A Daily Dose of Darwinism

I would like, for a brief interlude, to turn my attentions from the external violence in which we so often here immerse ourselves to a more personal, private contemplation of individual import. This is a matter of seemingly little significance which, I believe, may have far reaching consequence for the society of men at large. This is a matter rarely discussed for it's percieved lack of weight, however, a knowledge of a man's choices in this minute regard of his daily life can inform you more of his character than any gross achievement, failure, or undertaking. Like the universe about us, this seemingly small decision has as much, if not greater, an impact as great spectacles of either man or nature.

I refer here, of course, to shaving.

Of course there is no argument as to the percieved pettiness of the subject. Shaving has been for some time little more than a chore, a necessary evil to be undertaken for to fit with the norms of common hygiene in as quick and simple a manner as possible, that we might continue our day with more purposeful activities.

This is the era of rush hour, freeways and carpools; of drive-through eateries, microwaved dinners and skipped breakfasts; of stylists instead of barbers, electric shavers and disposable triple-bladed razors.


Today is a day where ease is key, where while proper presentation is important, moreso that we are able to achieve such quickly in order to sooner return to work. In a day where it often becomes necessary to be working on your cell phone in traffic on the way to the office, who has time to perform a proper shave - especially when that activity, too, is performed in the car? What possible benefits could such an activity bestow upon a person, much less our high-speed, high-intensity society?

One of the answers is obvious: proper grooming has been a hallmark of desirability in all social fields for centuries. Even bearded men have, with little exception, been expected to keep their facial hair tamed and at a predetermined length. Even at the end of the 19th century, when long - and to our modern sensibilities, unruly - beards were fashionable (see Presidents Ruthorford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield, for instance), there were styling demands upon them that dictated length and shape. All of these dictates demand shaving.


What adherence to certain methods and modes of grooming can indicate, therefore, is a person's mentality, their philosophy or religion, their social status, and even their breeding and etiquette. Whether, what and when a man shaves bespeaks volumes of his character, and rightly so: it is as part of our social presentation that we undergo such grooming. But what of the how of his shave? How can something private, as the act of shaving so often is, create a meaningful effect in and upon society? If the goal is to create a certain appearance, what matter is it the manner in which the effect is achieved?

Herein I propone the practice of straight-razor shaving, a practice which has garnered an interesting reputation in the years since safety and ease overcame what was once a fine and delicate skill common to all groomed men. This reputation - namely, of the use of straight razors as a dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming method delivering the finest shave developed by man - serves both to portray the skill as an archaic and obsolete relic of simpler times as well as to elevate it as a sign of class and luxury that place it, in the communal mind of the common man, well above his reach and station.


That high things - difficult, dangerous, things, things of luxury and class, all such manner of noble things - should be seen as out of reach and above station is, more than any other thing, indicative of the malaise and rot that plagues our so-called modern society. It seems impossible to strive for greatness as a culture when we are not willing to put forth the effort needed to enjoy the best in our daily, personal lives.

There is no doubt that a straight razor is a dangerous implement. Five inches of blade, honed to a nearly microscopic edge, backed by nearly an inch of sturdy steel is perfectly capable of inflicting severe wounds - and when one willingly places this device upon their neck, it is well within the realm of possibility that these wounds could be lethal. Add upon the difficulty of mastering the blade the plethora of other skills necessary to the enjoyment of proper hygiene - honing and stropping the implement yourself, learning to lather and apply real shaving soap, a small understanding of dermatology necessary for to understand the hair and skin you treat - and we have an intimidating amount of knowledge to learn at the risk of almost certain discomfort and possible injury or death.

I argue that these are all good and desirable things.

To begin, I will address the immediate danger of the blade. Of itself, it is harmless. It is safely enclosed in its handle, it neither opens nor moves itself about. The realization of this is a thing which grants a man new insight into his own life, the realization that all tools, all weapons, all skills are merely objects or ideas, that they are worthless and meaningless without his action upon them. To take that razor in his hand and place it upon his neck, he places himself only in as much danger as he allows. Skill dictates whether he can move the blade in the correct way, at the correct angle. In the beginning, we are certain of the occassional nick or cut, which grants the short-term rewards of increasing comfort with increasing skill - nevermind that a stoic (and most important in this regard, unflinching) tolerance of discomfort is a valuable ability and a global signal of masculinity. Skill must be achieved by practice, by dedication to mastery, and what better motivation than the knowledge that a lack of skill in such a case could bring results as disastrous as an untrained driver or marksman?


But, some would say, why must this exercise of mastery over a dangerous implement and a dangerous environment be practiced with a blade upon our flesh? Are there not numerous other dangers to which we may expose ourselves daily, if the goal is to build character through adversity? What of driving and shooting, which you mention?

