Adultery vs. RINO-ish sentiments.

Posted by: Ace at 08:55 AM | Comments (312)
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm workin' tonight so the ONT will be pretty light. Or lame. Whatever. Just be thankful you can comment (knocks on wood). more...

Posted by: CDR M at 06:05 PM | Comments (621)
Post contains 308 words, total size 4 kb.

There's been so many We're Getting Rid of Matt Lauer stories they felt the need to add "balance" to the truth by offering some lies.

A top NBC executive says the network is not considering replacing Matt Lauer as co-anchor of the “Today” show.

NBC News executive Alexandra Wallace, who oversees the troubled morning show, made the comment Wednesday in response to reports that the network had approached CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “Today” job.

The report first appeared in Deadline Hollywood and was confirmed to The Associated Press by a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

Ms. Wallace said Mr. Lauer is “the best in the business” and that NBC wants him on “Today” for many years to come.

"I absolutely, unequivocally guarantee that no harm
will come to Matt Lauer by my hand.
That said, accidents do happen.
I understand he does a lot of boating.
Tricky things, boats. All those ropes and counterweights...
Basically a gallows floating in the unforgiving sea.
Plus, all that gas. Frankly, we may never know what happened.
Uh, wait, I mean: I hope he remembers to turn off the gas lines."

Posted by: Ace at 08:12 AM | Comments (309)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Wow. Big statement.

Limbaugh's diagnosis about how it was lost is wrong. He says it's because of language -- traditional marriage proponents began speaking of "traditional marriage," which then allowed/advanced the term "gay marriage," which then created a semiotic space in people's minds that there was a general category of "marriage" and then two varieties of it beneath that, and since they're all marriage, well, it's unfair to discriminate against one type.

That's just wrong.* You know I think people have to be wary of the "When you've got a hammer, all the world looks like a nail" thing. Everyone does this. The AMA, for example, will issue papers calling for the banning of guns because guns are a "unacceptable health risk." We each have our preferred prism by which we examine complex things.

Ever talk to an engineer about a political or social issue? They give you an engineering answer.

Rush Limbaugh is a guy who works with words so his preferred prism is "language."

But come on. The sort of people who are primarily interested in words and their power are:

1. extremely political people

2. idiots who just like to parse words because they enjoy wasting your time with semantic games; being a nitwit over the meanings of words in everyday conversation is their idea of a crossword puzzle (sorry, but there's a special place in hell for all the endless liberal word-parsing during the Clinton Impeachment matter)

3. people who read and/or write a lot

You could fill one state, maybe two, with those sorts of people. I've said it before: this country is basically dumb. Dumb people do not sweat the meanings of words. They're barely even listening to them.

I think the reason for the gay marriage issue being lost (if it is lost) is multivariable. For one thing, gays have the right allies. They work in the media disproportionately, and they know a lot of people in the media. And there's a weirdly-strong alliance of urban liberal women and gays.

For another thing, people want to think well of themselves. "Bullying" does not feel right to them. If they are given the choice between what feels like a bullying position and non-bullying one, they will choose the latter almost every time.

I think the gay marriage issue has relied far too much on the idea of an official governmental disapproval of gays which then in turn gives pretext and justification for a social disapproval of gays. I think the anti-gay-marriage forces were too close to this idea-- I think this is the one the public disagrees with, the idea that the government should, or that society needs, some sort of an official position disapproving of the sexual choices of gay people.

I think people find this bullying. I think people see gays as a minority who actually doesn't have too much control over whom they're attracted to. A fat person may be able to strenuously fight against his inclination to grow fat, but that doesn't mean he was born thin and just "chose" to be fat, picking freely between the two. And while it is true that a gay person could either refrain from sex or try to re-orient his sexuality, it's a bit implausible that that this merely a choice. It may be a choice, but it's not a free one; obviously, I think, a person is oriented how they're oriented. Sure, one could fight that, but it's certainly swimming hard upstream.

I mean, I think most people intuitively get that gays and lesbians seem like gays and lesbians. Most of the time you don't go, "What? Him?!!?" Most of the time, you're pretty sure if someone's gay. Which sure makes it seem intrinsic. (Though I acknowledge it may not be; "gay" behavior may be learned and imitated. Sure seems intrinsic, though, at least to the casual glance.)

Anyway, point is, the gay marriage issue actually bundles two different issues.

