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 disagree with you both. I do think the government has a vested interest in encouraging behavior that helps build a stable society. The Soviet Union collapsed from economic instability, the Roman Empire collapsed from geographic instability (territory too large), but the United States could surely collapse from societal instability if the cost of dangerous behavior is too low and the price of stable/moral/mature behavior is too high.

Individual freedoms are important, yes, and I'm not denying that. But they still should largely be working toward the good of a safe, stable society that is cognizant and serious towards its responsibilities. The trick, I admit, is determining what is and isn't working toward societal good. Where to draw the line, and what is enough?

I know my answers; I'm sure you have yours, and we don't agree. But discussion with intent to persuade is still the best course. A Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM is one way of letting everyone discuss it. I wish the Massachussetts State Supreme Court hadn't pushed the issue so this could have more time to percolate through our society, but we'll see.

I think the concern I have is that people are saying this is a decline in society. Historically, the forcing of one belief on society, no matter what that belief is, has consistently meant the decline of that society. For instance, in the 14th Century, Islam was essentially an open society with Christians and Jews treated fairly and allowed to live their own lives and the Islamic society flourished and kept alive the traditions of the Greeks and Romans and created some of the great science of the time, including arabic numerals which have enabled mathematics and science to flourish. At that time, the Christian repression of the Middle Ages was retarding, although not stopping, similar growth in Europe. When the enlightenment came about during the renaissance, some of the great artists are thought to have been gay but circumspect about it: Da Vinci and Michelangelo come to mind. But the fact of being gay is not what it's about. It's about the openness of society that encourages the flowering of thought and expression. When a particularly religion begins to enforce its beliefs with the sword, the society begins to die as thought, science and free expression begin to die. It is this form of religion, whether it be Christian, Islamic or Communism, that curdles a society. In other words, it is about control, not belief.

That's a morally-relatavistic stance. After all, I could probably make a similar, if not stronger case that the push for SSM is forcing a belief on society.
The best thing about an amendment is that it has to be ratified by duly and popularly elected representatives of three quarters of the states. As opposed to a handful of appointed judges.
If the amendment could get enough votes to pass, then no force is involved. But look at California, where the people said they don't want to allow SSM, and San Francisco's Mayor said, "Screw you, you'll have SSM and like it!" Sort of.
It depends on your assumptions. SSM has never been a right in any society in history.

« Hide Comments

While I have no desire for violence, I could certainly do with a bit more nudity and adult situations in my life...

The "Adult Situation" I have enough of already is getting up and going to work each day and paying bills and taxes and maintaining my home...

I admit I might enjoy a little bit more nudity in my life if it were a body other than my own, but...

« Hide Comments

Please?

Sure, but it won't be for a few years. And I'll probably have to issue a press release apologizing for the earlier "boobies" link.

If you do run, it might convince me to actually vote for once. Just remember that the problem with politics is politicians.

I'd vote for you. Wait, what state are you going to live in?

I'll tell you when I settle down there. Unfortunately, it won't be for another 9 years, at least...

Well, Missouri is a terrific state:)

It's a terrific state to be from!

...in fact, I was born there, but now feel it's too dang hot there.

« Hide Comments

People who are getting an error message should simply go back and try again. Worked for me.

I was getting the same thing....will check back in a little bit.

« Hide Comments

"ill-gotten" hittage?

No such thing. Your "whine," if you insist on calling it that, got people's attention. Period. Full Stop.

Good job. I'll have to add that tactic to my "Blogging How-To" category. :)

Oh yes, I just blogrolled you.

Well, one thing I will never eliminate is my tendency toward self-deprecation. It's in my nature.

And thanks for the link, sir.

I am going to see if blogrolling myself will help up my stats.

And yes, we need more boobies. Enjoy the post while you can 'cuz the wife is sure to have a fit if she gets wind of it! ;)

« Hide Comments

Nice piece there. Nice blog too. Into my blogroll with you now.

Wish I could buy one of those babies in Boston (waits for laughter to subside).

The gas impingement/gas port and piston accuracy difference is far more theoretical than real.
In order to prove such a theorectical difference one would have to have rifles with each operating system with barrels bored and rifled exactly the same with identical chambers. The barrels would have had to have been straightened after boring, exactly the same way. Those barrels would have to be crowned identically. Those barrels and actions would have to be bedded exactly the same into stocks of identical quality of materiels, design and workmanship. Then each rifle would have to have a load made up to match the harmonics of the barrel, the rifles would have to be fired by shooters of equal skill under the exact same conditions with identical sights.
Then after doing this once, we'd have to repeat the operation with enough rifles to remove the element of chance.
Even then, the quality of the various things I've mentioned plus a lot of things I haven't will have a greater effect on accuracy than gas impingement/gas piston. Camp Perry was regularly won with the M1 and, later, the M1A with their 'less accurate' gas pistons. If a rifle's system is good enough to win at 600 yards, it's good enough.
I can catagorically say that the design of the Remington Model 700 is more conducive to fine accuracy than the Winchester Model 70. That's why most police and military snipers as well as many target shooters use the Remington as a base. Still, if I go to the shop for a new rifle I can't say that THIS Remington will be more accurate than THAT Winchester.
When you get around to handloading try about 46 grains of Ramshot's Tac, the Sierra 155 grain Palma Matchking and the Federal Gold Medal match primer. See if you can find some Lake City National Match Brass to put it in. If not, spend the money and get some Lapua Brass. If you can't find the Ramshot Tac, try about 47 grains of Hodgdon's Varget. This is a compressed load, I pesonally prefer them. I've seen both these loads win matches.
You will cry tears the size of horse turds when that semiauto flings that 35 cent a pop brass into the tall weeds or down a gopher hole, though.

Wow! Great stuff! It all makes sense, so I guess the commonly-referenced inaccuracy of the AK-47/AKM/AK-74 is more due to the looseness of the action, then?

...I have the best readers in the world.

« Hide Comments

Because...of course...all liberal arts professors, students and advocates must be advocating socialism and/or communism, right? What a shock. Guess I've invalidated my liberal arts degree then, since I advocate neither.

For that matter, guess my sister doesn't really have a liberal arts PhD since she doesn't advocate them either. Maybe she won't have to pay back those student loans after all; she'll be thrilled to know that.

Gotta love those blanket generalizations. ;)

You are still an 18-year-old liberal arts major, Dalin? I had no idea.

But yeah, blanket statements are ridiculous. Doesn't mean you can't keep 'em in your arsenal.

Blanket statements remind me of a rule of thumb.

I had a professor who would always give us a "rule of thumb" to check the basic validity of our assumptions. He also gave us a "rule of thumb for rules of thumb": a rule of thumb only works about 80% of the time.

(Can I tell you that the more I type "rule of thumb" the odder it looks and sounds?)

Anyway, I originally started to comment on capitalism v. socialism/communism - one of the reasons capitalism works so well is that it is the only economic model that doesn't require people to act against their natures. Instead it recognizes that people will normal act in their self interest and rewards that behavior. I posted on this some time back in case you're interested.

PS

I like your blog. I'm putting you in my "pending" folder. If I find you consistently entertaining and/or educational (and I think I will), I'll link you.

« Hide Comments

*anyone?

your writing....if I could marry it I would. you hit the brain and the heart at the same time without pretense or sentiment. glad I found your site.

I'm sorry it came about as it did, but you do deserve the props. As always. ;)

Aw, shucks, Ma'am...er, Ma'ams, er, wimmenfolk. Aw, shoot. Y'all know whut I mean.

Maybe she was just the wrong person to whine about! You just need to find someone right to whine about, and huzzah! You earn a spot on their blogroll!

From "The Streak."

And why I have that bit of useless trivia crammed in my cranium is also why I did not major in math.

Aheh.

Who doesn't want to be linked by a babe such as Michelle? (I mean "babe" in the Pretty Hot and Sexy AND Conservative way.)

Would it have been as easy if I'd just stopped at "but she already had a free shot"?

Oh, and I still don't have a place on Ms. Malkin's blogroll, I recently noticed. Just an apology and a link in a prominent post.

She's got class, though, doesn't she: she apologizes to me and sends huge traffic this way, when actually I wronged her (and apologized for it...but again: too late).

Better look again -- Lady Malkin has indeed "Blogrolled" you...and with a cool little "*" by your site name...whatever the heck that means...

It means: "sexy as George Clooney". Or maybe just that I've recently updated...not sure.

But last time I looked I wasn't blogrolled. Dang. Am I destined to be wrong about everything this week?!?!??!! Sheesh.

Note to self: when you are in a hole, stop digging!

But last time I looked I wasn't blogrolled. Dang. Am I destined to be wrong about everything this week?!?!??!! Sheesh.

This week? ;)

My friend, if you are married you allready know the answer to your questions.....and it is the second or third most used comment I make to my better half. Right after "Yes dear" and "I love you"...."I'm sorry for (insert crime/offense here)...after all, I'm just a man."

Okay, Nathan, now I offered you a deal shortly after Michelle started her blog -- that I would repost your "prominent place of honor" link if you could get Michelle to blogroll me.

Since you've shown you can get it done... ;-)

Well, now, I think perhaps the circumstances have changed somewhat...Perhaps we should be discussing what it takes to get a prominent location on my blogroll...?

Dude, any position in your blogroll is a prominent one.

Especially any position that contains the name of my blog, but I wasn't going to point that out...

Flattery will get you...somewhere. As soon as I figure out the location, I'll let you know.

« Hide Comments

Oh no, your not allowed to post light now. Everyones going on about you and giving you your props now, you have to stick it out!

Get to work, you've got your wish now!

Hence Malkin.

G'luck.

You're right. I'll try to pull out some good stuff this morning.

