Monthly Archives: October 2003

Drew Barrymore naked

In the same vein as my previous post: catering to my apparent audience…

Apparently people still come to my website after searching for “Drew Barrymore Having Sex” or “Drew Barrymore Nude” or “Drew Barrymore Naked”. I have no idea why this blog comes up on those searches. None.

In the past I have just told readers to go to Google Images and search under her name. I am in a good mood today. I’ll provide a direct link: Google Image Search: “Drew Barrymore”

(Even a search conducted under the strictest “Safe Search” options will yield some tantalizing photos. It appears Google’s ‘Safe Search’ ain’t all that safe.)

useless pommy jackeroo

Noting on the statistics for this blog that a good number of people come here regularly while conducting a search for information on the British Royal Princes, I figure I should cater to my audience. If the few things I’ve written so far have attracted attention…why stop?

Prince Harry is ‘just a useless pommy jackeroo’ (For those not up on Aussie slang, this apparently is a compliment.) He’s spending some time in Australia during what Brits refer to as the “gap year” in his schooling.

Some Australian politicians were upset at first that Australia was asked to foot the bill for guarding the Prince during his stay there while he learns to become a cowboy. However, recent news suggests a small economic boom has resulted from his presence, so perhaps this will appease the politicians.

Most recently, Prince William, allegedly speaking for his younger brother as well, attacked Paul Burrell, the former butler of their mother, Princess Diana, for his cold and overt betrayal.

I have little to add to these news stories. Ananova is a good resource if you want to keep track of what is happening with the British Royal family. (Much better than my blog, I assure you.)

I do wonder why Harry wants to become a cowboy. Are there cows in England? Doesn’t he realize cows may be extinct in a few years due to Creutzfeldt-Jakob? Maybe he almost failed his Geography A-levels, and was accused of theft in achieving a b in his Art A-levels, but there’s got to be a better career option than ‘Cowboy’. Oh, I forgot, his ‘career’ is Prince. He’s got that one mastered.

Under God

The Meaning of ‘Under God’

The NYTimes asks the question: What does “under God” mean within the context of The Pledge of Allegiance.

Don’t forget that the so-called greatest generation who brought the nation out of the Depression and through World War II grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance without “under God.” The reference to God was first drummed into the baby-boom generation, who in their turn brought the nation the 1960’s.

Citing the fallacious logic principle “post hoc, propter hoc” (after this, because of this) the Times asks those who blame the 60s degrading morality on the banning of school prayer to consider if the inclusion of “under God” might have had an effect.

They also quote Rabbi Arthur Waskow with a suggestion on how to change the pledge: Rabbi Arthur Waskow, author, inveterate political organizer and director of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, once proposed that it would be far more educational if youngsters got to choose the words preceding God in the pledge. The mystically inclined could say “inside God” or “suffused with God.” Seekers could say “exploring God.” Christians smitten with prophecies about the end times could say “awaiting God.” Some Jews would certainly choose “wrestling with God.” Muslims might prefer “surrendering to God.” And so on.

The Times certainly raises a few thought-provoking questions. I have a few more to raise though.

First: Normally I support the removal of the words from the pledge. I don’t feel they belong. I strongly support all those students who have belief to have the right to voluntarily, individually, and silently to issue their prayers to God at any time during the school day, as long as in so doing they do not interrupt a class in session. As one with strong beliefs, I had that right as a student, and would want other students to as well. But that doesn’t give the state a right to impose a prayer. Nor does it give the right for the State to intertwine the oath of allegiance with an oath to God.

As it stands, it is impossible for a student to pledge allegiance to their country without pledging allegiance to a God. The two options are to say the pledge, or not to say it. So a patriotic, but atheist student is in a true bind.

On the flip-side, however, leaving the “under God” in the pledge provides a nice cover for the unpatriotic student. They can claim they don’t believe in God, which is much more acceptable in today’s climate than being unpatriotic.

If the words were removed, they no longer would have that cover. Anyone refusing to say the pledge would only have one reason: lack of patriotism. (Unless their religion considered saluting the flag equivalent to idolatry, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses…but this excuse is not as acceptable today as atheism, and since few religious denominations feel this way, it would be hard for the unpatriotic student to use this cover.)

With this in mind, perhaps we should keep the words in the pledge. Unless, of course, we decide we want to out all the potential terrorists in our schools.

Signs II: Starring Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson is Passionate
about his beliefs.
God works in mysterious ways.

Mel Gibson is directing a movie
which contradicts
the beliefs of many.

