T to the A to the P: the second heterosexual edition

Because hiatus is no reason for a good sex post.

Ladies seem to get a poor run on this blog. It’s rather ironic, given that I’m straight(ish), that there are (as of this post) two dolls to six dudes. But there is a surprisingly simple explanation for the lack of chicks; namely, that photos of the honeys tend to be rather dull. It’s just bikini shot after bikini shot after bikini shot. Not that I’m necessarily complaining, but I wouldn’t mind a touch of variety when viewing various sexy dames. Thus, when broads do get a mention on Dogfighter, I prefer to focus on more stereotypically ‘artistic’ shots of lassies (much to Colonel Jester’s chagrin, I’m sure). If you want photos of skirts in very little other than a skirt, Goggle Images will gladly satisfy your perverted desires. But anyway; this time, I’ll be showing on Jessica ‘Joy’ Alba. She is most well known for roles in Dark Angel, Sin City and the Fantastic Four. But who cares, ‘cause I just wikied her and she’s a freakin’ liberal!

Anti-nuclearism

Recently, the ANSATO has issued a press release stating that Australia needs to develop nuclear plants if it want to cut its greenhouse emissions. Being the filthy hippy I am, I'm opposed to nuclear plants. However, I do try to base what I am for and against on as non-ideological grounds as possible-think realpolitik. Hence,

1. Building the bloody things. Plants are extremely expensive-ranging from $6 to $10 billion to produce. Not only that, but they're only getting dearer. Think of how much energy could be supplied if $6 billion was spent in renewable energy (and it would be much cheaper in the long term; see no. 3)?

2. The water use. You know those chimneys gushing with what looks like smoke? That's actually steam. Nuclear plants require millions of litres of water every day to use, far more than other sources of power. That would be fine if we had millions of litres of water to spare, but we don't. Australia is the second driest continent on the earth (next to Antarctica) and only getting drier. And I haven't heard from the pro-nuclear side just where this water will be coming from.

3. It's finite. Uranium, as with oil and coal, is a finite source. That means that it will eventually run out. I don't know when-it could be 20 years, 50 years, even 100. But it will, and when it does, we will look pretty bloody stupid with all these worthless nuclear plants around. Renewable energies are called 'renewable' for a good reason; they don't run out. (OK, the sun will eventually burn out, but that'll be about 5 billions years in the future, a touch more than the uranium)

4. The waste. There's a good reason why no country wants to handle this stuff: it's the equivalent of injecting tar directly into your lungs. The waste takes forever to break down and if it leaks, it will wreck havoc with everything it comes into contact with. As far as I know, the only way to completely get rid of the waste is to launch it into the sun-and that creates a slew of new problems (the expense of launching so many space shuttles, the danger of a leak, finding a pilot who'd willingly sit in a cockpit 10 feet from enough isotopes to mutate them into the hulk...).

Long story short, there are sufficiant problems with nuclear waste-from beginning to end-to render the whole building plants unfeasible. Next up-arguments for more solar!

Ongoing hiatus

Yes, I know. Very, very few posts as of late. Hey, I'm a busy guy-I've just finished test-piloting some Sopwith Pups and Triplanes, and today have handed in an essay on psychological in-flight tactics. Now, I need to write a paper on survival skills in the event of crashlanding, and then simulate said survival skills in the wild. So (with the exception of the next post, which is a couple of weeks in the making) expect more Lazyboy moments and a TAP post or two for the time being.

Life's hard for a world war one flying ace.

Especially at the moment. Myself, with a few others, are performing a thorough series of maintenance checks and flying maneuvers, which is all rather fun, but leaves very little time for blogging (have you every gotten up in the morning at 5 am, repeatedly? You don't). Soon after, there are the theoretical exams on our knowledge. So still little time. The bright side, of course, is that it's a perfect time for another LazyBoy moment. Tonight's edition comes courtesy of Buzzfeed, featuring billboards that don't belong together.

First, some toilet humour...





Religion gets quite a beating...







There's good ol' fashion irony...




And my favourite...


Actually, that might be intentional.

Why are they so afraid?

