Art Review

Ever noticed that there are a lot of good looking cartoon women out there? I thought I would list a few in no particular order except for priority in which I would enjoy banging them.

#6: Betty Rubble

The original "Girl Next Door." I can't recall any other attractive women on The Flintstones, so Betty definitely provides the Tyrannosaurus e-Rex-tions for this formative period in mankind's history.





#5: Ariel

Sure there may be some anatomical abnormalities to work through, but anyone doubt it would be worth the effort? I guarantee there's some exotic fin-flapping-thing that would drive us mere men wild. I used to wonder how the ocean could produce so much driftwood. I am curious no longer. (Please note that The Musings of Milkey does not know the age of any cartoon hotties and therefore assumes they are all over 18.)


#4: Judy Jetson

From what I can recall of The Jetsons, Judy was a party-girl dying to get out. I bet once she hit astro-college she spent more time in the back seat of flying cars than in a classroom. Hmm... need a reference here for continuity... missiles, black holes, etc.



#3: Lois Griffin

I swear I catch myself checking out her rack at least three times during every episode of Family Guy. Lois has it all - a good sense of humor, parenting skills, a voice that haunts my troubled sleep in just the right way, the fact that she did the entire band Kiss... Plus you have to give an extra point or two to any Mom that's hotter than her daughter.




#2: Jessica Rabbit

What do I have to say? Sometimes I like my cartoon women dirty. Jessica is very sensual, manipulative, and into beastiality. Where do I sign up?







#1: Daphne

Daphne has a mysterious innocence about her that you'd love to solve. She also reigns at the top of my list due to the fact that she was the star in my very first sexually oriented dream when I was four or five years old. Boy did we kiss in that cave. It gives me chills just thinking about it.

Columbus NBC on "Stand Your Ground"

NBC4 out of Columbus published an article concerning the proposed "Stand Your Ground" legislation I previously discussed.

From "Proposed Law Gives More Leniency In Self-Defense Cases"

On St. Patrick's Day 2006, a west side woman, who did not want to be identified because of threats against her, shot and killed a 19-year-old who was trying to get into her home.

"I never meant to kill the boy," the woman said. "I just wanted to stop him from coming into my home."

She was charged with murder. The charges were later dropped after the prosecution believed she acted in self-defense.

"I'm not going to forget about it. There's no way you can forget about taking somebody's life," the woman said.

The proposed bill would have saved this poor, traumatized woman from being charged for protecting herself from the criminal that was breaking into her home. It also would've saved her thousands upon thousands of dollars in assured legal fees. I have read that the average cost for a slam-dunk, obvious self defense trial is between $100K-200K. Under current law, the cost for an average Ohioan to defend the lives of his/her family from criminal attack is bankruptcy. Sound fair?

Is This Thing On?

Just curious if anybody reads this thing except for Andy and Jen.

"Stand Your Ground" Legislation

I rarely paid attention to what my legislators were doing. My civic duty usually consisted of a quick internet search around election time. I've since changed my ways and have attempted to keep better tabs on those that represent me in our government. As such, I will be posting relevant topics that appear on my radar screen to hopefully initiate a dialogue with my voting peers. (I guess felons that have forfeited their suffrage can skip this one.)

Ohio Representative Steve Buehrer has recently introduced HB 541, commonly refered to in states with similar law as "Stand Your Ground" legislation. You can read the proposed bill in its entirety by clicking HERE.

Under current Ohio law, there are several conditions that must be met in order for a citizen to lawfully use force for self defense. (Pardon my paraphrasing, but I want to limit the actual legal jargon I quote later to HB 541 specifically.) These conditions are:

1) You must believe that you or a third party are in immediate danger of dying or suffering serious bodily harm.

2) You must not instigate or escalate the situation.

3) You must do everything in your power to attempt to retreat from the threat.

As outlined by the third condition above, Ohioans have a "Duty to Retreat" before they are legally allowed to use force for self defense... even in their own homes. HB 541 will amend only this aspect of self defense law (the first two conditions above will remain intact) by stating that a citizen has no duty to retreat and can defend themselves against someone that has forcefully and illegally broken into their home or occupied vehicle.