Hey, thanks for including BIRD in your links and for mentioning one of my recent comments there, here. I was looking over my site stats when I first woke up earlier today and thought there'd been some sort of glitch, what with all the readers linked from here.

So, is appreciated.
~:-D

Well, it wasn't charity. I liked it and thought you said something better than I've seen anyone else say it. I probably won't stop by every day (got a lot of new blogs to investigate), but if I see good stuff, I'll link it.
The reason you got lots of traffic is because I got lots of traffic. Normally it would have been a much smaller bounce. Let's see if we can both keep it. [grin]

« Hide Comments

You'd be better off leaving a quick comment on Michelle's post or another one (obviously not all allow comments) asking for the link. This is not link-whoring; from the way you describe things you deserved a link and she probably just missed giving it to you. It happens.

Howdy,

If I were you I would do two things..change the title to "Bran Fertilizer"...it's more heart healthy and you care about your readers don't you???
(Ok, the Sailor missed an eye,...sheesh what a cheap shot *grin*).
And two, send the fetching Michelle a dozen roses. (Come on you O's have the big bucks...and the PX is tax free) Then ask on virtual bended knee if she would be so good as to put your blog on her roll.
Honey, works better than vinager every time.

Best of luck, ye ol' squi.

Guy.

Another alternative is send a quick email to Michelle and explain what happened.

If it is any consolation, this is why so many bloggers were p***** off at Andrew Sullivan. FWIW....

« Hide Comments

Nathan, I think that's the worst pun I've heard today, which is no small feat considering that my husband is home. :)

[bows]

"It will be the first time, except for prohibition, that bigotry has been added to the Constitution," O'Donnell said.

Prohibition was about bigotry?

Does this mean that there can't be a gay bi-racial family?

Jordana,
Based on a number of little mis-statements like that, I think Rosie was drunk or high at the time. Anti-marijuana laws don't apply on the high seas, I think.

Christopher,
Sure there can. There's even a left-handed, gay, bi-racial, cross-eyed, transgender, cross-dressing family. His name is Hunter, I think.

« Hide Comments

(Chris: I'm thinking about boobies as I type. Just so you know.)

I once majored in music, and one of the lessons I learned was that true creativity can only come within certain structures. The more structured your form or medium, the greater creativity you must exercise to come up with something worth keeping. B. B. King, for instance, often uses just 6 notes (two strings with two frettings each, plus a string bend on two frettings) for many of his solos. That's an incredible restriction for a guitarist, yet no one would say his soloes are boring. Contrast that with the so-called "free-form jazz", consisting of individuals soloing for extended periods over very open, minimalistic chords. The soloists enjoy it, but few listeners do...unless well-versed in jazz enough to understand why the Ab, for instance, was a more brilliant choice than the B. The free-form soloist has so much freedom that it ends up boring for anyone not sophisticated.

The difference between a great storyteller and a terminal bore is the storyteller has a point, and paces the story, and brings you to the right emotions at the right time. There's a structure. There are limits. But within those limits, he's free to use all sorts of word choices, or tones of voice, or facial expressions. Without the structure, though, it's useless and worthless drivel. It's empty words.

Another thing I learned from music is that the most discordant, harsh, horribly ugly tonal cluster in the world becomes beautiful if approached correctly and resolved properly. I can go throw a cat on a piano keyboard and it will sound horrible. But hook up a computer to record the actual notes played, and a gifted composure could take the exact same sequence and in the proper context, make it the point of tension right before a musical climax that would bring you to tears.

Liberals and libertarians, despite being at opposite ends of the political spectrum, have something in common: they are both pushing for greater freedom for everyone. Obviously, the two groups define "freedom" differently, and they want freedom from different things. Libertarians want freedom from government interference, even if it means hardship, and liberals want freedom from pain/hardship by way of government interference.

Me? I favor restrictions on freedom. Not despotic restrictions, no. But I think the negative reaction towards the Patriot Act is/was silly. It wasn't the first step of a slippery slope, and the restrictions were far more benign than anything done with gun control.

However, I think that as a society we have gone too far in seeking freedom. It is human nature to want freedom, of course. But it is also human nature to seek limits.

Take teenagers, for instance. No matter what rule you impose on them, a teenager will argue and complain that it is too restrictive. They will yell and cry and hate you for restricting them from what they want to do. But if you talk to a teenager without restrictions or rules at all at home, they will usually say they wish they had more restrictions, that they feel unloved because no one cares enough to set limits. Naturally, if a parent would respond by trying to impose a curfew, the teen would react badly...but that's because the yoke is always uncomfortable when you first put it on.

Most really young children love to take off their clothes and streak around the house. Most young children love to take off their shoes to play outside. Why? Freedom. They have not become accustomed to binding, restrictive clothing. But few people insist that nudity is preferable in all, or even most, situations. Shoes and clothes protect us. Within the limitations of clothing we find the opportunity for all sorts of creativity with fashion. Without clothes, what could we do to express and reveal our personality? Piercings, tattoos, and even hairstyles are all far more permanent and restrictive (from an expressive point of view) than clothing that can be changed in less than a minute....

Sure, clothing that is too tight hurts and binds and rubs, and that can cause injury. But so can clothing that is too loose. Go running or hiking in shoes 2 sizes too big and tell me what happens. Go work heavy machinery with loose, billowing clothes and I'll make sure your beneficiaries get your insurance money.

All this combines into an overall point: Society is the same way. We may want more freedom, we may demand more freedom...but no amount of freedom is ever enough to make us feel happy. While too much restriction prevents us from growing, we need limits in order to truly find peace, happiness, and beauty in life.

There are some people who feel that standards are bad, because it makes people who fail to reach those standards feel bad. They feel that social norms are too restrictive, making people fit uncomfortably into roles and situations that don't fit them. They point to an uncomfortable situation encountered by individuals in the past as reasons to expand freedoms in the present and future. The anguish a girl felt in the 50s upon finding herself pregnant justifies the entire culture of death and emptiness we have now built upon free sex, free contraception, free abortion, and freedom from marriage. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. How many young men are incarcerated today because we told their mothers it was okay to not marry the father since the government would take care of them financially? How many young women have been raped or killed by those young men? How many babies have been aborted? If, for just a moment, you accept that 40 million babies have been killed, is that worth letting 100,000 girls feel free of the fear of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy? See, by removing the stigma of pregnancy by encouraging free love and allowing abortions, girls have less reason to say "no" to guys who just want to use them for sex. The penalty for not meeting cultural standards has degraded the cultural standards themselves. The bliss and beauty of intimacy in marital fidelity used to be the subject of movies and books and plays, but you don't see it anymore, do you? Because we have a free-form jazz culture for sexual standards now...

One of the reasons for the decline of marriage is that we have lost both social and legal restrictions on divorce. Yes, someone trapped in an abusive marriage has more freedom to escape now...but many of them don't, because the restriction in a violent relationship has always come from within, not from without. But in the name of these poor, self-trapped souls, we have created no-fault divorces, and most people now give up before true, soul-satisfying love can even develop. How can you have true love if at the point of marriage you are both thinking you can easily bail out if it doesn't turn out? What is the social cost of these divorces? Is it larger than the social cost imposed by making it harder to legally dissolve an abusive marriage?

I'm not saying I want to make everyone stick in arranged marriages or that extra-marital sex should be criminalized. I am saying that freedom has a cost. I am saying that some people who feel unhappy with current society, chafing under perceived restrictions, might actually be happier with less freedom, not more. I'm saying that a healthy society needs healthy restrictions, limitations that channel individuals toward healthy, productive behavior...but with norms and standards, not laws. I'm saying that, like music, the most important and extreme freedoms need to be approached cautiously and resolved carefully, that abortion and sexuality and religion and speech and ownership of destructive substances/devices cannot enjoy unfettered freedom without exacting a heavy toll on our populace. Controls on weapons have gone too far. Controls on sexuality and abortion have become too lax. Controls on religion and speech seemed to be about right 15-20 years ago...

When should we leave well enough alone? When can we pretty much tell Congress: "Okay, nice job guys. Stay home, and we'll call you when we need you....like in about 20 years!" Me, I'm a conservative. I think we were in the right spot right after the Civil Rights Act was passed and right before Johnson stuck us with his "Great Society".

I think it's more of the where are we going with the restrictions thing that gets people upset. Sure some restrictions are necessary, but who is to say when enough is enough?

So you think that 10 years ago, we had "X" amount of freedoms, and now we have X-Y amount? You think that, as a nation/people, we actually are less free than 10, 20, 50, 100 years ago? I'd have to disagree. Freedoms have been expanding throughout the history of our country.
On the other hand, yes: when is it enough, one way or the other? For that, I trust the majority.

« Hide Comments

Wow. I always just put chapter breaks where the commercial would go if it were a TV-movie. That is, at a point where it's logical to leave off for narrative or emotional effect. It means some of the chapters I've written have been kinda short, though.

Have you ever considered NaNoWriMo? If you don't know what it is, it's an event that happens during national writing month (November).

It's ran off of the website http://www.nanowrimo.com

The whole point of the exercise is to write a novel in a month, no matter how good, no matter how bad, it's basically just something to keep you writing. The forums and such are helpful with help and such.

Uhh yeah, just something I'm throwing out there.

I participated in Andy's program last year, but didn't get very far. However, it did really get me going on this road that has me feeling like this time I can finish. But I'd like to try a different novel this year, so I have to finish this one before November...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

If you respond, even with something like, "I hear ya, pal!", it lets them know you are listening, and appreciate their input.

Or in my case, it's typically bullet points on why I am wrong. ;)

Of course, I always figure if I am in that big a need of a traffic boost, I can always just post about boobies.

As a blog reader, I love that little thrill I get when one of you guys bothers to respond to a comment I've left. Darn good advice, at least from my non-blogging perspective.
So's the boobies, BTW.

But that's because we know you are strong and smart enough to hold your own, Jo.

