On Romance & Modern Men

While scrolling through my wonderful FB newsfeed this evening before bed, I noticed the following status, "Why is romance dead in men of my generation???"  I studied the question for a few moments.  I quickly ruled out that romance was dead among all men in the 25-40 window.  Then I started to analyze why this person was of the opinion that it was dead.  Since the art of romance was indeed not lost by an entire male generation window, I looked for another common denominator.  I considered the "sex rank" principles of the status poster as described in Athol Kay's "The Married Man's Sex Life Primer".  My conclusion was that eligible males didn't need to invest the effort to develop an attitude or atmosphere or romance due to a declining sex rank of the bewildered female.  Mind you, this is no stab at her, but rather simple facts and observations.  Here is a quick study of the demographics:

- White female
- 30-35 years of age
- 2+ children
- High school diploma
- Entry level office employment

With these things in mind, what is she doing to be or become someone that a worth-while suitor would feel compelled enough to create an environment of romance?  Ladies and gentlemen, from my seat, it seems the suitor would be taking on liability by getting involved to any degree.  If the suitor is stacking up liability, there's no reason for him to invest any kind of honest effort into the relationship.  With the demographic information alone, I would assign a sex rank of 4.  Taking into consideration some recent photographs of the aging process, a 3.

The Christian Church, as a whole, has done a horrible disservice to youth by telling them that, "it isn't your outward appears that matters, but the beautiful person that you are on the inside".  Outward appearance DOES matter!  If I'm not attracted to your physical looks, what kind of a monster would have to possess me to make me want to invest the effort to see what lies beneath?  That idea is completely irrational.  A woman's physical attraction will typically peak somewhere around the 30 year mark & decline at a rate faster than a man's.  Since a woman's sex rank is based significantly more on physical appearance than a man's (which tend to be more based on career, position in said career, spending & earning potentials, etc), the tables make a dramatic turn at this point because now the man can afford a small pot belly or a balding head and still maintain his same rank.  Conversely, the woman must work extra hard to maintain a good physical appearance.  If that they both start working out & he improves his appearance, suddenly we notice that he's increasing his rank while the woman is only maintaining her current one.  All this to say, ladies, your actions have consequences.  Regardless of how rosy things may look today, things can change.  Life is about choices, chances and consequences.  Chose wisely.

Crispy

The State Within A State

Read this & educate yourself.

Now.

Still Kicking & Being Entertained

Yes, yes, yes. It has been quite some time., the other side of the deployment, actually. Anyway, LuMoWaMi has forwarded various articles to me from "Haley's Halo". I'm not a dedicated reader, but I go back from time to time to scan. I scanned over a gem of a quote today. While discussing the metro-sexual undercurrents of an introduction post on another blog, Haley pumped out this quote (for which I'm extremely jealous):

...But here is a very good example of how to write about yourself in a way that advertises that you find cats more exciting than women.

Glorious!

The Castle Doctrine

Having recently read the comments on Rachel Lucas' blog entry, I decided it was time to put my fingers to the keys once more.

What is the Castle Doctrine? Some believe it gives them the legal permission to utilize deadly force as a means of preventing an invader from "taking my stuff or my neighbor's stuff". This is wrong! The Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with property protection. The Castle Doctrine has everything to do with defense of self & others inside your home. 

Let's say you live in a 3 room home. It has your bedroom, a living room and your child's room. Your front door opens into the living room which is between your room and your child's room.

Scenario #1: An intruder breaks & enters into your home through the front door. You are standing in your bed room. He sees you & begins moving towards you. You in turn fire (a controlled pair making a grouping of 1/4" in his mid to upper torso), killing the intruder. Was the scenario a justified shooting under the Castle Doctrine? Yes, because he was inside your home (castle) you could reasonably believe he intended to do you harm.

