Archive for July, 2010


Girl Directions

I came across this funny video that I know many of us will identify with.

Caution: Language


An End To Dental Fillings?

Looks like it may become a reality. Seems some French scientists have come up with a gel that causes the cells in the tooth to multiply

A team of scientists at the National Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris tested if melanocyte-stimulating hormone, or MSH, could stimulate tooth growth, according to the Daily Mail.

The French team mixed MSH with a chemical called poly-L-glutamic acid. The mixture was then turned into a gel and rubbed on to cells taken from extracted human teeth.


A Commenting Policy?

In just over 6 years of blogging I have never had to ban anyone, nor have I had to moderate comments before allowing them to post to my blog. In fact, with the exception of a single post I pulled several years ago due to personal attacks in the comments I have never had to do anything with my commenters. I have allowed wide latitude to disagree with me, my posts or with other commenters here. This isn’t a sanctuary. Never has been and it will not become one. This blog is public so that any may come here and offer their viewpoints no matter how radically they differ from mine. This also is not going to change.

What this blog is not is a sounding board for those who persist in making personal attacks. Unfortunately I have been too lenient in dropping the hammer on one who truly deserved it, namely Dan. Personal attacks and juvenile antics were all that he ever “offered” this blog. He was asked several times to offer up something of substance but each time he resisted the call and chose instead to call people names and attempt to mock myself and my guests rather than engage in meaningful discussion. Dan’s comments will no longer appear on this blog and have already largely been removed from previous posts.

As for a commenting policy, its still pretty open. I want others to feel free to disagree with me on any subject. If you disagree, thats great. If you think the earth is a cube, fine, just give some reason as to why you believe what you believe and we will get along just fine. But maybe I will institute a Don’t be an ass rule just to cover the bases.


Proof The AZ Law Is Working

Reuters gives us proof that the AZ law requiring cops to enforce immigration laws is working. And its not even in effect yet. It also lets us know that places without such laws are going to gain many of these illegals, as evidenced by the woman headed to Pennsylvania.


The Worse Obama Gets

The worse Obama gets the farther back the lefties go to blame someone else.

Saw this on a bathroom stall (spelling preserved):

Regan gave billions in tax cuts to the rich. What a doosh

Shortly after that was put up this gem appeared

Bush Lied Thousands Died

It makes me laugh. Now I am not a fan of Bush, and I no longer put on the rose colored glasses when thinking of Reagan, but seriously, Reagan has been out of office for over 21 years now. Are the lefties going to try to pin Obama’s failures upon a guy thats been out of office since he was still schooling? Is this what they have been reduced to?


Reconciling Religion & Polyamory/Homosexuality: A Reply

A friend sent me this link, to a site called CrossCultureBDSM, and I tried to reply to it on the site. However it appears to be down now and while I don’t normally quote an entire post my reply would make no sense at all without putting the entire piece up here.

This post contains my beliefs about various things, many of which relate to my identity as a Christian and how I have reconciled my faith with the kind of stuff I usually write about here.

If any of you get really angry about religious stuff, or if you can’t handle someone having a different view than you, you’ll probably want to just skip right over this one.

This post was originally written for my private journal about two years ago. After reading through it again, I can say that it is all still as true to me now as it was then. And the discussion with my family that I reference at the end… It went well. My parents are now at least accepting, and my sister is very supportive. I continue to talk openly with my parents regularly. They have new questions for me each time and they seem to understand it more with each discussion.

So here it is:

I have spent, literally, 7 years wrestling with my feelings and beliefs about these issues. I have studied, prayed and sought advice. I have written pages and pages in a private online journal that I keep for nothing else. These beliefs are my own, and while I do sincerely believe them, I acknowledge that I could be wrong. The beliefs that I have settled on (relating to these specific issues) are:


1. People were meant to love each other.

2. Love is good.

3. Love comes in many forms, from platonic to romantic.

4. Loving one person does not inhibit your ability to love another person.

5. People, therefore, have an infinite capacity for love.

Relationships and Marriage

1. The bible shows that God condones, encourages, and awards marriage styles that are not monogamous.
See: THIS POST for more details

2. The bible shows that God often punishes people for sexual indulgence, but never punishes people for loving, committed, consensual partnerships, regardless of the gender or status of the people involved.

3. There are at least three examples in the bible where committed same-sex relationships are described, all of them are glorified.
See: THIS POST for more information on these.

4- Relationships which are committed and loving, regardless of gender or numbers, are good.


1. Each and every person has an inherent knowledge of right and wrong.

2. Sin is rooted, not in actions, but in intentions. In other words, it’s not what you do that is sinful or not, but why you do it.

