On The Third Hand
A Proud member of the Brigade of Bellicose WomenThe liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. — Samuel Adams
| On The Third HandA Proud member of the Brigade of Bellicose WomenThe liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. — Samuel Adams |
| Old Articles by week 03 Mar - 09 Mar 24 Feb - 02 Mar 17 Feb - 23 Feb 10 Feb - 16 Feb 03 Feb - 09 Feb 27 Jan - 02 Feb 20 Jan - 26 Jan 13 Jan - 19 Jan 06 Jan - 12 Jan 30 Dec - 05 Jan 23 Dec - 29 Dec 16 Dec - 22 Dec 09 Dec - 15 Dec 02 Dec - 08 Dec 25 Nov - 01 Dec 18 Nov - 24 Nov 11 Nov - 17 Nov 04 Nov - 10 Nov My comments are my opinions. Links are my choice, but do not necessarily reflect my opinion. I often link to articles, sites and blogs with which I disagree. I try to look at all sides, but the fact that I'm human makes it impossible for me to view anything completely objectively. | Warblog ArchivesSaturday, 16 Feb 2002Wars [permalink]The Captain of the USS (badly misnnamed) Clueless has some perspicacious suggestions on ways to attack Iraqi cities. I've been following the commentaries going on between him, Sgt Stryker, Douglas Turnbull, and a number of thoughtful people in the USS Clueless Forum. They have come to the conclusion that if we attack Iraq, Saddam's best bet is to give up the countryside and fight in the cities. I think that that scenario would depend on whether Saddam's intelligence or his ego wins out. He is undeniably intelligent, but he is also proud. I'm not at all sure he would not throw his armies at us in the country side, just because he could not bear to let us gain an inch. That gives us the advantage. But I also agree that we cannot count on it, and if he chooses to really fight (as opposed to making a show), we would be at a disadvantage. In that case, a combination of the Captain's suggestions (with a few adaptions) would at least make things a bit more even. All this "how to" debate is fascinating. I do not however; think it is a good idea to attack Iraq militarily at this time. Iran is right next door to Iraq. There's too much chance of Iran attacking us as well. I would rather see some serious psyops and (very) undercover aid given to the Iranians who are trying to drag their mullah-enhanced government into the modern world. If we can help them, we end up with a reasonably friendly (to us) country neighboring Iraq. Iran has no reason to love Saddam. At present, the mullahs who actually run the country see him as the lesser of two evils -- it's between giving up power and allowing their people to have freedom (horrifying western idea, that...) and allying with Iraq. A free (or at least freer) Iran would be very distracting to Iraq. We'd then also have two countries bordering Iraq that are reasonably US friendly. That could be a great advantage, no matter what we chose to do about Iraq. But the main point is that we can't afford (despite hawkish pride) to fight wars on multiple fronts. Let's help Iran free itself first, or we may find ourselves fighting both countries. Short Stuff [permalink]
Thursday, 14 Feb 2002If a picture's worth a thousand words [permalink]This cartoon is worth two thousand. The explanation of the "bellicose woman" phenomenon in one picture and a few words. Next time any of you think to yourselves "kids today...", go look at this and think again. I had this one e-mailed to me, and also found it posted in forums not long after September 11, but it took me a while to go searching to find who actually did the cartoon. She's seventeen. Quotable [permalink]Andrew Sullivan on the aftermath of the attacks: "I miss the America that knew deeply that it was different, apart, protected, somehow open to the world and yet immune from its worst evils. As any immigrant knows, this was the thrill of this country, its irresistible pull, its deepest promise. It was a symbol that the world need not always be the impenetrably dark place it has often been." He sees us (US) both from without and within. That's a rare talent, and it's why I keep reading him -- even when he's on a bout of obsessive pundit bashing. Unofficial Blogwatch [permalink]
Happy Valentines [permalink]I'd like to wish everyone a very happy Valentine's Day.  Start or join a forum discussion Wednesday, 13 Feb 2002Porn Again [permalink]I'm afraid I just can't resist some things, the above title being an example. Especially after what Natalije said. That said, more new people jumped in today or yesterday. Richard Bennett has a few comments on pornography's good points. Some of them are not what you might imagine.Especially the last paragraph. The No Watermelons blog disagrees with the analogy of 'sex to eating' that Natalije and I have been using, and instead wants to compare it to another bodily function. I think he's hit on the difference between sides in this discussion. Some of us see sex as dirty, some don't. He also takes on the subject of children being exposed to explicit sex, (and is a bit explicit in his example). I couldn't answer that one any better than David Janes (of Ranting and Roaring) did in the forum here (second post). Eve Tushnet has some good points to make also, and the men who have been arguing against will doubtless