Scenario #2: Same home set up. Intruder breaks & enters through the front door again, but turns away from you & continues moving within the home. You fire (a controlled pair making a grouping of 1/4" in his mid to upper back), killing the intruder. Was the shooting justified under the Castle Doctrine? Again, you can justifiably shoot the intruder because he is inside your home and there is again the reasonable belief that he could do harm to your child.

Scenario #3: Same home set up. Intruder breaks & enters through the front door. Upon seeing you take up a good sight picture and apply the other three fundamentals of shooting, the intruder turns and begins to exit the home through the same door. At this point, you can no longer justifiably shoot him.

Scenario #4: Same home set up. You happen to have just reassembled your firearm after completing your weekly firearm maintenance. The intruder breaks & enters through the front door. Upon seeing you in the with a firearm sitting in the living room, he freezes. Instead of taking the chance, you again fire & kill the intruder. This shooting was also justified under the Castle Doctrine because the intruder was inside your home.

Scenario #5: You wake up in the middle of the night & go to get a drink of water. Due to your usually high level of preparedness diligence, you have a firearm in next to your drinking glasses. Suddenly, you noticed an intruder carrying your plasma TV out the front door. You cannot legally shoot the intruder under the Castle Doctrine because he is 1) leaving your home and 2) is posing no threat to anyone inside your home. Property is not included under the provisions of the Castle Doctrine.

Thanks for your attention.

Crispy

Worthy of a Pulitzer

I was shopping online when I ran across this posted on a website...

Crispy

IceMan Said It Best

IceMan said it best, "Who's side are you on?".

Bing West makes most of the important points about Nir Rosen's adventures with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which recently appeared in Rolling Stone. I don't really think I need to go into it. Most of the readers here, or at least both of you, will see where this is going real quick.

To give you a quick glimpse into the level of intelligence we're dealing with in Mr. Rosen in defense of his actions, and after he attacks Bing West for "showing a lack of imagination" by using a parallelism between the Taliban and the Nazis of 1942,

"moreover, journalists regularly embed with the american military when it is conducting operations, attacks, killing. whats the difference?"

And yes, that is his actual grammar. I changed nothing. The last time I checked, "imagination" had NOTHING to do with reporting the facts. Imagination does come into play when you flash your American media pass as you go through an Afghan Army checkpoint while riding with two Taliban commanders though. If you're interested, read Bing West's "An American Journalist". The comments are particularly entertaining as well.

If you need more proof that Mr. Rosen should have his citizenship revoked, begin reading, "Killing Fields". After painting a dire & hopeless picture of Iraq, he tells a story of American Soldiers executing a man. "Hussein" is the supposed brother of the deceased,

I later asked Hussein if they wanted revenge. "We are Muslim, praise God," he said, "and we do not want revenge. He was innocent and he was killed, so he is a martyr."

Call me crazy, but the last time I checked, innocent people weren't considered martyrs.


May My Hammer Fall As My Muzzle Passes Over You,
Crispy


Thanks to BlackFive for publishing the story to Small Wars Journal.

Glorious Me

I'm still here. Just preoccupied with fun, exciting things such as establishing a new household, work, and getting used to the Communist way of life in the wonderful State of New York.

Crispy

Discretion of a Rock

Throughout my criminal justice education both in the civilian world as well as the military side, it has always been stressed that in order for police to not only be effective but to maintain positive relations, especially with consideration for the "Community Policing" model, the use of discretion is paramount. When my MPBOLC class was addressed by the Assistant Commandant of the MP Corps, he continually reinforced the principle of "The spirit of the law; not the letter of the law." To put this in context, allow me to elaborate. At a particular four-way stop sign intersection on the post, there are thick hedges on the left & right sides of one of the approach roads. As a result, a certain driver approaching the intersection did not bring his vehicle to a complete stop until he was on the other side of the hedges, by no means into the intersection, but far enough so he could now see the oncoming traffic. To the dismay of that driver, an overzealous young Military Police officer (PFC) had set up across from the intersection behind another series of hedges where he could overwatch the intersection. After observing the driver "blow" the stop sign, the soldier initiated a traffic stop. Unfortunately, the driver was either the Commandant (BG) of the MP Corps or the Asst. Cmdt of the MP Corps. The MP Regimental Sergeant Major was also pulled over by this very same MP at the very same intersection. For my point, according to the letter of the law, yes, both drivers did not come to a complete stop prior to crossing the line of the stop sign thereby, failing to stop. However, the spirit of the law was by no means broken. The drivers stopped once at a location where they could observe the intersection & move once it was safe as opposed to stopping twice with the first stop being only due to the location of the sign itself.

