Name Picking

As you know Mrs. Shoes & I are pregnant. So one of the biggest dilemmas we have is what to name our child so that they don't get the crap beat out of them in school. So I thought I had the perfect name picked out, but then I read this story where a little boy was denied a personalized birthday cake by the local supermarket simply because of his name: Adolf Hitler Campbell. Well, I guess that name gets crossed off our list then. *sigh* And that worked so perfectly for either a boy or a girl, too.

Elmo wishes Happy Birthday to Adolf Hitler Schumann?? I guess he'll never have that chance...

New V.P. Candidate??

On the heels of finding out that John McCain's idea of a qualified Vice Presidential candidate involves being able to win a snowmobile race with a broken arm (or better yet, being married to someone who did), I'd like to present my own V.P. candidate:

Authorities in Arizona say a jogger attacked by a rabid fox ran a mile with the animal's jaws clamped on her arm and then drove herself to a hospital. The Yavapai County sheriff's office said the woman told deputies she was on a trail near Prescott on Monday when the fox attacked and bit her foot.

She said she grabbed the fox by the neck when it went for her leg but it bit her arm. The woman wanted the animal tested for rabies so she ran a mile to her car with the fox still biting her arm, then pried it off and tossed it in her trunk and drove to the Prescott hospital.

The sheriff's office says the fox later bit an animal control officer. He and the woman are both receiving rabies vaccinations.

Forget the rabies vaccinations. I want a person in government who is so angry that they are literally foaming at the mouth! This is my candidate!!

Oh sure, nooooow you tell us....

You know, when John McCain first announced that Sarah Palin was going to be his running mate in the Presidential election, I couldn't stop wondering why. What made him think she was qualified -- other than the obvious reasons like being mayor of a 6,000 person town and being able to see Russia from her home state, of course.

Well, on the day of the actual election, at 1:30pm CST, John McCain spoke in Colorado. He was thanking Palin for invigorating his party, and then he apparently let slip what he feels the qualifications are to be in the Executive Branch of the United States government:

"You know, [Palin]'s got a husband, whose name is Todd and she calls him First Dude. Her husband Todd is a four-time world champion in (a) snowmobile race across Alaska in the middle of winter. One time he was running this race and broke his arm with 250 miles to go and still won. I THINK HE'S READY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., AND SO IS SHE!"

He waits until NOW to let people know that's all it takes?? I guess I can imagine the likes of Tom Ridge and Mitt Romney kicking themselves, thinking "If only I had a wife who raced snowmobiles with a broken limb!" It just goes to show that you really do need to be particular when vetting your spouse....much more so than vetting a V.P. candidate at least.

There Is Nothing To Fear But Barack Obama

With only a week to go until the General Election I'm hearing a lot of worry that Barack Obama will win the U.S. Presidency. According to many, if he wins the election the effects on this country would be truly terrifying. I've made a list of the top 10 concerns that I've run across, showing us what we should be afraid of in President Obama's first term. Fair warning: it's horrible.

#1) Barack Obama is a Muslim and the U.S. Constitution will immediately be translated into Arabic once he takes office. Our currency will be changed to say "In Allah We Trust". Christianity will be banned.

#2) Since Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist, and is supported by them as well, he will appoint his fellow terrorists to his cabinet. Osama bin Laden will be the new Secretary of State. The prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will be released and become Washington lobbyists for the Pro-Suicide Bombing movement.

#3) President Obama will sit down with Iran's Mahmoud Achmedinejad and together they'll figure out which countries -- along with Israel, of course -- to wipe off the map. Obama will trade nuclear weapons with Iran, in return for a new finely-woven prayer rug.

#4) The troops from Iraq will be brought home immediately in defeat. But as their transport planes land in the States, the terrorists will be landing behind them, following them home to fight us here. The initial battles will take place at Baggage Claim.

#5) We will not be able to protect ourselves from these terrorists because Obama will pass laws to take away all of our guns. In fact, it will be illegal to possess any type of weapon at all, including knives and sharp sticks. The new social-issue question of our time will be how to define the word "sharp" as people will differ on its ambiguous meaning.

#6) Abortion will not only remain legal, but it will become mandatory. Every woman shall be required to have at least one abortion or be subject to pay a fine. In fact, tax credits will be offered for multiple abortions. The question of "When does life actually begin?" will be answered once and for all: 6 months after birth. This will now be the legal timeline of when a child can be aborted.

#7) Teachers in the inner-cities will now be paid $240,000/year, falling just below the next tax bracket. All of the good teachers will move to the inner-cities, providing quality education to the poor and minority children. These inner-city children will begin making the highest test scores, and the suburban white children will be left behind with inadequate teachers. The suburban parents will complain that it is unfair.

#8) Reparations for slavery will begin slowly, but immediately. Once a week, for 10 minutes, black students will be allowed to beat the crap out of white students.

#9) The tax on businesses making $250,000/year or more will be raised to 80%, inspiring business owners to work less hours and provide fewer services, so as not to be so successful. The tax money will be used to pay $65,000/year to the 40% of Americans who are lazy and unemployed -- they will not be taxed on this income, continuing their time-honored tradition of not paying federal taxes.

#10) All plumbers will actually have to become licensed to plumb legally, let alone buy a plumbing business, completely screwing Joe.

2-Year Anniversary Vetting Surprise

Wow, how 2 years flies by.... Today, Mrs. Shoes and I celebrate our 2nd Wedding Anniversary. And while I would love to call my beautiful wife a goddess, apparently up until now she's only been vetted for that role in the same fashion that Sarah Palin was vetted for Vice President. But according to Hindu and Buddhist priests in Katmandu, Nepal, 3-year old Matani Shakya has been declared a living goddess or "kumari".

