House of Eratosthenes

Ya just gotta see this. It is a new standard for hypocrisy, inveigling, and obfuscation. I award it a hundred points out of a possible hundred, and vow to protect it and display it and bring it out again, each time I wish to measure another example.

It starts with a revelation Monday that the palatial digs of Al Gore, that pied-piper of global warming, the twenty-first century’s Chicken Little, chews through — get this — twenty times the energy consumption of the average home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

This may come as quite a shock to folks who loudly advertise how much they hate blogs, and get all their news from the alphabet-soup cable channels and the Daily Show. To “neo-cons” like myself, it’s all par for the course. For a generation or more, the “environmental movement” has diminished into nothing but a two-tiered set of rules for us all, one tier for the “ordinary” folks and one tier for the elite millionaire grown-up hippies like Mr. Gore. We are to apologize for our existence while scuttling about in our little plastic-aluminum sedans that look like lightswitches, and they are to move freely around the world in their Gulfstream jets whenever they want. Ah, but what if you share the political leanings of the glitterati without sharing their status? Then you get to buy a hybrid, and start closing your eyes when you talk and smelling your own farts. Then the glitterati will smile upon you…but kindly move your wretched wrinkly wage-slave ass out of their way when you see ‘em coming, thank you.

Our liberals have become exactly what they call conservatives, whenever the subject of tax breaks comes up.

Well now. I was rather interested when I discovered this little statistic about our Former Next President of the United States, via Captain Ed Morrissey’s fine resource, and as is the case with everything I knew there was bound to be another side to the story coming down the road. And there was. First: It turned out the numbers were bogus.

Ha ha! No, that’s what I was waiting to see happen. You know, it could very well turn out that the numbers were bogus and Gore’s grandkids do their homework by candlelight when they come visit. But a lot of angry liberals have had their crack at this thing, and nobody’s stepped forward to say such a thing. No, the thing that happened first was that Drudge started reporting it — and so the lefties began to present it as a story from that nonsensical no-account conservative hobgobblin Matt Drudge. Y’know…like, it wasn’t actually from him, and even if it was, that by itself doesn’t mean it’s untrue…but if you want to conclude such a thing, the angry leftie telling you about Matt Drudge won’t utter a peep of protest. So don’t think about the numbers. Think about Drudge.

That was the first spin. I dunno if it worked. I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in it because as far as anybody can tell, the numbers are accurate. You light up your house all day, and you’ve burned up all the energy that Mister “Global Warming Will Kill Us All” needs for one single hour.

So it’s still a problem…demanding the Frankensten Monster of solutions. I mean, of P.R. solutions. Something that will put all other P.R. solutions to shame.

Well. Wait no more.

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

This is a masterpiece. Really. There are only so many things they can do to change the subject and divert blame from their revered High Prince of impending doom. And they have hit all the notes, as if someone had a paper-and-clipboard in hand with a bunch of checkboxes on it.

Carbon Offsets 5c One. They missed the point. Completely. The point is, Al Gore is saying our continuing survival has been placed into question — Manhattan getting flooded, etc. — because we’re having too big of an impact on the environment. Al Gore, through household energy consumption alone, has chosen to have twenty times as big of an impact as everybody else. Carbon offsets or no, he’s simply not taking his own proclamations seriously.

Two. They accuse the other side of missing the point, defining the other side as…anyone who would have a harsh syllable or two for their oh-so-put-upon High Prince Gore. How are Gore’s critics missing the point? Something to do with the carbon offset program…which bring us to…

Three. They get to make money for their friends off of Gore’s hypocrisy. Don’t criticize Al Gore! Buy some carbon offsets instead, like he is! Where’s the money go? Who knows? Who cares?

Four. When you start to read “Gore Responds,” the issue is Al Gore’s hypocrisy. When you’re finished with it, the issue is now “…and what are YOU doing to help the environment, like Al?” You have to admire it. They’ve been caught with their hands right in the cookie jar — or their buddy Al has, anyway — and they’ve turned it into a guilt trip on everybody else.

Five. This is just in the “frosting on the cake” department: The verbs and adjectives. Angry. Smear. Screaming. Desperate. You need to sprinkle these in, densely, as they’ve done, when you rely on spin instead of reason and common sense.

