The Triumvirate

The Anti-Fashion

2006-11-29T21:16:00.000-05:00

Dear God, I knew it would happen. When leggings started popping up on campus last spring, I could feel that something wasn't right. Sure, they look cute now under those denim miniskirts, but what if this is just the calm before the storm? I could just feel a fashion disaster looming in the air. And how right I was.
I want to bleach my eyeballs. Today, I saw 3 girls wearing leggings as pants. That's right; leggings without the additional coverage of a skirt, dress, or tunic length top. Even on skinny girls with no body fat, leggings are just not kosher by themselves. And on girls like me, who come with built-in padding around the hips and butt, it is even worse. Please, if you are going to do the trend, do it right. There are so many cute things you can wear with leggings, why not invest in them?
/rant
-The Quartermaster

Dirty sluts and decent men

2006-10-26T10:36:00.000-04:00

When I got back from work yesterday, hauling chinese food home with me, I sat down to check my email, and found one from an address and name I didn't recognize, with the subject line "modesty." My first assumption was that it must be a response to something I wrote for the George Street Observer (of which I am opinions editor). But my last few op-eds had been on national or international politics, not social and cultural issues. So, even though I had exams to study for, and usually save all non-essential email for when I have time, I went ahead and opened this one. I'd like to quote in full the text of her message to me:

Dear Quartermaster:

I happen to have a boyfriend who is attending a class with you this semester and something about his behavior disturbs me greatly: I recently overheard a phone conversation he had with a friend of his where they used less than decent language in commenting on a woman. I am certain they were referring to you because another girl I know attends the same class and said that he often stared at you and usually was distracted from the class material.

I know him to often be led away from my attention by seeing women who are not modestly dressed (wearing tight-bottom clothing, visible pantylines, etc. which he has a weakness for) and act in a flirty way, as my friend has confirmed about you. I am only asking you to please dress and act in a more modest manner because even though you may be an attractive girl, you should not flaunt it in a way that leads decent guys like my boyfriend to say these things about you. I am sory if you did not realize the effect your behavior has on young men, but I do hope you could learn to deal with this issue in an appropriate way.

Sincerely, Paranoid Girl

My first thought was that this girl must be either joking or mistaken. I'd like to think I'm a pretty cute girl, but I'm not exactly homewrecker material, nor do I dress in any particularly unique way. Obviously, warm weather lasts pretty long here in Charleston, and I dress for comfort. When it's 90 degrees and so humid you feel like you're breathing in water, I wear a tank top and a shorter skirt. Or a tank top and a long flowy skirt. But so does every other girl in Charleston, so how did she (or her friend, to be more precise) come to the conclusion that I was guilty of dressing inappropriately? I nearly drowned in my Catholic school induced guilt before I realized that this email had nothing to do with me.

I don't have to defend my choice of what I wear to anyone, especially someone who I've never met. I don't have to apologize to her because she thinks that her skeezy boyfriend was checking me out and talking lewdly about me. And I certainly don't have to change my behavior based on her assessment of me.

As my last post alluded to, I take issue with the idea that women are responsible for the sexual morality of men. In this sense, I have more in common with feminists than with the stereotypical "religious right." My conservative world-view says that people are responsible for their own choices and actions, and that blame should not be shifted to others.

This girl decided to blame me for her boyfriend's bad behavior. She essentially stripped him of all moral responsibility, and in her own mind, turned him into a passive agent, who was acted on by me, the slutty immodest girl. If he's talking about a girl in less than decent language, it's because that girl forced the sight of her exposed flesh on him, and he couldn't help himself. If he can't concentrate on his coursework, it's because that hussy is distracting him. If he strays from his girlfriend, it's because he was tempted by me, not because he's an unfaithful sleeze.

This attitude leads to all kinds of problems. For example, "He only hit me because I made him angry." Or, "He wouldn't have raped her if she hadn't been asking for it."
You can't improve the behavior of a group of people unless you hold them responsible for that behavior. I'm not going to deny that immodesty can be distracting. I'd be the first to say that women should show respect for themselves by dressing in way that celebrates them as a whole person rather than just a piece of flesh. But hello, 90 degree heat! And did I mention humidity? The fact that I'm showing shoulders and some thigh isn't a justification for someone else's bad behaviot. Do I notice when extremely cute guys go running shirtless past the store where I work? Obviously. Do I look? Duh. But that doesn't mean that if I rang up a customer wrong because I was lookibng, I'd blame it on that slutty boy immodestly showing his chest.

Culture and setting also determine what is modest and what isn't. Here in Charleston, short skirts and skimpy shirts are pretty much par for the course. Just like all the guys wear shorts and t-shirts. What's appropriate for me to wear to the beach is different from what's appopriate to wear trudging around in the Charleston heat, which is different from what might be appropriate for wearing to church.

Now, this post wouldn't be complete without a little bit of pop psychology. It's fairly clear that this girl is deeply insecure about her relationship. She's actually gone through the trouble of tracking down some random girl that she thinks her boyfriend might have been talking about, based on who her friend thinks dresses inappropriately. Doesn't that seem like a lot of work to you? She says that her boyfriend's behavior disturbed her. If that were the case, why not take it up with him? Were I in her shoes (and I thank God I'm not, because her problems are far larger than a single inappropriately dressed girl), I'd have a talk with this boy. But she goes through a lot of trouble to find herself a scapegoat, then goes through a whole process of insecurity-driven logical contortions to absolve her "decent" boyfriend of all blame, and even make him a victim to my overpowering sexiness (I'm cracking up as I write that).

I also love that she couches her criticism in terms of being concerned for me. At the same time that she castigates me for my behavior (which I would like to point out, she has never been witness to), she tries to make it sound like she's looking out for me. Poor QM, must not realize tha horrible things she drives innocent, decent guys to do. And her final sentence, asking me to deal with the issue in an appropriate way, is just too much. I'm sorry, my friend, but I'm not the one with issues to deal with, and I have no intention of running out to buy myself a nice wardrobe of Muu Muus in order to protect your boyfriend.

I'll say one last thing before signing off to study for my midterms: her boyfriend sounds like an ass, but she sounds like a paranoid freak, so maybe they deserve each other.
-The Quartermaster

Let's talk about sex...

2006-10-23T14:20:00.000-04:00

...because everyone likes sex.
Inevitably, a Catholic all-girls high school education will lead to discussions about chastity. I remember being subjected to a lot of these in four years. All of our theology classes eventually touched on sex, and why good Catholic girls don't have it.
And while I can appreciate the religious aspect, that God meant sex to remain within the bonds of marriage, where it is a sign of mutual commitment, there were two points that made me angry.
The first is that our brother school never talked about chastity. I've questioned several people who went there, including my own older brother, but none of them could remember it coming up to the same extent that it did at my own school. In their theology classes, someone would ask if a certain sex act was ok, the teacher would say it's fine as long as you are both married, then move one. But we girls had entire class periods devoted to sex (specifically, to chastity and virginity). Essentially, the message is that it's always the woman's job to ensure the sexual purity of men. This is the same attitude that in Islamic countries translates to women being beaten for showing their ankles. If you assume that chastity is important in Christian relationships, than it should be taught equally to both sexes.
The second point, and even more disturbing to me, is the shame aspect. I'll share one anecdote. Sophomore year, two or three of the Juniors gave us a talk about sexual purity during lunch. It consisted of showing us three roses. One had all its petals gone; the other had a few stripped away, and the last one was intact. They then asked us which rose we wanted to be, which rose a man would like more.
At the time, I was just annoyed. Now that I think about the message we were being sent, I'm furious. We should maintain sexual purity not for ourselves and our relationships with God, but because no man will want us if all our petals are gone. In other words, you can either be a slut or a nice pure wife.
This message ignores the Catholic model of forgiveness. If our sins are washed clean when we confess them to a priest and do penance, then does it matter if you made mistakes in the past? If God, who is perfect, can forgive your sins, than your (imperfect) husband shouldn't be complaining about it. I would hope that any man I marry is willing to accept me as I am; human, with a whole list of past mistakes. Being a virgin doesn't increase my worth as a person, and not being a virgin doesn't make me unsuitable for marriage.
The idea that a woman's worth is tied up in her purity, while it doesn't really matter for a man bothers me. Double standards are morally repugnant, and my high school didn't do anyone any favors by spreading this one.
-The Quartermaster

Update 2

2006-10-23T14:18:00.000-04:00

Also, we need to get those links changed. Ignore them, please.
-The Quartermaster

Update

2006-10-22T18:32:00.000-04:00

Posting is only sporadic because I barely have time to shovel down chinese takeout before dashing off to class or one of two jobs. Also, I've enabled comment moderation, and anonymous comments will not be allowed.
-The Quartermaster

But I Love Cupcakes...

2006-10-16T14:10:00.000-04:00

This truly makes me want to cry. The solution to childhood obesity is not banning birthday cupcakes. What sick, sick parent or administrator really believes that the best way to keep kids thin is to give them a school medal on their birthday instead of allowing them to bring cupcakes to share with the class?
Americans have an extremely unhealthy way of looking at food. I'm sure there are all kinds of intelligent and scholarly reasons why this is the case, but I have not researched the topic extensively, and make no claims to know a great deal about it.
What I do have is personal life experience, and observation. Food has a place in society that extends far beyond mere nourishment. Family traditions, gatherings of friends, special occasions; all are marked in some way with food. Everyone has food memories. The favorite drink you make with friends, the Thanksgiving turkey and murky peas from a can, the birthday cake, the pancake breakfasts on snow days; there is shared love and happiness and memories in these things.
But we live in a society where thinner is better, and where fast food is the only option for families on the run. So, while we turn up our noses at the food traditions that make us happy, and deny ourselves in the name of being svelte, we ignore the real problems.
Cupcakes are a school ritual; part of the fun of a birthday is the sugary goodness that comes with it. When school administrators and parents decide that they are going to deny their children cupcakes for birthdays, they set them up to develop an unhealthy relationship with food.
A cupcake on someone's birthday isn't going to make kids fat. If they go home, and their parents were too busy working late to make a healthy dinner, so they feed the kids pizza five nights a week, that might make a kid fat. Or if they end up sitting inside playing video games all afternoon, and all day on the weekends, because their earliest babysitters were the TV and the computer, then maybe they'll get fat.
Childhood obesity may be a social problem, but it is really a parent problem. Parents need to train their kids into healthy eating habits, and enjoyment of physical activity. And some parents have a harder time; a single mom who works two jobs so that she can pay the rent obviously isn't going to have time to prepare a healthy, balanced meal every single night. And if she and her kids can only afford to live in a dangerous area, then they obviously can't go play outside when they get home from school everyday. But that doesn't mean that the answer is to ban cupcakes, because doing so isn't going to take away from the underlying problems.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a cupcake. And we shouldn't train children into believing that there is, because then we train them that certain foods are guilty foods, and they are bad people if they indulge. There is nothing moral about eating broccoli versus eating a cupcake. That doesn't mean that cupcakes should be a staple in every diet, but we shouldn't pretend like they are the root of all evil, either.
Food is a serious issue for me, not only because I like it (I am vehemently pro-cupcake), but because I have seen so many women in my age group (and, frighteningly, younger) who have extremely unhealthy relationships with food. They believe the ability to deny themselves the pleasure of eating something they like is a moral accomplishment. They believe that to have worth has women, they must be of exactly the right body type, and to acheive this, they must not eat the evil cupcake! There's nothing wrong with wanting to be healthy, but there is something wrong when you equate your self-worth with your ability to deny yourself. Down this road lie anorexia, bulimia, and frantic dieting of women of all age groups.
We don't need to teach young children that they should fear cupcakes. We don't need to instill in them a fear of occasional indulgence; I truly believe that letting yourself have what you want sometimes is far better for the state of your soul than always saying, "oh no, I really shouldn't. I need to watch my figure." So let them have a damn cupcake.
-The Quartermaster

Damned swine

2006-09-17T12:22:00.000-04:00

Recently Pope Benedict(Ave!) referenced a medieval text about how Mohammed was evil and inhuman, especially his commend to spread the faith by the sword. So in protest, a bunch of ignorant primitive missing link candidates bomb churches in Gaza and the West Bank.

Please explain how this is a sane rebuttal to the entirely valid point that Byzantine scholar made. How do bombings prove you are not violent and primitive? Or that that swine you call a holy man wasn't evil?

The Pope should not have apologized. He should stand firm by his remark, which did not even endorse that text, and said that further violence would only vindicate him. Because that's the truth. I'm tired of these savages continuing to exist because we tolerate them. We work to give them better countries than their own racist ignorant imams can, and all they do is repay us with violence. End them all. I'm not going to restrain my opinion on this any more. If you want to prove me wrong, don't waste your time attacking me, denounce and reprimand the people who legitimize the increasingly accurate stereotype of Mohammedeans as violent Neanderthals.

Ideaman out.

I Rock

2006-08-08T22:34:00.000-04:00

I finally got something of mine published in a space other than a blog or a school newspaper. You can check out my far more coherent than normal rantings at Human Events Online
Go read. You know you want to.
-The Quartermaster

I heart Israel

2006-08-07T16:08:00.000-04:00

Maybe it's just because I love underdogs, but I really do love Israel. Yes, their attack on Lebanon is borderline extreme. Yes, civilians are being killed. But let's get some context, folks. Israel has essentially been under constant threat of attack since Great Britain pulled out in the 1940's, and practically every country in the Middle East decided to attack at once. They've been dealing with Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists for years, groups who have no compunction about murdering civilians. These groups had been firing rockets into Israel, deliberately targeting Israeli civilians. Not to mention the fact that they fire their rockets from civilian locations, so when Israel targets the rockets, they end up hitting civilians. Terrorist groups use their fellow men as human shields and publicity stunts.
So, France and the rest of the UN need to stop whining about an unconditional cease-fire. They may not like Israel's tactics, but if they had stepped in to help, Israel wouldn't have been pushed into attacking Lebanon. The Lebanese government has been letting Hezbollah, with their funding from Iran, run Southern Lebanon with no interference. Israel's strategy isn't that radical; make the people realize that harboring terrorists is a bad, bad idea. I wish people would get that the conflict isn't as simple as the Washington Post and other MSM sources make it out to be with their constant undertones of "Israel is being a big bully just because of some stupid little rockets." Israel is essentially surrounded by countries that would like to see its people all murdered, and the government is doing what it must to ensure the safety of its people.
-The Quartermaster

MTV is the nadir of western civ

2006-07-30T13:24:00.000-04:00

I hate many things, with a venomous passion that often makes normal people uncomfortable around me. But a special place in my pantheon of evil is reserved for the commercial behemoth of corporate, market-tested, sugar-coated calculating shock jock crap that MTV represents.

What brought on this recent bout of hate, you might ask. An article in the Washington Times on the 25th anniversary of MTV in which it recounted the many "achievements" of MTV over the years. While many of these were idiotic things like the Real World, TRL, and countless other bits of intellectual garbage, I couldn't help but think of the impact they have on what music is funded, promoted, and produced. MTV is a large force behind musical acts such as Yellowcard, the perpetually un-original John Mayer, the whining transvestites of My Chemical Romance, and of course MTV's own personal Frankenstein's monster, O-Town.

The one thing that all of these so-called artists have in common is their shocking lack of talent or original thought, and that none of them could exist without the money teat that MTV provides.

Of course, MTV couldn't stay in their own backyard. For years they've been creating IQ-killers for the unwashed masses, but their latest offering is still remarkable. Not content to let idiot-infested "The O.C." rule the airwaves, they actually made it worse. Laguna Beach is the perfect blend of different brands of crap, reality tv and 90210-esque crybaby nonsense. I am unable to actually watch it, as exposure to pop culture in that pure of a form would weaken my powers from your yellow sun, those who have watched it have described it to me as everything you don't want to want to see in modern television.

Ah, the many achievements of MTV. Crap music, crap tv, and here we are just waiting for the next pile of fecal matter to hit the atmospheric oscillator.

Until next time.

