Various Orthodoxies

Maybe Kim is Right

Kim DuToit must be loving this cartoon this morning. I see that Tank agrees with his "Pussification" column.

Michelle Malkin

I got to her from Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus. This is an excellent article. And it has a copy of the video that AccessMiddleEast.org posted. It's a Reuters TV cameraman who got the shot. The good part is at the very end.

Not Too Much Better, Though

Oh well. On the "Kill Test" I actually did OK. But only because of the bad phrasing, I insist.

Your score shows you can resist justifications for killing. Your score for this survey was 80 out of a possible 120 points. Higher scores indicate less willingness to support killing.

Here were the questions:

1. People have a right to kill to defend their property. I said that I strongly disagree. On the other hand, I strongly believe that if someone breaks into your house at night, and there are children or loved ones in the house, kill away. But I don't think it's right to kill someone who just stole your TV. Shoot them in the leg...fine. But don't kill them.

2. I would approve if people kill someone who has raped their child. Anyone who doesn't say "strongly agree" to this has never had children.

3. I would approve if someone begins killing the criminals in my community. Now, there's a fine line between justification and vigilante killings. But indiscriminate killings of criminals is wrong. Of course, my disgust would be softened if the people being killed were, say, pedophiles. I would still disagree, mind you, but probably not vocally.

4. I approve of capital punishment (the death penalty) for certain crimes. Oh yeah, baby. Absolutely.

5. I would approve if people kill a person who has killed a member of their family. This was a tough one. First, it's roughly the same question as number 3, but with more of an emotional component. And it depends. If someone, G-d forbid, kills my kid? They forfeit their life. If it took me 20 years, I would track that person down and end them. But the question...who are these "people?" It makes it sound like a lynch mob. And, although I would kill someone who hurt me or mine, I wouldn't expect other people to approve. And I don't approve of it. I understand it. If the "people" is a close family member? No, I don't approve. But I understand it. But lynch mobs? Bad.

Well, I Feel Better Now

I followed the link from LGF to a "peace test."

Here's how I did:

Your score shows you might not resist war fever. Your score for this survey was 62 out of a possible 120 points.

This survey measures resistance to moral disengagement in support for military action. Moral disengagement occurs when people tell themselves that violence is excusable. The questions asked about possible excuses for military actions, but they did not give enough information for a cautious reader to agree with them. Because you showed a relatively high level of agreement, you may be "programmed" for moral disengagement in support of military action.

You scored 62 points on this survey. According to the social cognitive theory of moral disengagement, you can be easily persuaded to support war without giving it much thought.

Compare your score with students around the world.

Boost your moral engagement!

Below are areas where your resistance may need strengthening. Click on the button(s) to find out how you are at risk.

I would have done "better" on the test, but some of the phrasing of the questions made it hard to choose the right answer. For example, "War is necessary to settle conflicts between nations." Agree or disagree? Well, the answer is, "sometimes."

I don't think of my pro-war stance, when it comes to terrorists, as "moral disengagement." I call it, "moral accountability." I'm responsible for my acts. But so are they. And if they mess with me and mine, I'm not going to apologize for hitting back. Much, much harder.

Sgt. Hook, My New Best Friend

I remember reading Sgt. Hook a while back. I read him again today through Michele, and posted the missive below. Then I kept reading, and came across this. Sgt. Hook is going into my Everyday Reads section, just on the strength of these two. Go Read Him. Now.

It's amazing what won't make the press.

We have a real man in the Oval Office, folks.

Hooo-Ah!

I might have just committed a major military faux-pas, saying "Hooo-Ah" to an Army guy -- maybe it's a Marine thing, I don't know. Still, it was my reaction to reading this post by Sgt. Hook. He brings Novak up short. By the shorts. It's painful to read. That is, it's painful if you pretend you're Novak.

Why I Hate Mogley

Simon is off his rocker with a review of Barbie of Swan Lake.

It sucks.

The hind tit.

The problem is this...with all movies for kids, you can never watch them just once. I mean, I can't get my kids to pay attention to me for a minute when I have something for them to do, but they can watch the same movie over and over and OVER! Every night for a month now, they've been watching Jungle Book II. Which, frankly, isn't an awful movie, the first two times. But now, if I hear "Bear Necessities" one more time, I'm going to go postal.

This is even true for a movie that I really liked when I first saw it, "Finding Nemo." A fine movie. Enjoyable on all levels. But now, about the fiftieth time I've seen it, I can't handle it anymore. I'm done. But no...if it's not, "Mogley, aba, Mogley!," then it's "Memo! aba, Memo!"

Arghh.

Josh Must Have ESP

Josh Marshall comes to the startling conclusion that the Bush tax cuts were not pushed through because of economic circumstances, but were rather -- gasp! -- ideologically based! Oh my! [ed. note: I should point out that I make fun of Josh, but I love reading him. And he's one of the smarter leftist critics out there.]

