In Which Troutsky's Replies Merit Another Post

The conversation with Troutsky concerning the role of women in the family and society at large continues herein. He asks:

Do you support men taking enough responsibility to equally empower women to pursue equally fulfilling lives outside of child rearing? This power issue lies at the heart of the feminism to which I ascribe.

It depends. Christians are called to give ten percent of their earnings--a tithe--to their church as well as charities which are either explicitly Christian or espouse the values taught by Christ. At least for Catholics, some of the money could go to a group of nuns; and what are nuns but women pursuing "fulfilling lives outside of child rearing"? I think this isn't what you had in mind, but it does show evidence that even the most patriarchal of Christian men are not opposed to women doing something besides raising children.

However, a Christian man should not work to allow a woman to leave the home except in special circumstances. The role of a mother or a father is to raise good children. This cannot easily be done if both parents spend forty plus hours a week outside of the home. The woman does not have to stay home--the man is also capable--but if it is in anyway possible to avoid a situation in which both parents will be absent from the home for hours at a time, we--Christians--are called to make this a reality, even if it requires sacrifice, which it most assuredly will.

Sure enough,the Church is exactly the type of commune/community/village which provides an alternative model to the nuclear family.

Which is perhaps why I love her so.

While your mother may have been fulfilled with her child raising role and whatever other activities she pursued, i believe it is acknowledged empirically that this was not the general case and that race and class issues were also contingent factors.

I agree, but only because I see the world as fallen. Most human beings are unfulfilled, and without Christ one can do nothing. A fallen soul will have little luck finding fulfillment either in the home or in the corporate world. This is a bit unpleasant. Direct all complaints to God.

Women are not so much "being told" they can't find happiness being a mother as much as they are discovering the power issues on their own and rising up. All big questions witha great deal of depth, don't you think?

I disagree. Young women are told that being only a housewife is less worthy than working in the 9-5 world. As feminism is supposed to be about choice, I find this abhorrent. I have no qualms with a woman who wishes to forgo raising a family so that she can have a career; one of my friends is doing this exact thing. I do not know whether or not this decision is right for her; she is a very sharp bio-chemist, and may indeed find her research more fulfilling than a life with a husband and a horde of childen. But she should not be told that one is automatically better than the other. If we wish women to be free to make a choice, we cannot tell them which choice they must make.

It may seem I have contradicted myself, but I haven't. If a woman wants a career she can do so. This country remains somewhat free. But if she chooses to have a family, either her career will suffer or she will be remiss in the raising of her children. The simple application of the principle of scarcity has fascinating ramifications.

As for "sanctioning the capitalist status quo", it is hardly a socialist protest to stay home and not work, socialists want women to share equally in all phases of building a just society, in work, the cultural sphere ,the political etc. so men have to concede a little space.

I find that by entering the work force, women are making the concessions. My mother has had a tremendous impact on my life; were she to have been a career woman, her power would have diminished substantially--all so she could fight the patriarchy by answering phone calls or creating power point presentations.

Few of us have a significant impact in the corporate world, as we are, most of us, interchangeable cogs in the wheels of the capitalistic machine. It makes precious little sense to give up the power to form one's children so as to become a pretty cog.

You take exception to the women who are "compelled" to work, who are "victims" of social pressure.Big Bogeyman I think, invented by traditionalists who like their patriarchy just as it is.

I find it interesting that you are so apathetic toward the manipulation of women by the capitalistic system. Wouldn't it be desirous to have fewer of us dwelling in cubes? Wouldn't staying home "stick it to the man"? From an economic perspective, feminism does not seem to fit with your larger philosophy as it is aiding the system which you so rightfully loathe. Am I wrong?

I believe Little Houses is also a myth, the reality being dysfunction and repression.

Yet Little Houses did exist. It wasn't utopic, but it was good enough that one did not often hear of women buring their little houses down, or drowning their babies in the bathtub. Having a healthy hatred of manual labor, I would not have liked to live in a Little House; nor would I have thrived in such an environment. But I don't know that this was dysfunctional and repressive. The government seemed to leave people well enough alone; women were taken care of by men, who ran the house as they saw fit--always under the observant eye of his better half. Since women will always be weaker than men, they will always be prone to being repressed thereby. It seems to me, romantic that I am, that the Little House era had some things right. Men protected the women, and having not been liberated by bizarre feminist theory, the women were generally grateful. It beat having to fight off bears on one's own.