Chris, I'm probably not going to post about boobies. It's just not really my style. Unless it's a post about boobie puns, perhaps... At the very least, I do promise to think about boobies the next time I post.

Rick,
Good! I hope I haven't blown off any of your comments. I will make sure I respond in the future. I do find it interesting that I've seen no one else post anything about the importance of responding to comments. We don't have facial expressions online, so leaving some sort of response is kinda the blogosphere way of saying, "Mm-hmm". If you don't do it, it makes the commenter feel like he's talking to a brick wall. I know that even as a blogger I've felt that way many times.

There! That's what I'm talkin' about! Suddenly it's a dialogue, not just me sitting here reading, able to only nod my head in agreement,or shake my fist in rage. Or whatever.
I do most of my blog-hopping at work, and I mostly just lurk around in the shadows, but when something moves me, darnit, I will put a chime in. And no, you haven't blown off a comment, being as I just got here today for the first time, thanks to INDC Bill. I'll be back, as the man says. Good stuff here.

Rick,
The only reason I was worried I might have blown off a comment by you is that I've had a ton of comments recently, and I can't be sure I've responded to all of them.
But any time you want a discussion on anything I've talked about here, you are always welcome. I will respond. If I'm having a busy week and miss it, just remind me of my promise here, and I'll at least acknowledge with a "busy, get back to you soon" response.

I think that is a wise approach. The whole point of comments is for a discussion and nothing says "unloved post" like a comment counter of zero. By responding to each comment, you effectively double the comment count for every post! (Just say NO to odd numbered comment counts!)

I still remember the day when my commment count finally exceeded my post count.

Although a few comments don't warrant a response, I almost always keep the notification for each comment in my inbox until I have had a chance to respond to is.

Well, you do have to be careful. You don't want to seem like you are always trying to have the last word. My internal monitor is telling me I'm coming pretty close with this response...

Sometimes it is good to shut up and get out of the way, and I try to do that when commenters are discussing things between each other. But since it is my blog, people leaving comments are usually talking to me, thus, I should respond. Getting a full-blown conversation going between people is much more difficult to nurture from a spark into a full flame; usually the blog proprietor's main duty in that case is to protect free discussion, i.e., don't let people pile on to someone making an unpopular point. But even that is a fine line, because some points are unpopular because they are insufferable or unacceptable. And in some ideological battles, you probably can't protect all combatants equally...

It's an art, not a science, I guess.

Of course, commenters can help by making their comments in such a way as to invite a reply. Wouldn't you agree, Nathan?

Why, yes, Kevin, I would agree. 8P

I just want to comment on this thread to cement my place as one of the cool kids. ;)

Heck, you were one of the original. From the "Classic" Brain Fertilizer days of the "Just-Us League".

Umm, since the loss of my archives, I was wondering...did anyone save a copy of those?

I'm not one of the kewl kids.
But I'm commenting anyway.

I know I try to reply to comments on my personal site, but I'm not sure that the commenters revisit the same article they commented on, as the articles get burried so fast.

You're one of the kewl kids, you just won't admit it.

« Hide Comments

Gun expose yourself as an ammo-ture?

If I get round to it. I may have to rifle through my catalog of puns to find something to fire off that's within the scope of recent discussions. I don't want to just shoot off my mouth, but there's a range of things I could take aim at, no?

I recoil at your return volley, since I was just sitting on the bench resting without much tripodation. I had been lead to expect you not to be so brassy in your report -- er, retort.

I thought there'd be a higher caliber of discussion on this post.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I admit this wasn't simply an immediate principled stand I decided to take. I hadn't gone to see movies in a theater or rented a movie in over a year.
Lately, I've been thinking more about the messages Hollywood communicates to us. Mel Gibson's The Passion and Hollywood's reaction to it beforehand...as well as its embrace of the movie after the box office receipts were clear, well it kind of casts Hollywood and its values in stark contrast with mine. I'm tired of the casual sex in Hollywood. I'm tired of how they confuse attraction with love and clearly have no clue what part commitment and marriage should have before sexual intimacy.
I don't like their idea of a story, as well. I don't like the way that they portray violence: usually displaying all the depth and understanding of 12-year-old boys talking about sex. Example: the bad guy lays down his gun and surrendurs,the good guy reluctantly has to refrain from shooting him, then the bad guy invariably betrays that mercy with a cheapshot and the good guy gets to kill in self-defense. It seems to me this reveals that Hollywood hates the idea of a heinous murderer going through the court system and getting the death sentence, but has no way to give any satisfaction with the idea of the really bad guy getting life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years....or is at least incapable explaining why they feel that way to the rubes they are trying to fleece out of $8.50 a ticket.
And movies are too short, anyway, for subtlety and depth. Television is even worse. One bonus for me in watching Chinese productions is they have 20-episode television programs: that's a length you can really explore character and craft some moral messages; and they do, very capably. When US television programs have a running plot, they deliberately attempt to avoid giving any decent resolution (see: X-Files), because the producers, writers, actors, and network will try to milk more seasons just to make more money. Artistic integrity is always below the almighty dollar in Hollywood, and I'm sick of it.
And even if there is something out there that avoids all these problems (maybe Deadwood or the Sopranos?), Hollywood is still mainly about bucks and celebrity and eye-candy. I'm sick of that, too. There's very little out there that stimulates the mind as well as a good book, and what little there is is usually crap for other reasons. Give me a good book any day, one I can revisit at will. Books can handle deep ideas and complex issues far more capably than Hollywood.
Well, I'm done with Hollywood. I'm sick of Michael Moore, and I'm sick of the idiots in Hollywood who support crap like that. I'm sick of their media induced delusions of importance. I'm sick of what they use their money and fame and influence for.
Screw them. I may not be able to do anything significant to bring them down a notch, but at least I'm no longer selling my life in prepackaged increments.
So I'm forgoing an hour or two of mindless entertainment each weekend. Or compared to some people, maybe I'm throwing away 3 hours of mindless entertainment every night. So what? I get to keep my time, spend it with my kids, or reading, or studying to improve myself, or playing guitar. My mind and my time are my own, not Hollywood's.

Bravo!

« Hide Comments

Actually (and this isn't necessarily an endorsement of the choice), Hollywood changed the "cigarette industry" into the "gun industry" for Runaway Jury because the "Cigarette Industry" is a dated topic that had already been overfilmed (and for which numerous rulings had already been handed down). Therefore, there was no good way to revisit it and keep the story modern and realistic. By changing it to the "gun industry" however, they are on the path of a current tort hot-spot. The lawsuit presented in the film is very similar to class-action suits that have been filed, and clearly the writers felt that the story itself was at least as important (and worth telling) as the specificity of the case around which the events revolve. But suggesting that they changed it simply because most dramatists smoke is just silly...

On the other hand, there probably was at least some political intent behind what they ultimately changed the case to, so in that sense, your gripe may be a valid one.

As for the changes to Faramir's character...they bugged me too. And in retrospect, the LOTR crew (Jackson, Boyens, et al) has suggested that maybe they were wrong in making the choices they did where Faramir was concerned. Regardless, the character's motivations eventually returned to those Prof. Tolkein intended, so I didn't have a significant problem with the way he was ultimately portrayed in the film. I had a bigger problem with the way his father, Denethor, was portrayed.

For me though, it was enough that someone (outside of the Hollywood mainstream actually) had the guts to put LOTR on screen, and do a remarkably credible and artistic job of it to boot. In many ways, the LOTR films were completely contrary to the Hollywood norm. In fact, virtually every major Hollywood study believed they were wastes of time, money and effort. Guess they were wrong...

What the LOTR movies lacked in accuracy (probably debatable), they more than made up for (in my mind) by staying true to the "feel" of the Trilogy...or at least the "feel" I got when reading them.

PS-Welcome back, Nate!

I'm feeling the same about the Bourne Identity (*shudder*) Trillogy a la Hollywood.
I saw the previews for the Bourne Supremacy.
Which I ranted about Here.

However, the ONE thing that people are saying, which I cannot agree with: Matt Damon is the next Steve McQueen? Sorry, I don't think so.

I've pretty much written the big screen off, and when I do see a movie, my expectation are pretty low.
The Small Screen is usually in the off position as well.

Dalin, you will remember my original objection to the trilogy was a fear that visual images could replace the vivid scenes of my imagination. That has shown to be sort of true, but I think in time my imagination will reassert itself.
I admit this wasn't simply an immediate principled stand I decided to take. I hadn't gone to see movies in a theater or rented a movie in over a year.
Lately, I've been thinking more about the messages Hollywood communicates to us. Mel Gibson's The Passion and Hollywood's reaction to it beforehand...as well as its embrace of the movie after the box office receipts were clear, well it kind of casts Hollywood and its values in stark contrast with mine. I'm tired of the casual sex in Hollywood. I'm tired of how they confuse attraction with love and clearly have no clue what part commitment and marriage should have before sexual intimacy.
I don't like their idea of a story, as well. I don't like the way that they portray violence: usually displaying all the depth and understanding of 12-year-old boys talking about sex. Example: the bad guy lays down his gun and surrendurs,the good guy reluctantly has to refrain from shooting him, then the bad guy invariably betrays that mercy with a cheapshot and the good guy gets to kill in self-defense. It seems to me this reveals that Hollywood hates the idea of a heinous murderer going through the court system and getting the death sentence, but has no way to give any satisfaction with the idea of the really bad guy getting life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years....or is at least incapable explaining why they feel that way to the rubes they are trying to fleece out of $8.50 a ticket.
And movies are too short, anyway, for subtlety and depth. Television is even worse. One bonus for me in watching Chinese productions is they have 20-episode television programs: that's a length you can really explore character and craft some moral messages; and they do, very capably. When US television programs have a running plot, they deliberately attempt to avoid giving any decent resolution (see: X-Files), because the producers, writers, actors, and network will try to milk more seasons just to make more money. Artistic integrity is always below the almighty dollar in Hollywood, and I'm sick of it.
And even if there is something out there that avoids all these problems (maybe Deadwood or the Sopranos?), Hollywood is still mainly about bucks and celebrity and eye-candy. I'm sick of that, too. There's very little out there that stimulates the mind as well as a good book, and what little there is is usually crap for other reasons. Give me a good book any day, one I can revisit at will. Books can handle deep ideas and complex issues far more capably than Hollywood.
Well, I'm done with Hollywood. I'm sick of Michael Moore, and I'm sick of the idiots in Hollywood who support crap like that. I'm sick of their media induced delusions of importance. I'm sick of what they use their money and fame and influence for.
Screw them. I may not be able to do anything significant to bring them down a notch, but at least I'm no longer selling my life in prepackaged increments.
So I'm forgoing an hour or two of mindless entertainment each weekend. Or compared to some people, maybe I'm throwing away 3 hours of mindless entertainment every night. So what? I get to keep my time, spend it with my kids, or reading, or studying to improve myself, or playing guitar. My mind and my time are my own, not Hollywood's.

