So I've been trying to follow the "coup" in Honduras. Why? Because I just love it when the democratically elected congress of Honduras, supported by both the Supreme Court and the Constitution decide to do whacky things like use the Army in its constitutionally mandated role to support the popular will and remove a threat to stability. It's all so cloak and dagger. Very Che.
Here's how it works: The Constitution in Honduras limits presidential power to a single term. The people, being wise Latinos, recognized that there is something in the Central and South American political psyche that leads to strong-man dictatorships. So, they rather cleverly decided to build in protections, like term limits and the smart choice not to allow military figures to hold power for even a single day. Then this Zelaya guy comes along, after winning by the skin of his teeth, and decides he needs more than one term to accomplish his social agenda (and presumably attend more cocktail parties at his buddy Hugo's place). The Supreme Court notifies him that it is unconstitutional. So he tries to get Congress to change the constitution. Not only does Congress refuse, but they point out the Constitution actually explicitly forbids constitutional amendments regarding term limits. So Zelaya tries to hold a plebiscite, which the Supreme Court declares an illegal action (mainly because the President doesn't have that authority, Congress does and they weren't playing ball). Now the President decides that the law doesn't really apply to him, and he (this is my favourite part) publicly tells the Supreme Court and Congress that he is going to do what he needs to in order to stay in power anyway. He also gets Hugo Chavez to give him a ringing endorsement. Green Berets worldwide perked up like dogs hearing that silent whistle, and started lacing up the old jungle boots. But, darn it all, before those big bad Americans could start another jungle civil war, the Hondurans dealt with it themselves. Congress, in an emergency session, invoked the Constitution yet again (seeing a theme here?) and used the Army to arrest the President. They then voted in an interim President, and started getting ready for an election. Here's the weird part: rather than summarily executing Zelaya, as is the usual practice, they hustle him in his PJs onto a plane for Costa Rica. I bet Isabelle Allende is pissed.
And yet, somehow, this is a coup! It's bad! The will of the people, and the Law have been broken. Why? Because Barack Obama said so. The cognitive dissonance of having to agree with a US President must be making Chavez's head explode.
So, to summarize, the legitimately elected Congress of Honduras, in accordance with the Constitution, used the Army in a limited police action to prevent de facto dictatorship. And the "Free World" is pressuring them to take Zelaya back. It's almost like an Arnie movie...
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Tyranny that is Public Healthcare
Well, dear readers, it's time for yet another reader request. This one is for you, DJ!
I'll begin with a personal anecdote. In my final year of college, 48 days to graduation for those who know what it means, I was engaged in my last fencing practice of the year. Our team had just won the OUA championships, and we were out for some final fun before we parted ways for the summer. One of my younger teammates, Oli, wanted one last match. I had already half stripped out of my gear, but you don't get to be a sabre medallist by refusing challenges. We weren't fighting that hard, just the comfortable friendly strife of old opponents, when my left kneecap dislocated. It wasn't Oli's fault; I was executing a standard dodge (the pass short) tha I had done thousands of times before. The uneven gym floor, the dust, the fact that my IT bands were overdeveloped: all these were contributing factors. Suffice to say, it's a frighteningly agonizing injury. Regardless, we called the ambulence.
For those of you not aware of how the Canadian system works, you just call an ambulence, it shows up, it takes you to the hospital, and you flash your public health insurance card. Supposedly fast and foolproof. I'm a bit of a special case, but that part doesn't change (I just notify my employer, and somewhere in Ottawa the cost of my treatment goes from one budget to another). Unfortunately, due to the inherent inefficiencies of government run ANYTHING, my simple knee dislocation happened to fall on a shift change. Due to budget shortfalls, the City of Kingston shared EMS with the Leeds and Grenville County EMS, who use smaller ambulences. And are not totally familiar with Kingston geography. Thus, my ambulence took 20 minutes to find me (even though I was literally a 20 minute walk from the hospital). When it arrived, the paramedics were exhausted and at the end of an 18 hour shift, with 2 hours to drive to get back to their home station. Their ambulence stocked painkillers from their home station, not the hospital, so when they got to me there was literally nothing left but pure morphine, which can only be administered in cases where the pain might cause someone to die. While driving me back to the hospital, they took a couple of wrong turns, so it took 15 minutes to get back. And their oxygen tank ran dry after 5. Don't get me wrong- they were competent and caring paramedics. They were just exhausted and abused by a system that doesn't work.
When I got to the hospital, it took 4 hours to be seen by a student doctor specializing in oncology, who put me in a splint that actually made my injury worse. I was x-rayed to ensure no bone damage, but there were no MRI machines available. It took 6 and a half months to get an MRI, and that was rushed because my job gets a higher priority than the average bear. And here's the kicker: all hospital MRIs were overbooked, so I went to a PRIVATE CLINIC in Halifax.
