Brain Fertilizer

Laughing....Nathan, I just love the way your brain works :)

« Hide Comments

In Nathan's absence, I will be providing readers with delightfully witty commentary about social injustice, fair taxation, abuses of corporate welfare, and the reason Kerry should be in office.

Thank you.

Lol-Jo.

Nathan, have a relaxing vacation :)

« Hide Comments

I could be wrong, but I think an "essentially impermeable barrier" ensures that she only gets "a little bit pregnant."

If you haven't read "How To Lie With Statistics", do so. I picked it up not too long ago, and I'm learning more than I ever thought I would.

Stats in general can be presented and/or collected to say just about anything you want them to. (Esp by less ethical folks.) I have a Mathematics degree - understand that VERY well.
I am seeing more and more junk stats and deceptive comments all over the place, and it's very disconcerting. One thing going on, I believe: Liberals (in general) are IN DENIAL .. about a great many things. This denial infects all discourse.

From my experiences: Following the Ten Commandments to the best of my ability, I have discovered that I then have very few major problems to deal with. My husband and I have been faithful to each other. The result? We have no diseases.
I do my utmost to be spiritually and physically healthy (that includes R&R on Sunday), challenge myself to learn truth and always speak the truth, treat people fairly and with respect, pay for what I use, be grateful for what I have, and defend the rights of all human beings, esp for their right to life.

What is the result? My family is happy, healthy, and doing what we love to do. ... Pretty simple.

Gina,
Yep. I've noticed the same thing. It's one of the main reasons I believe Christianity to be True: no other work has been so accurate and so succinct in its explanation of the perversity (mix of evil and good) of humanity. The wisdom in the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is equally as applicable today as then. I've noticed that when people reject big parts of the Bible and then try to live their life according to their new "understanding", they tend to run into many problems, which they then blame on God. It would be fascinating, if it weren't so sad...

The crux of your argument is certainly true in many cases (politicized science), but you are picking a ludicrous example to make a stand. "Essentially impermeable" is only a weasel word in the sense that it allows that condoms made of latex are woven with a mesh that is tight enough to 100% block the larger particles in bodily fluids. "Essentially" accounts for variations in wear-and-tear, storage, strange use and other things that may degrade a condom's integrity.

Also, if you study statistics in medical studies, you'll realize that varying stats are a result of varying studies. What's remarkable isn't the fact that there is a repetitive difference of 1-2%, rather the fact that condoms are so consistently effective in the 97th96th percentile.

I'm not going to beat you up too bad over a blog post, but be careful - you are criticizing the CDC stats over the possibility that they are beholden to some politically correct narrative, but in essence, you are doing the same thing to fulfill your own socially conservative narrative.

"Essentially" is not really that bad of a weasel word, and it's employment does not miscommunicate the impermeability of condoms. This is random sniping, IMO.

A better argument would be to attack health organizations over their total resistance to abstinence education, when recent studies have found that safe sex educational programs were no more effective than the abstinence approach.

But that's exactly it, Bill: What stats? They don't offer one shred of the data that leads them to say "essentially" impermeable. Sure, the stats of the effectiveness of condoms can be found elsewhere...but shouldn't the CDC provide the basis, especially since they are suggesting condoms as an option? My point is that if they actually provided the statistics, the "essentially" part would have to be fudged toward "sorta/kinda", weakening their point and offending some politically-correct sensibilities.
That's why I consider it "weasel words". They should back it up, or shut up. Since they are getting public funding, the second option isn't really an option.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Why, how did Malkin know I run around calling people I disagree with "prude"? Boy, she really knows how to hit the nail on the head! Caught me! /sarcasm/

This is why I can read Peggy Noonan until the cows come home, but folks like Coulter and Malkin quickly become stale...in their view, those **** liberals are always calling nice conservatives names and acting superior, blah blah blah. Frankly, it's infuriating.

I invite any conservative writer to stay in my home, come with me to campaign meetings, etc, etc. I am tired of being villified and/or accused of saying (or even thinking!) things I do not.

We cease to understand the opposition when we just decide to quit listening; when we choose to assume what they think.

I feel sorry for anyone who does not take time to consider the opposite view, even if they disagree. I think it's negative on a spiritual level, and just causes an ugly rift in society where there need not be one.

Yeah, because Ms. Malkin actually mentioned you by name and all...

I've seen all these things with my own eyes, Jo, and I've heard them with my own ears. It may not be 100%, but the media coddles liberals and attacks conservatives. This has been proven. Christianity is constantly derided by liberal Hollywood and atheist Bureaucrats. This is what she is fighting against. I totally agree, and this is what I have been fighting against even before I started reading Ms. Malkin.

I'm betting you don't have any problem when liberal pundits use exactly the same technique when attacking conservatives, because if you did, you'd live in a cave and never read/watch/listen to any news or opinion. You certainly couldn't align yourself with pro-choice groups, because they are some of the worst at making broad, unsupportable accusations against pro-lifers.

Ann Coulter attacks liberals in the exact same way James Carville attacks conservatives. It doesn't make it right, but it is amusing to see liberals howl with indignation when they finally get a taste of their own medicine...except that the liberal media still coddles the liberals: please note that Ann Coulter was censored by USA Today, but they have no problem hiring Michael Moore. Things that make you go "hmmm"...

Still, you don't have to like it, read it, or approve of Michelle Malkin or her writings.

But I think everyone should acknowledge that both sides use the exact same techniques. That, in fact, it's merely a feature of Opinion Writing; that we all think our side made a good point, but the other side is engaging in unfair tactics...and the other side thinks the exact same thing.

I hate situations where I have to simply re-state what I already said, but here goes:

You will never see PEGGY NOONAN indulge in this sotr of thing...and that's why she's top-notch in my book, and respected almost universally.

And when you say "liberals say", that INCLUDES ME. News flash and all.

But when you say she wasn't referring to me personally, that is EXACTLY where the problem is. BOTH SIDES want to look at the opposition with blinders, ignoring who they are as people and boiling down a set of people to one ideaology, even if it means doing all you can to make each and every person who disagrees with you a complete and utter asshole. But doing so is, frankly, dishonest to one's self. Maybe even delusional.

Boo-hoo-hoo! Poor picked-on conservatives. The big, bad liberals need to stop picking on the poor, little conservatives.

Same "whine," new bottle.

Well, if nothing else, Jo, I'll be reading Peggy Noonan's pieces much more carefully from now on...and emailing excerpts every time she makes a generalization. [grin]
...although I still think it is nothing more than a perspective issue.
Martin,
You fail to realize that it is not the conservatives that are complaining about being picked on; it is liberals who call Ann Coulter all sorts of names like "hag", "skeletor"...it is liberals who feel that Fox News Channel needs to be shut down or restricted (as Howard Dean did) who are whining.
There is a huge difference between stating a fact and whining about it. I suspect you are confusing the two in exactly the same way that people like the Dixie Chicks and Linda Rondstadt confuse people no longer buying their CDs with censorship.

Jo, my final word is that you are getting a little prickly over a small issue. It isn't conservatives who are attempting to raise taxes, have universal, government-funded health care, expand welfare, maintain or expand affirmative action, etc. The dissenting votes on the Supreme Court for abortion didn't come from liberal judges, nor did the dissenting votes for child pornography being protected free speech. It wasn't a pro-life group trying to force medical students to perform abortions against their will, or saying that trying Scott Pederson for the murder of his unborn child might set a bad precedent. It isn't a conservative group trying to erase history by removing a cross from the Los Angeles seal. It wasn't a conservative Christian trying to get the words "under God" removed from the pledge.
These things were all done by liberals. Were all liberals behind each of them? Of course not.
Bill Clinton had no problem blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on Right Wing Talk Radio. Many liberal pundits have no problem claiming all the accusations against Bill Clinton were manufactured by a "vast right wing conspiracy"; heck, Hillary Clinton said so directly.
Howard Dean had no problem making sweeping statements about Republicans, conservatives, President Bush, and the Bush Administration...you were going to vote for him, and I don't remember you complaining once about his sweeping statements.
I might have missed a post/comment or two, but I don't remember you castigating Molly Ivins or Maureen O'Dowd when they did the exact same thing.
Have you totally ignored Democrat pundits calling the Religious Right worse than the Taliban? Have you totally missed Democrat rank-n-file comparing Bush and Ashcroft to Nazi's? You do realize that MoveOn.org, hardly a fringe group in the Democrat party, did not actually remove the 'Bush = Hitler' ad...they just moved it around so the casual browser couldn't find it easily?
If you don't make any attempt to distance yourself from what your group is saying, doing, and advocating, then you will be assumed to approve of it.
(for the record, you did come out and say the NARAL spokesperson in California was wrong to say that about Conner Pederson, as I remember)
The Chinese have a saying: "Stand too close to ink, and you get black." Much like our saying: "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

I realize this is turning into an essay, but human beings generalize all the time, and it is a survival trait and inherent to humanity. If I say, "Dogs have fleas", I think you would be overreacting if you angrily said, "MY dog doesn't!" or if you used the fact that your dog didn't as a pretext to ignore everything else I said about dogs. Because I didn't say, "All dogs, without exception, have fleas." Moreover, fleas do infest dogs worldwide, and in most parts of the country, it takes an active effort to prevent your dog from getting fleas.
And so Michelle Malkin is associating the liberal attitude of "Freedom" with liberal Hollywood with liberal feminist ideas of "sexual freedom for women" and Planned Parenthood's direct encouragement of teens to have sex because "everyone is doing it" and noticing that all these are liberal establishements or the result of liberal platforms or ideology, and saying "liberals". I happen to agree with that.
Sure, there is a difference between liberal Democrats and Socialists...but liberal Democrats adopt a great deal of Socialist dogma as being true. Liberal Democrats are pushing for more freedom and reduced standards and the eradication of Christianity and the degradation of morality. Are these planks in the platform? No. Does every liberal espouse those causes? Of course not, and I doubt you'd get even one to admit it.
But if you vote Democrat because of a single issue or even a few issues, you accept all the compromises that Democrats make in order to get elected...like Dennis Kucinich having to suddenly discover he was pro-choice in order to run for President.
See, by continuing to embrace Bill Clinton, by letting him speak at the convention and by cheering him on, Democrats have embraced sexual explotation and infidelity. "It's only about sex", you see...and that says something about Democrat attitudes, doesn't it? It also says something about Republican attitudes, too...but that's right in line with what Michelle Malkin was saying. If you don't care that President Clinton cheated on his wife, was caught, lied about it, promised never to do it again...but did. And did it with a subordinate in his office with a girl young enough to be his daughter. And lied about it again, under oath, and to the public. And when it was proven, he blamed Republicans. And if you look at all that and say, "It was only about sex,", then yes, YOU are a part of what Michelle Malkin is upset about: the trivialization of sex in our culture.
Abercrombie and Fitch, as a corporation, have shown themselves to be more on the liberal side; they market themselves toward liberal-leaning youths. NAMBLA is a liberal organization, and is not rejected from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender gatherings, which are also very liberal events. Democrats embrace Hollywood...when is the last time you saw a national figure in the Democrat Party turn down a Hollywood celebrity for contributions or acting as a Spokesperson? As a group, Hollywood was very active in campaigning for Democrats, and represent the more liberal wing of the Democrat Party. And Hollywood is leading the charge with the sexualization of our youth. Check out the influence Madonna has had on youth, consider the influence she attempts to have with her recent live show...and consider that it wasn't a Republican candidate for President who conferred with her, it was a Democrat.
Are there Hollywood celebrities who are conservative? Sure. But is someone wrong if they identify Hollywood as one of the negative influences on morals and standards just because there are a handful of entertainers who promote conservative and moral ideals? Of course not.
You can only be Catholic and Democrat by ignoring the most basic principles of one or the other. They are in direct opposition. Abortion is another building block in the sexualization of our youth, since one of the key platforms of pro-choice advocacy is to allow 13-year-old girls to get govt-funded abortions without parental approval or knowledge...and then Planned Parenthood turns around and encourages those same 13-year-olds to go ahead and have sex because "everyone is doing it!" and that they can always get an abortion since Planned Parenthood is there to help "Because Accidents Happen."

So, yeah, I still think Michelle Malkin was correct. I am still glad I linked her piece. If I were to change anything, I would merely add "South Park Republicans" to the liberals, because, wittingly or not, both groups are enabling this sexualization of our youth and the "Girls Gone Wild" Culture. If you are a liberal and actively trying to turn the tide back and restore morality to our nation, good on ya. But your left hand is working at odds with your right.

I agree whole heartedly with you, Nathan, and with Malkin, what both of you write.

"Jo" and the Whiner Complainer here are just icing their liberal cakes, liberally. Read most public boards, messages, and there are always aggressors of the liberal kind, "correcting" Christians from a dummy perspective...while, many, many areas of the Internet are nearly saturated with lauds for Paganism, "majick" and the like, not to mention the routine hate fest "protest" sites that rally people to denigrate the religious right, also a pejorative to most who aren't Christians, or conservatives.

I enjoyed your comments, Nathan.

S-

Jo is actually my name. As Nathan knows. No need for quotes. Since I am taking the time to "ice my liberal cake", would you like a slice when I am done? Obviously, no cherries on top. ;)

HEY!

I've never called Ann Coulter a "hag" or "skeletor." I've often referred to her as "eyecandy." And I've been told I need new glasses for doing so.

And I watch Chris Wallace on Fox every Sunday. I think their Sunday News show is the best of the bunch. Why I even enjoy Brit Hume and Bill Kristol - and Kristol actually worked for Dan Quale!

I don't think W is a Nazi, but I think Ashcroft comes pretty close.

And sex is trivialized in our culture? Like who cares! Aren't there more important things to worry about than who is boning who? But that seems to be a REAL important issue on the right (or at least many of your readers, Nathan.)

Now Democrats are "pagans" that practice "majick"? That person is joking, right? Because I found that really funny.

Look, I know Nathan, that you enjoy reading the stuff written by the folks that mostly think like you do. And I also know that many of your readers all read the same stuff. I've visited Malkin's site thanks to you and McGehee. She doesn't write with anymore insight than you or Kevin. Anything one can see at her site one can see at yours.

My point? I don't know. Maybe just that I'm a Democrat! Always been one, always will be one. I like to read you and Kevin because you both sometimes have interesting stuff to say. But then you can get on your high-horse and blather all this "Oh the liberals are destroying the Country, blah, blah, blah..." And then there are your readers that come along with their "Oh they are just picking on us poor little Christians."

Get a grip, y'all.

