Wednesday, August 31, 2005

What should I buy next?

OK, I either have, or have available to me for immediate use, the following firearms:

12 gauge Winchester Defender - home defense shotgun
12 gauge New England Pardner - hunting shotgun
.380 Bersa pistol - carry weapon
.38 Taurus revolver - carry weapon for my wife
.40 H&K USP - carry weapon when I'm not working
.45 Magnum Research/IMI - secondary carry weapon when I'm not working (and the wife wants the .40)
.22 Ruger 10-22 carbine - plinker and lots of fun
7mm Remington - cannon for hunting outside of Indy
7.62mm - AK-47 - recreational shooting

Any recommendations on what I should set up for my next purchase? I'm considering the following:

9mm semi-auto (a Glock maybe?)
.460 revolver
Semi-auto 12 gauge
Over/Under 12 gauge
.270 rifle
.243 rifle
.22-250 rifle
.458 rifle
.308 rifle
.30-30 lever action rifle

I'm open to other ideas as well, but those are the ones I'm chewing on right now.

Ultimately, other than a class 3 weapon, that's my whole list of what I want to own. Does anyone have any suggestions of what to get next?


Friday, August 26, 2005

"Practical Joke" and Bigotry

There was a post on this site yesterday linking to an email I had sent somewhere. What I didn't know when I posted that link was that I'd left my computer unlocked and a coworker added a racist line of text to the email (that I stupidly sent without checking to make sure it said what I wanted it to) that was eventually published.

I deleted the post linking to it once I found out, and have debated since whether or not to mention it here. I have decided that there are people I respect that come to this site and I need to make something clear.

I am not a bigot of any stripe. I have friends and former intimates of many different cultural backgrounds and ancestry and make decisions about the people in my life based upon their behavior, beliefs, and how they treat me. I don't care how much melanin is in someone's skin, how well they speak my language (beyond the ability to communicate with them), or where their ancestors came from. Moreover, I resent that I even feel the need to defend myself.

Ultimately, I'm a bit of an odd bird when it comes to bigotry. It isn't so much that it enrages me so much as it is a red flag that the person practicing it is unlikely to be terribly intelligent. It is because of that I tend to avoid bigots. If I (ever) meet one that is smart and doesn't act like a cretin to otherwise unoffending people or let loose with a steady stream of asinine remarks, I may actually talk to them.

If that ever happens, I'll probably post it here, as it'll be very surprising to me.

I think I'll do another post on bigotry in the near future. I've got clients in Europe who tell me it's about as common there as apple pie and ice cream are here. Are (nearly) all cultures so xenophobic that when someone who looks different is introduced therein, they are automatically rejected as inferior? Are none strong enough to accept that a difference may add strength?

These are ideas worth considering. More on this later.


Tuesday, August 23, 2005

This bears repeating

This marvelous post describes precisely why I think the war was just and good:

This person had to deal with Saddam. This person experienced the terror imposed upon his country. He loves the fact that we're there.

Some people are outraged that almost 2,000 soldiers have died. I am proud that they volunteered to stand tall for what is right. I am praising God that millions of lives have been saved. I am praising God that basic human rights are finally being introduced into Iraq. I am hopeful that the seed of democracy will grow, blossom, and spread throughout the region.


Watcher's Council

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Al Franken laughs...

When the big corporate scandals came down and we found out that some companies had behaved criminally, conservatives were outraged along with everyone else. The liberals blamed us, but we were hurt and saddened at the crime and its damage as much as anyone. Now, when we have proof that scumminess is not limited to the conservative side of things, the liberals (choose one):
  1. Choke on their outrage.
  2. Call for immediate investigation and prosecution of those involved.
  3. Laugh
  4. Call it 'boring'
  5. Both 1 and 2
  6. Both 3 and 4

Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is 6!

There was an organization set up to help kids named 'Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club', and it got screwed by a man named Evan Cohen to the tune of almost $900,000. Al Franken thinks it's funny. Evan Cohen is the former Development Director for 'Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club' and the former chairman guessed it...Air America.

Al Franken was interviewed about the scandal - the theft. During this interview, after he rightly calls Cohen a crook, he laughs when describing the theft. Why in the hell is he laughing about it? Is he nuts? No matter how I look at this, I do not see a subject for laughter.

