Attack of the killer boobs

You can never be too careful.
America is by excellence a weapons’ paradise and it is eagerly vying for the world’s record of yearly homicides.
According to the FBI, in 2008 14,180 people were murdered in America. The size of a small town. In 2012, I am pretty sure that this number was significantly higher.

The Land of the Free is awash in weapons and it is rather easy for evildoers to dispatch somebody expeditiously.
The problem facing criminals though is that the murder weapon can be found and traced back to them. Well, there is a way around this.

In the past, people have been killed with a great variety of weapons: firearms, swords, arrows, poisoned darts, etc. but a Washington woman has so far perpetrated the most innovative homicide.
She used her giant breasts to suffocate and kill her boyfriend.


This is a devilishly clever Modus Operandi.
Her DNA might show on the victim’s face, but so what?
Just a sex game gone bad, and there are no laws against it.

So, philanderers beware. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and murder by breasts might be a novel way of beating the system.
That big-chested woman sitting at the end of the bar might not be as innocent as she looks. Unbeknownst to you, she might be a trained assassin commissioned by your ex to do away with you; she is carrying a concealed weapon and doesn’t need a gun permit.

Read in the London Daily Mail:

In November, German lawyer Tim Schmidt claimed his girlfriend tried to smother him with her 38DD breasts. Schmidt said she pretended it was a sex game, the Daily Mail reported. “I asked her why she wanted to smother me to death with her breasts and she told me: “Treasure – I wanted your death to be as pleasurable as possible” he said.

So my fellow Americans, before tangling with giant mammaries, be aware of the inherent risks of a loaded weapon.
An alluring cleavage might be fascinating, but could also be fraught with hidden perils.





When I was a kid, every morning upon entering the schoolyard I shook hands with all my friends.
We also pressed the flesh in the evening, when saying goodbye.
This is an immemorial European ritual that I still miss in informal America.
In the US, after the initial squeeze, don’t expect any more skin games from anybody.
Hi, how are you doing?
This is all you are going to get from now on. A pity.

IMG_7912 - Version 2

A handshake generally gives you an idea of the nature of the person you are meeting. The handshake can be pleasant or awkward.
To be frank, I will immediately like or dislike a person based on their handshake. It’s as simple as that.

I like a firm, palm-to-palm squeeze. Not too firm, not too soft… Just in between. I don’t want to feel intimidated by a steely grip… nor do I want to experience the awkwardness of a limp shake.
I want to feel, when shaking hand with somebody, that we are establishing a feeling of mutual trust. This is a person I can do business with…
A handshake therefore will generate positive energy or a feeling of uneasiness.

I highly dislike the handshake that briefly imprisons the tip of your fingers and releases them before you can squeeze back. The message here is clear: on my terms only. We will play this game by my rules. Period.
As far as I am concerned, I cannot play any game by unilateral rules. I need to be consulted first.

There is also the “keep at bay” handshake, mainly practiced by women meeting men.
The woman fully extends her arm to prevent the man from coming too near. That’s close enough bucko! This is a strictly a business meeting.
Besides, I want you to know right away that I will wash my hair tonight.

There is the “so sorry to see you go” handshake. Your interlocutor refuses to relinquish your digits. Always annoying and embarrassing… what is he (or she) thinking?

There is the “pumping handshake”. The man (generally it’s a man) shakes and pumps your hand for a few minutes. Here is a man who is not reading you properly and hopes to compensate the weakness of his arguments by a forceful physical demonstration.
Shake, shake. Pump, pump. Shake, shake.
Let go my hand you fool!

The initial handshake is important because it will determine how the rest of the ensuing meeting or relationship will go.
Depending on your squeezing skills, the evening will end with a bang or a whimper.

So, when shaking hands with somebody for the first time, keep in mind that this is a make or break deal and don’t mess it up.



Second Amendment

When somebody in America has the temerity to allude to “gun control”, gun fanatics immediately rise and brandish (like a crucifix) the sacrosanct Second Amendment. Vade Retro Satana they shriek.

They quote the Second Amendment (mainly the part “the right to bear arms”), but I bet that few among the gun-toting crowds know its origins or would be able to quote it verbatim.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment was adopted by Congress (along with the Bill of Rights) on December 15, 1791, a few years after the American War of Independence.

The American Bill of Rights has its roots in the English Civil War of 1642-1651.
It was a time of turmoil when Catholics and Protestants were at each other’s throat.
To summarize this complicated conflict, Catholic King James II (who reigned from 1685 to 1688) attempted to disarm his enemies, the Protestants.
James II was eventually overthrown and Protestant monarchs William III and Mary II decided to abide by the conditions specified in the English Bill of Rights.

Among other things, the Bill read:

“That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

“In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that King James II briefly and unlawfully had removed.”

So originally, the “right to bear arms” was basically a way to allow Protestants to defend themselves against Catholics.

Eventually, in the context of the American Constitution, it meant to be that citizens had the right to arm and defend themselves against an eventual return of the vengeful Red Coats. And they did return in 1812, when America declared war on Great Britain. And militias were needed.

Today, I wander why we would need militias? Is anybody ready to pounce on us?

In the 18th century, most militias were armed with muzzle loading muskets.
A trained militiaman could fire about 3 shots per minute, so even if he went rogue his killing potential was rather low.
Today it is quite different. A single man armed with automatic weapons could inflict a heavy human toll in a matter of seconds.

Gun control doesn’t mean disarming the entire country, but having a say about what guns could be legally purchased, and who would be allowed to possess such weapons.

Most buyers acquire weapons for hunting or defensive purposes.
But nobody needs assault weapons with high capacity magazines to defend themselves against intruders or to shoot rabbits.

The Second Amendment is not carved in stone. It could and should be amended.
In view of recent carnages, limiting and restricting access to guns to certain people is nothing more than common sense.