Politics and Culture

Many children and quite a quite a few adults suffer from a disconnect from Nature. The rise of Marxism-derived philosophies** like feminism and its equality-above-all value system (They themselves think themselves superior- one internal contradiction amongst many.), have de-linked the chain of millennia-old received wisdom.

In other words, amongst the well-educated, ideology has triumphed over common sense and what's essentially true in most cases.

It's why a book like The Rules became so successful- many reality-deprived women hungered for something true and practical instead of PC. The message of The Rules can be summarized in two sentences: Men and women are different. Men like to chase and be in control. It also implies that women can be very happy being chased and deferring to a decent man. The less a woman has marinated in modern university thought, the less likely she would need or be impressed with The Rules. "Everybody know that," my smart, Mexican, and non-college trained wife told me when I showed her the book.

The Rules(TM) : Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right by Ellen Fein

Most mothers try to impart "time-tested" wisdom to their daughters, but because they often can't compete with liberal public schools in articulation and the use of academic terminology, children dismiss their parents as "ignorant."

Since I can compete, I try sometimes to validate the students' mothers' and Churches' ideas by giving them an alternative perspective.

Now to the task at hand:

Bristol Palin's birthing of a baby reminded me of a talk I give to the girls in my high school. Based on their rapt attention and nods of agreement, from both the students and teachers who don't know that I'm a Republican, I think it's worth devoting a blog post to. Here is that talk's summation:

Boys, You can read or do something else. This isn't for you. [They listen anyways. Some, for the first time.]

Young ladies,

If you follow these four basic rules, I think that you'll have a better high school experience:

1. Remember that boys may feel differently about the same thing as you do. While you may be at the beach thinking: "My, what a lovely moon. This is so romantic!" The boy may be thinking, "This is the kind of thing girls like. Hopefully, it'll do the trick."

Don't hate them for it. That's the way boys are. Traditionally, boys have overcome their baser instincts through an intense socialization process that emphasized respect for their future wives and mothers of their children.

Popular culture doesn't give boys that message anymore. Music, movies, and magazines such as Maxim and FHM instead cater to boys' lower desires. So, if you want the kind of boy most girls want, it's going to be tougher these days. It's not impossible, however, if you follow the rest of my advice [See, you have to assume that their are "lower" and "higher" natures, and that marriage and family are proper goals. I don't mention church because I teach at a public school, but the only institution that counters this message is the church, which doesn't mean that only religious people have these values. It's just to say that non-religious people would only arrive at this conclusion because they live in a neighborhood that holds these values in high esteem or through their parents' disconnected beliefs.].

2. Choose character. One of my jobs in the Army was working with injured soldiers at Walter Reed hospital. Some of the soldiers were missing legs and arms and otherwise very bad off. Most of the wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends of the soldiers reacted with courage and loyalty. Some didn't. Now, I ask you: If you were ever in such a situation and required some extraordinary loyalty from your significant other, would it be more important that he had large rims, were handsome, or were of good character?

Two ways to test for character:

a. How does he treat people that he can treat poorly? For example: How does he treat the unpopular kids or the waitress at the restaurant? Is he nice to the smaller boys? If there's a disparity in his treatment, with the better treatment going to the stronger, that's an indication that he will take advantage of a superior position. In other words: if he feels that he can get away with it, he may treat you poorly, for he fears strength instead of something else.

b. If you observe him lying to somebody else, you're next.

3. Be your own best friend or, think with your brain instead of your heart. Many times your emotions get in the way of good decision-making. So, you might stay with somebody that's wrong for you or make a poor decision because you feel what you call "love."

I bet that if your best friend were in such a relationship, you'd tell her that she's making a mistake. The reason is that you're not emotionally involved and can think clearly.

Therefore, when making a decision, view yourself from a distance: Ask: "If I were my best friend- one who loved me and wanted what's best for me- what would I tell myself"

4. [This explanation is for your benefit, as every teenage girl know what I'm talking about: It's my belief that teenage sexual activity makes a girl less happy than she otherwise would be. Girls are naturally modest and careful with their sexuality, but society has deemed that there's something wrong with girls who choose to delay sex. At least, society- through school textbooks and counselors- say that the only reason a girl would choose not to have sex is to avoid disease and pregnancy. It's a materialistic view of humanity and doesn't take into consideration the whole person- unwholesome, as it were.]

It starts when you're walking through the quad. You drop your book and the cutest boy you've ever seen picks it up for you. You look into each others' eyes and you feel a tingle- maybe a little light-headed. He sits next to you at lunch. You tell your friends about him and write his name on your notebook over and over again.

He walks you home. Eventually, you want to see each other outside of school. He asks you to Tam's [local burger joint]. Soon, he'll buy you a whole special instead of just sharing the chili fries. Next step: Carl's Jr. [Hardee's to my Southern brothers and sisters. This is a step up because Carl's Jr. takes the food to your table.].

He might invite you to the movies or go over your house to watch Sabado Gigante [I teach in Huntington Park, Ca.].

Then, young ladies [And you not-so-young ladies, if you think about it.], you have a decision to make. Yes, that one. Now, I'm not saying that it's guaranteed that this will happen, but most often a "yes" will lead to relationship stagnation. Or, instead of going to museums, sharing, discovering the world and about each other; you spend your times planning- "Will your parents be home?" "There's nobody in that parking lot." [Notice that I don't bring up STDs or pregnancy.].

How many of you know other girls who made that decision and came to you, crying, the next day? [All hands go up.]. The boy doesn't talk to her anymore, etc.

And for what? [nods of understanding].

The end.

That's it. Advice girls never get from school. Easy to follow, non-sectarian, and 99% true.

I usually use a chart like the one above. It looks no better on the board than written with a Wacom tablet.

**I don't mean that these people would cheer the millions of deaths caused by Marx-practitioners. I'm talking about the Marxist (and fascist, originally) proposition that all non-physical- and some of that, ever- human difference is a social construct and that humanity's goal should be to deconstruct them in order to achieve a "just" (equal) society.

This is a weird election. Usually, a candidate moves towards a pole during the primary to secure the base, like Romney and Clinton, and then moderates in the general election to win. McCain is doing the opposite because "principled conservatives" aren't letting him broaden his message.

In an effort to assure their irrelevancy, apparently, some conservatives demand fealty from McCain in the form of a conservative vice president or a caving on moderate positions (How about a loyalty oath?). By insisting on being the "heart and soul" of the party instead of just part of a governing majority, conservatives are rapidly turning themselves into the leftists who erased Democratic advantages beginning with Hubert Humphrey. In fact, some conservatives remind me of Daily Kos/ MoveOn loss-ensurers. Don't you think Clinton will pay a price in November for supporting MoveOn- if we're lucky enough to face her?

How it may harm:

What's McCain's strength? Strait talk, right? Strong, independent opinions, si? Service to country, not party, yes? Well, if the public (some of whom aren't Ingraham's "people") perceives McCain's con-courting as a cave-in to the party's right wing, he'll lose both of those advantages.

Remember, in 2000, when McCain criticized Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Whatever your opinion of them (You like people who link natural disasters to policy decisions?), moderates, most of the country (wake up!), love that kind of stuff. Sister Souljah and all that.

Why is this happening?

People move towards extremes when they don't discuss issues with people of differing views. They can say almost anything without somebody calling them on sillier ideas. You know the look: it's the one you get when you show a liberal how lower taxes increase revenues or a young-earth creationist dinosaur bones.

Liberals are usually at a huge disadvantage because many go from grade school through college without ever having to defend their ideas. For some conservatives, talk radio has become a judgment-free venting area. Some, I'm convinced, have reached a point where they fool themselves into thinking that there's a "silent majority."

Anyways, have your opinions, but we don't have a parliamentary system: We choose governing majorities before the election, not after.

Middle of the road

Standard Asymmetric disclaimer.

With all of the discussion of Giuliani, social issues, and politics, I've decided to come up with what I think is a workable methodology to values issues that would be acceptable to most people.

The essential dilemma for conservatives, as articulated well by commentators like Dennis Prager and poorly by 90% of other conservatives, is that while many in the center-right wish to conserve traditional standards of behavior, they also recognize that attempts to do so require one to exclude, to some degree, those who don't choose to conform to those guidelines. Not only is this consequence unacceptable to many conservatives, but neutral or hostile observers would perceive discrimination (true, by definition), a lack of compassion (not necessarily), or just plain meanness in the standard bearer's stance.

The approach I propose allows the moderate liberal or conservative to participate in the fighting retreat that is the culture war without breaking bonds of friendship or themselves risking social alienation. I'll start by giving a general outline to this approach and then give an example of its application to two modern social dilemmas. The underlying assumption behind this strategy is simply that most social traditions serve an important, if not readily apparent purpose, and that hurting people is not one of them (some social policies like race-separation existed primarily to preserve advantage and aren't what I'm talking about).

First, it's important to separate people with those traits which by themselves disqualify them from acceptance into decent society. As of 2007, and for most Americans, murderers, child-molesters, racists and bigots of various kinds, wife-beaters, and deadbeat dads fall into this category. Fifty years ago, most Americans would have added homosexuals to that list and 100 years ago, the divorced and the illegitimate would have made the top ten while racists may not have. Absent those "deal-breakers," people take into account others' list of positive and negative traits and then come up with an overall assessment which may vary from:

"There's nothing wrong with him that reincarnation won't cure."

-Jack E. Leonard

to

"What a comfort it was to see her pass. She would speak to one, and nod and smile to as many more; but she could not do it to all you know. We lay there by the hundreds; but we could kiss her shadow as it fell and lay our heads on the pillow again content."

