Wouldn’t George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher?

Only if you’re the world’s laziest student.  After all, he’d stand up there and say, “You know how it works?  The President is the decider,” and then class would be over for the rest of the year.

What, like we’re supposed to believe that Bush knows anything at all about the separation of powers, the three branches of government, and the Constitution?

It never ceases to amaze me that people think W is somehow a “nice guy” and that we can all appreciate this fact outside of whatever we may think of his politics. It makes no sense. And it is infuriating.

Totally off topic: I like the image in this post. Where did it come from?

Well she’s right about one thing.  Bush reminds me, more than anything, of that jackass football coach who gets stuck with the job of teaching high school civics.  Usually either with ridiculously unrealistic libertarian ideas or just a by-the-book authoritarian/fascist Republican.  Probably also a gun nut, drives an overly large pickup truck he never actually uses to haul anything in, with either the obligatory Support Our Troops yellow ribbon magnet or, if you grew up below the Mason-Dixon line, a confederate flag bumper sticker.  His entire life is an overcompensation for either being 4F or too young to go to ‘Nam.

Oh, and Charlotte:  The Cottingley Fairies

A lovely picture of a young girl with a pre-pressed fairy. Arthur Conan Doyle believed they were real, so why shouldn’t you?

As a president, Bush is a pretty piss-poor high school teacher.

Oh come on. 

It’s naiive and just plain silly to assert that the vast majority of conservatives don’t fully and deeply believe in…well, conservative-stuff. 

I’d even go so far as to say that even most of the Mark Foleys of the world actually believe the crap they try to legislate.  The psychology here is really fascinating, actually.  They think something along the lines of, “I wish I could be stronger so I could live a truly fulfilling and happy life.  I’m weak, though—but I can do my best to make sure my own stumbling blocks present minimal temptation to anyone else.  I may not be able to enjoy my life, but I’d like to make it so that somebody else can enjoy theirs.”

Let’s momentarily ignore the fact that Bush wouldn’t be qualified to teach a high school class.  Is there really any other problem with the idea?  He *is* a likeable guy, and it’s plausible that he *does* love his country.  Sure, his policies have been unfailingly horrible, but (for example) he probably really does think that God told him to go invade Iraq. 

I happen to also think that he’s not a particularly good human being either, but if he were to, say, (try to) teach high school after his presidency is over, then I might reconsider that conclusion.

What does she think the point of being a Republican is, if not to throw the finger to civic duty and grab the cash while you can?

Wow, brilliant description.  Thank you so much for that.

I really don’t get the “W is a great guy to have a beer with” meme either.

W is an arrogant jackass.  Ever seen pictures of him at the UN?  He doesn’t even try to look “presidential” or even slightly interested.

He’s in it for himself.  He’d be a horrible public school teacher—>they’re supposed to teach facts, and W believes the that facts are what he decides they are.

I simply can’t even understand the thinking behind believing this man is ever nice.  When have we ever seen him not be condescending?

George W Bush is the personification of all those preppy’s from 80s teen movies that everyone pretends to like because their Dad owns the town.

Normally, I take less of a liberal view of things, but National Review really was scraping the theocon barrel when they made her an editor of theocon babbling. She is the one who interviews an anti-environmentalist then repeats his claim that cars are zero pollution. Or someone who panders to O’Reilly fanbase of devout retards by running war on Xmas stories with her usual two bit ‘holier than thou’ third grade catechism tone. She makes Peg Noonan, who is obviously her role model, into a genius and a great writer in comparison.

“Wouldn’t George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher?”
——-

The George W. Bush who believes, “It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law”?  What does the National Review have against high-school students?

I’m really not sure why you think it should be obvious that conservative values are for show.

Hm.  Do you think it’s automatically hypocritical and/or bad to set a standard that can’t be lived up to? 

To use a rather tame example, suppose I’ve decided that I need to be more thoughtful of my friends, since I value friends who are thoughtful of me.  Does my current level of thoughtfulness towards friends set my level of hypocrisy?  If I’m currently a horribly unthoughtful friend, then am I a worse person for noticing that I could improve myself by being more thoughtful?  What if I intentionally choose friends who are more thoughtful than I am, in hopes that it’ll rub off? 

