Random Thoughts - Current Events edition

[Sumac]

Besides, you need to be strong like a ****ing gorilla to cut someone's limbs.

As for discussion about "evil" people, I don't think people are NOT born evil: they are molded into "evil" by culture, upbringing or traumas. Or combination of thereof.
The question is what to do with them.

I and some members of my family have a lot of experience with abusers. And it painfully obvious that no amount of therapy or convincing would make them into good people. They genuinely LOVE torment others. And while I am not OK with idea of killing them, I personally consider that the best way to get rid of those people is to cut them off from your life. Like completely. Otherwise they will destroy you.

[Bahamut810]

Wow...so much from Vegita...

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

No other country has them, and no other country has this gun issue. THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OWN SEMI OR FULL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Our For fathers never envisioned such things, let alone being easily available.

Many other countries have an armed public, with various levels of restrictions. Even Canada. In countries where there are more stringent gun controls people will find a way. Look at the Knife crime rate in London for instance.

You also suggest that our Forefathers were morons who could not anticipate that technology advances. Do you really think that a group of inventors and military generals, and educated peoples (with studies in history) could not foresee that technology advances and that one day we would be able to shoot multiple bullets quickly without having to reload? Sure, they may not have known how...but each of them knew that things had to be research and invented. I always find this "forefathers never envisioned' argument baffling.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

The NRA relies on donations to get laws past. Why can't we simply find out which democratic AND republican senators accept such things and sanction them to hell..so they not only can't afford to accept them anymore, but no one else will either.

I think there are already laws to limit donations to politians. If you mean simply because they are pro-gun, then I would be willing to agree with you if you were willing to do that with everyone who accepted donations from any group deemed objectionable (pro-abortion groups, Pro-life groups, 'SJW' aligned groups, ect) because you are very specifically punishing people for their opinions.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

I also feel the amendment also needs updating to reflect the technology of the times.

Yes, we should change it to Democrats from trying to chip away at our rights a step at a time. F*** that. Go buy what you want to defend yourself and your home.

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

I've ALWAYS hated guns. not about politics. want to defend yourself? how about a sword. cut off the attackers arms and boom, no more threat.

A local citizen should NOT be able to own a automatic or semi automatic. not brain washing, just simple facts.

You don't like guns? DONT BUY ONE. Dont try to tread on other peoples rights because you have an ick in your brain. Bring a knife to a gun fight and see how far you get. Guns are the great equalizer.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I am not OK with idea of killing them

I am. If you take misery in hurting people and making them suffer, you're a disease.

We don't coddle cancerous tumors, we remove them. Human beings should be no different.

[1987]

not sure why but the mainstream media didn’t cover this story much and make it national news. there was a birthday/graduation party a few days ago in Charleston, WV and a white supremacist attempted a mass shooting but was quickly shot dead by a woman with a concealed pistol. you would think this is big news right? a would be mass shooting by an assault rifle stopped by a pistol? oh wait, the suspect, dennis butler, was a black man with extensive criminal history. my bad! guess it all makes sense now.

https://www.wowktv.com/news/local/ch...-on-party/amp/

[Leo656]

They do love to bury the story whenever it's a black person doing the shooting (or committing crimes in general). Hard to ignore the consistency of that, not gonna lie. Even back like 15 years ago when I was reading the newspaper every day, if the shooter was white it'd be Page One but if they were black it'd be somewhere in the middle of the paper. And then you'd go on the internet and there'd be nothing about it hardly. Or like, a lot of times I'd read multiple papers and they'd report it differently; if it was a more "liberal" paper, they'd only comment on the criminal's race if they were white (and they would make sure to mention they were in fact white), otherwise they wouldn't mention it at all. But if it were a more centrist or conservative paper, they'd openly say it was a black person. It felt like the liberal papers would go to great lengths to try and hide those particular details.

I get that they feel like reporting on non-whites committing crimes is going to "make people racist", or some bullsh*t, but it's not the job of the media to editorialize or skew the narrative, it's their job to ONLY print facts and leave it to everyone else to hash out "what it means".

