Weaker in Review 6-6-17


Random Oddservations   We have gone from a society that  (with our vehicles) values saving gas and being slow and reasonable, to one that races away in luxurious splendor.  Even Cadillac has changed their image from an “old fogies’” car to the latest flashiest millennial hot rod.

Weaker in Review

Books and websites you need to avoid:  One physicists journey from evolutionist to creationist.  http://www.revealedtruth.com/

Rock-It™  Gentle Giant   Few albums and very distinctive music.

The Correct Side of the Story

Weaker in Review 6-2-217

Random Oddservations™  The weirdo’s are getting weirder!

Weaker in Review

  • I want gopher rights!!! In the state of Washington if inspectors determine gophers could be present on a landowner’s property, the landowner is then required to take significant steps to protect the gophers from any potential harm.“In one case, because inspectors discovered a single mound of dirt indicating the possible presence of gophers on an eight-acre parcel of land during a site review, Steve and Deborah McLain have been unable to get a permit to build a home on their property for more than a year, despite offering to cede the acre surrounding the mound as protected gopher habitat,” McGrady reported.  The tax, which would be about $42,000 per property, would reportedly be used to help build protected habitat for gophers in other parts of the county. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/28/environmental-insanity-in-washington-state-gophers-are-more-important-than-people/


Web site to avoid:  http://www.sound-doctrine.net/

Rock-It™  Weather Report  especially the album “Heavy Weather”

The Correct Side of the Story

Weaker In Review 5-25-17


Random Oddservations™  I have gotten 3 SynVisc injections in my right knee  for pain from a half kneecap as the edge is rough and causes irritation to the muscles and cartilage.  No problem, works with no pain (injection hurts worse than a cortisone injection) for 9-12 months.  Much better than a cortisone injection every other month.  Now, the insurance companies have to review the case and it takes 3-6 months to get an injection approved.  Thank you UnAffordable Careless Act.

Weaker in Review

Don’t want to get into that this time.

Books You Should Not Read or Websites You Should Not Go To:  Why Is a Fly Not a Horse? by Giuseppe Sermonti; Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2005.   And don’t check out www.darwinanddesign.com   You will discover how  and why the problems with Darwinian theory should be taught as part of the science class room.

Rock-It™   AC-DC  They had at least two hits on each album.  Definitely different type of songs also, I think my favorite is “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.”

The Correct Side of the Story

Weaker In Review 5-17-2017

Random Oddservations™  Life is always the same.

Weaker in Review

  • The revelation that the Democratic Party is fine with rigging elections, and has no qualms about lying to its members and pretending to be neutral, is certainly interesting news. However, many in the media apparently do not want anyone to pay too much attention to this.  https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/media-blacks-coverage-suit-dnc/

  • Trump, so far, is leaving key management positions unfilled, said Mallory Barg Bulman, vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service, the parent organization to the Center for Presidential Transition. Check out how he compares with the 4 previous Presidents:  http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/12/333351/

 Books and websites you need to avoid: 

http://www.tektonics.org/programhub.php  Start there and open a Christian resource that covers virtually everything. Over the years we have collected literally reams of information in defense of the Christian faith. In that time we have dealt with, and made use of, numerous sources informing of the social, literary, and other background of the NT world. Now the time has come to piece together some of these in a general defense of the faith.  http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.php

Rock-It™  Haim.  After two years, the three sisters have returned with another incredible album.  The bass player still makes weird faces but at least she is not wearing that hideous red lipstick anymore.  They show an amazing amount of talent in blending their voices during the songs to highlight various phrases and their ability to play multiple instruments is fantastic.  They are good.

