The Ultimate Political Answer

Wes Clark is being attacked for flip flopping his position on abortion.

Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark on Thursday sought to clarify his comments from a day earlier in which he told a Tennessee voter, "I don't believe in abortion."

"I would hope that it would be done only on rare occasions, but it's a woman's right to choose. It's a private matter and I support the Supreme Court. I support Roe v. Wade. And I support a woman's right to choose," Clark told reporters as he campaigned in the state.

The retired Army general created a stir in New Hampshire with a series of comments on abortion, telling a newspaper's editorial board that he was pro-choice and "life begins with a mother's decision."

So, on the one hand, he is personally against abortion, but he supports the Roe V Wade decision. Sound familiar? It's a very common American attitude. I can't count the number of times I've heard a woman say something similar.

"I'd never get an abortion myself because it's wrong, but it's not my place to make that decision for some other woman."

BULL!

And to prove it, simply ask any woman who says the above why it would be the wrong decision for her. I've done this several times, and invariably, the answer boils down to something along the lines of,

"I couldn't kill my baby."

So why on earth would you allow other women to kill their babies? That is the simple hypocrisy inherent in the pro-cjoice movement. Individually, women accept that the fetus is a baby; it is only collectively that they can deny that baby it's essential humanity.

We've taken our natural tendency to respect other's privacy and warped it into tacitly acepting behavior we know is wrong.

Now, let me back up and clarify for a moment. If you truly believe that a fetus is not a person, until it's brain passes intact out of the mother's body, and you support abortion rights, then you are not a hypocrit. I disagree with your belief vehemently, but respect your consistency. If, on the other hand, you believe in your heart that a fetus is a baby, a human person, and find that abortion would be wrong for you, yet still support the right to choose, then you are either a coward or a hypocrit, who refuses to accept the conclusions of your beliefs, because they are unpopular. You are condoning what in your heart you consider the murder of infant humans because it is unpopular to oppose it, and that, folks, is reprehensible.

You can't have it both ways on this one. Either a fetus is a person, and therefor protected, or it's a lump of tissue, and there should be no more guilt or remorce at excising it than removing a wart.

Which brings us back to Clark.

He makes very clear in his comments that he believes abortion is the wrong choice, yet he supports abortion rights. Most telling is the final quote of the story.

"...life begins with a mother's decision."

Oh really? So now, according to this would-be President, a baby is not a baby until its mother decides it is.

How ignorant! How arrogant!

How typical. Once again, Clark is spouting political puffery, fed to him by his campaign, while he obviously hs only limited understanding of the issues involved.

"Umm, Mr. Clark, does the father have any say in this process? After all, this decision has a profound effect on his future as well. How about, you know, doctors? Do they get any input? Or is it just at the mother's sole discretion? Just asking, you know, since you're running for President, and might actually be in a position to appoint justices and stuff."

Fortunately, we really don't have to worry in hs case, since his campaign is over. He's still in the race, but he has as much chance of winning the nomination as Dave Marcis has of winning Daytona 500 this year.

And he's retired.

Two Years and Counting...

While I was away last month, I hit my 2 year bloggiversary. I knew it was coming up, but other events drove it out of my mind until today.

I started this blog on January 23, 2002. I knew I had something to say, but little did I realize exactly how much, or how long it would take to say it, and here I am, two years later, still blathering on about all kinds of stuff.

I couldn't decide how to mark this occasion. Should I give advice to newer bloggers? Brag about my hits? Recount some of my better pieces? Promise new and exciting developments for the future?

How about all of the above?

My advice is short and simple.

1. Write what excites you! You'll hear a lot of writing instructers tell you to 'write what you know.' Bull! You never learn anything new that way. If you look at maintaining your blog as a daily grind, as drudgery, then you're writing about the wrong thing.
   
2. Don't write for traffic. There's easy ways to bring traffic to your site (like blogging about Janet Jackson's breast) but like a Chinese Dinner, it doesn't stay with you for long unless you pander to it.
   
3. Don't just write for yourself. Words are for communication, not masturbation. You have something to say, otherwise you wouldn't be doing this. Say it so that other people hear and understand it. They may not agree with you, but you may give them a new perspective, and that's what it's all about.
   
4. Experiment! Try new things. If you write technical stuff, try a humorous piece or two. If you write politics, try a how to column. You've got the greatest gift a writer can have, a free test audience.
   
5. Don't censor yourself. Mediocrity is boring. Be opinionated! Tell everyone exactly what you think. Don't provoke controversy, but don't avoid it either.
   
6. Don't fight your natural style. The blogosphere is big enough to encompass everyone from linkers like Reynolds to thinkers like Den Beste. You may post once a week or 20 times a day. The key is quality.
   
7. Post consistently. Once you develop your natural style, help your audience find you by maintaining a regular schedule.
   
