Please state the nature and status of your pants. Also, do something amusing. Entertain me.

I was listening to 'Boombox' on Sirius, when some dopey synthpop thing came on. Catchy, I guess, pretty bubblegum sounding. Hey wait a minute. Is that Kathleen Hanna?

Got home, quick search. Yeah, 'Le Tigre' is her new band. It's mostly lo-fi synthpop, reasonably catchy, and of course it's all political and stuff ("womynism" and all that).

But I watched the video for the single, and ... holy crap. Looks like ol' Kathleen has decided to reinvent herself, and she's ... pretty hot. Damn.

I guess you had to live through the riot grrl 'movement' to get how Kathleen looking superfine is ... odd. (For those playing at home, Kathleen Hanna is who Courtney Love spent the majority of her career pretending to be; it was Kathleen who said to Kurt Cobain, "You smell like Teen Spirit", or so the story goes)

I'm feeling extremely "emo" (for lack of a better term) so it's critical I shut the fuck up, post-haste, else this become Livejournal.

In other news, my favorite-band-of-the-moment (Rise Against) is touring with my most-hated-band-in-recent-memory (My Chemical Romance). I don't understand how that bill even happened: the "Bad Religion 2.0", extremely political, very punk-rock-focused band gets to open for the guyliner-du-jour homofest (WAH, girls don't like me, I guess I'll go kiss guys, then).

Speaking of emo crapfestery, I picked out my next ink. (Sorta, toss up between 2). I can't decide if I should sleeve my right arm or right leg. I figure, I'm 33, I've got maybe 3 years left to get ink before I'll have to buy a Harley to justify hanging out in tattoo parlors.

I think I'll be in NYC next week, if anyone cares. I've told the wife like 20 times I really don't give a shit about going, in fact I don't really want to, but it looks like this decision was never mine to even influence, much less make, so there you go. ("What do you want to do, anyway?" "Go to a museum and a carriage ride in central park, and ice skate at Rockafeller Center.... " "Yeah lemme know if any of that is fun, I'll be drunk and getting lapdances at Scores.")

See? Total LJ. Well except for the whole hetero thing.

Or maybe this?

I really, really dig 1911-pattern pistols (I have a Hi-Power presently).

I dislike hammer-drop-on-the-slide patterns. I guess I have small hands? (pity Mrs. Banky) I always cant the pistol a little taking the safety off, and no matter how hard I try, first-round accuracy from a draw (either shoulder or hip holster) is off. But a 1911-pattern (and I predict, a Sig) or with a Glock (or DAO or revolver) is dead-on. Hence my chub-rock.

All I know about Para-Ordnance is, "high cap 1911's". Anyone ever fire one? I've heard a lot of "well it was great after I took it to the pro shop and had them clean it up" on other pieces (later-model Springfield 1911, others) and I seriously don't want to expend effort on it.

This or this?

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=inDepthNews&storyID=2006-12-11T134431Z_01_N08363043_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-HOUSING-DEFAULTS.xml&src=121106_0854_TOPSTORY_foreclosures_rising

I've seen a number of blogs essentially "blame" Bush and/or the Republican party for the increase in foreclosures.

Ok, so, what, Delay invented the ARM? Hasturt was responsible for covering up the idea that your payments could one day increase? Frist personally led the surge in McMansion purchases?

I *suppose* you could argue that the Republican fiscal policy was in part based on the housing boom which relied on people taking these stupid, risky mortgages, but still aren't you always left with "assholes wanting 4x more house than they ever need risking their ass"?

If I'm wrong, I welcome the correction, it just seems to be that this is about people, not party. (Or maybe, "If the Congress can engage is deficit spending, why can't I"? That sorta makes sense too EXCEPT I DON'T BELIEVE IN DEFICIT SPENDING SO I DON'T SPEND MORE MONEY THAN I HAVE. What a concept.)

Our loan guy tried to sell us on some ... "alternative" mortgage products. There's some that seem like an excellent, albeit calculated, risk, but some of those ARMs seem like utter insanity justified by the even more insane for a 4k sq ft home for you, the wife, your dog and "maybe a kid".

Anyway I welcome reasons pro or con. Alle economics!

