Dick Cheney said that states, not the federal government, should be allowed to decide on the issue of gay marriage.

That was before the re-election campaign got rolling.

Now VP Cheney says he'll support Bush's plan for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

What the... ?????

'But the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party cautioned people Sunday not to misunderstand the vice president's message.

He said Cheney's position has evolved, given recent court decisions such as November's Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is permissible under its constitution.' (Denver Post)

So... once the states started making decisions he decided they shouldn't any more? Or was he lying? Or what, then, Mr. Halaby? Your logic makes no sense. At any rate, Cheney has pulled a good ole political "backpeddlin". A great big "flip flop". Hmmm... didn't they attack Clinton for doing this? Anywhoey... He's reversed his opinion. Wow, that sure was easy. Must not have been a really firm opinion.

If Cheney supported states' rights, Mr. GOP (for those outside the US, the GOP is just another name for the Republican party), to decide but then changed his mind once one of them did start doing so in favour of gays, that shouldn't be looked upon as anti-gay? (That court was still _in_ Massachusetts, Mr. Halaby. It was a Massachusetts court. In Massachusetts. The state. Inside.) In our world, Ted, that looks like "States should be able to decide the legality of gay marriage unless they are for it."

If Mr. Cheney has a problem with it being handled by just a few people in a court instead of by politicians, he should be backing changes to the supreme court systems, not doing the exact same thing to the gay marriage issue but on a Constitutional level. Really, what's the difference? (America's dirty little secret: It's not a democracy. It's a republic. *gasp*) If he doesn't think it truly reflects the will of the people of Massachusetts, then let him put Bush's amendment to a fair vote to see if it truly reflects the will of the nation. I double dog dare you, Dick. Come on, let's have a moment of real democracy and see how it goes. No, he wants it out of the state's hand, now that this is what George and his fundamentalist buddies want, and into the hands of politicians. Which is where politicians seems to think all decisions should lie except for possibly disputes over counting votes in Florida which they're happy to hand over to a court if they don't get their way. 'Activist judges' indeed, George. For all the talk about democracy, Bush and Cheney are probably quite thankful they don't live in one. In a Democracy they would not have won the last election because all votes would have been counted equally. In a Republic, that's not how it works, 'democracy' is just window dressing. But I digress.

So why did Dick change his mind mind stream? How can he look at his daughter Mary and say anything but "I don't fully support you. I choose re-election over your rights and dignity." Mary, his daughter, is on his staff. And openly gay. Dick Cheney once talked up that connection as a way of implying he'd be sensitive to the needs of the gay population*, that he'd somehow temper the right-wing leanings of Dubya. Well, I think it's clear now that it was just a bunch of talk and nothing more. Dick has made it clear that his opinion wasn't true and strong and he'll just go along with whatever the party tells him too.

Now that Dick's thrown his proverbial hat into that ring, he really can't go back (that only happens in movies or on The West Wing). The people Dubya is pandering to are the people whose key tactic is to equate homosexuality with a bunch of bad behaviours so they can then use that as proof (yes, it's circular logic, don't try to get your head around it unless you're a fundamentalist zealot). They're hysterical zealots and they're hoping to scare up some support by frightening people. And there are about 4 million of them, so subtract the maybe 1 million gay Republicans and that's 3 million votes he's hoping to pull in (but he's counting on you to not vote. So we can beat him, y'all!). Here's how it works. A tried and true method for manipulating people's opinions using fear tactics.

Step One: Equate gays, as one Denver Post reader recently regurgitated, with "rape, sex with children, child pornography, murder, assaults, theft, drugs, racism, etc." Don't let the fact that all those things are, by law, crimes in which another is harmed. I'm absolutely certain I have not harmed my lesbian wife of 2 years. And we've certainly broken no laws. In fact, we went out of our way not to break any laws and I, therefore, had to leave the US to be with her. Yeah... we're freakin' monsters... *sigh*

Step Two: Get this repeated in the media as much as possible. ('liberal' media... hah!) If they also pick up on your idiotic rantings about how we're really out to destroy marriage and then have an Ecstacy-fueled naked rave party afterwards, then that can't hurt your cause, now can it. (For the record, I don't want to destroy marriage any more than the next gay couple. I have married friends. Why would I want to destroy their lives? That's stupid. I love them. All we want are the same things the government gives any married couple. It has nothing to do with religion and I couldn't care less about your ceremonies. You can do whatever you want in your church, but stay out of the government.)

