Ara and I recently had a cute little online chat you might enjoy. He emailed me a picture of his son and daughter. His daughter just had her Bat Mitzvah on Saturday, and as I viewed the picture the following conversation transpired:

There's More...

Read this.

The last photo bothered me the most. Because it drove home for me that unity will never exist among we frail and foolish mortals.

But I know what side I'm on.

I've been a fan of the great Les Paul for many years. One of my goals in life has long been to get to Manhattan so I can see him live. Alas, I often wonder if I'll ever make it. He's a great musician and also a great inventor. Blogcritics has a great profile and interview of Les Paul that you music fans, and especially you electric guitar fans, should read.

I'm amazed that Ed Driscoll, the interviewer, didn't think to ask Mr. Paul about his "Les Paulverizer." I've seen enough video of that thing in action to know that it obviously works, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how.

This brings me to the Rolling Stone list of the 100 greatest electrict guitarists. It's a pretty good list, actually, although I wonder how they compiled it. There are a few absences that Lysander complains about, rightly I suppose, although I suppose everyone who loves guitar music will have an entry or two they wish were there. I was thrilled to notice that most of my favorites are there. And that Duane Allman is very near the top, as he very well should be. (Les Paul's too low, though. The man influenced so many people!)

Just reading this is astounding, isn't it?

In the comments to an earlier article, Lilli Marleen wondered whether there was a men's rights movement to help the many men who are ignored and even victimized by our family court system.

The answer is "yes," and about half of those involved in this movement are women, I'm incredibly happy to say. Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks detail this in Why Are There So Many Women In the Father's Movement? As they detail, such women are, of course, routinely derided as right-wingers, cranks, and "anti-woman." This is so typical of how many Gender Feminists play the game here in the United States: when your opponent cannot be out-argued, she must be bashed and ridiculed.

Glenn Sacks is quickly becoming my new personal hero, by the way. Sacks, for example, points to the growing crisis of boys in education. He also courageously takes on the myth--and it is a myth--that the vast majoritiy of domestic abusers are men. He also documents, repeatedly, the horrible abuse men take in our lopsided family court system.

Everyone should make a point of reading Glenn's columns on a regular basis.

Any real feminist--one who believed in equality and equity between the sexes--certainly would.

Peter Berkowitz wrote a fascinating article in Policy Review earlier this year: The Liberal Spirit in America. It's about so much that it's difficult to know where to begin describing it. Indeed, some of you may find it too dense and layered--I had to try three times to get through it. But by the time I was finished, I was most impressed.

Basically, it's about the classic liberal and conservative impulses, the way they often get misidentified, and, most importantly, the severe challenges that the modern world presents to both--challenges which simply didn't exist prior to the mid-20th century or so.

As Moe notes, Berkowitz brilliantly points out how both the progressive and conservative traditions, paradoxically, work in different ways to preserve, extend, but also possibly destroy, our liberal traditions. (Thanks for yet another terrific link, Moe.

I am 100% on these people's side. Just in case you were wondering.

If you're interested in checking out the "jam band" phenomenon, may I say that you could hardly do better than to check out Jupiter Coyote: Live?

It's a fabulous mix of rock'n'roll, bluegrass, and jazz, in the style of groups like the Marshall Tucker Band. I got ahold of this little treasure a couple of days ago and I like the first disc (it's a two-disc set) I haven't even gotten around to listening to the second one yet. The first alone is worth the price of admission, and I think the laser in my CD player may already be burning a hole in the disc.

Oh yeah, and check out the Jupiter Coyote web site. There are some free MP3s that you can download from there. Although the live stuff is cooler.

Well. Here's a web site called Gender Genie which claims to be able to identify your sex simply by analyzing a sample of your writing. Not your handwriting, but just based on the words and word patterns you use.

It, uh, didn't work very well for me. Either that or there's something I need to tell my wife...

(Via Lilac Rose.)

I finally got a chance to see big, bright Mars the other night. Moe and I spotted it while sitting on my front porch.

It was neat. But I do have to admit that this is a good point.

Heh.

Here in the United States, at least in many states, our divorce laws are draconian toward men. I see it all the time, and it's genuinely sickening to see.

I have a friend who I'll call Frank. About a year ago his wife decided she was bored with him and got herself a new man. She filed for, and got, an immediate no-fault divorce. While they were married she frequently abused him physically, and he's got scars on his body that she gave him. But he was raised never to hit girls so he never hit her back--and also, like so many men, suffered in silence and humiliation, thinking there was something wrong with him. Like most men, he had no idea that this is far more common than most people think.

Because her family has money and his doesn't, she was able to get everything: the house, the furniture, and everything in it. She refused to even give him his clothes back.

She now forces the kids to call her new stud "daddy," and generally refuses to let Frank see them. However, the court is ordering him to pay such a large amount of child support, that he'll have less than $200 a week to live on. On that he must pay for rent, food, his car, and insurance. No lawyer will see him for less than $3,000 up front--money which he doesn't have. (Did I mention that the wife ran up all the credit cards and left him with the bill, too?)

The man has contemplated suicide and is in amazingly good shape for someone in such a state--and he's far from the first man I've seen in such circumstances. He's doing his best to try to stay sane, and doing an admirable job.

Can anyone help advise him on what to do, and where he might get some legal advice he's actually able to afford? He's here in Michigan.

(You guys didn't think that the Marriage Strike was a joke, did you? The situation for men in divorce in this country is truly horrible. The way no one seems to care only makes it worse.)

I've long been a fan of th folks at Homestar Runner. They put out some very funny stuff. So imagine how tickled I was when Peter Wood and NRO gave them a great review and endorsement. Nice to see them getting the attention they deserve.

(Thanks to Jeff Liquia for the heads-up.)

Recently, a judge in Alabama named Ray Moore has gotten a lot of press for his desire to keep a copy of the 10 Commandments posted in his courtroom. He believes he has a Constitutional right to have them posted there, and the Federal courts have said he's wrong and are forcing him to remove them.

Rick DeMent thinks he is wrong on historical grounds. My girl Sheila is basically on board with that, saying that they don't belong there. She agrees with Jeff Jarvis on the matter. The great Bovious thinks Ray Moore is breaking the commandments with his position. Michele basically takes the position that Moore is a manipulative cynic and probably crazy. Meanwhile, Ara wondered in an Instant Message he sent me why I haven't weighed in on this.

Well, what do I think?

I'm a Bright. But I think there is nothing wrong with a copy of the 10 Commandments in a public courtroom. I think there is nothing--zero, zip, nada--in conflict with the 1st Amendment or the values this country was founded on to have such a thing. It is in no significant way a violation of the principle of "separation of church and state" either.

And by the way, the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. I'm glad of that, because religion has a perfectly legitimate place in any truly pluralist and tolerant liberal democracy.

By the way, I feel exactly the same way about school prayer and the displaying of chreches and whatnot by public institutions. There's no conflict with the 1st amendment there, either. None. The courts over the past few decades have signed on to a view of the 1st Amendment that is, indeed, fundamentally illiberal and intolerant in this regard. Ultimately, while I don't share his theology, I think Tim the Michigander gets it right.

I view this whole controversy as an outgrowth of the anti-Christian paranoia that's come to afflict so much of America--including some self-hating Christians who've interenalized society's hostility in the exact same way as so many self-hating Jews have.

Moore should be allowed to display his copy of the 10 Commandments. This should be a non-issue. That it is one at all disappoints me.

But I also recognize that my view is the losing view in today's courts, and among many so-called "liberals." I also have enough faith in the American system that these injustices--and ordering Moore to remove the 10 commandments is an injustice--will eventually be corrected by future generations, who'll probably be more sane about these things.

Indeed, even if I accept that Moore is a cynical manipulator and a little crazy--and he probably is--I honestly believe his cause will eventually prevail.

As it should. Because America's a good, decent place, and future generations will likely be appalled at the anti-Christian paranoia that's led to to ordering him to take those words down.

That's about all I have to say on the matter.

* Update * I agree with every word of this. Yelena is completely correct. And maybe I'm living in a fool's paradise, but I honestly believe that sanity will eventually prevail. (Thanks, Mike.)

* Update 2 * Michele is upset with me, and asks me a point-blank question: would I support words from the Koran carved in stone and placed in a public courthouse? The answer is yes, of course. Why not? Throw in some stuff from the Baghavad-Gita, the code of Hammurabi, or sayings from the Buddha if you want to, too. Or don't. I'm just fine with it either way. If I weren't, I'd make my feelings known the next time I voted.

(I said more in her comments, for anyone who cares to read them.

Don't say you don't have enough time. You have exactly the same number of hours per day that were given to Helen Keller, Pasteur, Michaelangelo, Mother Teresa, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and Albert Einstein.

H. Jackson Brown

(Via Dietz Smith.)

Have you met Baldilocks yet?

She's cool.

It's 6:45 a.m. Moe just left my house after sitting on my porch all night talking to me. He may just have convinced me that there is a God.

Fancy that.

I may have more to say later...

Wouldn't life suck if there were no such thing as tomatoes?

I mean, seriously.

Wrap your head around this: Steve from Blues Clues (replaced a few years ago by Joe) is now an up-and-coming rock star.

He seems to be handling the transition with class and humor, too.

Colby Cosh has an excellent entry on bashing fast food. Actually he's always excellent, but I particularly liked this one.

I also declare now to all and sundry: I love Burger King's whoppers. I love McDonald's french fries. I love the Colonel's chicken. Not because I've been brainwashed by corporate America, either. I love 'em because their food is good.

On the other hand, I dislike Pizza Hut. I bear them and their fans no ill will, but being from Chicago, I have some rather strong feelings about what makes a good pizza.

Which is not to say that I have no taste for finer things. I do. I love a good merlot, a heady frothy microbrew, a fine steak, Thai Food, a great Italian restaurant, Cajun cuisine, and all kinds of other fine stuff too. I also love soul food--or what the folks in the south refer to as just plain "food."

Many others linked this earlier this week, but I wanted to link it too. Ray Bradbury's birthday was this week, and in its honor it's hard to think of a better tribute than reading, and thinking about, this essay entitled There's More Than One Way to Burn a Book that he wrote some years ago.

James Bowman has a nice piece in The New Criterion called The Bush Junta. Best part:

Or of those who want to bring down the president and who are at least as unscrupulous as they represent him as being about the means to their favored end. At the least, they have made the easy, post-Clintonian assumption that accusations of bad faith against one's political opponents are all just part of the cut-and-thrust of politics in twenty-first-century America and not, as in fact they are, a poisoning of the wells of civic culture. Virtually since the day he took office, Bush has been repeatedly, almost routinely, accused of dishonesty in matters of political and economic substance by the likes of Paul Krugman, Jonathan Chait, and Michael Kinsley, and no one seems disposed to suggest that such accusations are or ought to be outside the bounds of civilized discourse.

He may be wrong about one thing though. I'm not sure this kind of political nastiness hasn't always been the norm.

(Via Craig Schamp.)

Be very, very afraid.

My friend Moe, an Orthodox Jew, tells me that he is convinced that I am not a Bright--a label which, still, I stubbornly insist that the rest of you are far too defensive about. But anyway:

Okay Moe. Tell me why.