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I get that they feel like reporting on non-whites committing crimes is going to "make people racist", or some bullsh*t, but it's not the job of the media to editorialize or skew the narrative, it's their job to ONLY print facts and leave it to everyone else to hash out "what it means".

Nowadays it is. Or at least media think they are entitled to do so, to get money from a Twatterinos and be in bed with woke crowd.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I actually studied Journalism in high school so what passes for it in the Internet Era makes my blood f*cking boil.

I doubt you even need a degree to be a published "journalist" anymore. Pretty sure anyone with a blog and friends in the right places gets to be one, whether they studied the ethics of the craft or not. It's all JUST editorializing now. Disgusting.

[Coola Yagami]

As someone who argues with the higher-ups at times over ethics, I never woulda made it as a journalist. I probably woulda been blacklisted by my peers just for actually doing my ****in job.

[Sumac]

Journalism is dead. Or at least classic journalism is dead.
It is completely eclipsed by retards in Internet with their hot-take, who research things via Google.

And, because, in modern age, media prefer to hire this retards as their writers, because, modern people are too busy to read anything past the title, there is no place for the real journalism anymore.

[Andrew NDB]

It's all about everyone trying to save the world, or their idea(ology) of it. Things like journalistic integrity are just more noble sacrifices along the way.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It's all about everyone trying to save the world, or their idea(ology) of it. Things like journalistic integrity are just more noble sacrifices along the way.

Journalistic integrity - was a rare beast even before Internet. Its just when biased news were presented by good-looking people in expensive costumes with a good speech, as opposed to self-entitled balding ****s, who dress at the dump and Hot Topic, you was less prone to dismiss lies.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Journalistic integrity - was a rare beast even before Internet. Its just when biased news were presented by good-looking people in expensive costumes with a good speech, as opposed to self-entitled balding ****s, who dress at the dump and Hot Topic, you was less prone to dismiss lies.

I don't think I'm that jaded to think that. Though maybe things started to shift around the O.J. stuff. And then baby steps from there until social media. Like, even the LA riots... that was fairly balanced coverage. There was big pieces on the trucker getting hit with the brick and all. You'd never see that now.

[Leo656]

Good read.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-co...185445896.html

Two Professors Found What Creates a Mass Shooter. Will Politicians Pay Attention?

Three years ago, Jillian Peterson, an associate professor of criminology at Hamline University, and James Densley, a professor of criminal justice at Metro State University, decided to take a different approach. In their view, the failure to gain a more meaningful and evidence-based understanding of why mass shooters do what they do seemed a lost opportunity to stop the next one from happening. Funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, their research constructed a database of every mass shooter since 1966 who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces and places of worship since 1999.

Peterson and Densley also compiled detailed life histories on 180 shooters, speaking to their spouses, parents, siblings, childhood friends, work colleagues and teachers. As for the gunmen themselves, most don’t survive their carnage, but five who did talked to Peterson and Densely from prison, where they were serving life sentences. The researchers also found several people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.
-----------

POLITICO: So, what are the solutions?

Densley: There are things we can do right now as individuals, like safe storage of firearms or something as simple as checking in with your kid.

Peterson: Then we really need resources at institutions like schools. We need to build teams to investigate when kids are in crisis and then link those kids to mental health services. The problem is that in a lot of places, those services are not there. There’s no community mental health and no school-based mental health. Schools are the ideal setting because it doesn’t require a parent to take you there. A lot of perpetrators are from families where the parents are not particularly proactive about mental health appointments.

---------------------

POLITICO: In your book, you say that in an ideal world, 500,000 psychologists would be employed in schools around the country. If you assume a modest salary of $70,000 a year, that amounts to over $35 billion in funding. Are you seeing any national or state-level political momentum for even a sliver of these kind of mental health resources?

Densley: Every time these tragedies happen, you always ask yourself, “Is this the one that’s going to finally move the needle?” The Republican narrative is that we’re not going to touch guns because this is all about mental health. Well then, we need to ask the follow-up question of what’s the plan to fix that mental health problem. Nobody’s saying, “Let’s fund this, let’s do it, we’ll get the votes.” That’s the political piece that’s missing here.

POLITICO: Are Democrats talking about mental health?

Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.

Peterson: Post-Columbine there’s been this real focus on hardening schools — metal detectors, armed officers, teaching our kids to run and hide. The shift I’m starting to see, at least here in Minnesota, is that people are realizing hardening doesn’t work. Over 90 percent of the time, school shooters target their own school. These are insiders, not outsiders. We just had a bill in Minnesota that recognized public safety as training people in suicide prevention and funding counselors. I hope we keep moving in that direction.

Densley: In Uvalde, there was an army of good guys with guns in the parking lot. The hard approach doesn’t seem to be getting the job done.

----------------

POLITICO: I was struck by a detail in your book about one of the perpetrators you investigated. Minutes before he opened fire, you report that he called a behavior health facility. Is there always some form of reaching out or communication of intent before it happens?

Peterson: You don’t see it as often with older shooters who often go into their workplaces. But for young shooters, it’s almost every case. We have to view this “leakage” as a cry for help. If you’re saying, “I want to shoot the school tomorrow,” you are also saying, “I don’t care if I live or die.” You’re also saying, “I’m completely hopeless,” and you’re putting it out there for people to see because part of you wants to be stopped.

We have to listen because pushing people out intensifies their grievance and makes them angrier. The Parkland shooter had just been expelled from school and then came back. This is not a problem we can punish our way out of.

It's very noteworthy that while the subject of guns comes up a few times in the full article, at no point do these experts - who have obviously researched this issue in far greater detail than any politician or bleeding heart on social media - say that fewer guns or stricter laws will in any meaningful way solve this problem. In a section I didn't copy/paste, they mention how in Buffalo there were laws in place to prevent that situation and in the end it didn't matter.

This is a Root Cause issue. Only a combined and concentrated approach of providing mental health services for people who are obviously in crisis and preparing to lash out, as well as doing all we can on a reasonable level to keep such people away from firearms, will work.

But as the article points out, mental health services cost money and isn't a sexy hot-button issue for voters, so while that would ultimately do a world of good, it's never actually going to go anywhere past talk. This is another place where I take issue with the Republicans; in trying to deflect from guns, they SAY out loud "We recognize that this is a mental health issue", but THEN they consistently cut funding from mental health programs nationwide.

I've dealt with "the system", I know of which I speak. At one point, for example, when I was independently trying to continue my outpatient treatment, the best anyone could do was set me up with a therapist who wasn't incredibly experienced and was working out of a college campus about 30-40 minutes away from where I live, which is incredibly impractical. But it's "the best they can do" for people who don't have a lot of money.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle SAY that they are steadfastly and passionately invested in making sure these tragedies never happen again... and then botch the follow-through when it's time to stop talking. One side says "Lets take the guns", which is impractical and unconstitutional, and also does nothing to attack the Root Cause. The other side SAYS that they understand that it's a mental health issue, and then does nothing about it when it comes time to set up state and federal budgets; when it's crunch time, they will ALWAYS slash mental health funding, every single time.

The professors quoted in this article seem to have cracked the code; at least, every word of what they're saying makes crystal clear sense to ME. The question now becomes, will anyone actually LISTEN, or just continue to espouse empty rhetoric?

We all know the answer. Solutions cost money, while rhetoric and "activism" are free.

[superstaff]

Densley: Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.

Smartest person on this panel, to be honest.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Leo656

This is a Root Cause issue. Only a combined and concentrated approach of providing mental health services for people who are obviously in crisis and preparing to lash out, as well as doing all we can on a reasonable level to keep such people away from firearms, will work.

The problem with mental health as a 'solution' is that therapists suck. Many, I would even say a majority of them, are absolute trash. It's interesting that many Republicans/Conservatives champion given that an overwhelming amount of therapists and psychiatrists are Democrats/Leftists (more than 2/3, according to research done on the subject). Hmm. If more of them knew this, would they be screeching that "more therapy, less laws" be the answer?

Honestly, my experience with therapy has been awful. Psychology and psychiatry are treated like absolute, and 'based on science', but do some digging into it, and you'll see there's a lot less of that than it seems. Maybe I'll write more on this topic upon request, but...yeah.

