Archive for the ‘Slow Poison’ Category

David Neiwert Doesn’t Want You to Watch Glenn Beck

Monday, April 13th, 2009

Beck is too silly and not worth your time. So Neiwert says, in this busy, busy weekend; not just in one article, but two.

Back early last year when I was busy critiquing Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, the question came up frequently: Why would I bother? Isn’t it a problem to be treating a book of junk political philosophy like this with more respect than it deserves? Isn’t flat-out mockery perhaps the better response?

Well, as I noted then:

[T]he problem with dismissing Liberal Fascism out of hand is that the mainstream media certainly haven’t dismissed the book out of hand: Goldberg’s been on a regular rotation of cable-talk shows since the book’s release, and more certainly are on the way. As much as we might wish this noxious meme would choke on its own fumes, it’s clear that isn’t going to happen: the “liberal media” is all too happy to present this fraud as “serious,” and there are going to be large swaths of the public lapping it up. (There already are, in fact.) Pretty soon any discussion of actual fascists will be dismissed with a wave of the “ah, you libruls are the real fascists” hand.

Heh. I know of a great way the well-intentioned liberal can head that one off at the pass. Simply take some of that famous liberal tolerance for diverse and even opposing viewpoints, and show us some of it.

What’s being done here? “I don’t like Glenn Beck and I don’t want you to watch him anymore.” Glenn Beck is derided, castigated, excoriated, plainly identified as someone who is a pariah, or should be. And why is that? Because Beck’s use of the word “fascism” is disliked.

Well let’s look up what the word actually means; since Neiwert, incredibly — at least within these two essays — never bothered to do so. Even though he claims this is the crux of his complaint.

Wikipedia:

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists believe that nations and races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Merriam-Webster:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Dictionary.com:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

There’s one aspect that is common among all these three: The suppression and/or elimination of any opposition.

And there is one aspect that is common to all the manifestations of liberalism we have seen, at least this year since the inauguration of Barack Obama: The Battle Is Over And We Have Won. This is a more prominent feature of 2009 liberalism than the discussion of any policies, how one guiding principle might be more beneficial for the nation than another. No, the liberalism this year knows, is dedicated to the promotion and superiority of…itself. Just like classical fascism. Nobody dares to oppose us, and if anyone does, we will be sure and address that. It starts with harmless belittling and mocking. But it’s always treated as some kind of a pressing problem that someone who can’t quite see the light — like Glenn Beck, for example — still has a voice.

And like classical fascism, liberalism treats this with a sense of alarm. Even if the dissenters have no real power, none at all over & above basic freedom of speech. There is still the sense in liberal-land that this singular ability, all by itself, irrefutably manifests that there is something in the cosmos that is not quite right, and ought to be fixed.

That “Their Policies Are Ruining The Country!” dog just won’t hunt anymore, for reasons that are obvious. And so this is all that’s left: Conservatives can still say stuff. Too many people are still listening to them. They haven’t been gutterballed enough quite yet.

Just like with multi-level marketing, there is this paper-thin veneer of a suggestion that an argument with some real meat is about to be presented. When I read things like “Since I’m a student of the subject of fascism, I’ve written a lengthy response at my blog,” I can’t help but gather the impression that I’m about to read something educational. But at the blog, when you open the page, from top-to-bottom it’s a bunch of “okay here’s something I can use to make Beck look ridiculous…and I follow through…now on to the next thing…and I follow through…and the next, and the next.” There is no discussion anywhere of what fascism is, or how Beck is ostensibly twisting its meaning around in any way. The closest you get to that, is a repeated insinuation that he has done so. And lots of bullying instructions that you shouldn’t watch his show anymore.

Myself, I don’t really watch Glenn Beck’s show. I’m just an enthusiast of unintentional irony. And I think I’m looking at a mother lode right here.

“Good Job!”-ing Our Kids to Pieces

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

Making your kid feel good about him- or herself: Possibly overblown.

[A]ffirmation overload, most experts agree, is indeed a tough habit to break.

It began as the byproduct of the 1980s self-esteem movement, in which parents and teachers were told to reward and stroke kids pretty much constantly, supposedly to make them confident.

Dr. Ernie Swihart, an author and behavioral pediatrician at South Lake Pediatrics in Minnetonka, decried the self-esteem movement from its inception. Then, as now, he believed kids should be taught to be inwardly focused, self-sufficient creatures able to shift their own gears.

Real self-esteem — for all of us — comes from overcoming an obstacle-laden challenge, he believes, with hard work. Lavishing praise, he contends, is counterproductive and, if anything, makes kids needy and voracious for that other self-esteem-movement buzzword: validation.

Validation turns out to be a rather empty prize. As kids get older, all those other kids who thought they were such wonderful people…sometimes no longer think so. Loss of friendship, now & then, is a natural thing. Loss of self-worth and self-image as a result of losing those friendships — that’s just not natural.

“It’s had serious repercussions,” Swihart said. “These young adults who were raised in the ’80s, now in their 20s and in the workplace — those who received praise, rewards and prizes for everything they did without working very hard — often are very entitled and self-absorbed.”

“And in this economy, baseless self-satisfaction and entitlement are dangerous. Those are the people who are first to be let go.”
:
Steven McManus, a family therapist in Golden Valley, agreed.

“Although I think this [over-praising] movement is basically rooted in good intentions, these are often the young adults I see as clients,” McManus said. “Often they have difficulty at conflict resolution, disappointment or tolerating any negative emotions at all.”

My One-Liner on Boston Legal

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

The so-called “conservatives” on that show, misrepresent conservative thought pretty much exactly the same way the liberals do.

Sorry, to all you friends reading this who were so adamant about how much I’d love it because it “does such a fair job of presenting both sides.” I imagine it might look that way to you, if you’ve never done such a thing yourself, and never actually seen this done.

This brings me to another one of my one-liners:

Is it possible to make liberal ideas look good, without misrepresenting something?

It’s Become Uncool to Love America

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game.

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

[E]ven Ann Coulter wishes she had a show where she could just hook people up to lie detectors and ask them if they love America.

The results…would be that most of them couldn’t bring themselves to honestly declare their love for the best country currently present in the world.

smeltvertising, commenting in a thread under one of my Right Wing News posts

Socially stigmatize whatever is the opposite of what you want done;

Item #2 on the list of How To Motivate Large Numbers of People To Do a Dumb Thing, Without Anyone Associating the Dumb Thing With Your Name Later On

Switch moderation and extremism with each other, by using the words “always” and “never” to describe any alternatives to your idea

Item #3 on the same list

If a man loved his wife the way democrats love America, how would he treat her? …Asked what exactly it is about his wife that he loves, he’d say not a single word about what she is or what abilities he has learned she has, but instead, about what he hopes she one day becomes. He’d talk about what she wants to be…never having discussed these points of improvement with her, just pulling them out of his own rear end, insofar as how she is to get better.

If You Love Me Like democrats Love America…[then please, kindly, stay the hell away from me]

To quote Screwtape — you see the little rift? Truly loving America has been portrayed as a thought of extremism rather than one of moderation (refer again to Item #3 on the list of How To Make Large Number Of Some Reasonable People Do Dumb Things). Hyper-patriotism…”My Country Right or Wrong”…Heil Hitler and all that. Once we train our independent and competent thinking on which one it is — loving America probably isn’t really the extremist option, is it? Your mother taught you to show gratitude when there was something there to inspire it, didn’t she? When someone did something nice for you, at expense to themselves large & small…that they didn’t have to do? Well how ignorant would you have to be about America’s history, to think that somehow does not apply? How extremely ignorant?

Obama's FriendsBut we have a President with a big long list of America-bashing friends, a list as long as my left leg…who went and apologized for us…ostensibly, for the “blame” we have for this thing or that other thing. But really, if you study the situation to an extent beyond the merely casual, the apology was offered for our mere existence. He did it to make Europe like us moar better. He played Screwtape’s game: Believe America has a great share of blame — not because it is true, but for some other reason. That’s what is cool. Not loving America. Hating it, instead…without using the word hate. Make it look like the first of a twelve-step program, admitting you/we have a problem. But it’s not the first step, it’s more like a means to an end. Apologizing our way out of existence.