"My mind and my time are my own, not Hollywood's."

So long as your personal stand is not meant to imply that anyone else who chooses to watch movies or television in their free time is, in some way, surrendering that time to Hollywood, I certainly have no problem with this...and I commend you on your convictions. It's good to take a moral stand about things.

I would remind you though that boycotting "Hollywood" does not necessarily mean that you have to boycott film. There are hundreds of excellent, non-mainstream films released every year -- most from independent and/or foreign companies -- that manage to make powerful statements and explore myriad issues very well. And most are created for reasons other than making money, although that can never be ignored as a factor. Making movies costs money...lots and lots of money. It's only reasonable that those who make the films regard them from an economic perspective. Do you think the "best" novelists in the business regard it any differently?

It's also unrealistic to suggest that a medium like film is too brief to adequately explore issues of subtlety and depth. What about Shakespeare's plays? They have a running time of about 2.5 hours, and it's pretty foolish to suggest that they don't contain subtlety and depth. But if that's too dated for you, what about Peter Shaffer? What about Arthur Miller? What about Neil Simon? Does their work lack either subtlety or depth? A story certainly doesn't have to be "long" to be multi-faceted, and that's equally true in plays and screenplays.

Believe it or not, I did consider lumping in dramatic plays, and deliberately decided not to. The only thing is, a movie is long if it gets to two hours. Most are 90 minutes, and that includes opening credits, and the extra hour Shakespeare takes provides significantly more room. Consider the depth of a novel that stops at 100 pages versus one that goes to 150...
However, it's not impossible for film to be done well, no. The Seven Samurai is masterpiece, and to tell the truth, I think there is some real depth to Joe Vs the Volcano; I think The Best Years of Our Lives is an amazing bit of theater. But Hollywood isn't giving us movies like that anymore. Others are, perhaps, but I'm not willing to put in the time to find out what ones are worth it...
Nah, it doesn't matter one bit to me if anyone else watches Hollywood. It is my value system that tells me reading a book is more valuable than watching a screen, that going out and playing with my kids or taking a walk with my wife, or even just sitting and playing JA2 is a better use of my time than letting Hollywood tell me it's okay to have sex with my co-worker if I really want to. But this is clearly one situation in which perception, judgment, and values intersect. Hollywood may well have some redeeming characteristics that I don't recognize. Not recognizing them, my value system says their product is crap. Judging it to be crap, it would be foolish of me to spend time. But if you start with a different assumption, i.e., that watching a television program or movie can add value to your life in some way, then your conclusions and resulting actions should be different than mine. I can tell you my reasons for buying a CRV, and they are perfectly logical and correct...but that wouldn't mean that anyone else should follow suit and buy a CRV. Different priorities, different values, different results.

« Hide Comments

There's a standard in which I choose t-shirts: if it's something I have to explain in great detail to my daughter and/or it gets involved in sex I DON'T BUY IT. (sorry for screaming)

There's the funny t-shirt and then there's the t-shirt that makes you cringe after a while.....

That one made me cringe immediately. How utterly tasteless, not to mention low-class.

Rick,
Yeah, it's one of those "mask-slippage" items that convinces me a significant portion of the homosexualist movement is trying to destroy any moral standard. [shakes head sadly]

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*yeah, that's bad logic. If everyone had the same policy, 200 links wouldn't be anywhere near enough to be #300. I can make such a projection only based on the idea of all blogs linking only me with a reciprocal policy.

I wonder sometimes too if there is some hit threshold that must be surpassed to be linked to by someone or if there is a legacy-thing where no one will link to you unless someone else links to you.

I don't think it's anything deliberate...

To be honest, I think that it is, in many ways, just another pyramid scheme of sorts, in that the people who got in earliest had the best chance to get established. Certain nodes were established as "good places to visit" and became clearinghouses of discussion or links or specific information. So anyone who comes on the scene now, or even anytime in the last year or more, probably has to have something rather unique to stand out; say, a particular schtick or niche viewpoint. Still, ya gotta have talent and a way with words that resonates. For instance, Baldilocks (Juliette) is just an excellent writer, intelligent, thoughtful, and insightful. She's a better writer and would have surpassed me in any case. But being a black, female conservative retired Airman probably gave her a little extra boost. Allah is funny, sure, but adopting the persona of the Lord of Creation helped him gather attention much more quickly to his brilliant humor.

I am linked by enough middling to outright high-hit blogs (like I mentioned: Dean, Protein Wisdom, Dodd @ Ipse Dixit, Resurrection Song, blogoSFERICS, Accidental Verbosity, Moxie, Jo --formerly of "Seething"--, et al) that I cannot understand why I can't reach that next level of linkaging. It leaves me with the feeling that I'm lacking in ability...except that the people who do visit regularly seem to really like my crap. Dunno.

I've thought it's because I get too angry at Liberals...except there are others bigger than me that do far worse. Or that I don't use foul language...except there are others bigger than me who do that, too. Or that I am anti-SSM and frown on homosexuality...nope, there are others bigger than me who hold the same views. In short, there is nothing that I do or say that can't be found somewhere else among very successful blogs. So either the point is that since they are already doing it, so I don't need to...or that in some way I can't see myself, my product is inferior.
...except when I think of the mediocre writing of some of the Big Bloggers, I'm left scratching my head.

But it's no big deal. I just have to get it off my chest at intervals.

It's easy to fall into a state where one's mood rises or falls depending on whether one's blog has been linked--I go through that every day.

When I'm feeling ignored, I put up a particularly funny or edgy post and then write to my favorite bloggers. In the e-mails, I first mention a post of theirs that I genuinely enjoyed--to let them know that I appreciate them and know what they're about, because they thrive on feedback too. Then I invite them to read my latest post and I mention in a couple of words what that post is about.

I don't recommend saying, "Please link to this," unless you really believe that the world desperately needs to know what you've written. A simple invitation to read it is all the blogger needs to know that you'd like a link--and it won't leave them feeling pressured.

Past history and present circumstances all point to my being relegated to cult status. Which on the one hand means there are a few people out there who really like what I write. On the other hand, though, it does get frustrating sometimes when I think about how many times I've tried to build on however much success seems to come to me so easily -- and I don't get any traction.

I get discouraged sometimes but I never seem to be able to just call it quits. I've been writing since I was a kid and if I live to be 100 I'll still be writing. And from the looks of things I'll always have an audience for it.

Dawn, that's good advice. I have never sent links to my favorite bloggers like that because, well, I could never figure out a way to make it not sound like, "please, Please, PLEASE link this!"
Kevin, that's pretty much where I end up when I get one of these pathetic little whinings out of the way. Each time the dip in mood is a little less deep, and the realization that I'm doing dang well, considering, is stronger. I mean, on any given day, nearly 100 people take the time to consider what my opinion is on several important topics. They may immediately dismiss the thrust of my argument, or all the salient points...but they can't summarily reject everything I say or I wouldn't average 80/hits a day. My blogging mood cycle usually ends with the realization that if 80-100 intelligent people find enough engaging their mind here that they keep coming back, then I'm doing something right.
I think, perhaps, that I need to find my voice. It might be in blogging, in Op-Ed, in novels, in self-help or morality books. I've been too scattershot, but I feel things starting to coalesce. Age and experience are helping to focus me. I don't think I could have taken some of the steps I'm taking without blogging. I'm going slowly because I have no need for an income from writing for another decade, probably...although it might be nice to have, writing professionally at this point is merely icing on the cake.
It doesn't help that my main strength is off-limits for me...[grin]

My thoughts: I have lost more than 300 places to other people in the ecosystem, my traffic is decent, and I'm linked in a few fun places. I don't regularly ask others to link me (I've only asked three people to put me on the rolls and not a single one of them did) or to link my articles (I've asked a bare handful of times, including the times I asked Instapundit) and had maybe a 50-50 response when I ask. I haven't asked anyone to link anything in a while for two reasons: if they like it, I figure they can take the time to do it themselves, and because I've lost the drive to do any active PR for the site (not that I was ever really very good about that part).

A few months back, I realized I was spending far more time trying to write the perfect posts than I was with any other part of my life--and that seemed out of balance to me. So I've moderated the amount of time I spend writing (that doesn't pay the bills--my job and my freelance gigs pay the bills) and I've stopped tracking my ecosystem standings.

Today was the first time I've checked the standings in months. Admittedly, it was nice to still be a large mammal, but depressing to have slipped some 300 spots. Because, of course, I think I'm better than quite a few people I see listed above me.

