Monday, March 31, 2008
One of the regular bumperstickers I get to be edified by here in the City by the Bay is this: "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention." It is an invitation to continual moral exhibitionism as a way of acting out. The highminded, stamping their little Prada-clad feet.
When I was in shrink training, I had to attend a lot of special workshops. One of them, one of the worst, was on child abuse. The woman in charge of the fest included in her passion play a list of presenting issues that might indicate a child was being abused. The list began. And continued. And continued. At one point, irritated beyond my limit, I raised my hand and asked if there were any presenting symptoms that might not indicate child abuse. The Medusa could not have looked at me any more stonily. I had offended her sense of perpetual outrage. Nowadays my question might be classed as "hate speech".
Speaking of outrage, here's a link to a site both funny and all-too-telling: List of Things That Offend Muslims. Pull up a chair, get a cup of coffee, tell the boss you won't be in today, and start reading.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A friend of mine who is a former Marine passed on a bit of wisdom from one of his drill instructors to the platoon. I found it touching and funny and it said a great deal about how men care for one another.
"If I hear about any of you killing yourself over pussy, I will find you in hell and kill you myself!"
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Those of you who have had the opportunity to read the Socratic dialogues in Plato will be thrilled to know that a new text has been found, but remained buried in the vaults of scholarly publications. It is strikingly, even eerily contemporary. Attention courtesy of my friend jon mills, a native-born alien of the Anglosphere, who is busy trying to repair Western Civilization from deepest darkest Illinois.
The Malarkion: A Newly Discovered Dialogue on Guilt in Western Christendom
Crux (Vol. 24#4; Dec. 1988)
One of the most exciting archæological discoveries of 1987 was the Dumpsteris Mound in southern Crete. Among the ancient scrolls and parchments unearthed is what seems to be an authentic Platonic dialogue. A translation of the Greek is offered here for the first time. -Jonathan Mills
Socrates. Where are you coming from, Malarkion my friend?
Malarkion. From Hebdomaphokê's skybox, Socrates, high over the Stadium.
Socrates. No doubt the surprising fellow was engaging you in discourse while the chariots were racing.
Malarkion. Yes, by Hercules. He asked me if Western church guilt can be taught.
Socrates. What! Didn't he himself know?
Malarkion. No indeed.
Socrates. And did you answer him?
Malarkion. Certainly not. Not only do I not know whether Western church guilt can be taught, I don't even know what it is. And how can I learn what something is, when I have no idea of it at all? For if I chance upon it, how will I recognize it as what I've been looking for?
Socrates. Malarkion, you young rascal. I see you wish to catch me in a contradiction at once. For surely you know that there is no such thing as learning, but only recollection of what one already knows but has forgotten because it all happened so long ago.
Malarkion. What, Socrates? Are we to report this about you in Larissa, that you say learning is actually recollection?
Socrates. Yes, by Hermes. And to prove what I mean, I will show you that you already know what Western church guilt is.
Malarkion. You mean you will teach me what Western church guilt is?
Socrates. Certainly not! I will simply ask questions of you, so that what you say will be what you know already. Now, does Western church guilt exist as something in itself in the realm of pure ideas, or only in a Western churchman?
Malarkion. Clearly, only in a Western churchman.
Socrates. And a Western churchman is usually quite likeable and well-meaning?
Socrates. But does a violent self-image sometimes befall him, wherein he identifies with great evils done by his culture, class and gender group in the present, recent past and distant past?
Malarkion. Of course.
Socrates. And as a representative of this group he takes personal responsibility for the important evils in the world, and considers those evils the important things in the world?
Malarkion. Entirely so.
Socrates. Accordingly, does the Western churchman diminish or even deny other groups' responsibility, while emphasizing that of his own group, out of fear of being marginalized on the stage of world significance?
Malarkion. That is clear, by Janus.
Socrates. Then Western church guilt is not shame at all but a covert boastfulness?