"A panel of judges conducted a series of ancient ceremonies to select the goddess from several 2- to 4-year-old girls....The judges read the candidates' horoscopes and check each one for physical imperfections. The living goddess must have perfect hair, eyes, teeth and skin with no scars, and should not be afraid of the dark."

That's right. No nightlights for these wannabe goddesses. 2-4 year old girls must learn that there's simply nothing to fear from the dark. Which is why "As a final test, the living goddess must spend a night alone in a room among the heads of ritually slaughtered goats and buffaloes without showing fear."

So Happy Anniversary Sweetie! I've always wanted to call you my goddess, and now I finally know how to prove it. It was kind of difficult to round up a buffalo, but....ah well, see ya tonight!!

This is great!!

I've got to say that Tina Fey does such a fantastic job as Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. Just watch a few exceprts of Tina Fey's satirical portrayal of Palin's interview with Katie Couric.

AND...



Wow!! Now THAT was hysterical.

Tina Fey just nailed the-- what? I'm sorry, that was the actual interview of Sarah Palin??? Well, I guess it's still funny...and would probably be more so except that some people still think she's ready to be in the White House.

The 2008 Election

The ad campaigns for President have begun. Whether or not they're true is a different matter altogether. Unfortunately, not nearly enough people in this country take the 5-10 minutes necessary to research whether or not a candidate's claims are true or false. The internet is the quickest, easiest way to get unbiased, non-partisan views that aren't clouded by politics.

**Change**

The Republican party is actually attempting to run a campaign based upon "change" when they've been in power for the last 8 years. I don't know if it's unprecedented or not, but it's certainly something that is strange to witness.

Barack Obama has a powerful line of argument, though, when he says that John McCain has voted in line with Bush 95% of the time. Is this true? Factcheck.org wrote:

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

So are people actually going to believe McCain when he says that he represents the change that Washington needs? It remains to be seen, but the record certainly indicates that they shouldn't.

**Do-Nothing Congress**

This 110th Congress has been criticized for being a "Do-Nothing Congress" and has received record low approval ratings falling below that of even President Bush's ratings. Is this a fair assessment of the new Democratic majority?

Yes and no. The truth is that the Congress has not accomplished a great number of things. However, people have to think "ok, why is that?" The main answer is the filibuster. According to the New York Times, back in December 2007:

"So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78."

In fact, also quoted in the article is the leader of a conservative research group in Washington who says that the Republicans are turning the filibuster into a primary strategy.

Again, will the strategy work? To filibuster more than any other Congress in history in just the first year of a 2-year cycle, but then leave that part out when you say that the Democratic-led Congress hasn't done anything? It remains to be seen.

**Economy**

With the U.S. economy in such poor shape, this will play a major role in who a lot of people cast their vote for. John McCain has repeatedly said that the economy is strong, we're not headed into a recession and that the times have been prosperous with low unemployment. He has said that the economic problems are "psychological".
Yet, are people going to still listen to McCain when he says that he can fix the economy, when he doesn't even admit the economy is a problem?

**Taxes**

McCain and Obama have both offered up their tax proposals as well. The Republicans love to say that the Democrats will raise your taxes, and it's proven to be a great campaign asset for them thru the years. However, in this campaign, McCain is still using that argument when the facts actually show differently.

Since my words won't express it as well as the column's, here is an article that Newsweek published about a McCain ad that attacked Obama's tax proposals:

"We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates' tax plans. When we asked him if Obama's claim that he would 'cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families' was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was 'consistent with our estimates.' Overall, the TPC found that Obama's plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

"Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

"Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

"[McCain's] ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about 'years of deficits.' But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame.

"The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.

"McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was 'unlikely':

"Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): 'It's feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can't see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.'

"McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was '"not credible'."

But will people actually pay attention to this? Or will they just assume that the Democrats raise taxes for everyone, period? It remains to be seen, but hopefully people can pay attention to this.

**Experience**

This was a hot-button topic for a long time. McCain accused Obama of not having any experience. The entire right-wing accused him of this. And then McCain went and nominated Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin for his Vice President.

Obviously, there has been much talk of Palin lately because she's new on the scene. No one knows anything about her, so as journalists try to find things out, stories get reported on. They question her readiness to be the V.P. of the United States...and Palin criticizes the media for it. Isn't it their job to ask these questions?

Now I know that Jon Stewart isn't a news source, and his main -- and only -- job is to be humorous, but he and his staff put together a really funny, yet accurate, clip regarding the Sarah Palin nomination:

The great part about guys like Stewart, besides just being really funny, are their ability to find clips and quotes of people when they contradict themselves when it suits them politically.

So it comes down to "executive experience". The McCain party claimed that Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency because she has more executive experience than either Obama or Joe Biden combined. They never mention the fact that she has more executive experience than John McCain as well.

And what does her experience boil down to? Mayor of a town that had less than 10,000 people in it, and governor of the 47th most populous state in the union. In fact, when she ran for mayor of Wasilla, AK she won the position with a total of 909 votes. She then hired a lobbyist to secure $27 million in federal funds for the small town, even though she says that she is against Washington earmarks.

Palin became governor of Alaska in Dec. 2006. When she ran for the office one of her platforms was to continue securing federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere", a bridge that would replace the ferry between Ketchikan, AK to the Ketchikan Int'l Airport located on an island. Once elected governor, Palin changed her mind on the issue...and then trying to take credit for her stance against earmarks gave her famous line "thanks, but no thanks" in her V.P. acceptance speech.

As governor, I really thought that being in charge of the National Guard would stand in her favor. And I read this which looked good for her:

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin 'extremely responsive and smart' and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder."