-Anonymous on Florence Nightingale

Read more »

This spat between Little Green Footballs and Brussels Journal is interesting. The original disagreement was whether some anti-immigration guy named Pim Fortuyn was a fascist. The comments section evolved into a discussion on the nature of European ethnic-racial-immigration politics. Essentially, whether it's a good thing for countries with homogeneous population to make an effort to remain so (they focus on Europe, but it could apply to Japan or anyplace else). You can begin going through their arguments by clicking on the link above, but you came here for me, right?

The Asymmetric view:

Read more »

I wanted to strip my previous post post, which began a discussion on beauty in society, of its divisive parts. Here's that part of my mini-essay:

My Marx-influenced brothers and sisters (mostly sisters in women's studies departments) also rail against beauty-worshiping, but their rationale is different. Marxists decry beauty-first thinking because it prevents women from intimidating men (by being so prissy, we can't show how much ass we can kick); pleases their dialectical enemy (why make our oppressor happy by putting on rouge?); and perpetuates the wrong kind of inequality vis a vis other women (I have three doctorates degrees; why did he choose that hussy?) and men (we can never be independent from men unless we can mine our own coal and that means getting dirty).

It's like how both the religious and the secular left denounce materialism, but for opposing pretexts: The religious think that it takes one farther from God and the left feels that it makes inequality even more obvious (if they disliked materials in and of themselves, they'd insist that the poor can be happy without the same things that rich people have (witness Dan Costa and the "digital divide").

I wrote a joke about the recent report confirming what non-researchers have known since Grog hit Ogg over the head and took away his hot cave-chick: that men prefer beautiful women. It's true and almost so deep seated that no culture on Earth has been able to replace or terribly lessen men's quest for beauty.

I was really making fun of people who find such conclusions the least bit surprising or who decry nature for being unfair, however, and not advocating for a continuation of male superficiality. Because men naturally prefer beauty doesn't mean it's a good thing. I mean, it's good to be healthy, fertile, and strong, which is what beauty is, but it's not morally better.

Mother Teresa, one of the most beautiful women in history.

Read more »

If we had stayed out of the personal affairs of other countries we wouldn't be in this war in the first place because 9/11 never would have happened.

and

I'm not sure what else you would call sending them weapons and training them to combat the Soviets. Sounds like an ally to me. But my point was that we shouldn't have even done that. We poke our nose into so many countries' business when we shouldn't and it often comes back to bite us in the ass. And I think it does dictate where we station our troops. What right do we have to be there? Ossama isn't in Iraq, Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. We marched in there for completely unrelated reasons (my guess is it was because Saddam wanted to start pricing oil in Euros rather than US dollars, but that's unrelated). Do you think we would sit by passively if China or Russia decided to set up a base in the middle of Kansas? I think not. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand why other people hate us and try to attack us. They don't attack us for our freedoms, if that was the case you could bet that they would be suiciding bombing the hell out of Holland or Switzerland. They attack us because we're messing around where we don't belong.

The above is a comment by "Live Free or Die" on Asymmetric. It pretty much says that the U.S. deserved 9/11. It also implies that Al Qaeda and not the Saudi government should decide whether the U.S. can have bases on Saudi soil (why? Because Al Qaeda's meaner, I guess. We can't upset mean people. They might hurt us).

First, doesn't the attitude in the comment reward intimidation and brutality? War is definitely the answer for Al Qaeda; it scares the hell out of people like the guy above, and, thus, enables Al Qaeda to accomplish their policy goals.

Second, why can force be effective and justified for Al Qaeda, but not for the U.S.? What right does Al Qaeda have to go around the world and blow kids up?

Third, combine the above statement, typical of a certain kind of leftist (not normal liberals), with those from Ward Churchill and every Pacifica radio commentator on 9/12/01 and you have what seems like a mass case of Battered Women's Syndrome. Here's the definition:

In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.

People like Al Qaeda don't hate us because we're on their soil. They hate us because, frankly, we're not their kind of Muslim (I've met some very noble Muslims), we don't cover our women, we let homosexuals hold hands in public, and we represent resistance. How do I know? They say so! Like all bullies, radical Islamists would hate us more if we didn't fight (they'd find Live Free or Die especially disgusting and kill him first).

Lastly, aren't people like the commentator the same ones who say that religion causes hate and should be resisted? Why do these people dismiss mainstream conservative Christians as hate-filled idiots and zealots, but try to understand and, in the case above, justify Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?

Isn't this an inversion of reality? If I we're particularly uncharitable, I'd say Live Free or Die only attacks people he knows won't fight back or, like the spouses in the definition above, feels a need to submit to abusers. Or, maybe, like a crime boss' girlfriend, he just falls for the toughest guys.