"Equal time"

From the state that gave us grunge rock, Nike shoes, Microsoft's home offices and Mt St Helens, I give you some new "tolerance:" OLYMPIA, Wash. -- An atheistic sign is included in the state Capitol's holiday display that includes a holiday tree and a Christian nativity scene. The sign, a new addition this year, is sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The sign reads, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Annie Laurie Gaylor, foundation co-president, said in a prepared statement that the sign is a reminder of the "real reason for the season, the winter solstice." The solstice, on Dec. 21 this year, is the shortest day of the year. Isn't that sweet? This isn't the same group that did the bus signage in DC. That would be the American Humanist Association. They, at least, made a pretense of saying that they were doing the signs on the buses in order to market to "like minded individuals who feel left out during the holidays." Yes, they did that by taking a swipe at Christians with there "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake" message. However, that strikes me as smarmy rather than mean spirited. This signage, in Olympia, is decidedly mean spirited. The problem with both instances is the same. Both efforts are pathetic marketing. If you have any desire to be persuasive, in the least, you damage your appeal by actively attacking the competing party. Of course, I don't believe this is a real attempt at gaining equal time for a message. This is done for the simple reason that they want to be offensive jerks. How do I know that? Well, I'm not a christian because I'm a saint. I'm an offensive jerk and I know an offensive jerk behavior. I know it because I excel at it. I played hockey for 16 years, I have the penalty minutes to prove that I'm an exceptional offensive jerk. So call this what it is: It's the pathetic, banal response of the pseudo-intellectual narcissist. They are so sure of their intellectual superiority over the masses that they clamor to have the attention and adulation of those they despise. In this desire to stroke their own ego, they lash out like a spoiled child at anything that distracts from their self-anointed elevation from the masses, by the masses. When they see anything that distracts the hated masses from worshiping them they attack it. In this, religion is not an opiate of the masses, as they so quickly call it. It is an inhibitor to the opiate of recognition they seek. They are foolish, spoiled brats who want to break the things of others because, unlike the members of the competing religions whom are not diminished by the worshiping of other faiths, they are diminished by all who do not worship them. They are driven by pride, because there is no beneficial, philanthropic desire that drives them. They are owned by ego and hubris as they seek to destroy the beliefs of others. That is why they fail. That is why they are not persuasive. That is why these little cute efforts make them look like the bitter, hateful ones. I'm sure that someone out there is going to read this and say "See that guy says he's a Christian but that wasn't very loving or accepting. He's a hypocrite." Well, no shit Sherlock. However, check the references. I'm not claiming to be perfect. Christ was. And guess what? He forgives me for the fact that I'm a little pissed. And as for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, I'll add you to my prayer list and I'll send you a Christmas card this year. Mine will look like this: God ---> The earth ---> Solstice---> Christ "Sorry, God's still the reason for the season. He made the solstice." Enjoy.

Why Obama Terrifies Me

Just a short list: Throngs of adoring fans who worship him with almost fanatic zeal, a la Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and other violent or repressive leaders. Liberal parents brainwash their kids into singing hymns about Obama. The utter lack of substance, or logic in any "solutions" he offers to today's political problems. None of his supporters seem to notice that he can't express himself very well without pre-programmed responses or a teleprompter. His funding sources. The number of groups/communities/individuals he has had to distance himself from in order to keep political traction, and the fact that liberals give him a pass on this (Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church, Bill Ayers, ACORN, and others). The fact that he can't do basic math. 40% of Americans already pay nothing in taxes after refunds, yet he wants to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans.

And then there were breastses ...

MT. LAUREL, N.J. – The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), which represents the leading manufacturers of baby bottles in the United States, stands by the scientific research indicating that plastic baby bottles are safe. JPMA supports the rigorous scientific evaluation process of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Does anyone ... anyone .... remember when we suckled our young? h/t Did I win?

The left, science and sex

I doubt that anyone that knows my politics is surprised that I have an issue with the left wing and their approach to sex, sexual liberty, sexual education and sexual morality, or lack thereof. As a person with a christian ethical system, I feel that the purpose of sex has been diminished, twisted, perverted and packaged in gaudy neon glitter colored, naturally scented packaging so as to justify irresponsible behavior. Their general response is that my moral issue is both not socially binding and antiquated and has no value based on scientific advancement and personal freedom. In this, we are at an impasse. That being said, I'm not in their bedroom so I really don't care. I honestly don't, if for no other reason that it doesn't effect me. My problem is with the consequences of their action that do effect me. For example, the proliferation of STDs due to unprotected sex has made the issue of mandatory inoculations surface in the public health. Actions such as that, which are undertaken with the presumption of teens having multiple partners, are a violation of personal and parental freedoms that we are subjected to due to irresponsible behavior. Abortion, my personal soapbox, has deprived America of over 55,000,000 citizens whom will never be there to advance our country, solve our problem, maybe "fix global warming" or even pay taxes. The list of effects rolls on into every facet of our lives because of the nature of sex to the human life. Once again, I am told by the more militant of these individualist that this is of no concern to me because it is an extension of personal freedom and a sexually liberated culture. A culture, I am told, that doesn't need a morality from the BC era dictating behavior to them because they have advanced past the knowledge that it contains. I am skeptical of this but I will pose a few questions for any and all to take up. 1. Name the detrimental effects of heterosexual, monogamous sex within a marriage? 2. Name the detrimental effects of sex either: Homosexual, outside of marriage or indiscriminate? 3. Contrast those two outcomes and ask which is reasonably worse for the individual and then the collective well being of the partners. Do multiple scenarios of this and the numbers seem to indicate that heterosexual, monogamous sex with a marriage is better in terms of real or possible negative outcomes. It also shows more positive effects. This lead me to think that all of the rhetoric is merely justification for situation ethics, at best, and a total absence of thought, at worst. As always, comments are open.

Isn't it funny when science and religion mix

Researchers: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been identified as a witness's account of the asteroid suspected of being behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. .... Mark Hempsell, one of the researchers from Bristol University who cracked the tablet's code, said: "It's a wonderful piece of observation, an absolutely perfect piece of science." He said the size and route of the asteroid meant that it was likely to have crashed into the Austrian Alps at Köfels. As it traveled close to the ground it would have left a trail of destruction from supersonic shock waves and then slammed into the Earth with a cataclysmic impact. Debris consisting of up to two-thirds of the asteroid would have been hurled back along its route and a flash reaching temperatures of 400 Centigrade (752 Fahrenheit) would have been created, killing anyone in its path. About one million sq kilometers (386,000 sq miles) would have been devastated and the impact would have been equivalent to more than 1,000 tons of TNT exploding. Dr Hempsall said that at least 20 ancient myths record devastation of the type and on the scale of the asteroid's impact, including the Old Testament tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ancient Greek myth of how Phaeton, son of Helios, fell into the River Eridanus after losing control of his father's sun chariot. And the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction: 24. Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25. and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27. Now Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the LORD; 28. and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. 29. Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived. For those who are on the lighter side of Sunday School, God destroyed those cities because they were places of wickedness. And by "places of wickedness" I mean things like wanting to have some gay rape with the two angels that God sent there to levy justice on the cities. Now, I don't consider myself a prophet, I'm just a guy that noticed trends. So, I'd suggest that if one were prone to believing the Christian ethos and lived in a place like Berkley, or San Francisco or Las Vegas, you might want to do 3 things: 1. Work really hard on staying on the narrow path. 2. Get a good telescope and pay attention. 3. Get "act of God" insurance on your house. I only suggest that because I like my help to be, you know, practical.

America's darkest day

You can say what you want about America but she's had some tough days in her time. We have a national history dating back to 1776 that includes things like the December 7th, 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the October 19, 1987 "Black Monday" 500 point drop of the Dow Jones Average. Of course, the big news today is that the Dow has already dropped 400 points and people are freaking out. All of these are bad. However, I have one that I consider to be worse. In fact, it is a date that I can honestly say is a stain on the Constitution and a social indictment of this nation. That date is today's date, January 22, in the year 1973. It is the day that the Supreme Court passed it's Roe vs Wade decision. It's the day that the Supreme Court made up a right that doesn't exist and created law without the Legislative Branch. It's the day that the American Constitutional process was hijacked and the day that has spelled the death for over 51 million unborn children. Can we defend "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if we don't defend "life?" I don't think we can and I would contend that we haven't since January 22, 1973.

