When I placed the order, the website was telling me that the order was "Low Stock." However, two days later, I had not received confirmation that it had been shipped so I went to the website to check the status. It was now telling me that the item was "On Order" (i.e. back ordered) and that none were in stock, so I sent the following e-mail.

Hello,

I placed an order a few days ago and it is not showing that it has shipped yet. When I ordered it, it was showing that it was in stock (Low Stock), and now your website is showing that the item is on backorder. I have not received any communication that my order has not shipped because it is on backorder. What is the status of my order, please?

Hello,

We do not give updates regarding backorders since the website shows this information and is accessible by customers 24 hours a day as well as the status being available your invoice and orders section when you log in. XXXX does hold extensive stock on all titles wherever possible but occasionally titles will go out of stock. We endeavor to return to stock any and all titles that may be in a back ordered status as quickly as we are able. If studio/vendor has stock available then generally it will be in stock within 1 to 2 weeks. If you notice that a title has been back ordered longer than this time then vendor must also be out of stock. It is difficult to then give any accurate estimation of when stock will be available again.

Regards,
Jessica

Okay, I'm glad that your website readily shows whether or not an item is in stock, and is accessible 24 hours a day and that you have an extensive stock of titles on hand, but that didn't really answer my question.

So the title that I ordered is on backorder, then? The reason I ask is that when I placed my order, your website did NOT say it was "On Order" (i.e. Backorder), it said that the title was "Low Stock" which I took to mean that XXXXXX actually had it "in stock." (albeit "low stock.")

In any event, I would at least expect to be notified that an item I ordered that was indicated as being "in stock" was not going to be shipped to me because the item is actually on backorder.

Best Regards,
Heavyarms

Hello,

Once the title is filled and shipping you will receive the shipping confirmation email sent from our system when your order leaves our warehouse.

Regards,
Jessica

Perhaps I'm being too wordy in my e-mails. I understand that you are probably busy and have to answer hundred of e-mails a day regarding order status questions.

The item that I ordered on June 26 was listed on your website as being in stock. It has not shipped yet. That same item, when I browse the selection at your store, is now showing that it is back ordered.

Please, PLEASE don't think of me as trying to being rude or confrontational. I'm really just trying to get a "yes" or "no" answer. Is the item that I ordered on June 26 actually NOT in stock as indicated but rather, in reality and fact, now back ordered and thus not going to be shipped to me (at least not yet) for that reason?

Please check one

[ ] Yes, the item that you ordered from our website is now on backorder and will not be shipped until we receive more stock from our vendor. We are sorry that we had the item listed as in stock when you placed your order, either we were wrong or you must be a really unlucky guy.

[ ] No, the item that you ordered from our website was in stock when you ordered it and, even though it is NOW showing as being on "back order," you managed to snag one of the last few we had remaining in stock, you lucky dog, you!

BEST Regards,
Heavyarms

Hello,

The title you have ordered is not in stock at this time, I understand when you place the order for this title our website had a status of Low stock, when the order was processed in our system and the stock was being assigned no physical stock was found and thus the status was changed accordingly to On Order until new stock arrives when it will then be updated again.

Once new stock arrives your order will be filled and shipped accordingly when it is shipped a notification email will be sent from our system to inform you that your parcel has left the warehouse.

Regards,
Sarah
Accounts
XXXXXXX.com

Greetings Heavyarms from XXXXXXX.

We thought you'd like to know that we processed your Invoice ID XXXXXXX today.
This invoice contains:
Bukkake Girls 9: Hey, There's Something in My Eye! (not really! - H-Arms)

This invoice has now entered shipping and will depart from our warehouse within the next 24 hours. If your shipment is being sent by Priority Mail, First Class or Media Mail (domestic ONLY) then you will receive a separate e-mail shortly with Delivery Confirmation number.

Thanks for shopping at XXXXXXX, and we hope to see you again soon.

Uhhhhh...

So, are you guys just messing with me now?

Hello,

During the processing of my (credit card) declines I voided (an) order that contained this title which made it available to you.

Regards,
Sarah
Accounts
DVD Pacific.com There, now you know who I was dealing with.

Sarah,

I just wanted to thank you for your patient, friendly and professional service. That's just one of the many reasons I shop at DVD Pacific.com and recommedn that others do the same. (the others being the great prices and wide selection of titles.)

Have a great weekend and enjoy your 4th of July (hopefully everyone at DVD Pacific will get the day off.)