Excellent Battle of Wellington last Saturday*. General Debbie commanded an air assault of rhyming chants and speeches discussing womens' reproductive rights. One speaker, (it may have been the General, or somebody else) raised a point that us lefties, liberals and progressives rarely consider-why do the anti-choicers fear womens' rights so much? These same 'pro-lifers' (with, I concede, a few rare exceptions) support the war in Iraq which has killed untold thousands of children, and the bombing of Gaza by Israel, killing hundred of Palestinian children. These same pro-lifers view supporting women as a lesser priority to saving those sacks of stem stems-it's pretty clear 'pro-lifers' are only pro-life in the sense of restricting womens' reproductive health, and pro-death in every other case (or maybe they just want more white, potentially-convertible-to-Jesus babies. Those Muslims in Iraq and Palestine are a lost cause). So back to General Debbie's question: why do various fundies and ultraconservatives hate control over the uterus?

Personally, I see it as fear; fear of women gaining control over their bodies, which represents men losing the power that has been slipping from them since the Suffragette movement. Conservatives of each era have lost the fight against each successive wave of feminism. This began when conservatives lost the fight against suffrage. Ever since then, sex equality has been increasing since and some people see this as a threat to their establishment.

However, this fails to explain anti-feminist women. This is where the powerful role of religion comes into play. However, despite my resonable knowledge of psychology and sociology, I am at a loss as to why anybody would volunterily deprive themselves of rights. In this manner, feminism is unique; no other group has opposed civil rights for themselves.

I'll try doing a 'going down the rabbit hole' of antifeminism in the future-although probably not for at least a month, as I have flight training** for the next month

*Apologies for a lack of posts regarding BOWs and a lack of general posts of late. My Sopwith Camel (prepare to hear a lot about Camels in the future) has been playing up lately, forcing me into some unenthusiastic study of the schematics.

**Nursing placement.

Wasn't this the reason why we went in there in the first place?

I kinda thought that one of the reason why we headed to Afghanistan was because the neo-Nazis Taliban were there. If the coalition could set a half-decent Iranian-style theocracy (which is, realistically, the best chance we've got), then the plight of Afghan women would surely improve.

Not so.

AFGHANISTAN has quietly passed a law permitting Shiite men to deny their wives food and sustenance if they refuse to obey their husbands' sexual demands, despite international outrage over an earlier version of the legislation that President Hamid Karzai had promised to review.

The new final draft of the legislation also grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, and requires women to gain permission from their husbands to work.

There is nothing-nothing- can describe this legislation. What perhaps makes it even more horrific is that this was done in a cynical attempt to gain a few votes at the next election. Karzai, who is supposed to be our ally, has sold out any principles he once had in order to retain power. He's chasing the pure-evil vote, which is apparently rather strong in Afghanistan. Heck, wasn't the point of going to Afghanistan to help improve its human rights situation? If women are re-reduced to slaves, what was the point of all those lives lost, both soldiers and civilians? I get the feeling that by the time Karzai's rule ends, Afghan women will be wishing for the return of the Taliban.

Thankfully, the Secretary of State has shown to be at least vocally supportive of women's rights (whether that translates into action is entirely something else), and I've sent a half-decent email in support:

Dear Secretary Clinton,

I have learned recently that President Karzai has passed legislation effectively reducing women to slaves. These horrific laws will undo what progress has been made since the fall of the Taliban, and will undermine efforts to combat fundamentalists and extremists. I understand that you are taking a tough stand in regards to womens' rights internationally, and I strongly urge you to take action in defense of Afghan women.

Yours sincerely,

...

Cross-posted at Shakesville.

Change I really don't believe in, but I don't have much of a choice.

Ever since teh end, I've faced a problem. '☮ is my religion/bayonet' featured the tales and battles of a private, lowest of the army ranks, "fighting the culture war for progressive politics and pacifism.' This war was/is also fought by the sarcastic Captain, the whip-weilding Admiral, the vocally liberal Sergeant, the lioness-inspired Midshipman, the wisecracking Major General, and many others. All of this was under the banner of the GrodsCorp Military Force.

Of course, GrodsCorp has ceased to exist, which makes my self-designated 'GrodsSoldier' somewhat redundant. Hence, I've started redesigning my persona. True to form, I've leached off the ideas of a stalwart of my childhood, Peanuts. In particular, everybody's favourite beagle, Snoopy. The atava is still set in world war one, which is my preferred war out of the two (less genocide and more inventive weaponry). I'd like to keep the Blackadder reference, which makes for a rather confusing persona of being both a pilot and a trench fighter. 'Pilot 'Baldrick' Tom', perhaps?

Hence, I'm reintroducing this blog as '☮ is my Sopwith Camel.' So what can one expect in the future? Not much, other than Peanuts comics to supplament Calvin, poor dogfighting metaphors in replace of my slightly less adventurous life, and a new url.

And to think, all of this could've been solved if a certain Field Marshal has kept Grods open.