Sometimes I kick antpiles just because I can

One of my favorite scenes of cinema is from Braveheart. Sure that "they can't take our freedom" line is good and he says a lot of romantic stuff to the female lead but my favorite line was a throw away line. His friend calls to William Wallace, after his inspirational speech to the Scots, as he turns his horse out to the center of the field of battle. He says "Where are you going?" And Wallace replies, "I'm going to pick a fight." Well, I'm posting this to pick a fight. Just like Wallace rode out there and delivered stinging insults to taunt the generals into battle let me issue mine. Anyone that tries to "save the planet" is a fool. In fact, anyone that tries to save a species is an even bigger fool. The ebb and flow of popular ecological environmentalism is based off of equal parts of emotion and stupidity. This is evident in the hubris of it's presentation, the blind obedience of method and the willful ignorance of most of it's followers. As a result, it is an armchair pseudo-science that is fostered and manipulated by salesmen and politicians. The presentation of environmentalism to the masses has been marketed with all the sentiment of a Hallmark card in a shiny green envelope. The message underlying the efforts of environmental education to the public are variations of the following: "The earth is interconnected. X is an important thing. Your lifestyle/humans/energy/food/whatever is killing X. Your money can save X so you can be guilt free." The problem is that contrary to the picture that environmentalist paint, not all earth systems cooperative despite however much you give. Additionally, more often than not, it's not a single pressure kills of a species. More often than not, any species near the edge of dying was there for a reason besides us. More often that not, environmentalist never point out the humanistic moral query of consequence: Even if we can save, say the "Horned Owl", is it our place to? Environmentalist always talk about biodiversity as if its a good thing. After all, more types of bug lead to more evolution of bugs. Great. However, what if we save a species that would have died otherwise and then later discover that it spreads cancer? Was there a moral reason to save it? On the counter point, what if we save a bug that would have died otherwise and would have had it's niche replaced with a bug that adapted to fill that niche and in the effort of evolution generated a sting that cures cancer? Once again, was there a moral reason to save it? If the possible ability of the bug doesn't matter then we should be saving anything from our presence because we are part of the biota? If it does matter, then how do we account for the unintended consequences of preservation? Even deeper, who is to say that our efforts to save one species doesn't doom that species if there is an environmental change. Likewise, who is to say that in saving one species that we don't doom another? For that matter, the H-bomb of these questions is this, who is to say that the animal, and even the environment, need some form of salvation from our presence when they have preexisted our presence for billions of years? To say we are morally bound to tinker with life is an arrogance that knows no bounds. Another reason that environmentalism is a fools errand is that it has such a blind obedience to methodology that ignores basic thinking for emotional solutions. A perfect example is the Greenpeace movement and it's save the whales platform. Forgoing the basic question of whether the whales are suited to survive long term, we are struck with the more basic question: Why? Why save the whales? Just because we kill them? Is it because they are a needed component of the food net we are a part of? When asked people typically respond with discussion about the brutality of whaling or how docile and peaceful whales are. Right. Whales may be docile but then so are cows. If docility and the brutality of slaughter are the main reasons why not "save the cows." The reason is that whales, quite simply are foreign and evoke an emotional reaction. Cows are more common and evoke cow paddies. As Denis Leary pointed out, we only save the cute ones.( ahem...9:10 on the video) Additionally, why not save the killer whales? Oh yeah, because they are less cute and more "killer." This brings me to my final point. So many of the people that are clearly concerned with saving the environment are also clearly ignorant of the thing that live within it and their interactions. What they are sure about is that saving the planet is good, or at least it makes them feel good. Despite toxic air and global warming she seems to breath so well on the cold wintry day. Let's look at today's primary scare: CO2 driven global warming. If CO2 causes global warming, by trapping the sun's heat and all it takes is the exhaust from fossil fuel to shift the balance then we need to accept that we are more than likely already dead. Why? Because man made CO2 is just a fraction of total CO2. Most of our CO2 comes from volcanoes. That would suggest that we are just a few eruptions away from tipping the scale too far. But wait, there has been thousands of volcanic eruptions over human history and we are still here. Why? I suggest it's because of the fact that water vapor and CO2 and Sunlight, the three global warming culprits, are also the three things used in photosynthesis. It's called biofeedback and it works because plants can grow pretty fast. Environmentalism is, at it's essence, stupid. It is stupid because it presumes that we can stop change. It is stupid because it believes that we can deny entropy. It is also stupid because it believes that where we are right now is the best it can be, that we won't be forced to evolve by a planet that has a consistent history of forcing evolution and that we can control and predict a systems makeup thousands of years from now with technology that can't reliably predict the weather tomorrow. So why does it persist? It persist because it feels good to think that you are being moral. It persists because it's a wonderful political point to say you are "for the earth" because who really wants to campaign as being "against the earth." It persists because most people don't want to understand the world around them, they just want things to stay the same. And as long as that continues, the Al Gores of this world will continue to whip up fear over a process that very few every truly investigate while he makes investments in the green technologies. I guess that saving the earth is in every body's best interest but some of us profit off of it more than others.

Making a point about waterboarding

Below I've linked a video I found that was simply too much to not opine on. The video is of a student demonstration at UC Berkley. I'll tell you what happens if you don't want to watch the video because it's kind of long (10+ minutes) and poorly shot. In the video, a student reads a statement about torture and the US and typical liberal rhetoric. Then to prove the point that "water boarding is torture" two guys in the crowd grab a third, dramatized to make it look random but obviously a plant, and they get him in a jumpsuit and water board him right there. This is then followed by the bullhorn guy spouting off again. Here's the video, if you want to watch it. Now, all of the legal debate of the definition of torture aside, because I'm not a legal expert, I want to ask a few questions and I'd love to have some input on this. 1. If you were trying to convince people that water boarding is torture, did they do this at the right venue? I don't think they did because, honestly, I doubt that Berkley is a CIA recruiting hotbed. Therefore, I doubt that any of those students would ever be put in that position. As far as forming a political opinion on the subject, I doubt that there is a high enough level of difference of political opinion to justify doing it at Berkley either. The Citadel or the Army War college might actually be a more effective place. For that matter, why not in front of a government building for the DOD or CIA? Considering that they are the ones most likely to face that decision wouldn't that be a more effective audience. 2. If water boarding is torture, why torture someone to make a point? If the argument that water boarding in the name of national security and to save American lives is supposedly inferior to the treatment that we should allow even terrorist, then why water board a US citizen? Doesn't that mean that you tortured a person, willing or not, to make a statement. That's a considerably less noble reason than to save lives. 3. If water boarding is torture, then why was this demonstration allowed to continue by campus authorities? With torture being considering illegal, free speech doesn't protect it. Each one of those people should have been arrested and charged according to criminal law. If students can be arrested for hazing then they should be able to be arrested for torture. 4. If water boarding is torture, why would a person willingly submit to it? In Iraq, people under Saddam were caned, doused with chemicals, raped, electrocuted and beaten. In each case physical damage was done. If this is torture and even the danger of physical damage is a possibility then the point that you are trying to make is overridden by the very act of committing it, even if on a willing person. The video and the response to it by the people watching and the logic used by the people making it create some simple observations about both the act and the people doing it and the people protesting it. Obviously, one can see that water boarding is extremely unpleasant. No reasonable person would choose to be water boarded. However, water boarding is clearly not equivalent to other forms of torture in that if those student were, as a demonstration, canning, doused people with chemicals, raping, electrocuting or beating a person they would have been arrested. Additionally, unless Berkley has expelled or prosecuted these students, they consider water boarding, which they equate to torture, to reside in a less important class of student protection than hazing. And finally, in the efforts to defame the military, the government and specifically George Bush, some liberals will go to the point to submitting themselves to torture in order to protest them. This begs the question of whether it is actually torture at all and whether they really care about the protections of the American Constitution and the rule of law when they are willing to violate them to merely make a point.

Ok, so I'll break from the studing for 5 seconds...