be happy to see a woman on their side. I will make one comment on her main point (last paragraph), in which she linked to a book review on Sabbath's Theater by Philip Roth. I haven't read the book, but it seems to be a novel whose (anti-hero) protagonist indulges every sexual urge he has (obsessively). She says: "If sex were just another leisure activity, somewhere between horseback riding and scratching an itch, that book would be simply incomprehensible." I agree, but Natalije and I were not relegating it quite to that lack of importance -- we have been comparing it to eating. I think one could write a similar book about someone who indulges himself in tasting everything -- including taboo foods -- and overindulging in food. Gluttony, after all, is right up there with lust as one of the "seven deadly sins". Ben Sheriff of Layman's logic is (probably wisely) ignoring the porn wars, but in response to some of Tim Blair's writings, points to a site of Saudi porn. [Disclaimer: he hasn't gone to it, and neither have I] I blogged that one just because I found the idea of Saudi porn to be a tad amusing. Also to keep Ben from getting to the top of googles for the phrase. ;-) I'm officially now going to stop posting on this subject. I'm going to be two days catching up on the e-mails I've already got. Anyone wanting to continue discussion with me, feel free to drop by the forum -- you may post without joining; but if you do, please sign with some sort of nickname so we know which anonymous is which. Tuesday, 12 Feb 2002Porn Wars update [permalink]Natalije has posted a new summary piece at Libertarian Samizdata, and Dale Amon jumped in with a post of his own -- and the lyrics to Tom Lehrer's "Smut". I'm very fond of Tom Lehrer, though I had forgotten that particular (entirely appropriate) song. Mark Byron commented on the Dale's Lehrer post; seems there are a number of Lehrer fans in the Blogosphere. I knew there was something I liked about this "place". Kevin H. has a few comments to add, and a link to a new blog, "Louder Fenn", who makes some interesting points. However; one of his comments is: "Pornography by its nature causes damage. To be sure, you can argue that pornography does not always cause damage; but the argument that must be addressed is that pornography is, in and of itself, damaging." I could make the statement that "Religion is, in and of itself, damaging". Then I can challenge you to disprove it. Go ahead. I don't want statements, I want statements backed by fact and neutral studies. I'm sure anyone can prove a link between weirdoes and pornography. I can also prove a link between weirdoes and religion. That does not mean either one necessarily is "in and of itself, damaging". I'm looking for rationally based discussion here. I have looked, but I can find no studies on pornography that have any real correlation with anything. Gut feelings don't count. Find me some facts. Find me a study that finds that rape or child abuse or even divorce increases when pornography is legal (with other factors considered). Tell me why it is bad -- besides the fact that some of you think sex is inherently evil (unless suddenly made sweetly sacred by the magic wand of marriage). I want facts! Anyone have some? [update] William Sulik has responded, I couldn't get to his original link to law.com's definition of pornography, because it doesn't work on my browser. I did manage to get it using (reluctantly) MSIE, and the quote is accurate. I'd like to make the point (again) that sex with children and/or animals is illegal (in most countries) -- both to perform and to film (there is the "accessory to" charge). I'll also note that there was a suggestion in my forum that there should perhaps be a new term for 'pornography involving illegal acts', to differentiate it from what is commonly understood (by non-legal dictionaries) to define pornography. I found that a very sensible suggestion. William also says that he knows people who have had their lives wrecked by pornography. That may be... but were their lives wrecked by the pornography itself -- or by a person (or by persons) who abused them and used pornography as an excuse? If we want to get into personal stories, I could find some who would testify to failing marriages revived by recourse to a bit of pornography. Williams's last comment about women and men's differing perception on porn perhaps being "to do with the way we are hard-wired" invites the comment that perhaps women are better able to differentiate between fantasy and reality? New terrorism alert [permalink]The FBI has put out a new warning "...RECENT INFORMATION INDICATES A PLANNED ATTACK MAY OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST U.S. INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRY OF YEMEN ON OR AROUND 02/12/02. ONE OR MORE OPERATIVES MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE ATTACK,..." They have also posted pictures of the operatives that may be involved. As usual, the warning is vague. I don't blame them -- telling the enemy exactly what you know is a Very Bad Idea. I doubt I have any readers in Yemen, but some other bloggers may. Last I checked, the Daily Pundit and Ken Layne had