Stories vs. Truth

 The closest stories can get to truth is analogy.

 

I love stories. I've been writing them in earnest since sixth grade. I have two published fantasy novels that have been purchased and read by people I don't know. My main hobby is role playing mostly as the dungeon master for various D&D groups. 

 

Unfortunately most news content is no longer straight reporting, it is narrative driven storytelling even if there is an event in the background - basically it's "based on a true story". It's not difficult to see why. Someone wants to be known and famous (and earn their ridiculous salary) for their clever insight, not for being a projector. No matter how focused, crisp, or accurate. It's just not as "sexy" as delivering a pithy barb or directing conversation and information through questions.

 

Most of us would rather read a story than a news article. So they've turned the articles into stories. 

 

When we take in analogies and think they're the truth, we're not only getting misleading information, we get caught and snagged when the analogy breaks down, as they always do. Who has ever found a perfect analogy?  

Killing vs. Conversation

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk I was disappointed or let down by a few online communities I frequent, and it made me wonder just what (if anything) I should have tried to do say or share in those communities. It's difficult for me to find the right words to describe what I was witnessing, it seemed not exactly celebratory but at the very least sneering about someone being assassinated. 

Today as my thoughts come together somewhat I believe I am reinforcing something I've said before (even on this very sparse blog).

The "two sides" in our country do not understand each other, and the misunderstanding is on a fundamental level. Ironically, I believe "both sides" would agree on many values and issues, and even (if they were willing to discuss) on most methods (obviously there are a few hot-button issues where the divide is very real, but on most things we would probably agree).

Where the misunderstanding manifests greatest is on motivation, in the sense of personal values or virtues. Motivation to change in one direction or the other, or the kind of motivation that is deterrence.

One side believes the other side will be deterred by violence or aggression. By shooting or stabbing, intimidating or harassing, they expect the other side to stop pressing for values or virtues. So they shoot and stab and harass. This is (probably) because it is violence or aggression, intimidation or harassment that works against them, and would make them back down or even change their mind or ways.

The other side believes the "first side" in this description will be motivated or deterred by encouragement or shame, by example or explanation of facts. It is believed that, by extolling virtue and living as an example their political opponents will change their ways and adopt the virtues in question, or by shame suggesting that the first side is "not normal" they'll guilt themselves into adopting norms. But the "first side" does not WANT to be normal, they revel in the concept or idea that cultural norms are being challenged, and will actually continue further down a divergent path as a result. Again, this is (probably) because it is encouragement and shame, and explanation of facts, that influenced the "other side". 

Both sides are using the levers that would work on themselves, not the levers that would work on others. 

Obviously, from my perspective, the use of encouragement, explanation, facts, and even shame is very much more preferable than violence and harassment. I'm not advocating outright violence, but I am suggesting that telling people they're "not normal" when they SEEK abnormality (I would say an extreme pursuit of the wrong elements of individuality) is not going to work either. 

Believe Yourself

 I had recent opportunity to tell someone to BELIEVE YOURSELF. This is not believe IN yourself. This is a very different and (to me) ultimately more important nuance.

Believing IN yourself, to me, connotes that you believe you are capable of something. You believe you can run the distance, complete the work, get on stage, play the music. Perhaps summed up by "perform". You believe you can perform.

Believing yourself, without the little word "in" implies, instead, integrity. This means when you tell yourself "I tried", do you believe yourself? Or are you hedging? It is often said (perhaps to the point of annoying cliché) that all that can be asked is that you gave it your best. 

So. Believe yourself, do not doubt yourself. Tell yourself you tried or did your best - if you believe it, then you did. If you have doubts or come up with excuses, you are doubting yourself, not believing. Perhaps you have not earned "I tried". Perhaps you need to try again, more honestly this time.

If you DO believe yourself, well done! Keep it up. Always put yourself in the position to believe yourself.

Come and see.

Over the course of my life (so far, may I live long and prosper...) I have seen politics go from contentious to violently caustic. I do intend to keep speaking my mind, but one of the things that surprises me is that I believe politics has actually passed religion in its ability to incite reflexive, blind, toxic behavior. 

This does not mean religion does not cause arguments. 

I am not a traditional Christian. I would not be accepted by any of the major sects, my beliefs have actually caused volatile arguments with people who have spoken to me about them. I have little use for religious institutions, but religion itself? I consider myself a very spiritual man. 

That said, this series called The Chosen is smashing all my assumptions, all my fears, and astounds me. I may not be a movie fanatic, or a TV hound, but I have seen my share of masterpieces from Hitchcock to Avengers, Law & Order to M.A.S.H., Spielberg, Abrams, even Cameron. There is an almost unfair magic in the technical ability of a movie - sometimes horrifying stories are made more compelling by their production quality.

The Chosen is so well produced I think it is now my benchmark for the craft of film. It is the story of the disciples of Jesus. While you cannot help but put Jesus at the center of his story, it is the lives of the people around him who were affected, from followers to enemies, from Sanhedrin to Roman - you can really feel what it must have been like to face challenges in that era and what an impact Jesus had. 

The Chosen is free to watch. There is an app for mobile devices and a website (https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen) where you can stream everything. It is 100% crowdsourced, with no compulsion to donate. 

I have never needed so many boxes of Kleenex.

22-23 Boston Bruins

 THE BRUINS GOT FREAKING ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST ROUND!!!

Okay. Phew. Got that out of my system. Terribly frustrating (especially for a fan who lives just outside of Miami - tip, the team that eliminated the Bruins is from Miami) but it is what it is. I think I know why they lost, but not going to dwell on that unless asked.

This season the Bruins busted through just about every positive team record on the 99-year NHL books. It was a magical year to be a Bruins' fan. 65 wins. 135 points. Our two goalies had (obviously) spectacular years. The team was a team and heartwarming to watch. 

If you'd asked me, at the start of the season (with two key players out recovering from surgery) if I'd rather have the historic regular season they were going to have, or win the Stanley Cup this year, I would have to admit I'd rather have the historic 65 wins across seven months with record after record smashed. The Stanley Cup is more important in any given season, but not compared to this achievement.

Of course, I wouldn't have wanted it to be an either/or. 

If asked, I suppose I'd kind of like to see the Toronto Maple Leafs take it this year. I like Austin Matthews (possibly because he looks so much like Freddie Mercury) and it would be neat for a Canadian team to win. I also like the Las Vegas Golden Knights, and though I absolutely loathe the Carolina Hurricanes (ironic as I will be moving to their territory) I wouldn't mind them getting the Cup out of their system this year. 

Plenty of other teams to like, though none of them are my Bruins. 

See you next season, boys. 

A Round Dozen

Well here it is. Twelve years later. 

It's certainly not as though there wasn't stuff worthy of blogging. It did seem as though a lot of effort went into a very personally cathartic exercise that almost nobody was going to see (though, thankfully, those that did were important!)

Anyway, instead of "catching up" here is a summary:

I'm now 54. I live in South Florida (Boca Raton) though that is going to change shortly.

I own a boat. I guess I did during this blog - I'll have to check the posts to see if that boat showed up anywhere. I bought her only a few days ago and I intend to live aboard by September of this year (2023).

My profile is still applicable, I still like all those things.

I hope to change my format to shorter, observational posts. Some may still be directly political, but I'm hopeful most of my posts will be about living aboard a boat, the games and friends I have (I'll keep it ambiguous so as not to give away personal information), family (I am a grandfather now! Though not for a full year yet), and my favorite team, the Boston Bruins. 