Step Three: Sit back and watch the zealots you've trained regurgitate it in their local newspapers and reinforce and spread, through fear, your idea to others. Especially those who don't have facts, only the hate-mongering rhetoric you've been feeding them. After all, you've just made homosexuals out to be heinous criminals. Ma and Pa should be shaking in their fuzzy slippers! Like I've said before, religion, and most especially extremist religion, and government don't and shouldn't mix. Fortunately the US Constitution already contains that clause.

I hope Mary Cheney has the strength and dignity to stand up for herself and people like her. I hope she'll let her father know his behaviour is not acceptable. And I hope she'll recognise that, despite being her dad, maybe he's not the sort of person we need in office. I'm sure emotions are high in the Cheney family right now** and if she decides to quietly back away and support him, we shouldn't judge her too harshly (besides, the right has already judged her and found her to be an 'abomination'). He is her father, after all, and I'm sure she loves him very much. But it remains to be seen how reciprocal his support and love will be... And, seing that he is the second in command of the US government, we shouldn't give him _any_ slack.

So, Mr. Cheney, stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth and show us your true face***. Tell us what you really mean and stop hiding behind your daughter's sexuality, which you clearly don't approve of, and GOP spin doctors who use flawed logic to make your case for you.

Links:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~1885494,00.html
http://volcano.photobucket.com/albums/v11/GreedyDyke/Pictures/marycheney.jpg
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~27772~1887057,00.html

I couldn't resist. A homage to the original Maintosh: Mac 1984.
(with boot chime, don't freak out. heh)

Apple fans will adore this!
http://www.folklore.org/
Most of the stories were written by Andy Hertzfeld! =D

Behold you slovenly Aussie dogs!
Tis a wondrous thing indeed to have a travelin' brother-in-law bring ye back one o these beauts from the US of A.
(No, it's not out here yet. But what do we care now! Muhahahah! And yes, I could have focused the webcam a bit better. heh)

The Spirit rover is talking. :)

Before I launch into my personal reactions to the State of the Union address, I just want to say that I had a very nice, full-motion, crystal clear feed from C-SPAN throughout the whole thing. Impressive and much appreciated considering how far away we are and how crappy the pipe between here and the US can be. Now, on to the bile!

First, the smack down:
Bush started in on the 'terrorism at home' portion of his speech and when he said that "key provisions of the patriot act are set to expire next year"... the audience started CLAPPING before he could go on (he, of course, went on to say that he didn't want that to happen and it should be renewed. hah!)!

Rah!!!!

(hehe... he said nukuler...

Now the smack*:
Oh dear god... and that response to the 'Saddam yadda yadda' "until Iraq is free!" thing was SO staged. Did you see him smirk afterwards? A big "yeah, that's right, do what daddy tells you" smirk.

Oh look. There's John Ashcroft. A true Patriot™, at least in Newspeak. You wanna see a terrorist? Look at this man. A man who won't let a silly thing like the Constitution stand in the way of his intent to spy on, catalogue and label anyone he chooses to in any way he wishes.

"Some [here] did not support the liberation of Iraq..." (no, George, they didn't support your war/invasion on Iraq)
Discussed what he called "candid consequences about leaving Saddam in power".
Says plans for starting programs for WMD found. Yeah, Dubya. Some words on paper. Woohoo... Almost as good as that pencil drawing of a bomb they found.
[if Saddam were still in power] "Iraqs torture chambers would still be filled with victims, terrified and innocent". Yeah, instead some of them can live "free" in beautiful Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay.
"Without Saddam the world is a safer place." (Republicans clap. I assume the Democrats realise this is a ploy to get them to clap thereby seeming to show support for his war.)

Thumbs his nose at UN again (now that he's got them on the ropes of economy):
"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
(again Republicans stand up)
This is why the rest of the world has enmity towards the US. This cocky lip service and false regard for the UN. He's had to beg for them to step in with the mess in Iraq and now that they have and there's been a little tiny bit of reconciliation (not to mention $ from contracts!!!!) he's flipping them the bird right in their faces.

