Bookmark me or the Baron will pull my heart plug thingy.

Friday, March 31, 2006

Shavegeekdom part deux: Blood

So I've been using my Murker HD razor with a Murker blade, and Wal Mart bought boar's hair brush, Williams Mug Shave soap, and King of Shaves pre-shave oil, and KOS Alpha Gel for a week. I mixed a dollop of the KOS gel with the soap for a few days and got a better lather, but I didn't like the smell...

The first shave with the Murker blade resulted in two cuts. After that I got better or the blade became more forgiving, because Saturday through Thursday I had zero cuts.

So I decided to step it up and try a Feather blade. Mostly the shavegeeks fear the feather blade, mostly. (You say it like Newt in Aliens, the "mostly.") But these guys talk about Feathers like gun-control feaks talk about guns- like they are evil and maim of their own volition... I knew the blades couldn't be that bad. Plus I figured I might be a natural.

I was wrong. I was very careful this morning, not only because we're talking about the Feather but because it is a BRAND NEW blade and that leads to cuts. I really took my time. After my NS pass with the grain I was okay. I had three tiny cuts but hey, I had had two with the Murker- I knew those guys exagerrated the danger! After the S/N pass I had one more... No biggie. I went for my T&C (Touch and Feel- you touch to feel the places you missed because you can't see them and then you cut against the grain) and got one more... Okay, so five versus two. Pretty damn sharp blade! I used my styptic pencil, just touch it to the cuts and the bleeding stops instantly.

I walked into the bedroom, got dressed, came out and looked in the mirror, ready to apply some Nivea A/S balm...


The original five were deeper than I had thought and seven more had magically appeared...

WHAT THE F#$(!!!???!!!

Lemme tell you something about these Feather blades man... They're evil. They WANT to cut you... they LOVE to cut you... Don't try it until you are a shavegeek level six, and even then I suggest you take out life insurance first.

3 posts of the day-

Regarding Jill Carrol, who I posted about yesterday, this post and this post over at LGF show she was scared, and probably Stockholm syndromed. Poor woman... I hope she'll be able to recover from her ordeal. If she gets back to the US and denounces her abductors and cowardly sumbitches that need to be killed and have their remains pureed with a 1000 lbs of spam we'll know she has.

And THIS post is every, excuse me, should be every Westerner's wet dream.
It links to a Washington Times article in which a Muslim says Islam needs to reform. Wonderful because
1. a Muslim group is saying Islam needs to reform
2. the media is paying attention to a trully liberal Muslim group instead of those fascist fugs at CAIR, and
3. CAIR is denouncing the article, which will HOPEFULLY (though I doubt it) show the media they are fascist fugs who should not be treated as the de facto spokespeople for American Muslims, and will almost CERTAINLY get non-media types to
a. realize CAIR SUCKS, and
b. realize the CAIR hyping media SUCKS...

Thursday, March 30, 2006

My email to Borders-

I'm not threatening to kill anybody or anything like that, so you probably don't care that I dislike your policy regarding allowing terrorists to decide what Borders stocks. Still, I drop probably a couple thousand dollars at Borders each year. No more.
Hoping you'll grow a pair,
Theron Marshman

A commentor asked wtf I was so mad about... good point. Here is the link.

Go to this link to learn about Jill Carrol being freed.

The Jawa report has go it all... click here.

Charles Johnson inspires my comment with his apt:

She says the terrorists treated her well.

Her interpreter, murdered during the kidnapping, was not available for comment.

I don't get why these reporters aren't on our side in this war. They certainly are not. When you have an evil side and a good side, or even an evil side and a neutral side, reporting both sides is in effect unfair. It favors evil.

Do they think being a reporter absolves them of moral responsiblity? By reporting both sides as if they are equally reasonable they are being useful idiots, propaganda outlets for an evil philosophy.

If this woman is in shock that's one thing, it may excuse her, temporarily. But it does not excuse these news outlets reporting her words without caveats like Charles Johnson's.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Good post of the day about NYU and freedom of speech.

Is here, found via Instapundit.

Trust me, it is definitely worth the read.

I have two comments. Both reply to this, written by a Muslim activist, Yvonne Ridley:

The student group is also planning on displaying the cartoons at the event... The event itself poses no problems but the pictures, as you know, are racist, offensive and there is really no justification in preaching something that breeds that kind of hate against Muslims.

Islam is not a race. The logic, I suppose, is that Muslims are mostly Arab and insulting Islam insults Arabs and is therefore racist against Arabs. This is stupid as Arabs make up only 12% of the world's Muslims. In fact the whole idea is absurd. The majority of Arab-Americans are Christians, in fact, so if you're worried about being racist against Arabs in America you better not insult Christianity, according to this logic. (I'm sure NYU would never allow anything like that...)

Suppose the argument is that no white people are Muslim, and therefore insulting Islam insults a non-white group, and any argument insulting any non-white group is racist. Even those PC-addled enough to accept such reasoning have no argument. The Muslims of Bosnia, Albania, Kosova, Bulgaria, Western Turkey, Russia, and the Caucasus are white. This is not a small minority of Muslims.

All this leads to my second comment, which specifically deals with this part of the above quote:

...there is really no justification in preaching something that breeds that kind of hate against Muslims.

Really? Yvonne Ridley's lies and attempts to squelch speech are much more likely to breed hate against Muslims than those cartoons.

So if any Muslim activists read this, I hope you'll contact Yvonne and tell her to STFU, as there really is no justification for her activities because they breed hate against Muslims.

For the record, I do not and never will judge, much less hate, Muslims because of this woman's lies and sophistry, but neither would I do so because of some cartoons.

Friday, March 24, 2006

I am become Shavegeek- destroyer of whiskers.

I feel very strange about this because I feel like I should be ashamed but I don't feel ashamed so I feel ashamed for NOT feeling ashamed...

I am a shavegeek. I'm not an UBER shavegeek, but still. I don't remember how but I started reading this blog. It led me to a bunch of wetshave forums like this and this and this.

I didn't want to go too far so I didn't buy a $500.00 silver tip badger's hair shave brush or a bunch of English shave creams and etc... I just went to Walmart and bought a Fusion Power (which they say is the suck but it is a step-up from the Mach3 Power I used before) and some William's Mug Shave Soap (they say it's just okay but WAY better than any "goo from a can) and a $5.00 boar's hair brush and some King of Shaves Pre-Shave Oil. I didn't wrap my face in hot towels like they say but I did start shaving in the shower after my face had wet for a few minutes. I followed the basic wet shave ritual.

Cripes what a difference.

With Barbasol from a can and a Mach3, shaving after I splashed some water on my face, well, I used to put half a cup of heavy moisturizer on my face so that it wouldn't start peeling an hour later... I mean it looked like I painted my face with clown makeup. And I didn't just rub it in, I rubbed it in and put more on to let it sit there until it my face absorbed it itself. That may sound crazy, but if I didn't do all that it looked like my face had dandruff. No, it looked like my face was Mars (red) with dandruff. And it wasn't even a CLOSE shave!

With the new method a dab of moisturizer was enough, and I got a much better shave.

But I couldn't leave it alone. I ordered the Merkur Heavy Classic. This is a fine piece of stainless steel manufactured in Germany which accepts those double edged razor blades popular back when we feared the Soviets. This is shavegeek level 1.

Then I devised my system.

Run tap water until it is hot as possible. (Morning piss as it warms.) Fill mug, with shaving soap at bottom, with hot water. Put tiny shaving oil bottle in. It floats... Force it down by putting brush atop it, which also soaks brush. Lower water temp until it is bearable on face. Change shower head setting so it is a pulse and use pulsing water as a floss. Change shower head setting so that it is less cutting, and brush teeth, making sure water is hitting face entire time. (Look away only for occasional breaths.)

Total Shower Time, 3 minutes. Total Time In Shower, 2 minutes.