I find it more than a little ironic that Christians disavow utopianism. If Love Your Enemy and Do Unto Others are not utopian sentiments I'll quit fishing forever.

Christians believe that man is fallen. We can, by the grace of God, hope to live a perfect life, but we always fail. The only utopia is the New Jersualem. Still, we work for the Kingdom on Earth. Faith, hope, and charity are strange things, are they not? And please don't quit fishing. Something would then be wrong with the universe.

Fascist Feminists

I headed over to Pandagon, which is one of the more hysterical feminist blogs. I have an aversion to feminist "thought" because it is so blatantly inconsistent. I much prefer the feminism of Camille Paglia; I don't agree with her either, but she offers a vision which isn't rife with contradictions. Paglia knows her history, and is a genuine pleasure to read; Amanda from Pandagon, on the other hand, couldn't think her way out of a wet paper bag.

In the meantime, I need to correct for a rather sweeping generalization I made about how the left isn't harboring racists of our own. I should have known better than to be so simple about it; god knows I’ve seen enough liberals making racist and sexist and homophobic jokes that one can’t just dismiss it out of hand. Nonetheless, I think my basic point stands. If you are an honest-to-god hateful racist who uses politics as a way to beat up on other people for being different, you know what political party is yours—the Republicans. If you’re firmly committed to eradicating prejudice, you’re going to be pulling the lever for the Democrats. Conservative criticisms of racism and sexism are disingenous 99.9% of the time—if you find a right winger complaining about racism or sexism, generally speaking you don’t have to dig far to find that they have ulterior motives, generally to shut up their opponents. Echidne wrote the classic post on this subject when she pointed out that Ann Althouse seemed to think that feminists only exist to police the ranks of the left for sexist jokes, even though Althouse is perfectly happy to support right wingers who openly advocate for oppressing women and stripping us of our rights.

Being an irrascable chap with a penchant for diving headlong into debates, I posted a comment following her post. Being an open-minded feminist, she refused to allow my comment to be posted. Lest the reader think I resorted to cheap ad hominen attacks, I will provide the comment, which was too incendiary--or perhaps simply too rational--for the Pandagon crowd.

You fail to define racism, and your excellent observation that you have made a "rather sweeping generalization" does not prevent you from making another, just as egregious: "Conservative criticisms of racism and sexism are disingenous 99.9% of the time—if you find a right winger complaining about racism or sexism, generally speaking you don’t have to dig far to find that they have ulterior motives, generally to shut up their opponents."

I'm certain you can find evidence of a sophomoric jab from an intellectual dwarf of the token right, but this does not prove the validity of your generalization. I am not certain that proof exists, but a few points on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Also, the democratic party supports affirmative action. In my mind, this policy is racist. If blacks and whites are truly equal, as I believe, neither side should receive an artificial boost so as to help them compete. Demanding that blacks meet a lower standard than whites do is condescending and demeaning. If your readers allowed you to make gratuitous grammatical mistakes and consistently masquerade fallacies as facts because you were a woman, you would be quick, I think, to point out that they were sexist, and rightfully so. It is my contention that the support of affirmative action is likewise racist, leaving your point about the nobility of democrats in regards to race relations, rather a debatable one.

Is it any wonder people have a hard time taking feminists seriously? Though she insists on being treated as equal to men, she cannot answer a simple and straightforward question; nor does she see fit to allow her like-minded minions to rise to the occasion. Surely they could combine their massive brain power to formulate a semi-coherent response.

(As an aside, I have no qualms with treating men and women as equals; they are; however, I believe they are different, and as such, reverence should be paid to the weaker, fairer sex. )

Instead, Amanda prefers that I remain silent. Beware of those who refuse to answer questions about their idealogy. Stuck in a mind rut, many feminists, like our paragon of brilliance, prefer to ignore any possible evidence that they could, in fact, be wrong.

Feminists make me laugh.

A Real Solution: Expatriation

A close friend of mine and I have conversations about whether it is better to live within the system so as to reform it, or remove oneself from it so as to avoid being corrupted thereby. We've yet to come to a decision.

