Charter Member of the Sub-Media

February 29, 2008

I, For One, Welcome Our New Dancing Robot Overlords « Link O' Admiration »

Via Ace O' Spades

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Also Asinine, But On a Lesser Topic « Social Issues »

"I never got to go to college and this will be my chance to be in a sorority and have that experience."

"I never got to go to college..." Said Paris Hilton.

!??!?!!?

I guess she just couldn't scrape up enough cash for a community college class or two, huh?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Truly Asinine « Social Issues »

Up is Down. Black is white. Speech Codes are Freedom. Pink is the new Black.

Only a black man can portray a half-black, half-white presidential candidate Messiah on SNL.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."

SNL still has further to go on that front?!?!

I'm flabbergasted.

"Authenticity" is the new "Asshattery".

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 28, 2008

So I Was Browsing the Interblogs... « Social Issues »

...and I saw an advertisement for this website.

And I know that many people want to search within their own chosen cultural/demographical affiliation for love and marriage. And I know this is the US, where Muslim legalistic extremism (fully subject only to Sharia) is a rarity...

But I can't help but think that any women, and even some men, who participate are being a little naive about the risks they face.

I'll probably get hate-comments for this post, but it is worth it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:31 PM | Comments (219) | TrackBack (0)

February 27, 2008

Drifting Leftward? « Politics As Usual »

The 2006 Congressional election, the Iraq war debate, Hatred of President Bush, the Inevitability of Hillary!, the Obamessiah defeating Hillary! for the Democratic Party nomination, the least conservative GOP candidate winning the nomination for Republicans, the Global Warming craze, etc, all seem to make it look like the US is drifting Leftward.

You know what? I don't think so.

Democratics won control of Congress in 2006, 'tis true. But they haven't done anything with it. Support for Iraq has grown again now that we appear to be winning. The New York Times did its typical slanted, anti-GOP biased reporting, and for once the public was wise to the clumsy attempt. Dan Rather was disgraced (even if many people don't really understand how he disgraced himself). The Republican Party's default stance on immigration may not have popular support...but the Democratic Party's stance has even less, and what little it has is from illegals who are beginning to flee the nation in response to the enforcement of existing laws in response to pressure from public opinion to do so. The Democratic Party is going to find that they cannot get public support to pay for universal health care under any reasonable circumstances.

The Left is being cocooned by Huffington Post, Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, slanted Hollywood dramatizations, The Cossacks, the Rise of Olbermann and MSNBC, the increasingly bold bias of mainstream news, the purported influence of the Kos Kids.

In fact, the tide is turning somewhat. McCain will have his day (and may well end up President), but he won't scratch the itch.

Americans want an individual right to guns acknowledged by the government. Americans want more restrictions on abortion. Americans are getting pretty tired of homosexual activism (although they have no intention of rolling back any current rights, just don't want to elevate Gay Rights above any others), are tired of affirmative action, are tired of illegal immigration going unchecked, are tired of being vilified by "elites" at home and in Europe.

This isn't a projection or personal perspective illusion, folks.

The same groundswell of public opinion demanding the reform of Welfare to get people off the public dole is going to compel a rightward/conservative shift in Congress and the Supreme Court on such issues as gun rights, abortion rights, illegal immigration, taxes, and affirmative action.

Just wait and see.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:57 PM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)
Change for Change's Sake « Politics As Usual »

One thing that bothers me (and many others, it seems) about Obama's platform is the emphasis on Change (and on Hope, too).

It didn't really strike me until I saw a brief clip of one of his stump speeches. On his podium was CHANGE in white letters on a blue background. Then there were a few other signs in the background, exactly the same.

Change can be good as long as it is Change toward* something. But Change as an End in and of Itself? Lunacy. Change without a clear goal in mind, without a clear understand of what steps you need to take to get there is naught but Chaos.

Chaos can be good. Chaos sweeps out calcification. But I'd have to argue that our federal government is not all that calcified right now...and all Obama really intends to do is expand the calcified part, i.e., the bureaucracy, by vastly expanding universal single-payer health care.

I do not approve.

Further, I don't think anyone really supports Obama for his platform. Further, I don't think Obama's platform is really about Change. And I don't really believe Obama has said all that much about his agenda.