I wonder what would have been said had a conservative that was involved with the companies in question laughed about Tyco, Enron, or WorldCom. I am not implying that Franken was involved with the crime - as far as I can see there is no evidence whatsoever that he was; I am saying straight out that he was involved with Air America (which is at the core of the scandal) and that it is HIGHLY inappropriate for him to laugh about this.

Now - taking this a step further...

Liberals consistently prove themselves to be vulnerable to the crimes they continually accuse us of.

In his book, 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" he distorts the truth (and does so in a way that to me has to be deliberate), which to me is...a lie! When you deliberately seek to obfuscate by telling the truth in such a manner as to make others believe that something that is untrue is true, you've lied. Also, does Franken include BILL CLINTON in his book? If he's discussing liars, he might as well get the world champion liar on the table! Somehow, I doubt Clinton figures prominently in Franken's writings.

Liberals accuse conservatives of being opportunists. I think the scandal above proves that liberals are opportunists. I think that Clinton selling us out to the Chinese show that they're opportunists. I think that their electoral crimes prove them to be opportunists. I think their class warfare strategies prove them to be opportunists.

Liberals accuse conservatives of close-mindedness. Try and get a liberal to accept that bilingual education doesn't work (despite the evidence). Try and get a liberal to accept that there is no evidence that gun control has any effect on crime rates. Try and get a liberal to accept that the welfare state has hurt and not helped poor people (Remember the gloom and doom predictions when Clinton moved toward correcting welfare? Funny how none of the predictions proved to be accurate, isn't it?). Heck, try and get a liberal to admit that global warming and evolution are only theories! They won't do it!

Liberals accuse conservatives of being uncaring of the plight of the suffering. I'm sorry, but was that a baby you murdered? I know you call it aborted, but to me that word is window dressing; it's kind of like calling rape a violation of one's reproductive rights. So I'm uncaring when I refuse to subsidize an alcoholic welfare burger and you're the most caring person in the world when you murder a baby? Is that how it works?

Liberals accuse conservatives of not standing up for the little guy. The size of the average donation to the Republican party is right around $50. The Democrats refuse to release that information and call it 'proprietary'. Anyone care to wager whether or not they'd release that information if it was helpful to their cause (i.e. less than the Republican amount)?

Sorry liberals, but you lose.


Monday, August 22, 2005


Immigration has been a hot topic of late. I try and be a nice guy about such things, but this is getting really old. Federal authorities are simply not enforcing immigration law, and it is proving to be a financial drain as well as a security threat to our country. Because of this, many states are writing legislation to help curb the levels of illegal immigration into their borders.

A judge recently ruled that using criminal trespass charges against an illegal immigrant pursuant to their status as an illegal immigrant is unconstitutional. OK...let me see if I understand this; the judge effectively said the following...

  1. There is no concurrent jurisdiction for immigration law with local authorities.
  2. Any law that acts in concert with a federal law to restriction particular behaviors is unconstitutional.

What this tells me is that all state drug laws are now unconstitutional. It also tells me that laws against murder are unconstitutional. Laws against theft are unconstitutional. Laws against battery are now unconstitutional. The first is directly covered by federal law, and the rest are covered as civil rights, which is of course under federal jurisdiction for those rights (other rights that are guaranteed by individual states (but not by the federal government) may be protected by the states).

Ultimately though, what this tells me is that the judiciary has gone completely insane. How did a jurist like Clarence Thomas arise from this septic tank of legal chicanery? This woman just invented law out of whole cloth!

My ideas for what could be done to help this country immensely:

  1. Make public referendum available on a federal level.
  2. Allow for the impeachment of judges through popular vote.
  3. Ban all executive level departments that are not expressly allowed on a Constitutional level (So long EPA! See ya Department of Education! Hasta la vista Department of Energy!).
  4. Initiate a flat tax as described by the Wikipedia:
  5. Begin the restoration of state level power, by correctly phrasing my sentences as follows (when appropriate): 'The United States are...' That would be the first step in making others realize that the states are Constitutionally the real powerhouses (as far as government goes).
  6. Repeal the 1986 gun ban.
  7. Put the army on the border. We are being invaded. The army is the organization to stop that invasion.

