On my first trip to DC Superior, I saw a woman drag a man out of the courtroom—by his tie. Ever since, I try to be alert when work forces me to go there. It’s sort of like visiting a bad part of town; perhaps it’s more accurate to say that this court is where the bad parts of town visit.
My first stop was the Clerk’s office in the basement. There was quite a line, so I tried to read a book so as not to have to look at the unhappy people around me. One woman was busy writing a complaint out by hand. Another man was muttering darkly in a corner. One broken family caught my eye.
He had thug tattooed all over him, and sat still as a statue, one arm hanging motionless behind the chair. She was twitching (I hoped it was nerves, but I suspect amphetamines); her unsteady hands dropped a magazine, and I could see that her skin-tight jeans were partially unbuttoned to accomodate her pregnancy. Though in court, his clothes were baggy enough to double as circus tents. As she tried unsuccessfully to pick up the magazine—her hands, how they shook!—I glanced at the hand behind the chair: he had a tanline on a finger where a ring once was. An older woman huddled nearby with a child who looked scared of both young adults. Family courts.
My next stop was on the fourth floor, blessedly far from the family courtrooms. It was easier to read up there, but I saw another site that made reading difficult. I saw a radiant young couple dashing through the hallway. Both in shorts, he in a faded green shirt and old tennis shoes, she in a tank top and sandals. They bump into a woman, who then asks why they’re so excited. “We’re getting married! Hopefully today!” the girl squeaks. I looked at the happy couple more closely: late teens, early twenties tops. I wondered, how could they be so happy in this terrible place? They must not know what’s going on in the bowels of the building. For a moment, they look so young and full of life that I hope they never know. But that would make them children forever, I thought a few minutes later, and if their marriage is going to last, they’ll have to grow. Their cup of bitterness may not be so full as some, but it will fill.
****
In a sense, today I saw the extremes: one marriage beginning, one ending; one full of promise, one full of bitterness. A few thoughts, as I digest it all. I wonder if there was ever a time the divorcing couple in the basement looked like the marrying one upstairs. I’d like to think they had some happy moments once. But I’m not sure they did.
Each half of the divorcing couple looked like trouble. He was recognizably a carnivore; his stillness had no serenity; his very silence growled. She had clearly spent a great deal of money on her outfit (and perhaps on her drugs), but very little on her child’s. I couldn’t imagine either adult happy alone. Being together probably compounded the misery. It seems like quite a few people marry with the belief that things will change after marriage: her frivolity, his unseriousness, her drinking, his abuse. In the days when divorce was much more difficult, did people better think through what they were committing themselves to? Perhaps not, since human nature hasn’t much changed. Perhaps so. I cannot bring myself to say that divorce is good; it is often the least bad option available, but that doesn’t make it good.
Turning back to the marrying couple—yes, I realize they’re towards the extreme of the spectrum as regards thinking through marriage—I wonder if they would be so quick to marry if the option of divorce wasn’t there. The trouble with easy divorce is that it leads to easy marriages, which are more likely to end in divorce. If we try any reform in divorce laws, perhaps the goal should be to discourage troubled people from marrying.
Hubbard posted this at 8:36 PM EDT on Monday, July 31st, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Vignettes
No Comments »
Hope for aspiring crimefighters and locker room peepers everywhere. Personally I’m holding out for instant teleportation.
Dorothy posted this at 12:32 PM EDT on Monday, July 31st, 2006 as Science & Evolution, Nerdom, Brave New Worlds
3 Comments »
Global warming, anybody? No? Then how about Mimi Miyagi, the former porn star running for governor of Nevada as a Republican? I recommend watching this interview; the best thing about it is the look on Tucker Carlson’s face. Few people, let alone women with that much artificial cleavage, can discuss the history of the Republican party since the 1840s. She also has a blog, which the firewall I’m behind won’t let me see, so proceed at your own risk.
Apollo adds: In a brief moment of privacy I clicked the link (I was, er, checking my firewall). No nudity, just pictures that looked like advertisements on the back of a Vegas cab. I won’t judge your workplace, but not work appropriate where I am.
