A response to toodomforyou: pseudo-Dominants

As much as it pains me to agree, there are far too many pseudo-Dominants, Predators, and just plain abusers finding the BDSM community a target-rich environment. The question comes down to Why there are so many, and How to manage the threat.

Why are there so many? Simple. When the BDSM community was “underground”, people seeking entry had to pass a type of vetting process for most kink groups to allow them access. With the advent of Internet chat-rooms and BBSes (Bulletin Board System, a local chat service usually) it became much easier to create an online pseudonym, lie about your experience or intent, and gain access to groups where no-one checked out the story given. All you needed to do was put keywords in your created chat-name: Dom, Daddy, Sir, Master, or Lord. People started to accept this as some sort of qualified entry as a Dominant in the Lifestyle. The vetting system disappeared. Predators will always find a way to get to their preferred prey; The wolf will always find a way to get to the sheep.

For some exploring the Lifestyle, the internet gave them the opportunity to genuinely explore feelings they may have thought that only they were experiencing. Having other people relate their experiences and feelings made these people feel safe and accepted. Blogs talking about protocol and terminology and aspects of the Lifestyle made it really easy for a Wolf to find his Sheep’s Clothing and infiltrate the ranks and start doing the damage. It became a real issue when Yahoo! had Adult chat-rooms, and these predators could post a full profile within minutes, and change profiles or have multiple profiles to use when seeking sexual conquests and victims.

Sadly, the Internet, for all of its many great additions to the Lifestyle, has also opened the gates to anyone seeking entry, and all but removed the protection of non-anonymous entry. Someone claiming to be Dominant doesn’t ever need to show his face, or have any backstory checked out. No prior submissives or sexual partners are known, and there is no one to control access to the group members. We, as a community, are without sheepdogs and are losing more and more members to the wolves.

So, how do we control this? Sadly, because such a large portion of the community is firmly entrenched in the Internet, it may be almost impossible. Protecting new and emerging members, vetting Dominants, having open and correct forums in local settings are rapidly becoming things of the past. Local groups having “munches” or “meet-n-greets” don’t happen as often as they once did, because it’s easier just to post on fetlife or collarme or tumblr and hope that you’ll find that one “true Dominant” or “true submissive” and not get caught up with all the predators and creeps.
Whenever I talk about bringing back public meets and vetting people before letting them in, people accuse me of being “Old Guard”. I don’t take that as an insult. Protecting the people around me, the littles and submissives and those exploring new feelings, that is part of who I am. It is what makes me a Dominant and a sheepdog.

Never Met A Nice Female Cosplayer

Let me explain. Years and years ago, I got a chance to attend a cosplay event on the East Coast, and while I didn’t go in costume, I paid extra for a pass to an area where alot of the professional cosplayers were signing autographs and taking pics and whatnot that was only open to people that were in costume or photographers. I had a camera and a notebook to note characters that I took pictures of.

Probably 90% were female, and I got there early, like around 9am. Not all of the booths or areas were filled yet, vendors and cosplayers were still arriving as well. I walked around with my bag, didn’t even take out my camera, but was just standing off and admiring the costumes. I saw some guys dressed as stormtroopers and after asking if I could take pics, got a few of them and some other Star Wars folks that were there and some others as they showed up.

There was a woman a few yards away, and when I took a picture of some of the Imperial Guards, she happened to be behind them. Not in the picture, not visible because of the cloaks of the Guards. She came over as I was putting my camera away, and looked pretty angry.

“Why did you take my picture without asking?” No preamble, no “Excuse me”, nothing but an angry question.

“I’m sorry, I wasn’t taking your picture,” and explained the situation as I took my camera, and opened the pics to show her that she wasn’t in any of them.

“I saw you point your camera at me. I saw you taking unauthorized pictures earlier as well.” She refused to look at my screen, and at one point slapped my camera away. “I’m going to ask that you be removed.”

After explaining to a guy from Security and showing them ALL the pictures I took, I was told that I wasn’t going to be asked to leave, but I had to surrender my camera and bag, and could pick it up when I was ready to leave. As I walked around with just my notebook, I ran into several people that had the same situation happen. Apparently, unless you were a professional photographer you couldn’t take pictures without paying whatever vendor or person was showcasing whatever cosplay personality. I still stood off a respectable distance, so as not to photobomb anyone, and the second incident happened.

A group of women cosplayers, with elaborate costumes that i have no idea what it was from, were posing with a mech type thing, and I stopped just to see and figure out what it was. The mech thing was really cool looking, and I regretted not having my camera. I was hanging back, waiting for an opening at the table to buy one of the signed graphic novels or whatever they were selling about what they were cosplaying. One of the girls came towards me and asked me what I was doing. I looked around, and said I was just looking, and showed the little badge I had on my lanyard. She looked me up and down, then went back to her group and spoke to one of her handlers. He came over and told me that the girls don’t like to be gawked at, and wanted to see what was in my notebook. I showed him, it was just names of some of the cool things I had seen, and he asked that I put it away, and maybe just move along.

This was pretty much what happened with every group of females or single female cosplayer that entire day. I said something about it as I picked up my camerabag to another guy and he clued me in.
“This is a moneymaker for most of them. They cosplay in professionally made costumes, get paid for any pictures taken during these events, and none of them are very nice to you unless you have a model release form and a few hundred bucks.”

Not one male cosplayer asked me for money. No one at the Star Wars area refused me pictures, asked for release forms or money. They were all super polite, and gave me some information on the 501st cosplay group, and we talked about armor and stuff as we stood around. Every other female cosplayer was rude, and even without my camera, just glared at anyone that paused to see their costumes or asked anything about what series or show or comic their character was from.

One other thing that happened after I left that area and was out in the main lobby. I saw one of the women from inside that was doing a cosplay from XMen. The guy that was with her was dressed as Scott Summers, and looked amazing. I got closer than I meant to, and said that that their costumes were amazing and that I was a big fan of XMen. He smiled, shook my hand, and said I should cosplay as one next year. The girl, who was dressed as Phoenix, looked me directly in the face, and said, loud enough to be heard, that “There aren’t any fat X-Men. Maybe he could play a Morlock.”