Welcome home, Scott. I'm glad I can finally call you by name.



I'm proud to say I know you. Even if we've only ever met online.

And yes, Scott, she is beautiful.

(I also want to thank Gary Utter, Gary Renick, and every other vet I know. You are greater men than I'll ever be.)

Can't think of much more to say to this than, "Yep."

Oh, wait, yes I can.

While I agree with her analysis, it should be pointed out that the Democratic Party...

There's More...

If you could all answer this for me, I'd appreciate it:

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Sex Survey

I read Dean's World regularly, or semi-regularly, and I am male. I read Dean's World regularly, or semi-regularly, and I am female. I don't read Dean's World very often, or I am new. I am male. I don't read Dean's world very often, or I am new. I am female.

E. Nough has a great piece on something that I talk about a lot: self-righteous political demagoguery and the way it gets in the way of reasoned debate. The whole essay's good, but I'm going to quote one of the best parts:

Frankly, I hate the sanctification/vilification exercises both sides of the political debate engage in; I know liberals, and I know conservatives, and the fruitcake contingent of each camp aside, most have the same principles, and want roughly the same things, which is why our society is so successful. (If either side were anything like its opponents describe, the U.S. would be one miserable hellhole to live in, that's for sure -- between all those crypto-fascist racist brown-people-killin' conserrrvatives and the proto-communist authoritarian France- and UN-worshippin' librulls.) But hey, occasional demagoguery is fun...

Now go read the rest of it. It's good.

(Thanks to Jane Finch.)

Via Margi, I found this interesting listing of 10 Secular Commandments.

Interesting perspective.

Some time in the next week or so, you might want to set aside some time to spend here.

I'm still angry, and will never forget. But reminders don't hurt a bit.

(Thanks, Moe.)

As one of those odd men who does not follow sports, this isn't my cup of tea. But Kevin Aylward seems to have a pretty good Sports Blog going, and you may want to check it out.

He's also looking for contributors, so if you're a sports fan and like to write, you might want to drop him a line.

Gerard Van der Leun urges bloggers across America to join SenComBlogUSA's Save James Lileks campaign. As a Sensitive 'n Compassionate Blogger in the USA, I heartily encourage you all to sign on for this important cause.

Not everyone is a blues fan. Like many great things in Western civilization, real authentic blues is an acquired taste, and not everyone acquires it.

Yet I am a blues fan. A true blues fan. I can tell you things about this quintessentically American form of music that most people don't know. I know who Blind Lemon Jefferson was, who Sonny Boy Williamson I and II were. I know what it means when the Eagle flies, and what a mojo really is. I know what makes Muddy Waters and Bo Diddley great. I will tell you all this at length, if you've got the patience to listen--and most of you probably don't.

I honestly believe that those of us who are serious blues fans do not hear the blues as music. We hear it like a language, process it like a language, understand it like a language. Do you know what I'm talking about? Well, not to sound elitist but, you either do or you don't, and I can't explain it either way.

But let me tell ya: I have my nomination for the single greatest blues track every laid down. Want to know what it is?

There's More...

...that Justene is also a birthday girl this week.

Shame on me. After all the hard work she put in over the weekend on my behalf, too!

(Three of my favorite bloggers have virtually the same birthday. What are the odds?)

As Bill notes, everything old is new again.

It's Rick DeMent's birthday. Go on and wish him a happy one, and check out the always-fun, always thought-provoking, frequently-mistaken weblog that he runs with Dietz Smith!

My mother says I swear too much on this blog.

Damn it.

I know you probably don't all read Instapundit every day, but if you haven't seen this roundup of so-called WMD 'sexing up' on the part of an apparently dishonest BBC reporter, you really should.

Methinks that Tony Blair is increasingly being vindicated. Nice to see.

You know, I had never realized that Michele was a Zionazi Jewpagandist. That makes her seem even more powerful than ever--if such a thing were possible.

(Happy Birthday, Michele!)

These people need to get a medal or something. Not to mention government grants for millions of dollars and/or pounds to promote their cause.

God bless 'em.

(By the way, I suspect that Bob the Angry Flower is already a member.)

Bigwig makes note of a significant new study on global warming, and compares it to some other studies that all cast doubt on the notion that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming. (You can see the current study here, if you have Acrobat Reader.)

Every time I hear about Global Warming, it seems like I hear or read that "the vast majority of scientists" agree that human CO2 emissions are causing the earth to heat dangerously. Yet, as Bigwig notes, studies keep coming out to question this hypothesis. On top of that, I note that The Oregon Petition continues to receive little notice in the popular press, despite the fact that over 17,000 scientists so far have signed it. It states, unequivocally:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

It's the biggest such petition, although the Leipzig Declaration is also still out there and, so far as I know, has not been repudiated by its signers.

Now why is it that such people are routinely derided as right-wingers, cranks, and lunatics, do you suppose?

There's a new show on Comedy Central: Reno 911. It's utterly inappropriate for family viewing. It's mean-spirited and stupid and very, very funny. But you have to watch each episode from the beginning, or you don't get the full flavor.

As usual, Shamus Young is funny as hell. Someone needs to put him, Frank J., Fritz, and Scott Ott in the same room.

The Dean Esmay Sucks weblog has been updated.

I'm relieved. I was starting to feel unloved.

Go on.

Tell me.

I am a lover of the English language. I do not claim that it is a language superior to all others, and do not deny its deficiencies. They are manifold. Indeed, I would say that its #1 weakness, outside of its maddeningly unpredictable spelling, is its lack of precision. For example, in some languages, you can say any of the following in one or two words:

Thank you (I, the individual, thank you the individual)
Thank you (I, the individual, thank you the group)
Thank you (We, the group, thank you, the individual)
Thank you (We, the group, thank you, the group)
Thank you (I, a man, thank you, a woman)
Thank you (I, a woman, thank you, a man)
Thank you (I, an adult, thank you, a child)

...and so on. In some languages, I can express such subtleties in one or two simple words. In English, we have to exhaust ourselves with several extra words to make our meaning explicit, or, we just accept the ambiguity and allow the listerner to infer whatever he wants.

Nevertheless, the great strength of English is that we'll accept all kinds of new words, phrases, and ways of speaking. We'll also accept many different words that effectively mean the same thing. Just look at an English thesaurus entry for "child," for example, and you'll probably find all of the following:

adolescent, ankle biter, babe, baby, bairn, bambino, brat, cherub, chick, cub, descendant, dickens, grommet, grub, imp, infant, innocent, issue, juvenile, kid, kiddie, lamb, larva, little angel, little darling, little doll, little one, minor, mite, moppet, neonate, nestling, newborn, nipper, nursling, offspring, pickaninnie, preteen, progeny, pubescent, punk, rug rat, shaver, small fry, sprout, squirt, stripling, suckling, tadpole, teenager, teenybopper, toddler, tot, tyke, urchin, whippersnapper, young, youth

Hard to beat, ain't it?

The beauty of this is that you can go decades as a native speaker of the language and still come across words you've never heard. I recently came across just such a word, and it astonished me. Because I'd seen it several times in print, including in comments left to articles here on Dean's World. Yet every time I'd seen it, I assumed it was a mis-spelling. I thought the writers meant to say "whining," but had just produced a typo. But no, the word is:

WHINGING: To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.

What a fabulous word. Thank you for those who've introduced me to it!

Here's an interesting question for Paul Burgess, Allen Brill, Donald Sensing, and any other sincere, thoughtful Christian Protestants. It's a question I am deeply interested in (don't ask me why, I just am--I may have an interesting question for Jews coming out of this later on though):

Let's say the Holy See in Rome--if not this one, then the next one, or another one some time within our lifetimes--one day makes a startling declaration. The doctrine of Petrine Succession is not repudiated, but is instead reinterpreted. They ask that a certain historical deference is granted to the bishopric of Rome, given that it's where Peter and Paul formed the basis of the Church, and is where Christianity moved from being a small Jewish radical movement into a mainline religion intended to achieve the salvation of all men ("men" in its historic root meaning to include women). Despite asking some historical deference to Rome's position, all Protestant and Orthodox denominations are henceforth to be brought in as full and complete brothers in the holy Catholic church--if they merely ask for it. Disagreements over such matters as predestination, transubstatiation, the literal meaning of "resurrection of the body," priestly chastity and fidelity, and so on, to be viewed as mere disagreements, varying movements within the same body of Christ's church. So long as all are willing to swear allegiance to the Nicene creed, all will be embraced within the holy Catholic church. Anything beyond such issues to be viewed as matters of conscience within any given communion within the church--not much different from the way the Augustinians, the Brothers of the Rice, and other movements within today's Roman Catholic Church are viewed now.

Out of curiosity: would you be willing to sign on to such a movement?

I'm honestly curious about the answer.

(I'm also burningly curious to know if there are any Catholic Priests out there who'd like to give a perspective on such a question.)

I read this interesting Fareed Zakaria piece Ara sent me. I must admit to being rather bemused by it.

Zakaria lays out, in splendid fashion, just how amazingly well the situation in Iraq has gone since the Baathist regime was toppled. By any measure, the invasion was a success, and the average Iraqi is better off than he has been in decades. That war quite apparently saved more Iraqi lives than it cost, and the subsequent occupation's cost has been entirely bearable. Indeed, we're losing more soldiers on a daily basis to things like traffic accidents and heart disease than we are from the steadiliy weakening guerilla operations.

Despite acknowledging all this, Zakaria thinks it's "irrelevant" because, after only four months, electricity still isn't on everywhere and there is still light guerilla resistance, and he thinks we need to bring in the UN to take things over.

To be blunt? I can't think of a worse fate for the Iraqi people than to let the UN take charge of things. Iraq is already in better shape than Japan or Germany were four months after hostilities ended in World War II, and things are going swimmingly well. I am constantly bemused by people who see different. To me, it just reaffirms something I have come to believe over the years: some people will always believe that things are hopelessly screwed up, no matter what the situation under discussion.

I have long had a love affair with the English language. I admit to a bit of provincialism in the matter since, as far as other languages go, I know only some rudimentary Spanish and only a smattering of words in a half-dozen other languages. But English's loose structure, compounded by its flexibility and its easy adaptation of the features of other languages, is just so much fun. Besides, as they say, in what other language can your nose run while your feet smell?

I particularly like certain words. I'm never sure what quite attracts me to a word. It's not necessarily the meaning of the word: indeed, one of my favorite words is "fistula," which is a somewhat disturbing medical phenomenon but has a wonderful sound. To my ear, anyway.

Some of my other favorite words, in no particular order, include:

There's More...

I'm still horribly behind on my email, so I'm only just getting around to this piece you might enjoy that was published a couple of weeks ago by Allen Brill. It's more on that brights meme that is, despite some people's wishes, not yet dead.

For the record, I still like this term, and am rather bemused at the (to my eyes) disproportionate reaction against it in some quarters--especially among believers who describe themselves as "washed," "cleansed," "God's chosen," or "redeemed," but who think I should never take offense at the implication that I am filthy, unchosen by God, or unredeemed.

Although I find, most amusingly, that every working pastor I've shared the term with has found it amusing and intriguing. Even "slick," as Paul Burgess put it.

