A couple of weeks ago, I saw a news story about a remarkable dog that apparently did something quite unexpected, and performed in a manner that would qualify for inclusion in the paranormal category. Reader Scott Martin wrote me about this:

I thought you might appreciate this. I got sent an email with a news story attached, by a co-worker who was subsequently not very happy that I spoiled the fun. In summary, a dog had been missing, was hit by a car, and then supposedly made its way, all by itself, miles through the city to the vet. When the staff arrived that morning, the dog was waiting for them at the door.

I suggested a more likely explanation: that the person who had hit the dog had wanted to make sure that it was taken care of, but didn't want to pay for the care, so took the dog to the closest vet (in their car) and then left the dog on the doorstep to be found.

Of course this second possibility is not nearly as "moving" or "profound." It just makes me laugh how many people jump to miraculous conclusions. I am sure this story will be featured on "Animal Miracles" on the Animal Planet cable station in a few months.

Well, Scott, I saw that story too, and it reminded me of an event that took place in my family when I was about twelve years of age and living in Toronto, Canada. We had a cat we named "Adolf" because he had a black marking that looked like Der Fuhrer's mustache. Every summer, our family would go away to a "holiday cottage" rented through a local real estate agent. This agent specialized in cabins located around the town of Donald, about 100 miles north of Toronto. We'd drive up there on a Sunday morning, check into the cabin, enjoy our holiday, and return early the Sunday morning of two weeks later, after tidying up the place, getting out before noon to meet the terms of the contract and let the new renters move in. This one summer, we took Adolf along, and he had a great time catching all manner of small innocent creatures and proudly bringing them to us.

When the morning of our departure came, we were devastated to find that Adolf was missing. We searched around, and stalled right up until the new occupants arrived to take over, and had to return to Toronto resigned to having lost our pet for good.

Lo! One morning about three weeks later, my mother was astonished to find Adolf in the kitchen, demanding to be fed! We assumed that he'd made it back home over all those miles of forests, lakes, and rivers, and yet he showed not a sign of wear and tear for his grand adventure. Had it ended there, I'd have to tell you that it's the only explanation we had. But here goes the glamour and the woo-woo aspects...

Shortly after Adolf had returned, my sister was playing with him on our front porch. A passing car came to a screeching halt, and a man bounded out demanding "his cat" be returned to him. My mother showed up and declared firmly that Adolf was ours, and always had been. The man was insistent: this cat had been at his home just a week or so ago, and he wanted it returned. Guess what? It turned out that this man's family had also holidayed at Donald, renting his cabin from the same local agent we'd used. They'd moved into the Donald area, just a few cabins away from where we'd been staying, on the same day we'd departed without Adolf. Within hours, a nice cat with a Hitler mustache had walked in their door and they'd adopted it...

I can just picture what happened, knowing cats as well as I do. Adolf might well have been sitting in a tree watching us searching the area, then when we drove off, he looked around and came upon the other family. Cats are very pragmatic; they belong to whoever feeds them. He changed owners without a thought, and settled into their family. They eventually drove back to Toronto, taking him with them. One day, exploring the neighborhood, he came upon his former home and recalled that the grub there was pretty good, and then there was our fat parakeet he'd yet to closely identify with. He resettled with us.

Returning to his home in the block next to ours, that poor chap had to tell his little girl that Adolf was reclaimed.

And my family lost a great story of feline derring-do, endurance, intelligence, and direction-finding on the part of our common cat, Adolf. It was still an interesting story, but not one that Mel Gibson would make into a movie... The important fact here, for me, is that if it had not been for the accidental passing-by of the adoptive owner, our family would probably have been telling the other story of Adolf, and it might have become a classic of animal lore, snapped up by Reader's Digest and "That's Incredible." Think: how many other glorious stories of psychic wonders or super-sense events might have been revealed as less-than-mysterious, had not chance provided the real answers...?

Recently, a 21-year-old Michigan woman, Teresa Becker, was refused state aid funding for her Ave Maria College course in theology. The State Supreme Court interpreted theology to mean "instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief and conduct." Nonsense. Theology is a legitimate academic field of study that in no way requires a belief in religion, nor a belief in a deity, any more than a study of history requires that the student must accept history as proven.

