Eye-Roll of the Day

You know what I’m really getting sick of this election year?  Obama’s campaign’s nauseatingly endless self-righteousness.  For example, Obama recently referred to a great-uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz.  Republicans called him out for the gaffe, noting that it wasn’t the American army that freed Auschwitz.  The Obama campaign’s response?

Obama campaign aides were indignant that Republicans had pounced on what they called an innocent mistake in relating his family history. Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, decried “using the Holocaust and concentration camps as a political football.”

Look, you pansies.  If your candidate brings up the Holocaust and concentration camps in an obvious effort to dispel the anti-American, elitist aura which currently clings to him, the Republicans have every right to call him out when he screws up and says that a member of his family helped liberate Auschwitz.  Look at how Democrats pounced on John McCain when he said he would be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years, then twisted his words to make him sound like a war-monger.  If you can dish it out, be prepared to take it.

 

Something is rotten in the state of publishing and politics

I got a real kick out of the Washington Post article on Scott McClellan and his new tell-all memoir.  A couple pieces in particular stood out as making McClellan a little more questionable of a character.  Starting from the beginning of the article, we learn that:

one publishing industry insider described his early concept as “a not-very-interesting, typical press secretary book.”

So we start with a really boring concept, unlikely to be a commercial success.  Then we have McClellan’s explanation for how his mind changed:

“Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you’re able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things,”

Convenient, isn’t it, that taking off your partisan hat correlates so strongly to wearing your profitability hat?  Then we get the perspective from the publisher:

“First we had to ascertain what kind of book he wanted to write,” said Osnos, a former Washington Post reporter and editor. “We are journalists, independent-minded publishers. We weren’t interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration. It had to pass our test of independence, integrity and candor.”

Isn’t it amusing that integrity and independence are set up as the opposites of a defense of the Bush administration?  Anyone who knows me could tell you that I’m not our president’s biggest fan, but that doesn’t mean that defense of his motives and/or some of his policy choices is diametrically opposed to candor.

So what we have hear is a man with a boring book idea, in a time when it is profitable to write about how much President Bush sucks, with a publisher who believes that independence and defending Bush are mutually exclusive.  Are we really surprised at the outcome?

When are people going to learn that:

A) People who go into politics often do it for their own gain; therefore,

B) People in politics shouldn’t be entirely trusted; therefore,

C) Political memoirs ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Lies men tell themselves

A recent article from New York Magazine made me by turns depressed, angry, and ultimately hopeful. The topic is why men cheat. The answer, according to the author, is that men cheat because they must:

An article of faith among the men with whom I discussed these issues (and an idea ignored, if not contested, by most of the women I know) was that the hunger for sexual variety was a basic and natural and more or less irresistible impulse. “I haven’t ever seen anyone who doesn’t deliver on every single demand their sexuality makes on them. We make the mistake of thinking some people have a stronger will, they don’t,” says a forward-thinking friend. “There is no more unnatural principle of social organization than sexual exclusivity.”

First the depression. If this is true, and men really can’t be trusted to push aside their sexual needs, then what chance does any marriage (or even dating relationship) even stand? I’m forced to wonder, is this just the attitude of the author and his friends? Or do most men feel this way and just not tell us lady-folk in order not to shatter our illusions? He cites the recent high-profile affairs of a handful of New York politicians as evidence that all men are programmed to cheat. And if this hypothesis is correct, then what can women like me hope for? Do we just pick a marriage partner as best we can and assume that he’ll cheat eventually? Because that seems like a terrible life to me, to be forever expecting betrayal.

Of course, the author goes on to blame the ridiculousness of women who view infidelity as a betrayal, laud the progressive and open European attitudes towards sex and marriage, and ridicule puritanical American notions of faithfulness in marriage.

At which point I start to get angry (which I generally do when some schmuck starts asking why America can’t be more like Europe). When I got to this point I was bordering on furious:

Nonetheless, the one strong impression I took away from interviewing peers is that American mores are evolving, especially among the affluent. An affair or two is handleable for the rich, says a friend, Jo Mango. “They’re more well read, better informed, and more tolerant. They say, ‘Get over it.’ It’s way costlier to break up. Because look what happens: You lose your living situation and your community in a divorce.” A sophisticated New Yorker made a similar point: “I don’t believe that straying diminishes your love or commitment to your partner. It’s not a zero-sum game. However, it does get complicated and hurtful when you start developing an emotional relationship with another woman.