Lastly, I'm good about reciprocal links to sites unless they really irritate me. I'm also good about linking stories that people send to me--in fact, I invite people to mail me the things they are most proud of and I'm happy to link them. The result is probably barely noticeable, but it does make me happy.

If I don't link to a story that someone has sent it might mean that I'm too busy to even check my email right now, it might mean that I'm not quite as impressed as the writer was, and it might mean that I've already linked that person in the last day or so. I'll always check it out, though, and I'll always be happy to link to the best stuff I find.

I do understand what you're saying, though, and I'm sympathetic. I do have some suggestions for raising traffic, though. I'll write about it tomorrow or later tonight when I've cleared off a few more things here at home.

Found you via Wizbang. You are Rolled and Syndicated so you have a new reader. Up the Ecosystem you go...

It can be a frustrating process to climb up the linkage and/or readership rankings. There seem to be ways to obtain both, but usually they require altering the style and content of your blog. You can focus on particular issues, establish a particular style or post (eg Chrenkoff's Good news on Iraq stuff), or whatever. But in the end part of it comes down to luck - being seen at the right time by the right people.

Not the my numbers are so huge, but I've found (the hard way) that slowly building regular readers is far better than occassional hits by big blogs. It's all about quality rather than quantity. And blogging Karma means eventually your true genius will be recognised...for example even though I'm a fellow Munuvian I must admit I've not been here much before.

But I can tell you I'll be back. Often.

Ditto.

Of course, I always tried to approach blogging like the Willie Nelson lyric:

Pickin' up hookers, Instead of my pen
I let the words of my youth fade away

I figure you blog about stuff that interests you, if you think it interests other people, let em know. Personally, I make it a point to try to link to anyone that even visits my crappy blog.

I figure if they like my blog, I'd probably like their.

So you're linked. Now quit yer bitchin'

Heh.

I come by way of Wizbang.
I didn't even know you were out there!
You are NOW book marked
And I pledge a visit semi-weekly

Blog On

Would you like me to get into a catfight with Malkin for you? Anything for a friend. ;)

Hang in there...I bet a year ago you never thought you'd have the traffic you do today...it's bound to continue improving.

I accidentally stumbled onto your site while googling for Bran Fertilizer.

I find the best way to get my ecosystem ranking up is with threats of violence. Of course, after a while it gets old calling Jeff G up at 3 am because usually he's already awake anyway and the fact I haven't hunted him down like I said gives away the fact I'm a blowhard.

I know where you are coming from, however. I was an adorable rodent for a while, but those days of glory are long gone and 'squished slug' seems to be the best I'll get.

Then again I blog because it makes me look cool to chicks (until they see my stats). Actually, that's a lie. My wife doesn't even know I do this....

Short version: you should promote yourself more.

Longer version: check out my "Blogging How-To" Category. (Even if you disagree with my short version advice.)

I have thought and written A LOT about this.

Please excuse the brevity and bluntness of this comment.

Saw a comment at INDC....so sauntered over to check you out. Ok, want hits and are whining about it..minus 2 pts and 5 yards. But, you are in uniform (prob the Air Force judging from the whining) so ...2pts for serving the country (and thank you!). So, now you're even...hmmmm, you admit to liking puns and even using same. 1pt for both admissions. I now have you linked. Showing once again the Navy is always willing to help the junior service out of a bind. (Btw, if you are any other branch then AF, I can come up with a requisite snarky remark...one must observe the proprieties *grin*)

NO catfights will be started on my behalf. Please.

Bran Fertilizer? That's a new one. I keep wondering if I'd get more search hits if I'd named the site Brain Fartilizer. Ah, missed opportunities...

Guy,
Actually, I'm ex-Army enlisted, current Air Force officer. That should give you what we in the Air Force call a "target-rich environment". Hey, do you know how they separate the men from the boys in the Navy? ...with crowbars, I hear. Okay, okay, I'll try to do a pun for you soon.

Commissar,
I've read your how-to, and I think you are dead-on. Truly, I consider my rant to be whining because I do realize I'm my own worst enemy in promoting myself. Part of it might be my perceptions of dualism in this area: given the choice of being an underrated blogger doing excellent work but toiling in the Trenches of the Unknown or being an overrated hack who makes it big only by shameless/contentless promotion writing Vapid Crap, I prefer the former. Yes, yes, I know that it doesn't have to be either/or. I could be an quality writer doing good and prolific work and promoting myself...but while I get it intellectually, I haven't actually accepted it emotionally, yanno? That's the downside of false humility. [grin]

You have to go and take the fun out of everything, don't you? (grin)

Jo,
Don't you remember my other choice for blog-titles? "Joy-Killer"
Nah, Michelle is still a blogging tyro, we've gotta cut her some slack.

And to tell the truth, that was over-sensitivity on my part. After all, I included the html to my blog in the post I made giving her the link. But one thing I've learned: bloggers are generally lazy. Your name gets an html link whether its an email addy or blog addy, and I, at least, have gotten too lazy to check...but if someone's name gets a hyperlink in the body of a comment, well, that's easy!

Ye Gods! an Air Force Officer? (then you know why NCO's are not addressed as *sir*...*grin*). I will give you all this...you have some of the best chow and berthing around, not to mention the golfing facilities. Seriously, keep up the good fight.

That's the thing: when airman call me "sir", I get confused, because my parents were married...

To each other no less??

You would have made a good Navy Mustang. (and it is a good thing I didn't have a swig o coffee in route to the gut...or it would have sprayed the screen at seeing your last comment. *grin*

Re: all your links.

Do your linkees know? Send 'em emails. "Hey Michelle, you have a great blog and I've blogrolled it. Take a look at my blog. If you like it, a reciprocal link would be welcome."

Maybe not from bolshoi Michelle, but you'll get 50% return linkage. (The others? De-link the selfish bastards a week later! j/k)

I have the same problem.

You've got yourself a link, pal.

I'll throw up a link as well. We seem to have good success as a referring blog--a top 20 referrer on Right Wing News three weeks running, and on Captains' Quarters every day.

Some tips:

1. Specialize. Find a story that interests you and cover it like a blanket. Check Technorati to see who else is covering that story and post a couple friendly comments on their blogs about how you have a similar/different take on the story. This is a virtually foolproof method for getting a post link (which will send you more traffic than a blogroll link, at least in the short run).

2. Don't bother linking all the big blogs, at least not at first. You won't be sending them enough traffic to get noticed. Instead, try to discover the new blogs, especially ones that fit your specialty.

3. Link to other bloggers with post links. I try to link to everybody on my blogroll at least once a month. Because most of the blogs on my blogroll get less traffic than mine (see #2), this really gets appreciated and reciprocated. And a lot of times, blogs that were smaller than yours will experience explosive growth.

8. Don't forget to use Trackback. Nothing warms the cockles of a fellow blogger's heart more than to see something other than a (0) next to his Trackback meter for a post. It's also a sneaky way of getting a link on a larger blog like the Commissar's, which automatically puts trackbacks on the top post. Link to something he's written, send the trackback and you'll have a link on his site that appears on the front page for a couple days. Really, really sneaky is to look for somebody who mentions they're going on vacation, do the trackback thingy on that post and you'll have a link lying there for a week for anybody that comes along.

4. Check your TTLB links and Technorati profile often. Link to anybody who links to you whom you feel comfortable linking to, but definitely link any of the big blogs that have found you.

5. Leave comments on both the smaller blogs you have discovered and the larger blogs you want to discover you. This is absolutely crucial to building a sense of community. Blogroll the larger blogs before leaving comments there; this is just common courtesy. And always, always, surf to your favorite blogs via your blogroll or a post link--that way you show up a couple times a day in the referring pages. Won't help you with Reynolds of course, but it will with some other blogs. Many blogs are now listing their top referring pages in a mini-blogroll. These of course are potential gold mines. Right Wing News has had me in his for 3 straight weeks and it's really moved the traffic meter. Also, check out the blogs of other commenters on blogs you like--chances are high you'll enjoy them.

6. Humor! Make 'em laugh and they will come back. I must caption 50 photos a week with something silly. Sometimes they work, sometimes everybody goes "Huh?" If you're not good at humor, link to people who are.

7. If there's one obvious thing your blog lacks it's graphics. There's nothing save the stuff on the sidebar. Link to a couple of news photos or something! Yeah, the writing's the thing that you need long term, but photos really liven things up, and (with humorous captioning) can convince new readers that your longer posts won't be dull.

Hope this helps! We've pulled our traffic from 0 per day to 500 per day in a little over 4 months, so we seem to be doing something right. Still no Instalanches yet either.

you're linked!

Dear Nathan - The failure to include a link with your name was just a pure oversight on my part. I must have missed the html in the comments section (which doesn't allow links unless you paste in the address). I am still relatively new to this (only been at it a month). Will plug your site this morning. Keep up the great blogging and thank you for your service to our country.

Best,
Michelle

Several years ago, an editor in L.A. told me, "Billy, you have all the tools. You have an original voice, and enormous insight. However, almost nobody in the world is ready for what you have to say."

So, here's what's going to happen to me: I will endure centuries of nearly perfect anonymity until some post-Endarkenment generation arises and begins tramping across the globe to my sacred grave.

That's the plan.

I am at peace.

Dang. I already ruined my "perfect anonymity" opportunity to follow in your footsteps...

Well, I spent a long time struggling against the resignation, so my anonymity ain't so "perfect" anymore.

(shrug) It's cool.

I'm making up for it with diligently applied misanthropy.

"I never liked any of you sonsofbitches, but I always wished I could have."

(My epitaph)

Apart from everything else, the Ecosystem must not be registering the MuNu blogroll. Otherwise every Munuvian would have 100+ inbound links on day one.

I will fix this.