I once visited a buddy of mine in Philly, and stayed at some guest housing that happened to be in a hospital outbuilding. I discovered that there are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia than there are in my entire country. Population of Philadelphia? 1.5 Million. Population of Canada? 32+ Million. And you're telling me that somehow the economics of a single payer government controlled system will ensure fair healthcare for everyone? It's garbage. Canada had a comparable death rate from SARS to Namibia. The head of the Canadian Medical Association put an article in the National Post on how healthcare in Canada desperately needs reform. Health Canada itself actually put out a statement telling people that if they get sick, they should go to hospitals. Why? Because a common-sense model accounting for hospital overcrowding (and based on the SARS data) showed that if the Bird Flu became an epidemic, people should stay home and let doctors come to them, because going to the hospital increased your risk of fatal infection.
Americans love to quote statistics. The last one I can remember stated that 50 million people in the US have no healthcare coverage at all. That truly is tragic, and something should be done. But not by government. The ingenuity of the free individual is the solution. Corporations provide healthcare to their workers because it makes them more productive. The competitive environment ensures reasonable pricing. Everyone claims that in Canada, healthcare is free. That is also garbage. Talk to me when you start earning more than 55 thousand dollars a year in Quebec. And you end up paying 49.3% of your income in taxes, not including sales tax or gas tax. Then talk to me about how an inefficient, criminally negligent system is still better because "it's free".
I'll begin with a personal anecdote. In my final year of college, 48 days to graduation for those who know what it means, I was engaged in my last fencing practice of the year. Our team had just won the OUA championships, and we were out for some final fun before we parted ways for the summer. One of my younger teammates, Oli, wanted one last match. I had already half stripped out of my gear, but you don't get to be a sabre medallist by refusing challenges. We weren't fighting that hard, just the comfortable friendly strife of old opponents, when my left kneecap dislocated. It wasn't Oli's fault; I was executing a standard dodge (the pass short) tha I had done thousands of times before. The uneven gym floor, the dust, the fact that my IT bands were overdeveloped: all these were contributing factors. Suffice to say, it's a frighteningly agonizing injury. Regardless, we called the ambulence.
For those of you not aware of how the Canadian system works, you just call an ambulence, it shows up, it takes you to the hospital, and you flash your public health insurance card. Supposedly fast and foolproof. I'm a bit of a special case, but that part doesn't change (I just notify my employer, and somewhere in Ottawa the cost of my treatment goes from one budget to another). Unfortunately, due to the inherent inefficiencies of government run ANYTHING, my simple knee dislocation happened to fall on a shift change. Due to budget shortfalls, the City of Kingston shared EMS with the Leeds and Grenville County EMS, who use smaller ambulences. And are not totally familiar with Kingston geography. Thus, my ambulence took 20 minutes to find me (even though I was literally a 20 minute walk from the hospital). When it arrived, the paramedics were exhausted and at the end of an 18 hour shift, with 2 hours to drive to get back to their home station. Their ambulence stocked painkillers from their home station, not the hospital, so when they got to me there was literally nothing left but pure morphine, which can only be administered in cases where the pain might cause someone to die. While driving me back to the hospital, they took a couple of wrong turns, so it took 15 minutes to get back. And their oxygen tank ran dry after 5. Don't get me wrong- they were competent and caring paramedics. They were just exhausted and abused by a system that doesn't work.
When I got to the hospital, it took 4 hours to be seen by a student doctor specializing in oncology, who put me in a splint that actually made my injury worse. I was x-rayed to ensure no bone damage, but there were no MRI machines available. It took 6 and a half months to get an MRI, and that was rushed because my job gets a higher priority than the average bear. And here's the kicker: all hospital MRIs were overbooked, so I went to a PRIVATE CLINIC in Halifax.
I once visited a buddy of mine in Philly, and stayed at some guest housing that happened to be in a hospital outbuilding. I discovered that there are more MRI machines in the city of Philadelphia than there are in my entire country. Population of Philadelphia? 1.5 Million. Population of Canada? 32+ Million. And you're telling me that somehow the economics of a single payer government controlled system will ensure fair healthcare for everyone? It's garbage. Canada had a comparable death rate from SARS to Namibia. The head of the Canadian Medical Association put an article in the National Post on how healthcare in Canada desperately needs reform. Health Canada itself actually put out a statement telling people that if they get sick, they should go to hospitals. Why? Because a common-sense model accounting for hospital overcrowding (and based on the SARS data) showed that if the Bird Flu became an epidemic, people should stay home and let doctors come to them, because going to the hospital increased your risk of fatal infection.
Americans love to quote statistics. The last one I can remember stated that 50 million people in the US have no healthcare coverage at all. That truly is tragic, and something should be done. But not by government. The ingenuity of the free individual is the solution. Corporations provide healthcare to their workers because it makes them more productive. The competitive environment ensures reasonable pricing. Everyone claims that in Canada, healthcare is free. That is also garbage. Talk to me when you start earning more than 55 thousand dollars a year in Quebec. And you end up paying 49.3% of your income in taxes, not including sales tax or gas tax. Then talk to me about how an inefficient, criminally negligent system is still better because "it's free".
Saturday, July 18, 2009
As Promised, Why Fat People Piss Me Off
Believe it or not, this is actually related to culture and politics. Max, enjoy.
In our culture today, like no other time in history, we have fat people. I'm not talking jolly, rotund, pleasantly plump. I'm not talking your Italian grandparents, or your comfortable middle-aged retired factory worker. Carrying around a few extra pounds at a certain age is part of the human condition.
I'm talking people who need mechanical support to get around. I'm talking young women who walk around in spandex that is audibly weeping. You know when you bend one of those cheap forks at Harvey's, and the black plastic turns white from stress? I've seen that happen to pleather pants.
Aside from the obvious aesthetic problems, why do I hate fat people so much? It's because they are the expression of cultural weakness. The inability to master your body, or at least hold it in check, is a symptom of your inability to become an adult. Our whole society is centred on removing as much responsibility from the equation as possible. Eat too much McDonald's? It's ok, the government will regulate the size of the portions they can serve you. Heaven forbid that you should just choose to eat there less frequently, or even more unthinkably exercise more to make up for your grease intake. In our society, addiction is always someone else's fault. Whatever happened to individual willpower? I love the hashbrowns at McD's. Love them. Could spend days eating them. There is a McDonald's on my way to work. It would be easy, so easy to eat breakfast there every day. It would actually be about the same price, too, considering the price of milk and cheese and eggs (I like to cook a decent breakfast). And yet, I get up an extra half hour early, make my breakfast, put in a lunch bag, and go to work. Luckily for me, work involves a morning workout. I eat my breakfast at my desk, and indulge in some coffee.
All this to say that I made a choice. I accepted responsibility for my own body, and what goes into it. I'm not perfect, but I don't need a government agency or ad campaign to tell me that too many burgers makes Morgan a fat boy. Tragically, and contemptibly, many people do. I had an interesting conversation with an attractive older woman at the bar last night. She is a cancer survivor, and she found it unthinkable that I should be against government healthcare. I told her it's simple. I know my drinking will lead to illness or injury inevitably. If the government provides my healthcare, it also has the right to tell me when and how I can drink. I didn't agree to this; in Canada it is fait accompli. I would rather live 60 years as a free individual than 80 years as a serf. Serfdom in Canada is leisurely and not unpleasant physically, but it is still serfdom.
Fat people have embraced serfdom. It's weakness. Worse still, it is weakness being actively supported and enacted by the benevolent tyranny that is the nanny-state. And they aren't even resisting. After all, I doubt they have the endurance for even that much activity.
In our culture today, like no other time in history, we have fat people. I'm not talking jolly, rotund, pleasantly plump. I'm not talking your Italian grandparents, or your comfortable middle-aged retired factory worker. Carrying around a few extra pounds at a certain age is part of the human condition.
I'm talking people who need mechanical support to get around. I'm talking young women who walk around in spandex that is audibly weeping. You know when you bend one of those cheap forks at Harvey's, and the black plastic turns white from stress? I've seen that happen to pleather pants.
Aside from the obvious aesthetic problems, why do I hate fat people so much? It's because they are the expression of cultural weakness. The inability to master your body, or at least hold it in check, is a symptom of your inability to become an adult. Our whole society is centred on removing as much responsibility from the equation as possible. Eat too much McDonald's? It's ok, the government will regulate the size of the portions they can serve you. Heaven forbid that you should just choose to eat there less frequently, or even more unthinkably exercise more to make up for your grease intake. In our society, addiction is always someone else's fault. Whatever happened to individual willpower? I love the hashbrowns at McD's. Love them. Could spend days eating them. There is a McDonald's on my way to work. It would be easy, so easy to eat breakfast there every day. It would actually be about the same price, too, considering the price of milk and cheese and eggs (I like to cook a decent breakfast). And yet, I get up an extra half hour early, make my breakfast, put in a lunch bag, and go to work. Luckily for me, work involves a morning workout. I eat my breakfast at my desk, and indulge in some coffee.
All this to say that I made a choice. I accepted responsibility for my own body, and what goes into it. I'm not perfect, but I don't need a government agency or ad campaign to tell me that too many burgers makes Morgan a fat boy. Tragically, and contemptibly, many people do. I had an interesting conversation with an attractive older woman at the bar last night. She is a cancer survivor, and she found it unthinkable that I should be against government healthcare. I told her it's simple. I know my drinking will lead to illness or injury inevitably. If the government provides my healthcare, it also has the right to tell me when and how I can drink. I didn't agree to this; in Canada it is fait accompli. I would rather live 60 years as a free individual than 80 years as a serf. Serfdom in Canada is leisurely and not unpleasant physically, but it is still serfdom.
