Archive for the ‘Slow Poison’ Category

Memo For File LXII

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

Now that I’ve picked on him, noodle on the following as an equal and opposite righteous thrashing of the other guy. Along with all those bosses you know you’ve had…the aggravating ones that, now that you’re done with ’em, they haven’t been worthy of too much thinking since then.

I was trying to find this description of Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged, last year sometime, and anytime you go looking for anything in Atlas Shrugged it’s like finding a tiny needle in an enormous haystack. I came up empty back then — and then when I went looking for the passage about Cherryl Taggart (finally locating it on p. 827) I stumbled across the Mouch thing on p. 496.

It’s pure gold. Describes much in our lives. More than it should. You know people like this; you know you do.

Wesley Mouch came from a family that had known neither poverty nor wealth nor distinction for many generations; it had clung, however, to a tradition of its own: that of being college-bred and, therefore, of despising men who were in business. The family’s diplomas had always hung on the wall in the manner of a reproach to the world, because the diplomas had not automatically produced the material equivalents of their attested spiritual value. Among the family’s numerous relatives, there was one rich uncle. He had married his money and, in his widowed old age, he had picked Wesley as his favorite from among his many nephews and nieces, because Wesley was the least distinguished of the lot and therefore, thought Uncle Julius, the safest. Uncle Julius did not care for people who were brilliant. He did not care for the trouble of managing his money, either; so he turned the job over to Wesley. By the time Wesley graduated from college, there was no money to manage. Uncle Julius blamed it on Wesley’s cunning and cried that Wesley was an unscrupulous schemer. But there had been no scheme about it; Wesley could not have said just where the money had gone. In high school, Wesley Mouch had been one of the worst students and had passionately envied those who were the best. College taught him that he did not have to envy them at all. After graduation, he took a job in the advertising department of a company that manufactured a bogus corn-cure. The cure sold well and he rose to be the head of his department. He left it to take charge of the advertising of a hair-restorer, then of a patented brassiere, then of a new soap, then of a soft drink — and then he became advertising vice-president of an automobile concern. He tried to sell automobiles as if they were a bogus corn-cure. They did not sell. He blamed it on the insufficiency of his advertising budget. It was the president of the automobile concern who recommended him to Rearden. It was Rearden who introduced him to Washington — Rearden, who knew no standard by which to judge the activities of his Washington man. It was James taggart who gave him a start in the Burueau of Economic Planning and National Resources — in exchange for double-crossing Rearden in order to help Orren Boyle in exchange for destroying Dan Conway. From then on, people helped Wesley Mouch to advance, for the same reason as that which had prompted Uncle Julius: they were people who believed that mediocrity was safe. The men who now sat in front of his desk had been taught that the law of causality was a superstition and that one had to deal with the situation of the moment without considering its cause. By the situation of the moment, they had concluded that Wesley Mouch was a man of superlative skill and cunning, since millions aspired to power, but he was the one who had achieved it. It was not within their method of thinking to know that Wesley Mouch was the zero at the meeting point of forces unleashed in destruction against one another. [emphasis mine]

Kinda reminds me of a certain energetic and charismatic young man — a decidedly underqualified young man — running for President this year. But that’s just my opinion, of course.

Update: One of that underqualified young man’s supporters argues for nationalizing the refineries…as classic an illustration as can possibly exist, of confusing mediocrity with excellence.

Link: sevenload.com

Hat tip to St. Wendeler at Another Rovian Conspiracy. The uh, er, socializing, I mean, uh, whatever was acknowledged to be a Maxine Waters “oopsie” moment…mouth started getting ahead of her brain there. Well, it doesn’t seem to have been a misstatement at all. As St. Wendeler points out, they’re getting more brazen, more sure of themselves, and their true colors are starting to show.

They’re disciplined in dealing with the situation of the moment, and therefore presume that those among them who are capable of amassing power, must be cunning and brilliant and therefore their plans must be ingenious. It’s a simple case of mediocrity being confused with excellence. And plans that have been tried repeatedly, and failed, being thought to possess some sort of beneficiality or merit.

Be afraid; be very afraid.

Thing I Know #230. We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”

Obama Underwear Run

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

UCLA students show their support for the Obamessiah — you’ll notice, there seems to be something terribly wrong with keeping that kind of support secret — by streaking in their underwear.

There’s another first in the Barack Obama campaign, and it came from UCLA students. Hundreds of UCLA men and women donned designer underwear with Barack Obama’s picture on the front, and dashed across campus early Thursday.

The briefs were the creation of designer Andrew Christian. A silhouette of Obama was on the front, and “08” on the back. Christian said the Obama underwear run were a perfect vehicle for him to premiere his campaign-themed garments. He might consider a Hillary Clinton bra, if she makes the ticket as vice-president.

There won’t be any John McCain underwear, since Christian is a Democrat.

My gal came up with a priceless retort to this. Okay, so a President Barack Obama is in favor of unruly kids running down the street without any clothes on — duly noted.

The underwear run is an annual event at UCLA. It’s a way for students to blow off some steam, before final exams.

Why bother? This kind of gets into the previous bunch of ramblings about critical thinking, and the paradox called out there certainly applies here.

College is a place where you or your parents pay some premium tuition so you can learn how to think critically — it costs more now than it used to, and you have a lot more time to learn how to do it than your parents ever did. And yet, what passes for college-level decision making today, is looking around, seeing that your pals are streaking in their underwear, and deciding to vote the way they’re voting because it’s so coooooooool.

Tomorrow’s leaders.

Color me unimpressed. Umptyfratz-and-eleventy thousand dollars should be able to buy some better critical-thinking skills than that.

Scott McClellan Doesn’t Know

Saturday, June 21st, 2008

Over in Ed Morissey’s corner at HotAir, he points to Anchoress, who notes something interesting about Scott McClellan’s testimony regarding the +++rolls eyes+++ Plame “scandal”:

Well, I’m sure Congress feels like they accomplished something today with their interrogation of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan. After making a series of inflated allegations in his memoirs, What Happened, he told Congress that he really doesn’t know what happened — at least not in l’affaire Plame. When asked whether President George Bush knew about any effort to leak Valerie Plame’s identity to the press, he said Bush didn’t know about it — and McClellan doesn’t know anything about anybody else’s efforts, either:

U.S. President George W. Bush did not know about a White House effort to leak the identity of a CIA agent but tried to protect staffers who were involved in one of the biggest scandals of his administration, former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told Congress on Friday.

McClellan said he did not think Bush was involved in a 2003 effort to blow the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, whose husband had accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war. …

Vice President Dick Cheney’s involvement in the leak might have been greater, McClellan said.

“I do not think the president in any way had knowledge about it,” McClellan told lawmakers. “In terms of the vice president, I do not know. There is a lot of suspicion there.”

McClellan said that Bush ordered him to tell the press that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby didn’t have anything to do with the leaks, through the chief of staff at the White House. However, that might be because Bush believed that they didn’t. If Bush didn’t know about the supposed effort to leak Plame’s identity, then it stands to reason that he believed the assurances of both men that they didn’t have anything to do with it. And since neither of them had talked with Robert Novak, in whose column the leak occurred, that may well have been the case — at least as far as Bush was concerned.

Anchoress opines further at Pajamas Media. This is why I like Anchoress — the subject to be explored, is what immediately popped into my head when reading Mr. McClellan’s “testimony,” indeed pops in there just about any time I’m reacquainted with my disgust over this Plame thing: Critical thinking, and the desperate fit of thrashing around it’s doing lately on its deathbed.

“Yeah, it is that simple. He lied, and we all know it. So STFU. Now.” — Marecek

That was one of 1,643 comments left in response to Fred Hiatt’s June 9 piece in the Washington Post, entitled “Bush Lied? If Only It Were That Simple,” which covered the findings of the Select Committee on Intelligence, headed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV).

Marecek’s was the majority opinion.

In writing his piece for the editorial page of the Washington Post, Hiatt — that page’s editor — made the mistake of actually quoting passages of this report, which claimed that a host of “lies” of which President Bush has been accused since 2003 were “substantiated by intelligence.”

Vituperation and ad hominem attacks were left as commentary at the paper’s website, with calls for Hiatt’s immediate firing, for — apparently — his treason in quoting a report, written by a Democratic majority, that dared to depart from a narrative that has become conventional wisdom.

You know? The more I think about this lying idiot that edits WaPo, the more I realize how venal and corrupt the neo-cons really are. They really have no shame. No shame at all. Their corruption is complete. Frankly, the Emperor in Star Wars had more integrity than these neo-cons. Hiatt truly is a lapdog. — santafe2

I showed the article and comments to several friends of various backgrounds. One who works in media shot back: “if you don’t like the message, ignore it and kill the messenger!”

A friend who homeschools her children — and does it so well that the oldest has won a full academic scholarship to a university — was surprised that commenters would express such contempt not for the committee findings, which contradicted their worldview, but for the reporter who covered it. “It’s illogical,” she said. “Do public schools no longer teach critical thinking skills?”

Curious about that myself, I asked a friend who teaches social studies at a local and very well-regarded high school. “We’re supposed to be teaching critical thinking,” she said. “It’s in all the local and state standards, but in practice … there’s only so much time.” [bold mine]

I wish words could express my extreme lack of sympathy.

If, over the last two hundred years, we had somehow regressed from a technologically-rich culture stuffed chock-full with iced mocha vanilla lattes, iPods, a personal computer in every house running a 32-bit flat-memory-model operating system, flatbed scanners, twelve megapixel digital cameras, coffee cup warmers, Tivo, wireless hubs, tablet PCs, snips snails and puppy-dog’s tails…down to a dystopian wasteland in which everyone can do whatever they’re going to do after putting in their fifteen hours a day plowing fields for the spring potato planting, so that their ten or twelve children don’t starve to death, that is the ones that don’t succumb to smallpox or yellow fever or malaria — had we gone in that direction, then I could see it. Oh dear oh dear, there’s all that planting and harvesting to be done. We’d better just cover reading, writing and penmanship. Critical thinking they can learn to do at home (they’d have to do it anyway, huh?).

As it is, we’ve been trudging headlong in the opposite direction. We have comfort. Our grandparents did not. The widespread loss of critical thinking is something far more poignant than an event transpiring coincidentally with our accumulation of jewel-encrusted cell phones and dogs bred to be carried around in $600 purses. It is a symptom. We don’t think critically because there’s little need to. If you can’t think your way out of a paper bag — you’ll still have a warm dry place to sleep tonight, and a plateful of grub when you get up tomorrow. Necessity gone. Critical thinking, a thing of the past.

How tough do we have it, really? Our most threatening menace is a gallon of gas that costs four dollars and sixty cents. And we really don’t have much call for facing down such a menace; just bitching about it for a second or two, and we’re done with that. So we don’t confront threats. We don’t do it every day, we don’t do it once a month, we don’t even do it as the years roll by. Without the necessity of truly confronting a threat, in command of responses-to-stimuli that can actually change the outcome, the need to think critically becomes a memento from the distant past.

What you’re seeing here is the struggle to remain part of an accepted group. Hey look at me I still think Bush lied. Hey look at me I have all this dripping acrid venom for anyone who suggests otherwise. Look at me, look at me, look at me…I’m saying all the right stuff.

Please let me keep my membership card.

Meanwhile — Scott McClellan doesn’t know much of anything. There are no facts to back up this opinion that Bush, Cheney, et al, lied. There is only the big money of George Soros, spent to convince teeming millions of fellow citizens that they did. This provides reassurance that there will be a large group, ready to accept anyone who hates Bush and is willing to say so. And membership of a group — any group — has taken the place of a bushel of grain. It is the new coin of the realm, the new token of continuing survival. There has to be one, at all times, you know. It’s how we operate.

