Random rant of the day

I don’t expect but maybe one person out of a 1000 to remember the Quadratic Equation—even though my algebra teacher wrote in my yearbook that if I forgot everything else she wanted me to remember that one thing. I don’t expect but maybe one person out of ten to be able count change without a computer someplace in the process. But there is one “math thing” that is starting to annoy me. I’ve heard this one claim for decades and I have never heard anyone else point out the obvious fallacy. It’s like an urban myth that everyone believes even though nearly everyone with a room temperature I.Q. could demonstrate it is false.

What finally tweaked me enough to do something about it was listening to a podcast by someone who claims to be smart enough that he should know better. I’m withholding the name to protect the guilty, but what was said was something like, “80% of the population thinks they are better than average drivers. That’s mathematically impossible!” Grrr…

Try proving that without resorting to a far less common definition of “average”.

A year or two ago in a much different forum someone else made a similar statement about penis sizes. I politely explained they were full of it and it hasn’t come up again (pun intended).

Now, with a much larger audience, I will now explain the issue using different example  to (mostly) save you from thoughts about penis dimensions. I hope I don’t have to be subjected to this myth again, and if I am I will be able to just glare at them and send them a link to this post.

Imagine we have a sample of 50 male/female couples. All the people, except one, had their spouse as their one and only sex partner (I told you to imagine, remember?). It turns out that before the age of government education loans and grants Trixie earned her way through medical school the old fashion way—in bed. She had 1000 sexual partners prior to her spouse.

Lets compute the average (usually understood to be the arithmetic mean) number of sexual partners in this sample.

MeanSexualPartners = TotalSexualPartners/NumberOfPeople
MeanSexualPartners = ((99 x 1) + (1 x 1001))/100
MeanSexualPartners = 1100/100
MeanSexualPartners = 11

In this case 99% had 1 sexual partner and can truthfully and correctly state they have had fewer than the average number of sexual partners. Furthermore, 99% can correctly state they have had less than 10% of the average number of sexual partners.

I will leave the drivers and penis dimension examples as exercises for the reader.

The Science is Settled

As we all now know, if you want to answer a question scientifically, you take a poll.  That’s the New Scientific Method.  Scientific American magazine took such a poll regarding anthropogenic Gluball Worming (that’s Kim Du Toit’s term, IIRC) and since they didn’t like the results, it would seem Reasoned DiscourseTM has kicked in.  I suppose the New Scientific Method will have to be amended – you take a poll of Open Society socialists only.  Then you’ll get the right results.

This from Hockey Schtick, which has ostensibly maintained a link to the unwanted results.  Take it for what you will.  Do your own investigation.  Myself, I find it hard to believe even though I know the left like the back of my hand and therefore such things should come as no surprise.  I heard of this poll on the Dennis Prager show last week, and figured I should share.

I used to subscribe to Scientific American, until I received the impression that desperate academics were using it merely as a vehicle for getting published.  I got tired of wading through so much evidence of non-inspiration, just to find the few interesting tidbits.  Still I’ll give them credit for being the only place I’d heard of superfluids, pre internet.

To me it’s not terribly important one way or the other.  The left has been crying “Wolf!” for generations now and it has worn thin, and worn out, for me decades ago.  The planet Earth was supposed to run out of oil in the 1980s, and so we were supposed to adopt more socialism.  The “Population Time Bomb” was going to get us by then too, we were told as elementary school students, and so we were supposed to adopt more socialism including forced population controls.  The planet was going to freeze up in a new ice age, we were told back in the 1960s, and then it became Glueball Worming, and now it’s “Climate Change”.  Those are just a few highlights, but this crap has been non-stop for what – about 150 years?  They’ve lost control of the narrative now.  What will happen as a result?

I figure it’ll have to get more down to the point – It’ll have to be plain old threats from the left at some point.  When the spoiled child’s attempts at lying and manipulation fall flat, the all-out tantrums come next.  The best we can do I suppose is ignore them, but when they start breaking things it gets difficult.