Good point, and point taken.
But I rant when I blog; I blog when I care deeply about something. I'll try to rein it in somewhat, but you're probably best off just ignoring the parts that bug you...

"Jo":

It's a format thing. You display a user I.D., so, it's quoted, quotable.

I'm impressed that you didn't correct my spelling or otherwise, critique the sentence structure, however. There's still time.

Perhaps you can explain this phenomena that I notice in frequent occurence all over the Internet: liberals routinely assume and literally (as in, pertains to "literature") criticize how and what conservatives (or moderates, whoever isn't "liberal") write.

That is, I never read a conservative (or moderate, or anyone who isn't liberal) pointing out the misspellings or dropped copy written by anyone else. It's a thing that liberals appear to do and with increased frequency.

It isn't that other people --- who are not liberal --- don't notice misspellings and/or problematic sentence structure, but that most people (other than liberals) don't seem to presume to correct others as do liberals about the writing of others.

Much as you did with that "quotes" thing. I'd have completely moved on, by comparison, is what I express here, as would nearly anyone else, and yet you devoted time and attention to make that "correction" there. Does it actually matter that there are quotes or not, is the point here, so much that you'd write what you did? Same with misspellings --- most people see them, notice them, but focus on what's expressed moreso than how it is, and take the misspellings on the Internet in stride (fast typing, one hand, working on several things at once, even one-finger typing for many, such that misspellings are normally predictable and even expected on the Internet, so it's unusual that liberals take the time to actually point out misspellings and odd formats to others).

I think the behavior expresses some other message. That, it isn't the actual misspellings, dropped copy, convoluted sentence structure (people edit but not completely, results in odd words now and then, strange orders and such), and as you did, those "quote" marks.

Are liberals just presumptuous or are they interested in creating social disharmony? Or, both? For instance, someone who stops you and tells you your socks don't match and then walks on, without an invite or familiarity with you, is more or less being presumptuous. As in, it's no one's business. Same standard with the liberal critiques about misspellings, etc.

I had a very unpleasant troll recently on a site of mine who actually "critiqued" my opinions by ranting, "you aren't even pretty!" And, startled at that, I wondered, why would someone presume to write that, as in, who asked, what does what I look like or not look like even matter to what I'd expressed? (I'm not an unattractive person, but that's not the point here.)

Obviously, similar to criticizing misspellings, that liberal had to write something that would "correct" or even "punish" me and thus, seized upon the "you're not even pretty" comment. Not like I cared what that liberal critic even thought or thinks about how I look or don't --- non-related issues.

Anyway, you may just have to live with quote marks in my comments when I repeat another's user I.D. It's just a formatting. I went to college, too.

"-S-"

Insecure much? Sheesh...

"-M-"

Blah, blah, blah.

Where's Kevin and crew? I can appreciate conservativse that demonstrates a good sense of humor.

S, really. Whatever it is, get over it. Righteous indignation is incredibly boring. Thank goodness you're the exception to the rule...I have found most conservative bloggers sharp, interesting, humorous,...say, what is your traffic like?

Morgan, thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

Hey, you two, stop it! Am I going to have to send you to your rooms?
...I go on vacation for a few days, and sheesh!

Seriously, though, while everyone is welcome to come and comment and argue and discuss, let's confine it to the topic o' the moment, and avoid personal shots, okay?

« Hide Comments

*...particularly since I dated a girl who cheated on her husband with another married man to get pregnant so she could avoid Desert Storm...and her husband still pays child support for a child who isn't his. If he had ever realized it and managed to get out of that responsibility, I'm sure she would hit up the natural father for child support, even though he had no idea he had a child with her, and didn't know she was sleeping with him for the specific purpose to get pregnant.

« Hide Comments

*for instance: having a child, even an unwanted child, will bring about growth...although it will be painful. The younger you are, the more difficult it will be...but it still results in growth. But finding out you are sterile because of past abortions is a damaging pain and suffering isn't it? I'd wager the number of people hurt due to physical and emotional complications from abortions far outnumber the people hurt due to physical and emotional complications from unwanted pregnancies brought to term. It is truly revealing to consider which result liberals prefer...although I'm convinced it isn't a conscious preference as much as a conditioned one...

« Hide Comments

*To be honest, I don't really even think it is unthinkably horrible to convict someone innocent. It would suck to be that guy, sure, but being in the military, I've already gotten used to the idea that you can be punished for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I've already gotten used to the idea of "taking one for the team". If my son were wrongly convicted, I'd tell him to act honorably and take his circumstances with the best possible attitude, and that I'd be working ceaselessly to get his innocence proven.

See, our legal system is predicated on the idea that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. Fair enough. But is it worth it if 1,000 guilty people go free on technicalities? What about 100,000? What if one of the 100 guilty people who got to go free goes out and murders that one innocent person. Wouldn't it have been better for that one innocent person to have spent a few years in jail and then dealt with the aftereffects of being unjustly imprisoned for the rest of their life than to be murdered and not have that life? Where do you draw the line?

And how exactly does that equation work? Because we still convict some innocent people. Don't tell me it doesn't happen. So do we have to let more guilty people go free to make up for it, or convict more guilty people to justify the innocent who are being convicted.

All this makes me question the initial assumption. Maybe it would be better to throw that out and start with something else. Maybe it would be better to create a legal system that attempts to be correct 99% of the time...and then review all cases in light of new evidence to make sure we are meeting that goal and to discover/fix the problems when we don't match it. And then establish a higher burden of proof for capital punishment because it is irreversible, but lower the burden of proof for crimes in which the sentence isn't that bad.

Something's gotta change, tho. Our legal system doesn't do anything to stop crime or rehabilitate the criminal anymore. The only person the criminal system really works on is someone who didn't really intend to commit a crime...

« Hide Comments

You have been more than patient and considerate with me as well, and I am thankful for it.

I think we have a tendency to push each other to expand our thinking...nothing wrong with that!

I just noted there's a couple more comments on that thread...better check it out. ;)

Furthermore, I suppose readers should know I sometimes concede some things privately. Not often, but sometimes. ;)

« Hide Comments

I predict a dramatic increase in the number of applications ... to be an immigration officer!

Bureaucracy at its finest.

« Hide Comments

"I find I have nothing to say."

I'd say that's true of most of the speakers at the convention, though that doesn't stop them from speaking.

To be fair, the same will be true of the GOP convention, too...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I feel like I should be putting on a kevlar suit before jumping into this one...

Andy sent me the image of the abortion T shirt. I certainly didn't react with outrage. If someone feels comfortable they admitting having one, fine. The majority of women will not admit or discuss an abortion they may have had...stigma? Fear? Guilt? Sorrow? Who knows why the silence...it could be any number of things.

But I think someone who is comfortable with the fact they had an abortion is likely a person who is willing to discuss in clear terms why it was the right choice for her. Let's keep in mind, ABORTION IS CURRENTLY A LEGAL PROCEDURE.

As far as "accidents happen", Planned Parenthood is one of the few places you can easily be seen right away to get the morning after pill. Now, a morning after pill is no more abortion than is being on an IUD...less so, actually, since an embryo can implant with an IUD, morning after pill generally won't effect this.

Just my .02 (because let's face it, I am probably the only one who visits herer who has this view).

President Clinton assured us that the pro-choice lobby was only trying to assure that abortion would remain, "Safe, legal, and rare". Which part of "Because accidents happen" says anything about "rare"?

Abortion is currently a legal procedure, sure, but this is why Suspicion is my first reaction to any advocacy from the left: it starts with nice sounding language about rights, and pitiful examples of homeless poor people who are essentially good but being victimized by greedy corporations...and then ends up with active cheerleading to get more people to try it out. With the obligatory defense that it is legal, after all.

Following the same sort of logic, SSM marriage will become legal on the idea that homosexuals want it only to express pure, life-long commitments...and within 30 years schools will be encouraging 12 year olds to "try out a homosexual marriage first as a run up to your 'real' marriage...because it IS currently legal, you know..."

Blah.

Full disclosure: I still support the legality of abortion, although I'd prefer it to be severely restricted from what it is now. But the way Planned Parenthood and its subsidiary Teenwire (and the DNC, as in their pressuring Kucinich to abandon his pro-life stance as a prerequisite for running for the Democrat nomination) are pushing abortion, I may end up getting pushed into total opposition soon.

There's nothing wrong with your view, Jo. I respect you no less for it, because I understand what you think you are defending. I just think the organizations you are defending don't deserve such support any more.

I think it's good that they make clear it is the situation of an "accident" (since some detractors say it is often used as the only form of birth conrtrol).

I won't make another jump into gay marriage, I know gays who are pro-life and pro-choicers opposed to SSM, so I will avoid that.

Well, I admit that connection is a stretch...but it is a reaction honestly acquired through decades of political discussion and observation...

I really don't understand your first sentence of your second comment, tho, because "Because accidents happen" underscores the idea of abortion as birth control, as I see it.

There are ways to 100% ensure no pregnancy, including vasectomy and waiting until you get 2 negative reports. If used properly, the birth control is 99.9% effective. Thus, if you aren't using the most effective birth control, or if you aren't using it properly, what else could it be but irresponsibility?

If people don't see it that way, I guess we can thank no one else but the Left and Planned Parenthood for obscuring the plain and simple fact that sexual intercourse is designed to produce babies, that the process is so robust that even the advances of science cannot guarantee contraception, and so if you don't want a baby, the only responsible choice is to not have intercourse. And no, that's not an unreasonable expectation. It only seems unreasonable because of liberal ideologies that say "if you really want to, it must be okay, and we'll try to change society to make it okay."

Oh, and "I won't make another jump into gay marriage"????
When was your first marriage to a woman, then? [grin]

Today in Boston I saw infants plastered with pro-choice stickers. Hello little choice!

"Thus, if you aren't using the most effective birth control, or if you aren't using it properly, what else could it be but irresponsibility?"

Never known anyone on the pill to turn up pregnant?

Yep. And if used correctly (taken every day) it is 99% effective.

But even that isn't 100%, is it?

It seems pretty clear: if there is even a 1% chance that you could get pregnant, then if you can't handle a pregnancy, the responsible thing to do is not have sex. It's not really responsible or mature to say, "I won't think about the possible negative consequences unless it happens" when you are intending the termination of a life.

Companies and people get sued for accidents that result in death even when their responsibility is far less than 1%. So to kill the child due to an accident of the mother and father doesn't make sense to pass it off as an accident.

And the reason why Planned Parenthood is sick is because rather than emphasizing that risk by advising, "You can still get pregnant, even while on the pill, so be very careful or complete abstain if you don't want to get pregnant", they instead say, "Go ahead and have fun! Everyboydy's doing it! A condom's all you need, because, hey: abortions are always there if an accident happens and you get pregnant."

So 1 million babies are killed each year. Imagine a city the size of San Antonio completely destroyed by a biological weapon each Dec 31st, and that's what abortion is doing to us.

...and even if you don't accept the concept of abortion being murder, Planned Parenthood's casual approach to sex is still encouraging behavior that has resulted in a massive increase of STDs, because condoms don't protect anywhere close to perfectly. [sarcasm]Yay, Planned Parenthood! [/sarcasm]

Accidental or planned pregnancy - whatever. It is solely a woman's choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. IUD, RU-486, or any other means, who cares? It's nobody's business but the woman's.

I love how this all comes down to taking swings at Planned Parenthood...Personally, when I have found something I am vehemently opposed to or find repugnant, I work in other directions to counter it.

PP does not come into our school district. They do not advertise. It is merely word of mouth and the internet that gets young people in there. If they've reached that point, I imagine they're going to have sex anyway. (In addition, many GP Doctors refer low-income clients to PP due to more affordable BC and reproductive health).

If all the people who rip on PP got together and created their own agency, isn't that better than just complaining about how "twisted" PP is?

This isn't "Pie in the Sky" thinking. We have an alterna-PP right here in my little town. It's called a "pregnancy resource center", they offer free pregnancy tests, info on adoption, and free maternity clothing and assistance with food and shelter if there are any problems in that realm. Yes, there is strong pressure not to have an abortion, that's their schtick. But my point is, instead of people demonstrating outside PP or funding extremist groups, they're actually volunteering their time to assist ill-prepared mothers-to-be.

Sorry for the digression. just don't think abstinence works for everybody. What happens after the fact can be swayed by any of us if we are willing to help.

Oh, and hi Marty! :)

Abstinence, while effective, is a joke. Planned Parenthood is about (shudder) sex and therefore must be "banned" by those who are set on imposing their version of morality upon everyone. How about amending abstinence into the Patriot Act? Yeah - that's the ticket...

Hi Jo! How are ya?

It most definitely is a swing against PP. And Teenwire. They do advertise, Jo...that's what the pen is. They do "word of mouth", too, which is why I'm attempting to counter that with word of mouth, too.

I don't like the part Planned Parenthood plays in convincing our youth that it's okay to go ahead and have sex, because they're safe with condoms and the pill, and if something bad happens, there's always abortion!

I don't like it. I'm criticizing it. I'm doing that here.

In order to make it clear what I don't like about Planned Parenthood's main message, I have to point out that calling abortion a responsible act is false and misleading, and that means that I have to use 'tough love' terms regarding the kids and adults (because the responsibility falls upon the father every bit as much as the mother) who find themselves in that situation, but emotionally, my empathy is with them. Which just increases my anger at the misleading propaganda disseminated by PP.

Abstinence is a joke? It is imposing a version of morality on everyone? That almost makes me angry, since the point is that the only way to prevent pregnancy 100% of the time is to abstain. It seems that our own bodies are attempting to impose morality, Marty. They don't listen to your wishful thinking that sex should be costless. That is every bit as much "imposing a morality" as doing more to encourage abstinence.

OK...for argument's sake...say you're five weeks pregnant and barely even earn a liveable wage and have no health insurance. You don't want a baby whatsoever, and getting pregnant was not your intent. You've been told you're "high risk" and will have to stop working completely, you've not been with your employer long enough to receive unemployment or paid leave and pregnancy is not considered "a disability".

What, then, is the "responsible" thing to do?

For argument's sake, let's point out that you can hypothetically set up any situation you want to make your point, but it doesn't really prove anything.

I think my answers above should already make my response clear.

1) Your scenario is way off topic, since the topic is that Planned Parenthood's propaganda is directly increasing the chance that this scenario occurs, and I'd like to stop that, not an argument over whether abortion should be legal or not.

2) The problem started LONG before she was five weeks pregnant. You can't just wake up one day and say, "Well, I'll be responsible today." The actions were irresponsible at several points before this. Abortion is not absolution, is it? It doesn't make everything better, and it certainly doesn't encourage better decision-making the next time.

