House of Eratosthenes

Archive for the ‘Innernets’ Category

The Worst Double-Standard

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

Jessica Valenti, owner chief operating officer cook & bottle-washer of feministing.com, got an interview and thirty-nine seconds therein she said something I thought was amazing:

Given her opportunity to pick out “the worst double-standard” between geese and ganders, she chooses “the one on the cover” of her book. And that would be He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut.

WOW.

Not that spellbinding until you think of all the other answers lovely Jessica could’ve provided as the worst double-standard.

There’s the draft. If we do have one, it’ll apply to the guys and not the gals. Jessica could’ve unleashed her righteous fury upon that one.

Family court, by tradition, presumes that children are “better off with the mother” and it takes phenomenal circumstances — you don’t want to ask what — to get those in charge to even consider slacking off on that particular double-standard.

A guy is kind of normal, more-or-less, if he downloads an exciting application and then starts fiddling with it day and night, to the point where his paramour sees very little of him for days at a time apart from the back of his head. We put a tremendous pressure on our gals that they shouldn’t behave that way; they’re encouraged to be precocious little gab-goblins, at all hours of the day, even if they don’t feel like it.

There’s the pay gap. I’m still told, often, that that’s supposed to be important especially to people who call themselves “feminists.” Apparently that’s not quite accurate.

Mothers waltz into doctor’s offices and order up diagnoses for learning disabilities — for their sons. When they don’t understand how the sons are supposed to mature into men. And why should they? They’re women. Fathers, no less confused about how girls become women, don’t do that with their daughters. Huh, there’s a double-standard.

You can easily round up a hundred prime-time television commercials for headache medicine that have little or nothing to do with each other…each one of which involves a married (apparently) couple. The husband will be using — all hundred times out of a hundred — Brand X. The wifey will be using the correct product, and in so doing, be availed of a coveted opportunity to correct him. All hundred times. That looks like a double-standard to me.

How about the television shows that are justified by those advertisements? Family show. Father, mother, kids. She is a gorgeous, albeit weary, central character and he’s just a stupid chuckle-head who lucked out the day he met her. He spends his days making messes and nervously trying to figure out how not to tick her off (worse). She spends hers trying to keep him from burning the house down.

Movies for families, are no better. The Mom’s role is to lend a soft shoulder to the teary-faced sad little moppet, after he kicks the winning goal in the soccer game and glances up into the stands to see — horrors! — Daddy isn’t there! That unreliable Dad broke his promise…it’s a constant father-child predicament that bubbles up…and you know why. Because he spends too much time at his job. No issues with Mommy spending too much time at work. No issues with Mommy breaking promises. There’s a double-standard.

With all that, Jessica’s idea of a truly deplorable double-standard is that the sluts aren’t given props for screwing around. They jump so many bones, end up pregnant and don’t know who the father is…and they can’t get their applause from the rest of us. They aren’t elevated to a pedestal, like us pimps, for creating ruined lives and paternity suits.

Except — they are.

There’s more than enough shared and individual blame to go around. Miranda repeatedly acts like an idiot, catalyzing the catastrophic meltdown of Mr. Big that sets the plot (such as it is) in motion. Charlotte abets Miranda by helping her cover up her misdeed. And even relatively sensible Carrie withholds her disapproval of how Miranda treats her amazing, if imperfect, husband, Steve. This movie makes you wonder whether unconditional love is a good thing. It also makes you wonder what men see in these damaged, egotistical and judgmental dames.

The main characters and actors, so amusing as semi-stylized, semi-real vessels of contradictory urges and appetites on TV, look stranded or, worse, terminally self-absorbed here. You start looking forward to Cattrall’s Samantha, who at least retains her snap. With her id wasting away in Los Angeles while she serves as manager and homemaker to her adoring yet work-occupied beau, she grows obsessed with the stud next door – and brings more comic heat to her throttled desire than the others bring to their Cinderella-like or Murphy Brown-esque fantasies. (Candice Bergen does a disposable cameo as a Vogue editor.)

We’ve got all the slut-worship a twenty-something know-it-all could ever want. Like their male counterparts — the sluts sleep around, in truth and in fiction, breaking hearts, earning the condemnation of some and the sick hero-worship of others. It’s about as symmetrical as a “double-standard” can get.

I do remember about the time Ms. Valenti would have been born, when there was a double standard. I was taught to think of it as elevating women to a higher pedestal, and in hindsight, it seems to me that’s exactly what it was. Girls were thought to be more disciplined and cultured — guardians of our society’s decency. But the previous generation of Jessica Valentis sounded the alarm.

They fought for the “rights” of women to pick up all the worst habits of the dudes. Mission accomplished. Now we have a postmodern culture filled to the brim with sluts. It seems to be the one double-standard we worked the hardest at equalizing, and Jessica Valenti is still unhappy about it because she wants our women to screw around some more.

I don’t see how this helps the feminist movement.

Think about those other double standards. If you wanted to more even-handed treatment of men and women in family court, you could rally for reform in…our family court system. Valenti’s slut-double-standard, on the other hand, can only meet “reform” through some method of policing the thoughts private citizens have in their hearts and minds.

I’ve never understood this about feminism. Throughout my life, some among us have harbored suspicions about it, thinking of it as perhaps unbecoming to a free society in which private citizens have a sacred right to the thoughts and emotions between their own ears. Feminists, throughout that time, have screeched at us that no it’s not about that — it’s about equal pay for equal worth.

But then when it’s time for feminists to assign priorities, their hunger is to encroach on the private thoughts. Reforming articles in the public domain, such as public statutes, public jurisprudence, draft policies, and the like…that doesn’t seem to fascinate them much, even if such articles show demonstrable, destructive, gender-based bias. Every time I see the movement crusading for change, it’s crusading for that change in a private dominion — transgressing on thoughts and value systems that rightfully belong to individuals.

So it’s interesting to me that Ms. Valenti is given the opportunity to name one especially odious double-standard, and she names that one — the one that has traditionally looked on women, and seen some shred of nobility that the more primitive dudes might not have. This is the one she’d like to eradicate before all others.

With apologies to Arsenio…that’s a real Thing That Makes You Go Hmmm, right there.

Update 6/18/08: Without rushing out to buy the book, it seems one of the most complete summary listings of double standards listed therein, that may be acquired, would be this preamble posted at Google Books:

Double standards are nothing new. Women deal with them every day. Take the common truism that women who sleep around are sluts while men are studs. Why is it that men grow distinguished and sexily gray as they age while women just get saggy and haggard? Have you ever wondered how a young woman is supposed to both virginal and provocatively enticing at the same time? Isn’t it unfair that working moms are labeled “bad” for focusing on their careers while we shake our heads in disbelief when we hear about the occasional stay-at-home dad? In 50 Double Standards Every Woman Should Know, Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism, calls out the double standards that affect every woman. Whether Jessica is pointing out the wage earning discrepancies between men and women or revealing all of the places that women still aren’t equal to their male counterparts—be it in the workplace, courtroom, bedroom, or home—she maintains her signature wittily sarcastic tone. With sass, humor, and in-your-face facts, this book informs and equips women with the tools they need to combat sexist comments, topple ridiculous stereotypes (girls aren’t good at math?), and end the promotion of lame double standards. [emphasis mine]

I have to admit my curiosity is aroused; I suppose you could scold people into replicating your feminist beliefs about women deserving equality in the workplace, courtroom, bedroom or home, but I have no idea how you’d force people to grow into middle age the way you want them to.

Waitaminnit — courtroom??? Women don’t have enough equality in the courtroom yet?

What inequality do women suffer in the courtroom? Really. Too much eagerness to keep ’em “in the lifestyle and manner to which they have become accustomed”? Too easy to gain custody of the kids?

Are they being denied justice somehow? And if that’s the case, how is that less important than the double-standard that confers a stigma for sleeping around indiscriminately, on oversexed little tarts who sleep around indiscriminately?

Ah…I’m going to have to zip on out and pick this puppy up. It takes some real balls for feminists to insist women are suffering inequality in the courtroom. I gotta see this.

Update: Thing I Know #52 was scribbled down, in haste, in a coffee shop early in the morning a couple years ago, on my Treo smart phone, along with about five or six other things I know. It has turned out to be a prominent and important Thing I Know that describes much of what goes on in the sphere of human endeavor today…and a great deal, out of that, that fails.

I have never been pleased with the way it’s been worded…

Thing I Know #52. When angry people make demands, the ensuing fulfillment never seems to bring a stop to their anger.

Just the way the nouns, verbs and adverbs stack up against each other, which ones are strong, which ones are weak. “Ensuing” is wrong. As a single sentence, it’s hard to read. That would be alright if it was conveying an idea of great complexity. But it isn’t.

And so in honor of Ms. Valenti I am re-wording a Thing I Know, for the first time — Thing I Know #52, the Valenti Thing I Know. This Thing I Know deserves another polishing, another sanding, another cleaning and another coat o’paint. It is critically important. It has had it’s own category here. Something that becomes pertinent to our discourse so often, should be polished down a whole lot better.

As Yul Brynner would say — thus it shall be written; thus it shall be done.

Thing I Know #52. Angry people who demand things, don’t stop being angry when their demands are met.

Posted in Flogs, Is It Really a Man's World?, TIK 52 | 3 Comments »

Uh Oh, They Found The Urban Dictionary

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

This flew under my radar. The floggers over at Feministing found out about the Urban Dictionary Entry for the word “feminist” and their reaction was…well…not good. Cassy Fiano, in turn, found out about that, and in turn did exactly what we did. Laughed her cute round little ass off.

I don’t want to speak for Cassy as to why she found this so amusing. But I know why I do. It has to do with how I defined the flog, a whole year ago almost to the day.

The feminist blog is not like the political blog. Surely you’ve noticed by now — a conservative blog, and a liberal blog, will make it a point to highlight what is to be deplored, and what is to be adored. Permanently. On the masthead. In the sidebar. Someplace that won’t move. This guy’s a fool…that other guy is a hero. Three cheers for so-and-so…boos and hisses to such-and-such. And the positive stuff will always at least be somewhat present. Usually, it’s an invitation to join a webring, hosted by like-minded people.

Not so with the feminist blog. These are not out-of-computer feminists, who on occasion at least pretend to like things or people. No, in Internet-land, the feminist blog is a decidedly negative fountainhead of bile. It exists to find things reprehensible, and to broadcast such findings frequently, voluminously, and with grandeur and gusto. The feminist blog is like the siren luring Jason and the Argonauts to certain doom, with tones screeching rather than dulcet. All other purposes are secondary.