-Ideaman

Sincerest apologies & Ann Coulter

2006-07-28T17:50:00.000-04:00

First off, I apologize both to anyone who comes here, and to myself. In the last two months, I have failed to efficiently utilize my summertime by blogging and reading, infact, I have barely even picked up the paper. This is indeed a failure on my part. Actually, I have felt fairly politically apathetic recently. Not in the sense that I don't think the same things I used to, but I didn't really feel like using any of my energy to try and educate myself and stay on top of current events at all, I left that to the QM. But the times they are a changin'.

I just got back from what can only be described as a spiritual awakening. A Street Dogs concert. Actually, that was last night, and while that was the most fun thing I've done this summer, this afternoon's event was also excellent, though in a very different way. I got to hear Ann Coulter speak at a Q&A session and book-signing. Many folks, liberals, and even some "conservatives," can't stand the woman. She's a witch! Burn her! She turned me into a newt! You get the idea. They find her outrageous, offensive, bitchy, etc, etc whine whine. What many people can't handle is actually her lightheartedness. She's really quite funny. And when she's speaking you can really tell that while she is serious about what she's discussing, there's a very jocular element to her presentations. She's funny, gracious, and by golly, she is as smart as a whip(smarting, at times as well). But I really think that if liberals would pull the beanpoles out of their buttocks, they might relax, and enjoy. Not agree, but at least loosen up a little and look at what she's really saying. They might learn something.

Here are some amusing Coulter-isms you may enjoy:

"I prefer my opposition not to be retarded."
"We must enter their temples and destroy them." (referring to public schools)
"'If the world hates you, remember they hated me first'....that's Christ, not me speaking."(in response to an aspiring Christian journalist asking advice)

I found her to be highly entertaining, and she brought up some great points which I'll discuss later. Oh, and I'll get the site banner back up, at long last.

Also, I got two copies of her new book signed. Hell yeah.

Peace,
The Talent

Stem cell research

2006-07-09T15:13:00.000-04:00

From the Family Research Council:

Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) announced unanimous agreement for votes as early as mid-July on a package of bioethics bills--two on stem cells and one on fetus farming. The most dangerous bill, S.471/H.R.810--sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)--would fund stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Please make sure your two U.S. Senators know you oppose this destructive legislation. A second bill, S.2754--authored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)--would encourage scientists to seek ethical stem cell alternatives. FRC has not taken a position on this bill; while it does not violate ethical principles and such research is currently allowed, Senators should vote for this bill instead of the embryo destruction bill. A third important bill, S.3504--sponsored by Sen. Santorum and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)--expands protections against scavenging fetal organs by prohibiting gestation of human fetuses for exploitation of their body parts. The bill, known as the "Fetus Farming" bill, is a crucial piece of legislation to prevent the further abuse of scientific research and to preserve human dignity. Let your Senators know you support these ethical bills.

Why does the government keep insisting on funding medical research? The fact of the matter is, private investors are more likely to search out companies that have a chance of curing something, because they want a return on their investment. This is why adult stem cell research is so well funded-because it is actually producing cures. Embryonic stem cell research has trouble finding funding because the only thing it has produced are rats with strange growths. Ergo, no one wants to privately fund the research, so they have to beg the government to step in. If embryonic stem cells were as promising as advocates would have us believe, there would be private investors all over the place looking to drop money on it. Instead, these scientists have to get federal funding in order to keep their jobs. Because that isn't at all self-interested.
-The Quartermaster

Musing on Life

2006-07-07T11:43:00.001-04:00

I usually try not to blog about my personal life, because to be frank, it's pretty boring, but several different things have got me thinking about my own life direction a lot recently. The whole Linda Hirshman controversy of stay-at-home moms vs. working moms prompted me to read a couple of books on the topic, and think more about what I want from life.

Short term goals are easy: I want to get the most out of my summer internship, maybe get a few articles published. I want to do well in my classes next year, and keep my GPA up so I have a shot at grad school. I want to be a kick-ass opinions editor for the school paper, and hopefully get more people involved in writing. I want to actually learn how to salsa dance, instead of just clumsily following along. I want to date a Citadel cadet (only half-joking on that one; I have a serious weakness for military types).

Long term, though, things get slightly more blurry. For as long as I can remember, I've wanted to get married and have kids; I've also always wanted to be involved in politics. I am a hard worker as long as I feel that what I'm working for has some greater goal or value, and have every confidence that I could really make a difference working in politics. At the same time, I also know that I want to raise my own children. That means actually being at home with them when they are young, being the one who shapes their morals and their characters, being there when they get back from school so that they don't come home to an empty house.

My friends joke about the fact that I would be a great housewife/mom (mostly because I actually love cleaning and cooking; they give me such a sense of satisfaction), and perhaps because I am such a perfectionist, I don't think anyone could do a better job of raising my kids than I could. To Linda Hirshman, though, my goal of wanting to raise kids means that I am wasting my education and my life. The real question that I ask myself is where I could do the most good, where I could have the greatest impact. Generally, I come to the conclusion that both are equally important.

I've read too much on the effects of daycare on children, and seen firsthand the issues of kids I babysat, to really believe that you can work full-time and not have it take a serious toll on your family. On the other hand, I know that working on concrete projects is a very fulfilling experience for me, and that it would be hard to just give up a career, even for a relatively short time.

Basically, I am faced with the same problem that most women face; where am I going to place my priorities? At this point, I lean towards family. I realize that being a stay at home mom will require sacrifice (older cars, less money to spend, subjugating self to others), but isn't that what life is really all about? It's somewhat out of fashion to acknowledge the necessity of making sacrifices, especially if you are a woman. After all, staying home with kids, changing your last name when you get married, aren't those concessions to the patriarchy? Shouldn't we be able to have it all (kids and career), if men can? This, of course, is ridiculous, as most men also make a sacrifice. They give up experiencing much of their kids' childhoods in order to work to provide for their families.

When/If I get married, I want kids. I understand that this will mean cutting back work or quitting entirely for a time, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I'm not betraying a greater feminist ideal by wanting to be the one who oversees my children's development from incessantly wailing infants to incessantly whining teenagers; I would be lying to myself if I convinced myself to let someone else have that valuable job while I pursue a career.

So, that's my ramble. I've been told I plan things too far in advance, that I shouldn't try to figure out my life when I'm just a sophomore in college, but it can't hurt to be prepared. If I know what I'm to get out of life, I have a better idea of where I need to go and what I need to do. I already have the internship, now I just need to find that Citadel guy.
-The Quartermaster

North Korea

2006-07-05T18:40:00.000-04:00

Now North Korea is testing missiles. Seven of them, to be exact. According to the Washington Post, five of the six smaller missile tests "appeared to go smoothly", while the long-range one (the only one that really endangers the US) failed after only 35 seconds. Somehow, I am less than reassured. I am less worried about the actual results of the tests than I am about the fact that they are testing them at all. Because what we really need is a crazy dictator with nukes. President Bush's reaction was rather restrained, for all that Democrats like to paint him as a gun-slinging cowboy (I might add here that it was a former Clinton aide who suggested that we do some preemptive bombing).

He said, "It's my view that the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for there to be more than one nation speaking to North Korea, more than America voicing our opinions."

In other words, would Europe and the rest of the world stop acting like a bunch of pansies and grow a pair? Don't expect America to keep doing everything for you! Really, the biggest problem that the world faces, in terms of dealing with countries like North Korea, is that everyone turns to the UN for help. The UN has no real power and too many competing interests, so nothing of substance ever gets done. I still think that fact that every country gets the same say is ridiculous. Why should US money, paying 22% of the UN budget, be used to give legitimacy to crackpot dictators who rule by murdering everyone who disagrees with them? Peacekeeping forces, when used, have been either totally ineffective, or served to make problems worse. Finally, when things get bad enough, the US steps in to actually get shit done (being an action person myself, I appreciate this attitude far more than "let's have more sanctions"). Then, the rest of the world (read: France and Germany) starts slamming the US for its arrogance and imperialism. As far as I can tell, the UN has yet to solve any world problems. It has yet to prevent people from killing each other. And don't even get me started on the sex abuse scandal (for the record, it's interesting how little press this got compared to, say, the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals. For that matter, a larger percentage of teachers than priests have been accused and/or found guilty of molestation and statuatory rape, but no one likes to talk about that). Basically, the UN serves very little purpose, except to involve the US in treaties that will eventually be used by small minorities of radicals and their friends in the federal judiciary to overturn the will of the people. Needless to say, I'm not sure I trust the UN to solve our North Korea problem. On the funny side, this whole thing makes me think of Team America, which is a hilarious movie.
-The Quartermaster

NOW is at it again

2006-06-30T21:02:00.000-04:00

Yes, I fail at posting often. I'll chalk it up to the fact that, due to my internship, I spend 9 to 5 inmmersed in politics (and some paperwork), so by the time I get home, I just want to sit on the couch and read the latest issue of InStyle Magazine. Got a flat tire on the way to work today, and amazed my (all female) office by changing it myself.
So, today I bring you a round-up of all the latest liberal hijinks of the National Organization of (some) Women:
Here, they complain that it is unfair for the press to raise questions concerning the claims and credibility of the stripper who accused the boys of the Duke Lacrosse of raping her. Never mind the fact that her story has pretty much fallen apart; any objections to pushing the case forward, no matter how well-founded they are, are racist and sexist. According to NOW, the media are responsible for:

promoting racist and sexist stereotypes; dismissing the seriousness of rape while belittling survivors; and treating the case merely as entertainment.

Or maybe, after having had their fun casting aspersions on the characters of the lacrosse team, they are doing the same to the accuser. While I agree the premise that we shouldn't be dismissing her because of her profession, I also don't think that we should believe her without question simply because she is a black woman. They also object to:

the constant use of the word "stripper" to describe the woman (when she could have as easily been described as "student" or "mother")

While it's true that she is also a student and a mother, she was at the party in her capacity as a stripper. It makes since to use that term to describe her, for the same reason that when we discuss Hillary Clinton's latest posturing, we describe her as "Senator Clinton (D-NY)" rather than "Mrs. Clinton, mother of one".

In her weekly column, Kim Gandy whines about "sex-segregated" schools. I have news for you, dear Ms. Gandy: single sex education works. That's why people are proposing it. And you know where it works best? Inner city schools. Why would any well meaning feminist want to deprive young women of a chance to focus on academic pursuits in a friendly, sexual pressure-free environment? Because to say that women and men have different learning styles and optimum learning timelines would be heretical and destructive to the notion that men and women are exactly the same.

Finally, proving why international treaties are a terrible idea, we have the NOW Foundation issuing a shadow report to the UN claiming widespread sex-based employment discrimination. Basically, it digs up every favorite feminist gripe of the past 30 years, and submits it to the UN Human Rights Committee, saying that the US is violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These issues include women in the military, the gender wage gap, low minimum wage, lack of tax-payer subsidized childcare, etc. Basically, this is the reason that we can't ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women; the radical feminists would use it to push through a radical agenda that most Americans don't agree with, in order to remake our country in the image of Europe.

So, once again, my thanks to NOW for always giving me something to blog about.
-The Quartermaster

Not surprising

2006-06-13T19:01:00.000-04:00

Patrick Kennedy Pleads Guilty to DUI.
Anyone surprised? I'm not. Libs whine about how the Bush family is a power-grasping political dynasty. What are the Kennedy's if not just that? They go into fits of hysterics over Bush having had a DUI when he was younger; where is the moral outrage?
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-06-09T10:56:00.000-04:00

I meant to post this yesterday, but Blogger was down, causing me to delay my take on this momentous occasion.

Our Idiot of the Day is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for being a terrorist piece of rat feces.

Oh wait. What's that? You got bombed? Blown up? Covered in rubble?

Make that, our Idiot of the Day is the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for having been a terrorist piece of rat feces.

And apparently, he was still alive after the bombs hit his hidey-hole, and then died a bit later from his wounds. A slow(er) death. Nothing he didn't deserve, and in my own humble opinion, a bit kinder than what he deserved.

'Nuff said.
-The Talent

(And yes, now that I am out for summertime, I will be revamping this joint a bit. You're excited, don't lie.)

Idiot of the Day

2006-06-05T19:19:00.000-04:00

Maybe Idiot of the Week would be a less ambitious way to do this; if I adopted a policy of trying to do it weekly, though, I might lapse into monthly, then yearly, and God knows there are enough idiots to find 365 in a year. Anyway, onto the idiot: Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post, whose borderline hysteria-induced ravings can be found in their entirety here, which I will quote extensively for those of you who don't like to click the links. He starts out in the classic liberal "if you don't agree with me you're an idiot" manner(which should only really be employed by snarky bloggers):

It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican.
There is no possible excuse for doing what Congress is poised to do this
week:
Abolish the estate tax.

No possible excuse? We'll see about that one, Sebastian. Next, he explains that our government's situation is precarious already, chock full of mounting deficit and even more projected spending for the future. Even worse than looming economic disaster, our country is Marx's worst nightmare:

Since 1980 the gap between the earnings of the top fifth and
the bottom fifth has jumped by almost 50 percent. The United States is by some
measures the most unequal society in the rich world and the most unequal that
it's been since the 1920s. What is the dumbest possible response to this?
Identify the most progressive federal tax and repeal it. The nation faces the prospect that inequality will damage meritocracy.When the distance between top and bottom widens, it becomes harder to traverse the gap; people of low birth are stuck at the bottom, and human talent is wasted.

He has revealed to us what liberals mean when they say progressive: socialist. Let's begin with the assumption that inequality of wealth somehow runs contrary to meritocracy (which, I might add, it a terrible term for what we're dealing with here; the -cracy part refers to ruling). Isn't it possible that in some, if not most situations, wealth is a direct result of talent and/or hard work with perhaps some luck thrown in for good measure?

The United States is supposed to be a country that values
individuals for their inherent worth, not for their inherited worth. The estate
tax, like a cigarette tax or a carbon tax, is a tool for reducing a socially
damaging phenomenon -- the emergence of a hereditary upper class -- as well as a
way of raising money.

Funny, I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Valuing someone's inherent worth is not the same as saying that we need to punish the rich by taxing their income twice (or even three times, as would be the case if they earned the money then invested it and received dividends, then tried to pass it along to their children when they died). And who said that being rich was socially damaging? If I'm not mistaken, the Rockefeller Center was not payed for by the bums who sleep on benches around the city, but by the man who got incredibly rich and then engaged in tons of philanthropy (which sounds a little bit dirty if you say it out loud).

If the abolitionists succeed, some other tax will eventually
be raised to make up for the lost revenue. So which tax does Congress favor? The
income tax, which discourages work? A consumption tax, which hits the poor
hardest? The payroll tax, which is both anti-work and anti-poor? Really, which
other tax out there is better?

Well, we could consider cutting spending....nah, that's just too crazy. Seriously, maybe if we didn't have a government commision, department, center, or subsidy for everything, we could cut a whole lot more than just the estate tax. Now,this may be the first time I've ever seen a liberal actually admit that our income tax discourages work, but notice how he avoids mentioning that the estate tax also penalizes you for working hard, it just waits until you die. And I love how quickly he writes off the consumption tax, which is far more viable than he is obviously willing to give it credit for.

Most people just don't know that, under the law's current
provisions, a couple can bequeath $4 million without paying a penny to the
government.

To be fair, they've already payed taxes on it, as I already pointed out. And why are we starting from the assumption that they owe part of their (already taxed) fortune to the government. If you want to start a discussion about meritocracy, let's say that from now on, only government programs that can prove their worth get our money. Finally, his conclusion (I can almost see him tearing at his hair as he writes, distraught that those damn rich people are actually going to get to keep their own money):

Repealing the estate tax is like erecting protectionist
barriers around the hereditary elite. It is anti-meritocratic and unfair -- and
antithetical to this nation's best traditions.