3) Arranging for an adoption in which all her medical expenses are covered is certainly an option, and one far more reponsible than abortion.

So since you got to invent a scenario to make your point, let's look at a real event: a woman finds out she has triplets, doesn't want 2 of them, and so kills them. The murder is much more stark, since it is concurrent with a pregnancy that will come to term. There is absolutely nothing different about the child who will live from the two who don't have that chance.

Is this responsible? Are her actions in agreement with the principles and words of Planned Parenthood, or in opposition?

It's not about me "needing" to invent scenarios...frankly, we both MET due to a blogger who publicly wrote about her abortion in a scenario similar to the one I provided.

re: the triplets

I think Planned Parenthood supports the right to choose, and that includes choosing what I think is a very sad and pitiful alternative. But although I personally do not like it AT ALL, I support her right to abortion. Not glowingly, not happily, if anything I support it with a bout of nausea. but I do nonetheless.

But, women do elect to have this sort of procedure...they just don't go to the Times about it.

I am disappointed in women who choose gender-specific abortion and multiple-fetus abortion because my personal belief is if you were planning and trying to have a baby, you can handle almost anything an ultrasound reveals.

Anyway, to go back: I don't feel that PP advertises nearly as much as they could.

I think we've gotten way off topic here, but the statement "it certainly doesn't encourage better decision-making the next time" is rediculous. Do you think girls have an abortion, go through the physical and emotional pain to jump right back up and say, "Yay! let's go through all this again!"? Please. I know atleast two girls personally who went through it and turned celibate in high school.

I will let your final comments stand unnoposed by me because I think I've already made my point as strongly as necessary.

Sorry, Nathan - what was your point exactly? That Planned Parenthood, because it provided people with alternative to being parents, contributes to "irresponsible sex" and therefore is leading the U.S. down theat slippery slope of moral decline similar to the Roman Empire?

Whatever! Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service to many individuals. Just because some people think their moral values are superior to mine and that people should not even have sex, let alone enjoy it, Planned Parenthood should be muzzled? That sounds like "Taliban" thinking.

And if a woman wants to abort a fetus for gender selection or because she doen't want triplets, weel that is fine. Know why? Because it can only be the woman's choice whether or not to carry a child to term.

And any woman who considers whether or not to undergo an abortion, goes through counseling, performs due dilligence and elects to have an abortion is not only making a responsible decision, she is making a rational decision.

Seems like "old times"...

A little deja vu here!

That it does, that it does...
...including the fact that your view and mine are so far apart that I can't find anything to say to respond to your last comments that you would accept as a valid point! [grin]

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I'll call you Dr. Eeeevil. ;o)

Okay, maybe it wasn't that brilliant...

There's no such thing as a bad trackback ping.

Well, mostly. LOL!

I don't wish to be pedantic, but wouldn't "Knows NO bounds" go a bit further on the evil genius scale?
:)

What? Oh! Um, ahem...that was on purpose...! For, um, ironic effect. But I can see that maybe that would be too confusing, so, I've, um, changed it...

Or perhaps I should say:
Kerry spokesman David Wade said it was unintentional error by a campaign volunteer and then criticized President Bush’s economic policies.

Or you could deny that you ever wrote it and tell me to shove it.

In any case, I question the timing of your criticism in pointing this out, when it is obviously a carefully-exploited leak, designed to distract from the fact you had to move back to Blog*spit.

She's cleaned you out, chief.

This is all a witch-hunt by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, of which I'm a part of...no, wait, that can't be right...

« Hide Comments

Michael still reads Sullivan regularly, I don't ever. Frankly, he bores me.

And this is as opposed to GW's policy of *demonstrating* that he *won't* necessarily seek international support and that he *will* act unilaterally.

I wonder which path makes for smoother foreign policy?

Which is more important: a smooth foreign policy or an effective one? I know which one I prefer....

...yeah, that's a cheap shot. But I really do prefer a President, like George W. Bush, who has the courage to stand up for his principles and go it alone when necessary. Interestingly, that's nearly word-for-word what the DNC's 2004 platform says it wants.

« Hide Comments

Jeff Soyer almost never blogs about his homosexuality; it is merely mentioned when it relates to his immediate topic. I can think of several others less inclined than Sullivan to do it in the street and frighten the horses.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

What?

I'm sorry, did you say something?

I was marveling at your post title. Got lost there for a minute or ten.

Have you tried posting your question at Munuviana? Some of these people make MT purr like a kitten. (I, of course, limp along with occasional frantic cries for help. Heh.)

Not only am I a cunning linguist, I'm also a web wiz, and pretty good with MT, so if you need a hand, let me know.

Heck, I'll probably end up mirroring whatever list you come up with.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I was going to write about this tomorrow, but here you go, so, O.K., that'll do:

The Democrats have this ranting retort ridiculousness down to a science and it's called the: "yeah, but..." non response.

Whatever you provide, do, say, don't say, write, don't write, think, don't think, fund, don't fund, believe in, don't believe in, whatever, you can count on the liberal response of "Yeah, but..."

What about Clinton lying under oath?
==>> "Yeah, but it was only about a *******."

What about increasing taxes?
==> "Yeah, but you conservatives increased reduced taxes first."

What about...and so the meme goes.

It usually means, to my read, that they don't have a response, so they just resort to the "Yeah, but..." retort.

Bush's records, found, lost, found, parts misplaced, parts deleted, found, parts shredded, copies found...liberals retort, "Yeah, but..." and it will just go on forever from the LLL.

Why did -S- post that comment right then?

I agree. The timing of that comment just seems too deliberately chosen to draw questions away from the timing of Bush's denial that he carefully orchestrated the timing of the leak about Berger. Truly, the Democrats have a dizzying intellect...

McGehee posted exactly less than a full twelve hours after I posted the first. And then Nathan posted exactly approximately twenty four hours afterward. Doesn't that PROVE something?! I bet that there were something like a multiple of twice-the-first-time-frame and two-times-the-second-time-frame in shredded documents at the DNC alone! Imagine!

If I might point out, -S-'s most recent comment was timed to ensure that the numeral '4' occupied the terminal position in three distinct number groups in the timestamp. As any of Louis Farrakhan's followers know, 4 squared is 16, and when you add 3 (the number of number groups involved) you get 19.

We're dealing with a diabolical one here.

I see that McGehee has mastered the art of the Four Quatrain Umberto Ergo, or, in terms of two, that would be the Counter Numerical Operations of One.

After all, "12:31" actually means "2:15.2" if you are perceptive enough about two.

On the other hand, McGehee, you win. I was always a bit worn out around 12:31, at least, the P.M. version.

On the other hand -- note the later "time stamp" now applied here -- I do think that the Bush military records issue has been so twisted by the DNC as to be all out of proportions. Meaning, whatever exists will never be enough, whatever does not exist will always be necessary and no Democrat will ever understand what it is that actually proves much of anything other than that they can't stand the fact that Clinton was impeached, that Kerry isn't supported by the majority of Vietnam veterans and that they oppose the concept of belief in the United States. Or service. It's a shame that Democrats spend so much energy focused on issues that disprove their very premise of being: honor in the military, evidence of courage and service, accuracy of record keeping, truth and honor in office under oath...

And, because of their problems with those very same issues, they spend even more time fielding questions about their patriotism. Not that the questions are coming anywhere but from their own sub-conscious, but...

Yeah, Nathan, I sure agree with that.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I think you have to convert D-A-R-W-I-N to Greek first.

*gets out his old physics texts (where he learned Greek)*

D - Delta
A - Alpha
R - Rho...

I love telling this story.

I was walking into a store one day when I saw this guy get out of his car which was plastered with the Darwin fish and various anti-religious bumperstickers. Most of them referred to religious people as mindless drones.

Anyway, I walked up to him and started a conversation.

Me: I see your a Darwin fan. I take it you subscribe to evolution, right?

Him: Yeah.

Me: What's your opinion of chapter 9's points on the imperfection of the geological record?

Him: Chapter 9? What?

Me: You know, Origin of the Species? Kind of the "Bible of Evolution" and all.

Him: Never read it.

Turns out, he'd never read any of Darwin's papers or works. He believed in something he'd never read or studied. And he had the gall to call religious people stupid!

I read this quote somewhere, but I can't, for the life of me, find it again:
It went something like this:
"The two most-quoted but least read books are 'The Bible' and 'Origin of Species'"

...sounds about right.

D.A.R.W.I.N

Damned And Roaring With Ill Nill

Down And Really Whining In Nastiness

Dreaded Abortionists Roaring Win In Netherworld

Does Anyone Really Want Intellectual Naysaying

Dancing Around Rashes With Immense Neuroses

Darwin Allowed Reason While Inspiring Nothing

Wow.

[bows to your puissance]

...I know who I'm going to ask next time I need a scathing acronym spelled out.

O.K., I admit it, I have to go look up the definition of "puissance" in my Webster's...
~;-D

Way to show them nonbelievers! heh

An acronym for Christians: Careless Hopefuls Reject Intellectual Science To Ignorantly Accept Nonsensical Stories, it's a stretch, but i think it gets the point across.

...took you the whole 8 months to think of that one, eh? [grin]

« Hide Comments

If it was my daughter, that man would be tasting his teeth.

I just think he should never be allowed to teach below the college level again.

These "teachers" are the critters that our colleges are turning out, and there ain't a thing we can really do about it 'til the aging '60's hippies that populate acedemia today have finally died out as a species.

Hopefully at that point, sanity will prevail yet again, and an education will consist of more than just indoctrination in a specific ideology.

Too bad it's too late for my kids, and my sister. I just have to remember to keep the family discussions limited to pets and parties and boyfriends and stuff.

I thought these prof's were supposed to be smart. How'd they miss the fact that communism failed, the interests of the Nation outweigh the sensibilities of the corrupt UN, the safety of the population is (er, should be) the main reason government exists, and trivial stuff like that?

Well, they seem to think TRUE communism has never been tried...that's the thing about elitists, they not only think they are better than the common folk, they think they are better than other elitists...

« Hide Comments

What I know about economics and paying taxes would fit inside a thimble, but it's always intersting to carefully LISTEN to what people say.....it's the fine print of political BS like Kerry's 'plan' that trips people up.

Yes, he does believe people are that stupid. I sincerely hope we're not, but I do get concerned when I argue with some clowns over and over again about Dem talking points from last week that have been debunked this week, and these people don't have a clue. The information isn't getting out there, unless you're a dedicated blog reader. The media have the stiuation firmly under control - no real information for the masses, because they know what's best for us.

Jeez, they were doing this Bush=Hitler thing for so long. I guess Dems=Stalin or something. Creeps me out,- how about you?

It certainly bothers me. Maybe Kerry = Ichabod Crane or something?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

India had an Aircraft carrier, yes, but its a Viraat Class, I don't think this can support a Mig-29. And its an old diesel guzzler. Not a lot of durability left in her, so she's off the books.

This Kiev Class carrier they bought is also pretty aged, and it has to be refurbished to handle the Mig-29-K. It is really just a big boat with a macgyver'ed angled landing deck.
But she can go 32 knots, so she can move.

This new one they are building interests me:
The "Air Defense Ship". Due in 2011, it appears that the Navy's plan is just to use these for local protection.

India also scares me, as they are the largest population growth (even more then China).

Tom Clancy knew this too, which is probably why he used India as an antagonist in Executive Orders.

I mentioned the carrier they already have for 2 reasons.
1) People make a big deal about China attempting to buy one or planning to build one...but India already has one
2) Even if it is obselete, India is already used to using it, already has the support/protection system developed... It is much easier to replace/upgrade a carrier than to develop a task force from scratch, no?

India is, if anything, more willing to sacrifice people for military advantage than China. That makes them doubly scary to me.

True, but their navy doesn't look that formidable, at least right now:
Their submarine fleet needs a major overhaul.
They have 11 destroyers, with plans of building 3 more.
Frigates are minimal (and outdated as well) but even in the U.S. we're not pursing anything with Frigates anymore. So I'm not sure if they can effectivly maintain a Carrier Defense force, let alone a Carrier Strike Force.

Their Air Force could use some Bombers.

But I'm just an avid civilian.

Ooops, I guess they DO have Bombers

Why fear India? Isn't she considered a Democracy? I'm sure she is only arming herself against the Pakistanis and the Chinese...

Besides, with all the outsourcing of jobs to India, she'll be economically dependent on the U.S., will she not?

China was once a Republic, as well, before falling to Communism. Germany was a democracy until Hitler changed the rules to make him dictator. Heck, Senator Palpatine dissolved the Senate and declared himself Emperor! These stark examples from history cannot be ignored.

Of all the nations of the world in the past two-hundred years (1787 to 1987 actually), Russia is the most militant with the most combat deaths in percentage terms. China is number two in percentage, and because of their greater population, has had the most combat deaths. Note that this includes revolutions, civil war and civilian terror (warfare against an unarmed populace). India, OTOH is the safest place in the world as far as war goes. They have less combat deaths there then the Americas, which are number two.

I'm not worried about India. I am worried about Russia and China. WWII seems to have solved the Germany problem. I'm not sure the Cold War solved Russia and China.

I got my facts from "How To Stop A War". James Dunnigan, of StrategyPage fame is one of the authors.

Yours,
Wince

« Hide Comments

Oh good! A football fan! We should have lots to discuss. ;-)

Which team is yours?

Did you know that 170 million women are battered and abused during the Superbowl every year?

....but only since 2001 after Bush's inauguration, right? Man, that guy will stop at nothing to ruin our society.

Go Chiefs!

Yours,
Wince

« Hide Comments

Eh, save it you blogging elitist scum....

« Hide Comments

Yeah. And today I'm a large mammal again. :-)

I wouldn't even notice if I weren't on the edge. There's a whole swath of marsupials who stay where they are.

A good problem to have, I guess.

...and I've been moving up lately, myself. (Even negative press is good press, I guess)

Off-topic: I bought a new house! Update your blogroll: www.lashawnbarber.com.

Ha, just the other day I found my blog site ("BIRD") at "Large Mammal" measure and was feeling all cavalier and wrote about how I didn't write for popularity, notice, all that pretensive stuff and then the site plummeted to "Flappy Bird" lowland status and I was just wondering if anyone else ever had that experience. The rise, the fall, the fall...

Sure. I've been a Large Mammal before...before I stopped blogging for 4 months and then came back with a new host. Some of the people who used to link me never found me...

then the site plummeted to "Flappy Bird"

Well, since your blog is called "BIRD" isn't that kind of ... y'know ... right?

Maybe I should rename my blog "Higher Being."

