Our rent just functionally went up $200. They've decided to cease paying electricity (which is what brought us here in the first place) and we're going month-to-month. ($150 for electricity and $50 for mo-2-mo.) This is especially rubbing salt in the wound because we were sooo going to move out of here. We've gotten three erroneous eviction notices (one on my birthday, no less, which lead to an argument that ended a sorta relationship I was in), a pothole in the parking lot four feed wide and half a foot deep, and the last straw was when they towed JD's car on a registration violation (On January 3rd, his registration had been three days expired) most likely in return for a kickback.

However, because both of us are unemployed at present, we cannot leave.

But! But there are silver linings here:
1) We love the apartment. Despite the worst management we've ever dealt with (and our previous complex was analogous to the barrios), the apartment is cool in both form and function. The front side has a European decadent charm and the back makes this place feel like a giant tree house. The first floor (we occupy the second and third) looks like a little cave because it's half a floor below the elevated walkway. Though I'm not a dungeons and dragons person, the idea of cave and tree villages is conceptually cool and I was going to miss that.

2) As much as we loathe our management, they were quite entertaining today. They tried to explain that they were not functionally raising rent by no longer including electricity. "We're charging the same amount. Actually, this is the first time in a year our rent hasn't gone up!" When I explained to them it was still functionally going up, they looked at me like I was stupid and kept saying "It's still only $889 a month!"

3) I was also going to miss our neighbors.

4) If I'd been terminated a week later, we'd have turned in our 30-day notice and we'd literally have nowhere to go. If I'd been terminated a month later, I'd be saddled with a much larger lease (I was looking at getting a much nicer place, being comfortably employed and all).

5) It was quite possibly that Danforth was not going to be able to move with me, and as roommates we compliment each other extremely well. Even a week ago when I could afford to live on my own, I still would rather have living with him.

I want to thank everyone who has written, tried to write, called, or tried to call since the termination. For those of you I was unable to respond to, I apologize. I'm still in the process of trying to figure out where I'm going to go from here and until I have some semblence of a direction, I am completely at a loss as to what to say to people.

One thing about me when I am really upset or angry about something is that my immediate inclination is to look inward. Some seek to connect to other people and I can understand that (in fact, when the problem is not so seriously, I get a lot out of talking about it to other people), but my inclination is to find a proverbial treehouse in the woods, climb inside, and try to figure things out. Though this was not completely unexpected, the timing absolutely was and I am left a bit stunned. I will try to find something else to post before the week is out, but I'm not all that ready to talk about it yet and I can't find much else to really talk about. I am also technically still on their payroll as part of my whopping two day severence package for which I am expected to stay home and provide phone technical support for my replacement, who was waiting in the lobby at the time of my exit.

So, thanks again for the letters, messages, links, and emails. I really do appreciate the support, even if I can't verbally acknowledge it at the moment.

[Originally posted on the No-Lyfe Journal]

First: So why did you call us here?
Second: Yeah. What's up?
Third: I was relieved of my duties at work today...
First: Holy crap!
Second: Woah...
Third: Yeah.
First: So what now?
Second: Yeah, what now?
Third: What now?


[Go Back to Start]

[Originally posted on the No-Lyfe Journal]

Audrey: When was the first time the thought popped in your head that we might not make it?
David: That’s not the game.
Audrey: It's our first date, there aren’t any rules
David: I’m not sure
Audrey: Think carefully
David: What about the game?
Audrey: It’s over, I won. Look maybe it wasn’t a specific moment, maybe it was-
David: I had a nightmare. One night. I didn’t wake you up to tell me that it was okay. I think that was the first time. Does that count?

-David and Audrey Dunn, Unbreakable

The Second is at the campaign headquarters of the Phil Sudan for Congress campaign. I'm ostensibly covering it for a conservative publication that I worked for, but the publication's preference for Sudan's primary opponent precluded anything positive bring written about Sudan. I figured as much, but I went anyway because there was free food and it was a good chance to meet people. Sudan hadn't won me over, but I couldn't help but admire the man's history and social standing. Successful corporate lawyer turned congressional candidate. Sudan won the primary that night, so it was a rather happy occasion. Having rooted for his opponent, I was less than thrilled, but it was hard not to get swept in the excitement of a come-from-behind victory.

Third: Okay, I give, why are we here?
First: Do you feel the least bit false here? Celebrating with a candidate that you weren't in favor of?
Third: It's not like it mattered, really. Whoever won the nomination was going to lose the general election. Besides, Reiser got his chance last year and lost. Sudan also ran again up in Dallas and lost. In the end, it really doesn't matter so much.
First: That's beside the point. The point wasn't that you weren't being true to your convictions.
Third: What convictions? It literally did not matter one iota who won. I was invited to this party and I wasn't invited to Reiser's. They were interchangable, really.
First: *sigh*
Third: Why does any of this matter?
First: It's indicative of a trend. You just went with the flow when you were him [pointing to The Second]. You did things because you thought you should. Not because you wanted to.
Third: Sometimes you have to. Especially in cases like this where it doesn't really matter and you can just celebrate and be happy that you were, if tepidly, backing the right horse. There was a lot to admire about Sudan, if felt at the time.
First: Like he hadn't paid child support in two years?
Third: That hadn't surfaced yet. It would have been a different matter if it had. At the time, he was just a corporate lawyer - which I was aiming to be - with a tight family and ostensibly happy life. Wealthy, too.
First: Since when did you care about wealth?
Third: I did at the time. I was going to be a lawyer.
First: Why were you going to be a lawyer?
Third: A lot of reasons. I find law and policy interesting, for starters. It was also a good way to be successful and make money.
First: And why did you want to make money?
Third: There's nothing wrong with making money. It's the American way and all that.
First: But it's not what you wanted to do.
Third: Sure it was.
First: Then why didn't you become one?
Third: A lot of reasons.
First: Such as?

The Second hugs the daughter of Sudan's campaign manager goodbye. It's apparent that he has to go to bed. He has to head out to work.

Third: Looks like we're about to leave.
First: Indeed. We're not done yet, though.

When we get outside, it's not pitch black like it should be at midnight or so when I usually left for work. In fact, judging by the sun, it's still day time. Furthermore, as we drive down Westheimer, we're going the wrong direction.

Third: What's going on? Why is it day time and why are we headed down the wrong way of Westheimer?
First: We're on our way to the publication's office to meet the other editors. We're going to be there for a couple hours, then we're going down to the bus depot to pick up Brian. We're going to drop him off and get some sleep. We haven't slept in almost 40 hours.
Third: I guess some things never changed.

The semester this all came down was perhaps the most hectic of my college career. I had a full time job and a full time classload. Not only that, but all of my classes were on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so twice a week for a 36 hour span or so, I'd only be able to get brief naps (if that) for a 36 hour span as I went to work, class, and then work again. This was actually how I learned to stay awake for such long periods of time, a skill I unfortunately use regularly these days.

First: This is Friday. Do you remember what Friday this is?
Third: [thinks about it. nods]
First: So you know what's about to happen?
Third: [nod]
First: But we have some time to kill, so let's talk.
Third: About?
First: Let's talk about why you wanted to make a lot of money.
Third: Dammit.
First: So why did you want to be make a lot of money?
Third: American way and apple pie. Remember?
First: No, why did you want to be a lawyer and make a lot of money? You know the answers I'm looking for, so spill it.
Third: I wanted to be a lawyer to prove that I could. For all of the problems I've had in school my entire life, they seemed to be behind me. If I could have made it through law school, I'd have proven once and for all that I was undoubtedly a success. And the money was good.
First: And why was the money important to you? Remember, I know the answer, I just want you to say it so you will realize how silly it sounds.
Third: That's not going to work because it's not silly. I wanted to make a lot of money so that Anna could have her Whitlock compound. Her ambitions required a lot of money. She was never going to make that money, so I had to.
First: Did she ever ask you to go to law school?
Third: No. I brought it up.
First: Did she ever ask you to make a lot of money so that she could have the house and yard of her dreams? Did she ever ask you to get that for her?
Third: No, but she wanted it all the same. She was making plans for it and she was never going to make the money for it. She'd dropped out of college and was making $8 at PETsMART as a dog trainer. Something was going to have to give, so I started preparing for law school and taking the LSAT.
First: But she never asked you to do any of this. She only asked that you loved her and that you stay with her. You didn't.
Third: I did love her. She was the only reason I was so worried about money! I could have cared less.
First: But she never asked you to do any of this! Don't you dare blame her for this. You never asked her, never consulted with her, you just did it because you felt that was what was expected of you.
Third: I can't always do everything that I want to do.
First: I suppose not, but in a couple of minutes you're about to run a red light and another car is going to slam in to you. Why are you going to run a red light? Because you've been up for fourty hours, because you're on your way from job #1 to job #3. You're preoccupied with a thesis you have to write for an honors degree you don't need so that you can get into a law school to get a degree and make money for your girlfriend that never even asked that of you. Are you starting to see how out of control this is?
Third: Of course I see. Look, I'm not looking to return to those days. I am thinking about going to Phoenix and getting an MBA. That's a different matter entirely.
First: How so?
Third: First of all, I have no girlfriend to please. Secondly, no one expects nearly as much of me anymore. Thirdly, it's as good a thing to do as any. I've got to do something with my life.
First: Why do you want to get an MBA?
Third: To get a better job.
First: Why do you want a better job?
Third: To make more money.
First: What do you need more money for exactly?
Third: To support my wife and kids down the line.
First: But you don't have a wife and kids and you don't know what they'd want from you. Your track record in that regard leaves a lot to be desired.
Third: True, but it certainly wouldn't hurt my prospects on finding a wife to have kids with. Right now I'm just a glorified computer nerd. We're a dime-a-dozen
First: And middle-management is much better...
Third: It'll at least give me the outward appearence of being less of a nerd.
First: You're a nerd that is a prolific writer. That should be a draw for at least somebody out there.
Third: So far it's only been a draw for the Lisas of the world. Not something I'd really care much to repeat.
First: It always bothered you that Anna didn't appreciate your writing.
Third: She did appreciate my writing. She was the first reader of every draft of AHD that I wrote. With some constructive criticism and earnest applause.
First: Yes, but she couldn't relate to it. She's not a writer herself and so that you spent so much time and effort into creating stories and she couldn't be a part of that.
Third: Doesn't really matter, though. If I expected someone super-philosophical and a writer who could relate too closely to my weird mind, that would be a little... well.. weird I guess. I'm not looking for someone exactly like me, just a nice compliment to me. Anna was that, if not enough of one to make it last.
First: But how do you expect to find someone that can appreciate you at all if you pretend to be a middle manager? Be it someone romantic or just a friend?
Third: What's your point here?
First: My point is that you'll always have trouble socially if you continue to neglect your core being.
Third: Why do you keep saying my "core being"? I am what I choose to be.
First: Exactly what The Second thought. Now you're considering getting an MBA and making more money and then meeting someone under a false pretense -- that you are just a regular schmo like all the middle managers out there -- in the same way that you presented yourself to Anna as someone basically undriven by personal desires. If insanity is going the same thing over and over again expecting different results, you're quite clearly insane.