8. Spell check. That's the one tool I wish MT had, as I am a horrible speller, made worse by my typing style. (Biblical 101: Seek and ye shall find) Nothing harms your credibility faster than excessive typos.

Hmmm. Looking over the list, I can see quite a few of those principles I've violated. Good thing I'm not getting paid for this.

Now, on to bragging about hits. As y'all may have noticed, some time ago I took down the hit counter I had installed here. I was getting frustrated because it wasn't growing as quickly as I wanted it to. I had a choice to make. Either I changed the way I wrote in order to draw more hits, or I had to ignore the counter.

I compromised. I dropped the counter from the main page, but started tracking traffic through the tools provided by hosting matters, but on a monthly, not daily basis. At the same time, I experimented with different writing styles, and different posting subjects. I've been much happier since then, particularly when I looked at my year end numbers. As of 1-23-04, I had 103,422 unique visitors. That's not huge, but it isn't insignificant either. By comparison, for my first year, I had just under 24,000 unique visitors, so I saw 400% growth in unique visits over the year. And the trend is positive, so I must be doing something right.

As for my better pieces, I'll let y'all decide that, but here's the one that was hardest to write.

There are some new developments for the future of this sight that I am excited about. I do plan on redesigning the site, giving it a facelift, and using more of the capabilities of MT. And, even more exciting, sometime in the near future, blogging will become part of my day job. I can't go into any more details than that, but the next couple of years are going to be very busy and very interesting.

Finally, I'd like to thank all the folks who come here day after day to read and comment on what I've written. I'd write this stuff anyway, but it's a lot more fun carrying on a dialogue than reciting a monolog. I hope the next year is as much fun to read as last year was to write.

Let Me Get This Straight

Robert Mapplethorpe can exhibit pictures of men with unusual objects rammed up their butts, and that's Art, and protected from obscenity/indecency charges, but ending an erotic dance routine performed to a song with sexually explicit lyrics by baring a breast is not.

What's the word I'm looking for here?

An Argument for Immediate Tort Reform

Now it seems that there's a woman who has filed a class action lawsuit against nearly everybody because of the Super Bowl halftime flashing of Janet's breast.

Via Brian Arner comes this from the Knoxville News Sentinel:

A Knoxville woman filed a proposed class action lawsuit Wednesday against Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MTV, CBS and Viacom, contending she and other viewers were injured by their lewd actions during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Her lawyer, Wayne Ritchie, had this to say:

"As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, (Carlin) and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury," the lawsuit filed by Knoxville attorney Wayne A. Ritchie II states.

And:

Because the game is broadcast worldwide, Ritchie also wrote that the actions harmed the "standing and credibility" of Americans throughout the world.

I went to school with Wayne. I thought he had more sense than this. Although it is funny seeing a Democrat file a lawsuit against big media for failing to censor an artistic performance.

Can we please get just a little consistency here, or is that too much to ask for from the left? I mean, come on people! It's OK to display a portrait of the Virgin Mary painted with human excrement, but it's not OK to flash a nipple?

I'd laugh if it weren't so damn sad.

And what serious injury was caused? Carpal tunnel from hitting the replay button on your Tivo? Whiplash from shock? Or maybe eyestrain from getting too close to the TV screen to get a close up look?

Give me a break!

And as for damaging the worldwide "standing and credibility" of Americans, maybe Wayne needs to get out a little more. Much of the world is rather bemused by our sick fetishization of the breast, since in many places, breasts are freely exposed. Grab a tabloid in Britain; check out billboards in france and Italy, walk on most any European beach. Our credibility is threatened more by our insane over-reaction than by Janet's jeweled sun.

So why is a smart, liberal lawyer backing such an obviously ridiculous lawsuit?

Carlin's lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages worth billions.

That's a heckuva payday, isn't it Wayne?

Women are Obscene!

At least, in the eyes of the FCC.

Janet Jackson had her breast exposed on national TV, and it's provoking a firestorm. The FCC is talking about potentially millions in fines for CBS stations, as if they had something to do with Justin Timberlake ripping off Janet Jacksons's bra. I'm sure I speak for much of the male population when I say that given the opportunity, I'd have done the same thing.

Why is the breast obscene? Why is exposing it indecent? And it's not even the entire breast that's obscene, just the nipple. Cover that up and you can let those puppies swing free! Men show their nipples all the time without causing a controversy; why should a woman's nips be different?

Because we're still in the grip of a puritanical hatred of women and repression of sex that's about 250 years out of date, that's why. At some point, somebody came up with this crazy notion that our spirits are corrupted by flesh, and that we must deny our animal bodies in order to cleanse our souls or some such crap. They decided that man had a dual nature, animal and spirit, and that the spiritual part was of more value than the animal part. Therefore the animal part was to be discouraged as bad, detracting from the pure spirituality that was the true nature of man.

