On editors and the publishing process

So I'm a bit late on posting. Sorry about that. Poor time management on my part.

Self flagellation concluded, between trying to parse out accounting over an online course, big mistake, and establishing Iago's identity as an alien infiltrator for a paper in my English class, I've been pretty dang busy. Also, the wifey and I are getting ready for a two week camping trip.

So, I mentioned earlier I finally submitted my manuscript. It spent just a couple days in the hands of first readers whom I suspect were office lackeys before I got a rather aggravating e-mail from an editor, from a publishing house I'll never contact again, who demanded I make a series of changes. Now, this company had promised to be a great entryway into the world of the published author and I'd even been recommended to them by other writers.

Thing is, I've never seen one of their books on a book shelf. I'm not sure what to make of that.

In any case, the prime objection to the manuscript as submitted was how various characters, no matter how important to the story, could seemingly just die at any point without an emotional context. You know, a bit like in real life. Now, apparently, this was a bit jarring to the readers and thus some manner of change seems indicated as all parties involved wish to emerge profitably from the endeavor. Fair enough. However, what is certainly not indicated, was to have some nattering deconstructionist* tell me I have no idea how to 'convincingly portray a life and death situation.'

I'm no Ringo, or Kratman, or any of the other highly successful mil-SF authors out there. My experience of combat was, I suspect anyway, far different and more limited than at least the two I named. That said, I suspect I have a rather better idea of what combat looks, feels, sounds, and smells like than some office bound junior editor who has misinterpreted his job responsibilities to include literary criticism.

I would have at least liked a bit of consistency. With regards to one scene I'm being told that the emotional reactions of my characters are too pronounced and, apparently, an elite group of combat veterans should share the same ideological and emotional nihilism of the more pretentious breed of literary critic. Soldiers, apparently, are allowed no emotional range beyond angst ridden bitterness or bloodthirsty and amoral. However, when someone dies in a seemingly arbitrary fashion during an event in which he was essentially an interested spectator, this should have had a profound effect on the insufficiently emotionally-stunted survivors. Apparently, they should have taken a moment to reflect on the chaos, pointlessness, and random nature of war. Not, of course, as I was quickly consoled, that any of their views on what they were doing should have changed, but they certainly should have re-evaluated them. Nevermind that they had a mission to do and were already being shot at, hence the a fore mentioned death. No they should have had an emotional scene of some variety there.

Well, if your reading this, Mr. Editor, you can go stuff yourself.

That particular scene was the greatest source of contention and it is NOT getting changed. Yes, I have already changed quite a few other scenes and now I'm trying what to do with all these characters who are suddenly not dead. I'll deal with it. If nothing else, after the numerous rewrites at this point, I've certainly gained experience.

If/when this particular manuscripts does get published, I'm gonna mail an autographed copy to that little twerp with that scene dogeared and, "Suck it!" written in the margin at the end of the chapter.

*I already have enough of a problem with deconstruction as a form of literary analysis as it essentially intends to prove that nothing actually means anything. Which of course is an incomplete method as at least some things have a very obvious, clear cut moral to them. With a very few notable exceptions, I've only seen deconstruction used to 'prove' that no piece of literature communicates any idea that the deconstructionist objects to.

I was wrong.

Today has not been a fun writing day. Not by any stretch of my, admittedly, very elastic imagination.

Ugh. Seriously? What the heck is wrong with people? This country seems like it is one poorly timed negligent discharge away from a domestic insurgency at best, and a damn, bloody civil war at worst! Every where and with everyone I discuss politics I hear bit champing rhetoric, incessantly asking if it is 'time yet.' People are freaking eager to see the ball go up and see the streets awash in blood?

Are freaking kidding me? Are you all out of your freaking minds?! Am I the only one who has thought this through? The situation does not mesh with the much toted, "We have the guns and they're a bunch of cowards so we'll win," meme.

It's as if everyone expects it's going to be themselves and their fellow patriotic, red blooded gun owners facing off against a few Feds and whatever cops side against them. What a joke! Nothing resembling a civil war is ever that simple. You think the military will side with us freedom minded folk or simply sit it out? Hah! Maybe some, maybe at first. But have you forgotten the witch's brew that makes up the gun owning populace? How long do you suppose the military will sit it out or side with us, when the Aryan nation is using the chance to gun down Jews in the streets? Yeah, I imagine any of us who saw them doing so would shoot the damn Nazis ourselves, but by then it'd be too little too late.

