Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

Is More Democracy Really the Answer?

The Realities of Exporting Democracy
In the year since Bush redefined U.S. foreign policy in his second inaugural address to make the spread of democracy the nation’s primary mission, the clarion-call language has resonated in the dungeons and desolate corners of the world. But soaring rhetoric has often clashed with geopolitical reality and competing U.S. priorities.

Look, I may intensely dislike George W.Bush — he reminds me of a certain oily cardboard box salesman I once knew (yes, honestly, he sold cardboard!) — and I may think the Bush administration has done some really awful and undemocratic things, but I’m not blind to the fact that international policy is really really complicated stuff. There’s simply no denying that a good part of our relatively robust economic health is predicated on turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in other countries. (And doesn’t that feel like a house of cards?)

What I question is whether it’s really the best thing to force democracy into many of these countries. Modern democracy is, after all, an outgrowth of western European and North American culture. The rest of the world didn’t have The Enlightenment. The rest of the world doesn’t stress individualism nearly as much as we do. Democracy is, in my opinion, very likely NOT the best form of government for many places. When you try to cram an individualist type of government down the throats of people who are very much into a collectivist sort of culture, you’re only going to have big problems. It just won’t work.

The smarter way to go is to leave these dictatorships in place and just insist that the dictators treat the citizens well. Don’t insist on elections — insist on clean water, hospitals, and schools.

Medicare D — A Screw-Up of “Bushian” Dimensions

Bush the Incompetent
Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it’s hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president’s defining attribute.

Heh, heh… Well, I can’t really add anything to that! All I can do is strongly urge you to read this great Washington Post editorial by Harold Meyerson. Harold’s got editors he needs to answer to. Me? I can write whatever I want. The Bush Medicare Drug Plan is what I’d call a complete fuckarow.

How About a Little Peace and Quiet?

Raw Fisher
[Virginia House Bill 1368] would ban all athletic activities on every sports field and every swimming pool in the state of Virginia, even apparently including indoor facilities, before 8 in the morning, after 6 in the afternoon, or at any time on Sundays, unless the organizers of the event got written permission from every single homeowner within 65 yards of the facility. I kid you not.

This would effectively mean a ban on all athletic activity after the work and school days and on Sundays throughout all of Virginia.

Oh please! The Washington Post’s Marc Fisher needs to take a reading comprension course. Permission would only be required of homeowners whose houses are withing 65 yards of the sports facility. That’s right — 65 yards — slightly more than half the length of a football field. In other words, REALLY REALLY CLOSE.

Stop and think for a moment about sports facilities you’ve seen. Okay… you’ve got a mental picture of your favorite sports facility in your head? What do you see surrounding it?

Could it be… A HUGE FRIGGING PARKING LOT? Could it also be other athletic fields for playing sports other than the one you’re there to see? Uh-huh. I thought so.

I’d venture a guess that only a very few sports facilities will be affected by this Bill. And those that are — Jesus Christ! The sports facility is practically on top of the neighboring house! It’s not so much to ask that they get an okay from the homeowner for events that are going to be held during the hours when homeowners are most likely in their houses trying to relax. I’m imagining a nightmarish situation where Joe Rural built his little house out in the country, maybe 400-500 yards away from the local high school. Things were great at first — nobody bugged him and he didn’t bug anyone else. Then, one horrible day, the high school began construction on its new super-duper football stadium. 50 yards away from Joe Rural’s back door. Say goodbye to those blissful summer evenings listening to the crickets, Joe!

This is a good Bill. People who intentionally bought a house right next door to a sports facility will be happy to give permission. People who never asked for that sort of action will have a chance to reclaim some peace and quiet

And Yet More on “God Is Love”

Mary’s been back a couple times to warn me that I’m definitely hell-bound because I don’t accept her weirdo brand of Christianity. Our friend Michael Lewis has left a few interesting follow-up comments of his own.

Check it all out here.

