Brain Fertilizer

Hey, I'm doing my part! I even stuck your URL in the boot files of every computer in my department but those pesky IT guys caught it before it could be implimented. (damn them).

Don't feel too bad. My hits are down too. Everyone must be hanging out at Unablogger.

« Hide Comments

Nathan,

You haven't heard from me in a while, but I do check in occasionally, though I don't usually have time to respond. Thanks for the post...would you mind if I shared this one with others on my mailing list? I'll even keep it anonymous if you prefer...it's good for people to hear these kinds of things from those in the service.

By the way, I recently ran into RFD, of all people, at a handbell concert, of all places. If you want I will let you know of his whereabouts and goings-on.

Take care, Nathan!

« Hide Comments

An old Army buddy hooked me up with Jon Kammerer, an innovative guitar maker out of Keokuk, Iowa. He built me a Deployment Guitar, designing it to not collect or show dust and to be resistant to humidity/temperature changes. It is a sweet-sounding and -playing guitar, easily the finest guitar I've ever played. It's so fun to play I play longer and more often (which was the original idea behind Aim toothpaste, as I recall), which has had an immediate impact on my guitar skills.

I've been trying for years to learn how to play jazz guitar. It just hasn't sunk in. However, I stumbled across a book of jazz progressions that I brought with me, and am working on memorizing them. I run through approximately the same 60 progressions every few days, and am slowly getting the chord shapes established into muscle memory. I think (and am hoping) that my chord vocabulary should be good enough that by the time I return home I will be able to play through a number of standards. We'll see. But if so, then I will work on learning a dozen to a score of standards before I attempt the next huge leap of substitutions.

In return for lending me the guitar, I'm trying to help Jon out by letting people play on and fall in love with the guitar to raise interest in buying one for themselves. It's a great situation: a bunch of young, single guys getting hazardous duty pay and tax-free base pay who miss playing their guitar getting to try out a sweet electric guitar that sounds awesome and is cheaper than they would expect. So far I've only brought it out 4 times, and had 2 people decide to buy one, and a 3rd strongly considering it...

If anyone out there is interested at all, you can go to Jon's Site and look around. If your interest is piqued enough that you'd like to buy, contact me first, because I might be able to wrangle an extra 10% off for you...

« Hide Comments

If I was married to Hillary I'd have been checking out the interns too.

"So George, tell me. How's Barbara in the sack?"

"Hey, George, those twins are pretty cute. You want the blonde one?"
"Bill, you asshat, those are my granddaughters."

AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION
2004 Independent party candidates

"To be honest Bill I never liked you much, but your celebrity has certainly spiced up my sex life, just last night Barbara gave me a 'Lewinski'."

"Gosh, Bill, you're right. These 'X-ray specs' really do work."

Remember George if anyone ask, we didn't inhale .

« Hide Comments

'These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity - and at what cost to its own humanity? ' said ethicist Jacqueline Laing, of London Metropolitan University. 'We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept disability. Babies are required to fit a description of normality before they are allowed to be born.'

The figures for 2002 - the latest available - from the Office for National Statistics show more women than ever are choosing to terminate babies with potential handicaps, with such abortions rising 8 per cent in a year.

It has renewed fears that strict laws on termination due to disabilities are being flouted by doctors.

The 2002 figures show five babies were aborted because they had deformed feet, and a sixth because of a cleft lip and palate.

In 2000 and 2001, nine babies were aborted due to cleft lip and palate, while a further two were aborted for cleft lip alone.

Church of England curate Joanna Jepson, who has spearheaded calls for an investigation into the abortion of a 28-week-old unborn baby with cleft palate in Herefordshire in 2001, said: 'These statistics are horrifying and show the highly consumerist attitude which is now pervading human relationships.

'I don't think anyone had any idea that so many babies had been aborted for cleft lip and palate. The fact that two were aborted for cleft lip alone is a slur on people with the condition.

'I cannot believe the medical profession are standing by decisions to abort babies for these reasons.'

Delayed motherhood may be partly responsible for rising birth defects, because women over 40 have the highest risk of congenital abnormality in their babies.

Doctors say improvements in technology, such as ultra-sound and blood tests, have helped increase the number of babies diagnosed with abnormality before birth. But a number are disturbed that abortions are being carried out on the grounds of the baby's serious disability when in fact it has a correctable condition such as feet abnormality or cleft lip.

Ground E of the Abortion Act makes termination legal up to nine months if a child has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality.

A total of 1,863 pregnancies were ended in 2002 on this basis - up 8 per cent from the 1,722 carried out in 2001, according to ONS data from the National Congenital Anomaly System.

Experts say it is likely that many exceeded the 24-week limit for terminations for socalled 'social' reasons. Most of the estimated 185,000 abortions in Britain every year are on 'social' grounds.

Two doctors must judge that the risk to the woman's physical or mental health of continuing the pregnancy outweighs the dangers of termination.

In reality, this means women who do not want to have a baby are able to easily terminate it. Only around one per cent of abortions are carried out beyond the 24-week limit, generally due to deformities.

Terminations for chromosomal abnormalities, including Down's syndrome, rose by 17 per cent - from 591 in 2001 to 691 in 2002.

There were more babies with Down's aborted than born with the condition in 2002, with 372 terminations compared with 329 births.

The NHS was last year told to offer Down's screening to women of all ages - including those in younger age groups with lower risks of the condition - prompting fears that figures for last year will be even higher.

The charity LIFE said it fears women may come under increased pressure if their unborn babies are judged to have special needs.

Trustee Nuala Scarisbrick said: 'This is straightforward eugenics. The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.'

Campaigner Patrick Cusworth said: 'Such statistics are an indictment of a society which places a conditional value upon its citizens, based upon how "useful" they may prove to be in later life.'

Consultant obstetrician Maggie Blott said although the reasons for the increase in Ground E abortions are not clear, it may be partly due to screening and partly to older mothers.

Women aged 40 to 44 have the highest rate of abnormalities such as spina bifida, heart defects and Down's syndrome in live and still births, at 160 per 10,000. This compares with 107 per 10,000 in those aged 25 to 27.

Mrs Blott, of the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle upon Tyne, said: 'You have to give women a choice and most people feel screening is a good thing.

'If a baby with a heart problem is diagnosed before birth, doctors can be ready when it is born and ensure it gets the best treatment.

'Some serious abnormalities do not become apparent on ultrasound until later in the pregnancy - these include some kidney problems.

'It is likely that most of the abortions in this report were after 24 weeks, because before that, you could get an abortion without needing a reason such as a physical deformity.

'I personally don't think cleft lip counts as a serious abnormality. The Abortion Act is very clear that is has to be life-threatening really, and nobody could describe a cleft lip as life-threatening. The same goes for deformities of the feet.'

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said techniques to detect foetal abnormalities have become very sophisticated, giving women more information on which to base decisions.

'Ending a wanted pregnancy because of serious foetal abnormality is a difficult decision for the woman,' she added. 'It is vital she receives support and guidance to make the right decision for her and her family.'

When I was pregnant with my last child, I was 30. I had my first when I was 21. I knew that I was in a "riskier" category simply by being 30. R and I prayed much for the health of all of our children, but I think I tended to worry more during that last pregnancy at 30. One day while praying, I realized that the gift was the child, whether it was "healthy" in my terms or not. The scripture that says "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; The fruit of the womb is a reward." never mentions health or ability. It simply says children. I also realized that by thinking that a healthy child is a preferred child, I was, in absentia, supporting the thought process that abortion is o.k. if the child isn't "healthy."

I was so challenged. How I was I to now pray? What would my reaction be to news of a child without "perfect" health? I was due to deliver the end of May. I took my two older girls to a "Young Author's" contest the first of May. One of the featured authors there was June Rae Wood. She was discussing her book, The Man Who Loved Clowns. It is a fictional account of her brother who was born with Down's Syndrome. She described his eccentricities with affection and fond recollection. I began to weep. I could hear several other mothers in the crowd doing so, as well. She could see the reaction of her listeners and it touched her deeply. After she finished, I went up to her and thanked her for sharing something so precious and personal. She signed my daughter's book and we left. Later, that May, I delivered my last child. While she was born with perfect health, in my heart was born a better understanding of the variety of gifts that God gives us and room was made to better accept those with true thanksgiving.

Thanks for posting this news, Nathan. It has reminded me to pray for those who are deemed unwelcome and also for those who are sadly blinded by underestimating the contributions and love capable of those named "unworthy."

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Pat Tillman was probably killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan after a U.S. solider mistakenly shot at an Afghan soldier in the former NFL player's unit, military officials said Saturday.

Tillman walked away from a $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previous military statements suggested he was killed by enemy fire.

According to an Army investigation, Tillman was shot to death on April 22 after the friendly Afghan soldier in Tillman's unit was mistakenly fired upon, and other U.S. soldiers then fired in the same direction.

"While there was no one specific finding of fault, the investigation results indicate that Cpl. Tillman probably died as a result of friendly fire while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces," Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr. said in a brief statement to reporters at the Army Special Operations Command.

Kensinger said the firefight took place in "very severe and constricted terrain with impaired light" with 10 to 12 enemy combatants firing on U.S. forces.

But an Afghan military official told The Associated Press on Saturday that Tillman died because of a "misunderstanding" when two mixed groups of American and Afghan soldiers began firing wildly in the confusion following a land mine explosion.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Afghan official said, "(There) were no enemy forces" present when Tillman died.

Kensinger, who heads Army Special Forces, took no questions Saturday morning after reading the Army statement. An Afghan Defense Ministry official declined to comment on whether enemy forces were present, while U.S. military officials in Afghanistan referred all queries to Fort Bragg.

In Washington, Pentagon officials refused to comment on the Afghan report.

According to the Army's investigation, Tillman's team had split from a second unit when a Ranger whom the Army did not identify fired on a friendly Afghan soldier, mistaking him for the enemy.

Seeing that gunfire and not realizing its origin, other U.S. soldiers fired in the same direction, killing Tillman and an Afghan soldier. Two other Rangers were wounded in the gunfight.

"The results of this investigation in no way diminished the bravery and sacrifice displayed by Cpl. Tillman," Kensinger said.

Tillman, 27, left his position as a starting safety for Arizona to join the Army following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was posthumously promoted from specialist to corporal and awarded a Purple Heart and Silver Star, one of the military's highest honors, awarded for gallantry on the battlefield.

Thousands of people, including celebrities and politicians, attended a memorial service at Sun Devil Stadium earlier this month. At a memorial service in his hometown of San Jose, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called him "a most honorable man."

"While many of us will be blessed to live a longer life, few of us will ever live a better one," said McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

A woman who answered the phone Saturday at the home of Tillman's uncle, Hank Tillman, said the family would have no comment on the findings in the Army's investigation.

At Fort Bragg, an officer with the 30th Engineer Battalion said the circumstances of Tillman's death do not change his heroism.

"A lot of us sacrifice something, but no one sacrificed as much as he did to join," Sgt. Matt Harbursky said as he prepared to play a round of golf at the base course. "And it doesn't really matter how he was killed, it's sad."

Prior to Saturday, the Army's most complete account of Tillman's death came in his Silver Star citation, which said he was killed after his platoon split into two sections for what officials called a ground assault convoy. Tillman was in charge of the lead group.

When the trailing group came under mortar and small arms fire, the Army said Tillman ordered his team to return.

"Through the firing, Tillman's voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground," the citation said. "Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished."

The Afghan official gave the AP a differing account, based on his conversation with an Afghan fighter from the group that was separated from Tillman's. The Afghan soldier said the two groups drifted apart during the operation in the remote Spera district of Khost province, close to the Pakistani border.

"Suddenly the sound of a mine explosion was heard somewhere between the two groups and the Americans in one group started firing," the official said.

"Nobody knew what it was - a mine, a remote-controlled bomb - or what was going on, or if enemy forces were firing. The situation was very confusing," the official said.

"As the result of this firing, that American was killed and three Afghan soldiers were injured. It was a misunderstanding and afterwards they realized that it was a mine that had exploded and there were no enemy forces."

Tillman's platoon was in the area as part of an effort called Operation Mountain Storm, in which they were charged with rooting out Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.

Tillman became the first NFL player to die in combat since the Vietnam War. He was one of about 100 U.S. soldiers to have been killed in Afghanistan since the United States invaded in 2001.

---

Associated Press writer Stephen Graham contributed to this report from Kabul, Afghanistan and AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed from Washington.

My husband keeps thinking of this and it really bothers him that it was released. He says that civilians can't truly understand combat. I read aloud your post and he liked how you worded it.

I keep trying to get him to post on my blog, he really has some life experiences as a Marine that have helped me better understand many things involved in war.

« Hide Comments

Glad you liked the map, and posted it, too!

Thanks.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I think part of the problem is question itself. Zombyboy looks at his blog and sees little that he could consider objective journalism. I assume that if he looked at mine, he'd see none.

And yet, I think that what Bill at INDC does with his photoblogging is journalism of a very high caliber. Andy at World Wide Rant made an excellent journalistic scoop when he discovered that Israel wasn't included in a map of the Middle East (can't remember the context, someone help me out here!)

So some people are doing good journalism, at least part-time.

But Bill of INDC is only one person. World Wide Rant has how many people? 2? 3? The staff of even a small-town weekly paper usually outnumbers that.

My point?
Taken as a whole, the blogosphere is journalism. We seek out stuff, we report, we opine, we review, we correct...but the special thing about it is that it is the reader who becomes the editor. The reader, often a blogger himself, must make the decision as to what is credible, when more research is necessary for complete understanding, etc. Perhaps no individual blogger can be considered to be a true journalist, but as a whole, we are.

Think of a newspaper. If all you had were the classifieds, would that be journalism? Or the gossip column...is that journalism by itself? The tech review space....is that journalism? How about the Religion section? The comics? The Op-Eds? The Obituaries?

It's not all news, though, is it? Yet taken as a whole, it is accepted as journalism, and the person writing a human interest story that appears right above the horoscope is considered to be every bit the journalist as the person whose byline appears on the front page.

If the blogosphere is taken as a newspaper, we've got the largest dang op-ed section ever...but Zombyboy has done tech reviews. Instapundit acts as an index (among other functions). You can get law opinions and political watchdog stuff at The Volokh Conspiracy and Ipse Dixit (just to name two, although more do that than can be counted).

Look at my blogroll: You get Military, Sports (at Sportsblog), Classified Ads (at gunbroker), Op-Ed to include links to liberal bloggers, News, Humor (at Homestar Runner), Poll results (at Rasumssen Reports). If you stop by 2-3 of each type of blogger each day (although it might take some time to determine which worked best for you), you could not fail to be fully informed of all the world's events and what people think about it.

That's journalism. Even if only in the aggregate.

The problem isn't the question, it's the definition. Depends on who's defining "journalism."

What most journalists will look at to define blogging as journalism is "reporting," like what is done by INDC Bill and the like. When they see a paucity of "reporting," they conclude that it isn't "journalism."

But I would argue that one of the problems with "journalism" as an industry today is that it has strayed too far from "reporting," into the op-ed and gossip column type stuff, with a healthy smattering of window-dressing.

So, the mainstream media suffers a credibility problem in part because they have become too much about analysis, and too little about reporting the facts - both good and bad.

Blogging, ironically, suffers a credibility problem among journalists because it has always been so much analysis and "what I did today" writing, and too little about reporting the facts - good and bad.

The fact that journalists are even talking about bloggers is a great thing. I like the "reader as editor" motif. With blogs, you know what you get: personal journaling, diaries, partisan bickering and opinions, and maybe a little news. But that's what blogs are for, anything you want them to be. We are not journalists. We are regular people commenting about journalists. That serves a noble purpose in itself.

Hello everyone... I was a paid journalist for 21 years... Blogging is not journalism until the following occur:

1. All publishers, editors and reporters must indentify themselves and allow readers to contact them the way print, radio and TV news organzations do.

2. All blog content must be segregated into sections, "Hard News," "Commentary" and "OpEd" so readers no what they're getting right away.

3. When hard news is reported all sources must be clearly attributed. If you use an annonymous source for a piece you must get independant comfirmation before release the report. Reporters and Editors should discuss in advance who the annonymous sources are and determine credibility. Reporters and editors must be willing to face jail rather than reveal any annonymous or confidential source once a story is published.

This is journalism 101... There's no way around it.

Mike, I'd feel better about your definition if it weren't routinely violated by most (if not all) of the big newspapers. The routine assumption that "because we are journalists, we must automatically be doing the right thing) is how Jayson Blair, et al, were able to go so long making up crap...
Furthermore, every news media source I've seen routinely editorializes facts, so there goes your insistence that it must be rigidly classified into categories. Morever, I don't see Dan Rather giving his sources in his broadcasts...the watcher merely assumes it's all good. That's how CNN can get away with not telling the truth about Saddam to maintain their access.

Finally, your definition is rather circular: when television news reporting was in its infancy, journalism was probably defined in terms of newspaper journalism, and thus television journalism was excluded. Would you still insist that shows like "20/20" or "60 Minutes" are not journalism? Of course not!

What I'm driving at is that while the medium is not always the message, the unique attributes and characteristics of a new medium will inevitably give rise to new forms of old establishments. Sometimes, if the old definition excludes the new, you have to come up with a new definition. I think "blogging as journalism" is still in its infancy, as well. So, to me, a better definition of journalism would be: "A credible source of news reporting that gives people a better understanding of events they are not present to witness/experience." By that definition, blogging is clearly the wave of the future. It probably won't ever fully replace traditional news media, but there are aspects to blogging that are absolutely superior to traditional media for that...I think that will become clearer over time.

But then again, maybe not; I might be full of optimistic crap.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Happy Birthday, Nathan. :-)

I'm embarrased that I forgot. Happy Birthday, Nate!