Sec. 2305.63. (A)(1) A person is justified in the use of defensive force against another that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to the other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person using the defensive force holds a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical bodily harm to the person's self or a third person.

(2) For the purposes of division (A)(1) of this section, a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the other person's will from a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

b) The person who uses the defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act of a type described in division (A)(2)(a) of this section was occurring or had occurred.

The legislation also proposes that a law-abiding citizen does not have a duty to retreat anyplace he/she is legally allowed to be when confronted by a criminal attacker.

(B) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat, has the right to stand the person's ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, and is justified in using the force, including deadly force, if the person reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to the person's self or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Personally, I think this is common sense legislation. One must still prove that they only defended themselves because the alternative was death or severe bodily harm. It is a bit ridiculous to legally force me to waste precious time trying to get my wife and I out of a 2nd story window before I am allowed to protect us from the ski-masked burglar that has broken into our house at 4AM and is standing in our bedroom doorway. Furthermore, if this right to self defense exists in my home, why shouldn't it extend to anywhere I'm legally allowed to be? The value of my life doesn't decrease because I happen to face death at the grocery store rather than my bedroom.

Any thoughts?

I'm Offended

Due to a very, very long drive returning from a conference in Michigan last night, I had the pleasure of listening to our beloved Tribe finally squeak past the American League Powerhouse that is the Kansas City Royals.

Tom Hamilton was talking about upcoming games and was hoping that "everyone could make it out to this Thursday's 12:05 Afternoon Business-PERSON's Special at the Jake."

Boy did that eat me up. On one hand, the Indians' organization finally got it through their neanderthal heads that using the phrase "Afternoon Businessman's Special" has been destroying America for years. On the other hand, how dare they imply that I am some egomanical psycho individual rather than a productive member of a business community.

Please join me in calling in death threats to the Indians' front office until they change their advertisement to the less offensive "Afternoon Business-PEOPLE's Specials." If you get some secretary that doesn't know her tits from her smaller paycheck, tell her you'll call back when a man can answer and not waste your time.

Milkey + Tom 4Ever

I dare you to try and name a better sports broadcaster than Tom Hamilton. I attribute a significant portion of my passion for the Tribe to to this living legend. He's intelligent, exciting, fair, and humorous. There are far too many assholes out there **COUGH - ChiSox TV announcers - COUGH** that have no business being in the booth. Take a lesson from Mr. Hamilton and only talk ball. I can't remember ever being bored during a broadcast or having to endure a lengthy silence... and I've listened to a lot of games being called.

I finally got to finish listening to Wednesday afternoon's debacle against the Royals. Mr. Hamilton's intro to the 9th inning after the commercial break went something like this:

"Welcome back to Kauffman Stadium. If you're just joining us we have some good news and bad news. The bad news is that the Indians are being embarrassed by the last place Royals for the third night in a row. The good news? The Tribe is doing their best to fatten up Kansas City as everyone in attendance tonight will receive twelve free Krispy Kreme donuts due to the Royals getting twelve hits in a game -- which doesn't happen very often."

The Lawn Mower

I promise to keep stupid shit at a minimum in this blog, but you gotta see this. Put on your headphones and enjoy... The Evolution of Dance.

"Why Do You Own A Gun?"

I have been asked this question a few times and always welcome it. Some firearm owners may feel attacked and answer with a simple, "It's my constitutionally protected right." They're correct... but that doesn't do much to educate an interested party that perhaps has never even seen a firearm. I certainly don't think that owning firearms is for everyone. There's a tremendous amount of responsibility involved. You must receive training. You must make sure that they are always under your control. (Please note that the latter isn't a statement of support for legislating mandatory trigger locks or mandatory disassembly that has become fashionable by today's anti-gun lobbyists.)

So why do I own firearms? I provide an ordered list below based on the probably frequency of actually using one. After seeing the list, I find it interesting that the reverse order represents the "big picture" of why the Second Amendment and personal firearm proficiency is important... even if the reasons seem unlikely.

