Just some random articles and the iconoclastic thoughts they engendered.
Children Of Lesbian Couples Are Doing Well, Study Finds
Now that one will pull the chains of some Evangelical Fundies and rightfully so.
However, should you read the article, you might notice the following:
....findings like these have led the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association to issue official policy statements supporting equal treatment of families headed by lesbian and gay parents.
Gays <> Lesbians.....
And the research was about Lesbian couples.
Not Gay couples.
Doctor-aided Suicide: No Slippery Slope, Study Finds
To quote from Science Daily:
This will also drive the Evangelical Fundies nuts and make people wonder why the Xian mafia had Doctor Kervorkian thrown into jail. I can only hope (not being Xian, I am allowed to do this) that they all die in extreme pain the way their God wants them to die...... The Fundies oppose assisted death ostensibly because they believe it will be misused(and also because it is EVIL). These studies show otherwise. OTH, it may be that Fundies are scared to death that Fundies themselves might misuse this option as a quick way to get to Heaven. It may also be the only way some Fundies can get out of some terribly abusive relationships.
Contrary to arguments by critics, a University of Utah-led study found that legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands did not result in a disproportionate number of deaths among the elderly, poor, women, minorities, uninsured, minors, chronically ill, less educated or psychiatric patients.
Of 10 "vulnerable groups" examined in the study, only AIDS patients used doctor-assisted suicide at elevated rates.
World Leaders Need To Remain Alert To Latest Scientific Thought On Climate Change
Any rational human being would agree with that. But, our leaders are not rational nor are many of those wannabe leaders that reside in Congress rational. The right wing that leads this country is genetically unable to adapt to change. Whether it be changing weather or changing weather models. Any and all change is perceived as weakness. They simply have to be overridden by the 70 or so percent of us who are capable of dealing with change.
I highly suggest you read the paper:
Even if you, as I, have no expertise in Atmospheric Science at all. And even if you are a denier or someone who hasn't made up their minds yet.
Scientists: Owl recovery plan 'deeply flawed'
Hidden between the lines in this article is yet another indictment of the Bush misAdministration's policy of injecting politics and corporate interests into what should be a scientific matter. Also hidden between the lines is yet another woman or two who is complicit in these immoral (if not outright illegal) attempts to manipulate science for political and economic ends. Any of you who are infected by the "woman superior" myth can dispense with it. Woman are no more morally superior than men. All those republican women put in charge of these agencies would do anything in their puppy-like need for the love of their male superiors. (Remember that in the right wing and Fundie world, THE MALE IS SUPERIOR!).
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Posted by Oldfart at 9/30/2007 01:39:00 PM
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Some thoughts on fighting a war against terrorists and guerrillas.....
I am not capable of a really technical study of the relationship between guerrilla war tactics and strategies and terrorist tactics and strategies. I suspect they have much in common. The only way to win a guerrilla war that I know of is to redress the grievances that give authority and cause to the guerrillas.
Beyond and above that, there will always be some people who hate someone or some idea or some religion enough to try to physically destroy it. Those you can't do much about. Call them the "Random Anarchist" for lack of a better term.
Identify the difference between them (the "Random Anarchist") and an organized group of terrorists. Identify the difference between an organized group of terrorists and an organized group of freedom fighters. Is there any difference?
Note that redressing the grievances that give power and authority to the terrorists doesn't get rid of the terrorists - it simply removes popular support. You still have to use police or military action to get rid of the actual terrorists who are likely to be fanatics not easily won over.
Redressing the grievances is also known as "winning the hearts and minds" of the people infested with guerrillas or terrorists. This technique is poorly done by Americans. It's as if Americans cannot deal with anything more complicated than shock and awe. If they can't blow it up or shoot it, it doesn't exist. That is why the State Department has been ignored in these modern mini-wars. That is why American Marines will build an outpost right on top of a muslim holy site and then act honestly surprised when the locals object. We have no feel for that at all. We are barbarians.
That is also why the British, evil and conniving that they are, are much better at it than we are. At least their government understands the concept. Probably as a result of all the British and colonial and Irish blood shed over the last 500 years.
One of our problems is the right wing and it's insistence on the Absolute Truth of their position. They believe in absolutes. They believe that their religion contains the Absolute Truth, that the American culture (their version of it) is the Absolute Perfect Culture and that all other cultures around the world are deficient in some way. Which means that when their soldiers (the little boys they train to believe this from birth) trample all over another cultures holy symbols and customs, it is ok for them to do so since the American system is superior. Of course this kind of behavior makes it impossible to win people over but who cares? "Winning the hearts and minds" is only for left wingers anyway.
One of the problems with the left wing is their inability to understand the necessity for military force in putting down either guerrilla wars or terrorism. Evidence from Viet Nam and from Afghanistan indicates that guerrillas and terrorists both rule by fear in addition to popular support. If you are successful in removing the popular support, the guerrilla will strike back with terror to control the populace. No amount of diplomacy will counter that. It takes a military or police force with the mission to keep the people secure to accomplish that. Simply ejecting the guerrillas has no effect if you leave the next day. You must plan to stay around awhile and train and equip a native force. This is extremely difficult for a military to do. Their missions are all based on attack and defense, not training. Our troops receive no such training.
In Iraq we are seeing a third problem. Infrastructure that we have destroyed not being replaced. Not just physical infrastructure but the political and social infrastructure.
