'Polaroid' Politics

When challenged to respond to a strongly spun article about one political party having abandoned its core direction, I answered that the article was "polaroid."

Hey! A fun term in the context of politics!

What I meant by "polaroid" was the tendency of one side to call the other side's candidate an "idiot." It is the modern "adult" equivalent of kindy-garten crap: "MY idea is best and I am RIGHT to believe as I do because the OTHER side is SO STUPID! NYAH!"

In the 2004 presidential reality show, neither Bush nor Kerry are "idiots," although it is falsely comforting for one side to believe this of the other side. Too many people don't have the courage of their convictions and require supporting approval, even if only from their invisible friend, Exaggeration.

My preference for Bush over Kerry is not strong, and based on the weak premise that Mr. Bush SEEMS like a nicer guy than does Mr. Kerry, to me. Frankly I don't think either is actually suited to the office, but of the two, if I were required to vote, I would go with Mr. Bush. My reasons for the choice are subtle AND subjective, but I refuse to justify my call by inventing hyperbole demonizing Mr. Kerry. I don't like the guy, or much of what he stands for ... but that doesn't make him an "idiot."

Calling him an idiot would only prove one thing ... that I, myself, am the fool.

Punishment for Immoral Behavior

On another blog it was suggested that "social conservatives" claim abortion to be punishment for immoral behavior.

Unplanned children are not a punishment for immoral conduct, and it is disingenuous to accuse pro-lifers of claiming so.

Abortion is the punishment of an innocent child for conduct (moral or im-) beyond their control.

If the fetus is a person, then the issue is NOT about the person who got pregnant unintentionally (like slipping classified documents in a sock?). If the fetus is a person the issue is about a defenseless child. Adults who get involved in activities that produce pregnancies don't get a "get out of adult responsibilities free" card because they have regrets and say, "Wups."

Holding an unborn child ultimately accountable for (suffering rather dire consequences for) the actions if irresponsible adults is ... beyond comprehension. It borders on sociopathic denial of actual events, motives, and "actors."

I Was a Teenage Feminism's Raw Deal

The leaders (and media mouthpieces) of movements define the movements. If 99% of feminists feel a certain way and act a certain way (and they DO!) that's fine ... but the movement itself goes the direction of the Front Persons.

Equal treatment and options or choices ... I'm fine with all of that.

What I'm not fine with is the "overkill" where women can demand to be admitted into an all-male private club. The right of free association in the Constitution makes sense to me. I don't WANT to be forced to participate in a Klan march just because "It's all the same. We all gotta approve of everyone else." Bullshit. So some guys, on private property, set up a "No Girlz" clubhouse for whatever reason, but laws come in and say that is "unconstitutional." But if I decide I have a right to use the ladies restroom in a "Wet `N` Wild" water park ... "Eeek! Get out you freak! What the f**k do you think you're DOING in here! Police! Poliiiiiiiiiiiice!" Talk to me about equality.

I do not hate on feminism. I was raised a feminist by liberal parents. I got over Feminism after a while when I saw how the Movement (not the basic concept) went ballistic and launched out of the gravity-well of reality. As a core philosophy based in an even deeper root belief in "human rights," I am a supporter of feminism. As a Movement, Feminism is a bad joke. (Note the capitals used in the preceding sentences.)

And what really disappoints me is how women have made Movement-inspired choices to behave more like men, and less like the ADMIRABLE ladies from before the Movement.

I am not pining away for a time that did not exist. When I grew up in the fifties it was NOT all Ward and June Cleaver Land. And back in the day it was not only the impoverished women who were allowed to work, or required to work. Women of wealthy homes spent time (and money) participating in organizations that sent food and clothing to needy kids, visited veterans' hospitals, etc. The "job" of wealthier women with servants was to be out in the community seeing that things were getting taken care of.

Of course, a lot of rich women could care less and didn't participate. And many would go to meetings about soup lines, and maybe give money, but only for show and just for a moment before they went back to shopping or whatever. I'm aware of the fact that not all husbands were princes and not all mothers were named Theresa. D'uh! But for every spoiled rich bitch there was at least one (and I'm guessing a better ratio than 1:1) who put on the apron and served the soup to "unpleasant" human beings.

