Wicked Wolf's Walkabout

Moving

2006-06-14T22:25:00.000-05:00

I'm moving to LiveJournal, so please adjust your links to:
http://wickedwolfj.livejournal.com/

Ann Coulter -- "Mindless: The Dark Side of Conservatism"

2006-06-09T23:19:00.000-05:00

In addition to the well-deserved death of the murderer al-Zarqawi (may he burn forever), yesterday saw the release of Ann Coulter’s new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” I happen to be a regular reader of Ann’s column. Despite my differences with her on some vital issues, I usually enjoy her writings exposing the absurdity of a culture that passes off obscenities as art but prohibits courts from displaying the Ten Commandments.

However, on some issues, she and I see things VERY differently. I think I’ve already stated my opinion on abortion, and ‘nuff said there. Unfortunately, just like Rush, there are some things Ann should avoid discussing if she doesn’t want her other good ideas to suffer by association. Rush, for example, needs to keep his big yap shut about environmental science, since he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about it. Likewise, Ann needs to keep her stunted knowledge of the theory of evolution under tight wraps. To quote from the first chapter of “Godless:”

“Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.”

Actually, Ann, one could argue that some conservatives also hate science, and react just as poorly. There is a yawning chasm of ignorance about science on both sides. In addition, that line about repudiating science when it contradicts one’s beliefs is dismayingly ironic; as Ann goes on to demonstrate. Graphically.

It is frighteningly unscientific to think that the AIDS virus discriminates based on potential victims’ morality. One may be a pillar of moral virtue, but that won’t protect you if you are accidentally exposed to the virus. The virus does not discriminate. This is not to say that personal morality doesn’t have any influence. It can serve in a preventive sense: By making certain choices about one’s behavior, one can minimize one’s risk of becoming exposed to the virus. One’s morality does influence those sorts of choices, but has nothing to do with the action of the virus itself.

Likewise, in her column from June 7th, Ann states (of Liberalism):
“It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children ... that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)
… Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).”

One wonders what sort of “proof” Ann would require. Usually, when creationist morons claim there is no proof for evolution, they say it is because we’ve never seen one form of life (say, a fish) spontaneously transform into another (a frog, for example). This is based on an utter, abject and self-inflicted ignorance about Darwin’s actual theory and the improvements upon it that have been made in the century since he proposed it. Moreover, creationists love to claim that evolution is a “theory,” and therefore unreal. Well, our understanding of gravitation is a theory, too, but its status as a theory won’t keep you from falling to your death if you leap off the Sears Tower (something I devoutly wish the creationists would try, given their disdain for actual scientific theories). Apparently, they would rather accept the proposition that a story made up by a primitive tribal culture over 3,000 years ago is more likely to represent reality.

I say their ignorance is self-inflicted because the concept of evolution is very simple, and they don’t bother even to try to understand it. It goes like this: (1) Small spontaneous, heritable changes in individual animals or plants either promote or inhibit their survival in a changing environment. (2) Positive changes are more likely than maladaptions to be passed on to offspring, since biota maladapted to their environment do not survive well enough to reproduce as successfully as those better adapted. (3) The cumulative effect of many small changes over hundreds or thousands of generations over thousands or millions of years results in descendents so different from their ancestors that we call them new or different species. That’s evolution in three sentences, three. I mean, if you can't understand something that simple, maybe you need to eat more fish...

Notice that nowhere did I suggest that any species suddenly changes into another species, like magic. The only things that vary are the heritable characteristics of individual animals. Such variations occur all the time through normal, routine mutation and crossover. (If crossover and mutation did not result in genetic diversity, we would all be identical twins.)

So where’s the proof of evolution? It’s all around us, in the fossil record (in which there are many examples of intermediate forms), in the diversity of species, in the fact that the diversity of species more than matches the diversity of environments, in the fact that we are not all identical twins, and in the confirmed fact that we Homo sapiens are nearly genetically identical to Pan troglodytes. If people can’t see the proof, it's because they don’t want to.

The theory of evolution (a.k.a., Darwinism) is not a matter of faith; nor does it (as the benighted wing of the conservative movement claims) deny the existence of God. It allows us to appreciate the intricacy and complexity of the world and affords us a glimpse into the possible means by which God accomplished His work.

The politicization of science by loudmouthed throwbacks, ignorant of its basic tenets, is the primary reason I cannot and will not be a card-carrying member of the Republican party; just as the Democrats’ obsession with socialism, enforced mediocrity and political correctness (“Newspeak” and/or “Newthink," to draw Orwellian allusions) has prevented me from ever considering them as a viable – let alone legitimate – political alternative. I hold little hope for us as a country – hell, as a species – if people continue willfully to remain ignorant about science. Ignorance is curable. Willfull ignorance, however, is a symptom of that incurable malady, stupidity.

Spooky movie to check out

2006-06-07T23:01:00.000-05:00

I saw the documentary on SciFi tonight. I think I want to rent the movie. For a preview, check out:
http://www.deathtunnel.com

Something To Consider...

2006-06-05T19:05:00.000-05:00

As we all, left and right watch the Haditha investigation with concern, it's important to remember a few things.

To my friends on the right: If the allegations prove to be true, then justice needs to be done.

To my friends on the left: Don't be so quick to condemn in the absence of proof. This wouldn't be the first time the Islamists have used propaganda and a willing/lazy media to advance their cause.