Ah yes, being OK with infidelity is the “evolved” thing to do. Clinging to outmoded ideas of what we should expect from our marriage partners is for the less well read, the worse-informed.

Well, fine. Count me among the unsophisticated masses. Reading the entire article through a second time, I begin to realize that the whole thing is just a lengthy apologetic for a personal failing. In fact, the only evidence supporting his claim is the purely anecdotal. And as we all know, the plural of anecdote is not data. To be blunt, the author is an asshole who wants to justify his and his asshole friends’ behavior in an 8-page, navel-gazing manifesto.

And then comes the hopefulness. None of us are born with iron willpower. Maybe we don’t have a ready-made biological urge to be monogamous. But part of being human is having the free will to make our own choices and struggle against baser instincts. Willpower, as anyone who has ever tried to break a bad habit can tell you, starts out hard and gets easier the longer you work at it. Maybe you can’t expect men to leave the womb with the will power to be faithful husbands. But you can sure expect them to develop that will power as they grow into adults.

I’m really sick of this idea that men are naturally weak, and therefore cannot be expected to control themselves. It feeds into a lot of nasty sexual politics, and can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Men (and women) who tell themselves that they are incapable of fidelity will naturally have no reason to strive for it. If they end up cheating, they can always blame their biology, or stupid American mores for their fall.

As for me, I’m going to find myself a guy who, like Alan Jackson’s Small Town Southern Man, only loves one woman. (No joke, I love this song and this music video. It makes me smile).

 

The Lesser of Two Evils

Election Day, 2008 is drawing closer and closer. And with the choice of candidates presented, I have made my position very clear in the fact that I will not vote for John McCain for president. Period. (I’ll add that I even went so far as to make that statement my Facebook status, which makes it super-official.)

However, I have come up against many fellow “conservatives” and Republicans that have tried to dissuade me of my stance, and have urged me to cast my vote for McCain, simply because he is “better than Obama”, or the “lesser of two evils.” Surprisingly, many people subscribe to this adage when it comes to voting. It seems like a reasonable conclusion, seeing as no one candidate is perfect, right? So you should vote for the one that fits your values the most. Right?

Popular opinion in the United States says that we are strictly a two party system, and should vote accordingly. A vote for a third party candidate is often seen as a waste. But for frustrated Americans that are tired of broken promises, and expanding government, this usually means swallowing our pride, and voting for the “lesser of two evils”, also known as the Republican Party. The arguments for this viewpoint seem valid on a broad level, but crumble upon closer examination. The Republican Party today no longer supports the premise of a limited federal government. It has allowed liberal judges to have free reign in courts. It has implemented foreign policies that fuel anti-American sentiments abroad, and has left American citizens at home stripped of the most vital personal freedoms, such as the right to free speech, protection against unreasonable search and seizures, and the right to private property.

Republicans like to employ this “lesser” argument a lot around election time, when advocating it is the “duty” of conservatives and those that are libertarian-minded to support the GOP against the Democrats. One major appeal used is the promise of a less expensive and less intrusive government. The Republican Party is portrayed as the only party that claims to believe in smaller government, therefore, you should vote accordingly.

However, this argument is grossly misleading. It assumes that the GOP today still believes smaller government, something the Republicans in Washington haven’t lived up to. In fact, with bills like The Patriot Act, and the No Child Left Behind Act, government has actually expanded, all under a Republican president and Congress. More and more acts have been have been passed during the last eight years that have not only stretched the already unmanageable budget, but are largely unconstitutional.

Sadly, the cost of the Republican leadership has been more than financial burdens. The recent expansion of government has left citizens less free than they were before the attacks on 9/11. Take for example, The Patriot Act. It sailed through Congress, marketed as a vital part of the fight against terror; a necessary tool in the name of national security. However, because this piece of legislation allows for the expansion of government power into private lives and violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, it is nothing more than an example of how liberty is being sacrificed in place of a perceived security.

One of our most conservative and revered presidents, Ronald Reagan, put it this way: “…There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path.” This belief is a core premise in the true conservative philosophy, but has been on a slow but steady decline in the priorities of the Republican Party.

So at what point do principles win over politics? More specifically, how corrupt and misguided must a political party become before it loses the support of its constituency? Would we, for a moment, consider the “lesser of two evils” argument if our choice was between Hitler and Stalin?

