Sweating Through Fog

Looking Back . . .

2012-01-09T17:58:00.000-08:00

Reading this, and being so moved by it, makes me realize that there may be a quality that all suffering shares. It's written by a woman, and I'm a man. It's written by someone much younger than I am. By someone who fell into an affliction that has never been a problem for me. Someone much younger than me, looking back and reflecting on herself when she was even younger, and beginning to die inside.

Despite all these differences, the post still speaks to me. I often wish I could have spoken to myself at the age of 12, just like the author of that post did. And while the particulars of the advise would be far different, the desperate urgency would be the same. As would the compassion.

You dream of romance; of being loved and loving somebody back. Only, you don’t speak of this desire because it seems ridiculous. Who would ever love you?

Ahh - How well I remember feeling like that!

Sometimes I look back on my life and I try to determine exactly at which instance the downward spiral stopped, and I began - ever so slowly - to come alive again. We suppose that all great turnings are dramatic, seismic shifts. But in my life I've never been able to trace the thread back to the one moment, the one action, that started my climb from the grave.

This piece makes me wonder if the turning point was hearing an inner call from an older self: me. Now.

A Bliss Rediscovered

2009-09-15T18:12:00.000-07:00

I remember the very first time I heard this.

It was three decades ago, and I was watching a PBS drama: John Le Carre's Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. I wasn't impressed with the show at all -- it was just another of those murky, confusing spy stories with plants and double agents. I struggled through it, and resolved not to bother with it in the future.

As the show ended, I got up and started to walk to the kitchen for a snack. With my back turned, I heard . . . this. And I just stood there, unable to move, because the the simple sound of it sent shivers down my spine. I turned back and watched the closing credits of the show roll over a simple English dusk, and listened to a voice that seemed to call me to heaven.

In those days, before VCRs and Tivo, the only way I got to hear that voice again was by tuning into the show. I looked in vain for some note about the music, or the singer.

Apparently, I wasn't the only person so moved. Yesterday, three decades after I last heard this, I suddenly recalled that feeling. A simple Google search found it It was not the first time that an Internet search led to the discovery that other people have shared some inner experience that I thought was uniquely mine. The Youtube comments told me who the singer was - a Saint Paul's choirboy named Paul Phoenix. He was nine years old when he sang this!

It is an English hymn called Nunc Dimittas, and the words are from the Gospel of Luke:

Lord, now you let your servant depart in peace according to your word.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared before the face of all people,
a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel.

For those that like it, you can buy it here

The Empire Falls Back

2009-03-18T18:13:00.000-07:00

For several years I worked with a group of Indians on a complex engineering project. We spoke on the phone almost every day, often for many hours. In many ways this was one of those classic globalization projects that Thomas Friedman wrote about - a complex distributed endeavor involving participants from all over the world.

I grew to know many of them quite well, not because I could see them in the flesh, but rather because I could hear their voices, and I could understand their very individual approach to solving engineering problems. We worked as peers, but our situations were very, very different. I remember one occasion when we were arranging a teleconference, when the project manager spoke about the constraints they worked under. Her staff had to come into the office, they could not phone or work from home, and many of them had one-way commutes of 2 ½ hours!

So here I am, an American born into the middle class, working together with people who, by virtue of study and exhausting commutes like that, had pulled themselves up into the Indian middle class. They were still making far less in purchasing terms than I did. While their prices for daily food and shelter were far less then mine, there was absolutely no comparison between lifestyles. And so I wondered – if we are all doing the same work, on the same project, as part of the same team – why is it that I live better than they do?

This - in a nutshell - is the nature of the American Empire. Living at the center of an empire conveys enormous, disproportionate advantages that rely on the ability to draw dollars at the center vs. rupees on the margins. And I drew those dollars not because of base engineering ability, or natural talent, but rather because of one thing only: long-term relationships with other people at the center.

Things are changing very rapidly, and I believe the current economic crisis is the tipping point that will accelerate our economic decline, and ultimately unravel our empire.

On one of my trips in India I was driving along a highway out in the country, and I saw something extraordinary. Every twenty miles or so I saw a small, relatively new, school building, and these didn’t promote themselves as general schools, but rather schools of engineering. Quite often I could see the Indian students outside in their bright school uniforms. India and China now educate far more engineers than we do.

It is easy to be dismissive of new schools like this and the quality of their graduates but there is no getting around one, simple point. The best and most talented 1% out of a population of a billion will be more talented than the best 1% out of a population 1/3 that size.

We like to tell ourselves that we somehow deserve the wealth we’ve acquired, and the extraordinary ease of our lives compared with the rest of the world. Some say we have these things because of our freedom, or the ability of our economy to adapt to new circumstances, or our ability to assimilate immigrants, or a stable political structure. Or sometimes just some unique “can-do” American spirit. I’m sure these have been factors in creating our empire, but we are, in my view, an empire built on war and industry. First it was the slow drive West as we took the continent from its original inhabitants. Then it was the growth of Malthusian industry. Then it was two world wars where we used our industry to destroy the powers of the Old World.

The industry is leaving now. While American workers are still the most productive in the world, the risks of hiring the next worker here is considerable. Hire here and you have to hire HR people to position you against lawsuits, and every employee you hire is a roll of the dice. Just one employee and their lawyer can take the productivity of a thousand other workers. That is why we now graduate far more lawyers than engineers. Why make things when you can make more money by taking things? No American business can survive without the overhead of a team of lawyers and lobbyists on retainer. We’ve returned to feudalism, where the knights are lawyers, and the Dark Ages was no innovative time.

But the wealth to be plundered is drying up. We don’t make things anymore; we buy things from the rest of the world. We don’t tax ourselves for all the costs off our social programs, we borrow it. And with the recession, the stimulus bill, the new spending bill, and what we’ll spend to “reform” health care, we’ll be borrowing a lot more.

We can’t sustain this. I know lots of pundits claim that America is the indispensable nation, that the rest of the world has no choice but to ship us phones, TVs, cars, refrigerators air conditioners – all for . . . well just bookkeeping entries. Just promises to pay more at some later time. Maybe the rest of the world will loan us money to educate more and more lawyers, school administrators, accountants, and social workers – but I doubt it. I know of no historian that doubts that the British Empire lost its hegemony over the world because they became a debtor nation, and needed us to pay their bills. I see no reason why the Chinese and the Indians – productive, still-growing economies, won’t do to us what we did to the British.

I suppose it is in the nature of empires to seem immortal, because they suffuse themselves into every aspect of the world. At their height, it just doesn’t seem as if the world could be ordered any other way. While empires can last for centuries, they do, eventually, die. Perhaps our decline won’t be driven by war, but the historical record doesn’t offer much reason for hope.

The financial crisis seems pretty bad now, but the time may come when we'll look back fondly at a time when we only needed to worry about money.

It's Morning in Obama's America

2009-03-11T13:33:00.000-07:00

Octomom beams with pride as she takes us all on a tour of her brand new house. "I earned it," she says. Not with a job mind you - those are becoming pretty scarce nowadays, especially when you are "disabled."

So if you're struggling through this financial crisis, know that the fast track to success in modern America is to do something outrageous. Something notorious enough to attract attention from those willing to pay for a front-row seat at the train wreck.

Keep your credit card handy. At 5:20 she says she is "hoping for donations."

She says in the video that she is leasing the house, but this article claims the home was bought by her father. Her father said in his Oprah interview that he has $100 in the bank.

Thank God the Bush years are over, and we can return once again to an era of responsible home ownership.

Red Meat for the Pro-Choice Crowd

2009-03-08T16:08:00.000-07:00

The lack of consensus on abortion shows no sign of easing. Each side points to their favorite outrages. Pro-life people point to this case, where a living infant was tossed in the garbage. Pro-choice advocates point to this story. A nine-year old child, raped by her step-father was given an abortion. The Brazil Catholic Church has excommunicated the child's mother and the doctors that performed the abortion.

I won't comment on the former case, since I am generally pro-life. I will comment on the latter, in order to correct some of the distortions and hate I see on the pro-choice side.

I agree with the Church's stance in this manner. In the Church's view, performing an abortion or assisting in the procuring of abortion warrants excommunication, because it is clearly and unequivocally the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.

I think in this case, the Church has correctly described the father's crime as heinous. The Church's position is that a later C-section would have allowed both the children and the mother to live. The left wants the mothers health to be a justification for abortion, but any anxiety or discomfort can be always be characterized as a health issue. This effectively means support for all abortions at any time. The Church's position is that killing a child is only justified if it is a true, unintended side effect of efforts to save the mother's life.

Some on the left even believe the nonsense that the child herself was excommunicated, which justifies even more hatred.

There is a paradox in the reaction to this.

By excommunication, all the Church is saying is that from the perspective of Church offices these people are to be shunned. They are not asking that they be burned at the stake. They are not saying that they should be personally be shunned by Catholics. They are not asking that they be denied love, empathy and support from other Christians. They are just saying that in the absence of repentance they should be denied the only real benifit of formal Church membership: the sacraments. Excommunication is not permanent. Excommunication can be lifted, and access to the sacraments can be achieved by repentance.

What I find paradoxical in the reactions to this is the claim that it is somehow brutal and draconian, while at the same time claiming that there is no value in the sacraments, because they are merely anachronistic religious drivel.

Most people seize on the seeming unfairness of not excommunicating the step-father. It isn't at all clear that he is even a Catholic, hence excommunication may not even be relevant. Even if he is a Catholic, excommunication is not intended as a remedy against all sinners - otherwise the Church would be empty. It should not be supposed that the Church approves of all people and their acts who are not excommunicated.

This is clearly a hard and extreme case, as this little girl's life has been a true horror. From my perspective as a Christian, evil acts like these call for Christian love as a response, not death.

This story will surely be used as another another justification for Obama's Freedom of Choice Act. Like most bills, the name itself is a lie, because it may take away the choice of health care providers to refuse to perform abortion. The story will be cast as "look how shallow and brutal the Catholic conscience is!" So if you are a nurse or a doctor in any public health facility, any claim of conscience will be seen as bigotry, and so you will have no right to refuse to perform an abortion.

My pro-life position is this. I have no desire to outlaw abortion, and to jail mothers and doctors who perform them. At the same time I will not support any politician or party who advocates using the public purse to fund or subsidize abortion, and who uses the power of the state to promote it.

The left loves to cast such positions as patriarchal, as motivated by what they characterize as the need to control woman's bodies. But it is the left that seeks control over bodies, because they want to compel people to perform abortions and to pay for them against their will. While there is some disagreement on whether the language of the law will eliminate conscience exemptions, I have no faith in the legal system's respect for conscience in this matter. No one thought that the Civil Rights laws would result in favoritism, but they did.

To me the only possible response to the Freedom of Choice Act is for Church-owned hospitals to refuse to comply, refuse to perform abortions, and to allow the inevitable siege of lawsuits to put them all out of business.

On Obama

2009-02-20T11:17:00.000-08:00

I’ve long had mixed feelings about Obama. I’m no Democrat, but during the primary campaign I was rooting for him. I have nothing but contempt for the Clintons, and it was gratifying to see someone defeat them and all their moral squalor.

But I realize that Obama was a lawyer that never won a significant case, and a law professor that never wrote a treatise. He was a community organizer that left no enduring legacy in his community. He is an orator who seems flat and uninspiring when talking about anything other than the meaning of his own personal story.

He is the perfect president for our age. We’ve long told ourselves that we can judge the quality of a person not by what they do, but rather by examining the strands of their ethnic and political genealogy. Like Germans measuring human skulls, we examine his past – half black, half white, both a Muslim and a Christian background, child of a single mother – and we convince ourselves that such a mix must be the sign of an extraordinary person.

Is he a radical, some secret socialist? I don’t think so. I don’t think he believes in anything. He has only ever been motivated by the search for praise he can believe in. He gravitated towards Ayers and Wright because they seemed to him like important people, they could set him up in politics, and they praised his wisdom as he sat at their feet. I have no doubt that if David Duke and Timothy McVeigh held the keys to Chicago politics and told him he had a mission for America he would have embraced them as well.

Being a Chicago pol is surely no mark against his character. Harry Truman allied himself with some pretty shady characters too. But Harry sought out politics as an avenue for success after a long and ignoble string of failures. He was looking for something to be good at. Obama was never allowed to fail - at anything. I think he’s spent all of his adult life around people that would never allow him to fail, because of what he represents. Oh, how much better I would feel about him if I could look in his past and see one, just one, failure! Some experience, some confrontation between the realities of the world and a personal limitation that would have taught him something.

So we’ve lifted him aloft, this person of no failure, of no success. He didn’t climb there. I’m convinced that he entered last year’s primaries in the hope he might establish a basis for a future run. Chicago politics teaches you to wait your turn. I think he was as surprised as anyone that his smug reliance on some Iraqi invasion position statement as his sole distinguishing asset from Hillary provided traction. I think he was as surprised as anyone at the way the strands of his identity captivated the media, and how the absence of any earthly accomplishment lent his identity a mystic, uncorrupted brilliance.

Nothing in his past suggests how he will handle criticism, or failure. There is nothing that suggests flexibility or determination or the ability to make an ally of a former enemy, and these are the key markers of a skilled politician. His rise was the rise of a balloon. He’s never fought a bill through a legislature, negotiated a compromise, cleaned up after a disaster, built a team (or anything else), or even dealt with a hostile audience.

So even if he is a socialist, like some Republicans claim, nothing in his background suggests that he has the skills or ability to realize a long-term political vision. So far all he is doing is pandering to the pent-up demands of Democrats, in the vain hope he can continue to live off their praise. We have a complex polity, and there is no telling how he will react when the inevitable fissures start appearing among Democrats. He’ll have to choose, and find some Republican allies at the same time as he prevents further Democratic erosion.

There is no reason to believe he’ll have the skill to do that. In fact there is no reason to believe he has the skill to do anything at all. Obama brings nothing to the office other that a thirst for reassuring praise.

The Octomom Mortgage Rescue Plan

2009-02-19T09:47:00.000-08:00

Obama's Mortgage Rescue plan is only going to make things worse. For every Octomom family that it rescues from greedy bankers, a dozen other families will find mortgages priced out of their reach. Since it imposes additional costs and risks on mortgage providers, fewer new mortgages will be offered.

Why would a bank - any bank - take the risk of offering a mortgage? Consider that our government provides finding for ACORN, which will now use civil disobedience tactics to prevent foreclosures. It is far safer to invest in Chinese coal plants. The Chinese economy is troubled too, but at least in China there is a government that is willing to support investors.

The Octomom Stimulus Bill of 2009

2009-02-12T13:45:00.000-08:00

Congressional bills that gather public attention are often given names to personalize them, so that we can put a person’s face to the injustice addressed by the bill. Hence we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the Ryan White Care Act for AIDS funding, But so far the stimulus bill has just been, well just the “Stimulus Bill” or the “Stimulus Package” in the public mind, and this may be one reason why the public is less than enthusiastic.

To me, however, it should be named the Octomom Stimulus Bill of 2009, because if there is one person in America who personalizes all the subsidies and incentives that the bill contains, it is Nadya Suleman. You see, it’s all about “helping families” and Nadya’s little family is one in desperate need of truly heroic assistance. No doubt her current food stamp allotment is insufficient for their needs, and so the bill has increases for that. The federal Medicaid system and California’s Medi-Cal system are running deep deficits, and so additional funds are being appropriated so that the Neonatal ICU costs (running into the millions of dollars) for 8 premature births can be covered. Nadya lives off the disability payments for some of her other children, and they’ll be increased. Sadly, when you have 8 premature births, it is all too likely that at least a few of them will suffer from some disability, and so Nadya can look forward to better times ahead. Nadya lives off public assistance and her parents went bankrupt from a “bad real estate investment” – no doubt they were fleeced by some greedy bankers. So we can all be thankful that there are provisions in the Octomom Stimulus Bill of 2009 to help families just like these.

We have to “invest in our future” so there are copious finds for education, like increases in Pell grants. Nadya, of course, plans on living off “student loans” in the near term, and she’ll use college daycare facilities (also increased by the plan) while she is pursuing the rigorous and exacting demands of a degree in counseling. With 14 children she’ll no doubt do very well with the increases in the Child Tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

In the heydays of Stalin and Breshnev, the Soviet Union was peppered with posters of heroic labor in the form of huge, broad-shouldered men working in steel plants, striving mightily to meet the production goals of the latest Five Year Plan. Obama – no novice when it comes to iconography - should fill the nation with posters of Nadya. We want jobs, and this woman is perhaps the most heroic creator of jobs in our time. Think of the nurses and doctors caring for her newborns. Think of the daycare workers that California State University will have to hire at public expense. We’ll need more special ed teachers. She’ll need to employ lawyers to help her continue to game the subsidy system. Think of the increased demand for school construction and “infrastructure” that will be needed to house and transport her little brood.

Octomom is a hero of modern American labor.

At first glance, you would think all of this is a burden on the taxpayers. It isn’t. Right now we’re still in the flush years, when we can lower taxes, increase spending and blissfully ignore the fact that foreign creditors fund our daily living. The Octomom Stimulus bill is just the latest manifestation of this madness. There is a bubble in Treasury debt as sure as there was a housing bubble, and a dotcom bubble before that. Of course the Chinesee and Arabs will continue to buy our debt. They’ll always be happy to make the sorts of “investments in the future” that we dare not ask our own taxpayers to fund.

And why wouldn’t they? Loaning us money so we can fund the likes of Octomom is such a sound investment! Sure, there might be a net drain on the economy for the next decade or so while we nurse these children, care for them while mom is at school, and then pay counselors to deal with their neglect. But once this woman gets her state-subsidized degree in counseling, I’m sure she’ll be a productivity dynamo. I’m sure patients will be lining up at her office door and she’ll be making millions of dollars a year, so she can repay, through taxes, all those subsidies. You can tell from her personal insight and level-headedess that she’ll be in great demand as a counselor.

Never mind that Nadya’s own mom has one of these “soft” degrees as well: a degree in “Child and Adolescent Development.” We can all take comfort in the belief that increased funding for child development education is the best guarantee that our children will grow up to be mature, responsible, and productive adults like Nadya.

Completely absent from the Octomom Stimulus Bill of 2009 is any recognition that we can restore the health of our economy by making things and providing services that other nations will pay for. We’ll invest much more in education, which, increasingly in modern America means not investment in providing an engineering education, but rather in training some adults to console and counsel other unhappy adults. The Octomom Stimulus Bill is built on the bubbly delusion that the rest of the world will blindly invest in the spawning, cuddling, coddling, and counseling of future Americans.

Gosh . . . I feel so, so … stimulated!

The Sight of an Angel

2009-02-07T15:07:00.000-08:00

Sometimes a seemingly insignificant encounter leaves me oddly unsettled. For days afterwards, some nugget of feeling that it provokes still echoes around inside, as if it has some sharp edges that prevent it from settling within.

The other day as my wife, my daughter, and I walked out of a building, I heard my wife say hello to someone who was approaching us. When I looked at the women I quickly realized this wasn’t anyone I knew, and as I stopped to give them time to chat I became engrossed in something unusual that was happening at the same time.

The women had a small girl with her, and as the woman and my wife started talking, the little girl approached my daughter. And continued to approach. She was small, and a lot younger than my daughter, and she kept on approaching until her face was just a few inches from my daughter’s chest.

For an instant – just an instant - I was bemused inside, remembering the Seinfeld “close talker” episode about the unspoken social boundaries we maintain. But for just an instant, because then an extraordinary series of sharp, stabbing realizations took place.

The little girl was the woman’s daughter.

As she began to look up and speak to my daughter, I could tell from the sound of her voice and the odd shape of her teeth that she was suffering from some disability.

I felt an inner wave of sympathy for her mother, the frightening “there but for the grace of God” realization that all my happiness is contingent on the well-being of my children, and how fragile that well-being is.

I realize I’m staring at the little girl, and I know I should look away. I should not stare.

But I could not take my eyes off the little girl. There was such a hunger in her close approach to my daughter, and when she looked up at my daughters face I saw such an unmixed delight in the simple experience of talking to another. And seeing another. No, I could not look away, because when she started to smile up at my daughter it was like a sunburst. She was not suffering. No one who smiles like that, no one who speaks with such joy can be said to be suffering.

Later on I asked my wife about her, and I got the details. She’s going blind and she will die, and so I had a story that I could hang my feelings on. There was a reason for the sadness and fear that I felt. But I had no story that explained the other feeling - the feeling that I had witnessed some earthly manifestation of God’s transcendent light in her little smile.

My eyes will not see forever, and I will die someday. She didn’t know my daughter, yet she took such joy in finding my daughter’s face in the fading light of the world. I know my daughter, and I’m ashamed that familiarity has dulled the wondrous sight of her in my eyes.

Someday my light too will fade. Someday my eyes too will struggle to find my daughter’s face within the growing darkness. Let there be light.

The One ... Who Seems to be Late an Awful Lot

2008-10-29T12:43:00.000-07:00

Now this is funny. Yeah, I know it is probably unfair, and that it is easy to take snippets out of context and make someone look bad.

I can't think of an easier job than being a Senator. All you really have to do is have a staff that panders to your constituents, show up for most votes, and vote the way your bagmen tell you. You don't hire and fire people and you don't need to make the sort of executive decisions that leave a trail that can be scrutinized by the media. So in contrast to Sarah Palin, Obama has had it easy.

I wonder how he'll do at the first real job he's ever had...

Obama's Hope-ocracy

2008-09-26T15:18:00.000-07:00

Interesting video. I have no doubt Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats which is why I'll be voting Libertarian. I like the video because it exposes two myths The first myth is that the absence of regulation causes this crisis. The second is that Obama is somehow different from any other Chicago pol.

I Think it is Time to Buy

2008-09-18T08:16:00.000-07:00

I have a policy that I've always followed when making financial decisions. Find a trend that seems like a sure bet, and take the opposite position to realize a small advantage.

Bubbles are a fantastic opportunity. Whenever I'm at a social gathering involving a group of people who are casual acquaintances, and they talk about investing, I listen carefully for their consensus on "sure things." Many people will discuss the money they've made, the smart deals that have turned out golden. This was the situation in the late 90's, when it seemed everybody knew of some hot dotcom opportunity, and they spoke confidently about how regular patterns of earnings weren't important anymore. That web traffic was the new measure of wealth. Because of this I never invested in Nasdaq, except to buy a handful of put options on Ebay. I kept my pension money invested in an S&P index fund. Each time the S&P rose another 10%, I took 10% of my money and moved it into government bonds. Hence I maintained a steady, but quite unspectacular, positive rate of return through both sides of the dotcom bubble years.

It's the same with real estate. Two years ago everyone you met at a casual social gathering spoke of rising prices. "They're not making any more real estate." They looked at me like I was nuts when I said that if my personal family situation allowed, I would sell my home and rent for a few years, so I could buy a better home and still make a nice profit.

About three months ago I met someone who said he spent all night the night before trading oil futures. A guy just like me, but he was excited to say that he was making as much money trading at night as he was working during the day. "Time to sell oil" I thought.

When the average guy climbs on a financial bandwagon, the smart money gets out. You know a bubble is happening when the people around you start talking about the smart investments they've made, and they are all bets on the the same market trend. How do you know a bubble is bursting? When there are calls for lawsuits, and prosecution of speculators that fleeced the market. That is what is happening now - and panics are a good opportunity too.

So if I had some cash available (which I don't - I have kids in college) I would either buy an S&P index fund, or buy a nice house in a middle-class neighborhood.

At this point, I'm a lot more worried about the Federal Reserve than I am about the stock market. The market may move lower, but when I see the fed taking on $200 billion of mortgage debt by Fannie and Freddie Mae, and $85 billion for AIG I have to wonder. For many years now it has been clear that the U.S. government is in no position to meet its long term entitlements program obligations. Recently the government has been borrowing $12 billion a month to fund the Iraq war. Now it seems it to be taking on $50 or so billion dollars every single day in a futile effort to stabilize markets. And yet at the same time, investors are flocking to three month Treasury bills in what is called a "flight to safety" I think it is significant that investors only feel safe in making very, very short terms bets on the U.S. government.

