The True Story Of The Cowardly Lion.

You may remember the old nursery tale of the lion raised as a sheep, who, when danger struck, realized his true nature as a lion and saved the day, to the immense gratitude of the sheep.

Yeah.

Most people, not just here, but in the world, are sheep. They are raised as sheep, taught to believe they're sheep, and frown violently on anything un-sheeplike.

The operative word there is "most."

Some people are wolves, some are sheepdogs, and some...

...Well, some are lions.

Now before I spell things right out, I want to tell you the true story of the Cowardly Lion.

Note before I begin that this story IS NOT about me. I served in the 82nd Airborne, and was in Kosovo, but I've never been to Iraq, and would rather not, if I had a choice.

Despite the name, there wasn't any cowardice in my friend - let's call him "Joe," because he probably wouldn't appreciate my reference otherwise - or in his upbringing. He was brought up in a nice, suburban, middle-class family, good, solid left-wing moonbats, as seems to be all the rage these days.

He was by all accounts, a nice, respectful young man; he got good grades in school, did enough after-school crap to stay with the pack but not get a lot of attention, and generally behaved like a good sheepie, like his parents before him.

Then he turned 18.

You may remember that year; that was 2001. In September of that year, some very crazy, very bad people did something so awful that even now, five and a half years later, people are still trying to pretend it didn't happen, or was someone else's fault.

His parents ranted about how our government had failed, blah blah. But Joe found within himself some very un-sheeplike urges.

And Joe joined the Army. Not only that, Joe joined as an infantry ground-pounder; the very antithesis of everything his parents believed. They were, unquestionably, shocked by this demonstration of non-sheepieness.

And when 2003 came rolling around, Joe got himself sent to Iraq.

Iraq is violent. This is true. Iraq also has created casualties among our soldiers. While this is true, the news media loves to make much of the numbers, without bothering to note - just for comparison - that there have been fewer U. S. casualties in Iraq than homicides in Washington, D.C. during the same time period.

During his time in Iraq, Joe watched the news, and got more and more confused as to why the media was portraying Iraq, and the troops, in such a negative light; especially considering that he was in an extra-violent province and wasn't seeing the same things that the reporters were apparently witnessing daily.

But something else happened, while Joe was in Iraq. Joe learned self-discipline; restraint; a good bit of tolerance for the differences of others; he learned to rely on himself, and how to use his strength of will to overcome difficult situations.

Used to be, we'd call that "growing up," or maybe "becoming a man," if you want to go way back to where men were assumed to be tolerant, disciplined, and self-reliant.

But what really happened was that Joe figured out that he wasn't a sheep at all, but a lion.

A lion isn't a sheepdog.

And soon enough, his rotation was over, as was his time in the Army; he chose not to re-enlist, and went home, having served his country in honorable fashion, and acquitted himself well in said service. DD-214 stamped "Honorable" and such, he got home, and found himself in a different country than the one he'd left.

He found himself in a nation of terrified sheep, who had been trained to believe that lions are wolves, and sheepdogs are wolves, and everything that's not a sheep is a wolf.

A lion isn't a sheepdog.

A lion isn't a wolf, either.

Now Joe was home, with firsthand experience of what was really going on in Iraq. He knew that the claims of hundreds of thousands of casualties were simply not true; he knew that WMDs were found; he knew that the insurgency was coming from Iran and Syria; and he found out quickly what happens when sheep don't like something.

They ignored him.

Joe has no place at home, now. His family has reacted in ways ranging from calling him a liar to his face, despite his first-hand knowledge, to ignoring and refusing to discuss the entire situation.

Because his experiences overseas changed his outlook on the situation, he now believes that although it's unpleasant, we SHOULD BE in Iraq. His family and friends are unable to understand this. They claim the war "traumatized" him, or that he's been "brainwashed" by the military establishment.

Because they're sheep; they are unable to understand a worldview in which their nonsensical ideology simply doesn't work. They are unable to understand that all the piffle about non-violence goes out the window when bullets zing! past your ear. They are unable to understand that they managed to raise a lion instead of a sheep, and because of this, Joe has basically lost his family and the friends he had outside the military.

Joe is seriously considering joining back up, despite the great likelihood that he would get sent back to Iraq. This is because, as he told me a while back, "these folks just plain don't understand things. I gotta have someone I can talk to."

I really hope he doesn't. Because we need more of the lions to tell the world what's really going on.

There are sheep. Most people are sheep. There are wolves; those are the folks who bomb buildings just to kill a lot of sheep they don't even know.

There are sheepdogs. These are the guardians we have here at home; the cops and firemen who were going up the stairs when the WTC buildings came down. I've said before how deeply I honor them, and their sacrifice.

And then, there are lions. Our soldiers aren't all lions, although most of them at least manage sheepdog; but there are a hell of a lot of lions in the military.

And the sheep forget that they serve a purpose.

And more importantly, they forget that lions aren't sheepdogs; or, for that matter, sheep. They are LIONS.

A lion has no place in a herd of sheep.

It is a sad truth that throughout our country's history, we have treated our veterans very poorly indeed. Warfare IS traumatic; even those relatively functional when they return home have a - sometimes lengthy - period of adjustment before they are able to fake being a sheep well enough to get along in society, and some - maybe a lot - of them never really make it.

