Who Needs Truth When There's Revisionism?

Post #12: Sept. 2, 2007

Just when you think you’ve heard it all ….

Just a couple weeks ago, President George W. Bush let loose what we in Texas parlance (at least among polite company) term “a whopper.” First he went on news saying how we needed to get more results from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s Administration, and start seeing real progress. This coming right on the heels of the Iraqi ministry taking a month of vacation while the life-or-death issues of this “fledgling democracy” teetering on the brink are put on hold with all the urgency of reviewing a bill on water allocation to farmers. Seemingly, give-‘em-hell-George appeared to be lighting a fire under the Prime Minister.

Then at almost breakneck direction change, the Mr. Bush calls another press conference to reiterate his “unwavering” support of Al-Maliki, and blasting critics calling for his ouster. He goes on to chide the critics of Al-Maliki, noting, “it's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship.”

Odd that Georgie would bring that up because a mere year and a half ago, it was Ibrahim Al-Jaafari that appeared poised to be re-elected as Prime Minister in Iraq. Unfortunately for him, the White House wanted none of that. The Bush Administration insisted Al-Jaafari step down, and Al-Jaafari dug in his heels initially and refused. With no small amount of arm-twisting, and some help by enlisting the cleric Ali Sistani to show that Al-Jaafari’s obstinance would hold the nation back, the man who the Iraqi Parliament would’ve elected stepped aside.

The man that Iraq’s Parliament on whole were not so keen on (especially the Sunni segment), was instead “democratically elected” – with a little help and wisdom from their neighbors halfway across the globe! Hey, we would expect nothing less in our own democracy, right?

And while Bush’s words sounded like the typical beat-up-a-Democrat, Congress-been-keeping-me-back rhetoric, he was actually responding to critics within his own party.

The astonishing part of all of this was … Bush did this with a straight face! More impressive, virtually no one called him on it!

It’s something we’ve seen a startling increase in, especially in the 21st century: Real-Time Revisionism. Unlike other examples in history, these days revisionism can’t wait for the history-book writers to massage the facts in a decade or two. No, history is now revised now in the span of a mere year or two.

This brand of nuanced politic-speak has been perfected to an art form by the Bush / Cheney Administration, most notably with the Iraq War mission creep. Revisionism has also become a well-used defense or attack strategy by the RNC, and to good effect. And in typical RNC fashion, as long as you say it loudly enough and long enough (especially if you shout the challengers down) it becomes fact. It’s notably helpful to have the press in your pocket, where they can participate in spreading the desired outcome of what’s already past.

To be sure, this isn’t strictly a conservative trait. Indeed some of their counterparts have watched their success with revision and wish to duplicate for themselves.

It’s become a concept that’s in vogue in the GLBT political community as well. It’s not a new approach by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as they’ve used this to lesser success over the years. Lately, however, it’s become much more forward, particularly with a sales push to the transgender community.

Claims made about their historical “support” of inclusive language in either Hate Crimes or Employment Non-Discrimination bills fly directly in the face of reality. In later years they’ve taken note of the pressure of other GLBT organizations pushing them to get with the program that most others adopted years ago: actively pushing for trans-inclusive language. It hasn’t stopped them from trying to support language such as the Senate bill that has gender only as they attempted to slide with in the previous Congress.

Now, with the assistance of a few trans leaders they tap to assist in getting their marketing message to the transgender community, the message is all about how they’ve supported us all along. Ahem, nice try.

Even one of the transgender organizations is now claiming they themselves has always supported fully inclusive language – i.e. gender identity. Yet it completely contradicts their helping market the message from HRC, which was “gender”, in order to become the insiders in 2003 - 2004. Even the explanations given about this discrepancy were explained away as being done to please legislative lawyers from these allied organizations. Yet they too wish to rewrite reality simply to assuage guilt or puff up their legacy.

The bottom line, both of these organizations wish to retroactively change their past behavior. Physically that’s impossible, but revising history is much easier, requires no difficult stands to be taken, and as the GOP has shown, is successful. At least it’s successful as long as you can intimidate the rest into not pointing it out or making an issue of it.

