There are a lot of charities vying for your attention come holiday time.
There are a lot of them that purport to be supporting our troops.
A lot of those, like the Red Cross, accept donations, and after paying their executives huge sums of money, dole out supplies to the troops, for which the troops are often charged.
Fuck all that.
There's a charity _I_ want to tell you about.
It's small. It's in fact run by two people, both of whom work for free. Their total "for the expenses of the charity" expenditures in six years has been the cost of a single laptop computer to track what they do.
In that six years, they've grown beyond their own wildest expectations. When LBEH started, it was just one guy, a gentleman named Ernie Stewart.
Ernie runs a frequently raunchy, always sarcastic, often hilarious website called EHOWA, short for Ernie's House Of Whoop-Ass.
I know; "oh, THIS sounds like a legitimate charity, and stuff." Oh ye of little faith.
Ernie is a veteran. Like many veterans, he remembered many holidays when he could have taken leave to go hang with his family, but was unable to go due to transportation expenses. Now, the military IN THEORY provides transportation to G.I.s for free, via MAC flights, but in reality those are what's called space-available transportation. Which means if there's no room, you're outta luck. What's worse, you can get stuck on the way BACK, and come in late - and that's against the UCMJ - you can get in serious hot water for it.
Not many G.I.s chance it. Especially with the ever-increasing stretch on the Military Airlift Command.
So, six years ago, Ernie decided that he had gotten enough emails from G.I.s complaining about being unable to take leave, and set up a Paypal account. He posted initially just within the forums of his own website, asking for donations to buy tickets for G.I.s stationed overseas to get home for the holidays.
Let's Bring 'Em Home was born.
Ernie got a wake-up call. The first time - December, 2001 - that he had the PP account open, he got $13,000 from his readers, and was suddenly totally out of his depth. Which brings us to the second member of LBEH - Kathryn Jensen. Kat works in the reservations department of Continental Airlines, and totally saved Ernie's bacon.
The second year, they had so many ticket requests that Kat took a week of vacation time to process them all; Kat and Ernie managed to produce 161 tickets for deployed military personnel.
They also got noticed, a little.
This year, they've received - so far - donations of $25,645.74, and 75,000 frequent flyer miles. They're accepting donations of cash or miles, and donations are tax-deductible.
They've already completed 45 tickets this year, and it's just starting the first week of December.
I can understand if you've never heard of them.
But if there's a charity that deserves our attention this year, guys, it's LBEH. ESPECIALLY all you Democrat "bring home our troops at any cost OMG" folks. You REALLY ought to be giving Ernie a hand.
I damn well will be.
[*Edited to add: I, clearly, am not the only one talking about this. This is good; more people need to be talking about it.*]
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
If This Is Where Political Correctness Takes Us, I'm In If It Ends In A Threesome
...And you will understand the title in juuuuuust a minute.
\r\n
\r\nWith me now?
\r\n
\r\n[*Edited to add: after viewing, Samara B. pointed out that at no point did either "legal team" mention possible pregnancy. LMFAO.*]
\r\n
\r\nWith me now?
\r\n
\r\n[*Edited to add: after viewing, Samara B. pointed out that at no point did either "legal team" mention possible pregnancy. LMFAO.*]
WOOHOOO! MORE FAKE NEWS!!! YOU LOVE IT, I KNOW YOU DO!!
...But this time, it's REALLY fun.
See, in the past, I've made a bit of a stink about so-called VNRs - "video news releases," which same are video segments bought, paid for, and usually filmed by big companies, or the government - and then aired by news stations as though they were legitimate news stories, often without attribution of any kind.
This isn't those.
Oh no.
It's MUCH better.
See, for the past several YEARS now, the West has been inundated by a flood of propaganda from the news media about how much the war in Iraq sucks.
Not that this counts under evidentiary rules, but every friend I have, which is quite a few, who has come back from Iraq, has said the same thing: "They're full of shit."
And now we know why.