I don't know who is still monitoring this blog 12 years later. I certainly haven't been following anyone personal, though I do like Bill Whittle and subscribe to his website. Maybe I'll meet him some day.

I'm not even sure the name will still work. I am Chameleon on here (my brother was kind enough to suggest that is my spirit animal or guide or both, and I've liked it - maybe I'll have one on the boat!) but the login account seems to have changed - was blogger.com always a Google property or did they get bought while I was gone?

Let's see how this goes and put a few more posts up.

Easy Rider, Easy Assumptions?

Wow it's been a long time since I blogged.

I just watched the movie "Easy Rider". For those who know me, yeah - it's amazing that I even watched a movie and I'm sure you're cringing that I chose THIS one to watch, out of all the good cinema and television you've tried to get me to check out.

Well, I love motorcycling and I wanted to see a motorcycle movie. After watching Wild Hogs, which was certainly okay (had its ups and downs) I grew curious because of one of the end scenes with Peter Fonda "the original Easy Rider". It only took me about 18 months to finally watch Easy Rider (as mentioned, I just don't think of movies or television when I think of entertainment, so it wasn't high on my to-do).

I wasn't really "prepared" for it, I only knew that it was a motorcycle movie, and I didn't know a good list of others (I have since started to compile some, but honestly if anyone reads this and can suggest a really good motorcycle movie, please do so in comment!)

So. Easy Rider. I thought there was a great portrayal of motorcycling, and that was what I was really looking for. Several great shots of the road, of riders just enjoying time with each other, that was what I hoped for. I had no idea how much the sixties drug scene was mixed into the movie, but honestly that didn't bother me that much. The portrayal, I would hope, is accurate and interesting as a period piece. I liked the "lead hippie", and like to think a hippie colony and a hippie leader would be much like that was portrayed (though honestly I wouldn't know). I thought the interplay between the two main characters was really good - could have been any two friends who are riders (though obviously riders are all unique and finding *exactly* these two isn't the point). I thought Peter Fonda's laid back easy going nature was wonderfully balanced against Dennis Hopper's more concerned, stressed, occasionally high strung character. Jack Nicholson (predictably) stole the show for all the scenes he was in. I had not expected to see him (really didn't do my research, just watched the film on a whim) and it was a treat. Wow he was young. His character got to say all the intricate, interesting stuff. Some of it absolutely wild and bizarre, but some of it keenly insightful.

What bothered me is the stereotypical portrayal of Southern small towns. Well, I guess not all of them - the two scenes that basically wreck this movie are both supposed to be in Louisiana. I can't speak for small-town Louisiana in the early 70s, late 60s, but I can speak to it now and for the past 10 or so years and it's so different from what was portrayed. I have ridden through small towns like those, stopped at diners and cafes like the ones portrayed, and driven past pickups that look exactly like the final truck in the movie. I had long hair, a scruffy beard, and clothing that could have been in any biker shot for Easy Rider. I didn't know anyone, I was just on a bike. I have done this "more than twice". I have never met friendlier, more outgoing, helpful people. In fact, the *only* problem I have had with them is they want to talk *forever*. You'd better have a lot of time if you stop in a small southern town. They love to visit. Build in time to learn all kinds of trivia. And eat lots of good food. Again, I will admit I am talking about post 2000, not pre-1975, so perhaps that's where my problem lies, but a lot of people today left comments on the movie (at you-tube) that suggested they hate red-neck hicks. Hollywood is providing them with a false impression and image.

More's the pity because my understanding is that the theme of the deaths in the movie is tied to social unrest and the Vietnam War. The idea was to suggest that "typical sixties men" were going about the business of living their lives (chemically augmented or not) and were suddenly and for no apparent reason dying due to "the establishment". Instead of choosing an actual parallel, the film depicts hicks and rednecks as having an automatic grudge against scruffy bikers and for senseless reasons beating or shooting them to death. If you were to pick a segment of society "also likely" to be in rebellion against the establishment, I think you'd not go far wrong to choose the South (then or now). Rebellion. Reb. Rebel. What flag do they often use? I'm not trying to say Rebs or the Confederacy were right, but I would submit the more likely place to find violence against freedom loving riders would be northward than southward. Where is Kent State? Not Louisiana, I'll tell you that much. Not in a small town either. Now, I'm not trying to say Kent, Ohio is like that now, or that I support or don't support any region more than another, but I have to shake my head at the actual victims of this film. Victims of the FILM not the plot. After watching it, are you incensed at the bikers or the aggressors? Another thing that is somewhat out of place is that the whole reason Louisiana comes up is Mardi Gras. So suddenly the state that bring us Mardi Gras is the one that also senselessly beats and shoots the kinds of people who go to Mardi Gras.

I think the bottom line is that I'm bothered by the influence a movie like this might have over people who can't see the inconsistencies, see beyond the selected antagonists to the themes behind it, and try to keep alive a scapegoat that doesn't exist (if it ever existed, again I wouldn't know).

I think this movie would have been better with a barroom brawl and injuries. The biking, the hippies, the culture, even the drugs and sex, and most certainly the rock and roll were in their own way awesome. They did a great job of portraying their own culture in a positive light. Portraying the antagonists (and I'm not sure there even had to be any in this film) was a total bomb.

Of course, the bottom line at this point is: who really cares? I mean, much as I liked the vast majority of this movie and am strangely drawn to watch it again (perhaps even to edit parts and make my own endings) it's not exactly mainstream, it's not what you'd call a mega-movie, it's more in the nature of a (very small) cult classic seen mostly by people who probably don't vote, don't have much voice outside a small circle of already convinced friends, or those who (hopefully) are also bothered by the awkward bits and realize which areas of the country are actually freedom loving and bike friendly (which, honestly, is MOST of the country).

Political Manifesto

If I were elected to the highest office of the land, this would be my agenda:

o Enact a flat-rate tax system at 15%

o Reduce the size of government by half:

-- Eliminate most Federal social programs, allowing appropriate programs to be privatized.

-- Federal workforce: complete and total hiring freeze (military exempted) until the reduction in government size is realized. Openings in the Federal government may only be filled by existing employees. Due to bullet above, there should be a spectacular pool of employees to pick from. However, we will continue to keep employees on ½ pay while we work through next bullet.

-- Private sector needs to buy in that it will take time to filter Federal employees into gainful employment, develop (yes one) a new agency tasked with outplacing Federal employees (including, eventually, themselves).

o The government shall henceforth be prohibited to acquire any new monetary debt of any kind. Funding of our national defense shall take priority over all other considerations, followed by appropriate infrastructure.

o Atone to the Constitution: a blanket "lawsuit" brought before the Supreme Court to review all Federal laws, policies, and procedures for their constitutionality. Elimination of anything found not to be constitutional.

o Senators restricted to no more than 15 years in office, two terms plus the possibility of serving out 3 years of a term by appointment.

o House Representatives restricted to no more than 15 years in office, seven terms plus the possibility of serving out 1 year of a term by appointment.

o Energy: Aggressively pursue domestic oil, particularly in contested areas (such as offshore) before international entities such as China acquire and utilize it. The Federal Government shall no longer purchase any foreign sources of energy. All Federal restrictions on nuclear energy shall be removed.

o No bill voted on by either house of the Legislature may exceed the word count of the original, non-amended United States Constitution.

o Healthcare: tort reform, medical savings accounts, interstate insurance competition, income-adjusted disaster assistance program.