Ronald Muller, the president of Ave Maria College, a Roman Catholic college, said its theology major is part of its liberal arts curriculum. Theology "is an academic discipline like philosophy, English literature or the classics," he said. Ms. Becker says that she does not know what career she will choose after leaving college, but is not considering "any sort of religious life," though she admits that her interest in theology is not only academic.

Ms. Becker's lawyers wrote that a student "could take numerous theology courses, paid for by state grants, so long as his major was something else (like psychology or math)," but a student who declared a theology major would get no state money for an entire year "even if the student takes nothing else but language, literature, philosophy and science," they said. I agree that this is unfair and wrong.

A staff lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington State, said that Ms. Becker's case boils down to one proposition, that "A state may legally choose not to fund people's religious education." Again, though that surely is a state's right, I would not support that decision. Theology, according to Webster's primary usage, is:

The field of study and analysis that treats of God and God's attributes and relations to the universe.

What would the reaction be if a student chose to study the Homer Simpson character, as a sociological phenomenon and indicator of current thought? Homerology is defined as:

The field of study and analysis that treats of Homer Simpson and his attributes and relations to the world we live in.

(Okay, so I made that up. But it could be...)

Bearing in mind that a dictionary does not define a word, but rather gives its current and accepted usage, and the Webster's description above does not specify which of the thousands of deities is being referred to, I feel strongly that the academic study of theology should be supported in the same way that the study of sociology, mythology, and history are supported. Studying gods, in their infinite variety, and the attributes and origins of deities, is part of the study of our history, our psychology, and our social needs.

Ms. Becker says that in her opinion, "The state is violating people's rights to religious freedom," and added that her fellow students "are praying for me and rooting for me." A good lawyer might be a wiser choice than an intervening angel or saint, Ms. Becker, but it's your decision...

My good friend Donald Simanek, after dealing with the incredibly naïve and totally unfounded "Planet X" doomsday scenario that has people currently so frightened and excited in the world of pseudoscience and the trashy media, added this to his recent comments:

One thing is slowly dawning on me about these folks who "seem" to take this planet X and the associated "prophecy" seriously. They get all excited about every new photo or "sign," but it's a strange sort of excitement; they claim to believe it absolutely, but their actions don't match their words. They aren't rushing out in panic. They aren't modifying their lives in preparation (at least most of them). I suspect most go to work every day as usual, engage in "normal" activities, etc., as if nothing unusual was really going to happen.

I find the same syndrome in perpetual motion machine inventors. They proclaim absolute belief that their idea for unlimited energy will work perfectly. Typically they say, proudly, "I have no training or special skills in engineering or physics." OK. They say the idea is simple, and that they can build it in a few months in a basement or garage with simple tools. Why, if it's that simple and easy to build, are they so certain that they have found the secret which has so far eluded engineers and scientists throughout history? You'd think they'd quit their job, cash in their kid's college fund, go to the hardware store to buy the stuff needed and build it quickly, for once they do, it will revolutionize everything and we'll all be rich. But they don't. They procrastinate, drag their feet, and make excuses, or say, "Oh, I've been too busy to spend much time on that project."

Then they fuss about patents. "Patents cost too much money and take time," they say, "I'll just guard the secret and tell no one." The cost of a patent is trifling compared to the money they'd make on this thing in the first few weeks, since they are so absolutely certain it will work. But on the other hand, if the idea is so simple, and the materials to build it are readily available, and the skills to build it are minimal, then once one is built, anyone can build one, or many. They'd be converting bicycle factories in third world countries to turn out millions of perpetual motion machines within a few weeks. But then we'd all be richer than ever from the money saved on non-renewable energy (except for those who had all their wealth in oil and gas companies) so what will it matter?

Randi comments: I'd add that some quacks, such as the Quadro Locater purveyors, said they would not apply for a patent because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is rife with communists, and their discovery would be communicated to the Russians. Not to worry; the Russians already have a plethora of nutty notions in stock, proudly keeping up with Western pseudotechnology.

