Lest you think eating Ben & Jerry's, driving a Prius, or supporting "climate change" legislation makes you trendy and earth-conscious, you might want to read some George Will and get educated. Some likely truths: steaks, Priuses, and "green" legislation pose more of a threat to the environment than an SUV ever will. 

Fuzzy Climate Math

By George Will

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a "serious problem.'' Indoctrination is supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of seriousness.

For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 in opposition to any agreement which would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but would involve no "specific scheduled commitments'' for 129 "developing'' countries, including the second, fourth, 10th, 11th, 13th and 15th largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.

Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist''? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's "global warming survival guide'' (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change,'' that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16 ounce T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate.''

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity guzzling refrigeration, and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.

Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal'') concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile,'' a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared to $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported from the basin.

We are urged to "think globally and act locally,'' as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse-gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:

Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

 

People in my generation love to complain, shoulder national sins for which they bear no responsibility, and emphasize America's evils more than her strengths. Repeatedly bantered around are claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and white privilege. America is not perfect, except when compared to the rest of the world. Maybe that explains why hoards of immigrants legal and illegal come to this nation year after year. Maybe that explains why the American flag is a symbol of freedom around the world. Maybe that explains why no nation has been so influential, loved, and envied. Maybe that's why the rest of the world hates us. And maybe it's why people in my generation love to hate America.

No one likes to pat himself on the back in front of anyone else, and maybe this humility explains why many in my generation are so quick to qualify any assessment of this nation in comparison to others.

It often goes something like this. "America is good, but in Canada healthcare is free." Yeah, but we have more MRI machines in Philly than in all of Canada, and you have to wait weeks or months to see a doctor.

Or, "America is good but Europeans have a better sense of community." Yeah, and that community is being swallowed by a welfare entitlement mentality that refuses to work and modernize, and by a wave of Muslim immigration that mocks European culture, law, and civilization.

Or, "America is good but we fight too many wars.' Yeah, but people the world over live in freedom thanks to our fighting and fighting has ended Nazism, Communism, Imperialism, slavery, and genocide.

Or, "America is good but we're so consumer-oriented." Yes, and thanks to that consumer oriented spirit, we have access to more products at lower prices in never-ending abundance; workers the world over live better because we buy what they make; and our consumerism fuels a market economy that employs the highest population percentage of any nation in the history of the world. Fast food may be bad for you, but it surely isn't bad for the illiterate immigrant recently come who makes $7/hour here instead of $0/hr in his homeland.

I think it's time people in my generation took a big gulp of gratitude for living in such peaceful, prosperous, and carefree times. Never before in human history has been so little required of the next generation as is required of mine.

Our grandparents' generation saved the world from the greatest evils the world has ever known, and then passed it on to our parents generation. I hope we will be able to say that we made the most of the America bequeathed us by our grandparents and parents. But as of right now, I think we have quite a bit of work to do.

We are the generation of Paris Hilton, MTV, Myspace, and college degrees ending in "studies." I guess it's better than some in our parent's generation, who offered acid tripping, free love, Woodstock, Vietnam, and Roe v. Wade as their contribution.

Unless and until my generation starts appreciating the nation which we call home for the reasons that make us great, not the reasons that make us happy or the reasons that leave us entertained, I fear ours' will be a generation that missed its opportunity to be great because we were too busy being entertained.

To his titles of Vice President, Oscar-winner, add: Hypocrite.

If taking campaign contributions from the Chinese communists, repping a bill (Kyoto) his own party voted against en mass in 1998, and being perpetually boring were insufficient reasons to keep Algore out of the limelight, he recently provided another justification: he's a huge hypocrite on the issue he discusses the most.

According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, Algore uses waaay more energy than most people, and his house uses more energy in a month than most people's house uses in a year.

Sound like he's conserving? Like he's doing his part to save the endangered polar bear? Not exactly. Here's an idea: why doesn't he do his part to conserve the twinkies? He's put on at least 50 pounds since leaving office in 2000.

