Boortz the Boor

Listening to the Neal Boortz show on the radio the other day, I was yet again reminded of what a jerk he can be.

He mentioned being in the supermarket and seeing a large, fat woman with her nine year old little boy and how their grocery cart was filled with junk food. He proudly informed the listening audience that he went up to the little boy and told him that if he ate the type of food in the cart that he would end up big and fat like his mother.

WTF?

I don't know how he was raised, but I was raised to believe that you never direct criticism of a parent to a child, especially one that young. In my book, what he did was totally reprehensible; hurting a child's feelings with his rudeness about something the child had absolutely no control over.

First of all, what business is it of his what strangers eat? Last time I checked, this was a free country and people are free to eat whatever they can afford to pay for, even if their choices are not the best ones.

Secondly, I highly doubt if he'd have meddled into what was none of his business if the woman had been loading up the cart with booze and cigarettes.

Thirdly, what kind of a fucking coward goes up to a little kid and vents his spleen about a problem he has with the child's mother? Wasn't he man enough to state his opinion directly to her? Was he afraid she'd be better able to defend herself against such cattiness than a defenseless little boy would? Did it make him feel like a big man to hurt a child's feelings?

Thoughts?

Telltale Smarminess

I spend a lot of time in my car so I hear quite a bit of radio advertising. One annoying commercial is for Andy Willoughby's 3 Step Plan for work at home businesses. Every commercial starts off with him saying, "How in the world are you, anyway?" in a smarmy tone of voice that oozes fake sincerity, akin to that of the stereotypical used car salesman.

My instant reaction when I heard his smarmy presentation for the first time was to think, "This guy must be a fundamentalist Christian", even though he never mentioned anything religious on the commercial. I'd never heard of this guy, so when I got home I Googled him. And, sure enough, he's a fundie.

This type of image is common among the fundamentalist set. Many of them try to present an image of golly-gee-whiz wholesomeness, complete with the squeaky-clean Howdy Doody haircuts and deer-in-the-headlight expressions. This is combined with a forced earnestness in their tone of voice, that ends up coming across as smarmy, rather than sincere. I don't know why this is so common among fundamentalists, but I'm always able to spot it in a minute, as I did with these radio commercials.

I have news for them. God doesn't like smarmy.

China's Demographic Crisis and Foreign Adoptions of Its Children

I recently heard of an old acquaintance who adopted a baby girl from China. I've heard of others in the past who have also done this, with the sex of the child always being female.

After reading several recent news stories about the lopsided sex ratio that China is facing with the current generation coming into adulthood because of the widespread one-child policy and China's traditional preference for boys with the resultant practice of sex-selective abortions, this left me scratching my head. China's rising marriageable generation will have a surplus of 30 million males who will be unable to find brides in a monogamy-only society, yet China is allowing and promoting foreign adoptions of baby girls.

I did a bit of research and China has allowed foreign adoptions since the mid to late 1990s. In 2005 alone, 7000 children were adopted by Americans, and who knows how many more from other countries. Ninety-five percent of the children adopted are female. I can only see this as widening the sex ratio, rather than repairing it.

Does this make the least bit of sense to anyone?

I'm not knocking those from other countries who adopt such baby girls; after all, they do deserve loving homes. But one would think that China would want to do anything in its power to alleviate the current demographic crisis. In previous blog posts, I've suggested polyandry as an immediate solution to the problem, which is highly unlikely to be seriously considered. But I would also think that their government would give incentives for Chinese couples to have preference in adopting these baby girls, in that they'd be doing a patriotic duty by helping to alleviate the demographic crisis.

Thoughts?

An Excess Of Accommodations

Today, I went down to the county offices to pay the property taxes on my house. My county has a new building, opened last year, to conduct most business with the county. This new building is rather spacious, with about fifteen windows for people paying whatever fees applicable. I've been in this building a few times since it opened and there is never a long line.

One thing I immediately noticed the first time I went in there was that every one of the fifteen windows was at dinner table height, so that patrons have to bend way over in order to write out a check, with their butts poked in the air.

I figured that the reason was to make county offices more accessible for those in wheelchairs, an assumption that was confirmed when I asked the clerk about it.

I'm all for building alterations that make public buildings more usable for those with physical limitations, but the way it was done in this particular building was ridiculous. I saw no need to make ALL the windows at wheelchair height; three or four windows would have been more than sufficient, in my opinion. After making this comment to the clerk, she told me that they were obliged to do it this way in order to get federal funds to build the building.

