I guess I’ll just have to vote for your liberty and in doing so vote for mine. I’m voting conservative.

I trust you all navigated the holidays with much laughter and aplomb. Which is to say, I hope you all had a great Christmas, or if not that, a great Hanukah.

I and Mrs. J celebrated in appropriately cold weather where the fire in the fireplace had a truly functional appreciation felt by all. The victuals as you might well imagine were deliciously served up: that’s what happens when your mom and your mother-in-law do the cooking. A tip of the hat must be given to my sister whose humor and patience helped it all happen. And our Christmas Eve dinner wouldn’t have been satisfying or complete without our wonderful old friends whose wit, charm, and conversation are always coveted.

But on a particular evening, when I was relaxing to a well played football game on the upstairs, I happened downstairs for a moment and caught a portion of the Kennedy Center Honors awards for achievement in the arts. I admit I didn’t catch the whole thing, but I did see Martin Scorsese, Steve Martin, Diana Ross, and Leon Fleisher receive well deserved recognition for their contributions to the American experience as expressed in the arts. (It was relayed to me that the tribute to Brian Wilson was equally moving.) And while watching I had a couple or 3 thoughts: 1) You know you’ve made it if you're sitting in the theater box next to President George Bush and First Lady Laura Bush. 2) If you’re invited to a gala that the President and his wife are attending, well, by definition that is a Black-Tie affair, and again, you’re on a five-star registry. 3) As fine a gala as this Kennedy Center Honors awards affair is, I was thinking where is the USO tour?

So while we’re watching football tomorrow on January 1^st, 2008, remember who protects and secures our freedom; let us remember those who make our holiday meals possible: Those who stand in harms way so that we can clink our Champaign glasses, toast, laugh and enjoy the warmth given from our hearth. Say a prayer for our men and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!!!

Happy New Year,

Jon.Nine

T H E F O R E S T .

*****
And now for some visual aides:

*****
Speaking of Pirates. These guys are licking their chops for the Law of the Pirates (http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/ShowSectionNews.aspx), technically but inaccurately called the Law of the Sea, yes I know a little contradictory, what to do, what to do.

*****

And finally, from the try it you might like it files: try saying this, yes it’s a bit different, but it does have a certain beau ring to it: Viva La France: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/a_friend_in_france_finally.html

Stories are always in some sense telling us where to go. What’s the news? So some guy says that across the alluvium slope and on up about five miles near the old Banyan tree I went there looking for figs, but there were none, and the day being young, I went into the small canyon looking for some water, there’s always water there, but the creek wasn’t running, but there were small pools, and looking for a fresh pool, I found a berry bush, black berries, many not yet ripe, but the ones that were are some of the best I have ever tasted.

What’s the news?

Rationalism went insane the other day, the day getting dark, and finding itself between two large cliffs of a metamorphic quality it went on deeper, step by step, and then when it was pitch black it had no where to go, but day didn’t rise as it was supposed to and so it sat down and in the silence, went silent, and after a decade or so died.

So the guy who told the story got tired of waiting and with a puzzled look, and breaking the silence, said, “You should go and get some.”

“If I liked black berries or perhaps if I was in the mood for some I would go.” So said the other guy.

“That’s it,” you ask. “Well, come now, you know the details as well as I. Something about one guy not being able to convince the other and, after being exhausted, at day break the following day, one guy was gone looking for conviction”

Anyway, Allison from what little I gathered from the story is a nice enough person. So Allison, in a story titled Just Committed, which I presume is not meant to have a satirical self reflexive meaning, writes, it seems to me, approvingly of what she terms in the story, “shacking up.”

“Shacking up,” allowing for some poetic license, I would say is a little colloquially brusque for an objective narrative presentation, but perfectly applicable for underlining a subjective stance. Either narrative strategy I would argue is perfectly legitimate. Having her forthrightly reveal her leanings is commendable.

Now what I’m not so clear on is whether she received her inspiration for the story from a press release, and lets not bemoan this or that source for inspiration, some fine stories have been written from tawdry obscure sources, but anyway, I would say that a press release was the likely source, but this is a probability kind of thing, and so we must admit that it’s possible that she was inspired by regular life and so set out to do an advocacy story, or perhaps, most remotely, but possible, her editor asked for a piece on “shacking up,” and naturally, her affections shown through, naturally.

In any case we need not wonder why she approvingly quotes from Tammie Davis, 40, and Mike Swaney, 44, who, pardon the expression, are living together in a self defined loving relationship. I’m all in favor of loving relationships, and as it stands, more power to them. Yes, I would advise otherwise, but so it seems so would they. Fair is fair after all. At any rate, Allison does not give us any testimony from dissenters, people who have had lousy experiences in a “shacking up” relationship, but of course we know why.

So it is that Mr. Swaney is credited with saying, “for his part…he thinks he works harder at the relationship than he would if he were married.” Really? He needs to not have a piece of paper to keep his relationship intact? well isn’t that just another variation of “I don’t need a piece of paper to prove my love.” Well, however that may be we wish them the best.

Still, the whole point about “shacking up” is that it is easier to unshack than it is to divorce, yes? Otherwise, what’s the point. “What’s that you say? Something about adrenalin.” Hmm, not sure about that, but there is some truth, surely, especially over time, to the contradictory security that lies in imminent expectancy of catastrophe. Now why did I suddenly think of Global Warming? Hunh, well, never mind on that for now.

Lets see where was I, oh yes, there is a kind of emotional built in threat, which I suppose can be sublimated or some such, into a non-committal commitment--please please me, or if you don’t, I’m out the back Jack, making new plans Stan kind of thing, that remains a constant rhetorical dance ever playing. Could this apply to every non-committal commitment? Surely all life long commitments start out as non-committal commitments. We call them things like “going together,” at one stage, and at another we say, “engaged,” that sort of thing; now some feel this need to put the cart before the ox and live together, firstly, with the lastly goal being marriage, that is if all‘s well that ends well: If everything is just right--we’re going to the chapel and we’re going to get married.

Ah, that’s the problem isn’t it. Everything is never just right, if just right is a permanent sort of thing, anyway. Just right belongs to rationalism, and as we saw, well never mind. So marriage is the proverbial leap of faith, as it were, at least for the two so conjoined--more power to them--and, here’s the kicker, a public statement of private faith that reveals itself by private and public commitments being met, not least is stability, which can only be met if there are expectations. That is marriage is an adult world with all the attendant obligations, responsibilities, and dare I say it, rewards for work well done (of course relationships are work--every single one of them that’s worth its weight). Need it really be said that a society that doesn’t support the very structure that supports it, marriage between a man and a woman, has gone insane, rationally or otherwise.

But to continue with Allison’s story on the perpetual state of making plans to leave, as the binding structure of non-committal relationships, dutifully, she gives us statistics by some organization that calls itself the Alternatives to Marriage Project. According to them as stated by Allison, “Living together without being married – or cohabiting – increased tenfold between 1960 and 2000. Okay, and I’ll not bore you with the rest, but will not surprise you with 40% of babies born out of wedlock are the product of non-committal relationships--“what’s that? you object to the term? Well what else do you call a one-foot-in and one-foot-out non-commitment?” Hmm, come to think of it where are the other 60% born?

Knowing this was agenda journalism I knew not to expect, dutifully, any contextual statistics regarding the well known increases in teenage pregnancy, crime, drug addiction, gang membership, gang crime, failed students and so forth. Now it’s true that these and other social pathologies are more generally equated with broken homes, single parent homes, and the like, but then unshacking lays the perfect foundation, don’t cha think.

Now to step outside the boundaries of Allison’s story for a second, though not much, as it is dutifully mentioned in the By The Numbers column, divorce is the big shadow that disparagers of marriage routinely trot out as some kind of self evident rationale of something or other: one-foot-out-the-door non-commitment being one such. Anyway, and I doubt I can fault the writer or editor over much, but I would certainly like to see statistics on “shacking up” per unit. That is how many such relationships do individuals find themselves, and how many last a life time, how long on average, in fact do they last, and how many children are the products of non-committal commitments, and just how are those children fairing, and not anecdotally, but with all the attendant messy facts. Any guesses?

