I Find This Funny

I am one of those who has been online since the mid 90's. For any who might not have been around so long, let me assure you, all those email forwards that never seem to end, well, they've been running through email boxes ever since email first began, and along with forwarded jokes and such, hoaxes started running rampant too. This gave rise to websites such as www.snopes.com (and a few that came before it, but don't seem to be around anymore) which checks these things out and let's you know that they are in fact hoaxes. Admittedly they do lean a little to the left on Political things, but they're quite good if you're just looking to check on a basic factual issue. Quite often you'll get one of these hoax emails and just know that whatever it's claiming to offer is just too good to be true, and therefore you can just delete it and laugh at the friend who sent it to you, but sometimes one might seem like it could be legitimate and so you could head on over to snopes.com to check it out. Then some people thought it would be helpful to let people know that they had checked something out and it was, in fact, true, so you started seeing emails where people had typed notes on the bottom to let you know that Snopes had verified the information. Now, this is what I find funny, there is a trend that has started where the hoax emails have notes on the bottom saying that Snopes.com has verified the information in the email. Of course, if you go to www.snopes.com you will find that they say that the email is not true. What is really funny is that sometimes, you'll even find a link right to the correct page at snopes.com, that you can click right on and find out that it's a hoax... and yet, for all of that, people still forward them. Isn't email a hoot?

Can't Even Believe This One

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is out pushing really hard for her huge pork barrel spending bill, which she, and other Democrats, are calling a stimulus package. Now there are plenty of places you can look and see all of the nonsense in this bill, and I've talked about the flaw in the entire premise here, but Speaker Pelosi really stuck her foot in her mouth, and you have to wonder if she even knows it. At press conference she told the assembled group that every month that we go without a (massive pork barrel irresponsible spending package) stimulus bill 500 MILLION Americans lose their jobs! I'm stunned. How does that even roll of the tongue without realizing that you've said something that is clearly untrue? Just to illustrate, in July of 2008 the US Population was estimated to be 303, 824, 640. So, according to Speaker Pelosi, every month that we don't go crazy spending on nonsense, nearly 200 million more people in the US lose their jobs than actually live in the US. Of course, even if you figure that the estimate is low, and say that maybe there are 350 million, you would have to remember that this includes everyone, from babies to the elderly, in other words, millions of people who don't even have jobs to begin with.

And we should trust this woman? I don't think so.

Sea Kittens

The PETA people are at it again. They want to change the name of fish, wanting them to be called "Sea Kittens" instead, because they feel that people would reject eating something with a name that reminded them of their beloved family pet. Total lunacy you say? Well, maybe, but I think it might be interesting to go along on this one and see if it backfires, it is at least possible that instead of making people stop eating fish it actually encouraged them to start eating cats. More likely though, it would simply cause the less nuts among us to simply roll our eyes while we enjoy some fish, whatever the name.

Now, if you should happen to run into to one of these PETA nut jobs, and you feel like having a little fun say this, "Oh, PETA, yeah, I thought about joining once, until I found out it didn't stand for 'People Eating Tasty Animals'." You may want to have your guard up when you say this.

Seriously though, the groups' name, "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" doesn't even make any logical sense. This is a radical group who believes that animals are fully equal to humans in every way, so how do they justify differentiating them in the name of their group? Doesn't their very name imply that humans are superior to animals? Shouldn't they call themselves "Human People for the Ethical Treatment of Non-human People"? Not as pretty and acronym, but at least it would accurately reflect what they believe.

Best Seats In The House

Looking for something to do in Binghamton, NY in the middle winter is not an easy thing to do, especially if you want to keep it kinda cheap. Well, we didn't keep quite as low cost as we might have liked, but it's not like you can do anything outside, so you have to pay to do something inside. Anyway, we went to the Roberson Museum and Science Center, which is a very neat experience.

Anyway, they have a small planetarium show, and while we were going in for that the attendant told us that the 4th row back would be the best of the remaining seats, and at that time there weren't all that many seats taken, so we sat there as most of the other people filed in. The attendant that was there when we got in there must have had other things to do, and another guy took over, and as we sat there we must have heard him tell nearly everyone that came in, "Oh sit right over there, they're the best seats in the house." This went on right up until the doors were closed and the lights went down. We had quite a laugh over all of this.

As it was, our seats were pretty good, and the show was pretty enjoyable.

As for the rest of the museum, it was very neat, and there were wonderfully decorated Christmas tree's in nearly every room of the old mansion that now serves as part of the museum. It really is a fantastic place to go.

Don't You Love It?

This was just after my last eye exam, where they blew up my pupils. What a grand load of fun that is!

"We're So Good!"

I had been thinking about how funny it is the amount of national pride people get from the Olympics. There is something really cool about watching these amazing athletes and seeing that the one that is representing your own country wins the Gold Medal, and it does make you feel good.

The truth though, is that most of the sports that we watch at the Olympics, are not sports that we watch on a regular basis. Honestly, when was the last time you watched a swim meet? Or beach volleyball? Or Rowing? Or Gymnastics? Or a myriad of other Summer Olympic Sports? If you're like me, or the vast majority of other Americans, the answer would be, 4 years ago at the last Olympics. And yet, the games have the power to captivate us, none the less.

Last night, while I was watching some of the Olympic coverage that I have recorded on my DVR, one of our (that is the USA) swimmers, other than Michael Phelps, won a race, and my daughter started dancing around proclaiming, "We're so good!" Over and over again she said it... and she had nothing to do with it! Yet she saw someone from her own Country coming out on top, and was really excited by it.

I'm really not all that into sports on a regular basis, but there is something about the Olympics that I really enjoy.

Am I THAT Boring?

So, the other night at bedtime, I was talking to my wife, and somehow or other something came up that made me mention Calvinism. My wife said, "Ok, I don't know what that is." So I started giving her the basic, brief outline of what Calvinism is. Not too bad so far.

I gave a brief explanation of the Total Depravity of Man, asked if she understood, and she said, yes, she got that one.

I went on to Unconditional Election, asked if she understood, and she said that she also understood that point.

So I went on to the Limited Atonement, and asked if she understood... silence. I asked again... still silence.

I said, "You're asleep aren't you?"

Again, silence.

Can you believe that someone would fall asleep during an explanation of Calvinism? Am I really that boring? Or was she just really that tired?

My Blogger Birthday

Happy Blogger Birthday to me!

Ok, this might be a little silly, but it was one year ago today that I started this blog and posted my first post. There have been quite a few since then, but it did have to start somewhere.

I think I've learned a little about blogging in that time, but I still have a lot more to learn... hey, give me a break, it's only my first blogger birthday.

I think that blogging is a great forum to express opinions on all sorts of topics. It is something that I really enjoy doing, and I hope you all enjoy reading it.

Time has been pretty tight lately, so I haven't been able to keep up with posting the way I would like to, but I do try to do what I can.

I hope everyone likes my blog, because I have no plans to stop.

Parking Humor

I went to the Gym this morning, and it was crazy busy there. I guess I should pick a better time of day next time. Anyway, I just parked a couple of rows out and way down on the end, and got out of the car to walk to the Gym. It struck me as pretty funny, as I was walking across the Parking lot, how many people were competing for the few spots that were opening up closer to the building. At first I thought that maybe they were going to a different place than they gym. After all, there is a physical therapy place right next door in the plaza, and I could understand why people going there might need a close parking spot, but as I watched, no, they went to the gym.

I couldn't help but find it funny that these same people who are inside going at their workouts just as fast and furious as can be, would virtually kill for a spot five feet closer to the building.

To be fair, and a bit more serious, this probably has more to do with our culture than it does with not being willing to walk. We have a very "me" centered, very fast paced culture. First of all, we are conditioned from the time we are very young to think that closer parking spots are better parking spots, and after all, don't "I" deserve the best? Don't I have the "right" to have the "best" available parking spot all for myself?