How do you make it cool to love America again? Step One: Figure out if you’re telling the truth or lying. When it comes time to polish up the “propaganda,” all those who do not truly believe in it, kindly leave the room. There is no need to gussy this up as a disguised falsehood — loving America is cool. It means people who’ve come before you, have sacrificed for you without even knowing who you are, and you appreciate it. Cool, like sincerely loving a woman.

Conservative Republicans, specifically conservative Republicans who advocate a stronger, more sincere love of country, are not deciding anything at all this year. Or very little. And yet. The complaints against them, somehow have reached a fevered pitch. Why? It really comes down to one reason: They have not yet been adequately muzzled. Don’t take my word for it. Take a sampling of the complaints against them. Said complaints are not hard to find. Read them. Study them. Distill them down to their core essentials. In 2009, it comes down to that, every single time: Not enough of an effective monopoly has been achieved.

When you’ve been handed a “mandate” of sorts to fix things…and you spend all the energy behind that mandate not to fix those things, but rather, to bitch away that your gelded opponents, who are unable to decide anything, but still in possession of a vestigial ability to speak up and say stuff — what is that, exactly? Extremism or moderation?

Is it really smart and cool to switch moderation and extremism in your own mind (Item #3), just because there’s a social stigma (Item #2) that compels you to do so?

Hat tip to Red Planet Cartoons for the image.

Seventeen Socialists in the House

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

An entry in Glenn Thrush’s blog at Politico indicates there may be seventeen socialists in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, the top Republican on the Financial Services Committee, told a hometown crowd in Alabama today that he believes there are several socialists in the House.

Actually, he says there are exactly 17 socialists in the House of Representatives. according to the Birmingham News:

But he said he is worried that he is being steered too far by the Congress: “Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists.”

Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists.

Searching the POLITICO style book and the official U.S. House listings, we don’t see a category for socialists — just a lot of Ds and Rs next to lawmaker names. And Bachus didn’t name names of the socialist 17.

I decided to research this in my usual way: By looking it up on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and believing every single word I read.

First up is Socialism:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.

An editor on the talk-page pointed out the obvious.

The first sentence of the article uses the word “fair” which is a positive value judgement: “…with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.” I believe this word should be removed or at least enclosed in quotes if neutrality is to be maintained.

Wikipedia’s overall rep might have been improved somewhat if this discussion had actually, y’know, gone somewhere.

Anyway. Next stop. House of Representatives.

The United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as “the House”, is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress; the other is the Senate. Each state receives representation in the House in proportion to its population but is entitled to at least one Representative….The total number of voting representatives is currently fixed at 435.

Hmmm.

You know how many socialists I think are in the House, if socialism seeks state control of the means of production and an equalized scale of compensation? I’d say…something approaching 435. Seventeen is not a mind-blower for me. Not unless we’re dealing with some alternative definition — perhaps someone willing to attach the s-word to his own name, and proudly say “I am a socialist” or “What in the hell have you got against socialism?” Even then, seventeen seems a little bit on the low side.

This is a front in the battle in which my optimism has been dealt a more intense and prolonged assault, and I must confess said assault has taken its toll. Socialism, from the evidence that has come my way about what people are thinking, is no longer widely recognized as the pure strain of evil that it really is. The “Big We” seems to be thinking about it, when it does have to do some thinking…well, what in the world could be wrong with that?

I’ve learned something important. It’s too late to make any practical use of it, but it’s good to know. See, all this time I thought when we went socialist, it would be the frog-in-the-boiling-water approach. Minimum wage increase…well what’s wrong with that? Federal Reserve…what’s wrong with that? Salary cap…what’s the problem, it’s way up there at a billion dollars a year.

This has been quite the opposite approach. For that majority, much of it starry-eyed, that voted for Barack Obama…the words cannot quite be put to voice “President Obama is making us into a socialist nation, and that is WRONG!” That would be too much of whiplash, and too quick of one, for the tender ego. It sounds a little bit too Republican (eww!) anyway. And so Mister Wonderful gets to do whatever He wants. Elected for five months and President for two-and-a-half. What is left to be done?

Seventeen socialists in the House. Hmmm…rather like pointing out the smoke detector batteries might need testing, in a burning building.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Apologizing For Its Own Sake

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

The radio guys are talking about Obama’s apology for the United States last week. You know the one; the one that got Charles Krauthammer all ticked off, that he called “disgraceful.”

A nation always loses face when its leader apologizes for what that nation has done — especially when other nations bear some of the blame as well, and their own portion goes unmentioned. The implication is that the apology has been provided for being. But to me, that wasn’t what was particularly annoying about Obama’s apology. What annoyed me about Obama’s apology the most, was that the apology appeared, to me, to be the point of the exercise. I’m unconvinced, in other words, that we had anything to gain diplomatically from this apology. I don’t think any other nation had anything to gain from seeing us diminished in this way, either. I think the point of it was to drop a virtual business card…to accumulate some more identity for Obama…as if He needed any more. To make Him into “The Apologetic President.”

This is what really gets under my skin about it. That it was off-topic.

The other night my girlfriend and I were discussing whether or not it was time to go shopping for some meat. I couldn’t shake the feeling that if Barack Obama knew about our conversation, He’d find it an irresistable temptation to astrally project Himself into our kitchen so He could say “I’d just like to interject one thing — America bears more than its share of the blame, for your meat being gone.” And then vanish again.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: As far as leaders go, the ones who are elected specifically to inspire us to look forward & not backward, with renewed feelings of hope & not despair — Obama is remarkably obsessed with finger-pointing.

I wonder if that’s going to be His downfall? Maybe someday He’ll have an open meeting with someone, and the next day people will say “Did you see what I saw? That other guy had all the ideas about how to fix the problem, and President Whats-His-Name didn’t say a single thing about anything other than how the problem came to be. Some leader.”

Barack’s Bow: Weak

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

Obama BowYou might’ve missed the goings-on last week when our new Hopey-Changey internationalist world-community-citizen President got a little bit too caught up in the diplomatic festivities and salutations, and bowed before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

And the Nine Inch Nails broke out in song: Bow down before the one you serve, you’re going to get what you deserve.

The new internationalist fervor has exacted yet another ugly price.

Consider the ramifications. Not only is He a more evolved Higher Being and Lightworker than the rest of us…but the Constitutions says He is also our President. If He’s underneath a foreign nation’s King, then so are we all. This is one among many reasons why United States Presidents do not bow before Kings. They simply don’t.

Greg Cotharn, addressing the incident in The End Zone:

Conservatives look at Barack and see someone who doesn’t fully get what makes America great. Barack would not faux pas over the symbolism of a black man bowing to a white man; would understand the symbolism of a woman bowing to a man; yet lightly forgets the blood which has been shed – is being shed at this very moment – so an American need not bow to anyone’s King? It’s not that Barack doesn’t understand the symbolism. It is, rather, the symbolism appears further down his priority list (so far down that he momentarily forgot about it) than it would have been for almost any other POTUS in history. Even writing this, I notice myself becoming angry about the apparent casualness regarding American sacrifice and principle.

It’s not that the bow will have any immediate practical effect. It is, rather, sort of like a filthy bathroom in a restaurant: what ELSE about America’s greatness is Barack casual about? If Barack doesn’t understand — deep in his bones — what makes America great, what principles is Barack basing his decisions upon?

Let’s Get Rid of…

Monday, April 6th, 2009

…that’s the name of a continuing miniseries over at Dipso Chronicles, run by blogger friend and Seattle denizen Andy Havens.

1. Pit bulls
2. Mangoes
3. Movies about how uncool/stupid white people are

Mmmm, hmmm…I thought I was the King of Lists, but I’m a-missing this one. Should I shamelessly steal Andy’s idea and start my own, or admit that I have met my superior and humbly submit some proposals for him to add to his own?

I don’t know what to do about that one. I do like to have the creative juices sloshing around in the list-making department, but I like to recognize a unique idea when the credit is duly deserved. I’m leaning toward the latter of those two.