Sex (Defined specifically here as: Intercourse)

1. Sex is meant to be an expression of romantic love.

2. Sex is meant to be shared only by people in a committed, loving relationship.

3. Sex in the absence of love is wrong, whether or not the people in question are married.


1. Happiness and pleasure are not the same thing.

2. Pleasure can be derived by sinful means.

3. Happiness is a state of harmony.

4. True happiness can only be derived from a virtuous life.

5. Therefore, nothing that makes a person truly happy is wrong.

As a result of these beliefs in conjunction with personal introspection, I can, at this time in my life, feel comfortable in stating the following:

1. I believe that people are not limited in love, and can, through devotion, honesty and consent, establish committed, loving and healthy relationships with multiple partners, and that this act is not in conflict with the will of God, but is, in fact, encouraged in the bible.

2. While I do not identify as homosexual or bisexual, I cannot believe that a loving, committed relationship between same-sex partners is a sin. I believe that organized religion and its teachings, have manipulated its followers into believing that the bible condemns same-sex partnerships.

3. I believe that sex is meant to be an expression of love. I also believe that the act of sex is a promise of life-long commitment and devotion. For that reason, I have abstained from its practice until I am ready to make such a commitment, whether that be in the form of traditional marriage or not.

This was spurred by a lot of things, but chiefly a new girl, and the fact that I feel like I can’t talk about her with a lot of the most important people in my life, namely my family, because of their views. I have resolved to have a “bible-off” with my parents to see if I can’t convince them that their traditional views are not might not be correct. They already know a lot of these things about me, but they pretend they don’t because it bothers them. I’m hoping, given my more recent and extensive experience with research and studying, that I can out-Christian them. Depending on how that goes, I may or may not set my sights on my extended family.

Go Team Tolerance! {high-five}

My Reply:
I cannot believe that

If you change that “cannot” to “choose not to” it would really make this whole post make more sense as well as be truer. You didn’t address your claim at Christianity at all, nor its teachings. Rather you posted on your feelings and non-biblically based musing that allow you to hold onto the beliefs that you already want to hold. Since you are going to arrive at the conclusions you already desired to reach, one is forced to wonder would bother to research an issue?

I agree with your points under Love, tho saying infinite is a going more than a little overboard. But its under the Relationships And Marriage where you go astray. Having not read your link on #1, I agree. Polygyny is a common and blessed form of marriage in the OT, and referenced in the NT. The remainder of this section is an attempt to say that homosexuality can’t really be bad as long as the partners are loving. You are deliberately overlooking the express prohibition on men having sex with men. Its the same prohibition that is put upon bestiality. Because you are no doubt aware of this it leads to the obvious conclusion, as I stated above, that you simply choose not to believe it and instead try to make close relationships into sexual relationships when the text doesn’t support it. It is a very popular activity in the GLBT community to take famous and/or important historical figures and make them out to be gay so as to bolster their image while impugning those who are dead and therefore cannot counter the claims. Its also self serving and disingenuous at best. It is quite possible to be “bosom buddies” without actually ever having sex or an attraction to the other person.

#1 & 3. Sex is a physical act meant to propagate the species. We are blessed in that it is also pleasurable and can knit two people together emotionally and spiritually. #2: Sex is meant to be within marriage. A marriage is between one man and one or more women who are exclusive to that one man.

Therefore, nothing that makes a person truly happy is wrong.
Wow, too many ways to go on that one. Simply put, many such things are indeed sinful. And with that I note that sin doesn’t seem to be the standard you are applying within this post. You are speaking to right and wrong that is based upon your humanistic viewpoint. This may be common to your posts, but this is the only post I have read so far.

The remainder of the post is really just a bunch of tired old humanism. It is a completely different worldview than the Christian worldview so I am confused as to why you label yourself a Christian. You say your parents are Christians, but that doesn’t mean that you are. Christianity is not a hereditary faith.
End Reply

Feel free to add your thoughts here or there should it come back up.


Keywords That Make You Go Hmm

When someone sends you a link that contains the words “Police Drunk Australian Bitten Fatso Crocodile Trying Sit Animals” well, you just can’t not look at it!

PERTH, Australia (AP) — A man ejected from a pub in Australia broke into a zoo and climbed onto the back of a crocodile named Fatso, which bit him on the leg but then let him go. Police say they’re surprised the croc didn’t inflict worse damage.

The 36-year-old man, who police said had just been thrown out of a pub for being drunk, told officials he scaled the barbed wire fence surrounding the Broome Crocodile Park in remote northwest Australia on Monday night because he wanted to give the 16-foot (5 meter) Fatso a pat.

“He has attempted to sit on its back and the croc has taken offense to that and has spun around and bit him on the right leg,” Broome Police Sgt. Roger Haynes said.

The saltwater crocodile then inexplicably let the man go, and he climbed back over the fence to safety, police said.

The moral of the story? Don’t get trashed next to a zoo.


Domestic Violence: A Reply

Over at Laura’s on her post “An Article that Teaches Wives How to Train a Husband Like a Dog” she received the below comment. I tried to respond over at Laura’s but was unable to do so, so I posted it here.

Anonymous said…

Are you really puzzled as to why there is a double standard?