The reason for shaving as the ideal method is derived from it's privacy. This privacy, first and foremost, prevents the ungentlemanly endangerment of others. In any driving situation the risk of killing another due to a lack of aptitude is at least equal to the risk of killing yourself. In firearms, the risk of endangering another is almost invariably greater, as it takes a remarkable stupidity to unintentionally harm the self by way of a properly functioning bullet and piece, and even when shooting alone in a secluded area, bullets are capable of travelling extreme distances to fall upon more populated locales. Further, expertise in these fields is readily exhibited to society, and there are external influences to motivate the practice and proficiency of them. It can be said that driving or shooting in a responsible, skillful manner is often not motivated by a personal desire for excellence, but rather due to fear of appearing incompetent.

Shaving, on the other hand, takes place within the privacy of the home, within the bedroom or bath, and often without observation by even intimate cohabitants. It grants several minutes of quiet excercise and disciplined activity which is undertaken for no reason other than a personal desire to not only be socially presentable, true, but to do so in the most exacting manner - as it is shown that a straight razor, properly wielded, offers the closest and least irritating shave available. It is also worth noting that the few minutes of meditative activity afforded by the privacy and discipline of a proper shave help to calm and clear the mind, invigorating and honing it for excellence in the day's myriad endeavors.

In a way, the proper shave takes a place akin to meditation or prayer within a day. I do not mean public spectacles masquerading as meditation or prayer, of course, but that intimate piece of calm and reflection that so often accompanies ritual contemplation. In fact, it has many elements in common with such rituals - the shaver first bathes, either in whole or facially, then stands before the basin as an altar arrayed with his blade, his soap, his brush, his strop, and his water. The precise, repetitive act of stropping, the preparation of the brush and soap, careful creation and application of a fine lather, not to mention the practiced movements of the razor itself all have a refreshing, comfortable, yet vivid and intense effect on a person's mind. At the completion of a shave, after the final washing of the face and perhaps even the anointing with colognes we often find ourselves new men, baptised by steel into the mastery of our own small universes.


Then again, many of these contemplations are purely speculative, placed forward by myself as an admitted amateur psychologist and sociologist. To this end, I proffer a more physical, biological, mathematical advantage made by the straight razor upon the institution of our greater society. While my aforementioned conclusions are speculative, the danger posed by a razor in untrained hands is absolute and undeniable. What, then, would the consequence be if all of man woke to his toilet on the morrow to find that all of his modern, electrical or disposable facility were replaced by the blade and brush? Suppose further that to remain completely unshorn were not an option. Surely there would be those who, in their haste and arrogance, and failing to appreciate the nature of their activity, would perish before their basins by their own hands. Silly idealistic notions about the value of human life must be departed with here: what use is a man who cannot master a blade? What use is a man who imagines his endeavors so lofty as not to trouble himself with the very substance of his life and being? While we may mourn the loss of acquantances, those survivors would doubtless be of the magnitude of man who understands and appreciates his abilities, his tools, and his place in and effect upon the world. Doubtless that, even should such qualities not breed true, they would be bestowed upon the following generations as an acknowledged part of the proper rearing of boys into men. True, such a time already once was.


There was a time, and it ended not too long ago, when all shorn men had achieved mastery of these skills. In this time, every man started his day faced with danger, every man looked at the prospect of death in his own reflection and stoicly, skillfully defeated it for no reason other than to take pride in his own appearance. Men with great names marked the tail end of this era, men who were known for gallantry, dignity and valor: men like Ernest Hemingway, Theodore Roosevelt, and Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron. While there were doubtless many factors that went into the production of such greatness, there is a stoutness of character that is granted by a daily brush with death. It is often said that the best meals are those taken after enduring a life-threatening situation. To survive by an act of will is a dose of Darwinism that brings out the best in a man - he knows that it is his skill and mastery of his body, the tools in his hands, and world about him that permits his existence. It imbues him with the confidence to face down adversity and the quiet contemplation to view the world in a more romantic light and with more passionate vigor. It is his daily proof that a thing worth doing, is worth doing well.

A Fine Place Worth the Fighting For

A couple of months ago I had a rather violent series of episodes in close succession. None of these crossed the threshhold to actual physical confrontations, but each of them walked right up to the line and stood there, daring someone to tempt it over the edge.

It began at a screening of Transformers. We found ourselves sitting in front of a guy and his date who were talking in an extremely irritating manner. I turned around in my seat and confronted him. "Are we going to have to listen to you idiots through the entire movie?". His response was surprisingly intense. He became irate, expressing to me a sentiment akin to "How DARE you challenge my behavior!" As I negotiated my way through his temper I became aware of my tactical disadvantage, in that should I disengage the back of my head would be turned to him, and I had been given the impression that he could not be trusted. His date began to get whiny, begging me to stop, begging him to stop, in a manner that suggested abuse. I simply held position and stared, unbeknownst to him for my own defense, and as he got continually more agitated I only replied to his accusations and threats in as non-escalating of a manner as I could manage. Finally, instead of taking a swing at me, he stormed out of the theatre.

