The same goes for the laws against handguns. Supreme Court Justice Breyer appears to have the reasoning skills of a box turtle, contending that the Second Amendment rights of all should be yanked because some might use guns unwisely. Tom Knott writes in The Washington Times about Breyer's support for the D.C. handgun ban:

Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in exercising his support of the city's handgun ban that was overturned last week, wrote that "if a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence."

...Justice Breyer's position encapsulates the thinking that impinges on individual liberty in this nation. It is the kind of thinking that has resulted in the smoking ban, the trans-fat ban, the seat-belt law, the helmet law, warning signs galore to spare companies from the litigious-minded, cameras that record our every move and all kinds of intrusive nonsense in airport terminals.

The motivation behind the thinking is to save lives, because if a law can save just one life, then the infringement on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will have been worth it. Better yet, if you are a lawmaker, the thinking leads to an infinite number of legislative possibilities.

Yet try as they might, lawmakers cannot legislate death out of the human experience. But they always can give it the good old political try and come across as all-caring and at one with the majority of constituents.

In fact, what Breyer's position, as law, ensures, is that innocent people will be killed. Because guess what? There's been a ban on guns in D.C. for eons, and that hasn't prevented the criminals from getting their hands on them -- just those ordinary citizens the criminals rob, rape, and murder. Check out the D.C. gun homicides map here.

The Pray at the Pump Movement, founded by Rocky Twyman, has been holding prayer vigils at gas stations across the country.

What's next, a big finger reaches down from the sky to the gas station sign that reads $4.77 a gallon, and peels off the 4?

Ever wonder why I never blog about climate change or global warming or whatever we're supposed to call it? It's because I study evolutionary psychology pretty seriously but I really don't know a rat's ass about physics or climatology. (Doesn't seem to stop Laurie!) Meanwhile, I've been meaning to put up a piece by reason's Ron Bailey on the subject, as he's someone I trust to be impartial judge of the science.

In yesterday's LA Times, there was something similar from Penn Jillette, and his partner, Teller, like me, "professional skeptics," and two guys I respect. They were speaking at the gathering of professional skeptics thrown by another guy I respect, and whose work I've written about, James Randi. Jillette writes:

Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don't wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn't stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It's not a gig; it's hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.

I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.

The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren't used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I'm used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.

Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: "But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, 'Don't bother me with scientific evidence, I'm going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.' ... Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."

Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?

To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.

But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?

I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?

Let's have more of this, thanks.

I guess I complained too much about how they neglected their fiduciary duty to me when their tellers gave out $12,000 of my money to at least two ladies with a fake driver's license in my name, and with the wrong expiration date. And on SEVEN different occasions!

So, now, less than a month away from the deadline for my book, in addition to the daily nightmares I deal with thanks to BofA's ridiculously lax "security," I have a new BofA-created chore...finding and moving all my accounts to another bank before July 31.

That's when they dump me and my checking, savings, CDs, IRAs, and the contents of my safe deposit box on the street...or whatever they do to customers who get repeatedly robbed and don't just keep quiet after being given a new account number, an apology, and a headpat.

My neighbor suggests a credit union: SAG-AFTRA's, since I'm a member. Problem: they're all the way across town, and I need to access my bank branch in a hurry sometimes.

I thought of First Federal of California, because they (eventually) let Gary Musselman open an account there, in the Main Street/Santa Monica branch, and ended up being quite nice to him. And they're a community bank and they seem to get good reviews from their customers. But, then, it seems they don't really support Mac for online banking. (You have to use Explorer 5.5 or up. Microsoft stopped doing Explorer for Mac. I have 5.2, and went on Microsoft's site and found only up to 4.5.)

Anybody got any experience with WaMu? I'm looking for an institution that doesn't seem to have contempt for the people who bank with them...and might even treat them the way the old manager, John Angello, at my branch of Bank of America used to treat me: Like I was a valued customer.

Sooo...anybody got any suggestions. Bank suggestions or any other suggestions?

