Archive for the ‘Poisoning Western Civilization’ Category

It’s Become Uncool to Love America

Sunday, April 12th, 2009

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

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item #3 on the same list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip to Red Planet Cartoons for the image.

Apologizing For Its Own Sake

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack’s Bow: Weak

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

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

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

The new internationalist fervor has exacted yet another ugly price.

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

Greg Cotharn, addressing the incident in The End Zone:

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

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

Man Detained at Airport For Carrying Cash

Monday, April 6th, 2009

This…

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

Krauthammer Nails It

Monday, April 6th, 2009

Hat tip: Rick.

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

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

Consensual Living

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Is Good LX

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Scipio

Future Present
Posted on March 29th, 2009 by Scipio

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

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

We invented Jazz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We gave everybody the vote.

We built Disneyworld. Just for fun.

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

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

We electrified the guitar.

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

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

“Please explain.”

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

“And?”

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

“How so?”

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

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

Monday, March 30th, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

So lessee…what would happen…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Would Rather be Models

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Reported, and angstified-over, at Feministing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delaware Indoctrination

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

Treatment.

Hat tip to Neo-neocon, who adds:

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

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

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

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

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

“Gives”?

Friday, March 27th, 2009

I don’t think so.

(Hat tip: Gerard.)

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

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

The Thought That Counts

Sunday, March 22nd, 2009

Doug Ross at Director Blue:

The modern Democrat Party, controlled by George Soros, is infected with a sickness.

And they don’t — that’s right, I said it — they don’t support the troops. In fact, Democrats hate the troops.

And Barack Obama proved it with his outrageous proposal to charge veterans for their own health care while preparing to offer citizenship and free health care for illegal immigrants. And I don’t care if he retracted his demands. It’s the thought that counts.

It seems like a thought every civilized mind must prepare to reject, even before gathering the information needed to substantiate it or place it into doubt, just as a matter of social protocol.

But it is the thought that counts.

With a decent command of recent history, a capable conciousness must anticipate that questions could bubble up to the surface regarding…how to synchronize traffic lights at an intersection…how to schedule recycling or garbage pickup…should we cook something from scratch tonight, or microwave a pizza…rocky road or plain vanilla…the next move to make in a game of checkers…

…and Soros’ democrat-party would instantly leap to the pro-chaos, anti-order, pro-bad-guy, anti-justice, pro-terrorist, anti-American position.

I mean, why would you think it’d work out any other way? Seriously?

Harry Reid Says Don’t Worry About the Fairness Doctrine

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Wow, that’s a huge relief.

The Fairness Doctrine is a “ghost that doesn’t exist” and neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in seeing it restored, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

“The Fairness Doctrine – what a ghost that doesn’t exist,” said Reid. “None of us want to go back to the way it was before. It is an issue they brought up to talk about. No one wants to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine – Democrats or Republicans.”

Okay, Senator. I’ll quit worrying about it. Thanks so much for clearing that up.

Article goes on to say…

On Feb. 26 Sen. Jim DeMint (D-Calif.) proposed an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights Act that would permanently ban reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine. The amendment passed 87-11. Reid voted for the amendment.

Minutes before the amendment passed the Senate, however, Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) proposed a separate amendment that says “certain affirmative actions” are “required” of the FCC, including “actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” This amendment also passed, on a vote of 57-41.

Reid also voted for the Durbin amendment.

Mmmm, hmmmm. Well, it’s the Officer Barbrady rule — move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here.

Obama Presses for Longer School Year

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Yup, I can get behind this one. I can’t fully support his motives, but his position, and his stated reason for it, make perfect sense to me.

President Obama said Tuesday that American children should go to school longer — either stay later in the day or into the summer — if they’re going to have any chance of competing for jobs and paychecks against foreign kids.

“We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day,” Obama said, adding U.S. education to his already-crowded list of top priorities.

“That calendar may have once made sense, but today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st-century economy.

“I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas, not with Malia and Sasha,” Obama said, referring to his daughters, as the crowd laughed.

“But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.

“If they can do that in South Korea, we can do it right here in the United States of America.”

“Despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world, we have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short and other nations outpace us,” Obama said. “In eighth-grade math, we’ve fallen to ninth place. Singapore’s middle-schoolers outperform ours 3-to-1. Just a third of our 13- and 14-year-olds can read as well as they should.”

Among his proposals: extra pay for better teachers, something opposed by teachers unions.

“It is time to start rewarding good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones,” he said in a speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Teachers groups applauded Obama’s speech, largely sidestepping the thorny question of merit pay.

“Teachers want to make a difference in kids’ lives, and they appreciate a president who shares that goal and will spend his political capital to provide the resources to make it happen,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers.

Of course, once they’re spending that extra time, what’re they doing?

I can think of two things that would have been of tremendous value to me if they’d taken place in the public school system; one of which would also apply to many others, the other of which, maybe, not so much.

Reconciling a checkbook. I point that out because it’s such an easy exercise that there’s really no excuse for the school not walking the kids through this. You certainly can’t raise the time-honored question “aw c’mon, when am I ever gonna need to do that?”

And, using a binary editor to hack a file. Because whether you grow up into the exciting field of software engineering or network engineering or computer forensics…or not…computer users, I maintain, really should understand what computer files are and how they’re put together. Just like, before you loan your keys to the teenager, they really should have gone through the exercise of pulling the jack out of the trunk and changing the tire, just to show they can do it and to demonstrate a working knowledge of how the parts fit together.

When people talk about having skills to compete in the 21st century, that’s what it means to me. Admittedly, I’m bringing a strong personal bias in to that, but it’s an idea that has some merit. You learn how to work something by understanding how it’s put together, or by understanding how it behaves. If you work with a thing by understanding only how it behaves, you’re working from a script, and that is not competing. That’s “when I press this button, that light is supposed to come on, and…whoops…why won’t it come on??”

And I humbly submit that if education involves something besides enabling self-sufficiency in a little dilemma like that, then a question needs to be opened up as to what kind of education that is, and how it’s supposed to help anyone.

Morgan’s Rules of Government

Sunday, March 8th, 2009

Morgan’s First Rule of Government: Life thrives in order but matures toward chaos. Government has a role as long as order and life serve the same purpose; where their paths diverge, government must yield.

We know what governments look like when they champion order over life. This is exactly the government from which the Founding Fathers defected. Don’t take my word for it, read the Declaration of Independence. Why can’t conservatives and moderates be consistent in the life-versus-absolute-order dichotomy? The hardcore, extreme liberals who now run everything, are: Abortion, global warming, federalism, higher taxes, allowing “sovereign” tyrants to run roughshod over God’s children unfortunate enough to live under them…gun-grabbing even in the aftermath of the Heller decision…the list goes on and on. They are consistent in championing order over life. Why can’t the rest of us be consistent in opposing them?

Morgan’s Second Rule of Government: Consensus thrives in logic but develops toward nonsense. Government has a role in deriving its policies from consensus, as long as the consensus is rational; when consensus becomes silly, government must remain logical.

It’s not that I see the global warming movement as being synonymous with Hitler’s Final Solution — but they ARE driven by the same energies. Raw, passionate populism. Mob rule. “Everybody knowing” things that aren’t really true. Now, look at what global warming is: A tax on progress, designed to deliberately stop things from happening, not to collect revenue. It declares “human activity” illegal. By human activity, they mean life, but they won’t talk about it that way. It would become immediately unpopular if talked about that way. It’s too accurate.

Let’s Run a Rich White Guy

Saturday, February 28th, 2009

Dumbass…stupid…idiotic…dumbass, dumbass, dumbass…

I need to update my list.

“Republican Party Activists” choose Mitt Romney as #1 contender for 2012. Did I mention this is stupid? Stupid as in — why even bother to have an election at all?

Conservative activists on Saturday named former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney the winner of a poll for best 2012 GOP presidential candidate.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won 20 percent of the vote in straw poll for presidential favorites.

The poll marked the third consecutive year Romney came out on top.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal placed second in the annual poll, conducted at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Romney received 20 percent of the vote and Jindal got 14 percent.

Close behind were Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who each received 13 percent of the vote.

Okay, you know I want Palin. And I know “most” of you “party activists,” thinking “independently,” are going to march in lockstep and tell me she doesn’t come off well when she’s interviewed by perky Katie. And of course that means everything.