I can't stand not getting this off my chest, so the books can wait for just a minute. A few months back, It looked like Rudy was going to cake walk this thing right into the GOP nomination. To be honest, I was pissed. I know he's good on terrorism. He'll kill the bad guys, I get it. Still, I can't vote for him because he's Pro-Choice. Let me elaborate. He's PRO-FUCKING-CHOICE. This means that if I were to look at him and say "Are you aware that 165 million Americans were never born because a group of 9 untouchable ivory tower residing idiots said that it's a woman's right to slaughter their unborn?" His response would be "Well, they were just exercising their court appointed rights" because he actually believes that to be true. I'm sorry if it galls you, but I'll never vote for any man or woman that doesn't understand that you can't protect people's rights if you never protect their very right to life. Take that to the bank. It's a fact. In response, I was told in varying degrees, by well intentioned people at several other blogs that Rudy "promised" that he would, if elected, nominated "strict constructionist" judges. Somehow this was supposed to comfort me. Let me pose a question: Does being a Strict Constructionist mean that they will do their part to cut government provided abortion related funding from the budget? Oh yeah, they don't do that. The President does. Does being a Strict Constructionist mean that they will veto any pro-abortion legislation that crosses their desk? Wait, once again, that's the President's job. I get that it will more than likely take the Supreme Court end abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. What if they don't? What then. To make things more depressing Rudy then went on to kiss ass to the NRA so as to defuse that time bomb but took exactly 0.0 seconds to say something as small as "I promise that I won't further the access to abortion." In response, people on blogs like Ace 'O Spades, were quick to jump on the social cons and tell us that we had just better more or less suck it up or Hillary would win and we'd all be screwed. Fast forward the clocks a few month and we find that the social con candidate on the rise is Mike Huckabee. Suddenly, the right wing blog-o-sphere seems to be having a crap-in-our-pants-a-thon. It seems that a lot of the blog posters are extremely unhappy with Huckabee because they say that he's soft on immigration, and he taxes too much and he's a nanny stater. I have to be honest, I find it to be totally amusing. The same people that were telling me, months ago that I have to swallow my moral compass and deal with the Rudy express are the same ones suddenly saying "I could never vote for Huckabee because of immigration, and he taxes too much and he's a nanny stater. Immigration is my favorite. McCain finally gets that we wanted fence, Rudy ran New York and Mitt has lawn care issues and people are suddenly concerned that Huckabee had a bill that allowed illegal aliens in his state to get in state tuition rates. Wow. I mean that is so totally worse. Clearly, we all know the real conservative now. On taxes, Mitt raised them, Rudy cut them and Huckabee raised them. Advantage Rudy. Oh wait, I still don't care because he's OK with the fact that my tax money also funds abortions. Yeah, that's still a deal killer for me. I'm silly/consistent that way. The Nannystater thing. Here's the crux, I think. See when it was Rick Perry touting mandatory HPV vaccination all the blogophiles were on board. After all it was for public health. I mean a whole 8 people died from HPV in Texas in 2005 but let's vaccinate every teen girl just in case. Of course, Huckabee says that he's support a nationwide smoking bans in public places and suddenly everyone flips out. I mean, it's not like smoking causes cancer or that it's public health interest or anything. It's not like towns, cities and the entire state of California haven't passed those types of codes for public places. No, it's just Mike Huckabee trying to run your life out of the blue. Let me just toss out there what really bothers people. They don't like him because he's Christian. Not only is he Christian, but unlike George Bush and several others who say that they "believe" it, he actually practices and was ordained to preach it. Right now, conservatives, in my opinion, are split on Huckabee between the people that are willing to be sold a bill of goods on the least flawed conservative and the people that want character. If all Republicans truly wanted the "Conservative Reagan Model" then Fred would be closest to the best bet, as I see it. He's consistent in his stance and fairly unflagging. Romney has holes and answers everything like a lawyer. McCain has McCain/Feingold and the Comprehensive Piece of Crap Immigration bill to his name. Rudy is a fiscal republican and a social Democrat. So, really, why hasn't the Fred bandwagon taken flight? I'll give you my thoughts. He sucks in the debates. He looks old and slow and unpolished. I have no idea why but he comes across bad over and over. You'd think that his message would override that and I agree with a lot of his answers but if he can't excite people with his message that actually want to hear it, I'm supposed to believe that he's going to sway the "fictional" independents? Right now, Huckabee is the guy for the social cons because when he says "I oppose abortion" or "gay marriage" we don't have to guess if he calculated that answer. For that reason, we don't feel we have to second guess him when he says "I'm for responsible spending." Something that we never saw from the GOP congress under Bush, for what it's worth. At this point, I'm still on the Huckabee bandwagon. I see no reason to back off of him now that he has some top tier draw. However, I have to admit that I find it pretty interesting that we social cons were supposed to stomach our morals to get Rudy elected, but now it unpalatable for any deviation from the core conservative values for so many others once their boy lags and that the reasoning for Huckabee's unacceptable nature dovetails with things that we were supposed to overlook in their guys. It seems that those lessons on sportsmanship come a little harder from the bronze medal stand.

Planning a party

A certain FIU'er is getting married soon and is having a bachelor party this weekend. Sadly, the fact that I'm married with kids and have 2 impending tests, is going to keep me from going. However, I feel that it's unfair that we have to all miss out on the last "Huzza" of Hoodlumman's single life. As a result, I say that we throw him a virtual bachelor party. It's time to get drunk and post your best advice/wishes along with the classic sign of being wasted. Yes, you need to end it with "I love you, man." To get this thing ready, I'll need some help: JR, you get the tequila, 2 tanks of nitrous, 1 combat boot, a package of ping pong balls and a kiddie pool. Diana ,you get 200 pounds of velvetta cheese, a left handed stripper, a copy of "Fiddler on the Roof" and exactly 9 ft of 8 guage copper wire. Dave, you bring the cordite, as much axle grease as you can put your hands on, two wheel chair maniquins, a 5-6 lb cactus and carnuba wax. I'll get the chili, the midgets, 100 lbs of chicken feathers, a disposable camera, correct postage for a 200 lb package to Madagascar, a tattoo gun and black tar herion. I already have the slip'n'slide, the 18v drill and the 1200w portable generator for the microwave and the power washer. In the mean time, you guy start out with these val-u-rite vodka jello shots and get with the practical knowledge.... and the naked pictures because it's not like bandwidth is free.

Thursday's moment of unabashed truth

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ahem...

There is a place in sports where one has to make questionable decisions that while being contained within the legality of play are still essentially "feeble" plays. The coach of the Bills, Dick Jauron, made one of those decisions. In what has become a recent development in NFL coaching he exercised a legal maneuver to call time out just as the Cowboys took the snap for a game winning 52 yard field goal attempt. The Attempt was good, but the timeout preceded it so the Dallas kicker, Nick Folk, had to kick again. The second kick was just as good. Nick Folk, being a better man than I was simply elated and trotted off the field to congratulations. This is because he has more than likely been made away that any derogatory action towards the Bill's bench or the head coach would have been met with punishment and probably a fine. That is a decision to show class, when class was not shown to you. Me, I'm classless. So to Dick Jauron, this is for you: Sit and spin, Sir. Sit and spin.

Then and Now

Remember this? During the 2006 elections, House Democrats promised to take our country in a New Direction, that a Democratic Majority would bring the change that our country so desperately needed. House Democrats wasted no time and within the first 100 hours can now stand united to say that we have kept our promise to the American people. Our successes are just the beginning. We have opened the 110th Congress with a tone that will continue throughout, which is one of cooperation, consensus and compromise that will see beyond party lines. Now, House Democrats are setting our sights beyond the first 100 hours to make America safe and strong for the future. Note their check list of achievements on the linked page. May I say sarcastically, staggeringly deft work there. Anyway, compare that to now WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency. Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval. As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats. Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence. It seems that the 100 hours promise of "cooperation, consensus and compromise that will see beyond party lines" might actually come to us after all, if only on this issue. For some reason, only the really hard line liberal seem willing to fight for civil liberties wiretapping protections for suspected terrorist while those damnable centrist Democrats have become turncoats to the BushCheneyHaliHiltlarian idea that "not getting blown to shit" is a reasonable out for this atrocity. Not getting blown to shit. It may be this generation's common denominator.

