Internet Anonymity

You may have noticed that I have discontinued taking anonymous comments. For those trying to protect their identity for legitimate reasons, this will be disappointing. My reason for the change is to filter out the one person (she knows who she is) who is attempting to harass and intimidate me and others at the site. Please be warned crazy Anonymous, your posts will be copied and given to the authorities. So STOP.

Internet newbies should know that someone who has a blog can track each visit. I know the city, state, ISP address, browser and even the kind of operating system each visitor uses. Every website owner is privy to this information of every visitor if he or she or it (the corporation) so chooses to track and look at it. Likewise, my information is also shared wherever I go on the web.

There is no such thing as being anonymous on the Web. The internet is designed to connect and that is exactly what it does. And it does it very well. Keep that in mind when commenting everywhere. This Internets thingy has a long, long memory.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Changing A Mind

ShrinkWrapped writes of the difficult task to change a mind. He says this:

[Of note, one of the most common reactions in Psychoanalysis to an accurate interpretation is anger. When we show a person something about themselves that they have managed to keep themselves unaware of, it is often an unpleasant experience and they do not thank us.]

You wouldn’t believe the number of people who would rather die than change their mind. Change diet, change lifestyle, but change a killer belief? Never.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Mary’s Baby

You’d think I would be talking about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given the season. Alas, no. I’m talking about Mary Cheney’s baby (or should I say fetus at this point, since it’s not really real until it’s born).

First, I wish Mary and her partner well. I hope the baby is healthy. I happen to believe that every baby born belongs in this world and deserves love. There is no doubt, this baby will be loved.

Second, I want to make clear that I never voted for Mary Cheney. She is not an elected official. What she does with her personal life (remember Clinton’s defense of his personal life?) is personal.

Third, a baby, of course, is a very demonstrable result of two people doing something. When I was first pregnant, it felt like people were staring. Everyone knows how this baby happened! Blush. So it begs the question with Mary. I’m quite sure she wasn’t the second immaculate conception. So, curiosity arouses, how did she….you know….. It may be a mystery that is never solved. It’s personal.

Fourth, since Mary Cheney is not a political figure, I find it tawdry what gay activists like Andrew Sullivan are doing(and I call him a gay activist because he has lost the ability to articulately comment on anything else). He’s using a personal happening for political reasons. She is a real person, Andrew, she is not Murphy Brown. And this is where I disagree with Ann Althouse. When she says this:

Sullivan taunts. It’s a political — and bloggerly — strategy. Mary Cheney’s pregnancy is an occasion. He uses it. That’s what bloggers do. There’s an event. You note it, and then you play off of it, springing all your usual opinions, making them exquisitely timely all over again. Tagging other bloggers in the course of your writing is a good way to get them to link to you and boost your visibility. It isn’t bad — it’s good — if they are antagonized and they lash back the way Jonah. This is the kind of writing keeps the political blogosphere going. (I realize Andrew’s piece is in a magazine, but it’s linked through his blog, and it operates by the bloggerly method.)

I find it inhumane, forget bloggerly, to use a private citizen’s life for public comment when the person in question has made no effort to bring that part of her life into the public arena this way. Mary Cheney is not a gay rights activist. Would it be bloggerly for me to start hypothesizing about Anne’s sexuality, her reasons for divorce, her parenting? (I know none of the above and, as far as I know, none of it has been discussed in her blog or if it has, I’ve missed it. I’m assuming she doesn’t talk about it because it’s private. I, on the other hand, have brought the issue of autism out in the public arena, as I have a son with autism. That doesn’t give anyone the right to harass my son, but it does give them a right to discuss and disagree with my opinions on autism. Andrew Sullivan has made an issue of his sexuality so it’s up for discussion.)

In addition, even public figures, Bill Clinton included, did his best to keep his private life private (in his case, it’s publicly relevant when he’s screwing an intern in the Oval office) as do many celebrities. When the person in question is a political figure like Dick Cheney, or a public figure like Pastor Whats-His-Name in Colorado, or a Celebrity like Britney Spears or Rosie O’Donnell, fine. Andrew Sullivan is welcome to make his same point talking about say Melissa Etheridge who proudly displayed her partner and twin children on the cover of Us Magazine.

