Throw her to the dogs

Unrepentant Jezebel can’t admit an obvious mistake:

Vox admits he’s more partial to the Republicans than to the Democrats, and then speaks from the other side of his mouth. Tricky tricky.

Yes, here’s that Republican-supporting statement I made: I’ll admit to generally preferring Republicans to Democrats, but that’s like choosing between Helen Thomas and the rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt. I’d no sooner vote for a member of the bi-factional ruling party than I’d take Helen or Eleanor out on a date.

I prefer National Socialists to the Khmer Rouge too; that isn’t an indication of support, it merely demonstrates an ability to discern the lesser of two evils. It does not equate to supporting either one. Who is being tricky here?

As Brad Spangler noted, Jezebel’s interpretation is so out-of-whack that it led him to believe I had become a supporter of the Dear Leader himself, Mr. George Delano Bush. While Jezebel may be fully satisfied with her notion that Christian Libertarians are secret theocrats, but that doesn’t make her any less incorrect.

And by the way, what is with various blogs chortling about how a link I have provided has given them more traffic than normal? Is that supposed to be some sort of retort? I don’t care about the size of my own readership, I certainly couldn’t care less about the size of yours.

But in Jezebel’s case, I did find this to be an interesting comment: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many .mil and .gov IP addresses surf through my site in one year, let alone one day.” If you’re a soldier reading this, thank you for your service to the country and remember that your oath is to the Constitution, not the administrative bureaucracy. And if you’re working for the Neu Stasi Amerika, you might considering reading the Constitution again and revisiting the question of just what color hat you’re wearing.

As for my panties, they remain unbunched.

No, it just hasn’t failed yet

Jeff Hart makes an errant point on NRO:

Here we should ask why there existed no large demand for abortion in 1900, indeed not in 1950. Something major must have intervened between then and now. There intervened the changing situation of women, first slowly and then more rapidly. Women’s suffrage in 1912 was advocated by only one of the three political parties in contention, Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive (“Bull Moose”) party. In 1920, women received the vote.

A number of social realities drove the changing situation of women. Anyone can name many of these, since they changed much else as well.

There is the familiar fact of the movement from farm and farmhouse, to the city, and with it labor intensive farm production — offspring useful as workers — to office and factory. Today only about 3 percent of the population lives on farms. Family accommodations are very different in the city than in the more spacious farm house. Offspring are no longer needed for labor intensive farm work. Medical advances reduced infant and child mortality. Fewer children perpetuated the family, a widespread goal. Women joined the workforce in large numbers during World War II.

The cumulative result of all these has been the “women’s revolution,” which Diana Trilling correctly said has been the only successful revolution during the Twentieth Century. National Socialism failed, so did Communism.

In my edited chapter published in The Wall Street Journal, I offered reasoned analysis, based on fact. The women’s revolution happened. It is not going to be repealed.

Hart is completely wrong. The women’s revolution is already showing many signs of failing, and it will likely fail even faster than Communism did, if one begins counting from the time when it became dominant in a large nation. Communism lasted 72 years in the Soviet Union, the Equalitarian Society has only been with us for about 35 years so far and it’s already killing the West.

Moreover, the Third Way of fascism is seeing a revival, here in the United States, in Europe and in China. I suspect that this is what will bring about the death knell of the women’s revolution, after women help usher it into power.

UPDATE: Hart is a very shallow thinker indeed. He actually wrote this in the WSJ: “Roe relocated decision-making about abortion from state governments to the individual woman, and was thus a libertarian, not a liberal, ruling.”

Ridiculous. There’s nothing libertarian about the Roe decision, beginning with the violation of the fetus’s property right to his unique DNA and ending with the absurd negation of the paternal parental rights that magically appear should the women fail to kill the unborn child.

So Patch Adams is funny after all

From the New York Times:

In the opening convocation, Dr. Hunter “Patch” Adams – the charismatic therapist played on screen by Robin Williams – displayed on a giant projection screen photos from around the world of burned children, starving children, diseased children, some lying in their own filth.

He called for a “last stand of loving care” to prevail over the misery in the world, its wars and “our fascistic government.” Overcome by his own message, Dr. Adams eventually fell to the floor of the stage in tears.

Many in the audience of thousands were deeply moved; many others were bewildered. Some left the arena.

