Graphictruth

Links for 2008-07-23 [del.icio.us]

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Rainbow Girl Oval Sticker
An amazing, richly colored "pride" design that speaks not only to your liberality of spirit, but to your fine taste. Please note that the figures face LEFT!

Links for 2008-07-21 [del.icio.us]

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Energy 2.0
Energy 2.0 will do for us what the web has already done - decentralize energy production to the point where two or three giant firms cannot even envision controlling the energy markets.

Ron Paul Supporter Sues NV GOP

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:32:16 -0500

RGJ.com: Inside Nevada Politics

Wayne Terhune filed a 20 page lawsuit seeking to prevent the Nevada Republican Party from "phoning in" their appointed delegates to the National Convention during a planned conference call. Terhune is joined by 27 other plaintiffs, according to Anjeanette Damon of the Reno-Gazette Journal.

The complaint accuses the party of mismanaging the April 26 state convention and seeking to usurp the delegates' right to elect a slate to the national convention in Minneapolis. It also criticizes state Sen. Bob Beers, the original convention chair, calling him "clearly not neutral" and "clearly unqualified."

Terhune accuses the party of acting "intentionally to bring this about once they realized the results of the voting...would not go as (they) planned."

"At very least, defendants acted with reckless disregard for established law and rules," the lawsuit states.

Ah, the Republicans, too, have to deal with these sudden outbreaks of democracy. And while Ron Paul has withdrawn from the race, apparently The Revolution Continues.

Illustration : Ron Paul Revolution! by dailypaul
Design Custom T Shirts At zazzle.com

Energy 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:27:39 -0500

clipped from revolutionaryparadigm.blogspot.com

Times Online - Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have been genetically altered to provide 'renewable petroleum'

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to – especially the ones coming out of business school – this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. “All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency,” Mr Pal says.

Energy 2.0 will do for us what the web has already done - decentralize energy production to the point where two or three giant firms cannot even envision controlling the energy markets.

Links for 2008-07-19 [del.icio.us]

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0500

New York Times Publishes Terroristic Threats
This is not hyperbole. When the NYT publishes an article "speculating" on "good outcomes" from PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES by Israel, it's time to start following the fucking money to the White House.

You Gotta Fight for the Right to be AS

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:48:32 -0500

Don't Poke Zach! by webcarve
design your own t shirts Using Zazzle

Bump and Correction:

Apparently Autism Speaks did not complain to Zazzle about Zach's particular design. Zach reports that it was a mistake on the part of Zazzle content reviewers.

Zazzle: Well we have recieved letters in the past from um ah Autism Speaks in regards to prodcuts withtrademark violations so when our um content management staff came across this product they believed this shirt was in the um past correspondence with Autism Speaks but uh they did not specifically call on this product, this was a decision by an employee from content managment.

[...]

Me: So this was just a decision by your staff?

Zazzle: Uh yes, because we thought it was in past correspondace with some past products that were brough to out attention.

Me: Could you tell me specifically what is the copyright violation on the shirt

Zazzle: Well orriginally we thought it was because the Autism Speaks wordmark.

Me: But you do understand the fair use and parody clauses in the copyright laws right?

Zazzle: Yes - we understand - and thats why your recent shirts are still on the site right now.

So Zazzle was gun-shy after being pestered by AS other times about violations of their trademark puzzle piece. The irony is that in being overzelous in chiding their friends, they caused Zazzle to inadvertently Poke The Aspie.

Herein lies the initial provocation - a parody of the Autism Speaks site.

But the story continues - over at Zazzle of all places, where Zach got a takedown notice from Zazzle for this shirt.

I just received a legal notice from the big bad bully Autism Speaks because I designed a t-shirt that says “Autism Speaks Can Go Away.” It appears Autism Speaks is now using legal threats to shut up Autistic people that disagree with there stance on Autism.

Many people know Autism Speaks threatned the parents of an Autistic Child for creating a website that poked fun at the organization Autism Speaks, an organization she does like either. Well it appears they are not done threatening Autistic People who stand up against them as an organization. To the left is the T-shirt in question that prompted a legal threat from Autism Speaks.