As for those who think it "debases the language," to be blunt I cannot take this seriously. For example, I've never seen a black person, have you? Most of them look kinda brown to me. And while you're wrestling with that one, could you please go after the Greens, the gays, the Bloods, and the Democrats, since all of these terms involve some "perversion" of words with older meanings?

Anyway, Allen Brill has published, side-by-side, a letters from Jack Good, a retired United Church of Christ pastor, and Richard Dennett, a bright who has defended the term. You can read it here. It's fascinating reading, a debate between two people who share a lot of the same assumptions and values.

There's More...

I got a Tivo for my birthday. (My birthday is Tuesday but since I have business commitments that day, I am vainly trying to reschedule my birthday to this weekend. The family is skeptical.)

I don't really know how the AI works. I haven't recorded anything yet and most of the weekend has been spent watching FoxNews and science shows. I have flipped through the guide and told it up or down on a few shows but since yesterday was Saturday, my usual sitcom diet wasn't on.

Yet, today in the middle of a news report on Bill Simon's withdrawal, Tivo popped on and suggested I might like it to switch over and record Radio Days, a Woody Allen movie. I don't care much for Woody Allen but my husband does. So I gave it permission. I'm not sure what led it to think we would like such a thing.

BTW, yes, I know I've given up some of my privacy but heck I have a blog. Anyone who wants to know anything about me has ample access to information more revealing than how many hours a day Fox News is on.

Calpundit has posted the latest Microsoft Windows annoyance. Then he directs his readers that they are alllowed to bash Microsoft in the comments but they can't head off into the usual Windows vs. Mac or Windows vs. Linux discussion. Let's see how long that lasts.

In addition to my weekend stint here, I am doing a longer guest stint over at Southern California Law Blog while we all wait for his first child to be born. Drop by and pick a date in the Baby Pool.

Robert Prather notes that Howard Dean is raising so much money that he may forego public financing and rely entirely on his own warchest.

I've been hoping for some time that Bush would have the courage to eschew all public matching funds and spending caps. I'd applaud wildly if Dean (or whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is) were to do the exact same thing.

Campaign donations limits are an assault on the very core of the 1st amendment. Public financing of campaigns is repugnant to 1st amendment values, too. If both major party candidates were to eschew public financing and spending limits--which is exactly what they should do--we might finally see the end of the campaign finance restructions that have done so much to damage our democracy since the first limits were put in place back in the 1970s.

If we could only get rid of all that silliness, maybe we could get campaign finance laws that made sense, would make the system more accountable than it ever has been, and would (shock of shocks) actually be in keeping with American tradition:

1) No limits whatsoever on what individuals can give.

2) Anonymity as an option--but candidates must list each anonymous donor (not donation, but donor) and how much that individual anonymous donor has given.

3) Outright bans on corporate, union, and trade association donations unless raised in 100% voluntary manner.

4) Instant disclosure, in indexed form on the internet, listed by donor, so informed citizens can see who's given what, over what time period, and in total, and decide what they like or dont' like on the donor's list.

If Dean, Bush, and other candidates have the courage to this--which is not only smart, but also the morally upright thing to do--I could do nothing but applaud. In fact, my respect for Dean would go up several notches.

Our campaign finance laws are 1st Amendment-trashing garbage, and have been from day 1. Just about anything to help destroy them would be a good thing.

John Rosenberg has a fabulous takedown of some of the more bizarre statements coming out of the press about the California recall these days, as well as out of reporters writing about Howard Dean.

I am often given to saying that the words "liberal" and "conservative" and "left" and "right" really have no fixed meaning, and are often used to mean the exact opposite of their dictionary definitions. But I must admit, after reading his analysis even my head was spinning.

(Okay, I'm back to blogging, lightly, but I hope Justene will stick around a little longer...)

The Kolkata Libertarian has an interesting analysis of what's wrong with the transmission grid in the East. Although Governor Davis blamed the problems in California on deregulation of the utilities, apparently the problem is the East is that the transmission grid is not deregulated.

I returned from vacation last week to find a green hangtag on my door telling me that the new phone line was all hooked up on tagged on the main box at the side of the house. My first thought was "yippee" and my seond thought was "what new phone line?"

I put it aside to "deal with later." You know what that means. It will sit in a pile. Then it will move to another pile. Finally, I'll sort a pile and decide this paper is too old to matter and recycle it.

Then, we got the week's worth of mail being held at the post office. There was a lovely envelope from Sprint, address to some person I had never heard of at my address. Proudly displayed on the front of the envelope was Confirmation of New Service. Uh oh. Back to the piles to rescue the green tag. Sure enough, the names scrawled on the green tag matched the name on the envelope.

First, I called the number on the green tag designated for problems. I got voice mail. I called Sprint. I explained that a new line had been hooked up to my house without my knowledge or permission in someone else's name. The conservation went line this:

"What's the phone number?"

"I have no idea. I know nothing about this."

"What's your phone number?"

I give it to her.

"That's not a Sprint number."

Well, I kind of knew that. I explain the situation again. She explains that Sprint does not service this area and had nothing to do with it. I ask in my sweetest voice why then I had an envelope from Sprint confirming service. Her conversation-ending answer:

"I would have no idea."

Eventually, my husband talked to the man at the number on the green slip. He agreed it was a mistake and told us to return the confirmation letter to Sprint. We did. I have a feeling it's not over yet.

I am staying calm.

I recently received a perfectly nice and polite note from Geoffrey, who runs Dog Snot Diaries. I spent several minutes perusing his blog, which is pretty nice. I suggest you check it out. Besides, he's a Rachel Lucas fan, so that makes him cool. Anyway, Geoffrey's nice letter (I'm still calm) was expressing confusion over some odd comments I had recently left on his terrific blog on Thursday.

Problem. Until I got his note on Friday, I had never heard of Geoffrey, or his fine blog. I left three short comments today, trying to stay calm.

Geoffrey tells me that this person is posting from IP Address 213.133.123.131. The... person... is using my name and this web site's URL--plus an email address I never use in comments, but that points to this domain--to leave comments.

I am not hyperventilating. Nor am I reaching for my shotgun just yet. Because I realize that anyone can do this at any time. A friend might even do it to me as a little joke. And if that's all it is, a friend playing a little joke, I won't get mad.

But, friend or foe: I would like it to stop, please. Immediately, please.

By the way, my Reverse-DNS lookup can't resolve 213.133.123.131 or 132. However, a lookup on 213.133.123.130 resolves to hosting.2spirits.net, and a WHOIS on 2spirits.net shows me it belongs to someone in Germany (.de or Deutscheland). A Reverse-DNS lookup on 213.133.123.133 resolves to netweb-concept.de, which would also be in Germany, so I'd say odds are good that the .131 address is also somewhere in Germany, and tracerts seem to take us through Amsterdam before ending in Germany.

Anyone who knows me can vouch that I live in Michigan, which is kind of a long drive from the .de domain.

Anyone got better WHOIS or Reverse-DNS than I do? Sounds like this may be some American on a military base, although that's obviously not a given.

I am staying calm. But I'd like anyone who thinks they've seen comments which seem out of character for me to let me know (you either know me or you don't, but one hint is that when I get upset, I usually try to come back and apologize later. Also, in general I don't call people names unless I'm really, really, really mad, and even then you'll usually get an email from me later attempting to apologize.)

I am not upset, but I do want anyone who's doing this to me to please stop immediately.

I now return you to Justene, because I intend to go to bed and sleep soundly, knowing that this is not something to get too upset about.

The left wing of Hollywood is taking on Schwarzenegger (warning: link likely to expire soon) and discovering the law of unintended consequences.

Along with Hanks, pot-loving actor Woody Harrelson is set to join the fight against Schwarzenegger. "Woody is diametrically opposed to Arnold Schwarzenegger's political positions," a spokesman for Harrelson told PAGE SIX. "He does not support the candidacy."

Diametrically opposed? Since Arnold is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, what does that say about Harrelson?

He lays it out for us in today's Wall Street Journal. Here's a sampling:

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

It is not clear to be how increasing taxes and increasing government will increase the availability of capital for small businesses. I suppose he wants the government to hand out more SBA loans. Those are loans, not capital, usually secured by the business owner's home.

Dean (Howard, not Esmay) also presents a "problem" that I don't think is a problem at all:

One out of four U.S. workers is free-lancing, employed in a temporary job, self-employed or working part-time.

Trouble continues to brew in our largest city. THe deputy schools' chancellor favors progressive educational methods and has come under fire. Her response has been less than honest.

In a Daily News op-ed, Lam trumpeted the results of a recent U.S. Department of Education study comparing the reading and writing scores of New York City’s fourth graders with those of five other urban districts: Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Washington. In those tests, the city’s fourth graders ranked at the top of the six participating districts in writing and a close second to Houston in reading. According to Lam, “the results of this assessment show our pedagogical approach is sound.”

Unfortunately, Lam neglected to inform her readers that the tests represented a random selection of the city’s fourth graders from January through March 2002.

I took three 12-year-old girls (the pair and a spare) to see this movie this week. Hoping for quirky slapstick comedy, I flinched instead at the obviously mentally ill main character. If you don't want this movie spoiled, read no further.

We open the movie with the Brittany Murphy character unable to wake up from an all day sleepfest but then she shifts gears to manic mode and parties all night, plunging into an impulsive love affair. After what appears to be days of larger than life romance, the man insists on returning to real life and she plunges into deep depression. Unable to get dressed or answer the phone for days, she fails to notice that the gas and electricity have been turned off. She also has a serious problem with compulsive shopping.

Somehow, this erratic behavior and classic bipolar mood swings are presented as endearing. So we are supposed to anticipate more fun and frivolity when she is entrusted with the care of an 8-year-old. I was filled with dread and, indeed, my dread was confirmed when the 8-year-old wanders off (in the large weathly house). While looking for the child, our, ahem, heroine gets an unpleasant surprise and immediately forgets about the 8-year-old and instead runs off to attempt suicide.

Of course, this is Hollywood and there's a happy ending. This unstable behavior is treated like "magic" and everyone sings the praises of our heroine who miraculously gets over her problems without the necessary psychiatric intervention. Bah.

So Cal Lawyer and Mrs. So Cal Lawyer are having their first child soon (so I am guest blogging there too.) What every new parent needs, besides a diaper wipe warmer, is perspective. So here it is. First, my worst moment as a new parent:

I had twins. They were born 9 weeks early and suffered from sleep apnea. So they both came home with breathing monitors. When I fed them in the middle of the night, I unplugged them and then they had to be returned to their cribs and plugged back in. No sleeping and cuddling in mommy's bed.

One night, sleep-deprived from caring for two babies on different schedules, I dozed off during feeding. I woke up terribly upset that I had forgotten to put the baby I was feeding back to bed. I gathered up the child I thought was Amanda and wandered sleepily down the hall to the room with the zoo wallpaper and matching cribs.

I got to Amanda's crib and leaned over to put her in. To my surprise, Amanda was already sleeping peacefully, hooked up properly. I was a little surprised that I had confused them but I moved over to Madeleine's crib, only to discover Madeleine also sleeping happily. I looked back at Amanda's crib and then to the baby in my arms.

