The AnarchAngel

The Kos Democrats

Immediately following the 2004 election, I was talking to a friend who's a Democratic activist and I told him that in order for the Dems to become competitive nationally, they'd have to jettison the Kos-Moore wing of the party. My friend insisted it was impossible because the Kos-Moore wing is the Democratic party. The ascension of Howard Dean and this AARP link to Kos now suggest that my friend was correct.

But I'm still not buying it.

I will go one further. The radical wing of the party, are really the only ACTIVE component of the party. The rest of the party are concentrated solely on maintaining what hold they have, and obstructing Bush.

More in the extended entry...

The Radicals are actually attempting to do something (albeit something bad), and this is what captures the imagination, garners press, and draws money. Fighting a rear guard action is unglamorous, messy, and expensive, both monetarily, and more importantly politically.

Honestly, I think the party is in a death spiral at this point. They have been generally defeated, or at the very least lost ground, six elections in a row. They are desperate, and they have no real purpose but to defend "the new deal" and "the great society", 70, and 40 some years old respectively.

A party centered on nothing but holding ground will not bring in new support, and their older support is fading, or even literally dying out. They have already lost most of the blue collar vote, and would have lost the entire group were it not for the organized labor unions, who represent an ever smaller percentage of the population.

The only major organized, or semi-organized constituencies Democrats have left are blacks, teachers, government workers, and current recipients of welfare or social security.

To put it mildly this is not an election winning group.

I soar with the Eagles

But, the lust for power, the ambition, it overcomes me.... I want MOOOOORE!!!!!

Soon, SOON I shall mock you with my monkeypants.

UPDATE: 12 more links and I'll actually be a mammal

Talking in code

This was insipred by the rather vigorous discussion on my homophobia post, here, and at Jason Kuznickis site Positive Liberty (which I highly recommend BTW. Great writer)

I'll be posting some of the comments made on both sites as illustration.

DrunkBlogging the Oscars - Last Minute Predictions

But there's a twist, I havent seen ANY of the movies nominated, except for Sideways (which I really enjoyed BTW). I am basing my predictions entirely on my knowledge of pop culture, and the reported politics and buzz of hollywood.

More in the extended entry...

1. Best Picture

I'm going with 'million dollar baby here. Everyone loves to vote for controversial movies. It has a "mystery" ending, and everyone in the movie was nominated.

-- Ayup, picked it true. I don't think this was exactly a surprise. Thats the third time he's picked up two or more oscars for the same movie (three for unforgiven, two for mystic river)

2. Best Director

Scorsese, as a consolation prize for all the toher times he should have won

-- Strike four. Well Million dollar baby made all the majors but best actor, as most were expecting. I wasn't sure if it'd make the sweep, and Sorcese is way overdue, but they kept with the semi-indy. Really I figured the fact that Clint already had 5 oscars, and was certain to get his sixth for best picture was going to give the nod to Scorsese

3. Best Actor

Jamie Foxx, because of the few minutes I've seen of Ray he WAS Ray Charles for those two hours.

-- Got it in one again. I don't think this one was ever really in doubt, not matter what people were saying about Eastwood. If you've ever seen his standup he actually does a dead-on Poitier. Nice tribute to Grandma. Great speech.

4. Best Actress

Hilary Swank, for playing a controversial role, a sick person, and a death scene, in a sweep movie.

-- Got it in one. I like the girl, I think she's classy, and talented. She gets her first Oscar for playing a woman in drag, and her second for playing a female boxer. Remember her first big movie, the next Karate Kid? Think maybe she's being typecast as butch? Oh and I like her messing with the band like that.

5. Best Supporting Actor

Morgan Freeman, because he's always damn good, and million dollar baby is going to be the big winner tonight.

-- Yup, I was right. Damn that man has class. Great, short, speech.

6. Best Supporting Actress

I'm guessing Virgina Madsen for Sideways, mostly as a consolation to Sideways because it isnt winning a major category

-- Strike one, Cate Blanchett. I didnt see The Aviator, so I can't comment on her peformance there, but she's generally good, and anyone who can take on Katherine Hepburn deserves at least an award for balls.

7. Best Original Screenplay

Im guessing the Aviator gets it, but hotel Rwanda might have grabbed the guilt vote.

-- Strike three, Charlie Kauffman. This one surprises me, becuase it went to Jim Carrey Sci-Fi dramedy, three types with a long history of failure. I'm guessing it was because Kauffman was nominated twice before with no win, and eveyrone loved Malkovich and Adaptation.

8. Best Adapted screenplay

Tough one, might be million, but I think "finding neverland" gets a sympathy vote.

-- Nope, strike two.Sideways, which I definitely enjoyed, but I don't know if it's Oscarworthy

I have to say, Paul Giamatti was screwed over on Sideways not getting a best actor nomination, when sideways was nominated in almsot every major category.

Oh and Chris Rock, I'm guessing is going to bring down the house, but he has to be a lot cleaner than his usual piece. We shall see what we shall see.

18:42 Chris Rock: This is why I love Chris Rock. He has no problem offending everyone, and he's right, and funny. Oh and Halle Berry is DAMN HOT!!!

18:47 Renee Zellweger: DAMN, girl got a 20" waist in that dress. They keep saying shes not anorexic, but from what I hear she overexcercises, which is the same damn thing.

18:54 Robin Williams: You know, Robin is still funny, but he was funnier with the coke

18:56 Animation: I LOVE the incredibles, and I'm glad to see it recognized. DO NOT CELEBRATE MEDIOCRITY!!!!!!!!

18:59 Chris Rock: Ok, he's hittin on the race thing a bit much, and I'm guessing it gets worse through the evening.

19:01 Drew Barrymore: Normally I lust after young Drew, but she looks like a Liza Impersonator here. And Beyonce, ok I speak french, and the hard annunciations are HORRIBLE, plus that dress... lampshade.

19:32 Counting Crows: Wow, I've never heard them suck this bad. I mean they usually suck live, but they really mailed it in on this one. I am officially switching to drunkblogging this one. If it's all gonna suck this hard I need some whisky.

19:35 DrunkBlogging: Ahhhh sweeet sweet Bushmills

19:42 Adam Sandler: Okay whoever wrote that bit needs to be hurt, severely and repeatedly.

19:46 Jake Gyllenhal: Oak. This guy makes Al Gore look like Sammy Davis Junior.

19:50 Al Pacino: Wow, I think Al beat me to the whisky by a few hours.

19:57 Sidney Lumet: Damn, great speech. This one is going to be remembered, at least in the biz .

20:26 Salma Hayek: I always say, I love this woman until she opens her mouth. Nothings changed here. Thank you so much for fellating a psychotic cummunist murderer. Of course after doing Frida it's not surprising.

20:48 Yo Yo Ma: Normally I love Ma, and I truly lvoe the cello, but either he's having a bad night, or this arrangement is off... No listening to it more, he's definitely having an off night. I'm glad to see the put Reagan first. And I have to say, theres a lot of folks who'll be missed on that list. I was watching crossing Jordan the other night and saw Paul Winfield. Man he had one hell of a voice.

20:57 Beyonce: What's with all the fishtail flared gowns? At least half a dozen of the women have worn them.

20:59 Prince: Uhhhhh, dude, what crawled up and died on your head? Ahh I don't care, you still kick ass man.

21:02 Sean Penn: Hmm, looks like he's on the Stevie Ray Vaughn special (note for the unhip, Cocaine Dissolved in Jack Daniels). Reminding me of, I need more whisky.

21:22 Charlize Theron: Prior to tonight I would have thought it was impossible to make Charlize Theron look bad without 4 hours of makeup. I was wrong, apparently 30 seconds of wardrobe will do the job as well.

21:34 It's all over:Only 3 and a bit hours, good opening, lame humor throughout, but honestly, not that interesting. Nothing really surprising, no big shows, no incredible speeches, and other than overplaying the black thing, nothing bad from Chris Rock. Oh and I only made 50% on my predictions.

The Big Stick

"The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing." --Theodore Roosevelt

And people wonder why I'm such a huge fan of TR considering how non-libertarian he was. I contend that his non-lbertarian actions were all calculated from, and intended to strengthen libertarian ideals.

HT: Lucius at SondraK

Jason from Positive Liberty responds

My whole point is expressed in this statement:

I could not care less who anyone loves or has sex with, I just hate the characterization of people who disagree with this, or any, idea as mentally ill, evil, Ignorant, or stupid.

More in the extended entry...

Yes, some of them truly hate without justification, some of them truly fear without reason, but most of them have reasons. They are reasons I disagree with, but they are reasons nonetheless.

We can say they are wrong, but calling them crazy is offensive, and counterproductive.

We don't call racists mentally ill, we don't call sexists mentally ill, but we do call people who hate or dislike, or disapprove of homosexuals and homosexuality mentally ill, and I find that idea offensive.

UPDATE: One of my commenters, Kris, made the point that the problem is with the word.

See I don't deny homphobia exists, because there are certainly homophobes, my problem is with the general application of the term to everyone who hates, dislikes, or disapproves of homosexuals. Homophobia is a mental illness, and most of those people are not mentally ill.

So his suggestion is that we need a new word, to be used in the same way as we use the term racist or sexist.

I've thought of this myself, but I cant think of a good word to use.

Sexualist would be a reasonably relevant term, but it sounds more like somebody who's good in bed. Sexism is already taken (though it really should be genderism).

How about we get rid of isms entirely as not very useful, and use more accurately descriptive terms. Kris suggested Gay-Hatred, which applies to some, but not to all.

Oh wait; there's a point there....

These terms apply to some, but not to all. They paint everyone with the same broad, and generally inaccurate brush and THAT is what I have a problem with.

UPDATE 2: I am in the top 10 when someone searches technorati for "homosexual". One assumes that will do interesting things to my traffic and comments.

Strong Childhood Memories

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm something of a pop culture junky. This is going to sound incredibly silly, but I collect Starblazers stuff. Not Space Battleship Yamato BTW, theres plenty of that stuff available from the j-pop-culture market, but actual starblazers stuff.

See, Starblazers is actually the very earliest cartoon I can remember ever watching, twice a day on Channel 56 in Boston as a little kid. That theme song is DRILLED into my head, and finally, I have managed to get a high quality, full length version, to sit alongside Battlestar Gallactica and the TNG themes in my playlist.

Download and lyrics in the extended entry...

For anyone interested, here's the highly illegal copyright violating download of 'The Quest for Iscandar', the theme from Starblazers

For some reason it reminds me very strongly of the Russian national anthem, as sung by the red army choir.

Of course I HAVE to share the lyrics with you now that I've shared the theme itself.

The Quest for Iscandar

We're off to outer space
We're leaving Mother Earth
To save the human race
Our Star Blazers

Searching for a distant star
Heading off to Iscandar
Leaving all we love behind
Who knows what danger we'll find?

We must be strong and brave
Our home we've got to save
If we don't in just one year
Mother Earth will disappear

Fighting with the Gamilons
We won't stop until we've won
Then we'll return and when we arrive
The Earth will survive
With our Star Blazers

We're off in outer space
Protecting Mother Earth
To save the human race
Our Star Blazers

Danger lurking everywhere
But we know we've got to dare
Evil men with evil schemes
They can't destroy all our dreams

We must be strong and brave
Our home we've got to save
We must make the fighting cease
So Mother Earth will be at peace

Through all the fire and the smoke
We will never give up hope
If we can win the Earth will survive
We'll keep peace alive
With our Star Blazers

Now I need to grab the themes to MacGyver, Dallas, Hunter, Spencer, L.A. law, Matt Houston, Simon and Simon, Riptide, and a better version of the A-Team. Oh and from the 70's gotaa have S.W.A.T.