1) Enjoyment - It's a lot of fun to go to the range. I've seen rabid anti-gun people begrudgingly go to the firing line and return with a big smile on their face. Once you have the safety and responsibility aspects of firearm usage drilled into you, it really is an enjoyable sport. The experience can also be very therapeutic. For the same reason people enjoy playing golf or going bowling, the shooting sports allow you to master a difficult skill and take pride when you hit all bullseyes, shoot 25/25 on the trap pad, or destroy that milk jug at 300 yards. I also really enjoy the historical aspect of it. I've recently started collecting military surplus rifles. For every firearm that I consider obtaining, I spend hours upon hours researching the history of it - where it's from, how it's different from others, significance of the skirmishes it was used in, etc.

2) Self Defense - I won't get into all of the statistics and facts at this time about how competent and law-abiding citizens that carry a handgun for personal protection lower crime rates on a grand scale. For now we'll focus on the personal aspect that bad guys rape and murder every day and I don't know what I'd do if something happened to my family and I wasn't prepared to have the chance to protect them. Criminals by definition break the law. That's why they're criminals. Gun control legislation only affects the law-abiding. Someone that knows the consequences of robbing a bank or murdering someone and decides to do so anyway isn't going to listen to a law that limits magazine capacity to ten rounds or prohibits certain types of grips on a rifle.

3) Protection of our Freedom - After average citizens defeated the world's most powerful military in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers realized that every single established government in the history of mankind has eventually trampled on the rights of its citizens. The Second Amendment was added to try and prevent this from happening to us. The most oppressive governments in the world enacted civilian gun bans to maintain their power over the people. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Whoever is in charge of the Sudan did it. It does seem ludicrous to think that the United States could erode to that point. It seems just as ludicrous to argue that American citizens with pistols and shotguns could take on B-2 bombers and smart missiles. Even if it seems unlikely, that threat of citizens not tolerating tyranny must still be maintained. After all, there are recent examples of civilian victories over modern armies. Castro did it in Cuba. The Afghans did it to the Soviet Union. And the Vietnamese did it to us.

So... why don't you own a firearm?

I Exist!! Validate Me!!

Prologue

One of the most interesting phenomenon associated with riding a motorcycle is "The Wave." I've always been curious if non-motorcyclists (or "Cagers" as we cool people call them) notice that riders will acknowledge each other on the road. This usually appears in the form of The Wave. However, a head nod is acceptable if coming to a stop or changing gears.

Just as there are many types of riders... there exist many types of Waves. Personally, I make a two-fingered sweeping motion below the handlebars. Imagine a stewardess pointing out airplane exits or a loose Cub Scout Salute. After riding legally for ten years, I have just recently started paying attention to individual Waves:

1) You've got your sportbike riders. As a crotch rocket screams by, you'll usually see Wheelie McZoomenstein try to balance the fact that he enjoys waving with a low, nonchalant flick of the wrist.

2) You've got your cruiser riders. As a chromed behemoth rumbles by, you'll usually see Shiny McRoarenstein extend his entire arm with open palm parallel to the road.

3) You've got your hardcore Harley riders. As a belching smoky mess of a machine lurches by, you'll usually see Oily McLeakenstein raise an arm at a full ninety degrees with closed fist... but only if you're also on a Harley. Please note that not all Harley riders are hardcore Harley riders. The vast majority fall into the cruiser category. The other hardcore folks think they're too good for everyone else at the steel mill and give motorcyclists a bad name. How dare you not wave at me just because my machine that was assembled in Nebraska says "Kawasaki" on the tank.

Anyway, after that not-so-brief introduction, I can now proceed to the main reason for this post:

Nobody ever waves at me when I'm on my scooter!

It's infuriating! Now, every time I see a motorcycle when I'm on the scooter, I'll give the most exaggerated wave possible. I'm talking full arm motion from waist to head. I probably look developmentally challenged, but does that bother me? Nope. This behavior yields me about a 10% return rate of sheepish acknowledgemnent. The rest I feverishly honk at and wish I could follow to tell them about the 1600cc sport cruiser in the garage that would leave whatever they hell they're riding choking on my dust.

