Exiled from the Underworld

Name:
Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Tonga

Friday, March 25, 2005

Wanker Olympics

I love Atrios's "Wanker of the Day" feature at Eschaton. Today's Wanker is (*ta-da*) our own Oklahoma Senator, Dr. Tom Coburn! I disagree with Atrios's choice, however, for the sole reason that Dr. Tom is a professional wanker, and "Wanker for the Day" implies amateur status-- thereby giving Dr. Tom an unfair advantage over other competitors.

To illustrate briefly why Dr. Tom stands overqualified for the more ephemeral title, here are some of his history-making wanks:

* Tom Coburn initially supported Alan Keyes in the 2000 presidential primary.

* Dr. Coburn's medical expertise extends to the prophylactic use of silicone breast implants (my sons are thrilled, and want to be at least C cup size):

"And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows. . . . In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier."


* Dr. Tom's concerns range from rampant lesbianism in small-town Oklahoma to bogus Indians who threaten Oklahoma's economy to the pornographic film, Schindler's List. He has argued that condoms are ineffective as a means of preventing STD transmission, referred to Oklahoma's state legislators as "crapheads", and advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.

Last week I briefly discussed Dr. Tom's hypocrisy with regard to Social Security and balancing the budget, and no doubt will bring our junior senator back to the blog in the future. He just possesses too much natural talent and wanks so capably across many disciplines--not to mention his "Red State" advantage-- that it doesn't seem right to pit him against those less well wank-endowed.

You may be thinking now, "If Dr. Tom can't serve as Wanker of the Day, who is first runner-up? Who can fill his shoes on such short notice?"

The answer--------

Ralph Nader!

We always forget Ralph, yet he perseveres though our inattention, ever striving for a good reason for us to detest him.

I think that his day has come, rising on the fall of Terri Schiavo. Assisted by his able teammate, Wesley J. Smith (author of the book Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America), Ralph said yesterday, "This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead." One can only admire the nimbleness with which he twisted his syntax, bent the court order, overreached his appeal, and executed a grand jété across reason to land flat-footed on the far side of demagoguery.

There's more here. Read it, and then appeal to Atrios to give Ralph his day on the winner's stand.

He richly deserves it.

Size doesn't matter-- quantity matters

When my (now ex-) husband was in his residency, he moonlighted as an emergency room physician. I learned much about the way the medical world sees the rest of us by listening to medical jargon, some of which crystallizes clearly the medical experience. For example, what I had always called a "motorcycle" is often called a "donorcycle" by hospital and rehabilitation personnel. The term speaks volumes.

In the Ananova story below, though, the motorcyclist became an organ donor/farm/recipient:

Man with two penises loses wife

A German who persuaded doctors to give him a second penis has lost his wife after he showed her the result.

Biker Michael Gruber, 40, lost his original penis in a motorbike accident and doctors built him a second one using a mixture of skin, bone and other tissues from his own body.

The penis worked so well that he was even able to father a child with his wife bianca, 25, and their son Etienne was born last year.

But Gruber was still not happy and asked doctors to repeat the operation and build him a better organ, to which they agreed.

However, before removing the first penis doctors said they needed to make sure the new tissue transplant was a success, and had to leave the first penis in place.

Dr Markus Kuentscher, a plastic surgeon at Berlin's Accident Hospital, said: "We left the old one attached until the new one is properly supplied with blood."

But when Gruber showed his wife his double penis, she went home, packed her bags and left.

From his hospital bed he said: "I've got two penises but no wife, but I am hoping when I get rid of one of the penises I will get her back."

His testicles are intact and will be connected to what is actually his third penis when doctors are happy the operation was a success.

His story was this week featured on a German TV documentary called The Last Penis Operation.


This story was carried in a number of papers,but there's something urban legendish about the whole thing. Maybe it's the "mixture of skin, bone and other tissues" line that sounds counter-anatomical. The male human does not have a penis bone, or baculum. [other animals have different penises-- or not-- which evolved to meet specific uses and functions, as PZ Myers neatly explained over at Pharyngula.]

I don't think that we will be seeing "The Last Penis Operation" on network television in the United States anytime soon.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Any more "Froomkins" around?