Go find a vet. It doesn't matter what war, conflict, or "police action;" go find a vet. Male or female, black, white, brown, or green; it doesn't matter. Go find a vet, and thank them.

Because it wasn't just their lives they risked in your defense; it wasn't just their jobs or their families they gave up to protect your liberty; they risked the very great possibility that they will never again HAVE a home - not a real one - with the herd, ever again, so that we would have the privilege of armchair-quarterbacking their actions.

They risked their reality, and their place in our society, to protect that society.

If you die, you're just dead. It sucks for those you leave behind, but for you, not so much.

If you lose your place in the herd forever, that is a lifetime of punishment in exchange for honorable service.

We owe the lions more than that.

Go find a vet and thank them. The sheep owe them that.

In This Post: Domestic Violence

I have a friend, Becky C. Her blogs are well-thought out, interesting, and very rarely do I disagree with her. However, I am a bit more of a rabble-rouser (Gee, you think?) than she is, and I try - I don't always succeed, but I do try - to keep in mind that other people's web spaces are just that; other people's.

So when a touchy subject comes up, and domestic violence is certainly that, sometimes I would prefer to leave my thoughts on my own page, rather than leave them as a comment.

Becky posted an entry about domestic violence today, and I wanted to comment. I REALLY wanted to comment after reading someone else's comment about how domestic violence laws favor women. But I realized, after reading what I wrote, that it might not be appropriate for her page. So I sent it to her as a 360 message - it being her web space, and all - so she could read it and decide if she wanted me to post it or not.

Either way, you're gonna get to read the less tame version here. Because this is MY web space, and I don't have to censor myself here.

And I actually feel quite strongly about this.

Ready?

Good.

I think the feminist movement is all fucked up.

WHOA!!! Big bad thought there. Throws you for a loop, doesn't it? But wait. Patience is a virtue, and if I get comments based solely on that line, without reading the rest, I will be disappointed.

The reason I think the feminist movement is AFU is because it has been co-opted. Originally, the feminist movement was about equal treatment under the law, and advancing the rights of women.

It isn't, anymore. Now, it's about vilifying men, ignoring biological realities, and advancing a political agenda only acceptable to those who are in fact insane.

This is why, back in the day, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "feminazis": specifically for the purpose of distinguishing women who are "pro-woman" from women who are "anti-men."

Of course, many, many women who are themselves unable to make that distinction got all pissed off. That's too bad, because he was right: there needs to be a distinction.

Becky's opinions, for example, are by no means hateful towards men; she is a FEMINIST. Gloria Steinem, for example, hates men and wants them all in cages, like the dangerous animals they so clearly are; she is a FEMINAZI.

That's the whole point of the term.

But it pisses people off, so let's not use it.

Let's instead use the acronym FUDAI: Fucked Up Dumb Ass Individuals.

Moving right along, what the HELL does this have to do with domestic violence?

I'm getting there.

Domestic violence laws, like any other laws, exist because someone got pissed off about something. In this case, such anger is more justified than it is in most such cases; a battered woman has an absolute right to be pissed as hell.

The reason they overwhelmingly favor the women is simple. Women get beat more.

Aha, now we come to it, don't we? Why, oh why, is that?

Because nature doesn't give a shit if we "feel" like something ought to be different. That's why.

Physical facts speak for themselves. Women are smaller than men; they have less bone density and muscle mass; they are genetically designed to carry children, which makes their leverage and joint structure different. All these are simple facts.

Saying "women can do anything men can," is naive, simple, and frankly, stupid. No they can't. Men can't do everything women can do, either. Because we're NOT THE SAME. Something that dumb fucking people - not just feminists, this crosses the issues and is a general problem, FUDAI of all stripes - simply cannot grasp is that inherent limitations are not evidence of discrimination.

If you have no legs, you're gonna be a shitty fireman.

Blind people shouldn't drive.

The mute make terrible telephone operators.

The deaf aren't all that great as vocal interpreters.

See how this works?

One of those inherent limitations is that women are not genetically structured for physical violence, the way men are. That doesn't mean a woman can't go to the gym and toughen up, or learn martial arts; it does, however, mean that there are consequences.

A woman who spends too much time in the gym begins to develop an overabundance of testosterone. You may recognize the name; it's the primary MALE hormone. It's also the hormone that stimulates muscle growth. And body hair. And facial hair. And deep voices.

Women who over-exercise get all of those, as well as losing their breasts and hips, and often their menstrual cycles. A woman who overexercises too much for too long can in fact become infertile.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT.

It is simple biological fact that women and men are not the same. Women have faster reflexes; better vision overall; better aerobic capacity, pound-for-pound; they can bear children; they require less food, and are better equipped to deal with cold than men.

Men are stronger, have better bursts of speed, are better at spotting certain kinds of details, have greater stamina, greater bone density, and can deal with heat more efficiently.

BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.

I'm not sure where we got the idea that the fact that men and women are different somehow implies some kind of discrimination. However we got that idea, it's bullshit.

It is a FACT that men and women are different. Denying that means that you're simply closing your eyes to reality.

Now, a part of that package goes together to affect - not explain, but affect - domestic violence.