This is a meaningful transformation. In my lifetime, orthodox feminism has clung to a veneer of plausible deniability — never straying far from the “Who, Me?” motif. Every insinuation that feminism had something to do with caustic things…even legitimately cynical things…was invariably answered with a peevish counterinsinuation — hey, no, we’re just here to assure fair play. No man regards us as an attack or a threat — no man has any need to — unless he is somehow “insecure.” A level playing field is all we’re about. Like what, you got a problem with that?

The Internet feminist labors under no such motif. Chalk it up to the sinister, anti-socially shading effect of the Internet itself. The cyber-feminist is a decidedly darker version of her flesh-and-blood sister. She is acrimonious, jaded, angry, petulant. She makes no apology for being so. Not only that, but if a day is spent and no nastiness has managed to bubble to the surface, it seems the day has been a waste. It’s part of the identity. The kitty has claws — or else she’s not worth the trouble of being.

It’s as if Feministing read about my definition, and decided someone should put some effort into making sure the prediction comes true. Especially with what comes next:

Check out masthead after masthead after masthead on some feminist blogs if you have trouble envisioning this. You’ll see what I mean. The “author” is represented by silhouette, or by avatar, or by an actual photograph. There is no smile…not unless it’s been made up into some misshapen sneer. Read the actual posts — and the problem is more pronounced still. Time after time, the theme is left intact, unshaken, unwrinkled, unmoved.

It is this: Somewhere, something is, and it ought not be. That’s it. Overall, it seems the fem-blog hasn’t much else to say. Sensors have detected something somewhere that exists, that we think should be banished to oblivion. Can we get an ‘Amen’ here? [emphases mine, in the hear-and-now]

We should be fair with those angry bitter feminists because this isn’t a “chick” thing. All populist movements eventually dissolve into this kind of ooze. “Somewhere something is, and it ought not be…Can we get an ‘Amen’ here?” And see you tomorrow when we tell you what else you’re supposed to hate. Why did this target earn our scorn? That’s seldom mentioned on the flog. Very seldom. You’re just supposed to get it.

Well it’s a little tough to just see that with the Urban Dictionary definition of “feminist” — today’s object of scorn.

Despite claims by some moderate (and misled) feminists to the contrary, feminism is not a movement for the betterment of men and women. If it was, it would be called humanism.

Feminists are not concerned, for example, about the fact that four times as many men commit suicide as women or that fewer and fewer boys attend college or graduate from high school.

Feminists demand that we treat men and women as exactly equal unless it suits women to differentiate between the sexes.

For example, a typical feminist will see no irony in arguing on one hand that women need more protection from domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment but on the other hand that women are just as good as men at construction and fighting crime, fires and wars.

Call it a human-rights movement or a political movement. Whatever suits you. It’s on the down-and-out. This is undeniable, because if it still found purpose and existed for constructive purposes, the feminists would come out of the woodwork and police their own to see if there was any legitimacy whatsoever in the criticisms above.

That didn’t happen. They came out of the woodwork, alright — but more like fire ants emerging from a mound. “All right girls — attack!” seems to be the rallying cry.

Not my idea of a meaningful productive dialog. But, like I said before about that word…

Multiple times a week, now, I hear the word “discussion” being used to propose something that isn’t a discussion at all. The word “dialog” is abused more feverishly, recklessly, and sadistically. I see it in Barack Obama’s call for a “dialog on race” — did anyone, anywhere, think a genuine dialog had anything to do with what he was requesting of us?

And that’s what feminism has become, I’m afraid. It goes through the motions of being a productive, back-and-forth dialog. But it has nothing to do with what that word is really supposed to describe.

How it got here, is explained in detail in Feminism, A Play in Ten Really Short Acts.

Posted in Flogs, Is It Really a Man's World?, Poisoning Masculinity | No Comments »

Brutally Honest is Promoted

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

Blogger pal Rick who runs Brutally Honest, has been recruiting guest bloggers and they are pretty good. There’s LocutisPrime, there’s small tee tim the Godless Heathen (who I named), Big-Tee Tim Chesterton, and others. Since his spot is one of the few that I make a point of hitting on a daily basis, he was already in sort of an “inner circle” but now that he has a quality panel of contributors, he’s knocked down the last of the criteria for being a silver sidebar resource — and is therefore promoted.

It should be noted that whether a blog is bronze, silver, gold, platinum or turquoise has little-to-no relationship to how valuable it is, or how often we go digging around in it for the latest news. If they reflect anything they reflect the level of effort put in by whoever puts ’em up. So they kind of represent what goes into the blog, not too much what we get out of the blog. Bronze, informally, means “some guy who writes stuff” — like us. Silver means “a panel of people who are subject to quality control”…kinda sorta. Rick’s got a panel. It’s a fun place to hang out. Go check.

And happy 27th, Rick. Give our regards to the missus.

Posted in My Blogger Friends | No Comments »

Cartoons About Arguing on the Innernets

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

Rachel Lucas has posted one that is obviously built to be swiped, and I shall accommodate.

My Better Half confirms with those three magic words…”yup, that’s you.”

Nevertheless, it still doesn’t quite capture the forces at work like this classic animated GIF:

On the other hand, you know what they say about consistency…

So I would hope if there’s something consistent about arguin’ on them innernets, it’s the outcome…in which I reliably lay the SMACK down.

But ultimately, isn’t it an improvement that we can interact with each other even we don’t agree? I’m old enough to remember when it was all about a big clunky television set, filled with some old white guy’s face as he told us what to think. You could feel the brain cells dying as you watched it.

Now, we may look silly while we argue with each other…but even to put forth some stupid arguments you must first engage the brain, and therefore keep it alive.

It’s a step up, in my opinion.

And if you don’t agree, I’ll argue with you. Endlessly, stopping only occasionally to yell over my shoulder, “be there in just a minute, dear.”

Posted in Glad I Learned About This, Innernets | 1 Comment »

Memo For File LX

Saturday, June 7th, 2008

I was reminded of something Ann Coulter said…

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position…Liberals mock Americans who love their country, calling them cowboys, warmongers, religious zealots, and jingoists. By contrast, America’s enemies are called “Uncle Joe,” “Fidel,” “agrarian reformers,” and practitioners of a “religion of peace.” Indeed, Communists and terrorists alike are said to be advocates of “peace.”

Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies. We must lift sanctions, cancel embargoes, pull out our troops, reason with our adversaries, and absolutely never wage war — unless the French say it’s okay. Any evidence that anyone seeks to harm America is stridently rejected as “no evidence.” Democratic senators, congressmen, and ex-presidents are always popping up in countries hostile to the United States — Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iraq — hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America. One year after Osama bin Laden staged a massive assault on America, a Democratic senator was praising bin Laden for his good work in building “day care centers.”
:
Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of it. Patriotism is vitally important — but somehow impossible to measure. Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he’s a kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes “McCarthyism.”
:
Only questions about patriotism are disallowed — unless it is to say that liberals are the “real patriots.” Phil Donahue said the “real patriots” were people who aggressively opposed their own country’s war plans: “Are the protesters the real patriots?” It is at least counterintuitive to say that it is more patriotic to attack America than to defend it. Even Donahue couldn’t continue with such absurd logic, and quickly condemned patriotism as “the last refuge of scoundrels,” and warned: “Beware of patriotism.”

This is all much bigger than patriotism, or liberalism. In my time, I’ve learned to be wary of people who take pains to showcase their whatever-it-is-ness. This is really no different than what all those ladies out there say about big penises, and whatever icon manifests them. You know the refrain, I’m sure. The savvy damsel quickly infers that the expensive red car is symbolic not quite so much of a daunting phallic presence, but rather of a need to suggest the existence of one; it is “compensating for something.”

But the job of a lady on the prowl looking for a large serving of trouser meat, is a little more challenging than mine as I seek to avoid liberals who are “real patriots.” The guy with the oversize sneakers, or the expensive watch, or the big fancy car — will blend in somewhat with his competition, by allowing the lady to draw her own inferences about his giftedness. When it comes to the liberals treating their “patriotism” as Freudian projections, they are much more easily contrasted against others because they won’t allow anyone else to come to their own conclusions. The liberal simply is patriotic. As Ann points out, if you even so much as suggest otherwise you are Joe McCarthy.

Funny, isn’t it, how liberals accuse others of being “cowboys.” What does a cowboy do? He drives cattle toward a specific destination, by watching for any critters wandering anywhere else, and then creating a controlled commotion to bully the poor thing back in line. In politics, this is exactly what liberals do….the temptation arises to suggest this is all they do, and that wouldn’t be far from the truth. They allow the rest of us draw whatever conclusions we may, until it’s something contrary to the liberal’s liking — and then they bullcuse us of being…something.

Watch ’em awhile, and it isn’t hard to figure out: What they accuse people of being, really isn’t the point of the exercise, nor is who they’re accusing. The point is to cudgel us into wandering back in line.

Anyway, that’s a bit of a digression. The point here is what inspired me to dredge up that excerpt from Ann’s book. It was not, as you could be forgiven for imagining, the post previous.

I hope Gerard does not take exception to this. He, unlike me, is above throwing around the l-word helter-skelter in Ann Coulter’s well-known style…and he is certainly correct for being above that. There are people who do liberal things who aren’t really liberals. Yes, there are. Call ’em what you will. I call them “future liberals.” But I’m inclined to believe Gerard isn’t going to be nearly as receptive to being associated with Ms. Coulter as, let’s say, I would be.

Be that as it may, I was given cause to think about the book — specifically, this bit about Phil Donahue — late last night as I worked my way through his (reprinted) essay about Judas Iscariot.

We’ve long permitted greater and greater levels of betrayal in our society. We’ve codified them as law, policy and custom as far as the wishes of the individual are concerned. It is no longer sophisticated or fashionable to speak of selfishness as betrayal. That word is so harsh when, after all, we are only speaking of “differing needs,” aren’t we. When the betrayal of others is glossed over with phrases such as “I needed to be me,” or “I needed my space,” or “I needed more money,”or “We were just on different paths,” then the elevation of this disease of the soul from the betrayal of another into the larger realm of treason against all is only a question of degree.