Fat people have embraced serfdom. It's weakness. Worse still, it is weakness being actively supported and enacted by the benevolent tyranny that is the nanny-state. And they aren't even resisting. After all, I doubt they have the endurance for even that much activity.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Sufficient Causes for Evil, Small-Scale and Large
As an addendum to the tale of hurt feelings from last week, I have yet another cultural point to make. This weekend, I was recounting my story of publicly calling out a woman for poor behaviour to another beautiful woman of my acquaintance. She was horrified. She demanded to know what gave me the right to embarrass someone in public as I had. I made some small effort to explain that once you are in public, you can be called out for poor behaviour, but my acquaintance would have none of it. She got hostile to the point that she demanded that I leave. I politely made my farewells and left, thoroughly dissappointed.
What gave me the right? First of all, we were in public. Your behaviour in public must adhere to certain standards. If you behave in an offensive manner, you should expect that someone will be offended. I was offended by the Queen Bee's callous treatment of her friend. Rather than whisper behind her back, or go to some "higher authority", as the petty grievance-mongers do, I addressed the issue head on. What gave me the right? Decisions are made by those who show up. I was present. That was right enough for me to speak my mind. I am an autonomous human being with the courage to speak my mind. Secondly, the fact that the Queen Bee was embarrassed does not make me the oppressor in this situation. If I had deliberately embarassed her out of a sense of malice by pointing out something not tied to her behaviour, then yes I would have been wrong. However, I was (in my own harsh way) pointing out that her behaviour was unacceptable. It's very simple; if you do not want to be embarrassed in public, do not behave in a manner that can lead to embarrassment. More bluntly put, if being called a bitch in public embarrasses you, don't be a bitch in public.
The larger cultural point is that we live in a society where pointing out the truth is seen as secondary to avoiding conflict. We don't mention the hypocrisy of the Muslim world (rioting over the murder of one Muslim woman in Germany, while remaining silent over the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Darfur)* because we don't want conflict. We refuse to admit that there are concrete biological differences between men and women, because we don't want to offend feminists. Criticism of a politician is deflected by accusing the critic of being bigoted toward the identity group to which the politician belongs (Sarah Palin, Barack Obama. Both sides are guilty). Society begins to decay when we become so hide-bound by unspoken rules that the truth cannot be said. Janet Napolitano's bizarre jargon regarding terrorism is case in point. Eventually, through linguistic obfuscation, the truth becomes unrecognizable. Refusing to talk about something doesn't make it go away; it aggravates the underlying problem.
In both my personal issue with the Queen Bee, and the wider cultural point, one can return to an old adage. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that a good man do nothing. A refusal to speak out is not only a permissive cause, but a sufficient cause to bad behaviour. The Queen Bee abused her male friends because no one ever called her out for it. Muslims in the Arab street continue to riot at the drop of a hat because no one has the courage to publicly denounce them for it. The absurdities of the "culture wars" raging around Sarah Palin and President Obama carry on because no one has the nerve to stand up to the shrieking masses who cry "bigot".
Civility is to be prized. Courtesy is a fine treasure. Honesty trumps both.
*Tarek Fatah, as always, earns my respect for pointing out this hypocrisy in a decent article in the National Post. Despite the fact that his honesty earns him death threats from other Muslims, one must temper the respect with the acknowledgment that as a member of a protected identity group, Fatah has an easier time speaking the truth. To date, a Human Rights Commission has never seriously investigated a member of a visible minority.
What gave me the right? First of all, we were in public. Your behaviour in public must adhere to certain standards. If you behave in an offensive manner, you should expect that someone will be offended. I was offended by the Queen Bee's callous treatment of her friend. Rather than whisper behind her back, or go to some "higher authority", as the petty grievance-mongers do, I addressed the issue head on. What gave me the right? Decisions are made by those who show up. I was present. That was right enough for me to speak my mind. I am an autonomous human being with the courage to speak my mind. Secondly, the fact that the Queen Bee was embarrassed does not make me the oppressor in this situation. If I had deliberately embarassed her out of a sense of malice by pointing out something not tied to her behaviour, then yes I would have been wrong. However, I was (in my own harsh way) pointing out that her behaviour was unacceptable. It's very simple; if you do not want to be embarrassed in public, do not behave in a manner that can lead to embarrassment. More bluntly put, if being called a bitch in public embarrasses you, don't be a bitch in public.
