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?

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.]

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.

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,.

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?

Fuck.

Oh Dear Lord....

Why does every stereotype, and I mean EVERY stereotype of the Democrats American Communist Party turn out to be true?

Today, in H.R. 1, Democrats will bring legislation to the House floor supporting the transfer of responsibility for a critical national security program to the United Nations. House Republicans will offer a motion to block it.

(emphasis mine)

So, you mean all those times I called the Dimocrats a group of communist cocksuckers who would turn this country over to the UN in a heartbeat... I wasn't just using hyperbole?

Crap, we're all screwed. They really are that weak and spineless.

Can you say "Hypocrite"?

I knew you could.

If anyone actually expected the Democrats American Communist Party to clean up congress, they were too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Via Cold Fury.

Senator Boxer is a worthless communist hag

Oh, and that's my NICE response to her insulting attack on SecState Rice.

Although I don't think anyone should be surprised at her attacks, since It's been proven time and time again that the Democrats American Communist Party only support minorities so long as those minorities stay their ass on the plantation and do what their told.

And about this "surge"

that everyone keeps talking about -

Folks, right now it's not the number of troops we have in Iraq, it's how those troops are put to use. All the troops in the world won't do a tinker's damn worth of good if you don't let them do their fucking jobs!

Of all the messages in Bush's speech two nights ago, it was his willingness to change tactics that we should be focusing on, not how many more troops that he wants to put into Iraq. It's the tactics that matter right now, more so than the number of soldiers on the ground.

I could go for this

Draft Fred.

Look, let's be honest here - the way things are shaping up in the GOP, it's obvious that they're going to put up people who are in effect the same assholes that are part of the GOP's problem. John McCain? Puh-LEEZ! This is the same asshat who, in cahoots with Russ Feingold, essentially gutted the First Amendment. Is that the person you want running for the Presidency? Not me.

Rudy Guliani? Nice guy, strong in quite a few areas, but he's a New York Republican, which is to say not exactly conservative.

Mitt Romney? Seems to be a decent fellow, but not exactly a favorite of the Republicans.

The people who would actually excite the conservative base aren't in positions of power within the GOP, and as the Republicans have abandoned their conservative principals in favor of money-grubbing, big government politics, the very people who the conservatives want will not get nominated by the GOP leadership.

Why in g-d's name should we accept a corrupt loser just because the GOP wants to continue business as usual? The GOP leadership still haven't learned a damn thing. And you know what? They don't want to. They don't want to upset the gravy train that they latched onto over the past 12 years.

I say we draft the people who will actually represent us. Draft Fred. Call up J.C. Watts. And regain control of the GOP from the power-hungry parasites that currently infest it.

Small roundup.

Things are starting to heat up around here. My unit is getting ready to go to the range, and as I seem to be the only person with the knowledge and time to train people on how to shoot their assigned weapon, it's fallen upon me to get plans ready, training, equipment, ect.

Not that I mind. I enjoy being useful. All of this isn't a complaint, just an explanation of where I've been and why I'm not blogging as much.

In any case, you can expect to see a bit less of me in the upcoming weeks. As the blog readership seems to have gone to hell with my various absences, I expect it to fall even further.

Ah well. That's life.

Anyways - commenter DCRocks gave us a link to this story about how Arabs are increasingly looking at war as an option to dealing with Iran.

American politics may be heading for uncertain waters. The Arabs, however, appear unusually determined to resist the tide of Khomeinism.

* Last autumn, the GCC states - plus Jordan and Egypt - asked Washington to review their defenses in case of a showdown with Iran. The mission, led by the then-U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman, presented its report last month.

* Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan have concluded partnership accords with NATO, and two more Arab states, Kuwait and Bahrain, have opened talks for a similar relationship with the alliance.

* Last month, British Premier Tony Blair proposed an alliance of moderate Arab states, backed by major Western powers, to contain the Khomeinist threat. At least 10 Arab states have indicated interest.

Fear of a showdown with Iran has triggered an arms race. The GCC states have placed orders for 150 ultra-modern European and American fighter jets and are negotiating massive purchases of surface-to-surface missiles from China and Russia. Average defense budgets in the region show a 17 percent increase.

The GCC group and Egypt have also launched studies to create a nuclear industry - ostensibly for peaceful use, but clearly designed to meet a Iranian military threat.

Tehran started beating the drums of war over a year ago. If one listens carefully, one can now hear the response from the Arab side - in the form of faint drumbeats that are bound to get louder in the months ahead

.

In my opinion, the Arab states have been enjoying and tacitly supporting Iran's meddling in American affairs, such as the Iran-supported insurgency in Iraq. However, as Iran has gotten away with more and more, they've been casting their eyes on their neighbors as well. Perhaps their neighbors have found that feeding a greedy giant doesn't placate the giant, it only makes it want more.