The problem is that shame, a vestigial thing in many shrunken souls, persists, and shame must be driven out of the soul if the secular is to thrive. Both betrayal and treason are still weighted down by a lingering sense of shame within at the same time they are made safe from the onus of blame without. Both are permitted by our cults of personal freedom and “sensible” selfishness, but both are formed of dark matter and not easily expunged from one’s soul no matter how reduced it may have become.
:
Now our traitors to God and Country have found a sheaf of rags that “prove” that the greatest treason was really “all good;” that Judas was really the greatest friend Jesus ever had and was, with a kiss, doing him the greatest favor ever done.

Treason, done with the kiss of “my personal freedom,” proves that you do not really hate your country, you love it. You are, in the final analysis, your country’s best friend. In these “new” old tales about Jesus we read that Judas betrayed the Son of God because Jesus told him to do it. Really? Or did his betrayal come, not from any request that may or may not have been made, but from humanity’s persistant lust to sin freely and without even the thin penalty of remorse? Was this final treason done because this sin had been secretly blessed by God, or for the sheer dark thrill of asserting the self at the expense of life in the light?

“I betrayed my friend, because he gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for him.”

“I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it.”

That’s as much teasing as I care to do. You really need to go read it from top to bottom.

I close with a note of irony; I can’t possibly be the only person who has noticed what follows. I remember six and a half years ago, as America’s “goodwill” was being sopped up like an odious discharge of something vile all over a nice clean linoleum floor — when the flag pins began to inspire partisan rancor. Remember that? That’s when the talking points came out. That’s when we started to hear bits and pieces like Mr. Donahue’s, about “real patriots”…always doing non-patriotic things.

Every little thing that would help America, even in tiny, almost insignificant ways, would inspire a debate. And the debate always closed with — you shouldn’t be doing that. It started with wearing a lapel pin to show your pride, and your resolve that we’d get through this. When the attacks were fresh, and through the Anthrax scare, ongoing.

Our liberals said the flag pins were empty symbols. To attach it to my analogy about the guy with the little penis driving an enormous car to suggest the opposite — they bullcused that the flag pins were exactly that, to bully us into taking them off.

It worked.

The irony is, that because it worked…flag pins, today, have meaning that they did not have six and a half years ago. Back then the adornment had an attribute of costlessness; if you wore one, the argument that it meant next-to-nothing had some weight, because you weren’t deprived of any opportunity that would be open to you if you left the pin at home.

Now, that’s different. There’s a handy social club of “No Star Belly Sneeches” who can’t ever be seen with a flag pin. Draw your own conclusions as to why — except they won’t allow you to, of course. You are to regard them as “the real patriots” or else you are a “McCarthyist.” As Gerard points out, they want props for being the greatest friends this country has ever known…while not really doing too much that substantially benefits the country, and indeed, shouting-down and bullying-around anybody they catch doing things that significantly benefit the country.

Poor Obama doesn’t know what to do about it.

I find this reassuring, in it’s own way. With the Republican party’s nomination of a virtual-democrat, and with the democrats’ nomination of the one who arguably is one of the most hardcore-liberal among them if not the most hardcore-liberal…I have found it unavoidable to wonder if perhaps Gerard’s modern-day Judases have achieved majority representation in our electorate.

But if Obama sought to win election based on their votes and their votes alone, there’d be no confusion about what to do, now would there? The man seeks to confuse. This much is undeniable. And not so much of an indictment, really; he is a politician. But politicians obfuscate when they must. It bears a cost for them. And I don’t think Obama has become quite so much like Bill Clinton that he does it for sport…not yet anyway…

Obama knows things I don’t about who’s doing the voting. He should. He pays enough for this kind of knowledge. And he must have some facts that tell him that while Gerard’s Judases are firmly in his camp, their numbers are not quite so high that they’ll put him over the top. They must fall far short of this. There must be data that say the Judases, loud as they may be, number weakly.

America has an enemy. His name is Barack Obama. He seeks to prevail through confusion; confusion that costs him a-plenty.

What do you do when your enemy is forced to do something that costs him a lot? You do what you can to make it even more expensive. Exorbitant. Blisteringly so.

That’s what we need to do now.

Posted in Iraq and WoT Stuff, My Blogger Friends, Obamamania, Poisoning Western Civilization | 1 Comment »

How Come There Aren’t More Male Nurses?

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Proving much of what was in the post previous…don’t miss this fascinating exchange between sidebar resource Ross of Rossputin, and Nancy.

Nancy wants to know Why Women Don’t Run.

The statistics are grimly familiar. Just 24 percent of elected statewide officials and state legislators are women. Only 18 percent of the nation’s governors are women, 16 percent of members of the U.S. Congress and 10 percent of big city mayors. And the reason why, say authors Jennifer L. Lawless and Richard L. Fox, who surveyed thousands of male and female qualified professionals, “There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don’t.”

Ross responds.

If I informed you that (based on the last data I could find) fewer than 6% of registered nurses are men, would that be “grim”? What about 9% of American elementary school teachers being men? Is that “grimly familiar”?

Nancy responds to Ross, saying…

You also never explain why men aren’t nurses or elementary school teachers, although you imply it’s because they just don’t want to be. But is that because they wouldn’t like the work or because these jobs traditionally have been held by women and therefore are undervalued?

Ross responds again.

First, the numbers are at their all-time lows; there used to be more men in both fields. Second, the idea that a job is “undervalued” because it’s “traditionally been held by women” strikes me as the same old feminist claptrap without foundation. What do you mean by “undervalued”?

Life imitates art…which was written by me to imitate life in the first place. In Act II, Diana Goddess of Womens’ Lib storms the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, demanding to know why there aren’t more women in positions of authority and power. By Act III, she’s storming a passenger jetliner back in the present time, wanting to know why there aren’t more men in subservient and subordinate positions. After all, there won’t be any room for female jetliner captains if you don’t force some of the existing male captains into early retirement, and bust some of the other ones down to male-stewardess.

It starts out trying to help people, and looking like it’s trying to…not too many pages have to be turned, before suddenly it’s all about destroying people. That’s the reward for all of us, for championing coercion and bullying, placing it on the altar of “You Have To Support It Too”…and calling it “choice.”

Posted in Flogs | 1 Comment »

No Evidence of WMDs…Here

Sunday, June 1st, 2008

From Powerline comes a nugget that is worded so tightly and efficiently that I see no way to “tease” it, so I’ll just quote it in full…

One of the several reasons why the mainstream media have consistently underestimated the significance of the Trinity/Wright/Pfleger story is that, to a considerable degree, conventional reporters and editors tend to agree with Rev. Wright’s critique of America. When Wright said, “God damn America,” reporters thought he’d gone a little too far but didn’t necessarily disagree with the underlying sentiment.

A good illustration of this was the New York Times’s article on black liberation theology in which the paper endorsed as true Wright’s claim that the United States has used biological warfare against other nations. (This was cited to explain that the idea of the federal government inventing the AIDS virus in order to exterminate African-Americans was not so far-fetched.)

What on earth could the Times reporter have had in mind? Maybe the old canard about smallpox and the Indians; I can’t think of any other candidates. In any event, this morning’s Times corrects the error:

An article on May 4 about black liberation theology and the debate surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Senator Barack Obama’s former minister, erroneously confirmed a statement by Mr. Wright that the United States has used biological weapons against other countries. There is no evidence that the United States ever did so.

Note, though, that the paper is keeping its options open. Who knows, maybe the evidence will turn up someday.

This usually-unacknowledged sympathy with Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism is, I think, part of the reason why the mainstream press misreported the Wright controversy from the beginning.

I remember the last time I had occasion to think about this. It was…a day and a half ago, Thursday evening, cleaning out my son’s end-of-school homework folder. I found an essay about the Santa Ines Mission. I remember helping him with the photographs & illustrations involved in this, but this was the first time I saw the core thesis. I sent it along to his mother, and didn’t copy it, but I remember about forty percent of the way through it makes brief mention of the fact that the Indians burned down the Mission in 1824. It had been rebuilt since then but did not resume it’s missionary functions after that.

The punch in the gut was the very last sentence, something about how “the white settlers were mean to them [the Indians].” I thought for the briefest moment of jotting in something smarmy at the bottom, like, “So the moral of the story is you shouldn’t burn down peoples’ buildings or they might be mean to you?” I thought a little while longer about having a chat with the boy about it. I decided both actions promised inadequate return; my son’s already been counseled against absorbing politically correct nonsense, and the truth of it is — hey, yeah, the white settlers were pretty mean to the Indians.

But I’m not going to pretend to deny what’s going on here. You’re supposed to attach little “down with whitey” trailers on the ends of your essays — if you do that, you’re much more likely to get an A+. That’s the way it worked in my day. We used the word “education” to describe what was taking place there. To borrow a phrase from Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

But the sin committed here, is not so much with regard to truth, as with regard to relevance. The subject is the Santa Ines Mission. What’s that got to do with white guys being mean to the Indians? Not an awful lot…on the other hand, Powerline’s example from the NYT has to do with truth. It made the white guys look like a bunch of Dirty Rotten Creepy Jerks (DRCJs), and we’re the New York Times so hey, we like that a lot. Let’s run with it.

After all, we’re the “Paper Of Record.”

Update: This passage from the original New York Times article, also, hit me sort of like a pillowcase full of dead batteries:

“Most black church members want to see their ministers involved in defending the race and improving civil rights,” [Bishop Harry] Jackson said. “The anger and bitterness that bleeds through in Reverend Wright’s comments are something that many blacks can sympathize with, even if they don’t want to hear it in the pulpit.” [emphasis mine]

May I suggest a stronger identification of what exactly it is we’re trying to do as we tinker with something called “race relations.” We’ve been making it a social project for a very long time now, kind of a heavy-handed one at that. Do we want the races to come closer together, or grow further apart?

Because if we don’t want them to grow further apart, it hardly seems productive to me for anyone to be spewing a lot of bile from the pulpit, just because there are some blacks somewhere who “sympathize with” the “anger and bitterness.”

That strikes me as a case of, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

And this white straight middle-aged guy, if nobody else, is pretty sick and tired of seeing Reverend Wright defended this way. In what universe do these apologists live, in which you can spout such acrimonious and unsubstantiated hateful rhetoric, and it’s somehow copacetic if it brings legions of bigots to their feet with cheers of rah rah rah…because they can “sympathize with” it?