Security Theater gets attention

Via email from Kris comes this link and an image from Gizmodo which I continued following to find the artist here. This is the image:

http://assets.arlosites.com/stills/17587011/2a87999b00.jpg

Also from Kris is this collection of TSA bumper stickers:

On the more serious side is Bruce Schneier (via Chet) with my favorite section being:

There’s talk about the health risks of the machines, but I can’t believe you won’t get more radiation on the flight. Here’s some data:

A typical dental X-ray exposes the patient to about 2 millirems of radiation. According to one widely cited estimate, exposing each of 10,000 people to one rem (that is, 1,000 millirems) of radiation will likely lead to 8 excess cancer deaths. Using our assumption of linearity, that means that exposure to the 2 millirems of a typical dental X-ray would lead an individual to have an increased risk of dying from cancer of 16 hundred-thousandths of one percent. Given that very small risk, it is easy to see why most rational people would choose to undergo dental X-rays every few years to protect their teeth.

More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.

Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists.

Nate Silver on the hidden cost of these new airport security measures.

According to the Cornell study, roughly 130 inconvenienced travelers died every three months as a result of additional traffic fatalities brought on by substituting ground transit for air transit. That’s the equivalent of four fully-loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.

Hidden costs… That is something that is difficult to get across to many people. Just like gun control. Ban all the guns and the total crimes committed with firearms will probably go down but the crime rate may actually increase because having unarmed or poorly armed victims enables crime. It appears that is just too difficult of a concept for some people.

I’m not sure how to handle this problem. If they didn’t have (or threaten to have) the force of government behind them it would be fairly easy to ignore them and let Darwin take care of them. But that isn’t the way it works. They can use government to force us all to back over the cliff trying to avoid a nut case in front of us who pops up and says “Boogie! Boogie!” once every few years. We should just allowed to carry our guns and put a bullet in his head when he shows himself.

It seems people are beginning to realize the price they are paying for the security theater but will they be willing to embrace freedom and self-reliance?

Whatever the outcome it makes things worse for gun control. We should be able to draw the parallel between security on an airplane and security in schools, office buildings, and college campuses. If this is what it takes to make things safe on an airplane why should it take any less to make a dorm room “safe’?

How many people do you think will be tolerate this sort of “security” every time they enter a building or any other “gun free zone”? I don’t know the answer but we should start asking the question.

Update: I forgot about Rob’s email that I had saved away:

And from Mike:

Quote of the day—Kurt Hofmann

We are expected to accept Goddard as some kind of expert on our rights–as having some unique insight about how to legitimately infringe on that which shall not be infringed–not because of extensive study on his part of Constitutional law (his major was international studies), but because he was shot.  When he argues that continuing the mandated defenselessness policies on college campuses is necessary for safety (despite how poorly that worked at VA Tech and elsewhere), we are similarly asked to accept that he is an “expert” on the subject, not because of his extensive training in self-defense (which I have never seen claimed), but again because he was shot.  By that standard, I suppose everyone who survives a heart attack is now a cardiologist.

Kurt Hofmann
November 15, 2010
‘Gun control’ gets a new poster boy
[Oh! I like this game:

  • Everyone who has ever been in an automobile wreck is now a traffic safety engineer.
  • Everyone who has ever had their computer crash is now a software developer.
  • Everyone who has ever been divorced now is an expert on relationships.
  • Everyone who has ever failed a class is now a professor.
  • Everyone who has ever said something stupid is now a genius.

–Joe]

Nigerian bomb request

I get the most unusual email:



From: timi top [mailto:timitop_007@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 9:12 AM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: how can i build a bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Hello sir,


                                    My name is temitope and I recite in Nigerian, it’s being a long time have been searching in other to know about how I can build bomb, it not just for fun, but for people in my area to know me that am one of the researcher, I will like you to put me through so people in my area will be doing that in my memory when I grow old and die, and I will be able to generate money from there, please sir I love it if you can help me through and also help me to buy some materials that can be use for it  because am not in usa and I will need someone to help me in other to purchase this items and send it to Nigerian, you can reach me by my mobile number or my e-mail address, am on timitop_007@yahoo.com or call me on +2348169640844 I will be looking for to read from you soon bye and do have a lovely weekend aheard


TEMITOPE


I’m not sure I could find law enforcement in Nigeria but I may not need to because all the IP addresses in the email header are from New York. So I might as well play the fish for a while:



From: Joe Huffman [mailto:joeh@boomershoot.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:21 AM
To: ‘timi top’
Subject: RE: how can i build a bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What do you want to do with the bomb? What does it need to be able to destroy? How big does it need to be?


