October 2, 2022

A Nun Walks Into a Bar…….

A nun, badly needing to use to the restroom, walked into a local Hooters. The place was hopping with music and loud conversation and every once in a while ‘the lights would turn off.’

Each time the lights would go out, the place would erupt into cheers.

However, when the revelers saw the nun, the room went dead silent. She walked up to the bartender, and asked, ‘May I please use the restroom?

The bartender replied, ‘OK, but I should warn you that there is a statue of a naked man in there wearing only a fig leaf.’

‘Well, in that case, I’ll just look the other way,’ said the nun. So the bartender showed the nun to the back of the restaurant.

After a few minutes, she came back out, and the whole place stopped just long enough to give the nun a loud round of applause.

She went to the bartender and said, ‘Sir, I don’t understand. Why did they applaud for me just because I went to the restroom?’

‘Well, now they know you’re one of us,’ said the bartender, ‘Would you like a drink?’

‘No thank you, but, I still don’t understand,’ said the puzzled nun.

‘You see,’ laughed the bartender, ‘every time someone lifts the fig leaf on that statue, the lights go out.

Now, how about that drink?


Comedians on Obama

I guess they say that the honeymoon must be over when the comedians begin telling that jokes about presidents that most presidents don’t want to hear. I think it is safe to say that some in America are falling out of love with Barack Obama.

Below are a few jokes, supposedly told by the comedians with whom each of the jokes are accredited to. I have not verified this to be factual. Either way, the jokes are laughable and tell a bigger story I think.


The liberals are asking us to give Obama time. We agree…and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
–Jay Leno

America needs Obama-care like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
–Jay Leno

Q: Have you heard about McDonald’s’ new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
–Conan O’Brien

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
–Jay Leno

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers, and threats to society. The other is for housing prisoners.
–David Letterman

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it
started to sink, who would be saved?
A: America !
–Jimmy Fallon

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.
–Jimmy Kimmel

Q: What was the most positive result of the “Cash for Clunkers” program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper stickers off the road.
–David Letterman


Montana Governor Bullock’s Plan to Eliminate Archery Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – This information came to me via Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association I had nothing to do with it’s “craftiness.”

Hunters Outraged over Governor’s Plan to Eliminate Archery Hunting
April 1, 2013

HELENA, MONT. Speaking on behalf of Montana hunters, the Montana Shooting Sports Association expressed its outrage over plans just disclosed by Montana Governor Steve Bullock to eliminate archery hunting for big game in Montana. According to the Governor’s strategy, if he can’t get the Legislature to pass a bill eliminating archery hunting altogether, he will administratively direct the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to adjust the duration of archery season to only one minute for one day of the year.

Commenting from the Governor’s Office, Bullock declared, “It is already established public policy that silent hunting is unacceptable because it creates insurmountable enforcement problems. In order to be consistent, I felt it necessary to extend that policy to archery, and I do want public policy to be consistent. Clearly, silent hunting make it harder to enforce hunting rules. I do not see the need for silent weapons for hunting. I believe most Montanans would agree,” Bullock wrote.

As an alternative to an outright ban on archery hunting, Bullock is proposing a bill that would overcome the enforcement deficit associated with silent hunting. The bill would require all hunters to remove the mufflers from their hunting vehicles whenever a hunter is on a hunting trip, would require archery hunters to blow a blast on a canned air horn each time they release an arrow, and would require poachers to notify FWP 24 hours in advance of any intent to poach game animals in Montana.

“These policies should help FWP enforcement personnel do their job of protecting the precious wildlife resource for the Montana public,” Bullock continued.

Commenting from the University of Montana School of Law, Professor Justus Marshal took exception to the Governor’s plan. “While eliminating silent hunting may be good public policy, requiring would-be criminals to announce their crimes to authorities in advance, or by noisemaking, will clearly violate their constitutionally-protected freedom from self-incrimination. Therefore, this proposed new law, even as it relates to mandated noise-making, cannot be applied to poachers, but only to those who have no intent to break the law. Conversely, nobody who fails to comply with the proposed law can be prosecuted for failing to incriminate himself.”

In a prepared statement on the proposed archery termination plan and the alternate bill, MSSA observed, “The Governor appears to be making a lot of noise about making noise. We’d prefer him to make sense. If Bullock’s goal is for Montana archery hunters to make noise, we think he will accomplish that, politically speaking at least.”


(Draft Governor’s Bill)



WHEREAS, section 87-3-123, MCA, currently prohibits the possession of sound reduction devices on firearms in the field or forest or while hunting; and

WHEREAS, section 87-3-123, MCA, does not go far enough; and

WHEREAS, landowners have a right to know when any person is on or near the landowner’s land;

WHEREAS, persons who might trespass onto a landowners land must be required to make sufficient noise at all times that their locations may be readily ascertained;

WHEREAS, fair chase means that hunted animals have a right to be able to hear a hunter coming; and

WHEREAS, enforcement authorities have the right to be able to easily detect violators.


NEW SECTION. Section 1. Vehicle mufflers illegal. Every person who purchases and holds a Montana conservation license is prohibited from using any type of muffler or sound suppression device on any motor vehicle operated by that person during the full duration of any regular or special hunting season. This prohibition applies throughout the hunting season whether the license holder is actively hunting or not.

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Sound alarm for archery hunting. Every person who purchases or holds a license to hunt any game animal with archery equipment must at all times possess an air horn operated by compressed gas capable of emitting a sound of 150 decibels or more. During the period for which archery equipment is allowed for hunting, every person releasing an arrow from a bow must also release at least a one-second sound from the compressed gas air horn within ten seconds of releasing any arrow.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Hunter bells required. Every hunter must wear on or about his person a bell or similar device which will emit a ringing sound of a minimum of 60 decibels upon every step the hunter takes with his right foot, including a prosthetic foot.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Poaching advanced notification required. Any person intending to hunt illegally without the sound-producing devices required by [sections 1 through 3] must notify the department a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the intended activity, and the location of the intended activity to the nearest quarter section. Any such person must also wear a blinking light while hunting illegally, such light to be readily identifiable by a department warden.

NEW SECTION. Section 5. No defense; no damages. It is no defense against prosecution under [Sections 1 through 3] that a person has, has had, or may incur hearing damage because of sound levels allowed or required. No person may claim damages because of the sounds imposed under [Sections 1 through 3].

NEW SECTION. Section 6. Nuisance complaints not allowed. No person may make a nuisance complaint to any public authority and no public authority may act on any nuisance complaint because of sounds generated as a result of [Sections 1 through 3].

NEW SECTION, Section 7. Controlling law. [Sections 1 through 3] prevail over any other statute that may require people or motor vehicles to be kept quiet.

NEW SECTION. Section 8. Penalty. Any person convicted of having violated any of [Sections 1 through 3] is guilty of a felony and may be fined not to exceed $250,000 and imprisoned in the state prison for a term not to exceed 100 years, or both.

NEW SECTION. Section 9. Effect of vote. Any legislator who votes in favor of this bill is deemed to have provided sufficient reason for reelection, is deemed to have been reelected, and may not be required to actually stand for election in order to serve another term in the Montana Legislature, any other laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

NEW SECTION. Section 10. Clarification of intent. Any person who fails to understand the dire need for this legislation is referred to http://www.theonion.com/.


I Ate My Dog For Homework

Two things in play in our society today and one of them dominates all others. The second issue is that our society struggles to laugh at themselves and find humor in things where humor is intended to be found. The first and most dominant point of departure is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truth setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington