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 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?

Every single day the Catholic Church feeds more people, houses more people , clothes more people, visits more imprisoned people and educates more people than any other institution on the planet earth can ever hope to.

Matthew Kelly Worcester Mass. March 20th 2010

But I’ll tell you what it can’t do any more, it can’t offer adoption services in Illinois:

Roman Catholic bishops in Illinois have shuttered most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in the state rather than comply with a new requirement that says they must consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money. The charities have served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

The bishops have followed colleagues in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts who had jettisoned their adoption services rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.

As you can guess our friends on the social left are all atwitter:

The most important point, though, is that religious liberty does not mean the right to take public money without having to comply with the law because the teachings of your faith tell you those laws are wrong. That’s not how you live in a civil society, and if the Church cannot comply with that simple rule then it needs to rethink its priorities.

In other words, either change your definition of sin, violate your faith or get out.

Mind you the fact the Catholic church did a great job placing kids, but that is not relevant, the goal of enforcing the new societal rules of diversity. NRO takes things to their logical conclusion:

Because of the massive expansion of government, religious organizations are often unable to even conduct their traditional charitable functions without heavy state regulation. In other words, the “government contracts” or “government benefits” at issue are a required component of the charitable work. Don’t believe me? Try running a foster-care program independently. Try offering a health-insurance plan for your employees without dealing with a maze of federal regulations. So this is not a simple matter of a private organization trying to feed from the federal trough but instead of a religious organization trying to carry out a mission that predates the very formation of our nation and being barred from doing so because the state has decided it knows best.

In other words, it’s not “You can’t have government money to do this charitable work” It’s “You can’t do this period!” The trick is to attempt to get people to decide that the individual mission transcends the sin and the scandal of said sin.

Quite a few bishops made that mistake since the 60’s.

C.S. Lewis saw this coming:

…we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that “only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations”. You see the little rift? “Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.” That’s the game,

The truth, this is all just narcissism, the state feels better about themselves, they feel superior to the church and all those who oppose the church get to do the same.

And if kids don’t get adopted it’s a small price to pay for that satisfaction.

And the Church? As Matthew Kelly points out there is plenty of good to do out there and if they can’t do it in one place, they’ll do it in another…

…until the state stops them that is.

In part of the old British Empire it is Boxing day, but in Berkley and places like that today is the start of Kwanzza.

I had no intention of writing about Kwanzza this year, like the slightly older Festivus it is a totally invented holiday and the one time I did write about it concerned it’s growing irrelevance:

Whether it’s gone because nobody knew how to sell it, or because nobody wanted to buy it, Kwanzaa is now nowhere to be found.

That was from a Huff po article I wouldn’t even write about it today but I was tweeted an article about Kwanzaa today by Adisa Banjoko that really is the final stake through the heart:

I did participate in a few Kwanzaa events back when ’89 was the number. I always tried to do observe it. But once I did the history on its founder and some of the deeper elements of its hollow cultural base, it was hard to continue on. For those who do, I promise I’m not mad at you. Not that you would care. But you can’t get your kente cloth all in a bunch because I’m not feeling it.

Look, I love Africa and what it means to be Black. I love almost everything African (aside from the tribal fighting and the needless murder and rape of women across the continent). But Kwanzaa is not African. I never knew an African (from any part of the continent) who was like “Yo Adisa, bro you wanna slide thought to the Kwanzaa fest playa?” It has never happened! They don’t get down like that.

Kwanzaa is like a bad weave. People might kinda like it, but we all know it ain’t real. Now, I live on the West coast, in the Bay Area. The only people I see really on some Kwanzaa “ish” are the hardcore revolutionary types you might find at the Berkeley flea market selling incense and shea butter soap

I remember when the MSM pushed Kwanzza like there was no tomorrow, this piece is the only one I’ve seen on the subject on the net during my regular surfing, and I haven’t seen a single thing on TV concerning it, not one.

The truth is Kwanzza was always about creating a socialist alternative to Christmas the one holiday the secularists would love to co-opt. The failure of that attempt is so huge that I’ll wager there are more people at mass today for the feast of St. Stephen the first martyr than celebrating Kwanzza.

But hey if you want to celebrate Kwanzza go ahead and enjoy it and my best to you.

I’m been in a little mini funk since being unable to shake a lingering cough since my bout with Pneumonia and I’m really annoyed that the GOP has not gotten the message out concerning this phony tax business that the president is playing. I still haven’t finished my Christmas Shopping with just a few days left and the house is nowhere near ready for Christmas, let alone the open house.

So imagine my delight when I woke up this morning and saw this…..

I have not stopped grinning since I saw it. It had better not open on a Friday evening because I will be at the Midnight showing before going to the show that week.

Life is not just all politics.

Wasn’t it only 48 hours ago that I wrote this?

I submit that in a generation, when both all the parents and the children and the teachers have had access to the web links I’ve shown above the ICK factor will have shifted and you will have not a principal apologizing for an incestual pep rally we will instead have radio hosts excoriating the Star Tribune for reporting on it and calling those who object puritanical and intolerant.

And now Stacy McCain links to this story

A new study has found that one in 13 girls aged 14 to 20 have engaged in ‘multi-person sex’ (MPS).

A total of 328 girls who had visited health clinics in Boston, U.S, took part in the study and 7.3 per cent of them said they had group sex.

This must have been what Barney Frank was complaining about when he talked about Republicans getting into people’s bedrooms on ABC this weekend. After all who are we to say if our daughters are doing it with a bunch of guys?

The next line is the story is classic:

Worryingly, among the girls in that group, 45 per cent said at least one male participant had not used a condom.

Because we all know that there is nothing wrong if the average age of girls having group sex with guys is 15.6 as long as all the guys have a rubber on.

You know I thought the sexual revolution was all about empowering women? I might suggest that it is not the girls getting empowered around here. (I can’t wait to see what Roxeanne has to say about this.)

Continue reading “Nothing to see here, just teens having group sex”

Da TechGuy asked me to cross-post about the ‘waxing’ article going around the internet. First, a link to Bob Belvedere’s outstanding commentary on the matter:

After a while, normal sex becomes boring for those who are obsessed with it, so, to keep the thrill factor high, you progressively [pun intended] get more and more perverse. It like taking drugs: to achieve the same level of euphoria, you have to keep increasing the amount you take.

Ah, there he goes, channeling the great C.S. Lewis, who said,

You are much more likely to make your man a sound drunkard by pressing drink on him as an anodyne when he is dull and weary than by encouraging him to use it as a means of merriment among his friends when he is happy and expansive. Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy’s ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it’s better style. To get the man’s soul and give him nothing in return—that is what really gladdens our Father’s heart. And the troughs are the time for beginning the process.

The Screwtape Letters, Chapter IX.

A lot of people (see a comment a Bob’s site for an example) mistakenly think that we are being a bunch of scolds who are telling people how to run their bedroom lives.  Not so.  My problem, which makes me go all big-sister/maternal on college-aged women, is the way in which young women are contorting themselves for men who barely know their last names.  There is nothing empowered, dignified, nor joyful about worrying what some near-stranger thinks about your body, nor spending time and money on a painful, unnatural procedure for his benefit.  These men are not your husbands, not even your boyfriends or fiances.  As humans, they have worth, but as far as their opinions about the state of your privates: to hell with them.

In short, ladies, you are grown enough for waxing, you’re grown enough to tell the difference between the husband who has vowed his life to you and some stranger who is using you for physical gratification.

With that, my original post, below the fold:

Continue reading “The saddest thing about that waxing article, cross-posted and updated”