...Of course, abstinence-only education, as is the case with so many other conservative ideas, is a closer cultural equivalent to saying to oneself, “Hey, I really need to make a point of getting my friends to do more stuff for me.  No point in having ‘em, otherwise.”  But hey, at least they try.

>  I see a spoiled, tempermental asshole.

Can’t one be a spoiled, tempermental asshole and also a likeable, even charismatic, person? 

I’ve known quite a few people for whom this would be a reasonable description.

I have to say, I’d never heard that stereotype of liberals.  But maybe I need to get my head out of the sky. 

The stereotypes I’ve always heard are much less flattering, and involve liberals being Godless heathens with no moral compass who are misguidedly doing the Devil’s work.

Obligatory Onion

but National Review really was scraping the theocon barrel when they made her an editor of theocon babbling.

We’d all like to tell young people that the most important thing is to develop a love of learning and work hard, and you will be rewarded. And then you see people like K-Lo, who is not very smart and who creates shoddy work, and she has a great, high-profile job. I find this upsetting. We’d like to think there’s a meritocracy at work, but you see people like K-Lo, know that there is a long line out the door of people who would love to have her job, and wonder why she gets to keep hers.

Can’t one be a spoiled, tempermental asshole and also a likeable, even charismatic, person? 

No, I don’t think you can be a likable people. However, some people do seem to like spoiled, tempermental assholes. It doesn’t make such assholes likable. It just means that there are a lot of desperate toadies out there who want to curry favor with spoiled, tempermental assholes.

The obvious way for W. to serve our country after his term ends is to re-up with the Guard and serve a tour of duty in Iraq. This would help him atone for starting the war and for sacrificing over 4000 American lives for no reason apparent at the time we invaded. He’s not too old: I know Guardies who served well into their 50s; I’m sure he wouldn’t be the oldest dude in Iraq. And he still owes the state of Texas about a year of Guard duty, I believe. He could come in at his old rank—but in the ground forces, not the Air Force.

It’s naiive and just plain silly to assert that the vast majority of conservatives don’t fully and deeply believe in…well, conservative-stuff.

I don’t think that’s what anyone here is saying.

Of course conservatives believe in conservative-stuff.  That’s what all this “take the money and run” nonsense is, when you get down to it.  What we don’t think they take seriously is ideas about service to the community, moral standards, community values, the betterment of humanity, etc. etc. etc. which they sometimes like to pretend they believe in if they can use it to score some points.  Especially electoral ones—nobody’s going to vote for you if your official party platform is “Basically I’m going to appoint a bunch of industrial and commercial fatcats to run the country for their own personal profit, and then at the end of my term we’re going to loot the place and leave all the damage we’ve caused for the next guy to fix.” 

The main really good example of the reality of the conservative mindset is the recent criticisms of Obama’s stint as a community organizer.  They don’t try to say he didn’t really do that much, or he was too much of a lefty or that he was just trying to use it for leverage in Chicago politics—they either say that the fact that he worked for the community is some kind of stain on his record, or that obviously it must have been a really cushy job because otherwise why would someone so obviously bright and destined for success take it?  Only a do-gooder pleb would take on some silly little job that involves helping others, rather than getting a spot on the board of daddy’s company.

Do you think it’s automatically hypocritical and/or bad to set a standard that can’t be lived up to?

Yes, I do.

Well, it is if you actually expect anyone else to live up to it while you feel free not to.

Geroge W would make a nice air hostess or a boxer’s dummy.

Do you think it’s automatically hypocritical and/or bad to set a standard that can’t be lived up to?

As Opo said, the hypocrisy comes in expecting other people to live up to your standard while you try to weasel out of it.

Amanda:

Why is observing what already exists “creating” it?

Because that’s the only way solipsists can imagine interacting with the world. It’s the ultimate combination of navel-gazing egotism with a near-complete lack of imagination.

Reach out and touch the young before they are jaded, or break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them.

(emphasis mine)

I thought that republicans were all about letting parents decide what brand of crazy gets passed on to their children… or is that unless the crazy is stuff like “here’s where the republicans jumped the shark” or “if you’re having sex, make sure it’s safe sex”? And what’s the matter with cynicism when it comes to evaluating the job the government is doing for us? I’d take a healthy dose of cynicism above rose colored glasses any day!