I've recently concluded that voting is futile, which leaves me in a precarious situation. On the surface, it would seem that if one cannot effect a change in the political system, one must remove oneself therefrom. Yet this assumes that the system of governance is the most important factor in determining how a person lives. While this is true for totalitarian societies, so long as a semblance of freedom remains, philsophy trumps politics. The state may determine whether or not abortion and gay marriage are allowed; but only the particular philosophies of the people therein determine which "freedoms" they will exercise as selected from the options which the government allows them.

This is somewhat encouraging to one who is caught in a state of political despair. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will increase the list of options which avail themselves to the public. Perhaps the Democrats will grant gays the right to marry, and keep abortion legal, but I rather doubt they will desist spying upon American citizens or keep the IRS out of our pocketbooks. Viewed as a whole, if present conditions are indicative of what awaits us, it is absurd to expect liberty to do anything but dwindle. Hope lies only with third party candidates--who cannot win.

Yet so long as a bastion of freedom remains, it is theoretically possible to instill within the public a philosophy which is conducive to the increase of liberty and the betterment of society at large. Unfortunately, there are problems with this noble proposition. First, this being a democracy--technically republic, bastardized at that--the philosophy of the people can be gleaned from a survey of the government. As liberty ever dwindles, it is obvious that if the people place a premium upon freedom, they are insufficiently intelligent to elect those who agree with them. More likely, the people presently do not want freedom, and instead prefer "bread and circuses" in the immortal words of Juvenal.

Now, as liberty is dwindling, and has been for some time, we can safely assume that in a previous period in American history, the citizens esteemed liberty more highly. The growth of government has been sanctioned by the people, who have seen a likewise degredation in personal philosophy--judged from the standpoint that a better philosophy is one in which freedom is preferred to slavery. If those who lived in freer times were not content to remain at such a state, and instead sacrificed sacred liberty for the facade of safety, can it be assumed that those who have less of a grasp on liberty would value it more? It is possible, but there seems to be no evidence of this. Notes Fred:

Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

Libertarians remain a bizarre group of malcontents, drawn to the conspiratorial and often filled with contempt for the rest of society which is viewed as clueless. The liberals who believe that humans should be free to do as they choose are the first ones to impose speech codes on those insufficiently enlightened; meanwhile they suffocate business by creating all kinds of fancy rules which are neither conducive to liberty, nor to decent Americans who only wish to run a simple business. Strangely this has had no ill effect upon the plutocracy. Conservatives are likewise inconsistent. They generally believe that business should be able to do what it wishes, but will hand over all kinds of freedoms to the government so we can stop the terrorists. So long as the dear leader is a Republican, he can govern like a Democrat.

All this has me thinking about expatriating. A bit rash, perhaps, but I'm not of the temperment that believes things often get better if left well enough alone. I could be--and hope that I am--dead wrong about our rush into "inevitable decline", but I frankly doubt it.

I have two years left of this college nonsense before I can get out and work on paying off my loans. I think a couple of years in a cube is all I'll be able to stomach, whereupon I might try to find a new home.

It might be nice to live somewhere else for awhile. All I need is a country. I've got a couple of years to think on it.

The Paradox of a Just War

As promised, here are two more explanations of Catholic paradoxes. I will hopefully include them in that talk I have rashly vowed to give; and it recently occurred to me that they will also go well in the book which I have not yet made the time to write. Perhaps if I blogged less frequently...

Anyway, the first paradox involves the issue of war. As before, there are two half-truths which can only be containted by a contradiction. War is at once abhorrent, but there are also times in which war is the only answer. As a personal aside, it should be noted that the main reason I initially made the foolish mistake of supporting the Iraq War was that I did not yet understand the importance of paradox. I knew, as all even vaguely religious men must, that life should be cherished and not squandered. If death was not a wholly bad thing, it was surely not something to be brought casually upon another.

At the same time, I could not understand how someone could be so naive as to believe that War Was Never The Answer. There were countless examples from human history in which war did manage to present itself as an answer. Certainly some of these problems flared up again, but it is idiotic to suggest that the best thing the Poles could have done was roll over for the Nazis. Someone had evidently forgotten to mention to the aggressive parties that war was not the answer, as these were really the only groups who needed the reminder.

