Do negative expectations produce negative results?
Posted May 30, 2004 10:15 AM PDT
Beginning in the late 1960s, feminists told us that men have weak egos. For several years, the big joke was that male bravado stemmed from fear of not measuring up. Politically, this helped gain access for women to stereotypically male professions.
Heading into the 1980s, feminists told us that we needed to get in touch with our "feminine side." Politically, this helped feminists to emasculate the work place, opening doors to power for women. In both cases, their tactics produced gains for women, both politically and financially, with little harm to men and children, but some benefit to society. However, these gains did little to provide power for feminist organizations. So in the 1990s, they took a new tack, claiming that men are monsters.
Leveraging works, such as Susan Brownmiller's enduring but flawed anti‑male diatribe from 1975, Against Our Will, the "men are monsters" campaign turned into an all‑out war on men beginning with Susan Faludi's collection of lies, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women in America. From then until 9‑11, pretty much all we heard from the media was that men are monsters, who rape, batter, abuse, oppress and kill women.
With the mostly male‑heroism during and immediately following the events on 9‑11, the effort to stereotype all men as monsters lost momentum. Unfortunately, the consequences of stereotyping men as batterers will be with us for generations, as young women expect, seek out and accept relationships that are abusive:
Domestic violence is becoming increasingly common among teenagers, says Tammy McElyea, domestic violence coordinator with the Mountlake Terrace Police Department.
"Young people are tolerating emotional and physical abuse in relationships. It has become the norm out there," McElyea said, adding that few teens are reporting the abuse. — Teen domestic violence increasing, by Diana Hefley, The Daily Herald, May 30, 2004
Feminists have taught and continue to teach that all men—"real" men—are abusive. They accentuated the negative, so that's now a part of our cultural expectation of men. To feminists, this is a desirable goal because it means career success writing and teaching about the evils of masculinity, designing programs to control evil male behaviors, political positions, university tenure, and more. But for society, it means more violence, more male criminals, more broken homes, everything a Marxist feminist needs to stage a socialist revolution, using women as shock troops on the frontline of their culture war against men, America and the West.
Most women are compelled by their biology to desire men, but thanks to the feminists' stereotyping of men as violent, most women are not taught to discriminate against abusive men, or to look for positive traits in men. The result is that, now, there is a trend among women to be more tolerant and accepting of abuse from men.
The Liberals' answer to this is more of the same, teaching us that men are monsters and women are victims. That's nuts.
An effective plan to reduce domestic violence begins with understanding, as Liberals do not, that most women and men will always desire the opposite sex, and that we cannot change the nature of the beast. What we can do, and what our Conservative values in the west did do during the past few hundred years, was to penalize the negative but accentuate the positive. This is because Conservatives understand that, to get the best from people, you have to instill positive, rather than negative, expectations.
Is Michael Moore a stupid white man?
Posted May 27, 2004 5:00 PM PDT
Michael Moore is oppressed, and President Bush is to blame. Yes, as even the most ignorant right wing wacko knows, Miramax was slated to release Moore's latest project, Fahrenheit 9/11, until that infamous propaganda machine of the Republican Party, the Walt Disney Company, blocked distribution on orders from the evil "family values" empire headed up by the formidable Dr. President Bush Evil:
(A)fter shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake. — When You Wish Upon A Star, by Michael Moore, Friday, May 7th, 2004
What he's saying is that the governor of Florida threatened one of his state's large employers, a company that brings a huge amount of business. Oh, please! Disney's official explanation is much more plausible:
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many. — Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush, by Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, May 5, 2004
In fairness, Moore does have a response to that:
"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998—a film called The Big One... by, um... ME! — When You Wish Upon A Star, by Michael Moore, Friday, May 7th, 2004
Obviously, Disney doesn't think Rush and Sean are "partisan." Regardless, Disney has every right to refuse to distribute Moore's film, just as they, along with many others, declined to distribute Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands." — Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush, by Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times, May 5, 2004
To hear Moore whine, however, he's an oppressed victim of censorship. But seeing him standing there, surrounded by so many poor and downtrodden millionaires of the world at the Cannes Film Festival, righteously accepting the coveted Palme d'Or (Golden Palm) for an anti‑American documentary that, simply from the description—according to CNN, it "accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before September 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war"—is short on facts, makes it clear the accolades were less for the substance of his film than his anti‑American politics:
Some critics had speculated that if "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value. — Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' wins Cannes award, The Associated Press, CNN, May 23, 2004
To which Moore tartly replies:
I fully expect the right wing and the Republican Party to come at me and this film with everything they've got. They will try, as they have unsuccessfully in the past, to attack me personally because they cannot win the debate on the issues the film raises—namely, that they are a pack of liars and the American people are on to them. — Fahrenheit 9/11 Wins Top Prize in Cannes, Michael Moore, Sunday, May 23rd, 2004
Michael, Michael, Michael, there was a time I admired your work. Like most Conservatives, I'm pro‑labor; unlike Liberals, however, we're also pro‑business. So as your accusations grew wilder and the lies became obvious—as they were in Bowling for Columbine—I stopped treating you like a trusted source and discovered that you and your crew are, to quote you, "a pack of liars." Others know this about you, too:
Stupid White Men is riddled with inaccuracies and ad hominem attacks. In it, Moore claims that five-sixths of the 2001 defense budget went towards a single plane and that two-thirds of President Bush's campaign funds came from just over seven hundred people. Both facts are obviously untrue to anyone remotely familiar with the defense budget or campaign finance law and are disproved by the very sources Moore cites. — Viewer beware, by Ben Fritz, November 19, 2002
In Britain, they're on to you, too:
Bowling for Columbine turns out to contain more half-truths than an Enron corporate video.