The larger cultural point is that we live in a society where pointing out the truth is seen as secondary to avoiding conflict. We don't mention the hypocrisy of the Muslim world (rioting over the murder of one Muslim woman in Germany, while remaining silent over the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Darfur)* because we don't want conflict. We refuse to admit that there are concrete biological differences between men and women, because we don't want to offend feminists. Criticism of a politician is deflected by accusing the critic of being bigoted toward the identity group to which the politician belongs (Sarah Palin, Barack Obama. Both sides are guilty). Society begins to decay when we become so hide-bound by unspoken rules that the truth cannot be said. Janet Napolitano's bizarre jargon regarding terrorism is case in point. Eventually, through linguistic obfuscation, the truth becomes unrecognizable. Refusing to talk about something doesn't make it go away; it aggravates the underlying problem.
In both my personal issue with the Queen Bee, and the wider cultural point, one can return to an old adage. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that a good man do nothing. A refusal to speak out is not only a permissive cause, but a sufficient cause to bad behaviour. The Queen Bee abused her male friends because no one ever called her out for it. Muslims in the Arab street continue to riot at the drop of a hat because no one has the courage to publicly denounce them for it. The absurdities of the "culture wars" raging around Sarah Palin and President Obama carry on because no one has the nerve to stand up to the shrieking masses who cry "bigot".
Civility is to be prized. Courtesy is a fine treasure. Honesty trumps both.
*Tarek Fatah, as always, earns my respect for pointing out this hypocrisy in a decent article in the National Post. Despite the fact that his honesty earns him death threats from other Muslims, one must temper the respect with the acknowledgment that as a member of a protected identity group, Fatah has an easier time speaking the truth. To date, a Human Rights Commission has never seriously investigated a member of a visible minority.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Slight Regression, but a Larger Cultural Point
I know that I promised MITW would be less scandal oriented, but I swear this story is relevant.
Last night at the bar, I was bantering with a pretty blonde, and she had what my brother likes to call an "Orbiter". This man, like an asteroid or small moon, was caught by her gravitational field. Orbiters do all the things boyfriends do but get no sex, and more importantly no respect. This young woman threw out a particularly demanding whine at the fellow, and out of reflex I responded "dude, she is not hot enough to treat you like that". Everyone around me, and I really do mean EVERYONE looked at me like I had spat on the pope. For the next hour or so, a good friend of mine who is otherwise a cool dude kept badgering me to apologize to her because, and I quote "She's a big deal man. Well connected here".
To steal a line from R.S. McCain: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!?
Seriously. Firstly, this is Fredericton. It's a small town, where everyone knows everyone. This young woman is well connected? That's really quite odd, as some of my friends are local business owners (including the owners of the club). Hell, my landlady brought the freakin' Premier of the Province to my birthday party! I know what well connected is. Whenever I hang out with well connected people, they introduce me to others of their kind. IE "Hey, Morgan you should meet XXXXX. He's the local RCMP section chief, good guy." Not once, in almost five years, have I been introduced to this young woman. She's not a person of interest in any way that matters. She is simply a beautiful woman, which segues nicely into:
Morgan's Third Law of Party: Beautiful Women Have Easy Lives. Cheerfully Correct This Whenever Possible!
That's right. I made this young woman's life just a little harder with a smile on my face. Anyone who ever got picked on in highschool can tell you that on the scale of emotional violence, my comment ranks somewhere around "Sorority Pillow Fight". So when she reacted with an almost overwhelming level of hostility, I understood what my friend was telling me. For your ease of understanding, "She's well connected" translates to "She's the queen bee; you may never get laid in this town again". Fair. The price I pay for my ideals.
I promised you a wider cultural point, so I will give it to you. Our society has adopted the Classical Greek philosophical addiction to beauty to a degree beyond all reason. Beauty earns a degree of tolerance unheard of by others. Celebrities at nightclubs (this generation's iteration of artists in Salons) get lenience directly proportionate to their beauty. Everyone's horror at my behaviour came from the cultural reaction that things that are beautiful are to be respected or obeyed.
Time to wake up, gentlemen. Despite my disdain for the Bible, I will quote it by saying now that we are men it is time to put away childish things. Respect is earned by BEHAVIOUR. I am no iron-willed stoic. I will admit that I like pretty things. I'll admit my baseline tolerance is a little higher. However, the death of masculinity is tolerance for poor behaviour. Children behave badly in public. Dogs ruin furniture. Beautiful celebrities get drunk and flash everyone. And it all gets tolerated because they're so cute/beautiful. Bite it. If you can't harden the %@$# up and discipline people who need it, don't expect to last long in a conversation with real people.
I. Will. Not. Apologize. For. Being. Right.
Pretty girls, you have been warned. I am a real man. Earn my respect by being a real woman.
Last night at the bar, I was bantering with a pretty blonde, and she had what my brother likes to call an "Orbiter". This man, like an asteroid or small moon, was caught by her gravitational field. Orbiters do all the things boyfriends do but get no sex, and more importantly no respect. This young woman threw out a particularly demanding whine at the fellow, and out of reflex I responded "dude, she is not hot enough to treat you like that". Everyone around me, and I really do mean EVERYONE looked at me like I had spat on the pope. For the next hour or so, a good friend of mine who is otherwise a cool dude kept badgering me to apologize to her because, and I quote "She's a big deal man. Well connected here".