He seems to assume that there is only so much wealth to go around, and if the rich get to keep it, then no one else will ever get any. The quintessentially American Horatio Alger stories were written about men who pulled themselves out of poverty with hard work and talent, not about Uncle Sam doling out entitlement programs. His whining about the unfairness makes him sound like a kid on a playground crying to his mom because the other kid has built a bigger mud pie and won't give him a slice. And I might also point out that our Founding Fathers were largely of the "hereditary elite", so I doubt they would be too concerned that the wealthy are being allowed to hold on to what they've earned. Sebastian, not only is your argument lacking in any kind of logic or fact, your tone brings makes me think I shouldbe pulling out the smelling salts before you collapse entirely into hysterics (though I may be too late). I'll tell you what's unfair: that you get paid to write this drivel.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-05-24T21:23:00.000-04:00

An Idiot of the Day, for those of you who need them pointed out. I've found that, like the NOW homepage, the Democratic Caucus is a great place to find rampant stupidity. Today, our Idiot is James Clyburn, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus. On May 18th, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert made the following remarks:
Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes. So you probably, if you don't pay any taxes, you are not going to get a big tax cut."
I'd say that makes perfect sense; after all, if you only make $40,000, you aren't in one of the extremely punitive higher tax brackets. If you are a family of only two, then you aren't trying to raise children with child credits that in no way reflect the cost of actually raising the next generation. Naturally, Clyburn doesn't see things that way:

"To this point, I have been baffled by Republican budget and tax priorities that value millionaires and billionaires above working families, and sink this nation’s budget deeper in debt every year. But Speaker Hastert crystallized GOP budget philosophy—working families don’t pay taxes and don’t deserve a tax cut."

AOL blows

2006-05-12T08:25:00.000-04:00

I really miss my internet connection at school. Oh well.
I will go ahead and admit that while the feminist in me is supposed to be suspicious of the motivation of men who give up their seats for women, I always enjoy little displays of chivalry. I've heard all the arguments for why opening doors or giving up seats for women is just an offshoot of the patriarchal attitudes which suppress women, and none of them really ring true for me (for an example of what could really be termed "the patriarchy", see the article below, and note that the woman was jailed). I would also argue that even today, in our world of equality, men should give their seat on the Metro or train or whatever to a woman, and not just because he respects her. He should give it up because men's shoes are a hundred times more comfortable than women's. Seriously, look at the shoes deemed both work appropriate and stylish for men versus those for women. This observation especially holds in an office environment, where men get to wear relatively comfortable shoes, but women's shoes come with a heel as a standard feature. Even if the heel isn't that bad, the shoe will inevitably rub strange spots on her foot and produce blisters. So, gentlemen, please offer the woman a seat. Her feet are probably killing her.

2006-05-08T16:00:00.000-04:00

This is just awesome. Bravo for self-defense. I just wish they hadn't reattached it.
-The Quartermaster

Hillary again

2006-05-06T13:41:00.000-04:00

You know Hillary Clinton is the wrong person to run the country when the New York State United Teachers endorse her. Please, New Yorkers, don't re-elect her. Teacher's unions are the perfect example of the damage unions can do; should we really be listening to an organization which essentially protects incompetence? It looks like 2008 could come down to Clinton and McCain, and while I don't have a great deal of admiration for McCain's political fence-sitting, I would vote for a trained monkey before I put Clinton in office to bring about her socialist utopia, complete with government day-care for everyone, so that parents aren't weighed down with raising children, which as we all know, should really be left to professionals. I mean, look how well public schools are doing; what parent wouldn't want their child in public daycare?
-The Quartermaster

The Mommy State

2006-05-04T00:30:00.000-04:00

Once again, proof that Canada sucks. This article outlines the possibility of cars which have a GPS system which will not allow drivers to surpass the posted speed limits of the road you are traveling on, currently being tested in Canada.

As in a conventional GPS-equipped car or truck, the system knows which road you're on, as well as the direction you're traveling. This information is continuously updating as you move. But in addition to this, the system also acquires information about the posted speed limit on each road, as you drive. Once your vehicle reaches that limit, the car's computer makes it increasingly difficult to go any faster.
Ten vehicles equipped with this technology are currently being tested in the Ottowa area; if the trail is "successful," a wider series of tests is planned. And it's a sure bet the entire thing will eventually be the object of a very strong-armed push aimed at making it mandatory equipment in every new car.

That's exactly what we need; cars which uphold the bureaucratic idiocy forced on us by the mommy-types of our government, who feel the need to protect us from an extra 10 or 15 MPH. I would bet, though, that the low speed limits which seem so pervasive despite their impracticality are not so much for our safety as for the ticket money which can be collected by the state becaused everyone (except for a few old people and some mothers) exceeds the speed limits. 'But QM', you might object, 'the state really does have our best interests at heart!' Take a quick look at the state of Social Security and you will very quickly be disillusioned with the idea that the government is really just looking out for us.
That's all for tonight, and possibly for a few days. I'm sitting in my empty dorm room now, with nothing but a computer and a bed and a roommate patiently waiting for me to go to sleep already so we can turn off the light. Tomorrow, I'm outta here.
-The Quartermaster

Back to the North

2006-04-28T20:37:00.000-04:00

A week from now, I'll be back in Arlington. I'm happy to go home, because I have an internship that I am incredibly excited about, but I'm really going to miss Charleston. I'm especially going to miss being able to walk everywhere (except Target and the beach), now that gas prices are crazy.
So, before I head home, a little bit of local news: a bill recently introduced in the South Carolina legislature would make sex toys illegal. It is based on current laws which prohibit dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
Not to rain on Rep Ralph Davenport's parade, but this is the kind of law which honestly gives the conservative movement a bad name. I'm sure he has good intentions, but the fact is, there isn't a decent precedent for upholding this law, and nor should there be one. I'm pretty damn conservative, but my overall philosophy could be stated thusly: the government needs to keep it's hands out of that which does not directly concern it. John Stuart Mill's philosophy on liberty rings true for me when he states that men are only responsible to society for those things which concern society. Maybe more later, but right now I have a final paper to work on, and I need to be at work in an hour.
-The Quartermaster

sigh

2006-04-27T22:46:00.000-04:00

Oh, QM, what will we do with you? With your frequent updating, smart analyses, and witty descriptions of cockroaches. I fear you have dominated the blog and made it less of a triumvirate and more of a... univirate? No. Definitely not a word. In any case, the time is fast approaching where I will cast aside the bonds of AP classwork and plunge headfirst into the blogosphere and retain my rightful place by your side. Now to get a new image hoster (our free one, walagata, decided it didn't like not charging people, so that's why our banner is AWOL) and to light a fire under Ideaman's ass. Speaking of AP work, I have an overdue paper to write, but before I go....nah, I'm screwing with you, I have nothing to say at the moment. Oh Wait! I lied again, I do!

I recently attended a punk show, headlined by such bands as the Casualties, Anti-Flag, the Unseen, and a few others. The main event was Anti-Flag, the most mainstream of all the bands, and arguably the least talented. Not only do they lack any real musical talent (and the vocalist is unforgivably nasal) but they believe that in order to be a true punk rocker, one must flaunt your disdain for Evil Rethuglican Politics with such subtle and clever images as the one featured on their homepage. Not only THAT, but they also felt the need to tell us poor citizens how we can fight back, by having activists from Military Free Zone and some anti-uranium organization come and tell us how evil the military and uranium are. Oh joy. If I wanted to hear your drivel, I would go to a protest, or I would read your website. I did not come to a punk concert to hear it, I came to a punk concert to crash into people and jump around. The last thing I want is for some unwashed, overweight, poorly-dressed, ignorant goombah to come and tell me how the EEEEvil military can *GASP* send a recruiter to talk to me if I got to a public school. Oh, the horror! Please. Go sell your shit somewhere I didn't pay money to get into. The only real disadvantage to being part of the punk scene is that the majority of punks have the political sense of fetal pigs. No disrespect to the little unborn oinkers. Anyway, enough for. Back to work. Damn.

-The Talent

Freakin bugs

2006-04-26T10:33:00.000-04:00

These were not in the brochure. When I thought 'hey, Charleston sounds like a pretty sweet place to live', no one warned me about the roaches. Huge, disgusting, crawl over your feet while you are trying to blog and scare the crap out of you roaches. I now have roach traps in the corners and a defensive perimeter of Raid around my baseboards. Of course, while I freaked out, my roomie from Alabama just laughed at me. Apparently, if you're from the South, you're pretty much used to them. Yeah right. I declare room 313 a roach-free, zero tolerance zone; anything with more than two legs gets a phone book dropped on it, no questions asked.
-The Quartermaster

I'm not just mean; I'm evil and heartless as well!

2006-04-25T13:02:00.000-04:00

My applause and appreciation go out to Representative Charles H. Taylor (R-N.C.) for taking a stand for true conservative principles, which I sum up in the following philosophy: It's not the government's job, so why is the government doing it?
My complaint against the Republican Party is this: they have long ago abandoned what really separates them from Democrats, the idea of small government. We might actually be able to afford the Bush administration tax cuts if so much money wasn't just getting thrown away on pet projects and useless organizations (National Endowment for the Arts has really got to go. I'm totally serious here). But instead, our senators and representives just keep spending money, and allowing the liberals to spend money.
So, here we have Rep. Taylor, the chairman of the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee (which oversees funding on government acquisition of land), putting his foot down. The issue? Families and friends of the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 want the government to spend $10 million to buy the field where said flight crashed on 9/11, so that they can erect a memorial.
First of all, I would like to point out that this land is in the middle of Shanksville, PA, so exactly how much land do they want to buy? I have trouble believing that they really need $10 million dollars worth of farmland to properly commemorate the heroic actions of the passengers of Flight 93. But of course, they can't just put up a statue, they need a whole bowl, which they propose will require 1,200 acres of land. The proposed memorial is expansive, and therefore also expensive. Of course, the same people planning this memorial have also pledged to raise half of the $60 million which the entire project would cost, but have so far reached only $7.5 million. This means that the government would pay $30 million, assuming that the memorial project people even manage to raise their share of the funding.
I'm not saying that I don't think a memorial is appropriate, but I don't think that it's appropriate for the federal government to be spending that much money on a memorial which, let's face it, is probably not going to be getting a whole lot of visitors. The war memorials is DC are not only more conveniently located for tourism (which is a very important American industry), in purely practical terms far more people have sacrified themselves for their country in wars, and more people have been affected. If the family members of Flight 93 want a memorial, they should really be a little more realistic in terms of the cost-benefit factors, and plan the memorial accordingly.
Naturally, all the other Republicans are more than willing to criticize Taylor for daring to actually make a substantive effort to cut federal spending, rather than following the preferred strategy of rolling over and keeping their mouths shut whenever someone says "we deserve money too!"
Alright, I need to cut this short, I was just violated by a giant cockroach, and feel a trip to the beach would aide my recovery.
-The Quartermaster

No, I'm not dead

2006-04-24T11:31:00.000-04:00

My sincerest apologies to anyone who reads my little bit of cyberspace. I've really been terrible with keeping updates frequent, but circumstances are conspiring against me. Firstly, I had to go home for Easter, which meant twelve hours on an Amtrak train each way. It was only supposed to take 8 hours, but this is what you get for entrusting your transportation to the government. If Amtrak isn't an argument for privatization and competition, I don't know what it. On my way to Washington, I had the misfortune to be seated next to a young man, probably around my age, whose ambition in life was apparently to be a "gangsta", complete with pimp chains, clown size sneakers, pants which were held up by sheer force of will alone (which was obviously waning), and body odor which can only be described as unwashed miscreant. I can only assume that this was a statement against the oppresive prevailing standards thought up by evil white men, which demand regular use of such items as soap and deoderant.
For the train ride back, I saw the same man boarding my train. Fearing that I might by some sick twist of fate end up seated next to him again, and therefore not wishing to leave anything to chance, I spotted a guy in the crowd who appeared to also be close to my age, but with a much cleaner look to him. I practically hurled myself into the seat next to him, and breathed a sigh of relief when I realized that he had the scent of someone who believes in showering. It only got better, when the conductor asked where he was headed, and he replied that he was going to Charleston, in what was unmistakably a British accent. I had just died and gone to heaven.
Being an opportunist by nature, I immediately struck up a conversation, which continued in between my intervals of reading for the entire trip.
The moral of this story, of course, is first not to take Amtrak. Even the acquaintance of a cute Brit "traveling 'round the States" is not enough to ease the utter torment of sitting on a train for 12 hours. Secondary to that, don't trust luck to get you where you want to be; inevitably, fortune will be a total bitch and put you next to Smelly McGangsta. Instead, create your own good circumstances, and you'll have a much pleasanter time of it. Unless of course you're traveling by Amtrak.
Once back in Charleston, I had to go to class in the mornings, and work in the afternoons, which meant that my evenings where reserved for mindless activities, of which blogging is not one. Yesterday was my first day off since getting back, and the weather was absolutely perfect; 85 degrees, no humidity, cool breeze. Let's face it, if I don't come home with a decent tan, there's really no point to having moved all the way to Charleston for college, so sitting inside and staring at my computer was simply out of the question. Now, I am headed into finals week, which means that I'll have plenty of things I'll want to procrastinate on, so that should be incentive enough for me to blog. Perhaps I'll finally get around to a well-constructed rant on college idiocy and why I hate entitlement. That is, if I can't convince my roomie to drive us to the beach.
-The Quartermaster

On Why I'm a Mean Conservative

2006-04-13T20:17:00.000-04:00

The other day, I was sitting unsuspectingly in the library courtyard, soaking up some afternoon sun on one of my two days off that week (I work 20 hours a week, in an attempt not to sponge off my parents for the rest of my college life), when I was accosted by a student activist. This bleeding heart was trying to get people to join the ONE Campaign by signing a card that they would then mail to Congress, lobbying for a larger portion of the US budget to be spent on helping with AIDS and poverty worldwide. I think I gave the poor girl a heart attack when I said that I wasn't interested.
Let me explain: aside from the fact that the campaign has numerous highly odious people behind it (George Clooney is one example), I also feel that it goes against my conservative principles. The job of the government, in my own opinion, is a very limited one: to create the basic conditions necessary for its citizens to thrive. This means providing for trade, national security, transportation, regulation to protect the vulnerable members of our society, and ensuring that basic human needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical attention) are provided for those who cannot provide for themselves. Notice that this list does not include the following: making sure everyone is equal, legislating purely moral decisions (for the record, while I have religious issues with gay marriage, I have yet to hear a good argument for why the government should have the right to intervene), funding the arts (why are we still funding the NEA for God's sake?), etc.
In keeping with this principle, I don't think that it is our federal government's job to be making charitable donations (I don't count development loans in this catagory). No, that doesn't mean that I want children in Africa to starve, but charity should be a personal choice, not something legislated by our government, which should be solely focused on its own citizens. I truly believe that it is necessary for people to make some contribution to charity; I think we need more awareness in this country of the dismal conditions that people in other, less fortunate nations suffer under. I think we all need a better idea of how blessed we are in this country (then maybe people would stop whining about this "relative poverty" crap). Taxing citizens to pay for foreign aid is not a valid use of government power, and let's face it, most government programs are wildly inefficient, so we're much better off not relying on them anyway. So, yes, people need to be charitable. It is one of the responsibilities of every human being to do their part to end suffering, but the government should not have a place in it. So, no signing a ONE pledge for me; it's all well and good for George Clooney to make donations, and encourage us to do the same, but let's not get the government involved, shall we?
As always, feel free to disagree, or leave a comment. I looooove comments.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-04-06T12:19:00.000-04:00