Check out the "Pallywood" video: http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php

Why The Illegal Immigrant Issue Causes So Much Anger

2006-05-16T17:49:00.000-05:00

From: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/m/montebello-flag.htm

"Assistant Superintendent Robert Henke said the high school was under a lockdown and all the students were in their classrooms. He said that the 800 to 1000 students were from neighboring school districts such as the El Rancho Unified School District and the Whittier Union High School District. They marched to Montebello high school, lowered the flags, replaced the school flag with a Mexican flag, flew the U.S. flag upside down, and stole the California flag that had been on the pole."

Hopefully, the original school flag was being flown below the U.S. flag, as protocol demands.

If flags truly symbolize the countries and organizations they represent, we are left with this message: Mexico is ascendant, America goes belly up, and California is stolen by Mexicans.

My, my, my. What conclusion can one logically draw from this? How about: 1) The idea that all these Mexican nationals "just want to be a part of America" is a lie, and 2.) The apocryphal "secret plan" of Mexican immigrants, so often posited by the white supremacist conspiracy nuts, to "reconquer" the American Southwest (the "Reconquista") and create a greater "Aztlan" might not be such a far-fetched possibility.

I'm not sure what to be more disgusted by, the behavior of these students or the idea that a group of nasty bigots might have something right...

Hmmm... Doesn't our military take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... I figure any little weasel who supports the sentiment on display in these pictures falls in one of those categories. Maybe Bush has it right, sending the Guard to back up the Border Patrol. Interesting to look at posse commitatus in light of an invasion as opposed to law enforcement...

Nope. Don't want to go there. Mostly I agree with what the President said in his speech last night, with one exception: We need a real fence, not a virtual one; and make it a nice, 20-foot high concrete wall while we're at it. And the illegal immigrants here wanting any form of amnesty need to get with the program, learn English, assimilate, and figure out that they have to be loyal to this country and no other.
__________________________________
By the way, I believe in a citizenship test:

***You Passed the US Citizenship Test***
Congratulations - you got 9 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?
http://www.blogthings.com/couldyoupasstheuscitizenshiptestquiz/

Political Comic Books

2006-05-03T20:04:00.000-05:00

Been away a while, sorry. However, I did find this interesting comic book: Liberality For All. It's totally cheesy, but the artwork is not too bad. Probably worth a read if you have about $3.00 to blow (and aren't looking for serious intellectual stimulation). Here's a couple of pics from the website. Can you recognize the protagonists?

Jack's Back

2006-04-22T11:26:00.000-05:00

For all you poor guys like me who had to suffer through the original neverending chick-flick and subsequent lie-fest ("Yes, dear, it was so moving") without gnawing off your own leg to escape and thereby ensuring your own celibacy...

"Titanic: Two The Surface"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD4OnHCRd_4

Lightsaber Video

2006-03-14T20:18:00.000-06:00

Enjoyable. I give the special effects a 9, but the choreography falls flat in couple of places, so I gave that a 6.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=672422470842718521

Reproductive Rights & Responsibilities

2006-03-12T21:01:00.000-06:00

The National Center for Men (NCM) is filing suit in Federal court to try to establish for men the same reproductive freedom as women. After perusing their website, I have to say that while I would probably eschew any assistance these weirdos might offer with my own legal battles, I do think they have a point in this case. Women have the choice to have their child, abort the child, or give the child up for adoption at their discretion. However, biological fathers who want their child (with no strings attached) have no say if the mother decides to abort against their wishes, and biological fathers who did not choose fatherhood can be made to pay exorbitant sums to support children their former partner decided to have. A divorced Father can be denied his visitation rights, but a woman who gave up her natural child for adoption can come back years afterward and demand – and win – custody of the child. It is absolutely the truth that in regard to parenthood, men get all of the responsibility and none of the rights, and that the system is completely biased in favor giving entitlements to women at the expense of their former lovers/spouses. This is taxation without representation, and wealth redistribution in the finest traditions of socialism.

I happen to agree with diverse others that allowing men to skate out of their responsibilities as fathers is no different than allowing a woman to escape hers via abortion. As my life is my testament, if a man (intentionally or not) fathers a child, he is bound by the strongest ethical, moral and spiritual obligations to care for his offspring. To be consistent, therefore, the law should prohibit abortions of convenience. But since it bloody well doesn’t, then no man should be bound by the law to pay child support. (Ideological and philosophical consistency, however, has given us some of the most ludicrous excesses of ethical philosophy and oppressive political systems -- largely by the French, who view consistency as the test of a philosophy’s merit, no matter how idiotic the extremes).

So here’s my view on the matter of male rights and responsibilities with regard to reproduction and parenthood, based on the possible situational permutations and the following five principles:

1. The State is obligated to protect, in order of precedence, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2. Fathers and mothers must have rights to match their responsibilities; neither may have rights without responsibilities.
3. The mother’s life and health take precedence over the father’s wishes or the unborn’s life.
4. The unborn child’s life and well-being take precedence over either parent’s pursuit of happiness.
5. Neither parent may use the fact of a child’s existence or the court in a deliberate attempt to be vindictive, or to enrich himself or herself at the other’s expense.

