the sport of baseball – it’s the power hitter. Now, let’s switch to professional football, shall we? The corresponding position in football is – no surprises here – the quarterback. With that established, let’s do a little comparison of the two positions over the past couple of years. For baseball we have names like Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, ARod, Giambi etc…..I really could go for a little bit here so I’ll stop and go to the quarterback position in the NFL: Manning, Brady, Rothlesbuger, Favre, Aikman etc….again I’ll stop here since I would be able to go here a bit as well.

Do you see the difference? It is pretty glaring. What you have is a case where the most popular draws in one sport use the juice and the most popular draws in the other do not. Case closed. People are caught in each sport every year for taking steroids. The difference? The people who are being caught in baseball are the ones who should set an example about concepts like fair competition – not to mention who’s names go on the most jerseys bought by the fans. These are the players who kids look up to. Quite frankly, no one cares if it’s some 400 pound offensive tackle is so pumped up, his testicles will rot and fall of two years after he retires. Hell – this guy is getting paid to protect the players that people are looking up to in football – the quarterbacks.

All this tires me to no end anyway since baseball has not been the real national pastime for a while now. Wake up people - It’s professional football. The Super Bowl has been the most watched sporting (and television, for that matter) event for the past several years. The World Series would kill for just a fraction of the viewers.

So I am going to continue watching football every Sunday with a clean conscience – feeling happy that the players who are juiced in my favorite sport are protecting my favorite players while baseball wallows in the mire of tainted players and records with asterisks.

Good night, Harry Caray, wherever you are.

BLOGS MAKE A DIFFERENCE

By Allen Van Hoosier,
Male Feminist

It was brought to my attention yesterday by a follower of this blog that soon after my posting of my blog entry about weak wishy-washy feminists that didn't have the "balls" to either keep their maiden name or completely change it to their married name actually caused a change to a local celebrity, right here in river city.

My blog entry was a shot - directly aimed at the juggular of a local Evansville lawyer who obviously spent a small fortune in awarded legal fees from workman's comp or felony methanphetamine busts on morning commercials begging local citizens to retain her services. At the begining and at the end of each of these commercials - which - on average numbered about 6 spots between 6am and 7:45 am on the local NBC affiliate, this attorney would beg locals to "Call me. I'm "Donna Stevens-Jackson."

The name was changed to prevent said attorney from coming after me for libel. The first amendment protects me for the most part, but I hardly think a local TV-ambulance-chaser quallifies for "public figure" in the eyes of the law.

That blog can be found here:
http://ecclecticreview.blogspot.com/2008/11/dont-you-just-love-those-feminists-who.html

But the intriguing part of this tale is this: About two weeks after that blog was published, I noticed that her local spots had changed ever-so slightly. No longer was she Donna Stevens-Jackson. She had regressed back into being just "Donna Stevens."

Actually I never gave the commercial's script change a second thought. I thought to myself that it was merely a coincidence and nothing more.

And then came the recon and intle I gathered a couple of days ago. It has been made known to me that during a meeting with "Donna Stevens-Jackson" to discuss a pending work-comp claim against a major aluminum manufacturer here in south-western Indiana, the comment was made, "I noticed your morning TV spots went from being "Donna Stevens-Jackson" to just "Donna Stevens." It looked like you re-shot all of your commercials. That must have been expensive. Why did you do it?"

Donna Stevens-Jackson went on to tell him that the cost was not all that steep because the ad agency that shot the spots were clients of hers. And as to the "why" she did it was because of a local blogger's post that was making the assertion that a woman who hyphenated her last name was - to put it simplified, an inept feminist, and if she can't take a stand with her self and her own identity, then she had no business being in a court room. She and her husband - according to her, had the discussion numerous times and it was his idea to hyphenate the name to begin with. She went on to tell him that the world of blogs are a dangerous medium in the market place of ideas because it gave everyone a "free-open-reign" to publish ideas, regardless of education or background.

"But," she said, "I'm sure that the blogger got a few laughs out of his post at my expense, but that's all past now, and my husband and I laugh at the whole silly notion.
Her comment to my friend (a former co-worker to be honest), "Blogs are a dangerous medium in the market place of ideas because it gave everyone a "free-open-reign" to publish ideas, regardless of education or background" falls under the catergory of "Case of the dip-shits."
Hmmm. Case of the dip-shits. How insightful. I am sure when she goes home every night behind the wheel with kids in tow - all packed up in her leased 2007 Mercedes-Benz MLK30 SUV to her home packed away nicley down on the end of lonley street at the long-left end of the McCutchanville cul-de-sac (or "cok-de-suk" as my dad used to say) that she longs for those days in the early 1980's when she came so close ...so close that she can remember the pen in her hand - to signing her membership to NOW.

But she didn't.

I did however. Joined NOW, the ACLU and a few other leftist college organizations. Why? Because everyone knows - "Who can't score with a left-winger chick?"

Fight the power!

Four Score and Seven Beers Ago

By Kevin Patmore, Guest Blogger

In an effort to continue my "Be critical of Lincoln" week, the following are my interspersed thoughts on the Gettysburg Address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers [Thomas Lincoln was born in 1778] brought forth on this continent a new nation , [Actually, the U.S. Constitution -- which founded out nation -- was not adopted until 1787, and ratified, or effective on March 4, 1789] conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. [Dedicated to the proposition that white, free men and indentured servants were all equal, as slaves were only 3/5 of a person, and women could not vote].

Now we are engaged in a great civil war [A civil war is an internal war for control of the national government. The South had no desire to seize control of the national government, so it was NOT a civil war], testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. [This was not a test of whether that nation would endure. If the South had won, the United States -- operating under the United States Constitution -- would still have existed, albeit with about 20 fewer States. The only reason why it a nation conceived and dedicated in liberty would not endure was because Lincoln had disposed of these notions during his presidency]. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. [Going back to "war," not only was this not a "civil war," but it never was a war at all.

Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Lincoln "proclaimed" the onset of hostilities and called up the militias to invade the South, and Congress never declared any war]. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. [Or, more accurately, "that that nation might force States to remain a part of it]. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [OK -- repetition is good politics, but again, whoever believes that the US would not have continued to exist should raise their hand. Actually, the superiority of the State government is paramount in a republican form of government, and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution REQUIRES that each State have a republican form of government.

Those republican governments had determined to secede. Having a "conflict"
which forced the republican State governments to remain part of the United
States was actually what caused "government of the people, by the people,
for the people [to] perish from the earth.]

The Legacy of Lincoln?

By Kevin Patmore, Guest Blogger

Let me begin with a few disclaimers.
First, I am by birth a Yankee. In fact, my great, great, great, great grandfather and his wife immigrated to Indiana from Kentucky around the same time as and homesteaded one mile south of the Thomas Lincoln farm and were friends of the Lincoln family.

Second, I received my post-secondary education, both undergraduate and legal, in the South, including my undergraduate education at The Citadel, whose cadets notoriously fired the first shots of the Civil War – or in Southern parlance the "War of Northern Aggression" or "War for Southern Independence" -- in January, 1861.

Third, while I consider myself a Republican, I am more of a Libertarian or independent, as I do not put a lot of faith in party labels and "membership."
Fourth, I voted for former President Bush on his election and re-election.

Finally, and perhaps shocking not only to those who know me but to those who have read the above disclaimers concerning my military-school education and Republican (or worse) leanings, I tend to be anti-war, along with being anti-death penalty and "pro-life" insofar as the abortion debate may go.