I think that facade works in the same way that, as it was pointed out by the Frankfurt school, the facade of Hitler worked.  Apparently it is a human cognitive tendency to read emptiness or vacuity as a potency with an attibuted values of “Absolute”.  Thus it was pointed out that women fell for Hitler in droves because he gave the air of not being human, but looking right through them.  His failure to respond to them in a normal human capacity caused the women to read him as a transcendent Absolute—as godlike. 

So, I am saying that there may be more than hypocrisy and cynicism involved, but that there may be an actual political functionality in being out of step with who you really are, in a way that draws attention to the image of power, rather than an actual human identity operating as such.  It is the negative or empty effect of the image that draws people like a magnet.  The discrepancy between what seems to be true and what actually is true registers not as hypocrisy, but as supernatural allure.

Bush would probably be better off teaching at Patrick Henry College, or whatever they call that silly-ass school where they “train” our future leaders by keeping them in a cocoon, away from the rest of us.

Katha Pollitt had a nice shoutout to Pandagon on C-SPAN2 today.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8951&SectionName=In Depth&PlayMedia=No

(About 2 hrs, 45 min in. Not online yet.)

She got the url wrong (“pandagon.com”), but still.

I can’t wait for Ms. Lopez’s 3-hour interview on C-SPAN.

Amanda, I can’t believe you haven’t fantasized about Bush teaching, too. Say, teaching inmates in prison. As part of a program. In which he is involved because he is in prison himself, for thirty years, for crimes against humanity. And you are telling me you haven’t ever had this day dream? It certainly comforts me.

Amanda,

You nailed this one - Lopez must be an idiot.  Bush would be a disaster as a teacher of any school subject, much less Government.  (Well, maybe he’d make a good Sunday School teacher…)

The only compensation for this article is that if Bush ever heard about her suggestion (perhaps one of his aides will be stupid enough to repeat it to him), I’m sure he’d be pissed that Lopez would peg him as a school teacher rather than a college professor.  Her suggestion only validates what liberals have been saying, for years, that he’s retarded.

I know someone who met Bush in a professional capacity: and told me, “He’s charming. Even though I didn’t want to be charmed, I was in spite of myself”

I read elsewhere that Bush exhibits the sort of social charisma of the President of a Frat—I doubt I’d be charmed, but it’s supposedly this ability which has gotten him far, if too far.

More charming than either Rove or Cheney, the creeps, and so an excellent front man for their purposes.

Bush seems bored by anything but an opportunity to show off the Frat Boy/Country Club charm, more frat boy country club, than beer and barbeque buddy in my estimation—but there’s no argument that the press bought his act wholesale, until just recently.

Bush reminds me, more than anything, of that jackass football coach who gets stuck with the job of teaching high school civics.

I can picture exactly the type you mean, except in my high school, he taught health, that is, sex ed. Now I’m trying to decided which is more disturbing (or more dangerous) - Bush the civics teacher or Bush the sex ed teacher.

Well, it is if you actually expect anyone else to live up to it while you feel free not to.

Yes. This.

Or alternately, setting an impossible standard for yourself that you realize you’ll never quite make is just trying very hard to achieve something.  Setting that impossible standard for everybody else then calling them hellbound abominations when they fall short, even as you’re falling short too, is hypocrisy.

Oh I dunno.  I think maybe K-Lo was aiming a little too high.  W would make a great kindergarten or pre-school teacher.  He’s got the perseverance and patience required for it.  After all, he made sure to finish reading My Pet Goat to that class of children even as airplanes were slamming into the World Trade Center.

>  Kinsey laid waste to a culture of hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is the high value that Crouse was praising.

That’s interesting.  I haven’t seen the video, but there is another interpretation of the standard Kinsey-hating conservative viewpoint that seems to be common: 

Now, thanks to Kinsey, we have a culture where it’s OK for girls to have sex before they get married.  How many more girls do you think are having sex before marriage now than were previously?  I’d bet that it’s a pretty large percentage.  We’ve (somewhat…) eliminated a culture of hypocrisy, but we’ve replaced it with a culture that thinks sex without marriage is OK.  Is that really better? 

