The Laughing Wolf

Hardware:
Measuring cup
Measuring spoon
Plastic wrap

Ingredients:
Whipping cream
Real buttermilk

Fill measuring cup with one cup of whipping cream. Add 2 tablespoons of the real buttermilk. Please note that it must be real, as it is introducing the bacterial cultures that make things happen. Stir. Cover with plastic wrap and let sit out at room temperature (around 70 F) for 8-24 hours until thickened. Stir again and place in container (or just leave it in measuring cup and keep covered with plastic wrap) and store in refrigerator. Should last for a week or so.

LW

« ...howl's done

I have written about this more than I care for, but let me share an experience with you. Take, if you will, a 12-year-old boy who has a man twice his size grab him from behind, place a hand over his mouth, and attempts to hold him still so he can grope him. Imagine that happening within 15 feet of the boy’s parents and friends. Imagine that person being someone trusted. That is an assault, and that is exactly what happened to me, C. Blake Powers.

I was lucky. The person was scared of a scene, and while I was as well (fragile is the ego of the adolescent male), I used that – and an elbow and heel – against him. I was not mauled further, but had I not fought back I would have been raped. In what was probably the first true adult decision of my life, I dealt with what happened in the immediate sense. I sent a message to this creature via a rifle and an open box of shells – something that all those who now seek to put riders on the gun manufacturers bill seek to deny to me and all future targets of assault. Message was received and well understood. While I had no part in it, that person is now also facing a much higher court than any on this mortal coil.

Note that I said target, and not victim. Like many others, I was a target for something vile, but I refuse to be its victim. Did this cause me problems? Yes, it did give me some things that had to be worked out, from learning the difference between a paedophile and a homosexual to some other odd bumps and kinks. Is everything worked out now? Who knows, and to a certain extent, who cares? It happened, I survived, and I do not let it rule my life. If something crops up from it or it in combination with many other things, then I will deal with it.

As I said, I was lucky. I have met people who were not, and have heard of many more. As far as I am concerned, Ms. Wolf needs a hard dose of reality, such as working at a rape center, or spending time helping the surviving targets of Saddam and his hellspawns. Her claim of soul destroying trauma is an insult to the victims of violent and forcible rape. It is a travesty to the men and women who have survived skin ripping, bone breaking, concussion-inducing domestic violence. It is a spit in the face of all those who were raped, tortured, and/or killed in Iraq and in other hell holes around the world.

I wish that the only soul-destroying trauma in my life was an unwanted pass. I wish it was the worst that anyone ever experienced, anywhere in this universe.

So this wolf says unto you: Get a frelling life. Grow up and get over yourself.

-30-

« ...howl's done

It all seems reasonable and it was, until the definition of harm was expanded. Harm became much more than simple damage, it became something almost mystical without clear definition or boundaries. Harm was more than mere cost, it was an ethereal thing defying a constant definition. No longer measured, it was a thing sensed and felt beyond words. It was something even beyond pain and suffering, an eternal darkness weighing down the victim.

By the new definition, it no longer takes direct action to produce harm. Words harm, and even innocent words can cause damage. Pictures or images can harm, and even sounds can harm. Instead of the median or mode of society, the norm, the definition was shifted to the most fragile in society. Instead of the “most reasonable people” concept, it became the “least person” concept.

It was and is also lucrative. Since it can’t truly be defined, it also cannot be defended against. There is no way to disprove the claims of anguish, in large measure because there is no way to truly prove the claims. It is raw emotionalism, and as such more a form of blackmail than anything else. This provides economic and political leverage/power for those that wield it.

The payoff is not merely in the form of money, but in less tangible things as well. A victim by definition is not responsible, therefore anything they do in the future cannot be held against them as it occurs as a result of their victimization. A victim has, in essence, a free pass for the rest of their lives for all that they do. So, more and more people delight in being victims, and more and more so-called leaders encourage this as it provides them with a power base.

Someone insulted your clothes in elementary school? You are scarred for life and a victim. Someone says you are pretty? You are a victim. Someone calls you ugly? You are a victim. Someone does a commercial with characters wearing a hat that looks vaguely ethnic? It is secret racism and you are a victim. Someone makes a polite pass at you? Sexism! And again you are a victim. A teacher requires you to go look something up? The Horrors! You are a victim!!

Congratulations! You now have a free pass for life. You have the perfect excuse and a valid legal defense for anything that comes at you in the future. You may even qualify for monetary damages!

Give. Me. A. Break.

There are two other definitions of victim about which you need to think. One is a living creature sacrificed to a deity or rite. The other is a dupe, the prey of those who would feed off the weak.

When someone is persecuted for an innocent action, or simply for the sake of political or other expediency, that person is truly victimized. When someone is persecuted for something they did not do, or that is attributed to their ancestors, that is true victimization. When someone is tried later for something that was not a crime at the time, and maybe even a societal norm, that is true victimization.

It is easy to forget, especially when there is strong encouragement to do so, that all things come with a price. That price have many facets, from higher costs for products or services to a denial of products or services. It may be that the lives of individuals are destroyed by mere accusations, unproven and unfounded, and there is a high cost to that.

The easy thing to do is to be a dupe, to play into the system (You can’t win unless you play!) and find a way to be a victim. The hard thing to do is to avoid it. There is a fine line between justice and vengeance, and it is not always easy to see. There is a fine line between legitimate redress and the Cult of Victimization, and serious efforts are being made all the time by the unscrupulous to blur or erase it.

The key to this lies within you. Are you going to let the bully in 3rd grade define your life for you? Are you going to let the crushing disappointment of being dumped by a lover rule your life forever? Are you really going to give another person that much power over you? Are you really going to give them your soul?

Just down the page from victim is a far more powerful and important word. A word towards which any follower of the way should strive. That word is a simple one, also only six letters long.

Victor

A winner. Someone who triumphs over adversity. A person who wins the contest. An individual who defeats the opposition and the odds despite any and all circumstances. A person who does not let any one, or even several, setbacks deter them from winning.

This is a person who looks ahead. This is a person who refuses to let themselves be defined and limited by what has occurred, but uses it to move forward and achieve great things.

And that exposes the true trap of the Cult of Victimization. As a victim, you are forever trapped in the past, with no future. Everything is measured against that event, and you must always look back to it in horror so that it defines you and your life. It limits you, and you will always be dependent upon a system to support you.

Raise up your eyes. Turn around, and look up. There is a vast expanse of unwritten future that awaits you, and it can be as bright and as high as you want it to be.

You may have experienced real trauma in your life; or, you may be a manufactured victim. It matters not. The choice is still yours, to live in the darkness of what was, or to move up and ahead.

My question to you is, are you going to give the person who harmed you absolute control over your life, your destiny? Are you going to let them win in the truest sense of the word? Or are you going to take back your life and have the best revenge of all: living well and accomplishing great things?

That choice is yours. It is up to you to decide if you are victim, or victor.