Is it true that marsupials are from Mars?

Mmmm, not sure. But if so then polyps are probably from Uranus...

« Hide Comments

Well, Nathan, I also think you exhibt "Male Confidence", too :)

No, really, that's a good list. And seeing as I am more of a female stream of consciousness writer (rather than a poliblogger), I already figured number 5 of "I Do Not Embody Maleness Because."

I do believe that inherent non-sexual gender differences exist, but I also think that our method of parenting influences our children, as well. Our three older girls are very goal-oriented and have already laid plans for being a journalist, a vet, and an entymologist. K is a bit young, but she does take on the characteristics you mention (She wants to marry Daddy when she grows up and to have 13 children-11 girls and 2 boys "because boys tease and get dirty").

I like the balance you exhibit of letting bloggers know about you without crossing the line of privacy for your family.

P.S. Last night I found an archived post (I think it's in April 2003?) on ResurrectionSong where you were once considered a troll- my how things change :)

LOL! Yeah, that was a deliberately assumed role, because Zombyboy was distressed about not having attracted a troll yet. Kevin McGehee took one crack at it, and in another typically-male reaction of competitiveness, of course I had to show that I could do a better "troll". But I don't think anyone ever actually took me seriously...

I don't talk about my family much (other than an occasional picture of my kids and maybe something cute they did), because this is my blog, about me and my opinions. I don't want to invade anyone else's privacy with my writing, if I can help it. Heck, my wife is a very private person, as well, so blogging provides a level of social interaction and chance to be open that I probably wouldn't get otherwise. On the other hand, I do try to keep my full name and other information that might make it easy to find me somewhat confidential (although I have chosen made direct contact in the cases of a number of people...hey, ya gotta take chances in life).
I think Part II, No. 5 comes from being the youngest of 6 kids with 4 older sisters. My brother, raised in the midst of the girls rather than being the baby, still exhibits signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

There is a general teasing between R and I that if we had had a male after all these females, I would have made him gay (would have expected him to behave like my girls) and he would have killed him (if the son came with an artistic bent from my side-wanting to play woodwind instruments instead of football), and what we wouldn't have done, the girls would've. (All said in complete jocularity, of course).

I have always thought that men who had the blessing of older sisters will at least have an advantage of having some understanding of women over those men who had none.

I had to show that I could do a better "troll". But I don't think anyone ever actually took me seriously..

Um, when you're trying to be a troll, being taken seriously means you're doing something wrong.

Through online blackjack em?

« Hide Comments

*LAN blockages and all that

**in part, because you can't read anything by Steven den Beste without spending copious amounts of time...

Hell, I can't read Whittle unless I've got a free weekend without the wife & daughter.

Maybe that's why my readers check in on my blog as often as they do. Even when I actually have something to say, I don't have much to say, and am darn proud of it.

« Hide Comments

That is right on the mark.

It is one thing to work toward one economic *global* market. We do it as do most of the other major economic powers. But to willingly give up part or all of ones national soulvernty I honestly think we are ignoring some part of human nature in doing so.
Not that we shouldn't work at getting along better with the other kids on the block. But we shouldn't have to allow them to have a say in our family matters in order to do so.

Thank you.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Aw garsh.....

« Hide Comments

Mainly because I expect all the good ones are already taken.

Oh, I'm sure it really was all just an honest bistec -- er, I mean mistake.

I'm sure that would be hilarious if I knew what "bistec" was...

It appears on the menus of Mexican restaurants around here. It is to "beefsteak" what "beisbol" is to "baseball."

« Hide Comments

Sheesh I wasted a whole afternoon (well, except for shopping for dinner) looking at the comments on that list.

And the more one thinks about it....the Federation does seem rather like a group of busy bodies...and far too PC.
Though I always liked the original, with all its faults, and I have my name on one of the many "Save Star Trek" patitions, stuck in a file in the paramont back lot somewhere.
Live long and Prosper!

« Hide Comments

I'm only interested in a Sig 226, 229, or Pro.

Got any of those?

Nope.

I would like to buy a MAS 36 if it is still for sale

the enfield is it a #4 mk 1???

Still got the mas?

« Hide Comments

but it's one of the funnier ones after the born loser and frank and ernest and zits and luanne, even when it took on the Clinton White House, etc., back in the 90s. Now the one that deserves to be trashed is that little Mallard Fillmore, which not only takes in vain the name of one of our little known presidents, but is mean spirited to boot. At least Doonesbury is mostly funny. More so than many of the regulars on the comic page. C'mon, get a life.

Wow. There *is* one person left in America who thinks Doonesbury is funny. :)

Sorry, Chuck, I couldn't resist.

It's okay, Deb, sometimes I have a weird sense of humor. Like whenever it's a politician that's the target.

I think they should keep Doonsbury AND run Chris Muir's Day by Day along side it...watch the numbers and at the end of 3 months, keep the one with the better numbers... bet Chris will still be standing.

...impossible to tell in a print newspaper. Online, tho, by clicking? Doonesbury has the edge just by name recognition, but Day by Day is far funnier.

We run Mallard Fillmore, Doonesbury, and the Boondocks in a section unrelated to the comics page. Works well.

Frankly, I wish him success, but I don't want Day by Day in my paper, and I'd just as soon get rid of the three I mentioned above. I remember when the comics page was full of lighthearted, apolitical humor, and a six year old could read them at the breakfast table and parents wouldn't have to worry. Our local paper has been judicious and kept it wholesome and lighthearted by relegating controversial, politically motivated cartoons to another area. I am constantly shocked, however, when traveling and noting that no other paper does.

I agree, Jo. If a cartoon is mainly political, it should be on the Op/Ed page with the political cartoons.
Berke Breathed sometimes crosses the line into the political, but I have less problem with him because it's not the norm, and he's usually funny. And maybe also because when he does it, he's less about advocating one side and more about skewering puffed up politicos of both sides.

Another one I have big problems with, at least recently, is Non Sequitor. That one is also going way over the line into political advocacy.

Allowing your personal views to color your comic strip's content is one thing; using your soapbox which is supposed to be for entertainment as a pulpit from which to hammer home a political point using 3-4 frames of minimal dialogue that allow no room to treat any topic in depth...well, it's Politics By Bumper Sticker in another form. Useless, and worse than useless, at least for entertainment.

You know, I think this is just one more example of an area that used to be for kids being hijacked by adults for adult purposes. It may be the self-centeredness of the Baby Boomers, it may be people trying to erode standards to an "Anything Goes" standard, or it may just be an unavoidable decline of a wealthy society. But the trend is rampant and in nearly everything these days. We don't let kids be kids anymore.

Wow. Republicans really are closed minded. After reading many of these articles and postings, I can see why people joke: There is no such thing as a young republican. Being so conservative really sucks the life out of you. I can see that in your hollow, empty attempts at being smart.

Why, that's sweet, Luccas. Thank you!

Simply put, a comic strip (political or otherwise) should to be funny. It has to at least try to evoke a laugh. The vast majority of Tinsley’s work is a purely political statement without even an attempt at humor. There is a conservative strip I like, Scott Stantis' “Prickly City”. While I rarely agree with the writer’s political views, I often laugh at the strip’s humor and appreciate the interesting artwork. “Mallard Fillmore” is bombastic, single minded, riddled with straw man arguments and just plain un-funny.

I had not seen Chris Muir’s "Day By Day" before. It seems funny enough and thoughtful. One thing I have to wonder about, Both Muir and Stantis are white. Both write strips with a black a "Republican" main character who is surrounded by white "Democrats". Is this tokenism or just wish fulfillment on their parts?

Probably both and neither at the same time.

« Hide Comments

*which includes the classic double entendre: "It's blowing you and it's blowing me."

**No indication whether it was Kerry or Edwards or even another John entirely.

Loved it and agree with you on all counts. Although I have to admit to chuckling a bit over the records w/o holes. That says more about me than it does the movie, though...

I'm still amazed at how talented they all are. I mean, this is largely the same group as in "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best of Show", and even many of the same people from "This is Spinal Tap", so the characters were not chosen for their musical talent in the first place...
Truly impressive.

A Mighty Wind and Best in Show are two of the funniest films I've seen in a while. They really cracked me up.

And although I'm not officially boycotting Hollywood, I do wind up pretty much only getting videos from the library, so I guess I'm doing my part for your cause. :)

How can you like movies like A Might Wind, which I haven't seen yet although I'm anticipating it, by the same people who did Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show and have no sense of humor?

There's a great deal of evidence that I have a fairly good sense of humor, right? I like Christopher Guest movies, I write puns, I love Princess Bride and This is Spinal Tap and Monty Python. I can laugh at myself. I directed lots of traffic over to Tom Burka, who I thought was very funny despite an opposite ideological viewpoint.
And yet, on the strength of me saying a partisan hack like Gary Trudeau is unfunny (and I'm hardly the first person to say that), you conclude that I must not have any sense of humor at all. The logic there is a little bit off...

But I will also say that "sense of humor" certainly has a taste component, and Gary Trudeau and Al Franken and Margaret Cho and Whoopi Goldberg are spectacular unfunny in my taste. I do, however, really appreciate Jon Stewart.

Two points of contention:

I guess I'm willing to bend my rules enough to check out a good movie from the library.
As every library I have been in has nothing but beta versions of Grease 2 and Turner & Hooch--I challenge the accuracy of your claim.

....they did some stuff as good as the Indigo Girls
Come on, now THAT's funny....seriously...read it again and tell me that isn't funny.

Ummm, for all that I make fun of the Indigo Girls (and I do), I really love many of their songs. Galileo is awesome. In Love With Your Ghost never fails to move me.
Emily Sayers (?) is a top-notch fingerstyle guitarist, and the drummer they usually always surprises.
Yes, it does take all kinds...

The hole-less record is central (if you'll pardon the expression) to an old joke about Oral Roberts.

Q. Why didn't the last Oral Roberts record sell well?
A. The hole in the middle kept healing over.

Haven't thought about that one in a long time, and I hope it's a long time before I think about it again.

Michael and I saw it in the theater, and were very glad we did. We laughed out loud, it's a fun movie.

« Hide Comments

B.C., who posts at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, is a former USAF Arabic linguist, if I'm not mistaken.

Oh! How could I forget...? Emperor Misha himself was a Danish Army linguist before immigrating here.

Cool! Keep 'em coming. I'll try to get in contact with everyone in some form or another by the end of this weekend.

Just make sure you're all cunning.

you're shitting me...they need DANISH linguists? Well, had I known that I would have paid more attention all this time. Hmph.

Dangit, Christopher Cross, that's what I was going to call the Alliance!!!
[pouts]

Hm not an Linguist yet but I can make graphics! I'm offering my assistance, just tell me what you want and what the alliance name is and I'll see if I can whip it out.

-Jen

"Corsair the Rational Pirate" (http://corsair.blogspot.com/) is a former Korean linguist, I heard.

I'm a retired USAF 1N3 (Korean), but I haven't converted my site to a real blog yet.

I just worked on those boxes that you would scream into....(Comm/Nav for Navy aircraft).

I did once communicate with a Russian *cough* trawler that was getting brave with our battlegroup - I initiated the 'International Friendship Signal' using one hand/one finger....

Ah, Communicating. Keeping up foriegn relations. You know, giving him the bird!

...am I right?

98G-RU here.

Jo wrote:

they need DANISH linguists?

Sorry for being unclear. Misha was in the Danish Army - a Russian linguist, I believe.

Military Intelligence 96C2L29 (96C = Interrogator, 2L29 = German Language).

"Interrogator" is good enough for me. But I thought you guys were 94E...?

Hey count me in. I was 98G Arabic-Egyptian.

Heh. Former Marine Arabic linguist here. I have a blog so new the paint is still drying www.alltherightstuff.blogspot.com but I'm also willing to see where your idea goes.

im currently active duty medic....thinking about reclassing to 98g cause in my mind ill be a linguist....let me know how it really is before i do something stupid...

Need thirty level 5/5/5 Russian to English translator to support military exercise. There are a total of ten engagements ranging from 4-17 day with travel to Bishkek, KGZ; Armenia; Germany; Arabian Peninsula. Must demonstrated understanding of military terminology and doctrine. Work to begin 26 Sep 05-6 Sep 06, however the contract is a indefinite delivery indefinite quality contract.

Current 98G Arabic W/20th SFG...Count me in also.

« Hide Comments

*Taiwan Pop Music aficiandos may recognize this as the title of a Zhao Chuan song translated into English.

You are so right!

Sure, and you are so left!
Er, that's not what you meant, was it...?[grin]

while I think it's in poor taste to have a flabby midriff exposed, I went shopping Monday and could not find ONE pair of pants that fit in...well, let's say a "modest" way. So, I ended up buying none and feeling frustrated.

Thankfully, there's Eddie Bauer, and I will make a trip to their outlet soon. But women are really held at the mercy of the fashion industry if they shop at GAP, Bon, Mier & Frank, etc. Everything is cut lower these days.

It's hard these days to find modest casual attire, like tees and jeans. Well, not without looking like you rummaged through your boyfriend's closet.

Good point. The fashion industry is no help, being as monolithic as it is.
My wife can't find any jeans that aren't low-rise. With as slender as she is, it's not a disaster...but they still don't look as good on her as the jeans they were making 5-6 years ago. The worst thing in the world, to me, is this return to 70s crappy fashion. We left the 70s behind for a reason, you fools! Oh, well, every generation has to relearn the same mistakes, I guess.

You know what I hate most about these low jeans? They make the female butt look pretty much like a guy butt. The beauty of a female rear end is the gentle curve from the waist and the womanly swell of hips. But low-rise pants make even the most shapely girl and the most girlishly-slender both look square, blocky, and kinda squished.
Ugh! I feel like I've been in fashion hell for the last few years.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Yeah, right. What Democracy?

That's true. I forgot that Democracy was suspended by Katherine Harris in 2000 to select Bush as the (p)Resident.
I guess I forgot that since any possible dissent has been totally and absolutely crushed by John AshKKKroft.
[grin]

If anything, Fox News emplafies democracy and promotes it in everyway.

Are we forgetting about our freedom of speech and the press?

« Hide Comments

*Alternate title: "It Worked Already!"

Heh. I hate to laugh at this sort of thing, but that is pretty funny.