Hell, once the ball goes up, every whack job we'd distance ourselves from normally is going to be declaring themselves our fellow soldiers of freedom. Right before they blow up a federal building. Or a school. Or a VA hospital. How long do you think before large parts of the military decides to Hell with that whole mess? Leave that aside for a moment, if our enemies are half as tyrannical, base, and venal as our more eager elements believe they are, what is to stop them from using agents provocateurs to elicit the same response?

I'm not saying we should just roll over for the accruing violations of our freedoms, but violence is the last resort. If it ever is allowed to come to that, it will be long, it will be brutal, our friends and family will be the collateral damage, and our own military will be pitted against both ourselves and itself, crippling out nation no matter the outcome.

If you are actually wanting the ball to go up, growing impatient for the day the brownshirts come for you, or look at the reset button with anything other than absolute gut-wrenching terror, then you are an IDIOT and a liability to the cause of freedom.

EDIT to add: That was a bit more confrontational than perhaps it should have been. Sorry about that, today was nerve wracking and emotionally draining. Add the near run thing we had in Michigan recently and I was near convinced someone would kick off the shooting before week's end.

I understand people's rejection of the Clarie Wolf idea (if you don't get it, don't worry, you're not the target audience). If it is too late to work within the system, then it is NOT too early to start shooting, but in this country there's no such thing as a time too late to work within the system, but still too early to start shooting.

I'm just shocked!

No, wait, I'm not. Airport employee gets scanned. For the linkaphobe, a female airport employee accidentally walks through one of the new 'see through your clothes' scanners and the weasel operating it uses it to examine her anatomy a bit more closely than she liked.

I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing. I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work.

Well, admittedly, that would suck, but she works at the airport. Presumably she is okay with this happening to hundreds, if not thousands, of other people a day. So first, just as pretty much everyone who isn't a fan of sheep-like compliance knew, the system is being abused to get to voyeuristic kicks. Second, what's good for goose is apparently not good for the gander, since it's not okay to have it happen to her.

Foot Soldier in The Long War

For years, since learning about the Saracens and Spain, I have described the conflict between Islam and the rest of the world as The Long War. I shall do so no more. The real war, the one that matters, is much, much older. It is the eternal struggle which has described all human history, back to Cain and Able (or the first caveman to force his will upon another, for you atheists). It is the struggle between two conflicting impulses present in all people, the desire to control and to be free of the control of others.

It is a war where there are no clear combatants and battle lines until it is too late, or nearly so, for those who wish freedom to prevail. It is not between religions or religions and secularism, nor opposing political ideologies, not even the conflicting philosophies of collectivism and individualism, but it lies at the heart of each of those conflicts. It is a war with many theaters, reaching into every facet of life.

As society needs authority in order to function, it is impossible for any person, perhaps even any idea short of anarchy or nihilism, to fit neatly into the side of wishing to be free from control, but all too easy for a person or idea to fall completely in the other camp. It is a nebulous struggle with most people being only unwitting participants until the point when the two sides polarize, by then it is almost certainly too late. Worse, a clear victory for either side results in a loss for civilization.

Societies need both conflicting ideals in balance, the correct balance being an issue of much debate, in order to be both free and functional. To one extreme, tyranny, the other, anarchy. Further complicating issues is a force I'll call societal entropy which favors either extreme, but abhors a balance.

Just as maintenance against deterioration in an artifact can only ever end with the ruin of the artifact, so too the maintenance of the precarious balance we call liberty. Balance or not, the struggle is a perpetual one. Historically, those societies which have achieved something resembling an ideal balance have only ever done so temporarily and only in the minority of cases. Entropy always wins eventually, but not on any timetable.