"How we didn't win the war . . . but the Russians did. Britain and America still insist they defeated the Nazis, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they were minor partners, says Norman Davies"

(Source)

There is an academic movement, of late, to essentially reverse the common historical belief about a number of topics. I've seen things like "Stonewall Jackson was actually a piss-poor commander", along with a generally scathing critique of the notion that the CSA had better generals and NCOs. The argument for this usually goes something like, "Well really Lee is the only one who really had any success, the western front of the war (ie along the Mississippi) was a total loss for the CSA".

Whatever. There's a lot of room to pare down the idea that the CSA lost as a result of manufacturing capability alone, but no amount of revisionist horseshit will change Lee being, by and large, a goddamn fantastic general. Right up until he ordered the damn charge....

Anyway this Davies jackass brings up the recent notion that really all the US and Britan did was kinda sit back and wait for the Russians to grind up the Wehrmacht, and then deliver the killing stroke.

And he's right ... to a point.

It's almost inarguable that Hitler lost the war by ordering his own Pickett's Charge, Operation Barbarossa. It was laughably stupid. It cost him the war and his Reich. Thank God he did it, for all the suffering it caused, for all the horrible things that came as a result (eg the Cold War), we'd be looking at 60 years of the Reich now, maybe, if he'd not done it.

But.

Jackass first seems to entirely ignore Lend-Lease, stating only "American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it". He devotes an entire paragraph to troop strengths, but a single sentence to the fact that we outfitted the brits, the russians, and ourselves while fighting the Japanese (who were thus unable to apply sufficient pressure on Russia, preventing it from fighting a costly 2-front war).

Jackass then completely dismisses daylight bombing: "Nonetheless, the Third Reich was not brought to its knees by bombers and blockades." Yes it was, you moronic dicktard. Daylight bombing crippled the Reich. They could not produce any of their innovative weapons in quantity; they ran out of oil; they lost air superiority entirely; and they were forced to rely on slave labor for "grade A" production (instead of ancillary items), and the quality of "German engineering" went to 0 in the later years of the war. Without daylight bombing, RADAR, cracking some of Enigma, and other supply-chain/logistical factors, the Soviets would have seen the mighty T-34 shot to shit by better and better Panzers.

Jackass ignores the Battle of Britain. OK, even if you assume it's been elevated from "tough fight" to "cultural mythos of surpassing heroism and warrior spirit" the goddamn fact is Hitler didn't invade your little island because he couldn't control the air, and that meant his invasion fleet would get bombed to the bottom of the Channel. Because he could not invade, and because he never gained control of the seas, the Allies had a way in. Had Britain fallen, it would have been a different war.

Jackass ignores the hopeless Italians. How much shit did propping them up cost the Reich?

Jackass ignores the Africa campaign. How much did that cost the Reich? How much did that get our heads out of our ass, and put us into the fight? Rather a lot.

And like I said above, Jackass ignores that we then tied down the Japanese from penetrating deeply into China and Russia; if we'd not fight back it could have been a much different war.

IN summation, Mr. Davies, lick my taint.

I love how the "Mayans" are freaking out over Apocalypto.

My main problem is that their argument is, well, insulting. Paraphrased, it says that by painting the Mayan people as savages, we - which is to say, white people in America - will think that RIGHT NOW, they're cutting hearts out and all that.

That by watching this movie, my Guatemalan neighbor who walks to work every day as a prep cook at Sweetwater Tavern will suddenly in my eyes be viewed as a savage, too.

So, my dear "Mayan activists", I'd like to say: Fuck you. For two reasons.

First for assuming I am going to be scared of Jose because now, OMG, he's going to cut my heart out just like the Mayans did in the 1500s. Wow, yeah, thanks. I appreciate that awesome assessment of my intelligence.

Second, I'm terribly sorry to say this, and I know you'll disagree vehemently, but c'mon, ya'll motherfuckers were some heart-cutting-out people. It's true. Every goddamn flat surface at Chichen Itza has depictions of sacrifices and gore. I know it's pretty important to keep the grant money flowing that you depict your ancestors as harmonious peaceful hippies living in perfect sync with nature, but it's bullshit, and you know it, you just don't choose to believe it. (Michael Shermer as a name for the bullshit notion of living in perfect harmony with nature, and how it's crap; I just can't remember it.)

CNN has as front page news that it is cold outside. In December? No way.

I have a friend right now about half way through her tour of duty at McMurdo in ANTARCTICA who would respectfully request CNN go fuck itself.

That is all.

I know ol Darth Cheney is second only to Rove in terms of overall hate (and ahead of Dubya) but I've always seen him, at least publically, to show a lot of warmth and sensitivity with respect to his daughter.

Which is why I just wish he'd tell Dobson et al to fuck off. Just once I'd like to see one of these guys get told to fuck off by one of their own, in a very deep and meaningful way. They went off on Horseface for using her sexuality as a political tool, so don't be a fucking hypocrite and tell the same thing to Dobson.

She's an adult. So is her partner. They probably make good money (evil 1%!) and apparently vote Republican. They like chicks, I like chicks. Hell I'd go drink beers with them; I bet there'd be some fun political discussions in it. They seem like good people. Why do we dislike them, again? Oh, right, Dobson's imaginary friend told him to tell everyone dislike them.

I'll be in NYC the week between Xmas and New Years.

I was going to say something pithy and sarcastic about the Iraq Study Group report and associated news commentary and then I remembered I can barely manage to care much any more. The report itself was entirely predictable, and it's a pretty safe bet what the 'end game' will look like.

Through secret contacts I have obtained a "rough draft" of his "Letter to the American People".

"I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure. But I've read your tax code and clearly it is a work of satan, so maybe you aren't entirely sure what's going on there."

"Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness. Also you're costing us a bloody FORTUNE in RPG-7's and Semtex."

"I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone. You guys know where Palestine is, right? I mean you've never invaded it before, so, maybe not so much."

"It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets. By the way, read the inscription on the Dome of the Rock for our thoughts on just how 'divine' your prophet is; we are currently offering competitive jaziya rates for our distinguished Dhimmis."

"I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success. Like the success we've had with our nuclear program. Totally gonna nuke the Zionist pigs. Kisses, Mahmoud."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?ex=1322197200&en=0cf877b05b918674&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The final argument is the one I really love. People ask how I can be a conservative and still want higher taxes. It makes my head spin, and I guess it shows how old I am. But I thought that conservatives were supposed to like balanced budgets. I thought it was the conservative position to not leave heavy indebtedness to our grandchildren. I thought it was the conservative view that there should be some balance between income and outflow. When did this change?

The whole thing is thought-provoking, at least.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/11/28/america,_not_keith_ellison,_decides_what_book_a_congressman_takes_his_oath_on

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

Ah, yes. It is so important that in the foundation of our goverment, the Constitution of the United States, that the founders sought to mention God, "Creator", and/or the Bible a whopping grand total of 0 times. In the entire text.

(Even the Declaration of Independence doesn't mention "God" directly, rather, one reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and shortly thereafter "their Creator". There's about a 50/50 split on "the God of the Bible" versus "Jefferson was a Deist", at which point the debate degenerates into endless quoting of letters Jefferson et al wrote to support the position of Christian vs Deism. for the record, I support the Deist argument, I do not believe Jefferson meant the Christian God. But either way the Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document of our government, it's a middle-finger at England stating why we're about to start some shit, it has no "legal" power in our system of governance).

I'm so glad we've got Prager's imaginary friend protecting us from Ellison's imaginary friend.

In other news, if Prager's so AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! then does he eat the native dishes of any other country? I mean, one egg roll and you're supporting the godless commie pinko chinks, right? Oh fuck I had enchiladas for lunch, I just supported MS13. Also I farted.

Somehow it's a shocker (and not the pleasant "finger up the ass" kind) that a major news outlet has decided to start calling it a civil war.

How many fucking months has this "not-unlike-but-maybe-or-maybe-not-a-civil-war" hamsterdance been going on? My grossly imperfect recall says "at least since the ramp-up of the election season, maybe 3+ months".

So what kind of goddamn genius is at work to figure out, wow, eventually all the major news outlets will be jockeying (tastefully, of course) to be the first to label it a REAL civil war.

Independent of politics, "If it bleeds, it leads". So there's a political agenda, and there's a "we have to appease our shareholders agenda". Do a little math and there you go. NBC blinked and decided to go ahead. Either they'll get demonized, lose their White House Ass-Kissing credentials, OR they'll go down in history as the ones that "called it".

Everyone wants to be the person to predict the downfall of ... anything.