The Laughing Wolf

It was even seen on 9-11 itself, when the passengers of Flight 93 took action and prevented that plane from being used in another attack. It was seen afterwards in many instances where passengers took down potential problems, including shoe bomber Richard Reid. Working together not as vigilantes, but as responsible Citizens, passengers and crews provided the true security on flights. The days of hunkering down were over.

From recent releases and security bulletins, however, it is clear that Al-Qaeda and related organizations have not gotten the message. It seems they think that they can still control and bamboozle the passengers and crew into cooperation, then suicide the planes. From this it would also appear that they have not realized that poking the sleeping giant is not a great idea. One would think the loss of the only government of which they approved, and a major supporter and financier of terrorism, might have given them a clue, but apparently not.

It is also clear that not all in government have learned the lessons. The FAA and the Transportation Security Administration are both failing to adapt to the changes. Some of the problems are not unexpected, but others constitute a willful disobedience that places all of us in jeopardy.

The fact that there are problems with the drastically increased Sky Marshall program is not unexpected. Indeed, many of the problems reported were forecast from both outside observers and people involved in the program as soon as the expansion was announced. Many of those fears have been realized, with people reportedly leaving the program in disgust amid charges of mismanagement, incompetence, and more. Still others are being placed on leave or dismissed because of problems with the background checks. Other delights include the Marshall arrested recently for allegedly pulling a gun during a dispute over a parking space at Kennedy Airport.

Many of these problems will be cleared up with time,and with proper oversight and public scrutiny. Others, however, may not. It is regrettable that the government did not take advantage of other opportunities, including the use of the huge cadre of government travelers, both civil servant and contractor, who are trained and could have been surged into security through additional training along the lines of the military security police augmenters program.

More critical is the disregard being shown by the FAA towards meeting the requirements to arm pilots. In the past, pilots were armed and this was ended as part of the anti-hijacking efforts of the 70s, since it was argued that the Sky Marshall program provided better security. The failure of the FAA to fully and completely meet the requirements to arm pilots who meet the qualifications could be argued to approach willful disregard for its obligations and the safety of the public. The foot dragging, the barriers being erected, and other related efforts to sabotage this initiative are not acceptable.

You, as a Citizen, have both rights and responsibilities and these apply to homeland security. You have the right and the responsibility to protect yourself and others if there is a problem, be it in a plane or elsewhere. The passengers and crews on a variety of flights have shown that by working together in a responsible manner, that problems can be prevented or stopped.

There is one other thing you can do to meet the obligations you have to protect yourself and others. You can contact the people you elected to represent you, and suggest strongly that these issues be addressed openly and immediately, for the safety of all. With the right encouragement, maybe everyone can learn the rules have changed.

– 30 –

Last Wednesday, I went and tried out at 801 Franklin, a restaurant of note here in Huntsville that has even attracted favorable commentary from The Wine Spectator. Chef Matt Martin was kind enough to take me on despite my lack of experience, and is working to teach me the finer points of restaurant cooking.

This began a bit over a week ago, when I had a wild hair about my cooking and wanting to learn more. On a whim, I called 801 and expressed a desire to work there. That led to my going down, meeting Executive Chef Matt Martin, and telling him that I knew that I did not know much but wanted to learn. That the best way to do that was to start with scut work and move up. So, he arranged for me to come in and do a test run one night so he could observe me. I did, and it turned out to be a very busy night for them, which gave me a chance to learn even more.

Yesterday, we talked again and the net result was that I started this evening working there. I am doing prep and related work, and loving it. Despite the extra time it takes, he had me mince the shallots by hand tonight so I could work on my knife skills, which need it. Once I get over my fear of carving up my fingers with my poor coordination, I will get faster. Or fingerless.

Meantime, this is something I have always wanted to do and I thank him for this chance. There will be more posted as I go, and I will share some of my experiences. Never fear, the blog is safe and will be maintained. There will be a shifting of the schedule as things progress, but that should not be a problem for any of us.

LW

From my biased perspective, it is just plain bad business. With e-mail queries, I can get my rejections at the speed of light if the publications have me in their filters. On the positive side, it means that I can query an editor, get interest or non-interest comments and/or acceptance/rejection notices in a fairly timely manner. Since I make my living by the word, and timeliness is critical to making sales, determining what stories I am going to do or not do, when things are scheduled, and all such things as that, I am most interested in pitching ideas and getting replies as fast as possible.

It amazes me the publications that will not accept electronic submissions, from the old and stuffy to the new and sleek. The only correlation seems to be lots of attitude, of “We are it, and you are not” within the folds. That fits, given the games that used to be played in the submissions department. Items were rejected, or just flat out thrown away, because of some implied lese in terms of the envelope used, the paper used, or even that the address wasn’t done in the preferred way.

As a freelancer, I, along with others, eagerly sought after the mystic knowledge of such arcane twists. The foibles of any given magazine or editor were things to be treasured, to be shared with trusted friends, or doled out as favors to be collected upon later. It was not enough to have a good story or idea, but to meet all the hidden hurdles as well. Good stories are a dime a dozen, getting them into print is the hard part.

It still goes on today, even in the electronic age. Care is lavished on subject lines, greetings, and your lede. There are many schools of thought, and at those publications that do accept electronic submissions there are probably just as many foibles as before. They have changed from paper to matters of type and word choice, but they are there just the same.

Which makes it all the harder to understand those that refuse to join the modern world. They can still be as fussy and snobby as they like, just about slightly different things. It can’t be because of the volume of submissions, as such is actually easier to deal with in electronic format. Not only do you have a delete key as needed, you also have the ability to do automatic boilerplate rejections and more. You can clear the slush pile in record time if need be, or sit and take your time if desired.

The advantages are with it, but I suspect that the musty smell of tradition is in the air. The old adage of “this is the way we have always done it” lilts along the corridors. In some cases, it may be a simple lack of thought. Just now, I was contemplating a trip down to the library to do some research on a particular subject and a particular publication. It was several minutes before the neurons connected and I realized that I might just be able to do it online.