A Smear is Born

2008-09-14T09:49:00.001-07:00

This is pretty funny. Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte's left wing hate blog, claims to have found a ... a ... Smoking Gun! You see Sarah Palin is a rape enabler! Make sure you read the comments to see how they plan on using Sarah's signature on a financial document to cast her as pro-rape. Comments like:

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Once this story makes it to the MSM the McCain/Palin candidacy is DEAD. As soon as I clear up a few details I’m going to e-mail this to every big city newspaper editor I can find. I would appreciate it if Amanda (or any commentor) could clarify the some minor points which I couldn’t quite pin down from the links in this post. Part of it may be that I’m just bad at interpreting the documents.
...
I think there’s enough in the HuffPo piece to spark an investigation even without further confirmation so I may go ahead in a couple of days anyway. What newspapers should I e-mail first? Would it be best to start with Andrew Sullivan, who really seems to be on Palin’s case lately?

and:

The way to exploit this is through the fear that mid-stream Americans have about sexual predators attacking them or their loved ones.

Simple. If someone you loved was raped, or you were raped, you would want to have the best evidence possible to secure a conviction and keep the creeps off the street. Here there is no political will - in fact, there is strong political desire - to allow violent pervs to continue to run free.

One commenter had the sense to inject a note of reality:

I’m confused. You guys think that signature on a FINANCIAL STATEMENT means this was her idea or that she was even aware of the change? ROTFLMAO

Of course, this dose of cold water was ignored by all the leftist Karl Rove wannabees, too unwilling to part with their hopes of finding something that will end the appeal of this women. None of them seemed to realize that the issue has been out there for at least a week, and has found zero traction among the only people that matter: normal, everyday voters who are undecided.

Sure, make rape the central issue of this campaign. Bring it up at every campaign stop. Have Obama make an oration on it in each of the battleground states. After all, the persistence of the Patriarchy is one of those hot-button issues that sway voters.

They just can't help themselves.

For another good laugh, check out Dennis the Peasant's Amanda Marcotte Sentence of the Week.

Even Libertarians are Nuts

2008-09-14T09:20:00.000-07:00

I'll almost certainly "waste my vote" on the Libertarian candidate this year. But party loyalty only goes so far. This Libertarian-leaning comedian, Doug Stanhope, has created a website where you can contribute money to Bristol Palin to encourage her to get an abortion. The site is easily found if you are so motivated. What a repulsive idea. Lest you think something like this is beyond this pale, or an obvious joke, this lunatic is proud of her contribution.

The world is going nuts. No doubt the pro-choice extremists have no problem with a cash inducement for abortion, as an affirmation of Roe vs. Wade. After all, choice is one of those absolutes that must be unconditionally supported.

The world is going nuts.

You Will Vote for The One...

2008-09-13T17:26:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip: HillBuzz, a blog for disgruntled Hillary supporters. They bear a deep resentment towards Omama, and are gleefully cataloging the excesses of his supporters as they trash Sarah Palin. They very much want his "sexist" politics to be seen as the reason for his loss this year, so they have their day in 2012.

But these extreme Obama supporters aren't sexists - they just have a general hatred for Americans like Palin.

It is also worth taking a look at the differences in the way Charles Gibson treated Obama and Palin in their initial interviews. The full transcript of Sarah's interview reveals that the interview was edited to make her position on Russia seem less nuanced. Of course they took out Gibson's admission that he misquoted her ("I take your point on Lincoln's words."). And while it may be true that Sarah Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, it seems that Professor Gibson didn't know, either. Given a choice between two people, one that doesn't know something but is aware there is a gap in her knowledge, versus an arrogant poseur with a misguided confidence in his own knowledge, I'll take the first person every time.

A Great Piece on Fatherhood

2008-09-12T16:59:00.000-07:00

I just came across this and wanted to pass it along. Writing so perfect it takes my breath away. See Dana Blackenhorn on Fatherhood.

The Myth of Sarah

2008-09-11T12:51:00.000-07:00

From Time:

She embodies the most basic American myth — Jefferson's yeoman farmer, the fantasia of rural righteousness — updated in a crucial way: now Mom works too. Palin's story stands with one foot squarely in the nostalgia for small-town America and the other in the new middle-class reality. She brings home the bacon, raises the kids — with a significant assist from Mr. Mom — hunts moose and looks great in the process. I can't imagine a more powerful, or current, American Dream.

I can. It is the myth of the activist, living in the fire with the common people who are oppressed by racism and capitalism. The heroic activist that stares down bigotry, and, even in the face of threats to his life, rails against injustice like a Prophet. One who stands before the multitude and uses the rhythm and cadences of the old spirituals to inspire new efforts towards justice with the power of extraordinary words.

We see The One in our yearning for the sixties.

She Didn't Cry

2008-09-11T08:29:00.000-07:00

Well, she didn't cry. Consider her position: she finds herself suddenly at the center of a media firestorm, and many think her choice for this position was a huge mistake. There are claims she is completely unqualified as a candidate. There are claims she is a terrible mother, and there are all sorts of weird stories floating around the internet about her pregnancy, and about her daughter.

So you need to walk out into a convention hall, stand in the lights, in the full knowledge that there are millions of people watching, many of whom hope you embarrass yourself

She didn’t just do well. She did more than that. I've been following convention speeches since 1968, and there is no question that this was the best speech I've ever heard. I've heard Kennedy in 1980, Reagan in 1980, Cuomo in 1984, Jackson in 1988. I watched The One stride out of his temple, and add yet another speech to his series of Greatest Speeches Ever Made.

But guess what? Sarah, in her very first national appearance, facing pressure greater than Kennedy, Jackson, Cuomo, and Obama, beat them all. It isn’t just me. Look this poll. Democrats liked the speech better than Republicans liked Obama. Twice as many independents felt better about Sarah Palin after her speech than they did after Obama's.

She was poised and composed, and she showed no sign of even the slightest anxiety about what she was up against. She seemed completely unconcerned about the attacks made on her. In fact, she seemed to thrive on the challenge, and seemed as comfortable with an audience as Ronald Reagan.

So the election is, right now anyway, about Sarah Palin. As I predicted, Democrats can’t help but attack her, because of who she is. She is anti-abortion, conservative, religious, white, and happily married. She achieved success in athletics with no help from Title IX lawyers. She became the Governor of a state all on her own, putting the lie to assertions that there is some glass ceiling in politics for woman. She'll be attacked because of who she is. And because extreme leftists are motivated by hatred, not policy issues, the attacks on her will continue to be venomous and personal.

So right now the election is about Palin, and compared to her The One looks like yesterday's news. Sarah Palin has an opportunity that few politicians ever have - the chance to set the agenda for a national political movement. Some have compared her to Reagan or Thatcher, but claims like that are premature. She has an opportunity, but it takes a politician of unusual skills to move a nation. It takes more than speeches. It takes a combination of a personal story, the ability to communicate effectively and an agenda, and it isn’t clear what her agenda is, or if she even has one.

I Don't Think She'll Cry

2008-09-02T09:47:00.000-07:00

From the Weekly Standard:

A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc.:

Palin: "Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?"

McCain aide: "No, Governor."

Palin: "A hockey mom wears lipstick."

I think the Obama supporters think they are still dealing with Hillary, who got all teary-eyed when people were mean to her. Nobody, but nobody, made Margaret Thatcher cry.

Some on the Left Understand Palin

2008-09-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

Nopt everybody on the left is clueless on why McCain picked Palin. The Huffington Post understands the real Palin demographic:

McCain/Palin polls at 47%, Obama/Biden at 45% post-Palin. So it's tied, according to Zogby. Enter the Wal-Mart voter. Zogby states "Among those who said they shop regularly at Wal-Mart - a demographic group that Zogby has found to be both "value" and "values" voters - Obama is getting walloped by McCain. Winning 62% support from weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, McCain wins these voters at a rate similar to what President Bush won in 2004. Obama wins 24% support from these voters."

130 million people shop each week at Wal-Mart, but many are repeat shoppers. 57% of the country shops there at least once a month. These are unique, i.e., not counted twice visitors. Over 70% of union households shop at Wal-Mart. Palin's husband is a United Steelworkers union member.

In this election, "Wal-Mart voters" seem to be the new soccer Moms. Everyday Americans shop at Wal-Mart. They understand it. They understand Sarah Palin; hunter, angler, Mom of 5. Instead of planning to punish Wal-Mart with check card legislation, maybe Obama should visit a few of their stores to meet their voters.

Maybe Obama will be smart enough to do this. But if he does visit, he'd be wise to avoid offering them restraining orders they can serve on their husbands, sex-ed and "family diversity" coloring books for their kids, or Planned Parenthood leaflets. He'll have to come up with something else to appeal to the bitter, gun-clinging Neanderthals he finds waiting on the checkout lines.

Not Palin's Baby?

2008-08-31T12:20:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is the perfect candidate to illustrate the fault lines within the left, and the pretenses of Democrats to care about families. See Daily Kos, claiming that Sarah Palin is not the mother of Trig Palin.

Sure, the Democrats care so much about women and families! Talk about the politics of personal destruction - sifting for dirt, to destroy not just the candidate, but her family.

Also worth reading: The Anchoress, responding to one of the "pro-women, pro-family" Democrats.

The Real Palin Demographic

2008-08-30T09:18:00.000-07:00

I won't vote for John McCain, because I want to dismantle the American overseas empire, while he wants to preserve it at all costs. I'm a libertarian, and I believe that Republicans have lost any Reagan-era credibility they had when they speak of small, limited government. I won’t vote for The One because I refuse to subscribe to any cult of personality that is based on a myth.

Nevertheless, I find the choice of Sarah Palin fascinating because of the problem she poses for the extreme left. They cast themselves as the champion of women and families, but this woman is a living illustration of how little the Democrats have to offer people like her.

First, she is married to a man, and she doesn't seem at all unhappy with her situation. This is problematic for disgruntled HRC Democrats. Joe "would you like some sugar with your restraining order, Ma'am?" Biden Democrats believe that women should be able to leave their marriages for any reason or for no reason, and that taxpayers and child support enforcement policies must be designed to make this choice a neutral one, with no economic consequences at all for mom and her children. The fact that she remains married to a man - after 20 years! - and has born 5 children with him is deeply troubling to Democrats.

The fact that she's been able to embark on a successful political career, and still have 5 children, is a thumb in the eye as far as Democrats are concerned. Democrats maintain that the freedom to have both children and a career requires government assistance, since men, by their very nature, have to be compelled by government to support women and their children. When a women chooses a lifelong partnership with a man, all she is doing is making a sneaky end-run around the government, selfishly consuming his wages and his labor directly from the source.

Second, she is a business owner, with her husband. While far from rich, they appear to be doing quite nicely. I'm guessing they have health insurance, so they don’t need the government to provide it. Unless she leaves her husband, the Democrats have nothing to offer her except for environmental regulations and higher taxes.

He husband is an oil worker! They draw income from the oil business! This is a big red flag, because to Democrats, anyone associated with petroleum, from the men on offshore oil rigs, to men driving oil trucks, to oil traders, to oil company managers, to oil company stockholders, are leeches on society, and defilers of nature.

She is a member of the NRA. Democrats don’t believe anyone, except for lesbians, should be allowed near guns.

She is an anti-abortion Christian. This is anathema to Democrats. Democrats believe that abortion should be a free choice, with no economic or personal consequences, right up to the moment of birth, at the very least. Abortion should be free of charge, funded completely by the public, and available without the slightest inconvenience to any female, of any age, of any citizenship status. Taxpayer-funded abortion clinics should be as ubiquitous as Starbucks, and rural women and children should be provided with a taxpayer-funded stretch limo and a driver to take them to the nearest clinic. It should be illegal for anyone - especially parents - to discourage abortion, or even hint that the decision has a moral dimension.

McCain didn’t choose her because he is trying to get disgruntled Hillary supporters. He is after a completely different and much larger demographic. He is trying to appeal to women that are married to men they don’t hate. Women who are relatively happy with their lives, relatively conservative on social issues, who aren't lawyers and either didn’t go to college, or went to college and avoided Womens Studies courses. Women who are ambivalent about abortion. Women who have managed their lives successfully enough to pay taxes every year. That is a very different demographic than disgruntled Hillary supporters.

I'm part of the demographic he's after, even though I'm a man. I've got a lot more in common with her than I do with the predatory law firm of Obama & Biden.

Biden Wants To Fund Your Wife's Lawyer

2008-08-24T07:29:00.000-07:00

It comes out of no where. You're sitting with your family having dinner, and the police show up at your door. It seems your wife has - for any reason or for no reason whatsoever - decided to make a complaint against you. She tells the police you threatened her, and she feels afraid.

From that point on, you're at the mercy of the police and court system, and any constitutional presumption of innocence doesn't apply to you. Since your wife says she feels afraid, the police have no choice but to take you out of the house in handcuffs. Since you've now been arrested for "domestic violence" your wife can easily get a restraining order against you, preventing you from ever seeing your kids again.

You can thank Joe Biden - one of the sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act - for the situation you are in. The VAWA ensures that she has the full weight of the legal system on her side. You can be dragged out of your house and separated from your children based on nothing other than her say so.

But even that isn't enough for Joe. Now he wants to be sure that your wife has the benefit of free legal council so she can sue for total custody and child support payments.

This is why any man that thinks the Democrats have their interests in mind is nuts. The only families the Democrats care about are families headed by single moms and gays.

The Delightful Glee of Blasphemy

2008-07-10T13:08:00.000-07:00

Via Dean's World, I came across this troubling story of Host desecration.

First, a University of Central Florida student takes an action that appears sacrilegious to other worshipers at Mass. There are claims that no sacrilege was intended, and that physical force was used against the young man in an attempt to pry the Host from his hands.

Cook claims he planned to consume it, but first wanted to show it to a fellow student senator he brought to Mass who was curious about the Catholic faith.
"When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him," Cook said. "I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they'd leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth."
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that's why he brought it home with him.
"She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand," Cook said, adding she wouldn't immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
Diocese of Orlando spokeswoman Carol Brinati said she was not aware of anyone touching Cook. She released a statement Thursday: "... a Catholic Campus Ministry student representative filed a complaint with the Student Union regarding the behavior of the two young men. A Student Government Representative called Catholic Campus Ministry to apologize for this disruption."
Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF's student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force.

Next the student receives some email death threats, and returns the Host, with a vow that he'll sue for damages because he was assaulted.

Next Bill Donohue of the Catholic League gets involved, with threats of his own against the University.

For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage—regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance—is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.

Finally, the "progressive" web mob takes over, gleefully egging each other on to even more outrageous blasphemies. I won’t quote this bile.

My Christianity is not about demanding respect for some "us" I identify with, or me. I can certainly understand the very human urge to do this - I went through a phase where I had the attitude: "Boy if only we behaved like those Muslims, they'd never dare disrespect us." But I was as wrong as I could be. It is absolutely true that all the various "hate speech" code proponents could care less when hatred is directed at Christians, but Christ never said that the world owed us fair treatment. Look at what he promised Peter:

I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

As a Catholic, I believe that the Host is indeed the bodily substance of Jesus Christ. But I also know that Christ has no need for us to protect His person or His honor from others.

In my view, as Christians, we ought to abstain from any temptation to use state power to support or protect the Church, even in the face some of the hatred that is directed at it today. As Christians, we ought to be careful that we are living, as best we can, the truth of the Gospels, and we should not expect this to buy us any favor, respect, credit, or justice from others. I've always been inspired by the simple faith of the Amish, and their willingness to readily forgive even the most heinous crimes against them. To me, that is as good an example of Christianity in practice as there is today.

Sure, I'm troubled that there are lots of people that take a juvenile pleasure in blasphemy. Hatred is nothing new in the world, and it seems every group has received more than its due. But I'm also troubled by Bill Donohue's reaction and the fear that people might view him as a representative of what Catholics are like. As I said before, I don’t like the way he goes about defending Catholicism. When I look at this Catholic blogger, stating the terms of an apology that would be acceptable, I'm troubled too. I can understand the feeling of wanting an apology for what seems like a clear hateful insult, but I have trouble reconciling the setting of terms for an apology with the Gospels as I understand them.

I feel that as Christians we are charged with defending others, not ourselves.

The Victim Privilege List

2008-07-09T13:30:00.000-07:00

There has been a flurry of discussion about privilege lists lately, triggered by a thread at Feminist Critics, and the response by Ampersand, the author of one of the most popular lists: the Male Privilege Checklist.

I was interested in the topic a while ago, even going so far as indulging in some fun by writing my own Female Privilege List. But I also reached the conclusion that the use of these lists had become silly. I can see some real value in them - it is useful to read something like the White Privilege List (the one that led to all these), or the Average Sized Person Privilege List. They are a useful tool to help you reflect on things that you might take for granted, and advantages other people may not have.

But their use has gone well beyond that. If you read any feminist discussions, all they talk about is privilege. Here is one example. Arguments center not on facts, reasoning or evidence, but rather on the relative privilege of the people staking opposing claims; any good feminist will discount a male's position purely because it comes from a "privileged" position. Women of Color feminists will discount the views of white feminists for the same reason. Even Muslim feminists are learning how seductive privilege rhetoric is - now there is a Muslim Male Privilege List!

I believe that assertions of privilege are just a rhetorical technique used to discount opposing positions. They serve as an amulet to protect ideologies from dissonant views. When I read the Feminist Critics discussion, I was gratified to find that I am not alone in this.

So to have some more fun, and to further illustrate the ridiculous hold these lists have on web discourse, I've written a Victim Privilege List. It is a short one - after all, victims wouldn't be victims if they have lots of privileges! But I think some of these demonstrate why people fight for the victim flag, and how the winner of that flag gains a "privileged" position in discussions and debate. I'm hoping the last one properly conveys the weird paradox of all this nonsense.

And by the way - number 3 is an analog of one of the silly "Male Privileges" - number 11.

The Victim Privilege List

Privileges I have as a member of a historically oppressed group that others (people who haven't suffered from oppression) lack:

1. People I respect have taught me that I come from a long line of ancestors who were forced to survive in the face of hatred and adversity. Others go through life completely clueless about how lucky they are.

2. If I'm lucky enough to live in a post-modern Western country, I can commit heinous acts against others, and remain certain that at least some others will defend me.

3. If I live in a post-modern Western society, I can enjoy the fact that I'll always find other people who will reliably shower me with extraordinary praise for my accomplishments - even if the things I've done are routine for others.

4. If I live in a post-modern Western society, I can be sure that some other people will covet any praise I bestow as a certification that they are good people.

5. I can argue that others believe as they do because deep institutional and historical forces have bred bias and bigotry into the depth of their souls.

6. I can be sure that when others criticize me, it can’t be because I've done anything wrong. I've learned not to waste time listening to such bigots.

7. I can be sure that when I get angry, it isn’t for selfish reasons, but rather because the experience of my people has fostered in me a keen sensitivity to injustice. When others get angry, it is yet another sign of their hatred.

8. I can be sure that when others tell me I'm wrong about something, it means they lack insight, perspective and empathy.

9. I can be certain that any negative views of my people aren’t due to anything we've done. After all, my people have a long history of this sort of bigotry from others.

10. I can be certain that any negative views of me personally just reflect hateful stereotypes promoted by others.

11. I can be dead certain that my negative views of others are based on reality, truth and hard experience, because my people have schooled me on the sneaky depravity of those other people.

12. I can be certain that my own personal advancement represents the culmination of a grand historical march towards human equality. Others just seek advancement for their own aggrandizement.

13. I enjoy the satisfaction of knowing my efforts are focused on supporting those those who are truly needy. I refuse to be distracted by other people's whining.

14. I can be grateful that the one redeeming benefit of all my suffering, and the suffering of my people, is that it has earned me the privilege of seeing how privilege corrupts others.

Studying Women's Studies

2008-07-07T15:33:00.000-07:00

I have two children in college, and I work hard to pay the bills. I'm indeed fortunate to be able to do this - I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who would love to be in my situation, and to have the financial ability to give their children the advantages of a college education. Part of me dreads the monthly bill. Part of me realizes how lucky I am.

Since I have to fund most of this, I'm quite happy that I've never been asked to pay for what I consider "garbage." Thankfully my children have gravitated to areas of study that demand hard measurable learning. The colleges have a core curriculum that is pretty demanding, and the majors they've chosen are areas of study I respect.

Every year with the tuition bill, I take a close look at the courses they've registered for. I know when I was in college (back in the days when the City University of New York was tuition-free) there were a few courses I took because they were known as "easy A's" and there were some I took for scheduling reasons - I wanted at least one day a week off. I wasn't much of a scholar then.

I don’t know what I would do if I got a big bill, and among the courses listed was something like "Feminist and Gender Studies." There is just something about me, a representative of the Patriarchy, forking over dollars so my children can study the nuances of how I've oppressed them and warped their minds during their formative years. There is something about paying for a course in a department so political, so ideological, and so uncertain about the material it teaches that the department has student surveys to decide . . . on the name for the department! Or whose professors, so learned and wise in the ways of gender, have long mailing list discussions about how to teach students of a particular gender. I mean it isn't like biologists studying the million-or-so species, chemists studying the periodic table, or linguists studying the Indo-European language family. For God's sake, there are exactly two genders, and you, the experts, need help in dealing with one of them? Do I want my children taking courses that will teach them how to make arguments like this, found in a comment on Hugo Schwyzer's blog:

Most likely the reason that these women feel this way is becaue we live in a society that allows men to objectify women. Men do this so that they can stay in power. Being with a beautiful women is considred to be a sign of stautus in our society; and because the woment is a status symbol she is treated more like an object than a subject. Also by obejectifying women men don’t have to recognizen them as sujects and take them serioulsly. While it seems like this would be a horrible situation for women and the smart ones would choose not to participate this is not the case; many women feel that by appering beautiful they gain power over men because them man will then want to be in possesion of her. Perhaps teachers who objectify their students are more interested in power than having a relationship with their students. Also I can’t help but notice that many of the comments here are highly hetero-compolsary.

So I don't know what I'd do if I saw a course "Feminist and Gender Studies" on a bill. Perhaps if they took it as an "Easy A" or a schedule filler I'd let it go. I can understand taking some nonsense in college - as long is you know it is nonsense. But if I started to feel that they took this stuff seriously I might well say: "Go for it - but study it on your own dime."

There are always exceptions, however. I came across this Women's Studies professor, answering her Rate My Professor comment that her requirements are "inflexible."

I love the dismissive title she put right on the top of her profile: "Save it for your parents." It sort of appeals to my "Mussolini on the balcony" view that a teacher should have enough confidence in herself, and enough respect for her material that she takes an uncompromising view: I'm the damned expert, learn this stuff the way I teach it, or take a hike!

While I'd question paying for a Womens Studies course, I'd feel like I was getting some value for my money if she was the teacher.

Another View of Obama's Fathers Day Speech

2008-06-19T15:27:00.001-07:00

As a counterpoint to my praise of Obama's Father's Day speech, see J. Soltys's view that Obama's Father's Day Speech was irresponsible. Very interesting comparison of how differently Obama approached Mother's Day and Father's Day.

A Shameless "Pregnancy Pact"

2008-06-19T09:06:00.000-07:00

I hope this is some sort of hoax, but nothing really surprises me anymore. So a group of High School girls make a "pregnancy pact" and many of them successfully achieve their goal.

Just unbelievable. So a decade or so from now some child is going to learn that their existence is due not to the love of two people, but to a some childish dare. And, by the way - I don't know who your dad is - he was just some homeless guy. Those may be the lucky ones - to me it seems quite possible some of the girls will have abortions.