Another thing is we'd need to trust people to immediately go to a mental health professional if they feel suicidal, homicidal, violent, etc. Or we'd need to live in a system with mandatory screenings, and trust that these medical professionals have our best interests in mind...which I don't really think many of them actually do. Another thing you guys should look into is medical malpractice and corruption in the medical system, aka "many doctors are evil and use their patients as guinea pigs or violate their rights, and the system, aka 'big pharma' enables this".

[Leo656]

I've had good and bad experiences.

Outpatient treatment was a very mixed bag, and a lot of it has to do with resource management. Some of my therapists were well-meaning and very nice people, but either lacked experience and could do little except offer platitudes, or simply had no time to devote to individual patients because they were juggling a heavy caseload because they're getting paid so little they need to work a "crammed" client schedule with people back-to-back-to-back, which does nobody any good. Oftentimes, I'd be kept waiting because another client's appointment ran long, which not only cuts into my time but leaves the therapist in the position of not having any time to "decompress" and detach from the previous client to be able to devote full attention to the next one. I know what that's like from working as a personal trainer, where the same thing often happens. If you are crunched for appointments it becomes very hard to devote full and necessary attention to any specific individual no matter how great their need or how good your intentions.

Now, high-end therapists who make a lot of money - and in turn, serve a more wealthy clientele - don't have that problem and work a very flexible schedule. But 99% of the people who need mental health services the most are people like me, who don't have a lot of money and are probably getting therapy for free through the state. And you really do get what you pay for. So whether it's me, or some high school kid who's about to snap, if the best they can do is send someone to see a second- or third-year therapist who's juggling 15 clients a day... you're not going to see great results. Therapists are like public defenders; they might potentially be purely noble and have the best of intentions, but they don't have the resources and in many cases the experience necessary to serve the people who need them the most. It's not necessarily that they don't care on an individual level, but when someone is overworked and underpaid there's only so much they can effectively do.

Communication also becomes an issue. I showed up to some appointments expecting a full hour session, only to find out 20 minutes in that it was only a 30-minute session. Firstly, that should always be communicated upfront, and in those cases they "forgot" to tell me because they were frazzled from juggling so many things at once. But secondly, that goes back to resource management. In my experience, a 30-minute therapy session does very little. One- or two-hour sessions, you can get a lot done. 30 minutes, you're barely able to even get into everything that affected you emotionally that day, let alone in the week between your last appointment and this one. And these places only schedule 30-minute appointments at all because they simply don't have the time or doctors available to do better.

HOWEVER. Inpatient treatment was a whole other story. When I was ordered to go to Princeton House for two weeks via doctor and court order, it probably saved my life and that's no exaggeration. NEVER in my life, before or since, have so many people gone to such great lengths to make me feel understood, heard, and validated as a human being. To the point where they warned me before being discharged, "It's a lot harder outside, because people out there don't care as much, and that includes your family and friends," which is absolutely true. This was a $1000/day treatment facility, and since I "technically" wasn't working (I knew I'd be going back to work the second I was discharged, but for the duration of my stay I "technically" was not working and therefore eligible for Medicaid, the social workers took care of the Legal-ese of it all) everything was covered completely by the state. I paid for not a cent of it, and received incredible attention round the clock. There were a whole team of doctors, therapists, nutritionists, etc., making sure I wasn't just "doing okay", but actively getting better, and those same services were standard for everyone. Not everyone took advantage of the resources available to them, but the people who were proactive in their treatment got noticeably better. The ones who said "I don't think I need to be here" or "I don't think I have a problem" were the ones who got sent to other hospitals... or worse.

At no point during that time did I feel like just a number, as was sometimes the case with outpatient therapy. This facility treats thousands of people per day and yet strives to devote the utmost personal care and attention to everyone, and that, I feel, makes a world of difference.