From Drudge Report...

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:



Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

This is a great piece off NR further debunking the the hype of global warming pushed on the American people by Algore and the complicit media. it's here.

Inconvenient Truths
Novel science fiction on global warming.

By Patrick J. Michaels

This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn’t changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC’s methane emissions scenarios as “quite unlikely.”

Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993,” according to the IPCC, “but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.

“Was” is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland’s ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.

Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore’s hypothesis. Instead, there’s an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose “the right balance between being effective and honest” about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen.

These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to “do” something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years!

It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various “solutions” for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That’s too small to measure, because the earth’s temperature varies by more than that from year to year.

The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today).

Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.

And there’s other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can’t even do Kyoto?

When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it’s not just Gore’s movie that’s fiction. It’s the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too.

 — Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. 

In light of the election returns yesterday, i thought i'd share some traits of the kind of people that will be running capitol hill come january 20th, 2007. generally, those in senior democratic leadership (elected positions & committee chairs) in the house and senate are extreme leftist liberals.

What is a liberal? here are some "for instance"(s)...

A liberal seeks to remove all vestiges of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage from public life, from the law, and from the academy.

A liberal seeks to protect the rights of known terrorists at Guantanamo Bay more than the safety of American citizens.

A liberal places greater emphasis upon a terrorist’s Geneva Convention Rights than his culpability in killing innocents worldwide.

A liberal thinks welfare is better for the poor than a job.

A liberal believes in regulation over free enterprise, redistribution of wealth over rewarding creativity and success.

A liberal creates more taxes instead of creating more tax payers.

A liberal is more concerned about understanding/not offending the enemy than confronting, fighting, and destroying the enemy.

A liberal thinks an elementary school girl reading about Zacchaeus her Bible during her lunch break is a larger threat to America than Zacharias Moussaoui.

A liberal thinks America should look more like Europe, rather than the opposite.

A liberal looks at America and sees a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, unfair society; a conservative looks at america and sees a land of opportunity, freedom, and second chances.

A liberal believes the ACLU defends America’s freedoms as much or more than the US Military.

A liberal believes Muslims are merely misunderstood and historically disadvantaged.

A liberal believes a Muslim suicide bombings can be justified.

A liberal protects free speech by implementing speech codes at colleges and censoring speakers allowed to speak at colleges.

A liberal protects academic freedom by forcing students to listen to speakers from only one ideological/political perspective.

A liberal is more worried about the government spying on terrorists than terrorists planning attacks on American soil.

A liberal believes those who cross the border illegally should receive free healthcare, education, and job training.

A liberal defines those who make more than $65k a year as rich, and seeks to tax him into poverty.

A liberal refuses to use the words “he” or “his” in college tuition; only “she” is permitted.

A liberal believes the Boy Scouts are a greater threat to his constitutional rights than child pornographers, pedophiles, sexual deviants, and known criminals.

The only consolation about this election result is that by 2008, the American people are sure to be sick of the democrats to toss them out. we can only hope...

Debunking Al Gore, Part 1

What follows are some bullet points from a recent US Senate floor speech by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R- OK) highlighting but a few of the shortcomings of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" documentary. This should be required reading. The rest of the speech can be read here.

AL GORE INCONVIENIENT TRUTH

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore’s brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President’s film Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about “An Inconvenient Truth.” “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate

•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.

I'm about to wrap up my first week at Pepperdine law school, and thus far, it's been a tremendous experience all around.  

The professors, students, and staff are all exceptionally kind and outgoing. Dean Starr made a point of being at many of our orientation sessions, including our last day bbq, whereat he was donning shorts, a hawaiian shirt, and a baseball cap. It's odd to picture a former federal appeals court judge and soliciter general in that outfit, but there he was, being totally outgoing to a bunch of 1Ls, many of whom only know him as that guy who went after Clinton in the 1990s. They'll soon establish a new point of reference for this genius of a man.