Bring it

It seems some Reps of the Democratic Party are so keen on stopping the war they have a new idea. Top House Democrats Tuesday proposed a "war surtax" to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a plan quickly condemned by Republicans and opposed by the House leadership. The surtax would be "a percentage of your tax bill," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. "And if you don't like the cost, then shut down the war." The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said. The House Democratic leadership made it clear Wednesday that they had not signed off on the measure. In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice and "adding hundreds of billions of dollars in debt for future generations to repay." But Pelosi said she will not back the measure. You know what? Fine By Me. I know what Murtha, McGovern and Obey are up to but you know what? I don't care. All I want to see is one change. Since they are always talking about equality under the law, today is the day to do it. Let's see a 7% even surtax on everyone. I'll gladly pay it. I've paid for mounds and mounds of Democratic crap and for loads of welfare, for once this is a tax I'd love to support. I support our troops and additional taxes to take care of them and to provide for the mission would be an honor to support. I'd also love to see the political hacks explain to the poor that they are truly equal and have to pay an equal share. To do any less is to call them second calls citizen and unpatriotic. Why , we don't want to question the patriotism of the underclasses do we? Of course not. A War Surtax. What a great idea, as long a these three have the balls to make it equal. If they truly had the strength of their conviction they would. As bonus sentiment:

Letting the air out of the tires

I'm a self admitted paradox. Some people get this, some don't. Still, I'm in a consistent struggle between who I want to be and who I try not to be. Left to my own devices, I'm a horrible person. I know that I have in me both the capacity and desire to be as bad, if not worse, than anyone else. The seven deadly sins would be my playground and to hell with the rest of you. That part of me is always there in my head. Always wanting to be in control and trying to influence my path. This is where the paradox often gets misunderstood because the path is not one that is expected. A lot of people are waiting for me to talk about the part of me that wants to be good. Right? I mean that's the natural inclination in logic. You'd expect there to be a "bad part" and a "good part." By definition, the "bad" part exists to contrast what is by definition "good." I used to think that as well. The problem is, left to my own devices there is only the bad part, or rather the "blind part." No, the other part is the "loved part." People misunderstand this, sadly a lot of the "loved people" included, and as a result the world has a totally wrong picture of a lot of things. I'm still a little sketchy on this explaination, but see if you can follow where I'm going with this. People are hard wired to respond to love. Either love from outside or self love. We seek that in many ways. We do a lot of things to seek love from others. I doubt that I have to elaborate the length and breadth of that to you guys. We've all seen people jump through those hoops, both good and bad. Likewise, America is almost a study in "self-love." The problem with this isn't that we seek love, because I would say that we are designed to do so. The problem is that we too quick to accept the weak and watered down substitute. If love is a balanced, healthy 7 course meal, full of textures, smells and sights that leave you full and satisfied, then I'm pretty sure that many people have settled for the packaged, flat, over salted, low presentation alternative: pork rinds, or as I would call it "bliss." Sure, it has a flavor and it's fast and we can even kind of like it, but it's bad for you and it leaves you wanting and as soon as you swallow it you want more because it's gone and it's not enough. We do that in life. We want to feel bliss. We want that high or that buzz or that orgasm or that drink or that cigarette or that cookie or that honor or that accolade or that nap or that vacation or that raise or that bonus or that release or that anger or whatever it is. We want it and, when we get it, for that one shiny second we're happy! Yea! Bliss! ...And then, just that fast, in that little second, it fades just a bit and we want it again but this time better. Just like a pork rind, it's never enough. Our pursuit of that is stupid. Still, we all do it. We all see other people do it and know it's stupid. Hell, sometimes in the dark, alone times we even admit to ourselves that it's stupid. But we still want it because it's in us to look for love. That bliss is as close as we can get alone and we fight for that. One more smokehouse almond, one more shot of Quervo and one more blow job; that's all I need... but we know it's not and it pisses us off. So let's look at the alternative, being loved. We want it. We're all for it. Right? But one problem, we want it our way. We want "one order of love, with a super sized no commitment, some curly, seasoned no obligations and a side order of I don't want to be vulnerable. Hold the damn mayo." Yeah, it doesn't work like that. You know why? Not because love can't be unconditional. Love is, by nature, unconditional. The reason it won't work is because if we get it our way, we'll get it wrong because we're too greedy. Here's one you've probably never heard. Love as explained by math. Bear with me. What is the value of 1/1? To remind you, 1/1=1. It's reciprocal is, therefore, 1. Understanding this, the value of love is giving everything up for someone else/giving everything up for someone else? However, it equals getting everything. Not getting more. No, we get the full sum of everything. This is why, as a person who has fought to understand that bliss is a hollow lie I can't grasp the understanding on why people reject Christ. He's already filled the equation for you to just have to love him back and people 2000 years later still love to hate him so that they can hold onto lifestyles that allow them to chase bliss, knowing that the bliss will never fill them up. I've said this 1,000,000 times and I bet that I say it 1,000,000 times more but people seem to think that because I am a Christian that I think I'm better than you. WRONG. I know for a fact that I'm a great deal worse than most people I know. You read what I write here. I'm an abrasive jerk. If anything you have to know that I'm not selling you on Jesus because of his ability of making me pious. I'm not. I'm selling you on Christ for one simple reason: He loves you and all he wants is for you to let him love you so that you can love him back. All the crap about sins is not his priority. For havens sake, he already died to cover for the sins! It's not like he's really concerned about it now! He's concerned about you chasing bliss and being empty when what you really need is love. He's already given everything for you and paid for what you couldn't give to him, so why are people so against it? I know that the world would have you think that the advertisers on Madison avenue have it all mapped out for you. Consume the right things, drink the right beer, buy the right clothes, work out at the right place and screw the right way with Viagra! After all, that stuff is going to last you until the end of your days and you'll go out #1. On your tombstone they'll write "Here lies a total bad ass that had everything." The problem is that's bullshit and we all know it. I hate to let the air out of everyone's tires but you weren't built to seek being the best. Everyone else expects you to do that. You were built to seek love and there is only one true love and until you give yourself fully to him, you're just popping pork rinds mindlessly looking for that nanosecond thrill that won't last.

A child of the 80's

I know that it's a pretty unoriginal theme to do the ol "I remember when" thing but this is one of those times that I just have to. I was in class the other day and our teacher opened up for debate the question of whether to have our first test in class or in the testing center. Personally, I could care less between those two options. In class you have less time but teachers normally compensate by giving less questions and easier questions but they are normally more points per question. In the testing center, you have unlimited time because you're there in non-class hours but they are more free to make the test longer and more difficult. Still more questions allows for more mistakes having less effect on the grade. I don't see any really clear advantage to either way because, in the end, either you know the stuff or you don't. The class voted to have the test in class. No sooner had that happened then the girl that sits to the right of me wigged out. In her own words, "Well, I'm going to have to pull the disability card on this because I can't take a test in here with a time limit. I have ADHD and it's really hard for me to concentrate in a timed environment." Wait a sec. Back the truck up. This is one of those times where I need to clarify one of the things that is adding to the pussification of our country. Disability is not the same thing as being unable. She wasn't unable to do the test during a time limit, it was just more difficult. While I understand wanting every advantage possible in taking a test, the absolute anger and entitlement for the school to adjust to your limitations is something I can't endorse. I mean, if your blind, then test them in braille. If you're in a wheel chair, common sense dictates we need a ramp. regardless of those things, the blind or the wheelchair bound are still taking the same test in the same time. Learning disabilities are no different in that even though you have them you still need to make it your job to learn. To make this personal, I have dyslexia. If you've been on here long enough you've seen me misspell things or make little dyslexic mistakes. That's because I don't spend a lot of time proofing the stuff I do on here. Normally, I hammer something out real fast and then get back to real life stuff. However, when I choose to spend the time on it, I can write fairly well and type fairly typo free and put out a very respectable product. I'm able to do that because in the 70's - 80's, when they discovered that I had dyslexia, the idea was "well, let's put him in the 'special' class and move on." In response, my mother went to the school, kicked ass and took names and said "no, he's not stupid. If you can't read what he wrote, ask him. He'll give you the right answer. And, we'll correct the rest." And we did. Having dyslexia didn't mean that I was going to have an easier standard. It meant that I better roll up my sleeves and bust ass because I was expected to do it as well, if not better, than a kid that didn't have it. I had a hero in that, Bruce Jenner. Bruce Jenner had severe dyslexia and he worked at it continually just like he worked at kicking ass in the Olympics and kick ass he did. I'm not saying that ADHD is the same and I'm not saying that disabilities aren't a real burden. What I am saying is that a society that allows people with a disability to sit there and say "Well, I guess the world is just going to have to accommodate me" isn't doing anyone any favors. Sure, you can mandate disabilities hiring standards and you can mandate educational equivalencies but in the real world you have to achieve. If you don't cut it at work, a hiring standard make them keep you a job but it won't move you ahead. A easier grade of work might help you to keep a job but it won't earn you respect. The reason for that is simple: If you challenge the problem and fail people respect that. Challenge it and succeed and they'll respect you. If you take the easy path and use your disability as a crutch to do less challenging things they don't. Is that fair? Probably not, but that's how it is. The 80's had a lot of ass backwards things in it, but they still forced you to try to keep up. I'd agree that we need to give people more help than what I had back then but at the end of the day, if you have a learning disability, you have to make sure that you developing. You have to do the work. We don't need more victims to the cruelties of life. We need to help more people be champions that overcome them. That's what the world expects and that's what we need to give them if we want to exceed being more than learning disabled.