My instinctual gut reaction to those who failed to recognize the effectivness of war led me to support the other heretical half-truth. There was no doubt that there were times in which war was the only answer. It is always a regretable answer; it should always be the last option. A call to arms can only be glorious when the reason for the call is the enemy's literal presence in one's backyard.

There was no doubt that Saddam was, plainly speaking, not a very nice fellow. If his mother had taught him to share with the other children, he had not retained the lesson, and gruesome habits had taken root where the proddings of his mother evidently had not, including a penchant for murder. Yet, for all his atrocities, Saddam had not attacked the United States or the citizens thereof. That he may have done so is irrelevant. For, as Chesterton succinctly notes, "The only defensible war is a war of defense." If Saddam had marched his army up through Mexico and captured El Paso, having refused to give it back, there wouldn't be any defense for opposing a war to remove him from power.

El Paso remains, like the rest of the union, safely within American hands. (I'm not certain if D.C. is considered occupied territory. My stance on violent revolution has not been thought out as yet. Stay tuned.) The War in Iraq is an immoral war because we were the aggressors. I do not profess a grasp of the state of mind of those who led us to war, but as one who was a follower, I can vouch that most of my fellow foolish supporters had the noblest of intentions. We were going to dethrone a tyrant, strike a blow against terror, lessen the threat to America, free a people and give them democracy to boot. But though our intention was good, our action was not. We have supplanted a tyrant for a democracy that is unstable at best. We have killed millions of citizens--citizens who have done us no harm, and the vast majority of whom would never had done so--in order to save the lives of our own citizens. I do not deny that a government ought to show preference to its people, but it seems strange to murder the citizens of other lands so that we no longer have to worry about showing a preference.

There are as yet some who refuse to see the light, and ultimately believe that a war with Iraq was just. The more honest apologists simply confess a preference for the lesser of two evils. It will be interesting to see if the loyal Republicans are misguided interventionists or simply shallow partisans as a Hillary presidency may give us a Democratic war. I can respect a heretic more than I can respect a liar.

As for the rest, it is not enough that we know that the War in Iraq was immoral; it is imperative that we recognize why this is so. If we take the pacifistic approach, that all war is evil and must never be fought, we will be forced to accept the rule of Might, something the character dubbed King Arthur wisely attempted to avoid. It is also possible that we do not learn at all from Iraq, and instead believe that the only problem with the war was one of feasibility and not of morals. This is equally repugnant. The truth of the matter can only be contained in the aforementioned paradox, and it is only the Catholic Church which professes to guard this truth: that war can and must be fought as a last resort, but in no other case may it be so waged.

As it became obvious that we would soon be going to war, the partisan divide became equally apparent. Democrats opposed intervention because a Republican was in charge, just as they had opposed the wars of Democratic Presidents--that's a joke, by the way, though it's not very funny. Republicans supported it for that same reason: George was their cowboy. The pacifists marched in opposition, as they always do, and the neo-cons cheered for war as they are likewise wont to do.

Amidst the empty shouting from the leaders bereft of principle--but not party--and the small groups whose only principles were not complete, a lone American cried out; a voice in the political wilderness broke the standstill, if only for a moment. Pat Buchanan stated his opposition to the War with Iraq as he had done during the Persian Gulf War; this despite his conservative idealogy, or, properly understood, because of it. For Mr. Buchanan is a fellow citizen, not only of America, but also of Rome, a man who I am honored to call my brother in Christ. Buchanan looked to a Church which had seen a great many wars in her storied history, and she shone forth upon the truth of the matter, as both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI emphatically denounced the occupation of Iraq.

It now appears that Mr. Buchanan and the popes were right. Perhaps one day he will get the credit he so deserves. More importantly, perhaps the world will acknowledge the Church for, yet again, getting the matter exactly correct. One frankly doubts it; for they do not know us because they do not know the Man who so founded her.

It is not a coincidence that Chesterton's thought still lives. Buchanan could have lifted his entire
defense from that giant Brit, and it would have sufficed rather nicely. The Church is steadfast and yet she is also timeless. She is "beauty ever ancient, ever new" in the immortal words of St. Augustine. His words ring true.