But that’s not the point, with Sullivan, is it? He makes his point clear in the title and first paragraph of the New Republic article: “Mary’s Baby and the Right: Quite Contrary”,

What are Republicans going to do about homosexuals? The fact that this question has been asked repeatedly does not mean that anyone has yet given it a serious answer. There are, broadly speaking, two rival conservative factions on the subject: religious fundamentalists, who want to outlaw or deter homosexual love and sex on biblical or natural law grounds; and old-school conservatives, who want to treat the entire issue as a private matter–supporting public policy hostile to gay people and gay relationships while privately treating gay individuals with tact and respect….

Sullivan uses Mary Cheney because he thinks she epitomizes the Right’s hypocrisy. Let’s get down to brass tacks. Andrew Sullivan is angry that people don’t see Gay Marriage his way. The way of “reality”. As a conservative (socially conservative and otherwise liberal–Sullivan in contrast is as progressive as Al Gore), there are enduring cultural and religious reasons that Sullivan isn’t going to win the battle between “ideology” and his “reality” anytime soon:

1. Christians, by definition, are Christ followers. To Christians, the Bible is still the Good Book and even if not viewed literally in every jot and tittle, no jot or tittle has passed away. So, the sanctions against homosexuality are as equally valid as the sanctions against divorce and the sanctions against fornication (promiscuity) and the sanctions against adultery.
2. Christians, the “mere ones” as C.S. Lewis says, are quite comfortable with loving the sinner and hating the sin. Therefore, they can maintain friendships with divorced people, adulterers, gays, fornicators. And, they can stand to look in the mirror because they know they are sinners, too, forgiven by God.
3. Christians, just because they try to live in love, does not mean they condone or would want to state sanction that behavior. I, for one, do not believe it was good public policy to make divorce more easily available and socially acceptable. Must we count the ways this SIN has hurt families? Poverty, unsocialized children being raised without the benefit of a mother or most times, a father. To wit, only 36% of black children live with both their mother and their father. Are we to look at the desperation to be found and not condemn the causes? Adultery, fornication, divorce, sins all, have hardened hearts and hurt children and ultimately hurt society. So yes, I condemn the state for reinforcing these unhelpful actions. (Shhh, sins.)
4. Even nominal Christians do not favor changing cultural norms and definitions. It is the warping of the language and meaning which is problematic for even some people who do not object to gay marriage on a theoretical level. Gays want to superimpose their culture on the culture at large. This is not a matter of being open-minded or inclusive or diverse. This is a matter of changing a socially accepted construct to fit their definition. I’m surprised the gays are surprised at the push-back. Marriage has been, for millenia, by definition between a man and woman.
5. No one is discriminating against gays by keep the marriage definition the same. I could call myself a man. Of course, by definition, I’m a woman, but I’m free to say whatever I want. It’s not going to make me a man unless the definition changes to mean anything can be a man. Gays are welcome to call themselves married. No one is stopping them. They are free to express themselves.
6. The laws are no more oppressive to gays than to anyone else. Unmarried heterosexual people do not get “partnership benefits”. If I am on my deathbed, anyone I choose can be my durable power of attorney. Anyone I choose to will my belongings to gets them. Gays are free to have this paperwork, too.
7. With 60-70% of people, 80% in some states, putting up marriage amendments, it’s not just the Republicans who are dealing with this question, Andrew. You’re not so dull-witted to not know this. By framing this topic this way, you ignore the 20-60% of Democrats who voted for these amendments. Aren’t the Democrats the ones who pissed and moaned about the fact that Democrats are religious, too?

Speaking of intolerant, this is how you describe my aforementioned views:

On Mary Cheney, they are forced to take a stand. But any stand either attacks the base of the party or attacks someone they know and love. So they have no alternative but to stand very still, say nothing, and hope that someone changes the subject. It is as close to intellectual and moral bankruptcy as one can imagine…

Accuse me of being morally bankrupt, if you will, you condemning jerk, but I’m content with my views and the views of my fellow Americans. America is remarkably tolerant to people of different religious and ideological stripe.