This doesn’t impress me as productive — not even potentially. Let’s try the Spock approach for a little while — putting a stop to the emotionalism, and use logic instead. Emotion has been our hydraulic fluid of choice in normalizing race relations, for over forty years. That’s a long time. I keep hearing “we still have a long way to go” so it’s effectiveness as said hydraulic fluid ought, by now, be called into question. One cannot help but wonder, if we channeled logic in this endeavor instead of emotion, how far forty years would have brought us.

The New York Times would certainly not have been just caught with it’s tail in a crack. Because they would have been more vigorously motivated to do their jobs — print up facts, and things those facts support, rather than whatever feels good at the moment.

And, of course, if we went that route Barack Obama would not be a good candidate for any office this year.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM, Deranged Leftists, Poisoning Western Civilization | No Comments »

Feminism In Ten Acts

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

Here’s what makes feminism tough to explain to a ten year old: When you’re that young, you’ve missed out on all the big events. Another thing that makes it tough is, I happen to agree with it. The parts of it, anyway. The high-minded ideals. The goals. The intents.

Devil Woman It’s the implementation that has been all wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy. And that isn’t just my idea, it’s everybody else’s idea too. Or a lot of other people, anyway…

Maybe it could have been carried out better. Maybe it was doomed from the start. Maybe — in my opinion, this is a probably — the flaws that existed in feminism, had to do with the placement, over time, of the feminist personnel within the feminist occupations. The hardcore militant types were the ones who rose to prominent positions within the advocacy groups. So the timeless recruiting phrase, “it isn’t about bashing men, it’s about equal pay for equal worth” — had, throughout the entire lifespan of feminism, a grain of truth to it. But if you were inside the movement, and you really thought that way, you didn’t get far.

The spokesperson-and-above positions…the positions that had real power to them…went to the dedicated types. The acrimonious types. Feminism became brittle…and then it shattered.

They’re all very heady concepts to explain to the fourth or fifth grades. But maybe my play can help. After it’s sanitized from where it is now, that is…

Posted in Flogs, Poisoning Masculinity | 3 Comments »

This Is Good L

Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

The Picture You really should head on over to American Digest and read up on Gerard’s conversation with the old guy named Frank.

It’s a lesson for us all about living in our designated segments, however long they may be, in the time stream…with a subtle seasoning involving good old fashioned humility. Having lived in that mini-tropolis for a few years myself, I was fully on board with Gerard’s opening quips about “the city thought it needed such a museum in order to qualify as a first-rate city…There’s a lot of that kind of stuff in this town.” That resonated with me, since I got that impression back in my Seattle days. Distinctly.

Now, I have the distinct impression I was sort of led along down a primrose path for the twist ending, to sort of help the lesson settle in a bit better. It’s quite a twist. It might be lost on most, save for those who have something of a natural interest in photography, genealogy, keepers of diaries…and the like. To those who appreciate such things, this goes into the must-not-miss file. Do yourself a favor, and make the time to read from top to bottom.

Posted in Glad I Learned About This, History, My Blogger Friends, Technical | 1 Comment »

Buck’s New Shirt

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

Nobody reads this blog, and he seems to think nobody reads his either. But blogger friend Buck has managed to have an effect on the tee shirt culture, if none other…

Well played, sir.

Posted in Glad I Learned About This, My Blogger Friends | 3 Comments »

Go Hit Cassy

Monday, March 31st, 2008

There are three good reasons why you should go see her, and make her a regular part of your blog-rotation every single day.

First, this is how she looks in beachwear. A chipper cutie and a bathing beauty.

Second, her interview, one of six of decent-looking female conservative bloggers who’ve been known to date “online,” makes lots of sense and shows her to be a lady of refined taste and sensibilities. I know this, because her opinions match mine with every single syllable she uttered. Except fer, y’know…that thing where she’s a gal and I’m a guy. Other than that.

I tend not to date liberals, for a reason. Politics is so important to what I do and I follow it so much. I can’t respect a guy who’s liberal all that much because it makes me question his intelligence. So, that’s a big minus because I’m thinking how smart can this guy be if he thinks John Kerry is a great politician? (Laughs) If he thinks Barack Obama would be a great President, I think, gee, how bright could this guy be?

Third, she’s got a wonderful sense of humor. Of course you could have come across this at Jawa Report any time you wanted to, but I found it via her. This is just a sample of the goods she has on her site, every single week.

Fourth — do we need a fourth? — her values are really in the right place.

War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless mad and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
— John Stuart Mill

I’m not available, and if I was I’m pretty sure I’d be too old, fat and ugly. But guys, if you think she’s on the market — not saying she is, mind you, I’m just saying if — and you’re ready as well, and you really think you have something to offer, I think you should drop on by hat in hand, and introduce yourselves. She’s probably already otherwise occupied, since the entire male species isn’t completely wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy just yet. So if she is, hang around for the “just friends” thing. Be respectful and polite. This is one classy lady, and we can use a few more like her.

Ms. Fiano, m’dear, you are a gem. Hope you’re around for the long haul.

Posted in Glad I Learned About This, My Blogger Friends | 1 Comment »

The Widget Boss

Saturday, March 29th, 2008

Blogger friend Phil picked up on our rant about what’s happening to Information Technology, and blogger friend Buck went over to participate…sharing this interesting tale. Thereby, of course, releasing it into the public domain.

Which I’m sure he realizes. Oh, well. His tale is too good not to tell.

Early on in my post-USAF IT career I was reassigned to a boss like that, who was also in his first manager-slot (a great UNIX guy, promoted to his level of incompetency). He and I had one of those “introductory” meetings and he gave me the list… and scheduled a follow-on meeting. I was supposed to submit three career goals, in writing, for the next meeting and I did. Stuff like:

1. Spend more time at home,less at work.

2. Take a REAL vacation this year.

3. Get laid more often.

The subsequent discussion was sort of a life-changing event for the guy. He went on to become a competent manager, and I got a great deal of satisfaction from popping the corporate balloon. Win-win.

Posted in Certifikayshuns, Skewels and Kawledges, Glad I Learned About This, My Blogger Friends, Technical | 1 Comment »

Misogynist Hot Sauce

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

Nice! I was just thinking Cassy Fiano‘s critique of the bitter feminists, who are bitching away cantankerously — this time about Taco Bell’s virtual bikini model campaign — was deserving of, ahem, some more exposure.

The feminists are complaining about Taco Bell’s new ad campaign, called “Direct Daniella”, in which they’ve partnered up with Sports Illustrated to give some lucky customer the chance to be the photographer in a Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition photo shoot.

They are, of course, offended and simply OUTRAGED!:

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell’s hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. “Direct Daniella” has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, “What this has to do with lousy ‘Mexican’ fast food is beyond me.” Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine’s swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It’s like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

See, folks, not only is this campaign steeped in sexism, but there’s also some racism, fetishization, and all around creepiness.

Because Taco Bell is letting a regular Joe photograph a supermodel rather than a “professional”.

Last time I checked, wasn’t the entire point of modeling to, uh, have your picture taken? Am I missing something? I’m female, and I’m pretty unoffended by this.

Well I’m not female, I’m a straight male and I happen to like looking at beautiful women in bikinis. Anybody got a problem with that…well…it just makes me curious. It is the Peeve That Has No Name — so many people willing to say there’s something wrong with men ogling women, so few people willing to say exactly why.

Commenter BelliButton, the ninth out of (as of this writing) 86, makes a decent attempt:

First time posting. Still a little nervous, what with being a Baby Feminist and all.

I can see where it -could- be harmless. I like my boy-eye-candy at times. The problem is that so often it doesn’t stop there. Some men (and I suppose this could be a trap for some lesbians too) become so wrapped up in the package that they impress these ideals on others, which most people can never fufill. It’s a lose-lose for everyone, since unrealistic requirements will lead to frustration on both ends and no one ends up happy. That’s why expectations for the physical exclusively tend to suck so much in the long run.

As a fantasy, harmless. As an ideal? Painful for both sides.

I remember Rush Limbaugh was vilified for pointing out “Feminism was established so that unattractive women could have access to the mainstream of society.” Seems to me we have some evidence here that he was absolutely right from the very beginning. How can this be taken any other way? BelliButton, a baby feminist, “like[s] [her] boy-eye-candy.” The problem being that “so often it doesn’t stop there.” Okay…so we have guilt-by-association on my side of the fence — she thinks she’s made an argument for somehow obstructing the view of good-lookin’ women in bathing suits, from those so inclined to view — but not a single word about how her boy-eye-candy might end up in the “lose-lose for everyone”…and don’t bother waiting for one.

And really, is there any need to mention that side of it? When’s the last time you heard a man belly-aching away about how Daniel-Day Lewis is raising the bar too high? How Fabio instills fantasies in women that are impossible for any real man to fulfill? That he’s worried his wife is thinking about James Van der Beek during moments of carnal bliss? That it’s impossible to ever, ever, no matter what, ever get my midsection as flat as Brad Pitt’s (which, they tell me, is true, and I haven’t bothered to find out for sure)? No man, not even the most pussy-whipped male, is going to be grousing away about this stuff. That’s because there is no “Masculist” movement. Rush is right. This brand of feminism is all about altering the economics of the meat market. It’s about giving you options when you’re a female and you don’t look that good. And it’s about doing that — not by eradicating outdated cultural taboos — but by imposing some brand new ones.

The longer I live, the more convinced I am that my most fundamental and profound individual liberties are inextricably linked to my freedom to look at good-looking women in bathing suits. Whenever & wherever I can do that without someone waggling a gnarled bony finger in my face, or cluck-clucking at me, filling my eardrums with tired cliches in a hostile nasally-rich voice that makes them bleed, I’m probably free to do whatever else I want to do that really matters. Maybe I can make a phone call to Osama bin Laden without the feds listening in, and maybe I can’t — that seems to be nothing more than a red herring. But if I can ogle some babes, I’m probably free, and if I can’t, I’m probably not. It is a far superior litmus test for real freedom. I know that sounds silly, but experience has shown it to be true.

Posted in Deranged Leftists, Flogs, Women in Skimpy Clothes | 11 Comments »

This Is Good XLIX

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

By Gerard…

Posted in Glad I Learned About This, My Blogger Friends | No Comments »

Eyebrow Raising Headline

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

From Reuters, H/T to Boortz.

How about substitute the name “Bush” in place of “Hamas,” and see if the result would ever make it into print beneath that prestigious Reuters name.

