Roxeanne DeLuca is going to have mixed feeling on this one

This will help people understand that contraception is for women and men, because men enjoy the benefit of women making their own choices about when and if they want to get pregnant.

Once congress and insurance agencies agree to cover contraception, we will then resume having sex. Until then men will have to be content with their left hand.

Via Glenn where a reader asks:

“Aren’t they just employing the aspirin joke?”

My first thought being my age is the old SNL Weekend update bit with Jane Curtain and Bill Murray. Curtain made the same pitch (concerning a particular type of sex) for the ERA and Murray reminded her that it goes both ways and the look on Curtain’s face was classic.

But the real irony is this. All of this came from a single 30 something trying to force a Catholic College to cover contraception and their endgame is to not have sex?

I’m sure the prospect of single women choosing not to have sex is really going to upset Catholic institutions and Catholic Bishops to no end.

When they said the Lord works in mysterious ways, they weren’t kidding!

According to CNN, Rick Santorum, devout Catholic extraordinaire, has failed to win the Catholic vote.  This is apparently an indictment of Rick Santorum, and not of the shoddy exit polling that enables people to self-identify as Catholics when they haven’t graced the door of a church in years.  Of course, some of the problem is in the way that leftists have tried to turn the word “Catholic” into a synonym for “wealth redistributor”:

“Catholic voters care more about economic issues that affect their families than they do about socially divisive wedge issues like contraception,” said James Salt, executive director of Catholics United, in the statement.

“Mainstream Catholics want leaders who can address the moral challenges of our day like income inequality, underwater mortgages and poverty,” Salt continued, “not leaders who perpetuate a never-ending culture war that divides our community.”

Right.  Who cares about whether or not we murder a million babies a year when someone might want to take another vacation to Aspen this winter?  Don’t you know that the two-thousand year history of the Church is all about those Aspen vacations?

To be serious: the great “moral” problems of income inequality, underwater mortgages, and poverty are all direct results of contraception, abortion, and the decline of the family unit.  As Charles Murray explains in great detail, poorer communities are getting poorer because they are not marrying, while wealthy, educated people are more likely to marry, and are especially more likely to marry before having children. These days, people without college educations have children out of wedlock, and doctors marry other doctors, and people can’t understand why family incomes aren’t equal.

Poverty: never-married mothers are six times as likely as their married peers to be in poverty.  The federal government alone spends over $100 billion a year on subsidies to never-married parents that it would save if our out-of-wedlock birth rate were the same as it was in 1950.

Underwater mortgages: kind of hard to pay for your house when your three baby daddies can only give you $100 a month in child support because he’s also supporting a few other baby mammas.  Sort of hard to have a new crop of home buyers when over ten million would-be-adults are victims of abortion and decaying in trash heaps, not putting down payments on houses.

Rick Santorum scares people because he explains how this all works together.  He scares Cafeteria Catholics who want to believe that the mandates of their faith are limited to voting the (D) at the polling place.  He frightens lefties whose entire anti-social agenda depends on people not noticing that the family is the strongest bulwark against a tyrannical state – and the breakdown in the family unit costs us serious money.  Rick Santorum probably frightens James Salt, too, because people with a good head on their shoulders tend to scare the daylights out of ditzy-brained morons.

It was far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men.

Mr. Spock  Star Trek:  Mirror Mirror 1967

The spreading violence concerning the burning of Korans in Afghanistan for all its death and destruction has a small silver lining, a chance for the International and American Muslim Community and a clarifying moment during the debate about Islam vs Radical Islam.

Let’s stipulate right up front that as both a strategic and a PR matter it was an error for the Army to burn those Korans or to let the news of it come out…

..but having so stipulated now the question comes. What is the proper response for such an act?

I suggest that riots, burning and murder is not. In fact I more than suggest it, I state it as a simple fact that they are acts of barbarism.

I have seen a lot of coverage of the various riots and murders concerning this matter, I’ve seen them in the press and heard them on the radio. I’ve furthermore heard person after person critique the actions of the Army but I’ve heard very few in our media critique the murder and barbarism that have followed it.

This, like the Mohammad cartoon business clarifies things tremendously.

Muslims have naturally condemned the burning of Korans as an insult to their religion. That is certainly not odd. When professor PZ Myers desecrated consecrated communion hosts publicly Catholics were outraged and complained loudly, both in the press and to him employer the University of Minnesota.

Meanwhile while Molly Norris, a US citizen who even after apologizing for her part in “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” remains in hiding under an assumed name for fear of her life, Professor Myers remains unharmed, unhurt and unafraid in his employment prospects. In fact not only has he not been harmed, but no Catholic Leader, no priest nor Bishop would countenance any type of violence against this man.