Happy birthday, guy!

I had a problem with my slow computer and couldn't get the comments to open when I read this earlier, so I am sorry to be a bit late in the day...

Happy "Butt"day (as my girls used to unknowingly say when toddlers)!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Dang whippersnapper.

I beg your pardon? I don't think I've ever whipped a snap, or snapped a whip, either, for that matter.

Dang nuancin' whippersnapper!

Happy belated birthday, Nathan! The thirties ain't so bad...anyway, I'm not too far behind you. :)

« Hide Comments

Ah, the patron saint of quality footwear...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

With any luck at all, someone stuffed a dirty gym sock in his piehole. Mwheh.

Hubby and I were just pondering that same question. You must have ESPN. :)

It just seems silly that the Great Hope of the Democrat Party could disappear so quickly from the scene as soon as he started falling behind in the nomination process...

Who is Wesley Clark. Wasn't he that stupid boy on Start Trek or something...?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

"I thought a dipthong was the thing that Tarzan wore."
- Great Quote from Jeremy in his Foreign Language class.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Update: I did my typical "only sleep 3.5 hours and can't get back to sleep" starting at around 3 pm PST. So I conceived of this post in that half-hour after it became obvious I wasn't going to fall back into slumber, came over to the Computer building and posted. Then I went wandering, and found about 15 blogs that posted about the same sort of idea.

Brain Fertilizer: "Behind the Power Curve, and There to Stay"

« Hide Comments

I absolutely love this game.

I picked up the original Jagged Alliance game for $5 in a bargain bin. It was an interesting turn-based strategy game revolving around mercenaries you hire for missions. It was heavily scripted...but you could choose whatever characters you wanted to hire from a list of about 30. Each one had a personality, and that could actually affect how things went in the game. It was a blast...but one of my kids in my church youth group saw the box, asked me show him how it worked, and then would come over to play it before our meetings sometimes. I ended up giving him the game after I finished. I wish I had it back, now....

But I ran across Jagged Alliance 2 a few years later, again in the bargain bin. I immediately purchased it, and started playing. It was still turn-based, still strategy, still revolving around mercanaries you hire for a campaign of missions...but it was more open-ended, less scripted. They hired a butt-load of voice actors to do all the voices (because you still have about 30 mercs to choose from, plus all the characters you encounter in the game), and one of the fascinating extras about the game is trying to figure out which characters are possibly done by the same actors. Some actors seem to only do one, but most do at least 3-4.

The game has attracted a strong cult following. You can do some reading about it here and here.

This is virtually the only computer game I've played for the last two years, including all three major deployments (and three minor ones). I can't begin to guess how many hours I've spent playing the game, and I'd be embarassed to estimate. Probably something less than most people spend watching TV and movies, perhaps (which I rarely do, other than NFL football). It's captured my imagination, but it also really challenges the mind, because the strategy is quite complex.

I've never finished the game, although I've restarted at least 6 times. Each time I play it better. I have my best characters picked out, and I've really refined my tactics. When I first started playing, I would save before each move, and if I got whacked, I would reload. Then I tried "Iron Man" mode, in which you cannot save during combat, making it more dangerous...but if a battle ever went too disastrous, I could still reload from the last point before the battle, heh. This time I'm not using "Iron Man" mode, but still saving far less often, and if a bad result happens, I take it. Extreme disasters are still not accepted, though, but what can I say? I like the characters too much to let them die...

I know most of the phrases they use at the various points of the game, and can often quote them with a fairly accurate impression, even down to the accent.

But the most interesting part of all this? That game probably had the greatest impact on my finally deciding to purchase rifles. It's probably also why I'm more into military rifles than civilian hunting rifles.

I'd always wanted to get into guns. I supported the Second Amendment, after I thought about it a little.

One of the best guns in the game is the FN-FAL, mainly because of damage, range, and speed of use. The AK-74 is faster, but weaker on range and damage. The Steyr AUG has slightly better range, but weaker on damage and slower. The M-14 is only a hair better in damage, and significantly shorter range and as slow as the AUG.

So I had to buy an FN-FAL eventually, right?

Well, the more I learn about rifles, the more I realize the game designers were kinda full o' crap. The FN-FAL is a good, reliable rifle...but it doesn't have a longer range than the M-14, since the bullet is exactly the same. The only other way to say it has a better range is if the bullets can go equally as far, but the rifle itself is more accurate, so it is effective to a longer range...except that my research on the FAL says that its sights suck....so I doubt it can outdo an M-14 at all.

More soon...

Hey, Nathan.

I, too, am a huge Jagged Alliance 2 fan. I've been playing the game almost since it came out. I love the voice acting also love the strategy. There's so many ways to accomplish the same thing, but usually there's only one or a few ways that are optimal.

As for the guns, the FN-FAL as my favorite in-game weapon, hands-down. It has great power, range, and speed. I usually deck it out with a rod&spring, laser, sniper scope, and either a barrel extender or bipod.

As for relating to the real-life FN-FAL, I have never fired one myself. However, I can say it may indeed be more accurate and/or have longer range and/or have more power than the M14 if the barrel length is longer and/or the barrel has a better rifling pattern. With a longer barrel, the bullet is able to pick-up more speed (energy) from the expansion of the power explosion. That's why sniper rifles all have really long barrels. Also, the rigidity of the barrel has a lot to do with it, too. Some guns, like the M16, are intentionally lightened, to give greater mobility. This sacrifices long-range accuracy, since the barrel actually is disorted (bent slightly) when firing. This is why sniper rifles also have very thick (and heavy) barrels.

So, it may be that the in-game FN-FAL has a longer and/or heavier barrel than the in-game M-14 does. The in-game FN-FAL is a heavy weapon for sure. Ira, for instance, has a difficult time carrying that gun with all her other stuff. I usually give her a lighter-weight and ammo 5.56mm gun, like the Steyr AUG.

Also, the deficiency of the sights can be corrected with a scope.

Anyways, I'm glad you enjoy JA2. It is indeed a great game.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Meet the new Monica Lewinsky. Jessica Cutler, a 24-year-old mailroom clerk and phone receptionist, worked for Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, until last Friday -- when he fired her for using Senate computers to post to an Internet Web log that chronicled her trysts with six different men in Washington. Cutler's partners reportedly included government officials who gave her money for her sexual services.

Diary excerpt: "I just took a long lunch with F and made a quick $400. When I returned to the office, I heard that my boss was asking about my whereabouts. Loser." In another entry, Cutler explains: "F(equals)Married man who pays me for sex. Chief of Staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush."

Cutler, who aspired to be a journalist, spouted: "I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: How can anybody live on $25K/year??" When I was 24 and making less than that, I did it by eating Spaghetti-O's, Ramen noodles and Swanson pot pies for dinner; driving a Toyota Tercel with no air conditioning; and sleeping on a $30 futon. I did it the way most parents teach their daughters to succeed: through hard work, thrift, faith and perseverance.

I don't usually write about such inside-the-Beltway gossip, but Cutler's indecent conduct, glib rationalizations and in-your-face shamelessness, and the accompanying feeding frenzy over her, deserve a firm outside-the-Beltway lashing. This vulgar little episode reflects a larger, disturbing media trend toward normalizing and glamorizing sexual promiscuity among young working women. It harms those trying to succeed on their merits in the professional arena.

And it also harms our own daughters, who will be forced to fight harder to protect their dignity and credibility in a "Girls Gone Wild" culture.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post featured Cutler, who dubbed herself and her online diary "Washingtonienne," in a prominent story last Sunday headlined "The Hill's Sex Diarist Reveals All (Well, Some)." Cutler posed for a fetching photo and supplied juicy soundbites. "It's so cliched. It's like, 'There's a slutty girl on the Hill?' There's millions of 'em," Cutler told the Washington Post's Richard Leiby. Millions? Follow-up dispatches appeared in Roll Call, the New York Post, the London Independent, United Press International and the Associated Press, whose wire reports on Cutler were reprinted everywhere from the Akron Beacon Journal to the Houston Chronicle to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The news media originally caught whiff of Cutler from an online D.C.-based gossip site, Wonkette.com, authored by "edgy" (read: profanity-laced and sex-obsessed) writer Ana Marie Cox, who herself has been recently touted extensively by adoring media fans. CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen hosted a tony party for Cox last month; Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz invited her on his CNN show, where she boasted, "I'm the expert at talking dirty."

Cutler and Cox, 31, appeared together on Fox News Channel this week, where they giggled and guffawed and rolled their eyes as they reveled in their sleazy celebrity. When Fox anchor Brigitte Quinn (who deserves a medal for her restraint) asked Cutler whether her parents knew about her raunchy sex life, she snorted: "They do now!" Cox cackled and went on to coo about Cutler's writing talent and future book publishing prospects. Cox generously mentioned she didn't want too much "credit" for Cutler's newfound notoriety. ("Credit?" Quinn mused subtly. "That's an interesting word.")

This female Beavis and Butthead duo illustrate what normal Americans hate about the Capitol scene: narcissism, moral bankruptcy and self-congratulatory media-political incest. The Washington Post's legitimization of this shallow "story" illustrates something else: the mainstream media's perverted moral values. The paper's recent profiles and features of social conservatives drip with condescension and ridicule. Religious activists are portrayed as intolerant homophobes; Republicans as gun-toting rubes; abstinence promoters as freaks.

But give The Washington Post two vain, young, trash-mouthed skanks who couldn't care less about what their parents think of their sex-drenched infamy, and the newspaper can't wait to help make them full-fledged members of the media elite.

Cutler and Cox apparently have no trouble looking at themselves in the mirror every morning. I pity the mainstream journalists-turned-pimps who can do the same.

OT, Nathan, but where am I on the map of Blogistan?

Just south of Idaho, I think.

...dang, I was actually considering deleting this post, too.

Oh, just delete it. I rather like the new one with the map anyway :)

« Hide Comments

maybe it's right. 杭州店面装修男人fd弱的杭州办公室装修杭州江干区空调维修男人f的杭州室内装修男ddd弱的文化衫男人最脆弱的T恤衫腻子粉银行pos机pos机代办杭州室内装饰杭州店面装修杭州办公室装修杭州搬家杭州搬家seo杭州植物租赁杭州花卉租赁银行POS机杭州花卉出租杭州花卉公司seo 杭州搬家公司男人fd弱的杭州信用卡套现杭州江干区空调维修男人f的杭州搬家公司男ddd弱的气力输送男人最脆弱的杭州机票杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机现场记录仪杭州化妆培训杭州复印机出租杭州搬家公司杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州信用卡套现富阳家政文化衫电雕机T恤衫

« Hide Comments

maybe it's right. 杭州店面装修男人fd弱的杭州办公室装修杭州江干区空调维修男人f的杭州室内装修男ddd弱的文化衫男人最脆弱的T恤衫腻子粉银行pos机pos机代办杭州室内装饰杭州店面装修杭州办公室装修杭州搬家杭州搬家seo杭州植物租赁杭州花卉租赁银行POS机杭州花卉出租杭州花卉公司seo 杭州搬家公司男人fd弱的杭州信用卡套现杭州江干区空调维修男人f的杭州搬家公司男ddd弱的气力输送男人最脆弱的杭州机票杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机现场记录仪杭州化妆培训杭州复印机出租杭州搬家公司杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州信用卡套现富阳家政文化衫电雕机T恤衫

« Hide Comments

Lotsa stuff. The only problem is, ask 10 different people, and you'd get 10 different answers.

Some people want us to be more Green. Some people want us to be more libertarian. Some people want anarchy. Some people want us to return to traditional values. Some people want every-increasing freedom, more programs, higher taxes. You name it, there's probably someone who supports it.

So who is right? Tough question. Aside from the obvious answer: "Me." heh.

You see, I feel there is an underlying series of problems bringing about all this chaos and polarization and dispute and invective. In fact, I think there are three main problems.

1) The series of checks and balances is breaking down.

2) There is little incentive for anyone in government to be concerned with our nation's long-term welfare...doing so gets you defeated.

3) Not enough people vote.

Our forefathers came up with a dang good system. It is flexible, balances out most powers, and has helped us avoid many problems encountered by other nations, all while slowly allowing increasingly more inclusive groups of people unprecented levels of freedom, prosperity, and equality. That's pretty amazing.

But I really fear the system may be breaking down, as different special interests exploit cracks in the system in pursuit of their agenda.

My proposed solutions?

1) Repeal the 17th Amendment, which would give more power to state legislatures and get people more interested in that level of politics.
1a) Further, I propose we add another house to the Supreme Court, say 5 people who are elected for life. Any Supreme Court decision would have to hammer out a compromise between these two groups, just like the Senate and House of Representatives have to hammer out compromises, thus balancing population with states. The appointment system was supposed to get politics out of the Supreme Court...can anyone look at Bader-Ginsburg and/or Scalia and insist politics doesn't affect things? Or how about the Democrats' push in 2000 to throw out the Constitutionally-mandated separation of powers on the justification that if President Bush wins the election that he would pack the Court with pro-life judges? Or how about the whole Senate confirmation fiasco since then when a minority party prevents the Senate from even voting on the justification that they don't want a pro-life judge or conservative Hispanic on a Circuit Court? I admit, how we balance the court is less important to me than finding some way to balance it. Right now, the checks/balances system toward the Federal Court system isn't responsive enough to the people.

2) Extend the Presidential term of office to 10 years, and allow two terms.
2a) If it seems advisable and doesn't seem counterproductive, allow a "no confidence vote" once every two years; if the President doesn't survive it, a new election must be held within six months with pre-selected candidates, rather than automatically being handed to the opposition party.

3) Index the salary for members of Congress to the number of people on welfare: less people on welfare, higher salary; more people, lower salary. That should diminish the practice of buying votes with government entitlements.

4) All government programs (except medicare, defense, and social security) must sunset after five years (or other set term). They can be reinstated, but only by a majority vote by both houses of Congress.

5) Everyone who votes gets 5% off the following year's taxes. That should also help determine when dead people's names are used to stuff ballot boxes.
5a) after a person votes, they can take a test regarding candidates, issues, and propositions. If they pass, they can take an additional 5% off the following year's taxes (to encourage people to study the issues)

6) All members of Congress must wear a patch on their clothes to show from which lobbies they have accepted gifts, money, or dinner. Thus, it will be possible to tell at a glance who is accepting the most influence.

maybe it's right. 杭州店面装修岁月xd强的杭州办公室装修杭州江干区空调维修发财f的杭州室内装修男ddd弱的文化衫风有最强弱的T恤衫腻子粉银行pos机pos机代办缝纫机维修培训工业缝纫机培训服装缝纫机维修杭州搬家杭州搬家seo杭州植物租赁杭州花卉租赁银行POS机杭州花卉出租杭州花卉公司seo 杭州搬家公司兴在fd弱的杭州信用卡套现杭州江干区空调维修发在f的杭州搬家公司狗ddd弱的气力输送男人最脆弱的杭州机票杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机现场记录仪杭州化妆培训杭州复印机出租杭州搬家公司杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州信用卡套现富阳家政文化衫电雕机T恤衫

« Hide Comments

I don't really care.

I've read some, haven't read others. I can't say that the ones I've read changed me in any way. It didn't give me a greater appreciation for literature, or give me any insight into human nature that I didn't see anywhere else.

I don't really mind having to read the books I did, but I don't really worry about the so-called "great" books I didn't read. I hardly think those would hold the key to eternal peace and happiness in my life.

I think that on our time we should read what we want. In school, however, some books are excellent ways to teach certain things. Exposure in school to "great" literature is a good way of ensuring we all have some common cultural reference points. But I don't think that someone who has read every single "classis" will be any more intelligent or prepared for life than someone who only read a third of them; but I do think that reading what interests you and challenges you is a good thing. There are enough other good thinkers and writers out there that as long as you are reading regularly, you will encounter all the literature you need to during your lifetime.

maybe it's right. 杭州店面装修岁月xd强的杭州办公室装修杭州江干区空调维修发财f的杭州室内装修男ddd弱的文化衫风有最强弱的T恤衫腻子粉银行pos机pos机代办缝纫机维修培训工业缝纫机培训服装缝纫机维修杭州搬家杭州搬家seo杭州植物租赁杭州花卉租赁银行POS机杭州花卉出租杭州花卉公司seo 杭州搬家公司兴在fd弱的杭州信用卡套现杭州江干区空调维修发在f的杭州搬家公司狗ddd弱的气力输送男人最脆弱的杭州机票杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机现场记录仪杭州化妆培训杭州复印机出租杭州搬家公司杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州信用卡套现富阳家政文化衫电雕机T恤衫

« Hide Comments

I disagree.
SJ's point might be more valid if:
1) Love were definitive: too many people cannot tell the difference between "loving someone" (putting the needs of the other person ahead of your own) and being "in love" (thinking the other person is great and wanting to have sex with them and be with them all the time)
2) People who love each other automatically got married (thousands of co-habitating couples demonstrate that fallacy)
3) Love was permanent (Check the divorce statistics)

There is absolutely nothing about "love" being denied to homosexuals. They can already commit to each other forever. They can already have a ceremony expressing their union. They can already arrange legal responsibilities for visitation, inheritance, etc. The few remaining legal problems are improving all the time, and marriage rights to try to clear up the last few difficulties (when they even still exist) is like using tactical nuclear weapons on your house to eliminate a rodent problem.

Marriage is not about love.

It's about Responsibility. Duty. Commitment. Partnership. Giving when you don't want to give anymore. Love is only a factor because when you actually love someone (not just "in love", but actually committed to wanting the best for your partner), it makes it easier to keep giving when you are at your lowest and convinced you are never going to get half of it back.

Yeah, many heterosexual couples don't recognize that. That's why we have a high divorce rate. But the ones who do are the ones who have successful, lasting marriages.