Massage hot oil, just 8 or 10 drops in all, all over whiskers. Dump water out of mug, shake out brush, (not TOO much, you need enough water) and create perfect lather (stands on it's own but it very wet) by whisking, pumping, and painting soap with brush. Apply lather generously and roughly, using the brush to lift whiskers and exfoliate face. TST 4 minutes, TTIS 3minutes.

Vigorously soap up entire body so you look as covered in lather as that guy in Blazing Saddles when the horse pulls the public shower away from him. I mean go to town... Suds UP!!! TST 6 minutes, TTIS 5 minutes. (It is surprising how quick this process is if you really go for it.)

Now, if you'll notice, my whiskers have been saturated one way or another by hot water and/or oil (the lather is just a way to keep hot water on your whiskers) for at least 4 and up to 5 minutes. This hot water saturation is THE key to a good shave.

Shave. Shave upper area of face with grain down to jawline. This is a north to south pass. Relather uper area. Shave lower area of face with grain up to jawline. This is a south to north pass, mostly. Relather lower area. Shave upper area AGAINST the grain, south to norht, pulling skin taught, and being careful. Shave lower area against grain, north to south, pulling skin taught etc.

Relather spots where these two passes don't work. Everybody has such spots, where the hair grows in weird directions. You hit them in different directions. You can't really SEE them as much as feel them. Shave them at various angles, against grain.

TST 14 minutes TTIS 13 minutes. So it takes me 8 minutes to actually shave. I haven't rinsed yet, so the suds have been cleaning/moisturizing this whole time.

Rinse thouroughly with cold as I can stand water.
TST 16 TTIS 15-

Dry off, clean up shower area, and apply about a teaspoon's worth of moisturizer and deodorant. TST18, TTIS 17 (I dry off in the shower).

Okay, that's it. The minutes are estimates and can go about 2 minutes either way. So total time in the shower is 16 to 20 minutes, and I come out cleaner and better shaved than I ever have. And my face looks better, and it doesn't hurt as much. Also, I don't waste a lot of water = good for the environment. Also, I'm using $0.25 razor blades that last about a week each instead of $4.50 cartridges that last about a week. Total saving over the course of a year = $221.00. Oh, and those little blades take up a lot less space in a landfill, too. Oh, and that cake of William's soap will probably last 6 months.

Now, ALL THE ABOVE only makes me a shavegeek level 2!!!

Yeah, no kidding.

And there are like 9 levels... No kidding. But hey, in the last ten days my face has lost years of wear and tear... It is really almost unbelievable. There are worse obsessions.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

this is a very cool test...

click here to take it

I got 9 of them right...

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

The difficulty of refuting the Iraq war lies...

Classical Values has a post with this comment. My reply to the comment is below.

"Originally, Bush invaded a peaceful sovereign nation for the ostensible purpose of dethroning Hussein, because his WMDs posed a threat."

These aren't just lies, they are so easily debunked by a 5 minute search that they are more like religious recitations... articles of faith repeated over and over to reaffirm something the speaker HIMSELF knows is based only on faith... It gets so tiresome debunking them though...

I'm not sure if it takes more energy to refute them or if the liars just have more energy... for the record, there were MANY reasons for invading Iraq, and they were all mentioned previous to the invasion. For the record, Iraq was NOT "peaceful." For the record, dethroning Saddam Huseein was NEVER the sole purpose of the invasion... sigh...

Monday, March 20, 2006

Fantastic post of the day about how Iraq war SHOULD have been run

is here... Wow. You know I have sort of rejected the idea of analyzing Iraq with 20/20 hindsight. I actually think Bush has done a good job, given the enormity of the task and the RELATIVELY light casualties and cost...

But I have to agree with this.

Stevie Wonder is awesome.

I can't believe how awesome he is.

American Idol got me interested, and I've got a Musicmatch Jukebox account so I can just download and listen to his music all day... and holy crap I've heard about 10 wonderful songs... I mean I feel that way about 10 of all of Al Green's songs, or Elton John's, or Boz Scaggs, so that's huge.