Illegal immigration is one of the biggest issues facing our country today. To address this problem, on Nov. 3-5, 2005, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office is putting on the Southwest Conference on Border Security, Illegal Immigration, and Crime to discuss the impact of illegal immigration and to propose solutions. The conference will feature many well-known experts and commentators representing a wide spectrum of viewpoints, including Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Stephen Moore and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, John Leo of U.S. News & World Report, Sheriff Larry Deaver of Cochise County, Arizona, and many other notable speakers. Our office is the fifth largest district attorney’s office in the country, and prosecutes two out of three felonies committed in Arizona. Arizona sees a disproportionate share of illegal immigration. Last year there were more arrests of illegal immigrants in Arizona than in all other border states combined. (Los Angeles Times, 3-13-2005). And according to the Pew Hispanic Center, Arizona has the highest per capital number of illegal immigrants. The conference is open to all, and promises to be one of the largest, most comprehensive and interesting conferences in the nation on illegal immigration. For more information and to register, go to http://immigrationconference.com. Lawyers and law enforcement can receive CLE and POST credit for attending. Please help us spread the word by passing this email on to anyone you think might be interested and/or post an announcement on your website (graphics can be found at http://immigrationconference.com/mediakit.html) Please contact Bill FitzGerald at 602-506-3170 or fitzgera@mcao.maricopa.gov to schedule an interview. Thanks and we hope to see you there.

« Hide Comments

I tried to go to that URL but they've moved/renamed/deleted it. Again.

Boy, they sure are committed to that line of attack, aren't they?

Hatred and vicious attacks are all they know, I guess.

If only Godwin's Law could be invoked for national elections!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

You also spell real good.

And my dental hygiene practices are exemplary. Did I mention that?

Oral hygiene? That's great, but...sugarpie, what exactly is it you're asking us to do to you, again?

Heck ... I refuse to even GO to Instapundit ... heh... I've resisted the assimilation ...

I only want Glenn for his hits.

Oral hygiene, huh?

Good grief! Please insert an "i" in there....

[Fixed! --ed.]

Okay, Nathan, I know it's not nice to correct people's spelling, but you really need to fix the second-last word in your post here. As is, it makes it look as if you're so hot people spontaneously take their clothes off around you, which I doubt is what you were saying.

On the other hand, if it is what you were saying, please let me know the next time you're planning to walk past a firehouse or construction site....

Proofreading? We don't need no stinkin' proofreading!

Speaking of links from the heavy hitters, I notice today that I owe you some thanks for pointing one my way.

And one of my favorites, too!

I doubt if I'll get any stickiness from it, but I'm still darned happy to get the link!

Craig, you deserved that link simply because you scooped everyone with that interview and brought some pride to Montana. But I also thought it was relevant to her discussion that Ms. Rossmiller herself seemed unconcerned about her name being public.

Some self-absorbed musing on blog linkage

In my pre-blogging days (oh, a couple of months ago), I was riding high in the blog-reader world. I was quoted by name by Reynolds and now and then listed as a contributor to Taranto; Taranto even mentioned my name in the body of a post. I carried on brief two-way e-mail conversations with Sullivan and Taranto. Life was good.

And then I started my own blog. And then there was nothing. A deafening silence. (OK, one insta-link, but it was in an update to a previous post so nobody saw it. And I only got that by prostrating myself before Mr Reynolds.) Not a single other link that I know of.

And so the vicious cycle sets in. Nobody knows about the blog, so nobody links to it. Since nobody links to it, nobody knows about it.

And since I've added essentially nothing to this conversation, I won't even shamelessly link to my blog in the body of this comment (he says patting himself on the back for the uncharacteristic show of restraint).

Well, no would probably read this post, anyway, since it's way down the page. But I'll still link you, anyway.

« Hide Comments

*yes: this statement does imply that I think many homosexuals are created, not born. I think that the matter-of-fact way Hollywood portrays sex as a natural and ultimate expression of attraction deals major damage to our youth on many different levels. I do think there are people who turn homosexuality because they don't have the feelings or sensations Hollywood says they should, who are enticed, then seduced, and finally fully consumed by the sensations intensified by their vulnerable stage; such people could end up being happier heterosexuals if they waited...I'm still convinced that I'm one such person who is happier because I did wait and was celibate until age 21, but the reasons for that probably fall under the category of TMI, even though I've slightly touched upon them before. Sure, there are others who by the onset of puberty are already fully oriented toward attraction to the same sex, but I honestly don't think it's even a majority...

The personal observation and researched information I have that leads me to these conclusions probably won't be enough to convince anyone who is homosexual or liberal (or even moderate), but it's enough to convince me...probably since so much of it is based on a personal understanding of the way people work. If you don't share the same understanding, you'd look at the exact same behaviors with an entirely different conclusion as to their reason.

I want to say "Amen!" but it seems so cliche. I like this quote:

"But that 'privacy' now means the daughter of my neighbor can get an abortion without notifying her parents. And my taxes have to pay for it."

Oh yes, people forget that the government doesn't have any money of its own. When it wants to burden its citizens with oppressive regulations and taxes or carve out a right to privacy to kill a baby, guess where they turn: you and me!

« Hide Comments

I agree 100% with Lowry. The essence of America, the reason we're so successful (and the reason the fanatics hate us), is the tri-fold concept of rewarding work & innovation, granting freedom, and maintaining a strong moral core. What I don't understand is the liberals' idea that "the rich" should be punished for their efforts. Why should the government say to those that choose to learn, work hard, and contribute to the success of the society, "no, you're wrong, and we will take your money and give it to those who "deserve" it."??? Where's the incentive to succeed? What's wrong with being a creative, hard-working, dedicated businessman/artist? And moreover, why does the select minority (read: Hollywood liberals & Michael Moore worshippers) think they have the right to DICTATE to the rest of the country how to live? You don't like money? Give it to charity. You hate the fact that you got a tax cut? Contribute it to something worthwhile. Get off your soapbox, STOP FEELING SORRY FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU'RE WORTHLESS, and do something right for a change!

Anyone disagree? Please let me know why. I'm curious about how the liberals reason. My E-mail's listed.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*which is interesting, because I haven't seen anyone who has a problem condemning lying, despite everyone having lied at some point.

**except for an unwanted pregnancy...but if a couple doesn't want a child, reversible surgery is an option that can eliminate even unwanted pregnancies within a marriage. But the same surgery can do nothing to stop the other consequences of extra-marital sex.

Perfectly written, Nathan.

Having a personal faith, and living by it, is a wonderful thing. In america that is something that everyone can do without government interference for the most part. That isn't true in many other countries.
It would be a shame for people of one religion to try to enforce their religion on everyone else. That would ruin america.

Then America is already ruined, since atheists and hedonists are already trying to make their views be the default view.
If their is a "right" to be able to march naked in the downtown of a major metropolis, if a historical symbol must be removed from a city seal just because it happens to be Christian, if Bono can use the F-bomb and my only recourse is to change the channel or never listen/watch broadcast media, then that is a betrayal of traditionaly American values being aided and abetted by the government.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the freedom to do whatever you want. The majority has always had the right to dictate to the minority, and the government is the mechanism.
However, I'm not necessarily pushing for government interference, I'm pushing for an alteration to our fundamental attitudes in society, such that we can teach abstinence without people who are committed to dragging our youth into the muck immediately whining that we are trying to impose "religion".
Nope. It's what works. Religion is incidental.
My faith is what tells me what direction to look. My faith tells me not to believe the glittering promises of the succubus, but to instead look deeper and see the pain, harm, and desperation of those who center their lives around gratification of physical urges. And then to point it out, and explain why, and attempt to establish standards and morals that reflect what is good and best for the individual.

We have laws against murder and theft? Would you throw those out and live in anarchy simply because they are also found in the 10 Commandments? Of course not! So what I'm trying to do is show that there are good, demonstrable, common-sense reasons why all the 10 Commandments and all the precepts of Christianity are good to follow and make for a better society, regardless of the efficacy of the existence of God or Truth (although my feelings on that should be obvious).
Some may feel their freedoms are being stomped on if society shames certain behaviors. So what? Everyone wants freedom for themselves, but not for others. Personal freedoms have gotten too broad, to the point they infringe on others' rights to live according to traditional standards and norms (example: the Superbowl Halftime idiocy).

Liberal America is really coming across like spoiled 13-year-olds who lack discipline or any controlling authority.

Yeah, you didn't deserve such a wild rant for such an innocuous statement. I wasn't writing in response to you as much as anticipated follow-on arguments.

I completely agree. Our nation is sadly becoming under control of these groups who want this and want that, such as approving homosexual marriage, it is clearly a voting issue - however the people of the United States as a majority don't want that marriage as an option. So you have states like Oregon, who are banning marriages all together because if one category cannot be married then the other cannot.

We even have organizations that are ran by/for Jewish-Americans (all for them) declaring that the Texas Republican Party cannot use/state the fact that the nation was founded under Christian beliefs because it is excluding others.

*rolls eyes*

And we even allow teenagers to have abortions - I believe that's murder and that is a lazy way to getting rid of a problem. "Oh I'll abort this baby!" Some women in the US use abortion as a birth control pill. And this irates me because you have people declaring our military to be baby killers? No - the real baby killers can be found right in our country, and they are members of the female sex.

But what disgusts me is that our children have no rights, a man raped a young school girl in Florida and the judge gives him SIXTY days, he was found guilty. But he still got 60 days. The Supreme Court overturns a law that would protect our children from the people who want to poison their minds with filth, all because it would go against Freedom of Speech.

I think it's about time, we take a long and serious look at ourselves and we should try and figure out why exactly more stricter socities in the world hate us. Maybe we do have too much freedom to glorify everything that is wrong with America and not show the world what good we can do.

