Sunday, February 29, 2004The Sky is FallingIt seems to me that some of the same arguments the prophetic pundits made against inter-racial marriages are now being dragged out of the closet, dusted off, and recycled for gay marriage. Let’s see what they were and what they are now? Laws of nature Fundamental institution of society Erosion of the family Divine Intentions It’s against the laws of nature. Surprisingly to me, homosexual behaviors occur in many different animal species throughout nature. The numbers are a small percent of the population, ten percent or less from what I have read and that’s in line with the small percentage of human homosexuality. At least in the animal population, survival of the species requires the matching of the appropriate male and female reproductive organs to perpetuate the species. The species would die out if they were 100 percent homosexual, and that would truly go against the laws of nature. Human beings have developed systems that allow for reproduction between homosexual couples with the societal acceptance of sperm banks, surrogate mothers, and adoption. While these were developed to help infertile, heterosexual couples experience the joys and heartbreaks of parenting, that the technologies existence guarantees survival of the species regardless of the sexual preference or orientation of the couple. Marriage is a fundamental cornerstone of society. Well being a previously divorced, heterosexual, I personally would like to sweep this one under the carpet with my own shame. Divorce rates among heterosexuals have made this a real joke. I’m on number two, and my husband is on number three. While we think we have it right this time, it took a couple of starts to finally define our priorities. Consider us slow learners. I tip my hat to my parents and my siblings for having lived up to their vows; I screwed up and have been given another chance. Lucky for me, my family isn’t hard-lining any fundamentalist religious views or I could be ostracized. I am to date the only divorce in my family, both immediate and extended. Guess every family has its black sheep. Baaaaaaaahh. It’s an erosion of the family, as we know it. Yes it is. But so are all the single parent households that struggle everyday. These families now have to live together without the legal benefits of marriage. What message is that sending to their children? If God made us all and some of us are different, did God make a mistake? I don’t think so. I think the message from God was a message of love. We could all use a little more of that in our hearts towards the people who aren’t just exactly like us. There before the grace of God, go the rest of us. I'll leave the judgement up to him. posted @ 07:30 PM MST [link] Friday, February 27, 2004Unconstitutional Amendment?I’ve done a lot of thinking the last few days and I have been exhausted by trying to extricate any religious prejudices that I have from the arguments. It’s a trying task. I posted my preference for resolution on this subject in my February 6th post and I still stand by that. My original reaction to the President encouraging Congress to legislate the required sex of the partners to enter into the contract of marriage was sadness; I don’t think it is such a bad idea now. I also think, its pretty savvy politics on the President’s part that I didn’t see at first. No, I’m not pulling a John Kerry. Unlike the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1997 (which only needed to pass through Congress’ hands) a Constitutional Amendment requires three quarters of the states to ratify it, which means the people get to vote on it directly. President Bush doesn’t lose much of his support by calling Congress to action on this subject. He pacifies the far right wing of his party and he places the burden of doing so back on the Congress. A good portion of the Congress is up for re-election also. By giving the people a direct voice in the process, he takes the position of “giving the government back to the people”. Where have I heard that statement lately? The Democrats (the party of inclusion) have much more to lose in this fight. No legislation will be passed before November but each member of Congress will have to take a stand on this issue before then. Thirdly, a Constitutional Amendment, if passed, would handcuff activist judges who have been legislating from the bench. Pretty savvy politics. Now back to the original argument. I am a firm believer that our founding fathers were smarter than anyone currently in Washington and took great pains to lay the foundation for this country. They didn’t just throw in a separation of Church and State clause for no good reason. I don’t want the government legislating religion and I sure don’t want religion legislating the government. Contrary to popular slogan, you can legislate morality. Just look at any Islamic republic to see what you get when you do that. Regardless of what your beliefs are about the morality of homosexuality, people like myself will side with the gay community in this fight because preservation of the Constitution in any fight is my top priority. Amending it is an extremely difficult task for a good reason. The system eliminates playing on the emotions of the moment. It eliminates the “masses are asses” factor. The Constitution is how we limit the powers of government. Its purpose is not to grant us our individual rights but to rein in the power of the government to intrude on our inalienable rights. An amendment to the Constitution to define marriage grants further power to the government as well as further intrusion into religion. We have such an aversion to tampering with the Constitution, that throughout the 70’s and 80’s we could not get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. That one was a no brainer. It was inclusive not