I don't know why I never knew... I thought of Sir Duke and Superstition... now I'm hearing Knocks me Off My Feet and Blame It On The Sun, All in Love is Fair... etc. Good stuff!

Friday, March 17, 2006

Eric of Classical Values reviews CLOWN!!!

The review is here.

I'm a regular reader, and big fan of Classical Values, so Eric's opinion carries a lot of weight with me.

The verdict:

(wait for it)

(wait for it)

"Highly recommended reading! Especially for those of us who are squeamish about our dark sides. Or our loser sides. (Which means most of us.)"


So frinkin' FUNNY!

Reproductive rights...

Okay, if you're REALLY bored at work here is a LONG debate about reproductive rights for men...
I get so bored at work that I actually HAVE the debates, which takes a lot longer than reading them. :) OHSU and I go at it. His opinion can be summed up as "If you have sex you must pay child support." I argue that if the woman gets pregnant through fraud it should be optional.
I think I won. He started getting squirmy squirmy towards the end, which I accepted as a functional surrender.

The debate happens on a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu forum, btw.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Al Quaeda chatter explained?

This article,via Ace of Spades HQ, details how "authorities had foiled an al-Qaida plot that would have put hundreds of its men at critical guard posts around Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, home to the U.S. and other foreign embassies as well as the Iraqi government."

and this one from Fox news, about how "Coalition forces launched the largest air assault in Iraq since U.S. forces invaded that country in 2003, the U.S. military confirmed Thursday..."

may explain the Instapundit's comment about Al Queda chatter:

"AL QAEDA CHATTER at pre-9/11 levels. I'm not sure what that means, but unless they're saying "this whole terror thing sucks, let's quit," it's probably bad news."

I think (and certainly HOPE) they're saying something along those lines. But it is probably more like...

"Did you hear they caught the guys trying to pull security in the green zone?"
"Totally. We're so screwed. Unless they send those guys to Gitmo they're going to talk for sure."
"Oh chit."
"Not only that, they're taking out all those guys in Samarra."
"You've got to be kidding me! Don't make me stone your wife, man."
"I'm serious."
"Well... I guess if Allah wills it..."
"Save that shit for the tourists, man."
"Yeah. This whole terror thing sucks, let's quit."

Update: Welcome Instapundittites!!! Make yourself at home! Buy my book!

Update 2: Eric over at Classical Values reviews my book- click here to read the review!

Friday, March 10, 2006

Abajo Fidel! So great!!!

This is so friggin' awesome.

Hat tip to Dean's World.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Ann Althouse crouches to jump my shark:

This is a smart woman... why do smart people get hypnotized by Islamists?

Last week, I mentioned that my colleague Asifa Quraishi was giving a talk on Monday called "A Reconsideration of Presumptions: Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?" So, what's the answer? Here it is in Professor Quraishi's words:

I think yes, Islam is compatible with democracy. It is also compatible with a lot of other methods of government. There's nothing mandating or prohibiting any particular form of rule in the source texts of Islam (Quran and Hadith).Quraishi, who teaches constitutional law and Islamic law here at the UW Law School, explained how, historically, Islamic law developed, with a "public lawmaking realm [that] was separated from the realm of those who derived law from from interpretation of divine texts." This traditional public lawmaking "could very easily translate to a democratic public legislative (even representative democracy, even federalism if you like that too) system." The question then becomes what do you do with the law that is derived from divine texts (and this is law, by the way, that a lot of Muslims in the world like, and in fact demand their rights under - much the same way we demand our constitutional rights - and this includes women, often in a very empowering way, but that's another topic) - i.e. the doctrinal corpus of law created by private Muslim jurists (fiqh).

To which I replied in the comments section:

What a great example of how you can say disgusting things in a nice way. Let's paraphrase:

"This idea that people should vote for a governnment and then that government makes the laws is just another idea. So Western democracy, seperation of state, freedom of religion, these are just value-neutral ideas and other ideas are just as good.

So when you talk about Muslims and democracy, the problem isn't Muslims, it is the presumption that YOUR democracy, (the one where you vote for a government and then that goverment makes laws which are equally applied to everybody) is better than OTHER kinds of democracy.