And by the way - momma did all this so she can can be the recipient, not the provider, of "unconditional love!"

But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally,"

I can tell how this is going to go down. Lots of blame will focus on the homeless guy. He'll be charged with statutory rape, and I guess, being homeless, he'll have a hard time paying mandated child support. The other "fathers" will be treated similarly. So we'll have more "deadbeat dads."

The Time article skillfully probes into to the root causes of this. Jobs are moving overseas - so it is clearly George Bush's fault. Not to mention the primitive, third-world conditions:

Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women's health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk.

And I read this at almost the same time I read this Hugo Schwyzer post saying how terrible it would be to shame women that get pregnant without being married.

Obama On Father's Day

2008-06-16T05:50:00.000-07:00

A great speech:

Especially this:

“Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL,” he told a huge African-American congregation in Chicago. “There’s a hole in your heart if you don’t have a male figure in the home that can guide you and lead you and set a good example for you.” “What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — any fool can have a child,” he said, to applause. “That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

I won't vote for the guy, but I'm rethinking what I wrote here.

Of course, Anne Althouse thinks that some lesbians might be offended because Obama said a child might feel "hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you." Too bad.

Happy Father's . . . er "Male Role Model" Day!

2008-06-14T14:01:00.000-07:00

In honor of Father's Day, I though I'd reprint this post from last year, on why a "male role model" is no substitute for a father:

--

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing things that treat being a father as just a "male role model."

A father is not a male role model. A father is an adult male that a child knows:
a) will take a bullet for them.
b) will work hard for many, many years, doing things he may or may not like, in order to provide a loving, secure home for his wife and children.
c) loves the child enough to consider the well-being of that child the foundation of his worth as a person.

You can be a male role model if you teach a kid how to ride a bike, throw a curve ball, learn a trade or act on a date - all good and wonderful things. Fatherhood is an irrevocable, lifetime commitment to sacrifice - with grace and pride - for the benefit of a child. A child derives great benefit knowing that someone made those sacrifices for them.

Go for it, John!

2008-06-13T13:14:00.000-07:00

I'm glad you argued against this ridiculous Supreme Court decision on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But you need to go further than that. You need to make this election a referendum on the Supreme Court by issuing a statement along the following lines:

"Like many Americans, I've long held the view that the courts in this country have become an unelected legislature, accountable to no one save the editorial boards of the Washington Post and the New York Times. This latest decision - that non-US citizens held by our military on foreign soil - have rights in U.S. courts, and cannot be held against the will of some unelected federal judge, is offensive to the plain sense of the people.

Consequently, when I am President, when an enemy combatant is captured and held on foreign soil, I will ignore any U.S. court rulings on their disposition, and will handle them in accord with policies enacted by the Congress, and Congress alone. Were we to capture Osama Bin Laden, it would be irresponsible of me to risk his release by a Federal court system which has, unfortunately, demonstrated that it cares more about the rights of foreign combatants than the safety of U. S. citizens."

This issue, and this issue alone, is all McCain needs to win. Obama would have to engage, because the left would see any challenge to Supreme Court preeminence as a threat too vital to ignore. We'd get to see Obama try and use his fancy Harvard Law education to convince NYC firemen how important it is that Osama Bin Laden and his lawyers get a crack at the Federal courts. Good luck with that, Barak!

McCain could use this issue to beat Obama like a rented mule.

I Won't Vote for a Myth

2008-04-10T09:55:00.000-07:00

While I've had mixed feelings about Obama, my feelings on Hillary are quite clear. Richard Nixon skillfully showed that lack of moral scruple is usually not a significant obstacle to political success. But when you combine Hillary's lack of scruple with her lack of any tangible accomplishment in her "35 years of service" you realize she is just a front for her husband's otherwise unconstitutional third term. She ran an incompetent campaign, clearly demonstrating that Hillary and Bill's political expertise has been vastly overrated. Her recent attempts at finding some purchase on Obama, like the suddenly discovered outrage over the near 50 year old suppression of Tibet, reminds me of a fish struggling in a net.

I initially considered voting for Obama because I found his anti-war stance attractive. As I wrote here, I think we need to withdraw completely from not just Iraq, but the entire Middle East. Obama is not radical enough, and he's not honest. He's committed to a "measured withdrawal" while I want a sudden one. He isn’t honest enough to admit the plain consequence of a withdrawal: a regional war. My view is that we'll eventually get this sort of chaos no matter what we do, because we've fought ourselves onto ground we can’t hold in the long run. I want to get out so that when there is chaos, we're not in the crossfire. Let the Chinese bleed to preserve "stability" in the Middle East.

But regardless, he lost my vote with his race speech. While I'm not convinced that Jeremiah Wright is a racist, his lies about America make it clear he is no patriot. I've watched his entire sermon leading up to his "God Damned America!" quote, and the longer context does nothing to mitigate the fact that he was exulting in 9/11. I actually subscribe to the analysis that says that that U.S. foreign policy contributed to the event, but that is far different from exulting in it as part of God's anger. Far different. So Wright is no patriot.

Neither is Obama. He's the sort of man that believes that simple love of country is too unsophisticated for his Harvard Law School sensibilities. But as the pictures and commentary on this post make clear, when lack of simple patriotism becomes a political liability - then the flags come out. He wasn't talking about race until his attitudes and associates get called into question. Then somehow it becomes something that requires a national dialogue.

To me it isn’t just the "controversial statements." Jeremiah Wright is a follower of James Cone's brand of Liberation Theology. As a Catholic, I find this deeply troubling. There is a reason that John Paul II publicly rebuked a Nicaraguan bishop on this matter. This is a theology that is rooted in Marxism, and it casts Christ as a political revolutionary for the oppressed, not a spiritual redeemer of all. So that is my problem with Obama - he is really a socialist at heart, and I can find nothing in any speech that disabuses me of that notion.

Geraldine Ferraro was right. Obama would not be where he is if he wasn't black. Obama has the Magical Negro schtick going. He's no more articulate than John Edwards, no more accomplished, no more committed to the Democratic Party's idea of "social justice." Obama is black, so for cultural reasons there are plenty of white people that credit him - based on words alone - with a certain wisdom and nobility because it fits into an Hollywood stereotype. Obama is all myth.

It's nice to know that as a white male I'm somehow a swing voter this year. But there is a reason the Democrats haven't won the white vote since 1964, and they probably won’t win it this year either. There is a certain limit to one's willingness to be the gravy train for someone else's idea of "justice."

So I won’t vote for Obama. Neither will I vote for John McCain. The last time I voted for a mainstream politician was my (proud) vote for Ronald Reagan. Until his like comes again, I'll continue to vote libertarian.

The Challenge of Paraniod Outreach

2008-04-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

I love reading nasty, contentious feminist threads and blog wars. This one is funny! It's by Black Amazon about her experiences at Woman and Media 2008. Since I read her blog a lot I wasn't at all surprised that her experience was one of being watched, silenced, and stared at. I'm sure she she brought the same open-minded, welcoming attitude to this event that she does to all her other experiences of martyrdom. She says "Fuck Seal Press." Apparently there is some vendetta there - one of the many that she clings like battle ribbons.

So someone from Seal Press posts a comment in response:

Seal Press here. We WANT more WOC. Not a whole lotta proposals come our way, interestingly. Seems to me it would be more effective to inform us about what you'd like to see rather than hating.

I guess she was reacting to "Fuck Seal Press" and I'm also guessing she was hoping for proposals from Women of Color. I'd be surprised if she wanted anything from BA herself, since the upper end of the BA market tops out at the 11 or so fanatical acolytes that find her disjointed rants about being silenced deeply gratifying. Publishers look at things like readability and spelling, and it would take a team of editors weeks to straighten out even a short BA piece. So I'm sure she wasn't fishing for submissions from BA

Seal Press was probably concerned because BA has some strange hold on feminists. They give her a deference that is astonishing among a group of people who consider themselves uncommonly wise about social nuances. More than one has felt themselves compelled to apologize because they didn't treat one of her silly rants like an encyclical. Feminists desperately crave approval from WOC because their relative lack of "privilege" mans they have near divine status within the moral pecking order of leftist analysis. Paranoia that would be easily spotted in other people is hidden because the targets of suspicion and hatred conform to the feminist world view.

The reaction to the entreaty is a typical example of feminist junior-high lunchroom table politics. "Misappropriating language" - i.e. "she's copying me!" Bear in mind that this person is approaching with an offer: send us something! BA and her praetorian guard rake through the offer to find a juicy, satisfying nugget of insult they can sink their teeth into. Finally the Seal Press person has had enough:

I appreciate the dialogue, ladies. First off, the blog feels very informal, and my language is in response to the language here:

1. You hate us.
2. We have nothing on WOC.

I get that you all engage best through negative discourse, but I find that too bad. It's not servitude when we pay our authors advances.

These people just came from a media networking conference! What a hoot!

My Misogynist Cabal

2008-04-05T18:00:00.000-07:00

There is a certain irony in Hugo Schwyzer attending Woman and Media 2008, a networking conference, writing about some discomfort he experienced as one of the few older male feminists, and at the same time writing a post about how hard it is for women to deal with men's social networks. In a post entitled: Refusing membership in the Boys’ Club: an answer to Derek about what feminist men can do, Hugo advises a young feminist men to refuse to join the "Old Boys Club" Like most leftists, Hugo believes that this will be a heroic, noble sacrifice, since success in business (unless it is success by women, gays or non-white men) is more about privilege than talent or hard work.

Particularly for young white men working for older white men, the pressure to join the the Network can be both immense and subtle.

Ahh the secret "Network" of Illuminati! Of course all male networking is akin to Politburo meetings where nation-states and country dachas are doled out. Any success you achieve is merely the result of a blessing by an "Old Boys Club" consisting of misogynistic, drink-swilling white guys:

Invitations to the Old Boys Club don’t come on monogrammed Crane’s stationery. They frequently come in the form of the casual, “Hey, we’re going out for drinks later”. Sometimes, the Club is obvious in its sexism, inviting “Derek” but not his fellow intern “Delilah”. More commonly, Derek and Delilah both get invited. Delilah, however, soon senses that the invitation to “hang with the guys” was made more out of obligation than desire. She may notice that some of the men seem uncomfortable with her, or that the conversation over drinks seems designed to exclude her. The older Boys in the office don’t have to take their junior colleagues to Hooters or a strip club to make the sexism obvious; indeed, that kind of crassness is becoming (one hears) somewhat rarer. But from what I hear even now, it’s still common for a young woman, out in social situations with male bosses and co-workers, to feel the tangible presence of a wall separating her from a group of men who might well wish that she would go home early, so the “free talk” (sexist and profane) can begin.

Sure - there is absolutely no way that men - especially white men - can engage in social activities without dissing women. So much so that they'd rather not have women with them at all, just so they can talk trash and head off to the strip club.

There really isn’t any point in arguing - as a Women Studies professor he's paid to promote stereotypes about men, and when you question stereotypes of male behavior on his blog you're treated like a stereotypical gun-toting male rights activist.

The comment thread on this piece is fascinating. Someone said that harassment laws had a chilling effect on male-female contact in the office and after work hours - that’s when I piped in and spoke of a policy I've always had one of "cool professionalism" in the office. I avoid any private contact with females, because of the small, but real chance of a false allegation. You can read the comments.

But then some twit shows up with this:

I don’t think false allegations are as massive a problem as some people claim. How can they be? As a man, you’ll no doubt ahve witnessed sexual harassment before (hopefully not perpetrating it), or at least inappropriate talk about women colleagues. This is very common, I’m sure you’ll agree.

No doubt? Her smug certainty gave me the impression that she was a Women Studies student.

I can’t say I agree, based on my experience. I’ve been a professional for more than two decades, and have never witnessed anything that I would consider an act of sexual harassment. Not one. Not even close. And when socializing with male coworkers I have never heard a female co-worker spoken of in sexual terms. Not even once.
Lots of women are biased against men, and particularly, as I wrote about here, men in groups. Some people just assume that any male bonding has - as its essential glue - misogyny.
I’m not denying that misogyny exists, or saying that women don’t face unfair obstacles in the workplace, and I’m certainly not asserting that sexual harassment is not a serious problem. I just get troubled when people assume that my male bonding necessarily is based on misogyny.

And she comes back with:

OK, maybe you haven’t seen any sexual harrassment. Maybe you have, and haven’t even recognised it. Maybe your experience isn’t representative of the rest of the world, or even your country. that doesn’t mean that there isn’t sexual harassment.
…
So men who don’t believe there is inequality by essence can’t not be misogynistic, because not being misogynistic requires the effort to realise that society is, and therefore you are, unless you try to change.

You can read the rest of her incoherent nonsense, but it was clear she felt I had to be lying, or so blinded by unrecognized misogyny that I was an ignorant participant in harassent. Since I was a man, it simply wasn't possible not to have initiated or participated in the harassment of women. She's (clumsily) adopted the feminist rhetorical techniques that I summarized in my response:

I started to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but I realize there is little point, because in your eyes I have no credibility, even when discussing myself and my experiences. It seems you are saying that I must hate women, because I claim not to, and that my failure to admit I saw, or participated in, harassment means that my unrecognized misogyny makes me clueless in such matters. I’m either lying about myself or my experiences or my experience must be so unusual that it proves some more general rule.

She came back with an equally incoherent response, but I've learned it is pointless to engage with people like this. I'd rather let the exchange stand as it is, and let reasonable people judge.

Any socializing I do with co-workers has been at lunch, in hotel bars and airport terminals - not Hooters and strip clubs. Hugo and his students would probably be astonished to learn that the conversation is most often not about sports or telling dirty jokes - it is about the one thing we all have in common: work. We talk mostly about projects we are working on, and the office politics around them. The most frequent subject of conversation that doesn’t involve work is our families. If we talk about women, it is usually about our wives and daughters. Female co-workers can, and do fit right in. It isn’t exclusionary in any sense I can detect.

But for some reason academic feminists want to imagine I'm part of some dark misogynist cabal. Ironically, I work in a largely male profession but there has been an explosion in our female labor force recently - overseas. Women over there don’t waste their time learning Women Studies - they are smart enough to know that an engineering degree gives them a better chance at work than learning how to deal with my misogyny. Odd notion that.

I know lots of Americans are concerned about high tech job losses to overseas competitors. The conventional thinking is that we have to become more productive, or create tax incentives to keep jobs here. I think the best thing we can do to level the playing field is to fund massive endowments for Women's Studies programs in Indian, Chinese and Eastern European engineering colleges.

So How Does Housing Discrimination Law Work Exactly?

2008-04-01T18:20:00.000-07:00

I'm not a lawyer, but I've always been curious how discrimination law works in practice. It seems discrimination is OK in some circumstances but not others. It seems to be OK to offer senior discounts, but not discounts to Finns. Apparently some organizations - like strip clubs, and Hooters - can refuse to hire unattractive people. But others - like Walmart - can't do this.

With housing, it seems fine to build private housing that is marketed to "seniors" but not private housing that is marketed to white people - that would be a red flag, and would certainly trigger lawsuits. So I was amused when I came across this post by A Typical Joe (a great blog where you can always find very thought-provoking material).

It turns out that there is a new, "gay-friendly" housing community in Arizona. The Out Properties Vision Statement starts with "Imagine a place where your neighbors are just like you." Hmmm - can I imagine a community of people just like me - straight white Christian people?

The statement gets a bit more inclusive than that. But not too inclusive. It continues:

It’s an active and vibrant community that invites gays and lesbians and their friends and family to live life to the fullest. We, at Out Properties, know that while activity is very important, home is the touchstone central to life. A real home represents the feeling of safety, acceptance and comfort. This feeling is especially cherished among gays and lesbians because we have worked so hard to earn it.

I'm wondering if there is some vetting process that happens with purchasers, and if it would survive a housing discrimination lawsuit. When you go there and express interest in a home - how do they know you are gay? Do they ask you questions, or do they just assume you are gay because you are interested in living there? And allowing for the "and their friends" part - how do they know you are a gay-friendly straight person?

The development FAQ says:

Who will be living at Marigold Creek?
Anyone who wants to live in an upscale, diverse community of gays, lesbians and their friends and family. Marigold Creek is a welcoming and "straight-friendly" community.

What would happen if a Muslim family, with the wife and daughters in Hajibs, wanted to look at some homes? How can some gay purchaser rest assured that some homophobic bigot doesn't buy the place next door a year after they move in? And if a bigot does move in next door - can you sue the developer for not meeting a promise made to you?

Presumably some of this assumes self-selection on the part of "friends." People generally don't pay cash money for a home to be among people they are prejudiced against. But I'd be surprised to find a similar retirement community for "white people and their friends." There are lots of very segregated communities in the US, but I know of none that are explicitly marketed and promoted as such, other than senior-targeted ones - and this one.

I don’t have any problem with this at all. I think it's great that people can choose to live where they want, and have the type of neighbors they want. I just don’t understand how this is legally possible given housing discrimination laws. Can any lawyer explain this to me?

The Wright Stuff - Some Context

2008-03-18T09:26:00.000-07:00

Here is some more Rev. Wright. 12 minutes of context leading up to his riff on Hillary. The more I see the guy, the more ambiguous I feel. I see less venomous hatred, more righteous anger. A bit too much Barak as Messiah for me, but I'm in complete agreement with him on Hillary.

I like the line: "Jesus loved the hell out of his enemies!"

The larger context makes one thing clear. While the "Greatest Hits" snippets show him as an accomplished showman and crowd pleaser, when he's talking about Biblical exegesis and the meaning of ancient Greek words, he's just like my priest: boring. So what was Obama doing in the seats for 20 years? He may have been snoozing, just like lots of other good, wholesome Americans.

Religion as an Entirely Private Matter

2008-03-18T06:53:00.000-07:00

Funny:

Hat Tip: Fire Dog Lake

Obama Needs the Other O

2008-03-17T06:27:00.000-07:00

Rev. Wright is certainly no Rev. Fulton J. Sheen. While hatred of America isn't a problem for some leftists, many Americans will be suspicions of a candidate whose "spiritual adviser" exulted in 9/11. It is not surprising that Obama's national poll numbers fell 7 points overnight.

The good Reverend is a problem for Oprah too. Both ends of the Axis of O promote themselves as unifying figures who have transcended race, yet both have sat in Trinity Church and listened to Rev. Wright.

Oprah will not allow her mainstream brand to suffer. I expect Rev. Wright to appear on Oprah's show soon to elicit sympathy and understanding, and to show what a loving, spiritual person he is.

Update: Perhaps not. It seems Ophrah had the sense to bail out years ago. Hat tip: Blith Spirit.

This quote about Oprah from Rev. Wright makes me think he may be OK after all:

She has broken with the [traditional faith],” he says. “She now has this sort of ‘God is everywhere, God is in me, I don’t need to go to church, I don’t need to be a part of a body of believers, I can meditate, I can do positive thinking’ spirituality. It’s a strange gospel. It has nothing to do with the church Jesus Christ founded.

I'm starting to actually like the guy!

Spitzer's Real Crime Was . . .

2008-03-15T10:38:00.000-07:00

. . . making the wrong enemies.

I find the guy reprehensible - just an ambitions, power-hungry politician who made a career as a prosecutor by streamrolling unpopular targets for his own personal aggrandizement. Someone who didn't think the rules applied to him. But the way he was targeted should give everyone pause. I don't like Alan Dershowitz, but he is quite correct here:

Even if Mr. Spitzer's derelictions were serendipitously discovered as a result of routine, computerized examination of bank transactions, the dangers inherent in selective use of overbroad criminal statutes remain. Money laundering, structuring and related financial crimes are designed to ferret out organized crime, drug dealing, terrorism and large-scale financial manipulation. They were not enacted to give the federal government the power to inquire into the sexual or financial activities of men who move money in order to hide payments to prostitutes.

Once federal authorities concluded that the "suspicious financial transactions" attributed to Mr. Spitzer did not fit into any of the paradigms for which the statutes were enacted, they should have closed the investigation. It's simply none of the federal government's business that a man may have been moving his own money around in order to keep his wife in the dark about his private sexual peccadilloes.

But the authorities didn't close the investigation. They expanded it, because they had caught a big fish in the wide net they had cast.

That is the danger of this over broad, never-ending "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs." It gives government the ability to rifle through everybody's business like an industrial fishing trawler. Anyone - anyone - can get caught in the net, and the temptation to target 'disruptive" politicians or just unpopular citizens is just too tempting.

Let Jimmy Sort it Out

2008-03-13T13:21:00.000-07:00

Clarice Feldman has a Modest Proposal for sorting out an increasingly toxic nomination process in the Democratic party. When you see fights coming about Florida balloting rules and the disenfranchisment of votors, who can help out more than the "election certifier extraordinaire" - Jimmy Carter!

Have Carter rerun the entire damn primary before June 7. Really, Carter can do this.

I suppose right now you're saying," Where did he get this idea?" I'll tell you, friend. it came to me listening to Carl Levin who asked, "How can you make sure that hundreds of thousands , perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"

See, I read that and remembered that Carter does this all the time. He's the election certifier extraordinaire. From his supervision of the 1990 election in the Dominican Republic to his oversight of the Chavez recall collection in Venezuela he's become the one man in the world who can, with the acquiescence of the entire world, put a gold stamp of approval and purity on a completely unfair and corrupt election. Fraud in counting votes? In registering voters? Discrepancies between the number of cast ballots and voter registration lists? Jiggered machines? Doesn't matter. The guy will keep his eyes and ears closed and stamp the entire thing kosher.

After all, the guy won a Nobel Prize for bringing peace to the Mid East. And that has worked out so well...

Looks, Family and Babies: A Man's View of the Hard Lives of Women

2008-03-12T15:22:00.000-07:00

I can’t stomach frequent visits to Shakesville, since the things I read there almost always make me angry. But I visited last week and read something astonishing: PortlyDyke's Robbing the Hearts of Men. I don’t know much about PD, but from what I've read her feminist credentials seem unassailable.

Her post went well beyond just a cursory and grudging acknowledgment of what men have to face. Particularly this part:

Think about this the next time you hear someone say the words: "Be a man!"

Actually look at the situation in which this comes up, and think about what is being demanded. In my experience, it usually means: Shut up about your feelings. Grit your teeth and bear your pain and don't let anyone know you're feeling it. Don't show it on your face, don't talk about it, square your shoulders and your jaw and carry on like everything's OK -- hide it however you can.

That, to me, is unbearably sad.

This seemed motivated by genuine sympathy, and she got some well-deserved complements on it from both men and women. She drew a lot of fire too, and said in a comment:

If you appreciate me seeing the men's side of this with this post -- please go write a post about the women's side of it -- and defend it as thoroughly as I've defended mine.

It wasn't directed at me, but I figured I would try. My readers know I'm certainly no feminist. So here goes:

--

I suppose it happens for every girl. At some point, early in childhood, you suffer the frightening realization that how you look marks the boundaries of your life. Girls and women that are loved seem to have a certain look about them. If you are pretty, someone will come for you. If you are very pretty, in an almost magical way, that person that comes will be a prince, someone strong and good who will build a world filled with happiness for you.

The promise is that you needn't do anything or accomplish anything to gain happiness - if you have that look happiness will come and carry you away.

So you take stock of yourself pretty early, comparing yourself against every woman you see and every girl around you. Am I as pretty as she is? Lots of people help you in this assessment - your parents especially. If nature has favored you you'll gain some reassurance early on, and for a while you'll be able to believe you are good enough. But not for long - the bar is set impossibly high. From childhood on you walk a gauntlet of looks wherever you go. You hear comments or laughter from boys, or behind-your-back whispers from girls who you thought were your friends. People that love you understand this - they praise your good features, and show you how makeup and clothes can be used to obscure your more troublesome aspects. Dolls help illustrate these lessons. So you study yourself and pick your clothes and apply makeup very, very carefully, preparing yourself as if you were a dish being served up.