Friday's question of the day

Society functions because of the people's willingness to follow rules in order to avoid chaos. We set up all types of regulations and laws and cultural standards based on behavior we deem to be acceptable and in order to reign in behavior that is not. As a result, we are taught from a very early age the social laws and the legal laws that will govern our behavior. This construct, however, still relies on our compliance to these ideas. When we drive down the street, we are inches from death as cars travel inches away from us at speeds that would kill all occupants in both cars, yet we don't worry. We assume that the people in the cars will follow the guide of staying in their lane. Likewise, everyday thousands of people stand near subway lines where one shove could send them to their death yet people don't fear that because convention says the people won't shove you any more than you are likely to shove them. This system is always held up to the light when we see situations where people are thrust into situations so dire that the desire to conform to the rules that we have been taught are superseded by some other need. This happens in the cases where a mother protects her child or when people fight like rats to escape a fire. We also applaud the bravery of the people that place those rules above their lives like the soldier, the policeman and the firefighters that risk their lives to preserve the rule of law. So today's question is not a matter of legality but of your opinion. I wish to know, do you consider it a necessary evil when we punish people for following their instincts of self preservation that also cause them to break the rule of law? Likewise, do we fairly honor those who set aside their self preservation in order to maintain that law and order? Discuss.

The whole Kathy Griffin thing

In case you haven't heard, let me throw out the celebrity news shocker of the day. LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Comic Kathy Griffin's "offensive" remarks about Jesus at the Creative Arts Emmy Awards will be cut from a pre-taped telecast of the show, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences said on Tuesday. Griffin made the provocative comment on Saturday night as she took the stage of the Shrine Auditorium to collect her Emmy for best reality program for her Bravo channel show "My Life on the D-List." "A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus," an exultant Griffin said, holding up her statuette. "Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now." Since that, there have been several people on either sides of issue try to fight to claim the moral high ground on this. Some call it a point of free speech. You also have some calling for her job and equating this to the Imus thing or the Micheal Richards outburst or Eddie Griffen having the mike cut on him at the BET show by Rev Al Sharpton for dropping the N-word. The truth of the matter is that this isn't the same. Any one that thinks it is, is fooling themselves. Any person that is really honest in their assessment of American culture has to accept that we are no longer a Christian nation. Christians are not part of the grievance narrative. We're not going to get equal consideration. We can't expect any reverence from anyone. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Yes, millions go to church and affiliate themselves as "Christians" in the polls but this country has no claim to the title of "christian." Why would I say that? The proof is in our culture for everyone to see. Pick almost any social ill effecting the US and it's against Jesus' teaching. Drugs, teen pregnancy, gay marriage, corruption, ect. Everything we deal with has a moral component to it that is covered by the concepts that Jesus gave. Our society has decided instead that what they want is more important than what Christ said was right. Sure, Jesus said not to be a drunk but I feel like tying one one and as a result we have drunk drivers. Sure Jesus said that sex should only be between a man and his wife but I can screw whenever I like so as a result now we have sexual abuse, kiddie porn, AIDS and gay sex in airport bathrooms. The list goes on and on and each time we see a social ill, it crosses the line at the point where people decide what they want is more important than what's right. I'm not immune. I do stupid things that I know for a fact are wrong all the time. As a result the society stands back and yells "Ha ha, you're a hypocrite! See, we can do our own thing because you Christians can't even follow you're own guy's rules." If justification is all they are looking for that's fine. They'd find a way to rationalize it anyway. The point they miss is that even when God's followers don't follow His guides what happens? Pain, heartache and loss. If anything, it proves the point. He gave us those rule to help us because he loves us but people think they don't need Gods love. The want their freedom from morality more. The moral vacuum left is the interesting thing to watch. I doubt that Kathy Griffin was shocked that her statement would offend people. In fact, I'm betting that she hoped that it would. By being intentionally rude, she got publicity and increased her standing in Hollywood by being an "edgy comedian" who is unafraid to take on the social taboo of religion. Of course, that's BS. If she had guts, she would have mocked Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Global Warming, MLK and an entire pantheon of other religious and quasi-religious entities. Of course, in 20 seconds, that's a long joke. She knew Jesus was a safe shot because what's Jesus' rep? He forgives, right? You crack that joke with Allah and you better start checking your car for bombs. So what should be done? How should Christians react to this? My personal response is to say "who cares." Kathy Griffin may or may not believe in God and, by extension, Jesus. If she does, I hope that she realizes that she just put a stumbling block in front of a lot of people. If she doesn't, I hope that she rides her new found fame to the inspiration of reading more bible to get better researched jokes. I'm a pretty firm believer that most resist doing that because they fear conversion and they should. However, for us, Protesting her doesn't show God's love. Quite to the contrary, it just validates the whole group that are looking for an excuse in Christan behavior to rationalize doing what they want. If anything, we should pray for her. It would be a sad existence to actually have an award be your God. Validation from a statue has a historic element, to be sure, but most of them end up museums. They also don't love you and if Jesus took the nails for Kathy, he can tolerate her insults long enough to tell her that he loves her. Someday, she might get that.

Friday's question of the day

As a person that tends to kind of look for patterns in everything, I made an assessment about the culture of the US that I wanted to share. This is still a little fuzzy and mostly tied to random bits of things I see but I think the general premise is still there. After WW2 the Us had a lot of prosperity. The Children of the WW2 and Korean war vets were the group that drove a lot of the Hippy and Free love movements. This was followed by the 70's John Denver Granola eating type into the "Me" generation of the 80's and the Yuppies of the 90's. Then we had the grunge swing and now a new liberalism. The juxtaposition that I see is that the new anti-war still wants the same society, just minus the war. They want their cell phones and their Starbucks and their Internet. The older set of anti-war types were much more prone to want to ditch society as a whole and join a commune or try to fashion a alternative society. Likewise, the Prosperous WW2 vet era seemed to be driven by prosperity with money being the tool to enable their lifestyle. The 80's was about money to drive life style. Today it seems to be all about lifestyle and even money isn't a concern. Credit seems to be considered just as good as long as you get the results. With these things in mind, do you think that our society is being progressive driven by materialism or are we simply less idealistic? I have a tendency to view things from a christian faith standpoint. Since i have that vantage point, my impression is that less people strongly believe in anything that they sacrifice for it unless benefits them directly. There seem to be less ideologues that actually look to effect a change. Sure, you can find people that will tell you that "communism is the only way" but they typically climb into their Range Rover right after that. I guess my question is, at a root level, have Americans, since WW2, sold out their conviction to their beliefs in order to acquire stuff or are people just being pragmatic about the realistic possibility of radical change in our government? Discuss.

Da gay guy, da lesbian chick and the straight male: things I've noticed over time that make more sense now that I'm domesticated

Gay. The GAY. The gayness that is "gay." These things happen in our world and for some of us we simply just don't get it. How it works? Why? Mostly, why I should even care? I profess, I'm sure that there are people with PHD's that can argue the mental, social and biological nuances of the matter in grand detail, citing many factors and studies with flair and panache normally reserved for bull fighters and Broadway musicals. I also profess, I'm not one of those people. All I got is some limited personal experience, a shit load of pop culture references and the keys to the blog. However, that being said, I can speak toward the habits and tendencies and culture that I am a part of: The straight male that is and has been off the market for so long that you watch other peoples dating interactions with the same detachment I have when watching the Discovery channel. For us, homosexuality is divided down two lines. Those points of division being gay men or gay women. Speaking from my experience most gay men are truly an afterthought 99% of the time to a straight man. Typically, they are just "the guy I didn't have to compete for girls against." As an art student, I met more than enough gay men to know that truthfully it's almost easier to function around them, as opposed to other guys. If they aren't interested in you and you aren't offensive to them, everything after that is either defined as friendship or generally ignoring the other person but it's even more neutral than with a straight guy because you didn't even have to compete with them. Now, there are the macho types that feel threatened by gay men but once again, I got no experience there so I can't comment on it. Lesbians, on the other hand, are totally different. It's harder to explain that dynamic because take any lesbian couple and separate them and you have a girl, which guys are attracted to. Stick them back together and you have 2 girls which your twice as attracted to (do the math) but there is suddenly a competition element. The odd dynamic also occurs in that with competition, but two targets, it's twice the payoff and twice the chance to score with the outside possibility of scoring both. Add to that, the competition is emotional (not our key attack route anyway) and not physical. Trying to explain to a straight girl the attraction that guys have with lesbians is a little more than difficult. Simply put, and probably equally unintelligible, to most guys girls are like Voltron. The more of them you pile on the cooler it is. Also, as a straight guy you're walking around with the biological equipment that they end up buying at novelty stores and Internet sites anyway. And then there is this: Funny, but true. So where does this leave us? Well, for the straight males I know, we mostly don't care. The key reason is perspective. Any sex that the gay community is having, either side, is still sex that isn't getting me any, so I really could care less. I'm too busy trying to defuse the home situation each day after work, put kids to bed, pass classes, pay bills and give my wife a long enough break in her day that she actually feels like having sex before she falls asleep watching HGTV.