NOTE: As for principle 5, here’s a perfect example of what I mean by vindictiveness:

Hey men of South Dakota … I think you overlooked something
Posted by BattyDem Added to homepage Tue Mar 07th 2006, 05:51 PM ET
When a woman got pregnant before abortion was legal, there was no way for her to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who the father was. All a guy had to do was spread rumors about the girl, claim she was a slut, trash her reputation by getting a few buddies to say they slept with her or that they knew other guys who slept with her, etc. It was her word against yours and since she was a fallen woman, no one was going to believe her. She was forced to leave town for almost a year. You (or your son) simply walked away and never had to think about it again.
Remember all that sex you had in college? You never had to deal with any consequences, did you? You just assumed that you never got anyone pregnant because no one ever told you that you did. You don’t believe that abortion rights were ever an issue in your life and you don’t expect them to be an issue in your son’s life either. You taught him to be “careful” - just like you always were.
I bet it never even occurred to you that your college girlfriend may have gotten an abortion without telling you.

Well, my friends… you just eliminated choice from a woman’s life, so she’ll probably end up having a baby that was conceived while you were being “careful”. But wait … it gets better. There is now a little thing called DNA testing. The girl can PROVE the kid belongs to you (or your son).
If you’re the one who did the deed, you’ll have to pay child support and your wife will find out that you’ve been a naughty boy - which means you may end up
having to pay alimony as well. If your son did the deed, he will also be forced to pay child support, but if he’s only 14 and can’t afford to do it, you’ll be footing the bill! I bet you never thought his college fund would be spent on diapers and baby food! It looks like his Ivy League future just flew out the window, huh?
No more rumors … no more “muddying the waters” to make people think the father could be one of a dozen guys … no more walking away without a care in the world. Guys, you’re going to pay for the next 18 years … and if the girl wasn’t quite legal yet, you’ll be paying a different price!
I bet you never dreamed that controlling someone else’s body was going to be so damn expensive, did you?

How many freakin' times does this PBFH use the word "pay"? Too bad Batty Misanthrope here didn’t consider the idea that, outside of rape, it takes two to "do the deed" as she puts it, that the woman is just as responsible for getting herself knocked up as the man is for knocking her up. Tell ya what, gals: Keep your legs closed and it won’t be a problem. And guys: Keep it in your pants, and it won’t be a problem. And if you two just can’t keep your uglies separated, use birth control, both of you, for crying out loud. By the way, Batty, the DNA test works two ways, so all you little chickies looking to trap a guy or hold on to your man by getting pregnant by someone else and then telling your man that it’s his, beware. Even if it is his kid, if you sabotaged his condoms or deliberately lied and said you’re infertile, then you deserve jack spit. And if you believe that women don’t do that kind of thing, I have some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you. Surprise: some women are just as nasty and duplicitous as they say we men are. Especially women like Batty who are all about a woman’s “choice,” but want to deny men any opportunity for choice.

Woman Wants Child, Man Does Not
The man may not force a woman to have an abortion, if that is what he wants. However, the woman in such a case may not sue for or expect child support, and the man must terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. She could have kept her legs together as easily as he could have kept it in his pants. In cases where fraud is involved, the party attempting to defraud the other must face severe penalties.

Man Wants Child, Woman Does Not
If the man wants to keep the child and the woman does not, insofar as it cannot be proven that the man would be an unfit or abusive parent, the woman must have the child and surrender it to the man after birth, and terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. In return, the man must pay all medical bills associated with the prenatal care and childbirth, and a one-time sum as the court may find appropriate as reasonable compensation for the woman’s loss of pay, benefits, and mental and physical suffering as may be associated with the pregnancy and birth. In sum, if the man wants the child, the value of that child’s life to the biological father and the interest of the State in protecting life together necessarily supercede the biological mother’s right to privacy; however, the mother must be equitably compensated for the pregnancy and birth. If at any time the pregnancy or birth is determined with medical certainty to be an extreme risk to the life or subsequent good health of the mother, then the pregnancy may be terminated regardless of the fathers’ interest.

That’s right Batty. That child’s life has value, and your inconvenience doesn’t matter. Maybe if you’d used birth control or kept your knickers up where they belong, you wouldn’t be so dang inconvenienced.

Neither Wants Child
I fall back on my criteria for determining when the State must prohibit abortion (third trimester, healthy mother, healthy fetus). If these three conditions apply, the mother must have the baby, and the baby must be placed for adoption. When the baby is adopted, both biological parents terminate forever any and all parental rights to the child. Until such time, both parents shall be required equally to pay child support to the agency providing for the care of the baby. The biological father must be informed of the pregnancy and given his say in the ultimate decision. The mother may not, on pain of criminal prosecution, keep the fact of the pregnancy a secret from the biological father unless it can be shown that so informing him creates a threat to the life of the mother and/or the life of the fetus.

Come on, Batty. There’s plenty of good people wanting and waiting to adopt. Try thinking of someone beside yourself for a femtosecond.

Both Want Child
If married or cohabiting … case closed
If unmarried and not cohabitating, or if divorcing … custody case just like in any divorce

Basically, I think men in this country get a raw deal regularly, thanks to the cowardice of lawmakers and judges before the shrill bleating and ranting of a bunch of Feminazis, who in true leftist fashion think only of demanding rights and power, all the while abrogating their own responsibilities and screaming for the state to redistribute the wealth of those who have worked hard to earn it to lazy, undeserving snags and whiners. Of course, the radical right helps out by its insistence on wanting simple, one-size-fits-all solutions (no abortion, no birth control except abstinence) to complex human situations and circumstances. Less ideology, and more principled pragmatism is what is needed these days.

Article by Bennett and Dershowitz

2006-02-25T11:39:00.000-06:00

Found this article this morning:

______________________________________________________
San Diego Union-TribuneFebruary 24, 2006

This Time, The Press Failed The Public
By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz

There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment.