divisive. It eliminated discrimination, not caused it. And when it wasn’t passed, there came an onslaught of federal and state legislation that accomplished the same thing and yet was much easier to repeal should the rule of unintended consequences rear its ugly head. Without the ERA, society survived. You don’t hear much talk about the inequality of woman these days, unless of course, the Political Action Committee for the National Organization of Women is soliciting you. The “in your face” strategy of gay activists has caused an extreme backlash from the majority of people in this country who previously were tolerant and accepting of the gay community. Rosie, the mayor of San Francisco, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court have forced a squaring off that they can’t win right now. Emotions are too high. But during the time it would take to get a Constitutional Amendment passed, people would have time to think through the implications of it and get their emotions under control. They would have time to come up with compromises, hear the arguments and weigh them. They would have time to think about whether the government should be granted power to further intrude in their religion or decide they want government completely out of their religion. If the gay activists continue their current strategy, this issue will be fast tracked and both sides will suffer their respective consequences. The nature of this argument requires much more to be thought through and said. Part Two coming this weekend. posted @ 05:32 AM MST [link] Wednesday, February 25, 2004Constitutional AmendmentIt saddens me to hear the President encourage tampering with the Constitution and I need some time to work through my thoughts on this subject and not just react with my feelings. I will post on this by the weekend. Not much else going on in the news worth mentioning and a very busy work week, so stay tuned. posted @ 05:04 AM MST [link] Friday, February 20, 2004“Jobless Recovery?”There is much ado about the current unemployment rate, which has returned to its average historic levels over the past decade. Political candidates talk about outsourcing and the loss of manufacturing jobs. They talk about the lack of jobs created by this administration. "Three million jobs lost since this President took office" is the daily mantra of the Democratic Party. What is sad about this is that if you stopped and asked the average, hardworking American about unemployment, they would simply parrot back the current headlines without a clue as to where those come from and how they are manipulated. Say it enough and they will eventually believe it. The Department of Labor uses two different methods to produce these figures and they both produce strikingly, different numbers. The first method, the Establishment Survey, is done by surveying 400,000 companies and asking how many people are on the payroll? The fluctuation in these numbers from month to month gives us an estimate of the jobs created and lost. The obvious population of workers that is excluded from representation by this number is the self-employed. The second major flaw with this method is that companies come and go. Companies that go are reflected rather quickly in this number but companies that are created are slow to be discovered and replace the ones that have met their demise. The lag time is about two years to discover the new companies. Over the last two years, this survey shows a net loss of jobs of about 62,000. The third major flaw is that people with more than one job can be counted multiple times. I just quit my second job and would be reflected in this survey as unemployed although I am fully employed in my primary job. The strength of this survey is that it has a large sample population. The second method used to produce these figures is called the Household Survey. It surveys 60,000 households each month to inquire whether they have jobs or whether they are looking for work. This survey will catch the self-employed, new start up companies, eliminate two jobs being counted multiple times and has been the official measure of the percent of unemployment. Using this method, during the period that the Establishment Survey shows that we lost 62,000 jobs, the Household Survey shows that we had a net gain of 2.4 million jobs. The weakness in this method is that the sample population is much smaller than the other method. You can see why it is so easy to spin these numbers to your political advantage. Neither survey takes into account that a fun American past time has cropped up. We give false answers. When my phone rings and interrupts what I am doing to ask me a few questions, depending on my mood and the subject, I may make up answers that don’t correlate with reality at all. I particularly love to employ this at exit polls conducted during elections. It helps combat that feeling that your privacy is being invaded by even being asked. Try it. You’ll walk away with a very satisfied grin on your face. One of the many reasons I don't pay much attention to poll numbers. Quiz time: 1. What is the current un-employment rate? 2. What was the average un-employment rate in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s? Answers: 1. 5.7% 2. 