But I have grown tired, and that, like my second paradox, is another matter for another day.

Results Guaranteed, Details Lacking

I beg the reader's--if any--pardon for yet again mentioning Hillary Clinton, but it just so happens that her latest comments are intriguing; and they can also, if prodded politely, fit in nicely with a quote from Chesterton's Autobiography which I have happened to have just finished.

"Americans are earning less while the costs of a middle-class life have soared," Clinton told the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, a group that aided her husband Bill Clinton's rise to the presidency in 1992 but has clashed in recent years with the party's more liberal wing.

"A lot of Americans can't work any harder, borrow any more or save any less," she said in unveiling the group's "American Dream Initiative," a package of proposals to make college and home ownership more affordable, help small businesses, improve retirement savings and expand health insurance coverage.

Clinton said President George W. Bush and Republicans had "made a mess out of the country's finances." Rewriting her husband's famous 1992 campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid," she declared: "It's the American dream, stupid."

I am not sure what the costs of middle-class life are, though, being a bit of a hanger-on of said class, I should perhaps know. I've got to start paying more attention to the things which a middle class citizen must buy, or else I shall remain bereft of the esteem which comes from dwelling safely betwixt the rich and the poor.

Snide comments aside, Americans are, in fact, earning less; but I do not think Mrs. Clinton would be overly enthusiastic with my solution to reverse this trend. A return of illegal immigrants to their port of origin, and an increase in the number of middle class women who remain at home would ensure scarcity within the job market. As per the golden rule of economics, an decrease in supply warrants an increase in demand; ergo, wages will also increase. You're welcome.

It is interesting to note that the solution to the trouble created by King George as to be implemented by the fair Queen is, in point of fact, identical to the source of the trouble itself. Goverment spending has gotten us into this mess as sure as the nose on my face; but we are to believe that if only the government were run by Democrats, the spending would produce beneficient results. It is as if a change in the foreman, would now see a factory producing twinkies, wherein the labor of twenty minutes prior resulted in naught but toy cars. As a Catholic, I do believe in miracles; but I do not make a habit of expecting them upon command.

Again we must discuss the rule of supply and demand. If an apple costs twenty-five cents as dictated by both the producers and consumers in the, admittedly theoretical, free market, Mother Government will step in so that poor people can afford apples. It is too much, I suppose, to return to a feudal system in which they would simply grow their own apples so as to feed themselves; but anyway, the poor people must have apples, and, lacking sufficient faith in people and having far too much of the same within themselves, those that represent us will subsidize apples so that the poor can, at long last, eat.

The effects are twofold: first, those that can already afford the apples will be forced to pay for apples which they will not be able to consume; second, the price of apples will increase. As more money is introduced to the market place the price of apples increases as per the aforementioned law of economics. If corporations were able to price apples reasonably, we would never be tempted to coerce them to do so; and while I would hardly suggest that corporations should be allowed to gouge on apples, it is interesting to note that all the regulation in the world has been unable to force men to act rightly. Instead, we find that once enough money is taken from those who could afford the apples, coupled with the increase in the price thereof, a whole new group of people must be issued subsidizes so that those who were once able to afford to eat, must now be ever so mercifully saved from starvation. Troutsky will probably think it unkind, but this is my understanding of applied socialism; it is also why I do not consider myself a socialist.

Now the Chesterton applies to what I consider to be an application of socialism, and what the good Troutsky would profess to be a bastardization thereof. He is probably right, but I am not particularily concerned by the particular brand name we use to refer to slavery. Any system in which men are not free to do as they please, so long as it does not directly cause harm to another, will be opposed by those who love liberty. I fancy that there are, perhaps, several dozen of us, and I am guilty of pride by even suggesting that I belong within their noble ranks. Anyway, the quotation applies to a great many things, and it is for precisely this reason that it merits mentioning.

A battle, like every human work, is at once designed in its beginning and doubtful in its end. Now the Comrades of the Dawn already annoyed me; because their revolution was widely undesigned in its beginning, but had no doubt about its end. Just like Imperialism; and the South African War.