Part of it is making people feel like the treatment is sincere. There's naturally a lot of distrust out there of doctors and therapists, and people not wanting to be honest because they either don't feel like it will do any good, OR that they'll be judged and blamed or treated poorly for being completely honest. At first, I was very nervous about opening up about some of the things I've said and done, or how dark some of my thoughts have been, because I am not a perfect person. When I saw other people opening up in group, it made me feel a lot more comfortable, because I saw people confess to far worse things than what I was afraid to talk about. And no matter what it was, whenever anyone said "I did _______ and I feel like a horrible person," the response was more of a shrug than anything judgmental. You EXPECT to see them recoil, you think they're going to look at you differently. When they don't... that can be huge. "Okay, that happened, but it doesn't make you a horrible person."

Like some people were in their for beating their wives or kids, for example, and while obviously it's not something that is celebrated, when you get to know these people intimately you find a lot of self-loathing about things they've done, which makes them not only likely to re-offend but also to keep things inside because they're afraid of being judged. When judgment is off the table, and it becomes clear that understanding and healing is the goal, not judging and punishing people... it's amazing how quickly you see people change for the better.

Inpatient treatment, for me, was a lot more productive than outpatient. Not only were there more resources in play and greater attention given to the individual, BUT at the same time it develops what a lot of damaged people are sorely lacking in, and that being a sense of community. Knowing that other people feel the exact same way or have gone through almost the exact same experiences can be HUGE. Especially when you see those people making progress. It gives you hope. It makes you want to try harder and not just give up. Especially when you're not just sitting around all day talking about your problems, but in-between doing fun things like painting or doing puzzles together or listening to music and talking about how it makes you feel and why.

Plus, the food was excellent; most people are malnourished and dehydrated without realizing it, and it's not something you notice until you're "forced" to eat a fully-balanced diet and drink enough water. But that right there has a HUGE effect on peoples' mental state without even knowing that's a factor.

I always made the joke that Princeton House was "like Summer Camp for loony-tunes". And it's very apt. People who know me well remarked how that two weeks made me an almost completely different person, after having struggled my entire life to make any progress whatsoever.

So I've seen the good and bad of "the system". My sincere advice to anyone struggling is to find a way to get into a program such as Princeton House; most states do have one, even though they are under-funded. You'll possibly be required to continue outpatient therapy upon discharge, and outpatient treatment is where people slip through the cracks more often than not, but a lot of that is on the individual advocating for themselves and doing their diligence.

Full disclosure, I ended up going to Princeton House after having a "stand-off" with a half-dozen cops in my backyard, screaming at them to shoot me, after my wife called 911 when I was making threats of self-harm. That's how my little "adventure" through the mental health system started. Two weeks later, I didn't even recognize that guy anymore. I still struggle, but it's never been THAT bad again.

So the system works, but you have to be in the right environment. I was "lucky", in that I was forced to get treatment I never, ever would have sought out otherwise. To this day, I swear to anyone who will listen that I wasn't grateful for the circumstances, but I am grateful for the experience. I most likely would not be here now, otherwise.

(Cont.)

[Leo656]

People who exhibit the "red flags" of some of these mass shooters? Mandatory inpatient treatment at a similar facility. 100%. It will save lives. These places are specifically set up for people who either have, or have threatened to, hurt themselves or someone else. That's why they exist. Most people will NOT go willingly. I wouldn't have. But you'd be amazed how much people can change when you remind them they're not "monsters" and that it's not "hopeless". I saw people way worse than me come out the other side of their damage. There's a little bit of give-and-take - people who don't want to be helped are difficult - but I've seen people go very quickly from being violently uncooperative and getting locked in "the quiet room" three or four times a day, to basically brand new people once they get on the right meds and start connecting with the people around them again.

The only problem is a lack of available beds at any given time, the waiting list, and the red tape which makes seeking treatment there seem inconvenient. All of which could easily be alleviated, if the state(s) would simply allocate more funds to these facilities. The therapists shouldn't be vacuuming the rooms and hallways, for example. That illustrates how underfunded even the best of these places are.

I'm dead serious, this is a thing people need to be doing. And I do recommend it to people who are just struggling in general, as well. Some of the "worst" people I knew in there were voluntary. But they turned it around. They knew they couldn't just talk to someone and it would all go away, they needed to be a lot more proactive. Some of them were on their fourth or fifth "tour of duty". One guy got discharged on a Friday, immediately relapsed, got arrested, and told the cops to bring him right back in on Monday. "I'm not ready to be out there yet," he said. "I wasn't being honest with myself. I said I was better because I wanted to get out of here, but that was me being a liar. Nobody's gonna get any better until they're ready to do the work. I gotta be better, I can't keep doing this to myself." Hopefully, he's doing better now.