Therein is the key to successful revisionism: complacency by those of us who see it and who should say something about it, but don’t. If we let it slide, then we deserve the kind of false history we’ll get.

Those who actively succeed in real-time revisionist history, whether conservative or liberal, all have common traits. Revisionists want no responsibility for their actions. Sure, everyone wishes they could all have a “free pass,” but nobody gets that. In fact, these very same revisionists will be the first one to hold others accountable.

Revisionists are also keen on having a storybook legacy – they just don’t want the muss and fuss of actually going through the hardships to accomplish it.

We as a nation need to begin pulling in the slack, and not giving free passes to this behavior. We should all start questioning the equivocating speech by nailing them down on the specifics and keeping it on record.

If revisionism is allowed, then why bother expecting accountability? What’s the point of truth? It’s a sad day when money buys our history and we never live to know fact.

“Life ‘tis all a cheat
Fooled with hope, men favor the deceit
Trust on, and think tomorrow will repay
Tomorrow’s falser than the former day."
from the play "Aureng-Zebe" by John Dryden

50 Things Women wish Men to knew

Here come another link, women from the world, that highlighted
50 things that women wish man to know! Check it out HERE
if you are really concerns and bother about what women say about you!

Manhealth.com: 50 Things Men Wish You Knew

Found this interesting site, that universal guys truths that all women should understand . What's more, you can even put in your comments now as this site is still cumulating the comments.

Here are some of the things extracted from the site that I find it really reflective, and truth!

- I just may lie to make you feel good. Don’t be angry about this. You really weren't looking for the truth anyway.

- When you get angry over some stupid little pointless thing, I question your intelligence.

- You’re really bad at faking it.

- If I offer my help while you're getting ready, it means you’re late.

- Never ask me to pick out your outfit. I will invariably get it wrong and make us even more late.

- If you think I’m speeding now, you should see me drive when you're not in the car.

- We don't mind being told we look good. Just don't call it a "cute outfit."

- You can pick the movie, but have a reason

To find out more, follow this LINK. Have fun

Man Fashion: 7 most popular type of shirts

MAN SHIRT, some of the most common trends are in collar, a button front or cuffed sleeves. The materials frequently made up in crisp fabrics like cotton.

Today, I am going to talk about 7 popular type of shirts that well received by male fashion world.

Classic Long-Sleeved Dress Shirt

You really can’t go wrong with this, as long as you find the right matching color and pattern. Try to find something that doesn’t have any pockets, if you can, for smart casual. White is most preferred color as it is easily match with whatever pants, but almost any color will work.

However, the latest trend is black or other uncommon dark color, which is very popular in man fashion world, which was against those days where black is always related to mafia or gangsters.

You can mostly find this type in the business attire or smart casual wear.

Short-Sleeved Dress Shirt

For men who want to look youthful and professional, the style is a way to dress colorfully while wearing a plain dress shirt. They're less serious, if you're not in a staid business environment.

So those are the basics. There are other shirt styles out there that may look good on you, but these are pretty much safe for anyone. My advice is to avoid anything flashy or trendy - they tend to get you noticed for the wrong reasons.

Long-Sleeved Polo Shirt

The most classic and mannish. Just make sure you leave at least the top button undone, ha ha, otherwise this will look like a geek. It is well received with solid colors and jeans or khakis.

Tip: For jean, it is preferable to leave it un-tucked if this is not too long, but if wearing khakis, tuck it in.

Short-Sleeved Polo Shirt

Again, classic and mannish, these come in a variety of fabrics and designs. These short-sleeved polo shirts are mostly suitable with jeans or khakis. Color strip or solid colors are both well received in man fashion world. Recently, it is also very popular in man and women sports world like golf.

