Friday, January 28, 2011

Evlauating the Logitech - Harmony 650 Universal Remote

Over the years, I have used, owned and purchased many, many remote controls. In fact, the first remote control I used did nothing more than power a TV on and off, or change the channel up or down. It had a grand total of three buttons, was about the size of two decks of cards, and cost about $100. Remotes have come a long way since then.

In their infancy, remote controls were great... they prevented us from having to walk to the TV to choose between the three or four available channels, and maybe allowed us to increase/decrease the volume as well. In the decades since their introduction though, we've grown to have a love/hate relationship with remotes. It's convenient to never have to leave your chair. But it sucks to spend 20 or 30 minutes finding a lost remote, and having to juggle between a half dozen different clickers.

The answer, of course, is the universal remote. But all universal remotes aren't created equal. When you buy those $10 Wal-Mart jobs, well, you get what you pay for. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you can spend several hundred dollars on a high-end remote, but these things are generally too complicated for the average end user. (I say this as someone who has actually been hired to program the high-dollar remotes.)

I think I have found the sweet spot with the Harmony Universal Remote series. The device I bought was the 650, primarily because I have a new TV and Blu-Ray player, but I only need to control a grand total of four devices. The programming was good... three of my four devices were in the pre-existing online database, and the fourth device was flawlessly learned through the remote-to-remote learning function. I was up and running relatively quickly.

I particularly like the one button macros. I can choose "Watch TV" and the remote will automatically turn on the TV and Cable box, select the correct inputs and so forth. I will say that this is not 100% flawless, but it also brings me to my absolute favorite feature of the remote control.

At the end of every macro, the remote asks you if it did what you expected. If not, there's a help function that gives you step-by-step assistance until you achieve the expected result. THIS is my favorite feature, because even my mom could use it.

In short, I recommend this product. It's not perfect, but it's a great bang for the buck, and the help feature is just awesome.

Monday, January 24, 2011

Commemmorating a Significant Event

It's seven years ago today that I met my wife at a wine tasting. Seven years, and no, I don't feel the itch.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Interview with a Conservative, Part III

Today is the third installment of my interview with Rob Gettemy. For those of you missed either of the previous two installments, here is Part I, and here is Part II.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part III---

What is your plan to fix Social Security?
The retirement age has to be raised. Probably starting with people who today are 55 or under. Maybe even 50 and under. The reality is that Social Security had 17 workers for each retiree in the past. Now it is down to 3 on the way to 2. Think about that for a moment. Each worker today is paying for ½ of the retirement benefits of retiree. I would also be for allowing younger workers to opt out with some or all of their contributions. Social security is a ponzi scheme that would make Madoff blush.

How do you propose improving our public school system? Do you support no child left behind?
Get the federal government out of education. All we hear about education is how we have lost ground over the last 30 years. Guess what happened a little more than 30 years ago…the federal department of education. End it now. I don’t support no child left behind. I do support local control of the schools. I would consider abolishing all public sector unions as well. They have been a disaster for the school system.

How would you change the tax code?
Flat tax or fair tax. One or the other and eliminate the income tax.

If you could have accomplished only ONE thing as a legislator, what will it have been?
Reverse the growth of government.

Since you ran on a Republican platform, who are some of your favorite historical DEMOCRATIC politicians, and who are some of your least-favored REPUBLICAN politicians?

Kennedy understood the need to lower taxes and have a strong national defense. I liked that.
Least favorite republicans…The two senators from Maine, Snow and Collins, John McCain, Arlen Specter….see my pattern? [grin]

What is your opinion of our current child support system?
I honestly don’t know enough about it to comment.

Your campaign web site said that "profits are not obscene." Does this statement apply to top banking executives, Wall Street brokers, lawyers, politicians and so forth who oversaw our current economic situation?
Profits are not obscene. Period. Are you asking about compensation? Some of that may be obscene, but I don’t believe it is the government’s role to decide what it should be.

