Looping the Hen

He's Smaller Than He Thinks

Well, I'm off to the Land of Black Squirrels for the next 7 days, but wanted to leave with an anecdote about my new adopted wannabe Cerberus.

So I took Arnold out this morning to do his thing. For those who have never met him, he is a massive 7 pounds of razor sharp teeth, a keenly developed intellect, and bulging muscles. He also doesn't much like other dogs, even those who tower over him and outweigh him by 10 to 1.

Whenever he is done, he runs back up to the door and proceeds to sit (very cutely I must add, I taught him this!) so I can take off his collar, and then we admire the day for about 10 seconds before I let him in. At which point he usually bolts across the house until he is back within 5 feet of Tammy. I am convinced Arnold thinks he has a small explosive capsule buried in his brain which will detonate if he spends more than 7 minutes away from his mother.

Anyway, this morning, something came up that was infinitely more important. The raging ball of fur decided he needed to pick a fight with the largest dog in the complex, a 150-lb monster Great Dane. (To be completely honest, I don't really know whether it was a Great Dane, but he was huge and could easily have fit Arnold under his tongue like a furry cough drop) About 2 seconds after I took the leash off, Arnold spots Frankendane and is gone before I knew what happened, across our little creek and vigorously assaulting the much larger and scarier looking dog while it's owner is holding it with both hands to prevent it from killing the little gnat yapping at it.

It was very much like those nature shows where the itty-bitty badger is fighting off a grizzly. It is a good thing Arnold is more scared of me than of massive mountains of teeth. I finally got between him and the Dane and chased him off for a moment. Sometimes I used to think Arnold is not the pointiest fork in the drawer, but now I know it. He kept making these huge sweeping runs to try to get around me and to his prey, yapping fiercely the whole time. The lady was pretty nice about the whole thing, and managed to get her dog back to her house, while I finally scared Arnold back to my front door.

Thinking back, I am pretty sure the Dane was actually more curious about the tiny creature engaging it than intent on crushing him in it's massive jaws. Anyhoo, I got a lovely twisted ankle cavorting around in my socks and work clothes, so it looks like running up in loverly British Columbia may be out. Grrr.

Anyhoo, have a great week y'all, I doubt I'll check in between the squirrels, museums, beer and whatever other amusements G has dreamed up. Back on the 8th!

I didn't want to hurt Arnold's feelings by telling his secret out on the main page. We were over at AKBar's a few weeks ago for poker and he was outside with Molly, a mild mannered grey housecat who Arnold alternately chases and runs away screaming like a little girl from.

So we were all inside and somehow Arnold got left outside in the little yard. Molly was hiding underneath the firepit tarp and we never really saw her the entire night. But apparently Arnold did; after about a minute we hear a loud, terrified, whining yelp as he scratches at the door. Looking outside, Molly is still not in any way visible (or threatening him in any manner) and he is squealing like the 2nd to last girl left alive in a zombie movie.

Sorry Arnold, I couldn't help it.

Say it ain't so!

At the very least, part of my non-blogging is due to various stages of disgust over the political landscape of the last several weeks. Utter disbelief at the stupidity of (almost) all politicians as well as the nitwits in the UN have broken through my psychic defenses and rendered me speechless.

The only good news I've seen in the last month is here. Congressman Flake (someone, from somewhere) put forth 19 anti-pork amendments, and to my disbelief (though I must admit some pride) my Democratic Congressman (Cooper) voted for every one of them. Elsewhere in TN, the Republican's and Democrat's ended up pretty evenly split in their support (or non-support) for wasting my money.

It's a scary thought, but from my vantage point in TN, thanks to Congressman Cooper and Phil Bredesen (well, and the ever-spending Republican majority in Congress), it appears that at least some Democrats are becoming more fiscally conservative than the conservatives. Other than national security, that is my new 2nd voting issue. So if we ever win the war against Islamofascism, I might actually vote for a Democrat. *Shudder*

Holy Lap Dances Batman!

I may not be able to get one G, but how I about I buy you two. I had hoped for $1300!

;) Go me! On top of that I sold a set of Little People also for another $170 or so.

Gonna be a good vacation!

And Tammy, we're getting you some shoes!

