Did you know it was illegal for animals to have sex in public in Oklahoma City? Or to pee and poop in public? A woman was recently ticketed when two of her goats did both things in their pen on her property. Her neighborhood was recently annexed by the city and she didn't realize it. Now, she has to build little porta potties for the goats, and a goat love hotel.

Does this mean that if a bird poops on your car in OKC, you can press charges? If you see two flies fornicating, do you call Oklahoma SWAT?

Clarkesville, TN has a bit of a teen drinking problem. At least that is what one would expect when reading Joe Mitchell's letter to the editor.

Mitchell has a simple solution: Don't sell cold beer. "I don't think any loving mother or father would allow their teenager to bring home a case of warm beer to be cooled down and carried out to their car that evening for a drive. And who likes warm beer?"

Joe, they sell this stuff called "ice." Heck, the MythBusters demonstrated how to cool a 6 pack in 5 seconds! All the kids have to do is buy a fire extinguisher.

Here's a novel idea, Joe: Let's make it a crime for a retailer to sell beer to a minor, and make it a crime for a minor to buy beer. Oh! Wait! It already is the law. Then, how about enforcing the law?

If we follow your approach, we accept that teens can and will buy beer. We accept that there's nothing we can do to stop them. That they will always find a way to score some suds. And if they will always get beer, why not legalize minors drinking, since we can't stop them?

Berlin's funky Kreuzberg neighborhood teems with diverse places to eat. It has Chinese and Thai, a laid-back cafe with old sofas and dark German beer, and an Italian coffee bar with artisan-roasted beans and organic provolone.

But they don't want a McDonalds. Here's the story. Sounds like the Germans in Fredericksburg. Even though Berlin already has 40, count them, McDonalds restaurants, "Kreuzberg is a very alternative neighborhood," said Philipp Raschdorff, a spokesman for the group. "That's what distinguishes the area."

Kreuzberg, which stood in the shadow of the Berlin Wall until it came down in 1989, for years attracted Turkish immigrants, squatters and leftists. Organic grocers and twentysomethings in dreadlocks and sandals still coexist with Turkish kebab stands and immigrant women in headscarves pushing baby carriages.

Apparently Kreusberg isn't as tolerant as they like to pretend.

Here's an interesting headline: " Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks"

Here's what the article says (fourth sentence): "The study's senior author, Dr. Vasan Ramachandran, emphasized the findings don't show diet sodas are a cause of increased heart disease risks." But, the paragraph goes on to say, it should be investigated.

WHAT?

Something is not linked to a result, so the link should be investigated. That sounds a lot like the WHO study on second hand smoke which said there was no link between second hand smoke and cancer, which was reported as demonstrating the link between second hand smoke and cancer.

Here's hoping the neo-Puritans will pounce on this and begin a lobbying effort to ban all diet sodas in the same way they have banned, well, everything else.

And so it begins.

Britain is looking at banning smoking and driving. They hope to cut down on accidents. Germany, Australia and America are looking at similar bans. I believe America is the only one banning it because of the health issues surrounding smoking. I say that because if we were really interested is stopping distractions behind the wheel, we'd ban talking on the cell phone while driving. Or singing along to a song behind the wheel. Or rehashing the argument we had at the office while driving. But we're not, so it has to be about second hand smoke.

My biggest criticism of the Church of Global Warming (Praise Gaia and her anointed prophets the Goreacle and Tom Brokaw. Hah-men!) is their denial, or, at best, their omission (but a lie of omission is still a lie), that Global Warming is a natural event. Two recent peer reviewed studies (those valued most highly by the faithful unless it's about the health risks of marijuana) show that Global Warming can occur in the absence of Man.

First: Scientists from NASA say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5°C since the 1970s, which is about same amount of warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. To me, this suggests that Global Warming may be a natural phenomenon over which we have no control. No amount of florescent light bulbs replacing incandescent will stop it.

Second: Greenland volcanic eruptions 55-61 million years ago broiled and acidified the oceans, and killed up to 50 percent of the world’s deep-sea organisms; also opened up new migration routes for horses and other mammals into North America; and might have even fueled early primate evolution, the study says by raising global temperatures about 10°C. The study said it took roughly 100,000 years to peak, and another 100,000 years or so for the climate to recover. To me, this suggests that Global Warming may be something best measured in geologic time.

Yes, the second article does say we may, not will--but may--cause the process to take 100 years instead of 10,000. But the first article suggests that Global Warming is occurring at the same pace on Mars, where we aren't.

Does this mean we should stop recycling, increase greenhouse gases, and continue drinking bottled water? No. We have an obligation to share resources. Does it mean we have to completely change our lifestyle by political means, including passing legislation requiring everyone in the US to become Vegan? No. Humans may have less of an effect on Global Warming than even I thought. Does this mean that Global Warming is primarily a political movement? Oh, yeah. It's a movement that is designed to position Al Gore for another run at the Presidency.