Some of the smartest people in the United States bear the surname "Froomkin".

Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami School of Law, finds time to post intriguing information and commentary on his blog, Discourse.net (subtitled "On the fringes of the public sphere"). I love to amble by his blog whenever I get the chance-- better than a trip to Crawford, Texas, to leave a girl feeling relaxed and ready to return to work.

Today, however, I wish to direct attention to Dan Froomkin, who writes the "White House Briefing" feature for the Washington Post.

Dan Froomkin assembles news from an extensive array of sources, organizes the news with links (when possible) so that his readers have easy access to the sources, and adds lean--and often sharp--comments. He does this just about every day, and usually publishes online by 11:00 a.m. (Eastern) or so. His selections usually seem pretty balanced, BUT...

...sometimes he manages to pull of a big tweak by subtle reference. For instance, yesterday's WHB, titled "When a Background Briefing Is Not Enough", rolled though the meeting in Texas between President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin; journalists' frustration with the vagueness of White House statements; potential repercussions across the political spectrum over the Schiavo interventions and the "Culture of Life"; the Social Security Lollapalooza tour; and other similar topics.

Very near the end Froomkin inserted this item:


Bush's Roots

Blogger Holden is turning out to be even more obsessive about poring over Bush's remarks than I am.

Holden noticed this Bush comment from Albuquerque, talking about going back to Crawford: "I like to get home. I like to remember -- to go back to my roots, where I was from."

Holden then provides a photographic overview of where Bush is really from. Hint: It ain't Crawford.


So, of course, Froomkin's curious readers click on the link to find see what Holden has found. Surprise! There's a lot more at that link than just a "a photographic overview". Holden's post at First Draft, titled "Four Corners Baboon-a-palooza", shows pictures of New Haven, Midland, and Houston, and then anchors the photo series by nailing Bush to a couple of truths found lurking near (but not in) his statements.

Dan Froomkin spoke few words, but I'm giving him-- and Holden-- a big shout-out!

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Happy (belated) 19th Birthday!

To Calder Hott Abbott, who turned 19 on 10 March 2005--Happiest of Birthdays! Somehow I got stuck too long at work on her birthday and did not post. Calder--who was celebrating with friends that evening-- had a deservedly great birthday.

She will graduate from high school in May, and just received her acceptance from Americorps. Have you ever watched a teenager float? She may not land until the fall, when she reports to Washington, D.C.

Calder is the youngest of my full-time children, the sister of Channing and Avery. She is possibly the most assertive human I have ever met, and has been since birth. Calder develops greater abilities and skills by the day; she offers much to Americorps, and will gain much from her experiences.

I am an immensely lucky woman to be associated with these honorable young adults.

Mike's Blog Roundup roped my dogie!

Crooks and Liars,one of my favorite pages to visit (and also my favorite shorthand reference to a growing number of power-wielders) generously hosts an alternative site called Mike's Blog Roundup.

Mike publishes posts from small, overlooked blogs that he thinks deserve additional attention. I found some fresh perspectives and commentary on the Roundup.

And... guess whose little dogie appears on Mike's Blog Roundup today?

Thank you, Mike!

Friday, March 18, 2005

Legislative powers are vested in the House and the Cynics

I have written before about Terry Schiavo, and have watched in horror as her tragedy has become weapon against individual liberty and autonomy. Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise posted a clear expostion of the lies promoted by her parents and their supporting "right to life" advocates. In this morning's Washington Post news, I found this unbelievable story:

Senate Republicans Invite Schiavo to Testify
Lawmakers's Moves Aimed at Keeping Brain-Damaged Fla. Woman Alive

By Jesse J. Holland
Associated Press
Friday, March 18, 2005; 10:41 AM

Senate Republicans embroiled in the life-or-death legal battle over the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo invited the Florida woman to testify to Congress in a procedural move intended to keep her on life support.



The New York Times [free access, but registration required] front page story, "Congress Moves to Halt Feeding Tube Removal in Florida," offers more details.

