Articles - Bio - Blog - Photography - Links - Contact

 

BLOG

RSS
 


Friday, August 29, 2003


More cowbell.

SAN CRISTOBAL DE LAS CASAS, CHIAPAS, MEXICO -- I am writing now from an internet cafe above club Revolucion in San Cristobal. As far as I can tell, the music being played in the club below is a recording... except for the
cowbell, which is definitely live. Guess that goes to show you, you just can't get enough cowbell!

As I type this, fully live music has started... kind of a light latin jazz. Maybe I'll go down and check it out. I mean, with a cowbell like that, who'd want to miss it?


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 11:04 PM




After a polite pause, the US resumes its brutal and ineffective drug war in Colombia.

SAN CRISTOBAL DE LAS CASAS, CHIAPAS, MEXICO -- Reading the past week's issue of The Economist on the plane as I was traveling this morning, I saw that the U.S. has resumed "Plan Colombia," and will once again be shooting at suspected drug dealers' planes over Colombia.

They had stopped this practice about two years ago, after a "drug plane" turned out to be full of innocent missionaries to Peru. Apparently President Bush and friends decided that they did not have enough warring on their hands, and that two years is a polite amount of time to wait before you start shooting at people again, after you've slaughtered some innocents. Of course, that sort of thing hasn't slowed them down in Iraq--but, then, those are just Iraqis, not Christian American missionaries.

I wrote some thoughts on Plan Colombia and other U.S. meddling in Latin American matters, particularly by exporting its failed drug war, some time ago for the Chicago Maroon, which you can read
here. Unfortunately, thanks to bad policies that are apparently only getting worse, the article continues to be timely.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 10:48 PM



Thursday, August 28, 2003

I saw a turtle.

PLAYA DEL CARMEN, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO -- Actually, I saw quite a few hawksbill sea turtles as I was scuba diving this morning in the Caribbean, 60 feet beneath the surface, at the Tortugas reef off of Playa del Carmen.

The one I'm approaching in the first photo is digging around for food, which consists mostly of sponges, anemones, squid, and shrimp (probably some delicious sponge in this case).





Mmmm... sponge.

The one in the next photo is apparently just hanging out, taking a breather. And while he may appear to have
ptosis, that is normal for a turtle, in contrast with a human, who might want or need blepheroplasty to deal with the condition.





In other news, I made it to the famous ruins at Tulum and the jungle ruins at Coba yesterday (photos to come later), but the hacking and slashing with a machete through undergrowth to unexcavated ruins that I mentioned has been rescheduled for later in my trip.

For now, I'm off to San Cristobal, in Chiapas, where I'll be doing a number of black-and-white photography projects, studying the people there.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 9:41 PM



Monday, August 25, 2003

Escape from Cancun!

PLAYA DEL CARMEN, QUINTANA ROO, MEXICO -- Yikes!

At first, I thought I might spend a day or two in Cancun before heading out for bigger and better Yucatan adventures, and then on to San Cristobal in Chiapas.

But when I saw the crowd on my inbound flight from Pittsburgh, I knew that I must leave that place fast.

Just about every man was wearing a T-shirt with a mall store's logo and/or the American flag emblazoned across the front, and the women at their sides weren't much better.

They brought plenty of stuff to keep their minds off of anything related to the country they're visiting--portable DVD players with lots of DVD's seemed to be popular. I didn't see anyone looking at a Spanish dictionary, or even a guidebook. No doubt, they'll do their eating at familiar American places like McDonald's and KFC, which abound in Cancun, and stick mostly to their hotel, the beach, and, of course, the bars, where they can get wasted just like they do back home, but with even more abandon. After all, when you go to Cancun, you can pretend afterward that none of it really happened, because it's all in another country where no one knows you and they speak a different language. Unless, of course, you come home with a permanent reminder of your south-of-the-border party experiences, such as herpes, Hepatitis B, AIDS, or some combination thereof.

Anyway, I don't even want to see these morons when I'm in America!

In any event, that's not my idea of what international travel is about, so I jumped in my rental car and headed south, for Playa del Carmen, from which I am writing now. There are plenty of tourists here, too, but many of them are of the European female, and occasionally topless, variety, which I find more tolerable than the all-American T-shirt crowd.