Son of Feminism's Raw Deal

So there was this groovy old flick. "Ivanhoe." (The movie was actually better than the book!)

Elizabeth Taylor (when she was attractive) was this quiet, delicate lady, and yet she was as strong (morally, emotionally) as any character in the film. Unlike in modern flicks she did not raise so much as a dagger at any time, and yet the story did not work without her.

Similarly, in "Ben-Hur" (best film made so far, in my book) there was this lady who, again, never raised her voice or a fist, but she was STRONG. One scene has the hero deciding to do something reckless and politically incorrect for the time (he is going to go and embrace his mother and sister who have both been stricken by leprosy, and according to Jewish law were "unclean" and untouchable). This lady sees the man thinking about breaking the rules (and defying the will of his shamed mother), and she cries out, "Yes, Judah! Yes!" and the man goes and, essentially, rescues his diseased mother and sister. I get tears every damn time I even THINK about that scene.

I thought Mary Tyler Moore was "hot" in those black stirrup pants on "The Dick Van Dyke Show" (she was the first woman on television to wear slacks of any kind, by the way). It's not about men wearing ties and women wearing dresses ...it's about real INTERNAL strength of character versus external strength of action.

Many women today have taken the "easier" way of learning to talk tough and carry the biz card of a good sexual harrasment lawyer rather than the more difficult, more intelligent route of out-thinking men.

And not all women are like this at all, but it is a strong trend. I've been around a few blocks. I find that more women wish they had the bodies of men, but not the emotional wiring. If women were a physical match (as well as "legal" in authority areas, as already mentioned) they would be happy as pigs in shit. But they don't want the emotional limitations that come with it ... yet they develop the same attitudes in order to simulate the "power."

And I'm not complaining about it. It's how the world is evolving. The majority becomes "right" over time, and older people become increasingly irrelevant because what IS right for us (because it was held as correct by the majority in our day) is NOT right for the modern mainstream culture. For ME this tendency of women to act as bad simulations of men is "wrong," but as it becomes more commonplace, it is actually "right" for society, and I am "wrong" to insist on my own way. This is why older people become more reclusive and less in touch ... we slowly stop being acceptable to the majority, unless we try to mutate into something we really aren't.

Again ... not complaining. I just have to recognize this fact and learn to deal with it. I continue to hold my beliefs and opinions, but I try to talk myself into accepting that my view is not right for others, and I allow others to believe as they do without trying to change them. I try to re-program my expectations so that I am not offended (or can at least ACT tolerant) and still fit in reasonably well.

Just watched "Wrong Turn" on DVD and enjoyed it. Eliza Dushku plays a strong female lead and it was nice to see a chica in a film NOT fall to pieces when the shit hits the fan! I approve of women making the Forbes lists and all of that. I disapprove of the idea of women as "cattle."

But there was a time when a woman who stayed at home and organized a hospitable, healthy, attractive and comfortable home, especially with intelligent and well-behaved kids ... such a woman was ADMIRED, and was cherished by her husband. Many men would be invited for drinks after work, but would smile and say, "I got supper waiting at home" and what they meant was there was a woman at home working as hard and as diligently, dutifully, even creatively, to make and maintain a nest for BOTH (or ALL) of them, and he would rather be there, with her, than out with the boys. Other women took note of such women, and even asked for their advice. Such women compared notes and were "professional" about being the CEO's of happy homes. And that job was not easy then, and is not easy now, except that there are better devices and services now than available then.

For me it is not an issue of style, but of substance.

The feminism genii will only return to the bottle when women have achieved a nostalgia for the "good ole days" and decide to use their "powers" to go back to the home and run it (and their men) like their foremothers did before them. Until then, it's a "brave new world" and sane men and women will recognize this and just DEAL.

My "argument" is only that Feminism 1.0 was all that was needed, because the foundations of womanly dominion were not without power and strength. Feminism XP is overkill.

What is a True "World Coalition"?