Racism as an extension of Stupid: A systemic crap ball of absolute idiocy

For those who currently surf CNN, one of today's stories has to do with racial discord, violence and charges in the town of Jena, Louisiana. The story is linked here and is truly a train wreck of stupidity on many levels. I'd suggest reading it because I won't mass post it but to sum up the relevant points: ~ A group of black kids decide to sit under a tree that the white kids normally hang out under. ~ The white kids hang nooses there which the black kids find there the next day. ~ The white kids responsible are suspended for 3 days ~ Racial tension in the school increases, fights both on and off campus happen ~ The school system has the DA address the school ~ The schools main academic building gets torched, as in 'arson' ~ Six students "reportedly" jump one kid and beat him until he is unconscious ~ The six are arrested and face charges ~ Parents of all the kids say their sons are being railroaded via Jim Crow Justice So where to start? The whole thing got touched off because, let's be honest, the kids hanging the nooses were trying to be dicks. Was that racial motivated? Hell yeah, it was as some level. Those kids may have deserved more or less time out of school based on your personal opinion but as an educational administration you know they have rules regarding race relations and common sense that those kids broke. They showed a major lack of judgment in thinking that idea was "cute" or "harmless" in today's social environment. So, I don't have any problem with those kids getting punished and would point out that if it were one of my sons, there would have been some punishment at home that would make a 3 day suspension seem like a vacation. What happened from that point was where the pure stupidity stepped up. Should those kids have been ostracized in school? That's a debatable social theory depending on whether your pro-enforcement or pro-rehabilitation. I can honestly say that they could expect to be fairly hated when they get off suspension. However, should their actions light off a powder keg with other students who weren't involved? No. And yet, it did. In my estimation it did for 2 reasons. The first is because black culture has not accepted that they are an easy mark when it comes to getting a reaction. The second is that schools and society's do an exceptionally poor job of handling teen boys and violence. Those two thing let 3 stupid kids melt down a whole school. Look racism is a problem in America. Period. And I know that some people can't accept it but it's not a one sided problem. I'm sorry, I've worked in predominately black environments and in predominately Hispanic environments. The result surprised me because you guys seem to dog each other and, even funnier, you just assumed that I agreed. The irony is that I don't. Sure, the races are different as genetics would tell you but I haven't seen that as any type of limiting factor in any type of human endeavor, much less a sign of superiority. However, that's something I had to learn from experience with individuals because culture sure doesn't teach it. White culture, for example, seems to say that I'm supposed to help every other culture out because it seems that every other culture needs help and I'm of the culture that's supposed to provide it. That was news to me considering that when my dad left, my mom was making 14k and I was having to hot glue gun the soles back on to my shoes. Still, it seems that "I'm responsible because I'm the man." I also found out that I'm responsible for slavery and I took Texas from the Mexicans who stole it from the Spanish who took it from the Indians. The fact that 1/16 of me is Indian doesn't supposedly void me of the white guilt for the Trail of Tears or Wounded Knee, either. While all of that is fun to learn as a heir apparent to "the man" franchise, I believe that I can correctly assume that several other boys have since learned that they are the heirs to being the "aggrieved black man" or the "downtrodden Latino" or whatever bullshit society is pedaling. As a result, black culture, from a white perspective, is so predictable that you could almost write a scientific law of universal response: Something like, "Any reference to the KKK, Jim Crow, Slavery or the use of the "N" word by anyone not Black is guaranteed a negative response at twice the energy level expressed and grows exponentially as the number of black recipients of said utterance is increased." Disagree? You think it was a accident that In Die Hard 3 that it was just accepted wisdom that Bruce Willis' character was going to get a serious ass beating, if not die, for wearing a lunch board saying "I hate Niggers?" Why is that? Furthermore, why is that acceptable wisdom? Have you ever stopped to consider the response if you drop a black character in the middle of white America with the counter sign of "I hate Crackers" or Whitey or Jews or whatever? Is that a guaranteed ass beating or death sentence under today's conventional wisdom? Not hardly. The point is that regardless of how you feel about it, and in today's PC world none the less, all it takes is saying "nigger" and people get wound up past all conventional wisdom and personal responsibility. As a result, they lose the power of initiative because their emotions dictate over their reason, more often than not. Who is the exception to that? The people who define themselves and others as individuals. Racism will continue to be a problem for one reason: People employ it to define who they are and who other people are because it's easier than being an individual or treating people as individuals. Society, and more specifically their parents, failed these kids in not enforcing that. The second issue is that society at large has a horrible grasp of what a man is, much less how to raise one, much less how to deal with a immature one. Violence is just one aspect where society fails miserably. Being a man is about understanding your value, your strengths, your weaknesses and how you allow those things to interact with those around you. Today's kids are barely taught to make sound decisions, typically isolated from risk, over protected from consequences and totally uncoached in understanding the power of their actions. There is a reason that martial arts can often market it's self for teaching responsibility and respect. The reason is that it is incredibly stupid to be disrespectful to a person who is able to break bricks with their head. The interesting factor is that it is typically the person who can break bricks with their head that is the most respectful to the people in the room that pose him no threat for a reason that most people don't get. A teacher is typically the most respectful of the power that he has learned, but he has also learned that the true power is in the choice to not put himself in the position to have to use it because of the damage that it can cause. He understands the consequence to action. Some kids today need to have their asses tossed around a dojo once or twice to realize that violence is just a tool. It can be effective but it can also run contrary to what you are trying to accomplish. In plain English, kids today see violence as the final step in a confrontation when it isn't. The aftermath of a confrontation still has to be dealt with and eventually the root cause of the confrontation before it is resolved. However, most boys are never taught that so they believe that "kicking ass" will fix the problem. Wrong. That might be a step, but normally there are other things that could be done before, or during, that confrontation that would be better than unchecked aggression. Society, and specifically these kid's parents, have failed to teach them, and possibly understand themselves, that when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When you place this all together the result is what you see. Kids that are in trouble, kids that are in pain, kids that are in discord, a community wrecked, fear mongers circling the wagons and everyone generally unimpressed with the whole thing because it could have been prevented. However, I want to take a second to say that for once in the news, the school system in this seems to have acted responsibly. They alone addressed the issues along each step. They alone took preventive action. In short, they are the only ones I see in the whole thing that tried to defuse things. Where all of this will go is beyond me but the point that we need to take away from it is this: fixing the problem of racism doesn't lie with the schools. They tried. It lies with society and parenting. We need to better coach our own kids on living in a equal society of individuals and educate them to the nature of their actions, including but not limited to violence.

Friday's question

I doubt that I'm alone in hating political correctness. I find it to be a stupid idea that we have to watch what we say in order to protect the world at large from being offended. I understand that no one enjoys a good taunting. As a child, I had strabismus. As a result, I had one eye that turned into center and one that was straight. As you might assume, you can get all kinds of "interesting" comments in grade school with that one. Sure, I was lucky enough to have it cosmetically corrected surgically when I was older but even now, when I look out my "bad" eye, you can tell. However, while leaving the morality of taunting aside, I have never been one to feel that it is any one's responsibility to protect my feelings over it. Rather, it is my job to simply have thick skin. I can remember many of my friends being so adamant that "they didn't care what anybody thought about them" when they were in high school and yet watching them minutes later dance to the tune of someone else's peer pressure or social expectations. The truth is that despite our desire to self define we do react to what people say, but at the same time "people", in general, are not responsible for our emotions or emotional well being. With those points, my question is just how far do we need to carry political, or even individual, correctness in an effort to not offend? Additionally, if we are of a subset or culture that is offensive is it our responsibility to mute the expression of our rights, or beliefs, in order to decrease discomfort to those who are not? Finally, is it the responsibility of the individual to even worry about the offense perceived when not adapting to political correctness? For bonus points, should openly racist and similarly molded hate speech be allowed at all? Discuss. For cheap thrills, the "good eye/bad eye" comparison. Mind you, this is "with 70% correction." Nice.

