do you see why?

in the "notes and questions" section of my property textbook, it keeps asking "do you see why?" after discussing propositions in other note cases and articles.

does anyone else find this funny, or am i the only one here who abides by the gospel of one David Sklansky?

i vote for praying.

i heart snarky advice, and Amy Dickinson's column today provided me with some amusement in the form of snarky advice.

a woman wrote in, discussing how her boyfriend is repeatedly cheating on her. she asks Amy:

" He vowed to be faithful if I would give him one more chance, so I let him come back.
Well, it's been six months and I believe that he is up to his old tricks. I see the signs and I have a strong instinct that he is cheating again.
Should I pray that he will keep his word or should I go ahead and kick him permanently to the curb before he breaks my heart again?"

Amy replies:

"I vote for praying.
And because this is a full-service advice column, I'll even supply the prayer.
"Lord, give me the strength to kick Steve permanently to the curb and give me the will to resist him now and forevermore."
Amen, sister."

that amused me. a lot.

not to mention, it's dead correct advice.

Most Naive Person Ever

so, the prize for Most Naive Person Ever goes to...drumroll please...

Cardinal William Keeler, co-chair of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography!!

::applause::

he gets this distinguished award for part of the warning he gave to parents about giving their children wireless devices such as iPods, cell phones, and PDAs. he warned that they could be used to download pornography. none of this is why he is so naive.

he proceeded to make the stunning observation:

"Sadly, unwanted pornography often leads to wanted pornography."

UNWANTED pornography??? who has ever heard of such a thing!!! clearly, i need to sit Cardinal Keeler down and explain to him a little thing called curiosity. adolescents are curious about lots of things. generally, the top item, or almost the top item, on any adolescent's list of things about which they are curious is sex. there is nothing unwanted at all about teenagers realising, "hey, i can use this thing to look at boobies/cocks/et cetera!"

sure, looking at some pornography may lead to looking at more pornography. i think it's a pretty common sentiment: looking at naked people is fun! many people learn this when they log onto the internet and look at pornography for the first time.

in short, i find it silly for him to think that he thinks the problem starts with accidental viewing of "unwanted pornography." if a teenager, or someone else, for that matter, wants to look at porn, they will search it out. they don't need to stumble upon it. if they do not want to look at porn, they will steer clear.

it is completely within Cardinal Keeler's rights to believe that pornography is some kind of evil, some kind of thing against God. i happen not to agree. but, if he wants to garner support and get more backing for his movement, it would behoove him to not make such blatant displays of naivete.