As a Christian, I have a difficulty with the hypocrisy which appears to accompany being in favor of the government sanctioning the taking of human life – any human life, not just American human life – through either the death penalty or war, while conversely fighting to have the government make abortion illegal. Because I believe that all life is created by God, it is only his prerogative to end that life, and war (and abortion and the death penalty) may well be man’s interference with God’s exercise of His will.

Before I leave on too much a tangent of philosophical or theological thought (if I am not already too late ), I give these disclaimers only to show that while I did vote for Mr. Bush, but I do not blindly follow or support his policies. Rather, I have a great amount of professional respect for anyone of such high office, and support any President we have in establishing policies "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Consequently, I find particularly troubling statements by political leaders, their supporters and the popular press that Mr. Bush might be tried for war crimes, that he has engaged in conduct which has torn our Constitution to shreds which Mr. Obama must now repair, and similar lines of thought concerning Mr. Bush’s allegedly poor or illegal performance as President.

Unfortunately, too many people criticize the actions of our nation’s leaders, and make offhand comments about the constitutionality or legality of the President’s actions, while choosing to remain blissfully ignorant of history or the provisions of the Constitution.

Now, an exhaustive catalog of each President and his questionably-constitutional acts could be listed – such those of either President Roosevelt ranging from the covering up atrocities and genocide of civilians by our troops during and following our annexation of the Philippines, plotting the secession of Panama from Columbia and other acts by Theodore; to the "internment" of the Japanese and Nisei and other acts by Franklin – but on the occasion of the celebration of the bicentennial of his birth, a concentration on Lincoln’s acts would be most appropriate, especially when one considers that Mr. Obama cites Lincoln as his most admired President.

For a historical setting, most know that Abraham Lincoln was President at the time the United States engaged in military action against one-third of the States, in an effort to "preserve the Union" when these State’s determined to cease being united with the other states under the U.S. Constitution.

Most understand these few troubling years in our nation’s history to be the "Civil War."
Most do not know that prior to 1861, none of the prior 15 American Presidents ever had stated the position that our Constitution gave the United States’ government powers and authority greater than the several States’ individual governments. Rather, central to the Constitution – and one of the reasons the Constitution was ratified – is the Tenth Amendment, which provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the central government was given only the powers as were expressly stated in the Constitution.

Furthermore, it was readily accepted at that time – as it had been for nearly 100 years – that the central government existed only by the consent of and for the convenience of the governed. Therefore, each individual State had the right to remove itself from the United States at its will and pleasure, as South Carolina had resolved to do in 1852, and as Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and some counties in New Hampshire and Vermont had considered during the War of 1812 (without any threat of interference by President Madison, which was averted only by the quick end to the war).

Lincoln, however, arrived at a novel conclusion that "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments." (Lincoln, First Inaugural). So, according to Lincoln, some nascent "universal" or "fundamental" law alone compelled military action by the Federal Government to suppress the universal law which in 1776 was used as a basis for the Declaration that when any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."

Thus, as early as his first inaugural address – moments after taking office – it could be argued that Lincoln was putting asunder the foundations of our Constitution. Indeed, not even he claimed that his actions were authorized by the language of the Constitution but by some implication of the existence of government itself.

In any event, I noted above that most refer to what then occurred as the "Civil War." In reality, it was never a "war," as Lincoln’s military action against the States was pursuant only to an April 15, 1861 proclamation by Lincoln, whereas Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution only permits Congress, and not the President, the right to declare war. Even if it were a Presidentially-declared "war," it was not a "civil war," insofar as a civil war is a internal war fought for the purpose of controlling a national government. The Southern States had no aim to take over the government of the United States headquartered in Washington, D.C., but rather they sought to leave the United States and form their own confederacy of independent States.

With the secession of Virginia, Lincoln feared several others would follow. If Maryland were to secede, it would have caused Washington to be surrounded by territory which no longer was a part of the Union. Rather than allowing the democratic system to work, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the State, sent the U.S. Army to occupy Annapolis, Baltimore and other parts of the State, and declared martial law. For those of you who are not attorneys, habeas corpus is one of the most important protections we have against unlawful arrest, and is the writ by which the judicial branch forces the executive officer to bring an accused held in custody before the judicial officer for a determination of the executive’s right to hold the person in custody.

Lincoln then had arrested thousands of Marylanders suspected of Southern sympathies, despite their committing no criminal acts, as the mere failure to positively state allegiance and support of the Union was deemed to be cause for arrest. (Lincoln stated: "The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy . . .."). Those seized by the military included 30 members of the Maryland legislature, an elected U.S. Congressman representing Maryland, the mayor and police commissioner of the City of Baltimore, and members of the Baltimore City Council who were deemed to be pro-secession. These political prisoners were imprisoned for months or years at various military prisons which had rather onerous living conditions, including such disciplines as being hung by the wrists and water torture.

One notable example of those imprisoned was a gentleman named Francis Key Howard, a newspaper editor of the Baltimore Exchange, who wrote an editorial which criticized the lack of congressional authorization for the war, and the suppression of the personal freedoms and civil rights of U.S. citizens in Maryland. Lincoln’s response: Arrest him and hold him without charge for over one year, part of the time in Fort McHenry, where his namesake grandfather ironically had penned words to a poem concerning a flag flying "o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Best estimates of those imprisoned without charge or on charges which were baseless (i.e., a charge of treason for failing to affirmatively state or pledge one’s support of conscription or of Lincoln’s policies), range from 13,000 to 38,000 U.S. citizens. (For comparison, there are currently approximately 500 non-U.S. citizens held at Guantanamo Bay, after reaching a high of about 750 in 2002, who now have the right of habeas corpus guaranteed by the U.S. Supreme Court despite the Democratically-controlled Congress passing laws in 2005 and 2006 suspending the right).

I am an attorney. Lincoln was an attorney. Those of you who are not, but who had high school civics or government classes will know that there are 3 branches of the United States government, each having its own section of our Constitution. The right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is found in Article 1, Section 9. It will take even those who are not attorneys, and who have not graduated from high school, about 5 seconds with a copy of the Constitution to find that Article 1 is the section for the Legislative branch, or the U.S. Congress, meaning that only that branch has that authority.

Notably, Lincoln maintained his practice of suspending habeas corpus by Presidential proclamation until 1863, well after a case had wound through the court system , and the U.S. Supreme Court had determined it to be unconstitutional for the President to unilaterally suspend the writ. After maintaining the suspension just long enough to show the Supreme Court who was boss, Lincoln finally had Congress take action to suspend habeas corpus in 1863.
Many to this day also hold to a belief that the U.S. Constitution (specifically the First Amendment) safeguards the freedom of the press.

Similar to the example of Howard in Baltimore, a perusal of Lincoln’s military orders will reveal many akin to that issued by Lincoln to General John Dix on May 18, 1864: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce and prohibit any further publication thereof. You are to arrest and imprison the editors, proprietors and publishers." So much for freedom of the press and speech, as well as the right to due process and private property rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Already noted was the use of torture on non-combatant and uncharged U.S. citizens. What, then, of actual enemy combatants? Keep in mind, under Lincoln’s understanding these individuals were U.S. citizens in insurrection, since under the "universal law" their individual States could not withdraw from membership in the United States and its privileges. Again, slovenly prison camps, poor food, disease and brutal conditions were de rigeur, along with various torturous practices.