That’s why I say that I’ve never met a nice female cosplayer.

Dear Michael Bay,

I know that you want your take on The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to be well received and well liked and to be something people will go and see in theaters. I saw the first one, and while not exactly pleased with how alien the turtles looked, and not really impressed by the story, the movie was ok. I didn’t rent it or watch it in a theater, it was on HBO and I had a few hours before bed, so I sat through it. It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t horrible. Except for one tiny thing. One detail, that if removed, would make the movies so much better.

STOP PUTTING MEGAN FOX IN MOVIES.

We all know you either had sex with her (ew) or she has some dirt on you that you have to keep putting her in movies, but please….we won’t hate whatever you did as much as we hate seeing Megan Fox show up in any way, shape or form. She stinks as an actress, she really isn’t that pretty ( it’s all make-up and Styrofoam ) and you could cast someone from a high school drama club with more talent than her.

So, if you’re going to keep moving forward with the TMNT franchise, please consider leaving Megan Fox in the sewer with the rest of the turds.

Incoming Rant - Orlando Shooting and Politics

The following will be based solely on my opinion and facts as I see them. You can agree or disagree as you see fit, in fact I encourage that.

The recent shooting at a gay club in Orlando is tragic. Words cannot convey how bad it was, how families had their lives forever altered because of one person’s hate. The he was able to purchase guns AND be on the FBI’s radar makes no sense whatsoever. The fact is, all the facts about this guys, as the media covers him, are exactly what is clouding up the issue and making it horribly hard to get any real answers. Those answers could be a catalyst for change.

First of all, stop acting outraged when politicians tweet about how horrible they feel, but accepted money from the NRA. Politicians LIE. ALL politicians lie ALWAYS. No exceptions. Most of them have a handler that manages their twitter accounts and makes posts as if it were that actual politician. More than half of them don’t know what Twitter is, and can’t understand technology enough to use Social Media correctly. Exposing them for accepting money from the NRA and then posting condolences online is such a colossal waste of time and effort. The person on Twitter is some college student being paid to make posts that make it seem like that politician is Just Like You And Me, tweeting about things just like we do.

Politicians will NEVER EVER EVER vote to reflect what people want because people don’t pay them to. Companies, corporations and special interests group DO. Politicians have more sponsors than NASCAR drivers, and if they had to wear stickers than showed which sponsors purchased their votes, they would need bigger suits. Conservative, liberal, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump. It doesn’t matter, it never did. Every one of them is bought and paid for, and you’ll never see change until some corporation wants it enough to pay for it. The NRA and the Gun Lobby own more politicians than almost any other Special Interests group outside of Pharmaceutical companies. you will not see any effective Gun Control legislation until something stops those Special Interest groups from buying political favors. And that won’t happen as long as members of Congress receive 6 figure salaries and have no accountability.

The media wants this to be a terrorist attack to fit a narrative made by Hillary Clinton to push for more military invasions and presence in foreign countries. If this person was in fact a terrorist, then it allows her to attach this to her already flawed campaign to push for a much more aggressive stance against countries which coincidentally tend to be oil producing.

The Christian right wing wants this to be because he was a Muslim. Nothing feeds their hatred of cultures they don’t understand better than finding out someone that killing people on American soil better than pointing out that person was a different religion. It also deflects attention from the pastor that rages against the Sin of Homosexuality when he is caught with a male prostitute and all of the hypocrisy that is rampant in the modern day Church and churches. How would these so-called Christians react to find out the Muhammad and Jesus were direct-lineage cousins? That Christ is mentioned MULTIPLE times in the Quran? That Christianity and Islam are tied culturally and racially from the Middle East? That Jesus wasn’t (gasp) white?

The LGBT want this to be significant against every member of the LGBT community. With all of the recent attention to North Carolina’s HB-2 Bathroom bill, and the growing Congressional attention on States Rights vs Federal Intervention regarding transgender rights, this attack against gays by a radical terrorist would be one more rallying cry to keep the spotlight on those issues. The LGBT community sees this for what it is at it’s center; A hate crime. There is no confusion about the gunman’s religion, or his nationality, or his radicalization. This was a man who hated gay people and went to a place where he could shoot as many as possible to do as much damage as he could. Everything else is secondary and somewhat tangential.

The media will spin this, and the politicians will use this. Tragedy strikes everyday in this country and in the World at large. These 49 deaths will be forgotten just as the deaths of the 2,997 people in the September 11th attack have been forgotten. Just like that terrorist attack on American soil, this will be used for as long as it remains useful to some political agenda and gains ratings bumps for some media outlet.  It will be the Big Story until the next Big Story happens, and it will fade into the collective consciousness as they always do.

From a Veteran

On Tumblr kateordie reblogged something that was originally posted by weavemama that said (in all caps) “Black people don’t owe the National Anthem shit”. I didn’t hesitate to unfollow kateordie, but this stuck in my head for a few hours. I unfollowed because that seemed to be a very ignorant statement to reblog, and I’m not  a fan of this recent rash of turning the disrespect one football player shows into an actual racial movements dialog.

If you check out the blog of the person that originally posted it, she is a 15 year old Black Lives Matter supporter. Being 15 tells me she isn’t going to be old enough to have well-formed and/or thought out opinions. Typically at 15, you only regurgitate the opinions you hear from parents and teachers and older people around you. Being one of the BLM supporters, I knew that she would not be able to respond well to criticism, logic or hold up in a mature debate.

She is partially right, though. Black people don’t owe anyone anything. Neither does any other group of people. I joined the military right out of high school, partly to show pride in my country, but also to have a steady paycheck. I learned at an early age to have respect for my country and for the ideals that formed this country. Every male member of my family, as far back as we can trace after coming to this country, served in the military and most went into law-enforcement after.