Yet during the Mohammad cartoon business we didn’t see the same from our friends of the Islamic faith. We don’t see American Muslim groups calling for the ending of the Fatwa on Molly Norris nor a promise to protect her from violence if she comes out of hiding. In fact one might even point out that the one sect of Islam that has eschewed violence (the Ahmadiyya Muslim community) has not only been the target of discrimination worldwide but has actually been targeted by violence and bombings for their beliefs.

Now the Islamic world has yet another chance to redeem itself. Will we see Islamic groups worldwide condemn the violence? Will they do so in Arabic and in the native languages of the people committing the violence so it will not be just pulling an Arafat, that is saying one thing in English for the west and another in Arabic?

Will Muslims disavow this attacks as mainstream Christians disavowed the actions and tactics Westboro Baptist (regardless of their position on Homosexuality) will they like the Bishops of the Catholic Church be defiant in the face of Administration policy without violence? Or will they decide the reward system that Glenn Reynolds wrote about here is more valuable:

Reader Dustin F writes: “If Colbert did a Zombie Mohammed sketch, Comedy Central wouldn’t even air it anyway, given their censorship of South Park. These folks have zero credibility on the subject of tolerating offense, since Comedy Central’s compliance with threats is a major example of allowing terrorism to work.”

My advice to Mormons and others: If you want respect, behead a few people. It won’t take much violence, as long as the threat is credible. Though it helps if they see you as an enemy of Western civilization. Then they’ll enjoy being intimidated.

That’s the real question, is the ability to intimidate one’s foes valuable enough that barbarism is to remain uncondemned and encouraged. Does western Islam really want to be considered a “religion of Peace” or is it just talk to keep liberals in the media quiet?

Or to be more blunt. While the Muslims rioters are either civilized men behaving like Barbarians due to anger or Barbarians acting like Barbarians. the verdict on the West’s Muslims is still out:
Are they Civilized men or Barbarians?

If they are barbarians trying to behave like civilized men we should expect some kind of toothless statement in English, if however they are civilized men as they maintain then the willingness to strongly and forthrightly condemn these actions in languages of those rioting should be there and ought to be done. in fact one might think it should have already been done.

The ball is in your court Muslims of the west, what shall it be?

BTW the reaction of the Mainstream media has already rendered it’s verdict on the question.

They believe the Muslims in Afghanistan are barbarians acting like barbarians. They don’t expect better so they don’t waste their breath to say a word. Meanwhile their unwillingness to question call on the west’s Muslims to speak against the violence coupled with their previous actions concerning the Mohammad Cartoons and their silence on Molly Norris suggests they believe the west’s Muslim’s are barbarians pretending to be civilized men and are afraid of angering them for fear of their own lives.

That makes the MSM by their own standards, both racists and cowards.

Update:
While I was writing this Doug Mataconis wrote the following piece that answered one of the questions asked here:

Even without the Koran burning incident, though, I have got to wonder why anyone would think that this “stabilization” mission would succeed to begin with. Dave Schuler puts it best in a post over at his own site:

We’ve done our best to make the Afghans prosperous. Clearly, they would much rather that we leave so they can go back to killing and abusing each other without whatever hindrance that we provide. The difference between us and the Taliban can be summarized succinctly: the Taliban cuts off young women’s ears and noses and leaves them for dead; we restore those noses and ears and try to heal their scars.

And in return all we get is hatred and attacks. Really, what’s the point anymore? Why are we bothering to try to civilize a nation that clearly is either incapable of being civilized or simply just doesn’t want to join the 21st Century?

Read his whole piece

Update 2: Some desecrated Korans are apparently more equal than others.

Update 3:
Doug Made a point in his piece but a question, if England pulled out because they considered India “Barbarians” would widows still be thrown into funeral pyres via sutte or sati

Update 4: Tangential, but telling quote from Jay Nordlinger’s latest piece

The U.S. Army, using Black Hawk helicopters, has been dropping food, medicine, and livestock feed to people stranded in the mountains of Montenegro, which have been socked with snow. (Story here.) Nice to know our soldiers have taken a break from killing babies and wiping themselves with Korans to help the hungry.

One of the helicopter pilots compared his work in Montenegro with his work in Afghanistan: “There, we were getting shot at.”

Me, I think the greatest fear of the barbarians rioting over burning Korans is that we successfully educate and empower women over there. Oh and one thing about Nordlinger, I still think he’s awesome even thought he hits Santorum a lot, everyone is allowed a fault or two.

Update 5: The BBC answers the question too:

But he also revealed that producers had to consider the possibilities of ‘violent threats’ instead of polite complaints if they pushed ahead with certain types of satire.