Time to get out the powder, and make sure that I am not a kettle calling the pot.

-30-

First, most nudist parks, camps, etc. don't allow photography, period. Nature photography can take place at some, but only under strict conditions. Pictures of people at most places is not allowed. Pictures of children and teens can be a quick way to ride a rail, and for the owners and patrons of such places to see if there is roofing tar around.

Second, many of the places that do allow photography are not in the U.S. and operate under very different standards. Mainly, they are not as paranoid as we are here, and are definitely not as uptight about nudity, youth, etc. They may well be onto something, but this is not the time or place for such a debate.

Third, sex -- sometimes even the privacy of your own room -- is not allowed at most U.S. nudist establishments. This rule is very strict, highly enforced, etc.

Fourth: Nudity does not equal pornography. Check the masters, check the classics, check SCOTUS rulings.

Fifth: Nudity does not mean or imply that anyone is up to anything. See differences between nudity vs. naked vs. nekkid.

Sixth: Yes, some pictures do make it to the net and some sites make a lot of money off of them. Those sites rarely if ever are the camps themselves, many of the pictures are quite old, and even if they were not, see four and five above. So long as the pictures were made with consent and openly, there really is not a legal or a moral problem. To answer before asked, no I am not happy that so-called porn sites are making money off this, and helping blur the lines, but provided copyrights and such are followed, they have the right.

Seventh: Despite the clear implications of the promo, the camps are not doing this for the purposes of taking the photos, posting them, and making money.

Finally: It remains abundantly clear that Bill can't get his head around how the Internet works, what is freely available and what isn't, etc. Either that or he and Fox are "sexing up" the promo to lure viewers in. Maybe a bit of both here, but it is wrong and piss poor journalism, if one cares to call it that.

Feel another rant or two coming on about personalities and discourse, but that will wait. For the record, I will NOT be watching. I rarely do watch anymore and this piece of crap promo is a sure way to make sure I don't. If this is what passes for fair and balanced now, I expect that the segment will be even worse. Even if it is not, I will not pander to it.

-30-

She is reported to be angry at the fire directed her way by fellow journalists, but she really should not be surprised. Even stories such as this one, which paints her in a sympathetic light even as it damns her with faint praise, toes the party line of The Media. There were no weapons, Bush lied, and it's a quagmire. This one adds to a growing meme in journalistic circles, that Miller lied, or was duped into helping Bush sell the war through planted misinformation.

I strongly doubt that someone of her reputation would be easily mislead, much less would lie for a political cause. In fact, despite the fact that she does work for that miserable rag, I tend to find her one of the more believable, thorough, and professional reporters out there. She has taken the time to learn her subject matter, to develop a world-wide network of sources, pretty much force her way onto an exploitation team, and otherwise do what it takes to get the story.

Therein, I suspect, lies the problem. She knows the subject matter, therefore she has violated the dicta within The Media that all who know or understand the military are the enemy; she is willing to put her life and reputation on the line in a way that few in journalism are willing to do and so she shows up a heck of a lot of what passes for media these days; and, she calls them as she sees them, rather than how a particular belief system tells her she should see it. All this makes her a pariah to many of her peers, so it is not surprising that this opportunity is being taken to slam her.

Go read her works where you can find them and judge for yourself. As for me, it is going to take a lot more than the big lie crowd to change my mind on her. If they can ever give fact instead of rumor and big lie, have the courage to make specific charges instead of general drek usually thrown at politicians, and show citations on where she was wrong, then I may listen. Until then, I will continue to read and believe her, because she has earned that respect with her track record. The hyenas snapping at her heels are less than dust, and about as deserving of respect.

-30-

Because the job for NASA required a lot of time and travel, I have not gotten to do a lot of fun things in the last few years, this among them. My original plan was to attend the entire convention, but business intruded and I had to scrap that plan. What did work out was for me to sneak up for part of the day, which turned into the day and a large part of the night.

My feeling old comes from finding out that one young lady I used to be able to literally hold in one hand is now above my waist, and her older sister is getting married in three weeks. Another friend took great delight in telling me all about her two-year-old grandchild by her youngest, who I still tend to think of as being in middle school or junior high. She took great delight in rubbing this in, as she wanted to share the feelings.

The young comes from several things, but includes getting to spend time with the babies. Some good friends who adopted were there with their little boy, whom I had not met, and I was impressed with his bright eyes and how happy he was despite teething. He would chomp away on toys, fingers, or anything else he could get, all with a huge smile on his face as he took everything in. Some other good friends were there with their natural and adopted children, and by the time I finished dinner with them and their entourage I was melted into a helpless pile of goo. The twin girls walk around very well, thank you, and even melted the teenage boys at the next table without even trying hard. You have really got it if at that age you can totally captivate and control teenage boys. Their younger brother is already their big brother, and I will be surprised if he is not well over six feet tall when grown. Takes after his daddy, he does, but with his mom's grin. Another happy baby despite teething. What is up with that? Not that I am complaining, mind you, but I want to take notes for the day I get to deal with such.

It was also a time to meet up with adult friends, and I appreciate very much the time that several people gave me. It has been literally years in a few cases, and there was not enough time to catch up with one and all as should be done. Yet, it was so much fun that my planned departure time came and went without even a token wave. Yes, I did drive back home quite late, and didn't mind a bit. There were a number of people I did not get to see and spend time with, but that is okay as well.

For there will be other times. There will be chances to talk, write, and meet. This was a day of reunions, but it was also a day of new meetings. I did meet the future yesterday, and I think it is a good one, and off to a delightfully happy and positive start for quite a few of the next generation. What more can anyone ask?