I'm alive...barely

Sorry posting has been light, I've been having some blogging ennui. Hopefully I shall overcome!

Here is what I am doing tonight...it would be nice to pay for my trip to Vancouver next month with this auction!

Not bad for something so 'non-real world', right honeybuns?

More Ebay goodness, let's say a prayer for the Little People! Tammy would miss them!

To the Lime Tree

If you make it over here, welcome. I spent an hour reading some of your blog last night; good stuff.

Glad you are well.

Saving on Bandwidth...

I am working on resizing my skydiving pics, but for now there are some over up on my Myspace for anyone with an account.

The Jowls of a Bloodhound

I had hoped that perhaps the pictures taken while I was contemplating my impending death would show my more noble side. Alas, that is not to be. It is horrible to say, but the roll of 24 images taken of me are perhaps the most peculiar images known to mankind.

I'm actually kind of lucky. I was going to post a new Dork Tower cartoon I found, but the pictures of me are, as far as I can tell, infinitely funnier.

Just one for tonight, and maybe the better of the group. Tomorrow I will post some of the truly horrid ones for your entertainment. Tammy has been in tears laughing at them for 2 days already. Thanks honey.

Even though certain folks hate Pokerblogging...

Let's not pass this when I'm finally winning more than I lose!

Tobias - 1, Gravity - 0

I didn't give a bad name to screaming little girls everywhere, and managed to curb my heart-stopping fear long enough to not squeal when my instructor pushed me out of the plane. It was still the most terrifying event of my life, and once will be plenty for me. I will now cross it off of my list of things to do in my life.

It almost felt like a day (or weekend) populated by little pre-death rituals that might be performed by a samurai or zulu warrior. Tammy and I talked about the disposition of my estate and my desire for fireworks at my funeral. I called dad and we prayed. I didn't call mom, as she asked me to not to when I first mentioned it, so I called her after. Went to Nikki's (my jump cohort) and had our last meal; cheesy eggs, pancakes, biscuits and bacon, mmmm.

It was a nice drive in my hunny's jeep, small rodent dog and everything. We got there almost an hour earlier, as we were a little unsure of where it was. (I forgot my map) The pre-event was a little bit less strenous than I thought it would be. Watch a video, sign a document saying I won't hold anyone liable if I end up as 200 pounds of mush on the airport asphalt, put on a jumpsuit and harness. I had expected some formal training on how to land, how to get out of the plane, how not to panic and attempt to pull my tandem's rip cord out prior to exiting the plane. There was very little, just some cursory explanations of how to hold my head, arms and feet.

To be honest, it is fine there wasn't more of it, because my brain shut off just prior to leaving the plane. The bravest and most fear-inspiring thing I have ever done, and I can only remember bits and pieces of it. The jumper actually made one signal to me during the free fall, but I could not for the life of my remember what I was supposed to do when he made it.

Even the plane ride was a bit scary, as we were in one of the fastest climbing planes in the US. We reached jump altitude of 14,000 feet in around 4 minutes 30 seconds; the plane was back on the runway while I was still under canopy at around 4000 feet. (Maybe 2 minutes into the experience) The instructor is attached to a tandem in 4 places, left and right shoulder and left and right hip, each 2500 or 5000lb test. One nice thing is the harness feels sturdy and appropriately tight and for some reason it made me slightly more comfortable, perhaps because I felt that it was one less failure point.

There were 13 of us on the plane; 3 tandems (6 people), 3 camera folks for the 3 tandem jumpers (I thought it was an interesting way to make a living! Although my camera person was only 15), and 4 other random jumpers (though 2 of them knew Nikki from work). She was first off the plane, I was last; watching everyone else jump before me I think heightened my fear. Actually, I think it was more stark terror of the about to be killed by an axe-murderer variety. I was very close to calling the whole thing off, except I think I would have died of humiliation in that case, having told everyone here and at work I was going to jump out of a plane. Scary. Dreadfully scary.

