Thursday, August 30, 2007

Mrowerrr, Sphitt, Sphitt!

Like most enthusiasts, I'm always on the look-out for others who share my interest. I just now came across this site with the appropriate enough logo; "Fight Like a Cornered Cat". The site's content seems mainly directed towards women and prospective new shooters, but is full of excellent information useful to a shooter of any skill level.

Thanks to Robert Avrech at Seraphic Secret for another good recommendation.

UPDATE: I should note that the link above goes to the Table of Contents for the Cornered Cat website. Click on the sleeping cat icon at the very bottom of that page (or the Cornered Cat Reference Link to the right over there) for a link to what I take to be Ms. Jackson's main or Home page. Once I'm able to work my way through the existing content, maybe I'll write her for a clarification. Or not. There really is that much to be read and considered. The lady does good work.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Price of Fame

LockMart may call this thing a M.U.L.E.

but you just know that as soon as the first one hits the field, soldiers everywhere will begin addressing it as "Donkey, ..." in the worst "Shrek voice" imaginable. Particularly if voice command isn't actually an option.

Canadian actor Mike Myers may have to spend the rest of his life dodging irate haggis bombers in such an event.

via Instapundit, who seems more impressed then I am. Yet.

Friday, August 24, 2007

Reading Guidance

I like to read.

I have done, in fact, for most of my life. The first book I ever checked out of a library in my own name was Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", the summer I was 7 years old. It took me most of the two week loan period to work my way through it, but I did get a good introduction to how the dictionary works out of the experience. Not to mention a cracking good story for a boy that age.

I've long since taken to buying the books I want to read rather than waiting for them to appear on the library's shelves. One problem that has long plagued me though has been what to do with the books afterwards? I don't worry too much about the flash paperbacks, it's easy enough to drop off a box of them with the Sally Army or the like. It's all the rest of them, the one's I know I want to re-read at some point.

I must have about 2,000 books in my apartment right now. I would almost certainly have more if not for all the time I spend on the computer reading blogs, news, what-have-you. Pretty much what you're reading now, for example. Since mine is an upstairs apartment, this is probably a good thing. There's only so much space around the edges of the room to support yet another stack of books. While reading this post at Tamara K's:

I came across something way down in the comments that may well offer at least a partial answer:

Rather like Netflix does with DVD's, these people rent books. You can apparently buy the copy you receive if you wish, there is no time limit on how long you can take to complete what you already have and apparently no obligation to make a selection until you're ready to do so. And the shipping (both ways) is included in the rental fee - which isn't quite the same thing as the advertised "free", but we'll just let that one pass by, shall we?

All in all, I think this one worth a try.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Writing Guidance

Want to learn how to do something? Ask someone busy doing it.

It's nice to find my own bald assertions validated like this; "Egri analyzes the construction of a hero; he delves into why people act the way they do. He shows why the author must start with a basic premise. Egri hammers home the importance of developing the central conflict on the basis of the behavior of your main character — this notion is central, but too often falls by the wayside."

The more real seeming the entire (or at least the principal) cast of characters is, the more realistic and natural will be the actions they take to achieve the goals I set for them in the story outline. Central to that is the main character, who presumably must be most fully developed of all.

Yet another addition to the personal library. Hello; Barnes and Noble ..?

Friday, August 17, 2007

A Confidence of Toys

I love stuff like this.

The only two magazines I still subscribe to are Popular Mechanics and Popular Science. I do so because both make a regular effort to cover unusual developments similar to the example Al Fin links to.

I should explain that my interest isn't focused on the technology especially. I do try to understand the physical principle(s) involved, but the growth of personal opportunity is what excites me at least as much. Even for items I'm personally unlikely to ever directly experience.

So much of our individual attitude toward life and it's inherent challenges is modulated by our perception of our personal capability. Our confidence, our willingness to rely upon our as-yet untested resourcefulness, is influenced in often unappreciated ways by our acceptance of the capabilities our technology proffers us.

It isn't even especially necessary that we personally own the technology. Our potential capability is often enough to allow us to overcome the self-imposed limitations that arise from our ignorance. The knowledge that something is in fact possible, has been done by others, moves a doubt from being a question of scientific possibility to a question of engineering capability.