I go out of my way to wave at everyone that's not in a car. All three categories listed above, including scooters, trikes, mopeds... I don't give a shit. They're all equal in my eyes.

Except for bicyclists. Those guys are fags.

Interpreting the Second Amendment

One of our country's most hotly debated topics is the right (or lack there of) for individual firearm ownership. As I'm sure you will see in several upcoming posts, this is an issue I feel very strongly about. As we begin, it's important to remember that the Bill of Rights was meant to preserve and guarantee, not grant, certain pre-existing and innate rights.

I thought I would dip my toe into the icy waters of gun control debate by discussing the simple wordage from our Bill of Rights:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's it. Only twenty-seven words.

One of the most frequent arguments from an anti-gun lobbyist is that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee an individual right, but rather the right of the state, usually the National Guard, to keep and bear arms. I guess they ignore some words and insert new ones when they read it and hear "the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the people."

Why is it that the word "people" is only interpreted in the 2nd Amendment and not any others? Can you imagine if the 1st Amendment interpreted the word "people" to mean the National Guard when it says, "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."? What about the Fourth saying, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."?

OK, let's ignore the fact that the Second Amendment specifically applies this enumerated right to "the people." For the moment we'll strike those words and let an anti-gun lobbyist rewrite the Amendment to say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of that militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

What did the word "militia" mean to the founders when they crafted this document? Simply put, the militia was the entire body of citizenry that could be called up for military duty. The term "militia" didn't have any association with a formal organization. The National Guard wasn't formed until 1903, 114 years after the Bill of Rights was written. Dictionary.com still defines militia as:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

What does this prove? I say that even if we were to let the anti-gun folks re-write the 2nd Amendment and strike the words "the people" from the parchment, that I could still own a firearm.

Now that hopefully you agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, we move on to the last few words...

"... shall not be infringed."

I can not think of any possible way that could be stated more clearly.

I realize a lot of my argument depends on the assumption that you, Loyal Reader, believe that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they drafted the Bill of Rights. Some people may think they screwed up. That's fine. All I'm saying is this is the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as it stands today, so you need to either vote in legislators who are willing to change it or get off the backs of law-abiding citizens such as myself that exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I feel there are very valid reasons for individuals to own firearms (another post perhaps)... and that abolishing something in the Bill of Rights is certainly a slippery slope that will set precedent for the erosion of our liberties that no government should regulate.

One more thing I'd like to add before closing the book on interpreting the 2nd Amendment... Imagine if there existed a similar amendment that read,

"A well-informed populace, being necessary to the security of an educated society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Any interpretation there?

Please Remember to Trim your Bush

I absolutely detest yard work. Why is it still customary for houses to keep and maintain a lawn? I don't need it for grazing. It doesn't produce anything... except weekly work. I'm seriously considering switching to something that requires less maintenance or produces food. I know a lot of people in the Southwest have green gravel as a "yard." Now that's an idea. They don't have to mow or fertilize, and they can keep track of illegal immigrants crossing into the country by listening for crunching sounds.

Joe Morgan Seems Nice

I'd like to have a beer with him and talk ball but I'm really surprised that he's been a commentator for over twenty years. Having Major League stars broadcast for awhile after they retire is a nice novelty, but most of them don't stick. Why did Joe? I usually don't find what he has to say coherent, let alone insightful. I also think that Jon Miller hates his guts.

During the last broadcast of Sunday Night Baseball, Mr. Morgan was talking about how intentional walks are bad for the game. "It takes the bat out of the hands of Pujols and Bonds and the fan doesn't like that." I understand this line of thinking from a marketing perspective. It is, however, not the case for those fans that enjoy the subtle nuances and history of the game.

How would the criminalization of intentional walks ever be enforced? Having an umpire give two bases for what he believes to be an intentional walk? "Whoaaaa there, Wild Thing. That one was also way outside. Batter... take your bases." I realize intentional walks would be harder to execute if the catcher wasn't permitted to stand and hold an arm outside the strike zone... but come on.

By the way, I really enjoy John Kruk on Baseball Tonight. He's knowledgeable, funny, and his presence gives us overweight guys hope for someday working on-air in the world of baseball.