One might consider Lincoln’s July 30, 1863 Order of Retaliation, which ordered that if a military commander determined that the South had executed a Union soldier, the Union would similarly execute a Confederate prisoner of war. As one might expect, a vast number of Union soldiers’ deaths were thereafter determined to be "executions," which permitted the summary execution of captured Confederate troops. Similarly, the U.S. placed Confederate prisoners of war among Union artillery, thus to discourage Confederate shelling of Union positions. Intentional starvation and other mistreatment was common.

This is not meant to unduly criticize my neighborhood’s favorite son. One can only imagine what our nation would look like this day if the Confederate States had been permitted to secede and how the course of history may have been changed, and I am quite certain the inside business of running this country is much like making sausage as Mr. Obama will soon learn. Many defend Lincoln’s course of action due to the human rights issue concerning slavery.

Even today, however, many ignore the historical fact that the elimination of slavery was for economic – rather than human rights – purposes for populist politicians of the day. In short, the availability of slave labor in the South threatened the ability of labor unions to negotiate higher wages for free labor in the North. Had the Southern States been permitted to secede, the United States would have been faced with a neighboring independent nation which, among other things: 1. Had a extensive border with the U.S., and was positioned better to extend its borders to the West through Texas in competition with the United States; 2. Had a ready source of labor for industrial development, with which it could easily develop industry or entice Northern-based industry to relocate to the South (think of Mexico in present day); and, 3. Controlled the mouth of the Mississippi River.

When one begins with the established notion that preservation of the Union against the will of several States to secede was an action unsupported by the Constitution or anything other than Lincoln’s idea of "universal law" and for economic rather than commonly-misunderstood humanitarian reasons – one certainly could question whether the means did justify the ends, especially when the means included the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans.

To accuse our last former President of war crimes – authorized by a Congress of which Mr. Obama was a part – while embracing the memory of Lincoln would, however, make one appear a bit hypocritical.

Don't Give me the Finger on the Highway

By Allen Van Hoosier

I would like to spend a few moments talking about rage. Not road rage per se, inasmuch as the event occurred on the road.
While pulling out on to I-164 the other morning, I pulled into the left hand lane – at best going around 15 miles per hour into the oncoming path of a white SUV who was already going around 40 in the right hand lane. No hindrances to he or myself, just moving along to go to work, like everyone else at 7:30 a.m.

For some reason, I have yet to figure it out, after we have gone down the road about a half a mile, both having slowed up because we were both a part of a larger traffic conglomerate, he passed me on the left and when he went by, he gave me the finger and lipped the words "fuck you."

Now this was a bit shocking. First I had to run in my mind what it was I had done to so anger this man in his 2007 off-white Buick Rendezvous that had a bumper-sticker on the back-right bumper that said, "I’d rather be golfing." And I could come up with nothing.
Before I go further, I need to discuss something in pop-psychology called "the alligator brain."
This refers to the crossroads that each of find ourselves at in many situations where we act passively or aggressively.

Now most people, I would dare to say 97% of the world have the alligator brain and suppress the actions that may take place as its result. However – the other 3% aren’t that controllable. I sometimes find myself a member of the other 3%.
Enter our friendly yuppie finger-waiver, and a chance meeting with Allen Van Hoosier.
Weather or not it is an endearing trait or a dangerous one, it’s as simple as this: I do not, never have nor ever will take shit from anyone. And I also think that it is wrong to think that "God’s justice rains upon the just and the unjust alike. If you don’t believe this way, that’s your prerogative, but I think there’s nothing wrong in making a point as an ends to a means.
Back to the yuppie scum bag.

After the finger-flipping was over with, I changed like lanes and sped up like Dale Earnhardt, Jr. to catch up with our genius of sign language. I tail-gated him all over Evansville, him obviously aware that now – someone was truly after him, and as far as he was concerned, this "someone" was a little "off kilter." I chased him all over the city limits – due to the fact that he tried to make sure he would hit all green lights fearing that a red-light intersection might mean something scary for him. His Roll Was finally called up yonder: red light at the intersection downtown. 15 cars at the intersection. I am five feet behind him at the red light.

Important note – during this whole event, I never felt anxiety, fight or fight syndrome, nor blood pressure not wavering. I was as calm as a church mouse. I put my car in park, get out, straighten out the cashmere black dress top coat I was wearing and proceed to walk toward his SUV. AT this point I am sure the drivers of about 15 cars were wondering what the Hell was going on. I was feeling no more emotion than I would when walking down through Target.
Additional note: I have a large stature, and weigh 240 as a result of weight lifting. I had dress clothes on – and it was black clothes day: black attire from head to toe. I made it a point to walk slow up to the car, and turned to look down into the window of his SUV. He was 35-40 looking dressed up guy with black Oakly sunglasses on, his hair still wet. Had his window cracked about 2 inches. He hunkered rather low to his floorboard – with only the steering wheel to block him from going any further.

I was to later find out from my brother that he was doing this because he thought I was going to shoot him. He looked over at me slowly and at that point I said to him, in a slow deeply reverberating monotone voice, "perhaps you should think about who you give the finger to next time, especially if it’s me." and simply turned and walked slowly back to my car. He said nothing in reply.

I turned my car around in traffic and headed towards my place of employment. The very first thing I did when I arrived at work was to consult with my alter-ego and man of more tactile sense to himself than I will ever have. I told him the entire scenario about what had just happened. I also asked him, "Hey – what do you think was up with him lowering himself towards his floorboard? He replied, "He was either reaching for his gun, which I doubt he had, or he was getting ready to prepare for seeing the last of earth. I have a tendency to think it was the latter on not the former."

I also told him out concern for my own stability, "Dude – I never got nervous, excitable, and no heart racing. I chased that guy all over Evansville with the full intent of speaking to him. What does that mean?"
To which he replied, "Well – that’s simple. You’re fuckin nuts."

So with this new epiphany, I consulted a lifelong friend and attorney. I told him the whole sordid play by play of what had just transpired. Here is his response to my as to my question, "Did I break a law when doing what I did?"

Perhaps, but doubtful. Intimidation, perhaps, as the party who flipped the other off is not doing anything wrong -- he has a right to flip "the other guy" off, and the second person is placing him in fear for doing something he has a right to do.
You can legally flip anyone off -- even a cop -- although I would not recommend it. I do it occasionally to cops I know, and have been pulled over by them after they do a u-turn. It kind of pisses them off when they realize it is only me, but then I remind them that since they legally cannot pull someone over just for flipping them off, they should be glad it is only me or it could be someone who would be suing them for a civil rights violation.
This is second only to my practice, when I see a cop pull in behind me, and I am stone-cold sober, I will slow down to right at the speed limit and start weaving within my lane. Perfectly legal, but I have been pulled over several times on suspicion of drunk driving when I have done this. They are not pleased when I blow a 0.0 and they ask why I was weaving and I reply that I was just screwing with them because I saw them behind me.
With all of your tattoos, I would not recommend this for you.

I told him my concern about the fact that I did not elevate in pulse or blood pressure when any of this occurred. His response was:
I think that is called "sociopathic tendency" in the psychological field.

SO with my new-found psychological self-actualization, I started to analyze my own psychological well-being about "what kind of person would do what I did? He could have pulled out a gun on me. But I knew this was a possibility the whole time I was following him, and it especially came to mind when I walked up to his car. But yet, I am still walking to his car! I had the whole scenario played out in my head. If he pulls a gun, he’s going to be nervous. After all, Yuppie golfers driving mini-soccor-mommy SUV’s aren’t known for their skill with firearms. In any event, if he pulls one, drop away from his window. If not – go ahead with the intimidation as originally planned. As was the case.

