Women Increasingly Paying Alimony

One of the reasons Amanda gave in this silly post for staying home not being a "free choice" for women was that an equal number of men don't want to do it.
Now, forget all the arguments about how men typically make more money than women and that that definitely figures into who is going to stay home, we all know that the real reason men don't give up full-time employment is that it's just so much gosh-darned fun doing all the icky, dangerous stuff men do to bring home the bacon.

But even if the vast majority of men really enjoy going to work, there are men who really want to stay home and eat bonbons while their wives are out being the breadwinners. These guys love being the house husband so much that they don't want to give it up even when the process server slaps them with the divorce papers. Thus, we have the new phenomenon where women increasingly are paying alimony (via ifeminists.net).

The idea that men can receive spousal support from their wives may feel like a freakish concept, but as women have become higher earners, it's increasingly common.

And as men set their sights on women's earnings, women have become more protective of those dollars. In fact, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 44% of attorneys included in a recent survey said they've seen an increase in women asking for prenuptial agreements over the last five years, where in previous decades, prenuptial agreements were almost always sought by men.

A lot of women are indignant now that the shoe is increasingly on the other foot, says Carol Ann Wilson, a certified financial divorce practitioner in Boulder, Colo. "There's this sense of, 'What's yours is ours, but what's mine is mine,'" Wilson says. "My first response to that is, 'All these years we have been looking for equality; well, this is what it looks like.' I think women get angrier about having to pay than men do."

As women earn more money, the number of women paying alimony has also gone up. According to an article at contemporaryfamilies.org, more than 10 million women make more money than their husbands.

And the stigma attached to being a "kept man" seem to be waning. More men are less ashamed to ask for alimony. According to the Contemporary Families article, there are more men willing to live off their wives while married, who then ask for alimony once the woman is fed up and leaves.

Gender neutral laws are starting to cut back against women who have made greater strides in the work world than previous generations. So now, a woman who brings home a six-figure income may find her standard of living significantly reduced if she decides to divorce. The law is designed to allow both spouses to retain the same standard of living, even if only one of them was earning the money.

So, I asked myself, how is it different if a man is staying home than the traditional housewife? Perhaps the difference I perceived was the way the spouses are typically presented in these stories: when the women is a SAHM (or just a plain ol' housewife), she is usually described as being involved with the children, keeping the house clean and neat, and doing other kinds of church or charity work. The men are rarely described as being involved with anything more important than a nap on the couch.

In other words, the women are industrious and virtuous, divorced by selfish men who are faithless and materialistic. The men are sloths and oafs, parasites living off their wives' hard-earned incomes. Pretty harsh, isn't it?

The truth is that there's still quite a stigma attached to alimony for men. I suspect that because there is a stigma, the only men who really seek alimony are the sorts of men your mother warned you about in the first place. Whereas, the women who seek alimony probably can point to careers put on hold while they raised their children and gratification delayed for the sake of the family.

I'm not saying women shouldn't have to pay alimony if the law allows it. It just seems like the darker side of equality under the law.

Proposal Blocks Federal Funding for HPV Vaccine

A Georgia Congressman introduced legislation to block federal funding for the HPV vaccine.

Several states are considering making the HPV mandatory for girls. Texas governor Rick Perry bipassed legislative approval and issued an executive order mandating the vaccine for 12-year-old girls.

"Mandating the HPV vaccination is both unprecedented and unacceptable," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican, who is an obstetrician and gynecologist. "Whether or not girls get vaccinated against HPV is a decision for parents and physicians, not state governments."

Because HPV is unlike communicable diseases such as measles and mumps, which children are routinely vaccinated against, Mr. Gingrey said HPV vaccines should be taken voluntarily. He is chairman of the Republican Healthcare Public Affairs Team and chairman of the Healthcare Reform subcommittee of the Republican Policy Committee.

Barring federal funding for the vaccines will put a bit of a crimp into Governor Goodhair's plans. I can't wait to see him explain the costs to the taxpayers.

It's Tough to Defend These Guys Sometimes

Patterico has an excellent post that describes the way I feel about the Administration and the U.S. attorney kerfluffle.

While I know that the President has the right to fire any political appointment at any time (which the U.S. attorneys are), it's difficult to defend their actions when the Justice Department seems determined to load the gun and hand it to our opponents to shoot this Administration in the foot (or maybe the head, given the news that the Senate voted to revoke the Bush administration's authority to fill U.S. attorney positions without Senate confirmation).

Commenter WLS does a good job explaining why the arguments against the firings are all smoke and mirrors. He/she is evidently someone who has worked in the DOJ and knows the way it operates. So, when you hear that Patrick Fitzgerald was on a list as "not having distinguished himself", know that being a good prosecutor means he probably didn't take care of the administrative duties of running the office.

WLS links to this New York Times article and another link which seems to be down currently (will update ASAP) to back up what he/she says.

In short, the smear job being done by Democrats and others is despicable (and predictable), but the administration is doing an extremely poor job defending itself. And that makes it harder for the rest of us to defend them.

UPDATE: Patterico has made a separate post giving WLS more of a chance to defend the administration.

Are You Lucky?

One of the things that came up during my recent comments on Pandagon was the concept of "luck."

When a liberal brings up luck, it's a surefire bet that they can't argue with any position you've taken. It's usually a knee-jerk response to any comment that you've managed to build a great life and other people can, too.

I used to let the "aren't you lucky" comments roll off my back. But after the first five or six times a liberal tells you that the reason you've managed to put together a good life is because you're "lucky," you begin to realize that they aren't congratulating you. They are belittling your enterprise, skill, and ingenuity.

Well, it wasn't luck that created the life I currently lead. It was hard work and dedication, sprinkled with some education and persistence.

But in the spirit of "luck," I decided to list a few things that I am, in fact, luck for having.

--I'm lucky that me and mine are all relatively healthy.

--I'm lucky to live in the United States, where the government isn't stopping me from pursuing my dreams.

--I'm lucky that I still have one living parent.

--I'm lucky my sister is here to take care of Dad this week.

--I'm lucky that my children are all wonderful and above average.

--I'm lucky that there's still some chocolate ice cream in the refrigerator.

I can't think of anything else that I have or I'm grateful for that isn't a direct result of some choice or action by me or my relatives. For example, I was going to say that I was lucky my children only have to walk around the corner to school, but we planned to live in this location, so there wasn't any luck involved there.

In any event, there are some things I am happy that I've been lucky for.

Evolutions of a New Feminist

Third Wave feminist Rebecca Walker has written a memoir sure to send feminists into a new round of pearl-clutching.

The book, Love: Choosing Motherhood After a Lifetime of Ambivalence chronicles Walker's changing philosophies about feminism and motherhood. And it repudiates large parts of Walker's previous work, Black, White and Jewish: Autobiography of a Shifting Self, a book considered a poignant and thought-provoking look at race and sex.

Walker had been a leading feminist of the under 35 set, founding the Third Wave Foundation with Gloria Steinem.

Now, however, Walker has settled down into a more traditional relationship with a man (to whom she is not married) and with a child. According to this New York Times piece, Walker is stirring up the feminists by discovering what most women know already: motherhood is a marvelous, life-changing experience.