I see no acknowledgement of that reality coming from the pro-SSM lobby. Instead, I see the portion of the movement exemplified by SJ's argument trying to insist that Hollywood's view of love and marriage is the real one: Two hot people want to have sex, so the aggressive one makes a great speech about love and they live happily ever after, and get married mainly for the tax breaks.

Using SJ's argument, opposition to racial integration was about a "love": white folks loved their children too much to let them be corrupted by black folks.
Or another example: Hitler loved Germany so much he didn't want to see it ruined by Jews.
Or another example: Osama bin Ladin loves his culture and religion too much to see it destroyed by the Great Satan of western infidels.

"Love" is too general. The protion of the homosexual marriage lobby exemplified by SJ's argument is proclaiming love while spewing anger and rage, proclaiming love while demonstrating selfishness and childishness.

I'm at the point where I didn't comment because I absolutely don't want to deal with this topic any more, but I have to admit that the first thing that came to my mind was: what the heck does love have to do with setting public policy?

What is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me no more.

So well said, Nathan. I attempted to point a few things out concerning absolute truth and what's this whole "I am an American before I am a (insert religous afiliation here)"? Very strange logic. I can't help but think that those who aren't married under the "I am committed to God first and because I am, I will keep my committment to you whether I 'feel' like I love you or not" don't truly comprehend it. I think that lesson is learned after a few years (and waaaay past the honeymoon) and a few fights with your spouse. Love is a committment, not a feeling and certainly doesn't dictate policy in other arena, why this one?

Sadly, legal "arrangements", though drawn up by attorneys and apparently concrete, are still thrown out the window when push comes to shove. On one blog, I read of a struggle of a partner dying, the family of the deceased appealing to a judge, judge allowing family (who had not spoken to the deceased in many years) to STAY IN DECEASED'S HOME THAT WAS SHARED WITH PARTNER, at which time partner was forced to leave because deceased's family felt "threatened", and then deceased's family proceeded to empty contents of the house.

It's easy to say "love has no bearing on public policy" when your opportunity to marry is not up for debate.

And I've seen the same thing happen when someone contests a will even in heterosexual relationships.

A good will will overcome all such problems.

I don't know. The argument seems to be that homosexuals have the market cornered on tragedy and pain.

I don't believe that for a second.

That's all very nice, Nathan, but the idea that all gay marriage proponents spontaneously haul out the Sleepless in Seattle view of love as their ultimate argument is ridiculous. If anything, love has been used as a tar baby to keep gays constantly re-justifying our relationships: a decade ago, people said that we had sex all the time but didn't know how to fall in love. Then it was, "Well, okay, maybe you experience romance, but you don't actually know how to devote yourselves to each other." Then it was, "Uh, okay, fine, a lot of you do form lasting partnerships in which you sacrifice your own profit to take care of each other, but you don't have children to stay together for, see?" This isn't to say that the arguments (or at least some of them) against extending marriage aren't legitimate, and heaven knows you won't see me denying that a lot of gay activists are shallow, one-note hacks. Nevertheless, it often is the case that people on my team have had to argue their position in response to the ways people have challenged it--meaning that if they use love as a criterion, it may not be because they define marriage in those terms themselves.

No, Jo, it isn't easy. But that doesn't change the fact that the government is under no obligation to give me what I think will make me happy, and that trying to make everybody happy is no way to run a country. It's a specious argument designed to make people who think it isn't good policy feel guilty.

Sean,
I admit I can be as guilty of overreaction as anyone else. Perhaps this post was just such an overreaction.
But it wasn't a post to slam SSM-advocates written out of whole cloth on its own merits, it was in reaction to a specific post that tried to seize the moral high ground by arguing that this is only about love, so if you oppose homosexual marriage you must oppose "love".
I don't accept that premise. I don't accept it because marriage is not about love, it is about responsibility and commitment and duty. I don't accept it because it is a childish and selfish argument. I don't accept it because it is a Hollywood vision of marriage.
There are other merits to argue for homosexual marriage. This doesn't even begin to approach one of them.
Unfortunately, you rarely see any of the other merits. When you do, if you point out any flaw or raise any question, you are immediately labeled a homophobe. The states' rights argument so vilified in the Lawrence vs. Texas case is now the hero for Massachussetts...and once it is in place there, suddenly states' rights will become passe again when the 14th Amendment is used to impose SSM on all states. Clerks are openly defying orders from Governers to break the law and record marriages. Mayors are defying governers and Congress. State Supreme Courts are writing legislature. And when anyone mentions introducing an amendment to the Constitution in a Constitutionally-prescribed manner, they are accused of trying to rip up the Constitution.
These are all childish, immature, damaging methods to go about obtaining the responsibility of marriage.
Heck, look at the idea of the Constitutional Amendment again: 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it by popularly elected representatives! What could be more democratic than that? A court only needs a simple majority, and a 2/3 majority is considered beyond veto...yet we would need 3/4 of the nation to support an amendment banning gay marriage.
Since I've heard SSM-advocates say that approximately 50% of the nation supports SSM marriage rights, what are they afraid of? Why resort to such blatantly extra-legal methods?

And SJ tells me the answer is "love"?

No. That doesn't pass the smell test.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again for clarity, and for the record:
I don't oppose SSM on its merits, in fact I was originally neutral. I oppose SSM on the character and methods of the bulk of its proponents.

But you know what? I reread the post yet again, and maybe you're right: in the last three paragraphs I went beyond merely responding to SJ and into tarring the whole movement with the same brush.

I admit that's more than a trifle inaccurate. So modify the last few paragraphs from "the SSM movement" to say: "the portion of the movement exemplified by SJ's argument". In fact, I'll make that change

Perhaps, Deb, but the government IS under the obligation to treat all people the same under the law. And yet....we still think anything involving the "G" word just doesn't apply. I hope I am still alive the day we stop treating homosexuals like second class citizens.

Jo, I'm sorry to hear you haven't stopped yet. [evil grin]

Nathan, you're bad. :)

Jo, I hear you. This particular way of approaching the issue is just one that drives me a little nuttier than I already am.

But in all seriousness, you assume homosexuals are being treated like second-class citizens. That's hardly beyond debate.

I find it ironic that you can even utter such words as the government IS under the obligation to treat all people the same under the law., considering the Democrat platform regarding such things as abortion rights (men don't have a choice, women do), taxation (rich people should pay more), affirmative action (discrimination for a limited time is okay).

In fact, your argument is absolutely incorrect. The government is supposed to not discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, etc. Note: the government freely and happily discriminates on the basis of age with voting and statutory rape laws. Your statement sounds nice, but...

I say "we" because I like to remind myself that I am not some innocent bystander in society, I am a member like the rest of y'all.

I feel that in not allowing SSM, the government IS discriminating on the base of sexual orientation. That's all.

I have far less problem with you saying that you feel it is treating them like second-class citizens than the automatic assumption that it is.
In the first phrasing, we can discuss what, exactly, is going on. In the second phrasing, since I don't agree, you demonize me before I even say a thing.

It just strikes me this way: if you want to discuss, then you have to leave some opening for your opponent's view. Just now I didn't leave any, Sean called me on it, and I acknowledged and partially retracted.

I don't know. I'm probably just grumpy, but the whole argument just seems to be endless variations of "have you stopped beating your wife yet?", i.e., people are arguing off the basis of assumptions that simply aren't shared, so everyone just gets pissed off way too easy. Me included.

Nathan, did you read my comment over there? When I then later asked SJ to try to answer some of the questions I pose (because I really haven't ever had any of them sufficently addressed by the pro-abortion movement) he says that he wouldn't answer them because it doesn't fit the title of the subject-"Being Pro-abortion and A Good Catholic." I see from your comments above, that you and I have very similar beliefs.

Let me just say that weeks after the Supreme Court found in favor of Lawrence (Lawrence vs. texas) that a man and a woman presented themselves to obtain a marriage license in Salt Lake City. The were denied one thougha s th eman was legally married to another woman. They sued using the Supreme Courts decision as basis for the legality of their own suit. The polygynists (that's what they really are: one man and many wives) here are watching very closely because they very much believe that if the U.S. allows homosexual marriage, then it will have to allow polygynous marriages, as well. I hear it everyday that the government has no right to govern people's decisions on who or how many to marry (at one time). What say the SSM supporters to that?

N*A*M*B*L*A is also watching very carefully because they believe it a pathway into freeing of their rights to enjoy themselves and to pursue their form of "happiness." Most states only outlaw or punish non-consensual relationships, but they also cap the ages at 16- much to the delight and hope of the above mentioned organization.

*no time to edit for spelling

"What say the SSM supporters to that?"

I don't know whether I qualify as an SSM supporter, Rae, but I do know that even allowing civil unions in Vermont was supposedly going to open the floodgates for everyone and his grandmother to claim entitlements based on all kinds of improbably-contorted relationships with multiple partners, and it didn't happen, though people may have tried.

Also, unless I'm wrong, most states that do allow marriage to those who haven't attained their majority require permission from parents if you're below 18 or so. The only exception, I think, is if one of the couple is pregnant, in which case, parental permission isn't needed above a certain age that's lower than 18. Forgive me for pointing out that, while I'm no fan of NAMBLA, that's one complication, at least, that's unlikely to arise in a union pursued by two of its members.

Incredibly, and I only know this because I live in Utah, my 13 year old can be married with my consent and can choose to be married on her own volition at 16.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

...at least I'm happier with my blog colors now.

Whyn't you come around and annoy your blog friends with puns like you used to do?

I won't ask for puns (I already have a father for that, thank you very much), but I will say the color scheme is much improved. Maybe you could use the downtime to re-memorize obscure kanji? I know they fall out of my brain with alarming frequency, and Japanese only uses about 2000 in daily life and another few hundred for most works of literature.

hang in there...guitar does help, right? We'll expect a catalogue by the time you get back. :)

Keep your chin up; this too shall pass. If you feel like it, and have an opportunity to do so, drop me a line. We can talk books. I've found a few I think you'd enjoy.

Stay safe.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Looks like the tin-foil hate is on somebody else's head today.

Of course, if any race-related issues come up between now and then, neocon conspiracy theorists can sound a triumphant "AHH-HAH! We knew it!"

I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's quote (not verbatim) "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Politics on the whole are in the gutter today...though somebody point out just *who* is looking at the stars....it ain't pundits.

You don't think the Democrats use race as an issue...ever? You don't think they sometimes take the minority vote for granted? The President of the NAACP even said that a few months ago...

Yes, I think they take the minority vote for granted..look how Muslims and Hispanics turned out in full force to vote for Bush....it killed Gore.

But this is raving looney conspiracy theory crap. Please tell me y'all got somethin' better than that.

We have it all: Good stuff and crap. The Republican Party is a big tent.

Another point: "tinfoil hat brigade" is meant to imply accusations that have no basis in reality, not cynicism. For instance, it is a "tinfoil hat" to say that Bush had Saddam the whole time and only produced him to get a jump in the polls, and would do the same thing with Osama bin Laden.
Why? Because Bush wasn't doing especially bad when they announced we caught Saddam, and if he was going produce bin Laden at a time to help his support, that would be now. Furthermore, you don't announce something as big as catching Saddam on a weekend (Saturday night, wasn't it?) if you want a PR boost.
Now, if Osama bin Laden is produced two weeks before the election without any major operation underway to catch him, I would have to re-evaluate those tin-foil hats.
However, I've seen firsthand how a statement by a Republican is interpreted as racism because it was uttered by a Republican, but when similar statements are made by leading Democrats, it's totally okay. Do you think Bill Frist would still have his job if he'd made the comment Hillary Clinton had made about Ghandi and gas stations?
Thus, if two weeks before the election, a relatively minor statement by some Republican as being proof that Republicans are racist and the black race must get out and vote to get Bush out of the White House at any cost...well, then, this prediction takes on a little credibility.
Proof? Hardly. But predictions that come true are cynicism, not the stuff of "tinfoil hat brigades".

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

At first, the problem was just that traveling over here and adjusting to the different sleep schedule was giving me problems.

...and it's possible that this is just an inertia problem. The more I write, the easier it is to write...but if I let it go for a week, then the inertia of not-writing becomes huge.

But the problem is different this time. It's not writer's block, because I've never had a problem with that. The solution is simple: you write. You put something on the page, even if it is just free-association stream-of-consciousness stuff you delete later. (none of that has ever been included in my word-count total)

Every novel I've attempted has foundered on the shoals of realization that the novel I'm writing sucks. It's not a realization, it's a process. I guess I needed to start enough novels to see that the same thing always happens: I start with a good idea, I have a fair idea of what I want to do, I start writing...and somewhere along the line, I lose the voice of the character, or the plot starts to seem contrived, or I realize it just won't work.

This time it took 12,000 words to paint myself into that corner. Each time it takes longer. Each time the novel starts out better and rolls along longer before coming apart at the seams.

I'll hold onto it. I think the last 2-3 attempts may be fixable when I get more experience.

Part of the problem is that I want to write a Great Novel, with Grand Themes and an Important Message to Impart. At some point, that aspect tends to trip me up. I lose the voice of the character because Nathan the Writer keeps trying to say something, and then the next problem shows up: Impatience. Nathan the Writer gets tired of waiting for the character to do his job, and so starts ham-handedly pounding the keys that jerk the marionette's string.

I think if I try to keep pounding away at this novel, I'll just irritate myself.

It may be time to recognize I cannot write a novel. I can't tell a story, and I'm none too good at even a narrative joke or anecdote. Maybe I do not have the demeanor of a storyteller. Lord knows, there are enough people out there who would love to see you fail, I might as well please 'em, right?

Nope. It's a goal of mine to finish a novel. It's a process, and I'm learning and improving. You don't learn to run a marathon by running 26.2 miles your first time out. You build up to it.

I'm going to spend a week thinking about exactly what I want to write. Maybe the Neo-Western that's been bouncing around in my mind. Maybe an Anti-Terrorism-themed novel. I love the idea of a Muslim hero who fights against the Islamist meme that's taking over many of his friends and relations. I like the idea of bringing my knowledge of China and the Chinese language to people. Heck, I've even considered just retelling an old Chinese story in a new setting. It worked for West Side Story, no?

I will write. I will be a novelist. I'll get paid at some point, even if I just ask a friend to pay me $5 to cover the cost of printing it out once. Technically a paid, published author... [grin]

It may take a year. It may take ten. I probably won't meet my deadline of July 4th.

But it will happen.

*curious*
Are you a guy who thinks out the plot arcs all in advance? Or are you the type of guy who writes as he goes, thinking about plot elements as soon as you create them? (I know there are other elements to writing, but this is where I find myself when I do creative writing.)

I'm a guy who likes to read and write causes and effects. (Element A occurs early, a bunch of stuff happens, but in the end, Resolution B is an obvious end result of Element A, but its never obvious when its introduced. That is why you have all that other stuff happening, to flesh it out.)

But depending on my mood, I've found myself writing to the moment, or writing to the grand theme. My breakdown point is when I'm no longer interested in the theme I'm developing, or the character I'm developing, and while I have other ideas I want to hash out, I don't want to leave whatever thread I've left hanging. I'm too anal when it comes to getting resolution, or a place to break away from a scene and work on what I want to extrapolate next. So my ideas stay on the back burner for what seems forever.

Do you find yourself in such a knot?

I've tried just starting a story and seeing where it leads me, and I've tried to map out a very broad, general plot, letting specific plot devices develop as I write.

I'm very much a performer, in that I cannot really know how things are going to work out until I'm actually typing it and seeing it on the page. In some ways, I've approached writing as a reader: what would I enjoy reading? It was the combination of those two methods that I used on this last attempt that netted 12,000 words.

And I think I have another idea ready to go. I'll start working on it tonight.

Nathan,
I'm glad you're not giving up on writing. I've often found that as I write consistently my level of creativity rises. That has always been a problem in that it distracts me or makes me want to finish all the sooner. the latter then affects, plot, voice, character, narrative, etc. what I started doing was allowing those sidetracks to exist within limits. In other words I was draw sketches and do summaries like you did but always placed time limits on it. then I'd take a break and think about what parts various parts of my story line I'd like to write some more on. In other words I didn't write linearly or chronologically, for me it's something I can't do until I'm done with the 1st draft of hodge podge. It was only later, while sitting with my writing group that I was able to iron out problems, false character flaws, contrived writing, etc.
I really hope you don't give up writing as I like your blog voice. And I'd definitely pay $2 to read the reworking of a chinese tale. I'd rather welcome reading how another fellow westerner views China.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Your text, it no show up unless it's a link...

We had a network outage in the middle of my fiddling...no chance to fix it until now.

I hate it when that happens! :)

Looks pretty good overall, btw...

I wish I could figure out how to make the whole page be the light gray. I tend to dislike stark white... ...but I can't find the line that does it, nothing I fiddle with will change the total page background shade.

Any advice?

« Hide Comments

You dude, your link list is overlapping your text. Congrads on the map.

Sorry, I meant yo dude.

I wonder if the coalition has inspected the plant to make sure they're not making or storing WMD's?

Nah...I just had chili for lunch.