This putz knew nothing about violence, hitting or being hit. He knew nothing of the world that I knew: one foot on the wrong side of the tracks and the other in – well – the one that you the reader is in. For Christ’s sake – I’m a computer nerd with a wife and kids, house, three-car garage. Obviously, I keep that other foot held firmly on the other side of the tracks for very good reasons. This dickhead only knew about golfing, fantasy football, his Dish Network Sports Package, making payments on his hot tub. And perhaps he cared about his wife when needed to get laid. And then this big man on the street yuppie cowered down beneath his car seat like the bottom-feeder he was.

My hope was this. The next time this royal suburbanite sees me coming, he will get off the street or hide his face. The other – the next time he want’s to flip off someone in traffic, he will have what alcoholics call a "moment of clarity" and stop and really give the idea a second thought.
He was lucky this time. I know people, and a few of them are close friends of mine, that when given the finger (and what I about to say is true from a friend of mine from a road trip to Charleston, SC) in traffic for virtually no reason, the guy may just pull over quickly to pull the plates off of his vehicle, and then speed back up to catch up with you. And even when you pull into a gas station fearing what may happen, he will take out his Louisville slugger and go to work on your windshield, head lights, tail lights, side panels, rear view mirrors, and then pull out the mini-wire cutters he has in his back pocket and snip the valve stems of your tires.
So – on the highway, DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU. And if you are yourself – a highway finger-flipper: If I accidentally bump into you at the shopping mall, if you don’t have the gonads to flip me off 3 feet from me while walking by each other, use the same potentially life-endagering discretion on the highway.

But ask anyone who really knows me – the good side of me, and they will tell you I am a sympathetic person, filled with empathy, caring and love, who lives to make people laugh.
And no ...
I do not need therapy.

President Obama

By Allen Van Hoosier
I need to say a few things about today's historic event.
Regardless of where one lies within the political arena, no one can deny how today is probably one of the most intense days in human history.

I work around a few die-hard republicans who blasted Obama during the entire campaign on a daily basis. Today - one of these co-workers had an odd demeanor about him, much like the demeanor President Obama displayed today - a sort of serious but not somber look; the look that conveyed "party's over. I wished for it now I got it. Get to work."
I asked my co-worker, who was a former marine, "Aren't you going to say any thing trite or insulting about Obama?"

"I refuse from this day forth," he said. "He's now MY president too."
And that gave me hope for his success as a Commander in Chief, as well as hope restored again about the idea of being an American. And this is vital. It's the same phenomenon in athletic events; if a talented team has not a care in the world, then they have nothing to lose, and hence they have no need for hope. A new team with youth and optimism has hope, and with hope comes unity, with hope comes focus, and with hope, comes the most destructive force in people(s) as in nature as well: momentum. And with hope and momentum, there is endless possibility.

And Vice President's wife? Who wouldn't mind checkin' that out for four more years?

OBAMA: A NEW BIRTH FREEDOM JANUARY 20, 2009

(CNN) -- Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and the nation's first African-American president Tuesday. This is a transcript of his prepared speech.


I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land -- a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted -- for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort -- even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment -- a moment that will define a generation -- it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends -- hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism -- these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed -- why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Ancestor, Angel or Antichrist?

To download the PDF short-story blog titled "Ancestor, Angel or Antichrist?" by Allen Van Hoosier,
click here. The title of the short story is entitled "We Are Many." I am trying to add an additional chapter every 48 hours...but... if you read it you will understand; recalling all those memories brings back fears of the dark and strange noises that go "bump" in the night....

TAKEN FROM "THE LIFE OF RILEY" ON ESPN.COM

Can't say it any better so here it is from "The Life Of Riley" on ESPN.com

Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.

It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility. Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.

The End. Roll credits.

Argue with this, please. I beg you. Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero. Beat four ranked teams. Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks. The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season. The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.

Yeah, that's how it is now in the shameful, money-grubbing world of college football. If you're Florida and you beat Alabama, you get a seat in the title game. If you're Utah, you get a seat on your sofa.

Hey, remind me: What do they give out for one of those BCS things anyway? It's been so long since I cared. Something from Sears? This is the sixth year in the past 10 that the title has been in dispute under this cash-grab, fan-dis, monopoly that the BCS has created. Which is why the title game just doesn't matter anymore. It's like being named Miss Ogallala. Or Best Amish Electrician.

Just take a look at the teams that think they're worthy of being called national champs:
USC? Great year. Wonderful. Let's all go to SkyBar and celebrate. But it lost to Oregon State, a team Utah beat.

Texas? You think beating Ohio State by a nubby three points gets you the title? The Big Ten was 1-6 in bowl games! That's like pinning David Spade!

Florida and Oklahoma? They lost. Utah never did.

So that's it. Utah is the national champion. The Utes should probably have two now, actually. They went undefeated in 2004, too, and their coach still thinks they were the best team in the land. Smart fella named Urban Meyer. Coaches Florida now.

By the way, we're calling our title the "national" championship because it actually includes the whole nation­—all 119 Division I schools—unlike the BCS, which includes 66. Yeah, the BCS somehow eliminated the middleman—the NCAA. The conferences these schools play in take their dump trucks full of cash straight from the TV networks and fairness can go suck a lemon.

The Utes won't get the trophy they really deserve, so we gave them one of our own design.
Do me a favor. Call Ohio State president Gordon Gee and ask him why he won't support a playoff. He's one of the most powerful presidents in the NCAA. He could get it done. If he says anything other than, "We don't want to share the loot" then you know he's lying his bow tie off.
"This is not how we normally do things in America," says Utah president Michael Young. "In America, quality usually wins, not conspiracy. And there's a reason people usually enter into a conspiracy. It's money. You make money doing it. And those that are in on the conspiracy want to stay in and keep everybody else out."

Sure, BCS blowhards will hand you schlock about how the college football season is like a playoff, how it's an elimination tournament every week. Really? Well, how come Florida and Oklahoma weren't eliminated with their losses? Utah ran the table, beat everybody set in front of them, including Ala-damn-bama in no less than the Sugar Bowl, and gets the bagel.

Oh, by the way? It was Utah's eighth straight bowl win, the nation's longest streak. Among the losers during that run? Let's see USC, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and now the legendary Houndstooth Hats.

"What else do we have to prove?" asks Utah's magical quarterback, Brian Johnson. Good question. He and the Utes essentially whipped Alabama at home. Handed Nick Saban a garlic necklace to wear the entire offseason. Stepped on his team's neck 21-0 in the first three possessions and never looked back. Let's see. Who was it that was losing to Alabama until nearly six minutes into the fourth quarter? Oh, yeah. Florida.

What, you want the Utes to win a spelling bee? Make a prize-winning souffle? Knock up Angelina Jolie? What?

It just slays me. It really does.

Call Myles Brand, president of the asleep-at-the-wheel NCAA, and ask him if he and his greedy presidents are going to stand in defiance of president-elect Barack Obama, who said again this week he wants a playoff and wants it yesterday.

Call Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner and BCS bully John Swofford and ask him what he's going to do if Obama starts asking the Justice Department to look into anti-trust violations against the BCS. The Utah attorney general has already launched an investigation into that very thing.