“I feel like I have arrived in myself to where I want to be and who I want to be,” Ms. Walker said in a telephone interview.

Walker is also telling young college women they need to plan to have children (gee, I made that point in the comments here and boy, did it get some unwanted attention).

"I keep telling these women in college, ‘You need to plan having a baby like you plan your career if it’s something that you want,’" she said. "Because we haven’t been told that, this generation. And they’re shocked when I say that. I’m supposed to be like this feminist telling them, ‘Go achieve, go achieve.’ And I’m sitting there saying, ‘For me, having a baby has been the most transformational experience of my life.’"

Feminism used to be a serious endeavor, back when it was concerned with real issues and not just a different name for whining, nagging, and man-bashing. But feminism lost its seriousness when it became all about the non-procreational vagina and patriarchal oppression. That's what turned off a lot of young women who won't even call themselves feminists these days because of the implications (just put "feminist blog" in your Google search and you'll understand why it's so embarrassing).

I'm not sure when feminism became synonymous with man-hating. Maybe it was about the time that Steinem said that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (before she got married, of course). Maybe it was about the time career moms and SAHMs started the 100 years war. Maybe it was while we were so busy telling women they could "have it all" that we forgot to tell them they'd be so exhausted they wouldn't want it when they got it.

In any event, we forgot to tell women that they do have a biological clock and having children isn't as easy at 40 as it is at 30 or 25. So, yes, women do have choice they have to make that are different from the ones men make (blame God for your biology).

Apparently, Walker has discovered that biology is as important as career. As the SAHM debate devolved at Pandagon, it became increasingly obvious that if one considered it a blessing to put aside one's career ambitions for some portion of one's life, then that person was "privileged" or perhaps delusional. But most women know that the privilege is knowing one is doing something important, not just performing a task for money. Unfortunately, many modern feminists consider anything done for reasons other than self-fulfillment must be oppressive.

Why Good Men Are a Threat to Feminism

One of the points I like to make whenever I post on feminist sites is what a great guy my husband is. I like pointing out what a hardworking person he is and how he went from a $7-an-hour dead-end job to a well-paying one through intelligence and hard work. After that, I always bring up what a devoted father he is, helping with homework and projects and attending as many performances as is humanly possible.

Why do I do this? Because it seems to be a tenet of modern feminism that men are evil. Go to any of a dozen supposedly feminist sites (try this post and this one at Pandagon for starters, then move on to Feministing and Pinko Feminist Hellcat) and you'll have an idea what's out there.

Take the comments from this Pandagon post that I wrote about yesterday. I left a comment that included this about my husband:

He busted his ass to make enough money that I could stay home AND we could improve our standard of living. We now have a much bigger, nicer home than the one we had before I was “forced” to stay home. He still does his share of housework and yardwork and homework and every other kind of work associated with having a family.

I have to admit that I knew if I extolled the virtues of my husband that someone would come unglued and, as day follows night, they did. The person was Elinor, who first asserted that it was "nice" that he "had that sort of income available to him." So, I upped the ante a bit.

He didn’t “have that kind of income available to him.” He developed the SKILLS to make that sort of money. I despise it when people belittle the effort involved in making a good living. His job wasn’t handed to him. He earned it.

There's nothing that makes a lib madder than asserting that a white man earned the money he makes. Feminists in particular seem to think that all men have what they have because of some unfair advantage they garnered by being male. In past generations, this might have been so, but the number of men who make it because Daddy handed them a well-running company are dwindling. Most men who are doing well are--gasp!--self-made.

I know a lot of people who make decent money. They aren't millionaires and they didn't inherit their money. What they did do was work hard, watch for opportunities, and get whatever education was necessary to get ahead.

That's why I like pointing out how well my husband has done. Feminists--at least those radical ones who blog--seem to think that there are no hard-working men, only slobs who oppress women to bolster themselves. Perhaps they inhabit an alternate universe from the one I live in, but I don't really know any men who are oppressing women and getting ahead because of it.

The point I was making in my post was that, unlike the portrait painted by Amanda, there were lots of SAHMs who enjoy it, who made that "choice freely," and who weren't coerced, forced, threatened, cajoled, or intimidated into staying home by the ogre men they have married. That this choice is still more available to women than men says as much about the sorts of things women choose to do (versus what men choose to do) as it does about privilege or patriarchy. Just as the silly housework debate isn't really about "patriarchy" as much as people's determination to have a clean house, staying home with one's children is more about the importance one places on raising one's children versus having more money and stuff.

Gathering of Eagles: The Real American Opinion

The usual war protesters were met with a bit of a surprise yesterday when they started attention grab: patriotic Americans fought back.

As war protesters marched toward Arlington Memorial Bridge en route to the Pentagon yesterday, they were flanked by long lines of military veterans and others who stood in solidarity with U.S. troops and the Bush administration's cause in Iraq. Many booed loudly as the protesters passed, turned their backs to them or yelled, "If you don't like America, get out!"

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago...

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy

A Gathering of Eagles, the group which organized the counterprotest, estimates that 30,000 people came to ensure the anti-war people didn't desecrate monuments and the capitol again like they did in a similar protest earlier this year.

"That was the real catalyst, right there," said Navy veteran Larry Bailey. "They showed they were willing to desecrate something that's sacred to the American soul."

Well before 7 a.m., hundreds of people milled about near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in an effort to, they said, "occupy the ground" and keep any disrespectful war protesters away.

"This is sacred ground to us," said Rick De Marco, 62, a Vietnam veteran from Cleveland.

K.C. O'Brien, 65, a Vietnam vet from Fairfield, Calif., said: "We believe in freedom of speech. We're here to defend the right of people to say whatever they want. But we will not allow any desecration."

Protest is sacred, but so is counter-protest. We know who tends to get the most coverage, and we know how that coverage affects opinions. Americans need to willingly stand up to these people and let them know that, in the immortal words of Cindy Sheehan, the protesters should "Stop the bullsh*t."

Iraqis: Life Is Getting Better

Monday is the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War. I've been waiting breathlessly to see what stories we'll be deluged with to celebrate.

Despite what you have read in the MSM (and the left blogs who aren't linking to this poll) most Iraqis think life is getting better.

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

We haven't had much news out of Baghdad in the last few weeks since the surge began. It's been all Scooter Libby, a president firing political appointments, etc. I guess when there's no daily body count, the MSM can't find a story in Iraq.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Candidates People Won't Vote For

Zogby has a new poll asking people who would never get their vote. The results:

Newt Gingrich--53%

Hillary Clinton--46%

Al Gore--43%

Mitt Romney--39%

John Edwards--33%

Barak Obama--33%

John McCain--32%

Rudolph Giuliani--31%

This poses a real problem for Hillary Clinton, IMO. If almost half of Americans will not vote for her, that means almost half the electorate are beyond the reach of her message. John Edwards and Barak Obama, however, have low enough negatives to be electable.

On the other hand, fewer people seem to have written off Republican candidates. Newt Gingrich isn't in the race yet, and none of the announced candidates have insurmountable negatives. This sort of flies in the face of conventional knowledge (at least from the left) that Americans are tired of Republicans and want to elect a Democrat.

It's still way too early in this race to be coronating any candidate. Personally, I'm not excited about any of the Republican candidates, but I won't be voting for a Democrat. Did such personal politics figure into how people responded to this poll?