Of course bodies matter to men too - but not in anything like the same way. Boys are taught to evaluate their bodies based on what they can do. How fast can they run? Can they catch up to a high fastball? Can I win this fight? Boys are taught to treat their bodies like instruments to be honed for a purpose - after all boys learn very early that they have to do something to be loved. You are taught that you have to be something to be loved.

And what a difference that makes! There are so many more ways of doing than of being. And suppose - just suppose - you really, really want to do things? You feel some inner call to change the way things are? You can find a few examples of accomplished, independent women in stories, pictures and movies, but all of these examples make one lesson clear - - yes, it is possible to do "manly" things like this, but you'd better look damned good doing them.

No one expects you to show bravery. No one expects you to put yourself in danger. Quite the opposite you are encouraged to depend on your family for protection as a child, and to find a man to protect you as an adult. Fear is more than allowed - it is encouraged as an opportunity to seek comfort from others. Protection and rescue is men's work and women's due - and you sit with the deep fear that those rescued will be chosen for their beauty, and little else.

You learn that independence is risky, almost radioactive. When boys leave the nest it is a source of pride. You can leave too, but only to join another nest - a man's nest. Otherwise it is a betrayal.

Early on a whole range of emotion is severed from you. You can indulge sadness and fear in a way that boys can't. Anger is fine for boys, because it is properly seen as a spur to action. You are not allowed anger. Anger gives you hard edges, and all your edges must be smooth and inviting. Anger is a sign of ambition, and in you ambition is seen as selfish, and lack of proper consideration of others. Don’t rock the boat, don’t make trouble, swallow any anger and keep the peace. A peaceful family is a refuge - you must keep the inner peace, and let the men fight off the world.

Directness in men is admirable - but if you are direct you are being pushy and demanding and hence unattractive. Men are encouraged - even shamed - into getting things done. If you want things done the only acceptable way is to get others to do it. But this requires great art. If men get others to do their bidding, it is seen as leadership. If you get others to do things, it can be manipulative. Men can be clever - you seen conniving.

Anger isn’t welcome - especially by those who love you. Ambition is closed off. Men can dedicate their lives to a creative or intellectual endeavor - any desires you have in that area must remain second to a far more important endeavor: having babies. If you put any ambition before love and family you are seen as cold and stunted. Love must be your ambition. Seek it you must, but not by hunting it. No - you must set bait.

--

Dolls teach you about the importance of appearance, and dolls teach you about babies. Be pretty, leave your family in the arms of a dashing suitor, and have babies - that is the track that was laid down for you. Get the order wrong and there is big trouble. If you focus on appearance and winning love, and avoid the baby - you are a whore. If your baby is born without the bind of sanctioned love, you are a shameful parasite. If you have a baby and don't keep the baby, your are a murderess. If you can't have a baby, you are an object of deep pity, and no - they don’t prepare you for that possibility as a child.

Babies are essential to society, but you bear the burden, and the terror of that. Men are taught to seek out and face danger as a general matter, but you are armored to face one particular and one very specific ordeal that no army can protect you from: childbirth.

If you get through it - and despite any medical advances every cell in your body knows the odds are not good - there is a reward. Something special, almost sacred you've been pointed at since you were a child. Feeding your newborn infant is one of the most blissful experiences a person can have. This is one of those universal feelings that everyone - even men - can experience. But in contrast to men you must have this inner experience - the blessing is mixed with the burden of obligation. God forbid you are one of those rare women who recoil from your wailing infant. That isn’t a feeling you can share - with anyone.

Women have plenty of time to think while they care for their infants, and to reorient themselves to new, and troubling, circumstances. You have a soul to protect now, a soul more important than even your own. Life has played this trick on you: you've been given something infinitely important to protect, but have always been told you are powerless to do so. While protection of your family has always been the one area where fierceness might be acceptable - you've also been taught that men are better, more effective protectors than you could ever be. If you've followed the right order of things, and have a loving man to protect you, this infant you hold should mean just as much to him. But does it? Every pull from your breast makes you wonder if he cares as much. You know you don’t look attractive at the moment, so you wonder at the strength of his bond to you. He has his child - does he still need you?

All of life has prepared you for a family. You've fought through the pain of childbirth, and you've won the purpose you're allowed. You've won a deep and binding stake in the world, and now you know why you've always been encouraged to feel afraid.

--

Obviously this just scratches the surface of the hard lives that women face. This is just my narrow view of one mainstream pathway in women's lives - I suspect the others are no easier.

So having said the above - how do I feel about feminism? As I've said here, I don’t like feminism because as an ideology it is dangerous, and as a movement it provides a welcoming and supportive refuge for anti-male bigots. Has feminism ever hurt me? I've never raised a hand to my wife, I've never had a child by any woman other than her, and I believe any success I've won is due to my talents. Feminism has not hurt me. Will feminism hurt my son? Perhaps it has raised suspicions against men, and he'll have to deal with that. But after all the odious things that men have done, and continue to do, a healthy suspicion about men - and indeed all people - is surely warranted. Perhaps feminist politics have given some evil women tools they can use to torment him? Yes, but I'm just as worried - or more worried - about the dangers he faces from men. If he is a decent man who makes an honest living, and treats women with love and respect, I doubt feminism will make any difference to him.

But when I consider my daughters I know that feminists have forced open some doors. My daughters have some paths in life and tools to use that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

So I am grateful for feminism.

Goodbye to The Wire

2008-03-11T15:15:00.000-07:00

A nice scene-by-scene breakdown of the final moments of the best TV show ever made.

"Activist" Right-Wing Courts?

2008-03-08T17:22:00.000-08:00

Leftists love to complain about our "right-wing" Supreme Court, and how it threatens individual liberties. But look at this: a California court says that 166,000 families may be subject to prosecution if they continue to home-school their children. Has there ever been a right-wing court decision on any level that has ever told that number of people they must stop doing something they've long done?

Or find me a Roberts-Rehnquist "right wing activist" court decision that was as sweeping as the 1964 Warren Court One Man - One Vote decision. It nullified all 50 state legislatures and forced their reapportionment.

We Need a Chamberlain - Not a Churchill

2008-03-08T15:43:00.000-08:00

The surge has worked, and Iraq is showing some hopeful signs of order. We've missed several opportunities to get out: the capture of Saddam, the initial elections, and the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution. This is yet another opportunity to leave, but like all the others we'll ignore it. We'll stay until we are driven out, and we will lose thousands of other lives and trillions of dollars we can’t afford.

So why do we remain in Iraq?

Some suppose it is because of our dependence on oil. This is nonsense. The Chinese and Japanese are far more dependent on Mideast oil than we are, yet they have no troops on the ground there, and no carriers patrolling the Gulf. If Iran launched an attack in the Gulf, and (improbably) was able to close the Strait of Hormuz, all economies would suffer, but ours least of all. We're still the largest energy producer in the world, and we get most of our imported oil from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. We import relatively less oil from the Mideast than any other major power except Russia, and any dramatic spike in shipping costs would significantly reduce the comparative advantages of overseas vs. domestic manufacturing. We'd see more American made goods in Walmart and we'd ship fewer dollars to China The flexibility of our economy means that we would be the first to recover from such a shock, and we'd gain a greater competitive advantage over the rest of the world than we have now.

Some suppose it is because we are fighting al-Qaeda. But we're an easier enemy for al-Qaeda in Iraq, because our natural tendency is to fight to a stalemate. If we leave, they'll be fighting among the Saudis and the Iranians, and that will be a desperate fight to stay alive, not to maintain stability. By keeping our troops between the Sunni's and al-Qaeda on the one hand, and the Shiites and Iranians on the other, we sacrifice our lives for the purpose of keeping all of our enemies alive. Any stability we preserve guarantees that al-Qaeda lives to attack another day. It makes no sense.

Some suppose it is because of a commitment to democracy. But we have no troops on the ground fighting for democracy in Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states.

I've just finished reading Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, by Michael Scheuer. It is an uneven book, but it is a very strong indictment of American policy in the Mideast during the past few decades, and our conduct of the War on Terror. Scheuer was the former head of the CIA's Bin laden unit, so he speaks with some authority. He says American policy is misguided because:

1) We suffer from an undue allegiance to Israel, spending our resources defending a state that is not critical to America's interest.
2) We support dictatorships in the Mideast, triggering resentment from Muslims.
3) We maintain troops in the Gulf states, triggering resentment from Muslims.
4) We support the Saudi royal family.
5) Our military measures against terrorists like Al-Queda are too weak and insufficient. We fail to destroy our enemies, because we attempt half measures in order to limit criticism from Europeans.

He doesn't deny that al-Qaeda is a real enemy of America, and goes to great length to point out the egregious failure of the Clinton Administration to take Bin Laden seriously, and its failure to take advantage of numerous opportunities to capture and kill him.

Scheuer has studied the writings of Bin Laden. He disagrees with the notion that al-Qaeda and its sympathizers hate America because of our free, secular society. He takes Bin Laden at his word that he hates America because of our policies, and those policies happen to be the same ones - support of Israel and Arab dictatorships, troops in the Gulf, and friendliness with the House of Saud - - that Scheuer criticizes. Don’t for a minute assume this author is some closet Bin Laden supporter - one of his primary points is that we have never treated al-Qaeda with the savagery they deserve. Bush waited to attack in Afghanistan because he was soliciting the favors of allies that had nothing to offer militarily, and this gave Bin Laden time. Bill Clinton had many opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden, but he didn't act because he wouldn't risk the civilian casualties that would have been necessary to get him. He was more afraid of negative European headlines than attacks by Bin Laden against America.

Just because your enemy wants you to do something doesn’t mean it is a mistake to do it. Our interests should dictate whether we have troops in the gulf, and whether we send money to Hosni Mubarak. Our interests should dictate whether we support the Saudi royal family. We shouldn’t continue to this just because Bin Laden wants us to stop.

So why will we stay in Iraq until we are driven out?

When you fill up the tank of your car, some percentage of the money goes to the Saudi Royal family. Most American's didn’t know this, but until the late 1970's all the money the Saudi Royal family got from selling oil was split 50/50 with us. Aramco was owned by a consortium of oil companies - mostly American, and it had an exclusive licence to pump Saudi oil The Saudis bought out our share in 1980. But lots of that money still gets recycled back to American oil, engineering and construction companies that maintain the oil, pipeline and shipping infrastructure in the Kingdom. The Gulf states have similarly lucrative contracts with US companies.

Should there be a revolution in Saudi Arabia, and some new tribe take over control of the Gulf, these arrangements would be null and void. That is why our military is there - not to prevent disruptions in oil supplies, but to protect the flow of construction and engineering contracts, and to protect the interests of financial partners in many endeavors. If there was any sign of trouble, the ships and ground forces would move in. We would say publicly it was about protecting our oil supplies, but it would really be to protect the profits and contracts of American companies that do business with the royal family - any new tribe that took over Saudi Arabia might choose to do more business with the Chinese, Japanese or Europeans.

From the perspective of a powerful interest group of politicians and businesses, the relationship with the Saudis and the Gulf states is very lucrative. From the perspective of America as a whole, the costs of maintaining a forward presence in the Gulf and the risks of war that such a presence entails - the costs are too great to bear.

As I've said before, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don’t think the executives of these companies huddled together and planned all this. To them, their Saudi partners are friends. They know Saudi Arabia and they've lived there, and in their world view the Saudis are more sympathetic figures than they appear to other people. Oil engineers like to build things, and because of environmental sensibilities they just don’t get to build anything in our country. So they like the Saudis. Similarly Bush and Cheney aren’t getting suitcases full of cash from Prince Bandar - they are meeting with a friend of an important domestic constituency and a seeming ally of America. And the Saudis are a public, albeit somewhat erratic, enemy of al-Qaeda. This isn't about evil men (except for Bin Laden), but rather mistaken policies.

We went to Iraq because of the confluence of four factors
1) Legitimate worries about WMD,
2) Concerns about a potential alliance between powerful enemies - Saddam and Bin Laden. There was good reason to fear this - all one need to do is recall the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939 to realize that enemies often make deals with each other for the sake of dealing with a common adversary.
3) A sincere, but misguided, American belief in the power of democracy.
4) The opportunity for special interests to build a second, and equally lucrative, "House of Saud" relationship with an Iraqi government.

The first proved - in hindsight - a mistake. The second was successfully averted. The third will prove futile in the long run. The forth is the real reason we will stay at almost all costs.

We have good reason to be proud of our troops. The military effort against Iraq was breathtaking, and the occupation has been extraordinarily humane, but any historical standard. Go and read After the Reich: The Brutal History of The Allied Occupation for a comparison. The change in tactics that we adopted after the surge showed the fundamental attribute of a successful army - an ability to learn from experience and adapt accordingly.

But it will be all for nothing. Our position is unsustainable in the long run, because there is no constituency for democracy in Iraq, and American politics will not support a brutal occupation. Colin Powell's "pottery barn" analogy is flawed. Just because in a post 9/11 world we needed to make an example out of Saddam does not mean we "own" Iraq, or bear any responsibility for it. Once we dragged him out of his hole we should have left.

Left to what? We'd save hundreds of billions a year - money we are borrowing from the Chinese and Saudis. There would be a surge of sectarian violence in Iraq, but it would be smothered by the regional war that would ensue. Iran, Turkey, the Saudis and Syria would fight over the spoils. Al-Queda would be more intensely invested in this fight than in the fight they have with us, and they would likely be snuffed out.

And this brings me to Neville Chamberlain. History has given him a raw deal, and has labeled him a coward for his policy of appeasement, even though his successor, Winston Churchill, didn't:

I do not propose to give an appreciation of Neville Chamberlain's life and character, but there were certain qualities always admired in these Islands which he possessed in an altogether exceptional degree. He had a physical and moral toughness of fibre which enabled him all through his varied career to endure misfortune and disappointment without being unduly discouraged or wearied. He had a precision of mind and an aptitude for business which raised him far above the ordinary levels of our generation. He had a firmness of spirit which was not often elated by success, seldom downcast by failure, and never swayed by panic. when, contrary to all his hopes, beliefs and exertions, the war came upon him, and when, as he himself said, all that he had worked for was shattered, there was no man more resolved to pursue the unsought quarrel to the death. The same qualities which made him one of the last to enter the war, made him one of the last who would quit it before the full victory of a righteous cause was won.

Chamberlain's appeasement was not motivated by cowardice, but by two realizations that are undeniable. The first was that his nation was not prepared to go to war for the issues presented at the time, and the second was that Woodrow Wilson's peace had saddled the Germans with legitimate grievances against the European order. Chamberlain sought to appease those grievances, in the hope that the impulse to German radicalism could be alleviated.

We find ourselves in a similar situation today. Our nation is not prepared to fight to a savage victory unless we are attacked again. Our nation is not prepared to fight to a stalemate when Iraq explodes again, and to bankrupt our economy in the process. Our nation is not prepared to fight for the House of Saud. Nothing we do in Iraq can prevent another attack. Nothing that is politically supportable now will prevent another attack.

So we need a Chamberlain. Someone with the courage to withdraw from Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, and dismantle our base in Quatar. A one-term president who is prepared to stand by and watch the regional war that ensues there. Someone willing to watch a revolution in Saudi Arabia, and see oil go to $12 a gallon - without intervening. Someone willing to stop the aid we give to Mubarak, Jordan and the Palestinians. Someone willing to leave NATO - an organization that is worthless for US Security - so we can bring 90,000 troops home from Europe.

This will cost the career of a courageous politician, but the nation will survive and eventually prosper. Hard medicine, to undo the bankrupting policies of several decades, but medicine we can take better than any of our competitors. I do not see how al-Qaeda could attack under such circumstances, because they would be in a war of survival in that environment, as opposed to the slower war of attrition we have now. The rocket attacks against Israel would cease, because those rockets would be needed on the Tigris. Israel would be the decisive ally of the winning Arab power in the regional war, and so the Palestinians would be forgotten - as surely as Jordan forgot about them in 1970. The fulcrum of Middle East tensions shifts immediately from the Jordan to the Euphrates. Israel winds up being the indispensable ally of the winner, rather than the way it is now in our seemingly "stable" situation - where Israel is the common enemy of all.

We have no national stake in those events, any more than the Japanese do. Any power that won would need to sell oil on the world market as surely as the Saudis and Iranians and Venezuelans and Canadians do now. I know of no historical example where a power permanently refused to sell a fungible, non-military commodity for political reasons. And the nations of the Middle East have nothing else to sell on world markets.

There could well be another attack. But in contrast to the last we would have freedom of action to destroy al-Queada wherever they are. We would have no fragile international order to uphold, no sensibilities to weigh - we could strike as needed.

Iraq is just the latest in our decades-long policy of tying ourselves to fragile regimes in the Mid East. Now have foolishly fought our way onto the poor ground of Iraq, and we owe it to ourselves to be honest about our situation. The belief that this is somehow a "forward strategy" where we can fight al-Qaeda on their turf is mistaken. If we withdraw, we force them to fight even more savage foes. Our troops could be protecting our borders, not Iraq's.

Consider the worst that can happen. al-Qaeda takes over Iraq? But in doing so they get a fixed address, something to lose, and an addiction to oil revenue. Iran develops nuclear weapons? Then the Saudis will buy some, and you'd have a stalemate or a local exchange. al-Qaeda takes over Pakistan? The Indians will deal with them. All of these outcomes present fewer scenarios than we have now where a Mid East power would see it in their interest to attack America. Muslims have more natural grievances with the Chinese, Russians, Indians and even Europeans than they do against America.

Retreat is a fundamental strategy of war. If we leave now - when the surge has shown success - we'd be making it clear that we are leaving of our own accord, at a time of our choosing, and for purposes of our own. By killing Saddam we've demonstrated that no leader that is our enemy is safe. The surest way of following up that demonstration is that we have full freedom of action to pursue our interests. This retreat must be total - we must end any support - military, financial or political - for any regime in the Mideast.

Let the Chinese and Japanese suffer the heavy burdens of playing that futile game.

The right policy to towards the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Israelis was stated by George Washington:

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

Neville Chamberlain had the insight to realize his nation would not fight to protect a Europen order that they had no interest in. There are times when nations need Chamberlains, and times when they need Churchills. Bush has the dogged persistence of Churchill, at a time when such doggedness serves not the nation, but a narrow set of special interests.

Rediscovering Something Very Old

2008-03-05T19:42:00.000-08:00

Reading Hugo Schwyzer's post on the book Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power, I'm struck at how blind to human nature some leftist ideology is. When you spend years learning the secret ways to discern the ghost of Patriarchy that stands behind every social exchange, it can come as a shock to discover that men are human beings. That they actually have emotions - just like women! That they have desires far deeper, and far more nuanced than the brutish need for sex and power. Wow!

All that is happening is that some feminists are finally realizing how shallow their views of men have been all along, and they are trying to garner credit for the "discovery."

Hugo is a big fan of Robert Jensen. In my view, which I've written here, Jensen is an extraordinarily shallow thinker who has made a career of shuffling and regurgitating radical leftist nonsense that he doesn't have the talent to originate. Hugo quotes Robert Jensen's essay in the book, saying it serves as the best summary of most of the other essays:

We live in a time of sexual crisis. That makes life difficult, but it also creates a space for invention and creativity. The possibility of a different way of understanding the world and myself is what drew me to feminism. I was drawn to the possibility of escaping the masculinity trap set for me, and the chance to become something more than a man… I was drawn by the possibilities of becoming a human being.

There is willful blindness here. Blindness that supposes that the only way to be a respected man among men in society is to mimic some "macho" caricature of manhood. Jensen needs to realize that there is a group in society that benefits from this caricature - Feminists. "Toxic masculinity" is the best marketing tool for the feminist agenda. Feminist outrage seems justifiable when you focus your attention exclusively on insecure adolescents, rapists, predators, and manipulative, violent sociopaths. Feminists have long claimed that women's experiences have been marginalized and women's voices have been "silenced." But the truth remains that the vast majority of men, who neither kill nor rape nor exploit, but spend their lives avoiding trouble and providing for their families - play only the smallest of roles in feminist discourse. So Jensen and other feminists take an adolescent toxic social dynamic and pretend it is the locus of experience for most men throughout their adult lives.

Ideologies need a hard, uncompromising view of an immoral enemy to survive. If any sympathy for that enemy seeps in, the whole edifice comes down. So feminists promote the belief that most men are stuck in that phase, when most men move beyond it as they mature.

Hugo continues:

Of course, men do have feelings — and not just the familiar ones like anger and lust. Reading through this anthology, I felt again and again that sense of relief that comes with realizing “No, I’m not alone in this. Other men feel as I do.” In our hyper-masculine and confused culture, we rob men of the chance to speak about their pain early on; “boys don’t cry” becomes an internalized message that most men carry to the grave. But we make a terrible mistake when we assume that because men seem to lack the same vocabulary for their emotions that women have, that they then somehow lack the emotions themselves. We give men the chance to develop that vocabulary by exposing them to male role models who are comfortable with strong emotion, and comfortable too with rejecting the straitjacket of traditional masculinity.

Did James Joyce lack a vocabulary of feeling? Duke Ellington? Eugene O'Neill? Is Robin Williams shy? When Hugo says "we make a terrible mistake when we assume" I don’t include myself in that "we." I don’t include historians - who have studied men and their motivations - in Hugo's "we." I don’t include police, who see the rawest of emotions each day. I don’t include wives who know exactly what their husbands are feeling, and why. I don’t include nurses, who see men suffer. I don’t include soldiers, who watch men die. The "we" are academic feminists, who need to relearn what most children learned from their fathers.

Only some men remain in the straight jacket; Feminists claim that most, if not all men are still trapped, and feminists hold the key. Nonsense - a man needs to get himself out, as part of growing up.

Hugo speaks of his students views:

So many of us, particularly women, despair about men. So many of us have had been left bewildered and hurt by the ways in which the males in our lives live out the masculine credo. I can’t count the times my female students have said something along the lines of “You know, I don’t really believe men have feelings the way we do. Maybe a few rare ones do, but it just seems like men don’t think, don’t hurt, don’t engage in anything emotional. I think men just play at having emotions to string us along, displaying whatever they think we want to see, whatever will get them laid or shut us up.” And when one student says something like this, others nod their heads vigorously. Some of those nodding are men.

I guess William Shakespeare just couldn’t "engage with anything emotional." Walt Whitman just couldn't find the right words to express how he felt. Frank Sinatra couldn't make sense of emotion. Beethoven was deaf to human feeling. Maxmillian Kolbe lacked empathy. Firemen don't understand fear. Husbands and fathers don't understand love. No - the reason that Hugo can’t count the number of times his female students generalize like this is because they are never corrected - they are never told: "Go study some English literature if men puzzle you. Study some ancient drama. Read the wartime letters of soldiers. Listen to Arlo Guthrie. Watch Seinfeld for God's sake!"

And that nonsense about men living out the "masculine credo." Perhaps to Hugo and Robert Jensen that credo means little more than getting laid, and kicking the ass of anyone who gets in your way, but in doing so they willingly and purposefully market an adolescent phase as if it was the full measure of what it means to live life as a man. As if it represents the full range of choices men have today. The vast majority of men lead lives far deeper than that, and survival dictates they must navigate the same emotional waters women do. Jensen's view of men doesn’t see men as having artistic urges, or religious impulses. No - Jensen sees himself as the lonely pioneer leading the way in that area.