To steal a line from R.S. McCain: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!?
Seriously. Firstly, this is Fredericton. It's a small town, where everyone knows everyone. This young woman is well connected? That's really quite odd, as some of my friends are local business owners (including the owners of the club). Hell, my landlady brought the freakin' Premier of the Province to my birthday party! I know what well connected is. Whenever I hang out with well connected people, they introduce me to others of their kind. IE "Hey, Morgan you should meet XXXXX. He's the local RCMP section chief, good guy." Not once, in almost five years, have I been introduced to this young woman. She's not a person of interest in any way that matters. She is simply a beautiful woman, which segues nicely into:
Morgan's Third Law of Party: Beautiful Women Have Easy Lives. Cheerfully Correct This Whenever Possible!
That's right. I made this young woman's life just a little harder with a smile on my face. Anyone who ever got picked on in highschool can tell you that on the scale of emotional violence, my comment ranks somewhere around "Sorority Pillow Fight". So when she reacted with an almost overwhelming level of hostility, I understood what my friend was telling me. For your ease of understanding, "She's well connected" translates to "She's the queen bee; you may never get laid in this town again". Fair. The price I pay for my ideals.
I promised you a wider cultural point, so I will give it to you. Our society has adopted the Classical Greek philosophical addiction to beauty to a degree beyond all reason. Beauty earns a degree of tolerance unheard of by others. Celebrities at nightclubs (this generation's iteration of artists in Salons) get lenience directly proportionate to their beauty. Everyone's horror at my behaviour came from the cultural reaction that things that are beautiful are to be respected or obeyed.
Time to wake up, gentlemen. Despite my disdain for the Bible, I will quote it by saying now that we are men it is time to put away childish things. Respect is earned by BEHAVIOUR. I am no iron-willed stoic. I will admit that I like pretty things. I'll admit my baseline tolerance is a little higher. However, the death of masculinity is tolerance for poor behaviour. Children behave badly in public. Dogs ruin furniture. Beautiful celebrities get drunk and flash everyone. And it all gets tolerated because they're so cute/beautiful. Bite it. If you can't harden the %@$# up and discipline people who need it, don't expect to last long in a conversation with real people.
I. Will. Not. Apologize. For. Being. Right.
Pretty girls, you have been warned. I am a real man. Earn my respect by being a real woman.
Sarah Palin steps aside as Governor, Probably going to run for President
The Other McCain has far superior coverage of this than I ever could. The thing I like best about McCain is that he is a genuine, old-school reporter. I'd love to see someone photoshop an image of him as the 20s style press man, complete with fedora and press card. I am also in agreement with him regarding his disdain for young journalism grads who demand recognition by virtue of writing skills.
So here is my caveat. I am not a reporter, nor am I claiming journalistic integrity. This analysis comes from my training in Politics, my time as a debater, and the logical training I have received from groups that will remain unnamed (read the disclaimer at the top, you should be able to figure it out). I recognize my disagreement is precocious. I invite any who disagree to attempt to reeducate me over cocktails in DC the next time I'm down.
That being said, I am going to risk the Blog-Sensei's wrath and that of the right-wing blogosphere by saying this:
Nominating Sarah Palin is a bad idea.
Allow me to enumerate my points before I get flayed (which will probably happen anyway). Firstly, and foremost in my mind, she is indelibly tied to failure. I challenge any of my American readers to find me a recent (last 30 years) candidate who has overcome the stigma of a previously failed ticket. From what I can see, the American body politic is unforgiving of failure. Unfair as it might be, the MSM will be able with great facility to equate Sarah Palin's policy with the idiocy that was the McCain campaign. Don't get me wrong, Palin may be able to gather and synthesize some great policy, but if no one know about it, what good will it do?
Secondly, Sarah Palin is too public. What do I mean by this? Essentially, Sarah Palin is already into the rough and tumble game of sparring with the media. She's had a spat with Letterman, she's been backstabbed by McCain campaign staff, and despite its patent silliness, the whole Trig thing just won't go away. The Republican party has been brutalized in the public sphere, and Sarah Palin was there when it happened. The grassroots are saying "Varus, give me back my Legions!" and Sarah Palin can offer nothing but the tattered standard of the survivor of a massacre. It doesn't matter that her own behaviour may have been exemplary. What is needed now is for a relative unknown to step in from the wings, and offer a narrative greater and more legitimate than President Obama's. The strength of the Republican grassroots has always been the claim to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" story. Sarah Palin had that chance, but blew it on the McCain '08 campaign. Every minute she has spent in the public eye since is another opportunity for lies and spin, and another obstacle to be overcome.