6.4%, 7.3%, and 5.8% How can the economy be bad right now if the unemployment level is in the same ballpark as those wonderfully touted Clinton years of economic prosperity? Here’s the bottom line. Americans will continue to loose some jobs to outsourcing because one of the principals of Capitalism is to maximize profits while you minimize expenses. Labor is expensive in this country. Some jobs can be outsourced and they will be. Some current jobs cannot be currently outsourced and they won’t be. New jobs will crop up to replace ones lost to outsourcing. This shouldn’t come as a news flash but change is inevitable. Those who dig their heels in and refuse to move forward will be left behind. The blacksmith was put out of business when the factory could produce more products cheaper and more efficiently. So the blacksmith could learn to run the machinery and stay employed. Robots could run the machinery cheaper and more efficiently. So he needed to learn how to make the robot. And so on… With the loss of one type of job comes the creation of another. If you’re unemployed, think about retraining. The government cannot directly increase jobs unless it expands itself or increases its purchases. We don’t want either of these two things to increase; they’re bloated enough already. What the government can do to indirectly increase jobs is to create an environment for businesses to flourish. What helps businesses flourish? Low interest rates, low inflation, tax incentives, tax cuts, and a cheap labor market. Are Interest rates currently low? Check Is the Inflation rate currently low? Check Tax incentives given to businesses? Check Tax cuts given to businesses and individuals? Check Cheap labor market available? Check Looks like all the key ingredients are in place for a strong economy and that must be why all indicators are currently reflecting that. America has always been the land of opportunity because of its entrepreneurial spirit. That spirit flourishes when the Government is kept under control. The Government wouldn’t survive a day in the Capitalist market. You wouldn’t allow a business you invested in to suck you dry, why we let the Government continue to is beyond me. posted @ 05:00 AM MST [link] Wednesday, February 18, 2004Bishops are not above the Law - even ones made by man.A Phoenix jury found Bishop Thomas J. O’Brien guilty of leaving the scene of a fatal accident yesterday. I am not sure who I hold more contempt for, the bishop or his followers. This morning I heard a friend of his say on the radio that the bishop shouldn’t be punished for this felony because the victim was drunk and walked in front of his car. If not his car, it would have been someone else’s. So why punish the Bishop? It’s too bad for Jim Reed that it hadn’t been someone else’s car. Someone else may have stopped. Someone else may have called for paramedics. Someone else might have shown some compassion to a dying man. Someone else may have had the decency to do the right thing without any hesitation. The jury rendered their verdict based on the fact that a reasonable person should have known they hit something large enough to be human and stopped. “We didn’t doubt the bishop’s testimony” is what one of the jurors said. Okay so you’re not saying the Bishop is a liar. You’re saying he’s an idiot instead. Another juror was quoted as saying that they didn’t even give any weight to his behaviors immediately following the accident such as attempting to get his windshield repaired before he spoke with the police. I have just one question for both his followers and the jury; if he wasn’t a Bishop would you think any differently? Is this the same verdict and evidence that you would have looked at if this was some homeless, drug addict who gave you the same story? Would you think that person had suffered enough and shouldn’t be punished any further? If you said yes, then you’re a liar or you’re an idiot. The whole basis of our justice system is equal protection under the law for everyone. We all get hot and bothered when someone is given preferential treatment. What is different about this case? Is it because this is a “Man of God?” To me that’s what makes this case so despicable and so deserving of civil punishment. This is suppose to be a Man of God, how could he do such a thing? I can’t come up with a reasonable explanation and I detest the ones that come to mind. Would a Man of God hit an animal and leave it to suffer in the road without trying to help it? I don’t think St. Francis of Assisi would say that’s okay. Aren’t we all God’s creatures? How about stopping for a “Blessing of Pets” ceremony, if that’s what you thought, even if it’s not October? What kind of a defense is it for a Bishop to say I thought I hit a dog so I left it in the road to suffer and die and didn’t bother to stop? I thought it was a rock that hit my windshield was another feeble attempt at a defense. I will grant you that this one could have had some merit. Having recently been given a plea bargain to avoid an obstruction of justice charge surrounding the pedophile priests of Phoenix scandal, the Bishop had been the recipient of death threats. Heaving a large rock or brick at his car might be one of the minor things that irate people had thought to do to him. But none of his behaviors that followed made this a credible defense either. Had he gone home and called the police to report this large boulder hitting his car there would have been no charges for him to face. He didn’t. Was he on drugs or alcohol? Is he senile? Is he going blind? There has to be more to this story. Is he just an idiot? How did he get to be a Bishop then? Give me some explanation that makes sense because nothing in his defense does. The jury will not be involved in the sentencing phase, a judge will decide his sentence and I think that’s a good thing. Considering they only looked at 10 seconds of evidence, I don’t think they would take the whole picture into consideration that Rick Romley wants to present. Mr. Romley sees a pattern of disturbing behavior between this case and his role in the cover up of the sex scandals that plague the Church. I think at the very least, the man shows a pattern of poor decision making and that’s being charitable. My gut tells me Mr. Romley is right on target. I want to see Bishop O’Brien do prison time for this felony just like everyone else would. He got his “get out of jail card free” on his