The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report.

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: The Austin American-Statesman, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These newspapers did their duty.

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind – images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects – stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts – and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike – the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London – never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles – included signs that read, “Behead those who insult Islam.” The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists – their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact – not opinion but fact – that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press – an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms – would be among the first to surrender.

Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University.
______________________________________________________

So far as I can see, the only thing Bennett and Dershowitz got wrong is the last sentence. Is anyone really surprised that the left-leaning media would surrender to Muslim intimidation? The leftists are falling all over themselves to debase themselves before the Islamofascists in the name of appeasement. The Jews have been victimized for thousands of years, and Christians are clearly out of favor with the left because Christians generally have a problem with immoral behavor. (Never mind that all three religions proscribe drug abuse, casual sex and abortion.) If the dung-covered Mary in Boston and the crucifix dipped in urine (photo by a student at USC) aren’t blashphemous, I don’t know what is. Maybe if, as others have suggested, the Christians and Jews threw temper tantrums and made threats for a month, the mainstream media would stop publicizing these images (which are orders of magnitude more offensive than the Jyllands-Posten cartoons) as well.

This about sums it up...

2006-02-14T20:59:00.000-06:00

Over the past several weeks we've been treated to spectacle of the mindless outrage of a multinational bunch of ignorant muslim peasants over some not-really-all-that-offensive cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper. The extremist muftis went into overdrive fanning the flames with their own bogus (and crudely done) profanities against Islam. Sweetness & Light posted some interesting responses from Islamic clerics on the question of Islamic tolerance for other faiths and for freedom of expression (as if the idiots over there hadn't had their real levels of tolerance and peaceful intent on parade already).

As much as I bag on the leftists, I tend to side with my more-liberal-than-commie journalist friends on the necessary response to these Islamofascist drones, and it can be summed up in four words (and one website):

Mohammed Dance & Buy Danish!!!!

Pseudoscience and Politics

2006-02-02T18:49:00.000-06:00

Seems the Intelligent Design crowd has some competition in the "pseudoscience for the cause" department. First, witness this stunning piece of pseudoscience from the moonbats at the People's Republic of Berkeleystan, then enjoy my paraphrase below. The names have been changed to protect - well, me. Enjoy!

NASHVILLE – Politically liberal agendas may range from opposing the Iraq War to upending traditional moral and religious values to universalizing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of liberalism report that at the core of political liberalism is narcissism and a fear of responsibility, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political liberalism include:

Negativism/fear and psychological immaturity
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance/advancement of mediocrity
Need for cognitive closure
Terror identification/Appeasement

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of liberal ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Liberalism as Experiential Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychobabble Association's Psychobabble Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Daniels of the University of Tennessee and Visiting Professor Julio Gallo of the University of California joined lead author, Associate Professor Jim Beam of the University of Kentucky, and Professor Arie Dareyett of the School of Hardnox, to analyze the literature on liberalism.
The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Daniels said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of liberal thought - the resistance to differing points of view that results when their basic narcissistic view of the world is challenged, they said.

The terror identification feature of liberalism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many liberals openly offer ideological or material support to America’s enemies in an attempt to deflect hostility and potential violence away from themselves, they wrote. This behavior is also widely known as the “Stockholm” or “Patty Hurst” effect in which the victim identifies with their tormentor(s).

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of liberalism - an endorsement of absolute equality and mediocrity, a view reflected in Marxist-Leninist ideology, Chinese agrarian reforms and the liberal, failure-coddling politics of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Disparate liberals share a certain narcissism and fear of responsibility, the authors said. Mao, Castro, and former President Bill Clinton were individuals, but all were left-wing liberals because they preached or demonstrated an opposition to standards of ethical conduct and personal responsibility, and condemned individual merit in some form. Movie-maker Michael Moore can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first critical synthesis of a vast amount of information about liberalism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political liberalism under the rubric of experiential social cognition, said Gallo. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual traits based on personality, interests and life experience.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of liberalism," Gallo said.
While most people resist change, but eventually adapt to their social environment, liberals (as narcissists) are more likely to attempt to force others to adapt to them or adopt their views, than conservatives are.
As for liberals' penchant for enforcing mediocrity, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of relaxing standards and eliminating any measures of individual merit in education, and the push to reinforce existing social divisions by extending special “compensatory” rights and privileges to minority groups whom liberals have traditionally defined as “disadvantaged victims,” despite the basic fairness of civil rights laws already on the books.

The researchers said that liberal ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean (Mr. Savage) that liberalism is pathological or that liberal beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'conservative' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about liberals’ accusation that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the liberal fear of responsibility (blame assignment) and/or need for closure, said Daniels.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, left-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than reasoned debate, probity, and intellectual rigor, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Daniels acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political liberalism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about liberalism, but very little that is seriously critical or skeptical; probably a function of the high incidence or liberal academicians (those who can’t or won’t do, teach).

The researchers also highlighted cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

They noted that some researchers might consider these figures politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. For example, some researchers might claim that Stalin was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system; however, Stalin was actually a megalomaniac bent on preserving his personal power as a means to compensate for his deeply buried feelings of inadequacy and self loathing that resulted from abuse at the hands of his father.

Although they concluded that liberals often pride themselves on being more "integratively complex" than others are, Daniels said, "it doesn't actually bear out in reality."