When a lesbian friend gets pregnant, I’ll buy the baby a gift for the shower. I’ll give the new mom a hug. I’ll love them both. I’ll mourn for the child who is being raised without a father–especially given that my friend had a horrible childhood with an abusive father. She knows what a difference a good father could have made. My friend will know that I disagree with her choice, but that I love her and her partner.

It is the very same thing I did for a single parent mother friend of mine. While disagreeing with her choices, a baby is coming and it’s reason to rejoice.

My stance here is no different, than the sadness I feel about my friend who is divorced, raising teenage boys on her own while her husband cheated and went off with another woman. This man did a despicable thing. He destroyed a family and hurt his children. He was selfish. I still love him and hope he can soften his heart toward his children.

My stance is no different, than being angry with a friend for cheating on his wife. The damage done has been incalculable even though they’re making it work. I am still friends with and love him.

My stance is no different, when I look in the mirror and think about my harsh words, impatience, hateful thoughts, and other bad behavior. I regret them. I get frustrated at my own weakness. I’m humbled by the need to be forgiven over and over every day.

Let anyone who is without sin, cast the first stone. I will leave the stones. That doesn’t mean that a sin isn’t a sin.

Andrew Sullivan wants homosexuality to be taken out of the sin sphere. He’s not alone in that attempt. He wants to redefine marriage. He wants America to be a secular society with religions rather than a Judeo-Christian society that tolerates those who hold different beliefs. I hope Andrew Sullivan is denied his wish.

Posted in America | No Comments »

Sandy Burgler: Something Stinks

What is an aide to President Clinton doing lurking around, stuffing papers down his pants, stealing and stashing them at a construction site, and just generally acting weird? I don’t think those questions were answered with his $50,000 conviction and 100 hours of public service.

Pardon me for going all conspiracy theorist, but something stinks. Josh Gerston via Instapundit says it looks like Berger was engaging in a classic spy drop:

A leading authority on classification policy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, said Mr. Berger’s behavior was reminiscent of a “dead drop,” when spies leave records in a park or under a mailbox to be retrieved by a handler.

“It seems deliberate and calculated,” Mr. Aftergood said. “It’s impossible to maintain the pretense that this was an act of absentmindedness.”

All five documents Mr. Berger removed were versions of an after-action report about the foiled “millennium plot” to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport and other sites. The internal review, by a top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, reportedly found that luck was the major factor in disrupting the plot and that more attacks were likely.

What bothers me is the utter lack of curiosity on the part of the powers that be. I’ve come to accept as the norm the Mass Media’s disinterest and bland apathetic acceptance of all things nefarious Democrat. But why would an administration at war not be more concerned about a former National Security Advisor acting spy-like? Betsy says this:

Shouldn’t the media have been more interested in knowing why he took such a risk in stealing classified documents? What was in those documents? Why did this story go nowhere at the time and we’re just finding out these new details because the Associated Press filed a FOIA request? Why didn’t all the media outlets want to know that information? after all, these were documents that he was reviewing in order to talk to the 9/11 Commission about security measures taken in the time before 9/11. No one really seems to have cared that there was something that Berger wanted to steal and destroy regarding that period.

Shouldn’t people be outraged about this? Why did the Bush Justice Department let him get away with just a slap on the wrist? What about the whole idea that top officials should be punished more severely when they break the law as an example to other potential malefactors? Would some less exalted person who stole classified documents and destroyed them get away with a fine, community service, and a three-year loss of his national security clearance? I doubt it.

This story has popped up again because the redacted report was made available to AP. It will start conservatives talking for a couple of days and then it will go away. Sandy Berger will continue with his consulting business and no one will care. It really was an outrage.

She’s right that it will go away. And that’s crazy. I want to know WHY the wrist slap? I swear, if I didn’t know better, the Clinton clan has some dirt on GW because his administration sure handles these people with kid gloves.