Of course, a liberal looking at this situation doesn’t see any conflict of interest here.  Both side-effects of the Kinsey Reports are beneficial.  A conservative sees a trade-off.  Determining which evil is worse is a matter of perspective, and there’s certainly an argument to be made that there is value in the facade itself if that facade results in a society which is factually “better” by some standard.

I’d bet that it’s a pretty large percentage. 

I bet it’s not. Now go find some real numbers and we can talk.

Alsoo:

Now, thanks to Kinsey, we have a culture where it’s OK for girls to have sex before they get married.

So you were okay with the boys having sex before they were married?

Who were they having sex with, exactly?

zha:

How many more girls do you think are having sex before marriage now than were previously? I’d bet that it’s a pretty large percentage.

Oh, if only it were that simple. Human behaviour is complex and multivalent, so any attempted statistical analysis thereof must also be complex and multivalent. You can’t just point to one decontextualized statistic and say “Aha! This explains everything!” If you never bother to ask “Well, why might that be?”, you’re not doing statistical analysis. You’re just counting stuff.

The funny thing is that Amanda has addressed exactly this topic more than once before.

For those wondering, the photo of the girl with the fairy is from a series of photos produced in England in 1917 known as the Cottingley Fairy Hoax. At the time, the two young girls who made the pictures claimed they really had dallied with fairies in their backyard. They gained a lot of notoriety when Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the Sherlock Holmes stories, came out in support of their authenticity and claimed they vindicated Spritualism and belief in the occult. It later turned out that the girls had merely made drawings of fairies from Victorian story books, cut them out, and posed next to them for the photos. Noted Uri-Geller-debunker and professional skeptic James Randi has a nice little YouTube segment on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oveXCII3w30

<blckquote>How many more girls do you think are having sex before marriage now than were previously? I’d bet that it’s a pretty large percentage.</blckquote>

Actually, no. Premarital sex has always been the norm for most men and most women. In certain places at certain times, young noblewomen were so heavily guarded that they made it to the altar virgin. Usually. For most people - when the hormones struck, they answered.

This, btw, is true for cultures where the punishment for suspected/actual premarital fornication is NOT immediate death. The only cultures where a lot (not all, maybe not even most - just a lot) of women (and only women) marry virgins, are ones where the threat of death is close, real, and terrifying for those who dare compromise their precious, precious virginity (so-called “honor” killings). And even in such cultures, girls sometimes jump the gun, as the popularity of hymen-reconstruction surgery in such communities testifies.

Care to try again?

What I would look forward to in this scenario is seeing Bush cut to ribbons by a 14-year-old Debate Club member.

And I would see it, too, posted on YouTube by her friend the AV nerd.

Now, thanks to Kinsey, we have a culture where it’s OK for girls to have sex before they get married.  How many more girls do you think are having sex before marriage now than were previously?  I’d bet that it’s a pretty large percentage.  We’ve (somewhat…) eliminated a culture of hypocrisy, but we’ve replaced it with a culture that thinks sex without marriage is OK.  Is that really better?

If you think Kinsey single-handedly made it OK for young women to have premarital sex , I’ve got a bridge to sell you…

In certain places at certain times, young noblewomen were so heavily guarded that they made it to the altar virgin. Usually.

And even then, half of it was knowing to marry her off before she started having those little hormonal urges…

zha, I personally don’t feel the need to sell my sexuality for a stupid dress and some flowers.  I don’t understand why marriage suddenly makes sex okay?  Especially if you marry some ass who can’t be bothered to finish you off?  Personally, I’d like to find that shit out BEFORE I have to pay for an expensive divorce from the selfish jerk I got stuck with.

Sigh. 

OK.  I’m not saying that I think premarital sex is a bad thing, or that a culture that finds it acceptable is worse than a culture that does not.  I’m certainly not saying that I think that girls having sex is bad while boys having sex is normal, and I’m also not saying I think Kinsey is singlehandedly responsible for the cultural shift toward acceptance of premarital sex that we’ve had over the last few years. 

*I* personally think we’re much better off in a society that is accepting of a wide variety of types of sexual expression.  Really, I do. 

All I’m saying is that a conservative wouldn’t necessarily see the value in having a society that is OK with premarital sex, and that there are internally consistent explanations of their thinking that don’t have to involve ridiculous amounts of hypocrisy. 