Inspired by God, Hamas fighters battle on

Battle on, Reuters.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM | 1 Comment »

Do Spare a Thought…

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008

…for our good blogger friend Alan Sullivan at Seablogger, will you?

…in my heart of hearts, I think the end game has arrived. I shall see Dr. D. on Wednesday, and we will decide whether to try treatment or call in hospice.

Alan, if it’s here, we’ll do what we can to keep your memory alive. If not, we’re ready to hear and broadcast what you have to say next.

Do take the time to peruse his archives, if this is a fresh trail for you.

Update 3/4/08: And another for Rick’s Dad.

I don’t know either one of these gentlemen personally so am not fit to comment on their personalities or disposition. But I already have a mental note to seriously consider adding to the growing list of Things I Doubt, this time-honored and seldom-challenged notion that cancer and other beasties delight in visiting themselves on the nasty and toxic curmudgeons, carefully avoiding those of us who think more positively.

There seems to be a quickening in this recurring nightmare of our most loving, jovial and spiritually uplifting friends and relatives slipping into depressing medical misadventures, expected and otherwise. And the nastier specimens like myself, not quite so inclined to bite our tongues about sentient & non-sentient beings we find to make less-than-perfect sense, keep on — knock on wood — chuggin’ away.

Posted in My Blogger Friends | 1 Comment »

Yeah…Oh, Yeah…That’s Objective

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Two Mastheads Via Verum Serum, via Cartago Delanda Est, via Rick.

The stories are tragically similar. The Bush incident took place six months ago in Albuquerque, and Victor Lozada Tirado lost his life in the Clinton motorcade in Dallas last week.

At this time, I can’t locate the name of the officer who was killed six months ago in Albuquerque. Mostly because, even with the Clinton headline an unknown future event and the contrast therefore missing, “Bush Motorcade Kills Cop” was a shockingly irresponsible headline on its own. (Also, it should be pointed out that in some sources Sen. Cpl. Tirado is identified as “a policewoman” so it would appear more details are needed here as well.)

Now to tell the truth, I’m really ignorant about how the public-at-large perceives this problem. That media bias exists and that it slants to the left, seems to be something that can’t be doubted by anyone except the insane. But that’s just the way I see it. I can’t speak for others.

I think most of us acknowledge the leftist tilt — this Zogby poll pegs the quotient at two-thirds — but handle the issue with an “out of sight, out of mind” approach. In other words, when we aren’t constantly reminded of it, we have a tendency to presume the problem has gone away, and even to rely on our media sources for balanced coverage the very next day. Presuming that, then, I predict most people becoming aware of these two “dueling headlines” will conclude that sometime over the last six months Time Magazine “grew up” and can now be relied-upon.

How adorable. How charmingly naive. I have to blatantly steal a line from Rachel Lucas and gush that I could just pinch their cute little cheeks, really, really hard.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM | 3 Comments »

What I Learned Today

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

One. It isn’t butkus; it’s bubkes.
Two. There’s a little bit of a pain-in-the-ass side to having a professional editor perusing The Blog That Nobody Reads.

During our off-line I was given cause to think about this exchange…

The final proposed revision to the Declaration is brought by Adams himself. He indicates that the grammatically correct term would be “unalienable,” not “inalienable.” Jefferson insists that “inalienable” is correct. Adams defends his assertion with his Harvard credentials, which Jefferson counters with his studies at the College of William and Mary. In the interest of proceeding with the vote, Hancock asks Jefferson if he will agree to the revision, to which Jefferson says no, grinning at Adams. Annoyed, Adams withdraws his request, earning Franklin’s praise, but retorts that he will speak to the printer later.

Three. Even with Seattle natives, it seems a linguistic disagreement may occasionally be settled with broadswords (whether it looks like this is something that will remain unknown for now).
Four. “Bubkes” is Yiddish! It also is a reference to goat droppings. Who’d a-thunk.
Five. It isn’t good enough to use the urban dictionary to make sure you’re doing it right. It’s always been one of my favorite reference materials. I claim ignorance. Nobody told me bubkes about it.

Posted in About Me and My Blog, My Blogger Friends | 2 Comments »

On Angry White Men

Monday, February 25th, 2008

Buck sez…

I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh but I used to once upon a time, and I don’t particularly like Rush Limbaugh but I agree with about 97.6% of this rant…

Limbaugh is reading an editorial by Gary Hubbell that appeared in the February 9th edition of the Aspen Times Weekly, so this is old news. Still and even, old or not…there’s a lot of truth in that, eh? If you disagree, I’d like to hear about it…with an emphasis on “why.” If you have the time and inclination, of course.

I wouldn’t call myself an Angry White Man. But I am disturbed at the way things are going in this country, so I most definitely relate to the sentiments in Mr. Hubbell’s piece.

I would characterize some of the images in that LiveLeak clip to be work hazardous. That is to say, I’d regard any decision to embed the clip without such a warning as an entirely meritorious decision, so I don’t mean to chastise Buck or anybody else for leaving the warnings out. But if you work around a whole gaggle of foppish snots, you’ll probably appreciate having a warning. But of course you’d have to be a sniveling scatterbrain to be watching videos on the innernets around a crowd like that. There. Warning complete. Now then.

I never did agree with calling these guys “white men.” One of the things I’ve been noticing happening in the last few years, let’s say since the first term of Bill Clinton, is that people in general tire quickly of the “diversity” argument. It seems to be a stew that remains tasty only in very light doses, and whenever a diner is served a heavy banquet of whitey-bashing, the palette grows weary of the flavoring without regard to the diner’s gender or skin color.

And so we had the 1994 midterm elections. Which were also blamed on the angry white male, but I don’t think it happened that way quite so much.

The things about which Hubbell is writing, all have two things in common. One: To the lazy mind, they can be presented as positive things. Two: Under the surface, they’re all bitingly, acridly negative. Each and every single one. A perfect example is the flood of illegal laborers. The lazy mind hears of such a thing, and it seems like this is a positive thing, opposed only by negative people. Giving jobs to poor people who cross an arbitrary line in the sand to make a better life for their families. But waitaminnit…what is the consequence of allowing this to happen? What is the consequence of stopping it?

Noodle on that for a little while, and you see the issue is far greater than illegal labor. It has to do with whether laws are to be enforced equally, or selectively. To suppose that laws should be enforced equally, is just a natural conclusion you reach when you proceed from the premise that fairness is a good thing. To flood these work sites with illegal laborers who broke the law to get in the country, and are allowed to stay only because corrupt businesses and law enforcement agencies look the other way — that’s downright nasty.

It can seem “fair,” but only if you started evaluating fairness with an ingrained hostility toward those who are injured.

Ditto for the “Press 1 For English.” It seems fair — if you start evaluating fairness with an ingrained hostility toward the English language. If you flavor your evaluation with a sneering “What’s So Great About English?” attitude. Imagining the same situation with an imaginary country and an imaginary language, to remove the passions, the conclusion would naturally drift to the other way. This is why so many other countries, around the world, are allowed to keep their native languages. To have “official” ones. And nobody says bubkes about it.

I suppose to characterize this as a “white guy” thing is fair, for now, because Hubbell is talking about voting. He’s talking, therefore, about numbers. My anecdotes about black guys I’ve met who appreciate these sentiments, or women I’ve met who also nurture these passions, may therefore be relegated to sideline status.

But even with voting, the white-guy dominance of this phenomenon is on the wane. In 2006, the democrats won, and they won with their “Down With Whitey” nastiness (the irony being, that the positions that really count for a lot in the democrat party, are all occupied by white people).

But has there ever been a more hollow victory in American politics? Ask a dozen loyal democrats what they thought they’d get out of the 2006 victory, you won’t get a single answer about what it was supposed to be. But you’ll definitely get a single answer as to whether they got it or not: NO.

I think what Hubbell is really writing about, is a fatigue that has set in against negativity and nastiness. We see this fatigue in our white guys first and foremost, because they are the objects of it. But the folks pushing this anti-white-guy nastiness and negativity are also white guys.

Across all the colors, a hunger has set in and it is not being satisfied. The hunger is for leaders in our government that are FOR something. I’ve been wondering this about Hillary Clinton for the longest time, now: What is she FOR? You don’t have to do much listening at all to hear all about this-or-that policy that was stupid from day one and hasn’t worked and is bad bad bad bad bad…but when it’s time to hear what these guys & gals support, all I hear of is this word “CHANGE.”

So I think there is a multi-hued passion for something that has not been delivered and cannot be delivered soon. But Hubbell is right on the point where he implies the white male will deliver some surprises on election day, because this is the class about which nobody is asking, or answering, any questions. Not unless it’s about that angry self-hating left-wing type of white guy.

Posted in Is It Really a Man's World?, My Blogger Friends | 3 Comments »

Economic Stimulus

Saturday, February 23rd, 2008

Phil says “for the sake of showing a pulse, I’ll go ahead and post,” and then sets himself ablaze with five great pieces:

Economic Stimulus
Beliefs and ~~Religion~~ Politics
Meet the New Boss
McCain Hit Piece
PhobiaPhobia

An excerpt from the economic stimulus, and then a few words from myself about it…

Why is not taking money from us so we have more to spend in the first place not going to help the economy, but “giving” us a “gift” of our own tax dollars so we have more money to spend … will? Riddle me this, mmmmm?

Well, I agree with the progressives about this election: Conservatism has been found not to work, and will therefore be sidelined for a time. I disagree with the progressives on the “for whom” part of it. I maintain that conservatism has been found not to work for those who want cheap and easy political power. And so on that foreign planet inside the beltway, people with R and D after their names have pledged together to promote liberalism because they’ve found it is more conducive to their own ambitions.

For the rest of us out here on earth, conservatism is the better choice. Too bad we won’t see anything of it for a time. Our “leaders” don’t like it.

And Phil touches on something that proves this point nicely — the war may be controversial at this time, but supply-side economics are definitely not. They are factual. The notion that a lower tax rate can bring in increased revenues, has been proven time and time again.

If the conservative plank was communicated this way, advertised this way, I maintain everything would be different. Imagine a few recitations of Winston Churchill’s quote about a man sitting in a bucket trying to pull himself up by the handle. Imagine hearing that as many times as you’ve heard that phony Jefferson quote about dissent.

Just imagine it. It would change everything.

But it isn’t going to happen, because in 2008, phony feel-good-ism is in vogue.