My baby bro is 110% liberal, and because of that he is somewhat reluctantly Democrat. He whines about Bush galloping off to war waving his middle finger at international opinion. He is not a math whiz, I can tell you.

According to his ilk, a "true coalition" is unanimous with no dissent. Well, except for the one you are coalescing against, I suppose. In other words, if EVERY other nation does not agree, then it's a no-go.

Which is unamalgumated fecal byproduct. Three nations said "No" (Russia, France, Germany ... but what about China?) and 30+ others said, Yes" AND sent troops. Hmmmm. Appears to demand a complete consensus to me.

What a fruity-tooty, lucky charms and flute music skipping through the meadow brain hiccough is the idea that everyone will agree on something!

Can't even get a 30+ to single-digit coalition in American politics, seldom even in the same political party, but it is to be expected and demanded from the world at large?

Pass the crack pipe over here, please ... I have to catch up....

Feminism's Raw Deal, Continued

In the year twenty-five twenty-five ... if man and woman can survive....

One day women may equal and excel men in size, upper body strength and stamina under stress (not emotional stress, but load-nearing physical stress). When that day arrives, women will no longer have ANY need for men, except as manufacturers of reproductive fluids.

Today the prominence of handguns and other labor-saving devices bring women so close to physical parity with guys that the difference is minor. Men no longer dominate women, as a total gender.

The remaining dominance over women is in property ownership, and in authority in business and government. Guys still own most of the stuff, and run most of the organizations.

And there is still a glass ceiling for women ... although it gets higher every day, it seems.

Men still hold women back very, very often ... perhaps even more often than not, but I have no numbers to guess by.

The function of men, at a purely animal level, is to incite offspring and to defend the women and offspring, even indirectly by defending the territory, property, cattle, etc.

When men are no longer needed for anything but sperm ... and before long not even that ... they will no longer have any meaningful place in society. In fact, it is so close to this now that it is frightening (at least, to men who want to have some purpose other than whacking off, eating and playing video games).

The origins of feminism are found in the abuse of them as persons by stupid (i.e., most) men. I intended to mention in my first post that feminism, in some form, was needed, and has caused huge improvement in the treatment of women as people. But, as with almost any "movement," it went too far for too long and lost sight of the fundamental objectives.

Men continue to walk around "wired" for action as defender-providers. Friends can attest to the fact that I am not a macho man. One of my girlfriends teases me about being her "gay" man-pal, in fact! When I was threatened by a drunk trucker several months ago I did not clean his clock ... I called for help like a wuss! (Still angry for the creep putting me in that position, and for having lost my nerve. )

But when a guy at my sister's job bitched her out to the point of making her cry, I showed up in the store the next day and told him he needed to deal with her as if he were dealing with me, because if he stepped out of line with her again I would happily kick his entire ass. He believed it. So did she. And it was true. You don't fuck with my mom, my sister or my niece. It's a close call if you jump froggy with my brothers, either. On my own I will run (or walk as fast as I can and still convince myself that I look cool) from danger. In the context of my dearest ... well, my expression is "I'd slap a grizzly for my niece."

Mr. Intellectual, Fifty-Something Word Surgeon is, when it gets down to brass tacks, a mindless cave-critter. I am neither proud of nor ashamed of that. This is just a fact of my existence I have come to accept.

Nowadays my usefulness in this manner is limited, and anachronistic. Excessive zeal in feminism has brought me to the point of obsolescence. And in this position, a lot of men go "postal." When men are challenged to believe that women are smarter, wiser, have more endurance, and even better at sex than men ... guys are left with few options. We can become homosexuals, or women "haters" (who really love women but have no clue about how to demonstrate it so we wind up...) abusing women verbally, professionally, and physically. Or we stay single until we can find a woman young enough not to recognize her superiority yet, and then we do everything we can to keep her distracted from finding it out by dazzling her with material gifts and peacock strutting.

Me, I keep watching for the chica who hasn't fully invested in the idea of "madchen uber alles," and has a sentimental hankering for the "good ole days" when men were like trained bears guarding their delicate MASTERS.

And I don't mind if she knows I am her inferior slave, as long as she enjoys allowing me to PRETEND to be her sterling champion....

