I don't have a problem with anything you guys have said re: Don't Ask, Don't Tell. To be fair to Clinton, he supported an openly gay approach early on, but eventually he compromised.

I would bet heavily on this one thing - if someone who isn't used to being around gay folks and feels uncomfortable, or even if they are out and out homophobe, gets their backs watched and saved by a gay soldier, their minds will change in a hurry.

Maybe I'm being a bit generous there. My gut feeling is, and this may not be completely true, that homophobia is pretty damn common in the military. If it weren't, there would be no need for a Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and we would be doing the fair thing already.

Interesting how the Republican candidates phrased their answers - most of them avoided the fairness issue altogether and talked about how the military brass thought the policy was working.

It is true that the Army first integrated african-americans into the military ranks. The thing is, they did not come up with the idea or suggest it to Truman - he issued an executive order demanding it, and was fairly flexible with the commanders in how they implemented the policy. The cynical view would be that he used the military as a tool of social experimentation, but I like to think that he was a forward thinker in this regard. It wasn't all that long after the Korean War before things came to a head in the civilian population.

Do I think the Army was ready for it? Thank you for asking. I can't imagine that opinion the military was all that different from civilian opinion - there were probably people who supported the policy and those who didn't support the policy. I think it is obvious the net effect has been nothing but positive.

Who wants to bet me that Don't Ask, Don't Tell comes up in the next Democratic debate, whenever that is? That Hillary sure is sharp. She's nothing if not cunning and clever, transferring ownership of the issue between parties. Turns out there were multiple people who, let's just say they never had any inclination to vote for anybody on stage to begin with. I'm not sure how anybody can believe that CNN didn't know what was going on. I guess the "paranoia" was justified. If I'm a Democratic, I'm grinning from ear to ear and having a cheeky laugh.

I guess if it were possible to enforce such a policy, I wouldn't mind if the opposition got a voice in the primary debates. The reason why I don't support it is because it is pretty plain to see that it just won't work that way. I wouldn't want to put shackles on the media like that anyway. The only answer is to do what the Democratics did with Fox (minus Kucinich) and avoid going to unfriendly places.

....liberals asking the questions. At least one of them (who knows how many more we'll find out about) is associated with a Democratic running for President currently. Which candidate? I'll give you one guess.



This would be equivalent to someone from a Republican candidate's team being permitted by the media to ask the Democratic candidates what they are going to do to preserve traditional marriage, or what they are going to do to protect the unborn. The fairness of Don't ask, Don't tell is a question that, while it may be relevant in some circles, definitely is not a hot button or important issue to any Conservative, or even most Republican voters.

That kind of a question is, to me, only in context in the general election. It is not even close to being on the map for a Republican primary. Do I want tough questions from the other party in a primary debate? No, I don't, whether it is Democratic or Republican. This is for THEIR supporters to decide which of THEIR people is good for THEM, not good for the opposition. I don't think anyone is really surprised by this development, but the pervasive stupidity of the electorate ensures that somehow this results in Hillary becoming more popular.

The irony in all of this is the simple fact that a very popular and beloved Democratic put Don't Ask, Don't Tell in place. Do you know which one? I'll give you one guess.



To me, this is a complex question that weighs fairness against reality. The fair thing is to allow people to be who they are openly. I consider a gay soldier to be just as brave and worthy of my respect as a straight soldier, possibly even more so. They do not deserve violence and harsh treatment from anyone. Cold, hard reality slaps you in the face, and lets you understand that this isn't just a military problem, it is a social problem, something that isn't easily fixed in an organization such as the US Armed Forces. Homophobes will be homophobes, no matter what you tell them, and some of them WILL treat gays differently. I trust military people to understand what will work and not work with the military far more than a politician vying for votes. This Hillary plant gives one version, and it is worth listening to, but I would think this is something that has to be reviewed carefully, not reduced pitifully to a gotcha moment on TV.

If I were gay, I wouldn't serve. Period. I'd try to serve the country in another way, because I just don't think this is going to be settled anytime soon.

Ah, a new category. Hello!

(e:Joshua) is gone for the week, and that means that I have to feed myself. Normally, I don't do very well alone. I don't know what sautee means (rough guess: heat in pan w/oil?) or how to make pancakes, but to my surprise Yahoo had a link to a page of a "week full of EASY recipes" - Hallelujah!

Smiling because I had hope I wouldn't be eating PB & J for a week, I flipped over to Monday. What are you eating today, Jason? Stir-Fried Noodles and Pork. Cool, I know how to put some oil in the pan and heat some shit up. I looked at the recipe and saw SIXTEEN, count em, SIXTEEN ingredients. No lie.

What are chuka soba noodles? Can I get slivered ginger at Willies? Shiso leaves? Mung bean? When they say match stick, do they really mean match stick? What kind of chilis? I'm more of a six ingredient guy, including water and butter/oil.

Needless to say I clicked over here instead of reading the instructions. My hands are still shaking. I'm pretty sure booze can sustain me, at least until I can get some canned soup and some easy mac. Bon appetit!

I thought it was just happening here! Not so!



Maybe someday I will have a protected status! Probably not. Even when it's not the patriarchy, it will still be the patriarchy, according to the article. Too bad.

You know, if push came to shove, I don't think I would mind being Mr. Mom, just as long as I got a little sports car restoration project to work with on the side.

I might as well chip in.....well....I'm not a noob, but I'm not a man-whore either. I've tended to always have cycles of having a girlfriend, then going through a period of self-pity and self-doubt, overcoming it, then going in for more punishment. We aren't as brilliant a species as we think, really.

