Now the UW administration is considering "extending" the Student Code of Conduct, which raises an interesting question of legality.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but I forsee just a few minor problems.

1. Since when does the off-campus private life of an adult (defined as being over the age of 18) become the business of the University's administration?

2. Which parts of the current Student Code of Conduct, when applied off-campus, are clearly un-constitutional?

I'd be willing to bet that UW would dearly love to say "no student shall have in their possession at any time any firearm". Of course, they'd dress it all up in beaurocrat language, with clauses, sub-clauses, and other such folderol.

In fact, I'll be willing to put up Big Money - $0.25 American - that they'll try just that.

Any takers?

I will, from time to time, post a little quiz. If you guess right, you get to puff yourself up, and admire yourself in the mirror. If you're wrong, no one will ever know - unless you beat your breast and shout "mea culpa!"

Here's the first one, a tale of two houses, shamelessly lifted from Kim duToit:

Give up?

HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the (endlessly vilified) President of the United States, George W. Bush.

Family, Work, Family and Work.

See Mrs. OWW's entries to find out what's been soaking up everyone's time.

It's a great life, if you can dance fast enough....

Now those suckwads are making noises about suing the folks that notified the aircraft crew and law enforcement about their weird behavior.

THIS COLUMN explains my attitude very well. Read the whole thing.

I will add, personally, "I don't like you one little bit. And I'm running out of patience..."

OK, 3 'Publicans in New Hampshire were sent to the slammer.

Good - they did the crime, they can do the time, that's right AND fair.

Shall we talk about voting irregularities in, let's say, St. Louis? How's about that den of fairness in Chicago?

It's also fair to point out that the "Illustrious" former Prez, did in fact lie under oath in a Federal court. That's a felony. Good Ol' Bill lost his law license - and that's it.

That is a VRWC?

GMAFB!

There's a little irony here. I wanted to see the exact text of the Second Amendment, in consideration of THIS story.

The story went on to predict that this decision will be referred to the full circuit of 12 judges, then appealed to the Supremes, where it has a good chance of being heard.

Annnnd... here's the complete text of the Second Amendment:

What's been giving everyone fits is the two phrases "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Constitution does not define "Militia". And, it is clear from the correspondence and speeches of the notables of the time (Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others) that this was supposed to be an individual right.

Of course, one side seizes upon "A well regulated Militia", the other side seizes upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

I tend to come down on the side of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - if nothing else, it keeps the politicians wary - as they should be.

You back? You did read it, right?

Now then, I can tell you exactly why Mr. Anonymous Hero didn't hang around: He did NOT want to spend 'leventy-dozen hours explaining to the cops, the DA, and the Outraged Press just why he prevented a murder by pulling out a pistol and stopping the perp-wannabe from actually committing his foul deed. Mr. A. Hero did his good deed, and then went home.

I'm not kidding about the word "foul" - the crime would have been most infamous, and foul indeed.

Tip o'the hat to Kim du Toit, HERE.

Which one of the above hit the front pages of any major newspaper on the same day for this:

Click the link HERE, read the whole thing.

The area I live in has a major military presence - there's Navy and Marines all over the place. Yet, the Florida Times-Union absolutely buried this story, as did the NY Times, the LA Times, and all the rest.

If I weren't a compulsive newspaper front-to-back reader, I would never have known about it.

Pfui.

I think I'm going to start harassing any and all MSM (MainStreamMedia) outlets that annoy me.

Sigh. It's going to be a loooong life....

Now, granted that the Astronauts are screened pretty heavily to be capable, stable people. Still, sooner or later, you're going to get one that runs right off the rails. But this next part would make you sit up and take notice, even if it was Jane Doe from Kokomo:

Now THAT, my friends, puts this one firmly in the "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" category.

Sheesh.....

LINCOLN, Neb. — A dead man's storage locker yielded dozens of tombstones, a macabre collection that police believe represents "a lifetime of stealing." Some of the 47 gravestones date to the late 1800s; others are relatively recent. Police say they probably came from different cemeteries at different times. The markers were found by the family of a Lincoln man who died last summer, but it wasn't until Thursday that police matched the first one to a grave.

Folks, this one goes under the heading of "You Can't Make This Stuff Up!"

Mr. Arkin might consider that most people who are in the military already are "True Believers". And that they do believe that they are standing between their beloved home and the forces of evil and darkness.

Mr. Arkin, you might want to consider this: There are a whole bunch of folks out there who don't agree with you, especially with the notion that an honest opinion that doesn't agree with yours does not automatically make someone "anti-" anything.

Mr. Arkin, you are not the final arbiter of opinion. And just like any other American, our soldiers are entitled to their opinions. For you to say "I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people." is highly inappropriate.