There was no baby in my arms. In my sleep-deprived state, I had actually begun to hallucinate.

To balance out that image of stressed-out parenthood, I offer you this marvelous post from Bill Hobbs. That's what makes those sleep-deprived nights worthwhile.

A couple of years ago, I picked up a gig in which I get to be a judge about 5 or 6 times a year. One of the most annoying things when I am judging is when the lawyers start fighting. Actually, it is the most annoying thing.

I'm trying to decide who is entitled to relief based on something that happened between the parties, often a long time ago. When I get a motion for more discovery or to exclude witnesses, I'm looking at one thing -- is this going to help me decide what happened between those parties that long time ago.

I couldn't care less who already asked the other side for x and what the response is or who's fault it is that settlement discussions broke down. None of that gets me where I need to be. I can literally feel my eyes glaze over and my shoulders tense up. Nobody cares.

The same is true of blog wars. Most of the readers don't care. Plus bad things happen that may or may not be related to the blog war. (No way am I taking a position on that question.) Nothing good has ever come of it.

Plus you get upset. Upset is bad. You may think you have righteous anger, which is good, but you're upset. Upset is bad.

Since I'm stressed and obviously a bit sensitive right now, I've decided to take a break from blogging. However, to save you all from boredom, I've asked one of my very favorite bloggers, Justene Adamec, to take over Dean's World for the next few days.

Please give her a warm welcome. Generally speaking, she rocks.

I also dedicate the following Spin Doctors song to two of my favorite bloggers: Michele, who loves superheroes. And also to Trinity, who is far more wonderful and strong than I think she realizes, but is more of a Lois Lane than I think she suspects (and no, you pervs, I'm not after her, I just often think she's after the wrong kind of man):

There's More...

Given the recent vicious smear campaign against Rosemary and me, I made a few efforts to offer an olive branch, hoping the dialogue would simmer down before I started responding on a point-by-point basis. Alas, I was only rebuffed and smeared some more.

So. I'm done. Anyone who doesn't want to read a weblogger-to-weblogger rant can just stop here. But if you want to know what I really think, and to see my defense of my incredibly wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent, and powerful wife can read on:

There's More...

Sean Kinsell recently forwarded me an article I wanted to share with you all. Feminist Fatale by Christina Hoff Sommers is a fairly devastating review of a book about Gloria Steinem, chock full of observations and insights that probably make it more worth reading than the book itself.

Sommers is, of course, regularly pilloried as a "right winger" and a "reactionary" and an "anti-feminist." Predictably so, for someone who, like Camille Paglia, frequently challenges Gender Feminist orthodoxy. What a great woman. I love her. And, for the record, I generally despise her (usually) mean-spirited, chauvinistic, and illiberal critics.

* Update * In the comments, Robin Roberts mentioned what I think is probably the most important book I've read in the last five years: The War Against Boys. I urge anyone--especially anyone female--who has at least one son college aged or younger to read it. Honestly. I'd buy copies for every mother I know if I could afford it.

I credit this one insight from the series with quite possibly saving my marriage during its more rocky periods in the beginning. In retrospect, it's also an insight that would have helped in half the rocky times I've had with most of the females in my life. Including my mother, my sister, and 2/3rds of my female friends. Since females have often made up the majority of my friends, that's not insignificant:

There's More...

Can you imagine piloting a model plane across the atlantic? It's impressive what some people will do in their spare time, isn't it?

(Thanks Casey.)

Mine is Bebe's Boobs Destroy Society. What's yours?

Check out this photo my brother-in-law Jerry Kondraciuk (I know too many Jerries!) got from Strangecosmos.com:



That's what last week's blackout looked like from space!

My good friend Jerry Kaufman, head of the Zionist Organization of America here in Michigan, recently gave a speech to the Farmington Michigan School Board, and reprinted his comments on his blog.

Jerry's my first blogchild, so I'm pretty proud of him. Check out his blog some time.

Ara Rubyan has started audio-blogging. His latest missive is here. I confess I'm hard-pressed to disagree with it, although a big part of me wants to believe that the continuing successes we've seen in America's War on Terror have improved odds of long-term success in the region.

Oddly enough, Ara seems better verbally than in writing. That's not a shot, by the way, but just an observation. I'm not sure my own work would be better in an audio format than it is in writing. I have long held the notion that my writing works better when it bypasses the auditory portions of the brain and goes straight in through the eyesockets. I'm not sure if that makes sense to others, but it makes sense to me. Although I may have to try this audio-blogging stuff some time, it looks fun. Too bad I'm too pressed for time right now to invest the energy in learning about the technology.

Blog-to-Blog pissing matches are tedious. Those of you not interested should just skip past this. But I'm going to make my offer public again.

There's More...

Right after the "The CIA sold crack in America's inner cities to fund the Contras" myth, the myth about American policies in Central and South America that bugs me the most is this one: "The CIA overthrew the democratic government of Salvador Allenda, in Chile, and they installed the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet to replace him." This story is common, and like a lot of untruths, has some elements of truth within it. It's just hard to know where to begin when telling people what's wrong with it.

Still, it's worth trying. The short version of what happened is as follows:

There's More...

Have I mentioned recently that we accept submissions?

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is now available over at James Joyner's place.

Andrew notes some bass-ackwards punditry regarding the California recall election. I am, quite honestly, sometimes floored by how utterly, completely, jaw-droppingly obvious points get missed by some professional pundits.

By the way, I'm not a pundit-basher as a rule. I like pundits. When they really are pundits, i.e. "wise men" (or women) who have insightful and interesting things to say. I'm just often appalled at what passes for "wisdom" in some of those circles. Richard Bennett notes another example of political stupidity in California, only this time it's stupid things Republicans are doing. Although I think he overlooks one point about national politics (which I'll get into later), I can't possibly dispute his knowledge of what's going on in California. Which is why I'll only generally only read people like Richard or Justene when it comes to things Californian.

Now here's my question: How many of you women think this new TV channel looks to be hilarious?

I'll bet you didn't know these folks still existed.

So. Who wants to be the first to laugh and mock this web site, or pretend that it's a fantasy or a joke?

By the way, be sure to read these stories before you start with the scorn.

I recently received a kind email from a very nice bisexual lady, who I'll name "K" to protect her anonymity. It was about some of the male-female, "battle of the sexes" nastiness that's been swirling around Dean's World lately. I wrote her a response that said some things that may have taken her aback, but I found them sufficiently provocative that I decided to re-post some of them here (with some editing, of course):

There is a monster in my living room right now, as I type this.

He weighs about 90 pounds. He has a long mouth full of sharp teeth and a jaw capable of putting down about 300 pounds per square inch of pressure. Also claws that have, just on accident, put scars on one of my arms. He could, at any time, rip my throat out in my sleep. Or kill my wife or child, similarly. Pretty scary, huh?

I'm not even kidding, by the way. He's physically capable of it.

It may surprise you, on the other hand, to know that he looks just exactly like this:

There's More...

Over at Charles Austin's place, I read about the efforts to blame Bush for last week's power outages. This is, of course, completely correct, but not the whole story.

I would, like to be on record as being the first to say that it was ultimately the fault of the homosexualists, the feminists, and the concomitant fall away from Godliness in America that caused those blackouts.

It's as obvious as the nose on your face now that I point it out, isn't it?

Wendy McElroy writes on the always-interesting iFeminists.com about the growing Marriage Strike among men. Much of it rang quite true for me, although I am married and intend to be for the rest of my life. Then again, I probably wouldn't have gotten married again if it weren't to a woman who I fully believed was totally committed to a lifelong relationship.

McElroy's proposed solution, however, strikes me as fanciful. While the notion of abolishing government-issued marriage licenses is interesting, and possibly very logical, it strikes me as incredibly unlikely to happen any time soon. Such sweeping changes don't happen very often in politics.

Still, there is absolutely no doubt that the law is deeply cruel to men in this area, and has been for some time. That so many misandrists of the world tend to haughtily sneer at that fact doesn't make it any less true.

* Update * I've also been meaning to link her The Great Lie column for some time now. You really should read it.

I'm an oddity among men. I don't much like sports, and never have. It's not that I'm allergic to them, or elitist about it. If you like 'em, good for you. But for me, whether it's football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf: I just pretty much don't give a damn. I do occasionally enjoy watching Sumo and other martial arts, or something like the X Games, especially because I've had extensive martial arts training and used to skydive. But even then, I have no interest in regularly watching any of it.

Of course, I recognize that I'm an oddball among men, and am okay with that.

Still, it's hard not to crack a big smile when you read stories like Shaun Micheel's, isn't it? It's such stories that are part of what draws people, particularly young people, into sports, I suppose.

Probably the most comprehensive overview of what happened with last week's power outage, and the various arguments over its causes, can be found here. You'll be reading for quite a while but you'll come away with quite a lot of understanding you probably didn't have before.

Jane Galt also has two terrific back-to-back posts on why the debate over regulation or deregulation's role in these blackouts is fruitless. What needs to be discussed is finding the best ways to make sure infrastructure improvements are made.

It should also be noted that, despite claims to the contrary, last week's power blackout was not the worst in the nation's history. It was "the biggest" only in the sense that there are more people in the country now, so more people were affected than the last two big ones. But the major outages in the 1960s and the 1970s hit bigger areas and likely would have hit more poeople than last week's outage did if the population back then was as big as it is now.

One thing I keep hoping is that things like this will help people get over their insane fears of nuclear power. After all, it remains the cleanest, safest, most environmentally friendly, and least harmful waste-producing method of power generation mankind has yet to develop. I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice to see.

* Update * By the way, while linking Jane, I might as well post to this terrific post on the Broken Window Fallacy that's being pushed by some people who think that last week's blackouts would "help the economy." Actually things like that are just another blow the economy didn't need--just like SARS, the Mad Cow stuff up in Canada, and all the other things that have hit this economy over the last three yars. We really can't afford more things like this, which do all kinds of harm and very little good.

Since I mentioned Jane's thoughts on silly economic notions above, I thought this was a good time to mention this terrific comic book version of the Road to Serfdom. Which isn't an economics treatise, exactly, but it's one of the most concise and devastating critiques of centrally-planned economic systems ever written. Pretty neat, although some would be quick to point out that central planning doesn't always go all the way down that road, as some would imply.

Still, it's the danger, isn't it? It's so easy to be seduced by that notion that if only the right people were in charge, the truly earnest ones, things would be better. And when things don't work out, it must be people who lack sufficient unity or are disagreeing merely because they are selfish....

(Hat tip: Craig Ceely.)

I have moved the "What Men Like About Women" and "What Women Like About Men" threads into our Best Discussions archive. By the way, if you ever notice a thread around here that you think is similarly worth highlighting, please let me know.

I don't know about you but I want this.

Republican Coolness!

I've always believed in God.

Always. Hook, line and sinker. I never had doubts. In college, I wanted to be a scientist. I took every biology and chemistry class I could. I loved it. In my mind, I kept my faith and my science separate.

Then one day, it hit me like a ton of bricks, why is believing in God incompatible with science? It's not. Not really.

There's More...