Ask him what he'll do if Obama asks the Department of Education to consider withholding federal funds from these schools that have entered into his secret club. You don't think playing in the title game means millions in general-fund donations for a school? That's as unfair as anything Title IX fought against.

Until all these people do the right thing, I'll be celebrating with the true national champions — the undefeated, untied Utah Utes. (Our new slogan: Utahk about a team!)

Lemonades for everybody!

Christ and Cockroaches: A Match Made in – Well, Somewhere

By Allen Van Hoosier

Being raised a Baptist, I am in an interesting position, having been schooled in a steady diet of reading, writing and scripture, scripture, scripture. As an adult, I found myself at numerous crossroads – too many to mention.I feel strongly God exists. There must be a wonder and magnificent grand architect to all of this. Everything is to closely related for there not to be.

But does that God - the creator of all things heaven and earth, creator of all of the galaxies and planets that are trillions of light years away from earth, populated with life, but who knows what kind of life it is, interested with paying me, a Homo sapien any special interest over any of the other planets and their species?

Ever notice how no grandiose miracles are found today - as found in scripture? Mass communication was so non-existent then, and if you get two people to believe that you changed water in to wine, and more than likely - that's all that were present to witness it, or be convinced of a magic trick, and they spread the word on foot, all over the place by word of mouth - how will the story get told as it reaches each new person?

If you line up 100 people in a line and you tell them to say "The sun is yellow, and it's in the sky - pass it down." By the time it gets to the last person - it will be "My son's a cool fellow, he can jump real high."Tests prove this time and time again. That's why there are 4 gospels in the bible - each person who wrote each recollection spins a different tale. Hell - Pontius Pilot isn't even mentioned until you get to Luke, not to mention that as you read each gospel, the more anti-semantic they get.

And what about the 15,000,000 people on the planet who were Hindus and all of the other earth-based and ancestor worship-based religions all over the planet at the time of Jesus who would have had no way of even hearing of Jesus, much less even knowing there was a city called Jerusalem anywhere on the globe? Are they lost?

If there is a God that has an active interest in our daily lives, I do not believe in the "holiness" per se of Jesus. I believe God would not curry favor to anyone people - and this case the Jews (who believe the son of God has not arrived yet) and for Christians (who believe the Jewish son of God was Jesus).

I think the idea of the "son-of-god" was invented by the Jews 4000 years ago out of pure human ego and a desire to put the grand architect on a human playing field to make God - for us lowly humans, "reachable" and attainable.
I think I believe in God. But as far as the human's ability to understand and communicate our feelings and thoughts to this God, - I like to use this metaphor:

The next time you are in your house, and you see a small cockroach - just before you kill it - try this. Try telling the cockroach in a monotone voice, "Hello little cockroach. I am a human being. I have a brain that is capable of creating the very house you live in right now. I have a brain that is capable of growing the very food that you are in search of right now. I also have a brain capable of creating poisons and traps which I am going to buy and put in my house. Now - if you understand what I just said, walk around in four complete circles, then stop, and do a figure eight - that is - if you can understand what I just said."

Understand the metaphor? And unfortunately, just like our relationship with God, Our miniscule and pathetic little brains as far as God’s concerned is 1 millionth the size of a bug.Take note: when we turn the lights on to go talk to the cockroach, they run for lives, ignoring everything around them.
As is with God.

I do practice my figure-eights from time to time. One can never be to sure…
Article for important and interesting reading is Pascal’s Wager:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

TO HELL WITH SATAN, OOPS - I MEAN SANTA

By Allen Van Hoosier

Now that Xmas is over it is safe to discuss this topic: the depravity that is Santa Claus. I will refrain from using the word “Christmas” because as we all know as it is supposed to be Christ's birthday we celebrate, two things enter my mind;

1. He was born in August

2. We celebrate shopping

That notwithstanding, I will dive into what spawned my brain’s hamster (not gerbil) thinking about this issue.My seven-year-old daughter asked me on January 5th about one of the girls in her class. This girl – who I have met before and is in every sense of the word a sweetheart, is shall we say – for lack of a better word, “poor.”And for the purpose of this blog entry, we call her “Carol.” Sorry – I refuse to refer to her in one of those sickening curtsey names.It’s ok to say that word. Let’s not be to PC now. It’s a fact of life. Not everyone lives in the suburbs and drives a Lexus SUV.

The girl in question, and I will change the name of her for privacy sake, is a sweetheart of a child. My daughter even told me that she got an award during the fall session for being the “most polite child” in her class.So my daughter asked me the other day, “Dad – I got a lot of stuff from Santa this Christmas. Why?”I said simply, “Because dear you were a little good girl, and Santa – like the song says, knows when you’ve been bad or good.”“OK,” she said, “But Carol is the nicest person in our class, and she only got a shirt from Santa.”

I was floored. Not only at the insight of my child but for the fact that I had never even thought about it from this angle before and an innocent, non-jaded child got it, and I didn’t.
But DAMN; it hit me. “He knows when you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness’ sake.”
My seven-year-old is rotten, as all seven-year-olds are, but she also has her moments of true heart-warming action, as all seven-year-olds do. And here she is calling the legend’s bluff.

I already knew that our Santa Claus society was mired in hypocrisy. We raise kids to believe in three bigger-then-life icons growing up – Easter Bunny, Jesus Christ, and Santa Claus, and when they mature, we also expect them to turn around and drop the belief in two, and retain the belief in one. No wonder children have ADHD, OCD, and other nameless acronyms. But I could hear in my daughter’s tone that not only was she starting to end (forgive the oxymoron) her belief in Kris Kringle, what feelings she had left for him were slightly hostile. What kind of jolly old soul would give one person who goes from fighting with her brother, fist-fighting with her little sister (the little sister usually starts it and is a south-paw fighter) to being nice, and thus repeats the cycle over and over and over again, and winds up getting clothes, electronics, doll-houses, etc, etc, from Santa Claus, and her friend is the sweetest person she knows, and only gets a shirt?

I could see this confused her greatly. My reply to her, being brutally honest with her, and wanting her to see the world through honest eyes “kept it real.”

“Sweetheart,” I said. “It’s like this. I’m sorry to say it but it’s the truth – Santa, you see… well … um….he doesn’t ex...….hmmmm….. uh………
“He doesn’t like poor people. And besides – How can you park 3 tons of reindeer on a mobile home rooftop and NOT cave it in? Those things don’t even have chimneys!”

I’m still sleeping on the couch.

OH MY GOD

by Jay W. Van Hoosier

Well, it’s time for the Colts to make a decision. After having watched now for many seasons, just about any team they play torch their defense for yards and yards of rushing offense, I am going to go ahead and give a big “WHAT THE F%$#!!!!” How long do the Colts stick to a defensive scheme that, with this particular make-up, says to opponents, “please run the football because we can’t stop you.”

Yes, Tony Dungy is a defensive minded coach – the inventor of the Tampa 2 (well, not really – it’s just a modified defensive plan of Chuck Noll) – a 4-3 system that emphasizes tremendous team speed. Tampa 2 teams are known as gang tacklers and practice to always run to the ball.

There are many teams who utilize the Tampa 2 to great success. Even the Colts consistently have one of the best pass defenses in the league. But here’s the catch – they consistently have one of the poorest run defenses in the league as well. Here are a few reasons why.