LW

First, there needs to be a distinction between sex and something that for now I will term making love, for they are two separate things. Sex can be had anytime, anywhere, with about anything. It has no commitment, no meaning beyond immediate pleasure, and it can be quite fun and refreshing. Making love, on the other hand, speaks of a mental and/or spiritual commitment to the process, for it is much more that the mechanics of coupling.

In either case, responsible individuals should be concerned with and committed to doing right by their partner. If all you are interested in is selfish gratification with no thought for another, please stick with toys as no living creature should have to deal with you. Gender and such really don’t mean much here. You are either committed to your partner, be it for an hour or a lifetime, or you are not.

Doing right by your partner has several levels to it. First, you should take care for your partner’s pleasure. Sex or love, it should be fun and it can be quite delightful to spend your time making sure that they are getting the most pleasure possible. This does not mean that you are doing everything and that they are a passive vessel, and if this is the case you need to step back and think a bit.

If you are the only one doing, it means that either they are extremely selfish, or that you are being extremely selfish. Giving them pleasure means that you should be sharing, for they may derive a great deal of gratification from doing unto you. If you are preventing them from so doing, you are doing yourself and them a grave disservice. If they are getting, or demanding, and never giving of anything physical, spiritual, or mental, then you need to be looking for a new partner or prepared to do a heck of a lot of talking, teaching, and reassessment.

Your partners’ pleasure depends on much more than mere physical stimulation. There is a mental component to it as well, and a spiritual. You must address both these areas in all you do. The mental varies, but it always includes a component of letting them know that you are thinking of them and what is best for them. It does not matter if it is a commercial transaction, if you are that selfish that there is no such consideration, again you should stick with toys.

The mental also needs to go well beyond that. Everyone has fantasies, needs, desires, and more. Take the time to learn those of your partner, learn what turns them on, turns them off, what scares them in a bad way, and what scares them in a fun way. Help them to face their real fears, enjoy their “fun” fears, and have the courage to explore fantasies and more. So many marriages hit snags, and people stray, because they are bored or someone offers them the chance to act out a fantasy that home will not consider. While there are strong biological imperatives to stray (see Desmond Morris’ The Human Animal television series for some good examples), what causes real problems is the psychological aspects. If you are comfortable with and sure of yourself, then you can and will safely explore both your fantasies as well as your lovers.

Understand that as you do this that fantasies do not make you a bad person. It is perfectly okay and normal to have a variety of fantasies, from the dark to the delightfully ridiculous. Neither extreme means you are a bad person or would really want to do them or have them happen to you in real life. Fantasy, and the safe exploration of same, is a good way to have fun, explore, and to grow. In all of it, remember the mantra of the BDSM crowd, which is: Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Keep it safe, keep it sane, and have fun exploring.

The spiritual aspects apply more to the making love area than to sex, but there is a bit of overlap. To me, sex can be and is a form of sacrament. To my mind, we can and do touch a bit of the divine when we join with another. When you merge mind and body the spirit is heavily involved, and you should take a moment and appreciate that fact. Look at the miracle that is your partner’s body, that delightfully complex bundle of nerves, glands, muscle and bone that is their shell. That responds to your breath, your touch, your kiss, and gives beauty to your eyes. The mind that inhabits that body is no less worthy of your consideration, as it determines the non-physical as well as the physical things that give and get pleasure. Look beyond that a moment to that which is truly them, their soul if you will, that is at the core of it all. Look for ways to feed and touch both your souls as go.

Now that we have dealt with the trinity that is pleasure, you must look out after yourself and your partner. In so far as it is possible, you need to protect them physically, mentally, and spiritually. The physical is easy, as it follows the way of do no harm. Hurt happens, but true harm is to be avoided at all costs. Thou shalt not do unto them physical things that will not heal. This means no broken bones, cuts, or other things that come from abuse. That said, this does not apply to consensual spankings or BDSM play. The one thing that applies to both is that you do nothing that causes irreparable physical injury.

This most especially means the prevention of disease. It means taking appropriate precautions for the situation. It means including an STD workup in your yearly physical, or if you don’t get a regular physical for crying out loud get a workup anyway if you are active. Protect yourself and your partners this way. Yes, I do follow my own advice and carry the papers to prove it if need be. It also means taking all precautions within your code of ethics to avoid pregnancy unless that is the desired goal of both parties.

The mental and spiritual are harder to define and harder to do, but it means that you protect your partner from psychological or related harm. Exploring fantasies can be and should be fun; if, however, that fantasy starts to take one to bad places, you stop. You stop, you talk, and think. You have a huge responsibility here, so take care.

I would also take a moment to point out something I heard one time that I agree with fully. It is an easy way to determine if what you are doing or witnessing is abuse or healthy fun. Healthy fun provides growth, it allows the people involved to grow in a positive manner to the benefit of all. Through this, fears are faced, challenges met, boundaries pushed, and spirits healed. Abuse, on the other hand, destroys. It damages, it brings down, it destroys an individual's mind, body, and soul. Abuse is to be identified and dealt with wherever it is found.

If you come across something that bothers you, it is not what you would do or are scared of, take a moment to examine the situation. Talk with the people involved when appropriate, and gather information. Observe if possible. Then, use the distinctions above to make your judgment. What you see may not be your cup of tea, and if so have the courage and integrity to admit such and realize that though it is not for you, it may work for those involved. They, as individuals and a couple/group, have the right to do it, just as you have the right not to do it. Just because you don’t like to do it does not make it a sin, wrong, or illegal.

Whatever you do with a consenting partner that passes the abuse test given above, is fine. It may be straight, pure, vanilla sex. It can be the wildest, kinkiest BDSM the world has ever seen. So long as both parties derive pleasure and positive growth, it is consensual, and it is not forced in any way on others, then enjoy.

This brings up one of the most important aspects of sexual responsibility: Honesty. Sex, love, it doesn’t matter. If you are not honest with each other, there will be no magic, no joy, and probably not much pleasure. If you want to do more than simple mechanical sex, honesty has to be the largest part of what you do.