Some say they realize that achieving perpetual motion will turn the world's economy on its head, but say it must be done to save humanity from the fate of energy depletion and world-wide starvation. They are confident that their invention will be humanity's salvation. Yet they seem to be in no great hurry to get the thing built and working. There seems to be a disconnect between their beliefs and their behavior. They seem to spend more time defending their claims against skeptics with words, and less time in the lab building that device which would (if it worked) make all words superfluous.

Right on, Donald! So that readers will understand more of what Simanek is all about, I suggest that you go to www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/3d/illus2.htm and enjoy a few of his explanations about how we often don't see what we think we do. I'm stealing one interesting illustration which I've added to just a bit...

Get this on your screen and sit up close enough that you can see it clearly. Looking between the "L" and "X" figures, let your eyes go "cross-eyed" until you're looking down into a single 3-dimensional "box" with a red bottom, with "X L" written on it. Then look between the two figures marked "X" and "R", again converging your eyes to see a box with a red top sticking up at you, and "X R" written on it. Your sensory system is using two different combinations of flat drawings to produce 3-D images in your mind. This is only a small sample. Look at the site, and at the more general work of Simanek at www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ This will keep you at your computer screen for hours!

And don't neglect his hilarious book, "Science Askew," which we've reviewed previously on this site.

Reader Don Reid asks a good question in reference to the fortune-telling laws we mentioned recently:

Although you touched on the gist of the argument in this week's [two weeks ago] commentary, I just have to complete the question in my own terms: Does ANYONE in Tennessee, a state firmly entrenched in the bible belt, think it's at all hypocritical that this town has outlawed the practice of accepting money in return for dispensing prophesy or interceding in the supernatural world? It nearly drips with irony! In this case, I'm afraid I have to side with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union]. After all, if the constitution disallows the prohibition of one type of woo-woo nonsense, why not this? I see no difference between asking people to give you money every Sunday to dispense the ambiguous, unintelligible "prophesies" of a bunch of long-dead Semites, and babbling advice "received" from a deck of comical playing cards. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

Reader Tony Kehoe adds his comment on my recent religion diatribe:

I know you must be tired of receiving comments on your Genesis critique by now, but I thought I'd add one more pedantry: The whole human race is supposedly descended from Noah and his sons, after god drowned all of Adam and Eve's descendants (except for Noah and his brood) in the Great Flood. By rights, this means that all men throughout the world should share the same Y chromosome, and we don't. How do the credophiles answer that, I wonder? Keep up the good work, and hope to see you at TAMII in Las Vegas next year.

Good point, Tony! And, our first mailing on TAMII — The Amaz!ng Meeting II — has just gone out! We already have registrants signed up, and we're looking forward to a really large attendance. Penn & Teller are planning to participate in grand style...!

Bob Park of the American Physical Society tells us that the NY Times has quoted White House spokesman Scott McClellan in an incredibly revealing description of administration policy on its actions re science: "The administration looks at the facts, and reviews the best available science based on what's right for the American people." That final clause, "what's right for the American people," says Bob, is chilling. I agree 100%. As I've tried to remind my listeners at lectures, science is not decided by voting, or polls, or needs; it is decided by dispassionate examination of available evidence. Opinions have nothing to do with it, despite the wishes of politicians and theologians.

Can't we get real, please?

Am I missing something here? When I suggested that readers go to that "DNA-FREE food" site for a laugh, one reader chided me for not seeing that it was a hoax! Do I have to put up labels? Here's the scolding...

As is all too often the case your complete lack of fact checking is painfully obvious. Yet again the joke is on you: http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/results.htm. You have in the past claimed you don't have time to check all the things you have time to write about. Not being ridiculously gullible and having a spare 15 seconds is all it took me.

I enjoy your column but often find your hubris and hypocrisy a bit unbearable. If you had some humility your errors would not be nearly as annoying. Keep on chugging. Yours is a fine cause. I just hope people can hear the truth through the ego. Unfortunately I think mostly you are preaching to the choir.

