The Laughing Wolf

Beanies are for Weenies, Not for the Faint of Heart, No Guts No Glory, Feel
the Fear and Eat it Anyway Road Kill Grill Chili (submitted with permission)

1/4 cup Castrol GTX 10W/40
1 pound freshly flattened opossum
1 pound aged armadillo bellies
1/2 pound squashed skunk
1/4 pound pulverized jack rabbit
1/8 pound finely ground crow
1/8 pound minced little old lady (When doubling the recipe, continue to
use 1/8 of pound; little old ladies are a little tough, stringy, and gamey.
If gamey, soak in a little Jim Beam.)

OR 3 pounds sirloin or top round, diced into 1/4 inch cubes
3 large onions
5 cloves garlic
2 freshly chopped jalapenos
1 tablespoon paprika
6 tablespoons chili powder
1 tablespoon extract of sweaty gym socks (cumin)
1 teaspoon oregano
15 ounces tomato sauce
1 cup rainwater
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon cayenne
4 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
Freshly crushed black pepper
Tabasco™ to taste

Brown meat. Add rest of
ingredients and simmer for at least 3 hours.

Laughing Wolf Road Kill Grill
2 pounds sirloin, in cubes
2 pounds pork, in cubes
3 large onions, chopped small
8 cloves garlic, crushed and chopped
2 freshly chopped jalapeno peppers
1 freshly chopped habanero pepper
2 chipotle peppers, chopped
1 T smoked paprika (use regular hot if no smoked)
6 T chili powder
1T cumin
1 t mexican oregano
15 ounces tomato sauce
1 t chipotle powder
sea or kosher salt to taste (start with 1t, go from there)
fresh ground black pepper to taste
pinch cinnamon (use up to 1t)
1 cup water
5 T Worcestershire sauce
Tabasco™ to taste

Brown meat. Add rest of
ingredients and simmer for at least 3 hours. To increase heat, increase fresh peppers.

Carne Adobava
Hardware:
LARGE mixing bowl
Food processor or blender
Large spoon
Knife
Oven, preheat to 375 degrees

Ingredients:
1 lb dried hot NM red chili pods
1 lb dried mild NM red chili pods
20-40 peeled cloves of garlic (Go High)
2 large onions, cut into wedges
4T Mexican oregano
2t Kosher salt
Water

Working in batches, place dried pods on a half-sheet pan or cookie sheet and warm for a couple of minutes in the oven to make them pliable. Remove stems and place in food processor or blender along with a small amount of water, some garlic and onion, and a bit of the spices. Pulse until smooth, adding water as necessary to get a slurry the consistency of heavy cream. Combine all batches in a very large mixing bowl and divide into thirds for freezing. Sauce should keep for six or so months frozen. This should make 1-2 gallons of sauce.

Take one third of the sauce and place in a pot/crockpot. Add in 3-4 lbs. cubed pork, recommend loin, about .5 inch to 1 inch. Simmer for 3-8 hours.

There you go. :) Enjoy!

-30-

It is also why I refuse to call myself a strict constitutionalist. Despite bad history/civics teachers, demagogues, and despots, the Constitution is not some dead thing carved in stone. It is a living document that enshrines and encourages positive change. It was and is intended to change form, to grow, and to embrace new opportunities via amendment. What is not intended to change is the core beliefs: that of individual liberty, responsibility, and governance.

How and why this came to be is a fascinating study, full of intrigue worthy of Machiavelli. For the Founding Fathers were not of one mind, or even two. There were several camps and schools of thought, inspired by sources ranging from Classical Greece to the latest in liberal revolutionary thought from Europe. All agreed that King George III had to go, and that the colonies needed to be independent. Beyond that, there was little agreement.

There were those that wanted state religion, a new form of monarchy, full democracy, and a host of other divisive issues. Wisely, they could and did agree on a very broad framework that became the Declaration of Independence. As both a writer and someone interested in politics, I do wish that some of Jefferson’s writing had not been edited. Then again, having worked with governmental editing committees, I am amazed that as much stayed in as did so. For the Declaration was radical, and it speaks volumes that it was unanimous.

Such unanimity did not last, however, and the result was the Articles of Confederation. This was, in effect, our first constitution and it pleased almost no one. The Articles provided a very loose framework and not a lot of cohesiveness. That there were serious problems with it was agreed, but it let things get along and did not tread on any major toes.

Because of the problems, it was finally decided that the Articles needed revision, and a meeting was held for this purpose. Now, to be blunt, this meeting was essentially hijacked by one of the major groups, supporting of a strong central government (almost a monarchy),who in effect carried out a coup well outside their limits. Depending on how you look at it, it was either a coup de foudre or a cout d’etat. They definitely seized the unexpected opportunity when they could.

The result was not a revised Articles, but an entirely new Constitution. A number of provisions, limiting of individual liberty, were struck out. Others were added. Realizing that a true and full coup would not be supported, a deal was reached. The Constitution would be adopted, and provisions inserted for adding amendments, so that what is now the Bill of Rights could be added later. With the Bill essentially guaranteed, enough of the other groups went along so that the Constitution was adopted, even if under highly irregular circumstances.

The immediate concern, at home and in what is now Old Europe, was that a document that provided a means of change or even of repudiation was proof that these radicals were not fit to govern themselves. Such power and guaranteed change just wasn’t done! The dynamic that is America, however, embraced it and ran forward with it in a curious mix that enshrined both the Constitution and the Declaration. In essence, the Declaration set forth the spiritual guidelines in many respects, and the Constitution gave a form for making those real.

This dichotomy is the basis for the Supreme Court to consider the intent of the framers. For while such officially looks at the Constitution, it also includes a de facto guidance from the Declaration. For while there was no unanimity on the Constitution, there was for the Declaration. For while there was no unanimity on the Constitution, there was something close to it on the underlying principles. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Individual rights. Self-governance, and an educated citizenry.