« Hide Comments

*some people on the left have been frustrated with President Bush's ability to evade accusations, much like Republicans were frustrated with Bill Clinton's ability. As a result, President Clinton was called the Teflon President by some. But the disparity is interesting: President Bush constantly endures a massive onslaught of baseless charges assuming the very worst; eventually, he is proven to be correct. During President Clinton's Administration, strong evidence of wrong-doing or ethical violations were constantly popping up...but the Administration would stonewall, and investigations (when Janet Reno couldn't find a flimsy pretext to reject one) foundered, not on lack of evidence, but on Democrats' unwillingness to testify, shredded documents at the Rose Law Firm, missing documents from Vince Foster's desk, etc. Bill Clinton has never been vindicated for a single accusation...there was just never quite enough evidence to convict him of anything except perjury under oath, and he even got away with a slap on the wrist for that.

The difference is strking. Democrats, you should be proud.

« Hide Comments

Yeah, yeah, we've only heard that one about a million times. "Honest, Officer, I was just sitting here at my computer, cleaning my thesaurus, and it went off!"

« Hide Comments

"You always cache more files with honey..."

Dork! ;p

Register all puns.

I thought you said this post was for geeks.

You mean it's not?

You know in some parts of the country...that one would be considered a capital offence. Twas a real stinker it was.....

Good job *grin*

*groan*....

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

However roulette pay wiseguy pasadena cowboys odds http://www.spmarine.com/roulette.html toke bingo cut grande high roulette http://www.spmarine.com/roulette.html river bible straight.

« Hide Comments

ta qift bota nanen se ta pash sherrin

« Hide Comments

Perhaps not, but it's still a good default answer until someone demonstrates they have a better one.

Well, I do think a free market solves most problems, or perhaps, solves most of all problems. I'm also convinced the problem is just that most to all of humans are dolts, cads, and idiots.
Most of my arguments are with the assumption that libertarianism is attractive and sounds pretty good, but breaks down in the same place communism does: basic human nature.
Here's the main test: libertarianism assumes that people will control themselves more effectively than the government can. But how many a$$clowns have you encountered over the past year....and how many of those people actually considered themselves to be a$$clowns? The person you think is the biggest jerk in the world probably has as many friends and loved ones as you do. And we can't even stop people from driving on the shoulder (or closed lane) for as long as possible to merge right at the slowdown point...so how can you expect to get the 80-90% of the population to agree to control themselves well enough to make libertarianism work?
In that, a free market is like democracy: the worst system in the world, except for all of the other systems...
The only reason for this post is to remind people that even free markets aren't the perfect solution to every problem. Government does have its purpose and uses...although I will agree ours has far outstepped those bounds long ago, particularly under FDR and LBJ...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I think when you use the phrase "weird cat" you are being redundant. After years of having cat companions (you can't try to own a cat or they'll scratch your arms to shreds). It has been my experience that you can only fool a cat with a mirror one time. Then they get wise. My most recent cat also looked behind the computer screen several times to try to get at the cursor. Then it wised up there, too. But flipping the cursor across the screen took several days before it decided it couldn't get it.

I've had cats that weren't this weird before.

...actually, I've never had a cat that's reacted to reflections at all until this anecdote. (out of about 6 cats)

My brother's cat attacks the TV set whenever "The Man Show" is on, and women are jumping up and down on trampolines. Funniest thing I've ever seen.

My cat freaks out around those fringes at the ends of throw rugs...she jumps like two feet in the air if she runs up to one unexpectedly. Just one of those odd cat things I guess.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I like the fact that she moved to Mozilla.

*Sings "Go Go Mozilla" mantra again*

I moved to Mozilla, too. I'm concerned, however, that if everyone moves to Mozilla that it will make it an attractive for hackers and spammers and other assorted direct-marketing lowlifes to attack the security.
Clearly, Mozilla is the better browser. But as everyone slowly figures this out and switches over, they'd better be ready for an onslaught of malicious code in the future.

I'm not as concerned. (There are enough AOL users out there that IE will always be the promised land for [cr]ackers, spyware, and other internet nastiness.

And on the other side of the coin, Mozilla (and all its subbordinate products) are very quick to Fix their problems.

IE waits too long, at least until it becomes a major problem.

...that's what I was hoping you'd say. I'm not a computer guru, myself, so I don't have any first-hand experience/knowledge of Mozilla's vulnerabilities or lack thereof. I just like it better as a browser.

Here is the another thing to put your mind at rest:
The major security flaw in IE is that is is part of the Windows Operating system. Its not a program, if you try to uninstall it, Windows just laughs at you, and offers you other alternatives instead. (Revert, Repair, Never Uninstall)
So when IE finds some good windows code, it does what a good operating system will do, it implements it. And the danger it poses is to the Operating System, because it IS the operating system.

Mozilla, is a program. Its stand alone, and only interacts with itself. Any files it encounters, it will ask the user first if it should download them. (It takes at lesat two "Yes" clicks to download and execute a peice of code, and that is the default setting.) Anything that is not saved to the computer is saved to Mozilla, and if Mozilla is harmed, you can just uninstall, delete the directory, and reinstall again.

AND, as you said, Mozilla is just a better browser. (Doesn't tabbed browseing ROCK?)

Actually, I don't really like tabbed browsing...
But I like everything else. And your reassurance makes sense. Woo-Hoo!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Puns are part of the charm here. That's your schtick.

I like mocking your puns when they are mock worthy.

Keep 'em.

Keep the puns!!

Er, I'd answer if you hadn't categorized it as a rhetorical question. :P

OK, OK, I'll admit it: I love the puns. I'd cry if you quit harder than I cry when you pun.

I second Zomby's statement. :)

Hmmm, I should have made this a contest. Had I done so, Deb would have won.

I'll keep the puns then. No, the schtick of me doing puns wasn't seriously in jeopardy, but too many people have been flat-out not getting them, and I hate that. Although, come to think of it, no one has yet said they don't like 'em, just that they don't get 'em.

As this is a rhetorical question, I feel no need to answer.

Keep the puns, just make sure they're good.

That's the problem. A person's puns are like his children: if their yours, you can't see their flaws.
So...if any of you ever think a pun just isn't very good, let me know. "Good" meaning "Bad", since the worse a pun is, the better it is...
...clear?

This form of word play is of course considered the pun-ultimate in humor...second only to that silent killer ....mimes. And the world is all but united aginst those who walk the earth in silent attempts to humor folk....surely, you too are aginst land mimes!

Keep the puns, just make sure they're good.

Where's the fun in that?

Nathan, I think you should declare it oh-pun season.

« Hide Comments

The Vice-Presidency of Dorian Gray.

« Hide Comments

I don't know if that's stunning to me because I've never cheated, or if I am pondering which of my friends might. If they are suggesting that "actual numbers" might be 30% to 40% of wives cheat, that certainly seems like atleast a couple women in everyone's social circle.

Being lonely and bored is a sad and sorry reason to cheat, and certainly doesn't excuse the behaviour (frankly, does anything?). What a sad article.

It's important not to take stories like this too seriously. This is the kind of trend story that's sexy and sells magazines, but ultimately, it's about women journalists who live in New York or LA and their friends. It is largely bullshit, and the writers know it, but they want to be published, and most writers write about their friends anyway. The only difference between blogs and social-trend journalists is bloggers are honest about what they're doing.

Is our society beyond hope? Hey, you were the one who wrote, "Yes we have snow bandannas. We have snow bandannas today."

You're right, but the article still depressed me.

« Hide Comments

"Yes! We have snow bandannas! We have snow bandannas today!"

I don't get it.[/dense]

that song's gonna be in my head all day now!

Mad Mikey,
There was an old song whose main line was: "Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today!"
[/showing his age]

and of course the chieftain took em up on the deal...cause those little pieces of cloth seemed to magically draw a person to them.....yep,......

Bandanna's were his favorite...because they had appeal!!!!

« Hide Comments

Well, that justifies my way of doing dishes my whole life. I never wanted to dry the dishes, and when I grew-up and had my own dishes, I always wash(ed) them in the hottest possible water (with gloves) and rinsed in similar temperature water, and left them on the dish rack.

Hmmm, I do wonder if there is any reason for your choice or if it totally lacks any connection?

Are you sure you didn't want the wet dish because you didn't want to dry it? I mean, as a kid I probably would have opted for the dry dish, because it required less work. Just a thought.

I'm very sure about that. The wet dish "felt" dirty, somehow.

The sister I was paired with most in dish-washing duties (one washed, one dried) was two years older than me and far more crafty. When I'd wash dishes, she'd say she was too busy, then come back later after they had dried to put them away. But when I tried that, she would tell complain that if I didn't dry the dishes right away, she didn't have enough room in the dishrack, basically convincing Mom to not let me wait.
The only way I ever figured out to foil her evil plot was to come back later and spray all the dishes in the rack with water again...[grin]

That's funny! :)

Come to think of it, I always hate washing silverware and immediately transferring it to place settings...I had always justified that it wasn't really "dry" no matter how well I had dried it. I think you must be onto something.

« Hide Comments

*The point of the personal anecdote is that I don't condemn homosexuals for being homosexual. Everyone has sinful urges, and no one is better than anyone else. We all sin. It's what you attempt to do about your sinful urges that is supposed to set Christians apart.

I don't agree with you on this issue at all, as I think homosexuality is a biological issue, and not an "urge" or "lifestyle choice". However, you presented your take on it very eloquently, which most on either side of the issue seem incapable of doing and for that, I salute you.

Thank you. One of the things I seem to have difficulty expressing is that I don't judge practicing homosexuals any more or less than I judge myself for the sins I can't stop, or my friends for the things they do that I think are sins. It's really no big deal.
However, homosexuality is an issue that is in the forefront of society right now. Just as men can have an opinion on abortion, people without children can have opinions on education and school vouchers, people on welfare can have opinions on tax rates, the wealthy can have opinions on welfare, etc, I am confident I have the right to express my opinion on homosexuality where it intersects public life and public policy. As such, I usually end up talking about the antecedents for my opinion, which gives the source of my opinions more prominence than I think it should really have in discussions about society, but what can you do? It's sort of the nature of the beast.

Well said, Nathan.

Nathan:
I'm really glad you can talk to God. How come every time I think I'm hearing voices someone wants to put me in an asylum? How can you think you know what God wants? The Bible isn't enough since it's a tautology: People believe it's god's voice because it says it is. It is unrestrained arrogance to claim that you know what god wants, or even if there is a god.

Spoken like a true athiest/agnostic, Chuck.
If I get a letter from you stating what you believe, it is not arrogance to believe it, it is arrogance to look at the letter of your words and claim it means the exact opposite of what it says, to claim that since you aren't present to defend your words, that it could mean anything. But the worst arrogance is when you attempt to use such sophistry in a clumsy attempt to disparage and dissuade others.
You don't have to have faith, you don't have to believe. I do. The understanding that the Bible is the Word of God is the basis for my accepting the clear meaning of what he actually says. And as a trained translator, I can tell you that the problems of translation between western languages with the same root are far overstated. Particularly since we have multiple copies of every book in the Bible. Imagine 5-15 copies of a President's speech copied down by different reporters, but in 99.9% agreement with each other, and 99% of the disagreements being minor spelling errors...that's how well the bulk of the New Testament checks out.
There's a good example in the news today. Stephen Hawkings reversed himself on black holes. If I apply your logic to Stephen Hawkings, I would have to say that it is unrestrained arrogance for him to even speak about black holes, because no one has seen one, much less be discussing whether or not information has ever escaped. But based on his observation of the universe, he saw too many things that could not be explained without the presence of black holes with certain characteristics. But because it is indirect observation, some of the details are not totally clear and may change as he ponders them more.
That's the way God is: I have demonstrated to myself through observation of the universe that God exists. It isn't arrogance, it is insight. You can deny God, and it hurts me not. You can use your lack of faith as the basis of your decisions, I'll use my faith in God as the basis for my decisions. I won't attempt to force you to be a Christian, but I'm saddened you won't treat me with the same respect...

Nathan, incredibly well reasoned and stated. Very much appreciated reading what you've written here, and please accept my thanks for that.

A populist trend in the U.S. today about Christianity -- or, any religion -- seems to be based in the populist cultural variation acceptance requirement that is also enforced by most public institutions, and that is, that religious beliefs "have to" or are otherwise required by the U.S. to accommodate anyone's whims, desires, cultural or whatever whims, that it works for the individual if it's "good" and if it doesn't work for the individual, it's "bad" or somewhat contrary to the nation, culturally.

So that, there are a plethora of comments such as that by "chuckrightmire," wherein an imperitive is challenged because it doesn't appear plausible to an individual's mind, regardless, and/or that religious principle is required to accommodate indivual tweaks as per individual "choice" by some cultural imperative, some inherent fixed median of society that sets the dimensions of religious theory and principle within the cultural determinations, fixed by legislature, laws.

Your example of the Hawking revisions about black holes is an excellent one along those lines, as is all else that you've written.

Again, thanks for such an excellently reasoned series of comments.

Aw, shucks...[scuffs toe in the dirt]

Nathan:

Whom are you responding to? Your answer does not seem to be related to what I said. The fact that the bible has been translated into so many versions with only minor differences, despite the fact that the Catholic and Protestant versions contain different books, has no bearing on its unerrancy in its claims to be the word of a supernatural being. What you belief in is yours to believe in but your public stance is in error. I haven't seen Hawking's change of heart on black holes yet, but it would show the action of science. Unlike religious belief, science is a method, not a faith or a belief. It is a way of looking at the world that changes as the evidence changes. You have not, apparently, noticed that geneticists now believe that homosexuality, to give an example, is genetically based and, therefore, cannot be a sin in the sense that it is chosen by an individual. It is chosen for him. And it is not the same thing as men in skirts who use their power to prey on children. You can be as logical as you want to be, which I don't see, but at least study the issue and start from accurate premises.

Your answer does not seem to be related to what I said.

Okay, never mind then.

Actually, there's a part of this I'd like to comment on:

Chuck's original comment was that "I'm really glad you can talk to God. How come every time I think I'm hearing voices someone wants to put me in an asylum? How can you think you know what God wants? The Bible isn't enough since it's a tautology: People believe it's god's voice because it says it is. It is unrestrained arrogance to claim that you know what god wants, or even if there is a god."

Actually, Chuck, the Bible IS enough for Christians like Nathan and me. We don't believe the Bible is true on the grounds that it says it is. However, given that we believe the Bible is, in fact, God's revelation about Himself, it would be rather strange if we were to ignore the clear teachings of that revelation in constructing our worldview.

It's really a shame, Chuck, that you are evidently unable to comment on the substance of Nathan's post without belittling his faith. It seems to me just as much "unrestrained arrogance" on your part to, because you believe otherwise, accuse Nathan of arrogance when he says what he believes.