Either way, I’ve got some ideas percolating for #4, #5, #6 and onward. Hey, how about posting your own in the comments below? You’ll feel better.

Man Detained at Airport For Carrying Cash

Monday, April 6th, 2009

This…

…was enough to make blogger friend Duffy ashamed of our country.

Krauthammer Nails It

Monday, April 6th, 2009

Hat tip: Rick.

What I Know About People Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child, Item #21: People who won’t take the initiative to see what needs doing and do it, don’t want anyone else to take the initiative either.

That’s a more decent summary of European peevishness toward the United States, than anything you’ll ever hear out of the current administration.

If Barack Obama Directed Raiders of the Lost Ark

Monday, April 6th, 2009

Enjoy.

“I Want, I Want, I Want; and by God, I Expect To Get”

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

I Think ^(Link) is admiring the work of Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson does it again.

If anyone wished to know what the baby-boomer generation would do when, in its full maturity, it hit its first self-created, big-time recession, I think we are seeing the hysterical results.

Baby boomers. I’m one and when we want something, we expect to get it. Forget about consequences. Forget about the future. It’s all about me, right now.

I want a house, but I can’t afford one. That’s ok, bank A will get me into one. Bank A wants money for my mortgage but who would buy it? No problem, we’ll package it and sell it to bank B. Bank B needs money for those mortgages, but I’m not paying the mortgage. No problem, the government will handle it.

Same story, different want. I want a vacation, but I can’t afford one. That’s ok, I can use the equity in my house ……..

I want, I want, I want. And by God, I expect to get.

VDH himself, after putting together an admirably simplistic list of things that really are simple when all’s said and done, concludes…

At some point in all this serial hysteria, we are beginning to see the problem is not in the stars of the economy or of the war, but in ourselves—a weird generation that, when it finally came of age, proved to be just about what we could expect of it from what we saw in its youth.

It’s really quite sad, when inspect the wreckage. For all these decades, working hard and living in an apartment instead of a home, is a crisis…an intolerable crisis…you’ve just gotta have a house. And then when you have kids, a three-bedroom home is a crisis because you have to have five rooms plus a bonus. The car must be big, to make you feel safe, and you have to have two of ’em.

Once the baby-boom wave has come and gone, the nation will be financially weak. Ironic, because while they were here, most of them spent much of that lifespan babbling away something about drinking out of recycled-cardboard cups, unplugging your cell phone, and participating in Earth Hour…all to leave “mother earth” in better shape than when you found her.

But the bill is coming due for this entire generation’s entire lifetime of saying “I want I want I want” — and the solution is debt on top of the debt, so that their kids have to clean up the mess.

Try to do some fixing in the here-and-now? To actually produce something, to create real wealth as opposed to simply shuffling it around? Just find a way to do that — without someone calling you “greedy.” We aren’t contending with the ghostly disease of an ancient and deceased mindset; we’re battling demons that are consuming us right in the here-and-now. And losing.

The Tax Cheat Thinks You Make Too Much (Maybe)

Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Hat tip to Neal Boortz.

It scares the daylights out of me to think a sitting Congressman would display himself as incapable of comprehending the simple concept of a law possibly being regrettable, because of what it leaves undefined. What is scarier, Congressman Grayson pretending to see things the way he’s pretending to see ’em, or really presenting himself honestly and accurately here? Nevermind the point about Constitutional authority; just stick to framework, here.

What would Congressman Grayson have to say about a local ordinance that says “don’t you dare drive somewhat fast down this here road”? What if the local Sheriff was a Republican? Would he be able to understand the potential for abuse then?

Hmmm…I need to get a list started, in case someone comes askin’. Palin-Petraeus, Palin-Hannan, Palin-Boortz, Palin-Cavuto?

Crowder on Biden

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

The current administration is being given special treatment?

Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Frank Battles the House Republicans

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

Wow, did you see how Congressman Barney Frank, the guy who bears more individual responsibility for the financial mess than any living human, handled those House Republicans? Huffington Post is just all leg-tingly about it.

“This is really extraordinary,” he said. “What you have just heard is a denunciation of something the Congress did a few weeks ago and a refusal to undo it. I’ve never seen people, Mr. Chairman, so attached to something they hate. This is presumably a psychological disorder which I am not equipped to diagnose. The objection of the gentleman from Texas was that when the recovery bill was passed, it was passed too quickly [and it] included a provision that shouldn’t have been in there. This bill takes it out.”

“It is undone by this. And speaking of being undone, my Republican colleagues are being undone by the loss of their whipping boy,” Frank said, arguing that Republicans enjoyed scoring political points over the AIG bonuses but didn’t want to cap executive compensation generally.

“Truly, all I ask is transparency and for the taxpayers and the people of America to have time to read the bill,” responded [Texas Republican Congressman John] Culberson.

“The bill under consideration is five-and-a-half pages,” Frank said. “I believe even the gentleman from Texas could have read it by now. And if the gentleman from Texas has not been able to read this five-and-a-half page bill, I’ll talk long and even if he reads slow, he’ll get it done. The point is that this bill undoes what he is complaining about. Note the refusal to address the subject.”

Frank then offered some free psychoanalysis. “My colleagues on the other side, it’s kind of like kids who have had a toy bear or a blanket and this security blanket means a lot to them. Their security blanket is being able to complain about something that happened before the break,” he said.

The Huffington Post crowd is much more interested in the delivery of an idea than the idea itself, but for me, it’s not the idea itself that captures my fascination, so much as the other ideas that must support it.

House Republicans had criticism for the democrat leadership when the bailout legislation allowed the bonuses to take place. They aren’t obediently following along as the democrat leadership tries to close this loophole. That, on Planet Frank, deserves all kinds of commentary…and an offer of “free psychoanalysis.”

On the about-face the democrat leadership did…this Homer Simpson slap-own-forehead-and-yell-“D’Oh!” move…there is no occasion for comment whatsoever.

No allowance made for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Republicans are opposed on principle to the government dictating bonuses — and spoke out a few weeks ago because hey, they still know incompetence when they see it.

Hey. Did ya hear the one about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the democrat that was able to accept responsibility and the democrat that was not…walking down the sidewalk and seeing $850 billion lying there? Which one picked it up?

The democrat incapable of accepting responsibility, of course. The other three don’t exist!

Consensual Living

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

That’s the name of a new way to raise your kid. Cassy calls it just-plain-lazy parenting. Looks like just another way to mass-produce liberals without realizing it, to me.

In the consensual living model, father doesn’t know best. Neither does mom. Instead, parents and children are equal partners in family life, according to the principles laid out at consensual-living.com.

Founded in 2006 by a group of families in North Carolina, consensual living is gaining ground in alternative parenting communities and online, including a Yahoo group with about 900 members.
:
Lindsay Hollett of Nanaimo, B.C., says that she began to snap less with her husband, Craig, and her 18-month-old daughter, Kahlan, after she adopted the consensual-living mindset about a year ago.

Her days became more relaxed when she focused more on Kahlan’s needs, she says. If she had a doctor’s appointment but her daughter was feeling grumpy, for example, Ms. Hollett would not force Kahlan to wait with her to see the doctor. Instead, Ms. Hollett might cancel the appointment or arrange alternative child care, she says.

Listening to her child’s feelings doesn’t mean that every last thing is negotiable, such as being strapped in a car seat, she says. But if they have to go somewhere, she adds, “I’ll do everything I can to make the car-seat ride more comfortable.”

For now, Ms. Hollett says, the onus is on her to be a role model for consensual living principles such as empathy and mutual respect for her daughter. As Kahlan grows older, though, “it won’t just be me empathizing with her.”

Understanding a child’s developmental stage is a crucial aspect of parenting, according to Alyson Schafer, a Toronto-based psychotherapist and author of Breaking the Good Mom Myth and the recently released Honey, I Wrecked the Kids.

But, she adds, children must be taught to respect a higher authority, such as social expectations. Cancelling an appointment because of a child’s mood sends the wrong message, Ms. Schafer says. “It’s a parent’s job to socialize a child.”