Men are bigger and stronger. Which means that if a woman is beating a man, and he finally decides he's had enough, by and large a single return punch will end the fight. I've been in fist fights, and I've never had a MAN stay on his feet if I hit him squarely, as hard as I can. There is no such thing as a woman who could.

Dodge? Sure. Use incredible judo skills to use my own strength against me? Most likely. But straight out get hit in the face and not fall ass over teakettle? Not a chance. I'm a big guy, and I know how to punch, and there's simply no way in hell a female could take that.

And that's part and parcel of why I DON'T hit women. Ever. Even under great provocation. The only way I'd hit a woman is if my life were actually threatened. Sorry, but if you're coming after me with a gun, I'm gonna have to say "No," there. But other than that, never.

You know why?

Because I COULD knock a woman ass over teakettle. See, BECAUSE WE'RE DIFFERENT, we have different roles to play. You can dislike those roles, you can whine about those roles, you can fight them all you like, but ultimately, on a genetic level, men were designed to protect women. Not vice versa.

Part of being designed that way is a responsibility to do so. Only a coward attacks those weaker than himself. Or herself, I guess, although most women don't go for fisticuffs.

That notwithstanding, a man has a responsibility - BECAUSE HE'S A MAN - to defend women. Beating a woman is the greatest perversion possible of your design; it is directly contrary to nature's intent for you.

All of that is only marginally relevant.

In today's society, people - not just women - have been trained from a young age to believe - erroneously - that equal treatment under the law is the same as homogeneity.

It isn't. All races, genders, creeds, whatever, should receive equal treatment under the law, because we're all human beings. But I'd be the first one to admit that regardless of law, there are people out there smarter than I am. There are people more physically fit, more ambitious, certainly richer, maybe faster, maybe a better driver, whatever. Just as there are people who are less adept at any of those things than I am.

We are NOT equal.

We're not EQUAL, because we're not IDENTICAL. The notion of equality is silly. Equal treatment under the law should be the only goal of any "ist" movement.

But because we're not equal, there is responsibility inherent in that inequality towards one another. The strong defend the weak.

The moral equivalent of refusing to defend those weaker than yourself is performing the harm yourself. If you see a woman being raped and you don't try to help, YOU RAPED HER. If you see someone being mugged and you don't help, YOU MUGGED THEM. If you see people being murdered in boxcar lots and you don't stop it, YOU KILLED THEM.

Domestic violence is even worse. It is more than a defender standing aside; it is as though a king's personal bodyguard were the one to drive a dagger into his chest. When you beat your wife, you not only allow harm to come to her, despite your responsibility to protect her - you perform the violence yourself, in defiance of that responsibility. And to do that, you had to make a CHOICE.

Your parents didn't decide for you. Your teachers didn't decide for you. YOU decided.

I love and treasure women. The overwhelming majority of my friends are female; I spend as much time around women as I can. Because they're different from myself. They think differently; they emote differently; they make decisions differently; they are different. I, personally, need that contrast in my life.

Some of you may not; that's up to you.

Some of you no doubt think my urge to protect and defend women is somehow belittling, rather than empowering; that my willingness to lay down my life on behalf of my wife somehow denigrates her ability to do things herself.

Sure, she can open a jar that's stuck, if she fights with it long enough. My question is, why should she have to?

She can hold a door as well as I can. I'm still gonna save her the effort, if I get there first.

Because I love her. That's part of what love IS.

If you are an abused woman - listen closely. I'm gonna tell you the secret to it all. Are you ready?

IF HE BEATS YOU, HE DOES NOT LOVE YOU.

HE NEVER WILL.

HE WILL NOT CHANGE, EVEN IF HE PROMISES HE WILL.

Don't fall for the age-old predator's trick. "But if I've really changed, and you walk away, you will be the one to ruin our relationship. And if you don't come back, you'll always wonder."

No, you won't, because I can solve that problem for you right now. People CAN change. Most of them don't. If a guy abuses you, and then delivers that kind of line, that IN ITSELF is a sign that he's just trying to victimize you again. A guy who's actually changed will WALK AWAY, and try to lead a better life, rather than risk hurting you again.

Just so you know.

I'm pretty much out of steam, here. You can vituperate me endlessly about how I'm such a chauvinist bastard all you want, now.

It won't change the fact that I would take a bullet for my wife in a heartbeat, and try my damnedest to keep her from doing that for me, even though I know she would. My job as a man is to make sure she never has to.

[*Edited to add: a link to Chipmkr420's excellent blog about a coward, and the notion of male obligation and duty.*]

Body Counts, And More Damn Lies... Errr, I Mean Statistics

First things first.
For those of you who don't know, the Lancet, a medical journal, has published a study in which they claim that their best guess as to the numbers of Iraqis killed since the beginning of the war is about 655,000.

I was gonna do a whole long post about how this is obviously bullshit.

Until it turned out that someone else already did it for me.
So, instead, I'm going to post big chunks of their article with my snide commentary just to help it along. Sound like fun? Good.
As Stephen Colbert puts it: "Strap yourselves in, America, you're about to get a truth-o-cution!"