Many of these things have gone in ways that could not have been foreseen. Others have gone as expected, to the delight and dismay of various schools of thought. Some may even have come dangerously close to destroying the Republic, and I am sure there are still those who would see it fall and replaced with something more class-based or dictatorial. Yet, the Republic still holds and will hold for as long as there is individual liberty, free speech, and a forum or forums through which to present a variety of ideas to the public.

I fear for the Republic, but in many ways I see the greatest hope for positive growth and change that I have seen in years. I see it in breaking the two-party monopoly; of breaking the power of the Old Media; and in the rise of the New Media. I see it in rational discourse, discussion, and even a few good arguments. I see it every day when I check blogs. I see hope in all of it.

I see it because America is a revolution that will not quit, not unless we fail of will and of our duty as Citizens. I see it because of a document called the Constitution.

-30-

St. Petersburg, Russia. Now. I want to visit in the winter, and take a sleigh ride across the snow. I want to visit it again in the early summer, and picnic one day at Peterhof and another day at Catherine’s palace.

I want to go to China and visit the Great Wall, and walk as much of it as I can. I want to visit the plaque left by Gen. Scott honoring Gen. Chenault, some of the AVG areas, and maybe the China end of the Burma road.

I want to go to Cambodia, and see Angkor Wat. I started to do that the first Christmas after Dad died, and sort-of regret a little not doing it. A few days there, and maybe go to Vietnam for just a couple of days. Mixed emotions on the latter.

I want to spend one night in Bangkok, for the song.

I want to visit India, see the Taj, and go up to Nepal. There, I want to climb as high as I can up Everest, just because.

Speaking of hiking, I want to hike and tour in New Zealand, based on what friends have said about the land and the people.

I want to tour Australia a bit, and maybe meet some people who I only know through e-mail.

Antarctica is next, and while I want to get ashore there, what I really want to do is make it to the South Pole. Just because.

For warmer climes, I might stop in South Africa, to visit some places I’ve only read about. I want to visit Egypt and see as much as I can. I want to visit Israel and see some of the places I have read about for all my life.

Relaxation will come in Spain an Portugal. Clubs, sea, food – just a couple of lazy weeks one day.
The Netherlands would also be a wonderful stop, and spring or summer come to mind, to see the flowers.

This is not all, but it is a start. A challenge to myself, as it were.

So, where do you want to travel, and why?

-30-

It was also a chance to visit the new house. My host, the good guy, just moved from being an almost next door neighbor to a wonderful new home. One of the nicest things about it is a three-car garage, currently filled with moving stuff from two abodes, and his Harley. It is a beautiful bike, though purple just is not my colour. I tend to go for silvers, blues, and blacks.

Which is funny, given that the bike I have ridden the most was sort-of red. I think it started out a bright red, but by the time it came into my life it might charitably be described as weathered. And non-operational. Its owner had been in the Coast Guard, and was now using GI benefits to attend college. He was a character, but we got along tolerably well. So much so, that a deal was struck. I ended up rebuilding the bike for him, so that I could use it. He bought major parts, and I did the rest.

It was an old Honda 400-4. A rice-burner and not the sexiest bike on the road, but solid. Parts of the engine were solid at that point, and one of the things I had to do was pull the rotor out (oh, for some explosives), whip it on a lathe, and work on it. Didn’t really try too hard to make it true again, just shaved off enough to avoid impacts and binding. Once we could get the engine to turn over, things got a lot easier.

We couldn’t do as much as we wanted, because both of us were broke undergrads. Still, I got it up and running, but it needed some front work to deal with the death wobble that came in between 80 and 90. Somewhere closer to the speed limit it was quite stable, and that four cylinder made for a comfortable ride.

I couldn’t afford leather, so used my OD green army jacket, and it did okay. I rode it everywhere, around town and out for trips. It got me involved with a couple of groups, and even a member of a much more serious motorcycle group gave some acceptance and support. Think he was highly amused about me and my enthusiasm as much as anything…

I have no idea where bike or owner are today, but just let me say: Thanks. Learned a lot, and had a lot of fun.

I would ask my friend if I could use his bike, but I just don’t see me doing purple.

-30-

His words were a shock to some, for they appear to fly in the face of traditional religious teaching. For what he proposed was very simple, but then again it is often the simple concepts that can cause the most profound searching of souls.

Do you see anything with which you disagree as being a challenge to your faith? Do you take any question as a threat? Does the sight of any thing or behavior different from your faith cause you to panic, or desire to destroy it? Does the presentation of any alternative interpretation of scripture bring rage or fear?

To build on his excellent foundation, if the slightest question shakes you and brings doubt into your life; if seeing behavior with which you disagree tempts you; if the ready availability of some temptation causes you to fall – then what you have is not faith. It is not true belief.

Faith is not weakened by challenge, it is made stronger. Mature belief depends on discussion, consideration, and growth. When I was a child, I thought as a child has meaning on many levels, and it applies to all aspects of life. When you were a child, you may have thought that stars were but candles in the sky. Do you still believe that as an adult? If not, why then should your beliefs and understandings on matters of faith remain the same?

Challenges to faith and belief should not be seen as attacks, but as opportunities. For they give you the chance to share your thoughts and beliefs. Through honest discussion and consideration, you can increase your understanding and knowledge, and use such to help others understand and grow as well.

Fantasy ideologies can stand no question, and allow nothing that would contradict them to stand. For one great example, look to the Taliban. The only way their version of faith could survive was to cut their people off from the outside world. They did not allow the internet, papers, and other forms of communications that would show things different from their presentation. Anything existing that represented beliefs different from their own was destroyed, such as the giant, ancient Buddhas. Their system could not withstand the mute presence of statues that had stood for centuries. It could only exist in a vacuum.

