Who is Kenny?

It seems too few blacks or too few women is bad, but too many Jews is dandy:

An accurate count shows that the number of Jewish senators has risen from 11 to 13, with the addition of two former representatives Benjamin Cardin (Maryland-D) and Bernard Sanders (Vermont-I) who were successfully elected to the Senate.

Sander’s and Cardin’s departure from the House didn’t lower the number of Jews there – on the contrary. The number of Jewish representatives elected to the House of Representatives also grew. They now number 30….

Are they counting Hillary? Anyhow, it appears that 1.7 percent of the country enjoys 10 percent representation in Congress*, and is thus overrepresented by a factor of six. I don’t care myself, given that white Methodist Republicans and black Baptist Democrats appear to be every bit as committed to national destruction as our newly elected Jewish Socialist, (henceforth known as “Leon”), but I don’t see how this isn’t a legal abomination if the dysproportional incidence of male athletes at a university is a problem demanding legislation and Federal intervention.

What’s ironic is that most of these Congressmen and Senators are big supporters of affirmative action based on proportionality. And even more ironic are Israeli concerns that the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, for which an overwhelming majority of Jews voted, will prove to be dangerous for Israel.

This is good news, however, for if the newly elected pride of Minnesota, Rep. Keith Ellison, hears the call of jihad, he won’t have far to go. And of course, those who know their Old Testament would think that Israelis would do better to worry about the implications of the gay pride march taking place in Jerusalem this week. One would think that the knowledge of an Iranian nuke coming online soon would maybe be an indication that this probably isn’t the best time to piss off the Almighty.**

It’s like a cartoon or something. When did America turn into South Park? And more importantly, who is Kenny?

*13 percent of the Senate and 6.8 percent of the House averages out to 9.9 percent.

**Yes, I know, an atheists can say: “Who cares what a nonexistent ancient sky deity thinks? The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves gay pride marches!” To which I reply: “Fair enough, but then, what’s it to you if a few random collections of atoms happen to get rearranged into sheets of glass?”

Au revoir, Rummy

As much as I loathe the Bush administration, I never disliked Donald Rumsfeld. While I’m sure he’s as corrupt as anyone else who is ambitious enough to reach such a lofty position in government, I always admired his willingness to speak in what for Washington DC was a laudably open manner.

Since I’ve spent little time examining the pre-mortem intra-administration fingerpointing, I don’t know what mistakes were his responsibility and which were saddled on him by his superior. Still, I never saw him as a neocon, and if his arrogance led him to believe he could achieve the imposssible, well, this was not the first nor the last time that will happen.

What’s good about his “resignation” is that it’s pretty clear that Gates signifies a willigness to withdraw from an untenable position in Iraq. Of course, he’s part of the Baker gang, so this does not mean that one should get carried away and assume that the president has abandoned his New Wilsonian principles entirely.

This makes me so happy

They always were golddiggers:

The San Francisco 49ers ended negotiations with the city about building a new stadium and plan to move to either Santa Clara or somewhere else in California, The Associated Press learned Wednesday night.

Owner John York notified Mayor Gavin Newsom of the team’s decision earlier Wednesday, the mayor’s spokesman, Peter Ragone, told the AP.

Oh, how I hope they move to Los Angeles! I have a love-hate relationship with the Bay Area, with all the enmity being directed at the 49ers and their hordes of annoying fans who didn’t actually follow football but merely enjoyed being associated with a winner.

I’d rather they didn’t just move to Santa Clara, though. I rather like Santa Clara and wouldn’t like to see it spoiled by association. Other teams I dislike:

The Washington Redskins
The Detroit Lions (especially the Millen-era Lions. I loathe Matt Millen.)
The Oakland/LA Raidess (although Al Davis is amusing)
The St. Louis/LA Rams (who belong in Los Angeles)
The Arizona/St. Louis Cardinals (despicable on several levels)
The Indianapolis Colts (I’m conflicted, I admire TD but Peyton, however quality, is annoying. And a choker. I’m still annoyed that the Vikes didn’t fire Denny and promote TD when they had the chance.)

I disliked the Steelers in the 1970s because they beat the Vikings, but I found myself liking them as an adult because of how the Rooney family runs the operation. Teams I like:

The Dallas Cowboys
The New England Patriots
The Jacksonville Jaguars

The Green Bay Packers, of course, are in their own category. I don’t hate them or their fans and it may have gotten a little dusty in the room when news of Reggie White’s death hit. But at the same time, a 2-14 season with a sweep of the Pack is a successful year in my book.

Haggard, homos and hypocrisy

David Frum hits the salient point:

It would be a strange reading of the Christian Bible, or any moral tradition, to conclude that in order to avoid hypocrisy we ought to embrace shamelessness. These are not easy issues, and perhaps I should have advanced my conclusions in that previous post more tentatively than I did. And of course, this whole train of thought may well be utterly wrong.

But let me finish with this thought. Suppose I am wrong and that Andrew [Sullivan] and his readers are right. Suppose hypocrisy is the worst of all possible misdeeds, and that it is a very, very grave offense for any of us ever to pretend in any way that we are better than we actually are.

Is this terrible sin of hypocrisy confined solely to the realm of sexuality? Or might it reach more widely and include more areas of the human experience?

Suppose for example that you were a writer who strenuously praised “doubt” as the fundament of intellectual integrity – while yourself speaking always in self-righteous certitudes?

Or suppose that you told your readers you valued empiricism above all things – while yourself eschewing research and fact-checking?

Or finally suppose that you condemned everyone who disagreed with you as dishonest – while yourself mischaracterizing or misrepresenting the words of others?

I haven’t been particularly interested in the Haggard affair anymore than I was with the cases of Michael Jackson or the guy who played the principal in “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”. Tracking who likes to put what where just isn’t high on my list of priorities, although I wonder if those who are so very excited about the outing of an evangelical pastor will be quite as enthusiastic once the not-so-secret predilections of a certain Senator from New York are exposed to the public.

(If you ever want to see the true picture of horror, watch the faces of both Hannity and Colmes when Gennifer Flowers casually drops the L-bomb on their show. Too bad YouTube wasn’t around then.)

In any event, while hypocrisy is undeniably wrong, I respect the way the situation was handled by both Haggard and the organizations he formerly led. After some initial evasions, Haggard absolutely did the right thing by admitting his error, resigning from his position and asking for forgiveness from the members of his church. He sinned, he is repenting and he will be forgiven and welcomed back into the church… although hopefully with the caveat that he will not again be trusted with a position of spiritual authority.

(I do note, as a few gay men have commented, the only real surprise is that so few appeared to realize that Haggard might have some issues in that particular area. I wasn’t even close to being the only one to see those beady eyes combined with the huge smile and find myself thinking “wait, they thought he was straight?”)

But we are all hypocrites. I know I am, and a lifetime of experience suggests that you are too. We all nurture our hidden desires and hide our secret sins. The only individuals capable of always holding to their standards are those who don’t possess any at all. This is why a revelation of hypocrisy is meaningless with regards to the verity of the standard being hypocritically violated; if murder is immoral, then it is immoral regardless of whether the murderer genuinely believes he is committing a moral act by murdering or not.

It’s not often that I’m in accord with David Frum, but his logic is unassailable here.