All through history, any "masculine credo' that existed was roomy enough to include artists and saints, in addition to warriors. And true, non-tyrannical leaders too. Look at some of the most famous, successful men of the twentieth century:

Charlie Chaplin
Muhammed Ali
Pablo Picasso
Pope John XXIII
Charles Lindberg
Bill Gates
Martin Luther King
John Lennon
Neil Armstrong
Billy Graham
Fred Astaire
Ernst Shackleton
Irving Berlin
Walt Disney
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstein

Can you find a common "masculine credo' that they share? Ali is the only one I'd want on my side in a barroom brawl, but he'd be no help in combat - because he went to jail rather than to go to war. I'm guessing the men in this list weren't strangers to emotion, and that they had some crude ability to express it - yet they were highly respected for what they accomplished. So what is this "masculine credo" that our society enforces as the road to wealth, success, respect and admiration?

So when Hugo's female students vent in the classroom, they are venting about a straw man "masculine credo" that has been deliberately constructed for them - by feminists - as an effigy that will fire their anger. A straw man that deliberately lacks some of the "traditional" masculine imperatives like hard work, dedication, perseverance, creativity, self-sacrifice, courage, honor, and integrity. Adding those to the effigy might muddy the waters, because in some circles they might be seen in a favorable light. So those qualities are excluded, in order to make venting easier. And the more the (female or non-heterosexual male) students vent against the silly effigy that feminists desperately point to, the more the teachers feel validated in their own narrow views.

Hugo quotes an essay from the book on a male sex abuse survivor:

one out of six boys wil experience sexual assault by the time they turn eighteen. By comparison, though, one in three women will be assaulted in her lifetime. What this means is that we need to include men as victims in conversations about sexual assault without decentralizing women’s experience and without taking away from the leadership of women and gender-variant survivors. We must recognize that while sexual assault affects everyone, it is also a tool of the patriarchy that specifically and disproportionately targets those assigned less social power.

That's an essay I'll skip. To paraphrase: Yes, we know men have feelings, and we will graciously give them a hearing - as long as they don’t disturb our settled certainties about whose suffering is really important. Men "can be included in the conversation" - but purely as a marketing effort, not because we really care. So men, please express your feelings - so I can chivalrously focus on other, more deserving victims.

So here's another answer to give when Hugo's students start to vent about men they know who "don’t think, don’t hurt, don’t engage in anything emotional." Maybe men don't express their feelings to woman like you because they have the emotional insight to realize that you don't really care about their feelings. The more feminist you are, the less likely you are to care about men's feelings, despite the empty "patriarchy hurts men too" rhetoric you were taught to use.

Hugo concludes by summarizing one of the essayist's experiences with feminist academia:

Gently, firmly, Brillante makes the case that academic feminism must be open — in theory and practice — to men, just as those men must also be open to rethinking their deepest beliefs about gender and sex.

Notice that it is men that must do the rethinking as the price of admission to these rarefied circles of academic feminists. Yes, men do need to rethink their roles in society, but they'll find fallow ground for that at the feet of feminists.

Anyway - are there men that want in to feminist academia? I sure don't, and it pleases me that my children show not the slightest interest in Women or Gender Studies. Then again my daughters don't need a place to vent - they do plenty of that at home.

.

The Defining Moment

2008-02-27T05:53:00.001-08:00

I was reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debates watching Hillary and Obama last night. Nixon the experienced one, vs. Kennedy the smooth, good-looking Golden Child. There was a moment in one of the 1960 debates when Nixon was clumsily trying to make a point. The camera shifted to Kennedy, and you see him laughing at his opponent. The same thing happened last night, at 6:45 of this clip.

And he was laughing because he knew that in his reply he would be able to make Hillary seem silly, as indeed he did. He deftly made her seem petty, and even a bit silly, so the audience stated laughing. Hillary tried humor too. At the opening of the debate - alluding to the SNL skit that mocked the media's favoritism towards Obama - she said: "Maybe we need to see if he needs another pillow." That got groans from the audience.

She's tried everything in the last week, and nothing has worked. As Maureen Dowd says:

After saying she found her “voice” in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary.

And it is all because she has no genuine voice, and the voters know it.

Here is something else worth reading. A long essay by Sean Wilentz that makes a strong case that that it hasn't been the Clintons who have been race baiting during the past few months - it has really been the Obama campaign.

And the Strategy Du Jour is . . .

2008-02-24T15:08:00.000-08:00

Heavy-handed and inept sarcasm. She'll keep trying things to see what sticks!

This one is just hilarious - whoever did this has a bright future in negative ads.

Seeing the Clintons for What They Are

2008-02-24T08:05:00.000-08:00

Frank Rich aptly points out the ineptness of the Clinton campaign:

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Mark Steyn points out that the democratic "star system" that gave Bill his chance in 92, poorly servers Hillary. She is up against an even bigger star:

The Clintons turned the Democratic party into a star vehicle and designated everyone else as extras. But their star quality was strictly comparative. They had industrial-strength audacity and a lot of luck: Bill jumped into the 1992 race when A-listers like Mario Cuomo were too cowed by expert advice that Bush Snr. was unbeatable. Clinton gambled, won the nomination and beat a weak opponent in a three-way race, with Ross Perot siphoning votes from the right. He got even luckier four years later. So did Hillary when she embarked on something patently absurd — a First Lady running for a Senate seat in a state she’s never lived in — only to find Rudy Giuliani going into instant public meltdown. The SAS, Britain’s special forces, have a motto: Who dares wins. The Clintons dared, and they won — even as almost everyone else in their party lost: senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators. Even when they ran into a spot of intern trouble, sheer nerve saw them through. Almost anyone else would have slunk off in shame, but the Clintons understood that the checks and balances don’t add up to much if you’re determined not to go: As at that 2000 convention speech, they dared the Democrats not to cheer.

So she doesn't have much to go on, except the Clinton's proven willingness to do anything to hold onto power. So I don't count her out.

It Takes a Village . . .

2008-02-21T07:39:00.000-08:00

. . . of pandering politicians to get a reaction like that from a child.

Thanks, AverageBro, for the image

Don't Write Them Off

2008-02-20T07:06:00.000-08:00

So Obama beat Hillary like a rented mule in Wisconsin. She's clearly losing her core constituencies - just barely beating Obama among woman, and losing among men 2-1. No surprise there - why would any wage-earning man trying to support a family vote for someone that wants to "go after their wages" to subsidize Hillarycare for non wage-earners?

Hillary was the "presumptive nominee" just two short months ago, and she is supposed to be a smart, savvy politician. But the way she has squandered her lead, she seems like the 2007 Mets in their division race last September.

The conventional wisdom says that Texas and Ohio are the Clinton's last chance - their "firewall" - to stop the Obama tsunami. And I see a number of columns today that say she is all but beaten. If she doesn't win a decisive victory in those two states, the pressure on her to withdraw will start to become unbearable. The superdelegates will want to avoid a bitter floor fight that might split the party as badly as it was split in 1968. In addition, such a floor fight may risk alienating African Americans from their historic allegiance to the Democratic party. This would fatally wound the Democratic party, since the party hasn't won a plurality of the white vote since - 1964! So the scenario has superdelegates switching to Obama to avoid a nasty, divisive floor fight.

But all of these scenarios have a fatal flaw - they assume the Clintons have loyalty to the party, and they assume a sense of honor and dignity that they completely lack. Party loyalty meant nothing to Bill when he voted for welfare reform. And when he championed NAFTA. And especially when he subjected the party to the nasty impeachment battle - a battle that cost the Democrats the election in 2000.

Hillary knows this is her only chance, because the probability of Bill avoiding some personal scandal for 4 more years is effectively zero. So Bill and Hillary will get as nasty and as dirty as they need to be. They will have no problem going negative against Obama. I think we can expect:
1) Clinton spokespeople to start emphasizing Hillary's long standing patriotism, in order to draw attention to Michelle Obama's gaffe. Some September 11th commercials might serve nicely here.
2) You will start hearing a lot more about Obama's church - and the Rev. Wright.
3) We can safely expect another crying incident from Hillary, in order to make gender an issue again.
4) And I owe the Anchoress for this one: we might expect Bill to get sick all of a sudden. Some recurrence of his heart problems from a few years ago. This accomplishes two things. It gets Bill off the campaign trail, and it makes Hillary's tearful determination to continue campaigning seem more heroic.
5) And all the while, the Clinton library slush-fund will be used to pay off some superdelegates, and to chase down dirt on those who won't be bought.

No. As I've said before, they won't go gracefully, and they will not hesitate to destroy the party in their desperation to hold on to the only thing that means anything to them - power.

And if she does all this, and loses? Hillary will divorce Bill within a year, because she won't bank her Senate seat on his continued good behavior.

Comparing Bush and Roosevelt as War Leaders

2008-02-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

World War II - the "Good War" - has an iconic place in our history, and because of this we tend to see it as a model for how wars should be fought. Never undertake a "war of choice" and always start with a clear declaration of war. Americans aren’t good at the muddled, balance-of-power wars that Europeans specialized in before the 20th century. World War II lacks the bitter feel of Korea and Vietnam. We don't do "limited wars" very well - as a religious people, we yearn for an all-out crusade against evil incarnate, and World War II was the perfect model of that.

Roosevelt also has an iconic place in our minds, but I think this is solely because he was commander-in-chief during the war. The New Deal was a complete failure - unemployment in 1939 was 17%. Beating Hitler, sending the unemployed overseas, and women working double-shifts in munitions factories formed his legacy. If he didn't go for a third term he'd be remembered for soup kitchens, bank robbers roaming the plains, and trying to pack the Supreme Court.

Some claim that Bush "should have known" about 9/11. While anything Bush should have known Clinton should have known as well (especially since the World Trade Center was attacked early in his administration), there is a better case that Roosevelt knew Japan would attack in the Pacific. Note I said better case than Bush but neither case is strong - I'm no conspiracy theorist.

Bush is said to have had it in for Iraq from the moment he took office, and seized on 9/11 as an excuse. That Roosevelt was spoiling for a fight with Germany is clear. Long before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt chartered military staff talks with Britain, planning our European and Pacific strategies. Lend-lease tied us to Britain as well as putting the still-unemployed back to work. Well before Pearl Harbor, we had US ships escorting convoys halfway across the Atlantic. Recall that we were brought into World War I because of submarine attacks in the Atlantic.

The American people were overwhelmingly isolationist - so much so that Roosevelt, an accomplished politician if nothing else, knew that it would take an attack on America to gain our participation in the war. And we were by no means sympathetic in general with Britain - there were too many German and Irish Americans to make that issue clear before late 1940.

Propaganda? Using an attack by one enemy (Al-Queda) as an excuse to start a campaign against another country (Iraq)? The first massive ground and naval action after Pearl Harbor was an attack against . . . French North Africa. Ahh, but you say: Germany declared war against us! I recommend a fascinating, little known book called Hitler Attacks Pearl Harbor. It is a detailed study of US media coverage immediately before Pearl Harbor, and the month after it. The author makes the claim that the German declaration of war changed nothing. Even in its absence we still would have focused most of our war effort against Germany, because that was what we had been planning (with Britain, in secret) all along. There were stories in the media that Japan was incapable of such an attack. There were editorials that claimed they must have had the assistance of German planning, German planes - even German pilots! It puts the run-up to the Iraq war to shame.

Bush's assault on civil liberties and Guantonimo? Roosevelt had internment camps for US citizens on US soil.

What about Bush's obsequious "alliance" with the tyrannical, repressive Saudis? Think of all the pleasant, warm chats Franklin had with Joe Stalin.

Notwithstanding the above, there are good reasons for the actions that Roosevelt took. But there are good reasons for the things that Bush did as well. Americans would do well to recall that he does not bare sole responsibility for this. The war against Saddam was overwhelmingly popular as the tanks were steaming into Baghdad. We were in crusade mode then, but as things became muddled we deny ourselves, and act like Bush did this alone. As if there were hundreds of thousands of protesters who were barricaded in the streets of this country while the statue of Saddam was pulled down in Baghdad.

I think history will see Bush in a better light that he is seen now. I'm in only partial agreement with him on Iraq. Dragging Saddam out of his hole was the best possible lesson that leaders - no matter how many bunkers, guards, and palaces they have - should think twice before lending support to those who would attack us. When an attack on our soil kills more Americans than Pearl Harbor, a disproportionate response (like invading North Africa with the same number of troops that we sent to Iraq) is warranted.

But we should have left Iraq long ago. We don’t need an empire, and when I see the imperial temple we're building in the Green Zone, I'm afraid that's the path we've taken.

She's Going Back to Her Well of Tears

2008-02-04T08:36:00.000-08:00

Hillary is starting to cry again. Funny how deeply emotional she gets whenever the polls turn against her. One commenter on the story nailed it:

I wish Hillary would have teared up when Monica Lewinsky's life was ripped apart. Or maybe when she told her supporters that she would garnish anyone's payroll check who refused to join in her Universal health care plan. Or maybe shed a tear for Paula Jones who her surrogates referred to as trailer trash.

Hillary Wants to Garnish Wages

2008-02-03T13:37:00.000-08:00

She says that "going after peoples wages" is one of the ways of dealing with people who won't buy Hillarycare. Of course she says she'll make it "affordable" but what that means is:

1) Illegal immigrants can't "afford" anything in her eyes (even though many make enough cash to send $20 billion home ) - so they'll get the same care as everyone else, and pay nothing. Even more incentive to come here, and less incentive to become legal and became W-2 serfs like the rest of us. Cash is King!

2) Of course single mothers can't "afford" to pay the full amount, so they'll get a free ride too. Why get married? Why stay married? Why even bother to have a job? - especially when your ex-husband's or ex-lover's W-2 can be garnished on top of what gets taken out for child support.

Some questions naturally come to mind, hard questions that none of the plans dare to address honestly.
1) Is dental and orthodontic care covered?
2) How about mental health care? Wellbutrin, Prozac etc, for people that feel anxious or depressed? Or for people that just feel unhappy?
3) Will universal health care pay for medical marijuana?
4) How about fertility treatments - the UK is considering paying for surrogate parenting.
5) How about abortions?
6) How about Viagra? Birth control?
7) How about affirmative action for health care? With scarce resources and past injustice, why not take race, ethnicity and gender into account when allocating expensive treatments? If race can be a factor in university admissions, why can't it be a factor in arranging heart transplants? Lawyers and courts will love this one!
8) For a married, working couple that refuses to buy insurance - which spouse gets their wages taken?
9) What about civil unions - whose wages get taken?

Regarding 1) and 2) on Billary's website, they have separate plan descriptions for different groups of constituancies. Apparently Hispanics need dental care . . .

Through the Health Choices Menu of Senator Clinton’s plan, all Americans will be able to choose and afford an insurance plan that covers mental health services and dental care in most cases, just like the plans available to Members of Congress.

. . .while women really, really need mental health care (their plan says nothing about dental care)

Major depression and dysthymia, a type of mood disorder, affect twice as many women as men, regardless of racial and ethnic background or economic status.13 The plans in the new Health Choices Menu, which provides the high quality care that Members of Congress receive, cover mental health care services to the same extent that they cover physical illnesses.

Woman, are, of course, special. They get an explicit promise of coverage, and they don't even need a job:

Under the American Health Choices Plan, every woman will be covered regardless of employment or marital status.

. . . and an explicit promise that marriage is irrelevant (for women, anyway):

Women will receive a refundable, income-contingent tax credit that ensures that they never have to decide between paying their health premiums and providing for their children’s basic needs.

Affirmative action in health care policy is the natural next step, considering that the plan is - at its inception- already balkanized. It is nothing more than a medley of policy treats that are promoted specifically as a means of addressing past bias against favored groups. Ethic groups are promised that there will be subsidized training for health care providers to learn their native language - and also be taught to "respect cultural differences." Note that the ethnically and racially targeted plan descriptions promise to "Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care", while the plan description targeted to women promises to "end the persistent disparities in health outcomes between women who have access to health care and those who do not." Apparently Billary doesn't want to let woman know that their care might suffer to make things better for minorities. Why be realistic? - it is all politics.

I've checked the plan descriptions for women and Hispanics. Each highlight the areas where the current system is unfair to the group in question. Now, you would think that one unfairness in the current system is that the life expectancy for men is 5.6 years less than women. Think that's a serious problem? Bill and Hillary could care less. Note that their "plan to fight cancer" mentions mammograms and pap smears - not a word about prostrate cancer. Woman and Hispanics get their own plan description, along with Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders - but men don't warrant a plan description of their own.

The reason men don't warrant their own plan description is simple. We'll wind up with a health care system that is all about providing special services to favored constituencies, and the responsibility to pay for all of this - whether through taxes or the wages that Hillary garnishees - will be borne primarily by men.

Despite my libertarian leanings, I support universal health care. I agree with Michael Moore when he wonders why, if we can provide free health care to prisoners in Guantonimo, why we can't provide the same for Americans? So I support basic, routine and catastrophic health care for all American citizens. Not dental care, not mental health care. Preventative care - yes. But if you are unhappy in life, or frustrated about the hand that you've been dealt, see a counselor or a clergyman - not a doctor (unless you want to pay out of pocket). Health care should be paid by tax dollars and administered by a politically independent body whose governors are appointed to lifetime tenure. Since governments are always less efficient than the market, we'll have lower quality health care, on average, and higher costs in total.

But it will be fairer, and more humane.

When Presidents Lie About Iraq and WMD . . .

2008-01-26T13:29:00.001-08:00

. . . they need to be as good at it as Bill Clinton, probably the most accomplished liar in the history of American politics.

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

Of course, this was just a few weeks after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. When that led to an impeachment resolution, Clinton ups the ante, this time ordering a military strike:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

Our Bill is such a good liar he even convinced his wife - here she is supporting Bush's war resolution 3 1/2 years later:

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

For a Good Laugh . . .

2008-01-13T09:55:00.000-08:00

. . . pay a visit to Dennis the Peasant. Sharp, biting, and very funny commentary about both wingnuts and lefists. One of his targets is Amanda Marcotte - see Dennis's Amanda Marcotte Sentence of the Week.

Enjoy!

The Last Time We Had a "Change" Candidate...

2008-01-11T19:02:00.000-08:00

... it was Jimmy Carter. And he's thought about another run.

The Timeline of Her Tears

2008-01-10T11:45:00.001-08:00

Via the Anchoress - the full story of Hillary's watershed moment. Hillary even telegraphed it the night before.

They even have a link to Bill's instantaneous tear-up for the cameras at Ron Brown's funeral.

And like I said - they will get as nasty as they need to. See Andrew Cuomo saying "shuck and jive" didn't work in New Hampshire. Hmmmm.

Update: I take the preceding back - when seen in context, it may not refer to Obama. Plausible deniability.

Speaking Truth to Power [Safely]

2008-01-10T11:14:00.000-08:00

From the London Times Online

Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

“I’ve censored myself,” Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. “I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it,” he said. “With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.”

At least he’s honest enough to admit he isn’t that brave. Lots of other artists maintain the conceit that their blasphemies (and blasphemy is the easiest, most juvenile of endeavors) are somehow brave and daring in an age that for the most part really doesn’t care. As if tweaking Bill Donohue makes you some sort of Martin Luther

I’m not suggesting new blasphemies against other religions and beliefs – that is hateful and wrong. I just wish some artists would stop thinking themselves brave when all they are really doing is piling on.

A Flameout Attempt to Triangulate Between Feminists

2008-01-05T12:27:00.000-08:00

I've been following the discussions here and here on Hugo Schwyzer's blog. Hugo is a male feminist, trying to persuade other feminists that Jessica Valenti's Yes means Yes project may have some value as part of a wider general discourse between feminists and what I'll call "normal people". The fundamental controversy is between WOC bloggers and Jessica, because WOC bloggers feel that Jessica's call for submissions trivializes their experiences. And marginalizes. And silences . . . blah, blah, blah.

Hugo tries to split the difference, saying that both points of view have some validity. Jessica is a "popularizer", WOC bloggers are "purists" - and both are needed. To ideologues, those are fighting words.

I don't really care about feminism, and I could care less what Jessica Valenti or the various WOC bloggers that are involved in this controversy think. What interests me is Hugo's attempt to add his voice to the mix, by trying to convince both sides that there is room for both in his big-tent view of feminism. And I care very much what Hugo thinks, because he is clearly a decent man, and a deep thinker. He is trying to blend Christianity and feminism, and I'm skeptical that such a blend is possible with the more ideological feminists.

Like all of these discussions, it always – always! - boils down to a matter of privilege. Privilege is the leftist counterpart to the Christian doctrine of original sin, absent its universality. Hugo, like many people that try and engage with feminists, falls for the bait-and-switch tactics that leftists use in privilege-based discourse. Ideologues claim that if privileged people acknowledge their privilege ("unpack it" in their parlance) they will then understand the revealed truth of feminism, or ableism or racism. . . whatever. Failure to understand the truth can only be because of the blinding, corrosive nature of privilege. Sound circular? It is – that’s why it takes an intellectual to believe it.

But when you see a controversy like this, where leftist ideologues have fundamental differences, then the real meaning of privilege analysis becomes clear.

Look at this comment thread. Hugo, claiming he has something of value to say, says things like:

I think Jaclyn and Jessica have done a really awesome job of hearing the criticisms of their original call for submissions; that’s a consequence of this dynamic process of having these various constituencies weighing in. The anthology will be better as a result.
And you’re absolutely right that the popularizer can be the purist of the reframing. As someone who teaches a survey course on women’s history, the only course on feminist history in the whole college, I have to monitor myself very carefully here to make sure I don’t slip into doing exactly that.

And he's met with responses like this:

Are you labeling concerns like the recognition that most people aren’t white and middle-class, are you casting that notion as a technical intricacy of interest only to purists?
And what kind of popularization is served by by selecting ideas that are targeted mainly at the wealthiest 5% of the world’s population?

So Hugo tries this tack:

On the other hand, a desire to be a successful, money-making writer doesn’t vitiate anyone’s progressive feminist credentials. It’s not a zero-sum game; a given feminist writer can make some money without automatically depriving other deserving folks. A rising tide really can lift all boats. (Damn, now you’ve made me sound like some hopeless supply-sider.)

And is met with this:

Spend some time outside of privileged spheres, read some Plato, read some Freire, do some listening to the experiences of the majority of the people on this planet, spend some time actually working with people in poverty, crisis, violence before crediting a blog or an ad campaign with the power to transform the world. Thousands of years of experience show effective social change is more complex than that. Basic social justice principles show that the same people saying the same things in the same way does not move us forward. Refresh yourself with what the legitimate criticisms of the call for submissions (not Jessica herself, regardless of your efforts to make it appear otherwise) were.

See – it always comes down to privilege! And Hugo takes the bait:

I don’t just pontificate in the classroom. I’ve done youth work for years and years — and not just with privileged white high schoolers. I’ve worked with pregnant teens in a variety of outreach programs in underprivileged areas. I’ve been to God knows how many clinics with scared young women. I’ve taught workshops on sexual harassment to sullen angry young men who call me “faggot” to my face over and over again. That volunteerism doesn’t make me a wonderful human being, and maybe it is just white guilt or noblesse oblige in your eyes — but I have lived out my values outside the confines of the classroom and the comforts of my home.

And this is the response:

And I cannot emphasize enough how unimpressed I am by you being called a fag. I mean you’re trying to claim that what? being called gay by a high school student is akin to the forced sterilization of native and black women or that it’s akin to seeing your friends and family arrested and thrown in prison because the police don’t care about being specific as long as they can arrest some black person.
You have not risked dying of dehydration crossing the border, you have not felt fear at the sound of police sirens despite your innocences, You have not wept at the stresses involved with tyring to pay for a court case, or suffered the symptoms of poisoning because your boss doesn’t follow enviromental health policies, you have not slept in a dirty alleyway with one eye open in case some random passerby takes it upon themselves to rape you, you have no fucking idea what hardship fucking is you little pissant.

Here is what is happening. In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth. Despite what they say, no amount of “unpacking”, no amount of insight, no amount of loyal "ally work" can regain your humanity. In their eyes, your privilege means that - now and forever - you have nothing of value to say. Your experiences are of no consequence. Your views are always empty. While you might be trotted out on occasion as part of a show-trial illustration of remorse, once that is done you need to shut up and move to the background. Once you are privileged, you are free only to agree.