Questioning, learning, and attempts to better understand your scriptures and beliefs – whatever your faith – are crucial. It is something that should be an ongoing part of your life. It is not always comfortable at the time, but the end result provides far greater comfort and security to you.

If you choose to follow the Way of the Wolf, this should not be limited to matters of spiritual faith and belief. All knowledge and – most especially – assumptions should be challenged on a regular basis.

How many times have you just absolutely “known” something? And found out it was wrong? Have you never made a snap judgment of a person, only to find out that what you assumed was the case was not? Our lives are filled with such things, and learning we are wrong can be embarrassing, but we are the better for finding out the truth. Learning is a cumulative process of replacing old knowledge with better knowledge. We not only add facts, but we increase our sophistication by understanding more complex ideas.

Think on school a bit. Did you start with quantum theory in first grade? Or did you start with rather simplistic presentations of atoms and cells as if they were solid objects? Did you discuss electron valences and sharing when learning how compounds were made? Or did you simply talk about two things joining? Did you start with conjugating verbs? Or did you start with the ABCs?

Now, did you see learning as a threat? As something to be feared and fought? A danger to society that must be eliminated for the good of all?

If not, why then fear learning and growth in any area?

Challenge yourself on every level.

-30-

Third, I make no claims to being a theologian, and plead a certain amount of ignorance. That ignorance, however, is not willful. I was raised in the Methodist church, and started bible study at a very early age. This probably was something the pastor we had at the time came to regret, as I had a tendency to ask very hard questions in all innocence, which only made it worse for him I think. A very nice and well-meaning man, he was not the brightest bulb and took to avoiding me and my questions.

The two people who had the most to do with some of my development in matters spiritual, other than my parents, were my ninth grade history teacher and a Jesuit priest. Both of these individuals put me on the path of critical thinking. The teacher knew me, and knew that I had some very romantic notions of the Catholic Church. His answer was to assign me a term paper topic that caused me to do some digging, some deep thinking, and to remove some blinders. The priest I met on a long train trip through Italy when I was 12. There is just something about the Jesuits that has the desire to teach ingrained in them. He taught that day, and it was only much later that I realized that in discussions of the countryside, history, and language that he had planted yet more seeds of critical thinking.

Over the years, my interest in and studies of matters religious and spiritual have led me to some interesting people. I have much enjoyed talks, discussions, and debates with priests, ministers, theologians, scholars, and others. A fun assignment that I will share, and highly recommend, is to read the Bible as a novel. The idea takes a little getting used to, but once you do it provides an interesting perspective.

Unlike many children in the South, I had ready access to some Jewish thought and scholarship as well, through family acquaintances. Because of the large number of food allergies I had as a child, there were many things I could not eat, such as wheat, corn, rice, rye, etc. I could eat potatoes and other foods that just happened to be Kosher, and these kind people included me and my family in their runs to Atlanta for supplies. I learned of Orthodox, Reformed, and other divisions at an early age (along with some interesting phrases in another language). It is fascinating to study Kosher requirements, and see that they block the spread of parasites and disease, and help reduce the chance of food poisoning.

Other faiths continued to fascinate me, and I was given some encouragement to explore them. Such requirements were one of the more fun parts of earning the God and Country Award in the Boy Scouts.

It was ironic that there was no Methodist version of that award and that I earned the Episcopal, as in my junior year of High School I switched to the Episcopal Church. It was a dreary story of a sky pilot who finished cementing my intense distaste for certain types who wear the cloth in any faith. The Episcopal minister was the father of some classmates, and was a wonderful person with whom to talk. I have written of him before, and he also encouraged me to continue my studies. He was most thought provoking, never belittled the fact that years earlier I had given consideration to becoming a monk, and was surprisingly patient. Yes, I did indeed have a childhood infatuation with the idea of becoming a monk (quit laughing Borzoi!).

So, I have studied a bit over the years and will note that my post of yesterday was in no way disrespectful of any aspect of Christian faith. Indeed, what some took to be disrespectful is quite fully discussed in a number of theological and scholarly sources. Sex and sensuality does play a role in scripture and in doctrine, and as such is well discussed. My paragraph of yesterday is simply an extremely concise summation of some of it. As for my comments regarding divorce and such, they are nothing compared to what is being said by ministers and priests within the faith. I believe one such was recently referenced on Winds of Change, and I know he was cited by Cardinal Puppileiu. His post was far more scathing than my simple statements of fact.

I do want to thank Dan Darling, however, for pointing out a mistake. I only had about 30 minutes in which to write that post, with the result that one thing in particular was not made clear. I listed polygamy in a series of “bad things” and failed to make clear that it is a bad thing simply in terms of U.S. law. I failed to state and explain that point properly, and am glad for the chance to correct it. The posts I write here do get short shrift, as my time has to go into paying writing, with the result that I do make mistakes in word choice, words, and spelling. I trust you will forgive those errors when they do occur.

As a matter of philosophy, I have no problem with polygamy. Nor do I have any problem with line, group, or other forms outside the norm. So long as all parties consent to the situation, and thus know what they are getting into, there is no problem with it. The key here is consent, informed consent, as I do not feel any practice that is consensual is any of anyone else’s business. It most especially is not the business of the Republic. I also find the arguments linking polygamy and incest to be a bit specious, but that again is a post for another day. For some good comments on this, look for what Jay Solo (recently married, lucky dog) says at his site and in comments at Winds of Change.

This raises a point that came up several times and in several places: other areas that need help. Members of the BDSM community face loss of children, security clearances, and jobs for their consensual practices. In a non-sexual context, so too do nudists/naturists. There are other alternative lifestyles and thoughts that face this same type of persecution, and make no mistake about it: It is persecution. It is discrimination. It is wrong.

