More on the destruction

Lovely, just lovely.

Got home from a few glasses of wine last night to discover the destruction crew left a 20" television on my bed.  The old kind, heavy.

Tipsy me still managed to move it to the floor and get a bit of sleep.

Still woke before five and was at Starbucks before the doors opened.  Distinctive lack of eye candy there this AM too.

At least my pornograph is up and running.  Hot Asian office girls are so cute ;)

More on the book

Noticed that I had not mentioned this.  Some feedback on the web page for Suki I.

While I was editing it on Sunday during the Indy race, a former Marine buddy liked the bit about same sex marriage and the unexpected effects.  He was also of the same mind as me that the smoking in public places pendulum will be swinging back in about 20 years.

I mentioned in an earlier post, "Big D", seemed to glean a whole lot of things that I was not really intending.  I guess the actual book will be a surprise for folks who read the page and their takeaway is like his.

Note 28 Mar. 09:  Big D was not able to open the file, not sure why.

He is expecting a "dark" world, more of a dystopia I suppose.  The mention of the BDSM fashions becoming more common is just for two necklaces mentioned in the book.  Maybe some of the other fashions, but it reminded him of how sometimes news reporters were leather tops, odds and ends and that it is a bigger theme in the book.  It might be mentioned more in the second book.

I think it is written generally happy.  The characters are successful but not filthy rich, other than one minor character who retired at 30 and drinks way too much, but straightens up before the end.  There is some tragedy, the couple nearly does not begin to date, John is attracted to the wrong woman, etc.  But it works out to a happy ending.

Have had good feedback from people who have read chunks of it.  One I am not sure was an honest assessment, but people are that way sometimes.

Time for lunch, maybe, after I check on my destruction crew.

ASIN:B0029F1UGC 
ISBN: 978-0-9824686-0-9

Dating break and other random thoughts

My GOD, this remodeling crap seems that it will never end.  Kinda puts a dent in the dating scene too.

Bringing a lady home to a wall-to-wall disaster frequently spoils the romance.  Have been with a few in the past who did not have a problem with messes.  One would frequently say "I didn't care if your place was a mess as long as I could find you."  Might be one reason why she was the longest non-marriage relationship I ever had too.

So, as I settled in to pretty much avoid a bunch of badly overdue tasks and oversee the destruction crew removing drywall from the bedroom half of my condo, my best friend Danielle gives me a call.  Her husband, Dennis, had another seizure at his job site in DC.  The only help I got to give was Googling up the hospital for Danielle.

She just called, Dennis is okay now.  I am not sure if it is bad or good that when I am feeling depressed and I am reminded that there are people in much worse shape than me, I stop feeling so bad about myself.  But then I feel bad that I can't help them like I wished I could.

Danielle was a big help on the latest dating mistake, so I don't need to vent about it here :)  But she did invite me to the hospital to pickup chicks.  Not a bad idea, but I think I need a few weeks off from that.

Just emailed the office to tell them I am stuck here all day and at least tomorrow morning.

Should be getting some book feedback from a bartender buddy today, I hope.  He was off yesterday and only bar tends two days per week.  He is one of the people I renamed a background character for (Big D at the brat bar) and will have a bigger role in the next book.

Back to resume editing, job hunting and the pile of bills that are still backed up from the January condo mess, while surrounded by said mess.

Shilling for Small Time Terrorists

Expect more of this, until we get some actual facts in this case:

How A Government Mole Won The Loyalty Of The Newburgh Four

By Zachary Roth - May 25, 2009, 11:31AM

Reports last week suggested that the Newburgh four -- the men arrested Wednesday for plotting to bomb two New York synagogues -- perhaps weren't theswiftest ships in her majesty's fleet. But over the weekend, people close to the four came forward to describe how the government informant at the center of the case against them -- the man known to the suspects as Maqsood -- aggressively courted the men before luring them into an imagined jihad.

Expect comparisons to the Randy Weaver case too, no matter how they are completly different.  Just how are they completly different?  Weaver was just a guy who wanted to be left alone, well he and his family.  He was asked to infiltrate a group he wanted nothing to do with and refused.   And he shortened a shotgun to a length that required yet another stupid federal license.

Cases where the various actors were 'talked into' plots to blow stuff up, talked into smuggling jewelry or drugs, talked into all sorts of other bad stuff I have no sympathy for.  I have little sympathy for people who "just knew bad people" too.  Try staying the hell away from them.