More on “God Is Love”

If you’re interested, Mary T. has posted a long follow-up comment to the God Is Love post from a couple days ago.

I’ve posted my reply within the comments area as well.

Al Sharpton on Gay Rights

Black Gays Ask Clergy For Tolerance
“You cannot talk about civil rights and limit who’s included,” Sharpton told about 150 people at First Iconium Baptist Church. He said it is every church’s obligation to help end the “poisoned atmosphere. . . . The church should have a front seat in the car leading toward dialogue, leading toward tolerance.”

Yeah, I know. Al Sharpton?? But he’s really got a point

Some of my readers may have wondered, why is Rebecca so fired up about gay rights? She’s a 49-year-old married straight woman. Why should she care?

I’ve explained some of it in a post I wrote over a year ago, My Favorite Teachers. The truth is, though, I hadn’t really given the matter much thought until the Bush administration tried to push through a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Everything sort of “crystallized” for me then. I thought, “Wait a minute. Gay people aren’t bad or perverse. I’ve known gay people — they’re just regular people! Why shouldn’t they be able to get married if they want to?” It was then that I realized how really evil denying them this right is. It’s just as immoral to deny homosexuals the right to marry or adopt children as it would be to deny those rights to people of Hispanic or Asian or African descent. IT’S JUST AS WRONG, PEOPLE.

I’ve come to the conclusion that gay rights is THE civil rights issue of this age.

If I were the kind of person who joined “movements”, I’d be out marching. That’s not me, though. I tend to keep to myself. So — I blog about it.

Equal rights for gay people. Now.

God Is Love

“MT” (Mary Toillefson?) has submitted another follow-up comment to my post Bigots Win the Day in Virginia and it’s interesting enough that I’m moving it up front here for comment. (You can read the comment in its original context by clicking on the link above.)

OK, so if it’s ok for gays to marry… and it’s OK for 3-4 people to marry each other, who’s to say that it’s wrong to have sex with kids? Nobody should tell anyone what is right & wrong, according to your way of thinking.

Which just goes to show that you are completely in the dark as to what my “way of thinking” is.

Who’s to say that it’s wrong to have sex with animals?
If the animals consent… or if the kids consent… are you saying it’s OK?

No. Sex with children or animals is inherently abusive. Neither children nor animals are capable of fully consenting because they lack the psychological wherewithal to do so. The same would be true of mentally ill adults and adults who, because of a pre-existing relationship between the people involved (psychologist and patient, priest and parishioner, parent and adult child) are unable to fully consent.

“As long as it doesn’t hurt anybody”, you say… but who are you to judge who it hurts?

Uh… first of all. That’s not what I say — and if you’d spent any time reading my blog at all, you’d know that. Sex between adults and children or animals is inherently abusive and morally wrong and it should be severely punished.

“Gay marriage” is an abomination, just as homosexual acts are against God’s intended purpose, as Romans 1 tells us.
Marriage is a special privilege for men & women to leave their parents and join together as one in unity and love – and it is consumated sexually through the biological intimacy designed by God Himself.

Now you’re completely changing the subject. Sex with a child or an animal — neither of which are capable of consenting or of forming an intimate relationship between equals — is, no matter HOW you want to look at it, an entirely different sort of thing from sex between two consenting adults.

Just because two people love each other doesn’t give them the “right” to get married.

Why the hell not??! What better criterion can there be than that the people love one another and want to spend their lives together?

If 2 eight-year olds want to get married, they can’t. Nor can a 40 year old marry a 6 year old… and hopefully our judges will never permit such a thing.

See above. Your argument is spurious.

But you go ahead and live in your liberal Godless miserable world and deny the truth that is evident in God’s creation.

Oh my! You make a lot of unfounded assumptions, MT! My world is neither miserable nor Godless.

You must really hate God for being so loving that He created such a beautiful world and intricate universe, with such amazing, miraculous human bodies that the best scientists cannot produce.