This is far too good to let go. You really don’t have to wait very long at all, in this politically charged climate, for The Left to come out with a scolding expose or rebuttal that hits two, three or even four of those. It is an occasion to bump into a single crown jewel covers all five so thoroughly, and that’s why this is a new yardstick by which similar scolding screeds will be measured.

One thing though. And a reasonably intelligent seventh-grader should be able to understand this. If you buy into the idea that Gore’s purchase of carbon offsets somehow vindicates him from the charge that he’s gulping through twenty times as much juice as the rest of us, then necessarily, you have to take it as proven that wherever the carbon offset revenue is going, it’s doing some good. Not only that, but that it is a hundred percent effective. And, that the offset-for-offset computation, weighed against the ecological-footprint size upon which it is based, is accurate. Pinpoint-accurate. Verifiably so. Remember, Al Gore is using up ten times two times You…the numbers stand unchallenged as his toadies and mooks have showered us with their predictable fury and spittle and righteous indignation. The numbers have not been disputed. Presumably, barring the arrival of new information, the numbers are accurate.

Gore is indeed using up all the power of a sorority house with hairdriers running full power, in all rooms, day and night. And yet — he stands blameless. Because of the carbon offset purchases. Which we must know, therefore, work every bit as reliably and as effectively as they’re supposed to…

…why and how, then, is there a global warming crisis? I mean, I don’t pretend to understand how the carbon offset program works, but it must work pretty well. Let’s just buy up enough carbon offsets to choke a horse, and pollute as much as we want. I mean, Al Gore has shown us how, and it must be okay if he’s doing it, right? By this logic, the situation is well under control. Where’s the crisis?

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Makes Special Sense
Monday, February 26th, 2007

So after the democrat party got all the kinks wound out of their Six for ‘06 platform last year, sanded off those burrs, buffed out those streaks, ironed out those wrinkles — how much sense did the result make to those who were, and are, ostensibly the beneficiaries of it?

Not much, when you weigh the words of former paratrooper Michael Fumento regarding Bullet Point #1, which told us they’d “Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda.”

First, doubling can only be accomplished by going a disastrous route – making special ops no longer special. Second, false solutions crowd out real ones. Much can be done to improve the quality of our armed forces, but this Democratic proposal doesn’t make the grade.

Just as it’s disturbing that in 31 pages the Democrats couldn’t devote a single line to how they plan to achieve their lofty goal, it’s unsettling that they can’t get their definitions right. “Special Forces,” properly speaking, refers to U.S. Army Special Forces, the Green Berets. But, as Drew Hammill in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office confirmed to me, what the Democrats want to double is the much broader group of “Special Operations Forces” – SOF in military shorthand, or just “special ops.”

Further, just as they don’t seem to know what special ops are, it’s doubtful the concocters of this soundbite know what goes into creating such troops or what a doubling would entail. But in consulting with special ops leaders, trainers, and members – indeed, by merely looking at the numbers – it quickly becomes clear that this “plan” is pie in the sky.

Hat tip to blogger friend Buck, who credits Chapomatic, and also achieved an early nomination for our Best Sentence award:

“Special,” in the Dem lexicon, has more to do with things like the Special Olympics than Special Forces. I despair of the Dems ever understanding the difference.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

What Is A Liberal? V
Monday, February 26th, 2007

What is a liberal? Many things define what the word has come to describe nowadays…few of them good. And a big chunk of them fall under this brief essay by Gary Kamiya, which was linked at Jawa, which in turn was linked by Good Lieutenant.

In a nutshell: Yes, they know they’re whacked-out wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy. That’s why they’re high-fiving each other and calling everybody else stupid.

Make sense now? Wonderful. Ice cream has no bones, turn on the radio I want to fly a kite, they’re coming to take me away haha.

Is there life after Bush?
We’ve been hating him forever, but he’s leaving. Now we have to decide what to do with the rest of our lives.
By Gary Kamiya

Hating George W. Bush sometimes feels like a full-time job…I’ve been forced to deal with this wretched president for so long that hating him has virtually become part of my identity…Pretty soon, we won’t have Bush to kick around anymore. And I’ve started wondering: What are we going to do then? …Maybe we Bush-haters are extreme and obsessive. But Bush made us this way.