A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

Before we get started, this article whose content I am reposting is from Iraq Body Count, a site which has been keeping a triple-fact-checked body count of Iraqi casualties since the war began. Note that unlike the Lancet study, IBC's work comes from death certificates issued; witnessed deaths; police and media reports; and is cross-checked by no less than three different team members before its data is added to the body count.

As such, I am more inclined to trust their estimate of figures than that of the Lancet, which according to their own article, covers a range of 392, 979 – 942, 636 for excess deaths since the invasion. (An excess death being one over the statistical norm for a peacetime period in the same area.)

Let's address this in several steps, shall we? First, the margin of error. This is the big bugaboo in this study; the margin of error in the study's results is 549,657. That is, for those of you not math- or calculator-equipped, a 58.3 % margin of error.

FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT.

The defenders of this study have gone on and on about the fact that "cluster-sampling" (the method used to come up with these numbers,) is a standard, acceptable statistical practice. This is true; however, to those staunch defenders I would note that if properly used, it usually results in a margin of error closer to FIVE percent. Look at the election day "guesses" on TV; this same method is used to determine their numbers. Note the little blurb at the bottom of the screen, saying the margin of error - 5%. 3%. 4%. Tiny percentages of error.

This says that although the methodology of the study might very well have been a standard, valid method, it was misapplied with a vengeance by the Lancet researchers.

I want to emphasize that number again. FIFTY-EIGHT PERCENT margin of error.

The much ballyhooed 655,000 number that the Lancet is using as their official "estimate" of excess deaths in Iraq is the median number.

Now, the lowest estimate number, the not - quite - 400, 000 one, is already vastly higher than any estimate thus far published, even by those speculating wildly, but I'd actually be prepared to accept it as somewhat believable, simply because the Iraqis don't like us much and don't report in when they're injured; but 650, 000? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Let me put it in perspective.

The Lancet study delivers a guesstimate of 1,000 deaths per day in Iraq. The U. N. figures, and those of the Iraqi Ministry of Health, come to about 80 per day. I'm prepared to accept that a lot of deaths go unreported, but 920 per day? 12 times as many as ARE reported?

Bullshit.

You know what I'm gonna say.

But Wait, There's More!™

IBC points out this gem:

If 600,000 people have died violent deaths, then the 3:1 ratio implies that 1,800,000 Iraqis have by now been wounded. This would correspond to 1 in every 15 Iraqis.

And follows that up with this:

This yields a revised Lancet-based estimate of 800,000 wounded over the equivalent period for which the MoH has been collecting this information centrally. In that same two-year period the official total of wounded treated in Iraqi hospitals is recorded as 59,372.

Whether hospitals can provide a comprehensive tally of violent deaths or not, their knowledge of seriously injured should be much more complete.

Accepting the Lancet estimate would entail concluding that at least 740,000 wounded Iraqis (90% of the total) were not treated or, if treated, not recorded in any way, throughout a 2-year period beginning in mid-2004. It may be that many injured anti-occupation combatants have avoided hospitals to prevent identification or arrest, but they are hardly likely to account for more than a small fraction of this discrepancy. It would further imply that approaching 90% of Lancet's deaths are also of combatants.

Note that this implies that far, far, far more injured Iraqis have been simply walking around, wounded, rather than being treated. The Ministry of Health estimates 60,000 injured have been treated in the Iraqi hospitals.

Not 1.8 million. 60,000. That's a HUGE difference, and makes the Lancet study questionable in and of itself.

But Wait, There's More!™

The Lancet study also assumes that the Ministry of Health figures are false, anyway; they claim that they relied on death certificates for 81% of their "confirmed" deaths, but in fact the Ministry of Health has records of issuing only about a tenth of the death certificates counted by the Lancet researchers. The Lancet dismisses this as unimportant, claiming that:

"Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government's surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1,000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry's numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today."

Except they're lying outright; the Ministry of Health recorded 84, 205 deaths in 2002, excluding Kurdistan. Which means that the Ministry of Health figures are 70% of the Lancet's estimate for that year, not a third.

This means that unless the accuracy of the Ministry of Health's recordkeeping has completely fallen off - and there's no evidence that it has; they use the same methods now that they did 4 years ago - the Lancet study's figures should be reflected in a Ministry of Health casualty figure of about 460, 000.

Sadly, it's not. The Ministry of Health recorded 115, 785 deaths in 2005 - 320 per day. Note that this isn't "war deaths," but TOTAL deaths. The Lancet study, which purports to be estimating the number of WAR DEATHS, is estimating at a minimum - a MINIMUM - four times that many.

Let's take a look at what happens when you add the other 30% to the MoH's figures, shall we? According to the existing correlation between the MoH's figures and those of the Lancet's BAD-ASS SCIENCE, you'd get a figure of approximately 165, 407 total deaths in Iraq for 2005. That's a lot, but that is ALL deaths, not "war deaths."

Let's see how that adds up, shall we? If we assume that this death rate has held relatively steady - it hasn't, but let's anyway - since we invaded in 2003, we get a total since - the - invasion death toll of 496, 221. That's just over the absolute lowest figure the Lancet study estimates as the number MORE deaths there have been since the war started than there normally are.

The Lancet is estimating that there were more war deaths in Iraq in 2005 than there were actual, total deaths in Iraq in 2005. Read that again, more carefully.