Hubbard posted this at 10:24 AM EDT on Monday, July 31st, 2006 as Kulturkampf, Politics
No Comments »
…I merely link.
We live in an age of inversely proportional deterrence: The more militarily powerful a civilized nation is, the less its enemies have to fear the full force of that power ever being unleashed. They know America and other Western powers fight under the most stringent self-imposed etiquette. Overwhelming force is one thing; overwhelming force behaving underwhelmingly as a matter of policy is quite another.
So even the most powerful military in the world is subject to broader cultural constraints. When Kathryn Lopez’s e-mailer sneers that “your contribution to this war is limited solely to your ability to exercise the skillset provided by your liberal arts education,” he’s accidentally put his finger on the great imponderable: whether the skill set provided by the typical American, British and European education these last 30 years is now one of the biggest obstacles to civilizational self-preservation. A nation that psychologically outsources war to a small career soldiery risks losing its ability even to grasp concepts like “the enemy”: The professionalization of war is also the ghettoization of war. As John Podhoretz wondered in the New York Post the other day: “What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?”
That’s a good question. If you watch the grisly U.S. network coverage of any global sporting event, you’ve no doubt who your team’s meant to be: If there are plucky Belgian hurdlers or Fijian shotputters in the Olympics, you never hear a word of them on ABC and NBC; it’s all heartwarming soft-focus profiles of athletes from Indiana and Nebraska. The American media have no problem being ferociously jingoistic when it comes to the two-man luge. Yet, when it’s a war, there is no “our” team, not on American TV. Like snotty French ice-dancing judges, the media watch the U.S. skate across the rink and then hand out a succession of snippy 4.3s — for lack of Miranda rights in Fallujah, insufficient menu options at Gitmo.
Tom posted this at 6:53 PM EDT on Sunday, July 30th, 2006 as Uncategorized
No Comments »
When think of an act of terrorism, I think of something like 9-11, the Madrid bombings, the Bali attack, the Black September plot, the Oklahoma City bombing, or the 1997 Embassey attacks. Most importantly, I think of a threat of more to come.
NRO’s Andy McCarthy, however, imagines an anti-semitic idiot with lousy aim.
The Muslim man [who shot six, killing one at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle] has obviously not only carefully chosen the target but cased the place. There’s a security system, so he waits until someone attached to the Federation enters using her access code, then he pounces, forcing his way through the open door. He brandishes a large caliber, semi-automatic handgun. He announces that he’s a Muslim angry at Israel. Then he randomly, wantonly opens fire — shooting six women, one of whom is pregnant, one of whom is killed.
So what happens? The police don’t even want to admit that he’s Muslim (”You could infer that,” the police chief tells the reporters who press this patently relevant question). And the FBI insists it’s not terrorism.
Now, it could not conceivably be more clear that it is terrorism. If the FBI is saying they can’t link him to any known terrorist group, that doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism. It’s too early in the investigation to have run down whether the guy has ties to known groups; even if he doesn’t, not all terrorism is committed by known groups (sometimes the acts of terror are how we get to know them); and even if he is acting alone, federal law recognizes the concept of lone-wolf terrorism.
It is terrorism because it is a sneak attack — in this case against civilians — which is motivated by a purpose to affect government policy and/or further a political/social/religious cause. The shooter was not there to rob the register or kill someone he knew over some private dispute.
Much as I dislike it, we already have a word for someone who commits a small-scale act of violence out of bigotry: a hate criminal. Terrorism, like genocide, should not only refer to an intention to do harm, but should also denote some reasonable expectation of sucess. Does anyone really think that this guy had any hope of influencing American or Israeli policy, even if the death toll had been higher? Shouldn’t “terrorism” denote something that takes longer to plan and execute than it takes to order and receive a pizza from Dominos?