Another important point was raised in a letter, and it does deserve some serious consideration. There are some, real extremists, who would push to force churches to perform gay marriages. How do we protect them? Case law used to provide for such, and it has been made clear over the years that Faiths may not be forced to perform acts abhorrent to them within their sanctuary. However, anti-cult laws have eroded some of those protections, and open the door for just such abuse. Current debate gives us an opportunity to consider this, and to make sure that whatever comes in the form of law ensures the sanctity and rights of all faiths.

Yes, that does mean “cults” as well. One of the oddest blessings of our Republic and the Constitution is that it allows Citizens to make stupid choices and mistakes. People can make good choices, and reap the rewards, or they can make stupid choices, and pay the price. You, as an individual, can help them if you choose, but nowhere in the Constitution is there a freedom from consequences. This echos the Bible very strongly, for the heart of that book is that unto me (and all others) is given a choice, to accept (and reap the rewards of paradise) or to reject (and spend eternity in torment).

To sum up before the half hour is up, though I am not gay I do support the right to gay marriage/unions. It in no way harms the Republic, but is in fact living up to the challenge of the Constitution. It in no way forces any Faith to recognize or countenance same, and in fact can be used to strengthen the independence of all Faiths from government interference and control. There are other positives, but that will do for now. The bell tolls, and the workday starts.

-30-

Marriage, however, truly falls into two categories: religious and civil. Religious marriages are those conducted within the dictates and regulations of a religion or similar school of philosophy. Much of this appears to have started simply as a means of calling down the blessings of the gods, god, goddess, or other on the couple so that they would have health, plenty, and plenty of offspring. Offspring were help around the farm or house, secured income, and provided for the parents in their dotage. They also helped spread the ranks of the particular religion, a fact not lost on most priests or spiritual leaders.

This, in turn, led to a number of religious edicts about marriage, and sex, for the two were interlinked by procreation. Smart leaders realized that conversion was fine, but that another way to expand a belief is to expand the population. Smaller, more aggressive religions took this to some interesting extremes over the years but the key to most of their directives was to decree that anything that did not result in pregnancy was a sin.

If one can set aside belief and bias, and examine the Bible, this is in fact the basis for deciding what was sin and what was acceptable. Anything which spilt seed except in a fertile womb was a sin: masturbation, anal intercourse in any description, sex during menstruation, etc. Anything that secured future generations was good, including the bedding of new widows, the taking of multiple wives (early Old Testament), and forcing a mate to do their duty (rape) are all okay according to scripture. Pleasure of the partners is rarely addressed, and indeed is greeted with some suspicion as it was felt it would reduce the drive for procreation. Particularly in terms of female pleasure or self-pleasure.

Nor is the Judeo-Christian religion the only one to follow this basis. One need only look at the horror of female circumcision and mutilation so as to deny pleasure by one particular religion to get the point.

The final point for today’s consideration here is that religions took to regulating and controlling marriage because it was a way to increase and expand populations and wealth. This, of course, had the effect of also expanding the religion in question, by population, wealth, and control/power.

Civil union, on the other hand, became important during the switch from hunter/gatherer to agrarian civilization. In small bands, or even large clans, pairs or more did bond, and the group in effect helped raise the children. In larger groupings, however, the latter runs into some problems because of differing beliefs, customs, and rites. Smaller groupings became common, and the idea behind a formal bonding comes down to a couple or a group stating that they are responsive for and to each other, and for and to the offspring.

This, in turn, led to more effective means to pass property between individuals and generations. This also provided for continuity that had been lacking in many areas of law/custom and differing concepts of ownership.

Having such joinings be noted by some form of civil authority came about because of a need to document, so that the smooth transfer of assets could occur. Local magistrates and leaders saw the immediate advantages to this, most especially that formal rolls (scrolls) of such records provided a neat and handy measure of the number of subjects, property owned, wealth created, etc. This led to the idea of tax rolls, mobilization rolls (the ability to pull up people to serve in military conflicts), and other instruments of benefit to the state. The concept of growth by population growth was not lost on the state either.

The idea of a marriage on marriage between the church and state appears to be a function of the Middle Ages and the spread of Christianity. The church(es) were everywhere and often kept all the records for any given community, especially rural communities. They had a reach and a power that few governments could match. So, to make things easy for the state, the idea of religious-based marriage became the official policy of all smart monarchs and governments. In this way, the church kept records for the state, that the state could use for a variety of purposes. The church(es) gained secular power in the deal as well, helping cement growing control of the governments as well as individuals.

This is the root basis of marriage in Western Civilization. The alliance between church(es) and state provided near universal insistence on marriage in the church. This also meant that Judeo-Christian regulations/morals became the defacto standard, with only minor variations between countries with different state religions.

This was true in the West until the American Revolution. The creation of the Republic was a major departure because America refused to have a state religion. Freedom of religion has many ramifications, and marriage was one of them. Because there was no central church, the States adopted measures to require that all marriages be noted in official offices, so that all the proper rolls can be kept and prepared. It also brought about two other changes, which are important to consider in the debate.

First, it brought about a larger-scale concept of civil union. With no central church, there was a need to provide for unions by people not of a church, or of a church not represented in a given location. The state moved into this role through judges, justices of the peace, etc., all of whom have been given the power to perform marriages. This further increased secular power

It also brought about more laws in regards common-law marriages. The state, in order to protect its interests, passed laws stating that couples who lived together for more than a given number of years, were considered to be married and subject to all laws and regulations (and taxations) as those legally married by church or state. In some respects, this was just a formalization of practices going back hundreds or thousands of years. In other respects, it was a radical departure because it, in effect, stated that people who did such were not responsible and would not be responsible to offspring or the state.

You have to consider the fact that up until the Middle Ages, most marriage were of a type that would today be called common-law. The people bound together, lived and died together, and never was there an official church or state wedding. Formalizing this closed a huge loophole for the state.

We must also consider the fact that a two-person, monogamous relationship has never truly been the norm. There have been group marriages, line marriages, and a number of other interesting variations. There have been two major drivers behind such (and behind marriage in general): protection and care of the children; and, protection and expansion of property.