But that's okay. You get what you pay for. Even if Obama ends up being as incompetent as his record would tend to foreshadow, our governmental structures will prevent him from doing any truly irreversible damage.

But I do wish we had a better GOP slate to offer a decent alternative.

Read More "Change for Change's Sake" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:43 PM | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
Remember, I Called it First* « Politics As Usual »

What I said.

What Glennstapundit says:

Anyway, to Hillary's undoubted dismay it seems to be turning into a McCain vs. Obama election already.
Read More "Remember, I Called it First*" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
What Mr Lady and Angelina Jolie Have in Common « Snark »

Besides being about the ultimate in MILFiness, of course.

Mr Lady and Ms Jolie are both Addicted to Motherhood.*

Read More "What Mr Lady and Angelina Jolie Have in Common" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:18 AM | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)
Montanans Helping Guarantee Your Essential Freedoms « Gun Issues »

We were smart enough to fully clarify the 2nd Amendment in our state constitution, and the US government agreed with it when they approved Montana's admission into the Union.

Thus, that clarifies that the liberal gun grabbers' interpretation that gun ownership is only a right in the context of a militia is DEAD WRONG.

Why didn't anyone look into this Ratified State Constitution revelation thing earlier?!?!

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 26, 2008

Business Trip Rental Car Review, Vol. 2 No. 6: 2007 Toyota Rav-4 « Car Issues »

Okay, ignore the inconsistent numbering system for a second.

The Rav-4 is an awesome car.

It's a small SUV, or Sport-Cute, if you will.

But for the normal person, it is just about everything you want, and nothing you don't.

It is easy to get in/out of. I strained my back, and had no problems.

Plenty of space for my 6-ft frame and overweight carcass. The 2nd row of seats looked like plenty of space, too. It could seat 5 pretty easily, as long as 2-3 were not obese.

Plenty of storage space, too.

I had the 4-cyl. It got 30 miles to the gallon, yet had enough power that going up long, steep (for an interstate system freeway) grades were no problem. It felt nimble and its turning radius was pretty tight. Plenty of acceleration off the line at stop lights, too.

Good seats and driving position, as well. I drove it for 3 hours straight (from San Antonion to San Angelo) from 1 AM to 4 AM, and never felt any discomfort at all.

In short, it was as easy and fun to drive as my 2001 Toyota Corolla (which isn't inconsiderable, actually), with better gas mileage, more room, better visibility, slightly more power, and more little gadgets like automatic limited slip differential.

And it is nice-looking, too.

The 6-cyl has nearly as good gas efficiency, probably would have gotten 28 or 29 to the gallon on the same trip (which mixed mostly freeway driving with some town driving), but I can only imagine the smooth power and speed the 6-banger would have given. In fact, about the only cost in choosing the 6-cyl over the 4-cyl, is, well, cost. The gas mileage drop is neglible, and more than offset by the increased power, acceleration, and towing.

I fully recommend the Toyota Rav-4 to any small family, or anyone who wants the comfort and convenience, and fuel efficiency of a small car, with the utility and space of a wagon.

I am seriously considering buying one. The only thing holding me back right now is that I want the 3rd-row bench seat (suitable for children only), but those are only available on the 2006 models or later, and:
1) you can't choose options on used cars, and the people who purchased the 3rd-row bench seat option are apparently all hanging on their Rav-4s
2) 2006 is a little too recent. I prefer 4 to 5-year old Hondas/Toyotas, because they are down to about 1/4 the cost of new, but can still be driven for another 4-5 years with negligible repair/maintenance costs.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:03 AM | Comments (331) | TrackBack (0)

February 25, 2008

Obama or Clinton: An Interesting Choice for Republicans « Politics As Usual »

Zombyboy has a good post that raises interesting points about Obama vs Clinton, from a GOP perspective.
Here's my response:

If I may make a football analogy? Thank you.
The Clintons are like a player from University of Miami: you know what you are going to get: a great political player, but a thug. They'll make political decisions exactly in line with what you'd think: triangulating to maximize political and public support, but generally along the Democrat lines. You know you aren't going to get soaring oration. You know you aren't going to get inspired leadership. You know you aren't going to get decisions based on principles. You know that you are going to get a finger (wagging) in the wind to test its direction, and then a frenzied attempt to get in front of public opinion, and ruthless defamation of anyone who criticizes or otherwise takes any action that the Clintons feel may reduce their power. It's all about power, money, and legacy with the Clintons. Just as it is almost always about personal aggrandization from a U of Miami player. (apologies to any U of Miami player who doesn't fit this description).