So as a privileged person, Hugo has no basis from which to persuade feminists about anything.

And to me, this is the danger of these ideologies. They make fundamental claims about the relative moral value of people. Sadly, we've long done this on the basis of race, class and gender. The new, modern ideologies want to do the same exact thing, but based on the "privilege" aspects of race, class and gender. Ain’t no difference. The only sort of justice that will result from this new twist will be the type of justice Stalin doled out to the privileged Kulaks.

The only analysis of privilege I accept is the Christian one. “It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get to Heaven.” Christ offered the tiny, but redemptive, possibility of forgiveness – to everyone. Ideologues do not.

They Won't Go Gracefully

2008-01-03T07:37:00.000-08:00

Some polls have Hillary third in Iowa. Apparently even Democrats are seeing her for what she is - a liar without her husband's ability to pull it off.

The Clintons were insufferable in power, and now we'll get to see how gracefully they handle defeat. It won't be an inspiring sight. Their shamelessness reached an earlier peak on the day of Bill's impeachment, when he pulled all of the House Democrats onto the White House lawn for a "rally" - as if impeachment for the crime of perjury was just some primary setback. This quality - their repellent shamelessness - was all that kept them in power. Richard Nixon had a sense of honor, but Bill Clinton never did. His wife's willingness to stand by him was a sure sign that nothing matters to her more than power.

I've always had this theory about the two of them. They wouldn't have gone willingly. If another one of Bill's bimbos had come forward during the impeachment hearings and testified as to what sort of man he was, the truth may have been so blunt, so undeniable, that it may have have turned a dozen or so reluctant Democratic senators. He might have been convicted by the Senate, just so they could be done with him.

Even then, the Clintons wouldn't have left the White House. Having said that the House impeachment was just politics, they would have said the same thing about the Senate conviction. They would have eagerly forced a constitutional crisis. A sitting president refusing to leave office on conviction by what they would have called a "partisan Senate." The only way they would have left the White House was if the army went in and used tear gas.

And surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with Andrea Dworkin on Hillary:

Ever since she went to the White House as First Lady, her life has been going down the tubes. She had to give up her profession and she's been the staunch wife standing by her husband, no matter what vile things he does to humiliate her. It's pathetic. She should pack her bags and leave.

Atheism vs.Faith

2007-12-21T14:15:00.000-08:00

Eric, over at Beyond Assumptions has written a fine essay on his views of aggressive atheists, like Richard Dawkins, from his perspective as a Jew who is thinking deeply about his faith I recommend it highly - it is very thoughtful, and a good read. One point struck me:

What do most atheists turn to once they get rid of all the so-called superstition from their lives? For all the ones that turn to science, there are also those who turn to politics and theorists. They turn to the likes of Foucault and Derrida, proclaiming them as their new gods of reality. They turn to feminism and Marxism. Everything is a social construct don’t you know. My identity is caught up in the stream of society, writing upon me and shaping me. Oh me, oh my; I’m a slave, I’m oppressed, the dominant culture is effacing my real self, the dominant culture is forging me a new real self, I’m nothing but a forgery. Autonomy is a mere illusion.

And what do conservative types who stop believing in God tend to turn to? Neo-Nazism, of course, chalk full of racist ritual that does a white body good. I suppose some of them also become Lefties as they abandon their religious values.

A few might also turn to Libertarianism, of course. Others will turn to whatever other “ism” looks fairly kosher this week. But what becomes quickly apparent is the “isms” still exist without religion. They turn away from God only to worship the secular theology of Racism, Sexism, and Classism, the holy trinity of Progressive politics that offers the real explanation of what is going in the world beyond what we see with our own eyes (because you know its all invisible of course, hard to see unless you have the true faith, sort of like the way God works in the world).

I couldn't have said it better. I find my Christian teachings on morality, life, injustice and suffering far deeper, and far more humane than any of the modern "religions."

A Christmas Malcontent

2007-12-21T08:56:00.000-08:00

I’ve never liked Christmas. As a child, Christmas day was invariably a disappointment, because my siblings always seemed to get more gifts, and better gifts than I did. As an adult, I find all the accumulating obligations of Christmas stifling. The shopping to be done, lights to be hung, and the all myriad preparations for the big day hang over me like the tedium of an unsatisfying job. All for a holiday that never really brings me much pleasure.

Other men have told me that they especially liked Christmas morning when their children were small. How they loved orchestrating the magic for their little ones, and seeing the bright wonder of it all in the light of their small eyes. But not me - I did my fatherly duty, but it never brought me joy. When I watched my children open their presents I always felt a certain simmering disquiet, because I was troubled by the way they would cast one present aside - one they had begged for – in their frenzied rush to open another. To me it seemed a perfect demonstration of the sin of greed, and I would feel an uneasy premonition they would live a life without savoring simple joys. There are feelings you can speak of, and feel some connection with others who relate to them. But not this feeling - I'm alone in this.

I know there are deeper reasons for this. The jealousy I had over the gifts of my siblings quickened my inner sense that I was unwanted, that I was a just careless afterthought of my overworked parents. Christmas is an intensely social time, and I am happiest by myself, or in small groups of people I know very well. The mythology of Christmas is supposed to foster joy, but I have an inner nature that invariably orients my mood in opposition to those around me. Among sad people I tend to be happy and full of humor, among angry people I tend towards complacency, and among happy people I tend towards moroseness. This is the reason I find solitude so liberating - When I'm alone I'm free to settle inwards, find my own authentic mood and follow it where it leads, unclouded by the discordant feelings triggered by others.

This is also the reason I don't relate well to events that are supposed to elicit a particular feeling. For example, I didn't feel happy or proud at my children's graduations - I felt numb and uncertain. While I expect I have all the typical feelings of any good parent - love, anger, hope, joy and sadness - they rise within me at unexpected times, and they follow no external bidding. Watching my son practice the piano at home I feel a sense of joy as he struggles to master something. At his piano recitals I feel like a bug under a glass. I check my watch when listening to my daughter in concert, but when she's singing along with the radio next to me in the car, the sound of her voice washes over me like a benediction. My wife took all the videos at events and occasions. I took my videos of them playing with their toys at home, waking up after an afternoon nap, or building an igloo after a snowstorm.

So Christmas to me is a season of inner murkiness, of feeling remote from the prevalent mood of others. I find myself looking forward to New Years Day, and longing for a season of no particular color, when I can find myself again. Hoping to awaken from my own little solstice.

Someone Else I Like - Camille Paglia

2007-12-13T10:00:00.000-08:00

I always jump on her latest monthly piece whenever it is posted. No one says it better than Camille:

If the "surge" is really working in Iraq, all my fellow Democrats should rejoice, because it's one more step toward getting U.S. troops the hell out of there. Let Bush have his face-saving claims of victory -- who cares? Just bring this stupid, wasteful war to an end. Our brave soldiers and their families have suffered enough. And the toll in death, mutilation and trauma among hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis is obscenely high and will never be fully documented. I remain skeptical about long-term political prospects in Iraq, whose nationhood was a convenient British fiction after World War I and whose border territory may eventually be devoured by its neighbors, including Turkey and Iran.

and:

But primary and secondary education, which should provide an entree to great art and thought, has declined into trivialities and narcissistic exercises in self-esteem. Popular culture, once emotionally vibrant and collective in impact (from Hollywood movies to rock music), has waned into flashy, transient niche entertainment. The young, who are masters of ever-evolving personal technology, are besieged by the siren call of materialism. In this climate, it is selfish and shortsighted for liberals to automatically define religion as a social problem that needs suppression or eradication. Without spirituality in some form, people will anesthetize themselves with drink or drugs -- including the tranquilizers that seem near universal among the status-addled professional class of the Northeastern elite.

Men Supporting Men - This Can't Be Good!

2007-12-12T20:46:00.000-08:00

Feminists love to claim that men bear the primary responsibility for our culture of violence and injustice, and that men have a corresponding obligation to work on themselves to make our culture better. But they are being disingenuous, because what they really mean is:

“By all means, work on yourselves - but do it in ways we approve of, and work on the things that we think are important, in their order of relative importance. But don’t you dare meddle in woman’s work!”

This post, by Pam Spaulding at Pandagon is a fine example of this. She picks up on a complaint about the New Warrior Training Adventure that was reported by Wayne Besen. New Warrior grew out of the mythopoetic men’s movement, with the belief that by using the ancient process of initiation, men can heal themselves and other men, and discover a positive purpose in their life. To date, more than 35,000 men from all over the world have done this.

Feminists talk a good game about “deconstructing narratives” about gender – however, this doesn’t apply to their own, deeply bigoted, narratives about what men are like. Particularly men in groups, because their image of men working together is limited to gang-rapes, beat-downs, KKK rallies, torch-wielding mobs and pillaging soldiers.

Pam seizes upon this lawsuit, by the family of a man that committed suicide fifteen days after attending a New Warrior weekend training. Unlike Pam, I’ll link to the original story in the Houston Chronicle so my readers can get a more complete picture from the start. I have deep sympathy for the man and his family, but all I can do is point out that New Warrior is not for everybody, and it is not advertised as such by the Mankind Project, its parent organization. Based on my experiences, many of the allegations about this man’s weekend do not ring true, and absolutely everything that Les Sinclair, the mankind project spokesman, says coincides closely with my experience. In particular:

"The initiation is a real wake-up to life. We teach men to be accountable for the choices they make or the actions they don't take. We look at the emotional wounds that have taken a man's power away...He may have low self-esteem, he may feel like he doesn't measure up to other men, he's afraid of men or he's afraid of women, or he's afraid of life in general. We look at what was that key emotional wound that took his power away and set up some form of psychodrama for him to overcome. It is a very powerful process."

Pam’s article is a pure snark job, picking up the story third-hand, from Wayne Besen's column. She sees enough on the surface to provide some meat for her bigoted commentators, and stops there. She copies some of the short ritual descriptions from Besen's piece, without checking the comments on the article, and noticing that there were denials that they occur. And once she comes across allegations of anti-gay bias in the organization she has all the story she needs! It seems some members of what Pam characterizes as “pray the gay away” organizations encourage their members to go to New Warrior. That fits her model that men in groups are obviously homophobic. So she stops there, because she has what she needs to provoke comments like:

That’s an awful lot of stuff to go through just to have a circle jerk. A couple of hours with a boy scouts pack could get them to the goalposts in a lot less time.

and

Alright, this one scares me. Any time emotionally fucked up pseudo-straight white men start talking about birthrights, it’s time to leave the party.

and

I’m confused Pam, I am not an expert in thise matters but I thought gay men were in touch with their masculinity…and someone else’s.

In fairness, not all the comments were so bigoted. And one commenter actually took the trouble to look at a follow-up posting by Wayne Besen. This follow-up, posted after the one Pam quoted, and well before her article (why look deeper when you find such juicy, satisfying stuff!) was written by Wayne to report what gays said:

Indeed, New Warriors has a large gay following and many who attended consider it helpful to their coming out experience. I received more than 25 letters from gay men who said that the program helped them accept their sexual orientation.

"The ManKind Project gave me the confidence and wherewithal to finally say, 'I am a gay man,'" said one participant from Wisconsin.

"The program helped me become a better husband,' wrote another gay man from the Washington, DC area. "As I knocked down the walls, I became more comfortable with myself and able to give 100 percent to my partner. The program literally saved my relationship."

If feminists really care about fighting bigotry then some of them ought to take a close look at themselves. Why skim the surface of the news, and select little snippets that might cast men in a bad light? Why is this so satisfying? Why can’t they make an effort to deconstruct and question their own bigoted narratives? Do they really care about gay men, or do they just use the unjust treatment of gays as a stick to beat other men with?

I’ve been on the New Warrior training weekend, and it was one of the genuinely transformative experiences of my life. It isn’t easy – either physically or emotionally. I’ve recommended this training to every man I know well. I know dozens of men that have gone through, and with two exceptions, they all reported the same sort of transformative experience that I had.

It teaches you about integrity and accountability. It teaches you that you have strengths you didn’t know of, and that other men have wisdom to offer you. It is scary, it is fun, it is joyful.

It isn’t at all the way women would do this – and that is why it works. Men have been initiating each other for thousands of years, and we have lost much because this has dwindled to the negative initiations of gangs and boot-camps. Men know how to see through each other, how to challenge each other, and how to support each other. Men have strengths they can call on to fight their inner battles. Men can, and should be held accountable for what they do. Men have the emotional sensitivity and compassion to help and nurture other men, and to do good work in the world.

This wasn’t a one-time thing for me. I joined the support groups after the weekend. I went on other trainings, and I even got to meet two of the founders of the movement. It isn’t misogynistic, and it is not at all anti-gay.

A cult, you think? There is a reason many men stay with the organization – it fills their needs and adds value to their lives. I was participant for many years, but this cafeteria Catholic is no cult member. I left it years ago, with no pressure whatsoever. I left it because I moved on in my life, but I have great respect for the men, the organization and the work they do.

Here are some links for those who are interested:

In the Company of Men ManKind’s ‘New Warriors’ Embrace Nature, Each Other, ‘Sacred Masculinity’
Band of Brothers
A Small Band of Warriors...
Mankind Project - New Warrior Training Adventure

The Campaign Takes a Nasty Turn

2007-12-09T16:36:00.000-08:00

Christopher Hitchens - Today's H.L. Mencken

2007-12-07T11:29:00.000-08:00

I'm so glad this courageous man, Christopher Hitchens has decided to become an American citizen. We need men like that. Just reading him shred Mitt Romney, for his windy, worthless speech is astonishing.

I agree with him sometimes, not always, but he is someone I admire greatly. Sometimes when I write I imagine myself trained in his gunsights, and I go back and think some more about what I am saying. A good thing.

This Gives Me Chills

2007-12-06T07:20:00.000-08:00

A find this story deeply troubling. A young girl who killed herself because of a cruel Myspace prank. Who did it, and why they did it. I'm just speechless.

A Humble "Cafeteria Catholic"

2007-12-05T18:24:00.000-08:00

I remember the way I felt on my very first day of school, when I walked into that first grade classroom, and took my seat along with eighty - eighty! - other children. The old nun looked like the agent of some strange, otherworldly order of humanity. The black habit, the white bib. I couldn't figure out whether the wrinkles on her face were due to age, or the constriction of the headgear that pressed in on her head from all sides. The "her' part took a few minutes for my six year old mind to work out - she had, as I recall, a healthy gray mustache that made the issue a bit uncertain.

She may have been quite old, but she was quick to cover the distance between us on that first morning, pull me out of my seat, and toss me roughly into the corner. The engines of working class Catholic education knew how to deal firmly and decisively with any early signs of being a class clown. It maintained its vigilance over me all through my 12 years of Catholic education. The nuns, charged with the care of my small, unformed body, were careful to restrict their abuse to face slapping and hair pulling, often at the same time. When I got to high school the monks took the baton and used their fists in the service of good order.

Catholicism is something I know well. I've known lots of nuns, monks and priests, many closely. As an altar boy I recited my prayers, kneeling on the side of the priest at the foot of the altar. These were Latin prayers, that I memorized from a large, laminated card, and I learned them well enough that some phrases still roll around my head. I lit the candles, rang the bells, and poured water from the cruets so the priest could wash their hands before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

I know the church - well enough to know that has a warped and twisted view of sex. It is narrow-minded. Bigots find it a welcoming refuge. Its majestic rituals are easy to mock. There are, of course, gaps in my knowledge. Personally, I never had to deal with the emotional scars left by someone of the "Father Fasthands" sort, but that such things happened doesn't surprise me. No one who understands the history of this archaic institution - the battles over heresy, the Inquisition, the Medici Popes, the wars of the Reformation, the Concordat with Hitler - should be at all surprised that things like that happened. No, name any sin, and it well and truly modeled by the Church.

Yet I have a deep and enduring love for Catholicism, one that has grown over the years.

I don't attend mass often, but when I do I always get the sense of real spiritual challenge. The Eucharist remains for me a significant encounter with of Christ the Reedeemer. I don't join in the singing and recitations - I stand and kneel still in the attitude of Latin Mass silence and reflection that the nuns taught me as a child.

My parents taught me about love, and showed me it is not, in its highest sense, a passion but rather a lifetime commitment. My older siblings helped me see a bit forward in my life, to chart the waters just ahead of me. My wife and my children reinforced as an adult what my parents modeled for me as a child. But my sense of the moral order of things, and my view of myself as a single, solitary man in the vast universe, was laid down early and completely by the Roman Catholic Church. It began with coloring books about Jesus, and it still continues with each sacrament.

Oh I've looked around. I've heard the flickering of Buddhist prayer flags in the high dry breeze of the Himilayas. and I gave the prayer wheels beneath them a good spin as I continued on my way. I've felt the waters of the Ganges. I've walked shoeless beneath the arches of Suleiman’s Mosque, and kneeled next to Bedouin Arabs as they unrolled their prayer rugs in the caves of Jordan. I once wrote a prayer on a small piece of paper, and wedged it into the cracks in the Western Wall, hoping the rocking prayers of the rabbis would lend it a favor my life had no claim to.

I've done old things like Sufi dances, and new things like holding hands in a circle and welcoming the Light. I've sat cross-legged and naked in the darkness of sweat lodges. The heat, steam, and sweat of others suffocated me within the womb of the oldest religious ceremony on earth. My voice joined the song of the Native American water-pourer, and when we sang the prayer for "our brothers the birds and the creepy-crawly things" I started to weep.

I've seen the places of my own religion too. I've been to Saint Peter's, I once laid myself down on a bench in the Sistine Chapel, and before the guards chased me away I was able to completely lose myself in Michaelangelo's creation: the bible seen as the high, arching backbone of history. I've knelt at the Crusader's star in Bethlehem, I've walked Christ's route along the Via Dolorossa, and I've seen the sunlight fire the blue light of Chartres.

I went to all those places as an aimless wanderer with no place to go and I left them the same way. It took me a lifetime to learn that religion wasn't a place for me, but rather a disposition written within me, on my soul. God placed it there, but the church organized it and taught me what it meant.

It is easy to remember how angry and mean the nuns seemed, but they taught me many good things. I remember their emphasis on mite boxes, and how important it was to give to the poor. They comforted us with the knowledge that each of us had a Guardian Angel kneeling beside us. They taught me about the trinity, the seven deadly sins and the seven cardinal virtues. I wrote them again and again on sheets of looseleaf with a fountain pen, and still I forgot them. Until much later.

Once in the city that used to be called Bombay, I was walking down the street. A woman came up behind me and started screaming. I turned and saw her face, and the scrawny, near-lifeless baby she was holding. I recoiled - never had anyone looked at me like that. I knew that in her eyes I was powerful beyond measure. The bills in my pocket were the calendar pages of her baby’s life. A curious thought rose within me. What did I have to live for? Where did I have to go? Where did I belong? I felt the strangest impulse to empty my pockets, clean out my bank account, and give every last thing I had to her. To give all, to risk all, to have nothing - and yet be entirely free.

I turned my back and walked on.

It was only later that I understood what happened, realizing that that feeling was something that the nuns and monks had taught me. Jesus calls us to love with reckless abandon, but that the seven deadly sins - in this instance avarice – make us hide. I heard a call, but continued wandering aimlessly, and when I came home it was to go through the motions of my empty life.

The nuns taught me about the doctrine of grace too - that the love of God is freely bestowed on the deserving and undeserving alike. And grace has made all the difference in my life. Because something astonishing happened. I had completely and totally forgotten about the little prayer I scrawled on a piece of paper and wedged into the Western Wall. It is, to this day, the only prayer of mine that has ever been answered, and it came in the form of a second call.

I didn't turn my back on this one. I sealed it with a sacrament, standing before God and pledging my love for the gift He gave me. My beloved wife. It is easy to think of a gift in the sense of a reprieve, an exit, something to make things easier. She was a gift of a far different sort, one that enabled me to say, with the pure fire of a fully-intended vow, that I would be hers forever. No matter what. Come what may. Freedom isn't about the ceaseless maintenance of alternatives and options - it is about the ability to give just once, completely.

Yes, the old nuns were right. The sacraments are a gateway to God. When my children were baptized, I knew I was given a lifelong responsibility, yet had to face that responsibility with humility - one of the seven cardinal virtues. They do not belong to me. The prayers said that I owe them everything, but I have no claim to them. At the funeral masses for my parents, as their caskets were wheeled down the nave towards the early morning sun I knew the words that were said - "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord. And may perpetual light shine upon them" - will be offered one day for me. I will need them.

So with some sacrifice, my wife and I rejected the advantages of our well-funded pubic schools to send our children to catholic schools. They are better than they use to be - the meanness and abuse is gone, but the teachings remain. Better they learn those teachings, grounded in a few millennia of human experience, than the trend-chasing multicultural pandering that passes for education these days. As I write this, my son is taking a theology class in a fine Jesuit University. I wish him luck - when I read modern theology I have the same reaction I have to Modern Language Association literary analysis - it is all incoherent jargon. I'll stick to Dante and Aquinas.

I feel I've offered my children the best possible foundation - a systematic point of reference about the world and themselves. A way of thinking about right and wrong. Some possible answers to deep questions they might have about themselves. The sorts of questions no parent can answer, no other person can answer.They are free to embrace it, ignore it, or perhaps improve upon it.

I think many non-Catholics have an odd view of what goes on in the church. Some suppose that priests are like mullahs, using their weekly sermons to berate parishioners on the evils of birth control, gays, and premarital sex. It has been decades since I've heard any discussion of these subjects from the pulpit. Almost all sermons I've heard are about the offsetting the temptations of materialism and laziness with faith, charity and the love of others. Critics of the church often demonstrate how parochial they are by assuming the Church is ignorant of the pressing issues of the day. Nothing could be further from the truth. The church is the most diverse institution in the world - issues have to be weighted for their relative importance to the refugees of East Timor, the sub-Saharan poor and the elderly in the empty pews of Europe. My preaching, as often as not, is received from a man from a remote village in India. When he arrived in our parish, one of the Sunday bulletins had a picture of him outside in the snow - because he had never seen snow before.

Some things are settled questions for me now. I believe human life begins at conception and ends at natural death, and is sacred throughout, and this informs my conviction that abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty are wrong. I am firmly in the church's camp on those. I'm quite firmly against their teaching that being gay is somehow "objectively disordered" and that the gift that was given to me is denied others. I've yet to make up my mind on institutional issues like priestly celibacy, or the ordination of woman. I don't believe in papal infallibility - a pretty recent doctrine as such things go, first formulated in 1870. Most non-Catholics don't even understand the doctrine. Not every word from the pope's mouth is supposed to be infallible, but only some words, carefully formulated as "ex Cathedra" assertions of truth. The last such teaching - that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven - was made in 1950. And no, I don't believe it.

I believe some things the church doesn't teach - for example that the Shroud of Turin actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. And I believe this despite my rational skepticism based on the Carbon-14 dating.

I believe Jesus Christ was a real historical person, that he was divine, I believe Mary was a virgin. That Christ was crucified and rose bodily from the dead. I feel some connection with the Holy Spirit as I write this. I believe that the Church is the living repository of the truth of the Gospels. I believe in the Judgment - both mine of myself, and that I am accountable to God for His gift to me. When I do go to Mass, and hear the words of the Nicene Creed, I hear not one word I disagree with.

These, for me, are the anchors of faith. Not reason. The boundaries of human reason were demarcated by Kurt Godel in 1930, when he proved that if you believe in the consistency of logic, you must believe that there are real truths that are not logically provable. Such are the beliefs I have.

...