Fortunately, I'll be escaping the masses by scuba diving and taking photographs in the clear blue waters of the Caribbean tomorrow, and on Wednesday, I'll be using a machete to slash my way through the jungle undergrowth to some as-yet-to-be-excavated Mayan ruins.

Of course, I'll probably get tired and sweaty doing all of that, and I had to spend time and money training and getting in shape to do those things. Those lucky people on the plane, on the other hand, can just watch scuba diving and jungle adventure on their DVD players while they lounge poolside, guzzling one Dos Equus after another almost effortlessly.

Now why didn't I think of that.


- posted by
J. H. Huebert at 11:05 PM



Thursday, August 21, 2003

"A CIA put a chip in my brain!"

Crazy homeless guys used to say the government was conspiring against them because they were nuts. Now they can say it because it's true. You're next, of course.
Claire Wolfe reports.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 4:52 PM



Wednesday, August 20, 2003

To anyone who has me in their Address Book and is thinking about opening the
SoBig virus, causing me to both receive viruses and have them sent to others in my name:

Please don't.

Plenty of people apparently have done so already, so I'm pretty well stocked up on virus-created e-mails for now.

This will help you wipe it off of your system and put an end to it.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 6:50 PM



Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Egalitarianism is suicide.

Fred Reed has a good piece on the philosophy that is destroying our culture and society.

Perhaps this is the best paragraph:

And what should one think of the bloated welfare mother with a second-grade education, with a litter of five she can't feed and won't school, by twenty-five fathers she can't remember, who spends her limited time between couplings in watching Oprah and feeling abused? The best I can come up with is revulsion. And pity, yes. Being a public uterus cannot be pleasant. Yet I will not pretend that it is admirable.

Reed suggests that widespread egalitarianism will ultimately create two cultures, one of the increasingly ignorant and incompetent masses, and one consisting of the remaining achievers.

He has a point--despite widespread belief in egalitarianism, and despite the state and culture that seek to disparage and destroy genuine achievement, it is in some ways a very good time to be an achievement-oriented individual, because the competition is so weak.

But that's no way to have a civilization. In the end, the achievers will escape and leave the resenters to the mess they've made, just as they did in fiction in Atlas Shrugged, and just as they have in reality, in civilizations past.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 9:17 PM



Sunday, August 17, 2003

Jhhuebert.com: Your #1 source for Fair and Balanced religious products.

Someone found my site today Google searching for "mary and jesus religious holograms." Sorry I couldn't help them, but for those who desire such things, might I recommend this site. Why get a picture of Jesus and Mary when you could have a picture of Jesus and you? I especially like the way the Spanish-speaking people got dressed up for their photo op with Jesus.

Someone else found this site today searching for "libertarian paintball naked women." That seems about right.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 7:06 PM




Dick van Dyke shark watch.

The Dick van Dyke Show is unusual among TV sitcoms because (1) it was good to begin with, and (2) they knew when to quit, and therefore the show never "
jumped the shark."

The question is, will The Alan Brady Show, a spinoff special which airs on TV Land tonight, almost 40 years after Dick Van Dyke ended its run, keep up the quality tradition? And if not, does that mean The Dick van Dyke Show has finally jumped after all this time? I guess I'll just have to tune in and find out.

Of course, Dick Van Dyke himself jumped the shark shortly after the series was over. The last good thing that he did that I'm aware of was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, which I had the pleasure of seeing for the first time in a long time earlier this summer. How did such a talented comic performer end up in such bland garbage as Diagnosis Murder?

And while this is more than I ever thought I would say anywhere about The Dick Van Dyke Show, I might as well, as long as we're on the subject, point you to Mark Evanier's history of the Dick van Dyke Show comic book... there's something in this seemingly ordinary and uninteresting "history" he's not telling you. Can you figure out what it is?


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 6:54 PM



Friday, August 15, 2003

Should we be forced to go to the bathroom with members of the opposite sex?

Some people think so.

At first, I figured it was just far-out feminists like University of Chicago Law Professor Mary Ann Case, whose
research presently focuses on "toilet inequities."