A few weeks later I walked into a gun store to purchase a rifle. At the counter, filling out papers for what I would later learn was a shotgun, was a man about 45 years old loudly complaining about the questions being asked on the DROS Form. As I attracted the dealer's attention to begin filling out the form myself, I heard a series of comments issuing from him that not only bothered me, but were causing visible discomfort in some of the other customers:

" 'Have you ever renounced your American citizenship' Hell I renounce it every goddamn day! This damn country is going straight to hell"
"Dammit if I was a Mexican I wouldn't have to go through all of this"
"Fucking government just hands guns over to spics and niggers while I gotta go through a waiting period"

And so forth. As the clerk went over his form, he informed this bigot that there were a couple of errors that needed correction, to which he replied "Why can't they figure that out themselves? Goddam liberal faggot state." I had been quietly biting my tongue to that point, but at this last comment he had finally managed to express every form of bigotry available. I turned from my paperwork and simply stated

"You need to shut up."

And returned to my paperwork. The clerk looked relieved. The man muttered something about as intelligent as "I say what I want" but didn't say any more. The clerk eventually found grounds to refuse the sale, and everybody won. Except for the asshole, which is fairly important to the point I will be making later.

The last incident was only a week later. I was at the Pickathon Music Festival in Oregon with my girlfriend. On the second night of the festival, we were kept from sleep until 4 in the morning by various assorted drunks singing songs, shouting, playing music, and other drunken revelries. Most of these people quieted down when we approached them with certain vital information - namely, that it was extremely late, they were in a public space, and many people had small children - save, of course, for one special person named Ronnie.

After figuring that the desires of the sleepy were being respected, my girlfriend and I had nearly drifted off into unconsciousness when we were jarred by the clumsy crashing through the woods of a boistrous drunk who loudly informed his travelling partner at one point that he had lost his sandal. My girlfriend sat up in the tent and shouted out to the forest "It's four in the god-damned morning!", tired of handling the issue diplomatically. The drunk in the forest yelled back "Fuck you, bitch!" and I had to get involved. Hoping a threat would suffice, I yelled "Do I have to come out there and kick your ass?", I recieved the reply "You'd have to find me first!"

At this point I was in no mood to let anything slide. I pulled on some pants, tossed a knife in my pocket, grabbed a high-powered flashlight and set out on the trail, following the giggling and crunching noises of our disrespectful neighbor. It was less than a minute before I spotted him, and upon that event, I spotlighted his face and ran up to his position with such alacrity that he fell over. I spent the next five minutes berating him and returned to my tent. We didn't get any more trouble.

These encounters all have a few things in common:
1. I was the aggressor
2. I was provoked by some remarkable examples of poor social judgement and a marked lack of concern for those in the vicinity - in a word, rudeness
3. None of them degraded to physical violence, even though the threat of it was omnipresent
4. There was an immediate improvement in the demeanor of the subject or the tension in the situation.

I am not one of those alarmists who will say that the death of our culture is imminent, that the Day of Judgement is at hand because "kids these days have no respect", but I will put rudeness forward as a social problem of no small concern. My ideas as to its source, or the cause of its apparent increase, or even whether or not it is increasing, are fodder for other posts. The point of this post is to advocate an active approach to, ah, hm, shall we call it attitude correction?

What seems to me the most telling of the constants is the immediate improvement. Obviously, it wasn't all handshakes and "Good day to you, Sirs", but in all cases the subjects did not fail to immediately cease their offensive activity. It may have been accompanied by brooding, mumbled threats, and glowering, but there was no escalation or later revenge. The body language, coupled with this immediate reaction, expresses to me a knowledge that these people knew, on some level, that what they were doing was not appropriate. This further means that there was, at some level, an intention to be offensive.

To skip several premises and get to the conclusion, these people were out to see what they could get away with.

This leads us directly to the root of the problem. It is not necessarily that there are people who willfully and belligerently approach the bounds of what is socially acceptable. In some ways, some contexts, to some degrees, this serves many valuable functions. It forces the rest of us to keep a little perspective on the world around us - a polite way of saying it stops us from being too damn thin-skinned - and it is the essence of social expansion, exploration, and experimentation. But there are times when the object is clearly not growth oriented, but malicious and destructive.

It is in these cases that so often the rest of us find ourselves looking uncomfortably around at eachother, grimacing and shrugging that "Someone" should take care of that. The root problem to which I alluded is that increasingly few people are willing to take up the cause of enforcing good manners. It is obvious why: What could be more rude than calling out a complete stranger on their behavior, in public? This violates several taboos. It is invasive, it causes them to lose face, it creates a scene, and it risks violence. Breaking taboos often increases the discomfort for those around you before it alleviates it.

For these reasons, people are afraid to pursue their own comfort. And for these reasons, people without empathy, restraint, or class are welcome to take control of everyone's quality of life. I'd bet good money that these are generally the same people who draw penises in bathroom stalls, like the Raiders, don't let people change lanes in front of them on the freeway, and think unlicensed Calvin window stickers are clever. But for now that's just a theory.

If I will be bound to stating outright what my point is, it is this: Sometimes you gotta bitch-slap a motherfucker. It does absolutely no good to passively accept discomfort, only to complain about it later in hushed tones. There are three solutions to all problems, and in those instances where they cannot be ignored or avoided, ask yourself, "Should someone do something about this?" and remember that someone includes you. It's everyone's public - that means that it's not just you in it, as well. If we all contribute to maintaining the standards of a polite society, it's concievable that we might actually have one.