And not to worry..BofA isn't going to get away with this -- well, not in my case, anyway. (Every day, I hear new stories about people with similar or other BofA nightmares originating in a kind of contempt for the customer and for sensible business practices that I've experienced.)

They've now eaten a substantial part of my time and my general peace of mind, when, if they'd applied the "multiple layers of security" they brag to the press that they have, the perp with the ID in my name would likely have been caught the first time she tried to financially ass-rape me, and that fake license she used to apply for instant credit at Target and Walmart and Kmart might now be in a police evidence locker somewhere.

Oh, and if you haven't done it already -- take it from me: Freeze your credit bureau accounts.

And, finally, if you know anybody who works for Bank of America, do me a favor, will ya? Ask them how they sleep nights.

Percentage of 12th-graders who reported using marijuana in the previous year

1975: 40

2007: 31.7

Percentage of 12th-graders who reported using cocaine in the previous year

1975: 5.6

2007: 5.2

Percentage of 12th-graders who reported using heroin in the previous year

1975: 1

2007: 0.9

And while pot use is down, Sullum reminds people that today's pot is super-pot compared to the pot of yesteryear, "by and large, not even strong enough to get them high." Sullum calls today's pot "so strong that it's a different, far more dangerous drug":

From the DEA's perspective, a shift from large numbers smoking mostly inert material to smaller numbers smoking one-hit-is-plenty superweed can hardly be counted as a success.

Perhaps we should "Just say no!" to pouring more billions down the shitter?

My friend doesn't get a lot of this kind of e-mail, or much e-mail at all, and she was peeved: "It's kind of presumptuous to assume that just because it's your politics, it's someone else's," she said. "Of course, I do live in San Francisco, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Down here, a woman who manages a business I patronize told me a few weeks ago that she's a mmphhhphhhh. A what? A mmmphhhhhh! Oh, I get it...a conservative. Around these parts, people whisper it so low, you'd think they're confessing to being baby rapists.

As for a whole bunch of Democrats e-mailing Fox to complain about their coverage of Obama -- does anyone with an IQ over the speed limit think that's going to change their reporting an iota?

And no, in case you're wondering, I'm not going to change the title of this blog item to "Mentally Challenged Things People Do." So save your carpal tunnels, and don't bother e-mailing me to complain.

Hours later, Obama left Agar a voicemail, apologizing for not answering her question and for calling her "sweetie."

"That's a bad habit of mine," Obama said in the message. "I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front."

It apparently is a habit. In an earlier campaign stop, Obama said to a woman, "Sweetie, if I start with a picture I will never get out of here."

And then: "Sweetie if I start doing autographs I just won't be & I am really late."

While the extent of the political fallout over Obama's use of the word is unclear, his "habit" has become fodder for talk shows and bloggers.

On "The View," Whoopie Goldberg said that it wasn't such a big deal. "And what he meant to say I believe was with no disrespect, 'cause I call everyone sweetie if I don't know their name," she said.

When men throw out words like sweetie or honey or girl in movies like "9 to 5" or "Anchorman," it is portrayed as supremely condescending.

Well, check your clocks, ladies...it isn't 1972. Older men sometimes call me sweetie, darlin', or honey, and if they aren't snarling it, why take offense? In fact, I usually don't even take notice of it, except to find it kind of cute, the same way I find older men who call themselves "gents," like the guy who just sent me an e-mail subject headered "Mature Gent Still Has Drive."

Of course, it helps that I don't feel powerless or like a victim, which means I'm not going to feel victimized or "disempowered" (or whatever the wymyn call it) by being called "honey" or "sweetie."