Curious, I looked up demographic statistics once I'd returned home. Out of a total population of about 310 million, only around 2.7 million Americans are in wheelchairs, which tends to support my assertion that far fewer wheelchair-height windows would have been more than sufficient.

Thoughts?

Individuality and Political Philosophy

Last night, when listening to Neal Boortz' latest rant-a-thon on the radio, I heard him assert to a caller that most individualists were conservatives and that most liberals were the type to herd with the crowd.

Say what?

In my experience, it's conservatives who tend to be cautious and most concerned with conformity, sticking to traditional ways of doing things and who are suspicious of innovation and new and different ways of doing things. It's liberals who tend think outside the box, to color outside the lines, who look forward instead of back. That's why it's liberals who are called progressives, and not conservatives.

Conservatism tends to be reactive and not proactive. That's why you hear more about what Republicans are against, rather than what they are for. Nearly all innovation and progress in our country (and in many others) has been inspired or generated by liberals who were not satisfied to merely conform to the way things were, but questioned and stepped out into new directions.

It's a conservative spirit that answers "That's the way we've always done it", when someone asks why and wonders why it couldn't be done differently. It's most often a conservative who believes there is one "right" way of doing things that everyone should adhere to.

But of course, Boortz wasn't actually speaking of individuality, per se. He was speaking of a person's focus in what they put first in their lives, as his next words indicated. He jeered at liberals for being concerned with the well being of groups of people, rather than being concerned mainly for themselves. To him, "individuality" doesn't mean having a unique personality, lifestyle, or outlook, but rather, in simply being primarily out for oneself, rather than being concerned with the well being of communities and different groups of people.

Thoughts?

-------
If anyone is at all interested, today is my sixth anniversary as a blogger.

Thoughts on Conservative Reactions to Health Care Bill

I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show the other night and he was wringing his hands over the passage of the health care bill. He was of the opinion that this was a sign that the US would be going the way of the Roman Empire and would essentially be the end of civilization as we know it.

I admit to being completely puzzled by this attitude -- is allowing countless numbers of people to die in one of the richest nations on Earth simply because of a lack of funds to get adequate health care the mark of a civilized society? Is valuing money over people's very lives the mark of an enlightened and advanced society? I think not.

Miller went on to say that he believed guaranteed health care for all citizens was a bad thing because it would make people "lose their motivation to 'hustle'".

Again, I don't understand this reasoning. For one thing, all citizens deserve access to adequate health care simply because they are human beings, not because they work to "earn" it. Secondly, access to medical care is one of the basic tools that allows people to work hard in whatever endeavors they choose. It's hard to work up the motivation to "hustle" when you're sick and exhausted. Thirdly, having one's basic survival needs guaranteed will not kill people's desires to achieve and get ahead in life; as long as there are cars, electronic gadgets, luxury homes, season tickets to ball games, and so on to work for, people will be motivated to work. And for some lucky people in meaningful, creative jobs, work is its own reward well beyond the financial remuneration.

Another right-winger, Neal Boortz, said that he thought it was "too bad" for people who did not have health insurance, especially those who were denied because of pre-existing conditions, but that it wasn't his problem and that he considered having to pay taxes to help such people to be "stealing" his money. He also think it's an insurance company's right to deny such people as they don't make money off such people. Obviously, the making of money is the most important concern to him. I don't know how the man sleeps at night, knowing that people are needlessly dying, but that's not how I was raised.

Boortz not only is against the current health care reform; he also thinks that the current system is too lenient. He believes that all preventive and routine care, including pre-natal care, should not be covered by insurance; that it should be reserved only for catastrophic care. He has stated that those people who cannot afford to pay for pre-natal care out of their own pockets shouldn't be having children, anyway.

Never mind that access to preventive care is cheaper in the long run, as it often helps to prevent more serious and expensive problems down the line.

The new health care bill isn't perfect; far from it. But it's a start in the right direction.

Thoughts?

The Right to Adultery

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Study Claims That Liberalism, Atheism, and Sexual Exclusivity in Men Correlate With Higher IQs

A new study, which will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly, has claimed that higher IQs, on average, are correlated with liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity in men (but not in women!).