The Tampa 2 is geared to stop the big play – usually the long pass play. The Colts are excellent in this regard. However, teams don’t have to throw the long pass on the Colts. Why bother when you can run on them at will. Second, to defend running plays, the Tampa 2 is a single gap defense where each player is responsible to defend his own gap. Consequently, there is very little blitzing. It requires that defensive players be fast so that they can plug up assigned gaps, thereby allowing either a linebacker or free safety to help tackle a runner – preferably no more than three yards past the line of scrimmage. The Colts are certainly fast but here’s the catch – they’re small too. The pro game has changed greatly just since mid nineties, when the Tampa 2 came into use. Offensive linemen are now not only huge but they are now fast too. They are able to, with more maneuverability thought unimaginable for men who weigh more than 300 pounds, float those pesky gaps that the defense are supposed to be plugging up. What happens then is that the Colts defense gets manhandled on running plays.

These deficiencies are diminished quite often due to the fact that Peyton Manning and the offense have the ability to put some major points on the board. If they are able to get a nice lead, then the opposing team is forced to pass to catch up and the Colts Tampa 2 works wonderfully at pass rushing (they have two of the best in the game today).

What do the Colts do then? First, fire Ron Meeks, the defensive coordinator. For the last two seasons, he’s been marginal at best in making adjustments during the game. Second, get some big and fast players on defense – look at Tennessee and Pittsburgh. They both run the Tampa 2 defense and are great doing it – all with some pretty big linemen. Lastly, modify the Tampa 2 and use that speediness in the linebackers and safeties to blitz a few times during the game.

I have not lost faith in the Colts – they will always be my favorite team. But how many times do you try the same thing expecting a different outcome???? I believe it was Albert Einstein that said doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result was the definition of insanity. Hmmm.

JESUS ... OR YOUR JOB

By Allen Van Hoosier, Recovering Baptist

In the Baptist Church I grew up in, there were small sub-factions that each held different "takes" on what it meant to be Baptist. These factions ranged from the left-winged Baptists (inasmuch as a keft-winged Baptist could be and still be considered a Baptist) to the extreme right-winged baptist collective which were the life-longers and nuvo-baptiste.' Theg latter were usually recovering drunks, drug addicts, people for whatever reason had lost hope of that they were able to do on their own, and thence decided to give Jesus Christ a shot in the vein. But the most extrmemist of the nuvo's were like Gold to the Baptist congregation: The Catholic convert.

The "Baptist-olic" as I call them, and recall from memory were the most extreme of the Nuvo-Baptist. You see- the Baptist-olic had spent their entire life giving God a chance, but paid no attention to God - sort of like calling God up every morning but leaving the phone off the hook. They hear of another denomonation, readilly, the Baptists, and learn that not only can you call God on the phone, you can talk to him ad-nauseum. Notwithstanding, life-longer, recent convert or Nuvo-Baptiste' , it is indeed the "Baptiste'" that counts.

All of my life while listening to the sermons, attending the prayer meetings, the special events, the dinners, the business meetings, the church presentations, I learned a few things along the way. All infrastructures inevitably implode from within. This is a law of nature.

And ever 39 years of being alive, and 25 of those searching to find a relationship with God that I can understand, I now am certain that I walk a thin line. I work everyday giving unto Caesars what is indeed his, but what greater good? None really. I'm an engineer for a finance company. But there are those among us lowly humans who DO get it and they truly serve God, as in the biblical sense. And those are Buddhist Monks, Hindu Priests, and the Jesuits.

From the minute they awaken till the time they go to bed, all they do in service to him. And when it was when I had gotten to a point in my life where I had personally known one of each of these people, I then realized my relationship with God was a false one because it was a social function, it needed the building, it needed the committees to be on, it needed to decide who was going to read scripture and devotionals on Sunday, it needed to find Sunday school teachers. My relationship was more about "bringing a covered dish" than it was clothing my neighbor when he was sick, lifting him up when he we was down.

The Jesuit, the Sikh, and the monk got it, they loved it and the lived it every second of their life. They didn't live a double life where it was career first, family second, and then God on Sundays. And that it something that will plague me forever.I get up and go to work. I do not go to church on sunday, in the same manner that I do not go to a Temple on Saturday, or a Mosque on Saturday. I am neither Baptist, nor Catholic, Jew or Gentile. But I do have a relationship with God. I long to make it closer. But we have careers that make it difficult. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Ye cannot serve God and mammon.Mammon being the career, the auditing department, the Sunday school committee, the deacon committee, etc, etc, etc,.The Jesuit, the monk, and the sikh do not suffer from this err in judgment. Their service the great architect is pure and true, without confusion at it's base. I am cursed to long my entire life hoping that my interpretation is correct, that it is ok to build career, belongings, income level, 401k's rather than devote my life to feeding the poor, educating the illiterate, giving medicine to the ill. Only then I would lay my head down each night with a heart and conscience of purity.

For now - I cannot.

- Allen Van Hoosier

They should be arrested and tortured

As someone who does not believe in the death penalty, but DOES believe in horrible forms of punishment for crimes against society and humanity – like shooting them in the knee caps, needles under the fingernails, or perhaps – slapping them in public just to make a statement.


OJ Simpson:
Three words: WHAT THE F***? I am really surprised this man has not been knocked off. He contributes nothing to mankind. Who gives a shit if he once did. He has nothing. He is nothing.



K-Fed Kevin Federline: He nailed Brittany Spears. Whoopdie Friggin Doo? Who didn’t? You just knocked her which proves you were to stupid NOT to pull out.



Scott Weiland: Dude – Steven Tyler and Heroin: 6 years. Curt Cobain and Heroin: 3 Years. Layne Staley and Heroin: 4 years. YOU? Pushing 15. Tyler quit after Hep C, Cobain shot his head off because he was so depressed about being on it, Layne Staley was dead of an OD 3 weeks after appearing on MTV’s unplugged in 1996 with NO skin color left, and you keep showing up in different bands and running into microphones on different award shows? OD or get off the pot.



Paris Hilton: This rich giggling c*** does nothing except cash trust-fund checks, puke after eating, and apparently will blow you in infra-red.



Mariah Carey: The fact that she breathes the same air I do is an offense. She boasts her Shure wireless mic studded with 100 1-carat diamonds cost her $250,000. Sorry tramp – you peaked in 1992. AND I GOT NEWS FOR YOU: YOU HAVE A LISP!!!!!!!! And here’s a singing tip: When you blare out one note – just a thought: quit trying to smash in 50 different up and down pitches in one 10-second period. Look mama - if you're so embarrassing to black people they are saying “she’s white!” then become a producer. Get away from the microphone!



Axl Rose: Dude – got one word for you, you ego-megalomaniac half-talented Hoosier: SLASH


Rush Limbaugh: A convicted serial pedophile rapist would run on the republican ticket, and because he was republican, you would be first in line to give him an oxycontin-induced reach-around.



Dave Ramsey: You are an elitist douche-bag. Jump into head-on traffic. But please ensure the car you jump in front off – that the driver isn’t upside down on his loan.



Madonna: Help – Gay night-club DJ starving Hindus in Rwanda are calling for your help.



Charlie Rose: I know this is an odd-ball entry, but I have watched him a lot. 30 minutes of getting to hear the guests – MAYBE get a “yes but” or “no and…” The rest of the time he cutting them off, talking more about them to them and never allowing them to answer a single damn question. I never knew of anyone who loved more the sound of his voice than anything else except me.