But Obama is like the Division II (or Division III) standout. He's done some amazing things against amazingly inferior opponents. He has the measurables to dominate in the NFL (or world political stage). But will he? He entered the national stage as a 7th round draft pick (sort of), and in training camp, he's continued to tear it up...but only against other 3rd-stringers. Is he ready to be a pro-bowler? Or will he bust?

We don't know.

With Obama, his ability to be a good President will depend on the quality of people he surrounds himself with. The Clintons were never really good at that. They surrounded themselves with toadies and button-men. George W. Bush surrounded himself with competent advisors and, despite what you hear from the half of the country with BDS, did a fairly decent job in everything except PR. For a non-politico whose only experience was being a governer in Texas, he did a credible job as leader of the most powerful nation on this earth. Far better than Jimmy Carter, at the very least. Obama has that ability to rise above himself...if he surrounds himself with people who don't buy into the Messiah hype and take the pains to actually give him competent, good advice. And as long as Obama himself doesn't buy into the hype, just like a football player gets fat and lazy when he believes his own press...

So the choice is between a brutal, thuggish player whose abilities are well-known (minimum abilities assured, but little upside) and a relative unknown who could be an All-Pro or the next Ryan Leaf (Jimmy Carter).

So I'm not unhappy with Obama vs. McCain. If McCain chews him up and spits him out: great! We've got The Maverick in the office who will at least push some GOP concerns, and should resist the Democratic Party's headlong rush towards a socialist police state. Or we've got Obama, who will highlight the ideological bankruptcy of socialistic government, or will at least (at the very worst) avoid repeating the disgrace the Clintons would bring to the White House along with their other baggage.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:49 AM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)
Brainfertilizer Free Download II « Music/Guitar »


The midi file of an extremely short latin jazz number I composed.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:07 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

February 24, 2008

Too Cute to Not Post « Link O' Admiration »

Via Hot Air

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 03:20 PM | Comments (317) | TrackBack (0)

February 23, 2008

SF Update of Classic Western « Link O' Admiration »

Kinda interesting:

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 20, 2008

When Obama Loses the Presidential Election*... « Politics As Usual »

...because a plurality of the populace doesn't buy his Hope Hype, the Democratic Party stalwarts are going to go apeshit**.
48% of the country (well, 48% of those that actually vote) will not be able to understand why 49% of the populace that votes weren't stunned by the audacity enough to vote for The Messiah.

They won't be able to handle it. It will be Florida 2000 all over again, multiplied by Ohio 2004 (with a good dash of complete ignoring Congressional 2006), salted with just enough of the 2008 edition of Pauline Kael's "No one I know voted for him" that the Truther squads will be legion.

It will be an orgy of Reality-Based Community delusions claiming "Faux" news lied us into another Republican Presidency so that our gas prices will be low. Which makes no sense, and thus is par for the course.

I have no confidence in any sense of perspective from the American Left these days.

It's going to get ugly, folks.

Read More "When Obama Loses the Presidential Election*..." »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:52 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

February 19, 2008

Trivia Question « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

I ended up over at Ann's place, (because I saw a link that said she was just in Hawaii), and saw this picture from "16 Candles":
16candles.jpg

And I thought I recognized a few people in there, maybe. I could swear at least 5-6 of those pre-teens ended up in other movies, later.

So my question is: did any of them do so? One kid looks like one of the Goonies, and the tall blonde looks like the bad guy from Karate Kid. But I don't know that much about Hollywood child stars, and I'm hoping someone else does.

So let me know in the comments: did any of these geeks/nerds end up with a named role in any other movies?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 02:56 PM | Comments (288) | TrackBack (0)

February 18, 2008

Electric Guitar Update, Overall « Music/Guitar »

I have too many guitars.

