I had to do it!

Former Dallas City Council member James Fantroy was convicted this week for stealing $20,000 from Paul Quinn College. Mr. Fantroy's defense attorney said, in effect, that he had to do it: "He was in the hole. He came from a day when we were taught a man provides for his family. Desperate men do desperate things."

Is he referring to the same day in which we were taught that we should do right, no matter what the consequences? Is he referring to the same day in which we were taught it's wrong to steal? Is he referring to the same day in which we were taught greed and selfishness should be condemned? Looks to me like Mr. Fantroy was taught in his day that the ends justify the means. Fortunately for society, this jury came from a day in which we were taught if we're gonna' dance, we have to pay the piper.

My name is Essie May, and I approved this message.

I have become a very popular person. I've never been so courted in all my life. And by such famous people, too! In the last week, I've received numerous phone calls every day. Barack Obama has called me, Governor Rick Perry has called me, the Lieutenant Governor has called me,Hillary Clinton has called me at least five or six times, Pastor Hagee (or however he spells his name) has called me, John McCain has called me, Mike Huckabee has called me, assorted judges have called me, several prominent local folks I haven't heard from in ages have called me -- I'm just completely giddy!



But enough is enough! Don't call me again! I don't like being pestered by automated phone calls! I can assure all the candidates out there that a recorded voice will in no way influence the way I cast my vote. And if it could influence the way I vote, my voting privileges should be revoked! Send me a mailout if you want to, but QUIT CALLING ME!

Save TWU! Save the English language! Save our lake! Save our trees!

Notes to our local newspaper:
1) Texas Woman's University -- not Texas Women's University
2) "came to be known" -- not "became to be known"
3) Paris is not negotiating to sell Pat Mayse Lake (Charles Richards, front page, 2/27/2008) -- there's quite enough misinformation being spread about this issue without the newspaper aiding the effort. And if the petition was presented to the city council, does this not violate the open meetings act since such action was not posted prior to the meeting and, in fact, the meeting itself was not posted?
4) Op-Ed 2/24/2008 -- "Hearing things first hand and being able to view candidates in person as they relate to an audience says much about a candidate." I don't think so -- my actions (hearing things first hand and viewing candidates in person) may serve to enhance my knowledge and understanding, but they say absolutely nothing about any candidate.
5) Editorial 2/19/2008 -- Take your daughter to work day again? "Many other seasonal worker enterprises, such as ski lodges, hotels and landscaping also are denied the number of workers they need this year, but they have been able to grab onto almost all the workers allowed into the country, because those jobs do not require the same dedication circus workers and carnival workers must have. For those jobs, a worker usually has to travel eight months of the year, moving almost every day." Does "those jobs" refer to ski lodges, hotels, etc. or to circuses, fairs, etc? Essentially, all the information in this article is contained in the first paragraph and regurgitated (and not very well) in the remaining nine paragraphs. If you don't have anything to write about, why waste the space?

Don't jump or I'll shoot!

One of my favorite cartoons ran many years ago in that prestigious publication The National Enquirer. It shows a visibly distraught man standing out on the ledge on an upper story of a high-rise building. A police officer leans out of an open window a few feet to the man's right. "Don't jump or I'll shoot!" says the officer.

How silly! How absurd! How ridiculous! As if that could ever happen!

It has -- it was detailed in this morning's newspaper. Since July, at least five illegal immigrants have been arrested at Houston's Bush intercontinental Airport while trying to board planes headed to Mexico, Honduras or El Salvador, according to Customs and border Protection officials. Evidently, they are guilty of nothing other than the immigration violations. So we are not allowing them to return to wherever it is they're going, because we want to deport them to wherever it is they're going.

Ah, but the reasoning of these brilliant immigration authorities is that these people are repeat offenders. So we're going to run them through our system so they'll learn their lesson, then we're going to deport them. "We feel it's definitely worth the resources to hold these people accountable," said U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle. So how are we going to hold them accountable? The bottom line is --- we're going to deport them.

I am the first to jump up and say our borders should be a heck of a lot more secure than they are now, and when we catch illegals, they should be deported immediately, but I guess I'm missing the point of deporting them when they are already leaving.

Don't leave, or we'll deport you!

We'll have a gay old time . . .

Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth has a dilemma. That's what usually happens when a church starts compromising the truth.

You see, they have welcomed gay couples to their congregation for some time now. When the time rolled around to do a church directory, the gay couples wanted their "family" pictures included along with all the legitimate families. Some church members who still understand what a church is supposed to be said that including "family" pictures would be condoning the sin. The pastor says we should be accepting of them regardless of their lifestyle (guess he skipped over I Corinthians 5:9 and the other verses condemning homosexuality). So the church has come to the decision that no family pictures will be in the directory, homosexual, heterosexual, or other.

Either homosexual couples are OK, in which case they should be included, or they are not OK, in which case they should not be included. So how does excluding all the other families address this question? The answer is, it doesn't. It's just a sign of the times.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3-4.

We grovel at your feet. NOT!

On Saturday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad renewed his demands that the U.S. apologize for accusations made against Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

I envision our response:

The television networks interrupt regular programming for breaking news. We go live to Washington. The political correspondents are all gathered in the White House briefing room. We can hear the buzz of speculation and the whirs and clicks of the cameras. The press secretary comes to the podium. "Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States." President Bush strides in followed by grim faced cabinet members. He steps behind the presidential seal.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press and my fellow Americans. The purpose of this press conference is to address the request of President Ahmadinejad for our apologies. We seek to uphold the honor of the United States while simultaneously taking into serious consideration our relationship with the Iranian people. Therefore, President Ahmadinejad, as we say in Texas, stick it where the sun don't shine!" And he turns and walks from the room with head held high.

Darned if you do; darned if you don't . . .

Just heard this quote on TV. It was attributed to Mark Twain, and it's now my favorite quote.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."

Shhhhh!

Have you seen the Progressive Insurance Company commercial promoting their concierge service? They're playing this precious lullaby music, and the mother is getting out of her car with her little girl in her arms and she whispers to the agent -- "I backed into a pole and she never woke up." And the agent whispers -- "Hey, Mike, we need to get a car" or some such thing. And the whispering continues while the lady's rental car is being prepared. Then she slips into the rental with her precious sleeping bundle and the agent whispers and gestures that he'll call her. Give me a break! If the kid didn't wake up when she wrecked the car, and the banging doors and motors and honking horns of traffic didn't wake her up, do you really think a little conversation is going to disturb her? They may need to consider taking the kid to the hospital to see if she's comatose! I'll take the gecko or the cavemen any old day.

Then, there's the Suddenlink commercial advertising their phone service. The lady says, "I feel so secure knowing my children can dial 911 with Suddenlink." So are we to assume they can't dial 911 with AT&T or Verizon?

And the commercial for some loan sharking company that encourages you to get that $5000 loan to consolidate your debts or whatever it is you need -- I managed to glimpse the very fine print that flashes on the screen for a millisecond. I knew I had misread it, so I made it a point to watch for it the next time the commercial was on. I hadn't misread it -- they really do charge an APR of 98.2%. You may consolidate your debt, but you're going to have one whopper of a monthly payment.

I could go on, but I've got to go take my Miracle Diet so I can lose 50 pounds in 6 weeks (results may vary. May cause diahrrea, vomiting, or other minor complications including stroke, heart attack, aneurysm, or death. See your doctor if any of these symptoms occur).

Preach on, Brother!

I wrote earlier this week ("Do I have an amen?") about Atrevia Washington's woes. Here's a little update from today's news:

It seems I was not the only one with questions. James Ragland says that "to many readers, Ms. Washington is hardly a sympathetic figure. . .Many readers focused on . . .the dire circumstances which Ms. Washington created for herself (italics mine) by having four children out of wedlock." He also says that Ms. Washington accepts responsibility for bad decisions she made. Oh, really? In what way? Looks to me like the taxpayers are burdened with that responsibility.

Ms. Washington, herself, says she doesn't think she's messed up her life. "My kids make my life better." Well, Atrevia, there are some things that would make my life better, too, but I don't have them because I CAN'T AFFORD THEM -- mainly because I'm supporting your illegitimate brood. If kids make your life better, have 20 on your own dime, but don't expect me to pay for them. What arrogance! What presumption! I don't think you'd like it if I showed up on your doorstep every time one of your government checks came in and collected 30% off the top so I could have a better life. Yet that's exactly what you do to me in my place of WORK every time I pick up the paychecks I've EARNED. And as for that deadbeat father who won't support his children because "he doesn't work," have his butt thrown in jail! At least if he's there, he won't be fathering more welfare kids.

