Get Refreshed

I love this picture.

Mohammed Cartoons: Muslim Leaders Exploit Their People

Is everyone aware of the worldwide eruption with pitting Muslim's defending their Prophet against the world, or pitting Middle East versus West or, most accurately in my opinion, pitting medieval barbarism against civilization? Well, "all hell is breaking loose" as certain Muslim leaders have threatened because of some Danish cartoons picturing Mohammed and Muslims as murderous loons. Those so inflamed don't seem to note the irony of burning down the Danish embassy in Syria--Muslims are so NOT violent! Honey, pass me the match!

While making fun of any religious figure strkes me as poor form--unless you follow The Monolo (hey, fashonistas say that his shoes have a "cult-like following") and then all bets are off, it should be tolerated in any civilized society. Americans have this little thing called the First Amendment--perhaps now is a good time to refresh ourselves. Muzzling disent about one religion imperils the freedom of expression for all religions. This is not good. Are we going to create a "thought police" army where this can be said but that can't? Where are we China?

While Muslims have their collective burkas in a bundle about the nefarious cartoons, they seem to forget that Muslim artists themselves have been a subject of art and humor throughout history.

It seems that there is more at work with this worldwide outrage. Could it be that Muslim leadership sees their power eroding? Could it be that sparking this frenzied response keeps the self-serving leadership protected and the average folks busy elsewhere? Yes, the rage is oozing everywhere but at least the recipient of this vast well of energy and anger and hatred isn't being pointed at the true slave-masters--the Mullahs and religious leaders who get rich with one hand and suppress and deprive their people with the other. Isn't scapegoating a really good way to maintain control? These mischief makers have used this technique for centuries--you'd think the people would get tired of blaming the Jew after all these years, but alas no. What better way to control your people than to pull in all of civilization on the vast conspiracy to keep "you down".

It's worked so far, will it continue to work?

Dr. Helen & Media Slams the "Right" Guy

Dr. Helen offers keen insights regarding TV shows overtly slamming anyone Republican, conservative. Evidently, TV execs don't mind alienating more than 50% of the potential audience.

Glenn Reynolds is a lucky guy to be married to such a smart woman.

BlogPulse

Over at Micropersuasion, I learned about BlogPulse which shows what is being blogged about in real time. COOL!

NAACP & Julian Bond The Bigot: Brendon Loy Exposes All

Brendan Loy (remember I linked to him all the time during the hurricanes--he's the law student guy who has a fascination with tropical disturbances and Tolkien....bloggers and their predilictions) exposes a liberal nutbag and the lazy media who inadvertantly (or purposefully) cover for guys like him. It's a great post. His education really seems to be working!

Hat tip: Instapundit

Grandma's Advice

A friend of mine whose wife died three and half years ago drove with us to a wedding. Still trying to absorb the pain and manage it, he is often reflective and sad. Our trip with him was an across-country type jaunt--the kind that makes or breaks friendships. We ended up having a lot of fun. While driving, and after of hours of serious life chat, he told us this story:

He was talking to his grandma about dating a woman. (Mr. Dr. and I thought a new lady, perhaps? which was fraught. Or maybe he was talking about when he started to date his beloved wife. That was interesting too, because we had just missed meeting her and enjoyed learning more about her.) He really loved this woman, he thought, but wasn't sure. She was beautiful, smart, everything he dreamed of...

"Grandma," he asked, "How will I really know if she is THE ONE?"

"Shut the door, Bob!" She yelled, "I'm trying to poop!"

When "Bob" (not his real name, I'm trying to maintain his dignity even if he has none in real life), told the story, Mr. Dr. and I sat in stunned silence for a moment. One second later, realizing that I'd been duped, I rolled my eyes. Guys are so disgusting!

One more second passed, and my husband collapsed in the front seat ("Bob" was driving) crying, he was laughing so hard. Bob's shoulders shaking and heaving started laughing so hard he was crying, too.

For fifteen minutes they howled. Months later, all that needs to be said is, "Shut the door!" and these guys laugh and laugh and laugh.

While the vile visual mildly amused me it struck the men in a very familiar, kindred, way. Laughter is a hugely bonding emotion--moreso than tears, moreso than anger, moreso than fear. Laughter is good medicine.

Laughter also:

• Stimulates the same areas of drugs that give pleasure
• Increases retention of learning material
• Cements a social network
• Laughter increases your immune response

Bottom line, find ways, even disgusting ones, to laugh more. Laughter as shared experiences can make your health and life better.

Dune: Leadership Lessons

Last week I read the Dune Series by Frank Hebert. The first book was given to me by a friend in Chiro College who knew that I loved the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. (Need any more confirmation of my nerd-hood? Keep reading my posts, you'll get more.) Knowing my tendancy to get into a book and then having a primal need to voraciously consume all the books in the series, I never started it--until last week. Six days later I finished the series. Hebert deserves the kudos, awards and interest he gets. The books create a world with themes you'll recognize.

Well, the plot follows the Atreides family who show spectacular leadership characteristics as well as many diverse gifts. The leadership traits will be my focus here:

1. Love your people. You will be repaid in devotion.
2. Loyalty breeds loyalty. Oppression and fear breed hate.
3. People first, machines and technology second. The best people are irreplaceable. Take care of them.
4. Training, training, training. Lack of discipline, lack of training creates a slip-shod group who will fall apart under pressure. Most companies and people are soft these days--be hard.
   
5. Perfect practice makes perfect. Be the absolute best, demand the absolute best, create the absolute best.
6. Heroic sacrifice creates true believers. Put yourself out there and others will follow.
7. Cultivate a sense of humor. Humor puts friends at ease and makes enemies uncomfortable.
8. Be gracious. Wear your leadership lightly--heavy-handedness squelches feedback.
9. Change. Predictability is death to innovation. Modify, adapt, shift and survive.
   
10. Know when your job is done. Quit at the top of your game and move on. The mission is bigger than you--you are a steward, nothing more.

There were other interesting themes like conserving resources, controlling resources, strategy in the face of crisis, enemy management, diplomacy, etc. Read the books, especially Book I and II. The quality drops off from there. The ending of Book V feels a bit weird and weak. I won't give it away here, but it seems out of character from the rest of the books. 'Nuf said. You'll love it! 4.9/5 stars

Chronicles of Narnia

Disney will be doing another Chronicles story in 2007. They have made nearly $650 million from this movie worldwide--their biggest action-adventure release ever.

Brittney Spears Comeback

I know you all have been anticipating Brittney's next Big Move. Will she finally divorce her no-good freeloading doofus of a husband? Will she have another kid with doofus husband, as silly girls are wont to do? None of the above folks.....she's gonna be on Will and Grace. I can't wait! I can't wait! I can't wait!

Every time, Cable TV appeals.....

Comeback Lines

For all you ladies who read He's Not In To You, you may need these.

Speeding Man & Not-so-hidden Camera

Do you like the idea that the government can write you a ticket just 'cause their camera caught you flipping them off, I mean, speeding?

Iraq: How's It Doing?

Find out here.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Lil' Kim: Women Covering For Scumbag Men

Note: I chose this photo on purpose. This is the image Lil' Kim has in the hip-hop world.

I get so tired of this story. Tired. Tired. Tired. Tired.

Women covering for the bad deeds of the men in their lives always fascinates me. I just read the book He's Just Not in to You. Two thumbs way up! A few friends have read it, who really need the message, but they refuse to get it. Dr. Phil's rants and Dr. Laura's diatribes often focus on the people want to remain in their stinkin' thinkin' and keep creating the problems they profess to want to avoid.

Why? And why women moreso than men? A study showed that 80% of men divorce women alcoholics within one year of the disorder coming to light. They don't take responsibility for it, nor do they try to "fix it". By contrast only 20% of women divorce men alcoholics--ever.

People say that it is economical--women with children are fearful for their families. But that hasn't been our experience in practice. You would be stunned to know how many women work and support the family and receive the abuse and allow their children to be abused by the man who lazes around home while controlling the finances that his wife works so hard to make!

There is a trait uniquely (some) female, the "let me change him" or "people just don't see the man I see" or "he's so hot, I'll ignore the fact that he beats me".