o Social Security: Phase out, replaced with matching funds, tax-incentive retirement programs. Income-adjusted disaster assistance program.

o Aviation: Individual airlines will no longer be restricted on security measures regarding who boards their airplanes or with what. They will, however, be held directly and exclusively responsible for damage to any property, private or public, done by one of their airplanes no matter what happened to cause said damage. Damage costs are immune to bankruptcy protection. Airlines based in other countries must have an in-country sponsor who will assume 75% responsibility for their partner's damage. International companies without these partners may have their planes escorted away from our airspace or shot down.

o Return to the gold standard with a new currency (the Bradbury?) Valuation of previous U.S. Dollars will be made and creditors will be issued the appropriate Bradburies instead. It may be necessary to negotiate an appropriate issuance with major creditors, should they wish to participate.

o Any country deemed to be a hotbed for our enemies, be they terrorist training grounds or outright enemies themselves, will be given six months written warning that unless that circumstance convincingly change, their territories will assume 2000+ degrees.

o Withdraw from the United Nations. Terminate their lease on any properties within the United States. Purchase, for fair market value, any properties within the United States owned by the United Nations. Seize any properties not sold to the United States after three years.

o Applications to become a state of the United States can be found on our state department website. Designers of the application will have five pages, front and back (I am generous) 8.5 x 11 inch paper restricted to 12 point font. Only serious applicants will be considered.

o Henceforth, after the completion of this reorganization and realignment, everything signed into law and/or ratified by the Congress must be reviewed 10 years to the day and voted upon for renewal or will expire. This includes all agencies, spending bills, laws, policies, motions, treaties, or any other business transacted by the Congress.

Punks at the Bus Stop.

I have seen several boys reach the point in their lives where they want to be young men. There are many virtues in this time of life, many things to celebrate, and a great deal of life to look forward to.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a propensity to emulate those parts of manhood that they are discouraged or outright forbidden to express.

The reasons certain behavior are discouraged or forbidden are obvious. They are generally disrespectful, rude, or even dangerous to others (and to the man himself). We (most of us) tell our children not to drink, smoke, or do drugs. We tell them not to cuss, get ahead of themselves physically (whether by athletic or intimate standards), or to dress stupidly.

We do tell them to behave, strive, challenge themselves, be good at school (their pale imitation of work that is later to come), be smart with money, choose friends wisely, and to slow down and enjoy life instead of rushing to the expected climaxes.

Yet they are not treated as adults. For one simple, clear, reasonable, logical, and terribly frustrating (for youth) reason. They're not adults. They're going to be, and we have precious little time to teach them before they go out on their own and assume legal responsibility for themselves.

So while they try (with varying degrees of effort and success) to strive, be good, and all whatever else their nagging parents said (skating carefully past the more important things on the do and don't lists), they figure the missing link, the way to be a man (or an adult, for the "ladies" growing up now show more bold and shocking behavior than would have been expected before, and are losing their chance at blanket distinction) is to do those things we reserve for ourselves. That if they can master those things, they are adult.

Where in here do I condemn the behavior of adults? I don't. We're adults. It's tough to be an adult all the time, to work hard whether at a remote location or within the home we have. It's draining, effort-packed, often dreary work. There are few compensations. Many of which fall on the "adult" list. Adults need to cut loose once in a while in order to avoid being homicidal maniacs (and even then we don't always succeed, for details see the abysmal coverage on your news outlet of choice).

What youth refuses to understand (and adults must continue to strive to relate this point) is that those things on the "adult list" are earned, and that pursuing those things on the discouraged/forbidden list is much like any other indulgence: it must be paid for. We adults pay for those indulgences with our hard work, effort, and behavior.

Side note: this is one of the reasons we detest those adults who do not pay for their indulgences. Another post for another time.

We parents are not infallible. We often do under-reward youth. We must walk a careful line between protection and oppression and we often stomp confidently across it. We also cuss, drink, stay up late, eat the wrong foods, and watch or listen to the wrong entertainment. This is not good behavior and it does not mean we are adults, nor does it mean we are going to be treated like adults or considered adult by others. This is not the part to emulate. We also have money to spend on our toys, time to choose what we want to do, and partners with which to be intimate (hopefully). These are things we have earned and continue to pay for with our "blood, sweat, and tears".

Message to youth (though you may not be capable of comprehending it, I will continue to try): if you want the things we have, you must do the work we do. If you are not capable of doing the work, there is good reason you cannot have the things. Trying to take them out of turn will earn you the same kind of treatment we reserve for each other when things are taken out of turn. Also, don't emulate the worst in us and expect to be treated like the best of us.

Processed Pork Product

The bottom line is that we don't like spam because of its unsolicited intrusiveness. It has neither explicit nor implicit permission to be thrust before us, forcing us to determine whether it is indeed spam or not.

Here are some examples of explicit and implicit permission.

If we sign up for a newsletter, particularly from a store or outlet we enjoy, that has products we want, we have given explicit information for them to send us their advertising. We want it. We've asked for it.

Most of us (the vast, thinking majority) recognize that value must be given in return for effort. We want something from someone else, we must pay for it one way or another. Sometimes we perform work in return, sometimes we barter for something of value we have to offer, sometimes we pay in a representative currency. There are undercurrents here that explain the absence of a free lunch even when someone else is paying for it, and the disparity of our current tax system, but I shall draw myself back to the topic at hand:

We recognize advertising pays for something we don't want to pay for directly, such as a website with information we might not have paid for directly. News is important, or game clues, or clever sayings, whatever. However most websites and their information are not things we would sacrifice our money for directly perhaps by joining the site and paying for the information.

So, the website allows advertisers, hopefully people whose products we do think are worth paying for, spending our hard earned currency on, to use some of their space. This is implicit permission. We are actively going out and looking for something we recognize as "for free" with the understanding that what makes it free is the fact that someone else is paying for our potential attention. It may not be so much voluntary (though that is debatable, perhaps another time) because we are unlikely to find what we want without some sort of advertising attached, but it is implicit permission nonetheless.

Spam acquires neither of these permissions, but by aggressive tactics finds where it can thrust itself in front of us without our consent.

Why we elect executives (and avoid legislators)

One of the regular comments about this election is that we will, for the third time in our history, elect a Senator to be President of the United States. This is remarkable when you consider that we have elected 43 Presidents, and many of them were re-elected (one of them multiple times). It isn't for lack of Senators running for the office, for many have.

But this year, of course, we have no choice: both candidates are Senators. In fact, one of them has chosen another Senator as his Vice Presidential running mate.

It is not surprising to me that quite a lot of the "debate" (such as it is) about this election is centered around experience. One side opened that can of worms by attacking the other on what was perceived as a glaring lack of experience. The other side had no chance to hit back until the Vice Presidents were both picked, and then (with disappointing predictability) tried to out-volume the first by claiming the Vice President pick had even less experience.

Nuances abound about types of experience, whether experience as a State legislator counts the same as a State governor, whether a mayor is as important as a community organizer, or whether a simple count of years can be used for comparison. Whatever your stance, it does not surprise me that experience is at the center of the debate.

The fact is, put as succinctly as I can (I will doubtless expound out of all reasonable proportion), what we really want is not experience, but accomplishments. That's why we elect (in overwhelming percentage) executives. Executive jobs lend themselves towards accomplishments, while legislative jobs by the very way we have set up our government, actually work against them. It takes a heck of a lot more effort and risk to accomplish something in a committee. Most legislative accomplishment is (ironically) achieved by simply building up tenure and being put in a pseudo-executive position (a committee chair).