Without the necessity of getting that fall harvest in, or of killing diseases before they wipe out your whole family, or driving off a pack of wolves with a blunderbuss — or something like those — all that’s left is the challenge of staying socially accepted. And you’ll notice as these challenges continue to disappear, the challenge of staying socially accepted becomes something that has to be “confronted,” such as it is, more and more frequently. The membership is up for renewal every month, then every week, then multiple times a day they have to spew their nonsense to stay inside that glorious perimeter.

This acceleration over time rises up as an especially intriguing commentary on the human mind and how it works. I would almost call it an indictment; logically, no protective countermeasure should have to be brandished or deployed with greater frequency, as the associated threat is in a state of recession…but here we are. What we’re seeing is a short-circuiting that takes place, manifesting our collective conscious’ inability to deal with diminishing problems: With a constant voltage, current is inversely proportional to resistance, so with resistance removed the current skyrockets toward infinity, eventually melting down whatever hardware is used to carry it.

That’s what is happening to us. That is precisely what is happening to us.

How else to explain it? The social studies teacher has time to teach critical thinking, time that teachers of the post-civil-war era didn’t have. And she can’t quite get ‘er done. Not that I would blame her; the kids aren’t ready for it anymore. Their circuitry has melted down.

Collecting their news and information from Comedy Central and internet forums rich with satire and irony, everything has become a joke for our young — the “truthiness” that “feels” right, an acceptable alternative to solid facts or findings. But clever jokes and easy cynicism will not right the wrongs of the world or encourage serious governance over the cartoonish politics of the day.

I should mention I first learned of Anchoress’ fine piece via Rick, who has his own thoughts.

This is a great splitting-boundary between the stuff we call conservatism and the opposite stuff we call liberalism. It defines the boundary because it identifies an area in which we are adapting to a new set of challenges by jettisoning the abilities we needed to confront the older set of challenges. We are evolving, and in so doing, becoming less capable.

Boiled down to its essentials, modern-day liberalism asserts that all evolution is good, even if it incorporates weaknesses that did not exist previously, or expunges capabilities and talents that did. Conservatism is simply a more open-minded and curious opposite, daring to pose the question: Maybe all change is not necessarily good? Liberalism, being inherently closed-minded, has no response for this question but anger, scorn, ridicule and aspersion.

For The Anti-Death-Penalty Types XIV

Friday, June 20th, 2008

Via Rottie: SFGate and their professional “come interview me” head-shrinkers advise you not to condemn the failed Good Samaritans who just stand around gawking while deplorable acts of violence are committed. Yes, if you see someone weak and helpless being subjected to a good beating, you are not to rush in and right the wrongs without a good plan in place, and that means, you are not to do anything. Nor are you to think ill of anyone else who doesn’t bother to do anything. Those are your instructions for today. Capiche?

Oh yeah and as a pure afterthought, in the “giving you news about what happened” category…some pukeweasel curb-stomped a baby-toddler to death.

One of the witnesses, Deborah McKain of nearby Crows Landing, said she was the first to pull up to the beating scene with her boyfriend, a volunteer fire chief who is 52, as well as her 20-year-old son, her son’s wife and her son’s male friend. They called 911 at 10:13 p.m., police said.

Over the next seven minutes, McKain said, [Sergio Casian] Aguiar kicked his son at least 100 times as he calmly stated that he needed to “get the demons out” of the boy.

Seven minutes! And the gawkers gawked. But tut tut tut, remember what we said up there about judging the gawkers. That helping-the-helpless and defending-the-defenseless is best relegated to the ancient history of Matt Dillon. Nothing to see here, citizen.

Bystanders are justifiably scared and confused in such situations, the experts said Wednesday, and they lack the experience needed to respond with force. They can also be mesmerized by shock.

John Conaty, a veteran homicide detective and former patrol officer in Pittsburg, said that in interviews of witnesses to violence, “the common thing you hear is, ‘I was frozen in fear. I just couldn’t take action.’ ”
:
“I would not condemn these people,” said John Darley, a professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University who has studied how bystanders react in emergency situations. “Ordinary people aren’t going to tackle a psychotic.

“What we have here,” Darley said, “is a group of family and friends who are not pre-organized to deal with this stuff. They don’t know who should do what. … If you had five volunteer firefighters pull up, you would expect them to have planned responses and a division of labor. But that’s not what we had here.”

For the first ten seconds or so, that’s a great excuse. It’s a mediocre one after thirty. After forty-five seconds, it doesn’t wash at all.

This curb stomping went on for seven…full…minutes. Sorry, shrink. This doesn’t impress me as a logical preponderance of what happens to the human psyche during such attacks, not one bit. What it impresses me as, is a manifestation of one of the Things I Know About People That I Wasn’t Told When I Was A Child, specifically, Item #27.

27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.

Think about it. Some guy stomps a baby and two guys watch and don’t make a move to interfere, they can hide behind Dr. Darley’s limp, flaccid excuses all they want. Seven minutes. Hell, make it an hour; might as well be.

What if one of the guys makes a move to help the child and the other guy doesn’t? Think on that. Maybe the guy who interferes, fails. Maybe he gets hurt. It really doesn’t matter — the guy who continued standing there, with his mouth hanging open collecting flies, while the other guy at least made the effort to stand up for what’s right…he looks like what he is. A craven coward.

And that’s why people who don’t bother to stop bad things from happening, don’t want anyone else to do it either. Makes ’em look bad. And that’s why, for every four words that appear in this “article,” at least three of them are dedicated to the effort of eradicating from us any expectation that we should help each other out when bad people come out of the woodwork and do their bad stuff.

There’s very little “news” in it.

Anyway, let’s go on the assumption that Professor Darley is correct here. Something is happening in our society, and these days you can stomp on a little baby for seven minutes and all the bystanders will just stand around like they’re on drugs, watching you. It’s to be expected of them because this is just the way people are. And let’s even suppose, further, that this just makes good sense.

Okay then.

If that is the case, Texas is handling the death row properly is it not? We need to get started on one end of this death row thing, and choke our way through it toward the other end, lickety-split. Go through ’em like Rosie O’Donnell through a crate of M&M’s.

Because people are just that way, too. Mr. Aguiar proved that. So some humans kick their own sons to death…other humans just stand around and watch them. It’s just the way people are. So when we find out people are this violent — knowing our average innocent-bystander hasn’t got in ‘im what it takes to stop that violent guy, when he does his violent stuff — we’d better smoke the hell out of him as fast as we can, right?

I look at it as…our innocent people, like women, girls, old people and two year old babies…they are going to get their defense one way, or the other. And if SFGate and their headshrinkers-on-file are in this great big hurry to eradicate good-Samaritanism from our society, rip the testicles off it, and transform us into a bunch of little pathetic weaklings who will just stand there, mouths agape, watching big strong men stomp babies into the concrete and not lift a finger to stop them after seven minutes — then it’s up to the executioner to supply that defense.

That seems pretty cut and dried.

And if anyone wants to argue that with me, I claim the moral high road. Executing murderers is more civilized and more sophisticated than not executing them. It certainly is, especially in a gelded, overly-vaginized society in which we don’t lift a finger to protect defenseless babies from being stomped into gooey red slush piles on the concrete.

The babes should be able to count on someone. If they can’t count on all these bystanders who are so confused they can’t do the right thing — then let them count on Old Sparky. One or the other.

Sleepin Wit Da Bad Boy

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

Via Boortz: Looks like, all around the globe, we just don’t care that much for nice guys.

As President George W. Bush limps through his lame-duck year, it won’t surprise you to read that he’s hugely unpopular. Now a new poll taken in 20 countries by WorldPublicOpinion.org and released exclusively to NEWSWEEK confirms the world’s low opinion of the president—but adds a twist. No other major world leader enjoys significantly greater trust abroad. In a sense, they’re all Bushes now.

Just as striking are the leaders who do best, albeit by a slim margin: Vladimir Putin, Gordon Brown and Hu Jintao. That’s one democrat and two dictators. In other words, the bosses of what are often cast as the biggest, baddest authoritarian states—China and Russia—are among the planet’s most trusted officials. That should seriously alarm the leaders of the West, and particularly President Bush and Condoleezza Rice, his secretary of State, who have made the export of democracy a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.

Now, this is an interesting piece of human development, and I’ll bet if you could achieve immortality and thereby earn the privilege of watching hundreds and hundreds of years of progress in world politics, you’d find it to be an enduring trend: The People Have Spoken, and they are thinking like an immature high school cheerleader. Nice guys are boring, they’re after the bad boy. They like the bad boy better…they trust him more.

And, paradoxically, the current “mood” is to elect exactly what people don’t like…once that guy is actually in charge. Barack Obama. Oh yes, you look out on the campaign trail and you see Obama is as popular as cold beer in Hell. Sure. But you can’t find any evidence that people remain happy with this leadership style, once it takes effect. Especially now.

I think if you could hang around for the better part of a millenium watching these cycles first-hand, you’d find this is an enduring paradox. You’d find humanity has a tendency to say it wants one thing, when it wants the exact opposite. We’re most vociferous about accepting Mr. Rogers as our next savior, by our words, when by our deeds one can see we’re most enamored with Vito Corleone.

The issue of trust is somewhat interesting. There is, indeed, a certain sincerity to the bad boy. It’s not that you always know where you stand with him. But with the sweater-wearing Bill Clinton Jimmy Carter Barack Obama Nice Guy, of course, you never do. He tells you what he feels he needs to tell you to make you feel good, kindly shows himself out, and then when he meets with those other guys he tells ’em…y’know…like, whatever.

George Bush has managed to illustrate this paradox all by himself. I’ve watched his popularity ratings plummet, and it’s been a pretty consistent trend for him. “You’re either with us or your with the terrorists” — back then, his approval ratings were pretty damn high. By the time he publicly regretted saying it, he was doing it to try to snap out of a tailspin with those approval ratings. And, of course, being a reformed nice guy, he failed. Then he got nicer and more liberal. And his approval ratings tanked some more.

My theory? It’s a product of evolution. We’re wired to investigate, pragmatically, who makes a good friend and who makes a good enemy. If there’s a price to be paid for being your friend but a lesser price to be paid for being your enemy, we don’t need a reason to be your enemy. We like to pretend there has to be a reason because it makes us feel better about ourselves. But the unpleasant truth is that, for most people, questions of friend-and-enemy boil down to cost-benefit decisions, and are very rarely based on principles.

So around 24 time zones, we’re buried in this Big Lie. We seem to be caught in this vicious cycle of telling each other, “remove all of the costs involved with being your enemy, and I will be your friend.” President Bush just found out the hard way, over the last five years, that that’s a load of crap…which is why it’s never actually stated outright word-for-word. But that’s the pact, and it looks like a few million of us are about to be fooled exactly the same way. We should know better.

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.

Airplane of Babel

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

In January I complained that communication, in written and verbal form, seems to have diminished to a purely ornamental ritual. The evidence in front of my eyes indicates there has been a widespread resignation to the defeatist realization that, no matter how many words & syllables are used, very few ideas are going to be exchanged. You see it in quite a few places. Ordering food is the most common and frustrating example, but there are many others.

Via Boortz, we learn about a plane that nearly crashed because the pilots didn’t speak English.

The navigation problems occurred because the co-pilot had entered the wrong coordinates before takeoff, causing the navigation system — which also runs the auto-pilot — to shut down.

The pilots were then forced to use emergency controls and rely on directions from the ground.

On several occasions, the co-pilot steered the plane in a different direction than the air traffic controllers instructed, The [London Daily] Mail reported.

The airliner almost crashed into another airplane at one point, forcing the other plane to change its course.

My goodness, what are we to do about this? Oh wait, there seems to be a solution. The article continues…

Only a few Polish pilots understand English, which is the international language of aviation, The Daily Mail reported. Many countries have failed to ensure that their pilots were proficient in Engilsh by March this year, a deadline set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. [emphasis mine]

Hmmm…….

You know, I live in a country that speaks English. Except that is not the official language of this country; my country doesn’t have an official language. Some are of the opinion that would be racist. Now I don’t know if they’re in the majority, but the people who make the rules sure seem to be afraid of those folks so in my lifetime I don’t think I’m going to see English made the official language of the United States of America. Not on paper anyway…not without a whole lot of yelling. In something.

Well gosh. It looks like the international aviation world is way ahead of us. And the language they chose is — English! What a bunch of damn racists!

But it’s easy to see, this is a world in which babbling away and playing games of make-believe that the other guy understands what you said — which seems to be exactly what’s happening at the fast food counter, every time I see business transacted across one — are luxuries that can’t be afforded at ten or twenty thousand feet. And so they did what was necessary.

Down here on the ground, it seems we have things completely backwards. When it comes to thoughts you carry around in the privacy of your cranium, we “standardize”…you aren’t allowed to think certain things, even though those things make a lot of sense. Like, for example, the English language isn’t racist. Then when the standardized ideas are carried to our mouths suddenly the standardization falls away. Jabber away in valley-girl-rap-hybrid, ebonics, Leeloo’s Fifth Element language, Klingon, Pig Latin, surfer-dude, whatever you want. It’s the other guy’s problem to figure out what you’re mumbling.

This is the one place where we can really use standardization — where we try to convey and receive thoughts. If there isn’t a common platform, it’s a futile endeavor.

Our prevailing sensibility seems to be pushing us into an unhealthy habit of standardizing on everything else. Where that plane bumbled around and nearly crashed, there but for the grace of God fly the rest of us.

One Question For Our College Kids

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

If I were a perfesser — don’t worry, not gonna happen anytime soon — I would ask my class a single question with the opening of every semester. Maybe again at the close.

It would be a very dangerous question.

I’m looking at Boumediene, and I’m looking at Burge. I’m looking at one of the Things I Know About People Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child

27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.

…and I’m looking at what I had to say about Gerard’s essay a couple of weeks ago:

Twenty-first century American liberalism in a nutshell: That which builds or preserves must, at all costs, be destroyed; that which destroys must, at all costs, be preserved.

I’m looking at things that need defending, that I’m told don’t need defending, and I’m looking at other things I’m told do need defending and there’s something reprehensible and atrocious taking place if those other things aren’t defended.

I’m looking at the defense that is provided to people who are convicted of killing other people. I’m looking at the “defense,” if you can call it that, of those people who have already been killed, and who cry out for justice from beyond the grave. The defense provided to the ones who did the butchering, always seems to be more energized. There’s a steep differential there, and it seems the people in authority — those who were provided this privileged “education” a generation or two ago — are the ones who say we should keep that steep differential in place. Without coming out and saying so. Without even admitting it to themselves.

Funny. I’d have presumed when you’ve been afforded the benefits of an expensive education, the very first thing you would’ve learned is the meaning of the words coming out of your mouth.

I see how politicians pledge to fight terrorists, and I see how they pledge to fight each other. They’ve prevailed over each other many times, they’ll prevail over each other many times later on — yet they have not yet prevailed over the terrorists. But the battle to prevail one more time over each other, always seems to be worthy of the greater expense of energy and effort. Battling the terrorists, taking no prisoners, never saying surrender and never saying die…well, these same politicians seem to be caught in an endless-loop of telling me it can’t be done.

So my dangerous question for our Leaders of Tomorrow, that I’d ask, if I could…and I can’t…would be…

What things, in your mind, are worthy of a costly defense? A defense that can be provided only at the expense of something precious. Safety…treasure…limbs…lives.

Not necessarily yours.

But I want specifics. “The Constitution” is too vague. Even “Freedom of Speech” is too vague. Don’t hide behind “the environment” because that’s too vague, too. “Civil liberties?” Try again. That is a cliche that was built to be vague. I want specific items, I want stated consequences, I want well-thought-out cause & effect. Now, tell me what things are worth a real, not merely lip-service, defense.

What, in our society, is so sacred that it justifies a defense involving overwhelming, disproportionate force?

What justifies an exorbitant defense?

What justifies an unreasonable defense?

What justifies a devastating defense? A deadly defense? A defense involving entirely innocent collateral damage?

What justifies a defense that goes beyond mere lip service?

Because I’m looking around, and I see everything our “hip & with-it” leaders want defended and preserved…each thing that they think is worth the sacrifice of something else…each and every one of those things…is something that destroys. Or, it’s something that defends something else that destroys. Or — something that defends something that defends something that, in turn, destroys. The last link in the chain, it seems, is always a destructive agent — if it isn’t, they’re just not that into defending it.

Halfway through Atlas Shrugged there’s an ugly scene in which James Taggart, who’s verbally abusive to his new wife Cherryl on a constant basis, hops over the fence and beats her for the first time. The last thing she said before he struck her with his hand, was the one thing he dedicated his entire life to keeping concealed from everyone, even from himself. He went about the entire thousand pages of the novel, without ever acknowledging this purpose he had to his life. This primary, central purpose — this purpose that took a back seat to none other, even though he couldn’t admit the purpose was there.

The words she said to him, just before being sent sailing across the room by his hand to her chin, were…

Then the headlight she had felt rushing upon her, hit its goal — and she screamed in the bright explosion of the impact — she screamed in physical terror, backing away from him.

“What’s the matter with you?” he cried, shaking, not daring to see in her eyes the thing she had seen.

She moved her hands in groping gestures, half-waving it away, half-trying to grasp it; when she answered, her words did not quite name it, but they were the only words she could find:

You…you’re a killer…for the sake of killing…

It was too close to the unnamed; shaking with terror, he swung out blindly and struck her in the face. [emphasis mine]

And that’s why he had to give her a beat-down. He couldn’t admit this to himself. In fact, at the end of the book when he finally said it out loud himself, (SPOILER: Highlight To Read) his brain melted down and he became a vegetable.

Maybe we’re there. Maybe our leaders of today and tomorrow are destroyers, who do their destroying by carefully avoiding any admittance that this is what they are. The trend, so far as I can see it, holds up: They defend only that which destroys other things. Any other kind of defense is, in Gerard’s parlance, uncool.

We can be such deliberate destroyers without being James Taggarts. Let’s just admit what we are. Much better for your mental health that way.

On Boumediene

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

Well my goodness, this is being discussed all over the “blogosphere” isn’t it? I could give the hat tip to just about anyone. I choose Sister Toldjah, because I like her and I think she’s done a functionally superior job of gathering links and other material that really matter.

Reading through the decision, it seems to me like kind of a mixed bag. Captain Ed jotted down the thoughts that were rattling around my head:

By granting the unlawful combatants habeas corpus, the court has now eliminated the main reason for the military tribunal system — and for that matter, Gitmo itself. If the detainees can access American courts, they may as well be held on American soil.

My own thoughts? They’re already covered by what I have written before, namely What I Know About People Minus What I Was Told When I Was A Child, Item #27:

27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.

I’m sure some will say the matter is nominally more complicated than that.

Well, they’re just wrong.

Our New Burge Rule

Friday, June 13th, 2008

Via Gerard, and mentioned by now, I’m quite sure, by several others: Common Pleas Judge says Ohio must change injection law.

A judge in Ohio says the state’s method of putting prisoners to death is unconstitutional because two of three drugs used in the lethal injection process can cause pain.

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said Tuesday the state’s lethal injection procedure doesn’t provide the quick and painless death required by Ohio law.

Burge said Ohio must stop allowing a combination of drugs and focus instead on a single, anesthetic drug.

Occasionally, around these parts, we make fun of strutting martinets like this by introducing the possibility of an executive or legislator who desires to repeal the law of gravity. Imposing one’s dictatorial compulsions on technology seems almost as nuts as imposing it over laws of physics…so I’d be interested in this single-drug execution method.

You don’t have to indulge in extravagant delusions to infer this is really all about outlawing executions. It’s a very effective technique. Guillotine, hanging, etc…they’re already out of the question. And yet, I have not read of the lethal injection being evaluated as what it is — a humane alternative to those. Nor have I heard of anyone in a position of authority opining, as they’d surely have done by now if they upheld the public safety as a primary ideal, that with injection facing these various problems we should think about bringing back something else, like something previously banned in favor of injection. Firing squad, hanging, electric chair, gas chamber.

Nope, this isn’t about public safety or justice; it’s about promulgating phony feel-good liberalism.

A little bit of further research substantiates what I suspected right away. This decision wasn’t handed down because of any pain that was actually felt by anyone but because the idea popped into someone’s head that it might happen.

Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge says Ohio must stop using a three-drug combination for executions and focus instead on a single, anesthetic drug. He based his decision on testimony from two anesthesiologists who said the last two drugs administered create the risk that the prisoner will experience pain. [emphasis mine]

The risk is enough to bring down a ruling saying ya gotta stop. Think on the implications of that.

The public safety has been jeopardized for reasons that deal with compassion and humanity. And — something else, because if compassion and humanity defined the primary motive, it would be quite reasonable to hold out for a Pedro Medina incident and then say “well that’s just gross, we can’t have that.” After it happens. Give me something to investigate, as soon as there’s investigating to be done…on that day give me a call. Meanwhile, strap ’em down and shoot ’em up.

That is not what was done here. Judge Burge conjured up some science fiction about a cocktail that hasn’t been invented — which is one objection I have, but let that go for now — and handed down a ruling that all others must be banned, because of a hypothesis. So we have a new “Burge Rule”: If someone somewhere merely suspects you might be inflicting pain, you have to stop, and you let people live whom the law has already determined live at the expense of the public safety and trust.

This is not what you do when you hand down humane rulings. This is what you do when you show an anxiety to do same. Publicly. When you’ve got something to prove. When you want to prove it superlatively. When you’re schmoozing after someone — saying, essentially, “no, wait, that isn’t compassionate enough for you? I can do better.”

This is outside of a judge’s job description. That should be good enough to overturn it. But on top of that, my personal reasons for despising this behavior, in my opinion, make good sense and others should put some thought into adopting those reasons as their own:

I have never had terribly warm fuzzy feelings for people who are in a great big hurry to prove how nice they are. Being nice, insofar as it continues to be an asset that will be helpful to people, is something you can just be. That may not be good enough for someone, but if that’s the case, it says a lot more about them than it does about you.

What of those wretched souls who keep trying and trying and finding more and more creative ways to showcase their niceness? Perhaps, among them, Judge Burge would be the first specimen I’ve met who’s really a nice guy. But I doubt it a lot. In my experience…they’re compensating for something. They have reasons to doubt how nice they are, and are working so hard to fool people into thinking something they themselves know is not true.

And I don’t think that trend will ever be spoiled. Selling the truth is easy. If you have to keep wailing away on it, it usually isn’t truth.

Speaking for myself, I think prioritizing the safety of our women and kids over the painless treatment of those who’ve been convicted of murdering them, in my opinion, would be very, very nice.

Update 6/14//08: Oh my, look what we have here, thanks to the sharp eye of Debbie Schlussel. It’s our good Judge James Burge himself! But shown dispensing his wisdom from behind his desk, from a different camera angle. Now I see where small-tee-tim the Godless Heathen’s comments were coming from (below)…

Explains quite a bit, doesn’t it?

Brings to mind something I said at the beginning of this month:

Twenty-first century American liberalism in a nutshell: That which builds or preserves must, at all costs, be destroyed; that which destroys must, at all costs, be preserved.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XXII

Friday, June 13th, 2008

It has to do with the notion that we can get a better deal out of our industrialists by making it more expensive for them to deal with the rest of us.

Me, quoting me, on the fourteenth of March:

…there’s a prevailing viewpoint that the labor market has become soft for those seeking work; there’s a prevailing viewpoint that this is due to the “outsourcing of jobs” by “big companies”; and there’s a prevailing viewpoint that, to fix this, we need to elect someone who will raise taxes on those companies.

On Tuesday, I directed this concern toward the oil and gas companies. And I allowed myself some optimism that perhaps, just perhaps, our sanity might be recovered sometime this summer.

I mean, how much longer can this go on, where the man in the street is NOT yet saying “waitaminnit…duh…these ‘conservative’ guys, er, that’s a good point. You charge them evil awful oil guys more tax money and this somehow results in me paying a lower price at the pump, how does that work again??”

At some point, that question has to get answered. When enough people are asking about it.

I do not know if cartoonist Michael Ramirez of the Investor’s Business Daily reads my blog. I have always been inclined to presume that nobody, or hardly anybody, does. But then how else do you explain this gem which appeared on Wednesday (of which we learn by way of fellow Webloggin contributor Absurd Report)?

I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.

Former President Carter, of all the deeply disturbed individuals of whom I’ve come to be aware, stands alone as the one that most deeply disturbs me. Consider the following:

We fired him.

His personality was just fine by us. After four years of his policies, we figured out the resulting wreckage was too high a price to pay for a toothy grin and appealing personality.

Upon being fired, Carter did not say (nor did any of his few remaining fans, to the best I can recall) you’ll be sorry you dirty rotten so-and-sos. Or…I respect your right to vote for the wrong guy and look forward to the day you finally see the error of your ways.

He hasn’t said anything like that since.

When he talks about how wonderful his policies are, he doesn’t; he simply drones on about how miserable other peoples’ policies are. He says we “need” to talk to our enemies but he doesn’t discuss what the benefits are of doing this. He just rambles on about how we should be doing it.

In other words — neither he, nor those who see things from his point of view, will belly up to the bar and proffer an argument that his policies are good. That they will serve our interests. And they certainly won’t proceed from there to explaining, in step by step fashion, exactly how and why these policies would result in the things we say we want.

He talks us into our destruction and he seems to intend to. He doesn’t admit this is what he’s all about — but he doesn’t put forth even some token, ritualistic steps toward pretending anything else.

And to the best I can see, everyone in our country who likes him, was born after he got fired.

But forget about Carter. From what I’ve observed, whenever he earns the title of “dignified elder statesman” by re-defining it to mean some old buzzard who can’t shut up — his topic is foreign policy. There may be some news somewhere of his signing on to this nonsense about “bring the gas prices down by taxing the snot out of the people who make it.” I wouldn’t be surprised. My knowledge base says, his visible support for this took place mostly when he was in charge. He serves here, not as just another loudmouthed pundit, but as something far more valuable — a historical anecdote.

This is an interesting discussion my girlfriend is having with her mother fairly often lately. Throughout most of recent history, America has had a Republican President and a democrat Congress. During that time, our economic performance has been disappointing much more often than it has been pleasing. How do we evaluate what’s going on when the economy disappoints, with a Republican President and a democrat Congress?

Our democrats like to point to this bill being passed and that bill being vetoed, and war, war, war. But there’s this budget being passed every single year. Through the line-item veto, the White House has sought to have some say in that thing, and been denied. This is not part of the executive power, the Supreme Court said. This would transgress on “separation of powers.”

Okay, so the government’s budget is not what the President does. So when the government’s budget pisses in it’s own boot…we look to Congress when it’s time to point fingers, right?

Congress also decides things that relate directly to gas prices. Like the above-mentioned taxes. And, of course, the drilling. No, no, no, no, no, says Congress! You can’t drill there! There’s some crapglobbler penguin that might be endangered, and then the knobchogging mango shrimp is gonna get an upset tummy from the derrick booms, and the this or that other silly thing is “pristine.” Can’t do it. Gotta keep buying barrels from Osama bin Laden. Alrighty then. Bush the frat boy President had six years to mess up our gas prices, and all of the tightening and ratcheting he was able to pull off, was up to somewhere around $2.50 a gallon. That’s a pretty lackluster job of trying to screw us over, George Bush the fratboy President.

No, to really unleash his potential and mess things up, he needed a Jimmy Carter Congress. Hello, four-dollar-a-gallon gas! Five-dollars, we’re coming! Shouldn’t be long! And it’s easy to explain why. Drilling and not drilling…supply and demand…taxes.

The Jimmy Carter Congress, as it is explained in Ramirez’ cartoon, wants to fix things again by doing things the way they’ve been doing them to bollux them all up. We’ll show you, you greedy sunzabitches, we’ll lay down a windfall profits tax.

Now that Ramirez has put my idea into pictorial form, I’m less inclined than ever before to back down from it. At some point the gas consumer has to ask the question I said he’d be asking. I save money…when you guys make it more expensive for people to sell the product to me…how?

And it’s going to be frustrating trying to get an answer. Because nobody, least of all the people backing that plan, is alleging that a lower per-gallon gas price is what is supposed to happen.

And among we who lived through Carter’s four-year winter, it’s understood that this is an assertion upon which we should insist, before the discussion proceeds any further.

While you’re waiting — have you signed Newt’s petition yet?

Grim Start to Bike Week

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

I love this “do-this-do-that-week” stuff. It’s not just green commuting. It’s awareness months, it’s take-your-blank-to-work-day — all that stuff. Of course it’s about getting attention and not engaging any process that operates according to cause-and-effect. And that’s fine. But the people who promote these promotable events, get pretty lippy to the effect that it’s about engaging cause-and-effect. They get pugnacious and combative with anyone who dares to suggest otherwise.

But if it was cause-and-effect, and it was smart, there wouldn’t be a “week.” You’d do it all the time.

Nevertheless, a good argument can be made that there’s no harm in these things. That’s right, isn’t it? Even if my point stands about contrasting the getting of attention, against real human achievement — once we acknowledge that, it remains benign, right? I used to think so…I may have to reconsider now (H/T: Boortz).

One bicyclist was dead and another injured two days into a week promoting safe bicycle commuting in the Chicago area.

A white bicycle on the 900 block of North La Salle stood in tribute Tuesday to Clinton Miceli, the fifth bicyclist killed in a collision with a vehicle in Chicago this year.

Miceli, 22, was cycling in the bike lane on La Salle around 6:45 p.m. Monday when he slammed into an open SUV door, was thrown from his bike, then struck by a second car. The driver of the Nissan Xterra who opened the door into Miceli’s path was cited for opening a car door in traffic, police said.

A second rider collided with a CTA bus around 8:50 a.m. Tuesday at Broadway and Patterson in Lake View. That cyclist was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in serious condition, a Fire Department spokesman said. The CTA driver was cited for failure to yield and suspended without pay, authorities said.

Like a lot of folks who are convinced the global warming thing and the carbon cap-and-trade thing are scams, I have a bike, I keep it in shape, and I ride mine more than most others ride theirs. Yes, you read that right. People who believe in the globular wormening climate-change ManBearPig, don’t ride bikes. They drive big fat cars, and they drive ’em everywhere. Oops, outta milk. The convenience store is 200 feet away, I’ll climb in the Lincoln Navigator.

Anyway, I digress.

I work pretty hard to avoid mingling with cars, if I can. Cars don’t see you. If you’re forced to do a move that depends on the car seeing you, for you to get through it alive, then what you’ve got to do is engage the driver’s attention through his windshield and get an acknowledging nod. And if you’re forced to do that — remember, you only have one shot at this stuff — it’s best just to go somewhere else.

Training is good. Most of us have been walked through this kind of thing in fifth grade or thereabouts, but very few of us have had occasion to practice it since those days. Classes, with reflective tape, bike lamps, vests, helmets, reflector mirrors.

I have an even more effective suggestion though: Don’t have “weeks” for this stuff. If we can come to an agreement that such events are about getting attention and not about actually fixing anything, I would hope we’d come to a consequent agreement that this isn’t what the environment needs, and it certainly isn’t what the climate change — yes, I’ll say it because it’s true — political movement needs. C’mon, get real. Everyone who’s paying it attention, not the sneering eyeball-rolling kind I have ready for it but rather the respectful attention it craves, is already paying it as much attention as they’re gonna.

And a “week” has a starting event. During which time, traffic, both cars and bikes, have to adapt to the intermingling. That means people who don’t know what they need to know, have to learn it the hard way. Clinton Miceli paid the ultimate price to make that happen. It’s no different from computer programming, you know — the screw-ups happen where one process hands the data off to another. Where things change. Where a buffer is flushed to disk and a bunch of counters are accordingly reset. If it’s something that’s just a perpetual thing, you don’t have this. And then, maybe this poor fella would still be around today.

And while I can appreciate that Mr. Miceli has emitted his last pound of carbon and thus saved the environment from his own portion of “human caused climate change,” somehow I don’t think that’s the way this is supposed to work. The climate change movement is not supposed to be a eugenics movement.

Unless maybe it is. Hmmm…human-inducted climate change…gotta save the planet…hmmm.

Mission accomplished?

D’JEver Notice? VI

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Me quoting me, on March 21st:

The liberal has a proposal. He looks around and sees that we are living in an antagonistic relationship with each other; his proposed idea would put us into a symbiotic one. You spew carbon and are therefore killing the planet. You are keeping the money you make and are denying it to “needed social programs.” You aren’t paying enough tax on your income; your purchases; your gasoline; your tolls. You are killing the Iraqis. You are poisoning the caribou. The oil companies, in turn, are poisoning you. And if you have a gun, it’s just a matter of time before you shoot me with it.

The conservatives are putting out the message that we are already living in a symbiotic relationship. I breathe out and I spew my carbon, it’s a wonderful thing because the trees and plants need the carbon for photosynthesis. Notice that science, on this point, sides with the conservatives. The oil companies supply the gasoline I need to get to work, earn my money and live my life. Hard facts and evidence, here again, side with the conservatives. Furthermore, if the taxes are raised we’re just going to buy less stuff…and if the taxes are raised on the oil companies, they’ll just pass that on to the consumer. Once again: Economic science and historical evidence side with the conservatives.

The liberal says, enact my proposal and we’ll enter into a symbiotic relationship. Next week, the liberal will have another proposal, and offer the same pitch — he won’t admit the last proposal failed to get us into this symbiotic relationship. He won’t offer to roll back this previous failed proposal. To our discredit, nobody will call on him to do so…

The conservative says we’re already in the symbiotic relationship. You are good for me. I am good for you. We can all go on doing exactly what we’re doing. The only thing we should really change is to get those damn liberals to stop voting.

Phil Bond of Elk Grove, writing a letter to the Sacramento Bee which appeared this morning:

This fall, voters can choose whether our goals in the Mideast are better served by keeping our troops in Iraq or withdrawing them. But more important, we can choose whether we want four more years of a failed Republican economy, or whether we want Democrats to reverse its course.

Is our economy better or worse than it was seven years ago? Most would say worse. Crude oil futures, for example, are now more than four times higher than they were at the beginning of the Iraq war (2003).

The Republican economy is marked by the following mistaken beliefs:
• War is good.
• Wealth trickles down.
• The free market will take care of itself.
• Business regulation is bad.
• Consumer protection is unnecessary.
• The wealthy deserve tax relief.
• Health care is for those who can afford it.
• The working men and women of America are chumps.

With a Democrat in the White House, and with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, our economy can turn around. We can go from our current record national debt to a more manageable deficit, or maybe even a modest surplus.

The failed Republican economy must be replaced by one that works for all of us. [emphasis mine]

Must be a bitch when Howard Dean’s checks don’t clear, huh Phil? I notice you left the relevant question unasked: When did our economy do a better job of sucking, between seven and two years ago, or between two years ago and now? I mean, that just bubbles up to the top of my cranium when I hear things like “democrat in the White House…filibuster-proof democrat majority in Congress.”