Where I come from, that's called "acting on your beliefs," and is a valued character trait.

Agree or don't agree with him, but Dubya certainly has beliefs about what would make this country better, both internally and internationally. And he acts on those beliefs.

Blogus Interruptus

Sorry for the slight interruption of services over the holiday weekend. Would you imagine that the hosting company actually wants to be PAID?! With a credit card that HASN'T expired? The nerve of some people.

IP Banning

I never expected to ban anyone. Maybe that was naive. Meanwhile, I've now banned by 69th IP address. All of them spammers. It's so annoying.

What's really annoying is that I get more spam comments than regular ones. That's just sad.

Leaving on a Jet Plane

Yep, I'm headed to sunny California tomorrow. With the entire family. For a family event. Fun will be had by all, do you UNDERSTAND!.

A six-hour plane ride. Two kids under 3.

Pray for me.

Things Are Getting Out of Hand

Boy, Helen makes one comment, and the ball starts to roll, doesn't it?

Helen said, badly, that she doesn't want to be known by her husband's name. The flavor of the comment (although not the words) criticized another woman, Mrs. DuToit, for her taking her husband's name.

The exact quote is "And Dean? Yeah, I don't read you, and I really don't feel the need to, either. You've been there on the man's side? Well, I've been there on the woman's side. And you and Mrs. Du Toit (again, let me state thus: I find it revolting to be referred to by my spouse's name. I have my own name, thank you) should understand this: if you haven't walked the woman's side, then you just don't understand."

And so it begins.

Mrs. DuToit responds: "In a comment thread regarding domestic violence I was taken to task for referring to myself as "Mrs du Toit" by (what I would refer to as) a Femi-Nazi. She made some comment that she had a name and was proud to use it, and she'd never refer to herself the way I do...."

Jim gets into the act: "So what is it, Mrs. du Toit? Any woman who has been abused is a feminazi? Any woman who disagrees with you? Any woman who wants to be known by her own name instead of her husband's? What exactly is your label of "feminazi" a result of? One thing we can be sure of is that it is in no way related to any knowledge of Helen that you might have because if you had taken even a few moments to get to know her before spitting out your vitriol you would know that she's quite the opposite."

I criticize Helen (and Mrs. DuToit) in the comments to that post. Helen chastises me right back.

Ilyka sums up. And gets in her own two cents: "Unfortunately, that is not how Mrs. du Toit sees Helen's decision. Mrs. du Toit sees it as evidence that Helen is a . . . wait for it . . . FEMINAZI! ... And that's the lovely thing about not challenging your adversaries directly: You simply wait a week or two, then say what you thought they said, and say it in such a way as to paint yourself the victim. Voila! Victory by default! Oh, and by no means should you link the original discussion. Heavens, no. We don't want people reading and judging for themselves, now, do we?"

And Helen chimes in again: "PS-I love Jim, always have and always will. And I don't appreciate people so desirous of being a martyr that they don't do their homework, as Jim brings to our attention in this post. Take the nails out of your hands and use them to climb down from the cross, Ma'am. ... If you don't read me, you don't have the right to label me a feminazi, of which I am in no way, shape or form that. To me, the term "feminazi" is an amorphous term that is shaped and created by those who are afraid, ignorant, or simply on the defense and looking for sympathy. There's no such thing as a feminazi, not according to me, and not according to my good friend Webster."

Now, Kim takes offense: "Oh, and one more thing. The Mrs. has been under attack most recently by the über-feminist harpies, who resent the fact that, well, that she goes by the name of Mrs. du Toit, rather than something else which "defines her as herself, and not as some man's property" (I paraphrase, but you get the idea). Well, for obvious reasons, I've stayed out of the fray; but at least one gentleman has come to a lady's assistance, and you can read about it at BabyTrollBlog. Thank you, Mark. And into the blogroll you go -- it's long overdue, anyway. And to the red-eyed ladies of whom he speaks: FOAD."

And the BabyTrollBlog link goes to this. "Yet, some who call themselves feminists attack others whose choices — whose exercise of freedom — does not suit their attackers' taste. A woman is no longer permitted to take her husband's name in marriage or call herself Mrs. Women marrying are required to tack onto the end of their name some hyphenated monstrosity that reeks of pseudo-continental..." (I don't know if he was specifically referring to Helen or not, but Kim certainly takes it as a defense of the Mrs.)

Now, now, people, let's play nicely.

I disagree with Helen both generally and in the specific case of Mrs. DuToit. And for the same reason. Mrs. DuToit (I should disclose that I'm a fan) chose to be addressed that way not because of some patriarchal oppression or societal imposition, but because she's proud of her husband, and proud of their marriage, and believes that a marriage is more than the sum of its parts. The new entity, "us," becomes composed of two people, the Mr. and the Mrs. She's proud of the "us" that she has made with Kim and takes, with pride and satisfaction, the name "Mrs."