Are you saying that profits are NEVER obscene? If that’s the case, then do you support a credit card company’s ability to charge incredibly high interest rates?
I am saying it is never the government’s role to declare profits obscene…and as a general rule, I have not seen any profits that I believe are obscene. I am ok with limited usury laws…but, let’s take pay day loans as an example. They are horrible, and many want to outlaw them. But, suppose I need to fix my car to get to work and I need $200 to do that. A bank, charging 10% annually would earn $20 a year on that loan. Assuming it is paid off in a week, they would earn 38 cents. No bank is going to do the paper work to loan you $200 for a 38 cent return. So, by banning such things, yes, you keep people from falling into the trap of continually rolling over the loan, but you also eliminate the ability for responsible people to get out of a jam. Your good intentions may even cost them their job. Liberals often don’t think through the consequences of their decisions.

Are there any Congressional perks that you'd like to abolish?

Pensions after 5 years, many of their personal expenses, some of their trips etc. I have not studied the perks of the office, but I suspect they’d make me blush.

Your campaign web site said "We are at a point in this country where approximately 60% of the people receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes." Theoretically, this 60% would include the military, Social Security recipients, Welfare recipients, Medicare and Medicaid recipients, Federal law enforcement (FBI, TSA, and all of the other acronym agencies), and federal employees. What would you consider a reasonable percentage of people as net beneficiaries, and how would you achieve this percentage?
My understanding of that statistic is that it is not government employees, but of course includes all those who receive direct payments such as welfare, ssi, etc. I think this number should be probably less than 10% after taking out the SSI. (But, of course, based on my comments above, you also know I would raise the retirement age for SSI, so that percentage would go down as well)

Your campaign web site said "In the year since President Obama has taken office, we no longer have the respect and prestige of many nations across the world." How is this different from the respect and prestige we lost due to Bush's "cowboy diplomacy?"
I believe they like us more, but respect us less. Of course, neither can be proven, but it appears to me Obama is more inclined to want to be liked than respected. I am also sick of hearing him apologize for the US. We are the most giving society in the world. Obama clearly does not believe America is exceptional. When asked this question directly, he answered it that he believes in our exeptionalism in the way a Brit believes in the UK’s exceptionalism etc. That is like a child saying my dad is the greatest…it is somewhat meaningless. America is exceptional, but that exeptionalism has been eroded over the last 100 years.

“…We are the most giving society in the world…” What is your position on foreign aid?

I’m ok with limited foreign aid. I get a bit pissed off though when I hear other countries saying we are not doing our share. As you say, we are the most giving in the world. No other place has the level of private charity the US does.

For clarification, I quoted you in my last follow-up question. Since you are ok with limited foreign aid, do you believe that our current level of foreign aid is acceptable? If you believe it should be cut, where would you cut foreign aid, to what extent, and why would you make these cuts? Also, some say that, considering our current economic state, any foreign aid is unreasonable. (How can we donate money to other countries when we can’t even pay our own bills??) Your thoughts?

I haven’t studied what the current rate of foreign aid is, so I can’t say yes it is the exact right amount. I am saying I am not philosophically against all foreign aid as some are…or to follow up with your second point…in current conditions…I am still ok with foreign aid. In fact, I would go as far as to say I think foreign aid is better spent money than much of our welfare spending. In the US, everyone has opportunity…go to Haiti or Honduras and you’ll realize that is not the case in much of the world. I am very much for personal humanitarian assistance as well. I even took a humanitarian mission trip to Honduras in 2007

One last question… what question did you expect me to ask that I haven’t asked, and what is the answer to that question.

Not so much a question…but, I think liberals assume conservatives don’t care. That is simply not the case. Conservatives believe that many if not most of the government programs designed to help do far more harm in the long-term. One of my favorite books is by a former welfare queen and crack addict Star Parker who wrote a book called “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” where she described how being in the system was not a hand up, but instead, it was enslaving.

You appear to not be a total liberal…just a partial! [grin]

Yes, I will acknowledge that I am a partial liberal. For what it’s worth though, several of the questions I ask are strictly from a Devil’s Advocate standpoint. I also want you to know that you have given me a lot of food for thought. I firmly believe that honest, open discussion and debate are good things. I feel that people who are unwilling to have their beliefs challenged are not firm in their beliefs. The best people are the ones who are willing to logically defend their point of view, AND open to change.

I enjoyed it as well.