Mr Thompson said: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’

In other words, the BBC considers British Muslims Barbarians and British Christians civilized, does that make them religious bigots? Cowards or both. I’m going with both.

Rick Santorum Catholicism is rapidly becoming an issue in this race, at least for the left. Over and over we see them (and some Romney supporters who are becoming increasingly desperate) fret over beliefs concerning contraception, abortion and sex before marriage, all doctrines of the Catholic Church to which he belongs. This is in marked contrast to the MSM cavalier attitude to a certain Chicago Senator’s church but we can’t mention that without charges of “racism”.

One of the advantages of being born in 1963 to parents born in the early 20’s and grandparents born in the 1890’s is it gives one an excellent perspective on the massive cultural changes of the 60’s while still being young enough to talk about it without people dismissing you.

Many people do not remember that Orthodox religious belief for almost the entire history of the country has been the norm. If you go though the record of speeches, of official documents at all levels from presidential on down you see this same type of thing. Likewise if you look at what was orthodox protestant belief 100 years ago on subjects such as birth control, there is not much if any difference between that and current Catholic belief.

Somehow people don’t remember a time when teens suicide was not common, nor was resignation of premarital sex, the acceptance of divorce as the best solution, gangs not being strong on the streets, drugs not being prevent in our schools, police officers not having to be stationed inside.

Even more amazing is the change in the Black community, at the same time as giants fought for an achieved civil rights, black families stuck together and in strong families despite the oppression and discrimination that had to be endured. Today with the legal protections in place and a generation that considers the entire question of race as a qualification for employment or advancement an oddity we see black illegitimacy rates, incarceration rates, and crime rates though the roof.

The question is why?

I think the answer is exemplified by a simple contrast between two events:

NYC announced that they would not be holding a parade for the troops, (somehow these “objections” didn’t stop St. Louis) The fact that is even was a matter that needed discussion is a matter of great amazement to me, then again as colleges had to be dragged kicking and screaming into bringing back ROTC and as the left spent the last decade demonizing soldiers, the idea that volunteers who willingly risk their lives to defend the country might not be supported (unless they shoot their officers of course) should not have surprised me.

These serving men and women are the modern greatest generation yet many in our society, particularly on the left disdain them.

Meanwhile in New Jersey flags in the state were flown at half mast for Whitney Houston, a pretty good singer who rose to fame and wealth due to a fine voice but wasted in on drugs until it killed her. Yes she sang very nice but her life and death is a celebration of hedonism and the fact that every cable network felt complected to cover is was astounding to me.

BTW there is no parade scheduled for the troop in New Jersey either.

Mike Barnicle’s close to his famous article on the death of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana comes to mind:

Anybody who claims they can explain the logic behind the enormous outpouring for a dead princess is not to be believed because it is inexplicable. And anyone who equates the deeds of Diana’s life with those of Mother Teresa’s is a fool.

Substitute “Whitney Houston” for Diana in that paragraph and Sgt. Paul Smith posthumous medal of Honor recipient for Mother Teresa in those two sentences and it reads exactly the same.

Put simply the culture has gone from a culture that celebrates merit and duty to a culture that celebrates fame and hedonism.

And that brings us to Rick Santorum.

Unlike the Pelosis, Kerrys and Bidens of the left he doesn’t proclaim his Catholicism and then distort or disdain the beliefs of the Church he proclaims. He is more Rosemary Reynolds than Mario Cuomo unwilling to divide himself. Like most practicing Catholics (you know people who actually go to church weekly) his faith and belief informs him, it is not something that comes out once a week to be hidden from view. For the majority of the history of this country this was nothing odd, and in our divided culture, the half that still honors religion it is perfectly normal.

To an MSM that has abandoned faith and religion of their parents and have filled it with noise Santorum is a strange and frightening thing. Santorum is a direct threat, a reminder of the cultural failure of the 60’s and the hook up culture, a reminder that one can’t command a majority when your voter base aborts their children or chooses to delay or avoid having them. (There will be a lot of Santorum children voting long after both Maureen Dowd and I are dead and gone).

Demographics are destiny and the 60’s generation that never quite realized that never quite abandoned their teenage belief in their intellectual superiority to their parents who won the 2nd world war are slowly losing the fight, not just because of demographics but because of the cultural failures that people of the right and of faith have been avoiding through home and religious schooling.

What they forget is that “dark age” that they proclaim Santorum belongs to was an age of intact families, an age of people knowing their neighbors and an age where schools were safe and the children in them not only respected their teachers but were learning things that our current crop of public school students can’t seem to manage. They largely are railing against a past that didn’t exist to a group of people so ill-informed that they don’t realize that they are fighting against a myth.

