Well, well, well: Israel has presented the Bush Administration with pictures of Iranian nuke sites. Awesome. It's good to have evidence from a disinterested source when considering your military options.
Let's just post that up on Colin Powell's bulletin board, ok? Yeah, right there next to the pictures of Iraqi mobile weapons labs and aluminium tubes... great, thanks - I have a hard time reaching that high.
The length of the Bush Admin's reach, on the other hand, is yet to be determined.
Anybody who thinks that making fun of bad, oversentimental tributes to 9/11 is "unamerican" or "unpatriotic" never saw this video. It's a slap in the face of the nation worse than any leftist protestor or crappy children's poem or even Michelle Malkin.
I think we should definately capture this guy dead or alive before bin Laden.
Hat tip to Dadahead.
This site which allows you to create your own South Park character is the fucking coolest thing I've seen in quite some time. Check out me in South Park:
Hat tip to Jacqueline.
For guys who want to be well balanced and normal without being a sitcom characture, exit Queer Eye..., and enter the man date (my male friends are already uncomfortable):
Simply defined, a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports. It is two guys meeting for the kind of outing a straight man might reasonably arrange with a woman. Dining together across a table without the aid of a television is a man date; eating at a bar is not. Taking a walk in the park together is a man date; going for a jog is not. Attending the movie "Friday Night Lights" is a man date, but going to see the Jets play is definitely not.
Now, I'll be up front - I have definately done these before, and I'm fine with them. But never, ever without the obligatory and self-depreciating gay jokes.
"If men become too close to other men, then they are always vulnerable to this accusation of, 'Oh, you must be gay,' " said Gregory Lehne, a medical psychologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine who has studied gender issues. At the same time, he added, "When you have women in the same world and seeking equality with men, then all of a sudden issues emerge in the need to maintain the male sex role."
And thus a simple meal turns into social Stratego. Some men avoid dinner altogether unless the friend is coming from out of town or has a specific problem that he wants advice about. Otherwise, grabbing beers at a bar will do just fine, thank you.
Does that resonate, fellow males? Does here. I can definately do these dates, and I'm not really concerned about my reputation, but it still bothers me (and my buds) enough to joke about it incessantly nonetheless. It even bothers our significant others enough (perhaps more) to give us a hard time about it.
Read more...
Here she is:
Beagles are ruled by food. Here's Tela begging one Thanksgiving:
Substantive posts to come...
Well, normally you will hear me do (almost) nothing but bitch about spectator sports. I usually don't appreciate them and don't understand the purpose of rooting for sides in a sports match. Why would you back one pro team over another?
College is different, though, as I found out these past few weeks. I started watching the sweet sixteen after seeing a super exciting game between West Virginia and Wake Forest that went into double overtime. I was disappointed Illinois lost to UNC in the NCAA Men's Basketball Championship game, but I have to say I've never been into basketball as much as I am now. The Fighting Illini came back from trailing the Tar Heels by 16 points at the half to tie it up, but they just couldn't deal with that huge behemoth, Sean May, standing in the lane and forcing his way to 26 points and only one missed shot. A few missed threes and a turnover in the last moments let me down, but a great game over all.
I'll be hyping up the 2006 Final Four and am looking forward to it. Hell, maybe I'll suddenly be interested in baseball now.
My fellow libertarian blogger
Jacqueline has a great post about
What it's like to be a woman and why men should care. It's something in which I'm particularly interested because of my experience as a man and as a boyfriend/fiance. She makes some compelling observations about the condition of women in today's society:
I and almost all my female friends have been sexually assaulted at some time in our lives, ranging from the very common but minor unwanted grabbing or pinching of body parts, to the less common but unfortunately not rare drug- or alcohol-facilitated date rape, to the thankfully much rarer violent assault and forcible rape. And even despite its relative rareness, I personally have several female friends who have been brutally raped, including one fairly recent incident. Many women are also sexually abused as children, and the abusers are almost always men.
I know that this behavior is not representative of how the majority of men act. Unfortunately, though, it seems that the men who do act this way each victimize several women. So a minority of men are assaulting a majority of women, ensuring that almost all women, through either their own personal experiences or hearing about the personal experiences of their friends, have good reason to feel afraid of men.
This is a problem for us men, most definately, not just because it makes it that much more difficult to be trusted in a new relationship, but also because it requires us to think in terms with which we're uncomfortable. I think I speak myself and most guys (at least, that I know) when I say that vulnerability is a disturbing concept to us. Some of us become defensive and protective of things we value, some become frightened, timid, and partially emasculated, whereas others embrace it by putting themselves in dangerous situations constantly.
My personal coping mechanism (one shared by many of my male - and female - friends) is to try and ignore the condition of vulnerability. This makes it particularly difficult for me to understand where my fiance is coming from. I remember back in college she would get upset that I would be loathe to walk her back to her dorm at night, which was across the campus. It just didn't occur to me that she would be in any danger, because I'm not accustomed to thinking in those terms. On the other hand, she's thinking that she's alone and vulnerable to sexual assult. How exactly do I understand that?