I don't want to get into the specifics of what kind of democracy Muslims should have, though. That's another topic. It suffices that Muslims will live under divine law 'cause that's what they like- and they'll demand the rights of that divine law 'cause that's what they want. Of course Muslim won't have to VOTE to make those laws into actual laws, or to prove they really want those laws. After all, I assure you they do, and that's enough."

And this woman is a law professor, lol.

Yeah, she actually IS a law professor. She's TEACHING PEOPLE LAW... alkfdjalk;sfjdaldsfj

POD from the BelmontClub

Here Wretchard does what he does best, and better than anybody else. Basically he says that the enemy in Iraq is chaos, and that the US military has learned how to defeat chaos by empowering the troops on the ground, but the US State Department has not learned how to KILL chaos by empowering its employees on the ground to direct rebuilding.

He goes on to explain that Iraq is just one battle in which the United State's true enemy will be Chaos, though it will wear different masks.

You need to read it. It is fantastic.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Just bought 10 copies for $84-

so profits are waaay down... :(

Two reviews of CLOWN...

One says CLOWN is great- the other says it sucks... Can they both be right? I don't know... They are here at the same page where you can buy a copy. I'll cut and paste them so you can take a look...


Post a review | Posting guidelines | Ratings and reviews forum
Don't waste your time by Sam Rhetin
Sat 4 Mar 4:11 am EST 2006

I usually finish every book that I pick up. Even if I don't like something I almost always try and stick it out until the end. This piece of work, if you want to call it that, was one of the rare exceptions. That's surprising for me since the book is only 151 pages. One of the main problems I had with this effort is the careless manner in which the author crafted the character. With so much focus being on the character and his inner thoughts you would assume Theron Marshman would have at least made an attempt to make him at least somewhat believable.

Perhaps this book would have been palatable if it didn't suffer from overwriting. The thoughts and observations of the character should have been more concise. Instead of that, we mostly get a collection of incoherent ramblings about meaningless tangents unrelated to the story or the character. Often, after a point is made the author keeps hacking away at it for no apparent reason. This is one of the (many) reasons why I became impatient and gave up on reading at about the halfway point. Another shortcoming is the utter lack of detail in the surroundings within the narrative. The book is missing dimension in regard to the surroundings of the story and is devoid of ambience which wears thin after a short period of reading.

This book appears to be nothing more than a disjointed story comprised of a collection of thoughts of the author that do not have much substance behind them when combined as a whole. If you're interested in a good read by a solid writer then you'll be very disappointed by Clown.
[ Reply ]

An incredible book! I want more! by georgeburkhart
Thu 2 Mar 9:23 pm EST 2006 last modified on Thu 2 Mar 9:29 pm EST 2006
Take "American Psycho" replace the Yuppie with a struggling poet with a less than rigorous skin care regimen, add some brilliant steam of consciousness writing and a pinch of hilarious/insightful (sometimes both at the same time) situations/thoughts and poof, you have Clown.

I'm obviously not a writer, but Marshman is a force to be reckoned with. The bar scene at 1st Ave (Chapters 29-34) is worth the price of the book alone. I love the wide variety of emotions this book takes you on. From a creepy suspense (is somebody going to die?) to laugh out loud comedy (Norman's pickup guide and smelling farts with William) and introspection and despair (Am I living up to my potential/ The Epic?), Clown keeps your attention and leaves you wanting more.
[ Reply ]

I'll let these comments stand without comment, except to say that MOST of the feedback I've received for CLOWN has been more like georgeburkhart's than Sam Rhetin's.

Sold another CLOWN so... $307.00!

That's 3 today! Wow!

I wrote something mean about Natalie Portman

at some point on this blog. Something about her being fat and stupid. I think I was pissed at her for being part of ruining Star Wars and for that ridiculous movie where she was a stripper screwing an asshole who was screwing some picture taking biznitch...

But I love her again, and here's why. She's HARD. She's hard like Affleck in Phantoms.