Standing up during the National Anthem is about respect and honor. You have respect for the Anthem because you have self-respect. You show respect for the military members that died so that you can have the freedom to spew out whatever ignorant, malformed thought that comes out of your tiny little brain. You honor those military members memory and their family’s loss. You show that you honor the sacrifices made so that you didn’t have to make that sacrifice. You stand up during the National Anthem because your sorry ass needs to be grateful that you have freedoms others don’t have. You need to stand your sorry ass up because you live in country where you get paid millions of dollars to play a game.

Do you want to protest the breakdown of the Justice system? Go to law school, become a lawyer and work on the changes you want to see. You want to protest the violence of police against the citizenry? Become a police officer, get a badge, patrol your neighborhood and make the changes you want to see.

You want to do nothing but sit on your ass and call it a protest? You want to do nothing but complain and call it a movement? You want to post irrelevant shit on your Twitter, Tumblr and FaceBook and call yourself an activist? That’s fine too. You do that, but you also stand your sorry ass up when the National Anthem plays. The people who sacrificed so you could be a piece of shit deserve that much.

Political Post - Cheating To Win Should Be Wrong

As parents, we are supposed to teach children that cheating is wrong and that cheaters never prosper. It’s a corner stone of what teachers in school tell children as soon as they start school. Cheating is looked at as a liars way out, an easy shortcut that ultimately has no benefit. Morally and ethically, cheating at anything is considered wrong.

What message are we sending children then, when allowing Hillary Clinton to get away with using her influence and money to insure that she won the Democratic National Conventions nomination over Bernie Sanders? She cheated then, and while not agreeing with Donald Trump, she will use her power and influence to cheat in the election as well.

She has ONE concern, and that is being the First Woman President. That’s it. No mention of how her policy stance will likely put the US at war with at least 2 countries, one an emerging Superpower. That her past political decisions have lead to deaths and mismanagement of National Security information. She is garnering the Female Vote by asking that women vote for her because she has a vagina. (Note, this information is speculative, no one has verified the existence of her actually having any genitalia at all) She cannot stand on a platform of any substance, because she has nothing to offer except that she isn’t Donald Trump, and she has non-confirmed lady-bits. If she were to win the Presidency, she should be immediately impeached for her role in influencing the nomination, and her posing a real and immediate threat to National Security with her lack of technical knowledge to not use a personal e-mail server, even when advised not to.

If our government could be compared to a house, then this house is infested with rats. vermin of the lowest forms have completely taken over. A two-party power system has insured that there is never any real change, and the vermin in power, stay in power. In most cases, you might try and treat such an infestation with poisons, or traps. That hasn’t worked in the past, and will not work now. The only sensible solutions might be to use a high explosive and burn the house to the ground and start over. Donald Trump might be that political hand grenade. Should he win, such an unbalanced, unhinged individual would not last long under the stress of the Office, and Republican handlers would likely find themselves arranging a Open Car Motorcade through Dallas for him to attend. The things Donald Trump has said are offensive, yes. But his words and views, so far, haven’t lead to any deaths. He hasn’t had the political power to cover up his scandals by ordering the assassination of those people that would expose him (White-water during Bill Clinton’s term). He might actually lack the intelligence to use such power should he become President.

We aren’t left with much of a choice. A cheating, scandal ridden lifetime politician that lies, cheats and kills OR a narcissistic, unrealistic ego monster that can’t lacks the intelligence to manage money or power. There is no right answer to this issue. Hillary took away the one realistic answer when she cheated. If she wins, that’s the message we send kids.

If you can’t win, cheat.

Incoming Political Post

I’ve been seeing postings since the election about “words of comfort”. People posting that this is the worst, that the world is absolutely ending, that we all need to stay strong, and hold out hope, and keep fighting.

Do you people remember 8 years ago when Barack Obama won, and state after state threatened to actually secede from the Union? Do you recall how crowds of people demanded proof that he wasn’t Kenyan, and wanted to see a birth certificate? How many were sure he was Muslim, and would precipitate a terrorist attack on America, or worse, bring about a Socialist form of government? None of which was true, or happened.

How quickly you forget.

To those that supported Hillary Clinton, I want to ask, and get serious feedback. Do you not see that she cheated her way this far? She used influence and money to shut out Bernie Sanders for the nomination, and still you supported her. She cost the Democratic Party, and the country, the only candidate that could beat Trump, and still you supported her. She only wanted her legacy to be the First Woman President, and still you supported her. She used her gender to validate her candidacy, and still you supported her. She broke the Law, used her influence to escape any accountability and STILL you supported her. You supported her because, well, at least she’s not Trump. You will continue to support her and she will still not be held accountable for her illegal activities, and no one will hold her liable for her direct involvement in the fraud in the Democratic National Committee. The candidate you supported is what lost your party this election.

Nothing horrible is going to happen. You have 3 branches of government with checks and balances built into how they interact. Yes, there is a Republican controlled Congress. Has Congress EVER had a record of moving forward on anything quickly? The President is a figurehead, he still has to abide by Congressional oversights, and judicial constraints. Donald trump said so many things that he was going to do once he took office. Can you name ONE President since Kennedy that actually did the things they promised to get elected? Can you name ONE President that didn’t fight with Congress, even when it was controlled by his party? Members of Trumps own party have said time and again how they oppose him on so many points, and will use their political influence to either directly oppose him or to try and steer him to a more politically expedient way of thinking. This election is simply more of the same, with just a slightly more outrageous figure in the role as President. Not much ever changes in D.C., and won’t start now.

Stop being so overly dramatic. You supported a candidate you knew couldn’t win, but refused to hold her accountable for cheating you out of the candidate that could have beaten Trump easily. Four years will go by so quickly, and it will all go back to politicians controlling politics.