Joe Wilson Was the Most Likely Person to Out His Wife

Sweetness & Light has an excellent chronology of Joe Wilson and the leaking of his wife's work at the CIA. Worth a read.

More Stay at Home Mom Bashing from the Woman without Kids

I've stated previously what a delight Pandagon is to read. I can't count the number of people who've read my blogging and asked me, "Are they for real?" I always tell them that, yes, there really are nutballs out there who think that way. It's just too hard to make this stuff up.

Today's installment of Moonbats in Space is this gem from Amanda (of course! Who else?) on how SAHMs (stay at home moms) aren't really doing it because they enjoy it. They do it because they are forced to: either at gunpoint, by a selfish husband, "societal pressures," or getting laid off and not finding another job. OK, I made up the "at gunpoint" excuse, but the others are things she actually said.

E.J. Graff at the Columbia Journalism Review has an article about the “opt-out revolution” and how it’s a myth. Basically, the “opt-out revolution” is a patriarchal myth headily promoted in places like the NY Times, where readers are relegated with wishful stories about the supposed majority of female Ivy League graduates and other high paid professional types who want nothing more than to get married and give up their careers to be support systems and full time stay-at-home wives for their oh-so-much-more-important husbands. Basically, conservative upper middle class types are still pissed off about The Feminine Mystique and will spend a lot of money trying to demonstrate that women really, truly have no other aspirations than being full time moms, which means full time wives, since your time spent as an active wife ideally lasts a lot longer than when your children are small and need attention 24/7.

It's more of the typical Amanda drivel. Hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole followed by a few choice mischaracterizations and a dash of lying.

I don't know that "a majority of female Ivy League graduates" want "nothing more" than to stay home and raise their own kids, but there are enough women out there who were raised by the career women of the 1970s (the ones who weren't home) to know that having one's mom home is a better deal than only seeing her when you've been asleep for two hours. These are women who have decided two things: (a) taking care of the people you cared enough about to bring into the world is more important than billing another 1,000 for a client who can't remember your name and (b) the work world isn't going to change significantly until enough people say they aren't going to work this way anymore.

If we really live in a country that needs better educated people for its workforce, then having enough highly-educated people refuse to get on the hamster wheel will help change that. And guess what? More associates want fewer billable hours and are willing to take the paycut. And more companies are responding to that demand.

But this post isn't really about changing the culture of corporate America, although that will happen because the American workforce is changing. The post is about how a woman without kids (and some unsuccessful relationships, if you read her posts enough) thinks she can speak for mothers.

The post is rife with the typical feminist anti-SAHM stuff we've come to love:

--Women don't really choose to stay home. They stay home because they are either "forced" to by their husbands (who use what? Guns?) or they are "forced" to because they get laid off and don't find employment.

--Women who stay home aren't happy there. After all, why would anybody want to stay home and take care of their own children?

--Women who stay home are depressed and isolated. I guess SAHMs forget how to drive, use the Internet or the telephone, and they lose all friends and family once they decide to stay home.

--Women who stay at home are going to end up divorced and destitute. Well, maybe Amanda hasn't read the statistics that well-educated women are less likely to divorce than women with only a high school diploma.

--Women who stay home are in a perilous financial situation. Oddly enough, there are plenty of working mothers who think they are in perilous financial situations, as well. In other words, having a "perilous financial situation" isn't really connected to both spouses working.

I guess after ranting for several paragraphs about how badly SAHMs are treated, Amanda must have realized that there would be some blowback for her screed. Humorously, she ends with this:

For all the women who stay home and are about to get angry, I don’t think you’re in the wrong or anything to stay home. In fact, the opposite—I think that women who make the decision to stay home because there aren’t any other realistic choices for them are simply being human. You’re right to do what’s good for you. This is an issue of discrimination and a social situation where women don’t feel free to keep on working if they want to, and where men very rarely have this quandary that so many professional women have.

There aren't any other realistic choices? There are plenty of choices for everybody. In fact, most women (including myself) who stay home are doing so because we made a choice. It wasn't that they were "forced" to stay home. It was that of the choices available (working full-time, working part-time, not working, etc.), we decided being home with our kids was the best choice for all of us. We made the same choice, btw, for my husband to continue his job.

The problem with Amanda's--and most feminist--arguments I see concerning staying home or not staying home is that they pretend that these decisions are only about the individual. Few of us have the luxury of being concerned only about ourselves. Our lives are about the shared commitments we have to other people, whether they are spouses, children, parents, siblings, or others. With those relationships come decision-making that benefits them. Sometimes, that means doing things other than what one would do if one were single. Because Amanda is neither married nor has children, I suspect it would be impossible for her to understand this.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Plame: "I was covert...uh, I think."

Just One Minute parses the Valerie Plame testimony.

Was Ms. Plame covert?

From Matt Apuzzo:

Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.

Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified...

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.

"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag."

She didn't know her legal status? She's so covert that not even she knows if she is covert! Oh, my - well, I don't know her status either. Maybe they call her the wind. (But they call the wind Mariah...)

So, it is Plame's assertion that even if she didn't fall into the legal definition of "covert" everybody knew she was and shame on them? I hate to break it to her, but this is the reason we have legal definitions; people have different interpretations of words and it can get pretty darn confusing if everybody gets to keep using their own (like the liberal definition of "lie" which means "I don't agree with you"). It wouldn't matter if the CIA had labelled Plame a pink elephant. If she didn't fit the legal definition of one, she's not.

UPDATE: Think Progress is still trying to peddle the line that Plame was covert. The headline reads:

Valerie Plame Confirms Her Covert Status Prior To Novak Leak

But the very first sentence of the post reads:

This morning, in her testimony under oath before the House Government and Oversight Committee, Valerie Plame Wilson asserted that she was in fact a covert officer...

There's a big difference in legal terms between assertion and confirmation. Not that the folks at Think Progress would let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Then there's this:

The right-wing, aided by the mainstream media, have engaged in an unhalting effort to spread false claims that Plame was not covert, despite the fact that the CIA, Plame’s former colleagues, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald have all previously reported that she was covert.

The problem is that Plame didn't meet the definition of covert that the law describes. This is the sort of distortion the left has engaged in from the beginning of this "investigation." And notice that the author Faiz doesn't bother linking to Libby's actual indictment, where Fitzgerald doesn't even claim Plame was covert. No, because if that were done, it would dismantle this silly argument that Mrs. Wilson was covert because she says so.

Housework and the Patriarchy

Dana had an interesting post on the politicization of housework by the left.

Exhibit 1: This rant by Amanda at Pandagon.

Across the board, women said that if you put a market model on heterosexual relationships, then men were definitely buying and women were selling. Apparently, a lot of women feel they have to keep selling after they’ve gotten married. Is there a fear that a man will yank his “investment” if she doesn’t scrub the toilets enough? Seems like it, and I’ll go a step further than Orman and suggest that in many marriages, that fear is a very real one. What needs to happen in order to get women out of this mentality is for women to fully embrace the partnership model of marriage, as opposed to the property exchange one, and realize that they have as much right and ability to walk if their “investment” isn’t paying off as a man does. You’d dissolve a business partnership if you found out that your business partner was embezzling funds, so why not dissolve your marriage partnership if you find out that your husband is embezzling housework labor and/or emotional support without doing his part in increasing your profits in those areas?