Finally, I will present my most personal reason for being uncomfortable with a Palin '12 ticket. She is far too similar to the standard Democratic candidate for my liking. I apologize to any fervent Palin fans out there, but I have yet to see any proof of a high-calibre mind. By no means is she an Obama-style stuffed shirt, but I just don't see the political killer instinct. The "Sarah Barracuda" claims are interesting, and a great story, but I just don't see the proof. Unfair a stage as it was, Palin was objectively and irretrievably annihilated in the Couric interview. Yes, I know that they were unfair questions, and yes I know that Palin's responses were logical and reasonable. My point is this: logical and reasonable are reinforcement, not the lead! They are the muscle in the arm, not the blade itself. Rhetoric is the blade, and it's edge must be viciously keen. Once you've pierced the liberal armour of ignorance, logic and reason give you the strength to reach the vitals. When Palin realized that Couric was doing a snow job, where was the attitude she had during her Convention speech? When someone mugs you, you don't politely hold them off. You beat the f*** so badly that when the police come, they need a paramedic with them. Or, failing that, you run. Palin sat there and took it. No dice. Until someone can prove otherwise, Palin's Convention speech, while magnificent, cannot really be credited to her as anything other than eloquent delivery.
In the tradition of my training, I will now do something unheard of in the land of snark. I have identified a problem, so it's only right that I should offer a solution. Try this out for a template for a better candidate than Palin:
Somewhere in the Mid-West, there is a mother of 3 who is involved in low-level politcs. Some kind of voluntary association that has been given municipal authority- town council, volunteer committee, church council, whatever. The woman is a thorough professional- teacher, lawyer, anything where public speaking is common. She's a soccer mom who hangs out with her girlfriends at the gym, jogging club, etc. Her kids play football, her son being defensive tackle or something like it. She homeschools to supplement what they learn at school. Her husband is in public service, real public service- policeman, firefighter, construction. Something physical. He's the strong, silent type who stands in the back of the meeting hall with his little girl sleeping in his arms, a gentle smile on his face as his wife owns the room with fire and passion.
Most importantly, the candidate has to be reluctant, but once persuaded to run absolute hell to manage. Her campaign staff should be in despair all the time, as she rides roughshod over them and ignores how it's always been done. Some of you may notice that my template plays to identity politics; she's a mother, a woman, professional, good looks with a perfect life. Yes, yes I am playing to identity politics. But my point is that her life is a direct result of her political belief. The vast majority of gorgeous, desirable, and challenging American women I know (you know who you are) are products of a fierce desire for personal liberty and the resistance of socialism. It isn't wrong to show the American people the proof that Conservatism works.
I now stand for cross examination. Paramedics are standing by.
So here is my caveat. I am not a reporter, nor am I claiming journalistic integrity. This analysis comes from my training in Politics, my time as a debater, and the logical training I have received from groups that will remain unnamed (read the disclaimer at the top, you should be able to figure it out). I recognize my disagreement is precocious. I invite any who disagree to attempt to reeducate me over cocktails in DC the next time I'm down.
That being said, I am going to risk the Blog-Sensei's wrath and that of the right-wing blogosphere by saying this:
Nominating Sarah Palin is a bad idea.
Allow me to enumerate my points before I get flayed (which will probably happen anyway). Firstly, and foremost in my mind, she is indelibly tied to failure. I challenge any of my American readers to find me a recent (last 30 years) candidate who has overcome the stigma of a previously failed ticket. From what I can see, the American body politic is unforgiving of failure. Unfair as it might be, the MSM will be able with great facility to equate Sarah Palin's policy with the idiocy that was the McCain campaign. Don't get me wrong, Palin may be able to gather and synthesize some great policy, but if no one know about it, what good will it do?
Secondly, Sarah Palin is too public. What do I mean by this? Essentially, Sarah Palin is already into the rough and tumble game of sparring with the media. She's had a spat with Letterman, she's been backstabbed by McCain campaign staff, and despite its patent silliness, the whole Trig thing just won't go away. The Republican party has been brutalized in the public sphere, and Sarah Palin was there when it happened. The grassroots are saying "Varus, give me back my Legions!" and Sarah Palin can offer nothing but the tattered standard of the survivor of a massacre. It doesn't matter that her own behaviour may have been exemplary. What is needed now is for a relative unknown to step in from the wings, and offer a narrative greater and more legitimate than President Obama's. The strength of the Republican grassroots has always been the claim to the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" story. Sarah Palin had that chance, but blew it on the McCain '08 campaign. Every minute she has spent in the public eye since is another opportunity for lies and spin, and another obstacle to be overcome.