How can a partner know what gives you pleasure if you are not honest in telling and guiding them? How will you know what fantasies to explore if you are not honest with each other about them? How will you learn and grow without it?

Honesty, real honesty, is scary. You are opening yourself up in a way that can really hurt you. How will your partner feel about you if you tell them secrets, secret desires, dirty little secrets? Will they hate you, shun you, consider you a bad or evil person for having such thoughts? This is an integral part of the human psyche, and one given far too much reinforcement by conformist society.

Rather than approaching things with these questions, try asking yourself instead “Are they sure enough of themselves to handle the truth? Are they capable of rational thought and discourse? Are they good enough for me?” This is what it really boils down to in the end. Can they handle the real you? If they can’t, you need to find out early, before there is a chance for harm to either. To be less than your best self, no matter what that may be, is wrong. It harms you, and through you it will harm the relationship and them. That is not acceptable.

This is not saying that you must have brutal total honesty from the start, for that is just as foolish as denying your true self. What it means is being honest enough to begin sounding each other out, to determine if the other person is a good person who shares your thoughts and beliefs, and is someone you can trust.

Trust is the corollary of honesty. For when both parties are honest, trust can be built and given. It means that you can find someone with whom to trust your body, your mind, and your soul. Even with sex there is a degree of this, and with making love it becomes the heart of the matter. Trust is not given immediately or easily in most cases. It is built up over time as each prove themselves to the other. Without honesty, there can be no trust, and without trust, there can be no honesty.

The final component of sexual responsibility is informed consent. Consent requires information, it requires honesty, and it requires some degree of trust. On the commercial level, it means that you trust your partner to do what is agreed to, in the manner agreed to, and that what they tell you about themselves, their talent, their health, and such is accurate. On the level of momentary lust, it means essentially the same thing and in philosophical terms, as defined by me, there is little difference between the two. In terms of honesty and integrity, it can be far better to go commercial than to risk honesty and integrity simply to “get some.”

Informed consent is crucial, because it means that both parties know what they are getting into, what they have agreed to, and that both know the rewards and the risks. On one level, true informed consent is impossible because none of us can truly know what we are getting into in any relationship. Yet, even so, every effort must be made to have the communication, honesty, integrity, and respect needed for the relationship.

If one party is incapable of making decisions for themselves, or making a reasonable choice, then don’t do anything. Age, sex, nothing matters if they cannot make an intelligent decision. They can be 50 years old, but if they lack the honesty, maturity, intelligence, or other factor needed to make an informed and intelligent choice, you must walk away from sex or love, no matter what. For if you fail to do so, you harm them and yourself.

There is no magic age where one suddenly becomes capable of making such decisions. No maturity fairy comes down and smacks us with a wand o’ smarts on our birthday. Such comes from experience, knowledge, and something inside that is hard to define. I have met kids as wise as Solomon, far beyond their years; and, I have met people of my parent’s generation who have not a single hope of growing up in any meaningful way before they die. So, age is no excuse.

If the other party does not or can not give consent, don’t start. If they withdraw consent in the middle of things, pull out, pull off, whatever: just stop. For me personally, it is something where everything will stop, and probably permanently unless there are very extenuating circumstances. It is one things to say “Stop! Charlie Horse!!” and to deal with the cramp. It is another thing for someone simply to say “Stop, I’ve changed my mind.” If you have truly followed the Way on this, it should not happen but caca occureth. Stop, dress, leave. For if this happens, one or both parties have not been honest with themselves, much less each other, and there should be no trust in such a situation. Protect yourself, and get out.

So, the keys to sexual responsibility are consent, consideration, and honesty. If you put these three things into any sexual relationship, you will be the richer for it.

-30-

When it comes to females, I tend to freeze up, all shy and nervous. I’ve been working on it, and there have been some improvements.

A local restaurant has been hosting speed dating, and I thought I would give it a try despite the name. The name bothers me because of the implications. Not simply that the date itself would be short, but there is also a hint that other things, things where I really do prefer to take my time and do them right, will be short as well.

Last Thursday was okay, but it was also clear that several of the ladies taking part were ringers. That is, they were staff of the restaurant, friends of the staff, etc. Still, I did meet some nice people and enjoyed it. So, I went back last night and it was even worse. So bad was it that I cheerfully volunteered to drop out since there was only about one outside female taking part, maybe two. Frantic recruitment efforts were underway, and this was already 45 minutes past the advertised start time.

I will probably go back one more time if I can, but if it is no better I will be looking for other opportunities. Any suggestions, anyone?

-30-

My discussions of this here, here and here lay out a large part of the problem, and that problem lies almost exclusively with The Old Media. They have become so entrenched with the idea that they are not merely the opposition, but that their political viewpoints and agendas are the will of god (trust me, this one should be lowercase) and will prevail. They are true believers to the point that they have forgotten their oath to be impartial purveyors of the news, to be fair and balanced, and to hold faith with their readers, viewers, and listeners.

One of the recent signs of people not learning lessons comes from Andrew, who linked to this story about CNN. If this story is true, then CNN has clearly not learned the lessons needed from Iraq. The actions of CNN in regards Saddam are reprehensible from professional, ethical, and moral viewpoints. My take on it can be found here as well as at some of the other links above, and it is now imperative that a hard look be given to CNN and its operations in Iran, Cuba, Hong Kong, and other areas of authoritarian rule.

All of the major news outlets need such a review. It is clear that most are unwilling or unable to provide good, accurate, and complete coverage in such places. Iran is the easiest to document, since the lack of coverage provides a good point of reference for such a review. Hong Kong is another such place where great and potentially deadly things happened, and The Old Media was strangely silent, as were significant portions of The New Media. Don’t know what went on? Not surprising, so go over to Winds of Change and do a search or two.