I’m outraged, that’s for sure. While it seems plausible that Berger would sticky-finger the Classified documents for the former criminal-in-chief, maybe it’s too plausible. We all know the Clintons will do anything legal or illegal to position Hillary to win in ’08. But it’s like a doctor getting side-tracked with an obvious symptom only to ignore the potentially lethal underlying problem. Are we sure we know what underlying problem Sandy Berger was trying to solve?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Eurabia Grows

Think that the fears of a lost Western civilization are unfounded? It’s amazing how fast it can happen. Elected Muslim officials funding terrorists with Euros in Brussels. How’s that?

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rosie & Donnie Sittin’ In A Tree

Rosie fatigue set in for me years back when she treated Tom Selleck like dirt on her show because he was an NRA member. She struck me as unstable, angry and mean. My opinion of her has yet to change.

So today, she tees off on Donald Trump over the Miss USA Pageant thing. Um, besides a big “who cares?”, what is there to say about the fact that a boobilicious babe gets a “second chance.” Well, to Rosie it’s a big deal. But that’s not the whole story. Her real animus seeps through with this statement:

“There he is, hair looping, going everyone, everyone deserves a second chance,” she began. “He’s the moral authority? Left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair, had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for twenty year olds in America. Donald, sit and spin, my friend.”

Could her anger be thinly disguised discrimination based on sexual orientation? He is a married, divorced twice, white, rich man and that alone is deserving of contempt in Rosie’s world. And what white man would take on a lesbian talk show host without fear of enduring raining hail of scorn?

Only, it seems, Donald Trump. He fired back and how. Here’s a nutshell:

In turn, Trump, who became aware of the Rosie comments earlier this morning, branded her “a loser.” “Rosie’s been a loser for a long time,” he told Access. Her magazine failed, she got sued. She folded up like a tent.”

He also sent a stern warning over O’Donnell’s outburst and suggested she watch her partner.

“Rosie is somebody out of control who really just doesn’t have it and she ought to be careful because I’ll send one of my friends to pick up her girlfriend and I think it would be very easy,” he said.

I don’t know what he means by that threat. He was p.o.’d that’s for sure. He called her “ugly inside and out”.

And here’s what Billy Bush at the Access Blog says:

‘Twas the week before Christmas and all seemed to be quiet. Then the alley cat of morning chat starts a little riot.

I tried to avoid commenting on this latest dust between Rosie and Donald. Both are unafraid to launch verbal attacks, both are publicly pugnacious and both are doing their best to make sure there is no such thing as a quiet week in the entertainment “crap-o-sphere”

….

If its true that “opposites attract”, then the reverse is also true. Rosie and Donald, “Ronald”, are ham on ham, no cheese. They are rich, tough, outspoken, fearless….lightning rods for controversy and PR geniuses.

The PR part is definitely true, but I don’t buy that these people don’t hate each other to the core. The dislike for each other is palpable. Rosie is a bully and utterly self-unaware. Donald’s advice to Rosie, “Better not leave your girlfriend, ‘cuz she’s truly nice and you’ll never get another one” seems odd considering. Donald, of all people, should know that money bags hot babes. Even Rosie doesn’t have to worry about that.

Think I’m wrong? I have two words: Anna Nicole.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

John Hawkin’s Favorite Quotes

Oh my, there are so many that are great, I can’t list them all. Some are laugh out loud funny:

10) “A couple of years back, I began some generalization or other by saying, “The difference between America and Canada is . . .” And the American I was imparting this insight to interrupted me with: “The difference between America and Canada is that Americans don’t care what the difference between America and Canada is.” — Mark Steyn

And these:

15) “The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason — they distanced themselves from their base.” — Dave S. from Tim Blair’s comment section Via Instapundit & Eject!Eject!Eject!

14) “Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered special services to “find and destroy” the killers of four Russian diplomats taken hostage in Iraq.” — BBC News

13) “(Keith) Olbermann has a Teflon ego. No matter how stupid he looks or how obviously wrong he is or how completely devoid of wit his copy is, he is perpetually pleased as punch with himself and convinced that the rest of the world is as moist over his brilliance as he is. It’s almost like schizophrenia.

