Sunday, March 27, 2011
We don't need government to be our Momma. But, there's another American principle that's just as important--traditional family values.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Now, I know this may seem a hypocritical way of looking at things, considering my applauding the Senate Majority leader of Illinois for doing just this (being smarter than the voters). However, when someone prevents a vote on individual rights and freedoms, that, to me, is good governence. When someone prevents a vote on funding and budgets--that's obstructionism. Context matters, and in the case of California, it's time we were allowed to vote.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
the 7% problem
This is where the conversation went somewhere that confused me--she then answered her own question with, "I wouldn't. If God wanted us to use 100% of our brains he'd have made it so we do it automatically."
Um...is anyone else confused by this? If one attributes our brains to God, as well as our use of those brains, then wouldn't it mean our lack of use of them is either laziness or poor design? I really can't think of a good way out of this conundrum.
If anyone else can, please let me know...it's been bothering me since this morning.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Big Tent Revue Blog seems to be that. I don't agree with it all, but most of it is rather well thought out and, if it takes off, could possibly save the Republican Party from itself.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The first reaction I had was one that is colored heavily by my own job in intelligence. I know that Manning signed statements swearing to never release classified information on pain of life in prison or other punishments. That being said, point 1 goes to the US Government.
The second thing I had to do was ask myself, "but what if that information proves illegality by the US govt/military?" I gave Manning some (not a lot, but some) leeway in that case. I say only "some" because there are precautions built into the system for "whistle blowers". What I mean is, if I see something illegal happening (as a Private or a General) there are systems built into the Army which allow me to bring that to light. Now, if I give Manning the benefit of the doubt and assume that he worked through those systems and nothing was done (which I doubt since there would be evidence of that), then I guess you could say the next step would be some sort of civil disobedience where you say that your dedication to the rule of law is higher than your oath to not release classified information. So, this one--and I stress only because I give the kid the most outrageous benefit of the doubt, for argument's sake only--goes to Manning.
However, the third issue for me is--even if I give him the benefit of the doubt above, then it still doesn't justify his releasing thousands upon thousands of diplomatic cables. That definitely ISN'T "civil disobedience" by any means--point, US GOVT.
Now, he's released the information and is put into prison pending a trial. Having signed the waiver saying exactly this would happen, I have no pity for the boy. He loses, point Army.
As for his treatment in prison, this one's difficult. It seems as though the govt is doing a piss-poor job of PR, to say the least. If I give Manning the benefit of the doubt again, and assume that everything he's written is true and take it all in the most flattering light for him and negative light for the Army, then yeah, point Manning...however, I don't know if I can.
From what I've read, a lot of his allegations aren't founded, and aren't verified by any source outside his letters. Take, for example, the allegation I read recently that he was "forced to strip naked and stand at parade rest". Which was followed by an explanation that all prisons are told to stand at parade rest for morning inspection, and that Manning chose to strip off his clothes. That would change the situation completely and instead of being some sort of forced torture on the part of the Army into an attempt by Manning to "get" the guards, and having it backfire.
So, I guess my overall understanding is that Manning is an idiot (for breaking a fairly simple oath he signed) but that the government is doing its best to turn what is a clear-cut case of subversion into a martyr. Sometimes a tactical win can be a strategic loss, and in the case of public relations, the treatment of (or, more appropriately, perceived treatment of) Manning might turn out to be such a case.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
silly closeted politicians
Friday, March 11, 2011
Why? Because one Democrat objects to the term marriage and will not vote for the bill now. She tried to amend it so that it was a "civil union" because,
It's all about the word of God. It truly is."Apparently, her God can be placated by semantics. I mean, she doesn't want to change the law, just the title. I imagine her standing at the pearly gates saying, "Oh, no God, it wasn't marriage it was a civil union...see?" That doesn't even get into the fact that this woman thinks her view of what God wants should have ANYTHING to do with what my government allows me to do or not do. There's a difference between letting your faith influence you and letting it dictate politics.