I've already got Airwolf, the dukes of hazzard, the fall guy, Magnum P.I., The Paper Chase, Night Court, Barney Miller, and Nokie Edwards doin Hawaii 5-0.

Actually if anyone has high quality versions of any of these drop me a line. Mine arent so great. Most of them are available here, but they are in .RA format, and I want .mp3

Homophobia is offensive

Homophobia - n.

1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Not the commonly accepted defnition of homophobia, but the word itself, and the concepts it represents.

Yes, the concept of hating or disliking, or disapproving of someone because of their sexual choices strikes me as silly, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The entire concept of homophobia is that people who don't like homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, are irrational, and that their only reason for that dislike is fear, or ignorance.

I'm going to say right now, that's bullshit.

More in the extended entry...

This concept assumes that if somehow people are more exposed to gay life, or if they are able to "get over their fear", then all will be sweentess and light, and everyone will accept gays.

The most vocal proponents of the homophobia concept also frequently espouse something that just about EVERYONE finds offensive. They often say that people who don't like gays feel that way because they themselves are gay, and they hate themselves for it.

Bullshit.

I hate communists. I loathe their ideas, I loathe what they say, I loathe what they do. If a communist tries to have any influence over my life I will strenuously resist, perhaps up to the point of violence; Does that mean I am commiephobic? I don't have an irrational fear of communists, nor am I ignorant of communists ideas. I have plenty of exposure to communist ideas, and I reject them utterly. Does this mean I'm secretly a communist, and hate myself because of it?

Of course not.

I hate communists because the ideas and goals they espouse are evil and wrong, as are the methods they use to achive them. Man should be free, and have control over his own life, and his own goods. Communists believe exactly opposite what I do, and so long as they attempt to act against my beliefs I will continue to hate them.

My point here is that I have both rational, and personal arguments against communism that have nothing to do with fear or irrationaility or ignorance.

The real purpose of the word homophobia, is to make gay people feel better about themselves. It paints their detractors as they would say their detractors pain them, as compulsive, out of control, mentally ill, irrational, or subhuman.

Only if you assume that homosexuality is a mental illenss, can you ascribe the counter position to a mental illness, which is what homophobia literally is. A phobia is a compulsive mental illness that should be treated.

Now let me clarify, I don't mean to say that in some people fear or ignorance isn't the primary motivator, and in others a subsidary motivator, but the ascription of this to the entire realm of dislike or disapproval or homosexuals, or homosexual behavior, is both offensive, and counterproductive. It doesn't help people to stop hating, disliking, or disapproving of gays to call those people mentally ill.

If you accept that homosexuality is either an inherent nature, or a choice (and I believe it can be either, or both, depending on the person), then you must accept that there are people who on the other side either are inherently anti-gay, or who rationally choose to be anti-gay.

In argument, there is a tactic that relies on a logical fallacy, the ad hominem circumstantial argument of undesireable motives, or appeal to motive. If you ascribe an undesireable motive to those that hold a position contrary to your own, you can then attack the person to undermine their argument, without actually attacking the argument itself. If you say that people who disapprove of homosexuality are operating from fear or hate, you are attacking the man, but not the message.

There are both personal, and rational motives for anti-gay positions.

Homosexuality is by all scientific measure a far more risky lifestyle than heterosexuality. The physical activity itself is riskier, as well as the social environment. Gays tend not to plan for the future. Gays tend to be more prone to depression, self destructive behavior, and suicidal tendencies (for many reasons).

Please note, I am not claiming these statements are universally true, only that they are stastically true.

Despite all the media messages to the contrary, the primary vector for AIDS in the united states is still unprotected gay sex. The primary AIDS vector for striaght people is unprotected sex with a bisexual person, or a partner of a bisexual person. This is especially true in the black and hispanic communities where secret homosexuality is far more common than among whites or Asians.

Note: Asians are statistically four times more likely to be openly gay than blacks. Asians are eight times as likely, and hispanics are more than five times as likely to be transgender than any other racial group. I have always wondered why that is, because social factors alone can't account for it.

The social enviroment of gay courtship is still, 25 years after the rise of AIDS, a very risky, and often hollow place. There are still many semi anonynmous relationships. Many men have dozens if not hundreds of partners. Many men still do not use condoms (do a search on any personal adds site for bareback if you don't believe me). Hang out with gay men for any length of time and you will hear them lament these very things. I'm not going to talk about the reasons behind this except to say they are many and varied, and they may not be so prevalent if homosexuality were more accepted in society, but we don't know.

What about the psychological health argument? How many truly happy gay men do you know? I have known hundreds of gay men, I know very few happy ones. I have known hundreds of lesbians, again I know very few happy ones. Without a doubt they are unhappier when they don't acknowledge their homosexuality, or worse, when they do acknowledge it, but hate themselves because of it, but even once they are open and accepting of their sexuality, rarely are they happy. Once again, the reasons behind this are many and varied, and they may ease if society becomes more accepting of gays, but maybe not.

Gay men and women also find it a hell of a lot more difficult to have and raise children than straight folks, and don't ever think that isn't a big deal to a lot of people. Whether motivated by faith, or by morals, or by science and demographics, theres a lot of folks who think that people should have kids. How many moms do you know who have adult children, and DON'T want to be a grandmother?

Again, I'm not saying these are universal truths, but they are generally and statistically true.

And then there is the argument of faith.

There are about 3 billion people in this world, who firmly and faithfully believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong from a moral standpoint; Ether as the explicit commandment of god, or as a behavior that causes damage to the soul. You may believe these peoples religion is stupid, irrational, wrong, or a symptom of mental illness, but it is very real for them.

Leaving the reasoning behind people positions aside, just because people believe that homosexuality is wrong, doesnt mean that they hate, or fear homosexuals.

My best fried is still a catholic, though I'm guessing the last time he went to church was about the same time I did. His youngest brother came out last year. The funny thing is, I knew the kid was gay from the time he was 7 or 8, and I think he probably knew too. Sure he tried dating girls, but he always knew it just wasn't right for him. The last people to figure it out were, of course, his family. They have a very major problem with his homosexuality. They believe that what he is doing is wrong, and that he is making himsefl unhappy (and he is, for whtaever reason). His parents want grandchildren. They worry about his safety. They worry about disease. They love their son, but they hate that he is gay. They do not fear him, or hate him, they are not ingnorant of him or his feelings, or his life, but they hate that he is gay.

Of course the perfect kicker to this piece would be to announce that I am gay. Well, much to the disappoint of my friend Aiden, I am not, but I am also not one of those folks who belive that homosexuality is wrong. To my mind, someones sexuality has very little to do with what I think of them as a person, but their attidude, and their behavior certainly does.

I hate bitter angry queens. I hate people who thrust their gayness in my face and scream it in my ears. I hate people who tell me that I'm a bigot, or stupid, or unenlightened because I don't like their behavoir. I hate people who's gayness is the only thing in their life.

You know what I really hate? I hate this chant:

"We're here, W'ere Queer, Get over it"

Guess what, I got over it a long time ago, but obviously you haven't.

150,000

Well it only took me eight years to get this far.

I first started recording stats on my home page in April of '97. From 04/97 to 10.x days ago I recorded 148,605 uniqe visitors, about two thirds of them to my resume.

That works out to about 50 hits a day.

In the last 10.x days since I've put up my blog, I've recorded about 1500 unique visitors, just about tripling my daily average.

Not too bad, I guess I'm doin something right.

Of course I look at my average daily unique visits of about 150, and then I look at somebody like Kim DuToit (a friend of mine, and my most frequent web page visited because I am an active particpant in, and the moderator of the Nation of Riflemen Forums) with 15,000 or so daily uniques ,and weekly traffic matching what I've seen in eight years, and it puts things into perspective.

Faith, Beliefs, and Ideas

The media is playing down how serious a procedure this is, especially for a man who's primary duty includes speaking. Yes, it is a relatively routine procedure, and it's not generally life threatening, but for an 85 year old man with respiratory problems... Well I don't think there's any question that this pope will not be with us very much longer.

Anyway, you might have notice that I like taking on tough subjects. This news got me thinking about religion, and about faith (which I think is more significant), and I thought I'd talk here about how I left the catholic church, and how the church left me.

Please bear with me, this is going to be a very long, and very personal ramble. It may not be very coherent, but I promise it will be honest, and thats the best anyone can give.

More in the extended entry...

I call myself a recovering catholic; It's kind of like being an alcoholic, you never stop being an alcoholic, you're just in recovery for the rest of your life. I still find myself making the gestures, reciting hail marys to msyelf when I'm not thinking about it, sometimes reaching for a crucifix that isn't there, and it's been 15 years since I regularly attended church.

I was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, to an Irish born father, and a 2nd generation Irish American mother. Particularly I was born in southie, and lived in southie, and then Roslindale til I was 2, then I lived in Milton with my grandparents til I was 5, then Dorchester for a couple years, and back to Milton, then Randolph, and back to Milton, then Quincy, then Canton, etc...

I moved a couple of other places for six months, or a year at a time, but we always came back to Milton until I was 13 and we stopped moving around. I lived in Milton from 13, until I left home at 16. I had two constants in this time, moving back to Milton every few months or a year, and the Catholic church.

My mother didn't make me go all the time, not every Sunday, but I went to first catechism and junior catechism and religon til my first holy communion at age 7, and then CCD and religion until I was confirmed at 13 (yeah, they get us young in Boston; my stepsister here in AZ didn't take communion til 9, and was confirmed at 16).

Anyway Milton, the town I mostly grew up in is, according to the U.S. census, the most catholic town in America (48%), and the most Irish town in America (43%; they do sort of go together). Just about everyone who wasnt Irish was italian, and most of the kids around me had names like Flaherty, Doherty, Shaugnessy, etc... My town was so catholic, that they actually used to let us out of public school in the middle of the day so we could go to religion class at the catholic school jsut down the street.

In a town of 30,000 we had one public high school, one Jr High, and five elementary schools, with a total of less than 5000 public school students, and five or six (I can't remember) catholic high schools, with about 5000 students (plus three other secular private schools with about 2000 students, and five major schools in the surrounding towns, almost all of them catholic, with probably 5000 students from Milton).

Well from that little soup of numbers you can see that the families where I grew up had LOTS of kids, and well over half of them went to catholic school. The point of all this is that I grew up in a pervasively catholic culture. It surrounded me at all times, almost like the air that I was breathing.

I remember from a very young age having some very definite ideas about god, and jesus.

A lot of what the church was saying I just thought was garbage, but I still felt the spirit in church. When I was in St. Marys of the hills (where my mom was married, and I recieved my first communion and was confirmed), I very strongly felt the presence of god. In fact I still do; I went to the church the last time I was in town a few months ago, and those same feelings were there for me. Stepping into the nave, I felt the presence of god settle about me like a cloak over my neck and shoulders. An almost physical presence, but very much not, if that makes any sense.

When I was in CCD getting ready for my confirmation, things started changing for me.

I knew a lot about religion, and had read just about everything I could, reading the bible back and forth, as well as english translations of every holy book I could find, and still I felt that the catholic church was my spiritual home. My feelings about god, and my relationship with god just felt at home with the church.

But things jsut werent quite right. I still felt god in the church, what I didn't feel anymore was god in the men teaching me. More and more I felt cynicism, and manipulation at worst, and frustration and desparation at best. We did get one great young priest, but he had some non traditional ideas about brith control, and gays, and that just wasnt on where I grew up, so they sent him away. We had old, mostly Irish priests, and old Irish nuns, and bitter middle aged christian brothers instructing us, and it just didnt feel right.

Just as bad, I also no longer felt god in what they were saying, if indeed I ever really had.