For example, Moore says that Lockheed Martin manufactures "weapons of mass destruction" in Littleton, Colorado, the town where the Columbine killings occurred; he even grills a company executive in front of a scary-looking rocket in the local factory. In fact, Lockheed Martin doesn't make weapons in Littleton; it makes weather and communications satellites that are launched by rocket.
— Only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore, by Damian Thompson, January 1, 2004
Although the number of people who have realized that Michael Moore is a big, fat liar is growing, compared to the millions of copies of his books sold, and the millions of Americans who will flock to see Fahrenheit 9/11 once he chooses a new distributor, it's not a lot; but it's a start. And let's face it, the fact is that as Moore gets more attention, more awards, and more adulation for every silly thing he says, the time will come when he will say things that are so extreme, so ridiculous and so obviously untrue that suddenly, in a shock of revelation, billions of people will see him for the stupid white man that he is, and nobody will believe him any more.
A president of high moral character
Posted May 7, 2004 5:45 AM
Chatter about the naughty prison pictures taken by members of the 372nd Military Police Company at the Abu Ghraib prison is everywhere pretty much the same: it's bad, it's worse, it's un‑American:
The photographs are just the tip of an expanding investigation into accusations that members of several Army units, including the 372nd, systematically abused, humiliated and beat Iraqi detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad starting last year. — Abuse Charges Bring Anguish in Unit's Home, by James Dao and Paul von Zielbauer, New York Times, May 6, 2004
Some feel this has done grave harm to American interests:
The president's unusual bid to reach out directly to Arab viewers signifies just how deeply the disclosures of prison abuses may have damaged U.S. prospects for establishing order in Iraq, and perhaps the administration's plan to turn power over to an Iraqi interim government on June 30. — Bush calls abuse 'abhorrent', by Stephen J. Hedges, Washington Bureau, Chicago Daily Tribune, May 6, 2004
While others contend it is, indeed, reflective of the depravity of American culture:
The hard fact is that the U.S. did install in Iraq an American‑style approach to prison management. Like the U.S. prison system, it is underfunded and inadequately supervised, lacks civilian oversight and accountability and is secretive and tolerant of inmate abuse until evidence of mistreatment is pushed into the public light. That, regrettably, is the American model. — Exporting America's Shame, by Robert L. Bastian Jr., Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2004
Meanwhile, our president, deeply disappointed by the display, made statements of remorse:
"It's a matter that reflects badly on my country," Bush said on al‑Arabiya, a satellite channel seen throughout the Arab world. "Our citizens in America are appalled by what they saw, just like people in the Middle East are appalled. We share the same deep concerns." — On Arab TV, President Says U.S. Is 'Appalled', by Mike Allen and Dan Balz, Washington Post, May 6, 2004
Later, he apologized:
At a Rose Garden press conference following a White House meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah (search), Bush offered his first direct apology over the prison issue.
"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," Bush said. — Bush Apologizes for Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Fox News, Greg Kelly, Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report, May 7, 2004
Whatever the "abuse" was, it must have been terrible, indeed, to warrant such anger from the Democrats and anguish from Bush:
Six reservists now face prosecution in Iraq. Their charges include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty towards prisoners, maltreatment, assault and indecent acts. — US military families react to atrocities, by Khalid Hasan, Daily Times of Pakistan, May 6, 2004
What atrocities?