That's a pretty darn good endorsement. Of course, it was immediately followed by this:

"But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, [Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell] said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

If you watched the Republican National Convention, the majority of speeches were ridiculing and mocking the Obama campaign. They said the right things in order to fire up their base, igniting chants of "Drill Baby Drill" and "USA USA". While I don't doubt that the Republicans have the best intentions of the United States at heart, their mocking attitude of superiority is sickening. I honestly tried to like Sarah Palin during her speech...I liked her when she talked about her family; however, I despised her for not telling us about herself politically, but rather jumping on the offensive and resorting to sarcastic remarks about the oppostition. That didn't make her look fresh or new as the McCain campaign had hoped for. It made her look like just another Republican politician.

In summary, I just wish that people would take the 5-10 minutes to research something that they hear the politicians, and the pundits, talk about. Figure out if their claims are true. Make your voting decisions based upon policies, not about who you'd rather have in your kitchen for dinner. Because they're not coming to your house....but their decisions as President will effect what happens inside of it.

Prager-licious

Graffiti is probably going to be the evil force that destroys America. The perpetrators of this crime are called 'taggers'. There's only one way to stop them: With a gun.

I'm wondering why there aren't more voices on the airwaves out there preaching the kind of good morals and behavior of Dennis Prager. His words of wisdom move me to tears sometimes. (Can you cry from shame?) Recently, Dennis wrote a column about graffiti vandals and also talked about it on his radio show. He said:

"So you will now say -- I hear the voice of an ACLU member -- 'Dennis, do you think that this guy should have shot these people spray painting graffiti on his shop?' To which my answer is yes. I do. Not to kill. Not to kill. But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right. Because anybody on the left hearing this would think that this is barbaric whereas I consider not stopping these people in any way that is necessary to be barbaric."

How can anyone with an ounce of sanity not agree with this? OF COURSE the crime of graffiti deserves the punishment of being shot by a civilian taking the law into their own hands. How does this not make sense to people?

I'm sure that everyone who owns a handgun is a REALLY good shot with it. So right off the bat, we can erase the possibility of error from the equation. There would absolutely be no chance of anything going wrong like, say, missing the target and hitting an innocent bystander by mistake. And let's not forget that Prager suggests/urges that people shoot these vandals not to kill. Not to kill. Only to wound them by shooting them in the leg or arm. But couldn't the shooter accidently miss the leg and hit the torso by accident, possibly killing the tagger? This is a tough one... Dennis, do you have anything for us?

"I have no desire to see a graffiti vandal killed....But if enough taggers are wounded, their assault on civilization will decline dramatically. And if one accidentally dies? That would be a tragedy. But here is the bottom line: More innocent people will die if tagging is not stopped than if it is."

Exaclty! So a young kid dies. Yeah, that's awful, but probably for the best in the end. I mean, we all know that there is absolutely no way of reaching young kids and educating them, so really the only other option is shooting them.

Also, Dennis couldn't be more right in calling the shooter in an incident like this "one of the great advancers of civilization in my time." Now, some people might balk at this statement, saying that it's the lunatic rantings of an ignorant, blinded blowhard. But let's be honest: Dennis' "time" only includes the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and John F. Kennedy to name a few. Those people can't be compared to a hardware store owner who shoots a 15-year old kid in the leg for spray-painting, can they?

Mr. Prager also brings up another great point in his column:

"...Conservatives tend to view higher civilization as more fragile than the left views it. Conservatives believe the line between civilization and barbarism is under constant assault and is not necessarily enduring. That is one reason the right tends to have a higher regard for the police than does the left. Conservatives see the police as 'the thin blue line' that separates civilization from barbarians."

And people want to say that Conservatives try to spread their agenda by fear?? How so?? Just because they're afraid of everything??

I mean, obviously Conservatives on the right "have a higher regard for the police", and demonstrate that higher regard for the police by going around them and condoning citizens to take the law into their own hands.

Because that's what the police want, need and expect of us, right? To simply remove them from the equation. Why are more of us simply not skipping the whole legal process and moving directly to punishment doled out at our own discretion? That ought to help to further separate a civilized society from barabarism.

Dennis lives in reality. Plain and simple. He says:

"My first wish is that taggers be arrested and punished. I also wish for world peace and a cure for cancer. But the real-life choice is almost always between taggers getting away with their vandalism and an irate citizen taking action."

So how do we solve these problems? Well, since world peace is impossible, we should just invade other countries and force upon them our own ideals. And since arresting and punishing a graffiti vandal is impossible we should just have ordinary citizens take the law into their own hands, ignoring all aspects of due process, and shoot the criminals. So, sticking with this same thought-process, why are we so leniant on cancer? Shouldn't we be more aggressive? Couldn't we just try invading cancer? We could try shooting it. Because as Conservatives know, a gun can solve anything.

So, learning from Dennis Prager here, please good citizens, if you happen to see a vandal spray-painting a wall, garage or storefront, please don't call the police. Have a little respect for them by making their job easier and shooting the vandal yourself. Ahhhhhh, if you're really quiet you can almost hear the advancement of civilization with every shot fired....although that might just be the sound of the blood-curdling cry of pain....or the distant wail of ambulance sirens.

God in the News: With a Little Help From My Friends

I know that my frequency of posting has greatly diminished but I have to say that in the interim I really appreciate the fact that people find some crazy stories out there, and send them to me as "perfect blog material." It makes my job easier...so keep sending them in!!