Until then, I leave you with (and we abondon eachother to) this:

Subjectivism, Judgement, and You

In a discussion the other night revolving around an unsavory character of mutual acquaintance, a couple of my fellow conversants attempted to make an argument on the characters behalf rooted in subjectivism. Namely, that it is impossible to ethically, accurately, and surely pass judgement on anyone because "you don't know everything about everyone, so how can you judge? Everyone's different." I can not think of a more ridiculous conclusion. Surely the premises that we do not know "everything" about any individual, and that each individual is different, will stand to reason. But the conclusion rests on some rather more dubious unstated premises: namely that a judgement must be ideal, that it is unjust to make an assumption on imperfect information, and that because there are exceptions (to borrow from a colloquial expression on the nature of absolutism), we must disregard the rule. It is these premises which are faulty.

It is in our best interest to make judgement of people on the available information. While it should not be necessary, I will state that we do not live in a perfect world, and there is no perfect information, and even if there were, it is not available to anyone. Therefore, we must make these judgments on incomplete information, even to make assumptions on little more than gut feelings. In the least extreme cases, it saves time by employing what are called heuristics. In the most, these assumptions can save your life. We do it every day in situations that are less likely to raise a hyper-sensitive eyebrow - on the freeway, as you watch someone come speeding up, weaving through traffic, it is reasonable to assume that this person will not think twice to cut you off. Or with even less warning: A car that seems to sidle over to the edge of the lane, no blinker on - any astute driver can read another's "body language" and predict a person who will change lanes without signalling. Some can even determine the second that the decision is made. Martial artists are trained to recognize these shifts in people, to know when the decision to strike has been made and how it will be thrown. They are not reacting to the movement of a fist - they already know the fist is coming.

But what do we base these decisions on? The information is hardly perfect. It comes from experience, observations which inform rules of thumb that guide us. We do not cater to the exception UNLESS caution demands it - where there is a small, but significant, probability of danger that must be acknowledged. And even that exception is a rule of thumb employed to make decisions based on the most of imperfect information. We do not know, with ANY certainty, that the spiky-haired teen in the lifted pickup truck speeding through traffic will ride your bumper, shine his brights in your mirror, pass you on the right and cut you off - but we assume he will, not just because you just watched him do it to 50 other people, but because you've seen it before.

We don't know everything, we don't know him, he is a different person from every other, and maybe, just maybe, he will suddenly have a moment of clarity and start driving responsibly. None of us, however will stake our lives, or our cars, on such a happenstance, though, will we?

Let us examine another example. You are alone and unarmed in a less-reputable area of a big city at night when this person steps into your path and asks if you can spare a cigarette or a light, or some change, or help him with something:

No need to tell me what you'd do. I know you wouldn't. Nobody with any sense would take a risk like that, because it IS a risk, one with horrifying ramifications. We don't know anything about this person, save that they claim to be in need of something. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that they honestly want a cigarette, or that sofa really isn't going to move itself. But it is easier to maintain your safety, and so extend your life, by understanding that such actions will distract your attention, move your hands away and occupy them, and otherwise make you weaker and easier to victimize.

There is a growing idea in this country that such judgements constitute an unjust "prejudice" and should be avoided. We should look for, expect, and assume, the best in people. The advocates of this idea lay guilt upon those who act on their own instincts, instincts which exist for a reason, instincts that have been carefully honed over the millenia to alert us to danger. There are near universal reactions to certain crimes - cold-blooded murder, crimes against children, sexual predation - that are similar in that they make complete sense when viewed in an evolutionary light. There is nothing more deplorable to us than that which threatens our lives, and the future of our pack and species. Why would it make any sense to act counter to these instincts?

So at this juncture we can return to our unsavory associate. This is a person who was convicted some years ago of a heinous crime, but recieved remarkable leniency on a plea bargain and has not, so far as we know, re-offended. However, the disposition of the crime is such that it is inherent in his nature - there is no amount of punishment, repentance, rehabilitation, or treatment that will purge the will to commit the crime - it can only be deterred. While available information indicates that he has not re-offended, it is extreme foolishness to act on the assumption that he is no longer dangerous. While it is entirely possible that he has gained the discipline and remorse necessary to avoid indulgence, or even achieved a miraculous cure, there is absolutely nothing to gain by taking that risk, and an immeasurable harm if mercy and compassion should prove unwarranted, and at some level we all understand and implement this measure of self-preservation. Trust must be earned, mercy must be deserved, and altruism must be undertaken with careful calculation, lest we let ourselves be destroyed in an attempt to appease a monster.

On Pedophilia and Redemption

There are some types of evil in this world for which there is no redemption.

What I mean by this is the following: Some crimes, some misfortunes, some evils, are not inherent. A person can commit a crime without forethought, perhaps in the heat of passion, that is not inherent in the persons nature. A bar fight, a mugging, even most murders, can happen without forethought, even without malice. For these crimes, a person will serve their punishment and be truly remorseful.

Some crimes are not as justifiable.

