Requiem Aeternam Dona Eis, Domine

You spin; you twirl; you flit about,

possessed of trenchant style.

You dance the dance the others do,

far better by a mile.

And as you blithely dominate,

you condescend to smile

upon the fellow revelers you've

enchanted and beguiled.

They do not know; they cannot know;

and you are in denial:

For all your skill, and all your might,

your soul's been scarred by bile.

The tune once called, the others step,
so you quick to the tile.

Why is it that you've never asked

if dancing is worthwhile?

Sucked In: Women to Ranger School

"The U.S. Army is considering putting female soldiers through Ranger School"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-women-rangers-idUSBRE84G00820120517?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

With that, my "I don't talk politics; it's pointless" went right out the window.  I'm a hypocrite.  I've had several discussions/postings about the topic.

One such commenter, against the grain of "This is idiotic", stated:

"...that is the responce every time a system or program is considered for change to allow the entry of women. It is a position designed to bet on failure. I think that there are a few capable women who would prefer to bet on success.
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"

Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who argues with him?  I get it. I'm aware.  That's my typical position.

But, however

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his."  

For which I found the rather brilliant paraphrase "So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence."  http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/17146/eVerseID/17147#ixzz1vDhpoANc

So off I went:

"...that is a beautiful, lofty position and one that has been propounded by such heralded minds as Plato. The problem is that it's beautiful in theory and not reality. You speak of the Righteous Amazon [let's call her Camilla (Virgil's Aeneid) to keep with classical concept since the idea is nearly two thousand years old] who will break the mold and not only be on the same field as men but lead and possibly dominate. You say "when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up". Quite right, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on that being likely.

To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.

And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.

IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.

THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.

We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.

And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.

When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.

Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.

"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.

Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.

For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.

To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.

Of course (OF COURSE) the gentleman could not let that go as the final word.

"I have no problem being in league with Plato. You do know that my use of QB was just an example. The question remains: is there a rule in the NBA, NHL, MLB or NFL that bars women? I don't think so, and a woman who can cut the mustard will make the team. The ham-fisted analogy, was in response to Bill's reference to pro sports. It is a meritocracy and entertainment. The sport and the crowd must be fed.
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "

This time I kept it short:

"I say that just because one man might be able to run around the bases faster than a horse (might), you don't therefore put him in the Kentucky Derby."  

 

Goddam Politics (Us v. Them Is @#$!ing Childish)

A relative emailed me this recently:

"AJAX'S KIN"	7:49 PM (45 minutes ago)
to AJAX, "ANOTHER KINSMAN"

I don't usually pass political stuff on but this is alarming!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "POLITICO"
Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Fw: New law just signed by the President
To:

Subject: New law just signed by the President

 YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW!  PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!! 

This is really frightening.  Why did I not know about this?   sneaked another one in on us.

New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence

This  means that, wherever Obama is, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for  more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?   

WATCH  AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKEOVER OF  AMERICA ...

Guess  you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the  scariest thing this guy has done yet.

 Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March  2012?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium

 
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

My (Ajax's) response:

It's only alarming if you take the news at face value, which I don't.  Here's the Library of Congress text of the bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

In order to protest, it has long been established that you may need a permit and that those permits are typically freely given though with minor restrictions to location for security purposes.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit)  That's to ensure "orderly" protest and so police and officials don't consider you a threat.  On the face of it, this bill does not violate that.