Starhawk asks "Rosemary, how do you find the kick on the 12ga.?"

Answer: I've never actually shot the 12 gauge. So, I can't honestly say.

The kick is more a matter of stance rather that size. Just make sure that she knows how to properly shoot and from there all things are possible.

The beauty of a finely honed pump action shotgun is that wonderful "Clickety, Click" sound that she makes. That is generally enough to twist the poop right out of a potential invader so shooting becomes unneccessary.

My experience is with rifles and handguns. In ROTC, I used your basic .22 for range practice and such. My Dad was also big on rifles so I did quite a bit of shooting with him when I was younger. He was a proud Papa when I became an expert Marksman. Handguns are different. I prefer a nice .357 Magnum (loaded with .38's) very powerful. A .38 special is my next choice.

Just remember ladies, in this case, it's not the size that matters - it's the proper stance. Learn how to shoot properly, practice at a range and the sky is the limit.

For Casey:I've got bigger arms than Linda Hamilton in T2. ;-)

Update It occurred to me that perhaps I should give you girls a tip on proper grip and stance for a handgun. Because without a proper grip, muzzle flip and recoil cannot be controlled, making fast and accurate shooting impossible.

Here it is:
A proper grip places both hands as high on the gun as possible, in order to align the axis of the bore more closely to the axis of the arms. This reduces the vertical component of recoil, thus reducing muzzle flip.

A proper stance brings the head down and forward, in order to keep the line of the arms parallel to the ground. Eliminating the upward slope of the arms also reduces the vertical component of recoil. This keeps the gun as a whole from rising during recoil.

The blackout was a pain in the ass, I assure those of you lucky to have missed it.

In the first hours of it, my thoughts were of heat and sheer annoyance. Totally ruined the ending of a nearly perfect "Esmay Family Day".

There's More...

The ex-dictator I despise most, save one, died yesterday. Idi Amin passed away, as I'm sure many of you have already heard, in a hospital bed, of natural causes, peacefully and in his sleep.

There is no justice.

In the meantime, the ex-dictator I despise the most, Mengistu of Ethiopia is still alive and well, and comfortably in Zimbabwe, under the protection of one of the sitting dictators that I despise.

There is no justice.

Then again, we did get this guy, which makes me all warm and toasty down to my toes.

Maybe there's a little justice.

If an American is kidnapped by these thugs, do you think an all-out declaration of war against Hezbollah would be a good idea?

Because I kinda do.

Dean Esmay is....
	My hero.
	A jerk.
	A commie pinko.
	A Nazi.
	A sexist neanderthal pig.
	A man trapped in a woman's body.
	Stupid.
	My dream date.
	Serbo-Croatian.
	Spooon!!!!!
Free polls from Pollhost.com

In Odd Girl Out, Rachel Simmons describes what she calls the "hidden culture" of girls. While I don't agree with everything Simmons says, I've definitely seen the behaviors she speaks of: the freighted silences, the distortion of others' words to make them look nefarious, treating others as non-persons even while in their presence, spreading rumors, name-calling, and so on, all in an effort to make the other person a pariah.

Which is not to say that men never do these things, or don't have their own sets of negative tools they use. In fact, men can be real brutes. They simply express it differently, most of the time.

Kate over at Electric Venom was recently the victim of what may just be the crowning achievement of such behavior, however. Go read her jaw-dropping tale of rumor-mongering to the point of psychotic obsession.

All because, apparently, she holds opinions that others don't like.

You know, I don't expect my friends to like each other. In fact, I've got friends who hate each other. I just tell them not to expect me to take sides. But I will say this: if anyone wants to back me into a wall and make me choose, have no doubt as to who I'll choose.

Last week, we had an amusing look at a "new" type of man being found in large metropolitan areas: the so-called metrosexual. ("Not that there's anything wrong with it!")

As my wife rode shotgun during the blackout this week, it occurred to me (Yes, I do think about things like this in such circumstances. What else would I be doing?) that, while the term "metrosexual" is meant to be humorous, what it's describing isn't new at all. In fact, we've had some perfectly good words to describe this type of man, for a long, long time. Those words would be dandy and fop.

Or, if you're really wanting to show your erudition, you can whip out coxcomb.

I of course could never be one of these. Not because I'm endowed with excessive machismo, but simply because I'm far too much of a sloven. Were I a woman, I'd even be a slattern, although not in the sense of being a floozy. (Well, I'd probably be one of those too, come to think of it.)

Now that I have shared this important information with you all, you may return to your normal lives.

When my grandchildren ask me about the great blog war, and upon which side I stood, I will tell them my war cry: Down with the puppy-blending, hobo murdering tyrant!

And I will tell them: This was my stand. I could take no other.

I was going to tell you all about the girl Erica and I saved, but David has the story already. My only question: how did he know?!?

Unless you've been living in a cave, you've probably heard that pretty much everyone in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and parts of Canada were without power the last 24+ hours. That included the Esmay abode: we've been completely unable to get online since about 3:00 pm on Thursday.

Given how heated things have gotten on some issues recently, maybe that's for the best. Plunging your head into contentious social issues is like sticking your head in a blender sometimes, ain't it?

Hey, seriously: I got an olive branch right here for anyone who wants one.

I will say this though: we live about 10 yards from the border of Inkster, Michigan, which erupted into riots within a few hours of the power going out. Excuse my French, but it was pretty fucking scary for bit there. We were sitting on our front porch and heard gunshots and almost-endless police sirens for a few hours there.

Which made it time to teach my son a particularly important lesson.

There's More...

If you ever find yourself in a combat situation, you may find these universal military hand signals useful.

(via #!/usr/bin/girl)

Have you guys noticed how wonderful most (most) of the men's comments were?

You know, it's surprising to some people, but the Jews consider themselves God's Chosen People for a reason: they're supposed to provide an example to non-Jews of what God thinks a righteous life is. They also are supposed to spread a message for Gentiles: spiritual guidance on what an upright life looks like.

Jews are required to live up to 613 commandments that are found in the Torah. Gentiles are required to fulfill only 7, but if they do, they're assured a place in the world to come.

What are those 7 commandments? They're called the Noachide Laws. They're named after Noah (of Noah's Ark fame).

I often find myself wondering how often modern Jews think about those, and how often they feel they are required to mention them.

(Thanks to Moe for helping me find that link.)

I've noticed lately that I'm starting to get trackbacks sent to me by people who are quoting me out of context, insulting me, and distorting things I've said.

Usually it's about gay marriage, or about my questioning gender-feminist assumptions. My jaw has actually dropped at some of the distortions. In a few cases, the comments struck me as incredibly unfair, and impossible to answer because, if someone is going to so blatantly distort what I've said, I have to assume they'll distort my responses, too. So should I provide links (i.e. trackbacks) to people who are attacking me and distorting my words? I think, "no," and delete them.

But then sometimes that seems petty, and I leave them so people make up their own mind about what my critics are saying.

I'm not sure which is the best approach.

I've managed to go about a year and a half without ever getting into a seriously personal bog-to-blog screaming match. So I suppose I was about due for one, because if you're moderately high-profile and like to discuss difficult issues, it's going to happen sooner or later. I'm just surprised at the de-linkings I've been getting, and the name-calling, from people I've supported on other issues, publicly and privately, and who I thought of as friends.

I've got pretty thick skin, but I don't mind saying this hurts.

Especially the feminists. Because you know what a reasonable response would have been, in my view? "Gee Dean you make a good point. Yes, obviously, a supermajority of men did support women's right to vote, even though there were so many women telling them that shouldn't do it. That's a good point. BUT...."

But I didn't get that. I got rage, and insults, and then when I apologized, I was told I was being condescending. I got messages from still others, bloggers I'd never heard of, distorting things I said.

At the same time, in email, and instant messages, and in a few comments and trackbacks, I got some really sweet messages from people (gay people and women, mostly) who were incredibly supportive. I would like to publicly thank all of them.

I suppose there's an element of "poor me" in these ruminations, and I don't like that. I know it'll be a while before I read Meryl or Judith's blogs again, because I've found their comments so personal and so hurtful. I won't delink them of course--they're good bloggers, people I agree with on many issues, and I'm sure many of you still enjoy reading them. I used to, and I suppose that when this all blows over I'll enjoy reading them again.

I still can't figure out what the proper protocol for trackbacks is, though.

* Update * Here's a few links you may want to follow, that may give you an alternative perspective on some of the issues we've discussed here the last few days. Aside from providing these links, I'm done (for now) with these discussions, as the psychic energy drain is overwhelming. In fact, I'm telling everyone now: I am no longer reading any comments left in any of the gay marriage or feminist threads. I'll leave the comments open, and you guys can slog at each other, or at me, all you want. But I won't be responding to them, and will probably wait several weeks before I even read them, if ever. But go ahead and have fun, I provide this blog in part as a forum for people who want to discuss and debate (that's the whole "liberal tradition" thang, ya know?).

Neat Site: iFeminists
Surprising site: In Susan B. Anthony's Footsteps
New perspective on marriage: The Marriage Movement
More on marriage: The Marriage Debate
Tolerance and inclusion: Interesting guy

Thanks to a reader, I recently came across this incredibly wonderful web site: The Marriage Movement.

Wow. These folks even have their own weblog: the Family Scholars Blog. Which just blows me away.

As man who's been through a divorce, and as a child of divorced parents, I understand why people are defensive about this subject. But I urge you to read the materials here, and think about them.

Marriage. What is it? Even though I'm not religious, to me it's a sacred thing. I hate when people treat it casually, and I think government has a role in encouraging people to adhere to it. I suppose some will think that makes me very conservative, but it's honestly how I feel.

I got a long, sweet note from a fairly upset gay man who said a lot of things I'd like to reprint, but he asked me not to. However, I'm going to snip out one small part, and respond:

Don't give up on us, okay? I don't mean me, whom you wouldn't know if you fell over me, but gay people as citizens in our free society. Hold us accountable for fucking up, treat us as equals holding civilization in trust, and don't shy away from hard conversations....It's your right to decide what you write about on your own blog, and taking on gay issues produces a torrent of abuse from both sides. But if responsible straight people throw their hands in the air, we really are well and truly fucked...

You know, honestly my friend, you made my day. I get moody sometimes, but it's notes like this that remind me that I shouldn't.

* Update * It does occur to me that a big source of friction here is something some people don't get: a lot of us view marriage as a huge commitment, not just to another person but to society as a whole. It upsets us that people are already abusing the privilege with marriages of convenience. Marriage is, or should be, a huge responsibility, one that we encourage people to do in exchange for some benefits. The benefits aren't huge when you get right down to it, because you can get most of them by other means. But in exchange for these benefits, we should be expecting certain behaviors out of people. Or at least expecting people to make their best effort at it.

I think gay folks need to really think about this because, while a lot of us don't say it out loud very often, we really do think of marriage as being incredibly important to society and its future. It's not religious fundamentalism that drives that, either. Not in most cases.

But you know, despite all the emotion, one thing I've noticed: the discussions we're having here really are pretty civilized, even if some of us (me no exception) sometimes get overwrought. I really appreciate that.