I have two guitars I want to sell:
1) a 2000 Ibanez Artstar AS-80 semi-hollow body guitar in mint condition (except for tarnished frets). It's okay, sounds pretty good...but I could never get the beautiful jazz sounds out of it that I imagined...I can get as good of a jazz sound out of my solid-bodied rock guitars, sometimes better.
2) a Schecter Diamond Series Omen-6. Two humbuckers, 24 frets, hardtail bridge. Walnut top with semi-transparent dark tone finish. It's pretty, and sounds okay, but just isn't that fun to play.

I also have the Frankenstein guitar that I want to part out. I may keep the neck to put on the Strat kit, but probably not. I think I can get close to $150 for all the parts, which would be a little more than I paid for it...

So that leaves the ones I want to keep:
1) My Carvin. It's a Bolt, so it's a Strat copy, but with a hardtail bridge. That gives it better sustain than a real strat, and when you bend strings, the non-bent strings don't lose pitch. It has a swamp ash body, with semi-transparent green automotive paint. It has a humbucker in the bridge position (supposedly, it has a coil splitter, but I can't tell much difference...maybe it switches phases?), and two single coils. It has 22 frets, and a bird's eye maple neck that is smooth and comfortable. I don't want to sell it because it is nearly a perfect guitar, and I love its sound.

2) My genuine 1987 Westone XA1230 Anniversary Spectrum II. It has a good sound in all positions, nice crunch with the bridge humbucker, as well as good jazz with its single coil in the neck position. It has a good tremolo system, except that when I use it more than a semi-tone, the G-string goes out of tune. I'm hoping I can fix that with some oil or new strings, because I don't want to sell it for two reasons: 1) it's a fully-original Westone (except for the knobs...who cares about that?), and 2) It's serial number is 70123456. It seems almost impossible to have it in sequence like that, but there it is.

westone 003.jpg

3) My J. B. Player Professional. It has a Wilkinson tremolo system that works great now that I have the tremsetter on it. It also sounds pretty nice with the Carvin pickups I added. Moreover, it is a beautiful guitar, perhaps my most beautiful guitar: rounded body sides, transparent cherry sunburst on what I assume is maple because it actually has some quilting near the corner, and some interesting other texture elsewhere on the back and the horns. It also has 24 frets, but there is one fret that doesn't sound (the 19th fret on the high E string only), which is irritating, but avoidable...I'll have to fix it at some point. It's also the guitar I used when I played lead in our advanced training class. And I've honestly never seen another guitar that looks like this one. To me, it really seems, if not unique (because everything about it is well within guitar norms), at least not something you see every day.

4) My resurrected 1989 Westone Spectrum 1A. It sounds great with the new pickups, plays great with the Yamaha tremolo bridge, and it works great now that I lowered the bridge after removing the washers from under the neck joint. This was the first guitar that I designed the wiring. I feel like I resurrected it from the dead, and it has a very unique sound among my guitars, probably the one with the most edge in the bridge humbucker position. It also is the only one that can have a coil-splittable humbucker in the neck position, which makes it nice for both jazz or blues. The neck is the actually the best neck of all my Westones, actually.

5) My 2007 Fernandes Revolver X. Jet black. 24 frets. Fernandes-system licensed Floyd Rose tremolo system. Two (non-splittable) humbuckers, with a 3-way switch. I didn't like it at first, and was just going to sell it. It sounds like a Les Paul, which I don't like much. The action isn't as sweet as my Westones. The pickup configuration isn't very flexible. But the more I played it, the more I found sounds I like in different positions. The tremolo is flawless. The guitar itself is flawless, whereas all my other guitars have dings from previous users that came with the guitar. I have other guitars that can be flexible, but this is my only guitar that I know has zero problems, and will continue to have zero problems because I'll be careful with it. It's just plain black, so not very pretty, but I think I'll have fun with it over the years. It's good for soloing, and I think I can work on lowering the action. Straight out of the box, it ain't bad. It's at least as good as my Carvin.