I responded:

Seems to me that I recommended readers go to that page for a laugh. No one else who did, thought that I implied that it was meant to be serious. Why would you think so? I think it's hilarious! You see, I didn't have to go to the netspeed site — which you found — nor to waste that 15 seconds you invested, to know it was a joke. The terms, and the persons listed, gave it away immediately. Hubris & Hypocrisy? Sounds like a Greek dance team. Gullible & Annoyed? A vaudeville juggling act, sounds like. Mr. Ego is their manager?

And then this arrived from another alarmed reader:

In your commentary of 8/1/03 there was a mention of a "surprising" ratio when an equilateral triangle has a circle inscribed, and another circumscribed. There is nothing surprising about this at all, in fact, all you need is an equilateral triangle. This happens because any line that bisects an angle will also bisect the opposite side, and will be perpendicular to that side. Once you have drawn all three of these lines, their intersection will be the center of both the inscribed, and circumscribed circles. Also, the ratio[s] of the short and long segments to the full line are one-third, and two-thirds respectively.

Well, no, not quite. You should have written, more correctly: "This happens because any line that bisects an angle of an equilateral triangle or the "odd" angle of any isosceles triangle will also bisect the opposite side of that triangle, and will be perpendicular to that side." As for the one-third and two-thirds bit, yes, because that's the classic 30/60/90 or 1/2/3 right-angled triangle.

Yep, that's what I said. It was the Crop Circle site that cited it as "surprising," and I was making fun of their surprise! Hey, didn't fool me for a moment! Again, do I have to put up signs...? Attention! Note! Just kidding! Tongue firmly in cheek!

I really do know my high-school geometry, guys...

Reader Larry Parker, of Princeton, Texas, went to www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.2/bookid.1286 for Mark Twain's observations on Christian Science, and he found this great passage from Chapter 5:

When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters. When a thoughtful and unblessed Mohammedan examines the Westminster Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually insane. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it. He cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has the same defect that afflicts his. All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane. When I look around me, I am often troubled to see how many people are mad. To mention only a few:

The Atheist, The Theosophists, The Infidel, The Swedenborgians, The Agnostic, The Shakers, The Baptist, The Millerites, The Methodist, The Mormons, The Christian Scientist, The Laurence Oliphant Harrisites, The Catholic, and the 115 Christian sects, the Presbyterian excepted, The Grand Lama's people, The Monarchists, The Imperialists, The 72 Mohammedan sects, The Democrats, The Republicans (but not the Mugwumps), The Buddhist, The Blavatsky-Buddhist, The Mind-Curists, The Faith-Curists, The Nationalist, The Mental Scientists, The Confucian, The Spiritualist, The Allopaths, The 2000 East Indian sects, The Homeopaths, The Electropaths, The Peculiar People, The...

But there's no end to the list; there are millions of them!

[Note: a "Mugwump" is either a Republican who does not support his party's candidate, or a person who thinks independently. I was once told that it derived from the definition: "One who is astride a fence, with his mug on one side, and his wump on the other," but that may be untrue. Just kidding! Tongue firmly in cheek! Hold the letters!]

Several folks have sent me a quotation from Stephen F. Roberts which is similar to Twain's thought. I very much like it, but I rather prefer his later "improved" version of it, which is:

We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Read that carefully...

I very often receive inquiries about medical and health matters that are beyond my expertise, and I refer the questioner to the Quackwatch Internet pages that handle such matters. This Dr. Stephen Barrett site deserves not only your perusal and frequent reference, but your financial support. Here's a fine list of reference addresses you may wish to keep handy:

www.ncahf.org (National Council Against Health Fraud)
www.quackwatch.org (health fraud and quackery)
www.chirobase.org (guide to chiropractic)
www.dentalwatch.org (guide to dental care)
www.homeowatch.org (guide to homeopathy)
www.ihealthpilot.org (under construction)
www.mlmwatch.org (multi-level marketing)
www.naturowatch.org (naturopathy) — under construction
www.nutriwatch.org (nutrition facts and fallacies)
www.chsourcebook.com (consumer health sourcebook)

Dr. Barrett is the editor of Consumer Health Digest at www.ncahf.org/digest/chd.html and the publisher of Chiropractic News Digest at www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/chd.html. Donations of $1 to $50 to help support Quackwatch can be made through s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T1X6GUTTCLU3T4.