And as to the second part, I'm sure most people view going to the gym they same way that they view most everything else in life, which is with regard to how it will fit into their schedules. So often we have so much to do (other people usually more so than me) that we have to try to squeeze things in where ever we can. So that little extra walk across the parking lot could be the difference between getting to their next appointment, or whatever, on time or a few minutes late. And don't we all have the right to get the parking place that keeps us on schedule?

For the most part we are all so accustomed to this type of behavior that we consider it to be human nature, rather than a cultural abnormality. Of course, if you look at most of the rest of the world, you would find that there are very few cultures like ours. I'm not suggesting that they are doing everything right, while we are doing it all wrong, but maybe there is something to be learned from the idea of slowing down and enjoying life a little more rather than the full tilt, dead run, go, go, go!!! culture that we currently find ourselves in.

The whole thing is a little funny, but at the same time, maybe it bears some thinking about.

Flat Earth, Warm Earth

Talking today about some widely accepted lies. Oddly enough, I'm not talking about the fact that there were a lot of people in the past who believed that the Earth was flat, nor to the crazies today who still hold to this theory. The lie I'm talking about today is something that most of us were taught as children, and probably never gave enough thought to realize how irrational it is. This is the idea that Christopher Columbus, and he alone, knew that the Earth was round and set out to prove it.

In fact, I'm sure Columbus did know that the Earth was round, he was a seafaring man, and sailors had been well aware of the true nature of the Earth for Centuries, if not Millenia, before Columbus was ever born. Often we are taught that ancient Sailors would cling to the shore line, being afraid that if they sailed too far away, they might fall off the edge of the Earth. This is not true at all, in fact, as most any sailor can tell you, the most dangerous place to be is too close to the shore, as that's where the water is most shallow.

I remember being taught that Columbus's crew were scared of falling off the edge of the World, and therefore Columbus made false entries in his log so that his crew wouldn't know where they were actually going. This is one of the most ridiculous idea's that any historian (pseudo-historian?) ever came up with. Think about it in terms of today. Is your boss the only person who knows what's going on around your workplace? In my experience, the leader, or boss, or whatever, knows different things, but, unless they were promoted from within, actually know quite a bit less about the actual workings of the workplace than do the workers. If Columbus had actually tried to trick his crew in such a way, they would have thought him a fool, since there were likely many among them who could easily navigate as well as he could. The truth is that they well understood that the Earth was round, and they knew where they were going, they were also probably well aware of the false log entries which Columbus used because he didn't want anyone else to know the route to his "new" resource rich environment.

Just the same however, is the fiasco with Global Warming. I've talked about this quite few times, so I won't dwell on it long today. Just as school history books have been complicit in the Columbus proof of the Earth being round myth, so has the news media been complicit in the Global Warming myth.

For quite some time now we have been hearing that the debate is over. That Global Warming is caused by the actions of man, and if we don't make huge sacrifices and change our lives drastically, the Earth would warm, and some unspecified bad thing would certainly happen as a result... on such flimsy evidence, and such a weak warning, I'm shocked that so many people have been taken in by it.

Strangely enough, the mainstream media is largely ignoring the fact that both Temperature evidence, as well as quite few scientists seem to agree that the trend has turned around we are starting a time of (mild) Global Cooling.

Now I'm waiting for Al Gore's next movie... you know, the one where he tells us that we have to release more carbon, and that we haven't done enough to increase Greenhouse gasses, and that if we don't get moving and get a whole lot more CO2 back in the air, we'll be in an ice age, and the Sea's will freeze, and Port cities today will find themselves hundreds of miles inland... sound crazy? A lot of people didn't think so when his alarmist movie made equally outrageous claims in the opposite direction.

All I'm wondering about now is, how long before the alarmists admit the truth... or will they ever?

Rambo

Ok, so I know that I was said I was planning to post about Politics yesterday, but didn't end up blogging at all, but fear not (cause I'm sure you did) I'll get to it at some point.