Unbelievable. Of course, the Senate Republicans know that Terry Schiavo cannot actually testify to Congress because she is, to use the vernacular, brain-dead. Their concern for Terry Schiavo is compassion-free,and cynically manipulative. House Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Senate issued a statement that Federal law protects witnesses called before Congress "from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness's attendance or testimony."In other words,the subpoena process creates another legal obstacle to Michael Schiavo in his attempt to permit his wife to die. If Florida Circuit Court Judge George Greer's order, which grants to Michael Schiavo permission to remove Terry's feeding tube, is put into effect, Michael will be subject to federal prosecution.

Dr. Frist, one of the smoothest deceivers I have ever seen anywhere, completely distorted the issue from that which recognizes the right of an individual in a persistent vegetative state, a person without cognitive abilities, to die peacefully, without excessive governmental intrusion-- to something much broader.

Frist explained that he was trying to help Terry Schiavo's parents set a hearing on 29 March 2005.
"The Senate and House remain dedicated to saving Terry Schiavo's life," Mr. Frist said in the statement. He said they were requesting the Schiavos' presence at a hearing on March 28. "The purpose of the hearing is to review health care policies and practices relevant to the care of nonambulatory persons such as Mrs. Schiavo."


"Nonambulatory" persons is too broad a category to address Terry Schiavo's condition, and a designation particularly designed to arouse anxiety among the disability community. Many persons with disabilities advocate against procreative liberty and assisted suicide/right to die/end of life legislation because they fear a totalitarian society that would permit eugenic selection and euthanasia against persons with disabilities.

How nastily ironic that persons with disabilities, whose government has shown increasing callousness to specific "health care policies and practices" that would enhance their autonomy and longevity, are being used to suction away the rights of a disabled person. The Bush administration, and Republican party, want to retract the rights of persons with disabilities (as evidenced by the pressure the Republicans have applied against implementing and expanding protections under legislation such as the Americans with Disabiities Act).

How stunning that the language of liberty can be twisted so easily toward totalitarian ends to deny individual autonomy.

UPDATE: Majikthise is on top of this, as I suspected, and directs us to Norwood at BlogWood, who has more on this and links to additional information and commentary.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Deep benefit cuts? Who cares-- AMPUTATE!

Senator Bill Nelson's (D-FL) proposed amendment to the appropriations resolution regarding Social Security failed to pass yesterday. The vote was divided 50 up/50 down, with Collins (R-ME),DeWine (R-OH), Graham (R-SC), Jeffords (I-VT), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA) crossing over to the Dark Side, where the Democratic coven sat united in support of the amendment.

The complete text of S.Amdt. 145 to to S.Con.Res. 18 (Appropriations resolution FY2006, Budget):

To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.



[Since Daily Kos, Atrios at Eschaton, and Matthew Yglesias-- among others-- have posted interesting and pithy commentary to accompany the vote, I'll indulge my time here to thinking locally.]

Scary words. No wonder Oklahoma's staunch supporters of massive debt increases and deep benefit cuts opposed this amendment.

Listed under the roll call vote subheading, "Grouped by Home State", one finds:
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay


Are you surprised?

Senator Inhofe's website carries this policy statement:

Government Reform
I believe that our government needs reform in several areas. Over the years the federal government has created far too many layers of bureaucracy that have only weighed individual freedoms down. Our federal government needs more accountability, especially when it comes to wasting taxpayer’s hard-earned money. I will continue to work to eliminate government waste and ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.


Senator Coburn's webpage (yes-- he says it all on one page, including getting in a plug for his wife's status as a "former Miss Oklahoma") states:

Dr. Coburn's priorities in the Senate include reducing wasteful spending, balancing the budget, improving health care access and affordability, protecting the sanctity of all human life including the unborn and representing Oklahoma values.



All that chatter about "fiscal responsibility and accountability" and "balancing the budget" is obviously nothing more than vestigial Republican boilerplate, lacking any real senatorial commitment or thought. Social Security, distorted by privatization private accounts personal accounts magic beans accounts, would require huge money transfusions from somewhere in order to meet its obligations. There is no remaining budget surplus. It's all gone, and then some. Republicans continue to spend big, appropriating generously for military, war, and corporate support items. Moreover, Republicans refuse to address the growing deficits through revenue enhancement measures, whether by increasing taxes, repealing earlier tax cuts, or even allowing tax cuts to expire on their statutory termination dates.