It was about then that that in the corner of my eye, I saw The Second's hand slip. His head falls back against the headrest in the seat of the car. He's blacked out. The light turns red just a second before we go into the Intersection. A car at the light in the opposite way sees his light turn green and slams on the accelerator, hitting us within seconds. The car spins around and The Second snaps out of it and jumps out of the car to make sure the other driver is alright. The First and I also get out and watch him scramble about trying to figure out what happened and what to do. Once the cars are moved out of the Intersection, The Second starts making phone calls. First to Dad, then to Anna.

Second: Anna, this is Alex. I know I was supposed to go over there this afternoon to sleep, but I've gotten held up. I'll try to make it over there as soon as I can. Might not be until late this afternoon. Sorry. I love you, bye.

First: You don't tell her what happened until you get there. Tonight you're going to have a nightmare about the accident and for the next three months, every time you're the first car into the intersection, your heart is going to skip a couple beats and you're going to have a low-level panic attack. You're never going to tell Anna about this and as you re-evaluate your priorities and back down from law school and cut down on your college hours, she's going to wonder what's going on. You're going to keep her completely out of the process and she's not going to know what's wrong until it's too late, leaving her angry and confused. Why? Because you can be anyone that you want to be, and you chose to be the time of person that doesn't share his problems.
Third: I'm well aware of the mistakes that I've made, thanks.
First: Are you?

[Part Four]

I got out of the apartment at around four, which gave me about an hour and a half to reach a Crawfish festival in Huntsville, starring a who's who in Texas artists (Django Walker, Phil Pritchett, Honeybrowne, and Reckless Kelly). I'd gone to Yahoo Maps to get directions. Since I don't have a printer (I have four computers, three monitors, three sets of speakers, a digital camera, a scanner, but no printer) I had to handwrite the directions on an envelope, which I promply left on my keyboard as I raced out the door. No matter, the directions were simple enough (North of 45, right on TX-19, left on Sam Houston Somethingorother) so I kept on trucking.

As I drove north on 45, I noticed that the other side of the road was horribly backed up. I wondered what it was, but reasoned that whatever it was would be solved or otherwise not an issue at 2:30 or so in the morning when I was on my way back.

I cursed myself for not bringing the camera when I passed the famed Sam Houston statue. I stop at a convenience store and get some coke. Realizing that I'm a bit low on cash, I try to use the ATM. It returns and error and the clerk tells me it's moody. Oh well.

When I reached TX-19 I got off and by a strange series of turns not denoted in Yahoo Maps I ended up driving north for about 15 minutes, then south. Then I was lost. So I went north again. Then south. I must have passed Old Sam Houston Rd. fifteen times. I know because each time I saw it I got excited, but then it was pretty apparent that OSH was not Sam Houston Somethingorother. So I finally went on I-45 to see if it was really TX-91, or TX-21, or TX-somethingelse. Nope. Only TX-19. So I decided to track down the college campus, figuring that Sam Houston Somethingorother was a major street, I'd find it that way. So I followed the sign that said, as clear as day "SAM HOUSTON COLLEGE CAMPUS THIS WAY." So I got off and... whammo. Nothing. Next thing I knew I was passing Old Sam Houston Rd. on gool ole TX-19 again. So I doubled back ("Hi Old Sam Houston Rd. again!") and then doubled forth, turning at the first junction after the Exit Sign to SHSU That Leads To Nowhere. So I was on some highway called US70.

"Hey look! It's Old Sam Houston Rd!"

Drive drive drive.

"Old Sam Houston Rd again! Hi!!"

Near as I can tell, OSH is shaped like a pretzel, and no matter where you go your going to pass it at least once.

Drive drive drive.

There's the campus!

Drive drive drive.

Double back. "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!"

I still couldn't find Sam Houston Somethingorother, though. Until I swore I saw it in an address in the corner of my eye. Was I actually on Sam Houston Somethingorother?

Hmmm...

Double back. "Hi Campus!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!"

I kept looking for some indication of the road I was on. Maybe I wasn't on US70 anymore. Maybe US70 is also Sam Houston Somethingorother.

Double back. "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" "Hi Campus!"

Generally, when in this situation, I just look at an intersection and see what the road I'm on is by virtue of it telling the people crossing the road whether or not this was the road they needed to turn on. Funny thing, though, none of them were marked!

So I was apparently on the Road So Obvious It Doesn't Need a Sign. Since Sam Houston Whatsoever is a big road name without a location, I thought I might have had a match.

Drive Drive Drive. "Hi middle of nowhere!!"

Double back. "Hi Campus!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" "Hey Old Sam Houston Rd!" (Yes, I know the joke is old, but it was old for me when I kept passing them over and over again, so suffer with me. That will distribute the suffering equally and thus lower my level of suffering as since the events have already occured, the sum suffering is constant, and thus the more ways divided the less the total sum)

I finally see a sign that says "JOLLY FOX CRAWFISH FESTIVAL" and a whole bunch of cars parked on the grass. Except no one was there. I did some investigating and found a key piece of evidence. It was a three foot tall sign that said "Joe's Used Car Lot" (or something to that effect). Turns out it was just an advertisement for Joe to line his pocket at the expense of raising false hope for out-of-towners who forget to print out there maps and get lost very easily. The good news is, though, that I confirm the Road So Obvious It Doesn't Need a Sign, US70, and Sam Houston Somethingorother are all the same road.

So I drive back down The Road With Many Names very, very slowly looking for the address I remembered offhand (2504, or 2405, of 2045 or 2054... maybe 4502... no, no, definitely 2504). First of all, I'd like to say that even though I am a libertarian in most respects, if I was a mayor I would pass a law saying that every building must have the address in big, gawdy white letters so that out of towners know where the hell they are address-wise. We can call it the Road Rage Minimilization Act because driving five miles an hour trying to decipher itty bitty address signs (where they exist!)on TRWMN brings out the rage in just about everyone else. And, without such laws, no one is inclined to put a sign with big gawdy white letters on it because they figure if they're the establishment you're looking for, you don't need to know the address and, you know GOD FORBID THEY ACTUALLY ASSIST DRIVERS TRYING TO LOCATE ANOTHER ESTABLISHMENT! They reason that there is no way anyone would ever want to find another address on The Road So Big And Busy It Has Three Names Four Including This One. Arrogant bastards.

However, despite the self-centered actions of the greedy establishments who forgo the white letters: Suddenly, there it is! Have you ever seen the movie The Shadow where concentrating hard enough makes this invisible hotel that the Asian baddude made invisible visible again? It was SO like that! Suddenly visible where it wasn't visible before. Might have had something to do with the whole driving 5mph on TRSBABIH3N4ITO.

But I digress. I pull into the parking lot and lo' and behold, there are no spots available. So I drive out and find a parking spot. I get out and before walking five steps, realize I need to go by the ATM. As I pass a Jack-in-the-Box I realize that I should probably grab a bite to eat so that I don't eat too much crawfish at $5 a bin. So I grab a bite to eat and track down a convenience store. For a road that busy, I am surprised at how few convenience stores there are. I swipe my card and it comes back with an error. I ask the clerk if there is anything wrong with the machine and he says there is not.

So I track down another store with an ATM. Error.

Well crap. I only have $5. I go to the Jolly Fox and ask them if I can pay with a credit card and they say they don't have a machine. I ask if I can go inside and pay and be right back out (I offer to leave my drivers license!) and he says that they're too busy to deal with a special request like that (and, in their defense, they are quite busy). So I go back to the second convenience store and ask if I can have them run my credit card through and give me some cash (and volunteer to buy something in the process). The fact that he denied my request wasn't odd. The way that he looked at me like I was the absolute scum of the earth was a bit offputting, though.

So I go to the other convenience store and make the same request. Again, denied but with a very, very dirty look.

I find a third convenience store and make the request yet again, against my better judgment. He not only declines and gives me a dirty look, he says "No, and if you don't want to buy something you need to go."

So I finally ask "why not?"

He said that "you kids never stop pulling this scam."

"This what? Look, I'm not asking anything of you anymore. I just want to know why I'm getting all these weird looks. I'm not from around here."

So he explains to me what's going on. Apparently it is common practice for college students in Huntsville (which, for those of you that don't know, is largely a college town populated with Sam Houston State University students) to run up their parents credit cards to get cash for binge drinking or other nefarious things. When their parents get $300 bills for what's supposed to be a gas card, they fire off letters to the gas stations who, though they get their money, have to deal with some irate parents they'd rather not have to deal with. Thus, he explained, establishments in and around Huntsville don't grant anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cashing credit cards.

On my way out I see a lady ruffling through her purse at the pump. I start trying to explain to her my predicament to see if I can get $7 of cash off her for a full tank, but before I can finish I hear a tapping on the window from the convenience store. I look back and the clerk is giving me an eviller look than all of the evil looks I'd seen thus far.

Tired of evil looks, I just said "t'hell with it" and get back in my car.

