Vox Popoli

Mr. “Faster please” suddenly sees things my way:

The basic sermon remains as true as ever: We are playing a sucker’s game in Iraq, because we are fighting in a single country even though we are engaged in a regional war. This guarantees we cannot win the broader war. Administration officials have struggled mightily to avoid this hard truth, because they want to be able to declare “victory” in Iraq as soon as possible, and then get out.

This is the essence of why our strategery in Iraq is so wildly off the mark. As I wrote over a year ago, attempting to win a “war on Islam terror” by occupying Iraq is like expecting to defeat the Third Reich by occupying Alsace. It’s NEVER going to work.

This leads the defenders of the administration to argue that the strategery is justified and secretly brilliant because the president has been lying to the American people all along and his real goal is the conquest of the entire Middle East. I wonder how they’ll argue that Congress actually approved the declaration of that war? Thus is the president damned by his own defense.

Note – My beginning conclusion about the justification for the war was incorrect in the column of April 2004 mentioned above. The invasion was not justified on that basis, as I subsequently learned that there was no ceasefire agreement between the USA and Iraq, only a peace agreement between Iraq and the UN.

The presidential buffoon burnishes his anti-constitutional credentials:

It’s no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it’s OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

I have already directed my lawyer to take fake names and harass ISPs preparatory to filing charges against people annoying me. I’m particularly interested in nailing some of those very annoying Hollywood “stars” who post on the Huffer Puffer under names that are manifestly not their legal names.

Freedom of speech? What freedom of speech? How would I know what’s free speech? It’s now official. Even being an extreme skeptic of the compassionate conservative I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but George Bush is a worse president than Bill Clinton. Despite reading Juvenal, I hadn’t truly realized that the breakdown of a civilization could prove so massively entertaining.

Embrace the lunacy of latter-day America! Feel the incipient madness! And laugh, laugh like a hyena on crack, because the mighty are falling and they don’t even know it yet.

JB isn’t exactly a classicist… or logician:

Dear Mr. Libertine:

Iraq was not neutral. They were allies of the USSR ever since Sodom Insane took over the place. The USSR was the prime supporter of raghead terrorism during the last 40 years. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. You can go back to sucking your Libertine Donkey dicks now.

KD fails to grok as well:

I have not read any of Victor David Hanson’s books, but I am a fan of his from regular appearances on Hugh Hewitt’s show. In found your review interesting but must take two issues with your closing paragraphs 1) Bush would never change sides in the war, but if a Democrat is elected in 2008, the presidency will. 2) Iraq was not, of course, democratic, nor was it neutral, so the invasion of Sicily does not apply.

Let’s review. The exact sentence from VDH was: “In the last analysis, one does not defeat the proximate oligarchic enemy by sailing 800 miles distant to attack a democratic neutral.”

The Pelopponesian War was no more fought over democracy than the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Iraq, like the USA, was a secular state, not a jihadist one, and it was certainly neutral with regards to the global jihad. Iraq had ties to terrorism, to be sure, but so does the USA – just where do you think all that money that went to the Palestinian Authority ended up? And do remember just who was sitting outside the Oval Office when Monica was performing her namesake function.

I’m guessing that the mention of historic democracy that is confusing people. But democracy does not equal democracy in the analogy. If you can surmount this bit of potential confusion, you will see that the Athenian war against Syracuse was actually pursued for very similar reasons now used to defend the Iraqi Occupation. Athenian hawks even argued that if the Spartans made common cause with the Syracusans, the rich grainfields of Sicily would seriously impeded the Athenian war effort. The analogy runs thusly:

Athens = America
Pelopponesian League = Global Jihad
Syracuse = Iraq
Oligarchic = Religious
Democratic = Secular
Grain = Oil

One might rewrite the sentence like so: “In the last analysis, one does not defeat the proximate religious enemy by flying to the Middle East to attack a secular neutral.”

And no, this was not a sign that I’m running out of ideas. Quite the contrary, it was an opportunity to bring an innovative and well-written book to my readers’ attention plus develop further some thoughts I’ve been having about the intermediate term fate of America. As for ideas, some would rightly shudder at some column concepts I’ve been having. And there were those who thought Ron Mexico was out there….

Kim defends her right to be here:

Didn’t VD write about other blogs that threw little hissy fits when people with dissenting opinions showed up? Why yes yes he did. Go back and read it. The bitching found on the other blogs seems rather similar to the bitching showing up here.