last and most horrendous crime of allowing sexual predators to prey and betray their young parishioners. I want to make sure that he knows that he is not above the law, either man made or creator made. I hope that for the sake of his own sorry soul he is placed in protective custody in prison so he doesn’t meet the fate of John Geoghan. Some people in prison may think that the only thing worse than a pedophile is their enabler that could have stopped them and chose not to. posted @ 04:08 PM MST [link] Monday, February 16, 2004Just a Gigolo...Thirty years is a long time and a lot has happened since the end of the Vietnam War. It seems rather ridiculous to me that Terry McAuliffe wants to dredge up all the muck that surrounded one of our most tumultuous times in history by accusing a sitting President of being AWOL from his service in the National Guard. Seems even more ridiculous that Presidential hopeful John Kerry is dusting off his medals to be proudly displayed by the “decorated war hero” throughout this campaign after trying to distance himself from it in the aftermath of the war. Truth be told, thirty years ago, the antiwar movement in this country would have been saluting George Bush for not having set foot in Vietnam and condemning John Kerry as a “baby killer in an illegitimate war” for having been in Vietnam. The Vietnam era occurred during the height of the Cold War and left deep scars in this country that would take three decades to heal. For the next thirty years, America would flounder, not sure of her principals. America was afraid to use her military power to do good in this world for fear it would turn out to be “another Vietnam quagmire.” War was no longer seen as a necessary evil but just an evil. The accomplishments of the WWII generation would be put on the back burner and quickly forgotten and the Vietnam Vet would become the scourge of society. What did you expect from a bunch of hippies? The intellectualism of the “make love not war” generation would culminate as a political force only through its support by the mainstream media hungry for something to report. I said it then and I’ll say it to this day. The greatest failure of my country was the April 30, 1975 pullout of the last soldiers from Saigon. With greater than fifty-five thousand Americans dead in vain who tried to prevent the spread of Communism; we said to the world that we don’t have the stomach for a tough fight and set the wheels of terrorism in motion because we blinked. The war, death, and destruction had been essentially over since the Paris Peace agreement in January of 1973. All we had to do was fund the peace. But the Democratically held Congress refused to do it and the un-opposed North Vietnam invasion of South Vietnam led to the slaughter that followed as we pulled out. That blood is on their hands. And amazingly, they would do it again to Iraq. History repeats itself for those who learn no lessons from it. John “F’ing” Kerry voted to not fund the peace in Iraq. He came home from the Vietnam War and accused American soldiers en masse of rape, torture, and dismemberment of innocent Vietnamese as if this was the status quo and not the exception. And now he wants to be the Commander in Chief of the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of the forces he previously served with and then betrayed. The antiwar crowd and the mainstream media tried to feed us the same crap again with the Iraq war. Surprisingly, it didn’t really work on the American mind during the pre-invasion stage of the Gulf War Part Two. Probably because the products of the “anti-establishment” group had become the yuppies of the eighties and figured out that having money “a la establishment” made life a lot more comfortable. The second reason was probably because they weren’t on drugs any longer except for antibiotics to cure the sexually transmitted diseases that ran rampant following the make love era. (It took awhile for these intellectuals to realize that when you reduce sex to a mere biologic function, it becomes about as exciting as your morning constitutional causing them to suffer a further loss of their hedonistic pleasures.) Current studies show that the generation being cultivated for our future leadership are much more conservative than their parents. That’s a good thing and there is no better example than the United States military currently serving in Iraq. These kids get it. They get the fact that terrorism should be our number one priority. They get the fact that left unchecked; terrorism will destroy our economy and society, as we know it. They get the fact that there are just some people in this world that need killin’ because you can’t reason with them. They get the fact that most politicians check which way the wind is blowing each day before they slither up to the podium to declare their righteous stance of the day. They get the fact that they have a Commander in Chief with a clear vision for the safety and survival of America and they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. They get the fact that there really are some things worth dying for. America finds itself at an important crossroad one more time. John Kerry described himself as an internationalist some thirty years ago desiring the might of the United States to only be used under the auspices and sanctification of the United Nations. A lot has changed in thirty years and a lot hasn’t. Very frightening that the Axis of Weasels should be empowered to decide my fate through this man’s leadership or lack of it. posted @ 05:12 AM MST [link] Friday, February 6, 2004Separate but EqualThe Massachusetts’s Court had ruled against Civil Unions because “separate but equal” isn’t good enough. I am not a historian and I really don’t know the origins of marriage but I think it’s reasonable to assume that marriage