"Hi Old Sam Houston Rd. Bye Old Sam Houston Rd!"

As I drive back down I45, I almost have to slam on the breaks. "What's the hold up?" I ask myself. Then I remember what I didn't see earlier. "The good news," I said to myself, "is that I'll finally get to see what's keeping up traffic... at this rate, in only two hours!"

Owen Courreges leaves some thoughtful comments on the "Santorum ad Nauseum" post below that are worthy of an entirely new post on sexuality. I'm at odds whether it belongs here, on the No-Lyfe Journal, or somewhere else. But since it was spawned here, here it will go.

On the subject of whether or not homosexuality is learned or genetic, Owen makes the following observation:

When I think of a great many people who do a great many things, I wonder how they could simply wake up one morning by deciding to do it. I wonder why pedophiles like children, and I wonder why serial adulterers like making committments and breaking them. Pointing out that there are negative consequences to homosexuality does not prove in the slightest that it is entirely involuntary.
...
On the theological point, however, I do agree but still have my doubts. After all, many people have genetic predispositions and disorders that do not preclude moral responibility for their actions, but nevertheless place a burden on them to control certain desires. Does this mean God places a special burden on some people, but not others? Does this mean God is hateful? You'd have to go into a serious debate over the nature of suffering and of moral obligation to sort this out.

Kudos to Owen for his honesty on this subject. Unfortunately, juxtiposing homosexuality and pedophilia, however intellectually, is often when serious discussion ends without the actual merits of such a comparison and contrast being made.

First, the similarities of pro-homosexual and pro-pedophilia arguments: Human sexuality ought to be realized. God, nature, or whomever would not have given us these desires if they were not meant to be realized. At a cursory glance, it may sound like that was an argument I was advancing below, but it is not. Same goes for adult heterosexuality, which is very often felt in contexts where it should not be realized. But on the subject at hand, homosexuality has only recently had its legitimacy recognized in many quarters (and it remains rejected in most) and though pedophilia is rejected in the great majority of contemporary western society, there are various movements underway to have its legitimacy recognized.

Except in the case of homosexual pedophilia, that's more or less where the similarities end. Men having sex with and wanting to have sex with other adult men and men having sex or wanting to have sex with female children are, in practice, very different things with different consequences. For information on my view of homosexuality and why I do not believe it wrong, read #1 two posts down so I don't have to repeat it here.

So, Owen reasonably asks, if God would not punish us by giving some desire for other men, why would he do it by giving some desire for children?

To answer this question, I believe that we must first make the distinction between attraction to young girls (and boys) of pre-pubescent age and young ladies (and boys) of later adolescence. I don't think many would argue that a man molesting a six year old and seducing a sixteen year old are on the same moral plane except insofar as they are both wrong and damaging to the younger party involved. The scope of immorality and damage, however, are worlds apart. So, for the sake of discussion, I will refer to pedophilic acts as Pre-Pubescent Pedophilia (3P) or Late Adolescence Pedophilia (LAP).

In the case of LAP, I believe the attraction to be the mere perversion of standard heterosexuality (or homosexuality). Having gone through puberty (or mostly having done so), they set off the same chemical reactions in men than do women their own age that capture their interest. People, all people, are generally attracted to a certain "type." For some people, this type includes highly energetic, spunky girls. Such a person would likely constantly find themselves attracted to the younger sort. The corrolation may be so strong that they trick themselves into believing that it is all they are attracted to, when in reality a woman their own age with these characteristics would just as easily be able to keep their attention. To the degree that is not possible, they are likely unable to deal with real women with unavoidable adult issues and he is a case of stunted maturity level that likely transcends their sexuality.

In the case of 3P, it is in my observation linked to one of two things: lost innocence and powerlessness.

In the case of lost innocence, their attraction to the very young is linked to a feeling of innocence or that they long to return to. It is less a sexual problem and more a root psychological one that becomes sexual by emotional confusion of callous decision. That is why, for instance, otherwise heterosexual men will molest young boys. It also helps explain the link to being abused as a child and growing into being an abuser. If a man loses his innocence at a very young age, when he gets older he is more likely to be attracted to the innocence they feel they were denied. The desire to return to that innocence, to become "one" with it, can turn sexual if left unchecked. It is, therefore, a learned behavior in my experience based in large part off of experience.

The other motivation is powerlessness of either a sexual nature or a non-sexual nature that becomes one. Sexual powerlessness can be motivated either by unwanted celibacy, being sexually dominated in childhood (which also explains molestation cycles), or an unhappy marriage (possibly related to unwanted celibacy). Non-sexual powerlessness can be attributed to dissatisfaction at work (powerlessness against boss), a domineering spouse (powerlessness against wife), over overbearing family or acquaintances (powerlessness against them). The percieved remedy is a sexual power trip, which can take many strpes. It explains 3P, but also LAP, S&M, prostitution, and sexual harassment. In the case of pedophilia, by virtue of experience and size, they have the ability to completely dominate their victims. Psychologically, physically, and emotionally. The assymetry of the relationship is an aphrodesiac of sorts. Like the 'lost innocence' motivation, it is largely situational and not biological.

So what situational motivations would make one homosexual? Some of the above could do it, but the corrolation just isn't as strong. If a young man is abused by his father, he may grow up equating men with sexuality. If a young woman is, she may grow up hating men. That may explain some cases of it, but it doesn't explain all of them. Many come from good, loving homes. A number of self-fulfilling reasons can be come up with to explain it, but they are transparent in the long view. "Well he's gay because his parents were really authoritarian and therefore they are rebelling" vs. "Well he's gay because his parents were really permissive and liberal." The weak corrolation between those that are gay doesn't explain very much. Some are feminine men and masculine women, but many aren't. Some have troubled youths, others don't. Some are at odds with the way they were raised, others aren't.

But here's a real indication of how different homosexuality is from pedophilia of all stripes: It affects men and women almost equally.

Pedophilia, on the other hand, is largely a male issue. While women are perpetrators in some cases, most offenders are male. The attentioned garnered to Mary Kay Laterneaux underscores that point. It was newsworthy because it was so atypical. This assymetry also lends creedence to the sexual power trip motivation of many abusers. Men often feel that they are supposed to be dominating and when they are being dominated are inclined to find someone to dominate. A woman under the same set of circumstances will react differently than does a man. That suggests to me that the degree to which it becomes sexual is, in large part, a decision by the sexual aggressor. It is the sexualization of a psychological problem and a reaction predisposed by men. Accordingly, men could choose to respond differently (as many do).

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is the solution to no psychological problem unrelated to sex and gender. The only exception that comes to mind are the stereotypical man-hating lesbian, but they are generally rare and there is the strong possibility that it is borne from being female and being uninclined to "fratrinize with the enemy." In other words, they are not male, they don't need or want anything from males, and therefore they are free to hate males all they like while boosting their ego. In other words, it is their lesbianism that feeds their contempt for men and not vice-versa.

Anyhow, I think that covers it. Keep in mind the above is my opinion and most of it will be forever unproven, but it is my rationale for why pedophilia and homosexuality are two different birds entirely and why I can find one repugnant and the other a valid expression of sexuality.

I intended to write more about human sexuality in general, but I'll have to save it for another time.

Let me be clear about something. I've never been a big fan-fiction person. Sure, I come up with a lot of stories involving other peoples' characters and so forth, but I've never felt the inclination to write them. Among many reasons, it puts me in bad company. Most fan-fiction is simply atrocious. Not to say that there aren't some great writers out there doing it, but I would hartily suggest that they develop their own ideas and put their talents towards something more productive. But hey, that's just me. As someone who works for a production company that rips off Japanese animation footage to create original comedies suited to the lowest common denominator (we love you, fans!), who am I to talk.

So via Warliberal I ran across an article about a lawsuit against the music group Creed for a doped up performance they gave last December. In it, it mentions some nasty things that Timberlake has to say about Creed.

Let me be clear about another thing, I am not what one would call "hep" with popular cultures. Sad, but true. Five of my favorite artists are Phil Pritchett, Jason Boland, Blue October, Dub Miller, and Bleu Edmondson. Who? Precisely. So a feud between Justin Timberlake and Creed is of the same level of interest to me on a personal level as is, say, the presidential election in some South American country I've never heard of. Less interest, actually, because who becomes president of Senegal may just matter some how some day. A feud between Creed and Justin Timberlake? Not so much.

But nonetheless, I was driven by morbid curiosity towards it the same way I followed the school district scandal in Florida while I was out there for a week one year. Morbid curiosity, boredom curiosity, whatever.

So I went to Google and did a search for: "Justin Timberlake" slams Creed

I look around to no avail, as most of the links seem to be just lists of bands for this purpose or that (venue schedules, top 40, whatever). Then I run across a site that appears to be in narrative format.

Narrative format? Narrative format. Why would there be a story about NSYNC in narrative format? Who would be privy to this scene:

The next morning, Justin stands up in the lounge of the bus and says, "I'm breaking up with Britney." Lance looks up, surprised.

Joey looks at Justin, wearing one of Lance's t-shirts stretched tight across his taller frame and boxers, a small hickey on his neck. "Really? I'm shocked. You two seem so close."

Justin gives him the finger. "No, you know what I mean. I'm gonna break up with her in public. Not a big public fight, I mean, like end it so everyone knows."

Chris looks up from his Sports Illustrated. "You told her that yet?"

He shrugs. "It'll be okay."

Joey shakes his head. "That's cold, bro."

It took a few minutes of reading through it before it sunk in. Oh. My. Heavens. NSYNC. Fan.Fiction.

Somehow, I doubt we have all that many NSYNC fans in our readership, but if you're just dyin' to hear Justin Timberlake say, all up close in personal, "What. The. Fuck. Do. You. Want."... give it a read.

It might be good. I don't know. I can't take the concept seriously enough to wade through it. It hasn't sunk in yet. If I write a post at 4 in the morning asking "WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?!" you'll know that it's sunk in. Right now, though, I'm about to go out and see Roger Wilko (Who? Exactly), meet up with Kevin and company, and have a blast.