The Turtleneck

A round close-fitting neckline that comes up higher than a crew neck but not so high as a polo neck. This was initially design to suit winter weather in Western world, and it turned out to be fashionable style in male and female fashion world. Don't you dare laugh, this looks is really great. They come in a variety of fabrics, something nice and thick tends to suit every man.

Classic Crew Neck T-Shirt

This is most well received by all age group. College t-shirts are fine, as long as they meet the other guidelines. Some prefer with pocket and others no, but I think they look better without. Most common colors are white and black, red is hot and yellow is fun. A nicely match t-shirt makes any man look twice as good! T-Shirts also gives men the choice of creating a ‘personal brand’. This means they can personalise the T-Shirt to their taste, political affiliations or personal thought, and this is getting common in teenage fashion world, and also well received by man in IT world, such as Steven Jobs of Apple, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google.

Tip: Make sure it fits your body, these don’t look good baggy.

Classic Wife-Beater

Also known as A-shirts, they are usually worn by men, They are generally made for use as underwear, and generally have large sleeve holes and a large neck, down to near the chest. The term originates from frequent depictions in popular culture of aggressive American men, usually living in poor conditions and having low income, beating their wives and/or children while clad in this shirt.

Tip: Looks good on well-built fellas, pathetic on skinny fellas, and disgusting on fat beer bellied fellas

Earring for Man

History

Ear ring, as a fashion accessory can track back to 19^th century, whereby this was worn by male, and this can be seen in the carved images of the soldiers from various parts of the Persian Empire which are displayed on some of the surviving walls of the palace. Even in India, the earring worn by the children were mostly due to religion purpose.

So When earring was getting popular?
Particular click on earring, started to get popular among the ladies in 1920s in Western Europe, and only until late 1960s, ear piercing began to make inroads into the male world.
Mostly amateur piercing with safety pin was mostly well-liked in punk rock community. In 1980s, the trend for male famous music performers, eg. George Michael to have pierced ears helped establish a fashion trend for men, and this has been extended to athletes and show performers. These days, many men wear earrings in both ears, sometimes with more than one in each ear become norm in men fashion world. Most common type of earring that you can find in male ears are Stud and Hoop earrings.

Stud earrings - The main feature of stud earrings is appearance of hanging on the ear or earlobe without a visible (from the front) point of connection. Studs are invariably constructed on the end of a post, which penetrates straight through the ear. Diamond studs are getting popular among the popular music performers and black community, think about it, dress casual or formal and still rock a diamond stud in very common in man fashion world now;

Hoop earrings – this is circular or semi-circular in design and looks very similar to a ring. They are often made of metal tubing, with a thin wire attachment penetrating the ear. The hollow tubing is permanently attached to the wire at the front of the ear, and slips into the tube at the back. Another type of hoop designs do not complete the circle, but penetrate through the ear in a post, using the same attachment techniques that apply to stud earrings.

So earrings are suitable in what situation?

Most of the men worked in entertainment industry and other creative fields have the freedom to wear whatever they choose. Whereas men in other professions are not encourage to wear their earrings when they go to work. For example, The National Basketball Association is strictly prohibit players from wearing jewelry of any kind while in uniform. When the game is over, athletes such as Michael Jordan wear earrings to complement their unique sense of style.

Earring is suitable for which age group?

In fact, there is no particular rule stated that only younger are suitable for earring. However, the unwritten rule of thumb seems to be that the older a man gets, the more discreet the jewelry becomes.

How you find the earring that suitable for yourself?

It is very simple, put them on, match with what you are going to wear and look at yourself in the mirror. Be honest, do you look silly or hot? Decide what you like and go with it.

Briefs vs. Boxers

Men’s wear fashion has been growing tremendously in recent years. The reasons for the significant growth are mainly due to the flow of information in Internet and media, leisure culture.

In additional to my earlier post, I will add on the elaborate more on men’s underwear, ie. briefs and boxers. This trend came in a long way, even respectable fashion house now offer briefs and boxers to contemporary male customer. (as I highlighted in my earlier posts)

The most primary difference between briefs and boxer is size and fit. Briefs are smaller and fit more snugly, thus they adhere to the shape of the body better. Boxers on the other hand fit more loosely and are found to be more comfortable by many men.