Mel Gibson might want
to consider revising
his script, or something.

Lightning has struck the set.
God works in mysterious ways.

Complete the Proverb

Muhammad isn’t a terrorist, like Falwell thinks. Nor is he an idol, like Lt. Gen William (Jerry) Boykin believes. However, Muhammad is a fool.

Alleged sniper, John Allen Muhammad, that is.

Complete the following proverb: The man who represents himself….

[Below from Washington Post]
VIRGINIA BEACH, Oct. 20 — Accused sniper John Allen Muhammad was granted permission to represent himself Monday at his capital murder trial. Prince William County Circuit Court Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. made the stunning announcement following a 25-minute bench conference with Muhammad and his attorneys.

Hate Mongering

The Malaysian Prime Minister defends his statement that Jews control the world by complaining it is alright for Jerry Falwell to insult all Muslims, but it is not alright for him to insult all Jews.

It is a confusing argument on several counts. The rational press did roundly attack Falwell’s idiotic comments about Mohammed being a terrorist. Additionally, they’ve also recently attacked the General who proclaimed that all of Islam was worshipping an idol. The military may not be disciplining the General, but he was speaking privately at a church, and our nation does value free speech. Even if the speech is idiotic.

It is also safe, I believe, to assume he feels it is hurtful, and wrong, morally, for people like Falwell to make the statements they have. Therefore, he is arguing he can justifiably stoop to the same level in response?

He intended the speech as an argument for the Muslim/Arab world to stop responding to violence with violence — To emulate the “Jewish” intellectual/political response. I support the overall message of his speech. I do not believe we Jews are as united as he seems to think we are. For example, I would direct his attention to the ‘discussions’Ç between Liberal Jewish groups in the US and the Israeli government. However, I agree, violence should not be viewed as an acceptable political method. Neither should hate mongering — for hate mongering begets violence.

Unfortunately, it appears, he does not see this.

General Moonbeam?

According to this NYTimes article, General Clark has actually brought Einstein’s theory of relativity into the Presidential campaign.

Well…maybe not exactly as a campaign issue, but in a “discussion of NASA’s future at a recent gathering in New Hampshire” Clark said, “I still believe in E=mc2, but I can’t believe that in all of human history, we’ll never, ever be able to go beyond the speed of light.” He further described this as his “only faith-based initiative.”

The NYTimes article further explains why time travel might not be entirely outside the range of Einstein’s theory.

Titles, and Style

I’ve just made an interesting observation reading several articles from The New York Times.

It appears their stylebook dictates that an elected official’s title is only used with the first occurance of their name. After that, the title disappears and is replaced with their gender specific title (Mr. Mrs. Ms.) This, however, is only the case if the title is political. Rev. Al Sharpton remains a Reverend. Dr. Howard Dean, remains a doctor. Gen. Wesley Clark remains a General.

Locally, the St. Louis Post Dispatch uses a slightly different method. One I believe I see more often. After the first mention of the name with the title, the title disappears as well. But it isn’t replaced with the gender specifier. Only the last name remains. President Bush becomes Bush. Rev Sharpton becomes Sharpton. General Clark becomes Clark. And Dr. Dean becomes Dean.

I think I definitely prefer the Post’s style. It doesn’t give undue preference to titles based on how they were earned. (Who’s really to say that a title earned through election is somehow less worthy than one earned through a college degree — or a military career?) And it avoids the traps inherent in choosing between Mrs. Ms. and Miss.

(note: I have not read either stylebook. I am merely using deductive reasoning by reading several news stories, and noticing patterns.)

Was the Concealed Weapons Law constitutional?

Some are now arguing in the courts that the Concealed Weapons law passed a month ago violated the Missouri state constitution. That a constitutional ammendment was necessary as opposed to just legislation.

From the Missouri State Constitution:

The revised, 1875 version

That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

The latest, 1945 version

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Proponents of the legislation argue semantically, while this says the right to bear arms doesn’t inherently justify concealed weapons, the constitution doesn’t inherently prohibit the legislation.

I think this hinges on the definition of the word ‘justify’, which is a slightly more complicated word than the word, ‘is.’ But not by much. It may also hinge on the definition of the word “this”.


If you cross the picket line
You’re a schmuck.
If you cross the picket line
You’re a putz.
If you cross the picket line
You’re a schnuck.

schmuck: (yiddish) fool.
putz: (yiddish) jerk.
schnuck: 1. (yiddish) customer easily fooled; sucker. 2. (n. pl. schnucks) grocery store chain based out of st. louis, missouri.