6) My Cort Effector Explorer. Even aside from the fact that I have never had any Explorer-style guitars before, I think the Effector function is kinda cool. They aren't constantly on eBay, so I think they're not exactly common anymore. They should be getting more and more rare as people misuse them. I hear the guitar's hardware has lots of problems, but I think I can upgrade the trem, nut, and tuning pegs and end up with a sweet guitar. I haven't received it yet, so maybe I'm wrong. If so: screw it, get rid of it for $80 from a pawn shop.

7) My strat kit guitar. I'm going to have to figure out how to paint it, and how to cut the headstock. Other than that, I'm excited about putting a guitar together myself. I will probably upgrade the bridge, because I hate the old vintage fender strat-style. I think I've got a roller bridge in the bag on eBay, and I also purchased a roller nut; with Spertzel locking tuners, it could be a nice guitar. I also have 2 Carvin AP-11 single-coil pickups, 2 EMG Select single-coil pickups and 2 Westone single-coil pickups I can drop in, if I don't like the stock pickups they supply. I don't think I want to sell it if I put all the work into it...but I also don't really like strats that much in the first place, so maybe I'll just sell it...I should be able to make a profit, especially with upgraded parts, and if I do a decent job on the paintjob and headstock. But I want the experience of putting it together.

8) A J. B. Player Sledgehammer. I haven't received this one yet, either, because I'm waiting until I move to the mainland US, so as to save on shipping costs, since I'll be there soon. It's a pretty guitar, with a really strong wood grain under a transparent sunburst paint job. It has 22 frets, two humbuckers and a 3-way switch, fixed bridge. I have no idea how it will sound. I like every other J. B. Player I've played on (which is one other...), and they get great reviews from anyone who has one. It has a bound body, which will also be a first for me. I think I'll enjoy it quite a bit. I've never seen another guitar that looked like this J. B. Player, either.
j.b. player sledgehammer.JPG

I have one acoustic guitar that will not be sold.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:54 AM | Comments (213) | TrackBack (0)

February 17, 2008

Not a Professional Photograph « The Brain Fertilizer Way »

I took this picture this afternoon, on our trip to Oahu's North Shore (on the way to Shark's Cove).
P1040473.jpg

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:56 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

February 16, 2008

You Probably Should Check This Out « Music/Guitar »


The live version (which I saw first):

The original version:

Check out all the other videos they do, too. It's worth it.

Really.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 01:47 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

February 15, 2008

A Good Fisking, IMHO « Politics As Usual »

By Random Jottings, regarding the likelihood that any criticism of Obama will be seen as a dirty trick by his supporters (including the Mainstream Media).

I don't agree with his final fisk paragraph, by the way, but everything else is good.

What it comes down to, I think, is that the original writer that Random Jottings fisks doesn't really recognize the existence of conservatives among normal people. He apparently believes that all correct-thinking people naturally support the typical Democratic Party platforms. "Conservatives" are a mean-spirited miniscule minority that lead all the average people away from voting for what they really want by disparaging Democratics and their platforms in unfair and negative terms.

The condescension of that world view is breathtaking. But that sort of condescension is also the oxygen within which the Democratics move, each assuming himself to be the elite amid a sea of "sheeple". The idea that people might know what Democratics are all about and still reject them seems like a possibility this writer cannot even imagine. Unless he can push it off on some Democratic "bogeyman", i.e., "The South" and "heartland" residents. The Democratics have lots of perjoratives like that, including "evangelicals", "red states", "flyover country", etc.

Sigh.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 12:44 PM | Comments (438) | TrackBack (0)
Why Men Should Embrace the Suck and Marry (UPDATED) « Social Issues »

Okay, since I talked about all the reasons men don't marry, I think I should make it clear that I'm not down on marriage. I'm not even down on the negatives of marriage.

To recap the argument: If men really don't marry as much anymore, it's because on paper, marriage has always had a high cost to men with little direct benefit, and liberalism/feminism has raised the cost to men of failed marriages, while reducing the cost to women for said failed marriages. This actually encourages women to allow/cause the marriage to fail and stick the costs to the man.

So with all that, why should a man get married?

Because it's good for him.

In the previous article, I slam "women" pretty hard. I discuss many of the negatives of Woman; by doing so, I'm not attempting to whitewash, ignore, or otherwise downplay all the negatives of Man. In fact, I come not to praise Man, but to bury him. Or something. This post is all about fixing what is wrong with Man. The last post was a little about shocking, a lot about telling women how marriage really looks to men these days...but not necessarily what I think my marriage is, or what marriage has to be.