What makes all of this truly absurd, however, is McCarthy aparently thinks a lot about the meaning of words in the War, as evidenced by this post the day before:
We’ve seen the problem before of the government not wanting to refer to a “war,” or “terrorism,” or, of course, “Islam.” Last year, when the administration tried to rebrand the, er, um, w-thingy as the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism,” I suggested that we just call it “Mabel.” I still think this has promise. You know, “The FBI immediately announced that the shooting had nothing to do with Mabel, none of the victims was a Mabel, and the shooter himself was not a Mabel, although he was a M—” … Nope, don’t wanna go there.
Tom posted this at 10:44 PM EDT on Saturday, July 29th, 2006 as Another Great Victory For Jihad, Politics and the English Language, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior
5 Comments »
Here’s my take on a poor illegal immigrant couple with 10 children.
An added discussion topic here: anyone have thoughts on the Catholic teaching against birth control?
conor friedersdorf posted this at 3:10 PM EDT on Saturday, July 29th, 2006 as Uncategorized
2 Comments »
“Mr Spock, the women on your planet are logical. That’s the only planet in this galaxy that could make that claim.”
Captain James Tiberius Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise
Apollo posted this at 10:53 AM EDT on Saturday, July 29th, 2006 as Philosophy
No Comments »
DRUDGE:
On a congressional trip to Estonia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest!
Delighted, the leader of the overseas delegation, Sen. John McCain, quickly agreed, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday.
The after-dinner game went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much.
I’m speechless.
conor friedersdorf posted this at 6:55 PM EDT on Friday, July 28th, 2006 as Uncategorized
2 Comments »
Andrew Sullivan posts the funniest segment on The Colbert Report I’ve ever seen.
conor friedersdorf posted this at 6:27 PM EDT on Friday, July 28th, 2006 as Uncategorized
2 Comments »
Last night Virginia continued its tradition of persecuting pagans by executing an Asatruan; that is, someone who follows the ancient Scandanavian faith of Odin and Thor. Evidently the murder for which he was convicted was part of a “church” power struggle. The story describes the man’s crime:
Lenz read poetry and afterward called Parker to a pagan altar set up for the gathering. He confronted Parker about their longstanding friction [concerning, er, “church” leadership] and pulled out a knife. Lenz and Remington stabbed Parker 68 times while a prison guard stood outside the room, court records show.
Well, the Scandanavians were hardly a peaceful people, so this shouldn’t be much of a surprise. Perhaps it wouldn’t be too much of a restriction on prisoners’ rights to maybe restrict their ability to assemble for the purpose of practicing such an explicitly violent faith?
Apollo posted this at 10:22 AM EDT on Friday, July 28th, 2006 as Faith
7 Comments »
Another argument against affirmative action has occured to me.
conor friedersdorf posted this at 5:30 AM EDT on Friday, July 28th, 2006 as Uncategorized
1 Comment »
…so I can vote for Mark Kennedy.
Seriously, what a great political ad.
Tom posted this at 5:16 AM EDT on Friday, July 28th, 2006 as Conservatism, An Insult to Drunken Sailors
2 Comments »
I like the idea of Andrew Sullivan as Denethor. (H/T)
Hubbard posted this at 12:00 PM EDT on Thursday, July 27th, 2006 as Uncategorized
No Comments »
NRODT (National Review on Dead Tree) usually publishes much nicer reviews of Ann Coulter’s books than she deserves. Her book Treason, which had the potential to clarify Joseph McCarthy’s record to millions, instead only added to the fog. Though she cites other thoughtful revisionist works, like Arthur Herman’s Joseph McCarthy, she clearly hasn’t absorbed their insights; her version of the story is right-wing propaganda that gets as much wrong as the standard left-wing hackery. The NR review, by Sarah Maserati, had this jaw-dropper of a line:
Coulter may be cavalier with facts, as many critics have charged-but, then again, nobody should mistake her for a scholar.
So only the Ward Churchills of the world should be required to tell the truth? Well, that lets the rest of us off the hook—did I tell you that Sarah Maserati owns five complete sets of The Anna Nicole Smith Show, and a complete collection of Pauly Shore movies?