The campus is exceptionally maintained and manicured.

The views from every part of campus are breathtaking and awe-inspiring.

And the inside of the law library is just not a fun place to be. Unfortunately, that's where 1Ls spend most of their time.

The work isn't too bad if can shut out distractions, like really cute girls everywhere parading around in summer outfits.

More later...

The President apparently didn't know a mic was still on during the G8 conference, but the mic in question caught a little exchange he had with Tony Blair, wherein a certain word that begins with S and ends with T was said. It's here.

I came across a great blog done by an Army noncom infantry leader in Tal Afar, Iraq. It's here, and he's got some great videos also, which can be found here.

I don't often read the Huffington Post, for a lot of reasons. If you don't often look at the Huffington Post, you should consider yourself well-trained. But I might have found an exception to this practice.

Greg Gutfeld wrote a funny blurb, a series of questions for progressives, that most center-right thinkers will enjoy. It can be found here, enjoy.

I haven't yet had a chance to read Esquire's take on McCain, but it's quite lenghty. It can be found here.

I just looked up what issue most dominates the blogging done on Townhall, as determined by how many blogs or postings are devoted to what subjects, and the clear winner is the Culture of Life category. The least popular subject is Social Security.

Whether or not this unscientific sampling reflects wider conservative opinion is beyond me, but it does speak to where the vocal conservatives are, at least the ones who care to blog often.

Perhaps it does reflect some priorities, and perhaps it also explains why the President's push to overhaul Social Security last year so dismally failed on Capitol Hill, where the Republican appetite to take on the Democratic sacred cow proved timid and insouciant at best. Perhaps not.

Just an interesting note.

By head-butting an opponent, getting himself red-carded (ejected), and thereby denying himself an opportunity to participate in the penalty kick phase of the game, Monsieur Zidane ended his illustrious and storied soccer career on a career-defining low and flat note. What a way to go out.

Never before in my short life have I witnessed such professional sporting stupidity on the part of a "leader" of any team. Never before have I seen a captain or national hero inexplicably lose it at the moment of decision. Never before has one act of selfish retribution so dashed the sporting hopes and ambitions of an entire state. And for a state that has so little to be proud of, this was a major disappointment. Large segments of the French youth don't work or earn money; this was the best chance they had to find a reason to gloat. Yet Zidane robbed them of potential glory.

We expect the French to occasionally surrender on the battlefied, but don't we expect differently in sport?  Don't we expect just the opposite? But soccer, and the French, often does not meet American expectations on any level; in fact, it often confounds our expectations. This brings me to the point of this posting, three reasons why soccer will never trump NASCAR in the USA.

First, NASCAR is ostensibly more cultural and not accessible to the every-man. Nascar originated in the South, is admired there more than anywhere, and started as the pasttime of the few, rather than the many. Soccer, on the other hand, can be played by people everywhere, no one cares from where it originated, for it doesn't matter. No one says, "You can't be a real soccer fan, you're from the Midwest." But you'd be hard-pressed to never hear, "You ain't a true NASCAR fan unless you chew or spit tobacco, use the phrase, "y'all," occasionally hoist the Rebel/confederate flag, take a trip to the beer barn, or own cowboy boots and some gators for your sunglasses." There's a difference between being a true NASCAR fan and being a regular fan. Odds are, if you're south of the Mason-Dixon line, you've got a much greater chance of being a legit nascar fan. If you're from Timbuktu, Oregon, Zaire, or Australia, you can be a totally legit soccer aficionado.

Second, NASCAR entails the possibility of death or extreme bodily harm, which for some reason, Americans relish. Hence boxing, ultimate fighting challenge, hunting, and racing of all stripes and colors. Playing soccer may break your nose, your shin, your leg or your noggin, but soccer lacks the inherent danger to which the Americans are obsessively drawn. People watch hockey to see fighting, nascar to see crashes, and boxing because all the do is beat the opponent to a pulp. Soccer players feign injury, act hurt when they trip on themselvse, and start crying from merely being tired. How dangerous is that? It's more dangerous being on the pit crew of a racing team than being a soccer player. And those guys get none of the glory or compensation; they just change tires, fluids, suspension, and alignment.