And she's HOT. She's hot like what's her name before she smiled so often and so hard that her smile became a gash running all the way across her face. Um... you know, she was the picture taking biznitch mentioned above... she just had a baby...

Portman is still a sort of squashed version of Winona Ryder, but still.

Two more CLOWNS sold = 292.00

Wow! $300.00 will be a nice milestone. Unfortunately I'm almost out of books to sell, going to have to pony out so that will cut into the profits. But you can't sell it if you ain't got it. :) GOOD problem to have.

What in the hell is the world coming to

when I applaud an essay written by a bunch of fuggin' commies? Seriously, they are commies.

Post of the day is here. Friggin' great.


Despite the presence of many grievances in the general mobilisation, the focus on the cartoons has made it a single movement with one upfront demand—that the non-Muslim world should obey the prohibition of (the majority of) Muslims against portraying (or against insulting) Muhammad.

That people everywhere should obey a rule of a religion they all reject, and some may abhor. That those who refuse to obey the Islamic edit should be punished and penalised by non-Islamic governments.

Western governments who do not want to have their embassies burned down, or their trade with Islamic countries boycotted and ruined, or the lives of their nationals in Muslim countries placed in jeopardy, had better make themselves enforcers for the rules of a religion which their citizens do not accept. That is the demand.

They must curb free speech and free expression. Curb the freedom to criticism and mock and outspokenly denounce religion—the freedom from which over centuries most of our freedoms have been spun and consolidated.

And how have the bourgeois-democratic governments and liberal newspapers and TV systems responded? In the face of an outcry which—whatever energies other than religious feelings have fuelled it—has been a vast outpouring of religious zealotry and bigotry, they have apologised!


In the countries where they are strong or dominant, the political Islamists are the enemies of virtually everything socialists and liberals believe in. They have rooted out liberalism, secularism, and socialism, and persecuted and murdered those who could not be intimidated and cowed.

The craven surrender of the liberals and the liberal left therefore betrays not only themselves, and what people like them used to stand for. It betrays those fighting the bigots in their heartlands - the enemies and too often the victims of the religio-fascists in the Islamic world.

The issue is free speech, but it is not just that. It is not just a matter of finding and adhering to general and universal principles. The right to criticise and mock and denounce religion is not just one right among many similar rights. The freedom to criticise religion is, in history, the root out of which all other such freedoms have developed.

It was a long, slow development from the assertion by heretics and protestants - by Albigenses, Hussites, Wycliffites, Lutherans, Calvinists - of their right to disagree with the Catholic church and with each other, to our erstwhile right to freely express atheistic contempt and condemnation of religion — all religion.

It was not a matter of reaching an amicable agreement with the religious in the time of their strength and predominance. It was a matter of drawing a line between them and us and standing on it, of fighting them tenaciously to win the right to dissent and mock and criticise their entrenched bigotry.

BOLDED is from Protein Wisdom, whence I found the essay. Read the whole thing.

So weird. For what, 80 years, socialists have said the West sucks, and so many in the West BELIEVED them that now the West doesn't love itself enough to defend its central characteristics. Geeze... Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Is the lesser enemy my ally? Is... 'scuse me while my fuggin' head explodes.

Friday, March 03, 2006

The way to argue with crazy lefties...

is to take their side but use plainer language that shows how crazy their positions are. Or you can basically use their exact words but put them in a slightly different context. This causes cognitive dissonance, and it is fun to watch the squirming...

I used the second way in the comments section of this post about a liberal student who posed as a conservative at a recent panel, run by conservatives, that discusses the Mohammed cartoons. Read the whole thing, but here are a couple of excerpts:

The display of those cartoons served no purpose other than to inflame emotions...

My answer was that yes, I do regret going, but as I think more about it I have to say "yes and no". I regret going, in the same way I would regret watching an execution or looking on as somebody beat their child.

Later, in the comments section, the Chemist writes:

Oh, and one more thing: I've posted the pictures of the cartoons (they're small, but they're there), and Agi has posted the cartoons

So I wrote:

I just have to laugh at the hypocrisy here. The fact that you posted the pictures of Mohammed shows you are a racist pig just like the Jews and Christians on that panel, Chemist.