For me, it's a question of confidence more than anything else. I am able to maintain a confident outlook towards life because I know just how capable we humans are at creating the means to our own salvation. The fact that we have made so much stuff that's often rather dangerous in it's own right is the most reassuring thing of all. Dangerous as something might be, we can and do use it safely to achieve a desired end. If I can only just carry on for long enough, someone, somewhere - maybe me, right here - will create the tool I need to solve the problem I confront.

Will I ever own a flying boat? Probably not. But I know where to get one if I ever change my mind and I think I could even build one if need be. I know it's possible after all; it's just a matter of figuring out how all the different bits go together, isn't it?

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

State of Play

I used to be a sports official and particularly liked umpiring baseball. That experience is why I find this story in the Austin fish-wrapper to be borderline insulting:

I've often said in years past that I liked baseball the best because I had the best seat in the house and got paid to tell everyone else what just happened. Like most such hyperbole, there's more than an element of truth to that.

Here's some of the reality.

On any field of play, there are three teams present; the home team, the visiting team and the officiating team. That's anywhere from 2 to 6 on-field umpires and at least one official scorekeeper for baseball. My own experience is limited to 2, 3 and 4-man mechanics (there was one time I was part of a 6-man crew, but that was a result of a scheduling mix-up and everyone was a bit uncomfortable with the unusual responsibility assignments).

With a couple of specified exceptions, the plate umpire has the sole responsibility for determining if a pitched ball is a strike or not. Before we get to that decision though, there are a few other things he has to rule on also.

Is the field of play still in a playable condition (no fans running around or fences fallen over for example)?

Are the other members of the umpire crew in position and ready for continuation of play?

Is the pitcher making a legal presentation of the ball prior to the pitch?

Is the batter legally in the batting box (and the catcher not)?

In that fraction of a second between release from the pitcher's hand to arrival at the catcher's glove, the umpire gets his only opportunity to decide, and immediately announce, where the ball was in relation to an imaginary frame of reference known as "the strike zone".

At the same time, the umpire has to determine if any action taken by the batter, catcher or other player was within the rules of play.

And with all of this going on, some professor thinks he can detect racism influencing the plate umpire's calls? Now, I will admit that my opinion of a particular player has influenced how generous I might be as regards his on-field conduct. If the guy's a whiner, or some other category of asshole, I have been known to adhere to a closer interpretation of the rules for that day's game. But both teams got the same treatment that day and I've rarely run into a catcher who hadn't figured out what was going on, and why, within an inning or two.

Frankly, you just don't have time out there to pay attention to what color or accent the pitcher has. In any case, you're trying to get a complete game in as quickly as the state of play will allow; screwing around with your strike zone is a certain way to have a very long and bad day at the ballpark. Not to mention a very ... difficult conversation with the rest of your crew afterwards.

What we have here is a unique opportunity for an academic to demonstrate how much of a fool he can be in public, not how questionable umpire's judgement is.

We already knew that.

UPDATE: Oh goody. Rob at has this:

Apparently, Time magazine has also decided to carry this story without any critical analysis of the content. Well done Time. (/sarcasm)

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Progress on Progression

Connie Du Toit has penned (OK, typed) a beautifully introspective examination regarding how we comparatively hairless apes arrive at a determination of ethical behavior, see here:

On the purely individual scale, I suspect she is far more right than not about our individual decision-making process. In fact, I would go so far as to say that for most people, most of the time and for most subjects, there isn't any deep consideration of the particulars of a given instance; they "know" right from wrong and consider that to be ethical. When they were children, living in Mommy and Daddy's house, that was even largely true.

Out here in the lonely and more than a little frightening grown-up world, that simply won't do.

We know that there aren't any monsters under the bed because we aren't afraid to look. Similarly, we know that much of what we term "progress" has aspects that are disturbing at best and quite often outright dangerous to our continued existence. That does not inhibit us from continuing to look, however, and for very good reason.

Two of them, actually; self defense and societal consensus. Since the first isn't especially germane to this discussion, I will leap ahead and ask, how does a society arrive at an ethical consensus?

Mostly by inheritance, I know; "It was good enough for Gramps and Dad, it's good enough for me." may in fact offer an acceptable result. In other applications of this same process we call this legal or medical precedent, for example. This is not, I suggest, a particularly deliberative process though. It offers little in the way of direct applicability to an innovative concept and, I would argue even worse, it actively prohibits measured consideration of an idea or process on it's own merits.