I was going to enter a comment to the effect that Cassy was being way too premature in her judgment, that I disagreed with her emphatically. It was April 1, after all. But I quickly figured out that I wouldn’t be fooling anyone.

I’d have a great deal more affection and sympathy for this newest method of child-spoilage if it was pure anarchy. As it is…what the hell? Mom and Dad don’t know best, but you have to “respect a higher authority, such as social expectations”?

Isn’t that a rather simplified version of — you don’t know right from wrong, but you need to depend on complete strangers to tell you what it is? From where does all this wisdom known as “social expectations” arrive? From people, right? Who raised those people? Didn’t they have mothers and fathers…who also didn’t know best? So from what terrace does this wonderful knowledge of do-this-don’t-do-that trickle down? Do we just single out whoever among us has the most wonderful hopey-changey gift of gab, and elect that guy President?

Can I be blunt here? Waitaminnit…it’s my blog…of course I can. This universe doesn’t give two shits about your “feelings” or your “needs” — not at any instant in time, not at any moment from cradle-to-grave. It doesn’t care. Hierarchies of human authority, they care. But only in one direction.

When it comes time to get real work done, you have to get your plowing done in the springtime or you can’t plant. You have to get your irrigating done in the summer or nothing will grow, and you have to get your harvesting done in the fall or your product will rot. That’s true of all levels of technology. The compiler doesn’t care if you find the error messages to be discouraging.

It seems to me the real danger of a parenting method like this, is that it will work a portion of the time. It will work when your child is raised to become an adult who is only fit to engage a subset of the experiences that life has to offer. You would have to send such a young adult to college; a good one. You would have to do this, because the life for which you’ve prepared them would be one in which they get to give the orders — using authority they may have, but didn’t really earn with any genuine experience — and then the orders would be carried out by better men than they. Real grown-ups who were raised under a mindset that work, where it exists, is non-sentient, and uncaring about the worker’s emotional state. Guys who can fire guns, sharpen knives and tie knots.

The military has a saying for situations like this: “If you want to know how the war should be going, ask the General; if you want to know how it really is going, ask a Private.” Except that’s different. You have to do a lot of things, grapple with some situations that aren’t under your control, to achieve a pre-defined outcome, to become a General.

Tracy Miller Quinn, owner and operator of a laudable blog in her own right, and mother of two, objects to childless Cassy’s condemnation of the consensual-living model. This leads to a lively and occasionally entertaining exchange. Well, I’m the father of one, who will be turning twelve this summer…so my experience falls short of Quinn’s in some ways, and exceeds hers in others. I think she’s demonstrated here how a point can deliver some merit while remaining devoid of applicability. If Cassy really doesn’t know what she’s talking about (and I’ve been reading her for awhile; trust me, she does), then, in this situation, she’s the stopped clock that happens to be right.

Kids, at the age under discussion, are amazing things. Their brains do not work the same way our adult brains do. They have been designed, and constructed, to do most of their thinking with the orbito-frontal cortex, in a way we can’t match. To do their thinking with the word “no.” This is how they stay alive, when they don’t yet understand the more complicated and involved cause-and-effect thinking, and haven’t yet accumulated the experience necessary to break down abstract ideas according to those terms.

It is…to coin a phrase…an intelligent design. A complex design. A design that incorporates an organism, a maturing process for the organism, and — parents. This consensual parenting, from what I’ve been able to learn about it, is the abjuration of a crucial learning process that must necessarily be achieved in full somewhere around age five, so that the child is ready to build on this knowledge of “no” and absorb more complex lessons later on. If they don’t lay this critical foundation, they can’t be prepared for what’s built on top.

And then what would have to happen is we get more of what we’ve already got, up to our eyeballs: People who aren’t fit to take on real work. Non-sentient work. Work that doesn’t give a flying fig how happy or sad they are at the time they’re expected to take it on. People who are supremely aware of their own emotions, but uncaring about those of others. Because they didn’t learn about that when they were supposed to: At ages one-and-a-half, to five. There never was a need to develop such a skill, at that critical bracket. They would then have to be coddled, their emotions pandered-to, from womb to tomb.

They would be crippled. Severely. If you took a hammer to their kneecaps and put them in a wheelchair for life, you wouldn’t be limiting their prospects nearly as much. Sorry if that comes off as a shocker…but that’s not an exaggeration at all.

Best case scenario is, they will then somehow end up in command of others, who can do the work that has to be done — so they can take the credit for it.

Save up that college fund if you raise your kids this way. Save, hope, and pray. Your kids would have to achieve authority without demonstrating they’re worthy of it, and then cross paths with a prospective employer maintaining high standards for hiring just the right people. But enforcing them only occasionally.

Of course, who am I kidding. American business is being re-defined as I write this…so maybe I’m just another old curmudgeon reciting boring old stories from his rocking chair about the way the world used to work.

It All Begins With an Investment…

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

…and from there things spiral down.

Two Wheels on my Wagoner
[Mark Steyn]

Incidentally, the government “overhaul” of GM is a useful shorthand for where we’re heading:

The first quid pro quo for the government giving you money (or “investing”, as President Obama and David Brooks say) is that it gets to regulate your behavior. Not just who sits on your board or (see Sarkozy last week) where your factory has to be. When the government “pays” for your health care, it reserves the right to deny (as in parts of Britain) heart disease treatment for smokers or hip replacement for the obese. Why be surprised? When the state’s “paying” for your health, your lifestyle directly impacts its “investment.”

The next stage is that, having gotten you used to having your behavior regulated, the state advances to approving not just what you do but what you’re allowed to read, see, hear, think: See the “Canadian Content” regulations up north, and the enforcers of the “human rights” commissions. Or Britain’s recent criminalization of “homophobic jokes.”

You’d be surprised how painlessly and smoothly once-free peoples slip from government “investing” to government control.

Blogger friend Buck found, I think, the perfect cartoon about this, and the best article I’ve yet seen to go along with it…

You're Fired, I'll DrivePresident Obama said Monday, “my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.”

To that confident assertion he added these stern sentiments:

“They must ask themselves: Have they consolidated enough unprofitable brands? Have they cleaned up their balance sheets, or are they still saddled with so much debt that they can’t make future investments? Above all, have they created a credible model for how not only to survive, but to succeed in this competitive global market?”

Who is in a better position to know the answers to these questions? Rick Wagoner, the GM CEO for nine years and former GM chief financial officer who has been with the automaker since the late 1970s, even running one of its foreign affiliates in Brazil, and who holds a Harvard Business School MBA?

Or President Obama, a former community activist from the south side of Chicago with a great rhetorical gift?

The president answered that question this week by ordering Wagoner’s firing.
:
It should now be clear: Federal bailout funds are a corporate narcotic. Once a company starts taking them, a chemicallike dependence develops. The addict does whatever will bring in more of the drug. Ultimately, like heroin, the short-term euphoria gives way to decreased function for the recipient, even destruction.

Being a wild-eyed right-wing blogger in his underwear, and therefore an extremist, I see two distinctly separate issues here. (God willing, the typical “moderate” voter and taxpayer sees at least one.) There is the issue, first of all, of federalism and traditional restraint. How long do we have before GM employees are somehow forbidden from taking their personal salaries, which after all were made possible with taxpayer funded bailout money, and using them to send their precious curtain-critters to parochial schools? Or signing ’em up with that “hate group” known as the Boy Scouts? This is the issue Steyn brings to our attention from across the pond in jolly ol’ Great Britain.

And then, secondarily, there is the issue of effectiveness. IBD contrasts the experiences and talents of ex-chief Wagoner, against our Messiah in the White House. I perceive it to be more like Wagoner against Congressman Barney Frank, and it’s a scenario straight out of Atlas Shrugged — tough, ambitious, dedicated and experienced men are isolated from the decisions that matter, and the baton is passed to slick, glib shysters whose rolodexes are packed full of just the right names. Men who’ve built the careers not on building things, but destroying things. Not on coming up with a formula for a better brand of steel, or on saving a company from insolvency, or on marketing, or on finding a revolutionary new way to extract oil from shale rock…but on walking away from disasters without absorbing any of the blame.