If anyone knows about the whole Justin Timberlake-Creed spat, drop me a line or leave a comment.

Same if you're privy to the most recent elections in Senegal.

If they even have elections.

Some day I'm going to put my mediocre application programing skills to work and I'm going to make a game.

It'll be a simple one with only one bad guy. It's going to be that daggone Microsoft Office Paperclip. You're going to have several weapons from which to choose and the object is going to be to kill that little pest in as many new and inventive ways as possible. It won't be a hard game, as he won't even fight back. His lines will be something to the effect of:

"Well, I see that you chose the scepter. Would you like a long, tedious explanation for how to use the bla-OH MY HEAVENS PLEASE NOOO-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

And then you click a button, and you get to play again. As many times as you want.

Then bazillions of people will flood my tip jar with lots and lots of money and I'll make me a million dollars.

Let me count the ways Santorum is wrong.

1) An old friend of mine used to date a guy I'll name Stone. I never much cared for Stone, in part because the way he treated her. He didn't mistreat her necessarily, but he was always rather distant, even after a year together. I took that as a facet of his personality and a facet that I didn't like. During their breakup, some odd stories started floating around about Stone. Sort of. It was an uncomfortable flux between rumors and dead silent loyalty to him. It wasn't until the breakup was complete that the details started coming out. Stone had cheated on her with another guy. The more this theory was floated, the more it made sense.

Stone's father is a pastor in the Church of Christ. For those of you unfamiliar with the CoC, it is a self-described fundamentalist sect that takes the Bible very literally and very seriously. They are also so confident in their interpretation of the Bible that they believe marrying outside the sect out to be discouraged, if not outright forbidden (this was in fact what we thought the problem might be as my friend is Catholic). To say the least, the CoC holds homosexuality in very low regard. So much so that Stone, to this day, remains closetted skipping between serial monagomy and his very close (and not-so-closetted) male friend.

Though I never cared much for Stone because he hurt my friend, I can't help but feel very sorry for him. He will always be at conflict with himself and his father, whom he admires greatly and has always sought approval from. I can't imagine him ever being happy. When I think of Stone, I simply cannot imagine that he woke up one morning and decided "I'm going to fuck up my entire life by liking other men!"

Recently, conservatives opposed to homosexuality have change their tact. Instead of arguing that it is a choice, they argue that maybe it it genetic, but they should fight it. I believe God is a loving God, having sent Jesus Christ, his only son, down to redeem us. Though there is much unfortunate suffering in the world, I believe it is man-made. By saying that God took a small but significant section of the population and told them that they'd never be allowed to be romantically satisfied, conservatives of this ilk are suggesting that there is misery that is not man-made, but rather purely the province of God. That quite simply is not the God that I believe in and it strikes me as logically circumspect that would be the God that would go to such great pains to redeem and save us. As such, I believe the position of many conservative Christians is very misguided in this regard.

2) Even if I did believe that homosexuality is wrong, I would still not support laws forbidding it. I believe that adultery is wrong, but it is not the province of the government to meddle in the private affairs of the citizens. In the case of adultery, the only victims are the perpetrators and their spouses, who are victims emotionally and not physically. It is not the domain of the criminal court system to defend people against emotional torment. If it were, the courts would be bogged down hearing the case of every emotionally scarred adult who'd been handed down one too many megaweggies. So, while I may agree that such laws are constitutional, I do not agree that what is constitutional is right and what is morally wrong ought to be outlawed. Santorum speaks of a slippery slope, but that is more of one than legalizing the private acts of consenting adults could ever be. While such laws may be constitutionally permissable (or perhaps not, as Inc. commenter Ulysses brings up the equal protection clause, and there is a case to be made there) they are not necessarily a good idea.

3) Even if homosexuality were wrong and things wrong should be legalized, Santorum's logic was seriously flawed on a rational level. He suggests that the slippery slope of legalizing gay intercourse could lead to, among other things, polygamy. As someone who opposes polygamy on both a moral and legal plain, I have to take issue with that view. Polygamy is a matter of law. Whether or not the government accepts multiple concurrent marriages between individuals is necessarily the government's business. As mentioned prior, making sure that a man only sleeps with one woman is not. So we're dealing with two distinct issues. One is what the law will allow and the other is what the law will condone, sanction, and codify. One could argue that gay marriage (which I do support) might lead to polygamy (which I don't), but favoring the former and opposing the latter suggests that I don't buy it. I don't think many others will either accept as a mechanism to rationalize the double standard allowed to straights and gays when it comes to legal, financial, and social benefits of marriage.

As such, despite my earlier defense of him, I feel that I should reiterate that I believe Santorum's views are religiously, philosophically, and logically wrong.

They are. Consider it reiterated.

Son: So anyway, the wedding is going to be on the 15th and we're going on a honeymoo-
Father: Son, I need to tell you something.
Son: What?
Father: I cannot, and will not, have any part of your intended marriage.
Son: Huh? Why not?
Father: It is incompatible with the church's teachings.
Son: What are you talking about?
Father: You are divorced. Under the church's teachings, you are not permitted to remarry.
Son: What do you mean? She left me, Dad!
Father: I've talked to our paster and I've consulted the Bible. When you signed the divorce papers, you consented to a divorce.
Son: But we're not Catholic, divorce is okay, isn't it?
Father: Divorce is fine, remarriage is not.
Son: But Dad, don't you understand? I love her. My first wife left me in pieces, but my fiance has managed to put them all back together again. She's managed to put me back together again.
Father: And I want to be happy for you, but I can't. The Scripture is clear.
Son: What if we get married by the Justice of the Peace?
Father: It doesn't matter. What matters is that when you consumate your marriage, you will be committing sin. Every time you consummate your marriage, you will be committing sin over and over again. As much as I love you, I cannot be a party to it. I can't encourage that.
Son: But I love her! We make each other happy! You understand that you can't stop me from doing this, right?
Father: I do, but refraining from involvement is the only tangible way I can express my disapproval. I cannot approve of this.
Son: So you're not going to have anything to do with my marriage? We're going to have kids, Dad. By doing this, you're not even going to be a part of their life.
Father: If that's your choice, I'll have to live with that, but I have to stand with what I believe is right.

There are two levels to Rick Santorum's recent comments about homosexuality. The first is legal, which I will talk about in a minute. The second is moral, which I've tried my best to illustrate above.

Does the father above care about his son's feelings? Some will say no, but I believe that he does. The father above believes that sin is a degradation of the soul and, despite the fact that his son is in a near-impossible position according to his church's teachings, any other option than remaining celibate the rest of his life is the equivalent of living in sin and will assue that his son will go to Hell. More than anything else, that is what the father seeks to avoid.

It's quite possible that Rick Santorum hates gays.Only he knows for sure. He does hate sin, though, and he equates homosexual activity with sin. By doing so, he leaves homosexuals in the near-impossible position with the only option to avoid a life of sin is celibacy. He may be fine with that because he hates gays or he may be fine with that because he views that as their only way to avoid a life of sin. As I said, only Santorum knows for sure. And, to a degree, that is true of everyone that believes that homosexuality is a sin.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that at all. Nor do I believe that remarriage is a sin. I don't believe that either the son or gays should be forced to live a life of celibacy to be okay in the eyes of God. Rick Santorum and the father are wrong. That being said, it does not follow that Rick Santorum hates gays anymore than it follows that the father must hate his son.

Liberals are deriding the "hate the sin, love the sinner" philosophy by saying that you cannot seperate a man from his sexuality. Depending on whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice or a predisposition, that may have credence or not with any given person on the subject of homosexuality. The question, though, is whether or not someone can love (or tolerate) someone that they view is perpetually doing wrong. I believe that it is possible, though it puts such people in a rather awkward position, as demonstrated by the stammering of conservatives that believe homosexuality is wrong but do not believe that homosexuals are worthy of hate by virtue of that one sin.

John Scalzi says the following:

Saying that you have no problems with homosexuals but have a problem with homosexual acts is logically equivalent, for example, to saying that you have no problems with Christians but have a problem with them accepting Christ, or that you have no problems with Republicans but have a problem with them registering as Republicans, or that you have no problem with Marines but have a problem with them enlisting (or receiving commissions in the case of officers). Each X' is an affirmative act of association and identification, without which the identification of X cannot exist.

The way to check this is to determine whether the condition of X can exist without X'. So, to go back to our examples -- can you be a Christian without accepting Christ? Pretty much not. Can you be a Republican without registering as a Republican? Not really. Can you be a Marine without enlisting or being commissioned? Can't do it. In each case it's absolutely possible to manifest an outward appearance of each group -- lead a Christly life, vote Republican, or swagger around saying "Semper Fi" to people -- But until you get baptized, register or enlist/are commissioned, you're not one of the members of these groups. The act matters; thereby, having a problem with the act means you have a problem with the condition because the only way to the condition is the act.

I have to disagree. You can love a Christian as a person but hate the fact that they believe what they do. You can love a Marine but hate the fact that their job. You can love a Republican but hate the way that they vote. To put a point on it, if someone were to say that they hate conservatism or Christianity, my immediate assumption would not be that they hate me personally, but rather that they hate that aspect of me. If they were to say that they hate Christians and hate Republicans, that's when it starts to get personal.

Here's the thing, though: Santorum has not said, at any point, that he hates gays. He has compared homosexuality to other acts he views as deviant, but he is comparing acts, not people.

Daniel (who I seem to be picking on today) infers that homosexuality is integral to a homosexual. Maybe so. But if being a Christian is integral to me, and if someone compares Christianity to fascism, they are expressing hatred or disdain to a part of me, not the whole of me. They view a part of me as evil and while that may hurt my feelings, it does not mean that I would be correct in going around saying that they hate all Christians because while they may mean that, they may not mean that at all.

In a way, it breaks down to semantics. However, when it comes to semantics, it's the speaker's intent that is more important than their wordage. So if you don't see a distinction between hating who someone is and hating what they do, you should at least note that they do view one and, in the interest of intellectual honesty, try to see things from their point of view before going around and suggesting that that they hate people solely based on their sexuality. Hating what someone does is not the same as hating who they are. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. For all you know, someone they love is gay and they are in the same awkward position as the father above. Wrong as all heck, but earnest and well-intentioned nonetheless.