Now that I have explained spirit of the law versus letter of the law, let me get to my main point for today. The Transportation Safety Administration is staffed mostly by blithering idiots. Today I had my shower gel & shaving cream seized. The primary officer in contact also attempted to seize my deodorant and toothpaste but once a more reasonable officer approached (interestingly enough, the same one that checked my ID & boarding pass), talked her into allowing me to keep my toothpaste, since there was very little remaining inside of it. I was proud of her (primary officer) for figuring out all on her own that was indeed allowed to have my deodorant. Had I not had about 25 minutes to get to my plane before departure, we would have had a chat at the security checkpoint this morning. The primary officer, though hesitant & still not sure "what was inside", complied. Wow. Call me crazy, by I have this wild idea that its probably the Crest Minty Fresh toothpaste inside of it just like the tube says. Here's the real kicker - THEY DIDN'T TAKE MY FOUR ZIP TIES that I had prepped in my bag! And I'm not talking the little thin ones people use to hold the wires under and behind their desks together with; I mean the thick white military style ones that we use to detain people in the "zip tie" phase of the "zip tie & choke slam" exercise. By prepped, the ends were inserted into the locking clamp to facilitate quicker apprehension. Letter of the law: Yes, take my shower gel & and my shaving cream. According to the spirit of the law however, you probably don't need to seize the property of a Military Police Lieutenant; he's probably trustworthy. I'll also refrain from the point that had we gotten into a foot pursuit, I could have run back to the hotel I spent the night in before they made it to the end of the airport terminal.

Common Sense is a precious & endangered resource. Don't lose yours.

Crispy

"Stop resisting!"

Are You Sure You Want to Know?

The other day I received an email from a family member with a link to an internet video by USAWakeUp.org. I was asked in the email to let the sender know what I thought. One thing I failed to mention is the email was that these "facts" didn't require a video. They could have been presented in a normal text format. However, they would have lost most of the emotional appeal. I was drafting my reply as I watched the video. One thing I quickly noticed was how fast the information was presented & they moved on to another topic. There wasn't much time for the individual viewer to process the information presented, thus creating a feeling of being overwhelmed. So, make good use of the pause feature when you watch the video.


Minus the personal chatter, here was my reply:

Yes, I believe, if Iran were to gain nuclear capabilities it would be a risk to our national security. I think it would also greatly destabilize the Middle Eastern region, the effects of which are too much for this email.
However, to say that result of an improvised nuclear device explosion in a major city would be "enormous" isn't quite as probable. If it is an improvised device, that means that the most desirable components are not available, therefore the yield of the explosion, radiation fall-out, etc would be limited. Granted, several blocks from ground zero may be destroyed, however the outlying areas would not be so greatly affected. The mental images of the nuclear blast on "Judgment Day" from Terminator 2 are a bit over the top for such an attack. Personally, I would be more concerned with a biological attack. The saving grace with a biological attack is, who wants to carry around a fragile vile of something that will make your organs turn to mush? So, the likelihood of such an attack is limited, but the results of a successful one are a different matter. The only reason the Sarin gas attack on the Japanese subway was not successful was because one of the very first victims fell on top of the vile that it was delivered in. Even though this is a chemical agent, my point remains the same - It takes a certain level of skill to properly employ such techniques not to mention the logistics required to get the device all the way down to the operational cells without being compromised.