I think this is an opportune moment to point out that by definition God created both the spirit and the flesh, including all the drives that go with it. Telling me that flesh is somehow dirty or evil is saying that God, who created us in His own image after all, did an imperfect job.

That's a fifteen yard penalty for unbelievable BS!

Man may have a dual nature; biologists tend to disagree, but I think it's so. I believe we have a spiritual nature, a soul if you prefer, but I don't believe it is of a higher value than our physical nature. Our physical needs and drives are every bit as important as our spiritual needs. They are not inherently contradictory, although they do come into conflict from time to time. We may desire a woman who is unavailable to us for any number of reasons. In such instances, we choose to deny the impulses that result from the attraction, but that doesn't mean our attraction is evil, or that the woman is evil for enticing our attention. Only that a full expression of that attraction is inappropriate.

Sexual desire is not evil; appreciating female beauty is not evil; so why is exposing a breast obscene? It may be inappropriate (and a Super Bowl halftime show certainly qualifies on that score), but obscene or indecent?

Never!

It's time we grew up a little bit and replaced this unhealthy obsession with sex with a healthy appreciation for it.

"But we must protect the children!"

From what? A natural biological function? Please! What we need to protect our children from is this warped and twisted view of sexuality.

My First Handgun

I bought my first gun last week, and it was both easier and harder than I thought it would be. The actual process is pretty easy, but deciding what gun to buy is anything but, as their are about a million different things to consider, and enough different ways to accomodate each consideration that I quickly became a little overwhelmed by the choices. But, with some help from both knowledgeable friends and several gun store owners, I made my decision.

Before I get deeper into the details, I do want to point out that never in my life have I found a group of hobbyists as friendly and open to helping a newby as I have in the shooting world. I'm sure I've asked some really stupid questions, and I know I pestered one poor guy to death, but everyone I've run into has been very helpful and willing to take the time to help me learn this new sport.

One thing that everyone I talked to stressed was that buying a gun is a very personal thing. Each person will have their own unique set of requirements, as a consequence, it makes it difficult for folks to give advice on what caliber or gun to buy, unless they can take the time to get to know you, and your reasons for the purchase. It was a little frustrating because I was looking for help to cut down on some of the options, but at the same time, it forced me to consider carefully exactly what I wanted from this first gun.

I decided to start out with a .22 as my first handgun. As I detailed earlier, I went shooting with Uncle, and shot a .45 and a 9mm, and while I was comfortable with both, I wanted something that I could shoot a lot without spending a lot of money on ammunition. I wanted to be very comfortable handling, maintaining, and shooting a gun before I started looking for my carry gun. Plus, I was told that it's a good idea to start off with a smaller gun, to avoid developing any bad habits, like flinching. The final consideration was that two of my kids said they were interested in going shooting with me. So it worked out that a .22 was the way to go for me.

The next consideration was revolver vs semi-auto. There are trade offs to each, and most often, I got a recommendation to get a revolver, based on easier maintenance and higher reliability.

So I went with a semi-auto.

Why? I don't really know except that it felt like the right decision.

Finally, I had to choose an actual gun. I went to a couple of different ranges and gun stores, and handled several guns, including Rugers, Brownings, and I can't remember what else. The people helping me were very patient, showing me several different guns at each place I went. I almost bought a Ruger .22, but it felt a little bit awkward in my hand, so I kept looking. Finally, I was handed a Walther P22, and I had my gun. It felt right in my hand, was balanced nicely, and had a trigger safety.

That safety was very important to me, since I could lock the gun, keeping my kids safe. This lock not only locks the trigger but mechanically locks the slide as well, and isn't subject to tampering. I'm comfortable that there's no way any of my kids can fire the gun without my being there.

Of course, I've also hidden it in a locked case.

Now some folks say you shouldn't tell your kids there's a gun in the house. They think that what they don't iknow won't hurt them. I'm just the opposite. If they don't know it's there, and then find it, they're much more liable to mess around with it. I know that's how I would have reacted if I'd found a gun as a kid. But, if they know it's there, know to leave it alone, and know that if they do want to shoot, I'll take them to the range with me, the curiousity that goes along with something being forbidden is eliminated completely.

Anyway, I made my selection, and asked the lady behind the counter for any accessories I might need. She came up with a cleaning kit, and a secondary cleaning tool called a Bore Snake that slides down the barrel and cleans it. She recommended it for use after light shooting when I wasn't going to do a full cleaning of the gun. Then she brought me a brick of CCI MiniMag ammo, and we started to fill out the paperwork.

I had to produce my Driver's License and fill out a form declaring that I was sane, buying the gun for myself, not under a restraining order, not a felon, and things like that. Meanwhile, she was running my instant background check (a $10 non refundable fee).

