Thursday, January 18, 2007

A hard truth

Over at the Anchoress, I saw this link of "Casual sex is a con". I know I've spoken a bit before on this subject, but what the hell, why not bring it up again?

The Sixties generation thought everything should be free. But only a few decades later the hippies were selling water at rock festivals for $5 a bottle. But for me the price of “free love” was even higher.

I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love. All the sex I ever had — and I had more than my fair share — far from bringing me the lasting relationship I sought, only made marriage a more distant prospect.

And I am not alone. Count me among the dissatisfied daughters of the sexual revolution, a new counterculture of women who are realising that casual sex is a con and are choosing to remain chaste instead.

This is all part of a big lie foisted on people by "progressives" who saw the moral establishment of the day as nothing more than something to be torn down. For what reasons, I don't know. I have my opinions on that, but I'm not going to go into them right now. But much like the lie of "You can have a family AND work at the same time!" the mantra of "free sex" I think has done more damage to society than we know, or can even caculate right now.

Men and women are different creatures. Anyone who doubts that need only look at which commercials are aimed at men, and then compare them to commercials aimed at the female demographic. We are two sides of the same coin, yes, and without both sides, the coin becomes worthless. But by trying to erase the differences between the sexes, the modern feminist movement has also erased what makes women special. This essay is from a woman's perspective, so I'm not going to expound upon her view very much. But I'll give you a guy's view. And let me say this right now. I can in no way give a full explination of why I think that cheap sex is a bad idea. I don't have that kind of time right now. Perhaps later I'll write out the four-page essay that it would require. As for right now, a decent length post will suffice.

Casual sex, from a man's point of view, is great. We get what we want with no strings attached, point blank. I say this as a former philanderer who has spend more than his share of time in bed with various women. But the effects of casual sex take it's toll on men and women in different ways. When men are looked upon as un-neccessary, and are treated as living sex objects, then that is what men will become. Look, I'm a guy, and I'm going to say it flat out - if you free a man from responsibility, give him unfettered access to women's bodies with no regrets, then a man will happily go around screwing anything with two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat. Be a father? Why? We only had sex! Be responsible? Why? That's not what you wanted when you climbed into my bed! Commit to a relationship? Why? I only want sex, and if you're not going to give it to me, I'll dump you and find another sperm receptical!

Women who try to attract men with just their bodies quickly find out that it's only your body we're interested in.

By making cheap, casual sex the norm, you have effectively removed all responsibility from the men you have sex with. Not only that, but you've devalued yourself. You've turned yourself into nothing more than some place for men to ejaculate into. Cheap sex means you're not a woman, you're just an object with which we can sate our lust for the time being, and maybe have a beer with from time to time.

Does that seem harsh? I hope so. What I think that most women don't understand is that the most civilizing force on the face of this earth is a woman. Sure, men may have made a great deal of noise about clubbing a mastadon on the head and dragging it back to the cave, but it's a simple fact that he brought it to the cave because a woman was there. Mankind is a brute, elemental force. We are physically stronger than women, faster than women, and for the most part, more brutal and aggresive. We are the ones that went out and killed things to eat, because we could. We're the ones who built things, because we had the physical strength to do so. We're the ones who protected the home and hearth, because we're built for it.

But somewhere along the way, society forgot about what a woman brings to the relationship. It's a woman who can take that primal strength and channel it to something useful. It's a woman who can take a man's wild energy and direct it. As I said before, free a man from his responsibilities, and he'll happily go around screwing anything that moves. It's a woman who gives a man a reason NOT to go around like a rutting billygoat.

By treating your body as nothing more than a pleasure factory, something to be given away for a night of supposed fun, you pretty much toss all that away. Part of what made sex special was that it wasn't something you could just go out and have. It was part of what made marriage special as well. Shall we look at what has happened to marriage in the "If it feels good, do it" era?

Now, I don't think that society's preoccupation with easy sex is the one and only reason for the problems that we face today. However, it is one that has far reaching consequences, and is intertwined with many other reasons. There is no one thing we can point at and say "THIS is why things are going to hell!"

But like a turd in a pool, cheap sex keeps rising to the top of the various problems we have.

GRRRGROWLSNARL (or, I need your opinions)

So, I mentioned a while back that my computer was having problems. It got sent off. Returned on Tuesday, with several components replaced. Joy. Tried it out, and it seemed to work fine.

I tried turning it on today at lunch, and the fucking thing froze up on the start-up screen. I had to shut it down and restart it. So now it seems to be working, but what happens if it freezes up again? And what the FUCK would cause it to freeze up in the first place?