Our country is sliding into the ocean, and all the liberals want to do is spend, spend, spend.


Thursday, August 18, 2005

Border Security

For some reason, our genius President has decided that border security with Mexico should not be a priority. I can only assume that this is because a large portion of his constituency is Mexican or of Mexican descent. While I can understand his desire to maintain a foothold with a core voting bloc, I do not understand his willingness to ignore a titanic breach of national security.

Our darling officeholder has ignored this for too long. In fact, he has ignored it for so long, that even Democrats are getting upset about it! I realize that it’s sneaky and underhanded of them to go so far as to do the right thing to win an election, but the Republicans (who already lack relevance these days) had better get on the stick, or they’ll lose the next election.

Anyway, ultimately, I’ve had enough of this. Drugs, weapons, and people are pouring across our borders with only minimal intervention, and the President is doing nothing about it. In fact, instead of helping, he’s hindering, and descries the actions of the Minutemen who are quite legally keeping an eye out and calling the Border Patrol when they see illegal aliens.

What I’m ultimately hoping for is that the states enact laws that make it illegal for an illegal alien to be present within their state and then deputize people throughout the state to make arrests for such an incursion. That would make the use of force to effect an arrest legal.

I don’t know if this is true or not, but in an article I was reading it was stated that there is federal law prohibiting people from threatening illegal aliens, so the feds are doubly hog-tying us. As I said, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if I experienced the same problems those people had, I wouldn’t just be threatening, I would have opened fire.

Read below:

At 11:30 a.m. on April 22 this year, a Mexican helicopter landed in the Robinsons' backyard. Arivaca resident R.D. Ayers had driven to the ranch that morning to visit his injured dog, then under Dr. Robinson's care.
Ayers describes stepping outside the house to see what he describes as "a military Huey-type helicopter" circling, at the same time that a truck from the Tucson Fuel Co. was pulling into the yard. The Tres Bellotas gets its power from diesel generators, and that fuel has to be delivered.
As he approached the chopper, Ayers says six men in black, commando-type uniforms stepped out. Five had ski-type masks over their faces, and they wore body armor and carried automatic rifles. On their sleeves, Ayers saw the word, Mexico.
They stood in a defensive posture around a sixth man, their leader, who identified himself as a member of the Mexican police. He pointed aggressively to the fuel truck and asked what it was doing there. Ayers, in Spanish, told the man he was in the United States, not Mexico, and that he had no business in this country and needed to leave.
But the commander refused to listen and began walking toward the truck, at which point Ayers placed himself between the commander and the truck, again telling him to scram. After a few minutes, the tense confrontation ended when the commander ordered his troops into the chopper, and they split back across the border.
Ayers suspects that the Mexicans--one of Robinson's cowboys identified them as federales, Mexican federal police--were escorting a drug shipment to Tucson, and wanted to haul it in the fuel truck. Or they wanted to steal the fuel. The chopper had followed the truck much of the way down Tres Bellotas Road.
If someone came to my home like that, I’d have done two things:

  1. I would have called the police and any other organization I could think of. This poor fellow can’t have reliable telephone service because the drug smugglers keep blocking his cell and satellite phone use, so this would not be an option for him.

  2. I would have had my employees cover them with rifles and I would have had at least a pistol in my hand to make it clear that I plan to defend my home and my country. This just doesn’t happen…especially if they do so under the color of authority of another country. As far as I am concerned, those men were invaders of my state and my country. Luckily, the Indiana state Constitution allows me to use force to defend my property and my state.

If I were George Bush I’d have allowed that to happen once.


Any further incursions of the sort would result in a pile of wreckage that was formerly a helicopter. I would shoot it down without a second thought.

Further, with the idiots that are plotting to kill more citizens of the USA through terrorism, I’d start a ‘shoot to kill’ policy on the border. If you’re trying to enter illegally, you’re hostile to the best interests of the USA. If you’re hostile to the best interests of the USA when trying to enter the country, you’re invading. If you’re invading, you get shot. I wouldn’t be saying this, but the Mexican Foreign Ministry has created a booklet to help illegal aliens get into the USA and not be caught when so doing!