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÌÇÊ
ÔÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ãæÓæÚå ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãæÓæÚÉ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ßíãÒÑ
ÞíãÒÑ
gamezer
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÈÑÇãÌ åßÑ
ÈÑÇãÌ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ
ÇÈÑÇÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ 100
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÚÑÇÞ
ÚÑÇÞíÉ
Ïáíá ÇáãæÇÞÚ ÇáÚÑÇÞíÉ
IraqI Directory
Iraqi CHat
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ãæÓæÚå ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá ÕæÑ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÝÏíæ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇáÚÇÈ
ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
]v]am uvhrdm
äÊÇÆÌ ÇáÓÇÏÓ 2011
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÌÒÇÆÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÇÑÏäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ ÔÇÊ ßæíÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÛÑÈíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÛÑÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÏÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÊæäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ íãäíÉ ÔÇÊ íãäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ãæÓæÚÉ ÇáÎáíÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ
ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÇãÇÑÇÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔå ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÝáÓØíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÌÝ
ÔÇÊ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚãÇÑÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ Ïåæß
ÏÑÏÔå ÇÑÈíá
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÓãÇæÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÈÕÑÉ
ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓáíãÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÑãÇÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßÑÈáÇÁ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÇÕÑíÉ
ãæÞÚ ãÕØÝì ÇáÚÑÇÞí
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá
ÇÓÊÖÇÝÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÈæÇÈÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãäÊÏì

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

« Hide Comments

ROFL!

Good One!

Oh my, Nathan! Quite creative and very, very funny :)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Yeup. That man is my President too.
As Peggy Noonan says, he's an average guy, who's looking out for all of us.
Not some intellectual, intellectuals just talk.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I have been told my whole life I am related to Kris Kristofferson. I would like to talk with him, via e-mail. I am looking for a way to get a message to him! HELP!!

« Hide Comments

Thanks for bringing back my childhood.

"Mama Mia, That's a spicy meatball."

"A silly millimeter longer, 101."

"Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun."

"Have it your way."

I confess: I like the 'Ancient Chinese Secret' one.

"Someday you'll smoke a cigarette that does what this one does. Why not now?"

"Big Mac, fliet o' fish, quarter pounder, french fry. Icy Coke, thick shake, sundae and apple pie."

Hi! I'm trying to recall the product that used the slogan, "Try it, you'll like it." Can you help me? Also, about when was the commercial run? Thanks a lot.

If you find an E-mail commercial, tell me the E-mail address and I shall
"Blitz" them. Thank You.

Send all E-mails regarding commercials to commercialattack@hotmail.com

"Try it, you'll like it."

The commercial was alka-seltzer. The actor at the end would say "I tried it - I didn't like it".

The guy ended his statement with. "I tried it, ....... I thought i was gonna die"

Does anyone know where to get a hold of the 'ancient Chinese secret' commercial? I loved it.

[quote]Hi! I'm trying to recall the product that used the slogan, "Try it, you'll like it." Can you help me? Also, about when was the commercial run? Thanks a lot.[/quote]

[the rest of the comment deleted by blog proprietor due to unnecessarily lgraphic content]

Ok, I'm dying trying to figure out the commercial that starts out with a man saying, "Welcome to ______ country." Could someone PLEASE tell me what he says? Thank you :)

its welcome to Alamo country

I'm looking for a commercial that contains the slogan "What's in the box?". If anyone remembers this commercial I would really appreciate hearing from you.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Dear President Bush,
I know its not your nature (or the philosphy of the Republican Party) to get on the stump and celebrate when your point-of-view turns out to be right, or to rally the party in times like this (Newt tried to do it, and look what happened to him) But ya know, we (your constituents) really need some good news right about now. We've been listening to the Angry left spouting lots of crap the past many months. We'd like to hear some real talking points for a change. So snap to it!
Of course I say this in all due respect...

Yes. An apt addition. Thanks, Jeremy.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

On the bright side, he's replacing Deion Sanders...

« Hide Comments

1) Mature Society -
In almost every case, I support programs which encourage self-reliance and accepting the consequences of your choices. In the same manner, I nearly always oppose programs which encourage dependence, immaturity, and allow people to escape the consequences of their own choices. As such, I oppose welfare, be it personal or corporate. I strongly advocate limiting awards in lawsuits. I oppose the current form of abortion (although I don't want it completely illegal) and advocate more restrictions on type, time limit, and circumstance. I think the current laws regarding "bankruptcy" are far too lax, as well.
In general, I feel that if the consequences of a choice don't kill you, you should have to live with it. Additionally, the main governmental intervention should be to identify the choices that might ruin your life and educate the public on those choices. Beyond that, the government should only intervene to prevent death, leaving discomfort.
For example, we have hunger in the United States. But hunger is a slippery word...is it based on caloric intake? Nutrient intake? Number of meals? As far as I have been able to determine with internet research, no one in the United States is near starvation...so it is not the government's worry. But that's just one example; I'm sure you can think of your own...
Because if you live in extreme discomfort, then you have a motivation to improve your lot, or (if it's too late for you) you serve as an example to others who might make that choice.
That doesn't mean that it is the government's main responsibility to keep everyone alive as long as possible, though. I'm talking "trauma prevention", not "old age insurance". Death comes to us all, and if you make a series of foolhardy choices, you must be allowed to life, and die, as a result of those chocies. That's freedom. That's responsibility.

2) I want our society to reverse the trend toward isolation and "privacy" and regain interconnectedness -
The most heinous crimes seem to always be committed by someone who "was always quiet, pretty much kept to himself..." I don't think that's an accident. If you feel like you are faceless, like no one knows or cares about you, you are more likely to commit atrocities, feeling safe in your anonymity. The more people you know and interact with, the more connected you are to society, the more empathy you absorb, the more you care for those around you, the more you feel someone is watching and judging your behavior. This is a good thing. There are irritations associated with it, yes, but there is also more compassion. You can tell we are an extremely rich nation, because we expect that we can and should buy our way out of the irritation caused by our fellow man. As a society, we want to be free from someone watching and judging us, we want to hole ourselves up in our private castle, our personal Fortress of Solitude. I think that's a bad thing. The more privacy we have, the more we forget the truth contained in the sentence, "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." Every death diminishes us; every suffering hurts us. Along with getting the government out of making life easy for people, I want to get society as a whole back into helping. Sure, we never stopped having private charities...but it should be one or the other: government or private, and we know how much the government sucks at helping people. If the government encourages immaturity and dependence by meeting someone's basic needs without effort on their own part (and I believe it does), a charity at least tends to rouse a person's self-respect enough to not take advantage...and a charity has more options in dealing with a recalcitrant sluggard who won't work to meet his own needs.

3) I want to restore standards of decency and conduct -
Please understand, I am not advocating new laws of censorship or making actions illegal. I am saying that people should consider the impact of their actions more fully. I don't think we really need smoking bans...but non-smokers have a right to peace from smoke, as well, and it was a lack of standards of conduct on the part of smokers that led to it. At one time, no one would use foul language in public at all, much less around ladies or children. Now, "entertainers" have pushed the limits to the point that they regularly say "a$$" on prime-time TV. Cable television had much to do with that.

In general, I think that came from the "Me Generation" of the 70s. People stopped caring about what was good for society, or even what society thought, and started caring only for themselves. I hate to bring up "The Children" as a cause, but I wish people would stop trying to erode standards to a level that a 20-somethign can handle and start remembering that children go everywhere and see everything, and it all affects them.

What I mean is: I have no desire to close Strip Clubs or Adult Book Stores or make any aspect of homosexual behavior illegal or anything I can think of. I do object to the extreme sexualization of our society. Kids can't avoid it...can't we at least contain the most blatant aspects of sexuality away from the kids?

So what does this make me? There are some libertarian aspects (though not a lot), some Democrat, a good dose of conservative...and yet there's stuff none of them would agree with. I crave a society that values community, responsibility, self-reliance, maturity, compassion (personal, not governmental aid fueled by high taxation).

Final Note: It's impossible to sum an entire world view and life philosophy in a few paragraphs...there may be some contradictions or badly expressed thoughts or outright idiocies. My apologies, in advance. Bring them up, and we can discuss them in the comments.

« Hide Comments

"Yust [snap] like that."

« Hide Comments

"Oh Portia, do shut up."

Yeah, I apologize for stealing your meme...but I do that, sometimes.

I enjoyed it enough that I had to see what I could do with the idea...

Why did he name his daughter after a car?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Actually, Jerry Springer was a pretty popular Mayor of Cincinnati on the earl 1980s. He ran for Governor in 1982 and might have been successful but for a (ahem) "youthful indescretion" in neighboring Kentucky. Springer is smart, and had a distinguished career as a public servant. If only he hadn't gone to Chicago...

« Hide Comments

Nathan, thanks as always--totally blushing--but if what I've said is all you need to qualify as worthy of being a leading voice in American society nowadays, we're in deep trouble.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your points, Nathan (and I am sure a drop of grace is included with each), living where I currently do, the last part of number 2 is on the forefront of my mind, everyday and in most conversations.

Rae, your comment made me glance at my post again, and that made me realize that perhaps the line "get across to the rest of you" is a tad defensive, dontcha think? [grin]
That was in anticipation of someone getting irritated with my opinion of homosexuality...obviously, I have a lot more people than just homosexuals stopping by here...and it's not just homosexual activists who have taken me to task for some of my opinionated comments. Ah, well. In any case, the defensive comment is really only directed to anyone who might be irritated with me for any opinion I share.

« Hide Comments

However, it should be possible to trace the origin of this shell through casing fragments, or if they managed to copy down batch/serial number before they exploded the ordnance (which I'm going to hope they did).

If the origin is traceable, and if the shell is determined to be from Saddam's arsenal, then it is clear that the WMD was not destroyed, and Saddam was attempting to maintain an arsenal of chemical weapons at a minimum.

Understand this: we don't need a "smoking gun." We don't need to find vast quantities. If we find just one definitive sample of chemical or nuclear weapons, then the question of Iraq and WMD is settled, period.

Even if no one on the left would ever admit it.* They really haven't demonstrated much in the way of deep introspection or the ability to admit mistaken assumptions.

[* because, "Bush told the truth and people died!" just doesn't sound as snappy...]

« Hide Comments

We saw this on the news last night in the form of a 30 second gloat.

I'm pretty sure I grabbed the Saran Wrap rather than the tinfoil to make my hat with, but the first thing that came to mind was that this was awfully frigging convenient.

Conspiracy theories aside, something doesn't feel right about this. I, too, am reserving judgement for the time being.

...I just didn't want to shy away from it because it didn't fit with my pre-disposed notions.

I did hesitate in blogging...but Phil has a good track record, good experience in the military and in intelligence, and understands law much better than I do. I figured at the very least I could acknowledge it and send people to look at his take on the issue.

Hmmmmm.....

So far, I don't think I've disagreed with anything you've had to say on the subject--including this post.

I'm trying to wait a little to see what happens in the trials. I have strong feelings on the subject, but I think that a lot of it could be changing over the next few weeks.

I appreciate that you blogged it, Nathan, for precisely those reasons.

I'm not closed to the idea that I was very wrong about this (and possibly other things by extension), but I've definitely learned to wait patiently to let it all fall out before I opine.

Thing is, I can't seem to blog without commenting so I'm glad you did. :)

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÌÇÊ
ÔÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ãæÓæÚå ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãæÓæÚÉ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ßíãÒÑ
ÞíãÒÑ
gamezer
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÈÑÇãÌ åßÑ
ÈÑÇãÌ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ
ÇÈÑÇÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ 100
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÚÑÇÞ
ÚÑÇÞíÉ
Ïáíá ÇáãæÇÞÚ ÇáÚÑÇÞíÉ
IraqI Directory
Iraqi CHat
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ãæÓæÚå ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá ÕæÑ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÝÏíæ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇáÚÇÈ
ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
]v]am uvhrdm
äÊÇÆÌ ÇáÓÇÏÓ 2011
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÌÒÇÆÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÇÑÏäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ ÔÇÊ ßæíÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÛÑÈíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÛÑÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÏÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÊæäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ íãäíÉ ÔÇÊ íãäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ãæÓæÚÉ ÇáÎáíÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ
ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÇãÇÑÇÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔå ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÝáÓØíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÌÝ
ÔÇÊ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚãÇÑÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ Ïåæß
ÏÑÏÔå ÇÑÈíá
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÓãÇæÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÈÕÑÉ
ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓáíãÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÑãÇÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßÑÈáÇÁ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÇÕÑíÉ
ãæÞÚ ãÕØÝì ÇáÚÑÇÞí
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá
ÇÓÊÖÇÝÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÈæÇÈÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãäÊÏì

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

« Hide Comments

Hey, me too! Maybe they discounted instalanches due to the discussion of N*** Ber*?

I've noticed it too, that numbers seem to be at a standstill. I think perhaps the Bear is a bit broken. Can't be the easiest site to manage, I would bet.

...it's just that when it breaks, he usually posts something about it, or someone else notices it before me.
I just wanted to call some attention to it, cuz I've been eagerly anticipating the day I move up out of Flappy Birds again...although it may be a while...

I'm stuck too. I've been at 174 for several days now.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Much of this post is in response to Ilyaka...I suspect that she was merely reacting to a misunderstanding of what her opponents were advocating. However, I feel must respond to what she actually said, including giving my reaction to logical implications. I'm willing to retract any of my assertions if her implications were unintentional.

Ilyaka kicks things off with this quote:

According to estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of the victims during 2001 (table 1). Such crimes — intimate partner violence — primarily involve female victims. About 588,490, or 85% of victimizations by intimate partners in 2001 were against women. Intimate partner violence made up 20% of violent crime against women in 2001. By contrast, during the year intimate partners committed 3% of all nonfatal violence against men. (See Criminal Victimization 2001, Changes 2000-01, with Trends 1993-2001, NCJ 194610, for more information on victim/offender relationship.)

...then tries to pre-emptively dismiss any counterclaims by dismissing anything else as "conspiracy theories". This shows her unwillingness to actually face anything that might contradict her world view, as evidenced by the fact that she can base her entire argument on one stat by one organization. Sure, I'm sure she could find others, but to maintain her view she must ignore a whole host of information too voluminous to be mere conspiracy.

And here's the search string from which I found all those links in the first two pages. There's at least 22 pages (I didn't bother to click further), not all of which is applicable, of course.

But Ilyaka could have still been slightly more aware of both her source and the context of her data. The source is the US government, which assumes that violence is mostly men against women and the context goes right in line with this: since the law is written to arrest and prosecute men if any violence occurs, regardless of by whom and on whom, then naturally more men will be arrested and prosecuted. Since the legal system assumes that men are more violent, then naturally more men will be convicted, which is then used to justify laws that require men to be arrested and prosecuted even if they were a victim of violence. It's a vicious cycle.

The context of the web debate is that Cathy Young points out that the current laws in many locations are to automatically arrest and prosecute men if the police are called in a domestic violence dispute. If the violence is perpetrated on women 85% of the time as Ilyaka asserts, that would still not justify automatically arresting the man, because even by her own citing, in 15% of the cases the wrong person would be arrested. The people she was debating/disagreeing with (including Cathy Young's report, and Jeff Goldstein and Dean Esmay who were agreeing with Ms. Young) were not advocating men not bein arrested, they were just saying asserting that there are enough indications that women are violent against men to justify eliminating automatically arresting the man. If for no other reason, because even a false arrest can be used by women to prevent the man from getting custody.

Whether or not she intended to, Ilyaka is thus advocating that because of past conviction rates (not actual violence statistics, but only those that are reported, acted on by the police, brought to trial, and then convicted), men should, in fact, always be arrested in any domestic violence incident, regardless of that actual facts.

Someone gave the example of an argument in which he threw a dish into the corner. Ilyaka, perhaps unintentionally, insists he be arrested. Once, my ex-wife charged me and bit my arm (leaving teeth marks), ripped my shirt, pinched and twisted my skin hard enough to leave bruises, slapped me, choked me while saying "I'll kill you, I'll kill you!", and hit me hard enough to break my glasses. Since "guys aren't supposed to hit girls", I left the room and punched the wall in frustration, leaving a small hole. When my ex-wife saw this, she began wailing about my violent nature and was inconsolable for an hour. Had she called the police, Ilyaka would not have been satisfied unless I had been arrested for that, since 85% of convictions for violence are given to men. Thanks, Ilyaka, it's nice to know you are so charitable toward me.

The whole post is because I'm a little sick of the Deification (canonization?) of women in our society. I've already ranted (as have others) about how men are treated in something as ubiquitous as TV commercials and Sitcoms. The point of the post (and the other Mother's Day post), is to assert that women are no better (but also no worse), than men.

Women are merely the other side of the coin; generally, where men have a weakness, women have an opposite but equal weakness. If men obsess too much about sex, and use women to satisfy that craving, women obsess too much about money/security and use men to satisfy that craving. If men will dump women for someone younger/prettier/thinner, women will dump men for someone richer/more successful. If men have an urge to have sex with different women, women have an urge to control every aspect of their man's life and activities.

Women usually want to change the man they're with. Women nag. Women often judge/reject their partner's friends, yet hold their own as sacrosanct.

Women are petty, and will hate another woman for nothing more than having naturally clear skin, or garnering more attention from males. Beautiful women usually have few female friends...

Women are extremely capable of justifying their own actions (to themselves, at least), and thus a fight between women is usually extremely vicious with little sense of proportion. When men fight, it goes until someone says "uncle" and then it's done, sometimes resulting in new-found respect or friendship. When women fight, they are out to destroy, maim, or kill, and they will be enemies for life.

This is not to say that women are any worse. All the above aspersions are merely from looking at it from a male perspective. Men are just as bad from a female perspective. However, I wish to reiterate that I am extremely tired of our society, as well as specific members of our society, attempting to put women on a higher plane. Thus you get comments like Jo's:

...something in the neighborhood of 80% of those are considered "medical neglect". Considering the high rate of single moms and even married mothers being considered the primary "caregiver", this is something that should be taken into consideration when looking at these kinds of stats.

Perhaps I misunderstood what Jo meant by posting that...but let's turn it around:

...something in the neighborhood of 80% of men's abuse of children is "unintentional beatings", borne of frustration from women nagging and nitpicking. When men do kill, at least it's quick and relatively painless with a gunshot instead of slow and agonizing like "medical neglect", poisoning, or drowning the kid, which women usually do, and that should be taken into consideration when looking at these kinds of stats."