This column about a Reuters story is most telling. What the reporter describes is nothing short of journalistic fraud, and the victims are the public and the reporter who’s byline and reputation they raped. When I was training and working as a journalist, the use of a byline on a wire story was quite something, and you could take pride – for the most part – in the story that went over the wire. There might be an occasional editing glitch, especially if you worked in a specialty field with which the wire editors were not familiar The difference between then and now, however, was that if an edit was in error, it would most often be corrected.

I have not linked to the Reuters article in question, because I want to help get the correction out, the correction that they refused to run. The truth needs to come out, and by spreading this column far and wide, we can help negate the impact of what was done.

Reuters is not a primary source for me, and has not been such for a while. There were several other instances where stories posted by them were shown to have “problems” to be even reasonably polite about it. To be very blunt, when I see a story from Reuters, I usually try to find other sources to verify it before I go with it, and most especially before I believe it. These are, after all, the people who refuse to use the word terrorist lest it offend, and similarly downplay 9-11 and other attacks. Such are not incidents or crimes, but acts of war and barbarity.

Then there are the multiple reports going around about the BBC, Reuters, and others “airbrushing” stories to remove problems and pretend they never happened. Now I admit that I will go in and correct spelling on occasion, or maybe change a word choice once in a blue moon, but I do not change the content or meaning of what I post. This is in many ways a day journal and as such it does not get the edit and polish it may deserve. I prefer for the most part to let it stand warts and all. If things change, I post updates and even new columns.

The Old Media has yet to grasp that what goes out on the Web is reviewed, checked, and often archived well away from their sites. They fail to realize that they are being watched, checked, and rechecked. They fail to realize that the Soviet game of airbrushing history will work about as well for them as it did for the Soviets, which is to say not at all. They also seem determined to follow in the steps of Geobbels and the big lie with their coverage. The memes displayed on Bush lied, Wag the Lynch, and a host of other stories follow the dictums of propaganda rather than objective news.

Fortunately, journalism is alive and well in other areas. One such is the blogosphere, where a dedicated and active group of people from all parts of the spectrum keep watch, and in doing so keep everyone as honest as possible. If The Old Media keeps going, they will be completely consumed. The great news is, that there is already something better rising from the ashes.

-30-

UPDATE: 25 July 2031 hours GMT: See new entry "CNN REFUTES" for new information.

While I strive to be a gentleman, and think manners and such important, I have held few illusions about the capabilities of women/fair-flowers-of-maidenhood. In fact, I well know that they are often the stronger and definitely the more vicious of the species. My adopted sister is the poster child for the latter element. My mother was the first woman on Mercer University’s rifle team and a passing fair shot. The woman I am proud to call my step mother was one of the early aviatrix. I know many other women who have faced tough battles and never flinched, and have won many of those battles and fights.

That is why it is so good to see conventional wisdom stood on its head, both here and abroad. This story is a good one for that, and the reaction of the general is so typical that it defies simple cultural or geographical limitations. Even better, the reaction of the newest role model, Specialist Heather Baldus, and I suggest all males everywhere take heed.

One of the truest tests of a good role model (living, that is) is that they don’t think they are worthy of such. There appears to be a bit of that here, and it is clearly the case with Jessica Lynch. That reluctance is a good sign, and I expect to see it in many more cases in the days ahead.

I also hope that the commendation requests have already been put in for this soldier. Despite hostile fire, despite head starts, and despite all, she ran down her target, tackled him, and brought him in. That deserves something good.

I am not sure who should get the hat tip on this one, as it is on several sites and I failed to write down the first one I encountered. So, I will cite MommaBear and Ith on this, knowing that I have also probably left out one or two people.

-30-

That photo, which went out without a full explanation and made it appear that indiscriminate executions were the order of the day by the evil South Vietnamese regime helped turn the tide of public opinion in America against the war. It was a powerful image, and is used in texts and classrooms today in almost every photo or journalism school around.

Ramirez used this image as the basis of a cartoon attacking those who were trying to “assassinate” Bush over 16 words. It was a powerful and effective cartoon, and it clearly showed the artist’s opinion of those doing the attacking.

Somehow, however, it appears that the Secret Service is concerned that the cartoon somehow depicts a real threat to Bush, and that it constitutes the same thing as writing or calling in a threat to kill the President.

Give me a frelling break. Only someone with less than a room temperature IQ could possibly get that from the cartoon. Only someone chronically unfit to wear a badge of any sort, even as a dog catcher, could possibly decide that this was a “threat” worthy of investigation.

Someone at the Secret Service needs to go. Whether that is Agent Peter J. Damos or someone – or even several someones – above him is immaterial. When time and resources are wasted on an idiocy such as this, that is the thing criminal. And just plain stupid.

The march is on. We have the Secret Service investigating an editorial cartoon that supports the President. We have the FBI investigating a man for reading a leftist editorial. What’s next, investigating Snoopy for FAA violations or being a terrorist for all the strafing runs he’s done on his dog house?

This type of idiocy is why people are concerned, and justifiably so, with the Patriot Act and other homeland security measures being undertaken. We get assurances that all will be well, that there will be reason and care. What we get are these types of things, which destroy Citizen confidence and undermine real efforts at public safety.

To restore public confidence, steps need to be taken. The people responsible for these idiotic shenanigans, or otherwise took part in them, need to be fired (managers) and suspended (agents). There is no excuse for, or legal defense of, taking part in such patently absurd and illegal actions.

-30-

I first noticed the problems with the BBC several years back when I first began to visit England on a regular basis for work. Growing up in a home where the WWII BBC was fondly remembered, being educated in a profession that held up that era BBC on the same pedestal as Murrow and other lights of journalism, and having very fond memories of it from a youthful visit, I was considerably disappointed. To be honest, I flipped over to Sky News and any other outlet I could find for news, but had trouble putting my finger on some of the dislike I was feeling.