Just wait till it's free

In the health care debate, I read a quote that I thought very astute: If you think medical care is expensive now, just wait until it's free.

Our government seems to handle most things so brilliantly, why wouldn't we all jump at the chance to let it handle our health care? I offer for an example the "free" converter boxes.

Since analog television signals will cease in February of next year, our generous legislators decided it would be unthinkable for people to not have a working television set. After all, the Declaration of Independence says we are endowed with the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a working tv. So some of them came up with the idea of giving $40 vouchers to analog set owners (whether they actually need the $40 or not) so they can buy converter boxes. But wait -- only one working tv in a home would certainly constitute a deprivation, so each family is entitled to two $40 vouchers. But wait -- what if you don't need a coupon because you're on cable or satellite and your current set will work just fine after the transition? Never fear -- you still are entitled to the vouchers. But wait -- what's this on the voucher? Why there on the bottom -- it's an expiration date (must be used within 90 days). But wait -- is that fair? Why of course not. Suppose you just can't get down to Wal-Mart within 90 days to pick up that free converter box that you really don't need in the first place? But wait -- we're going to allow you to reapply if you miss the deadline. Now I'm not smart enough to be a government administrator, but seems to me it would be easier and less expensive to just say across the board, "We are rescinding the expiration dates on these vouchers." But wait -- "an agency spokesman said NTIA (the agency overseeing the voucher program) will have a better understanding of the coupon program in the coming months." Again, I'm not smart enough to be a government administrator, but I'd want a pretty good understanding of a program of this magnitude before I implemented it, not after.

So how much of our money is this little fiasco costing? $1.5 billion. I can hardly wait for Hillary care!

Warning: small mediums at large

Our local newspaper ran a feature article yesterday about an art teacher at the YWCA. The very first thing that caught my eye was the purported location of the YWCA. When did they move the building to Church Street? The last time I was there, it was on South Main Street.

The reporter tells us, "For the three weeks she has been there, Francis has introduced students to a variety of artistic mediums along with some art history thrown in." Miss Reporter, the plural you need is "media." "Mediums" are either people who communicate with the dead or soft drink sizes between larges and smalls. That is, of course, unless she really is introducing them to artistic mediums.

Then there was that informative headline on the front page -- "Hobby Lobby to open by late." Late what? I know! We can ask one of those mediums. All the artistic ones shop at Hobby Lobby.
And with that, I'll paraphrase the closing line of one of this award-winning newspaper's Sunday editorials: "That all, folks."

Do I have an amen?

James Ragland wrote yesterday about Atrevia Washington, a Dallas Housing Authority tenant whose apartment burned in 2005. DHA is trying to collect $10,000 from Atrevia -- the cost of the insurance deductible. Atrevia is refusing to pay the money, and DHA is threatening to evict her.

Atrevia, an unmarried mother, is pictured with three of her four children -- A'teria Lowe, 9 months; Terrance Lowe, 5; and T'Kiryn Washington, 3. The Fire Department report says the fire was started by a burning candle in the brand new apartment. Atrevia says, "I can't really say my kids didn't do it because I wasn't there, and you never know what kids do when you're not around." My first question: if you weren't there, who was with the children?

Mr. Ragland says it strikes him as odd that the agency would go to Atrevia for repayment when she's in subsidized housing for a reason: "She's poor, a single mother of four living off $740 a month in Social Security and supplemental income. She also gets $430 a month in food stamps." My second question: why aren't you getting child support from the fathers of these children? As my all-time hero, Judge Judy, says, "When you make a baby, you have to support it! It's your responsibility, not mine!" Which leads to my third question: why do you have four children? Did you not learn after the first what caused it?

Ragland ends his column by questioning how strapping someone with a debt will benefit DHA or the tenant. "Something needs to change," he states. Amen to that, Brother!

A half-baked Baker

Some guy named Nick Baker wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper last week. Mr. Baker's hypothesis is that legalizing marijuana will cure all society's ills.