So far he hasn't said anything new, actually. A lot of freedom and democracy rhetoric. Much the same as any other appearance or address.
Ah! Wait! Here comes the economy!
"This economy is strong and growing stronger"
Then starts listing all the tax cuts.
Then starts saying some very specious things about how much the economy is progressing.
Jobs on the rise? Wow. 1,000 new jobs. Only 299,999,000 to go to make up the ones lost!
Then only 6,000,000 will be out of work instead of 9,000,000.
Well, George, it doesn't really have anywhere to go but up...

Oh, now let's talk about the No Child Left Behind act.
hah! Says there's been a 30% funding increase since 2001. I'm not surprised. He's allowed (or caused) the program to be gutted from the start. It's $8 billion short of its intended funding level.
Then says he won't stand by and let someone to undermine the NCLB act by weakening yadda yadda..
He just asked Congress to cut $300 million from the 2004 budget. Am I missing something here? Is he gonna do battle with himself in the rotunda? Will there be tickets to watch?

Speaking of cuts. "... the tax cuts you passed should be permanent" ha! Only one section stands up and claps. hmmm interesting. guesss which side it was on? The people of America are shouldering the $120 billion in costs for these tax changes. Where is the money gonna come from Dubya? Oh, yeah, Social Security... Next...

40,000,000 without health care... OK, George. Yeah. Wow. You've been hard at work.

Reform immigration program. New visa class for employers to hire temporary foreign worker if no US worker can be found for that job. (met with very mild applause) I'm not sure how this ties in with existing B visas and what the relation is to not opening more amnesty for illegals. Anyone know more about this?

Double the money for preaching teaching abstinence programs in schools. Whee. Stick head back in sand with more money. Whee...

Oh... now it's time to talk about defending marriage... goddammit...
"The people's voice must be heard" check the polls Dubya
"Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage..." (mild applause. like 20 people stand.)
Blah blah... morals... god... dignity... compassion of religious institutions... what bullshit.
Ohhhh now we need to give churches a place in law so they can be part of government DESPITE the separation of church and state. We need laws to allow the government give money to churches instead of funding government programs. Sorry, George. I'm not a Christian. I don't buy it. Give that money to the thousands of organisations out there who are struggling to do the work with no religious agenda built in, just the doing of good.
So, let's sum up: Fuck the homos and bring in the church to help us fight em. Yep. Sounds like George.

Look... I don't truly hate anyone. I talk a mean game sometimes and like to play the growling riot grrl persona, but hate is something I've fought in myself. It blackens your soul. But I'm starting to truly hate this man. He's a monster in an expensive suit. He's insidious and, despite his religious talk, I believe he represents an evil that is not easily recognised. He is the wolf in sheep's clothing. And at risk is our freedom. We've seen the sort of freedom he's taken to the world, what will it be like when he tries to bring that sort of "freedom" home? Patriot Act? Patriot II? Please, for the love of all that's right, get this man out of office. He'll destroy America.

He's wrapping up. Time for cute homily about letter from child... Yep! Letter from little girl. Cute but has no relevance except to give him an upbeat note to end on which brings in A)cute child and B)mention troops (guaranteed applause).
Yes, one last mention of the troops because you have to applaud when the troops are mentioned. Yes, he uses them for applause. No I don't feel bad saying that. If he cared as deeply as he would have you believe, he wouldn't be cutting those soldiers' pay and benefits. That's not how you reward people you purport to be so proud and supportive of. Is this the "sompassion and reform" he was talkign about?

Let's get this bozo out, y'all.

The new Katie strip is up. This one's a bit odd for me, style wise, and was inked on the board instead of in computer. I tend to shy away from 'small people', but, meh, whateryagonnado?

See the new strip at katiegalaxy.com.

An extra hug and kiss and thanks to my wife who understands and ends up going to bed alone when I'm working on this thing. *hugkissthanks*

Also, please check out our latest project Gay Gain, a resource for gay couples who are or will be moving to Canada for marriage and/or for fair immigration. Getting its own domain will have to wait until we have more funds (if anyone wants to donate one, hehe, we like gaygain.org, I think.) ;)
UPDATE: Rah! My friend Amanda has registered gaygain.org for us! Girl, you rule. Thank you SO much!