A really simple (and probably simplistic) example can be drawn - pardon the pun - from the question, "Is water good for us?" Without allowing myself to be diverted into the details of the question itself, the illustration it provides is that there is only one way we can come to any sort of considered conclusion, through research. In the end, there's only one way to be really sure just how much, and of what quality, water is not good for you. With predictably unfortunate - and ethically questionable - results for at least some of the experimentees.

If your response to that circumstance is some variation of, "The ethical ramifications of such research could lead to some really horrible conclusion", the more intelligent response is to say, "Thank you, do remind us when you think we're getting too close to that. We don't want to go there either, but we aren't going to let our fear defeat our understanding". Such conversations are the mechanism we employ to arrive at a societal consensus, which is nothing more than a condition of existence with which we are prepared to cope in order to have a society at all.

Human history is chock full of really bad things we've learned to make and taught ourselves to do to each other. Human history is equally full of stories of human triumph over adversity and optimism about our eventual state of being. I see little hope for the future being anything other than more of the same in somewhat different and interesting conditions, sad to say. And that's actually a good thing.

The bing fa, the philosophy of strategic science, teaches that a "problem" is defined by the boundaries of it's limitations. Consequently, the good strategist uses this condition to expand the strategic field beyond those limiting factors, thereby converting a problem, something that distracts from or works against one's position, into an asset that can be used to advance one's position. In other words, don't confine your thoughts only to the problem, expand your range of consideration to include it's successful resolution.

That is ethical behavior.

More On American Solutions

I'm not going to blog each podcast as a separate catagory. Some observations:

1) When they say each podcast segment is 60 minutes in length, they mean it. When the time is up they sto

2) The complete session is presented as a video. It is obvious that the videographer is, errr not a professional. So obvious, in fact, that I had to stop watching and listen to the podcast instead. It was amusing the first - several - times he belatedly pursued Newt back into centerframe as he wandered around the stage giving his talk. It got to the point that I kept losing track of what he was saying, though, in anticipation of the camera guy leaping up and screaming at him to "Stand effing still, dammit!".

3) What Newt is in the process of creating with American Solutions is a potential alternative to the existing political party system. Not especially at the national level for the next political cycle in 2008, that's when the local and state elective offices are to be the principal targets since the cost per office is less of a financial burden for an individual citizen. If this strategy is successful for two political cycles, a national run for control of Congress and for the Presidency is a real possibility in 2012.

Newt specifically makes the point that American Solutions isn't a new addition to the existing party system. It exists as a networking resource for individuals who want to change the
American political climate and structure. It is a little recognised historical fact that political party's as they exist today were not any part of American politics for the first several decades of this country's existence.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Tale of the Teller

I started this blog because I discovered that I like to write. What I have also discovered is that doing so isn't just a matter of pumping out the words. That is absolutely necessary, of course, but how you choose to tell a story is more important than having a story to tell in the first place.

In the hierarchy of story-telling priorities, the "who" question is the most important question to be answered by the writer. No matter how expert one may be on a given topic, a story has greater impact, "readability" if you will, when the events are related by a variety of believable individuals actions on the page.

With that realisation in mind, I found this chart for building a character:

If you are able to sufficiently populate your story with characters, each having a unique combination of qualities and flaws, the progression of events necessary to achieve the results of your story outline are related to you by them, in their "voice" and not your own.

A few days ago, Connie Du Toit, aka The Mrs, decided to begin a new writing project:

I hope she will find this useful also.

UPDATE: Robert Avrech, an actual professional writer, offers his thoughts on this subject in much greater detail on his blog Seraphic Secret:

Great minds, and all that. Which poses the question, what's one of those doing in my neighborhood?

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Wealth of Nations - We the People ...

"A country's total output consists of both goods and services - houses and haircuts, sausages and surgery - but the international trade balance consists only of physical goods that move. The American economy produces more services than goods, so it is not surprising that the United States imports more goods then it exports - and exports more services then it imports. American know-how and American technology are used by other countries around the world and these countries of course pay the U.S. for these services. For example, most of the personal computers in the world run on operating systems created by the Microsoft Corporation, But the foreign payments to Microsoft and other American companies for their services are not counted in the international balance of trade, since trade includes only goods, not services."