Malarkion. Indeed it seems so, Socrates.
Socrates. So one could understand Western church guilt as the spirit of Rudyard Kipling undermined by the self-doubt produced by the West's disasters this century, which removed from him all sense of divine support and cosmic blessing; with the result that only in an unfavorable sense he can still see himself as the cause of everything significant happening on earth?
Socrates. For he still wishes to see himself and to appear to others as the cause of everything significant happening on earth, even while he affirms * the "decline of the West" and the "end of the Constantinian church"? [*or "scoffs at": text unclear]
Malarkion. Yes he does, by Zeus.
Socrates. Therefore the meaning and purpose he wants to give others is to be his accusers in his guilt and judgment drama?
Socrates. Then would a social theory that credits his culture, class and gender group with great injustices make him feel more significant, or less?
Malarkion. More significant, clearly.
Socrates. Accordingly he will prefer social theories that accuse him?
Malarkion. He will.
Socrates. And might this shadow patriotism and moral colonization of non-Western peoples be called by Freud a combination of death wish and infantile omnipotence fantasy?
Malarkion. It might.
Socrates. And does his self-image as the evil protagonist of the world stage expose him to the danger of making his own guilt his leading theological principle?
Malarkion. It does.
Socrates. In which case the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob becomes valet to his bad conscience, with the vocation of constantly reassuring him of his importance in the world by denouncing Western injustices?
Socrates. Then could the Western churchman's moral narcissism impair his understanding both of Christian faith and of human society?
Malarkion. Indeed it could, by Dionysos.
Socrates. And does he hold nineteenth-century Christian liberals in contempt because they believed in progress and failed to perceive the reality of evil in Western culture?
Malarkion. Of course.
Socrates. Yet he continues to see the churches' mission to be the call for social progress, though now this call goes forth primarily as condemnation of the evil in Western culture?
Malarkion. Apparently so.
Socrates. Well now, friend Malarkion, what seems to be the case with our discourse?
Malarkion. It seems, Socrates, that I have indeed known all along what Western church guilt is.
Socrates. For I addressed you only in questions to remind you of what you knew already?
It is hard to watch. But its point is very important.
Friday, March 28, 2008
This film is Fitna, which means schism or division in Arabic. It is gut-wrenching to watch. It vividly shows the shadow of Islam.
Islam is by its nature an expansionist theocracy. It was never anything else. Its current resurgence in jihad mode is the great external threat to what was once Christendom and is now the West. In Europe, with now almost 55 million Muslims, the threat is pressing. Many in the West will not believe it.
Guess what? I watched the film on LiveLeak this morning. I just went to their site to copy the embed code. What follows makes the very point the film makes.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Shrinkwrapped, a psychoanalyst of thoughtfully non-liberal attitudes and a sharp mind, points out the unintended consequences of some liberal policies, in this case, using ethanol as an alternative to petroleum.
But isn't that a "green" and "eco-friendly" way to fight Global Warming? Maybe, but it's apparently not friendly to poor people especially, since it has driven the price of corn and other staples to their highest levels in memory.\:
"Real people will starve so that we can shower money on agribusiness in the name of fighting a problem that may well be non-existent in order for well to do Americans to feel noble that they are helping to save the world. "
His whole piece, here.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Dennis Prager asks why the brutal and utterly unapologetic Chinese assault on Tibet gets so little attention, while the "plight" of the Palestinians is seen to be the crux of ethical politics for Western liberals?
My own thought: Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Israelis are white Westerners with a conscience and the Chinese are non-white Communists without one?
To the old adage, "No enemies to the left", can we now add, "No enemies darker than us?"
Monday, March 24, 2008
Courtesy of uncommon Canadian Kathy Shaidle, who is way more irritable than I am, but this fella is having his say.
Pretty much an Amen from me.
One of the reasons I left the Left behind is because I was seeing stuff like this all the time and was told that I was not allowed to see what was plain to my eyes. I hate that.