1. Whether gays should "get married just like anyone else"

2. Whether gays should be subject to official governmental disapproval and the related social disapproval which flows from that/is justified by that, as many take government to be the arbiter of values

It's Number 2 that most people who are supporting gay marriage are really interested in. I don't think people care all that much about Number 1. I think most gay supporters of gay marriage care less about Number 1 than Number 2.

I think if we really wanted to stop gay marriage per se we should have split off Number 1 from Number 2 and made it plain we were okay with Number 2, too. But I don't think we did, because I think many people on the anti-gay-marriage (Number 1) side were also anti-Number-2 (anti-"mainstreaming" of homosexuality, as they'd call it).

Trouble is, for that side, it's not enough people against Number 2. It's like 35% (just guessing, don't ask me to cite a wild-ass guess).

So, the public, to register its general support for the idea that gays shouldn't get so much grief (concept number 2), signs on to gay marriage (concept number 1).

That's why I think we lost. Because we packaged an issue which could have won with one that was doomed, and made them a package deal. And the gay marriage side took an issue which frankly I think most people don't favor-- gay marriage -- but packaged it with an idea most people do, that gays should be basically let alone to do be gay, without so much shouting about it.

Straight up, I bet you'd the anti-gay-marriage side of things would still win, politically, but only if it were unconnected to the poison pawn. If our "side" offered some way to generally bless gay coupling as None of the State's, or Society's, Business, while still keeping marriage a traditional man-and-woman affair, we might have won. That is, if we offered a middle path, sans gay marriage itself, the public would take that compromise.

But we really didn't. We collectively bet we could win on the easier one and on the harder one at the same time, and the public rejected us on the harder one, so it rejected us on both.

* Actually it occurs to me I way overstated on "That's just wrong." Certainly words do matter and people grow conditioned to feel certain ways by how words are used and, importantly, what other words we associate with certain words. The words "intolerant" and "bigoted," used frequently in proximity to a word, will produce the standard Pavlovian linkage.

But I think it's glib to blame this all on words, or, I should say, I think it's glib to say "Our chief mistake was one of terminology." While words and messaging matter, surely gut reaction and philosophy matter more.

Caveat: You know, I'm sitting here talking about how the issue is lost as a political matter and a commenter notes that in most places where it's been put to a vote, it's lost. It's only been enacted democratically in a couple of states. The rest have been judge-imposed.

The commenter says, It's lost because the elites disagree with the public and the elites will have their say.

That's actually true. All this stuff about "gay marriage losing" is true, sort of, if you assume the younger voters don't change their minds, and we're talking about the issue being lost in 2036. As of now, the anti-gay-marriage side is either politically viable or the politically-winning side of it.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:06 PM | Comments (658)
Post contains 1270 words, total size 8 kb.

soothsayer called my attention to this train-wreck last night.

Clarification: I should have made this clear: This is an ABC show called "Wife Swap," not an actual sexual wife swap. The premise of the show is that the wives swap families, first to observe (first half of show), then to impose a set of rules on the surrogate family (second half). It's intended as culture-clash social-horror programming. But it's not actual "wife swapping," except in the New Mom, New Rules sort of way.

The show definitely cut the polyamorous trio -- one dude living with his wife, his kids, and his girlfriend -- to be the "normal" ones. And the sympathetic ones.

That said, Nixon said something about giving a dagger to your enemies.

Below are a couple of long videos of the show. Neither is the full show, but taken together I think they're most of it. It was a real horror show.

What every reality show requests -- and which most contestants happily agree to -- is that "stars for a week" surrender their dignity at the door. I don't know why someone would do this. I don't even think they pay all that much (but I could be wrong).

more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:09 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

• New Gun Control Ad Features Ronald Reagan
  
• The Worst Economics Writer
  
• What If Adam Lanza Had Been An NRA Member
  
• Flint Guts Services To Balance Budget
  
• North Korea Running Out Of Ways To Cry And Stamp Its Feet
  
• The Gloves Come Off
  
• Teachers' Unions Don't Empower Teachers
  
• Advocacy Media, Don't Forget It
  
• Cyprus: Can It Happen Here?
  