THE LANCET IS ESTIMATING MORE WAR DEATHS THAN THERE WERE TOTAL DEATHS.

Does anyone still believe this study isn't completely full of shit?

An Awesome Customer Service Experience.

Today, I went to work.



Most of you did the same thing.



Some of you did just as much work, but at home.



Whatever.



ALL of you know what I mean when I say that most people in stores absolutely suck. They're depressing, disinterested, bummed out, unmotivated, and don't give a shit if you ARE the customer, because you're interrupting their OBVIOUSLY more important... whatever it is they do.



I work in a store. Because I also shop in stores, I have made it my personal mission in life not to be like those people.



So, I greet people. I say things like "How are you today?" and "Are you finding everything you need?" and "Good to see you again!"



I try to answer people's questions - even if I don't know the answer, I can usually find out - and I don't mind walking a customer to a product, if I'm not actually carrying something heavy at the time.



All of which usually passes unremarked, because people up here are less demonstrative than in the south, but every once in a while you get someone at just the right time and can just make their day, and sometimes that can make yours.



That happened to me today.



I was at work, straightening displays, stocking shelves, you know the retail drill. I hear someone come up, so I turn around, and notice Grizzled Biker Dude, complete with Grizzled Biker Chick. Angry-looking, shuttered faces, screwed up in scowls like they just bit into something sour. Grizzled Biker Dude in particular looks like he wants to hit something. They are glaring unhappily at the displays, obviously not finding what they want, so I stroll over - I'm from the South, we don't hurry - and say, "Can I help you folks find something?"



Grizzled Biker Dude says: "Grrmmmmph."



Grizzled Biker Chick says *glare* "We're looking for *insert product name* and we need several, but we can't find it."



So I take them to it, and they needed more, so I went and got them more from the back. They started discussing what to do next, so I ask: "Can I help you folks with anything else while I'm here?"



They hem and haw, during which I take off my hat to scratch my head.



Good timing, that; GBD says "That's a service haircut."



Yep, sure is. "Yes, sir, I was in the Army."



GBD: "What outfit?"



"The 82nd Airborne."



GBD: "How long were you in?"



"4 years, and then I went home."



GBD: "I put 20 years in the Navy."



"Well, that'll let you see the world, won't it?"



GBD: "Hah! That's for sure."



GBC broke in to ask why I got out, and I figured in for a penny, in for a pound, so I said:



"Well, ma'am, after I got sent to Kosovo, I realized that WE knew what we were there for, but the rest of the country didn't, and didn't care if we won or lost, or even bothered, so when it came time I went home. I figure if they ever have a war they want to win they can call me, but until then I have a wife."



GBD said "They did that same silly shit in Vietnam."



I said "And a damn shame it was, too."



We all kinda stood there for a second, and then the GBC started making that "we've-been-talking-boy-talk-too-long-so-we're-leaving-now" head jerk, and I asked if there was anything else I could find for them.



GBC said no, but GBD looked at me, all steely-eyed, and said "Son, we're lucky to have you here." And shook my hand.



Goddamn if that didn't make my day. I sure hope I made theirs.

A Sad Day For Truth, Victory For Truthiness.

In recent weeks, world events have been scary. The economy is going bad, or it isn't; the climate is going bad, or it isn't; the world ecology is falling apart, or it isn't; the only thing that seems certain these days is that people aren't certain about anything anymore.

But there are some things they should be certain about.

Some of those things are happening in the Middle East, and some right within our own borders.

But we should damn well be certain what they are, and what they mean.

To begin, there are many groups, factions if you will, in power in various places in the Middle East. Hamas, in control of the Palestinians, and Hezbollah, controlling a vast portion of Lebanon, are only two of the many groups in power over there.

One unifying fact is that they all, invariably, hate the U.S.

We'll come back to this.

They also hate Israel. But let's be clear about the dishonesty of their leadership before we begin. The Palestinians claim, loudly, that the Israelis displaced them from "their" land. This is not true. The Palestinians now committing violence against the Israelis were in fact expelled from Jordan by its king, after they attempted to overthrow him. With their ACTUAL nation having exiled them, they traveled to the West Bank, where they began trying to drive the Israelis out, and they've never stopped.

Repeatedly, HAMAS has committed horrible acts of violence against Israeli civilians.

Repeatedly, despite the world's attempts to portray them in a positive light (more on that later too,) HAMAS has defied the media and defiantly announced their intent to destroy the nation of Israel.

In fact, it's in their charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

and

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

and

Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.

As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do.

Now that spells out a recipe for violence. Especially since they say in their charter that they consider any negotiation with the international community to be a waste of time. Good luck over there, Dr. Rice.

Hezbollah is just as bad; their agenda calls for:

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

But they're not alone. Repeatedly, the American media, and to a lesser extent, the world's media, not only refuses to name these groups the terrorists and criminals, the murderous barbarians, that they in fact are; no, the media does worse than this, and tries incessantly to portray them as heroic freedom fighters.

Some few of the media are becoming aware that the terrorists are capitalizing on their willingness to collaborate; Reuters just fired a Lebanese photographer for Photoshopping a picture he submitted which purported to be an aerial photo of Beirut after an Israeli raid. He had added more smoke and generally "touched up" the photo to make it look as though the Israelis had done more damage than they in fact had, and this is typical of the media's efforts.