Furthermore, y’all aren’t going to convince anyone of anything by pointing your finger and calling people hypocrites.  For those who were wondering, the world doesn’t come in only black and white, and people’s opinions on such matters (yes, even conservatives!) are typically quite nuanced, and often not at all hypocritical. 

I think it’s very important to understand that fact if one wishes to have an intelligent discussion about the relative merits of one society or another.

All I’m saying is that a conservative wouldn’t necessarily see the value in having a society that is OK with premarital sex, and that there are internally consistent explanations of their thinking that don’t have to involve ridiculous amounts of hypocrisy.

That’s kind of Amanda’s point.

We did not change , in the 50’s, from a society where everyone is chaste and nobody has sex outside of marriage, to a society of wanton sluts.  There has always been premarital sex in American culture.  Loads of it.  It has probably been the norm throughout most of American, if not human, history. 

What changed in the 50s and 60’s was that we dropped the hypocrisy of the double standard, or the big cultural lie.  We didn’t start having premarital sex, we stopped lying about it.    And that’s what pisses conservatives off.  Conservatives were perfectly happy to maintain the culture of social hypocrisy,    and when the rug got pulled out from under them by Kinsey (or, more realistically, the publishers who decided that Kinsey’s research was ready for Prime Time, because his research model and hypotheses were hardly revolutionary even at the time, within academia), they went into the tailspin they are still in today.

And even then, half of it was knowing to marry her off before she started having those little hormonal urges…

::embarassing confession:: I used to love Robert Heinlein. I got over it. But one of the things I really liked and still do is his attitude towards women and sex - premarital and otherwise (and I’m paraphrasing here): when a girl is gonna, she’s gonna. Ain’t nothing no one can do about it.

and that there are internally consistent explanations of their thinking that don’t have to involve ridiculous amounts of hypocrisy.

Not really, no. Because most people, including conservatives, who speak out against premarital sex - have HAD premarital sex. That’s because ALMOST EVERYBODY has had premarital sex (talking about the USA here, though it’s true for most places on the planet).

You can’t speak out against something you’ve done, your neighbours have done, your parents have done, your pastor has probably done….and not come out a hypocrite.

and that there are internally consistent explanations of their thinking that don’t have to involve ridiculous amounts of hypocrisy.

BTW, just because something doesn’t “have to involve” hypocrisy doesn’t mean that hypocrisy is not the ultimate explanation.  It would be good to remember that Occam’s Razor is really only useful within the theoretical sciences.  Because in real life, yes often people can have reasons for doing or believing things that are not necessarily the simplest or most elegant rationale.  It would be nice, for instance, to believe that little Joey reallly did fall down the stairs.  That’s certainly the simplest explanation for his bruises, and there’s no reason that a bruise has to mean abuse.  But if Joey really is being abused,  then Joey is being abused.  You can’t say “Noooo, Occam’s Razor!  Why is it necessary for Joey to be abused in order for him to have bruises?  Isn’t falling down stairs a much more elegant answer?  Joey is quite clumsy, after all…”

>  That’s kind of Amanda’s point.

Was it?  I read it as “hypocrisy is a conservative value.”  *re-reads it*  Yep, that’s still what I get out of it. 

>  You can’t speak out against something you’ve done, your neighbours have done, your parents have done, your pastor has probably done….and not come out a hypocrite.

Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it OK.  I *don’t* think it’s hypocritical to point that out (though, lots of people here seem to…), or to hold oneself and everyone else to a standard higher than it’s possible to actually reach.  One could make a good case for it being psychologically very unhealthy, though. 

>  BTW, just because something doesn’t “have to involve” hypocrisy doesn’t mean that hypocrisy is not the ultimate explanation.  It would be good to remember that Occam’s Razor is really only useful within the theoretical sciences.

Hah!  You totally pegged me.  =D

Yeah, lots of times, and for lots of people, hypocrisy really is a decent description of what’s going on.  (I disagree that it’s ‘fundamental’—a hypocrite’s underlying psychology is what’s ‘behind’ it.  But that’s probably a semantic argument.)  Hypocrisy happens on all sides of the political spectrum.  I think people too often sell themselves idealogically short by chalking the opposition’s opinion up to hypocrisy without really taking time to consider their point of view.