It's Expected

I don't expect her to pay her child support. Three kids and all she is ordered to pay is $104 a month, and she still doesn't. She hasn't SEEN the kids since the day I drove to Albemarle to pick them up after her "boyfriend" assaulted my son, who was only 12 at the time. She did nothing to stop that assault, and stayed with that guy until he left her in Missouri so he could go back to SC and serve his prison time. She goes after a different guy on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis. She might text once a month to ask how the kids are, but hasn't sent a Christmas or birthday present in a year, and never sent anything of value when she used to. Her sisters show more concern for the kids than she does. She uses this site to schedule her dates and booty calls, proclaiming every time that this one is "The One", and then lamenting the "liers" (her spelling) after it all falls apart. I get to hear about these misadventures from time to time, once getting a frantic series of texts asking for money so she could get back home after she went to Oklahoma City to meet a guy that wasn't what he claimed to be (how she described it) and he saw that she wasn't what she said she was (which is how that usually works).

I'm not surprised at any of that. I can't bring myself to feel pity or sadness at her circumstance. I've never been angry or hurt or sad that we split up. It was 13 years of bad decisions and stubborn pride that kept us together, until the straw that broke it landed on my back, and I had to walk away. I'm not at all surprised to see her making the same bad choices, telling the same lies, and spreading her legs for anyone that shows her the least attention. She once told me, right after we split and she'd call trying to remain "friends", that I expected her to live at a "higher level" and that now she was living at a "lower level" where she was more comfortable being at. So, when I see or hear about the next guy that screwed her and then screwed her over, when she hooks up and breaks up in a matter of hours, when she makes promises to the kids and never follows through, I'm not surprised. Because she's living at that "lower level" and she likes being there. And now, it's all I expect of her.

Heaven

I had a conversation with someone a few years ago. She was younger, about 21, maybe 22, and had been married and had a kid. In the course of our conversation, she was talking about a friend of hers that had died. He had been shot to death during a drug buy, and there was some issues about the amount of drugs and alcohol in his system at the time of his death that was preventing him from being released to the family to be buried. None of that surprised me really, but what she said next floored me. "Well, we all know he's in a better place with Maw Maw and Paw Paw."

Really?

I was raised around churches my entire youth. Pentecostal Holiness, then Church of God, then Southern Baptist. The ONLY thing they agreed on was that NO-ONE got into heaven without being a Christian, which involved things like; clean living, high moral standards, no sex, following the Ten Commandments. I've read the Holy Bible (three times, cover-to-cover), most of the Mormon bible (an addition to, not a replacement of), most of the Holy Qur'an (Koran), and even parts of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Not a single one talks about drug dealing or taking of drugs as a way into any version of Paradise. So, how exactly, did her, her family and friends actually think that his SOUL went to Heaven? How? his life was full of drugs, bodily abuses, and immoral actions, all tied into the "drug dealer lifestyle". He didn't attend church, had no ties to any worship organization, and was known to as the "baddest boy" among this girl and her circle of friends.

Then I thought about the people I know, and what is said about anyone who dies. "They are in a better place." "They are with God." Some even say genius things like "He's up in heaven smoking a fat doobie, drinking with Jesus, and banging some hos all up in his Mansion." Where did these people go to Church? Bob's Feel Good Gospel Hour, Bar, and Car Parts? Have people lost all idea of WHAT Heaven is, and HOW a person gets in? I stopped believing in an afterlife years ago, but even *I* know how to gain entry, and what different Scriptures say about it. None of them are vague about the requirement, none talk about how you can buy your way in, or how you can sneak in the backdoor. Whatever happened to HELL?

It speaks to a larger problem, and a worsening mentality in society. There is less of a sense of consequence in this country now. The next generation sees scandals dismissed with a half hearted apology, and some of the worst moral dilemmas solved on a hour long TV show. We've gotten away from the sermons with Hell fire and brimstone, eternity in a burning pit, and imagery of endless torture and pain in favor of Feel Good sermons about How You're Going To Live Forever and God Wants You To Be Rich By Sending Me $1000.

It's total crap, and it is exactly what I've come to expect.

All Talk ..... No Action

All Talk … No Action

Standard Disclaimer: The following blog is a production of Stone Circle Productions and RogueDaddy Enterprises. All content is copyrighted and the opinions expressed are the sole property of the author. It cannot be copied or reproduced, in part or in it’s entirety without the express permission of the owning entities, the author, the NFL, it’s players, and an elderly woman in Montana. This article is based upon the opinions, experiences, and situations of the author. Any resemblance to any persons, places, or things is purely coincidental and probably put there just to piss that person, place, or thing off.

Recent developments in the political campaign have caused me to believe that We, The People, are being treated as though we are collectively stupid and unaware. Judging from the response to the candidates, we are. Gas and oil prices continue to skyrocket, breaking record after record, and the economy is taking a nosedive. Efforts to stall a recession meet with no success, and financial experts say that a recession is just part of the cycle of economics. Unemployment numbers are expected to rise, and millions of people are losing their homes, the “relief” promised them is just an illusion. To top of all of that, Hillary Clinton refuses to give up on the democratic nomination, even thought Barrack Obama continues to have more delegates AND super delegates each time the numbers are cast.

We, The People, are being scammed. George Dubya Howdy-Doody Bush is dancing every chance he gets; his financial future is secured, and his family continues to get rich off of oil prices. He also knows his term is as good as over. More people pay attention to the antics of the Democratic nominees than watch what final touches he’s leaving on the mess the next President has to contend with. His “legacy” has already been collectively pronounced as him being “the worst President in history, including Lyndon Johnson.” Iraq is his own Vietnam. He’s done nothing constructive since taking office, and 8 years was only just long enough for him to ruin the economy, spend us back in the largest national deficit ever, and place the American consumer at the mercy of the gas pump.

Suddenly, both the Democratic Party nominees and the Republican Party nominee, John McCain, are all promising to do something about the high gas prices. McCain suggested removing the national gas tax, which is right at 75 cents per gallon, and was immediately followed by Clinton that she would remove it for the summer. Problem is, neither on of them is currently the President. McCain, Clinton and Obama are all Senators, Arizona, New York and Illinois, respectively. Obama didn’t think it was a good enough solution to even mention in his campaign. Either Clinton of McCain could draft a bill for that removal of the gas tax for deliberation in Congress, but oddly enough, neither of them will. Dubya has already said in no uncertain terms he would veto it, should it by some miracle pass the House and Senate.