Or, I'm just a wuss, which is quite possible also, but I must emphasize the fear. Even now when I force myself to remember it, my heart starts pouding and my hands start sweating. When I got up to the door and put my hands on either side (remember the kitten imagery?), the instructor says 'Grab your harness...grab your harness!...on the count of 3 we go.' Then, 'one, two...' and he jumps...ugg! I had one more second to live, egads! It felt like it was 30 degrees and my face was flapping like a paper in the breeze. He made the signal to me, and I guess my legs were out of place because he kept wrestling them around with his.

I think I made some horrid faces for the camera, we should have those here tomorrow for your amusement. Other than that, the one thought I can remember (other than how cold it was), was that if the parachute failed, I would have around 80 seconds to live. No joke...I barely noticed the pretty scenery rushing toward me like a large steam-driven freight train. Somewhere I felt the canopy open like a jackhammer and jerk me back to existence. I was surprised by how heavy I felt then as the harness dug into my thighs. After the chute opened I almost relaxed, but I wasn't comfortable really until about 1000 feet. I think I could finally make out Tammy at around 500 or so, like a cute little ant on the runway.

I'm glad I did it. I originally said I would never consider doing it again, and I probably won't. However, when I listened to my dad on the phone, he was almost wistful and worried at the same time. He was in the Airborne when he was younger and made about 50 jumps. Maybe one day I'd do it again for him. However, I can't possibly see any other reason I would do so unless my plane was crashing.

Anyhoo, a big thanks for everyone's support (Lillian, I hadn't been remembered the Ambrose quote in ages, thanks for the reminder), and for my dear lady, who was there with me all the way.

Guest Blog #1 - Crossfire

This is going to be long, with both my thoughts and G-Max's note in its entirety; I am taking the liberty to post his comment to a new entry (Guest blog #1!), because it is well thought out and an important subject. So be warned, not for the faint of heart. And to Tarpy, no complaints from you after this for at least a week! Being the strong politico that you are, you should weigh in also.

Ok... as conservative as I'm getting in my old age, my liberal tendencies have to shine through here when it comes to protection of first amendment rights. Do I agree that absolutely a line has to be drawn in the protection of national security? Absolutely... the NY Times picture you included in your post demonstrates that. I see, however, three problems with the majority of the reactionary conservatives decrying the 4th estate's report of these terrorist stopping tools: First, the NY Times picture and "article", while sensational, is just that. To equate the stories that have been published in our time with having the same effect as the "one if by land" story is like comparing apples with orangutans.

Second, while I agree that this generally liberal press (as compared with the ideology of this administration) will opt more often than not with printing a story than surpressing it in the supposed name of National Security, however the conservative approach assumes that the press has not (during this administration's reign) surpressed a story in the name of national security. And, yes, while I can't point to concrete examples in the last 6 months of where they have done so, but asking for proof would be akin to proving the negative. Empiracally, though, the media has suppressed stories in recent past for national security purposes -- such as knowledge of NSA wiretapping and troop movements in the Gulf.

Third, and most importantly, the views expressed in the links adopt an extremely slippery slope approach toward news reporting. It assumes that the benefit to the people from withholding the story will always outweigh that from running the story if lives can potentially be saved. On its face this may seem logical, but to what extreme do we take it? Ok, fine, so what if we suppress the story about wiretapping and recording suspected terrorist transmissions from overseas (based on the President's record of zealous attempts to fight terrorists even in the face of privacy or other rights, however, the story should not come as a surprise to anyone), where do we stop from here? What if the President has a bad weekend in the Mideast while discussing international peace efforts with Jordan and Syria and pisses off a number of Muslim nations? Should the press surpress this information because terrorists can then turn to these nations to attempt to garner additional help from these countries in their fight against the US? Or hypothetically the Supreme Court hands down a verdict that the CIA/FBI/NSA is violating the right to privacy in their use of infrared or radio frequencies to search ship cargo holds containing international goods without permission of the shipowner? Suppress that too? Or how about the press reporting that airports still have a number of holes to fill in their checkpoints in order to make airline travel more secure? Stop that one as well? All of these potentially pose a threat to our national security as they set forth loopholes that terrorists can possibly explot, but the question remains where to draw the line?

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer, but I do know that it isn't allowing the government to direct what can and cannot be printed. Muslim countries already have that you see, its called state run press. To all you naysayers, I say criticize the press all you want, but I believe that reporting on problems like this causes private industry and the government to search for solutions to the problems the press is reporting on (and I dare say more quickly than if the issues weren't presented to the public). True, maybe the government and private sector is doing so to prevent egg from ending up on their collective faces, but in the end, if that makes the airlines I fly on more safe and secure, or the borders subject to more scrutiny, or cargo aboard sea or air vessels subject to more screenings, or other loopholes being closed, then by all means, I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run.
G-Max

I think this topic is important, in that it provides the contrast between the liberal perspective on the press's actions of late (and in general their feelings on security and defense) and the conservative. I think it also explains why to a large degree the American people typically have more faith in the right on security matters. Both of these programs were barely blips on the consciousness of people at large after they were exposed, because most people assume the government is (and more importantly, should be) doing these types of things to keep them safe. As I used to be a privacy advocate of the 1st degree, I see much of my old reasoning and reflexive defense of certain rights, and it may show why I drifted right on security matters. It is easier to hinge an argument on potential loss of freedom, which many liberals regularly do, than it is to defend actual exposure of programs responsible for tracking and capturing terrorists.

While I agree that the picture in the previous post is sensational and satirical, is it really apples to primates? I'm not so sure. Both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were operational in nature, and although they did not involve 'troops on the ground', they did (do?) let us capture people who want to kill us. I would also submit that the war on Islamic Fundamentalism, being a different type of war than a straight-up battle with the British, requires different types of tactics and strategy. So as Mr. Revere and companions allowed us to engage the redcoats, the NSA wiretapping program and SWIFT both allowed us to track and engage the terrorists, who typically are difficult to isolate. In that sense, I would say they are more similar than not; however, the semantics of irony and satire are not any points I would have any difficulty conceding. If you can figure out how to get the bad guys to wear bright red and line up straight so the Marines can shoot them, I'd be happy to forego these types of programs.

I don't know many (any, actually) conseravatives who say that 'no' stories have not been supressed due to national security concerns. I am certain that there have been stories not published due to national security concerns. In fact, I wish there were more stories not published due to national security concerns. The NSA story took over a year to come out if I remember, and Geraldo got kicked off the air for implying some troop movements. However, do you think troop movements specifically do not get published because it is out of the newspapermans' desire to protect their country and save lives or because they know for a fact it is one of the few times they will actually be in trouble if they print them? The one thing in common about all the national security stories is they look to have been outed by partisan political motivation, not any desire to 'serve the people.' Especially ironic is the New York Times publishing editorials saying that the administration is not doing enough to track terrorists funds or impede their operations, and then publish stories exposing the programs that are doing exactly that.

One of the main problems with the Times printing these stories is that they are fed by people who are breaking the law, and their security clearance, which are typically only granted after deep investigations (I remember my brother having his kindergarten and 1st grade teachers contacted before he got his). These are the people tasked with our security, and the papers are giving them an outlet to abuse their positions and disregard their responsibilities to keep us safe in order to attempt to make the administration look bad. The one time the media actually became interested in punishing leaks instead of exploring them was the Valarie Plame non-scandal; why is that do you think? Perhaps because it is the one time that the leak came from the right and damaged people's image of the left's worldview.

The slippery slope argument, which I used to use consistently (and one we used in many an off-case), is almost always the centerpiece of 1st Amendment discussions and anti-administration bias. The argument basically runs 'We need to expose ourselves to danger to protect our freedom!' However, it is here where the fundamental unseriousness of the liberals and left about national security and protecting our country shows most clearly. The slippery slope goes both ways. Instead of losing fundamental rights to expression (which are not really in peril, nor even demonstrated as being almost in peril), we are instead exposed to information that will allow terrorists to refine their operations and kill us more effectively. But at least I get to feel better about my right to blog about national security secrets now, right?

Neither the NSA program nor the SWIFT program were illegal, nor were they on any sort of slope. They were both operational successes. They both had congressional oversight by both political parties. They both had large amounts of procedure built in designed to protect individual rights; the NSA program received warrants from the FISA court in around 99% of cases and only in the most extreme and time-sensitive cases were warrantless taps conducted. Even in those cases, the NSA went back to seek warrants after the fact. The SWIFT program had additional international oversight.

If, during the course of their investigations, the Times had found abuses of these programs, I could see wanting to expose them. However, these were not programs where some 20-year old hacker is listening in on Bill Clinton talking dirty to an intern or to us talking about our unbreakable code. These were programs specifically tracking terrorists phone networks and financial transactions. There is no evidence, or even hint of, any abuses taking place. So I'm unsure what 'public interest' was presented or what abuse was prevented by the exposure of them?

I find this quote most interesting "...I double dog dare you to tell me the media's reporting of the weaknesses to our security cannot (and has not and will not) make our country safer in the long run." The funny thing is, I agree with you. I want my baggage to be safer, and my planes to be safer. The problem is, both the NSA program and the SWIFT program were the programs making our country safer in the long run. No one at the Times ever argued that exposing these programs would make us more secure, unlike ones exposing flaws in our security nets. These were best-of-breed counter-terrorism efforts, with operational oversight and no reported abuses. I hope you are not suggesting we are now safer because these programs are now probably ineffective? These programs were exposed to sell newspapers and attempt to make the administration look bad, nothing more, and that is infinitely more troubling than some possible and unproven hypothetical abuse. When Bill Keller wrote his editorial defending the Times exposure of the SWIFT program, his argument was not based on anything as serious as alleged or possible abuses, but instead the vague notion of the 'publics' right to know.'

When the White House or the Pentagon requests a newspaper to not print a story, it is just that, a request. No one has limited the freedom of the press to publish. We are not on the verge of a state-run press, and it is hyperbole to suggest it. These types of articles are the proof that the government is not trying to run the press, otherwise many Times' folks would be in jail where they belong for violation of various espionage laws. In fact, I would suggest that is proof that the administration is being too accomodating when it comes to protecting the 1st Amendment, not that there is about to be some 4th Estate coup.

I would like to hope that the press would publish those stories where it really is in my best interest to 'know', such as a loophole in airport security that needs to be fixed ASAP (where that information could allow me to make an informed decision not to fly, if I chose). It is too bad they are choosing to expose the programs that are actually working to protect us, not those that aren't, and my family and friends are less safe because of it.

Pennies for your posts?

Neat. More here.

Gravity Check!

Up until now, I haven't really given my upcoming skydiving experience much thought. It was just something I was going to do, and one of those "must-do's" to have a complete life! (Like that Tim McGraw song says!) Now that it is 2 days away I'm getting knots in my stomach and my hands sweat when I think about it. I just hope I don't clutch the plane door like a kitten trying to squrim his way out of a bath or scream like a little girl (no offense intended to little girls).

I know it is in my blood somewhere, as both Dad and Tom were Airborne in the army. And I know it is one of the safer crazy activities I might try, as the place where I am jumping has had over 25,000 jumps and not once has gravity won (knock on wood and say a little prayer). My boss, an ex-Green Beret, says the odds of dying jumping out of a plane is about 1 in 100,000, so I'm better off doing it than driving. Still, a little part of me wonders what I was thinking!

Anyhoo, T minus 43 hours and counting.

We don't need no stinking secrets!

For those who have been following the New York Times exposing national secrets controversy, this satire isn't anything but true. If you don't know about it, you should. Think the government is bad? The media is rapidly becoming worse.

Background here, here, and here.

(Image HT Les Baitzer via Powerline.)

Running the Asylum...

Sometimes I wonder when (If?) Kim Jong Il or Fidel are going to kick the bucket. Perhaps they have entered into a Faustian bargain or have an impressionist painting extending their lives. They have been part of the crazy landscape of foreign politics for going on how long? 40 years? Eeek.

Kim Jong has apparently taken total leave of his senses, as he is now stealing trains from his best ally. (HT: Glenn)

Kooky.

Too Many Spiders!

New post on the War of the Dragon Queen pre-release over on the other side; all non-geeks stay here!

Mmm...Cheese...

Be nice and help out Mamab and her hubby and vote for their cheese shop for bestest food in Nashville! Just click the 'vote' buttons over on the right; danke!

Although it'd be hard to top their Pizza Shop's pizza...it is suck on the olive oil good!!