Take, for example, the recent coverage of the raid on the village of Qana; despite the now overwhelming evidence that the so-called "massacre" was in fact staged by Hezbollah, the media has ignored evidence to the contrary, and in many cases continued to report the "news" of the "massacre" at Qana, because they feel like something like that must have happened somewhere, anyway, despite there being no evidence whatsoever.

The media has also loudly and publically proclaimed our desperate, crying need to go home from Iraq, despite those with brains telling the world over and over that retreat equates to cowardice in the eyes of those we fight. Maybe you don't believe the world's leaders; fine. You're not obligated to.

Maybe you'd believe Osama bin Laden, instead, when he said in 1996 that:

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

That's right. Bin Laden claims that Clinton ran like a cowardly pussy. I've said that before, but since only the mouthings of our enemies seem to have any validity in the eyes and ears of the world's media, maybe this time it'll soak in.
But that wasn't all he had to say. In 1998, again during he Clinton Administration, bin Laden published another fatwa, exhorting the Middle East to rise up in jihad:

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Oh, yes, we knew bin Laden was coming. It was just that our then-President was a coward, and ran from battle; he was so determined to avoid it that he bankrupted our nation's honor for all the world to see, despite the presence of a determined enemy who had attacked us repeatedly.

And yet we laud that President, and treat him as though he deserves our respect.

Why should this surprise? In this day and age of complete, nightmarish denial of reality, the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations tells the world that rather than treating Hezbollah as the disgusting, cowardly barbarians they are, despite their repeated violations of the Law of War, we must treat them with respect.

Thankfully, despite the tide of support for the enemies of civilization by the majority of our media, there are still those with good sense. Charles Krauthammer published a great column about the current conflict, as did Victor Davis Hansen. So did Vin Surprynowicz. All three are good, and important, reading; all three will no doubt get ignored.

We persist in lambasting Israel for their use of "disproportionate force" against Hezbollah, to the exclusion of all good sense. YET WHEN HEZBOLLAH SHELLS THE LOCAL U.N. HEADQUARTERS, NOTHING IS SAID. (Look at the bottom of the page in "other developments.") Why?

The Lebanese admit that they lie about casualty figures, yet the world ignores it. Why?

Iran has given up its last traces of sanity; they've announced that any attempt by the international community to slow their nuclear program will result in the immediate execution of all political prisoners; they've released one prisoner - Osama bin Laden's oldest son, previously held as a bargaining piece, and sent him to Lebanon to help Hezbollah fight Israel; they've admitted that they are supplying the missiles that Hezbollah hides in civilian buildings and fires at Israeli civilians; and yet the world press gives them a pass, as though they don't mean it. Why?

Because we in the West, and indeed in most of the civilized nations throughout the world, are unwilling to admit a desperate, hateful truth when it is staring us right in the face. Well, fuck it. I will.

ISLAM is the aggressor here. Despite the constant media apologizing on their behalf, there is no gratitude from Islamic nations for our aid; there is only despite. They name us "The Great Satan," and eagerly assist one another in their endless quest to do violence against anyone who disagrees with them. They migrate to countries like Britain and France, and then use those populations to do violence against the native citizenry, in response to "offenses" often imaginary in nature. They are involved in more armed conflicts at this time than any other group in the history of the world, and yet we persist in apologizing for them.

"The religion of Islam is not at fault, it is the action of a few extremists."

You've heard that before, haven't you.

Repeatedly. Because we in the civilized nations of the world are so averse to the notion that a religion can be at fault, so terrified at the notion of prejudice, so distraught over the idea that someone's feelings might get hurt, that we've forgotten that the other team does not necessarily agree with us about that. And they have PR teams, too.

Islam preaches violence against heretics.

Islam preaches that a warrior who dies fighting the infidel is guaranteed a seat at the right hand of God.

These are not statements of a peaceful religion.

The world burst into flames a while back as demonstrations, rioting, arson, murder, kidnapping, and vandalism took place in dozens of nations because a newspaper published a CARTOON.

This is not the action of a peaceful religion.

Even CHILDREN'S TELEVISION programs in countries not currently involved in armed conflict are used for indoctrination in hatred.

This is not the act of a peaceful religion.

Islamic nations and organizations openly announce their intent to destroy our way of life and replace it with Islam, and we allow it to continue because we are afraid to name our enemy, lest we be accused of prejudice and oppression.

We've forgotten a simple truth: some things ought to be oppressed.

Sadly, we are fast approaching a time when that truth will be unavoidable, and our media are helping the enemy.

Facts are incredibly difficult to come by; the media lies openly, and then refuses to report the story when they are proved to have been mistaken. A perfect example of this kind of fingers-in-the-ears, "la-la-la-la-la" journalism, is the "WMDs In Iraq" saga. Despite the fact that we have FOUND, I repeat, FOUND, over 500 of them, and there are numerous eyewitness reports that the major stockpiles were moved to Syria before the U. S. invasion, numerous reports, the media persists in asserting, repeatedly, that it didn't happen.