Liberals don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make truly rigorous minds squirm, and then operating on the assumption that everyone naturally agrees with them," Daniels said.

He pointed as an example to congressional hearings in 1999, when then-President Bill Clinton was asked to explain himself. The Democratic president told assembled legislators and the media, "I did not have sex with that woman." And a few months later, Clinton told the American people, "I lied."

Osama Bin Moore and Ammunition for Appeasers

2006-01-22T22:09:00.000-06:00

Well, I was going to try to write an insightful and knowledgeable analysis of Bin Ladin's latest tape. However, after doing a Google blog search on the topic and finding a few decent articles (Counterterrorism Blog), I ran into a solid wall of liberal whining about MSNBC's Chris Matthews' remarks on Hardball, likening Bin Ladin's message to Michael Moore's message. (Never mind that it's the same message of the entire radical left, as portrayed in Fahrenheit 911: American policy is solely defined by evil corporate interests out to exploit developing states). That and a lot of lib sites that seem to be of the somewhat schizophrenic opinion that either (1) Bin Ladin is dead or incommunicado, and all the new AQ tapes and communications intercepts are fakes by the CIA to support the goals of the nefarious neocon cabal and distract to public from the administration's flaws or (2) The new tape only has value as evidence of the Bush administration's deliberate failure to "get" Bin Ladin, because of the administration's ties to the Saudi family and the evil corporate entities described in (1) above (the Syriana theory).

I guess what distresses me the most is the sheer self-serving, narcissistic idiocy of such conspiracy theories. American socialists, er, liberals really think the world revolves around them and their mindless pursuit of political power. You know you have a problem when the focus of the Democratic campaign in 2004 was to put forward a candidate that could beat Bush, without regard to the candidate's actual qualifications for office. Let's try to be realists for once. Chris Matthews is not a shill for the Bush administration any more than Rather was Kerry's pet journalist. Each man is doing his job, and is entitled to his opinion (even though Rather and Mapes tried to snow the American public in an effort to "get" Bush). To the libs up in arms about the alleged vilification of your fat, nasty, twelve-sandwich-eating propagandist saint: Pay attention to what was actually said for once:

"I mean, he sounds like an over-the-top Michael Moore here, if not a Michael Moore. Do you think that sells in America, that this war is being fought for the Daddy Warbucks?"

Matthews was not saying that Moore engages in terrorism himself, that Moore is a religious fanatic mass murderer like Bin Ladin, or anything of the sort. All he was saying was that Bin Ladin sounds like Moore, in their shared, stated opinion that the war is being fought to enrich greedy corporations. Visit Liberteaser to read Greg Newburn's succinct dismissal of this non-controversy.

Bin Ladin is an expert propagandist. In his latest tape, he targets our brave servicemen and women serving honorably in Iraq in an attempt to weaken their morale and resolve. He parrots the insane lib conspiracy theories because he believes (like many in the world, unfortunately, that Americans are pampered, gullible, casualty-averse turds who cut and run at the first body bag. He hopes to drive ever deeper the partisan wedge that lost the world a democratic Vietnam and a stable, prospering Somalia by making us pull out like Michael Moore's father should have. His peace offer is absolutely meaningless.

"We are a nation, for which God has disallowed treachery and lying."

Really? And what was September 11th, a catholic girls-school picnic? What about the interpretation of the Qu'ran that says a sin concealed is a sin halfway forgiven? In cultures in which personal honor is not determined for oneself by what one actually does and how one lives, but rather by how one is perceived by one's community, lying and betraying to save face is as natural as breathing - especially when lying to and betraying the foreign infidel is not considered morally wrong at all.

His offer of peace serves two purposes: Make him appear reasonable and honorable, and give the weasel appeasers in America ammunition for their arguments. If America relents and accepts his offer, it buys him space and time to rebuild Al Qa'ida, to rest and recuperate in the same way the Viet Cong used the numerous peace talks they requested and from which they walked away as soon as it became convenient, so that he can kill more Americans and achieve the destruction of Israel and the creation of a new Caliphate.

If the intercepted letter from Mr. Zawahiri is to be believed, Al Qa'ida is not faring well in Afghanistan, and they're worried that their loose cannon in Iraq, Al Zarqawi, will turn their primary audience against them. At least Usama Bin Bastard was honest about one thing:

"As for us, we do not have anything to lose. The swimmer in the sea does not fear rain."

When you're up against the ropes, any gambit is acceptable. As Pepe Escobar points out in his thoughtful article:

"Bin Laden may have never read James Joyce, but he is applying to perfection the Dubliner's motto: silence, exile, cunning. Against the awesome US military machine, al-Qaeda's weapons of choice since September 11, 2001, have been subterfuge, evasion and deception."

Bin Ladin has nothing to lose by making his insincere gesture, and everything to gain if the retro-hippie leftist morons and moonbats who share his hatred of America and George Bush succeed in doing as Mother Sheehan would have us do and withdraw our forces from the entire Middle East. Hell, that's right up there on the goal list that Zawahiri spelled out for us. (Casey must be spinning in his grave.)

In Memory of Nancy

2005-12-13T16:07:00.000-06:00

My long-time friend M just E-mailed me that her mother, Nancy, passed away on December second, after many years of battling heart and kidney disease. I'd like to take this moment to remember Nancy, and what she was to me.