both blogged this -- but I haven't read everyone this morning. I hope some others also picked it up. It's 'below the fold' on CNN and BBC online, but both MSNBC and Fox have headlined it. Naughty stuff update [permalink]I found two more people weighing in on the pornography discussion. Justin Slotman at the Insolvent Republic of Blogistan drops in to critique Playboy. Mark Byron also jumps into the fray with "Sex was designed to be more than a pleasurable exchange of bodily fluids that can lead to procreation, it is designed as well a bonding between two people, a bond that will be weaker if the parties were sexually active with others." He adds a quite a few other arguments from a religious standpoint. I'll give him points for noting that "This isn't going to sway too many agnostics...". Like Natalije, I consider sex to be natural, and I agree with her comment that :"the truth is that sometimes sex is the banquet at the wedding feast and sometimes it is just a quick trip to McDonalds." In fact, I rather like her comparison of sex and food. My opinion is that it is just as unhealthy to insist on a banquet for each meal as to eat every meal at McDonalds. Even in a committed relationship, sex is sometimes the equivalent of leftover tuna casserole. That doesn't mean it isn't worth eating. [update]Kevin also posted a promise to come up with some "links on porn and its connection to violence, family breakup, and the like". (I must have missed that yesterday) I'm waiting. Monday, 11 Feb 2002And now for something fun... [permalink]Pornography. It seems that Natalije at Libertarian Samizdata had a small objection to a post by Kevin at Ideas etc., the title of which was "Why Porn is Bad". He posted a long rant, which included his belief (which I respect) that "Sex is meant to unite two people; it is meant to be the physical act of a mental act: a intimate commitment to a relationship." Natalije disagrees with that, and so do I. If he had left it at that, I doubt she would have responded. Nor would I. I don't argue with people's personal beliefs. However, he continues with the argument that porn is degrading, and "pornography is an escalating addiction; it leads to a search for more and to different types of porn", and offers no proof or statistics. He further states: " Once you have seen a little and like it you want more; once you have seen more you want even more. This is what leads to orgy, rape, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, and a whole host of other fetish orientated sites." I still see no proof -- just opinion. I'd like to see some proof for that claim, Kevin! I've seen pornography, and read it, and I promise you I have suffered no urge to "escalate". Most of it, in fact, I find terminally boring. I see that "escalating" argument as being similar to the "smoking pot turns you into a heroin addict" argument. There were orgies, rapes, incest, and such going on long before pornography was "popular". I think the whole disagreement between Kevin and Natalije really hinges on her statement that "the truth is that sometimes sex is the banquet at the wedding feast and sometimes it is just a quick trip to McDonalds." I see sex the same way Natlije does, as a natural human urge -- not sacred. Kevin sees it as something sacred, and understandably sees pornography as -- essentially -- blasphemous. Kevin thereafter posted a response to Natalije, and she posted a response to his response (and also to a number of e-mails she'd gotten). It all would have ended on an agreement to disagree, and I would not have said a thing -- except that I happened to click on a blog link (from somewhere) to William Sulik's Blithering Idiot blog and that one irritated me. He did make one good point -- that Natlije had (mistakenly) assumed that Kevin wants to make porn illegal (which Kevin explicitly denied in his second post). However; he then proceeds to say: "In the first place, porn or pornography is derived from the Greek pornographos, an adjective, "writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write."Pornography is defined as n. pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse. The printing, publication, sale and distribution of "hard core" pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states. Since determining what is pornography and what is "soft core" and "hard core" are subjective questions to judges, juries and law enforcement officials, it is difficult to define, since the law cases cannot print examples for the courts to follow.It is understandable that Radic would rather define pornography as Playboy and Vogue as opposed to bestiality and the rape of underage children. Because if she does so, she has to go on record as saying these things are "not bad." Remember that Holtsberry's original point was that "Porn is bad"" I'd dearly love to know where he got that definition. The dictionaries at dictionary.com do not mention bestiality, or rape of (redundantly) underage children -- nor do any of the three (other) dictionaries I have at home. Both rape (of children or adults) and bestiality are illegal in most (civilized) countries. One does not have to disapprove of pornography to disapprove of