Other women, and younger women who've managed to get themselves brainwashed by feminists, don't see it my way. Here's a commenter on ABC's site:

Women of this country should unite and start standing together. Aren't you tired of being dismissed as "sweetie"? As "hon, can you go get me some coffee"? Having to sit on the OUTSIDE of most boardrooms because the infamous glass ceiling still exists? I for one working am shocked as to how young women have no idea! Coming from a company where there is a 25% Female to 75% Male ratio, I have looked as sexism straight in the face!!! Do you think that Obama will fix the fact that a woman gets paid 25-30% less than a man, with the exact same qualifications and experience, simply because she's a woman? HELL NO! Women, young and old, single or single moms everywhere should be uniting. But no, we'd rather continue to have our destinies and rights be controlled by men. I will NEVER vote Obama in as President and so will about 30% of us women that believe it's time to make a stand. Obama has portrayed his sexist demeanor in this campaign time and again, and the undertones are there. The "Sweetie" comment was yet another sign. But does the media report on the topic of Sexism, of course not. However, they seem to have no issues reporting on Racism!!!! We should just call Obama "Boy" and see how he likes it.

Ah, a Hillary voter. Whatta surprise. And trotting out the same old tired (wrong) stats about wage disparities. Ladies, when you work seven days a week, like a BARREN! girl like me, you'll make much more money. Also, it helps if you don't do what far too many women do -- take the first salary offer they're made.

But, hey, I'm all for people being called what they want to be called, whether it's Petunia, Buttwipe, or Your Majesty. Ask nicely, and I'm sure people will refrain from using terms of endearment to address you, and instead use more appropriate language. Something you'll find less insulting, and more accurate; perhaps "Disagreeable old bitch"?

2008 version:

My boyfriend of two years has been living with his parents for four years. He's 49, and first said he had an apartment near them but never wanted me to come over. I soon caught on, and he confessed he was ashamed of being in debt and living at home. I gave him another chance because we get along well, except for money. (I'm frugal and he can't hang onto a dollar.) The biggie happened last week. I discovered he'd actually lived in his parents' basement with his wife and kids for several years before they divorced. I don't know if I'm more upset because he lied or because he put his wife and kids in a basement for so long.

--Angry Girlfriend

An excerpt from my answer:

Come on...you're angry because you found out the guy stashed his wife and kids in a basement? His live wife and kids, not their mummified corpses? This is the kind of thing men who are chronically broke are forced to do. Maybe what's really eating you is what a bad investment you've made: putting in two years with a guy for whom moving up in the world means going from his parents' basement into his parents' garage. In his defense, at least he has the decency, if not to put a roof over his kids' heads, then to mooch one.

The entire thing is here, plus comments.

Stereohyped writes that black male models are in in the fashion world right now -- in magazines and runway shows:

Not only are they exclusively populating the pages of this month's super-hyped Vogue Italia, Wintour & Co. also begrudgingly gave them some attention. At Milan's Men's Fashion Week, the designers of Dsquared used a group of models, led by Tyson Beckford, made up almost entirely of black men. And rumor has it that Lanvin's show next week has an "all-ethnic lineup."

As I commented at Stereohyped:

Wait...if you complain when only white guys get jobs, why don't you complain when only black guys get jobs?

Are you against racism or is that just a nicer sounding way of putting what you actually are for?

Personally, I don't care who designers hire -- what age, what sex, what color the models are. Each designer knows what works best for his or her aesthetic and will choose it, and should. Is this necessarily "racist" or just what works for a particular designer's look?

If a designer's models don't work for you on some level -- too white, too black, too thin, too fat, well, buy some other designer's clothes. Whoops...chances are you can't afford any designer's clothes anyway.

Never fear. Perhaps, if you're one of those complaining about the race of the models you can instead devote yourself to campaigning for "colorblind" casting for TV shows...say, by pressuring a network to cast a black woman to play the person who gave birth to two white, Irish children.

Personally, I'm for judging somebody "by the content of their character," but when's the last time you think anybody chose an actress or model on those terms?

Yet South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to make excuses for Mugabe - who is more brutal than Ian Smith ever was - out of misplaced deference for a common history in the liberation struggle.

Zimbabweans suffered so much for so many decades from white racism that the last thing they need is excuses for Mugabe's brutality because of his skin color.

...If only Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.

...An NRDC investigation found that the U.S. airline industry discards enough aluminum cans each year to build 58 Boeing 747 airplanes. In a single year, U.S. airlines also discarded 9,000 tons of plastic and enough newspapers and magazines to fill a football field to a depth of more than 230 feet.