Now in terms of electoral politics for Democrats it’s an open and shut business. It’s a lot easier to hit Santorum on issues of culture than trying to defend the Obama economic record. For many others there is something more elemental going on.

They can’t allow Santorum to be considered a credible or mainstream candidate. It’s not enough that Santorum be defeated to the left, he must be marginalized as a fanatic, it must be made clear to any in America that no believing Catholic need apply for the office of president of the United States.

Because if Rick Santorum is elected and the world doesn’t end and the values of a generation that held them against a self-destructive culture are put on display and expressed from the bully pulpit, the clarifying effect on society would be more than the left can bear.

Update: Glenn Reynolds on the attacks hitting Santorum:

Democrats are worried, so they’re playing the Republicans Will Steal Your Ladyparts!!!! card. And the knees are jerking as hoped. Women, you’re being played. Again.

Skipper: “…We even missed the mini skirts!”

Gillian: “What are mini-skirts?”

Skipper: “You remember when we left women’s skirts were clear down to here, (indicates the knee) while we were gone they came up to here (indicates WAY up the leg), now they’re back down to here again. Gilligan, we missed from here to here!”

Rescue from Gilligan’s Island 1978

It is an invariable truth of CPAC that there is, every year, an inordinate number of incredible looking women dressed in a rather noticeable way.

As a man who is married, but not dead…this is not a fact that goes unnoticed.

This year at CPAC the skirts seemed to get higher MUCH higher to the point where I mentioned in passing: “Why bother even wearing a skirt? Just wear a bathing suit and be done with it.”

What really surprised me was all the debate that has come of this from Melissa Clothier, then Erick Erickson Robert Stacy McCain (twice), Dan Riehl Daily pundit, insty, Little Miss Attila, Lisa Graas and more.

There are three simple ways to look at this and I’m going to say them:

As a man: If women beautiful women choose to dress in a way that shows off their various assets I will notice them.

As a father: I suggest that if you are a college age woman at CPAC networking is good, but it might not be healthy to be hooking up with strangers at a national conference, no matter what their political affiliation.

As a person trying to carry himself as a gentleman:
I will do my best to not allow noticing a beautiful woman to override my dealings with her as a person or a blogger or a subject of an interview.

My advice to men is this: If a woman is so attractive as to be a distraction compliment the women on it right way and get it out-of-the-way, that way it won’t be on the back of your mind when doing other things.

My advice to women is this:
It’s not for me to tell you how to dress, but if you choose to dress in a way that makes men notice then 1. Don’t be surprised if men notice you. 2. Don’t be offended if they compliment you.

Oh and for the record, I know who Tina Korbe is and met her in passing but I don’t know really know her socially. I didn’t have time for the Santorum interview and didn’t even notice the length of her skirt one way or the other until it was pointed out to me. That she is an attractive woman is self-evident, that she is a fine writer has been amply proven from her work at Hotair and that’s really all that counts in this context.

In closing I’d like to congratulate her on her engagement may she and her future husband enjoy a lifetime of happy years together.

Update 2: Instalanche, and ponder this. I’ve posted a ton of stuff on CPAC, shot a bunch of interviews and dived into the middle of the occupods to provide useful content. And the most popular post on CPAC that I’ve written is this one…and it’s not even close.

Update 3: I see Stacy is getting some grief over his post. As a friend of his let me assure you that he does not believe Tina Korbe has done anything indecorous and had absolutely no intent to embarrass her in any way. I will personally vouch for Stacy’s good intentions here till the cows come home and then even after they’ve settled down in the barn for a light lunch.

Thursday I went to the Twin City Mall pay my Comcast bill (I never pay a bill online that I can pay in person) and I noticed a poster on the wall advertising a new Showtime series, Homeland! The catch line is “They see a hero, she sees a threat”.

I instantly thought of the president’s SOTU and the whole question of Vets trying to find work and I thought: REALLY?

For decades, DECADES the left though the entertainment industry, has painted the American Vet as unstable, psychotic and unable to function in society and we don’t have to be talking about movies like The Deerhunter or Apocalypse Now, we’ve seen it in more subtle ways.

Let’s give a simple example of a movie you might not consider in this vein: For the Boys with James Caan and Bette Midler as a pair of performers who entertain the troops in three wars and the consequences thereof. The primary plot is the relationship between the two characters but the backdrop are the wars.

At the beginning of the movie they are entertaining the troops in World War 2, the theme is upbeat and while the jokes are a bit raw the troops are respectful and the only hint of the costs of war is a bombing raid that they dance to and the funeral of Dixie (Bette Midler’s) husband.

This is despite the fact that over 400,000 US soldiers were killed during WWII, only the Civil war killed more.