Dude. Gas is up to over four a gallon, plus a good deal more in some parts. You’re making me think of…like…seven eight nine ten. A permanent ceramic plate riveted in place over the 48 states to keep anyone from drilling anywhere, a hundred and ten percent profit tax on anyone who thinks of making any money off oil, and a carbon sin tax to help regulate us little peons into the “correct” behavior.

Is that not the way it works with democrats in charge? If not, then when does this wonderful Nancy Pelosi Marc Foley Congress bring down the gas bill? Ah yes…they aren’t running enough stuff yet. That’s why they suck so much. We need to let them make more bad decisions, then everything will be all wonderful.

Ah, but those words I’ve put in bold, are the ones I think deserve special emphasis: Works for all of us. ALL of us. I’m thinking back on that symbiotic relationship, the one believed-in only by our conservatives…or our conservatives and our moderates, rather.

Our liberals don’t believe in it.

Phil Bond just got done bashing big huge chunks of this “all of us.” The “wealthy,” “those who can afford” health care, Republicans who’ve been running this “failed economy” (especially after the democrats got in to help them run it, which is when it really seems to me to have gone in the crapper, but anyway…). Big oil companies, Republicans, wealthy people — they all need to be taken down a peg in this economy that “works for all of us.” I’m having an Inigo Montoya moment with Mr. Bond on this “all of us” thing. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

Me quoting me, commenting on Rick’s blog (hours before I learned of Phil Bond’s screed in the letters section):

When liberals use the word “everyone” they never mean it. If [the] roar of a motorcycle or boat engine is music to your ears, and your interest is captured when you hear about a new barbeque sauce recipe, you probably don’t exist to them.

In spite of that clear difference — conservatives think we’re already living in a symbiotic relationship, liberals don’t — it still flummoxes and bedazzles me that the liberals I know, who are approachable and genuinely willing to debate things in good faith do see symbiosis as a noble ideal. These, I think, are the good-hearted people being bamboozled by the career politicians and public-relations hacks.

Your democrat-voting guy-in-the-street, so far as I can tell, wants everybody to live in harmony, with common interests.

But he’s everlastingly married to the idea that it simply can’t happen. He says a lot of words to the effect that he’ll always believe it’s possible no matter how discouraging things get. But his actions are the exact opposite. He continues to be shown, year after year, that we are living in a symbiotic relationship with each other — business owners and employees, men and women, blacks and whites, oil providers and oil consumers.

And he refuses to see it. He’ll pick a solution to our problems, either through multiple-choice, cheer-this-guy-boo-that-guy — or, he’ll put a solution into his own words. Through it all, there’s always a whole class of bad people, who need to be bashed.

Very often, how this helps someone is left unstated — the stated part, is what injures someone else. We’re going to regulate and tax those oil companies………yeah? And? Well, that’ll be good for everyone else. Don’t ask me why. You shouldn’t wonder. It should just be assumed.

He’ll insist this is in service of a society, or economy, or brand new zeitgeist, that will serve the interests of “all of us.” But all doesn’t mean all. It means the opposite. Logical opposite, not numeric opposite — not “none of us.” I mean, “not all.” The guarantee is that there will be a defined subclass of persons who, by design, are injured. It is an exclusive club of people who are serviced by this new economy; there are membership restrictions involved. THAT is what they mean by “all.”

Yeah, Affairs Are Good!

Monday, June 9th, 2008

Slut.

Mira Kirshenbaum, who has over 30 years’ experience as a marriage therapist, says the ‘right kind’ of affair can be a positive thing, acting to “jolt people from their inertia”.

The author of When Good People Have Affairs, published this week, argues that because society has so far failed to have a sympathetic discussion of infidelity, the positive sides of cheating have been ignored.

However, she insists that most cheating spouses should never own up, because revealing the infidelity is more damaging than keeping quiet.

“Sometimes an affair can be the best way for the person who has been unfaithful to get the information and impetus to change,” she told The Observer.

“I’m not encouraging affairs, but underlying the complicated mess is a kind of deep and delicate wisdom. It’s an insight that something isn’t working and needs to change.”

Most philanderers are good, kind people, she argues, who are seeking real happiness and love.

Uh, yeah Mira…for themselves. That seems to be a little detail you’re missing.

And after thirty years? Someone’s a little slow on the uptake…can’t help but wonder why.

This isn’t limited to sex and marriage infidelity. It’s a rule that extends to all forms of betrayal. People who counsel others to be more tolerant and understanding of it, have a consistent “blind spot” when it comes to envisioning themselves as the ones betrayed. Do as I say…not as I do.

Ms Kirshenbaum, clinical director of the Chestnut Hill Institute, a psychotherapy and research centre in Boston, Massachusetts, says her book is not aimed at ‘creeps’ who think they can cheat with impunity, but at decent people who know they have made a mistake.

“These people are suffering terribly and need to be relieved of their sense of guilt and shame because those emotions are paralysing,” she said.

“If handled right, an affair can be therapeutic, give clarity and jolt people from their inertia,” she said.

“You could think of it as a radical but necessary medical procedure. If your marriage is in cardiac arrest, an affair can be a defibrillator.”

Sick. All I can do is sputter away in disgust, so I’ll defer to KramericaWallet‘s comments in the FARK thread:

That is wrong on so many levels.

One of them is that it’s ridiculous to:

(a) Say that, after you’ve had an affair, you should not feel guilty about it and see it as positive and therapeutic, while at the same time
(b) Claiming that this is not supposed to encourage people to have affairs.

Come on, if you’re giving an easy way to justify something in retrospect, it’s a de facto way to justify it ahead of time.

Likewise:
Saying that if you have had an affair you must not tell the person you cheated on is simply indulging people’s most selfish impulses. Again, this is both before and after having an affair. If you’ve decided ahead of time that there’s nothing wrong with lying to your spouse about having had an affair and in fact it’s the morally required thing to do, you’ll be a lot less reluctant to have an affair (otherwise, you might not want to do it because you wouldn’t want to the lie to them or feel guilty about lying to them).

The author of When Good People Have Affairs, published this week
On the other hand, you can definitely make some money by selling books to make bad people feel better about themselves. Just make sure their spouses don’t accidentally find this book lying around the house.

Yeah. This.

Why Talk Radio is Racist

Monday, June 9th, 2008

Via Boortz, an interesting observation of an annual gathering of talk radio hosts. There’s some big money in talk radio, but if you think that translates to the players having a good understanding of and respect for market forces…well…your thinking would appear to be in need of a re-think.

The Lighthouse Theater on Manhattan’s upper east side was jammed packed Saturday afternoon for what Talkers magazine’s founder Michael Harrison billed as “the most important session” of the annual gathering of talk show hosts from across the nation.
:
By my estimation there was one conservative, one center-left moderate, and four liberals on the panel. The task was simple: to engage in a discussion of ideas as to how non-dominant voices could be used in the medium of talk radio today.
:
When [Jesse Lee] Peterson invoked that name of [Al] Sharpton and later Jesse Jackson he irritated the remaining two panelists Charles Ethridge a weekend co-host on New York’s KISS-FM, and Coz Carlson WWRL’s morning host also based in New York. Immediately the scene turned into five on one.

Immediately Mr. Ethridge claimed “racism” in the agencies that “buy” black owned stations, and what they are willing to spend as compared to “white” stations. Claiming that the “system” allowed stations who performed better in the ratings to only “earn” .92 for the “earnings” of 1.27 for “white” stations.

Once the panel considers what exactly is to be done about this racism, it gets even more interesting.

Getting It Good and Hard

Sunday, June 8th, 2008

George F. Will opines some more, this time about gas prices. And the villain he finds, is a rather interesting one. He’s mediocre some of the time, good much more of the time, and excellent occasionally. This one’s excellent.

“Democracy,” said H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The common people of New York want [Charles] Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
:
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR’s oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America’s offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.

Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent — that is one-thousandth of 1 percent — has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore — and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
:
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

On an only slightly related topic, birds are building nests on the side of my apartment building. They’re up to somewhere around six nests, going bollywonkers over all the humans that are “invading” these nests…simply by opening doors and walking out of them. I bring this up because there are federal and state laws saying we can’t do anything about it. What we can do is sit around with our thumbs up our butts waiting for them to build a few more nests.

That, and George Will’s comments, inspire me to utter my doleful refrain one more time: When does anyone in any position of authority, ever tell the environmental activist to stick it? Can someone name three examples? I can’t think of one.

It would appear a given environment-related situation can disintegrate into ever-descending depths of dysfunctional mess, and it still won’t happen. I’m glad our standard of living is so sky-high we can afford to be held captive by this. That just tells me a fruit is most ripe right before it starts to rot.

Thanks to the environmentalists, I think we’re just about there.

H/T to Boortz for the Will find.

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.

Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t, CAN CAN CAN, Can’t, Can’t, Can’t

Friday, June 6th, 2008

Just had a brain fart on Cassy’s blog and you know, it’s a little bit of a threadjack — kinda. The Obamessiah got all tripped up with his opining, in that cute opining way he has…about whether we’re spinning our wheels in Iraq or not.

My threadjacking comes from my habit of taking a thirty-thousand foot view of this stuff. After all…Iraq isn’t the only thing our democrats say is impossible. I’ve noticed they have a lot of scorn and condescension toward anyone who dares to dream of a day when we’ll have so many violent criminals locked up, that the crime rate drops. They don’t like to hear that. Drilling for oil, over here, and finding some so we don’t have to import so much. Slowing down the sexual hunger of your teenager, especially your teenage daughter — I’m not even talking about keeping her a virgin, just putting a little bit of a damper on things. That’s another thing that brings the bile-snot flowing.

Can’t, can’t, can’t.

There’s a flip-side to that coin. Our liberals think we can do a lot of other things; they insist on it. Negotiating with our enemies is a popular favorite. Tearing down jails. Ain’t that a kicker? To the liberal mind, crime will never, ever, ever drop if we fill up the jails…but if we empty them out, it just might go away. Curing AIDS. Ending poverty. Bringing the carbon content of our atmosphere down to………………some level? Do I even need to argue how silly that one is. The planet is dying, but we can save it by slapping a solar panel on our roof and charging our cell phones with some kind of pedal-power Gilligan-bicycle device.

The liberal mind seems to be stubbornly opposed to the idea that anything can be 30%, 40% or 60% possible. No, it’s all or none. Everything’s either absolutely worth doing, and don’t you dare even suggest it’s beyond our ability or you’re some kind of heretic — or else, anybody who so much as makes a noise or two about trying it, is a damned fool. These are the people who brag about being able to comprehend “shades of gray” in things. When they contemplate what’s possible and what isn’t, gray suddenly disappears. It’s all black-and-white.

So here’s one theory. Among others rattling around in my head…

I’m inclined to believe, against my temptations toward the opposite, that I don’t need to argue how silly it is. I think it’s known. To everyone. I think liberals have just as decent a command of the evidence, and how it brings some objectives into the realm of the possible and easy, and pushes other objectives into the perimeter of mounting difficulty — as anybody else.

I think the agenda they have, is rooted in a personality defect. I say this because the agenda manages to achieve consolidation and coherence, without conspiracy. The communication isn’t needed for the coordination, because it’s a natural syndication among the similarly-handicapped. A conspiracy amongst them, to behave this way, would be needed like you need a conspiracy among hip replacement patients to limp. It’s a natural tendency that arises when something else is missing.

The thing that is missing, is true, productive, determination…stamina…grit. These people are suffering from a phobia against declaring things possible that are actually possible — but challenging. If they can switch these things around, that which is possible & that which is not, they get some sense of security. That means things are declared possible, that are not, and things are declared not-possible, that are. This way, they never have to try.

They say something can’t be done — and it can. If they can prevail, they’ll stop anyone else from trying it, and they don’t have to admit they might have been wrong. But there are some complications; maybe they won’t prevail. If they don’t prevail, and someone goes ahead and does it…that’s a little trickier. But they can just say it was a coincidence. We saw it with the end of the Cold War. Reagan didn’t do it, the Soviet Union just starved naturally, it would’ve happened anyway. Heard that one?

See how easy it is?

Conversely, if something is as realistic as a five-legged unicorn, and they declare it CAN be done, there’s safety in that too. They get their kudos for apparently showing such an impressive resolve. Since they don’t really deserve it, they place a premium value on that. But also, they don’t get nailed on the deception. How could they be? You can’t prove a negative…we’ll just be trapped in an infinite loop. Women — come a long way, but they’re not there yet. How many decades has that been going on? Ethnic minority groups of all kinds — same thing. These are things that can’t really be measured, although you can certainly make a convincing act out of pretending to measure them. And so…the President is a democrat, we’re getting closer, the President is a Republican, we’re getting further away. Who’s to dispute that? It’s so handy.

I think, as I look at all these things democrats tell me ABSOLUTELY can’t be done and these other things that absolutely can be done — the ultimate liberal nightmare, is measurable progress. An ongoing project, transparent, visible to all, at which everyone can look and say “Yup, no doubt about it, that sucker’s 43.6 percent of the way done.” Because the pattern seems to be unbroken, to me: When an objective ends up in the “CAN” column on the liberal-democrat ledger, it’s progress is subject to interpretation, and therefore to spin. Even gun-grabbing. Now that we’ve outlawed guns in City X, how many guns are there? Zero. Whoops, this guy just walked into a building and shot thirty people with a H&K 9mm. Number of guns is still zero. Progress…with things liberals tell us can be done…cannot be measured, or is extraordinarily difficult to measure.

We can measure how much carbon is in the atmosphere, given enough resources. But that’s a special case. You’ll notice, there has been very little discussion of how far down it should be brought.

Drilling stateside…that is always in the “Can’t” column. I dare you to find an exception. There’s the caribou, there’s adorable seal pups, some turd-sucking shrimp has to procreate in the vernal pools, we’re not giving the Indians their due because of some territory boundary dispute…and don’t forget the piddly limits to what lies beneath. There’s always that — it’s a constant. Ten or twenty barrels we’ll pull out, and then it’ll be bone-dry. I know it. I are a democrat senator, and I can feel it in my bones.

Defeating Republicans and conservatives — that is always in the “Can” column.

Defeating terrorists — “Can’t.” That’s a constant too.

Getting rid of discrimination: “Can.” That one actually strikes me as fairly normal. Until I remember, discrimination is pretty much whatever a liberal wants it to be. And they’re honor bound to declare on the side of caution. Ninety-nine sane liberals say “this example doesn’t seem to be discrimination” and then one paranoid raving lunatic liberal says “I think it is” — you’ll end up with a hundred liberals that say, yup-siree, that was discrimination right there.

So when it comes to controlling the private thoughts and property of other people — it’s “Can.”

When it comes to upholding law and order — it’s “Can’t.”

Maybe I’m over-thinking this. Maybe they’re just bossy. They do seem to have a strong tendency to meet behind closed doors, figure out what they want everyone else to do, and then tell us whether it’s a “can” or a “can’t.” Maybe that’s why it’s all-or-nothing.

This year, they’re doing a lot of talking about “hope.” I think, deep down, they don’t really have any. Oh, they’ve got hope they’ll win the White House and they’ll keep the Senate. They’ve got lots of hope when they hope things will be done their way. But I think that’s all they have.

It’s a funny thing about real hope. People who don’t have any, don’t want anyone else to have any either.

Sensitivity Training

Friday, June 6th, 2008

Justice of Peace Sued Over Paddlin’s

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

Spankings work through embarrassment and humiliation.

Waitaminnit, waitaminnit, I think a lot of us who should know better, still don’t get that. So I’ll say it again. Spankings work through embarrassment and humiliation.

Oh wait, I think there are still some folks who don’t get that, so I’ll…oh…well, after awhile, there’s really nothing more you can do. Is there? I mean some folks really, really, don’t get it.

A Los Fresnos family is going to court to try to prevent a Cameron County justice of the peace from ordering spankings in his courtroom.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday alleges that Justice of the Peace Gustavo “Gus” Garza told a 14-year-old girl’s stepfather that she would be found guilty of a criminal offense and fined $500 for truancy unless the stepfather spanked her in the courtroom.

The lawsuit filed by Mary Vasquez and her husband, Daniel Zurita, described the paddle provided by Garza as large and heavy and fashioned from a thick piece of lumber.

“The word ‘club’ could be fairly used as a substitute for the word ‘paddle’ here as it appears to be something which may have been cut from a (two-by-four) piece of lumber,” attorney Mark Sossi wrote in the family’s petition. “The paddles provided by the judge are of such heft and weight that an individual striking an animal with one might be reasonably reported for cruelty to an animal.”

In a story for Thursday’s editions of The Brownsville Herald, Garza declined to comment on whether he has people spanked in his courtroom. He also said he had not seen the lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks a state district court to stop the spankings and remove Garza from office.

The family alleges in the lawsuit that Garza told Zurita to strike his stepdaughter repeatedly on the buttocks in open court.

Zurita said he didn’t feel as if he had a choice but to follow the order. When he was through, the judge told him he had not struck the girl hard enough, Zurita said in an affidavit.

Vasquez said she had seen the judge order other public spankings.

“It is unconscionable that a Texas judge would order a parent, much less a step parent, be required to strike a child with such a thing in a Texas courtroom,” the family’s attorney wrote in a footnote on the petition. “It is equally unconscionable that an argument could be made that such an order would fall within the lawful authority of any Texas judge.”

Hey here’s an idea: Don’t skip school. Then you won’t be spanked.

Aw, you see the cultural split here? I’m thinking in terms of cause and effect: IF you skip school, THEN you might get spanked. IF we spank kids who skip school, THEN maybe they’ll stop.

Other people think purely in terms of European style “I think this is deplorable and can I get an amen here?” No cause and effect at all. Oh, except with regard to the Justice of the Peace who’s trying to uphold law and order — IF we sue him THEN we can get him thrown outta office. So I guess they believe in cause and effect too.

But not with regard to bringing reform to the people who need it.

Some would say I should withhold my opinion until I have a chance to get to know the JP a little bit better. Maybe he really is off his rocker. I acknowledge that is a possibility. But going by that logic — why am I supposed to agree that this is “unconscionable” when I haven’t had a chance to meet this girl? Maybe she’s a brat. I know two things about her: 1) She’s a truant; and 2) a Justice of the Peace thought it fitting that she be given a smack-down in his courtroom, for being a truant.

Sounds like a brat to me.

Like I said recently: Where is the shame? We have something very similar to it nowadays, and we’re drowning in what’s similar to it: A fear of being sued over having offended someone else’s sense of decency. That is a similar, close-cousin synthetic blend. But it’s not identical, and it turns out to be a poor substitute — especially when we’re up to our armpits in that fear-of-getting-sued stuff, and completely bone-dry fresh-outta good old fashioned shame.

Shame, as in: Oh my dear f*cking God, I’m in court because this bratty stepchild of mine keeps cutting school, everyone thinks I don’t have what it takes to discipline her and it looks like they’re right.

If I were given dictator-for-a-day powers, and only had a limited amount of time to fix a very few things, that would rank very high on my list. We don’t put too much energy anymore into standing up for what we know is right. We’re too concerned with what we think the other fellow thinks is right. We’re over-Kerryized. We see shades of gray where right & wrong are concerned — that is a good thing when there really are shades of gray involved. But real life very rarely plies us with the gray stuff — most of these dilemmas are simple, are indeed black-and-white.

And our post-modern sense of moral relativism seems, to me, to be serving us very poorly in those far-more-common situations. This isn’t that complicated. Kid’s a brat. Needs a whack. Dish it out, hope for the best, and move on.

(Insert sound of my imaginary tobacco wad hitting the spittoon here.)

Liveblogging Mark Steyn’s Trial

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Multiple installments, by Andrew Coyne, starting here.

H/T to Hector Owen, who adds:

At Coyne’s second post, commenter Douglas quotes former Canadian PM John Diefenbaker:

I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or free to choose those
who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom
I pledge to uphold
for myself and all mankind.

Canada has slid a fair way down the slippery slope since Diefenbaker came up with that, the Canadian Pledge, in the debates leading to initial passage of Canada’s Bill of Rights.

Americans should be paying more attention to this hearing. This could happen here.

It certainly can. It begins with denial, or willful ignorance, of what exactly a “right” is. If you get to keep it only until it interferes with someone else’s “right,” and then you will be made to involuntarily forfeit it, then it isn’t a right, and never was one to begin with.

Rights are invalidated retroactively. They enter in conflict with each other all the time; and once one right is laid down out of deference to the other, then it never existed as a right in the first place, but instead only as a privilege.

You’ve got the right to speak freely or you’ve got the right to look around and not be offended. For both rights to exist in the same jurisdiction, is an impossibility. And people have the balls to scribble down one of these rights but not the other…because only one of them makes any sense.

If the unwritten one prevails over the written one, then all written rights are meaningless. And yes the same thing can happen down here. Most of the Supreme Court assemblies we have had throughout the years, would have taken the language in HRA section 7.1 and ripped it to shreds. Probably, the people who sit on that bench today, would as well. But this is not a guaranteed thing by any means.

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” — Charles Evans Hughes, 11th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1930-1941)

Teacher Sues Website

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

She wants six million. Via My Pet Jawa

A 60-year-old former teacher at Norfolk Elementary School, Loretta DiAnne Cruse, has filed a civil lawsuit against a blog in Baxter County Circuit Court, alleging defamation.

Cruse seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

The lawsuit alleges that the web site known as Teacher Smackdown published malicious false statements that damaged her reputation while profiting financially.

It seems to center around one or several allegedly false statements, made in anonymity. To allow anonymous comments is malicious.

There’s a culture war taking place here, one that is much bigger than this particular lawsuit, that is seldom discussed. It’s a war against reputations, both good and bad. Although this particular suit might fail, there will be others…and through them, we’re slowly losing our God-given right to confer with one another about the character and performance of third parties.

To “gossip,” if you will…productively. As in, when we’re called upon to bet our fortunes and our livelihoods on whether an agent is excellent, or merely adequate — and we don’t know it for sure. Gathering what information we can.

Back in the olden days, people had a slang term called “No-Account.” It was roughly synonymous with “Ne’er Do Well” and “Good For Not.” It meant —

1. The person was not accountable to the things he was obliged, and/or had pledged, to do;
2. It was difficult or impossible to get an “account” of this person’s character — to get someone to vouch for him;
3. He exists, among us, only when it suits him to so exist — he dances the tune but doesn’t pay the piper.

There is evidence around, like this, that we’re slowly descending into a world in which we are all “No Accounts.” A world in which, what was once dirty slang, is now normalcy. You think of hiring a person, you call a former employer for a reference, and all you can get is confirmation that he worked here between this date and that one. That’s what you get if the person was an excellent performer…an adequate performer…a sub-standard performer. Letters of reference are not written, they are not sought, and if they do exist then nobody bothers to collect them or pass them along.

If anyone does bother to type one up — they worry about being sued. A website exists for the purpose of finding out the dirt on special ed teachers — and it is sued.

I have to wonder about something here. I have noticed, throughout my lifetime, that a lot of these things that apply to “all” industrial occupations often do not apply to lawyers. Is this another example? What happens when these lawyers, who file lawsuits to intimidate us from sharing information about this-or-that person’s performance, get together for lunch and talk about other lawyers? Do they say to each other “As you well know, being a fellow lawyer, I cannot say anything about that lawyer other than to confirm that he worked for our firm between X and Y”? Is that what they say?

I mean, it must be so. If it’s somehow possible for the rest of the world to function, flying completely freakin’ blind on the question of who’s a good-egg and who isn’t…why, the legal community must be able to hum along just fine as well in the same condition. So I’m sure that’s what they do.

Heh.

Deniers Are Like Fritzl

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

Commenter dc wants to know why I walked through the details of all the things I’ve learned about people since I came of age, when it seems “people like to conform to each other” would do the trick. Well, I’ve already explained, that doesn’t really do the trick…if there’s a common theme, it’s that we have a tragic predilection toward conforming toward dysfunction, disability, weakness and chaos.

dc is, perhaps, just helping to prove, tongue-in-cheek, observation #9:

People who don’t write anything down, get upset and frustrated when they see someone else has.

But maybe he’s sincere. If that is the case…feast your eyes on the latest real-life substantiation of observation #15 — which is —

People who have been duped by something and have come to realize it, want everyone else to be duped in the same way.

How nasty do you think people can be, what awful, vitriolic things do you think they can say, in service of Thing I’ve Learned About People That Nobody Told Me #15.

Better trot out that many paces, and then jog a good distance further. See the acid and bile that drips when people see other people, showing healthy skepticism where they know damn well they should have:

People who fail to tackle climate change are acting like an Austrian man who locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, an Anglican bishop has said.

The Bishop of Stafford, Gordon Mursell, wrote in a parish letter that not confronting global warming meant people were “as guilty as” Josef Fritzl.

It meant future generations would be left in a futureless world, he said.

Mr Mursell added he was not accusing people of being child abusers but shocking analogies were needed.

Gee whiz, why’s that Bishop Mursell? If it’s all climate science blah blah blah consensus has spoken blah blah blah mean global temperature blah blah blah greenhouse gas blah blah blah…why not just have a reasoned debate about it? I’m still waiting to see some evidence that carbon saturation causes an increase in temperature, rather than the other way ’round. Still waiting to see evidence that industry has more of an effect on the mean global temperature than any natural phenomena, terrestrial or extra-.

In that vein, I’m still waiting for a concrete, objective, measurable definition of “mean global temperature.” Still waiting for a reasoned argument that our temperature measurement methods have been so accurate and consistent across the generations, that an increase of 1 degree in that time means anything at all.

What is this stuff you call “science” that cannot be explained without analogies loaded with shock value? This process, in which we abandon the enterprise of answering the quite reasonable questions above…and start comparing child molesters with people who simply disagree with you? Or who merely question you? People who haven’t been duped as you have. Inigo Montoya Time: I do not think that word — “science” — means what you think it means.

But anyway, dc. We’re going to keep seeing examples like this, and that’s why we walk through the disastrous human tendencies one by one by one. Saying “I toldja so” is kinda fun…I’ve never pretended to be above it. And things that are true, tend to be proven out over time.

Things that aren’t, tend to depend on “shocking analogies.”

H/T: Rick.

Return of the Real Man

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

From London Daily Mail Online:

Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn’t spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details…

Who is he?

Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can’t help but admire. For example:

1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner’s hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.

Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.

2. You can make decisions on your own. You don’t need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.

3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.

4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.

I am an old man…for this is a complete 360-degree cultural cycle, and I have now seen it twice. The first time was in 1982, with the publication of Bruce Feirstein’s book Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche.

What was going on back then — it wasn’t just the book. There was a palpable hunger for men who knew how to do things real men know how to do. Open jars. Kill spiders. A thirst left unslaked by a decade of finger-waggling and cluck-clucking over our twin national shames, Vietnam and Watergate…in which the ideal man was Jimmy Carter, whose name was seldom mentioned in the same sentence as the word “man.”

The same thing is going on now. Sex in the City has been made into a movie and we’re all being given instructions to go down and support Obama — the ultimate metrosexual — and don’t ever mention to anyone that his middle name is Hussein.

Ergonomic stoolIt seems an odd time, to me, to have a re-awakening of this chasmal culture conflict between Drowning in Ocean of Estrogen, and the re-emergence of the Totem of Strong Manhood from the waves. In ’82, we had a new Republican President, with a great big bagful of masculine policies to be implemented both domestically and in our foreign policy. And he was still popular. Now, we’re winding up the second term of a Republican President, and while some of his policies are masculine our prevailing sentiment is that we have become fatigued with him. He’s tried to recover some scraps of what was once his re-electability by watering down his platform, becoming quasi-liberal, and (does this not always seem to be the case) it’s backfired on him terribly.

Maybe it’s Congress that is the common cause. Our Congress is led by people who work against the interest of everybody else, engage in exceptionally thin masquerades and charades to pretend to be on our side — nobody seems to believe it except people who work in the press. That situation was true in 1982, as well. How does that inspire a Return of the Real Man? Widespread fatigue with bullshit? Could be. We’d like our cars to be bigger than we can afford for them to be…that was true in 1982. What’s the cause and effect there? Metaphorical? We’re hungrier for a bigger car, so we’re also hungrier for more manly-men, to emulate if we’re male and to genetically-splice if we’re female? Could be that, too.

H/T: Maggie’s Farm. And I’m very fond of this statement in particular:

Women often can be heard adopting the passive-aggressive victim posture, and bitching about how easy and good men have it in life. Fortunately, there are plenty of wise women out there who appreciate how tough it is for a boy child to become a man: it is so tough that many never manage to do it. [emphasis mine]

That’s a piece of artwork right there. Explains so much in so few words. And it’s true.

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.

Culture of Wimps

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

Phil says we’ve become a culture of wimps, and if you’ve been reading the pages around here for any length of time at all you know I agree. I don’t think there’s any way to argue against this, except by engaging in some weird rhetoric to try to change the subject (that’s all I’ve seen anyone do about this…like…ever). And Lord knows I’ve beaten that dead horse to death, so it doesn’t need much more discussion.

What does intrigue and titillate and demand debate — is why. Or to word it more precisely, how. How did we get here.

I think it started in the twentieth century, with gun control measures popping up all across the world’s stage. Why do I lay the blame at the feet of gun control? Why is gun control, in my mind, the great-granddaddy of all wimp-ness?

Well, what is gun control?

It is an attempt to rid a society of undesirable behavior, by ridding that society of the tools associated with that undesirable behavior.

As I said a few days ago,

We attempt to eradicate human-on-human assault and harm, by eradicating or neutralizing those among us best equipped to bring it on — men. It is the human race’s oldest failing…getting rid of an act, by getting rid of the tool most commonly used to implement it.

The social pressure we have brought down upon people who would otherwise behave with a little bit more machismo — and, it should be said, they are not all men — is a natural outgrowth. It is unavoidable. You de-claw a cat so that the cat can no longer scratch…the kitty can still bite you, and when it draws blood that way, you are naturally going to be asking your vet about tooth removal. It is such an inevitability, you might as well be making an appointment to take care of all of it at once.

We take away the guns.

We do this to get rid of gun violence.

When it still happens, we will reach for the kitty’s teeth. Which is manhood itself. And so the de-toothing has begun. We would never in a million years stoop to the level of telling our boys, “if you want to live in this society, and you want to be granted the renewable privilege of continuing to live…you had better demonstrate to us, on an ongoing basis, that your masculinity is reigned in, brought to heel, diluted to a concentration we find acceptable.” We’d never dream of saying such a thing. But that is the message that has been sent. And that is the message received.

It starts out as something reasonable: You can’t smack your classmate in the back of the head while the teacher is talking. It’s about disrupting the class, which means — you also can’t shove, you can’t yell, you can’t pass notes and you can’t whisper. And then…it is not about disrupting the class. You can’t play tag at recess. You can’t keep score during a soccer game. You can’t engage in any competitive sport.

From there, it is a cancer upon our culture. Male action heroes in movies can’t disarm bombs anymore; they stand around and mumble things about being supportive while the heroines make their “choices.” Accomplishing something — even stopping something really bad from happening, that would bring harm to the weak and defenseless — is far less desirable as an ideal, than showing off that harmlessness.

Because the harmlessness, now, is a license to being allowed to live in society on an ongoing basis. And it is renewable, because it expires. Frequently.

we’ll look for the most masculine among the femininity that remains. And so to avoid “friendly fire,” those who still stumble on, will start to showcase their harmlessness. They’ll become more inventive in this endeavor, as society upholds an ever-ascending standard of said harmlessness. The question will be — what have you done to show off how harmless you are this year? And answering it, will be the key to continuing survival.

I blame gun control, because gun control is based on the axiom that if you have the means to bring harm, it’s just a matter of time before you bring harm to me. Another component to this axiom is that somehow, it’s an impossibility for you to harm others who would do me harm, to bring me a vigorous defense you might think I deserve. In other words, your capacity to do harm is thought — somehow — to be damaging to me, and never beneficial to me.

There’s a kind of a Martin Niemoller aspect to this: They came for the guys who had guns and nobody spoke up. Then they came for the big guys who could hide pens and sandwiches in their beards, with big ol’ beer guts hanging over their belts and nobody spoke up…then they came for the younger guys with their foot-long eyebrows scrunched up at the ceiling, who spoke like relatively harmless-looking WB Network stars, being “supportive” of their girlfriends, and never talking in a pitch more than a few notes below Middle C…and nobody spoke up…then they came for the nerds with biceps the size of rake handles, who kept on getting beaten up anyway…and nobody spoke up.

Then after the men are all carted off, they look around and notice that now that everyone’s female, some females are more female than other females. If warfare and violent crime have not yet been eradicated — and those two will never be — we’ll have to keep on carving away at humanity, at the women, starting with the most butch, and working our way toward the other flavorings. Once masculinity and wherewithal is a crime, you can’t ever go back. Not even a step.

Now, we’re not sending people to camps or lopping off heads. We’re just defining attributes to human behavior and development…things we’d like watered down.

But isn’t that conceptually the same thing? It leaves us in the same position. People get the feeling they can’t continue to live in society unless they act more-like-this, less-like-that. And so they dutifully conform. Maybe it happens quickly, maybe it happens slowly; but the point is, it only proceeds in one direction, it never retreats, it never stands still.

We have to keep getting wimpier with each generation that comes along. It has to do with becoming “civilized”…and no matter what we’ve accomplished to date, it’s never enough.

World Without Men

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

Inspired by a vote in Parliament, British writer A.N. Wilson stretches his mind forward to a world of AD 2058.

Just occasionally, in those not so far-off days, you will hear stories of families who have insisted on hanging on to their men.

It is only in remote, primitive parts of the country, of course, such as the Welsh mountains and the Outer Hebrides, that these pathetic specimens of humanity survive. Their old grey beards and gravelly voices would frighten the children in the bright new conurbations of the Midlands and the South, where male human beings have not been seen for two generations.

As all New Brits learn in their Herstory lessons (the term History is banned, of course, because of its male connotations), it was a very old President Cherie, after the tragic demise of her husband in the Middle East, who decided on the most humane method of reducing crime: lower the amount of testosterone.

Let’s ponder why, exactly, it is that when humans start voting to eradicate themselves from the planet, they will start with the tip of the masculine wing, and work from there to attack the rest of the body of humankind.

The bit about “reducing crime” hits the nail on the head. It has to do with the portrayal of a cosmetically causative agent of harm. Men are more threatening. It therefore logically follows that we’ll chisel away at ourselves starting with the testosterone. It further logically follows that, once we’ve gotten rid of that, we’ll set our sites on others when the world’s problems continue to go un-fixed.

The inescapable result is that the survivors will have to find creative new ways to be non-threatening. The cultural standards will evolve over time to accelerate this. For now, it’s somewhat fashionable (albeit a relic from the 1990’s) for women to be somewhat “butch” — to cut their hair short, to talk in a butch voice, to engage in sports activities that subtly suggest overtones of lesbianism. Some of the extreme adherents make a point of conducting themselves hour-to-hour in a caustic, bitter, never-silent always-complaining kind of way…and then bitch away about the bleakness of their social lives because “men are intimidated by a strong woman.”