"This is just an accounting convention. Yet the American "balance of trade" is reported in the media as if this partial picture were the whole picture and the emotionally explosive word "deficit" sets off alarms."

At some point during the next 15 months or so, we are all going to hear examples touted of how badly mis-managed the U.S. economy is/has been/will be under TODDIT (The or That, the political variation of the O.J. defense - Some Other Dude Did IT). The terms "trade deficit" and "balance of payments" will be tossed around to justify virtually any position, seemingly in total contradiction to previous positions taken, and rigorously relying on official government reported numbers in every instance.

When that happens, keep the quoted text herein in mind. And don't panic.

"With trade deficits, as with many other things, what matters is not the absolute size but the size relative to the size of the economy as a whole. While the United States has the world's largest trade deficit, it also has the world's largest economy. The American trade deficit is 6 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product ..."

"The point here is that neither international deficits nor surpluses are inevitable consequences of either prosperity or poverty and neither word, by itself, tells much about the condition of a country's economy. The word "debt" covers very different kinds of transactions, some of which may in fact present problems and some of which do not. Every time you deposit $100 in a bank, that bank goes a hundred dollars deeper into debt, because it is still your money and they owe it to you. Some people might become alarmed if they were told that the bank in which they keep their life's savings was going deeper and deeper into debt each month. But such worries would be completely uncalled for, if the banks growing debt means only that many other people are depositing their paychecks into that same bank."

It seems that people everywhere are constantly trying to frighten us into surrendering some of our wealth or reputation or authority over to them, political candidates most notoriously of all. Don't be afraid. Mastering the fundamental knowledge necessary to make an informed decision, based on the merits of your personal circumstance, is not difficult, as you have just read for yourself. Whether or not we Americans choose to retain our inheritance of liberty and freedom is up to each of us, of course, but knowledge is the only certain way of doing so. Read the book.

All quoted text taken from Chapter 21 of Basic Economics - A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

American Solutions, pod cast #1

This pod cast is available here:

American Solutions ( seeks to create a mass demand among the citizenry for change in the process of government at all levels. By transforming away from the existing bureaucratic based method toward a more free enterprise based model, we are able to concentrate our efforts towards demonstrated functionality instead of pursuing theoretical solutions.

"Real change requires real change". Real change requires a complete departure from the existing system, not just cosmetic updates or tortuous manipulation of existing processes. Newt returns repeatedly to a comparison of a free enterprise model with a government bureaucracy model to illustrate the fundamental nature of the depth of change he proposes.

"Free enterprise should be producing more choices of higher quality at lower cost with greater convenience." as opposed to the world that fails (which isn't confined to government alone), which has "bureaucracy, red tape, a failure to measure outcomes, no consequences for success or failure and it produces fewer choices of declining quality with more excuses, rising costs and no change."

Newt and his colleagues anticipate "an explosion of knowledge" over the next 25 years, on the order of 4 to 7 times the growth of knowledge as occurred during the preceding 25 years. Singularity anyone? Actually, Newt stays well clear of that argument and I think that may prove to be a strategic error on his part. Directly involving the people working toward, or simply anticipating the accelerating process of, the singularity taps into an existing source of specific incentive who could be expected to provide added stimulus to advance his general effort as well. For someone who demonstrates a clear understanding of the desirability of both positive and negative incentive, this seems a curious oversight.

Newt offers two particular examples of current "world that works" models for government to transform towards: tracking a package on FedEx while it moves vs can't find illegal aliens while they're sitting still; and, using an ATM in a foreign country, which identifies you, confirms your cash availability, withdraws US currency and tracks exchange rate to complete the transaction all in about 11 seconds vs the US government issuing visas or a specific failure of the law enforcement bureaucracy (you'll have to listen for yourself to hear the examples he offers - much too involved to try and relate here).

So far this seems to be a compilation of Newt's various policy speeches from years past which obviously formed the basis for this organizing effort; health care, government, bureaucracy, education. The long form of presentation does allow the comprehensive inter-relationships between the various ideas to be clearly illustrated, something that is lost in a more time restricted venue.

He makes a good start, let's see where he goes from here.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

"Brain of Newt ..."

I've been impressed with Newt Gingrich basically since C-SPAN broadcast his college course right after he first became Speaker of the House (I wish I could say I was equally impressed by his tenure there).