My theory is that women ignore the little signs in the beginning. Jealous (insecurity) behavior is viewed as protective. Controlling behavior is viewed as take charge. Words are valued more than actions (he says he loves me--after the smackdown).

Friends of the increasingly isolated girl (he just loves to spend time together, isn't he romantic?) worry about her personality change. She finds herself massaging the truth--rationalizing increasingly weird behavior. All of a sudden, she has committed to her decision often after alienating those who care for her. Her friends are sick of her lies, evasions, broken promises and distance themselves from her.

She is alone. It is of her own making. What an idiot I am, she thinks in rare bursts of self-awareness. Her man confirms this. He has contempt for her, of course, because how can you respect someone who has so little respect for themselves that they take all kind of garbage and then defend it?

A woman in this position has a choice: she can either persist in the insanity, convincing herself that things will change, that he really loves her (and he really might, but he also has other serious problems), that he's the father of her children (rhapsodizing internally about the importance of fathers--nevermind that he's a wackjob sperm donor. No loving man hits his woman or degrades the mother of his kids.), that marriage is forever, that she can't make it otherwise, blah, blah, blah. Her rationalizations cover her embarassment for not being able to see what others so clearly saw. She stays to protect her pride as much as to protect her relationship with him. Witness Whitney Houston: she will die before she admits that Bobby Brown is a no-good, piece of crap that has used and abused her for his own gain. "F-you world!" her actions shout, "I will prove you wrong! and stand by my man!!!!"

Or a woman can repent. Repentence means change. It means owning the decision to stay and owning the decision to go. It means taking responsibility for her actions--not for the abuse. A fascinating thing happens: a woman will fail to hold the man responsible for his actions even while recovering from the bruises, or affairs, or word spears. She will say internally "if I had only done (fill in the blank) he would...." When someone lets another person off the hook for bad behavior, often that is a way of letting themselves off the hook for bad behavior. "Well I've done bad things, too. People should just be more forgiving and less judgemental."

In order to change her life, a woman must take responsibility for staying when she could have chosen to go. It can mean letting go of the rebellion associated with staying with a man such as this. Plenty of women vicariously live through their anti-social man's behavior. They secretly relish when the husband tells off the mom or dad or sister or friend who has "meddled" and "always thinks they know how my life should go. Finally!" she tells herself, "someone stands up for me!" Her healing won't come until she views herself as a powerful person who must stand up for herself. Her husband/boyfriend must also stand up for himself. He must hold himself accountable. She can't change him.

NO ONE CAN CHANGE ANYBODY. Even Jesus can only change your heart if you let Him in. You must choose. You must ask. You must seek. You must knock. Free will. It is a beautiful thing.

For too many women, their first act of rebellion is hooking up with a bad boy. You find the equivalent in men who enlist in the Army to spit in their parents eye: "no one is going to tell me what to do!" These actions fall into the category of "jumping from the frying pan into the fire."

Here's my problem with portraying Lil' Kim or any other woman as a victim: as long as she views herself that way, she has no hope of changing her situation. She is helpless? Who can help her? The state? Her family? Ultimately, even if the state puts a crazy man behind bars with the forced prosecution (which I think is a good idea, by the way, because it is a crime--you wouldn't ask a bank if they are pressing charges after they were robbed, would you? You'd just prosecute the criminal.), the woman can still find someone to fill her need for adrenalin, control, rebellion, whatever.

No, ultimately, the woman has to decide that she steers her ship. Yes, this is challenging! Lounging in the passenger seat can be such fun! No responsibility for which direction the car goes but plenty of time to critique the path. While taking the wheel can be scary, it is also exhilterating!

What can be even more exhilerating is joining with a man who also takes responsibility for his life. Who resists the temptation to blame, who chooses his life. Together, these proactive, responsible (able to respond) people form a powerful team. But this partnership doesn't come cheap. A lot of work to learn mature emotional responses, to leave behind the mean and cheap putdowns that can feel so good to say but do horrible long-term harm, to admit that there might be another way to try something, to learn to compromise decisions without compromising the essential self--all these skills can be learned.