It's no secret that when M and I were seeing each other, my dad and step-mother did not approve of the relationship. But Nancy always welcomed me into her home, and made me feel a part of M's family. I was included in visits to M's grandparents on holidays. One of the best Fourth of Julys I ever had was spent this way; and she turned one of the worst Christmases ever (when M and I were made unwelcome in my house) into a holiday worth remembering for the good as well as the bad. When I went off to college, Nancy allowed me to stay in her home every weekend so M and I could sustain our relationship. And when things were rough between me and M, Nancy was a comfort to me. If it were not for her, I would probably have lost contact with M long ago. It was she who acted as an intermediary when for various reasons, M and/or I couldn't contact each other directly.

For all these reasons, I want to celebrate Nancy's life; to thank her for the blessing of her caring about me as well as her daughter; and to offer my prayer that she finds her place within God's eternal love and grace. Thank you, Nancy. You will be missed.

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in?

2005-11-19T12:24:00.000-06:00

Okay, V. Here's how I scored:

You scored as Serenity (from Firefly).
You like to live your own way and do not enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you that you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you.

Other Possibilities:
Nebuchadnezzar (from The Matrix) 81%
Serenity (from Firefly) 81%
Moya (from Farscape) 75%
Millennium Falcon (from Star Wars) 75%
Enterprise D (from Star Trek) 69%
Bebop (from Cowboy Bebop) 69%
SG-1 (from Stargate) 69%
Galactica (from Battlestar: Galactica) 44%

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? from QuizFarm.com

And just for good measure:

You scored as Batman, the Dark Knight.

As the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause.

[Okay. But he takes himself too seriously. I'd rather be Cap'n Jack Sparrow or Spider-Man. Probably my predilection for wearing black. Hmmm.... :) And what is it with these tie-breakers? ]

Batman, the Dark Knight 75%
Neo, the "One" 75%
William Wallace 71%
Captain Jack Sparrow 63%
The Amazing Spider-Man 63%
Lara Croft 63%
The Terminator 58%
James Bond, Agent 007 58%
Maximus 54%
El Zorro 50%
Indiana Jones 50%

Funny, Sad and True

2005-11-11T19:00:00.000-06:00

C found this on the CHERUBS website. This is a site devoted to families of kids who have had congenital diaphragmatic hernias (CDH). With A in our life, most of these are pretty accurate. :)

You Know You Have a Child with Special Needs When...

You compare emergency rooms instead of grocery stores.
You compare your child's oxygen saturations.
You view toys as "therapy.'
You don't take a new day for granted.
You teach your child HOW to pull things out of the cupboard, off the bookcases, and that feeding the dog from the table is fun.
The clothes your infant wore last fall still fit her this fall.
Everything is an educational opportunity instead of just having plain old fun.
You cheer instead of scold when they blow bubbles in their juice while sitting at the dinner table (that's speech therapy), smear ketchup all over their high chair (that's OT), or throw their toys (that's PT).
You also don't mind if your child goes thru the house tooting a tin whistle, or climbs the furniture.
You fired at least 3 pediatricians and can teach your family doctor a thing or two.
You can name at least 3 genes on chromosome 21. (You really know your toast if you can spell the full names correctly)
You have been told you are "in denial" by at least 3 medical or therapy professionals. This makes you laugh!
You have that incredible sinking feeling that you've forgotten SOMETHING on those few days that you don't have some sort of appointment somewhere!
You get irritated when friends with healthy kids complain about ONE sleepless night when they're child is ill!
Your vocabulary consists largely of acronyms OT, PT, SP, ASD, VSD, IFSP, etc.
You keep your appointment at the specialist even though a tropical storm is raging because you just want to get this one over with, you waited 8 months to get it, and besides, no one else will be there!
Fighting and wrestling with siblings is PT.
Speech therapy occurs in the tub with a sibling.
When potty training is complete, you take out a full-page public notice in the Washington Post.
When the doctors, specialists, hospital staff, etc. all know you by your name without referring to your chart.
You keep a daily growth chart.
You calculate monthly statistics for the number of times your child vomits, and have done this for more then one year.
You phone all your friends when your child sits up for the first time, at age two.

With a big smile on your face you tell a stranger that your four year old just started walking last week.

Her medical file is two inches thick and growing.

You have a new belief: That angels live with us on earth.

Landlords and Liberals and Pets, Oh My!

2005-11-11T18:34:00.000-06:00

Let me explain one of my comments from yesterday's post. We wanted to adopt a dog, so last Saturday, C and I went down to the shelter and found one we thought would fit in with the family.

After getting to take her for a short walk, we went back into the office to do the paperwork. We were handed a five page questionnaire. Among other things, these people wanted our pet history for the past five years, a detailed pet care plan, and our landlord's phone number. We were told it would be at least a week before they could get around to approving our application and talking to our landlord, and oh by the way, the adoption fee is $100.00. While we were sitting there, the lady told another family that it was no problem to take the dog home over the weekend for a trial visit, but told us we had to bring the rest of our family all the way up there so THEY could observe how the dog interacts with our kids.

Okay, whoa! First of all, it's a DOG! Why the background investigation? I've had animals all my life, and my philosophy has always been that any animal we have is a member of the family, and we don't take in an animal unless we are committed to it, and everything that goes with it. Second, this sweet doggy has been at the shelter for over a year, and nobody has offered to adopt her. So, you ask, why didn't anyone want her? I don't know. But I do know that they deliberately put the rowdy young dogs in the pen with her so she can settle them down. You'd think that they would be thrilled that someone finally wants her. Third, why the hell was it okay for the other family to take the dog with them, but WE have to haul our whole family (including our special needs child AND the cat) up there?