The fauxtography and "rocket ride" scams in Lebanon weren't enough.
Nooooo.
The Associated Press has just been caught falsifying whole news reports specifically to make the U. S. look bad. Not "some," dozens and dozens. And this is only the ones we know for sure about.
Now, the lefty cookie-cutter reply is "So? That doesn't make things over there any better."
But it does mean there's doubt.
The comments on the blog I found this on originally are interesting; somehow, the fact that the AP got caught falsifying news stories was deemed irrelevant by the lefty posters, who immediately started their fingers-in-ears chanting of "Bush lied! Bush lied!"
Let's clear this up. No he didn't. The world community, and its various intelligence apparata, as well as the Clinton administration, all reported that Saddam had WMDs.
Our Congressmen - practically all the Republicans, and at least half the Democrats - voted to go to war based on this resolution, which features 23 separate points justifying the war.
So far, NONE of them have been proven wrong.
There's been a whole lot of yelling, and much is made of unsubstantiated STATEMENTS that various points were wrong, but no actual evidence whatsoever.
There has, however, been a flood of evidence that they weren't. Let's see. We FOUND chemical weapons over there. FIVE HUNDRED of them. There've been eyewitness reports that the bulk of the stockpiles were simply moved. We know for a FACT that huge stocks of military hardware were simply buried - because we've been digging them up. We don't know where most of it is, either; they'll be combing that crap out of the sands for generations. EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES admitted Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.
The evidence that there were terrorist links is equally compelling. If there wasn't any kind of connection, then why is there a leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to issue statements?
Saddam's own rhetoric stated his intent to destroy Israel, and attack the West.
Yet somehow, the chanting of "Bush lied!" keeps on, and on, and on.
Let me just drive a stake through its fucking heart right now. If your notion is that Bush lied, and your source is an industry that openly falsifies even the most routine domestic coverage, you simply have no evidence whatsoever.
Are we clear on this? There is such a thing as FACT. There is such a thing as FICTION. The FACT is that the war resolution was fully justified as voted upon. The FACT is that a huge coalition of international forces aided and participated in the invasion. The FICTION is that we went in alone - leaving France and Germany out does not equate to "alone," sorry. The FICTION is that Bush lied about anything. The FICTION is that the AP and Reuters produce a product that can be used to substantiate, well, anything.
In reality, the situation in Iraq is shitty. This is not because we went in for no reason; it's because we went in with insufficient forces, and have since day one allowed our troops to be controlled by opinion poll, rather than military reality.
In reality, the coalition of nations that went to Iraq this time around was one of the biggest alliances of nations ever forged. 41 countries contributed troops and support to the invasion of Iraq. Woooo, we were sure fucking lonely.
In reality, the biggest detractors of the efforts in Iraq have been its biggest payees: Chirac, Annan, and all those who stole from the "oil-for-food" program.
In reality, we - none of us, lefty, righty, wingnut, moonbat, centrist, libertarian, NONE OF US - actually have any idea what's going on over there, aside from those with their boots on the ground, by which I mean actual ground troops. A general in the States is what we used to call a REMF - rear-echelon motherfucker. A RETIRED general, who has not served during this conflict, is ten times worse. And yet, this is the type of commentator the media is presenting to us: not troops, not the Iraqis, but retired officers who have never even served in the theater of operations.
WE HAVE NO IDEA what's going on in Iraq. What we do know is that our news organizations are deliberately falsifying their coverage to make the situation appear MORE, rather than LESS, dire. We do know that every report carried by Reuters or the AP is suspect; we do know that those opposed to the war have consistently falsified their data, or just outright made shit up, to "justify" their views, and then chanted in circles about it as loudly as possible, as though saying something over and over means it's true.
It doesn't. And we ought to stop letting them get away with it.
See, in the past, I've made a bit of a stink about so-called VNRs - "video news releases," which same are video segments bought, paid for, and usually filmed by big companies, or the government - and then aired by news stations as though they were legitimate news stories, often without attribution of any kind.