The display of those cartoons served NO PURPOSE other than to inflame emotions.

And please, DON'T PRETEND that you displayed them for any other reason. Free speech does NOT include the right to deprive people of real rights, such as human dignity.

You pretend you are progressive but you are a repressor just like the Jews and Christians on that panel. You want to take away basic human rights from Muslims.

I feel dirty just for READING this blog. I'm kind of glad I did, but in another way I wish I hadn't.

I wonder if he'll reply...

Last week I replied to this post by an iraqi tear with this:

As an American, I want to apologize that the USA was unable to stop Sunni Muslims from blowing up a Shiite Mosque.

We also failed to stop Iraq and Iran from fighting during Ramadan from 1980-1988.

We also failed to stop Juhayman, a Saudi, and his followers from holding the al-masjid al-Haraam Mosque hostage in 1979.

The US has failed, again and again and again, to stop Muslims from slaughtering Muslims, to stop Muslims from desecrating Muslim holy sites, and to stop Muslims from depriving other Muslims of basic human rights such as free speech and freedom of religion.

Again, as an American I want to apologize for every time the United States has failed to stop a Muslim from doing something evil to another Muslim.

No reply...

Chemist hasn't responded to my comment but someone else did, lol.

Jenny said...

Get another perspective if you think you can take a right wing blog. It has a good description of what HE (SHE?) saw and heard.


Harkonnendog - free speech was so important to our founding fathers that they put in the first admendment, not second, third or 15th.

"Free speech does NOT include the right to deprive people of real rights, such as human dignity. " Uh, yes it does

5:29 PM

Jenny said...

And Harkonnendog, I think you have it backwards when you say, "You want to take away basic human rights from Muslims." I think we are trying to keep Muslims from taking them away from us. Do you live in the US? If you don't like it here then go somewhere else that would be more compatible with your belief structure. Don't try to change ours.

5:33 PM

Anonymous said...

Harkonnendog, I hope you're saving up for the jizya.

5:34 PM

Hehehe. I really didn't intend to catch this type of fly in my web... whoops. Kind of fun, though. I upped the ante with this:

Harkonnendog said...

The fact of the matter is Chemist is NO DIFFERENT THAN THESE ANTI-ISLAM RACISTS. Chemist printed the pictures too! Chemist says that the Muslims at the meeting were called racist names, but there is NOTHING MORE RACIST against Muslims than printing pictures of Mohammed, (PBUH-GEGO) which Chemist DID.

So you all are just flip sides of the same coin. Racist Americans who hate Islam from the left, and Raicst Americans who hate Islam from the right. You are like the Jew snipers arguing about whether to shoot a Palestinian child in the heart or in the head.

6:51 PM

So we'll see if that calls Chemist out or not. :) Did y'all like the PBUH-GEGO? Guess what it stands for in the comments. :)

(who'm i kidding, nobody reads this... sob...)

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Sold another...

$277.00... Good day for selling copies of CLOWN. Realistically, I think I need to order like a thousand copies and then sell them one by one... If I order a thousand they cost... 4.77 a pop... plus shipping... lets just call it $5000... I'd make $15,000 if I sold them all, which I think I could, probably in two or three years, just from work, if today is any indicator... 10k profit... hmm...

I wonder if I can get CLOWN bulk printed for less elsewhere, though... Anyway something to think about.

Sold another CLOWN. = $262.00


wHAT' MY total now???

in the update:

okay 212+25+15= 262...

Still making corrections to 2nd edition. I will blog it when I upload this new edition. :)

Got first CLOWN royalty check...

You best believe I'm framing that mofo... I'll take a pic and post it, too. It ain't much, but it's figuratively quite a bit...

Also, sold two more copies, that's another $25-... YIPEE...

by the way, if you haven't bought it yet, you can buy it here.

Gotta read Steyn on the Oscars....

Click here. Fantastic!