Think about it. A small American town is pretty much destroyed. No power. No food distribution. No employment. No Police. No firefighters. No medical help. No politicians(no jokes, please). Those who managed the system from the power station operators to the local Mayor are either dead or dispersed or trying desperately to take care of their own. Expertise in almost all infrastructure positions is lost. Furthermore, a foreign military who does NOT speak the local language and who does not keep the local customs is in charge. The main mission of the foreign military is, however, not to rebuild your infrastructure but to fight some shadowy enemy. Further more your town is broken up into White, Black and Mexican gangs each fighting for turf. What would happen?
Posted by Oldfart at 9/18/2007 09:50:00 AM
Friday, March 16, 2007
I like a lot of these. They can be applied to women too - even the fist fight - especially the fist fight.
Just make sure your opponent is armed ONLY with his/her fists tho.
Very few people can actually beat someone to death with their fists.
Posted by Oldfart at 3/16/2007 09:58:00 AM
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The gist of this nonsensical and politically correct research is that women are childlike victims and can not be expected to take responsibility for their own behavior. If I was a woman, I'd be insulted.
(1) A woman is verbal coerced by her "intimate" partner into sex. Because she gave into his whining, she is a victim. This implies that women are not mature enough to say NO to aggressive intimate partners and not smart enough to make overly aggressive intimate partners into EX-intimate partners when they misbehave.
(2) A woman gets drunk at a bar and goes home with a stranger and has drunken dirty sex and wakes up ashamed of herself - because she didn't say NO, she is somehow a victim of the stranger. Most males have gone thru exactly the same thing - no one ever accuses them of being victims. Instead, their buddies laugh at them.
(3) A woman is a binge drinker and, sometimes, during her binges other drunken bingers "take advantage" of her if and when she passes out. Ignoring the fact that the other drunken bingers are just as drunk as she is and just as responsible for their acts as she is of hers, she is still somehow a victim here. The first time this ever happens to her should be the last time. She should report it as the rape it was and.........She should never get drunk again. She should never put herself in that kind of danger again. But, what if she does? What if she does it again, and again, and again? What if she continues to do it with the same group of people? What does that say about her as a victim of herself?
According to the study : "Victimization was defined as unwanted sexual contact, verbally coerced sex, rape or attempted rape."
Let's see. If I am feeling unwell and my wife tries to seduce me because she is feeling very well - does that make me a victim? After all, I experienced unwanted sexual contact from my wife. Obviously this criteria doesn't make much sense in long term relationships where partners are not necessarily in the same mood all the time.
"Verbally coerced sex" - the concept boggles me. I have a feeling here that they mean physically aggressive partners who usually don't need to demonstrate their true violent nature because their submissive partner already knows. Other than that I can only imagine some kind of con man who sweet talks his way into bed with a reluctant partner. I have yet to see anyone beaten to death by mouth altho my mother's mouth could cut you in half. There is NO verbally coerced sex. A man who demands sex from his partner against her wishes is a physical threat to her well being. He backs his mouth up with his innate violence. This is rape.
A woman who submits to this more than once is a victim of herself.
No one can deny that a woman ( or a man, for that matter ) can be a victim of a rape or attempted rape. When a physical threat is hung over a person's head whether it be a threat of physical violence or a threat of dumping you out in the cold in the middle of nowhere, then the act is rape or attempted rape and you are a victim because it is beyond your capability to defend yourself or protect yourself. And, let's face it, it is not always possible to determine ahead of time the true nature of the man(or woman) you've made the mistake of dating.
But the people who have done this study are those for whom the word "seduction" is equivalent to rape and who feel that women have no brains or self-respect nor are they required to. Women are somehow helpless automatons in the spanish sense who will instantly rip their own clothes off if they are ever alone with a man because of his overwhelming "manliness". Since men have this control over women, every action by a male towards achieving a sexual liason with a female is an act of victimization of the helpless female.
Posted by Oldfart at 3/15/2007 09:59:00 AM
Saturday, February 24, 2007
I cannot begin to describe my disgust at the stupidity of everyone involved in this gross miscarraige of justice.
This shows that our system of justice only works when there are enough sufficiently intelligent people to operate it and that justice is rarely, if ever, dispensed, even then.
Only an extremely self-centered prosecutor and anal-retentive police department would ever believe that a middle aged teacher would intentionally search for porn while being responsible for a class of 12 year-olds. Only a judge close to his dotage would exclude evidence from a computer expert who obviously spoke in tongues the judge couldn't understand.
Posted by Oldfart at 2/24/2007 02:27:00 PM
The title comes from the JURIST - Paper Chase RSS feed.
Here is the link to the actual report by UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories John Dugard:
Israel and the United States (it's lackey) have dismissed his reports as one-sided (,of course).
Over 1000 Israelis have been killed by rockets and suicide bombers.
No one knows how many thousands of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.
Not to mention how much private property have been stolen from Palestinians by Israelis and Israeli settlers.
Try to imagine you live in Indiana and you are surrounded by a state that will not allow you access to any other part of the country, that will not allow you, for instance, to get to your job in Chicago and won't allow you to own property in, say, Illinois. Imagine further that, to relieve internal pressures and to fulfill some imaginary religious dream, citizens from the surrounding states are allowed to take YOUR property and build on it and, if you object or try to defend yourself, you are assaulted with military that you don't have. Supposed furthermore that the rest of the USofA supports these surrounding states to the tune of 2 billion dollars a year PLUS free rearmament and test weapons(cluster bombs, for instance).
THIS is the country (Israel) that has dismissed these reports as one-sided.
Posted by Oldfart at 2/24/2007 01:54:00 PM
Just wait till this test gets to America. What happens if 30% of those children now getting supplemental benefits for disabilities suddenly discover they aren't disabled? Which black "leader" will be the first to say that it is racially biased?
Posted by Oldfart at 2/24/2007 11:21:00 AM