Sunday we saw the balance tip dramatically further in the favor of those who wish control. Any kind of balance in our country is in dire straits. All it would take is anything less than the absolute and fervent work of those who wish for liberty, in a nation of laws, to see our society to slide over into an authoritarian hell hole. Once there, restoring a balance is far less likely than simple bouncing between anarchy and tyranny. We have a rare thing, one we likely won't see again in our or our children's lifetimes if we lose it.

Congratulations, be you man or woman, religious or atheist, individualistic or collectivist you made the cut. You are now soldiers enlisted in fighting the second oldest war in history, second only to the eternal war between good and evil. Just try to remember, no side can be allowed to win.

The intartubes are all a flutter...

Well, at least some of the blogs I read.

Over at Jennifer's blog, we have possibly the most ridiculous atheist contrived idea ever. Denial of service to God? Well, the founder of the organization originating that particular idea actually showed up and stated that it was a joke. Being fair, I'm inclined to believe an atheist when he tells me he didn't expect to accomplish anything by arranging for mass, simultaneous prayer. Would be funny if it did though.

Over at Breda's place we have feminism crop up. Matter is handled by her and her readers, including self, maturely and with minimal kerfuffle, but when Marco posts about what she said, suddenly some dinosaur is insinuating things about stay at home dads that I didn't much care for. So I went after him, he spouted some amazing ignorance, I replied. Ugh.

I fed the damn troll. You'd think I'd know better.

Oh well. I wouldn't even be writing this, but hey, I heard somewhere that the key to blogging is to write something everyday, thought I'd try it.

Why I sometimes avoid the news...

Ok, I never really avoid the news any more. Used to when I was on leave. Just in case I needed to claim ignorance of an impending recall when asked what I was doing on the backside of the beyond.

I may, however, start! Can Obama win the hearts and minds of Muslims? For those who don't want to hit the link, it's a gushing piece about how Hope'nchange(TM) is going to try to win over all those Muslims in Egypt, but he doesn't need to because they already wuv him soooo muches! It also makes sure to sneak in an unsubtle jab at Condoleeza Rice for her speech in 2005 delivered to student in Cairo. The article goes on to say the Lightbringer's policy of opening dialogues and expanding communication will work so much better than Bush's policy. You know, because he just yelled at them and bombed them and was so terrible.

There is so much in that article that is stated as absolute fact that is, to anyone who is still paying attention, entirely subjective. This is true with almost any news one reads involving politics these days.

The gubmint posts a list of US nuclear sites. Look past the worry mongering about security at the storage sites in the first half. They may well have said, "This is not the incompetence and/or malfeesance you're looking for." Security at that, and all the other sites where high grade material is stored, is as formiddable as it is humanly possibly to make it.

Honestly, the actual information released is not too big a deal. With a few days research, a savvy individual could likely piece the information together themselves. What blows my mind is that no one calling for heads to roll. Instead we hear specious concerns for overall security and nothing said about who was responsible.

Then several paragraphs follow about how it was no big deal, which is sorta true I guess, and how the GPO (gubmint printing office) simply posted it as a matter of course since they do so many and they had no way of knowing it was sensitive. Really?

Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."

Uh, oops? Maybe I'm a little over critical because I worked in the nuclear field for a little while with both weapons and reactors. Shockingly enough, we took security really damn seriously. If I had leaked so much as an inter-office memo about coworkers' lunch plans, I'd be in Leavenworth still making big rocks into little rocks and little rocks into dust. But since this is the fault of some anonymous employee of the Obama gubmit, nothing will happen.

Let's make a deal

Sorry about the continued lack of regular posting. Between trying to hammer out a book, which is turning into a real page turner to my mind, working out twice and day, and being a full time college student, I have not written here a tenth as much as I'd like. That said, I figured it was time to offer a couple of proposals to those whose political ideals are in conflict with mine.

So there's been a little debate over at the Smallest Minority regarding guns, gun control, the effect an armed populace has on crime, etc. Pretty interesting stuff, deteriorated a bit when the anti-gunner started arguing from a position of feeling and ignoring the obviously real dangers of modern life, but still pretty interesting.

It got me thinking a bit though. Kevin repeatedly posted statistics of various gun friendly locales here in the US of A and noted they, almost universally, had lower crime rates. His opponent pointed out that correlation does not imply causation. This is true, but it does still tell us a few things. For one thing, it can eliminate potential causation. Kevin's opponent, without having any statistics or other evidence to his case, merely asserted that the statistics mean nothing. Not so, although as someone versed in them, I often find their value dubious.