It certainly does not help my point-of-view that when I have actually known people who turned out to be shady, the people making excuses or otherwise defending them them ended up being just as shady.

On the other hand, when given a multiple choice quiz and one of the answers is 'the government is at fault', that is my answer until proven otherwise.

Did the FBI create this whole plot just like they were shown in court to have done with a Georgia Militia in the 1990's?  Don't know yet and neither does anybody else writing about it.

I do enjoy the retro-Leftist nastalgia titling of the TMP story.  David Horowitz has mentioned that style from his days as a radical Leftist during many speeches and interviews.

Some interesting comments from the Reasonoids:

Kyle Jordan | May 26, 2009, 8:08am | #

"D.C. councilman blames pizza for crime."

That article made my head hurt.

"How a government informer wooed the Newburgh 4."

I don't really feel sorry for these guys simply because they chose to carry it through but there is definitely something wrong if this "Maqsood" badgered them as much as claimed. I guess it's no longer enough to just claim terrorism threats or let would be actual terrorists use our systems against us (something that will ALWAYS happen). We now have to actively manufacture them.

Abdul | May 26, 2009, 9:09am | #

I doubt there is a ton of Al-Qaeda operatives in Kansas to recieve such messages...

MNG,

They got 19 people into America for September 11th. After that, they got Jose Padilla in (even if he was captured soon thereafter). Whatever you want to say about his treatment or detention, no one questions that Padilla recieved training from Al Quaeda.

And all Al quaeda needs is a few people to get in to america to amount an escape attempt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_helicopter_prison_escapes

Unlike these guys in the 27 helicopter escapes in the Wikipedia article, Al Quaeda has shown that they are willing to trade their own lives for publicity in suicidal attacks.

One of the great advantages of gitmo is that we got Castro to run interference for us. The US is an open society, one where stealing firearms or hijacking a helicopter is far easier than in Cuba. 

The decision to close gitmo has nothing to do with the issues of due process for detainees or concerns about humanitarian treatment. Detainees can be denied due process and treated inhumanely in the US just as well as outside it. This decision is only about public relations.

P Brooks | May 26, 2009, 11:06am | #

I'm still waiting for the FBI to place an order for my "You can be a TERRORIST- ask me how!" t-shirts.

Same Sex Marriage still banned in California, sort of

From the Washington Post:

Calif. Ruling Shows Hurdles Remain for Gay Marriage

By Keith B. Richburg

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state.

The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married.

Now, if they would just get rid of heterosexual marriage maybe we will be approaching equality.

Some interesting comments from the Reasonids:

♪ May 26, 2009, 1:45pm #

There was actually a brief filed at the time after the first ballot proposal was overturned that would have put a halt on marring same-sex couples until the second ballot proposal was voted on. This would have been prudent in a time when the question was in flux.

Also, "gay marriage" is a misnomer. Nobody asks for sexual preference when filling out a marriage license.

ellipsis May 26, 2009, 5:47pm #

The Hef seems to be able to find multiple girlfriends. What if he wanted to marry all of them? The only thing that would change is the (now) wives ability to get tax deductions and estate matters.

Marriage used to be a license to have sex. That's why polygamy was banned, because the LDS was considered a freakshow. In modern times, marriage has nothing to do with sex. And yes I know I'm condensing, but bear with me. Polygamy wasn't even banned in the US until 1862, and only because of what amounted to religious persecution. The Merrill anti-Bigamy Act should have been overturned on first amendment grounds. But the majority is always willing to throw any odd practices under the bus for the morality of America.

I think polygamy should be legal - along with any other human marriage arrangement - but considering how hard it is to get same-sex marriage legalized, I doubt it'll happen any time soon.

Jeff May 26, 2009, 5:54pm #

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT marriage. It may be a civil union, but it is not marriage.

I think the argument that the government should not issue marriage licenses is a valid one. Perhaps the government should issue "civil union" licenses and then if a man and woman want to get married, they may do so in whatever ceremony they wish. Then, everyone has equal rights and we don't redefine words.

For me, it's as much a logical argument as anything else. We might as well pass legislation that says day is night and night is day. That won't change the fact that the sun is visible at about the same time every day (oops, night) - we'll just change what that period of time is called.

For the record: I am against government involvement in marriage and that is one thing my fictional character of this name shares with me.

In other news, our crazy immigration policy was a factor in a friend of mine, who I used to date, getting married so that she does not have to keep going back to England for visa renewals.