I once walked along the Roman street that runs thirty feet beneath the floor of Saint Peter's Basilica. I listened as the old Jesuit explained the history of where we were, what was built around us, and above us. That the Roman engineers leveled a hill that once ran above us, in order to bury this street, this necropolis of their dead, so as to make the stones and earth of it a foundation for their basilica. He walked us along the street, pointing out the excavated Roman graves and their elaborate mosaics to the old sun god - Helios. He walked down to the end of the street, and pointed to the etched graffiti by the early Christians around the one simple first century grave that was carefully left undisturbed amid all the building. The first basilica was built around that grave, as was the current basilica twelve hundred years later.

The church is built on the legacy of Peter. A simple man, who wrote little, if anything. Christ has Divinity, Paul had inspiration. The Romans we know of from those times all had creativity, eloquence, or power. Peter had none of these. The New Testament is a pretty remorseless illustration of all his faults: He was boastful, vain and cowardly. Certainly not the brightest of the Apostles. Paul made him look like a fool at Antioch, and the apocrypha tells us that he was a coward right to the end - Peter fled Rome when threatened with death – Christ had to lead him back.

Incredible that this simple, weak man had a two thousand year old institution built around his bones. An institution with adherents on evey continent, every class, every ethnic group. An institution that survived Nero, Atilla, Suleiman, and Stalin.

So when I consider my Church, I look upon it as Peter. When I consider myself, I always think first of Peter. When I consider the Church's teachings, I consider them as challenges to me, not, like Paul would, as injunctions for others. Like Peter, I have too much work to do on myself.

I think often of that little dirt grave, the second century graffiti (Petros est) over it, the edifices built atop it, and Bernini's elliptical, embracing colonnade in St. Peter's Square. The reach and scope of the church, I am proud of it. Proud of the wisdom it has gathered over the centuries, and of its breadth within humanity. But pride is the first, and deadliest, of the seven deadly sins, because it leads to a misplaced, misdirected faith in ourselves, or the institutions we are proud of.

The rock of the foundation piers that surround Peter’s grave won’t last forever. Only Christ is eternal. I have lots of foreboding about what will happen in the world. About the war, suicide bombers and the clash between Islam and the West. I'm convinced that the rushing winds of the media are swirling the embers of centuries-old grievances into some new, hellish firestorm.

I'd be a fool to put my faith in any church, or in Peter.

I thought of that little dirt grave when I watched John Paul II's funeral, and they recited the Litany of the Saints: from John the Baptist and Peter to Maxmillian Kolbe. I was struck by the inspirational power of the Church, how in every age its teachings have produced men and women of heroic virtue. I considered the millions that attended, and wondered what it felt like for all the heads of state, normally the center of things, to be relegated to a silent periphery. For Iran, Israel and Syria forced to sit in proximity, and to awkwardly shake hands. As John Paul was carried up the steps of the basilica, there were shouts from the crowd for immediate canonization.

I was deeply moved by this. It seemed a vindication of Catholicism, and how one extraordinary man marshaled its teachings and the divisions of the faithful to defeat Stalin's legacy. How for one day the church seemed the center of the world, and able to quiet some deep and dangerous tensions. But I then realized that all of this - the basilica, the square, the architecture, the Latin, the cardinals and the curia are Roman, not Catholic. They are the last vestiges of the Roman Empire in the world. Looked at one way it can seem strong. I see it as a tempting illusion - the church appropriating the once strong but now weak structure of the Empire in a vain hope for protection. Something Peter might do.

John Paul was such a dynamic leader that he made it seem possible to steer this institution through all the scary things we face. This ship might be our only refuge, the fisherman our only pilot. And that is why many Catholics have contempt for people like me, the cafeteria approach of just picking and choosing the doctrines and codes of Catholicism I like. For not being obedient, for not being good, loyal crewmen. When under pressure groups always get angry at their wavering members.

Then he made the disciples get into the boat and precede him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. After doing so, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When it was evening he was there alone. Meanwhile the boat, already a few miles off-shore, was being tossed about by the waves, for the wind was against it. During the fourth watch of the night, he came toward them, walking on the sea. When the disciples saw him walking on the sea they were terrified "It is a ghost," they said, and they cried out in fear. At once [Jesus] spoke to them, "Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid." Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." He said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw how [strong] the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "Oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?"
(Matt. 14:22-33)

I have my family, but I am alone in the world. While love is the highest of the cardinal virtues, the love I have for my wife and children is an easy thing. Nothing like the heroic virtue of the saints, this love of mine is just one isolated peak in an otherwise plain life. I want to believe this Church will stay afloat in the coming storm, that it might chart some course for the world, and be a haven for my children. I love it, but humbly, because I know neither the church nor myself am immortal.

This ship, my church, can carry me just so far. My foreboding about the coming storm has a deeper root. As a middle aged man, I’ve learned the narrow limits of what I can do, I’m losing the unquestioned sense of immortality that young men have, and when physical strength wanes the world seems like a more fearful place. So I cling to what seems like the best hope, yet I know from my life that giving in to fear can be sinful.

Peter, closest to Christ, heard a call in the wind and risked his life by stepping out onto the waves. Peter, when Christ was long gone, fled Rome to save himself. Both times Christ saved him, the first time to save his body, the second time to save his soul.

As a cafeteria Catholic I never know which choice I am making. But choose I must, and may Christ save me.

Big Brother Checks Every Word

2007-12-03T09:03:00.000-08:00

Racism used to be about lynchings, beatings, the KKK. Nasty slurs and hatred. Discrimination. Threats. Now it's also about your choice of words when describing cake decorations.

Robert Jensen's Cartoon View of Men

2007-12-02T15:58:00.000-08:00

I came acros this post on Hugo Schwyzer's blog on the new book by Robert Jensen, Getting Off: (Pornography and the End of Masculinity)

I think I'll pass on the book. Why spend money on a book that will inform me that hardcore porn can be hateful, cruel and repugnant? Duh! Maybe there are some people out there that view extreme porn as a positive good, as something to be celebrated and welcomed. But the plain fact is, porn is not good for the soul - this was a lesson the nuns and priests taught me way back in grammar school, and I've come to experience the truth of what they said as an adult.

I'm glad I won't be wasting money on his book, because his website was quite enough for me. It seems that most of Jensen's porn journalism focuses on the more extreme, hateful and misogynistic aspect of today's porn industry. This helps to make Jensen's astonishing revelation - that porn is ugly, mean and cruel - even more lame. No doubt this gives the book an extra buzz factor. And by concentrating on the most extreme and degrading porn, he's able to align himself with some feminists that claim that male sexuality is inherently sick and abusive.

He seems to delight in exposing feminists to its most extreme manifestations, so that feminists who might be wavering in their hatred of men might be set right:

A story about that: I am out with two heterosexual women friends. Both are feminists in their 30s, and both are successful in their careers. Both are smart and strong, and both have had trouble finding male partners who aren't scared by their intelligence and strength. We are talking about men and women, about relationships. As is often the case, I am told that I am too hard on men. The implication is that after so many years of working in the radical feminist critique of the sex industry and sexual violence, I have become jaded, too mired in the dark side of male sexuality. I contend that I am simply trying to be honest. We go back and forth, in a friendly discussion.

Finally, I tell my friends that I can settle this with a description of one website. I say to them: "If you want me to, I will tell you about this site. I won't tell you if you don't want to hear this. But if you want me to continue, don't blame me." They look at each other; they hesitate. They ask me to explain.

What got me interested in this topic, as discussed in Hugo's blog, and also over at feministing is the discussion of whether Jensen is a "self-hating male." Consider this quote:

“I cannot escape a simple conclusion: If men are going to be full human beings, we first have to stop being men.”

Jensen's point relies on his assertion that extreme porn is mainstream:

"The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn't be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyper-patriotic nationalism, white supremacy, and a predatory corporate capitalism."

Something is in the mainstream when it can be admitted to, enjoyed and spoken of in everyday, non-intimate company. Sports is mainstream. Oprah is mainstream. Reality TV is mainstream. Disney and Miramax are mainstream. I'd say something is in the mainstream when you can advocate for it on The View. If this stuff was mainstream he wouldn't have had to introduce it to his feminist friends - they would have known of it already. Quoting porn industry revenues of $4 billion says nothing about how mainstream something is. The drug industry is an order of magnitude larger than that, and hardly mainstream. People do drugs, and they often lie about it to their friends and families. Lot's of men enjoy porn, but they also hide it and feel ashamed of it.

Yes, this stuff is prevalent and easily available, but hardly mainstream. So all his profound claims about men and masculinity that follow from that premise are unfounded. If you visit Attica and talk to some black prisoners, you'll get a pretty distorted view of black male culture. If you talk to contestants in preteen beauty pageants, you'll get a pretty distorted view of modern family life. Want to learn what college students are thinking? Then visit Daytona Beach during Spring Break, of course! Want to learn what's on the mind of Middle Americans? Mardi Gras is the place to be! Naturally, the best way to learn about Muslims is to seek out and speak to the ones that download and enjoy beheading videos. You'll learn all you need to know about women by visiting romance novel publishing conventions!

I'm convinced Jensen's purpose isn't to expose nasty porn. His purpose is to use the characteristics of extreme porn to excoriate men in general.

I was going to ignore him, but then I had the feeling that Robert Jensen was the same guy that write this silly article about masculinity that annoyed me a while ago. He gets into a two confrontations - one with someone he characterizes as an "alpha male", and one with another academic that turns personal. He witnesses a third confrontation between someone he characterizes as a "computer nerd" and a stewardess. These confrontations are upsetting, but rather than process them personally, and draw lessons about how he might have acted, he draws some cosmic conclusions about masculinity in general:

Masculinity in three acts: Attempts at dominance through (1) force and humiliation, (2) words and argument, and (3) raw insults. Three episodes about the ways masculinity does men in, neatly played out during one long weekend.

Well, Robert - masculinity isn't about dominance - that is your narrow, cartoon view of masculinity. Maybe you are not happy with masculinity, but many men are. Men who gain legitimate authority through skill and hard work. Men that take pride in behaving honorably, and with integrity. Men that make hard, difficult commitments to the love and care for others, and have the inner strength to see it through in difficult times. Men that train and prepare so they can save and protect others when needed. Men that are surgeons, nurses, artists, firemen, fathers, schoolteachers and businessmen. For some reason Jensen thinks that 3 confrontations over the course of a weekend - never mind cops deal with 3 or more confrontations every hour of their working lives - tell him something about masculinity. Normal, everyday encounters, where men just live their lives, do their jobs, and avoid trouble don't factor into his view at all.

So is Robert Jensen a self-hating male? Quite the contrary. Based on what I've read, he's rather full of himself. He has an introductory piece on his website, authored by Don Hazen:

"Robert Jensen -- Radical Man

So that you understand, Robert Jensen is a true radical, His positions on masculinity, race, and pornography are way out of the mainstream. He thinks that concepts of masculinity make men less than human and should be junked. "Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a "real man" is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest and domination. A man looks at the world, sees what he wants and takes it."

No he doesn't hate himself at all - he is too enamored of his own radicalism. Yes, such a daring, radical thinker! Us poor, dumb, mainstream people can't even get up and go to work, because our brains are fried from all the hardcore porn we've downloaded. And there Jensen is, a lonely beacon of light in the distance, telling us conquest and domination are wrong. And once again the only masculinity he can see is about control and domination. Nothing about skill, courage, creativity, honor, dependability, hard work, discipline, or faith.

The irony here is that he claims men use porn to indulge their hatred for women; Jensen uses porn to indulge his hatred for masculinity.

I read just about everything on his site, and the only original thought I could find, from this "radical man", is this piece of nonsense, from an article that relates Blow Bang porn to cluster bombs:

What do blow bangs and cluster bombs have in common? On the surface, very little; pornography and war are different endeavors with different consequences. In pairing them, I am not making some overarching claim about the connection between patriarchy and empire.

But I can say this: To be effective, contemporary mass-marketed pornography and modern war both require cruelty and contempt. The pornography I watched in the summer of 2001 was about the cruelty of men and men's contempt for women. The war I watched in the fall of 2001 was about the cruelty of Americans and Americans’ contempt for people in other parts of the world.

Although I have been involved in intellectual and political work around both issues for more than a decade, I was surprised at how strong my emotional reactions were to both the pornography and the war, and how similar they were -- just how deep the sadness went.

No, no "overarching claims" here - except those in the second paragraph. In general, if you want to make sweeping claims about culture, it's best to put aside the porn and Wolf Blitzer - a trip to the library might be in order. Yes, modern war "requires cruelty and contempt" - far different than the humane care with which the Romans, Genghis Khan and Atilla conducted war. The "cruelty of Americans"? - has he ever read about the Russian Front in World War II? Lots of cruelty - probably a thousand Russians and Germans died for every Afghan killed in 2001 - and nary an American in sight. I was astonished Jensen has a Phd when I read the above - no facts, no reasoning. Just dissociated concepts united solely by his feelings about them.

All the rest of the stuff is just rants about patriarchy, racism, and capitalism. He has an extensive list of articles on his site that covers the tired privilege dissection shell game. Agony pieces about his "coming to terms" with his white privilege. Nothing new or original there. The discussions of feminism, white privilege and imperialism pretty much tells me he sticks to safe topics that will be well received in academia and leftist circles - his own little mainstream of echoes. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this "radical man" to write something critical of members of a marginalized group or positive about heterosexual white men - he isn't radical enough to dip his toe in dangerous waters like that. No he is a true ideologue.

He doesn't even like Thanksgiving:

After years of being constantly annoyed and often angry about the historical denial built into Thanksgiving Day, I published an essay in November 2005 suggesting we replace the feasting with fasting and create a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of indigenous people that is central to the creation of the United States.

. . .

Imagine that Germany won World War II and that a Nazi regime endured for some decades, eventually giving way to a more liberal state with a softer version of German-supremacist ideology. Imagine that a century later, Germans celebrated a holiday offering a whitewashed version of German/Jewish history that ignored that holocaust and the deep anti-Semitism of the culture. Imagine that the holiday provided a welcomed time for families and friends to gather and enjoy food and conversation. Imagine that businesses, schools and government offices closed on this day.

If he really thought about things in depth - which he doesn't - he'd have to admit the painful truth that he does indeed have a privilege. Not male privilege. Not white privilege. But the privilege of a ready made audience, who, as long as he uses words like misogyny and patriarchy, and frequently mixes in disparagement of American culture and capitalism, will rejoice at every word without reading carefully enough to see how vacuous those words are.

Are there problems with our conception of masculinity? Of course - I knew that before I read Jensen, and I've read enough Jensen to know I'll gain no insight from further reading.

Update: Hugo's third post in the series also quotes Jensen. When I read the posts, I'm wondering if my characterization was unfair.

The Pitiless Nature of Ideology

2007-11-18T17:13:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned here, I believe ideologies can blind us. I also consider them dangerous. Consider Kiuku's Post About Separatism at Feminist Critics. It has the pretense of insight, study and reasoning, but not the substance. It leans on a cursory understanding of Evolutionary Psychology, claiming men are biologically unnecessary, and that men naturally use violence to compensate for this. All to a repugnant purpose, and the comment discussion reveals some merciless proposals for its implementation.

I stand by the comment I made:

No, men aren’t necessary. Neither are gays, jews, blacks, whites etc. As technology progresses women won’t be necessary either - cloning and artificial wombs will suffice quite nicely. In fact people aren’t necessary either - the universe will continue along quite well without us.

Separatism - from all who are unnecessary? Separatism - from men because of their intrinsic evil? To paraphrase Orwell - there are some things that are so completely and obviously wrong, that only intellectuals can believe them. This is as clear an example as I’ve ever seen.

I'm glad I refrained from being drawn into a toxic discussion. But I am following it. Kiuku, the Separatist, is painstakingly going though all the comments from the (largely male) "sentient beings" - the unnecessary ones. And everyone is engaging in pointless arguments, treating the post with a respect it doesn't deserve.

BTW - I don't see this as at all representative of Feminism - most feminists are reasonable, caring, intelligent people. I consider it hate speech of a particularly dangerous sort, but as I said in this post, better to have it exposed than suppressed

When Narratives Collide With Reality

2007-11-13T18:42:00.000-08:00

Thanks to A Typical Joe for helping me learn an important lesson.

I wrote earlier on the interesting phenomena of the Folsom Street Fair poster controversy. I maintained then, and still maintain, that the fair organizers chose that poster for its religious implications. I agreed with Andrew Sullivan that it was just cheap blasphemy, and I felt that the fair organizers welcomed the bigoted reaction they got.

So I was convinced by this that there were some members of the San Fransisco gay community (even though the FSF is not, strictly-speaking, a gay event) that did things that were deliberately intended to provoke bigoted reactions from religious conservatives.

And this story seemed to reinforce my views. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, dressed in clown outfits, attend mass. I see the videotape, see the outrageous getup, and the archbishop's hesitation before giving them communion.

I watch Bill O'Reilly on the topic, and I'm as upset as he is by what I see as mockery of the Eucharist.

So I felt I knew what was going on - the Sister's attending a regular Sunday Mass, and having themselves videotaped, hoping to record the scene of anti-gay Catholic bigotry they provoke. Sunday Mass as a stage for some political theatre. I summarized my view in a comment on Joe's blog:

I know the Sisters do charitable work, but I have a problem with this stunt. I’m considering the people who went there to celebrate Sunday mass, and found themselves cast into an unwilling role in a videotaped political drama. I don’t think that is fair.

My suspicion is that the Sisters did it because they wanted to provoke a bigoted reaction. I’m sure Catholics could go to gay bars, order a few beers, and start saying the rosary, and that might provoke a similar reaction. In general, I think if we want tolerant society, it is best to refrain from things like this, and allow different types of people some space to be themselves.

Except I was as wrong as I could be, because the story doesn't fit the narrative I had imposed on it. One of the Sisters wrote a note to Joe, saying:

The video was actually shot by a right-wing, very homophobic group based in San Jose, CA called Quo Domine. They filmed in secret and then sent the tape to other right wing blogs like “Americans for Truth” and to Fox News.

Their intention was to create a controversy that would perpetuate the right-wing attack on “San Francisco values.”

The group has attacked Most Holy Redeemer parish in the past, because they vehemently oppose the church’s open ministry to queer people, whom they believe are living in sin and should repent. The group holds a fundamentalist inspired vision of the Church that does not welcome diversity.

The sisters who attended that day did so because they, like others in the Castro-neighbourhood parish, genuinely wanted to welcome the bishop on his first pastoral visit and because they wanted to remind him that this was a gay-affirming parish.

The Sisters were attending mass in a gay-welcoming parish, called Most Holy Redeemer. They are certainly no strangers to the parish - they've even run "Revival Bingo" events at the parish! The Archbishop was - to his credit - reaching out of his comfort zone in visiting a somewhat divergent parish in his diocese. The video was shot not by the Sisters, but by a conservative religious group, named Quamdiu Domine. That group doesn't like the idea of a gay-inclusive parish, and wanted to embarrass not the Sisters but the archbishop. And when the story was presented, he caved under the pressure.

And this is even more interesting. The group, Quamdiu Domine, that filmed the video has a link on this page to what they claim is a parish bulletin that has a note from one of the Sisters - Delta Goodhand. The note thanks the Archbishop for coming to say mass. Again, the group is outraged that the Sisters participate so easily in the parish. You can see Delta's note on the bottom left of the bulletin PDF on this page. But when you go to the parish website, and look at the same bulletin (10/14/07) - downloadable from this page - there is no such note. There is a "save the date" notice in the archived parish bulletin in the same place where the Quamdiu Domine version has the note from Sister Delta. So either the parish is going back and rewriting history, or the conservative group is doctoring parish bulletins.

Clearly I have too much time on my hands!

I'm still no fan of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and I'm certainly no fan of Quamdiu Domine. Nevertheless, I learned an important lesson: the world is far more complex than the stories we tell ourselves.

Men and our Babies

2007-11-01T15:24:00.000-07:00

I'm a man that loves babies!

I started thinking about men and babies back when I was reading the Male Privileges Checklist, and saw privilege number 11

If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.

And this advice to a prospective father, found in the comment thread in a post by Hugo Schwyzer:

BTW, your job as long as she’s breastfeeding, which takes six to eight hours a day for the first several months or longer, is to change all diapers when you’re home and especially to balance the nighttime drain on her by getting up and getting the baby, changing it, bringing it to her in bed and delivering it back to the crib. That’s the best advice we got before our first daughter was born. You’ll still get way more sleep than she will and her resentment level will be way down.

Woman and babies just seem to go together quite naturally. We have a certain iconic view of the mother and child bond, and properly so, for there is great beauty there. A mother holding a baby seems a natural and almost holy thing. I think of all the iconography around Mary and the infant Jesus.

I consider myself fortunate because I discovered the joy of caring for babies when I was a teenager, when I needed to care for my brother's son. He was a difficult baby that suffered from terrible colic, but I learned to deal with him. I listened to his screams, fed him, changed his diapers, got puked on, and paced endlessly with him so he could sleep. My ability to deal patiently with his sometimes unpredictable moods because a source of pride in me, and I think I formed a somewhat different anticipation of fatherhood than some men have. Sure, I pictured taking my future son to his first ballgame, and teaching a future daughter to ride her bike. But I also wondered what it would feel like to hold and feed a baby that wasn't just a friend’s baby, or a relative's baby. But a baby of my own! What would that feel like?

So I’ve always felt comfortable and adept at dealing with babies. My children are grown now, and I miss that "baby fix". It is pretty well established that infants need lots of physical closeness and warmth to develop properly. I've heard that some hospitals that treat infants in long term care, recognizing that nurses don't have the time to sit and rock them for hours, allow volunteers to come in and do it. I'm not certain of that, but I recall hearing of it, and I remember considering it. But it never got further than a brief wish. Somehow I was certain that all such volunteers would be woman, and I'd be considered weird.

Men and babies just don’t seem to go together. I know when I was outside with my own children and they started fussing, guys would look at me and seem to smirk. I sensed a certain relief on their part in not having to deal with it themselves, and sometimes a certain dismissive contempt of me for being in that position. Woman would offer advice, and sometimes say even say "Do you want me to try and settle him down?" We're just not expected to be good with infants, and I don’t think this attitude serves anyone.

The belief that we somehow lack the basic skills and disposition to deal with babies is foolish. As generals, we can sort out the logistics of an amphibious landing, but we can't juggle an infant's nap and feeding schedule, or negotiate getting them into a car seat with their baggage? As cops we can safely disable a violent, psychotic person, but we can't be trusted to tolerate the shrill screams of a newborn? As EMTs we can carefully extract the wounded from a horrible car wreck, but we somehow lack the delicacy needed to cradle an infant in our arms? We can work double shifts at a factory, or burn the midnight oil getting a big project done by the deadline, but we can't handle a few weeks or months of sleepless nights?

I'm not looking at this as another one of those ideological arguments over something that is really just an act of love. To me it's not really about being helpful, or being fair, or being equal, or graciously giving mom a break from the stress. It is about men getting a direct and immediate feeling of fatherhood by caring for our babies - right from the very beginning.

My wife very much wanted to breastfeed, but for various reasons it didn't work out. And part of me was glad, because in those long ago nights when I struggled out of bed listening to the screams of my first child, my daughter, I discovered myself as a father. I learned the need for patience. I learned humility, because I knew that in the eyes of this tiny person - who I loved more than my own life - I was but a dim, faceless shadow. I learned that the true measure of strength and love is the willingness to commit totally to a forever one-sided relationship.

She would continue screaming on my shoulder as the bottle warmed, and not until we sat in the rocker, and she began pulling nourishment from the nipple, did she quiet. And such a quiet! Just the faint sounds of faraway traffic. Just the sound and rhythm of her gulping, and the way she slows down and relaxes once the panic of her immediate need recedes. No longer drinking desperately, she can drink with ease, and with pleasure.