Until Europhiliac BlueState liberals decided it was Paradise with Snow, most Americans knew jack about Canada. I lived there for seventeen momentous years and am a naturalized citizen of the Great White North. I know a thing or two.
"They" are not like "us".
In any clash, most Americans, most of the time, press for the Declaration's "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" while most Canadians, almost every time, will plead for the Constitution Act's "peace, order and good government."
Ya kinda have a lot of the national differences right there.
So on the matter of free speech, here's an all-too-telling piece by an all-too-typical contemporary Canadian commentator, Haroon Siddiqui.
"Haroon Siddiqui" a typical Canadian?
Welcome to a land where
Evil neoconservative Bill Kristol, writing in the New York Times...God, is the Second Coming gonna happen this afternoon?...targets Oblabla's tired thoughts on race. Yeah, a great National Conversation on Race is the last thing we need because we hear it all the time anyway: Whitey bad, Non-Whitey blameless victim. Narcoleptic. So on that point, Bill, Yes!
But his alternative is to call for focus on policy "especially on how to help those who are struggling."
No. No. No. No. No.
See now? Even an awful Righty like him has accepted the default liberal notion that government is about helping those who are struggling. Mommy, Nanny, or Lakoff's "Nurturing Parent", aka, Dickless Male Mothering. George Bush trying to be Nice.
Government almost always fucks those who are struggling...even, or especially, when it tries to help them. Get out of their way.
Reading Instapundit, I found this snippet, which made me chuckle.
(Well, it didn't MAKE me chuckle. I CHOSE to chuckle when I read it. Just keeping my responsibilities clear here.)
"SO I TOOK JOHN VARLEY'S STEEL BEACH with me for, um, beach reading as part of my reread-old-John Varley project, and I was struck by this passage, which I had forgotten:
"There's something else," he went on. "We know there are aliens out there. We know interstellar travel is possible. The next time we meet aliens they could be even worse than the Invaders. They might want to exterminate us, rather than just evict us. I think we ought to keep some fighting skills alive in case we meet some disagreeable critters we can fight."
Brenda sat up, wide-eyed. "You're a Heinleiner!" she said.
It was MacDonald's turn to shrug. "I don't attend services, but I agree with a lot of what they say."
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A queer thing has been happening of late. I find myself hesitating just a bit internally before I use the phrase "gay man" to describe myself. I have never been a reactive rejector of labels, as long as I felt I could modify their meaning a bit to suit me. I am wondering if the "gay" label has become so monolithic that I am kidding myself about my ability to do this.
As should be abundantly clear, I love men. But Jack Malebranche's (see pic above) contention that "gay" is basically irredeemable to any homosexual man who loves his own, and other men's, manhood...well, I guess it's having its effect. That unholy trinity of "group victimism, anti-male feminism and leftwing politics" is not friendly to actual men.
(Notice the correct use of "it's" and "its" in the penultimate sentence. I may be a man, but am still a stickler for decent grammar and can use the word "penultimate".)
Another review of Androphilia, from Australia, does a very nice job of laying out some of Jack's argument, including excerpts from an interview:
In pursuit of manhood Wednesday, 19 March 2008
The argument for a new gay identity is examined by S.V. Koumakis.
‘Gay is dead.’ So begins Androphilia: a Manifesto by Jack Malebranche, in which the American author expounds his uncompromising views of modern gay identity; and his vision of a masculine ideal of excellence that recalls the warrior ethos of ancient Greece.
“The word ‘gay’ describes a whole cultural and political movement that promotes anti-male feminism, victim mentality, and leftist politics,” says Malebranche, who advocates use of the term ‘androphilia’ to express ‘a sexual love and appreciation for men as it is experienced by males’. He also uses the word ‘androphile’ to identify men who desire other men.
The first print run of Androphilia was almost sold out less than a year after its release. Readers’ feedback on Malebranche’s website describes how the book resonated with them. Yet the author has also met with criticism; even accused of homophobia.