So my question is if your Autistic and you try and use the resources you have in hand to speak out against an organization that spews hatred and negativity about Autistic people, claiming to represent them what are you to do? Autism Speaks does not speak for me, I can speak for myself. But apparently I am not allowed to say that!

Did you know that Autism Speaks does not have one person with Autism employed or in a leadership role of the organization? Not one person with Autism contributes to the decision making of Autism Speaks at all. So what are the Autistic Peoples course of action when they disagree with Autism Speaks?

Ok, when a supposed autistic advocacy group is suing autistics for expressing themselves, a throuough bitch-slapping is in order, even IF there were legitimate violations of intellectual property occuring. This is not true in either case, it's pure intimidation and more proof, if any is needed, that the LAST people qualified to speak on behalf of autistics is "Autism Speaks."

I think it's time to stir up some shirt. I have not yet come up with the perfect comment for this particular insult to the First Amendment rights of Autistics, or to the intelligence of those with a more nuanced view of the situation than that slickly-promoted quack factory, (in my humble opinion, of course) but I have some that will do for the moment.

This one is relatively polite - though if you click thru you will find that the words in the graphic are as aspie-blunt as can be.

(The design is copy-left, and can be downloaded here. I encourage you to use it for whatever you like, including (especially) fund-raising for intelligent autism awareness. All required compliances are included in the image itself.)

Ask me why Autism Awareness T-Shirt by webcarve

This is my most brutal graphic response to this whole concept; if you'd like it on a button, here you go.

I also have it on all sorts of other products. I particularly like the baseball shirt. Feel free to nab this copy as a site graphic, or post illustration.

Now, what I want to do here is to have everyone with their own related designs anywhere to link them here.

This action on the part of Autism Speaks is offensive and frankly, intolerable. But it's the sort of response that is best addressed by widespread, pointed mockery and willful, manifest contempt.

On T-Shirts. Made by you. The easiest for most people is Zazzle.com, Cafepress requires a little more in terms of graphics, but neither is all that difficult. Feel free to ask me about any issues that come up, and by all means, raise this issue in their blogs and forums. I surely intend to, later today.

During an errand today and the discussion in the car about this issue and of course my own AS issues and those of my stepson who's having quite a time with anxiety issues right now, my wife expressed some significant discomfort with the emphasis I have been placing on how I don't want a cure, or seemingly so. Well, clearly if my own wife is confused on this point, I need to make myself much clearer.

I love the way my mind works, when I am able to avoid all the things that make it stop working the way I love it to work. Being entirely human, I do like to pretend those are minor little exceptions to a general blessing. Indeed, it's that sort of charming little self-delusion that I understand to be diagnostic of not being clinically depressed. Yep - I am usefully deluding myself; that means the meds are working!

But AS does interfere with my life and not just those parts of life I'd be inclined to avoid in any case. Things I'd very much like to be able to do are variably difficult to impossible, and in maddningly unpredictable ways. I would love to have cure for that - but at the current state of the art, I greatly fear that it might be a drug not unlike Lamasil; a cure for toenail fungus that poses a risk of liver failure, a significant risk to anyone with a background that might have already caused some loss of liver function.

I am all for looking for a cure, though I suspect it won't be one thing. I'm very much not for coming up with an overbroad genetic treatment; I think that would very likely lobotomize civilization. What I want is something that allows me to apply myself better, and here is the important part; it must be better from MY perspective.

Meanwhile, as we do not have a cure, or anything remotely resembling one, with no earthly idea as to exactly why there are so many AS persons appearing when they were not noticed before, it seems to me that a cautious and conservative approach to the matter is in order. Cautious and Conservative in a medical sense is "First, Do No Harm."

And I'm afraid that far too many of the "treatments" offered to parents are potentially harmful.

Luperon, the chemical castration agent. No downside there.

Chelation therapy. Not good for a body. Necessary if one is carrying an insupportable load of heavy metal toxins, but there's not enough science to allow anyone to give us a useful cost/benefit, risk/reward readout on it. Then there is Applied Behavioral Analysis - which is quite a potent tool and all too often applied by people with no better qualifications than, oh, say, your average Amway representative in terms training hours.