*Transitional Species*

When it comes to God in the News, I suppose I could start with debating Evolution vs. Creation. Evolutionists point to scientific theories backed up by data, geology records, fossil records, etc... Creationists point out that someone wrote down in a book that God created everything. Seems pretty evenly matched so far, right? Well, Creationists also like to punch holes in the theory of evolution with the "fact" that there have been no transitional fossils ever found. Boom! Case closed! I guess maybe we shouldn't have those people look at this website that just names a few of the transitional fossils found, not to mention the many others.

But you say you want more proof? Ok. How about this claim that 3 men found a Bigfoot. That's right, a Sasquatch. A Yetti. A Walking Hairy Dude With Size 19s!

If that's not a transitional species, then I don't know what one is. Ok, it's probably safe to assume that I don't know what one is. What I do know is that this Bigfoot (seen stuffed into a freezer above) supposedly stood at 7'7" tall. Now, I've seen "Teen Wolf" so I know that hairy animals can play basketball...and at over 7 and a half feet in height, B-Dub would easily be a lottery pick for the Memphis Grizzlies.


And if this isn't proof enough for you non-believers, how about taking a closer look at the 3 "men" (seen above) who captured Bigfoot before folding him in half and putting him into a freezer, not even caring about contaminating their Klondike bars and frozen burritos. If you want to tell me that all 3 of these guys are genetically human, you'd better come up with more proof than your word. I've got eyes. And that guy in the middle is definitely a transitional species between plant and man. Not to mention that the guy on the left looks like some kind of cyborg with a robotic arm, and the guy on the right seems to have swallowed a tin pie pan.

You want more? Fine. I give you the Malaysian pen-tailed tree shrew. These little animals survive on a diet that is basically 100% beer! They drink the "fermented nectar of the flower buds of the bertam palm plant", which can reach up to 3.8% alcohol content. According to the article, they could drink any fratboy under the table. However, I happen to know a few fratboys that would beg to challenge that. They'd want to go head-to-head with this little tree-hugger (literally, it hugs trees to survive in the trees of Malaysia). So you tell me who is smarter? The still-sober tree shrew, or a Kappa Phi Beta who just did 4 kegstands and is nude on the front porch of his frat house while taunting a squirrel for not being able to hold its liquor?

Not a fair comparison, you say? Ok. How about one of the scientists studying this fascinating animal: Marc-André Lachance, a microbiologist at the University of Western Ontario. He speaks of the Bertam Palm Plant that the tree shrew drinks from and describes it as such:

"This plant in that part of Malaysia is quite widespread," Lachance said. "It's a very spiny, very uninviting plant. The lower buds from which the alcohol comes out are very sharp. You can easily hurt yourself on them. I speak from experience."

He speaks from EXPERIENCE?! So in hopes of getting his drink on in Malaysia, this research scientist lowered himself to the ground in the woods, leaned his head inside of a "very spiny, very uninviting plant" and tried to suck out nectar with the equivelant alcohol content of a bottle of Miller High Life? Ok, who's smarter? At least the tree shrew has the excuse of not having thumbs to open the bottle.

I offer up all of the above as evidence of transitional species: The tree shrew will one day evolve into students at the University of Southern Illinois....and the fratboys -- along with scientist Marc-André Lachance -- are not quite human yet. I'd say at least a step or two behind the furry, drunk Malaysian tree dweller.

*My Faith Is A Rock*

Keeping with the theme of God in the News, I've got to give it up to the people who want to emulate the disciple Peter. He's known as The Rock -- the original one, not the wrestler/actor. Matthew 16:18 states: "[Jesus said,] 'And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.'"

What a strong, bold statement. The Church is a rock. It's a foundation, and not even the gates of Hell will overcome it. Inspiring words...so much so that the Roman Catholic Church in Italy has decided to follow its parishoners on their holidays so they can preach to them on the beaches from inflatable churches.

"Catholic nuns and priests in Italy are following their flocks to the beach this summer, establishing an inflatable church and a beach-convent in the sands to lure sunbathers.
The 30-metre (98 ft) long blow-up church -- staffed by priests ready to take confession -- will debut on Saturday on the Adriatic coast in the Molise region, an organizer said."

It's just what every beach-goer wants: to get drunk, swim in the Adriatic Sea, sunbathe nude...and then, completely sunburned, stumble over to something that they think is a giant jumpy house and end up in confession with a priest wearing an inflatable, blow-up samurai body.

So not even the Gates of Hell can overcome the Church...but apparently a safety pin can. And in case of a water landing, your local Church can also be used as a flotation device.

**A Little Bit of Prager On My Mind...**

So if the idea of a blow-up Church actually shakes your faith, rather than strengthens it, who are you going to look to in order to restore it? I always turn to my own personal rock of sound reasoning, Dennis Prager. I hate to keep singaling out our Conservative friend here, but he makes it so easy...

I give you one of his latest columns "If There Is No God" in which he makes 14 "points" as to why there being the existence of God is better than not having Him exist.

1 - Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil."

Wow. Excellent "point". If it wasn't written on a stone tablet, brought down from a mountain, how would we know what was right or wrong? How would we possibly know that charity is good? In fact, murder and theft might just be fun hobbies if there wasn't a God.

2 - Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.

Sheesh...I had no idea that if God didn't exist my life would only have the same purpose as a pebble. Kind of bleak when you think about it. Because being a random creature, evolved over millions of years is a horrible way to look at things isn't it? Every great step forward that humans have made has all been in vain. We should stop studying the past to learn where we came from and for crying out loud, stop trying to be happy and make a better future for those that come after us.

3 - Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die -- some horrifically, many prematurely -- and there is only oblivion afterward.

So true. If there's no God, then obviously the life we live can't include some happiness and joy as well. And those people that died peacefully or heroically: what a waste!!

4 - Human beings need instruction manuals.