A lifetime pattern of unhelpful beliefs can be let go and replaced. It is worthy work. The rewards are huge. Perhaps Lil' Kim will do this work in prison. Yolanda Young said in the USA Today Editorial that "Lil' Kim was in prison long before the judge brought down the gavel." That's true, but probably not in the way, Ms. Young meant. Lil' Kim was in a prison of her own making. If she discovers this, then she will be free. For whatever we make, we can unmake too. That is called freedom.

Arguments: Post-9-11 Cost Benefit Analysis

A friend of mine linked me up with Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer who wrote a recent opinion that the threat from terrorism is overblown. He writes, quoting a recent NY Times editorial by History Professor Joseph J Ellis:

All of this seems obvious at this point. The total number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the last 5 years -- or 10 years -- or 20 years -- or ever -- is roughly 3,500, the same number of deaths by suicide which occur in this country every month. This is the overarching threat around which we are constructing our entire foreign policy, changing the basic principles of our government, and fundamentally altering both our behavior in the world and the way in which we are perceived.

And yet, one almost never hears anyone arguing that the terrorism threat, like any other threat, should be viewed in perspective and subjected to rational risk-benefit assessments. That's because opinions about terrorism are the new form of political correctness, and even hinting that this threat is not the all-consuming, existential danger to our Republic which the Bush followers, fear-mongerers and hysterics among us have relentlessly and shrilly insisted that it is, will subject one to all sorts of accusations concerning one's patriotism and even mental health.What do you think? Are we Americans overblowing the threat, changing our lives for no good reason? Should Americans accept a terrorist threat, that perhaps the loss of 3500 people per year to terrorism is an acceptable risk versus the benefit of no attacks? This same professor would have problems with the 2200 soldiers dead in Iraq "for no good reason", when his same risk-benefit analysis is applied to that foreign policy decision.

First, I think it is important to properly analysize the threats to American society when a bomb blasts two of the worlds highest skyscrapers in the worlds only remaining Superpower. What affect does something like this have? All the way in Texas, our business ground to a halt for a couple weeks. It was slow for a month or so more. In Texas.

Let's look at the economic problems wrought by the measily 3000 deaths (in comparison to the 3500 deaths that occur each month in the U.S. from suicide) that occurred on September 11, 2001. Here is a thumbnail analysis. The total immediate cost was approximately 27 Billion, the intermediate and long-term costs are simply staggering. Read the whole link for more understanding of the economic effects.

Mr. Dr. rightly noted that the lost wages alone where almost incomprehensible. If you consider that the average age of the dead was 40 (I'm guessing) and would work 25 more years making a wage of $50,000 (this was NYC and Pennsylvania, financial and government workers so the average wage is probably somewhat low) that's 3000x50,000x25=you do the math.

From a strictly cost-benefit analysis view, those who commit suicide are depressed, by definition. Depressed people tend to drag on society, right? They are sick more often, work less, commit more crime, and generally are a pain to be around. So their loss to society can't possibly be as great as highly motivated workers in the Financial District, right? (I don't believe this BS, by the way, but this is the kind of thinking that the pointy-head being quoted above suggest we do to assess the cost of making terrorism a war--contrasting costs also have to be valued, don't they?)

What about the emotional toll exacted when society endures an attack? What about the emotional toll when society stands still and waits for the next attack (that may or may not happen) without action? Sitting ducks, as it were. What about the emotional toll taken when aggressive responses are undertaken?

They all exact a price. There is no cheap war. Sun Tzu's first rule of war: It is always a loss. Always. I agree with this statement, believe it or not. But there are greater losses than the economic losses and emotional toll war takes--like being plunged into economic chaos by a fanatical enemy, for example. Like the perpetual victimhood of appeasement.

At the risk of further offending my liberal readers, would an appropriate response to an abusive boyfriend be to try to make him happy? Give in to him--he wants sex three times a day and anything less "makes him mad", give it to him, girl! That's appeasement. How satisfying is it to hear that some victim has shocked the heck out of the abuser and beat him to a bloody pulp in his sleep--not very civilized granted, but satisfying nonetheless. Now a more civilized approach is to prosecute the human dirt and put his lanky butt in jail. Society has a responsibility to its other citizens to corral and punish theives, murderers, terrorizers.