Two of the three Senators in the race must keep the debate focused on experience and not on accomplishments, for the only executive in the race has, in a very short time, accomplished more than they have - whether they're new or 'seasoned' in the Senate.

Naturally, I wish more focus would be put on accomplishments. This is not merely voting or acting upon someone else's agenda, but having a goal or agenda and getting it accomplished or passed.

Experience is impressive in its own way, in the ability to pontificate on a topic and to know (if one has been paying attention the experience the way one must pay attention to history) what might happen as a result of current events, but accomplishments show what a person will do, not just what they will say. For all the 'talk' about 'walking the walk', legislators afford themselves very little runway. It's not who they are.

Home Schooling and Microscopes!

*** Discount Home School Supplies is holding a contest to give away a microscope. You can choose between one of the three following miscroscopes from my website, an MSK-01 Microscope, an MFL-06 microscope, or a SMD-04 Microscope. Just blog about the contest and link back to Tami's Blog. ***

I am amazed at how much fun we are having with our borrowed microscope, it's an amazing world out there - including the small bits!

Dissolution

I am not here to analyze the results of our nomination process. Perhaps I will, because it deserves its own long post, but it would be an unwanted tangent here. I am, however, going to talk about the consequences as I see them.

I was stunned, as I believe were many others, to hear Ann Coulter state on Fox's Hannity & Colmes show that if the Republican nomination went to John McCain, she would actively campaign for, and vote for, Hillary Clinton. Nobody was perhaps more stunned than Colmes, which was a delight to see (he should win an argument once in a while, after all, poor guy) but I was pretty bowled over. Her reason? Since 2000, Hillary has actually been more conservative than McCain.

That is for someone with a better tracking service to claim. I do not know their exact voting records, I only know that almost everyone I read or listen to, the people I have spent years cultivating as not only correct, but sharing the views and opinions I do, and then backing everything up with facts and history, are against John McCain. Whether or not, prior to 2000, he was the model of a good conservative, since roughly that time, his voting record appears to mirror Joe Lieberman. Now, I like Senator Lieberman, he is right on the War on Terror, but that's where he and I stop agreeing. Same with John McCain. And if that makes him less conservative than Hillary, I will be stunned. I could not vote for her, but I'm not Ann Coulter either.

As of this moment, the race is not over. In fact, it looks like most of the remaining states are more likely to go with Romney than McCain, but there is a spoiler (my least favorite of the lot) in Mike Huckabee. I look forward and I see, now that my hopes were pinned (desperately and falsely) on California (which has disappointed me more times than I can count) that we are likely to get to the Republican convention without a clear winner. We will have three strong runners. McCain and Romney close for first place, and Huckabee a distant third. In that scenario I see my nightmare ticket emerging: McCain/Huckabee, as Huckabee is asked to become McCain's V.P. in return for all those votes.

My only hope at that point is Obama. I could not vote for him, but so long as there is an end to the Clintons, I have hope for this country. Faint, fleeting, nauseating hope based on the almost impossible dream that McCain will return to the conservative values he used to support, but better hope than if Hillary is elected.

In any of these cases, I must admit, there is another option. One that has been tried before, but with less success - and less support - than I believe there would be now. The idea came to me as I read a prominent thinker of our time - a man I believe is optimistic, conservative, realistic, and a very serious potential for President himself - asserted that he felt the United States had a less than even chance for survival. I did not read if he gave a time table, or even a proposed method to its demise, but it got me to thinking, just how would the United States be un-done?

I discard the scenario of an outside threat. There is no better way to make 92% of this country conservative than to attack us. Witness 9/11. Argue all you want, history is on my side.

I discard the concept of a coup, but only so much. We saw a recent coup in Thailand, but with the size of this country, its importance in the world, and the spotlight upon us, I do not see a coup as having the necessary darkness or swiftness required. Too many of us would turn against the military if it tried to seize power, and as the military is all volunteer, and comprised of the best of us, I find this scenario far-fetched (but not impossible).

I am left with the idea that it would be a continuation of the slow draining of our power and ability to survive through the enactment of socialist/communist policies. I do not believe this would work quite the way expected however. This is why:

The policies of socialists are paid for by conservatives. Soon enough they are going to push too hard, and take too much, and there will be a parting of the ways. This will not be a street-by-street war for control of our country (and a good thing for them, too, as we're the ones with the guns) but I believe it would be a bloodless War Between the States.

We are in a classic struggle between federal and state power. Policies which have been rejected time and again at state levels (because they have not been as clever at hiding the price tags) are being tried at the federal level. People have a dangerous perception that state money comes from their pocket, but federal money comes from someone else's pocket.

There are states that believe in growing the private sector, and states that believe in growing government. They are clustered, with only a few states out of place. Look at any county-by-county voting chart. The so-called "sea of red".

Fred Thompson, and Rudy Guiliani (I never learned to spell his name right, even though I liked him), both spoke of Federalism. This concept, despite the fact that it has the world federal right in the name, is that the states have more control over their own laws and destinies. This allows the ultimate vote for our people: voting with your feet. If you don't like the laws where you are, you can stay in your country yet move to a different state with laws you do find more to your liking.

I do not believe this would be a Mason-Dixon line split, but I could very easily see the entire southeast, most of the heartland, right up through Montana, and including Alaska forming a new (if you'll forgive the word) confederation. The individual states would never survive if we attempted to split into 50 or so countries. But a big split like that?

I believe I could see the dissolution of the United States of America, and the emergence (not unlike Pakistan and India) of two countries. Why do I believe it would be largely bloodless? I think there would be a lot of people to argue against it, and I'm not entirely sure I support the idea of a separation, but quite frankly I wouldn't cry big tears to see liberal states try to make it on their own, and I am convinced people in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Wisconson, New York an the like would just love to see states like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, and especially Texas leave the union. They have been conditioned to hate us, for all the wrong reasons, largely in order to hide their dependence on places that actually produce, and encourage, commerce and capitalism.

As for us, imagine what we could accomplish if we cut away the dead weight?

Judge your responses to this idea. If you're angry at this thought, it's because you have automatically assumed you're being called dead weight - you have a (reasonable) fear that perhaps you really are. If you're afraid of what I have written, fearful that it just might happen, you are the ones who have to conquer that fear and keep it from happening. Unfortunately the road is long and hard and requires a lot of effort - you have to learn (through easily found facts and history) what policies are going to actually hurt us as a nation even if they sound like they're going to help individual people. If you're intrigued, or even excited by what I have written, God help us both. And keep your powder dry.

Post-Script: The man whose writings I read that led me down this path is, coincidentally, a man I think might be able to avoid this disaster. I have not read his book, but plan to. Newt Gingrich.

Positive, Encouraging: KGOP

I read this article today and just LOVED it. Let me retype that.

L-O-V-E-D this article.

Gallup Poll Finds: Republicans and Mental Health go together

Here is a quote from the conclusion/discussion at the end of the article. I had to frame this somewhere. This blog became the 'where'.

"Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel)."

Have a beautiful day.

Capitalism and Free Markets.

I was recently sent a fantastic video clip of Milton Friedman explaining capitalism and free markets. It is spectacular http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A.

I then made a colossal mistake. I scrolled down. There was the comment section. Filled mostly with good comments (after all, how many people who don't like capitalism or this charming small giant in economics would bother watching this? Phil Donahue gets his (surprisingly ugly) head handed to him). But there was one person who had posted claiming Friedman had been proven wrong on everything, and who said (full quote lifted) "but i don't want business to even exist, i want everything in public ownership".