-

Glad to see you made it back home safe :-)

I have been a Christian since April 21, 2002, and I was baptized in water on August 8, 2004. And while I agree with you one hundred percent that we Christians need to stand up and take responsibility for our own sense of morality, here is what I tend to believe as a Christian:

1. Masturbation is not a sin as long as it does not become addictive. And because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible as being neither right or wrong, it is a matter of one's own personal choice, not a sin. In other words, you have as much of a right to choose to enjoy it as you do to choose not to enjoy it
2. Fantasies are not sinful as long as you do not act on them (sexual fantasies are no exception)
3. Christian writers such as myself can write sexually explicit novels if they want to, even if the sex involves lesbianism or homosexuality
4. Christians can see their same-sex friends naked if they want to, even touch and examine their friends' private body parts in a nonsexual manner, if it is consensual, and there are no homosexual attractions involved
5. Punishing children for masturbating, exploring their bodies, and expressing their natural sexual curiosity is wrong, and I feel sorry for any child who is forced into fear and supression. It is better to gently distract your child from the activities described above and teach them about privacy than it is to cause them pain, confusion, and severe psychological damage through lies, fear, and punishment
6. Women such as myself have as much of a right to enjoy their God-given sexual pleasures as men, even if it's solo
7. Women do not need to marry and have children to be happy or feel fulfilled, they can enjoy their independence as much as men, and they do not need to submit to their husbands
8. Gender and gender roles should never be forced on anyone, girl or boy, man or woman. If you are a man, woman, girl, or boy born with ambiguous genitalia, unless your very health depends on it, surgery to make you look the gender you were born with should never be forced on you (would anyone force surgery on a Down's syndrome person to make his or her face appear more "normal"?). Since God made us all the way we are for a reason, there should be no shame or secrecy forced on people who were born different
9. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, except I would support it if a woman was carrying an ectopic pregnancy (I hope to one day see a procedure, such as reimplanting the child into its mother's womb, that will eliminate the need to destroy an embryo or fetus altogether, even in ectopic pregnancy cases)
10. Lesbianism and homosexuality are both wrong only if gays and lesbians marry, have sex, or raise children together as couples. Otherwise, their attractions are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't act on their attractions

The more I am told that everything that I believe in is wrong and/or unacceptable, the more determined I will be at holding on to my beliefs, and the more at risk you will put me at pushing God away and turning from Him altogether. I am a "live and let live" kind of Christian. I invite prayer, and I pray for those who need it, but I also leave pretty much well alone and don't judge. Telling others how to think, feel, believe, or live causes selfish pride, rebellion, and a "who do you think you are" attitude. Living, loving, accepting, and letting others live allows others a kinder, gentler introduction to God. Which would you rather have?

Joann,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You've obviously spent a great deal of time thinking about it.
Many of the things you are enumerating are certainly within gray areas. I agree with you that much of what makes an activity a sin is the thought that goes along with the action. A man with his finger inside a woman not his wife may have nothing sexual about it at all if he is her gynecologist, and I certainly doubt that would be sinful.

I agree with you, sort of, with #10. The attractions are natural, but if you are saying it is okay to live a life embracing those attractions through the use of fantasy, pornography, and erotica, I would tend to disagree with you. For instance, you could say that it is okay to have feelings of anger that are sinful if they aren't acted on...but if someone sits around planning ways to horrifically torture and murder someone, that can't be good for the soul. On the other hand, I agree that finding a way to live within God with attractions you cannot control is certainly better than going ahead and acting on them. I don't think it is necessarily bad or sinful for a 14-year-old to masturbate to release the sexual feelings they are having and to explore their body. After all, isn't that what "wet dreams" are, in essence?
#4 is a little strange, and an extremely "what if?" scenario, but I can imagine at least two possibilities where it could be innocent off the top of my head, so I agree with you reservations.
I think #3 (writing sexually graphic stories/novels) depends on how you handle it. If you are making a point, no problem. If you are glorifying the carnal nature, especially to titillate, you are on dangerously thin ice, if not plunging through. After all, even if it isn't a sin for you, if it causes your brother to sin, it is still wrong. Re-read the New Testament portions talking about food sacrificed to idols, I think that is an apt analogy.
And one aspect that you are clearly non-biblical (and thus, to my thinking, clearly wrong) is in #7. Women should submit to their husbands. Of course, that doesn't give husbands a license to be Masters of Their Home, or anything. In almost the same breath, the Bible goes on to say that husbands should submit to their wives. I would probably say that Bible makes it pretty clear that to be Christian is to be submissive. To God, your spouse, your pastor, and your brothers and sisters in Christ. He tells us straight out to be servants. How could you not extend that same attitude of servanthood to your own husband or wife?
Hmmm...I may have to post about that, specifically.

« Hide Comments

*begin unserious snark

Calliou sucks... Big time. Why on earth anyone would TEACH a kid to whine is beyond me. From the moment the show opens he whines. Kids model that! duh!

And why do all the kid's shows propagate fears?

My niece told me "I'm scared of the dark like Calliou." a few days later I saw a few minutes of it and they were talking about Calliou worrying his dad would die because he was old. 4 year olds don't need to hear that.. (I'll climb down, but I could go on.)

"Little Bear" is the best kids show out there, end of discussion. It is on NOG on satellite but it is top notch.

Clifford is a complete joke... More on that this weekend on wizbang. I'll link this post then.

« Hide Comments

Off the Cuff: I think that liberals do not so much encourage premarital sex as they cannot fully back-up any moral reason for not having sex.

That is to say they don't have the moral 'authority' since they're not inclined to be moral (by conservative standards) - you can't get anyone to back an opinion/position on something if their heart isn't in it.

Obviously, that's the more reasonable explanation...
But I find myself increasingly attracted to what may be merely a "tinfoil hat brigade"-style conspiracy theory:
If you teach abstinence and it is largely successful, it becomes much harder to justify the necessity of abortion-on-demand, because one of the main tear-jerking sob-stories they share is the desparate bereft teenager who will go into a backalley with a coat-hanger if they can't get a publicly-financed abortion without parental notification.
If you teach abstinence and it is largely successful, then you will most likely see a significant reduction in the Great Society welfare system that discourages young girls from aspiring to be more than baby factories to get their welfare check. (Yeah, welfare reform reduced that somewhat, but nowhere near the reduction you'd see if we instituted broad, comprehensive abstinence programs).
These are liberal constituencies, and while I'm absolutely certain no one has ever cynically decided to encourage their growth (I did say I thought it was happening unconsciously), liberals have been rewarded for coddling/encouraging these populations with votes, power, and funding. Rewards tend to increase behaviors...
(more in the next post)

Pursuit of sexual gratification is a human right (increase and multiply and all that), but it is not an absolute human right.

Yours,
Wince

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Oh, the blockquote came from today's Impromptus.

Is Jonathan Rauch a Democrat? If so, he sure as hell isn't the kind most people's imaginations would conjure up if that's all they knew about him.

Be that as it may, it's not possible to tell from that one sentence (most of his NJ articles are eventually posted to Reason On-line, but this one isn't there yet, and I don't feel like registering for NJ) what the meaning of his "advice" is. Why is a political reporter's opinion about what a candidate needs to do to win necessarily "advice," anyway?

Then there's the fact that candidates can't always know what they would do in whatever confluence of circumstances they face. It's one thing to say that you should make your principles plain, but that doesn't take away the burden of prioritizing them if necessary in practice. You know, kind of the way "free trade" GWB was happy to sign off on that bailout of big, antiquated steel companies.

Ouch. Good point.
However, that doesn't address Mr. Gore's "reinventing" himself, or President Clinton's deliberate "move to the right" after he won the primaries by campaigning as a solid (but not extreme) liberal.
And so, I think the enacting of policies can never be executed in an ideological vacuum. I don't blame President Clinton for signing welfare reform, because the Republicans had a credible chance to overturn a veto...
But if you make promises you never intend to keep, if you deliberately misrepresent your position, so that you can enact your hidden policy after elected...well, that's despicable.

True--not that, heaven forfend, I was defending Clinton and Gore and their many avatars. My point wasn't that Bush is also inconsistent so why not just call it even. My point was that thinking you can be an influential politician without compromising anything is as unrealistic as thinking you can have a welfare state that doesn't turn people into parasites. And there are sometimes ways to tweak the presentation of a policy to appeal to different groups without eviscerating or misrepresenting it.

« Hide Comments

*which includes a lame justification for Edwards' voting for the war then voting against funding it, as well as the same exceedingly vague reference to "American values" without ever mentioning a single example of what Edwards means by that phrase

« Hide Comments

The 'Johns' should just be brutally honest in their campaigning and say "We think we suck less than Bush!".

« Hide Comments

Does anyone else find it outrageous that F9/11 is called a "documentary"? A documentary is a film that draws upon FACTUAL sources, NOT one person's OPINION! Are the liberal media broadcasters & Hollywood promoters blind, stupid, or both?

This is one of the problems with the biased mass-media that we have today. *Opinions* are presented as facts, while *facts* get ignored if they don't fit the network's objective. And a sizeable majority of those who watch/read this drivel are simply too Goddamn stupid to tell the difference.

Wonder where/when/how it will end. Will it take a civil war to end the hate?

I'm wondering the same thing, myself. At what point will I take my rifle to defend the standards of our (formerly) moral nation? And at whom can I aim the rifles with confidence I have the right villains targeted? I haven't taken even the first step toward answering those questions...

« Hide Comments

A few thoughts on that. First, who says Gunther was the only significant addition? I do remember an amateur draft occurring sometime in April, and someone named Junior being drafted in the second round. That could make a huge difference.