C'mon, all you computer people. What gives? What the hell is going on? Because right now, I'm planning on just shipping the hunk of crap back to HP and telling them to give me my money back. There is no reason I can see for the damn thing to not even start up properly.

Should I just give up on it and ship it back? Or is there a halfway logical reason for the fucking thing to freeze while it's starting up?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

While we're doing screenshots...

A clear cut summation

Of why the Fed's hiking of the minimum wage is wrong.

I think I'll email it to all of my congresscritters. Perhaps you should too.

New Roundup

Boy, how bout that Global Warming, eh?

This is just sick. Sick, sick, sick, sick, sick. I hope they find the guy, cover his ass in ground beef, and toss him into a pit of hungry dogs. Some people, burning is too good for 'em.

Join the Border Patrol! Protect the country! Shoot a drug smuggling criminal and go to jail! Boy, that'll do wonders for their recruitment, eh?

Gee, not a good day to be a terrorist.

REALLY not a good day to be a terrorist.

AP Headline: School Bush crashes in Kentucky. It's no joke - they really DO blame him for everything!

(Anyone wanna save that screen? I can't do it from this computer.)

Sheesh. Who needs comedy when you have news like we do?

[UPDATE: Here's your screenshot. SB.]

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Remember, Remember....

...that Hollywood is full of people living in, and devoted to crafting, fantasy worlds. They can produce fantastic works of art, and I wish to make clear that I appreciate the film in this review as such. V for Vendetta is a story of revolution against totalitarianism. It is rich in it's use of language and imagery. At points it is capable of functioning as a mirror on the world, as was the intent of it's creators. There are some aspects of the movie, however, that are far removed from any semblance of life as we know it. These representations can serve to remove the viewer from the story and shatter the illusion. Such is the case with the depiction of the films villans. The cartoonish villans represented in V are religious nationalists against freedom of speech, expression, and the press and they are intensely anti-homosexual. They are nationalistic in so far as they advocate the security of England. This is not, itself, a bad thing (unless you're a transnationalist or a clueless peacenik). But these characters take such principles to the extreme. They silence anyone who merely speaks out against them by hauling them off to secret detention facilities where they are tortured and experimented on. Indeed, this is what created V. He survived one such facility. Muslims are scapegoats in this film. The government kills it's own people. The Koran is banned. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are indentified, taken prisoner, tortured, and eventually killed for no other reason that their sexual preference. Of course, I dislike these cartoonish villans because of the horrid things they do just like I can appreciate the heroes devotion to freedom and the democratic process regardless of their various political inclinations. The film's hero, V, is out to kill those who tortured him and he is a revolutionary (though one that does not intend to see the light of day beyond any revolution he'd help bring about). He preaches no political dogma - simply that there is "something wrong with this country" (from his perspective I am sure this is partly because those who wronged him are the ones in power). He intends to set things straight by successfully realizing the goals of a historic English revolutionary (whom he borrows his visage from) - destroying Parliment and bringing down the government of England. The heroine of the film played by Natalie Portman transforms (thanks to V) from a contented citizen into even more simply - a revolutionary. Some of the more cartoonish villany of the film involves the elimination of the closeted homosexual host of a show who dares make fun of the High Chancellor (he would have gotten off easier but he had possession of the "poetic" Koran), the imprisonment of lesbians for being lesbians, the abduction of Portman's parents for being anti-war critics, and goose stepping soldiers parading before the High Chancellor. This stands in stark contrast to reality so in order to appreciate the illusion, we must forget that Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and thousands of other wealthy mouthy celebs run free to this day and need not ever worry about government retaliation for their outrageous proclamations. Forget that skit-comedy show, sit-com, film, and cartoon alike continue to savage President Bush to this day. Forget that Nazis were socialists and that they murdered Jews as well as Christians. Forget that, even now, Hitler's book "My Head" is popular in the arab world owing in part to the fact that arab leaders were united with Hitler's National Socialist Worker's Regime in hatred of Jews. Forget that the people who are actively murdering homosexuals for being homosexuals are Muslims. Forget that England is far from falling into the iron clad grasp of conservatives (quite the opposite). Forget that no one is proposing to ban the Koran. Forget all this - we are dealing with a fantasy film. What stirred me to write this review was a lable from the film and an attitude from one of the actors expressed in a "making-of" documentary. The lable - In the film, V is referred to by the films cartoonish conservative villans as "a terrorist". He is not a terrorist, he is a revolutionary. His big "terrorist" attack in the opening of the film is nothing more than the destrution of a symbol. Loss of human life was neither the goal of this attack, nor was it highlighted in the film as part of the results. The individuals V kills are those he has sworn vengence against, or those standing in between him and his continued freedom (such as security agents, police, etc). The attitude expressed by the actor in the documentary I mentioned previously ties directly in with this - The actor plays the High Chancellor character and he remarks that he finds it curious that only terrorism is stigmatized among all the "forms of warfare" which he considers equally ghastly. A more ignorant statement one is want to find. Why oh why would this "form of warfare" be stigmatized? Could it be because the terrorism that we are familiar with is the kind that could take the life of this actor as easily as it could take the life of any innocent civilian going about their daily lives? You betcha! Today, terrorism targets the unsuspecting, the civilian, the innocent. Such acts are accompanied by ultimatums - "Do as we say or we will kill more of you." The only other "form of warfare" this actor probably had in mind was the "warfare" that civilized nations engage in. Nations like the USA and the UK do not enter into such "warfare" for selfish reasons or without great trepidation, rather to protect their citizens, protect the innocent and oppressed, or remove tyrants. When they do engage in "warfare", they take great pains to avoid innocent casualties (which is particularly difficult given current conflicts where the enemy regularly uses civilians as shields). It is at once disturbing and surreal that educated people can seriously equate both "forms of warfare". Anyone advancing such a premise in the present day is responsible for excusing slaughter by barbarians and prolonging conflicts with the same. "The American War", as it is referred to in past-tense in the film, is in reality a war where one side fights to give others a chance at self determination and freedom from oppression, and the other side fights for oppressive, brutal rule by religious caliphate and employs tactics like murdering and terrorizing those who choose to cooperate with the agents of liberation by choosing to partake in representative government, and to spread their horrid influence across the entire globe. They are not equal. Their tactics are not equal. Their goals are not equal. I can look past the cartoonish representation of conservatives in V, but I flatly condemn the redefinition of terrorism in this film. It is irresponsibly misleading and tragically ignorant.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Dear Communist Shitstain Rangel