What did they do? Rumors abound. Rape, torture, homosexual acts, torn toenails, perhaps, and searing jolts of electricity burning through genitals. Whatever they were, it had to be bad to overshadow the atrocities committed by the insurgents, worse, even, than what Saddam Hussein inflicted in that very same prison.
Not really. Not even close, in fact. According to the reports, the abuse, while beneath America, was not really all that bad, according to CNN:
The report says abuse at Abu Ghraib included:
- Threatening prisoners with a pistol.
- Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
- Threatening males with rape.
- Beating prisoners with a broom handle.
- Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light.
- Threatening detainees with military dogs.
- Attaching wires to extremities.
- Accusing prisoners of homosexuality.
- Forcing prisoners into compromising positions.
Source: Abuse Allegations in Iraq, CNN, May 6, 2004
Okay, none of that's okay, some of it is criminal, the perpetrators should be disciplined, they are being disciplined, but let's be real here, none of this rises to the level of indignation that is so pervasive in the press. Moreover, the fact that President Bush has expressed such shame and remorse over the incident is a testament, not to the degraded nature of America, but to Bush's high moral character.
What's best?
What about the glee with which the Democrats and John Kerry are reacting to the scandal? It's on par with how most Republicans reacted to bad news about Clinton. So that makes it all right, right? Wrong. Like Bill O'Reilly, I was one of those people who opposed Republicans for hounding Clinton over irrelevant issues. I published several articles, here, including An untimely obsession, that irritated my Republican friends, who felt Clinton was fair game. But it wasn't okay for them to do that to Clinton, then, and it's not okay for the Democrats to do it to Bush, now.
It's not just because two wrongs don't make a right, or because it's unfair; the relevant issue, from an American perspective, is, what's in the best interests of nation?
Obviously, while tearing down President Bush may serve the Kerry campaign, it only harms the interests of America. And while the scandal furthers the cause of Osama bin Laden and his far‑flung web of terrorists, it only harms the interests of peace‑living people everywhere. So, the American press ought to drop this and focus on more important issues, like which candidate — Kerry or Bush — offers the best plan, and which political party offers the best platform for the next 4 years.
Outsourcing jobs to Outer Space?
Posted May 5, 2004 5:30 AM
In January, President Bush called on NASA to come up with a plan to explore the Solar System. Yesterday, the presidential commission responsible for writing the blueprint that will guide this endeavor told NASA it has to change:
One commissioner, Carleton S. Fiorina, chairwoman and chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, said ... that to sell the plan to the public and sustain it over decades, it would need some pragmatic purposes: lifting science and math education so today's children can compete economically in the future, and protecting the nation's industrial base and jobs.
"Leadership in the 21st century depends on technology," Ms. Fiorina said. "You have to lead in industries that create high-tech jobs. Space and aeronautics is one of those industries." ‑‑ To Go to the Moon and Mars, NASA Is Told It Must Change, by Warren E. Leary, New York Times, May 5, 2004
She's right. Space exploration is expensive. We can't dump money into it simply because, like turning 40, it's "out there." It has to pay for itself. That's why President Bush is the man who can make it happen, because, with his background in business, he understands that we can't just spend money on space exploration, we have to view this as an investment, one that will, if not return a profit, at least pay for itself. And space exploration, if done right, does promise to turn a huge profit.
How? Through manufacturing, for one. Although space is made mostly of all that...space...there's plenty of material that can be used for manufacturing. The moon, for example, is covered with metal oxides, and it may even have water:
The controlled crash of NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft into a crater near the south pole of the Moon on July 31 produced no observable signature of water, according to scientists digging through data from Earth-based observatories and spacecraft such as the Hubble Space Telescope.
This lack of physical evidence leaves open the question of whether ancient cometary impacts delivered ice that remains buried in permanently shadowed regions of the Moon, as suggested by the large amounts of hydrogen measured indirectly from lunar orbit by Lunar Prospector during its main mapping mission. — No Water Ice Detected from Lunar Prospector Impact, NASA Press Release 99-119, October 13, 1999
Water, if we can find it on the Moon, will be nice, but what's important is that the moon is covered with a lot of metal oxides. These can be mined for fabrication and construction of everything from habitats, to be used in space, to industrial and consumer goods, to be shipped back to Earth. That means factories, factories mean jobs, jobs mean money, and money means it can pay for itself, and maybe even turn a profit.