The number one role of the U.S. government is to PROTECT HER CITIZENS. When a crazed maniac blows up a building, a ship, orders a hit on an ex-president, etc., that human and those who feed, nurture and sheild him should be crushed. Obliterated. Exterminated. Expunged. Nullified. This, of course, is why so many conservatives are literally up in arms about the porous border allowing every sort of criminal through.

The nature of terrorism is that a criminal approach is not enough--one attack deprives Americans of a fundamental belief in freedom and security. This may sound circular. Civil libertarians cry out that that's exactly the problem--by turning this situation into a war, civil liberties are lost. I posit that those liberties are gone the minute the attack happened anyway. A seige mentality and democracy do not work together. A war, messy as it is, is less messy than a vague sense of unease that doing nothing propogates.

My rage at the terrorist attacks were multifold. In fact, I can't remember being more outraged except in an instance of finding out that innocent children had been molested (the Priest scandel ranks right up there with moral outrage). Why? Because these attacks did more to destroy people and a building. Suddenly, where the thought never occurred before, every person in a turban, every dark-skinned person who looked of Middle Eastern descent looked suspect to me. My airplane flights which I continue to take (the terrorists can kiss my ass), are now fraught with jitters that I never before experienced. New Years celebrations cause anxiety. Group activities like the Super Bowl cause concern. I don't change my behavior--the terrorists would win if I did. But my mind has changed. Forever.

Yes, the likelihood of dying in a car wreck is greater. Yes, more people drown, commit suicide, have accidents, every year than would be killed in a random attack. Yes, natural disasters displaced far more people, killed more people and was uncontrolled and devestating. But that's beside the point. Those things don't cause mass physical devastation at the hands of a few people, those losses don't cause me to distrust people, those losses don't violate the essential pact of trust that democracy is based on.

Say that the U.S. endures a random attack once a year--an airport lost here, a mall damaged there with approximately 3000 people lost each time. We can guess this would happen because certain security measures now undertaken are deemed Draconian and unncecessary and therefore discarded.

Wiretapping of people connected to known terrorists would be verboten or else, the press should be allowed to see for themselves who is on the list so that they might decide if the person is a threat or not--go interview them, say, and find out "the truth". Potential attacks that could be thwarted would go on in secrecy, but that's the price you pay for civil liberties.

No-fly lists would be a thing of the past. This actually might be a good decision. Average Americans are the best defense against these psychos. No person again will sit if someone tries to take over a plane with plastic forks or tweezers. That person is dead or beat to hell or the plane goes down. A plane will never be used as a weapon in the U.S. again, ever. (That is my prediction, we'll see...) More importantly, my baby won't be patted down going through security. Stupid!

Security around airports and other places of travel will be abandoned or goes back to the old days of general portly policing because it makes me add time to my already suck-bag travel. Trucks and cars filled with explosives can ride right up because the government will no longer monitor munitions, farm supplies used in bomb making, and other explosive equipment. But at least my husband can drive up to the airport unmolested and sit and wait for my plane to arrive. It is so annoying to have to wait for him to swing around the airport again because of the no-stopping policy. Oy!

Prisons holding terrorists would be opened up or the detained people should have their day in court. The U.S. government will spend billions (with a B) defending their actions to detain people who have not yet, but were associated with people who do or intended to, do the U.S. harm. These poor non-citizens must have their rights protected. It is the U.S.'s job to prove every person's plan--their past history, intercepted phone calls, and written plans revealing secret plots in mid-foil, mean nothing until a jury of his hated enemy gets to look it over for themselves. The time and human resources to carry out this litigation will fall to the tax payer, as all worthy things should. It's his fault that Islamofascists hate us anyway--stupid Jesus-loving Red State morons.

In all this kibitzing about cost-benefit analysis, the experts don't seem to acknowledge the results. If the U.S. endured random attacks, the chronic economic devestation would cause social disarray, important services would be discontinued, our society would lurch from crisis to crisis.