See, those stats did show a negative causation. One that directly opposes one of the dearly held beliefs of those opposed to gun rights. "More guns cause crime!" Right, then how come Texas isn't more like D.C. or L.A.? Hell, how come my little corner of paradise, being about as heavily armed as the 7th Infantry, has a virtually non-existent crime rate?

So, the first deal, leaving aside for the time the issue of legally vs. illegally possessed firearms, I'll stop saying that the statistics indicate that more guns will lower the crime rate. Sure, there's a lot to support the theory, but I'm willing to give a little. The flip side is, my honorable opponents, you must stop saying more guns will mean an increase in violent crime.

Next, "Republicans," and by extension, all conservative, "are fascists." Really? Man. This one has gotten old. Especially since when I've heard that, often with some vitriol behind it, I've always been included in the condemnation. I'm not a Republican and never have been. Heck, I'm a conservative only by courtesy to some people's minds. What I am is a strict Constructionist with some libertarian (note the little 'l') leanings. That doesn't matter. Anyone who opposes government handout programs and nanny-statism is a fascist.

Let's examine that for a second. I know, I know, fascism has evolved, in the current political discourse, to mean simply anyone who supports something we oppose. That's not what it's supposed to mean. At it's founding, Fascism opposed Capitalism as the source of class inequality. Additionally, it opposed Communism as exploiting class warfare. In other words, on neither side of the political divide in America can the term be accurately used. Conservatives are, on the mean, capitalists and liberals, again on the mean, while not Communists are experts in exploiting class warfare (ie. tax the rich to give money to the poor).

Fascism supported both military expansionism as well as government oversight and control of corporate endeavors. So we can both accuse each other of those particular facets of Fascism, but it isn't really accurate to do so. While I'm sure there are some who consider themselves conservatives who favor annexing (read: invading, conquering and subjugating) foreign territory, on the whole we're as opposed to it as the next guy (who happens to be a liberal), but continue to be accused of it because of a greater willingness to use military force. On the other hand, I've heard liberals being called fascists quite a bit recently due to the government's recent acquisition of control over several industries nearly in toto. Sure, it was, by and large, the elected Democrats who voted for it, but the average liberal on the street was just as pissed off as me.

So, can we please stop calling each other Fascists? It's not true on either side. I'm sure there are those who would gleefully debate which side is closer to being fascist, but really, it's got to stop.

Universal Sufferage

...And why it's bugging me.

Some people should not be allowed to vote. At bare minimum potential voters should have to pass a civics test. Seriously, if YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY STATES WE HAVE, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THIS COUNTRY! If you don't know what a particular candidate is for and against, you should not be able to vote for them. These ignorant, lazy 'citizens' are the reason every political campaign always ends up looking like a high school popularity contest.

Seriously, how is anyone with two brain cells to rub together going to believe that the people Howard Stern's show interviewed aren't voting for Obama because he's black? They we're completely wrong on his policies and even who he picked for VP, but they're all for him. Or maybe they're just hungry for the sweet draught of Hope'n-Change (TM). They don't know anything that actually matters about what is going on, but they're pulling for Obama. I'm willing to bet there are some pulling for McCain/Palin too, just because his VP is a woman.

Does anyone who actually has any business having an opinion still oppose some additional requirement for suffrage? I don't mean that sarcastically either. Are there any well-informed, critically thinking, and literate people out there, who still want the lazy, the ignorant, and the irrational to be able to vote?

All I want is a written civics test. Some basic stuff like how the electoral college works, what a bicameral legislative is, what powers the executive does and doesn't have (that'd be the big one for most people), and maybe, I dunno, some basic idea of what our country is and who is running it. I know it would be opposed as a literacy test, which are verboten, but I think it's about time we got rid of that rule. To be illiterate in this day and age means you are either A.) an immigrant, in which case following naturalization you can take the test with a proctor reading the questions, or B.) too lazy, too stupid, or too cool to have learned in school, in which case...

...you shouldn't get to vote.

