Here piggy piggy

A young wild sow slept under my parents' house. I came to see. Cute, yeah?



I decided to pet her, but used a newspaper just in case. Good thing. She bit it many times. But after a while she let me stroke her with it, and then she stretched out flat on the grass, rolled over on her stomach, and, holy crap, went to sleep!

Zzzzz.... lol.

Tita,(my dog) wasn't exactly thrilled with all this. She snapped and chased the pig. Then when I scolded her she stopped and tried to be nice and the pig misconstrued that as weakness and chased her.

I came back the following day and took this video. You can hear her snort. She's pretty cute, pretty funny.

64% feminist?

Dang. Thought I'd be a 100%.

You Are 64% Feminist

You are certainly a feminist - whether you know it or not. You believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. You also believe there are a few exceptions.

Are You a Feminist?

I object... Here are the reasons I didn't get 100%.
To the question:

Women should be economically and socially independent. They shouldn't rely on men to take care of them.

I disagreed. Why shouldn't a woman choose to be dependent? Grandma dug it. It was a choice she made and she was happy. So why shouldn't any woman or any group of women make that same choice?

To the question:

There is no such thing as a "man's job." It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren't in that field.

I wasn't sure. NO such thing? I'm sorry but I don't think women should be walking around mens' locker rooms, nor vice versa, of course. I don't think women are as good at relating to young mens' problems as young men are, and... it is unreasonable to suppose there are no jobs which men are innately better at. Same thing goes for women.

To the question:

Women should take an equal role in dating. Women should ask out people they are interested in and take their turn in paying.

WHY should they, when young men are twice as horny? Makes no sense. Of course if a woman wants to ask a man out, great. But why SHOULD they take an equal role when they need not do so? And who says they don't? Honestly, in a bar or a club, if a woman makes eye contact with a man twice, she is basically asking him to ask her out. So why is it necessary that she ask him out the same way he asks her out?

To the question:

Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals.

This question sucks. It is two barely related question jammed together. NO, that 500lb woman should NOT accept her body as is. She should lose some weight. On the other hand, YES, women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals. Crock of shit, that question.

To the question:

Women should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control - including the morning after pill.

I don't think of the morning after pill as birth control. I think of it as an abortion pill. I still think women should have access to it, but again I don't like the question, so I said I wasn't sure. Er, come to think of it, I was being an asshole when I answered this question.

Les Miserables and Ultra

Been reading the best novel ever written, Les Miserables, again. Came across this and it reminded me of some people on the net. This is a direct quote.

In short, Mme de T----'s salon was 'ultra'. Since that word no longer has any meaning, although what it represents has perhaps not wholly disappeared, we must explain it.
To be 'ultra' is to go to the extreme. It is to attack the sceptre in the name of the throne and the mitre in the name of the altar; to abuse the cause one supports; to rush one's fences, outdo the executioner in the grilling of heretics, charge the idol with insufficient idolatry, insult by excessive adulation, find the pope insufficiently papist and the king insufficiently royalist. It is to denigrate the whiteness of alabaster or snow or the swan or the lily in the name of flawless whiteness; to be a partisan of causes to the point of becoming their enemy; to be so vehemently for as to be in fact against.

I though that was pretty cool, and apt for the times. Abe Lincoln (I read somewhere) didn't read widely but he read deeply. He read Shakespeare's works and the Bible, studied them. That was my goal but I really got bored of reading Shakespeare over and over and the Bible, well, I've read it cover to cover once and... I think I get it. I mean I believe. I don't want to study it like a literary text.

So anyway I decided to read Les Miserable again and I can't believe how wonderful it is. What an incredible book. You can learn a lot about being a Christian by reading Les Miserables, too... even more about being a good person, and about what a society is and can be and should be and... wow what a great book.

My dog Tita fetches a stick.

Not real exciting, but why should I be the only one bored on the internet?

Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

The blogfather has linked, twice now, to David Freddoso's objections (links below) to this Politico piece.

If Fredoso was confident he would do what Politico has done, simply give the entire text of that part of the interview, and possibly add some context. Instead, David Freddoso offered us his (warped imho) interpretation the first time he criticized Politico, and again in his defense of the first criticism. Freddoso must be worried that people who actually read what was said won't agree with him, or find he objects to a distinction that makes no difference. He should be.

Klein's tangled web.

The blogfather links to a Times piece by Joe Klein which I find genuinely, not Morissettishly, ironic. The longish excerpt:

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

Klein says "I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place." But he didn't inform his readers of this. Readers rightly believed Harman's quote was taken after she voted. While such lies of convenience may be SOP for MSM reporters, they are still lies. The reader is intentionally deceived. Klein's insouciance makes his article ironic. While trying to explain that he didn't deserve to be condemned as a sloppy, lazy, dishonest writer, he provides an example of sloppy, lazy, dishonest writing, and he doesn't even know it.

Katie Couric did something similar. CBS fired a producer for plagiarizing a post, which stated it was "posted by Katie Couric" that began "Hi everyone, I still remember when I got my first library card." She went on to present a plagiarized version of an essay originally written by Jeffrey Zaslow, that was plagiarized by her soon to be fired producer, as though Couric herself had written it. When the plagiarism was discovered the producer was fired. But I don't recall Couric apologizing for presenting that producer's work as though she had written it herself. Talk about tangled webs.

UPDATE: INSTALANCHED! Welcome Instapundit readers. I don't really blog much nowadays so don't bother bookmarking. You might buy my 2nd novel, CLOWN, though. If you're familiar with Eric over at Classical Values, he read it and said it is HIGHLY recommended. HIGHLY, dammit. So never mind that sumbitch Sam Rhetin, who wouldn't know a good book if I slapped him around with one until his eyes bled.

How to be a racist.

Inspired by the Duke Lacrosse Team and the Rutgers Basketball team fiascos, I'm trying to figure out the rules. This is what I've got:

Racist talk demeaning whites by anyone = okay.

Racist talk demeaning Jews by non-white and/or white liberal = tolerable, by white non-liberal = atrocity.

Racist talk demeaning blacks by blacks = grammy!, by whites, Jews and Asians = atrocity, by Latinos = borderline(?). Exception: if the black targeted is Republican the target is no longer black. See racist talk about whites above.

Racist talk demeaning Latinos by whites, Jews, Asians = bad, by Latinos = okay, by blacks = tolerable.

Racist talk demeaning Asians by whites = bad, by blacks and Latinos = good, by Jews and Asians = tolerable.

Is that about right? Ahh crap. Are there different rules for gender?