Those reactionary crazy women over at Right We Are have the latest Carnival of the Vanities up and running. Go check it out--hours of good reading at your fingertips!

I hereby officially apologize to Meryl and to Judith. Apparently my intended-as-gentle barbs and meant-to-be-thought-provoking historical perspective were interpreted as far more of an attack than I ever intended.

Blessings upon you both. Pax.

* Update * I got a comment recently from a third party, suggesting I had absolutely no historical references for anything I said. Actually I have a great deal, some of which I already linked, and more available for anyone who asks. Unfortunately, no one's bothered to ask. I find that disappointing. It tells me that ideology--and bashing people who challenge it--is more important to some people. Disappointing.

Last week, the inimitable Mrs. du Toit had one of the most fascinating and thought-provoking essays (and online debates) on gay marriage I'd seen in some time. I marvel at the way the woman's mind works, and agree with her on many things. I just don't agree with her on this.

At least, I thought I didn't.

There's More...

Ouch. Ouch.

He's right.

Damn it.

Communist Party in China formally embraces capitalism.

I just did a John Stewart-style double-take, and my mind is otherwise blank.

It's good news I.... think?

So. Last Friday I asked women to tell us what they liked about men. I found the overwhelming majority of the comments from women to be very positive, and highly enjoyable to read. Also, be sure to check the trackbacks.

Now I open up the discussion for the other set. Men, tell us what you like about women. Serious answers only are allowed. No bashing, no snarkiness, no bullshit. The question is simple: what do you like about women?

Yes, gay men may answer.

I'm already formulating my response, but I'm looking forward to hearing other men's responses. Note: I strongly discourage females from responding to this thread. A couple of men responded to the women's thread, which I wasn't entirely happy about, but it was kept to a minimum. I expect female responses to this to be similarly restrained--I want to hear men's voices.

One of the most pernicious myths, still unfortunately widespread in parts of the black community, is that in the 1980s, the American government introduced crack cocaine into America's ghettos, starting in Los Angeles, to help keep black people down.

It's a lie. It's always been a lie. But part of the conspiracy theory, if you hear it, also says that they used the money to help the Contras in Nicaragua. Or, alternatively, that the Contras sold the crack in Los Angeles to get it started, and the government encouraged them to do it.

It ain't so. But its widespread belief is incredibly corrosive. It leads a lot of black people to cynicism, to paranoia about their government, to believe that they are being kept down by white people, and so on. You can see it driving the politics in a lot of black neighborhoods, and you even see it cropping up in mostly-black cities like Detroit. It really is pernicious nonsense.

Reason magazine has a great review online of a book that, once again, peddles the same old "CIA sold crack to fund the contras and hurt black people" myth. It's from a few years ago, but it's still valid today. The review not only exposes the fraud, but also where the myth came from, why it's a fraud, and what really happened with drugs in Central America back in the '80s. It's dynamite reading. I recommend it highly.

I am a Catholic, a conservative and a married woman. I am among the 40% of Americans in favor of Gay Marriage. I am also in favor of gay adoption but that is a separate issue.

I wasn't always in favor of gay marriage it took some serious soul searching for me to change my mind. Open my mind would be a more apt description.
Because honestly my opposition was reactionary and I never really sat back and thought about why I was opposed. It wasn't because the Church told me to be against it because - regrettfully, I am not that good of a Catholic.

The change was in large part because of the thread Gays and Christians A Dialogue. It really made me sit back and think. I am fully convinced that I was wrong to oppose it and am much more at peace because of this discovery.

All of this got me thinking about the controversial comments made by President Bush regarding marriage being defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman.

What real difference is there between what Bush said and The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996?

There's More...

My buddy Meryl has resorted to the old, tried and true, deeply sexist cliche that if a man critizes feminist excesses and extremism, it means he is "threatened by strong feminist women".

No, Meryl. By most definitions I am a feminist, except for the rad-fem jerks who say you can't be one if you have a penis. I simply dislike the many misandrists who seized the mantle of feminism, and who peddle a lot of misogynist baloney about the women of American history being pitiful victims of an oppressive patriarchy.

And yes, whites did give blacks their civil rights. They should have given them to them from day one, but eventually, they did the right thing. Isn't it a wonderful thing? A lot of people at the time thought so, anyway.

I will also repeat that I do not, ever, post or say anything I don't mean and will not either stand by, or retract if I've made a major mistake. If you're getting pissed off, it's you and your issues causing it, not me. But please don't accuse me of being a cynic or a liar. That's cheap, and low.

I'll let the conversation with Kate stand without further comment, except to suggest that perhaps Meryl should read books like this one and not be so snotty about people who simply hold opinions she doesn't agree with.

I'll also say that if this message sounds extremely angry or snotty, it's not. Meryl's a wonderful writer and a good woman, she really is. She's just wrong about this.

Meryl implied that Dean is "threatened by strong feminist women".

So what exactly are you implying about me?

There's More...

The fabulous Courtney recently unearthed two excellent historical political cartoons from the early 1900s (here and here). These cartoons probably give a generally more realistic portrayal of the issue of women voters as it was seen by countless men in America in the 1800s and 1900s. We really need to be rid of this pernicious notion of "brutal men oppressing women" that's in so many people's heads.

In fact, those great cartoons reminded me that it would probably be good to note some of the hugely influential anti-suffragettes of history. The closet misogynists who typify so many "feminists" today will probably instinctively think of such women as meek, oppressed little namby-pambies who were only acting as mouthpieces for their brutish husbands. Some Christian-bashers will probably also assume that they were slobbering fundamentalists mouthing biblical platitudes. Which just goes to show how abysmally low our education system has sunk in matters of history.

No, the tremendously powerful and fascinating women who made up the huge Anti-Suffragette movement really should be hailed as feminist icons--and probably would be if feminism hadn't been hijacked by illiberal extremists. Because these were tough, thoughtful, well-educated, tremendously strong women who argued with vigor, sharp logic, and deep passion. Many of them later went on to help found the League of Women Voters after the 19th amendment passed. They reasoned that, once they lost their cause, it was important that women become educated and responsible voters. So they embraced the new reality with vigor.

It's really rather remarkable--in fact, could we say it was sexist? I mean, not just a majority of men had to ignore these women's objections, but a huge supermajority of them had to do so. And a huge supermajority of them did just that. Despite the fact that so many of their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters thought they shouldn't do it, or were at least deeply uncertain about it.

Worthwhile anti-sufragettes to examine include Annie Nathan Meyer and Ida Tarbell and Mary Humphry Ward and Helen Kendrick Johnson, but there were countless others. If you start researching those names, you'll start to discover still more names. There were literally millions of middle- and upper-class women of the 19th and early 20th centuries who fought passionately against giving women the vote. These were intelligent people who basically argued that the world should be divided into two spheres: the sphere of children, morality, and the future of the human race, where woman's influence was most important, and the sphere of politics, which was far less important and would only degrade the position of women.

Oh, and don't even try to suggest that they were all "conservative right-wingers," either. Many were, but many others were socialists, anti-poverty activists, and supporters of groups like Planned Parenthood.

Among the hidden treasures of the internet, I just found this amazing book: Woman and the Republic by Helen Kendrick Johnson. It's all right there online, since it's now in the public domain. I've browsed through it, and it's really rather remarkable. I defy anyone to go look through it and then come tell me that this was written some mousy little hausfrau or raving fundamentalist repeating platitudes put in her mouth by her big brute husband. Go on, try it.

Now let me repeat something I have said several times in the comments to my earlier articles on this subject: it is profoundly misogynist to suggest that women were brutally denied their basic rights by oppressive men prior to the passage of the 19th amendment. It's also profoundly misandrist--and if you don't know what "misandrist" means, I suggest that you start to learn.

In closing, I'll note that Mrs. du Toit has, in her typically riveting fashion, provided us with a little more history. She also notes where real women's power has always resided, and where it still resides to this day.

Oh, and by the way, Meryl: I never--and I do mean never--post an opinion just to "link whore," and am usually surprised by what gets linked and what doesn't . I do confess to tweaking you, but only to make a larger point. Which I still stand by. On behalf of your fathers, your grandfathers, and your great-grandfathers: you're welcome, my dears.

Jerry Kindall was recently upset to read a major mistake in Forbes magazine regarding selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressant medications. He's right that it was a pretty major mistake, and should leave us rightly suspicious of the reporting at Forbes--although I'm not sure this is any worse than mistakes on scientific and medical issues I've seen in other newspapers and magazines.

I was very sad to see that Gregory Hines passed away. Man, life just isn't fair.

(Thanks for the link, Casey.)

Dean was trying to tweak some feminists today. In the post, Special Message To Judith Weiss, Meryl Yourish, and Susan B. Anthony , he was looking for trouble. He also callously neglected to link two of his living targets.

There's More...

I grew up in an abusive household. I'll spare you the details.

Five and a half years ago, I became a father. Today, I had a conversation I'd been dreading for some time, but one which I always knew I would have to have.

Jake is going to be 6 in October. He has a number of playmates from the neighborhood, including a 9 year old girl who's a little bigger than him named Ashleigh. Ashleigh is a fairly poorly-disciplined girl. In fact, I have to admit it, she's kind of a brat. She enjoys provoking conflict, sometimes steals her playmates' toys, and enjoys starting fights. She is also notorious for ignoring the adults around her.

Today, she pissed off Jake enough that he hit her. And I finally had to have this conversation with him:

There's More...

In the early 20th century, an amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, which gave females the universal right to vote. It was the 19th amendment to that Constitution, and still stands as law today.

Of course, American men didn't have to pass this amendment. Indeed, had only 40% of them opposed it, it would never have become law. Furthermore, the historical reality is that millions of American women opposed this amendment. Many of them were college-educated, highly thoughtful, and deeply influential women, from all over the country, who thought that giving women the vote was a horrible idea.

Practically every American male, of any social class, had a wife, a sister, or a daughter who thought that giving women the vote was a horrible notion that would lead to ruin for the country.

Despite this, not only did a 2/3rds majority of the all-male House and all-male Senate vote to ratify the 19th amendment, but a majority of the males in a majority (3/5ths) of states in the Union also voted the same way. Even though most of them were close relatives and/or friends of women who thought this was a bad, or at least frightening, idea.

So, for Judith Weiss, Meryl Yourish, and all the other resentful feminists I know, I have a special message for you. It's from all the males of America. It's a message not just from us, but from your fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers:

YOU'RE WELCOME.

This is what I get for not reading Rand Simberg every single day. SpaceShip One and had a successful drop test on Thursday. That means she went up under White Knight's belly, disengaged...

...and glided safely back home on her own.



A few more tests, and they'll be ready to add a full-blown propulsion system to Spaceship one. Then, as Rand reports, only getting around the regulatory paperwork will likely cause any delays into her first true space flight.

You can find a lot more pictures here.

So. I knew it all along. All women are a little bit Libyan. Men, sadly, tend not to be at all Libyan.

Man. I wish I could be a Libyan. Libyans are cool.

In related news, an Australian group has a suggestion for grandmas.

That should make for an interesting conversation next Thanksgiving, eh?

(Via Tim Blair.)

Donald Sensing has some advice for metrosexuals which I completely endorse. What's a metrosexual? You'll have to read his piece to find out.