When we get to Korea, suddenly war become a story of mud and rain and wounds and the horrors of war. Somehow a war that with 54,000 US deaths (36k in theater) is magnitudes worse than a war that was fought all over the globe, resulted in the wholesale destruction of cities and mass murder.

And since the template had been set by MASH we had the stereotypical “bad” gossip columnist degrading the Koreans while supporting the war while George Segal is the smart witty writer who in full Alda mode speaks of the stupidity of the fight.

One only needs to take a look at the two Korea’s today to answer the question: Who would the South Koreans agree with. MASH not withstanding the answer would be the same in today as it would have been in 1991.

Once we get to Vietnam, our troops are boors who can’t keep their hands of the girl from the show and are incapable somehow of fighting back, they are just victims just like the rest of the 58,000 US troops who died.

And of course in the Vietnam scene Dixie son is killed but not before he gets the chance to say how BS everything is, not just the war but the philosophy of duty, honor etc.

Note the difference the most devastating war of the 20th century is clean (It would not be until Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers that WW 2 managed to catch up ) but the smaller wars that followed are a national trauma, why?

Well first you have to remember that it wasn’t until once the Germans invaded the USSR, that the American Left concluded that they were the enemies of the world and the fight was both noble and worthwhile.

But Korea and Vietnam; boat people, re-education camps and tens of millions slaughtered in China and the USSR not withstanding any fight against a foe from the left is pointless, destructive and soul scaring.

I remember for decades during the cold war pols of the left like Kennedy, Biden and others, some still in office fighting tooth and nail any attempt to restrain the Soviets or their allies. We saw the same fight against President Bush (Jr. & Sr.) with pols on the other side embracing not only the worst of the opponents of this country but embracing their propaganda against us.

And it still doesn’t end, It was just last week that the media hit the Marines over Haditha again while a former Kerry aide was charged with outing CIA operatives in the war on terror just didn’t produce the same outrage.

So when I see president Obama and his friends in the media beat their breast on military unemployment and ask why an employer might hesitate to hire a vet, I want to shout: “Because you’ve been telling people their dangerous for decades you phony two-faced &$##&@&s!”

It’s not often that this stuff gets me angry, but when I see this kind of stuff it makes my blood boil.

(Quick FYI. In fairness to Showtime the series Homeland it’s more of a “Manchurian Candidate” style plot rather than simply a standard “these vets are crazy” story, but the poster doesn’t convey that.)

A year and a half ago I went to a Blockbuster video to rent a game for my youngest. There was a lady coming out so naturally I took off my hat and held the door open for her.

There was a girl maybe 19 maybe 22 at the counter and as I walked in her mouth was opened wide saying: “Wow!”

I turned around to see what she was looking at and discovered it was me, she said: “You took off your hat and held the door open for that woman, that is so cool!”

I thought it was an incredible shame that for this young woman such a simply act would be so extraordinary. Perhaps she was expecting more of what Mark Steyn describes here:

Today there is no social norm, so it’s every man for himself – operative word “man,” although not many of the chaps on the Titanic would recognize those on the Costa Concordia as “men.” From a grandmother on the latter: “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.”

Whenever I write about these subjects, I receive a lot of mail from men along the lines of this correspondent:

“The feminists wanted a gender-neutral society. Now they’ve got it. So what are you complaining about?”

And so the manly virtues (if you’ll forgive a quaint phrase) shrivel away to the so-called “man caves,” those sad little redoubts of beer and premium cable sports networks.

We are beyond social norms these days. A woman can be a soldier. A man can be a woman. A 7-year-old cross-dressing boy can join the Girl Scouts in Colorado because he “identifies” as a girl. It all adds to life’s rich tapestry, no doubt. But I can’t help wondering, when the ship hits the fan, how many of us will still be willing to identify as a man.

That’s the whole point, we often here about Men as predators as violent etc, yet civilization’s checks that existed to restrain men are gone, Steyn notes an old story:

On Feb. 26, 1852, HMS Birkenhead was wrecked off the coast of Cape Town while transporting British troops to South Africa. There were, as on the Titanic, insufficient lifeboats. The women and children were escorted to the ship’s cutter. The men mustered on deck. They were ordered not to dive in the water lest they risk endangering the ladies and their young charges by swamping the boats. So they stood stiffly at their posts as the ship disappeared beneath the waves. As Kipling wrote:

“We’re most of us liars, we’re ‘arf of us thieves, an’ the rest of us rank as can be,

But once in a while we can finish in style (which I ‘ope it won’t ‘appen to me).”