How is this new class of decision-maker, whose occasional episodes of honesty can happen only by the purest type of accident, to supply the judgment and talent needed?

If you think that has a good shot at happening, with the private-sector specialists such as Wagoner gracelessly tossed over the side, you’ll probably gain a new sense of perspective after you get done watching this.

Women Naturally Inclined to be “Hotties”

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009

A balmier climate tends to produce more baby girls:

People who live in the tropics have more baby girls compared with those living in other parts of the world, work reveals.

Tropical HottieIt may be down to the hotter weather or the longer days, says US researcher Dr Kristen Navara in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.

She says this climate may change miscarriage rates and sperm quality.

Or there may be some evolutionary advantage to having more girls than boys if you live by the equator.

Experts already know that the birth rates of boys and girls vary across the globe.

While some of this can be explained by society – in countries like China baby boys are favoured and many unborn girls are electively aborted – there are natural processes at work.

Research suggests the female foetus is less fragile than the male foetus, which is more prone to the effects of the environment on pregnant women.
:
Dr Bill James of University College London, who has spent his career studying sex ratio patterns, said although the differences found were statistically significant, it was not as meaningful as other factors that have been linked to sex ratios at birth.
:
“The idea is that, in mammals, males have a greater variance in their reproductive success.

“Some have lots of offspring and others have none, whereas most females will have at least one offspring.

“So it pays a women who is reproductively fit in good times to have a boy because he may well give her more grandchildren.

“But when times are hard and if she is less reproductively fit, she is better off having a girl because in this way she should gain at least one grandchild.”

Is it just me, or did this article stop making sense about halfway through?

I’m not trying to be a sexist, here, but when I think of tough climates versus wimpy climates, I’m thinking the tough one is the cold one and the unwind-after-work one is the beach with the white sand, the waiter bringing me a weird blue or green drink with an umbrella in it. Maybe it’s my upbringing in the Pacific Northwest, I dunno. Maybe it’s the fact that I’m in a cushier latitude now, one with palm trees…listening to California natives bitch and bitch whenever it’s any crisper than 60 degrees.

My point is, these scientists talk as if they know, if they say something about the males being better suited for a colder climate, they’ll lose all their grant money for the next several years. Men must always be weak, women must always be durable. Think about it. We’re up to our eyeballs in these “scientific studies,” multiple times per month, if not per week. How many years has it been since you’ve seen a study suggesting the male characteristics are better suited for…anything?

This one twists the logic around 180 degrees. Statistically significant differential in girl-versus-boy babies born in a gentler climate…and so we have to make this look like the female fetus is more robust. You know, it could very well be. But how do you get from there, to here? Somewhere, they explained that, and I missed it.

Every man who’s ever been married…every man who’s ever lived with a woman, and a thermostat…knows. Women hate being cold. It’s not sexism — it’s just a fact. It’s their bodies, they’re built to be pregnant.

Go out jogging sometime. See all the cute lady joggers. Now keep on doing it until school starts…then into October…when the low pressure systems pull all the rain in. Where’d they all go? Dude, I don’t wanna see that! Nothing around but a bunch of ugly Rocky Balboa wanna-bes. Happens every year. Weather gets cold, the women are gone. Science is going to say that’s because women are more resilient?

Whatever; that science has become politicized, is pretty old news by now. But it’s interesting that nature may have a way of singling out the sex of the baby based on the climate. It’s pretty easy to see this kind of musing and speculating is still, after centuries, in the stages of “we don’t even know what we don’t yet know.”

My Mom used to say it was the personality of the mother. If woman having the babies, had what it took to whip the kids into shape, said kids would turn out to be boys. The dilemma with the baby crying after bedtime, for example. Her theory was, if your tendency as a mother was to come running when you heard some whimpering in the crib, you’d probably have girls. If you had that streak in you that would permit you to lay down some “whoopass,” you’d probably have boys. She had two.

You know one thing I didn’t see discussed at all, in spite of this sumptuous banquet of theories to toss around — was the frequency of sexual activity. If you live in a place that’s cold enough, it has a real impact on what you can do with your spare time. There are plenty of spots on this big rock where it is so cold, for so much of the year, that when the work is done you can only do one thing.

Hmmm…that seems to me a sufficiently solid idea to at least toss in the pot. If that’s proven out over time, it would mean the discrepancy has nothing to do with the innate robustness of girls versus boys, or vice-versa.

This Is Good LX

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Scipio

Future Present
Posted on March 29th, 2009 by Scipio

Our archeologist, while rummaging among the ruins of our fallen civilization, met a ghost from the long dead race of Americans. The wraith boasted much about what we had been as a people.

We died in the hundreds of thousands to end slavery here and around the world.

We invented Jazz.

We wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg address.

We went to the moon to see how far we could hit a golf ball.

We lifted a telescope into orbit that could see to the edge of the universe.

When people snuck into the country against our laws, we made parking lots and food stands off to the side of the road so they wouldn’t get hurt, and we let them use our hospitals for free, and we made their children citizens.

We didn’t care what God you worshipped as long as we could worship ours.

We let the People arm themselves at will. Just to make sure.

We gave everybody the vote.

We built Disneyworld. Just for fun.

We had a revolution so successful it was still going strong two and a quarter centuries later.

We had so many heroes, even at the end, that we felt free to hate them and burn them in effigy.

We electrified the guitar.

We invented a music so compelling that it rocked the world.

The archeologist asked, “If you accomplished all of this, then why did your nation collapse?” The ghost answered, “Because we went insane.”

“Please explain.”

The ghost took a breath and said, “We traded beauty for ugliness, truth for lies, liberty for comfort, love for indifference, responsibility for frivolity, duty for entertainment, history for sound bites, and children for pleasure. We had gold, but we tossed it aside and replaced it with cleverly designed dross. We turned men into women and women into men and marveled at our new creative power. We stopped looking up to Heaven and began to keep our gaze firmly fixed on the ground. We abandoned the old God for a host of hip, cool and slick new ones.”

“And?”

“Those new gods turned on us. At first they granted us our every wish. They laughed with us. They danced with us. We all ate, drank and made all sorts of merry. All of us exulted in our power. And then…” Here the ghost stopped for a moment. His mouth was half open as if trying to speak. His body shuddered as it remembered an ancient terror. “But there were some among us who felt something was wrong, dreadfully wrong.”

“How so?”

There’s more…much more. What’re you still doing here?

R and R-Lite Instead of D and D-Lite

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Cylarz has a challenge in the comments section that really makes you think. His intent is to show how absurd is the notion that Rush Limbaugh is running much of anything, along with the idea that anyone, anywhere, is somehow forced to listen to him:

Imagine what life in this nation would be like if our parties were Republican and Republican-lite…instead of Democrat and Democrat-lite. The former is what the political scene would look like if everyone were listening to Rush.

It is my conviction that American consensus-politics are revolving on the rim of a large wheel. It is a merry-go-round that spins into & out of, not so much conservatism and liberalism, but fantasy and reality. Right now we’re on the 1976-77 sector of the wheel, wherein we just installed a hopey-changey youthful-charismatic guy who’s gonna solve all our problems. This is an exceptionally narrow pie-slice of the wheel’s orbit. It’s over in the blink of an eye. We see life’s problems are ours to solve and it’s not realistic to elect some savior-champion to deal with them on our behalf…we see it some more…we see it some more…lesson learned. For a few more years.

This dream Cylarz has, is at the opposite side…and is perhaps a little bit wider. It’s the 1969-1973, 1980-1986 side of the wheel.

So it’ll happen. It’ll happen, and we’ll get tired of it. All this stuff is inevitable, as the wheel keeps on turning. That’s my point. We kick the democrats out of power when we get tired of fantasy; when we notice, that to keep liberal ideas even looking good, there’s this never-ending pressure on to pretend simple things are complicated, and complicated things are simple. After awhile we get tired of that and we kick ’em out. We fire the Republicans when we notice, gee, it’s been awhile since we engaged the government to solve a problem and watched the problem disappear before our very eyes, wouldn’t that be neat? (The conservative platform is constructed around the paradigm that this isn’t really the purpose of government; in that way, the Founding Fathers worked under well-defined conservative bias.) People will listen to Rush, to learn what they should’ve learned before they went to vote. It’s already started to happen. It’s that human instinct to think and think and think some more about “did I turn off the stove?” when the car is zipping on down the freeway and it’s way too late to do anything about it.