Frequent contributor Mogens Winther in Denmark comments on the recent ITV-UK changes in their rulings on what may appear on television there, and under what conditions, that we discussed recently. Says Mogens:

The Astrologers Association is apparently upset about these new rules, and writes:

Given that Horoscopes are singled out, the code would seem to be highly discriminatory. In addition, horoscopes are defined as a "psychic practice," but, as this is an extremely debatable definition, it would seem that the original stricture in the code was drawn up without any particular argument or evidence. The association of horoscopes with practices such as exorcism is also very strange and cannot be sustained.

Well, I can very easily "associate" astrology with exorcism. Same variety of superstitious nonsense, unproven, and when tested, shown to not work. Good bedmates...

Reader John Ruch of Boston, Massachusetts, warns scientists who allow ancient Chinese flummery into their labs:

Not that more needs to be said about feng shui for laboratories, but you did fail to mention the clearest objection to it. To wit: If there is indeed such an enormously powerful yet unquantifiable force flowing around us at all times, it would hardly be desirable to do anything to focus and increase its effect in a lab, where sensitive experiments could be affected in ways we literally cannot measure. (Especially, one would presume, on experiments involving live animals.) Indeed, "stagnant ch'i" would be preferable because at least there would a non-deviating baseline impact on experiments. This is even more important because the entire venture of Western experimental science has up to this point been done almost entirely in places with awful feng shui. Channeling the ch'i differently could throw our entire knowledge base off whack and make comparison with prior findings suspect.

As even joking about this stuff makes me feel bonkers, I'll leave you with that.

John, re-orient (pun) your computer and get your used ch'i rinsed out...

Reader Chris Turner asks:

Re your article on the three bronze plaques belonging to the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary at the Grand Canyon, around NY State you will see tourist signs pointing to historical sites (battles, Indian sites, etc.) and if you go to Hill Camorah in NY state to the site where Joseph Smith is supposed to have dug up the Golden Plates on which the Book of Mormon was supposed to be written — they have put up a big statue of an angel on the spot — you will see one of these signs stating something like: "Here 2000 years ago the last of the Nephites Moroni buried the Golden Plates on which the Book of Mormon was written," etc. — I can't remember the exact text. Note that it doesn't say "2000 years ago it is believed by Mormons that ...", it's just stated as fact. I don't know if it is an "official sign" but the shape, color and text used is the same. Have the Mormons copied the style of the sign, or is it an "official" sign put up by the local authorities?

Don't know, Chris. But I'll bet the skeptics or the brights couldn't put up a plaque in any state park...

I'm told that astrology in India is very different from that embraced by the naïve in the West. The dates on which the signs start, don't agree: in India they're about 23 days later than in the West. Generally, Western astrologers regard themselves as "brokers," whose duty it is to point out when and where opportunities lie, and to help clients to navigate potential minefields. For Indian astrologers the planets' powers are non-negotiable. When things are bad, the only choice is to wait it out. I guess I don't understand this "science," because I feel that one might get a better potential predicted by going to another venue!

Wow! The Sun was actually in the sign Cancer when I was born, though by the "Western" version of this mythology I'm supposed to be a classic Leo, but in India I might even be a Virgo! Not much chance of that... Doesn't seem to be any question in any version of this nonsense, about whether or not it actually works. I'm just such a trouble-maker...

Having apparently run out of spoons to bend in his continuing service to humanity, Uri Geller is busily trying to peddle his latest contribution to progress and good health, a glass-and-painted-steel pyramid. You read that right. He tells the breathless world of how it took him six months to design this contraption, which makes us wonder if he spent most of that time meditating on how to fit together four triangles; a pyramid isn't really the most difficult structure to design. You, too, can have one of these monsters in your own back yard, for an investment of only £90,000 (about US$145,000). And yes, he'll probably get a couple of buyers! There are folks out there who'll buy dowsing rods and magnetic bracelets, so if you have a lot of money to squander, why not mail-order a pyramid?

Some assembly required, batteries not included.

