• Shortcuts : 'n' next unread feed - 'p' previous unread feed • Styles : 1 2

» Publishers, Monetize your RSS feeds with FeedShow:  More infos  (Show/Hide Ads)

Date: Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011 01:46
Author: "teomax (noreply@blogger.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 2010 13:35
I've loaded up the jalopy. The mattress is strapped to the roof of the car. I have Pups in the back wondering what all the fuss is about. It's moving time.

I found this nice little place over on Wordpress. The rent is cheap, and it's more stylish than this Old Pad. There's also more stuff to do over there. The new place is in a gated community too; I don't have to be worried about being run out of town on a whim (unless I mess with one of the neighbors on Wordpress Ln.).

So come visit me at my new place. I've taken my name off the front-door for security and privacy reasons. The address is http://glpiggy.wordpress.com/ .

Do me a solid and update your various blogs, websites, Google Reader feeds, bookmarks, and such.

Thank you all for reading thus far and hope to see you over there.

Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Friday, 15 Jan 2010 09:38
I'm running with a new phrase I coined to describe self-described queer feminists; from here on out, I'm calling them "queefs". I came across the blog of one particular queef during one my "hour-long poop sessions" (please see side bar blogroll for elucidation on that reference).

Ode to Patriarchy is a blog written by a queef by the name of Kari. Her beef with patriarchy (and you thought her "ode" was serious?) is that it gives privilege to men. In a post titled "Ode to Date Rape" she argues that men don't have to worry about certain things happening to them when they "go out"; any man who fails to realize this doesn't care about women's issues. The queef's particular gripe was concerning a male friend who invited her to a New Year's Eve Party at a hotel with some of his co-workers. To Kari, the male friend wasn't much of a friend if he didn't forsee the compromising position he was putting her in.

"This year when I was home for New Year's, a liberal male friend of mine was trying to figure out what to do to celebrate and got the idea of renting a cheap hotel room in a nearby (though for the most part, unfamiliar) city. When he asked, he said that he was planning this and wanted to know who would be going. I asked who would be going and he said that he didn't know, to which I replied that unless I knew everyone else going I would not be going. He repeatedly said that he understood, even when he said that the people going would be his former coworkers."
She goes on to exclaim:

"Like the fact that I, as a woman, have to be weary (sic) when I'm out somewhere at night or in party/bar/club situations where someone could slip something into my drink and that he, as a man, doesn't not have to share these concerns. The majority of the time, these dangers will never flash through his mind. But every night that I go to work or out with friends, I have to be on my guard. Despite the fact that this is something that I have to go through in my life, he was eager to invite me to a situation where I would potentially be put in jeopardy. As unintentional as it was, I was offended that he had never thought about whether my safety would be compromised or not by going to this party."

I hit the queef with some literature dispelling the date rape, college rape, and drink drugging myths that are so often bandied about by FARTS** and queefs like herself.

I also threw out some thought experiments to test her logic. If she's worried about her safety, she should be much more angry at her friend for inviting her out on the town on the biggest drinking-and-driving night of the year. Her odds are much higher that she'll be maimed or
killed in a head-on collision than being a victim of a hotel party raping.

Kari also operates on a double-standard. Being well-versed in PC-ease, men know that they shouldn't make base assumptions about women's ability to fend for themselves and tough it out in a man's world. In her bio, Kari wrote about how she hates it when people treat her differently for being a woman, but in this case she wanted to be treated differently for precisely the same reason. I argued that we should cut through the BS; if a guy (btw, he's a gay guy) wants to invite a girl to a party he should invite her. He should tell her the situation and let her decide whether or not she'll attend. Women want the ability to choose things for themselves; give them the facts and let them choose.

By her logic I should be angry when my girlfriend or female friends invite me to the local bar district. When we go out there is a much higher chance that I'll get into an altercation with another guy. This isn't because I'm a hot-head; it's because the nature of bar districts is that there are more opportunities for male aggression. Furthermore, as a man I am justified in being outraged at even being coaxed out into public - even in the daylight. I'm much more at risk for being attacked in public or getting into a knife-fight than a woman is.

She also argued that her friend's "understanding" implied that he understood that she was afraid for her safety in the situation he presented to her. She cited his callousness as evidence that he just didn't care and didn't actually understand what it means to be a woman. I interpreted his "understanding" as acceptance of the fact that she didn't want to be at a party where she didn't know anyone, because, who really likes being the odd man out?

So I debased her argument that patriarchy and male privilege is this issue's root problem. The queef's problem then is her irrational weighing of the costs and benefits of attending a New Year's Eve Party. Her chances of being raped or roofied were very low. I would also assume that if this guy is her friend, she trusts him. If she trusts him, she should put some trust in his choice of friends as well. This further decreases the odds of anything bad happening.

Of course when I brought these arguments up she shot me down as being angry and upset with her - calling my rationality into question. It's all common strategy for the FARTS and queefs out there. Sorry to poke fun at all of this, but we all know that queefs are hilarious.

**Feminist Activists Reacting to Sexuality; I just made this up. I'm open to suggestion on this acronym.

Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 14 Jan 2010 16:06
I often hear people say, tongue-in-cheek, that one or the other sex is more evolved than the other. On blogs where I read this meme, the esteemed sex is highly correlated with the attitude towards feminism i.e. people at The Spearhead think men are more highly evolved while people at Feministing think women are.

Debate is being spurred by this study that shows that the Y-chromosome, that determining maleness, is radically different from the Y-chromosomes of chimpanzees than we'd expect. Whereas humans' entire genetic profile is only 2% different from chimps, the male chromosome is much more evolved or changed.

The article points out that this finding doesn't necessarily imply that men are more evolved than women, but if we think about a little more in-depth, it's possible that this is true.

Historically, only 40% of men have reproduced whereas 80% of women have. It follows then that the men who were selected in the past faced more stringent selection criteria than women. If evolution is the process whereby natural and sexual selection mold the species, men are more rigorously selected for; they are more evolved.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 14 Jan 2010 10:16
Nate Silver's piece at the mainstream media website FiveThirtyEight titled "Divorce Rates Higher in States With Gay Marriage Bans" provides a particularly disturbing analysis of a current hot-topic. The piece is somewhat dangerous because it pretends to brush the idea of undermined traditional marriage under the carpet; come to find out, the broom has a broken handle and seems to be missing some straw.