This may not be a popular position among gun rights folks, but I don't mind the whole background check process. Not because I think it's a deterrent to criminals (it isn't) but because it is a reasonable precaution to take to insure that those who shouldn't be able to easily purchase a gun can't. If we accept that it is fair to restrict certain groups from gun ownership, ie criminals, etc., then it is only prudent to take what steps we can to ensure that they can't buy them legally. On the other hand, the argument that since it doesn't stop criminals from getting ahold of guns, it is a needless invasion of our privacy is also a good one. On balance, I'd rather put up with the invasion if it keeps a few guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, unless of course, the background checks become a pretext to expand the definition of "who shouldn't have them."

Now this was at about 5:00PM on a Friday, and my background check came back Yellow, which means Pending. Something in my background required a closer look before my application would be approved. Because it was so late on a Friday, all the supervisors were gone, so it would be Monday before my background check would be completed. When I asked, they said it was fairly common and could be a chance resemblence in names, or possibly someone else using my SSN to try and get a gun. (I didn't feel too good about that possibility) I knew it would clear eventually, so I went ahead and paid for the cleaning gear and the bullets, put a deposit on the gun, and headed for the house. It was on the way there that I realized what the hold was.

Because of where I work, I have a couple of Security Clearances through the NRC and the DOE. I assumed, and later had verified, that if you have a security clearance, anyone running a background check will have to get permission to access the file. It's entirely routine, and usually only adds a couple of hours to the process.

So, the following Monday, I called the gun shop around noon, and my background check was cleared. I drove over after work and picked up my gun and headed for the house. I asked the clerk about carrying a gun without a concealed carry permit, and she said that I didn't need a permit to transport a gun as long as I wasn't carrying it with the intent to go armed. Since it was unloaded in the case, that showed my lack of intent.

And that was it; I had my first gun.

This weekend, I took the P22 to the range. I'll report on that next, but the short version is fun to shoot, fairly accurate, with only a few gripes about reassembly after cleaning.

Media Control

For those of you on the left and the right who like to cry about how the media is tilted this way or that way, and isn't telling us the whole story, I offer this comparison for contrast. It comes by way of Brian Ruckle:

During halftime, prior to the festivities on the field, a commercial ran with football players and other celebrities encouraging viewers to "Choose to..." this that and the other with related images. I've written other bloggers asking them to help me fill in some of the details. I will update this post as I receive the information. Anyways, in the background after one of the messages was the famous picture of the Chinese protestor facing the tanks in Tiananmen Square flashed for a second on the screen. One of the bloggers living in China who also caught the message said that right after the image was "Choose to vote." I'm thinking it was a Rock the Vote commercial, but I may be wrong because I really wan't paying much attention at the time.

This was probably the first time that picture has ever been broadcast on Mainland Chinese television. Last year, my wife and I were at a Beijing bookstore and I was looking through a book of 20th century photographs. As I was paging through, I noticed that three pages had been ripped out in the 1989 section. Looking in the appendix I found that those were pages that had included pictures of the protests. I mentioned this to my wife, who was then my girlfriend, and at first she didn't know what I was talking about. I proceeded to explain and she became very upset. I still don't know if she believed me. She is aware that there were protests but said that the students were simply persuaded to pack up and go home and that if any of what the Western media reported had occured it would be commonly known if not through the media then through word of mouth. We haven't talked about this topic since then.

That's censorship. That's a controlled media. Our news services may be biased, despite all claims to the contrary, but they are not controlled by either side. By selecting a variety of sources (I listen to NPR in the car, and check Fox News at night, with an occasional trip to Headline News, along with the local papers) you can get all the news from several perspectives.

Super Bowl

Can you read a Super Bowl story today without reading about Janet Jackson's bare breast?

Not here.

It was the highlight of the game.

Aside from the nekkid referee doing an Irish step dance, that is.

It's a good thing Super Bowl Security was so tight, right?

Speaking of Ms. Jackson, does anybody besides me remember when singers actually sang at a live performance? Shania Twain is coming to Thompson Boling Arena in a few weeks, and there's really no point in going to see the show. You might as well put a copy of her CD in the stereo and sing along.

That's what she does.

Back to the Super Bowl, the commercials seemed a little tame this year, but my personal favorite has to be the bagpiper for Sierra Mist, with snow volleyball a close second. Honorable mention goes to Staples, with the supply room mob boss. The dumbest commercials had to be the Gilette Mach 3 Razor commercials. I use the damn thing, but I feel like pitching into the garbage after that overblown crap.

It's a razor, people, not a quick pass to personal salvation.

There were a couple of other cute commercials, but on the whole, they were instantly forgettable.

Finally, what article on the Super Bowl would be complete without mentioning the game itself?

This one.