Doesn't it say as much in the Bible? I'm paraphrasing here, but isn't there a passage in Genesis that says "And God created man. Some assembly required and there's an instruction manual printed in six languages taped to his back. For ages 3+. And it was good."

5- If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

Ahhh....one of my favorites. There must be a God. Why? Because it makes me feel better about tragedies. Because if there's no God, then Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler will both be written about in fairy tales, sipping tea together on a sunny afternoon in the park. No one can tell the difference in their two lives without the existence of God. I know I can't. Did Mother Teresa have a mustache?

6 - With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

Yeah, that whole World War that took place on the ground in Europe, killing hundreds of millions of people really was a waste of time. No one believes it did any good. With a good God in existence we need to invade more countries. That ought to show that that God not only exists but that He's on our side.

7 - Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational.

Why can't we all just be rational? Without God, I guess people would actually want proof that something happened, rather than just believing it. Of all the nerve...Why can't they just believe in rational ideas like the fact that Jonah lived inside the mouth of a fish for 3 days?

8 - If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment.

I guess he's right. Nothing I do is by choice. Without God, I should just be able to walk into a Red Lobster, strip naked and jump into the tank with the lobsters. Since I know that their claws are banded I'll be safe. So then I'll just get out, grab myself a tasty crustacean and walk back out to my car. If the cops ask me why I did it, all I have to say is that it was in my genes. I had no choice. So there must be a God, because I've chosen not to do that in my life......yet!

9 - If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value.

a) I'm glad he italicized "other" because I wouldn't have known what he "meant" by "animals" if he didn't.
b) He did forget pebbles this time. If there's no God, then humans and "other" animals and pebbles are all of equal value. That makes sense.

10 - Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art.

How true. I mean look at the Beijing Olympics for example. On the whole, China doesn't condone religion...and look at all the crappy ideas the Chinese had in mind for the 2008 Olympic Games:



What a total lack of inspiration...

...And, well, there are actually 4 more "points" that Prager makes, but they seem more like ramblings than points. But I'm glad that we can always rely on him to continually make such strong arguments. That's why I "respect" him so "much".

Do Sons of Steel Mill Workers Now Have a Bad Rap??

When the Republicans have so much going against them: a terrible economy, the War in Iraq still going on, a lack of any healthcare plan whatsoever....what the Democrats simply don't need are scandals.

The Road to the White House for Barack Obama looked to be smoothly paved. Put the campaign car in cruise control, don't make any embarassingly wrong turns, and 1600 W. Pennsylvania Ave should reached on Jan 20, 2009.

But, instead, the Party will be reflected upon poorly because another highly regarded Democrat has admitted to having an extramarital affair: this time it was John Edwards -- a man who is not running for President any longer; a man who is not a sitting U.S. Senator any longer And yet, in a news media obsessed with sex scandals -- because that's what they assume people care about most -- this will be a major story that will lower independent's support for Obama.

To make matters bad, Edwards' wife Elizabeth has an incurable form of cancer.

To make matters worse, he ended up getting caught by The National Enquirer. That's right, I said The National Enquirer. So Edwards can hide the affair from every news organization following him around during both a 2004 Vice-Presidential run, and a 2008 Presidential run.....but he can't skirt by the people who tell us about how Britney Spears rides around in cars without underwear, or seatbelts for her children.

Ok, you got me. I used Britney Spears' name in the same blog as Barack Obama. Obviously, I'm linking the two together just as John McCain has tried to do in his political ad:

I never thought I'd say this, but I guess I'd rather have Obama's name linked to Paris Hilton & Britney Spears than with John Edwards right now.

This is politics people! Sadly, it doesn't matter how good your foreign and social policies are if you can't keep it in your pants.

What Ever Happened to Beaver??

I used to think we lived in a pretty good world. Boy was I wrong! Of course I didn't realize how very ignorant I was until I read Dennis Prager's column on Townhall.com, titled "When I Was A Boy, America Was A Better Place." You see, this is something I'd never heard of before: an old man complaining that the world is different from when he grew up. Inconceivable!! And while Mr. Prager may be nearing that age where his foods might not be solid, it's good to know that his arguments and Grandpa Simpson-esque complaints still are.

The day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, I said to my then-teenage son, "David, please forgive me. I am handing over to you a worse America than my father handed over to me." Unfortunately, I still feel this way.

With the important exception of racial discrimination -- which was already dying a natural death when I was young -- it is difficult to come up with an important area in which America is significantly better than when I was a boy. But I can think of many in which its quality of life has deteriorated.

Yeah, a guilty man walked free from a crime because he had money to pay for an expensive attorney. I'm with ya Dennis.

And of course he's right that when he was a boy, racial discrimination "was already dying a natural death." Prager was born in that luckiest of times to be a minority: Just after WWII, in 1948. He was just a young child in 1954 for the natural chain of events that led to the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. We all know that nothing is more natural than the progression of a segregation trial that ends up in the Supreme Court of the United States.

He was just a 7-year old boy when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white person. And if I've read my history correctly, at the time everyone pretty much felt she was in the right, because racial descrimination was a dying entity.

Luckily for Prager, he was a boy in his mid-teens in 1963 when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, which pretty much put an end to any and all discrimination. I don't think there's been any since, right? Ahhhhhh, the natural death of racial discrimination.

Today, people at work, to cite but one example, are far less free to speak naturally. Every word, gesture and look, even one's illustrated calendar, is now monitored lest a fellow employee feel offended and bring charges of sexual harassment or creating a "hostile work environment" or being racially, religiously or ethnically insensitive, or insensitive to another's sexual orientation.