You can tell from the ellipses sprinkled in there like raisins, I’m facing a challenge teasing it in a way that it makes sense. Kinda like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. But Mr. Kamiya demonstrates that all things do not have to be sane, to be revealing.

I’m not using Dowdisms to change the meaning of anything. Go read the whole thing.

One more time: These people want to decide what our public policies are going to be, foreign and domestic. And when they talk about “dissent == patriotism” they aren’t talking about dissent against them or their compatriots; they want blind obedience in that area. Once we’ve had a chance to inspect what they think and what they want to do, the more responsible folks among us wouldn’t trust them to walk the dog. Want proof? You only have to click.

Update: You know, I’m doing some more thinking about this and, as I attempt to find out anew what makes these people tick, a thought occurs to me that raises far more questions than it answers.

If I hate somebody or something…let’s just strip all the emotional turmoil out of it and call the thing “X” instead of “George Bush.” If I hate X, and I’m accepted into a community wherein all others present similarly hate X, there really isn’t going to be a lot to be said when you discount all the marginal conversations that could be fairly categorized as off-topic. “Hate to threadjack, but…” type-stuff, “when is this feature on your blog going to be available again,” stuff like that. Maintenance issues aside, there isn’t going to be much call to exchange ideas.

I mean to put it more concisely, if I hate X and you hate X, what more is there to be said? I suppose we could come up with new and creative ways to express our hatred of X, turning the whole pointless exercise into a more stimulating vocabulary-building experience. Loathing X, pontificating grandiloquently against X, for hatred’s sake spitting my dying breath at X, et al. Or, we could compare notes on what widely-visible fountainhead of opinion strikes us as being unfairly biased in favor of X, and resolve to ensure nobody ever drinks from that wellspring without a large grain of salt. Or, we could have some extremely brief conversations about “this is my reason for today for hating X.” And I would expect once we agree that this is a valid reason, the conversation would shift to something else.

Or…I suppose we could come up with personal priority lists about reasons for hating X. I could offer the opinion that “Reason #43 on your list is significantly weightier than Reason #27, which I consider to be a tangential issue” — and then we could debate that.

I see very little of the above on DailyKOS or other left-wing resources. I think it’s fair to say most of what is actually offered therein, is a lot of bloviating about how much smarter the people in there, are compared to the rest of the normal folks out here.

Which is remarkable in itself. Since, a few personal entanglements aside, they don’t appear to know a great deal about one another, apart from their shared dislike of George W. Bush. It’s almost as if…I would say, exactly as if…the hatred of George W. Bush is some kind of litmus test for intelligence. If you share it, you pass, even though your facts can be wrong, your grammatical construct can be atrocious, and your spelling looks like you’ve been letting a cat walk on the keyboard, and your logical arguments have more holes than your average kitchen sponge.

But if, by process of elimination, we’re down to just a lot of huffing and puffing about how much smarter our blue-staters are compared to our red-staters — or mostly down to just that and nothing more — how much liberal stuff could be uploaded on a daily basis? I mean, anywhere? What’s the point of mentioning it over and over again? If there was truth to it, of the self-evident variety or otherwise, the contributors themselves should be able to see they’ve crossed into the “doth protest too much” territory at a breakneck pace, and move on to something else.

I suppose that criticism might have merit wherever it is directed. Even here, to some extent, some might say. But good heavens. In all of human literary history, has any medium of written communication become so voluminous, so repititious, about so little, as the left-wing blog during the Bush II presidency? I suspect Mr. Kamiya has correctly identified a “future hangover” concern that is entirely meritorious, but severely underestimated just how much of a problem it will be.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Snookered?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

It’s in the entertainment section of Yahoo News, but apart from that there is no evidence that the editors understand this is satire. Certainly nothing offered to the more gullible amongst the readership.

…transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showing conversations between Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the Magic 8-Ball make it clear that the ball had the deciding vote when it came to the administration’s pre-war planning.

At one point of the transcript, Mr. Bush asks the Magic 8-Ball flat out, “Does
Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction?”