But now the Minneapolis City Council has picked up on the idea, and is going to consider whether they should make it legal for you to go in whichever restroom makes you the most comfortable, regardless of your sex.

But what about those of us who aren't comfortable in a bathroom that is shared with members of the opposite sex?

I occasionally find it convenient to use a both-sexes restroom at the University of Chicago, but if there's a MOTOS in there, forget it--I won't be able to "perform," and wouldn't want to.

It's just awkward, for both parties, regardless of who's doing their business. How are you supposed to introduce yourself and make small talk with a lovely young lady when she's just emerged from the toilet stall after defecating, and the pungent aroma still lingers in the air?

Men and women need private space, away from the eyes, ears, and noses of the opposite sex and the related social pressure. If we can't have it in the bathroom, what's left?


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 1:12 AM



Thursday, August 14, 2003

Prestigious Fellowship awarded.

Your webmaster has just been named a 2003-2004 John M. Olin Student Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School.


- posted by
J. H. Huebert at 4:26 PM




12 angry infants?

University of Chicago student
Maureen Craig suggests that it's unfair for minors to be tried by a jury that excludes those under 18, and that the systematic exclusion of minors from juries in criminal trials of children violates "the spirit, if not the letter, of the Bill of Rights." As a remedy, she suggests that in criminal cases involving a minors, at least 1/4 of the jury should consist of minors.

Maybe our current practice even violates the letter of the Bill of Rights... how can you be tried by a jury "of your peers" when your true peers are systematically excluded from the jury pool? It's also a denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment if members of your race are excluded. (See Norris v. Alabama). While courts have never been as concerned about "ageism" as racism, and are particularly inclined to give less protection to children in many circumstances, shouldn't the same principle apply?

I don't think children are responsible enough to make good decisions, but then again, most adults aren't either. But as the Supreme Court held in Tanner v. United States, a decision that must be read to be believed (really, read it, you won't be sorry), a jury of incompetent, intoxicated adults is A-OK.

I would expect that the argument for children on the jury has been made by someone, somewhere. When I have free unlimited Lexis access again in the Fall, maybe I'll check it out. Unless, of course, one of you out there already knows the answer and can save me the trouble.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 9:57 AM




A smashing idea for left-wing celebrities.

If I favor Mel Gibson films at least in part because I admire his personal convictions, do I avoid products of those with politically offensive views? Not really.

But
Stephan Kinsella reports on an idea from one of his correspondents (the first one on the list) that I do find appealing: Every time a celebrity makes an asinine leftist statement, see if you own any of their DVD's, CD's, or other products. If so, smash it to bits, and then send it to the CEO of the company that produced it, with a note explaining why you did it, and that you won't be buying any more of their products by that individual.

Of course, if I actually did that, my DVD shelf and CD collection would probably be wiped out in short order, and I'm not ready to part with most of them, especially not The Shawshank Redemption, which, despite being the most philosophically sound movie I've ever seen, would probably have to be the first DVD to go, thanks to Tim Robbins. I don't think it's worth it to live my life without some of the best art and entertainment out there, just to make a statement that, by itself, is unlikely to have any impact on Hollywood, its products, or its actors.

I guess I could live on BASEketball, South Park, The Fountainhead, and Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell and Clint Eastwood movies if I had to, but, like you, I don't think I want to.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 12:17 AM



Tuesday, August 12, 2003

Better publicity than money can buy, part 2.

Forget Arnold. Who in Hollywood is more heroic, on- or off-screen, than Mel Gibson?

Regardless of your religious views, you have to admire his willingness to take on the PC anti-Christian Hollywood crowd through his personal beliefs and choices of projects -- especially his latest, The Passion, about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which he filmed entirely in Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic.

How many movies
make headlines day after day, more than 6 months before their release date? None that I know of, except for this one. Predictably, the usual offendees at the Anti-Defamation League (and even The New Republic) are lining up to condemn and call for censorship of the film because -- they say without having seen it -- it suggests that "the Jews" killed Jesus.

As far as I can tell, the book is faithful to the scriptural accounts, which indicate that the Jews asked the Romans to crucify Jesus, which they then did.

