Female teachers having sex with their students
Wow, another teacher charged with having sex with one of her students. I bet we only hear about a few of the cases, most are never reported or discovered.
Reminds me of 1978, when a young friend of mine asked me for advice. He was 16, and was having sex with the married woman next door, who was in her late 20's or early 30's. He told me they were in love, and her husband didn't love her.
I told him he could get shot by the husband, and to stop. I didn't see any long term good coming out of this, and I told him that also.
Well, he never listened to me, she left her husband (she had no children) for her young lover, and they're still married to this day. Shows how much I know.
Today, I would probably give the same advice to anyone else in the same situation, except that I would also tell this story.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Ward Churchill is a smelly, old, cigarette smoker
Ward Churchill, and people like him, are the reason we have a first amendment, because agreeable speech doesn't need protecting, only disagreeable speech.
People like Ward Churchill only hurt themselves by such speech, and silencing them would be protecting them.
But the most disgusting thing about Ward Churchill is he is a smelly, old, cigarette smoker.
Ahoy from the Captain
Rachel Gordon
SF Chronicle
Dear Ms Gordon,
I'll be 53 this month, and remember having a conversation about litter quite a few years ago with friends. I was pretty bad, not just wrappers, and fast food containers, but I got quite good at hitting signs with beer cans (empties) out of moving vehicles. We all agreed that it was simply a matter of eventually growing up, that caused us to stop littering. We all had similar stories of finally realizing the consequences of our actions, and how it made us feel about ourselves. But I still remember that before this realization, I basically acted like a mindless idiot, I was still a child. I had no thought of, or care about, what I was doing, or the consequences.
That seems to be what we're facing with litter. We're dealing with children, and they need to learn what to do. One of the first things to teach them is to pick up after themselves, and this should start the moment they're caught.
In your story, you point out the difficulty enforcing this. Catch someone littering, write a ticket, ticket will be ignored and probably dropped on the street somewhere (that would be an instant conviction). I've got a better idea, and one that could be easily done.
First, you mention that these litter deputies will only cite in the presence of a police officer. I don't see why they can't make the person pick up whatever they saw him drop, along with cleaning up the rest of the block they're on. Right then, right there, it's all over and done with.
They will suffer a slight inconvenience, the city gets cleaner, the officer can leave the litter deputy in charge, and go back to whatever else he's doing. They should still get a citation (for the record), but no fine. Citation should show that it was worked off. If the litterbug resists, the officer arrests him on the spot for resisting, and that doesn't take much time.
If The City informs everyone this is the policy, and puts up notices on bus stops, and does all the usual stuff to inform the public, I don't see any problem with this. Naturally, we leave it up to the officer to determine if a 9 year old girl dropping her candy wrapper has to clean a whole block, or if a 50 year old tourist, or 20 or 30 something year old child, has to clean up the Wharf, or Chinatown. Talk about attention-grabbing actions... Seriously, the officers should be able to be trusted to determine the punishment, based on severity of the action, in these cases.
This is a realistic, workable solution, that might cause people not to litter in the first place. Isn't that what we really want?
Ahoy from the Captain
Gun/Taser ban a violation of oath of office
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE
901 Mission St
San Francisco, Ca 94103
Dear Editor:
Why is it that an elected official who takes an oath to protect the state and federal constitutions, is allowed to support legislation that would support enemies of America, and weaken the American citizens' ability to defend themselves? What is it called when a U.S. citizen provides support to enemies of America? Whatever you call it, that's what anyone who supports anything that weakens the American citizen's ability to protect themselves from terrorists, out of control governments, and common criminals, is guilty of. At the very least, they are guilty of violating their oath of office. The local District Attorney should file charges against such people, and if the local DA won't do it, then maybe the state or federal government needs to bring charges against the local DA as well.
Yes, I'm referring to the possibility of banning civilians from purchasing or possessing Tasers, as well as handguns in SF. Anyone who has seen the success achieved by MADD in their war against drunk drivers should understand that their success was achieved without any restrictions on purchasing or owning vehicles. They have reduced drunk driving, and related deaths and injuries, by strict enforcement and harsh punishment, but they never prevented law abiding people from buying, possessing, or using vehicles. If people want to reduce deaths and injuries from guns, they should use the same methods. Strict enforcement of existing laws, and imposition of harsh punishment for the illegal use of firearms will work, if the example provided by MADD is followed.
These officials want, and need your votes, if you agree with this, let them know it. Otherwise, they'll continue taking advantage of their constituents' ignorance on this issue, and run right over those of us who object. Just because courts have allowed government to infringe on individuals' constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the past, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, or that they should continue doing it.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Captain's quick driving tips
First, when it's your turn, take it. Pay attention so you know when it's your turn, and take your turn when it comes. Believe me, if you don't take it, someone else will. Whoever stops behind the white line (or boundary of intersection if there's no white line) first, should be the first to start again. At four way stop signs, do not wave others through unless your car is broken, take your turn, that's what everyone else is waiting for you to do, so do it. Remember, it's only your turn if you take it, if you don't, someone else will.