National Review, to its credit, finally unleashed Florence King on Coulter. A sample:
At her best, Coulter writes well, but the chief source of her success is that she is a perfect match for the American ideal: smart as a whip but dumb as a post, educated but not learned, sexy but not sensuous, all at the same time. She would not hesitate to choose a sledgehammer over a stiletto because her instincts would pull her back from what the 18th century called “demolishing your enemies without raising your voice.” She would know that if a writer uses a stiletto, a lot of people might not get the point, but they would definitely get the loftiness that accompanies irony and understatement. And so, knowing that being called an elitist spells ruin, she opted for a sledgehammer and raised the roof instead.
Miss King also manages to hit Coulter’s hypocrisy along the way. Worth a read. Now if only NR will keep up the attacks on Coulter—it’d be enough to take your breath away (if you don’t get what I’m referring to, you need to read Miss King).
Hubbard posted this at 11:57 AM EDT on Thursday, July 27th, 2006 as Conservatism, Belles Lettres
6 Comments »
A common trivia question: Which state is the only state to be home to two simultaneous American presidents? The answer is Kentucky, birthplace of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, president of the short-lived Confederate States of America.
I’ve temporarily moved to a different side of my office, and now Lincoln and Davis have something else in common: I can see things named after both of them. From my window in Arlington I look straight down Jefferson Davis Highway (US Route 1) and over the Potomac to the Lincoln Memorial. Next to Washington (who is beyond comparison), Lincoln was the greatest American. He saved the Union and he abolished slavery; I do not believe it possible for a president to achieve anything greater. Thus it is appropriate that he receive the most stirring memorial in our nation’s capital, a temple where we might remember true greatness, courage, and principle.
It is inappropriate, however, that anything within sight of Washington be named after Jefferson Davis. I grew up in the South, surrounded by people brought up to thoughtlessly idealize the Confederacy as a place where Gentlemen stood up and fought for their Rights and their Homes. In some instances that was the case. I don’t have much problem with Virginia naming places after Generals Lee and Jackson. They were soldiers who felt their duty was to their state over their country; an understandable position that honorable men could take when faced with an awful decision. Confederate politicians, though, are entirely different.
For it is they who led the treasonous insurrection. Davis was a sitting Senator when Mississippi succeeded; the duty of soldiers is to follow their commands, the duty of statesmen is to follow their principles. To Davis’s slight credit, he urged against secession; to his everlasting shame, he followed his fellow Mississippians into revolt. He then became the political head of that revolt.
That Davis was a Mississippian is not an insigificant fact. He was born in Kentucky and made his home in Mississippi; his only connection to Virginia is that Richmond became the political capital of the revolt. In naming US 1 Jefferson Davis Highway, Virginia is not honoring a native son, it is honoring a traitor whose only connection to the Commonwealth involved treason. That revolt killed tens of thousands of Virginians and brought devestation to the Commonwealth, and to all the South.
And whatever excuses Southerners may now try to make about the war, there is no way to avoid the fact that the core of the Confederacy was the defense of chattel slavery. In terms of the actions he took, it can be said that no man did more to defend chattel slavery than Jefferson Davis.
Yet here I sit, looking at Jefferson Davis Highway, which leads straight over the Potomac to the capital of a nation that Davis gave his all to destroy, a city named after the greatest American and Virginian. It’s shameful, almost too shameful for belief. Virginia is the birthplace of eight American presidents, yet it names this highway after a traitorous politician from another state, a traitor who thought chattel slavery such a fine institution that saving it was more important than saving the country.
I like to think–and in most ways it’s true–that the South has moved past that awful time. But in some disgusting ways it still clings to the most wretched parts of its history. One day Virginia will have the decency to be ashamed of that part of its past. Until then, I can but clinch my jaw in anger at such a galling embrace of shame and treason.
Apollo posted this at 11:17 AM EDT on Thursday, July 27th, 2006 as The Past Is Never Dead--It Isn't Even Past
2 Comments »
Peggy Noonan, echoing one of my old observations, thinks that the president doesn’t really have a philosophy:
William F. Buckley this week said words that, if you follow his columns, were not surprising. And yet coming from the man who co-fathered the modern conservative movement, carrying the intellectual heft as Reagan carried the political heft, the observation that President Bush is not, philosophically, a conservative, had the power to make one sit up and take notice.