See how ridiculous that sounds? There is no rational way to try mitigate or minimize the fact of abuse, or trying to turn it around for it to "really be men's fault, actually". If you want to try to mitigate women's culpability by the reality of single-motherhood, you might want to go right back to the initial debate which is that the current policy of "automatically" arresting and prosecuting the man in complete disregard to actual facts of the case results in more men being forced out of the home, away from their kids. That's what Ms Young was asserting from the beginning, and what Jeff G. and Dean E. were supporting with non-"conspiracy theory" facts: that the current system does not help women or children, and should be reconsidered.

I'll restate it, more simply:
1) Domestic violence is a complex issue, and cannot simply be characterized as "Man on Woman".
2) As such, our current legal system that assumes that circumstance should be overhauled to reflect the true situation.
3) When a man has beaten a woman, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
4) However, when a woman assaults/commits battery on a man, it should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and currently is not.
5) When the violence is mutual, which is in approximately half of all domestic violence incidents, automatically arresting and prosecuting the man will not solve anything, and new solutions are required.

But there are people who are committed to making sure that no one even investigates the possibility. I sincerely hope Ilyaka isn't one of those.

Because here's some stats that are not mere conspiracy theory:

Violence against children by women is another issue where the public attitude is very different than the facts revealed by formal studies. The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services (call 1-800-FYI-3366 for a copy) reveals data about child abuse by mothers:

Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When the man is removed from the family the children are at greater risk. Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-only households.

Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other than the biological father.

Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely to become killers than children raised with their biological father.

Other studies reveal more about female violence against children:

Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.

Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.

Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.

Our culture learns to be violent from our mothers, not our fathers.

Yet, 3.1 million reports of child abuse are filed against men each year, most of which are false accusations used as leverage in a divorce or custody case.

And some more:

Minor Assaults: 

 Year                        1975  1985  1992


 Assault by husband      98     82      92


 Assault by wife            98     75      94


 

Severe Assaults: 

 Year                        1975  1985  1992


 Assault by husband      38     30      19


 Assault by wife            47     43      44

Wives report they have been severely assaulted by husband
22 per 1000

Wives report they have severely assaulted husband
59 per 1000

Husbands report they have been severely assaulted by wives
32 per 1000

Husbands report they have severely assaulted wives
18 per 1000

Husbands & wives both report wife has been assaulted
20 per 1000

Husbands & wives both report husband has been assaulted
44 per 1000

(Tables prepared using data from "Change In Spouse Assault Rates From 1975 to 1992: A Comparison of Three National Surveys In The United States", by Murray A. Straus and Glenda Kaufman Kantor)

Hmmm...I am still stewing on it, but over all some very thought provoking things here and I agree with much of it...but still need to allow it to sink in and re-read...

You know that I support this, really, but I think that it what I am examining is my reaction to a man saying it...interesting

Very interesting. Some of my visitors on buy mans leather wallet may like it so putting a leather-link up.

That's really interesting. My readers will like this, buy fine womens wallets. I'll send a link.

ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÔÇÊ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÝáÓØíä
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÝáÓØíäíå
ÔÇÊ ÝáÓØíäí -
ÚÑÇÞ
ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ãÑßÒ ÑÝÚ
ÝÏíæ
ÇÝáÇã
ÓßÓ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÇÑÏä
ÔÇÊ ÇáÇÑÏä
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÓÚæÏíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÏí
ÔÇÊ ßÊÇÈí
ãÞÇáÇÊ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ áÈäÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÝáÓØíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÊæäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÇÊ ãÛÑÈíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÏÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ íãäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÕæÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÎáíÌíÉ ÕæÊíÉ
ãäÊÏì
ãÑßÒ ÑÝÚ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ
ÔÇÊ ßæíÊí
ÔÇÊ ÇáßæíÊ
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÇáÚÇÈ
ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ |
ÇÛÇäí |
ãæÞÚ ÇÛÇäí |
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ãÕÑíå |
ÇÛÇäí ÇÑÏäíå |
ÇÛÇäí ÇÌäÈíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÓÚæÏíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÝáÓØíäíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÇãÇÑÇÊíå |
ÇÛÇäí ÓæÏÇäíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÞØÑíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ãÛÑÈíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÈÍÑíäíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÓæÑíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí áÈäÇäíå |
ÇÛÇäí íãäíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí ÚãÇäíÉ |
ÇÛÇäí áíÈíå |
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÑæÓíÇ
ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑ
ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÞÓã ÇáÇÓáÇãí
Çíãæ
ÕæÑ Çíãæ
ÕæÑ ÈäÇÊ Çíãæ
ÕæÑ ßæËß
ÕæÑ ÈäÇÊ ßæËß
æÓÇÆØ
ÕæÑ ÑãÒíÉ
æÓÇÆØ 2011
ÕæÑ ááãÓä
ÕæÑ ááãÓä 2011
ÈÑÇãÌ ÌæÇá
ÏÑæÓ ÊÕãíã
ÏÑæÓ ÝæÊæÔæÈ
ÕæÑ ÊÕãíã
ÕæÑ ÊÕÇãíã
ÕæÑ ÈäÇÊ ááÊÕãíã
ÕæÑ ÔÈÇÈ ááÊÕãíã
ÇßÔä
ÓßÑÇÈÒ
ÎØæØ
ÝÑÔ
ÎÇãÇÊ
ãáÝÇÊ ÓæÊÔ ãÝÊæÍÉ
ÓæÊÔ ãÇßÓ
ÏÑæÓ ÓæÊÔ ãÇßÓ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ 2011
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÈíÉ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÈíÉ 2011
ÇÛÇäí ÇÌäÈíÉ
ÇÛÇäí ÇÌÈíäÉ 2011
ßáíÈÇÊ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ßáíÈÇÊ
ÈÑÇãÌ
ÇÈÑÇÌ
ÇÈÑÇÌ Çáíæã
ÍÙß Çáíæã
ãÓÇÈÞÇÊ
ÇÓÆáÉ æÇÌæÈÉ
ÇáÛÇÒ
ÇÝáÇã ÇÌäÈíÉ
ÊÍãíá ÇÝáÇã ÇÌäÈíÉ
ÇÝáÇã ÇÌäÈíÉ 2011
ÇÝáÇã ÚÑÈíå
ÊÍãíá ÇÝáÇã ÚÑÈíå
ÊÍãíá ÇÝáÇã ÚÑÈíå 2011
ÇÝáÇã ßÇÑÊæä
ãÓáÓáíÇÊ
ÓÊÇÑ ÇßÇÏãí
ãÓáÓáÇÊ ÊÑßíÉ
ÇÎÈÇÑ ÝäíÉ
ÇÎÈÇÑ ÝäÇíä
ÇÎÑ ÇÎÈÇÑ ÝäÇíä
ÊÍÔíÔ
äßÊ
äßÊ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
äßÊ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÌÏíÏÉ
ÕæÑ ÊÍÔíÔ
ßÑÉ ÞÏã ÇáÚÇáãíÉ
ÑíÇÖÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇÎÈÇÑ ÑíÇÖÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ãÞÇØÚ ÕæÑ áÇÚÈíä
ÕæÑ áÇÚÈíä
ÕæÑ ßÑÉ ÞÏã
ÕæÑ
ÕæÑ ÚÇãÉ
ÕæÑ ÛÑíÈÉ
ãÚÇáã ÕæÑ
ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä ÚÑÈ
ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä ÇÌÇäÈ
ÕæÑ ãØÑÈÇÊ ÚÑÈíÇÊ
ÕæÑ ãÔÇåíÑ ÚÑÈ
ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä 2011
ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä ÇÌÇäÈ
ÕæÑ ãØÑÈÇÊ ÇÌäÈíÇÊ
ÕæÑ ÝäÇäíä ÇÌÇäÈ 2011
ÕæÑ ÓíÇÑÇÊ
ÕæÑ ÓíÇÑÇÊ 2011
ÕæÑ ÏÑÇÌÇÊ
ÕæÑ Çäãí
ÕæÑ Çäãí 2011
ÎæÇØÑ
ÚÐÈ ßáÇã
ÎæÇØÑ 2011
ÞÕÕ
ÞÕÕ ÌÏíÏÉ
ÞÕÕ ÞÕíÑå
ÔÚÑ ÔÚÈí
ÔÚÑ ÔÚÈí ÚÑÇÞí
ÇÈæ ÐíÇÊ
ÏÇÑãíÇÊ
ÔÚÑ ÔÚÈí 2011
ÔÚÑ ÔÚÈí ÍÒíä
ÏíßæÑ
ÇËÇË

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Sean makes some nice points in his essay over here, itself a response in part to my post over here regarding John Derbyshire's post.

Sean correctly notes that I was extremely vague about what, exactly, I agree or disagree with in Derb's post. There are good reasons for that vagueness:
1) There are some people who dislike John Derbyshire to the point that they will attack anything he says and anyone who agrees with him. Derb could say 1+1=2, and if I write a post saying I agree with that wholeheartedly, I've probably just let myself in for a great deal of grief from people who want to get their hatred of Derb off their chest. I can take it, but I don't enjoy it.
2) Homosexuality is an emotionally-charged issue. There is no position you can take in any shade of disapproval of homosexuality that is reasonable enough to avoid anger, insults, and ad hominem attacks. Again, I can take it, but I don't enjoy it.

In any case, here the points from Sean that I appreciate:

However, when that initial stage of big-time identity shift hits the spoiled leftovers of '60's anti-establishmentism, the results are not pretty.

But I don't think they're intrinsic to homosexuality, either...Despite the many troubled aspects of gay life, I think we're steadily getting our act together.

I hope that they aren't instrinsic, and I hope things are steadily improving. I've seen dueced little evidence to the contrary, but I'll allow that Sean has seen more than me, and I'll defer to his experience, and pray for that development coming to fruition.

That means that when conservatives say that they believe homosexuality should be decriminalized but still think it's immoral behavior, gays have to quit wringing their every word for evidence that they "really" hate us and want us all lined up and shot. It also means that conservatives have to stop picking over the lives of gays who say they're happy for evidence of the slightest misgiving or strain of melancholy to prove that we "really" aren't.

As for Derb's article, well, there were previous articles that had stuff I actually agree with. It's no so much a neat "agree/disagree" choice on this article, as much as I think he raises some interesting points that should be a part of the debate, like "mild, tolerant homophobia" and the idea that it would be interesting if homosexuals got their wish and there were a clearly identifiable gene marker for homosexuality...because there would then be the possibility of "fixing" it. I guess the nature of homosexuality is what it is, regardless of anyone's assumptions, hopes, or wishes, but it seems to me that it would be in the long term interest of the homosexual movement to insist that homosexuality is the result of complex environmental forces, culminated in a choice made among alternatives that are so limited as to not even feel like a choice, and that homosexuality is the best among the remaining choices....

And the one paragraph I actually absolutely agree with is:

This state of doublethink is impervious to reason or evidence. Male homosexuals apparently all believe that (a) AIDS has been a ghastly tragedy for them, deserving of widespread sympathy from the rest of us, not to mention lavish government-research funding paid from our taxes; (b) that the presence of this horrible disease in our society is no responsibility of theirs whatsoever; and (c) that AIDS is pretty harmless anyway, now easily controlled by drugs.

That is the exact same impression I have of homosexual attitude towards AIDS. It is destructive and counterproductive, but it is also absolutely ineradicable from homosexual society, at least for now....

So. Who wants to call me names?

Right on, Nathan.

Tolerance of homosexuality is demanded of us as citizens of a free society. As little as I think of it, I must concede that it's better left untouched by the law. I feel much the same about many other forms of behavior that I strongly disapprove.

But to demand my approval of said behaviors is arrogant in the extreme. It risks my good will. It's the likely source of a lot of current backlash against homosexuals. Similarly, to demand that the rest of us open up institutions with thousands of years of meaning and tradition behind them, to embrace persons who don't qualify for them and are proud of the fact, is asking for trouble as well.

Americans have to relearn the fine art of tolerating without condoning -- and the tolerated have to learn to accept that that's all they're due, by any standard of right or reason.

It absolutely fascinates me that whenever homosexuality is discussed it is invariably specific to *male* homosexuals -- Apparently Queen Victoria was right.

Myria

Okay, I'll bite: What did Queen Victoria say?

I do think that "homosexuality" is a beast that no one knows how to handle.

Male and female homosexuality are different from each other, and as different as they from heterosexualtiy.
Heterosexuality is based upon the joining of complementary "differents". No matter how much variation there may be within a gender, you can't logically make "complementation of 'differents'" an aspect of homosexuality without then directly implying that homosexuals are instrinsically different than heterosexuals of the same gender, and that open's a Pandora's box, if you think it through.
And the causes of homosexuality are just as rife with self-contradictions. If there were absolutely no choice involved with becoming a homosexual, many things would be absent from homosexual society that are clearly present. And yet, if homosexuality were absolutely due to choice rather than behavioral or biological "destiny", then there are other aspects that would be absent that are clearly present.

And so, I must conclude that a woman becomes a homosexual for entirely different reasons than a male does, and so there are different expressions of that homosexuality. It's probably as complex as why someone ended up at the height and build they are: a complex combination of genetic and environmental influence...

But in the heterosexual world, women are significantly different than men on any specific subject. Take domestic violence. When the subject comes up, most people discuss what men do to women. Other people absolutely deny that women could ever be violent except in retaliation...but there are strong indications that women are often more violent to their loved ones than men are...it's just that women are more subtle and indirect.

...and so I think when someone is struggling with some aspect of homosexuality that they have a problem with, it is the easiest to target male homosexuals. They tend to have the most graphic, most flamboyant, most easily designated negative behaviors.

Personally, one thing I've learned through all these discussions of homosexuality is that I have a far bigger problem with homosexual activists than I do homosexuals. I could see myself being very good friends with Sean, but I've met few other homosexuals who will stop "being gay" long enough to just be friends.
(referencing Sean's line about "not baiting heterosexual friends: it made me realize that every friendship I've had with a homosexual has ended because they wouldn't stop coming on to me despite repeated requests they cease and desist...)

The perhaps apocryphal story (though whether strictly true or not it clearly fits the tenor of the times and is far from unbelievable) goes that in 1885 there was an anti-homosexual law passed by parliament that included both gays and lesbians. Queen Victoria refused to sign it into law until all references to women were removed because women would not act in such a way and she would not allow women to be blemished by references to such acts.

Frankly I think you are creating distinctions were there are none, I fail to see how male homosexuality, female homosexuality, and heterosexuality are fundamentally different except in how we as a society wish to deal with them. In my view no one needs to know how to "handle" the homosexual "beast" save those individuals who are homosexuals who should be free to associate as they like -- as they say, don't make me no nevermind. In the end we as a society treat them as different creatures because, like Victoria, we either ignore or aren't bothered by female homosexuality (a common theme in many men's fantasies, actually, judging from what I hear about porn), and wish to see the majority heterosexuality as somehow objectively "right" when frankly the terms "right" and "wrong" have no meaning here. Male homosexuality elicits that irrational "Ick factor" in many, especially non-homosexual men, and that's pretty much all it boils down to.

Myria

Oh. No, if that's what she said, Queen Victoria was dead wrong, either coldbloodedly refusing to recognize the problems of her own gender or naively ignorant of the same.

Your "scare quotes" imply that you really didn't understand my point, looking for offense in words where none is implied. There was no implied "right" and "wrong", merely a recognition of reality: men and women are different.
You yourself use that as the basis of being amused that people only deal with male homosexuality.
Follow the logic: men and women are different. Two sides of the same coin, if you will. When a man and a woman join together, they must accomodate and compromise on the difference, the different attitudes, the different approaches. The combination of a complementary difference expands horizons and broadens understandings in the way that mere friendships cannot, because you are joining lives together.
Compare and contrast that with homosexuals, who are joining with similarities. Instead of an accomodation and compromise of differences, you get a duplication and intensification. There are minor accomodations, but we're talking in broad terms here: thus, you get an emphasis on sex in male homosexuality (emphasis on sex being generally masculine), and you get control issues and manipulation with female homosexuals. But in no case is it like a heterosexual relationship.
This is borne out in things as simple as the rate of sexual activity: it has been demonstrated that you can accurately predict the general rate of sexual activity by the nature of the partnership.

The only way a homosexual partnership can be like a heterosexual partnership in these issues is if homosexuals are fundamentally different than heterosexuals...and then that becomes a conundrum, since only one of the partners could be significantly different than the norm to bring about the same complementation aspect.

Which is not to say that homosexuality is wrong on that basis. There was no value judgment given, and you are jumping at shadows. (there are other aspects upon which I do make value judgments, but not this one)

But if you wish to ignore everything I've said and try to dismiss all evidence and logic as mere "Ick" factor, that is your prerogative. However, I won't let it go unchallenged here.

See, Sean? This is why I originally preferred to remain vague.

Nathan:
"I do think that 'homosexuality' is a beast that no one knows how to handle."

Yow! When you talk all hot like that, no wonder your friends can't stop coming on to you. :)

Seriously, though: I've had women friends who kept after me after I made it clear that I wasn't feeling bohemian and experimental. In my experience, there are some people you just can't draw out in an attempt to be a nice and understanding intimate friend. It's unfortunate that it has to be that way, but I think that these days, the problem swings all ways, as it were. Most of my straight friends (the women more than the men, unsurprisingly) seem to have encountered the same thing. Maybe a strategic fist in the jaw when necessary?

(And I wasn't seriously implying that you had failed your civic duty, BTW.)