But imagine if things were that way, and they stayed that way? I notice when we’re in the fantasy zone, we really are D and D-Lite. Oooh, look at me, I’m a compassionate conservative, I can blow money away on bullshit projects just as fast as my democrat “friends”; vote for me. When Republicans are in power the liberals don’t engage in some contest to see who can be the most-moderate lib. They just get all pissy and mumble the word “fascism” a lot.

So lessee…what would happen…

That last election would have been between Fred Thompson & Sarah Palin…and…Joe Lieberman and Ron Paul. Dr. Paul would be considerably more hawkish, his concerns about the constitutionality of the War on Terror ejected from his platform. Gen. David Petraeus would now have a fifth star. We would have pulled out of the United Nations.

A massive stimulus bill would have injected trillions of dollars into the U.S. economy over the next decade-and-a-half…in the form of a tax cut.

Barack Obama’s formidable oratory skills would be deployed where they would do the most good: On a radio or television program, trying to compete with Rush Limbaugh.

The front page of my local newspaper, and yours, wouldn’t speak very often to the plight of: state legislators pretending to care about balancing the budget, homeless people, unionized workers, ignorant addle-brained students who can’t graduate high school because they haven’t learned anything, prison guards, single moms, troubled youth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They’d live in a larger, better-informed world. Their headlines would very seldom deploy words like “BUDGET” and “DEFICIT” and “PROGRAM” and “NEED”…instead, you’d see proud, hopeful words in those daily headlines like “FREEDOM” and “OPPORTUNITY” and “LIBERTY.”

Your television “news” program wouldn’t talk too much about liberal programs are going to do. They’d be better-anchored to reality; they’d talk about what tax cuts have done, versus what liberal programs have done.

When some big major mega-city that’s been run by democrats for generation after generation, runs into a predictable budget deficit…you’d hear about it that way. An important part of the news report would be an editorial analysis of some rival city, floating along free of the concern of ever-enlarging social programs, without the deficits and without the liberals running everything. The news report would go through the budgets, line by equivalent line. After all, it isn’t useful news unless we explain why the problem occurred, is it?

Kids can pray in the classroom. Every classroom. If they don’t know English yet, they’re sent to remedial classes to learn it, before they learn another thing. Kids know how to fire guns, shoot arrows, build fires, tie knots. Intelligent Design? It’s recognized as precisely what it is: Just an idea that the universe, particularly the bits of it that make life possible, is here because of non-random activity as opposed to random activity. And then it’s debated. As science. Which it is.

Oh, and before I forget: This asshole is locked up for good, and/or fried crispy.

A convicted sex offender due to be released Saturday from prison after serving 11 months warned in letters that if set free, he would reoffend, even against children. In the letters, Michael McGill begged authorities to keep him locked up for life.

“Please throw the book at me … I’m harmful to others I should be locked up for life,” he wrote in block letters that resemble a child’s writing. “I will sexual abuse men. Do this for the safe (sic) of others then I be able not to hurt anyone else. Judge I’m begging you to put me away.”

In another place he wrote that he had told his two 7-year-old male victims, “I will do more sex crimes with boys 4 to 14. I will molest with boys 15 to 18.”

Neither the Polk County attorney’s office, which prosecuted McGill and distributed his letters to other agencies, nor the Iowa Board of Parole, nor the attorney general’s office, which handles civil commitments for sexually violent predators, says it can do anything to prevent McGill’s release.

Feminists are about as powerful…oh…as they are right now. See, we still have that going for us. People have only partially lost their minds. They’re still not ready to trust feminists again just yet. Feminists get together in their little clubs, isolated from everyone else, sharing notes with each other along with instructions to help-me-hate-this-thing-over-here. That’s the form in which they want to exist. Everyone else, walled off from them, gets work done, makes money, and has fun doing it.

At work, you can still be sent to sensitivity training — if you’ve somehow demonstrated this is necessary. Departments of people are not sent to mandatory sensitivity training. People are not randomly sent to sensitivity training. You can’t unilaterally decide you were harassed; it really does depend on the will and intent of the alleged harasser. And nobody makes any money off of the sexual-harassment racket. If they’re in some position that is created to deal with this in some way, they do it as volunteers, because the issue is supposed to be so important to them…which only makes sense. In other words: Lawyers don’t run things.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit CalendarIn your work cubicle, or in your office, you can put up a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar. If anyone comes by to mutter so much as a peep of protest, that is the one treading on thin ice…not you. The phrases “objectification of women” and “unrealistic unhealthy body images” are about as socially acceptable in that world, as a racial epithet is in this one.

Family comedies do not conclude with a feel-good comedy-tragedy ending with the dad whacking himself in the head realizing he’s been a jerk, or an asshole, or a killjoy, or a workaholic. If anything, they end with the kid whacking himself in the forehead, belatedly realizing he should’ve been listening to his Dad.

Neighbors talk to each other. They have block parties. You don’t need to drive 40, 50, 60 miles into the county to discharge a pellet gun or a firearm. Once the shooting-range is set up, you can do it right in front of City Hall. On weekends, the whole town gets together for target shooting. Somewhere else, they have a beer garden. (You can’t go to the target shooting after you go to the beer festival, because alcohol and firearms don’t mix…yes, Republicans and conservatives do get that. Most of us bathe daily and have all our teeth. Really!)

Men do not stand by, brain-dead, clutching a purse outside the womens’ toilet, awaiting their next orders. They talk to other men. They get together and compare notes. They each express admiration for the sidearm the other fella has purchased to defend his lady and his children, should any bad guys be stupid enough to enter uninvited in the dark of some terrible night. They brag about who achieved the tightest grouping on the targets. And they fantasize, together, like giddy little boys, about muscle cars. Women get together and compare notes too. They don’t brag about whose boyfriend bought them the largest engagement ring, or who took charge of the family menu or what they told the hubby to start eating, or how they keep him from hogging the remote. Their rivalry is engaged, instead, in terms of who does the best job bringing her husband beer. “Oh yeah? I’d never think of handing it to him without the cap already popped off…and it’s always ice cold.”

Vice President Palin is even more influential in her new role, than Dick Cheney was in his. She’s a true role model. Women suddenly want their hair made up into her ‘do, just like they wanted to emulate Hillary’s back in the 1990’s. Palin’s face, in this universe, is everyplace Obama’s face is in this one. Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, USA Today…et al. (Obama’s face, in turn, could be on a milk carton somewhere.) Everything female is Palin, Palin, Palin. Women want to learn to fly airplanes, to fire shotguns, to ride ATVs, to clean rifles and pistols, to drive a dogsled…and to field dress a moose. The fashionable cliche, assuming there is one, is “Yoo betcha!”

Tenth Amendment, all the way. Some states and counties allow gay marriage and others don’t; some states and counties allow pot, and others don’t. Some states and counties are officially Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist, if they can get the votes. Nothing is singled out for social stigma, be it positive or negative. So a married gay man just might be an abuser and a generally bad husband, just like a married straight man — “loving” is no longer a euphemism for “same-sex.” And if you smoke pot, you just might have an addiction problem…just like someone who drinks, might have an addiction problem. That means, friends and family might be inclined to intervene if the signs are there. And anyone can be a religious fundamentalist whacko; not just the Christians. If your child needs medical care but you think his sickness is Gods’ will, the nanny-state might eventually interfere — if you’re showing signs of possibly lopping off your daughter’s head because she’d dating the wrong fella, the nanny-state just might interfere with that too. True equality.

When kids get into fights on the playground, all the trouble is reserved for the kid who threw the first punch. The kid who threw the last one, assuming that’s someone else, hasn’t got a single thing to worry about. And that’s precisely the way the world politics work, too.

You may say I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one.

If Earth Hour is a Slippery Slope…

Monday, March 30th, 2009

…then what lies at the bottom of the slope?

Hat tip to Harvey at IMAO.

Women Would Rather be Models

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Reported, and angstified-over, at Feministing.

Oxygen TV did a poll asking women ages 18 to 34 if they’d rather win a Nobel Peace Prize or America’s Next Top Model. Twenty five percent more respondents said they’d rather win ANTM.

I can explain it. It’s got to do with the nature of women. Women, it turns out, are people…and people, on a nose-for-nose basis, aren’t that wild about accomplishing things right now.

Mr. Rowe can fill you in on what’s been going on lately. Fast-forward to about 16:00 or 17:00…the part where he says he’s got about two and a half minutes left…where he talks about the war we’ve been declaring on work.

Don’t worry. About a third of women would prefer to accomplish something. And to that, of course, you have to add the women who want to accomplish things, but don’t see any real prestige in Nobel any longer. It’s bound to be a sizable chunk. Women can be pretty smart…so I’m told.

But doing stuff that will help other people — as opposed to having other people pay lots of attention to you. Whether you’re polling young women, old women, young men or old men. This just isn’t the right generation in which you should ask questions like those. Helping people. Building things that help people. Setting up systems that help people, creating things that might help people. That involves predicting effect based on cause.

Lots of responsibility involved in that. People aren’t feeling up to it. It’s far easier just to vote for “hope” and “change.”

Obama Memorabilia for the Time Capsule

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

In three and a half years, I’m going to win my $100 and my steak dinner when Barack Obama becomes a one-termer. I’m more and more convinced of this every day. And I’m further convinced that a few decades after that, historians will be scrambling to figure out how we could have whipped up so much enthusiasm behind a presidential candidate who was so shockingly bad.

This one’s for them. I know it’s a little dusty by now…but it’s great viewing. All three women are so gorgeous, it’s almost painful to look at ’em. And boy do they get into it. But more important than that, it captures what was wrong with our national thinking, just how diseased we were. And it probably captures it better in hindsight, now, when we know how much stumbling-outta-the-gate the new administration has been doing.

Just listen to this “defense attorney.”

People just don’t make sense when they’re trying too hard to please other people. Even the brightest ones. They have trouble staying consistent. They get worked up into a frothy frenzy, and they can’t even follow their own rules.

The kids are black, so they should support Obama. That’s her logic?

I wonder what she’d say about an all-girls’ school making such a video in support of Hillary? Or of Sarah Palin? Pity nobody asked the question. Of course, the cross-talk is so bad, maybe someone did and I missed it.

Memo For File LXXXV

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

In reflecting on the different standards that are applied to women like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, versus persons of color such as the Obamas, I notice a consistent logical flaw in the way the big, amoebic, mythical “everybody” thinks. Like all logical flaws that are possible but difficult to detect, it begins with a glaring inconsistency. Palin was just now excoriated for her associations with people…so far as I can gather from the vaguely-stated charges. Like the Governor herself, this story has legs.

We needn’t speculate on whether a story about President Obama’s associations, has legs. We already know. Those stories die. You have to wait for the President to show some real incompetence at something, before you can call Him incompetent…and, all too often, even then you still can’t.

This doesn’t have that much to do with Republicans and democrats. It has to do with the victim-credentials of persons of color, versus the victim-credentials of women. These credentials do not have identical effect, or even similar effect. Don’t take my word for it. Ask any Hillary supporter.

The contradiction doesn’t begin with Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin or Barack Obama. It begins with us; it begins in elementary school.

Palin and Clinton, being women, never quite achieve adequacy in any of the things they do. Palin could have all the right friends like Hillary does, and Hillary could be more appealing and amicable, like Palin is. They would both then be attacked for not being truly thoughtful — like Margaret Thatcher. If they then both woke up one morning having been cloned from Margaret Thatcher, they’d both be attacked for being too gloomy, dour and boring. They could then both become cheerier, and they’d be attacked for not treating this-or-that situation with the serious level of attention it deserves. They could then start being more attentive and they’d be meddling…you get the picture. It just goes on, and on, and on.

This doesn’t apply to Barack Obama. As a representative of a different victim group, with a different history behind its victimology, He has a real standard to meet…as in, the criticism doesn’t exist for its own sake, the criticism exists for failing to meet the standard, and once He clears the standard the criticism turns into praise. Women can’t have that. And in Obama’s case the standard is comedically low. We’ve been hearing from His fans for over two years from now, “Oh there’s just something about Him!” — most recently from Lynda Carter. The litany never changes: He’s a special person, in a once-in-a-lifetime way, and I can’t, or won’t, specifically explain why this is.

There’s a reason nobody explains why this is. It’s rooted in bigotry against black people. As pure as has ever existed.

These people think “there’s just something about” Barack Obama because their vision of persons-of-color, is that they shouldn’t be doing any of these things. They are operating off a stereotype that was perpetuated, not during the 1950’s, but during the 1990’s during that onslaught of music videos with angry, surly, sulking, mono-browed, ethnically-rich hoodlums strutting around. That’s how the Obama fan looked at black people before Obama showed up…and now there’s something about Him. He stands up straight, says please and thank you, smiles if the occasion warrants it (and sometimes when it doesn’t), and most importantly of all knows proper grammar. “Those” people aren’t supposed to do any of those things!

So we go through this ritual where we pretend Obama’s handling of this-incident or that-episode, or His policies, are being honestly reviewed by anybody. Well, that’s not really the subject is it. To a majority among the electorate, it’s all about showcasing what a decent person you are, by approving of Him. It’s outcome-based.

And it doesn’t apply to women, because the heritage behind the victimology-that-is-women, has to do with belonging. Women belonged; blacks did not. You can certainly energize a revolution behind the argument that the womens’ position at the table was a different one, perhaps an inferior one in some ways. You can certainly complain that women were expected to set that table and clear it up afterward, while the men just burped & farted. But at least the women belonged.

And this gets back to the contradiction that germinated in our heads during elementary school days. The contradiction was: It is noble and glorious to close your eyes to a fellow student’s sex, or the color of that student’s skin, when you make the decision about whether to approve of them or not — BUT! — as these decisions you make culminate in another decision about you, whoever judges you will have their eyes wide open to these things.

That’s the contradiction. That’s where we become unmoored from reason and reality right there. Before the third grade.

We then go sailing through the years afterward, straddling this divide. Extoll the virtues of color- and gender-blindedness, but don’t actually practice it. Our mistake is to achieve a reconciliation by behaving differently toward people we actually know, versus people we don’t. We’re all so unbigoted and unsexist, because once we feel comfortable with a female, or with a black guy, we treat them just like anybody else. But then when we catch wind of some stranger who was laid off from his job, some politician somewhere we’ll never meet, mired in scandal, caught showcasing his or her own incompetence…the first thing we need to know is what group he or she belongs to. We inwardly understand this has everything to do with what ideas we’re supposed to form, and how they’ll be received by others.

So Sarah Palin’s staff, it seems, may not have kept some of her appointments straight. Perhaps. The prevailing sentiment that is aroused in response to this, whether it is given word-for-word acknowledgment or not, is: Isn’t that just like a cut-butt. Silly woman. Go back to raising your family and leave this to the big boys. And last summer, Hillary Clinton was treated very much the same way.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, shows all the signs of being a committed socialist whose hand has been placed on the tiller of the mightiest ship-of-state the world has ever seen. He really does “pal around with terrorists”…and yet…even when that idea is concretely substantiated and proven out, it never quite goes anywhere. It’s always dampered.

There is an urgency involved — a social urgency — in showing approval to Barack Obama’s victim-class. No matter what.

With women, the social urgency is the same, but it has to do with your potential for recognizing female competence…if & when it should ever pop up in front of you. The pressure to actually see it when it might be there, is missing. The history is different so the pressures placed on us, are similarly different. We always have that “out” with the females. We can say, when a woman who knows what she’s doing, comes our way, we’ll be ready, willing and able to acknowledge it. But this isn’t her, this is just a dumb stupid girl.