The next issue was the landlord. Yeah, we paid a pet deposit, but thought we ought to let them know we planned on getting a dog along with our cat. As C put it, that just opened a whole can of worms. They couldn't just say okay, oh no. They insisted on coming by to inspect our rugs to see if the cat had done any damage. Our cat is pretty fastidious and has never once messed on the carpet. Our kids have done more damage to the carpet, but of course no one charges a child deposit. SO we said okay, and proceeded to spend three days and $100 dollars getting the house perfect so they'd have nothing to complain about when they came to inspect. So two hours before the appointed time, they call and say they can't make it and need to reschedule. It's not like we can just move, either, because none of the landlords around here allows pets.

So between the liberals and the landlords you have this dynamic where the animal rights advocates say "Please rescue and adopt homeless pets (so long as you give us all your personal information and pass the background check), and the landlords saying, "You can't enjoy animal companionship because we're more worried about the already old, worn-out carpet in our property than your quality of life."

Basically, we've now decided its just not worth the aggravation to adopt a dog, and we can't just go and blow a grand or two on a puppy from the pet store, and no one down here has any puppies for free or cheap. I'm starting to think that the drive to neuter pets has less to do with compassionate and humane control of the potential stray and homeless population, and more to do with restricting the supply to drive up prices and secure a monopoly for the breeders. One wonders that anyone has any pets at all these days...

Extreme Truth

2005-11-09T19:17:00.000-06:00

Okay. I’ve been ruminating on this since my last entry. I don’t want this blog to be a sad little reflection of my daily life. But what, I wondered, moves me enough to want to write. Well, politics, for one thing. I like to think of myself as an independent. Before you roll your eyes, let me explain why:

I tried being a Dem for a while, but it soon became clear to me that these smug, smarmy bastards don’t really believe in one damn thing they say. Their positions on various issues are not based on a principled, but pragmatic assessment of what will make good policy, but rather on a cynical, self serving perception of what looks good, and what will stir the emotions (rather than the intellect) of the people – whom they consider sheep. These are the people who grew up during the hippie days of the late sixties and early seventies (which, as a Gen-Xer, I am so friggin’ sick of hearing about), and have nothing better to offer than the infantile and discredited Conflict Theory arguments of Karl Marx and Gloria Steinem. These are people who are more interested in trying to destroy the United States from within than they are in really helping the “less fortunate” (read as “absolved of personal responsibility”) in the world. In fact, they’d like everyone to be absolved of personal responsibility so they can rule without fear of accountability for the catastrophic consequences of implementing their ill-conceived policy agenda. These folks have read Eric Fromme’s Escape From Freedom, and cynically exploit its revelations about human nature. Even though I support environmental conservation and respect for animals, the extreme environmentalists have made it so we can’t build more refineries, but we also can’t build solar or wind farms to achieve clean energy independence. PETA and their ilk have made it so I can’t adopt an unwanted dog from an animal shelter without the informational equivalent of a rectal probe. (It’s probably easier to adopt a starving orphan from Rwanda than to get a dog from the animal shelter). So I find myself looking at the other party, and thinking that on the whole, my values place me more on their side of the fence.

But wait! While I agree that government (and social programs) should be smaller, and that taxes should be lower, and that the U.S. needs to quit taking crap off the loser nations of the world, I don’t agree that we should vacate Roe vs. Wade and ban all abortions (late-term and partial birth abortions should be banned; first-trimester and morning-after pills should not). While every conservative publicly decries judicial activism (at least, so long as it is against what they want), I believe there is a necessary place for it: Sometimes the judicial branch needs to do what the legislative branch lacks the political balls to do, for the common good or to protect a minority from mob rule. I don’t believe we should rape the natural world to enrich ourselves. I certainly don’t agree that the narrow margin of victory George Bush enjoyed in 2004 gives his extreme base a “mandate” to dictate national policy, as the pontificating bloviaks on far-right radio stridently assert. The continued, deliberately self-inflicted ignorance and anti-scientific stance of the fundamental Christian extremists makes me want to puke. “Intelligent Design”? What a joke. It’s simply literalist dogma poorly attempting to masquerade as science, taking advantage of the uneducated, who wouldn’t know real science if it crawled out of the sea and started building condos. (They never got over Scopes and Epperson, I guess.) Stem cell research? Forget it under these guys. They obviously care more about upholding an apocryphal religious conviction concerning the questionable humanity of an undeveloped clump of cells (with the potential to grow into an ovine, fundamentalist voter), than about curing distinguished and brilliant contributors to humanity like, say, Stephen Hawking. Moreover, these folks are all about prayer in school – so long as you’re praying to Jesus. (To be fair, the freaks on the Left want to, in the name of religious tolerance for all, tolerate no public displays of Christianity – an equally absurd position.)

Which brings me to a third group who allows these fools to run the country: the vast body of American “citizens” who don’t bother to educate themselves about the larger issues that affect them, or anything beyond their immediate personal needs and wants, for that matter. These are the idiots with whom Glen Beck likes to get on the phone and play “moron trivia.” These are the people who justify the politicos’ perceptions of the electorate as a flock of mindless sheep. Sometimes, I think there should be a basic knowledge test in American government and American jurisprudence before anyone is allowed to vote.