Aside from the feel of it, many things in my head were at odds with what the church preached. I don't believe in the immaculate conception. I dont believe that Jesus ascended bodily in to heaven. I do believe in sin in the nature of man, but not in the sense of original sin of Eve.

I have to say that honestly, while I felt the spirit and presence of god, I had no faith in religion. By some peoples definition, I have no faith at all.

I started thinking about what I really did believe, and what I had faith in. I don't think my faith every really changed, just how I thought about it, and how I expressed it, to myself. I thought a lot about how I was leaving the church with every thought, and how the church was leaving me.

With every young priest that they discouraged, the church was leaving me. With every gay man they denounced, the church was leaving me. With every abortion that happened because a stupid teenager didnt have birthcontrol, the church was leaving me.

Then some friends of mine were molested by some of those bitter old men. The church covered it up. A few weeks later the first gulf war happened and the church left me for good. The last time I stepped into a church for years, was when the pope came out against the first gulf war. I couldnt stand the hipocrisy of being againsta truly just war, but covering up child abuse.

I haven't taken the host since my confirmation in 1990.

I started thinking more and more about how to express my beliefs; not in worship, but just explaining them, to myself if no-one else.

I figured out that I believed in some very big, but not very clear things.

I believe that there are three essential motivating force in the universe; Creativity, Entropy, and Chaos.

Chaos is that from which all is formed and to which all returns; undirected, without form, function, structure, or intent.

Creativity is that which gives form, and purpose to the chaos.

Entropy is that which returns that which has been created, into the chaos.

If you've ever taken any physics you'll see where I'm coming from here.

Through all time, human kind has sought to devine some purpose in this great universal structure. Eventually, they found spirits, and then gods, and finally, one god.

To my mind, God, as christians think of him, is a personification. God is the expression of sentience that directs the creativity of the universe. God is indeed creation, and love, and spirit.

Throughout time, people have chosen to serve aspects of these forces. Those who have served God, and the deities and spirits of creativity that came before the rise of the jews some 6-8000 years ago were serving creativity.

Entropy is the negation of creativity. The creation of chaos. Entropy is pain, and eventual nothingness. Those who have served evil, in all it's forms, have served entropy.

Please note, in this system you can clearly see, that entropy is the rejection, and repudiation of God, and eventually the total absence thereof. There is a significant school of thought (including most jewish thought), that hell is the absence of god, nothing more nothing less.

There are those beings whose pain is so great, in their rejection and repudiation of god, that they would do anything to bring the nothingness of oblivion. Only in this nothingness can their pain end. There are also those being who have thought to increase their own personal power throguh entropy. Entropy in it's grossest forms, appears stronger than creativity, and it is in all ways easier to weild, and easier to access. It is easier to tear down a house, than to design and build it. It is easier to cause pain, than to heal it.

There are those who have served chaos, and all it's embodiments, and universally they have been considered insane.

All throughout time (I've said that a lot haven't I), these same themes have recurred, in all faiths, and all religions; not only that they are encoded into the very physical laws of the universe. This cannot possibly be a coincidence, and the perhaps 40,000 years of "civilized" humans who came along before the Jews cant all have ended up in hell, or purgatory, or limbo etc... God is eternal, but the belief in him clearly has not been.

I believe he IS eternal, and he has been, because he is the sentience of creativity, and all godheads of a creative nature since the beginning of civilization have been aspects of god. Man did not understand how to percieve him; until he revealed himself to the Jews; and made the covenant.

Now I'm going to say something some might consider crazy. A few years ago, I was going through a very difficult time. I had just come back from a reserve deployment, and was getting ready to head back to classes. Some very unpleasant things had happened during this deployment. A few months earlier my fiancee had killed herself. I was feeling... very dead. While I was in the field, I had shut myself down, blocked all emotions, all reactions, it was just mission.

I got back, and I started wondering, what was the point. I had all these skills and opportunities, but I had nothing inside of me. I was empty, and dead.

One afternoon I'm just sitting there, not really watching the TV, thinking about things, and I had what I can only describe as a visitation. I wont belabor the point, but I spoke to Jesus Christ that day. He told me that I had a job to do, and that if I wasted my life, or screwed it up, or missed the opportunities I needed not to miss, or didnt help the people I needed to help, he would be very disappointed in me. He wasn't angry with me, but the look in his eyes when he spoke was enough to make me cry just a bit.

The next day I tried to go to church. I went to this big, ugly southwestern catholic church, and every minute of it felt wrong. Not only did I not feel the presence of god, but I felt the suck of the void. I swear that I felt evil in that church, and I left, very quickly, long before the service was over.

I hadn't set foot inside a catholic church since, until my trip back to Boston a few months ago. I had tried going to other churches, but they all felt, at best, like a group of nice, friendly people, and at worst, they felt horribly wrong.

The catholic church is my home, but I have left it, and it has left me.

I've tried going to my local catholic church a few times, I just havent managed to do it. I want to talk to a priest over there, but I can't seem to get one of them for a useful length of time to talk about things. I'm not going back to church unless there is a priest I like, and I trust, and who I can feel the spirit of god with, and the strength of faith in.

I believe in God, and in Christ. I believe in true good, and true evil. I believe in angels, and demons, and spirits. I belive that there is far more to the spritual world than most churches are willing to admit, or talk about, or if they do, they attribute it all to satan, or demons.

I have faith. I have faith in God, and in myself, but I don't have faith in the church, or the bible, and I don't think I can.

I just don't know where that leaves me.

The Carnival of Cordite

More gunny goodness you shall rarely find.

I proudly proclaim that I am...

Next step, Flappy Bird baby

Also, I'm working on a pretty logn psot about faith right now. Should be up before noon.

Tell your friends, tell your enemies, tell your mom, LINK WHORE FOR ME!!!!

UPDATE: As of 12:30 I'm still working on the faith post. It is longer and ramblier than I thought, and is growing by the minute.

No, I havent been writing non stop since this morning, I had to do some actual work for a while, and I had two phone interviews, and a vendor teleconference.

Actually I've only been writing for the last hour or so, and it's already at 2000 words. When I get on a roll bad, and significantly verbose things can happen.

Fusion, will it ever happen

Anyway I wrote this a while back, and I'm updating it here because it's something I want to talk about with "my audience".

I said above, IF fusion is ever going to be viable, meaning that I think there are some reasons that's going to be tough. There's a few BIG issues here on the fusion topic:

More in the extended entry...

1. Touch off point/break even point.

This is the amount of energy and reactive mass (which are ultimately the same thing but that's nother topic) required to produce a self sustaining reaction that outputs more energy then it sucks in. Basically how do we get the damned thing primed. Thus far we have been mostly unsuccessful in reaching the breakeven point. The few times it was MAYBE achieved it didn't last long and it was uncontrolled which brings up point two.

2. Controllability

We have no idea how to control a self sustaining fusion reaction, or if it is even possible to control. the best ideas so far involve massive torroidal field generators which control plasma flow. Small problem, what happens when the energy of the fusion reaction vastly exceeds the energy of the fields controlling that reaction? Oh and assuming we contain the reaction how do we throttle it without dropping below the touchoff point? Because the natural tendency of the reaction is to grow til the point where it is either fuel exhausted, too unstable to continue, or otherwise self limiting for various reasons.

According to everything we know (which I'll admit isn't a hell of a lot) these self limiting points are far greater than we can currently handle, or even have any concept of how we might handle them in the future.

If you don't believe me think about this. The largest fusion reactions we as humans are able to produce are in the gigaton range, the largest we can control are in the several molecule range (yes I know there's no basis for dimensional analysis here because the units are incompatible). These gigaton reactions are not inherently self limiting in the pure sense, though because of the methods used to initiate the fusion as well as the materials used in the devices and produced during the reaction (primarily tritium and helium which tend to absorb neutron flux) they actually are.

5. Neutron flux and hard alpha

Guess what folks, fusion reactions aren't 'clean' in that they do produce massive amounts of radiation that is harmful to carbon based life forms.Primarily these are in the form of neutron flux and alpha particle radiation.

Neutron flux is one of the primary sources of background radiation in the universe, all that nice radio noise, microwave radiation through space etc... But that's at light-years distance. At anything less than half an AU it starts getting more dangerous.

Hard alpha is the emission of high energy alpha particles. These nasty little buggers can at most cause the disintegration of your molecular structure (not atomic structure, molecular structure) and at the least cause genetic defects in a few cells. It's kind of like shooting marbles with your molecules, cept the relatively large molecules that make up much of our bodies are like 1" aggies and the little alpha particle is a BB some asshole just shot at them.

6. Fuel

So far the best success we've had with fusion comes from using hydrogen isotopes (some blend of tritium and deuterium) as the reactive mass. There's three problems with this. First, too little tritium and deuterium and the reaction starves out. Second, too much and the reaction absorbs itself because tritium and deuterium absorb the neutron flux that is generated by and sustains the reaction. Third, tritium is literally the most expensive commercially available substance on the planet. The amount of tritium in a high quality watch is far less than a milligram and yet costs in the neighbourhood of $10. By comparison a gram of .999 fine commodity gold is also about $10. Doing the math out that means tritium is at least a thousand times more expensive than gold.

Also we still haven't figured out a way to produce tritium on a large scale that doesn't involve nuclear fission reactors, and there is no way to store it for long periods of time because tritium has this irritating tendency to decay into other substances (deuterium, helium, and hydrogen).

4. Usability

Okay so lets assume we have a controlled self sustaining reaction that doesn't explode massively, instantaneously burn all matter on the planet, or emit so much hard alpha and neutron flux that we all dissolve into flaming little puddles of semi organic goo that glow like light sticks. Let us further assume that we have figured out how to fuel these reactions without bankrupting national economies.

Big assumptions those.

But let's say we do get past these issues, and I am sure that eventually we will if we research enough, what do we do with this fusion reaction?

The instinctive gut response is "use the energy". Ok, how? The most widespread way we as a species have come up with to put energy to use is electricity. Alright so we turn it into electricity.

How?

In the past three hundred years we have come up with precisely four ways for generating practical amounts of electricity (and a couple of interesting but impractical things too, but I won't get into them here): Interesting chemical reactions (this includes solar), smashing crystals, rubbing dissimilar materials together, and moving magnets near each other.

How is it that we will use the fusion reaction to do one of these things?

Okay how do we use the energy form a fission reaction to generate electricity? Well primarily we use the waste heat of the reaction to boil water, which then builds into high pressure vapor, which can be forced through a turbine.

That process will use what, a millionth of a percent of the energy released in the fusion reaction, a billionth? And of course the rest will be waste.

That much waste heat will be at minimum interesting to deal with.

Oh if only there were direct conversion. Of course then we wouldnt need fusuion in the first place, or rather we wouldnt need terrestrial fusion, because all of our energy needs would be supplied by direct conversion of sunlight (instead of the now 10% or so maximum conversion efficiency we have with photovoltaic cells).

The Smartness Cult

Hootie, oh how far the mighty have fallen

Oh my, how far the mighty have fallen.

From "Let her Cry" to "Cheezy crisp bacon cheddar raaaanch!!!"

Victimology

Victimology

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink It is I fear the same with people there's very few who think It's not for me to criticize the culture that we link To childhood experiences that've brought us to the brink Of a society that's rapidly throwing it's future down the drink And blaming it on our parents for beating our bottoms pink And if everyone's a victim like some people seem to think Then I guess it's painfully obvious Why there are so many

GODDAMNED SHRINKS!!!!!

Subtlety and Bullshit

Damn Skippy Bubba.

I can be quite subtle if I choose to be. I grew up in a family environment that required subtelty and manipulation skills par excellence just to survive.

In my work, I am often required to be subtle, and especially to be discrete. If I feel that is warranted, I certainly do so. For one, it's polite, and it only makes sense financially; If you are paying me to be nice to you, I'm going to be nice to you.