This was too juicy to pass up. I spent the next 1/2 hour putting together a response from my heart, only to find there is a 500character limit for posting on YouTube. Probably wise of them. Or the comment sections would outweigh the storage of the videos. Anyway, not to be deterred, I tried to post it in parts. I obviously don't understand the vagueries of posting on YouTube. After all, I'm only a webmaster with my own dedicated server and a bloggist here.

Still not to be deterred (too close to "détente" for my taste) I decided to post it here. So. Here it is. Unedited. But then, unposted on YouTube also, so perhaps I should have edited it.

--==<< >>==--

I find it difficult to believe bigmac's links are working properly. He could not have been watching the same video clip. But then again he certainly can't be right anyway, because he claims Milton Friedman was proven wrong on everything. The whole middle of this clip appears to have escaped detection (you know, you're supposed to watch the whole thing...) Friedman is completely correct when he says the only times in history where people have escaped true poverty (not the two-car, four-television, 300lb cable-watching couch potato poverty we have here) is when there is capitalism and free trade. It is not called "equal distribution of wealth" it is called capitalism and free market economy.

Your premise is completely and totally flawed and it is proven by every example in history: if you vote in politicians who are going to redistribute wealth to you, you are going to get what they want to give you, not what your dreamy vision expects. Only the privileged few (chosen by the politicians) are going to have "wealth" and that wealth is going to be in the style of the former USSR where one car, an actual free-standing house, and enough food to eat was considered "aristocracy". How do I know this? My best friend as I was growing up was from the USSR where he lived in "upscale" housing because his father had a highly respected job. They shared a floor of a ten-story building where the elevator never worked (!) with seven other families and ONE BATHROOM for the whole hall. Apparently, he said, people drilled holes in the bathroom in order to see who was taking so long. Again, this was "upscale".

Perhaps the impression that communism (or, if you prefer, call it socialism - though the arguments here seem to be for actual communism) is going to be some "everyone lives a six-figure lifestyle" solution comes from our current examples of communism? Perhaps it comes from the high standard of living enjoyed by our current welfare recipients?

Even China has moved towards capitalism and free trade. They're giving up the only part of communism that is apparently being espoused by some on this thread.

Taking businesses out of private hands and putting them in the "public trust" has the very unfortunate (and very foreseeable) effect of putting someone else in charge of what goods and services you are allowed to have. Government officials, based on their personal self interests (not the self interests of those who elected them) decide what services you may have, what foods and drinks you may consume, what pastimes you may enjoy, what habitations you may use, and what the punishments are for going against their will. In a free market, if enough people want something, it is made available. How much people want it - what else they are willing to sacrifice for it - determines how much that something will cost.

It is an illusion that you will be able to have everything you want if all things are publicly owned. Look where it is tried: you have quotas and lines. The government decides only so many rolls of toilet paper are going to be made, and therefore how many you are allowed to have. If you use your roll up for the week, you are ".... out of luck" so to speak. You can't get a bunch in advance, you can get only what is given out on the day it is given.

The plea to have business removed form society can only come from those who imagine themselves able to lounge around in hedonism if only the government ran everything.

They had better awaken and look around the world: as was mentioned in the beginning of the video, there are a lot of have-nots out there. That's what you get when there is no capitalism.

Yes, capitalism and free market economies produce some insanely wealthy people. It also produces a "poverty line" which has to be measured against a national average because there is no comparison to real poverty found in non-capitalist societies.

It is NOT in your best interest to vote for politicians who want to redistribute wealth. They will (as is proven throughout history and current events) CAUSE - YOUR poverty.

--==<< >>==--

So, as you can see, my post was a little over the 500 character limit. Sorry about that.

Lightening Up.

Okay. I admit it. I need to lighten up.

Not politically (I need to heavy down some more there) but physically. I was just joking (well, partly) with my family and friends, and here are some of the highlights:

A lot of us have tried low-carbohydrate diets, and most of us who have, had great results at one point or another. I lost 45 lbs and got into some of the best shape of my life the first time I tried the Atkins diet. I was leaner, more energetic, fit into all my old clothes, enjoyed the food, had a better attitude, absolutely everything. My health was phenomenal. But, as with almost everyone I've talked to who had "done that diet" or one like it, we stuck with it for a long time, had fabulous results, and then at one point (usually a major holiday) we just reverted (fast or slow) to old eating habits. For most of us, the 'bad' results happened slowly. We stayed slim for a while, and we had changed enough to drop certain carb-heavy foods (for example, sugary drinks almost never make a comeback). Instead of with many diets, where you finish the diet and bounce back to your old weight and then surpass it, most of us seemed to gain the weight back slowly, and often were less heavy than originally, but now stunned and disappointed because we knew we could take and keep it of.

That's right. The ultimate problem with the Atkins or low-carb diet is that you have proven to yourself you're in control. You can lose the weight, you can keep it off, and it's only your big, fat, greedy, oversized mouth that does you in. I say you. I mean me.

I know that, if I can stick with the diet again, honestly and seriously, I can lose the weight and fast. Unfortunately, it is never as easy as the first time. I have several interlaced theories why: First and foremost, we aren't doing it seriously and honestly. We're doing it half-assed (which, ironically, provides for a full-sized ass). We know all the little secrets for the so-called "maintenance" phase, which is after the diet when you do have a smattering of carbs here and there. Only we have more than a smattering, we have confused the maintenance phase with the regain-the-weight phase we enjoyed so much after we actually (and usually unknowingly) stopped doing the diet right. This "more than a smattering" for most of us takes the form of (or the shape of, if you're the other Wonder Twin, or both form of and shape of if you're the size of two people) little semi-or-full carb snacks that, on their own, would not destroy even a day's worth of carb count. After all, for me (and most, I believe) we can have well over 30 grams of carbs a day and still keep the weight off. You can eat a nice serving of chips, or a bowl of actual ice cream, of have a delicious "adult" beverage, or two slices of pizza. The problem is like a poorly written formula that gives the wrong results we go from "or" to "and". Our 30 gram day goes to 300. Then, we decide that today is the "one day" off of the diet this month, and we have a bowl of Fettuccine Alfredo with garlic-bread, chased down with the ice-cream version of Mississippi Mud Pie, and for a treat (as if that wasn't enough) a nightcap-tumbler of Kahlua & Cream (the cream, of course, is on the diet, so it makes everything else okay, right? Our 300 gram day goes to 1200. Then we repeat the process, if not tomorrow, then worse, the day after tomorrow, for the day between we have a lot of high-fat, low-carb foods that would have comprised a great day for the diet, but now is merely fodder for the set of four full-sized tractor spare tires around our waist because the carbs on either side of being "good" won't let us metabolize the fat.

But, we tell ourselves, at least we got a lot of protein.

Small consolation when your ass is the size of Wisconsin. (No offense is meant to Wisconsin, I have never been there. I would have said Arkansas, but that would have been intentional and personal).