This is the tragedy of modern feminism and the culture that the media embraces. We expect very little from men today and we guys, who basically want in life a place to relax, and the occasional company of a nice lady, rise exactly to the level that is expected of us. Steyn again:

Abe Greenwald isn’t thinking big enough. The Costa Concordia isn’t merely a metaphor for EU collapse but – here it comes down the slipway – the fragility of civilization. Like every ship, the Concordia had its emergency procedures – the lifeboat drills that all crew and passengers are obliged to go through before sailing. As with the security theater at airports, the rituals give the illusion of security – and then, as the ship tips and the lights fail and the icy black water rushes in, we discover we’re on our own: from dancing and dining, showgirls and saunas, to the inky depths in a matter of moments.

There are two civilizations currently in the United States, only one of them calls upon men to act like men. I’d like to think that in that situation I would act like a man.

Everybody dies, not everybody dies well.

Your Future is whatever you make of it, so make it a good one

Back to the future III, 1990

You must choose but choose wisely…

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, 1989

When I saw the link to Maureen Dowd’s piece in the NYT at Hotair I resisted opening it. Having read Ms. Dowd in the past I knew exactly what she would say and how she would say it. So with a rushed schedule, I wasn’t sure about wasting my time with it. Curiosity, however, got the better of me so I clicked over and saw exactly what I expected, with a slight twist.

Even for Santorum, it was a masterpiece of antediluvian abrasiveness — slapping gays and Mormons at the same time.
When 17-year-old Rhiannon Pyle, visiting with her civics class from Newburyport, Mass., pressed Santorum on how he could believe that all men are created equal and still object to two men in love marrying, he began nonsensically frothing.

It was a clever piece of writing. It was also a an exercise in mendacity or, as Newt would put it: Ms. Dowd is a liar.

I was at that event, I shot the video of that entire question and I invite any person who chooses to read her piece to watch this video I shot there…

… and then read the Dowd piece a second time and ask yourself whether she is telling the truth or I am.

Now, I’ll grant that I’ve endorsed Rick Santorum, and I’ll also grant that Ms. Dowd is of the opposite opinion, but protestations of the secular culture notwithstanding, there is such a thing as objective truth and Ms. Dowd, in her attempt to paint Rick Santorum as a bigot, fails to reach that standard.

Oddly enough, as gay marriage has been legal in some states for less than 10 years, perhaps Ms. Dowd whose career predates that time, will call out as bigots the entire population of the U.S. and the world who lived before the 21st century. While she does so, perhaps she will call out herself as I don’t remember any pieces promoting gay marriage before it became a cause celebré and she has been writing since the 1970s.

This post however is not so much about her piece as it is what occurred to me as I read it.

In Ms. Dowd’s piece, she goes after Mrs. Karen Santorum. This is no accident. The senator’s wife represents every choice that Ms. Dowd has rejected.

Mrs. Santorum is a faithful Catholic, long married, a mother of seven who has experienced the joys and the tragedies of motherhood, a person who has not let those tragedies destroy her or her faith. In an age when the popular culture rejects her choices, Mrs. Santorum decided to homeschool her surviving children to make sure they had an education that represented the culture and values that she found important.

Ms Dowd has taken a different path. As she approaches her 60th year, she is at the top of her profession, a columnist at one of the most famous newspapers in the world. She has money, fame and awards for her writing. No one can honestly contest that she has earned these accolades though hard work and effort over decades. As a person newly trying to make a living with words written and spoken I appreciate her success an, if I reach even one-tenth the level of success she has, I’ll be proud of myself.

Both Mrs. Santorum’s choices and Ms. Dowd’s come with a price. I have no doubt that Mrs. Santorum could have, when she was Karen Garver, pursued a successful career in any field she chose. I’m sure on occasion, when the kids have been particularly difficult, she briefly wished it was so.

Ms. Dowd choice has left her alone. I’m not privy to her dating history and, frankly, it’s not my business. Suffice to say she has not chosen marriage and I see no reason to believe she will. As for children, at 60, that’s unlikely even with the aid of modern science.

These are two different paths. This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that the difference is I see no evidence that Mrs. Santorum begrudges Ms. Dowd’s choices while, reading her column today (and from my memory of her writing) I can’t say the same for Ms. Dowd, who seems to resent the very thought that in 2012 a woman might choose Karen Santorum’s path. And perhaps Ms. Dowd resents that Mrs. Santorum can, once her children are grown, choose a new  path …

…and that brings us to Meghan McCain.

Meghan McCain is 27 years old, ironically she started writing at about the same age as Ms. Dowd.

When I read Dowd’s piece suddenly I thought of Meghan McCain and her statement concerning her father and Rick Santorum. I wrote about it briefly and not being able to say anything gentlemanly I let it go. The medium was different than Ms. Dowd’s, but the anger and snark seemed exactly the same.