-joe-


Update (11/15/2010 05:16): I received a response.



From: timi top [mailto:timitop_007@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:09 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: RE: thanks for your reply sir


hello sir
            thanks for your respond , i want to generate money from there, by selling to my country military people, not that i want to use it for harm or for any dirty game, is just to know know that am one of the people that develop technology in Nigerian please help me out sir, cos we have already have people that is building guns and bullet, but i want to be first  person in Nigerian  to build bomb and one of the people that develop Nigerian technology…… i will be looking forward to read from you again bye


TEMITOPE


I replied:



From: Joe Huffman [mailto:joeh@boomershoot.org]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:16 AM
To: ‘timi top’
Subject: RE: thanks for your reply sir


I am sorry but I don’t have any experience in building those types of bombs. The difficulties are as much or more about the accurate delivery of the bomb than about the explosives which is where I have a little bit of expertise.


-joe-

Quote of the day—MikeB302000

I couldn’t care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.

MikeB302000
November 12, 2010
Austin, Texas Murders Way Up
[We’ve known this for a long time but it’s nice for him to admit it. If only all the anti-gun people would do so it would make things a lot easier.—Joe]

If You Have to Ask…

…you clearly haven’t been paying attention.


The Political Insider (requires registration for e-mail alerts) is fielding a poll, trying to find out who we want for the next Republican presidential candidate.  It’s all multiple choice, with the usual suspects.  There are some general opinion questions too.  The one that really got me is; “Do you think the tea party represents the Republican Party?”


Oh boy.  First; No, or I sure hope not.  But that’s not the proper question.  The proper question would be; “Do you think the Republican Party represents the tea party?”  The answer is; “Hell No, that’s why the tea party exists.  Get it?”


That, you Insiders, is the problem, and so the tea party is trying to overrun the Republican Party, co opt it, and bring it into line.  The other question I did not see is; “What should be the primary goal of the Republican Party over the next several years?”


The one, simple answer is; “Get rid of socialism and purge the socialists from American government payrolls.  All of it.  All of them.”  We’ve had enough.


They didn’t give us the opportunity to answer in our own words, so I deleted the message.

Quote of the Day – Bill Whittle

…just because something is fun, and scares away weenies, doesn’t mean that it’s stupid.


Bill Whittle
November 4, 2010
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
[
Freedom is scary for a lot of people, and it means that people who hate you can’t tell you what to do or how to do it, just because they hate you.  It sucks for them, and it makes them angry.  Hence, freedom pisses people off.  Hence, if you love freedom, you have to come to grips with the fact that people are going to hate you.  Embrace it, Little Grasshopper.  Or as Zaphod Beeblebrox said after having a nuclear missile attack launched against his ship; “Man, This is Great!  It means we’re really on to something if they’re trying kill us!”–Lyle]

Philosophy questions

I moved some pages I had on a different web site to this blog for better visibility and archival. These posts were from 1997 and 1998 which was long before my first blog post (February 3, 2004) and I have given the posts their approximate original date.

 

The pages moved are:

 

 

 

If you want to comment on one or more of those posts you will have to do it on this post as the comments are disable for posts that old.

Quote of the day–Patrick Smith

Somebody, somewhere, needs to shake us from this stupor of blind policy and blind obedience. I’m beginning to wonder if this isn’t some test — a test of just how stupid Americans are. If TSA said that from now on we had to hop on one foot while humming “God Bless America,” would we do that too?

That’d be ludicrous, certainly, but how much more ludicrous is it, really, than asking people to remove their belts for purposes of walking through a nonexistent body scanner?

Patrick Smith
November 4, 2010
Airport security reaches new levels of absurdity–Here’s what happens when you refuse to comply with TSA’s “new rule.” Blue-glove groping, anyone?
[Smith, a pilot, attempts to go through A Security Theater. They tell him he must take off his belt. The following then occurred:

“But … What if I don’t?”

“Then you’ll have to go through secondary screening and a full pat-down.”

And so I opted for the secondary screening. Not that a pat-down is reasonable, either, but I did not want to submit to something that I felt was excessive and ridiculous without a reason or explanation.

I was asked to stand in a cordoned-off area, where I waited for several minutes as guards stood around looking at me. Finally a supervisor came over, wearing disposable blue gloves, to administer my secondary screening.

“Sir,” he said, “um, you still need to remove your belt.”

“What do you mean? I chose this so I could leave the belt on.”

“No, either way the belt has to come off.”

“What? And if it doesn’t come off?”

“Then I cannot let you through.”

So, it would seem, secondary screening isn’t really “secondary” at all. Instead of simply taking off my belt, I get a full, blue-glove groping and I have to take off my belt. Either that or I’m not allowed to fly the plane.

I could be wrong but I’m sensing that A Security Theater has almost reached the point where they are going to get slapped down a notch or two. They should be wiped off the face of the planet but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.—Joe]

Neighbors

My son and a neighbor kid got into some trouble last Spring.  A minor property crime against the local grange– a stupid, boyish stunt.  That’s the first big mistake in this series.


John Law got involved and came down HARD on the two kids.  Really serious shit, as if they were career, hard-core gang leaders or something.  Second big mistake.  No one’s really responsible either– things go largely according to a pre-ordained plan in a largely manditory system.  I would have thought this could be settled better, more efficiently and with more focus on restitution and correction, by neighbors talking to neighbors, but John Law has to get his piece of the action or he feels all left out and stuff.  Instead, my first news of this came after the kids had been arrested.  Watching the excitement on Hawaii 5-O and hardly ever even getting to slap the cuffs on some kids in a small town can be a bitch I guess.  Maybe we’re all bitches now.  Some people seem to think so, or wish it were so.


Fast-forward several months.  My son’s “partner in crime” from last Spring was found dead this Saturday morning.  Someone spotted his body near a bridge a few blocks away and made an anonymous call (who does that?) to 911.  I still don’t know the cause of death and it would be irresponsible to speculate.  All we know right now is; it has been reported that foul play is not suspected.


While making a huge pot of soup from our garden vegetables, duck eggs and yearling elk heart (which is tender and wonderful– thank you, Chris) this weekend, I thought back to 1977 which is when my sister and niece were killed.  Some of our neighbors brought over prepared food for us, and it was very well received.  It’s so simple, yet it makes a lot of sense.  When you’re tragedy-struck, you probably have less, or no, appetite and you sure don’t want to fix meals or go shopping when you have all the aftermath to deal with, and the grief.  But you have to eat, so I thought of bringing the parents and surviving son some of the soup and some other things this last Sunday.


Then the doubt kicked in.  Third big mistake.  “I don’t even really know these people, and for all I know they might hate the very idea of elk heart (Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies offering ‘possum-n-grits, chicken fried skunk, or some such, comes to mind), they might be offended, or maybe they’d blame my son for what happened or something.  Maybe they don’t eat meat or these other things.”  All this stupid, inane garbage prevented me from going down there straight away.  The wife was out of town at a rehearsal, the kids need to stay on their homework—all the regular stuff adds up too.


An offer of help can always be refused, but at least you’re giving them the option and asking nothing, which is the whole point.  Isn’t it?  I’ve gone stupid and wobbly in my old age.  Yakkity yacking more and doing less, maybe.


A few days later I finally got around to going over there with some home-made sweet cider and some fresh duck eggs.  The grandmother answered the door, and I spoke to her and the mother.  They were extremely gracious, appreciative and talkative, almost fawning, but that’s not the point.  I’d decided in advance that if they slammed the door in my face I’d be OK with that.  They informed me that the kids’ father is now in the hospital in intensive care for, among other things, not eating. (sigh)


If you think someone might need a little gesture of help, and even if you think your offer is dumb, maybe you should just offer the damn help.  Git ‘er done.  But I’m not finished here;


A community social network of some kind can be a precious thing, and whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, or haven’t thought much about it, your local church organizations can and do offer that sort of network.  So long as they don’t go all hell-fire and brimstone on people, they are potentially a great value to society.  I’ve harshly questioned organized religion, and I think with good reason.  Some of them are downright evil, some have fallen in with the Tides Foundation or other global leftist organizations, but the argument isn’t all one-sided.


Time was when churches, the Rotary Club, Elks, Moose Lodge, Eagles, Granges and so on were THE centers of local community action.  Now it’s a coercive, increasingly centralized government in concert with what can only be described as communist agitators and punks (such that now even the very term “community action” connotes leftist agitation).  Which would you rather?

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

I, for one, do not welcome our Neocortical Overlords.

Kevin Baker
October 21, 2010
Our Neocortical Overlords
[Make that two. I’ve worked on too many government projects with people that said things like “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us” or seen the results of spending billions on some of the most stupid and wasteful things.

Oh! It’s least four (via both Alan and Kevin):

And when you people with obvious mental defects (such as Peterson Syndrome or other problems) an inability to read and comprehend, or an inability to determine truth from falsity insisting they should be making the rules then we have an even bigger problem of people with the mental capabilities of a two year old “thinking” they are our superiors. That should convince even the most skeptical this is a real problem and must not be allowed to continue or ever happen again.–Joe]

Quote of the day—John R. Lott Jr.

The only “evidence” that “screening works” comes from their claim that, in 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were denied from purchasing a gun. What the authors likely are aware of, though they do not tell the readers, is that virtually all these cases represent so-called “false-positives”: In 2006 and 2007 (the latest data years available), a tiny fraction — just 2 percent of those 1.5 percent — involved possible unlawful possession; just 0.2 percent of the 1.5 percent were viewed as prosecutable — 174 cases in 2006 and 122 in 2007. At least a third of the remaining cases didn’t result in convictions. These are the types of errors that an academic journal shouldn’t let in, but if it does, they should fix it. But it is my understanding that the journal has refused to publish a clarification of these numbers.

Eventually even the subscribers to the New England Journal of Medicine will learn about these facts. Just look at the changes in the climate debate — not even the most prestigious places can get away with biased research for too long.

John R. Lott Jr.
October 18, 2010
Medical Journal Bias on Guns
[Via Phil.

As I have said before people can appear to be normal functional members of society yet have severe mental defects. Just as people at the Brady Campaign can’t seem to distinguish between a hypothesis and a conclusion some of the “researchers” published in the New England Journal of Medicine have the same problem or are deliberately publishing bad papers. In either case they deserve to have their credentials pulled.—Joe]

Huh?

This just doesn’t make sense to me. But I guess that is to be expected when you are dealing with journalists and anti-gun people:

Wendy Cukier teaches at a business school, so she understands economic imperatives – and the importance of innovation and prosperity. But for the associate dean of Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, what matters most is preserving core Canadian values around safety, equity and respect for human rights.

This is so full of fail it is mindboggling.

The right to defend oneself is the most basic human right in existence yet she works to restrict it at every opportunity. This endangers and imbalances things. It doesn’t preserve safety and equity.

She understands economic imperatives? Yeah, right. Read the rest of the article. She is all about liberal causes.

An expert in emerging technologies, Prof. Cukier has spent two decades championing workplace diversity and gun control. The unifying themes of her work are innovation and change processes, says the co-author of 2002’s Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership From Java to Jurassic Park. After spending her early career with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Prof. Cukier became a consultant to organizations such as the Palo Alto, California–based Institute for the Future.

It seems to me it is quite a stretch to connect “emerging technologies” with “championing workplace diversity and gun control”. I wonder if that was Cukier or the writer that came up with that.

Also note:

The Transformational Canadians program celebrates 25 living citizens who have made a difference by immeasurably improving the lives of others. Readers were invited to nominate Canadians who fit this description. Over several weeks, a panel of six judges will select 25 Transformational Canadians from among the nominees.

Nominations remain open until November 26. Submit yours today.

I think some balance to the anti-rights representative needs to made. Know any pro-freedom Canadians that might qualify?

‘I Disagree With The Fact That…’

I hear this one a lot– The word “fact” being used interchangeably with “wild assertion” or “opinion” etc.  It’s become quite common.  I would add it to my “Left Speak” dictionary except that it’s being used this way by people who should know better.  Maybe it’s one of the rare Left Speak redefinitions, or retardations, that have actually succeeded in that it’s been widely adopted.


“I disagree with the fact that…” is saying you disagree with something while acknowledging it as fact, which is simply another way of saying you’re crazy.


This might be the entry; Fact: Wild assertion or lie.  Example: “I disagree with your facts.”


No matter how the entry is worded, it doesn’t work, mostly because the “facts” the communist is disagreeing with are often facts in the original meaning of the word.  Maybe I should let it lie.  The leftist is saying he’s insane, so that works out OK so long as the rest of us know the definition of “fact”.


The problem, as usual in Left Speak, is that it becomes impossible to impart knowledge from one generation or era to another.  Many young people today, and some not so young, upon reading that this or that is a fact, will take it to mean that it is an opinion.  The example I like to use is; “Upon finishing the meal, my family and I had much gay intercourse over the dinner table.”  In the 19th century, that would be universally taken to mean we all engaged in cheerful conversation.  Today it would be taken quite differently.  When the language breaks down, there is no history.  That’s why I try to avoid using “regulated” when I mean “restricted”, for example.  They’re not interchangeable, any more than facts are with wishes or opinions.

Everybody knows

If I had finished up the other things I was working on this weekend I would have written a post on how many times Joan Peterson uses “common sense” as the sole basis for her assertions of the righteousness of gun control.


Linoge does the equivalent (or better) than I would have done with Peterson’s use of “everybody knows”. Reading this excellent post reminded me of this quote by Robert Heinlein.

Quote of the day—Say Uncle

There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking.

Say Uncle
Same planet, different worlds
October 15, 2010
[As I said in the comments to his post:

In another time these people would have been reading entrails or doing trials by fire to make decisions. Some people actually believe evidence and reason are counter productive to good decision making. They are NOT stupid. Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and you don’t get there riding on the short bus.

As further evidence look at Joan Peterson “rest her case” defending against people informing her that she is ignorant and a bigot. This is why Peterson Syndrome was named after her. She simply does not know how to determine truth from falsity. She makes “reasoning noises” (thanks to MJM for that phrase) but she totally lacks the mental processes to follow a path to defendable conclusions.

Frequently the biggest obstacle to problem solving is in understanding and defining the problem. I think I have now done that. But now that we know the problem I think we still have a huge obstacle. I don’t know how, or if, these mental defects can be cured or prevented. But I do know that if we don’t find a solution soon Darwin is currently implementing a solution which is extremely painful for everyone.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean D. Sorrentino

You heard it here first folks, Peterson Syndrome.

Sean D. Sorrentino
October 13, 2010
Comment to Why ignorant people should never make law
[This was in response to a comment of mine in the same thread about Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and her mental defect.—Joe]

Reasoned Discourse

Via Ry we find more Reasoned Discourse:



They pretty much confirmed my attitudes about gun-toters.
My OS postings rarely get feedback, so I wondered why so many comments showed up in just a day or two.
That’s when Google found this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81683-Blog-post-from-an-AZ-anti
Yikes.
My personal blog is mirrored here at OS, and I don’t allow comments there, so they actually tracked me down here.
It looks like they cruise the web, trying to pick fights.
So I’ve closed the comments here at Open Salon.
It’s sad, but I certainly don’t want to engage with people like them.


“People like them”? If I didn’t know better from that line I would think he was talking about people with different colored skin or homosexuals.


I guess he doesn’t understand the failure of censorship in an Internet world; but then bigots are seldom bright.

Random thought of the day

Anyone who tries to tell me about the virtues of things being “natural” had better be wearing their birthday suit if they don’t want to be mocked.