Mailvox: He’s divorced? I’m so shocked!

AW responds to today’s column: “Indeed, one wonders that women have sex at all after plodding one’s way through this morass of marital misery.” Because it’s the surest and simplest way to pay for your meal ticket if you have no other talents or skills. As my first wife once said to me, “I don’t enjoy sex with you, I’ve never enjoyed sex with you, and now that I’ve got two kids, a house, and a new car, I don’t have to fake it any longer.”

“Perhaps women have been spoiled by a lifetime of freely saying things to others that would have earned a man doing the same a black eye.” Backed up by legal system that operates on the principle, “First, handcuff the man.” Never mind saying the most venomous things without fear of reprisal, even if she’s throwing crockery (see wife 1.0 again), it’s the man’s fault. The wonder is that more men don’t say “forget this” and decide to turn gay. Or maybe this explains the remarkable strides made by a certain agenda in the last decade…

“People… who don’t need people… are the ha-a-appiest people.”

– Dilbert

I have been remiss

Someone asked who is in the running for the Libertarian nomination. I only know who one of the candidates is. I’m going to look into that and into the Constitution Party’s nominee and make a primary endorsement for both.

We apologize for the shoddy service.

Straight-talkin’ George Delano

John Podhoretz writes: As a frustrated White House official told me last week, everything the president has done to anger conservatives arises from proposals he made while he was running for president in 2000. They accepted his advocacy of the proposals then, so why are they complaining now? He did not run for president as a small-government conservative, and yet they backed him to the hilt four years ago. So why the enmity today?

It’s a good question, and a sobering one. Recall that conservatives backed Bush in 2000 without knowing just how dreadfully he and this nation would be challenged by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. They supported him, in other words, when he was merely promising to be a big-spending conservative. The president they got turned into a great wartime leader, and now some conservatives are griping about how he is actually fulfilling some of the promises they were willing to overlook when they wanted to back a winner four years ago.

Yeah, see this is precisely why some of us on the Right didn’t vote for him then. And it’s why we won’t vote for him in 2004. What I’d like to know is why no one ever lies when they run for office and then governs to the Right of their campaign promises.

Mailvox: check 3-4

GNC writes: blah blah blah…if you believe in what you say, why dont you go and teach a group or middle school boys how to deal with their change bodies…what a windbag you are.

Not really hysteria as per (4), but the spelling grammatical errors suffice, especially with just a dash of (3) thrown in for spice.

UPDATE: We finally got our long almost entirely pointless rant about (1) women not respecting men, but it’s both too long and too uninteresting to bother posting. Still nothing on (2) though. Hmmm.

Bark little doggy

Rich Brookhiser writes on NRO: We are in a war, GWB understands it, and very little else matters. Of the preceding points, perhaps only the last matters. We want the United States and the civilization it is defending to prevail, and at this moment that means we want George W. Bush to win re-election. We also know that even victory will involve great and destabilizing losses. Nobody promised us a perfect life. That’s why we’re conservatives.

Ask yourself if this logic would work for you if you substituted FDR, LBJ or Woodrow Wilson for George Delano. Supporting a President who is waging a war and wanting the United States to win doesn’t make you conservative. Neither does understanding that no one promised perfection. The sad thing is, there are probably plenty of people who not only think that this means something, but is convincing.

Mailvox: check one-half

Jill writes, somewhat as predicted: Vox you are ranting this time and making no sense. First you don’t even eludicate exactly on WHAT women are supposedly “not taking responsibility.” And two, don’t make me LAUGH. Just because men think women don’t take responsibility is nothing more than projection. It has never changed, even down to men STILL blaming women for THEIR lack of responsibility.I suggest men grow up and take the responsibility they have avoided for centuries before they take it upon themselves to preach to the sex that has been shouldering that lack of responsibility.

How can “their words, their actions and their decisions” possibly be considered a failure to elucidate for what women are failing to take responsibility? The specifics vary from individual to individual. I’ll consider believing that women are collectively ready to take general responsibility for themselves the next time I see a woman insult someone, get punched in the mouth, then get up and say, “yeah, I deserved that.” Which has happened, in my experience, ah, let me see… never.

A female friend of mine once got badly hurt after mouthing off to a stranger who rather forcefully demonstrated his belief in the inherent equality of men and women. Her date, a similarly propagandized young man, didn’t defend her, presumably on grounds of self-responsibility. Why should he bear the consequences for her words? A rather damning indictment of where 30 years of feminism have gotten us, true, but she did learn what every man knows; take responsibility for your words, as they can have unpleasant and unforeseen consequences.

I love the capital letters. Jill’s email doesn’t quite count as (1) asserting that women don’t respect men and have every reason for doing so, but the implication is certainly there based on the context of the response. I’ll call it one-half down, three and one-half to go. In any event, there’s a lot more to taking responsibility than being willing to raise a child after you’ve had sex.

Down with Derb

John Derbyshire writes: Yes, I got a lot of e-mail about my postings too, some of it angry. Who the heck do I think I am, criticizing Bush’s performance? Etc., etc. Well, I’m a citizen, and this is not North Korea. I want GWB to win the general election in November. I wish him well. I think a Kerry presidency would be a horrible disaster…. As for the lese majeste accusation: Shove it. This is a republic.

Word em up, D. The reasons are several, most of them Federal. I totally agree, except for the bit about wanting George Delano to win. Unless, of course, “want” and “believe will be marginally less disastrous” are rather more synonymous than I was led to believe.

Joe Farah puts it even better:

Now there are those who would blame me because John Kerry will become the next president. Don’t blame me. Blame Bush. I am not supporting Kerry. Kerry is a creep. But I cannot and will not support the lesser of two evils. My faith teaches me that light and dark don’t mix. My faith teaches me I’m not to have anything to do with evil. I’m not supposed to compromise with it.

And that, my friends, is THE WORD.