I have had reservations in this area since Mr. Bush’s stunning inaugural speech last year, but Mr. Buckley’s comments, in a television interview last weekend, had the sting of the definitional. I agree with Mr. Buckley’s judgments but would add they raise the question of what Bush’s political philosophy is—I mean what he thinks it is. It’s not “everyone should be free.” Everyone in America thinks everyone should be free, what we argue over is specific definitions of freedom and specific paths to the goal. He doesn’t believe in smaller government. Or maybe he “believes” in small government but believes us to be in an era in which it is, with the current threat, unrealistic and unachievable? He believes in lower taxes. What else? I continually wonder, and have wondered for two years, what his philosophy is—what drives his actions.
Does he know? Is it a philosophy or a series of impulses held together by a particular personality? [emphasis added] Can he say? It would be good if he did. People are not going to start feeling safe in the world tomorrow, but they feel safer with a sense that their leaders have aims that are intellectually coherent. It would be good for the president to demonstrate that his leadership is not just a situational hodgepodge, seemingly driven and yet essentially an inbox presidency, with a quirky tilt to the box.
I love the phrase, “inbox presidency.” I think it describes Bush 43 and Bush 41 alike. It also defines the last 6 years of the Clinton presidency; Gingrich and Lott sent proposals over to Clinton, who either vetoed them or signed them into law. Bush goes by instinct, which I also think is how John Kerry also works. It’s a far from perfect way of working, but since I thought (and continue to think) that Bush’s instincts were better than Kerry’s, I voted for Bush. He was the less bad choice.
Can an instinctual man voice a philosophy? I’m not sure, but I’d guess no. Where does that leave us? It means that those of us, right and left, need to start hammering out a philosophy in preparation for the post-Bush era. The Age of Reagan, which Clinton could not overturn, effectively ended 09/11/01. The nostalgia for that era shines through in Peggy Noonan’s current column, but we can no more go back to that time than we can go to Hogwarts. We’re in a new era; who will define it?
Hubbard posted this at 7:58 AM EDT on Thursday, July 27th, 2006 as Philosophy, Politics
2 Comments »
Sucks to be fat.
Dorothy posted this at 2:50 PM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Uncategorized
No Comments »
More disturbing pictures here.
Dorothy posted this at 11:23 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Another Great Victory For Jihad, Global War on Terror
1 Comment »
It’s been said that the major problem with libertarianism is those annoying children. When everyone’s a rational actor, the system can work; when there’s a large percentage of the population that are not rational actors, it doesn’t.
An instance of this conflict is taking place here in Virginia. A 16 year-old cancer patient is trying to refuse chemotherapy, and the Commonwealth is trying to force him back into chemo. The Post has a good roundup of the case today. It’s now a parents’ rights (which is normally the liberarian answer to the children problem) case of the first order.
While I’m normally willing to be deferential to parents, this case crosses the line. A boy (15 at the time) is upset with how sick he’s getting as a result of chemo and radiation therapy. Father does some research and comes up with an alternative treatment plan. Now parents and child want to stop the chemo and radiation; the Commonwealth says this is medical neglect.
Of course the Commonwealth is right on this. The boy cannot make his own decisions on this matter, and, while I’m perfectly willing to allow adults to take themselves off of chemo, you cannot do that to a minor child. Compare:
After the therapy shrank the tumors but did not eliminate all signs of the disease, the oncologist recommended radiation and more chemotherapy, according to court documents and the family.
[snip]
Abraham began researching an alternative treatment that consists of herbal supplements and an organic diet free of processed sugar. The treatment was initiated by Harry Hoxsey, a former Texas cancer clinic operator who was accused by the Food and Drug Administration of peddling worthless medicine — and who died of cancer.
But Abraham’s father became a believer in the Hoxsey method when the family traveled in March to the clinic in Mexico. “I’ve talked to the people who survived, and not only did they survive, they didn’t have any side effects,” he said.