CNN's Nancy Grace: This useless horrible human being, I am sorry to say, has had twins. As a political liberal, and CNN watcher, when she comes on the tube, she makes me what to be a right winger NRA member. She looks and sounds like a Southern Holier-than-thou debutante - you know kind of like the chick in Animal House who was giving the frat-guy in the convertible a hand-job with rubber gloves on. Her whole demeanor, in ways I wish not to go into - remind me of my mother.


Roger Levi: Local Evansville Jewelry store impresario: I love his radio commercials. Whenever I think about some of the friends I have with drinking problems, one of his incoherent radio spots will come on. “Hi. I’m Roger Levi. In 1914 when Grandpa Kohn saterd hif firmth tore he wanded everoneda have qualitydiamd ad low prifef.”
Anyone with any sense in advertising who hears someone who sounds like Corky from Life Goes on will say, “Uh – hey Roger. How would you like it if someone else did your spot? Please? Seriously? Not kidding here. Here’s a softball, go throw it around in the back yard, ok?”

AND THE NUMBER ONE OBJECT(S) OF MY WRATH AND DISGUST:
The Housewives of Orange County.
These over-aged washed-up siliconed parasites that A&E have glorified make women seem like complete idiots and objects who are nothing more than puppets under control of someone else. There are many people who control the aging vaginas of these tanning-boothed whore bags: Dolce Gabbana, Donna Karan, Rolex, Jimmy Choo. etc. etc.. These yeast-infected wrtetches to society have just 2 jobs in life:
1. Do kagle exercises every 10 minutes
2. Keep husband's dong in their mouths whenever husband is around.

But ya know? If a 65-year-old millionaire offered me a Lamborghini or a Bently every year, I could learn to ease my gag reflex...

Internet Porn, Sex, Teens and Porn: They are no Cock of the Walk

By Allen Van Hoosier

I overhear in conversations quite frequently, "Kids these days and the internet. With all that filth, they are one click away from screwing us into a population explosion! All these kids net and the surfin, porn watching, getting all horny about what they look at and BAM! You'll see! We'll be up to our necks in kids raisin' kids."

I'm not so sure about that.
Walk with me for a few if you will. This blog is either going to open your eyes or totally offend you, perhaps both. Hopefully you will learn, think, and get a chuckle. If everything goes as planned here, you will remove internet access from your kids’ bedrooms.

For those of you had no exposure to porn as kids, what you did know you learned on the street. And that's unfortunate. Remember back to your first time: it was you trying not to scream bloody murder from the good-time hymen holocaust, or it was you - painfully trying to last before the end of Poison's "I Won’t Forget You Babe" - during a missionary romp in the back seat of your parents' Crown Vic. If it were me in that position, I can assure you, no one in the backseat would have came out of me pulling my father’s Smith and Wesson 44-magnum out from under the front seat and blasting a 5-inch hole into the console. Losing your virginity struggling through screwing while Poison blaring is like watching a smutty porn flick with both hands tied behind your chair. Why the hell bother? You’re just gonna get pissed.
You were as good at knockin' out the poon as your access to sexual media materials were. And that is the paradigm.

When I was a kid - there was adult material in the home - not out on the coffee tables mind you - but it was there hidden in deepest crevices within the house. Whenever the parents would leave, I would sniff out the latest hiding place as quickly and accurate as a cadaver dog looking for carrion. A few years of this passed and the nature of the material got old and boring. Luckily - one of my classmates had a father who was WAY into adult material. I'm not talking Playboy (boring), Penthouse (semi-boring), or even Hustler (now we’re talking). This was the good stuff: this was the material you had to go to Studio Art to get, or for that matter, any local jack shak. Porn. Pages and pages of porn porn porn. Things I had never seen, nor heard of, or in a million years - thought any woman with any normal proclivities would enjoy having done to them. These were actions in full color glossy print for me to look at, learn from, and live by. This was the kind of stuff that I knew that not just everyone had. No Way. Especially any of the girls in my class. It simply was not available to them. Women on men’s faces, men on women’s faces, women on women’s faces, women’s faces between men’s legs, men behind women, women behind men (figure that one out). I grew up surrounded by German Catholic girls. I know these actions - most of them I did not understand, no girl in my hood would ever do or have done to them.

German Catholics don’t have porn much less talk about it to each other, much less their children. They leave them to fend for themselves on "doing the wild thang." Correction: they do talk about it, but it's left at "Don't have sex or I'll beat ya." But strange how these same frigid Catholic parents of the 60’s who were blazon to talk about anything related to the wang or vajay-jay had no problem with their kids going out and pumping gallons of beer down their throats on a Friday night BECAUSE BEER IS BEER BUT BEAVER’S THE DEVIL’S WORK AND WILL HAVE TO BE CONFESSED.
What – “forgive me father for I gave into to a natural instinct and got my wiener wet?”
Now don’t think old school German Catholics don’t know how to “hit that thang,” because they do. Ad nauseam. There were four kids in my class who each had more than 7 brothers and sisters. All German Catholic. Hmmm. T&A was wrong wrong wrong, PBR ok.
For the record: PBR never ok. The GlenLivet on the rocks? Single Malt? Always ok.

Old school Catholics from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s taught their kids nothing about sex. Here’s a perfect, and TRUE example as how inept their children were as to how plumbing worked. I repeat: what you are about to read is sadly enough true, and to this day it still brings tears to my eyes in chuckles.

When I was in high school, one of the guys who I hung around with was the 6th in line of a rather large German Catholic family from a small German Catholic town called Maria Hill, way down in the most German Catholic of corners of Southern Indiana. He dated an older girl who was even more “GC” than he was. They were your typical high school couple; holding hands all day long, chaperoning each other to every single class, and smooching in the locker room.

Our lunch periods were split into two – lunch A at 11:00 a.m., and lunch B at 12:00 p.m. Our hero and his girlfriend did not share lunch periods together, so he hung out with me and a few other of my friends. One day while swarfing down French fries and pizza, we got into a conversation about sex. The issue was the fear of getting someone pregnant. I told them that my father told my brother and I that “if we did he would tie our wang into a knot (and I believe he would have) and “he wasn’t raising any grandkids.”

Then another one of my buddies told the group of sexperts that if he knocked someone up – he was going to get kicked out of the house. Then another one of my friends blurted the infinite wisdom that his father placed upon him. “My dad told me that you don’t have to worry about knocking a chick up when your screwing her if you pull out when you nut.”
“Yeah,” I said, “I had heard that too.”
Another guy muttered, “Yep – heard that one also – seems like it makes sense.”
We looked over at our hero of the story and noticed that the look on his face went to pre-vomiting. He was green – I mean he looked as if he either saw a ghost or was about to yak and hurl all over everyone’s French fries.
“What the hell is wrong with you?” I asked.
He raised himself out of his orange juice to say, “You guys think that ‘nutting’ inside a girl thing is true?”
Another guy at the table said, “Yeah – makes sense to me.”
“Oh shit – her dad’s gonna kill me!!”
Now all of us knew his girlfriend, and knew she was one of those girls that in no way put out. And if she did – it was very little. Probably enough to keep him as a boyfriend.
“So what the hell is your problem man?”
He paused for a few seconds, raised his head out of his lap, and wiped his sweat from his forehead and said – very secretly and not much above a whisper (with all of us thinking about telling him that you’re ok if you don’t ‘nut’ inside a girl,) “Guys… you don’t understand…”
“What??”
“She swallows.”

All of us snorted, cracked up laughing, one of my friends accidentally knocked his milk right off of the table – which beckoned the football coach to come over and investigate.

“What’s going on here? You guys got crap all over the floor!”
“Well?”
“WHAT?” The Coach demanded.