Jesus said the poor will always be with us. Well, here’s the corollary: The hopelessly ignorant will be there, too. (And here’s the point that nobody wants to acknowledge: for the most part, the poor and the ignorant will be one and the same). What drives me and many others batty is that some of these people have convinced themselves that being stupid and poor is cool. So much so that they do everything they can to keep each other from achieving anything, all the while screaming that their destitution is someone else’s fault, and therefore the someone else in question needs to pony up everything that they want. Even better, when foreigners of their particular ethnic stock arrive in their neighborhoods and achieve success, they attack and assault the new arrivals. (Residents Say Beating Fits Widespread Pattern)

I read an article appearing in the Arizona Daily Sun yesterday that struck a chord with me. Erin McClam of the associated press may have gotten it wrong on Katrina (all that crap about race and poverty being at the root of the human disaster there), but he did make a couple of good points:

Quoting Yale international politics professor Stathis Kalyvas: “‘In the U.S. today one gets the sense a lot of people have difficulty just discussing things with one another,’ he says. ‘There seems to be a lot of bad feeling. The bloggers, the public -- you get a sense that people are much more fanatical.’”
“(Guy) Burgess, of the Conflict Research Consortium, says he'll continue working on the political help-wanted ad he constructs in his daydreams. He wants a candidate who will stand up to ‘political manipulation,’ and explain to Americans how opportunistic politicians are distorting real debate for selfish purposes. ‘Somebody's got to get up and explain to people how they're being manipulated,’ he says. ‘I think there's an opportunity for someone to run against it.’”

I like that idea – a third party. Unfortunately, in reality, as soon as someone moderate stands up, the ruling parties annex his or her position (at least, they say they do), and when the third party has lost the election, the other extremists out there (did you really think it was a bipolar political spectrum?) take the new party and convert it into something that pleases them, but absolutely fails to catch on with normal folk. This is good, in a way, because it keeps the real crazies (like the American Nazi Party) out of power, but it also prevents there from ever being a powerful third party. Current electoral laws and redistricting ensure that third parties never stand a chance; they never appear on the ballot, and the media never really gives them much credibility or positive attention. A lot of these groups are single issue parties, and you just can’t go far as a political party that way – although you can form a PAC and do some lobbying. (The Republicans started out as a third party, by the way. Of course, the Whigs that preceded them were imploding as a party, anyway.) If you really want to see evidence of how hard it will be to bring up a serious challenger to the current order, plot the electoral results from any recent presidential race with number of votes on the y-axis, and all candidates (in order of most votes to least) on the x-axis. What you get is a power law distribution of votes. The Republican and Democratic candidates will have received a number of votes that is orders of magnitude greater than that of their nearest rival. Power laws manifest in systems of entrenched inequality. In this case, the votes tend to go to the folks who are most well-known, and not necessarily to those best qualified. In turn, those with the most votes become more well-known, in a vicious cycle. Moreover, the actual voting public is only a fraction of the total population. It really is a screwed up system. But it needn’t be so if every American would become personally involved in the business of the nation, and vote for the right person – not the most familiar, and not the one our parents, our unions, or anyone else tells us to vote for.

What it comes down to, boys and girls, is that we have – through our own laziness and ignorance – allowed the lunatic fringe on both sides to set the policy agenda, and made it possible for them to enforce their nutty ideas on us. We as a people have become politically polarized, ethnically segmented, individually isolated, and intellectually complacent; and all of it – ALL of it – helps schmucks like Bill Clinton and Karl Rove to reach positions of power. Social Entitlements Programs? Vote-buying economic traps. Morality/Faith Based Policies? Instruments of social domination and control. ALL of it designed to rob you and me of any control over our lives, and make us hopelessly dependent on the schmucks in power. Extremists are the greatest political and social threat we face. They all need to be set on fire and put out with an anvil. Oh, wait. That’s kind of extreme, isn’t it?

Long day...

2005-10-06T18:08:00.000-05:00

You know it's going to be a long day when you start off with a headache. Nevertheless, we persevere... A had a doctor's appointment today, and low and behold she has yet another ear infection (if you assume the last one went away). Looks like she and E will be getting tubes in their ears together. I got to spend the afternoon purging someone else's files off the shared drive to make room, and archiving them on CD. On the brighter side, C got her new camera today and my research partner was true to her word and sent her edits today. If all goes well, tomorrow I'll merge everything and we'll be ready to publish. It'll be nice to be done with the writing part of the process -- I have two weeks of language immersion training coming up and I don't need the intellectual distraction... Pretty beat, so I'll close for now.

Why Am I Here?

2005-10-04T21:47:00.000-05:00

Okay, so this is blogging. To all my friends, a big heyhowareya. :) V, I know I said I had some reservations about this, but sometimes you have to pinch your nose and take the plunge: So here I am, hurtling into the abyss.

I guess I'll take the opportunity to update y'all. C, E, A and I are all doing fine. A has made considerable progress from this time last year and we're all very thankful. J and K are back home again, and from all accounts happy to be there and doing better than ever. I'm close to publishing my first non-school assigned paper and I have to say I'm excited about it. Now if my collaborator can show the same diligence I've put into it, hopefully we can wrap this project up in the next couple of months.

I guess the reason I'm doing this is because if you're going to research something, you should probably practice it as well. I look forward to getting to just spew forth my thoughts on life and politics, and hopefully get some feedback from all of you. All I can say is if it sounds nuts, remember that I wouldn't be writing about it if I didn't think it was important, and that before posting anything I will have done some research and put some serious thought into it.

See you all around!