After her comes a Republican who, from what he says, wants marriage equality...just not yet. He says that allowing it to be a "civil union" would be a "bridge" to equality. Baby steps, right? But why? Why bother? If you think that something is right, if you think that it's inevitable, why bother throwing up road blocks? He's acting like a three year old gripping the hand rails on the way to bed because he doesn't want to go to sleep yet. The only difference is instead of a child pissing himself, he's a grown-assed man who is supposed to be legislating--protecting minorities instead of oppressing them.
NYT epic fail...
Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.
“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. “How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?”
why hello random train...sure I'll take a ride...
I got my teeth cleaned yesterday and had them write a referral to get my wisdom teeth removed. I figured they don't bother me, but might as well do it now while I have free dental care. The doctor mentioned not once, but thrice, that it was "harder to recovery now that [I'm] older." I'm not sure why he felt the need to mention that so often...are wisdom teeth harder to lose than appendixes (or is it appendices?)
The woman who cleaned my teeth remarked that my gums were better than most, but that I brush too hard so they are receding on the back of my bottom front teeth. Here's where I get crazy...
You see, when she said, "but" I immediately forgot that she said my gums were better than most and I thought, "Oh man, I have fucked up teeth!" And then, I walked around the rest of the day convinced that I have bad teeth and that I need to take really good care of my teeth so that I can be on par with everyone else around me who, I had now convinced myself, had better teeth than me.
I do this all the time. Another example: A couple of weeks ago I spent an awesome four day weekend in DC with friends. I borrowed a fall coat from Will and wore it most of the weekend as I'd forgotten mine in my truck in Kansas City. Day two, another friend of his came by and said, "I wore that coat last week, it looked better on me." He was mostly kidding and it was a good natured ribbing, but I immediately thought, "shit, he's right. I look stupid. I should change...or lose weight...or put on muscle...maybe I need a haircut??"
I'm not sure where my low self-esteem came from. It's odd, because I'm also arrogant. How you can be arrogant AND have low self-esteem, I'm unsure, but I manage to do it (I also manage to be simultaneously skinny and fat, so I guess I'm just a walking contradiction.)
I've been going to the gym a lot, and am almost back up to my prime in reps and weight. Oddly, however, my body isn't anywhere near when it was at it's prime. While I watch what I eat (I'm at sub 2000 cal a day now), I'm still putting on weight. It's not muscle weight either because my waist is some 2.5 inches wider than when I was at my sexiest. It's kind of annoying...and by "kind of" I mean I obsess about it quite a bit. My friend Will (a different one than the aforementioned) who is in ridiculously good shape (I hugged him the other day and his arms feel like my hip bones in terms of density) said, "You're older now. Either you watch EVERYTHING you eat meticulously or just accept being pudgy." It was one of the BGO's (brief glimpse of the obvious) my old boss referenced.
Lastly, I bought two new pairs of awesome black and gold "kicks". That's what I'm planning on referring to them as since they're both pretty loud, pretty obnoxious high tops. I figure loud and obnoxious high tops aren't done justice with the name "shoes" so "kicks" might just be pretentious enough for them...I'm pretty excited to wear them this weekend.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.
Friday, March 04, 2011
protect marriage..so I can have three of them!
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Under Palin's interpretation of the First Amendment, criticism of public figures threatens free speech, but peaceful protests she doesn't like should be banned.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Years ago, I was visiting a friend in Montana. I had to fly into Seattle and his grandfather picked me up at the airport and drove me to Missoula. The drive was long, and slightly awkward. He was a nice old man, and was very interested in West Point. He asked me, "So, they let girls in now, huh? How's that?" I explained that it was...what it was. I didn't know any other way, and women have always been in the Army as long as I've been in, so it makes no difference to me--and most of the strongest cadets I knew were women.
He thought about it a bit and said, "Yep, I can see that. Good for them." I thought, wow...this old man "gets" it. Then he paused and added, "I do have one question though...West Point is a leadership Academy, right? So...why do women want to go anyway?"
I think of this old man when I hear people say things (like the USC quarterback) like, "I'm not homophobic and have nothing against gays, I just don't think they should marry." These people honestly don't THINK they're homophobic...they honestly don't THINK they have anything against anyone...they honestly don't KNOW that they're making peoples lives difficult.
But, they are. Unlike the old man, however, I can't just ignore it and laugh it off as good natured old-man thought. I have to fight it when I see it...and you should too.