DANEgerus has a link up showing the provinces and areas in Iraq that are under control by the Iraqi military. It's a good look at where the US Army is, and where the Iraqis have taken over, leaving US forces to focus their efforts elsewhere.

Enjoy!

That'll teach me to not check my email

I've been pretty darn busy for the past few days getting ready for the upcoming battle assembly. So I missed the email in which the Heartless Libertarian addresses two upcoming bills in the Washington State legislature. If you live anywhere near that area, go thee hence and read. Washington state was fairly gun friendly when I lived there, but it looks as if the Socialists now in power are looking to end that.

Gee, what a surprise.

Blogspot is bugging me

If you're wondering why I didn't post yesterday, it's because BlogSpot was crapping out. Those of you who use Blogspot know that there is now a "New" Blogger and "Old" blogger. I belong to the "old" setup, because I quite honestly hate dealing with "NEW! IMPROVED! SPIFFY!" crap, when we all know it's just the same damn thing with a few different lines of code to change something that may or may not have needed changing in the first place.

So today it's working, but I wonder how long I'll be able to go before I'm forced to switch to a new thing that I don't want and don't care about.

Bleah.

Anyways - Florida 41, OSU 14. What the hell? Did I not just hear news pundits and football "experts" assuring me for close to two damn months that Florida didn't have a chance? The only reason they got to the Championship game is because Urban Meyer was whining? Golly gee it should have been Michigan and OSU in the championship game?

Yeah, right. Yet another reason to go to a playoff type system. Here's what I would do if I were in charge.

- College seasons would be ten games.
- After the college season, each Divison 1A conference would have it's own championship game. Non-conference teams would play in a non-conference championship game
- The conference champs, plus two wild cards, would play in a single-elimination playoff system until the championship game was reached. That would give us eight first round playoff games, four second round games, two third round games and one championship game. I included the two wild card teams to even out the schedules and avoid having to give any teams a first round bye. It would also allow the inclusion of kick ass teams who might not be their conference champs. Let's say that Florida and LSU (just to use as examples) were 12-0 and 11-1 respectively, while a different conference didn't have anyone higher than 10-2. That would allow the 11-1 LSU to still get into the playoffs despite the one loss (presumably to the SEC Champion 12-0 Florida team).

This system would eliminate most if not all the claims of East Coast or West Coast bias, conference bias, or anything other than their records. You think you could be champs? Prove it on the field or go home. It would also remove the blatant bias that the coache's poll adds into the BCS. C'mon, the only reason Florida got into the Championship game was because enough coaches said they should. And that's horsecrap. Can you imagine if the Championship game, as many people wanted, was OSU and Michigan version 2?

Right now, I think that Florida could have beaten OSU or Michigan, hands down. But if it weren't for a few coaches pulling one way instead of the other, we would have never known that. Remove the human factor as much as possible in determining who gets to play for the top spot.

Anyways, that's my two cents. I'd love to see BSU playing another team this weekend.

I don't get it

There's a post up at Powerline, where Greg Sargent claims that the photo of John F'n Kerry wasn't at ALL about Kerry being snubbed by the troops, it was about Kerry having a "private, off the record chat" with two NYT reporters.

OK, let me break this down for a little bit.

First of all, we have eyewitness accounts of how the troops reacted to John F'n Kerry:

This is a true story....Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday morning. Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are obviously not troops.


What is amazing is Bill O'Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!

The guy couldn't even get a "Hello!" at the gym from a servicemember. That ought to tell you something right there. But the Left, never having much to do with facts, tried to debunk the story from the get-go. "THE PHOTO WAS FAKE! THE PHOTO WAS STAGED! IT NEVER HAPPENED! YOU'RE A POOPYHEAD LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!" And all that crap.

So now the storyline from the deranged Left has changed. All of a sudden the photo is real, but Kerry is eating alone because he wanted a private chat with two NYT reporters.

OK, let's just go with the fact that the Left has proven themselves incapable of any real debate. They went from "LIARLIARLIARFAKEPHOTOLIARLIAR!" to "Oh, you just don't understand the context of the photo, which in fact is real" in the space of a week.

Strike one, kiddies.

They do not address the eyewitness account of the reception Kerry got from the troops, choosing to ignore those inconvenient facts, and attack the messenger instead.

Strike two, shitstains.

And last but not least, the storyline has changed from "Kerry got snubbed by the troops", to "The troops got snubbed by John F'n Kerry, who chose to speak with two off duty NTY reporters rather than any of the 150,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that he was surrounded by."

That's strike three, you communist clusterfucks. YER OUT! And Greg Sargent, you are an idiot of the highest order. You make the Democrats American Communist Party proud!

Another view

On my post about the liberals who expect people to take care of them, I chalked up their attitude to arrogance. Og has another viewpoint - social immaturity, or arrested social development.