Of course divorce is a remedy that at times must be taken, but then too it might be a remedy too easily taken too often. So the question, naturally, do too many use it as a remedy for something else that actually needs addressing? Notwithstanding, I’ll agree with you each and every marriage is an individual couple thing, and there are things we just can’t know--boy that comes up a lot doesn’t it. In any case it seems there are too many not towing the mark and walking the line for all the wrong reasons.

So it is that every problem must have a solution, that’s a staple of sales, fundraising and agenda driven journalism. The problem and solution in Allison’s story should come as no surprise:

“Swaney and Davis [the center piece couple of Allison’s story] say the only thing missing is the opportunity to register with the state as domestic partners. If they could, then Swaney, who is a state employee, could cover Davis' kids under his health insurance. Right now, the registry allows same-sex couples of any age (over 18) to sign up, but heterosexual couples must be 62 or older.”

So I guess society is to pick up the bill for people unwilling to commit to each other, and surprise, for their children, who are the emblems of their non-commitment. And in return we get, our society receives? Scorn, or rather, instability as an institution deserving of taxpayer subsidy. Did I say scorn, what else would you call institutionalizing ever more firmly social pathology as the staple norm of society. So our fellow citizens, being unwilling to support society with a public ceremony intoning their obligations and commitments, say obligations are a one way street.

And what does Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco say about the solution [mostly paraphrased by Allison]:

The “original 1999 legislation created the registry, [Sen. Carole Migden] says changing it to include all adults has always been part of her plan, but that politically it had to be accomplished by taking ‘baby steps.’ Then Gov. Gray Davis insisted the registry be restricted primarily to the gay and lesbian community, Migden said, adding, ‘He believed there should be no disincentive to marriage.’”

Would certainly be interesting to know why the Governor said what he said, and what exactly was meant by “primarily.”

There you have it; in the words of Progressives, who have largely taken over the Democratic Party. The idea is to undermine marriage by whatever means necessary--using cause celeb, so called civil rights issues here, by using incentives, government power, to not marry, there. Progressives want to use “baby steps.” Something wrong, somehow, with that figure of speech I think.

Note: I’m not against the citizens of this state or any other deciding what kind of social contracts, buttressed by law, should be allowed. However, I am against progressives trying to rewrite biology and the essential fact that the nuclear family, from which marriage as a term is defined, not the other way around, is the primary biological unit that ensures future generations. I will not be in favor of anything that undermines the nuclear family. It’s insane to do so. Society is the event given the privilege of existence by way of the nuclear family, and as such society owes the nuclear family its raison d’etre, and thus has no greater value, charge, than protecting, securing, and helping the nuclear family to thrive.

So the question is why do progressives ever since FDR’s day believe that undermining the nuclear family is an imperative? Simple, the family is the source of the authority that checks government’s prerogative. Weaken that and then the progress promised by progressive rationalism, unhinged by service to anything but its own self image, can prevail.

“What’s that? Oh, you’ve had enough of all this, and you want to know which guy left and which remained. Isn’t that a silly question? You already know the answer."

So a couple of weeks ago I was feeling just a bit tired and thought a good nap was in order. I was feeling just a bit fatigued, in no small part I’m sure due to my benevolent hosting of a cold, which I must say was not the most gracious of guests. I do not morn its departure. But even without the cold it had been a long day this past year or so. Now, naturally I didn’t sleep the whole time, as I listened to some CD’s, caught a bit of talk radio, watched some sports, did a few chores, retired a couple books to make room for a couple of new ones--and so on.

And I watched some Sifi and fantasy TV shows with Mrs. J, of which she is an avid fan. There’s quite a plethora of them what with Pushing Up Daises (which I think is fun), Journey Man, Chuck, Reaper Man and the like joining such stalwarts, in our household anyway, as 4400, Eureka, Stargate Atlantis and of course Hero’s. When she puts on Crazy Housewives, I mean Desperate Housewives, I’m not always able to deal with the cringe that pretzels my soul. But that’s okay, as I’m an itinerant watcher anyway, as usually I have some book or magazine in my hands.