I buy the first two correlations, as I'm liberal and agnostic bordering on atheist, but I strongly beg to differ on the last correlation. I have never been sexually exclusive with anyone in the 30+ years I've been sexually active, yet I had the highest IQ in my high school graduating class (140). I know this because the guidance counselor made a point of telling me so shortly before I graduated.

The reasoning given was that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past.

Sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates, which helped the human species survive

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart."

I see several things wrong with the inclusion of sexual exclusivity as a factor involved in higher intelligence. First of all, sexual activity and reproduction are no longer inextricably linked; thus promiscuity no longer necessarily means that a man will sire large amounts of children. Secondly, no libertine worth his salt, myself included, sleeps with a large variety of women with the desire to "spread our genes around." I've had hundreds of partners in my lifetime, yet I've managed to sire only one child.

Considering that every male celebrity who strays from his marriage now garners widespread societal disapproval and extensive publicity, I'd hardly say that sexual exclusivity is no longer an "unconventional" idea for men. Sexual exclusivity for both sexes has been one of our society's most sacred of cows for quite some time now, regardless of human nature.

Indeed, to be openly and unashamedly non-monogamous is now an unconventional philosophy in our current society.

And in light of the fact that it was religion that imposed monogamy on society in the first place and a large part of being religious today is to accept and adhere to the idea of sexual exclusivity with a single mate, it would seem as if intentionally non-monogamous lifestyles would be more accepted among liberals and atheists.

An interesting study to be sure, but one with a lot of holes in it.

Thoughts?

Why I Hate "Live" Albums

Over the years, when buying recorded music: LP albums, and later, CDs, I've always avoided buying "Live" albums. That is, music recorded live at a concert. There are several reasons why I hate "Live" albums in general, though there are a few exceptions:

1. The songs are generally rushed, as the musicians desire to cram in as many songs during a concert as possible.

2. The songs are often stripped down as well as being rushed: fewer instruments, simpler arrangements, etc.

3. Live albums are always marred by the sound of morons in the audience who feel they must accompany the musicians by emitting frequent and lengthy high-pitched whistles. I prefer to hear my favorite musicians unaccompanied by the sound of "FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!" every few seconds, tyvm.

I can only think of one live album that I like and that is Eric Clapton's "Just One Night", recorded at Tokyo's Budokan Theatre in December, 1979, which happens to be my favorite Clapton album.

Thoughts?

Rolling My Eyes at Tiger Woods' Apology

So, Tiger Woods has made a public apology for committing adultery. Pardon me while I allow my eyes toi roll back into my head.

Woods owes no one any apologies for his private behavior except for his wife. His lack of adherence to his marriage vows is an entirely private and personal matter, not a professional one. He is a professional golfer and I can't imagine that upholding monogamy was part of his job description.

And he did not break the law; he merely violated a societal sacred cow. Indeed, I don't see real criminals, such as the Enron bunch, making public apologies to their stockholders and the general public, so why should Woods apologize to all and sundry for his infidelity. It's not as if he is married to the whole world.

And Woods mentioned getting "treatment", presumably for "sexual addiction". Give me a f'in break! Non-monogamy is not a mental disorder and I firmly believe that the notion of "sexual addiction" is a very flimsy category, based more on social mores, than science. We must remember that homosexuality was likewise considered to be a mental disorder until as recently as 1973.

"Sex addiction is one of those pop psychology diagnoses that has scant scientific support," Scott Lilienfeld, Associate Professor of Psychology at Emory UniversityLiveScience. and co-author of "50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology," told

Dr. Marty Klein, a Licensed Marriage & Family Counselor and Sex Therapist, believes that the notion of "sex addiction" is "a set of moral beliefs disguised as science" that assumes sex is dangerous. The examples he gave are: that sex should be within the context of a committed and monogamous heterosexual relationship, that masturbation should be confined to once a day, and that having sex to escape problems is unhealthy.

He pointed out that sex addiction has also been used as a political justification for censorship, eliminating sex education and birth control clinics and opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Tiger Woods' problem is his lack of honesty and failing to do as he promised to his wife, not his sexual behavior, per se. But in either instance, it's a private matter between the two of them and not any business of the public.

Thoughts?

Petty Distractions

Recently, people have been making fun of Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm. I even heard of someone referring to what she did as a "Redneck Teleprompter". I have to roll my eyes at this, thinking it a ridiculous thing to criticize someone about.

Don't get me wrong; I am most assuredly no fan of Sarah Palin and would never consider voting for this woman.