There's a lot to suggest socialism is a kind of arrested development. When we are babes in arms, everything is given to us. Our every need is catered to- to the extent that we can communicate our needs. The more we communicate our needs, though, the more we are expected to deal with them ourselves. Potty training is probably the first harsh reality we have to encounter- which brings with it, the first time we have to plan in advance, the first time we have to recognize the signals of an impending event and react to them in time.

(....)

At some point in your life, you are brought to the awareness that your life is in your hands- that is, unless you have an arrested social development. When we're young and idealistic, we think that if everyone just worked together for a common goal we'd all be in nirvana, and anyone who didn't want to work for the common good should be forced to do so- for their OWN good. Except there is nobody who can apply a "common good" fairly to all men. Except that anytime a government agency is involved fully 1/3 (if not dramatically more) of the money is lost to corruption and graft. Except that everyone's "common good" is different from everyone else's . Common isn't so common. When we begin to understand that people are different, when we start being aware of the fact that some jobs pay more, that some jobs pay less, that there are balances between power, income and responsibility, we begin to direct our own lives.

(....)

John Smith and William Bradford saw the socialist social experiment fail, right before their eyes.

Since then, millions of people have made excuses for the failure of socialism every single time it has failed. "there was nobody to help". "Too many people interfered". "Not enough people worked hard enough". "the officials were too corrupt". Always excuses.

Capitalisim is robust. It works despite interference from all corners. Socialism is not. The only reason for believing socialism can work is an arrested social development.

Conservative capitalism is robust in this country, and it has survived all attempts to regulate, litigate, duty, asses, and tax it out of existence. Conservative capitalism is the poles holding up the tent- and as there are a lot of poles, it's hard to see the tent collapsing until they're all gone. The pilgrim colony could not absorb the failure of social experimentation. the United States Economy can- for a time. After it has absorbed so much, it could reach a point of unstoppable decay. Where is that line? I have no idea. I'd rather not cross it at all.

I'd rather just potty-train the socialists among us, so they understand that the idea is fundamentally flawed and can never work.

You know, there are probably a lot of reasons for the liberal mindset. I still think of it as a mental disorder, albeit one that can be cured. But I have to admit that the mental image of liberals as pants-crapping babies made me grin.

The problem is, how do you potty train people when those same people ardently scream that squatting and shitting all over yourself is the only way to live? In order to understand the call of liberalism, you have to first understand that to many of the people who push socialism and communism, it's not about improving society, or bettering mankind - it's about the control those people would have over the rest of society. Most, if not all of the socialism pushers in Congress don't actually adhere to any of socialism's tenants. DANEgerus at one point had a link up regarding Bela Pelosi's sidestepping of the unions at her private vineyards. Now, here's someone who supposedly supports the unions, and gets flaming assloads of money for her support. Yet, when it came time to put her words into actions, she refused.

In short, she's a massive hypocrite, and anyone who deals with her knows it. All those environmental regulations she wants to push on America? Couldn't be bothered by them when she built her golf course (from the same link above).

Yeah. Her golf course. Now you tell me, if Nancy Pelosi truly believed in socialism, would she be building a golf course and charging $250,000 membership fees? Of course not! So she's shown by her actions that she's a capitalist, through and through. So why in the name of all that's holy would she be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America?

Because of the power of control. If Nancy Pelosi can control your money, she can control you. Just like gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The goal of Socialism is Communism. Socialism is just communism light; it's communism without the gulags yet. And just where do you think that Comrade Pelosi would be in the hierarchy of the Communist state? You think she would be performing her state-mandated job at the local sewage treatment plant?

Hell no, she'd be doing what communist leaders have done for years - eating caviar, sipping champagne, and ordering the plebes around.

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance". It's a good quote. By and large, it's a good rule to go by. However, when I see people support socialism and communism despite the sheer failure of both, I can no longer assume that these people are just ignorant. In modern history, there has never been a single Communist leader that actually practiced what they preached. EVER. Do you think Castro gets his healthcare at one of his state run hospitals? Do you think Chavez follows his own gun control policies? Do you think Kim Jong Il waits for his daily ration of rice?

Hell no. And that shows them to be the lying hypocrites that they are. Pelosi and her fellow socialists are just the same, only they haven't been able to push their plans that far ahead. I'd like to make sure that they remain frustrated. Because the option is far, far worse than anything George W. Bush could ever do to this country.

The Stem Cell Debate heats up a little bit

Because of this news.

Scientists say they have discovered a new source of stem cells that could one day repair damaged human organs. The Harvard University team say they have recovered functioning stem cells from amniotic fluid - the liquid that surrounds the baby in the womb. ...