...Action tips for the week:

Even when they are 'off,' leaving appliances plugged in still uses energy, so remember before you leave home for summer vacation to unplug all electrical appliances and devices to save energy.

...If you plan to drive to your vacation destination, make sure your car is running efficiently. Keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Saving a gallon of gas will keep 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and leave more money in your pocket for those vacation treats!

Gee, thanks, Laure! How many gallons of gas does that private jet use? How many thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide does it put into the atmosphere? So...you luvvvv the environment ("Here, Bambi!...Here, Bambi!") -- just not enough to stoop to flying first class.

In fact, it seems you take a private jet to the darnest places! Here, in the Texas A&M student newspaper, The Batt, a student says he saw you arrive in one for one of your global warming lectures:

Laurie David, the producer of "An Inconvenient Truth" and global warming activist, told Texas A&M students to change their "individual behavior" in order to consume fewer resources and to help battle global warming. As an employee of Easterwood Airport, I would like to point out that Mrs. David flew to our campus in a luxurious private jet, which could be seen from 10 miles away due to the thick plume of smog it left in its wake. I am neither denying nor confirming the epidemic of global warming, I am simply pointing out that hypocrites such as Mrs. David don't care about the environment, only their own political agendas. This is proven time and again by these celebrities' and lobbyist's "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

Richard Pawlik
Class of 2007

Ever wonder why I never blog about climate change or global warming or whatever we're supposed to call it? It's because I study evolutionary psychology pretty seriously but I really don't know a rat's ass about physics or climatology. (Doesn't seem to stop Laurie!) Meanwhile, I've been meaning to put up a piece by reason's Ron Bailey on the subject, as he's someone I trust to be impartial judge of the science.

And here's another guy who's likely to have a wee bit more acumen in stats than the average Hollywood soon-to-be-ex. That would be Professor David J.C. MacKay of the Cambridge University Department of Physics, who holds a PhD in computation and neural systems from Cal Tech and a "starred first in Physics," whatever that is. But, as Lewis Page puts it in the Register/UK, chances are, "he knows his numbers":

And, as he points out, numbers are typically lacking in current discussion around carbon emissions and energy use.

MacKay tells The Reg that he was first drawn into this field by the constant suggestion -- from the Beeb, parts of the government etc -- that we can seriously impact our personal energy consumption by doing such things as turning our TVs off standby or unplugging our mobile-phone chargers.

Anyone with even a slight grasp of energy units should know that this is madness. Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months. People who wash regularly, wear clean clothes, consume hot food or drink, use powered transport of any kind and live in warm houses have no need to worry about the energy they use to power their electronics; it's insignificant compared to the other things.

Most of us don't see basic hygiene, decent food and warm houses as sinful luxuries, but as things we can reasonably expect to have. This means that society as a whole needs a lot of energy, which led MacKay to consider how this might realistically be supplied in a low-carbon fashion. He's coming at the issues from a green/ecological viewpoint, but climate-change sceptics who are nonetheless concerned about Blighty becoming dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil -- as the North Sea starts to play out -- will also find his analysis interesting. Eliminating carbon largely equates to eliminating gas and oil use.

"I don't really mind too much what your plan is," MacKay told The Reg this week. "But it's got to add up."

He says he's largely letting his machine-learning lab at Cambridge run itself these days, and is personally spending most of his time on trying out different energy scenarios.

MacKay sets out his calculations in a book, Sustainable Energy -- Without the hot air. You can download it here (http://www.withouthotair.com/). As he says:

The one thing I am sure of is that the answers to our sustainable energy questions will involve numbers; any sane discussion of sustainable energy requires numbers. This book's got 'em, and it shows how to handle them.

He emphasises that the book isn't quite finished yet, and says he's always glad to hear from someone who has something to add or has spotted a mistake.

That's science for you. It's a beautiful thing. More people should try incorporating some into their self-serving P.R. campaigns for the environment.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, if you read the whole piece, you'll see that MacKay finds nukes -- and innovations in nuclear energy -- to be our best bet for the future.

Register link via aldaily