I would just like to say that I have found myself a conservative idiot. That's right folks, I don't just pick on liberals, I am an equal opportunity slammer of idiocy. David Yeagley, writer for Front Page Magazine, is my idiot of the day. I will quote some of what he said here, but you should really read the whole article.
"It’s racism at Duke, all right. Racism against white students. Members of the Duke University Lacrosse team may have abused a black party girl, but, without any proof or trial, the Duke Lacrosse team was punished by the university, suspended from further games. So terrified was the administration of being charged with “racism.” The black female wins again. She is truly an ace on the field and in court."
Let's take this time to make it truly clear: this is not about race, this is about rape. I think some of the feminist lobby have been making the mistake of focusing on the fact that a black woman was raped by white men. I honestly don't care that much about the race of any of the parties involved, the crime is just as horrible. If it is proven in a court of law that they did it, they should be punished accordingly.
"So, that black woman said, “No,” eh? First, she’s in a profession where she’s expected to do tricks for clients. Second, she’s walking into a house full of young, drunken athletes, who happen to be white. Third, she called the police and complained once; then she went back, but then left. And then she went back again! That’s a peculiar way of saying “No,” it seems to me. These racist black people just want a role model victim, with mistreatment wreaked upon the weakest of the weak: the black woman. All she has to do is cry, “rape by white male!” and she rules the world."
In case anyone was wondering, it doesn't matter if she is a stripper, or a nun, or a prostitute or a virgin; rape is always a crime. It seems like what David is trying to say here is that she deserved to be raped because she made a mistake, or had bad judgement. Does that mean that if I went walking around my campus late at night, and I got raped, it would be ok, because I wasn't making smart decisions? He also makes it sound like reporting being raped is an easy thing women do to get back at men they don't like. The fact is, most rapes go unreported because women are afraid to report them, or feel ashamed.
I am a strong believer in personal responsibility, which means two things in this case. First, while I would have a moral problem with being an exotic dancer, I'm mostly just glad that she has a job and is trying to put herself through school. That shows an admirable amount of personal responsibility. Second, I hope that if she was raped, the men who did it are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I am a strong believer in harsher penalties for sex crimes like rape. The minimum prison sentences we have are not nearly good enough, and ought to be raised.
So, David, you have the honor of being my first conservative idiot of the day, for making the rest of us look like assholes. Thanks a lot buddy.
-The Quartermaster

A few quick bits of randomness

2006-04-05T15:55:00.000-04:00

Yet another reason not to own a snake. Just get a donkey instead, they're much better than wives.
In other news, the state of Massachusetts legislature has approved a bill which will require all residents to purchase a health insurance policy, or face fines. While I like the fact that this does require people to take some personal responsibility and buy health insurance instead of simply not being able to pay and having the entire burden shifted to taxpayers, and I prefer this to the idea that the government will provide universal health care, it still seems like a slippery slope to be on. First, the government will provide subsidies to help people buy health insurance, it seems like this is the kind of policy that will lead into a socialist style healthcare system. That said, my sense of social responsibility recognizes that something does need to be done to insure that the less fortunate can get access to a baseline level of necessary health care. This seems like an issue that I am going to need to do some more research on before I can really form an opinion. Which ties in perfectly with my desire to put off any other kind of school related work.

And once again, Kim Gandy pisses me off, in an editorial she wrote for USA Today on why single sex education is a bad idea, and manages to completely miss the point. Gandy says that separation of the sexes is based on the idea that because men and women are different, boys and girls should be educated differently, and proceeds to point out that "the degree of overlap in girls' and boys' math skills was computed at between 98% and 99%, while in verbal skills the overlap was 96%."
Kim, no one is saying that their skills are different (and if they are, I'd like to take this moment to beat them over the head with my SAT scores), but research has consistently shown that learning styles tend to differ greatly along gender lines, a problem which single-sex education addresses. I am the product of all-girls high school education in a private school setting, and one factor that Ms. Gandy fails to address is the fact that when hormones are raging practically out of control, there is something to be said for separating the two sexes so that they can concentrate more easily on what they are in high school to do. I'm not saying that single-sex ed is the answer to the teen sex problem, but it does help keep the focus where it ought to be.
Ok, that's it for now. Back to my increasingly boring paper. Maybe later I'll blog on why college kids (and I include myself here) are mostly idiots.
-The Quartermaster

Huh

2006-04-03T11:20:00.000-04:00

My day has been made. Apparently, this blog has been reached by people searching for "sex on the bed blogspot" and "Nancy Pelosi plastic surgery".
I'm sorry you didn't find the porn you were looking for, or evidence that Nancy Pelosi has had plastic surgery.
-The Quartermaster

Musing

2006-04-01T23:56:00.000-05:00

Why write my paper for (Revised) Western Civilization when I have better things to do, like shop for shoes online, and explore the feminist blogosphere. I have to say, I enjoy reading things I disagree with as much, if not more, than I like reading things I agree with. Maybe it's because I enjoy self-inflicted pain (and some of these are truly painful). I like to think it's because I enjoy the intellectual exercise of figuring out what the opposition is saying, in order to better argue my own view when confronted. In any case, it's far more entertaining than reading Rousseau for about the hundreth time, in order to better accuse him of helping out fascism, which is the general gist of my paper. Anyway, one thing that keeps popping up is the whole "reproductive rights for men thing which I blogged about below. Unsurprisingly, the feminist veiwpoint tends towards "when are those damn men going to stop whining? They already control the rest of the world with that patriarchy thing they have going on!"
I have been waiting for a case like this to happen for a while, and it amuses me to no end to watch them take one of the following stances:
If they don't want that responsibility, they should stop having sex/keep it in their pants/use a condom/get a vasectomy.
Men already have plenty of choices, why can't they just accept responsibility?
Women are the ones who have to go through pregnancy, so men can just shut up.

The first and second statements are the ones that I have been using forever as reasons why abortion should be illegal. It's not like abortion is the only decision made: both women and men have a whole slew of choices. How about "I am sexually active, so I use two forms of birth control to be safe"? Better yet, "I choose not to get into bed with that frat boy." If you are not in a position in life where you can afford to get pregnant, you should not be having sex (especially unprotected sex). And while I hardly advocate teenagers engaging in any kind of serious premarital sexual encounter with the boyfriend/girlfriend of the moment, there are plenty of fun things you could do that do not include actual intercourse.
The fact is, sex makes babies. That is the primary biological function. The "it's really fun part" is designed to make us more likely to continue the propagation of the species. Therefore, having sex and not preparing for the consequences is like jousting with Mother Nature. You are going to lose. And let's face it, the third statement is just silly. I could understand the concern if women were still dropping like flies in childbirth, but with the wonders of modern medicine, the chances that you are actually risking your life by carrying a child to term and giving birth are very slim. That said, pro-lifers do have a responsibility to help ensure that our society is supportive of young women who make that choice, and go through the pain of pregnancy. Hence the mission of Feminists for Life, one of my new favorite organizations.
Ok, that's it. I get bored enough, I might even end up talking about my personal life here, and believe me, no one wants that, so let's hope my academic writer's block is gone by morning.
-The Quartermaster

US flag banned

2006-04-01T17:38:00.000-05:00

So, in a brilliant and well thought out response to the school immigration law protests, school officials have banned the American flag, as well as flags from other countries.
Maybe it's the crazy flag-waving patriot in me, but I have a serious problem with the idea that the American Flag be banned from anywhere within the borders of our country.

"When it involves the American flag and its abuse in vilifying other people, we simply will not tolerate it," [Skyline High School Principal] Stumpf said. "They were using the symbol derisively as misguided patriotism."

Let's keep in mind that all the flag-waving of these high school and other protests began with the Mexican flag, and flags from other Central and South American countries, which were used in conjunction with signs promoting "Chicano Power" and "Reconquista". One of the messages that the mainstream media seems unwilling to show is the entire idea among many of these protesters that staying in America is not a matter of wanting a little part of the American dream, which would include becoming citizens and paying taxes, but rather the idea that it is their right to be here, use whatever resources they want, then either return to their country of origin, or stay here and continue to live illegally, with no intention of ever assimilating into American culture.

I have no problem with immigration. America was built on immigrants looking for a dream, and working to build a new life in what they say as a country of opportunity (there I go being all patriotic and idealistic again). In many cases, they were fleeing opression in their country of origin, and were therefore quick to embrace American ideals of liberty and equality. Many people of the older generations still clung to their language and culture, but younger generations would usually learn the language better than their parents had, and consider themselves Americans. That's what makes us the melting pot. Also, much of the discrimination that they faced was that they simply wanted to become American citizens, and be considered Americans, and that "native" Americans continued to treat them like outsiders.

Based on the protests, I'd say they have the opposite problem: they want to be Nicaraguans first, or Mexicans first, or [insert nationality here] first, but we want them to just start being Americans. If you want a part in the opportunities of our country, of the services we provide, then you need to just be an American first. I have a serious problem with people of any nationality who are just here for a temporary job, or just here for a while for college, or just here for whatever reason, but constantly criticize our culture, our ideals, our non-socialist government, and are planning to leave again. If you don't want to be an American, don't come here. If you do, I will welcome you with open arms. If you want to become a citizen, and add to our society, then I'll try to help. If you don't, don't expect me to stand up for your right to be here illegally.

Back to the flags thing. I don't think banning the flag is the right action to take. It sends all the wrong kinds of messages to both sides, and is a denial of liberty. That said, I do think that students ought to be punished for any actions that disrupt what you are in school to do: learn. Any ideas for how they could have handled it better?
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-03-27T12:28:00.000-05:00

Too lazy to really go into all my reasons, but Alec Baldwin is my idiot of the day. If you need proof, try reading this exchange: Alec Baldwin v. Sean Hannity. Anyone care to guess which of the two ends the discussion by storming out like the whiny little pansy he is? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Sean Hannity. This illustrates a lovely fact of politics: those who hold the most extreme and unintelligent ideas (Cheney is a terrorist) are the ones most likely to avoid actual discussion and debate, in this case by refusing to go on Sean Hannity's show when his agent booked him, and by storming out of the studio.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-03-25T20:50:00.000-05:00

Idiot of the day goes to the crazies at Reuters who thought this crap up:

"The strong Western response to a threatened death sentence for an Afghan convert to Christianity looks something like a mirror image of the Muslim reaction to the Prophet Mohammad caricatures printed in the European press."

Why, that's exactly what I thought too! Obviously, outrage over a cartoon depiction of a religious leader and the possible execution of a convert to Christianity are the same thing. Mirror images, of each other, you might say. If you were a wacky moonbat liberal, that is. They do make a distinction:

"There have been no riots or sackings of Afghan embassies, unlike the violence that marked the uproar in Muslim countries after the Danish cartoons were published, but the shock and mutual incomprehension expressed in both cases are similar."

Now that I think about it, the two cases are remarkably similar, but not it the way Reuters thinks. The outrage of the Muslims over the cartoons and the Christian outrage over the possible death of an innocent man are not equivalent. The real similarity is that in both cases, we have Muslims trampling all over the freedoms that we hold dear in America; freedom of the press in the first case, freedom of religion in the second. Muslims can talk all they want about Islam being "the religion of peace", but I'm not going to believe it until I see it. In fact, as long as I watch the Muslim community at large refuse to condemn the burning of embassies and the execution of converts to Christianity, I will assume the opposite: that Islamic extremism is not compatible with liberal (in the old sense of the term, meaning free) democracy, and is in fact a threat to it.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-03-24T21:30:00.000-05:00

Kim Gandy is probably one of my least favorite people in the world (Hillary Clinton also makes the list), because she defines the shrill, reactionary, ultra-liberal feminazis I despise. But before I move on to the fisking, a little back story:
Matt Dubay is a 25 year old man suing his girlfriend to get out of paying child support, on the basis that she didn't have to have a baby, because she could have had an abortion, and because she had a choice, he should also have a choice, and since he didn't, he shouldn't have to pay child support. Basically, the principles of reproductive choice give him the right to say "have an abortion, or I'm outta here." Kim Gandy's reaction?

"Nice, huh? Either way, he'd have zero consequences and zero responsibility. Now some men have been saying that since time immemorial, but this time Dubay and his lawyers at the National Center for Men want the courts to back them up."

Very astute observation, Ms. Gandy. It's true, if this Roe for men idea makes it through the Supreme Court, it will take away all accountability for young men who practice irresponsible sexual behavior. But isn't that exactly what Roe has already done for women? With the original ruling, plus Justice O'Conner's addition of the undue burden test, women are essentially freed from any and all consequences of their behavior. Given NOW's support of such legislature as the (thankfully) unratified Equal Rights Amendment, and the principle of total equality that feminism is supposed to represent, men and women should have totally equal rights, but in this case, Ms. Gandy apparently wishes to grant the "right" of sexual irresponsibility solely to women. But now we get to the crux of the issue:

" The other side of Matt Dubay's coin is the men who want to force a woman to have a baby for him (i.e. block her from having an abortion) because that, too, should be his "choice.""

She's absolutely right. Matt Dubay's argument is the logical conclusion to the abortion "rights" debate, and this is the logical conclusion of his case: men should have an equal say in whether or not the woman keeps the child. After all, if the woman wants to keep the child, and the man doesn't, she can still force him to pay child support. So why should the reverse not be true? If he wants the child and she doesn't, why shouldn't he be able to force her to carry the child to term, then pay him regualr child support payments if he raises the child? Finally, pro-choice advocates are going to have to recognize the double-edged sword principle: rights cut both ways, and there is no truly rational way to squeeze out of the situation.

It has long been the covert (and in some cases, not so covert) goal of many a feminist to deny the father a parental role, and now they are finally encountering the result of such a tactic: if men don't have a say, then why should they bear any of the responsibility? If women can escape responsibility by having an abortion, why shouldn't the same principle apply to men? And now we have Gandy's answer:

"The bottom line is that it's her body, so it has to be her decision."

I have been here so many times, explained the mechanics to those who still bother to spout this fallacy, but it never really seems to sink in, so I will say this only once more, and anyone who still thinks this is true can find a biology textbook to explain it to them: a baby is dependent on his/her mother, but that doesn't make it part of his/her mother's body.
But she doesn't even stop there:

"Once there's a baby, that child is entitled to support from both parents, plain and simple."

Plain and simple, huh? So, tell me, Kim, when exactly is there a baby? According to the "her body" principle, the baby doesn't exist until he/she is no longer inside the womb. What does that make him/her before birth? It's absurd to claim that size, environment, age, or condition of dependency are what determine humanity and seperate us from the unborn; those things are mere accidents, outside qualities, and do not a human or "clump of tissue" make. I hate to break it to pro-choice advocates, but once there is conception, there is a baby, whether or not this fact is politically useful, because there is simply no other logical point at which the "clump" becomes a person. And once there is a baby, sayeth Gandy, there must be parental support for that baby. I would venture to guess that it's hard to stretch support to include abortion.

Kim Gandy, you are today's idiot, because you make it so damn easy. I don't think that fathers (in the purely biological sense) like Dubay should be able to get out of child support payments. But that's because I also don't think women should be able to get out of pregnancy either. And this is essentially what the issue boils down to: either you have to give everyone equal opportunity to act like a selfish ass, or you force everyone to accept the consequences of their actions. You can't have it both ways.
-The Quartermaster

A little bit of news

2006-03-23T18:45:00.000-05:00

So, a personal crisis of the break-up variety has been interfering with my usual desire to read the news, but here's a quick update on what's happening in the wide world of lunacy:

Susan Sarandon is in talks to play Cindy Sheehan. Ah yes, let's give my favorite media whore a little more attention. Because God knows, what she has is really worth hearing. Frankly, at the point where you compare Bush to Hitler, you have stopped being an intelligent dissenter, and are now just an idiotic insult hurler. And how about her comment that mothers who have lost sons in Iraq and are not joining her peacenik parade are "brainwashed"? This is in the same vein as the classic liberal feminist 'women who want to stay home and have babies are just brainwashed' argument. How utterly insulting, to be told by someone like Cindy Sheehan that you are just a brainwashing victim. It's bad enough that she has exploited her own son's memory as a political tool, the least she could do is respect the memory of those who truly believe in what is being done in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton quotes Bible. Either hell has frozen over and Hillary has decided that the Bible contains some useful stuff, or she's making another campaign effort, believing that "red state voters" are so religiously indoctrinated that the mere mention of the Bible will whip them into a frenzy of righteousness and persuade them to vote for her. I could be wrong, but I think the second interpretation comes a little closer to the truth.

Alright, that felt good.