Behavioristic approaches have some inherent limitations; when I see those limitations seriously discussed by proponents of it, I'll be much more open to the broader application of the toolkit itself. But right now, I see it as being a protocol that has a huge deficit; it tends to attract authoritarian and abusive personalities - the very last people who should be applying powerful mind-control techniques. Or rather, if you want a positive outcome in life for the adult who is now a child, that is the case. If you want a well-programmed robot who will never be able to function independently, it's just the ticket.

Further, we know one thing for sure from the 1 in 150 statistic; the condition is being overdiagnosed, overhyped and of course, both condition and cure are evidently very profitable. There is a direct financial benefit toward overstating the necessity for a "cure."

Just as there is a distinct personal benefit in trying to pretend that meaningful and useful treatments would be unwelcome.

In fact, what I would love to have happen is a genuine study of all the various wetware configurations, and some growing understanding of what they represent, what they do best, how they may be triggered, and how they can be turned on and off at will. THAT is what I'd like.

I would love to be able to have a bottle of NT pills, just so I could pop one and head out for a spontaneous night of fun. And I know damn well there are many people that would love to have the mental focus I'm capable of - if they were sure it would wear off! (It would be nice to have brakes, yes, it would.)

New York Times Publishes Terroristic Threats

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:16:34 -0500

Wanted for Treason and Murder T-Shirt by webcarve
Design Customized TShirts On Zazzle

There are certain things you simply do not publish. Terror threats for the benefit of one another nation against another are not things you need even bother running past the State Department. One is either the editor of one of the most respected newspapers in the world, or one is a willing shill and agent of a foreign power. And I word that latter part charitably, for without the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, Benny Morris would simply be one of many Strangelovian enablers of horror.

Joseph A. Palermo: Professor Benny Morris: Nuclear War to Avoid Nuclear War: "In today's New York Times the Israeli academic Benny Morris, in an article fittingly entitled 'Using Bombs to Stave Off War,' opines that a 'preemptive' nuclear conflagration in the Middle East could have some kind of positive outcome for Israel, the United States, and the world. It's a disgraceful piece of intellectual demagoguery based on mind-boggling, and really quite insane, situational ethics. 'Israel,' Morris's lead begins, 'will almost certainly attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.'"

I direct you to the full article at Huffpo. Meanwhile, I shall respond in the same general vein.

When threats are made that can reasonably be presumed, given context, to have the full, if veiled intent of two of the most powerful and dangerously touchy nations in the world behind them, it would be insane to not take precautions. Since Iran has no ability to match even Israel in terms of conventional war-fighting ability, it would make perfect sense to approach this issue asymmetrically.

Indeed, I would advise them to do so, for the great advantage of intelligently managed asymmetrical warfare is that it has the potential of directly addressing those who are responsible for a policy.

Yes, were I being consulted, I would advise Iran to take some immediate steps to neutralize this threat and fortunately, there are ways to do this without resort to the asymmetrical deterrents that trouble my dreams from time to time. One hopes that the government of Iran recognizes they are being baited and responds with cunning, rather than in kind.

In history, there are examples where envoys have been returned in pieces as the response to far less implacable threats, and of course that is your basic pretext for war. It's lovely to realize that GWB is willing to sacrifice New York City in order to achieve a goal.

Again.

I, personally, take great exception to the New York Times facilitating such a threat and allowing those issuing it the cover of a US population base - and their employees. I do hope that Iran is capable of a precisely calculated and measured response. I sincerely hope and encourage the use of words instead of bombs, blades or bullets.

But to say that the surgical use of bullets and blades would be inappropriate - that is not something I can bring myself to say, and I'm horrified that anyone could think to be a shill for such a proposition and think they can or should be held innocent of part of that intent.

The New York Times has published a terrorist threat, made by one Benny Morris. It would be laughable under the circumstances to think for a moment that this is NOT done with the full approval of Israel and the State Department - indeed, of George Bush, personally. And somehow it got past the editorial board, without anyone raising the obvious objection to an act.

Fortunately, this suggests a viable course of asymmetrical action that is apt, just and one which neither Israel NOR the US Government is likely to be able to effectively counter.