This may not seem like the best of quotes because it visits upon issues which appear to be quite irrelevant to the reader. Yet Imperialism is still with us. It answers to different names, many of them ironic, some contradictory; but it takes the form of various wars to force people to govern themselves in the manner they wish so long as it the way we choose--or is it the other way around? The neo-conservative crusade--if we may insult such a glorious, if misunderstood thing by attaching its name to such an ignoble idealogy--was firmly convicted of its victorious end; but as we all know, we were not greeted as liberators, and what was once so sure appears shaky. The problem with inevitable things is that they so often fail.

This application can be made in reference to many things. I hardly need bring Hillary into the mix again, because the connection is so obvious. During my short lifetime, I've not had the privilege to hear a politician explain how on earth we will get out of the mess that his predecessor created; but I have heard any number of exclamations that the problem will be solved. We need not worry, though we are not to be given specifics. Kerry would bring peace to the Middle East, though we know not how; Hillary would have no trouble ushering in era of exuberant wealth, if only she may gain the throne.

Nixon wasn't the only one with a secret plan.

Troutsky's Comments Merit a Response

Yo ,traditionalist, what about guys raising their kids? To out of the box?

I fully support men taking a greater role in the raising of children. Father's are immensely important. Wee see this in the rate of poverty and crime among children in single mothers, and the single biggest indicator of whether or not a child will attend church is whether or not his father does so. If my ramblings were construed as to mitigate the responsibility of the father I must correct you.

How about communal raising of children and sharing of resposibilities?

I am not a parent, and perhaps this failure makes me a poor judge upon this subject; though I hestitate to note that most parents are not competent to give advice either. A parentss number one responsibility is to one's children. I do not subscribe to Hillary's theory--really Plato's--that "it takes a village". Christians view this world as fallen, and though it is repugnant to do so, must see much of the population of the world is damned. St. Paul reminds us not to be equally yoked with unbelievers. As such, the only acceptable commune would be one comprised of like-minded Christians, but if this is your meaning, I wholly applaud your idea so long as ultimate control resides with the individual parents.

I hate to break it to you but June Cleaver was a mythological creature. In reality, because her life of doing dishes and scrubbing toilets was so unfulfilling, she took to Prozac, affairs and martinis.

I have a mother who does not have affairs, does not take Prozac and does not drink martinis--though she has been known to have a half glass of wine on Thanksgiving, when prodded. Women have been told that they cannot find happiness as a mother, which is odd considering that this may be the most important role in all of mankind. We have all of us, I think, sprung forth from some womb, the owner of which often played a prominent role in influencing us. But happiness is found elsewhere I suppose--in drugs, other men and alcohol of course. Conversely, women may become happy by spurning their calling to becomes mothers and instead opting to enter the corporate workforce. I find it curious that you are, unintentionally I believe, sanctioning the capitalist status quo. Ask the plutocrats whether they wish women to work or stay at home. The answer will be telling.

Provide statistical evidence please that financial considerations do not drive working class citizens into two-earner situations.

I cannot provide such evidence because to suggest such a thing would be idiotic. Many couples are forced into two-earner situations, and families that are not ought to be supremely thankful. My point was not that such things do not exist, but that this situation is not an ideal, and it should be avoided if it is possible to do so. Further, feminism contributes to two-earner situations by compelling women who do not need to work to do so. This also contributes to consumerism, and we observe another curious coincidence in which the feminists have aligned themselves with the patriarchal plutocracy which they are supposed to loathe. Then again, feminists have never been terribly good about adding two and two to make four.

Think about the forces which sustain capitalism (consumerism, constant expansion, growth)and then read some "utopian" socialist projections of family life in a collectivist world.Little House on the Prarie is not really an option anymore despite the Pope, or Dobson or Paglias best efforts.

You note that Little House is not an option while calling for a socialist utopia. The former has a distinct advantage over the latter in that while the utopia has yet to be realized anywhere on the globe at any time in history, Little Houses have actually graced this planet. Chesteron comes to mind, "Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back." I am unaware of what has changed to disallow a "regression" but I have never been sufficiently progressive as to believe in progress.

You know by now that I do not believe in utopia, but I am, in my better moments, a respectful fellow. I challenge you to offer a better solution for the role of father's and mother's in a modern society. Take your time of course, and should you choose to accept, thank you in advance.