It has to do with how women were treated in history–back in the days when beating your wife was legal, when women couldn’t own property, when their feet were bound and broken so they could hardly walk, when they were literally sold by their fathers into slavery (read recent Chinese history for proof).

Since there is a history of treating women almost like dogs, making a joke about it comes too close to home.

On the other hand, men are the ones who commit domestic violence the majority of the time (visit any shelter to see the battered, broken women there). They are the ones who control society through voting, physical strength, and discriminatory laws. So making a joke about teaching them to “heel” is far more palatable.

July 11, 2010 5:20 PM

Anon 520 (should that be 420?)

Your reciting the men-beat-women meme is completely unconvincing. The facts are that women commit DV at a slightly higher rate than men, as posted upon by Elusive Wapiti. Compound this with severe under reporting of female on male DV and it is no doubt significantly higher

To quote from EW’s article (note PV = Partner Violence, rather than the more commonly used Domestic Violence):
Feminist-friendly scholar Murray Strauss of the University of New Hampshire is a profligate publisher in the arena of PV. Last year, he published a paper titled “Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: The Evidence, The Denial, and the Implications for Primary Prevention and Treatment”.

There are 200 studies that demonstrate equal rates of PV. Evidence that PV is symmetrical in context and motives has been available for at least 25 years.

The majority of PV is mutual combat, accounting for about 50% of PV incidents

Female-only PV is somewhat more prevalent than male-only PV

Female PV is a key antecedent of male PV; in other words, she often starts fights which result in the male fighting back in response. Moreover, female PV helps legitimize male PV. Both serve to increase the rates at which women are harmed in PV episodes.

This is also highlighted by a graph showing the acceptability of female violence compared the the acceptability of male violence. The above puts the lie to the feminist claim that men are the ones who commit DV the majority of the time.

The study goes on to say:

Symmetry in Coercion and Control
Both sexes use PV as a tool of coercion and control, contra to the feminist characterization of PV as a tool of the “patriarchy”**. Women who commit female-only PV (data for men was not provided by the studies Strauss quoted) offered the following reasons for their violence:

46% “My partner wasn’t sensitive to my needs”
44% “I wished to gain my partner’s attention”
38% “I didn’t believe my actions would hurt my partner”
38% “My partner was being verbally abusive to me”
43% “My partner was not listening to me”
90% assaulted their partner because they were “furious, jealous, or frustrated”

In a study of couples in the first three years of marriages, wives used slightly more controlling behaviors than men

In a study of college students in 1991, men attributed their violence to anger 37.5% of the time, while women attributed their violence to anger 57.6% of the time. Moreover, men reported a desire to control their partner 8.3% of the time, while women reported using violence as a tool of control 22% of the time.

Other studies reported that the motivations of coercion and control were slightly more prevalent in the PV committed by women than in men.

Note the petty reasons listed by these female DV perpetrators: Not sensitive to my needs, to gain my partner’s attention, My partner was not listening to me. These aren’t even reasons to be violent. How is it that the so-called gentler sex is committing violence because she is not getting attention? How does that equate to self defense, or the “evils of patriarchy”

I could go on and tear down some of the rest of your statement, but I will leave it at this one aspect for now.


Freud On Game

“It sounds not only disagreeable but also paradoxical, yet it must nevertheless be said that anyone who is to be really free and happy in love must have surmounted his respect for women”

— Sigmund Freud

Well there ya have it. The expert has spoken*

* I am tweaking Dan’s nose here. It should be fun to see the resident White Knight go off on someone that the left has held dear for so long.


Dan is right?

Finally, Dan and I agree on something. Usually its I make a post, and Dan comes in and disagrees on general principle, but he as finally said something that I agree with, and wanting to be a gracious host I thought I would make a note of it

With reference to Heidi of Pebblechaser, Dan states the following

I’ve met dozens of women who are everything you’re not.

I could not agree more. Its one of the reasons that I like Heidi so much. Women like Heidi, Arielle, Laura Grace and Mrs Anna T are in much too short a supply these days and I note with some dismay that each of these women are already married.


George Will on Prohibition

An excellent column by George Will today. Its a bit of a review of the book Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition by Daniel Okrent. It goes over some of the events leading up to and the effects of Prohibition. And it makes me wonder just what Will’s position on our current prohibition (on drugs) is. One cannot honestly look at the previous ban and not compare it to the current ban. The only clue we have is the line “In the fight between law and appetite, bet on appetite.”

Also, Will makes a great case against universal suffrage and I want that reprinted here so I know where to find it later

Women’s Prohibition sentiments fueled the movement for women’s rights — rights to hold property independent of drunken husbands; to divorce those husbands; to vote for politicians who would close saloons. So the United States Brewers’ Association officially opposed women’s suffrage.

Women campaigning for sobriety did not intend to give rise to the income tax, plea bargaining, a nationwide crime syndicate, Las Vegas, NASCAR (country boys outrunning government agents), a redefined role for the federal government and a privacy right — the “right to be let alone” — that eventually was extended to abortion rights. But they did.