The ball responded equivocally — “Reply hazy, try again” — prompting the president to repeat his question.

Once Mr. Bush asked the question again moments later, the Magic 8-Ball was more definitive: “Signs point to yes.”

At the White House today, spokesman Tony Snow defended the Magic 8-Ball’s role in gathering pre-war intelligence but said that the ball had left the administration in 2004 to spend more time with its family.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Tolerance and Intolerance
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

In early 21st-century America, we have a disturbing predilection for calling out tolerance as intolerance, and vice-versa. It seems to start when we observe someone going out of their way to announce their beliefs and values, and indulge in using the lengthier of those two intangible nouns to caption that. “Intolerance.” Of course we do that for the express purpose of smacking it down, from scolding it to proscribing it. And the irony is, that to spring in to such action provoked only by the evidence of that other person’s belief systems — and nothing else at all — is the very definition of intolerance.

Now, I’m undecided about whether this is a good example of what I’m talking about. It seems the infraction is more along the lines of intended offense, rather than the mere manifestation of personal belief; the intent certainly does appear to be there. So perhaps a better illustration can be found elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I maintain the principal of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School is on a treacherous and slippery slope.

A Catholic school principal has organized sensitivity training for students who shouted “We love Jesus” during a basketball game against a school with Jewish students.

The word “Jew” also was painted on a gym wall behind the seats of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School students attending the Feb. 2 game at Norfolk Academy, said Dennis W. Price, principal of the Virginia Beach school.

Price who also watched the game, said the rivals exchanged chants, “Then, at some point, our students were chanting, ‘We love Jesus.’”

“It was obviously in reference to the Jewish population of Norfolk Academy; that’s the only way you can take that,” he added.

Price said he sent a letter of apology to Norfolk. Dennis G. Manning, the academy’s headmaster, declined to comment.

Several Sullivan students met with Norfolk Academy’s cultural diversity club Thursday as part of a series of events aimed at promoting tolerance, Price said.

Thus far, I have not yet seen the trend fail: Whenever someone in a position of authority uses those four words in sequence, “aimed at promoting tolerance,” something that had previously been tolerated, no longer will be, and it is soon to be subjected to intolerance.

I think our use of these words could use a little work.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Cheating Wife?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

The Hole - video powered by Metacafe

No Comments »

Fans of Gore
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Former Vice President Al Gore has the backing of Jimmy Carter (we learn via Hot Air and we learn that via Karol).

And, he has the support of communists too.

I repeat myself, huh.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Would The United Nations Stop An Asteroid?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Ben Shapiro has really hit his stride. That, or I’ve finally learned how to appreciate him.

Either way, this is exactly what a column should be. Thinking outside-o-the-box, but just a little bit; adhering to and commenting on the current state of affairs; offering a sound but unstated reason why we should pay attention; devastating a silly idea by taking it seriously.

Masterful work.

Scientists reported this week that on April 13, 2036, an asteroid has a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting Earth…An entire city or region could bite the dust.

“We need a set of general principles to deal with this issue,” explains former astronaut Rusty Schweickart. To that end, scientists are calling on the United Nations to take action. The Association of Space Engineers will present a plan to the UN in 2009 involving the construction of a “Gravity Tractor,” which would alter the course of potentially threatening asteroids.

You can just imagine what the UN member states will have to say about this idea.

IRAN: “Space is a decadent Western lie. It does not exist. Asteroids are no more real than the Zionist Entity. It is possible, however, that the 12th imam is riding this so-called space rock. In that case, we can only hope that he steers it into a large building in a major American city.”

CHINA: “Such use of space simply escalates the global arms race. Who is to say that America will not construct such a ‘Gravity Tractor’ in an attempt to nullify our missile capabilities? Of course, we were never thinking of using such missiles anyway, but it’s the principle of the thing!”

Amid all the hubbub about the way President Bush and his administration have handled the whole Iraq thing, for the last four years I have yet to hear anyone of any political stripe step forward and begin to defend the way the U.N. has handled it. And that’s just a little surprising to me because here in 2007, I don’t have to wait very long to hear the U.N. advanced, rather breezily and empty-headedly, as the sure-fire solution to…whatever perplexing conundrum pops up. Asteroids to Malaria to hangnails to crazy tinpot dictators to nuclear weapons to — just name it.