Values and principles unaccompanied by actions are meaningless. If we honestly believe in the values upon which this country was founded, the least we could do is deny our vote to any party that seeks to destroy the principles of low taxes, free markets, and individual freedom with personal responsibility. Failing to do so would only imply that those values we supposedly hold so dear aren’t as valuable to us in the first place.

It is for these main reasons that I shudder every time I hear my fellow “conservatives” urge me to cast my vote for McCain this November, because he would at least be better than Clinton or Obama. But the fact still remains that although the “lesser of two evils” arguments is so widely preached, it doesn’t change the fact that that which is the “lesser” is still evil! And while I can’t say I would be content with a Democratic administration, I will have the pride in knowing that I stood on principles and rationality, and voted for who I thought would make the best Commander-in-Chief.

Call it what you will: rebellion, too much idealism and naiveté, or simply standing on principles. The fact remains that while I no longer plan to support the GOP this November, it’s not I who have deserted the party but rather it’s the party that has deserted me.

 

I need some funny in my life

And when I need some funny to cheer me up after a stupid day, I just check the search engine terms that people used to find this blog.  Some winners I thought I’d share:

erotically strangling women

Don’t. Just don’t.  And while you’re at it, please don’t visit my blog again.  Pervert.

how to write a opinion collum

It’s much easier when you’re familiar with the English language.

amazons sex

We’re too busy kicking ass and taking names for it. Also, it’s common knowledge that most men couldn’t keep up with us anyway.

sample time line for a graduation cremon

Interminable.  Also, intelligible.

2008 conservative commencement speakers

No results.  Did you mean “2008 liberal commencement speakers?”

solutions to health care crisis 2008

Maybe we could start by not calling it a crisis, like a bunch of whiners.

why people don’t like europe

“France” isn’t a good enough reason?  How about “Democratic Socialism?”  “Anti-semitism?”  “The UN?”

pro-life “hate women”

We don’t.  Except for feminists.  We do hate us some feminists.

obama solution to healthcare

Raise taxes.  Then raise taxes some more.  Then offer some reassuring bromides while our economy crashes, and eventually blame the disaster on our lack of audacious hope.

what should my major be

Not Women’s Studies, anthropology, English or Sociology if you want to contribute anything of value to the world.  Not political science or communication if you’d like to have a job someday.  I suggest something with numbers.

what drives women to exploit themselves?

Sometimes money, attention or fame, but mostly it’s just fun.

mind controlled +amazons

Oh man do I wish I had mind control powers.  I’d only ever use them for good.  Mostly.   Sometimes.

 

Two articles to read right now

The first is from the Washington Post, written by an Army officer about his experiences attending the funerals of the fallen.  Hopefully, it will inspire you to think a little about how you can begin to repay the debt we owe soldiers and their families.  For ideas, see this post.

A particularly poignant paragraph:

I have attended 23 funerals in many different states and, to my surprise, have never encountered an angry parent — only heartbroken ones who are intensely proud of their son or daughter. Grief is the crushing load these parents and spouses bear. Yet far more often than not they treat the military in attendance as family. They invite us to the receptions after the services, where they show us scrapbooks and introduce us to friends. They hug us and wish us a safe return to our units and families. They smile through their tears. I often get the feeling their sense of duty wills them through. I suspect that when the crowds have left and they are allowed to be alone, they collapse in grief and exhaustion.

The second is a somewhat bitter rant from the daughter of renowned feminist Alice Walker.  Mostly, it made me want to hug a child, but it was certainly thought provoking.

 

Kids These Days

Maybe I’m just in an easily annoyed kind of mood, but I’m going to throw on my grumpy grandpa cardigan and complain about how awful my generation is. From the New York Times, we have a story on teens trying to find summer jobs:

Shakhura Henderson, 18, saw her job as an assistant in an optometrist’s office as a beachhead in a growing area of the American economy. She and the other students stammered in veritable horror when asked if they would consider working in fast food.

“I don’t see myself saying, ‘Hey, sir, may I take your order,’ ” Ms. Henderson said. “I don’t see any growth in it.”

You don’t see any “growth” in it? For serious? Yeah, I get it, no one really wants to work in fast food, but honey, just because it isn’t fun doesn’t mean there isn’t growth. In fact, I’m going to go ahead and argue that the jobs which cause the most pain, the ones where you have to deal with the worst customers, are the ones that really provide growth. Not only do you learn some empathy for people in service jobs, but the constant aggravation and fatigue really do build character.