So does that mean that those of us that believe that gays should be able to do whatever they like with their lives without being condemned just sit back and say nothing? Absolutely not. They may be well-intentioned, but their still wrong and their ideas still cause harm. But that's not what's happening. Instead, liberals are using this as a battering ram to suggest that Santorum, and thus all those that view homosexuality as a sin, of bigotry on the same level as bigotry based on skin color, which unlike homosexuality or Christianity, is a physical trait and not an act embarked on or a religion embraced. They, as much if not more than Santorum, are the ones making this personal. That's where the comparisons to Trent Lott fail. Blacks are unquestionably and inexplicably born that way. There is no room for debate there. One cannot stop being black if they chose. One can stop being a practicing homosexual, and as out-of-reach as that option seems to be, that's one more option than racial minorities have.

The second way that the comparison to Trent Lott fails is what they actually said. Lott expressed approval for a putrid 1948 platform that Strom Thurmond ascribed to. These were concrete laws used to indignify and oppress blacks for decades. In regards to Santorum's personal view that homosexuality is wrong, that does not necessarily translate into law.

Except that it does, of course, in a way, because he said it in the context of a court decision of a law that is the manifestation of his view.

This brings us to the second level of Santorum's comment: the law.

I believe the Texas sodomy law is wrong on a legal and moral level. I oppose the law and if Democrats were to run on repealing this law and laws like it in 2006, I'd likely vote for them. That is how much I disdain these laws.

That being said, Santorum was arguing about the constitutionality of these laws. He asked, quite plainly, if we say taht there can't be laws against homosexuality because it is a private act in the bedroom, whether that mean that all consensual private acts in the bedroom are therefore inherently justified by the constitution. It's a valid question that makes many liberals, and even libertarian-minded conservatives like myself, uncomfortable. Unfortunately, Santorum may be right. If the constitution protects the rights of gays to have consensual sex, it protects the rights of anyone to do so. I personally don't believe that the constution necessarily protects that (and thus laws could be passed against all non-procreational sex, or for that matter sex altogether) and still technically be constitutional. That being said, I believe that all such laws violent the spirit of freedom and personal liberty set forth in the Constitution. I don't believe there should be laws against adultery, even though I consider that morally wrong in a way that I don't consider homosexuality not to be. In other words, because something is Constitutional that does not make it right. It's a lesson both liberals and conservatives would do well to remember.

So there is room here to debate the issue at hand. There are issues on what degree to which morality can, and should, be legislated. That's where Santorum is most wrong and that's where Democrats should hone their energies. It's also where Republicans like me need to speak up, which I have done and will continue to do. We need to try to convince those that believe homosexuality is morally wrong (which is more people than many liberals would like to believe) that it should still be legal and to remind them that there are those that believe contraception should be illegal and ask them how they would react if that were legislated into reality. Santorum used a few degrees of hyperbole to illustrate his point and we can do the same. Just as there are NAMBLAs on the left that unfortunately discredit the gay rights clause, there are many puritans on the right that would want to legislate so many things into law 95% of Americans would suddenly become criminals. To get the attention of legislators, we only need half of those people.

By making this about Santorum, the debate itself has been sacrificed at the alter of political point-scoring. By making this about the Republican Party, it's made moderate Republicans more defensive rather than giving them to join a common cause that would make the views of Santorum and Nickles obselete.

Or you can just paint all Republicans with a super broad brush, paint everyone with misguided views of homosexuality as haters, and keep potential allies at bay.

Your choice.

Jane Galt has a great post on what the procedural difference is between a tax cut and increased spending is. Namely, that the latter considerably outlast the former:

What's going to happen when the Democrats control at two out of three of the Senate, House, and Oval Office? Those tax cuts are going away. Don't believe me? Tax rates have fluctuated by as much as 50% between presidents in the last half-century, maybe more. Just one example: Reagan cut 'em, Bush/Clinton raised them, Bush II cut them again. Projecting deficits from these tax cuts forever and ever is stupid, because we're only one election away from seeing them reversed.

Daniel Goldberg has been very tough on the Bush Administration for increasing spending and cutting taxes, thus increasing the deficit. Rightfully so. As someone who would very much like a near-balanced budget, I am concerned about the growing deficit and hefty interest payments that we will be paying for some time to come.

However, that's where my agreement with budget hawk liberals ends. My problem isn't with the tax cuts, it's with the spending increase. I support the Department of Homeland Security (though I would do it differently, if I were in charge of it), but Bush's failure to contain spending in other areas is quite unsettling and the education bill he passed in his first year in office was absolutely odious.

So does that mean that I regret voting for Bush and/or will vote for his Democratic rival in 2004? Absolutely not. The alternative to Bush's dubious financial policies are Democratic calls for more spending which, in the long run, is much worse, because once those are instituted, they won't be going away until fiscal restraint is the only issue of the day, and that just doesn't happen very often. In the 90's, it took a mentally unstable Texas businessman winning 20% of the vote to catch the major parties' attention to make it happen.

The economy going down the crapper and the deficits aren't so much a reason that I shouldn't have voted for Bush, it's actually the reason that I did.

Up until late 1999, I had planned to vote for Al Gore. I was almost excited about the prospect of it. "He's Bill Clinton without the gross immorality," I reasoned.

At some point, I jumped on the John McCain bandwagon and, had it not been for what became a deeply personal discomfort for the man, that's likely where I'd still be. Loony views on campaign finance reform aside, McCain advocated very modest tax cuts, decreased government spending, and paying down the national debt.

That was, and remains, the perfect platform to win my vote.

Once Bush won the nomination, that no longer became an option. The choice, as I saw it, was tax cuts that might lead to deficits if the economy turns sour, or a cash givaways to seniors (whether they need it or not) that might also lead to deficits.

In the end, I had to conclude that in the long term, Gore's views were much more dangerous to our fiscal health. Bush's tax cuts might backfire, but they could be retracted. Of the last four presidents, two raised taxes and two lowered them. If Gore were to get elected on his Free-Prescription-Drugs-for-Everyone-and-their-Dog platform, it would take a lot more political courage to tell seniors (in which everyone is or hopes to be one day) that the government is going to stop giving them what it once did. That's too much money to too many people ever to reverse.

So, the question is, when is Bush going to retract his tax cuts? I expect that to be a year or so after never. So does that mean that I will vote for someone to raise taxes to balance the budget?

Yes, actually, that's exactly what that means, so long as it is met with corresponding (and equal would be nice, but not necessary) cut in spending. Show me the Democrat that advocates a balanced budget over a brand-spanking new prescription drug plan and throwing federal money at education like confetti at a parade, and chances are (assuming his foreign policy is kosher) he's got my vote.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.

Every day on my way to work, I pass the building for Cotton Companies. Below their orange and white sign, they have one of those electric marquees with various messages on them. It's the sort of thing where you'd expect to see "Half off on all widgets!" at an electronics depot or, in the advent of some heady event, "Pray for the troops" or "Columbia will always be remembered."

About a week or so ago, the sign had a very peculiar message:

"You are a champion, Tom!"

Not knowing what the sign could have possibly been referring to, my imagination went to work. Who is Tom? Why is he a champion? Why did Cotton feel the urge to post a sign expressing his champion status? So I started to create a character named Tom who was a champion. I named him after the sign: Tom Cotton.

Since it appears to be a personal message and not one to some superstar named Tom, I made him a regular Joe. About 5'10" or so with reddish hair (probably derived from the orange Cotton sign) and a face with light freckles that were darker when he was younger. But he's not young anymore, he's 35 or so, I decided.

So why is he a champion? Being an unassuming guy, I decided that he was a champion in the everyday sense. He has two daughters that he cares for and a loving wife. That, in a way, makes him a champion. To his family, anyway. And to his friends, since people are explicitly declaring his greatness. He has a lot of friends and is pretty popular, but still in an unassuming way. The kind of guy who is always smiling and whistles as he walks down the hall to get his morning cup of coffee. Decaf, of course, because he's trying to take care of himself.

But what makes him a champion? Perhaps he is a particularly good worker for his company. Being an affable guy, perhaps he is a salesman and won the highest commission of anyone in the department. He is king of his own fishbowl, champion of the sales division. Ask him, though, and he'll say that if he's a champion at all, it's because of his family. Naturally, he'll have a picture of them on his desk and he'll look at it every day to keep him going.

But what, if anything, makes him unique? If I've already defined him as unassuming and humble, what attention-garnering thing would have people proclaiming, on a sign that can only carry one message a day, that he is a champion? Maybe, I thought, he is going through a rough ordeal, people know it, but he's still whistling and smiling as he walks down the hall. Like a champion.

Sadly, I was right.

Today as I was passing the Cotton building, the message on the sign had changed:

"You can beat cancer, Tom!!!!"

I don't know what, if any, of the above about Tom is true. But whoever Tom is, he needs all the support that sign can garner and much, much more. I hope that the sign is correct and that he can beat the cancer. Tonight, I'll pray for that to happen. To anyone out there that communicate with God on a regular (or irregular) basis, I ask that you do the same.

Even before his adventures in totalitarianism, it has always frustrated me to no end how many on the left admire or even tolerate Fidel Castro. It's one thing to oppose sanctions on the grounds that it merely tightens Fidel's grip. It's another to try to say "Well, as bad as Cuba is, at least it has national health care" and make some insinuations and America's democratic and free system's superiority to the dreck rule of Fidel is subjective. As James Lileks onced asked, would you rather be poor and in need of emergency medical help in the United States of Cuba? I'd take the US any day. Considering the hundreds that have died trying to escape that island to make it here, I suspect that I am not alone. Many in the media try to portray the Cuban refugees in Florida as maniacs and fascists but they fail to ask why it is that those who know the most about Cuba also hate Castro the most. We are a nation of immigrants and most of our immigrants take great pride in their homeland. Irish Americans want us to appreciate Irish culture and Mexicans theirs as well. The Cubans want us to kick its leader's butt. For many on the left, it seems, all that matters is that Cubans lean rightward and Fidel is left and they immediately sympathize with the latter.