I've stumbled on this guy once before, but I didn't bookmark him. I wish I had.
Entries like this one really speak to the Bush-hating-homo-feminist-bitch in me. Well... they speak to the part that dreams of whacking Dubya with the Lousiville Slugger of knowledge to see if some sense can be knocked into him.

Note to Secret Service Goons: This does not imply that that I would actually physically attack his Shrubness. It's figurative. Ask Karl Rove. He'll know what that word means.

Recently a former nun, Monica Hingston, and her female partner (also a former nun) wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, asking him to respond to her personally on the remarks the Pope recently made concerning gays and lesbian being "seriously depraved" and lacking "basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity". I applaud her courage at taking this issue to the public, but I question the expected outcome. Especially as the Vatican is closing ranks to specifically target the issue of gay marriage. These statements were intended by the Pope to gird the faithful and roust them to moral outrage so that they might confront the issue head on. It has nothing to do with The Church's willingness to care for its gay members. Indeed, it is quite firm in stating it has no use for them (WWJD, indeed...).

Cardinal Pell responded as expected. He apparently heeded her request not to 'insult my intelligence by prefacing it with "it's the sin, not the sinner" stuff'. He asserted that the Church was clear about its stand and would not bend and then said, "I wish Monica well and acknowledge the contribution she has made. I continue to regret the path she has chosen."

If being gay is a choice, then this we blame 'the sin not the sinner' nonsense is necessarily hypocritical, as she intimated. But if it's a choice, then it's the sinner choosing the sin. If it is not, then... well, then it can't be a 'choice' can it? Why is it important to understand all this? It's not really important, actually, but it clearly illustrates where the church (Christian, in particular Catholic) stands on the issue; wherever is best for continuing the status quo. They are not going to change. And they don't have to. They make their own laws and, ahhhh the crux of it, they are not bound by challenges of law.

And, quite frankly, I say let them have their status quo. But, I'm not a Catholic, much less a Christian, so I say this with little personal involvement. But I can tell you my personal desire. I would like the Church taken out of this equation altogether.

CHOICE AND PERCEPTION
The act of coming out is a gay person doing one thing that the Catholic church cannot; recognising that it's not a choice and that it's who you are. As a SMH reader recently said, 'How do you embrace something that doesn't embrace you?' Quite. And why would you want to? But The Church has been given unnecessary prominence in the argument about our place in society and that's not helping. And, sad but true, we gave them some, maybe most, of that power. By begging and pleading that they recognise gay relationships we've made them one of the rein holders on this runaway buggy for change. As I said, I'm not a Catholic, so it's hard for me to truly understand the emotional content that drives one to do this. But it happens just the same.

MARRIAGE AND ACCEPTANCE
I don't care about the church recognising same-sex marriages. I really don't. But I know some do. What I do care about is us getting religion to butt the hell out until we're done. Church-goers have a right to speak up like anyone, but the churches of America need to stay out of our governmental processes. And, make no mistake, marriage is a governmental entity. It was back way back when the Christian church renounced it (look it up), and it is now in times when they embrace it to the point of claiming providence over it. But I know the US Constitution and the reasons it says some of the things it does and religion has no business meddling in our government. (Look, if you wanna say our forefathers were all a bunch of Christ-loving Christians, go right ahead. I'll disagree with you for the most part, but it's your right to say what you want. However it's patently clear why they put that bit in there about keeping the church _out_ of government, they'd seen the harm such an involvement could cause. If they were such Christian do-wells, they wouldn't have made such a proviso any more than today's believers would if writing it anew.)

So... they want the church to control marriage? Perhaps they'd like to get back to their roots on the issue then. After all, the Bible says nothing about women being free. But of course not, that's ridiculous right? Well, it isn't if you follow the Bible literally. But who's going to do that? Not many, actually. But they're very firmly set that it says homosexuality cannot be recognised, even if it's not writ as clearly as the bit about selling your daughters into slavery.