Sincerely,
Heavyarms

Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.
- US Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. ...Well, I'm looking at (The Fairness Doctrine), as a matter of fact, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.
- US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-La La Land)

You've all heard of the "Fairness Doctrine," before, huh? If not, the Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation that required broadcast licensees (i.e. television and radio stations) to prevent issues of public importance in an "honest, equal and balanced manner." Rich Galen has a nice explanation and history of the Fairness Doctrine in today's issue of his web column, Mullings, which I'll summarize.

The laws covering the use of radio waves for broadcast in the US are taken from the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1937. Part of those laws required radio stations to provide equal opportunity (not equal TIME) for all qualified legal candidates for public office. As Galen says:

This was back in the time when newspapers were openly partisan. It was not at all unusual to have one newspaper in Upper Iguana named the UI Democrat; and another named the Republican Iguanian. And they really were partisan.

However, the FCC in the late 1940's decided that this was not enough, that radio stations were considered "public trustees" and they had an obligation to "actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues." This was not a law, but an FCC regulation. Then came the era of "de-regulation" in the 80's, where Reagan conservatives sought to remove government regulation from most industries to promote a more free marketplace (and it worked!) With that, the Fairness Doctrine disappeared.

To put Lott's and Feinstein's comments into context, they were discussing the Immigration issue before Congress now. Both are in favor of the current proposed immigration bill, and both are upset that the American people aren't too crazy about it. Both seem to feel that this is because of biased or incorrect information passed on through talk radio, that Americans are simply misinformed about the bill. In order to fix this, they feel that the government must take steps to correct talk radio's misinformation.

Take a second and let that sink in. Two US Senators, agents of the Federal Government, are upset because they feel radio stations are passing on bad information, and want GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT to correct that problem. But what if the information is not bad information? Twice in the last three decades a Democrat-controlled congress tried to pass a law based on the Fairness Doctrine, and twice it was vetoed by the President, once by Reagan and once by the better Bush.

The reason that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative is simple. It's what people that listen to talk radio want to listen to. If a talk radio host puts out a product that people like, more people listen. If more people listen, advertisers are willing to pay top dollar to place their ads on that radio station. The more advertisers are willing to pay, the more money a radio station (and the people that work at the station) make. It is in the best interest of a radio station to put a product on air that people want, right?

However, a law based on the Fairness Doctrine would force radio stations that allocated three hours to air a program like Rush Limbaugh to allocate the same amount of time to a radio show with an opposing viewpoint. However, that doesn't mean listeners would have to listen to a show they didn't like, so chances are (if Air America is any indication), that radio stations would likely see a decline in ad revenue as they air for "opposing viewpoint" shows.

Galen makes another good point:

It is true that there are a finite number of broadcast licenses. It is also true that with 1,873 cable channels on TV and XM/Sirius satellite radio there is no shortage of choices for Americans who want to watch or listen to news or what passes for news.

It is also true that there are a finite number of hours in the day and forcing Americans to listen to or watch programming in which they have no interest - because people in Congress think they know what's best - is what's worst.

Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives for about 15 years, Republicans for 12. The Senate is even closer.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Once again, the Congress thinks it has a solution and is looking for a problem to fit it.

So, as it turns out, I actually posted a socially relevant post on June 21. I was watching WindTunnel with Dave Despain, which is weekly call-in show that deals with auto racing. On the most recent episode, a viewer e-mailed Despain regarding the Charles Barkley comment where he jokingly said that female NASCAR fans are toothless with bad hair, etc. The viewer asked Despain why more was not made out of Barkley's comments and compared the situation to Don Imus.

Despain essentially said that there is some difference because Imus made an essentially racist comment towards a group of black girls and that Barkley's comments, while addressing an overwhelming majority of white women, were not overtly racist. Despain went on to say that he believed in "free speech" and that Barkley should not be fired. He went on to say that EVERYONE is protected by free speech and should be allowed to say whatever they want and that, if you don't like what they're saying, you are free to change the channel.

I have two problems with Despain's arguments, one of which I feel stems from a common misconception by most of us.

First of all, as I have said before, when Imus made his "nappy-headed ho" remark, he was not, I repeat, NOT addressing a group of black girls. He was addressing the Rutgers women's basketball team, which was composed of black girls AND white girls. When he called the Lady Knights "nappy headed hos," he called the Tennessee Lady Vols "cute" in the same breath. Coincidentally, the Lady Vols team is composed of...you guessed it...black girls AND white girls. While Imus made an unfortunate comment, rational people will realize that there was no RACIST motivation behind it.

Second of all, and more pressing, is the matter of "free speech." Despain seemed to indicate through his comments that he believes that "free speech" entitles you to say whatever the hell you want to say, whenever the hell you want to say it. Maybe and maybe not.

Despain feels like he can say whatever he wants to say, and if you don't like it, you can listen to someone else's show. But that ain't how it works. If Despain were to go on air next week and refer to a black person on his show as a "nigger" he'd probably be fired. And you'd probably agree that he should be fired, too. He probably would as well.

"Freedom of Speech" is a concept that Americans have started to assume gives them carte blanche to say ANYTHING and still be protected against any detrimental treatment based what is said. This is NOT the case. "Freedom of Speech" may protect your right to say whatever you wish, but it is not an all powerful blanket protection against the consequences. Sure, "freedom of speech" protects you from being thrown in jail if you said "the President is an asshole," as it should. "Freedom of speech" can keep you from having your assets seized if you say "Nancy Pelosi is a fucking whore," as it should. But "Freedom of Speech" does NOT mean that you can say whatever you want to say and live consequence free. "Freedom of Speech" does NOT prevent you from getting tossed out on your ass by your employer if you say something that negatively effects the public perception of that employer.

But it happens every day in America. When another person reacts negatively to something said, the speaker will cry "Free Speech" in the same manner a kindergartener will say "naa nanny boo boo." People assume that they can say ANYTHING and will still be protected from ANY adverse reaction because of "Freedom of Speech." That's not the way it works.

A vehicle is passing by an apartment complex to drop its passenger off at work. It is around 9pm. In the area is an an estimated crowed of 2,000 to 3,000 people. The vehicle accidentally hits a young child, 3 to 4 years old. The driver gets out to check on the girl when a group of about 20 men begin beating him. The passenger of the car gets out to help the driver when the group turns on him. The passenger collapses under the assault and is left lying in the parking lot. The driver escapes on foot. The passenger dies from his injuries, the cause of death is "Blunt Force Trauma." (That is to say, he was beaten to death.) The child was taken to the hospital and treated for non life-threatening injuries.

There is some information missing from the article...

Cars Smashed, Drivers Attacked After Milwaukee's Juneteenth Celebration

In Milwaukee, following the city's annual Juneteenth celebration, some of the departing crowd surrounded a vehicle stuck in traffic. A couple of teens jumped on top of the car and kicked out the rear windshield. The driver stayed in the car and was unhurt, but hit the car in front him trying to get away from the attackers.

In a separate incident, another teen jumped on the back of a woman's car. She got out of the car to yell at the teen, and hit the car in front of her as she tried to drive away.

In yet ANOTHER incident, a crowd surrounded a third car and began pounding on the hood and trunk and breaking out the windows. The driver got out of the vehicle and was assaulted by being kicked in the head.

In a fourth incident, a woman assaulted a police officer as he tried to break up a fight. The officer was wearing riot gear, and the blow shattered his face shield. He was cut in the face and required stitches to repair his wound. Milwaukee's Juneteenth celebration was marred by violence last year, as well.

There is some information missing from the article...

What is Juneteenth?

Juneteenth commemorates the date June 19, 1865 when Union General Gordon Granger and around 2,000 troops landed in Galveston to take possession of Texas and emancipate that state's slave population. Reportedly, the former slaves rejoiced in the streets with much jubilation, and "Juneteenth" celebrations have been held since. The celebration spread and become an official holiday in 14 states.

Juneteenth is a primarily black holiday. That is to say, the vast majority of people who celebrate Juneteenth are black. The "participants," "members of the crowd," "assailants," whatever you want to call them, mentioned in the articles above were black. The "gathered crowds" were black. The attackers were all BLACK. But you wouldn't know that to read the articles. You can infer from the victim's name in the first article, Morales, that he is hispanic. In the one video I can find of the Milwaukee attacks, the victim appeared to be white. But you wouldn't know that, because the articles don't tell you. Why is it not mentioned? Why don't these articles tell you that the attackers were all black and that the victims were not? Why did I not hear about these incidents on the news last night? (I watched our local news at 5, 6, and 10, and the National news at 5:30.) I didn't even HEAR about these incidents until I heard them on the morning radio show I listen to (which, incidentally, is based out of Houston.)

Maybe the race of those involved in these incidents is important, maybe it isn't. But what if the opposite were true? What if it was a large group of 20 white guys that had beaten a passing black motorist to death? Would the races of those involved have been mentioned then? What if the passing motorists in Milwaukee had been black, and the group that assaulted one driver and vandalized the cars had been white, or Asian. Would the races of the perpetrators and victims have been mentioned then?

Of course it would have been, and we ALL know it.

What is this indicative of? Is our media scared of relating this information to us because they'd be branded as "racist" (a word which, in America, has been bandied about so casually as to have lost ANY coherent meaning. Oppose illegal immigration? RACIST! Want to investigate that black congressman for bribery? RACIST! Opposed to Affirmative Action and minority quotas/set asides? RACIST!) Are we so worried about the Wrath of God coming down in the form of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/Push Coalition or Al Sharpton's...well, whatever the fuck the name is of the group that Al Sharpton runs is...that we are remiss in reporting THE WHOLE FUCKING STORY?

Of course, we do nothing but validate this kind of bullshit by giving in. America is NEVER going to be a land where everyone is treated EQUALLY when we're scared to discuss race. Remember the Don Imus incident? Don Imus made what was an off-handed comment and a lame attempt at humor, and had the whole Wrath of God (the aforementioned Jackson and Sharpton ass-squad) come down on him. It's national news for what seems like months. Its the lead story on the nightly newscasts of the national networks. The 24 hour news channels dedicate entire story segments to talking about it. He's forced to apologize and he eventually loses his job over it.

Fast-forward to the recent NBA finals broadcast on TNT. During a commercial break the TNT runs an advertisement for their NASCAR coverage. The ad features a bevy of scantily-clad young women extolling the virtues of their favorite NASCAR driver, with "Born to Be Wild" playing in the background. The network resumes coverage, and TNT basketball commentator Charles Barkley tells us that the NASCAR commercial was "False advertising. Those women had their own teeth, and they were clean. They had nice hair. They don't have those type of women at NASCAR."

Did you hear about this? Did Katie Couric appear breathless as she relayed to you THIS LATEST OUTRAGE in racial relations in America? Did Geraldo go in depth into the possible racist beliefs of Mr. Barkley? NO! TNT defended Barkley's comments as "just a joke."

I did a Google News search on "'Charles Barkley' NASCAR" for the last month. I got 15 results, only one of which actually dealt with the story at hand, and this came from a blog. Doing a search on "'Don Imus' Rutgers" for the last month gives me 635 hits, and that shit happened almost three months ago.

Just to recap...

White guy makes an off-hand comment about a group of women, some white, some black. Wrath of God descends upon him, he is branded a racist, forced to issue an apology and is fired.

Black guy makes an off-hand comment about a group of women, ALL WHITE....

What? Oh that? Oh...that was just a "joke." What's the matter, cracker, can't you take a joke?

Staff Sgt. Eric Thompson, a jump instructor in the US Air Force's 532nd Training Squadron, on a training mission.

That tiny little spear bursting through the clouds...oh, that's just a Delta II rocket that just launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base. I bet SSgt. Thompson (who planned the jump to conincide with the launch) had a beautiful view.

However, today takes the cake. Our applications, for some reason, have a spot for the applicant to list an emergency contact. I don't really know why this is, because we've not hired the person yet and I don't know what the purpose would be for asking an applicant their emergency contact information.

Anyway, on an application I got today, under In case of emergency, please notify: the applicant wrote "Jane Doe" (not the real name) and under Relationship, he wrote Baby momma.

Teacher, 41, booked after taking photos of girls in bikinis
. It happened at a local water park, a mom noticed that a man was taking pictures of her daughter and other girls with his cell phone and complained to management. The man, Duane Champagne, an elementary PE teacher, was detained by law enforcement and it was found that he had over 50 pictures of bikini-clad young girls, most between the ages of 10 and 13. The pictures focused mainly on the buttocks and breasts of the girls. The LA Dept. of Justice, after obtaining permission from Champagne, searched his home computer and found over 13,000 images of girls, most in bathing suits. The article does not specify the estimated age of the girls in the pictures on his computer. Champagne told law enforcement officials that he took the pictures of the girls "because they are cute."

Champagne was booked into parish jail on one count of "Video Voyeurism."

Louisiana's Video Voyeurism, passed in 1999 in response to the case of a woman who was secretly videotaped by the landlord of the home she was renting. At the time, there was no law against secret videotaping. The law makes it a crime to secretly record images of anyone IF it is for "lewd and lascivious" purpose, punishable by a $2,000 fine and up to 2 years in jail. It also provides harsher penalties if the offender records images of any child under the age of 17 if the intention is to "arouse or gratify the sexual desires of the offender" regardless of whether or not the activity is in secret.

Now putting aside my concerns as a father for a minute, and setting aside the fact that if I caught this guy taking pictures of my daughter, I'd probably beat his ass, let's look at this with a cool head for a minute.

A criminal investigation of Champagne's background reveals that he has a clean record. The school where Champagne works said that up to this point he has given no reason to call into question any problem in this area."

I ask, what harm is being done here? If this mom had not noticed Champagne recording pictures of his daughter (and kudos to her for actually paying attention to her child and her surroundings), would the victim have even known she was a victim? Is Champagne's behavior really something that needs to be a CRIME?

Understand, there is no question in my mind that Champagne is guilty of the law AS WRITTEN. I don't doubt that this scumbag was going to go home and do what most men NORMALLY do while looking at an issue of Playboy or the Victoria's Secret catalog, but who is he actually HURTING by doing so? What is actually happening, I feel, is that we're prosecuting someone because he's morally corrupt. We're convicting someone for a THOUGHT CRIME.

Look at it this way, what's the difference between this man going to a water park and just looking at girls in bikinis in order to get his jollies, and taking pictures of these girls for use later? Sure, you could argue that it is an invasion of privacy, but honestly if you let your little girl go to a water park and walk around in a swimsuit, you are already surrendering some of her right to privacy in the first place. It's difficult to think about, we parents ARE taking the chance that there is some deviant there just so he can get turned on by a child. I mentioned to my wife yesterday that I think I have a problem with this, and my wife says that she doesn't. Her reasoning was that the victim needed to be protected, but protected from what? If this pervert gets turned on at the sight of an underage child in a swimsuit, should we really be allowed to punish him for the way he THINKS? I wonder if, as long as the man has not physically or verbally harassed a "victim," should we really make that behavior a crime?

Now, I wouldn't have a problem in the least if water parks prohibited patrons from taking pictures. They are a private establishment, and I might even whole-heartedly support that effort. But with this law, I don't know, I honestly feel like it is a bad law.

Here's a thought for you. Men, we've all gone to the beach, a pool party, somewhere where we've had to be around women in a swimsuit, right? I'm sure we've all, once or twice, checked out a woman that we've found particularly attractive or sexy. Women, you've probably done it, too. Now, say you see a young lady that tickled your fancy, only later to find out that the young lady (or man) was 17, or 16. Does that automatically make you a pervert? I'm not trying to equate that hypothetical situation with what happened with Champagne, it's a bit more difficult to confuse a 10 year old girl with an 18 year old, but its food for thought.

Here's another one for you. What if you're taking a picture of your family at the water park? What if, while snapping a picture of your son coming down a slide you inadvertently get a 15 year old girl in the frame? The girl's mom sees this and assumes that your photographing her daughter, so she goes to complain. You get detained, and try to explain that you were only taking a picture of your son. Is that fair?

Angelina Jolie for Freedom of the Press...NOT SO FAST FOX NEWS!
Angelina Jolie is starring in a new film titled A Mighty Heart. It is the film adaptation of the memoir of Mariane Pearl, wife of murdered reporter Daniel Pearl.

The film premiered Wednesday night. However, Jolie required all reporters to sign a contract stipulating what kind of questions she could be asked prior to allowing anyone to interview her. The contract stated that the reporter would only be allowed to ask questions pertaining to the film, no other questions would be allowed. The contract also stated that the interview could only be used to promote the film, and portions of the interview could not be run in connection to another story. The interview could not be used in a manner that was "demeaning, disparaging, or derogatory to Ms. Jolie." In the event that the terms of the contract were violated, it stipulated that the tape of the interview would not be released to the interviewer, and opened the door for Jolie to sue the interviewer and also get a restraining order. Several major news outlets canceled their interviews upon learning of the contract's terms.

The most egregious thing, though...Jolie instructed Paramount Pictures publicists (the film's distributor) to BAN Fox News Channel and all Fox News outlets from the covering the red carpet even.

Ironically, the premier of the film was a benefit for the organization Reporters Without Borders, an organization that supports Freedom of the Press and seeks to prevent censorship.