To their credit, with the exception of ANSWER and their ilk no one against the war has made excuses for Saddam Hussein. Those opposed to the war tried to convince us not to engage in it because they felt it a disproportionate response to a very minor threat or because it would make the rest of the world angry or a myriad of other reasons. None of which were "Saddam isn't so bad." For all the voices against the war, only the fringe ever actually defended Saddam on any moral or idealistic level.

Why is that? In a remarkably well-written post (go read the whole thing), fellow Houstonian Angie Schultz pinpoints the answer:

Your big mistake, Saddam old man, was not calling yourself a Communist. You could have had exactly the same power, exactly the same control, gassed exactly as many Kurds, and the Julie Burchills of the world would've defended your regime to the end. All you had to do was fly a few red flags and put up a few posters of Lenin. Maybe salted your rhetoric with a little "glorious workers' revolution". Would that have been too high a price to pay?

A while back, I attempted to delineate between geeks and nerds. Configsysboy, who speaks from experience as one might be able to tell from the handle, has a lot more to say on it. Though he doesn't do anything in the way of distinctions between nerds and geeks, he defines geeks quite adeptly:

Thirdly all Geeks share an abiding fascination with pop culture. For some this manifests in a substantial DVD collection, for others it is towers of CD's stacked to the sky. The forms are variable but the passion remains across all boundaries. Whether the Geek in question can quote every joke from the Simpsons, recite all of Chris Knight's witticisms, or act out the entirety of the Holy Grail by themselves all Geeks share a devotion to popular culture and to the classics that define it. Any failure to show interest in such exposes the pretense of a would-be Geek who cannot claim real brotherhood with the souls who suffered for their love of these timeless treasures.

Lastly all Geeks share a propensity for collecting and often displaying trophies to their Geekiness. In some Geek households this is reflected by stacks of posters while in others it involves cherished toys lovingly mounted and cared for. Some collections are merely trinkets that have no meaning to anyone outside of the Geek's circle of friends. In all cases the collected items are an eclectic reflection of the specific categorical interests of the Geek in question. Some collections are openly displayed, others privately held for personal enjoyment, but rest assured all Geeks have a collection of some sort.

I don't know that I would say "pop culture" as many off-pop culture interests can often be included. Does one consider Anime to be pop culture? I don't personally because, kiddy cartoons aside, it's relegated to the Cartoon Network and other channels that might as well be called GeekTV. He also states earlier on that a love of technology is paramount to geekdom and I'm not sure that's the case, either, though there is a strong positive corrolation, to be sure. Actually, I can't think of any geeks that I know that aren't absorbed in technology, but I mostly run in techie circles, so it's likely that I wouldn't.

What really fascinates me about CSB's article is his explanation for why geekdom has moved more into the mainstream. It's something that I hadn't really thought of at all, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense:

More important however to the emergence of Geeks as the new 'in-crowd' was the maturation of the daughters of the Geek-fathers.

You see it is human nature for us to look for mates who remind us of our parents. Young men seeking a wife often look for certain traits found in their mothers and young women likewise look for men who remind them of their fathers. It is one of the primary reasons that breaking the cycle of abuse is so difficult. Girls from abusive homes instinctively reach out for abusive men. Likewise girls who lived with affectionate fathers will look for men who display affection in similar fashions. And therein lies the magic.

At the same time that we boys of the first Geek generation were becoming valuable corporate assets the Geek-daughters were beginning their search for life mates and just who is it that they started to suddenly find attractive? None other than the same outcasts they ignored in high school. Now not only were Geeks getting rich and famous, we were getting the girls too and as everyone knows that is the key to being cool. The money and the fame are nothing if you don't get the girl.

The more I think about it, the more true it sounds. Even non-techie girls that I know with techie fathers seem to have a lot more respect for what I do than do most people. I'd still attribute a lot of it to the fact that knowing computers is just a lot more useful than it used to be. Something akin to being good with car mechanery in years past. Except computer technicians are the new, better paid, information age handymen.

We still need to work on the whole "macho" thing, though...

TPB at Unbillable Hours has perhaps the best Easter post that I've ever read.

Though I'm not a lawyer, I can relate to the skepticism that he refers to. Faith is a difficult thing for those of us inclined to question everything. Before falling back into the Christian fold, I spent three years wading in agnosticism. It's easy not to believe in anything, but it's a defensive posture, in many ways. Whether you are cynical about God, politics, love, or humanity in general, it's often easy to derive comfort from that. A feeling of superiority and remaining "above" it. Naivete is certainly not an admirable trait, but neither is hiding behind the cloak of "objectivity." Without the ability to believe, you often lose your directional compas and just drift.

Not long ago, I was casually dating someone who was a self-professed agnostic. That never bothered, though what did come to bother me was the fact that she didn't seem to believe in anything. We got into a discussion on morality and her stance was, more or less, morality is what you make of it. If you value someone's opinion of you, you treat them well. If you don't, then don't sweat it. There is no higher Truth or right and wrong. While on a purely rational and self-interested level, that might make sense. But without a higher sense of purpose and without an ideal to strive to, I'd be left questioning the value of life. Whenever I think of her, I have a hard time figuring out what it was precisely that she lived for. That, to me, is sadder than any idealism and more foolish than even beliefs and convictions I don't share.

I'm actually thinking of a longer post on arrested murder suspect Scott Peterson, but for now I'll ask you to take a look at this picture and answer a question.



Is it me, or does this look like Ben Affleck playing Oliver Queen, the Green Arrow?

[Originally posted on the No-Lyfe Journal]

At the end of every Friday night, assuming that I'm sober enough to drive, I drive down to Seabrook and sleep at my parents house so that I can get up early on Saturday morning and have breakfast with my father. So, naturally, when I'm woken up, I assume it's him. I mutter something about being ready for breakfast in about ten minutes.

Second: I'm not waking you up for breakfast.
Third: bdbdbdhuh?
Second: Come on.

He pulls me out of bed and gives me less than a minute to wake up. He pulls me into the computer room, except that it's not the computer room that has existed for the past few years. Come to think of it, I wasn't sleeping in the bed they put in my room when I took my old one to my apartment. I was sleeping in the bed now at my new residence, a few dozen miles away. The First is sitting at the keyboard, taking sips out of a Spiderman cup.

Third: What are we doing here?
Second: We're watching something.
Third: We're watching The First at the computer keyboard. No offense to him or your interest in this intended, but this isn't not very exciting. In fact, it's going to put me to sleep. In fact, that's where I'm supposed to be right now!
Second: Just watch.

First: No! Dammit!

Third: What's his... my problem?
Second: He's talking to Ora online.

I look at the Spiderman cup, which is accompanied by a bottle of Jim Beam bourbon and a pitcher of lemonaid. Suddenly, I remember this scene all too well.

Third: Okay, so I know where we are and what's happening, but why are we here?
Second: We're witnessing my birth.
Third: Your "birth"?
Second: Yes, it's here where The First finally let go.

First: No!

Third: Was I really yelling at the monitor?
Second: Of course. She wasn't actually there for you to yell at. You wanted to have this conversation in person, but she insisted on knowing what was on your mind. You told her and ruined everything.
Third: It was inevitable. I was going to make my move to tear her away from Nick, she was going to stay with him, and I was going have my heart broken. What does it matter that this all happened online instead of in person?
Second: It's emblematic. Consider how much time you spend online back then.
Third: Okay, considered. I still don't see the point.
Second: Conversations with her that you should have had in person you had online. This is merely the apex. You took this all so seriously when it wasn't. It wasn't real. It was people typing at a keyboard.
Third: Oh, give me a break. It's not like she and I never saw each other or that she was in Manitoba. She was 45 minutes away and I actually didn't fall for her until we met.
Second: Doesn't matter. What matters is that while you should have been going out with people from Clear Lake High School, you were going out with people from Sharpstown or Katy-Taylor. Like I said, it's emblematic.
Third: You know as well as I do how much I hated Clear Lake High School. The fact that I never dated anyone from there is a mark of pride.
Second: That's the sound of someone who was rejected one too many times. You didn't like Lake because Lake didn't like you.
Third: I didn't like it because it was chalk full of rich snobs.
Second: Do you have something against the wealthy?
Third: Only those that see something wrong with being anything else.. Maybe our family wasn't poor, but we weren't of their ilk. The same thing happened to David. Once he got to UT, his social life took off.
Second: Being wealthy is a mark of social status.
Third: You're still upset that I never went to law school, aren't you?
Second: Not necessarily.
Third: ... and you still haven't explained why we're here.
Second: Look [points at First as he buries his head in his hands]
Third: If you think I'd somehow forgotten about all this, you're mistaken. I just don't hold it so close to my heart anymore. I let it go a long time ago. That's a good thing, isn't it?
Second: Not necessarily.
Third: So I should just go around being heartbroken and say, "Woe is me! Woe is me! When I was a kid I had my heart broken! Woooooooe is meeeeee"
Second: [warningly] That's enough.
Third: Then why are we here?
Second: We're here because this is where it all began.
Third: Isn't that how half of movies start? Like in those old detective ones? [impersonation] "It all shtarted with this dame, y'shee..."
Second: I wasn't refering to that. Ora is of only tangental importance. What is important here is that this is when you discovered that you didn't have to be this way.

First: [Muttering...] I will never, ever let this happen again.