There's actually a lot in Amanda's post that I could agree with. Women do a lot more housework than men, whether the woman works outside the home or not. And high-achieving women tend to work even harder at having nice houses than other women.

But I generally don't think women do housework because they think their husbands will leave them if they don't. I think women do the housework the way they do because they care more about the way the house looks on a daily basis. Yes, it's another sexist stereotype; men leave their dirty socks lying around because they don't care about them. They leave plates and cups sitting in the same spot for days, and they don't clean unless forced to. But, while men generally aren't Oscar Madison, they aren't Felix Unger, either. And far more women worry about balled up socks on the floor than men.

It's sad that 40 years after the feminist revolution, we're still fighting the housework war. I will admit that I lost that one years ago, when I realized that no matter if I worked 60 hours a week or zero hours a week, I would be the one doing most housework. But at that point, I also realized that if I were the one doing it, it would be done the way I liked and no better. So, if my husband had the audacity to complain about dirty baseboards or dust on the faux foliage, I would hand him the cleaning supplies and say, "Go for it." I'm certainly not worried that he's going to trade me in because I didn't get the dust off the ceiling fan.

Interestingly, in the comments, a kerfluffle develops about housework as more of "the patriarchy" oppressing women.

The “battle” you’re choosing to lose is one over your husband’s male privilege and sense of entitlement. By ‘taking care of yourself’ what you’re really doing is acknowledging that if you keep pushing the issue, you will be forced to confront the fact that he cares more about his privilege than about fairness, about being an equal partner, or about how much of your life you have to invest in catering to his Manly Self-Image.

It would probably come as a shock to most men that not doing as much housework is about their "male privilege." Do these selfsame feminists consider it to be male privilege when men statistically take more dangerous jobs, work longer hours, and willingly travel more for their jobs? Is that a male privilege as well?

I'm not saying that men should be exempt from housework. But having a life, a relationship, and a family is about more than one's house and career. So, when one person makes more money (usually by working longer hours and/or in a higher stress job), they may feel that the money is their contribution to the family situation. And when the other person doesn't make as much (either by a reduction in the hours of work or by not working), then that person might have either more time or more energy/resources to do the household tasks.

Gun Control Advocates and Your Second Amendment Rights

Following last week's outstanding decision by the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment is an individual right, comes this excellent column at the Patriot Post.

(Christian) Trejbal (a writer for the Roanoke Times in Virginia) is the Don Quixote de la Roanoke, who jousts with government-database windmills using the Freedom of Information Act lance. In an editorial last Sunday celebrating "Sunshine Week, the annual week in which we reflect on the importance of open government and public records," Trejbal boldly went where no man had before. "To mark the occasion,” he wrote, “I want to take you on an excursion into freedom of information land."

And that he did.

In the interest of public safety, Trejbal and the Roanoke Times would have done a fine public service by launching, say, an Internet database listing paroled violent felons, stalkers and murderers. Instead, however, he went after what he apparently considers an equally dangerous lot.

Trejbal wrote, "A state that puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not... There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too."

That’s right. After obtaining a list of all 135,789 Virginians who are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, Trejbal and his employer posted them in a searchable online database.

According to Trejbal, "People might like to know if their neighbors carry. Parents might like to know if a member of the car pool has a pistol in the glove box. Employees might like to know if employers are bringing weapons to the office."

One would hope that someone in the Roanoke Times editorial room would have weighed the risk that stalkers, rapists and murderers might also like to know whether a potential victim had a carry permit. Trejbal unintentionally created a "do not mess with" list of Virginians, but what about all the folks who are not on that list?

The paper’s publisher, Debbie Meade, says that she, Editorial Page Editor Dan Radmacher, and Trejbal discussed the pros and cons before posting the database. "I think Dan would say that we probably underestimated the kind of response that this would prompt," Meade said. "I think we could have asked for a broader and deeper discussion."

The Patriot Post writer doesn't bother going into Trejbal's comparison of sex offenders with gun owners, but focuses on the effect the database would have on criminal activity.

I contacted Trejbal and asked him to outline his views on Second Amendment rights, but received no answer. I suspect he doesn’t know that by conservative estimates, handguns are used more than 1.3 million times each year in self-defense. He must not know that convicted violent felons tell researchers that they choose victims they believe are least able to defend themselves, avoiding those likely to have a gun.

Trejbal may not realize that his chances of becoming a victim are significantly reduced by the fact that violent offenders do not know who is likely to be carrying a weapon—well, before Trejbal identified who, in Virginia, is not permitted to carry a concealed weapon.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the criminal use of firearms declined as the number of states issuing concealed-carry permits increased. Yale researcher John Lott addressed the relationship between gun possession and crime, and summed up his research with the title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Here in Texas, where people are practically issued a gun at birth, gun ownership is not a big deal. Most people I know own them, many owning more than one. The fact is that criminals are less likely to strike at places where they aren't sure whether someone will be armed. There's no reason for them to, because there are plenty of people willing to advertise their lack of protection. All those gun control bumperstickers must be very helpful.

But I'm also quite disturbed that Trejbal really can't see the difference between a database for sexual offenders--people who have already proven they can be a threat to society--and gun owners. While some gun ownership might be illegal--say, a person who suffers mental illness or possesses a machine gun--most gun owners are the sort of law-abiding people you want society to encourage. The comparison is worse than apples to oranges. It's more like apples to hand grenades.

UPDATE: Amanda at Pandagon has to have the dumbest argument posited by a gun control nut for why people would want guns for protection:

Well, the “home protection” argument appeals for classist and racist reasons. Having a handgun in your bedside table is a constant reminder that you’re a big, important white man who needs to be constantly on guard against the undeserving hoardes who would take the things you deserve and they don’t.

So, there you have it. Owning a gun isn't about protecting yourself and your property. It's because you're selfish and don't want to share your stuff.

Divorce, Complete with Picket Signs

Divorce is never pretty, but some divorces are more interesting than others. Take this one, which I found at law.com.

In an unusual twist on a growing religious issue, a Boca Raton, Fla., psychiatrist who refused to grant his ex-wife a Jewish religious divorce has filed suit to stop members of a local synagogue from holding demonstrations in front of his office demanding that he give her the divorce.

On Monday, Dr. David Abisror filed a motion in Palm Beach Circuit Court seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the group from the Boca Raton Synagogue from picketing. He claims the protesters have engaged in libelous and slanderous speech, interfered with his business relationships and created a public safety hazard.

According to the article, the couple was married 12 years ago, then had a civil divorce after two years of marriage. The wife, Naomi Baruch, relocated to Israel where she wants to start over.

But Abisror won't sign a "get," a Jewish divorce document. Without it, Baruch cannot date or remarry, according to Jewish law.

The idea behind this is that men are the head of the household and only they can dissolve the marriage. The practical effects in modern life is that men can still stick it to their wives, even when the state tells them not to.

In Israel, the government can become involved in forcing the hand of a man to sign a get. Husbands who refuse can lose their job and various civil rights and even be sent to jail. In a famous case, a man spent the last 35 years of his life in prison for refusing to sign a get. His ex-wife remarried a month after his death, at age 65.

Divorce is rarely easy, even if you are the person who wants it (or both of you do). But if feminists want to scream about "the patriarchy," religious laws like this one--and the reluctance of civil authorities to interceed--is a good place to start.

Why Aren't We Hearing about Iraq Anymore?

Via Protein Wisdom, we find that Baghdad is becoming a much safer place since the president's surge plan went into effect.

Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor markets favored targets of car bombers.

There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore order in Iraq, starting with its capital city.

As I've watched, listened to, and read the "news" about Scooter Libby and Attorneygate, I've wondered what was happening in Iraq and why the MSM isn't covering it anymore. I guess the fact that the violence has dropped 30% just isn't news in the same way firing political appointees is news.

Or maybe it has to do with what the MSM wants people to focus on. Don't look at the war if it is going well. If you do, you might not support the various Democratic cut-and-run resolutions.

Why The Three Pigs Don't Offend Muslims and Sometimes Being Oversensitive Reveals One's Own Bigotry

I read this post at Hot Air about the British school which remade the story The Three Pigs into something else so as not to offend Muslims.

A junior school production of the children's story has been renamed the Three Little Puppies for fear of offending Muslims.

Organisers of a children's music festival have altered the popular characters and lyrics because of the multi-cultural nature of the youngsters involved and their parents in the audience.

As bizarre a concept as it seems that we would now be rewriting fairytales and children's stories to conform to our hypersensitivities, it's becoming more and more common. We read stories almost daily about teachers bending over backwards not to offend some group, either by changing lessons, avoiding topics, or overcompensating for past mistakes or wrongdoing.

In this case, however, some people finally said enough is enough.

But yesterday Islamic leaders condemned the politically correct move as misguided and said decisions like this were turning Muslims into 'misfits' in society...

But Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain branded the move 'bizarre'.

He said: "The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the Three Little Pigs. It's always been the traditional way of telling the story and I don't see why that should be changed.

"There's an issue about the eating of pork, which is forbidden, but there is no prohibition about reading stories about pigs. This is an unnecessary step."

The sensible attitude of the Muslim community to this tempest in a teapot made me reflect on other situations. For example, in this recent post, I stated that we should be teaching children not to use phrases such as "that's so gay," which could be offensive to homosexuals. But Aphrael pointed out in the comments that we shouldn't be offended by the phrase because the person's saying it weren't meaning "homosexual." In other words, I was being overly sensitive about this.

Another personal example concerns my ex-husband, who happens to be handicapped. Being married to a person with disabilities opens one's eyes to a whole different sort of reality, including the everyday problems and victories they face. More than accommodations, he taught me that disabled people simply want to be treated as everyone else. They don't want to be "special," and they don't want to be "other."

It seems to me that this is what the Muslim cleric was saying about changing "The Three Little Pigs" to "The Three Little Puppies." It's nice to try to be sensitive to other cultures, but destroying one's own in the attempt is insulting and alarming.

Senate Rejects Cut-and-Run Plan No. 4

I'm elated at the news that Senate GOP managed to thwart a Senate binding resolution against the war in Iraq.

Dems mistakenly believed that they won Congress in November because Americans want to run out of Iraq. Of course, the reason Democrats won is far more complex than that. Reasons include extreme dissatisfaction among conservatives over administration policies ranging from the war to immigration to spending. There were plenty of Republicans who voted for Democrats (or sat out the election) so they could "teach the Republicans a lesson."

Dems are discovering that winning the election was the easy part. Now that they are expected to propose legislation and get it passed, they are finding the row a bit harder to hoe.

Today's repudiation of the hard left's pull out the f****** troops NOW strategy should provide some relief to worried Republicans, who have fretted that the Democrats would manage to handcuff the president and his ability to conduct the war.

Evidently, there have been enough conservative Democrats (or Democrats from conservative districts) elected to thwart every plan that Murtha and Pelosi can propose. Let's hope Republicans can build alliances with these Democrats to pass legislation, even if Grandma Pelosi doesn't like it.

Bob Geiger sounds the Democratic mantra about what the November elections meant, completely missing the point that sometimes government has to do important things regardless of their popularity.

E-Mails Show Rove *Gasp* Involved in Administration

In the non-issue e-mailgate, every new tidbit sends the lefties into a fury (see here, here, and here for starters).

Today's bit is that Karl Rove may have been the one to suggest firing the U.S. attorneys.

The argument is running that this is about the administration lying about the firings. Certainly, the administration has done a very poor job of handling this situation. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should never have testified to Congress in the first place about a matter that falls under executive power. This has just gone from bad to worse as Democrats try to find some evil reason for the firings (besides incompetence and an unwillingness to advance administration positions on the part of the attorneys).

We now have the spectre of Republicans calling for Gonzalez's resignation. But we know from past experience that if Gonzalez resigns, Dems will just set their sights on someone else (Kark Rove?).

If anything should have been learned from the Clinton administration, it is that determination not to resign will outlast any indignation (righteous or otherwise) from one's opposition. Clinton refused to resign regardless of the pressure on him. This administration would do well to tell Congress their time would be better spent trying for a fifth time to get an anti-war resolution passed than pursuing Gonzalez.

Zogby Poll: Most Americans See Liberal Media Bias

This is one of those "Duh!" stories that one sees periodically in the press, but, according to Zogby International, the vast majority of Americans think the MSM is biased and most of those think it is liberally biased.

The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well – 83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11% believe the media doesn’t take political sides, a recent IPDI/Zogby Interactive poll shows...

Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64%) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28%) said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches.

The poll also reports that 97% of Republicans surveyed think the media is liberally biased, along with 2/3 of independents.

Look for a flurry of liberal blog posts saying that this is just another indication of how out of touch most Americans are with reality, and that corporate ownership of media outlets means that we only think MSM is liberal. These types of arguments are available anywhere on the web, usually backed by a link to Common Dreams or something.

Say It with an Abortion E-Greeting

I heard about abortion e-cards while listening to the Michael Medved Show today.

Medved interviewed Aspen Baker, one of the founders of an after-abortion counseling group called Exhale. Exhale's purpose is to provide counseling for women after abortions who need it. The e-greetings are the group's way of helping people send messages to women after their abortions. Here are a couple of examples:

I want you to know that I care--
About you, and how you are feeling.
My thoughts are with you.

There's also this:

I think you're strong, smart, thoughtful and caring.
I believe in you and your ability to make the best decision.
I think you did the right thing.

There are religious cards ("my prayers are with you") and spiritual ones.

But, honestly, greeting cards for abortion? It all seems a little creepy to me.

Baker made some interesting points on Medved's show. She explained that they reach out to women who might be reluctant to go to traditional post-abortion counseling.

In this 2002 feature at Women's eNews, Baker explained how Exhale came into existence.

With most of the attention of pro-choice activists absorbed in preserving the option and anti-abortion groups focused in preventing abortions from occurring, little attention has been paid to the emotional aftercare that may be required, Baker says.

"When I got my abortion, I was really mad at the feminists," Baker says. "'You gave me this choice--great! But then I'm on my own afterwards? What's up with that?'"