As exotic as this seems, there are very down‑to‑Earth reasons why we would want to build factories in outer space. For one, factories in space provide a solution to pollution. For another, factories in space, where work can be done in zero‑gravity, can produce exotic materials. But just because there's no gravity there, doesn't mean there's no gravity there.
The Spin Zone
By now, most folks know gravity can simulated by spinning the container in which people will work and live. That's important, to avoid all the bone‑depleting problems associated with working in low gravity environments. But this may also be used to develop variable gravity manufacturing processes as yet unimagined for lack of a suitable environment in which to experiment.
Another way in which variable gravity environments might be harnessed is by building resorts that include everything from low gravity "flying" — talk about fulfilling an age‑old human fantasy — to heavy gravity health spa facilities, where simply walking is enough to make even the strongest bodybuilder sweat.
In between heavy manufacturing and tourism, lies a vast frontier of opportunities in space waiting to be discovered and developed. But none of that will happen if we don't do it. So let's do it.
Is straight marriage on the rocks?
Posted May 4, 2004 5:40 AM
According to a recent University of Washington study, homosexual relationships are less violent than relationships between straight couples:
"Gay and lesbian couples are a lot more mature, more considerate in trying to improve a relationship and have a greater awareness of equality in a relationship than straight couples," said John Gottman, a UW emeritus professor of psychology who directed the research along with Robert Levenson, a University of California, Berkeley, psychology professor. — Gays could teach straights, study shows, by Joel Schwarz, University Week, October 23, 2003
The response to this study on conservative talk radio was, predictably, negative, and from a conservative perspective, this is to be expected, as an axiom of conservatism is that slow social change is better than fast social change. There's a good reason for that: all changes have unintended consequences, and the law of unintended consequences, often cited by FOX News commentator Bill O'Reilly, can wreak all kinds of havoc on society. Especially changes to something as pervasive as marriage.
For one thing, there is religion to consider. No, I'm not talking about Bible‑thumping, right‑wing American zealots, which is what the left almost always assumes, despises and vilifies, but Muslims, Islamo‑fascist types, who would be quite willing to die if they could take American homosexuals with them. Were we to recognize homosexual marriage, this would make us an even bigger target for terrorists. Of course, one unintended consequence of that would be that, then, liberals and the American left would finally support the war on terror.
Is the study valid?
Would homosexual marriage spark a Muslim jihad against America the likes of which has not been seen so far? I think so. But that's not relevant to the study of whether homosexual relationships are less violent than heterosexual relationships. Many other factors are, however.
First, contrary to what the University of Washington study concludes, there are a number of other resources that indicate domestic violence is a significant problem in homosexual relationships. Here are just a few:
Second, subtle flaws in the University of Washington study are quite possible. For one thing, during the past 30 years heterosexual marriage has been under siege from the left, while the homosexual community enjoys an underground chic. The effect this has on heterosexual couples cannot be denied, yet it is unlikely to be considered in the study.
Third, I wonder if the prevalence of psychiatric drug use was considered in the study? Because homosexual relationships are on the fringe, and because fringe groups tend to be more experimental and open to trying new things (which can often be a good thing), it's quite possible that use of psychiatric drugs, such as anti‑depressants, is more prevalent in homosexual relationships. If this turned out to be the case, it would skew the results.
Amazons and Spartans in Outer Space?
Ultimately, homosexual marriage is probably inevitable. As we colonize the solar system, isolated communities of idealists seeking to create their own vision of utopia will evolve their own social institutions, assisted by technologies that we can just barely imagine today. For example, it's not a major technological leap from ectopic pregnancies in women to surgically crafted wombs in men. Once men are enabled to become pregnant, all‑male Spartan colonies of homosexuals can be viable, and quite possibly will be created, at some point. In parallel with this, as development of human cloning progresses, all‑female "Amazonian" colonies will doubtless emerge.
Are such colonies desirable? The debate about that may never end, but the overriding fact will be that, once the human spirit is released into the solar system, millions of people will rush to create communities modeled after their own hopes, dreams, desires, ideals, perversions, virtues and vices. With interplanetary mobility will come a veritable gold rush of social experiments. Which will succeed and which will succumb we may be able to predict, but not prevent, no matter how much we may disapprove.
Until that time, however, what concerns us back here on Earth is the stability, security and prosperity of society today. Rushing into alternative life‑styles may be fine for Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, but not here, and not now.
