Vox Popoli

It’s so unfair that men won’t clean to a woman’s standard:

We’ve had this fight about a dozen times in the three years we’ve been together. Sometimes the fight ends because I just get sick of talking about it, sometimes he pushes hard to do a little extra and I feel better. Once, we chocked it up to having “different levels of cleanliness.” Sure we do but that shouldn’t mean one of us gets stuck doing most of the work.

Right now, it’s ticking me off because I spend almost an entire day of my weekend doing stuff for the house. (Note: We have two completely separate days off from each other). I complained last week and this weekend he actually took out the recycling and trash but that was ALL.

IF YOU WANT IT DONE TO YOUR SPECIFICATIONS, DO IT YOURSELF. This doesn’t just apply to housework, but nearly everything in life. The sooner you accept this, the happier and more successful you will be.

But regarding a clean house or whatever, I suspect that if women were more willing to meet men halfway on what they want, men might be a lot more open to meeting women halfway on their desires. Instead of nagging the guy every time he doesn’t do something you want, or do it the way you want it, why not try using positive reinforcement temporally tied to the task at hand?

Of course, very few women in a relationship are ever going to sign up for any sort of quid pro quo, because then they might actually be accountable for performing once they get what they want. I’ve never understand why women’s desires are supposed to be, at a minimum, regarded seriously at all times, (and ideally catered to), while men are supposed to be grateful if a woman makes the occasional half-hearted gesture in their direction every so often.

Anyhow, few women understand the incredible male capacity for ignoring negative reinforcement. The more she yaps, the less he’ll listen. Turning the volume up to eleven isn’t going to accomplish anything either, unless the goal is to drive him away. I’ve seen it happen to couples again and again, and no one ever seems to learn anything.

Seriously, what are women thinking? I know he really likes to have sex with me hanging on the chandelier…. and I really want the fence painted… I know! I’ll make indirect and passive-aggressive comments about how I wish the fence wasn’t peeling… and if that doesn’t work then I’ll act like a complete bitch and wait for him to ask me why! Surely then he’ll give me what I want!

No wonder so many women are socialists. Forget capitalism, they can’t even figure out the basic principles of barter.

Pajamas Media poll from the week of the Republican debate:

TOTAL VOTES: 3012

1308 43.4% Fred Thompson
_640 21.2% Ron Paul
_317 10.5% Rudy Giuliani

And the weekly poll following the debate:

TOTAL VOTES: 3319

1160 35.0% Fred Thompson
1021 34.8% Ron Paul
_277 _8.3% Rudy Giuliani

These polls also underline the total lack of appeal Giuliani possesses for the most active part of the Republican base.

Pajamas Media is now claiming that there was “considerable cheating” by Ron Paul supporters, which is a very odd claim if one notes that the number of overall number of votes for all candidates is not only very close to that of the previous week but is barely more than half the number of votes from the first week of April.

Nor does Pajamas Media bother to explain how Ron Paul’s diabolically clever supporters managed to magically whisk away 90 percent of Rudy Giuliani’s support in reducing his votes from 2500 votes in the early Pajama polls to only 277 last week.

Sure, it’s possible that everything is the result of libertarian gremlins ruining the highly sensitive science of an Internet poll. Or maybe, the real story being revealed by the poll is that the sort of Republicans who pay attention to the election eighteen months out really aren’t all that interested in selecting a nasty, lisping, liberal New Yorker as their standard bearer.

What a stunning surprise that would be!

I am informed that contra my last week’s post, it’s no longer necessary to order The Wrath of Angels directly from K&B Booksellers:

The second print run is here and we shipped out all the backordered copies early [Saturday] afternoon. More to the point, we’ve made some upgrades to our Amazon dealer account, and we now have THE POWER TO CREATE *NEW* AMAZON LISTINGS!

Like this one:

So if you’ve got anybody in the queue who’s just dying to write as rave review of Wrath of Angels, this is the time and place to get ’em into action.

I haven’t heard from too many of you about whether you like the book or not, so I’ll be interested in knowing what you think about it. I’m not looking for cheerleading, I already know it’s no literary masterpiece, but even when a reader dislikes a book, it’s good to know why. And if you aren’t inclined to pay for it or aren’t sure you want to risk $12.95 sight unseen, there’s always the free ebook which you can download here.