Hmm, perhaps I've been unclear. the use of the word "beast" in my phrase "...homosexuality is a beast..." is merely an attempt to show that no one agrees on the nature of homosexuality. Everyone has their own view, and people argue past each other without understanding (or proabably even listening), resulting in a beast of a debate in which people get feelings hurt with no real productive gains. It is most assuredly not an expression of a value judgment. According to my understanding of the English language, I used the term appropriately...however, I admit I could have made it more clear by saying "the topic of homosexuality is a beast..."

Is that better?

Oh, and you lost me on the "civic duty" sentence. I didn't think you'd implied anything at all, so I'm puzzled. I'm also not trying to imply I've ever tried to be someone's friend on the basis of civic duty. I like people. If someone is interesting and funny and fun to be with, I want to relax and be friends with them. But it gets to be tiresome if everything you say is twisted around into a sexual entendre. It just got to be not worth it anymore. And I am as unsurprised as you that women have that experience. Part of the reason I am the honorable man I am is based on understanding what, exactly, most men do (or try to do) to women.
Personally, I feel sexuality is and should be a minor portion of the total being. I can understand why circumstances in current society are not conducive for a homosexual to do that...but it always seems imbalanced to me. In fact, I really can't stand hanging around anyone who sees the entire world through the focused lens of one aspect of life.

The "civic duty" thing was in reference to the "See, Sean? This is why I originally preferred to remain vague" line...meaning, the beginning of my original post was a joke: I didn't really mean to say that you and Susanna were, like, falling down on the job because you linked something without giving line-by-line commentary on it. I can certainly see now how the connection wasn't clear. Sorry. It had nothing to do with your reasons for being friends with people.

I'm not fond of emoticons--they seem like mugging to me, but I use the :) when I think that's the only safe way to make it clear that I'm joking around. If even that isn't going to work, I'll just stop making jokes and remove the problem altogether.

No, keep trying to be funny. It was obvious you were joking, but the subject wasn't obvious to me.

The reason why I mention you by name (i.e., "See, Sean?") is because I note in the first paragraph that your assessment of my vagueness is correct; ...since the second reason for that vagueness came true in scant hours from the posting, I wanted to call your attention to it. In a joking manner. I, too, hate using emoticons, but only outside of email.

That's really interesting. My readers will like this, buy fine womens wallets. I'll send a link.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I once said that the best bet for the Dems to win in 2004 was for them to nominate President Bush. I think they're very close to that realization themselves.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

No more coercion? Where will these fools ever find a better place for producing private porn tapes?

oops. Linkage bad. Sorry.

http://img19.photobucket.com/albums/v56/Mamamontezz/Editorials/GuardGoneWild3.jpg

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Aha! No doubt he was a member of the al-Gebra terrorist group, feared by schoolkids the world around!

I thought comical web puns were banned.

« Hide Comments

Refuse to read the only creature on earth who thinks about man-on-man action more than I do? Not on your life. I still think he's a self-aggrandizing jerk as a writer--the full equal of Tony Kushner and Michelangelo Signorile in that regard--but his political position on homosexuality has never struck me as extreme. It's actually expressed in the article you linked with less dyspepsia than usual; he can be (intentionally) funny when he isn't pomposing.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

...until this trip.

See, my first trip, there were only 5 of us. Not a big problem, even despite Guam having no electricity due to a typhoon, and the next typhoon hitting the island just as we were about to take off--we barely got off in time!

But the subsequent trips, the standard line was: "You are adults. This is when you are supposed to be here. Be on time, or you can explain to your commander why you didn't show up when you were supposed to."

Each time, I set the show-up time about 15 minutes before the bus had to leave to make it to the plane on time. That's worked without a hitch 4 times, even twice when there were more than 30 people.

This time, only 11. We were in Germany, everyone was of legal age, so I expected them to drink, and probably get drunk. No problem, they just have to watch out for each other and be responsible. We needed to leave for the terminal at 0520. At 0515, seven people still hadn't arrived. I started calling rooms...no one answered. Their hotel was 4-5 blocks away, so I started running...they were coming around the corner as I stepped out of the building. Whew.

Except that there were only five people. One, uh, "couldn't find his glasses". Why he didn't answer the phone, I don't know. But he finally arrived about 0527, and we got him checked out.

That left the last guy. No idea where he was. We called no less than 7 times. One of the enlisted had stopped by his room on his way out and stuck his head in the door and didn't see him. I told the front desk if he came by to make him get a cab ASAP.

We arrived at the terminal only a few minutes late. Not bad. I called the Military Police to see if they'd picked anyone up. He had last been seen at 3 AM, so I don't know where he could have disappeared to in just 2 hours.

Another 10 minutes, and the hotel desk clerk still hadn't seen him. So I called back the MPs and had them go check his room...if they found him, they would bring him directly to the airfield. Sure enough, he was snoozing on his bed.

I still don't really know what happened. As the Troop Commander, I was responsible for getting everyone on the plane on time, and I did. I should not have had to take the extraordinary step of involving the military police, because as an E-4, the standard is that he should have the responsibility to ensure he put enough measures in place to be there on time.

...and yet, I was responsible. If I hadn't figured out how to locate/find him, I would have had some explaining to do...
...but I did find him. In the end, no harm, so no foul. As an officer in charge of his deployment movement, I have the authority to give him a reprimand. A reprimand could hurt his chances to make E-5, or at least delay it. That could have reverberations down his career, and could mean he might be forced out...
Some officers might have torn into him.
My solution? It was a bad move on his part, but a better move on my part might have prevented it. He was at fault as a servicemember, but I was at fault as a leader. I told him I had no words for him, that I would turn it over to his chain of command. When I arrived, I told his senior NCO that I had no need to "burn" him for his irresponsibility, but that I would prefer that he learned a lesson from this, and that I would leave disposition entirely up to them. The grim look of the Senior Master Sergeant let me know he would get a butt-chewing of epic proportions...but I'm sure nothing will go into the records. The airman will be given the chance to learn from his mistake, grow from it, and if he successfully learns from this, it could be a step in the right direction for a great career.

I've given him an opportunity, and I hope he takes advantage of it.

But I also learned a lesson. It's not enough to "depend on people's responsibility". Not everyone has had the lessons I've had, and so not everyone is as obsessive about being in place on time. From now on, I will take the extra 30-60 minutes to make sure that everyone is awake and moving...although I will do my best to do it in a way that doesn't make them feel as if I'm doubting them.

Being a leader isn't easy, but it is fulfilling.

Dude... here's another one for the books. Taking a student with me on a tail swap to Saudi we RON'ed at Mildenhall. Snow was moving in rapidly and we were attempting to take off way ahead of schedule. (get out while you still can) I tell the student to begin preflight while I stow my gear. When I returned...no student. I find her in the galley wrapping her recently purchased Christmas presents. Ass chewing commenses. I'm called away by the Mission Crew Commander and when I return to my station...no student. Gone. Nowhere to be found. Not outside the aircraft...not in the latrine...just gone. Pilot calls for engine start so I make the call to just leave her. Turns out she realized she had left her line badge in her billeting room so she decides to fetch the missing line badge.(without informing anyone) Guess she found it 'cause she had it with her when we returned to Mildenhall 3 days later on the return trip. And this with no alchohol involved.

« Hide Comments

As you all probably know by now, we are turning Fallujah over to the Iraqis. This will give us an opportunity to focus on other areas, and hopefully to build a new Iraqi Army with some of the folks that are feeling alienated right now. We're all painfully aware of the various issues associated with this move, but there's no point in discussing them. We'll make this work, just like we make everything else work to the best of our ability. The Marines fought hard in Fallujah and took a lot of very evil people out of the fight. That effort, and the associated loss of Marine lives, was not in vain. We're already seeing a significant decrease in the enemy's ability to attack our forces. The supply lines are open again and everything is flowing freely through the country. Their efforts to cut us of in order to break our willpower failed. The Iraqi people are tired of the enemy and they are turning them over to us left and right.

This is an important development.

The two biggest problems in the Rebuilding of Iraq are:
1) The news media, in looking for a story (to give them the benefit of the doubt), are emphasizing the negative aspects, both from a basic ignorance of military matters and because "Another Hospital Treats 5000 People Without Interruption", "Another Length of Power-Transmission Lines Strung", and "Another Water/Waste Treatment Plant Opened" doesn't really sell newspapers
2) The Iraqis have done an absolutely horrible job of keeping security themselves.

Number two is vital. We will probably keep bases in Iraq for several years...if they let us. The location is very strategically significant: right between Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Plus, if we can keep troops there once Iraq is stable and autonomous, we can help ensure Iraq remains stable and autonomous by being on hand to prevent a war on/with the Kurds, a war between Sunnis/Shias, an invasion by Iran, or someone trying to set themselves up as the next Saddam.

It's been a few weeks since we said we'd speed up the process of determining "clean" Ba'athists and letting them go back to work. Since they represent experience, education, and training for vital security and infrastructure functions, I said at the time that it was probably a good idea. I haven't seen a single report of problems yet, and the Fallujah Brigade (the Iraqi military force that actually may have co-opted some of the most moderate insurgent members) seems to be doing a fairly good job. Maybe all we needed was for the Marines to engage and kill the worst of them?

I don't know. I know we aren't out of the woods yet. Muqtada al-Sadr's star is waning rapidly; he'll be dead or discredited within weeks, I think. The intense insurgent activities of Fallujah haven't spread to other cities, despite doomsayers who said things were on the verge of collapse. I trust Ben, because his info matches exactly what I hear coming out of there.

There's hope.

(Link via Zombyboy

« Hide Comments

It has everything to do with the way the military recruits. It is its strength, and its Achilles' Heel at the same time.

The military is the one institution that recruits almost solely on potential. The military will give anyone a chance. The greatest restriction on achievement is you and you alone. Sure, you might be barred from some jobs on your initial entry due to an insufficient ASVAB (aptitude test given by the military) score, but once you are in, a good performer can usually cross-train/transfer into almost any occupation.

Every other institution that I can think of accepts you only the basis of prior achievement. You must have done something good to get the top opportunities. You must have earned a college degree or had good work experience to get the best jobs. In the civilian world, choices you make before the age of 20 might already close off the paths to becoming the CEO of a large company, or a President.

But the lowliest recruit driving a truck can eventually become a 4-star General (and that sort of things has happened!). The military cares about what you can do, not what you did.

In high school, I was the perfect college candidate. I was a National Merit Scholarship Winner, and of the higher dollar total, meaning one of less than 1,000 people graduating that year in the entire nation. I had made the All-Northwest Choir, and All-State Band. I had won Academic Olympic Contests, Led a team to the All-Northwest Problem Solving Bowl, and won math contests.

I could have gotten into nearly any college on a full scholarship. The world was my oyster.

Five years later, I had already failed at life. Absolutely failed.
I had dropped out of college without a degree, worked for 9 months as a restaurant Assistant Manager to mediocre levels of accomplishment, and worked 6 months as a salesman who could sell anything.

I had no degree, little work experience, and no resume to speak of. Who would have hired me? Who would have cared about my mind, in light of my demonstrated lack of ability to accomplish anything?

The Army. They gave me one of the most difficult and challenging job assignments they had.

It was an uncomfortable fit. I got in all sorts of trouble my first year. To this day, I still think my sergeant singled me out for extra abuse. But then, it worked: I developed a stronger sense of responsibility, and honed the edge of mental sharpness and discipline. With the help of demanding superiors, I strengthened my character.

I hated the Army, and nearly got out. But in the last year of a 5-year contract, I started growing into it. Sure, maybe it was the fear of getting out with no degree, and seeing other colleagues not getting fat contracts when they got out. Maybe the chain of command started courting me for re-enlistment because they wanted to keep their re-enlistment rates up. Dunno. I do know I started to enjoy being in the military. I started to care about my co-workers. I started to become proud of how much military life sucked, about how much I gave up to stay in.

I re-enlisted. The Army gave me a semester off to go to school, and paid for it. I changed my major and did 54 college semester-hours in less than 10 months to finish up my degree. I took that degree and applied for the USAF Officer's school. I've had a decent career thus far, and Lt. Col. is well-within my grasp, and even a "full bird" Colonel isn't impossible. From there, the right place at the right time could mean putting on a star.

Why?

Because the military doesn't care about what you did before. The military only cares about accomplishing the mission and being a team. As long as you continue to improve/educate yourself and accomplish the mission, you will be promoted (but you are usually not allowed to stagnate: up or out, for the most part), and you will remain a part of the team.

What does all this have to do with the abuse of prisoners in Iraq?

Well, not everyone is a success story. Not everyone develops good character. Some people never rise to the challenges and are not allowed to re-enlist. Few are kicked out, because there is always some job you can accomplish, even if it is taking out the trash so others can concentrate that much more on their jobs. Some are allowed to re-enlist, but do not rise about the junior NCO-level, and that is often because of a lack of discipline or minor character flaw. There are people who work fine with good supervision, but if left alone, will go astray. They are fine for battle, they are fine for peacetime, they are fine for military service in general...but the first time they lack the proper supervision, the first time they have an extended period of being left to their own devices, the character flaws and lack of discipline show themselves.

I think that is a large part of what happened here.

Their true character became apparent in the environment created by the intersection of high stress and lack of supervision. They continued to demonstrate the lack of character in their denials of responsibility, in leaking the photos to try to poison the well that might lead to their conviction. Instead of showing military responsibility and intestinal fortitude to accept their responsibility and take their punishment, they choose to cover their butts. But then, if they had the moral courage to do that, they would have had the moral courage to stand up and stop the abuses in the first place.

And then, this comes around again to the leadership. The General and her Lt Col subordinate have been pointing fingers at anyone but themselves. They sicken me with their lack of military bearing and responsibility. I am disappointed that they could rise to such high levels without having had the mettle of their character tested before, but the military is still a bureaucracy, and this happens in the military in peacetime.

I'm reminded of Heinlein's Starship Troopers, during the training portion, in which a recruit hits a sergeant. The recruit is punished, because he must be in order to maintain "good order and discipline", because you cannot allow a recruit to hit a superior and get away with it...but the commander blamed the sergeant for allowing the recruit to actually hit him. That applies in this case: The General is absolutely a dirtbag in the way she's tried to shift blame to protect herself. But her worst crime was not providing the proper supervision to prevent this. The soldiers who did this should be convicted and jailed. If the extent of the abuse is as bad as I fear, those responsible should face the possibility of execution. But every single violation these soldiers did should be laid at her feet. If properly supervised, this would never have happened. She failed them. The entire chain of command failed the soldiers.

Agreed on all points.

Very nicely said.

You know, Nathan, I'd been wondering about that. I recognized Karpinski's name from having read about her in a different context a decade ago. When she was interviewed on CNN, she said something like, "Well, I do accept the responsibility, in that I was ultimately the officer in charge, but the blame? No." I thought, Wow. Where can I get a job that let's you flim-flam like that?

But I also wondered...it sounds as if there were a bunch of different offices/agencies/power centers involved in prison administration. I'm not saying that she shouldn't go down for not doing her job, but the way things are described on the news, it's hard (given that I'm not in the army, let alone in Iraq) to assess how much real authority she had.

Very nicely said...one of the things that has troubled me my whole life is overhearing two male classmates scheme to drop out, and when another classmate said "what will you do with your life?" we learned that they had already been ok'd to enter the marines. And, into the Marines they went.

I had taken the ASVAB and knew they weren't in that group from my school that tested..."career military" is not something they had planned in their lives. They just saw it as an easy way out (boy, I bet they were in for a surprise).

I am sure they didn't make it very far at all...on the other hand, a person who I took the ASVAB with (and had dated off and on in that high school way and was a very good pal) did become career military. (along those lines, I think he's really pissed at me over my war opposition and not speaking to me, but hopefully one day he'll come around.)

Sean,
I suppose it is possible she was cut off at the knees, authoritarily speaking (yeah, I made that up...so what?), and prevented from knowing what was going on there...but I doubt it.
That star on your lapel gives you an extreme amount of authority. You can wear whatever uniform you want. You can take and give rank to lower-level officers, not to mention enlisted. You answer to pretty much only 4 people above you: the Theater Commander, the Secretary of your branch, the SecDef, and the President...well, not exactly, but pretty much.
People freak out and stumble all over themselves when a Lt Col visits. You wouldn't believe the lengths people go to make a Colonel happy when he stops by. A General very nearly has the power of life and death over their charges. She didn't do her job.
...but I admit I'm not a general, so maybe I'm not totally correct.
Jo,
...or maybe one day you'll come around...?

The higher you go in the military, the higher the standards are. A "star" performer at one level is expected to increase their accomplishments as they go. What is impressive in an E-3 doesn't even meet the standard in an E-5. Those two guys looking for the easy way out probably lacked the discipline and responsibility to succeed in the long-term, but could still be good Marines for one enlistment. And it was still worth the gamble to the Marines to let 'em try.

I should have clarified- what I meant was "maybe he'll come around to being my friend again". My door is still open.

« Hide Comments

THANKS FOR THAT VIDEO. ITS SO SAD. I CRIED

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Chinese Language, Society, and History
Pre-WWII Military Surplus Bolt-Action Rifles
Music Theory
Armchair Human Psychology
Armchair Theology
Styx (don't ask)
1st Edition AD&D
Speculative Fiction (specifically: early Heinlein, Larry Niven, CJ Cherryh, Terry Pratchett, Steven Brust, Barbara Hambly, Lois McMasters Bujold...)
Cats (the animal, not The Musical!)
Axis & Allies

You can challenge me on any of these, if you wish...

Nate,

I'd challenge you on 1st Edition AD&D...but I think you and I only played 2nd Edition AD&D together, right? ;)

By the way...why did they eliminate the monk from 2nd Edition AD&D, only to bring the class back in the 3rd Edition? I think it must have been part of some vast left-wing media conspiracy... :p

Dalin

Styx: I liked the band, especially "Lady" and "Snow Blind".