Finally, soccer jerseys do not allow for the same advertising that NASCAR uniforms do. Nascar outfits are human billboards, the dream advertisement for a company. Why can't soccer players have ads on their shins, backs, knees, etc? Some may find this crass, but the rest of the soccer stadium is littered with advertisements, why not the players themselves?

You can't even see the car drivers the entire race but you can definitely recall Tom Cruise's Mellow Yellow racing outfit from Days of Thunder. Or, maybe just I remember that. Regardless, soccer doesn't allow for as much advertising as Nascar does. You can't sponsor a player, players don't thank their sponsors when they win, and players can't be owned by team owners who promote them individually. We have football, baseball, hockey, tennis, and basketball stars to offer individual endorsements. And they score on the field of competition a lot more than soccer players do.

Sure, soccer is captivating. I watched the world cup as much as the next guy, but I will never like soccer as much as a Nascar crash, a victory lap, fight between pit crews, or a Budweiser commercial with a couple drivers. 

That's all for now.
 

A friend's response was so good, it deserves to be its own blog entry. Enjoy:

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

So, you're feelin' a little too fem these days, what with your lack of manly duties. I actually knew someone who worked on their car engine in the middle of their apartment living room. So...there's still hope....well, that was in Bakerfield where the rednecks flow like....well, like rednecks do, I guess. DC is another story, I'm sure.

Potted plants and weekly fertilizing could be an outlet for you. Maybe you could take apart your tv or dvd player and put it back together? Just a thought.

Eat lots of red meat and potatoes (the testosterone treat) and drink large quantities of whatever comes in a can---and save those cans/bottles, why don't you, in order build large pyramids. That sounds like fraternity life but isn't that atmosphere the breeding ground for future manly men?

Always drink milk or orange juice out of the carton. And remember---put it back in the fridge--even if empty. The next poor fool can do that!

Never, I repeat, NEVER put a dirty dish in the dishwasher. Instead, don't rinse it and place it on the counter so that the food can petrify. Avocado is a perfect food for this. It could be the next Crazy Glue.

Sleep on the same sheets for...let's say about 6 months...that would be about right. And remember dust bunnies are your friend.

Release large quantities of gas---not from your car silly---that would be too expensive in this day and age---I mean from an anterior oriface.

Take to grabbing dirty clothes out of your hamper (if you have one--if not--grab the nearest item of clothing on the floor, which by the way, has become a landfill)

Leave all your hair clippings (nose, face, hair, ears) in the sink. Visitors can draw designs in them ---roarschach like artwork can line your sink.

As I still reside in what I call "The Testosterhome" I have seen these practices first hand.

I leave you with these thoughts before I go into the bathroom to draw. After I get a blow torch from the garage to remove the food from a few plates.

You've gotta love Dewey Beach, for a host of reasons. In addition to being the closest "real" beach to the DC metro area, having the most fun nightlife, some of the most welcoming locals, and some of the warmest water and smoothest sand, Dewey is just plain fun and easy to navigate.

The Washington Post (compost) finally printed something worth reading (aside from Krauthammer's and Will's columns) in today's version. They profiled the Dewey Beach running of the bulls. Yes, Dewey beach is home to bull running.

Not the kind you've seen on TV happening in Pamplona this weekend; but a much more entertaining, laugh-inducing, hilarious kind. Started a few years ago by some bored and obviously funny DC professionals, this bull running involves costumed people, probably too much drinking, a lot of foam fingers, and a lot of laughs.

Having been to Dewey, I can vouch for the fun atmosphere, but I've never seen this. It could be worthwhile. To read all about it, click here.