GOVERNMENT AND DUTY
In the end there is this: The US government has a duty to hear argument and act upon it in the interest of its people. It cannot, however, according to the Constitution, allow religious entities to have any sway over its decisions. It can certainly hear the voice of its many peoples who are religious by nature, but it cannot accept undue influence by their churches. Sadly, the current US President doesn't see it that way. He counts himself a religious and moral man and believes that Christianity should be given special dispensation in the halls of power. This makes our fight for rights of marriage quite the uphill battle.

So, let's stop giving Bush and The Church the extra perceived power they are trying to hold over gay marriage. If we continue to plead with The Church it creates the perception that they have a right to comment and influence. They do not. Plead with your government to hear your voice and respect its charter. Then, when our rights are established, go to your church by all means and speak up for whatever you want from them. To effectively stand together and fight against second-class citizenship, in all things governmental religion must come second.

Note: I speak as a US citizen, I am merely a resident of Australia.

The Republicans are crowing about Bush being compared to Hitler. Fair enough. Hitler was about as bad as they come on the Evildoers scale. Of course, the Pubs don't mind when any Democrats or Libertarians are called the same by persons from their party. So, let's talk about Hitler and see what where this analogue is supposed to have come from. Hitlers regime was built, primarily, on fascism. Many are saying that the Bush administration is operating in a fascist manner. Hmm...

Let's consider the Nazi concept of Gleichschaltung or "coordination" and see what we find.

How to attain power:
1) Squelch dissent
Examples: Protesters are kept out of sight of the leader and the media who are following him. They are most often moved to 'free speech zones' away where only their guards will hear their protest. generally they are not allowed out of the area until such time as their protest is pointless. Some will be arrested because their signs or words are dissenting, while assenting sign carriers are left alone to greet the official procession and the media. The arrests are part of an effort to instill fear in potential future dissenters. The government's law and security forces paint a picture of protesters as potential terrorists who must, ergo, be restricted and controlled.

2) Appease the populace
Examples: Tax cuts, even when economically unwise are morale boosting to bring on board those who are likely to be vocal opponents later - the working class. Platitudes that the economy (despite what state the economy might be in) is growing and unemployment relief is coming (despite any statistics that unemployment isn't really falling - the media needs to be controlled to quell this). More tax cuts along the way, even if they don't affect the working class or poor, can be used to soften talk of hardship. Also, lip service to policies or services even when they will be immediately be cut or reduced looks good for the leader. Cutting military pay, benefits or services can be a useful tool for paying to keep the public in tax breaks or the war itself, but troops should be kept away from the homeland lest tales of their service and subsequent loss of income influence public opinion.

3) Atomize society
Examples: Lock up dissidents. Assure the public that those locked up are undesireables. Withhold due process as long as possible so as to control public perception until such time as the general populace has forgotten or lost interest. Expand means of surveillance of the citizenry. Remove barriers of law for government agencies who wish to investigate or surveil citizens. This is best done under cover of secrecy if possible. Withdraw or stand away in protest from any international league that might hinder ones ability to war or invade. it is vital that said league be made out as the one who caused the rift. Keep at least one or two allies in the league for appearances and possibly for military support.

And a bonus: Hitler's favourite propaganda boost, as propaganda is vitally important to a successful spread of fascism, 'big lies are best'.

“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas.” - Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Threat to Democracy
Bringing Freedom
Evildoers

Except for the outline for "Gleichschaltung" and the quote from Mein Kampf, all of the above is attributable to George W. Bush and his administration. Not Hitler and the Nazi party.

People roll their eyes at the word 'fascism' after hearing one too many 'beatnik' or 'hippie' bandying the word about. But fascism is a very real thing that has permeated history for thousands of years. It can come to the modern world and it can come to America. All it takes is for us to ignore it. But I want to take a step back and curb my urges to do that whole pod people open mouth-point-scream thing. I don't think Bush is another Hitler. I think he's just another fascist (and not a very smart one). And he needs to go. We're too smart to let this one get through..

UPDATE: So I wake up today to find Kuro5hin and Wil Wheaton had the same sorts of things on their minds today (by the way, this was posted at around 3am last night, not 1:34am. Dunno what's wrong with the time. Will have a look.)
UPDATE2: Oh crap! How could I forget to mention Margaret Cho's blog which got us talkign about this in the firts place!