-The Quartermaster

A Special Treat: Double Idiots

2006-03-11T17:46:00.000-05:00

Today, we have two candidates for Idiot of the Day. An unlikely pairing, a juxtaposition if you will, of people who deserve the title "Idiot". The first is Hillary Clinton (no surprise there), and the second are the Catholic Bishops of the U.S. and Mexico. Now, I'm a Catholic, but I really think that it's a mark of objectivity when you can criticize your own, and these bishops are very much in need of criticism.
The issue that brings together these disparate elements of idiocy is illegal immigration, the rhetoric fueled hot-button that makes both Democratic and Republican lawmakers giddy with a heady combination of fear and delight; delight because they both know that they can appeal to an interest group whose support they want, and fear because they know that when they appeal to that interest group, they are going against the express opinion of a majority of the American people. Democrats hurl epithets like 'racist' and 'bigot' at Republicans who oppose posting 'Welcome' signs on our side of the border, appealing to the fear of racial minority groups predisposed to see discrimation everywhere. Meanwhile, Republicans are afraid to lose the support of business interest groups, and try to convince us that allowing illegal workers is actually good for our economy, while ignoring the troubling little fact that allowing illegals into our country to work for sub-standard wages puts a huge drain on tax-payer funded resources.
So, Hillary, speaking at a March 8th rally for illegal aliens, addressing the crowd, sys:
"You are really here on behalf of what America means, America's values, America's hopes."
Ignoring the dubious structure of that sentence, what exactly is she trying to say? That America's values and hopes are pinned on people who break our laws by their very presence in our country? That America means allowing people to enter our country, drain our resources, and work for unlivable wages, which then require them to live off welfare and the generosity of our hospital system? Gee, Hillary, so glad our country means that to you. It's not a very promising statement in terms of what she would do for our country if elected president.
Now, onto the bishops: Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, has decided that the proposed 700 miles of border wall between the US and Mexico is comparable to the Berlin Wall; "a very hostile act." The 2003 pastoral letter jointly published by the bishops of the US and Mexico, titled "Strangers no Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope", says that border protection initiatives such as adding more patrol agents and reinforcing fencing have simply driven more immigrants to more dangerous portions of the border, and caused their deaths. While they concede that thorough checks of border crossers are necessary for national security, they don't think we should be increasing security.
Aside from the problematic nature of their interference in US foreign policy (I'm Catholic, but I firmly believe that they should stick to issues of a moral nature, as this kind of political interference has never done good things for the Church), this presents us with a real conundrum. If we aren't supposed to increase border security because that would endanger the lives of the illegal immigrants, how are we supposed to perform any kind of background check? It is our country's imperative to provide for national security how we see fit, as long as no objective moral laws or human rights are violated along the way. But people do not have the right to simply move from country to country without following the process set out by the government of the country they are migrating to.
And no, I'm not a racist simply because I want our borders secured. I'm not against hispanics entering our country, I'm against anyone entering it illegally, and being permitted to stay because of lax enforcement and apathy. Maybe we should be taking another look at our current immigration laws, and changing them to allow more people to take part in the American dream, but that doesn't mean we should be allowing thousands of undocumented illegal immigrants to cross our borders, and we certainly shouldn't let the bishops, or Hillary Clinton, tell us how we ought to ensure our national security.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-03-10T19:29:00.000-05:00

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi brings us our latest bit of idiocy. In a discussion of the 2006 elections, she gives us this piece of wisdom:
"Women cannot achieve gender equality unless we have equal representation as decision- and policy-makers.''
According to this logic, people are somehow incapable of pursuing any interests but their own, and those interests don't cross gender lines. Following this to its natural conclusion, we should each elect only people with whom we share similar physical characteristics; I'm a nineteen year-old white female, so I shouldn't vote for an older black man, or my interests won't be taken care of. Men can't understand what women need, Latino would never be able to represent a white guy, and an older politician can't properly look after the interests of a college kid like me.
Yeah, whatever you say , Nancy. This is the same non-logic that leads colleges to decide that if there aren't enough different skin colors or an even gender distribution among the faculty and student bodies, they need to put into place expensive diversity intitiatives which then proceed to hand out diversity scholarships to underqualified students so that their numbers look better.
What does it say about our society that we still see the need to fill racial and gender quotas to the exclusion of more important qualities? Does it not enter Nancy Pelosi's mind that there are more important considerations in representation than demographics? Why should I want to elect a liberal woman running with a pro-choice quasi-socialist agenda if I am an avid pro-lifer who believes in severely limited government? Is she going to represent my interests better because she and I both have two X-chromosomes? Somehow, I doubt it. Similarly, does having more professors of different races actually lead to diversity, or should we be more interested in intellectual diversity, which doesn't come from skin color? This is the kind of thinking that propagates racism and sexism in our culture; simply by placing a normative value on race and gender, and saying that we can only be represented properly by people who share certain characteristics, we are reverting to a racist or sexist attitude.
Furthermore, if her statement is true, how does Pelosi account for the huge gains in rights and opportunities for women and racial minorities during all these years of white male control in Congress? Is it possible that all these white men aren't just looking out for other white men? Could it be that an elected official is going to try to please most of his/her constituency to win re-election, and will act accordingly? Never mind that there is no strictly female agenda; women are pretty equally divided along party lines, support different sides of different issues, and come from different moral and economic backgrounds; in Nancy Pelosi's limited view of the world, women are the only ones who can take care of other women.
Congratulations, Nancy, I knew you'd make it someday, and here you are, my latest Idiot of the Day.
-The Quartermaster

And you thought I'd just abandoned you

2006-03-09T13:02:00.000-05:00

Sorry that it took me so long to put up another post. I'm on spring break, so my overall productivity has dropped to dismal levels. I sleep instead of reading the newspaper and watch bad tv instead of writing. It's really sad. Two brief comments for today.
First, bravo to the Virginia assembly for trying to find a way to cut textbook costs. Now VA public universities must come up with guidelines to encourage professors and bookstores to lower costs, ie using the old edition instead of always switching to the new one (because as any college student knows, the difference between them is usually completely insignificant). My first semester, I spent $300 on books, and that was because I managed to buy most of them used. I have friends who are math and science majors who spend more than $500 on books each semester. One of my professors actually told us that when selecting textbooks, they professors usually have no idea how much each book costs; they are sent samples, and pick the one they like best, without realizing that the one they like costs $100. So, let's hope that more states pick up on this.
Also, today is International Women's Day. On the front page of the Washington Post, they have three pictures: the first shows demonstrators in India demanding labor representation and legal protection for women involved in the sex trade. The secong is a young woman lighting a candle in the streets of Spain for women killed in domestic violence. The third is a peace march here at home in Washington DC calling for an end to the war in Iraq (A NOW sign prominently placed in the middle of the shot). So, what exactly does an end to the war have to do with women? That sounds like more of a liberal political issue than a strictly International Women's Day issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the (intended) results of the war is more freedom for women? Besides, there are a lot of international women's issues that need attention, like domestic violence, the sex trade, female genital mutilation, and the list goes on. But of course, as with all things sponsored/supported by NOW, the agenda has to advance the liberal agenda, or it isn't really worth mentioning.
That's all I've got for now, hopefully I'll be back with some Triumvirate-brand wisdom on illegal immigration later. But don't hold your breath; I'm on spring break here.
-The Quartermaster

Free Speech means unrestrained speech

2006-02-28T21:48:00.000-05:00

This isn't on NOW, sorry to break the continuity.

So, first thing: a few definitions:

Free: About persons, not bound or subject to another as a slave to a master. Enjoying personal rights and liberty of action as a member of a society or state. Not subject to foreign dominion.

So free speech means free, without restraint. No one else can tell you what to say or not say. I only bring this up because of the recent speech of submission and surrender of liberty delivered by some random Danish minion. The most telling point was his quote "We Europeans have realized that we can say anything to Muslims and they do not feel bad as long as we donÂt touch upon the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). " This will not stand.

As soon as you place restrictions of any kind on free speech, it ceases to be free. Especially when it involves religion. No religion should be given special protection from the oh-so-dangerous free speech no matter how ignorant and barbaric some or most of it'sadherentss may be. I refuse to concede that ANYONE has a "right" not to be offended. THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT. The fundamental rights are life, liberty and property. The government must protect these rights no matter how offensive someone is. There is no right for these animals to murder because someone said something mean about a long-dead nomad. Sorry guys, there's no pie(or virgins) in the sky for you or him. Tough noogies. Now, I'm out to exercise my right to free speech before some coward tries to take it from me.

P.S. In the South, if you try that rioting shit, we'll just shoot you. We can do that if you're a murderous, rioting, rapist dastardly barbarian. Bring it

- The Ideaman

On the Vagina note

2006-02-25T15:31:00.000-05:00

Here's an article by one of my role models, Christina Hoff Sommers, once again illustrating the hypocrisy of the radical feminist movement:
Why Can't They Just Get Along?
She's an amazing writer, and anyone who hasn't read the books Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys should.
-The Quartermaster

Big Sister is Watching

2006-02-25T12:04:00.000-05:00

From the organization that brings us "freedom of choice" and "a woman's body, a woman's choice", we now have a new call to arms: " Urge the FDA not to approve Mentor's silicone breast implants"!
I feel so lucky to have NOW watching out for me; apparently, these implants have a higher rupture rate than was disclosed to the FDA, so to protect women's health, we should call our senators and the FDA, and urge them not to approve them.
So let me get this straight. A woman (or underage girl) should be able to get an abortion any time she wants, with no waiting periods, presentation of other options, age limit, or disclosure of facts like "this is another human you're killing". After all, women of any age can be trusted to make the best decision regarding her pregnancy(which always equals getting the abortion in NOW's eyes). But, when it comes to breast implants, women can't be trusted to think about the risks, weigh the options, and make the best decision. So, we can't protect women from killing their children, but we have a duty to protect them from breast implants. Anyone else sensing a double standard here?
But then, when dealing with NOW, we have to expect this kind of politically-driven campaign. What's really going on here is that the entire idea of breast implants goes against their whole "Love Your Body" campaign, so they need to convince other women to hate them. To clarify my own position, I don't like the idea of cosmetic plastic surgery, like implants and liposuction. Especially when you hear about mothers taking their daughters to get surgery on their 18th birthday, or for their graduation, or crazy stuff like that. But I don't think it's the government's job, or my job, to wag my finger at women who get surgery and say "you really shouldn't be doing that". It's a personal choice that has no victim, and cause no real societal harm. So if you want implants, that's not my choice to make for you. Your body, your choice.
-The Quartermaster

Ben Stein

2006-02-24T15:23:00.000-05:00

On the subject of my most recent rant, check out Ben Stein over at spectator.org. It's good stuff. Damn the torpedoes.

-Ideaman

Vagina week

2006-02-23T17:48:00.000-05:00

Who knew that empowerment was a vagina-shaped cookie? I certainly wouldn't have thought it was, but that seems to be the premise of Vagina Week, a week of weird signs posted around campus, anatomical cookies, and two performances of The Vagina Monologues. Some of the signs:
Looking at your vagina is a full day's work -Not to be at all obscene, but unless you have a conveniently placed mirror, that would require some uncomfortable contortions to stay in all day.
Are you worried about your Vagina? We are. No, not really, and please don't be, that's just weird.
If your vagina got dressed, what would it wear? -I honestly have nothing to say to this. Who actually buys that this is true empowerment?
When did we, as a campus culture, decide that the best thing we could do for women was put on a badly written, bile-spewing, venomously man-hating, vulgar play, and encourage young women to identify their worth based on their sexual organs? "Look how empowered I am, I can say vagina! I can shout it, even!" Doesn't this strike anyone else as entirely counter-productive? I thought feminism hated the portrayal of women in media, because it shows women as sexual objects. Does it make the world any better when we say that instead of women being portrayed as entirely sexual for men's pleasure, they are expected to see themselves as entirely sexual for the sake of empowerment? Either way, a woman is seen as nothing more than sexual. I'm not denying that a woman's (or a man's) sexuality plays an important role in their identity, but we aren't helping women (or men) when we say that she ought to be able to "find herself" based on her ability to receive sexual pleasure. Especially when the play that claims to be so empowering makes its point at the expense of men, portraying them as vicious, brutal, insensitive, etc.
Here's a funny idea. If we want to celebrate something, let's celebrate the female intellect. After all, female sexuality has already been both celebrated and exploited for generations. If we want to move forward, we need to start moving past that. And whatever we do, let's not celebrate at the expense of men. We can praise the accomplishments of women without putting men down, something Eve Ensler and her minions in the Women's Studies program don't seem to understand.
A final thought; why don't more colleges offer free classes/seminars on financial management? With more of us graduating in debt, and with fewer or worse job prospects than past generations of college graduates, I think it's something we should all be learning more about. Especially because it is a topic generally neglected in high school, so the only people who learn about money are those who major in it. So let's spread that knowledge around a little. Now that's empowerment.
-The Quartermaster

What If...

2006-02-22T21:52:00.000-05:00

Here's a little mental exercise: What if I said I was going to burn the Koran? As in go out, buy a copy of the book, and set fire to it deliberately?

Here's what i predict:
1. I would receive immediate threats of murder, rape, beheading, arson, and other standard barbarian tactics encompassing my entire family.

2. Far more importantly, almost everyone (I think) would say that I shouldn't do it because I would cause violence and destruction. Not the murder-worshipping fanatics who actually commit evil deeds, but the man exercising his inherent freedoms. They would say that it's a bad idea because I would be at risk from lunatics. And to me, that's the scary part. Not the lunatics, but the idea that people who don't respect my freedoms will punish me for exercising them, and that's just the way it goes.

To me, the belief that complete strangers from a foreign land with an alien values system can dictate my way of life sounds like something we thought we had expelled from our country years ago. Tyranny. Becuase that's what this entire current situation is in a nutshell. TYRANNY. Not the old-fashioned kind with a king in a goofy wig taxing us, but the kind where no-one can exercise their rights for fear of death. Yes, death. Look at what Muslim sociopaths did to the late Theo Van Gogh. It's an ideological tyranny that surpresses anyone or anything it deems hostile. That's why I will support anyone willing to stand up to these bastards. Because by all the false gods, I'm afraid to.

I wish I wasn't. I wish i could say I'd stand up to the animals who enforce this barbaric ideology like a modern day Patrick Henry, but I'd be afraid for my family and friends. Screw the war on terror. This should be our focus. Their war on our freedom.

-Ideaman

My Soapbox

2006-02-20T15:51:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine goes to a Catholic (I use the term loosely) university, and today, she related this story to me. A girl who lives across the hall from her announced that she has what is known as a "hook-up date" with a kid from the school's baseball team, who has announced that his intention in the matter is to "bang her back off". She went around the dorm telling people that she needed alcohol before he got there. Everyone but my friend thinks that the situation is either cool, or hilarious. She, being Catholic in the sense where she actually follows the moral code of the Catholic Church, is appalled and outraged.
Premarital sex with someone you love and respect is one thing; casual sexual encounters (an oxymoron) are another thing entirely. Furthermore, what could possibly motivate you to have sex with someone you need to be drunk to sleep with? I can understand (though not respect) getting so drunk that you are unable to say no and end up in bed with a stranger. I can't fathom the idea of consenting to have sex with someone that you need to be drunk to be with. And the reaction of her friends is to laugh?
This is dangerous behavior, both physically and emotionally, and the fact that the people who are supposed to care about her think it is no big deal is really very scary. There are times when I really fear for my generation, and this is one of them. There are also times when I really get pissed off at our parents generation for allowing this kind of thing to become so commonplace and such a huge part of our campus culture. How exactly did her parents raise her? And how did the boy's parents raise him? And what about all the friends who are willing to go aong with it? At what point are my peers going to realize how destructive this kind of behavior is? The fact that this is happening at a Catholic school makes me even sadder, because if there is one place you should be able to go to escape from the blatant immorality of our culture, it's a religious school. But at this point, they have mostly just become drinking and party schools. It's a real tragedy, in my own opinion.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of The Day

2006-02-15T13:53:00.000-05:00

I would like to assure people that my lack of this type of posting hasn't been for a lack of idiocy in the world, but rather a lack of desire to find them on my part. Sometimes a girl just doesn't feel like tracking down morons. So, without further ado or excuses, today's idiot, a woman in running for Scariest Woman in America, we have Hillary Clinton, commenting on the Katrina disaster in a press conference yesterday.