I had a Darden Restaurants gift card from a contest at work. We looked at the choices listed on the card, and two we didn't recognize, and other than that there were "Red Lobster," which neither of us care for, and "Olive Garden," which is my wifes' favorite Restaurant, but doesn't do much for me. So she said to look and see there were any locations of the other two in our local area, but there weren't, the closest of either was over an hour away. So I Googled Darden to see if they had anything that wasn't listed on the card. Apparently they just bought Longhorn Steakhouse, which is awesome. I was so excited. I was sitting in front of the computer yelling "honey, they have Longhorn listed here, they have Longhorn listed here!!!!" So we called Longhorn to be sure they would take the card, and they said yes.

So, we decided to go see a movie, and have a nice dinner. My in-laws said they would watch the kids, so that was cool too. So I looked up the theater that is closest to Longhorn, and was again overcome with excitement as they were still showing "Rambo." I'm not sure my wife shared my enthusiasm, but she went along with it.

So, we dropped the kids off at her parents house, and they got pizza for dinner and got to go to the park, and found out Grandpa could still run! Even at a whopping 57 years of age! Ok, well the kids were surprised, but anyway, they had a great time.

So we went to the theater first, and got there with quite a bit of time to spare, and settled in to watch the inane program that they show in between movie showings. I'd describe it, but first I would have had to have been paying attention to it, and I can't say that I was. Anyway, and keep in mind we were seeing "Rambo," which is rated "R," which, in this case could be, "With Very Good Reason." So, we're sitting there watching other people file in, and what do we see? Some guy comes in with a kid that couldn't have been more than 5 years old. My jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe it. I'd have trouble thinking of a more inappropriate movie for kid that young. But I digress.

Of course, once the inane show was over, the commercials started. Now, I've always enjoyed previews of other movies before the movie. I like them. But commercials? I mean, come on, and especially given that they showed around five of them. Then the previews finally started, and there were quite a few of them, everything from "Midnight Meat Train," a horror flick that I imagine I would sleep through, and likely will never bother seeing, all the way to the new Narnia movie due out in a couple of months, which we've been waiting for.

So, finally, at 4:25, for a movie that had a start time of 4:05, the movie finally got started.

I do not intend to give away any plot points here, as I don't want to ruin it for anyone who wants to see this movie, but hasn't had the chance yet. What I will say is that there was some foul language, but if you've seen the other Rambo movies, you would expect this, and there was action. Lots and lots of action. I would say that this was, by far, the bloodiest of the Rambo movies, but it was still a really good movie. If you can get past the language, and aren't too squeamish (my wife had her eyes closed quite a few times) I would highly recommend this movie.

I think that the "Rambo" franchise has gotten a bad rap over the years. Quite often I have heard lots of different people talk about any generic Rambo movie as the ultimate in senseless violence movies, but really this isn't true. If you are not familiar with the movies, bear with me for a moment. All four of the movies are intended to make a very valid point. The first one, "Rambo: First Blood," was meant to draw attention to the very poor treatment of Veterans who returned from the Vietnam War. The second movie, "Rambo: First Blood, Part 2," was intended to raise public awareness of POW's from the Vietnam War still being held in North Vietnam after so many years. I remember watching that one with my Dad, and the passionate response he had. At the end a CIA guy asks "What do you want us to do, Bomb Hanoi?" My dad jumped right out of his chair (we were at home, thank God) and yelled "YES!!!!" The third one was to make people aware of what the Soviet Union was doing to the people of Afghanistan during their occupation of that country. And this last one, simply titled "Rambo," is meant to spotlight the atrocities that are happening right now, today, in Burma (AKA Myanmar) and can be checked out at http://www.witness.org/ and is a very real thing.

I know that these are action movies, and they involve a lot of killing and such, and certainly, a lot of violence, but I just wanted to point out that this is not the full extent of what the movies are.