For those of you who don’t know, any bill MUST be passed by BOTH the House of representatives, and The Senate. “In the House, representation is based on the number of people living in each state. There are a total of 435 representatives in the House. Each member represents an area of the state, known as a congressional district. The number of representatives is based on the number of districts in a state. Therefore, states with larger populations have more representation than states with smaller populations. Each state has at least one congressional district and therefore one representative in the House. Each representative serves a term of 2 years. There is no limit on the number of terms a representative can serve.” ( http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/national/house.html) “Each of the 50 states sends 2 people to the Senate, so there are a total of 100 senators. This means that each state has equal representation in the Senate. Each senator serves a term of 6 years. There is no limit on the number of terms a senator can serve.”
(http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/national/senate.html)
Now that brings us to a total of 535 total members of Congress that must vote on rescinding the gas tax for the summer. If a bill is passed, and the President then veto’s that bill, it can still become law or become passed (in the case of a resolution) if, after the veto, the House and Senate pass it again with a two-thirds (2/3) majority. That’s 356 Congressmen that must vote to pass a repeal of the gas tax for the summer. So, contrary to any candidates claim, they, alone, can in fact do absolutely nothing about the prices at the gas pump. And judging from the fact that neither of them has introduced any documents in Congress to do that, they don’t really plan to even try. This is a tactic that seems to work well for them, especially Hillary Clinton. It seems that any claim made is sufficient to placate the masses; you don’t have to DO anything, just be willing to go on record as willing to do something. It’s more a game of “what you say” rather than “what you do”. And the American people are the ones that suffer.

It’s a simple fact; Politicians are liars. Practiced and smooth, charismatic speakers, they have all the oratory skills of a tele-evangelist, and are just as deceptive. Saying what the voters want to hear, but never actually standing up on an issue gets them to the prize they all seek; The Presidency. Do they want to lead the country to a better tomorrow? Hardly. They do, however, want to line their pockets with your money, doing as little as possible, yet leaving a mark on American history. Don’t be fooled, and don’t think that your vote matters. Whichever candidate that can buy their way into the White House will win this election; Bush set that precedent in 2000. And if they can’t buy their way in, they can always call for a recount of Florida.

Oh, wait, Hillary Clinton already played that card.

Rogue, running for President in 2016.

A New Kink

On occasion, I like to take to task some "new" little thing I see happening online, hold it up to the light, and see what it's made of. Now, I'm going to look at this "online BDSM". Seems to me, alot of people lately have taken to additions to what is the "in" thing to do, so I'll comment on that as well, and why I think it's all bullshit.
First of all, I'll say this. Everything I say is only my opinion and based solely on MY experiences. Do not take anything that I say to be cold, hard fact, unless you've researched it yourself and found it to be true, or it rings true with your own current beliefs.

There are some signs to look for when you're looking at "online BDSM". The most common is a person that bemoans the fact that their spouse is "too vanilla" and they are using the Internet to "explore". Another sign is when one lives between 200 and 12,000 miles from the other; the Dom in Europe and the submissive in the US is pretty common. The third most common is usually a female that has a different Dom's "tag" after a short amount of time, or alot of different tagged chat names. It's these signs that reveal what kind of bullshit is being tolerated. Then there is the new "kink du jour" - polyamoury.
Let's look at the first three first. Holding them up to the cold, harsh light of logic, and picking them apart for what they really are. First of all, the "too vanilla spouse" excuse. Yes, it's not a reason, it's an excuse. When a person took vows, part of them did state to "promise to love, honor, cherish and OBEY". Now all four of those sound like values held dear in the BDSM community, especially the "obey" part. So you took a vow you are now sitting on your computer about to break, because it's not very "honorable" to plan out a course to explore something you plan to exclude your spouse from. If it's important enough for you, then leave your vanilla mate and explore on your own; Let them find someone as vanilla as they are and try to live a stable, faithful life. Would you want to be excluded from something that would involve someone being intimate with your mate, touching and providing them pleasure of a kind that you simply aren't "into"? Simply put, it's cheating, and you are using your mate as a safety net, making your spouse an "option B". That is just wrong, and not something you do to someone you "love".
The second one; When one party lives a significant distance from the other. Now there are stories of people thousands of miles apart meeting, moving, and living happily ever after. Those folks made sacrifices, and are the exception, not the rule. If you are a submissive living in Idaho and your Dom is a bus driver living in Liverpool, England, THINK. Is he EVER going to have enough money to take a plane, come to Idaho, spend a week with you, and indulge every little thing he told you he liked? Or is it more likely that you're going to masterbating on webcam alot, while he is hiding in the computer room from the wife you didn't know he had?
Third, the Dom hopping subbie. We all see them, know them, and wonder HOW they can do that so often. It's really very simple. Some women are so desperate to "belong" that they will ignore every warning sign, excuse every kind of "bad behavior" for nothing more than a sense of belonging. Usually, it's someone with the first two excuses firmly in place, and if you point it out, you're "not tolerant", and "you're not supposed to judge". Well, I'm human and I'm going to judge people based on what they do and say. Online it's all I have to go by. Dom hoppers also NEED that sense of drama; Real life is usually bland and online drama gives them something to be victimized by. Notice how so many people rush to console someone that has been "decieved by a player Dom" or "dumped by a Dom that never planned to visit her anyways". Well, what were your last 15 "online relationships" that ended the same? How many times will you have an "online collaring" ceremony and 3 months later bemoan the fact that YOU got played?