He has created an organisation called American Solutions ( in an effort to educate Americans about how to correct our national deficiencies. The initial six hour presentation is available on-line here:

and can be tackled all in one go or in five pod casts and a .pdf file of the included slides and graphs.

Needless to say, more to follow as I digest his presentation.

Initial impression: "If something is really stupid, let's quit doing it."

Monday, August 6, 2007

In My Defense

This past Saturday, Al Fin wrote, "... Eric Pianka, a University of Texas ecologist who suggests repeatedly in public appearances that viruses such as Ebola should be modified so as to be able to kill off 90% of earth's human population."; see here:

I commented, in so many words, that if the professor or his friends came around my house, they could expect to get shot. A few things about that seem in need of a fuller reply.

I think it important to note first that the piece of legislation I referred to in my glibness doesn't take effect until this coming September. That circumstance wouldn't really effect my actions in an attack, I should point out, only those of the attorney I hire afterwards.

Secondly, while my reply was both honest and legitimate on the purely personal level, all the firearms in the world would, at best, be only a limiting factor in a gas or biologic attack. Which isn't all that different a condition from any other form of attack, when you stop to think about it. Despite the commonly expressed intent of self-defense, I carry a gun to enable me to more effectively carry out a counter-attack should that necessity ever be forced upon me. I am well aware that my gun won't stop his bullet from doing me harm. What it will do is provide me the means to shoot him in turn, and hopefully kill him first. That's what practice is all about.

None of which, I should point out, actually deals with the legitimate societal concerns Al Fin raised in his post. Societal self-defense isn't simply the aggregate of our individual efforts alone. Nor, despite the euphemism, should it be based solely upon our country's military offensive capabilities, although that is essentially the reality. That's the problem with euphemisms, people mostly ignore the underlying assumptions they're built upon. The one about the "best defense", for instance, is only true if you have a secure base from which to generate an offense.

This circumstance isn't at all unusual as regards American defense preparedness, by the way. Mutually Assured Destruction may have worked out in the end, but it certainly wasn't a defensive posture. In the event of an attack, we can hammer anybody flat. And, after any attack to date, we've demonstrated we can clean up and return to business as usual, too.

Which arguably works well enough for an attack from outside, but what about Professor Pianka's "assisted suicide" scenario? I suggest Al Fin himself (and others earlier, this particular eco-loon has been a public embarrassment for some time now) provides evidence that we do have an effective means of defense; ourselves. Fin's post is actually the most recent iteration of our civil defense system; public watchfulness, individual preparedness and societal cooperation for containment and necessary cleanup. Despite my enjoyment of fictional apocalypse stories, I much prefer actually living in the real world where babbling fools like Pianka aren't a problem, they're an active part of our defense, as a good tripwire should be.

There are excellent reasons for expanding human civilisation into space; fear of ourselves isn't one of them.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Standards? What standards?

So, having established a base line (with emphasis on the "base") for my writing, let's explore the opposite boundary.

I have actually written on the blogosphere before. Gary Gagliardi

invited me to contribute to his Warrior Class blog (on the side-bar over to the right there) based on my comments upon his posts. That proved to be a differently challenging experience then I had anticipated. Which, I should point out, Sun Tzu's strategic science and philosophy of bing fa teaches should be the case. I went through a bad bout of depression last year and that involvement sort of withered away.

But I discovered that I liked writing for it's own sake. And, that a professional writer and publisher agreed I had some raw talent, at least to the extent of being willing to have his reputation associated with my efforts, was real validation. But also a severe limitation, because the "voice" and direction of my writing were a product of the professional setting that his blog is an integral part of. So, here we are. Or I am. Or something.

Connie Du Toit's blog Personal Effects

(also on the side-bar needless to say) is a good example of what I mean. While citing something she's written as example for a lesson on the bing fa or a strategic principle would certainly be valid and legitimate for Gary's blog, it wouldn't be a conversation between she and I. Now, the result might be entertaining or instructive for a reader, but it would be as artificial as any TV or Radio interview (or worse, infomercial) for Connie and I and that condition would also be obvious to a reader. The format of the blogosphere is a conversation between two or more people in a public forum. The writing on this page is me offering to chat with you; when you click on a link to here and start to read, that's us making eye contact and beginning to converse. And like any chat up at a party or the grocery store, the possibilities from there are whatever we both wish to make of them.