Never stop for something that's not moving if you have room to go around safely. That's why they put steering wheels on the car, so you can go around things. Try to do it without stopping.
If someone waves you in front of them, get moving, everyone's waiting on you, no one will cuss you out, unless you can't keep up with the car in front of you.
If someone passes you on the right, it's your fault for allowing them room to do so. You're supposed to be driving on the right side of the road in America, and you use the left lane to pass, not to cruise. If you do your job properly, no one will ever be able to pass you on the right.
If someone pulls in front of you, it's your fault for leaving them room. Remember, if you leave the room, someone will use it. Since one must leave distance between them and the car in front, don't get mad at anyone for using that space, when it's your fault the space is there in the first place.
If someone is driving improperly, due to their talking on a cell phone, hold your horn down until they hang up, or are out of hearing. They will have a hard time hearing, and the best part is the person they're talking to will hear your horn as well, and wonder what's going on. This works best if you keep a small sign in your car to hold up while doing this, the sign should say, "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?" Sometimes, you can even get other drivers to join you in this.
Ahoy from the Captain.
NY Times editor's remarks/journalists have only themselves to blame
Someone please straighten me out here, I didn't know it was the journalists' job to suport the American public's viewpoints. I thought it was the journalists' job to provide information on all viewpoints, without supporting any particular viewpoint, or allowing any personal prejudices to show through. Leave the snide remarks, innuendo, outrageous hyperbole, and everything, including basic emotions, to the public (that's what blogs are for), and keep them out of reporting.
If journalists are concerned the American public, which is deeply divided over some issues, looks to them for support of their viewpoints, they have only themselves to blame. Don't journalists have the power to tell the public, not to look to journalists for support of their viewpoints, but for information, and opinions? If the American public cannot grasp the difference between reporting, and editorial opinion, doesn't most of the blame lie with the press? They have the power to explain this to everyone, and they try, but the media gets in the way. (Media, as in advertising, TV, movies, music, magazines, newspapers, radio, and everything that supports those industries, and whatever else I forgot to mention). The press is part of the media, not the other way around, get it? So the media has some control over, and has some effect on, the press.
It's a tough business, and if you blur the lines between reporting and entertainment, it forces all the others to copy you, if it works. And it did, long enough ago that what I'm saying isn't news anymore. It's a tough business, you want the viewers educated, but not too educated. Never let them see behind the curtain, blur the lines between news, entertainment, reality...keep selling that soap.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Violent kids play violent video games
Here we go again. Another lawsuit has been filed against a video gamemaker because a teen killed 2 policemen, supposedly because the video game desensitized him to violence.
The attorney who filed the suit was on TV, and said something I think is really stupid. He said something to the effect that if a million kids play this game, it's not unreasonable to expect one of them to become violent, and act out because of the game. I just don't buy it. I mean if there were a million kids who ate cheeseburgers, I'll bet more than one of them turns out to be violent, and it isn't because of the cheeseburgers. Out of a million kids, you're going to get a bunch of violent ones, a killer or two, maybe even a serial killer. These days, practically all kids have the opportunity to play these violent games. It seems more likely that kids who are already violent, and who would get in trouble for their violent behavior anyway, are more likely to play violent video games, than non-violent children. (There's an oxymoron for you, non-violent children, I've never seen a non-violent child.)
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Congratulations to Mr. Finian Maynard, World's Fastest Sailor, F2 Boards and Naish Sails. WINDSURFERS RULE, FASTEST SAIL POWERED VESSEL IN THE WORLD
Big, big congratulations to Mr Finian Maynard for reclaiming the speed record for sail powered vessels. A windsurfer once again holds the overall speed record, thank you Mr Maynard. I appreciate your attitude, the way you let everyone know you're not done yet, you know you could go faster given the right conditions. Anyway, it wasn't mentioned in the article what size Naish (and big, big congratulations to Naish Sails also, and F2 boards), and if the F2 board had any holes/pipes in it? I did notice the Naish Sails full page ad which features a 5.0, so I'm assuming for now that the record was set on a 5.0. And what's this MaverX or something mast? Who are they? Sounds like a second cousin of PowerX... anyway... I used to say windsurfers were the Harley Davidson's of the water, but we're even better than that, we rule.
Speaking of holes in the boards, I speculate, since in the same issue the speed record was set on an F2 board, there's an article about pipes in F2 boards. I don't blame F2 or Mr Maynard for not mentioning it, I understand. But I also can't help wondering....
Sorry, but the Captain just has to earn his stripes eventually, and he's wondering when Neil Pryde started making boards? I mean, I know they make great sails, but I've never heard of Neil Pryde boards before, and I wonder why they would be selected as the next board for the Olympics? Why not use boards made by a company with a proven reputation as a board maker? Why do I have the funny feeling that the French understand this, and I never will?