My personal favorite, and the new "kink du jour" - Polyamoury, or commonly referred to as just Poly. A Dom with two or more submissives, one or more online, with one that he lives with, and the others visit on occasion. Now I got to give kudos to these guys, they have managed to find a way to get "new pussy", keep the "old pussy" around AND not have to deal with the standard jealousy, or even take any kind of responsibility for the well being of the multiple women that end up feeling used when it's all over with. But let's look at what polyamoury REALLY is. Poly means Many. Amour means Love. So polyamoury is simply Many Loves. Not Many Sex Partners, not Many Women in Multiple Cities That You Fuck When You Drop By. It's supposed to work both ways as well, but name the last time you saw a submissive with multiple "Masters". What is the most common is a Dom with a Switch submissive, and they BOTH are Dominanting the "new girl", so in effect, she belongs to both of them, although I don't think it's a stretch to know which one's dick will be in her most of the time, or which one she'll be tasked with "pleasuring" most often. I might would think it's simply numbers. Women outnumber men on this planet 4 to 1, and maybe every guy need 2 women, taking into account half are lesbians. But it never fails to amaze me, invaribly, one of these women are going to get dropped after the first few sexual encounters, and the Dom is going to be patted on the back for making the right decision in letting the other girl go. Correct me if I am wrong, but when you keep one person on tab when finding out if another person is better in bed, isn't that called "being a player" and more often just being a "cheater"? And I don't think it matters if it's 2 women or 15, or if they all eat each other into dripping masses of girlygoo each time they get together for HIS pleasure, one of the women is the Alpha, and if one of the new ones sucks better dick, that Alpha placement ain't gonna last long. Let's call it what it is; Some guy found a way to get more than one woman to suck his dick. It isn't poly, it isn't a "new kink", and it isn't about love, or dominance. It's about the sex, pure and simple, and I really have no sympathy when one of those women find that out, and then no one wants to be with her because she's simply "damaged goods"

Unsafe sex

Is there a point at which the way a person acts is considered to be SO outside of what is considered "reasonable" that those that "know" them, finally say that person is no longer the type of person they want as a "friend"? Recently, I decided to post this about someone I had the misfortune of getting to know and their behavior has made me want to get this off my chest. I think I am showing enormous restraint in NOT giving their names.
Here is the situation. I met a female online about a year ago, and, after I moved, met her in person. When we were talking about the job situation, I told her that the company I had just started working for was looking another person, she asked me to see what I could do. So, I got an application, called her up, met her at McDonalds, had her fill it out, and turned it in. I pestered my boss until she got an interview, then pestered my boss even more until she was hired. I'm not saying I was the sole reason she was hired, but I think I had alot to do with it.
Now fast forward some time, and I meet her "boyfriend". This guy is 37 and dating her, a 22 year old. Not to say anything about "love has no age" but that's 15 years difference. He met her in a bar, and they had sex that very first meeting. Now, to back up some, this girl is known a bit as a "party girl", which is a nice way of saying she has had more men in her than the Army. So, they do the deed, and you'd think that all is well. And if all was "normal", I wouldn't be on the verge of a rant.
All is NOT normal. Turns out, drunken sex not withstanding, the guy had the presence of mind to wear a condom. Not to avoid pregnancy, but because he didn't tell her he had HERPES. Oh yeah, the gift that keeps on giving. For those of you that don't know, there is NO cure for Herpes. And yes, left untreated it can kill you. So, this guy has the PERFECT trap. He had sex with her quite a few times, then explained to her WHY he always wore a condom and wouldn't have sex with her at certain times ( due to having an outbreak ) and she was fine with that. Then, one night, he got her very very very drunk, and they had sex WITHOUT a condom. And you guessed it, she got herpes. Congratulations.
Now, back to the present time. This guy takes this girl out to bars and "chat parties" and at these functions, he gets drunk and accuses her of wanting to have sex with someone, and then accuses someone there of wanting to "take her from him"and have sex with her too. Well, if she has the decency to inform them BEFORE sex, not a single guy I know of, and not single woman either, would agree to have sex with the risk of incurable HERPES, for a one nighter, or even for a weekend of sex. So, he's causing a scene and being a complete asshat for NO GOOD REASON. Other than, it gets all the attention on him.
They got married, yay. For him, it's the perfect arrangement, a woman at home for sex and to keep his place clean; for her, she ends up with the guy that infected her and leaves her with no choice but to be with him, because he already has it. God forbid they have kids, because the risk of transmitting it to the child is pretty high, and it can cause all kinds of birth complications.

I guess my issue is thus: Should I tell people that these two, particularly HIM - because he does present himself as being such a "sexy guy", and talks to some of the females in the group about threesomes and such - that he's carrying a loaded weapon? Is it my responsibility to inform them, since he obviously doesn't have it within him to do so? Or do I simply walk away and live with the hope that I never meet someone they might have had sex with and have to worry about catching that disease myself?

What is new is old again

(how special effects make movies suck)



So. The last installment of the Prequel to the Star Wars saga is out. Episode 3. And the last new episodes of Enterprise, the final show that started it all, are airing this month on UPN. And Revelations is out on network television, and Passion of the Christ is being re-released, only some parts cut out for younger viewers. All of this movie mania includes a whole heck of a lot of movie remakes, and sequels to remakes.



None of which makes any sense to me. I remember going to the Westwood 9 to see Star Wars when I was 12 years old, more specifically, I went with my younger brother and was AMAZED. Sure it was kinda campy, and it was the same "good vs. evil and good wins" story, but it had a punch. It had characters that you remembered, that made an impression. The same could be said for a lot of movies made in that timeframe. Special effects were just becoming something to be used, mostly hit and miss technology, so a movie needed a STORY. It had to tell us something outside our normal lives, draw us in and keep us rooted for 2 hours in front a gigantic screen with speakers bigger than our bedroom door to knock us around with sound. Going to the Movies was date with a girl, a night out with friends, a Family Event, complete with popcorn and soda. Even Television had "EVENTS". Shows airing for the first time, a movie , editing down to just over 1 hour, being played on network TV. And shows like Star Trek, campy lil sci fi show that tackled current issues set in a futuristic time when those issue didn't really exist on Earth.