There is, on occasion, a crime committed because such malevolence is inherent in a persons character. Sometimes, a person is simply morally wrong. Permanently.

Take for example, the crime of murder. We will take as granted at this time, that murder, defined as the unjustified taking of a life, is wrong. It is fairly common that a person commits a murder in the heat of the moment. There are many inspirations to such an act - witnessing your partner in the act of adultery is common, being cut off on the freeway another - but oftentimes it happens that a person is driven to an irrational rage that culminates in their taking of a life. It also often happens that this person soon regrets their actions, that they are so burdened with guilt that we can safely expect that they will check their behavior and that they will never commit such an act again.

There are those for whom such expectations, such leniency, is unmerited.

If we were to continue with our example of murder with an act outside of a crime of passsion, if we were to consider a compulsive killer, then we would have a different case. I am referring, specifically, to serial killers. These are individuals who have no control over their actions at any point in time. These are individuals who we can expect to commit murder over and over and over again, until the situation becomes such that they can murder no more. Would such a person ever truly repent? Even if they did, would such a person be trustworthy in society? COULD you trust such a person to never murder again after having "served their time"?

There is a similar case when we consider the sexual criminal. Surely, there are sex crimes of passion, wherein a person rapes in the heat of the moment, but much more common is the habitual offender, the serial rapist, or more commonly (as an inquiry to your local Megan's Law webpage will show), the child molester.

Pedophilia is not treatable. The assumption that one can be cured of pedophilia is exactly as ludicrous as the idea that one can be cured of homosexuality or of their race. It is inherent in that persons nature to be sexually attracted to children, as it is for the homosexual to be attracted to those of their own sex or for the masochist to derive pleasure from pain. It is the very definition of the condition. There is no "cure".

Where pedophilia differs from, say, homosexuality, is in the nature of the relationship. Sexual relationships, no matter how enlightened we attempt to be in our approaches thereto, always have an aspect of territorialism to them. A pedophile cannot help but be sexually attracted to those who have, by definition, no concept of the ramifications of a sexual relationship. They are not even remotely intellectually capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship. Therefore, there is no possible way in which a pedophile could engage in their preffered relationship without victimization. The child does not understand what is happening, and cannot say yes or no. Most often the child is AFRAID to say no.

This is why pedophilia is wrong. Where a sadist can engage in a relationship with a masochist, or homosexuals or heterosexuals can find their gender of choice, a pedophile has no option but to convince a person incapable of making such decisions to engage in a sexual relationship.

I will digress, at this point, to discuss the ancient Greeks, who will no doubt constitute a great portion of the debate.

It was considered ordinary for a boy and an older man to engage in a sexual relationship in that culture. What many people fail to recognize is that the ramifications of the relationship were made clear to the boy, and to the man, before it even began - before either was even prepared to initiate the relationship. It is further worth noting that the sexual relationship was secondary to the true purpose at hand. The older man was to serve as a mentor to the boy, to teach him the meaning of what it was to be a citizen and an adult. I will not pass judgement on the psychological health of such an institution. I do not believe it was entirely healthy as an institution, but a society develops ways in which to perpetuate itself, and such was the method of the Greeks. The relevant points are as follows: The relationship was primarily that of Teacher and Student; AND the ramifications and expectations of such a relationship were made clear to both parties well ahead of time. Further, there is little to be said of pederasty as an ORIENTATION in ancient Greece as opposed to it being an INSTITUTION.

This is NOT the case in the modern era.

The modern pederast is a predator. We take care in our modern society to educate our youth through different means. We create safe avenues for exploration. We do not place the stress of sexual relationships on our children. They are dangerous things. You would not teach a child to operate a firearm before you were certain of their maturity - as such do we appreciate the psychogical implications of sex.

A pedophile breaks these rules. A pedophile subjugates children to whims that they do not understand. A pedophile uses their superior knowledge of society to pressure children. A pedophile IS a predator, just as much as a serial killer is, above all else, a chronic taker of life.

We have created avenues in our society in which to discourage these acts, but it is my opinion they are not harsh enough. There are tendencies which surface occasionally in the human psyche which are undesirable, even detrimental, to the continuation of our species and culture. Had I my druthers, such persons would be executed publicly, without opportunity of appeal.

The American justice system, at least, is more lenient than I.

However, the American justice system and I agree on one point. There are certain types of danger which never fade, for which there is no repentance, redemption, or rehabilitation. The system would not, in theory, release Jeffrey Dahmer without informing those nearby that a person with such proclivities was nearby. Such is the justification for Megan's Law, which makes available to the public the image, address, and crime of those who have committed acts of sexual predation. These are individuals who are dangerous, and it behooves those aware of them to warn those at risk.

That such individuals are given the opportunity to squelch their abominable appetites and to reintegrate with society, I suppose, is the mark of a liberal and forward thinking society. That they are given leave to pursue ambition, free reign of their environments, to exercise their perverse desire for power ...such trust is beyond me. To trust such, knowing their nature is to victimize, galls me. The system says one is innocent until proven guilty, and these people have been proven guilty of such massive defects that any sort of freedom, even that of life, seems a mercy most undeserved.