It is easy to spot holes or problems in a particular story, at least most of the time. To be honest, mistakes get made. It can be something as simple as getting a persons name spelled wrong, to something far worse. Minor mistakes are part of the fun of watching the news anywhere, because you get to chuckle or laugh, and think how you could do better. We all take a certain amount of pleasure in a colleagues discomfort no matter the field, and cringe when they auger in.

Something else kept bothering me, however, and it was frustrating that I could not isolate it. At least until today, when the pieces finally clicked for me.

For many years, the BBC has prided itself on its independence from the Government. In many ways, it had to in order to maintain credibility in modern journalistic circles. It was a government-funded “official” news agency, yet it had to avoid any appearance of being an organ of the government. Otherwise, its reporters could and would be considered as spies and treated as such (most reporters are considered as and treated as such in authoritarian countries), it would not get any form or reciprocity from American and affiliated media, and it would not be taken seriously by viewers/listeners/etc.

What happened next may have begun innocently enough, but has metastasized into something that may well kill the organization. To show independence, to make the public statement that one is independent of a parent of any type, it is necessary to oppose them in a public manner and on a strong topic. It is natural to do this, and the corollary can be seen in almost any teenager in the world. The BBC took stands in editorials that were diametrically opposed to the government position at least in part to show independence.

This is fun, as any teenager who has gotten away with it will tell you, if you can’t remember yourself. The tendency is to keep pushing until you hit a wall. The BBC has been pushing for quite some time now, and has never had anyone tell them “No!” in a parental voice of command. The result is that a clique has formed around the idea of opposing the government, and pushing personal political agendas, rather than following the true meanings of a free and independent press.

Independent does not mean opposition. It means being free to cover any story you like, writing it up, and living with the consequences. It means setting an editorial policy and writing editorials no matter if they agree with the government or not. It does not mean forcing every story to be anti-government, or having every editorial attack the government in some way, any more than fair and balanced means that all parties have to be presented or presented equally. No rule of journalism says you have to give patent idiocy a fair shake, it is quite okay to call it as it stands. Indeed, that is one of the responsibilities of journalism, and one that is oft forgotten.

For example, there is nothing that requires me when writing about the Lunar Landing anniversary to include anything about or by the groups who claim we never went. If I do include them, being fair and balanced does not mean that I have to present what they say in an unquestioning manner. It is perfectly okay for me to shred their “evidence” with fact and show the fallacies in their arguments. That is part of my responsibilities as a writer and what used to be a prime requirement to be a journalist.

The BBC has, in my opinion, forgotten its journalistic duties in its desire to show that it is not a puppet of the Crown. It has forgotten that independent does not prevent it from agreeing with any position of the government, and that it has an obligation to fact and truth that supersedes all else.

Just as many a teenager has discovered, fanatical opposition independence can and does get you kicked out of the basement or other room. When you live in your parents house, you do have to play by their rules. If you are not willing to play that way, you have to leave.

The teenager is long gone, and the adult needs to get its own place. I think it is time and past time for the BBC to have to deal with the real world as real journalists. It is time for true independence, to cut the financial umbilical cord and make it in the world on its own. Maybe then they can re-discover what it means to be journalists, and to do a professional job.

-30-

Part of it is easy. Caller ID is a part of the landscape now, to the point that it falls under the radar. Given other resources available to law enforcement and other government agencies, you really should have no expectation of privacy or anonymity when you call.

Even if more than lip service is paid, they want to be able to identify you for use in court or other proceedings. They will do everything in their power, including using the obtaining of a reward, to identify yourself.

Case in point is something that happened to me years ago. On a whim while traveling a dull stretch of highway one day, I stopped at a roadside flea market. While there, I found an inert Cluster Bomb Unit (CBU), otherwise known as a bomblet. Neat toy and desk decoration, so I bought it.

It was later that I examined it and began to have some doubts about how inert it was. My first thought was to test it in such a way as to get it back if it was, and to avoid harm and law enforcement attention if it was not. Cowardice, or common sense if you prefer, reared itself up and I elected instead to turn it in to one of those “anonymous” turn in programs you find around military bases.

When I show up, I do believe that there was surveillance systems and while I could elect to remain anonymous, they would prefer that I did not. I was strongly requested not only to provide my name, address, phone and other information, but other information and proof as well. There was what I took to be a threat of investigation (If you are innocent, then you have nothing to fear, Ya?) if I did not cooperate, and since my getting off the military base in question might also be in jeopardy if I was non-cooperative, I gave them the information. I felt used, abused, and violated and had as much expectation that my information would be “protected” as I did that the local road kill would be mourned and buried with dignity. That is to say, none at all.

As time went on, I got a few chances to glimpse the other side of this a bit, and found that such things were a fairly standard practice. In talking with others, I had similar things confirmed multiple times.

So, if you call one of these fink lines expecting that you will be honored and respected, and that you will remain anonymous, and that no harm can or will come to you for doing what they tell you is right, keep dreaming. Meantime, stop that. Move your chair back so you remain centered in the camera view…

Yesterday, I said that anyone who used one of these lines was a coward. I stand by that. I will simply add that you are also a fool.

-30-

So, we get people harassed by the Gestapo, I mean child services for having a toddler get outside for a minute with no clothes on, having escaped during a changing. We have another family have their children seized because a baby was born with a somewhat low birthrate and because one test came back positive – none of the others, mind you – for possible drug use. Never mind that all other tests were negative and all follow-on things clearly showed that there was no drug use, the family still had their children kidnapped and had to go to court to get them back. Or, if you want some different idiocy, check out New York where a family is being attacked on the grounds of educational neglect because they sent their daughter to college instead of to the approved high school. The fact that this girl is now being screwed by the people who claim to be protecting her is not the least of this, and I suspect that having home schooling show up the public school system so bad is one of the reasons for this criminal assault on the family. The abuse of power being shown in all these cases is absolutely amazing. The list can go on and on, and if you want a good number of them, just go check back through Misha’s blog as he keeps a very good list of them.