Ohio 2006 Ballot Issues

For more information on Ohio's 2006 Ballot Issues, please see below:

Issue 1: Worker's Compensation

Issue 2: Minimum Wage Increase

Issue 3: Gambling Locations

Issue 4: Smoking Constitutional Amendment

Issue 5: Smoking Ban

Sign your Life on the Line

My beautiful wife and I closed on our first home Friday afternoon. Thank God we've jumped through the last hoop. For those of you that have this process ahead of you, I'd like to offer a few words of advice.

--If you're one of the crazy people out there that likes to read a document before you sign it, make sure to tell your closing agent ahead of time. This fake woman kept looking at her watch and repeating, "It's just a standard form" when I took the time to read what I was signing. Screw her! This is the biggest decision of my life and I read the Blockbuster receipt before I sign it just to make sure I'm not getting ram-rodded.

--Force your bank to give you a copy of all documents they are sending to the realtors and title company a few days in advance. They won't want to... but insist on it. Twenty minutes before the closing I was calling people to correct an error in the closing settlement fee and we almost didn't finish the process because the last document put in front of us stated an incorrect mortgage rate. Ridiculous.

--Talk to the most prominent person in a bank you can get ahold of. I dicked around with a normal mortgage broker for too long and she wouldn't budge on any kind of a rate reduction... even though we have an excellent credit score. I always thought I'd be rewarded for paying my bills and staying out of debt. That's not how low-level lenders understand it (or are forbidden from understanding it). This lady's boss gave me a decent rate. I feel a little bad about going over her head, but saving tens of thousands allows me to not lose any sleep.

--Have the seller throw in a dart board.

What Really Grinds My Gears

You know what really grinds my gears?

Stupid shit that bugs me.

And that folks, is what really grinds my gears.

Unattended Shopping Carts
Facial Hair
Football Commentator Bias
Movie Theater Hoods
My Garbage Men
Baby Age Conversions

This Post Is Under Protest

Today (the Mexican Labor Day) is a National Day of Protest in the United States. You haven't noticed yet? Neither have I. I will be brief on this subject as I don't have much of value to add that you can't find elsewhere.

1) I am all for legal immigration. There is a process in place that needs to be followed or else anarchy will ensue.

2) Have you ever taken a look at Mexico's immigration policies? If you haven't, they're extremely strict. No immigrant can ever hold political office and anyone found in the country illegally will either be jailed or immediately deported. A good source for Mexican immigration policies can be found here. A relevant excerpt:

"Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.
...
* Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."
...
* Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters."

3) What do you think China's reaction would be to people protesting in their streets with Japanese flags and a Japanese version of their National Anthem? I would think the Latino protesters would be a little smarter as these tactics can only hurt their cause.

4) I am protesting these protests. I am currently listening to a baseball broadcast. I ordered a rifle a couple of weeks ago and will be purchasing it this afternoon. For lunch, I chose to boycott Taco Bell and had Arby's instead. Their logo is a gigantic 10-gallon hat for Christ's sake. Can I be more American?

Who's Schmoozing Me Now?

As you may have gathered from previous posts, I feel that the good ol' U.S. of A. would be better served with more participation from other political parties. It seems pretty apparent that there is a growing divide in this country, and it's not between Republicans and Democrats. It's between the politicians and the people. The majority of politicians realize that in order to have any success, they must toe the party line. Most constituents have a few "deal breaker" issues that influence their voting practices. Since candidate's platfrms conform to the party on basically every issue, we are given the same choices year after year. One of the ways in which parties can be motivated to change is if they realize, "We lost by 4% last year. That [insert third party here] got 6%. What are they doing differently... and could it work for us?

With this in mind, I'd like to briefly touch on some of the other political parties out there that don't get the financial support or press coverage as our beloved Democrats and Republicans. I will do my best to give an unbiased overview from their party platform before telling you why you shouldn't vote for them and instead enjoy a few PBR's on election day.

Who's Schmoozing Me Now?

The Libertarian Party
The Constitution Party
The Socialist Party