Even within the West in and after the Middle Ages, monogamy was not and is not the norm. With arranged marriages and mergers, love was never a consideration. In some, cases, love or something like it did develop. Yet, the standard practice was for a male, particularly one who was well-to-do, to take a consort or consorts who did please the eye and heart. Men got the better end of the deal, since procreation was an important consideration. The women, as bearer of children, rarely got such liberties during child-bearing years. To do so before menopause invited ruin and death. Yet, any children from the consorts were often brought forth and made full heirs (hidden pregnancies, miracles, or just plain business as usual).

So why then does the U.S. government have such a strong interest in defining marriage?

First, there is the myth that America is a Christian nation. Yes, some (or even many) of the Founding Fathers were nominal or true Christians. Yet, they deliberately created a secular government that expressly does not endorse or enshrine any religion. This frustrates the devil out of the religious right (and not just the Christian right), because it means that they can’t control things. Such diminishes their power, and that is not a thing to be borne lightly.

Second, it is seen by many as a threat to that major drive behind marriage as a whole: the expansion of wealth. Secular and religious power depend on growing population and property.

Face it: since the dawn of recorded time same sex couples have not been able to procreate. They could adopt or take in, but until the last half of the last century, procreation was not an option. Today, only lesbian couples can have children, courtesy of artificial insemination.

If you can’t have children, you can’t grow the population base. No growth there, no growth of wealth, taxes, etc. The logic comes down to the question “How can you pay for benefits to such a couple, when they produce no wealth to society?”

This mindset is an ancient one, and it clouds any attempt to examine the situation as it currently exists. Our system of property and inheritance laws is based on the practice of centuries. Yet, the facts of life have indeed changed and mindsets and laws have yet to even begin to consider adapting.

The scientific and sexual revolution have bypassed nature as we knew it. Women now have power over themselves. They can regulate their fertility, and with it comes liberation. Liberation means an end to centuries of male domination in the West. For the fact is, as much as it pains me to agree with some of the wilder feminists, we have been a very unequal culture and the changes are going to take years, if not centuries, to play out. This threatens the hell out of a lot of men in many of the patriarchal religions. Or those who are just plain scared of women.

Couples who would have been pitied as barren just a few decades ago can now have children, through drugs and/or artificial insemination. This also means that women can have children without marriage, and without men, if they so choose.

This is also where the old mindset starts to run into some serious problems. How can a woman provide for a child without a husband? After all, for many years it has been the male who provided protection, money, and more. This is also the basis of the thought against gay marriage. If they can’t have children, how can they grow in size and wealth?

The answer is that the economy has changed as well. We are no longer an agrarian society, nor are we still an industrial society. Things have moved on, and one no longer needs teams of horses, or lots of hands to do work, in order to produce products and wealth. A smart person sitting at a computer can earn more in a month than most people in the past earned in a lifetime. The realization of that change has yet to sink in.

The old models of the creation of wealth and expansion of population no longer apply.

So, that also leaves us with the thorny issue of morality. Much of the indignation on the right deals with morality, since that is an easy hot-button emotional topic. Yet, this shows the major flaw in their campaign: morality is tied to religion. So, this begs the question of which morality and which religion will be honored? It also begs the question of which religions actually practice what they preach on this issue?

The heart of the Judeo-Christian doctrine on unions is that marriage is sacred, not to be set aside, and that they cleave only to one another. Divorce is a major no-no. Okay, so go take a look at the divorce rates. Then take a look at the studies that examine such things as adultery and sexuality. Look at the rates for sex outside of marriage and before marriage. In this respect, it is not a pretty picture. Compare this to the rates for same sex unions and activities.

The net result is that there is no evidence that same sex unions will do worse than current religious unions (and may even do better). There is no evidence that same sex marriages will cause a stagnation or decrease in the development of wealth. Modern science provides options in terms of the growth of population as a factor.

What truly matters here are two things. One, can same-sex unions provide stability/growth, and the resources needed to bring children into productive adulthood? Two, will we honor our Constitution which guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens? The latter may well be the most important question we face. We can turn our backs on it, not for the first time, and disenfranchise a chunk of our Citizens. Or, we can accept it as the sometimes uncomfortable thing it is and try our best to live up to its promise. This means holding all Citizens responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to marriage.

We already have a tradition of civil union. There is no legal or logical reason that such can’t apply to same-sex marriage. What is needed is not a defense of marriage act, but a clear separation of church and state. Let those who desire to have a same-sex union do so, either in a church that supports such, or in a civil action. Let those opposed continue to get married in the church of their choice. To do anything else violates the rights, liberties, and responsibilities of the individual, and poses contempt for the Constitution and the Republic.

-30-

When I was first getting started as a journalist and writer, I did a series of articles on Soviet space efforts. One of these, never published, predicted that a major launch failure was due soon. This came not from sources or knowledge of sabotage, but from identifying a cycle in such events. It turned out that I was right, there was a spectacular launch failure, and that somehow Soviet intelligence got a copy of the unpublished article and decided to check me out and/or recruit me.

My phone was tapped. I was approached. The entire affair was about as subtle as a clown suit at a dress ball. I was unimpressed. I was, to put it mildly, pissed off by all that happened. Net result was not intimidation, but the creation of a desire on my part to learn all I could of their space efforts and publicize same. Yes, I did report all this to the FBI, though Ifni only knows if they paid it any attention or had the competence to do so.

So, I dug in and learned. I read up on intelligence, intelligence agencies, failed and good operations, and more. I studied up on Soviet space efforts, and in the course of this met many good and fine people, some of who were delighted to pool efforts and get the news out. It was fun. It honked off some of the Soviets. I was happy. I was especially happy that the person they used to contact me never came calling again, given some things I found out later. Funny thing is, under the right circumstances, I would drink with that person.