I tend to agree. While I would not necessarily want to be dependent upon the argumentative skills of La Kim for the defense of my life, liberty or property, she’s never done anything but abide by the rules I’ve laid down while sticking to her guns.

I find it ironic that people manage to complain about how certain subject matters happen to draw interest while simultaneously ignoring other posts on other subjects themselves. This happens every time that a subject becomes a theme for more than three days running; the same complaints were made about All Malkin All The Time before they mutated into All WWII All The Time.

And while I’m at it, how on Earth do some of you manage to conflate Kim and Renee? Aside from their sex, nominial feminism and scheduled play date with the Blogger Blaster Harem Master, Kim is so conventionally feminine in her thinking as to be an archetype, while Renee comes off as being one operation away from being a man.

I’m not interested in an echo chamber and I already have a fan club that one would hesitate to wish on one’s worst enemy. So enjoy the dissent and honor the dissenters. People change, but only over time. Who would have thought that both Shrub and Cedarford would not only become regulars, but respected ones, in their first months here. Anyhow, if the occasional beating of dead horses bores you, you’re probably in the wrong place.

The Elder directs our attention to Oprah’s latest exercise in self-parody:

While reading this incredible story on the way that James Frey conned Oprah (and millions of other women), I realized that it was, to use an overused sports cliche, right in your wheelhouse. It’s a long piece, but well worth the read. Enjoy.

Do women just not have a BS detector? I often used to wonder that when watching some wide-eyed beauty swallowing one of my sketchier friend’s wildly absurd fictions whole. Now, I’m sure that they don’t. This guy is so obviously full of it that you’d have to be careful about lighting a match within ten yards of him for fear of igniting the methane.

A 30-something female lawyer writes in:

I just had to write you tonight because of your recent posts about 30 something women having trouble finding husbands. I happened to watch The Bachelor Paris tonight. It was the first show where the Batchelor sends home 13 women. What happened in this show was a very illuminating example of what you have written.

One of the women was Allie G., a 33 year old Oncologist. The Bachelor is a Doctor and it was obvious that Allie thought that she was a shoo-in, because what male doctor wouldn’t appreciate a female doctor? During the show, when the Bachelor meets and talks with the women, Allie told him that she was ready to reproduce because her eggs were getting old.

Needless to say, Allie didn’t get a rose. I knew she wasn’t going to take that lying down when I saw the look on her face. It was apparent that she was disgusted with the Bachelor’s choices (most of whom appear to be in their twenties). How dare he turn down a DOCTOR.

Sure enough, the next scenes show Allie out cussing and griping to the other women about how she’s tried internet dating, matchmaking services and everything else to try to find a husband. She bemoaned the fact that men didn’t want her. She expressed that she worked hard and focused on her career and that men should want her for that and that the Bachelor was like every other f*@#&ing male doctor she’s ever known. (In fact, every other word was bleeped at that point) It wasn’t FAIR that she couldn’t get a husband. Look at her credentials!

Then, she’s interviewed alone and she says basically the same kinds of things, including that she couldn’t believe that he picked the other women when he should have picked her, a doctor.

She then goes and confronts the Bachelor and demands that he tell her why he didn’t pick her. He explains that her comment about being ready to reproduce was the reason. She goes into attack mode telling him that he should be ready to reproduce and why wasn’t he ready. Of course, she doesn’t listen to his comment that he doesn’t put the cart before the horse.

She storms off and gripes to the other women about how he should be ready to reproduce because he is in his thirties.

The show ends with her going on and on in the same vein with a show staff member (male )who is trying to escape her onslaught.

This was truly pitiful and I felt really sorry for her in her desperation. She bought into the garbage that men should want women who put career first.

I bought into that too, so I understand her confusion and disbelief when men didn’t flock around her because she was the pretty, smart, successful doctor. That only happens in movies and on television. She, like many professional women, forgot to develop those attributes men are really looking for. I’m not sure what those are, but I know they aren’t the ones upon which doctors and lawyers focus.

I just had to write you about this, it was so in line with what you have been saying. I can’t write about it at my blog because I’m afraid my parents will see it and think that I am talking about myself. Maybe you could write about it.

(And yes, I realize that The Bachelor is a very silly show)

And I now know far more about The Bachelor than I’d ever dreamed… I had no idea it was still being televised. I do find her description of the oncologist’s reaction to be more than a little amusing, though. “I’ve done everything I’m supposed to, now I’m entitled to True Love and on my schedule, $*(%%&!”

It’s never pretty when reality intrudes upon fantasy.