So Long, Criminal Border Guards
So, we've all heard of the two border guards who were convicted of wrongfully shooting an illegal alien attempting to enter the United States, but have you heard the whole story? These are the FACTS surrounding the case.

The agents' names are Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. Both are LEGAL immigrants from Mexico. Both served in the military and have served on the Border Patrol for years. Ramos was nominated in 2005 for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

The man they shot, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, was attempting to cross the border in a van containing 800 pounds of marijuana, valued at over $1 million. Aldrete-Davila was given a temporary visitor's visa by US attorney Johnny Sutton in exchange for his agreeing to testify against the two agents. In addition to his visitor's visa, he was also given free medical care to treat his gunshot wound (a single shot in the ass), an unconditional border crossing card (!!!!!!!), and a GAP gift card (honest). As a show of thanks, Aldrete-Davila has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the United States. Just 8 months after the incident, he was again caught attempting to smuggle drugs across the border. He has yet to be charged with anything.

The two agents were accused of "covering-up" the incident because they did not fill out the appropriate paperwork after shooting at Aldrete-Davila, who was so injured in the shooting that he managed to run all the way back to Mexico. The agents also violated the Border Patrol's pursuit policy, which basically says they are not allowed to pursue anyone. The agents also failed to get supervisor approval to exceed the speed limit.

Sutton also prosecuted a Deputy Sheriff for shooting at the tires of a van full of illegal aliens, inadvertently wounding one of the passengers. The aliens each received green cards and $100,000 each. Sutton says that Aldrete-Davila has not been prosecuted because he has not been charged with anything. Who's responsibility is that? As FrontPage magazine points out, why, that would be Sutton!

If only our fucking retard President, our fucking retard Justice Department, and our fucking retard Congressional leaders pursued illegal aliens with the same fervor they used in prosecuting law enforcement agents. Fucking retards, the lot of them. Actually, I take back the use of the word "retard" because that's an insult to real retards.

President's Approval Rating Again at its Lowest
New Poll Shows President's Approval Rating at All-Time Low
President's Poll Rating Falls to a New Low
President's Approval Rating Drops in Poll

If you click on the links, you can see that these headlines are not recent phenomena. I only posted a few links because I'm just fucking lazy, but you will not find a dearth of articles telling us that the President has low approval ratings. Any time a new poll comes out, it leads the evening news. Even in reporting of the War in Iraq, reporters never miss the opportunity to remind us that the President is pressing on even as his approval ratings continue to slip.

Everyone get the point?

So why, then have we not heard of this poll conducted by the LA Times and Bloomberg? According to the Poll, only 27% of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, and 63% of Americans think that it is just "business as usual," saying that Democrats are not making the changes they promised last November. This 27% approval rating is the lowest in a decade.

Other items in the poll:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has an approval rating of 36%. By comparison, Newt Gingrich, reviled member of the GOP, had a 46% rating during his time as Speaker.

Only a third of Liberal Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing, while 58% disapproved. In January, the numbers were 43% approval, and 36% unhappy with the job Congress was doing.

Now, I hate to be one to harp on bias in the media (okay, I LOVE to harp on it) but what would the difference in reporting be if Republicans were still in the majority? (Honest answers only, please). Would you have heard that 27% approval rating on NBC Nightly News, or the CBS Evening News, or ABC News? Would it have been on the tickers on CNN or Headline News? Would it have been a front page headline? Would you be able to find a mention of it anywhere besides Bloomberg or the LA Times? I'm pretty damn sure you would.

Folks, the Republicans in congress were and are incompetent crooks for the most part, but so are the Democrats. The difference is, the media only wants to tell you about the Republicans, they simply turn a blind eye to the Democrats.

It happened to me on Saturday. My family headed over to the mall, my wife with the intent of buying something to punish me for all the toys and games and crap I buy, and me to peruse the used video game selection at the two game stores, obviously missing her point. Kids are along for the ride. Based on previous restroom excursions, we've learned that when one family member needs to go to the restroom, everybody goes whether they need to or not. If you don't you'll be headed right back to the restroom in five minutes when another family member suddenly discovers that they, too, need to go.

Back in the day when it was just my wife, my son, and me, it was easy, but now we've got a baby/toddler, plus stroller and all the requisite attachments. Now our restroom breaks are in shifts. Going to the restroom now is almost as complicated and time consuming as going in one of the stores and buying something.