Of course the Gibson-versus-ADL debate ignores the reality that it was in all likelihood Jewish authorities, and not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and did so by stoning him to death, then hanging him from a tree rather than a cross, as Robert Sheaffer carefully documents in his book, The Making of the Messiah: Christianity and Resentment.

But so what if the people who killed Jesus were Jewish? Why should that make Christians hate Jews in general today, especially given the mitigating factor that their Lord and Savior was himself a Jew, as was pretty much every good guy to come before him in the Christian Bible? Most people today think that the Romans killed Jesus--but no one I've ever met hates actual Romans for the deed.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing The Passion. I would go anyway, just to defy the PC police, but the word is that it's a great film besides, for believers and non-believers alike. In the meantime, to get my politically incorrect Mel Gibson fix, I'll just have to watch my DVD of The Patriot.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 10:32 PM




Better publicity than money can buy.

Al Franken must be even more thrilled than he's letting on about the Fox News Channel's lawsuit to stop him from releasing his new book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Not only is it putting his book in the headlines and near the top of Amazon's bestseller list weeks before its release, the lawsuit seems frivolous and sure to fail, and makes Fox News look even more foolish than any Franken satire could.

I was already planning to read the book, even before the lawsuit. I doubt that the political substance will be any better than recent conservative junk food from the likes of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly. In fact, in that respect, it could be even worse.

But I know Franken's book will be funnier.

If you haven't read Franken's "memoir" of his fictional run for the presidency, Why Not Me?, you owe it to yourself to check it out. Regardless of your politics, or lack thereof, it's laugh-out-loud funny from beginning to end.

Who knew in his Stuart Smalley days that Al Franken had it in him?


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 10:01 PM



Saturday, August 09, 2003

Schwarzenegger is no Reagan... but then, neither was Reagan.

Rush Limbaugh correctly observes (there's a phrase I don't use every day) that Arnold Schwarzenegger is hardly an advocate of limited government. Indeed, his only political experience thus far involves pushing what Rush correctly describes as a half-billion dollar "state babysitting" program.

Thus, Rush concludes, Arnold Schwarzenegger may be the next Republican governor of California, but he's no Ronald Reagan.

But was Reagan really so anti-government in his actions? Not especially.

Mark Evanier recalls that when Reagan was elected governor, the first thing he did was raise taxes even more than necessary to balance the state budget. He did so when he realized, according to biographer Joe Cannon, that "no amount of budget cutting could make up for the shortfall in revenues."

Well, of course some amount of budget cutting could have made up for that revenue shortfall -- I somehow doubt that the state was stripped down to its bare-bones night watchman functions before Reagan threw up his hands and raised taxes. The reality is that Reagan lacked the guts to hold out for it, and wasn't really as dedicated to small government as his worshippers like to say he was.

Bill Richardson, president of Gun Owners of America, tells a story of his own days as a California legislator. When he refused to support a budget bill on libertarian grounds, then-governor Reagan applied pressure and eventually political threats in attempt to get Richardson to come around. Not only was Reagan not an unwavering champion of liberty; he was not even sympathetic to friends of liberty when it was not in his personal political interests.

Then, of course, there is the federal government which ballooned (along with the national debt and the warfare state) under Reagan. When social security was failing, Reagan "saved" it rather than snuff it out, propagating and legitimizing an outrageous welfare program, so that future statists could say, "Even Reagan supported social security!" Or, "Even Reagan supported the United Nations!" Or, "Even Reagan supported the space program!" Or...

He may have left us with a better federal judiciary than we would otherwise have (just as the otherwise execrable elder Bush did and the younger Bush might), but there seems to be little else for which the liberty-minded should celebrate the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

So is Arnold worse than Reagan? Probably not, at least if he is being straightforward about his views, rather than pretending that he is something other than what he is when it suits his agenda.

By the way, why is it a big deal that Arnold is pro-choice? A state governor has no power, as far as I know, to make abortion any more or less legal than it already is under Roe v. Wade, and cannot appoint United States Supreme Court justices. So the point is mostly moot, except with respect to a few marginal issues (e.g., parental consent laws), upon which we don't even know where Schwarzenegger stands.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 1:44 AM



Friday, August 08, 2003

Military intervention is not libertarian.