Hamby: Didn't she write one of the follow up stories in the Star Wars saga?

Yes, she did, and I'm sure it was excellent...but I've avoided the post-Return of the Jedi novels like the plague.
I like her other stuff. She does horror-tinged fantasy as well as anyone else out there, and better than most. I don't think she's gotten the exposure she deserves, frankly.

C'mon, Dalin...there is no left- wing conspiracies! Because the New York Times, CNN, CNBC, Air America, Michael Moore, Time Magazine, Dan Rather...they are all Centrists. Remember: if an unproven assertion is made that makes Republicans or conservatives look bad, it is merely the truth that has been suppressed by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy groups, but if something happens that might make liberals or Democrats look bad, it must be merely fabricated/falsified by the same VR-WC groups, because Democrats/liberals are as pure as the driven snow.
Armed with this new knowledge, you can be sure that every election in which a Republican gets more than 50% of the vote, is also the result of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. So vast that it is more than 50% of the given population, to be sure, but a Conspiracy nontheless. And let us not forget that the root-word of Conspiracy is Piracy, which proves that Republicans have stolen every single election they have won.

...hmmm. I must stop channeling trolls. It makes me feel stupid and dirty.

Sheesh! And I thought I was just making an "in" joke about AD&D, while trying to keep it pseudo-relevant to recent posts.

BTW, are those 1st Edition AD&D or 2nd Edition AD&D trolls you're channeling? (;

« Hide Comments

Yes, but as your mother always said, "I feel better telling you to be careful." :)

You were pretty dang quick on the draw, there, Rae! "Rae: Fastest Blog in the West", eh?

That thar's right, Mr. Nathan. I like to "call myself Oakley, Annie Oakley, after yonder whistle stop."

No, really, I just happen to have stopped by at just the right moment.

« Hide Comments

Nate,

Thoughts and prayers float your direction, buddy. Keep safe and come home soon.

Dalin

Ditto.

same alternate addy?

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÌÇÊ
ÔÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ãæÓæÚå ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãæÓæÚÉ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ßíãÒÑ
ÞíãÒÑ
gamezer
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÈÑÇãÌ åßÑ
ÈÑÇãÌ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ
ÇÈÑÇÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ 100
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÚÑÇÞ
ÚÑÇÞíÉ
Ïáíá ÇáãæÇÞÚ ÇáÚÑÇÞíÉ
IraqI Directory
Iraqi CHat
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ãæÓæÚå ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá ÕæÑ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÝÏíæ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇáÚÇÈ
ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
]v]am uvhrdm
äÊÇÆÌ ÇáÓÇÏÓ 2011
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÌÒÇÆÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÇÑÏäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ ÔÇÊ ßæíÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÛÑÈíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÛÑÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÏÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÊæäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ íãäíÉ ÔÇÊ íãäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ãæÓæÚÉ ÇáÎáíÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ
ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÇãÇÑÇÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔå ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÝáÓØíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÌÝ
ÔÇÊ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚãÇÑÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ Ïåæß
ÏÑÏÔå ÇÑÈíá
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÓãÇæÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÈÕÑÉ
ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓáíãÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÑãÇÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßÑÈáÇÁ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÇÕÑíÉ
ãæÞÚ ãÕØÝì ÇáÚÑÇÞí
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá
ÇÓÊÖÇÝÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÈæÇÈÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãäÊÏì

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

« Hide Comments

Good luck Nathan. Be careful please.

Yes, Nathan, my prayers and thoughts are there with you.

{{{{{Hugs}}}}}

Please let us know if there is some way that we can support you or your family.

« Hide Comments

Dean Esmay:

It's sad to me that, in 2004, we still have people speaking of this as if it's a "woman's issue" and still talking as if this is about women being beaten and killed as the primary problem.

Of course, some do this out of genuine misinunderstanding. But some do it becuase, frankly, they are faux-feminists with a vested interest in perpetuating those stereotypes because it gives them political and, in many cases, financial power to do so.

We know now that women are guilty of an equal rate of spousal assaults as men. We also know that women commit the majority of severe child abuse and the majority of child homicides, and about a quarter of child sexual molestations, as well as a large proportion of elder abuse. We also know that women are far more likely to get away verbal assaults, or even be encouraged in such behavior.

The failure of women to take responsibility for their own violent and dysfunctinal behavior by blaming men or "patriarchal society" and suchlike only contributes to the fact that domestic violence continues to be a serious problem. We are still, unfortunately, blaming the victim--which is as often the man as the woman, but which most people are still too afraid to acknowledge.

Richard Bennett:

Interesting discussion here, and I see that both sides are well-represented. I used to deal with this issue as a part-time lobbyist, and I've had the good fortune of discussing it with some of the leading researchers and advocates in the field, on both sides the of the issue, including Cathy Young, who's been writing about it for several years.

The main problem with DV laws as they stand today is just what Cathy says it is: the "one size fits all" approach. Research tells us that DV sorts out into three categories: somewhat less than 25% of the time, the man is the sole aggressor; a little more than 25% of the time, the female is the sole aggressor; and about half the time the violence is mutual.

So it stands to reason that a comprehensive approach to reducing violence would identify the dynamics and treat them appropriately, right? Which would mean that about as many women as men would be arrested and treated in the DV re-education programs, and that half the time an arrest is made, both parties would be arrested, right? After all, they've both broken the law, and the law's the law.

But this isn't what happens. In many states, there is a statutory prohibition against mutual arrest, and the cops are directed to arrest the "greater aggressor", which in most cases is judged by the cops, on the basis of their training, to be the male.

Now how well do you suppose the re-education camp works on the typical male who's either not an aggressor or one of two mutual aggressors? Bear in mind that he has to stand up and declare that the whole mess is all his fault or he's expelled from the class and made to start all over again, paying around $50 a week for 52 weeks or so to avoid more jail time.

And then there's the interesting question of the "overlap" between spousal violence and child abuse. Mothers in violent relationships, whether we judge them aggressors or victims, are ten times more likely than normal mothers to abuse their children, and are even more of a threat to children than the men. When the man is arrested, the abusive mother has free rein to abuse the children without any fear of retribution on the man's part, and this happens, a lot.

We don't have mandatory arrest laws, or one person arrest laws, in child abuse cases, where mothers are by far the most typical perpetrators. So why do we need them in cases of spousal abuse?

I think you can work that out for yourselves, but here's a clue: women's groups lobby the hell out of the legislature on these laws (and the related issues of child support, custody, community property, and alimony) while men have, at best, a token volunteer lobbyist when he can take the day off work.

Dean's data is grossly inaccurate:

Intimate Partner Violence: 1993-2001

From the opening paragraph:

According to estimates from the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), there were 691,710 nonfatal violent victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends of the victims during 2001 (table 1). Such crimes — intimate partner violence — primarily involve female victims. About 588,490, or 85% of victimizations by intimate partners in 2001 were against women.
Intimate partner violence made up 20% of violent crime against women in 2001. By contrast, during the year intimate partners committed 3% of all
nonfatal violence against men. (See Criminal Victimization 2001, Changes 2000-01, with Trends 1993-2001, NCJ 194610, for more information on victim/offender relationship.)I eagerly await the conspiracy theory that will be used to explain this discrepancy.

By the way, smashing Mother's Day topic.

while it is true most child homocides are perpretrated by women, (app. 5% increase over men)...something in the neighborhood of 80% of those are considered "medical neglect". Considering the high rate of single moms and even married mothers being considered the primary "caregiver", this is something that should be taken into consideration when looking at these kinds of stats. FWIW...

Apologies, Jo--I ought to have made it clear that I was responding specifically to this statement:

We know now that women are guilty of an equal rate of spousal assaults as men.

Because we don't "know" any such thing. That line graph (see link above) would look one hell of a lot different if we did.

For the record, I don't, obviously, condone child abuse, whether by neglect or by malice. That subject, however, was not the topic originally under discussion at either Protein Wisdom or Snooze Button Dreams.

ilyka, I appreciated your stats, I think it was important that you posted what you did. Thank you. :)

WTF???? Mother's day posting??? Cut it out!

How about this fertilizer website?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

But then I realized that no one watches CNBC.

Well, it's on that other Kevin's blog but the post was by Paul.

Oops. Heheh, yeah, you make that clear...it's just that Wizbang=Kevin in my mind, still.

I don't have anything worthwhile to say.

Yeah, i'm sure that there's plenty of evidence, but MoveOn, George Soros, etc just like looking like idiots for ignoring clear of 'evidence', since the traitorous press that sides with terrorists won't show the truth.

Maybe liberal idiots will grow a brain someday...but I doubt it.

Anyone who doesn't recognize that there is a clear connection between Saddam Hussein and terror is a complete idiot and a total oxygen thief.

also... "whackly" is not a word

« Hide Comments

See, compare and contrast with Father's Day. You get Dad cordless drills, barbecue equipment, maybe a weight set.

Can you imagine the guilt trip you wife/mother would lay on you if all you got her for Mother's Day was a vacuum cleaner, some pots, and a thighmaster? The pain would be unbearable. For you.

It comes down to the same old thing: Guys do what they need to, fulfill their responsibilities, do their job, and without much thanks or appreciation. When they return home, they are expected to do 100% of the nasty, heavy, tiring jobs (because that's Man's work yanno), and still do 50% of the rest of the work, because a man who doesn't do 50% of what women consider to be women's work is just scum. Oh, and since women overestimate their own contribution and underestimate their husband's efforts (that's been pretty much proven), the guy has to do about 60% of the work just to be considered breaking even.

And we reward him on Father's Day (if we even notice or remember) with tools to do more work.

Women go through 9 months of pregnancy and something less than 48 hours of labor. Hey, it surely isn't comfortable in the 9th month, no. But if you talk to any mother, she acts like the day she conceived she was carrying 30 pounds of baby and 50 pounds of water weight within hours, giving her nine months of absolute hell and filling her with such rage that we must, like savages appeasing the volcano God, offer her up tasty morsels and treasure at least once a year* to ensure that she doesn't explode, wreaking destruction and pain on all around her.

[on a side note, someone once asked if one ever wreaks anything but havoc. I think we've shown here, today, that "havoc" isn't automatically "wreaked")

But, honestly folks!, if every year some teen somewhere gives birth to an 8-month old baby at a prom without even having known she was pregnant, how tough can it really be?!??! ...maybe it's all anticipatory fear? Dunno.

All I can really say is women got a nice scam going, and applaud their puissance in manipulation. Oh, and "Happy Mother's Day!"

(*I say "at least once a year", but obviously, women need constant appeasing: don't try to give her toaster oven on Christmas, her birthday, or her wedding anniversary, either)

Ah, Nathan! I see that liquid super-armor you ordered has finally arrived!

(tee hee)

All my best,
Fran

Nah, that won't get here until Father's Day. Cuz it's work-related, yanno? [grin]

I look at it this way: Men make a hobby of things they no longer have to do for survival. Things like working with wood, or automotive tinkering, even hunting or fishing for their dinners. When one makes a hobby of something it ceases to be a "chore."

I have yet to meet a woman who has made a hobby of vacuuming or toilet cleaning. Cooking, on the other hand... Well, let me say that the way into my heart is a heavy guage stainless steel 6 inch deep roaster without that damned non-stick interior. I'd follow someone home on the promise of that... *sigh* But just try to accomplish Mommilial Appeasement with anything less, and you're asking for trouble.

Nice insight, there, Mama. I'm not going to correct the piece, tho, because it was mainly snark for humorous effect...
...but I'll admit that you are probably 99% correct.

Yeah, I'm with Mama on that one. I'll take a KitchenAid mixer or some Calphalon (series II professional) anyday!

Mmmmm...Kitchen Aid....Mmmmm....

Hmmm, I am a little slow on the uptake, sorry.

I would love an appliance, but in truth, would scoff at the thighmaster, unless I requested it. I asked for free weights last year.

In our house, each is given the same treatment: sleeping until choosing to be awake; choice of all meals; gifts and special dessert. Whatever the one wants, the other makes happen.

It just so happens that my R enjoys getting tools, but that's because he likes using them in whatever capacity they can be used-fixing something around the house, rebuilding an engine, etc. If I gave him a book, he would like it, but he would prefer something that he can exert some physical energy to use (a little sweat, you know).

I am thinking that maybe a note with a few choices for your wife to choose from (no tools on the list) may present you with a more enjoyable day. Unless I took the whole post wrong and this was all tongue-in-cheek?

« Hide Comments

Accountability and responsibility are funny things, I guess. I mean, some people blame President Bush for 9/11. Like him, I think there were Muslim Extremist members of Al Qaida actually holding the boxcutters, and I don't think they were acting under President Bush's orders. Heck, President Clinton blamed Conservative Talk Radio for the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. John Ashcroft is being blamed for jack-booted thugs trampling on civil rights across the nation, despite a conspicuous absence of jack-booted thugs...and I have no idea what these same blamers think of the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, or they feel was responsible for that. Probably President Bush, I guess. Or a Republican somwehere, if they can manage it.

In any case, I have no problem with the Brigadier General in charge of the prison to be held responsible and removed from her position in the aftermath. You could as easily insist that only the people who actually did anything were responsible, and you can't blame the General any more (or any less, perhaps), than President Bush for 9/11.

Except that doesn't fly with me. There are tiers of responsibility, particularly in the military, but also in society. If a product doesn't ship on time, is it the fault of the person who boxed too slowly? The manager who failed to notice the person boxed too slowly? The CEO?

See, at some point, there is someone who is given full responsibility for making sure the product is shipped. That responsibility is a portion of the entire responsibility held by the CEO and/or President and/or owner and/or board of directors (can you tell I don't know much about business?). But since the guy at the top can't see/know/do it all, he shares in part of the responsibility, but at some point the main responsibility falls on the person who he gave the responsibility and authority to, who is also the person who accepted this responsibility.

In the military (something I do know), there are specific tiers of leadership, as well. Junior enlisted have little responsibility, junior non-commissioned officers (sergeants) have a little bit more, senior NCOs still more. One of the reasons even a 2nd Lt can make more than some senior NCOs (depending on time in service), is because even the lowest officer is held to a higher level of responsibility. It's his job to make sure his taskings are accomplished, but the junior NCOs will probably supervise/guide the junior enlisted with advice/support/expertise from the senior NCOs in accordance to the direction established by the officer. Company-Grade officers (Lts and Capts) have a certain level of responsibility, usually for a company-sized unit (up to 100+ people. Usually) Field-Grade officers (Majors and Colonels) have higher levels of responsibility, but also higher levels of authority. They can step in and make life miserable for any Company-Grade Officer that is not doing their job. General/Flag officers can do the same to Field-Grade Officers.

That's why some people never make it past Lt Colonel. They are considered to lack the "stuff" that would earn them the position in which they have total control and total responsibility and total authority over a full unit (Like a Division, Wing, etc). For the most part, General/Flag officers are told what the effect/position their unit needs to accomplish, and they are allowed to do whatever is necessary, within reason, to accomplish that objective. As long as the objective is accomplished without abnormal casualties or abysmal morale, no one jogs their elbow or looks over their shoulder. For the first time in your career, you are fully and absolutely judged solely by the accomplishments of the unit under your watch.

That is the authority and responsibility granted to by the President through the Secretary of Defense through the branch secretary through the Senior Military Leader of that branch. You accept that responsibility.

That's why the General in question is responsible. By accepting the star and taking the position, she was accepting that it absolutely was her job to know what was going on in the prison. Particularly since the opportunity for such abuse was quite available.

But President Bush and the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld, while they can apologize for the poor judgment in appointing the people who appointed her, should not be held fully responsible because they had delegated the responsbility and authority to her, and while she could further delegate aspects of the responsibility, the authority of a General Officer could not be delegated any lower. Thus, while she should not get jail time for these horrendous acts because she didn't take part in them, she should lose her position, her rank, and probably her retirement because she did not fulfill her responsibility to any acceptable degree.

She failed, and failed badly. She failed her superiors, she failed her subordinates (who also failed her), but most of all, she failed those in her charge. Nice quotes notwithstanding, "the buck" stopped with her, and she knew it.

..exactly... Leaders should be leading... she was not...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

That's because your writing is timeless, Nathan ;)

[blushes]
Aw, shucks, Ma'am.

« Hide Comments

The "right" to free speech, like any other "right" is not granted by governments, or any other man made entity. It is part of the God-given right of liberty (as expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence). One of the biggest mistakes made in discussing the 1st Amendment is that anybody who tells you to shut up is denying you your right to free speech. According to the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law" preventing free speech, organization of religion, peaceful assembly, etc. If you were to delete this post, you would not be infringing my freedom of speech. Rather, you would be exercising your own freedom to print whatever you feel like. Turning to the issue of the FCC and censorship, if the FCC didn't exist, and broadcast stations were free to censor their content based on the opinions of the owners and the audience, there wouldn't be as much brouhaha over media censorship. However, when the beaurocricy steps in and an organization is created by the Federal Government that has the power to censor, then problems arise. In essence, the FCC is unconstitutional because it was created (or at least approved) by Congress. Strict Constitutionalists won't exactly see it this way because there is no actual law on the books prohibiting certain types of speech to appear in broadcast form, but the idea of a government approved and (most importantly) federally funded organization overseeing what we can hear/watch/read would have appalled the Founders. The bottom line is that it is the responsibility of the people to deem what is acceptable. No one is forcing you to listen to Howard Stern or to read Hustler. If someone argues "what about the children?" simply tell them to "keep an eye on yours, I'll watch mine." U.S. currency used to carry the slogan "Mind Your Business". Not such a bad idea when it comes down to it.