Feminism's Raw Deal

Used to be a king a very long time ago who had a beautiful queen. She was pretty full of her own importance, and he got rid of her. His next queen was from the wrong side of the tracks. She never said "Boo" to him at all. She was "meek and quiet."

One day she found out some people were planning to kill her relatives, so she committed a major transgression and went to see the king without being asked. Anyone approaching this guy without his invitation first was supposed to be killed! But this woman went to see him, knowing the rules.

The king was so nuts for this queen, however, that he not only didn't have her killed, he asked her what she wanted without her actually asking. She just went and stood in his presence without saying a word, and he asked her what she needed.

And she got it. Her family was spared, and the people trying to kill them, were killed by the king's men.

There was a time when women understood that they were not likely to win an arm-wrestling contest with a guy, so they out-smarted him. They were taught by other women how to communicate with men, and how to get them to WANT to do as the women desired.

Feminism, as a modern socio-political movement, was about some noble-sounding ideas, but those ideas boiled down to "I want the right to have anything that a man has, if I want it, but nothing that I don't want."

So women, in my view, lowered themselves to the sub-level of masculinity, when all along the enlightened ones knew how to rule men with wisdom, subtlety, and a quiet strength that made strong men BEG for ways to satisfy them. Rather than be patient, and empathic, and mesmerizing in their softness and quiet dignity, women became as petty, superficial, brash, demanding and obnoxious as Cro-Magnon men.

Better men behaved with more nobility and sensitivity than they do today ... inspired to do so in order to impress women of nobility and sensitivity. The ladies did not throw their weight around (mainly accomplished verbally today), and the men were profoundly moved by such restraint and "mystery."

Feministas today are not "mysterious." They are confusing and annoying.

Quiet, thoughtful, volunteering, "low maintenance" women today still get the riveted attention of many men, but such women are more rare than ever, and their EXAMPLE to men is gone. So men have fallen to the low expectations of shallow women, as a whole, and women whine about how men are such clowns, animals, and foolish boys.

Used to be a day when a woman would softly tell her man how strong, and tall, how kind and handsome, how wise and inspiring he was ... and he would move heaven and earth to prove her right.

Today's result of organized feminism, to me, is a raw deal for both ladies, and gentlemen.

Am I for equal pay for equal work, etc.? Sure!

But all you had to do was ask, before. Now that women are "empowered" to demand it like a man, they inspire men to compete, now ... to argue, debate, negotiate, and to begrudge anything they "lose."

Once it was given gladly (by many, not by all, of course).

For this reason a movie like "Kate & Leopold" is a huge success. He was a gentleman who treated his lady like a lady, not like a man, and they both found that to be delightful.

All-Year Schooling

Some people have recently opined that making kids go to school all around the year deprives them of the play time of summer, disallowing the little darlings to 'just be kids.'

So it's "No playing for YOU!" for nine months and then three months of recovery and healing? What kind of sense does THAT make?

Let the kids learn to "work" and to play ALL the time. Don't train them to dread the 75% of the time they have to slave away at school/job and to scamper and frolick in the fantasy land of summer/weekends.

Sorry, gang, but summer break was NEVER intended to be a recess from reality. It was to help do very hard farm labor for harvest/survival.

The American education system is pathetic, especially compared to the rest of the world, and so is the work ethic. Europeans take more breaks from work than Americans do ... but they work more actual time when they are on the job than Americans do, as well.

(And sending the brats to school all year around DOES get them the hell out of my weekday cinema matinee, and off the streets in cars too fast for their maturity to handle ... but that's just a side benefit for me.)

What Does Vietnam Have to Do With Anything?

I turned 18 less than a year after the draft for Vietnam ended. I sweated the decision to volunteer, allow myself to be drafted, or to run. I can claim any decision I want now, and who is to refute me?

I volunteered 2 years later (USAF) and served with a lot of people who had been there and done that.

Vietnam is an issue because the so-called "leaders" today are of that generation. Bush 41 was in WWII so Vietnam was not an issue for him.

And military service is an issue for very good reasons.