One third of online dating women are sluts

Actually the article said: While the women who were surveyed went to great lengths to screen online acquaintances before meeting them, nearly a third reported having sex on the first date and three-quarters of those said they did not use condoms, according to the study by The University of Texas School of Public Health. I just figured that FIU could benefit from a little "yellow journalism." So why were they willing to cough up some cooter on the first date? According to researchers it's because "Online dating, Padgett said, enables women to ignore men who don't make them feel safe or fit their standards." In other words, the Internet is a virtual cock blocker, like the digital friend who won't let her "do some shots because we have to go now." Also, he points out that women are able to feel like they really know the guy before they actually agree to meet him allowing for a sense of "virtual intimacy." "They may not think of it as being risky sex," said Padgett, a research associate who specializes in epidemiology and sex research. "They don't see it as a one-night stand, even though it might turn out that way, because they really feel they have a relationship with this man." So what method did these women use to sift through all the potential stalkers to find prince charming with a sony laptop? It was pretty high hurdles and pretty scientific stuff, but here's a list of some of their litmus tests: Before a date ~ Running background checks through an agency or Google. ~ Looking for inconsistencies in answers to questions. ~ Relying on gut feeling. ~ Talking on the phone. ~ Asking for a photo. During the date ~ Meeting in a public place ~ Having a friend tag along discreetly ~ Having own ride home ~ Carrying pepper spray Some of my favorite quotes are "When we talked I pumped him for info and then kept asking questions to see if he would slip up and reveal a lie", "He looked `safe' in his picture", "Hidden vocal (and physical) cues can also tell you whether a man is suitable - which is intuition" and "I told him I would say how fast we moved, not him." I guess for 33% of them "how fast" is literal, as opposed to figurative. What amuses me is that for all the technology and all the posturing and all the effort it still comes down to the biological aspect of the male doing convoluted dances and displaying plumage in an effort to convince a female that he's a fitting mate. Yeah, dating. I remember it and I remember that it sucked. Update (Hood): "I know. I know..."

For JR and Hood

World of Whorecraft star Mia Rose has been banned from World of Warcraft. Mia Rose is a hardcore gamer as well as being a pornstar, who appeared in several episodes of World of Whorecraft. Rose told the website Kotaku.com that she was banned from the World of Warcraft over the weekend after a fan recognized her and mentioned her website in a public chat area. Yeah, God knows that Blizzard needs to protect the sanctity of their gaming brand from porn stars and porn because there couldn't be any possibility of a marketing demographic crossover there. Right guys?

Fast Food tales from Tuesday

I have to hand it to Jack in the Box, whether or not they intended it they provide a full service drive through dining experience. It seems that along with my Asian chicken salad and lemonade I can get a side order of whore. "Hey, do you want to party?" "No thanks, I'm kind partied out, ya know?" Say what you want about the whores of Dallas but when they'll brave 100 degree heat and certain sunburn to service this lot, that's a pledge towards customer service. You gotta give them this - they're committed, or at least desperate.

In 2005, in Texas....

... 0 people died from salmonella poisoning ... 2 people died of syphilis ... 8 people died from HPV ... 8 People were attacked by sharks, none of the attacks were fatal ... 30 people died of lip cancer ... 47 people died from child birth ... 59 people died of TB ... 72 people died from meningitis ... 74 Texas born soldiers died in Iraq ... 152 people died from surgical complications ... 633 people died of lung cancer ... 1108 people died from Parkinson's disease ... 1407 people were murdered ... 2290 people died by suicide ... 3198 people died from the flu ... 3504 people died in automobile accidents, of those 1569 were alcohol related. ... 4209 people died of stomach cancer ... 4331 people died from Alzheimer's ... 5426 people died from diabetes ... 16309 people died of colon cancer ... 40091 people died of heart disease ... 48305 people died of lung cancer We spend millions of dollars trying to avert these numbers. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers give their time to "increase awareness" and "educate toward prevention" and lobby for legislative controls in order to try to avert these numbers. There are TV shows and news stories and telethons and 10k runs and jump rope pledge drives and more done to try to make a difference in curtailing these deaths. People beg and plead and suffer and work and toil and fight and die in their efforts aligned to diverting these numbers. We look at them and we see that struggle as noble. We put on out LiveStrong bracelet, look at our Prostate Cancer awareness lapen pin, grab our pink ribbon coffee cup and jump into our "Support the troops" stickered cars. We agree. Painful, avoidable death should be stopped. Seriously, who can support it. Even our criminals are given a court mandated, pain free lethal injection. So if we can all be on the same side on this. If Texans common humanity recognizes the need to decrease suffering and death as much as possible, then I have one more stat to give you. In Texas, in 2005 alone, there were 77,374 babies killed due to elective abortion. SEVENTY SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR. In one year. That disgusts me. If we are truly against pointless suffering and needless death then there is a reality we have to face: This "bullshit" they call a debate between "reproductive rights and morality and women's choice" has resulted in over 2,493,515 deaths in Texas between 1974 and 2005. For scale, that's equivalent to the entire population of Kuwait being killed before they ever breathed. Abortion is morally, ethically, rationally and logically wrong and the fact that we allow it in the US shows an erosion of the concepts that we supposedly believe and adhere to as a nation. In one state, 2,439, 515 innocents have been killed for the crime of being inconvenient. Hitler, and his Nazis, couldn't touch the holocaust we've allowed here in the USA in the name of "choice."

What would make me respect Baseball

Ok. As I've said, I don't like baseball. I never played it. I don't enjoy watching it. I only went to Rangers games as a teen to see girls in skimpy clothes and later, in college, to see girls in skimpy clothes while blitzed on watered down beer. It really doesn't appeal to me. Sorry. The sport just doesn't earn my respect. Nothing that the players are doing is earth shatteringly, awesomely entertaining. However, Baseball has one chance. They can totally earn my respect off the actions of one man. I'm talking about Mike Bacsik. Bacsik is slated to pitch to Barry Bonds the next time he tries to break the record. Of course, no one wants to be the guy that gives up that run an ties his name to the Roid God's ass raping of Baseball history, but I think this is his chance to do something great. If Basik were to take the mound and pitch to Barry Bonds a big, juicy underhanded rainbow of a pitch for the record breaker it would be the ultimate sign of disrespect. Forever, they'd show that video of Barry crushing the most anti-climatic pitch ever made. At the same time Bacsik could say "Yeah, I'm sure that he's a great player and all but this record is so hollow now. Why should I show the man the respect of my effort? He's a cheater. " That would make me respect Baseball, if the guy who's the "other guy" on the highlight reel steals Barry's spotlight just to punk him.

Lohan: 'I am innocent'

I saw this on CNN and I couldn't pass it up. Lohan, 21, was arrested early Tuesday in Santa Monica and released on bail for investigation of misdemeanor driving under the influence and with a suspended license, and felony cocaine possession. "I am innocent... did not do drugs they're not mine. I was almost hit by my assistant Tarin's mom I appreciate everyone giving me my privacy," Lohan wrote in an e-mail to "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush, the show reported on its Web site Tuesday night. Police found cocaine in one of the actress' pockets during a pre-booking search, Sgt. Shane Talbot said. Police initially said Lohan was also being booked for investigation of transporting a narcotic but later said she was not. Now, let me say first, that I'm not an expert. With that being said, this is totally different than Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton could have hurt herself and others with her stupidity but make this distinction: Paris Hilton doesn't get drunk and do stupid stuff because she's running from anything. She does it because she like to get drunk, show some skin, get attention and because she believed that the rules didn't apply to her. She never grew up on her on "Planet Reality" so she was unaware of it. That picture shows the "oh shit" face of a little girl that just found out that money doesn't protect you from the law. Whether or not she learns from it remains to be seen, but she's doing stupid stuff to have fun, in my opinion. Lohan, on the other hand, has a grasp on reality, but she is doing everything she can to run from it. Unlike Hilton, she's not trying to have fun for the fun of it. She's trying to get blasted, under the guise of having fun, to avoid the stress that she's under and the fact that she doesn't have anyone who doesn't have their hooks in her that actually cares. They care for what she is more than who she is. She needs jail time. Paris needed jail to get a slap in the face but Lohan needs it to not end up dead. The "forced vacation" of jail will take her out of her element, away from the people who are whoring off of her and hopefully away from the chemicals that will totally wreck her, if not kill her outright. Unlike both Paris and Brittney, Lohan doesn't have a Mom or Dad to lean on, which is part of her problem, and if she doesn't take on the responsibility of getting herself straightened out she'll probably die young.