Interview with a Conservative, Part II

Today is the second installment of my interview with Rob Gettemy. For those of you missed the first installment, you can find it here.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part II---

You seem to be a constitutionalist... but there are several things that the framers of the constitution could not foresee, such as automatic weapons, medical advances that allow a woman to terminate pregnancy, the automobile, the internet, the unintended environmental consequences of industrialization and nuclear energy. How do you tie these unforeseen changes back to the constitution? Do you have a basic philosophy that guides you in situations that the founding fathers did not foresee?
The founders had the foresight to provide a way to amend the constitution. We should follow that instead of make laws from the bench. I do not believe in the concept of man-made global warming. There is little scientific evidence at this stage. It appears sun spots have a lot more to do with climate than man does. That said, I believe in being a good steward of the environment. I am an avid outdoorsman, and value the environment greatly.

Does this mean that you believe congress should pass fewer laws and that we increase the rate of proposed constitutional amendments? Also, how does your answer to the previous question address the idea that congress’ reason for being is the creation of legislation?

Yes to fewer laws…I’m not advocating for a bunch of new amendments though. I am saying that the founders did restrict government, but also left a path to raise some of those restrictions through amendments. Rightfully so, they made it hard to amend the constitution though.

How is it okay for legislators to propose and pass unpopular laws, but it’s somehow inappropriate for judges to strike down or uphold laws in a manner that’s unpopular? (This is in reference to your “make laws from the bench” comment.)
Judges should not be restricted from striking down laws in a manner that is unpopular. They should be restricted from creating laws and “rights” from the bench. They are to uphold the laws, not make them.

With this response in mind, I am going to refer the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent ruling that allowed homosexuals to marry in Iowa… The Declaration of Independence said, point blank, that all men are created equal, and that one of our inalienable rights is the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not you agree with the premise of homosexual marriage, can a reasonable person conclude that outlawing homosexual marriage creates an inequality among otherwise similar men? Is it reasonable to believe that the prohibition of same-sex marriages infringes on the inalienable right to pursue happiness?
Under your scenario…anything could be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. Like I said, I see marriage as an institution that is about procreation which is necessary for the continuation of society. Like it or not, it takes male and female DNA to procreate.

Based on your counter-point, yes, anything could theoretically be classified as an act of pursuing happiness. With this as a frame of reference, it would be up to the courts to decide whether not the case at hand genuinely falls under the right to pursue happiness. As individuals in American society, we may or may not agree with the outcome of the court case, but some governing body needs to accept this responsibility and rule accordingly.
I guess I agree with what you are saying here…but, I think they need to take a minimalist approach.

On a related vein, (separate question) the Miranda Rights came to being as a result of the Supreme Court. In effect, the Supreme Court “created a right from the bench.” The Supreme Court also ruled that segregation was inherently unequal in Brown vs. Board of Education. Does this mean that you disagree with implementation of Miranda and the end of segregation? If you do not disagree with both of these rulings, then is it not reasonable to conclude that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system?

So, are you saying if I do agree with these cases, I should agree with any ruling the court makes? That said, I don’t believe it was creating new rights, it was simply guaranteeing rights as the constitution provided for.

No. I am not saying that we should agree with any (and all) rulings that the court makes. I am merely stating that if you agree with the aforementioned cases, that you must concede, to some extent, that “creating rights from the bench” is a legitimate function of the court system.

I knew you weren’t saying that per se, but my point is perhaps the same as above….courts should take a minimalist approach.

18-year-olds are required by law to register for the selective service. They can enlist in the military, putting their lives on the line for our nation. If an 18 year-old commits any crime they are tried as an adult. They can get credit cards, yet they cannot legally consume alcohol until they are 21. Are there any instances where you would support reducing the drinking age to 18? (My personal bias: Any active-duty member of the armed services should be allowed to legally consume alcohol... after all, they're responsible enough to put their life on the line for our country... why should they be prohibited from drinking??)
I would likely support the drinking age be reduced to 18. This is a liberty issue, not that I hope more young people drink. I haven’t had a drink in 20 years.

Do you support gays serving openly in the military?

My gut reaction to this is no…but, I’m not sure it matters a great deal. My deference on this would be to the commanders in the field, not to politicians or even those who have spent most of their recent military duty in the Pentagon.

Do you support gay marriage, civil unions, or any variation thereof?