If you forfeited your Constitutional rights and "identity" and repatriated to a "foreign land" with its own language and culture, and you took your one own precious life and placed it anywhere near a premature and grizzly death because, in doing so, you might defend and save someone who could not (or would not) defend themselves ... you have something to say that others cannot say.

Kerry took shrapnel. Bush 43 breathed O2 in a heavier-than-air metal contraption, preparing for the possibility that he might have to be part of an effort to save his nation.

Clinton never got anywhere near these sorts of reality, so his "voice" on such issues had a muted quality to those who "smelled the smoke."

I never saw combat. But I have names on a wall of fallen buddies ... and when I swore the identical oath of service, I did so knowing that, in my own heart, I was facing down any and all adversaries, and if I was the only one left standing and there was a weapon at hand, I would die just like any war-hardened Marine ... I just wouldn't take as many enemy combatants with me.

Vietnam had its own "personality" as did Korea, and Grenada, etc. Otherwise, it was a large and protracted conflict with more "veterans" than any conflict since WWII, so it covers a lot more ground.

The issue of Vietnam is not a political football. It is a defining volume in the annals of the United States, rather than a single chapter.

And the nature of someone's service to the country is a direct indication of their attitude toward that country, and their inclinations toward service, overall.

The most embarrassing president in modern times was a civilian. Nothing against civilians ... but when it comes to leadership, it is said that the greatest leader is a servant, and no one serves like someone who lays down their life for others.

Electoral College

There is a reason to have an electoral college ... "direct" elections allow the possibility of a monstrous election result.

The Blue and Red candidates are equally unappealing. They are both weak offerings and have no resounding mandate from their Sides.

Someone popular and audacious runs an inexpensive "sleeper" campaign, using the Internet, and on election day former "swing" voters, and dissatisfied Reds and Blues, write in ... Michael Moore. Or Tom Selleck. Many will vote that way merely as a protest, and yet the audacious, relatively popular candidate is elected.

I do not know if the German Republic had direct elections or not. I do know that Hitler was elected, probably popularly.

"Pure" democracy, particularly under the dominion of a semi-literate and tremendously apathetic (and lazy) citizenry is a terrifying idea. People who don't know the difference between "then" and "than" will see who's the Most Beautiful Woman In America according to the cover of People magazine, and use Jennifer Connelly as a "middle finger" in the face of boring old white men.

Or maybe Chris Rock?

Reforming the electoral college is a better remedy than dismissing it altogether. Even though direct elections might motivate more people to participate, it does not improve the quality of the voter, or of the candidates.

Danegeld

I am posting a poem here that I believe to be in the public domain.

This poem has a specific political context, but I believe that it has applications across a wide variety of socio-political ethics and strategy.

When someone threatens you with anything to manipulate your decision-making ... refuse to knuckle to them.



[Dane·geld (dān'gĕld') also Dane·gelt (-gĕlt') n. A tax levied in England from the 10th to the 12th century to finance protection against Danish invasion.]

Dane-geld
(A.D. 980-1016)

Rudyard Kipling


IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to says:—

“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Chocolate, or Vanilla ...

... it's all ice cream anyway.

Politics, once a major source of adrenaline rush for me, has begun to give me a bit of a rash. Apparently, as with latex, I have developed an allergy to it.

Here is my cynical "definition" of conservatism and liberalism:

Conservatives have a view of central government as everyone's "father." Liberals see it as our "mother."

These two "opposing" views are merely contrasts between flavors of federal parentalism. We are all children who cannot be trusted to play nicely with each other ... or to make sound decisions about our own money or social conduct.

These two views are typically represented by a Jackass-shaped hand-puppet on the left hand of the puppeteer, and an Elephant-headed hand-puppet on the right hand.

Who is the puppeteer? The amok juggernaut cash-machine of Washington, D.C. Because "what gets rewarded gets done," Washington, D.C., has become a clearing house for confiscation of wealth to be redistributed to the lights and effects personnel (two-party politicians) who put on the puppet show for the kiddies. Punch and Judy are now Bush and Kerry.

And who are the kiddies?

Every registered voter latched firmly to the dead teat of contemporary federal elections.