With his family’s support, Abraham began the Hoxsey regimen several months ago. His father says Abraham’s tumors continue to grow, but more slowly.
What kind of luddite insanity is this? “Screw you, science. I can’t stand to see my boy sick from chemo so I’m going to put him on some fruitcake health regimen instead. Even though the disease continues to progress while he’s on that regimen.” This man is effectively choosing an easy death rather than a painful chance at life. That’s okay for the elderly, or those beyond treatment, but it is not an acceptable decision for a father to make for his 16-year old son, whose condition is treatable.
I hope the Commonwealth wins this case. Not every doctor knows best, but as a group, Doctors do know best. The amount of knowledge we now have regarding the human body and treating its ailments has long passed the point where a layperson can make truly informed decisions. You don’t like what the doctor says? Ask another, and another, and another. But then don’t proceed to ignore what they all say in your pursuit to hear what you want to hear. And for God’s sake, don’t wager your son’s life on the bet that a few months of research makes you an expert.
Apollo posted this at 10:59 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Science & Evolution
5 Comments »
I don’t mean to turn this into a sports blog, or an Ozzie Guillen blog, but the news stories just won’t go away. The hot-headed manager shows up again today. What I like is how the lede tells you more about sports journalism than the story:
Detroit Tigers first base coach Andy Van Slyke made generalizations about Latinos on Tuesday in questioning the managerial approach of the Chicago White Sox’s Ozzie Guillen.
Sports journalism is about as PC as it comes. In mainstream journalism, there are at least some people who question PC; in sports journalism, this is not the case. Thus when people involved with sports make even the slightest slip from the PC-party line, that’s the story. The best example of this involves Rush’s statements on ESPN a few years ago. He said that, because the sports media wanted a successful black quarterback, they overhyped Donovan McNabb (who was good, he said, but just not as good as they hyped him to be). The sports media, of course, refused to see this as criticism of them, and quickly the story became “Rush says McNabb not good because he’s black.”
Here, Van Slyke (who is one of the good guys in baseball), didn’t actually do what the lede says he did.
“[Guillen’s] a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve,” Van Slyke told the radio network. “He is, if you want to call it, [a] typical Latin baseball player.
“I don’t believe that it’s true for all Latinos, but a lot of people’s perception is that Latinos are hot-headed. He has certainly shown that he gets a little upset and a little excited about the littlest, silliest things.”
Van Slyke pointed out that Guillen falls into a stereotype. Seeing people fulfill stereotypes is one of my favorite types of humor (the Asian who confuses Ls and Rs, the hotheaded Latino, the Southerner getting offended, the flaming gay guy). The fact is that there is almost always some basis to stereotypes, and while the dominant PC culture encourages us to deny it, pesky reality refuses to go away. And this is funny.
But back to sports journalism. I cannot possibly think of anyone living in this world who, after seeing Guillen lose his head and get pissy as often as he does, didn’t think of the hotheaded Latino stereotype. It’s not like there aren’t hotheaded white managers (Lou Pinella covering up home plate with dirt is one of my favorite baseball memories), but Guillen’s thuggish aggressiveness is directed toward everyone: his own players, the media, the opposition, league management. Van Slyke’s criticism of Guillen wasn’t that harsh, but Guillen completely flies off the handle in his response:
That’s why he’s coaching first base and I’m managing in the big leagues. I’m going to manage in the big leagues longer than he’s going to coach first base.
I have no doubt that Van Slyke will be forced to do some sort of Kabuki apology to “the Latino community” regarding this. Unfortunately, since Van Slyke is such a classier guy than Guillen, it will be nowhere nearly as funny as the “I watch WNBA and went to a Madonna concert” apology Guillen had to make to gay people.
Apollo posted this at 8:28 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Journalism
No Comments »
George Michael is in the news again for doing the nasty in public. He also made a notorious quote that should give pause to every self-respecting gay person:
“Are you gay? No? Then f*** off! This is my culture!”
Since I’m a fellow queer, a few thoughts and observations.
