Two thoughts that struck me this week

Subject:  Women In Combat.

In much of the occidental media that I indulge, where the subject of women in combat is encountered, the usual reason NOT TO boils down to the instinctive drive of men to defend the woman. I.E. putting a co-ed combat platoon in the field in realistic conditions relative to a healthy moral society, the men will instinctively move to protect the woman, beyond normal means to protect their brothers-in-arms, at the peril of obtaining the objective.

The usual reason TO boils down to if she can do it, let her. I.E. the situation is going to happen one way or anther, and historically always has.

Fine. My conclusions, without belaboring the issues:

To the first: No co-ed fraternization in the front line or active units: i.e. segregate the combat units by sex. Of course this will lead to some wanting to further segregate the units by sexual orientation, but that goes beyond my current point. As a secondary point, require some kind of fertility control on one or both sexes while in theater.

To the second: Particularly in the elite units, there are physical restrictions on who can qualify to join. Political Correctness lasts a shorter time on the battlefield than well made plans, and is quicker to get people killed. Therefore do not reduce the physical qualifications for the special units: there are many men who would like to serve in those units who do not meet the physical qualifications. Time has shown that where the qualification are viewed as a benchmark to strive for, members of either sex will meet the benchmark if they work hard enough. E.g. female firefighters.

Summary: if they can do it, let them, but organize things rationally so that the combat effectiveness is not compromised. This is usually done by initial segregation, which segregation obtains until all are willing to accept the competence and qualification of all.

Subject: the morality of modern media

I recently graduated with a Media Arts and Animation degree, but find myself having trepidations about going to work in the available industries.

Video Games: I find myself turned off by the realistic combat and First-Person-Shooters and by the violence and moral vacuity portrayed by so many of the popular games, and do not want to work in an industry that promotes such moral vacuity. I am less bothered by a good ‘bug-hunt’ video game, but still recognize the latent hypocrisy there.

Further to that end, I rejected opportunities to work in the Gaming Industry that supports gambling, for the same basic reason.

Television and Movies: I have found that the writing quality and morality of the broadcast and film industries is increasingly lacking, and drifting father from the traditional morals of civilized society.

- Father no longer knows best, but is instead a buffoon whose only purposes are to donate sperm at the wish of the woman, and be the nominal income source, after whatever goodies and handouts the government and mother provides.

- Mother knows best, and puts up with the afore mentioned buffoon only as long he amuses her. She works away from the home, provides for herself and what ever offspring happen to reside under the same roof.

- so many of the current crop of shows delve into investigation of the deviant and psychologically sick, and to some extent show that the ‘hero’s’ are just as damaged as the villains.

- nobody preaches or lives traditional morality without some sneering and jeering by the peanut gallery. After all, it’s all relative, and you should choose for your self, unless the god-that-is-government has made a law that says otherwise.

And all problems are solved by the closing credits.

Maybe I am too puritanical, or too Christian, or too old fashioned, or just not politically correct, but I am sick of ‘good writing' being the only thing a given show has to promote it. Particularly when the writing is a continual exploration of depravity and evil.

Summary: If I am going to work in these industries, I want to do it among people who uphold and put forth morals similar to my own, and produce product of uplifting and obvious moral caliber.

‘‘Truth, Justice, and the American Way’? You will be fighting against every elected official in the land.’

No: just those indoctrinated by, and living according to evil, and moral relativism.

a couple of random thoughts

I was riding my bike home from my part-time under-employment, when the thought came: "Who is being groomed to succeed President Obama?"
This stems partly from a Sunday Dinner conversation some weeks back. In summary the last Vice President who could have been elected President was. That was President G.H.W.Bush, succeeding President Reagan. Since then, we had:
D.Quayle: vilified as an idiot and a joke by the media
Algore: has repeatedly proven his inadequacies
R. "Darth" Cheney: scared the political left silly
Joebiden: almost the joke that Quayle was, at least in his public speaking
Everyone of these Vice Presidents could use the Secret Service code name of 'Assassination Insurance.'

So who is being groomed in the wings? Or has this setup of passing the Presidential office from party to party been deliberately set up by the-powers-what-are-behind-the-scenes?

Maybe that is one more reason why Mitt Romney lost this time around: he is not a political hack and might have actually fixed some things.

- - -

I recently asked the question to myself: what one law could have been suggested to the Biden Meetings about guns that would actually be effective to stop mass shootings?
The lunatics who do these things are already in violation of numerous social and natural laws, so trying to put another in place to stop the criminal through control of weapon availability is not going to work.
I read Ann Coulter's latest article and the answer came to me: make it easier to commit lunatics to asylums: most of the mass shootings are committed by lunatics, who show some history of being such, but have been shuffled off onto someone else in society because it was not an option to have then committed and placed where they could avoid doing harm to others.

 - - -

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What do I think it is for?
The Second Amendment protects the power of the people from the government. The Constitution is the People giving the Government authority, thus creating a constitutional republic. Those who want a 'more proactive constitution where it tells what the government will do for the people' want to change this, and they call it a democracy. I suggest finding out what Aristotle had to say is the difference between a 'republic' and a 'democracy.'

In short the second amendment protects the peoples right to take arms against Tyrants, and those who support them. It protects the peoples right to choose what form of government they will countenance.
Power to the people.

Thus the type of weapon it protects is that kind of arm that the militia will need to use to combat the armies of the tyrants.
Small arms: pistols, knives, other single hand weapons. . .
Long arms: rifles , bows, swords, other multi-hand weapons. . .
Crew served weapons: cannon, machine guns, catapults. . .

Do I need or want to keep a hand grenade in my house? No. Most rational people will not argue with regulation infernal devices, and keeping the military grade devices at the military arsenal.
The same argument for cannon, tanks, crew-served weapons, ICBM's or any of the other military class/grade weapons is valid: let them stay on the military reservation, and in the care of the military loyal to the people it is to defend, rather than the person giving the orders to attack and oppress the people.

To reiterate after venting and wandering across this field of ideas:
1) by natural law power flows from the people to the government.
2) the constitution limits what the government may do.
3) the militia is the first line of defense for the community against:
Tyrants: those who seek to enforce their will, in violation of natural law, upon my freedom, my society, my family, my neighbors, etc.
Predators: those who seek to enforce their unlawful will upon my person, and family.
Varmints: those who seek to enforce their unlawful will upon my property.


A militia was essentially a posse of local citizens organized for the protection of the community at large, usually comprised of every able-bodied adult male not in his gentrification. I.E, the boys not yet responsible enough to serve and the old men considered too old to mobilize quickly were excused.

As an aside, I once was taught in a history class that the Roman Legions (100 men) would have the oldest-ready-to-retire stand at the back lines, with the youngest-first-years mixed among them. That way, the youngest would be buttressed in their not panicking by the oldest Vets. and the old hands could show the know-it-all youngsters how its really done.

big gun issue?

Two thoughts about President Obama's grandstanding on his imperial gun actions:

If we should move immediately to save the lives of even one young child, then lets de-fund the abortion  industry.

If the administration is going to vigorously go after those involved in the illegal use and sale of weapons, is he going to go after Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious stuff?