I don’t. However, I do believe there probably needs to be some sort of contract that people can undertake should they choose to live in a committed relationship. Frankly, I’d rather the state not be involved in marriage at all. I think that should be between a man, a woman and his or her church or other entity that would “sanction” their marriage. Keep in mind, society’s long-term benefit from marriage is pro-creation and raising children. It does take a man and a woman to procreate.

If you believe that the states not be involved in marriage at all, then is this a federal issue, or a private issue where the GOVERNMENT has no say? What is your take on a church that sanctions homosexual marriage?

My choice would be a private issue. I would not attend that church because I don’t believe it is a biblically based church.

So you believe that the government, at all levels, should be completely removed from the institution of marriage? Considering this a separate issue from our tax system, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you could get this done, but not tax reform… how would you handle such a situation?

Not sure what you are asking. If you are asking have I developed a plan for how we decouple government from marriage…no. I have plenty of opinions…that doesn’t mean I have personally developed a plan to implement them.
Your acknowledgement that you don’t have a detailed plan is a thoroughly sufficient response. It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that you don’t have all the answers.

What are your thoughts regarding limits in campaign contributions and/or restrictions on political advertising?

I don’t believe in any limitations of speech short of truly dangerous (yelling fire in a theater) utterances.

Doesn’t your position imply that the rich, by virtue of their ability to donate more money to their cause/candidate, have more” freedom of speech” than the poor?

Depends on how you define freedom. Anyone has the freedom to speak, not everyone has the forum to speak…that is the reality of life. I suspect someone with a pretty smile has more freedom of speech than I do because people want to be around the pretty girl. That is life.

Does this freedom of speech apply only to individuals, or does it apply to business as well?

Businesses are made up of individuals, so yes. Perhaps if this is detrimental to our country, this would be an area where an amendment to the 1st amendment would be appropriate. (I am not advocating that of course.) To have judges decide that this speech can be restricted, which they did prior to the recent case, was an affront to the first amendment.

Would this not, in effect, give higher-ups in a large corporation “two voices?” It seems to me that say, the CEO of GM, would be able to state his opinion as an individual, AND as the CEO of GM. Furthermore, a corporation is comprised of individuals, but a corporation is NOT a person. With this in mind, I’d like a bit more clarification.

I’ll stick with my answer above. Some have more capability, but that is different than freedom.

Interview with a Conservative

Last election cycle, an acquaintance of mine decided that he was tired of politics as usual, put his money where his mouth is, and ran for Iowa's 2nd District of the U.S. Congress. I followed him early on, and with great interest. While I didn't agree with everything he said, it seemed to me that he formed his political position through genuine thought, and he came to rational conclusions. Rob Gettemy didn't win the election, but he did provide a lot of good food for thought during his campaign. With this in mind, I asked Rob to do an interview; he graciously agreed, and during the process I came to the point where I could call him a friend. For those of us with short attention spans, I will break the interview into multiple parts.

---Interview with a Conservative, Part I---

What is your position on the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, how do you reconcile this position with your pro-life stance, considering that the crux of being pro-life is that all life is sacrosanct?
This is the toughest question I had to answer as a candidate for office. I support the death penalty, but cannot fully reconcile it with the idea of being anti-abortion. The fundamental difference though is the child is clearly innocent where as the death row inmate has been convicted of a heinous crime. I do think with advances in DNA technology, the level of proof for the death penalty should be elevated.

Studies have shown that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Ostensibly, this is because of the appeals process. Do you support abolishing the death penalty from a financial perspective?
No, I would not abolish it for financial reasons. Given I am for the level of proof being elevated, I’d like to see some reform in the number and length of appeals. If we fought crime purely on a financial basis, we’d not follow through on all sorts of punishment, not just the death penalty.

As I continue on this line of questioning, I want to state for the record that I am not against the death penalty. With that said though, the death penalty has not been proven as an effective deterrent in crime; it is more expensive than life in prison; there are documented cases of miscarriages of justice; many victims or families of victims do not get the expected sense of retribution when a death sentence is carried out. What is your justification for supporting the death penalty?
I don’t need to justify supporting the death penalty…I support it because I believe that the ultimate punishment should be available for heinous crimes. I don’t believe all studies say that there is no deterrent. As I tried to indicate earlier…this is a tough call, but I still come down on the side of supporting the ultimate punishment.