I've never been satisfied with the "if you don't like Howard Stern, don't watch", if you are offended by that image on your TV, turn it off" line of reasoning, because the Superbowl this year shows how you can be minding your own business and someone does something with so little warning you have no chance to turn it off.
...and it's not so much me being offended as not wanting to have to control every minute of my children's lives in order to allow them to live a little longer in a child's world instead of being forced to deal with adult issues before the proper time.
At what point does "minding my own business" need to get pre-emptive, I guess I'm asking. At what point do I have to start expecting that driving down the street means my child will be exposed to nudity and pornography?
At what point do I have to avoid whole city streets so my kids don't have to look at a billboard of the Barbie Twins wearing less than a square foot of cloth between them?
There used to be a thing called "standards". It had nothing to do with rights, per se, but it recognized that what might be okay for you might not be okay for everyone, so you defaulted to the least offensive, most mature, most safe, least titillating level. Now everyone is scrambling and clawing to express themselves in whatever manner they choose, no matter how foul.
At what point do I have to act because with my windows rolled up and a Blue's Clues CD playing, I can't hear it over the thumping bass and crude lyrics of the car next to us at the stop light?

So "rights" may be natural. "Rights" might not have to be granted by a government...but they do have to be recognized, because too many governments have not recognized them. Since copulating with a goat in front of an elementary school could conceivably be considered an expression of religious sentiment, we need to recognize that "rights" do not to be continually expanded and redefined upward: that way lies anarchy. It might work if everyone had the same idea of consideration. Obviously, we don't.
Thus, a libertarian view that says, "do what you want, just don't affect me and/or my property" will inexorably lead to a society in which might makes right, in which "affects me and/or my property" is defined differently by different people, and backed up with violence. That way is a slippery slope to anarchy.

« Hide Comments

I'll give you a hint on my opinion: I'm not surprised that mid-career officers seem to have the highest percentage of Christians...

I didn't know this was a measured metric in the Military. I thought this fell under "Don't Ask, Don't tell."

Most of the members of the military that I know (except for 2 in my local church) were all athiests; not that I doubt your claim. There is always the famous quote: "There are no atheists in foxholes."

So what is your theory? I'm very interested.

« Hide Comments

This caveat:
[Please be aware: This entry contains graphic sexual language, taken from a Planned Parenthood teen Web site.].

Yeah, ya gotta warn people against the language on a publicly-funded website. First PBS and NPR, then the National Endowment for Arts, and now this. Well, not now, per se, cuz it's been going on for years. But when do we get government funding for socially-conservative, non-leftist views?

Oh, never. That's right. Thanks, Democrat Party!

Thanks so much for directing people to my blog entry.

Believe it or not, I was actually going to correct you on your calling the Planned Parenthood Web site's "publicly funded," but a precautionary Web search turned up a press release citing a GAO report that changed my mind. I don't know if all those hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants specifically fund the Web site, but they sure give Planned Parenthood freedom to spend extra money on publicity.

I admit it's questionable...
...but to me, if a group gets direct funding from the government, then it is at least a partially-public funded enterprise.
I haven't seen, nor looked for, any breakdown of funding sources. I sincerely doubt, however, that liberal Democrats could fail to divert tax dollars towards something that embodies so much of their ideal of government-influenced erosion of Christian/moral values.

« Hide Comments

Oh, man, feeling jealousy...

I always wanted a real live FN FAL.

Would it be impolite to ask what the going rate is for the clone?

Not impolite at all!
I've heard people quote about $550, and there's one for sale at Gunbroker and do a search for "R1A1" and the only thing that comes up is an R1A1 sporter for $569. They're butt-ugly and have a bad reputation. Then if you put in "L1A1", you get a wider range of results, but they all still have that "thumb-hole" stock that signifies an older copy, when they still had more quality control problems. They even look cheesy in the picture...
A real FN-FAL will cost you moore than $1000, maybe close to $2000, and you won't be able to get full-auto, obviously...although everything I've heard, you don't want full auto, because the barrel is too light (will overheat and temporarily warp) and the recoil is too harsh for any kind of control on full-auto...

The better mil-surplus FALs (like an actual British, Canadian, or Aussie surplus L1A1) will probably cost you between $800-1200, if you can find one. I haven't seen one lately...

I'm getting mine for just $350... Of course, we've become friends because I've given him LOTS of business over the last year, too, so...[shrug]. After I get it, if it fires well and you ever get in the area, we'll go shooting.

I recently purchased a R1A1. Last sunday I took it to the range. It was already zeroed in.After setting the gas port it performed without a hitch. I shot from 100 to 600 yards with the only problem being at 600 yards I had to cover the target with the sight halfway. I was using surplus 150 grain FMJs. At $5.00 for 20 rounds this is pretty good because brass costs that much anyway. I was worried about mine also because I also picked mine up at a real good price.So good I thought something must be wrong.The rifle is very user friendly, accurate and the 308 round speaks for itself. Have fun!

I have! I'll be doing handloads for it soon, after I run thru the 1000 rounds of Indian .308 ammo I have.

I just bought a CAI R1A1 sporter and would like to put some new synthetic furniture on it. I'm pretty sure it's an "inch type pattern" but it works well with metric mags. How do I know if it's inch type or metric and will L1A1 furniture fit?

My buddy just aquired a "L1A1". Every part seems to be stamped with some number or letter or both. The components look like stamped metal and the reciever looks decent. The stock/forend is very cheap plastic and some of the screws on the grip have a square slot. The only writing on it pretty much is "made in Canada". Is this a piece of crap or what?? Lay some knowledge on me please!!!

KSD,
Look for a "CAI" stamp. That would mean that it was spare parts assembled by Century Arms International, rather than an actual factory-produced rifle.
But that still wouldn't mean it is crap. If it cycles fine, then it's a good gun. Reliable, reasonably accurate, hard-hitting. You wouldn't want to try to kill a moose or elk at 500 yards with it, say, but it's far better than an AK-47 for power and accuracy.

The only thing is, there are different rifles you can get that function identically for half the priced, like a VEPR...the price on a FN-FAL-clone R1A1/L1A1 is due to its coolness factor. This was called "the Right Arm of Freedom" for a good reason: it was used by all sorts of western powers in conflicts around the world.

In the final analysis, though (and a hard lesson to learn; I've just recently understood it): is he happy with the price he paid for it? If so, then it was a good deal.

I bought a R1A1 Sporter and it has a problem
ejecting the 308 spent shell. I bought it new
from a dealer. Someone please tell me some things
to check. The reciever is stamped Georgia Vt.

could it be the gas adjustment?

That would be the first thing to try.

You are supposed to set the gas adjustment by first opening it all the way up (no gas gets to the piston, so it doesn't cycle at all), then with each shot, close the valve one step until you get it to the point where it cycles okay. My guess is that should be in the 4-6 range, but what do I know?

You don't want any more gas than is necessary to work the piston, so that's why you start from the bottom.

Let me know if it works.

If it doesn't, you may have to try different ammo, because some guns just like different brands...the worst-case scenario is you may need to get the chamber polished. I have no idea how much that costs, but it clears up that same problem in .308-converted MAS 29/56 rifles.

I would also try it this way :

1) with rifle unloaded and on safe ( of course ! ) set gas to zero
2) load 1 round in magazine, insert mag and chamber round ( never ever feed by hand into the chamber as this does not allow the rifle to properly cycle )
3) fire .... there should be considerable recoil and the empty should fly out in the blue yonder about 5 meters to your right
4) now set gas to one ( 1 ) and repeat above. do this 3 or 4 more times. the empty cases should land closer as the gas port is opened further until at one point the rifle will not cycle anymore.
5) set gas one before the number at which it stops cycling ( i.e. if it stops on 6 set on 5 ). my L1A1 will work down to a "7" gas setting. Yours might differ.

Ammunition has a lot to do with the gas setting as well. The stuff at Walmart is too expensive and not suitable for use in military rifles. Save it for a bolt gun or a Walmart rifle. The best 7.62x51 out there are Australian and South African. The Argentine and Portuguese( FNM )ammo is okay albeit a bit innacurate. Stay away from the Indian ammo that Cheaperthandirt and places sell, it is dangerous garbage.

HTH,
graveman

By all means, check the gas port. Also, have a gunsmith check the head space and timing. That will drive you nuts, if you don't get it checked.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

So how many Iraqis did you torture?

[Just thought I'd get that one out of the way for you. -McGehee]

I don't know. I haven't determined how many of them read any of my puns...

« Hide Comments

Here's a good link on the Laws that the soldiers violated in abusing the prisoners:

Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

So, sure, according to one principle, the prisoners were not entitled to "Enemy Prisoner of War" status:

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

So they would fall under one of the following two statuses [statusi? statii? --ed.]:
Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

Then there's this:

Article 17 of GPW provides that “[p]risoners of war who refuse to
answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or
disadvantageous treatment of any kind.� Torture is not permitted in the case of any detainee, regardless of that person’s status.174

Which came from this article from this Military Law page.

Keep in mind that in the United States, there is no Statue of Limitations, violating the Geneva Convention's rules concerning prisoners. Furthermore, capital punishment is one of the possible sentences for grave breaches.

More info from Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949

Art. 13 - Humane treatment of prisoners

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Art. 14 - Respect for the person of prisoners

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

« Hide "More on Abusing Iraqi Prisoners"

To be filed under "can it get any worse":

The family of the young woman photographed with stacked, nude bodies say she's being used as a "scapegoat", and they are "furious" with the President because evidently the President has "no idea what (the deployed troops) are going through".

Maybe you should have to fill out a questionnaire before you can serve that asks things like: "Do you know what personal accountability is? Does your family?"

« Hide Comments

Ping manually at blogrolling.com and it will show the updates. I've been having the same problem recently and occasionally use the manual ping to remind the world that I exist.

When you last suggested that solution to me, I researched and found that blogrolling.com is yet another site to which my access is blocked at work. YEARGH!
But I'll try that from home soon.

You might try checking and see if the pingomatic is blocked...blogrolling is one of the sites you can ping from it.

http://pingomatic.com

Yep, I can get there.
Thanks!

« Hide Comments

since you're the military guy...

do you have to *request* medals, or are they just given to you?

Just curious.

You can get awards and decorations a variety of ways.
Usually, someone who thinks you deserve an award will submit a packet for you, which is basically just a form filled out with supporting documentation of why you should receive it. That gets run up the chain of command where different levels can approve or deny it.
If you think you really deserve an award, you can push your immediate commander to put you in for one.
Often, many commanders will make you write your own evaluations or recommendations for awards/classes/positions, because they figure you know what you did that was deserving better than they do...but then they still review it for BS.
However, that applies to non-combat achievement "pat-on-the-back" awards. A Purple Heart award is supposed to be for injuries sustained in combat, and I have no idea what the rules are for that...I do know that there are some awards that all you have to do is bring the supporting documentation (i.e., deployment orders showing how long you were deployed to a combat zone) to get the award based on clear-cut, definitive criteria. Since no one has to necessarily judge how bad the wound was to get the award, I can see that probably all you'd need is a doctor's note...but I have no direct experience with it.

« Hide Comments

I'm suspicious of that country named "--". I'll bet bin Laden is reading your blog.

...so all we need to do is follow his IP address back to his cave?

Nah, I actually think that's one of those made-up countries, like Transylvania, or Moldova, or Suriname.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I still love Baseball. This, however, makes a mockery of a fine sport.

YES!!!! WOOO WOOOO! DOWN WITH BASEBALL! UP WITH HOCKEY!!! YAAAAA!! LETS SHOW THESE WIMPS WHAT A 'SPORT' REALLY IS!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*unfortunately, most of the other links say that Churchill never said anything of the sort.

« Hide Comments

From the looks on their faces, I'd guess he just took three of her eggs!

I'm so glad to see these smiley photos of her. ;)

« Hide Comments

Is that the beginning of an Instalanche? I got one last year that brought over 3500 visitors in 24 hours. Got so heavy monetary damage from bandwidth overusage for my troubles. ;)

Actually, it's an "Amish Tech Support Catblogging-alanche". If that's a real word. (I'm thinking it's not. --ed. Hush, you.)

« Hide Comments

What does he know, that we don't? Think he's just hedging his bet.

Oh, I'm sure he doesn't know anything.

But many people have said for months that the lack of success in searching for actual examples of WMD means "Bush Lied!", despite the fact that many other people (me included) have said that there are at least three ways that President Bush was 100% correct that we still wouldn't find WMD:
1) Saddam destroyed it at the last minute
2) Saddam moved it into Syria
3) Saddam hid it too well

Now that the Democrat presidential candidate says we might still find it, it lends support to those of us counseling patience, and undermines those who use that issue to attack President Bush and his policies.

So I appreciate Kerry's honesty on this issue, even if it comes from a weasely, self-serving motivation.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I agree with that because cleaning up/clearing out Iraq was a major step in the Global War on Terror. Afghanistan was the first step. Iraq, far from being a dstraction in the War on Terror, was an excellent second step that has already reaped substantial benefits in Libya, the Levant, and even Iran. These benefits far outweigh some of the setbacks like the Madrid bombing and the April insurgency crest...however, these certainly are setbacks.

The only thing is, I don't agree with the people who say we are being too soft on Iraq. I don't agree at all.

We aren't going to defeat the Iraqis, and we aren't going to defeat Islamic Extremists/Al Qaida adjuncts. The more people we kill, the more people will resist. Iraq is a perfect example of leading a horse to water but not being able to make them drink. They are a skittish wild animal that will balk at whatever we try to force them to do...rather, we need to coax them. What we need to do is clearly and consistently demonstrate that there is no payoff for terrorist actions.

That means not overreacting to provocations.

Why is that so important? Because we have several different groups at work there: Sunnis, Shias (or Shi'ites, if you prefer) following Sistani, Shias following Muqtada al-Sadr, Islamic religious mercenaries (paid in martyrdom and glory rather than coin), and terrorists. There's a nice little power struggle going on between these groups, and everyone is trying to play one off against the other. Sistani could have squashed Muqtada al-Sadr like a grape...but chose to let him be a thorn in our side to try and win greater concessions. But there's a dang good chance we didn't smash the insurgency in Fallujah to send a message to Sistani that we can handle certain levels of localized chaos for long periods of time and thus don't need his help if the price is too high. Further, showing restraint in not pounding Fallujah into sand helped prevent the insurgency from spreading...and yet the insurgents lost quite a significant portion of their manpower and firepower because we killed them every time they attempted to engage us.

And still, and still...I've said before, and I'll repeat: the key to resolving the Iraq problem and being able to depart is getting the Iraqis to stand up and police/guard themselves. They haven't shown the courage to do so...yet. But I don't think there is any genetic weakness on their part, merely a conditioned reluctance to risk their own necks. That's why the negotiated cessation of combat in Fallujah is so important: we give the Iraqis a chance to keep the peace and combat the terrorism in their own country with a hand-picked Brigade. I don't think the Iraqis will tolerate the insurgents killing Iraqi troops. I don't know if the Brigade will actually stay the course, or be effective in cleaning out Fallujah or preventing further forays out by the insurgents. But if they fail, then we can level Fallujah. On the other hand, I have hope that this will be successful. There are indications that Iraqi tribal leaders are growing sick of Muqtada al-Sadr and are checking around to see if anyone would mind them solving the situation...if they do, it will be an Iraqi resolution to the problem, and won't result in an uprising.

It is also important to remember, as Glenn points out: there are large sections of Iraq where there are no difficulties at all. This is roughly equivalent to a riot in LA happening at the same time as massive flooding in Sacramento and a wildfire threatening San Diego (remember, Iraq is as big as California...). And less than a year after Saddam was toppled, before the Iraqis have taken the first step toward self-rule, they have endure two major simultaneous body blows in the month of April without descending into chaos or civil war.

I know, there's still time for either one. But each day the fledgling nation doesn't collapse is a victory for stability. Oil production exceeds pre-war levels, power generation/distribution and water purification also exceed pre-war levels, and are quickly approaching 100% of demand...and the economy there continues to improve.

Let's see what happens in Fallujah over the next month...I'm betting the handover still occurs without major incident, after which the Iraqis will have more reason to fight for their own nation....and the problems start disappearing.

But we'll see. I admit it probably won't be that easy.

« Hide Comments

God help us.

« Hide Comments

Back in high school, my main instrument was trumpet. I was decent, but not as good as I thought. Growing up in Montana does mean a marked lack of competition in certain skill/talent-based abilities like that. I made All-State. Yay.

In any case, trumpet is generally played with the right hand manipulating the keys and the left hand holding the piston cases. Both right-handed and left-handed players did this...

...which doesn't really make sense, if you consider handedness to be such genetic destiny that they have to design left-handed guitars, right?

At one point, I was screwing around and switched so I was manipulating the keys with my left hand instead. I wasn't really showing off, I don't think, and there wasn't really any reason to do it. Kids are stupid, I guess.

But the interesting result was that I found out I could actually learn songs more quickly that way. If there was a difficult fingering passage that would take about an hour of practice to learn the normal way, I could learn it in about half the time just by switching my hands and practicing.

Why?

I think it's because I involved the opposite brain in practicing the sequences of finger movements, and the result was greater facility...

I'm not sure, though, because I'm no expert in brain hemisphere functions. I just know that doing anything with the wrong hand feels awkward...unless you really keep at it. I'm right-handed, and most of us righties would say we can't do things with our left hand. But I've found that feeling of awkwardness only lasts for a few hours, and if you really press on, you will start to feel comfortable with doing the action with your left hand. Seriously. Handedness seems less to do with actual final ability and more with which hand we want to try and use first.

No real point to this article, just that the mind is far more flexible than I think most people realize.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I have been lucky. When I lived out in Illinois, we had a gun club. And one of the members was a WWII vet who had an M1 that had been "lost" in the war. After shooting that gun, I had even more respect for the vets of the era.

« Hide Comments