He says, among other things, that "local law enforcement . . . contribute to the problems of poverty, segregation, and ignorance in the area. By enforcing the marijuana laws so harshly and the majority of that attention seeming to be laid upon the African American community for example, local police seem to be racist, corrupt and just make the situation worse." Of course, he offered no statistics or specific examples to back his claim that police are racist and corrupt. And if they are enforcing the law, isn't that what we pay them to do? How is enforcing the law "corrupt" and "racist," no matter what color the criminal?

The erudite Mr. Baker goes on to say that, "True justice would be placing the judges and police arresting and sentencing these people behind bars." I'm very curious as to what charges he would prefer against them. Should they just pick and choose the laws they want to enforce? If Mr. Baker is ever so unfortunate as to be a crime victim, I have a feeling he will want the law enforced to the fullest extent (even if the perpetrator happens to be black).

Mr. Baker sums up his astonishingly logical arguments with "prohibition . . . makes criminals out of potentially otherwise honest people." So, maybe we should also get rid of those pesky laws against murder seeing as all those otherwise honest people who need to rid themselves of an annoying spouse, business partner, etc., are being made into criminals. No, Mr. Baker, prohibition doesn't make one a criminal. Breaking the law makes one a criminal!

Speaking of absolutely . . .

Have you noticed how absolutely overused "absolutely" is? Absolutely, everytime you turn on the TV, there it absolutely is. I've not seen a celebrity or politician interviewed in absolutely years that they've not sprinkled their answers with "absolutely" -- mostly in lieu of an absolutely affirmative answer such as "yes" or "surely." Absolutely, don't you think it's about time we cut back? I bet you can absolutely say, "Absolutely!"

At absolutely no cost to you!

Ya' know what really bugs me? All the commercials that encourage people to use the system to enrich themselves. You know the ones I'm talking about . . . been in a car wreck, call "The Texas Hammer"; need a power chair, we'll get the taxpayers to buy you one; owe taxes, we'll get you out for pennies on the dollar; over your head in debt, call us and we'll help you file bankruptcy; taken zyprexa and had a reaction, we'll get you millions . . . and on and on and on. The other side of that story is that when you use the system, someone else must pay!

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for people getting what they are entitled to. If you've been in an accident that's not your fault, you surely should be reimbursed by the negligent party. If you are incapable of walking, then by all means file on your insurance for a power chair. But when those commercials say you are getting a power chair at "absolutely no cost to you," don't be fooled into thinking that no one is paying for it. Insurance premiums will go up somewhere. Did you know that Medicare pays $4,000 for those chairs? And do you know how many chairs are sitting in corners gathering dust because most elderly people are too set in their ways to learn how to operate them? I know personally of a case where the family discouraged their elderly grandmother from getting the chair because they knew she wouldn't use it, but she prevailed and the chair was delivered. She used it maybe three or four times. A couple of years later, she passed away. Her family almost never sold it, because no one would pay a discounted price of $1,500 when they could get one "at absolutely no cost to you."

And if someone is speeding and slams into your car, why are you suing the auto manufacturer? I recently participated as a juror in a case where an elderly gentleman who was confused drove his car into a ditch close to his home. His daughter heard him gunning the car in attempts to get out, but he was hopelessly stuck. She told him to wait while she ran to get help. He ignored her warning and continued to gun the car until it overheated, caught fire, and he burned to death. The family was suing the auto maker. Clearly this was a tragedy, and clearly the car was not being used in the manner intended. The family deserved nothing from the auto maker even though he did have the deepest pockets. And we wonder why new cars cost so much!

And if you owe money, the solution is simple -- PAY IT! Most people at one time or another go through hard times, and most companies (and even the IRS) are willing to work with you to set up payment plans. I know of a case where a lady bought a computer one Saturday on a payment plan with very little down. When she defaulted on her first payment, she was called. Unashamedly, she told the owner of the electronics store that she had filed bankruptcy. The owner told her that if she would bring the computer back, he would refund the money she had paid down. She refused. When the store got the official notice that she had filed for bankruptcy, they noted that she had filed on the Monday immediately following the Saturday she had picked up the computer. She used the system, and the store owners had to pay! Another couple I know of filed bankruptcy and within the year had bought a new vehicle, a large diamond ring, and a new boat. Is there no more shame? Is there no more personal responsibility? Is there no more respect for other people? Is there no more integrity? Happily, all of those things still exist; but sadly, they are in increasingly short supply.