MaxSpeaks about the Bush budget/Social Security in a new paper, "Collision course:The Bush budget and Social Security"(and he speaks in measured, reasoned, professorial tones). Toward the end of the paper he notes:

The assumptions underlying program spending in the Bush budget's long-term projections (as shown earlier in Table 1) are conservative, particularly in the most sensitive areahealth [sic] care. Actual spending is likely to grow more rapidly. Under any scenario, general revenue will be needed to finance debts to the Social Security Trust Fund. As per its original legislation, as well as under the new drug benefit, Medicare has always been partly financed by general revenue, and its costs will grow.

After 2018, restoring revenues to their pre-2001 levels will probably not be sufficient to preserve the basic income and health care benefits upon which Americans depend. From a fiscal year 2000 tax share of GDP of roughly 20%, after 2025 the odds are that a gradual expansion to 30% of GDP over the ensuing 50 years will be required. The only alternative to tax increases is to shift the costs and risks of retirement, disability, and health care to individuals (the very situation Social Security was created to counteract).


Both Inhofe and Coburn lip-synch "fiscally conservative" lyrics all the time to their constituents, so they must know that someone is watching. What if they find overspending truly offensive? If so, their opposition to the Nelson Amendment must reflect their willingness to make those "deep benefit cuts". Not "minimal" benefit cuts, but DEEP cuts. Deep enough to make the system bleed out, or to require amputating beneficiaries. Should we start with widows, orphans, or the disabled?

Surely by now no one can doubt that this party wants to eliminate Social Security.

Monday, March 14, 2005

A Grand and Pointless Column

I was busy this weekend, and missed the Op/Ed event of the ...uh... Saturday. Every other blogger in the blogosphere was there--and has had something fun to say. The event was David Brooks's regular New York Times column, which set the standard for "insipid". In "Saturday Night Lite" Brooks revealed that (while visiting New Orleans) he consciously and delightedly indulged in a deadly sin, and then had second thoughts about how lethal it might actually be.

The sin was Gluttony (he had earlier gambled, though, for a Bill Bennett touch, and later in the column acknowledged at least curiosity toward Lust); his second thought occurred when he fretted over whether the after-dinner coffee was decaffeinated.

The waiter thrust a ladle into the inferno and lifted up long, dripping streams of blue fire, hoisting the burning liquid into hypnotizing, showy cascades. He poured out a circle of flame onto the tablecloth in front of us. It was a lavish pyre of molten, inebriating java and then, when he swung around to where I was sitting, I turned and asked the climactic question:

"Is it decaf?"

I was sitting there in an orgy of excess. My head was fogged with wine, bourbon, conversation and a couple of hours at the craps tables at Harrah's, but strong is the power of the zeitgeist. So I did what all of us middle-aged Prufrocks do when coffee follows dinner. I asked, "Is it decaf?"


Poor Brooks lamented that his wanton excess was spoiled, not that he had overindulged. His was no Prufrock moment-- it was pure Ned Flanders.
If 18,000 calories and four kinds of booze didn't kill me, there was no way a smidgen of caffeine was going to keep me awake.

And yet we live in the age of the lily-livered, in which fretting over things like excessive caffeination is built into the cultural code.


Does he think that there is some wild heroic glory in taking really stupid-- but minimal and meaningless-- risks? Nowhere in his column could I find a suggestion that he can think outside his upper-middle-class hell to consider that real people take real risks every day. Perhaps this was not really a Ned Flanders moment after all; it looks more and more like a Marie Antoinette minute. [By the way, Mr. Brooks, you should ask your travel agent to book your next visit to the French Quarter at the St. Ann/Marie Antoinette Hotel.] Yes, I think that Marie Antoinette is the key here, but an envious Marie, one who thinks that the poor are eating the cake that her South Beach diet forbids.

Brooks refused to take personal responsibility for his plight, blaming in turn "the people at the top for setting the tone", "parents", "titans of corporatism", and "the arbiters of virtue".
I blame the people at the top for setting the tone. We live in an age in which the White House is staffed by tidy-desked, white-shirted, crisply coiffed StairMaster addicts, whose idea of sensual decadence is an extra pinch of NutraSweet in the lunchtime iced tea. We've got a president whose personal philosophy is: freedom is God's gift to humanity, but bedtime is 9:30.

This isn't the empire of an American Caesar; it's the empire of faux Caesar salad.

I blame parents. Kids are raised amid foam corner protectors and schooled amid flame-retardant construction paper. They're drugged with a vast array of pharmaceuticals to keep them from becoming interesting. They go from adult-structured tutorials to highly padded sports practices to career-counselor-approved summer internships.

I blame the titans of corporatism. Fitness is now the prime marker of capitalist machismo, so the higher reaches of corporate America are filled with tightly calved Blackberries in human form, who believe that extremism in pursuit of moderation is no vice. They have become such obsessive time-maximizers that all evening, in what used to be known as social life, they keep an eye on the need to be up, fit and early, for the next day's productivity marathon.

I blame the arbiters of virtue. Sometime over the past generation we became less likely to object to something because it is immoral and more likely to object to something because it is unhealthy or unsafe. So smoking is now a worse evil than six of the Ten Commandments, and the word "sinful" is most commonly associated with chocolate.

Now we lead lives in which everything is a pallid parody of itself: fat-free yogurt, salt-free pretzels, milk-free milk. Gone, at least among the responsible professional class, is the exuberance of the feast. Gone is the grand and pointless gesture.



"Gone is the grand and pointless gesture." No, it's not. I bet that the Times pays Brooks at least a grand per pointless column. You can decide whether Brooks or the Times gets credit for the gesture.

Give Brooks credit for finding a way to pull T.S. Eliot into his column, although such literary references sprinkled throughout his writings. I think that I may have detected traces of "The Wasteland" in Bobos in Paradise.

So, although Busy, Busy, Busy already covered "Saturday Night Lite", I thought that a shorter version of "The Lovesong of J. David Brooks" was in order:

I grow dumb… I grow dumb…
I shall leave the readers of these columns numb.

Shall I sit on my behind? Do I dare a thought-filled reach?
I shall wear SPF 30, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the Malkin whining, bitch to bitch.

I do not think that I can whine like she.


He comes pretty close.

There is STILL no crisis!

Say this out loud:

"There is no crisis." Repeat. "There is no crisis."

President Bush continues to lose support for his plan to adulterate the Social Security safety net by carving out private investment accounts. More importantly, people become more opposed to his plans after he presents his case. The Washington Post published this item online today:

Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Bush is handling Social Security, down three points since January and the lowest level of support for Bush on this issue ever recorded in Post-ABC polls.

Bush has made Social Security reform the cornerstone of his domestic policy agenda. But his efforts to win public support for his proposals to change the system appear to be having just the opposite effect, according to the poll.

Nearly six in 10--58 percent--say they are more inclined to oppose administration's reform plans as they learn more about it. Only a third say they are more receptive to Bush's proposals as more details become available.


Other polling organizations report the same trend with regard to Social Security.

Bush's overall approval rating may or may not be stable, however. As the Post article describes it, "Bush's overall job approval rating stood at 50 percent, unchanged from last month and nearly exactly where it was a year ago. Currently, 48 percent disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president."

Interestingly, Gallup polls its masses and applies the same kind of mathematics genius that the Bush administration uses to illustrate the benefits of privatization. On 15 February 2005, in a piece titled "Bush's Social Security Ratings in the Red," Bush's overall approval rating was pegged at 57%. [The Gallup site's link to the original article limits access to subscribers. The complete article has been preserved by a subscriber at this site.]

As of today, the public tilts against Bush's handling of Social Security, although not strongly. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found 43% of Americans approving of his performance on the issue and 48% disapproving.

This somewhat anemic result cannot be explained away by other factors: In the same poll, Bush's overall job approval was a healthy 57% and his approval score was 50% or better for both the economy and foreign affairs. No, it appears that Bush's negative rating on Social Security is specific to that issue.