Now, having said that, let me say this. Almost every movie this past 2 years has been an utter disappointment. Sequels and prequels and remakes and retellings abound. There are no new stories to be told. "Biopics" are the fad now, a 2 hour movie based on someone's biography. And not just anyone, oh no. People like Larry Flynn, paragon of virtue that he is. And movies based on "true stories", like Carandiru, a movie about a social worker in Brazilian prison that finds prisoners living in horrible conditions. What? Criminals not living like princes, like we treat them here in the US??



Movies used to be an escape, a pleasant diversion, money well spent for entertainment. Now it's political agenda, a 2 hour commercial (Sahara and it's JEEP theme ), or worse, 2 hours of mindless drivel disguised as "art". And when all else fails, nothing new works, the movie industry falls back on what has worked before. A Jurassic Park 4, another Batman movie, more "live action" movies based on cartoons, and movies based on popular TV shows. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, an A Team movie is coming out, and someone made a movie based on Bewitched. Children's movies and books don't escape either. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is coming out. A live action version of Charlotte's Web. And ONE more Harry Potter movie, which I might actually BUY when it comes out on DVD.



Now there are some movies I look forward too. Books that I loved reading can now be made into movies, thanks to breakthroughs in special effects, CGI, things of that nature. Lord of the Rings was absolutely awesome. The Harry Potter series has turned out quite well. And the Chronicles of Narnia are coming out. But that's it. I don't see alot of really good STORIES anymore, I see alot of computer game based movies, alot of remakes, which leads to a sequel of the remake. And it really bugs me. I used to love planning a night out, sometimes alone, to see 2 or even 3 movies all in a row, at the local Cineplex. Now I can only hope to see 1 at the movie theater, and if that ONE sucks, I head home and won't go see another until they come out on DVD.



I guess what I am saying is, I want to see a really good, really well written STORY. I'm not so much wanting vampires or were wolves, or action scenes loaded with fights and explosions and superheroes. But I don't want to spend 2 hours watching something I coulda learned in history class in 10th grade either.

Abortion as Murder

This was posted in an yahoo group I am a member of, and was told I should blog it. Again, my standard disclaimer: If you are easily offended, don't read any farther. If you have a weak heart, or a habit of yelling at the TV, read on, but remember; people in your house are probably sleeping.

First of all, let's look at the "abortion" topic from a logical viewpoint. And that is why so many people disagree on this topic. Something like abortion elicits an "emotional response" from most people, and emotions LIE. No matter how you FEEL about something, what you feel is based on the environment you were raised in, the people you were raised around, and what you allowed of those things to effect, and affect, you. And yes, there is a difference between those two words. So what YOU feel is YOURS alone, no-one else feels EXACTLY the same way. So let's move past the "emotional response" and try to look at it logically.

In order to look at abortion as murder, let's first define what murder is. (I include websites so that no claim can be made against ME defining murder; these definitions are widely accepted by the legal community.) Murder is defined as:

"at common law, murder was defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with 'malice aforethought.' In addition, a killing during the commission of an arson, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, escape from lawful custody, felony manufacturing or delivering a controlled substance, constitutes murder in the 1st degree."[http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/crimlaw/notes/introduction ]

So, now that we "know" the common definition of murder, can we accuse a woman that has a miscarriage after drinking and smoking of murder as well? Showing that she knows those things could be "included in the notion of intent to kill awareness that the death of another would result from one's actions, even if the actor had no particular desire to achieve such a consequence." (Dressler: 213). " Or would we simply charge her with Manslaughter, which does NOT include "intent" or " pre-meditation" and in some states, is excluded by mental state. And if we charge THAT woman with murder, can we then charge ANY woman that miscarries with "involuntary manslaughter", which has no intent and may be charged in cases where the death is caused purely by accidental means?
By THAT logic, we can then trace back an abortion as murder in any stage of the development of a fetus, and include manslaughter in cases of a male masturbating (no one can say which 1 of his MILLIONS of sperm might have went on to cure cancer) and any woman having a menstrual cycle (in which an unfertilized egg is discarded, along with the destrus of the uterine wall).

I cannot, ever, by God's wisdom, give birth to a child. I, personally, do not think anyone in the delivery room would survive. But I do know women that, when faced with a choice of carrying to term, decided to have an abortion. Some of them have lived with a sense of regret for as long as they live, some are glad the choice was available to them. There will always be circumstances in which NOT wanting to have a child from a union conceived from rape, incest, and sexual abuse will justify abortion. It is not up to those that WOULD not, to dictate to those that might someday need to make that decision. Just like those that are against a right to own a gun often change when they are mugged for the first time, a lot of "pro-lifer's" tend to tone down when suddenly faced with a child they cannot afford to support.

For the record, I am pro-choice. I am also of the firm belief that there are some people that would benefit from a retroactive abortion, but that is just me.

Who makes the bombs?

It isn't often that I allow myself to become a "conspiracy theorist", but recent events in the news make me think long and hard about those guys living behind foil wrapped doors in basements, waiting on men in black to come pick them up. First of all, let me start by saying the bombings in London, from what I have seen on TV, are horrible, no matter how many dead or wounded. It is a grim reminder that the people of the world are subject to the brutality of war, whether they are in the front lines, or where they think themselves to be safe.

Unless you live under a rock, July of 2005 saw a terrorist attack occur in London that, at most recent reports, claimed the lives of 35 and wounded over 400 people in a subway bombing. Soon after the bombings occurred, a group posted a message via "The Internet" that claimed responsibility, and named themselves as part of the al-Qaida. All pretty standard stuff, and from recent activity in Iraq, to be expected.

Or is it?

And therein lies the issue. Let us look closely at the facts, and look deeper at the recent events. In the past, the US government has known to win support, you have to be battling an "evil foe". The trouble in the Middle East started when OPEC ( formed in 1960) used it's strength to pressure countries that had sided with Israel in military actions against other Middle Eastern countries.

from wikipedia -- " The persistence of the Arab-Israeli conflict finally triggered a response that transformed OPEC from a mere cartel into a formidable political force. After the Six Day War of 1967 the Arab members of OPEC formed a separate, overlapping group (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries) for the purpose of centering policy and exerting pressure on the West over its support of Israel. Egypt and Syria, though not major oil-exporting countries, joined the latter grouping to help articulate its objectives. Later, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 galvanized Arab opinion. Furious at the emergency re-supply effort that had enabled Israel to withstand Egyptian and Syrian forces, the Arab world imposed the 1973 oil embargo against the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. By the early 1970s the great Western oil conglomerates suddenly faced a unified bloc of producers.