It was so much nicer back in Prager's day when you didn't have to worry about being racially, religiously or ethnically sensitive -- you just didn't have to hire those kinds of people if you didn't want to. How simple was that?? And as for someone's sexual orientation? If we can't even expect our military to exclude gays, what hope does the work force have? Right on Dennis!

When I was a 7-year-old boy, I flew alone from New York to my aunt and uncle in Miami and did the same thing coming back to New York. I boarded the plane on my own and got off the plane on my own. No papers for my parents to fill out. No extra fee to pay the airline. I was responsible for myself. Had I run away or been kidnapped, no one would have sued the airline. Today, fear of lawsuits is a dominant fact of American life.

I feel horrible for Mr. Prager. When he was 7, it was right at the same time as the Rosa Parks bus incident. Luckily, on an airplane in 1955, little Dennis didn't need to worry about any black people sitting in his seat, since white people wouldn't hire them and they couldn't afford the ticket.

I just don't understand why we don't send more children cross-country on their own. Where is the harm in that? What is this country coming to? It's lawsuit this, and lawsuit that...and all because people saw a way to punish -- after getting screwed by -- bigger corporations with pocketbooks deeper than the chasm that those aliens were found in The Abyss. Granted, an upset lawyer suing a dry-cleaner for $65 million might be a bit excessive, but they DID lose his pants after all.

When I was boy, I was surrounded by adult men. Today, most American boys (and girls, of course) come into contact with no adult man all day every school day. Their teachers and school principals are all likely to be women. And if, as is often the case, there is no father at home (not solely because of divorce but because "family" courts have allowed many divorced mothers to remove fathers from their children's lives), boys almost never come into contact with the most important group of people in a boy's life -- adult men.

Several good points here!!

a) teachers and school principals are likely to be women now?? *sigh* Can't we just ask them if they're a woman when they apply for the job in the first place and then just not hire them? Apparently not any more.

b) and what's up with family courts (or "family" courts, as Dennis likes to put it) not granting custody to unfit fathers? If a father drinks too much, is abusive, or has a tendency to throw key-parties with the neighbors, then what right does a divorcing mother have to remove and protect her child from that behavior? It's sad to think that if I get caught blowing lines of coke off of a hooker's thigh, that I might lose the weekend privelages with my 5-year old boy. How am I supposed to bond with him? Seriously, that'll really make you think twice, so that you don't get caught.

When I was a boy, the purpose of American history textbooks was to teach American history. Today, the purpose of most American history texts is to make minorities and females feel good about themselves. As a result, American kids today are deprived of the opportunity to feel good about being American (not to mention deprived of historical truth). They are encouraged to feel pride about all identities -- African-American, Hispanic, Asian, female, gay -- other than American.

I'm with Dennis: I hate that we try to make people -- especially those who have been oppressed, ridiculed and discriminated against -- "feel good about themselves." Why should they be made to feel proud of their heritage? Shouldn't they mock it like Americans used to do? That ought to make them feel proud to be an American!! Because it's not the fact that we're all equal in this country that matters; it's the fact that we're all the same, no matter where we came from....you know, as long as we diminish any importance to where we actually came from. Because America isn't supposed to be the great melting pot of rich histories -- it's supposed to be a bunch of suburban Americans going out to The Melting Pot for fondue.

When I was a teenage boy, getting to kiss a girl, let alone to touch her thigh or her breast (even over her clothes) was the thrill of a lifetime. Most of us could only dream of a day later on in life when oral sex would take place (a term most of us had never heard of). But of course, we were not raised by educators or parents who believed that "teenagers will have sex no matter what." Most of us rarely if ever saw a naked female in photos (the "dirty pictures" we got a chance to look at never showed "everything"), let alone in movies or in real life. We were, in short, allowed to be relatively innocent. And even without sex education and condom placement classes, few of us ever got a girl pregnant.

Wow!! What happened to those good old days when a teenage boy received the thrill of a lifetime by touching a girl's thigh? Ahhhh, those innocent 1960s that he recalls.....those must have been the days!! Forget for a moment the obvious innocence of teenagers in the 60s. It must have been such a blessing for the adults and teachers to just blindly believe that the kids weren't having sex or doing drugs, or watching Elvis Presley shake his hips. Much better to close your eyes to the reality of the 1960s and perceive the "Leave-It-To-Beaver reality" that you choose to believe in, than to maybe confront those issues. In fact, why do we even try to inform and protect a teenager who engages in sexual activity? Shouldn't we just ensure their ignorance on the subject so that they can make their decisions without the knowledge that we posess on dieases and pregnancies? Can't we go back to those innocent days where we could just chastise anyone who got pregnant as a teenager or caught a disease because they had it coming to them?!

When I was a boy, "I Love Lucy" showed two separate beds in Lucy and Ricky's bedroom -- and they were a married couple. Today, MTV and most TV saturate viewers' lives with sexual imagery and sexual talk, virtually all of which is loveless and, of course, non-marital.

When I was boy, people dressed up to go to baseball games, visit the doctor and travel on airplanes. Today, people don't dress up even for church.

Think about how much better it would be if our parents slept in separate beds? Then marriage could be viewed as it's supposed to be: like summer camp.

And yeah, it's a horrible society where people actually want to be comfortable for a crammed, 4-hour flight in coach from Cincinnati to Salt Lake City. If the person next to you is going to make disgusting sniffing noises all flight, slurp his orange juice and smell bad, the least he could be doing is wearing a sweater vest.

Can we return to the America of my youth? No. Can we return to the best values of that time? Yes. But not if both houses of Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court move the country even further leftward. If that happens, many of the above noted changes will simply be accelerated.