Troops or Soldiers?

One thing that has really bothered me since we went to war in Iraq is the media's use of the word "troops." I remember the first I noticed it was when a report came in that "five troops were killed in Iraq today." That convinced me that the Iraqis did have weapons of mass destruction. But then it was explained that the "five troops" were five individuals. So I thought maybe I had misunderstood the term. When in doubt, look it up! My dictionary says, "A group or company of people, animals, or things. A group of soldiers. Military units. A unit of at least five Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. A great many. A lot."

The individuals are not troops -- they are in a troop. Yet referring to individuals as troops is common usage now. It was the same several years ago. Our community has a charity bass fishing tournament each year called the "Uncle Jesse Bigmouth Bass Tournament." Of course, bigmouth refers to a type of fish. Some idiot radio announcer evidently didn't understand that. He was calling it the "Uncle Jesse's Big Mouth Big Bass Tournament." Instead of someone correcting him, that inane title stuck, and for two or three years after that all the radio announcers called it that. Evidently, someone with some intelligence (perhaps Uncle Jesse's wife) finally clued them in that what they were calling the tournament didn't quite "honor" Uncle Jesse. The correct name has been used since. Or at least will be until some other idiot mangles it.

Winston Churchill -- does he have something to do with horse racing?

I saw in today's paper that a survey of British teenagers revealed that a majority believe Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood were real people. These are not completely gullible kids, however, because 25% of them did not believe Winston Churchill and Richard the Lionheart were real people. Given that data, you won't believe this next statistic from the survey -- 77% of them have never read a history book.

I can almost (not quite, but almost) understand the Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, and Richard confusion, but we are not that far removed from Winston Churchill. One of my professors said he once had a student who was amazed we fought a war with Japan. When assured that Japan had, indeed, been our enemy, the student wanted to know who won. How do you get to college without ever having heard of Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? In my humble opinion, it's because elementary and secondary education is now geared to social issues and proficiency tests. We have forgotten the basics -- reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science, and geography. We throw our kids into studying global warming (a theory, not a fact) in elementary school before they've learned the basics of science. We throw them into pre-calculus in high school before they've learned their multiplication tables. We have them making judgments on history before we've taught them basic timelines, which people were real and which ones were fictional, and where this country came from. We have them writing essays on social issues when they can't spell or punctuate.

Another part of the problem is teachers -- some who don't know the basics, themselves, and some who know the basics, but don't know how to teach. I remember a note from the teacher brought home by a little boy I know, "This paper is not exceptible." I say this teacher was not acceptable! This same little boy happened to be very advanced in math concepts. When he was in second or third grade, the teacher was trying to explain subtraction. "Class, how much is 2 minus 3," she asked. "Negative 1," replied the little boy. "No, you can't subtract 3 from 2," she said. "Sure you can," said the little boy. "It's negative 1." Instead of saying, "Well, yes, you are right, but the rest of the class is not ready for that yet," she continued to insist that he was wrong, and he continued to insist that he was right. I don't remember whether or not he was sent to the principal, but I know he came close. The next year, when the class did begin to learn about negatives, the little boy jumped up, and said, "I told Miss So-and-So it was negative 1!"

Another problem I see is lack of books. A high school student I know asked me for some help with a biology lesson. I told her we would see what the book said. "Oh, we don't have books," she said. "Our teacher runs off lesson packets from the internet." The "lesson packets" were little more than worksheets with no explanation of the subject. And this was in the gifted class.

But whether the youngsters understand the curriculum or not is of little matter -- the teacher is not allowed to give a grade below 50. Can't damage self-esteem, you know. Then we "tsk, tsk" that young adults don't know the difference in Winston Churchill and Santa Claus!

I don't know the actual figures, but I feel comfortable in saying that we spend more per student in real dollars now than ever before, yet we have graduates who've never read a book, who can't write a coherent sentence, and who can't figure change correctly. I say, let's bring back the neighborhood schoolhouse and the 3 R's! We can save money and have better prepared graduates in the bargain.