I'd also like to take issue with the statements "You have not, apparently, noticed that geneticists now believe that homosexuality, to give an example, is genetically based and, therefore, cannot be a sin in the sense that it is chosen by an individual. It is chosen for him."

Given the fact that, to date, no geneticists have actually been able to identify said gene in spite of prodigious efforts to discover it, how is their belief (assuming for sake of argument that all, rather than merely some, geneticists believe as you claim they do) any less a leap of faith than Christianity? What's the evidence that homosexuality is genetically based? In fact, given that homosexuals are presumably less likely to breed than heterosexuals, it seems counterintuitive that such a gene would preserve itself over many generations.

Also, even if we assume that homosexuality is genetically determined, you misunderstand what Nathan said in his original post. As Nathan pointed out, having homosexual urges isn't necessarily a sin, but acting on them is. Fornication, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a sin. If I were to have sex with a woman before I married her, then I would be just as guilty of sin as a homosexual acting out his desires. Nor would my sin be mitigated in any way by the fact that I didn't conciously choose to be heterosexual and, according to your thesis, "it was chosen for me".

Thomas,
That was a nice, reasoned reply. I agree with it totally. But I think you wasted your typing because it really doesn't seem like Chuck is listening.

Oh, I'm listening all right and reading, but I'm really not seeing anything that's really worth anything. When you base your value on a book that is a folk history with a great deal of contradictory commandments in and claim, without any proof but your own, that it is god's word, what you then say is extremely arrogant. You are saying your minds are better than others; I would say that they aren't working, only your emotions are. The rules which we have about sexuality all have to do with control of natural urges. And you would deny people the right to express their natural urges in any controlled and meaningful way. That is a sin. And I'm not denying you your belief in whatever you want to believe in. I'm just saying that for you to impose that belief on society without any kind of substantial evidence of its basis, is arrogance. You can believe what you want.
P.S. I like your puns. Maybe you should stick to them rather than politics.

[grin]
Well, the consensus does seem to be to continue punning.
But the reason I felt you weren't really listening is several thoughtful, intelligent people have taken the time to express appreciation and agreement for what I've said. There are multitudes of brilliant, thoughtful people like C. S. Lewis, St Augustine, and even Albert Einstein upon whose beliefs and assumptions I build my ideas. Now, just because Albert Einsten believes something doesn't make it true, but it should at least give you pause to consider that maybe it isn't as baseless as you insist it is.
I love to have discussions and debates, but while you haven't upset me with anything you've said (Oh! ...how I've changed in 2 years of blogging!), your logic strikes me as:
1) I'm right.
2) No other view can possibly be correct.
3) Christianity is another view, thus:
4) Christianity cannot possibly be correct. Ergo:
5) I'm right.

That may not actually be your view, but it is how it come across. We don't have enough common points of reference to even agree on definitions.

P.S.- you might not want to study Quantum Physics...you would probably be disturbed to find out that many of the things you take for granted as "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt" have been demonstrated to be wrong and inaccurate... In fact, QP has formed the basis of a resurgence of my faith in God.

Good. I do enjoy reading them, that's why I keep coming back to rub that little itch. But I have to say we don't have any common definitions because I don't think you have even looked at science or quantum physics. To make any supposition in science, you have to have quality evidence. In any discussion about God, the evidence is contained only within the awareness of the believer. There is no evidence that anyone knows what God thinks or can pretend to speak for him, not even the guys who put the finishing touches on the Old Testament in about 70 modern era. Each of us, if we find God, must do so by himself or herself and that finding occurs only within ourselves and not out in some mystical world or in "spiritual" writings. In the meantime, any of those who have found God in their own way have no right to try to turn this country into a theocracy controlled by their beliefs. And those who cheer you on have as little evidence to offer as you do.

the evidence is contained only within
the awareness of the believer

And that's exactly the same truth about Quantum Physics; just replace "believer" with "observer" and you just described one of the most important tenets of QP, which is why I mentioned Hawkings and his theory of black holes... I haven't studied it on the collegiate level, no, but I've read/am reading several excellent books about it. One other aspect of QP is that Newtonian Physics that we all take for granted and is the basis of dualistic, mechanistic views of a clockwork world that excludes God is completely wrong. And inaccurate as well. The wonderful Science! upon which you base your rationality, the "objective" observation has been proven to be a fair approximation of the world, but not the true world at all. When you get to the very big, the very small, or the very energetic, the commonly understood rules of physics get thrown out of the window. What is God except both very big and containing/controlling vast amounts of energy? Like Schrodinger's Cat, the observer affects the situation by his very act of observing it...well, isn't that an apt description of prayer...?
I have a category called "New Thinking" in my sidebar. There's only 4 entries at this point, but the category is the archive of everything I've written to date of Quantum Physics intersecting with theology.
I also take exception to your phrase, "try to turn this country into a theocracy controlled by their beliefs", because the exact same thing could be said of people who are trying to turn this country into an atheistic nation controlled by their beliefs, because you have nothing, nothing!, to offer in the evidence of proof, either. Only your "faith" that there is no God.
I urge you to read through the Declaration of Independence and the US Constituion once more, and you can tip me $5 for every time it says "God", and I'll send you $5 for every time it says "atheism".

Other than that, I see from MT Politics that you are a Montanan? Whereabouts? I grew up in Costrip, myself, but left in '85...

Actually, I am not claiming that "my mind is better than that of others" because I believe in God. Rather, I believe God opened my eyes to see the truth. In fact, I don't believe finite humans can genuinely apprehend an infinite God without His help.

It seems to me that Chuck is essentially arguing that, because we cannot prove the nature and existence of God, Christians (and, presumably, other people of faith) must set aside their beliefs and principles and pretend we don't have them in public. But then he bases his own opinion on homosexuality (ie, that it is a "natural" urge) on a leap of faith that is just as unproven. As I mentioned before, simply saying "genetecists believe" something, even though they have little or no evidence to believe it, is at least as unsatisfying to me as it would be unsatisfying to you if I attempted to show the veracity of a statement by telling you my pastor believed it.

I suppose I should keep Paul's commentary in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 in mind...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

This is why the War on Terror may be flawed.

We have a solution to terrorism. It's the Roman solution. We have the means and the resources to impose solutions on the Muslim world, if need be, and prevent them from ever making war again.

President Bush made a strategic decision in the fall of 2001 to fight terrorism while still leaving the Muslim world intact. It was a courageous decision, but not without risks. We may get hit again as a result.

But make no mistake. The people who better hope we succeed in our war on terror is not as much Americans as our enemies. The mistake Bush has made is not making it clear what happens if the war on terror fails. Because then it becomes a very different kind of war, an older kind.

A nice point, nicely made. President Bush is attempting to use surgery to remove the cancer. If it eventually seems that surgical removal cannot stop the spread, we will eventually use radiation (so to speak) therapy, won't we...?

« Hide Comments

*There's not much you can do against a bomb, though. You really don't assemble bombs, since something the size of a shaving kit is enough to cause a plane to experience explosive decompression that will kill everyone on board and crash the plane.

**Think about it: why not make standard operating procedure be if anything suspicious is going on, the pilot warns of turbulence and tells everyone to strap in. Thanks to weather doppler radars, the pilots often know where the turbulence is and avoid it; instead, they could seek it out. If even that doesn't get these jerks to sit down, the pilot can "create" an unstable situation by sending the plane on a "weightlessness" roller coaster path. That'll make 'em sit down. Sure, it's expensive in fuel, perhaps, but cheaper than losing all the passengers on board.

Eh, to pick a nit, the rights to life, liberty and the PoH are not Constitutional rights.

My bad, and good point.
Can I say that since it is in a primary source document, "The Declaration of Independence" that it carries similar weight?

Well isn't that flexibility a bit on the relative side of moral thinking?

You'll have to explain more fully. I think I understand, but I want to make sure before I actually respond...

I completely agree with all that you write here (and have written about many of the same perspectives over time, elsewhere).

The ONE THING that is glaring at me as I write these comments this morning, however, is that, from all the articles I've read (linked here, and some from elsewhere), people who observed "possible hijackers" or other passengers who caused them concern, all describe that they were alerted because of someone else's irratic or "hyper" (nervous) behavior, who also was of Middle Eastern racial type.

If I recall correctly, the Atta guy and crew from 09/11 were photographed passing through security clearance areas in their boarding airports, all calm and collected, looking quite the picture of composure and dreadful dedication to their day.

Middle Eastern, yes, but also not seen to be "nervous" or otherwise. Obviously, I wasn't present (thank God) on any of those flights that day, but from the media coverage and that replayed security camera film footage of Atta alone, there wasn't an indication of "nervousness" or hyperactivity coming from among the terrorists, and even their voices when replayed on the airline tapes later were calm, reassuring, actually quite "normal" all the while they were already engaged in their horrible acts.

SO, again, it's not so much a case of encouraging society to be observant and suspicious about hyper and nervous Middle Eastern males between the ages of 20 and 35, or whatever that formula is, but, from what I read about the standards and processes in place by Israel, for instance, it's about applying enough pressure before boarding to all passengers and seeing who is who and what is what and finding the terrorist personality, focusing on the terrorist and not so much focusing on the weapons.

Being concerned about a person of Middle Eastern racial type with a long item wrapped in a cloth (as the woman describes in the WWW article) after boarding isn't the answer. There NEEDS TO BE someone PRIOR TO BOARDING who analyses that person, regardless of what they are carrying or not carrying.

About "rights" and "profiling," people who criticize in fear about "the loss of rights" lose sight of the most important "right" of all: to live or not.

There are no "rights" when you're dead, or, at least, it's in God's hands at that point and human "rights" set in process by any legislation isn't going to help or harm or any way intervene at that point.

The entire arguement that "racial profiling" is involved is one that reminds me of people complaining about "the sky" when there's a tornado on the horizon. Yes, the process involves the sky, but what is actually significant is that big swirling thing coming right at ya'.

« Hide Comments

"Do you think we can drop this fishin' thing soon?"

« Hide Comments

"...You can't make an ocelot with eight freaking legs!"

Getting slow in my old age; took four readings of the punchline to get it...

I challenge you tell that joke out loud, with the proper inflection to make it work (I couldn't)

No one gets it live. No one. My dad went so far as to claim he's never heard the phrase...

I'm clueless on this one. Can somebody explain?

--|PW|--

Well, there's an old saying that insists the end justifies the means...something about how you make omelets. I'll be more direct if that doesn't work.

O.K. Nathan, I have read it at least four times and I still can't get it.

Just when I thought myself witty....

It's a pun based on the old saying: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." And since the pun was so bad, God kicked the angel out of Heaven.

Ooohhhhhh.

You know, Nathan, I like reading your puns, but...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

"...It's always Pot calling Quetta back."

It's official: Nathan is back!

So when's the next installment of "The Just-Us League"?

Yeah...what happened to the Just-Us league? I like being a liberal villain.

That was very close to being Laos-y.

Yours was a pretty nice groaner, yourself. I'm not sure which pun wins...should we call it a Thai?

Siam not one who is known for occidentaly getting the wrong slant on any given word. Rather, I like to orient myself to my verbal or written task. Teaking no chan's, so as not to become bambo'seled as tao know ones nappon-ate well, is to budda ones odds in the rice to the finish line.

*Sigh* and even from you rich Air Force types, all I get for a belated fathers day gift is a thai?

Yeah (cracking knuckles repeatedly) we can stop now *grin*.

« Hide Comments

*although it's a little long, you can steal this quote, too.

Lots of liberals get this wrong. Freedom of Speech means free from legal consequences from the government. It does not mean free from consequences from private parties.

Well, it's sad to see what America has co me down to. We expect this kind of treatment from dictatorship country which we are trying to supposedly liberating, yet we are doing what exactly the people in those countries that we so said are being oppressed and dictated... slightly fortunate for America that it's not by the governemrnt, so we can't say it's dictatorship; but when it's being do ne by the people and busnisses or private sector of the country it is co nsidered bureaucracy. Close enough, I would say. There is no where in the US constitution or it's Amendment where it specified what kind of freedom, to what extent should it be freedom. SLimFast have contradic themselves by even admitting that Whoopi's statement does not in any ways reflect the views and values of their organization, so if it does not; why Whoopi's personal/political statement/ opinion and views are being met with such reprisal from the media and Specifically from SlimFast. It is such hypocracy on their part that for the very same reason they have hired her (her boldness, blatant and all out in your face attitude)seem to be the same reason why they have fired her. So her personality is good only when it profits them and it's embarrasing when it's not... That is so sad. If you know or have been watching Whoopi (such a free spirited woman) you would know that that was no surprise and she's where she is now in her succes because of her personality which everyone have done been accepted. So why is that now it's the wrong attitude when her statement is toward the BUSH and Cheney administration. It sickens me when Americans of all poeple are treating people this way... then we are blaming ohter government and other people for their extreemist views and mentalities when ours might as well be on the same chapter as theirs.

What you aren't getting, Wilgreen's Rosemberg, is that if things were the way you seem to want them, you would be forcing people to not speak or express themselves to ever criticize liberals, but you won't give that same treatment to conservatives. If what you want were actually enforced, Whoopi would never have been allowed to criticize President Bush in the first place, because she would have been squashing his free speech by criticising him.
It can't be stated any more clearly than it already has been, but I'll try: Everyone has the right to free speech, including the people who criticize liberals, including the people who boycott products that liberals endorse, including the people who boo people like Natalie Raines of the Dixie Chicks.

Honestly, what America is coming to that is making you sad seems to be an America in which people expect liberals to use logic rather than invective, an America in which people don't automatically believe and accept whatever a liberal entertainer says.

That, my friend, is a good thing.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*I'm linking Ms. Malkin rather than Lonewacko, whom Ms. Malkin gives the hat tip to, because I want to make sure you read her comments on the whole thing, and you can follow her link to his site without me linking it...oh, wait, I just did link him, huh?

**Nice word that: redistributed. It implies that money isn't earned, it was just distributed in the first place, so the government can re distribute it at will. I'm sure I was the last person to tumble to the additional implications of that word, but that's typical of me.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Ever seen the movie Bulworth?

It's the embodiment of that quote.

Dude, you're making me blush. :-)

« Hide Comments

Not yet. I'm working on it.

(and you're missing a </i> tag somwhere)

Thanks for the 'splaination.

I think I've formed a group of bloggy friends that all seem a bit interlinked and all -- and yet always welcoming of new bloggers. Although I don't think any one goes in quite the same direction or has quite the same interests, finding some people that you begin to know and that you know will be reading what you write and will probably comment on it is what for me makes blogging an ultimately pleasurable experience. Without that I probably would have quit a long time ago.