abuse. Setting up straw men does not advance an argument. Give me facts and figures If you want to argue that porn causes illegal behavior, I want facts and statistics. Not the kind of statistics that work backward, either. It's like that pot smoker=heroin addict propaganda. I won't argue that many heroin addicts have smoked pot. I'd bet a week's pay that an even larger percentage of them have drunk milk. By that logic, drinking milk makes you a heroin addict. If people want to write or film pornography, I have no problem with that. It is up to them. If people want to read or see it, that is also their choice. Like Natalije, I am perfectly willing to let anyone do their best to discourage behaviors through social means -- it is only when they try to do it through law that I object. Until you on the 'anti' side can prove to me that pornography harms anything except your own sense of "morality", I shall continue to enjoy the occasional pornographic piece (written or visual) despite your opinions. Pornography, like sex, can sometimes be just plain fun. I might add... I also find it deliciously ironic that we now have two male bloggers arguing against pornography -- and two female bloggers arguing for it (raspberry --pbblllllllttttt-- directed at those who don't think Americans understand irony). [Aside to Mr. Sulik at Blithering Idiot -- mentioning Britney Spears won't get you hits, irritating me may; however, get you one or two]. Lest we forget [permalink]It has been 5 months since September 11, 2001. Let's not forget what happened that day. Let us also remember the outpouring of support from around the world. . As we Americans listen to statements from the chattering classes and governments now, it might be good to keep in mind how the world's people reacted that day -- and the days following. My reaction to the attacks was a cold rage. It took the candles and flowers to bring tears to my eyes. If I ruled the US (fat chance) I'd have loudly and publicly thanked the Canadian and Mexican governments who allowed our diverted planes to land on September 11, despite possible risk to their own countries. And I would especially have mentioned the people in Gander, Newfoundland and the surrounding towns, for their treatment of our refugees. Newfoundland may not be Canada's wealthiest province, but its people are rich in ways that cannot be measured in dollars. The world may have now returned to the normal incessant bickering, but the reactions in the days just after September 11th gave me the hope that someday, somehow... the people of this world will figure out how to "just get along". Sunday, 10 Feb 2002Integration [permalink]There's been a lot of blog-talk lately about multiculturalism and the Anglosphere and immigration and "Black History Month". I did a piece back in early December about multiculturalism, and (I allowed comments on the blog then) very quickly got two comments, one pro and one anti (the anti-multicultural commenter made the KKK look moderate and prompted me to turn off comments). What struck me most was that both sides seemed to assume that anyone who was not too thrilled with the "progressive" idea of multiculturalism was automatically against non-whites -- or at least against equal opportunity for all. The pro-multiculturalist said:
All of us. It seems to me that this comment implies that the author (just as much as the white supremacist whose comments I removed) thinks that America is a "white male" culture. Yes, the country was founded by white males, but it has since blended with all sorts. Black American history is American history -- and should be taught as such. I had peanut butter for lunch -- that was invented by a black. I sharpened a pencil earlier today, with a clever little hand sharpener -- also invented by a black. There have been black inventors here since there have been blacks here. Many of the things we use every day without thinking about them were invented by black -- or other non-white and/or non-male -- Americans. Inventions, I'm sure someone will inform me, are not culture. So how about music? Would America be the same without Blues, Jazz, Ragtime, and all the musical styles descended from those? I don't think so. The world wouldn't be the same without black music. You think I don't understand prejudice? I'm a woman -- not a very young one. Enough said. You can't convince someone they are wrong about "your kind" if you are hiding in a cultural ghetto or in the house. You think Americans are prejudiced? Yes, some are. But many of us know you are Americans (or -- for recent immigrants -- hope to be) and we'd like to get to know you, and see what you have to offer us and what we can offer you. We really don't ask that much... we would just like to know that if you live here, it's because you also believe in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Don't listen to the multicultural types... they only want to segregate people, and turn them into pitiable professional victims. I want you to join us, marry us, argue with us, kick us in the rear if necessary... and help continue the evolution of a culture that embraces us all. Others have done it, you can too. Short Stuff [permalink]
| |