This culminated in my Master’s thesis, entitled The Soviet Watchers which was an open directory of observers of Soviet space efforts. Got some good people in there, which made me very happy. I was sorry one person was not able to participate, and remain overjoyed that a couple of people for whom I have no professional respect declined to participate.

There was a downside too, just as there was with my knowledge of (and respect for) military operations: there are some who feel that it taints me to have studied the subject so. Or, rather, let us say that the fact that I have respect for some people in intelligence and for some intelligence operations means that I am forever corrupted in their eyes. A “real” journalist could never be this way, for all military and intelligence people and activities are an abomination. My response to that is, most politely, a raspberry. Long and loud.

It has also, though, allowed me to have some fun along the way. The department uber-lib where I did my Master’s work almost stroked out when I snuck a CIA coffee mug into the department break room. In the interest of being fair and balanced, I also slipped a KGB mug to a friend to put in there. As for where all the KGB badge that came my way took me, we won't go there...

So, no, I am not the employee of any intelligence agency. Just a writer who has done some homework over the years.

-30-

Point 1: ISS. The goal is to complete all obligations to the ISS and the international partners by 2010. This is to free up budget resources and to get out from under a project that has busted every budget projection. I rather suspect that if it could be shelved, it would, but the current international agreements are binding. The President has had a special place in his heart for the ISS and its management ever since he was stuck with a check that was some 48 billion more than he had been told. There is also the fact that the ISS can’t do what was promised, will most likely continue to go over budget, and will continue to be a problem for NASA. If we can finish up our obligations, then we can claim success and walk away.

Point 1A: Shuttle. The goal is to return it to flight as a stopgap until something better can be created. Not a bad idea at all, though the proposed plan leads to

Point 2: Crew Exploration Vehicle. The new vehicle is supposed to be able to go from the Earth to the ISS, and from Earth orbit to the moon and beyond. The problem is, making a one-size-fits-all vehicle like this means that it will be a large and expensive project that will do none of its several jobs well. That is almost precisely how we ended up with the current shuttle, with all of its expense and problems. There is also the fact that NASA has yet to successfully design and test any advanced transportation system since the Shuttle. There are lots of neat presentations, lots of documentation, and a bunch of delaminated fuel tanks that never worked. In other words, no successfully bent metal, and very little bent metal period.

Point 3: Return to the Moon. This is a worthy goal, and NASA has plenty of time to achieve it. The President is correct when he sites the resources and advantages of a presence on the moon, even though he is not pointing out anything that Robert Heinlein and others didn’t point out 50 or so years ago.

I’m not going to go into the sub-bullets here, but they are worth reading. They actually do make sense for a government-focused operation, and even have some relevance outside of government.

To the surprise of some, I am going to come out and say that I like the proposal. It is reasonable for a governmental program; it will facilitate the re-organization and re-focusing of NASA; it shows far more fiscal soundness that I have come to expect from this Administration, with a workable and realistic budget plan; and, most of all, it ignores free enterprise.

That’s right, I am happy it ignores free enterprise. The fact is, that NASA has never been comfortable with its obligations to commercialize space, and in fact has done a great deal to impede such efforts. Talk, off the record, to almost any scientist or major manager at NASA HQ (or even the field centers) and you will find commercial and commercialization to be very dirty words, unless of course they can find some way to get a cut. Had the President’s plan forced NASA to work with private industry and private space efforts, I am willing to guarantee that it would have proved a major impediment to such activities.

Take a close look at the timeline too: There is lots of time. It is a government timeline, and one that private enterprise should be able to run rings around – at least for low Earth orbit activities. Take a look at the timelines for NASA efforts to develop new launch vehicles, then go take a look at the proposed timelines for companies such as Scaled Composites and XCOR. Heck, take a look at any of the X-Prize contenders and compare.

Let’s expand it a bit as well. Go take a look at Luna Corp and similar companies, and their timelines. Look at what they need to get their robotic explorers and exploiters to the moon. Then look at what NASA needs.

You know, the President is not nearly as stupid as his critics try to portray him to be. In fact, he has been pretty shrewd and smart on many major issues. He may not be the best spoken person around, but he is not stupid. Do you think that he may have had some method to his madness here? For what if private industry does create and provide launch services? What if they do send probes on to the moon? Do you think that maybe NASA might, by dint of budget and language, be encouraged to make use of it? It is an intriguing possibility, since the actual language and such is not yet fully available, or perhaps even fully worked out.

Even if not, the timeline and scope provide ample opportunity for private space enterprise to prove its claims. The President has made his announcement and hit the button of his obligation here. He has honored the ideal that was NASA, and provided a cover to try to re-organize and re-focus the agency. In so doing, he has also effectively issued a challenge to the private sector: do it better and do it faster.

For if industry can, then there is the possibility of NASA having to use those services. If not, then the government can proceed on down the same tired path.

I had no realistic hope of a truly visionary plan that would make use of the engine of private enterprise, nor was I surprised. I had a number of concerns that this plan would or could cripple private space efforts, and I am pleased (and a bit surprised) that it did not do so from the start.

All in all, I like this plan because while it breaks no new ground, it does not appear to place limits on non-governmental possibilities. I can live with a tired re-hash of the past, provided that it does not prevent others from creating a brighter future.

-30-

Torture is used by thugs, amateurs, and the desperate. History shows time and time again that torture is not effective, efficient, or anything else. History also shows that those who use it are most usually, but not always, scum.

Interrogation, on the other hand, rarely uses true pain. Indeed, some of the most effective interrogations have used pleasure to get the needed information. Doubt me? Then check out the case of the German interrogator who got loads of good info during WWII simply by treating our people well, well enough that he was sponsored for citizenship by those same soldiers after the war.