I CHOOSE to not be subtle. I choose to be direct, and blunt, and sometimes agressive, because that's how I want to be. If that bothers you, I don't particularly care. My purpose in life is not to avoid bothering you.

More in the extended entry...

I am a very confident person. I know my abilities, I know my limitations, I am absolutely certain about what I can or cannot do, and I make no bones about it.

When you combine these factors, I am often thought to be arrogant or "superior". GOOD.

I'm a damn smart cookie, and I know it. I'm physically strong and capable. I have a very broad base of experience, and a deep and useful education (both formal and personal). I have a right to be confident, and if my confidence makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

I don't think I'm better than everyone, but I damn well know I'm smarter, stronger, and more knowledgeable than a hell of a lot of people; If I wasn't I wouldnt be able to do my job. Why should I let the fact that you are emotionally incapable of being challenged without your fragile ego being coddled all the time cripple the way I work?

I love talking with people, exchanging ideas, debating, arguing, etc... I'll listen to you on almost anything if you are civil, or good looking. Just because I disagree with you, or know you are wrong, doesnt mean I didnt listen; It means I know you are wrong, or it isnt a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is different from yours. We could have a nice debate or friendly argument about it, and maybe you'll change my mind, or I'll change yours, and hell, just the argument alone will be fun (I'm not a guy who takes other people having ideas other than mine personally) but don't expect be to respect your ideas just by virtue of you having them. If you have an idea, you damned well better be ready to vigorously defend it.

How is this arrogance? Have we completely lost the ability to distinguish arrogance from confidence and competence? Are we supposed to be unsure of ourselves at all times?

Well if you look at liberal reactions to anyone who shows any sort of certitude, that answer is apparently, yes. Some people seem to believe that NO-ONE should ever be sure they are right, and if they are they are either arrogant, evil, or stupid.

To those people I say, I'm right, your wrong, life sucks, get a fucking helmet.

Coming soon...

1. A loooong post about inherent vs. constructed rights
2. Some more gun talk
3. Talking about some favorite books and movies
4. My recipe for the worlds greatest chili
5. A meat sauce that you can eat as a meal all by itself
6. Turkey potato soup worth killing for
7. More job stuff
8. Talking about the misrepresentation of rights, especially of gun rights, in episodic television
9. Talking about sleep deprivation, and sleep patterns
10. Other random stuff

I said in the comments on one of my first posts, the biggest problem I'mna have here is throttling myself. When I get on a roll, I could pretty easily post three 2-3 thousand word rants every day, and somehow I don't think that would increase my readership.

I've noted that my favorite blogs produce 1-2000 words a day, generally broken up into four or five posts. I tend to be a bit wordier, without even realising it. For example, I figured this little post would be maybe a paragraph, but it's turning out to be about 250 words.

Maybe I need an editor. One who WONT change the meaning of everything I say like my last editor.

Why I carry a gun

Now Ol' Bill, he was a direct man, and a big one at that, so most of the folks he put away were willing to chalk it up to "just business", and leave it at that.

Well Bill heard this feller was raisin' a stink about comin' round to get some back at him for, but he didn't think too much of it.

A few days later, Bills sittin' out there on his porch, and he's got his trademark combat magnum in his lap. His neighbor walks by and says to bill "See ya got yer pistol there Bill, you 'spectin trouble?", So says Bill "Nope, if I was expeting trouble, I'd have my rifle"

It's just polite.

A lot of people ask me "Why do you carry a gun, do you expect trouble?"

No, I carry a gun not because I expect trouble, but because I can. If I was expecting trouble I'd carry a 12ga.

More in the extended entry...

The practice of carrying a weapon is a clear assertion that I am a man. By that I'm not talking about macho bullshit; By saying I am a man, I mean that I am an adult, responsible for my actions, and willing to accept the consequences of them.

When you carry a gun you have in your hands (or on your hip), the ability to end any mans life. This is a massive responsibility, second only to that of raising children.

Many people are uncomfortable with that responsiblity. They believe that they can't be trusted with it, and by extension, neither can anyone else. They fall back on saying "the police" or "the government" should take care of that. Someone with special training, and the blessings of the state should be responsible, but not me, or you, or anyone else.

I can think of no clearer way of saying "I am immature, and not to be trusted".

When I carry a gun, I accept the fact that I may kill someone. I don't ever plan on doing it, I hope it doesn't happen, but it may. I am prepared for this possiblity, and I accept the consequences should it happen.

A few months ago, I broke up with a girlfriend over this. She asked me what I would do to someone if they tried to rape her. I told her flat out that I would kill him. No hesitation there at all. She told me later that from that moment, she was afraid of me.

I asked her what she would do if someone tried to rape her. She said she wouldnt fight. "What if you had a gun, would you shoot the guy to stop it", no she wouldnt do that. "ok what if I was there and I shot him, would that be OK", no of course not. Finally I asked "What if a cop came along, and he shot the guy would that be ok" well of course, he's a cop.

That attitude frankly baffles, and disgusts me, yet there are so many people who hold it. They feel morally superior because they would never "sink to that level".

Personally I would consider that pretty clear evidence of moral bankruptcy.

The same applies to people who would never fight in a war, but are OK with soldiers and cops defending their rights. Oh, they'll protest, and march in the streets, but actually doing anything? No they're all above that and have disdain for everyone else who isn't, calling us savages, and rednecks, and barbarians etc...

I carry a gun because it is my right, and because I am responsible enough to excercise it. I feel nothing but pity or contempt for those who are not.

The American Masters

It's not surprising to me that Thompson killed himself, many speculating that it was after recieving bad news about his health (he spent much of last year in a wheel chair); Nor is it any surprise that he decided to shoot himself. Thompson was the type of firearms owner that makes the rest of us cringe; hundreds of guns, and no responsiblity. The man had a history of shooting TV's, pointing magnums at people to get a rise out of them, and shooting while drunk or high. Now his family has announced that they will be blasting his ashes out of a cannon over Aspen mountain.

I suppose you could say he died, and now will be disposed of, like he lived; With a Bang. Tasteless, sure, but so was HST, and he liked it that way.

More in the extended entry...

In have to say, I disagreed with Thompson about almost everything policitcally and socially, but for one thing: He absolutely despised the ignorant, stupid, and mediocre. Even in my disagreement, I loved some of the way he wrote. I still have copies of 'Hells Angels' and 'Fear and Loathing' running around. The man wrote some very funny, evocative stuff; but it was all at core, pretty shallow stuff, mostly nothing more than navel gazing (and drug fueld navel gazingat that).

But that brings me back to Hemingway. He's generally credited as being the greatest American writer, and to be honest, I think most of what he wrote was crap. Self indulgent, stylistically challenged, self aggrandizing, and repetitive.

Now Twain, there's a man who knew how to write, and didn't particularly care if anyone else agreed with that.

It seems to me that "the american masters" were so busy trying to be compared to the 18th and 19th century french, that they never wrote a damn thing worth reading. The more obscure, and avant garde their writing, the better the critics (and their friends)treated them.

I except Scotty Fitz from that because the man wrote like a guy who'd drunk away the best years of his life, and was now looking back in a combination of joy and regret.... which is pretty much what he was by the age of 29.

"One of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anti-climax." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Besides, 'til the 50's most of the critics hated Fitzgerald. They were too busy giving blow jobs to William Faulkner, Henry Miller, Truman Capote, and Tennesee Williams.

No, I'll take Twain. He was a man who used simple language, and genuine wit, to write truly brilliant things, that were accessible to jsut about anyone...

And therein lies the rub. Literary people are almost all concerned about proving their subtelty and refinement. They want other literary people to believe they're smarter than the great unwashed. The more obscure the writer, and the more impenetrable the writing, the easier it is to conceal your absolute mundanity.

Sure, you may be smart, but appreciating Derrida doesnt make you sophisticated or intelligent, it makes you a self loathing idiot deperate to reassure yourself you're better than the guy laughing at 'friends'.

I love my job, but I hate my business

After quite a few years of going through situations like this, I just started refusing. I wont take gigs anymore where I have to compromise on my integrity or my principles. It's just not worth it.

I refuse to do a half-ass job, even if it's what a client wants, because it reflects badly on ME. I always do my best to keep a client happy, but I have a little code of ethics.

1. Never do anything illegal for a client
2. Never do anything that compromises your morals, or ethics, or makes you feel uncomforatble. NEVER do anything dishonorable.
3. Never do a half-ass job
4. Never recommend a solution that is more to my advantage than the clients
5. Never try and do anything I can't do (which is not to say stuff I haven't done, theres a big difference). Thats what other experts are for.

I'm a lot happier with this, but I make less money. Thats a pretty good tradeoff as far as I'm concerned

The High Tech Sweatshop

Things haven't really changed all that much, 'cept I'm no longer married, and I don't make as much money any more.

Frazzled

Reminding me thereof, if there's anyone who needs a damned good security and systems architect, administrator, engineer, and trainer, give me a call.

Rejection

I reject the idea that being judgemental is a negative thing.

I reject the idea that elitism is a negative thing.

Somehow people have gotten it into their heads, that having high standards, and being judgemental are bad things.

There is only one way to ensure excellence, and that is to insist on it. If you don't insist on excellence, you will rarely get better than adequacy. Not everyone can rise to excellence, (after all, that which is excellent is by definition superior than others), but everyone should strive for it in all things.

Stop celebrating mediocrity

Witnessed in my logs

Okay so I'm laughing my ass of here right now.

Someone at the US Department of agriculture is doing a search on organic pot, and somehow comes across my page on caffeine addiction; Not only that, but they find it interesting inough to stay for 3:38.

Even better, they are running linux (with firefox no less).

I'm not sure if I should be worried by this or not. I DO hope people coming to my page are not often motivated by the quest for good organic weed.

I am an Elitist

I am an Elitist.

And damned proud of it

In my world achievement is recognized and appreciated

In my world accomplishment is respected

In my world excellence is strived for

In my world results matter

I my world intentions and motives count for something, but not much

In my world self esteem is a by product of good results, not the primary goal of any action.

In my world there is no quality time

In my world Responsibility is the core of everything

If you can handle it, you’re welcome to join us in my world; Otherwise get the hell out of our way.

What exactly is generation X?

Mythago, brought up an intersting point on another blog I frequent, "What exactly is the age range for Generation X?"

I think generation isn't so much a matter of chronological age, as it is a matter of what you cultural touchstones are. What events define your personal recollection and outlook on history.

Even if you do try and set the chronological boundaries, differences in maturity, location and individual upbringing ensure there's always a transitional period between generations of two or three years on either side.

loosely, the baby boomers are the 3 or so generations born between 1945, and 1965, and the gen X'ers span from about 1967-1977, again with that three year transition around the ends

Culturally, Gen X is bounded on one end by Stagflation, the hostage crisis, and Star Wars, and at the other end by the Berlin Wall coming down, the fall of communism, the first Gulf war, and Kurt Cobain Killing himself, with the Reagan years flling out the middle.

Basically if your childhood to early teen years were marked the star wars trilogy, and you were between a teenager and 30 when Kurt ate his 12ga, you are Gen X.

UPDATE: Strange coincidence, Scott Kurtz PVP (one of my favorite comics) goes on a GenX riff today, just as I publish this post.

The Outside Looking In

Well, it's been one week

In that time I've managed to write about 12,000 words, been blogrolled by about ten people that I know of, including some other bloggers that I like and respect very much, had 800 unique visitors 205 of which were yesterday, 3600 page views, 100 some odd comments, and 2 trackbacks.

Finally, I've managed to crawl my way up from insignificant microbe to crawly amphibian, and I expect that by tomorrow I'll be up to slitherring reptile.