-30-

« ...howl's done

A key factor is, as noted in my other space story today, getting off this mudball and into orbit. That is the key to doing anything, and it is the area where the most improvement is needed. A NASA launch takes months, or even years to plan. Defense and commercial applications need to go right now. What they need is something almost like an airline schedule, and NASA has nothing that can or will meet that goal. This is a hot issue, and I have taken part in some frank and extremely informal discussions on this very subject with members of DoD, who were not shy about expressing their opinion of same.

I also wish I could have been at another, more formal, meeting in which DoD and NASA discussed some research of mutual interest. DoD was looking to get it done within about five years. NASA was talking at least a 15-year program that could run out longer. The descriptor of the DoD faces I got was priceless.

DoD research tends to be based on more immediate needs and manufacturing cycles. NASA research is based off academic research, in which careers can be expended on essentially one major experiment. Academics tend to think in 20- to 30-year cycles based off tenure, funding, etc. That difference does cause a lot of problems when commercial, defense, and academic cultures meet. It is also a large factor in the problems NASA has with real space commercialization.

On the other hand, I believe that XCOR, Scaled Composites, and some other companies competing in the X-Prize might just want to read this document and start pitching their wares to a big potential customer. One hopes, at any rate, that the Air Force will look commercial and off-the-shelf for such an important challenge.

-30-

« ...howl's done

This was a top-down thing implemented in the Goldin years, where one did everything possible to avoid the wrath of Dan. If anything you did created any controversy, or just plain hit him wrong, the consequences could be and were catastrophic for career or job. NASA was concerned that criticism would translate to lack of Congressional support, and that would in turn translate into even more funding cuts. Given that the administrator was all but challenging the administration to give even more budget cuts to the agency, this was a real concern.

The real translation problem, however, was in how this translated inside the agency. Safety First rapidly became something else. It became a call to eliminate all accidents, injury, and “goofs.” This, in turn, led to not doing anything that could cause these or could be perceived or presented as any sort of failure. Which, in turn, led to a zero defect environment in which the true message of safety was lost. When you issue first aid kits without band aids and such in them because it is contra safety policy, you have lost all touch with reality.

The net result was an environment were delay or checking was bad, because that was a failure. It was/is an environment where subordinates don’t always give managers the information that is needed out of fear, or a desire to suppress anything that might be even slightly negative. It was/is an environment where managers don’t ask questions, because they really don’t want to know the answers.

NASA has re-embraced the zero defect/perfect safety meme in a new way. The net result is that launches may not resume even next year under this policy. While NASA is being pushed to launch sooner, they have the perfect excuse not to launch and I would be surprised if they did not take it. Make more modifications to the orbiter, make elaborate and costly – and likely ineffective – backup plans, and do everything possible to make launches/missions accident proof.

The problem is, there is no such thing as perfect safety. There is no such thing as zero defects. In point of fact, there is a good deal of evidence that zero defect environments are self-defeating. They tend to create larger problems when they do happen, and create a stagnant environment mired in the past, with no growth, and no hope for the future. The net result in any sort of free market is that competition comes along, innovates, and takes over the market.

In this case, this is not a bad thing. NASA has introduced no new launch vehicles, or even significantly new technology, since before the Shuttle was rolled out. Note that I am talking launch technology here, because there have been some pretty neat things happening with spacecraft and probe systems, and some of the advanced propulsion is most interesting. But, we have to get to orbit. NASA has produced a lot of paper, voluminous charts and briefings, and no new systems for quite some time.

This means that the time is ripe for those wanting commercial launch and innovative launch technologies. The new space policy seems to set a good stage for this, and one can only hope that the White House will be remotely friendly towards an improved regulatory environment. Because if we want to get to the stars, we first have to get to orbit. NASA is already stagnant in this area, and the doors of competition have been opened. Let’s see how a stagnant zero defect environment does against some unfettered competition. Let the games begin.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Okay, I presume you have so I will now give some of my thoughts. Patrolling is just that. It is humping over hill and dale, checking things out, and serving as a tripwire to get word back to higher command if something isn’t right. In this function, a patrol can observe and report, hiding or on the move, or it can call out “halp” as all chaos breaks upon it. In that case, one of two things will happen. They will either be overrun, or they can try to hold out until relieved. In the latter case, you hope and pray that it is John Wayne and not Henry Fonda coming over the hill. If you don’t get this last, go watch the John Ford westerns.

Unless you are going out against the Posleen, you don’t need heavy artillery. You want to be fast, mobile, and with enough firepower to deal with everyday problems. You are not playing Spartan at the Fulda Gap or Rambo. Given all this, and given that water, etc. is supplied, I was left with the following thoughts.

Weapon of Choice 1: Shotgun. Works well, light, and can be used for a variety of projectiles and situations. Including getting dinner if there is no problem with noise discipline. Ammo is heavy, but the easy way to deal with that is to take less. You are a patrol, remember? I would probably take 2 flare rounds, 2 incendiary rounds, 10 #1 buck, 10 rifled slug (improved munitions if possible), and 16 flechette rounds. I would also probably sneak along some 6 or 8 shot rounds for improving the larder.

Weapon of Choice 2: Lever action rifle. If the patrol was in the Southeast, I am going to give strong consideration to the Marlin 336C lever action rifle in .35 Remington. This is a country of heavy brush and undergrowth, with gives some serious complications to things. The .223 and similar rounds spin at a high rate of speed, so that they tumble wildly when they hit something. They do a lot of internal damage as a result. This is why Dad never even considered these type rounds for hunting, since we hunted for food. What was needed was stopping power that would not excessively damage meat, and would not go off Ifni-knows-where if it hit a leaf or twig on the way to the target. The solution was the .35 Remington, which can drop a Grizzly and makes its (relatively) slow and steady way to the target through obstacles. You can fire the lever action pretty darn fast if needed, and the basic mechanism is very accuracy friendly. Probably would not hump 100 rounds, 40-60 more likely.

Weapon of Choice 3: FN. Yep, my tried and trusty FN. Heavier than the M-16, but rugged, accurate, and with a scope on it that lets me do some of my snooping from a safe distance. As with #2, it is accurate and I can use it for precision shooting at fair distances. It is also semi-auto so I can do something closer to pray and spray if needed. More thoughts on that subject later. No more than 60 rounds of ammo, most likely.

Caveat #1: If at all possible, I would cache additional rounds for each within the patrol area. Carry only enough to get by, and boogie to the cache if needed. Again, this is a patrol, not the last stand at Red River. We hope. I want enough to get by, and more nearby as needed. Plan ahead and be prepared.

Given all this, what would I take? The right one for the circumstances. It is going to depend on the patrol, the situation, the support and resupply situation, and my condition at the time. These are the ones I would consider highest for around here. Elsewhere? That changes things, and is a thought experiment for another day.

-30-

« ...howl's done

In other words, there is a lot of good stuff here. One problem facing the area is that a lot of people don’t know it. One of the people at the meeting talked about the Today Show coming down to do an interview, and asking if Huntsville had an airport and if there were any hotels here, or did they need to look to Birmingham or Nashville. Other stories abound, and I will admit that I did have to bite my tongue from making comments about the mental abilities of the Today Show and members of the Old Media.