In Mr. Wilson’s future world, I predict this all changes. We attempt to eradicate human-on-human assault and harm, by eradicating or neutralizing those among us best equipped to bring it on — men. It is the human race’s oldest failing…getting rid of an act, by getting rid of the tool most commonly used to implement it. It will fail. And when it does, we’ll look for the most masculine among the femininity that remains. And so to avoid “friendly fire,” those who still stumble on, will start to showcase their harmlessness. They’ll become more inventive in this endeavor, as society upholds an ever-ascending standard of said harmlessness. The question will be — what have you done to show off how harmless you are this year? And answering it, will be the key to continuing survival.

We’re already doing it, when you think about it. Send a pre-teenage boy to school, and should he act too much like a boy someone will want to put him on drugs to make him act like less of a boy. Whether this is necessary or not, will be left up to authorities who understand the harm that is done when too many boy-children act too boy-like — but have no appreciation whatsoever of the harm that is done when boy-hood is too thoroughly alienated from the educational enclave, and from society.

We’ll know it’s starting to happen when we’ve gone too long without inventing anything. Inventing, after all, is the triumph of the individual over group-think. And…uh…lessee, what’ve we done lately? Any revolutionary ideas we can place next to the products of genius from the 1980’s, like the personal computer, the retail software shop, the microwave oven, the flatbed document scanner, the space shuttle, the word-processor the spreadsheet the database…

Today, we have Vista. The iPhone. Artificial dog breeds, so small they can crap in expensive purses. Any revolutionary ways to look at data? Hmmm…not only no, but hell no. We don’t seem to be sending much thought energy in that direction at all. Not too much.

Iconic masculine resourcefulness is making just enough of an appearance to slake the thirst of the hoi polloi…wherever we can find it, it is bidding us Adios. Indiana Jones is singing his swan song. John McLean has already sung his.

Those who mold and shape our interests for the coming years, seem to be enamored with characters that weaken the gender divide — the super-butch women, and the uber-wimpy men. Us riff-raff, we happen to like James Bond; the few who are accustomed to dictating the tastes of the many, will give us James Bond movies as long as we pay to see them. Bond isn’t here because the powers-that-be think he’s a good thing — here’s here to make money. Thank goodness for small favors, he’ll probably be around for awhile. But don’t think for a minute there won’t be pressure, each and every year, to water that franchise down.

Thinking for yourself is discouraged, like never before. All who doubt this, approach one of your gurus who tells you to “question authority” and question his authority. See how he likes it. You’ll get a paradigm shift…I can practically guarantee it.

So the pattern is complete, or on the way to being nearly complete. Female concerns, up; male characteristics, down; group-think and village-think, up; coming up with your own ideas, down.

Over in America, the front-runner for this year’s presidential election is a guy who speaks articulately but says absolutely nothing. He’s got so many friends who despise and deplore the country over which he seeks to preside — that isn’t a figure of speech or idle speculation, they really do passionately hate it and they speak about it their hatred pretty much as often as they can — that it has long ago become troublesome trying to keep track of how many America-hating friends he has. He claims he didn’t know what he was doing when they became his friends, but this only means he’s either guilty of sharing America-bashing sympathies, or abysmally poor judgment. The evidence says both concerns solidly apply! The evidence further indicates our promising presidential candidate is a case study in exactly how skilled you can be with the spoken word, before a large audience, while still being a dimwit.

But he is the front-runner, and this says something further about the state of affairs in individual intellect in the United States. And in the world. And also…about manhood in the world.

Men are ceasing to exist. Their numbers will go down soon, but for now, they are becoming less educated compared to the women. They’ve been apologizing for existing for a very long time now, and to diminish one’s own existence is always the next step.

A doctor in Boston is performing sex changes on small children.

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

The story does say “boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys” but I’m going to go way out on a limb here — his “patients” number heavily in the former and almost insignificantly in the latter. Either way, it’s another example of the gender line being erased, and the passion driving the erasure doesn’t have that much to do with the celebration of science, technology, and all it can do for us. Ripping out sex organs, installing some fishy, gelatinous substitute of other sex organs, and injecting hormones…these are all technologies that have been around awhile, and must have been predicted centuries before that.

No, this is not a celebration of ingenuity. It is the eradication of what makes us unique.

It’s the non-unique people among us, you see. The wishy-washy, the non-threatening. When you’re that way, it turns out you don’t want anyone else to be any other way.

So with all respect, Mr. Wilson, I don’t think we need to wait until 2058. We’re already headed down this road at a pretty good clip, and I’d say in 2018, if not sooner, we can begin scouring what’s left of the landscape for signs of your melancholy and dystopian vision.

Manhood has been in a steep decline, by culture rather than by nose count, for generations. Once the culture of manhood has diminished to some point of no return, the nose-count will enter a similar decline as well. At that point we’ll be on the final stretch toward your nightmare scenario, which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as reaching it.

Dear American Voter

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

Another priceless thing I found from Boortz yesterday: Dear American Voter. Because, y’know, it’s so gosh darn unfair that the next President of the United States will be elected by…Americans…and not by non-Americans.

So all you so-called “Americans” who want to cast a vote to make the rest of the world happy with us again, now you can get your marching orders.

The global warming language is a nice touch. Look on this web site, all you global warming enthusiasts. How many times have you been told, now, it’s all about money and power and not about saving the en-vi-ro-ment? Every time you’ve heard it, you’ve sneered. How do you explain this? A bunch of dirty foreigners want to decide our election for us…and this is their excuse. How could an attempted power shift possibly be more brazen and naked?

This Iranian refugee living in Syria would like to chime in. Apparently, we’re all scum and we stink and we are doo doo heads and we suck, and none of the three are worth electing anyway:

Love the bit about “funded by Zionists.” Nice going, Dear American Voter! I understand John McCain just split off, hardcore, from some whackjob who’d supported him after saying Hitler was doing God’s work or some such rot. McCain’s an American — I don’t even like the guy, but he polices his own for anti-semitist assholes, and kicks ’em out when & where he finds them.

I naturally have to wonder if “Dear American Voter” can say the same. It does not appear so.

So Eva Braun, here, is bitching up a storm about supplies that aren’t there, lack of fuel for the generators — and this goes into her litany of complaints against Americans. Is she saying Americans sucked the fuel out of the generators? Why, no…that isn’t what she’s saying at all. She’s just one more loudmouth with a case of the “gimmes.” Even on the subject of “rights” — and color me unsurprised, if it turns out she has a different notion of “rights” than I do — she can’t launch into her complaints about what reprehensible people we are, without using that verb “give.” We haven’t been “giving” people their “rights.”

Oh, maybe this is the other reason for all this complaining about America. That would make perfect sense…see, our country stands unique, in that our system of government (so far) doesn’t believe any mortal man “gives” any other human being the basic inalienable rights. The reason they are inalienable, is that all who live on the earthly plane of existence lack the authority to take ’em away. We believe this because such rights were given to us in the first place, by someone who does not walk among us. A Higher Power. That’s what makes it impossible to deprive us of our rights.

Most Americans further believe that these most basic of rights extend beyond our shores, to all the world’s citizens. And a lot of us believe the same rights are enjoyed by animals too. These are questions for religion, sort of, and so they are not addressed by our founding documents because we have separation of church and state here. But the point is — we do not believe people “give” rights to people. And that makes our system of government superior, because when people give rights to people, the people who gave the rights must be entitled to take them away again, at their option. How in the world could they not be?

I would further add — when people give people rights, and take them away again, they are blind, oblivious and ignorant of the fact that they’re taking rights away from people. They always have been…and lookee what we’re twiddling with here. Isn’t “Dear American Voter” just a perfect example of what I’m talking about? These loudmouth complainers have gotten together and built a web site, to “give” non-Americans the right to virtually decide, or help decide, the American election. In so doing, they’re acting to deny Americans the right to sovereignty…to run our nation in a manner we see fit…to keep internal matters internal.

Granted, they’ve agreed on the idea that we are not worthy of such a right and deserve to be deprived of it. And they’re so sure they’re correct about that, because they all agree with each other about it.

Isn’t that the way it always works, when people take rights away from other people?

This is America. Our government doesn’t “give” rights; it recognizes rights that were already given, by an entity whose existence is recognized on faith. You can live here without “believing” in this deity, and you can even enjoy these rights we think you have because of a Supreme Being you refuse to recognize — but if you can’t deal with this basic working of how we got our rights, you don’t belong here.

And once you move out, we’ll decide our elections ourselves, thankyewverymuch.

Maxine Waters — Inmate Running the Asylum

Friday, May 23rd, 2008

Two weeks ago I had observed about industries that seem to be illustrating for us the most treacherous, devastating and pure failures of capitalism:

These industries don’t operate on “capitalism.” At least, not to the extent that they can start screwing people over and failing to do what they’re supposed to do, and you can point at ‘em and say “Aha! See? There goes a prime example of the FAILURE of CAPITALISM!” No, these industries are hybrids between capitalism and something else. They are cooperatives in which we say, essentially…oh okay, let’s start exchanging goods and services, value for value…caveat emptor. But then let’s mix in a bunch of other bovine fecal matter with that. Let’s add in a regulating board, maybe one that sets prices at a certain level. And then let’s protect the “little guy” by guaranteeing some minimal provision, at the expense of someone else unwilling. Let’s have some people who don’t get any real work done, make rules about the people who actually do all the work.

And, as if some divine omnipotent kismet had said to itself, Hey, that Morgan Freeberg guy is spouting a whole bunch of gibberish, let’s make some stuff happen so his gibberish makes more sense —

Well, first of all, before I get to that. Neal Boortz brought in some news this morning about some neophyte in economic science, one Congressman Representative Paul Kanjorski from Pennsylvania, who happens to have a whole lot of authority in deciding what our laws are going to be — brandishing a brand new bill that would…that would…uh…

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.
• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.
• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.
• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates.

“Reasonable Profits Board.” Let me guess, the name of this bill is the Anti Dog-Eat-Dog rule?

The Divine Kismet remains dissatisfied with my delusional ravings, and has decided more events on the plane of reality are needed to make them sensible. And so we have Congresswoman Maxine Waters, which our parent site Webloggin has — well, our parent site, along with Rush Limbaugh, has embarrassed the bejeezus out of her by letting people see what she’s doing lately.

This liberal would be all about socializing, er, ah would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

That’s just great, Maxine! I can’t wait to have my gas purchases work exactly the same way as all my Social Security investments. Believe me…that quote does not do it justice. You have to watch the clip. Two clicks of your mouse — what in the hell are you waiting for?

My original observation stands: Where is the purely capitalistic free-trade industry, or nearly-pure capitalistic industry, that’s doing such a swell job of showing us what a slipshod ramshackle system capitalism is? I’m looking at a growing list here of confiscatory, predatory, inefficient “capitalist” industries that are running on about an ounce and a half of capitalism and maybe a gallon or two of that good ol’ Marxist stuff…from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs…plus a stranglehold of regulations, and a crapload of compliance officers, lawyers, paper-pushers and bureaucrats. Wherever the compliance officers and bureaucrats and regulating statues and boards are missing…it’s something we don’t discuss very often, because there’s no reason to. You have some kind of ooze that you need on a regular basis, you run out of the ooze, you rummage around in your couch cushions for some nickels and quarters, you go down to the store and you buy some more of the ooze. Plain and simple.

When you get frustrated, because you have to pay a lot more for the ooze this week than you did last week — it’s usually because of taxes, regulations, or some unanticipated shortage that never would have happened, but for some type of “price cap” or “ceiling.”

Where, anywhere, are we screwing ourselves over by electively exchanging goods and services, for like amounts of goods and services? And so, I shall come up with a name for this observation of mine: To really mess things up, you need a politician. And some big ol’ stacks of rules that have nothing to do with capitalism at all.

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 WomanIt’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…