It's also interesting to note that the hero of the movies, John Rambo, played by Sylvester Stalone, always just wants to be left alone. He never wants trouble, never wants to get involved, but that option is never really left open for him, much to the chagrin of his eventual enemies. There is also a surprising Christian presence in this movie, as it is Christian aide workers that he goes in to rescue, and I'm not giving anything away here, you can see that much in any synopsis at any movie theater web site.

Anyway, I thought that it was a great movie, and am glad that I got to see it in the theater, but thinking back to that little kid (who did stay for the entire movie), all I can say is, I really hope they Scotch Guarded those seats!!!

Love Fest

Ok, so I'm not one of the cynical people who cares nothing for Valentines Day, and thinks that it should just be done away with. Nor am I one of those people who goes crazy about it. We didn't really do anything for it this year, for several reasons, but I don't have anything against it, and I do like to do something special for my wife on this day, if I can.

It's confusing for kids though. My daughter came home very upset because several of her friends at school received gifts from their parents, and one girl couldn't stop talking about all the stuff that she was getting from her parents and grandparents. So she was pretty upset that we didn't get anything for her. I took the time to explain to her that Valentines day is a day for grown ups, Mommies and Daddies and such, to get each other a little something and tell each other how much they love each other, and it's a fun day for kids to exchange cards at school with the rest of the class, but it's not a gift giving day on a grand scale, like a birthday or Christmas. I also explained to her that when her mother and I were children our parents didn't give us gifts on Valentines day (Nor should they have). I won't say that this made her happy, but I think that she understood.

Valentines day isn't a day that we can say has been hijacked by commercial interest, like you can with most other Holidays, because this one, as far as I know, always has been a commercial holiday, and it can be fun too, as long as you don't place too much emphasis on it. In other words, don't go crazy.

I do find myself wondering today how many flowers, boxes of chocolate, and sweet little love cards were sent to Obama by NBC news, since they are so in love with him.

I mean, you have to look at what Obama has been saying... which is NOTHING. I don't have any issue with him talking about hope and change, but with nothing to back them up, it is all utterly meaningless. If you don't tell what changes you want to make, and what it is you plan to do to give people hope and then fulfill that hope, they are just words. There are a lot of questions that news people should be asking of this man, but they don't, they just drool over him and talk about having a thrill run up thier leg (honestly, that's what Chris Matthews said about him) or talk about getting tears in their eyes when they hear him talk. If this doesn't qualify as a crush, then I don't know what would.

Tomorrow I have a special post planned, and then I will most likely tackle the issue of the turncoat, Mitt Romney, endorsing John McCain for President on Saturday, so stay tuned, you don't want to miss these next two posts.

Books and Writers

For starters today I'm going to do another book review. I don't know for sure if I'll make this a regular part of this blog or not, but I do tend to read a lot of books, and so, there is every possibility that I might do so.

Last week I read Bill O'Reilly's book, "Culture Warrior." I found this to be a very interesting book. Well researched, and well written. It was also very informative, and over all a good read. It actually dealt with some of the same issues as "The Marketing of Evil," but from a differant angle, and it dealt with some differant things as well. I'm not comparing the two books, if I did I'd have to say that "The Marketing of Evil" was the better book, but that's not my point here.

I enjoyed "Culture Warrior" and do think that it was worth my time in reading it. That is not to say that I was in complete agreement with everything that O'Reilly put forth in the book. There are a couple of things that I do think that he was wrong about, but the book still made me stop and think about those things, and I really like that. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it more in the future, I like it when people repsectfully disagree with me, and then present the reasons why they disagree with what I've said (just as Gary did on my last post) which opens a dialouge, and that is where progress is made. By people being "forced" to think things over. By the same token, I like that O'Reilly said some things that I'm not on board with, because it really made me stop and think about those issues, even though, obviously, I can't go and talk to him about it. But that's ok.