So, most of us reason, we will exercise. We could do with a little buffing up, some nice pectorals, some rounded biceps, some washboard abs. Now, most of us forget a couple things here, namely that it takes many more years to exercise yourself into shape than to diet yourself into shape. Bodybuilders don't become Mr. Universe overnight. It takes decades. Decades of going to the gym every day for more than a 30-minute "I feel better about myself but accomplished almost nothing" workouts. Decades of going to the gym and burning valuable eating time. Since you can't edge out the other responsibilities in your life (work, kids, whatever else you must do) you have to take away personal time. This is time that could have been put to better use watching your favorite television shows, playing mindless computer games, eating your fifth three-course meal that evening, stuffing ultra-cheese popcorn in your mouth, polishing off that wasted extra piece of cake in the freezer, and washing it all down the with gallon of milk that was just opened close enough to its freshness date that you don't want it to go to waste.

Here's the worst irony for me: every time I exercise, because I'm not going to sacrifice hours of my time to exercise (I simply don't like it enough until it gets really expensive as in playing ice hockey on a team) I exercise about 30 to 45 minutes a day. And I gain weight! Not just that lame excuse of "muscle weighs more than fat" which is meant to comfort people who are losing ground despite trying harder but actual around-the-middle-jiggle weight that makes my attempts to exercise look absolutely comical (when it's not so sad you cry). I mean, the fatty-fat-fatso jiggling and bouncing on the dance-mats or rippling and lapping like a kiddie-pool while working the free weights kind of sad comedy.

It was pointed out to me (and I had actually been doing research about this about 10 years ago) that the problem is our bodies are not designed with modern civilization in mind. We have to remember that for 50,000 or more years we were designed to survive on the "feast and famine" concept. There was food to go around, but it was a heck of a lot more savvy about its impending fate. Around my house the deer get aggressive if you don't feed them enough, and will actually stand around your car waiting for you in the morning. Not to mention with greenhouse farming (which is often more 'organic' than traditional farming, by the way) we have fresh fruit and produce year-round. On top of that we know how to preserve food in cans and freezers. There is no famine! It is feast, feast, feast! But while our minds know this, our bodies do not.

The body is convinced that The Big Famine is coming. After all, that's the only reason we could be eating this much, right? It had better store every morsel and scrap of processable fat (carbohydrates, as I understand it, are translated into gooey body-fats by insulin) for the time when the food runs out. We just might, it reasons, live through the famine if we're fat enough. That is, after all, why we don't stay hungry after two or three days of no food. The body realizes The Famine has begun and starts happily consuming all the fats it was smart enough to store up.

Of course, there are other problems with fasting, or intentional starvation. Largely, we still don't get enough exercise (which would have been hunting the next wildebeest about 7000 years ago, or farming land diligently for food that won't show up for weeks) and often we don't pay attention to when we should really be stopping. Our body isn't designed to live off our own fat forever. Even during "famine" it was used to having berries or grasses or something to vary up the steady flow of internal fats. So we end up with heart murmurs (I can't help it - I picture a strange muppet sketch where the heart is grumbling in some mauve cave), we pass out, we skate perilously close to death... and that's only if you can actually convince yourself to fast. (For more than ten minutes, people). I only know one person who has done that and she said risking death wasn't worth it. Fat and alive beats skinny and dead - or even hospitalized and possibly permanently broken.

Sorry, there's no great ending to this post that solves some major political question if only everyone in the world would agree with me and do it my way. I think I am going to keep exercising in the "almost helpful" area and eating "almost low-carbohydrate" days. The fact is that I can do everything I want and while I'm noticeably overweight, I'm not as spectacular an example of rotund as I sometimes make myself out to be. I think I'm just going to keep hanging out in public, after all there are so many really fat people out there maybe I will look skinny by comparison.

So, thank that fat person next time you see them. They're doing you a public service.

It's FICTION, people.

JK Rowling announced Dumbledore is gay. http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

Sigh. I really wish I could go with my own reaction: "Who the hell cares?" but I have been asked about it, and quite frankly it is a very interesting issue to kick around, when you strip away the layers.

I will start with (and probably come back to - frequently) the bottom line. This is a work of fiction. The characters, even if they were based on real people, are fictional. They are made up. They are the fabrications of an author and do not exist. Their patterns of behavior, their personalities, their appearance, their actions, everything about them is made up. What this means is that you can't make inferences or extrapolations about other people because of these fictional people.

Look, how many times have you played the game with your friends of "who are you in this movie" or this "series" of movies? How many times have you come up with a perfect match - a character you didn't have to change in any way? One that was everything positive (and negative) about you without having some quality that wasn't part of you or that you had to overlook? How often has everyone who known you agreed with your selection? Typically it goes like this: you choose someone you feel is best associated with yourself. Others not only refuse to pick that person, they choose someone else who, to their mind is either better suited or a funnier association, and to your mind is nothing short of offensive.

For me there are several, unfortunately sad, issues here. The saddest is that, from what I can gather, gays and gay activists (at least the ones who bother to write articles or have the luck to have a voice in the media) are thrilled with this revelation. I can understand why they might feel that way - Dumbledore is a lovable, powerful, likable, popular character who is solidly good. Good people like Dumbledore (meaning that anyone who doesn't like Dumbledore is probably someone you wouldn't care to know either).

Return to bottom line: Dumbledore is a fictional character. Assumptions about reality based on Dumbledore is just as fictional. Bluntly: you cannot assume that all gay people are like Dumbledore simply because an author in danger of losing a fraction of the intensity of her limelight has announced he is gay. Some gay people (just like some non-gay people) are probably very much like Dumbledore. How many other drivers on the road have the same car you do, or a car the same color? Are they the same kind of people you are? Do they even drive the same way you do? Do they even take care of their car the same way you do?

Further sadness: The incredible capacity for short-term, limiting thinking (yes, I believe that statement approaches oxymoron) many people have astounds me. Doesn't anyone else see that if it takes an author's announcement, after all seven books have been read, re-read, analyzed, talked through, round-tabled, and a full five of them have been released as major movies, for anyone to realize that one of the characters -- who might be argued to have as much attention and love from his fans as Harry himself (possibly more, as Harry isn't always as likable) -- is gay mean that she is saying you have to be so far "in the closet" that not even the dust-bunnies know you're in there? Isn't this actually damaging to the gay image? Didn't an author just say you have to be able to successfully hide yourself despite years and years of millions of people examining you with a microscope? True support for the gay community would have been to announce it at the beginning, or even in the books - best from his own statements and actions. Instead what we have is more hiding and deception. He has to be so thoroughly un-gay in his outward actions and appearance that the author's post-series announcement is a "shock".

Baseline sadness: In order to promote itself, or to feel good about itself, the gay community has reduced itself to trying to associate itself with fictional characters "after the fact". Due to a culture in the world wide media (traditional-entertainment and news-entertainment alike) authors and fans alike are trapped into reacting in only one way: unqualified support. Otherwise, they are labeled as homophobic bigots. She herself seems to take this action in order to feel good about herself, either by supporting a group of people she feels compelled to pity (again, a sad failure of the gay movement itself that pity is their main tool) or by throwing a sensational wrench into the works (which in itself would either be a sad statement on her literary confidence or the evidence of a dangerous megalomania). If it is the former, the gay movement had better take a good, soul-searching look at itself as it means they are doing more to ostracize and separate themselves than to integrate and be welcomed by others. If it is the latter, someone had better start popping the popcorn, Rowling is going to be quite something to watch as she implodes.

Well, to tell you the truth, I simply don't care what Rowling says about her characters. I do care what she wrote in the books, because I enjoy sharing them with my friends and trying to wrest out the neat nuggets of mystery that tied the series and the characters together across seven books. There are many other series of books out there much better at this than hers, but none of them are so widely read and cross so many reading groups. It is easy to find someone else who likes the Harry Potter series, and to talk about who you do and don't like. Unfortunately, as we stop sending in money for new books, and as the movies finish their (spectacular) run, the focus does become us instead of her or the publishers (Scholastic or Warner Brothers). In order to force themselves back upon us, they have to say or do something sensational or titillating.