I suppose on the one hand, I need to come to terms with my own vulnerability. While I do think some women worry unnecessarily (it is in their stereotypical nature), some men like me probably don't think about worst case scenarios enough. Lord knows I've walked in some pretty sketch parts of town before and managed to avoid violence somehow - certainly not by thinking ahead. But it's difficult for me to think about danger because there's danger everywhere. I don't want to be consumed with worry, and moreover I don't want my fiance to worry. I do want to be there to protect her, of course, but how do I anticipate threats without becoming a worry wart?
It's a difficult balance for guys to achieve, whereas I suppose one could make the argument that women are conditioned by nature and life to be vulnerable and to worry - after all, I'm sure the history of human male/female relationships has involved violence or compulsion in probably a majority of cases. Let's be honest: the repression of the male impulse to dominate the female, and social support for female resistance to this impulse, is a relatively recent phenomenon in the long annals of human history. I'm sure there's a lot of lingering societal memory in this area.
A complicating factor in all this is how the experience of men vis a vis women has changed. Jacqueline definately illustrates the disconnect here:
When women go on dates, we have to worry about getting raped. When we agree to dance with a man at a bar or party we have to worry that he's going to take that as an invitation to then molest us. When we start dating a new man, the first few times we get into his car, invite him into our homes, or accept an invitation into his home, we have that twinge of worry, "Is he going to kill me?"
In comparison, guys, what's *your* biggest realistic fear about dating? That a woman might reject you and hurt your feelings? Well, we've got all your same worries of rejection plus the fear of assault on top of that. So do you see why many women are so cautious about dating or otherwise allowing themselves to be vulnerable to men?
Now, let's concede one point off the bat: Jackie has a point, no doubt. Concerns about being assaulted trump the desire to be accepted any day. But that doesn't explain the entire dynamic in dating whatsoever. The bottom line is that in today's dating world, I and many of my male friends believe that for the most part, most of the time, women hold the majority of the power. With the sexual revolution being fourty years old, society is quite clear that a woman does not need to get a man to marry her to have sex. There are plenty of options for women to avoid many of the consequences of promiscuity: most importantly, pregnancy. Therefore, men and women are on more or less equal terms as far as what they can expect from a sexual relationship. However, it is still almost always incumbent on the man to initiate relationships on every level, from the date to the bedroom. This puts women in a position where they have the power to accept or reject advances. In the case where there is no physical danger to either person, men really do take the first emotional risks.
I'm sure this is changing, but a woman's sense of vulnerability is one reason why it may not be changing as quickly as many of us egalitarian men would like. And because women are in such a position to reject men in a way that goes against the historically (not to mention biologically) assertive role of men, that may play into some of the psychology behind sexual assaulters. Clearly power is an important concept in the mentality of the sexual predator. Note that I am in no way, shape, or form suggesting that this theoretical female advantage causes the instances of assault - I am not blaming the victim - but I am trying to understand the total social dynamic of the male / female relationship.
Understanding, as usual, is the key, after all. I don't think many men understand how the liberalization of womens' roles in the world has made their lives that much more fulfilling, interesting, and complete. A woman is now able to play such a more comprehensive role in a man's life now that the superficial barriers of history have been erased - and the formerly exclusive male roles are enriched by the female influence. Fostering a society where a balance between the sexes is struck more evenly more of the time will help men and women appreciate the unique experiences of the other gender more often. Jackie correctly points out that this has to start with the elimination of violence from the equation. As men, we can't really take charge of the situation in a meaningful way until we understand the condition of vulnerability. Hell, that may even necessitate us getting in touch with our "feminine side" in order to understand the female condition appropriately.
But if you start decorating your room in pink, Matt, you will no longer be my best man.
Saturday is the big day. I'm kind of excited - he's been in the Army for the past 2 or 3 years, and I'll get to meet a bunch of his buddies from there, where he's been having a life completely apart from ours in Virginia. Part of me thinks he just wants to beat Tasha and I to the altar, but... that just doesn't sound like his bag. He's been dating his girl, Nicole, about as long as I've been with Tasha. It's just kind of wierd.
Tasha and I went shopping for their gifts yesterday - they're registered at Linens-n-Things. Shopping for registry stuff is cool - I think everybody should register for gifts, so you'd know what to get your wife for Christmas and stuff. I just wish it was easier to find the stuff. I kept having to double check the UPCs to make sure I was getting the EXACT item Nicole and John wanted.
Welp, I'm going home. Maybe a little Sin City? I've heard good things - and I trust X's opinion almost always.
I've had
this article on my desktop for some time, but forgot about it. It's a great little introduction into libertarianism, especially for somebody from a conservative background. I especially like the moderate tone it invokes (as opposed to some of the radical liberarian rhetoric that I believe sets us back as a movement.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a complete system of ethics or metaphysics. Political philosophies address specifically the state and, more generally, justice in human society. The distinguishing characteristic of libertarianism is that it applies to the state the same ethical rules that apply to everyone else. Given that murder and theft are wrong-views not unique to libertarianism, of course-the libertarian contends that the state, which is to say those individuals who purport to act in the name of the common good, has no more right to seize the property of others, beat them, conscript them, or otherwise harm them than any other institution or individual has. Beyond this, libertarianism says only that a society without institutionalized violence can indeed exist and even thrive.
For some exceptionally Christ-like people no demonstration of feasibility is needed. Doing what is right is enough, regardless of whether it brings wealth or happiness or even daily bread. But most people are not like that; they want security and prosperity-they ask, not unreasonably, not only "is it right?" but "can it work?" Following upon this is a tendency to deny that necessary evils are evils at all. Yes, the state seizes tax money and jails those who do not pay, actions that would be denounced as gangsterism if undertaken by a private organization. But if the only way life can go on is to have the government provide defense and other necessities, such expropriations might have to be called something other than robbery.
Moderate libertarians say just that. They propose that the state should do those necessary things that it alone can do-and only those things. Radical libertarians contend there is nothing good that only the state can provide-even its seemingly essential functions are better served by the market and voluntary institutions. The differences between thoroughgoing libertarians and moderates are profound, but the immediate prescriptions of each are similar enough: cut taxes, slash spending, no more foreign adventurism.
Read more...
CSS, which is what you have to be a guru in to make your own layouts in WordPress, is from the debil. I have been trying to achieve a look similar to the blogger layout for some time now with no luck. I'm not going to inflict it on y'all any longer, until I can get my shit together.
I just received the Flaming Lips' The Soft Bulletin in the mail from Amazon.
I knew two songs into it that this would be one of my favorite CDs ever. Holy shit.
Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots is good, too.
I'm not completely insensitive to the theories that Michael Jackson is a victim of a conspiracy (regardless of whether or not he is guilty) but in my opinion this is just not a smart PR move:
However, he said he believes he is just the latest of several "black luminaries" to be unjustly accused, citing former South African President Nelson Mandela and former heavyweight boxing champions Muhammad Ali and Jack Johnson as others.
Nelson Mandela? I can't believe he's comparing his situation to Nelson Mandela. Regardless of whether he has "problems", he definately suffers from some egomania (which is quite understandable given his life - just not the molesting children part).
I used to be very comfortable talking to people who support Bush. I could acknowledge that while I disagree with some of his positions and actions, he at least appeared to make the majority of his decisions from a foundation of principle. The benefit of this is that you "know where he stands". And I do think there is an argument to be made for predictability in an administration and the gov't overall - hell, if you're gonna fuck shit up at least warn people. But I also think it's important for people to have principles on broad philosophical issues so that their policies can be informed by a coherent system of intellectual inquiry. The alternative, of course, is doing only that which is politically convenient and expedient, which leads to inconsistent and overall unjust outcomes and policies that play off of special interests without a comprehensive understanding of the common good (or one's conception thereof).
Now, Bush has advanced and / or supported some policies in the past that are inconsistent with his stated principles, such as steel tariffs and prescription drug coverage for seniors. But this takes the cake:
The Supreme Court is considering whether Texas and other states can execute 51 Mexicans who say they were improperly denied legal help from their consulates, a dispute testing the effect of international law in U.S. death penalty cases.
...
The case also pits the authority of state courts against the Bush administration, which in a surprise move last month ordered states to comply with the ICJ (International Court of Justice) ruling and hold new hearings. At the same time, the administration said it was withdrawing from a section of the treaty so that the ICJ could no longer hear U.S. disputes.
Now, I'm not a fan of the ICJ. I'm not in favor of holding U.S. courts accountable to some international authority. And I'm not really a death penalty advocate whatsoever. And I'm pretty ambivalent about the legal necessity for consular help, especially after the conviction (where was this argument during the trial?).
Read more...
I've just spent all day bitching with a bunch of bitchers about the Schiavo case... argh. I so want to get over this and move on but I can't help be pissed off at all the people who have agendas on this.
But maybe there's a silver lining in all this discussion. If it promotes a philosophical discussion about what human life is - from a point of view other than that of people interested in the ins and outs of abortion - then maybe it's worth it. I mean, what I see is a pro-life movement that wants to define human life as a ipso facto good, worth defending no matter, what damn the circumstances. Human cells living in any capacity must be kept alive always. Hard, fast rules that make morality simple and decisions easy.
But what is "human life"? We risk overlooking some disturbing issues if we simply issue blanket definitions that serve to quell introspection and serious contemplative questions rather than encourage them. That's what I see the "right-to-life" people doing: they believe that the individual does not own his or her own life, that it belongs to God. They believe biological life in any form is the domain of the divine. So nobody has the right to end a life but God.
Read more...