John Kerry: Intellectual Dwarf, Political Whore

Lest we forget, John Kerry reminds us that he is still a nut.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D- Mass., who was in town Sunday to help Gov. Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.

"If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tension arose as a result, he said.

"The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East," Kerry said. "We're going to have a lot of ground to make up (in 2008) because of it."

How can anyone take this man seriously? I'm not a fan of Bush, but anyone who would willfully state something so idiotic couldn't be much better at being president. The reason that there is conflict in the Middle East has nothing to do with whoever runs the plutocracy.

So what would Kerry do differently? Being a politician, he's short on details--also intelligence and character--but he did let this bit of wisdom slip.

"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah," he said.

I think this is fairly important. First, Kerry is catering to the base by mentioning that the Iraq War was a mistake. Since this Yalie is loaded, he has a shot at gaining the nomination in '08. Unfortunately for him, he's a fool. Destorying Hezbollah, like destorying Al-Qaeda will not mollify the situation in the Middle East. One does not treat a disease by removing the symtoms but by removing the causes.

Further, and most importantly, destroying Hezbollah will require an interventionist policy. Next time a good little Democrat tells you that their party wouldn't have gone to Iraq, mention WWI,WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo--I'm missing some--and then bring up Kerry's little slip. After all, they voted for the dolt.

All of this is much ado about nothing so long as one realizes that there are no significant idealogical differences between the ostensible right and left. I'm half-hoping the dems give Kerry the nod; sure I will have been wrong--big surpise, that--about Hillary, but it will be entertaining.

The way things stand, I'm pretty much in it for the laughs.

Follow The Money to the New Queen

News on the Queen-to-be.

The itemized donations were made public Wednesday, with the paperwork for April through June more than 4,000 pages. In that period, [Hillary] Clinton raised almost $5.7 million, bringing her total for her re-election effort to $43 million to date. She had more than $22 million cash on hand.

Remember, we live in a plutocracy. The number of people who think and vote in this country is statistically insignificant. Those that do not vote do not matter, and those that do not think, can be bought.

So what did Clinton spend her millions on? In this election cycle, the senator has spent more than $21.7 million even though she has yet to run a single television ad. Her two woefully underfunded would-be GOP opponents have spent more time trashing each other.

Clinton has spent millions on direct mailings to prospective donors. In the most recent three-month period, she spent more than $200,000 on postage alone. The campaign paid nearly $650,000 to a company that handles direct mail business.

Raise money to spend money to raise more money to spend more money to raise even more money to become Queen. Seems mighty circuitous, but it also seems to work.

The records also provided a tantalizing clue for would-be Clinton sleuths that she's serious about a White House run: two bills for unidentified campaign worker travel at the Hampton Inn in Des Moines, Iowa, the state with the first caucus in the presidential nomination process.

One bill for $182.25, was dated April 17; a second, for $145.77, was dated April 26.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said the receipts were nothing more than a clerical error, and that the amounts reflected hotel bills for trips to Albany, N.Y., and Austin, Texas. He said the paperwork would be corrected.

Right...

Neglected Children as Evidence of Progress

Western Europe serves as an indicator of the prevailing cultural winds which, curiously, seem to travel eastward, bringing with them progress and enlightenment or death and decay, depending.

Across the pond we go, to the United Kingdom, for further evidence of inevitable decline--patent pending on the expression by the way.

A typical working parent spends just 19 minutes a day looking after their children, official figures revealed yesterday.

Observation seems superfluous. Of course,It is impossible to substantially influence a child's life when one's time is confined to a shorter period than that of a sit-com. When the power of the home wanes, something must subsitute for it; it's not as if children are self-sufficient creatures, rendering care and education luxuries. If parents will not deign to raise their own children, the state and the media will do so. Although, curiously, our survey here seems to suggest that Big Bird and Snuffleupagus are actually better at parenting than your average working Brit. Still, I'm loathe to trust giant pigeons. Then again, I'm a traditionalist.

The findings come at a time when record numbers of women are working as huge mortgages and soaring household bills force them to earn a living.

Official figures show that 12.6million women have a job, compared to just 8.5million in the 1970s.