Responsibility and Restraint - The Good Way

In the news recently, Obama's health care nightmare has cleared a major hurdle by gaining a Republican supporter. With this collapse into the whims and fancy of that ludicrousness called "bipartisanism" we face what empiricism and experience tell us is a juggernaut: this bill, having broke loose of the bonds of petty squabbling, will snowball it's way down a mountain of bureaucracy, tossing aside obstacles with increasing ease as it accumulates its porky momentum. Then it will meander up the White House lawn to the waiting rubber stamp of the so-called President, and the keening, squawking, unwashed masses will finally have their white elephant - a morbid karmic reward for kissing a black ass.

On the upside of things, California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made a good show of being an executive yesterday by taking a red pen to 229 bills that the over-zealous California legislature felt necessary to print up, pile up, and ship over to his desk, no doubt expensed to their already critically over-burdened budget. Through the excercise of a little reason and business sense he was undoubtedly able to prevent the expenditure of further billions of dollars, taken in loan with the future incomes of the next generation as collateral, and keep the fools on their capitol hill doing little more harm than wasting printer paper and toner.

Exercising excessive executive exuberance, Governor Schwarzenegger was alert and sensible enough to further sign into law two extremely important measures, which are the true purpose to today's entry. But before I discuss them, I would like to mention that this is the proof of his attention to the duties of his office. Unlike some officials, who are prone to veto or approve everything that comes across their desks, California's Governor took time to review and consider almost 250 bills, no small feat in and of itself, and accomplished several acceptable goals:

1 - He prevented, as mentioned, a great deal of inevitable government spending in a state that sorely needs to show some financial restraint and responsibility

2 - He demonstrated understanding that the role of the executive in our structure of government is to understand and pass Final Judgement on a law, not to serve as a proofreader and stamp

3 - He stood up for Freedom in the face of a noisy and powerful interest group.

Among the bills signed were a provision to recognize same-sex marriages from outside of the State, even though such marriages are not legal to be performed within the State; and the creation of Harvey Milk Appreciation Day, which further recommends that educators take time to educate students about Harvey Milk's, and by proxy, the entire Gay Rights Movement's, life and struggle.

Governor Schwarzenegger has previously expressed his favor for Gay Rights and his objections to the passage of 2008's Proposition 8, which amended that State's constitution to recognize only heterosexual marriages. However, due to the American system of checks and balances, and the cowardice of certain judges and executives, this abominable measure was foolishly left to the mob-rule of a majority vote, and, as the mob is the manifestation of the Lowest Common Denominator, the mob chose to ostracize, dehumanize, and disenfranchise a section of our population for no good reason at all. But I digress. Here, finally, we have before us an example of an executive recognizing an opportunity to weaken the hold of the mob on the freedoms of others and he, in a manner unbefitting a politician of late, took it; and with a simple stroke of a pen simultaneously bit his thumb at some of this countries most powerful, most vocal, and most wealthy enemies of freedom.

So let us compare and contrast for a moment. In California yesterday we witnessed a rare example of the responsible wielding of power. Freedoms were preserved, monies were saved (and therefore, as Benjamin Franklin once observed, earned), and integrity of character was shown. In Washington D.C., we are as always privy to a neverending series of errors that would be comedic if it were anywhere but real life, but are now engaged to a special treat, wherein over (what will likely only be) the next several months we will be permitted to witness a stupendous display of corruption, inanity and insanity; an orgy to suckle the pig-teat of money and power that will culminate in the most corpulent boondoggle imaginable: Universal Healthcare.

And here we reach the final nail in this soapbox. Our national leaders are still the filthy, consumptive, gonorrheaic whores that they have ever been, but locally we have seen the freshness of true Statesmanship, not just in Schwarzenegger, but in others too, that embodies the change we need, if not the Change "we" want.

And if we decide we don't like it, well hey, with a little irresponsibility we can have gonorrhea again.

Resolution Regarding North Korean Hostility

WHEREAS the United States has attempted diplomatic solutions to North Koreas' many grievous sleights to the United States and its allies;

WHEREAS the United States has patiently suffered international hostility for many years;

NAMELY the taking hostage of Diplomats in Iran, an act of war; the bombings of embassies and miltary bases abroad in Somalia, Beirut and others; multiple acts by foreign state sponsored terrorists against United States soldiers and civilians both on United States soil and abroad;

WHEREAS the fact that many of these offences have gone unpunished;

WHEREAS United States has suffered both politically and militarily from its failure to incur retribution;

WHEREAS THEREFORE it is in the best interest of the United States to take a firm and unforgiving postion of proactive defence;

WHEREAS North Korea is guilty of innumerable human rights violations;

NAMELY, the complete restriction of free speech, religion, press, and also of movement; forced prostitution; the existence and practice of a eugenics program; denial of food and other necessities to its citizens; and the implementation of concentration camps for political enemies, the mentally and physically disabled, and foreigners;

WHERIN ALONE even further abuses occur, not the least of which include forced abortions, beatings, torture, public humiliation, and public execution;

WHEREAS these transgressions are among the worst in the world committed by a government against its people;

