"Eve, get out of the water or we will never get the smell out of those fish"

I have not had a girl friend in a long time. I actually have not seriously dated since my divorce. Some have wondered why. Some of the more primitive minded can’t understand how I can “go without” for such a long time. For those that do understand, thanks. For those that haven’t progressed pass the 60’s, free love era or others that make me rethink evolution, please read on.

I CHOOSE not to have a relationship. I know this is hard for some of you to comprehend. Some people only see straight or gay people. You either are one or the other. But, there are Asexual people also. Its not that I don’t like sex, I love it. I just don’t think the strings attached to sex are worth it. It’s like the movie “The Girl Next Door.” One character was ask if the “juice was worth the squeeze”. To me, sex is not “worth the squeeze”. I mean, the shit that some women put you through just makes me wonder why there are not more domestic disturbance cases. Are men blameless? Hell No. Men, including myself, share in our fair share of the problem.

I find it ironic that the very guys that can’t understand how I can go without a woman, are usually miserable in there own relationship. Some have been married multiple times. I feel for them and I understand their pain, but please don’t blame me because I learned from my mistake.

I, most likely, will be alone for the rest of my life. If I find a woman that I am attracted too (not settle for), and I get to know her, and I get the feeling that she would accept me for the way I am, then maybe. The last part of that is why I will always be alone. I see women do it all the time. They get with a guy and then try to change him.

I understand that when two people start a relationship, things will change a little. Like the cartoon with the woman sitting with a man and the caption read, “Of course I can accept you for who you are. You are someone I have to change.”

It’s like the old saying “Guys get with girls, hoping they don’t change, and they do. Girls get with guys hoping they do change, but they don’t.”

My ex changed. Every girl in every relationship that lasted for any length of time has changed.

Just for the record, I am not gay, I never will be gay, and if you think I am, you’re an idiot.

Cell Phones don't kill, Yankees do.

I have officially decided that Yankees are idiots...ok, most are idiots. I know a couple of smart ones.

I stopped at the gas station at the Food City in Sevierville, TN. I started the pump, stepped away from the pump and made a call on my cell phone. I know what you are thinking, "Oh my gosh, no way. You will blow up everything!!!".

So, I make my call and a dumbass yankee (he had a think new england accent) started yelling from the next pump that I shouldn't be talking on the phone. I told him that: #1, I was at the rear of my truck, but not because I was worried about starting a fire, and #2 the cell phone causing gas pump fires are a well debunked myth.

He continued to ramble on about a sign that the station has up. I told him that there has never been a fire that was caused by a cell phone. He said that "It happens all the time". Wow. Really? Not according to Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) and the American Petroleum Institute. They say "We can find no evidence of someone using a cellphone causing any kind of accident, no matter how small, at a gas station anywhere in the world."

Could it be that Yankee-boy was wrong? I proceeded to tell him to mind his own business, kiss my ass and to take his Yankee ass back to where ever he was from. His concubine got back in the car and they left.

I didn't know if I should be mad at him or feel sorry for him. I know that I am upset with the lazy fire investigators that blame the cell phone first, then discover that it was something else. This has happened lately when someone in NY allegedly started a fire at the pump when his phone rang. This happened in May of 2004. The media was all over it. Do you think they reported the following with the same zeal?

"After further investigation of the accident scene and another discussion with the victim of the May 13 gasoline station fire in New Paltz, I have concluded the source of ignition was from some source other than the cell phone the motorist was carrying. Although we will probably never know for sure, the source of ignition was most likely static discharge from the motorist himself to the nozzle dispensing gasoline." Patrick Koch, the fire chief of New Paltz, NY.

Like all suspected cases so far, once they are investigated, the cell phone was found NOT to be the cause. That doesn't make as good of a story so the media ignores it.

To bring politics into this, the liberals want more laws to "protect" us from ourselves. Most people see their efforts as nothing more than a way to take our liberties away and assert Government control over us. No thanks. Look at New Jersey. They have a law for about everything. I learned that it is against the law for a person to pump their own gas there. I have been driving for years and I have never used full service, until I went to Jersey. I wonder if I can talk on my cell phone while someone else pumps my gas. Probably not.

Look, the Mythbuster on the Discovery Channel busted this myth a long time ago. They could not get the phone to blow up or cause a fire. There have been others to try to get this to happen and it just simply won't spark enough to start a fire.

Bottom line, personal freedoms are going out the window and we are doing nothing to shut that window. We let seemingly well meaning bureaucrat's make stupid laws, and yes, there is a movement to stop cell phone use at the pump. It has already happened in Cicero, Illinois and Canada's major gas pump operators have banned customers from using mobile phones while at the gas pump. Yankees and Foreigners. Maybe we could sell Illinois to Canada. Anyone got change for a dollar?

I still say that Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my handgun and cell phone combined.

Glock, the most dangerous gun...uh, no.

I read, with some amusement, the ramblings of the defenders of the Glock. Even more amusing is the people against the Glock. There is no doubt that the anti-gun crowd has smelled blood.

Are Glock's more dangerous? Well, guns are dangerous and some people that carry them are dangerous. Glock didn't do thierself any favors with the design. Glocks, in general, are no more dangerous than any other gun on the market in trained hands. The trigger has the only "safety" feature, where the trigger can't be pulled unless something is in the trigger guard, like...hmmm, say, a finger. The Glocks worked just as they were designed to work. Pull trigger and the bullet comes out real fast.

Let me say, in the spirit of full disclosure, I don't like Glock. I am well versed in the subject of guns. I believe in the absolute right to keep and bear arms. I also feel that no body should blame Glock for the misuse of their product. The accidental shootings, by police and civilians, are nothing more than a lack of training and carelessness. Glock offers training. If the police departments or individuals decide not to take it, well there is where the blame should lie. Glock designed and built a gun, marketed it to police and civilians. Glock, as far as I know, has never misrepresented the gun. Almost everyone I know has an opinion on Glocks. Either you love them or hate them, there is usually no middle ground. I personally will never own a Glock, because I don't like the design.

I think that all law enforcement should re-evaluate on the training of its officers. Individuals should be encouraged to take a class. I think Glock should re-think the design. I know all of these decisions should be made by the group or individual involved and not the media or government.

Bottom line: If you choose Glock, YOU must be responsible for YOUR actions. My advise is, if you buy a Glock, also get a RIGID holster and NEVER put your finger inside the trigger guard unless you intend to fire it. The way Glocks are designed, you should never even chamber a round unless you are in a situation that you may have to fire it. Unfortunately, law enforcement will not have this option, they must always be ready. Make yourself familiar with the gun. Don't be afraid to take a class.

There is my 2 cents.

We Don't Need No Edukashune

Ok, I am wondering about what is going on with schools. The teacher union is trying to convince us that a teacher deserves a raise because they are a teacher. In the immortal words of Col. Potter, “Meadow Muffins”.

Can you think of any other job that you can get a raise just because you are a…whatever? I was recently confronted by a liberal that has a daughter that is a teacher. She said that her daughter deserved a raise for “putting up” with the kids. That sounds like a discipline problem and the money should not go to the teacher, but to something that would take care of the problem. In this case, giving money to a teacher does not make the problem go away. Her daughter may be a very good teacher, and for that, she should get a raise. Before I could make the last statement, I was called names and she left the room. A typical liberal reaction for someone losing the debate.

Teachers should get raises based on performance, not tenure. I don’t care if a teacher has been teaching for 40 years, if his/her students aren’t learning, then they should not give him/her a raise.

Bottom line, Good teachers should get good raises, bad teachers should get fired. I mean, what job, other than weatherperson, could someone be bad and still get a raise?

One of the only ways to see if a teacher is doing a good job is to test the students and the teacher. The Board of Education, on the local level, could get with the parents and give an evaluation of the teacher’s performance and base the raise on that and the test scores of the students, they can determine if a raise is deserved. After that, it is a budget problem.

One other thing that bothers me is a report that I heard about pre-schools getting money from the lottery in TN. The whole concept of “pre-school” is disturbing. Kindergarten is supposed to prepare students for first grade. Now we have “pre-school” to prepare them for Kindergarten. Where will it end? Will they change the name? If “pre-school” is part of the school system, it is no longer “pre-school”, but now “pre-kindergarten”. You see the trend? The education system wants its claws in your child as soon as possible. With the new “pre-K” in the school system, your 4 year old will now go to school. I predict that whoever runs pre-schools now, will change there focus on 3 year olds.

This is a good argument for vouchers. Can anyone say “Home School”

I think I will go to my next school board meeting with my “Why Johnny can’t read…Now on DVD” T-shirt.