The problem that concerned us, however, was a bit different. It is related, but complex and difficult to fix. The problem, you see, is that we have a shortage of young professionals in the 25- to 35-year old range. There are not a lot of jobs for them here, but that is changing. Yet, these people – even when they graduate from local colleges – look elsewhere to live. The whys and wherefores of that were discussed in as much detail as time allowed, but I want to put my two cents worth in on the subject.

This is not a single-friendly city
This area is, in fact, a lousy place for a single person. It is incredibly hard to meet people, and while tradition is great, it can also bite you upon the rear quite firmly. To whit, a situation that happened to me a few months ago. In dealing with a semi-prominent member of the community, they came to find out that I had previously joined a dating service. Their take on it was why would I want to date anyone who had to advertise, with a strong implication that any woman who did so was obviously a whore and a loser. That any man who did so was a loser. That I should join a church and go hunting there, like all right thinking people. This is, alas, not an uncommon attitude and can be far more strongly expressed than it was with me.

The commitment to the arts is not that deep
The Germans did the area a huge favor with all they started here, from the symphony to the theatre. The problem is, a lot of people here are not comfortable with what having a vigorous art community truly means. It means pushing things, it is not politically correct, and it can be uncomfortable. There is no alternative music here, not on the air and not really live either. There is little alternative anything, as it is strongly if unofficially discouraged.

There is no nightlife
There is very little in the way of nightlife, and almost nothing at all for the younger generation or those young at heart. The local governments appear to be very anti-nightlife, and in the process make it very difficult for even restaurants to survive. This is not a situation that is getting better. Add to that some very interesting blue laws and a bad situation gets worse. This area/region still sees the bootleggers and the ministers joining together to fight changing these laws.

Church and State
This is a touchy one, and I am not sure how much is real and how much is perception. What I do know is that I have witnessed local leaders in the Federal Government start meetings with prayers, hold blessings, and do other things against policy. Local is reported to do it as well. Note here, I am not talking big events but more common and routine meetings within various branches of the government. There are rumors that some of these leaders have caused to leave/be fired those who objected or held different beliefs. Because this is Alabama, there is a real fear of persecution or cooption with a lot of people.

There is a strong perception problem
While Huntsville is diverse and progressive, especially compared to the rest of the state, it is still nothing compared to other areas. Worse yet, it has to deal with the baggage of the rest of the state. It does not help that one community in this area is, courtesy of the internet, known world-wide as a speed trap and for alleged abuse of police power. It does not help that another community got world-wide publicity for allegedly retaliating against a child who exposed a molester on the force, and again allegedly raising the blue wall of silence around the admitted offender. There is more, but you get the idea. Some of it is real, but some of it is pure perception. When this gets filtered through the bias and bigotry of some who still see the state in 1960s glasses, it gets even rougher.

So, you want to get or keep that key demographic component? Keep expanding the retail base, for you have done a great job on that. Take on the "You ain't from around here boy, are you" perception/reality, and dash it to pieces. Be prepared for the retirees to get uncomfortable, however, because you have to make some changes. This area needs some nightlife and it needs better cab or other service so that people can get safely to and from it. It needs the alternative items, from music to art, and it needs desperately to become single friendly. To be honest, as a single male, I have been and am considering moving elsewhere simply because I have a better shot at dating elsewhere – despite the fact that I love the quality of life here. Think how it is for younger people, who need nightlife and other activities and/or places to meet. Get more jobs in here for the age group, give them as good a quality of life as is being offered to others, make it clear that there will not be retribution for being of different faith and beliefs or different in even small ways, and deal with any discomfort that all of this may cause.

The alternative is to keep loosing this component. There is a finite limit on how many over 35 that can be brought in, and a limit to the number of retirees. Most especially, there is a limit to the economics of the older sets. Just as most economic growth is in small to mid-size businesses, it also rests in that key 25-35 demographic. We need them to grow within the community, so that the community and its economic development grows along with them. Otherwise, what we will have is a bubble that will burst. The choice on this is up to you.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Yet, that is noted only in passing, because I barely noticed the seat once the production started. It takes true skill and talent to play bumbling, stumbling, fumbling without your feet missing a beat. I knew within about five seconds that the lead was good. Not long thereafter, when Sancho made his appearance, I knew he was good as well, and that I was in for a treat.

This was the first time I’ve ever gone to live ballet, and I will never again settle for tape or tube. My seat was within 10 feet of the stage, and the only problem I had was that it was so easy to get caught up in particulars that you could miss the whole. The leads, of course, were excellent but it was the supporting cast that often caught my eye. They played their lineless parts magnificently, miming lines or making comments to one another in time with the mimed lines, and truly set the stage for the leads.

The costuming was magnificent, and the swirls and whirls of colour from the supporting dancers was mesmerizing. The dancer playing the role of Basilio was quite good, and his costume generated a good bit of talk amongst ladies ranging from near-adolescent to well preserved. The rear was indeed all his, but for all the rest I must suspect padding on him and all other male performers. Sancho was very well padded, and that he could dance in that outfit at all is a testimony to the skill of Mr. Alexander Rupychev.

His padding was a bit different. Picture if you will a woman nine months pregnant, but only sticking out in front. Then add to that a rear end the width of a Mack truck. That was what he had to dance and leap in, and he did it so well. His comedic timing was impeccable, and in any lesser company he would have stolen the show. That he could not speaks volumes about the other performers, and that he did not speaks volumes about him.

To my untrained eye, the performance was almost flawless. I suspect that something might not have gone quite right a time or two, because of what happened with a couple of the supporting/side dancers. Because of my seat, I had a very clear view of them as they were almost right in front of me. I could have sworn one time that I saw one of them roll their eyes, and another time two of them almost busted out laughing at something. There was nothing center stage that I could see, so I tend to suspect that something off stage got them. This was not a distraction to me, but added some spice to the performance. It was part and parcel of them playing their roles. Combined with the magnificent performance and technical abilities of the leads, it made for a truly wonderful performance.

If you do go get to see this troupe, do not miss the second half of the show. This is where the choreographers let the individual dancers shine. Almost everyone gets a chance to show what they can do, from the leads to the Grand Pas performers, to the rest of the cast. Would that they had a second show, so that I could see it again. The balance, grace, and coordination can’t be described, merely envied. One dancer was twirling, spinning, and moving on one leg, and on pointe at that, for well over a minute as part of one set. How she did it, and then went on into an equally difficult set of moves, is beyond me. Basilio’s leaping took him above the heads of the other performers, and Sancho came close to that when he was cut loose. To watch one of the female leads dance and twirl, and kick a tamborine held at arm’s length above her head as she did so, is something that defies proper description. The dancer portraying Kitri/Dulcinea was simply magnificent in terms of both dance and performance.

This is a company you do not want to miss no matter what they are doing. They are headed to another performance, and may even be there now. The semi hauling the set was already parked at the dock, ready to load, immediately after the performance here. I is my strong and sincere hope that I can get to watch them again, and soon. I think most of my fellow watchers would agree, as there were many rounds of applause during the show, and a standing ovation afterwards.