Here, let’s not have this argument. Neither mind is going to be changed. Instead, just ponder my litmus test…

Interview asks Candidate X the following: “What is your position on torturing detainees by means of waterboarding?” Candidate X can reply…

1. I think it’s wrong, wrong, wrong, although we’ve never done it.
2. It’s just terrible, and on my watch it will never happen again.
3. I don’t have a personal opinion about it but the experts tell me that’s torture, and I believe them.
4. Mister Interviewer, what the f— is your idea for getting information out of these guys?
5. When you think about it, a “civilized” society will do whatever it takes to fight these a**holes, and a “savage” society will sit around doing nothing so it can fool itself into thinking it’s “civilized.”
6. I would like you to define “torture”; we can agree, can we not, that it’s a useless word if it applies to anything you personally wouldn’t want to have done to you…right?
7. Peace is possible if we can get other nations to like us, or at least stop hating us.
8. It’s unconstitutional!
9. That question is above my pay grade.
10. I’ll have to get back to you on that, I don’t have an opinion yet.

My litmus test: Huge plus points for the candidate that answers with 4, 5 or 6 (in fact, MEGA points for the candidate that answers with 5). Enormous minus points for a candidate who answers with any of the others.

And I don’t think Romney would pick 4, 5 or 6.

As God is my witness, if there is one single thing about 21st-century American politics I simply don’t understand and simply can’t figure out, it is: Why is this such a tall fucking order? Seriously. Pardon my french, but this has long ago gotten just a little bit on the aggravating side. I want a candidate that will — for the benefit of all Americans, conservative and liberal — keep the conversation fixated on whether conservative ideas are better than liberal ideas, or vice-versa. Isn’t that what we want our elections to be about? Isn’t that what they’re supposed to be about?

McCain did quite a few things right. But he did a lot of things wrong…and my confidence is sky-high that Mitt would repeat each mistake, faithfully, like he was painting-by-numbers. And those mistakes have to do with reassuring people, people who figure out what offends them before they’ve really noodled out what’s a good idea and what isn’t a good idea, that he won’t be responsible for such offense…even if, in pursuing such an implied pact, he’d be implementing a lot of bad ideas and forsaking a lot of good ones.

Granted, I don’t think Palin is going to pursue the intricacies of cause-and-effect in foreign policy, money supply, unemployment, interrogation techniques, et al, any better than Romney or McCain. But if there’s one thing the conservative movement needs right now, it is representation by someone who will not apologize for believing in it.

Example:

Tax cuts work. You can cut the tax rate and in so doing, raise more revenue. It can be done — logic says so, history says so, and when logic and history agree we need to be paying attention. And the reason logic agrees with history, is that when it’s cheaper for people to do things, they’re more likely to do ’em.

You people who want to argue that point, no matter how many letters you have after your name, can piss off. And you people who want me to apologize for believing in it, you can piss off too.

There. Like that. Clean up the language for television and so forth…but there it is. See how easy it is?

I swear to God, it’s like ordering a chocolate milkshake in a burger joint, waiting twenty minutes for it, and then finding out they forgot the order.

What in the hell is so hard about this??

This male chauvinist pig says — let’s recognize strength, and likelihood of success, in a woman when it’s really there. And this time, it’s really there. We need fidelity to principles, and unwillingness to apologize for having them, before we need ability to ingratiate with the Manhattan blue-blood crowd. We already tried the ability to ingratiate. It doesn’t fly. So stop it already. Just. Knock. It. Off. Now.

Update 3/1/09: Okay once again we’re reminded, it all depends on whom you ask. I’m all calmed down now. Cheesy YouTube clip is linked behind the screen cap below…

On Hitting Women

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

Dr. Melissa Clouthier is concerned that our social codes are being eroded. I agree. She brings some solid evidence to the table:

Exhibit A:

If you’ve watched the news at all (I don’t, but I saw the cover of the National Enquirer and other weeklies at the grocery check-out on Sunday), you know that the pop singer Rihanna (featured on this blog in the song Life Your Life) got tuned up by her boyfriend Chris Brown. And by tuned up, I mean her face was severely beaten and she was choked and had to go to the hospital for chronic and persistent head aches (I’m guessing a concussion.)

Now, the reaction by the guys at the counter at H.E.B., one black two white, was this: Rihanna must have done something horrible like give Chris an STD or something because a dude just doesn’t hit the face of a woman because he’s angry.

Exhibit B:

A friend of a friend got tuned up by her husband (who is, by the way, a worthless slug, but that’s another story) because she cheated on him. The person who relayed the story to me defended the husband’s behavior and said that it was understandable that he would beat her like that because of how she disrespected him.

There used to be rules governing this sort of thing. Women stayed virginal and prized that virginity because it gave them great power. Men knew that in order to get nooky from a respectable woman, he’d have to make a commitment and then, once the commitment was made, he received, in return a woman who would more likely be faithful to him and who would be a good mother to his children, etc. She knew that he had self control and respect for her.

Another rule: A man simply would not hit a woman. Period. Ever. These days, though, women are portrayed in movies, on TV, in books, etc. as equal to men in physical strength which is simply not true. So you have guys beating on women and women winning, when, in real life the likelihood of that happening is slim and none. In addition, people possess less conflict-resolution skills and resort to unhelpful behaviors like yelling, screaming, name-calling, physical aggression and sometimes ending in physical violence. This used to be unacceptable. These days, three guys in a grocery store and an acquaintance can spend time arguing to me that it’s acceptable for a guy to beat the heck out of his woman when he’s “disrespected”.

This is what happens when there is no honor and there is no shame and there are no rules for engagement.

I think things are a bit more complicated than this though. I’ll just echo my own words in her comment section…

I suggest this excuse-making be diagnosed as a mental disorder, and then inspected as such. There are many factors going into it.

First off: It would be absurd to argue our society suffers from a shortage of taboos. We’re up to our armpits in taboos. Where to begin…the N word…ridiculing the dialect of any ethnic minority individual or group…emitting carbon. I don’t need to flesh out that list, the point’s made. We certainly understand, and act upon, the concept of social stigma for certain behavior.

It’s the timelessness that is missing. Everything’s gotta be re-invented. If daddy puffed away at cigars and bitched away about the evils of smoking pot, you have to switch ‘em around to show your “independence.”

Second off: As you point out, the flawed fantasy that a woman is likely to hold her own in a physical contest with a man, causes the damage to the taboo against hitting women. Which was invented, eons ago, out of concern that men can bring down far more damage.

Third: Our new library of stigmas — this psychological need to come up with a new library with each generation — is the real root cause. Who, with a voice that many can hear, has been allowed to insinuate that a typical man is more powerful than a typical woman?

Fourth, and this is what you’ve overlooked, I think: Feminism has also inspired a quest of sorts, by faithless women, to acquire a sort of license to cheat on men. I’m pretty sure these yahoos had that in mind when they made their comments, because they were brought up on…

Fifth: Another thing you would have done well to explore. Back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, there was a pop-psych movement taking place in which the solution to every problem that came along was a visit to a “psychiatrist.” The psychiatrist would then tell you to go home and do something that had to do with “confronting.” Confront a thing, confront a person. It was presented as a panacea, something that would bring “closure” which was a complete lie — the opposite was true. So everyone knew someone who was in “therapy,” and everyone in therapy was put on this endless-loop of confronting. Unhappily, that tradition has endured to such an extent that “gentlemen” who weren’t even born at the time, now have this woven into their genes. A woman who cheats is no longer some vile beast fit to be cast aside into a ditch, where she can meet the lower life forms that deserve her; she has to be confronted. Back in the olden days, sure some guys hit women who cheated on them, but society didn’t legitimize it because, while fracturing the protocol against hitting females, it was also looked upon as silly. Giving her more credit than she was worth. Like hitting garbage.

Sixth, and this goes with fifth: Sometime after this movement to psychologize every li’l problem, was another movement in which you had to “speak truth to power” anytime someone said something politically incorrect. Rolling your eyes, saying “what a dummy,” and going about your business, was no longer acceptable. You had to get in people’s faces about things — “Excuse me, I don’t think that’s an appropriate expression to use to describe persons of color.” So of course when your woman cheats on you you have to let her know what you think of it. With your fists.

Isn’t it funny? The effort was to make society more civilized. We did every single thing the “progressives” asked us to do. And here we are, at least the “big we”…punching women. Wouldn’t it be great fun, trying to explain that to a Knight from Arthur’s Round Table who’d been frozen for 1,500 years, how this makes us more civilized? Better yet, watching one of the new-agers try to explain it. Fie, fie, forsoothe ye be to blame.

Men and women being different — this is more of a keystone to the structure that is our civilization, than one might initially think. And that isn’t a knock on women, either. Yes, men are stronger, and have traditionally been regarded as such; women are closer to “God.” Glory, if you prefer. The knight cannot be a knight without a lady to defend, and defending her, he invests all of his notions of decency in her. She becomes the embodiment of all the things on this earthly plane that are worthy of defense.

When the handle of the crank is brought in to the center of rotation, the machinery cannot be operated and there is little point in attempting to do so. Our modern feminism movement, consciously or not, has been crusading toward the premise that women are no longer worthy of defense. A man hits a woman in the face, the same way as he’d hit another man just as strong as he — that is a bad thing, but not a new thing. Men have been doing that. What is especially bad, and new, is that other men do not see an urgent need to distance themselves from him, to show, for the sake of their manly honor, why they are different from him.