We cut taxes. We experienced economic growth. We applied what we learned from this lesson by electing a left-winger who’s going to sell us some nonsense about the globular-wormening boogeyman, and certainly, definitely, absolutely, fer sure, will raise taxes.

Just try to explain that one to your grandchildren.

Posted in My Blogger Friends, Poisoning Capitalism | No Comments »

Managing the Economy

Saturday, February 23rd, 2008

An annoying platitude commented-upon by Michelle. And Stossel.

We’re losing our republic because the people who ask candidates questions have the real power right now; they demand detail where there is no detail to be demanded, and let things slide right on by when a little bit o’digging would be most appropriate. Their spotlight is vertical when it should be horizontal, and vice-versa.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM, Elections | No Comments »

We Act Like We Want More

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

Gerard chose to caption the picture you see to the left “After the predictable killings comes the predictable vigil. Effectiveness? Zero.” Of course, that depends on how you define effectiveness. Nobody wants such acts of violence to occur and re-occur again and again. Not wanting it is easy. Acting like you don’t want it to happen again…that’s the tough part.

I think the vigil is remarkably effective. Effective for selling newspapers and getting people to tune in to the idjit box, that is. Effective at preventing the next murderous rampage? Not so much. And, as Gerard points out, the gun free zone doesn’t do much either. The way we make rules to address things like this, and the way we talk about it when the rules don’t do what we thought they were designed to do…none of this stuff looks like we really want the carnage to stop. Simply put, we act like we want more.

What I think is going unmentioned here is the ever-evolving way in which we talk about newsworthy events like this. It’s something we’ve discussed here before, noting how strange the wording seems now in a contemporary article about a horrible San Francisco accident in 1900. We put a lot of effort now into making things more seeeeeeennnnnsitive before they make it into the newspaper. In the case of structural accidents at football games, this has little to no effect at all on the likelihood the accident will happen again.

Not so much the case with people shooting other people, though. I think deep down everybody understands that.

Seldom does anybody directly address it, though.

Case in point: Another article about a horrible newsworthy event is much more recent than 1900, and closer to me than San Francisco. Specifically, this came out in my local paper on Friday (registration required). It describes the murder of a young man in a hotel parking lot a week ago. First four paragraphs…

It took Joe Hunter five years to rescue himself from the cycle of despair that followed the slaying of his 17-year-old son more than a decade ago.

When he did, Hunter made a decision: He would become a part of the lives of his five other children.

But he is being tested again.

Alex Hunter, Joe Hunter’s youngest child, was shot to death early Sunday while leaving the Doubletree Hotel off Arden Way, police said. He had just celebrated his 21st birthday when a man driving a car nearly hit his older brother in the parking lot, then got out of the car and began arguing with the group, witnesses said.

Bereaved Family …last three…

His father smiles when he talks about his son’s life, but has trouble listening to the story of his killing or looking at the bright yellow Ford Mustang the young man bought last summer.

He said he is trying to focus on remembering his son’s spirit, and he wants those who attend Alex’s funeral at 10 a.m. Monday at Antioch Baptist Church in Meadowview to dress in bright colors to celebrate his life.

“I’m going to get over … No, you can’t get over this,” Joe Hunter said. “But I’m going to stay strong, because he would want that.”

Joe Hunter’s story is indeed sad and troubling. But as my Sunday morning news channel drones on about how saaaaaaaaad the little kidlets are up in DeKalb, I’m becoming famished for some hard news about these things. They aren’t natural weather patterns, you know. Some tornado carries off a guy’s house, you can bring me some “news” about how he’s being tested and how he’s coming to grips with it and trying to stay strong. I won’t want too much else. If the house had his family inside, I’m still with ya.

But this wasn’t an Act of God.

This was an act of some dickhead with a gun.

Which makes this section in the middle of the story ironic and profoundly troubling…

Joe Londell Hunter, who was 18 when his other brother was shot to death less than two miles from the Doubletree, tried to come up with a license plate number or a suspect’s description for the police. No arrests have been made, and investigators simply said they are looking for a young man.

Sacramento Police Sgt. Matt Young said the trend of more and more simple arguments being settled with guns is “really disturbing.” Three people have been killed by gunfire in the city this year – all 22 years old or younger.

“Altercations that 15 or 20 years ago would have been handled with a fistfight, the young people in our society today are pulling out guns and killing people,” Young said. “What’s troubling is trying to pinpoint where these young people are getting this message that there’s no value attached to someone’s life.” [emphasis mine]

Where do they get the message that there’s no value attached to a life?

My answer to that would be the old adage about nature abhorring a vacuum. I don’t see any messages here that a life is worth much of anything. Yeah, there’s a family of people who are very sad now that the life is gone, I guess from that some would say the life has meaning. But I don’t think those are the people who have much need to get the message. You have to have some human decency for that to affect you.

Where’s the message that you’ll get punished if you take a life?

Where are the details that would help us everyday citizens to find this “young man”? I think it should be obvious to everyone, that phrase could benefit from a bit more narrowing-down.

If & when the young man is found, what is likely to happen to him? Depending on the circumstances when you shoot someone, there are a number of charges that could be filed, and it’s not necessary to find the perpetrator before there’s some definition involved in how the justice system is going to treat the crime. Seems to me a press that truly values human life, might see fit to mention some of that.

But above all, when people are special and have worth, you don’t just hope-against-hope they can ramble around unharmed for awhile, crying in your beer if a predator does happen to come along and carry off one or two. That is how you manage a flock of sheep. Or chickens. Except…not quite…because sheep and chickens have a little bit more value. If one or two sheep/chickens have gone missing, and then you’re out with your rifle and you see a wolf lurking around, you don’t take the time to confirm that this might, indeed, be the animal responsible for the shenanigans. You just cock and aim and shoot the sucker on sight.

Of course we can’t do that. Even predators against humans are human as well, and they do have rights. But I’m hard-pressed to see how that backs us into a corner of discussing only the family’s pain, and remaining so ignorant and reluctant to discuss the “hard” aspects of this story. You know. The stuff that might make it a bit more likely the thug will be taken down. And, if he isn’t, that the message will nevertheless get out that human life has value, and you’d better not end anybody else’s if you want your own to last awhile.

Look at it this way: The way we do things now, is supposed to be so much more “civilized” than having a gallows in the town square. We just take that at face value, leaving it unscrutinized. But can someone tell me please: If we did have a gallows in the town square, would we have a police sergeant bemoaning the problem that young people “are getting this message that there’s no value attached to someone’s life”?

I doubt it. I highly, highly doubt it. If I’m thinking of seriously killing someone, I take one look at those gallows, with my weight in a sandbag being test-dropped a time or two…and from that moment forward I’m going to be as gentle as a lamb.

As it is now, if I have those same thoughts, and I actually take the time to read a story like this one to figure out what’s going to happen to me, here’s what I get out of it: I’ll get away. Police are going to be looking for a “male” (I’m a little past the “young” stage). And I’ll make some people sad.

That’s it.

Time for a re-think of some things.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM, Phony Crime Solutions | 3 Comments »

I Can Dream Too

Friday, February 15th, 2008

One of Duffy’s best ones: Thoughts going through his head when a mystery package of Triple Bock showed up on his doorstep.

“Open it.”
“What? Me? Why don’t you open it when you get home?”
“What, you think this is a bomb or something? Who would want to blow me up?”
“Anyone who knows you really?”
“Very nice. Just open it.”
“There’s no note.”
“What’s in it?”
“Sam Adams Triple Bock.”
“Hmmm…Complete strangers sending me rare and expensive beer unsolicited. My reputation reaches far and wide. I’m hoping this is the beginning of a new trend. People will send me beer for free. That would be awesome.”
“Don’t you find this very strange?”
“Of course I do. But free beer in the mail is a good kind of strange. Body parts in the mail is the bad kind of strange.”

It’s even better when he launches into his wish list of other things he’d like to have sent by anonymous donors. The man certainly knows how to dream. And you know, lately my memory’s so bad I was wondering if I’d ordered it for him and forgotten about it. Eventually, the mystery was solved.

Well like Satan says, everyone can dream, I can dream too. I want one of these:

Posted in About Me and My Blog, My Blogger Friends | 2 Comments »

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You… XVII

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Oh, this is good. A little bit of good-natured ribbing from our blogger friend Buck…

You have to watch until about 3:30. Buck thinks the beard is fake and that it’s really yours truly. Hmmm…could be…could be…I did vote that way. And it gets worse, because in November I might very well be voting that way again.

And yes, Buck. That may or may not be the chief cook & bottle-washer at The Blog That Nobody Reads, but I have subscribed to Travis and Jonathan’s YouTube channel for quite some time. Very amusing toothsome twosome, they is.

Update: I drink beer out of bottles, though. Cans make it taste like deer piss.

Posted in About Me and My Blog, My Blogger Friends | 1 Comment »

Don’t FOX Me

Thursday, February 7th, 2008

I do have to disagree with Shep…the part where he apologizes for pointing his finger.

I wouldn’t-a DONE it, but I don’t see where an apology can be expected, and certainly not how one could be owed.

There’s been way too much water over the dam before someone finally tossed up a B.S. flag on this.

I steal a cookie from the cookie jar…you run a hard-right-wing news network…hell, you LIE about stuff all day long, month after month…you say I steal a cookie from the cookie jar — guess what? I still STOLE IT!

Who points it out…it don’t matta. Not one bit. Not if it’s true.

Posted in Blogs vs. MSM, Deranged Leftists | 3 Comments »

Phil’s Observation

Friday, February 1st, 2008

This may come as an enormous shock, but I’ve been occasionally known to lower myself to arguing with lib-ruhls on the innernets.

Just every now & then.

It’s like getting phone calls from credit card companies over missed payments, or to be more accurate about it, passing gas. We all want to criticize others for doing it, but not too harshly, because those who are truly virginal to it are much more a rarity than you might think.

Anyway, I’ve been noticing something for years now. Often, when the left-wingers show me how incredibly wrong I am about things and what a deplorable knuckle-dragging neanderthal I really am…I get the distinct impression they aren’t really even engaged in conversation with me. I miss a point, even a point nobody really is willing to say is very important, it is obligatory to point out that I missed it. If they miss a point…oh well…and in fact, even though they’re willing — eager — to admit they missed the point, they still have the knowledge necessary to pronounce the point irrelevant, and furthermore, anybody who would bother to point out this thing they missed, is stupid.

It’s like — they aren’t trying to explain anything to me — they’re putting on a show, for others who might be reading the thread (a generation ago we called that “being in the room”). I’m simply an object in their sideshow performance, the mission of which is to ingratiate themselves with others who already agree with them.

I’ve always wondered, why, then, does the conversation go on and on? Is their need to ingratiate themselves such an unquenchable thirst, that even a bottomless well of atta-boys cannot satiate it?

While I mull that one over, Phil has some things to point out in one of his comments over here…

Long ago I came to the conclusion that Progressivists are people who take pride in being able to interpret any action, anywhere, at any time, to somehow support their position and discredit their critics.

This is usually done with a series of logical discontinuities bandaged together with fuzzy assertations that sound like they might make sense on the surface — but in fact under any scrutiny turn out to be nonsense.

Therefore they end up with something that mimics a logical argument when in fact logic was something that had to be systematically factored out of the “argument” in the first place for it to be made.

This doesn’t answer my question, but I think it does provide the means to arriving at one possible explanation.

I think there’s a curious economy going on at the left-wing side. These “fuzzy assertions that sound like they might make sense on the surface,” are like assets. They are precious commodities. There is a chasmic differential between their demand and their associated supply, with the demand enjoying the upper hand, round after round after round. The left side of the spectrum is in a constant need of fresh sound bites — sound bites that sound like they might make sense, nevermind if they really do.

And so within the leftist collective, we have the same thing going on that we ultimately have with all human collectives: The human need to demonstrate one’s individual worthiness, although culturally suppressed, fights its way to the surface. Should the collective ship run into some rough seas, deep down the collectivist passengers understand the noble egalitarian vision will be the first casualty. And then, when it’s time to toss some of the crew overboard, all individuals-at-heart wish to demonstrate why they should be the last ones pitched over the side.

And so they “argue” with philistines like me, to demonstrate themselves to be authors of fresh, new sound bites. The precious commodities of the left wing. New, innovative ways to make bad ideas look good…on the surface.

Which would explain Phil’s observation, and mine as well. They really aren’t having a dialog; they’re just going through the motions of having one. That’s why their effluence doesn’t make any sense. They’re smart enough to realize this themselves, they’re just in a desperate search for more suckers who might be fooled, and offering creative new packaging to other hucksters who are looking for the same suckers.

It’s kind of like a multitude of used-car salesmen sharing information to help each other out, but at the same time competing for the “Salesman of the Month” parking spot.

Posted in About Me and My Blog, Deranged Leftists, My Blogger Friends | No Comments »

Twenty-Seven Daily Affirmations for Bloggers

Friday, February 1st, 2008

Via Gerard.

1. When I post under an assumed name, I can get in closer touch with my Inner Sociopath.

2. Through block-quotes and fisking I have the power to transform even the most harmless statements of my enemies into concrete evidence of their evil plans to enslave mankind and rule the world.

3. In all humility I do not seek to rule the world. I seek only complete agreement and total capitulation.

Click the link to get the remaining 24.

Flashback to the wonderful work that brought Gerard to my attention originally, The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land. And to what, surely, you must not miss, possibly the most loved and respected of all the works over in his corner, you’ll want to pull it out and re-read it every Memorial Day and November 11. And to Gerard Van der Leun’s profile at Normblog, November of 2005.

Why do you blog? > For the immediacy, the flexibility and the feedback. For an essayist it’s also a fine way to put first drafts into the world – even though that’s not always the best move.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Positive feedback from readers (writers love to hear they’re doing well), and negative feedback from worthy opponents.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Trolls sent in from sites whose authors are deranged.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > Three entries daily for six months and then six for the next six months. Then see how you feel about it. It’s not a sprint, it’s a marathon. [emphasis mine]

These might very well be the wisest seven words I’ve ever seen written about blogging. Of course, the 27 affirmations aren’t bad either, especially that bit about everyone agreeing with me.

Posted in My Blogger Friends | No Comments »

Create A New Season

Monday, January 21st, 2008

Did this person really start a blog and configure it so no new users could register to leave comments?

That would be a shame. Looks like my kind of discussion — bitching about the lazy way people do their thinking nowadays, with the other person’s prejudices slanted in a direction opposite from my own. I guess the hidden moral to this parable is that simplistic thinking can be stifling, but echo chambers can be that way too.

Update: This is hilarious.

The topic of the page linked, is that there are people who seem to be just agreeing with everything Rush Limbaugh says because he’s the guy who said it. “As I listened to one person after another applaud Limbaugh’s latest discussions on topics from the ‘Bush Presidency’, ‘War in Iraq’, ‘Hillary Clinton’, etc. etc.; I wondered if the callers had really taken the time to really analyze what they were hearing…Our brains are wired to stretch and new connections can be made every day. However, this won’t happen until we actually use our own minds to understand, define and/or determine why we agree.”

A woman called Rush Limbaugh’s program, somewhere over the halfway point of the first hour, maybe twenty minutes ago. She said the exact opposite. That’s right. She goes to school, and she deliberately filters people out by a judicious use of Limbaugh’s name. She mentions his program in favorable tones, and if the person in question has an “emotional reaction” (in context, this decidedly meant toward the negative), she just refuses to engage them.

It goes without saying that this runs the risk of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” — but, in my own experience, not much. People who are emotional about Rush Limbaugh, with very few exceptions, tend to be emotional about everything else as well.

It seems we’re all talking about the Yin/Yang wall, a hypothetical, trans-continental, impenetrable barrier, dividing people who spend their entire lives on one side of it or another. On this side of the impenetrable wall, everyone thinks before they feel, and on that side, vice-versa. I would assume everyone engaged here, agrees with my fundamental premise that a great deal of the conflict we experience today, would be reduced. Where we disagree is how ideology would drive this; one side, or the other, would do all the listening to Rush Limbaugh. Which side? The Yin-thinkers, or the Yang-feelers?

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide for him- or herself. The phrase “I feel your pain” still reverberates in my ears all these years later — along with fresher sound bites, having to do with Obama being “the real deal” — and I’ve got a few ideas about it that I’ll just keep to myself for now…

Posted in Innernets, Yin and Yang | 4 Comments »

Salvage’s Frosting Diet

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

Salvage is Canadian, but I’d like to make it clear at this time that there are other Canadians who are not like him. He’s been hanging around Rick’s blog ever since Zossima dropped out of it…which is interesting…giving us an almost-daily education about sarcasm. How it is open to abuse. How pure sarcasm, can be used to prop up just about any silly statement. Convincingly. Somewhat convincingly when coming from salvage…perhaps more convincingly when manipulated by someone more capable.

It’s worth keeping in mind, I think. Some folks are known to use sarcasm to decide anything and everything. They are strangers to genuine exchanges of ideas. They are the “Daily Show” generation — those who were brought up under the belief that when they were watching certain entertainment programs, they were watching “news.” Who is to blame them for thinking any idea worth pondering, should fit onto a bumper sticker or within a single lungful of air?

Sarcasm has its place. But in my view, that place is as a garnish. Or cake frosting. We got a lot of young people walking around, I see, who substitute that frosting in place of the cake, the sherbet, the Hors D’Oeuvres, the vegetables, and the entree.

Their “diet” is as far away from healthy as you can get. And at Brutally Honest, we get a reminder of this every time we watch salvage do his “dining.”

Well, yesterday salvage took a break from the bucket o’ frosting and compromised with his mommy to chow down on a hunk of muffin…or sugar cookie…or something…with lots of sarcastic frosting spread all over it, of course. Can’t take a break from it, you know — in no other context, can his absurd ideas enjoy even the appearance of legitimacy. At issue was the case of Ezra Levant’s case before the Human Rights Commission.

A complaint has been filed with Canada’s HRC, which has lately become notorious. The point of the complaint is a selection of those horribly offensive cartoons about the prophet Muhammed, of which Levant is the publisher.

Van der Leun put up the YouTube clips from Levant, and then Rick linked to Van der Leun. Rick wondered aloud how it could be justified that this story is ignored, by the very same folks who “want to trumpet the loss of civil rights at the hands of Bushitler and his co-chimp Cheney and other ‘neocons’.”

…and salvage jumped in to provide an answer to that.

Yes, the elimination of habeas corpus and the indefinite detention certainly compares to the undemocratic hell that is a Human Rights Commission hearing and there is no doubt that Ezra Levant will be sentenced to life in the Maple Syrup mines.

Actually the Human Rights Commission is just following their mandate, someone made a complaint and now they’re investigating it. Sometimes people make stupid complaints but they still have to be followed up.

And yes, this is a stupid one you can tell because it’s gotten you wingnuts all worked up which is always fun to watch.

So keep it up, and when the Commission finds there isn’t any grounds and it ends? I’m sure you and your wingnut buddies will talk about that with equal enthusiasm.

Nah, just kidding, you’ll just find another molehill to shriek your fear and loathing at.

It’s clear to me that salvage didn’t watch the clips — that, or if he did, the point went whistling at Mach 1 right over what passes for his noggin.

See, when the argument is made about President Bush’s “elimination of habeas corpus and the indefinite detention,” this actually resonates with fair-minded moderate folks such as myself, even if it doesn’t completely convince us, because that says what we have is a decision we are accustomed to having made in the public spotlight, with transparency, publicity, and oversight, suddenly made in what might be thought of as a “black box.” We find the argument compelling, even if we don’t find it altogether convincing for a number of reasons. Some of the problems have to do with the nature of military operations. We have “detainees” captured on the field of battle…should the detainees be released to our court system? Can it not be said that the rights of the detainees have been violated, if this does not come to pass?

The argument isn’t dismissed lightly. Folks like salvage, gorging themselves on the frosting of sarcasm, think it is — because it does not triumph. The grownups, who understand things like roughage and protein and vitamins, and therefore do not dine on frosting alone, have other things to consider…

…like, for example, what laws have these “detainees” broken? The most-liberal guy where I work came up with an interesting point: He’s opposed to releasing detainees into the legal system, because regardless of his feelings about pre-emptive military strikes, he certainly doesn’t want America to be empowered to go around the world arresting people. On that, he and I agree. And then there’s the matter of what a legal system does with prisoners, who are found to have not violated any laws (or, more to the point, cannot be proven to have violated any laws).

Those prisoners have to be released, right?

It just doesn’t seem to fit the situation. It would appear we have found the reason why some things are treated as legal issues, and other things aren’t. The legal process is all about “rights,” whereas in thousands of years of war, nobody with a respected viewpoint on the matter ever declared the day-to-day business of war to have much to do with rights.