This isn't those.
Oh no.
It's MUCH better.
See, for the past several YEARS now, the West has been inundated by a flood of propaganda from the news media about how much the war in Iraq sucks.
Not that this counts under evidentiary rules, but every friend I have, which is quite a few, who has come back from Iraq, has said the same thing: "They're full of shit."
And now we know why.
The fauxtography and "rocket ride" scams in Lebanon weren't enough.
Nooooo.
The Associated Press has just been caught falsifying whole news reports specifically to make the U. S. look bad. Not "some," dozens and dozens. And this is only the ones we know for sure about.
Now, the lefty cookie-cutter reply is "So? That doesn't make things over there any better."
But it does mean there's doubt.
The comments on the blog I found this on originally are interesting; somehow, the fact that the AP got caught falsifying news stories was deemed irrelevant by the lefty posters, who immediately started their fingers-in-ears chanting of "Bush lied! Bush lied!"
Let's clear this up. No he didn't. The world community, and its various intelligence apparata, as well as the Clinton administration, all reported that Saddam had WMDs.
Our Congressmen - practically all the Republicans, and at least half the Democrats - voted to go to war based on this resolution, which features 23 separate points justifying the war.
So far, NONE of them have been proven wrong.
There's been a whole lot of yelling, and much is made of unsubstantiated STATEMENTS that various points were wrong, but no actual evidence whatsoever.
There has, however, been a flood of evidence that they weren't. Let's see. We FOUND chemical weapons over there. FIVE HUNDRED of them. There've been eyewitness reports that the bulk of the stockpiles were simply moved. We know for a FACT that huge stocks of military hardware were simply buried - because we've been digging them up. We don't know where most of it is, either; they'll be combing that crap out of the sands for generations. EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES admitted Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.
The evidence that there were terrorist links is equally compelling. If there wasn't any kind of connection, then why is there a leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to issue statements?
Saddam's own rhetoric stated his intent to destroy Israel, and attack the West.
Yet somehow, the chanting of "Bush lied!" keeps on, and on, and on.
Let me just drive a stake through its fucking heart right now. If your notion is that Bush lied, and your source is an industry that openly falsifies even the most routine domestic coverage, you simply have no evidence whatsoever.
Are we clear on this? There is such a thing as FACT. There is such a thing as FICTION. The FACT is that the war resolution was fully justified as voted upon. The FACT is that a huge coalition of international forces aided and participated in the invasion. The FICTION is that we went in alone - leaving France and Germany out does not equate to "alone," sorry. The FICTION is that Bush lied about anything. The FICTION is that the AP and Reuters produce a product that can be used to substantiate, well, anything.
In reality, the situation in Iraq is shitty. This is not because we went in for no reason; it's because we went in with insufficient forces, and have since day one allowed our troops to be controlled by opinion poll, rather than military reality.
In reality, the coalition of nations that went to Iraq this time around was one of the biggest alliances of nations ever forged. 41 countries contributed troops and support to the invasion of Iraq. Woooo, we were sure fucking lonely.
In reality, the biggest detractors of the efforts in Iraq have been its biggest payees: Chirac, Annan, and all those who stole from the "oil-for-food" program.
In reality, we - none of us, lefty, righty, wingnut, moonbat, centrist, libertarian, NONE OF US - actually have any idea what's going on over there, aside from those with their boots on the ground, by which I mean actual ground troops. A general in the States is what we used to call a REMF - rear-echelon motherfucker. A RETIRED general, who has not served during this conflict, is ten times worse. And yet, this is the type of commentator the media is presenting to us: not troops, not the Iraqis, but retired officers who have never even served in the theater of operations.