One thing that is differant from my last book review is that I'm not going to recommend that people read this book. Please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not saying that you shouldn't read this book. If you had it on your reading list already, go ahead and read it, or if you were thinking of reading it already, then by all means, don't let me stop you, it's not in any way a bad book. But I don't want to point people toward it that weren't already thinking of reading it. The reason for this is simple. First and foremost, it is written from a secular worldview, and the times that he does talk about religion are some of the things that I can't agree with. The other reason is that I don't find this book to be of Critical importance the way I do with "The Marketing of Evil," so if you are only going to read one or the other, then please, make it "The Marketing of Evil."

If you do read "Culture Warrior," just remember to keep thinking for yourself, and don't just believe everything to be as it is written in the book, just because it is written in this book. You've got to think for yourself. Besides, who needs O'Reilly to give them political annalysis when you can get it from me?

Just kidding!

Anyway, the second thing that I want to discuss today is the fact that the writers strike is finally over. I don't know the details of the deal that was made, but it is very good for the TV industry that the writers are back to work. I guess the question now will be, what shows will survive, and how many veiweres did some of the big shows lose out of this whole deal?

I know that I for one haven't missed very many shows while they have been off the air (or in re-runs, which is pretty much the same thing). I also think that it has been a really good time for channels like "The History Channel" and "The Discovery Channel" among others, and I wonder how many viewers that have gotten hooked on shows on those networks will stick with them rather than going back to the main networks. I'm sure it will be some.

I hope that the writers got a good deal out of this, since, in my opinion, the industry wouldn't be making any money without the writters.

On a side note, I would like to see the TV executives stop being so demanding of new shows. All too often these days if a show doesn't get stellar ratings right off the bat, they are cancelled. It wasn't always this way. I'm sure that a great many shows that have come to be fan favorites over the years never would have survived their first season if they were introduced today. Sometimes it just takes a show some time to find it's audience, so they need to give them a chance.

Just Get Dressed Already

There are some Nudists that are complaining that Sherriff's Deputies are harassing them at a local beach. I'm just a little confused as to how it is harassment when a law enforcement official tells you that you have to put some clothes on in order to be compliant with the law. To me this is just common sense (and maybe that's the problem) that you can't go nude on a public beach. We are talking about an area that is completely open to the general public, where families go for a fun day, and where children are bound to be when they are not in School.

I would think that people would understand that parents don't want their kids exposed to naked people when they are supposed to be just having a good time at the beach. For that matter, I don't want to see naked people sitting around out in public. It's gross, and what's more, it's wrong. But maybe that enters into it also. Relativism. The idea that just because I think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone else. Of course this is nonsense. I am a firm believer in Absolutes, and I believe it is absolutely wrong to run around in front of people in your birthday suit.

I know that I have seen arguments in the past where people are trying to say that there is nothing wrong with it because they are not ashamed of their bodies. Well, to that I say, who cares, I'm not ashamed of your body either, but I still don't want to see it. For that matter, I'm not ashamed of my body, even if I am fat, but I wouldn't even consider showing it off to other people, even if I wasn't fat. I don't get where this idea comes from. Somebody please explain to me how it is that Christmas trees are offensive, but naked bodies aren't. I'm totally confused.

Of course, maybe they could work something out where they have a judge who sits in a little booth on the beach and decides who is allowed to tromp around in the nude, and who isn't. At least that could serve to make things a little more pleasant for other beach goers. Ok, I'm just kidding. I'm opposed to all forms of public nudity. If we were talking about a private beach, or a designated "Nude Beach" then I wouldn't care, people would know what was going to be going on there before they ever went, but that's just not the case at a public beach.

Basically, I guess I just want to tell these people to shut up, quit griping, and put some stinking clothes on. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about (no pun intended).

To me, there is nothing wrong with the nude human form. In Private. And more specifically, between a Husband and Wife. It just doesn't belong outside of that relationship.

One other thing that the article on this was sure to point out was that the law that was being enforced was 13 years old. *GASP* 13 whole years!?!?! Can they be serious? They are still enforcing a 13 year old law? How did this happen? Who's responsible? Get a grip. I don't even know why they put that in there. Like 13 years is such a long time. How long has murder been against the law? And they still enforce that don't that? Sure they do, as long as the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with it.