Your statement that there needs to be an ultimate punishment is justification enough. It is analogous to the premise of corporal punishment for children, or the justification for war between countries. None of these stances are universally agreed upon, but you have reached your conclusion based on rational thinking. I am curious though, what crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty?

Certainly capital murder would be in that category. Probably treason.

What is your position on our current drug policy?

I’m certainly not an expert on drug policy. It is not something I did a whole lot of research on as a candidate, because frankly, it was not a big issue in 2010. That said, I am not for legalization.

In that case, what’s your position on medicinal marijuana?

I don’t know enough about it. My gut feeling is that it gets abused based on some of the articles I’ve seen, but I haven’t done any real digging in this area.

Okay, but laws allowing Americans to marry immigrants are abused as well. Does the potential for abuse outweigh the potential benefits to such an extent that allowing medical marijuana isn’t even worth trying?

I didn’t say it wasn’t worth trying…I just don’t have the expertise to say it is necessary. I’m sure you can find studies that say it is and others that say it is not. As I’ve tried to say earlier, I have never done any serious research in this area as it is not high on my list of concerns.

Had you been elected, your job would have been to represent those who put you in office. What would you have done if your constituency clearly and overwhelmingly wanted something that you didn’t support?

That is likely to happen from time to time. We are a representative republic for a reason…the founders knew that a true democracy is not a practical form of government. There are times when politicians must go against the current popular opinion of their constituents. Some examples might include slavery (it violated basic tenants of our constitution), civil rights (same thing) and I’m sure there are others. However, if you simply voted the will of the people, we’d be in and out of wars. You may recall that at one point something like 70% of the population approved of the Iraq war. At other times, it was in the low 30’s. You simply cannot fight a war based on public opinion. I would say that the Democrats passing Obamacare is a clear example of what you are asking about. I do think it was a mistake to go against the will of the people in that case. It was not one of basic human or constitutional rights, nor was it war.

You mentioned on your web site that congress should spend as much time repealing laws as they do passing laws. Please provide examples of laws that should be repealed? Do you support sunset clauses in legislation to ensure that future laws remain relevant to our future society?

I don’t have a strong opinion on sunset clauses. As far as repeal, I would roll back many of the regulations, much of the tax code (70some thousand pages), the new health care law, laws that tell me what kind of toilet or light bulb I can have in my house etc. Nationwide, there were over 30,000 new laws passed last year. I suspect the majority of them do not expand liberty, but many in fact reduce liberty.

Don’t drug laws, prostitution laws and gambling laws restrict personal liberty?

Good question…I would say they do. In our society, we need to decide what level of infringement we are willing to tolerate. I believe we need to error on the side of very little tolerance on liberty infringement. I’d rather see no drugs, no casinos, no prostitution. But, perhaps I’m being too intolerant for some. I think the argument for laws prohibiting drugs is that it affects others…but, I understand that same argument could be made for alcohol. Overall, I’d error on the side of freedom.
I think one of our fundamental problems when it comes to freedoms [is that] we only fight for those freedoms that matter to us. When our politician is in charge and is restricting freedoms we don’t care about, or maybe even agree should be limited, we forget that eventually they will get to a freedom we do care about and no-one will be there to fight for us.
I realize…just like with the death penalty case, I cannot fully reconcile this answer!

Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that we (as a society) have already decided that a high level of infringement is acceptable? You say,
“When our politician is in charge and is restricting freedoms we don’t care about, or maybe even agree should be limited, we forget that eventually they will get to a freedom we do care about and no-one will be there to fight for us.” Isn’t that a slippery slope argument?
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I think this is a very slippery slope (emphasis Rob’s).
That is why we need to hold both politicians we agree with and those we disagree with accountable. Most people don’t do that. If it is their guy or gal, they look the other way. I was guilty of that myself for a long time…but no more!

Do you support term limits? If not, then how do you reconcile the fact that the President has term limits, but Congress does not?

I did not run on term limits, but would have likely supported it had it come up if I were in congress. That said, I do believe voters have to take responsibility to elect good representatives. As a society, we have outsourced way too much of our lives to government, yet they are less able to make good decisions than individuals are. We’ve outsourced education, most of healthcare and many other basic functions. It is time we take control of those items as individuals. Take a look at education and healthcare…we are told by government that these areas are in crisis and inflation is out of control. These are two areas where government involvement and funding has skyrocketed.