It is a beautiful universe, isn’t it! I am grateful every single day that I live in it.

Life is a gift.

I agree completely. What does this have to do with gay marriage, though? Are you one of those kooks who think the purpose of marriage is to pop out kids? I love it when people make that argument. I always ask them: What about women who, for medical reasons, are unable to have children? Should they not be able to get married? Should their husbands be entitled to take a second or third wife in order to have kids? What about older women? Should their husbands be able to take additional younger wives to have children with? That’s what they did in the Bible, after all.

Haven’t the past few thousand years taught us all that the primary purpose of marriage, after all, is for people who love one another to be together — to support one another in times of sorrow, to share the times of joy?

Of course that’s the purpose of marriage — and I defy you or anyone else to claim otherwise.

If you die in the state of rebellion towards God and His Son Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, then you will have eternal condemnation because of your own choice – not because God wants you there.

Yeah, yeah, yeah… Wonderfully bitter as that all is, it’s got nothing to do with me or gay marriage.

Choose God. Choose Life.
MT

I bet you eat meat. “Choose Life”, indeed. When it comes to “choosing life”, I bet I’m living that idea in a much more meaningful way than you EVER have, MT. Choosing life means caring for ALL living creatures: unborn children, old folks, gay people, straight people, cats, dogs, squirrels. If you really believe that God wants you to “choose life”, you’ve got to understand that you don’t get to pick and choose which kinds of life you’re going to choose. You’ve got to love it all. That’s what Jesus said and I think he knew what he was talking about.

p.s. Your view on women and the Bible is totally wrong.

LOL! Oh it is, is it?

Have you ever studied the Bible? Ever heard of Mary the mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene? What about Ruth, Esther, Naomi, Sarah, Rebekkah, etc. All of these women were written about in very highly regarded ways.

Oh dear. I do believe you’ve misunderstood my sarcasm in a previous post.

And, God has given us His Word in the Bible – even though penned by men, it was divinely inspired by God.

I suppose in a way everything is divinely inspired by God. The Bible, though, is full of logical contradictions and a lot of stuff that, frankly, is pure bullshit. I’m guessing you don’t follow all those rules laid out in the book of Leviticus, for example. Why is that? Because they’re outdated, perhaps? Use the mind God gave you, MT. The Bible, while it has LOTS of really good stuff (the parts with Jesus are the best, I think), was written by human beings with all sorts of motives. Some of it’s history, some of it’s poetry, some of it’s propaganda.

Maybe you should try praying to Him and reading (studying diligently) the Bible and you might just be surprised.

Thanks for the advice. I’ve got my religiousity firmly under control, though.

Stop listening to all the liberal anti-God reprobates and you might find true wisdom.

snicker! “liberal anti-God reprobates”?? LOL! I’ll tell you something, MT. I think if Jesus were alive today, you’d be calling HIM a “liberal anti-God reprobate”! Jesus was all about love and forgiveness — not about casting stones. The biggest difference between us, I think, is that I really believe that God is love, where you seem to believe that God is an intolerant asshole.

Gimme Lean!

I finally got around to trying Lightlife’s Gimme Lean Sausage Style stuff and it’s pretty good! Actually… it’s really good and I can think of all sorts of things I’m going to do with it recipe-wise. (Some sort of sweet-and-sour thing with pineapple chunks, onions, and peppers springs immediately to mind.)

To tell you the truth, I’ve resisted trying this stuff for YEARS because of its really stupid name. I mean… “Gimme Lean!”?? How about “Gimme LAME”?

It’s sort of embarrassing.

I like this stuff, though, because its made with non-GMO soy, it has zero fat, and there are no preservatives in it. Also, it comes in a form (a plastic tube like you’d buy bulk sausage in) that makes it really easy to use however you want. It’s not all “pre-formed” like Morningstar Farms or Boca fake sausage patties (which are both pretty chemical-y, too.) The flavor is not bad at all!