I'm not sure how I would deal with losing all my archives... (and yes, I found your site again! :D)

Ah, there you are, Irene...I had lost you, but too much inertia to do something useful like Google for your page.
But you are back on the blogroll.

I have noticed that you tend to develop cliques, if that's the right word, that gradually morph over time, adding and dropping people as tastes and blogging change. It's something I've long observed and never gotten around to finding the words to post about. You can almost get a leg up as a new blogger if you can charm your way into a clique, and the cliques overlap, so you can be in more than one at a time. For most people, growth is limited by how many of these groups you "fit" with and how many you can maintain yourself as a part of. All of this is unstated and spontaneous for the most part.

Funny, I've always had a problem with V. Kate, who, Dean just loves - btw.

My problem with her was the Acidman business. I told Dean that he was taking her side because she was a girl and I found that even more annoying. It seemed to me that she was exploiting her "girlness". Of course, since I'm a chick it could be that I'm just being catty.

One positive about her is that I think her "letter of the day" rhymes are usually pretty witty.

I need a clique!!!!!!!!!!

That's my problem.

Rosemary: you're welcome to join my click.....if I actually have one. Just think of it as the 'everyone tolerates Mad Mikey's stuff cause he's a nice guy' click.

For me, blogging just pretty much bacame "not worth it anymore."

Jo retired. Page went on hiatus. Vicki retired. I "fought" with you. Blah, blah, blah.

Now I read you, Kevin and Page pretty regularly. I post occasionally. And the rest, as they say, is history.

The unchanging Zombyboy.

I somehow, suddenly, feel so pathetic...

Wow, Nathan, thanks!

Well, Rosemary, you kind of have an instant clique with Dean.
And there is a little cliquish-ness with Ara and Tim the Soldier and Whas-his-name the selfish aesthete (Stephen Malcolm Anderson?). Mutually antagonistic with Ara, I believe. Some of that inherited from Dean, but the selfish aesthete one you've developed on your own.
Zombyboy, I see it as: you're doing it right, so why mess with success?

Martin, I'd wondered where you went...
I noticed you had a less antagonistic communication with Kevin McGehee going...probably because he's not so vain and prickly about his opinions as I am, but your comment does make me think:
Blogging is a new thing. The "Grand-Daddies and Grand Dames" have been doing it for 3-4 years at the most. My, how it's changed, no? All the little niches keep getting filled up, and it is like a network marketing scheme, in that the people who get in first have the easiest time making it "big".
In the beginning, there was more discussion, and more crossing, but the way the war has developed and the way the debate on the national level has declined, it's split up some cliques, I think. It made blogging not-fun for Jo and you, it seems (sadly). I cannot even go to Tom Burka's site anymore, because what I loved about it was he was helping me take things less seriously, but his commenters were taking his jokes like gospel truth, and I can't take that much earnestness on a site that's supposed to be humor (even if humor with an underlying current of truth, especially if it's a "truth" I disagree is true).
So I do mostly stay among the conservatives these days. I wonder what blogging will be like in 5 years? I plan to keep going...
I wonder what it will be like in 50 years, or if it will go the way of....what's something that everybody used to think was neat but has now faded into obscurity? Well, it may go the way of that.

Nathan,

You're right. The blogosphere has maybe "broken up" into cliques. Instead of discussion with others, many of us began communicating with those who have the same outlook. It becomes preaching to the choir, you know? And that can get boring.

I remember how Jo got her butt kicked because she was against the war. Like she couldn't even have an opinion. And a lot of butt kicking seemed to come from "friends."

Blogging, in my opinion, will continue to go more and more mainstream. Much of it has. No longer is it "alternative."

Maybe it will go the way of the hula hoop?

Nathan: Good point. I do sort of have a clique with Dean -as to the readers you mention I've always thought of it as more of a mutual despise society - with the exception of the aesthete. He really loves me. :-)

Rosemary,
Then again, I have no idea if you visited their blogs at all, and that is part of my idea of a clique, as well.
There were a few months when the only blogs I'd hit in a day were Jo's, ZB's, Kevin's, Deb's, Dodd's and Juan's.

Iw as primarily relieved that mine wasn't on there; then realized that it wasn't because I am not in the monolythic cliques (I recently posted about this in a self-deprecating post). Then I thought how good it would have been to have been listed because, as I learned from the war of words with Kos, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And at the end of the day, civility is always the best night cap.

« Hide Comments

I intend to lose another 7-10 pounds. I promise to make an announcement and maybe post a pic when I get there.

I have a question. Have you actually decreased your total caloric intake doing this or are you eating about the same or more?

I know a lot of people that swear they are actually eating more calories on low-carb and still losing weight. My sister lost 40lbs and she swears she was taking in about 400 calories more a day than when she was doing Weight Watchers with no real result.

Actually, I think I'm consuming slightly less calories, since I eat a lot of salads.
To tell the truth, it's just the difference of focus that let's me enjoy eating more:
I can eat a salad with bacon bits, sunflower seeds, diced egg, tomatoes, red onions, cucumber, and top it off with a generous dollop of, say, ranch dressing, because I'm not worried about fat and calories. But that's probably still less calories than a big bowl of white rice, two pieces of baked chicken, and a bowl of mixed vegetables. So I what I do eat, I can make sure is nice and tasty: everything I eat these days looks like a restaurant advertisement, because I don't skimp on those little extras. My attitude before was: if I'm trying to lose weight, skimping those extras will make a difference...

The other thing that I think has made the biggest difference is raising my overall baseline activity, but NOT engaging in vigorous exercise. I never feel so tired that I have to plop down on the couch for two hours. Instead, I take walks with my wife, go exploring with my kids, play tag with them, push them in the swing, walk with them to let them throw rocks in the river, walk around the mall. I admit, doing stuff like that is easier with toddlers than teens! [grin]
Oh, and forgoing the carbs seems to keep my bloodsugar in check, so I over-eat less (which is why I feel stuffed far less and have less heartburn), and never feel starving.

The best final result is that I finally feel like I'm in control of my weight, like I know what I did that made me gain weight, and what I need to do to lose it whenever I want. So I can take a light day off, but don't have to go crazy because I'd been denying myself.

I hope that helps.

Generally, in the earlier stages of a low-carb diet, you can consume more calories than in a strictly calorie-counting, lowfat diet. That's because by cutting your sugar (carbohydrate) intake down tremendously, you're essentially retraining your body to burn fat stores and protein for energy rather than simple sugars. Your body, despite the overall caloric intake, goes into ketosis (it thinks you're starving), and burns fat at a significantly higher rate. Net result, within a few wekks, the weight starts falling off in spite of larger meals.

Therefore, early on, most people "pig out" on meat, cheese, eggs, bacon, and other stuff they can't usually have on a diet, and they still manage to lose weight. Remeber, the average lowcal/lowfat "diet" calls for about 1500-1700 calories per day with minimal fat intake. A low-carb diet can allow for easily 2000+ calories in the first stages, and you'll still lose weight.

However, as Nathan noted, once your blood sugar gets under control, you'll find you are less hungry than before, and the end result will probably be fewer calories overall. That's a good thing, because, eventually, it does all come back to calories. And calories in must equal calories out, or you put the weight back on.

I've been on a low-carb diet for about 6 months now, and my total caloric intake per day is generally between 1700-1900 calories per day, with a total of about 50-60 grams of total carbs, and almost no processed sugar (I use Splenda as a substitute; it's excellent). Early on, I lost a ton of weight; now it's equalized to about a pound or two a month. And like Nathan, every now and then I cheat with pizza, or some similar treat.

It works though; I can promise that. I've lost about 50 pounds so far...

« Hide Comments

Although to be accurate, it doesn't really explain why she rocks, it actually just demonstrates the manner in which she rocks. I'm sure why she rocks is because she's an intelligent, thoughtful, talented writer and analyst.

Thanks Nathan!

« Hide Comments

Heck of a good point.

I used to be one of those people who said that in the national elections, a vote for a third party was a wasted vote. Someone recently changed my mind.

I still can't break away from the idea that votes have to be used strategically, though. That is, the vote that gets me closer to my goal is the vote that I'll cast. So, while Bush may not be my ideal candidate, he'll keep me closer to my goals that a protest vote will. The choice, for me, is easy.

But, that's a nice point. If I did give into the urge to cast a protest vote, it really wouldn't be saying anything, would it?

Ya know, I do think a 3rd-party vote can send a message. If 99% of Republicans voted for a libertarian, that would send a message, as well as sending a libertarian to the White House...[grin]
I guess I was only thinking about voting for Kerry instead, or not voting at all: no message is really sent.

I still can't break away from the idea that votes have to be used strategically, though. That is, the vote that gets me closer to my goal is the vote that I'll cast.

This is why I will most likely vote for Kerry. but it is always disappointing when you can't throw your entire, enthusiastic, joyful support behind a candidate. In the primary, I "protest voted" and wrote in a candidate I deemed worthy of the Presidency, but when push comes to shove, I will probably vote Kerry.

Of course, the addition of Edwards does make it a tad easier. But I do wish the DNC's chosen candidate had been someone I felt more for.

With all honesty and total seriousness, I wish the DNC's chosen candidate could have been someone you felt more for.
I'd rather lose to a Democrat who wins people to his cause than merely someone who gets the majority of his votes because he's pro-choice and Not Bush.

« Hide Comments

I read that article, it's still a bit over the line I think.

« Hide Comments

Isn't the matter of Hussein's trial and subsequent punishment really up to the Iraqis, anyway?

I don't see where we really have any business having a say in it.

(And yes, I know that little bit o' snark does sorta invite everyone to kick my a**.)

Since I wasn't clear enough in my question, I updated in an attempt to clarify exactly what I meant.

...I don't think we actually do have much input on his trial, we are just providing the security for his incarceration and movement...

« Hide Comments

No sodomy in the back rooms of bars? What are we supposed to do, play Monopoly? ;)

Anyway, I will only say that you're right about 2. Well, you're right that the loudmouths making the arguments are mostly opportunistic, parasitic, self-serving bloodsuckers. I'm not sure that they're any worse than any other single-issue activists, but that doesn't excuse them.

As far as 1 goes...sigh. Yes, sure, there are people who are at the wrong place and at weak points in their lives, and they become homosexuals in terms of activity, even though they're probably heterosexual by fundamental orientation. I know that it's pointless to argue with you over this, so I won't get all steamed up about it, but still...America is a free society. Whatever way of life you're talking about, there are going to be people who fall into it that would have been happier living another way. It just isn't feasible to use government-sanctioned behavior modification to prevent every good kid from going astray.

Homosexuality is not for the weak-minded, even if it's your fundamental orientation, and I agree that it's not right to paper over the risks people are going to be getting themselves into if they make certain choices. But I have not, in my entire flaming adult life, seen any evidence that there's a "significant number" of people who signed on to long-term homosexual living because they were somehow recruited into it. Being gay is viewed as countercultural, so it's going to have a certain appeal for people with immature resentments against authority to work through. No one can do anything about that. But I don't see why it affects the options bona fide homosexuals who accept responsibility for their choices should have.

I thought it was "Chutes and Ladders" vice "Monopoly"...but different strokes....err what ever floats your boat.

Anyhow, I'll toss my couple o' pennies in the mix. Your second point seems valid and good enough for me. But I would also argue (as have others) that marriage is a religious rite and or sacrament depending on the faith of your choice....so if there would be a church out there which allows for same sex unions in the name of (their) god so be it. But the only thing the government should have any say in is the legality of a "civil union" or that which is not "blessed by (insert deity here)", but is recognized by the state.

Yet the activists would stomp their feet at this and cry foul. Sorry, you cannot mandate that my church support your wanting to be married...but even the President has supported a civil union.

There is much more going on then just wanting the perks...It would appear the agenda of those pushing for the marriage proposal are in fact going after a much larger prize.

This entire rant smacks of an internal dialogue, justifying bigotry. Yep, I said it, "You're a bigot.", and you have to justify that fact to yourself because you know that it's wrong to be a bigot. Not just wrong but weak-minded and just plain old run of the mill stupid. Here's another fact, you have a close friend whose gay and afraid to let you know that because you are a stupid bigot. This person may be married and may have children but he/she knows he/she is gay and not happy in a hetero-sexual relationship. He/She loves his/her children and maybe even his/her wife/husband. It's biology moron. It exists and it's normal for a percentage of any mammalian population. To try and couch this in anything other then, "they're differant so let's persecute them" terms is completely disingenuous. And as I stated at the front of this post, is in need of massive rationalizations

Different understandings of the same terminology might be tripping us up here.
I left "significant" specifically vague (specifically vague? Sheesh, I need some sleep!) because I don't want to put even a broad stamp like 10% on it. I freely admit I have no idea how many.
I've said before that one way I understand homosexuality is like smoking. Some people end up doing it for self-protection, some people because the cool people are doing it, some because they tried it once and are hooked on the sensations, some because they just seem to be natural smokers.
I agree with you about people being adults....but what if they aren't adults? The scope of the "experimentation" with homosexuality that I saw in my Drama experiences...the number of Senior One-Acts that revolved around "becoming comfortable with homosexuality" really makes me question how many would have ended up homosexual if they had majored in, say, accounting? Maybe all, because I can certainly see how perhaps it was merely that potential homosexuals are attracted to the Arts, or even marginalized to the Arts.
Dawn quotes the figure that condoms fail to protect users from HIV-infection 15% of the time. That's if the individual even uses them, and the recent rise of syphillis and other non-HIV STDs among the homosexual population indicates that maybe there is some resurgent complacency there.
So even engaging "responsibly" in homosexual behavior has a significant chance of a death sentence with a lifelong-dependency on a cocktail of drugs as your only lifeline.

Is society served if the general message is: "Go ahead! Unfettered fulfilling of your every sexual desire is a guaranteed right, and we'll find some way to make society shoulder the costs to protect you from your decisions!"? Or would it be better if society said: "This behavior is not barred, but the natural consequences can be quite horrible if intervention/protections are unsuccessful or ignored."? Please note: this isn't limited to homosexuality, it's a point I'm trying to make about heterosexual extra-marital sex as well. But we're never going to get heterosexuals to wait until a committed marriage if the bottom-line assumption of the currently-powerful SSM lobby is that "sexual fulfillment is a basic human right at any age".