WE HAVE NO IDEA what's going on in Iraq. What we do know is that our news organizations are deliberately falsifying their coverage to make the situation appear MORE, rather than LESS, dire. We do know that every report carried by Reuters or the AP is suspect; we do know that those opposed to the war have consistently falsified their data, or just outright made shit up, to "justify" their views, and then chanted in circles about it as loudly as possible, as though saying something over and over means it's true.
It doesn't. And we ought to stop letting them get away with it.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
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.*]
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.*]
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Reminiscing...
You guys may or may not know that my father died last year, in the week before Christmas.
You may or may not have read what I said about it.
But I've been thinking about him a lot, not just because we're coming up to that time of year, but because of the things I see changing in the world today. I know what he would have said.
He'd hate it. Because we've forgotten how to do so much.
I remember, more than once, making ice cream with my father.
We'd get a couple of chairs, go sit out front of the garage, and pour salt and ice into the bucket. Once we had a good pool of brine, put the tank with the milk, cream, sugar, and flavor in it - Dad and I both loved vanilla, so that's what we usually made - and start cranking.
My arms would get sore, my butt would hurt from the hard-ass folding chairs, it was hotter than hell on earth - Houston, in summer - but the payoff was a whole afternoon of shooting the shit with my father, sitting in front of the garage, and a big tub of the best ice cream ever.
When did we all forget how to do that?
My turns got longer as I got older, obviously. The last time we made ice cream, my father was 70, and I was 28. I did most of the cranking, he did most of the talking. I'm very glad I decided to do most of the listening that day. He was talking about this very subject; all the things that people used to know how to do, and have forgotten, or didn't think to pass along.
I was just talking to Samara, and we were trading recipes (yes, I can cook. Shut up.) and we realized just how many things our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents knew how to do that they just never passed on to us.
My grandmother makes the best pecan pies known to man. She's been making them for a large portion of her 92 years, and she's the expert. Grew the pecans on the ranch my grandfather built her, baked pies with her own fresh pecans.
I don't know the recipe. I can find out - and I intend to - but somehow that one just slipped by.
Samara's great grandmother used to make biscuits so good the kids would fight over the chance to lick the bowl when she was done. Of BISCUIT BATTER. And not one, not ONE, of her kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids, knows the recipe.
When the fuck did we decide that we didn't need to know this stuff?
And WHY?
I know one thing. Girl or boy, no matter what else I do right or wrong, no matter what mistakes I make, no matter what lessons I teach, even if I don't intend to, my child will goddamned well know how to make ice cream.
And they will learn the way I did. Sitting with their dad, in front of the garage, in the middle of the hottest part of summer, sipping on a soda and turning a hand crank for as long as it takes.
Because there are some things we ought not to forget how to do.
You may or may not have read what I said about it.
But I've been thinking about him a lot, not just because we're coming up to that time of year, but because of the things I see changing in the world today. I know what he would have said.
He'd hate it. Because we've forgotten how to do so much.
I remember, more than once, making ice cream with my father.
We'd get a couple of chairs, go sit out front of the garage, and pour salt and ice into the bucket. Once we had a good pool of brine, put the tank with the milk, cream, sugar, and flavor in it - Dad and I both loved vanilla, so that's what we usually made - and start cranking.
My arms would get sore, my butt would hurt from the hard-ass folding chairs, it was hotter than hell on earth - Houston, in summer - but the payoff was a whole afternoon of shooting the shit with my father, sitting in front of the garage, and a big tub of the best ice cream ever.
When did we all forget how to do that?
My turns got longer as I got older, obviously. The last time we made ice cream, my father was 70, and I was 28. I did most of the cranking, he did most of the talking. I'm very glad I decided to do most of the listening that day. He was talking about this very subject; all the things that people used to know how to do, and have forgotten, or didn't think to pass along.
I was just talking to Samara, and we were trading recipes (yes, I can cook. Shut up.) and we realized just how many things our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents knew how to do that they just never passed on to us.
My grandmother makes the best pecan pies known to man. She's been making them for a large portion of her 92 years, and she's the expert. Grew the pecans on the ranch my grandfather built her, baked pies with her own fresh pecans.