You mention God repeatedly on your web site. How do you resolve your faith with the separation of church and state?

I don’t believe my website mentioned God hardly at all. That said, my faith is important to me. I don’t believe the constitution called for Separation of Church and State at all, it said the government cannot establish a state religion. Even if you subscribe to the notion of “separation”, it is clear that your question does not understand how our founders viewed state and religion. They clearly were guided by faith in the founding of the country and make it clear in many of our founding documents and their early public proclamations.

...Tune in tomorrow for Interview with a Conservative, Part II

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Cutting the Cord

I'm ready to ditch Cable TV. That's right, I'm ready to give up a couple of my favorite shows -- Boardwalk Empire and Sons of Anarchy -- and test the uncharted waters of Internet TV. I've been thinking about this for several months, and have talked to the family about it a couple of times recently. They seem hesitantly open to the idea. They are concerned that they'll have to give up a couple of their favorite shows. But I've got a plan that's elegant in its simplicity.

Over the next couple of months, I hope to build a solid, yet cost-effective PC. For good-quality streaming video, a high-quality video card is the most essential piece. I want a card that has HDMI out, and I will need surround sound audio to feed through the HDMI cable. Not a tall order.

After building the PC, I will do a trial run without Cable TV. I will keep the cable service, but it won't be connected. Instead, we will get our entertainment through a combination of our existing Netflix service, and the computer. I figure if we can get through a month without cable, we will cut the cord for good. I hope to implement this test within the next three to four months.

Am I the only one who's ready to ditch cable?

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Liberal Pantywaists!

I read a news article this morning, which stated that the Navy is going to probe a "lewd video," made in the 2006-2007 time frame, apparently on board the USS Enterprise, and that the Executive Officer (XO) at the time, Capt. Owen Honors, appeared in this video. It seems that people were offended that Owens "broadcast to his crew a series of profanity-laced comedy sketches in which he uses gay slurs, mimics masturbation and opens the shower curtain on women pretending to bathe together."

All I've got to say is people, get over yourselves! Look, the military is not a daycare center, a group therapy session, or a church. Joining the armed forces places you in an occupation where you're in harm's way, and a place where macho bravado is the norm. It is not a "safe place." Being overly sensitive and cautious could cost lives... not just yours, but the lives of your fellow service members.

Furthermore, with the military generally being a high-stress environment, the ability to relieve stress, and an unbreakable sense of camaraderie are essential to the well-being of our military personnel. A bawdy, slightly irreverent mentality seems to accompany the people that are drawn to the military. While it is reasonable to expect a high degree of professionalism and a clean-cut demeanor in public, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should be allowed to cut loose in the privacy of their own homes. And what this article discusses is an officer addressing his fellow shipmates in their own language, in their own home. Because yes, a ship is a sailor's home.

This article, and the story behind it, is just another example of a dual mentality on the part of some liberals. What made America great is its unique ability to allow freedom of speech. The Constitution gives us the right to pursue happiness. The First Amendment gives us freedom of speech. There is no right to "not being offended." So, for those liberal pantywaists out there who seem to think that only touchy-feely, kumbaya-singing, politically correct speech is acceptable, all I can say is this...

Shut up and accept the fact that freedom of speech applies to everyone, which means that you WILL NOT go through life without hearing something that offends you. Let our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines speak their minds sometimes -- especially in the privacy of their own homes! After all, they are the ones defending YOUR right to bitch about how offensive you find their words.

---A Little Follow-Up---

After writing the article, I searched and found what appears to be the original video. If you're interested in seeing what all the hubbub is about, here's a link. The actual video is at the bottom of the article, and it's about 12 minutes long.

I watched the video, and it's really tame. He makes liberal use of the word 'fag," and drops a lot of f-bombs. Big whoop! He also says clearly and repeatedly, that if you are easily offended that you should not watch the video. If you ARE easily offended, and still chose to watch the video, then you've only got yourself to blame, so f*ck you, f@g!

Author's Disclaimer: For the record, I've got no problem with homosexuals, intercourse, or even homosexuals having intercourse.