Come to think of it, though, I do have one objection. Only a metrosexual would buy an Italian product that wasn't a sports car. These poor young things need to be shopping here if they really want help with their affliction.

Have you met The Speculist?

How about The New and Improved John Weidner?

Have you seen Andrew Ian Dodge's new home? It's pretty groovy.

In a similar vein, thank God in Heaven Dave Mercer has a new home.

Also, you really want to meet Val Prieto if you haven't already.

Oh, and have you seen Chicago Report yet?

I obviously hit a hot button with that "Question for Women" thread. Over 30 comments and 10 trackbacks, all on a Friday night, which is normally a time of very low traffic around here. I know a few of you were uncomfortable with generalizing, but it's pretty clear to me that most women do think men are psychologically different, and find much to enjoy in that difference. I must say that I have found that heartening, because I'll let you femmes in on a little secret: much of the time, we men think you really don't like us much.

Then, I got into a fascinating discussion with Venomous Kate who is, despite her nom-de-plume, actually one fo the sweetest, kindest, and most generous people I've ever run across online. She's also smart as a whip.

We started talking about the "What Women Like About Men" question, and then swerved into a conversation about women. Here's a lightly-edited transcript:

There's More...

Some suggest the West is doomed in its fight against fascist Islamism because we are soft, weak, pampered, and have no firm convictions. I'm rather astounded that after our work in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, that anyone would still say that. Some ideas just never die, I guess, and must be constantly fought.

Armed Liberal takes up the task this time, and does it well. Be sure to read about his lunch with Sumi, too.

I was recently infuriated to find out that the Michigan Democratic Party no longer allows voters to nominate candidates for office. Voters can only choose delegates for their local precincts. Delegates are then free to choose whatever candidate they want, free from the influence of the pesky voters.

So, ironically, Michigan's Democratic Party is far less democratic than Michigan's Republican Party. It also means that if you want to have an influence on the political process in Michigan, you're better off registering as a Republican, because then at least you can influence who that party nominates. I may have to switch my registration now.

This really bothers me because I intended to support Joe Lieberman in the primaries nexty year. Although maybe it's for the best, since I recently discovered that he is actually Senator Palpatine.

Going into the weekend, I would like to ask this question:

What do you like about men?

I'm not even kidding. I seriously want to hear the answer. Even if you're a lesbian. I want to know what you like about those of us who were born with testicles.

Serious answers only are allowed. No bashing, no snarkiness, no bullshit. The question is simple: what do you like about men?

I look forward to reading your responses.

Of "Gigli," Ben Kepple sez:

I hated Ben Affleck’s performance in Gigli. I hated Jennifer Lopez’s performance in it. I hated the soundtrack. I hated the work of Martin Brest, the director and screenwriter responsible for this violence against the cinematic arts. I hated the studio which gave Brest $54 million to make this putrescent film. I hated the unknown party within that studio who greenlighted this miserable production because he or she thought it would be great to give Bennifer a vehicle as they cavorted into autumn. Speaking of autumn, let me assure you that even though they have nothing to do with Gigli, I even plan to hate this studio’s upcoming releases for the fall season. That’s how much I hated this movie.

I'm thinking that, in his heart, he really liked it

(Go read the rest of his hilarious review here. Although, be forewarened: he thinks The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is the best Western ever made. Oh Ben, Ben, Ben--I hardly knew ye!)

I got an interesting email recently:

You are likely aware (I see from your post) that your Governor Granholm was born in British Columbia, and moved to California at about age four. I mention this because....... that babilicious young Cunuck actually lived her teenage years over my back fence in San Jose! (Had a major crush on my brother, I do believe). She was rather close to my sister, and thus my family in general.

We basically lost touch, and we had heard that she was attorney general or something, and we fell out of our chairs on election night when she showed up as top dog over there.

So the reason I write you is..... Do you have any good web links that I could keep up to date with what she is up to? I've gone to newspapers in Lansing and Detroit (by web), as well as the State web page, but I'm just wondering if there are any "Michigan blogs" or just a good page that follows her on a day to day basis. I'm GOP, so she and I are gonna butt heads, but God Bless her for what she's done and is doing. I still can't get over it. (Man, she was cute, certainly to a 13 year-old me, make no mistake.)

I have no idea if there are any good online sources to follow the Governor's activities. However, I suspect that someone who reads Dean's World might. So tell me: do any of you have any recommendations?

Today, John Cole illustrates the hypocrisy of the party of the rich, and the struggles they're facing in the wake of our new campaign finance laws.

Robert Prather asks people to list those they believe to be the greatest among Americans. List-making is always fun, so I'll play along. Although I have one caveat: no living person shall make my list.

Thus, the Greatest Americans are as follows, according to Dean:

There's More...

"It is impossible for a man to love his wife wholeheartedly without loving all women somewhat. I suppose that the converse must be true of women."

---From The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

A young friend, who'd been complaining for some time about his unhappy bachelorhood, recently met a girl. His quote about her? "She is just SO INCREDIBLE in every way." They spent a weekend together, and now they're talking on the phone and communicating via email more than ever.

Man. Isn't that nice to hear? My only advice to my young charge:

Persue it for all it's worth, young man. Seriously. Life is way too short, and there's almost nothing worse than wondering what might have been.

Michael Gersh has me thinking about buying a cigarette machine. Mind you, I haven't been a regular smoker for almost six years, but I'm thinking my wife might like to follow his path....

While I think Californians are flirting with chaos to throw out a sitting governor, I will say that I'm delighted with the Schwarzenegger candidacy. If the recall election doesn't happen, I hope the guy runs in 2004.

There's just so much to like about the guy, and his story. Not least of which is his having chosen to become an American.

About six months into George W. Bush's Presidency, the well-known and respected conservative publication, National Review, suggested that Bush should propose to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become President. Currently the Constitution requires that you be native born to be President, but they suggested that it was time to change and that Bush would be smart to invest some political capital in the idea. Don't laugh: these are the kinds of magazines where such ideas often first get floated.

Well, 9/11 happened and obviously priorities shifted. The idea disappeared. I find it interesting, however, that Senator Orrin Hatch has resurrected the citizenship requirement amendment. Almost two years after 9/11 and in the wake of the Schwartzenegger candidacy, this seems a perfect opportunity for the idea.

I for one am all for it. I'd like to see something like a 25 year residency requirement, or something along those lines. But it seems like a great idea. It's also something that would be very much to the credit of the President, if he were to pick this ball up and run it.

By the way, it's not just celebrities like Schwartzenegger who might benefit. We have other foreign-born citizens serving elective office. Our governor here in Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, is also foreign born. She's a shrewd politician, and works well with the Republican majority in the legislature, proving that she'd probably be an able Presidential candidate. Mind you, I wouldn't vote for her since I believe her abortion views are too extreme, but, I can't deny that it's a shame she'd be denied an opportunity based on the fact that she emigrated here as a child.

I was going to let the whole predestination thread go, but I was recently fascinated to read Randy Brandt's thoughts on the subject (Randy is one of my favorite people in God's kingdom, he really is). Then Mac's scathing rebuttal of Randy's scathing comments just added to my fascination.

I'm not sure why these discussions interest me so much. Given my professed non-belief in the supernatural, you'd think I'd just say "feh!" and ignore the discussion. But the doctrine of predestination was one of the key notions that drove me out of the Christian fold when I was a teenager. I have always thought of it as the most hideous possible condemnation of God. It ultimately portrays God as a gigantic, creepy 12 year old boy who enjoys pulling the wings off of flies, using magnifying glasses on anthills, and torturing kittens--with his so called "love of man" really indicating that man is his favorite torture victim.

The notion that every evil and horrible thing that's ever happened is specifically due to God's will--from the Holocaust to Stalinism to the rape of Nanking--simply fascinates me. It self-evidently (to me) belies the doctrine that God is good or loving or just. It's more like God expects us to mouth those platitudes because they please him, like a torturer who enjoys forcing his victims to ask him for mercy. Or a weird puppet master who delights in mutilating most of his puppets.

In short, the Calvinist notion of predestination has long struck me as follows: God Is The Ultimate Sadist, and We, His Worshipful Masochists, Praise Him For It.

I'd also have to wonder why anyone would ever bother preaching the Gospel if they believed in predestination. What would it accomplish? Obviously, God's already determined who He'll save and who He'll torture for all eternity. So do you only preach the Gospel because your puppet master demands it? And you praise him for forcing you to do pointless things?

I suppose the answer is that "We preach the Gospel because the Cosmic Sadist Demands It. Praise Him for his sadism, his sadism is a terrible and beautiful thing!"

Oh, and by the way, before someone calls me a blasphemer? Just remember: You must believe that God made me write every word of this essay. You should praise God for making me write these glorious words that reveal His will. I never could have written them if he hadn't determined long before my birth that I would write them.

Seriously guys: Calvinism is either nutjob lunacy or a satanic heresy.

I'm serious.

I don't live in California. So it's really none of my business. But if I lived in California, I would vote NO on recalling Gray Davis. Yes, even though I'm deeply alienated from my once-beloved Democratic Party these days, and even though I find Davis deplorable.

Recall should be for when you discover that your Governor told inexcusable lies about his opponent, the kind that would stand up in court as actionable slander. Or you found out he had either a live boy or a dead girl in his bed. Something truly, hideously inexcusably wrong. Then you recall a guy. Otherwise you, the voters, made your choice, and the last thing you do when your state's in horrible instability is create more instability.

I wish Governor Davis luck in maintaining his seat. It isn't even as if most of the problems are really his fault. Yes, he lied a lot about the power crisis, which was in large part his fault. But (most) of the economic woes cannot be laid on his head, and the budget crisis is more the legislature's fault than his.

Having said all that: I probably would vote for Arnold in the eventuality that Davis were voted out.

But I, quite seriously, hope he isn't voted out. A Schwartzenegger governorship would be entertaining and might even be fruitful, but if so he should run a general campaign to make that happen for real.

Some months ago, a rumor was circulating that when Iraqis gave Americans the "thumbs up" signal--which they do quite a bit--this was really an Iraqi gesture that is the equivalent of flipping someone the bird in America.

That rumor is false. It means the same thing there that it means here: "Yay, great, cool!"

This rumor that it's a negative gesture was thoroughly debunked some time ago. Since it's raised its ugly head again, John Cole is debunking the thumbs-up rumor yet again.

Justene is proposing to develop a formalized code of ethics for webloggers. This promises to be controversial, as I'm already disagreeing with one of her proposals.

If interested, you may want to go check out her discussion and leave her some of your thoughts.

Joe Katzman invokes Jane's Law today ("The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.") to explain recent behavior from Democrats, and to then read them the riot act over their recent behavior. His analysis is quite good, but I think he misses an important point. It's one that many others keep forgetting, too:

There's More...

Mike Wendland's got a nice roundup of new weblogging technologies that are likely to accelerate the blogosphere's expansion.

I remember when I started blogging I worried that too many voices would reduce my own. Then I realized that's silly. The more the merrier--come on in gang, the water's fine!