• Republicans Holding Up School Choice In Wisconsin
  
• The Debate Between Sanford And Bostic Yesterday
  
• Why Your Kid Can't Get A Job
  
• Lileks: Context Matters
  
• The 10 Freest States In The US
  
• Organizing For Millionaires
  
• The New New Federalism
  
• GI Joe Review
  
• Cops Disarmed By Ammo Hording Gun Nuts, Complains Salon Writer
  

Sorry, holidays tend to be slow news days.

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:46 AM | Comments (254)
Post contains 128 words, total size 3 kb.

Good morning, gentlefolk.

Immortality project?

MKH writes a must-read. We really could use more writers of this caliber.

Rick Wilson, who is a good guy, pushes back after being slammed on the Rush Limbaugh show.

The food stamp map. Alaska, eh?

Have a happy Easter, and see you next week.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:21 AM | Comments (474)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Potatoes!

In all forms.

And that means there's only one thing to do: Potato Parties

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:27 PM | Comments (614)
Post contains 1094 words, total size 15 kb.

At the other site, Jerome Hudson wrote of modern day liberals -- actually, Marxists, whether they understand this or not -- betraying the basic American tenet of equality.

We have fallen so far out of alignment with our founding ideals, that every man is created equal in the eyes of God. Touré's venomous message echoes what our colleges and grade schools teach, what our media communicates, what so many movies dramatize, and what The Civil Rights establishment promotes: that America is still as racist as ever and if you're white, the only acceptable response is for you to nod your head and agree, and if you're black, you better not ever think for yourself.

This suggested to me a contrast between the values of the Enlightenment which gave birth to America, and the values of Marxism, which gave birth to the mass grave called the Soviet Union.

And that recalled Geroge Washington's many warnings about "faction" in politics. Faction was anathema to a free and democratic society, Washington argued; but faction is the central animating principle in Marxism.

Here are some of George Washington's warnings:

Liberty Â… is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction Â… and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyments of the rights of person and property.Â’

...

‘The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension … is itself a frightful despotism … the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another … ‘

Hence the current disagreement with the Neo-Marxists. Dividing people endlessly by faction is not just sloppy or lazy thinking; it's their primary tactic. It's their cult.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:31 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

Headline at Germany's largest newspaper, Die Welt, which is German for "Greater Germany."

Unrelated but anyway: Why isn't the media drawing Larger Conclusions about the sex scandals at the Horace Mann private school in NYC?

Megan MacArdle notes that while the media is always willing to draw Larger Conclusions about institutions dominated by Others, they do not draw such conclusions about their own institutions:

What explains the difference? The obvious candidate is the demographics of columnists and academics who write about these things. Few of them are football players. Few of them are practicing Catholics (or social conservatives). But a fair number of them went to private school, or send their children there. Even if they are prone to question the institution as an institution, doing so would be awfully uncomfortable. And it might not do much for little Emily's chances at Brearley.

For the record, I don't think that private schools are somehow structurally or culturally hospitable to pedophiles in a way that public schools aren't. But it's worth asking why we were so sure that other institutions--ones we don't participate in--were somehow uniquely pedophile-friendly, rather than subject to the normal human instincts to give our colleagues the benefit of the doubt, and avoid scandal at any cost.

I would be more forgiving of this phenomenon -- that people are always willing to Believe the Worst about People Not Like Them -- in the media except for a couple of things.

First, the media is liberal. This means that, as liberals, they are always instructing others that we tend to be willing to Believe the Worst about People Not Like Us. That means they fully understand this basic rule of human nature -- but they do not think it applies to themselves. I suppose, being liberals, they've transcended basic human nature somehow. I suppose, for those in the media, the acquisition of a three-semester journalism degree also helped elevate them above the instincts common to all humanity.

Second, the media is liberal. That means that they are constantly applying this rule selectively to The Other... and are frequently criticized for it, and often wind up embarrassed by it, when their bias blows up in their faces. And yet still they take no actions whatsoever to correct this flaw, despite being well aware that it causes systematic errors in their reporting.

I believe the media is dumb, but I do not believe they're this dumb to not see how their low-primate pack-animal division of the world into Our Tribe and Their Tribe consistently produces wrong reportage, by giving Our Tribe too little suspicion and too much latitude while giving Their Tribe too much suspicion and too little latitude. But they're comfortable with that. Hey, as long as Our Tribe comes out on top.

Fen's Rule: Liberals actually believe none of the things they preach about.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Comments (232)
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.