The Violence on TV people are rumbling up on Capitol Hill again. It seems that Bill Clinton (the bestest President ever, with the Internet inventing Veep) didn't fix anything with the V-chip. That's the device that censors what you see so you don't have to pay attention to your kids. Set the chip, park 'em in front of the tube,and live your life! Their fragile little minds are protected! Well, apparently not.

Apparently, even your fragile little mind is vulnerable. I mean the V-chip protects kids, so they shouldn't be seeing anything harmful. So why else would the FCC want Congress to pass a law to ban violent programming at an hour when children could be watching?

There are some concerns, though. Will this violence ban cover sports? When a fight breaks out at a hockey game, will the network have to go to black? Will the ban on violence apply to daytime dramas, which have storylines about rapes, beatings, and murder? Will the government finally get the news coverage of the war in Iraq off the air?

I don't want the government deciding what I can and can't watch. I don't want them deciding what is best for me. I pay the cable bill. I want to watch what I want to watch. Now, if they're going to pay the cable bill. . .

I have been watching the Left fall all over itself singing the praises of Barack Obama for President. Then they moan that he would be a perfect candidate "if only he didn't smoke." Apparently, smoking causes you to be conservative, or something, and that makes him unqualified.

Apparently, Obama has been reading the opinion polls, because he's quitting. Mind you, he's not quitting because his wife's been nagging him to give it up. He's quitting so he can be President.

I'm sorry, but if the only reason you can't support Obama is because he smokes, you don't have a strong commitment to anything. Getting bjs from interns under the desk? That's okay. Make money in a questionable real estate venture? No problem! Make unprecedented profits in the futures market? Saintly behavior. Claim a $10 charitble donation for used underwear on your taxes? Everyone does that. Throw your military decorations over a wall at a anti-war rally in the 70s, then run on your war record a couple of decades later? Not worth mentioning. But smoke a fucking cigarette? That's the kiss of fucking death! If he smokes, he's scum!

So here's how I imagine the application process. "Pro-choice? Check! For Affirmative Action? Check! Against the Iraq War? Check! For higher taxes? Check! Higher minimum wage? Check! Person of color? Bonus points! Oh! You're a smoker. Too bad. Next candidate!"

Recently, the City of Bangor, Maine banned smoking in a car with people under 18 in the car. This despite the fact that the effects of second hand smoke are dubious at best. And, yes, I know about the WHO study. The study said there was no correlation between second hand smoke and cancer. The news reports about the study said it was about the correlation between second hand smoke and cancer, and no one read any further. If you think smoking is bad, ban it. Quit this pussyfooting around. Have your elected representatives ban the growth of tobacco, ban the sale of tobacco leaf, band the processing of tobacco and the sale of tobacco products! Make your congress enact legislation requiring the tobacco plant become extinct.

In the United Kingdom, we are seeing the ultimate end of the nanny state we are rapidly becoming. Fat children are being taken from their parents and placed in foster care because they are abused. Any parent who doesn't make their kid exercise is considered abusive. The English are already considering obese pets animal cruelty. It was only a matter of time. On the flip side, this could be the only case where a parent is responsible for their kid's behavior. Fat kid? Mom's fault for spoiling the monster. Kid spray bullets around the inside of his school? Rockstar Games is at fault because of their vid-yuh games.

Back on December 2, 2003, I wrote this entry in another blog. On January 1, the excise tax on cigarettes in Texas is going from $.41 to $1.41. This magic tax will do three things: Stop everyone from smoking, increase tax revenue, and fund education in the state. Though I still don't see how getting the number of smokers to zero is going to increase tax revenue and fund education (because if no one is smoking no one is paying the tax). Anyway, here's a moldy oldy from the archives:

Why Excise Taxes to Stop Behavior are a Bad Idea

A news story out of Austin reveals that a public policy wonk has decided that raising the excise taxes on cigarettes in Texas to $1.41 per pack (from $.41 per pack) will "reduce smokers, cut health care costs and help finance public schools" by generating $986 million in new revenues.

Bull! It will reduce smokers. Sure there will be a short-term gain in revenues, but if the number of smokers decrease, then the revenues will too.

The Centers for Disease Control released a study that concluded a 10% increase in excise taxes results in a corresponding 10% decrease in consumption.

Meanwhile, the State of Texas has been using its share of the tobacco settlement to fund anti-smoking programs, and these programs have been fairly successful. According to the State of Texas Fiscal Size Up 2002-2003 in 1998 the State collected $623.6 million in excise taxes. In 2003, the expected revenues are $562.6 million. That is a 10% decrease in revenues. A new study by the CDC, trumpets the fact that anti-smoking programs work!

The CDC recommends stiff tax increases, and increased funding for anti-smoking programs.

So here we have a guy that says raising cigarette taxes will reduce public health care costs and fund public schools! Wow! What a great tax!

There is a group called Trust for a Smoke Free Texas who advocate this plan to raise revenue, even though they want this revenue source to dry up! On the page that has a report on this latest tax proposal they show a woman carrying a tray with a bottle of beer and an empty glass. What are they going to go after next, I wonder?

The only way this tax increase will work is if every Texas resident is required to buy a pack of cigarettes every month!