What's up with that is that pro-choicers want to pretend that abortion is just a 20-minute procedure. In fact, the Pandagonistas were furious when I accurately quoted them.

As much as I might think abortion e-greetings is weird, I respect the job Exhale is doing, recognizing that abortion has long-term consequences that a fair number of women need help dealing with. It's certainly more than the supposed "pro-choice" community typically offers.

U.S. Attorneys Serve at the Discretion of the President

Remember this as Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media whip up Firinggate into a frenzy.

The latest is that Liberals--er, Citizens Blogging for Responsibility and Ethics wants a special prosecutor appointed to crucify Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and anybody else in the administration they can cast blame on.

But CREW, like Shakespeare's Sister, TPMMuckraker, and the Carpetbagger Report must not know what political appointments are.

Political appointments serve at the will of the President. They can be fired for any or no reason whatsoever. U.S. attorneys fall into this category.

More importantly for the moonbats shrieking about the eight fired U.S. attorneys, President Bush isn't the first person to fire U.S. attorneys. Bill Clinton did it, too. I don't have a direct link to the article because it requires a subscription, but here's the text from Redstate:

Attorney General Janet Reno today [March 24, 1993] demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.[...]

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

"This case has been conducted with integrity," Mr. Stephens said, "and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations."[...]

Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton's efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.

The story goes on to point out that the attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President, just like Cabinet members."

So, where's the scandal?

One argument against the Administration that I have heard advanced from the right is that the Department of Justice besmirched the reputations of the eight by publicizing that their firings were performance related. Too bad. Perhaps the Justice Department could have handled their removal more diplomatically. But, the attorneys took political positions willingly, and politics ain't bean bag. Some say that their replacements are wholly unqualified to be US Attorneys and that this is simply an effort by the Bush Administration to build a farm team of experienced conservative lawyers.

Moreover, Mark expresses my growing exasperation with this gaming by the Democrats.

I am tired of Democrats and the media blowing everything that the Bush Administration does into an earth stopping scandal, like no US Attorneys were ever fired for political reasons and no Congressman ever contacted any US Attorney to check on his potential opponent's legal liabilities. What's next? A Congressional hearing into Bush's choice of tie color?

You can expect more witch hunts by the Democrats over the next two years. Remember, this is what people should have expected when they wanted to "get the Republicans' attention."

UPDATE: Patterico explains how the supposedly damning e-mails do a pretty good job explaining why these attorneys needed the boot...and it's not just political.

Iranian Official Lashes Out at 300

Some people take the movies too seriously.

An Iranian official on Sunday lashed out at the Hollywood movie "300" for insulting the Persian civilization, local Fars News Agency reported.

Javad Shamqadri, an art advisor to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accused the new movie of being "part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at Iranian culture", said the report.

Shamqadri was quoted as saying "following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Hollywood and cultural authorities in the U.S. initiated studies to figure out how to attack Iranian culture," adding "certainly, the recent movie is a product of such studies."

The movie's effort wound be fruitless, because "values in Iranian culture and the Islamic Revolution are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans", said the Iranin official.

The movie was the top box office hit this weekend in North America, with receipts grossing $70 million.

I get bent at anti-Americanism in movies, particularly when it is blatant or doesn't really have much point (see Billy Bob Thornton's jab, "If I were building a weapon of mass destruction, you couldn't find it" in The Astronaut Farmer). But sometimes a story is just a story. This is one of those times.

300 is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel of the historic Battle of Thermopylae. It was the Greek version of the Alamo, if you will.

But the story is, well, a story, and in stories you have good guys and bad guys. Despite the modern need to undestand why all bad guys are bad, sometimes people write stories without psychoanalyzing why the bad guys are evil or hate the good guys. In real life, we know there may be reasons bad people do bad things. On the other hand, there is real evil in the world and it defies explanation.

Worrying about the portrayal of a 2500-year-old battle in a movie should be pretty low on the list of worries to the Iranians. If they want to worry about generalizations, they could start with the whole "Great Satan" thing.

Do These People Have Kids?

I subscribe to a lot of on-line parent sources. These newsletters and websites are chock full of interesting information and suggestions. Some of them are more helpful than others.

Today, I got a newsletter from ivillage.com, I like ivillage a lot because, unlike some sources, they have a lot of information for children of all ages. Given that my children range from elementary school to high school, going to one site saves me a lot of time and aggrevation.

This week's ivillage newsletter came with the kids snack swapper. It is sort of a cool idea; plug in some snack kids tend to want (like, say, "cheese puffs"), then hit the big Swap It button to see what is suggested.

The suggestion? Cheese flavored rice cakes.

Cheese flavored rice cakes? Do they honestly believe that, if your kid is longing for cheese puffs, cheese flavored rice cakes will satisfy them? Have they tried offering frozen grapes to a kid who wants candy? I don't think so.

I'm all for offering children healthy alternatives to junk food. My best solution so far is to make sure there's nothing but the healthy stuff in the house for them to eat. So, if they want a snack, they can have yogurt or cheese sticks but no potato chips or cookies. Of course, this sometimes makes for an unhappy husband, but I figure he can always make a trip to the store if he's gotta have ice cream. :)

Citizens Need Documentation to Receive Federal Money

The New York Times has this boo-hooer that some people have lost their Medicaid benefits because they can't prove they are U.S. citizens.

The story gives several anecdotes of people who have had to postpone treatments or paid for medications themselves because they don't have the documentation needed for Medicaid. The documentation required is a birth certificate and sometimes a driver's license.

My question is this: why is this so onerous?

In Texas, you can even order your birth certificate on-line.

I know the arguments against identification: poor people don't have computers or credit cards. They don't have driver's licenses or other I.D. They can't take off time from work to get the birth certificates.

Yes, it's terrible that to receive government funds one has to go through some personal trouble. But the point of needing documentation is so we know who is getting Medicaid and whether or not the people involved are eligible. A certified copy of one's birth certificate is 22 bucks in Texas. Is the argument that people can't find $22? Is this like the woman whose kid died because she didn't have $80 for a tooth extraction?

I'm sorry some people aren't receiving Medicaid who should be eligible for it. But like most things in life, you have to be able to prove you are who you say you are and that you are, indeed, eligible for the benefit you want to receive. This isn't callousness. It's the only way to keep the system from being defrauded.

The Power to Pardon and the "No Funds" Rider

Mark Kleiman proposes that Congress pass a law barring the President from using any funds "in this or any other bill...to receive or process a petition for pardon, or to issue or prepare to issue a pardon, for any offense of which the person to be pardoned has been convicted within the previous five years."

Kleiman's theory is that this would be another of those "meaningful" (useless) resolutions that would show the Democrats are really, really serious about something.

Libby's lawyers could write up a pardon proclamation and hand-carry it to Mr. Bush (his secretaries would be barred from so much as opening the envelope and handing the President the contents). But it would put the Congress firmly on record behind a sound policy already embodied in regulation. If the rider were attached to the appropriation for the Executive Office of the President, Mr. Bush wouldn't have much choice but to sign, or to force a shutdown of his own office in defense of the principle that perjury isn't actually a crime.

Well, no. It would show that Congress interfering in a presidential power is unconstitutional.

Even Kleiman acknowledges the constitutional problems with such a law (Duh!). But don't expect the fact that such a law would be a clear infringement of presidential powers to stop Democrats.

Democrats (and a few opportunistic Republicans) have been in a lather since the Libby verdict that President Bush might do the right thing and pardon Libby. According to the Democratic interpretation of the pardon power, Libby is ineligible for a pardon because:

--he didn't violate various drug laws, including the importation of cocaine (Nicholas M. Altiere), possession and intent to distribute cocaine (Chris Harmon Bagley), possession of cocaine (David Roscoe Blampied), illegally dispensing a controlled substance (Leonard Browder), possession of marijuana (Delores Caroylene Burleson, aka Delores Cox Burleson),

--he didn't launder money (Bernice Ruth Altschul)

--he didn't evade taxes (Joe Anderson Jr.)

--he didn't defraud a financial institution and commit wire fraud (William Sterling Anderson)

--he didn't commit securities fraud and mail fraud (Almon Glenn Braswell)

--he didn't evade taxes and make illegal deals with the Iranians during the Iranian hostage crisis.

--he didn't commit armed bank robbery (Gerald Owen Smith)

The complete list of Bill Clinton's pardons is here

This doesn't include the slap on the wrist Sandy Berger received for stealing documents, lying about it, then destroying them.

So, let's recap: Republican doesn't remember when he first heard about lyin' Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame: prison time. Stealing, drug trafficking, embezzling, committing a variety of fraud types, dealing with our enemies, committing armed bank robbery: presidential pardon ok!

So glad they cleared that up.

Will Bill Maher Be Ann Coultered?

NewsBusters.org has this post on Bill Maher's disgusting comments about Republicans and Ronald Reagan on the Friday edition of his show Real Time.

The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside.

I've heard the arguments before: Bill Maher is a comedian, while Ann Coulter is a commentator. But that argument doesn't wash because Coulter's outrageous comments are always countenanced as jokes.

The left has managed to turn its supposed comedy shows into political tirades for some time now. While Saturday Night Live was always harder on Republicans than Democrats, it is shows like The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert's show that put the lie to this "it's only comedy" act. I mean, Stewart touts his viewers as better informed about issues. It's very difficult to argue, on the one hand, that it is just a comedy show but, on the other hand, your viewers are getting better news from you.

But this is exactly what they will do. That's why so many lefties screamed at Ann Coulter saying that she couldn't use the word faggot to describe John Edwards or she'd end up in rehab, but Bill Maher can say Republicans want to lick Ronald Reagan's ass.

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters also had this lovely clip from that unfettered source of vacuous opinion, Rosie O'Donnell, who appeared on Maher's show.

But I mean, Reagan was the beginning of the whole dream that they had, the right wing since you know, Roosevelt died, that they would take everything that working people have worked, you know, all this time for, and dismantle it. That’s why they liked Reagan because he’s a confederate…No, they worship him because he dismantled working rights for people. He helped make our country, like, only be about, uh, working poor, where you used to like actually be a working person like Dan and Roseanne Connor, and, like, have a house, and send your kids to college. Nobody of that, nobody who has those kind of jobs these days – of course, that don’t have those kinds of jobs here at all. They don’t even exist anymore. That whole class doesn’t even exist in this country anymore.

I hate to be the person to inform Rosie, but the reason the "working class" isn't sending their kids to college is because the price of college has skyrocketed as demand increased, not because of any Republican policy. Back in the 1980s when I went to college, it was $4 per semester hour. Now the price at the same university is $353 per semester hour. A four-year course of study at that university (not a terribly prestigious one, btw) will cost you $42,400. If you want to know why some people aren't going to college, that's the reason, not because there aren't enough blue collar jobs for Mom and Dad.

And let's look at that argument about Mom and Dad not having the same blue collar jobs to support their kids. It is true that there are fewer manufacturing jobs in the U.S. than there were in the 1970s. But that's because there are lots of jobs that weren't even jobs in the 1970s.

For example, computer programming, in the sense it is used by business today, was in its infancy and only a handful of people were programmers. But today, there are thousands of programming positions available. And even within computer programming, there are jobs that are highly paid which didn't even exist 10 years ago.

Rosie's right. We don't live in the world of Dan and Rosie O'Connor (a fictional one, btw). We live in a world with far more opportunities than Dan and Rosie could imagine. We live in a world where using your brain is going to get you more money (usually) than using muscle. We live in a world where jobs that used to be unskilled require far more and pay better. We live in a world where more education is required to keep up with the requirements.

We're not talking about the file clerk jobs of old. In the 1970s, a file clerk didn't need much skill besides an ability to alphabetize. But that's not true anymore.

Besides, I thought the reason the Dan and Rosie O'Connors sent their kids to college was so they would have a better job than unskilled labor. Does Rosie really think that parents want their kids to follow them into that sort of work?

The truth is, Rosie and Bill get to say these stupid and outrageous things about Republicans in a way that Republican commentors (even "comedians") would never be allowed to say. That's because when Republicans make these sorts of jokes, MoveOn.org and Daily KOS are there to stir up the hate machine. But when Maher and O'Donnell make worse comments about Republicans, these same apologists will tell you they are just "comedians."

Why Libby Can Be Prosecuted Even With No Underlying Crime Committed

This post by Beldar answers my arguments about why it is wrong to prosecute Scooter Libby even though there was no fundamental crime committed.

I was always disturbed that Libby was prosecuted for lying even though there turned out to be no crime involving Valerie Plame. But as Patterico pointed out, Libby was prosecute not merely for false statements made after Fitzgerald's appointment, but for lying to the FBI before it.

Libby spoke to the FBI in October and November 2003. Fitzgerald was appointed on December 30, 2003. In getting to the bottom of the unauthorized leak, Fitzgerald would naturally want to look at the truth or falsity of the statements that major players had made to the FBI. Libby’s statements — especially the ones concerning his conversation with Russert — turned out to be implausible, when viewed in the light of testimony from numerous other witnesses.

I think this is an excellent explanation of Libby's prosecution, and it makes it seem less of a witch hunt.

Beldar said:

I've seen commenting on many other blogs, have fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of perjury law — and specifically, that they have the serious misimpression that sworn testimony can only be perjurious if it's about an actual crime that was at least committed by someone, and perhaps that also was indicted, prosecuted, and the subject of a conviction.

I never made the argument that one couldn't prosecute someone under these circumstances. My argument was that one shouldn't, largely because it uses up large resources and virtually no one is satisfied with the results. The people who hate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney aren't satisfied with the verdict (see here for examples of moonbatty argumentation at work), and the people who support the president are outraged that such a mountain was made out of Libby's falsehoods when there are others who have done worse and gotten no punishment (see Ann Coulter's column for examples).

But Beldar goes on to explain the key to Libby's prosecution: the importance of materiality.

If the intentional false statement is on some matter that is not material to the subject of the testimony, then it may not be able to support a prosecution and conviction for perjury. Thus, for example, if Prof. Jones is asked before the Grand Jury, “How old are you,” and being vain, he lies and says he’s 39 even though he’s really 49, that’s a deliberate and intentional false statement, but it’s not on a material matter because that’s not something that relates closely to the reason for him giving sworn testimony to that grand jury. (His age doesn’t relate to anything that grand jury is trying to find out.) But some people blur this “materiality” requirement in their minds, and come away with the impression that to be “material,” the testimony must relate to a crime.