Shapiro’s question, sarcastic as the artful delivery may be, is a good one for everyone regardless of their leanings. What do we really expect the United Nations to do? About anything?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Are Democrats Americans?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

There are a lot of people walking around amongst us, apparently generating all the brainwave energy needed to get dressed in the morning and put one foot in front of the other as they walk around, who nevertheless think Democrats are more “American” than anybody else. I’ve never understood it. I’ve always taken it as a given that they have a vision for what America is supposed to be, which is different from my vision…but okay, we can “agree to disagree” as they say. And, I’ve been taking it as a given that if I could have insight on their personal background and the things that happened to them, then perhaps their different vision would make some sense to me.

I’m referring here — mostly — to being raised in a very strict religious environment, and nurturing a rebellious streak that just didn’t gel with it. There is some stuff in America’s history having to do with freedom to worship has one individually chooses, and not being told what to think about things. Issues like that, make this an easy thing to entertain.

Issues like this, do not…

The [Texas] state House on Thursday rejected a Democratic amendment that would have banned splash guards with images that are “obscene or hateful.”

Tempe Democrat Ed Ableser sponsored the amendment. He said he’d seen a splash guard that used a derogatory term for black children and said he wanted to make sure that people with hateful motives didn’t inflict them on others.

Democratic Rep. Theresa Ulmer of Yuma supported the amendment and said it fit with lawmakers’ other efforts to crack down on pornography and sexual predators.

DEMOCRAT is supposed to have something to do with freedom of expression, and thinking for onesself, right? And yet…this is hardly an isolated situation, is it? Democrats come along and say, hey, if someone sees this symbol or that symbol, such-and-such a thought is going to go through their head and we can’t have that now, can we? And I know they’ll have these contraband thoughts since, being a registered Democrat, I’m an expert amateur psychologist and I know better than anyone else what people will think when they see this thing.

I suppose both parties do this at some time or another.

But Democrats do it far, far more often.

And they’re supposed to be about freedom of expression. Freedom of speech. Thinking for yourself.

They have that “rep”; and sometimes, for reasons I think should be clear now, I fail to see how they got it or why they’re thought by so many to be worthy of hanging onto it.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Generation Z
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

On the subject of child-raising, fellow Webloggin contributor The Otto Show has been noticing what we’ve been noticing.

Between ADD, ADHD and forms of autism, that because of supposed advanced diagnosis, we are discovering that tens of thousands of children have medical conditions that, when we were kids, would have just been chalked up to a kid being a little ‘different’.

One condition, called Asperger Syndrome, is sold as a mild form of autism. Yet, in a publication (PDF) by the Yale Child Study Center, it is described as “a severe developmental disorder characterized by major difficulties in social interaction, and restricted and unusual patterns of interest and behavior.”

A website devoted to Aspergers states that “many in the field believe that there is no clear boundary separating [Asperger Syndrome] from children who are ‘normal but different.’”

The Yale study goes on to say, in describing a diagnosis: “The actual diagnostic assignment should be the final step in the evaluation. Labels are necessary in order to secure services and guarantee a level of sophistication in addressing the child’s needs. The assignment of a label, however, should be done in a thoughtful way, so as to minimize stigmatization and avoid unwarranted assumptions. Every child is different.”

I’ve been noticing a few other things about this whole thing.

As a parent myself, I know a lot of other parents roughly my age whose kids are roughly my son’s age. Everybody I know, personally knows at least one other person, whose kid has been “diagnosed” with something. Everyone has a story. There seems to be a “two degrees of separation rule” at work and when you think about the mathematics involved in two-degrees…you know, that is a lot of kids. Lots and lots of kids. A huge chunk outta all of ‘em. Like, we should be out looking for the enormous radioactive meteorite responsible for messing up all these kids, it’s gotta exist somewhere. That — or, maybe it’s the “normal” kids who are screwed up. It’s getting to the point where the non-screwed-up kids are on the brink of being outnumbered.