Briefs are considered the traditional male undergarment and suitable to most men with a slim or muscular build. Briefs also suitable for sports, under low cut jeans and under tight jeans or trousers. So if you the owner of six packs, muscular chests, firm thighs, briefs is definitely a “add on” fashion for you.

Boxer, on the other hand, provides too much coverage and therefore suitable for those overweight or tall and slim build gentlemen. Of course size cannot be judged in boxers, so obviously this is also a favourite for those not so endowed gentleman …ha..ha…just kidding!!

So ultimately is your choice, boxer or briefs will very much depend on your what you wear, and where you are going? What kind of activities are you carry out, such as sports, dinner, shopping, etc.

Do It For The GOPper: Republican Presidential Politics Plays to the Faithful

"Just give me power, by the hour ... Salvation's yours! The Power's mine!" -- Rat Race Kid - Give Me Power ©

While the Dems got through with their debates today, in the interest of fairness it behooves me to at least give the GOPpers a report with regards to Trans America.

Two weeks earlier, they had their first network debate with all candidates currently declared (Fred Thompson is not one of those) in Iowa; the following week they conducted their straw poll there, with the expected victory for Mitt (the only presidential candidate ever named after a baseball glove) Romney. For the sake of fairness, the other top-tier candidates to date – Rudy Giuliani and John McCain – skipped the straw poll. Fred Thompson has not officially declared, so he’s officially not a candidate and polled better than the aforementioned other skippers.

So what does this mean for GOP America? Moreover, what does this communicate to Transgender Americans?

The straw poll itself showed little. The only surprises were two outsiders (those not willing to throw the money around to buy a victory) placed second and fifth respectively. Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee topped both Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado who tossed the money out only to see less-than-expected results for the buck. Furthermore the ultimate GOP outsider, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, finished closely behind those conventional two.

As for GOP nominations and ultimately success, all candidates in the debate have their dilemmas to hurdle. None of them appear a lock-tight cinch.

Rep. Tom Tancredo is the candidate of choice if you really want to “stick it to the Mexicans.” He’s the choice of the “deport-all-the-non-English-speaking-foreigners” crowd – especially if it’s spoken with a latino accent. There’s some agreement from this writer in that opening the border wide simply to bring in cheap labor is wrong. This only accomplishes desperation among American citizens in the workplace, drives down wages in favor of exploiting those newly-arrived workers while driving up profits for the top tier, and foments polarization between citizens and immigrants. Most pointedly this has little to do with humanitarian concern. The ultimate goal is the bottom line and preying upon those who don’t know any better. If that were Tancredo’s push, it would be noteworthy. However, the Colorado Rep’s complaints come off as thinly veiled indignation at having to read signs in Spanish in his home state.

Watching former Health Secretary, Tommy Thompson was vaguely frightening. He of the V-chip implantation under his skin (or ID chip, whatever) came across at times as being very machine-like in the debates. His answers at times weren’t really answering the questions from the debate, but rote spewing of campaign-speech soundbites. It left me wondering if he was even aware of being in a debate. It seemed he was almost acting as if he was shooting his campaign commercial. Being HHS Secretary, he defied the party and scored big audience applause on women’s health and issues of the uninsured, something that will keep folks like Billy Kristol awake at night. Thompson also chastised the Iraq war calculus, but stopped short of calling the war there a mistake.

Senator Sam Brownback showed himself to be the conservative’s conservative, mean-spirited, willing to sling any amount of mud to win and to momentarily grasp any argument – however flimsy – in order to win. He comes across as the typical GOPper who distrusts (and likely outright despises) anyone that’s not straight, white, male and conservative. While being nearly a clone of the Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney ilk, he’s also strangely against the ongoing Iraq War. Thus his niche: like Bush in every respect, will slavishly pander to prejudicial religious leader voting bloc, but doesn’t like Bush’s handling of the war.