Then we get to this idiocy that I found over on Jerry Pournelle’s site. This is amazing, and about what I have come to expect from Homeland Security. The man was reading for Ifni’s sake. You may not like what he was reading, but that is a personal problem on your part, not a violation of the law. Freedom of speech is just that. It means that not only is what you agree with protected, but most all of what you don’t agree with is protected as well. In this age of all extremists, PC or SuperChristian or Whatever, trying to limit speech “for the good of the people” it is important to remind ourselves that we must protect very strongly speech with which we disagree.

I disagreed strongly with the Dixie Chicks earlier this year, but I defended their right to say what they did. I deplored where and how they did it, and the lack of intelligent thought behind it, but they had the right to do it. Just as their fans had the right to burn, trash, and refuse to buy their albums. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, just that you have the right to make an ash out of yourself if you want.

As much as I disagree with it, hate speech is protected to. I don’t have to read or listen to it, anymore than I had to listen to or agree with any of the evangelical preachers who used to populate the main concourse at college. They had the right to speak. I had the right to poke holes in their arguments or otherwise make fun of them. If they called a lady friend of mine a slut, I also feel I have the right to show them how that large cross they carried could be turned into a sword, and introduce them to the game of flats. Again, freedom of speech is guaranteed, but it does not mean that there are not consequences.

What happened in Atlanta is reprehensible. The FBI supervisor and agents involved should be fired, just as Jerry and others suggest. The dictator-wannabes involved in the family attacks should be as well, for they are a bigger danger “to the children” and the country than about anything else out there.

It is also important to remember that these people do not get bonuses for doing well, they get bonuses, increased budgets, and more power by showing that the problems are growing. They have a vested interest in things being as bad as possible as that will grow their agencies, salaries, etc. Take a look at any government program that has gone in to fix a problem. Are any of them fixed? Have any of these agencies or divisions gone away? Or have they grown and expanded? Have the problems actually gotten worse?

Take a hypothetical example. You are on the internet and see some pictures of a young girl having sex. The girl not only may be underage in the shots, but you think you recognize her. What do you do? If you do what the “authorities” say to do, you will call them. They will then descend on that woman and terrorize the holy hell out of her. Was this her in the pictures? Who did this? When was it done? Why was it done? Does she know that she could face charges as well for covering it up?

I guarantee you that no real thought will go into what happens, it will all go by the book even if the book is wrong. The person in question may not have been the right person, may not have been underage technically or otherwise, and they may have no problem with what happened. Indeed, they may have had a problem and worked through it with or without professional help (and given the laws these days it will likely be without) and have finally gotten themselves on an even keel. That will go out the window in this case as her well being is not a consideration. Prosecuting the law (forget justice) is what matters, as the cases determine funding, so taking care of the victim has no place. Indeed, there is a good reason to not use kid gloves, as having a victim have problems from the “intervention” is a good cause for requesting yet more funds so that “appropriate counseling” can be provided. Feh.

These people have no motivation to do what is right or best for the individuals involved. They don’t get kudos or bonuses for saying the problems are dealt with and eliminated. Monetary and professional incentives only come with showing that the problems are bad and getting worse. Think I am exaggerating? Take a look at the cases cited, and for fun, go take a look at the story of the FBI translating unit. Then come back and tell me with a straight face that this is an exaggeration.

The real kicker is that when these things happen, you can not and do not get to face your accuser. This is a violation of law and principle, and the people involved know this. I have a large problem with the anonymous numbers, and the whole concept of having us descend to the level of Nazi Germany through spying on each other and reporting anything that might be treasonable, er, I mean illegal (or immoral or fattening) is sickening.

Anyone who calls or uses those numbers is a coward, plain and simple. If you do not have the courage of your convictions, you should not get involved. If you are concerned or have evidence that someone is being harmed, then you have a duty as a Citizen to step forward, give the evidence, and face the person you are accusing. These attempts to subvert the Constitution and guiding principles of the country are just plain wrong. Just say no to anonymous numbers.

-30-

The Department of Transportation claimed pride of place, as did the Department of Commerce and NASA. Industry was scared to death that NASA would get it, or would be allowed to effectively control the process elsewhere. If they wrote the regulations, it was a sure bet that the regulations would effectively prohibit private competition, at least according to almost everyone outside of NASA. This did include some people speaking off the record at other agencies.

These other people, along with certain members of Congress and various business interests, had a good point and reason to be concerned. The deck was being quietly stacked against private space companies. The interviews I did were quite interesting, and what was said off the record even more so. To be honest, I was inexperienced enough that a lot of it did not sink in then, and it was only later that I put some of it together.

The other interesting thing was that I could not find an outlet for stories on regulation anywhere. Then again, it was hard to find outlets for space stories period. Aviation Week covered the topic, but they were a closed shop. Newspapers, magazines, and other outlets just were not interested, and particularly not interested in stories about proposed or possible regulations of what was effectively a non-existent industry.

For better and worse, things languished in this mode for a few years, until the Challenger was destroyed. Minor rant, it did not blow up. It broke apart, and there is a heck of a difference. With that loss, Reagan told NASA to suck it up and took the launch monopoly away from it. They have never forgotten this, nor have they truly forgiven it.

The regulation issue did not really change all that much, though, simply because it was mostly satellites and disposable payloads going up. NASA still held the monopoly on manned space flight – until now.

Now, they have competition there as well. Scaled Composites is moving right along, and they have a habit of doing things no one else can or would do, and doing it well. XCOR is also moving along smartly, and they were one of the first companies to come along with a development program that I both liked and of which I approved. Some smart thinking went into it, and it shows. There are a couple of other serious contenders out there, but in my highly biased opinion these two are at the top. For other companies of interest, check out that press release I mentioned earlier.

Regulation is either going to throw open the doors, or it is going to kill the commercial launch industry before it ever has a chance to get off the ground. There will be no middle ground on this.