Wonderful post of the day is a debate text

about whether or not Islam can be reformed. I think it can be. My views are below, but read this link first. This is a great debate. A great use of the net as well.

I think it is simply impossible for a religion to survive as long as Islam has survived if its adherents can't adapt to changing times. So, for me, the fact that Islam still exists PROVES it can be "reformed."

Besides, humans are human. Nobody can live up to the dictates of ANY of the Abrahamic religions, so IGNORING the holy documents of the religion when convenient while STILL BELIEVING is an absolute necessity.

Don't kid yourself.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Pitbulls and Chihuauhas...

Pitbulls get a rep as killers, but actually they are one of the most loving and human submissive dog breeds out there.

Pits were bred to fight bulls, originally, by grabbing a bull by the mouth and holding onto it as the bull mashed the dog into the ground and gored it and stomped on it. They developed that loose thick hide and incredible biting ability and the unusual tendency to bite and HOLD from that. Then they were mixed with terriers, who kill by biting and holding and shaking, which furthered the tendency. (other dog breeds bite and tear, then bite again, again, and again)

Then they were bred to fight other dogs, which ended up meaning to fight other pitbulls because pretty soon no other breed could compete with them.

This resulted in two things. One, the tendency for pitbull to be ridiculously determined.

(A fighting dog's worth was determined largely by his gameness. A great fighting dog (yes, I think people who fight dogs are fuggin' scum, just for the record) will fight until it is dead. This is what distinguishes a pitbull from other fighting breeds, such as Canary island dogs. Canary island dogs are HUGE compared to pits, and I've read that when a pit fights one of them the Canary island dog basically beats the crap out of the pit until they are so tired they can't do it anymore. The pit, who has suffered 100x worse damage and is 100x weaker, keeps fighting. Eventually the pit wins. The Canary island can't quite KILL the pit, and doesn't necessarily WANT to, it just wants to win. A game pit can't BE beat though, it can only be killed. Pits are pretty much the only dogs that do this, though not all pits do.)

Two, a pit is NOT human aggresive, generally. There are two reasons for this, one may be untrue, I'll refer to it as the myth, and one is just common sense.

The myth, (it might be true or not, I don't know) is that pit fights were basically tests of heart run by gentlemen until the late '70's. When a dog was dominating another and the other flinched or turned from a fight human handlers would literally pull them apart. Now, doing this with a pit is obviously dangerous if the dogs are human aggressive, so the rule was that if a pit bit a human it was put down immediately or, at the least, never bred. This may seem harsh, but if you know people who treat dogs as tools rather than pets, you know how quickly they'll put a dog down.

The common sense reason pits aren't human aggresive has to do with how dangerous they are when they ARE aggresive. Little dogs are assholes. I don't know if you've noticed this. Generally, they are freakly little punk dogs that cause shit and nip and bite and are dominant over their humans. And why not? They can rarely really hurt anyone, so why not breed asshole little dogs?

Big dogs aren't like that. Human aggressive big dogs kill people, so they aren't bred by responsible people. Since the late 70's dickless scumbag white trash and other ghetto thug types have bred human aggresive large dogs PURPOSELY, since this makes up for their small weewees in their small minds, but up until then this was very rare. You never hear about Great Danes or St. Bernard's killing people because the smalldicks never decided to breed human aggresiveness into these breeds.

So pitts are incredibly dangerous POTENTIALLY, but are bred to be dog aggressive and NEVER to be human aggresive. In fact, they are WONDERFUL dogs as pets. Unfortunately, while 10,000 chihuauahas might produce 1000 attacks, none of them will be fatal, and most of them will require a band-aid. 10,000 pits might produce 10 attacks, but 1 will be fatal, and 9 will require stitches.

The solution. A half pit half chihuauaha (yeah, I don't know how to spell chisgagidhaaua, I admit it, and I don't care) won't kill anybody, but will be just as calm and cool and non-human-aggresive as a pit, and will only be a litte bigger than a chadkfadilfjdalfdjasd.

And I know 'cause I've got one. And she is one cool little dog.

Thank you.