A translated version may be found here:

So, the Mexican government has printed documentation that officially assists illegal aliens in coming to our country. That’s the last straw. I don’t mind immigration and I don’t mind Mexicans. What I do mind is that we have a border that’s leaking like a sieve, a neighbor to the south that is actively promoting those leaks, and a President who is doing nothing about it.

Bush – do something about this, or I’ll vote a solid libertarian block from here on out.

(Hat tip: RhymesWithRight)


Monday, August 15, 2005

Finding WMDs

O.C. said...
In the summer of 2003, construction workers in China accidentally dug into a cache of chemical weapons left behind by the retreating Japanese army in '44 or '45, resulting in fatalities, lawsuits, and much hard feelings between the two countries.

That same summer, construction workers in Berlin accidentally found an underground Nazi-era bunker that had been hidden since 1945, which contained bombs, ammunition, and several intact, armed, and fueled aircraft.

The point is, chemical and biological weapons take up very little space, and unless you know exactly where to start looking, a hidden underground bunker can remain hidden for a very long time.
Besides making "Iraqi Backhoe Operator" the most dangerous job description in the world for the next few decades, this also means that it is *way* too early to declare that Iraqi WMDs never existed.

Just ask the French, who are still digging up live and lethal mustard gas shells from World War I.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that Mr. Original has hit that nail squarely upon the head! We have no idea what's out in the vastness that is Iraq. Considering the fact that we've already found some WMDs, that we've found things that were buried in a hurry, and have people formerly of the administration saying they're out there, I'm putting my money on the fact that they're out there somewhere.


There are no WMDs?

The media and liberals in general have been complaining about our presence in Iraq, continually saying that Bush lied about the WMDs. In my post immediately preceeding this one, I included several links that showed that there were several instances where WMDs were in fact found and/or used in Iraq since the invasion. We also have standing evidence that Hussein had used WMDs against the Kurdish population of Iraq.

In addition to the WMDs we've found there are also the items we've found underground. We have found between thirty and forty advanced Russian aircraft, an eleven acre underground complex in central Iraq, and massive amounts of heavily radioactive material. The Iraqi army was able to hide things, and hide them well.


So - with all of this evidence that the Iraqi army and Hussein had WMDs and items that were in direct violation of the cease fire, what do the liberals do? They whine and complain that we shouldn't be there. They gripe that we've lost 1,900 people in Iraq. While any loss of life is terrible, I find myself wondering why they are not also lauding the benefits of what our brace solders have accomplished. Why don't they ever sing about the fact that millions of lives were saved? Why don't they ever dance because people are much freer than they were before? Why don't they cheer because small children no longer live under the threat of the secret police?

What we have here is significant evidence of the possession and use of WMDs, but the position of the modern day liberal is that unless we find 10,000 tons of WMDs, Iraq didn't have them. Me? I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were to use the same torture techniques on Saddam that he used on the Iraqi people we'd find out pretty darned quick what happened to all the WMDs. My guess is that they weren't turned over to the UN in a 'no questions asked' program. Despite the vast evidence against their position, liberals continue to insist that the WMDs don't exist.

I wonder what would happen if Hitler were to rise today. Would they only decry his atrocities when he started torturing people they knew? Is it OK for someone to be tortured if they're not American or a terrorist (but it's not OK to torture terrorists or Americans)?


Thursday, August 11, 2005

Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan is angry with George Bush. Why is she angry with him? Because her son got killed in Iraq.

Let me see if I understand this. Her son voluntarily joined the military knowing he would go to war. He didn't do it knowing he might go to war. He did it knowing he would go to war. Further, when you join the military, you sign up to go where the President says to go. That's part of the gig. Even if you don't like what you have to do, where you have to go, or why you have to fight, you do it.

Casey Sheehan is due honor and respect for doing what many cannot or will not do. He stood tall for America in the most direct way possible. I cannot speak highly enough of our soldiers - my best words fall far short in describing them. This post isn't about him though. It's about his mother and her disgusting opportunistic abuse of his name and sacrifice.

This woman is griping not because her son joined the military, not because her son chose that career, not because her son did what he was supposed to do, and not that he volunteered to do what he did. She's mad...well, because she doesn't like Bush.