My true goal of being a flappy bird is within reach. Yessssss.... it will be mine... it willlllllll be mine...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Not bad for a first week eh ;-)

I want to thank all the folks who have stopped by, read my stuff, linked to me, commented etc... Now go out and link whore me out to everyone you know. Comeon, yaknow you want to.

I think I've got the quantity thing worked out, now I just need to keep the quality up, and moving in the right direction.

Wish me luck, I'm'na need it.

Adsense sucks

Even better, the supposedly intelligently selected contextual ads... they keep giving me ads for liberal causes, liberal bumber stickers, liberal web sites etc... So apparently they DO index my page enough to find the word liberal and give me liberal related ads, but that doesnt allow them to actually produce useful search results?

Maybe I should just remove the word liberal and replace it entirely with commiestatisttransnationalprogressivistcocksucker. At least that's a keyword I don't think they'll find anywhere else.

Update: Ok so they still suck, but at least now my site search is working.

Breaking the Law

Let's see if we can guess who the subject of this quote is shall we?

"had Ileana isolated from the prison population and placed in solitary confinement, naked. Ileana described her treatment in a 1998 interview: “They would give me cold showers. Two people will hold me, run me under cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods and they would just wash me and throw me back into the cell.”

Late one night, the naked Ileana, according to her lawyer, received a visit in her darkened solitary cell from an intimidating 6-foot-2 woman. The woman told Ileana that she knew that Ileana and her husband were guilty. “But how can that be? We are innocent,” Ileana proclaimed. “Who are you?”

Of course the perfidy isn't limited to democrats. This is a symptom of the governmental system. When people are gven both power, and the incentive to abuse it, you can guarantee it will be abused.

I have said before. The government is only good for two things, stealing and killing. It does those things well, and all else is a shambles.

More in the extended entry...

The problem here lies primarily in the mentality of law enforcement, and especially prosecutors offices. This environment is explicitly adversarial, and increaseingly these supposed civil servants see their job not as serviing the public, but as an "Us vs. Them" competition, even to the point of war.

Look at any urban police department thse days and tell me these cops don't think they are at war.

Every time I hear a representative of the state, be it a police officer, fire fighter, prosecutor whatever, call a non state representative (i.e. every citizen other than them) a civilian I want to smack them.

Heres a very simple distinction for you. Cops are civilians. Firefighters are Civilians. Everyone who is not an enlisted man, warrant officer, or comissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States of America, is a civilian. Civilians have civil rights, military personnel (including former military personnel BTW) do not. We have rights under the uniform code of military justice.

Every time a cop calls a non-cop a civilian he is raising a wall between himself, and the rest of the public. The entire "officer protection" philosophy that is currently taught does nothing but raise that wall even further (BTW, I'm not saying that protecting officers isn't critically important, it's the millitant mentality it engenders that worries me, and that I believe is unnecessary).

The prosecutors role is even MORE adversarial, and is explicitly devised this way. It's called the adversarial advocate system, and it's set up so that the facts don't particularly matter, because its really just a game between two attorneys, with a judge and jury deciding the winner. Like any professional competitor, a prosecutor will do whatever it takes within the rules to win, and if that means completely ignoring rights, principles, and even basic decency, they can and will do so.

This is the system we have, and these are the people we grant power and authority to. In many places they are our only protection against the hostile elements in society, because we have allowed them to disarm us all in the name of "public safety".

So it comes back to, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" who watches the watchmen?

HT: Geek with a .45

Poker

There are now so many poker shows that they have their own catgeory in the channel guide, and in my PVR.

Well, at least they no longer categorize it under Sports.

The Franchise

Let me say right now, I hold an opinion contrary to most libertarians, but in concert with Heinlein; I believe that the franchise must be earned.

My comment on why, from the comments on eternity road in the extended entry ...

"Ok, the question of service to the state.

I draw a HUGE distinction between service to state, and service to the nation.

If you need me to explain that, then there’s too much philsophical background we’re going to need to get into first, because the difference is fundamental.

And yes, I do favor a restriction of the franchise. Very simply, that which is unearned, is unvalued.

This gets back into the difference between rights, and priviliges (philosophically not legally). A privilege is something which is granted, a right is something that is inherent to a man by virtue of his existence.

Rights are not granted by the constitution, they are inherent to man, the constitution defines how those rights can be restricted by our government.

The franchise is not one of those rights.

One could say that there is an inherent right to participate in the government you live under, and I think that argument has merit; but as privileges are earned, rights must be defended.

The defense of these rights is what I am talking about when I invoke service to the nation. If you are unwilling or unable to defend those rights, you are not deserving of them.

As there are some people who are mentally, emotionally, or morally unable, or unwilling to serve in a military capacity, there are other forms of national service which are just as much a defense of our nation.

Again if I need to explain how this is true, there’s a lot more background we need to go into before we have a useful discussion.

Hardcore libertarians might say this is slavery to the state. I contend it is something entirely different, it is duty to the nation, and ultimately duty to your fellow man, and to your self."

Strategic Analysis

My thought: not only can they, they are in process now.

Honestly the only difficult part of the process is obtaining fissile materiel, and with the Pakistani program, the Iranian program, the north Korean program, and the various Russian pograms that fell apart, I'm not so sure how difficult that may be.

I'm most directly worried about joint projects between states and terrorists.

Presently the nuclear club looks something like this

1. U.S.A
   
2. Russia
   
3. Ukraine
4. Georgia
5. Great Britain
6. France
7. China
8. India
9. Pakistan
10. Israel
11. Other former soviet republics(maybe)
12. Iran (maybe)
13. North Korea(maybe)

Now look at that list, and see how many of them are actively hostile to the U.S., or are so currupt that their co-operation could be purchased.

More in the extended entry ...

Taking the full list of former soviet states as one, I count at least 8 hostile or corrupt foreign powers that have nuclear capability, and either hostile intent, or the will to sell to our enemies. We thoroughly bribe the Russians, and the former soviet states not to do so, but it only takes one or two loose nukes to bring a nightmare of hellfire down upon this country.

Melodramatic? No, not even close. Unless you've been through the training and the simulations and the scientific literature it can be hard to comprehend the kind of nastiness we are talking about here.

Not only that, but the emotional scar on this country. Would we ever feel safe again? We were able to get going again very quickly after 9/11. Within a few weeks things were, if not back to normal, at least up and running. A nuke is, psychologically and emotionally, a different order of magnitude of trauma. Our economy would nosedive, and the world would follow with us. Even more so if the targets were New York and/or Washington D.C., which would seem to be the most likely. Our society would move into a semi-collapse as people started hoarding, and becoming paranoid.

I'm not saying we wouldnt recover, but it would take time, and possibly the imposition of martial law in some areas (the depressed areas where the populace is on the edge of riot much of the time anyway, and the urban areas nearest to the attacks).

Why am I worried about state sponsored terrosim?

Let's talk about China jsut for a start. Specifically let's talk about intentions vs capabilities.

I think China is very very dangerous to their neighbors, and by extension to us (and the editorial board at parameters, and other professional strategic situation watchers agree). When China starts to really implode there are two possible results.

1. The commie fuckers at the top realize what's happening before it's too late, and they start an aggressive expansionist war.
2. The commie fuckers get strung up, shot, burned, drawn, and quartered by the irate populous and then who the hell knows what happens.

Personally, I'm hoping or 2, but I'm planning for 1.

The dichotomy here arises between intentions and capabilities.

There are four possible situations vis a vis intentions and capabilities:

1. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
2. The enemies intentions are benign, and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment
3. The enemies intentions are hostile, and their capabilities do not allow for their accomplishment
4. The enemies intentions are hostile and their capabilities allow for their accomplishment

We spent most of the last 60 years facing down a situation 1, while thinking it was a situation 2 with the Soviets (referring to the purely military war not the political one). This is actually one of the safer possible situations, because in this case neither party wishes to act. The stronger party believes they are at rough parity, and the weaker party has every incentive not to move to a situation 3, and to keep the stronger party believing in the weakers false strength.

China is right now in situation 1 (occasionally tipping into a weak 3), trying very hard to move to situation 2. If they ever reach two there is a good chance they will jump to 4 right away. If they have a major internal incident they will jump to a strong 3 right away. Either sit 3, or sit 4, are incredibly dangerous and undesirable states. China represents one of the cases where 3 may be more dangerous than 4 (as does Korea). A state in sit 4 is at least generally predictable, and rational, an enemy in sit 3 is neither. Actually enemies in sit 4, often quickly revert to sit 2 when they secure their objectives. Since by definition state 3 enemies cannot achieve their objectives through normal means they become INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Saddam Hussein was clearly a situation 3, trying to become a situation 4. He had to be removed before he achieved situation 4.

I believe Iran is now in a situation 3, and is very clearly attempting to become a situation 4, and will have to be dealt with accordingly.

North Korea worries me, because Kim Jong Il is clearly insane. He's in a situation 3 and what worries me most is what he's going to do when he finds out he is dying, or losing control of the country. It's similar to the outcomes above for China, only worse because the Chinese still have some rationality left.

In light of this, we must prepare for both our enemies intentions, and their capabilities. Our enemies may not have the capabilities to strike us directly with nuclear weapons, but the possiblity iexists, and is not remote, so we must prepare for it.

You Shut The Fuck Up, We'll Protect America

Guilt and anger

I'm a very difficult man to make angry. Bad things tend to happen when I'm angry, so I don't let it happen very often.

Over the past few years, I've had a few guys I served with killed. I lost two friends on flight 175. 16 people I had worked with, and several clients were killed in the towers.

My friends, and my brothers are getting killed, and I'm sitting here getting fatter.

I can't tell you how guilty, and how angry I feel right now.

I left the Air Force because I didn't like what my career prospects looked like under Clinton. I know it was the right choice, but it doesnt make it any easier.

Something really got me a few weeks ago. The first Rescue Officers are now out with the teams. If that option had been open when I was commissioned, instead of facing some bullshit intel billet, I would have gone rescue officer all the way. I would have stayed in and fuck Clinton.

It made me feel even more guilty to see that though.

I'm feeling very Kipling right now. My comment below about Prag Tewari is from Kiplings "The Grave of the Hundred Head".

More in the extended entry...

"The Grave of the Hundred Head" - Rudyard Kipling

There's a widow in sleepy Chester who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River, a grave that the Burmans shun,

And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri who tells how the work was done.

A Snider squibbed in the jungle, somebody laughed and fled,
And the men of the First Shikaris picked up their Subaltern dead,
With a big blue mark in his forehead and the back blown out of his head.

Subadar Prag Tewarri, Jemadar Hira Lal,
Took command of the party, twenty rifles in all,
Marched them down to the river as the day was beginning to fall.

They buried the boy by the river, a blanket over his face—
They wept for their dead Lieutenant, the men of an alien race—
They made a samadh in his honour, a mark for his resting-place.

For they swore by the Holy Water, they swore by the salt they ate,
That the soul of Lieutenant Eshmitt Sahib should go to his God in state;
With fifty file of Burman to open him Heaven's gate.

The men of the First Shikaris marched till the break of day,
Till they came to the rebel village, the village of Pabengmay—

A jingal covered the clearing, caltrops hampered the way.

Subadar Prag Tewarri, bidding them load with ball,
Halted a dozen rifles under the village wall;
Sent out a flanking-party with Jemadar Hira Lal.

The men of the First Shikaris shouted and smote and slew,
Turning the grinning jingal on to the howling crew.
The Jemadar's flanking-party butchered the folk who flew.

Long was the morn of slaughter, long was the list of slain,
Five score heads were taken, five score heads and twain;
And the men of the First Shikaris went back to their grave again,

Each man bearing a basket red as his palms that day,
Red as the blazing village—the village of Pabengmay,
And the drip-drip-drip from the baskets reddened the grass by the way.