It would take a heart of granite to witness that performance and not burst out laughing. I love psychotherapists. They’re so much more screwed up than the majority of those they are “helping”. Seriously, have you ever known anyone who was fascinated with psychotherapy who wasn’t at least a little bit crazy? I suspect most of them go into it in a vain attempt to figure out what their own problems are.


Mailvox: there is no revision

George keeps missing forest for the trees:

But at the time we supposedly had intel that Iraq was funding overseas operatives and it is a fact they were paying the families of Suicide Bombers a bounty in Israel. Are you saying Iraqi’s are too dumb to buy a ticket to Mexico City with a connection to LA? They would be Silly if they did NOT try.

…And Congress approved the funding for this war or there would have been no war.

With respect…You and Vox are trying to rewrite history.

1. All nations are funding overseas operatives.
2. Israel is not the USA. It is neither our business nor our responsibility if a foreign country is funding suicide bombers in Israel or anywhere but the USA. Saudi Arabia and Egypt also fund suicide bombers in Israel, and according to Washington, Saudi Arabia was the country that actually attacked the USA on 9/11.
3. Invading and occupying Iraq does not prevent the hypothetical Iraqi from buying a ticket to Mexico City with a connection to LA. Or anyone else, for that matter.
4. Funding a war is not synonymous with declaring war.
5. We are not rewriting history, we are reading it correctly.

I once thought that we had a right to go into Iraq based on the terms of the ceasefire and Iraq’s breaking those terms. I have changed my mind because there is no 1991 ceasefire agreement between the USA and Iraq as the media has repeatedly implied, there is only a United Nations resolution to which the two parties are signatories, so any subsequent breaking of the “ceasefire agreement” was not a legitimate concern of the USA, but of the United Nations. I should have looked more closely into that before.

Furthermore, the idea that military force was an appropriate response to breaking the UN agreement appears to be completely unfounded. Consider:

Consequently, one cannot assign a definitive legal meaning to the term “formal cease-fire” in Resolution 687. Indeed, except for the use of that term, everything else about Resolutions 686 and 687 fits the general dichotomy between an initial agreement for a temporary cessation of hostilities and then a comprehensive final agreement setting the terms for a peace. Unlike the situation in Korea, there was no expectation of a further “peace agreement” that would follow Resolution 687, and certainly no expectation that either side could resume military operations at any time so long as they provided advance notification. Rather, Resolution 687 was the final agreement; it was a political arrangement that brought about the “definitive end to the hostilities” envisaged in Resolution 686. The armies on the ground did not wait around for a further agreement after adoption of Resolution 687; as contemplated by Resolution 687, once the UN observer mission was deployed, the combat troops went home.

Mailvox: hindsight ahead of time

Dweeb asks for clarification:

The question I have is, in your view, if FDR had re-armed in ’36-37, and attacked the Axis, or at least Germany, in ’38 or ’39, would that have been a good thing, or a bad thing? Would it be justified in the hindsight of what we now know Hitler was up to?

I think that would have been a Very Bad Thing. The flaw in this argument is that decisions leading up to historical events are fluid. For example, until the autumn of 1941, Hitler had absolutely no plans to exterminate European Jewry. At that time, he and Himmler favored various resettlement plans, inspired by the Polish government’s 1937 approach to France and Great Britain regarding the deportation a million Polish Jews to the French colony of Madagascar.

Robert Wistrich: “At this early stage, Himmler explicitly rejected ‘as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.”

Even worse, an early and unprovoked American-led invasion of Germany in 1938 would have risked bringing the Soviet Union into the war as a member of the Axis. The two dictatorships were quite friendly at the time and it was only Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin that led the Soviets into the Allied camp.

Military history is the history of unintended consequences. Imperial overstretch is the order of the day, from Greece to Rome, and I think the odds are very highly against the possibility that the Iraqi adventures will be viewed as a salutary action by the United States government.

Already, we have replaced a feeble secular dictatorship with an Islamist neo-democracy supported by Iran. This might be a good first step in a global war against Ba’athists, but I am not terribly sangine about it being a net positive in a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism much less in a secular crusade against the global jihad.