The Correct Side of the Story

  • The new Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is not very popular with the left these days. So aggrieved are the proponents of government-knows-best policies that they have taken to lambasting him on late-night talk shows, mean tweets, and even staged a “vigil to save the internet” outside his home on Mother’s Day.  Listen to a video about what he proposes:  http://dailysignal.com/2017/05/16/left-is-beside-itself-over-plans-to-roll-back-obama-internet-regulations/
  • Parents, taxpayers, and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil, and lawlessness that have become features of many of today’s institutions of higher learning. As for the term “institutions of higher learning,” we might start asking: Higher than what?  Clemson University’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who’s paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.  And that is just one of the many examples given at:


Jeff Bezos

From: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/170313

One of the Washington Post’s big disclosures on Sunday was a front-page story about President Donald Trump’s choice of a cemetery. It was the latest contribution from reporter David A. Fahrenthold, whose job it is to probe every aspect of the life of the new President, no matter how esoteric or trivial. On the other hand, when it comes to covering the paper’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and his ties to the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA), the paper is AWOL.

Bezos is known for Amazon.com, the world’s largest online shopping retailer, and said at the time he purchased the paper for $250 million in 2013, “The Post has the good fortune of being the newspaper of the capital city of the United States of America. That’s a great starting point to being a national and even global publication.”

During and after the 2016 presidential campaign and election, writes Cheryl K. Chumley of the Washington Times, a competitor, Bezos decided to “sic his Post team on Mr. Trump.” This is evident in the paper’s obsessive focus on Trump as an alleged Russian agent of influence, a charge also peddled by the U.S. intelligence community. She notes the CIA’s “shady background with media infiltration,” as well as the “present-day tight, multimillion dollar relations” between the Post (via Bezos) and the CIA.

This untold story involves an important global aspect of Bezos’ secretive Amazon Web Services (AWS), which specializes in cloud-computing systems for storage. It advertises its wares to the federal government by saying, “Our cloud services can be employed to meet mandates, reduce costs, drive efficiencies, and increase innovation across Civilian agencies and the Department of Defense.”

In 2015, Amazon reached $100 billion in annual sales, while AWS reached $10 billion in annual sales, according to Bezos’ letter to stockholders.

It appears that much of the growth for AWS has come because of relationships with the intelligence community.

Post reporter Amrita Jayakumar wrote a story published on April 23, 2015, mentioning that Amazon Web Services “is widely known for providing computing power to start-ups and companies such as Netflix and Airbnb, and media organizations, including the Washington Post.” The next to the last paragraph of the story noted, “The company also won a $600 million contract to design a private cloud for the CIA, and prevailed against a bid protest, cementing its status as a trusted vendor, analysts said.”

This is journalistic jargon designed to conceal the fact that Amazon’s bid was $54 million higher than IBM’s. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), which reviews contract-bidding processes at government agencies, looked into the matter and urged the CIA to re-open the bids. IBM eventually gave up the fight.

After the CIA began using Amazon cloud services, it was announced that the NSA was moving some of its IT infrastructure to AWS.

But how secure are these cloud networks?

At a conference in 2015, representatives of the CIA and NSA were said to be confident and happy with Amazon’s cloud services. “Intelligence community loves its new Amazon cloud” was the headline over a Fortune story by Barb Darrow on June 29, 2015. Amazon senior vice president of web services Andy Jassy said that security-conscious companies would use the same kind of services because they figured that “if the security and performance is good [enough] for the CIA, then it’s probably good enough for us.”

Now, that security is being questioned. The highly classified CIA documents released by WikiLeaks originated from an “isolated, high-security network” at the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia. The leaks involve tools that the CIA can reportedly use to hack smartphones, apps and other gadgets for surveillance. The hacking tools can be used against terrorists and other foreign enemies and adversaries. But the purpose of the leak from WikiLeaks, a known conduit for Russia, is to create the impression that the hacking tools are being used on ordinary Americans.

An AP story carried by the Post said that “It was not immediately clear how WikiLeaks obtained the information,” but that it could have come from a rogue employee, a federal contractor or penetration of a staging server where such information might have been temporarily stored. A staging server can be in a cloud.

Don’t look for the Post to investigate the source of the leaks. After all, it is dependent on similar leaks for stories damaging to the Trump administration.

But wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that one of Amazon’s cloud services had been penetrated by the Russians or their agents? It would mean that the paper is attacking Trump for ties to the Russians when Amazon Web Services was aiding them.

