Moral Police

I'm getting sick and tired of everyone playing moral police on other people's sex lives. What someone does sexually does NOT determine if they are good at what they do in their career. Case in point: Tiger Woods. The guy was bedding half the continental United States and winning - truly winning, unlike Charlie Sheen...

Seriously though, do you want to be judged at work by the way you drive your car, how you raise your kids, how clean you keep your home? If you are a reckless driver, you must be a reckless employee who makes poor, hasty, and/or not well thought out decisions. If you spank your kids and your boss does not, you should be fired! Oh, and isn't your level of cleanliness a sign of your mental state? Tell me, do you want to be fired for what kinky things you do in (or out of) the bedroom? Keep in mind inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states less than 40 years ago. So was oral sex.

My point is, people say that a political figure's sex life influences his/her job. I disagree. If you are a minister that has sworn to uphold certain moral standards set by your religious affiliation, then yes, you should be judged on your sex life. But I don't see how a politician, actor, athlete, or business leader's sex life has any bearing on their job. I don't see why they should lose their job for it.

That's all I want to say about that. That's not all I have to say, but that is all I'm saying right now.

Ripped from the Headlines: Roommate Rage!

So there are these 2 old guys recovering from hip replacements. The 81 year old goes postal on the 91 year old. Beats him with a closet rod. The 91 year old dies from blunt force trauma. 

Why did the 81 year old lose it? Seems the 91 year old was singing in Vietnamese. 

The 81 year old is being held on $1 million bail. He faces life in prison. 

This mug shot had to be taken while the 81 year old was in a wheelchair. Notice the hole in the wall? I guess most mug shots taken at this police station are of a standing perp...

Ripped from the Headlines: Burn Baby, Burn!

A man's house burned to the ground and his cats and dogs died because he did not pay a $75 annual fee to the fire department.

The man's home is located outside the county line. For about the last decade, the fire department in the neighboring county offered fire service for an annual $75 fee. This homeowner did not pay the fee. When he called 9-1-1, the operator said his location did not appear on their list and therefore the fire department could not go to the scene of his house fire. The man offered to pay the fee in cash when the fire department arrived. This is against policy because if that were the case, only those homeowners whose homes were on fire would ever pay the fee.

The fire department did arrive on the scene when the man's neighbor called as the fire had leapt across the property line. The fire men only contained the fire on the neighbor's property as they had paid the $75 fee.

Gosh, that sounds really harsh and unfair. But I get it. It costs money to put out a fire. More money than any of us realize. We are always shocked when we hear the fire department wants to charge someone for starting a brush fire that costs millions to get under control. By having everyone pay into a fund, the fire department can, I don't know, get new brakes on their truck, pay the fire men, get new fire suits every few years so the fire men don't burn because you threw a lit cigarette on dry grass in August?

I do empathize with the homeowner who lost so much. But I think it is a good lesson to all of us that there are fees for a reason. It's not just a money grabbing scheme. There could be a valid reason for charging what we feel is a foolish charge.