Why wait? : My abrasive and caustic response to the post below this one

Since A. Whitney Brown was kind enough to share with the world, via Youtube, his disregard and dislike for the troops, I feel it's perfectly justifiable for me to retort via our blog. After all, when one does a Google search for his name the first result is his wikipedia link. You search for me and your first result is FIU. I had no memorable roles on SNL. He had no memorable roles on SNL. So we're on level pegging. A Whitney Brown made several statements designed to be funny. They weren't though. However, this is a common thing and happens to everyone. For comics, or in this case comic-wannabees, it can be embarrassing. Sadly, medical science had not discovered the humorist equivalent of erectile dysfunction/premature ejaculation medicine for the comic who can neither maintain, nor time his delivery. While embarrassing, you have to applaud the dysfunctional comic who is brave enough to go shoot his wad with the lack of effectiveness displayed here, thereby risking certain humiliation and disdain, in order to make a point. What was his point exactly? Let's examine that. After boiling through the atrophied layers of fat surrounding what should have been a 30 second quip that was agonizingly drawn out, we come down to these points: ~ People say that they support the troops all the time ~ Some might be insincere ~ Not all the troops are brave or patriotic ~ Some are just there for the free school and for gay sex ~ Brown pays for all the military training, food and equipment from his taxes ~ Brown doesn't like taxes ~ He wishes he had an Iraqi skull because he doesn't get anything to show for all those hundreds of dollars that he pays for in taxes ~ Brown thinks the troops are stupid. ~ Brown thinks the troops are morally retarded ~ Brown doesn’t like our troops ~ Brown doesn’t like what they’re doing ~ Brown doesn’t like their fat, whining families Now, I'm sure that he would say that several of these comments are hyperbole or taken out of context or that he was just riffing. That may very well be true. If I remember correctly, so was Micheal Richards when he had his N-word laden meltdown. As was Imus, when he made his Rutgers remarks. However in both cases those were decisions and words said on the fly that people like Al Sharpton has assured me are "signs of what's really beneath." Brown, on the other hand, did this as a premeditated, written, produced and then published material. Unless he ad libbed during the execution of his posting, he had plenty of time to rethink the conventional wisdom of his commentary. In response, let me retort. In this war, people have died. People have been killed or wounded. Several people have lost time from jobs, families and their plans. Several people have had to make hard decisions. People have had to weight consequences. Some people have committed incredible acts of bravery. Some have committed acts of extreme cowardice and utter depravity. However, all of these thing have happened without a single second wasted on what A. Whitney Brown thinks or feels or believes. The reason for this is dual fold. On the first hand, he has absolutely nothing to offer to any side of the pro-war or anti-war efforts. He is not smart enough to lead either side. Strategy escapes him. He is not famous enough to engender support because he lived in Denis Millers shadow, much like a Remora fish living off the scraps of Miller's work. He's not particularly creative. He's not physically useful other than a low tech land mine finder, but the cost of transportation to the front wouldn't be worth it. He is essentially useless as a participant at any level. The second reason is that what he believes is so devoid of value that it actually repels both sides. The claim that the troops are "moral idiots" might be useful if it was delivered from someone who was seen to be as "morally astute." Brown has no claim to this. His sole claim to an level of notoriety is being the "yuk monkey" that lived in Miller's wake. In third rate comedy dives that might be good enough to get you half price Bud Lite but for the rest of the world we regard that position to be as relevant as the 16 year old kid that loads my groceries and squeezes the bread. He's barely a mind annoyance and a far cry from any type of moral compass. Additionally, his reasoning is so devoid of continuity and context that it is the equivalent to trying to teach brine shrimp how to do calculus. He has no grasp of the subject, it's relevance in the world or his relation to either of the aforementioned relationships. In fact, the only reason his video is a topic of conversation is one thing: A Whitney Brown has finally said what so many in the entertainment industry think but don't have the balls to say. They know it will make them look like elitist assholes. They know it will separate them from the people who purchase their products. They know that is can ruin their careers. Brown, hell he never had a career, so what does he have to lose? Sadly, this derangement has allowed for him to no longer have the foresight to see the connection to the underlying consequences of what he has to lose by so rudely asking his question: his freedom, his lifestyle and quite possibly some teeth. See, in the history of mankind, I can find a lot of people who think they are smart. I can find a lot who think they are smarter than everyone else. I can even find people who have expressed, due to what they consider their ample intelligence, the same disregard for the lives of soldiers. What I can't find is even one case in history where comedians, much less one comedian, much less one "spare of a comedian" used jokes to dethrone a tyrant or protect his homeland or stop a war. I can't find a place where comedians set the moral compass of a society. I can't even find a place where a comedian, cracking jokes, saved lives. Raising money on a telethon is about as close as it gets and Mr Brown's didn't exactly even make that cut. So while Mr Brown may not like the troops, what they are doing or their families, I'd like to inform Mr. Brown that we don't really like you. This should be a noticeable feature in that unlike so many others who went on to have further camera driven comedic careers after SNL, he disappeared like a fart in a tornado. So congrats on at least having the nuts to be honest about hating our soldiers, I'm sure that will be a lot of comfort if some supporter of our troops, former military person or current enlistee decides to activate your dental plan. But hey, that might actually get you back on TV for 15 seconds. Outside of that, you are still an unremarkable ball of lackluster talent and a trivia answer to the question "Who was the SNL cast member whom Denis Miller had to carry almost weekly?"

Correlation and causality

The Glasgow bombing has been the defining story of the moment and it's been interesting to watch the mental gymnastics surrounding it. The narrative that has been, in the past, fostered by the media is that the people who become terrorist are poor, uneducated Arabs who suffer at the hands of western capitalism. That argument has kind of been dashed. These men were in the UK on fast track medical student visas. They weren't exactly "poor" or "uneducated." In truth, their main commonality to most terrorist in that they are "indoctrinated." Yet, in the media coverage and in the British government, much is being done to down play the significance that the attackers were Islamic. This is being done in the pretext of not offending the larger populations of Islamic followers that are in the UK. However, is that a wise thing? Islam, has been linked to most of the terrorism in this decade. Some might find this to be a debatable point but let me submit a simple test for consideration. I have a habit of doing Google news searches. I have noticed a trend, that I recorded today, for you to look at. If you search "religious attack", and then filter out duplicate events, ideological disagreements and hyperbole you discover that in the first 20 stories listed for today that all 20 are committed by Radical Islamic elements. To come up with this, I ignored the US/Iraq conflict and the Israeli/Islamic conflict, as they would skew the numbers towards "Islam." Even still, all 20 of the first 20 stories were Radical Islamic terrorist. In that 20, the 17 of the instances were attacks on civilians by Islamic groups. In 2 cases the Islamic groups attacked police and in one case there was an attempt on the President of the Ivory Coast. Of those attacks, 11 of the 20 were "Muslim on Muslim attacks." 6 were against Christians, 2 against Buddhist and 1 was against a Jew. While this is only a small cross section of the total news stories, among attacks for religious reasons this has been a breakdown that has been pretty consistent over time, in my experience. It also suggests that the reason that there is less of a moderate Muslim voice in response to these attacks is that the Radical followers of Islam are more prone to attack their own for real, or perceive, apostasy. Regardless of that, the binding element of correlation of Islam having a 100% occurrence suggests that this is not a problem that is just statistical variation or that is going away. The media and the government, despite it's desire for a "moral equality of religion" ideal, would be better served in facing these issues and pursuing a line of ideological conflict between moderate and extremist Islamic leaders in the public forum. By bringing their debate into the open it allows for less ionization to happen outside of the religion towards Islam as a whole and it provides a higher level of illumination as to the efforts made by Moderate Muslims to integrate with Western society. The old saying is that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." This is one case that the media and government would be better served by in creating the venue for that sunlight and decreasing the chance of offense to Islam by giving Moderates a louder voice, not silencing there own.