I am sick to puking ...

... of politics, and news.

As a news junky and history/poli-sci kinda guy, it dawned on me a day or two ago that I would rather have boiling oil poured over my testicles than listen to any more political crap, and most news.

Yesterday I switched off my satellite radio and, for 3 solid hours, drove without ANY music or entertainment. I just watched the world slide by, listened to the road, and allowed my thoughts to simmer along, bubbling up memories or plans now and then at random.

I am inclined, lately, to buy a piece of land about 45 minutes from a reasonably groovy city and just go become a para-hermit. Read, watch DVD's and satellite TV, surf, write, Have friends over. Control my exposure to what seems to be an increasingly shallow and tepid public, and control access to my life by spammers, tele-marketers, Jehovah's Witnesses, census-takers and pollsters.

My reaction is similar to "waking up" one day and realizing that "professional wrestling" was going into plot re-runs. I watched the WWF (as it was then called) for a little over a year, enjoying it as entertainment, but then I saw the recurring patterns and became bored quickly.

At last I have followed politics long enough to realize that the status quo is indelible, and that there are few, if any, original arguments on either side, and most of the arguments are patently foolish at best. America is so heavily polarized now that the "swing voters" and "independents" are marginalized, making the only relatively "fresh" and original positions part of an ineffectual fringe. And the polar opposites are inclined to ignorance, stupidity, and even malicious, intentional prevarication.

Religious Influence on Politics

Where does the concept of "fair play" originate? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

Why is it "wrong" to kill someone and take their belongings for our own?

Why is it wrong to kill someone who verbally insulted us?

Muslim extremist fanatics kill the infidel ("unfaithful") with every conviction that it is NOT "wrong" to do so. It is, rather, admirable and even "holy."

Modern American atheists take for granted a kinder-gentler ethos of treat others as well as you want to be treated ("The Golden Rule" in caps) and other "time-honored" principles, like not committing murder, or robbing, or lying. Without thinking about the origins of these ideals of conduct, atheists participate in a fundamentally Judeo-Christian cultural morality.

Prior to (and during) the earliest days of Judaism and of so-called Christianity, mankind was ruled (and plagued) by the strongest. Rape and conquest were just how things were done, for the most part (but not always).

Then religious men, claiming inspiration from someone or something greater than man, said such behavior was "wrong."

Religion informs all decisions, even when it is not recognized. "The Golden Rule" is a close paraphrase (if not a direct quote, depending on how it is phrased) of words spoken by the man modern people call "Jesus." When atheists want to express this concept they call it "The Golden Rule," often ignorant of the original source, and blithely go on their way behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, at least in that instance.

Where did the idea of monogamous, life-time committed marriage come from? Some animals do it, but certainly not all. So why was it "wrong" for Mr. Clinton to go out "creepin'" on his wife (and daughter)?

And if it is ridiculous (or "scary") for a man to claim divine inspiration for his decisions ... it is equally ridiculous (and scary) to follow a leader who claims categorically that there IS no Divinity to inspire. The person that ridicules a religious person's god assumes, without evidence, that there is no god. Neither side can "prove" their position. All religion and theology is theoretical and opinionated ... evidences offered are philosophical and rhetorical, not "material."

(And evolution is a scientifically bankrupt theory because it not only cannot be proven ... who was there to see the amphibian crawl onto land and stay there? ... it has not been proven by subsequent evidence. The only theory that fits ALL of the evidence is INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Researching BOTH sides of the issue, rather than the side one is already on, reveals the holes riddling each. Carbon dating? Founded upon biased conjecture, not on science, and inaccurate. Transitional species ... zero [0] fossil records. Second Law of Thermodynamics? Out the window under evolution.)

Disclosure: I am a recovering Christian, libertarian, and I do not support either Bush or Kerry.

If a politician is not informed by the Judeo-Christian concepts of "fair play," then are they propelled toward actions by "The Law of the Jungle" (take what you can, can all you get, and sit on the can ... survival of the fittest ... dog-eat-dog), or by an non-Judeo-Christian religion ...

... such as radical Islam?