Nope, the new litmus test is were you willing to vote for an under-qualified Chicago machine-politician for President just because his skin is black. Answer yes to that, and all’s good. You’ve risen to the new cultural expectations of “civilization.”

As for what to tell that thawed-out 1,500-year-old knight, you’re on your own; I can’t help you there. In fact, if you figure that one out, let me know.

Update: Under this general heading of yanking the crank handle in closer to the center-of-rotation and thereby making the machinery inoperable…making men and women the same…deplore l’difference. Thought I’d toss in this entry from Locutisprime at Rick’s Place concerning the boy who became homecoming queen.

This is sick, folks. It’s an unconscionable attack upon, and humiliation of, women. It’s an assault upon civilized society, and it’s high time it was treated as such.

Most of what we’ve built, was built by men. Most of what men built, they did for women…women who were different from them. On a higher level. Worthy of impressing and defending.

It’s not an attack on the talents, capabilities and intelligence of women to point this out: If we started out as a unisex society, with non-existent or negligible differences between the sexes — the handle of the crank close to the center of the shaft — we wouldn’t have squat. We’d be living in caves. Probably wouldn’t have figured out how to cook meat over a flame by this time.

Memo For File LXXXI

Saturday, February 21st, 2009

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” — Ayn Rand

When I see how politicians behave — especially last year, during the contentious elections — I see reason to believe the distinction between conservatives and liberals, is being irreversibly eroded. But then I read the news. The pattern that emerges is that there is a clear difference between conservatism and liberalism when I decide what it is that interests me about what’s going on, and the difference melts away when the politicians start making the decisions about what I’m supposed to look at.

Nadya Suleman, the octo-mom, is about to be homeless. Her own mom hasn’t been making payments on the mortgage, since last spring. That’s probably due to a combination of factors including genetic irresponsibility, and the burden of providing for a sociopath daughter who just lies around the house thinking of more ways to get pregnant.

Nadya Suleman and the eight babies she gave birth to last month could soon be homeless, according to reports from the US.

The octuplets mum, who gave birth to the babies after receiving IVF treatments, could risk being out of a home after repayments on the house she is living in have fallen into default.

People reports Ms Suleman’s mother, Angela, who owns the family home, hasn’t paid the mortgage in 10 months.

The bank filed a default notice on February 6 after Ms Suleman’s mother failed to pay the $2358 monthly repayment due since April 2008.

Now, it seems to me in a “civilized” society there would already be talks underway about when the younger Ms. Suleman is going to be sterilized. We were plenty civilized and technologically advanced to get her octupally-pregnant, weren’t we? But no. If talks are to be underway, they will be about how to keep the Sulemans in their beloved home and tell that mean old bank not to foreclose.

The arctic sea ice, we’ve lately discovered, hasn’t been shrinking like we thought. Faulty sensor. Whoops.

A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.”

But of course that won’t stop our liberal democrats from “acting” to “save the planet.” Together we can do this, you know.

Democratic leaders in both the Senate and House want to take action this year to stem global warming, but the imploding economy and balking Senate Republicans are likely to make that difficult.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he plans to take up the contentious climate issue by the end of the summer.

“We have to take a whack at it,” Reid told The Associated Press. He said failure to act “would be neglectful.”

Right on, Harry. Take a whack at making a planet cooler. How I’d love to see a goal associated with that: Earth mean temperature down to 68.6 degrees Fahrenheit; carbon saturation 344 ppm. You know, and I know, I’ll see nothing of the kind. The objective will be stated as, simply, “to act.” What they mean by that, is act — to get in the face of businesses and hard-working people. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax the man behind the tree.

The CEO of the Senate wants to take a look at it by the end of the summer. How convenient. Not much chance of inconvenient snowdrifts messing up your publicity tours in the last two weeks before labor day, huh Harry? Mark your calendar folks, there’ll be a lot of talk about “It’s hot lately, that’s irrefutable proof of GLOBAL WARMING.” The earth is gonna die if you don’t pay higher taxes.

But while you’re coming up with ideas, Harry, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.

Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (D) will unveil his transportation plan today, which may feature what the governor himself calls a “Hummer tax.”

The measure, the Boston Globe explains, would feature “higher registration fees for gas-guzzling cars and offering discounts for those that do less harm to the environment. One industry opponent said it would be the first such fee in the nation on the state level.” Backers say “saying it would encourage people to buy smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, which are increasingly seen as key to curbing global warming.” Representative William Brownsberger, co-sponsor of a similar bill, told the Globe, “The social costs of larger vehicles include not only the additional pollution, but also higher crash risks to other vehicles.”

Guantanamo is just dandy. Obama the Holy President ordered a review to see if it’s a terrible thing that defies international law, and it isn’t. The Chosen One will be working hard, now, to come up with some more excuses to close it down.

The Pentagon has concluded that the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards for humane treatment of detainees established in the Geneva Convention accords.

In a report for President Obama on conditions at Guantanamo, the Pentagon recommended some changes — mainly providing some of the most troublesome inmates with more group recreation and opportunities for prayer — said an administration official who read the report and spoke on condition of anonymity, citing its confidential nature.

The lengthy report was done by a top Navy official, Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, in response to Obama’s Jan. 22 executive order to close the U.S. military detention facility in Cuba within a year.

Conservatives and Liberals, Individuals and SocietyI could pile on to that list all day. But if you’re smart, you already see the common theme.

The common theme is that in each of these, the rights of the individual is set against the broader needs of society as a whole.

Conservatives favor the rights of the individual over the rights of the many, when the individual has demonstrated a readiness, willingness and ability to accept the responsibilities that go with those rights.

Liberals favor the rights of the individual over the rights of the many, when the individual is a jackass. Ironically — society has an opportunity to prove how civilized it is (and this will never be completely accomplished) by accepting the liberal’s ultimatum. So a “civilized” society willingly subordinates its social contract to the whims of uncivilized people.

This is a good definition to throw in the file folder marked “how to tell conservatives and liberals apart”; you are not likely to ever have to yank it back out again, no matter what happens. When an individual has “rights” that liberals think are worthy of triumph over society’s needs, you can safely assume this is not an individual you want to be, or want to even personally know. He’s a kiddie-diddler, a whacked-out druggie, a convicted murderer facing the death penalty, a homeowner who hasn’t been paying the mortgage, or a terrorist being held at Guantanamo.

If the individual was acting civilized, they’d be leaving it to the conservatives to defend that individual’s rights. It isn’t that they’re opposed to responsible people retaining rights that actually mean something. The truth of it is far uglier: This is a struggle that they believe to be unworthy of their time.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Diploma Inflation

Friday, February 20th, 2009

Two great items about one of my favorite subjects, diploma inflation. It’s one of my favorite subjects because 1) there’s so much denial in the air about it, 2) it’s had a great effect on my professional life over the last few years (interestingly, not too much before then), and 3) it has more potential to rock your world than any other current event taking place right now…or just about. And that includes the swindle-us bill that just passed. Diploma inflation is a stink in the air that will get in your furniture, hair and clothes and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Over the short term, anyway.

It has to do with degrees, licenses, certificates; any piece of paper that acts as a symbol for having gotten some work done, and/or having learned a few things. And the problem is that not everyone agrees that is what they are for. Quite to the contrary. It is amazing how much energy and effort, at all walks of life, is cranked into the mission of keeping these pieces of paper from actually meaning anything.

Captain Capitalism talks about his experience at a degree-mill (hat tip to Kate at Small Dead Animals). Fascinating stuff.

I first started teaching at this “business” school where the “campus” was a rented out, brown, 1970’s style office building located in the inner suburbs of St. Paul/Minneapolis. The school didn’t even rent out the entire building, but let that be a lesson to you kids, highly ranked schools lease out their HQ in suburbanite strip malls.

I intuitively knew this wasn’t going to be Harvard, but it was a nice part time job and I got to teach my passion; economics – so I didn’t much care.

However troubles immediately started to occur.

The first sign of trouble came when I issued the first quiz, of which 85% of the students failed. It wasn’t an issue of the quiz being difficult or hard. It wasn’t an issue of me being a mean teacher. The quiz was of an average difficulty and any student paying attention would have passed it. However, upon grading the quizzes I realized just what a low caliber of students I was dealing with and made the egregious error of deciding not to LOWER the standards to them, but to have them RISE to my standards and thereby teach them something.

Complaints flooded into my boss about the test being too difficult, they didn’t have enough time to study, “by god I have two children and can’t study this much” etc. etc. And sure enough, at the age of 27, I was called into the office.