WHEREAS a ceasefire does not designate the end of hostilities;

WHEREAS we are therefore still legally engaged in hostilities with North Korea;

WHEREAS we are allied with South Korea against North Korea;

WHEREAS regardless of any declaration or absence thereof on behalf of South Korea and the remainder of the Western world, North Korea has described relations as a state of war;

WHEREAS North Korea engages in hostile diplomatic posturing;

NAMELY declaring its sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula, threatening to preemptively reduce South Korea to "debris" and a "sea of fire", refusal to engage in nuclear disarmament,

WHEREAS FURTHER North Korea has repeatedly engaged in hostile actions;

NAMELY the placing of artillery along the DMZ in order to make good on their aforementioned threats of preemptive strikes; the repeated testing of short-range missiles capable of striking as far as Japan; their repeated development and testing of nuclear materials and weapons; hostile naval border disputes; and repeated attempts to assassinate South Korean officials;

WHEREAS repeated attempts by the international community to censure and sanction North Korea have failed to produce any desireable results;

WHEREAS Pyongyang announced to its country that "It is a laughable delusion for the United States to think that it can get us to kneel with sanctions";

WHEREAS FURTHER Pyongyang has threatened that"armed forces will deal an annihilating blow that is unpredictable and unavoidable, to any 'sanctions' or provocations by the US" and a "fire shower of nuclear retaliation";

WHEREAS a conventional military action against North Korea would be extremely costly, as South Korea itself would be severely damaged, as well as the armies of both South Korea and the United States and all other allies who desire to rid the world of the North Korean pestilence;

WHEREAS combat operations are made more difficult when dealing with fanatical populations spurred on by a cult of personality;

WHEREAS the Laws of War further complicate operations in such situations and will contribute further to the death tolls of the forces liberating the Korean peninsula;

WHEREAS the North Korean citizenry have largely had their free will subjugated to a fanatical cult of personality;

WHEREAS the North Korean Army will draft any and all able bodied persons in defence of Kim Jong Il;

WHEREAS empirical experience shows the preservation of life to be impossible when dealing with these fanatics;

WHEREAS these fanatics often engage in suicidal defence of their oppressors at great cost on both sides of the engagement;

WHEREAS the persons enslaved in North Koreas concentration camps will be put to death at the first sign of an attempt to free them;

WHEREAS it is therefore reasonable to assume that, in order to neutralize the North Korean threat, the majority of its population will be annihilated;

LET IT BE RESOLVED that as North Korea constitutes a hostile, unreasonable and belligerent nation; that North Korea is a threat to all free countries in Eastern Asia and seeks to threaten the entire Free World;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States will temporarily cease combat operations abroad in order to bring the entirety of its air power to bear on North Korea. The United States will strike without warning and will commence saturation carpet bombing of every inch of North Korea's 46,528 square miles, without respect or regard to the targeted area, whether it be military, civilian, or undeveloped;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that this operation will attempt to maximize the demoralizing effect of aerial bombardments by approaching from as many sides of the nation as possible so as to prevent retaliation or escape, by using all variety of armament excluding nuclear weapons, by repeating strikes so as to ensure complete destruction of North Korean infrastructure and military material, and by broadcasting Richard Wagners' "Flight of the Valkyries" and Jimi Hendrix's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" on all frequencies and from loudspeakers on our bombers and at the DMZ;

LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that these actions should be construed to impart to other entities currently engaged in hostilities with the United States the generosity and good-will of the United States when our military actions do not involve complete destruction, but rather a precise, surgical invasion seeking to minimize civilian death and loss of infrastructure.

שלום דרך עוצמת אש טובה ביותר

It has been in the news a fair bit lately, people protesting Israel, people saying that neither the US nor anyone else should be backing Israel, that maybe we should be backing Palestine instead. Or, perhaps, we should back neither. We should go in and "enforce peace" or let Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Syria and Egypt duke it out and then we talk to the winner.

These people suck. I do not get a lot of modern entertainment these days. I do not watch TV, I do not go to the theatre, and I do not listen to the radio. What I do is I watch Israel. Israel rocks. Forget for a moment whether or not Israel SHOULD exist. That is ancient history, it does not matter any more. The fact is, these people are here now. And they have every right to live there now. They were born there. They have families there. They might just grow old and die there. That is what makes them our protagonists.



Our protagonists are surrounded on all sides by evil neighbors. Malicious, theocratic, self-entitled, whining Muslim nations who are so pissed over losing 8,000 square miles and one holy city that they have sworn their treasuries, their policies, and the welfare and lives of their citizens to getting it back or destroying it in the process.



But Israel is not our ordinary peace-loving nation. The Israeli people understand that they are in a fight for their lives and they will NOT be robbed of them. They do not fight weak wars. They do not occupy and set up provisional governments. They do not do the Cold War Berlin thing. They kick ass in ways so painful that their neighbors will not even look at them cross-eyed. Oh, sure, they talk the bad shit to eachother or to the rest of the world, but soon as Israel walks into the room they sit up a little straighter and start saying "Sir". Why?