Connie, or Mrs Du Toit as she styles herself, is a skilled writer who considers a complex array of topics for discussion. And that's what often results, a discussion among several people, from differing perspectives, offering varying degrees of expertise and emphasis. Often instructive, usually entertaining, adamantly polite; in short, all the things I hope to find on a blog.

I'm not going to run down the entire link list. Sufficient to say that everybody is there because they are consistently interesting to me as a reader and inspirational to me as a writer. I recommend them in their own right and you can expect to see regular links to them in future.

You see, I actually can write without resorting to obsenity or scatological references, but don't be shocked when I periodically choose to do so. I dropped out of high school at 17, joined the US Navy and volunteered for service in Vietnam because each of those choices lead to an improvement in my life. Which wasn't terrible before then by any reasonable standard.

Such choices do leave their mark though it has to be said. One obvious mark is in my usual speech pattern. Even thirty years on, I still quite casually fall back on the speech patterns a 17 year old kid adopted in basic training to blend in with everybody else.

Enough. It's a beautiful, early August, Sunday afternoon here. I'm going to go out and get me some of it just for myself.

UPDATE: Yes, I see it says Saturday at the top there. I'm still figuring the Blogger process out. Bear with me, I doubt this will be the worst example to occur.

Shooting, not shopping

So, there's this young fellow I work with in the factory, he asks me last night if I hunt. We've talked about shooting (as guys will) and about the requirements for getting a Concealed Handgun License here in
Texas. Some of the more amusing or challenging aspects of carrying and shooting a pistol or rifle.

I have to say, he seemed honestly surprised that a committed shooter wasn't automatically an equally enthusiastic hunter as well.

He's a nice enough young guy, so he gave me the benefit of the doubt when I explained that hunting was just more work then I was willing to make a part of my day off. By which, I explained, the newly dead didn't magically go from blood-dripping carcass to my barbecue all by itself. It's a lot of work to field dress an animal, pack it out of the field and transport it to be properly butchered and packaged for freezing.

Even with all of that he seemed unconvinced, until I hit upon a more directly appropriate analogy to his own circumstance in life. I asked if he still liked fucking. He adamantly assured me that was very much the case. So, I asked, if he and the wife were still satisfied with having only one child and didn't want another, why would either of them want to keep on fucking?

I'll give him this, he can be stubborn as the day is long, but he's not slow on the uptake.

Like sex, shooting offers it's own reward entirely separate from any more tangible result. And unlike sex, it's considered normal to do it alone and in public all at the same time. People will still talk, of course - everybody's a critic - but unless you're a criminally bad shot, they probably won't make you listen. And if you are, I'll help them.

As for groceries, I'll go to Brookshires. There's a real nice one down the road a ways that caters to the young, upscale demographic. The ratio of young hottie's, as compared to the other stores in town, is quite remarkable.

What? I never said I didn't hunt at all!

Friday, August 3, 2007

... and now, for something more usual

This stunningly beautiful woman enters her gynecologist's office. Learning that her regular doctor has been unexpectedly called out of town, she elects to be treated by a visiting physician. Once she's entered the exam room, gotten undressed and positioned on the exam table, the doctor arrives and begins to check her out.

He begins by getting between her upraised legs and lightly stroking her inner thighs. "Do you know what I'm doing now?" he asks somewhat hesitantly.

"Oh yes, Doctor," she replied, "you're checking if I have any dry skin, abrasions or lesions down there."

"Yes ... yes, that's exactly what I'm doing, isn't it." he said.

Moving out from between her legs, the doctor stood alongside the beautiful woman's chest and began to squeeze her breast's and nipples. Looking down at her stunning face, he asks in a more confident voice, "Do you know what I'm doing now?"

"Yes Doctor," she answered, looking him squarely in the eye,"you're checking my breasts for lumps or other signs of cancer."

"That's right." he said.

Finally seeming to loose all control over himself, the doctor rushed back between the woman's legs and inserted his erect penis into her vagina. As he stood there thrusting deeply into her he cried out, "Do you know what I'm doing now?"

"Certainly Doctor." she replied dispassionately. "You're catching herpes. That's why I wanted to be seen today."

Consider yourselves warned.