The navigation buttons and archives are working on KatieGalaxy.com.
The archives also give you a textual listing of Story:Title so you can browse that way (of course... there are only two episodes up but you know... for future reference). Oh, and I put some little piccies of t-shirts and stuff in the store link.

Hopefully I'll have a new strip up in a week or so. Wanna get into a bi-weekly publishing habit if possible. :)

Today I'd like to talk to you about war, warriors, perception, delusion and domination. I'd also like to talk about NRA board member and self-proclaimed "warrior" Jeff Cooper. This is a simple matter to pull together as the latter is a clear demonstrator of the dark aspects of the former.

PERCEPTION
So who is Jeff Cooper? He's a "warrior". I thought I mentioned that. OK. Fair enough, that's not enough to go on. He's the founder of a heap of gun clubs and organisations and leagues and such. As I mentioned, he's on the board of directors of the US National Rifle Association (NRA). He's also a contributor to such weighty tomes as 'Guns & Ammo' and 'Soldier of Fortune' and a retired US Marine Colonel. Did I mention that he's a "warrior"? Now, lest you get some picture of Zulu fighters or big game hunters... oh, wait, he's a big game hunter with five continents under his belt, so he's probably really happy that Bush is pushing to loosen those pesky endangered species protection laws so he can go on safari... anyway, he likes the word warrior and that's fine by me. Warriors make war and that's what ties all of today's topics together. That and it helps if they label themselves so we can keep an eye on them. I have my eye on Jeff Cooper. We all should.

"…the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."

That my friends is something to ponder. Since these people are neither "warriors" nor fighting large wars, they are inconsequential to the real warrior and. therefore, society. The warriors know what's best for society. Just ask them. (Warning: The sarcasm meter is starting to tremble. Be on the lookout for some showers which should clear up by late in the text.)

"One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street... these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time."

See, the problem isn't that those inconsequential people have guns, it's that not everyone has guns (presumably so they, being new ad hoc warriors, can shoot those annoying inconsequential people and get back to 'Everybody Loves Raymond'). Let's check in with Jeff and see if I've got it right.

"The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation."

Note: Prevail = win.

Yep! I'm starting to get my sad non-warrior brain around this whole thing. I can almost feel the recoil from my M-16 (which I will need to be qualified on as any citizen who is not may "not be considered to be a responsible citizen", says Jeff). How have I let myself go so long as part of the "unarmed citizenry". And how have I managed not to get shot at all this time? With all the dangers "which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time" the solution to which is that all of us be armed to retaliate, how have I managed to not even witness, much less be in, one solid gun battle! Man, I need to get that gun now. My luck surely can't hold out much longer. Forget video game violence (I'll just let them watch CNN and say it's Battlefield 1942 anyway), there's a war outside my front door I didn't even know about. Guess I'll need to arm the kids soon, too. Fortunately, the NRA has made it simple for me to run down to Wal-Mart or K-Mart and see who has the best prices on guns and ammo. But I'll need to get that M-16 so I can start studying. Hope there's no waiting period. My luck is bound to run out soon!

DELUSION
OK, the Sarcasmometer is settling down. Let's have a little moment of reflection here. Sure, some people like to imagine themselves as The Highlander with a bitchin' sword and ponytail or maybe they dream of The Duke and how awesome it looked to be a balls-to-the-wall soldier fighting the Krauts. Jeff Cooper perceives himself as a noble warrior doing... God's? I don't know... someone's work. His belief is that might makes right and, well, anyone who gets in his way is liable to get fucking shot. Don't take that as a flippant comment. Read his words. He means just that. Yes, I know he was in the Marines. To use one of his own analogies, just because you own a guitar doesn't make you a musician. Being in the Marines does not make him a mythic noble warrior. It makes him a former Marine. War is not noble. It's supposedly just "necessary", but, and heaven knows I'm gonna hear about this statement, the only people telling me this are men and men make war. Sorry. It's a sweeping accusation, but even a first year poli-sci student could pull up the proof in an afternoon at the library. Just like an FBI profiler will tell you that poisoning is mostly a crime attributable to women, I'm saying that men make war. I'd be surprised if there's anyone reading this who has not heard it stated, joked about or pondered that 'if women ran things there'd be no war'. I've seen it in movies, read it in books and magazines, heard it in bar conversations and on television. OK, so I'm done indicting your gender, guys. And for the record, this doesn't mean that all men are war mongers. That's silly and many of my male friends are far from it. But war is an act attributable to and fostered by men, the gender. Men like Jeff Cooper, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld not to mention thousands of others throughout history. And they'll tell you it's inevitable. They'll set you up a nice circular logic map that states that it's necessary because someone else will war and you have to war to stop them and therefore we need to accept it as inevitable and not think so hard about it. Especially not about stopping it. Because it's inevitable.