Speaking of books, after a few week’s distraction, TIA is humming along again. It’s about one-quarter complete and I should be sending out another chapter for comment soon to another mixed pair of volunteers.

John Dvorak points out a way in which corporate lawyers’ mindless actions are often completely counterproductive:

Once something goes out on the Net, it gets copied and posted elsewhere. Even if the original is taken down, other versions appear immediately.

The legal profession has not adjusted to this new phenomenon, and as long as they are being paid by the billable hour, they figure the PR folks (also paid by the billable hour) can fix any problem.
The thinking seems to be a one-dimensional “we did our jobs,” CYA approach. Attorneys will claim that they were compelled to act to protect the client.

But if ruining a client’s image and reputation, and often turning it into a laughingstock is done in the name of “protecting,” then perhaps the legal profession should reconsider whether it’s being counterproductive.

I despise lawyers, with one or two exceptions possibly the most useless and treacherous creatures on the planet besides politicians. (It’s no accident that most politicans are lawyers.) What’s particularly annoying about them is how incredibly myopic most of them are; they blithely steam ahead in the confidence that a few years of law school indoctrination is a magic shield insulating them from having any need to pay attention to the real world.

They never seem to stop and think through the logic of what they constantly assert their sacred law, being mutable and wholly dependent upon whatever incantation is produced by the nearest priest-judge, must therefore be. Namely, that it is nothing but a protean fiction, a constantly morphing collective hallucination in which everyone feigns to believe.

The smart money always bets on the likely winners:

Financiers have also been oiling Obama’s campaign. In Chicago, his home town, John Canning, a “Bush pioneer” and investment banker who pledged to raise $100,000 for the president in 2004, has given up on the Republicans. “I know lots of my friends in this business are disenchanted and are definitely looking for something different,” he said.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton has many Republican defectors of her own, including John Mack, chief executive of Morgan Stanley, who helped raise $200,000 for the president’s reelection, qualifying him as a “Bush ranger”. He said last week that he was impressed by Clinton’s expertise. “I know we’re associated mainly with the Republicans but we’ve always gone for the individual,” Mack said.

According to figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, Obama and Clinton have vacuumed up more than $750,000 (£375,000) in individual contributions from former Bush donors.

These people don’t actually support Clinton and Obama, this is just the smart money investing in probable power. The fact that they’re doing so indicates how little hope they have in holding on to a Republican White House, though. I’m guessing George Bush’s popularity ratings falling as low as Jimmy Carter’s – 28 percent – just might have something to do with that.

Legaleagle obviously thinks highly of working class women:

[N]o man in his right mind would pay to have sex with such beasts. They would, indeed, make lousy hookers. Just as they’d make lousy actresses, lousy writers, lousy artists, lousy doctors, and lousy professors. On the other, there’s no one better when it comes to scrubbing the toilets and feeding the pigs.

Since it was impossible for him to demonstrate that the East Coast, college-educated professional women Ms Palfrey preferred to employ as prostitutes are not likely to be inclined towards political liberalism and feminism, Legaleagle elects to demonstrate that deep liberal concern for lower-income, less-educated women.

It’s really a mark of the moral superiority of the liberal, don’t you think?

As for lousy writers, well, let’s just say that I’m on this year’s Nebula novel jury and I think it’s high time that someone gave the toilet scrubbers and pig feeders a shot at a book contract or two. They certainly couldn’t do much worse than most of the utter tripe I’ve been forced to endure lately.

I don’t know if I can take another vampire-werewolf-strong independent woman love triangle or book dedicated to the theme of remaining true to yourself.

And by all means, don’t you dare cite inconvenient Department of Justice statistics:

Lawrence you’re a big pain in the ass. One article from you takes more time and energy than 50 articles from 50 writers and gets me attacked and now is getting me the third degree from you…. I have a million enemies out there and I don’t need attacks waiting to happen by publishing your stuff….

I want you to go away Lawrence. You have caused me more trouble than I care to think about and the fact that you’re piling on me while I’m getting letters from my children asking me why I published a racist, and while I’m waiting to see this spread across the Internet, is more than I can handle right now.

While it’s entirely understandable that David Horowitz, who is no shrinking violent and doesn’t exactly lack for enemies, might not be interested in acquiring any more, the time for thinking about that sort of thing is really before the piece is published. And the fact of the matter is that Auster’s piece is no more racist than the Wall Street Journal reporting on the quarter’s economic numbers… the fact that the Department of Justice reports that no white men are sexually assaulting black women and many black men are sexually assaulting black and white women alike is both significant and even newsworthy in light of the black woman falsely crying rape against the Duke lacrosse team.