For the second time, Fuck You. Fuck you, fuck your worthless anti-American politics, fuck your god-damned bill, and yet again FUCK YOU!

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced a new military draft bill Wednesday and a resolution calling on the Defense Department to drop all restrictions on families, the public and the media being present when the remains of service members arrive and depart from military bases.


“I don’t see how anyone who supports the war in Iraq would not support reinstatement of the draft,” he said.

I don't see how someone so fucking completely worthless could ever get elected to Congress. Oh, wait, you're from New York Fucking City, the home of brainless infected cumbubbles, the home of morons with inferiority and superiority complexes, both at the same fucking time, so maybe I could understand that after all. But since your such a brainless fucking idiot, let me educate you, not that it will do much good since you're a stalwart member of the Democrat American Communist Party.

The military doesn't need a draft. We don't want a draft. We will do whatever we can to avoid a draft. See, if there's a draft up and running, there's a good chance that some of us will have to serve next to a corrupt, gutless, yellow bellied fuckstick like you. And trust me, you fucking shitwad, I'm being polite for the sake of THE CHILDREN, otherwise I would let you know how I really feel. I'm tired of communist jizz-wipes like you attempting to do what you can in order to destroy this country's military. So lest you think that you're trying to help (and I don't think you actually think you're trying to help, I think you're trying to destroy the military, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt right now)....

We do not want a draft. We do not need a draft. What we in the military need is for the anti-American cocksucking Communist fuckwitted shitstains like you to STEP THE FUCK BACK AND LET US DO OUR JOB, YOU WORTHLESS FUCKING PARASITE! IF I COULD, I'D RIP OUT YOUR FUCKING GUTS AND TOSS THEM AROUND LIKE TINSEL!

The only good that Rangel can do for humanity is to die and fertilize the earth with his putrid corpse. Just fucking die, you cockwart. Just. Fucking. DIE! Make this Army grunt happy and fucking die,.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Seahawks lose

Well, for all intents and purposes, my football season is done. Although, I really can't say I'm all that surprised, since we were pulling a damn loan officer off the street and putting him in at cornerback.

Seriously. We didn't have ANY cornerbacks. And it's kind of hard to win if you don't have a secondary to help you out. The fact that the Seahawks won as many games as they did, and given all the injuries that they had this year, I was amazed that they won their first playoff game. Hasselback out for weeks, Alexander out for weeks, every cornerback out with injury, receivers out, (and by the way, why the FUCK do we still have Darrel "I let the ball hit my hands and then drop it" Jackson? WHY?), injuries all over the O line...

Hell, I'm amazed that we were actually able to field a team, since by and large most of the people in uniform were on the IRL.

So here's hoping for next year, as Seattle has always done. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride, right?