I’ve heard other vegetarians rave about this stuff for years but I just couldn’t get past the name. Okay. I’m over that. I’m sold! This is what I’ll be buying from now on. Lightlife has a bunch of other products, too, so I suppose I’ll check those out.

If you’re looking for this stuff in your own grocery store, be aware that it’s usually sold in the produce section — over near the tofu and wonton wrappers and stuff.

Feminism

Salon.com Life | My lunch with an antifeminist pundit
O’Beirne, who declined to give her age but graduated from high school in 1967, is married to a retired Army officer with whom she has two grown sons. She worked intermittently during their young childhood, as a part-time undergraduate law professor in Germany where her husband was stationed, for the Reagan administration while her husband did shift work for the Pentagon, and part-time for the Heritage Foundation, of which she later became a vice president. Formerly a regular panelist on “The Capitol Gang,” she has been at National Review since 1995.

Women like Kate O’Beirne always make me laugh — they rave away about the evils of “feminism” without apparently ever considering the simple fact that, without the feminist movement, their lucrative writing and public speaking careers simply would not be happening. O’Beirne went to law school — an option that would not have been available to her pre-feminism. She worked while her children were young — another choice she would not have had.

I think a lot of the anti-feminism you see among upper-middle class and wealthy women (because, honestly, how many poor working women do you ever hear bitching about feminism?) has to do with feeling guilty about having let paid help raise their children and keep house. That’s worth feeling guilty about — you only get one chance to raise your kids and if you choose to do something else instead (work for the Reagan administration, for example), that’s it. There’s no going back. So… you live with the regret. The thing is, feminism is not to blame for these women’s personal feelings of regret.

Another really stupid thing people like Kate O’Beirne do is present feminism as some kind of monolithic entity where all feminists are dike-y man-haters who refuse to raise children or wear perfume. Here’s the true essence of feminism:

• Women should have the same opportunities that men have in terms of education and employment and lifestyle.
• Women and men should be paid the same if they’re doing the same job.

That’s it. It’s not particularly complicated in theory, but amazingly enough, people (even “feminists” themselves sometimes) like to read all sorts of idiotic crap into these simple ideas. They do it (read in the idiotic crap) because it’s a lot more entertaining (and profitable) to rail against a monster than to rationally discuss what’s happening in the real world.

In this salon.com interview, O’Beirne goes on and on about how there’s no federal subsidy for women who choose to stay home with their kids when they’re little (instead of working outside the home.) Her outrage over this is particularly amusing because the whole idea that child-raising has value is a feminist idea!

What can I say? People are weak and O’Beirne has books to sell.

Is Introversion Just an Excuse for Being Lazy?

I’ve been noticing lately that I’m generally pretty good at coming up with ideas for what the various clubs and groups I belong to ought to be doing — but pretty much useless when it comes to actually doing the work necessary to make whatever happen.

My explanation has always been something along the line of: Well, doing whatever myself would involve me having to telephone people I don’t know or meet with strangers and I really REALLY dislike doing stuff like that (because I’m a serious introvert, dontcha know) so someone else should do all that part.

I’ve begun to wonder, though, whether merely having “ideas” about what to do is valuable enough to offset my lack of follow-through. Maybe not.

Still… Here’s the thing. I really do loathe telephoning strangers. (It’s almost a phobia — but not quite.) It’s stressful for me. Anticipation of having to telephone a stranger has literally made me lose sleep at times.

Weird. I know.

I’m told that, for many people, this activity isn’t at all stressful. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that they should be the ones to do it?

Again, I ask: is simply having ideas enough? Is the fact that I personally don’t follow through on most of these ideas a sign that I’m basically a lazy person?

I’m good at solitary activities. I wish there were more of those sorts of things I could do to feel useful. I suppose, though, it’s not particularly surprising that the activities associated with club or group membership tend to involve working with other people.

Hm. What to do?