You could argue all day and night about which one of those mindsets is more reasonable. But the fact that they’re so different, and that each is practiced so consistently with regard to its associated victim-group, are persuasive arguments for ignoring the “prevailing sentiment” when one makes decisions about pressing, weighty matters, particularly the competence of people in whom such massive responsibility has been invested.

They also contribute toward a damning indictment against victimology in general. Deep down, we already know it doesn’t make any sense; therefore, it’s a mistake to think that it does. But it’s not a trivial mistake. It is, perhaps, one of the most harmful and costly mistakes we can ever make as a free society.

Groomzilla

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

I guess this was bound to happen sooner or later.

I was going to write something up regarding the Washington Times story, Hezbollah uses Mexican drug routes into U.S., which would go along well with my previous “told ya so!” story about The Economist today. But, this is a lot more fun, and, if you’ll excuse the hyperbole, insidious

So you think Bridezilla is scary, what with her tears and temper tantrums?

Just wait till you meet her opposite number: Groomzilla.

He’s bigger, bolder, louder. And increasingly, he’s muscling in on territory previously ruled by the bride, her mother and possibly a wedding planner.

“We’re seeing grooms becoming more involved in the wedding plans — everything from choosing the venue down to the minutest details,” says Rob Johnsen, 38, co-owner of mywedding.com, a leading online wedding guide.

You know, and I mean this without being insulting to gays, the only time a man should be involved in planning the wedding is when it is a man-man ceremony. And, I bet they get women to plan their weddings. Because it’s just not manly.

“It’s the rise of Groomzilla,” he says. “We thought it would be fun to find the biggest Groomzilla in the country, so we launched a contest.”

That was three weeks ago, and the entries are still flooding in. There are grooms demanding specific color schemes, flowers, food, china patterns and officiants. Others are vetting the bridesmaids dresses — and even the bride’s choice of bridesmaids.

This is what is known as the woosification of the American male, brought to you by liberal/progressive ideals. What happened to the good old days – you know, last year – when the smartest thing a man could do is just show up for the wedding. Sheesh!

Is this an intended consequence…that’s what I want to know. Kinda-yeah-kinda-no?

Also, is it a backlash against a double standard? I hope so; the alternative is that men have time to worry about this stuff, because nobody expects, or desires, for them to do manly things anymore. And so they’re bored — looking for stuff to do. Looking for an identity. They aren’t allowed to talk to children in a voice below Middle-C. Can’t fix the sink. Can’t fix the car. Can’t change the tire. Can’t drive a stick shift. Momma gave daddy a list of “honeydew” chores that had to do with cutting grass, scooping leaves out of the gutter, et al. Now the honeydew chores, it seems to me, have to do with making telephone calls. Call the insurance company, call the doctor, call the accountant, make a phone call to acquire some services instead of showing some old-fashioned American know-how.

Manhood is dead, or terminally ill. But there is at least one unintended consequence: The innocent, doe-eyed bride is being deprived of what she wants by a big brute of a dude who wants puce tablecloths at the reception instead of mauve.

When will the oppression end?

Delaware Indoctrination

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Treatment.

Hat tip to Neo-neocon, who adds:

[I]t should come as no surprise that although the PC mind-control program is no longer in operation there, those who designed and implemented it are still employed by the university.

More hate. It’s turning into a “hate day” at House of Eratosthenes, I see. We’ll just try to stick to studying how it’s been re-defined lately, and avoid engaging in it…but the first thing we notice is this seems to be a trap into which many are tumbling. In fact the bulk of them are all walking off the cliff after walking the same well-worn path: Prove you aren’t hateful, by singling out the white guys, and putting the (something, don’t you dare call it hate) on ’em.

I think the perfesser in the second installment — about four minutes in — nailed it. It’s not quite so much about tolerance, as about indoctrination. Prove you’re a good person by showing signs of inwardly believing what we told you to believe. You’re a racist if you see classes of people in ways other than the way we see them, but you’re alright if you see those things the way we do.

There is some value on this; this is the way a lot of people in the real world think. Share my prejudices and you’re alright. Don’t, and I’ll make-believe you have some different ones.

But what really concerns me about it? The intellectual laziness. If we want to find some experiences for high-school grads to endure, to get them acclimated to the pinheadedness and narrow-mindedness that eventually confronts all of us…why do they have to cut their teeth on such a misadventure, in their colleges?

Screwtape’s Wisdom

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

John Hawkins has finally gotten around to reading the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. And he’s doing what I wish more people would do, which is to put his favorite bits of “advice” up on a web page.

This is healthy. Who’s up for a “Screwtape Day” when everyone sharing similar concerns does the same thing?

I’ve always liked this one…it’s the whole crabs-in-a-bucket thing all over again.

You remember how one of the Greek Dictators sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy to a field of grain, and then snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, ‘democracy.’ But now ‘democracy’ can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones.

Wouldn’t fall for it, would you. You think?

AIG executives? Remember that? Wasn’t so long ago.

White People Caused the Credit Crunch

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Here’s some hatred that can get Lynda Carter a little bit worried…assuming she’s interested.

Brazil’s President, while meeting Gordon Brown, has said the global financial crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes”.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva made the comments after talks with the Prime Minister to try to forge a global consensus on how to save the worldwide economy.

Sky News’ Joey Jones said it was an “uncomfortable” moment for Mr Brown.

“The President does not mind using fairly flamboyant language. He likes to give extensive answers to journalists.

“But some of it was rather awkward for the Prime Minister, who was standing there listening to the President.

“A few eyebrows will have gone up at what he said.”

Downing Street says the remarks were meant for “domestic consumption”.

Yup. Keep using that word “hate” to describe whoever doesn’t drop to their knees and start licking President Obama’s shoes…and nobody else. We wouldn’t want that word to lose its descriptive power and specificity, would we?

This is a serious problem, really — the crisis within a crisis. People who regularly find an audience of millions, are looking for class-targets to blame for the economic disappointments. Presidents, representatives, newscasters, dignitaries…blaming…somebody, like it’s their job to blame things on other things. I guess, in some perverse way, it is. And the rest of us, like Wonder Woman back there, fail to see the hate when it’s right in front of us. To far too many of us, hate is nothing more than a failure to climb on a bandwagon. I like something, you don’t, so that makes you a “hater.” Meanwhile thanks to the meltdown, we have some real hate in the style of Mr. da Silva. There’s very little unique about what he said. He’s cutting edge as far as blaming an actual race of people…but how new is that. We’ve already blamed AIG executives who earned their bonuses, Republicans, “Wall Street,” Ronald Reagan, deregulation, et cetera.

They’re all just trying to throw the hounds off the trail. And public figures will throw anybody under the bus, that they have to. Any red herring will do.

I think that’s as good a definition of “hate” as any other.

“Gives”?

Friday, March 27th, 2009

I don’t think so.

(Hat tip: Gerard.)

Oh, we really do have the inmates running the asylum, don’t we. I thought you were supposed to be a constitutional perfesser or something, President Obama.

“You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.” — Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

What Have Unions Done to California?

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

IBDEditorials

Jobs are fleeing the Golden State, where unemployment has spiked well above 10%. Taxes are soaring, and a new budget shortfall of $8 billion, following the $42 billion gap that was patched up earlier this year, could hike them even more.
:
According to the latest salary survey by the American Federation of Teachers, California teachers are the highest paid in the nation.

California also has America’s highest-paid prison guards. A state agency’s study last year found that the maximum pay of California’s guards was 40% higher than that of the highest-paid guards in 10 other states and the federal government.

Meanwhile, California’s public schools have middling results at best. Its prison system is chronically overcrowded, with a hospital system so inadequate that a federal judge has ruled it in violation of constitutional rights.

Private-sector workers and business owners in California get the worst of all deals. They pay some of the highest taxes in the country and get no more than mediocre public services.

It’s not just the unions that have pulled the state into the ditch. Voters share the blame for ill-advised decisions at the ballot box, such as approving too much debt and imposing budget rules that keep tax revenues from going where they are needed most. But public-union muscle has undeniably led the way in tilting the balance of power toward a self-serving, unaccountable governing class.