On a side note, it was also good to see that the performance hall was packed, and I think it may have even sold out. Being old school in some ways, it was also good to see how many in the audience dressed for the occasion. Even the younger ballet students were in dress or gown, and quite a few of the adults were proper as well. I even saw one gentleman in a very sporty tux, and while I did not go that far I was in coat and tie appropriate for the evening. You could indeed tell a few of the engineers in the audience, but they were – I think – the minority in terms of dress. It reflects well on this community that the hall was full, that a second performance apparently could be supported, and that proprieties were clearly followed.

To sum it up: Wow. If you have the chance, go see them. This was a magnificent performance by people clearly at the top of their field.

-30-

« ...howl's done

Third parties did not really begin to gain any credence again until the 1960s. It was out of the turmoil of the times that realistic third parties began to emerge. When you go back and study this, take a note of what used to be the standards for being considered a serious party. As soon as the Libertarians reached the magic one million vote mark, the media and the Repblicrats moved the cheese. Every time any third party has hit the new mark, it moves yet again, particularly in the eyes of the Old Media.

While colourful third-party candidates, aka crackpots, make for fun stories and some sales, they disrupt the status quo and the orderly progression towards right think. Therefore, such candidates get short shrift regardless of the soundness of their positions. The Old Media is comfortable with the established powers, and is in point of fact a part of that power. This is not something they desire to loose.

This year is going to be particularly difficult for them. Let’s face it: most members of the Old Media are well to the left of most of the American public, and a large majority are registered Democrats. They remain unhappy that Bush won the last election, and I know members of said media that still maintain that the election was stolen, etc. They are desperate for a candidate that can beat Bush, regardless of the issues. For them, there is no other issue than that they hate Bush and want him out – consequences, issues, and ethics be damned. Right now, they are rallying around Kerry and recent coverage of bias highlighted at Cardinal Puppilieu and other sites is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Now enters Nader. Almost everyone sees him as a spoiler for the Democrats, and the Old Media is horrified. Nader cost them the election last time, by George! This is an outrage.

No, it is the Republic at work. It is the best of what was intended by the Founding Fathers. It is the right of individual Citizens to take part in governance by running for office no matter the odds. It is the right of individual Citizens to take part by voting for someone other than the approved, official, and sanctioned candidates. It is the right of the Citizens to just say NO to power grabs, bias, and such other wonderful things.

If you thought third party candidates were marginalized before, just wait. In order to deny Nader coverage and participation, the Old Media is going to change the rules yet again. The bar will be moved to exclude Nader, and in the process all other third party candidates will be excluded as well. This is nothing less than a shameless attempt to manipulate the vote, and to deny the public the very thing that freedom of the press was meant to do: provide as many sources and as many viewpoints as possible, so that voters can be truly informed on choices and the issues.

What the Citizens of this country deserve is at least one debate featuring the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians, Nader, the Socialists, and any others who can make a decent showing. It should not be limited to just two people, for that is a lie and a disservice to the people and the Constitution.

What they are likely to get is even more biased coverage, a two-party debate, and a deliberate effort to manipulate the system even more than normal. You deserve better than that, and you can make your voice heard. Vote with your pocketbook, vote with your letters and e-mails to the media, and most of all – Vote. Get involved, for that is going to be the only way to make any change in the system. Demand issues, honesty, and more. For unless you do this, there will be no change.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The problem is that there are so many good wines out there. There are a variety of varieties, and to be honest, my favorites shift depending on what I am eating or doing at the time. For example, on a warm day eating some fruit and mild cheese, I am going to want a nice white wine, such as the Montinore Vineyards Willamette Valley Oregon 2000 Gewurtraminer I http://laughingwolf.net/archives/000742.htmlreviewed recently.

So, I am not going to answer the question all at once, but rather take it a piece at the time. Today, I am going to list some of my favorite drinking wines. These are wines I have in the evening, with cheese or such, or with a meal. For now, I am finding that I really like red wines such as Syrah/Shiraz, Pinot Noir, and Zinfandels. Here are a few of them:

Codice: Red Spanish table wine, enjoyable with cheddars and other light to medium cheeses.

Hill of Content Old Vine: An Australian Clare Valley Grenache Shiraz that goes well with food or can be enjoyed on its own.

Anapamu: A California North Coast Pinot Noir that is wonderful to drink by itself or with food.

While I have just begun to explore them, I have had a good start with the Lindeman’s Australian wines and the Cartlidge and Browne wines. They are well worth checking out.

-30-

« ...howl's done

To be honest, I was not expecting a great deal. This is one of those places that has the sushi on little boats that go around the bar, and you take off what you want. At the end, they count the plates ($1.50 a plate at lunch) and you get your bill. What I got, however, was an enjoyable experience with fair to good sushi. They also have teppanyaki, the table grills with show, for those scared of sushi.

The staff was very friendly and helpful, and I was seated at the bar such that the book I took with me would get good light. It turns out that the meal comes with miso soup, and in addition to plates with sushi on them, the boats also feature goyza, edamame, crab or meat balls, regular salads, seaweed salad, and a bit more. There are rolls as well as nigiri, and if you don’t see something you like, ask and they will make up whatever is on the menu – and maybe even more.

I tried some of the regular offerings, and tried some of the rolls. The spicy salmon and tuna rolls were quite tasty, and the person to my right had them do a Philly roll (cream cheese, salmon) that was quite nice. The tuna nigiri was good as well, and the seaweed salad was fair. I very much enjoyed the edamame (soybeans), found the shrimp tempura roll I accidentally ate (am allergic to shellfish) to be tasty. The book did not get a lot of attention, as the two people to my right proved to be very enjoyable and interesting.

I waaaay overindulged, but I have not had a lot of sushi since my trip to Japan and did not realize how much I missed it. Even with 13 plates/bowls, my bill only came to about $20, and someone not trying to do a review (or make up for lost time) can probably eat for less than $10 at lunch. Not bad, and well worth checking out.