If I were president, and this happened on my watch, I'd be publicly peeling a strip off the New York Times AFTER recalling the Ambassador to Israel for "prolonged consultation." Indeed, I'd probably recall the embassy - citing the need for "asbestos abatement and structural enhancement."

So a case could be made (and an obvious alliance exists) that even tacit support of Israel's threats amounts to yet another impeachable offense, if it does not indeed rise to the level of acting as an agent of a foreign power. That's the polite phrase for treason.

I find it remarkable that the legal staff at the NYT have not raised the issue that furthering the ends of those who have already met the standard for impeachment and arguably for treason is a consequential act. But since they have not, allow me to explain why legitimizing the threats Israel is making is very bad policy for the Times - and for the United States.

I long ago learned that those who presume upon your friendship are not your friends. When they presume upon your friendship in ways that puts you in danger, they are neither friends nor allies; they have become dangerous parasites at best and enemies at worst. In neither case do you permit them to continue exploiting your good nature. When your President clearly considers that it's worthwhile putting the American civilian population at risk in order to perpetuate the current government of Israel and it's manifestly inhumane and unethical policies - it's time to remove that President from office.

I think this action shows such a public contempt for the good will and well-being of the American people in general, and the people of New York City in particular that it can only lend credibility to the premise that Israel was somehow involved in the 9/11 conspiracy by virtue of the fact that they are clearly trying to set the scene for this to happen again.

You see, if I happened to have a weapon of mass destruction available, or could construct one from bits purchased at home depot, and people were making such inadvisable threats toward MY nation and my interests, I would certainly consider arranging things so that even if my nation were to be turned into "a glazed crater," those responsible would not emerge unscathed.

That is such an obvious precaution that I'd be stunned if it has not been taken. And not JUST by Iran.

Indeed, it may well be that 9/11 was the result of such a long-extant "precaution" on the part of Israel. The problem is, things have been well arranged to ensure that we will likely never know. But let us face it; it's possible for such things to be done by any competent intelligence agency with any amount of foresight - and the evident possibility of the need for Iran (as well as any number of other small powers) to have such a "hole card" has been clear - or should have been clear - since the seventies.

Because, as I said, the only sane course of response - indeed, the only response a power like Iran is capable of is asymmetrical. Sane defense planners take such realities into consideration - on both sides of any potential conflict.

Well - the logical response here would be a more or less precise strike against targets that are related to the insult: The New York Times, the Israeli Embassy or the State Department would be on the short list as a response to this incident - if unleashing a pre-placed WMD were an appropriate or useful response.

I sincerely hope it is not seen as such. As I hinted above, and hint again - there's a far better and even more appropriate response.

Nonetheless, I think that if I were an employee of any of these and hundreds of other relevant response targets, I should greatly resent it and would deeply consider a change in career.

Regarding the New York Times, it would certainly cause me to reassess the prestige of working there and the regard and assumptions made about me due to my byline being seen upon their pages.

In short, I'm revolted. This was a contemptible act with potentially gravely dangerous implications. I hope the bribe was sufficient to sooth the consciences of those involved. Presuming there exists such a thing, of course.

For citizens of these United States, we who already have far too much evidence of the contempt for which our putative leaders have for us - there is but one possible response to a government that would even consider floating a trial balloon for a global thermonuclear conflict as a means of addressing personal and political goals.

Impeachment, removal from office, trials and convictions under relevant domestic laws for treason and then remand to the Hague for trial under international law for war crimes for those for whom such indictments have been issued.

We have (provisionally) free speech in this country. But free speech does not mean that when threats are freely spoken that it is at all reasonable to expect freedom from consequence. Indeed, the law recognize that the utterance of a threat is an exception.

Well, this is precisely such a case. It's an obvious, intended threat, meant to intimidate. And I would suggest to Iran that they hire the most vicious and effective firm they can find to sue the New York Times and Persons to Be Named Later immediately. I suggest further that they set up a web page for the effort and solicit donations for the legal and public campaign.

I would suggest that this be done in as many venues as possible, as soon as possible.

Economic warfare is also war - and has the advantage of being potentially vastly entertaining to we, the people of these here United States who will no doubt be the largest donors to the cause. And while, yes, you could blockade the Strait of Hormuz and cause gas prices to spike to ten bucks a gallon - this response is far better tactically and cost-efficient. Nor does it offer any legitimate pretext to either Israel OR the United States to wage war against you - rather, it sets up a considerable political deterrent.