We'll go line by line by this bill for the relevant parts:

(a)Whoever,
(1)  knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so

 "restricted buildings or ground without lawful authority to do so".  Think about that couple who purposely crashed a White House dinner a few years ago for a publicity stunt.  They knew they were entering the White House and knew they weren't supposed to be there (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Salahi-Special-78131427.html).  Surely, you can understand why the government wants to criminalize things like that.  Fines may not stop attention whores; time in prison will.  If you think those people are harmless, think about the distraction they can cause for the Secret Service that could open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

This the one that journalists are using to play up the "Obama is EVIL and taking away our right to protest just because he doesn't want to hear dissent!" angle.  The only problem is that it has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the President.  It has to do with people making a scene at events where the President is.  At a town hall meeting, if someone wants to hold the President's feet to the fire when they are given the microphone, they are in no way "in fact" impeding or disrupting the function.  If the President's at a townhall meeting though, and someone who hasn't been given the microphone suddenly stands up and starts shouting at the President and his conduct is so egregious that the Secret Service has to intervene, well, yes, that person would be violating.  Free Speech does not allow you to endanger the President or VP.  Causing a scene out of context, again, would distract the Secret Service and open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds

What this will prevent is people knowingly blocking the president's (and VP's) ability to enter and exit his residence, which I'm fairly certain is illegal as it is (and should be), or places where he is speaking.  If our nations' enemies were able to foment protests that blocked evacuation or entry of the Pres or VP, then they would be easier targets for assassination.  Regardless of party, this is unacceptable.

or (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided

Surely this is straightforward.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

There are only a handful of people that I've ever discussed my political affiliation with so this isn't a matter of me "siding" with the President.  Outside of Republican or Democrat, this bill is not akin to "Hitler" ramming anti-dissent legislation through.  The Republicans control the House.  They don't help Obama with squat if they don't want to.  This got passed because it's common damn sense and reasonable. 

If you hate Obama or hated Bush, good for you.  Stick with "@#$! that guy"; that's enough; people get that.  The only thing that happens when you try to pump up stuff like this to justify/class up your "@#$! that guy" and manufacture a controversy where there isn't one is that you're showing you don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

But then you'd be like most people I've met who are into politics, so what do I know?

Self-Assessment Time (For You Beautiful People, Not Me)

There's only one rule: Be honest. 

Suggested Time: As long as it takes.

If a blind man wouldn't enjoy being around you or like you as a human being, it's time to tone down the "I know I'm hot!" or take a shower (hell, maybe both just to be safe) and then shut the hell up and think of something actually intelligent or interesting to say other than the prodigious amounts of useless drivel that lazily falls out of your face.

I'm not blind, but what I would say to you, if I saw you out and about making an inadvertent ass out of yourself and being a walking advertisement for why I sometimes (just sometimes) fervently pray for zombie apocalypse or planet-wide sterility, is this:

"Hi, 'The Sexiest/Most Ripped Person Here!,' I'm 'The Smartest Guy in the Room!.'  However, because I'm relatively smart, I know I'm one of many 'The Smartest Guy(s) in the Room!' and probably not the only one in this particular room. What I'm saying is...tone down the arrogance. It's great that you're pretty/strong/tanned/particularly hump-worthy.  Go about your business, hang out with your friends, make them laugh by actually being funny, and stop dressing and strutting like an attention whore. 

"I promise, promise!, PROMISE! that human beings are not peacocks.  If you're not so bright, or super clever, that's okay; work on being nice.  Everyone likes nice (except weirdos).  We'll still see that you're hot.  If a hot person in normal clothes not making a scene is in a room of not-hot people also not making a scene, trust me, all the not-hot people will be aware of the one hottie. Painfully aware. Other hotties will too. 

"But get this...it works better for you to tone it down.  Really. 

"The people you're attracting with that aggravating, ignorant crap?  Complete and utter shitheads.  So if you're a hot guy wondering why you can't find a nice girl or you're hot chick who always seems to be attracting jerks, put two and two together.  There's a reason why annoying-ass, beautiful celebrities marry and divorce in record time. Think about it.

"Or, you know, remain completely and utterly un-self-aware.  Perhaps life will be roses for you in your obnoxious obliviousness.

"But I'll be rolling my eyes and wishing hateful things upon you and taking some small solace in the fact that, eventually, hot goes away and you'll be stuck having to put up with yourself, because no one else will."