I also notice something about this word “diagnose.” It is used as such a concretely objective verb…like, you could be a reasonable skeptic about a kid having whatever-it-iz, right up until the kid is “diagnosed” and then you can’t disagree without being just a whackadoodle. As in, last year, little Tommy wasn’t “diagnosed” — he died. Nobody but a crazy person would insist Tommy is still alive, when he obviously isn’t. Like that.

And yet this Yale study…it seems to be giving instruction in how to form an opinion…which is my conventional understanding of what a diagnosis is. Even after it’s formed, you can still sensibly disagree with it, am I right?

Seems we’re losing track of that. We still have folks running around using it to describe some hard, undeniable event, like cutting the umbilical cord, or losing a tooth, or death. “Two years ago, my son was diagnosed with…”

A third thing I notice is captured in Thing I Know #179: Children seem to be “diagnosed” with lots of things lately. It has become customary for at least one of their parents to be somehow “enthusiastic” about said diagnosis, sometimes even confessing to having requested or demanded the diagnosis. Said parent is invariably female. Said child is invariably male. The lopsided gender trend is curious, and so is the spectacle of parents ordering diagnoses for their children, like pizzas or textbooks.

Where are all the little girls being diagnosed with things? How come the population of screwed-up kids seems to be so overwhelmingly male? Come to think of it, where are the stats about all the kids being diagnosed with this-thing or that-thing, so that such gender ratios are available to us unwashed masses for extrapolation?

What’s up with these crusading parents who are pushing to have their kids diagnosed with these things? How come it’s thought to be in good harmony with professional ethics, to even listen to them? And where are the dads? How come all these parents pushing the docs to diagnose their kids, and talking and talking and talking about the diagnosis thereafter…how come they’re almost always mothers?

Gee, if I didn’t know better I’d say the moms nowadays were confused about how to relate to their little boys — unable to cope with the tidal wave of energy that every grown man knows is charging through every cell of a young boy’s body, having once been at that age himself. If I didn’t know better, I’d say we have an unexplored gender thing going on…wherein medicine is being used to shoehorn the complicated psyche of a budding male, into a simpler form that a female can understand, in ways nobody ever said she was supposed to be able to. I mean, that’s what I would think…if I didn’t know better.

But, eh, come to think of it I do know better. I’m personally involved in some of this stuff, and I’m sad to say what’s written above makes perfect sense.

We can only speculate about whether it is even so, essentially arguing in a vacuum about it…until someone provides the statistics I commented that I would like to have.

Rather curious that nobody’s done so, isn’t it? I mean, y’know…since we’re all supposed to be so worried about it and everything.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Spanking Bill Stuck In Corner
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Take a look at this.

Spanking bill is introduced, which is exactly like what it sounds like…the nanny-state wants to stick it’s big fat nose into how you raise your kid in California. Bill is introduced, it’s little itty-bitty news. Gotta be in the right place at the right time to find out about it. Bill gets dropped, and it is heap-big news. You hear about it over and over again. At least that was my experience with it.

Kind of funny in a sad way. Everyone wants to be oh so vigilant against “government taking away our constitutional rights,” chomping at the bit to find out what kind of potential abuse is about to take place, so we can hit the road with our pitchforks and torches. Yeah. Right.

We think of ourselves that way, but we don’t act like it. Government was about to tell us how to raise our kids. And they’re going to try again, count on it. We were instructed to start paying attention when the bill died, and not a minute before; the threat to our “civil liberties” arose when the bill first came up.

Update: It would seem they did try for it again, the very same day.

When it comes to disciplining California children, an open hand is in but belts and switches are out, according to a bill introduced Thursday by Democratic San Jose area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber.

Assembly bill 755, designed specifically to protect children from overzealous discipline methods, rules out some traditional forms of discipline like the use of a switch or a belt.

“The vast majority of child abuse victims and fatalities are young children,” Lieber said. “Too often the abuse begins as some form of discipline. Existing law is clearly not doing enough to protect the youngest, smallest, most vulnerable members of our society.”

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, of Irvine, had expressed concern for early drafts of the bill and said he intends to keep a close eye on the new bill.

“I’m going to remain a skeptical observer and watch it very carefully,” DeVore said.

The Republican assemblyman said his concerns stem from what he said were parents’ rights to privacy and whether this new law would actually protect children or put otherwise good parents in trouble with the law.