I'm not the kind for a random hookup with a stranger. Sorry, just not my thing. Random hookup with someone I know, now that's different. I also am not someone who makes it a goal to see how many vag's I can pound. You will not hear me refer to women as "fresh tail" or something like that. I do not think of women in terms of how many of them I can fuck before I die.

I guess you can attribute part of that to the fact that I'm sort of introverted and standoffish. I don't go out of my way to be sociable and meet new girls. It just doesn't seem important to me, and hasn't for a few years now. I've always had something bigger and more important looming, which makes it tough for me to be bothered. Plus, there's that whole thing of me not being boyfriend material. Go ahead and ask around, none of the ex's are fighting with each other to win me back. There are still things to be accomplished.

Wow, I can tell I'm already talking about things in terms of relationships, instead of who I want to fuck. If I'm going to have a girl around, I want something more than a pincushion. I've done alright for myself, don't get me wrong, but I probably could have done a lot better if I had taken advantage of all my opportunities. Mark it down to not giving a shit one way or another. Is something wrong with me?

First of all, I want to say "You're welcome" to (e:Twisted), and I'm glad you went to see Of Montreal and had a good time. I haven't seen a live show since Band of Horses a couple of months ago.

One thing I didn't get credit for was the phrase "dong count" referenced in Lilho's latest entry.

Of course, "dong count" was used in one of my more satisfying journal entries a couple of years ago concerning types of "Nice Girls" :

If you read the comments in that post, you probably noticed that (e:Twisted) mentions how we should tally up the dong counts instead of our school loans. Things, as they usually do, have come full circle.

I would tell you my number, but I have to pump it through the formula that enhances my studitude first. It is being run through the UB supercomputer right now. I'll get back to you.

Going back to the musical theme - I have been entertained by The Hives lately. SPIN magazine likes them, and this time I think they have decent judgment. Frankly I'm weary of the mopey, effeminate, delicate, sensitive guy type of music that has been so popular lately. I have been starving for a more base, fun style of rock and The Hives deliver in spades. I'm glad I bought Veni Vidi Vicious back in 2000. Of course, the complaint is that many of their songs sound the same, and they do, but at this time it really works for me. I would rattle off the rest of what I'm listening to, but I'll save that for another time.

Music doesn't have to be so damned moody all the time. I need (demand) variety in my intake. If I hear one more pseudo-male hipster singer-songwriter crooning about chicks I think I'll go ape-caca. Women don't really respect pussies anyway, unless they are famous musicians. Plus it is hard for me to believe that The Hives are actually Swedish, and I won't lie, there is a little bit of ethnic pride coming into play. I love how they don't take themselves too seriously. If there is one rock band I would want to see live at this time, it is probably The Hives. We missed them, unfortunately, as they were in Toronto in early October, but will not be back around until February or March.

Even though I've been rather anxious lately, there is always something that comes to your attention that makes you realize your problems aren't that bad after all.

A friend of mine who plays basketball in England is in serious doo-doo. He got into a car accident and he is now unconscious. Signs are good so far, and there is reason for cautious optimism, but it is still troubling. It was only maybe a couple of months ago he was here with us at Faherty's having drinks, me congratulating him over his championship season (btw - don't ever date a girl whose best friend is a bartender at your favorite bar - you lose no matter what).

See, when you think of a pro athlete, many things come to mind, not all of them good. Arrogant. Womanizer. Full of his own shit. Brian is a solid guy, nothing like that, and sometimes I wonder how it could happen to him instead of me. I've been rotten at times. I deserve it a lot more than he does. He's laid up, and I just have certain monetary issues to deal with.

So, if you're faithful, or even if you're not, send out some good vibes to my friend Brian, who is in England right now battling.

Bring me a bottle of whiskey when you pick me up. Por favor.

Be thankful, don't take it for granted. Drink it up like a frothy orange bottle of Spa....errr, some booze that someone besides me likes.

Gramma said life would have ups and downs. Kinda tougher to deal with when you're wearing ankle weights. Just got some news and it looks like some worries of mine are going to fade.

And, before anyone thinks I'm going all soft and mushy, fuck the golddiggers.

Thank you for your support.

I continue to ruin my future political ambitions with every journal I write. But, hey, I really wasn't too sure what to call this post, but I wanted to run with the topic since people seem to be interested.

I really won't get into the dynamic of the relationship between my friend and said hottie in too much detail, and I can't be the judge of whether or not he's getting "value" out of the relationship. What I will say though, is that if it were MEEEEEEE...........I probably would bail. But, hey, what do I know, his results are a lot better than mine. I am not really willing to put up with BS anymore (which becomes offensive to people sometimes who aren't used to it), and I'm alright with saying goodbye.

I haven't spoken with him to determine exactly how he feels about it, but I can only imagine he wasn't too happy about it. I at least helped absorb some of the pain. I know I wasn't going to pay for those drinks in full, but right or wrong, if you make a stink the jerk becomes you, instead of the entitled birds who should be the target.

See, I have no problem being nice and offering a drink to someone. The problem is that some people think of it the wrong way. They think of it as, how can I get drunk on this bastard's dime? This attitude is fairly rampant in certain circles. It is an entitlement, not a nice gesture to appreciate. This makes me turn really, really sour. I don't think people should be treated that way. I can tell you, when a chick buys me a drink it is a huge shock, and my reaction is always positive and grateful.

It's almost like people have forgotten how to do something good for someone else. They expect some kind of down payment first. they expect to get one over on someone, and they're okay with it. That's not the way I want to go through life....how about you?