The Post is so bad on reporting on the CIA – in contrast to using information supplied by the CIA – that on February 20 it published an article from a former agency official who took a shot at President Trump without disclosing his own partisan connections. “I didn’t think I’d ever leave the CIA. But because of Trump, I quit,” was the headline, with the author’s bio as the following: “Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council.”

“Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency,” Price said. He added that he intended to pursue a career there. “That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.”

The allegations were picked up by many other media organs. “Veteran CIA Analyst Quits Agency Over Trump’s Intel Moves, Criticism” was an NBC headline. “CIA analyst quits over Trump disregard for intelligence” was the MSNBC headline. Mediaite ran with “Former National Security Council Spox Writes Op-Ed to Explain How Trump Led Him to Quit CIA.” Real Clear Politics proclaimed, “Former CIA Analyst Edward Price: I Left the CIA Because Of Trump.”

But his alleged bipartisan credentials were a lie. This “professional” had been acting in an unprofessional manner.

The Post was forced to add a clarification which said, “This column should have included a disclosure of donations made by author Edward Price in support of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. In August, Price gave a total of $5,000 to the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.”

It apparently didn’t occur to anyone at the Post to question this former CIA official’s credentials before running his misleading piece.

If the standards are this low for an op-ed contributor to the Washington Post, you can imagine that the owner’s relationship with the CIA will be treated in strictest confidence and never questioned.

The investigative engines of the paper were revved up to cover his purchase of the biggest house in Washington, D.C. Digging through real estate records, the paper determined that Bezos bought the house through a front company for $23 million in cash. The buyer of the house was identified as “Cherry Revocable Trust.” The Post unleashed its investigative reporters and revealed that Bezos was the purchaser.

The Bezos house is located in the Kalorama neighborhood, one of the most expensive, where the Obamas live. Just a coincidence, we’re sure.

Welcome Illegal Immigrants

President Donald Trump needs to score a “big hit” on the one issue that helped catapult him into the White House, and he needs it soon, say some of his staunchest supporters.

After more than 50 days in office, Trump has struggled to hit a “home-run” on immigration, the kind that would solidify his base and send a message to his enemies.

And it would seem that sanctuary cities would be a good place to start.

Why not defund them, like yesterday? That’s the question from Ann Corcoran, editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch.

“Instead, Congress is entangled in one major mess over Obamacare. And, frankly, although important, repeal of Obamacare did not motivate voters to support Trump in the way immigration restriction did,” said Corcoran.

There are at least 300 sanctuary cities and counties, and one new study puts the number at closer to 500.

Steve Salvi, founder of Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC, has been tracking sanctuary cities for 10 years. He says at least 40 cities and counties have declared themselves sanctuaries since Trump issued his executive order Jan. 27.

“The trend is, I think, until he actually starts putting the squeeze to them, I suspect I’ll be adding more to the list every week,” Salvi told Lifezette. “The bigger cities are doubling down, and it’s really become a hot political issue. It’s really about the next election.”

But Salvi uses a different set of criteria to define a sanctuary city from that used by the Center for Immigration Studies, which stands by its late 2016 estimate of 300.

While some jurisdictions have become sanctuaries, others such as Miami-Dade County have dropped out of that dubious club, says Jessica Vaughan, director of policy for CIS.

But regardless of the number, nobody is suggesting that large numbers of sanctuary cities are backing down.

And Trump has had a shockingly low level of support from the Republican Congress on immigration issues since assuming office on Jan. 20.

Daniel Horowitz, senior editor of Conservative Review, writes: “Look at the House GOP’s agenda since January. It has been devoid of any substance. What other majority party with control of the White House has failed to act on a single significant issue in its first 100 days? Why are they not passing bills defending Trump’s executive order, and why are they not stripping the courts of jurisdiction over immigration?”

Vaughan said Trump could score big with a punch at sanctuary cities. The way to do it is to hit them in the pocketbook, cutting grants to police departments. The sooner this happens, the better, she said, although new Attorney General Jeff Sessions is still assembling his team at the Department of Justice.

