Flippin’ the Word

I’m so not mad at Chris Matthews for trying to fry Ann Coulter on Hardball this week via a staged telephone confrontation by Elizabeth Edwards. I don’t think his decision was journalistically unsound or unethical or whatever is the current blathering euphemism for the ‘professional responsibility’ umbrella, which really just means - ahem - not boring.

No, it certainly was not insulting to Ann, but it was cruel to Ms. Edwards. Liz put on airs as an indignant wife, fighting for her husband’s honor, and showing the world that chivalry is not dead after all. Even if I was inclined to align myself with pity-party-throwing millionaires, Elizabeth didn’t make a good enough argument to be anything but laughable. She did not come across as impassioned or deliberate or even slightly convincing, which is surprising since her husband has made a career out of convincing the nation that he is not homosexual. (Which: He has convinced neither me nor his boyfriend).

Neither Ann nor Elizabeth sparred spectacularly on Hardball. But Ann is a funny, facetious, ferocious writer, and in her weekly column she absolutely blazed Liz. Blazed. Read it at anncoulter.com. You will laugh.

Anyway, Elizabeth left no doubt that she just ain’t First Lady material. Much as I pity the pathetic puppet Bush is, I respect Laura. She is the quintessential First Lady. Last century Ernest Hemingway lauded ‘pretty little idiots’ as the right kind of women, and it still rings true for what we want in our First Lady. Laura has grace and charm and that certain X factor that old Southern women often possess. You know - she’s the kind who you describe as ‘handsome,’ and the term fits like a glove. However much we’ve deteriorated at the hands of her husband, Laura has been Goldilocks’s baby bear of the White House - Just Right.

Elizabeth Edwards comes off as shrill and shallow, and not at all the kind of woman I want to see standing beside the next American President. Come to think of it, John himself would make a better First Lady than his wife.

In a sick display of the perils of permissive parenting, a 16 year old North Carolina girl is the blushing bride of her 40 year old coach, and her parents approve. Well, they don’t exactly approve - actually they are distraught and heartbroken as they describe how Windy had become withdrawn, had curled into herself, since she’d met Coach Brenton Wuchae. Windy and Wuchae have been together for some time, but pursuant to NC law they could not have married without her parents’ consent. What did Windy’s parents do? Why, what any loving parents would do - they signed their baby away!

Dennis and Betty Hager maintain that they are heartsick with worry for their daughter, that the relationship has had a devastating, debilitating effect on Windy. Yet, they breezily justify their consent: Her father explains ”we had to move on, it was going to kill us all.”

Since when do parents simply ‘move on’ to escape their kids’ problems? I’m no parent, but I’m sure it’s just not supposed to happen that way. Hard as the whole thing is to swallow, I think I understand the parents’ pathetic rationale. Mind you, I don’t agree with it one bit. But I get it.

This is the consequence of permissive parenting, of wanting your kids to “be happy” more than you want them to be safe. The Hagers only followed this stylish laissez-faire parenting approach to its logical end. Such is the “progressive” philosophy that parents sign their daughter away to a man they speak of as the thief of Windy’s soul, all so no waves are made and no feet are trampled.

One of the most salient culprits is the de-normalization of the world. Last time I checked, normal is not a four-letter word. Yet wanting your kids to lead normal lives is now, according to the spawns of Dr. Spock, an affront to children’s “individualism.”

Kids need normal, and so does the world. If normalcy weren’t a pariah, Windy would not be wed to her geriatric coach.

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for the bleeding-hearts. So busy, in fact,  that I’m compelled to list some examples of the hysterical, histrionic ideas the left has vomited up, releasing them into the atmosphere like buzzing, swarming yellowjackets. All of this just in time for summer, so these ideas will swelter and fester in the heat, themselves becoming pregnant and giving birth to evermore idiotic ideas. That’s what happens, after all, when just a few people forget that we have choice and conviction and power over our futures. That’s what happens when we’re described in terms of our “feelings,” as if we are mere vehicles for our frothing emotions bubbling like lava. It’s what happens when people trade “right” and “wrong” for “happy” and “fulfilled.” So, the list:

1. In New York, they’re paying people to get library cards. For real. “Poor” people will get between $3000 - $6000 annually just for doing stuff like attending parent-teacher conferences, showing up for work, taking standardized tests, getting vaccinated, and brushing their teeth.
They’re calling it Opportunity NYC; I call it Flopportunity NYC.
It’s unthinkable to pay someone for stuff that they should be doing anyway, stuff that benefits them directly. But I’m especially confused as to why the standards are set so low. Paying someone for doing what they ought to do is dumb, but if you’re going to do it at least set the bar an inch or so off the ground. No one is paid for accomplishing any of these things well, just for accomplishing them. A kid fills in some answers on a Scantron and gets $50! If we’re going to pay people to behave, let’s get our money’s worth. How about paying students to study? Or why not pay them only when they improve their scores by a certain amount, or when they’ve attained a particular score? Or, in the case of library cards, pay them when they’ve actually checked out books.
This whole concept is an affront to personal responsibility and plain common decency, but I might be able to live with that. What I absolutely cannot abide is the notion that the NYC poor are so pitiful and powerless that they must be paid just for showing up for their own lives.