I think it can be said that the "struggle" against Islamofascism is being lost on the home front, or at the very least, we are not gaining ground. I don't define this by the number of mosques, but by the will of the American people to support our military efforts abroad. Without getting too in depth, I blame this on the media for not reporting the truth or the whole story.

As for the numbers of the radicalized Muslims, I don't know. I do know that Saudi Arabia, which was specifically mentioned, turns a blind eye to Wahabbi doctrine & will not recognize its existence. In general, they don't necessarily directly fund terrorism. We need to remember that in the Muslim view of the world, they are not countries separated by religions, but a religion separated by countries (tribal issues are yet another discussion). They have a completely different world view when compared to Americans.

Regarding Al Qaeda, they were initially created by the Pakistani government to act as destabilizers in Afghanistan (Pakistan & Afghanistan don't like each other) to give the Afghan government (Taliban) something to be pre-occupied with. Al Qaeda became too strong for Pakistan to control & relocated to Afghanistan. The original Taliban was the government of Afghanistan which did not necessarily like Al Qaeda, but as time went on, was required to deal with Al Qaeda due to their strength & influence. Eventually, the Taliban government essentially became a puppet for Al Qaeda.

As for recruiting, I would be less concerned about our prisons & more concerned about our colleges & universities & the European "religious facilities". CAIR is funded directly by Hamas. I don't think I need to say more on that...

The on the horizon section... the problem with fighting terrorism is that if we get too caught up in fighting "terrorism", we will lose the war. Al Qaeda received a notable amount of funding from the drug trade, so simply fighting "terrorists" is not the key to success. A growing trend that we're seeing is that criminal organizations are starting to act more like terrorists & terrorists are starting to act more like criminals. (this again, is a discussion all its own) & they are beginning to collaborate more. For these reasons, the open borders, illegal aliens, etc are issues. Any laws that restrict law enforcement's (LE) ability to describe a suspect is an issue. HOWEVER, the guy with the beard and turban aren't always the one you need to watch. Sometimes is the small, quiet & shy single female traveling with only one bag & staying for a few days that you need to check out. With a few other factors, she would match the profile of a drug mule (human drug trafficker). As for the Patriot Act, I have very mixed feelings about that to the point that I'm not sure where I stand on it. My military side says check everyone, but my US citizen side says, butt out & leave me alone.

If LA went down, I wouldn't mind. haha The effects of their blasts are a bit overestimated. Yes, an EMP weapon is a problem. However, one could not take down the entire US, not even 10. And Mexico & Canada would go dark too. Instead of no money, I would rather say, no sizable amounts of cash or currency. Money will be anything people want or can use - gas, cigarettes, chocolate, copper, gold, silver, water, coffee, tobacco. In that simulation, yes, there would be wide-spread economic collapse, however it would be possible for grass-roots stability to arise, but that would be entirely dependent on the people of the area.

Regarding immigration, I think we've started to see a change in this trend all ready, but time will tell.

It should be noted that we do not have a democracy, but a representative republic, again another discussion. I'm not sure how accurate this section is. I'm leery of this section as they give no true reference from which their basing these statements & numbers.

Don't necessarily let all these internet videos get you all riled up. Look at them critically and do some research on your own.

In God We Trust, All Others Are Suspect.
Crispy

I Am Your Gummibär

For those of you who thought BadgerBadgerBadger was the greatest thing to rock the face of the earth, or for those who believed "DubDubDub" was the other coolest thing to shake your Internet Explorer browser window, a new day has come. Let me introduce you to Gummibär.

The internet is wonderful.