I’m not Ms. McCain’s father but I’m old enough to be so. As she gets closer to age 30, a huge life-changing choice is upon her.

It’s not about her opinions, it’s not about her politics, it’s about herself.

Before her, she can see two futures: A future as epitomized by Maureen Dowd, a life that can produce success with hard work but one that rejects the joys and responsibilities of marriage and motherhood, embracing the modern chic culture; or the future as epitomized by Mrs. Santorum epitomized by marriage, children and responsibility — one that requires just as much hard work but with vastly different rewards.

I would suggest to young Ms. McCain that the rewards of Mrs. Santorum’s path are greater and will last long after chic opinion moves to another topic, and age makes it a constant and expensive struggle to remain fashionable. But that choice is hers not mine, and perhaps she can take a middle path like Mika Brzezinski. However, even that middle path has a deadline that is approaching.

Look at these women and ask yourself, Meagan, that question that is so difficult for a young person so far away from my age-let alone Ms. Dowd’s this question: “When I am 60 which life would I like to have?”

I urge you not to hesitate as time and biology will answer that question for you.

May whatever choice you make bring you happiness.

Update: Roxeanne who is near Ms. McCain’s age has this to say:

But, as a woman who always had a gut-level feeling that she is not called to marriage, I see this a bit differently, for one cannot always choose whether or not to find a great husband and to have a minivan full of children. We are not guaranteed such rewards, even if we choose the path that would likely lead us to such rewards. What we can do, however, is to be the type of woman whom a good man would want to marry, and would be proud to have as the mother of his children. If you do not end up with a huge, loving family (or a small, loving family, if two kids are about all you can handle), it shouldn’t be because you are a raging shrew whom men will sleep with but would never marry.

I humbly suggest it is a scathing indictment of my gender that such a young man has not come forth for Roxeanne yet.

Stacy McCain suggests I will not be forgiven for this piece,

The feminists will never forgive Pete for this, of course.

It is my experience that feminists, when angry, revert to predictable arguments about the ignorance and prejudice of their critics.
that’s not relevant

What feminists think of my piece is the furthest thing from my mind. My only concern is for the well-being and happiness of a young lady with great potential.

At the college convention yesterday, Rick Santorum took a lot of questions from a liberal crowd of College students, bu the question that a lot of people were waiting for was one on Gay Marriage. ABC’s Shushannah Walshe has this piece up:

Santorum answered that for “230 years marriage has been between one man and woman. So if you want to change the law … you have to make the positive argument about why.”

At that point, several members of the audience started trying to engage the candidate.

Santorum said, “We’re not shouting out here,” before asking the students to raise their hands.

They include a video of about 4 minutes excluding the base question and is cut excluding his base speech and jumps right to the Gay Marriage question asked in the middle of the event
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Well not the whole question they start in the middle of the question and cuts at a key point when the audience applauds the suggestion that marriage means whatever people says it means. A bit deceptive, but a better job than Think progress uses even a smaller cut from CNN

and states that Santorum is “on the defensive”.

This is the media image that is desired, but unfortunately for them, Stacy McCain and I were there. I shot the entire exchange, and when you watch it, Two things are clear:

1. Santorum is on the offensive NOT the defensive.

2. The students unable to cope with his arguments.

Let’s begin with the full unedited video and see what we actually have from the start.

Take a look at the interaction here. Santorum uses logic and reason starting that as people trying to change the law, the positive case to be made is theirs to make for the change:

“Don’t you have to make the positive argument to make the change?”
He uses the example of proposing to build a bridge, the necessity to provide the public purpose is a fundamental question and puts the case in the intellectual rather than the emotional case. The hostile crowd is put on the defensive, Santorum is not going to back down and once the argument is over logic and reason the ball is now in his court?

When the student answers the medical visit business Santorum responds with the fact that hospital visitation can be handled with a legal written contract and that this was ALWAYS true.

He then asks for another reason and a young lady answers:

“How about the argument that all men are created equal and the right to happiness?”
Santorum pounces:

“Are we saying everyone has the right to marry?”

The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, Santorum continues

“So anyone can marry anyone else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So anyone can marry several people?”

At once the crowd starts to object, filibuster and interrupt, or as ABC calls it “engaging” Santorum calls for order and continues to demand an answer: “If every person has a right to be happy, so if you aren’t happy unless you are married to five other people then that’s OK.”

Again members of the crowd, confronted with the need to reason, decides to filibuster again, he will have none of it. The young lady quickly ads…“As long as you don’t harm other people.”

It’s the same argument that Chris used during our debate on the subject at the center of mass podcast and Santorum asks the question: “Who determines what harms someone else?” and the “everybody can understand it” comes out.

These kids are apparently too young to remember the days when “everybody could understand” that homosexuality was wrong. They unknowingly make the ICK factor argument. But they are looking not for a discussion but a sound bite.

Finally the young lady says that her person opinion on 3 is “yeah, go for it.” and Santorum delivers the coup de grace.

“If she reflects the values of everyone else…Marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.” the college crowd applauds not realizing what they’ve just done but ABC apparently did since they cut the video right before the applause here.

Santorum then makes is closing argument, disagreeing with what NH did but conceding that they did it the “right way” via legislative action and urges that if you want to make the case for or against, make the case in the public square, and makes his own case for the unique status of marriage.

It was very illustrative. First rather than pandering Santorum challenges them on an intellectual level in a way that apparently they have not been before on this issue. The students who on other question would take and give become unable to make their case without shouts and interruptions. (These are college students?)

Like many young people they don’t understand that there are hundreds of years of reason, logic and intellect behind the Santorum argument and their response proves them, despite the education they are paying for, are not intellectually armed to make their case. They are used to a sound bite wars and in the arena of ideas, at least for this idea, come unarmed.

The final dagger through the heart came much later. At the very end of the day as Santorum is leaving groups of college kids as he is going to his car pepper him with questions when as he enters the car he gives a response to a question (that although I was filming I couldn’t’ hear and the camera didn’t pick up) saying: “The federal government doesn’t do that.” Here is the video:

When he gets in I shut off the camera and boy to I regret that, because the reaction of these kids is the story. The kids start whooping. They hi-five and cheer each other as the car leave bragging that this will end up on Huff Po. Think progress will likely be recruiting here.

Run that through your head a second, their engagement with the candidate was not to learn, to make a case for what they believe, they were looking for a sound bite to spin and it was that moment rather than the chance to actually engage a former senator and candidate for president that made all the difference to them.

Ladies and gentlemen I present you with the future Mainstream media!

If you want to know why citizen media is important, this is it.

Update: If the MSM really wanted the big quote from that appearance, it came before this

Update 2: he took a similar question in Windham, here is my the video (missed the start of the question running down the aisle after dumping my memory card)

Update 4: One last thing, although there was confrontation on Gay Marriage there crowd was not confrontational on other issues and there were very good exchanges otherwise. I’m thinking that question might not have been representative of the entire convention. As for the convention itself, I’d never heard of it but Mike Farrell who was kind enough to tell me about it:

It seems a worthwhile event and I look forward to covering it in 4 years again

Update 5: Kudos to MSNBC for showing the whole video

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update 6: Stacy McCain calls the MSM out:

Permit me to say that this headline is a lie:

Rick Santorum focuses on gay marriage

Rick Santorum is not “focusing on gay marriage.” He is being asked — asked repeatedly by reporters and by people at town-hall meetings — about his opposition to gay marriage, and he is explaining his opposition. He is not obsessed with the issue, but neither is he never going to back down from what he believes.

It is the media that is focused on Gay Marriage because they don’t dare talk about the record of Barack Obama, not if they wont to see him re-elected.

Or at least not young moms in Oklahoma who just lost their husbands to cancer on Christmas day, unless getting shot to death is your idea of a good time.

When seconds count, the police are only 21 minutes away.  Or rather, in twenty-one minutes, the police had not arrived, but our armed-to-the-teeth mamma grizzly shot the armed SOB who broke into her house twenty-one minutes after he started threatening her from outside her home.

As a conservative feminist, I can’t help but wonder at women who are “scared” of guns.  Honey, you’re 5’2 and men out there who are a foot taller and 150 lbs heavier than you are may one day want to beat the living daylights out of you, and, unless you have a gun or can hire someone with a gun, he’s going to succeed.

Sarah McKinley is fortunate enough to live in a state that does not demand that she retreat from her own home, would arrest her for shooting the guy, or would have made it impossible, if not outright illegal (pre-Heller, at least) to own a firearm.  When Justin Martin started to harass her, she acted thusly:

Martin returned on New Year’s Eve, but this time with another man, and armed with a 12-inch knife. McKinley could hear the two intruders pounding on the door, and knew she had to think fast.

First, she pushed a couch in front of the front door.

Then, she grabbed her son and “walked over and got the 12-gauge, went in the bedroom and got the pistol and put the bottle in his mouth and then I called 911,” she told ABC affiliate KOCO.

Liberals: should a young mother with a nursing baby and a husband recently in the grave be denied that choice to save her own life?  You people think that she should be able to kill her own child with taxpayer money – why not an attacker with a gun she bought herself?