I braved it and asked the football coach if I could talk to him in private a few feet away from the table. I told him the conversation that had transpired and within a few seconds, even he – trying to maintain military bearing, lost it. Who wouldn’t? He then asked the hero of this tale to come over to him, and he put his arm around him and walked down the hall with him talking to him about how the birds and bees, and single cell organisms work.

I am sure by now you have an idea of how sex ed was in a GC farming area “went down.” No pun intended. Well – perhaps just a little.

But this tale articulates just how much access to sex ed we had as kids. It is important to note: when I say sex ed, I am not talking about how fertilization occurs, and all of the biological happens. I am talking about the meat and potato stuff, i.e., you find yourself alone with a woman (or a man) and now your faced with the issue of “how in the hell can I get my partner off?”

As kids of the 70’s and 80’s, it was Playboy – maybe. And let’s face it: Playboy is crap. Nowadays if someone tells you they read it for the articles, it’s true. The girls in there are all so silicone and airbrushed that they don’t look natural. Penthouse, the Bob Gucioni brainchild magazine that had intentions of knocking Playboy out, and to some degree did. Then there’s Hustler, the invetible afterbirth of smutlord, Larry Flynt was the first magazine to show straight-on color photo close-ups of the va-jay-jay. Sometimes, like I mentioned earlier, you get a neighbor who’s dad lived at Studio Art. The stuff was hardcore, and how can Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse compete with places to buy hardcore porn with glory holes to boot?? Please Google glory hole; I’m not going to go into it here.

Growing up, getting married, you soon forget about all that stuff. You get broiled down with jobs, kids, mortgages, and you wake up someday and you are full-time parent and your kids are getting older. And these are the children of the age of the internet – the age of porn where porn is not hidden. And EVERYTHING is out there. EVERYTHING. No longer is Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and the remaining daisy chain of command. Any kid of any age can be looking for info on Indiana big-wig Dick Lugar and the next thing you know – your 13-year-old daughter is looking at a picture of a Latino girl who doesn’t look any older than 18 on a mattress taking on 5 guys in ways you only heard about in the locker room in high school.

I am an IT professional. I am a father, and as a non-lawyer, I am a lover of the law and the legal system. I am also a libertarian/free thinker. Adult material and the access to it has been something that has been guarded very closely for the last 40 years. We have the movie rating system, age limitations on renting or buying pornographic material. However the internet is the biggest library of porn in the history of anyone’s imaginations. It has ready to rent, view, download, stream and get-your-rocks-off porn for all to see.
No ID required. No alderman, no big dude getting your ID and then telling you to get the hell outta there.
With porn you have the pre-page that says, “If laws in your states or countries prohibit access to pornographic materials please click here” and if you do “click there” you’re taken to Yahoo or some other innocent page like it.
I don’t know about you, but when the 16-year-olds I know see a pages like that then “OH YES. THEY WILL CLICK AWAY AND GO READ SCRIPTURE PAGES. YES. INDEED. THAT’S WHAT THEY WILL DO. PERHAPS THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT."
How can I put this mildly?
Horse shit. Bull shit. Hunka hunka burnin’ shit! How stupid and naïve. People come to me all the time to fix their computers. A few of them Evangelical Born Again Christians, the very kind who the thought of porno makes them turn their heads in 360’s. I will “fix” their hard drives and snoop. Oh come on – do you people think that computer people DON’T sniff around people’s hard drives???
Out of the 30 or so PC’s I have fixed in the last 10 years, I will admit a trade secret to all of you. Maybe 4 of them had NO adult material on them. And get this – the 4 that didn’t – those people were not even “Churchies” as I usually refer to them; there was an attorney, a housewife, a CPA and a farmer.
But that’s not a judgment. Saying that people will not, should not, cannot look at porn is about as ridiculous as that 1980’s campaign “Rock Against Drugs.” Drugs CREATED rock! What’s next? Christians against Christ?
The only thing that alarms me about porn is the lack of restriction it places when it’s pumped into the home via the internet. I hear parents brag to other parents that their kids have computers in their rooms will full internet access, as if it is some status symbol. Here’s a reality check mom’s and dad’s. Next time your little Tyler, Taylor, Tanner, Kyler, Tiffany, or Brittany, or any other cutsey name that moms are naming kids these days in hopes of the kids sounding cute even when they’re 16, is off in their room looking for cool pictures of the Jonas Brothers or Transformers, picture this…they “Google” the aforementioned kiddie passion du jour, and the next thing that your little 10-11 year-old is staring down at COHF photos. I am not going to elaborate on the acronym. Look it up yourself. Or DP movies, or a series of free videos of Peter North (and what that porn actor is known for).
Think it nuts? Think it impossible?
Last year my wife and I purchased a house, and she was determined on buying a red couch and love seat. I didn’t like the idea of this, and I told her to show me pictures. She went to a search engine website and did an image search for red couches and love seats with “safe search “on.” We saw a thumbnail page of: red couch, red couch, red love seat, red couch, woman sucking a guy’s cock while getting sodomized doggy style – on a red couch.
She said, “Oh my God! I can’t believe it!.
I said “Yeah – uh.. uhh...I know, the red just doesn’t seem to blend well.”

Un-monitored net surfing is one of the single most insane forms of child neglect in this country. Parents who refuse to do it are tools, ass-kissers to their kids, weak, lazy, weak and tragic.

The computer in the house with internet access should become a part of the living room’s entertainment system. If they need access to it, they can do what they need to do in front of the parents, or statistically speaking, their “parent.” If they want to look at porn then DAMMIT they should have to sneak around like I had to when I was a teen. Teens are 100% overexposed to porn! It’s NOT FAIR!

The good thing about it is – overexposure to porn will lead to sexual apathy to some degree and kids will be trying to get off screwing watermelons or something. But the scary thing is this: a coworker was telling me about a conversation he overheard at a party his teen daughter was having.

“Yeah – I’ve been going out with Tyler for two months now. He wants it bad but I’m gonna make him wait for it.”
“Really?” The other girl said.
“Yeah – but I know how to keep him. I suck him off a lot and I let him hit my ass, but if he wanna get it all put a ring on it!”
For the purpose of clarity, when she said “hit my ass” she wasn’t talking about anything about hitting or spanking. That’s right…you know what I mean. When my co worker told me this he was in shock. “Dude! I was 26 before I ever did that to my girlfriend after a month of begging and drinking and neither one of us liked it!”
But this goes to show you a very important fact: the internet is exactly where teens are learning about sex, and I am talking about “acts” to try on each other.

So when I hear older fogies shouting to the world that “this internet generation is going to muff-dive this world into a population explosion” I say “FEAR NOT.”

Refer to the initial point of this thesis. Kids learn what to try out on their partner based on what they see or pick up on from the media. And in this case that form of media is the internet, which by the way, is the very same internet that in its birth was created to share private information between the military and Universities is now giving us bigbuttbonanza.com. That being said, I’m sorry folks – fear not being overran with babies. If the internet generation takes into common normal sexual practice that is common place on the internet, it’s kind of hard to get a teenage girl pregnant in an anal gangbang with the “baby-gravy” getting shot into the mouth or on the face of three different chicks,

And that’s a good thing. Really Calm down. It is. It’s a wonderful thing. Let them do anal and facials all they want. Hell – even encourage them to do it. After all - do we want snot-nose smart-mouth hand-held-out walking “balls” of entitlement breeding anyway??