Unfortunately, he’s right that sleazy sex is a part of gay culture. DC’s local gay paper, the Washington Blade, runs ads for escorts, even as they cover parties and fundraisers that benefit AIDS research. (Take heart: Metro Weekly, DC’s other gay paper, doesn’t run escort ads. God bless them.)
Still, George Michael is degrading himself when he makes comments like that. Every thug can point to other crooks who’ve robbed, raped, and murdered. But the sins of others don’t make our own any smaller. It’s Adam shifting the blame to Eve (or Steve) all over again; Michael would have risen in our esteem if he took his punishment like a gentleman rather than squealing: the culture made me do it (I paraphrase slightly, but that’s essentially what he’s saying). He also manages to make the cause of gay rights that much more difficult: Rick Santorum et al. can now quote George Michael about the depraved gay culture.
Jason Kuznicki argued that Michael is suffering from a male privilege lack; that is, male privilege only applies to straight men. That’s partially right; Hugh Grant’s career certainly hasn’t suffered from his public disgrace with a prostitute, but I think Michael’s whole sordid mess is replete with double standards.
- He’s rich. He can buy off his lover with “a million quid.” This is the sort of thing mere mortals have trouble doing.
- He’s the wrong kind of gay person. Kevin Spacey has been in public parks at odd hours but has never suffered this kind of nasty publicity.
- Being a celebrity, Michael gets off easy. No life on a sex offender list for him.
Despite the double standards, Michael is getting the sort of hammering that I wouldn’t wish on anyone. He’s earned it, but I still pity him. I hope he takes some time out to think, to reflect, to pray. He needs something.
Hubbard posted this at 8:22 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Pop Culture Is Filth
No Comments »
Apollo wrote:
As a case in point, this is how I went woman hunting. I have had in my life exactly one girlfriend, to whom I am now married. I did this not by searching out the perfect woman, but by searching for a woman who didn’t annoy me, because I realized everyone has at least some traits that I can like, and if I let myself become enamoured with that, it could blind me to the bad.
I read your initial post with the same lack of generosity as Amber, and find it difficult to read it any other way. You seemed to be saying “Dorothy didn’t drive me completely nuts, so I married her.” After all, my friend, you did compare her to unfair taxation and high crime.
That being said, your second post clarifies your position admirably; not only do I no longer feel Dorothy needs to send you to banish you to the futon (preferably without the futon pad), I rather agree with you. Though I’ve yet to encounter a perfect relationship, though I could count many, many wonderful ones that should not be traded for all the world. These relationships endured because their participants were wise enough to love their partner for all the right reasons, while being able to look past, forgive, or at least tolerate all of his or her imperfections and flaws. Indeed, the concepts of a Mr./Mrs. Perfect or of Soul Mates (in the sense that that each of us is destined for one, and only one of other person on the face of the planet, and should not stop searching until we find that one person) to be very foolish and damaging.
I find that the same reasoning applies to dating. I can attest from personal experience that undue pride and foolish pickiness – i.e. looking for the perfect girlfriend – cost me a lot of fun and happiness over the years, to say nothing of the feelings and desires of my potential love-interests (apparently, the pride is still there).
Indeed, if I could time travel back to my freshmen year of college, one of the first things I’d do to my former self is slap him in the face, and point to some of the truly wonderful young women the snobby little wretch refused to consider who might — just might! — have been interested in him. Were I successful in convincing 18-year old Tom to mend his ways, it wouldn’t be a matter of lowering his standards, but of expanding them. If love is truly what makes the world go ‘round, it would have gone ‘round that much faster.
On the other hand, of the few women I’ve been romantically involved with, three of them easily qualify as modal wives and are still good – even close – friends (I count myself very lucky). What’s more, if I were to wake-up one morning and find myself in a Family Man situation with any one of them, my first reaction would be to toss an arm around her, snuggle close, set the alarm clock back a good ten minutes, and gloat about my luck until she woke-up.
Tom posted this at 12:45 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 26th, 2006 as Ourselves, Philosophy, Lord, What Fools These Mortals Be!
1 Comment »