« ...howl's done

GW: He did WHAT with my daughter!?! I want him dead, do you hear me, DEAD! Shoot him, go shoot him right now.
SS: Now sir, we can’t do that. The Secret Service can’t just go and shoot him for dancing with your daughter. Now if he had had a gun or even a pocket knife…
GW: That wasn’t dancing, that was groping with a beat!
SS: Now Mr. President, you know how it was at that age.
GW: Why do you think I am so mad? I remember what I was trying to do, no matter what they say about the drinking.
SS: Now, Mr. President…
GW: I don’t care. He touched my daughter. Can’t you at least break an arm or a kneecap?
SS: Believe me sir, I wish we could. If that were the case, my daughter’s last two boyfriends would sleep with the fishes. As it was, I couldn’t even turn them over to the alien genetics program.
GW: We have an alien genetics program? Hmmmmmm….
SS: Sorry sir, but this boy is not a candidate. He is a celebrity and would be missed.
GW: Celebrity? What has he ever done? Movies? Who says he is a celebrity?
SS: Well, his agent for one, and your daughter for another. She swears that he will be A-list one day soon. Personally I think he is grade C and likely to stay that way, but I am not going to argue with any Bush female anymore.
GW: (laughs) Yes, Mom never has forgiven you for that incident has she.
SS: No sir, not in the least. We caught her the other day with another Barrett lining up to try and take a shot at me.
GW: No, not a good idea to get them mad. Hmmmmmm… Maybe I’ll invite him to go up to Camp David for the weekend with me. Take him off in the woods, “have a little talk with him” and…
SS: No good sir. He is a celebrity, people would notice. Your daughter would notice.
GW: Yeah, no good. She would be mad. Wait a minute! You and his agent keep harping about what a celebrity he is, don’t they all work out and such?
SS: Yes sir, they usually do.
GW: Great! Let’s get him in one of those kickbox programs. Then we put in a female agent, right behind him, and she “goofs” with a low kick…

See, it’s not that hard and – like a lot of the Iran and War coverage – might even have some truth in it. You have truth, government conspiracy, a loose cannon president, drag up his past drinking, and even space aliens for the tinfoil hat brigade. Since you’ve given up all pretense of fair, balanced, and the rules of journalism, have fun with it. Who knows, get creative enough and maybe you can be like the New York Times and earn another fiction Pulitzer like the Ukrainian famine one they got. Trust me, I know you can do it.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The tasting started with NV Charles de Fere Blanc de Blancs Brut, a sparkling wine from just beyond the Champagne region. Pale straw colour, crisp nose with apple and bear, with the apple carrying through to the mouth. Slight spice comes in as well, with butter on the edges. Different.

Next on the list was a 2002 William Fevre Chablis “Champ Royaux” Burgandy. It has a very pale colour and a sharp nose of mineral and chalk, with some fruit. The mineral continues into the mouth, with dry white fruit and wood on the finish.

Following that was a 2000 Louis Bernard Cote-du-Rhone. It had a rich red colour and an earthy, slightly sharp nose with hints of sour cherries. The body was medium, slightly sharp like the nose, with red fruit and minerals.

The 2001 Domaine de la Mordoree Lirac Rouge, Rhone Valley had a deep purple fading to red colour and a nose of leather, vine, and spice. The mouthfeel was began nice, starting full, with flavors of toast and leather that faded into a light finish.

The final wine was a 2001 Louis Bernard Chateauneuf-du-Pape, Rhone Valley. It had a purple colour that faded to an anemic blood colour and a nose with hints of smoke and leather over red fruit. It was at best a medium body wine with leather on the sides and red fruit. It had a rather unpleasant aftertaste that became noticeable after a few minutes time.

None of these are recommended, but I may have some other good ones to share soon.

-30-

« ...howl's done

In our tower of glower we sit
Hits and potential hits are but a bit
In our movements of starts and fits
Our greatest desires oft gang astray
And in a snit we lash out at our hits
We castigate those still around
And cast out those unto the pits
That could give us true hits
Having neither brains nor balls
We simply s**t in our halls

Angel is not the only good series on the WB hitlist, or that has already been hit. Here is to hoping that some other network has both, and will pick this up and run with it. Living well is always the best revenge, and I hope that Joss and the others find a good home and continued success, on television and on film, and that they and others make lots of money and acclaim off of it. When this finishes, there will be little or nothing left to bring me back to the bog, er *rog.

LW

« ...howl's done

The fact is, what lies at the root of sin or evil, is fairly easy to determine. I feel that it boils down to two concepts: force and harm. If we force something on another, and it harms them, then it is wrong. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. It is not a hard concept. This has been around for ages, and is the base of many laws and legal systems.

Where the problems almost always come in is with those who want to add their own fears, or rampant grabs for power, to the equation. Somehow, the idea that someone may have fun somewhere, sometime is a real problem for some. What this boils down to, however, is that it means that you want power over others.

What harm does it do you if someone drinks? Smokes? Is nude in their home or on private property? Looks at a dirty photograph? Is not individual choice the root of Christianity and most other religions? Does the phrase “This choice is given unto you…” ring any bells? Demonstrate to me the harm that is done unto you, and I will begin to consider your arguments.

Is war bad? Yes, and anyone who has been there will tell you that. Is it evil? It can be. Is any defense of your home, hearth, and ideals wrong? No. What is wrong? Attempting by force of arms to force your way onto others. The war on the terrorists seeking to destroy our way of life, our culture, our civilization is not wrong. We were not the ones who attacked innocents in pursuit of our cause. We were not the ones who declared war. We are defending our hearths and our homes. Deal with it.

Are guns evil? No. Is a given use of a gun bad? That depends on the use. If I take a gun out and rob someone with it, that is wrong. If I use my gun to defend myself or others against a robber, that is not wrong. It is, in fact, a good act.

People, guns are not evil or a sin. Nudity is not evil or a sin. The giving of compassion is not a sin. It is the use to which it is put that determines if it was for good or evil. To attempt to use any one thing to control, coerce, or manipulate another against their will simply to have secular power is wrong, and a sin. Don’t like alcohol? Don’t buy it. Think a book is evil, sexy, whatever? Don’t buy it. Don’t like a commercial, think it sets a bad tone? Don’t watch it. Hate what an artist stands for? Don’t support them in any way, shape, or form. That is your right and your duty to your beliefs and your faith.

If you truly do live right, then what others do has no effect upon you. If you feel strongly about it, talk to them, attempt to convert them to your way of thinking. To demand that others live as you wish you could/would live, but are not strong enough to live, is wrong. What faith have you if you can tolerate no temptation? If the mere fact that someone else is looking at, drinking, smoking, or otherwise doing something you feel to be wrong is enough to send you off your nut, then you have a real problem and no faith.

Do unto others, but for heaven’s sake don’t force your weaknesses and your lapses unto them. Have the strength, the moral fiber, to stand up for your beliefs all on your own. Don’t demand laws to give you a crutch, or an entire scaffold for your existence. That is no service to others, or to yourself. There is enough true evil in the world that needs to be fought, so let’s concentrate on that.

-30-

« ...howl's done

The message constantly being bombarded upon us all is the need for tolerance, and tolerance is indeed a good thing. It does us all good to consider new ideas, nuances, and viewpoints. Yet, like all good things, this can go to far. There is a great deal of intolerance in the tolerance movement.

Nowhere is this more apparent in the enforcement of the Social Contract. For years, manners were the lubricant of society and it regulated as well the many means of enforcing good behavior. For bad behavior could result in a graduated series of “punishments” designed to encourage change.

This could range from snubbing to outright banishment from “polite” society; the loss of social contact to the loss of business contact; or, the use of unofficial methods to criminal or civil actions. These mechanisms now, however, all tend to constitute “discrimination” and as such come under legal attack.

If you fail to invite someone to a party or social function, you may be held up for public censure. If you snub someone with whom you disagree, that is now subject to civil and criminal prosecution. If you refuse to do business with them, it is a federal offense. Systematically, all of the unofficial means of enforcement have either been denied or are in effect hijacked.