The fact is that all of us, "straight or gay" alike, want to know that our way is right. For a few, the "right" way is determined internally, without reference to others and their foibles. For most, unfortunately, the only measuring stick is determined externally - usually through acceptance by others. This leads, ultimately, to enforcement. The inability to accept that our own approval is sufficient comes from insecurity, typically generated by our own doubts - that in fact perhaps we are wrong! This answer being terrifying, it becomes all too easy to lash outward, finding ways to "convince" others that our way is right. While this may start gently enough, the fact still remains that because people are different, what is right for one person is not right for another. In the end, the person who can't survive on self-approval alone must force others to approve of them. This leads to double-speak, filtered intake, and self-delusion, followed by brute force.

This cycle is bad enough when based on the truth - which in this case is "who you are". If you're gay, so be it. Be strong in yourself, present yourself as a model of gayness to the world. The bad cycle of forced acceptance would at least be based on who you really are. But to return (for the final time) to the bottom line, basing this oppressive (yes, I just implied the gay rights movement is oppressive, which is ironic for one so rooted in the concept of pitying its adherents) cycle of forced acceptance (which is not really acceptance at all) on an illusion - that of a fabricated character in a work of fantasy-based fiction - carries with it the oppressive danger an element of the pathetic.

And, if you are not careful, it also carries the seeds of your own destruction. You risk exposing an incredible foundation of desperation, causing us to wonder just how many of your other assertions are based on illusion.

Hemispheres and Sacrifice

A friend of mine recently proclaimed that she is a Democrat, and also mentioned that, while she was still trying to investigate and learn politics (understanding that it does affect us, not because she wanted to start a political career) she pretty much responded to things emotionally.

To my observation, the two are somewhat intertwined. Whether or not it's right-hemisphere vs. left-hemisphere of the brain, it does seem that there is often a struggle between emotion and reason. This does not mean that Republicans don't fly off the handle and get emotional about their opinions, nor that Democrats refuse to reason out their arguments, but merely as a general statement, liberal solutions appear to be based on emotion while conservative solutions appear to be based on reason.

Classify it as cold logic or far-thinking, the difference is that with reason you actually get a solution, while with emotion you get only a fix. There may be some pun in that, as emotional solutions are often designed to give emotional stimulation, be it assuaging guilt, happiness high, or some flavor in-between. They are often short-term, not intentionally but accidentally. Some emotional solutions turn out to be the right ones, but usually by chance.

Modern politics, though there have been a very few other examples in history, gives "power" to a great number of people. We all have a voice through our vote, and through a few other very limited opportunities (which we often avoid, such as Jury Duty). The problem is that being informed on political issues is basically a full-time job. Those of us who have not chosen a career in or around politics don't want to spend that kind of effort remaining informed. We would much rather focus on what makes us happy or what is our breadwinning career.

Unfortunately, this created a fertile ground for manipulation. We just want to be ourselves, living our lives in a way that is stimulating to us. We want the issues, when it comes up to our need to affect them through our vote, laid out simply and clearly.

Enter the bad politician. While good politicians will attempt to do just what we want, the bad politician is in the game like the stereotyped evil business tycoon - they want money and power and everything that goes with it. They know that, if they spend the time, money, and effort on manipulating the facts (or creating outright illusions) they can make their answer seem simple and clear. It may even be simple and clear, but in all likelihood it is not what we thought we were getting. We happily go into the voting booth, vote for something, and find out later (if it comes up at all) that we have actually voted against common sense and an easy, effective solution.

Emotional manipulation has a much higher success rate and requires much less effort than manipulation of logic. If you're asking people to feel, they act emotionally, impulsively. If you ask people to think, they may just do it and reason things out for themselves.

Unfortunately the solution is not easy. You have to start by trusting yourself - trust your instincts, not your emotions. The line is often blurry (and I believe it is made blurry intentionally). Follow common sense. Then you have to take it to the next level. Start with your instincts, but if you feel there is something hidden, something that doesn't make sense or match up, you have to spend a little time and effort either thinking things through to their logical conclusion, or researching the issue further. It takes an informed public, which takes time away from the public - time the public doesn't want to sacrifice, and doesn't feel it should.

The fact is, we live in a republic democracy, and that means we have signed on to sacrifice some of our time to the running of our country. We do not sacrifice as much time (nor get compensated for it) as politicians or those who work in and around politics, but we must still do it. It is our responsibility, part of the price for being a citizen of this country. Eliminate this sacrifice, and the manipulators will reshape your government so that you not only don't have to sacrifice your time, you are no longer allowed to. The decisions will be made for you.

It's about sex, stupid!

I would love to hear this elucidated by even our more controversial megaphones, but I don't know if anyone is ready to stand on this particular soap box.

I postulate that the vast majority of liberals owe their philosophy to sex, and the control of it. Guys (particularly in college as it represents those formative, hormone-ridden years, though anyone 16 to 24 is dangerously susceptible to this manipulation) all too easily adopt whatever attitude is required to get in good with the girl (or as many girls as possible) in order to score. Guys want to score. No matter what they're thinking in their own minds, or what answers make sense to them, if a hot (or even moderately attractive) woman sends signals she wants a certain answer, it will be delivered on a velvet pillow in hopes the favor will be returned. Girls have been conditioned to believe it is not only a "man's world" but they can only make it in this "man's world" by controlling a man.

Examining this argument for a moment, let's say it is true. Control through sex manipulation will only work so long as the reward continues to appeal to the manipulated. This leads down obvious roads that either require a woman to do things she simply doesn't want to do (and not because she loves her partner - but because she is prostituting herself) or ends up in separation (because the woman decides, through simple market economics models, that the price for control has become too high). Part of what has happened is that the man has been led to believe that he can have whatever he wants so long as he says what she wants to hear. Whether it be unusual acts, multiple partners, a partner with an "augmented" athlete's body, or simply more of this "good thing" than his partner can stand. When the blessing is denied, the manipulated looks elsewhere, or becomes bitter. Abuse of one kind or another follows.

Examining this argument for another moment, let's say it is false. We would find ourselves in a world where women can support themselves, if necessary, without men. That they can not only do so effectively, but can actually excel. I do not talk about personal fulfillment, but simple economics. This does not mean that a woman must support herself, but she could if she wanted to.

Kind of sounds like where we are: a lot of people have bought into the lie, so we have a high rate of wrecked relationships (all I have to do there is look at my own street) but yet the women in those wrecked relationships are the ones on my street, in nice apartments or homes, with children, driving newer and more expensive cars than the one I bought as a man with income, and going on vacations (I know, because I am often asked to care for pets left behind).

Why did I go through all that? Because I believe young women have been deliberately sold a host of lies that are designed to convince her that she must dominate a man through sex. The pivotal fulcrum is abortion. Whether you support abortion or not, the issue here is that women have been convinced (wrongly) that only one ideology (liberalism) will allow her to make any abortion decision whatsoever, and that this is the ultimate (almost only) leverage that the woman has to control the man. This is achieved by suggesting that the woman is therefore free to use sex as a manipulative reward because if something goes wrong, she can always abort and continue with her life unaffected. (Never mind that women might have to deal with emotional issues if they actually do become pregnant - don't warn them about that, though it is likely to happen - just beat it home that they can have one and "everything will be okay", attempting to preempt this potential life-altering snag).