From the California shore to New York City

The beat don't never stop

You can hear it on the radio,

anywhere you go

It's steady as the rhythm of a clock

It cuts through the noise of the city life

It won't seem to go away

It's the devil in disguise

I tell you no lies

My fingers do the walking everyday


Yonder come a young girl,
she wants to take a whirl
She thinks it's all a dream
She got rock and roll,
way down in her soul
She wants to know, "Where's the limousine?"
Get up honey let your mama sit down
You're too young anyway
The devil in disguise give her the prize
Then you can carry her away

---From Grasshopper.

Across The Atlantic, one of the more interesting weblogs, is hosting this week's Carnival of the Vanities, with a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" theme no less.

Jane Galt has a terrific article that dovetails nicely with stuff I said earlier today ("Some People Need To Get Out More"--yes I used that title before I read her piece). It's a wonderful analysis of the insularity that can start to afflict people who simply can't make themselves fathom that an intelligent, thoughtful, learned, unselfish, non-evil person with an unclouded mind could genuinely believe what they say they believe, and might actually have data and well-thought-out opinions to support those beliefs.

My favorite quote:

"I think that one of the major problems we face, as Democrats, is that our policies are all about nuance and deep intellectual focus on maximizing the welfare of the public at large, while Republicans are a pack of venal liars who want to kill poor people and minorities. The American public seems to be far too stupid to understand the subtle genius of our ideas. How do we, as Democrats, overcome that?"

It goes on from there, and just gets funnier.

Of course, as she rightly points out, Republicans face the same danger. I could say more but just go read the whole thing. I disagree with her on a couple of minor points, but I'll comment on that later. Meanwhile, I'd like to point out this perfectly priceless, utterly clueless rant, and then simply ask you: can you tell any difference between that and the fake rant Jane printed? I don't think you can. (Hat tip: Marduk on that last one.)

In response to the 20 Worst Americans In History thread, MJ said this:

Hillary? She's a caustic bitch, but that wouldn't even make her the worst in my family.

Classic.

It all started when Josh Marshall suggested that Bush-haters are eerily like Clinton-haters. About which he is completely correct, except he seems to think he's the first to notice it. Which tells me he needs to start reading more conservative publications and more weblogs written by people who like Bush (whether they're particularly "conservative" or not), who frequently document the deep-seated, decades-long animus clearly held by some against George W. and his family.

But anyway, then Kevin Drum suggested that paranoid, ranting Bush-haters are a much smaller percentage of the population, or far less important anyway, than the Clinton-bashing-loonies of the 1990s. Which I take to mean that the people who believe that Bush "stole" the 2000 election and plans to declare himself dictator are more rational than the people who believed that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and plotted to turn the U.S. over to United Nations control. Either that, or he means such people are rarer. To which I can only say respond that neither seems to be the case from where I sit.

Matthew Stinson, John Cole, and a Big-Armed Woman have further thoughts on this matter that you all should read. They make their points well, but I'm going to add a few things that they didn't point out.

I continue to hear from people who want to tell me about how the Reagan and Bush '41 administrations sold cocaine in America's inner cities so they could keep black people oppressed and fund the Contras in Central America. I remember, with some embarassment, how in my Reagan-hating days I took stuff like that seriously, too. In fact, I used to say things a lot like this: "Well, I don't know if it's true, but reasonable people have good reason to think it might be! And doesn't it just add to the pattern of corruption and lies we see out of these racist Republican bastards?"

Today, to an awful lot of us, it looks like there's a veritable cottage industry on the Left whose sole function is to find some way to spin every debateable point, and anything which could be explained as a perfectly defensible human error, into proof that Bush is stupid, incompetent, evil, or controlled by sinister people--only whether it's the so-called "neocons," the Jews, or the oil and pharmaceutical industries who are the ultimate force behind Bush seems to vary from person to person. In any case, such people seem to dominate among Governor Dean's supporters, and also seem very fond of the "Bush stole the 2000 election and plans to suspend elections and declare himself dictator" mindset. Which is one of many reasons why I say the Dean campaign looks more and more like Pat Buchanan's all the time.

It has long seemed to me that the great intellectual problem for most self-described liberals today--by which I mean left-liberal Democrats--is to assume that because they call themselves liberals, that means they and those who agree with them are axiomatically open-minded, fair, and tolerant of dissent and thus, by extension, that those who disagree with them have no "tradition of fairness or interest in seeing the other side's point of view." Which is, quite frankly, a crock of shit. In fact, I view it as proof positive that conservatives quite often have a very good point when they call liberals elitists.

I take solace from the fact that raging hatred for the President--which looks every bit as prevalent to me here in 2003 as it did in the middle of the Clinton years (or in the middle of the Reagan years, for that matter)--may just be a permanent part of American politics. I recall ridiculous allegations and axiomatic-assumption-of-guilt being levelled against every President of my adult life, and I see no evidence that it's any better or worse today than it's ever been. Yet the Republic continues to thrive.

Perhaps we can even say that one of the reasons it thrives is because we turn such hatreds to partisan bickering, office-cooler rants, and op-eds in the newspapers, rather than guns and knives.

I'm sure some people love this, but this sure creeps me out. Seriously, doesn't the EEOC have anything better to do?

No, probably not, come to think of it.

Hey, Kiddo. You've got friends out here, even if it seems like you've made some big mistakes and gotten yourself into some nasty drama. Just remember, we're all human, we all make bad decisions. We can't control our past, but we can definitely choose our future.

Also, by the way, you should also listen to Handsome. I mean, you really, really should listen to him, because every word of what he said in your comments is right.

Every word.

Robert Prather notes a recent news story saying that "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" (PETA) has helped fund the Earth Liberation Front.

Well. Now we have another reason to find PETA deplorable, don't we?

QuasiPundit has some thoughts on the recent Bush brother feud to which I can only add: I'm with Jeb.

It's true that the law is clear, which gives the President a credible excuse. But he's also got options he could be exploring--and should be.

Young Ben Kepple plunges his head into the Christian debate over predestination--doubtless because he is aching for dozens of messages from Calvinists telling him why he's wrong.

I think he makes some awfully good points I think, even if some Protestants will reject his use of Catholic dogma to bolster some of his points. I, for the life of me, have never quite been able to fathom certain Protestants who wish me to simultaneously believe that God is infinitely loving and yet intends to torture the vast majority of humanity for all of eternity because they "deserve" it if they've ever committed even one of the most minor of sins--and why they wish me to believe that this is, somehow, "good news." Or, even more oddly, that it is "infinite justice," as if executing my child for lying about stealing a cookie makes for perfect justice.

The rationalization for this always seems to come down to, "God is all that defines good or evil, so if he decrees it, then it's good." Which I suppose I can accept. I just for the life of me cannot imagine ever loving such an infinitely hateful being, nor can I ever imagine worshipping it. If I honestly believed that was true, I'd be a Satanist.

Which, I suppose, a hard-core Calvinist would suggest that I was destined from the beginning to become. Thus proving that my few decades on this Earth merely prove that millenia of tortures more cruel than any human being could carry out are my deserved fate.

Funny stuff, that. You'd almost think it's the kind of thing that'd turn folks into brights, wouldn't you? :-)

Hmm.

John Hawkins surveyed a number of bloggers, including myself, to list who they thought were the 20 Worst Figures in American History, and he published the results last night.

You know, I've often thought John should drop the whole "Right Wing" focus and title of his blog. I'm sure he's proud to be a conservative, but when I look at some of the stuff that made it onto his published list, it brought home for me just how--what's the word? "Extreme?"--people get when they identify too strongly with partisan positions. I mean, honestly, I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, but is she really worse than Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, or Aaron Burr?

Conservatives of America, as a sometime comrade-in-arms, I just need to tell you: some of you guys need to get a grip!

Still, it was fun to take part in John's survey. To make it interesting, I tried to restrict my list to 20th century figures, just because it seemed like Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold were too obvious as choices. I came up with 18 choices from the 20th Century, and one from the 19th century that most haven't heard of, but should know about.

Note that my list is in no particular order, although some of my choices are obviously worse than others. Doubtless my list will not please everybody, but I'll stand by them:

There's More...

I have it on good authority that she's not a day over 29.

Hmm. A porn merchant is threatening legal action against Fritz, based on this wholly innocuous bit of satire. (Yes, you can look at it, it's work-safe and even family-safe.)

Anyone want to give him a bit of free legal advice? I'm not a lawyer but from what I know, he can probably tell this guy to go to hell. It's certainly what I'd do. I doubt any judge would listen to this story for more than five minutes without throwing it out of court. But maybe I'm wrong.

Well, here I am playing in Dean's World with virtually unfettered control. Oh, the thrill of the power! The temptation to indulge in some Venomous Fun (tm).

I'll try to use my powers for good. Really, I will.

Starting with this...

There's More...

I've asked Kate to be our guest blogger for this weekend. Hope you're all kind to her, she's such a sweet thing...

There's a certain genre of music that goes by the name "Jam Bands." Most people haven't heard of it, but it's my favorite type of music. For years I've tried to explain about this kind of music, but most people didn't understand. Well at least now we have a label.

So what is a jam band?

There's More...

The incomparable Charles Austin has moved off of blogspot and onto the Spleenville server. Update your links and favorites!

We had an interesting discussion back in May about women in combat. Only women were allowed in that discussion, although we opened things up a bit in a subsequent thread. What I found most fascinating is that half the women gave a firm "yes," half were unsure or said no---but the majority of those who said "yes" also said firmly that it should be allowed only if the women could meet the same physical requirements.

But it is a matter of cold, hard reality that the overwhelming majority of women cannot meet those requirements. There's also a natural urge for men to protect women. Indeed, I suggest that this urge is biological and cannot be changed absent some fairly brutal and probably dangerous psychological methods.

Which is why I've long believed that if we're going to have women in direct combat roles, they should probably have all-female units. This way operations can be structured to play to compensate for female weaknesses and also play to female strengths.

Well, it looks like the Israelis have decided to do exactly that. They had terrible experiences trying to integrate women into combat operations with men in the past, so it seems like they've learned that lesson while still finding a way to beef up their armed forces. Which strikes me as quite reasonable. We ought to be doing something like that here.

Meryl has some cogent thoughts on the matter in a different direction: why do so-called political liberals constantly crap all over Israel, when it's easily the most socially tolerant, freedom-oriented nation in the entire Middle East?

Andrea makes a good point: railing against people you disagree with, especially traditionalists, isn't the best way to go about things. Indeed, I'd suggest that it is more likely to backfire and hurt your cause than help it. There are much better ways to get what you want.

Just because some traditionalist says "sex outside of marriage is sinful," "divorce is always wrong," etc., there's no reason to get wigged out. Making one's points cogently by the normal political processes usually works better from what I've seen.

Slate editor Dahlia Lithwick has written an excellent piece on the bizarre nature of our sexual assault laws. I found myself agreeing with everything she had to say.

Although I will make one point she should have: if we're not going to release the names of women who accuse men of rape, we shouldn't be releasing the names of the men they accuse, either.

* Update * Donald Sensing has some further thoughts on the matter that you should probably read.

Are you aware that, even today, Kevin McGehee still has not one single picture of Mary Kate & Ashley Nude?

I mean, none at all.

What's up with that?