Olbermann: I’m the wittiest, cleverest pundit in all the galaxy! All sentient beings worship me and wish to carry my magical seed!

Orderly: You’re in an observation cell clutching a beanie baby and standing in your own poo.

Olbermann: What? An autograph? Why of COURSE!” — Steve H.

Posted in America | 1 Comment »

Gut Flora Affects Fatness

Unbalanced gut flora results in the gut absorbing way more calories from the same amount of food as skinny people eat. When some overweight people complain “but I don’t eat more than other people!” they are likely telling the truth. They might just be extracting more calories from the food:

In one study, Gordon and colleagues looked at what happened in mice with changes in bacteria level. When lean mice with no germs in their guts had larger ratios of Firmicutes transplanted, they got “twice as fat” and took in more calories from the same amount of food than mice with the more normal bacteria ratio, said Washington University microbiology instructor Ruth Ley, a study co-author.

It was as if one group got far more calories from the same bowl of Cheerios than the other, Gordon said.

In a study of dozen dieting people, the results also were dramatic.

Before dieting, about 3 percent of the gut bacteria in the obese participants was Bacteroidetes. But after dieting, the now normal-sized people had much higher levels of Bacteroidetes — close to 15 percent, Gordon said.

Balancing the gut flora is key. Things that put the gut out of balance:

• Viri
• Bacterial infections
• Antibiotics
• Stress (inhibits good bacteria)
• Food sensitivities

If an imbalance continues for a long time, nutritional absorption changes. And that, it seems, can make you fat.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

James Rago

Hi, my name is James Rago and I use big words. A lot. It makes me sound smart. Plus, I’m an influencer. Plus, I get paid to be an influencer. Plus, I am way better than bloggers.

I’m really cool. And you’re not.

I’m dumbing this down because I’m smarter than you and I want to you to understand my point which is that you are not smart.

Wait! A better way to illustrate your stupidity is to use big words. Here’s some good ones:

• fatuities
• logorrheic
• solipsistic
• ecumenicalism
• vastation
• instantaneity
• valorizes

Ha! Ha! You don’t even know you’ve been dissed, yo! Sure I could have used the words foolish,
excessive talking (unlike my post which is succinct and cogent), self-centered, universal, devastation, instantaneous, and value, but that would have been so plebeian. Since I, of the storied Patrician class, thinketh elegant thoughts, I must express myself thusly. I wouldn’t expect one such as yourself to understand.

Au revoir, peasants. I must be off to tend to my tres importante editorial duties.

***************************

My favorite sentence in James Rago’s rant:

People also like validation of what they already believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses.

Which is in stark contrast to the Mass Media. What a pompous ass.

Jeff Goldstein says this and I’m still giggling:

Rago: “No, no, no! You don’t dip me into the Beluga like I’m some barbecue-flavored Pringle, you insufferable…thing. Instead, you delicately smoothe the caviar across the white of my belly, then nibble me with gentle relish, allowing the burst of essence and oil to dance along the tongue and the curve of the palate.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Stressed? Hold Hubby’s Hand

Well, that just put my silly little head in a spin. I think I have the vapors. Actually, any happily married woman knows that they feel better when they hold their husband’s hand–especially during times of stress.

My questions for the researchers:

• Is the reverse true? That is, do happily married men experience lower stress responses when their hands are held by their wife? I would guess yes, but that it doesn’t work with anyone else.
• Do women experience the benefits of hand holding when with their best friend? My guess? Yes.
• Do people who perceive that their spouses love them, but actually, their spouses don’t love them, get this response? My guess again, is yes.

Other, related research shows that it’s not just a loving relationship that helps. In fact, men who reported “yes my wife loves me” had better health than those who didn’t report this–even if their wives independently told researchers that they hated their husbands. Perception, in this case is reality.

Mama has “pressing questions” of her own:

Some pressing questions remain. Is MoDo going to have a shrieking fit of hysteria in the NY Times newsroom over the news that holding her husband’s hand when under stress makes a woman better able to cope? Will film of the hysterical fit be released on the internet? Will a feminazi fatwa be issued against the study authors? Will I get all my Christmas baking done?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »