Well here is the next topic that pisses me off. Michelle Wie and her attempt to get into a mens PGA tour event. First of all there is a little organization called the LPGA Ladies Professional Golf Association. LADIES as in that is where the women play golf. There are separate leagues for the men and women for a reason because if they both played together the women would never win. The men average better scores then the women and that is because men are able to hit the ball further and other mechanics like that. Now don't get me wrong if a woman proves herself completely and fully I think that she should be able to try and make the cut at a mens PGA tour event. The first and only person right now that I think that deserves a chance to try and make the cut in a mens event is Annika Sorenstam. Why you ask because she has more then proven herself as a great if not one of the greatest women to ever play the game of professional golf and her numbers prove that. (these numbers are as of 2005) 9 career majors titles, 66 career victories in tournaments, 8 player of the year awards, and she has been the number one player in womens golf 8 years out of a possible 12 years that she has qualified for the LPGA. She is a great golfer and maybe if Michelle Wie was that good I might reconsider. Now don't get me wrong she could kick my ass in golf, she is a good golfer and she has put up good standings in LPGA events. She has come close to winning but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades so close doesnt quite cut it. Go ahead call me a male chauvinist but really I don't give a **** Your views about me arent going to change the fact that I don't think Michelle Wie is good enough or deserves to play on the mens PGA tour. So here is my short and sweet splurge to Michelle Wie: play in the LPGA until you win 50 tournaments then try for the PGA, you havent proved yourself yet so there is no reason why you should be allowed to play with the men in the PGA.

Well where do we start. How about PETA if you havent seen the video with Penn and Teller in "my videos" section go check it out. There is a whole lot of **** coming from this organization. They are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Ethical treatment? I hope they never have a bird run into their car or they run over a bunny. oh and they have better not have pets because according to their leader by owning a pet means that the owner has put that animal into slavery. That includes fish, birds, cats, and dogs. Oh and you cant ride our own horses, cows, chickens, etc. apparently PETA also feels that animals are the exact same as people. They feel that the holocaust is the same as what we do to animals. To all the Jews that might read this. Are you alright with your ancestors being the called same as a chicken by PETA? I defiantly wouldnt be ok with that. PETA supports the ALF. Those **** bomb research areas and other places that have used animals for testing. Did you know that most of the animals that are set free by the **** **** organization the ALF actually die because they dont know how to fend for themselves in the outside world? If you were dying of cancer and there was a cure for your cancer but you had to kill a few mice in the process, would you? How about your grandma who is a diabetic? Are you going to tell her to stop taking insulin because it probably has animal products in it? Basically what I am trying to say is that Im sick of this organization preaching about what we are doing wrong to animals when in reality the PETA organization and all of its members are some of the biggest hypocrites.

Violence in video games has been a hot topic for parents and legislators for a long time. A lot of questions arise to what type of restrictions should be placed on video games and all of that. I feel that to a degree all of this hoopla is blown way out of proportion. I do not feel that video game violence leads to people committing acts that are violent. If some person decides to go shoot a cop or run over people on the street because they saw it in Grand Theft Auto they are just plain stupid. The video games should not be at fault for this but mostly for the person who did it and their parents for not teaching them what is right and what is wrong and also the difference between fiction and reality. I play a lot of the video games that have received most of the attention when it comes to video game violence; Grand Theft Auto 3 and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to name two. I can say that after playing these games I will not be going into a building and killing everyone inside or driving over some random person on the street. By saying that video games make you kill or injure others is basically saying i cannot control my own actions and i need them to be decided by a video game. Now do I think there should be more restrictions on video games? Nope not at all I think the current rating system is perfect. I have never played a game and felt afterward that the game should have a lower rating. I think the people at MPAA do a good job at rating games appropriately. If anything the things that should be restricted is to keep the stupid parents from buying violent games for their kids then claiming they didn't know what it was when the kid goes and does something stupid because they cant distinguish what is fiction and what is reality. I think that is the biggest problem when it comes to video game violence in the hands of children. For a recap: 1) Violence in video games does NOT cause children to commit acts of violence.2) If a child commits a violent act and blames it on video games it is a piss poor excuse for not being able to control their own actions. You did it you take the blame. A coach of mine once said no TOB or no Transfer Of Blame - take responsibility for your actions. 3) Kids that act out and commit acts of violence and then saying it was caused by the game they were playing is a result of poor parenting. It is the parent's responsibility to watch over their kids and to know what their kids are involved in, this includes video games. I hate hearing about parents that say they have no idea about what their kids are playing even though the parent bought the game for the child.

The insanity defense is one of the worst ways that someone can be found not guilty in any court system. I do believe that mentally ill patients should be held accountable for their actions. This is shown tremendously in the movie Primal Fear with Richard Geer. A well known Cardinal in the Catholic ministry is murdered. An alter boy is caught and he tries to make everyone believe that he didn't commit the crime. It turns out that the alter boy supposedly has a split personality between this really mean person and this abused other figure. Richard Geer goes and is able to get a ruling of not guilty by reason of insanity which sends the man to a hospital to get treatment. But then it turns out that alter boy fooled everyone and he doesn't have a split personality he was just acting to not have to go to jail. By going for the insanity defense the person charged of the crime could just be acting and not actually have a mental illness. I think not guilty by reason of insanity is a piss poor way of getting out of something that you did. I also feel the same way about people with mental retardation and that no one should be able to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. I am a firm believer of eye for an eye; you kill someone you should be killed with exceptions for the military. There are a lot of psychos out their but I still don't believe that they should be able to get off from doing time because they plead that they are insane. Like the woman that drowned all of her kids in the bath tub and she claims she didn't know what she was doing or someone that has their kids belted in the car and then rolls the car into the lake. Those types of people deserve the death penalty regardless if they feel that they were insane at the time of their actions. A person being bad and being ill are too different things but if you commit a crime you should be held accountable for your actions whether you are eight or eighty you should be held accountable for your actions. Also not knowing right from wrong is a thing that people try to pull to get the not guilty by reason of insanity. People that pull that defense should be put in a padded room for the rest of their life so they can't hurt anyone anymore. Now will they understand why they are in jail but that is what treatment is for and they can receive that in their very own padded room. As a recap I believe the not guilty by reason of insanity is a piss poor excuse to weasel your way out of something you did wrong. In turn you should be punished for your crimes regardless if you know right from wrong or if you feel that you are insane.