So anyway, after that good rest , I wrote up a couple of thoughts on the doings of the week and was about ready to post when I had an inspiration to take a hike first. A good hike is strenuous in its way, as I’m sure many of you can attest. One of charms of hiking is leisurely or strenuously, depending on the pace, taking in the sights, sounds, and scents of nature doing its thing. Current events and such fade into the background, while the near mountains and closer scenery fix one’s attention.

Although most Americans are usually plugged into the news-of-day by one means or another there are still millions more of us who aren’t so. They are more than content to be occupied with the near and dear and really who can blame them. Still, the near and dear can be suddenly and even tragically disrupted by events that no one of them saw coming.

Today in Southern California horrific and ugly wild fires are threatening homes in Malibu and else where.

Current events should command our attention more often than not, and if we’re not paying attention, they will encroach on our lives in ways that we never saw coming.

So anyway upon awaking from my nap but before I went out for a hike a few items given to us from the political class crossed my line of sight and though not timely, what the heck.

1) I think it is was quite the admission, gracious actually, that the Democrat Party came out and boldly admitted it is the adolescent party. Unable to carry a point as an adult would it simply threw up its hands, and in a what’s the use moment, allowed an articulate young man, 12 year old Graeme Frost to make their adolescent argument for the CHIP program for them.

Now adults usually don’t debate, or shouldn’t anyway, adolescents, oh sure we instruct them, direct them, and even engage them in conversation and discussion, but it is both quite unfair and futile to engage in debates with them as regards family household finances, or any other thing of importance regarding household management, operations, or any other thing that bears directly on the well being and comity of said household of which they could not hope to comprehend, or in fact make a wise decision, except by unwarranted good luck.

So to young master Graeme Frost let me put it this way: Socialism is bad for everyone, but especially citizens who are condescendingly referred to as the great unwashed, or plebs, which is the habitual mental vision that Democrats and the post-modern, when not socialist or fascist, Intellectual Class has towards everyone who is not themselves. Don’t worry young master Graeme Frost, if you don’t understand what I’m saying now, no doubt you will, assuming of course that the education establishment doesn’t permanently tarnish your brain with guck, which I see you are avoiding, at least to some extent by going to a private school. Good for you. By the way the care you received by way of the CHIP, that would have been available to you again under the bill that President Bush wants to sign.

2) Then there was that startlingly bold admission that the Democrats in no way shape or form support the troops. Now that was a stunner. They have been of course hiding behind some limp formulation of “I support the troops but not the mission,” but that is so self evidently contradictory that its hard to imagine that they kept that mantra going as long as they did, because supporting the troops means they would have to hope the troops would succeed in the mission, and success would mean lives saved. Note: I said hope.

The audaciously transparent vindictive spiteful treatment of our closest ally in the middle east, except for Israel of course, Turkey, by insisting that right now, at this very moment, when the whole region is at this or that tipping point, our Democrats (too many at any rate) led by Speaker Pelosie decided now is the time to take Turkey to the woodshed for the third time in our Congressional history by slinging a congressional missile, er, non-binding resolution at the heart of the Turkish polity: the genocide of Armenians around the time of 1915. That there was an atrocity at that time is undeniable, just as it is undeniable that our sudden concern to rectify that atrocity right now reeks of self serving spite, or rather a spit in the face of our military.

Well at least we don’t have to pretend that they pretend to support the troops. Oh some might have sympathy for the troops, and most have pity for the troops, but support the troops? Pa-lease.

3) The Nobel Peace Prize first awarded in 1901, once a noble thing, has in recent years become so contemptuous of its very founding that it lapsed into self parody when it gave its august award to Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism.