I would also think that there would other reasons for not wanting people to go nude on the beach. Our beaches here are pretty loaded up with broken up shells, which I would think would be painful in certain sensitive area's. Not to mention all the little critters that crawl around in the sand. Wouldn't you want a little protection? And all that extra Sun Block!

It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will defend and fight for as a "right." Not caring that there is no basis at all for calling something like this a right. What would you call it, the right to nudity? And where does it derive from? Certainly not the Consititution, I know, I've read it, and even though I don't remember everything, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that: "The right to walk around buck naked shall not be infringed." --Yeah, I don't think so.

Is It Just Me?

I don't know if it's just me, if I'm cynical, or if my brain is wired a little funny, but I don't always respond to things they way that others would expect me to.

My first example of this starts with a wonderful story that I got by email the other day. It was meant to be powerful, and to convey a strong point, and it did just fine... that's just not how it struck me. Before I share the story, let me just say, I did understand what was being said, and I get the point of the story, but after I share the story, I'll tell you what my reactions were.

"There was a blind girl who hated herself because she was blind.She hated everyone, except her loving boyfriend. He was always there for her.She told her boyfriend, ' If I could only see the world, I will marry you.'One day, someone donated a pair of eyes to her. When the bandages came off, she was able to see everything, including her boyfriend.He asked her,'Now that you can see the world, will you marry me?'The girl looked at her boyfriend and saw that he was blind. The sight of his closed eyelids shocked her. She hadn't expected that. The thought of looking at them the rest of her life led her to refuse to marry him.Her boyfriend left her in tears and days later wrote a note to her saying: 'Take good care of your eyes, my dear, for before they were yours, they were mine.' "

*

Honestly, the very first thought in my mind when I read this was, "There's no Doctor in the world who would agree to that!" (That is to say, agree to do the surgery to take the mans eyes and give them to the woman.) Then, right on the heels of that thought was this gem, "Why didn't the Moron just give her one eye?" Right? I mean, then they could both see, and live happily every after.

*

A different story, and this one is a true story, I read about it on FoxNews.com last night, a Polish man visited a brothel, not something I condone in any event, especially for a married man, which this man was, and got the shock of his life. You see, he found his Wife working there! They have reportedly filed for divorce... I wonder why?

*

Can you imagine trying to explain this to the judge?

*

Judge: So, you want to divorce you wife?

*

Husband: Yes, your Honor.

*

J: And why do you want this divorce?

*

H: She was working in a Brothel!!

*

J: Oh, that's gotta sting. How did you learn that your wife was working in a Brothel?

*

H: I found her there, saw her with my very own eyes!

*

J: And what were you doing there?

*

H: Well, I was there as customer.

*

Judge shakes his head and grants the divorce.

*

Sometimes truth really is crazier than fiction.

*

On another note, Dr. Phil is under fire for "exploiting" the Britney Spears situation. I guess he went to see her, thinking that maybe he could help her turn her life around and get on a better track, and, after talking to her, held a press conferences. I don't know what he had to say, and honestly I don't care. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who cares less about the Britney nonsense than I do. Where I find this funny is the idea that Dr. Phil needs to exploit any situation. I mean, he's not as big as Oprah or anything, but he's not hurting for loyal adherents. Also, wouldn't it be hard to exploit Spears? She's based her entire life on exploiting every part of her body and personality and whatever else that she can. And what is her family upset about? They had no problem with exploitation when she was raking in the money, and she's been destructive to herself for years now. Even if Dr. Phil wants to use this on his show, but maybe he can really help her, why not let him?

*

On a very serious note, and something that I really do care about. I want to encourage everyone to spend time in prayer for all of the people who have been affected by all the tornadoes across the country this week. I've been listening to Fox News while I've been typing this post today, and apparently one hit an Elementary School in Mississippi just a short time ago, and, after that, another one touched down all the way up in Washington State, and there is also flooding in areas, and plenty of severe weather to go around. We need to pray for the people all over the country who have been affected by this.