In addition, men have been manipulated to believe that abortion is their get-out-of-jail-free card. Not only can they have the sex they crave (and it is a serious craving, folks, I am not about to deny that) without fear of the consequences, but they don't even have to be involved in the decision making process - after all it is completely up to the woman only! He has no rights, so why should he bother or worry?

As it is now liberal to have this attitude or approach to sex - and realize I do not mean that conservatives don't approach sex as recreational, we certainly do, we simply don't approach the consequences of sex in such a destructive, ignorant way that leaves people unprepared for reality when it hits them - liberals go further to claim that anyone who wants recreational sex must therefore be a liberal, and with all the other liberal issues attached. Naturally, craving sex goes hand in hand with saving the environment through the destruction of capitalism, raising taxes on everyone (especially the middle class), regulating health care an insurance, deciding banking policies, reducing or eliminating our military, ignoring aggressive nations or institutions, etc. etc. etc. Don't you think? I mean, come on - don't you really think about all those things while you're horny?

Um. No. I tend not to think about much of anything else. In fact it becomes difficult to concentrate at all.

Liberal policies reduce or destroy families (welfare for unmarried women, more money for more out-of-wedlock children, but not married women; promotion - instead of simple tolerance - for alternative lifestyles that do not produce children; abortions on whim; etc.) They face a huge problem. Conservative policies nurture and salvage families (tax benefits for families; religion to counsel and help those in need; encouraging adoption instead of abortion; etc.) Political ideology, if allowed to run its natural course, is handed down smoothly from parents to children. The only places where this can be routinely interrupted is when parents and children are separated - which happens mostly through educational institutions. It becomes imperative that liberals therefore attack this section of children's lives. They aren't going to produce enough liberals to keep up with conservatives, therefore they must find ways to steal them.

The irony is that they have chosen the very policies which so dangerously retard their growth to be their champion, their defining issue.

How many men do you honestly think would be liberal if there weren't liberal women willing to sell their sex to manipulate them? How many liberal men would remain liberal if their partner(s) refused to give them sex just to have them toe the party line?

Don't even try to turn the tables on this one. How many conservative women do you honestly believe are using sex to manipulate men into becoming conservatives, particularly for control over their men? Yeah. That one fits. Conservatives believe women ought to dominate men.

Try again. We believe men and women should work together, overcoming the challenges they face, finding mutual support and comfort (yes, that kind of comfort too, often especially) in their relationship. These people, rooted in solid relationships, will not require government assistance programs designed by liberals to keep them in misery and poverty. They will learn from their mistakes, or absorb their challenges, turning them to good, possibly even advancing their own standard of living.

Listen guys, I'm not letting us off the hook here. It's our impatience and insecurity in the first place that enables this whole dangerous, manipulative, destructive cycle. Yes. That means we need to learn to be patient and we must be confident in ourselves. The rewards will follow, and there will be no strings attached - in fact the rewards and the mechanisms for achieving them will be wings strapped to our feet and back. Sounds an awful lot like "seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you" doesn't it?

But that leads down another road liberals can't stand.

Inevitable Iraq

Quite a lot has been said about Iraq, and justly so because it is a defining issue of our times, and a great deal of political hopes have been pinned to it (all across the spectrum). The arguments have been made, and as I am no expert in the field, I cannot refute them, that the Bush Administration succeeded in the military action but did not plan for the aftermath. They fall into one form or another of "win the war and lose the peace" slogans and dialogs.

The fact is, this is the only place where politics can debate on Iraq, because we have gone there and our military was not going to lose that fight. The argument about whether or not we should have gone happened, and was overwhelmingly supported by Congress. Twice, and then several times again. The numbers are staggering that suggest, not only here in the USA but around the world, Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with.

Even the latest chicanery by political detractors in an attempt to wildly distort Alan Greenspan's words actually highlights the fact that Hussein was a global disaster actively trying to happen. When people claim he said the Iraq war was for oil, what he was saying was that he advised the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with in order to secure the world's oil supplies or there would be worldwide economic meltdown. So he wasn't saying the war was for oil, but he was certainly making a case that it could be, and that he would have supported it.

So the accusation today (because detractors are fast running out of enemy ground upon which to stand) is that the Bush Administration rushed to war without a plan for securing the victory. That we won military objectives in no time but managed to create a political and social vacuum in which atrocities and terrorism spread. Whether or not we are making some progress now and whether or not Iraq becomes a peaceful, supportive democracy in the future (hopefully near) is beside the point.

The "elephant in the room" (a phrase I happen to love now, despite my general dislike of clichés) is that we had to go in there, and we had to act fast. Whether or not the intelligence reports were correct that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (some were found, but not the hoards that the media expected) or Saddam Hussein was looking to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger (and Joe Wilson's own report claiming that he found no evidence of the attempted deal actually increased non-USA intelligence estimates that Hussein actually was seeking uranium) or that oil was in danger of being globally destabilized (though how you call a resource in the hands of Iran and Venezuela "stable" is beyond me) the votes were in from a huge coalition (larger than World War II) as well as massive numbers here in the USA (especially in Congress) and we had to act.

Just how does one plan to help a country become stable after a war? I would love to hear more about how it was done after World War II. Germany and Japan are amazing countries well worth extolling for where they are today.

First and foremost, in my humble opinion, the problem today is with the immediacy of media and their vapid, rapid need for higher ratings through controversy. In the aftermath of WWII there were journalists, and doubtless on the scene in Germany and Japan, but their ability to affect public opinion with sensational headlines was diminished by the technology of the day. Not to mention there was a Democrat in office during and immediately after the war. Not a modern day Democrat, thank God, but a Democrat nevertheless.

As a result I believe we were forced to appear too nice, too hands off, and there was a powerful microscope watching our every move lest we attempt to turn Iraq into a little mini-USA, or puppet state. Due to this public sentiment, we attempted to turn too much over to the Iraqis too fast. The accusation that we were occupiers was everywhere. Well, we occupied Germany and Japan, and last I checked they were doing pretty well, were very independent of the United States, and certainly did not do whatever the White House told them. Yes, we might have had to control the country for a year or two, and we might have had to appoint people to certain positions, and we might have had to make stronger recommendations about what should and should not be included in their constitution, but the result would have been a stable Iraq faster and more reliably than we have seen.

In short, the Bush Administration was told not to have a plan for the peace, because it could have only been a Puppet Plan, and then was accused for not having a plan when the people of Iraq didn't magically fall into place and create a beautiful, sparkling, model democracy overnight.

Where did peace happen, and quickly? Where there was martial law, or military control over areas. Those places have been handed over more quickly, and with better results, than the places that were told we couldn't help them set up their politics.

Well duh. Maybe it was a little much to ask people who had been oppressed by their leadership for decades to suddenly become elder statesmen. They needed guidance, they still need help, and we're going to be there longer because we "didn't do it right the first time". Why didn't we? Because the decisions would have been unpopular with the people who (politically) needed us to fail.

Will Iraq become a peaceful democracy, or at least a country that isn't hell bent on our destruction? I can't say. I believe so, and I believe we're seeing great progress over there. I do believe the human spirit yearns to be free, to make its own choices, to succeed on its own merits. It may be a bumpy road, but let's face the ultimate fact, people: while we like to believe (and I do) that God created everyone with equal value, not everyone's path is, or challenges are, the same.