My boss explained to me that we are here to challenge the students, but not too much. That my test was unfair and I should consider tailoring it more to their skill level. Of course with hindsight I now see what the charlatan of a dean was telling me; “Dumb it down because we’re fleecing these kids for their money for a worthless degree and if you rock the boat we’ll lose some of them.” But he couldn’t come outright and say that, ergo why he was feeding me a line of bull.

The next quiz I dumbed down, and this time a whopping 30% of the students passed. Naturally there was the same cacophony of complaints which resulted me landing in the dean’s office once again. This process continued until I had more or less realized that not only were the students dead set against learning or trying to feign some semblance of being a scholar as well as the complete lack of back up from management to hold some level of standards to these kids. And so, choosing the path of least resistance, I decided I would not only make the quizzes and tests insanely easier, but skew the grading curve so greatly it would put affirmative action to shame.

To avoid any more criticism that I didn’t test the students on what we studied I made them make their own “study guide” for the tests. This consistent of each student writing a multiple choice question on a piece of paper, me taking all those questions and photocopying them into a guide for each student. We would review the questions and the correct answers, and then I would take the EXACT SAME PHOTOCOPIED questions, photocopy them again, insert 4-5 questions of my own and then give it back to the students as the official test.

Even then, with no more than 4-5 question of my own to give those who deserved an A and A, I would still get students to flunk the test. So idiotic and genuinely stupid, or perhaps galactically lazy, were these students, they couldn’t pass a test where they had the answers the day before.

Regardless, the majority of the students did pass, but with less than 40% of them earning A’s.

It gets much better. Go read it all, every single word.

Inspired by a story from the New York Times about some “real” colleges and the problems encountered there with diploma- and grade-inflation, James Taranto in Opinion Journal’s Best of the Web contributes some worthy comments that make you go hmmm…I can’t see a way to whittle them down so I’ll just read them in, in full.

The New York Times has an amusing piece about the frustrations of college professors:

Prof. Marshall Grossman has come to expect complaints whenever he returns graded papers in his English classes at the University of Maryland.

“Many students come in with the conviction that they’ve worked hard and deserve a higher mark,” Professor Grossman said. “Some assert that they have never gotten a grade as low as this before.”

He attributes those complaints to his students’ sense of entitlement.

Another prof, Ellen Greenberger of the University of California at Irvine, has published a study called “Self-Entitled College Students”:

Nearly two-thirds of the students surveyed said that if they explained to a professor that they were trying hard, that should be taken into account in their grade.

Jason Greenwood, a senior kinesiology major at the University of Maryland echoed that view.

“I think putting in a lot of effort should merit a high grade,” Mr. Greenwood said. “What else is there really than the effort that you put in?”

“If you put in all the effort you have and get a C, what is the point?” he added. “If someone goes to every class and reads every chapter in the book and does everything the teacher asks of them and more, then they should be getting an A like their effort deserves. If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.”

Anyone who works for a living is immediately struck by the contrast between this attitude and the real world. When you hire someone to do a job, you look for results, not “effort.” Someone who works effectively and effortlessly is much more valued than someone who tries really hard and produces mediocre results. Why should schoolwork be any different?

The answer is that, except at the highest levels of higher education, school “work” is the opposite of real work. Students do not work for professors; professors work for students–or, to be precise, students (in combination with their parents and the government) contract with institutions of higher education, which in turn employ professors to deliver services to students.

If students have a sense of entitlement, it is a sense best captured in that old saying: The customer is always right. They’re spending tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree so they can go out and find a job, and they’re working hard on their assignments to boot–you’re darn right they feel entitled to good grades!

Professors, quite understandably, see it differently. To the best of them, their calling is to impart knowledge and intellectual refinement. The degree is merely a symbol. The real “product” that colleges produce is educated young people.

What we have, then, is a mismatch between what customers are buying and what institutions are selling. Colleges and universities have had great economic success marketing themselves as sellers of job-hunting licenses. If they embraced instead an old-fashioned vision of learning as an end in itself, the quality of their product doubtless would improve immensely–but their market would shrink correspondingly.

Professors may be unhappy to be working for institutions that, to a large extent, have degenerated into mere diploma mills. Many of them, however, owe their jobs to that degeneration. [emphasis mine]

I think Taranto nailed it with the “mismatch” comment. A man’s ego is the most convincing prospectus; nothing will get us to believe in a new currency, quite like a past event in which some of our personal treasure has been converted into it. These hard-working mediocre students are simply displaying a well-known human emotion — they paid the money for this job-hunting “license,” and dammit, they want it. Naturally, once they get it, there should be no further challenges down the road. Very much like buying a ticket to a sporting event, and, being able to present it, sitting in exactly one seat, to which you can now lay claim.

Part of the modern-day “your job is your personal property” mindset.

How did it come to impact me, then? It seems these knuckleheads with diplomas that they worked really, really hard at getting, while simultaneously working really, really hard to keep them from actually meaning anything, fancy themselves as enjoying an exclusive, personal license to dilute currencies by printing up counterfeit things. It comes down to this: They can’t do things. But they paid their money, argued with troublesome professors who tried to make ’em learn things and do things, wrote to their deans, threatened their lawsuits, and they got their piece of paper. They aren’t competent but they have the paper.

They come to find out someone is applying for a job, and that someone can do the job but doesn’t have the piece of paper, and this bizarre hypersensitivity erupts like Mount Pinatubo. Moderation would be: Fine and good, let’s staff this data center with a mixture of people who make their living by knowing how to get things done, and other people who make their living by waving pieces of paper around. That would be moderate. But there’s no room for moderation. Emotions are impacted by this. The folks who don’t know how to do what they’re doing, who got their pieces of paper by harassing people like Captain Capitalism, dumbing down the currency that is the certification or diploma — are suddenly just now concerned about inflation. They’re concerned that this guy has a counterfeit stadium ticket. It comes down to that.

In short: Getting a job by knowing how to do it? There’s no room for that here. I got my job by having a ticket to it and not knowing how to do the job; you might make me look bad.

True, true, some folks have the piece of paper and also know how to do the job. They’re in the minority. If they weren’t, this wouldn’t be such an emotional issue. They’d simply say “well, let’s see what you can do,” as job candidates have been told for over a hundred years, perhaps for centuries. And that’d be the end of it.

But the “I got a ticket to my seat” mindset prevails. And as a direct result of that…in a society in which you have to have a four-year degree to have any job, nevermind the information-technology and engineering ones…it’s getting so hard to accomplish just basic intellectual work, such as communicating verbally with someone when you place a food order…this robust, information-based super-technological society is just about to grind to a halt. We can’t get food now. We have such little respect for information making things work, that we can’t eat. No, I’m not going to sit here and type in some words to the effect that we’re starving to death. I will not say that. We’re fat as hell. But a techno-industrial society is losing its ability to accomplish basic things, and does that not become undeniable when we run into strange, arcane, unnecessary and sometimes insurmountable difficulties acquiring the staples of life?

This “Got My Ticket, Want My Seat” mindset does not yet enjoy complete unanimity in the academic circle, or in the professional one. But it does enjoy dominance in both. And that should be of concern to us, if the United States is moving away from a manufacturing economy and into a service-oriented one — which it seems to have done, a generation or two ago. Is that still up for discussion?

No? Then, if we are in a service-oriented economy, and with the passage of time we’re only becoming more and more enmeshed in a service-oriented economy…my suggestion would be that we concentrate a bit more effort into performing some services. This “ticket-seat” thought model isn’t going to do much to enhance that, and seems to have already done a dandy job of having gotten in the way. If we continue to let it, we might not be so fond of the future we’ve made for ourselves, down the road when it’s too late to reverse course.

Now, do what I say, dammit, I worked hard on typing that stuff.

“This Is America People! There Is No Such Thing As Hate Speech!”

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009

Some truly righteous, rightful and right outrage from Locutisprime, at Brutally Honest. You might have forgotten what it looks like…

I for one am about sick and damn tired of it. I am sick and tired of these academic plebes waltzing around and getting their fawned and swooning media coverage, for parroting the liberal Marxist outrage of feigned indignation, over perceived slights and the supposed criminality of so called hate speech.

This is America people! There is no such thing as hate speech! The founding fathers saw fit to address that with the very first amendment to our constitution. Therefore, I have to assume that they felt that it was pretty damn important. Otherwise it would have either been farther down in the list of their bill of rights, or absent from it all together. But it wasn’t. It is right there at the top. Number one!

What’s he on about? Could be anything…but today, it’s this.

A student is suing Los Angeles City College over an incident in which a professor refused to let him finish a speech against gay marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. (LA Times)

Student Jonathan Lopez told the Times that the professor, John Matteson, called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to college authorities.

Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., and co-founded by evangelical leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Alliance staff counsel David J. Hacker told The Times Lopez was a victim of religious discrimination.

“He was expressing his faith during an open-ended assignment, but when the professor disagreed with some minor things he mentioned, the professor shut him down,” Hacker said. “Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students.”

Yup. An institution truly dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas, would understand that. Freedom…whims and tastes of the majority. Pick one, because you can’t serve two masters.

Is this really a surprise to the ivy-league set?

Thing I Know #183. When an education has given you the ability to dismiss ideas more quickly, it’s not really an education.

Long-Distance Drive-Through Ordering

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

Call me a luddite if you want, but I don’t like it.

In 2006 we reported that McDonald’s was testing a system in which drive-thru orders were being taken by employees at a remote location, usually in another state altogether. Nearly 2 years later, the system has proven successful in some areas and is being used in over half of the McDonald’s in Hawaii, according to KITV. Apparently, the system enhances the speed and accuracy of orders and most customers don’t even realize the difference.

The article says,

McDonald’s began trying the idea four years ago in Illinois and Missouri. Out-sourcing drive-through order workers began in Hawaii two years ago. Recently it has expanded.

KITV went to one drive-through Wednesday and found the company is still working out the kinks. At the Keeaumoku Street McDonald’s, the people taking drive-through orders were in another time zone. “I am currently talking to you from El Paso, Texas, sir,” the drive-through operator said.

KITV asked the Texas call-takers if they are having a difficult time understanding people from Hawaii. “We’ve been out here for about seven months, so it kind of takes me a while just to understand,” the worker said.

The long-distance call-takers send back the orders to the restaurant via the Internet. There the restaurant employees take the cash and hand over the food.

We suppose that fast food is meant to be fast, so if the system works then why not? Who hasn’t been to a drive-thru that could have benefited from a little more speed and accuracy?

This is not new by any means. The article above is from a year ago, and some of the others on the same topic are from 2006.

It arouses my suspicions mightily to see these little hiccups pertaining to dialect, explored as an afterthought. Just something I can’t prove: The fast food customer with a camera and microphone shoved in his face, doesn’t care a whit about understanding the cashier or having the cashier understand him.

But if you could somehow acquire his opinion in the privacy of a voting booth, things would be turned around right-quick.

I do not, do not, do not like to have an endless-loop conversation about whether my side order is fried rice or chow mein because there’s only phony communication goin’ on. I do not like pretending to communicate with people. I don’t like going through the motions when both sides are just muttering syllables and have lost any hope of exchanging a real idea. I do not like it, Sam I Am.

I am Ashton…

Not a racist thing, either. Race is not the issue. I simply do not tolerate arguing with people to give them my money, or playing lucky-lotto when I place orders for food.

The lack of specificity about things that are supposed to be specific — in all walks of life, not just fast food — really wears on a fella after awhile. I drive up to a fast-food restaurant and I’m talking to some guy in Tallahassee? How does that make the order accurate? What’s that do to the age-old problem of “where are the napkins” and “where’s the sweet-n-sour sauce”?

But what the hell do I know. If I was born 75 years earlier I’d be that grouchy old man who insists he can’t see the difference with color TV.

Yes They Can!

Monday, February 9th, 2009

Look what blogger friend Rick found.

In the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands But the good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running.

This movement, or if you like, this loose coalition in which labor plays a larger and larger leadership role, can exercise an enormous influence on the political process. Never before has a coalition with such breadth walked on the political stage of our country. It is far larger than the coalition that entered the election process a year ago; it is larger still than the coalition that came out of the Democratic Party convention in August.

The task of labor and its allies is to provide energy and leadership to this wide-ranging coalition. Yes, we can bring issues and positions into the political process that go beyond the initiatives of the Obama administration. But we should do this within the framework of the main task of supporting Obama’s program of action.

We can disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Our tone should be respectful. We now have not simply a friend, but a people’s advocate in the White House.

When the administration and Congress take positive initiatives, they should be wholeheartedly supported and welcomed. Nor should anyone think that everything will be done in 100 days. After all, main elements of the New Deal were codified into law in 1935, 1936 and 1937.

Of course, change won’t be easy. The pressures to weaken, even mothball, progressive, anti-corporate measures will come from many quarters.

That said, the opportunities for working class and people’s gains are extraordinary. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Starring us in the face are some immediate challenges.

First, we have to support the passage of the President’s stimulus bill in the Senate.

Second, we have to bloc any Republican efforts to derail the nomination of Hilda Solis, the nominee for the Secretary of Labor. This is the first round in the battle to pass the EFCA. Some may think this is a struggle of only the labor movement. But nothing could be further from the truth. A bigger labor movement in this country would strengthen the struggle on every front. No one expressed this point better than Martin Luther King toward the end of his life.

Third, we have to join others in resisting evictions and foreclosures – not to mention cutbacks and layoffs at the state and city level.

Fourth, the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to be brought to a close. As former President Lyndon Johnson realized too late, wars of occupation (in this case Vietnam) can quickly ruin a presidency that has great promise.

Well, you probably have other and probably better ideas.

In any case, we have our work cut out for us. But I think we can confidently say that change is coming. And we will build a more perfect union.

Yes We Can!

Sam Webb, Chairman, Communist Party, USA

What are the ramifications of this? Why should we ignore it and “move on”? I can think of exactly two reasons. No more, and no less.

First of all, it is not a reliable mode of critical thinking to reject something just because a perceived enemy adores it. The Wedding Rule applies: If you announce “I’m not coming if X is coming” the hostess’ proper response is “That’s a shame, we will miss you.” Maybe, just maybe, Barack Obama can be a friendly and constructive President even though communists like him. Busted clocks being right twice a day, and all that.

Second of all, you really aren’t supposed to say anything bad about communists nowadays. We now have a plurality of generations brought up on the idea that there is something antiquated about inferring that people are evil just because they’re communists — some decent folks are born in communist countries, after all — therefore, there is something antiquated about reading nefarious things into the communist way of life. This plurality of generations has witnessed the sustained and intense slandering of Sen. Joseph McCarthy…who cares that he was right about some things? Why let facts get in the way? So nobody wants to be thought of as another Joe McCarthy. And when you talk about communists infiltrating the United States, masking their movement behind a friendly countenance, why, you sound like you should be muttering away in some creaky old rocking chair, wearing a plaid shirt crusty with your dried out drool. It’s better to leave these things unsaid.

Obama as Mao?And I can’t help noticing something.

The first reason is a wisened counsel against following the guilt-by-association thinking-framework.

The second reason is an example of it.

They cancel each other out. Completely.

Meanwhile, the communists have so infiltrated. We should know this. We’ve been fighting — or looking the other way while others fought — for their “right” to do so.

I also can’t help noticing something else: If you search the history books for elections somewhat resembling the cult-of-personality debacle that preceded President Obama’s elevation, you’ll come up mostly empty…until you start inspecting such “elections” in communist nations. And then they all look like that. A “free” press, held captive. Visual propaganda with the Dear Leader’s visage staring off to the left or right, somewhat upward…usually with accentuating spiritual-ific wavy things in the background, not quite defining clearly whether the icon is supposed to be depicting a temporal leader, or a spiritual one. At the center of it all, a guy really, really good at giving speeches, who can do nothing wrong — and nobody’s a hundred percent sure what His plans are.

The cult-of-the-personality is a well-established communist trait. Like Rick says, if Sam Webb’s ringing endorsement is really news to you, you must’ve had your head stuck somewhere for quite awhile. Maybe it’s time to start listening to the old man in the plaid shirt. But it might be too late.

Stimulus Through Euthanasia

Friday, February 6th, 2009

Gerard has come up with an idea. I wonder if it’s parody, or if he’s just taken a couple steps in front of the parade to figure out where it’s going? He does seem to have the direction nailed down accurately.

And “hope” & “change” could be described as having something to do with it…

The summary execution of every man and woman in America over the age of 65 brings two immediate benefits to the United States.

First, it eliminates any call these 37 million Americans might have on Social Security and Medicare. The savings and positive cash flow that will accrue from this government program are obvious.

As we all know, the Social Security Administration (SSa) essentially bet, many years ago, that a lot of people who paid into this Mother of All Ponzi Schemes would simply not live to collect their benefits in any significant degree. It was a “You pay but don’t play” sort of deal. As long as the dead suckers outnumbered the living suckers, all was copacetic.
:
And since the dead can’t use the services of Medicare beyond a cut-rate body bag and the rental of a gurney journey to the mass grave next to the spent fuel rod storage site in Nevada, trillions will be saved here as well. In addition, hundreds of thousands of hospital beds will be made available to the morbidly obese Baby Boomers when they just have to lie down and take a break from scooting about in their electric “mobility chairs” after an exhausting day of downloading porn at work.

But wait. There’s more.

Not only would this herd cull, this mass kill-off, save many trillions of dollars in SS and Medicare payments, it would also deliver that single thing that most Americans have been praying for in the last few months — their own personal bailout, otherwise known as “an inheritance.”