Sen. John McCain was by far the most painful to watch in the Iowa debates. He looked uncomfortable, scored very few points with the audience, and generally came across as unprepared or distracted. In answering an Email question about regrets, his cryptic answer of testifying about someone he thought was a friend, when he shouldn’t have was baffling. While he’s gamely tried to say his campaign isn’t flagging, it’s virtual implosion is wearing on him and it shows. While he would’ve been a much better and plausible choice for independents in 2000, his star has long-since fallen. The 2004 partisan-loyalty to non-vet Bush over the vets push for Kerry and against the mishandling of the Iraq war were bad enough (something he then looked very uncomfortable with). Afterwards, his obvious pandering to both George W. Bush in 2006 (where he famously asked all to not vote for him but to vote for the President to show their support), and the blatant 180 to the religiopolitical leadership (vis a vis tacit remorse in his meetings with Falwell) showed him to be just as personally expedient as any other GOP hopeful. It’s hard to believe that once upon a time McCain was a self-admitted “maverick” and pushed principle over party. Nowadays, he’s just another GOP politicker.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani – what can I say about him other than he’s the number two guy, trying harder, but not a polished speaker. Sure the polls have him at the top. But the arch-con folks have not weighed in, and do not want this as their poster boy. Yes, he’s slicker than goose dung, shown particularly when he deflected the answer about his "one defining mistake" with humor. Was it really humor, or a knowing cognizance that GOP America never forgets and especially hates any GOP candidate being embarrassingly candid on record? Rudy’s answer to the mistake question showed distinct shades of W – nothing for the record, and all about glibness. Hizzoner scored biggest on the defense of abortion, though he tried to finesse his position initially (something he should learn from, but likely will not). One troubling aspect he showed (not only on women’s rights but others he’s developed expedient amnesia on during campaigning): Rudy will buckle on principle if the money (read elected office) is right. After the straw polling, his offspring’s views of Rudy came to light. Rudy’s response? "I love my family very, very much and will do anything for them. There are complexities in every family in America," and basically a ‘leave my family alone’ reply. Nice attempt to cover, but too many eyes are watching.

Mid-stage we had Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, the only man named after baseball equipment. His birth name is Willard, but he avoids it (think ‘movies about rats.’) Mitt’s very polished, extremely practiced, and nothing more than a political rhetoric machine. His all-too-predictable conservative responses were anthropomorphic. It’s almost as if he’d gotten the V-chip implanted instead of Tommy Thompson (or certainly a much better version of it). When pinned on his past political views by the oh-so-Rovian candidate, Sen. Brownback, Romney unsuccessfully tried to outright lie, then feverishly deflect attention from his past political values. Just as GOP folk painted Sen. John Kerry, you can put a big ol’ flip-flop costume on Mitt as well. Is this a Massachusetts thing? He’ll be the dutiful pet for the RNC when it counts. Mitt also took pains to note that he was not “a carbon copy of {George W Bush}.” Indeed, he favors not only keeping Guantanamo (a la Bush/Cheney), but also even expanding it! After the straw poll, embarrassing claims came out about his sons “showing their patriotism by volunteering” for Mitt’s campaign rather than joining the military and directly fighting the war on terror. This comes from perhaps the biggest proponent (outside of McCain) of Bush’s decisions in Iraq and support for the overall concept of the Iraq War. Supportive … so long as it ain’t his kids who must go. Very Bush-like, wins points with the W crowd.