The right regulations that ensure reasonable safety to those onboard and those on the ground, and limit liability, are essential. This needs to be the minimum amount of regulation possible, as most will come from the companies themselves. They can’t afford a screwup because any such will sink them. They can’t afford to lose vehicles or people, or have something auger in anywhere other than uninhabited desert or ocean. They need reasonable protection from and limitation of damages and such unless the royally screw the pooch. If that happens, they know that it will not only take them out, but the entire industry as well.

The problem is that the regulations being put in place or considered will put a tremendous burden on them. The paperwork burden is staggering enough as it is right now, though typical for government operations. The paperwork to fly on NASA can easily exceed six feet in height, so government types who have no experience in the real world can’t understand why anyone who wants to fly would object to such. That is the way it is done now, after all.

No, its really not. No plane taking off has to fill out reams and reams of paperwork, undergo extensive testing and verification, and take years of effort to do each flight. If this were the case, we would not have an airline industry at all – and we seem to be working hard to kill it as it is.

What is needed for space operations is some common-sense regulation, minimal paperwork, and the same liability limits as given the airlines. So what if it leaves the atmosphere, it is still a flight.

Of great concern to industry right now are the new regulations, er, guidelines developed by NASA recently. I am not sure any NASA vehicle meets these requirements, so there is great concern when it is suggested they may be applied to industry. If we stick industry with the same ridiculous requirements that NASA operates under there will be no industry. NASA wants everything to work perfectly every time, any time, and has had a zero-defect environment in terms of safety. How well it has worked for them is obvious, and the fact that a zero-defect environment is always counterproductive managed to elude Goldin and his managers, and seems to be escaping many currently in management. The horror stories of the safety drive are many, but those are left for a truly enterprising reporter to go dig up, but they are there. Along with the strong drive to make sure nothing becomes a problem or gets identified as such, the inevitable corollary to zero-defect anything.

The fact is, there will be losses just as there are now airliner crashes and accidents. Everyone works to minimize them, and no one seriously suggests grounding all planes everywhere anytime a Piper Cub or a 727 goes down. What is done is to figure out what happened, put out a NOTAM, make any hardware fixes required, and get on with it. Anytime we loose a NASA craft, we take years to go through and try to fix things so that absolute safety is assured.

Face facts. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Absolute. Safety. Not this side of the grave, at least. It is sad when we lose people, but not the end of the world. Part of the secret of America, and one that everyone foreign or domestic who hates America absolutely can't stand, is that we embrace risk. We always have. Moving here was not a sure thing, and moving out into the wilderness was not a Sunday drive into a park. People died. Towns burned. Caca occureth. We, as individuals and as a nation, accepted that and pressed on. If you really bother to study history, you will find it was embraced and the risk became part of the pleasure. There is no reason we should not continue this tradition as we change frontiers.

And since I know it will come up, yes, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is on this. I am a licensed pilot, I am working on getting back into full fighting shape, and I am willing to go, risks and all. Do you have the courage to join me?

My own opinion is that NASA should have little or no input to this process. They are at best a tainted witness and at worse highly-motivated partisan with a large financial stake in stacking the deck. Regulating a new industry so that it can get off the ground will be a delicate task, and calls for the lightest possible touch at the start.

You can make a difference on this. Let your congresscritter know how you feel on the issue. Make your letters and calls polite, fact-based, appropriately detailed, and constructive. Provide positive suggestions, positive feedback, and do so within the norms of what passes for civilized behavior in such contacts. If enough people speak up, the regulation can be done in a way to benefit all. It just takes each individual to live up to their responsibilities as a Citizen. Go thou, therefore, and be counted.

-30-

One interesting thing was her finish, when she said that "I am an American soldier too!" were her words then and now. Exactly what happened to her we may never know, and if some things are true I hope they are never publically confirmed, for she deserves better. Others can and will come out, and those words combined with the Bronze Star, lead me to suspect that the Wag The Lynch idiots really missed it in the same way the BBC missed and dismissed the American entry into Baghdad. We will see.

For now, she is almost home with just a few parades and such to endure. Her thanks to those who helped her, from Iraq to the man who would not let her quit physical therapy, were moving. Her tribute to her friend and fallen colleague heartfelt.

Endure them, and enjoy them as much as you are able to. There are hard days ahead, just as there are hard days behind you. Your home has changed, and is not as it was. Your hometown is the same. Most importantly, you have changed and nothing will be quite the same. With work and time, however, you can and will make it better even if different.

Those words are hard and cruel, even if true. Forgive my saying them, though they need to be said. For now, simply allow me to say

"Welcome home, Jessica."

Laughing Wolf

They think that two of the bodies are that of Uday and Qusay, and a third is that of Qusay's teenage son. The latter two are likely the most important in many respects, since Uday did not have nearly as much power as he did psychopathy. Qusay, on the other hand, enjoyed is father's favor, was head of the Republican Guard, and had other important posts and duties.

The White House is being smart on this, and apparently will not say anything or allow anything to be said on the record until DNA and other forensics can be run. I imagine that they will do a full forensics workup including dental, X-rays, DNA, and any other tests they can think of to do. It still will not be enough to convince some, here or there, but if done right it will work for most thinking people.

Meantime, there is a lot of evidence that says there was something of importance there. You don't have the firepower described unless you have something of high value in the place. Surely not the firepower to stop and hold Task Force 20 and/or the 101st. Someone obviously got a bit fed up and used TOWs and other resources to breech the compound so troops could get in, and then used heavy fiepower as needed. The location, the owner, and other factors also add to the idea that someone or something of value was there.

For now, we wait as doing things right takes time. I sincerely hope that they do things by the book from a scientific as well as a SOP point of view, so that no one can pick at it later. Not that it will stop some people, especially if they see a political advantage, but it does make it easier to rebut them.

UPDATE 2: CENTCOM says that it was indeed them, even though the DNA and related work is not yet done. I do hope this is true, but will feel better when full forensics can back up the apparent eyewitness identifications.