This is how democracy dies...

...not to cries of acrimony and outrage, but to thunderous applause on the floor of the House.

Oh, I'm over-reacting, am I? If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. For over a week every Representative in support of the bailout has told the media that their offices have been swamped with letters, phonecalls, and e-mails from their constituents. This is a quote, "They've been split about 50/50 between 'No' and 'Hell no!'" This last delivered with a smugly superior smirk that seemed to just scream, "We know better than you do."

I understand that no one can expect our elected reps to be nothing more than voting apparatus of the people, that they are expected to bring a bit more expertise and calmer heads to the voting, but this is a blatant flaunting of the will of the people.

When our government so blatantly ignores the will of the people, resting assured that they know what's best for us, they can no longer be truly considered representative. Can they? Of bloody course not!

The worst part is the ones who talked to the media after the failure of the first bill, saying how the people are simply being vindictive towards Wall Street and that they would, foolishly it's implied, by willing to go to the bread line for it. That kind of unthinking arrogance permeates our elected 'Representatives.'

And why shouldn't it? After all, the recent record of the voters shows that our attention span for Congressional voting is shorter than an episode of American Idol. We'll vote on what they say in their campaigns about the war and the economy, etc, but pay no attention to the fact that in the past they've voted differently.

Of course, the question is, why would so many vote for something they knew was unpopular? At the very least, people like me will call them to task for it, what did they gain? Ask yourself this, who is funneling more money into their re-election coffers? We the People, or those same damn companies, who were so recently in dire financial straights? Of course we know the answer to that, don't we.

I'd love to know how much of that seven hundred Billion (BILLION) ends up going to re-election campaigns.

Tell you what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna try to get a hold of the complete list of who voted for that thing in both houses (yes, I know that should be capitalized, but F*** 'em).

Toss the bastards out in '08, '10 and '12.

Maverick/Barracuda '08

With trepidation I've been watching a few of the speeches from the Republican National Convention and, surprisingly enough, been rather impressed. Oh, I still have my reservations about McCain's domestic policies, but if he sticks to foreign policy and energy independence, he's just about got it all sewn up.

Palin's and Giuliani's speeches? Fergetabudit! They knocked 'em out of the park. From Sarah we get humorous, subtle, and light hearted jabs at the Obamessiah, all embedded in a message of smaller government, lower taxes, personal freedom, American values, and a better energy policy. Rudy's speech was an I'm-not-running-now-so-the-gloves-are-off beat down of hilarious proportions.

When I watched McCain's speech this morning, I actually regretted that my cold-blooded analytical nature prevented me from being moved like I could tell the audience was. I did, however, appreciate the speech in the same way I appreciate a Mozart piece.

Never thought I'd see the day where I expend creative energy to put John McCain in the big chair, but with his choice of VP he seems to be trying to win back the conservative base and that counts for something. What, we'll see, but something.

Little food for though, John McCain has spent more time as a prisoner of war, at the Hanoi Hilton no less, that Obama has spent in government.

"May you live in interesting times"...oh, we do

Here we are in the year of our Lord, two thousand and eight. Well into the third century of this great Republic, founded on the ideal that what you do matters and who you were born as does not.

If only our Founding Fathers could see us now.

I won't bother with the obvious, that's been well covered by those more talented than me. Instead, I want to talk about another aspect.

It started way before Sarah Palin. WAY before. Can anyone even remember the last Presidential election that was campaigned solely on the basis of the candidate's platform? Heck, there have been times when I wondered if anyone cared about the actual positions of the candidates. I know better now, but the situation has gotten no better.

So, now we come to Palin. She has been potential VP for a few days now and I've heard no criticisms of her politics yet. I have, however, heard a nonstop barrage of sheerly personal attacks. Everything from her being a vapid beauty queen, a bad mother because she went into politics (what about Hilary, Pelosi...?), and a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant.

How's that work? She is pro-life and pro-family values, right? So, if she was going to be a hypocrite, wouldn't she have had her daughter very quietly get an abortion and cover up the whole thing?

'Ah', they say, 'but her daughter got pregnant at seventeen!' Okay, so? How does that matter even one little bit? First off, it was her daughter, not her, secondly everyone is human. She has certainly tried her best to respond to the situation as best she can and with candor. Which is far more than can be said for most politicians.