“To accept homosexuality in oneself is now equated with accepting an intrinsic effeminacy, and any denial of this is widely believed to be symptomatic of ‘internalised homophobia’ … The real ‘internalised homophobia’ is the belief that you can’t truly be a man simply because you love other men,” Malebranche argues in his manifesto.
The author, who describes himself as “an unrepentant masculinist,” also admits to having once been a go-go dancer in New York’s club scene. “I’ve challenged gender constructs. I’ve done drag. I talked the talk and fagged out with the best of them,” he says. “My critique of gay culture doesn’t come from an outsider’s ignorance; it comes from an insider’s knowledge.”
Malebranche, who speaks in his book of his decade-long relationship with his male lover, whom he acknowledges as the most important person in his life, is far from the ‘perfectly vile queer’ his detractors would present him to be. His views, though blunt, are candid and to the point, and his depth of vision is exceptional.
Feminists might claim that Androphilia: a Manifesto encourages men to become misogynists. How would you respond to this?
Androphiliais often labelled ‘misogynist’ because it does not serve a radical feminist agenda. Androphilia does not in any way advocate the abuse of women or hatred of women,and it takes no position on the role of women in society. It is a book written by a man specifically for men.
Critics suggest there are statements in your manifesto which would break up the gay community if taken to heart. What is your view?
Gay leaders frequently talk about a need to ‘build coalitions’ but these coalitions always seem to pit homosexual men against straight, white men - the scapegoated universal enemy of all minorities. What homosexual men really need is to work on building a coalition with straight men. They need to start building a history of friendships and positive interactions with straight men that will give straight men cause to stand with homosexual men and stand up for them, instead of against them.
Some would argue that androphilia would push homosexuals back into the closet. How would you explain to them that this is not the case?
I am not ‘in the closet’. I wrote a book about homosexuality and put my picture on the inside flap. I’m not asking anyone to be secretive about their sexuality. There’s a difference between prancing around like a fruit with a rainbow striped t-shirt on, proclaiming your sexual preference to everyone you meet; and simply being ‘out of the closet’. The root question here is ‘does being ‘out of the closet’ mean being honest about your sexuality when asked, or does it require an exhibition of effeminacy?’
What advice would you give to an adolescent youth coming to terms with same-sex desire?
Let your own actions and interests define your character; don’t rely on the easy, one-size-fits-all comfort of the gay identity. Concentrate on personal achievement and development. Educate yourself. Choose a vocation and excel. Earn the respect of your peers. Make your mark on the world. There’s nothing wrong with sex, there’s nothing wrong with being homosexual, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to find a relationship. You can make your own rules and craft your own destiny. That’s what sexual liberation is really all about, isn’t it? Figure out for yourself what it means to be a homosexual man.
In your manifesto, you assert that ‘androphiles could become leaders of men in virtually any field’. This is truly visionary, and makes perfect sense. What led to your keen appreciation of the masculine ideal and potential?
In part, my appreciation for masculine idealism stemmed from a shift in personal philosophy that moved from ‘the world as I think it ought to be’ to ‘the world as it is’.
At some point I realized that what I really needed was a reality check and a kick in the arse. I needed to be challenged, not coddled. I needed discipline, linear thinking and goal driven, objective measures of achievement - not the endless circle of excuses, subjective evaluations and self-destruction.
I slowly began to appreciate the way men groom each other, the way they toughen each other up, push each other, and discourage weakness. When I was a teenager, I dismissed all of this as macho bullshit, but as a grown man, I started to understand the ‘why’. I started to appreciate the value of it and the role that it plays not only in making stronger men, but in making stronger, more durable societies.
IGF's Stephen Miller links to an article in the resolutely Right but not homophobic site, David Horowitz' FrontPage Magazine. Robert Spencer takes the liberal Left to task on Iran and gays. Miller points out the continuing queerness of the queer establishment's refusal to attack Muslim Iran for its grossly and grievously anti-homosexual laws, including capital punishment.