And this is the sort of thing that happens when they have enough power:

The 500 companies listed on Norway’s stock exchange face being shut down unless they install women on their boards over the next two years in a radical initiative imposed by a government determined to help women break through the “glass ceiling”.

After a week in which the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain has warned that it would take 40 years for women to break into the ranks of the FTSE 100 in the same way as men, Norwegian companies face a two-year deadline to ensure that women hold 40% of the seats of each company listed on the Oslo bourse. New companies have to comply now with the rules and the government is considering extending the law to family-owned companies as well.

The requirement came into effect at the start of this year after companies were given two years to embrace the demands voluntarily following the passing of the law in 2003. State-owned companies are already obliged to comply and now have 45% female representation on their boards.

The failure of companies to act – about half of the companies on the stock market are estimated to have no women on their boards – has prompted the Norwegian equality minister, Karita Bekkemellem, to take the draconian step of threatening firms with closure.

“From January 1 2006, I want to put in place a system of sanctions that will allow the closure of firms,” she said. “I do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years for men with enough intelligence to finally appoint women.

That’s just what every company needs, more useless directors who have no idea what’s going on but the ability to interfere with operations. At least when the old boys are sitting on the board, they are happy to kick back, have a drink or three and let the CEO go about his business. One shudders to think at what sort of brilliant innovations these government-installed female directors are going to impose on their unfortunate companies.

I’d say it’s a sign to have a look at shorting the kroner.

Based on the natural sex ratio from other countries, the researchers estimated that 13.6 to 13.8 million girls should have been born in India in 1997 but the actual number was 13.1 million. The [annual] deficit amounts to between 590,000 and 740,000 female births.

Prabhat Jha and colleagues say: “We conservatively estimate that prenatal sex determination and selective abortion accounts for 500,000 missing girls yearly. If this practice has been common for most of the past two decades since access to ultrasound became widespread, then a figure of 10 million missing female births would not be unreasonable. Women who have already had one or two female children are clearly at highest risk.”

“Female infanticide of the past is refined and honed to a fine skill in this modern guise. It is ushered in earlier, more in urban areas and by the more educated … A careful demographic analysis of actual and expected sex ratios shows that about 100 million girls are missing from the world – they are dead.”

What was that about how abortion is a fundamental women’s right and necessary for their “reproductive freedom”? It seems a very peculiar sort of right that guarantees the mass murder of the very class to whom it is supposed to belong. I’m glad that Jha and company are drawing attention to this abomination, but that last sentence in the second paragraph is a bizarre way to put it… it’s not the woman that is at risk, it’s her daughter.

There is nothing – nothing – more delightful than little girls. It is testimony to the manifold evil of feminism that it murders millions of them and then goes on to corrupt the survivors.

It is telling to note that even in an overtly patriarchal society practicing infanticide, a little girl has a better chance of survival than in one where women are given the “right” to commit abortion.

But Wendy McElroy fails to grasp the gander-goose principle:

An ideological conflict underlies the attempt by either sex to force open the doors of ‘exclusive’ businesses: individual rights versus egalitarianism. Under individual rights, every human being has control over the peaceful use of his or her own body and property. Under egalitarianism, access to and use of property is equally distributed across society, with or without the consent of owners.

I come down on the side of individual rights.

In terms of Body Central, I don’t believe any man or woman has a legal ‘right’ to exercise on someone else’s private property. I do not believe anyone has a moral obligation to provide another person with exercise. Freedom of association means that individuals, including property owners, have a right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at their own front door.

Unfortunately, an emotional element also underlies the conflict.

Some men applaud the turn-around as an opportunity to give feminists a taste of their own medicine. In doing so, they adopt the very principles they allegedly decry: egalitarianism, the legal imposition of gender policy, the use of collective ‘gender-think.’ In short, they become feminists.

Body Central may become not only a test case but also a trial of conscience.

Women who believe in egalitarianism will either apply that principle to men or be confronted by their own hypocrisy. Men who believe feminism’s door-busting has been wrong will have to decide whether they value revenge more highly than justice.

While I c0mpletely agree with McElroy on the larger point – private enterprise should be free to discriminate against anyone for any reason – the idea that men who use the law to give women a taste of their own feminist medicine are doing so for merely emotional reasons and have “become feminists” is deeply stupid.

Since women were the only ones pushing for these anti-freedom of association laws, it is only through eliminating their ability to have their cake and eat it too that the right of freedom of association will be restored. I suspect McElroy is being mildly disingenuous here, as there’s no reason to believe that allowing women’s businesses to violate the freedom of association will restore it for men.