Not sure what to think.

Of late we're seeing in increasing number of men being outed for engaging in varying degrees of sexual misbehavior with women.   To be honest, there is a lot about this that I find troubling.

First, the fact that so many of these men have had long histories of this behavior which has been ignored, tolerated, joked about, and accepted.   Remember how everybody laughed off Ted Kennedy's drunken "waitress sandwich" incident?

Second, the fact that we've gone from that extreme, to the other where it's appropriate to fire someone at the first accusation. 

Third, the role that the culture plays in all of this.  Since the "Sexual revolution" there has been a push from the left to move sex away from something reserved for marriage and toward something that has minimal consequences.  Starting with "free love", the introduction of the birth control pill, the legalization of abortion, no fault divorce, movies and TV, 50 Shades of Gray, the ubiquity of free porn, and hook up culture.   The fact that all of these have been driven by folks who tend toward the left side of the political spectrum, is something that seems to be ignored, as is the fact that these things have contributed to what we're seeing now.

Fourth, while I understand the fact that these private companies have the ability to fire people at will, it seems a bit harsh and arbitrary to fire someone so quickly after an allegation.  It seems like a bit of an overreaction and an attempt to protect the company with little regard for the possible innocence of the one charged.

Fifth, it seems like we're lumping in an incredibly wide range of behavior and treating Keillor's touching with the same degree of seriousness as Weinstein's  harassment.  All the while, there's kind of been a pass for the Weiners' and Clinton's of the world and no one seems particularly bothered by the use of tax dollars to pay of the victims of various congressmen.  

Sixth, I can't for the life of me see how anyone can try to cast the prevalence of free  easily accessed porn as anything but a negative and to not see the connection between the Playboy mainstreaming of objectifying women purely for their physical/sexual attributes and how some men treat women. 

It seems like folks on the left have encouraged the migration of sex further and further away from marriage, then all of a sudden get overly moralistic when the consequences of those societal changes start to become too much.  

I'm not suggesting that the right isn't complicit in following the changes in society, just that virtually every change in the nature of sexual relations has come from the left and moved throughout society.

It still baffles me that the same folks who defended/excused Clinton, made snide jokes about Weinstein, and argue that porn and unfettered sex empowers women, bashed the crap out of Pence for going against the grain.  But even now, they would never admit that choosing to live by the Graham rule would have prevented much of what has everyone so worked up now.

Mixed Messages

There are plenty of mixed messages from the left floating around out there, and one wonders how to make sense of them.

For example, we're told the following things about men.


"The answer is that we do, and we must, regard all men as potential monsters to be feared. That's why we cross to the other side of the street at night, and why we sometimes obey when men say "Smile, honey!" We are always aware the alternative could be death."

 "It is squarely a man’s problem. In the wake of recent horror stories about men in power who abuse women — like Harvey Weinstein — we offer some of our findings on rape culture and some suggestions for men to make change."
 '

"But the socialization of men is such that even a good man – a supportive man, a respectful man, a trusted man – has within him the potential for violence and harm because these behaviors are normalized through patriarchy.

And as such, we know that even the men that we love, never mind random men who we don’t know, have the potential to be dangerous. Surely, all people have that potential. But in a world divided into the oppressed and the oppressors, the former learn to fear the latter as a defense mechanism."

So, if those things are true, then why would anyone want these monsters mingling with women in places like restrooms or locker rooms?

Yet, one also wonders why...

"Laurel Hubbard is genetically male, but transitioned to female in her 30s, and now the former men's weightlifting champion has qualified for the New Zealand national weightlifting team as a woman.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced Saturday that it had cleared Hubbard to compete in the Commonwealth Games, one of several international competitions that precede the Olympics. Hubbard, they say, has "acceptable" levels of testosterone, clearing her to compete against female weightlifters even though she has a clear psychological and physical advantage."

or this...


"Transgender mixed martial arts (MMA) competitor Fallon Fox is facing new criticisms after breaking the eye socket of his last opponent.
On Saturday, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by TKO at 2:17 of the first round of their match. In addition to the damaged orbital bone that required seven staples, Brents received a concussion. In a post-fight interview this week, she told Whoa TV that "I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life.""

or this...

" Transgender sprinter Andraya Yearwood, a freshman who was born a male, won the girls 100-meter and 200-meter dashes at the Connecticut high school Class M state championships — victories that didn’t come without some controversy."

Make any sense, in light of the first few quotes.

So, we're left with "All men are potential monsters", but we should let them in women's bathrooms, and some men are really women.  

Yet, we're told that women don't need guns.  Seems like with a bunch of "potential  monsters" out there that maybe allowing women the choice to carry would be a good idea.   But we all know that no one needs to carry because the police are the only ones who have guns.  Sounds great, until...

"In a shooting involving a police officer, there's often a familiar blame game: Was the cop was racist? Was the person shot threatening? Or maybe, the bias that leads cops to shoot affects us all."

 "76% of black Americans say police are more likely to target minorities."

So, to protect women and minorities from these "potential monsters", we want  to leave that to the police who are likely to target minorities.

I don't know for sure, but believing that all men are "potential monsters", who should be allowed unfettered access to places where women are most vulnerable, except for those men who are actually women, ....

I think you get the point.  It strains credulity to believe that people can actually hold these contradictory positions simultaneously.

H/T Matt Walsh

source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

My how things change

Several months back, it was reported that Vice President Mike Pence had made a choice regarding the way he personally managed his life and work.  He had chosen to adopt the Billy Graham rule as his personal standard of conduct.  No where did he suggest that this was anything beyond his personal standard for how he chose to live.  In essence, he chose to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct than was the norm in an attempt to be above reproach and to not have even the appearance of impropriety.