I'd like to remind you that American soldiers are also "American people". And for you to suggest that military commanders dictate to their subordinates what they should approve or disapprove of smacks mightily of "thought police".

A final thought: I don't want you to "shut up". I want you to continue to be what you so obviously are. Go ahead and trot your opinions out there - and be prepared to have some of your readers disagree with you. Even if they are active-service military people. After all, dissent and debate are the American Way.

If that makes me "arrogant" and "intolerant", so be it.

And, by the way... Where were YOU in '72?

That makes me a little cranky, OK? So, cut me a little slack, here.

Mr. William M. Arkin, of the Washington Post, has put together a little screed (HERE) knocking NBC (see the video HERE) for daring to report how those young enlisted types who are actually serving in the Sand Box feel about "Support the troops, 'Diss the mission".

Actually, the illustrious, industrious Mr. Arkin just 'disses the troops, with a kind of a side-swipe at the mission.

You mean to tell me that our soldiers aren't allowed to have their own opinions of people like you? And they're not supposed to say anything contrary to your notion of the will of the American People?

"Oh, the Horror of it All! I'm being contradicted by Enlisted Swine!"

And this:

"Decent" wage. "Vast social support systems". "Above society".

Sure.

Annnnnnd....here's the capper:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

"Mercenary".

Mr. Arkin, YOU get paid (probably by the word) for what you do. Does that make you a "Mercenary Writer"?

Well, does it?

These young men and women are not "mercenary soldiers". They are in the organized and Constitutionally mandated armed forces of their own country. They have indeed volunteered. Yes, they get paid. So do you.

There is one big difference between you and them. They stick their physical necks out. You just stick your literary neck out.

And by the way, from 1969 through 1973 I was in the Armed Forces of the US. Judging from your photo, you and I are contemporaries. Where were you, in '72?

Hmmmm?

The whole schemozzle started HERE, then John weighed in HERE whereupon my Sweetie laid THIS out for public consumption.

Flowers? Dinner (at a nice joint)? Chocolate?

Sure - nada problema. That's already budgeted anyway.

Jewlery? May or may not fit the budget, but I'll try....

And, Sweetheart, when the next telemarketer calls, I'll try to make sure that you are not forced to listen to me verbally dismember the cretin...

Here's the sentence: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

Read the entire post HERE.

When I heard Mr. Limbaugh ranting and raving over Cullen's written comment, I thought that surely he must be mistaken. Rush has been known to miss once or twice.

Well, Rush, you weren't wrong, but you were getting a little over-exercised. Or were you?

It turns out that Dr. Cullen has had as a guest on her show a fella named Dave Roberts who has advocated the following for people who are sceptical of "global warming" theories: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg." See his words HERE.

My apologies to Rush - and it appears to me that Dr. Heidi Cullen and The Weather Channel deserve all the criticism they get.

Let me explain....

Y'see, I happened to be next to the phone when it rang at 8:30PM this evening. On the other end of the connection was some guy (who very politely introduced himself, but I cannot remember his name), who tried to sell me something, a subscription, perhaps?

He said he was representing the New York Times.

Anyway, I offered to "crawl right through the phone and rip your ears right off your head, and after that, I'll get really rude!" Imagine an escalating volume, if you would.

I didn't swear.

I didn't offer to jump on an airplane to do him actual physical violence.

I was merely... rude, obnoxious, and noisy.

We're on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for a reason.

But, because of my immoderate (although limited - I didn't even get properly warmed up) invective, my beloved wife is annoyed with me.

She's much nicer than I am, and much less likely to use the telephone to puree and flambe some booger-eatin' moron of a tele-marketer who richly deserves every ounce of telephonic abuse and creative invective I can give him.

Bob, Jim, Fred, or whatever your name is, I won't apologize to you, not at all. I will, however, render a heart-felt apology to my beloved. She is, after all, much more important to me than your sleazoid old rag of an alleged newspaper.

And, Bob-Jim-Fred, if you should be so unwise as to call again, you'd better hope that you get to talk to Moogie, and not to me. She will be nice, and firmly polite, and will decline to buy whatever you're offering, and will, politely, refer to the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

If you get me, on the other hand, well, I learned, from a Chief Boatswain's Mate, USN, just how to go, for about two solid minutes, without swearing once, to elaborate on your personal habits, your ancestry, your current lack of discretion, your future prospects, and whether or not you have any smarts at all. Without repeating myself even once. And then, and only then, will I refer you, again, to the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

Think about that, Bob-Jim-Fred.

And Sweetheart, I'm really very sorry that I offended you.

UPDATE: I turned the comments on for this post.