From house trailers to mansions, from piggy banks to Swiss bank accounts, the elderly among us have been, let’s face it, holding out. What good is money to a person too weak to withstand a weekend in Vegas? What good is money when the main purchase at the market is dog food rather than shade-grown, free-trade cruelty-free foie gras? No good at all.

A Disqualifying Amount?

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

Phil spotted something that made him want to grab a bag of popcorn.

Three time zones away, we’re tossing one in the microwave too. This is great stuff.

Are they selling popcorn? This is almost cheerin’ me up.

At yesterday’s White House briefing, ABC News’s Jake Tapper asked whether Obama worried that the nearly $200,000 in back taxes and penalties owed between Geithner and Daschle will “undercut the president’s cry for an era of responsibility.”

“Both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” press secretary Robert Gibbs replied.

“Is there an amount of money in unpaid back taxes for any nominee to the President’s Cabinet that would be considered disqualifying?” needled Fox News’s Major Garrett.

“I’m not going to get into hypotheticals,” Gibbs answered.

No link there, but you can check out the crunchiest details here. Most every kernel popped, too.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if you could dig ’em up, light ’em up or thaw ’em out. If you believe everything you read in the public school system, they’d say “Yupsiree, I knew when we wrote those documents they wuz perfect in every way, godlike things.” I’ve never completely subscribed to that theory. Perfect stuff is built by perfectionists, and perfectionists are never happy.

My opinion is, they’d unanimously agree the experiment has failed.

What was the central focus? To create a nation of laws, not of men. To create a society in which all are beholden to the same law, no man above it.

It’s become a freakin’ joke.

And I don’t think the Founding Fathers would blame our politicians, either. They’d blame us.

The Decade of Anarchy for Its Own Sake

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

And nobody can tell it better than Daphne. Boy, she really rights good for a chick*.

One day you’re sitting at the kitchen table eating your pancakes, watching your apron clad mother pour your dad a cup of coffee with one hand while spooning oatmeal into your baby brother’s mouth with the other. The next day, dad’s gone, something called divorce explodes in your house, and mom’s showing up for meetings with the Mother Superior in a mini skirt and go-go boots. Or worse, she’s hanging out upstairs in Lila’s apartment, drinking Sangria, reeking of cheap incense and pot, wearing love beads and painting anti-war posters with smelly hippies.

Daycare and babysitters became the norm. Not enough money was a constant. The word no a daily refrain to any request. Meals eaten in front of the TV, strange boyfriends enter and exit the stage with frequency, untended children in outgrown clothes roam the neighborhood, the man named Dad abdicates into a pale ghost of a figure, if not a distant memory. Small vestiges of the life before still remain, but they aren’t enough to keep a child moored on solid ground. The parents are striding headlong into the age of personal fulfillment, dragging their hapless kids along for the ride with the last vestige of adult responsibility they possess.

But everybody’s happy, right? Millennia old social conventions and chains of traditional expectation had been broken, adults were free to follow their whims without condemnation from the neighbors and society at large. Patriarchy had been buried, women had rights, Vietnam had been lost. The air was sweet in the land of no remorse or consequence. Until it wasn’t anymore.

Hat tip to Blogger Friend Buck.

*Yeah, I’m just being a smartass. A chauvinist-pig, homonym-confused smartass.

Stimulus Watch

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009

Senate version worse than the House version?

Based on economic and legal analysis, the authors conclude that the Buy American provisions would violate US trade obligations and damage the United States’ reputation, with very little impact on US jobs. They estimate that the additional US steel production fostered by the Buy American provisions will amount to around 0.5 million metric tons. This in turn translates into a gain in steel industry employment equal to roughly 1,000 jobs. The job impact is small because steel is very capital intensive. In the giant US economy, with a labor force of roughly 140 million people, 1,000 jobs more or less is a rounding error. On balance the Buy American provisions could well cost jobs if other countries emulate US policies or retaliate against them. Most importantly, the Buy American provisions contradict the G-20 commitment not to implement new protectionist measures–a commitment that was designed to forestall a rush of “beggar-thy-neighbor” policies.

Now, I thought this was a new era in which America would be earning all kinds of respect from her “allies” and her “neighbors” by not going around being “arrogant” and thinking she was all that & a bag o’chips. That whole humble-humble-humble argument, again.

We had a debate last year about whether people respect those who stand for nothing, and just work like the dickens at being luuuuved by others. It ended with a dead-even split; history says the suck-ups aren’t liked very well at all, but the American electorate decided America should go ahead and be a suck-up, and surely it’ll work out for the best.

So where’s the sucking-up? Going all isolationist doesn’t seem to have an awful lot to do with those fawning displays of obsequiousness that the “majority” voted in.

Don’t look at me. I’m a big believer in the Syndrome “That’s How It Works” Paradigm.

See? Now you respect me, because I’m a threat. That’s the way it works.

All men, who are honest, believe in the Syndrome Paradigm. That’s because all men were once boys. And in the world of boys, when the girls and grown-ups are gone…Syndrome’s got it nailed, brother. You’re a threat, you get respect — you aren’t, you don’t.

And I see this thing called the “international community” as just one big locker room. I didn’t start seeing that way because I’d been in a locker room — I started seeing things this way after I’d been reading the news for awhile.

But I’m willing to be proven wrong. So prove me wrong. This doesn’t seem like the right way to go about it. In addition to which…if you must so thoroughly screw up domestic things like the economy, and it’s really that unavoidable, I’d like to respectfully request a little more — focus? Don’t go messing up the foreign-relations stuff as well. Obama’s got four years to be our modern Jimmy Carter, and that involves a lot of screwing-up, at home, and abroad.

Those are big shoes to fill, but forty-eight months is a long time. Pace yourself. Baby steps.

With Peeling Removed, How Long Does an Orange Last?

Friday, January 30th, 2009

I agree with Fat in Indiana. It’s like the folks writing this nonsense, don’t want the country to succeed — difficult to see how anyone could deny or question it, and remain intellectually diligent and honest about the matter.

You wanted change. Looks like you’re getting it. Suckers.

Here’s some more change you said you wanted…

Well … at least the Republicans stood fast yesterday in the House. They were joined by several Democrats in opposing this $825 billion government growth bill. Now it’s off to the Senate…I love what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said yesterday in response to criticism of the government growth plan. “Americans voted for change.” There you go. The Democrat’s answer for every objection to a Democrat atrocity? Does Obama’s focus group created slogan give Democrats a clear field to destroy our free market economy and burden your children and grandchildren with a bill they may never be able to repay? Oh yeah…we did all of this because Americans voted for change. What a jerk. What an asinine and arrogant response to the valid concerns of many Americans.

Just think about this stuff for a minute or two. We imagine this as a discourse between the weak and the strong, who in turn are positioned oppositionally…what benefits one side automatically injures the other side. We imagine it that way not because reality counsels us to, but because the democrat party counsels us to.

Even those who say they are championing the cause of the weak…the voiceless (hah!) weak…acknowledge the weak are dependent on the strong. Hell, they’re the ones making it that way.

Now, how would you destroy a civilized country? I really can’t think of a better way. Make the degenerates dependent on the functional, pump up the ranks of the degenerates to the point where they outnumber the functional, then use those votes to see to it the functional can no longer function.

You couldn’t do this kind of damage to a country in an entire century — overthrowing Saddam Hussein over and over again, every five years.

Memo For File LXXIX

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

Heard on the radio yesterday morning some report came out ranking the fifty states by K-12 academic performance, and California came in last.

The GooglGodz are frowning upon my attempts to learn about this through the innerwebz. Perhaps the readers of The Blog That Nobody Reads can step forward with a link or two that lives outside the realm of knowledge of he who writes for it. Wouldn’t be the first time.

But at this point, I am wondering if I heard it right. I’m certain I did; but if the report says what I thought it said, one would have to think there would be intense, widespread concern about such a thing, especially here. It would capture the attention of many. Anyone who’s used Google even casually, knows its search-results page are packed full of things that have captured the attention of not-so-many. I’m surprised this nugget is not to be found anywhere therein.

The search-results problem seems to be one of attrition. Superintendent Jack O’Connell, the one public official I heard quoted in the radio story, is now embroiled in a budget fight with Gov. Schwarzenegger who has offered a proposal to cut the California K-12 school year by five days. The moneyed interests that want that yummy taxpayer money to keep on coming in have bombed Google with their side of the story, especially the news page, so my attempts to find the story by searching on O’Connell’s name have been stonewalled. Yeah, that’s the long and short of it. I get to read the stories about how California’s school system needs more money, to my heart’s content. I’m left sucking air when I try to get hold of the article exploring whether or not it’s doing the job that has been entrusted to it.

But the matter of California placing last out of fifty states, is only the second-most-remarkable subtopic here.