Ahoy from the Captain. Sail number 82D ABN
Shooting people/SSN/mix
Regarding President Bush's SSN comments, I heard Alan Colmes and JC Watts talking about critics of the President's plan on SSN, etc. Excuse me, but when did President Bush announce a plan? All the President has done so far is mention a couple of options he doesn't want to use, and mention several other options that he says are open for discussion. I haven't heard him lay out a plan yet, so how can there be critics of his plan, when there's no plan? This is when you can tell a legitimate critic, from someone just out to get Bush every chance they get. I don't know, but it seems to me if you criticize Bush's plan, and he hasn't got one, you've gotta be dumber than Bush.
Yes, I heard some General said something like "It's fun to shoot some people." Well, I just have to say they were unfortunate comments. I still remember the 2 Captains I heard laughing about their tours of duty in Vietnam, when they said the only time they fired their M16's was to shoot water buffalo. Those were also unfortunate comments, that probably should have been kept to themselves, but not if you want accuracy.
The military must somehow train men to kill other men. You don't want your son or daughter to go into combat unprepared. I still remember the morning runs (I went through basic training during Vietnam) , and the songs we sang while we ran.
I wanna be an airborne ranger
living a life of guts and danger
I wanna go to Vietnam
I wanna kill some Charlie Cong
These are not things a sane person really wants to do, yet the military has to train young people to kill other people, which is not really a sane thing to do, either. This type of man has always been in the military, no one is proud of killing (I pray), but sometimes you have to work yourselves into a different state of mind (like putting on a game face) to deal with the horrors of war. I was never sent to Vietnam, but I was trained to go, and just like those lyrics, can never forget some things.
I can't support or in any way condone those remarks, I can only speculate that this is the result of the mindset required to allow a sane man to do insane things, without going insane in the process. It works, or fails to work, differently for everyone. But what was that line that's so true? Oh yeah, "Dance with the devil, the devil don't change."
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Remove all guns from US citizens
Here's the proper way to disarm U.S. citizens. And this is the approved method of the Captain himself.
First, all the criminals have to turn in their guns, or be disarmed.
Second, all the police and military can turn in their guns, since criminals have no guns.
Third, now you can ask U.S. citizens to turn in their guns.
I don't see what's so complicated about it, it's really very simple. Only when criminals, the police and military have turned in their guns, is it proper to ask U.S. citizens to turn in their guns. Anyone who would want to disarm U.S. citizens, or make it harder for U.S. citizens to defend themselves, is simply aiding the enemies of all U.S. citizens. Sometimes it really is that simple.
Ahoy from the Captain.
Pope hospitalized for breeding problems
I can't believe what I just heard. The TV is on in the other room, and I heard an announcement that the Pope has been hospitalized with breeding problems. I know he's opposed to the use of condoms, but isn't he like 84 or something? This is just.....what? What do you mean, breathing problems? Is that what they really said?
Never mind....
Ahoy Emily Lateer, wherever you are...
Ahoy from the Captain
Deliberate ignorance of Democrats
Want to know why the Captain thinks the Democrats are losing elections, and followers? 80 million gun owners, that's why.
With 37 states having right to carry laws, which means that anyone who is eligible to own a gun in those states shall be licensed to carry the gun, if they apply for the carry license, and studies now show that crime is significantly lower in those states, than in states where gun ownership, and right to carry are restricted. Facts. Facts like Washington, DC, New York and California having the highest crime rates, despite having some of the nations most restrictive gun laws. Facts like in England and Australia, countries that passed laws to take guns out of the hands of private citizens, the crime rate has risen because there are more helpless victims.
The best way for Democrats to regain a majority at the polls is to get a percentage of those 80 million gun owners voting for them. Most Democrats say they favor individual choice. Well no one forces anyone to buy a gun, and it seems 80 million of us have chosen to be gun owners, and users. This never used to be an issue that mattered, there used to be as many Democratic gun owners, as Republican gun owners. Democrats should find a way to attract them to their party, not drive them away. They don't need, and will never get 100%, but they don't need all of them, just some of them.
It's ignorance if one doesn't know that removing guns from private citizens increases crime, and makes private citizens less safe. If one knows that removing guns from private citizens makes them less safe, and increases crime, then removing guns from private citizens is doing something stupid. I contend that Democrats know this, so they remain deliberately ignorant of the facts by refusing to acknowledge them. That way they can claim ignorance, instead of stupidity. I won't vote for someone I think is operating from a base of ignorance or stupidity.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Ahoy from the Captain.
Joys of Oral Sex by Bill Clinton
Hey how about that for a title to get your attention? Well I guess I better tell you a good story, since I tricked you into coming here.
You've heard about the gay man who was tired of his partner's teeth scratching him during oral sex, haven't you? Well, he went and had a device made out of soft rubber, that fits in his partner's mouth, and when his partner closes his mouth, there is still a hole in front so that someone could insert....well I think you get the idea. I happen to know the owner of the dental lab where the first device was made, and since it worked so well, he's been getting orders for more. Not just gay males are using them. Some are getting them for their wives and girlfriends. But here's where it really gets weird, these are all custom made in a lab using a mold of the person's mouth, and here comes a mold from a mouth that isn't human. Turns out someone is having one of these made for his dog. I never knew that's why they called 'em Cocker Spaniels. Just when you think you've heard it all...
Orders accepted via email. Ahoy from the Captain.