There were some good reasons for this. To be blunt, these often were used for purposes of racial/religious/other discrimination. There were some very egregious examples of this, and they deserved the condemnation received. Yet, as with many good things, it has been taken to extremes. From tolerance, it has gone to intolerance in the zeal for immediate gratification in social progress.

Change in society has always been slow in relative terms, though certain periods of history have been rather chaotic and certainly seemed anything but slow to the participants. This slow rate of change was an anathema to radical thinkers of the 1600s and 1700s, and in particular to those desiring change in the modern age. After all, this last century saw us going from days or weeks to get news to having it provided instantly world-wide. If information, travel, and trade could be done on such a rapid pace, why not change in the human condition?

The problem lies in the human condition itself. Change enforced from the outside has never worked, and most often has resulted in a backlash that has delayed the change in question. Prohibitions of any type have never worked either. It can take lifetimes to change ideas and conditions set within society, and that change has always had to come from within. This has never been acceptable to those desiring radical change, and the fact that in the march of progress there are always cases of athletes foot that defy easy treatment makes them positively froth at the mouth.

This is not atypical, and it is interesting to note that this is one lesson of history that radical thought seems incapable of accepting. Each time they claim to have a better idea, but it all comes down to prohibiting that which they regard as bad, and demanding that everyone do what “they” think is right. This time, however, the radicals are doing something that happens only rarely: they have decided that change can only come by attacking the fabric of society rather than simply the behavior of society.

Under the guise of attacking legitimate discrimination, an all-out war on societal norms is underway. This is not just attacking obvious bigotry, but by challenging all notions of right and wrong. It is not enough to claim that all behaviors and belief have equal merit, it requires attacking and destroying any institutions who profess any such belief.

Christianity comes in for a great deal of condemnation in these attacks, but they are hardly alone. Many other religions suffer as well, with those denominations that say all is relative, or that man is the evil blight upon the world, are held up as the “good” examples and those that say anything else are castigated. The youth of today see the concepts of honor, integrity, independence, and action vilified and held up to ridicule. They see anyone who exemplifies such excoriated in public and in private, and subject to media witch hunts for some dirt to tear them down. Indeed, there are members of the media who make the various forms of the Inquisition seem almost mild in their zeal to find and expose the feet of clay.

And clay is indeed what is sought. For clay can then be shaped into something new, and for the radicals that is a new society in its own image. To do this there can be little question and certainly no objection, or the proper shape cannot be thrown. That means that all must think and do as they do, and that means no vestige of the old can still exist. In this way, the radicals are all alike. The Taliban and similar extremists seek to destroy the old to build their society, and the radical idealists in the West seek the very same. In the ultimate analysis, there is little or no difference between them, for both must destroy the present culture to have any chance to achieve their goals. Perhaps this is why so many in the extremes of the West feel such sympathy for radical Islam and others who also seek to destroy the West.

Our children are systematically being denied any opportunity to explore right and wrong. Schools spend as much time on indoctrination of politically correct ideas as they do on educational fundamentals. Church organizations, Scouting, and other organizations that attempt to present such are under fire and being prevented any opportunity to act in a meaningful way. Any flaw or mistake within these organizations is ground for them to be attacked, denied use of public property, or subject to legal action. Most of this has far less to do with real or imagined wrongs, but a great deal to do with the fact that they teach morals and moral actions. They slow or reverse the attempt to reduce society to clay.

Our children need to know that there is right from wrong, and that it is up to each individual to decide such for themselves. They need a framework for doing so, and it does not come from school or even from a church. It comes from us, the adults in their lives, the parents and godparents, the aunts and uncles, the leaders in their lives. Most of the mechanisms used for this, and used to help enforce the Social Contract are being taken away. Look long and hard at it.

There have been many good changes that have come in the last 100 years, yet all good things can be taken too far. Bigotry in any form is bad, and that includes a bigotry that says that all that is good is bad, or that all that is bad is good. The social mechanisms for enforcing the Societal Contract have never truly been the problem. They exist for a reason, and can be applied for good or for ill. It is up to each of us to apply them for good, and attempts to eliminate them do all of us a strong disservice.

-30-

« ...howl's done

After a very leisurely breakfast, I went and got my coffee fix, and then a hunting license and some string. Both were needed to go use the shooting range up at Skyline. Being a public range at a state park, you need the license for use and the string to put up targets. The fencing and such put up by the park rangers does not last long, so go prepared. I took the FN up there and plinked away for a while.

Ah, to be out away from civilization, to see something other than a computer screen and beige walls, to smell fresh, crisp air – it was delightful. Even got some sun on my face from looking out and up. The only fly in the ointment was a motor-mouth who showed up – any visitor is something of a rarity on a weekday up there. I am really tempted to go back today…

I finally left the ridge/mountain peaks and came back down to Huntsville, to resupply on ammo and such at Larry’s, and to use the indoor range there for pistol work. Given finances and such, it has been a few months since I was there, and I was dismayed to find yet another new rangemaster. For all of about 10 minutes that is. He and I got to talking, and during that time he figured out two problems I had, and ways to correct both. We did drills, I worked to establish new habits, and the difference was amazing. A quick correction to my stance, and some work to correct a common bad habit in regards the front site, and my groupings changed dramatically for the better.

There is a small price to pay today, though. I am a bit behind but not too bad, a bit sore in the bad shoulder despite the extra padding, and my hands feel it a little bit. Like I said, a very small price to pay to get outside and wander around. It really is nice out there today…

-30-

« ...howl's done

Right now, there are only two shows I consider anything close to a must-watch: CSI and Angel.

We are talking the original CSI here, no knockoffs. The characters are good, the science fair, and I admit to a strong bias of liking to see the nerds be heroes and show leads.

Angel is good drama, good fun, and along the way you get to deal with the complexities of good versus evil, good intentions versus what happens, etc. A very well done show and if it is true that it has been cancelled, I hope UPN or someone picks it up, runs with it, and makes a fortune off of it.

I still miss Farscape. I do catch reruns of Buffy, and continue to be amazed at what was done with that show. Throw away lines in the first season turn out to be key plot items later. The details, the details, and that is why these two shows are all-time favorites: the details.

Shows I like to catch when I can include NCIS, Without A Trace, Joan of Arcadia, Kim Possible, and Stargate SG-1. There are a couple of others that look promising, such as the cold case show, but don’t really hit the radar yet.

I do watch news a good bit, and tend to stay towards Fox. If Fox would do a headline show/channel, that would be a must watch for me. I also wish I could get Bloomberg full-time, as it is great for financial information. Financial news is the other thing I try to watch as much as I can.

When I want the idiot box on for company/noise but nothing is on the networks (a frequent occurrence), I tend to go to the History Channel and the Food Network. History Channel is just a lot of fun, and I learn a lot on the Food Network as well. Alton Brown is the man there with his show “Good Eats.”

Shows I no longer watch include Law and Order (any flavor), ER, and Third Watch.

Law and Order lost me for several reasons, including: always white bad guy, always evil corporation, strong anti-gun stance, strong anti-self-defense stance, strong anti-individual liberty stance, etc. Ya da, we should live in perfect police state. Bah.