Yes, Mr. Prager is absolutely right! How did we even let the country deteriorate to the point where he's so very ashamed of it? It must have been all of those liberal, left-wing Democrats that we've elected President in the last 40 years...you know, both of them! Since 1969 (when Prager was 21), Jimmy Carter was President for 4 years, and Bill Clinton for 8. Those 12 years out of the last 40 under a Democratic Preisdent surely destroyed his innocence. I guess we can only thank the other 32 years of Republican Presidencies that we're not even worse off than we are.

One can only hope that a 71-year old white man can win the office of President in November, so that he can continue providing our young, innocent children what we're supposed to provide them with: death in an unnecessary war, isolation from the world, further neglection of the middle class so as to continue building the empires of the richest 1%.....and the hope to one day feel a girl's breast. I lament with you Mr. Prager.

ROCK CHALK JAYHAWK!!!

NCAA Division I Basketball National Champions in 2008!!!

Not much else to say...What a great weekend to beat North Carolina by 18...and then win one of the best National Title games in recent memory. Down 9 points with less than 2 minutes in the game...Huge shots, made free throws, 3 pointers by Collins and the Unbelievably clutch shot by Mario Chalmers.

(Did I mention BCS Orange Bowl champs, too??)

What a great year to be a Jayhawk!

Here's the scene of 40,000 Hawk fans crowding downtown Lawrence on Mass Street:

Party on Hawks!!! Rock Chalk!!!

God in the News...Whatchoo Talking Bout?

After a little hiatus from "God in the News" I'm glad to report that it's back, in all of its Omnipotent News Glory. I know that I normally start out by telling you that "The World is Ending" but I think I'll stay away from that this time. Why? Because apparently the world is NOT ending. Need proof???

**End of the World?**

Members of a Russian cult are starting to trickle out of a cave, where they had holed themselves up since last November to await the end of the world, which is apparently supposed to happen this May. Self-declared prophet Pyotr Kuznetsov "left his family and established the True Russian Orthodox Church and recruited followers in Russia and Belarus. His followers were not allowed to watch television, listen to the radio or handle money, Russian media have reported."

I think people are being a little hard on Pyotr here. He was an engineer from a devout Russian family, so clearly he abandoned the material things in life in order to serve God. And doesn't it even say somewhere in the Bible that we're not allowed to watch television or listen to the radio?? (source needed)

So why did the cult...ahem, Church members decide to come out into the open? Did they come to their senses and realize that maybe the world really isn't going to end this May?? Or did this have something to do with it?

"[Last] Friday...melting spring snows caused part of the shelter to cave in, sparking fears that the entire structure could collapse....and more of the cave had collapsed around dawn Tuesday. Cult members told emergency officials that they had had a divine vision overnight that instructed them to leave."

I imagine that this divine vision looked something like a coal miner with a light strapped to his head, shouting in a Scotish accent, "Get the hell out of here!! She's goin to crumble!" Ahh, divine visions...we should all be so lucky.

Who is this man? a) Borat, b) Gary Oldman, c) cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov

**End of your credit?**

Well shoot! If we can't trust a guy who is a self-proclaimed prophet, then who can we trust? Luckily we have actual ordained pastors, ministers and priests on our side. Such as the Rev. Raymond Clayton, former pastor of a Northumberland County [Pennsylvania] church. Last Monday Rev. Clayton plead guilty in federal court to a charge of access device fraud, in which he acknowledged using parishioners' personal information to obtain credit cards.

"Following the plea, 83-year-old church member Patricia Tomedi said, 'Thank God.' Tomedi says she's lost 20 pounds since Clayton was charged with stealing church members' identities. Her's was one of the Social Security numbers he used.'

I really don't see how people are viewing this as a bad thing. The way I see it Rev. Clayton is simply on to a better weight-loss scheme than Jered's Subway sandwiches. Tomedi said she lost 20 pounds!!!! That's fantastic! It really sheds a whole new light on the if-life-hands-you-lemons-make-lemonade viewpoint.... So if-your-pastor-steals-your-identity-curl-up-in-a-little-ball-stop-eating-and-lose-weight. It's got a certain ring to it. God's diet plan at work!

**Wright vs. Right??**

In recent news, we've all seen the video clips of Barack Obama's former pastor Rev. Wright. In the heat of the moment, he's made some pretty outlandish claims. And even though Obama says that he denounces any type of anti-American statements made by Rev. Wright, it appears that the political right-wing still wants to tie Obama to those comments. And why not?? I mean, look at the claims that Rev. Wright is making....In the middle of a sermon trying to challenge his congregation to think about things, Wright said that instead of blessing America, blacks should damn it for its mistreatment of them and suggested that the nation had brought the attacks of Sept. 11 on itself.

We have to think about this rationally, people. How can the Sept. 11th attacks have been brought upon by ourselves, when we know fully well that the truth behind the Sept. 11th attacks was clearly stated by Rev. Jerry Falwell:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

Evangelist Pat Robertson's immediate response to Falwell's claim: "Well, I totally concur."

See, now THAT makes sense! As we all know, one of the main items of the homosexual agenda is to ruin the institution of marriage....by being allowed to be part of it. Kind of like the kids on the playground who stink at kickball yet want to play, too: Don't they know that by joining the game, their awkwardness and lack of skills ruins the game?? So they should just be left out! They can go play 4-square or hopscotch, though...that's almost the same, right?

So basically we need to continue trying to ban gays from getting married. And not just for the fact that we don't approve of who they're sleeping with, but rather a much more noble cause: to prevent more attacks on our country by radical Islamic terrorists. Because everyone can see how closely those two things are linked.