This kind of behavior supports my contention that the Left really hates its own successful classes and cannot abide enmity to anyone who also hates them. Even if that means actively supporting places like Cuba and "Palestine", where homos are in danger of life and limb.
The Enemy? White Male American Capitalist Christian Militarist Consumers. Theocratic Muslim thugs, because they share the Left's hatred and because they are not White Christians, get a pass.
This behavior is old and contemptible.
Talk about self-loathing.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Been hiking the last couple of Saturday afternoons, inside San Francisco.
I have lived here more than sixteen years and although for the first couple of them I was in a kind of trance, the place has become home over time and very familiar, sometimes taken for granted. But these hikes have reawakened my wonder at this beautiful place, both its micro and its macro beauties.
Florence, and perhaps Rome, are the only other cities I have seen that match its almost unreal beauty. And here the earth itself, the coast and the bay and the mountains and the temperate climate, provides such an extraordinary base. Astonishing.
One of the all-too-true stereotypes of gay men is the "Muscle Mary", a quite well built man whose manner is effeminate. Why, I wonder, do guys like this irk me so?
Part of it is envy, pure and simple. I am in good shape but I have to work hard at it, and I do not have the genes of a mesomorph or access to a roid supplier. I look good, but I will never look that good.
So to see a beautiful man at my gym, for example, then enact not his own natural feminine aspect but some third-rate version of a teenage cheerleader....it burns me...that something so potentially wonderful is being wasted on a bad joke. And the implication is that I could have done a much better job with what he's got. Boy, could I.
For a hetero male, beautiful women are numinous. They are their own justification, need no argument. No one questions this. Well, for this uberhomo male, beautiful men fill the same bill.
I can read God's resolution in Genesis ("Let Us make man in Our Own Image") pretty literally. A beautiful man is godlike. And I am by nature a pretty religious fella. But one of my ideas of physical beauty in a male is not so much Michelangelo's boyish David (I much preferred the Slave statues in the hallway)
but more in the neighborhood of Bandinelli's Hercules and Cacus, which stands opposite the David-copy in the Piazza della Signoria in Florence.
I don't need a man to act like a lug. Though lugs can be loveable. A sturdy guy in good shape who's...well, a guy...does it for me big time.
The ghyrls can go elsewhere. What a waste.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
I just found this awful mission statement on line from some benighted group of Christian racists:
"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are Caucasian people, and remain "true to our manifest destiny," the founding fathers, the cradle of democracy. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of revolution, the days of civil unrest, and the long nights of reverse racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the Caucasian Community."
Pretty unbelievable, eh?
Oh...oh...wait. Oh, sorry. I just re-read the blog where I found it....it's actually a paraphrase of the mission statement of Barack Hussein Obama's church:
"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."
Sorry. I thought it was racist. Now I see that it's multicultural, or diverse....Sorry.
Yeah, hope you can believe in. Whew, that was close.
Today is my birthday, one of those where you get to change the first number as well as the second.
A new decade commencing.
And my life continues to surprise me. Happily, most of the surprises of late have been...well, happy ones. Even when they are confusing or, as the (Canadian) French say, "bouleversants".
I am a lucky fucker. I am taller, younger, way better looking and better hung than Yoda, as well as a better dresser, get laid more often, have cooler friends --well, for the most part-- and I have mastered the English skills of SVO, subject-verb-object.
Evolution marches on.
Who knows what wonders lie ahead?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
A longish and entertainingly rambling piece by American writer, playwright and now-former Boomeroid David Mamet.
I remember seeing, courtesy of my wonderful and mostly liberal sister, his incendiary Oleanna. If you want to see a play that makes you react, this is it! I have to say that the pre-cerebral reptilian rage of the student character was one of the turning points on my road to the Right. (Sorry, sis, I know it isn't what you wanted.)