Here are some good reasons why from Gene Healy.

His third argument against "libertarian intervention" may be the strongest. If you don't trust the state with the power to operate a welfare program, why would you trust it with the power to use weapons of mass destruction against governments it unilaterally determines to be objectionable?

That some cheerleaders for the warfare state even want to call themselves libertarians leaves me scratching my head.

Apparently many of them think that "libertarianism" is a cool club to belong to, and don't want to be left out, even though they have not fully thought through, and are either unwilling or unable to rigorously apply, the principles involved.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 12:54 PM



Thursday, August 07, 2003

That's not the kind of Austrian I had in mind, but...

I'm glad Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California. Not that I think he would be a good governor, and not that I care about who the governor of California is.

I just like it because it's one more thing for people like
this guy who come out of a coma after a decade or two to have their minds boggled by.

As for a complete lack of qualifications and having expressed no ideas on much of anything to date, so what? Who was the last major, successful politician who had a meaningful grasp on ideas and issues? As the Bush Administration has well demonstrated, it's all about having a charismatic guy who will do what a group of crafty, more knowledgable advisers tells him to do. The world depicted in The Dark Knight Strikes Again, in which a computer-generated hologram can be president, isn't a prediction of the future -- it's the world we already live in.

And as long as it is, why not sit back and enjoy the show? I've never been much interested in Arnold's movies, but now I'm ready to be entertained.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 7:56 PM



Monday, August 04, 2003

Teachers: America's most overpaid.

To hear the
National Education Association tell it, you'd think that public (government) school teachers were among the world's worst paid laborers, barely keeping up with those kids in Indonesia who make shoes for Nike.

But a new study by Richard Vedder, one of my favorite economists working today, proves that it just ain't so. In fact, teachers make more per hour ($30, on average) than chemical engineers ($29.44) and finance managers ($28.56), and don't make all that much less than lawyers ($36.49).

Sure, teachers don't make that much per year -- just over $44,000, on average. But consider how much work they do to get that money, and how much time they have left over to make money in other pursuits.

Even without looking at Vedder's data, it's easy to think about how little teachers actually work. If the school day starts at 8:00 a.m. and ends at 3:00 p.m. (it was always actually shorter than that, as I recall), that's just 7 hours. Then take out 45 minutes for a lunch break, and 45 minutes for the free period that most of them have. That brings it down to 5 and a half hours of work. But, then, that 5 and a half hours isn't exactly backbreaking labor, either. For some of that time, the kids are sitting there doing busywork, watching videos, and the like. I wonder if teachers' per hour wage might be even higher than Vedder's figure, if you count only time actually spent working.

Then, of course, there are 3 months of the year that teachers don't work at all. Plus every government holiday. Plus a week or two at Christmas. Plus a week or two in the Spring. Plus half a week at Thanksgiving. And then some. No one else that I can think of gets this kind of time off, especially not with that kind of salary. Beginning lawyers at major law firms, for example, might get 3 weeks of vacation for a whole year, at the most. Many occupations offer significantly less time off.

What other job in the world pays so much for so little? I am hard pressed to think of any, except possibly other government jobs. But even those guys standing idle at road construction sites have to brave the elements, and face the risk of being hit by a car or something.

It's rare that I would say that people in a particular occupation are overpaid. After all, if someone's willing to pay you a certain amount to do something, then you're worth it to him, and that's all that matters. When prices are voluntarily agreed upon, there is generally no overpaying or underpaying in the free market.

But, of course, government school teachers do not participate in the free market. They have their jobs only because taxpayers who do not use their services, and may never use their services are forced to pay their salaries, which are negotiated on the teachers' behalf by the most powerful labor union in the country, the NEA.

The NEA opposes privatization in any form--and even things that look sort of like privatization but aren't, like vouchers--because it knows that a free market would put many of its members out of a job, and force most, but not all, of the rest to take a pay cut. Why? Because most government school teachers aren't worth $30 or more per hour. In many circumstances, government school teachers act as nothing more than a prison warden or babysitter -- and who would pay a babysitter $30 per hour?