Should you do this - and I would suggest doing this as openly and as transparently as possible - I will support it. This response is not terrorism. It's a legal and civilized response to uncivil, illegal and terroristic acts that are aimed at you.

Potential prize - legitimate ownership of the New York Times. Certainly a great deal of expense, mental pain and suffering for those directly and subsequently responsible for the injury. The satisfaction of seeing a few moderately conspicuous Satans held financially if not legally accountable, and a not-bad shot of contributing to the latter outcome as well.

I mean, seriously, you-all who make such decisions worldwide - is this not exactly the course Sun Tsu would advise?

Bailing out of the Handbasket...

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:18:13 -0500

I got an email from OpEd news, telling me all their news, and this headline leaped at my face.

Why is Bush So Interested in Our Vaginas?

A really awful pun connected to what I presumed (correctly) to be an important essay on reproductive choice is always worth reading, even if one can only nod. Which is what I do, in passing.

Even though I had nothing to add but a nod, this was not true of others. I was struck by a comment to the thread consisted of a whole-page excerpt from this site: What IS the World Coming To? Seriously.

It's a very well-written discussion of the ethics and consequences of the clash between pro-choice and anti-choice movements.

I use the term anti-choice for two reasons; first, because it's factually accurate and the term "pro-life" is not. Second, because I do not wish to imply that I'm impartial. No person with a decent respect for individual liberty, privacy and the sanctity of informed, conscientious choice can be.

My position on abortion is simple - if you do not like the idea of abortion, which is inarguably an ugly option at best, work to address the things that make so many people get to that choice-point.

In a perfect world, the outcome of a woman getting pregnant would be that a baby would be born and raised in a loving, caring, comfortable family. I think we all can agree on that.

Um... I would agree. I think most sane people would agree. I thing that most people that study the Bible and take it as a serious source of ethical and moral instruction would agree, even as I believe that most humanists would. I'm not so sure about the loudest assholes farting their way to the forefront of our current "culture war."

I think that in their perfect world, they will define what loving, caring and comfortable are. They will define who gets pregnant, by whom, and when - and those are pre-requisites for ANY consequent love, caring and comfort.

In order to reinforce that view, they will do their best to ensure that those who are born outside of those strictures are an intolerable misery to those that bore them, that they bear the brunt of social disapproval, and that all their pleas for help and compassion are denied as "whining," as "laziness" or "greed."

Their mothers will be characterized as "welfare queens," and all ills they and their families and their neighborhoods will be attributed to "sin" and "rebellion against god" - who's words are of course easily found by tuning your tee-vee to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Yes, there is a culture war. But it was started by those who say that "Christians are being persecuted." In fact, no actual Christianity is involved, and those real Christians who happen to be on the wrong side of the line on this had best pull their heads out of the churches and compare what should be going on - according to what you are being told - with what IS going on, and most critically, what promised, prophetic consequences are coming down upon whom.

I mean, if you don't want to be collateral damage.

Jon Swift's on The New Yorker's Obama cover

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:02:57 -0500

The always brilliant Jon Swift, who has been busy with important work lately, takes time to blog about just what The New Yorker intended with its cover of Obama in Muslim clothes and his wife Michelle tricked up in Revolutionary gear as the Flag burns in the their fireplace. Whenever the great Jon Swift puts up a post, don't miss it! [NOT to be missed! BK]

read more | digg story

I'm All In - Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:19:00 -0500

In I'm All In, I promised a follow-up when I was more capable of dealing rationally with the issue. But ultimately, this does affect me on a much deeper level than the rational, and probably in a way that Shakes might disapprove of.

Ya see, I'm a patriarch. Note the lower-case p. I didn't set out to be one, it was a complete accident, but I'm the head of a household and I'm male-bodied, and the other parties are female-bodied, and there it is.

It's all "old tapes," but they are the only tapes we have. Clearly they are of a better quality than those of our parents - but at some point, we-all nodded, looked at each other and stopped worrying about stuff that works, even when it "shouldn't."