Second: And you didn't. Not while I was in charge, anyway. You took what could have made you bitter and instead it made you better.
Third: That's not what I remember. Do the words "emotional coma" mean anything to you? Or are you still too oblivious to see it?
Second: I'm not talking about that stupid vow to never allow us to be hurt again.
Third: Oh, so you admit the vow was stupid.
Second: Stop talking about the vow. I'm not talking about the vow.
Third: Then what are you talking about?
Second: I'm talking about Eddie.
Third: Eddie Vee?
Second: One and the same.
Third: Okay, so what about him?
Second: Remember when we woke up the morning after this? Remember how though we knew things would never be the same, we didn't know how they would be different. So we looked to Eddie for inspiration. We aspired to be as much like him as possible.
Third: Yeah, but we weren't Eddie. We never will be. We fall short in some areas, but we're better in others. We can't live our life trying to be someone else.
Second: Says who?
Third: Says me. Why should I want to be Eddie? I'm smarter than he is. Don't get me wrong, I loved the guy to death, but, well...
Second: I didn't say that you should try to be Eddie. I just said that you learned something from that experience. Over the next year, we became more sociable. We became the most popular person online. Bar none.
Third: Only because Eddie was breaking up with Blare and he wasn't online so much.
Second: That's beside the point. Even if we couldn't be as popular as Eddie was, I was more popular than he [pointing to The First] ever was. More popular than you are, too.
Third: So you're saying I should try to be Eddie. I should continually ask myself "What Would Eddie Do?"
Second: No, I'm not saying you should be like Eddie. Eddie was a mark of the times. He put everything into his friends to the point that he couldn't hold a job and couldn't even make car payments. That's not an acceptable gauge of where you should be at this point in your life.
Third: So then what should I be?
Second: It's a good question and one worth exploring. There are many aspects of Eddie that it would be worthwhile to incorporate. He's still, bar-none, the most sociable person you've ever known. More sociability would be a good thing. The missing link, though, is to become someone that everyone respects. Embrace your job or find a better one. Don't spend the money on a video camera, spend it on nicer clothes and a better car. Get a maid. Live your life so that any given person you meet will consider you a success.
Third: A success at what?
Second: Life, I suppose.
Third: You make me sound like a failure. I'm not one. I've written two novels over the past year. I contribute to a handful of online journals that are read by scores of people.
Second: I didn't say you were a failure, merely that you're using the wrong gauges of success. If you meet a given person, they may be impressed by being as prolific a writer as you are, but they won't understand it or relate to it. Therefore, they will never truly appreciate it. A Camaro... now that they'd appreciate.
Third: Except I don't want a Camaro. I think my Escort is pretty cool. It gets me from Point A to Point B anyway. That's not what's important.
Second: Of course it is. People deem it important and thus it is so.
Third: So I should gauge my success on what others think of me?
Second: It's as good a gauge as any. Better than most, actually.
Third: Wow.
Second: Hmm?
Third: I don't remember ever being that shallow.
Second: Oh please, you weren't. I'm not. You will always find time to be you. I'm just suggesting that you don't devote your life to that end. The less you do that, the more you'll actually get what you do want.

First: [pours more boubon-aid] Fuck!

Third: Can we talk about this somewhere else?
Second: Is he bothering you?
Third: Somewhat.
Second: Then you're exactly where you need to be. You need to remember what it feels like to not be enough.
Third: If you're trying to rub salt in the wound, it's not working because the wound is long-since closed. It doesn't hurt anymore.
Second: No, I'm trying to illustrate a point. Take a look at him... and who you used to be. He was true to himself at the expense of everything else and look what it cost him.... everything else.
Third: What a delightful thought.
Second: Well, it illustrates my point quite clearly.
Third: What point is that?
Second: He has no future. This is the last day of his life. When he wakes up tomorrow, it won't be him anymore. It will be me. Within a year life will be at our fingertips. We're not here to depress you. We're here to celebrate. In two years, Ora will come back to Houston and want more than anything to be with me and we will hurt her as much as she ever hurt us.
Third: [blink]
Second: Yes?
Third: Is this supposed to make me feel better?
Second: Yes.
Third: It's not working.
Second: [shrug]
Third: I never wanted to hurt Ora any more than she wanted to hurt me.
Second: Granted. The point is not that we got to hurt her, the point is that we were in a position to. I could have had what he [points to First] wanted more than anything. That's significance.
Third: But you didn't want it. You had Anna. Even if we hadn't had her, you still would have deferred.
Second: The fact that we didn't want her made it us all the more appealing. The more that we have and the less we need people, the more people we'll have around us.
Third: [sarcastically] Which is, of course, the most important thing in the world.
Second: It's as good a goal as any.
Third: Which brings me to precisely what your problem is. You have no goals. You didn't actually want anything. That's your catch-22. You can have anything as long as you don't want it. Wanting something would have cost you your faux-easygoing nature. When the going got tough, all you ever did was internalize it or run away from it. That was the mess I had to deal with when I took over for you. You talk about goals, but the only real goal you ever had was to never fail and never be scared.
Second: No, it's not fear.
Third: It's the only thing I can think of that explains why I kept myself so bottled up for so long. Say what you will about the eleven months I wasted on Audrey, at least I've learned how to accept my limitations and... and....
Second: Accept failure?

The First turns off the computer and stands up. He starts pacing back and forth, trying to figure out life and the universe... or at least how he got there. I can see him mouthing the words of the questions he's asking himself. The questions I once asked myself. He's not going to be able to answer any of them tonight. In fact, for the next two weeks he's going to be a zombie. He's going to cut off Ora tomorrow. Within a week, his friends will be so angered at his reaction that more than one of them will threaten to give him the silent treatment that he's going to give Ora. The battle lines are drawn and when they divy up their mutual friends, she's going to get most of them. They liked her better anyway. It will take at least three months for things to get patched up... when The Second takes full command.

Second: You know as well as I do that the Ora situation couldn't have ended any other way. It wasn't what you did wrong, it was who you were. It was your limitations. Are those the limitations you wish to accept? So is that the failure you wish to accept?

[Part Three]

Main Entry: awk·ward
Pronunciation: 'o-kw&rd
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English awkeward in the wrong direction, from awke turned the wrong way, from Old Norse ofugr; akin to Old High German abuh turned the wrong way
Date: 1530
4 a : lacking ease or grace (as of movement or expression) b : lacking the right proportions, size, or harmony of parts : UNGAINLY
5 a : lacking social grace and assurance b : causing embarrassment
6 : not easy to handle or deal with : requiring great skill, ingenuity, or care


Main Entry: fuck
Pronunciation: 'f&k
Function: verb
Etymology: akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fokka to copulate
Date: 1503
2 usually vulgar : MESS 3 -- used with transitive senses
(Main Entry: mess
Pronunciation: 'mes
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mes, from Middle French, from Late Latin missus course at a meal, from missus, past participle of mittere to put, from Latin, to send -- more at SMITE
Date: 14th century
3 a : a disordered, untidy, offensive, or unpleasant state or condition b : one that is disordered, untidy, offensive, or unpleasant usually because of blundering, laxity, or misconduct <[the movie]g is a mess, as sloppy in concept as it is in execution -- Judith Crist> )


Main Entry: fucking awkward
Pronunciation: 'f&k-ing 'o-kw&rd
Function: verb
Etymology: Another experience survived!
Date: 21st Century
12,945 b: Spending an evening in a group with a certain person whose (now ex-)girlfriend you inadvertantly pursued while they were together.

Thanks to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the clarification.

Dear Person-Who-Is-Probably-Still-Hungover-From-Friday-Night

Let me first extend my sympathies. It was clearly an injustice for you to be summarily ejected from the Firehouse. And for getting drunk at a bar, for chrissakes! Unbelievable! It's not like you intended to vomit all over the floor! It's one of those things that just happened. Oh, and when you just stepped into it while aimlessly stammering about? Of course that wasn't an attempt to dirty up the floor some more, you just didn't notice where you were walking because you were having such a good time! When you brandied your 3/4 full beer bottle around to cheer Phil Pritchett on and ended up spilling it back and forth? You were just trying, in a roundabout way, to alleviate the putrid smell of whatever it is that you regirgitated. Beer certainly smells better than that!

So, in conclusion, I'd just like to say that it's an absolute crime that those two cops forcefully escorted you out. When you said that there was no sign posted forbidding you to have a good time, you were absolutely right about that. No sign at all. What an injustice!

Best regards,
The Person Whose Journal You Do Not Read



Dear Firehouse Saloon Operators,

I suggest you post this sign as soon as possible.



Best regards,
The Person Whose Journal You Do Not Read

The Nigerian scam artists have a bank. In their unceasing attempts to bilk foolish westerners out of money, they've set up a web site for those with the brains to be uncomfortable with putting up money to a total stranger to get obscene amounts of money back that they never earned. Here's now the new strain works.

Looking over the site, it's well done. Allied Trust Company sounds real enough, the web site is bare, but complete.

Persistence. Dedication. Ambition. Web designing skills. They've got it all.

Tis a shame they use their powers for evil, and not good.

On another note, take a look at the site and let me know what parts raise flags with you. There are a few suspicious items in my observation that a skeptical viewer would likely see. I'll post them in the comments section and we can compare notes.

I don't know the first thing about Collina, but I do know that I want this shirt:



It's just badass. Then I can look cool for being all "continental" and knowing about a soccer referee.

Or is being "continental" uncool now in the current political environment?

The creative process is often an elusive one. It's also sometimes very cyclical. During any given novel, I will run through a number of stages. At first, there will be the euphoria of actually beginging a novel. At best, this generally lasts twenty pages or so. Unfortunately, the novelty of it all runs out and you're left wondering: What happens next? My harddrive is littered with the tattered remains of ideas that never reached the twenty-first page because I was never able to answer that question. When I'm able to answer that question, I press forward. At some point, the direction will become obscured again and I'm left asking myself that one question over and over again. As the questions become harder, the doubt becomes more pronounced and I begin to doubt my abilities. Before long, I'll be cursing myself as a talentless hack. Then it will come to me and I'll find new direction and new inspiration. Eventually, that well runs dry and I just don't know how to get from where I am to where I need to be for the next chapter. Up and down, round and round it goes.

Sometimes, the questions are insurmountable. I just don't know what to do and, in reality, without a major overhaul there isn't anything that I can do. The idea itself becomes corrupted and exposed as the shallow story that it is. Sometimes this occurs without me having written a single page. Sometimes the concept itself, while lending itself to countless great plot points and character development, just has one problem with it that I can't move beyond: Yes, this is the story, but what is the point?