Israel is a nation composed ENTIRELY of badass. Israel is a country whose military's mission statement, as it's first item, says "Israel cannot afford to lose a single war".

In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq decided they were going to have a little gang-bang. Israel got wind of this, and literally DESTROYED the main opposing air force in the early hours of the morning. By the end of the first day, they had TOTAL air superiority. 5 days later, they controlled the ENTIRE Sinai peninsula and were well on the path to Cairo before everyone said "Uncle". They call this the Six Day War.



6 years later, almost the same group of belligerents (whose name for the "6 Day War" is "The Setback", just to give an idea of their learning curve) decided to make a sneak attack on one of Judaism's holiest days, Yom Kippur. Things went well, at first. Then the Israeli Defense Forces finished lacing up their ass-kickin' boots and made for a total reversal. They regained all of the territory that had been invaded and even EXTENDED it by the time the war ended.



This is a government that is so dead-set on peace with their neighbors that in spite of controlling Jerusalem, one of the holiest, most ancient cities on the planet, and controlling the site of some of the holiest ground in THREE religions, the Temple Mount, that they have turned over administration of the Temple Mount to a group so intolerant of other beliefs that nobody not of this belief is permitted to worship there. Muslims ONLY, and everyone else, in their minds, should be grateful to be granted visitation. The good graces of the Israeli people made a gift of this holy place, and they are trying to hurt not just the Israelis, but EVERYONE with that gift. The goodwill of teh Israeli government even helps to enforce this petty ban. It is not even the holiest site in Islam, like it is for the Jews and Christians. That honor is reserved for Mecca, a city that forbids entry to non-Muslims. Are we sensing a pattern here? Israel is right to fear for its safety. Israel has shown remarkable maturity and restraint in its diplomacy. And as far as I am concerned, Israel is right to strike at their foes, preemptively or no, and I will side with them by default.



This is a country composed of people who can work a 9-5, Monday through Friday workweek, punch out Friday night, go to a party, get drunk, and decide to invade Palestine over the weekend. So they do. They march over the countryside, do some off-roading with their tanks, and are back in time to shower and be back in the office Monday. And I LOVE to watch them do it. It gives me a warm fuzzy. It is my favorite thing in the news, on television, or to hear on the radio.

And these people want to cancel my favorite show.

Now do not get me wrong. I would never reduce the valiant struggle of the Israeli people to little more than a TV show. What I find, however, is that I get as excited about the news of Israel kicking ass as some people get about their football team winning the Superbowl - when the IDF lays the smackdown on Palestine, gives Iran the finger, laughs at Syria's pathetic chest thumping, or when they effortlessly defuse another attempt by Muslim fanatics to start a war over the Temple Mount, part of my rejoices like a stadium full of Argentinians whose team just won the World Cup. Because what we get with Israel is a fight that matters, a fight for the right to live and exist, a fight against some of the most pervasive religious intolerance in the world, a fight against some of the most belligerent, violent, stubborn governments on the planet. Were I Jewish, I would join that fight without a second thought. Outside of that, I have little choice but to cheer these people who understand, above all else, that if you want peace you must prepare for war.

A people who truly understand that Peace is won through Superior Firepower.

How Many Dead Baby Jokes Does It Take ...

How many babies does it take to paint a house?
One, if you throw it hard enough.

What do you call a baby that's been through the dishwasher 35 times?
Probably dead.

What do you get when you put a baby in a blender?
I'll tell you in a second

Why do you put a baby into a blender feet first?
To see its expression.

How do you get a dead baby out of a blender?
Nachos.

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs on your porch?
Matt.

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs in your pool?
Bob

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs in a ditch?
Phil

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs on the beach?
Sandy

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs on your wall?
Art.
Do you have any "Art" for sale?
Depends, do you need a babysitter?

What do you call a dead baby with no arms and no legs in the middle of the ocean?
Fucked.

Why did the baby fall off of the swing?
It didn't have any arms or legs.

What's the difference between a truckload of dead babies and a truckload of bowling balls?
One you can unload with a pitchfork.

Why do you unload a truckload of babies with a pitchfork?
So you can tell which ones were still alive.

What's funnier than a dead baby?
A dead baby in a clown suit.

What's better than a dead baby?
Revoked child support.

What's more fun than stapling babies to a wall?
Ripping them off again.

What's the difference between a Cadillac and a pile of dead babies?
I don't have a Cadillac in my garage.

What's the worst part of a pile of dead babies?
The live one at the bottom trying to eat its way out.

What's red and crawls up your leg?
A homesick abortion

What does a blind, deaf, and quadriplegic baby get for Christmas?
Cancer

How do you make a dead baby float?
Two scoops ice cream, one scoop dead baby.

What's worse than ten dead babies in a trashcan?
One dead baby in ten trashcans.

What's the difference between an apple and a dead baby?
I won't eat an apple with cum on it.

On The Proper Conduct of War

From Shakespeare's Henry V, Act III, Scene IIIKing Henry V has lain siege to Harfleur and is preparing to take the city. He offers the Governor one chance a leniency before he commences the attack

"How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?"