was a religious ceremony that grew into a civil contract at some point in time. Probably when government’s figured out that selling licenses could be revenue producing and litigating the dissolution of marriages was a good source of business for all associates of the judiciary branch. In other words, governments starting sticking their noses into areas that it didn’t belong and usurped the authority of the churches. (Yes there probably was a need to actually have a record of marriages besides the church’s records that the government could provide because it would be especially useful for dispute resolution in civil courts.) To illustrate, I’ll use the Catholic Church because I am most familiar with it. When a Catholic marries outside the church, the church does not recognize the marriage, although the state does recognize it. A Catholic who is married inside the church and is divorced through civil action is considered married by the church until the church grants an annulment and is forbidden to remarry although the state doesn’t consider a remarriage bigamy. This conflict diminishes the power of the church in an area that it most likely created. The Catholic Church considers marriage a sacrament. The government deciding who shall receive the “sacraments” of the Church is way overstepping its bounds. The next step is the ACLU filing suit against the Church for denying anyone Communion. It’s discrimination. I really don’t think we want to go down this road. The court doesn’t like the use of two terms that defines the sexual orientation of the partners. How about a compromise? Change the civil use of the term marriage to union regardless of your sexual orientation. If you were joined together in a church, you are not only declaring your spousal partnership but you are also declaring your religious belief in the sacrament itself. You follow the criteria set by the Church and call yourself “married.” If you were joined together in a civil ceremony, you are declaring your spousal partnership but are not declaring any religious belief in a sacrament. You follow the criteria set by the law and call yourself “unioned.” As far as the law and government are concerned either a marriage or a union would be treated as a contract between two people that defines a legal status with the same rights, privileges, and penalties attached to it. It need not treat either differently. It can be asexual. It need only set the requirement that it be between human beings who have reached an age that allows them to enter into a contract with the usual stipulations that govern all other contracts. The hard part would be for those of us who would have to get used to saying unioned. We’ve called ourselves married for so long but we did make the conscious decision to buck tradition, our religious upbringing and not join together in a church, so we can make the change. I’ll accept that burden. The last thing I want to see is the Constitution tampered with on this issue. I would be hard pressed to defend the government-sanctioned discrimination of the non-heterosexual population of this country. As a beacon of democracy in this world, it stinks of hypocrisy. Separate but equal didn’t cut the mustard in the sixties and it won’t in the new millennium if it’s purpose is to discriminate against a class of people who are under the umbrella of “All men are created equal.” The inference being that all people are treated equally under the law. For those who are religious, the time to be outraged was when the government intruded into the religious realm and ordained itself capable of dispensing sacraments to begin with. I don’t know if any of us were alive then but many religious people probably were outraged. If you are currently a religious person, your outrage should be that the government continues this intrusion to this day. The civil use of the term marriage is the problem here. If they had used any other word but marriage, I don’t think anyone would disagree that the government does have the right to oversee legal contracts, which is what non-religious “marriages” are. That is the one of the prime functions of our civil courts. I also don’t think that any reasonable person would disagree that two consenting adults have the right to enter into a legal contract, which is all that a non-religious marriage is. The offensiveness of this debate is that by hijacking the sacraments of religion and applying the law to them, the government puts itself in the position of telling people that their religious beliefs are discriminatingly wrong. The government has no such right. Freedom to express one’s religion must be held sacrosanct and separate from government intrusion. Separate but equal should only be tolerated to resolve a conflict between two Constitutional given rights such as Freedom of Religion and Equality under the law. This division should be based on secularism versus religion when it comes to spousal partnership not the sex of the person sleeping next to you. I don’t feel a compelling desire to invite the government into my bedroom and, therefore in all fairness, I must insist they get out of yours. 66% of Americans would support civil unions versus marriage for the non-heterosexual population of this country despite or because of their religious believes. That’s a tremendous gain of acceptance over the last twenty years in this society. It didn’t come from gay pride parades; it came from having friends who came out of the closet and the realization that this difference need not cause a division. The end of discrimination in this country will occur when we quit harping on our differences and start concentrating on our commonalities. I am a heterosexual interloper on the sacrament of marriage. I hadn’t really looked at it that way before this debate. My apologizes to the religious community for perpetuating the civil use of a sacred term. I would urge all Americans to do some soul searching before taking a stand on this issue. We find ourselves in this dilemma because the basis of our legal system has its roots in religious tenets and we are trying to reconcile a movement to extricate religion from the State in our court system. Tumultuous times are ahead, while this society negotiates the boundaries. There is a power struggle between the tenets of democracy and the tenets of religion. My hope is that we will negotiate the best that both factions have to offer and create a better society. Both have positive and negative points to be considered. posted @ 05:17 AM MST [link] Thursday, February 5, 2004Tune in tomorrowI am writing an essay on marriage versus union but have run out of time before work today to finish, I will post it tomorrow. posted @ 05:35 AM MST [link] Farewell Joe Lieberman gives up his quest to be the Democratic Presidential nominee. Sorry Joe, you stood on a platform of common sense and good judgment that just didn’t resonate with the voters. What does that say about the voters? Frightening. posted @ 03:56 AM MST [link] Tuesday, February 3, 2004Super TuesdayArizona will have it's Democratic primary today along with six other states. Kerry is favored. Joe-mentum hasn't caught on here, which is a shame. Joe Lieberman is the most reasonable of the candidates and Arizona tends to run towards the center regardless of party affiliations. Voters will most likely go with electability rather than vote their conscience. Pity. From Iraq: Ali has written a splendid essay this morning about his newly found freedoms in Iraq. It helps ward off doubts and despair brought on by the onslaught of daily, dreary news and political rhetoric. Need to work on a database for my sweet husband, so that's it for today. posted @ 03:38 AM MST [link] Monday, February 2, 2004Post Super Bowl Sunday DisappointmentThe Super Bowl has always provided an excuse for a party but most of us really don't need an excuse for that. Getting together with family and friends and sharing good food, good drink, and good laughs is part of our happy hour culture. There used to be two reasons to actually watch the Super Bowl each year for both die-hard football fans and for football widows and widowers. No more though. For the second year in a row, the commercial watching fans were severely let down. The NFL has placed restrictions on just about every aspect of the sport including talking about it without their express written permission. The one area they have failed to control is the over-hyped and over-priced commercials. CBS’ Marketing Department should be headed to the unemployment lines this morning. The number of self-promotion spots utilizing their everyday, dull, program commercials must have been used to fill the unsold time slots. The few “super” commercials that existed, I had already seen on a CBS morning show that previewed them. Not being a football fan, I had no reason to sit through the four-hour game and commercial-rama and I won’t next year. Not after two disappointing years. The NFL needs to set some simple criteria for the commercials shown during the game and give the commercial watching fans a reason to tune in again, since it’s obvious the networks need some help. The first criteria should be that a unique commercial must be produced specifically for the game. No retreads allowed. The second criteria should be that the commercial is kept secret until airtime, just like the results of the award shows. We know who the nominees are but not the winner, that’s why we watch. Promoters of movies and TV shows needs not apply. I don’t know which movies spent a fortune on advertising yesterday but it was a dismal failure because I don’t know which movies they were. As soon as we recognized that another movie commercial was being played, we quit watching and started complaining. The same went for TV shows. Joining the CBS marketing staff this morning in the unemployment lines should be the NFL brain trust that set up the MTV half time show. How many boomers were thrilled with the likes of Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, and a handful of rappers that all sounded the same, terrible? The conclusion of the show was an over the top, shock jock stunt that I expect to see on MTV but not on network TV. Justin Timberlake says it was an unintentional, wardrobe malfunction. How convenient that Janet had added a nipple medallion to her wardrobe while getting dressed just in case of a wardrobe malfunction. She must think of everything. Remember, it’s important to accessorize ladies! It’s a sad day for the Super Bowl commercial fans. You have 364 days to see that it doesn’t happen again, Mr. Tagliabue. I didn’t realize until last night, how incomplete my wardrobe has been. I didn’t realize nipple medallions even existed. But despite my love of shopping, I don’t feel a compelling need to run to the store this morning. That’s one fashion faux pas I am willing to commit again and again. I assume they’re sold as sets. If you want commentary on the game...you're on the wrong website. Go to ESPN. posted @ 05:54 AM MST [link] |
Here: Blog Archives About Me There: Old Site Archive Other Links Menopausal Screeds Links: Favorite Blogs:  Andrew Sullivan Blackfive Chief Wiggles Eject Eject Eject Electric Venom Instapundit Jennifer Martinez O'Hara Factor Rings of Benzene Useful Fools USS Clueless Vodkapundit Vox Zonitics Favorite Iraqi/Middle Eastern Blogs: Land of Pharaohs Hammorabi Iraq the Model Mesopotamian Favorite authors who actually make a living at it: Ann Coulter Ben Shapiro Charles Krauthammer Dave Barry George Will James Lileks Hugh Hewitt Jonah Goldberg Mark Steyn Michelle Malkan Oliver North Peggy Noonan Rich Galen Rich Lowry Susan Estrich Thomas Sowell |