They made a pile of their trophies high as a tall man's chin,
Head upon head distorted, set in a sightless grin,

Anger and pain and terror stamped on the smoke-scorched skin.

Subadar Prag Tewarri put the head of the Boh
On the top of the mound of triumph, the head of his son below,
With the sword and the peacock-banner that the world might behold and know.

Thus the samadh was perfect, thus was the lesson plain
Of the wrath of the First Shikaris—the price of a white man slain;
And the men of the First Shikaris went back into camp again.

Then a silence came to the river, a hush fell over the shore,
And Bohs that were brave departed, and Sniders squibbed no more;
For the Burmans said
That a kullah's head
Must be paid for with heads five score.

There's a widow in sleepy Chester who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River, a grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri who tells how the work was done.

He Gave the Last Full Measure

You may be familiar with Kim's "Walter and Adam fund", where supporters donated to help provide supplementary suplies, and care packages for Walter and Adam, and the soldiers they serve with.

A car bomb exploded in Mosul on Wednesday Feb 17, 2005 killing a soldier who many of us online helped support.

U.S. Army Sergeant Adam J. Plumondore, 1st Bt. 24th Inf., Ft. Lewis Wa, age 22, entered the service from Gresham Oregon.

Requiescat In Pace Sgt. Plumondore.

I'm sure kim will update us as and if any news becomes available. I expect the Walter and Adam fund will be converted to a memorial fund.

I have one more thing to say:

Where the fuck is Prag Tewari when you need him.
...

Update: Here is the web site of Sgt. Plumondores recon platoon http://www.deucefourrecon.com

The pictures and commments are kind of tough to look at.

Theres too much blood in my caffeine system

I am an honest to god caffeine addict. Most days I have a pot of coffee, and two or three two liters of diet mountain dew or diet pepsi evry day (I'm worried about diabetes).

The brew for today: Gevalia Peruvian Organic

Actually my favorite PVP cartoon is also about Brent and coffee.

In concert with eric, two takes on "Why I'm not a conservative"

The second is from a quite different source, a man who I have been an acquaintance of for some years named Eric Raymond. He wrote a little list "Top ten reasons I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative", which I mostly agree with. He's a little more to the antistate side than I am (and that's really saying something, but I find we have a general agreement on principals, if not necessarily on actions.

Actually in general, you should check out Erics blog, and his home page writings section

Eric's random musings: Why I'm a Liberal

Eric's random musings: Why I'm a Liberal

The greatest complement I can give him is that reading this page, I could have written it myself. Same thing for most of his "when I wore green" posts, though of course in theory I wore blue (Air Force), but most of the time I was in green (actually most of the time I was covered in brown, but thats another story entirely).

Oh and I'm a Heinlein fan myself, and a FIRM believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.

Hell were both even security managers (I'm an independent contract Information Security and Systems Architect, Engineer, Administrator, and Manager. Just to keep the recruiters happy with a broad description ;-)

Eric is hereby added to the Blogroll of Doom!

Happiness is a warm gun

Scott Adams goes Political

Hmmmmm......

Hmmmm...

I'm not sure what to make of this one actually. Scott has said before that he's more Wally than anyone else (and certainly this is far "smarter" than Wally would normally be), and we all know the PHB is the embodiement of all that is evil....

It's not really funny, and I don't think it's intended to be. I'm guessing it's an actual transcript of one of Scotts conversations, in which he takes the Wally part. I'm jsut not sure what REAL point he's trying to make here, and more importantly WHY???

Dilbert isn't a political cartoon, at least not in the normal governmental sense. Scott Adams has touched a bit on politics in his non fiction books, mostly about how silly/stupid it is, or how many problems it causes etc.., and I certainly agree there, but really, why this one Scott?

I really shouldnt make fun of EBay, because I'm going for a job with them next week but.....

Losing our delusions

Ok let me make this clear (in case it isn't already). I am a small "L" libertarian. On the left to right scale I am absolutely nowhere because I dont believe it works. I'm a follower of the Pournelle Axis myself, upon which I fall at about 2,4

I believe that all government of any kind is inherently bad, but that sometimes bad is better than really really bad.

Example: War bad, Hitler being allowed to dominate Europe and kill all the untermenschen, really really bad.

I especially believe that collectivist, eglalitarian, authoritarian government is really really bad. For more bout why look up Harrison Bergeron (or see the Sean Astin TV movie of it, which was actually damned good).

Every time a liberal wakes the fuck up to reality, my life gets a little bit better, and hopefully so does yours because he won't be out there working for the subjugation of us all to the nanny state.

More in the extended entry ...

I read a great book a few years ago by Harry Stein "How I joined the vast right wing conspiracy", about a raving liberal who over time (and children), became a part libertarian/part conservative. The first step for him, like for so many others, was realizing that most of what they believed in, or at least SAID or THOUGHT they believed in, was either flawed, naive, or just plain complete bullshit.

"Ask yourself: Who is a truly influential liberal mind in our culture? Whose ideas challenge and whose ideals inspire? Whose books and articles are read and passed around? There's no one, really. What's left is the laundry list: the catalogue of programs (some dubious, some not) that Republicans aren't funding, and the blogs, with their daily panic dose about how the Bush administration is ruining the country."

The actual liberals really have no ideas any more. The only ideas on the left are coming from the socialists, the statists, and the anti-capitalists (not all of whom are communists, some are actually anarchosocialists), and I think you can suss out my general opinion of THOSE ideas.

"The conflict between right and left in the United States is different. What animates American conservatism is the future of the regulatory state and the trajectory of federalism. The conservatives have not themselves agreed on how far they want to retract either regulation or the authority of the national government. These are not axiomatic questions for them, as can be seen by their determined and contravening success last week in empowering not the states against Washington but Washington against the states in the area of tort law. As Jeffrey Rosen has pointed out in these pages, many of these issues will be fought out in the courts. But not all. So a great national debate will not be avoided."

Of course it's not like the conservatives ideas are much better. They are mostly focused on tearing down the really bad ideas that the liberals and socialists have been building up since 1932.

And then you have Pat Buchanan.

Now this article isnt all good, in fact it's still mostly lefty bullshit, but it's a least a step in the right direction.

I don't think that this bullshit can last long term. I really believe that the distribution of information and changes of attitude that seem to be building in our country, and in the world as a whole, will eventually let us take back our governments (read the Heinlein book NOW if you actually give a damn about how the country is run BTW).

As I said in my post on the disintegration of the dems, I think this fundamental lack of ideas is a good thing. It means that we are coming closer to the day that the two party false dichotomy politics we have today is replaced by something, hopefully, maybe, just a bit more oriented toward a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

UPDATE: This Article is another good example today of liberals waking up to smell the bullshit

HT: Revealed Truth , The Smallest Minority

Geek pride post

(wow, there were a lot of commas in that sentence weren't there)

Then tell me, why did Firefly and Forever Knight both fail miserably? On the surface they should have been equally as successful. They featured good looking, angsty but fun characters, the supernatural, the fantastic, pretty good writing, and cheezy in a good way dialogue.

Personally I blame it on the canadians, but maybe it's jsut me... No really they were both made in canada, and starred mostly canadians, and you could hear the accents and everything. Seriously.

Okay no it wasnt the canadians, so what was it?

Firefly was never allowed to find an audience, which is too bad, because it's some of the best storytelling Joss Whedon has ever done (barring a few particular episodes of Angel and Buffy), and it was expensive because Joss insisted on some very good sets and effects; There was almost no promotion done for it, and no-one could find it in their market...

I could go on and on about why the show didn't work, but none of it has to do with the quality of the storytelling. Thankfully someone else saw the potential of the show, and there is now a three picture deal at Universal with the first movie, "Serenity" coming out later this year. Hopefully the movies will spark a new deal for the show, maybe on Sci-fi if not on one of the syndicates.

Forever Knight was one of the cheaply produced mostly canadian "adult oriented drama" series bought up by CBS to have something to replace Pat Sajak (and thank god for that). They called it "Crime time after prime time" and it featured Sweating Bullets, Silk Stalkings, Forever Knight, and a couple others that I (and apparently no-one else on the net since I cant find it in google) can't remember.

The thing is, as cheezy as the show was sometimes, it was often actually quite well written, and other than the vampire fright takes, was generally pretty well acted. More importantly, it had engaging stories and characters.

I just finished the first two or so (the episodes were in canadian order not U.S. order and so the seaosn were a little mixed) seasons on DVD (god I love netflix), and I think it would work remade today, with a younger and even more atttractive cast, and slightly better effects and production values (In other words a bigger budget).

I still remember my friends in college ranting how LaCroix was SOOO much better than "The Master" from Buffy (I started college in '93, finished in 97, so I neatly encapsulated the Forever Kinght to Buffy Transition).

Oh and Bruce Campbell NEEDS to have his own show again. Sam Raimi has unlimited money and clout now, maybe he can shove something his best friends way.

Gack!!! Wheres my web page????

Hopefully the folks whose sites went down wont be too irritated. Nothing major, jsut some sites for friends etc...

Anyway they say it'll be fixed shortly.

The myth of having it all

But then if you're reading me, you probably already knew that.

Ok this is going to be a long one because, well, I'm both long winded and extremely bitter about this topic thankyouverymuch.

Gloria Steinem ruined America.

Gloria Steinem, and Helen Reddy, and Carole king, and anyone else who told women "Yes you really can have it all".

They convinced women that not only COULD they have it all, but if they didn't, there was something wrong with them.

They convinced women that they needed to have amazing careers, and amazing hsubands (who ALSO had great careers AND helped out with the housework), and great families, and great sex, and hell they could even get a little on the side 'cuz the men did it so why not them. They even convinced women that they could do everything in the military that men could.

BULLSHIT!!!

They were selling women a fairy tale no different from a knight in shining armor on a white horse.

Men have know for... well just about forever... that there are tradeoffs to be made.

There are three life areas, social and personal life, marriage and family, and work life. If you are going to be successful in any one area, you need to compromise on the other two. There isn't time enough in your life to be highly successful in your job, to raise two great kids and have a great marriage, and be a champion origami folder all at the same time.

In the '70s and early eighties women decided that they could have their careers, but more importantly they could be "personally fulfilled", and to "find themselves" over and above their families. Those women made the excerable Charlene song "I've never been to me" a number one hit, and then raised kids like me and my brother. I love my mother, but she was a horrible mother. She tried to be my friend. She read progressive books. She never punished us...

I could go on, but basically my mom was ms. new age mom, and it NEVER EVER WORKED. We, and many millions of people my age, never actually had parents.

Then in the mid to late 80's women started worrying entirely about their careers. Power suits, and BMW's and day planners and filofaxes. 80 hour work weeks. Divorces, cocaine, bad sex...

Yeah my mom went there too. Never saw her, she was working all the time. She would punish me when my younger brother got in trouble, because I was supposed to make sure he didn't.

Then the 90's come around and Martha Stewart and Lynette jennings become the superwoman icons.

Once again, I could go on, but we all know how it turned out. We get parents scheduling quality time, and play dates, and kids who have so many before school, and after school and during school, aactivities, their lives are scheduled down to the instant by their control freak career moms. We get kids injuring themselves just so they can take a day off from swimming lessons and dance lessons and horseback lessons and... and....

It's called projection BTW. Parents are feeling unfuliflled in their lives, so they project that feeling onto their kids and MAKE them "get the most out of life".

How about we let women be women, men be men, and kids be kids? Think that might work out? I mean it worked for thousands of years before the 1970's

More to come on this subject, but Im too irritated right now.

UPDATE: Let me just say, men don't get let off the hook with me either. I'm'na do a post on the little boys in mens bodies who dont know how to be dads, dont try, or at best mail it in. They're jsut as bad as the supermommies if not worse.

I am a crunchy crustacean

Meaning that I actually have some traffic after only tree days of having a blog, mostly thanks to my friends at the Nation of Riflemen, Kim DuToit, and the readers of The Smallest Minority, SondraK, The Whatever, and Publicola, where I am a frequent commenter and contributor.

Aint referrer logs cool?

That and I seem to be getting a lot of google traffic, but I'm not a sitemeter pro member, so I don't know what search terms they are using.

I used to use extremetrack (thats where the first 148k hits I had were, from the hits on my main page of the past 5 years or so), which showed a lot more detailed stats for free, but sitemeter is what TTLB uses, and what the Alliance of Free Blogs use (or is that uses? Alliance is a singular term but made up of plural members so....) so here I am on sitemeter.

INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!

My aspiration, to be a floppy bird.

UPDATE: I am now a Crawly Amphibian. Soon, SOON I will be a Flappy Bird, BWAHAHAHAHA!

Haloscan commenting and trackback have

Unfortunately that means all comments to date have been lost. Since there were only six of them, it's not a huge loss, but I'm sorry for those of you whos comments were lost.

My first attempt at AudioBlogging

One odd thing, it took 5 hours for the post to appear from the time I recorded (I thought it was 3 hours, but then I looked at the timestamp).

An ATTACK Sumbarine?

I had a long post about this, and Carter, but blogger ate it. I think this picture is really all that needs to be said.

Chris Muir is a genius.

Withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty?

I've heard a couple people say things like "Evil BushHitler withdrew us from the Kyoto treaty", or "It's good that we withdrew from Kyoto" etc...

Actually there was no withdrawal, and it had nothing to do with Bush.

Although the president is empowered by the constitution to negotiate treaties, (and Clinton had a negotiating team in Kyoto), the presidents signature on a treaty means nothing unless it is ratified by the senate.

Under Clinton, the senate refused to even hold a ratification hearing for kyoto. I don't recall if there was ever a motion to vote it up or down, or if it was just a motion to consider the treaty, but either way it was voted down resoundingly (as in 80-20, but its 6:40 am and I'm too lazy to look it up).

Even if ALGORE had been elected we STILL wouldn't be in the kyoto economic death pact, because the senate said no.

This puts us in company along with at least 140 other countries BTW. In fact there are only 30 signatories, out of somewhare around 190 nations (I forget the official total, and as I said, it's too early for research). India and China didnt even bother showing up, and they are BY FAR the biggest polluters in the world (combined more than 10 times as much as the U.S., of course they also have about 10 times our population).Even better, only 2 of the 15 EU signatories have said they will fulfil their Kyoto requirements.

But of course it's all Bushes fault, because he hates the environment and thinks the faster we destroy the world, the faster Jesus will come.

Yeah, right, sure, go hug a tree ya idjits.

Tell ya what. If you have spent a month total in your life sleeping in the woods and mountains away from "civilization" eating that which you can find and/or Kill (and I have), THEN you are somewhat qualified to speak with me about the conservation of the environment. Do your research, read the science (not the agenda papers, real science), and then we can talk O.K.

If you fly in a private jet, or are driven anywhere in a limo, just shut the fuck up.

CoXsuckers

This is a bad combination.

All my neighbors were out too, but Cox refused to file a service outage report until 3 people called it in, so five of us all got togetther and called withn 5 minutes of each other, around 6 oclock. They promised they'd have it fixed with 2 hours.

So I went out to the casino with my brother and won $75 at blackjack, got a pizza and a few beers.

I get back around midnight, still not done. I called Cox up, and they said "Oh there was an outage report, but showed up as cleared 2 hours ago. We can get you a service call on thursday".......... Yeah, that's not gonna work. I have internet and telephone meetings all day today (tomorrow, whatever) for the job hunt, and I use vonage for my phone so I NEED the net.

So I got three of my neighbors whoe were still up to call again, and they finally got us back up

Anyway, it's 5:20, and sleepy time for me.WAYYYYYY more content comoing up in a few hours when I get up.

Proud to Be a Salivating Moron

HT:Cap'n Ed

Oh and let me just say, good luck and god bless first mate.

Gothier than thou

I am the anti-goth.

I alway thought nihilism was basically what happens when narcissism and denial meet; Plus I'm a 6'2" tall 350lb former football player, and power lifter with short wavy reddish brown hair and a red beard.

Really, I am the anti-goth. I wasn't kidding.

I've gotten gothed up a few times and I get followed around by people with "big poppa" fetishes both male and female; especially the super-subbies who just irritate me. I'm a naturally dominant person and the supersubs can sense it like dom radar or something. The second you walk into a room they all shoot right for you. "For the last time NO I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE MY SLAVE AND I WILL NOT PUNISH YOU!!!!!!!!".

Except you... yeah, you know who you are, and you've been very naughty not calling me before now. I suggest you make up for it immediately.

But I digress.

A lot of these people are even bigger whiners than the average overindulged ultra pretentious underaged un-employed yet wearing $2000 worth of leather and metal, not really angry enough to care but liking to pretend that they are pseudo-goth, and that's saying something (albeit something bad).

That being said, a good looking woman gothed up in the right way makes me drool. Remember Mia Sara at the end of Legend... thumpa thumpa thumpa... (if anyone has a pic of this send please and I will post. More 80's goths made in that moment than any other)

You want to see a real goth? Grow your hair (all of it especially your body hair) and don't bathe for a year; then roll around in some reindeer shit, slice open the reindeer, scoop out the guts, wear the skin and sharpen the bones. Then you'll be a real goth.

Or if we want to get into the neo-classical goths look at Lord Byron. Now there was a cool neo-classical goth. I swear he was the guy who made up the saying "live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse"

Listening to Marilyn Manson or Christian death at volume 11 and wearing PVC does not make you a goth, it just makes you an uncomfortable moron with a hearing problem.

Some photo artwork I did in Ireland

More photo artwork in the extended entry ....

Standing invitation

So what am I all about

Well in short it's about geeks with guns. The material on this blog is going to end up being about geekiness, guns, computers, cars, airplanes, music, role playing, books, sci-fi, fantasy, movies, the military, politics, security (information and physical), women, and more guns and random shit floating around in my head.

Ya know, I would be pissed off, but....

"Ward Churchill: Right to Speak Out; Right About 9/11

By ROBERT JENSEN

Ward Churchill has a right to speak about 9/11.And Ward Churchill is right about 9/11.I state that bluntly, even though I disagree with some aspects of the University of Colorado professor's now-infamous essay, because so many (including some on the left) have defended his First Amendment rights while either remaining silent about, or condemning, the article's analysis.So, for the record: The main thesis Churchill put forward in "'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" is an accurate account of the depravity of U.S. foreign policy and its relationship to terrorism."

Honestly, I want to see as much of this commie lefty bullshit out there as possible. It will only hasten the downfall of the left.

I can't wait to hear their whimpering "But we were right, you sold out to the capitalists, they fooled you with their microwaves and SUV's, we were betrayed by the people".

So bring it on lefty fucktards. Let the moonbattery wash over us in a great stinking wave, and let the democratic party collapse utterly and completely, as it so clearly deserves.

Let me expand on that idea a bit. We currently have a two party system where one party is doing it's very best to kill itself. The current democratic party only appeals to the fatherst left 20% or so of the American populace (and of course those with similar attitudes abroad). They are losing, or have lost their largest traditional political base, that of blue collar labor.

And of course, when you have a party in power without effective opposition, you get things like the patriot act, the marriage amendment etc...

I think the best possible thing for the country right now would be for the Democratic party to fail utterly, and split into several smaller parties. This could leave the way open for a stronger, currently third party (like say the libertarian party)or perhaps a coalition party to emerge, or it could lead to a new, stronger democratic party without the far left elements that drag it down today. Perhaps a democratic party of men like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller (the last conservative democratic still in politics), that rejects the blame America first last and only crowd.

I actually saw a Boxer for president in '08 sign online today. I can't imagine a greater windfall for the republican party than Barabara Boxer as the nominee in '08 (not that it would ever happen). The Republicans could run J.C. Watts or Alan Keyes against her and still win in a walk.

The McGoverns and Deans have taken over the Democratic party, and it's not long before it's the Michael Moore's in charge; Then we'll see jsut how relevant the Dems are to what the American people want.

HT:LGF

Some blogger questions

I mean how is one to know whether there is any more to the post when every entry has a "click for more" type link?

The Myth of AR Unreliability

If an AR is properly maintained, and properly made in the first place, it is completely reliable. I have owned several AR's and I'm on my second M14. My AR's have been, without exception, more reliable than my M14's, more reliable than my G3, and in general more reliable than any other semi auto rifle I've owned.

A few days ago, in prepartion for a range trip, I detail stripped my Bushmaster superlight. I have had this rifle since the beginning of October, and I have averaged 250 rounds a week through it, plus 1500 rounds I put through it in the first week.

Whenever I get a new AR I do a few things with it. I clean it throughly, fully detail strip it, clean it down to bare metal (or finsih). I then shoot 250 rounds through it and do it again, and 250 more rounds and do it again. From there, I then put as many rounds as I can through it until I get a stoppage. During the test all I do is wipe the gun down with a rag, inside and out, run a bore snake down the bore every 1000 rounds, and properly lube the gun.

I passed the 5000 rounds mark through this rifle last week, 4500 rounds since I detail stripped it last. I have not had a single stoppage because of the rifle in that entire time (I had one bad magazine that I crushed). I decided I had to stop shooting and clean the thing or the bolt would permanently carbonize. I have fed every sort of ammo there is through it in that time, including various shit from our nato allies, and even a few hundred wolf (damn that stuff smells like shit).

More in the exteded entry ...

Now I will say, cleaning it was a stone ass bitch. I did a basic clean frist with CLP, and pretty much every internal passage was hard coated with carbon, but it wasnt even close to enough to make the weapon malfunction. After wiping off the CLP, I liberally coated every surface and filled every passage with a foaming solvent that will strip any fouling known to man. Its good shit.

That got about half of it.

Then I coated it all in RB-17 and let is soak for an hour, and cleaned it all off again with CLP, and that finally got the rest of it.

Yeah, it was a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean, and that's the design. That is the only consequence of the design that shits where it eats, its a pain in the ass to detail strip and clean. It was the trade off stoner made for a more accurate, lighter, less complex, and more reliable weapon. There's no op rod to break or bend, no gas piston, or piston seals, and if the gas tube does plug up (highly unlikley under normal condisitons) its easy to replace. Not only that but it has less recirocating mass than jsut about any other deisgn out there, which makes the weapon more accurate, and easier to control in rapid or full auto fire.

I can't say the same of my M14. If I run good ammo through it, its a 100% gun, but with the shitty greek and indian 7.62 (not the dangerous corrosive stuff, I like my gun too much for that) I get a failure to feed about once a mag.

This is a custom built, Ron Smith rifle, not some cheap piece of junk either. I'm in the middle of doing the same test with this M14 to see how many rounds it will fire uncleaned without a malfunction (with good ammo). Last week, I had a malfunction with the good stuff, having fired about 1000 rounds through it, now I'm going to clean it and see how nasty it is.

Let's note, the AR design isn't linked inextricably from the 5.56 NATO chambering. I'm a big of the AR-10, (and especially the SR-25) and if I could afford one, it would be in my locker right now. There is a reason I always refer to the design as the AR,becaue the M16 is a specific rifle in a specific caliber, the AR family is the name for the design.

You know what I think is the biggest problem that people have with the AR? It's that they dont read the -10 (note: the military operators manual for the rifle)

Shit man I've got that thing memorized (or at least I used to. I re-read it while I was waiting for the RB-17 to dissolve the carbon, and theres stuff I had forgotten).

The next major problem people have is they dont understand the difference between an assault rifle, and a battle rifle, or if they do, they don't like the idea of an assault rifle.

The AR design, as expressed with todays A3 and A4 variants is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle concept, as practiced in U.S. Military doctrine, much as the AKM is the ultimate expression of the assault rifle as expressed by soviet doctrine.

Think about it, detail strip an AR and see how many functional moving parts there are. Then do the same to a G3, or even an M14. Its even worse when you look at reciprocating parts (parts that cycle when firing). The 16 is as simple as you can make a precision rifle.

There is actually very little that can break during operation, and if there is a failure its most likely caused by crud, bad ammo, or a dodgy mag, not by a part breaking. To get any simpler you need to go soviet, and that's a whole different philosophy.

The problem comes when people try and compare the M16 and especially the M4 (which is an assault carbine, not a full rifle), to battle rifles. A battle rifle will have an effective range of 600-800 yards, an assault rifle will have an effective range of 300 yards, and an assault carbine of 100 yards (according to the -Army, the effective range for a 20" barrel is 460 yards, 350 for an 18" and 50 yards for every inch or so thereafter. The Army spec says the M4 is a 200 yard gun)

Hmm, think we see a pattern forming here?

There are appropriate situations for each, and the vast majority of troops are best served with assault rifles, or assault carbines, in most situations.

The art of selecting a general issue weapon for military purposes is one of compromise. There is no weapon ideal for all missions, so you choose the one that has the most positive factors for it, in the most situations. A battle rifle has one plus, power, and everything else minus compared to an assault rifle or carbine. Individual small arms power is the primary concern for a rifleman, but not for an infantryman serving in a squad with a designated marksman, a grenadier, and a light machine gunner. His primary concerns are ammo capacity, packability, and general handiness.

So what it comes down to is, we probably compomised too far down with the 5.56 round. We did it with bad information, and a bad wounding theory, and converted everything over before we knew any better. Once we converted everything over, we didnt have the time or resources to change it, and by the time we did, 30 years had gone by, and the entire world was stuck with it.

But whatever the weaknesses of the caliber (and they can be mitigated to a degree with proper load selection and bullet design) it doesnt change the fact that the AR design is fundamentally both accurate, and reliable. If you start with a properly made gun, and just read the manual and do what it says, which isn't very hard, you'll never have a problem.

I've owned several AR's been issued several more, and served with and worked with hundreds of people who between them were issued hundreds. I have seen reliable weapons, and unreliable ones, and in almost every case the fault could be found in poor ammo, poor maintenance and cleaning, incorrect or out of tolerance repair (or original manufacture), and bad magazines. Bad magazines alone account for at least half the malfunctions I have seen, and improper cleaning and maintenance accounted for at least half the rest.

Let me say it again: When properly maintained, and properly manufactured in the first place, the AR design is highly reliable.

What isn't reliable, is people. I find that maintenance standards in regular forces are often poor, and the acceptance standards for the weapons in the first place are also poor. In particular I believe the acceptance standards, and maintenance standards for magazines are entirely unacceptable.

It never ceases to amaze me just how little soldiers, and especially officers, seamen, and airmen, know about their weapons, and how to properly maintain them. Even if they do know, the standard to which they maintain them is very frequently not up to spec. Perhaps we should have more armorers, and more armorers assistants, and I KNOW we should train our people to maintain their weapons reflexively (as I was trained; You clean your weapon every time you stop moving, whether you've fired it or not, no matter how reliable you think the design is).

Special operations units have a lot more weapons knowledge, and a lot more personal attention is paid to the weapons, as well as attention from armorers. Not only are their weapons 100% reliable (or they wouldn't be using them), but they are also highly accurate.

The AR "reliability problem" is one of lax maintenance, lax cleaning, and lax standards, pure and simple.

Now we can debate whether it is apropriate for a military rifle to NEED those higher standards or not, and it's certainly valid to suggest that they don't. My point here is that there is nothing inherently unreliable about the AR design.

Sure, it is dirty, and it needs more attention to cleaning than a non direct gas impingement design would. That's it. As far as I'm concerned that's a training issue.

Theres no gear required for basic cleaning. You need a rag, a bottle of CLP, a bore snake, and a tooth brush. You carry them in a pouch you can reach at all times and you clean obsessivley (no-one uses the butt stock kit if they dont have to)

It doesnt matter what kind of weapon you have, your weapon is your life, and you clean it and clean it , and clean it. The AR design is about the easiest weapon in the world to quickly clean (if you dont let the gunk build up).

Cleaning your weapon is something you do like breathing. You move you clean. You shoot you clean, you piss you clean. A dust cloud goes by, you wipe off your weapon before you wipe off your face.

It isn't necessary to detail strip a weapon very frequently, if you do a detail strip on an AR every 1500 rounds or so (thats 50 magazines worth), you'll be fine, and it will only take 10 minutes. If you detail strip your weapon every time you engage, before you roll up for the night, then it takes nothing. You can do it with a clean rag, a toothbrush, a toothpick, and a bottle of CLP.

Babywipes are your friend. I have half a dozen packages of simple green cleaning wipes sitting with my gear. I have more in the trunk of my car. I have foil packed wipes in my tac vest and in my gear bags.

An M4 breaks down for cleaning in less than 5 seconds. It takes less than a minute to pull the bolt and do a brush and wipe down, and another minute to clean the bore, lube the rifle, and pin it up again. It only takes another five minutes to do a detail strip and clean if you havent let the gunk build up for a while (like I did in the example above).

It actually take me longer to detail strip and clean my 1911, than it does to do my AR.

You learn this through training and practice, and we haven't trained enough of our people to use these patterns of behavior, but that is not the fault of the rifle.

Surrealism and the job market

My old job was just presented me by a recruiter, who didn't know it was my old job.

I've actually had this happen a lot (I'm in a pretty tight business), but it's always striking when it does. A little jarring disconnect that makes you giggle as it were.

The previous job was a contract, which ended very successfully and well. I'm no longer with the company that I contracteed to the client with, but that separation was... screwed up, but not in a way that would mess with future employment prospects.

Anyway, the NEW job is to manage, and expand the infrastructure that I spent nine months designing and building last year, and it's with the same team I had then, who I get along great wtih, have been shooting with, socialized with etc...

So I'd say I've got a pretty good shot at this one. I shall update as and when I recieve further info.

Bear with me

Until then, please bear with me; I'm only human (and after being awake for 24 hours, as I have been this morning, barely that).

Dog I HATE being Lysdexic

I don't even notice this most of the time, and I tend to write a lot of technical stuff, with abbreviations and acronyms etc... so spellchecking doesnt help me all that much. It's jsut something that I live with, and when I notice, I correct it.

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 2

Ingredients:

1 lb boneless chicken breast, trimmed
1 lb lean back bacon (irish or english bacon, preferably black pepper cured).
1 lb plain cream cheese
1 lb italian hard cheese, finely grated (parmagiano, romano, asiago)
1/2 cup white wine (optional, substitiute 2 tbsp cider vinegar)
4 cups whole milk (half and half if you want a heart attack)
1 tblsp butter
1 tblsp olive oil

Seasonings:
1 clove garlic (optional)
1/2 tblsp fresh cracked black pepper (1 tblsp if you dont use pepper bacon)
1/2 tblsp fresh rosemary, minced
1 tsp paprika

More in the extended entry...

Preparation:
Cube the bacon, and chicken into appx 1/2" cubes.

heat the oil in a large skillet, and melt the butter into a low bubble, then crush and finely mince the garlic, and incorporate it into the butter. If minced properly the garlic will dissolve.

Add the bacon to the heated butter and oil, and saute til fully coocked, but not crisp.

Add the chicken, and rosemary, and saute till lightly browned. Add the wine or vinegar now, and simmer for 5 minutes.

Reduce the heat to low, then cut the cream cheese up into small chunks, and add them to the mix, stirring constantly until the cheese is fully melted and incorporated.

Turn the heat up 'til the cheese is on a low bubble, and incorporate the milk, stirring constantly to avoid scalding or fat separation.

Slowly sprinkle the grated cheeses into the mix, stirring constantly until fully incorporated. Add the black pepper at this point.

You may need to add more milk, depending on the exact fat and solid content of the cheeses used. Before you simmer it down it should be thick enough to coat the back of a spoon, but not so thick as to have visible wrinkles or ripples on the surface, or so be gluey or stiff.

Reduce the heat to a low simmer for 20 minutes, and stir occaisonally to avoid fat separation.

Add the paprika in, stir, and let stand for 5 minutes off the heat before incorporating into pasta.

This is best served with a ziti rigata or something similar. Drain the pasta, and toss with a very little red wine vinegar, then pour the sauce into the pot and stir through throughly. Let stand for 5 minutes then serve with crusty bread, or cheese toast, and sliced tomatos.

Recipes for REAL men, Volume 1

Men who dont mind their arteries hardening.

Recipe number one, "More Beef Than Stew"

Ingredients:

3lbs of cubed steak, or stew beef (not too fatty, 1" cubes or less).
3lbs of potatos (I prefer yukon gold)
2 large peeled carrots (optional)
1 large whole onion (optional)
1 turnip (optional)
1 radish (optional)
2 stalks celery (optional)
1 can of drained corn (or two ears dekerneled)
1 large clove of garlic
1/2lb butter
1 cup red wine
1 cup whole milk

Seasoning:

4-6 beef bullion cubes (optional)
2 table spoon turmeric
2 table spoon ground mustard
1 table spoon black pepper
1 table spoon fresh minced oregano
1 tablespoon fresh minced rosemary
1 tablespoon chli powder, or roasted chili flakes
1 tablespoon salt (if no bullion is used)

More in the extended entry...

Preparation:

Cube potatos into three different sizes. 1", 1/2", and diced. This is important because the smallest cubes will dissolve completely during cooking, and the 1/2" cubes will partially dissolve and fragment into smaller pieces.

Cut the celery into 1/2" chunks

Cut the turnip into 1/2" chunks, then take half and very finely mince

Cut the onion, into 1/2" chunks, then take half and very finely mince.

Cut the carrots into 1/2" chunks, then take half and very finely mince

Very finely mince the radish

Crush the garlic, then remince

Heat the butter in a five quart, thick bottomed pot suitable for slow cooking, until it melts. Add the garlic, and saute until the butter starts to brown, then add all the minced ingredients in.. As the minced ingredients begin to dissolve, add the beef and cover. Stir the beef every few seconds until it is browned on the outside. Add the red wine, and the herbs, and let simmer for about five minutes.

Add enough water to completely cover the beef, then the rest of the seasonings except the bullion and salt, and let braise for about five minutes.

Add the potatos, the milk, and then water up to about 1/2" below the rim of the pot. Add the bullion, cover, and reduce heat to a medium simmer.

The stew then needs to simmer until the smallest potato chunks are completely dissolved, and the stew has reduced by approximately 1/3. This will usually take 90 minutes to 2 hours. Remeber to stir occaisonally.

If the stew begins to thicken too quickly add 1/2 cup of water at a time. You can add some salt to taste, but remember when the stew has fully thickened it will be much saltier than the thin broth you start with.

When its just for me I dont use any onions, or any veggies at all, and I use more seasoning to compensate.

Serve with hot rolls, or biscuits. This recipe serves four to six large men, or six to 8 normal people to the point of not being able to eat anymore. Which is as it should be.

First Post!!!!!

Yeah I said I'd get around to it before, but I'm lazy, what can I say.

The initial content is mostly going to be stuff I've written for other peoples blogs, and fora etc...

Suggestions, praise, worship, and deification are all welcome.