I am your Gummibär.
Crispy

A Story You Should Read

I was over at BlackFive catching up on some of the stories that I've missed over the past several weeks when I came across a post from "Laughing Wolf". (For those that don't know, BlackFive brought in some other bloggers on his site.) The particular article is entitled, "Christmas Eve: Baghdad 2007". I highly recommend you read this post. For most people, the only exposure to Iraq that they receive is from the images of the mainstream media over the television (which usually consists of the same ten 2-second clips played indefinitely). This particular article, in addition to an excellent story, includes some pictures which show the true progress which the words of the media can't hide or distort.


Crispy

PSA: Evan Trembley

Attention, Earth.

"Evan Trembley" is NOT missing. Check your sources, kids. Geez.

That is all. Please resume your normal mindless wanderings (except for my readers; y'all are thinkers).

Crispy


UPDATE (minutes later):
So I decided to check my source for all my "how dumb is America today" information: Facebook. I did a search for "Evan Trembley" which turned up 35 results. One person claimed to be The Fake Person who was a member of the North Korea network (undoubtedly a hoax) with the remainder being groups. Twenty-five of those groups were about finding Evan Trembley with members from the twenties and others into the thousands. Nine groups were about the fact that The Fake Person isn't missing. Titles for these groups ranged from "Evan Trembley is FOUND" to "evan trembley is a punk who needs community service".

And for my favorite internet video, with this in a close third and this in second.

Little Thing Called Respect

What the hell is wrong with the world today? How hard is it for people to NOT trash things that do NOT belong to them? So, I get home from work. I notice that someone very generously raked up all the leaves from the front yard/drive way. Wow, what a nice gesture. I get in the house & note a few leaves on the carpet. Yeah, no big deal. Whoever it was worked hard outside. Then I notice a controller of mine sitting on the couch. I guess someone watched a movie & left in a hurry & didn't put it back. No big deal.

Then I get to my rooms.

I had closed my bedroom door before I left, so nothing was touched in there. My bathroom, however, looks like Paul Bunyan came through. There's enough leaves & general "crap" in there to make half a forest. Not to mention my floor mat for when I get out of the shower has leaves & stains on it. Then I notice a funny smell. Not only had I just cleaned my bathroom counter yesterday night (which, oh by the way now has a fine coat of dirt over it) but some ass wipe used my toilet bowl brush as a plunger - the source of the smell. WTF is wrong with you people? If it isn't yours, don't Freaking touch it!! By the way, that toilet brush hadn't yet been used. Thanks, dick hole. The worst part about that toilet bowl brush? It smells like FAT person.

"Vengeance is Mine. I will repay, says the Lord."
Well, God, if you ever need a replacement, here I am.

Grow Up & Be Responsible,
Crispy

P.S. - Just found toothpaste stains on my hand towel. Awesome. Useless wastes.

Another News Story I Agree With

The planets must be aligning or something because I don't recall this ever happening in the past. Even though this particular article focuses on the Kerry speech at UF involving Andrew Meyer, it could easily be applied to Jena Six.

"What YouTube doesn't show" by Dennis Jett

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many are conveyed by a video tape? Whatever the number, it is not always enough to understand the situation. That will not stop many people from rushing to judgment based on what they think they know. Their views are formed more by the media stampede and their own biases than by what really happened. And that says a lot about how people react and how information is used today.

Take the case of Andrew Meyer, the University of Florida student who had a Taser used against him by campus police at a speech by Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts last month. Videotapes of the incident made the evening television news and immediately found their way onto YouTube.

People around the world saw the incident replayed as thousands of newspapers and television stations picked up the story. The YouTube videos were viewed more than 3 million times.

As the story spread, many people formed a firmly held opinion. I also had an opinion on the event, but my perspective was unique. I was the moderator of Sen. Kerry's talk and the only other person on stage with him.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement was called in to investigate whether the actions of the officers were appropriate. Their 300-page report was recently turned over to university officials. (A summary of it is at www.president.ufl.edu/incident/.) The report concluded the officers acted "well within" their guidelines and also pointed out that the student had provoked an earlier disturbance on campus. He boasted at that time to a friend that if he liked that confrontation he should come to Kerry's speech and see a real show. In a letter released October 29, Mr. Meyer publicly apologized for his "failure to act calmly" during the speech and admitted he had "stepped out of line" and was truly sorry for tarnishing the university's image.