Saying so, doesn’t make you a right-winger or a Bush-bot. It makes you a grownup. But as salvage helps to remind us, lot of the folks talking about this stuff now aren’t really grownups.

But getting back to the back-room nature of how the Bush administration has been dealing with the detainees. I think we can all agree, at the grownup dining table at least, that the detainees do have some rights — and that whatever these rights are, they ought to fall short of the rights needed to run wild & free and make trouble. And so even though we don’t bow to the wisdom of the frosting-kids, as reasonable adults we are bothered by the idea that people in authority are deciding things and their decisions are not open ones.

Salvage and the rest of the frosting-kids, fresh off of making that argument, and festering in their disappointment that this one argument didn’t determine the outcome…then indulge in the unbelievable, which I’m pretty sure is the point Rick was making. They look upon the closed-door proceedings of the HRC — not the hearings we are able to browse on YouTube, thanks to the uploading by the defendant himself, but the process by which these decisions are handed down — they understand the rubber is going to meet the road in whatever way it’s gonna. And this raises no red flags with them.

To state it a little more succinctly. It is in the nature of a military tribunal that oversight is limited — that’s supposed to be an awful thing. Oversight seems to be missing altogether from what the HRC does…it’s not immediately obvious how the HRC finds it necessary to function without it, but it’s missing anyway…and that’s perfectly alright?

It should be noted the care involved in choosing the word “limited.” It does not mean “non-existent.” Far from it. At least, that is the case where the military tribunals are concerned.

President George W. Bush has ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.

In December of 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing. As of June 13, 2007, the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.

Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine month sentence. Two case were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission’s jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden’s driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.

This has always bothered me about the “eliminating habeas corpus” argument. I remember all the crowing and champagne-glass-clinking when the Supreme Court decision was handed down. Oooh, we’re so wonderful and Bush sucks so much, because the Supreme Court showed him what-for. And then the process is reformed to accommodate the decision…and then is challenged anew…and heard in court some more.

That’s oversight. It’s there, or it isn’t. If you’re victorious in getting it installed, or using it, or exploiting it, and you want to shout from the highest hilltops that you had your victory against the Imperial Galactic Bush Administration and bask in your wonderful-ness — seems to me, the option to grumble about lack of that openness and oversight at some later time, has been jettisoned. You can’t have it both ways.

Okay now if the issue is comparing the military tribunal situation to the Human Rights Commission hearings…and it seems to be, because if I’m reading it right, Rick laid down a challenge and then cupcake-frosting-boy went and picked it up…it’s fair to ask: Does the HRC have as much transparency and oversight as this military tribunal process — which I’m told has none, but clearly does have plenty?

We’re not off to a good start here. I would cite as Exhibit A, Levant’s seventh clip, “What Was Your Intent?”

LEVANT: Why is that a relevant question?

MCGOVERN: Under section 31a, it talks about the intention…purpose…we like to get some background, as well.

LEVANT: Is it, you’d like to get some background? Or does this determine anything? We publish what we publish. The words speak for themselves. Are you saying that one answer is wrong and one answer is right? Is a certain answer contrary to law?

MCGOVERN: No.

LEVANT: So if I were to say — hypothetically — that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred, and to cause offense, are you saying that’s an acceptable answer?

MCGOVERN: I have to look at it in the context of all the information, and determine if it was indeed.

You have to admire the way Levant is handling this. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say he is Henry Rearden sprung to life, leaping straight out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged:

“I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”

“What?”

“I do not recognise this court’s right to try me.”

“But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime.”

“I do not recognise my action as a crime.”

“But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal.”

“I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal.”

“Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?”

“No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly.”

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another’s benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.

“Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?” asked the judge.

“No. I am complying with the law – to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice.”

“But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself.”

“A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it.”

“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”

“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.”

A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal’s muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, “Good God, now he’s done it! Now he’ll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!”

“Are we to understand,” asked the judge, “that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?”

“I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals.”

“What … do you mean?”

“I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices.”

“Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?”

“Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes – by refusing to buy my product.”

“We are speaking of … other methods.”

“Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters – and I recognise it as such.”

“Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself.”

“I said that I would not defend myself.”

“But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?”

“I do not care to consider it.”

“Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?”

“Fully.”

“It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe.”

“Go ahead.”

“I beg your pardon?”

“Impose it.”

The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. “This is unprecedented,” he said.

“It is completely irregular,” said the second judge. “The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court.”

“I do not.”

“But you have to.”

“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?”

“Yes.”

“I volunteer nothing.”

“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”

“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”

“Well, no … yes … that is, to complete the form.”

“I will not help you.”

The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a –” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.

“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”

“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”

“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”

“But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!”

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

“That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen,” said Rearden gravely, “and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition – which you cannot force – that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there – I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine – I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me – use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action.”

I did a quick check at the Fallaci award nominee page to see if Levine was nominated, as I was. Negatori. He should’ve been, at least next year if not this one. I’ll make a point to see what I can do about that next cycle.

It seems to me, at the very least, what we have here is a “black box” process for producing an outcome. I think even McGovern would agree with that — and with that, what we have is a breakdown in the ability to ensure consistency across the cases that come up before the Human Rights Commission.

McGovern is being deliberately evasive on the matter of how intent factors into the decision. She’s being asked about this directly. She has no answer. This is as valid a delineation as any other, in my mind at least, between free and un-free societies. The authorities are going to meet in a back room someplace and decide what’s what. Will they do that with any kind of consistency? With “equal protection,” as we call it down here?

Who knows? Who cares?

With nothing to hold the authorities to consistency and the provision of equal protection, they can show whatever favoritism they want to. What is to stop them? What oversight? Nevermind oversight…what opportunity to inspect, to criticize?

But of course this is not Guantanamo. These are full-fledged citizens of the country within whose government the HRC functions — not unlawful combatants.

Rick has issued the challenge, and frosting-boy salvage has failed in trying to accept it. He has no answer. His competence in following the facts and forming reasoned opinions about them, has been called into question. That has failed, or else his impartiality has failed. Maybe both.

Let’s pause for a minute or two to ponder how many people just like this are walking around — as free as you & me — spouting their nonsense, with “undecideds” listening to them, taking them seriously. It’s not a pretty picture. We have a multi-national conglomerate of folks who worry, ostentatiously, about things that are supposed to be described by words like “liberty” and “freedom.” But they have no understanding, or very little, about what those words really mean. And so when freedom is subject to genuine abuse, it can take place right in front of their eyes. And they can’t see it.

The frosting that is sarcasm is simply a poor diet. It makes for an imbalanced diet. To consume it, and nothing else, remains a bad idea, even if a lot of other folks are doing it. And if your diet of thinking is imbalanced, you can’t think straight…which is a problem for real lovers of freedom, because freedom is maintained only by means of rigorous, healthy, balanced, critical thinking. Here endeth the lesson.

Posted in My Blogger Friends, Overlawyered, Poisoning Individuality and Reason, Poisoning Western Civilization, The Muslim Question | 1 Comment »

The Deafening Silence of Feminists

Saturday, January 12th, 2008

Becky Makes Sense Today Becky is on a tear about the National Organization of Women and their bitching about toys instead of…oh, I dunno…Becky suggests saying a few words about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto? Seems like a reasonable idea to us. But NOW disagrees, apparently…

‘Tis the season for abundant toy advertising and shopping, so naturally the NOW office has been abuzz about the ubiquitous “Rose Petal Cottage” TV commercials. If you haven’t seen these ads, count yourself lucky. Honestly, if I didn’t know better, I would think they were beamed in from 1955, via some lost satellite in space. Or maybe it’s a deeply subversive parody that a clever (and rich) band of feminists snuck onto the airwaves in heavy rotation.

According to the makers at Playskool, the Rose Petal Cottage is “a place where her dreams have room to grow.” And what might those dreams be? Well, baking muffins, arranging furniture and doing the dishes. The voiceover even declares that the toy house will “entertain her imagination” just before the little girl opens the miniature washing machine and says – I kid you not – “Let’s do laundry!”

Now, I’m not knocking the important work of housekeeping, but this commercial is aimed solely at females (there are two versions — one designed to entice little girls and one targeting their moms). Products like the Rose Petal Cottage and the marketing campaigns that accompany them perpetuate the notion that cooking and cleaning are women’s work, and girls might as well start getting used to that fact at an early age. C’mon Susie, this scrubbing and ironing look like fun!

Of course the message of the Rose Petal Cottage would not be complete without its flip side . . . the Tonka 3-in-1 Scoot n’ Scoop truck. This commercial states its theory right up front: “Boys. What can you say? They’re just built different!”

Why yes, National Organization of Hags, yes indeed they are! You’re just figuring this out? Well, sounds like you have aways to go before you’re convinced…forty years so far…maybe someday you’ll wake up.

But MEANWHILE.

Wow, when Becky makes sense, she really does make a lot of sense. A female former Prime Minister was assassinated by a band of weird crazy bearded men who are opposed to women doing…….ANYTHING. You know, in a sane world, you’d think that would get NOW’s attention.

Well, they’re on the other side of the fence on this question. Becky and I agree. I respectfully yield to the Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever in the effort to figure out the NOW mind, because I’ve kind of given up on it.

Becky…love it when you make sense, doll. At least sixty percent of the time.

Posted in Flogs, Is It Really a Man's World?, Poisoning Masculinity | 1 Comment »

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Archive for the ‘Innernets’ Category

The Worst Double-Standard

Uh Oh, They Found The Urban Dictionary

Brutally Honest is Promoted

Cartoons About Arguing on the Innernets

Memo For File LX

How Come There Aren’t More Male Nurses?

No Evidence of WMDs…Here

Feminism In Ten Acts

This Is Good L

Buck’s New Shirt

Go Hit Cassy

The Widget Boss

Misogynist Hot Sauce

This Is Good XLIX

Eyebrow Raising Headline

Do Spare a Thought…

Yeah…Oh, Yeah…That’s Objective

What I Learned Today

On Angry White Men

Economic Stimulus

Managing the Economy

We Act Like We Want More

I Can Dream Too

Not In It For The Attention, Mind You… XVII

Don’t FOX Me

Phil’s Observation

Twenty-Seven Daily Affirmations for Bloggers

Create A New Season

Salvage’s Frosting Diet

The Deafening Silence of Feminists