Many people like Dan, chose to respond to Pence's choice (yes, I not the irony of folks who are "pro choice" ridiculing someone for their personal choice), with scorn, ridicule, and misinformation. 

Now, some months later, one wonders how many of these recent stories about men in positions of power using their positions to inflict sexual harm on those (both male and female) who had less power could have been avoided had people made the same choice as Pence.

At best, it's incredibly ironic that the same folks who made (and still do) excuse after excuse for Clinton, joked about Kennedy's peccadilloes while voting for him, and are now in full hue and cry over the allegations against judge Moore, were the same ones who mocked and derided Pence.  

Matt Walsh offers the opinion that there are three things that would help to minimize this seeming tide of sexual abuse and harassment.

1.  Observe the Billy Graham rule.
2. Emphasize Modesty
3. Emphasize Chastity.

Now, he's not suggesting that these three will stop every depraved harasser for all times.  Nor is he suggesting that these three be legislated.  Just that a return to three things that used to be considered virtues would be a pretty good place to start.   The link to the entire piece is below.

 In a related story, there is a movie called Call Me By Your Name, is apparently getting some  Academy Awards buzz of late.  This movie is about a 25 year old man seducing a 17 year old boy.  Personally, in the wake of the increasing number of "revelations" about the depravity of the Hollywood culture (especially the number of adult men sexually abusing young boys), I find this movie an odd choice to be celebrated.  It seems especially tone deaf for this particular industry to be touting a movie with this subject matter for awards in this context.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/23716/walsh-3-politically-incorrect-and-totally-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

Al Franken needs to go

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article185315138.html


The less than conservative leaning Kansas City Star published this Op/Ed about Al Franken, and I makes some good points.

One of the salient point the author makes is this.

"And to the fury that Republicans have felt ever since over the way women who accused Bill Clinton of harassment, assault and rape were treated by feminists. How could they condone the actions of a man whose behavior undercut everything they’d ever said they cared about? I can’t tell you how many Republicans have told me, both before and after the election, that they saw no reason to disqualify Trump for behavior that progressives had defended."

To this day, I still hear leftists defend Bill Clinton with lines like: "He only lied about sex", "It was his private life," and "the Lewinky thing was consensual.".    So, it seems reasonable to ask why it's ok for Bill but not for Donald.

But none of that is why Franken should resign.  Nor should Franken resign because he's a liar with poor impulse control who has attacked, stalked, and threatened people with whom he disagrees.    Clearly that's problematic, but still not the reason.

Here's why Franken should go, and why the DFL isn't smart enough to push this.

1.  If the DFL encourages/forces Franken to resign, they regain at least a tiny bit of the moral high ground they've lost due to Clinton, Weiner, Weinstein, Menendez, etc.

2.  This puts the nail in Franken's reelection, and despite the deep blue nature of the peoples republic, there is a decent chance that the GOP could flip this seat if Franken runs.

3.  If Franken resigns, eventually Dayton will rouse himself from his stupor, and appoint a replacement.  Most likely that replacement would be Keith Ellison.  Ellison is the perfect candidate, he checks almost every affirmative action box, except for being a woman (of course he could change that in a second), and having him run as an incumbent will give him a huge advantage.   This ignores the fact that Ellison is dumb as a post and already in over his head, but it's the DFL.   

Clearly a Franken resignation moves the DFL cause forward in any number of ways and is a win/win for the left.   Unfortunately, Franken's support for abortion will probably tip the scales in his favor and his narcissism will prevent him from looking beyond himself.

It should go without saying, that I think he should stay and get beaten in his next election.

Fear?

What would motivate someone to ask for something, then (after it was provided) accuse the one who provided it of failing to do so?

What would motivate someone to make a claim, then when pressed to answer questions about that claim, dissappear?

What would make someone ask for evidence, then when evidence is provided, ask for different evidence?

Finally, what makes someone delete comments then characterize both the comments and the one who commented in a manner that can minimally be described as misleading?

Those are good questions, which will most likely end up like other threads of questions, unanswered.

Donald Trump is an evil,evil man. Judge Moore, is a slimy, little worm.

Donald Trump has a long history of engaging in behavior that could best be categorized as immoral.  He clearly is narcissistic and that seemingly drives him to evaluate all moral questions by the standard of what benefits him personally.  His history of affairs and divorces should remove any element of surprise from his his behavior toward women.

Judge Moore, several decades ago, engaged in behavior which is at best disgusting and creepy, at worst, illegal.  His refusal to acknowledge his situation and to drop out of the senate race seems to indicate someone who is also narcissistic and self centered.   He should drop out of the current senate race and focus on clearing his name if that is possible, however unlikely it seems.

These two are just the most recent of a long line of people in positions of power, wealth, fame, or government who have used their positions as aq means to inflict harm on others.   I shouldn't have to repeat the obvious and self evident fact that this behavior is wrong.

But, in a world where certain people insist that objective right and wrong don't exist and that morality is relative, where does the moral authority come from to demonize these people? 

Kill ‘em all

In the spirit of overreacting out there I have two related suggestions.

1.  Since a tiny percentage of inanimate objects get used by people to do horrible things we should indiscriminately ban the 99.9% of those inanimate objects.

2.  Since I tiny percentage of men engage in acts which sexually demean, assault, harass, or rape women as well as young children of both genders, we should engage in punitive action against the overwhelmingly large percentage of men who don’t engage in those acts.   Further should ignore the men who are actively engaged in preventing these acts and punishing these horrific people who engage in them.    Perhaps all men should be lulled of, or restricted in Somme reasonable way.

Perhaps the answer is for those of us in the 99% of men should just identify as one of the unlimited gender options available to us.