I have every sympathy in the world for her as a parent. I would be devastated if I were to lose one of my children. What I would not do is try and attach blame as she has done. The person at fault is some jerk in Iraq that hit him with an RPG as he tried to help this idiot's country out of a cesspit corrupt dictatorship.

From what I've read of this genius, she has the following complaints and/or topics of discussion:

  1. We didn't have enough international support for a war.
  2. There were no WMDs - any talk of them was a lie.
  3. "I want to ask the President, why did he kill my son?"
  4. She wants to ask the President what noble cause her son died for.
  5. She wants to ask the President why his daughters aren't there.

I am not George Bush, but will respond to these comments nonetheless. Since she has chosen to politicize and otherwise make public her complaints and anger, I will choose to answer her comments publicly.

  1. We don't need international support for a war. We are an independent country and we do as we please. This includes the invasion of a country that we find to be threatening. This balderdash about getting 'consensus' is of recent origin and doesn't hold water with me. We don't need to ask permission to do these things, but even if we did, permission was explicit in the CEASE FIRE that said if Saddam did certain things the cease fire would end. Well, he REPEATEDLY violated the terms of the cease fire, and now he's learned what happens when someone does that to us. In addition to that, the reason we didn't have your vaunted 'international support' is because the countries that refused to support us in our endeavors WERE ILLEGALLY SELLING ARMS TO IRAQ DURING THE EMBARGO!
  2. There are and were WMDs. Here are some links for you:,2933,120268,00.html ...and...,2763,1120720,00.html ...and... ...and that leads me to ask how many WMDs will be enough before you admit they're actually there?
  3. You want to ask the President, "Why did he kill your son?" I want to ask you why you think that the millions of people that would have been murdered by Saddam Hussein and his compadres aren't worth saving. I want to know why you think your son didn't sign up for this war when he knew perfectly well he was going to Iraq when he RE-ENLISTED AFTER FINDING OUT HIS UNIT WAS GOING TO IRAQ!
  4. You want to ask what Noble Cause your son died for? I can think of several. To protect freedom. To protect the lives of innocent people. To further the rights of women. To help expand religious freedom in a repressive country. To help establish a representative democracy in Iraq. To protect us from possible WMDs in Iraq.
  5. Why aren't George Bush's daughters there? Because they didn't volunteer for it. Your son did.

I have some questions for you now:

  1. Why do you think the people of Iraq are any less valuable than our American soldiers? They lived under tyranny and oppression for years, and only our intervention has removed it.
  2. Your son volunteered for his duty. George Bush did not force him to join - he did that on his own. Why can't you accept that?
  3. Clearly your son felt that his job was honorable and noble and that the war was a worthy action. Why can't you accept his decision to go to war?
  4. If you think Bush is so bad, why don't YOU run for President? You want him to back up his claims by sending his daughters in to harms way. It's equally reasonable for you to put yourself up to show what a fantastic job you can do!
  5. Why didn't you complain about your son joining the military when all you saw were direct benefits to his doing so?
  6. How many people have to be saved by our military before it will be considered 'worth it' by you? Several million aren't enough, so it must be a very large number.

Am I being callous? You're damned right. I'm absolutely disgusted and appalled at this woman using her child's death for political gain. She's parading him down the middle of the street in an effort to push forth a political agendum. She's polluting her son's noble sacrifice by playing stupid games with it.


Friday, August 05, 2005


Many libertarians believe that abortion should either be left to the states or should be an issue of personal choice. I fail to see this viewpoint as being consistent with rational thought and freedom.

Before I continue, let's define what abortion is: abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by means other than delivery of the baby.

The following is probably the best description of an abortion (from

Main Entry: abor·tionPronunciation:
&-'bor-sh&nFunction: noun1 : the termination of a pregnancy after,
accompanied by, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus;
especially : the medical procedure of inducing expulsion of a human fetus to
terminate a pregnancy

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Another definition that is quite interesting:

a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn)n. Termination of
pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival

Source: The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Following that logic, does that mean that if the fetus or embryo is otherwise capable of survival, then it's murder? Of course, I think that abortion is always murder, except in the case where it will kill the mother to let it gestate to viability, in which case I cannot call it murder because it is a choice of who will die rather than a choice between inconvenience and the death of a baby.