The Harvard scientists say the stem cells they found in amniotic fluid seem to have many of the qualities of embryonic stem cells. The scientists, from Wake Forest University School of Medicine, were writing in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

They say they have managed to turn the stem cells into functioning muscle, fat, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells. In tests, these newly made cells seemed to restore some function in brain-damaged mice.

So, to recap, that now makes TWO ways of obtaining viable stem cells without causing the death of a human embryo. But how much do you want to bet that you won't hear this trumpeted as a way to cure a myriad of diseases? Because, you see, to the Left it's no longer about what they can cure. It's about pushing their agenda. Bush opposes Embryonic Stem Cell research? That means that they push for it. Bush opposes killing human embryos? That means they'll push for it.

There are ways to get stem cells that do not involve ending a human life. But I don't think the Left really cares about that. I honestly believe that this is just another front in the battle to delegitimize an embryo as human life. For years we've had proponents of abortion trying to tell us that an embryo is just a "tablespoon of cells", and nothing more. They're still pushing that line. That doesn't explain the supporters of partial-birth abortion, where a perfectly healthy, viable baby is killed, cut into pieces, and sucked out of their mother's womb with a medical vacuum cleaner. With the pro-abortion fanatics, it's all or nothing, and this is just another way for them to make killing a human baby easier.

We're not dealing with rational people here. And I don't think all the evidence in the world is going to change the Left's mind. In fact, I know it won't. There's a reason the Left still supports Socialism and Communism, despite over a century of proven failure of both those ideologies.

Let me be clear - I support any and all stem cell research that does not end a human life. And an embryo is human life, plain and simple. A fetus is human life. Just because you can easily kill it does not make it any less a human life. THAT is why I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research. But it looks like we have more options than just that, thank goodness.

Found via Captain's Quarters.

Found somewhere else

But too good to not pass along. While I was traipsing along at Cold Fury, I found a few links that I need to repost here, just in case anyone missed them.

From Real Clear Politics - Breaking the hold of the Hegemonist Doctrine. While I want you to read it all, I'll give you this little segment:

This record in and itself makes it abundantly clear that the hegemonist doctrine is fantasy, and widespread as it has become, an extraordinarily dangerous fantasy. The U.S. is not, and has never been, the snake in an international Eden. Quite the contrary: when the United States retreats, the tyrants, bandits, and ideologues are unleashed. The rule of blood returns, and genocide and horror walk the streets and highways of this civilization.

The record in recent years serves only to underline this fact. In Yugoslavia, a situation that a relatively small European expeditionary force, consisting at most of a few divisions, could have sorted out in a matter of months, was allowed to fester for the larger part of a decade. Thousands died in repeated offensives, sieges, ethnic-cleansing campaigns, and outright massacres until the U.S. broke the Serbian grip by main force.

Darfur, in which hundreds are being slaughtered at this moment, could be controlled with a few squadrons of helicopter gunships reinforced with Predator-class drones to establish a cordon across which no horsemen would be allowed to venture. But the U.S. is entangled elsewhere, and no one else is willing to step in. Not a single European state, not a single African country. Not even Kofi Annan, himself an African, was willing to bestir his underlings, instead contenting himself with tirades at the Truman Library condemning the United States for the temerity of interfering with other countries.

The record show that whenever the Democrat American Communist Party has had the opportunity to choose between freedom, and corrupt, communist or socialist dictators, they have ALWAYS chosen the dictators. Whether it was the communists of North Viet Nam, North Korea, the USSR, the Democrats American Communist Party has shown where their loyalties lay by always, ALWAYS picking the communist dictators, bloody communist "revolutions", and Stalinist thugs.

Every.

Fucking.

TIME!

And Ann Coulter reinforces that fact.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, "redeployment"—all the Democrats' peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies—exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Liberals spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America's defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong "the National Liberation Front of Vietnam," just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq "insurgents." Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a "Jeffersonian Democrat," just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minute Men.

During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. "It's the other guy's country," he explained.

Same old Democrats American Communist Party. Still rooting for American's enemies to win. Still looking for ways to make American lose. Let me put it in a way that even an American Communist can understand:

If I say that I'm a Dodgers fan, but I cover my house with Giants logos, cheer for the Giants, give the Giants secret news about Dodgers pitchers, keep the Giants informed about tactics and stats on Dodgers players, then you would rightly say that I'm no Dodgers fan. The same rule applies to the Democrats American Communist Party. They claim to support America, they claim to support our troops, and they claim to want victory, at least some of them. But every action, every word, every incident gives comfort and aid to our enemies.

When I can the Democrats American Communist Party a group of lying, anti-American pustules, I'm not just using hyperbole.

This is who we just elected to control of Congress. This is who is now in charge of funding and supporting our troops, two acts which they have failed to do ever since 1965, or perhaps even earlier. Two-faced, vile, hypocritical, backstabbing parasites hellbent on our defeat. AND THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS!

Pardon me while I go vomit.