If Mr. Horowitz doesn’t have the stomach for more controversy, that’s absolutely fine and he’s certainly got a right to decline it, but it doesn’t justify the unfortunate way he has elected to handle the situation.

I very much hope Auster will continue to write provocative and iconoclastic articles, and that the next time a similar situation arises – and it will – that Mr. Horowitz will take his editorial responsibilities to the writers who contribute to his magazine a little more seriously. Dangerous ideas and those who think them are always a pain in the ass to everyone they touch… but I find it rather amusing how so many people enjoy the image of being controversial while doing their best to avoid the reality.

In any event, it is a pity that so many people would rather pretend that there is no difference between the various races instead of electing to deal with those obvious and undeniable differences in a constructive manner.

Kevin Drum appears to be one of the only individuals talking sense about Fred Thompson:

“Thompson is a guy whose political record in the Senate was a big zero; whose only real claim to fame is being a character actor on TV and in films; who has done nothing to distinguish himself this year except deliver a few vaguely Reaganesque pastiches in a nice baritone; who is apparently not Christian enough for James Dobson’s taste; who has no known issues that he really cares deeply about; and whose most famous quality is his laziness.

“That sure doesn’t sound like the resume of a guy who’s going to rescue the Republican Party to me. The fact that so many people are talking him up seems like it says more about the suicidally desperate state of the GOP than it does about the actual presidential prospects of Fred Thompson.”

That being said, this classic rant from Rudy Giuliani did make me like him better, not for president or anything, but merely as an individual who is definitely sound on ferrets:

There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I’m being honest with you. This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness. I’m sorry. That’s my opinion. You don’t have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels…. I’m giving you advice for your own good. You have a sickness. I know it’s hard for you to accept that because you hang onto the sickness and it’s your shield, it’s your whatever, I don’t know.

It’s just beautiful, it really is.

I found it interesting that Peggy Noonan had the grace to admit that Ron Paul is the intellectually serious candidate following the Republican debate. But he does deserve the description, his national obscurity notwithstanding:

MR. HARRIS: Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?

REP. PAUL: That’s a very good question. And you might ask the question why are 70 percent of the American people now wanting us out of there and why did the Republicans do so poorly last year. So I would suggest that we should look at foreign policy.

I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and a Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy. No nation-building. Don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a Republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the Founding Fathers. And besides, it follows the Constitution.

I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war, by saying declare war if you want to go to war; go to war, fight it and win it, but don’t get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.

The fact that this foreign policy position is now considered obscure, outdated and exotic by the Republican Party only demonstrates what a hole the Republican leaders have dug for themselves. Jonah Goldberg comments: “I’m no huge fan, but he did a very good job of making his quasi isolationist position seem hawkish and American. I think it was the best answer given so far.”

It’s also interesting to note that the impression of the previously pro-Giuliani National Reviewers appears to be that Giuliani did very poorly. I’m not surprised at all as I don’t regard him as a serious candidate in any way and I still believe he’ll withdraw from the race long before the convention hits St. Paul.

Also, full credit to the party elders for resisting the temptation to play games and including all the candidates.

UPDATE – And this is why America deserves the leaders it gets:

Mitt Romney won Thursday night’s debate by every objective standard of style and substance. First, the style: At six-feet-two-inches tall with perfect hair and impeccable tailoring, Romney was Ronald Reagan incarnate. Romney was George Clooney/George Hamilton cool (complete with the tan) surrounded by a dorm-room full of average dudes….

Ron Paul has the unfortunate distinction of looking and sounding wacky and impish, even when he says entirely reasonable things. He brilliantly and succinctly positioned his opposition to the current war within the context of Eisenhower getting us out of Korea, Nixon having a plan to get us out of Vietnam and Bush vowing not to start “nation-building” (in the 2000 campaign) that must have left a lot of Republican viewers thinking “this guy makes a lot of sense.”

Unfortunately for Paul, he looks like a combination of My Favorite Martian’s Ray Walston and a comedian who habitually ran for president, Pat Paulsen; not helpful.

But, you know, focusing on a guy’s underwear and not his hair or his tan, that’s just crazy shallow.