I don't know the recipe. I can find out - and I intend to - but somehow that one just slipped by.
Samara's great grandmother used to make biscuits so good the kids would fight over the chance to lick the bowl when she was done. Of BISCUIT BATTER. And not one, not ONE, of her kids, grandkids, or great-grandkids, knows the recipe.
When the fuck did we decide that we didn't need to know this stuff?
And WHY?
I know one thing. Girl or boy, no matter what else I do right or wrong, no matter what mistakes I make, no matter what lessons I teach, even if I don't intend to, my child will goddamned well know how to make ice cream.
And they will learn the way I did. Sitting with their dad, in front of the garage, in the middle of the hottest part of summer, sipping on a soda and turning a hand crank for as long as it takes.
Because there are some things we ought not to forget how to do.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
We're All Supposed To Know About Islam By Now!
So, a couple of days ago, a group of six imams returning from a convention boarded a U.S. Air flight to Phoenix. They sat in different sections of the plane, all apart from one another.
Suddenly, for no reason at all, air marshals boarded the plane, removed the imams, and detained them, asking them lots and lots of rude questions, and stuff. This is an offense against Islam, and blatant discrimination, blah, blah, blah.
Or, at least that was the reporting yesterday.
However, once the folks at the airport started coming forward about what actually happened, several witnesses said that the imams joined hands and started chanting in Arabic before boarding the flight.
The imams' response? "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," Omar Shahin, apparently the spokesman for the imams, told reporters yesterday.
Mkay, I hate to say this, but _I_ wouldn't react well to seeing a bunch of Arabs joining hands and chanting before boarding my flight, after 9/11 - and I DO know about daily prayers, and bowing to Mecca and all that.
But that notwithstanding, if that was the ONLY THING, I could understand the imams getting upset.
...But wait...
See, it turns out that they weren't just praying. They were also talking about how America is acting evil, and how Saddam should have been left alone. They're also - let's not forget this part that they didn't feel like sharing - supporters of organizations that raise funds for HAMAS.
They are supporters of terrorism.
THIS SPECIFIC GROUP of imams, has contributed to terrorist fundraising.
Funny how they forgot to mention that.
Suddenly, the whole overdramatic display in the airport seems clear; they did it on purpose, to try to make DHS look like anti-PC discrimination thugs.
Funny how CNN and the Star-Tribune missed that, isn't it?
Suddenly, for no reason at all, air marshals boarded the plane, removed the imams, and detained them, asking them lots and lots of rude questions, and stuff. This is an offense against Islam, and blatant discrimination, blah, blah, blah.
Or, at least that was the reporting yesterday.
However, once the folks at the airport started coming forward about what actually happened, several witnesses said that the imams joined hands and started chanting in Arabic before boarding the flight.
The imams' response? "If up to now they don't know about prayers, this is a real problem," Omar Shahin, apparently the spokesman for the imams, told reporters yesterday.
Mkay, I hate to say this, but _I_ wouldn't react well to seeing a bunch of Arabs joining hands and chanting before boarding my flight, after 9/11 - and I DO know about daily prayers, and bowing to Mecca and all that.
But that notwithstanding, if that was the ONLY THING, I could understand the imams getting upset.
...But wait...
See, it turns out that they weren't just praying. They were also talking about how America is acting evil, and how Saddam should have been left alone. They're also - let's not forget this part that they didn't feel like sharing - supporters of organizations that raise funds for HAMAS.
They are supporters of terrorism.
THIS SPECIFIC GROUP of imams, has contributed to terrorist fundraising.
Funny how they forgot to mention that.
Suddenly, the whole overdramatic display in the airport seems clear; they did it on purpose, to try to make DHS look like anti-PC discrimination thugs.
Funny how CNN and the Star-Tribune missed that, isn't it?
Monday, October 16, 2006
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!"
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:
And follows that up with this:
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:
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)