I highly recommend it. If I had the means I'd go back for another inpatient "vacation" any day over doing the revolving-door-of-therapists outpatient thing, any day of the week. If it's something a person hasn't tried, well... you should.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by superstaff

Honestly, my experience with therapy has been awful. Psychology and psychiatry are treated like absolute, and 'based on science', but do some digging into it, and you'll see there's a lot less of that than it seems. Maybe I'll write more on this topic upon request, but...yeah.

Another thing is we'd need to trust people to immediately go to a mental health professional if they feel suicidal, homicidal, violent, etc. Or we'd need to live in a system with mandatory screenings, and trust that these medical professionals have our best interests in mind...which I don't really think many of them actually do. Another thing you guys should look into is medical malpractice and corruption in the medical system, aka "many doctors are evil and use their patients as guinea pigs or violate their rights, and the system, aka 'big pharma' enables this".

This is where being your own advocate becomes essential. During outpatient treatment, I had one clinician who ONLY ever wanted to increase my Lithium, even after I told her the side effects were unbearable after she'd already upped the dose twice. At Princeton House, I was barely medicated, only enough to bring the Lithium levels up very slightly as I had a naturally low baseline.

When I was discharged and had to go outpatient, things got trickier. They can't give you the correct attention, so every time you have a bad day, "Let's up your meds" is pretty much all they know how to do. You need to be able to say "No, I'm not doing that. I need to talk to someone who actually wants to listen, and you are not listening." If that person isn't the one, it's time to find someone else.

A person needs to ask questions and speak up for themselves, and confront their doctors when they know they're not acting in their own best interests. I eventually stopped going to therapy entirely over these issues, which maybe wasn't the best idea but as I've mentioned, the outpatient system simply wasn't working for me. So instead I fall back on practicing the coping skills I developed at Princeton House, which can kind of supersede the need for external therapy. Sometimes.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

A person needs to ask questions and speak up for themselves, and confront their doctors when they know they're not acting in their own best interests.

I have. I still do.

My doctors, basically all of them, just tell me to shrug off the side effects a lot of the time. I don't have a lot of time to devote to writing about this today, but my experiences have been very crappy, both for physical and mental problems. I've never really had any sort of positive experience with in or out patient programs. I guess I just have the worst luck in the world (and sometimes I really believe this). I've seen people swear to me that this or that mental health facility/program/medications/blahblahblah saved their lives. And sure, good for y'all.

Maybe I'm just beyond help for some reason. Over time, I've stopped trusting the system because it has failed me many times, and has been a waste of my time and my money. The one thing that helped, for about a year, was a steady exercise and diet plan I put myself on. I felt better...then 2020 happened, and all the progress was gone, and I am worse than ever. I'll spare the details, but I developed a second disability in addition to one I already had, and stress from the scamde-- I mean, pandemic is the likely culprit. I've always suspected that mental health/state plays a huge role in how our bodies are run physically as well, and some doctors kinda-sorta agree with me on this, though they still push pills on me every time.

[Leo656]

So long as a person actively wants help, they're not beyond it. If I've learned anything, it's that.

We can talk more about it Somewhere Else if you'd like to. This forum isn't the best place to get into such things, understandably. Inevitably someone always pops in to say Exactly The Wrong Thing.

You know where I'm at, and that I'm not going anywhere.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

So long as a person actively wants help, they're not beyond it. If I've learned anything, it's that.

We can talk more about it Somewhere Else if you'd like to. This forum isn't the best place to get into such things, understandably. Inevitably someone always pops in to say Exactly The Wrong Thing.

You know where I'm at, and that I'm not going anywhere.

Thanks, I know.

At this point, I'm not super shy about this stuff. I'm anticipating offending 98% of the people here with my ramblings. Even when it has nothing to do with politics. I bet saying that I prefer Leo to Raph has someone's panties in a bunch somewhere here.