Silver's post has been picked up by many other websites, including Matthew Yglesias' widely-read blog. Feministing has jumped on the issue as well. Furthermore, 538 has a direct pipeline into the national media: I've seen 538'ers on CNN and MSNBC.

Silver finds "statistically significant" data that shows that states with bans against homosexual marriage have had greater increases in divorce rates compared to states that have allowed such marriages or civil unions. Between 2003 and 2008, states with pro gay marriage stances have seen their divorce rates (as a percentage of married people) decline by 8% on average while states with anti gay marriage stances have seen their divorce rates increase by nearly 1% on average. Silver believes that his study provides evidence that gay marriage doesn't undermine traditional marriages.

But there are several problems with his reasoning and methodology:

1. Where Does the Devaluation of Marriage Actually Occur?

Silver assumes that the devaluing effects of gay marriage stop at the border of whichever state has voted to allow gay marriage, but this is short-sighted. The decision to allow gay marriage flicked a switch in traditionalists' minds automatically devaluing the currency of marriage regardless of where that devaluation occurred.

To a conservative in Mississippi, gay marriage in Massachusetts devalues the whole institution regardless of the laws of the state in which the person lives. Mississippians would likely be more affected by gay marriage than people in Massachusetts because of their more rigid feelings about marriage in the first place. So, if anyone was going to be affected by gay marriage, it would be traditionalists (who more often happen to live in anti gay marriage states) rather than liberals (who more often happen to live in pro gay marriage states).

2. "Marital Plasticity"

I'd like to create a new term similar to "erotic plasticity" which I previously used to show that homosexuality has different characteristics and a different "trajectory" in men than it does in women. Womens' sexuality is more fluid and malleable than mens'. The fact that both deal with homosexuality is a coincidence; don't let that part get in the way of the more important point that some values and traits are stronger in some people than they are in others and therefore more fixed or rigid. I coin the term "marital plasticity" to describe the degree of rigidity felt towards marriage.

In simplistic terms, people with more liberal ideas towards marriage and therefore states with more liberals, tend to have a more flexible and malleable "marital plasticity". Their idea of marriage isn't as fixed and rigid as those in more conservative states. The average San Franciscan has a somewhat more relaxed view of marriage and marital roles than the average traditionalist; a change in the perception of what marriage is won't profoundly distort their view of the institution. A change in the definition of marriage doesn't blow their world out of the water. Marriage wasn't rigid before; it won't be greatly devalued if non-traditional couples are allowed to partake. It follows then that the national issue of gay marriage would have little effect on their decisions to get married or to remain married. If gay marriage were an issue that could undermine traditional marriage, the effects of that would more likely show up in places that defined marriage in a more strict way i.e. conservative states.

3. What Should Have Changed?

The argument from gay marriage supporters isn't that the practice will bolster traditional marriage; their position is that it won't cause any harm.

Turning to Silver's evidence, we could assume that the rate change in divorce in liberal states is some baseline rate. Since gay marriage isn't predicted to help traditional marriage in any way, we have to examine why divorce seemed to increase in traditional states when it should have decreased. If we are investigating whether gay marriage is the "culprit" it seems that when it was present it did devalue marriage...for traditionalists.

Since gay marriage didn't add value to liberal marriages (and prevent divorce in greater proportions), some factor caused divorces in higher rates in traditional areas; that factor could be gay marriage and the devaluation of marriage that it brings along with it. So perhaps Silver isn't sweeping with a broken broom after all; perhaps he's just sweeping under the wrong rug.

4. Why Use Divorce Rates?

Gay marriage would likely have a much bigger effect on heterosexual's decision to get married rather than their decision to stay married.

The decision to get divorced is more contingent on other variables. People who marry at younger ages and have lower socio-economic status marginally tend to get divorced in higher ratios. It's difficult to discern which effect has changed over time when you consider other variables: did a particular couple divorce because they value marriage less, because they are poorer and more hard-hit by the recession, because they were young and hasty in their decision to marry, or because they felt stronger social pressure to enter a "weak" marriage?

Also, states have different laws pertaining to divorce; it may be easier to get divorced in Kentucky than Massachusetts. So while the divorce statistics support the hypothesis that marriage is devalued in states where gay marriage has been banned, it may be more useful and more intuitive to turn to marriage statistics to complete the picture.

5. Using Marriage Rate Changes

The true devaluatory effect of gay marriage - if there is one - is that it curtails the marginal decision to marry. There is no reason that gay marriage enactment would cause people who have already committed to marriage to rip up their marital currency. People who weren't married to begin with would pay less for marriage. Singles would be less likely to pay for marriage by giving up their autonomy if the thing they're getting in return is worth less than before. This follows a marginal benefit/marginal cost analysis prediction.

So the more important statistic with regards to gay marriage's effects on traditional marriage is the decision to marry at all rather than the decision to stay married. Here is a table showing the marriage rate changes for "traditional" states - on the left-hand side - and "liberal" states - on the right-hand side.

Using CDC data, for the period 2002 through 2007, those states that have some sort of legal recognition of gay marriage or gay union have had a 7.1% decrease in the marriage rate. During the same period, those states that have a current constitutional ban on gay marriage had a 10.5% decline in the marriage rate.

Going a little further, between the years 1990 and 2000, gay marriage was a scarcely-discussed topic; it wasn't in the news and no states had attempted to allow them. That decade then provides an "unbiased" look at marriage rate changes. In the more liberal states, the marriage rate declined 18.6% in the decade while declining 13.2% in more traditional states.

While I don't go so far to contend that this finding is "statistically significant" as Silver quickly proclaimed of his data, it is interesting to note that marriage rates in traditional states declined more than marriage rates in liberal states even though they had previously declined less. Something...something has caused this shift - the shift being a decision on the part of traditionalists to marginally forgo marriage.

6. Inclusion of Massachusetts

Massachusetts is included in the analysis. Silver touts it as having the lowest divorce rate as a share of marriages in the country. He forgets to account for the fact that Massachusetts did allow gay marriage in 2004. Homosexuals noticeably threw the marriage rate out of whack when they were given rights to marry; the new flux of marriages all at once would dampen the divorce ratio. As time wears on and these recent marriages end in divorce, the relationship between marriage and divorce in Massachusetts will come more in line with that of other states. A proper analysis would have discounted gay marriages in Massachusetts. My estimate is that using the correctly adjusted data point for Massachusetts would shave one percentage point off of Silver's final 8% figure that he cites for the decline in liberal state divorce rates.

7. What Exactly Does an Devaluation of Marriage Look Like?
Silver makes the assumption that marriage's devaluation will follow some directly observable pattern in various statistical categories. He also makes the claim that the effect will be large enough and immediate enough to observe within a 5 year window. While it's possible that gay marriage could have worked its way into the foundations of marriage that quickly, traditionalists probably had more a more glacially-paced undermining in mind.
A devaluation of marriage - which is already underway due to many other causes - is a slow-moving process. It occurs due to a shift in our attitudes towards certain cultural and social foundations; it takes time for the meme "marriage is worthless" to sink in and entrench itself into our social fabric.
The undermining of traditional marriage will more strongly display results in the next generation and the one after that. The effect will be hardly noticeable and scarcely traceable back to one root cause due to the intertwining of multiple progressivist agendas.

Nate Silver's piece is rooted in shoddy analysis and topped off with a blinding headline that's sure to shut off the neural capacities of the gay marriage "Rah, Rah" crowd; this is unfortunate. I have no particular axe to grind against gay marriage; I use the same axe for it that I use for traditional marriage. But the facts are the facts, and methodology to discern those facts should be rooted in stringent theory and verifiable truth. Silver's piece is based on weak evidence, weak logic, and a poor understanding of causality and correlation.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Wednesday, 13 Jan 2010 10:02
Each year The Edge asks leading scientific thinkers, philosophers, and intellectuals of other stripes one important question. This year's question is "What Will Change Everything?" In his prognostication, psychologist Jonathan Haidt offers a particularly interesting prediction concerning the effects of the teachings of the increasingly important field of Evolutionary Psychology (aka HBD).

Haidt points out that the discussion of innate differences between various populations, races, and ethnicities - the central tenet of HBD and Evo Psych - is a social timebomb. The social warfare of the 1990s with regards to research supporting the argument that there are racial differences in IQ will be replaced by different findings from Evo Psychology. Haidt fully understands the consequences of this "wall" being torn down.

"The most offensive idea in all of science for the last 40 years is the possibility that behavioral differences between racial and ethnic groups have some genetic basis."
Haidt cites the Russian fox experiments that spanned 5 decades to show that intraspecial differences can be selected for and amplified in much shorter timespans than those that scientists have traditionally assumed necessary for the development of measurable and meaningful ethnic and racial differences. Through 30 generations of selective breeding, Russian scientists altered the behavior and physicality of foxes to more closely resemble domesticated dogs; some of the silver foxes even bark like our furry friends. As a side note, scientists predict that another 30 iterations of selective breeding will create a Fox that looks like this:

Helloooo Evolution!

While Haidt points out that humans haven't undergone as intensive selection pressure for positive traits as the Russian foxes, such experiments indicate that for humans the time it takes for an ethnic group to transmogrify into a group with noticeably different characteristics and behaviors is within the realm of possibility. Thirty human generations - an estimated 750 years - foster enough weak selection pressure so as to create relatively wide disparities between people of certain ethinicities (using Haidt's definition, an ethnic group is one that has shared similar traits for at least 500 years). Given 10,000 years of sped up evolutionary pressure in the wake of the agriculture boom, man has had plenty of time to compartmentalize into a wide array of vastly different groups in terms of physicality, intelligence, behavior, values, virtues, and vices.

Haidt's important prediction deals with the innate differences in morality, virtue, and vice. Different ethnicities and races would have developed different cultural attitudes that affects how they behave within their societies. Some groups are predisposed to tranquility, soft-spokenness, openness, and hard work. Others are predisposed to loudness, vulgarity, isolationism, competition, or crime.

"Skin color has no moral significance, but traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life [within the past 10,000 years] — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. Virtues are acquired slowly, by practice within a cultural context, but the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is — and this is my prediction — going to be a "game changing" scientific

(emphasis mine)

The question becomes, if each one of these groups is acting in accordance with their "nature", how do we go about doling out justice or incorporating every group into the social fold? I touched on the question previously. As an example, if blacks have higher levels of testosterone and are more predisposed towards violent and aggressive behavior, "intertribal" competition, and work-aversion - antisocial behavior in today's Western world - is it fair to "punish" them using white Western legal and social proscriptions? In these cases, legal codes and social norms that worked well for white Westerners may not work so well for blacks of African descent or people of other ethnicities and races who have had much less time to co-evolve within "our" society's proscriptions.

It appears that de-segregationists, multiculturalists, and diversity enthusiasts - when they argued against "separate but equal" in favor of "together and equal" and all-out in-migration to this country - were short-sighted. These innate differences fly in the face of multiculturalism and diversity as practiced and esteemed in our modern liberal societies. This feeling I share with Haidt isn't a support for racism or bigotry towards people of different backgrounds; it's merely an investigation into the question of whether or not people of different evolved frameworks have the ability to get along in a particular society in the first place.

Interestingly enough, Haidt predicts - quite specifically - that the innate differences in moral standards, virtues, and vices will become a mainstream issue beginning in the year 2012 and lasting for 5 years.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010 12:24
Feminists are quick to tout any "issue" that detracts from their longevity as an issue that only they have access to. If they don't outlive men by 20 years, sexism prevails and the patriarchy is to blame. Sleep is a feminist issue. Health care is a feminist issue. When it comes to issues, women have nothing short of a monopoly; to add insult to injury, it's like they got to pick the racercar and us men got stuck with the thimble.

But perhaps men can now lay claim to one important issue. A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology suggests that men who have sex twice a week are 50% less likely to suffer from heart disease. The study wasn't performed for women because, well, they don't have

Researchers accounted for self-selection bias by controlling for weight, cholesterol, and other pre-existing conditions that might contribute to how much nookie a man partakes in in the first place.

The prescription is clear. Men: fuck twice a week. If your wife is hesitant to put forth, tell her she'd be helping your heart by giving it up. If she resists further, she's being selfish and doesn't care about you. Research mail-order brides who will give it up multiple times daily just for a green card. If that's not up your alley, sex bots are just around the corner.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Monday, 11 Jan 2010 08:42
**Just for fun. Cash and prizes available in this post. Read ahead.

I let one of those teachable moments slip through my fingers last night. It all happened so fast and was so outside the norm that it took me a second to recover from the shell-shock of it all.

While counting my shekels with some of my co-workers, a 20-ish year-old guy came over to one of the other guys at the table and hands him a piece of paper. He said, timidly and sans eye-contact, "Hey, one of the girls I was with thinks you're cute, and she wanted me to give you this. She wants you to call her." I would have been completely justified to break out my inner Mortal
Kombat, grab the sad-sack message-bearer by the throat, disengage his spinal cord, and obliterate his being to the rousing chorus of "Finish Him!" being yelled out from my co-workers. If I didn't do it, one of the other able-bodied young men at the table should have handled that business. But we didn't. We sat there in awe.

First, maybe I'm petty, but men don't use the word "cute" unless they're talking about babies or furry animals. Second, the girl was obviously nervous, and judging by the pink pen ink on her note and the heart over the "i" in her name, she is barely legal; but this guy reinforced the already fully-entrenched entitlement that this girl has come to accept as a natural state of the world. She likely thinks that the world is hers and other people are pawns to be shifted around to meet her whim. Her audacity in asking boys to jump through fire-engulfed hoops is supported by the willingness by which guys run menial errands for her in which they must check any self-respect at the door in order to complete their mission. "No blades. No bows. Leave your nutsack here." (I'll send a whopping $5 to the first person who cites this somewhat obscure pop culture reference.)

More importantly for the sad-sack though is the fact that his self-respect is gone for at least two weeks. He tepidly walked up to a table of 5 other dudes to complete his task - immediately admitting low-status through his actions. If the girl was worth looking at, the messenger probably wouldn't have minded banging her, but he was relegated to servitude and willingly obliged. If he was going out with her to dinner - knowing the nature of the dual ladder system - this guy would have had sex with his slavemaster if given the green light. Even though there was absolutely no chance of sex or even heavy petting, he should have said "Fuck you, do it yourself" or "Why would I give your number to another guy when I'm tryin' to hit it?" Stuff like that.

Expect a five-fold recompense aimed at random women in bars when the young chap comes of age and realizes the error of his betaness. The indelible shame will unpredictably flare up - like herpes - contorting his insides and reigniting a feeling of shame and ultimately hatred towards this girl.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Saturday, 09 Jan 2010 10:11
Is it possible that electricity is to blame for some of the reported woefulness, depression, and futility many Westerners feel?

If you believe in the Savanna Principle - that humans still harbor brains "stuck" in evolutionarily prehistoric times - it would make sense that we have evolved a certain innate sleep schedule. We likely evolved a tendency to go to sleep shortly after the sun went down. To wander around in the darkness would be dangerous; humans could be killed by animals or by accident.

For our evolutionary forbears it would make sense to stay in confined spaces when there was very little light. Bonfires provided some protection and ability to perform menial tasks before bed, but the most efficient use of time would be to catch some Zzzzz's to rest up for the next day.
Humans don't do this anymore. We have work schedules and night lives that keep us awake at "unnatural" times. We use electricity to proxy for daylight allowing us to complete tasks that our ancestors only did in the daylight. Myself, most of my sleep occurs during the day time. This not only acts counter to my internal clock but it probably impedes the quality of the sleep I am actually getting. The 8 or so hours of sleep I do actually get are probably not as high quality as the 8 hours of sleep someone else gets if they go to bed at 9 p.m. and wake up at 5 a.m. If left to natural forces, humans' energy levels wane at around 10 p.m. and hit their peak at around 6 a.m. This coerces us to fall into the naturally programmed and healthiest sleeping habits. Every night I fight that wave of sleepiness and stay up until 4 a.m. This means I'm going to bed near a time when my body is close to peaking and being its most productive.

Taken as a whole, the modern Western world's distorted sleeping habits has combined to make us less happy, more depressed, and more woeful than in times past.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Friday, 08 Jan 2010 09:00
Let me dig down deep into the pile of sludge and tampon refuse that is feministing.com and pull out two shiny gems to ruminate on. Two seemingly benign recent posts caught my eye.

The first is part of an on-going blog series of sex shop reviews. In this particular post, Marian visits some "legendary" sex shop and adds it to her bucket list with all of the other dildo stores she's visited in her life. All of this reminds me that feminism's goal with regards to sexuality isn't about sex and sexuality per se; it's about the physical act of highlighting, underscoring, emboldening, trumpeting, pumping up, bugling in, exclaiming, and rubbing everyone else's nose in their sexuality. It is entirely narcissistic and self-serving. It shares the same strategy as teenagers who listen to loud music and wear loud clothing - not because they particularly like those things but because they like the reaction of others to those things. Feminists, gay culturists, teenagers, and progressives of every stripe cease supporting a certain issue only for that issue and beging supporting an issue because of the power it brings them.

A second piece at feministing predictably celebrates Obama's appointment of a transgendered person to a high level position at the Bureau of Industry and Security. In the short blurb about Amanda Simpson there is no mention of her credentials or background. The only reason this move is celebrated is because she is "transgender and open about it". But what if she is entirely inept and without merit for that particular job? The attitude towards Amanda's appointment shows that they only care about the show behind the appointment rather than the performance of the job itself. Simpson has even come out and said that she doesn't want to be a token and hopes to have been appointed based on merit.

Not that I'm keen on giving feminists and progressives clues on how to transform society, but rubbing everyone's nose in sexuality, transgenderism, and general militant transformation will be met with reaction. Putting big flashing lights on every move and hailing every babystep draws attention from people like me and clues me in to the real reason these issues are of importance: it's not because a transperson is given a high position in the government or because dildos are fun; it's because they are interested in change solely for change's sake.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Friday, 08 Jan 2010 08:00
I've been banned from posting comments on Larry Auster's moderated website View From the Right (Odd that I've been banned from posting at the most liberal website I know of and the most conservative. If I ever get banned from a moderate website I'm screwed) . It seems I upset him a while back causing him to dislike me because of some of my comments during an "Auster hate-fest" on Mangan's website.

It's his website he can post what he wants to, but since he won't let my post through, I'll print here what I had initially sent his way. It was in response to a thread about Richard Hoste's comments that the 9/11 attacks aren't all that alarming given the tens of thousands of murders and accidental deaths that occur in this country each year. Auster described Hoste as a "Darwinist blogger" which implied that Hoste believes what he believes because he is Darwinist rather than incorrect.


I'm a Darwinist, yet I don't agree with Hoste's remarks. Hoste's remarks have nothing to do with his Darwinist belief and have everything to do with his own personal viewpoint. He is merely misguided. You could easily have written the headline "Hostian Blogger says 9/11 Attack...". Instead, to impugn all Darwinists you printed the headline you chose. Whether he believes it or not, Hoste isn't purely reductionist. He likely wouldn't be so flippant with deaths of Americans at the hands of terrorists if a family member of his had been present in the WTC on 9/11.

Whether Darwinists are inescapably reductionist or not, they still have an absolute "code" which tells them that murder is bad - especially if it occurs to members of their "tribe". We turn to a pragmatic analysis of magnitude, intention, and ability to actualize intention to discern between the evil of different criminal acts.

Numerous deaths caused by a terrorist organization are worse than widespread individual crime because of the ultimate goal of those terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda would be content with wiping out every Christian and Westerner; if they could get ahold of and detonate a nuclear weapon they probably would; an individual murderous maniac is usually after individuals. His actions, left unimpeded, are less dangerous to all of society than al Qaeda. If we hypothetically assume that Muslims only wanted to wipe out Sikhs, I would argue that al Qaeda would be less of a threat,
and to a degree less dangerous, than the real al Qaeda we know of that wants to
kill Americans. The delineation is in their ultimate desires. It isn't the actual religion or the methods that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations use to kill people, it's the magnitude with which they want to kill people. It's also the fact that they have real access to real resources that can cause real damage. This seperates them from lone wolves, gangbangers, and commiters of crimes of passion.

Also, thinking about, worrying about, and planning policy to "fix" the terrorist problem would be more effective than focusing efforts to tamp down individual murders or car accidents. Stopping terrorism moreso involves shutting off one major power source (cutting financial ties has been a step in the right direction) whereas stopping individual crimes and fatal accidents involves a massive, unconcerted effort that would likely be ineffective.

So I disagree wholeheartedly with Hoste's comments, but I also disagree with your characterization that Darwinist belief automatically leads to a belief that centralized murder with a high body-count/perpetrator ratio is the same as a high number of unrelated crimes committed by a high number of perpetrators. Perhaps my approach is overly pragmatic for your taste, but I - as a Darwinist - can see how one is worse than the other. I'm sure you have a response blowing my pragmatic Darwinist approach out of the water - which I look forward to reading. Thanks.

Hoste has a long-handled axe to grind with blacks and Mestizos. Anything that detracts from focusing on how bad and how criminal they are is futile in his eyes. Surely he's not a fan of Islamic terrorism, but he just isn't as afraid of it as he is domestic crime by American NAMs. I'll reiterate again, if we left Islamic terrorists unchecked they would find a way to do significant damage which would be more devestating than widespread individual crime and less predictable; in short, it would be more terrifying.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 22:02
I'm not trying to be mean or insensitive, but Jesus Christ, I'm fully aware of breast cancer. Leave it alone; let it breathe; give breast cancer a rest.

Tonight I got on Facebook and saw that a lot of people were posting colors as their status updates. My girlfriend wrote pale-yellow, a couple of female friends had written green and red. My best friend, Brint, from high school had written burn orange in support of the Texas Longhorns and their bid for the National Championship.

I figured I'd join in on the fun and wrote "menstrual-flow red". I didn't know the guidelines of this little game. I thought a little better of my choice; I have family members and former teachers as friends on Facebook so I decided to come up with a new status reading "car-sick yellow". It's not only a color but it has imagery.

A few minutes later someone informed me that the colors were the colors of the bras each woman was wearing. My girlfriend showed me this viral email adding another dollop of awareness to an already heaping pile:
Write the color of your bra as your status, just the color, nothing else!! Copy
this and pass it on to all girls/Females ...... NO MEN!! This will be fun to see
how it spreads, and spread awareness of breast cancer, and we are leaving the
men wondering why all females just have a colour as their status!! Let's have
After hearing about this stupidity, I replied tongue-in-cheek on my status that I can't wait for prostate cancer awareness when we men get to spout out the color of our underdrawers. I'm calling "Baby blue with a mysterious brownish pattern" should such a fateful day ever come.

All kidding aside, I'm suffering from breast cancer burnout. Breast cancer is a serious and sad condition, but how many months of the year, how many days, how many ribbons, and how many fundraisers have to be done for everyone to be sufficiently aware? And once we are all fully steeped in awareness, what do we do next? Not to mention the many other afflictions that could use a little awareness. Prostate cancer, as I've mentioned before, is a serious threat to men that is even neglected by one of the biggest potential epicenters of awareness for men: the NFL. Instead they focus their efforts on breast cancer. The entire month of October - with a full 31 days mind you - is devoted to the cause.

So breast cancer has had its time. Let's let the sun shine on another dog's ass for a while.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 14:13
I have a new post up at The Spearhead today. This one discusses a recent Iowa court decision which ordered a man to pay $1.5 million to a woman he negligently gave HPV to.

I argue that the decision is unwarranted because there is virtually no way for sexually active people to know who they got the virus from, and that litigation will always fall on the heads of men since it is women who show ill effects from the virus. Also, the focus on HIV during most men's health awareness upbringing impeded our knowledge about other more prevalent STDs like HPV, herpes, and chlamydia. Men suffer from a lack of knowlege - not only about whether they have the virus - but also about the nature and risk of the virus itself.

Enjoy the piece.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 07 Jan 2010 07:27
Sleep deprivation is a feminist issue now? Do these women get to claim every "issue" at hand? Next they'll be saying that breathing is a feminist issue because they have jugs that impede the expansion of their lungs.

Lisa Belkin at NYT, seconded by Jessica Valenti, argues that women are sleep deprived because they have too much to do. They have the second shift, homework checking, kids' soccer practice, and day jobs to manage. They suffer in the workplace because they are unable to corral their extensive list of tasks and chores.

There is a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of men's and women's time allocation to various daily activities categorized by age of children in the household. Across all categories, women sleep more than men, blowing a hole in the original argument that women need their solid 8 hours of shut-eye to maintain heart health. Women sleep about 18 minutes more than men, on average, where the youngest child in the household is under 6 (Note: this study isn't necessarily of married couples). The smallest difference in average sleep time is for those without children under the age of 18 present. In these households, women average 2 more minutes of sleep per day than men; this roots out the hole already blown by the previous piece of information. Based on the "sleep is a feminist issue" argument, we'd expect that the least time differential in sleep time would occur when children were present; this is opposite the findings of the BLS study.

As for the second-shift, such a concept, as used by feminists, implies that women put in more work between their jobs and their household "chores" than men do. The data suggests otherwise. In households with the youngest child under six years of age, women put in 5.7 hours of household/childcare related hours while men put in 3.1. This is more than offset by the 6 hours men spend working compared to the 2.9 worked by women. The differences follow the same pattern over the other two categories. Women always perform household chores and take care of children more than men, but men spend a greater amount of time on both activities. Since outside-of-household work is very important to the maintenance of the household and the rearing of children, there is no reason to disparage a man his shortfalls in the chore department. Even strictly among employed men and women, these trends hold up and discrepencies are negligible. The only category where working women sleep less than working men is when there are no children present in the household (and involves a 3 minute difference) - which is again counter to the argument set forth by the feminist meme.

The real argument is that women who seek to move up in their jobs aren't able to balance their lifestyles - thereby sacrificing sleep in order to make everything work out. But this is a special subset of women, just as there is a special subset of men who get less than the recommended 8 hours of sleep per night. There's no such thing as a free lunch; if a person wants to move on the fast track, no matter their gender, they're likely going to sacrifice something along the way; sleep is often the first thing to go.

The argument that the feminist types are making here seems to be a pipe dream for the fusion of the various "waves" of feminism. They want to be empowered in their choice to work; they want to be empowered in their choice to raise children; they are naturally hypergamous, and now they want to be empowered in their ability to get the sleep that is so necessary for women's health. These different wishes can't all be fulfilled; there's a reason the second-wave feminists opposed marriage and family; it's because those were incompatable with career and eco-political empowerment. When upwardly mobile men enter relationships they choose those women that will be amenable to their desired career/family balance. Often they choose women who will help raise their children so that they are able to focus on bringing in a high income which is expected to fund the wife and children; if they can't find such a woman they either remain single or sacrifice their career if they want a family bad enough. A woman has the ability to make that choice as well. If she wants a high-flying career and children, she can search for a man who is OK with sacrificing income in order to keep after the house and kids. She also needs to be aware that her natural instincts, no matter how strong her feminist bent, will cause her vagina to remain as parched and frigid as the Siberian steppe. But now it's somehow feasible that these women can have their cake and eat it too?

The "problem" isn't the rampant sexism that Valenti et al offer up; it's the differences in wiring of between men and women.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Wednesday, 06 Jan 2010 11:21
One good thing about staying at a party or a bar after most of the other people have gone is that as a man on the prowl you get to pick up (or in reality, get picked up by) female stragglers.

An interesting sociological observation - like watching antelope form into mating leks - occurs during the waning moments of a party. Usually several guys have developed a strategy of hanging around just to see what's going to pop off - like #7 on my list of "Party Guys". They know that women tend to find individual men more attractive as the total number of men decreases. If a bar or party happens to be hovering near sausage fest territory it's difficult for any given man to be noticed; women go into information overload mode and turn men away that they may otherwise be interested in if they were given a few minutes of interaction. In highly populated settings women tend to only select the creamiest of the crop because a.) they can and b.) there is too much information for them to process. Their loins go on autopilot and force them to select more for outward displays of status and looks rather than Game, personality, sense of humor, or actual checking account balances.

It follows then that as the number of men falls, even if that decrease is in step with the decrease in the number of women, though there are absolutely fewer men to choose from, each man has a higher hook-up probability. In other words, in highly populated settings a higher percentage of men and women go home empty-handed than if they went to more sparsely populated locales.

There have also been studies that show that people rate individual members of the opposite sex higher on the looks scale after alcohol imbibement i.e. a given man may be rated a 5 at the beginning of the night but will increase to a 7 by the end of it. While men's rating of women increases faster than women's rating of men as the night progresses and the drinks pile up, women still find each individual man more attractive. Men who hang around after hours benefit from the beer goggle phenomenon as well as less competition. Given these two facts, and the fact that women tend to be the choosers, men stand to gain the most by hanging around to see what they can see.

Some men are more rational and cunning than others (or perhaps more shameless) and have developed a strategy to take advantage of these dynamic forces. Often, there seems to be a silent competition that some men engage in to see who can stay around after a party or bar closing the longest. If not for loitering laws and homeowners forcing people to leave, its entirely feasible that at least two guys will stay behind at a party if there is at least one viable single female present.

One particular strategy takes full advantage of these female-choice patterns. A late arrival makes you the new guy on the scene, and women love anything new and exciting. Think of yourself as a shiny piece of tin-foil and them as emus. Arriving fashionably late adds mystery to the man. If you've ever sat in a bar for 5 hours until close it seems as if you've been on a month long vacation. By the end of the night, the shit you did at 10 o'clock seems like a distant memory. Getting there too early gets you pegged as a bar/party fixture, and by the end of her "vacation", your target will have lost any novel feelings towards you, on the margin. Rarity is more powerful than ubiquity in these settings.

Instead of showing up at 9 p.m. and hanging out for 5 hours until 2 a.m. or showing up early to a party, show up at 12:45, have a couple of drinks, and relax. The first few hours of face time are relatively worthless unless you decide to spit Game hardcore from the jump. By showing up fashionably late and revving up your Game engine shortly before closing time, you'll be less inebriated, more in control of the situation than the clowns who have been drinking all night long, you'll take advantage of attractiveness scales that have reached their sweet spot, the battlefield will be less populated, the targets will be more chatty and interesting, and you'll hold on to more of your dough. *If your goal is picking up women* there is little reason to show up early. Unless your Game is tight enough, a woman didn't show up to a place just so she could turn around and leave.

It is important to realize though, showing up at a late hour and loitering around like a creep is counterproductive. You have to show up late but start running Game immediately. Loitering outside the bar, trying to pick off lone gazelles you haven't interacted with yet as they try to head home is unlikely to work.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Tuesday, 05 Jan 2010 08:00
Liam Neeson was given credit for his masculine Clint Eastwood-esque role in Taken in which he embarks on an international mission to hunt down his daughter's kidnapper. The movie was a hit with audiences and Neeson's character in the movie is mentioned often in blogosphere discussions about what a true man is. Apparently Neeson's extolers didn't see his mega-flop The Other Man.

I recommend watching The Other Man for it's sheer unwatchability; just pretend its a Steven Segal flick where watching the unwatchable is entertainment in itself. When my family and I watched it over Christmas break we spent an hour talking about it afterward - much like people did after Schindler's List except for the opposite reasons.

I'm going to spoil the ending here. Somewhat similar to Taken, Neeson's character finds out that his wife cheated on him with a Continental lothario named "Ralph" (pronounced Rafe) played by an effeminate-looking Antonio Banderas. The audience is shown Neeson's wife alive in one frame; in the next we see Neeson agitated. This is a retrospectively important leap in the plot. Neeson stumbles upon his wife's laptop and cell phone where he discovers illicit pictures and emails from Ralph.

Neeson then hops on a plane seemingly to find his wife and/or confront Ralph. Neeson ends up playing chess in a Venetian coffeeshop with Ralph and begins discussing his wife's affair - unbeknownest to Ralph. Through a cheap ploy in which the script has a plot hole the size of the Moon we come to find out that Neeson's wife is actually dead. Neeson desires to hurt Ralph, but when he finds out that Ralph was in love with his wife and that he is a loser con-artist rather than the international man of mystery he attempts to portray, Neeson's character develops sympathy for him.

The last big scene of the movie shows a gathering of Neeson's wife's fashion-world friends to eulogize her. The whole affair is technically paid for by Ralph even though the money was given to him by Neeson. At a toast for the wife's death Ralph describes her beauty etc; Neeson is angered and contemplates either exposing Ralph as a crook and liar or letting bygones be bygones. After an awkward minute-long glance into his daughter's eyes, Neeson avoids behaving as any self-respecting man would and chooses to let Ralph slide leaving himself exposed as a giant pussy and a cuckold while leaving Ralph shone as a poor misguided soul and the dead wife being shown as Mother Theresa.

Quite a change in tone for ol' Liam. I prefer to have never seen The Other Man so that I could remember Neeson as the man's man he played in Taken and his superb acting job in Schindler's List. Unfortunately, given the similarities in plot and release date, Taken will forever be marred in my eyes by this flop.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Monday, 04 Jan 2010 08:30
Small towns like the one I'm from in Texas have a fat girl problem. The scent of cheap perfume, sweat, grease, and FUPA smegma forms a troposphere-like force field surrounding the town that I call "that fat girl smell".

The hefty prefer the wide-open spaces of rural settings leaving the countryside pocked with Meccas of fat; Wal-Marts teem with herds of bovine; buffets routinely stock-out of deep fried items and gravy. Exhibit A on my dad's list of evidence for why north central Texas sucks is the overpopulation of human wildebeests roaming the plains. When the pale eyes killed off all the buffalo in the 19th century they didn't realize they were just clearing the way for droves of similarly-sized creatures to fill the void; perhaps one day fat girl skulls will be unearthed and decorated for artistic purposes; who knows.

But why are people in rural areas, especially the South, so large? An overabundance of corn-based foodstuff and underabundance of exercise facilities has exacerbated the problem. Besides extracurricular exercise; the South is no longer agrarian and has capitulated to an even more sedentary lifestyle than people in the North, on the coasts, and in bigger cities. People are forced to drive everywhere in rural areas - which the body responds to by directing fleshed padding towards the posterior.

I think there is also an intelligence factor at play - and not just because those who morph into fatties are unaware of the consequences of smothering their tongues in chocolate and canned nacho cheese. The intelligent from each crop of high school graduates tend to move away from home and take their skinny-tendencies, self control, and properly attuned future-time orientation with them. Once past high school age there is very little to do in rural towns besides eat, drink, and be hefty. Youngsters are able to play football in the streets, run around in wheat fields, and swim in a nearby lake - things that can't be accomplished in bigger cities because of safety concerns. For these reasons I'd argue that rural kids are in better shape than their city-dwelling peers; there just comes a point when a person enters adulthood and ends their childlike ways that they mysteriously begin growing extra chins. Those who stayed behind to live in these villages expand because they eat too much, exercise too little, and weren't quick enough to move to more bustling metropolises (I'll go ahead and caveat this by saying *of course there are still smart people in small towns; but in general...*).

I opened with pointing out small towns' fat girl problem. I'm not entirely sure that women are heavier in rural areas and the South than men although I can picture a scenario where women are even more sedentary than men in these locales. Many men do still work in trades and in the field in lots of rural areas which allows them to slough off some calories; women do none of that work. There is likely a higher percentage of housewives in these areas than cities; given the automation of the household, housework isn't so much of a calorie-depleting chore as it might have been in the 20th century. But even if men and women are equally fat in these places, the consequences fall more heavily on the beefy necks of women. They are the ones burdened with the chore of maintaining their figure and good looks. Men are more reliant on status; largess doesn't harm them as much in society's eyes.

But all is not lost. People in the South have come around in the past decade or so; they've discovered a magical dietary aid - much more effective than Atkins or the South Beach Diet. It's called crystal meth and it helps cut lb's like nothing else. This has caused an interesting phenomenon in small rural towns whereby when you drive down the Drag you'll see multiple porched wales along with formerly-portly-now-toothless skeletons walking down the street. Looking through high school yearbooks I can delineate three categories: moved away; got fat; got fat then became meth-skinny.

Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Friday, 01 Jan 2010 08:00
A little hypocrisy to chew on today; perhaps, mix it in with your black-eyed peas.

There is a lot of shaming among many Men's Rights Activists of women who hook up with, date, marry, and are consequentially harmed by bad boys, jerks, and assholes. Lady Raine is a prime example; she was roundly denigrated for her single-motherdom and penchant for drug dealers. There is an attitude that womens' underdeveloped future-time orientation and general feeling of entitlement has caused their plight thus revoking their license for bitching and moaning.

Very few, relative to the number who shame those short-sighted women, blame men for marrying women and consequentially suffering the pitfalls of marriage - financial and emotional. Perhaps I'm misjudging the issue, but there seems to be a tendency for MRAs to criticize women for their choice of bad boys when there are perfectly good betas waiting and willing to shack up with them, but there seems to be a certain amount of empathy for men who enter relationships that also go sour creating an incommensurate double standard. Each woman who is beaten, cheated on, or left a single mother by a man is analogous to a man who is cheated on or divorced by a tramp of a woman. In both cases, each wronged woman or man defends their choice by saying that they didn't see it coming or they thought things would change in the relationship.

The real issue worth discussing - superceding the line-drawing and coalition-forming - is the underlying systematic favoritism that women benefit from over men. When they are wronged their needs are dealt with more readily and with more fanfare; wronged men are left to thrash and hold their head above water on their own. But this is a systematic issue; individual women aren't necessarily to blame for that. The shaming should be directed at the system (which MRAs do very well); it is misplaced when directed at individuals. When we discuss issues of individual's poor choices, we have to lump many men and women in together. If we're going to shame individual women for their poor choices we also have to shame individual men.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Thursday, 31 Dec 2009 06:25
My girlfriend informed me tonight that Tiger Woods is entering rehab for sex addiction. My first response was "Right before New Year's Eve? That's the biggest pussy-getting day of the year between now and Halloween."

My second thought, which I argued for vehemently, is that the sexual addiction meme is bullshit. Men aren't addicted to sex; some are just more near sex than others. It's like saying that a guy who lives in Malibu and frequents the beach is addicted to the beach. He's not addicted to it; the beach is just convenient for him and he goes much more often than a guy who lives in Kansas.

Tiger Woods just so happens to have the opportunity to engage in sexual intercourse more than the average guy. I laid it out like this in my discussion: men get a certain number of boners throughout the course of a given day. I haven't charted my boner frequency of late, but I'd say I get horny a few times a day. A very low percentage of my bouts of horniness are satiated by sexual intercourse; most go for naught or I'm forced to self-accommodate. The fact that I know that most of my periods of arousal will crash and burn prevents me from wandering around with a perpetual pup-tent in my trousers. Therefore, I'm not on the prowl for sex 24/7.

Tiger Woods has it differently. He usually uses his bodyguards to score chicks for him, and they're often accommodating given his high status and wealth. Therefore, he has a much higher boner-conversion ratio than the average man. Also, because he knows his boners will be converted into sexual at a high rate, he pursues the act more frequently than most. So it's not that Tiger has some innate drive that makes him more horny and out of control than most men - like Katt Williams said "that Tiger ain't gone crazy; that Tiger went Tiger."

Tiger Woods is a man acting as men do; he just has a greater opportunity to have sex than most of us. His "sexual addiction" is a scapegoat for a man who is unable to handle his sexual drive and should have never been married in the first place. Because he never experienced a period of "male slutdom" - due to his devotion to golf during his youth and beyond - he hasn't fully grasped the correct way to handle females and sex. Further, he hasn't fully grasped the way to keep his sex life discrete as a celebrity. Instead of having sex with other celebrities or women who had a lot to lose by being wrapped up in a sex scandal, he honed in strippers, porn stars, and waitresses who had nothing to lose and book deals to gain by being involved in one. It's as simple as that: Tiger is a man who is a man with a regular sex drive who is stupid and ill-equipped to handle marriage and the life of a celebrity.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Date: Tuesday, 29 Dec 2009 12:36
Security agents will likely soon get to see law-abiding citizens' kibbles and bits during routine full-body scans at airport terminals. This is all in response to the failed bombing on Christmas Day by Abdul Mutallab: the would-be g-string jihadist.

Larry Auster has discussed the issue at length, and I agree with him: it is Muslims who are trying to blow up our airplanes and destroy this country. Single them out for x-ray or detention rather than people with low probabilities for terrorist activity. We'll soon hear stories about fruitless examinations of grandmothers and toddlers despite the chances that they have bombs strapped to their genitals approaching zero. Political correctness undermines this country yet again.

Abdul Mutallab's online diary (George Sodini anyone?) exhibits a guy at odds with his sexual urges.

"It would be difficult for me to get married due to social norms of getting to the late 20's when one has a degree, a job, a house, etc before getting married."

There has been much debate over parsing the causes of jihadism in young Muslim men. One camp posits that Islam's constricting theism causes sexual frustration in young men at the crest of their libidinal tide. Another side is relentless in their blame solely on Islam's principles for the terrorism.

I don't see why we can't compromise and say that each variable is intertwined with the other. Islamic culture lends itself to sexual frustration and a penchant for suicide missioning due to low investment in a family. There is a certain amount of polygamy and sexual shaming that thwarts young men's sexuality and forces them to act out in more aggressive ways. Many of the 9/11 hi-jackers were celibate virgins; Hasan from Ft. Hood didn't have luck with the ladies either. It seems completely plausible that these jihadists' lack of sexual success is a feature aided and abetted by belief in Islam. Sexual frustration may be a component attributing to the final decision to go through with these acts, but belief in Islam is an inextricable component of the cause of those variables in the first place.
Author: "Chuck (chuckr26@gmail.com)"
Send by mail Print  Save  Delicious 
Next page
» You can also retrieve older items : Read
» © All content and copyrights belong to their respective authors.«
» © FeedShow - Online RSS Feeds Reader