I initially discovered this when writing my first attempt at a novel, The Slaughter Chronicles. It had scenes that I thought were glorious, but I just couldn't figure out how to make it more than just a story. Without that, I lacked the inspiration to press forward. I aborted it after sixty pages or so. Ideas later came to me, but I just couldn't find myself truly inspired.

It happened again a few years later. I had a superb idea for a novel that took place entirely in a chat room. I started writing it, but only got twenty pages into it. Even though the dialogue was going to be great and the characters were going to be great, I just couldn't make a compelling story without genuine human interaction involved that wasn't behind the safety of a keyboard and monitor. Ideas later came to me, but I just couldn't find myself truly inspired.

A couple years back, my friends at No-Lyfe Productions were talking about making a movie. The initial idea was deemed too ambitious so I was able to think of something we could concievably make. At the time, it was called Headcase and it was the story of the conversation in the mind of someone pushed to the brink of suicide, inspired by what had recently happened to someone close to me. Unfortunately, though the idea was "doable" it was not something that could inspire me to sit down and write it.

About 15 months ago or so, I went through a major heartbreak. Some months later, I wanted a way to be able to express what I had learned from it all. The problem was that every idea I came up with was too similar to my first novel, At Heaven's Door. I couldn't come up with what made this story truly unique. The story in my mind was written, but I couldn't derive a point to it all.

While I was coming up with the idea after the heartbreak, I was able to revive Headcase, the earlier movie script idea. Though I was nowhere near the brink of suicide, if I were to take a character that was more troubled and write it from his point of view, it could help me get a lot of the pent-up anger and resentment out of my system. Headcase was renamed Surviving Allison and it became a story of making sense of the incomprehendable... or at least trying to. Fortunately for me and unfortunately for Allison, I was able to get over what had happened a lot quicker and easier than I had thought possible. When I told Adam that it looked like it wasn't going to happen, I could only explain "It just doesn't hurt so bad anymore."

Instead, I found new inspiration in The Slaughter Chronicles and, much to my amazement, wrote the first book of what became a series. What's funny about it is that the idea had very little to do with what was originally concieved several years ago. But there were aspects of it that I just didn't want to let go. Ideas that had come to me but had not yet inspired me. The old was supplanted by the new and though I had to toss a lot aside, the story was much better as a result. I needed the time and distance to determine what made an idea close to my heart interesting and intriguing enough to be close to the hearts of others.

Last October I ran across a challenge to write a novel within a month. I'd finished the first Slaughter book, but I didn't want to rush through the second. So I needed an idea. Almost a year past the heartbreak that I wasn't able to put to paper, I was able to look at the situation much less passionately. I was able to remove the parts that were unique to me and make the story something of its own. Once I was able to create a main character that I could write without being constrained to writing about me and what happened to me, the ideas came rushing forward. The characters took on a life of their own, independent of their inspirations. That, of course, because my November Novel, aka Something So Perfect, linked to your left on this page.

Among the many questions I've been asking myself lately is what to write next. My editor is about to return his final edit version of SSP and I can work on that. Or I could write the next installment of Slaughter. I also had a breakthrough with the online idea from some years ago and suddenly that unworkable idea became workable.

It's amazing how that happens. It's like a dam being opened and water comes gushing out. Instead of a lack of ideas, you have so many ideas that the challenge becomes to sort them out. You have contradictory ideas that you must reconcile or choose between. You have characters that become living, breathing entities. The challenge is no longer to write it, but to refrain from doing so until you have it all figured out in your head. I say "you" but I'm talking about me. Maybe other writers do it differently, but when the dam is released I have difficulty thinking about anything else.

Last night I was talking to my roommate JD about financial matters. It occured to me that I have a couple thousand dollars more in the bank right now than I said I'd need to get the ball rolling on making a movie. The problem, I told him, was that all my ideas were not suitable for a first project and the one that was, Surviving Allison, just didn't inspire me. I had no desire to resurrect that heartbreak for the sole purpose of inflicting it on a fictional character and then exploiting his woes just to make a movie. Earlier today I was talking to a friend who is helping to organize an Anime convention. I mentioned an idea that I had about making a movie during a con about characters at a con and asked if that would be possible at the one she is helping to organize. She was quite excited about the idea.

The problem was, and is, that making a short movie in the course of a weekend may be possible with enough work, but only for the experienced. In other words, this couldn't be a first movie for its creators. So during lunch today I started thinking about Surviving Allison and looking for inspiration on it or, at the very least, figure out why I felt so uninspired.

Then it hit me.

I don't even know what idea came first, really. But within half an hour, I'd not only developed a completely new central character, but I'd redefined who the conversation in his mind was between. I believe that in part I have this blog to thank for that. While it's not a First, Second, and Third like I wrote below, it nonetheless gives a more firm identity to what before were only one-dimensional "aspects" of a personality. The character, instead of a carbon copy of the once poor and sad little me, took on a life completely of his own (which, incidentally, is a must regardless of how "personal" a writing project is) . And since it was no longer about a reckless hearted girl, I had to rename it once more. Surviving Allison was dead, long live Seven Voices.

The ideas have been rolling like thunder since and I don't see an end in sight. Maybe I'll run dry soon enough, but right now I can taste it.

I'm not entirely sure what comes next. I can't start anything until I finish recording my lines for Adjusters, but once I'm done I can hit the ground running.

The bad news is that soon I may have to cut down on my blogging during the script-writing portion of it all.

The good news is that right now it seems that I, with the help of my friends and whomever else volunteers, might just be making a movie.

Which OS are You?

"You just get used to it, you know. You get used to living in a house and when you wake up, someone being there next to you. Maybe she was never a very good cook and you weren't home enough, but it's your life and you get used to it and even when you complain, you like it. And you never know that one day you're going to miss it more than anything in the world." -Confederate Jake, frequenter of the truck stop where I eat lunch, named so for the confederate emblemed helmet always hanging on his motorcycle when he stops by.

You may or may not know that I am a scholar of MBTI Typology (ENTP, ISFJ, etc). I've intended to post on it before, but I've never gotten the chance. I've read four books on the subject and have four more books just waiting for me. I've found it to be the best guide for understanding human behavior available. Nonetheless, I'm interested in alternative theories and thus have a Carl Rogers book and take tests to find out which fantasy land elf-god I am. Earlier this week I gook a test on the competing personality type test RHETI. Here's what I got:

free enneagram test

To me, the best way to gauge the accuracy of a test is by reading the "Drawbacks" portion of the test. After all, most people like to attribute positive characteristics to themselves, but if one describes all your problems, there's a good chance that it's on to something because you are only likely to identify with problems that you have, if those.
So let's take a look:

Can be highly dogmatic, self-righteous, intolerant, and inflexible. Begin dealing in absolutes: they alone know "The Truth." Everyone else is wrong: very severe in judgments, while rationalizing own actions. / Become obsessive about imperfection and the wrong-doing of others, although they may fall into contradictory actions, hypocritically doing the opposite of what they preach. / Become condemnatory toward others, punitive and cruel to rid themselves of "wrong-doers." Severe depressions, nervous breakdowns, and suicide attempts are likely.

Now, I am not nutso like this description, but if I was nutso, this is the kind of nutso I'd probably be.

Now, since I'm not nutso, I look one section up into the "average" section.

Average: Dissatisfied with reality, they become high-minded idealists, feeling that it is up to them to improve everything: crusaders, advocates, critics. Into "causes" and explaining to others how things "ought" to be. / Afraid of making a mistake: everything must be consistent with their ideals. Become orderly and well-organized, but impersonal, puritanical, emotionally constricted, rigidly keeping their feelings and impulses in check. Often workaholics ? "anal-compulsive," punctual, pedantic, and fastidious. / Highly critical both of self and others: picky, judgmental, perfectionistic. Very opinionated about everything: correcting people and badgering them to "do the right thing"?as they see it. Impatient, never satisfied with anything unless it is done according to their prescriptions. Moralizing, scolding, abrasive, and indignantly angry.

That's about as good a cursory description [of my shortcomings] of me as I've come across to date. Not as thorough as MBTI, of course, but that's cause I took the freebie test.

But it still feels incomplete. I'll have to read more on my runner-up types.

I'm tempted to pay for the real shebang to compare it to my much-beloved Typology. I'll have to think about it.

Go take the test and tell me what y'all think.

More on this later, but I gotta head on to work.

UPDATE: I've edited the contents of this post slightly. I've added bold to point out the parts I really agree with and strikeout lines through the parts I don't. Also, for your reading pleasure, I'll put down the positive aspects of my personality from the site:

Conscientious with strong personal convictions: they have an intense sense of right and wrong, personal religious and moral values. Wish to be rational, reasonable, self-disciplined, mature, moderate in all things. / Extremely principled, always want to be fair, objective, and ethical: truth and justice primary values. Sense of responsibility, personal integrity, and of having a higher purpose often make them teachers and witnesses to the truth. At Their Best: Become extraordinarily wise and discerning. By accepting what is, they become transcendentally realistic, knowing the best action to take in each moment. Humane, inspiring, and hopeful: the truth will be heard.

I would highlight and bold what I really agree with, but seeing as how I have a generally positive self-image, I agree with all of it, more or less. Like I said above, we're all more open to not-entirely-accurate complimentary descriptions than not-entirely-accurate negative ones.

[Originally posted on the No-Lyfe Journal]

I am standing in the middle of nothingness, except that I am at a crossroads. However, instead of there being two paths in front of me, there are an infinite number...

I am sitting at my computer, typing this.

I am sitting at a table, surrounded by darkness except for the light at my center. There are two others at the table. The First, across and to my right, is me at the age of sixteen. Energetic and passionate, but also angry and obstinate. My hair comes down just past my ears. I've lost a little weight, but I could stand to lose more and, before long, I will. I wear a smirk because I don't know how to smile. The Second, across and to my left, is me at the age of twenty. My hair is short and I'm wearing r