It was my son's and my turn. Those of you familiar with men's restrooms are probably aware of the miracle of the urinal. The special kind that go all the way to the floor can alone be worth the trip to the restroom for a six year old boy "Look, dad, I'm peeing on the floor!" "That's great son, watch where you're pointing that thing." Urinals normally come in three different heights, the kind that go all the way to the floor (where the back splash can conveniently soak your ankles), the kind that are for adult-sized men (where little boys would have to get on their tip-toes and aim over their navels), and then little boy sized ones (lacking the complications of the previous one.)

Most men's restrooms have some combination of the last two sizes, but the one we went to this Saturday only had the grown-up sized ones. My son has learned that when there are no little boy sized urinals he is NOT to argue with me and tell me he can use the big-boy ones. Many a shopping trip has been cut short by such folly. He is, instead, to head to one of the toilets, preferably the handicap one (which is very roomy) to allow enough room for both of us so I can help him button and zip and buckle.

Entering an actual public toilet can be a very dangerous task. I'd prefer to enter one only when wearing a Level A Hazmat suit, but they're terribly uncomfortable when walking through Victoria's Secret. There's a common saying that "in order to judge the civility of a civilization, one needs look only at that society's prisons." I disagree with this, I think that, instead, one should look at that society's men's restrooms. I don't know what it is about an enclosed public toilet that brings out a man's most crude and poor behavior, but it does. First of all, there is a fine layer of urine on just about any level surface. If the same men that go into a public restroom and pee all over the toilet seat, the back of the toilet, the floor, on top of the toilet paper holder and the door do that at home...well, I don't even want to think about that. Then there's the actual puddle of urine you have to stand in to get to the toilet.

The worst part of all, though, is the vile, detestable stuff people write on the walls.

"Jenny Smith gives good head."
"To get pounded in the ass by a BIG throbbing cock, be here on June 11th at 7pm."
"Call 555-7825 to get sucked off."

That's just the mild stuff.

My son has the following instructions should we have to go into a toilet. "Keep your head down, pay attention to what you're doing, as soon as you're finished, shake it off, zip it up, and let's get out." I normally scan the walls for anything offensive and try to strategically place myself between the offending phrase (or most offensive phrase) and his line of sight. Well, apparently he forgot his instructions and I was being lax in my responsibilities, because my son, mid-stream asked,

"Dad, why does it say 'FUCK?'"
That caught my attention, "What?"
"The wall right there, it says 'FUCK.'"

I looked, and sure enough, some asshole had scratched into the aluminum surface of the wall the word "FUCK."

"Don't worry about it, son, just finish up."
"Yes sir."

So, my son for the first time has been exposed to the F-bomb. The word that will get him sent to the office at school. The word that, should his mother hear it come out of his mouth, will tear him a new one and then come looking for me because she will assume that's where he heard it.

I can only hope that one day the GENIUS who thought he was being so clever will have to explain to his young son what "getting pounded in the ass by a huge throbbing cock" means, and why someone would have thought it was a good idea to write that on the bathroom wall.

From today's Why the Hell Wasn't I Invited file:

There's a Reuters story to go with it, but honestly, what red-blooded heterosexual male cares? Why was this not front page news? Where is the 24 hour video coverage of THIS? Mexicans, Congressional corruption, Hurricanes, Presidential race, who cares about that crap? I want more of THIS.

DON'T WORRY, THOUGH! I'm sure my fellow Louisiana citizens will waste no time in sending another crook to Washington should we need to replace Jefferson, Democrat-Louisiana (see Huey Long, Edwin Edwards, Bob Odom, etc.)

No?

FUCK!

Okay, so I'm being facetious. Why do we waste our time with this kind of bullshit? What's the point of apologizing for something that ended 140 years ago? Is there anyone alive today that was directly affected by slavery? Is there anyone alive today that directly benefited from slavery? Is there anyone person who's life is going to be made better because of this apology? Is there even one single black person out there who feels better because of this apology? Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of white people that feel good about it. That's all this is, a "feel good" resolution. But not the kind that makes the masses feel good, it makes the legislators feel good. "Look what I did, aren't I a great representative for you? I CARE about people, dammit!"

And listen to what Alabama State Representative Mary Moore (Democrat, BIG SHOCK, there) said about this legislation:

"This (resolution) proves Alabama is open for everyone and we are ready to improve race relations,"

"The issue of slavery and its impact on the country had been kept in the closet until a few Southern states said, 'We want to take it out of the closet.'"