I see there’s apparently some kind of rule in place with this new bill, which allows the spanking with the open hand. The rule is that when you list the things that the new bill would still penalize, you have to mention these two present-tense verbs: “burning” and “kicking.” Those two are particularly potent in inspiring the desired response.

But that isn’t the real issue. Shoot down this new bill, and then go home and burn your kid or kick your kid. Tell the cops about it. You think nothing will happen, just because this new law didn’t pass? Those are already against the law; they are just big fat red herrings. The real issue is where the line is being drawn. And the line is being drawn with the wooden spoon.

This is such a slick hoodwinking job. The situation is unchanged — some hippie flower-child doesn’t approve of parents disciplining their kids, and she’s gone through all the motions of “listening” and “revising” when all that’s really happened, is she’s watered down her nanny-state law to the point it has an excellent chance of passage.

Sure it allows spanking by open hand. That’s this year. Sure, there’s no conflict at all between the things I did to discipline my kid, and what this law addresses. My kid never got spanked with a “foreign” object, not once. So the new bill doesn’t prohibit anything I actually used. Not this year. But it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Like I said, we enjoy running around saying we’ll be on-guard against surrendering our freedoms to the government — but we don’t follow through on that.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Friends and Family
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

The House of Eratosthenes, otherwise known as “The Blog That Nobody Reads,” has changed it’s policy.

The policy has been unchanged from the very beginning and is recorded…um…to the right of my left ear, and to the left of my right one, somewhere. Anyway. Those things you get in the e-mail from friends and family with funny stuff? Sometimes with that thing on the bottom telling you of the awful stuff that will happen to you if you don’t forward it to ten people you know?

We get as much of that stuff as anyone. And we haven’t been running it. The rule has been, since it always seems to have come off a website somewhere, in order to give credit to the original author we put out a good-faith effort to find out who created it. And until such a good-faith effort comes to fruition, we don’t post anything. Which up until now has meant, for the most part, nothing gets posted.

The reason we have to change it, is — well, this is just too good. And it only took a little bit of searching to discover it seems that everyone has had a hand in it, and if there is any one single author who can claim credit, it may very well be the act of e-mail forwarding itself. You know, working in kind of a Darwinese type of evolution survival-of-the-fittest thing.

That would mean if anyone comes along later and says “Hey, I’m the guy who wrote that first” the correct answer would be…well yeah, you are, kinda. And so is that guy over there, and that other guy, and…anyway. Like I said, it’s too good to ignore. And for the reasons above, I can’t provide a link.

WORDS WOMEN USE:

1. Fine:
this is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

2. Five Minutes:
If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

3. Nothing:
This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

4. Go Ahead:
This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

5. Loud Sigh:
This is not actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)

6. That’s Okay:
This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

7. Thanks:
A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome.

8. Whatever:
Is a women’s way of saying FUCK YOU!

9. Don’t worry about it, I’ve got it:
Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking “what’s wrong”, for the woman’s response refer to # 3.

10. No:
This is the most complicated word a woman can use with a man. This is because she will say no, and mean no, or she will say no but mean yes. You will never get this right no matter what, so it is best not to try. Just remember, if she has salad and you have fries or pizza and you offer her some and and she says no, allow her to eat off of your plate without questioning her, or better yet, just give her half. This may also mean she is upset when she says she is not, and if you dare to ask “why” she will either respond with “nothing” — refer to # 3, or I’m “fine” — refer to # 1.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Yin and Yang VIII
Saturday, February 24th, 2007

I see House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got very upset with Vice President Cheney when he made some public comments about her plans to pull the troops out of Iraq. She was so upset that she called up President Bush and told him to…

Well, that right there is the whole question I think. What did House Speaker Pelosi want the President to do.

She specifically asked him to distance himself from the remarks of the Vice President. No information has come to me about what it is she will do in the event he should fail to do this, or what undesirable consequences should follow from some other source if he fails to do this. She did say something about how he “can’t…” engage in what she perceives to be a contradiction, and on this point I’m having a little trouble following her logic.

“You cannot say as the president of the United States, ‘I welcome disagreement in a time of war,’ and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country,” the speaker said.