For once, let's call things by their proper name. We are in a cultural war, this time; one that is fought not on a single battlefield, but one that is fought globally, as the forces arrayed against us use the naivete of our own journalists to spread their propaganda. Just like Chamberlain in Munich, our journalists are eager to give away all that makes us American in an effort to appease those enemies, and in the process they are damaging our reputation, and our honor, for all the world to see.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I'll do it if I have to.

Islam has arrayed itself as our enemy. It is not a matter of whether or not the religion is inherently evil; I'm perfectly willing to accept the proposition that it is not, provided someone can give me some actual evidence that this is so. It's irrelevant; the fact is that the leaders of Islamic countries believe themselves to be our enemies, and this makes it fact.

As I've said before, if there are in fact the oft-ballyhooed "peaceful majorities," then why haven't they stopped this perversion of their religion?

Simple. It isn't one. And that's the ugly truth at the end of the day: in order to protect our civilization, we may have to resort to measures long removed from our society because they were thought too liable for abuse to use: namely, destruction of nations, and with them, their perverted creed. There is no moral equivalence between a nation which sends uniformed troops, in organized fashion, into a city from whence they have been shelled repeatedly to remove or destroy the source of the shelling, and a group whose masked members behead innocent bystanders on video as a means of weakening the wills of those who resist them. One is a nation, acting in accordance with its moral imperative to defend its citizens and international law; the other is a group of lawless, murdering barbarians, and should be treated as mad dogs have been traditionally treated: with death.

North Vs. South, City Vs. Country

Let me say first, before I begin this, that I like it in Pennsylvania. It's a nice place to live, and I can certainly understand why people enjoy living here.



But it's not the same as living in Texas.



There's differences, you know. Not GOOD or BAD, just DIFFERENT.



To give you a little background, although the last few years I've been a gypsy, I was born and raised in Houston, Texas, which is the third or fourth - depending on who you ask - biggest city in the country. Metropolitan area population: 5,280,077.



I'm now living in Port Royal, Pennsylvania. Borough population: 977.



Liiiiiiiiittle bit of a change, there.



So:

North Vs. South.

1. North: Philly cheese steaks, which you can't get in the South, because they don't even sell the INGREDIENTS in the South.
2. South: Chicken Fried Steak. Proper Tex-Mex. The Bellaire Broiler Burger. (Shitty website, but possibly the best hamburgers on the PLANET. CSC will vouch for this.) Whataburger, for when you can't go to Broiler Burger.
   
   
3. North: Drivers tailgate like it was the national sport, drive with their high beams on ALL THE TIME, and generally act like asshats on the road.
4. South: Drivers tailgate like it was the national sport, drive either 5 mph above, or 15 below, the speed limit, and generally act like asshats on the road.
5. North: Dude, it fuckin' snows here, man.
6. South: WTF is this white shit coming from the friggin' sky?
7. North: Weis Markets, Giant, Mr. Z's, Aldi.
8. South: Randall's, Safeway, FIESTA.
9. North: salt trucks in winter. And plows. Don't forget the plows.
10. South: Flash floods and hurricanes.
11. North: OMG HURRY UP!!!
12. South: Dude, relax.
13. North: Shocked surprise upon utterance of the phrase "Good Morning!"
14. South: "That rude bastard didn't even say 'Good Morning!'"
    
    

I honestly have to give the South the edge on food, and grocery stores - the first time a restaurant up here gave me a "quesadilla" I almost laughed myself sick. The cheese steaks up here are the bomb diggetty, I admit, but one sandwich doesn't make up for the inexplicable total lack of decent Tex-Mex. At this point, I would settle for Chili's.



FIESTA has any grocery store north of the Mason-Dixon Line whupped all to hell and gone. Seriously. Get on the ball, people! You can do better!



I have to give the North the edge on climate, though, no joke. First, there's seasons up here, which was something I had to get explained to me, since I'd never seen them before. Second, there's a part of the year when it gets COLD, which - snow isn't THAT friggin' hard to drive on, you pussies - is a helluva break from what Houston usually has. You know, Summer, and the other two weeks. Plus, no hurricanes, and no flash floods - and anyone who thinks there are flash floods up here hasn't ever seen one - the climate is a dozen times better up here.



Oddly, for some reason people here seem determined to inform me of how hot it is. A lot. "OMG, we're gonna die, it's SO HOT." I'm like "Um, I'm from Houston." "Oh, my bad."



The dew point in Houston right now is 14 degrees higher than in Port Royal. Port Royal rocks.



Drivers are pretty much fucked everywhere. I'm convinced that it's a conspiracy - the government has a secret fleet of 18-wheelers kitted out to look like delivery trucks for major retailers that they use to follow me around, radioing ahead so that they can unload their horrifying cargo of world-class terrible drivers regardless of my actual location.



Attitude... is a little different. People here are always in such a hurry, even though we're out in the country. I'm not; I'm used to a bit slower pace, you know? Nothing wrong with taking your time. Seriously, the world will not collapse into oblivion if you fail to speed the ENTIRE way there. This doesn't mean I can't be hyperactive - feed me caffeine and I go wild - but that's not really my natural state. SARCASTIC, yes, but HURRIED, nope.