But she will continue to be the target of vicious personal attacks. Not because she is a bad person, under qualified (she is, in fact, more qualified that either candidate for the big chair), or a hypocrite. She is a target because she has energized a largely unimpressed conservative, pro-gun base to vote for McCain who likely wouldn't have otherwise, because she is a woman politician who has succeeded on her merits and not on identity politics, and because she does have experience as both an executive and in foreign relations. In other words, they are in a frothing rage because she was a good pick and dramatically increases McCain's chance for a win.

Many people, myself included, have already (it's like time is speeding up in the political world) noticed a very strong backlash from all this. People who could normally be relied to vote for the Democratic candidate are, in increasing numbers, telling their own party to go to Hell.

Way I see this playing out is a radical furthering of the marginalization of the extreme left as well as the party leadership from their base. Who knows? Maybe we'll see the stranglehold of the two-party system broken within our lifetimes.

Hey, even I can hope.

Google, are you kidding ME?

Hat tip to Little green footballs-

It’s the anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Normandy that began the liberation of Europe from the Nazi nightmare.

So what does Google celebrate today?

The birthday of Spanish painter Diego Velasquez, which as we all know is much more important than some silly war to save civilization: Google.

What? Are you kidding me? I know it's all politically correct to ignore our heritage and spit on the sacrifices of those who have gone before, but isn't that a bit much? Fighting the Third Reich and ending the Holocaust was a bad thing now?

I mean, come on, my brother was born on June 6th too (happy b-day bro, see ya in a few hours), should I use his birthday as a shield against acknowledging the past? Bah, morons, they can go to ****!

My muse is anger

At least, so it seems at the moment. I've been away from a the blog for a bit, I've been trying to get my business started and when I haven't been working on, well, getting work, I haven't wanted to touch the computer. Since most of today is gonna be spent on the computer tending to details and waiting for replies, I figured I'd catch up on current events etc. I'm understandably a little pissed.

A quick once over of the news and my take:

Ted Kennedy has a tumor. Too damn bad. I've already heard how I shouldn't crow over his misfortune just because we differed politically. Bollocks. Actually, BULLSH*T. That man was born an elite and crafted his entire political career catering to the damn ignorant bread and circuses crowd while grabbing up our rights with every booze soaked, wobbly step. On a personal angle, on the character (what there is of it) of the man, Mary Jo was unavailable for comment.

Myanmar refuses aid from the United States. Bleeding hearts everywhere don't get it. They're not refusing aid, they just want us to turn everything over to their 'soldiers' so they can control distribution and we happened to have someone on the ground who wasn't an idiot. We learned a lesson in Africa. The assholes running this crappy little countries don't care about their people even a little bit. Anything they get their blood soaked little hands on goes to their own bank accounts and to keeping them in power. From what I understand, the 'International relief effort' is now co-ordinating with local authorities or some such crap. I didn't have the stomach to research any further.

The Republican party is being urged to 're-format' is image or, as that idiot Arnold Schwarzenegger called it, brand to appeal to more centrist voters. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! Every time those morons try to appeal to a 'wider audience' they lose more seats in both houses. Why is that, I wonder? Maybe it's because the conservatives, who are supposed to be the party's base, are disgusted with the RINOs and big government rats and either don't vote or vote Libertarian, Independent, etc. Those freaking short sighted idiots are already way to close to the Democrats in regards to big government, gimmie programs, shrinking the military, restricting gun rights, etc. What the hell to they have to offer people like me to make us want to vote in the first place? Not everyone is motivated, as I am, to vote simply for the lesser of two evils. If they can't vote for someone who shares their beliefs, they just won't bother. I can't blame 'em.

If our founding fathers....No. If our Founding Fathers (better) were around now, they'd call us a bunch of cowards for letting our government walk all over us they way they are. They'd castigate us for our foreign policy of letting petty tyrants walk over and dictate to us. Even Thomas Jefferson, the original, well sorta, democrat would call us idiots for our soft stance on Muslims. Yes, the guy whose Koran Keith Ellison, Congress' token muslim, was sworn in on.

Bah!

I am the poster child for Amercian conservatives

Why is that?

Because I'm seething with impotent rage.

In case there is any doubt, I'm not endorsing any of those links. They're why I'm pissed.

I'll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils (McCain), but I don't have to like it.

The next time I hear...

...About how we should end the war because it's all our sons, daughters, etc in Iraq, I'm going to verbally, and quiet possibly physically, beat the speaker down. Let me make something ABUNDANTLY clear. This war has been going on longer than everyone's enlistments, which means everyone NOW in the military chose to be in WHILE THE WAR WAS GOING ON!

Why is that so significant? Because they all knew what they were getting into and did it anyway. It was THEIR choice to serve in a time of war. So instead of all this crap about bringing our family members home only undermines the sacrifices and dedication of those serving.

There is no more disgusting thing to me than, "Oh, my son is over there fighting, so we have to end the war!" You know what? SCREW YOU! Your son (daughter, husband, wife, whatever) is doing what he believes in and all you're doing is trying to keep him from doing it. Traitors to both their country and their family member in question.

I consider myself something of an expert on the topic. After all, I've been both the boots on the ground and the spouse waiting at home. Nearly all my friends are either military, or were. If anyone has an interest in keeping service members alive, it's me. AND YOU"LL NEVER HEAR ME SAY SOME CRAP LIKE THAT. I love them all for who they are and because they believe in what they do.

As to the tired soundbite, "What would you do if it was your son in Iraq?" Bah! Easy, I'd be damned pround of the little scamp and rest assured that I'd brought him up right.

Anyone who disagrees with me here is more than welcome to take a long walk off a short pier. My patience on this issue is GONE, and the next person to set me off will regret it immensely. I don't care who it is.

Note: This is cross posted from my old blog which I don't use any more, if you've read this already, sorry.

Back...again.

You know, paying quite a pretty penny to be tased and subsequently sprayed with OC seems a lot less like a good idea in retrospect. (Not really.)

So, as I said earlier, I was away attending the Pacific Northwest Bail Enforcement Academy. It was certainly educational. I, fortunately, never got to mention to the head instructor my previous involvement in bail enforcement. Not that that really matters, as he asked for a link to this blog and I'll be sending it to him. Why do I say that? Turns out what I was being taught to do was one hundred eighty degrees WRONG. I had suspected as much the whole time I was doing it, but never voiced my concern. Turns out I should have run from those yahoos from the get-go. I'm lucky as hell I was never charged with anything or sued back then. It was a little humbling having that all spelled out for me so clearly.

Some of you may have noticed that I made some slight changes to my account. These were done to make my internet persona harder to find. Not that I expect this blog to ever be linked to any of my professional activities, but why take the chance?

On to the fun stuff.

So I learned all about the bail enforcement industry last weekend. More, in fact, in four days than I did in the five months I actually spent doing it. The funny part is, the guys I was supposedly learning from very likely didn't know any better either and now I know why. All very interesting, and mostly stuff I won't talk about except to fellow Alumni.

The Taser, however, is a story you guys probably want to hear. Now most of you know I've been shot, beaten, stabbed, blown-(partially)-up, sprayed with OC, etc and was never fully incapacitated. I may not have the nerve and physical condition of my youth, but I'm still a scrappy kind of guy. That said, I had mixed expectation of the taser. On the one hand, I've fought through everything that's ever been thrown at me before, on the other, I've seen videos of guys way tougher than me getting dropped.

So we do the class, get the knowledge and such out of the way. Pretty interesting, actually. Then it was time for 'participation.' I, alas, was not the first volunteer. We had a former Recon marine who went first (if you're wondering why I won't use names, it's for the same reason I changed my profile). I've never seen such a tough guy surrender so quickly, and he didn't even get the probes (darts), just contact with the leads on the face of the taser. Little intimidating, lemme tell you. So I volunteered to take the full shot, barbed probes and all. The instructor and I had discussed the back pain I'd been having and he said he'd do my leg if I thought that was a better idea. I agreed and the same marine and an agent out of Idaho took on arm apiece and the instructor deployed the probes on my leg. Now bear in mind I'm not a weight lifter, I jerked both my spotters so hard that they lost their footing, then I dropped hard. Not their fault, they at least prevented me from bashing my head.