Yes, this means that I am against abortion in cases of incest, rape, and deformation that would not lead to the death of the baby. In cases of incest and rape, the last time I checked, the child is not at fault, so why do they get the death sentence? If the sight of the child causes you unhappiness, put him/her up for adoption, as I am sure there are a lot of parents out there who would be glad to adopt her/him. In the case of deformity, I'll use a personal example to illustrate why I think it's bad. My nephew Michael was among the most horribly deformed children I have ever seen. He had spinabifida, underdeveloped lungs, underdeveloped digestive tract, hydrocephalism, epilepsy, significant paralysis, brain damage, and every time he had a seizure his memory was erased. He lived for almost three years like that. Had he not been fighting, and fighting hard he would have died long before. He could easily have given up at any time, but despite his difficulties, he fought to live. The chance to fight should be given to every person. If the fight is beyond them, they'll go soon. If it's not, then they'll stay alive as long as they can. My nephew only died because someone else screwed up badly and he didn't get appropriate care that could not give himself.

Anyway, back to abortion - it's wrong. It's the deliberate taking of the life of not just a human being, but a baby. The person due the least blame in the entire world is being murdered out of a sense of convenience!

What's worse than this though is partial birth abortion! What kind of psycho can possibly think this horrible travesty is a human right? They take the baby, perform a deliberate breech birth that stops at the head, and then jam seven inch scissors into the skull of this baby, holding its legs so it doesn't kick. If you say this isn't murder I'd like to know what world you live in!

Abortion is murder.


Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Union Workers

I recently read a gripe by a teacher who said he works long hours, has to constantly maintain certification, meet obligations that are secondary to his primary work (coach sports teams and the like), work many 12 hour days, and otherwise spoke of many other problems that are attendant to being a teacher.

I understand that being a teacher is a hard, thankless job, that is really tough and doesn't pay as well as many would like. I also think they have a seriously over-idealized perspective of what life is like outside of teaching. I'm going to describe what the rest of the world has to do.

I work in the field of advanced technical support, as does my wife. I work eight hours a day on most days. Sometimes though, I work 48 hours at a stretch. I work with people who are incredibly tense. Our metrics have our clients losing an average of a million dollars for every eight minutes they're fully down, and they're on the phone with me when that's happening. I regularly take phone calls at 3:00am on weekends. On Thanksgiving, I'm taking calls from clients. Christmas? That's for clients too. I may have to fly off at a moment's notice to get to a client site and help calm things down. I truly hope you don't think my kids understand why daddy is working so often. They don't. Let's talk about my wife. She's 37. She had her first heart attack this year. They're very common in our industry. Did you know that?

Let's talk about construction workers. They work on the hottest days of the year, sweating and sunburned, to pay their bills. In many states they can't work during the winter, it's too cold; so they work insane hours during the nine months of the year that it's safe to do so and hope they can make the money stretch.

How about cab drivers? They work in constant fear that some psycho is going to put a gun to their head and rob them for the few dollars they manage to squeeze out of their cab per day. From what I understand, most of them work 12 hours a day and fight for every penny they make.

Let's talk about lawyers. They're famous for working 100 hour weeks. In many states, the pay for being a lawyer is so bad, they are driving cabs! You can read above about what a great job that is! In Indianapolis, a public defender starts at around $30K/year. That's the wage for someone with a JD (that's Juris Doctorate for the non-lawyer types out there)...good wage, isn't it?

Let's see what else we have here. How about title officers? They work long hours and have long weeks and they make little. Their jobs are highly specialized with lots of risk and stress, with little pay.

Amazingly, not a single job mentioned above has tenure or a union defending them from ever being let go or laid off.

I'm not saying being a teacher is easy...God knows it isn't...but don't tell me it's the hardest or worst job in the world. It's not. The pay could be better and the management of it could improve greatly, but it's a good job with tenure, a union, longevity, and respectability. So don't scream and whine like you've been robbed of life. If you don't like it, try delivering pizza or driving a cab for a living and having a gun held to the back of your head while you're made to beg for your life.

Until then, try and realize it isn't the worst job in the world.


P.S. Oh yeah, did I mention that I also have to take Tums in quantities roughly equal to my intake of oxygen.