Tuesday, April 03, 2007
On this day:


these crack me up

Sunday, November 12, 2006
On this day:

"be all you can be" --for Me

my experience the army has given me a very jaded view of women in general and women as wives. i just think a man that is trying his best, who is doing what he has to do to support his family.... and if that requires him to be away from home all the time... which sucks for the wife and is hard to deal with or whatever... if you can't handle that, then tell the person you're with and choose the honorable option... divorce him, leave, do whatever... but don't stab this person in the back who is trying to help you, who provides for you, who gives you everything.

a guy i knew who was on a 9 month deployment came back home and his wife had emptied his bank account, his home, took his car, his kids and left. are you that selfish? i mean, what the hell? if your guy is working his ass off for you, maybe you should give him at least a little heads up before you just stab him in the back and fuck around on him, y'know? men or women: if your partner isn't doing what works for you -- you need to say something, get counseling, a divorce DO SOMETHING but to sleep around on him and take his money without any regard for yourself, then i hope karma comes back and bites you in the ass vigorously. because nobody deserves that kind of betrayal. that's what it is: BETRAYAL. it's about the lowest thing you can do. who needs enemies with a partner like you. THere's enough crap out in the world without having to come home to that crap. your family is supposed to be the one thing you can rely on. if your own partner is doing that to you, what kind of life is that?

i don't know... i feel so inarticulate. there's enough pain and ugliness in this world without having to do that to the people that you're supposed to love. your partner. i'm not trying to be preachy... nobody is without their faults, nobody's perfect... but if you're not trying your damnedest to at least keep some semblance of morality, then don't be surprised when the shit hits the fan, or somebody cheats on you or when he divorces your ass and takes everything. if you live by the gun you should fully expect to die by the gun.

bible stories illustrated by legos

Monday, November 06, 2006
On this day:

coolest voice ever

shivaree "goodnight moon" (4:01)

Thursday, July 27, 2006
On this day:

you contriibut e nothing to society


scott by omnamaste

where the hell is the remote ?

an ounce of schwag

larry david just a bit confused

kramer is god

seinfeld parody

jim carrey ruled on in living color

Monday, July 24, 2006
On this day:

too funky

when i was a kid i used to love this video and i was only able to watch it at my grandma's house because my mom wouldn't let us have mtv. that chick with the motorcycle bustier is HOT! i like it when she shakes her junk. uh-huh

Monday, June 19, 2006
On this day:

How to make a scott

3 parts intelligence

5 parts brilliance

3 parts leadership
Combine in a tall glass half filled with crushed ice. Add a little cocktail umbrella and a dash of lustfulness

Saturday, February 18, 2006
On this day:

shake your junk!

If I could have any super power, I would want to be able to randomly command people to Shake their Junk! Like on that amp'd commercial. That commercial is frickin hilarious. Watch it here.

On TV they don't show the two chicks making out. I totally remember thinking that he should have had them do that!

That's hot.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005
On this day:

it's a girl! yay!

we had our ultrasound yesterday.

now, i'll have a use for that gun down below-- to keep the boys away!

Wednesday, September 28, 2005
On this day:

H&K G11 Assault Rifle

My top result for the SelectSmart.com selector,
Which Firearm are you?,
is ?????

Friday, September 16, 2005
On this day:

This is my BABY!

My BABY at 14 weeks! I got to hear the baby's heart beat, and got to see him/her move. I cannot describe to you the wave of emotion that hit when I first saw my child. It changes you forever. Simply amazing!

Friday, July 29, 2005
On this day:

Girls Against Boys

Girls Against Boys
Ending bias in domestic assault law
Cathy Young

Last week, with international terrorism still the center of attention, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a different kind of domestic security issue: the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The legislation, which funds programs aiding victims of sexual assault and family violence, is the kind of measure no one wants to oppose for fear of appearing insensitive or even antiwoman. But maybe now, 11 years after the passage of the original measure, is a good time to reevaluate some of its premises and policies.

The act, first introduced by Democratic Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and later championed by some leading conservatives such as Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), could be seen an example of positive and mainstream feminist accomplishment. But underneath its mainstream trappings, the 1994 bill was steeped in a radical feminism of the "men bad, women good" variety—an ideology which regards domestic abuse and rape as part of a collective male war against women. Ironically, the law's political success was partly due to the fact this kind of feminism dovetails easily with a traditional, putting-women-on-a-pedestal paternalism.

Despite its ideological origins and its reliance on inflated statistics (such as the long-debunked claim that "battering is the single largest cause of injury to women in the US"), the act has undoubtedly done some good. Reauthorized in 2000, it contained many beneficial practical measures in the area of victim services and criminal justice: For instance, making restraining orders issued in one state enforceable in another and subjecting abusers to federal charges if they cross state lines to stalk or assault victims. It also encouraged some solid research on domestic violence, sexual assault, and related issues.

Unfortunately, it also helped enshrine a dogmatic and one-sided approach to family violence. For one, while the legislation is ostensibly gender-neutral, its very title reflects the notion that partner abuse is a "women's issue"—leading, in some cases, to confusion over whether programs serving male victims are even eligible for grant money. At last week's hearings, the issue of abused men was explicitly acknowledged. According to Dave Burroughs, a Maryland-based activist on behalf of male victims who did not testify but attended the session, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) specifically questioned a witness on the availability of services for men and noted that according to federal crime surveys, 12 percent of domestic assault victims are male. (In other studies that do not focus on whether the respondent regards the attack as a crime, that figure goes up to about 40 percent.)

In fact, some aspects of the act promote covert gender bias. For instance, the legislation requires states and jurisdictions eligible for federal domestic violence grants not only to encourage arrests in domestic assault cases, but also to discourage dual arrest of the offender and the victim. This provision is based on the false belief that in cases of mutual violence, one can nearly always draw a clear line between the aggressor and the victim striking back in self-defense. While the language is ostensibly gender-neutral, the assumption is that the aggressor is male; the feminist groups which pushed for this clause made no secret of the fact that its goal was to curb arrests of women.

The law has also created a symbiotic relationship between the federal government and the battered women's advocacy movement, which is heavily permeated by radical feminist ideology. The state coalitions against domestic violence, which formally require member organizations to embrace the feminist analysis of abuse as patriarchal coercion, play a vital role in the allocation of federal grants and in overseeing the implementation of programs and policies. Among other things, these groups frown on any batterer intervention programs that focus on drug and alcohol abuse or mental illness as causes of domestic violence.

Here are two modest proposals for reauthorizing the measure. First, give the legislation a gender-neutral title such as "The Family Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Act." Second, abolish the special role of feminist-dominated domestic violence coalitions in shaping federally funded domestic violence programs. The bill should direct each state to create a domestic violence board on which no more than a quarter or a third of the seats can be filled by members of battered women's advocacy groups. The rest should be filled by scholars, mental health professionals, and community activists. Over the past decades, our understanding of domestic violence has expanded beyond feminist orthodoxy to a more complex view. Our federal policies should reflect this ideological diversity.

Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column originally appeared in the Boston Globe

Tuesday, July 26, 2005
On this day:

goats are friendly

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Tuesday, July 19, 2005
On this day:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Tuesday, July 12, 2005
On this day:

I'm gonna be a DADDY!!!

This changes my life forever, I'm going to be a FATHER! We are hoping for a beautiful baby GIRL, but I'll be happy with either a BOY or a girl.


For dads only: What's your new-father IQ?
Your score: 9 out of 15 questions
You're somewhere between clueless and clued in. Consider taking our guided tours for new and expectant dads.

Looks like I need to do some reading. :D

Thursday, July 07, 2005
On this day:

a borrowed hand