Now, I happen to know from reading this and re-reading it, that when you diagram this sentence out it appears the “person in that position of authority” is a reference to herself, not to Vice President Cheney. Once you understand that, it’s a little easier to figure out her meaning.

But it’s a little tougher to take an assessment of her criticism and how valid it might be. She’s in a position of authority; therefore, when she says something ought to be done, you are not supposed to entertain any thoughts about how this thing might be deleterious to our national interests. Since, after all, the thing-to-do came from her.

Of, if you are to ponder such a thing, you are in logical contradiction with yourself after you have previously gone on record saying you “welcome disagreement in a time of war.”

Well, I’m having trouble with both aspects of this. I don’t think there is anything wrong with postulating how any plan on the table, might help the enemy, or cause injury to some things we have taken pains to accomplish, or cause some other unintended things to happen. This seems to me just like the basis of sound planning.

Nor do I see how it contradicts any previous statement about welcoming disagreement. You may declare your own strategies to be open to inspection and criticism…you may declare the alternatives of others, to be elevated above that scrutiny and therefore immune from it. Those are two different things.

Cheney Pelosi And it impresses me that the chasmatic divide between those two things, is not something easily missed. Surely someone with the mental acumen needed to become the first woman Speaker of the House in 218 years, would be able to see it.

But of course, Nancy Pelosi is a politician just like Bush and Cheney. What she can see, doesn’t matter; what matters is the constituency she’s addressing, and what they can see.

But are they really this dense? Pelosi’s entire argument rests on two perceptions being identical. Not just similar, but identical. And in the discipline of puzzling things out and figuring out what they mean, it requires far more energy to penetrate the armor of her tangled grammatical construct, than to grasp this flaw that devastates the entire argument. Regardless of the wishes nurtured by whoever is doing the puzzling.

Pelosi has handed down a new rule. I, Speaker Nan, am in a position of authority. I can say we should do this thing, or not do that other thing…and don’t you dare say it’s bad for us to do what I want. The issue is not whether or not you’re correct, the issue is following rules. You’re not supposed to say such a thing. You’re not supposed to think it. Not s’poseda.

Pelosi represents millions of people who have been telling me, for years, that “dissent is patriotism.” Logic would say they conferred upon her some goddess-like status, in which patriotism is dissent against every authority figure except Speaker Nan, and it has something to do with blind obedience to everything she says. That, or else they’re going to start flooding her office with faxes and telephone calls complaining that she no longer speaks for them. One or the other.

Well. I don’t think there are too many of them who knew her name this time last year. And I don’t think they’re going to complain much.

Behold, we find yet another conundrum…an enigma which is exlained by my Yin and Yang theory, when nothing else does.

Yin and Yang solves this in the most effective way possible. By looking at the children.

Think about the very small ones; the very most emotionally mature among those. The two-year-olds with a grasp on the language that would rival that of dimmer children two, three times their age — they have the phonetics down cold, the syllable emphasis, the lilting, and all that. They’re usually girls, although there are exceptions to this. When they spea

House of Eratosthenes

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Community Members

Site Admin

By Which Others Shall Be GaugedTuesday, February 27th, 2007

Makes Special SenseMonday, February 26th, 2007

What Is A Liberal? VMonday, February 26th, 2007

Snookered?Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Tolerance and IntoleranceSunday, February 25th, 2007

Cheating Wife?Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Fans of GoreSunday, February 25th, 2007

Would The United Nations Stop An Asteroid?Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Are Democrats Americans?Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Generation ZSunday, February 25th, 2007

Spanking Bill Stuck In CornerSunday, February 25th, 2007

Friends and FamilySunday, February 25th, 2007

Yin and Yang VIIISaturday, February 24th, 2007

By Which Others Shall Be Gauged
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007

Makes Special Sense
Monday, February 26th, 2007

What Is A Liberal? V
Monday, February 26th, 2007

Snookered?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Tolerance and Intolerance
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Cheating Wife?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Fans of Gore
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Would The United Nations Stop An Asteroid?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Are Democrats Americans?
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Generation Z
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Spanking Bill Stuck In Corner
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Friends and Family
Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Yin and Yang VIII
Saturday, February 24th, 2007