"Thousands are still displaced. There's a stagnation of rebuilding. There's no certainty about what will happen in the impacted areas, particularly in New Orleans and in the surrounding parishes," US Senator Hillary Clinton said at a press conference Tuesday.

Gee, Hillary, I don't suppose that this has anything to do with the fact that perhaps some people don't want to go back to Hurricane Central. I know I sure as hell wouldn't. People have enough to worry about in their daily lives without wondering if another natural disaster is going to destroy their homes all over again. And in a similar vein, is it fair to the rest of America that we have to pay our tax money to rebuild a city that people may or may not want to live in, especially given the overall failure of most "let's pour money on our problems to make them go away schemes".

"There was a colossal failure of leadership within the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA," she said.

As usual, the largely Democrat government of Louisiana holds no responsibility. Is it really the federal government's job to build levees to protect the city? How about we consider the fact that maybe Congress just got sick of siphoning money off to the corrupt politicians of Louisiana, because nothing was ever done with it.

"No one in this administration was able to tell the American people who was in charge as the waters rose," the former first lady said.

Well, I'd say Katrina was pretty much in charge, but other than that, the responsibility of taking care of stuff like this generally falls into the powers granted to states rather than the federal government. But that wouldn't make nearly as great a political speech, would it?

"The president, his senior staff, his cabinet and other officials in his government were a major reason why we had a failed response to the distress caused by Katrina," Clinton concluded, calling for the creation of an independent commission to investigate the lackluster federal response.

Well, I suppose if you subscribe to the nanny-state political concept, it would be their fault. But the funny thing about the Constitution is that it doesn't have nanny-state provisions. It assumes that power not directly granted to the president are reserved to the states and the people. And with each power comes the respective responsibilty. So, we can logically assume that if the president doesn't have direct power over state governments, he also doesn't have the responsibility to step in every time something happens. Yes, Katrina was a horrible disaster, but it has far less to do with the president than Hillary would like to paint it.
-The Quartermaster

I really love my mom

2006-02-14T16:20:00.000-05:00

Normally I don't trust studies without first analyzing the results and methods myself (what can I say, I'm not a trusting person), but this just confirms what we already know:

"Careful examination of the scientific data collected by the test concludes that adults who reportedly did not participate in or receive gifts or other tokens of affection in connection with Valentine's Day do exhibit signs of emotional stress, ranging from mild depression to noticeable anxiety. "

So, I would like to take this opportunity to lay out a few Valentine's Day guidelines that should be followed to inflict the least amount of pain on those around you, and possibly even make their Valentine's Day enjoyable.

If you are a man, and you have a girlfriend, I don't care what your personal feelings about Valentine's Day are. I don't care if you think it's just a made up holiday to sell greeting cards; it is your duty to do something nice for her. And, after having gotten her something, or sending her a nice card, or otherwise expressing your feelings for her, you can maybe throw in there that you don't really care for the holiday. But don't use that as an excuse to not do anything and expect her to just be ok with it. Especially because chances are, she's already thought of something nice to do for you.
If you are a member of a couple, try not to show off your flowers/chocolates/fancy dinner reservations in front of single girls, or girls who have boyfriends with the above problem. Share all you want with other coupled friends, but singles generally feel crappy enough.
If you and your friends are all single, do something nice for each other. If you can't celebrate romance (and even if you can), remember that in most cases, your friends will last a great deal longer than the guy you're dating, or wish you were dating. Buy each other chocolate, cards, girl-porn movies like Pride and Prejudice, and make a little fun for yourselves.
Extra props go to single guys who get their female friends each a card, or a yellow rose, or something like that. It really says a lot about his character.
Don't forget your family. If Valentine's Day is about love, remember that no one loves you like your mother does, so treat her accordingly. My mom sent me my favorite chocolate, and it really made Valentine's Day worth celebrating, since my boyfriend apparently is afflicted with the problem in rule #1. So yeah, I love her.
Please don't subject us to your feminist rants about this being V-Day until the violence stops. Most relationships are not abusive, most men are good guys, not rapists and wife-beaters, so there's no call to make the holiday worse by making it so depressing. Violence against women (and against people in general) is a problem, but it's proper place is not on Valentine's Day. See below posts for my reasons why not

Thats about it. Enjoy all the chocolate, everybody. I'll try to get back to politics tomorrow, but today isn't a good day to rant, and I have homework.
-The Quartermaster

2006-02-13T08:46:00.000-05:00

Just a quick thought. Ever notice how alike Jimmy Carter and Saddam Hussein are? I didn't really either until this: Saddam stands up in court and shouts "Down with Bush!"
Jimmy Carter stands up at Mrs. King's funeral and essentially shouts "down with Bush"
So, inappropriate grandstanding in venues that call for respect and dignity? We could throw Cindy Sheehan in there too. So, Hussein ooesn't like Bush. Kinda makes me like Bush more. Would write more, but my 9:00 class, (Revised) Western Civilization calls.
-The Quartermaster

Ok, now I'm depressed

2006-02-10T23:23:00.000-05:00

I went to the college bookstore today to mail something to my long-distance boyfriend, and while I was waiting for a tracking number, I hung out over by the Valentine's day display in the middle of the store. There I was, amidst teddy bears wearing College of Charleston t-shirts, assorted other fuzzy animals similarly attired, surrounded by boxes of prettily wrapped chocolate, when I started checking out the books on the display. We had The Simple Truth About Love, 2002 Ways to be Romantic, The Five Love Languages, and the classic romantic favorite, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, by Cristina Page of NARAL-Pro-Choice America.

My first reaction was "huh?" That was also my secong reaction, and my third. I mean, WTF? I grant you, the cover was a lovely shade of pink, so it could have been added just to keep with the color scheme. But WTF?

I shouldn't really be surprised. This is the natural conclusion of the femi-nazi takeover of American culture. First, Valentine's day becomes a holiday about sex. Then, because all male-female relationships are inherently abusive, it becomes V-Day. So now we spend Valentine's Day moping about oppression and how mean men are (with a little help from our good friend Eve Ensler). Since feminism naturally moves towards abortion, this is the next step.
Anyway, the book looked infuriating. The basic premise, which I gleaned from reading the cover and the first ten pages (which was all I could take before I reached boiling point), seems to be that the pro-life movement is anti-woman, anti-child, anti-family, anti-fun, anti-cute little puppy dogs, etc. The basic goal of all pro-life lobbying is to see women barefoot and constantly pregnant in trailer homes (because they can't live in anything better while they only make 75 cents to the dollar), or bleeding to death in alleys or parlors, or closets, or wherever they could find a coathanger. Because we all now that pre-Roe, a woman couldn't walk down a back alley without finding some dirty-knife wielding maniac ready to cut her open. Anyway, the author is clearly suffering from the same paranoid delusions that plague most serious abortion advocates.

On the book jacket, one of the instances that demonstrates the tragic fate that right-wing religious extremists wish to inflict on all women, a teenage girl got pregnant, and being misinformed of her rights by a crisis pregnancy center, had her boyfriend hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat. Take a moment to note the vagueness of that statement. I'd like to know exactly what the center told her. There are several parties to blame, none of which is the pro-life movement. First, the girl herself. You don't just spontaneously become pregnant; there are choices made leading up to it, and a great deal of irresponsibility takes place first. And what complete lack of any kind of logic, forethought, responsibility it must take to tell your boyfriend to hit you with a baseball bat. She is not an innocent victim here; she contributed a great deal to a tragic situation. Second, what kind of boyfriend hits his girlfriend with a baseball bat to abort their child? The proper role of the impregnator is to offer support, not a heavy object to the stomach. What about her parents? What were they doing wrong in raising this girl, to let her date and sleep with this guy, and not do something to help and support her. Unless they didn't know she was pregnant, in which case that's another tragedy that the religious-right is not responsible for. Finally, we live in a culture of death that simply accepts that it is acceptable to abort a child. You'd have to be completely lacking in logic if you think that this cultural acceptance has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is acceptable in mainstream culture.

I need to stop now, because this really makes me incredibly angry, and I have better things to do with my time than stew in my own rage. That said, I should read the book at some point, if only to take it apart piece by piece. But I also would never want to support the author or her movement in any way, so I can't buy it. Not that I have money to spend on books I want to read, let alone books I disagree with on such a deep moral level.
-The Quartermaster

And you thought Valentine's Day was depressing before...

2006-02-09T19:10:00.000-05:00

So, Valentine's Day has long had a bad reputation among those of us who tend towards being single. I've been single every Valentine's Day of my life thus far (which, granted, is not a terribly long time), and while we all like to moan about how it's just a cheap Hallmark holiday invented to sell greeting cards and chocolate, I've always been kind of a fan of it. Yeah, even while single, you can still appreciate the concept of celebrating romantic love, something that our society seems to devalue to a large degree in the rapid over-sexualization of modern relationships. It represents an ideal, something worth looking for and waiting for. Even without a significant other, you can still enjoy the day by gathering around the TV with your girlfriends and watching Pride and Prejudice and worshipping Mr. Darcy and wishing you were Elizabeth Bennet. Or maybe it's just me who does that. Anyway, that's not the point of this post.

The point is, Valentine's day has become the new prom night. That's right, people, put away your flowers and chocolates and ideals and silly romantic notions and just get laid! Who needs a relationship when you can just have sex? On campus, Valentine's day is being celebrated by Voices for Planned Parenthood with a sex toy party. No, I didn't just make that up. And you can also buy condom roses from the health center. The beauty of these bouquets (each rose is made with two condoms) is that the condoms remain intact and usable. If any guy bought me condom roses, all he would get is a cutting remark in the style of Elizabeth Bennet. Seriously, even as a joke it's a little obscene. Don't even get me started about the fact that stores who cater to the young teenager to college kid age group are aggressively marketing underwear as the perfect Valentine's day gift for that special someone. See above comment for my response to having underwear purchased for me as a "romantic" gift. Welcome to the culture of sex; hope my generation makes it through alive (and not completely emotionally f***ed up).
-The Quartermaster

Hooray for gainful employment!

2006-02-07T15:08:00.000-05:00

Thats right, I'm finally going to get off my stereotypically lazy college student ass and earn some money. It's truly a beautiful thing. As Susan B Anthony put it:

"There is not the woman born who desires to eat the bread of dependence, no matter whether it be from the hand of father, husband, or brother; for any one who does so eat her bread places herself in the power of the person from whom she takes it."

So, while working retail may not be the ideal form of employment, it can now be said that I will be eating less of the bread of dependence. Unfortunately, modern feminists don't seem to be really in touch with their roots; after all, what are government welfare hand-outs but the bread of dependence? What about abortions payed for by the government? Modern feminism wishes to take men out of the picture as the providers, and will scorn women who allow their husbands to pay the bills, but they are basing their position on a liberal philosophy, which says in its essence that the government should take care of people. They want government health care, government day care, unrestricted welfare benefits; do they even realize that this is contrary to the very idea of self-sufficiency that the women who fought for our right to vote envisioned?
-The Quartermaster

Really need to stop doing this...

2006-02-06T17:37:00.000-05:00

I think at some point I will have to stop visiting the NOW website, it only ever makes me mad. But seriously, I enjoy getting angry, or I would never pick up a newspaper (or attend NOW meetings, or get to Political Inquiry class on time to hear my professor's rants). So, here are a few of the things that NOW is so proud of doing in 2005:

-Saving Social Security from being eviscerated by greedy brokers on Wall Street and their congressional mouthpieces.
-Forcing the Bush administration to restore collection of statistics about women's employment. Without them, it's harder to prove the extent of the wage gap and other workplace discrimination.

We are truly thankful, NOW, and grateful to Kim Gandy and her cronies. Why, without them, Social Security might have been reformed, and people of my generation might not have to worry about having to pay an arm and a leg (or both legs, depending on what kind of job you have) to pay for the retirement of all the retiring yuppies who were too busy having careers to have children. There will be significantly more old people needing social security checks while I am trying to make a living than there were for my parents' generation. Thanks a lot, guys. Really.
And of course, with more faulty and incomplete data, we can continue to rally behind the battle-cry "75 cents to a man's dollar! And less if you're black!". Never mind that I have yet to see a statistic that conclusively proves that women make less than men for the same work, and believe me, I've looked. All the data sets that I have seen which claim to show wage discrimination have glaring flaws in methodology that even an entry level statistics scholar like yours-truly can pick out. But they never make the methodology widely known, just the end result.
So, thank God(dess) for NOW. Fighting the brave fight, making sure that women everywhere have equal access to bankrupt social security and faulty statistical data.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-02-04T15:04:00.000-05:00

Ahhh, yes. Always reliable, the Woebegone POS provided us with today's Idiot of the Day. Philip Kennicott, Washington Post staff writer and successful moron, pointed out to all of us poor angry fools that humankind is really just too primitive and unenlightened to get along with one another, and that's why the whole Danish-cartoon thing has gotten so crazy. Not, of course, because the entire Islamic world is out of its ever-lovin' MIND, not because theirs is a culture which loathes freedom of speech and recoils at the ideas of liberty and equality. No, not at all. Tell that to the Danish embassy in Syria.

"No serious American newspaper would commission images of Jesus that were solely designed to offend Christians. And if one did, the reaction would be swift and certain. Politicians would take to the floors of Congress and call down thunder on the malefactors. Some Christians would react with fury and boycotts and flaming e-mails that couldn't be printed in a family newspaper; others would react with sadness, prayer and earnest letters to the editor. There would be mayhem, though it is unlikely that semiautomatic weapons would be brandished in the streets."

If by "unlikely" you mean "no way, not ever", than yeah, sure. The God of Christianity doesn't tell his followers to kill those who mock him. Whose religion is it that does that? Oh yeah.

"Fortunately, it's not likely to happen, because good newspapers are governed, in their use of images, by the basic principle of news value. When those now-infamous 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad were first published in Denmark, they had virtually no news value at all."

No news value? By whose standards? Yours? How about this: The cartoonist was accurately satirizing a violent, and intolerant culture, with whom we are, or at least, should be at war with, and the Islamist world's reaction to the cartoons proves him right.

"They were created as a provocation -- Islam generally forbids the making of images of its highest prophet -- in a conservative newspaper [damn those conservatives],"

A provocation? *Gasp* They didn't hurt the widdle Muswims feewings, did they? Well, seeing as that entire culture has not gotten any friendlier, I'd say it might be a good idea to try and get people to think about why we're not getting along. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there are riots, death threats and boycotts going on over a CARTOON which challenged their ideology.

"...these cartoons would have long since faded into the obscurity they deserve."

Because they're offensive? I thought that the media liked offending people. Oh no, wait, only if those people are conservatives and Christians. The article later compares the Danish cartoons to that of Islamist cartoons because of "how closely they mirror the superheated tone" of Middle-Eastern cartoons. So. Danish political/social satire with valid point about Religion of Blowing The Shit Out of People Who Don't Cater to Our Whims is equitable with the blatant lies published in Middle-Eastern papers?

"with distressing frequency, "

Maybe because the problem is not gone yet.

"unrelenting venom and vicious stereotyping"

Funny thing about stereotypes. They're often true.

"Several of the original Danish cartoons are minted in the same style, beyond lampoon or caricature and well into the realm of pure defamation."

Not that the Islamic world doesn't deserve all the defamation it can get, but does anyone actually understand this guy's logic?

"and by far the most inflammatory, is one in which [Mohammed's] turban holds a ticking bomb."

Funny, I thought that one was the most appropriate.

"But, of course, for many Muslims, especially fundamentalists, the nuances of how the cartoons are drawn won't matter. The essential thing is the proscription against any image of the prophet."