From what I understand, professional football defenses perform at a very high level, and the difference between #1 and #32 isn't all that big...particularly since the Chiefs don't need to have the #1 defense. Sometimes all it takes is the addition of one extra person to shore up a weak link. And the two weak areas of KC's defense were the heart of the defensive line and Middle Linebacker after Maz got hurt. One could easily argue the second was the most important, because the Chiefs defense performed far better in the first half of the season than the second. But Kavika Mitchell gained valuable experience playing for Maslowski. He didn't perform well enough last year, but he's taking multi-game starting experience into training camp this summer, and that should make a tremendous difference. Moreover, a potentially-excellent linebacker in Key Fox was added to the mix through the draft. Let's not forget that the Chiefs have an excellent history of finding good talent that others miss: consider Eric Hicks, an undrafted free agent, and Scott Fujita, a 5th-round pick who played at near-Pro Bowl levels last year. Who knows if someone not expected to excel might end up being a star on defense?

But that's merely musing on variables and potentialities. There are four reasons I think KC's defense will be significantly improved next year.

One: while nearly every other team faced the task of replacing a departed key member of their defense, Kansas City retained every single player. "So what?" you say, "KC's defense wasn't that good last year, so retaining mediocre players won't help." Au Contraire, as they say in some countries without any football programs whatsoever. One of the reasons why so many free agents are considered busts are because they performed at a high level in a system they "grew up" in. Perhaps the system they played in wasn't designed for them or their strengths, specifically, but their strengths matched well enough to excel. They play in that system for 2, 3, or more years, understanding it well enough to internalize its precepts, to play instinctively rather than thinking about what needs to be done. Even if the system changes, they are still playing alongside people they know, whose abilities they are familiar with, so they know what their teammates will do and what gap they need to fill...

Take that player out and put him in a new system...and an adjustment needs to be made. The very best can make that adjustment, but not everyone is the very best. Free agent acquisitions often take more than a year to play at a top level, and shouldn't be evaluated as success or failure until after their second year, unless they are brought in specifically to be a role player. Sure, Rodney Harrison was more than that for the Patriots...but how many unheralded free agents did they sign on the cheap before they got Rodney? And Rodney was far from a sure thing, mind you; the Pats got far more out of him than anyone expected.

All of which means that even without the addition of Siavii, Fox, and Gunther Cunningham, the Chiefs would probably have a better defense just from key players like Fujita, Barber, McCleon, Sims, and Mitchell having another year of experience together.

Two: Let's not forget that players like Woods, Hicks, Wesley and Warfield earned their starting positions by playing in Gunther's system, and only Woods, perhaps, played as well under Greg Robinson.

Three (and more importantly): We must look at how the Chiefs' defense performed badly last year. Generally, the defense played worse in the second half than the first, and worse later in the year than earlier, and worse on the road than at home. Although the reasons for this aren't obvious at a glance, everything I've read says that Robinson's defense was based on predictions and out-maneuvering opponents. It is probably unfair to say that it was a passive/reactive system because he could bring blitzes at unexpected times and from unexpected directions. At its best, it did dictate to the opposing offense, and that's what you want from a top-notch defense. Unfortunately, at its worst it could be a step short all day. If the opposing offense coordinator was unpredictable and got in a rhythm, he could apparently play Robinson like a fiddle, as evidenced in Cincinnati and Minnesota.

If Robinson was correct, the play would be stopped dead by the defense, but if he guessed wrong, players were completely out of position to back each other up. If Robinson was wrong, only one defensive player with perfect execution was in position to prevent catastrophe, i.e., a huge gain. The problem with that weakness is it doesn't take account of the other team's offensive playmakers. And so, it seems Robinson's system depended on Robinson's mind for success...which kinda makes sense regarding the overall failure, since the longer you play a game, the farther you are into the seaon, and the more years you are in the NFL, the more your trends and tendencies are chartable and predictable. Which brings us right back to the general truths about the Chiefs' defense: better earlier and worse later.

Every system has flaws, both offense and defense. But Gunther's system relies less on chess-like moves and more on disruption. It allows players to play, rather than fill roles and positions. In Gunther's system, the star will not be the coordinator, but the player who performs well...and that could be anyone. It doesn't matter who steps it up, because Gunther's system doesn't necessarily depend on a shut-down corner, a rangy linebacker, a ball-hawking safety, or a disrupting lineman. Rather, it allows any player with decent instincts to be in a position to become that player.

Fourth: Moreover, Greg Robinson's defense, like any defense, played far better with a lead than when trying to catch up. When the Chiefs had leads, Wesley, Warfield, Barber, Fujita, Woods, Sims, et al, looked like Super Bowl players. Playing from behind and looking for a stop, they looked as frustrated and incapable as could be. Clearly, one way to improve the defense would also be to improve the offense. While it may seem like an impossible task, the Chiefs may have actually done that.

Even without the addition of Gunther, the early indications from mini-camp practices are that the Chiefs struck gold (or at least silver...) with picks Kris Wilson (TE/WR) and Sammie Parker (WR). WR was one of the less-bright spots for the Chiefs, and one reason for the loss to the Colts was the mediocre performance by the WR corps, allowing the Colts to key on Tony Gonzales. If Parker displaces Boerigter or pushes him to overcome a significant sophomore slump, things should open up for the passing offense. Even if the WR corps doesn't show significant improvement, Kris Wilson is catching everything thrown to him, and his blocking ability makes him a nice twin threat when paired with Tony G. Al Saunders is too good to not exploit all the match-up problems created with the addition of Wilson.

And the most significant departure, heck, the only significant departure was OT John Tait. To tell the truth, the guy has never really impressed me. I hoped for big things from him, but he's shown immaturity and whininess since day one. His departure would be addition through subtraction just from the removal of a simmering source of resentment stemming from the initial contract obligations and exacerbated by his unceremonious switch to RT when Willie Roaf arrived. But the Chiefs did even better by signing two solid OL free agents (Bober and Welbourn, both starters for other teams), the continued development of strong OL picks from 2003, and the surprising ability of 2004 pick Kevin Sampson. This all results in an astounding level of depth at a position that was dangerously thin just last year. The only thing they can't replace is the chemistry of seasons of playing together...but I gotta think that RT is easily the least important as far as chemistry goes.

And from all accounts, Trent Green has stepped it up another level. If true, he will be playing at an All-Pro/Hall of Fame level, and that should strike fear in the hearts of opposing head coaches and coordinators.

As it stands, Kansas City doesn't need to go after anyone in free agency this year. If the perfect situation arises, they can sign someone, but they don't need to. They have the depth to overcome injuries (which they didn't last year), a top-notch offense, a defensive coordinator generally regarded as one of the best in the game, and a team poised and hungry for a Super Bowl title.

Bottom line: the only weakness last year was the defense when behind in close games. The best way to fix this is to make sure you are always ahead, and the Chiefs did take steps to upgrade the offense. The second best way to fix this is have a system that allows players to succeed, and the Chiefs did this with the addition of Gunther. The third best way to fix this is to grow a solid defense by retaining your own players and allowing experience and competition to result in the best team executing the best teamwork on the field. The Chiefs did this, too. I'm expecting big things this year...

Chieftalk makes me miss home....

Too bad about the 13-3 schedule...

Yours,
Wince

GO CHIEFS!!
*grins*

« Hide Comments

Because, of course, these are not the droids you are looking for. LOL

I refuse to add a nickel to this jerk's fortune by watching any of his movies; I can get irate about him just by logging onto his website for three minutes.

Good to see you back in CONUS Nathan!!

What I have read states he is not a registered Dem. are you sure? (I am leaving the door open that I may have had a bad source).

The last I had heard (and is eminently google-able), he had last registered to vote Democrat in both New York and Michigan. Currently? I'm not sure how the rules work: is it too late to register to vote in those states? Is it too late in California?
It is certainly possible he's not technically a currently-registered Democrat. If so, that's splitting a fine hair, since I guess I'm not a currently-registered Republican, either, as I don't recall Washington state asking me for a party affiliation....
I guess these aren't the droids I'm looking for?

I urge you to see the movie before establishing opinions. The movie is a stunning tribute and very respectful of the victims of 9/11. It is not exploitative. It does indict Bush, but Moore does not hide that this is his opinion or his intent (and he never denied being a democrat, he simply states he is not commissioned/funded by the democratic party) Clearly he is a liberal and his supporters are liberals, but remember more than half this country voted for Gore and thus a majority of voting Americans were liberals as of 2000. The movie is powerful and raises some very important questions, with extremely thorough evidence. I know several people who have changed their minds about this election after seeing it, perhaps it would not have such a dramatic effect on someone who's alignment is as clearly established as yours, but it couldn't hurt to see it. If you're making a political point by not adding to it's revenue, I urge you to borrow it from a liberal friend once released to video.

I refuse to line Moore's pockets in support of a movie based on an ideology I do not support and premises which I categorically reject. I refuse to reward Moore for spreading innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies. It's exactly comparable to buying a book that seeks to indict President Clinton for murdering Vince Foster and making it look like a suicide: you don't need to read such a book to recognize its foul stench anywhere.

I'll watch F9/11 when it comes out on MST3K, and not before.

Washington doesn't ask for party affiliation, Oregon, for example, does. The last interview I read with Moore, he stated he was registered as an independent. But like I said, that could have been old news.

I think Pol knows you have a liberal friend though. ;) Better than a lot of bloggers!

just as well moore supports file sharing of cam rips of his movie and DVD rips.. in a recent press conference he makes the point that sharing the file is like sharing the DVD you have rented/bought.

Moore's financial success is testament to his IDEAS not his business acumen.

If you don't like what he says or what he writes, don't watch his films or read his books. That is your right as a citizen of the USA. Just as it is Fox's right to present a pro-right-pro-Bush angle on all american foreign policy from the election through 911, afghanistan, iraq and post-iraq.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Welcome Home, soldier... We appreciate your service and sacrifice for our country!

Thank you.

Welcome Home!

Welcome back to the States, Nathan. :)

Nathan :) Glad you're home and safe :)

Welcome back, Nathan!

Welcome home!

« Hide Comments