Finally, I will present my most personal reason for being uncomfortable with a Palin '12 ticket. She is far too similar to the standard Democratic candidate for my liking. I apologize to any fervent Palin fans out there, but I have yet to see any proof of a high-calibre mind. By no means is she an Obama-style stuffed shirt, but I just don't see the political killer instinct. The "Sarah Barracuda" claims are interesting, and a great story, but I just don't see the proof. Unfair a stage as it was, Palin was objectively and irretrievably annihilated in the Couric interview. Yes, I know that they were unfair questions, and yes I know that Palin's responses were logical and reasonable. My point is this: logical and reasonable are reinforcement, not the lead! They are the muscle in the arm, not the blade itself. Rhetoric is the blade, and it's edge must be viciously keen. Once you've pierced the liberal armour of ignorance, logic and reason give you the strength to reach the vitals. When Palin realized that Couric was doing a snow job, where was the attitude she had during her Convention speech? When someone mugs you, you don't politely hold them off. You beat the f*** so badly that when the police come, they need a paramedic with them. Or, failing that, you run. Palin sat there and took it. No dice. Until someone can prove otherwise, Palin's Convention speech, while magnificent, cannot really be credited to her as anything other than eloquent delivery.
In the tradition of my training, I will now do something unheard of in the land of snark. I have identified a problem, so it's only right that I should offer a solution. Try this out for a template for a better candidate than Palin:
Somewhere in the Mid-West, there is a mother of 3 who is involved in low-level politcs. Some kind of voluntary association that has been given municipal authority- town council, volunteer committee, church council, whatever. The woman is a thorough professional- teacher, lawyer, anything where public speaking is common. She's a soccer mom who hangs out with her girlfriends at the gym, jogging club, etc. Her kids play football, her son being defensive tackle or something like it. She homeschools to supplement what they learn at school. Her husband is in public service, real public service- policeman, firefighter, construction. Something physical. He's the strong, silent type who stands in the back of the meeting hall with his little girl sleeping in his arms, a gentle smile on his face as his wife owns the room with fire and passion.
Most importantly, the candidate has to be reluctant, but once persuaded to run absolute hell to manage. Her campaign staff should be in despair all the time, as she rides roughshod over them and ignores how it's always been done. Some of you may notice that my template plays to identity politics; she's a mother, a woman, professional, good looks with a perfect life. Yes, yes I am playing to identity politics. But my point is that her life is a direct result of her political belief. The vast majority of gorgeous, desirable, and challenging American women I know (you know who you are) are products of a fierce desire for personal liberty and the resistance of socialism. It isn't wrong to show the American people the proof that Conservatism works.
I now stand for cross examination. Paramedics are standing by.
Justice Sotomayor gets *&%$^-Slapped, Hilarity Ensues
So, the SCotUS decided recently that race statistics alone are not good enough to determine the value of a test for hiring practices. To recap what happened: a bunch of firefighters in New Haven, CT, wrote a test to determine whether they should be eligible for promotion. White guys and latinos scored well enough for immediate promotion, whereas not a single black applicant scored any better than a "future promotion" grade. The city, for fear of being sued by blacks, threw out the test results. In a fit of poetic justice, the white and latino applicants sued. Justice Sotomayor, in a cowardly unsigned opinion, declared that the city was justified, as a lack of diversity and the threat of being sued were justification enough to drop the test. In essence, she told the white firefighters that their demographic could be oppressed at will. Naturally, the lads used their constitutional right to appeal to a higher judicially activist body. Their faith in the court system is clearly greater than mine.
Shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the white and latino firefighters were right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we have legalistic confirmation that affirmative action is code for racism, just with a different victim. Lovely. Naturaly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a screeching dissent, decrying the precedent being set. After all, without victim identity groups, how will Democrat politics work? However, even that raging loon couldn't defend Justice Sotomayor's unsigned opinion. Ginsburg wrote something about Sotomayor not having the time in such a minor ruling to fully delineate her arguments, but I would say it's a poor workman that lets someone else blame his tools. Regardless, despite a split decision, the Supreme Court was in agreement that Justice Sotomayor's reasoning was either just plain wrong or so poorly articulated as to carry the same weight.
So where do we stand? I really think Ann Coulter says it best; "This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."
Mrrrow!
Shockingly, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the white and latino firefighters were right. Hundreds of thousands of dollars later, we have legalistic confirmation that affirmative action is code for racism, just with a different victim. Lovely. Naturaly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a screeching dissent, decrying the precedent being set. After all, without victim identity groups, how will Democrat politics work? However, even that raging loon couldn't defend Justice Sotomayor's unsigned opinion. Ginsburg wrote something about Sotomayor not having the time in such a minor ruling to fully delineate her arguments, but I would say it's a poor workman that lets someone else blame his tools. Regardless, despite a split decision, the Supreme Court was in agreement that Justice Sotomayor's reasoning was either just plain wrong or so poorly articulated as to carry the same weight.
So where do we stand? I really think Ann Coulter says it best; "This suggests that a wise Jewess, due to the richness of her life experiences, might come to a better judgment than a Latina judge would."
Mrrrow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