Was it?  I read it as “hypocrisy is a conservative value.” *re-reads it* Yep, that’s still what I get out of it.

I’m talking about Amanda’s reply, mentioning the CWA folks who are so freaked about Kinsey’s (non)role in the changing sexual mores of the 50’s and 60’s.  Not her original post.  Not very bright, are you?  And, yes, if your entire political MO is working to create a set of standards you yourself knowingly violate all the time, and then sending others down the river for doing the same, then yes the central value of your politics is hypocrisy.

Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it OK.  I *don’t* think it’s hypocritical to point that out (though, lots of people here seem to…),

The way I understand it, “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” is one of the central tenets of hypocrisy.  Of course you’re right that someone who was a virgin until marriage due to sheer willpower (and not because they couldn’t get laid, or got married at 19, or something ridiculous like that)  is not being a hypocrite when they preach against premarital sex.  But unless you can demonstrate that this is true of the bulk of anti-sex conservatives, kindly STFU.  Because via cultural standards I think we can all agree on, that is true of a very tiny minority of people.  And conservatives don’t seem to be exempt from saying one thing and doing another.

On the other hand, the conservatives who do actually live up to those stupid standards and then go around telling everybody how superior they are, they’re just fucking annoying.

I *don’t* think it’s hypocritical to point that out (though, lots of people here seem to…), or to hold oneself and everyone else to a standard higher than it’s possible to actually reach.

Uh, that’s pretty much the definition of hypocrisy:  a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 

You’re trying to formulate some new definition of the word that just doesn’t exist.

The real sin here isn’t hypocrisy, I think, so much as a view of human nature and the world that’s based in lies. There are plenty of straight conservatives that loathe gays, for instance. (Though they’re usually not as ardent as the closeted ones.)

If GWB were to be a teacher, you’d see a lot of kids getting shot by his bodyguards for throwing spitballs.

Why is observing what already exists “creating” it?

This reminds me of the wingnuts who stifle dissent about the war, because “if the war is meaningless, then the troops’ sacrifices are pointless!” Yes - but they don’t stop being pointless just because no-one says it out loud.

You can’t speak out against something you’ve done, your neighbours have done, your parents have done, your pastor has probably done….and not come out a hypocrite.

Well, you can as long as you’re open about it. I don’t have a problem with someone saying “I did X and it was terrible and it put me in great danger and we should work to avoid people being exposed to X.” It’s the lies that really cement it as hypocrisy.

zha, I personally don’t feel the need to sell my sexuality for a stupid dress and some flowers.  I don’t understand why marriage suddenly makes sex okay?  Especially if you marry some ass who can’t be bothered to finish you off?  Personally, I’d like to find that shit out BEFORE I have to pay for an expensive divorce from the selfish jerk I got stuck with.

That’s the most succint description of my marriage and my resulting hatred of Dr. Dobson I’ve ever seen. Of course, I could also point out the physical abuse and the Dr. D advice that a really good wife is automatically treated well by her husband (which means that if you aren’t treated well, you must not be good enough), but I digress.

Well, you can as long as you’re open about it. I don’t have a problem with someone saying “I did X and it was terrible and it put me in great danger and we should work to avoid people being exposed to X.” It’s the lies that really cement it as hypocrisy.

Only as long as it really WAS horrible, though. None of this “I had premarital sex with my husband and it was AWFUL and we should never do it again, but fortunately we’re married now, so sex away!”. That’s BS.

Has anyone noticed that K-Lo came up with this right after Kathy Griffin was talking about how her billionaire computer whiz boyfriend had taught 5th grade?  Obviously, K-Lo is studying her life on the D-List and getting her ideas from Bravo.

Faye, I was thinking more of recovered addicts speaking against their former behavior.

“I spent my teenage years living on Bacardi, I have done permanent damage to my brain and body, and so I demand stricter enforcement of ID checking on alcohol purchases.”

pepito, I got what you meant, I just wanted to close the loophole.

I’ve heard enough Christians wailing about how they “used to” have sex, be a Wiccan, drink the occassional beer, etc. and how AWFUL AND LIFE SHATTERING it is, and how they are a perfect object lesson as to why this stuff shoulf be regulated to last me the next three lifetimes.