Now it seems that even that is too faux urbane for the nutty kids in Oslo. With a pluck, a cluck, and prolix affinity for the absurd, the leaden body in Oslo looked to the sky and following the horizon to where it fell (that’s an optical illusion by the way) gazed upon a quixotically aroused Don, or should I say Gore, and in this Don Al Gore, the mizzled spirits gazed upon and declared, “he is the perfect for the type: He has all the visions and vinegar of the original but without such distracting caliber.” From what I understand there was some little debate on this point but not much.

And so this Nobel has sailed forth where none had dared go before…into pure burlesque.

P.S. If we were to grant all the truths about Global Warming, which are far to many and contradictory to here relate, and even posturing the notion that it is manmade, I have a question for all those who celebrate the pagan holiday of Earthday. If Man is wholly a part of nature, and no other thing, or for that matter I suppose if he is even, how do you know that Gaia ,or whatever appellative desired, how do you know that she doesn’t want the Earth to warm up? I mean don’t you think it’s possible that we are the agents of her willed change, being as that we are of the same stuff as everything else that we call mother nature and all? Perhaps we’ll anger Gaia, or whatever, if we are seen to be thwarting her will, and then won’t she be one angry mother? Just asking.

--Well I’m sure there were a couple of other items that we could have had fun with, as there never seems to be a dearth of such items, but still, yesterday’s waltz is just that. So I’ll just have to leave off here and go and see what we’re all up to today, well not just yet, I’m going to have a good dinner and conversation with family and friends. Cheerio.

So how is everyone enjoying the brouhaha as advanced by such as Senator Reid, Senator Harkin, retired General Wesley Clark? Don’t clowns after awhile become boring?

Of course there is nothing inherently immoral with being a pacifist, nor to extend that a bit, with being against the battle of Iraq, or being against the War on Terror. I would say you are misguided, and perhaps fatally so, but not because you are bad people.

Anyway, the body of Mr. Limbaugh’s work speaks for itself. There is no question, none, that he supports and respects their service, all the troops, both those who agree with him politically and those who do not. To say otherwise is THE BIG LIE. And only an idiot or a fiend would say otherwise. Period.

And the liars know that, or they would have acted with responsibility and integrity. They would have simply asked, called, e-mailed, etc, Mr. Limbaugh for a clarification. That’s what grownups do, that’s what responsible people do, that’s what people who have integrity do, but that is not what lying clowns do, especially clowns that are at war. Had they asked they would have received the answer they already knew to be true, but amplified for their understanding. Instead they screamed like a cat getting its tail pulled demanding an apology.  

The tactics of Moveon.org, MediaMatters, Code Pink, much of the Democrat Party, Senator Reid, Senator Harkin, and other fellow travelers are not the tactics of those who revere peace, or have taken a principled position in opposition to the War on Terror, let alone the tactics of those who have serious reservations regarding current strategy for fighting the war.

Peace activists do not use lies, smear military commanders, call our president the worst tyrant in the history of the world, claim we blew up our own Twin Towers, and on and on and on. NO these are phony peace activists.

These phony peace activists take out full page ads in the New York Times calling the commanding officer, General Petraeus, a liar, and more than insinuate that he is a traitor. What do you suppose it does for the morale of our troops when one of the major parties does not denounce that ad? That’s right. It undermines the mission by depressing morale and is responsible for creating doubt, and doubt KILLS. So to advance their political position Senator Reid, Senator Harkin, Senator Clinton, the Democrat party in general, along with fellow travelers have put our troops in harms way. Gets them killed.

Scurrying like rats before the storm, they then decide to dig deeper. What’s that you say, “I thought they moved on.” Indeed.

They decided that they needed The BIG LIE to get them out of the sump in which they found themselves. And so they came up with a linguistic slight of hand, and knowing they were lying, knowing they would hurt the troops as they know that Mr. Limbaugh is revered by a large number of the troops, they decided to run with it anyway. So by ruse, by lie, too many Democrats put our troops in harms way: Doubt increases the probability of their getting harmed.

These are not the actions of conscientious objectors, but rather, are the actions of those who give aid and comfort to the enemy. Yes, Moveon.org, MediaMatters, and too much of the Democrat Party are at war. They are at war with us.