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sounded almost like a Democrat. During the debates, he scored a number of times on issues of the uninsured, on war (not jumping into war and forcing other nations to be like us), on democracy (how we should set an example others will follow – later capitalized by Romney), and how he believed we should all be considered equal. His final statement was best, that he worked for all Americans no matter what race, religion, belief! Another score was on our national infrastructure decline while nation-building in Iraq. (In context, George W. Bush also stumped on the promise of no “nation building” like Bill Clinton. Take that for what it’s worth.) On debate alone, Huckabee almost won my heart. Then I snapped to reality and recognized this was a GOPper. If (big IF) he were to somehow win the nomination, he’d have to face the music of profit-uber-alles Corp. America and the religiopolitical leaders who believe in swift and extreme judgment. That the governor would be so candid is laudable. However the message’s populist nature in the RNC-world is a political career-killer. Unless he’s willing to ditch all that Iowa debate rhetoric, then Gov. Mike might as well turn in his GOP credentials on the way out the door.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas actually scored many of the biggest applauses in the Iowa crowd; mostly with bringing troops home and ending the capricious fashion America (circa 21st century) goes to war. Paul also made big points about how America made more progress with peace against former enemy (Vietnam) than in war. It’s a point worth taking when considering Vietnam with whom we now enjoy good relations and trade, contrasted to thirty-five years earlier. Knowing Rep. Paul from here in Texas, I’ve always been fully aware that (unlike McCain) he embodies the word “Republican maverick.” If there’s anyone who’s not a George W. Bush, status quo Republican, it’s Ron Paul. The downside (from a conservative vantage-point) is that he’s indistinguishable from Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Indeed, he’s also co-author of the same bill with Rep. Kucinich to immediately bring the troops home. While that’s great news to families of the soldiers in Iraq, it’s blasphemy to the Romney / Cheney / George W. Bush paradigm. Add to that Rep. Paul’s populist message and his desire to see the big money shut out of politics and you see a lost totally cause in a GOP world. Rep. Paul would do much better to run as Libertarian then the corporate-owned GOP. Ron still puts faith in the GOP. Outside of politics, though, few others do.

The only other candidate in the GOP race for President isn’t even a candidate yet. Even now, many pundits are speculating that his dalliance in officially jumping in is actually writing himself out of the script for whatever reason. Star of TV and movies, Sen. Fred Thompson, appears to almost have a carte blanche to the top of the GOP ticket almost as soon as he announces. And therein lies the rub. This Tennessean Thompson (not to be confused with Tommy of HHS and Wisconsin) is playing coy and remaining above the fray. Good in one sense: he’s not beaten up in the early stages. However, the bad side is that no one really knows what he’s about. True, it worked for George W. Bush’s elections. But that also works on the bad side as well: what worked for Bush shouldn’t have. Sen. Fred will shoot straight, a distinctive plus from the current administration. But he’ll also be beholden to the same RNC kingmakers and their mandates for what their party’s choice will be. That’ll be an ill fit for Fred Thompson, and he’ll prove to be an ill fit for the RNC –on either the religiopolitical side, or the corporate side, depending on his issue that day. Fred Thompson may be the only candidate on the R side that’s been candid with the transgender community. He was one of the offices that informed lobbyists from the National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) what was happening behind the scenes on our issues from the likes of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). He qualified that statement by saying he wasn’t going to support trans issues, but reported that he felt what HRC was doing on the sly was wrong. Clearly, Sen. Thompson won’t be getting the HRC or the gay/lesbian vote.

But will he, or for that matter, any of the GOP crop win the transgender vote? If the individual is all about getting big windfall tax breaks for themselves, and has no concern for the ability to have an ID with an appropriate name and gender marker, or a passport, or doesn’t care for seeing fairness in trial cases, child custody or health care treatment, is independently wealthy enough to never need for job-seeking, and certainly has no concern for the well-being of other in their community – then yes, someone may vote GOP. But for the overwhelming majority of trans America, especially anyone who’s been paying any attention, the answer is a resounding no. The RNC will dictate where the party and their candidates will go. They don’t care for mavericks (see McCain) or independent thinkers (Ron Paul, Huckabee). As they demonstrated with Bush 41, if you don’t toe the line, kiss your political career and your legacy (inasmuch as they can affect it) goodbye. Voting for anyone with an R in back of their name is voting for the RNC and all of their social engineering plans for the “New American Century.”

And for transgender America, that’s about like ridding oneself of a headache by self-decapitation.