It loses stature on my list of remarkable subtopics here, to something I heard Mr. O’Connell say in a sound bite. I don’t trust sound bites; this is why I want to find that link.

O’Connell was pressed to explain why the state whose K-12 education system he is tasked with administrating, placed dead-last out of the entire country. Quote marks left out, since I’m paraphrasing: It’s because of the diversity — our rich heritage of diversity…languages…blah blah blah.

Something like that. I remember he was blaming diversity, I presume language-diversity and not skin-color-diversity, for this dismal ranking, and then in the very same breath instructing all those within earshot to believe it is good. I remember he had to back up a little bit and throw the adjective “rich” in there, as if he figured out in mid-sentence someone might construe his comments as condemning diversity and come ’round clamoring for his head.

Now that’s a good public servant. It is exactly the kind of personality we have come to demand. We get down to what exactly is causing the problem that is supposed to arouse so much of our concern, and along comes the bureaucrat to instruct us not to think poorly of whatever it is…like shoveling dirt back into a hole in which we’ve spent an entire day or two digging, trying to reach something.

Hey lardass, how come you gained 150 pounds in four months? It’s because of this pudding I eat day and night…which is a good thing. Yummy pudding. Om nom nom nom.

Well, I shouldn’t make fun of Jack O’Connell too much if I can’t find the resource that would give context to his comments. But this really isn’t about Jack O’Connell; he didn’t invent this bureaucratic practice of instructing the masses to believe something is good, even when it can be clinically shown to be damaging to something we’re supposed to care about. Here in California we’re fairly thick in this soup of bromides that there is something wrong with too many people speaking English. It is thought, by some, who are more interested in getting sound bites out there than getting their own names attached to ’em, that this is racist. Well, racist or no, it’s a lot more effective to get some lessons and learning out there in one language than in several. And I don’t know of any schoolteachers anywhere who are hollering for ways they can pour more effort into a school year, with equivalent results. The ones of which I’m aware, complain of being spread thin, and as far as I know, they complain with great merit — their job is one of fitting fifty pounds of potatoes into a ten pound bag. How come we can’t so much as take a peek at the multiple-languages issue? It isn’t P.C.?

California’s illiteracy rate is through the roof; 1 in 4 adults lack the skills required to “read or find information in simple text.”

If a greater emphasis on the English language is doomed to fail as a strategy for improving California’s school performance — if it really is a futile endeavor to try to improve matters, by imposing some change on these school systems that “brag” about seventy languages in popular use — I have two words to offer to anyone who might say so, whether that includes O’Connell or not.

Prove it.

Pothead Culture

Thursday, January 8th, 2009

Last night, I was noticing Michael Savage‘s observations about things, match my own, most closely when he says stuff that “everybody knows” is crazy.

Last night it was pot. Now, if I go only by what I’ve been hearing, just the opinions people have about things that they want to put out there whether they can explain ’em or not — we have to legalize this stuff pronto. It is not, not, not, not, not, repeat not, a “gateway drug.” It’s cheap, it’s good for you, it makes wonderful rope and sweaters, and besides if we legalize it we can tax it; that’ll “pay off the deficit overnight,” they tell me. Besides, “contrary to popular belief,” smoking pot increases your powers of observation and concentration. You’d want your brain surgeon to smoke pot.

Well for a melodious, cheerful dinner conversation, you really shouldn’t get Dr. Michael Alan Weiner going about marijuana. This is the point where, I’m going to presume, the guests start to regret allowing the conversation to drift in that general direction, for one quickly gathers the impression the good doctor can barely contain himself. Not only is pot a gateway drug, he says, but it’s a deadly one, one that destroys the consumer’s ability to think. Yes, this is what I’d been noticing. Pay off the deficit overnight, for example. They don’t mean this year’s budget deficit, at the state or federal level; they’re talking about the trillions and trillions owed by our federal government, more properly called the public debt. A little bit of third-grade math is devastating to that argument, especially when you start applying it to interest. Let’s see…ten trillion dollars “overnight” is eight hundred thirty-three billion dollars an hour, which comes to just shy of fourteen billion dollars a minute in tax receipts on legalized, taxable marijuana.

Er, uh, yeah, says the stoner. I was speaking, y’know, whatchamacallzit, metaphorically. Yeah. Yeah sure you were, pothead. You were talking out your butt. You weren’t speaking any way except cheerleading. You were trolling for recruits.

Now I don’t really have a dog in this hunt about legalizing marijuana one way or another, but I really can’t stand looking at an issue too closely when it’s part of something much bigger, which is why we haven’t been talking about pot too much in these pages. It’s not just about smoking pot. There’s a whole culture built around this, and that’s what Savage was going after last night. Here’s his argument: Because of the year we’re in, the potheads are coming into power right now. Seems, to me, this has been going on since about ’93, when Clinton was sworn in. But it’s been getting worse. One way or another the stoners are running the show. We have this window of ages we like to see in our leaders; the ones who make the actual decisions; the baby boomers who latched on, generationally, to the pothead culture, are there right now. So pretty much every office that counts for something — in the private sector as well as in government — is filled by a pothead.

Savage’s condemnation of the plant is even harsher than mine. As I understand it, he seems to believe in once-a-pothead-always-a-pothead…as if, once you inhale in your early twenties, in your late fifties youre still making bonehead decisions. Not sure if I’d go that far. But there certainly is a lag time, and a pronounced tendency to reject humility. I mean sincere, substantial humility. The tendency I see is to say “That must be an okay thing to do, for I just did it.” And it does seem persistent across time: That other guy did something, that’s awful, terrible, horrible, bad. I did something, even something that is against the law…well hey man, it’s all relative.

Savage went on to offer two examples of potheads running the show: Shutting down Guantanamo, or at least ceasing & desisting from the “torture” conducted within, and sending San Francisco’s police department to some kind of sensitivity training. I wish he went on much further than that, and maybe he did but my commute came to an end. I know I could add to a list like that all day long.

But I’m much more into definitions than examples, here. I’m junior to the baby boomers by some twelve to twenty years or so, which means I’ve been struggling awkwardly in their impressive wake all my life and will be continuing to do so until the day I drop dead. I consider myself well-qualified to speak on this. And Savage is right — the smoke-holers are running the show. Stoners hire other stoners. Because it’s them against the world, man. So this is becoming an important issue, one that’s affecting us all even in ways we don’t understand immediately when it isn’t pointed out.

Reefer GirlIt has a lot to do with something called “love”; that’s why you have to immediately stop torturing terrorists, and that of course means you have to stop doing anything that anybody, anywhere, no matter how recklessly, might label “torture.” Pretty much just feed ’em three times a day, fluff up their pillows, find out what else they want from you, go get it, and wait for them to talk. Police shouldn’t hurt criminals, and probably shouldn’t even arrest them for anything either. Countries shouldn’t go to war, no matter the reason. Make-love-not-war.

Conversely with that, whatever the potheads mean by “love,” it doesn’t have much to do with compatibility, because they seem to be insisting that whatever confrontation might possibly happen, does happen. A woman who is madly in love with her man, and none other, is deeply offensive to them. That could be because the feminist movement came to maturity at the same time as the pothead movement. If you really want to piss off a pothead, make a suggestion, in theory or in practice, that a woman who really loves her man will go get him a cold beer out of the fridge. (I’m entirely unsure how they’re going to react if she runs into the bedroom and gets him a jay.) But everything is like that; they don’t want people, in general, getting along with other people. Not across class lines, anyway. The real contradiction here, is that this is precisely what they say they’re working tirelessly to bring about, but I’ve noticed for years now when it’s right in front of their faces they don’t see it that way, and in fact recoil from it. Everyone has to be fighting something — man. Immigrants are constantly “oppressed” by bigoted “xenophobes” who in fact are insisting on nothing more than that the law be followed. Blacks are always oppressed by whites, women are always oppressed by men, citizens are always oppressed by the police and children are always oppressed by their parents. Everyone should constantly be throwing off shackles, storming some fortress or rampart, overthrowing someone, showing ’em what’s-what.

There are no consequences for anything. That’s probably the biggest, most important item, right there. No decision is ever made out of a sense of “if-this-then-that”; there are no domino effects, there is no cause-and-effect. Decisions are made, instead, on value-systems and overly-simplistic “should”s. If you think we’ll be unable to prevent an attack after we stop “torturing” terrorists, well, you’re just wrong. This argument won’t be taken anywhere, logically, mind you. It’ll simply be ended. It’ll be answered with mocking, “The Experts Say,” some quotes from The Daily Show, maybe a recycled line from Nice Guy Eddie in Reservoir Dogs…and that’s about it. If you bring up some solid evidence of your own, such as mentioning Kalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abdul Hakim Murad, well, you’re just a mean unreasonable poopy-head. Trust me on this. I’ve been there.