The first few months that I worked at my current job, I got the oddest looks from people. Not because I'm funny-looking - although I am - but because I greet customers. "Hi! How are you today?" gets you a look like you just shit on the carpet. "Good Morning!" can actually draw profanity. Down South, it's the exact opposite: if you ignore customers, they think you're a jackass. Now people around here are starting to get used to me - they don't jump quite as high when I say "Hello!" as they used to - but I think they just tell each other, "See? I told you he says 'Good Morning!'"



This doesn't mean people up here are unfriendly, though. Far from it. They will include you in their conversations if you're as far as a block away. You can tell, not because your name is called, but because you can hear every word quite clearly. People here like to share.



When CSC first moved to Houston, I used to shush her quite often as we would walk down the sidewalk and she would blare at me like a foghorn from two feet away. She comes by it honestly; people here are damn noisy. She didn't really believe that until after 3 years of Houston, we moved back up here, and were able to hear and understand a random conversation - from inside our apartment - that was taking place across the street in front of the bank. She said "OMGWTF?!?" and I said "YOU SEE?!?"



City Vs. Country:

1. City: There are tons of phone companies; tons of cable companies, and a plethora of broadband internet providers.
2. Country: I hope you like Embarq - they're the only phone company that serves this borough. There's one cable company, and you can get broadband from one or the other.
3. City: You never see the same people twice.
4. Country: A few weeks after I started at my current job, we got a phone call, and I answered. "Dave speaking, can I help you?" The person on the other end says "Is this the Dave who lives across from the bank in Port Royal?" Why yes, yes it is, but OMG.
5. City: You have either a driveway, or assigned parking.
6. Country: If you're in Mifflintown you have a meter. Port Royal, pretty much you just park on the side of the street.
7. City: No Amish.
8. Country: Amish.
9. City: Wiiiiiiiiide variety of produce.
10. Country: Fressssssssssshh variety of produce.
11. City: Mass Transit.
12. Country: Riding tractors on the highway.  Often drunk, and racing against other tractors.
13. City: Too many civil servants, not enough civil services.
14. Country: Too many civil services, not enough civil servants.
    
    

Again, a little different.



City definitely has the edge in utility choices, but since all the companies suck, and try to screw you, that's not that big a deal. Here there's only one of each, but you get treated just the same as you would in the city.



People recognize you, quickly, in small towns. I will probably be "that new guy" for a lonnnnng time, but just about everybody knows who I am. In Houston things are more courteous  in terms of greetings and whatnot, but at the same time more anonymous, and kind of disposable - you don't have to pay all THAT much attention to whoever you're dealing with, because you'll never see them again. Here, you're nice to the customers, because if you're not, they'll tell your aunt.



Parking - as long as I have a place to sit my wretched, ancient gas-guzzling boat, I don't care, so this is a toss-up.



The Amish - seriously I have only one problem with these folks, which is that Pennsylvania departs from the standards of every other place that has Amish and does not require them to bag their horseshit, which means it litters the roads, and they don't pay road taxes. You'd think the least they could do would be to put a poop bag on their horse.



In Houston you can get just about any fruit, vegetable, meat, game, or any other grocery item known to man. Seriously. It just takes a couple days in a truck to get it to you. In Pennsylvania, most of the produce comes from locals, so there may not be as much variety - try to find fresh habanero peppers here - but it sure is fresh. Couple HOURS in a truck beats couple DAYS in a truck hands down.



 (A note, here, about the Habanero. It is maybe the fourth hottest pepper in the world, behind the Red Savina, Naga Dorset, and Naga Jolokia. The others rage from twice, to nearly four times as hot as a Habanero, which is itself about 65 times hotter than a jalapeno. However, the Habanero is the one upon which I shower my attention, because it is the hottest one I can comfortably eat. Naga Dorset feels like you're going to die. The endorphin rush is wonderful, admittadly, but getting there is a biatch. The Wiki for it notes that most people who use them "touch the food with the pepper" rather than including it as an ingredient.)



[*Edited to add a note: I feel like a jackass. You can buy Habanero peppers here; you just have to look really really hard in the produce section to find the single one-pint plastic tub behind the zucchini.*]



Maybe I'm biased due to many moons of riding Metro, but the sight of two drunken farmers racing their riding mowers on the freeway makes me laugh until there are tears in my eyes, and I don't give a damn if it IS illegal.



There's no shortage of officious people with bureaucratic jobs in Houston, but there's very little help for people who are down on their luck. Up here, there aren't as many people working for the state, but they have a lot more help to hand out. (The first paycheck I got up here I was AGHAST at the number and volume of the deductions, but that's a totally separate issue. I have issues with most of that help, but that doesn't mean they're not honestly trying to do the right thing, and this isn't really about politics.)





I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't really matter where you live; anyplace has its ups and downs. You just kind of have to figure out how to be happy wherever you are.



I've got that down, and I'll tell you how:



Wherever I sleep tonight, that's home.

No civilian job is worse than being shot at. I promise.

I have the most beautiful wife in all the world, AND SHE COOKS.

My car may be ugly, but it runs.

My apartment may be small, but that just makes it cheap to air-condition.

The video store knows me - not like any Blockbuster I ever entered - and will order things for me if I ask real nice.

So does the hardware store.

So does the computer store.

All my bills are paid; all my bills are on time; and I have enough free time to publish offensive, sarcastic political rants on the internet.



Life is good.