We’ve (somewhat…) eliminated a culture of hypocrisy, but we’ve replaced it with a culture that thinks sex without marriage is OK.  Is that really better?

We’ve (somewhat…) eliminated a culture where people eat cyanide-coated barbed wire for dessert, but we’ve replaced it with a culture where people eat ice cream. Is that really better?

I’ve heard enough Christians wailing about how they “used to” have sex, be a Wiccan, drink the occasional beer, etc. and how AWFUL AND LIFE SHATTERING it is, and how they are a perfect object lesson as to why this stuff should be regulated to last me the next three lifetimes.

Exactly. The world is full of Dawn Edens. They had their debauched fun when they were young and won’t need any abortions anymore, and now they want to make sure no one else “makes the same mistakes” they did. The ones like Eden seem genuinely miserable and regretful about having been happy when they were young, which is a shame, but I think plenty of them are cold-bloodedly trying to balance their books with god by taking away someone else’s fun.

Hear, hear, Junk Science. And I think it’s important to point out to fundies that just because something (premarital sex, a martini, cat allergies, etc.) ruined THEIR life, doesn’t mean that the same thing will ruin EVERYONE’S life.

Life has been MUCH better for me ever since I got a divorce and starting having “pre-marital” (does that imply we meant to get married?) sex. And, yeah, I realize that the standard response is that I’m so deep in sin I can’t REALIZE how ruined my life is, but that’s intellectually dishonest and I won’t stand for it.

I’ve heard enough Christians wailing about how they “used to” have sex, be a Wiccan, drink the occasional beer, etc. and how AWFUL AND LIFE SHATTERING it is, and how they are a perfect object lesson as to why this stuff should be regulated to last me the next three lifetimes.

Paging St. Augustine! (Ahhhh, clicking Blaspheme seems so right here. . . .)

Huh.  I thought I posted a reply yesterday afternoon, but I don’t see it now.  So, in any case…

>  I’m talking about Amanda’s reply, mentioning the CWA folks who are so freaked about Kinsey’s (non)role in the changing sexual mores of the 50’s and 60’s.  Not her original post. 

By some odd coincidence, that’s also what I was doing. 

>  Not very bright, are you?

Hey, you know what?  Fuck you.  I’ve kept my comments civil. 

I had hoped to have a conversation with a bit more depth than, “wow, omglol, that’s what I think too” without anyone freaking out.  Apparently this was not meant to be. 

For those of you who think pointing out that something ‘everyone’ does is wrong makes you a hypocrite, I have no idea how you expect society to ever improve itself without the ability to recognize that something is wrong and take steps to correct it.  Seriously. 

To those of you who cite examples of conservative hypocrisy, I say:  Well, duh.  Hypocrisy isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum, and examples abound everywhere. 

I wonder—is it just that you all have never happened to know a conservative person who wasn’t a hypocrite?  I know plenty.  (In fact, if we compare the percentages of hypocrisy among the liberals and conservatives I know, there’s more hypocrisy among the liberals.  It’s possible that this is because the set of people I know is skewed in some way, but it’s enough to make me realize how ridiculous and counterproductive it is to suppose that conservatives are mostly hypocrites.)

“He *is* a likeable guy, and it’s plausible that he *does* love his country.”

Okay, so it’s plausible that Bush loves his country.  Who cares?  It’s also plausible that a man may love his wife deeply and may try to prove it by giving her a clobbering every other weekend, in which case it’s plausible that however much he loves her his love carries with it too high a price.

(Yeah, I know analogies are crappy, but I’m looking for a concise way of making a complicated point.)

Besides…if it can be said that there’s a grain of validity in the canard that a liberal will often turn out to be a guy who loves who loves humanity but who isn’t to wild about people, there’s at least as much truth in the saying that a conservative is a man who loves his country but who despises most of the useless eaters who live there.  George Bush sure acts like he fits that description.  Why shouldn’t I assume that he actually does fit it?

“Furthermore, y’all aren’t going to convince anyone of anything by pointing your finger and calling people hypocrites.”

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.  God knows I’m not trying to convince conservatives of anything, because I’ve accepted the fact that that’s a lost cause.  What I’m trying to do is define ‘em and label ‘em and see to it that the label sticks.  I’m trying to do that because I’m convinced that the label fits.

Any questions?