More signs of progress. 'Twas a time when more women folk stayed home. I realize that feminist thought hinges upon the belief that the home is confining, almost like a prison--as opposed to a cube, which is... smaller. Anyway, I reckon the little rugrats used to get more than twenty minutes worth of attention from mum, which seems to be a good thing.

Now, another feminist fallacy is that women have been forced to work due to economic conditions. This is fallacious because 1) not all women need to work and 2) the economic conditions responsible for forcing women into the workplace are largely due to application of feminist thought, namely the idea that women should work rather than stay at home, irrespective of her necessity to become a wage-earner.

Expounding on point the first: some portion of the female population has always been "forced" to work. In agrarian times, certainly, women did a great deal of work, in and about the house as well as the fields. Throughout history, women have always done some type of work when the wage earned by the husband has been insufficient to meet the family budget. It should be noted that sometimes this compulsion is only due to consumerist enchantment, in which case a more modest definition of one's "needs" would allow for the woman to avoid the corporate rat race. Yet some women will still be forced to work.

This leads handily into an explanation of point the second: by touting the working world to the detriment of home, many women who have not need to work have yet done so. Notes Vox Day:

And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed.

It is interesting, though perhaps not suprising that feminism has been disatrous for women. Not only are more women being compelled to work, further mitigating the power to choose which feminism was supposed to bring, but little girls are receiving little of the love and care they need to be healthy and reasonably happy human beings. If feminists hadn't already given up on such a bizarre concept, I would urge them to rethink their little revolution. Some of them are:

Maire Fahey, editor of Prima, said: "In the 1980s, we thought we could have it all and aspired to high-flying careers and happy families.

"But the cracks are starting to show. Family life is suffering and something has got to give."

It's good to see that someone besides Camille Paglia--and various unfairly maligned commentators such as Mr. Day--realizes that the law of scarcity does in fact apply to women.

Lastly, the article notes:

A woman will spend 8.3 hours asleep, 2.4 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 2.2 hours working.

A man will spend eight hours alseep, 2.8 hours watching television, DVDs or videos and 3.5 hours working.

Just 24 minutes in 24 hours is spent reading, a figure which drops to just 10 minutes for younger people.

One imagines that less time in front of the lobotomy box and more time pondering various ideas explained in book form might help reverse the feminist inspired digression--sorry, progress. Goodness how I hate television. Maybe if the time spent in front of the t.v. was instead used for playing with our children--you know, flesh and blood as opposed to a box full of electronic equipment. I'm such a traditionalist.

The Appeal of a Lack of Variety

Since only a handful of docile Republicans remain loyal to King George, and since Americans love polls, forward to 2008 we look.

Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner among Democrats when voters are asked to choose which one candidate they would prefer for the Democratic nomination for president, but the current poll finds Democrats are about equally likely to rate Clinton, John Edwards, and Al Gore as acceptable nominees.

The far left doesn't like Clinton, or so I've been told, but since a Murtha/Feingold ticket only works in blogland--where money doesn't matter and everyone thinks like you--Clinton seems a likely favorite for the nomination. Remember, Hillary and John Kerry are the only two democrats who can raise enough money to merit the nomination for leader of the republic. John Kerry lost once, ergo, Queen Hillary.

Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain typically vie for the lead in Republican preference polls, but a greater percentage of Republicans say they would find Giuliani acceptable than say this about McCain (73% to 55%). Four in 10 Republicans say they would not find McCain to be an acceptable GOP presidential nominee. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is also widely considered by Republicans to be an acceptable nominee.

It will be interesting to see which faux-conservative gets the nod to be the sacrificial offering to the newly chosen Queen. Faux-conservative is probably not the right term; it is far too suggestive of conservatism, something these three obviously lack.

When the nominee is crowned, I will sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the conservative commentariat demanding that we elect a globalist, pro-choice, interventionist, spendaholic, lest Hillary win. While I do not hold the former first lady in high regard, and while her ascendence to the thrown will surely accelerate the death of the republic, it is laughable to suggest that someone who is cut from the same cloth will do anything to stop the inevitable demise of this once fair land.

If the Grand Old Party wishes for folks such as myself to find our political home therein, they need to stop with this nonsense. Some of us have bothered to think without the aid of Rush Limbaugh.

The Who comes to mind:

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Actually, we probably will. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!