And then the miracle happens, because - as she continues to drink - her eyes open and they roll towards me. She looks not at my eyes but through my eyes, with a fixed, unblinking gaze that Mellville described as "feasting upon some unearthly reminiscence."

Once she is sated, I lift her and form the bone and muscle of my shoulder into a cove for her slumber. She sleeps, and I remain awake. The warmth of her small body blankets me with peace, and with completeness. She drifts back to that unknowing place where infant souls dwell. And as I rock her my thoughts return to my world. A world of plans and responsibilities, of things I need to do tomorrow, and things I’ll need to face years from now. Of inner doubts and now suddenly sharpened fears, because I am charged with a most precious and most undeserved gift.

I know as I rock her in the night that the world outside is the same as it has always been - but my view of it shifts and reforms itself with each sway of the rocker. My world is newly built upon the foundation of her faint breath. I am a man with a mission. I am forever her hostage; on my shoulder rests the full, fearsome weight of her. And bear her I shall.

Fun with AOL Search Records

2007-10-31T19:25:00.000-07:00

Last year, AOL inadvertently exposed a data set that contained over 20 million searches performed by hundreds of thousands of users. It was only exposed for a brief while, but in that brief period it was copied all over the internet.

The records are fascinating to browse, and there is even a site dedicated to characterizing people based on their search activity. Like the person characterized as a "pet owner, parent, and possible animal fetishist." Someone figuring out how to commit murder. And my favorite, someone who is searching for their computer.

It is fun to browse. And yes - there are some real sickos out there.

Bigotry, Hate Speech and Free Expression

2007-10-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

The Web gives me chills sometimes, because of the venom and hatred I see there. It is frightening to see the comments on a web post like this descend into a flurry of vicious attacks by the participants. The dynamic is perfectly predictable in all instances. People who believe they are protected by anonymity become wildly supportive of their group perspective and grievances on an issue. Those on the other side, unable to target the known qualities of a particular person, seize instead on the characteristics of the group that person represents. And the vitriolic spiral starts.

This happens so often that it seems that the promise of the Web was just a foolish dream. There was hope that the ability to communicate and build online communities would draw us together in a web of insight and understanding, but we find to our horror that this technology just pulls us down into a maelstrom of hate.

So what to do about it?

I've read a number of blogs lately that advocate criminal restrictions on hate speech. I formulated my initial perspective on this from a post by Thinking Girl - in particular her statement:

In regards to hate speech, it is hard to understand why one person’s (or group’s) right to freedom of expression should trump the right of a group not to have hateful things said about them. Why should the rights of the haters be held above those of the victims of hate speech? Societies that tolerate hate speech institutionalize that form of violence.

And these claims from Crooked Timber:

If particular groups are so stigmatized and marginalized because of hate-speech messages that their members cannot get their voices heard in the public sphere (they may speak, but most people will not listen to people like them) then the freedom and equality of citizens is undermined, and the formal right that those people have to legal, civil and political equality is of lesser value than the formally similar rights of others. Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.

Free speech has real benefits. Popular ideas and powerful elites can be challenged, even mocked, and adversarial processes often lead, over the longer term, to better, more complete understanding. Societies ought to adapt over time to social pressures and new knowledge, and relatively free speech is the lubricant that allows change to happen less violently. Restricting speech can lead to stasis and rigidity, because it robs societies of the sometimes painful truth about themselves.

I'm not an absolutist about it. There are restrictions today on libel, slander, on knowingly false advertising, disturbing the peace, threats, harassment, and incitement to riot. And these are all very reasonable in my view.

But I am against extending that suppression to insults, mocking, and the sort of vile commentary I see all over the internet. I'm against the legal suppression of hate speech, but I'm totally in favor of people making their outrage clear through campaigns, boycotts, and complaints to ISPs about terms of service violations. These efforts are often very successful, particularly when you watch some people go to extraordinary lengths to avoid giving any offense to certain groups.

The first reason I'm opposed to hate speech suppression is that such suppression requires selection of particular groups that need protection. Some might claim that a general prohibition, similar to Canada's, on hate speech directed at sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, and national origin would protect everybody. But I think they are really being disingenuous. Many people identify every bit as strongly with their profession as others do with their religion. Lawyers are often hated, frequently mocked, and are sometimes spoken of as parasites on society. They've been targets of murderous attacks - yet no one argues we should protect lawyers from hatred. And hate speech suppression really isn't about marginalization in general - just some types of marginalization. I'm doubtful that anyone would argue that pedophiles are a group worthy of protection, even though they are marginalized, are frequent targets of hate speech, and they could probably be systematically targeted for violence without triggering lots of outrage. No, proponents of hate speech suppression always have narrow, quite particular groups in mind for special, more vigilant protection.

That's why you could never arrive at a workable, fair standard, which is my second problem with hate speech laws. Any hate speech standard would have to classify both the speech and the target group. Development of such a standard wouldn't be anything like a deliberative process - it would be an exercise of naked political power, and one that would likely trigger lots of hate speech. The process of enacting such laws and deciding on mechanisms to enforce them would be more venomous and poisonous than the Clarence Thomas hearings, because the stakes would be higher. If you think we have hate speech now - just wait.

The battle for protection will be won by the groups that are most cohesive, most vocal and most successful at marshaling their activists. There is a certain paradox in that "battle for protection" that proponents of hate speech suppression don’t acknowledge. The claim is that hate speech marginalizes people, and frightens them enough to drive them out of the public arena. Yet proponents of hate speech laws claim at the same time that these groups would be able to enact their wall of protection into law. It doesn't add up, unless you assume there is a group that is powerful enough to force the law through, yet benevolent enough to do it not from self-interest, but out of selfless regard for a weaker group. I'm guessing that enlightened liberals are the group they have in mind for this.

Alternatively, proponents might believe that the movement to enact these laws wouldn’t just represent one group, but rather a mix of marginalized groups – groups that are individually weak yet powerful when standing in shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity. That's my third objection, because it supposes that hate is always unidirectional - from the powerful haters to the oppressed victims. Never from one marginalized group to another marginalized group. Just a couple of Google searches will yield lots of hate speech by one victim group directed to another. Consider one example that is particularly hard to unravel - in a hypothetical hate speech trial involving this black, ex-Gay, Christian - would anyone be willing to wager on whether he would be the plaintiff or the defendant?

Since hate speech by one marginalized group against another is prevalent, hate speech laws could easily become another instrument of oppression. Divide and conquer has been long recognized as an effective strategy employed by the powerful, and selective enforcement of hate speech laws between one marginalized group and another is an excellent tool for promoting division.

I'm always puzzled by one particular sort of blindness. Given what we know about OJ juries, the manslaughter charges in Jena, and the Duke rape case, on what basis do we suppose that hate speech laws, which require reasoning about subtleties like intent, context, and the historical basis for group sensitivities, would be any more fairly executed than laws that involve facts, testimony and evidence? Those that argue for giving communities more power to jail people for speech have some obligation to explain why they expect anything approaching justice and fairness in their execution. I sense a sort of magical thinking in hate speech suppression advocates - clearly they believe that laws are unjustly and unfairly applied now, but these new laws will, of course, only be used with the most painstaking regard for fairness.

Finally, anyone arguing for hate speech suppression as a means for addressing injustice has an implicit, but deeply flawed, model of their use in overturning oppression. The hope is that marginalized groups, once granted protected from hate speech, will be empowered to seize their share of society’s benefits. But hate speech laws will greatly strengthen the power of the state. There is no basis to suppose that a marginalized group, once it successfully gains its share of the state's power, will repeal those laws. Human nature being what it is, the group or groups then in power will use these laws as a tool to extend a more rigid hegemony. The new order would enforce its newfound power by using hate speech laws against people who express anger at the new, unjust order.

So the best, but highly unlikely, outcome of hate speech laws, is a temporary relaxation of today’s injustice, at the cost of worse injustice later. The far more likely outcome is more hate, and more injustice, today.

Color Blind Juries?

2007-10-24T14:36:00.001-07:00

Hat tip to A Typical Joe for provoking some interesting thought. He quotes a speech by Malcolm Gladwell, author of "The Tipping Point" and "Blink."

Gladwell points out that orchestra conductors used to claim that female musicians were inferior, because all the great orchestras consisted of men only. But when the practice of auditioning musicians changed, by placing the musician behind a screen so the conductor couldn't see them - suddenly lots of woman started getting selected.

Gladwell proposes something similar for jury trials - not allowing the jury to see the defendant. Gladwell and A Typical Joe think that might remove some bias from the process, and perhaps narrow differences in the black vs. white conviction rate.

It seems to make lots of sense. I'm wondering why we consider the current trial process as something fixed and unchangeable? Academic studies of psychology have clearly documented the effect of bias on decision making, and the nature of social science experimentation itself controls, or attempts to control, for bias.

So we've learned a lot about decision making and bias - why not put that knowledge into practice in the courts?

"Mad Men" - More About Today than Yesterday

2007-10-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

I very much enjoyed the show, and find it hard to wait till it resumes next year.

I enjoyed it primarily as a reflection on the attitudes of today. The writers focus on a vary narrow slice of 1960s life in order to make some pretty heavy-handed points that illustrate the radical truth of today:
1) marriage is a soul-killing, exploitative institution, devoid of love, fidelity or tenderness.
2) men are obsessed with wealth, status and power, and completely lack compassion or empathy
3) the only men worth studying are the top 1% that have economic and media power
4) cultural beliefs are a complete fabrication, created to serve the interests of a small group of manipulative, powerful men.
5) such fabricated attitudes are so pervasive, and so persuasive that they make it impossible for any woman to find legitimate happiness.

So when I watch it I like to reflect on what our era will seem like 50 years from now. What kind of standards will we be judged on? From the perspective of 50 years hence, what will seem important, what will seem unjust, what will seem ludicrous? What will tomorrow's radical truth be, and what role do we play in it?

Playing Games With Privilege

2007-10-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

During the past few weeks, I've been visiting feminist blogs, trying to figure out where I stand on a number of issues.

Inevitably, when a man tries to comment on a post, the discussion focuses solely on whether the commenter admits he has "male privilege" - this becomes a litmus test of whether he is a serious participant, or someone who is dismissively considered a troll. Woman love to point out the Male Privilege Checklist, and in particular the final privilege - the ability to be blissfully ignorant of privilege. Feminists believe so much in the issue of privilege admission as a litmus test that white feminists are anxious, almost desperate, to point out on WOC blogs, that of course they admit to having "White Privilege."

Well, I'm not a Feminist, and I'm not a Male Rights Activist either. I think that the notion of judging people by the privilege they have, and the privilege they admit, is superficial. Even to the extent that I think my own Female Privilege List is silly. Because in some circles, the admission of privilege supports an ideological view of the world that slots people into fixed moral categories. Whether it is the fight of feminism against patriarchy, the fight of marginalized peoples against western white oppression, or the latest addition, the fight of transgender people against - and I plead willful ignorance of some of these post-modern nuances - against social constructions of gender, heternormativity ... whatever.

All of these ideologies have one thing in common - they slot people into fixed categories of relative moral worth, while at the same time accusing others of doing the same thing. People with privilege lineage suffer from moral blemishes that obscure their view of others; people with victim lineage have clear and accurate views of the evil that others do. The views of anyone with privilege lineage are deeply suspect, because they lack what is called "epistemic knowledge" - a valid standpoint from which to make any worthwhile value judgments.

In general, these ideologies confuse power with ethics, and make the implicit assumption that privilege always causes bias, and victimization always makes the truth clear. It ignores the fact that sometimes privilege grants the space and perspective to discover empathy, while victimization sometimes breeds rage and blind hatred.

So yes I do have privilege - the privilege of rejecting all these confining, myopic ideologies that claim to tell me the right and proper view of every social exchange. Ideologies that sometimes lead to vicious fanaticism. I'll make a moral assessment of myself and others that is based on my religion, my values, and my experience, not some historical grievance theater that is, quite often, more about revenge than justice.

Update: thanks to Philosophers Playground for the reaction to my original version of this, one that helped me clarify my thinking and express it better.

Sadness and Gratitude for a Soldier's Sacrifice

2007-10-15T16:26:00.000-07:00

As someone who originally supported the war, and has since become saddened and disillusioned the painful, hate-filled political football it has become, I was moved by this latest Christopher Hitchens essay.

How sad it is that fine, brave young men like Mark Dailey have to die. I"m overcome with wonder that our country, in what seems like a selfish, narcissistic age, still produces men like this. Men who go to war and risk their lives for the noblest principles, and somehow maintain them even in the face of such a brutal mess.

May he rest in peace.

A Model of Quiet Determination and Courage

2007-10-09T07:43:00.000-07:00

Two people I admire greatly: Christopher Hitchens writing in support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Her book is riveting - an inspiring story of her determination to live her own way, and her courage to continue this in the face of very real, very credible threats against her life. I'm outraged that she doesn't get more support. I'd certainly be willing to contribute to a fund to protect her from the very real danger she is in.

And then I read this post. Having read Ayaan's story, and having seen her and listened to her, I'm thinking that the practice of Female Genital Mutilation is something that all reasonable people could agree should be stopped. Feminists would think it is an outrage. Western defenders of human rights would think it is an abomination.

How shallow of me to think that! Apparently, this writer, someone who claims to be a "radical theoretician", says we should, perhaps take a different view of the practice. The way I read it I'm getting the message that my view on this is of absolutely no value because of who I am.

I don't know if the world is going insane, or I am. There seem to be no fixed moral certainties anymore.

Fathers are Much More than "Male Role Models"

2007-10-08T10:28:00.000-07:00

I'm getting pretty tired of seeing things that treat being a father as just a "male role model."

A father is not a male role model. A father is an adult male that a child knows:
a) will take a bullet for them.
b) will work hard for many, many years, doing things he may or may not like, in order to provide a loving, secure home for his children.
c) loves the child enough to consider the well-being of that child the foundation of his worth as a person.

You can be a male role model if you teach a kid how to ride a bike, throw a curve ball, learn a trade or act on a date - all good and wonderful things. Fatherhood is an irrevocable, lifetime commitment to sacrifice - with grace and pride - for the benefit of a child. A child derives great benefit knowing that someone made those sacrifices for them.

New Sim City!

2007-10-05T15:02:00.000-07:00

My favorite game - update due in November

Why Gender Bias is Different

2007-10-04T09:08:00.001-07:00

My fun with Privilege Lists the other day made me realize something.

I started with the "Male Privilege Checklist" and discovered that the privilege list paradigm had its origin in an older White Privilege List. Feminists like to make the claim that gender bias isn't any different than racial, ethnic or religious bias. The hurt is the same, the unfairness is the same. What they - Feminists and their opposing Men's Rights advocates - don't realize is that they have a fundamental hope that the other bias victims lack.

The hope is that they can be reasonably sure, on average, that their children will suffer less bias than they have. Even if nothing is done to address bias, they can reasonably expect their descendants will suffer no bias, on average. Feminists get this for free. Men's Rights advocates get this for free. Victims of ethnic or religious bias don't have that hope.

So gender bias really is different.

Female Privileges List

2007-10-02T15:22:00.000-07:00

I came across this Male Privilege Checklist on Alas, a Blog. It is a list of privileges that men have in our society, and the very last privilege in the list summarizes the primary point: We, as men, don't realize how easy many things are for us. Some privileges are so ingrained, so wired into our social system that we don't even see them.

Here is the beginning of their list:

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

. . .

Well, I had some fun putting together my counterpoint: The Female Privileges Checklist.

Female Privilege List
Privileges I have as a woman, that "others" - mostly men - don't have.

1. I’m under less pressure than others to engage in risky, dangerous and unhealthy behaviors - one of the reasons I get to live longer than others do.
2. I can choose professions that are less lucrative, and not be called a loser.
3. If I don’t rise to the top of my profession, it’s OK – people won’t judge me the less for it.
4. I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.
5. I have the right to have the overwhelming majority of personal risk suffered in defense of my country handled by others.
6. I’m allowed to avoid violence, and even run from it, without the risk I’ll be laughed at.
7. If I see someone else in danger, I’m allowed to stop and think carefully about my personal risk before saving them, without my courage being called into question.
8. I have the right to avoid risky, dangerous challenges, and not be called a coward.
9. I’m allowed to cry as a child and tell my parents I’m scared of something - my parents won't be disappointed with me.
10. I have the right to have most of the really dangerous professions handled by others.
11. If I commit a crime, I get less jail time than others would get for the exact same crime.
12. When I find myself with others in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, I have the right to be evacuated first, once the children are safe. Others can wait.
13. If I get slaughtered as part of some atrocity, people will be especially outraged and will call particular attention to the fact I was slaughtered. When others are slaughtered, it isn't quite as upsetting.
14. I have the right to give my child up for adoption, and thus totally repudiate any personal and financial responsibilities I might otherwise have.
15. I can choose whether I want to be a parent or not, knowing that society will compel the other parent to meet their financial responsibilities - whether they want to or not.
16. If I am personally attacked, I expect otherwise safe, otherwise uninvolved people to come to my defense.
17. If I see someone else being attacked, I’m not expected to risk my own safety to defend them. It's OK for me to wait for others to intervene, and it’s also OK for me to criticize others if they don’t.
18. In any dispute involving custody, I’m granted the presumption that I am the better, safer parent.
19. I have the right to interact with children not my own, and not have people look at me suspiciously.
20. If I choose to become a parent, people understand if I want to focus entirely on the personal, day-to-day care and nurturing of my children. Society expects my spouse to make enough money to make this choice possible.
21. I can get real nasty when someone makes me mad, and call them ugly, a loser, a nerd, a geek, a disgusting creep, a revolting little worm, a worthless piece of garbage, a scum bag, a wimp, a pervert, a jerk-off, an old fart, or a fat slob. After all, I have the right not to be treated meanly at work, and the right not to hear harsh things that might make me uncomfortable. I have legal recourse if that right is not respected, and I have the right to make this perfectly clear on my job interview.
22. I’m allowed to embrace and cultivate my spiritual qualities, and adopt a more elevated and more refined view of life - because other people handle all the "dirty work" like: yard work, garbage hauling, construction, fishing, mining, sewage disposal, street cleaning, long distance trucking, baggage handling, painting, sandblasting, and cement work.
23. If I fail at something, I can go to college and study the historical forces and social constructs that make it harder for people like me. If others fail, it’s because they just don’t have what it takes.
24. If I fail at almost everything, I can always teach college courses that explain why people like me fail a lot.

Please acknowledge http://sweatingthroughfog.blogspot.com/ when forwarding or copying this list

What do you think? I'm not saying anybody has it objectively easier or harder - life is pretty hard for everybody. But I guess you can tell which side I'm naturally more sensitive to.

Update: Pete Patriarch did a similar list.

Is Calling Someone a "Loser" Catholic?

2007-09-30T15:14:00.000-07:00

I don't think so. But for a while, this video is hysterical - Bill Donohue talking about dildos, sex toys and jockstraps. He warms to his topic - he knows he's got a winner here. He's confident that he can bring Miller beer to heel: "Miller doesn't know what they're in for!" Bill understands the medium, and his audience.

His adversary doesn't, saying these boycotts, like one attempted against Walmart, have failed. Donahue, not to have his effectiveness at bullying questioned, jumps in, dismissively, "We won that one buddy - keep up to date." His adversary makes the ludicrous point that this Fair isn't a problem in San Fransisco.

But Bill goes to far. Arrogant with a clear win, he becomes mean. After the commercial break, Donahue's takes advantage of his last words to issue a gratuitous insult: "You're a loser!"

So mean, and so un-Christian.

Apparently Fox News did too - they cut out the last, disturbing turn in their version.

Folsom Street Follies

2007-09-28T14:02:00.000-07:00

There is a fascinating dynamic around this:

Christian groups claim it is provocative, and are trying to boycott Miller Beer, one of the event sponsors. Some people claim that this demonstrates Christian anti-gay bias, because of "selective outrage" regarding parodies of the Last Supper.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan, who says it is an unnecessary provocation .

Here is what is happening: You stick your thumb in a favorite target's eye, then use the target's outrage as evidence of their bigotry - because the target - a frequent punching-bag - hasn't been scrupulous in responding to previous slights by others.

And no one is supposed to notice that the conscious and deliberate (this is an advertising campaign after all) selection of the target is itself evidence of bigotry.

The Fair press release claims innocence and surprise, and a certain smug pride in pushing the envelope:

Andy Copper, adds “We hope that people will enjoy the artistry for what it is – nothing more or less. Many people choose to speculate on deeper meanings. This is one artist’s imagining of the ‘Last Supper’, and we have made it our own. The irony is that da Vinci was widely considered to be homosexual. In truth, we are going to produce a series of inspired poster images over the next few years. Next year’s poster ad may take inspiration from American Gothic by Grant Wood or Edvard Munch’s The Scream or even The Sound of Music! I guess it wouldn’t be Folsom Street Fair without offending some extreme members of the global community, though.”

To Andrew's point about gutlessness, and it's defender's reference to "parody", "irony" and "camp" - here is my parody of what next year's press release might be:

September 25, 2008
FOLSOM STREET EVENTS™ LAUNCHES POSTER DESIGN FOR 25th ANNUAL FOLSOM STREET FAIR™
Poster image draws inspiration from the annual Islamic Hajj, in a poster entitled: Masjid al-Harem.

Folsom Street Events has released its latest poster design for the 25TH Annual Folsom Street Fair. This year, the official poster, drawn by renowned artist Theo van Gogh, uses well-known community members as players in a strikingly original interpretation of the annual, worldwide pilgrimage to Mecca. The poster is the second in a series that draws from well-known paintings, album covers, movie posters, or other iconic images. Community members celebrate exuberant sexuality by donning their S/M regalia, and dancing around not the Kaaba, but a 10 story phallus.

According to Andy Copper, Board President, “We are extremely pleased with the outcome of this poster, and we are looking forward to a particularly inspirational event season. There is no intention to be particularly pro-religion or anti-religion with this poster; the image is intended only to celebrate the sacred roots of raw sexuality. It is a distinctive representation of diversity with women and men, people of all colors and sexual orientations. Just as Mecca draws people of all races throughout the world, we hope people from all continents will come come celebrate with us!”

Folsom Street Events acknowledges that many of the people in the leather and fetish communities are spiritual and that this poster image is a way of expressing that side of the community’s interests and beliefs. This year, Folsom Street Fair is dedicated to “San Francisco Values,” previously used against the San Francisco community for its support of sexual diversity and now used by Folsom Street Events as a way to reclaim power by the fetish community.

Andy Copper, adds “We hope that people will enjoy the artistry for what it is – nothing more or less. Many people choose to speculate on deeper meanings. This is one artist’s imagining of a pilgrimage that is at one both sexual and sacred - all we did was adopt the iconography of Mecca and make it our own. The irony is that homosexuality has a long and wonderful history in Islam. In truth, we are going to produce a series of inspired poster images over the next few years. Next year’s poster ad may take inspiration from American Gothic by Grant Wood, the flag raising at Iwo Jima, or even Raphael's 'The School of Athens' - community members are already preparing for roles in that one!"

When asked about the murder of the poster artist, Theo van Gogh, and the worldwide rioting that has claimed dozens of lives, Copper said: "I guess it wouldn’t be Folsom Street Fair without offending some extreme members of the global community, though.”

Let me summarize my thoughts this way. I consider myself a Christian, and am not personally offended by the poster. I think there are Christian anti-gay bigots and I think there are gay anti-Christian bigots.

I am not offended by sincere, deep, and pointed criticism, so I support Salmon Rushdie, Christopher Hitchins, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. . . the list goes on. I admire brave people who challenge and take great risks.

What I am offended by is childish pride in giving flippant, shallow offense. What I fear is the balkanization of our society - a pluralistic society is a rare, precious thing, and groups that dance around the edges of gratuitous insults play with fire. When societies unravel everyone suffers.