Here's the thing. All the negatives of being married to a Woman come when she doesn't really love you. And let's be honest, most woman don't love their man. They may think they do. They may depend on their man. But they don't really love him. They are in it for themselves. Women marry in order to have someone who will make their own life easier, who will kill the icky bugs or keep their car running or clean out the gutters and lift heavy things and open jars and take out the garbage. --Yes, there are women who do any or all of these things...but most of those who do are not married. And a married woman won't do any of these things without adding points to her personal ledger of what he owes her.-- So a woman who doesn't really love her man has basically chosen a man who will give her the life she wants and believes she cannot achieve on her own without costs higher than she faces by marrying.

Make sense?

Now, in the rare cases (10%? Higher? Lower?) that the woman really does love the man, then it is great. The sex is frequent and extremely enjoyable for both (and not just due to biological clock alarm hormones). The companionship is warm and enjoyable for both. There is trust, and warmth, and mutual caregiving without any sort of resentment or tally of who is doing more, or who owes whom.

The vast majority of us will never experience that.

So the rest of us men face marrying a women who will be, to a varying extent, a shrew.

She will be demanding. She will fulfill the man's sexual needs on her own timeline and agenda (Every Kiss Begins With Kay!). She will take credit for every success he has, and blame every failure or problem in their life completely on his utter incompetence. She will demand he accept and internalize her standards and values while ignoring his. She will demand he do half of the work she considers hers, overestimate her own contributions and underestimate his, and demand he do 100% of the work she considers his, and require he complete his tasks on her agenda...usually during the big game she disdains. She will pressure him to abandon his friends, and raise the cost to him for pursuing his own interests and hobbies. Although she will never admit it, she expects him to plan for her retirement, not his...she is usually happiest if continues to work right up until the time he dies (both for the insurance/pension benefits are greater for the death of a still-productive employee, and because it keeps him from annoying her by being home all day).

And that is good. Because in meeting these demands, in living through these disproportionate requirements, a man truly becomes a Man.

There are few ways for a man to become a Man these days. The original article linked in my previous post about extended adolescence for males is actually right on. You can, to an extent, become a man in law enforcement or the military...but even in these institutions, liberal-think and politically-correct mentalities make it difficult (if not impossible) for men to grow up.

True maturity, true Man, is:
- Responsibility
- Sacrifice
- Effort
- Patience
- Emotional stability
- Dignity
- Honor
- Ruthlessness when necessary to those outside, Tenderness always to those inside
- Competence in every task
- Mastery in some select vital tasks

Our society doesn't teach these things. Our society teaches boys to become Androgynous Drones...emotionally fragile, metrosexual, touchy, eager to hire tasks out to specialists, argumentative and lazy moral cowards.

Marriage is unfair to males. But in learning to live with injustice, men become Men. We can't really charge the machine gun nest. We can't really fight off the savages to protect our family. We don't face poverty if we make the wrong business or employment choice, or if we stand up for our Honor and Dignity.
But we face an equally difficult road by choosing to become real men for our wives. Whether they appreciate it or not.

(and to tell the truth, I think if you grow into the ultra-competent, ultra-stable, successful Man, there is no woman who could help but return the protection and indulgence with anything but love and admiration)

We claim to be willing to climb the highest oceans and swim the most dangerous seas...and then we aren't willing to help do the housework.

That's wrong.

Marry, and give her twice as much as she demands. Expect to never be thanked. Embrace the suck.

Because when you grow up, it doesn't actually suck.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

February 14, 2008

As If You Didn't Have Enough Reasons to Distrust Democrats... « Social Issues »

...here is additional proof the American Dream is still alive and well:

Hard work and sacrificing instant gratification for long-term gain still results in quick accumulation of true wealth.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:13 AM | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)
When Men Don't Marry...Why? « Social Issues »

Mr. Reynolds introduces two different comments to questions of men, women, and marriage. The first post (Kim Du Toit's) is a reaction to his wife's piece on the topic. Whereas the second (Rachel Lucas's) is a reaction to the original Lisa Gottlieb article that Dr. Helen was also vamping on. Except that Dr. Helen went ranging wide afar, also reacting to this article

Clear? Good.