Ladies and gentleman, while I still have reservations on the suitability of tasers for self-defense, if they're all you can have, trust me, they will take someone down. Hard. I tried to see if I could stay up, resist somehow. Nothing doing. I went down like a sack of jumpy potatoes.

Next was good old OC spray. Wasn't too big a thing. I went first, half expected to get as messed up as the first time I got sprayed. It had, afterall, been eight years since my last direct exposure. Despite getting a stream directly in my right eye, it was actually the least painful of all my exposures. Not to stay it didn't hurt, but other than the eye is was easily bearable, and I got the eye cleaned out pretty quick. All the former military in the class went through with a minimum of fuss and muss and I thought that was pretty cool, until our ex-cop went through. I don't know how many times that guy had been contaminated, but if I hadn't seen the spray douse him, I would have thought the instructor missed. No reaction at all. Needless to say, I was impressed.

I did, unfortunately, make a bit of an ass of myself a little during the tactics portion. The instructor was younger and less experienced than me, so I kept butting in. Fortunately, I realized what I was doing and how silly it was (seeing as all my experience was either military or doing it the wrong way) and shut up before I was told to. Still feel bad about it though. Oops.

My foibles not withstanding, everyone was great and, despite an abundance of alpha males, we all got along really well. I consider that pretty important since this industry almost requires you to have friends in it to get anywhere and I wouldn't hesitate to ask any of the instructors or visiting Alumni for any help I need. Awesome guys all around.

Sugar and spice and everything nice...

You may have heard about the Target under-the-skirt-cameraman. Rachel Lucas has an excellent post on it here. While I'm just as repulsed by the pervert's actions as anyone else, I seem to be lacking in sympathy for the victim. Lucas makes some very good points in the same vein, I highly recommend you read her entire post, and the comments.



I told the wifey about the whole sordid tale and told her I lacked sympathy for the victim. She looked at me like I'd grown horns (happens a lot). Then I asked her, "Could that happen to you?" She seemed shocked I'd even ask and then my point of view clicked with her. Of course it couldn't happen to her, if some stranger tried to get that close to her she would have noticed it instantly and tried to move away, if that failed, she'd have told him to back the hell off.



Which brings us to the point of this little offering. It's bad enough that women are, on the average, smaller and physically weaker than men, but the blatant inattention to their surroundings combined with the ingrained 'be nice' reflex is what really makes them likely candidates for victimization.

Bollocks to that!

I understand fully well that from a young age little girls are, again, on average, less aggressive than boys and that's perfectly normal and I have no problem with it. Also, children are taught not to settle disputes on their own, to get a teacher, parent, adult. I don't disagree with that either to a certain extent, but no one is taught what to do when no one else is available. The rough and tumble nature of coming of age as a boy traditionally (not so much any more) has taught young boys how to deal with bullies and other predators. Not so much with little girls.

Which leads to a phenomenon I've noticed a lot. It's not true of everyone (nothing ever is), but a great many women refuse to confront someone until it's way too late. In the example of the Target pervert, she may, or may not, have noticed the guy standing way to close to her, but if she did, she didn't say anything about it or try to get away. A lot of women would have noticed, and not done anything about it. It's not because they're too scared, it's because they don't want to be mean.

Let me kick a much abused equine corpse here. There is absolutely nothing wrong or mean about defending your personal space. Nor with watching someone your instincts have tagged as a threat. If someone gets within arm's reach (yours or theirs, whoever has more reach) move away. If they don't let you or you don't have room, TELL THEM TO BACK OFF. If that doesn't work, push the issue. No one has any business invading your personal space uninvited. If they're there and you don't want them there, get them out of there.

Your personnel space is your early warning system. The bad guys know psychology just as well as we do. They know that if they invade your personnel space and you don't challenge them, you may feel complicit in your own attack. It is next to impossible for a women to fight effectively when she has feelings of complicity. It's why repressive regimes will force a female prisoner to strip herself prior to questioning. Your personal space is sacred and inviolate, don't let anyone into it without your permission.