There's enough stuff that doesn't work when it should to fuss about such things, especially when you are getting invitations to join the AARP in the mail.

I'll probably write an amusing, gently enlightning post on the ethical culture of the enlightened patriarchy sometime. But right now, I think it more useful to react to this unapologetically as a person cast in that role and unembarrassed to admit it.

Why? Because "Patriarch" does not mean "perp!" (I understand your confusion, trust me!)

It is not synonymous with bully culture or jock culture. It is a social structure and it has it's own ethos and standards, coming from the Middle East and the Levitical code, and as much again from Scots and Irish clan structure.

It has bad aspects and good aspects, and I'd be the first to admit - hell, insist - that far more of the bad than the good are entrenched in our culture. Quite fucking deliberately. You see, in an ethical patriarchy, there are mutual obligations of duty, fealty, protection, loyalty and obedience, and, well, such things are so very awkward and inconvenient to Men of the World, eh?

But like any other social structure, it's ONLY justification and the only reason to donate any portion of your liberty and freedom of action is to enhance your life and allow you to grow and flourish as a person to the degree that you can.

It's the duty of the Patriarch to ensure that his group, his clan, his family DOES flourish.

Crap like that - that ensures the precise opposite. It ensures corruption, rot and heedlessness. It is not patriarchy, it's a Rape Culture. Don't dignify it with the term "Patriarchy."

The idea that this happened within an ambulance service is particularly shocking; it's the betrayal of duty on so many different levels that I'm enraged.

But worst of all is this:

...In July, 2005, the chief executive of the NSW Ambulance Service, Greg Rochford, wrote to Mr Hodder and said an investigation had been completed.

The letter, also made public, reveals the service began the investigation three days before Christine Hodder died and found a culture of male dominance... It recommended staff receive training in workplaces free of harassment and bullying, that the service should explore how to change the behaviour of staff, and that no female officer be appointed to Cowra for six months.

No officer was disciplined.

In my understanding of the term, this would mean that it would be time for a new Patriarch. because the old leader would have proven that he was unworthy, a useless leader.

If I go to my Norman roots, I believe the term would be "A Luckless Foe-Bringer."

No person "under my hand" can be considered truly dispensable, and women hold a special place in patriarchies. And no, it's not for the "obvious reasons." Women, if protected, well fed and unstressed, LIVE longer than men; considerably longer than men who wear swords or hunt boar with spears and hounds; even when you factor in the risks of childbirth.

Meanwhile, again, if you look back at it, men have to learn active and dangerous skills, and become very good at them very quickly if they ever expect to get out of their twenties alive.

That's why in most cultures, women manage the household. They are the ones with the planning skills, the training, the knowledge. Men - men, for the most part, are expendable.

Men who manage to avoid being expended in service to the clan have a shot at becoming a Patriarch. But the job isn't different - it's just that instead of your life or your dignity, personally, it's the life, honor and dignity of your clan at stake and there's always the possibility that you will have to suck in your antique gut, strap your rusty sword on your hip and hope that you give a good enough account of yourself that your widow(s) will have some ground upon which to negotiate. You will do this because your life IS your family, your clan, your group, and you fucked up. Even if your fuckup was to tolerate a fuckups, Daddy doesn't permit unfixed fuckups on his watch.

Of all the occasions of all the drama within all the sagas of patriarchal cultures, all too much of it has to do with rapes of, thefts of and insults to women. Why is that? It's not due to any historical shortage of nookie.

Women are the institutional memory of the clan. And when clans and tribes stole women, they were stealing knowledge, techniques, spiritual concepts - part of your tribe's "mana." In other words, women do not merely represent status and power - they ARE the power, and confer that status.

The children they bear are the future of the tribe, the family, the clan. That's all the real wealth there is, to be decorated with gold and other trinkets to indicate value, not display wealth.

You go into any current patriarchal culture, and you will probably find an old woman dripping in gold sitting quietly somewhere to the left and behind of the man in charge.

Watch her very carefully. She taught him most everything he knows and he will make no decision without her. And not merely due to habit, indoctrination and culture, but because she has the wisdom.