In many cases, you might actually do better all around by hiring an actual babysitter. I know some parents who hire babysitters whose first languages are not English, so their children can become multilingual by learning another language from the sitter. That sort of experience is often better, and cheaper, education than any traditional schooling can provide.

Educating children is an important job, and we are fortunate that there are some teachers out there (even many government schools have one or two), who do indeed earn their pay by going above and beyond the bare minimum that is necessary to collect their check from the state.

These outstanding teachers should be confident that they are worth what they receive, and that people would pay them voluntarily without being forced to do so at gunpoint. They should have the courage to oppose our coercive educational system that lavishes money on the extraordinary and incompetent alike, while taxpayers and, worst of all, children pay the price.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 11:44 PM



Friday, August 01, 2003

The empire's "comedian" has no clothes.

I usually don't have much of anything positive to say about Christopher Hitchens, but I'm glad he had the guts to be honest about
the extremely unfunny Bob Hope.

Don't get me wrong. Bob Hope is an icon--specifically, an icon of the moronic mass-man mentality that exalts the worst as though it were the highest and best. No wonder, then, that Hope got along so well with U.S. presidents.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 9:58 PM




There is so a God!

When I was in first grade, at a government school, I was surprised to hear my classmates at Christmas time talk about Santa Claus as if he were someone who actually exists.

Because I presumed that anyone would want to be corrected about an erroneous belief, I told them that there really is no Santa Claus.

As you might imagine, they were shocked and dismayed, and refused to believe me.

Even the teacher was very upset, and tried to change my skeptical mind, and sent me home with a copy of "Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus."

The lesson here is that most people don't like to have their belief systems challenged, no matter how irrational they may be. And, of course, that's even more true of the religious fanatic than the 6-year-old who believes in Santa Claus.

Some believers, however, when faced with rational arguments against superstitious ignorance, do make an effort to respond with a counterargument of sorts, that appears to them to at least take the form of a logical argument.

But, as TV's Levar Burton would say, you don't have to take my word for it. Here are
300 proofs of God's existence for you to enjoy.

Still a skeptical non-believer after reading those 300 "proofs"?

Well, Thomas Aquinas has 10,000 more for you in Summa Theologica, if you want to take the time to read all of them.

But for the last of the hardcore skeptics, there's probably proof right now in your own home that God exists, and after I demonstrate this to you, you will become a believer that God exists because you will have had an opportunity to see God, for yourself, with your own eyes.

Here's how.

Go to your dictionary.

Next, look under the g's until you get to the word "God."

Lo, and behold, there "God" exists, right before you!

What more stark evidence could you want than such proof positive that you, and, in fact no one, can refute in any way. A God you can reach out and touch.

So you see, Virginia, God exists after all.


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 6:51 PM




Making insensitivity a felony.

Reading about the
missing girl hoax, I could imagine the parents' pain, and their anger at the perpetrator.

Because most people agree that you shouldn't be allowed to wantonly and intentionally inflict such pain on others with impunity, you can sue someone who does that sort of thing to you under the common law. The cause of action is typically called "intentional infliction of emotional distress," and you can recover compensatory monetary damages from someone who commits it against you.

But it now appears that if you hurt someone's feelings like that, you have committed not only a tort, but also a felony, at least in Indiana. Here's what the state statute says:

IC 35-43-5-3.5

Penalties

Sec. 3.5. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses the identifying information of another person:

(1) without the other person's consent; and
(2) with intent to harm or defraud another person;

commits identity deception, a Class D felony.

But what if it's just a stupid, tasteless practical joke, as it appears to have been in the story of the missing child? Well, too bad, because that's no excuse for any such insensitivity or political incorrectness either, as far as the law is concerned:

c) It is not a defense in a prosecution under subsection (a) that no person was harmed or defrauded.(emphasis added).

So now them there folks down home in Indiana can bag them there prankster people who pretend to be someone else in a practical joke. You just ain't gonna pull no more wool over no thin-skinned Hoosier's eyes no more, no sireee!


- posted by J. H. Huebert at 3:00 PM



Copyright 2004 J. H. Huebert.