All this is predicated on the idea that people want to believe they are good and their decisions were right, even if the objective evidence is to the contrary. I am quite content in my life, and I know peace. Part of it is my faith in Jesus, of course, but it is also true that I have learned to not seek sensual fulfillment or physical sensations as an end in themselves. I make my choices based on what is most likely to be good for me and my family in the long-term rather in the fulfillment of immediate urges. Add to this what I understand about something as basic as language: No matter what the parents intend, kids speak the same language/accent as their friends. The only way to control the language the child uses is to control the environment. Even if the parents use one language exclusively to speak with their children, if the child's friends speak a different language, it is that second language the kids will speak. Now, if something as simple as language is so strongly influenced by environment, might sexual activity also be? I think so. If so, I would prefer to not raise my children, and for them to raise their children, and so on, in an environment that encourages them to experiment with homosexual behavior by presenting it as just another equally-valid choice.

Maybe another way to put it is that many homosexuals pushing for SSM say that it's what they want/need to be happy...but since they weren't happy with other successes, I'll bet they would find SSM to be only a temporary satisfaction, as well. I'm not willing to let them change society in the name of personal happiness/peace when the first place they should look to make changes is within themselves.

"Dad",
LOL!
You might want to look up the word "projection" in the dictionary...

SSM -- no such thing. Marriage involves two genders. Redefining "marriage" to remove one gender or the other makes the term meaningless.

But no matter. In a way, this is a good thing. It demonstrates to us who believe just how far the culture has fallen. This shouldn't be the surprise it is to me and perhaps others. It's not like Jesus didn't predict all this would unfold this way: Jesus said the time would come when men would no longer tolerate sound doctrine, and would go chasing after their own lusts, and they would raise up leaders among themselves who would applaud them for doing so. Well, the time's here. It's part of God's plan, apparently.

The key is to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and if our culture wants to repeat the errors of ancient Rome and Canaan, we can't say we weren't warned.

Okay, Nathan, forgive me for letting you have it with both barrels here, but it drives me up the wall when people pull things like this. You quote Dawn:

A choice. Yes, that's it. A 15 percent choice of dying from AIDS. That is the probability that a person will be exposed to HIV while having sex when using using a condom.

But she isn't actually quoting her own source:

Available data provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission - approximately 85 percent risk reduction.

I don't think that either of you is an idiot, obviously, but there is no way anyone with even a passing familiarity with the concept of percent difference can fail to see the problem here. Using condoms leaves 15% of the original risk that HIV will be transmitted (assuming sex with an HIV+ partner). But the original risk is not 100%, at least not for an individual encounter, so you cannot just say (100 - 85)/100 = 15% risk of getting AIDS. (Your formulation, that condoms fail 15% of the time, is at least a little better, but you're still wrong that she's quoting her source.)

FWIW, I've posted about this yet again, too.

Okay, that's a good point. It's also the strength of blogs, since we can all go and read for ourselves. I took it the other way (well, duh: I said as much), but I can see that perhaps I was taking the suggestion.

Still, though: condoms fail due to breakage, slippage, improper use, etc. Advocating condoms only and letting people go about their normal sexual lives is why we still have 40,000 new HIV cases a year. Short of criminal rape, in which a condom isn't going to help much either, abstinence does prevent HIV perfectly.
I do think there is a resistance to encouraging moral choices based on religious principles based on even more faulty logic, i.e., "I believe religion is a crock of manure, therefore anything religion suggests must also be a crock of manure." That's ridiculous. Either religion is actually God's word, in which case we should probably listen...or it's not, but passing off as God's word to a significant number of people because it does work, because it does represent accumulated wisdom proven over time in many various cultures and situations, in which case we still would be stupid to ignore it.

It's about time to rewrite my Case for Morality post, eh?

IB Bill, you must have posted while I was writing yesterday, because I missed it. And yes, your view is pretty much the way I see and why I'm not too upset.
Again, I do think homosexuality is like smoking...maybe we do need to let it run its course so its general harmfulness to the individual can become clear. Lord knows no one currently practicing it admits the possibility that homosexual behavior might not be a good thing.

Homoexuality in all the mammalian populations? ...hmm, what purpose would that serve ? Think very hard about that one, especially those of you who belong exclusively to the cult of Darwin.---While people should be able to control their own property and decide "who gets to be by their side at the hopital bed", there are legal ways to accomplish those ends. It's all very simple: How can people who can't mate, marry? It could never mean the same thing. Instead of attempting to alter the meaning of marraige, maybe the community should develop its own institution.

To legalize SSM is to degrade our society, what are would youdo if you child saw a gay couple and said that looks like fun I wan't to be like them? It's moraly wrong, yet being American they have a "right" being deined to them. I don't agree with it but as long as they don't influence my family (which is impossible) I'm okay, yet it's not possible, why because everybody wants to vioce their views on TV, they don't care what happens to others, just that they get what they want

« Hide Comments

*Yeah, I know that's not exactly a news flash, but I just thought I'd repeat it for emphasis and clarity.

Hmm. Does the GOP have any issues in their platform that Bush won't be campaigning on?

Just to be fair I mean. (I am a Blog 4 Bush, but...)

Any? Sure. But skipping one of the main ones? I can't really think of one.

To me, major Republican issues are: lower taxes, strong defense, personal responsibility. I think President Bush is campaigning on all these. And personally, while he hasn't started campaigning on it (because the economy isn't good enough yet), I think if he wins with a comfortable margin he will use the resulting sense of mandate to make significant cuts in the size of government and government entitlements. But that's just a feeling.
Pro-life isn't as strong of a Republican platform as Pro-choice is for Democrats (where it's an actual prerequisite for most higher offices), but President Bush is campaigning on that and on preventing judicial activism to bring about the legality of SSM.

But certainly, I might not be thinking of all the issues. Is there a top Republican issue that President Bush is avoiding in order to get elected?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I blame it on the Stroh's. It hasn't been the same since the originator sold off the rights.

That makes me laugh a lot haha.

I think you have him underestimated my friend!

Dang, I knew I was forgetting a signature line...!

« Hide Comments

Nathan, I hardly think of you or anything you write as complacent. I knew you were a Christian before I ever read anything directly professing your belief when I first saw your comments over at ResurrectionSong. I would never have gathered that from a complacent Christian.

So, chin-up! You're a terrific writer (and I know I just read that someone else somewhere else [?] said that, too, this week).

P.S. Fabulous blog link! I am going over to my template to get her blogrolled right away!

You saw my Christian-like comments over at Resurrection Song because I really wasn't posting Christian-like posts over here, methinks.

But even if you are correct, I still ask myself if I'm doing enough, if I'm standing up for Jesus enough...or if I'm sometimes backing off for fear of "offending" some atheist or setting myself up for atheist sniping. Dawn helps inspire me to exercise my moral courage, and I appreciate that...that's all I was saying.

« Hide Comments

Hi, I noticed you were talking about HIV/AIDS on this site. If you'd like to submit your page to SH Directory, please do ;-) (http://www.shdir.com)

« Hide Comments

I so love my cat, a male Blue Mackeral Tabby. We got him in the summer of 2000 (a good year, K was born then) after our other cat died the previous spring.

He is shy and doesn't come around when people are about, and he prefers me and K of all the family. When you reach down to pet him, he pushes off the ground with his front paws and knocks his head against your hand. It is so unique to his personality and pretty darn endearing.

R reminds me (tongue-in-cheek) not to "covet" him too much and also occasionally comments that he knows that I will go into full-fledged mourning when Sam's time comes.

« Hide Comments

Wow and Amen. You put it so eloquently. Thank you. I do believe I shall steal that sometime in the near future.

« Hide Comments

"Becoming"?

To me it's been one big punchline from the day he announced. The first time. 'Cause I think he's "kicked off" his campaign three or four times already, and will again at the convention.

"Becoming"?

That's hilarious.

<walks away chuckling>

"Becoming"...

Let's not forget he's been campaigning for nearly 2 years already.

Let's not forget he doesn't come close to doing the job he was elected to do, but refuses to demonstrate integrity by resigning so Massachussetts could be represented by two Senators again.

Yeah, it's been a joke. But it's gotten worse lately. It's becoming a farce? One or two gaffes by a candidate are likely...but Kerry is on lie 9 or 10. And the media keeps helping him stay afloat. Kerry's acting twice as clueless as Quayle (at least!) but getting none of the derision from the press. It's too be expected, but it amuses me that they can't keep news of his blunders completely under wraps, and what we still hear about is just...just...this level of incompetence seems absolutely unprecented.

Not only is it a joke, but the hypocrisy is amazing. He's asking if Bush read it - implying the President might have - but then basically admits he went ahead and voted in favor of the Iraq resolution without reading the same document! That plays well to the ABB crowd, but the rest of the nation goes, "Now hold on a minute ..."

The number of ridiculous gaffes keeps mounting:
You'd think he'd be smart enough not to question Bush's reading because it would open him up to questions...but he's so eager to try and tag Bush with something.
Okay, one mistake, fine.
But he also said, "I don't fall down, the (#*&@* knocked me down!" ...then proceeded to fall down on his own three more times.
The whole, "I don't own an SUV, my family does", and "I own an American-made car" that ended up having been manufactured in Canada...I mean, Honestly! This guy is not ready for Prime Time by any means. But the media pretending he is just gets more and more surreal.

Ok, here is a thought. Picture the DNC in Boston.....you will note the hairy legged junior senator from NY has not be asked to speak...let alone give the keynote speach...perhaps there is a reason...will she be asked to run vice Kerry...due to him being served papers for his (alleged) war crimes.
There has not been too much hoopla over the omition of Hillary (yes drudge has been noting same as have some others but there has been no major media harping on this for any great length of time). There is something fishy going on behind the scenes me thinks.

Yeah, my spidey-sense has been tingling over some of those aspects, too.

Heck, if you apply the reasoning behind the Torricelli precedent to the national election, you pretty much have to replace Kerry with someone else, don't you?

« Hide Comments

I've been blogging for over two years, and "Royals Reports" were a regular feature of my blog. I stopped when someone else did it better.

Don't make me give up "Chiefs Reports" too!

Heaven forbid! Every opinion is worthwhile.

Hey, um, I like to think I want discussions, but sometimes I get irritated and just react. So tell me the truth: am I out of line with Tom? I feel like he dismisses half of what I say, distorts the other half, and insults my opinions any chance he can get...
I'm no longer going to respond to him, and I'd appreciate someone else commenting so we can have a discussion....

No, you weren't out of line.

Man, that guy was a jack-up. It's sports talk, not a frickin' sociology Ph.D. dissertation.

People that get that bent out of shape about sports need some additional hobbies. I mean, he must have been really red-faced.

So what if you're a homer? That's what it means to be a fan. If he thinks he's pretty smart, maybe he should put in the tape of the Colts game, wherein the Donkeys get hammered. And that's by a team that Indianapolis fans don't even watch-I lived in West Lafayette last year, and I got to see Chiefs games because sometimes Colts games would be blacked out. (Yes, the Chiefs lost to the Colts the next week, but it was at least an entertaining game.)

That guy should get a grip. This post captures the needed perspective perfectly.

Phew!
Because, of course, one never knows how one is coming across.
I will be posting more after training camp starts and Ivan tells us more stuff.

After reading the debate/argument, I'm reminded of the (probably mis)quote(ed statement) from Cameron Stauth's book The Golden Boys about the 1992 US Olympics Basketball "Dream Team" ...

"Sports are cathartic. They are among the most important things in the world precisely because, in the end, they don't matter at all."

Personally though, I thought your article was well-written and interasting, while I found "Tom" to be a pretentious butt-head. Then again, seeing as how you're my buddy, I'm probably a tad biased.

Oh yeah...and why didn't you mention that some of your expertise comes from playing not infrequent games of "MicroLeague Football" with your old buddy, Dalin? ^_^

Well, mainly because, as I recall, I was schooling you! [grin]

Nah, it was a fun game, pretty much Paydirt for the computer. However, I was even more of a homer then than I am now. I still can't believe I tried to convince you to give "Fives" (Hall of Fame level) to 4 of 5 KC linemen... One of them, maybe, and perhaps 3 "Fours", but I wouldn't even hear of a "Three", and at least 1 or 2 guys were no better than that.

« Hide Comments

She said that a couple months before, but why bother? If she's elected as First Lady, she will have to reveal it's only wise since most first First Ladies do the same.

However I saw on a show that Kerry won't be taxing the rich class, such as themselves but small businesses. I think that's what we all need to be focusing on.

Did you see the new Heinz ketchup bottle with the W?

Did you hear Conan joke the other day that Kerry and Edwards had tallied up their wealth and decided to vote Republican?

If THK wants to keep her stuff private, then she should stay in the private sector. Or, you know, give it a few months and let it get sucked up in what will inevitably (inevitably) be Kerry's across-the-board insane-in-the-membrane tax hikes. He's attacking Bush on his tax cuts that included the wealthy. He can't very well keep those cuts in place and save face - what face there is.

I can't help but wonder what the former Mr. Heinz (may he rest in peace) would think about the *turn* that the politics and financial interests of his former Missus has taken.

I guess that's the same old question that is always wondered about generations and varioius inheritors, but, I was puzzled mostly by the statements by Teresa Heinz Kerry herself when appearing on "Larry King Live" last week, about why she'd opted to go the Democrat way after being a Republican, based upon what and why. Seemed that she was simply speaking about social resentments as being her motivation, blaming "they". She seemed, actually, quite paranoid. Shame.

Worse, Kerry seemed to encourage her, was tender to and about her paranoia politically, socially. Which reinforces my impression of them both, and what they're doing today: pushing toward "social reform" as a tool to more or less "get" people. You know, victims striking out and all...

I could be wrong, I realize, was just how I read the body language on that show, what they both said and why, in regards to their political plans, made possible by Teresa's former husband, a Republican.

You know, several months ago I made a similar comment, something to the effect of it being somewhat dishonest or lacking in integrity somewhat that the money inherited from a Republican Senator could be used to directly fund a Democrat Senator's presidential bid. But no one else responded to that thought, so I dropped it. I may revisit it again, now.

« Hide Comments

Use the forceps, Luke

oh man... :)

Gauze, that's hemorrhous!

I gotta say, making puns about the circulatory system are more artery than they are sciencery.

awwww don't be too hard on the guy...after all it is only a vein-ial sin...and not a mortal one.

« Hide Comments

Get the government out of the marriage business altogether I say. Let people contract their unions however they like and stop wasting the taxpayers money on the issue.

Since this is brain fertilizer with the obvious translation, put it that it recently doesn't make any difference what marriage means except to those who are involved in it. The state is the only important factor since it needs it for record keeping and to let the business world know that no one who claims to be the partner of another is ripping them off. The religious nonsense is just trappings. Marriage before a JP is more binding that marriage before a priest, especially if the couple doesn't file a marriage license.

I'll take care of the double post for you.

But I