(I am of the opinion that functional patriarchal cultures are actually dual cultures - publicly patriarchal, privately matriarchal, of equal overall significance. Not that we have a lot of history relating to sane cultures...)

But it seems to be one expression of a natural pattern. Take my wife - no punchline. I didn't lose my freedom when I married her, I gained the wisdom to know how badly I needed her. Just ask her, she'll tell ya.

And she would be entirely correct.

There are things that she can do that I cannot, and vice versa. Due to our mutual histories, there is really only one workable pattern for us, and since it looks like patriarchy, and I have the beard for it, that's what we shall call it.

Ok, I'm obviously having to sneak up on the essence of this.

This wasn't a "sin of the Patriarchy." This was murder, pure and simple. And betrayal of trust. And depraved indifference. It is flat out the funkiest case of evil I've recently heard of - and I've been talking about Karl Rove. So as a patriarch, I have to wonder, why is she dead and her husband suing, rather than the other way around?

Because that's his fucking job. In a real Patriarchal culture, or just a Male-Dominated one, it was his job to go in, take HER boss (overseer / patriarch) aside and conversationally say that if such issues ever arise again, he will be held personally accountable.

And if they do, as they did, sneer and ignore that promise, it's his duty to carry through. However that works out.

Apparently the culture of that remote town was perverted enough to anticipate that and work against him as well - but in such cases, it's the Patriarch's duty, yeah, his duty to god (can you hear the voice roll?)to LEAD his people OUT of bondage in this Egypt of death Toward a new dawn in the Promised Land.

Or, more practically speaking, Canada.

I do not approve of such a culture, where "crap flows downhill" and the people below exist only to be picked on. I don't approve of a culture where such a thing could be shrugged off as unchangeable. Because, if all else fails, it's easily changed.

Testicles seem designed to be detached from the undeserving. I think of that as a feature, not a bug.

I consider it unethical to either kick down or kiss up, and both behaviors strike me as both contemptible and inexplicable. That's my Asperger's, I'm told. If so, I'm thinking that aspect to be evidence supporting the possibility of human evolution.

I do not think it at all improper to remove people from the gene pool when they prove themselves genetically incapable of decency in the presence of high levels of testosterone, so my avocation of neutering dangerously large problem children is the essence of Compassionate Conservatism.

I imagine I'll have more to say about the Ethics of the Patriarchy, since when I think on it, it's pretty much the lack of them I talk about, so it might be an idea to illustrate an affirmative standard. I won't be doing that in Patriarchy's defense. My standard for Patriarchy is the same as it is for Republicanism or Democracy or for that matter, "Feminist Cabals."

They are to be judged for what they are, what they achieve and at what price.

And I, for one, am decidedly unimpressed with achievements that boil down to unusually durable or especially deadly phallic symbols.

Yes, I know, this template sucks too.

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:27:47 -0500

But please be patient with me. I'm as annoyed by it as you are, but hell, that's what RSS feeds are for. I'm still finding stuff I screwed up switching to this template!

Make 'em laugh and they'll cough up the cash."

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:46:45 -0500

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’" John McCain, 1986, The Tucson Citizen: (PDF)

He told this "joke" to a conference of the National League of Cities and Towns, while in the process of campaigning for Senate. Well, any campaign handbook will tell you to "make 'em laugh" - and experience will tell you that the best way to "make 'em laugh" is to take aim at the folks that you know trouble the folks who have the money you want. The beautiful thing about a crude joke is that it's deniable, at the very worst, you get a little free publicity (they will tell you,) all provided by "those bitches who won't vote for you anyway."

You see, when you tell a joke like that, you are sending a message. "I'm with you. I don't like these uppity women and "gorillas" any more than you do."

Of course, you do scan the room to see if there were any women or "gorillas," but no doubt there were only a couple-three servers and secretaries, so he wasn't concerned.

Betcha five bucks he's got coon jokes tailored (by a focus group) for the Hispanic community. Considering who he's running against - I bet you he's got a LOT of them.

This comes via Rum, Romanism and Rebellion who have a fun bit of shwag.

This one is a sure-fire gift for every button collector on your November is as Good as Christmas List.

Polish-Mexicans for Obama, 2 1/4" Button
$2.25

Why Ethics?