So it really ends up being a child’s fantasy land, when you get down to it. I don’t mean a small child’s fantasy; I’m talking a teenager, of the slothy kind, the kind that doesn’t roll out of bed or do the dishes or cut the grass without a whole lot of nagging. Every little thing that would require some foresight or manual labor brings forth a torrent of excuses. There are lots of positive thoughts about how we all need to love each other and get along with each other — right up until positive thoughts about other people determine something decisive must be done, something that requires effort. Then we don’t need to think such positive thoughts about each other anymore. Like, for example, very wealthy people are just as much entitled to keep their money as the rest of us, and it’s probably beneficial to allow them to do so, because the rest of us are in a symbiotic relationship with them…that would be a positive, compassionate thought, one that is compatible with the continuing harmonious working of an evolved, civilized society. But you’ll never see the potheads support that one, because that’s just a bit too much civilization and “love” for them to choke down at all at once. Far better to drone onward about being oppressed, man, by that evil corporate America, man.

Every little call to take garbage out, is met with some plea for moral relativism, cry for revolution, or both of those. I mean literal garbage, such as everyday household chores, as well as figurative garbage, like making sure Big Bad Bart catches that midnight train outta here and doncha dare come back. Hippies hate cowboys, I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, and they pull no punches that the thing they hate the most about cowboys, is the white hat, the black hat and the moral clarity. They hate the way this leads to realizations, fifteen minutes before closing-credits, that a real confrontation has to take place…for consequences loom over the “town,” if it does not. The stoner hippie isn’t down with that. He philosophizes his way out of every little thing that needs doing, and all without putting down the doobie or moving his ass off that well-worn mattress.

Hippies and those oh-so-hated cowboys are close cousins, in a way. They’re both all about confrontation. But the cowboy uses bullets instead of rhetoric and the hippy doesn’t like that. The dirtiest secret of all lies within that special hatred for bullets. It isn’t the property damage, or the death, or the carnage, or the danger to the bystanders the hippy hates when hot lead is flying around the saloon. It is the finality of the solution. No more negotiations; they never began. An elegant Obama/Cronkite lilt to the voice doesn’t count for shit. Settlements to disputes are not proposed, only implemented. Nothing is up for appeal.

In other words, decisions actually get made. Situations get changed. That is what cannot be tolerated on Planet Pothead. Ain’t that a kicker? The culture began for the express purpose of upsetting the status quo on a grand, cosmic scale; once it got some momentum built up, it became all about preserving status quos, even within microscopic, practically insignificant settings. Every situational change is a verbal agreement, which is just meaningless jibber-jabber, since every agreement has a loophole.

So I think Savage has a point here, and it’s a little bit of a frightening one when you think about it. Potheads are making the decisions now, and that means all decisions are cosmetic in nature, accountability never figures into it, consequences aren’t to be reckoned with. Do we have a society that can withstand that for long? Are our most influential and powerful positions-of-trust grappling with decisions on a daily-basis, decisions that can be made well, or at least harmlessly, by people who don’t believe actions have consequences? People that are only there to enforce contrarian social codes, love without accompanying feelings of symbiosis, and surreal & tie-died systems of quasi-moral babbling?

Can our culture stand for very long, when there is no human passion worth satisfying except lusting for the perverse, and the next case-of-the-munchies? With every single office that really matters, turned into a “work-free-drug-place”?

There’s the big question.

I guess we’ll be finding out the answer pretty soon, now.

Let’s Not Communicate

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

God help me, it’s happening to me again. Exactly one year ago — which says something about the season, I think — I was bitching away about this bad habit we have of pretending to communicate when, if some supernatural force were to stop time and thus halt the communication, ambushing all who partook with some kind of “pop quiz” about what was said by others, no one would pass. In other words, all this gesturing and mumbling and yelling and “Can You Hear Me Now?” is nothing more than a whole bunch of empty posturing. People do things after a conversation’s over, exactly the way they were going to do ’em before.

Three-hundred sixty days onward, I see something very similar is getting under my skin.

I’m seeing when we do communicate and actually manage to get it done, the communication isn’t done to ensure things get done that were supposed to get done…it’s done to change direction in some way. “There’s been a change in plans.” That, or to notify someone (me, a lot, lately) that something won’t get done when it was supposed to be. All too often, I can’t shake the feeling that if it weren’t for these cell phones, e-mails, instant-messages and other miracles of the modern age, the thing that isn’t gonna get done now, would…just go ahead and get done.

Think of cowboys. Think of farmers. Plan A is to have those cows rounded up, and branded, or those acres plowed, by sundown. Nobody talks to each other throughout the fifteen to eighteen hours save for one word — “LUNCHTIME!” What happens by sundown? The acres are plowed. No one ever had reason to think they wouldn’t be.

But that isn’t the world in which we live, today, is it? We’re too busy communicating.

I find it of particularly great concern that this communication is being used to communicate what is about to happen, particularly with regard to things that were attempted before, and left undone. Someone wants credit for getting ’em done, at last. Why am I hearing about it before it’s done? It’s like sitting on the bed bare-ass naked with your wife, bragging about the heights of carnal bliss to which you’re about to send her. Don’t talk…do.

Just got an e-mail from a relative lamenting all the “media sound bites” about Barack Obama, how he’s chosen to read Audacity of Hope. Even though he leans right politically, he’s “mightily impressed.” Perhaps I should’ve restrained myself. But after two solid years of hearing how wonderful His Holiness is, and nobody saying anything substantive…this bit of fluff mightily impressed me, as tidbit more of exactly the same stuff we’ve already seen. This extra droplet following the flood, concerned me greatly, in view of the challenges we face now — obviously, if we just bought forty-eight months of constructive action and all we’re gonna get instead is a whole lot more talk, this will be greatly damaging to everybody.

That “Reply” button just reaches out and grabs ya sometimes, y’know?

Impressed how? You quit right before you got to the goods.

If this is an exercise in making available that which up until now has been scarce, it is not served well by the provision of yet another glittering generality. Anyone who insists there’s been a paucity of those must’ve been living in a cave. No, where President Chosen One is concerned, supply falls short of demand when one begins to inspect justifications for things. Reasons to think things. Typical exchange:

“He’s the real deal!”
“How?”
“He just is!”
“How?”
“I don’t know. I can’t explain. There’s just something about Him!”

Well, there’s something about Him, alright. When the time comes to subject Him to so much of a fraction of the kind of scrutiny that, just because of protocol and convention, comes my way in job interviews…the subject *always* changes. So far it hasn’t been pursued to the point where I can learn something about what He has done. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by Him, and His Holy Acolytes, to tell me all about His Divine Qualifications. The mission description for that was to get ‘er done by November 4th. How could it possibly be that it’s two months later, and it falls to people like you and me to go out and buy a book to learn about what makes Him so grape? He’s supposed to be such a wonderful communicator — it is the ONLY talent He has been forced to show us He has — how come those being given the message, have to extract it out of Him, when all this loot was donated to Him, solely for the purpose of telling us what He wanted to tell us?

And this is my concern. I do not, repeat not, confine it to President-Elect Obama. It is a cultural malaise that seems to have captured us.

Ever try this? Work on a complex task in solitude, one that you can perform from beginning to end while hunched over a computer. (My background is programming, so this is easy for me, while most folks might have to scramble around for something like that…nevertheless, if I can find something like that, anyone can.) Now do this. Do it especially if someone is paying you.

Fire up a spreadsheet, and keep a log of what you’re doing, and when. Work in a timestamp. Make it exhaustive. Record every little thing. Minute by minute, second by second.

By the time you are done, you probably had to take a phone call or two. Maybe you even had to go consult someone about a fact here or there. Now…look at your log. When did you have to talk to humans? Can you pick it out? I’ll bet you can. Big gaps. Huge gaps. Yawning gaps. You think it’s a “five minute conversation,” and through this exercise you see there really is no such thing.

You probably understand, by now, how the farmer got those acres plowed. Once we’re jibber-jabbering to each other, we inhabit a whole different world…minutes and seconds no longer count. And, disturbingly, getting things done no longer counts. We tend to stop behaving as if someone, somewhere, is counting on us getting the job done. Everything’s got an excuse. Everything’s got a “Change In Plans.”

I find this more frightening, in the year ahead, than any “homosexual agenda” or “left wing platform” or…almost as frightening as the appeasing of tyrants. This whole mindset of talk-over-do. Sound bite comes out that Barack Obama is still wonderful, and this is an adequate substitute for His Holiness doing something constructive, especially with regard to that mile long list of things He said He was going to fix. Suddenly, that can be left undone because the object of the exercise was to prove how wonderful He is, and…hey. We already know.

This is something I really don’t think we can afford right now. Seriously. But that’s our mindset. We sit on the edge of the bed, and tell the wife how good it’s gonna be when she finally gets it.