As mentioned, the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered a crisis already in the making. The West could not continue to increase its energy use 5 percent annually, pay low oil prices, yet sell inflation-priced goods to the petroleum producers in the Third World. This was stressed by the Shah of Iran, whose nation was the world's second-largest exporter of oil and the closest ally of the United States in the Middle East at the time. "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise," the Shah told the New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how… You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300 percent, and the same for sugar and cement… You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, redefined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us… It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say 10 times more." "

All of this occurred in the 1970's, while the world saw a drop in the value of the American dollar, and the country faced a huge recession, complete with unemployment at an all time high. Government officials saw the country face it's first fuel shortage since World War 2. Obviously, the US had a vested interest in what was happening inside of OPEC and needed to secure some type of control over oil prices and production from that area. Enter Kuwait. Kuwait was a border country that supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq wars in the early 1980's, along with Saudi Arabia. As that conflict died down, Iraq looked to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for economic support and support in OPEC to drive up oil prices again, to increase Iraq's profits. Kuwait refused, and Iraq planned an invasion in August of 1990.

So, what line is being drawn? Here is where all of it becomes blazingly clear. The CIA was instrumental in the US's knowledge of the Iraqi buildup of invasion forces against Kuwait, and in fact, acted as a go-between during the first part of negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. In November 1989, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd, at the instruction of George H.W Bush, then President of the US. After the invasion of Kuwait, the US and Saudi governments feared an invasion of the Hama oil fields in Saudi Arabia, the most profitable oil fields in the Middle East. On August 7th, US troops moved into Saudi Arabia and prepared to repel Iraqi forces poised at the border in Kuwait. On January 12, 1991, Congress authorized the use of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.

President Clinton inherited the state of war from Bush, who left many military objectives undone.

"In their co written 1998 book, "A World Transformed" George Bush and Brent Scowcroft discussed the possibility of overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991: 'Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guidelines about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep', and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... Would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome..' (quoted in Losing America, pg 154)"

In fact, Bush later stated that many of the issues Clinton faced were issues that the military had waited on the CIA to provide reason and intelligence on, including the "weapons of mass destruction" lie that started while Clinton was still in office. Clinton, however, wasn't much interested in oil, and was a much more tech-savvy President, intent on moving the country forward technologically, to better compete in the World Market with nations such as Japan, who had focused on electronics after the oil embargos of the 1970-1980's. The United States involvement in the Middle East now consisted of allowing the UN to send in "WMD inspectors" and providing humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians.

Enter George W, Bush, son of George HW Bush, brother of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, the ONLY state to have "voting machine issues". Dubya, so named by the media, has family ties to oil production companies in Texas AND Alaska, and much of his family money came about from deals made by his father during the Clinton administration for supply of oil and economic dealings with oil production in the Middle East. Back to the need for US involvement in Middle Eastern oil management. Dubya knew that he could use the CIA to fabricate false intelligence to support a massive military presence in Iraq, due to on going, and building, conflict between the Shiite Muslims and the Sunni Muslims, of which Saddam Hussein belonged. A simpler plan of disposing Saddam and placing a US backed, and US friendly, government in his place was the best option available. These actions led to the second involvement of US forces in military action in Iraq, to move in, dispose of Saddam, find WMD, and secure the area for a "democratic" form of government. Dubya had counted on world wide support, even calling in previous Coalition members to provide manpower, troops, and economic support in the invasion. Many members, however, had received different reports from the non-CIA Weapons Inspectors, stating that no WMD had been found and that none were expected to be found, and so refused to join. Britain, a long time supported of US military actions, limited itself to minimal troop support and logistical aid for the invasion.

Dubya's approval rating in the US dropped drastically as gas prices rose and unemployment rates increased, mostly due to agreements made by Clinton, like NAFTA, and by Congress, such as CAFTA, allowing companies to move factories to low-pay countries like Mexico, and outsource technical jobs to India. Problems at home increased Dubya's focus on issues abroad, making the need for a "world situation" necessary. Dubya knew he couldn't have another 9/11 on his hands, and ruled out ALL supposed "terrorist activity" on US soil. But how to bring in the European nations to support his actions, turn attention BACK to the "terrorists", yet not damage anything on American soil?

Simple, bring the terrorist threat to them. The first attack was on America soil; fast and brutal, it solidified action against any and all suspected terrorist organizations. But as quickly as it solidified the country, domestic security demoralized the entire nation. Use of "National Security" gave the government free rein to invent new laws and procedures to turn a closer watchful eye on the very citizens it was supposed to protect. A second attack was needed, to turn attention AWAY from the US governments tactics, and generate more hatred and actions against a faceless "terrorist" enemy. No better location than London, England. Britain's support would be increased, public outcry would solidify European opinion of Tony Blair, and strike fear into the other nations, with a clear attack so close to home.

I think we live in a terrifying time. I think there are forces among us that live and breath on fear and terror: that need to make sure that no-one ever sleeps soundly, or forgets that they need Government to protect them. I believe that we have become scared and feel helpless in the face of such callous disregard for human life. But I fear that when we find our enemy, and look him in the face, we'll only see ourselves.

To my readers

There is no greater praise a writer can get than to know his writing is read, and enjoyed. So to my readers, I ask; If you read these and whether you agree or disagree, please leave a comment. Your comments, even if you disagree with a particularview of mine or not, helps me keep writing. So, let me know, either here or to my e-mail rogue_of_celtic_hearts@yahoo.com. If there are no readers then there is no reason for me to keep posting. Thanks.