You are now entering the Twilight Zone

I saw evidence in the newspaper the other day that communication with the dead is, indeed, possible. An engagement announcement began, "Mrs. Sarah Jones and the late Mr. Sam Jones proudly announce the engagement . . ."

I wonder how they received the communication? Seance? Ouija board? Tarot cards? This particular announcement was from a family who is rather upper crust in our city. It's especially funny to me when they make such a faux pas. Reminds me of the correction I saw in The Dallas Morning News some time ago: "Mrs. John Q. Moneybags is a socialite, not a socialist as was reported in yesterday's news."

Notes to the editor and publisher of my hometown paper: The lady's name is Mary Faber, not Mary Favre. And "who's" is a contraction for "who is." It is not a possessive as in "According to Attorney General Greg Abbott, who's office . . ." For that one, you need "whose."

You want fries with that?

Ya' know what bugs me? When we go to a restaurant, and the server (I still call them waiters and waitresses, but I know that's hopelessly un-pc) says, "What can I get for you guys?" Now I am the first to admit that I have far less in the chest area than most women, but I think it's still pretty obvious that I'm not a guy. I keep threatening to respond, "No boobs -- guy; boobs -- no guy."



What irritates me even more is the paying the tab question, "Do you guys need change?" "Oh, did you not do well in math? Just a minute and I'll figure it for you. Let's see, the bill is $24.38, and I gave you a $10 bill and a $20 bill -- that's $30. $30 minus $24.38 is $5.62. Yeah, looks like I need change -- $5.62. Usually on a $24.38 bill, I leave a $5.62 tip, but since I had to calculate the change for you, I get the tip."

Jack in the Box -- cute or smut?

I'm not a football fan, but I do enjoy a good commercial. So I tuned in for some of the Super Bowl last weekend. To my surprise, I enjoyed the game (the last quarter, anyway) but found the commercials either total duds or just so-so.

The commercial that really caught my attention, though, didn't attract me in the way the advertisers obviously had hoped. It was the Jack in the Box hot tub commercial. If you didn't see it, it featured two swinging couples (of course, Jack was one of the foursome) in a hot tub. They discussed making a "Jack sandwich." I know the company will defend themselves that everything in the ad was totally innocent, and they only intended the literal interpretation of making the Jack sandwich. But anybody not born yesterday knows exactly what the implication was.

Jack in the Box crossed the line! Most of the Jack commercials have been cute and funny. This one was neither. It is a sad example of how far down into the depths of degradation our country has fallen. Hey, Jack in the Box -- if you can't sell your sandwich without resorting to smut advertising, then it must not be a very good sandwich! And Jack in the Box is not the only offender. Another I can think of right off the bat is Kia. One of their "relationship" commercials is almost as bad as the Jack in the Box one. And you can't turn on your TV without an erectile dysfunction commercial -- can you imagine a toddler seeing those commercials and asking, "What's e.d.?" How's mom or dad going to explain that one? And the guy who acts like he's proud of the fact, "I have genital herpes, but my partner doesn't." And I can't think of a single sitcom that doesn't have promiscuous characters with the implication that that's just the way things are. That may, indeed, be the way things are, but it's certainly not the way things should be!

Life's a gamble

If I ever have the opportunity to do an interview and write a feature article, the first question I will ask my subject is, "How do you spell your name?" Our local newspaper devoted a third of a page to retired teacher Sarah Gamble. The only problem is, her name is Sarah Gambill. Guess the reporter gambled and lost.

In the same edition of the newspaper, it is reported that "A Mardi Gras mask and Bourbon Street signs filled the tables and isles at Love Civic Center . . ." That must have been an awfully big Mardi Gras mask. You know, if I'm ever stranded on a desert aisle, the thing I'll miss most is the newspaper.

Perhaps with some fava beans and a nice Chianti . . .

I saw an article in the newspaper yesterday datelined SETBO VILLAGE, Cambodia. It begins, "The little boy regularly sleeps in the massive coil of a 16-foot-long, 220-pound python. He rides it. He kisses it. He even pats it down with baby powder. 'There is a special bond between them,' said Khuorn Sam Ol, father of 7-year-old Uorn Sambath. 'My son played with the snake when he was still learning to crawl. They used to sleep together in a cradle.'"