On 5 March 2005, however, the Gallup site introduced another article about Bush's inability to sell his plan:
Majority Disapproval for Bush on Social Security
Overall approval rating steady at 52%


by Jeffrey M. Jones

George W. Bush's ratings for handling Social Security have dropped in recent weeks as debate on the issue has intensified, with a majority now disapproving. Additionally, Americans today perceive less urgency for Social Security reform: fewer say major changes are needed to the system within the next two years than did so in January. The public is divided over whether the greater risk is to take a private investment approach to Social Security reform or rely on the current system to pay full benefits when workers retire. Bush's overall job approval rating is holding steady at 52%.


Doncha just love it? A five-point loss in approval rating over a two-week period amounts to "holding steady." I once had a sweetheart who was "holding steady" like that, but he got someone else pregnant.

What a remarkable legacy this president is leaving. George W. Bush: Couldn't nail a real issue, but always screwed the people.

Monday, March 07, 2005

"I came down with menopause today..."

"I came down with menopause today and decided to have a party." A friend of mine said this on Saturday morning as we were having coffee. Actually, she had hailed a male neighbor of hers as he entered the café, calling across the crowded tables to catch his attention. When he got within hearing distance, my friend asked, "May I borrow your drill? I came down with menopause today and decided to have a party."

Do you need proof that McLuhan is still relevant? My friend is a petite blond gamine, charming in every way. Her neighbor seemed genuinely amused, as did other nearby café patrons. On the other hand, I look like a semi with a cargo load of serious crabby on board; I'm certain that the reaction would have been quite different had I spoken the same words. Quelles différences parmi des femmes!

Pen-Elayne Riggs honors both Women's History Month and women bloggers by celebrating Women in Blogging Month. On Tuesday, 1 March 2005, Elayne wrote:

March is Estrogen Month!
Welcome to Week #1 of Women in Blogging Month, Pen-Elayne readers' chance to vote on the female bloggers that you believe deserve a wider readership and more linkage (which in turn translates into a higher profile, which perpetuates even more readers).


Of course, I hope that you go and visit Elayne's admirable blog, read the other blogs, and nominate or vote for your favorite blog-written-by-a-woman. [If Exiled from the Underworld/Ereshkigal is your favorite, I appreciate your vote, and am flattered by your choice. Look, I'm blushing!]

Elayne reposted the easy-to-follow rules and voting instructions today on her website, adding:
* When you vote for a blog keep your head up high, and don't be afraid of the dark - sorry... when you vote for a blog, please tell us all why you like that blog. People reading your comments are much likelier to take to a blog if you tell us a bit about it and what attracts you to it. And that's the long-term goal here - to get more publicity for these women and to get them not only on my blogroll but on others' as well.


Small irony about Estrogen Month: according to some websites, March is also Horse Month! One particularly infamous brand of conjugated estrogens bears the name Premarin--the name derived from Pregnant Mare Urine! Mmm, mmm-- tasty! Premarin comes in tablets, injectables, and cream. All forms are now known to carry marked health hazards, but were generally believed to be beneficial just a few short years ago.

Back in the dark days of hormone-replacement-therapy ignorance, I was the mother of four boys and one girl (the youngest). It occurred to me one fine day after they were all asleep that my sons suffered not from testosterone poisoning (a still-popular diagnosis), but from estrogen deficiency. I successfully fought the temptation to sneak into their rooms at night and smear Premarin on their foreheads (where it would be more quickly absorbed into their brains?).

They all turned out to be nice people, reaching hormonal equilibrium on their own. I still wonder sometimes if just a few well-timed topical applications of Premarin would not have eased things a bit over the years...

In the meantime, Norbizness interrupts Happy Furry Puppy Time to comment on Estrogen Month, posting:

-- This qualifies as my solidarity attempt (look! patriarchal blogosphere metaphor!) as the world suffers through Estrogen Month.


You know, I bet Premarin cream would make a lovely lotion for chapped skin. I hope that Norbizness's suffering isn't too painful, and that his attempt at solidarity doesn't chap his ass too badly. Happy Furry Puppy Time, you're my bitch!