The problem with interrogation is that it takes time. You have to have or build up information, so that you can trap or trick the subject. Physical tiredness, sleep depravation, schedule disruption, caffeine and other drugs, and a number of other things can be used as a part of this, to speed it along, and that is where the gray areas can emerge.

There are gray areas, and there are lines not to be crossed. Yet, a good series of interrogations can reveal much even when the subject is non-cooperative. Even better, from an intelligence standpoint, is that the person is whole. In most cases where you have caught an agent or operative, you want to use them. If you break them, which is what happens physically and mentally with torture, you have to repair them and that is most often difficult or impossible.

Interrogation does not, for the most part, snap a person that way. Done right, the subject may not even realize what all they have divulged. This avoids many psychological complications, and can allow the subject to become either a willing or unknowing asset. It also aids in turning them, which is something rarely if ever accomplished with torture. Torture leaves its marks, literally and physically, and those can be detected. Interrogation leaves much more subtle marks, if any, and is harder to detect.

In short, interrogation is not torture though there can be a fine line in some cases. It is not a pleasant topic, but it is one deserving of a great deal of thought: especially in a free society.

-30-

To be fair, there are other reasons for the Old Media, or any real journalist, to take a hard look at intelligence activities. For there have been spectacular failures, from Pearl Harbor (where another Admiral Turner has come in for some criticism) to the Bay of Pigs. There has been corruption and the appearance of corruption, and there have been some travesties of all that America stands for with alliances and operations. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, within and without, and responsible reporting is essential to this process.

The problem is, to my mind, that some have taken the crusade against bad intelligence practices to mean that all intelligence is bad and evil, just like the military and all within it are bad and evil. Therefore, anything that exposes operations and such is good. So, there is a tendency in some to want to expose everything no matter the consequences. This has “outed” agents and operatives in the past, resulting in their deaths. There is an icon of fairly recent journalism whom I refuse to revere, because their actions directly caused the death of an operative. This is glossed over (or even revered) by many in the profession, in their rush to beatify all the “good” this person has done.

Yet, it must be noted that this is not a common occurrence. Yes, there are those in the Old Media who would positively salivate at the chance to blow a cover or name names simply to do so. Thankfully, these are either not numerous or are kept out of harms way so that their opportunities to do so are limited. What really and truly bothers me is that in ignorance of intelligence operations, mass media – particularly the Old Media – can do a great deal of damage. It is an area where I would hate to see the New Media fall down.

In yesterday’s post, I talked a bit about the testing of channels. All sides do it, and all sides look for any indications or advantage. Sometimes, it is the most innocuous of things that gives crucial information in this game, and that is where ignorance in the hands of media can be deadly.

When I woke up yesterday, there was rampant discussion everywhere about the possible source of information on the recent security alerts. While speculation and information can be very good things in a free and open society, it can have catastrophic consequences in the world of intelligence.

Let’s look at a hypothetical example. Let’s say that there is intelligence that comes in about a possible attack. As a result, a security alert is issued, specifically at a city, and that is focused at a bus station. This is fairly straightforward, but nothing is that straightforward when it comes to intelligence.

First, this could all be a test of a particular channel or person. When the alert is issued, and the news covers it, that channel or person is blown. Yet, it can be a much more detailed test, and coverage of the specific city, and the specific target can reveal a wealth of information to an enemy. It can reveal not merely one means of information, but many. It can reveal entire chains or cells of people that are compromised or informants. In short, it can blow major inroads into the enemy.

Even with that, I can defend the coverage of such events. I don’t think it a good thing, done without thought, but under the Constitution and precedent/case law, there is a right to it. I much prefer some thought to go into it, so that the coverage meets the needs and rights of Citizens to be informed yet does so without damaging, or at least minimizing, damage to intelligence activities.

Where I have the most problem is with the speculation by various talking heads. To sit and discuss where the information came from can be and often is an aid and comfort to the enemy. When you have someone wanting to show their knowledge, their importance, and their “in” to intelligence so that they all but tell the enemy how it was done, that can be nothing short of treason.

While some of these talking heads may be planting disinformation, I have seen some that are handing our enemies help on a platter. Most people involved see this as harmless, because of ignorance or bias on matters of intelligence, or because they simply see it as part of the normal way of doing business in the media. This is willful ignorance in a time of war, at best, and I regard much of it as reprehensible.

As a journalist, I held to the ideal that I had to make my own decisions on such matters, and I held and hold my sources on anything close to my vest. This led to some serious disagreement with others in the field, who held that all should be published no matter the cost. Yet, having seen what irresponsible reporting could do, I could not adhere to this so-called higher principle of journalism.

I really do wish that anyone and everyone in the media would think about this a bit. That they would take the time to learn a bit about the subject, both so they can avoid doing damage and – even more importantly – learn how to avoid being used. Particularly by those seeking to do us harm in time of war. For they are here as well as there, domestic as well as foreign. Being a tool, most especially a tool of evil, should be reprehensible to any self-respecting person.

Then again, that type of thought and introspection seems to be an anathema to many so-called journalists and national leaders. Personal gain, allegiance to higher ideals, or the desire to be a part of that higher, transnational priesthood, far outweighs any allegiance to country or simple morals.

-30-

Intelligence is the art of learning what your enemy, or potential enemy, is doing, thinking, planning, or plotting. It is finding the dirt on them, and in the process giving you tactical and strategic advantage over them.

The process has a long history, sometimes colorful, but most of the time – when it has been done right – not much in the public eye or history. Indeed, most of the things we think of as interesting represent significant failures. Of course, some of those failures are deliberate, or are used to mask other agents and activities. America’s most famous spy, Nathan Hale, was a failure and is famous simply because he did fail. Yet, in failing he provided an example, and cover for other agents and activities.