What was not on the YouTube videos was the fact that the student disrupted the speech twice. After Kerry had responded to numerous questions, I announced that one final one would be taken from the microphone on my right. The student then grabbed the microphone on the left and loudly demanded that he be allowed to ask a question. When a female police officer intervened and tried to escort him out, he broke away and continued shouting. At that point, Kerry said he would take the student's question, but would respond first to the questioner who was supposed to have been last. As he finished answering that question the famous videos began.

Because the student had already been disruptive once, there were police officers and officials of ACCENT, the student organization that brings speakers to campus, standing next to him. When he launched into a diatribe and used a vulgar expression, the mic was cut off and he was carried off to the applause of many in the audience, all the while resisting the police.

The reaction of some on the political right who saw video was that the student was silenced because he had asked the senator an embarrassing question. Some on the left suggested his freedom of speech was suppressed. Neither version could be further from the truth.

On television, any number of talking heads offered similar thoughts or ones that were even more farfetched. But the electronic news media require only that those on the air speak with conviction. Any real insights or even information are entirely optional and usually rare. The pundits in print were often equally uninformed and off the mark. Few were willing to wait until a thorough investigation laid out the facts and, when it did, it was barely news. A relative handful of articles came out on the 300 page report and even fewer on Meyer's apology.

In an age of instantaneous communication, there seems to be a widespread expectation of equally rapid judgment. No one was lynched, but the virtual mob, fed by the media and a post-your-own-videos website, drew all the conclusions they needed for a verdict. And what the truth eventually turned out to be hardly got reported. It would be useful for the electronic media (besides NPR and PBS) to offer context and analysis and for the pundits to hold their judgments until they had more facts. That would require the former to cut back on the celebrity news and the latter to engage in less populist pontification. Neither will happen unless the audience demands it.

• Dennis Jett, former US ambassador to Peru and Mozambique, is dean of the International Center at the University of Florida. His second book, "Why American Foreign Policy Fails," will be published in May.

Crispy

P.S. - I haven't received any hate mail from the blind supporters of the Jena 6. Is that because I'm not making my position (or this one) clear, not enough people read this stuff or because their supporters don't read these types of things? Who cares. DOWN WITH THE JENA 6!!

What You Won't Hear in the News

"U.S. Troop Loses Plunge in Iraq" by Gordon Lubold

US troop losses in Iraq have plummeted in the past few months to levels not seen since early 2006 – an encouraging sign, say analysts and defense officials, that the US strategy is working, at least for now.

American defense officials cite recent weapons finds, disruption of bombmaking cells, and the 2007 "surge" of US forces as contributing to a dramatic improvement in security in many parts of Iraq, cutting casualties among both Iraqi civilians and US troops.

It is too soon to know if the trend will last or whether the reduction of American forces in coming months, as planned, will undermine what remains a fragile security on the ground.

Nor does it signal that victory is imminent. Instead, the security gains present a "window of opportunity" that will stay open only if economic opportunity, government coherence, and stronger Iraqi security forces materialize in Iraq, says a senior defense official.

"If those things don't occur, then you'll begin to see things backslide on the military side," says the official, who asked not to be named in order to speak more freely.

It's far from clear if the pieces that US officials see as needing to come together in Iraq will do so. Much of the Iraqi government is still not functional, and US commanders marvel at its inability to spend its budget – seen as key to establishing permanent security by stimulating economic activity and restoring basic services to Iraqis.