And there's nothing wrong with that, Helen. And the same principle that justifies your use of a pseudonym should keep you from criticizing how others are known. That is, if I need to spell it out, that how you're called is your choice. Self-identification is just that, and it's a personal decision that, within the range of everyday life, should be respected.

But, Mrs. DuToit, really, get off your high horse. Helen saying that she doesn't like your choice of moniker doesn't make her a "femi-nazi." It says that she doesn't see relationships the same way you do. And you know what, read her stuff, you'll see why. And jumping to an ad hominem attack is frankly beneath you. Why is Helen wrong? Tell her. Let her see, in you, that your choice comes from a place of love and respect. Mutual love and respect (and anyone who ever reads the Daily Rant knows that Kim loves and respects you...it practically oozes out of the screen). But do you take that opportunity, to convince rather than attack? Nope.

It makes perfect sense to me, having been a fan of both of you for a long time, why you each choose as you do.

Give each other a break. And, with all due respect, both of you should shut the hell up, and start reading each other's stuff. I think you could learn to respect, if not like, each other.

Yeah, What He Said

Bill Whittle's "Strength" is, again, a masterpiece of that rarest mixture of clear thinking and lucid writing. Enjoy.

Part I, here.

Part II, here.

Out of Control Phrases

There are certain phrases that should be eliminated from the public discourse. Remember that the whole purpose of public discourse, and the 1st Amendment, by the by, is for all sides of an issue to be aired publicly, so that the good ideas can float to the top. The bad ideas are supposed to be discarded as the goodness of the good ideas widely acknowledged.

I would dearly like to digress into the subject of the idolization of bad ideas as long as they are loudly espoused, and the wrongness of that whole recent acceptance, but I won't.

There are some phrases that serve only to distort the public vision. They are incorrect. False. And misleading. But they are still used. Often by people who don't know better, who should thereby be pitied (and silenced). But unfortunately, these phrases are often used by people whose whole purpose is to mislead. They are the charlatans of the airwaves, selling their snake oil to a public who dearly wants that salve. I don't know what to do with people like that, except not read them, not link to them, and not listen to them.

These phrases include:

1. Cycle of Violence. If a man attacks my kids, it's not "prolonging the cycle of violence" to kill him. If his family then comes after my kids, seeking revenge, it's still not a "cycle of violence" for me to kill the newcoming attackers. And do you know how I know this? Imagine, if you will, tomorrow, Hamas has a change of heart. Lays down their weapons. Invites Israeli intelligence into all of their bomb-making factories and weapons caches. Same with Islamic Jihad and Hez'b'Allah. As of tomorrow, no more killing. Do you think there would be any more Israeli raids into Gaza? Of course not. That's how I know.

2. Rush to War. I love the blogosphere. I got to read Ted Rall's stupidity because Jim quoted Michele, who lambasted him. I'm not going to link to Ted. Sorry. But Ted uses that phrase. Surely he knows better. There simply was no "rush" to war. There were 12 years of barely-suppressed hostility, along with blatant violations of UN resolutions (not that I care too much about those), and, more importantly, open casus bellion the US. Then, there were several months when we tried the diplomatic route, unsuccessfully.

Come on, people, what are some others?

So Cute

My three-year-old daughter just called me. That's right. She called me. I guess she hit the "redial" button by accident.

But the simple fact is that the phone rang, and I picked up, and it was my Yael. It was great.

Derbyshire Hits the Nail on the Head

Read the whole thing, but this piece says it all:

Still, it is an extreme kind of moral obtuseness that refuses to notice the difference between a people who strive to minimize noncombatant casualties and a people who do their best to maximize them. I note also that when Arabs are injured in an Arab terrorist attack against Jews, they are cared for in Israeli hospitals, to which they have been transported by Israeli ambulances. Imagine the converse, if it were possible: Jewish inhabitants of an Arab country, injured in a Jewish-terrorist attack on Arabs. They would be torn to pieces by ululating mobs of Arabs, and the pieces would be paraded triumphantly through streets crowded with laughing revelers, the whole thing broadcast on Al-Jazeera to general rejoicing around the Arab world.

There you have the difference between civilization and barbarism. If you can't see it, I can't help you: You are morally blind.

Another NY Times Headline

See, now this is the type of thing that really pisses me off. The unimaginably barbaric Palestinian terrorists not only kill, they steal the body parts and hold them for ransom.

Then the New York Times comes out with a headline like this: "Israeli Soldiers Ambushed as Dispute Continues Over Bodies." It's not a dispute. It's a disgusting, horrific, evil act on behalf of people who have delivered their humanity and replaced it with a black mask and green sash.

Dispute, my ass.