I was recently astonished to find him producing The Unit.
It was well written; I didn't just watch it because of Max Martini* and Dennis Haysbert.
Today Mamet announces his departure from the Boomeroid world of strange contradiction, where people are really good at heart and the world is hopelessly screwed up at the same time, and all the bigs of the world are at fault (big corporations, big military, etc) and the solution is the biggest of them all, big government.
His reading of the Founding Fathers' Constitution as a brilliant creation by men of experience with a tragic vision of our all-too-human race matches mine (and shows the influence of Thomas Sowell, who was also instrumental in my Fall From Grace).
Why I Am No Longer A 'Brain-Dead' Liberal.
(With apologies to my friends and loved ones who are politically liberal; I don't think you're brain-dead, just wrong. And I love you anyway, too; the same courtesy you extend to me. And thank you for that. Really.)
*Somethin' about Martini's combo of Irish looks and Italian soul really gets me going. Don't know why :-)
Monday, March 10, 2008
I have felt like this, and it makes me happy to be human.
When life is too much, roll with it, baby
Dont stop and lose your touch, oh no, baby
Hard times knocking on your door, Ill tell them you aint there no more
Get on through it, roll with it, baby
Luckll come and then slip away, youve gotta move, bring it back to stay
You just roll with it, baby, come on and just roll with it, baby
You and me, roll with it, baby, hang on and just roll with it, baby
The way that you love is good as money
I swear by stars above, sweet as honey
People think youre down and out, you show them what its all about
You can make it, roll with it, baby
When this world turns its back on you, hang in and do that sweet thing you do
You just roll with it, baby, you just roll with it, baby
Come on and just roll with it, baby, you and me, just roll with it, baby
Now therell be a day youll get there, baby, youll hear the music play, youll dance, baby
Youll leave bad times way behind, nothing but good times on your mind
You can do it, roll with it, baby
Then youll see life will be so nice, its just a step up to paradise
You just roll with it, baby, you just roll with it, baby
You and me, just roll with it, baby, come on and just roll with it, baby
...but I digress.
Ms. Dowd has distilled the choice that Amerikkka now has to make in calling either Barack Hussein or Ms. Rodham to stand against Tired Old White Male John McCain in a millennial battle for the Presidency. The choice? Which does Amerikkka want more: to be redeemed from its sinful history of racism by choosing the half-black Barack or from its sinful history of sexism by choosing the half-female Hillzilla?
God, Maureen, thanks for clearing that up. I feel so much better now.
One of the ways that I interpret progressive politics is as a secularized form of humorlessly pious Christianity. But without God and Christ to make the whole mythology work...well, it's not pretty. And Dowd is a classic example.
This post-Catholic girl --she still calls her 53-year-old avatar a girl-- sounds like nothing so much as a frustrated and crankily aging nun, moralizing on the state of the evil fallen world of sin as a way of projecting her own internal barrenness and rage.
Or perhaps just a bitter Irish spinster with a similar psyche, who didn't even have the status of a religious vocation to mask her publicly disappointed dreams from the contemptuous and pitying gaze of her married neighbors in the village of BallyNewYork.
What kind of redemption do you want? Redemption? What the hell has politics got to do with redemption? Survival, improvement, maybe...but redemption? I forget which wag pronounced that America was a strange place because all the preachers sound like politicians and all the politicians sound like preachers, but he was right.
Well, that's where many conservatives (not coterminous with Republicans, btw) part company with the caringcompassionatecommunitybuilding liberals . As Jonah Goldberg put it so well: "Conservatism... is opposition to all forms of political religion. It is a rejection of the idea that politics can be redemptive. It is the conviction that a properly ordered republic has a government of limited ambition.”
Note the structure of Dowd's question: Which Amerikkkan sin takes precedence? Here we get a glimpse of the progressive heart, its dank submersion in its pathetic narrative of oppressors and victims, seeking a redemption no one is qualified to give, from people who very unlikely ever to give it anyway, since its withholding is their prime source of power in the narrative. It is a Lent that never ends.