ER lost its way a few years ago, and I think it jumped the shark with the helicopter falling on the hated Dr. Romano. Not even the addition of new actors, including the beautiful and powerful “Bend It Like Beckham” star can save it now. Add to it a foray into left politics (support for the Dixie Chicks, Carter confronted with and acknowledging of the evil that is America in Africa, etc.) and a strong anti-gun bias, and it all just got to be too much for me. Pity, as it used to be on my must watch list.

Third Watch had a good start, but jumped the shark with last season’s ending/this season’s beginning. It is now waaaay into soap opera land and has a change in focus as well. None of which make me want to watch it anymore.

That is about it. Not a lot out there I really want to or have to watch. Far better to be out and about, or reading a book, anyway.

-30-

« ...howl's done

If you want my vote, focus on the issues. Tell me where you stand on the War, you know, the war against fantasy ideology and those who would impose a stone age culture on the world. Those who would destroy our way of life, and cheerfully kill every male, female, or child that disagrees with them. Those who can brook no doubt, dissension, or any example that life could be better.

Tell me where you stand on the economy. What are your plans for taxation, tax breaks, encouraging economic growth, in fostering small to medium businesses. Do you feel government spending is the answer? Do you feel that reducing governmental burden on businesses and individuals is the answer? Where do you stand on the seemingly exponential growth of regulation?

Where do you stand on crime? Do you believe in justice, or the law? What criminal issues do you feel are the most important ones we face today? Where do you stand on prison overcrowding? Do you think that it could be caused by new or existing idiotic laws making people felons for going down on their wife or committing other similar grave crimes against society? Where do you stand on violent crime?

Where do you stand on the right to self-defense? On the right to own guns? On what type of guns a Citizen should be able to own?

Where do you stand on Social Security? How will you fix it, because it is broken and since I will be part of the reckoning generation, I am very interested in what you plan to do? Will you do away with it? Increase funding? Allow portions or all deductions to go into privately managed accounts? If so, what will you do about the shortfall?

Where do you stand on Freedom of Speech? Where do you stand on Freedom of Religion? Where do you stand on rights of privacy?

In short, discuss the issues. I don’t really give a flip about what you did 30 years ago, unless it has bearing on your character and abilities today. I don’t care if you have slept with every person of the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex you have ever met, provided you did not use lies or violate sworn oaths in so doing. Discuss the issues.

Violate every tenet of modern politics and give me straightforward, simple, honest answers. I may not like all of them, and they may not play well with everyone. Deal with it. The job you want is to lead, not win a beauty contest. So show me you can do the job, and lead from the start. You may not win my vote, but you will win my respect.

Respect for the two major parties is something in very short supply at the lair these days. I would love to find a reason to respect either again, or a third, fourth, of even fifth party. Yet, it is not the party that matters: It is you. Discuss the issues in a mature and forthright manner and you will have my respect. Develop intelligent positions with which I agree, and you will have my vote.

Think about it. You say America wants a change? Well, I sure do. And it should start with you.

-30-

« ...howl's done

On the surface, this would appear to be indefensible and a complete abrogation of Rational Pacifism and principle. After all, we are talking about two individuals hurting, maiming, or killing each other “for no good reason.” That has been the call behind almost every argument against dueling for centuries. And it can not be denied that dueling does harm individuals and deprives various social constructs of their presence. Yet, while this does hurt individuals and society, does it truly harm it?

A favorite analogy of many in describing society and governance is the anthropomorphic one of the body, and references to it, such as “the body politic” abound. It was also used in efforts to ban dueling by claims that any death removed critical portions of the anatomy, and therefore threatened the life of all. Given the state of knowledge about the body of the day, it was not necessarily a bad analogy. Given the state of knowledge about the body and biology today, it may provide an even better analogy for the defense of dueling.

To begin the process, one must first understand that dueling has been around for centuries, if not millennia. It is a world-wide phenomena that appears to have emerged from the idea of single combat. Warriors oft challenged other top warriors in battle, and many ancient battles were really nothing more than a loosely-connected series of individual combats. War was and is an expensive business, and had a far greater impact in early agrarian societies. War meant that people were not available to tend the fields and herds, collect the harvest, and do all the other things necessary to survive the winter. As a result, campaigns even into the 1800s often were conducted at a time when there was little need for large numbers of people: after the crops were planted and before the harvest. This also coincided, usually, with the best weather and conditions for marching and fighting, since winter was too cold, spring brought rains and mud, and the fall the harvest. Hence, we get the term “campaign season” to describe the time from late spring to late summer that became the time when most battles were conducted.

There is much more to this, but that is a discussion for another day. What matters to this discussion is what happened early in history, before the organization of massive states. In this time, war was an even larger drain on the local economies, and it was possible to win the war and loose anyway, because there were no supplies to get through the winter. It was during this time that the idea of single combat flourished, and entire wars could be decided (for that year at least) by a single match. This protected the labor pool, allowed harvests to be gathered and allowed the best and brightest to stand forth. This is, in fact, how the Olympics came about.

This can be thought of as a form of natural selection of leadership, if you will. Over time, most of these single combats came to feature members of the nobility, and publicly wars were often fought over slights. This masked the real reasons and ambitions of the parties, but it also brought forth the idea of fights for individual honor.

The forms vary around the world, but the root idea is the same. A person offers another offence, in the form of insult, lie, or even physical altercation. This was a challenge, and it not only has roots in individual combat but in ancient traditions for the selection of leaders. The notion of hereditary monarchies is in some ways a new one. In ancient times, leaders were often selected by their ability to fight, to hold things together, and to get things done. This placed a premium on physical rather than mental abilities, and just as members of a wolf pack look for signs of weakness in a leader so they can advance, so to did the members of many early societies. Anything that was seen as a challenge to the leader had to be dealt with, to show that they were still in control. Something that still continues on some levels to this day…

Suffice it to say that a challenge had to be met, by a leader or anyone who would be a leader. Nor was this limited to the male of the species. In different cultures and at different times, women could issue challenge, accept challenge, and can and did fight in combat. Indeed, in some cultures they were just as into the chest thumping as the males, as even a cursory study of ancient British and European cultures will show. Even into fairly modern times, women could and did duel though society officially abhorred it.

Philosophers and others took note of the fact that dueling had its roots in primitive/ancient leadership rites and in the concept of nobility or class structure. Both were an anathema to the revolutionary thinkers of the 1700s and 1800s, and thus dueling was a thing to be hated. There was good reason for some of their hatred. Over time in the West, the concepts of challenge had mutated somewhat, and the entire process was hijacked by unscrupulous leaders.

The concepts of challenge had changed so that almost anything could be taken as such. A sneeze could constitute a challengeable offense, and it could come from anyone of any rank. Under the social rules of the day, one did not have to have a fair fight with anyone not of proper social standing. Instead, you could have them seized, held, and beaten/whipped/etc. This resulted in one of the most outrageous acts to publicly occur in Congress, when one member took his cane to another whom it was felt had offered insult but was beneath the first party’s station. In short, the rules had become Byzantine and no longer were related to just challenge.