2. The Paris fiasco has got “Reverend” Al Sharpton leading the charge against “rich, white” people who get kid-glove treatment in court. First: The well-heeled do often have a leg-up at trial. I know I don’t have to remind Big Al that people listen when money talks. But it goes the other way, too.
At Nifong’s trial, it came out that he justified crucifying the boys because “their daddies can buy them expensive lawyers.” If Big Al is so interested in blind justice, why have I yet to hear him decry Nifong’s statement? After all, a militant liberal like himself supposedly quivers all over at the mention of someone being treated differently on the basis of socioeconomic status.
Second: How can this seriously be parlayed into a race issue? Must I remind Al of the menagerie of black actors and rappers who have gotten less than a slap on the wrist for serious criminal offenses? (Editor’s note: Instead of menagerie, I almost used the word ‘gang,’ but I thought better of it as I really can’t afford a brawl with Al and his NAACP.)

3. Some “progressive” media research group, which is too irrelevant even to name, released a hysterical report this week about the lack of liberal influence on talk radio. Who needed a report? It’s common knowledge that liberal talk radio is generally unsuccessful, and therefore nonexistent. Even George Soros, with all the millions he poured into Air America, couldn’t save that liberal lovefest.
Naturally, the group’s solution is to have the government force companies to sell their broadcast licenses to blacks and lesbians. If the left wants more liberal talk radio shows, Nike’s got the solution. Just do it! Liberal talking heads should obtain their own licenses and pump the airwaves full of all the liberalism anyone can handle. Problem is, they’ve tried it. Apparently, there just is no audience who will tune into meandering maudlin madness.
So, in true liberal fashion, they don’t take the hint that no one wants to hear what they’re saying. They file some sham report ranting about the “establishment” and Fox News and the unfairness of it all.

I’ve had it with the tired argument that we shouldn’t enforce the immigration laws because we don’t have the resources to deport 12 million people. That logic has never worked to stop the enforcement of any law. Surely, there aren’t enough cops to catch every speeder, but the limits are still enforced to the extent the resources allow. Along those lines, there aren’t enough customs agents on the planet to sniff out every fake Louis Vuitton bag, but we still maintain counterfeit codes. Further, some thiefs get away with their loot, yet there is no talk of revoking the laws against stealing. So why does this argument hold so much weight with so many people? Such contrived logic wouldn’t surprise me if it were being spouted by just the liberals - ‘anything goes’ is their mantra - but even some conservatives are jumping on the we-can’t-possibly-deport-that-many bandwagon.

Yet, somehow, no one utters a peep about all the administration and processing necessary to develop work permits for illegals. If we can’t simply round ‘em up and round ‘em out, which is basically a one-time thing, I have no idea how anyone plans on administering and overseeing a multi-step process, which, even if it can be accomplished, wouldn’t change a damn thing anyway. Illegals don’t need a permit to work, they only need a hammer. The work permit flim-flam would be nothing more than a gratuitous attempt to legalize the illegal. And, like I said, it’s logistically impossible. Especially if we don’t even have the resources to head ‘em up and move ‘em out.

The government pretty much proved my point this week. Amid the calamity caused by just a few thousand passport applications, Customs relaxed its passport requirements. For clarity: The government couldn’t handle several thousand generic passport applications, so they relaxed the rules for their own sake. And we’re expected to believe this same government can implement, administer, and oversee a brand new work permit system for millions? Please don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Now that Mike Nifong has been disbarred, everyone’s on their high horse about justice and presumptive innocence and all that jazz. Thing is, a year ago the same people were squealing and hollering that the Duke players hired a stripper, which clearly indicated deep-seated misogyny and the probability of rape. I still don’t understand how one could make that leap, but many people did actually indict, try, and condemn the boys based on the fact that they hired a dancer.

This line of thinking is pervasive, and I’m certain it is responsible for thousands of innocent prisoners. Chalk it up to “how the mighty have fallen,” or chalk it up to plain old jealousy, but people love to condemn those who they believe to be privileged. With Duke, the boys were derided as “rich white Ivy Leaguers.” Now, a local man has been condemned in the area blogs and in the community. Sure enough, this man is thought to be wealthy. Worse, he is emloyed by his parents. Some people take that to mean that life has been spoon-fed to him, and that the spoon is sparkling silver. And somehow that means he is guilty.

Zealots like Al Sharpton decry a breakdown of the justice system for the poor. Actually, the immediate, harsh, and unjustified condemnation of the not-so-poor is at the heart of the system’s injustice.

