Spanks to CountryMouse for this.
F*ck forty!
12 January 2008
11 January 2008
Capricorn Horrorscope
A tad late. Happy Horse's Ass Day to Michael Clem, Rogo, and TripleC. And my thoughts can't help but go to Hans and R.L., the latter with whom I share a horse's ass day.
Starting off a New Year
Whitenoise keeps pestering for nekkid snaps. Does this one of my New Year's toes in FloridaDad's TajMahTub count?
Found a ridiculous calendar that tickles me silly: "Veggies Gone Wild! Produce Behaving Badly". Here's January:
Found a ridiculous calendar that tickles me silly: "Veggies Gone Wild! Produce Behaving Badly". Here's January:
A Country Holiday
Been busy hithering and thithering throughout the South. Remiss in posting these snaps from my country holiday in Yanceyville.
Cousin Lee set an elegant table. Only after dinner did he note that we looked at reindeer bums throughout the meal.
I really liked Lee's Santa, and Santa's blue ball.
CarolinaMom has guests in her back "yard".
The neighbor's barn at sunset.
Cousin Lee set an elegant table. Only after dinner did he note that we looked at reindeer bums throughout the meal.
I really liked Lee's Santa, and Santa's blue ball.
CarolinaMom has guests in her back "yard".
The neighbor's barn at sunset.
09 January 2008
How to Recognize a Bad Idea UPDATED
Between Boone's smoking jacket and Pid's Lucha Libre mask, Scott Meyers is spooking me out. If anyone has a Boone smoking jacket picture lying around, send and I'll post.
From Scott Meyers' Basic Instructions
Updated: Pid in *full* Nacho Libre - um, I mean - Lucha Libre attire.
From Scott Meyers' Basic InstructionsUpdated: Pid in *full* Nacho Libre - um, I mean - Lucha Libre attire.
07 January 2008
A new take on transplants
One person's stuff is another person's sh*t. But when you've got a bug up your ass, another person's sh*t becoming your sh*t is the trick.
Them crazy Canucks!
Them crazy Canucks!
In the market
I'm in the market for a new bed at chez Cheek. But this one for almost fitty grand USD? I'm holding out at least until there's a catheter option. And self reliance appliances. And massage. And nutella on toast with bacon every morning.
What are your must haves?
What are your must haves?
06 January 2008
Why are we here?
"We are here to find meaning. We are here to help other people do the same. Everything else is secondary."
- Hugh MacLeod, gapingvoid.com
Here ucking here!
- Hugh MacLeod, gapingvoid.com
Here ucking here!
Too many mutha uckers ucking with my shi
Allright, all you mutha uckers ucking with my shi. Stand down. Or I'll be the biggest ucking itch on yo' ss that you've ever ucking seen.
And while I'm at it, stop ucking with my peeps. Cause I'll uck you up big time. No shi.
Flight of the Conchords
And while I'm at it, stop ucking with my peeps. Cause I'll uck you up big time. No shi.
Flight of the Conchords
05 January 2008
A blogger (and soldier's) farewell
Found this on fark.com, and it blew me away.
A blogger's farewell after his death in Iraq. Read it. Please.
From Mark Tonra's James
I didn't know Andy Olmsted. Or Sheena's Baba. But I know that the lives they touched were forever changed by the love they gave.
A blogger's farewell after his death in Iraq. Read it. Please.
From Mark Tonra's JamesI didn't know Andy Olmsted. Or Sheena's Baba. But I know that the lives they touched were forever changed by the love they gave.
04 January 2008
02 January 2008
Bullshit, plain and simple
UPDATED
I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
I am *still* disgusted that such a decision could have ever been made in this country. Spanks to The Imp, I discovered that I was not the *only* one with knickers in a twist from an issue that happened in 1970. The good news is that the New Jersey Supreme Court *did* overturn the decision in 1971.
This article, as a social object, is causing quite a stir in the wankosphere. As of this moment, it's the most popular item on time.com. Wonder if they will do more to draw attention to the fact that this is OLD news?
Original post:
I'm disgusted.
I just read about the couple who were told by a judge that they couldn't adopt a child because of their religion - or more specifically, their lack of one.
As a rather famous fellow Virginian once wrote:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
- Thomas Jefferson
Color me crazy, but I believe that adopting children falls within the realm of a "civil capacity". This couple had already proven themselves capable of adopting and raising one child. Who does this effing judge think he is to say that they aren't worthy of doing so again because of how they do or don't worship? Is he not familiar with the first amendment?
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 60 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".) - From Wikipedia
I'm vehemently intolerant of intolerance. And yes, that makes me a hypocrite. But I'm a happy one. This judge failed to do his job, and is foisting his intolerance on others in the face of legal precedent. Here's hoping the New Jersey Supreme Court smells the bullshit for what it is.
/rant mode off
From Hugh MacLeod's gapingvoid.com
01 January 2008
Be Happy. Be New. Be.
From Mark Tonra's JamesI did passing fair with last year's resolution, at least until October or so. For this year, I'll keep it even simpler, and shoot for what is illustrated here.
For 2008, my resolution is to be happy. And to be new. Here's wishing the same for all y'all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