“I do hope DOJ follows through and starts blocking some of these law enforcement grants because until they do these big jurisdictions are going to keep doubling down on their sanctuary policies,” Vaughan told WND. “They will not stop until somebody loses funding and then they will come around. They also could be sued in federal court. That’s a fight we should be having.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/sanctuary-cities-waging-jihad-against-immigration-enforcement/#ib6KXjxpXiYmYR7e.99

And from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/14/number-sanctuary-cities-nears-500-report/

Nearly 500 jurisdictions are now sanctuary cities, according to a group that’s tracked the issue for more than a decade, and who said there’s been a massive surge in the number of places trying to thwart federal immigration agents since President Trump’s election.

The Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee has added more than three dozen new cities and counties to its list in 2017 alone, as jurisdictions rush to try to shield illegal immigrants from what they expect to be a new push for deportations under Mr. Trump.

“More will be coming,” said Steve Salvi, founder of OJJ. “A lot of communities now, there’s resolutions in the works and citizens groups encouraging city councils to pass them.”

Perhaps just as surprising, though, are the four cities OJJ has removed from its list or is poised to remove, once it gets final confirmation of cooperation with Homeland Security officials. Two of those are in Alaska, while the other two are Dayton, Ohio, and Miami, Florida.

Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez announced in January that county jails would begin cooperating with federal agents on deportations, just a day after Mr. Trump issued an executive order calling for sanctuary cities to lose federal grant funding.

Mr. Salvi said he’s waiting to see what Miami does to follow through before erasing them from his list.

I want to see statistics and numbers,” he said.

Asked about the growing list of sanctuaries, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Mr. Trump stands by his promise to deny taxpayer money to those cities and counties.

But he said it’s probably going to be up to local voters to force changes on their city and county politicians.

“At the end of the day, this is a question for mayors and council members at the local level who have to answer to the people that elected them with clearly a position that is not in keeping with what most Americans believe,” Mr. Spicer said.

The OJJ list is longer than several others than also track sanctuaries, and a number of counties and cities on the list dispute being included.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handled deportations, says 279 municipalities refused to cooperate on at least one case in fiscal year 2016.

All told, those sanctuaries released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets that ICE agents had been trying to deport.

I don’t want to pay for your sex life

If your sex life is none of my business, stop demanding that I finance it

A lot of people have been offering their, um, feedback, to a couple of things I tweeted over the past week or so. And when I say “feedback” I mean that an angry mob numbering in the thousands descended upon my social media feeds and email inbox like rabid hyenas, eager to inform me that I’m awful, evil, ugly, fat, old, stupid, [expletive], [expletive], [expletive] [expletive] [expletive], etc., and because of this I should die, my wife should die, my children should die, everyone who has ever said a kind word to me should burn to death in a house fire, and my kids, who should already be dead, should also somehow become gay and transgender and pregnant so that karmic justice may be visited upon me, a bigot and a Nazi who is literally worse than a millions Hitlers combined.

Of the thousands of responses I received since Friday, easily 95 percent of them consisted of some combination of these. Because of my unspeakable tweets, I have been objectively described as an “anti-LGBTQ bigot” in the headlines of news articles. So far as I know, nobody who has written an article

matter-of-factly calling me a bigot took the time to reach out to me first, but I suppose if I’d followed the clearly outlined instructions of the leftist Tolerance Brigade, I should have killed myself by now anyway. I guess they assumed I wouldn’t be able to comment because I’d be too busy playing Backgammon with my friend Adolf in Hell.

I say all of this not to paint myself as a victim but to again drive home the point that the people who preach the loudest about “acceptance” and “tolerance” are often the least likely to demonstrate those qualities when the opportunity presents itself. I think this is an important point not because it exposes them as hypocrites — although it does that, for certain — but because it exposes “acceptance” and “tolerance” as faux virtues.

Nobody on Earth accepts and tolerates everything, nor should they. Things should only be accepted and tolerated if they are acceptable and tolerable. Liberals deny that any standard of acceptability and tolerability can be imposed, yet they have no problem ruthlessly imposing such standards themselves. So it isn’t that conservatives are less tolerant than liberals, it’s that we have different ideas about what is tolerable. Liberals clearly believe that my ideas and my very existence are intolerable, proving that they do not actually consider tolerance a universal principle. They’re right. It’s not.

With that established, I’d like to elaborate on the two horrible things I said on Twitter which caused such an absurd backlash.

First, provoking the ire of our nation’s feminists, I said this:

“If you actually cannot afford birth control then you are not nearly mature or responsible enough to be having sex in the first place.”

Second, unrelated and actually from a week before, in reference to the man who was just named spokesmodel for Maybelline but intended as a general comment about men who reject their masculine nature in order to appropriate femininity, I said this:

“Dads, this is why you need to be there to raise your sons.”

I already elaborated on that second point. I’ll have more to say about it later, but I’m going to start with the birth control topic. I should stipulate upfront and for the record that I issue no apology for either statement, neither am I interested in “explaining myself.” Myself is irrelevant. I’m not the topic here. I don’t really care if you think I’m a horrible person, but I do care about the issues at hand. If I’m given an opportunity to go further into depth about them, I will gladly take it.

So, birth control then. A few points:

1. If you aren’t prepared to deal with the natural consequences of sex, you should not be having sex.

I do wish I’d worded my birth control tweet differently, but not for the reason everyone thinks. My fear is that if you isolate that statement and don’t consider it within the larger context of the conversation about the supposed “right” to birth control (more on that in a moment), you might think I’m suggesting that birth control is a prerequisite to sexual activity. It may seem that I’m saying it’s inherently responsible to use birth control and only those who use it should have sex. The people who’ve been blowing up my inbox for the past 72 hours certainly did not interpret it that way — they were angry for quite a different reason — but I could see how someone might.

In truth, I believe that the responsible thing is to have sex only when you are open to the life it may create and in a position where that potential life will be afforded the stability and security it deserves. It is not easy to save sex for its proper context, which is marriage, and I’m not saying that everyone who fails in this regard is an evil scumbag, but it is nonetheless the right and proper way. The prerequisite for sex ought to be marriage. That’s not a statement of personal moral superiority — again, I’m not the topic, I don’t matter — but simply a statement of a moral and social reality.

One of the problems with birth control is that it separates and isolates the pleasure of the sexual act from its life giving potential. That has led to two giant misconceptions: 1) That it’s somehow a “mistake” when the natural consequences of the sexual act are fully realized. 2) That we all have the right to experience sex free from those natural consequences.

No such mistake exists. No such right exists. Sex, like anything else, has a nature and a purpose. We can attempt to manipulate its nature and suppress its purpose, but we cannot fundamentally change its nature and purpose. When we have sex, whether we are using contraception or not, we are doing something that by its very nature may create human life. Therefore, it stands to reason, we should only engage in it when we are prepared to fully embrace that nature. A person who acts shocked and appalled by the natural consequence of sex is like a person with a peanut allergy who acts shocked and appalled when he breaks into hives after consuming a PB&J. What did you think was going to happen? If you can’t handle peanut butter, don’t eat peanut butter. If you can’t handle a kid, don’t have sex. This is rather simple, I think. Not easy, no, but simple.

I realize the above analogy is flawed because nobody is actually allergic to kids (although all parents have moments when they strongly suspect otherwise). Maybe the better analogy would be to someone who eats peanut butter despite strongly disliking peanut butter, and then reacts with surprise and offense at the objectionable flavor he deliberately subjected his taste buds to. Or maybe there really isn’t any appropriate analogy to be drawn between sex and peanut butter. Well, you get my point anyway.

2. Stop whining about how “unaffordable” birth control is.

Now we get to the crux of my Hitler-esque tweet. We hear this constant moaning about how birth control is so very difficult to obtain and afford, and, the argument goes, this is why the government should provide it. I find it somewhat awkward to discuss this aspect of the birth control debate because I’m not actually interested in giving anyone advice on how to get birth control. As I’ve stated, I think you should just get married and have some kids and stop worrying about it. I have three of ’em myself. They’re not so bad, I promise.

But because this “unaffordable” myth is used to push government funding of contraception, I do think it needs to be addressed on its own merits. And that’s where I say you are clearly not mature enough or competent enough to have sex in the first place if you are the sort of person who wants contraception but cannot figure out how or where to get it. Condoms can be found everywhere and they’re dirt cheap. Generic birth control pills can run you 20 bucks a month or less. Then there are free birth control methods such as abstinence or Natural Family Planning. Can’t afford it? Sorry, I don’t buy it. And by “it” I mean your argument and your birth control.

Yes, there are more expensive methods. Maybe your insurance will cover those. Maybe it won’t. Either way, that’s not my concern as a taxpayer. Besides, saying “you can’t afford birth control” because you can’t afford the most expensive variety is like saying you can’t afford a TV because you can’t afford a 60 inch smart LED. You may not be able to afford the exact TV you want, but you can probably afford a lesser model. And if you really can’t afford any at all, you’ll live. People survive without TVs. People survive without birth control.

Yes, there are people who use the Pill for reasons separate from preventing birth. I’m not talking about those cases. We are discussing birth control. If you are on some program of hormonal treatment for, say, endometriosis, then you are taking medication for a physical disorder. If you’re taking birth control exclusively for a reason that does not include contraception, then you are not really taking birth control. You may be taking a substance that can also be used as birth control, but for you it is actual medicine for a legitimate medical issue. So when I speak of birth control I speak only of the cases where it’s used primarily or exclusively to prevent the birth of a child (which is about 86 percent of cases, according to a hard left advocacy group). If you are using such a method but not for such a purpose, then I would submit that you are not using birth control at all. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to compare you to a heroin junkie just because your doctor prescribed you OxyContin. Although, even here, I don’t think the government should pay for it. A lot of women have told me that they take birth control to regulate their periods. Well, frankly, that’s not my responsibility to finance either. But it’s a separate discussion.

Those cases aside, birth control — that is, contraception intended to contravene in the sexual act — is not necessarily expensive nor is it difficult to come by. I could find contraception at Walgreens for less than the cost of a Mountain Dew if I wanted to. I don’t want to, but I could. It strikes me that so many young, college educated women act as though they are utterly powerless to control whether a human is conceived in their womb unless the government subsidizes their contraception. If they are in fact so confused and incompetent, sex should be the last thing on their agenda. Perhaps they should learn to be functional adults before they hop in bed with anyone. Maybe consult a life coach or a financial planner? I don’t know. Please just talk to someone.

3. If your sex life is none of my business, stop asking me to finance it.

You’ll notice that the modern liberal spends all day shoving her sex life in your face, demanding that you accept it, celebrate it, fund it, but then when you refuse on any of those fronts, she immediately shrieks that you should “mind your business” and “stay out of her bedroom,” etc. Well, we would love nothing more than to mind our business, but you have made that impossible by defining “minding one’s business” as “the act of financing the sexual exploits of complete strangers.”

Liberals insist that contraception be provided to them dozens of different ways — through federal mandates, at schools, at free clinics, so on and so on — and if they fail to take advantage of these entitlements, abortion clinics must be maintained with tax money as an Option B. They want us to subsidize the drugs that make it possible for them to have frivolous sex, and subsidize the institutions that violently destroy the children that may still be conceived as a consequence of that frivolous sex. They want us intimately involved, it seems, every step of the way. The only thing they haven’t asked us to do is foot the bill for the lingerie and the motel room.

That was a crude and gross joke, they’ll tell me. Well this is a crude and gross situation. It’s crude and gross that they make their personal contraceptive methods into a matter of public concern even as they say it’s nobody’s concern but their own. Liberals are right now in a state of panic that the contraception mandate and Planned Parenthood funding may go away at once. If they weren’t shameless hypocrites, they’d be rejoicing. Freedom, finally! They want us out of the way, out of their bedrooms, their sex lives, their bodies, yet they’re sent into an apocalyptic panic at the thought that they just may get their wish. Might that indicate that it was never really their wish at all?

I would love nothing more than for their sex lives to truly be none of my business. But as long as you’re using my money, it will be my business how it’s spent. Don’t like it? Then get your hand out of my wallet and take charge of your own affairs. You’ll be better off, trust me. We all will.