Tonight, students at Boulder High School participated in a conference defending The Speakers and the administrators who vouched for that criminal speech. The infamous speech, for those who have somehow been under a rock and a hard place and haven’t heard, occurred in April during a mandatory assembly. Just a taste of the disturbing commentary:

“I am going to encourage you to have sex and encourage you to use drugs appropriately.” (Before this speech, I was unaware that one could break the law ‘appropriately.’ I remain unaware of how to ‘appropriately’ use drugs.)

“Condoms don’t feel good.” (Neither do herpes).

Hear much more, if you can stomach it: http://www.politicalpartypoop.com/2007/05/30/boulder
-school-board-says-illegal-drugs-wild-sex-gay-sex-no-problem/

I don’t blame the students one bit for organizing a conference in defense of the speech. That seems a healthy reaction from 14 and 15 year olds. But: Some people are citing the students’ defense of the speech as evidence that the speech was acceptable and unharmful. Just because the teens said so? When I was 15, I thought it was ok to drive 67 in a 35 zone. I’ve even got the record to prove it. I thought it was ok, and I was wrong. Had some assembly speaker encouraged speeding, I would have ardently defended such advice. Regardless of my defense, the guy encouraging teens to speed would have still been way wrong.

I hope parents and school officials, and especially future school speakers, don’t take parenting advice from these 15 year olds. The teens will think you’re cool now, sure. When they have children of their own, though, they will remember you with disgust.

“No, I don’t believe in borders. Ever heard of ladders? Ever heard of shovels?”
— Alan Colmes, The Alan Colmes Show

As far as I know, we maintain and enforce speed limits. Which is pointless. Ever heard of radar detectors?

I continue to be flummoxed by the media and mayhem surrounding gay marriage. While I’m not oblivious to the argument that it is damaging to the “institution of marriage,” I can’t help but notice that divorce has eroded that institution to the extent that the “starter marriage” is increasingly encouraged and trendy. A starter marriage refers to a union which lasts less than five years; it is viewed as a sort of dress-rehearsal for the real thing. So, then, why all the worry about gay unions depreciating the value of marriage? I, for one, think the starter marriage attitude and the astronomical divorce rate are way more threatening to the marital institution.

Surprisingly, the ultra-liberal Netherlands agrees. It recently passed a law which makes it more difficult to divorce. The legislature cites the damaging effect of divorce on children, but, in a rare departure from short-sighted anything-goes liberal “values,” the law applies to childless couples just the same.

I don’t understand why divorce is so easy to come by in the U.S. Marriage is a legally binding contract, not unlike other contractual obligations. For some reason, though, no-fault divorce has since the 1970’s made it not only ok but easy to breach the marital contract. That people “change their minds” is not a surprise to me, certainly not in this age of yogic feel-goodisms and tantric decadence. That the government so breezily legalizes a breach of contract is unthinkable.

Hell, I can’t even change my $10 a month internet service provider without breach of contract entanglements. The rationale is that I made a commitment to the provider. When it comes to ending it, marriage is evidently much more fickle a commitment than internet plans.

A Miami public school board has banned a book about Cuba from its libraries, claiming the book portrays Cuba too positively. What does the school board fear? Does the board worry that kids might actually like Cuba and want to visit there? Doubtful, since no American can travel to Cuba. Funny how the anti-Cuba hysteria is rationalized by talk of the lack of freedom for citizens, when we, supposedly the freest of the free, cannot even travel there to see it for ourselves.

Anyway, the book, “A Visit to Cuba,” was banned just because it doesn’t decry Communism. Of course, it doesn’t glorify it either. From what I can tell, it’s a typical children’s book, general and basic, and painted with broad strokes. Which is good, because that’s what kids understand. The board is angry at the book’s statement that Cuban kids “eat, work and go to school like you do.” What was the author supposed to do, show illustrations of families waiting in line for toilet paper? It’s a children’s book! Besides, the statement is neither factually inaccurate nor sympathetic to Communism.

Clearly, the school board doesn’t want students to be presented with divergent viewpoints on Cuba. Kids can learn about Cuba only when it is shown in its most frightening aspects. Come to think of it, America’s beef with Cuba is precisely that: the Cuban government doesn’t allow diversity of thought or the presentation of opposing perspectives. Where Cuba is concerned, this is known as brainwashing. When it comes to the U.S. government, however, it’s called “promoting democracy.”

That this debate is occurring in Miami is indicative of why there is a debate at all. Lots of Cuban children attend Miami schools, and I imagine the board worries that these kids will actually think their native country is anything but a sad squalor.

1. Your idea of comprehensive healthcare is no wait at the emergency room.

2. You can’t figure out why everyone cares so much about taxes, that state above Mexico.

3. You think the “maximum occupancy” housing limit is merely a suggestion.

4. You think the brake is the gas pedal, especially after turning in front of another car in the left lane.

5. When you hear about the rising cost of oil, you get very worried about your hairstyle.