War is not inevitable. It's historic. I know that just saying it's not inevitable or necessary won't stop it, but I refuse to go on playing into the notion that it is some force that cannot be controlled. Ageing is a force that cannot be controlled... but we're working on that. Throwing up your hands and saying it can't be helped, well hat's just a shirking of responsibility by those who, quite frankly, 'get off' on war.

DOMINATION
War is about domination over others. Jeff Cooper's assertion that diversity should be stifled in favour of assimilation or separatism is a clear example of his need to dominate. Further, his insistence that he is the good guy and should be able to shoot [literally] all the bad guys he wants (based on his personal good/bad assessment) is demonstrative of his desire to be the top dog. He'd piss on their corpses, I'm convinced, if no one was looking. It's animalistic behaviour. And while we may be an animal, we are the only one on this planet who can and does consciously and purposefully modify their innate behaviours based on our ability to reason and improve our destiny.

So what am I getting at? In the end it's this: I don't respect warriors or the 'the warrior ethic'. War needs to be curtailed and eliminated, not have our collective heads shook at it in sighing resignation (and certainly not aggrandised). I don't buy into this notion that we're not strong or smart enough to do so. That's a cop out, warriors. And Jeff Cooper is an alarming example of how to disregard the horror of killing and cop out while hiding behind some self-made ethos of pride and nobility. He likes war and warring and wants to make sure it's around for him to continue to enjoy (although a good safari to shoot large animals and show them whose who probably takes the edge off). It makes him feel special and 'big'. Prideful.

"A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic. It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view."

My friends that's pride, right here in River City. And it's my firm belief that it is a false, self-serving man-made pride built out of the need to build a deceitful perception of the self of synthetic pride and nobility. After all, some innate need to dominate and control and maybe even kill is, in the end, far from noble. In fact, personally, I see it as pathetic and weak.

If I am able to leave one idea, one impression, of my choice, it would be this: The NRA, Jeff Cooper and people like him are not out to protect you, they're out to protect themselves and their ability to assert dominance over others (including you). They're out to be warriors, and war is not inevitable no matter what they tell you. And it's never ethical.

So so so so.... here's my idea. My BRILLIANT idea!

So for every heterosexual couple who goes and gets married for a frivolous reason/without forethought (i.e. - drunk, stupid, drugged up, stupid, Britney, stupid, did I mention drunk pop stars?, etc.) who then gets an instant annulment....
WE GET THEIR MARRIAGE LICENSE!!!!!!!!!!
Whatta ya think??? =D

I'm brilliant! };)

New Katie Galaxy strip is up.

The New Years pics are up. My wifey has already posted some of them along with some christmas pics here, if you're interested.

In brief: Sarah, myself, Hef and Mr. and Mrs. Fink went to Darling Harbour again this year and had ourselves a time (suddenly hearing Les Claypool in my head). We met up at our place around and then trained it to Central where we hopped the light rail to Darling Harbour. Once again our stealthy packages met the muster for the security inspection and we toddled off to find a spot.

It was a great fireworks display (as expected) and then we headed back (I attempted to document the skankier fashion whores along the way but failed to get the 'good' ones). Back home brought coffee, some good old fashion 'shootin the shit' and finally bed (after some webcamminess).

Next morning we rustled up some breakfast (egg muffins, pancakes and toast) and watched The Exorcist (the new uncut version). Good times. You guys are the best and it was great having you here! *hugs!!!*