I always thought it was because female voices are considered soothing and nurturing. You know, marketing stuff.

Then I tried the new AI and it said, "Listening" and I'm like, "Oh yeah. Nobody would believe that if a man had said it."

NOAA and the Farmer's Almanac both say we're due for a huge blizzard around 20" to 30" of snow. We get one every 8 to 12 years where I live and its been 9 years since the last one.

We have 3 weeks of feed for us and our livestock, generator, fuel, gas cookers, lamps, candles, games, books, etc.

It never hurts to be prepared.

Any college faculty that promotes policies that deny students their civil rights should forfeit all public funding.

This includes the right to keep and bear arms provided the student is legally eligible according to the laws of their resident state up to and including the right to carry on campus, concealed or otherwise, in accordance with state law.

The courts have already affirmed the RKBA. The case law is there declaring the RKBA an individual right. This is not only established US constitutional law but also recognized rights within the constitutions of 44 states.

For a faculty member to demand a student forego exercising their legal rights is no different than faculty making disparaging remarks about race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. It would create an environment hostile to law-abiding students.

Therefore, faculty who imagine themselves above the law and who would disrupt the learning environment should be put on notice that their departments will forego all public funding and they will denied the use of publically supported facilities and resources. If they feel entitled to thumb their noses at society then they can set aside their reliance on society's money.


I'm willing to bet my petition will gain more popular support than "Cocks before Glocks."

Because I spent the afternoon watching Lover Boy split firewood.

Does that make them a "girther"?

I'm sure it will be argued Katyn forest massacre was an act of self-defense as well.

Lots of people say we need to close the private seller loophole (I favor making NICS available to private sellers) and toughen laws against straw purchases (I'm good with that).

Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are. Moreover, these stories always seem to be accompanied by the line, "the suspect had a history of mental illness." Eliot Rodgers, Aaron Alexis, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Seunh-Hui Cho, James Holmes, etc. are all examples of spree killers that someone in authority suspected of being potentially violent and yet those in authority did nothing.

If the objective is to keep guns out of their hands they have to be brought before the authorities and, through due process, be adjudicated as unfit to enjoy their rights. That is the only way their names end up in the NICS to be flagged against selling guns to them.

And here's a weird follow-on thought -- maybe while we have them before the authorities we can get them the treatment they need to no longer be tormented by the demons that drive them to these horrendous acts. Basic human compassion would suggest we would want to relieve them of the suffering they endure.

One of the arguments in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine (FD) is that, if left to their own devises, consumers (hereafter, referred to as "consumers" of news and opinion will self-select narrow ranges of opinion that comport with their pre-suppositions and beliefs. The FD, it is proposed, will expose them to a broader range of opinion and in this vein those who produce news and opinion (hereafter, referred to as "producers" should set aside time and space within their publications and broadcasts to those of differing arguments.

I find this proposal lacking.

First of all, not all producers produce in equal measure. For example, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts for 3 hours a day whereas Rachel Maddow runs for only a single hour. It does not matter what percentage of broadcast time is set aside, Limbaugh will enjoy the decisive 3:1 advantage. Moreover, the proposal will invariably dilute the Maddow show more than Limbaugh's.

Second, what those making the proposal are actually saying is: They want those who consume Opinion X to have an equal amount of time consuming Opinion Y. They are cloaking this statement in the guise of regulating producers but at the end of the day it is really the consumers they are targeting.

In order to more closely conform with their intentions my counter-proposal is this --

Do not regulate producers but rather consumers.

If a person consumes news and opinion they must then seek out countering viewpoints or be in violation. Television and internet providers can track consumption habits. They do already for marketing purposes. Whatever time they spend consuming news and opinion from Source X they must spend a regulatory mandated counter-balancing amount of time consuming news and opinion from Source Y.

That way the producers do not have to dilute their time and space while the demand that consumers gain broader exposure to more diverse opinion will be met.

Those found to be in violation can assessed a penalty during the annual tax filing season.

Those who will protest on 1st Amendment grounds can be reminded that the 1A protects the freedom of the press but makes no prohibition towards mandates concerning secular media.

Democracy demands this mandate!

If we want justice we cannot punish people for doing the right thing -- and, yes, physically defending a victim of violence is the right thing (at least, it isn't wrong).




EDITED TO INCLUDE --



Thank-you DU'er OriginalGreek