One of the ironies of this reactive attachment disorder is that the two iconic victims of the crimes which call for this potential redemption are both terrifically successful and terrifically wealthy. They are running for effing President! Take that, Amerikkka, and slice of Oprah to boot.
Maureen Dowd, like Scarlett O'Hara, needs something badly and often, although in her case I suspect that kissing may not be a strong enough remedy .
But who among the straight male gender has the cast iron gonads and ironclad phallus (and stomach) to take on this mission and redeem dour Sister Dowd from her miserable self?
At least Ann Coulter can make you laugh.
*Even the relentlessly fair and rationally undramatic Jonathan Rauch finds her to be one of the "villains" of journalism.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
NeoNeoCon considers Michelle Obama as the nation's First Lady.
Especially in the case of Democrats, if we wind up having a shadow
co-Presidency with one elected spouse and an unelected colleague spouse,
such as we had with the Clintons, do you really want this kind of
woman that close to such power? A wealthy affirmative action beneficiary
with a Harvard Law degree who only at age 44 experiences real
pride in her country for the first time?*
It seems that her resentment only increases with her elevation.
Hardly uncommon, but disturbingly unappealing.
*And Hillary becomes dramatically less appealing when I consider
that Billy would be back on the ranch, given all his post-2000
shenanigans. If she'd divorce him, I'd dislike her a little less.
(And I was a big fan of his; voted for him twice).
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
My antipathy to Hillary Clinton is surpassed by my anxiety about Barack Hussein. She, at least, is a pragmatic kind of ideologue. She loves and understands power and everyone knows that her persona is just that.
My fear about him is that he believes his own hype. He's basically a charismatic cipher for the same ol, same ol, being marketed as a biracial youth messiah and selling those finely crafted policy positions called "hope" and "change", with a huge dollop of faux racial redemption*.
This is what's behind the Wizard. At least with Hillary, the Nanny State would be run by a proper nanny.
Where's Churchill when you need him?
*I have an American friend of African descent who does not want Obama elected, for a quite specific reason. He asked me to imagine what the state of things would be if the man were to become President and then be assassinated, presumably by a Caucasian. The setback would be incalculable.
A friend of mine "back East" just got a copy of the first volume of Tales of the City, Armistead Maupin's wonderful series about bohemian/gay life in San Francisco from the mid-70's to the late 80's. In 1993 a filmed version came out and I watched it with a friend, "Uncle Jack".
Jack worked with me at the nonprofit I managed back then. He was about my age, a big ol' butch leatherguy from Tennessee, and a total sweetheart. When I left that job, I took him out for coffee and shyly told him that I hoped we could still keep a connection and be friends. He flashed that great smile of his and said, "Of course, you asshole." I loved him, not in a romantic way, but with a lot of feeling. His return of my affection made me happier than he could have known. My ex, who also knew and loved him, gave him the nickname "Uncle".
Jack died of AIDS in 1994. He was spared the painful deterioration that so many men went through in those days. It was an infection that took him, but it was fast, and he still looked like himself. He was unconscious when I got to the hospital and so I had to whisper my goodbyes in his ear and hope that he heard me. His picture is over my desk, along with seven other men I was close to who also died in those terrible, terrible days.
I miss him still.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Get these two men together and harness the energy.
See, despite my disclaimer, I do care about the planet.
Cold fusion? Who needs cold fusion?
Plus, the Argument from Design now punches above its weight
and we have Two Arguments from Design, which, when
their antitheticals are sublated, will produce the
Argument from Awe.*
Which, to my addled brain, carries a lot of weight, punched or not.
And I am still on my first cup of coffee.
*Funny how sexual energy produces theological babbling in me.
As some of my partners and playmates have, to their chagrin, discovered!
Ah, well, sex & religion.