**Right vs. Marriage??**

The sanctity of marriage must be protected! Think about what we're looking to protect here: One man. One woman. One wedding dress made from toilet paper. These things are crucial to our stable way of life here in America. Marriage is something that needs to be taken seriously. It is a covenant of love made before the eyes of God. And who doesn't want to stand before God wearing this:

Personally I would have thought strapless the way to go, but maybe she just needed to finish off the last of the roll. And if she did, I can just see the lucky groom on their honeymoon, sitting on the toilet and noticing that there is no more toilet paper.... "Honey, if you're going to use the last of the toilet paper, please at least be courteous enough to let me wipe with your wedding dress!"

I guess when you really think about it, maybe we should let anyone marry whomever they wish. Hell, if Gary Coleman can get married to a woman twice his size, then why not, right? This is obviously what God had in mind for marriage:

And if marriage really does make you smarter, as a recent article tries to suggest, then that might explain Coleman's stupidity beforehand, thinking that he was still a celebrity that needed to get married in secret. However, does it really explain his recent ad with I Can't Believe It's Not Butter?

(Ever wondered why Gary Coleman isn't invited to your Thanksgiving? Just watch him eat)

If Coleman really wanted to make some money, why not do it the old fashioned way? You know, the way our forefathers did it. Hard work, long hours, dedication...and occasionally offering to be bitten by mosquitoes infected with malaria.

"The Seattle Biomedical Research Institute will pay volunteers as much as $4,000 to be bitten by mosquitoes infected with malaria. Scientists say no lives are in danger because the volunteers can be cured. The institute is testing which vaccines work fastest."

That seems worth it!!

Hope: Maybe we can all feel it...

Senator Barack Obama gave a speech on Tuesday, March 18th about racism. He delivered this speech because he needed to address some of the comments made by the Pastor of his church in Chicago. I think it's something everyone should invest the 37 minutes and 10 seconds to watch.



Hopefully this was able to motivate people...open people's eyes to the fact that racism still exists and it's naive to believe otherwise. However, here is a column I read by Mary Katherine Ham, a columnist on Townhall.com. She says:

"...what does [Obama] ask in this speech and of whom does he ask it? How will we form a 'more perfect union,' according to Obama, and who needs to do the forming?"

She quotes Obama here:

"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."

How does Ham respond to this good message?

"Note that while Obama conceded that not all of whites' race issues are entirely unjustified ('And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.'), he did not ask the black community to try to understand them. But he did ask that of white Americans. In fact, that should be the white community's first priority."

Sadly, that's how she took those comments. Rather than feel inspired, she felt offended. And how does she justify this? By quoting this part of Obama's speech:

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

To a reasonable ear this sounds completely legitimate and inspiring. It raises hope that maybe we CAN rise to that point in our lifetime. Maybe we CAN provide for our children in a fashion that all of them can get an equal education, and therefore close the gap on opportunity discrepencies.

But what does Ham say?

"In short: Black people, continue to ask more of this oppressive society in which you live without becoming victims of that oppression. White people, try to learn not to be so darn oppressive, huh? ... Obama asks white people to perform the same rites every leader before him has, atoning for the country's historic racism by understanding more fully and funding more heavily, and doing it without question. He asks little to nothing of anyone else."

I wish I could say that this cynical viewpoint is in the minority. But here are some of the comments that are made in response to this article:

"As to what the whites owe blacks in education:

THE ENTIRE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS BEEN CONTROLLED BY LIBERAL UNIONS AND LIBERAL IDEAS FOR 36 YEARS SINCE THE PRES. OF THE NEA SAID THE SCHOOLS WILL BE THE ENGINE OF SOCIAL CHANGE IN 1972.

The social change they got is rotten minority schools in urban areas that were once the pride of the world. Whites didn't corrupt those schools. Obama's liberal ideas did.

Black students in DC and Newark, NJ, graduate reading on the fourth grade level on the average. Whites didn't do that. Liberal teaching methods like Whole Language and social promotion did (does) that."

...and...

"Obama doesn't get the American heartland. Axelrod had to explain to Obama how inflammatory Wright is -- Obama just didn't get it. Imagine this as an international incident. When Sharon went to the Temple Mount, he knew he was going to inflame the Palestinians -- that was his agenda. It's not like Sharon had no clue what he was doing.

The worst thing a would-be peacemaker can do is favor one side over the other. Obama made it clear he favors the black nationalist point of view over the many white points of view."

...and...

"I'm pretty sick of this white guilt baloney, I don't feel guilty for one minute over this issue.That was paid in the blood of Americans over 100 years ago. My ancestors stopped the slave trade."

The quotes go on and on and on...it saddens me to see them. However, I hold out hope that the strength and will to make positive changes rises to the top. That we can all make the differences in our own lives, and in the lives of the younger generations. And as time goes on, I can hope that the cynicism and the "oh, it's not my fault" attitudes of certain individuals becomes the exception, not the rule.

Favre Retires...Madden To Follow??

Well, as any casual observer noticed yesterday, legendary Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre retired after 17 seasons in the NFL. His decision leaves people pondering why, as the Packers looked to be loaded next season with a young and talented team -- a team that was only a few minutes from reaching the Super Bowl this past season. Some speculate that Green Bay's failure to sign wide receiver Randy Moss weighed heavily into Favre's decision as he felt he really needed a reliable WR that could get open for him. Favre can't do it all by himself! He needs people to get open, otherwise he might make a bad pass... which might get intercepted... which might lead to losing the NFC Championship game...

I mean, look at this snapshot from the last pass in Brett Favre's career:
Obviously, Favre needed a Randy Moss on that play. None of his guys could get open (other than the 3 circled receivers who are all clearly wide open). We'll all miss you Brett!! I don't know if John Madden's heart can truly be in his broadcasting anymore without you...