Aww...sorry...but not really. Not at all, as a matter of fact. No one but a Mohammedite has any obligation to follow that particular rule, under any circumstances. Not to say that Kennicott thinks that, I'm just stating the obvious. But you know, sometimes these things slip the leftist mind.

"And that is where very many people, Muslims and those who fear or hate Muslims (let's be honest about the degree of rancor on both sides), would like to leave it. People on both sides want to picture it as a fundamental conflict of values, between absolute religious beliefs and absolute political principles, between God's word (as interpreted by man) and the freedoms enshrined in Western democracy. If that's how the conflict is presented to people in the West, then they, indeed, have little choice: Of course freedom of the press, even the freedom, as one French newspaper put it, "to caricature God," cannot be compromised."

Maybe because it IS a conflict of values. See the photo of the bandana-clad fellow holding the "Freedom Go to Hell" sign? Check it out.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the differences between cultures, and how many years ago British people would be pissed about something we would not about. First off, I'm deeply offended that Kennicott would compare our friends from that foggy island to Islamists, but Kennicott also seems to think that this is really just a big misunderstanding. What he fails to realize is that this truly, truly is a conflict of core values. These....people(?) despise what we hold dear. We cannot get along. Not when their beliefs directly conflict with ours. We would leave well enough alone, but noooooo....whenever someone says or does something that might be construed as an affront to Islam, it must be blown up, or set on fire, or beheaded.

Hey, Phil Kennicott? You're today's idiot.

-The Talent

Please, Not NOW

2006-02-03T19:16:00.000-05:00

So last night I attended the first meeting of my college's chapter of NOW(National Organization of Wackos), which is officially replacing the Womyn's Forum. Normally, I'd say anything that misspelled women has got to be the worst organization out there, but as that club was inactive, this is hardly an improvement. I went to the meeting for the sole purpose of gathering material for a possible newspaper editorial, but I was almost worried that it would turn out to be totally benign, and not give me anything to pick at. I shouldn't have worried.
I'm gonna keep this short, because I am writing that editorial, which I will post up here when I am done, but I just wanted to say this: NOW is the worst thing that can happen to feminism. It embodies all that is wrong with the movement, a constant witness to why young women shy away from the label 'feminist'. I am a feminist; I say it proudly. I want a great education, I want a meaningful career, I want to change as much of the world as my efforts will extend to. But I am also pro-life. According to the NOW doctrine, this stance alone is enough to make me not a feminist. Should I dare to say that I like George Bush, that I approved enthusiastically his nomination of Samuel Alito, that I want those "cruel" budget cuts, I would probably be crucified in a fit of righteous indignation, and have my head placed on a pike outside the Women's and Gender Studies building.
Modern feminism embraces a radical liberal ideology that it dogmatically preaches to any woman willing to listen (and those who aren't as well). When did feminism come to equal pro-abortion? When did it become a celebration of Eve Ensler and her man-hating venom? When did it become so hostile to anyone who dares say "well, gee, grrls, maybe we could make some room for everyone?"
What frustrates me so much is that there are plenty of smart, well-educated, enthusiastic young women who could acheive a great deal if they would only look around them and realize that injustice doesn't exist solely in the protests outside abortion clinics and the people Marching for Life every January. There are terrible things being done to women in this world; why are we sitting around talking about "reproductive rights" when we could actually be making some kind of valuable difference?
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-02-02T13:03:00.000-05:00

I know that my esteemed colleague and sister the QM is usually in charge of this, but this guy definitely deserves our recognition. Tom Toles, the cartoonist who sooo tastefully depicted one of our servicemen missing all of his limbs from combat wounds in an editorial cartoon (which you can see here, at Misha's, as I don't have a link to the actual cartoon) for the sake of a sneer at Rumsfeld, is our man. Fortunately for him, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sent him a letter politely informing him that he is a useless, tasteless, urine-drinking molerat, before some concerned citizen taught him some manners.

People like this really disgust me. I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'm not going to say anything else, but I don't think this needs much explaining. QM, feel free to elaborate.

-The Talent

2006-02-02T12:52:00.000-05:00

In today's news, the Associated Press confirms exactly why we should fear for our culture. In a move that illustrates the absurdity of calling Islam the Religion of Peace, "Armed militants angered by a cartoon drawing of the Prophet Muhammad published in European media surrounded EU offices in Gaza on Thursday and threatened to kidnap foreigners as outrage over the caricatures spread across the Islamic world."
So, members of the Islamic community are threatening violence, Pakastani student protesters are chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France" (that's what you get for being so tolerant), Iraqi Shiite clerics burning the Danish flag, and the editor who reprinted the caricatures in France Soir getting fired. According to Reporters Without Borders director Robert Menard, "We need to figure out how to reconcile freedom of expression and respect of faith." Actually, what we need to do is keep printing the damn cartoons. Newspapers are full of images that may offend some group or another, but it's only when Muslims are offended that we start rolling over and begging for forgiveness? I think not. We need to respect other peoples' right to practice their religion, but we are under no moral obligation to follow the rules that they have imposed on themselves. Imagine the international rection if the Jewish community started threatening boycotts of television stations that advertise cheeseburgers. We'd all laugh and dismiss them.
While I completely disagree with the idea that art which is offensive to religious groups (like, say, crucifixes submerged in jars of urine) should be supported with public money, the media are an entirely different matter. There is a large difference between plain offensive art, and political critique, and this is a clear case of political expression.
"Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia on Thursday condemned the caricatures, saying they 'provoke all Muslims everywhere in the world'." Thats the point of political expression: to provoke, to make people think, and newspapers are the most appropriate and important forum for political commentary. I applaud the Danish press for refusing to back down since the cartoons were first published in September. I just hope the rest of Europe gets behind them, and stays behind them, though judging by the French reaction (the Muslims are pissed? We'd better fire the editor!), this might not be a realistic hope.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Week

2006-02-01T13:51:00.000-05:00

This is just too good to be a simple idiot of the day. Cindy Sheehan, who gained fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective) by using the death of her son Casey in Iraq (I will add that he volunteered, and would have known at the time what he was getting into) as a political tool in her anti-war protests. Her early flip-flop on the issue of meeting with the President when he first offered his condolences, and her family's objection to her use of Casey's story as a catalyst for her protest activities were exposed in the Drudge Report, and quickly dismissed by the liberal media.

Anyway, last night, before the SOTU address, she was arrested and forced to leave the Capitol building for wearing an anti-war t-shirt. One isn't supposed to protest inside the building, presumably to maintain a level of decorum, something she obviously doesn't understand, having proven by her Crawford protest that she has no respect for boundaries of any kind. As is to be expected, she wrote an entry for the Daily Kos explaining "what really happened". I'll just put a few choice quotes up here, since the last thing I want is to cause vomiting or fits of hysterics, but you can get the whole thing here

"I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her."

So let me get this straight: you didn't want to go because Bush might hurt your feelings (sniffle-sniffle, whine-whine), and you wouldn't be able to make an uproar one he did? So you would go if every time he said something you didn't agree with, you could stand up and start hurling profanities at him? And the only reason you couldn't cause an uproar is out of respect for Lynn Woolsey (the congresswoman who invited her)? How about out of respect for the office of president, the importance of the event, a sense of common decency, or maybe just the realization that this isn't about your feelings? But of course, Cindy put her scruples aside because "Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there". So you went because in your world, it really is all about you.

She goes on to describe being roughly removed by one of the Capitol police officers, whose name she then reveals just in case some of her cronies decide to make him the target of their vindictive spirit. Interestingly, in the comments posted by supporters, one raving liberal makes this statement: "Cindy that guard who rough-housed you should be fired! We need to start a petition to fire Mike Weight! As if he didn't know who you were." Oh yes, let's blame the poor guy charged with carrying out the rules rather than the one whop broke them. And why does it matter who the hell you are? Do the rules not apply to you because your son died in Iraq? A lot of women have lost their sons in the course of history; while sad, it doesn't make you above the rules of decency.

In a moment (or several) of self-indulgent pity, she reveals that she has the bruises and muscle spasms to prove how roughly she was treated, and and relates how spending four hours in jail has her "so upset and sore it is hard to think straight." If I recall correctly, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr wrote his famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail from, get this, a jail cell. Not that I want to smear King's name by associating him in any way with Sheehan, just make the point that actual civil rights leaders didn't spend a measely four hours in jail, then get released and immediately start whining to a sympathetic forum about how hard the police officer held their arm while removing them from the scene of the crime.

I know I've been going on for a while, but I haven't even gotten to the best part. Sheehan mentions that while being processed, an officer noticed her shirt, and mentioned that he just got back from Iraq. This prompts her best display yet:

"I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain."

So wait, all that time you were protesting, you hadn't realized your loss yet? Then what were you protesting for? I'd also like to point out that she didn't get arrested walking down the street; she got arrested at the one place where you are not supposed to protest, during a speech that she admitted she would have liked to disrupt. In a typical hysterical fashionl, she has extrapolated from this that the Bush administration is responsible not only for the murder of her child, but for the death of her country. It must be hard to live in her little world. I'm surprised she has yet to be diagnosed with some kind of paranoia.

Her entry is followed by all manner of stupidity; it would take hours to read and dissect that much liberal raving, and I have homework to do, but I do want to point out one more common thread of all the various comments. It seems that liberals see her arrest as the Bush administration trying to silence all dissent. Too bad Beverly Young, wife of a Republican Congressman, was also asked to leave, for wearing a shirt that said "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom." So, as part of a right-wing conspiracy, Bush is having people who support him treated the same way as people who don't. I wonder what his motive might be. Never mind that he didn't exactly make the rules governing the Capitol building, nor was he enforcing them at the time, as he was busy making the State of the Union speech.

I really do love people like Cindy Sheehan. They make such easy targets. As Voltaire put it, "I have always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: 'My God, make our enemies very ridiculous!' God has granted it to me." How true.
-The Quartermaster

Idiocy, Actually

2006-01-31T12:49:00.000-05:00

One of my absolute favorite movies is Love Actually. Both the opening and the ending of the movie have montages of affectionate moments, illustrating the central point of the movie; that love, actually, is all around us.
The same is true of idiocy, as anyone who has had the misfortune to take a course at any modern college knows (well, maybe not at Bob Jones University, but that's in a class of its own). Unfortunately, these constant displays of misinformation and bad rhetoric are not nearly as cute as the montages in the movie (though they are occasionally tear-inducing), and usually don't include British people with adorable accents. They are entertaining, though.
Today's cast of characters includes three of my favorite characters: Slutty Feminist, her "sister" Angry Feminist, and of course, Professor Indoctrinator.
Slutty Feminist is very, very excited because she auditioned for the Vagina Monologues and got chosen. For those who don't know, colleges across the country have benefit performances of this drivel as part of the V-Day campaign. This movement has the admirable goal of ending violence against women. Their idea of the best way to do this seems to be to hijack Valentines Day, traditionally a day to celebrate the best of relationships between men and women (and being a girly-girl at heart, I love the whole idea of celebrating romantic love), and turning it into a whine-fest of all the terrible things men have done to women. Huh. I'm all about stopping violence against women. I think it's tragic that in this country we have more shelters for animals than for battered women. But when extremist feminists get hold of issues, they inevitably turn a worthy goal into yet another reason to hate men and retreat into an "I'm so victimized" position. And if they still insist on doing this, could they at least pick their own damn day, instead of taking a day that should be a reminder of love in the world and turn it into a day of bitterness? Let's please preserve a little lightheartedness in the world.
In other news on the battlefront, Professor Indoctrinator began his campaign against critical thought today. In discussing the failure of the filibuster, he brought up Roe v. Wade, and how important it was, not just to protect abortion, but to protect all privacy. If Roe should be overturned, the government would be able to interfere in our sex lives all the time, domestic spying would become common practice, and the world as we know it would implode, so even if you have issues with abortion, you should support Roe. Ok, saying that Roe v. Wade is about privacy rather than abortion is like saying the Civil War was fought over states' rights. The civil war was fought over the state's right to own slaves. If there were no slavery, this would not have been an issue (though there are many who disagree with this historical interpretation). States' rights were the excuse: "we should be able to decide whether or not we commit a moral evil". Similarly, Roe v. Wade is about the right to privacy so that you can have an abortion. The logic is basically the same: it doesn't matter what moral objections there may be, we have a right because of (insert random "right" here).
Later in class, he briefly mentioned "trickle-down economics", at which point Angry Feminist broke in to expound upon how "totally stupid" the idea was. After all, it's not like rich people are gonna go spend their tax breaks at Target or Walmart, so how does it help poor people? (Her words, I swear.) Aside from the lack of anything even approaching logic in that argument, I would like to point out that I am not racking up student debt into the thousands so I can hear some random liberal nuisance declare her stance on economic policy, in a situation that was not even a class discussion or debate.
I should probably just give up and transfer to Bob Jones. But then I wouldn't have these fun people to rip into. I think letting out aggression in blog format might help me stop picking fights with people I actually like just for the fun of it, which I've heard can be damaging to interpersonal relatioships. Oops.
-The Quartermaster

Bang bang

2006-01-30T22:44:00.000-05:00

Just a brief comment, nothing indepth, but as I was watching the Fox 10 O'Clock News (and not writing my paper, like a good student), I found the high number of gun-related crimes and deaths in Washington, D.C., (The Triumvirate's home city) that were being covered more than a tad ironic, considering the capital's current gun control laws. How are those working out, fellas?

-The Talent

Yay!

2006-01-30T21:57:00.000-05:00

In a rare moment of good sense, the Senate voted to shut down the Alito filibuster with a vote of 75-25. Apparently enough senators agreed that while they had political issues with Alito (a problem in itself), they saw that there was really no good reason to resort to a filibuster. Either that, or they just realized that a filibuster would make the whole party look petty and foolish. So, his confirmation is practically guarenteed. I'd say its time to do a little celebrating (I would, but the two fire alarms that went off in my building tonight put me a little behind schedule. Who knew it was possible to do so much wrong with a microwave?)

-Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-01-30T13:06:00.000-05:00

Since the Alito confirmation issue is being so hotly contested right now, I think it's appropriate to stay on that topic with today's Idiot. What makes this so hard is that there are so many to choose from.
"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values. ... I will say this, though. I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues. These last-minute efforts, using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it."
-Senator Barack Obama (D-Il).
One of the parties brightest stars proving that he really has what it takes to be a liberal. According to him, the filibuster is a bad tactic, and he disapproves of using it. But, since he really doesn't want to see the country go up in flames of conservative values, he's willing to use it to acheive the end of blocking Alito's confirmation. Brilliant. He gets to maintain the moral high ground of "filibustering = underhand tactic", while keeping the support of uber-liberal organizations pushing for the filibuster. I would also like to point out that this entire circus surrounding the confirmation process is one of the greatest recent examples of interest group politics. There was no real consideration of a filibuster until prominent liberal interest groups like the NAACP, NOW, and People for the American Way threw their weight behind the idea. Early in the hearings, the "Gang of 14" had pretty much thrown out the idea of filibustering, saying that there was no great cause for concern. But back to the point; Barack Obama, definitely one to watch out for.
-The Quartermaster

Idiot of the Day

2006-01-29T19:28:00.000-05:00

Ok, everyone loves traditions, right? So here's a new fun one: the idiot of the day. I'll give you a quote, the name of the person who said it, and a little bit of idiot-slamming, which is always fun (expect to see Hillary Clinton in here a lot). To start with, a perennial favorite of mine:

"We owe it to future generations of Americans to oppose this nomination. If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will serve on the court long after President Bush leaves office, and the progress of half a century on the basic rights of all Americans is likely to be rolled back. He's the wrong justice for justice and the rule of law in America."
-Senator Kerry

Ah yes. Alito, that radical, is out to destroy America. He was nominated by President Bush, we should have known he had some nefarious plan. I'm sure that if a great tragedy occurs and he is confirmed to the Supreme Court, little people everywhere will get trampled on, the government will start making us all go to church, and women will die in back alleys in droves, with coat hangers up their uteruses. Of course, radical views weren't a problem when Ginsburg was nominated; she was much farther to the left of the average American than Alito is to the right, but since she just wanted to elimate gender-specific words from our national vocabulary, she's ok. Never mind that the bench will still be pretty evenly split on most issues, and that Alito is really no more radical than Roberts. The liberals are still in a huff about the fact that Bush didn't choose someone who was ideologically opposed to him in order to make them happy. Also, sounds like someone is trying to get some political capital for 2008. Just a hunch. I would also like to include Senator Kennedy in here, because he's just as bad as Kerry. And while I'm at it, let's throw in Clinton too. 'Cause I just don't like her.
-The Quartermaster

Back to the battlefield

2006-01-29T15:50:00.000-05:00

There's nowhere like a college campus to realize that idiocy, like love, actually is all around us. In the experiences of just one semester, we already have a whole cast of fun characters to dissect, and ideas to put down. We've got our token slutty feminist, supporting abortion rights mostly as a means of self-preservation (We also have the stereotypically ugly-angry feminist, but she's a whole other breed). We've got a whole clique of students who join NORML so that they can meet other drug users. We've got a flamboyantly gay opinions editor who worships Brokeback Mountain as the most culturally influential film of our era. And best of all, we have a whole faculty of professors who seem to have made it their duty to indoctrinate their students through a constant stream of almost imperceptible brainwashing. Perhaps my favorite experience as been realizing that it doesn't matter what we read in our western civilization class, the point is always the same: white religious men are BAD!
So here's an interesting question: given the clouds of far-left thought and outright stupidity floating over our campuses, should we really be encouraging college students to vote? Our professors are fond of telling us that we should be getting more involved in politics and start voting, because we can make a difference that way. Frankly, anyone who doesn't educate themselves and get involved based on their own initiative shouldn't be voting. The last thing we need is more morons throwing their opinions around on ballots. I'm well aware that this makes me seem like an elitist, which I will gladly admit to. In a similar vein, we also shouldn't be reforming our voting system to make it easier to register. My American Gov't prof last semester made a huge fuss over the fact that Europe has much higher voter turnout, and said that we could have the same, if we didn't have all these silly rules about registration deadlines. First, let's ask ourselves: do we really want to be more like Europe? I know I don't. Second, do we want people voting if they can't bother themselves to meet a simple deadline? Apathy in that regard will most likely translate to apathy in learning about issues. Finally, I'm not the only one who is wary of "the people". The Founding Fathers were for the most part afraid of the possibility of mob rule, as was Aristotle. They knew that stupidity exists in the world, as do self-interest and apathy, which is the entire point behind the electoral college. So, does that make them elitist? Well, yeah. Does it make them un-american? Considering this whole 'America' thing was their idea, I doubt it.
-The Quartermaster

This sounds familiar....

2006-01-29T13:50:00.000-05:00

That's right, we're back, and we mean it this time. It's true, we've said it before, but now that the QM is righting editorials for her college newspaper, she'll need some practice. That's where we come in. So sit tight and ready yourself for some truly awesome conservative commentary.

-The Talent

Harry Potter on film

2005-08-17T14:04:00.000-04:00

Yeah, so I've got to get over this "Don't worry updates coming soon!" thing, because I'm bad at it. I'll just update. No more promises, hah. Ok, so where'd I leave off? Harry Potter? Yes! I have a rant about certain aspects of the film version: CASTING.

So what's this whole buggaboo about having an all Brit cast, eh? There are some very fine British actors, of course (Love Actually is a prime example), however, the first thing that's important for a role is to pick someone who can actually PLAY THE PART. Second priority is that they resemble the character. Some of the casting in the movies is very good, ie, Alan Rickman. And the fellow who plays Prof. Lupin isn't bad either. However, I'm worried that J.K Rowling and Company are worried about them being British above all else, and then worrying about looks and talent. Daniel Raddcliffe is a good example. Sure, he's British, and he kind of resembles Harry. But he's not a good actor, to put it lightly. He's getting better, it's true. But I think many people would have preferred it if he was already decent to begin with. Then there's also cases of age. For example, Gary Oldman as Sirius Black. Gary Oldman is awesome, he's very good at really transforming himself INTO his character. However, he's pretty old. The character of Sirius is not that old, late thirties, early forties (Also, Sirius is supposed to have been very handsome)? Usually I'd let this slide. But it seems that Rowling & Co. have been sacrificing book accuracy for esteemed and/or British cast members. Let's face it, British accents are NOT that difficult to do. Really. With a little bit of effort, this movie could have had a perfect cast. You could walk through NYC and have the movie cast in less than a month. Especially because it seems that for some of the child actors, British accents are all they have going for them. Like that guy Rupert Grint, with the two facial expressions: "Huh?" & "EEK!". Particularly when you have someone like the girl who plays Ginny. She was cast for her hair color and accent, the fact that Ginny has to be hot later on is completely disregarded. This is why I think they should have waited until all the books were finished for a movie, so they would know exactly what kind of adaptations they would have to make. Because now it's like "Oops, need to change that, and that won't work anymore, because of that". It's silly.

-The Talent

Over There

2005-07-29T23:51:00.000-04:00

Tonight's topic of discussion is FX's new show by Steven Bocho, "Over There". I watched the episode two nights ago, and I'm still trying to make up my mind about it. It was well done, I thought. Not too Hollywoody, I didn't think. But then, I'm not a soldier, nor am I related to a soldier. I don't really know what it's like "Over There" because I'm not "Over There". The two things that bothered me about OT are:

1)I don't think anyone can really know what it's like to fight a war, unless they have themselves. We definitely aren't going to be able to feel what it's like by watching a TV show. Especially because movies, and TV, are often riddled with Hollywoodisms, and the screen-writer's/creator's views(as with most art). Thus, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that this recreation of the Iraq War will be very accurate with a lot of things, mainly the relationships of the actual soldiers. I could be wrong, as I've only seen the first episode, and I'm not a soldier myself, but I think it's likely.

2)This isn't really a rational, logical thing, more of an emotional one: I don't know that I like the idea of making entertainment out of something that's happening RIGHT NOW. Our boys are over in Iraq, RIGHT NOW. It just seems...wrong, somehow. If, for example, someone was going to do a show about a soldier's life in France during WWII, using history, and interviews with veterans and vets' families and whatnot, that would be ok. This just seems wrong.

S'all for now. Peace.

-The Talent

To Our Readers, Potential and Otherwise:

2005-07-24T22:44:00.000-04:00

We apologize profusely for our ridiculous lack of updates, but our excuse is that we're...just damn lazy. But that's all about to change! Yessiree, over the next few weeks we will be covering such important, high-profile topics as Harry Potter, Lindsay Lohan's Skeleton(that's the blonde thing walking around, right?), and the Fanta Girls. Well, maybe not the latter two, but we do have some things to say about our scarred, bespectacled friend of British origin.

'Till next time, folks,

-The Talent

IMAO! And "That's what I said!"

2005-05-11T09:37:00.000-04:00

A big thank you to the amazing Frank J. of IMAO, for posting my portrait of him. Made my day. Thanks, Frank! But on to the news....

I do remember saying this quite some time ago, to someone. Or everyone.

"The shift is making the fight a focal point of the U.S. global war against
Islamic terrorists and one that might dictate whether the U.S. wins or
loses,
said a senior official and an outside expert."

I definitely remember saying aomething akin to this. The war in Iraq isn't just about stablizing the country for the Iraqis anymore, and it hasn't been for a while. That's part of it, yes. The thing is, that the terrorists know that if we fail here, then we won't be able to pursue the War on Terror in other countries. And because of that, they're putting all their effort into trying to beat us here.

"In the Muslim world and extremist world, this fight for Iraq is their key
battle," said Gen. McInerney. "If they lose it, they lose the war. And so the
imams are inciting young people, not particular well-educated, to head to Iraq.
Most are going through Syria via Damascus. This is why
Iraq is such a fundamental part of the global war on terrorism. When we finally
defeat Muslim extremists, it will be the battle in Iraq that defeats them."

*Points and waves arms around wildly* That's what I said! Which is why we CANNOT, CANNOT pull out now. It would be like running 2/3's of a marathon, and then turning around and walking home. It would mean that they had beaten us. We have GOT to keep going.

-The Talent

Long time, no post

2005-05-10T16:20:00.000-04:00

We apologize for the lack of recent updates; the Triumvirate has been very busy with school and other assorted activities.

So what's new? Well, the Pope, among other things...I think it's pretty funny that everyone's so miffed about him being so prolife, conservative, and just generally...*gasp* Catholic.

Major U.S. attack kils up to 100

Let the asskicking continue. Semper Fi, boys.

Unfortunately, that's all for now. I'll do my best to kick the rest of the team into high gear, and update more frequently.

-The Talent

This martinez schiavo stuff

2005-04-07T23:10:00.000-04:00

Now, I don't know too much about the whole Schiavo-memogate-conspiracy-whackjob-crap BUT, it does seem that if a Repub. screwed up, we need to admit it, dammit, not do the very thing that we often chide "the left" for being inconsistant and unwilling to own up to a mistake, we need to do the same. I think that's really true regarding something like this, that doesn't really seem to be that huge. I mean, politicians using an issue for political gain, good God, what next, reporters reporting things? (actually, that'd be nice) Anyway, to be really Machiavellian, have the dude responsible admit he screwed up, and have everyone else push a let's move on message and find a new issue fast. Like extremist Islamic terrorists. I think Iran still has a bunch. And if not, there's always Lil'Kim Jong Il.

-Idea-Man

Schiavo Revisited(kind of)

2005-04-06T20:51:00.000-04:00

I know you all are probably sick of this case, but there you go. Suck it up.

You already know that I don't think we had the right to decide to end Terri's life because we deem her condition to be too horrible to live in. If she was not aware of herself, as most doctors say, then she wouldn't be suffering anyway. However, there is also the case of what she would have wanted, which is what they based the decision on. We can't base a huge decision, to end a life, on a something she may or may not have said in a (presumably) casual conversation. If she had written a will, saying that if she were in a situation like this, she would want to be killed, then, although I might disagree, that's the way it is. But she didn't write a will. And there are also her parents saying that she wouldn't have wanted to be put to death. So we have two different opinions coming from two equally involved parties on what Terri would have wanted. However the courts decided that there was far more evidence to suggest that Terri did want to be killed in a like situation, then the opposite.

There's also the issue of the value of human life in general. You've all heard the phrase "err on the side of life", and I support it. If we must make an error, then let it not be one which results in the death of an innocent. I believe that all innocent human life, no matter how lowly, is valuable. By determining someone's "quality of life" we are placing a value on it(I think I read that somewhere, but I don't know where). So when you say that it isn't worth living because of the "quality" you are de-valuing it. Which is to devalue life itself. This is partially because I'm a Catholic, and you know us Catholics. Big with the life. However, I also think it is in the best interest of a society to uphold the value of life. If we start saying different people's lives aren't worth living for different reasons, then what's to stop us from going farther down the slippery slope, to say that, oh for instance, a retard's life isn't worth living? It sounds like a stretch, I know, but I don't think it's so much of a stretch that we should disregard the possibility. Wasn't there a country that started this kind of thing way back....oh yeeeaahh. Nazi Germany.
I do support the death penalty, however. I was trying to write this bit about why, and what I think about it in general, but it was taking forever, and damnit, one of has to post SOMETHING. Maybe later. But on the thing about killing unborn babies and the brain-damaged and whatnot, is that they are innocent life, as opposed to someone who has murdered. They have done nothing wrong, and yet the are seen as expendable.

More on the news tomorrow.

-The Talent

Schiavo con't, The Pope, Berger, and the Minutemen

2005-04-02T03:26:00.000-05:00

The Holy Father is near death. Keep him in your prayers. Though I am too young to fully understand everything that he has achieved, I can at least appreciate it to some extent. It is unlikely that we will see anyone of his calibre in our lifetime again.

Interesting bit regarding the Schiavo case, brought to my attention by the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. CTs and Neurologists.

So Sandy Paper-Pants gets away with a fine eh? No there's a huge surprise. Oh no, wait...

And hurrah to the boys over in Arizona.

-The Talent

State-sanctioned murder

2005-04-01T01:32:00.000-05:00

Emperor Misha over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller clearly expresses our feelings on the subject of Terri Schiavo's murder. However, there are some points I'd like to make on the specifcs, the why and the how.

The facts are unclear: Some say she was PVS, some say she wasn't. I tend to lean to the latter. People who were around her said that she reacted to them. Call it "reflex" if you want, but I don't quite buy it. To jerk my hand off a hot stove is a reflex. To attempt even minimal communication when my parents are in the room is recognition and action. But on to why I find the entire matter abhorrent.

Terri Schiavo was not a criminal. She was an innocent woman. And yet, Michael Schiavo's supporters had no qualms with killing her. Why? Because she "isn't there"? Or because her "quality of life" is terrible? Does that make her life any less valuable? First of all, we are in no position to be judging what the value of someone's life is. Not by a long-shot. We cannot say that a person would want to die because "their life is so bad". We don't have the right to make that kind of decision for someone else. And also, how can we say that someone ought to die because they are severely disabled? They're still a person. Hell, we don't even starve animals to death, let alone human beings. Or criminals, for that matter, which brings me back to an earlier point. The folks that wanted Terri dead so desperately are the same types of people that cringe at the thought of putting Bubba the Toddler-Killer to sleep. Where the HELL do they even get the minerals to reconcile that? It truely confounds me.

What also counfounds me is that is seems like so few people are worried about this. Does no one realize that the state of Florida just executed a defenseless innocent? This is truly a sad day, my friends.

-The Talent

God Rest Her Soul

2005-03-31T13:02:00.000-05:00

Terri Schiavo dies thirteen days after her feeding tube was removed. May she rest in peace.

-The Talent

First!

2005-03-30T18:54:00.000-05:00

Idea-Man

Sweet, a blog. Finally in on the pajama-clad pundit mafia. Lessee, goals for this blog...bring down Hillary Clinton, create a new paradigm of thought in conservative commentary, become a superhero, etc. There. Nice acheivable goals. Higher up and farther in. Peace.

Start your engines

2005-03-30T13:22:00.000-05:00

We are now up and running, ready for action. Let the blogging begin.

-The Talent

Any day now...

2005-03-28T19:53:00.000-05:00

We should be up and running by the end of the week. Cross your fingers.

-The Talent

Testing

2004-09-02T02:00:00.000-04:00

Just testing folks...

-The Talent

The Triumvirate

The Anti-Fashion

Dirty sluts and decent men

Let's talk about sex...

Update 2

Update

But I Love Cupcakes...

Damned swine

I Rock

I heart Israel

MTV is the nadir of western civ

Sincerest apologies & Ann Coulter

Stem cell research

Musing on Life

North Korea

NOW is at it again

Not surprising

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Day

AOL blows

Hillary again

The Mommy State

Back to the North

*sigh*

Freakin bugs

I'm not just mean; I'm evil and heartless as well!

No, I'm not dead

On Why I'm a Mean Conservative

Idiot of the Day

A few quick bits of randomness

Huh

Musing

US flag banned

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Day

A little bit of news

A Special Treat: Double Idiots

Idiot of the Day

And you thought I'd just abandoned you

Free Speech means unrestrained speech

On the Vagina note

Big Sister is Watching

Ben Stein

Vagina week

What If...

My Soapbox

Idiot of The Day

I really love my mom

Ok, now I'm depressed

And you thought Valentine's Day was depressing before...

Hooray for gainful employment!

Really need to stop doing this...

Idiot of the Day

Please, Not NOW

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Week

Idiocy, Actually

Bang bang

Yay!

Idiot of the Day

Idiot of the Day

Back to the battlefield

This sounds familiar....

Harry Potter on film

Over There

To Our Readers, Potential and Otherwise:

IMAO! And "That's what I said!"

Long time, no post

This martinez schiavo stuff

Schiavo Revisited(kind of)

Schiavo con't, The Pope, Berger, and the Minutemen

State-sanctioned murder

God Rest Her Soul

First!

Start your engines

Any day now...

Testing

sigh