Mailvox: rainbows, unicorns and the office

Lisa2 doesn’t quite grasp the point:

Personally, I wouldn’t want to work for a boss, male or female, that had such little comm skills that all they could come up with is “This is crap”. It has nothing to do with my “feewings” being hurt…. The couple of times I’ve missed a deadline or something, I was called to the mat for it, but he was able to do better than “Your work is crap” or “You f—– up, idiot”, or what ever. I see your point, Vox. But I think you used a bad example.

Most women I work with, would be all in a twist if their boss, factually, unemotinally and calmly called them to the mat on a deadline they missed.

I think the thing Lisa is missing here is that “your work is crap” and “you f—– up” can be factual, unemotional and calm statements coming from a superior. This points to the root of the problem, namely, that women infer emotion and personal issues where none exist. The “idiot” is almost always unsaid and usually not implied, but a woman will hear it all the same.

It was very illuminating for me when I got into a discussion with a female friend of ours at a Bible study a few years back. She misunderstood a certain phrase and based on that misunderstanding, offered an obviously false interpretation. When I told her, “you’re wrong,” and repeated it several times in response to her attempt to justify it as an opinion, she got very upset. I found this mystifying – there was no doubt she was factually and demonstrably wrong – but finally understood it the next day when she told me how upset she was that I had repeatedly called her stupid.

But I hadn’t, not once, nor had I even implied it with tone of voice or non-verbal communication. Only when I asked her if she honestly expected to be considered correct at all times by everyone did she understand how absurd and self-destructive her basic position had been.

No one likes being called on the carpet, but it is inevitable. What’s important is not avoiding criticism, but how you accept it and respond to it. And you should not be surprised if your boss expresses some annoyance either; it’s nothing personal, in most cases it’s simply irritation with having to deal with something he felt he would not – and should not – have to think about or otherwise fix.

Karen concedes the point, but wonders about it nonetheless:

Nothing to argue with Vox, I can’t take criticism well at all. It really hurts! Women tend to be more motivated by relationship than by sucess, so if our work displeases someone, it hurts more. Think about it, women tend to judge their life in terms of how sucessful their relationships are and men in terms of how their career. Everyone is good at something, but most women are made to be wives and mothers anyways, so why judge them harshly if they are not good at the careers that they are forced into? I don’t envy the cooler, more masculine, ultra-professional women. I wouldn’t want to become one at all! I don’t get why you men criticize us for not being more like men and then criticize us for being too much like men.

I’m not criticizing women for not being like men… nor do I think it’s either possible or desirable for women to be too much like men. In the case of the latter, it’s like watching a cat try to act like a dog; it’s not convincing and what actually irritates the dogs is having to pretend that they find it to be so. The point of my post was not to criticize women, only to point out the irony of how the truth of some things remains obvious to everyone despite decades of people trying to pretend otherwise.

I understand that many women have to work. But fewer women have to work than believe they do, and the better they understand the truth of themselves, the sexes and the workplace, the happier they will be. And the happier they are, the happier everyone around them will be.

Let’s face it, this blog is just a little ray of sunshine, making the world a shinier, happier, warmer and friendlier place. Group hug!

Another confused libertarian

Christploitation gets a bit mixed up:

It is a standard political device for fundamentalist Christians to cloak their true theocratic political agendas using the label of “libertarian.” Vox Popoli comes to mind here. Fundamentalists know that theocracy isn’t exactly an attractive idea when it is presented at face value; it must have a “value-add” and a costume to wear. This was the elephant in the living room that was pointed out by Judge Jones in the “Intelligent Design” ruling this week. The Christian fundamentalists were lying about their true beliefs and motives. They lied to the citizens and they lied to the Judge.

Now, be it anecdotal, but I still find it significant that each time I cross paths with a GOP libertarian / “Christian Libertarian” (with FEW exceptions), they’ll ALWAYS support the Republicans no matter how wrong they are on economics. The GOP is still “God’s Own Party” for them and libertarianism is their mask.

I’d be interested to hear a description of my “true theocratic political agenda”. Anyone care to have a go? It never ceases to amaze me how some individuals manage to confuse my assertions of religious faith with advocacy of political action.

I’ll admit to generally preferring Republicans to Democrats, but that’s like choosing between Helen Thomas and the rotting corpse of Eleanor Roosevelt. I’d no sooner vote for a member of the bi-factional ruling party than I’d take Helen or Eleanor out on a date.