120 deaths in May; 23 in OctoberThe Pentagon reported 23 service members killed in combat this month as of Tuesday, noting that insurgent and other attacks have plunged in violence-prone places like Baghdad. As recently as May, as the Pentagon completed its "surge" of about 30,000 additional US forces and began military operations in more dangerous areas of Iraq, US combat deaths were five times as high, with 120 killed. This month, by contrast, the casualty rate is on par with that of March 2006, when 27 service members were killed. Since the beginning of the war, only a few months have seen fewer fatalities than this month, including February 2004, arguably the predawn of the insurgency in Iraq, when 12 US service members were killed.

Still, the number of US forces killed so far this year is a few dozen more than the total number killed in action during all of 2006. Yet the recent trend is a positive sign, officials and analysts say.

What makes it significant is that US forces in Iraq are still conducting operations, not "hunkering down" in the relative security of the many sprawling US bases.

"There is no other way to interpret it but as extremely good news," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington.

Conditions remain dangerous, of course. A suicide bomber on Monday killed nearly 30 people at the morning roll call of a police unit in Baquba, north of Baghdad. The same day, a brigadier general assigned to the US Army Corps of Engineers became the most senior American officer to be seriously injured by a roadside bomb. He is expected to make a full recovery. In the meantime, extremist elements within the Iraqi security forces pose an ongoing concern.

But it's hard to argue with fewer US casualties, says Mr. O'Hanlon, who is both hawkish and critical of the war. He took some flak over the summer for co-writing an op-ed that critics said was too rosy about the troop surge in Iraq, though much of the article's analysis has so far been borne out.

"There are a million things still wrong in Iraq, but it is extremely good news in what remains a very difficult war," he says.

In Iraq, there's never a simple answer to any question, and the explanation for why security is improving is no different.

The so-called Anbar Awakening, in which Sunni sheikhs in Anbar Province came together to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, and an apparent retreat of the Shiite militia Jash al-Mahdi have lessened the number of bombings and other violence, US military commanders in Iraq say. In addition, the proliferation of what is known as "concerned citizens" – average Iraqis typically paid by the US to maintain security in their neighborhoods – has changed the security situation on the ground in places like Babil and Diyala Provinces, where both US and Iraqi officials say people have tired of the violence.

But the senior military official says recent discoveries of major weapons caches – five in the past week – and the disruption of bombmaking cells by going after their leaders have also had an impact.

"We've really focused on attacking the leadership," the senior defense official says. "We're really focusing on trying to take down that enemy line of operation."

But the situation there is still very wait-and-see. Pentagon officials say violence in Iraq is down considerably since the last of the surge forces arrived there in early summer, and incidents during the holy month of Ramadan – typically a time of heightened violence – were the lowest in three years, according to Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning at the Pentagon, during a briefing last week. (Iraq's Interior Ministry has reported that the nation's death toll in October is at the lowest level in 18 months.)

"While this is indeed encouraging, Al Qaeda in Iraq, other extremist groups, and criminal elements in Iraq continue to be major threats," he said. "The likelihood that those groups will attempt spectacular attacks, especially in places like northern Iraq and in and around different areas of Baghdad, remains significant."

Lawrence Korb, a former top Pentagon official who is now at the liberal Center for American Progress, another think tank in Washington, says he is hopeful but not altogether confident that a drop-off in troop losses represents a turning point in Iraq.

"We've seen these lulls before," says Mr. Korb, a critic of US policy in Iraq. He's hoping this one will be permanent.

More US losses in '07 than '06There have been more US combat-related fatalities in Iraq in the first 10 months of this year, 713, compared with all of last year, in which 704 US service members died, he notes.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, has said he is planning to cut the number of US brigades in Iraq from 20 to 15 by sometime next summer, with some reductions coming later this year. About 170,000 US forces are in Iraq now. A brigade has about 3,500 service members. Many analysts say that plan is doable, but suggest that, given the current competency of the Iraqi security forces, the second phase of a withdrawal is a much farther reach.

Increased security could unravel when more US troops are sent home, says Korb.

"I think it offers you hope if you're willing to keep a very large number of troops in there for a very long time."

This isn't exactly the kind of story you'd see on Dateline or ABC News.