The article goes on to relate how Uorn's mother, when Uorn was 3 months old, found the baby snake coiled beneath a mat on her bed. The father took the snake down to the river, but soon discovered it was back in the house. So they decided to keep it. As it grew, officials tried to take it to a zoo, but "they relented after seeing Uorn Sambath cuddling with the reptile."

Kind of reminds me of a preacher I knew. He actually told from the pulpit one Sunday about his first trip to Florida with his small children. They stayed in a hotel with a balcony overlooking some sort of creek or canal. Standing on the balcony, they saw some alligators in the canal. So the preacher sent his children down to feed them. He said he has since learned you probably shouldn't do that.

Back to little Uorn -- he says of the snake, "I love her very much." And I'm sure she loves you too, Uorn, preferably with some fava beans and a nice Chianti!

Just between you, me, and the fencepost . . .

Have you noticed how many newscasters, preachers, politicians, celebrities, print journalists, and talk show hosts say, "Between you and I . . ." or "for he and I . . ." ? Doesn't that drive you nuts? These people should know all about nominative and objective cases. On the other hand, if they are correct and I am wrong, just think how many familiar things we'll have to change.



Poems:

• Whose woods these are I think I know, His house is in the village, though. He will not see I stopping here . . .


• It was many and many a year ago, In a kingdom by the sea, That a maiden there lived whom you may know By the name of Annabel Lee; And this maiden, she lived with no other thought than to love and be loved by I.

Bible passages:

• . . .I will fear no evil, for Thou art with I . . . Surely goodness and mercy will follow I all the days of my life . . .


• A certain man had two sons; and the younger of they said to his father, "Father, give I the portion of goods that falleth to I."


• . . .that whosoever believeth in He should not perish . . .

Songs:

• I will follow he, follow he wherever he may go . . .


• But, darling, most of all, I love how you love I . . .


• Jesus loves I this I know for the Bible tells I so . . .


• Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree, it's been three long years, do you still want I . . .

Football Cheers:

• Push 'ey back, push 'ey back, way back!


• Hit 'ey again, hit 'ey again, harder, harder!


• Give we a C, give we an A, give we a T, give we an S -- Gooooooo Cats!

Do you suppose all the professionals think it somehow sounds rural to say "between him and me"? I can't think of any other explanation, but as for me, I'd rather sound rural and be right than be a pseudo-intellectual and be wrong!

Could you move a 30 ton pound stone?

You would think that the managing editor of our local newspaper (who takes every opportunity to let us know she is a highly trained wordsmith) would know the correct spelling of one of our city's major tourist attractions. But there it was on the front page in a reference to a visitor's plans: "'I want to see the Eifel Tower with the red cowboy hat,' Hughes said of the stay-over." I suspect Monsieur Eiffel would be as amused with that as he would be with the cowboy hat!



Not to be nitpicking, but the publisher has his own problems communicating. In a column about a recent reader survey, he had this to say: "They were also asked what motivated them to shop, ie advertising." I imagine he meant i.e. (that is) advertising, but that still makes no sense unless every shopper said his motivation was advertising. He was probably looking for e.g. (for example). Maybe it's all Latin to him! He also has a little problem with consistency -- "Readers had the opportunity to answer several questions online including where they shop, what they bought, and how much they spent." To be consistent, it should be "where they shop, what they buy, how much they spend," or "where they shopped, what they bought . . ." Several readers suggested in the survey that the newspaper needed more proofreading -- looks like they haven't gotten around to implementing that one yet.



Weatherman Sam Champion of Good Morning America needs to stick to the weather. He's been doing a Magical Mystery Tour feature. This morning, he was at an attraction in Homestead, Florida. Climbing a large boulder he asked, "Can you believe that a 5 foot tall man moved this 30 ton pound rock?" Sure, I can believe it, but I bet he had to drink 2 gallon quarts of water afterward.

What's that, Star?

Star Jones, on her show yesterday, was interviewing some expert on Britney Spears. (Other than not wishing bad things for anyone, I don't much care what happens to the spoiled brat.) This expert theorized that Britney is suffering from bipolar disorder. Star's erudite response: "Isn't there an element of hereditariness to bipolar disorder?" Say, Star, is that the same thing as heredity?