Left unchecked and unabated, the terrorist's achieved goal would plunge the world into medieval maddness. Elites chortle that this would never happen. Ha! That is immature fear talking, they say. Nobody in the aristocracy wants to acknowledge this world's bloody past, and present for that matter. The civilized world, in the form of the UN and other non-elected authorities, should be beyond revenge. Good heavens, war is so primal, so infantile, so unevolved! What the hell happened to turning the other cheek?

Wrapped up in these smug arguments is derision for simplistic religion and the simpletons who believe them. Devoted Muslims, barbarians, should be abandoned to their ways--as should devoted Christians. Let them toil in narrow-minded anonymity. They don't have the sophistication it takes to lead or have vision. This is, no doubt, why George Bush as President is so unmitigatingly galling.

The enlightened Glenn Greenwald calls him "Dear Leader" of course implying that Bush runs a totalitarian regime like Hitler or Stalin or Mao--he just hasn't reach Greenwald yet, to shut him down. (This fact seems to be lost on Mr. Greenwald--that he has the freedom to bellow like a bull-moose unmolested but would be eating dogs and in prison in China for spouting his views today. On the other hand, his political view would fit nicely with China's policy. He might be given a government position, but I digresss.)

These discourses certainly need to happen. I agree. My irritation increases, though, when opponents to the war and to aggessive military action and to pissing off "allies" who show shaky resolve because of their absurd conflicts of interest (France is just mad that their hand got shut in the Iraq cookie jar--isn't it nice to see the name of an "ally" on a bomb pointed at your head?) refuse to do a cost-benefit analysis on doing nothing. They act as though there are no costs by going about our business as though 9-11 never happened.

In the spirit of going back to "normal", I suggest that we rebuild New Orleans just the way it was. Leave the levees. Fixing them might offend the people who didn't maintain them to begin with. Let's re-inhabit the mold-filled dwellings. Let's build below sea-level at the cost of gazillions of dollars. We don't want anyone to feel bad about the fact that New Orleans is eroding and will cease to exist if expert environmentalists are to be believed. We want everyone to feel good. We need a chocolate city even if we don't have jobs, even if corruption is rife, even if building in portions of the city is suicide. The threat of another hurricane hitting is 1/20. Highly unlikely. Why change life around for a remote possibility? It just makes people live scared. We want people to feel good. The cost of losing Jazz and Creole culture and crawfish boils outweighs rebuilding.

Does this seem absurd to you?

Likewise, the U.S. is demeaned by engaging such a puny little enemy like Bin Laden--a nutjob funded by totalitarian regimes like Iran and other fanatic governments. Iran, Syria, used by Russia, China and while expedient, France, as a thorn in the pompous U.S's flesh should be praised. They just reveal what a tyrant the U.S. is--hypocritical, too.

While the U.S. jails citizens, takes civil liberties on one hand, they chastise other governments for doing the same thing. Greedy and smug, the U.S. exploits other nations for it's own interests--mainly guzzling fuel that is killing our environment. And, gas is over $2 a gallon! That is so unfair to poor people! And, no drilling should be done stateside 'cuz that would ruin our environment. And, no windmills should be used as alternative fuel, because I can see them through my binnoculars when I look out to sea, I pay for a prime view!

What would have been a better response to 9-11? What should the U.S. policy have been? Considering that France, Germany and Russia were utterly complicit with regimes at odds with their supposed ally (us--just in case you were wondering), how would the U.S. avoid offending them save taking no action whatsoever. How does the Middle East falling into fanaticism serve our country's interests? Should we just let Europe implode--she has already taken the poison into her system? Extracting it will be painful. Why are nations like Poland so in favor of the U.S.'s action in Iraq? Why does Britain and Australia stay the course--these are representative governments too, afterall--are their citizens simpletons?

Finally, what are the costs of no change? What are the costs of continuing to live in a pre-9/11 mentality? Much of the talk about risk-benefit analysis blithely ignores the moral questions of letting injustice going unpunished. Much of the talk of risk-benefit analysis ignores the probability of more attacks--bullys don't stop pushing when you don't push back, they push harder and more often. What then?

Frey Dupes Oprah: Why It Matters

Read why here.