There are two basic forms of intelligence: human intelligence (HUMINT) and technical (TECHINT). Human intelligence are operatives and agents who go in on the ground and gather information. These are people who listen and learn, and they are the people who go undercover and join organizations – or penetrate in the parlance. Technical intelligence is an umbrella term to cover everything from signals intelligence (SIGINT) – the listening in on transmissions – to bugging offices.

Back a couple of decades ago, the United States made a decision to go primarily with technical intelligence to gather data on our enemies. There were a number of reasons for this, and they should be considered carefully. First, there were concerns that many of the agents the U.S. had acquired lacked morals, moral standing, and were just plain not nice people. That is true, as angels rarely join some of the organizations and regimes of interest. Second, humans are not reliable, as they can be biased, bought, turned, or otherwise provide inaccurate information. That too is true, and it is a danger of the trade. Third, human operatives and agents can be expensive since you have to pay them, pay them overtime, provide retirement, and otherwise take care of them. Fourth, and last in the political mind, humans can and are killed for what they do.

On the other hand, technical means have a moderate to high up-front cost but little or no true care cost. They can be scrapped at will, updated, or replaced as needed. They need not fear capture, interrogation, torture, or such. Most of all, they can’t be turned or give inaccurate information. Or, at least that is the theory even though it is not fact. The drawbacks to technical means is that they are limited to either signals and messages that can be intercepted, places we can reach or monitor constantly, or to places where a human can set-up equipment and leave it.
It was decided by then President Carter and Admiral Stansfield Turner that despite the limitations of technical means, that the U.S. would concentrate its efforts there and in many respects do away with human intelligence. This would eliminate some problems or perceived problems at the CIA while improving the moral integrity and position of the United States as a whole. It would also be more cost-effective and allegedly improve operations efficiency as well.

The heart of part of this argument lies in the spin given information by humans. Agents and operatives in the field are supposed to provide objective information, but any rational person will understand that their involvement does colour their information. No matter how much any person tries to provide clear and unbiased reporting, there is always going to be some degree of bias that comes into play. This has to be factored into the analysis of that data, and there again bias can creep into the equation. The people doing the analysis and write-up can and do have biases about the source, about the situation, domestic politics, internal politics, etc. This can and does creep into the process and further muddies the waters.

The idea is that technical means eliminate one source of bias. What comes in is not filtered in any way, but is straight from the horse’s mouth. This also helps cut down on bias in analysis as well, allegedly, and makes for better analysis and response. The problem here is that technical means are limited, and they can be compromised.

The most basic means of compromised is for an enemy to learn that a particular channel is being monitored. Just as human agents and operatives can be exposed, so to can means of technical monitoring. Politicians have a long and disgraceful role in such, though the Old Media is not lacking either. Through thoughtless actions or deliberate attempts to gain domestic political advantage, technical means have been revealed.

This can have a number of consequences. The most obvious is that the particular method is abandoned, depriving us of that source. A less obvious response, however, is to keep using that channel, but only for non-critical or patently false information.

There are several examples of the latter. In WWII, we knew that certain communications were being monitored by the Japanese. In order to verify some information, and our penetration of one of their secure channels, a false message was sent through the channel we knew was compromised. When the message that the fresh water condenser was not working on Midway came up in the secure Japanese traffic, we had our confirmation of both penetration and the target of the next major Japanese attack. The rest is history. There are also examples where a bug has been discovered and left in place, so that false information could be passed along.

If you seed that false information with low-level information that is not false, it makes it seem more realistic. Standard procedure that works, and often works well.

The same thing is done with human agents. You don’t automatically arrest or kill people working for the enemy. If you find your organization has been penetrated, one of the best options is to isolate the person and use them to feed false, out of date, or low-level information back on a regular basis. That way, you control them and can use them to pass along some serious false information to your advantage later.

Another option is to turn them. You identify them, and then you flip them so that they become a double-agent working for you. This can be done a variety of ways, some pleasant and some not-so-pleasant, but the end result is that they work for you on a fairly willing basis. A turned agent can be much more useful to you, but is also a security risk in that they can either not be fully turned or are subject to being re-flipped.

The final option is to arrest or kill the person. Much depends on the situation, but you rarely kill people on the other side. The people who end up dying usually are citizens or members of the other side that you have recruited, because it is a simple matter of human nature that they are regarded at best as traitors. At least in the case of countries, as a very different set of parameters surround members of groups.

Groups are associations that are joined willingly, usually for ideological reasons. It can be religious, it can be racial, or it can be a host of other things. The main thing is that they have a set of beliefs that are adhered to, and anyone failing to live up to them and honor them properly is at best a lost soul, and at worst an enemy to be killed. Penetrating a group is quite possibly the most dangerous undertaking in intelligence, as it is far more likely that the person will be killed if discovered. If they are lucky it will be a quick death, but most extreme groups will make it a slow death both as punishment and as a warning to others.

In either case, the exposure of means and source in any detail can seriously compromise intelligence activities. For that reason, such are often well protected.

One of the first means of protection is not to let on that anything has happened. You don’t tell people that you have a great new source. You don’t brag that you have just stopped an attack. You keep your flappy mouth shut. This has many advantages. First, it leaves the enemy in the dark about what has happened. All they may know is that their people disappeared: they don’t know precisely where, they don’t know how, they don’t know what went wrong. Done right, they can even be sent down multiple false paths, and will never know what got them: human or technical, or a combination of both.

Another means is to let on that something happened, but put the exposure onto something or someone else. It was just dumb luck that the security guard spotted them. It was good police work when an observant officer saw something, and acted upon it. Customs agents in country Y were suspicious. Best yet, blame it on another enemy you want gone and a quick way to do that is to leak that they were the confidential informant who gave you the intel.

Yet another means is to pin the leak on an exposed or no-longer-relevant means of getting information. This is a source that is already burned, so you don’t mind loosing it to protect the real source of the intel.
All of this has other effects as well. You can force the enemy to spend large sums of money to protect themselves. To protect against technical means they have to buy