Underwear bombs? Really?
When the original terrorist did it, I wondered what would possess someone to take a set of explosives and place them in their underwear to begin with.
I get it. Anyone who would strap a bomb to themselves in an attempt to "get" a bunch of others really hasn't thought his whole plan through. Sure the end game is pretty self-explanatory. If all goes as planned, you're going to die and you'll probably take a few poor innocent souls with you. Anyone with that kind of end game obviously isn't playing with a full deck of cards.
But what happens if this bomb you've got jammed in your tighty-whities is a bit of a dud - meaning it might give you a partial bang but not the full desired effect.
Have you really thought this through?
Suppose your explosion provides a little bang rather than a big boom.
Not only are you going to be arrested, charged with terrorism in a country that dramatically frowns on such behavior, but you're also going to be sporting some pretty severe burns. Talk about chaffing. Ouch.
Ever notice it's not the leaders of the terrorist movement who are so committed to the cause?
Personally, I hope that all underwear bombers - dumb enough to undertake the mission - are sporting duds when it comes to explosive power. Just enough bang to make the bull a cow in one thunderous "poof."
In case you're wondering how deeply evil has its hands into our legal system, pervs around the country are celebrating a New York Court of Appeals ruling this week.
New York justices have ruled that viewing child porn and possessing child porn are two entirely different things when it comes to the Internet - so viewing in online is no longer a crime, as long as you're not deliberately attempting to "possess" it.
According to a news story from M. Alex Johnson with msnbc.com:
"Viewing child pornography online isn't a crime, the New York Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in the case of a college professor whose work computer was found to have stored more than a hundred illegal images in its Web cache.
"The court dismissed one of the two counts of promoting a sexual performance of a child and one of the dozens of counts of possession of child pornography on which James D. Kent was convicted. The court upheld the other counts against Kent, an assistant professor of public administration at Marist College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
"The decision rests on whether accessing and viewing something on the Internet is the same as possessing it, and whether possessing it means you had to procure it. In essence, the court said no to the first question and yes to the second. ...
"... In other words, "the purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Judge Victoria A. Graffeo wrote in one of two concurring opinions that agreed with the result but not with the majority's reasoning."
Well that's good news, isn't it? What's next? What's the next perversion our court system will green light?
That's a rhetorical question for you to mull in your head; please don't respond and provide them with some ideas.
Our society is taking hits on a daily basis as perversion and filth continues to become part of the accepted societal norm.
And we just keep sitting there like the frog in the pot, feeling the water slowly getting warmer around us, but since it's not too hot, we just leave it be. Then all of a sudden, when the water starts bubbling we want to jump up and scream about what we're sitting in, but it's too late. We've been boiled.
That's where we're at right now, but it's not a pot - it's a cesspool - and slowly, more and more filth is being poured into our cutlure, and we're trying to continue wading through it. Eventually, if we keep ignoring it, we'll be overcome and drown in what we've become comfortable co-existing with.
This ruling, from the New York Court of Appeals, is just the latest example of what we've come to accept.
If the court says it's okay, it must be okay.
I'm here to say they're wrong.