But fair is fair, even for Sarah Palin. Who among us hasn't written down a phone number, directions, or something else on our hands one time or another? What's it to anyone else if she wanted to do this to help her remember?

There's no need to stoop so low to criticize her about such petty things, as there are many more glaring faults that we should be calling attention to in these years before the 2012 Republican nominations for president. To concentrate on such insignificant matters distracts us from what really matters and only ends up making us look petty.

Thoughts?

Boortz on Ad Hominems

Thought I know it's not good for my blood pressure, I continue to listen to right-wing talk show host Neal Boortz, as part of my campaign of monitoring what the other side thinks.

Recently, he talked about a tasteless comment made by Keith Olbermann about Michelle Malkin, who called her a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." While I heartily dislike Malkin, I agree with Boortz that this was an uncalled-for ad hominem.

That being said, however, it's no worse than the ad hominems spewed every day by many of his right-wing colleagues.

I have no problems with Boortz pointing out this inappropriate comment. That's his opinion and he has every right to express it.

But what he said to a caller about this incident nearly made me choke, with both laughter and disbelief. He asserted to the caller that liberals (and liberals only) resort to ad hominems because they have no reasoned arguments to make and because liberals supposedly argue out of irrational emotion and not logic.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Does he think his listeners are stupid and/or have no memories or is he that self-deluded about his own behavior and that of his right wing cohorts?

This assertion is coming from a man who has referred to Hillary Clinton as as "evil" woman who "hates marriage and children" and "makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage". (Boortz has been divorced himself). His personal nickname for her is "the Hildebeast".

He once opined that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looked like a ghetto slut". Referring to her hairstyle, he said, "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

In reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage" and "I love talking to you about these Katrina refugees. I mean, so many of them have turned out to be complete bums, just debris." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

He commonly refers to all fat people as "lardasses". He recently asserted that single mothers are "the biggest danger to America today" and refers to welfare mothers as "brood mares." I've heard him refer to southerners who have thick, country accents as "blithering idiots" and he's called those who work only 40 hours a week and/or live in a mobile home as "losers"

I could go on, but I think you get the picture..

Does any of this sound like rational, helpful debate to you? I didn't think so.

Mark Sanford: A Promise Not Made

Yesterday,Jenny Sanford's tell-all memoir was published. Sanford is the soon-to-be former wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was recently outed as having gone AWOL from his post to visit his Argentinian mistress.

In the book she revealed that Mark Sanford did not vow to be faithful to her at their wedding. ABC reported:

Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.

"It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love ... I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had."

This means that Sanford made it quite clear right up front that he either could not or would not be sexually exclusive with her, giving her the chance to back out of the wedding. Instead, she went ahead and married him, anyway.

It seems to me that she has little to complain about, considering he made his intentions quite clear years ago. It's not his fault that she didn't take him at his word. He would not promise to be faithful to her, so I don't see why she's so surprised now.

As a South Carolina resident, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the man was monogamous. Rather, I'm more concerned that he went AWOL from his job for a week, leaving the country without letting anyone know where he was going, and not leaving anyone to "mind the store", so to speak.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Odd Associations

Sometimes I make the oddest associations between two completely unrelated phenomena. What follows below is one such example.

I use Firefox as my browser, combined with slow-ass dialup. Frequently, after I've clicked on a page, the taskbar at the lower left corner will inform me that the loading is "done", when it is most certainly not "done". I'll see "done" when I'm looking at a half loaded page, a blank white page, or a blank green page; you name it.

When I click on "refresh" to get it to load again, I often end up with the same results, but the taskbar still stubbornly insists that it is "done".

One time when this happened, I was suddenly reminded of an old MASH episode. Hawkeye and his tentmates had gotten a Korean woman to come clean up the place. She didn't do a very good job of it, but she came up to Hawkeye for her payment and did kind of a curtsey and said, "Finish!!" in her broken English. Hawkeye looked around at the still messy tent and pointed out the things that she'd neglected to do. The Korean woman gave him an obdurate expression, then did her strange little curtsey and emphatically said, "Finish!!" again. Hawkeye gave up, knowing he'd not get her to do it properly, he simply paid her to get rid of her.

So, now, every time I get "done" on my taskbar with a page not properly loaded and hitting "refresh" doesn't fix it, I picture that Korean woman in my head emphatically saying "Finish!!"

What kind of odd associations do you have?

Extra points to anyone who remembers that episode and can tell me the name of it.