Spreading strategic ignorance
Posted May 3, 2004 5:00 PM
From the perspective of environmentalists, President Bush did tremendous harm to our nation's forests with passage of the Healthy Forests Initiative:
In just over three years, the executive director of the Sierra Club (Carl Pope) says, the Bush administration has stripped protection from 234 million acres of federal land more than all the 230 million acres protected by President Theodore Roosevelt when he ushered in a century of American land conservation in the early 20th century. — Sierra Club exec laments loss of federal land, by Kathie Durbin, The Columbian, May 3, 2004
Mr. Pope is mistaken. Worse, he's guilty of strategically spreading ignorance in service to his ideology, because his politically‑motivated assertions aren't based on science or facts, but on environmentalist articles of faith.
What the Healthy Forests Initiative accomplishes is a necessary step toward undoing decades of damage caused by ideologically-driven policies that have made our forests vulnerable to fires of epic proportions. Further, the Initiative is based on the understanding that individual trees aren't immortal, that trees in healthy forests have a life cycle, and that it is reasonable, responsible and wise to couple this understanding with commercial interests, something which the socialist ideologues who have turned environmentalism into their religion, don't understand:
Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. — The Religion of Environmentalism, Remarks to the Commonwealth Club, by Michael Crichton, September 15, 2003
Pope and his ilk are directly responsible for the fact that our national forests are disasters waiting to happen. Ignorance doesn't explain it: my grandfather, a life‑long democrat, knew how to manage forestry land, he did it for decades, and what he taught us is what the Bush Administration is now trying to do. But the truth about the destruction they have caused is something environmentalists cannot accept, because, as Crichton notes, "the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief."
The ideology of environmentalists, not their ignorance, produced this sorry state, but Pope's attack on Bush is pure politics, because conservatives actually have a history ‑ an established track record ‑ of conserving the environment:
The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment. — The Religion of Environmentalism, Remarks to the Commonwealth Club, by Michael Crichton, September 15, 2003
That's what President Bush has done, he's put politics aside, and that's Mr. Pope should do, because right now, while the Bush Administration is giving us solutions, all Pope has to offer is strategic ignorance that serves his destructive ideology.
Is Rush a racist?
Posted May 2, 2004 5:40 AM
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Everybody knows this. Well, not everybody, just the liberal left and the mainstream media, but they have proof, particularly of his racist attitudes toward American Indians, of which I am one:
Limbaugh was commenting on Tim Giago's decision to drop out of the U.S. Senate race after a meeting with Minority Leader Tom Daschle. The decision was worthy of comment and brings up all sorts of questions that many of us would like to have answered. ...
What Limbaugh did was to reduce Giago and all Native Americans to stereotypical caricatures - in both unflattering and offensive terms. — Limbaugh goes over the line, Editorial Board, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, April 30, 2004
That's horrible, that's hideous! What did he say? How did he stereotype Indians? Racists do that. Did he portray us as incompetent? We get that a lot. Did he say we need to shut up and go back to the rez, where we belong? I hate it when racists say stuff like that. What did Limbaugh say? We need to know, so we can drag him through the streets and shame him publicly for his foul words and nefarious deeds!
"I predicted that Tim Giago ‑ South Dakota Native American activist ‑ would be scalped politically. ... Last week, Daschle and Giago had a powwow. What happened in the tepee is unknown, but when the smoke signals cleared, Giago was Home on the Range. ... As for Giago, since he's back on the reservation ..." — Limbaugh goes over the line, Editorial Board, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, April 30, 2004
What a minute! Did Limgaugh say that Tom Daschle, a white man, scalped Tim Giago, an Indian? That's no stereotype. It's more of a historical fact, given that it was the Dutch and English who introduced scalping to the Indians:
In the 11th century, the Earl of Wessex scalped his enemies. When the English and the Dutch came to the new world they brought the custom with them. This activity was brought not so much as an official method of warfare, but as a bounty to ease the anger of the frontiersmen. — The history of Indian and European scalping, Native American Culture, PageWise, 2002
As for the rest, there's nothing demeaning or unflattering in any racist sense. Did he use colorful metaphors? Yes. But commentators use colorful metaphors to spice up their commentary all the time, and there's nothing racist about it.
As it happened, I was listening to his show when Rush made those comments, and his remarks were directed primarily at Tom Daschle. He noted, correctly in my opinion, that Democrats believe Indian country belongs to them, and that liberals are angered by the idea Indians might oppose them. Like Limbaugh, I hoped that by running against Daschle as an Independent, Giago would have done enough damage to help John Thune in his bid to unseat Daschle. But for now, it's enough that many Indians and prominent Indian leaders, like Russell Means, have endorsed Thune.
|