I am of the opinion that all teenagers should work in retail or food service for at least a summer. My (hypothetical) kids sure as hell will. I spent all three years of college working retail, and I do credit the experience with helping me develop some of the patience (and ability to fake both friendliness and a Southern accent) that I lacked.

Speaking of grandpa cardigans, George Will has a great article up about the last surviving World War I veteran, a Missouri farm boy who lied about his age to join the Army at 16. Read it.

UPDATE: Yet another benefit of menial work: You build muscles that you wouldn’t working in an office.  How do I know?  Because it was only the fact that I lifted 70 pound boxes of clothing at work that allowed me to carry my mom’s 70 pound German Shepherd to the car so that she could go to the doggy ER.  Please feel free to send up a prayer for her, because she has a really bad abscess and wasn’t doing well this morning.

 

Michelle Malkin takes on the Golden Boy

You know how we keep hearing about John McCain’s gaffes and mix-ups? And Hillary Clinton’s? Well, Michelle Malkin has compiled a list of some of Barack Obama’s greatest hits. I kind of like them all, but I think this is my favorite:

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Mr. Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.

It’s too bad that John McCain isn’t an “I’ll rip my opponent to pieces with his every misstatement” kind of candidate. He could have a real field day with Obama.

Edit: I nearly forgot to mention that Thomas Sowell wrote a great column today as well.  Which I guess isn’t so much news as a simple fact of life.  Anyway, he takes a great jab at commencement speakers, something I can really appreciate:

The academic year often ends with commencement speakers who have been in government, academia, foundations or various crusading movements, who tell the graduates how much nobler it is to go into such organizations, rather than into business.

Such self-flattering talk is seldom challenged by educators. But an outstanding recent book, “The Best-Laid Plans” by Randal O’Toole, gives a richly documented account of government actions and their consequences, and shows a far from flattering side of politicians, “experts,” and environmentalists– who have ruined cities and suburbs in countries around the world.

Have I mentioned that I would love to have a Black man as president…if he were Thomas Sowell?

 

Good to Know They Have Priorities

File this one under “News Worthy of Dramatic Eye-Rolling”:

A U.N. expert on racism and xenophobia arrived in Washington yesterday for a three-week fact-finding visit to examine human rights lapses in the United States.

I’m sure the report will be fair, balanced, and highly illuminating.  Oh wait, I must be thinking about some other U.N., one which hasn’t been plagued by scandal and idiocy from top to bottom.

In other news of the absurd, feminists are busy stressing out over the “Purity Ball” covered in the New York Times.  Ought of all the hyperbolic comments posted, I like this one the best:

Jeez!The crap that comes out of the right! What are we going to do when this crap spreads deeper into America? This is sick, and tantamount to child abuse. These right-wing extremist Christians teach their daughters to be submissive to men and their fathers. There should be a rescue operation for these poor girls. When propaganda like this becomes tightly woven into a community it becomes castrating for a female. It would be like a black kid being raised by white parents who want to reinforce racist indoctrination into the kid by teaching them social behaviors that were forced onto blacks during the 1950s racially segregated South. Surely, an agency would take them out. However, teaching a girl that shes inferior due to her gender is apparently protected?

Yes, it’s just awful to think that fathers should be involved in their daughters’ spiritual growth and virtue.  What will we right-wingers think of next?

 

You tell ‘em, Mr. President

From the Washington Post:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

One of the greatest lessons of history seems to be that people who want to kill you will continue to want to kill you no matter how nicely you talk to them.  The Democrats’ response?

Democrats angrily called the comment a veiled shot at Obama, who has advocated dialogue with Iran and Syria, but not the Palestinian group Hamas.

[...]

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, used an expletive to describe Bush’s comment. He went on to say: “For this president to leave the country and unleash a political attack on Senator Obama and the Democrats cannot go unanswered. We’re not going to tolerate this swiftboating,”

So we shouldn’t call out terrible ideas because it would be a “veiled shot” at the person who holds them?  Give me a break.

Also, I love that swiftboating has now become a verb to deride any attack that Democrats don’t like.  It doesn’t matter whether the charge is true or not, it only matters whether Democrats think it is fair or not.  And the ultimate arbiter of what is a fair attack and what isn’t is whether it hurts the Democratic candidate or not.

Note to Democratic leadership:  Please feel free to grow up.  Any day now would be great.