The entire process of dueling had been used by the unscrupulous for some time. It provided an easy cover for getting rid of political opponents, by allowing them to be killed in an acceptable manner. It also provided a means for getting rid of an inconvenient husband, so that the wife would be free to marry another in the days before easy divorce. The death of the Russian poet Pushkin may have bound up all of these into one neat package. Evidence suggests that the Tsar was behind the challenge of Pushkin, wanting him dead for his involvement in various revolutionary activities and desiring Pushkin’s wife as a consort. While the activities merited death, political realities prevented an open execution. Thus, a neat solution was arranged through dueling.

This also helps highlight the fact that many bright and capable people were killed in duels. Some may argue that it was a disproportionately high percentage, and there is some merit to the idea. Your best and brightest always represent the ultimate challenge to those in power, as they will replace them. Leaders craving to hold onto power don’t like this idea. Add to this the fact that the best and brightest are not always the most tactful and diplomatic in expressing their ideas, and you do indeed set the stage for harm to the body politic. Not to mention that the revolutionary thinkers, being part of the best and brightest, had a particular interest in this concept.

The American Revolution helped bring about the end of legal or tolerated dueling in Western Civilization. Supporters of banning such pointed out that the class basis was hardly in keeping with the ideals of a semi-classless society, and that such chest-thumping machismo was hardly the thing a civilized person would do. The loss of Button Gwinnett and the Burr-Hamilton duel helped this along since the repercussions and loss were keenly felt in the new Republic. It brought about uniform laws between the States outlawing dueling, and the enforcement of same to end unofficial sanction of such as well. The idea of conservation of human resources caught on and spread, effectively eliminating widespread practice.

This is well and good, but there are some deeper layers to consider. The fact is, dueling was the enforcement mechanism of manners. One was polite to others, did not make false allegations against another, or spread malicious rumors because there was a penalty attached. There were not just social repercussions, there was a very real possibility that you could pay with your life. If you said that Sam Adams was a lousy brewer, that might get social sanctions, but if you claimed falsely that he put horse urine in his beer, you might find yourself facing him across the green. This did indeed have a tendency to encourage people to keep a civil tongue in their heads, to act with propriety, and to otherwise behave in a semi-civilized fashion.

The concept of civil courts, and slander and libel laws, to deal with this was a new one. Yes, there were indeed slander and libel laws before the birth of the Republic, but they were nothing like what we know today. Much of it was reserved for government, and the agents of government, rather than the average individual. America was, in many respects, the first nation to seek to use the courts as the enforcement mechanism for manners and the social contract. Based on the idea of a responsible Citizenry, it would seem workable and did to what I regard as a fair job until fairly recent times.

Over the last 75 to 100 years, however, the idea of a responsible Citizenry has been under sustained attack. Indeed, the entire concept of individual responsibility has come into question. Some of this was legitimate, and the result of the American dedication to Justice. This is a topic for another day in many respects, but what matters for now is that the concept of root cause was expanded not just to the actions of other individuals, but that of society as a whole. This has led to the modern, and in my opinion fallacious, idea that societal constructs bear the responsibility for an individual’s actions, not the individual.

This process is in many ways the continuation of the most extreme of the revolutionary thinkers that shaped our Founding Fathers. While some held to the ideal of the individual, others argued that the greater good was the true destination and that individuals mattered not. Therefore, concepts such as individual honor and individual responsibility have no meaning. This school of thought is very much a large part of modern liberal philosophy. Lost in the glaring problems that have resulted from the last 60 or so years of social experimentation is the fact that the denial of individual honor and responsibility in the legal system has eliminated it as an enforcement mechanism for manners and the social contract. This poses several direct threats to the Republic.

Leaving aside the loss of faith in the Courts and Government, and other delights, there are two particular areas of concern. The first is an unnecessary increase in violence. The second is a toleration of lies and deception that extends to the highest political levels and endangers the very concept of an informed citizenry.

The loss of the Courts as an effective enforcement mechanism has many repercussions, one of which is that obtaining satisfaction or justice once again becomes a matter for the individual. In the past, other societal mechanisms worked to limit damage to bystanders. Dueling was the leading one, and by the rules of the day it was a matter between the two parties, aided by an impartial (hopefully) Master of the List and very partial Seconds. The Seconds handled the negotiations, worked out the forms (apology, first blood, death, etc.), and ensured general order and safety so that the two parties were the only ones in danger. The sense of honor of the two parties helped ensure that the forms were followed in most or all particulars.

Without these mechanisms, there would have been few if any limits on what occurred. Fights could have occurred in crowded streets, in homes, and other inappropriate places. Entire families could have been butchered instead of just the responsible party. By now, I hope you see where I am heading with this. Today, the least slight can in some areas or societies result in massive amounts of random gunfire. Gang related crimes are horrendous in all respects. The concept of respect and disrespect have returned to the most ancient and primitive of days, and it is not just limited to gangs. It is spreading and poses a real problem because there is no concept of honor and integrity in a large part of our youth.

Even more terrifying, however, is the toleration and encouragement of lies by our political leaders. The problem of crime and enforcement can be dealt with, and dealt with reasonably quickly. The erosion of an informed electorate, however, will take generations to repair – if it can indeed be repaired at all.

Lies have always been a part of any political campaign, and probably always will be. You distort, you deceive, you do a great deal to make your opponent look bad. Until fairly recently, however, there were limits on this part of politics. If you told too big a lie, or did something too far beyond the pale, the courts were there to back you up. In this day and age of the public figure and the elimination of the courts as a realistic enforcement mechanism, there seems to be no limits applied.

This is particularly evident on the part of the “Far Left” where the bigger and better the lie, the more it is spread (and believed). The so-called Bush resume, various conspiracy theories (Haliburton on Mars!), and more are a staple of life for them. The problem is, this has spread into the mainstream, such that we seen the head of the Democratic party make a false and slanderous charge against a sitting President for partisan gain in a time of war. While this is perhaps the most egregious example of this, it is far from unique. The lie has become the weapon of choice, apparently on the basis that the ends of gaining power justify the means.

When lies are the norm, reported as fact in the Old Media, and are unchallenged, then there can be no informed electorate. Without such, you can have a group of self-serving and self-propagating group of “rulers” develop just like a tumor in the body politic. Furthermore, a portion of the public knows that these things are lies, and so grows distrustful of political leaders, media, and the entire process of governance. This distrust will grow and fester, just like an infection in the body politic. Unchecked, it will kill the body politic, and what will result then is anyone’s guess.

Which brings us back to our original analogy. In olden days, individuals were seen as major organs or parts of the body politic. For good or ill, today they can be perceived as cells. The elimination of individual cells in the body, be they in a tumor or a general infection, can hurt. Excising them, however, need not harm the body but instead strengthen it. The careful application of surgery or medicine does wonders.

Could it be that the medicine we need is dueling? Might it be a way to return the concepts of honor, dignity, and integrity to the bo