Let the Truth Be Spread!
Crispy

The Way Things Work

Hello Free Thinkers of the World,

I hope this message finds you happy, safe & fit. The last few days I've started to become irritated with fat people again. Don't bother posting your "You're an insensitive puke" blah blah blah messages, either.

Obesity (from here on out referred to as "fatness") isn't a disease.
It isn't a "social problem".
It isn't a disorder.
Fatness is laziness.

With the exception of those who's thyroids have gone berserk, and a few other rare exceptions, the state of being fat or "fatness" is your own fault. Don't blame it on the way your parents raised you or the fact that no-one else in the class liked you. They might not have liked you because you were fat, but instead of their taunts becoming your motivation to change, you isolated yourself further & found relief in the Double Quarter Pounders that you'd throw down after an exhaustive day in the 4th grade. Logic would lead us to conclude that when you no longer fit in a seat at the movie theater, you need to change. However, in our modern twisted way of "Oh, it isn't your fault" thinking, people have come to believe that the movie theater should accommodate our fatness by getting wider chairs. WRONG ANSWER.

Time for a fatness horror story. So, I was going on a trip & wherever I was headed, I need to fly there. Well, I get on the plane & take up my seat (either in the middle or by the window, I can't recall exactly). As luck would have it, a not-fit female was assigned to the seat next to me. Do you know what I observed & was continued to be horrified by for the duration of the flight? I took note of how her fat conformed to and overlapped the armrests! Needless to say (I'm pretty sure I was in the middle seat), I kept my head & eyes straight forward for the rest of the flight. Do you know how sore your arms, after several hours of having your hands folded in your lap, can get when you can't put your elbows on the arm rests? They begin to burn quite smartly after a while. You know, that is a rather awkward situation to begin with. "Excuse me, ma'am. Could you please pick up your fat and shift it to the other side so I can use my arm rest? My arms are getting a little sore from being out front like this." That would have made for an even more awkward situation.

Back to the point, fatness is your fault. Webster defines "obesity" (fatness) as, "a condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body". According to Healthline.com, there are three common caused to fatness. They are: 1) consumption of more food [calories] than the body can use, 2) excess alcohol intake, 3) sedentary lifestyle. I think with just #1 & #3 they described about 90% of America. *light bulb* Oh wait, that's why most of America is fat.

Now, its time to prove my earlier point of "Fatness is laziness". Webster & Healthline agreed that the state of being fat (fatness) is caused by taking in more food (calories) than you expend. This intake/expenditure ratio is further skewed by the fact that fat people sit around (sedentary lifestyle) and don't do anything. If you're fuzzy on how calorie intake should work, here's an example. Our bodies are very similar to motor vehicles. For this exercise, the gas tank is your stomach/intestines, the odometer is your activity level and the fuel is your food. You put more gas in a car when it has spent the fuel it had previously taken in, correct? The rate at which the car consumes (metabolizes) the fuel (food) is directly related to the distances it travels (work done). Therefore, your food intake should be like a car with fuel as opposed to a savings account (in a perfect picture). In a savings account, you are hopefully putting in more money than is going out. This practice will leave you with an excess of money in the future (something we would all like). However, when you take in more food than your body uses, the excess food is deposited in your body which brings us back to becoming fat.

"You didn't explain how being fat is lazy". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. You are FAT as a result of NOT doing anything which is known as being LAZY. Hopefully this lesson of "The Way Things Work" has been helpful to you and has increased your understanding of how the body works. If you are fat, I truly hope you take this message and use it as motivation to change. In the words of Jonathan Ramirez, "If you keep telling a fat kid he's fat, he'll eventually lose weight." Hopefully we can all have the courage to tell our friends & family that they're fat which will lead to their changing. I'm not even going to bother discussing all the negative effects of being fat.


Big is NOT Beautiful; Fat is NOT Okay.
You're FAT, America. Change!

Crispy