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:48:53 -0500

Personally, I think the reasons why are obvious - but I've met Anthony Anderson's ill-bred ilk many, many times. Anthony Anderson resides in Hartlepool, England, and clearly neither he nor his neighbors were listening when the pastor explained "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Christine Lakinski, a 50-year-old physically and mentally disabled woman, was returning home with some parcels when she fell ill and stumbled into her doorway, losing consciousness. One of her neighbors, 27-year-old Anthony Anderson, and two of his mates, noticed her lying there; Anderson first kicked her feet to try to rouse her, then dumped a bucket of water on her. When she still failed to respond, he urinated on her and covered her in shaving foam—all of which was captured on a mobile phone. On the video, Anderson is heard to shout "This is YouTube material!" as he degrades Lakinski while she slowly dies of pancreatic failure. This bit of vile revelry attracts a crowd, all of whom "were said to have laughed at his actions."

Anthony is now most remorseful, having been brought to dock.

Anderson, who has pleaded guilty to "outraging public decency," will be sentenced next month. Prosecutor Lynne Dalton, who recommended an enhanced sentence at yesterday's hearing, explained: "Although his actions did not contribute to her death it was appalling behaviour that robbed her of any dignity in the last hours of her life."

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - for, they will. Whichever you prefer. And that is what the science and art of "Not Fucking Up" entails.

But it's not just a negative art - it's an affirmative duty. And as it happens, Melissa McEwan has uttered words that should resonate throughout the English-Speaking blogosphere - and to all lands where those who can translate it with the poetic weight it deserves.

Shakesville: All In:

I make a difference in this world, for good or ill. There is no neutral. There is no Switzerland. There is only saying no to the indignities one human visits upon another—prejudice, hatred, humiliation and pain—or saying yes. And silence, the craven averting of one's gaze so the offense may take place out of view, is not a no. It is not ambiguous. It is a yes. Yes, go ahead, just don't do it to me. It is a permission, and a plea. I'll sacrifice her if you'll let me on my merry way. We routinely cede our expectations of goodness for guarantees of safety, but only our own, and we can no longer fool ourselves that men like Anthony Anderson are aberrations; they are, in the void of unyielding solidarity our self-interest has left, inevitabilities.

There is no neutral. You're in or you're fucking out.

I'm all in.

I'm All In

noreply@blogger.com (Bob King) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:51:49 -0500

What she said.

Shakesville:
Bullied to Death by Misogynists
"We make a difference in this world, for good or ill. There is no neutral. There is no Switzerland. There is only saying no to the indignities one human visits upon another—prejudice, hatred, humiliation and pain—or saying yes. And silence, the craven averting of one's gaze so the offense may take place out of view, is not a no. It is not ambiguous. It is a yes. Yes, go ahead, just don't do it to me. It is a permission, and a plea. I'll sacrifice her if you'll let me on my merry way. We routinely cede our expectations of goodness for guarantees of safety, but only our own, and we can no longer fool ourselves that men like these are aberrations; they are, in the void of unyielding solidarity our self-interest has left, inevitabilities.

There is no neutral. You're in or you're fucking out.

I'm all in."

That's the last paragraph.

The second, after a request to male feminist allies to read:

Rarely do stories sent to me about the real world effects of misogyny upset me as much as has this one, sent to me by Shaker Helen (who hat tips Hell on Hairy Legs). It was only after a rather extensive session of blubbing that I was able to start in on a post, not that I've got much brilliant to say, aside from: FUCK.

Yeah. Megadittos. To the extent that I'm dumping this in the feed as a bookmark. Because right now, what I want to say amounts to this - if you are in a situation that is so hostile that you cannot survive it and for whatever reason, you cannot escape it, why NOT take a few of the bastards with you?

I think I need to refine that position, and I will. After I punch a hole in a wall, or something manly like that.

BTW; Shakes; Not a "feminist ally." Just a fellow human being. As opposed to the sort of thing that caused this death. Those creatures are "Not Human Beings."

"Be done by as you did." Yeah. That's what I'm hanging the followup on.

Update: Not exactly. Maybe part three. GOD, this pisses me off. And yes, that was intended as communication with Whoever.