I just returned from the UK, where I taped a TV show — "The Ultimate Psychic Challenge" — that will be broadcast there in a few weeks. I'll fill you in on all the details eventually, but for now I'll tell you that this experience demonstrated for me once more just how angry, frantic, and hateful the believers in life-after-death can be — and are — when their beliefs are threatened by the facts. I was faced with frustrated people who watched their favorite notions and practitioners of spiritualism go down in flames. Any questioning of their delusions threatens their security, enrages them, and drives them to desperation.

It was astonishing to see one of Britain's current crop of "spiritualists" working on a member of the studio audience, and using every one of the standard "cold reading" techniques that Ian Rowland so clearly delineates in his book, "Full Facts Book of Cold Reading," which you can find at www.ianrowland.com/. It was almost as if this were a demonstration of how to appear to be psychic, based on Rowland's instructions! The "fishing" techniques, rushing from one non-responsive reaction to another of the same without giving the victim a chance to say "no," stalling and apologizing for obviously wrong guesses, and re-phrasing a question to allow for a better "fit" to an otherwise missed guess — all were quite evident. I'd expected better from this "psychic medium," but then I realized that he didn't have to be good, if his audience were really in need of affirmation of their hopes.

As I said, a thorough analysis will follow soon, but I'll share just this much with you now: I've long had the urge to borrow from some of the bons mots attributed to Winston Churchill, particularly his exchanges with his nemesis, Lady Astor, and in his homeland I finally got that opportunity handed to me. I make no apology for this; it was my reaction to a direct affront, a rude insult, and an uncalled-for accusation from a very obese, unattractive woman coming from the studio audience, a person who had loudly shouted out abuse to me all during the taping. Passing me in the hallway, she stabbed her finger at me, her face red and contorted with hatred. "Mr. Randi, you're a fake and a fraud!" she screeched. I calmly said to her in my best Churchillian tone, "Madam, you are ugly, but I can reform."

As Mark Twain wrote in "Tom Sawyer," "Let us draw the curtain of charity over the rest of the scene."

Almost immediately, another offended believer, a Leslie Gray, expressed her e-mail wishes for me in bolded, 18-point type, heavily underlined all the way. When I tried to respond, she'd blocked replies. Great at handing it out, but not too willing to be answered. And obviously a good Christian:

Can't wait until you meet Jesus and you get the punishment of a lifetime for being the fraud that you are. He was a gifted man and showed us His abilities maybe you can offer Him the money!!!!! Every time I see you on television I get sick so sick I want to throw up every time. Wonder why? I believe in certain powers beyond our belief and no I don't like Sylvia Brown [sic] either and as far as making yourself out to be some skeptic you've become a part of your own game because now you take part of what God has said not to do be JUDGEMENTAL! [sic] Not making any money well I predict you will be the one on the deep end asking God to forgive you. I think you will be the one with all of that money and living your life just as miserable as you appear to be on the shows I watch. I think you are jealous and you wish you could have a gift. I pray that you will be sent here in your next life as a gifted clairvoyant and you go through someone like yourself. By the way I know many homeless children who starve in this country that you could help with all that money you are collecting for your foolish games. Hey get a bleepin life and grow up and show God that he didn't waste his time sending you here to be a waste of life, do a good deed instead of being so damn selfish.

Well, Leslie, I don't do wine-to-water or loaves-and-fishes, that's true. But I can offer you some advice: don't watch me on TV, if I so affect you! Do I really appear to be miserable when I'm on TV? I'm not, really; I love it. And, I don't send out frantic, disorganized, rambling letters to people — as you've done here. So who's the miserable one, Leslie? Who's the "judgemental" one here? And since the psychics out there have many millions, and I have only one to offer, why not appeal to them to feed those hungry kids? I can't use the million for that purpose, but they're not limited from doing so... I'll try for a good deed, tomorrow, though. I promise. Maybe I'll take on the support of another hungry child through Childreach, through which I've supported three kids, changing from time to time, continuously for the last 36 years. No, not a million dollars, only about twelve thousand, but a rewarding project for me.

I can just hear the grinding teeth, and feel the sweaty hands and blinding hatred. Poor, angry, lady.

[Ian Rowland is currently touring Down Under, and I encourage my Aussie friends to watch for his appearances there. Not to be missed!]