Anyway, here's my thoughts. The connections to the above articles might only be tangential at best, sometimes. My thoughts are also pretty dang cynical. Bear with me.

Short answer to why men are marrying less/later: There's conventional wisdom that says: Blowjobs end when the marriage starts. And while that's glib and an insufficient explanation by itself, if you ruthlessly analyze that according to logic, you can begin to understand.

Men marry because they want to have fun for the rest of their life with someone they enjoy having fun with. Period. Women will do what they need to in order to attract a man, and when they feel they have him solidly locked in, they stop making the effort.

Women complain that men are romantic while dating, etc, and then stop once they are married, but in reality, these women are putting the cart before the horse, or are the pot calling the kettle black. Women think they can live off the desirability they demonstrated during courtship...but that their responsibility towards their man ends with "I do". They then shift their sense of responsibility to "the family". They still do things "for him", but it ends up being what they want, with a thin veneer of excuse. I can guarantee you that very, very few men really care about having a tea cozy, or care that the potholders match the kitchen curtains...but these are actual examples of things women supposedly do to show love after marriage.

So what it comes down to is that society is no longer telling a male he must be married and raise/support a family to be a man. Without that pressure, the "honey trap" of female dishonesty loses its attractiveness...and the internet society of free porn makes the honey trap even less enticing. Which, in turn, causes more women to offer more explicit sexual promises with less commitment from men, which then makes it easier for men to get the milk without buying the cow...

But that was just the explanation for the short answer, by the way.

The long answer is:

Our liberal and feminist-leaning society is ruining marriage through several simultaneous developments.
1) The hypocritical differing state attitudes towards abortion and child support free women from responsibility for their actions, while increasing the responsibility for men. It reduces men to a function without a voice or choice, i.e., providing material support to women who want to have kids without a continuing responsibility to a husband. And don't kid yourself that the state is just making sure chidren get what they need; if that were true, child support would be set based on cost of living, not the stipulated father's income. I say "stipulated" because there are hundreds of cases where the woman made false accusations of fatherhood that the state made stick, i.e., refused to release responsibility even after the man was proven to not be the father.
2) The skewing of law against men in child custody and domestic violence. A woman can (and usually does) lie to gain legal advantages. Women often make false accusations of sexual abuse to get custody of kids. It takes no more than a woman's word (sometimes false) to send a man to jail for violence, but clear evidence of violence by women against men rarely gets punished, and requires far, far higher thresholds of proof to get any legal relief.
3) As opposed to the above assertion that men marry to have fun with their best friend, women marry for one over-arching reason: to lessen the burden of achieving the life they want (or think they deserve). This shows up all over the place:
- in child support and alimony demands and laws
- in complaints that men don't help women keep the house clean to the level the woman demands (as if her standards are automatically correct), while she feels no responsibility to help with what she considers "men's work"
- with the hypocrisy of women complaining about men stopping courtship behavior without recognizing (or caring) that such stoppage is a direct result of women stopping their courtship behavior first
- the establishment of sexual harassment rules that pretty much only benefit women, and are clearly subjective, i.e., it's only harassment if she doesn't like you...and she doesn't even have to tell you first
- the typical hypocrisy that a wife hates infidelity by her husband greater than anything else...while refusing to even try to meet his sexual needs/desires
- the social hypocrisy that it is wrong for a man to divorce his wife for getting old/fat, but perfectly acceptable for a woman to divorce a man for failing at work or business

All this adds up to a simple fact:
Marriage has always been for the benefit of the woman. Society strengthened the institution of marriage so that a woman could be gatekeeper to the fulfillment of man's physical needs, and receive protection. Liberalism and Feminism have weakened the institution of marriage by raising the cost of a failed marriage to the man, while reducing the cost of a failed marriage to the woman. To attract men into this riskier proposition, women offer more of what men want for free.

Bottom line:
Thus, marrying is more dangerous to men than it used to be, and a man getting what he wants/needs without marrying is easier than every before.

Next (tomorrow?) I'll talk about why men should marry anyway...and how.

Show Comments »