Well, no, that’s not at all what “material” means...

Likewise, Libby’s testimony about who told him what and when, and who he told what and when, was absolutely “material” to Mr. Fitzgerald’s grand jury’s investigations. “Materiality” doesn’t depend on whether there really was a crime committed, or whether an indictment is ever returned, or on whether a conviction is ever obtained. The grand jury is entitled to get truthful testimony on the subjects that are material to its investigation even when — as here — it never finds probable cause to believe an underlying crime has been convicted, and therefore never indicts anyone. That’s why both Libby and Prof. Jones can later be found guilty of having committed perjury.

The key is that the grand jury needs to receive truthful testimony regardless of whether an actual crime is committed. It can't determine if a crime was committed without it. This goes into the "truth, justice, and the American way" jurisprudence we're taught in law school, but tends to get lost in the shuffle of everyday life.

Personally, I got caught up in the fact that Fitzgerald tried desperately to hang an indictment on Rove or Cheney and lost sight of the fact that Libby's conduct was wrong (as opposed to inadvertent). I tended to believe Libby's version of events, just as liberals have wanted to believe the unbelievable arguments made for Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, and others.

Looking at the law in the abstract, it's clear that Libby's misconduct was worth prosecution. I still wonder if it is worth the cost.

Nutroots Push Democratic Party Left...Great!

I liked this post by John Hinderaker about how the nutroots are pushing the Democratic Party farther to the left...and away from victory.

More trouble for the Democratic Party, as the nutroots continue to push the party into a far left corner. It's now being reported that the Democrats are pulling out of a scheduled August debate in Nevada on Fox News. The stampede started when John Edwards said that he wouldn't participate in the debate, on the theory that Fox isn't liberal enough for the Democrats. The Edwards campaign announced this "principled" decision in an email to the nutroots' beehive, the Daily Kos. The rest of the party has now fallen into line, as none of the contenders apparently was willing to risk the displeasure of the party's nuttiest fringe.

That's good for the Republicans, bad for the Democrats. The original idea of the Nevada debate was to appeal to swing voters in the western states.

This is, indeed good news for Republicans, especially if they end up with a centrist-type candidate like Rudy Giuliani. The appeal of a Giuliani candidacy to the vast, unwashed middle will more than make up for the carping of the purists on the right.

I'm not crazy about Giuliani either on social issues where he's much more liberal than I, or on personal issues, where he clearly has a lot of baggage. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if my choices end up between any Democrat and him.

Democrats Stuff Must Pass Bill With Pork

I guess the Democrats don't think they can get enough of those anti-war people on board for their cut-and-run--er, Iraqi withdrawal plan, so they've taken the opportunity to stuff the bill with pork projects.

Democrats seeking votes for their Iraq-withdrawal plan have stuffed the bill it's in with billions of dollars for farms, flu preparedness, New Orleans levees, home heating and other causes.

Some critics say the Democrats are simply being opportunistic — using a must-pass measure for funding U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to carry items that can't advance as easily on their own.

At the same time, Democratic leaders are trying to increase support for setting deadlines for ending U.S. military combat in Iraq, which they've made part of the larger legislation.

It's plain that Democrats are unwilling to approve the bill's $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan without devoting considerable sums of money to the home front.

"The president wants to make sure we take care of Iraq, but I think we also have to make sure that we don't lose sight of what we have to do here at home," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill.

Already, money in the bill not directly related to the war exceeds $20 billion.

$20 billion?! These are the "fiscally responsible" Democrats we've been hearing about, right? So, what's in the bill?

--$3.5 billion for veterans' and active duty military medical care

--$500 million "emergency" money for the Western fire season (which hasn't started yet)

--$4.3 billion for farmers for disaster aid

--$74 million for peanut storage

--$25 million for spinach farmers

--$283 million for income subsidies for small dairy farms

--$2.5 billion for homeland security projects

--$2.9 billion for levee improvements

--$735 million for State Children's Health Insurance Program

--$400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging

--$1 billion to to prevent or prepare for a possible avian flu epidemic

--$400 million in additional heating subsidies for the poor

In short, the bill contains pork from practically every district in the country so the Democrats can claim "bipartisan support" for their insidious plan. Aren't there normal appropriations bills to stick these pigs in?

I hope President Bush vetoes this disgusting, hypocritical lot.

...But I Thought We'd Already Lost This War

Via the Associated Press, news that the leader of an al-Qaeda inspired group has been captured.

The shadowy leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an al-Qaida-inspired group that challenged the authority of Iraq's government, was captured Friday in a raid on the western outskirts of Baghdad, an Iraqi military spokesman said.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was arrested along with several other insurgents in a raid in the town of Abu Ghraib, said Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the Baghdad security operation. U.S. officials had no confirmation of the capture and said they were looking into the report.

Al-Moussawi said al-Baghdadi admitted his identity, as did another "of the terrorists" who confirmed "that the one in our hands is al-Baghdadi."

The arrest of al-Baghdadi would be a major victory for U.S. and Iraqi forces in their fight against Sunni insurgents, especially the hardcore religious extremists who have shown no interest in negotiating an end to their struggle.

Maybe someone should tell the Democrats as they work on their latest anti-war non-binding resolution.

UPDATE: Captain Ed points out that al-Baghdadi was ratted out by one of his own men. Yay!

Hot Air has more coverage.

UPDATE x2: According to Hot Air, the leader of this group was not captured. I'm with Allahpundit; I don't care how many sources I get saying somebody was captured, I'm not blogging it again. :)

Democrats Honor Their Commitments....Riiiight....

According to this Huffington Post story, the Nevada Democratic Party today showed their comitment to honoring commitments...by backing out of the previously scheduled August debates on FOX News.

The excuse given? That Roger Ailes compared Barak Obama to a terrorist.

I've read the remarks and, yes, you can read his joke that way. But you can also read it to mean that Obama is a serious contender. In other words, offense is in the eye of the beholder.

But really, this is just an excuse so the Democrats can--yet again--show how little commitments mean to them. The moonbats hate FOX News with a passion unparalleled by conservatives. When was the last time right-wingers mounted boycotts of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN because their news coverage is so blatantly biased?

But no, the Nevada Democratic Party was looking for a reason to back out of this debate because so many moonbats were clutching their pearls at the prospect of a Democratic debate on FOX News. The horror!

At a Radio-Television News Directors Association and Foundation dinner where he received an award tonight, Ailes referred to the decision in his acceptance speech: "Pressure groups are forcing candidates to conclude that the best strategy for journalists is divide and conquer, to only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage...This pressure must be resisted, as it has been in the past. Any candidate for high office of either party who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake,'' Ailes said, adding that the strategy would surely backfire with voters. Ailes made the controversial comments about Obama at the same event.

I'm curious how this fits into the whole "free speech" thing Democrats are always saying they favor. They only favor outlets that don't challenge them?

UPDATE: HotAir points out the hypocrisy of John Edwards "principled" decision not to participate in this debate.

You can thank Silky Pony for giving this creepy, ideologically puritanical movement some media momentum. It was his firm, principled, anti-Fox “leadership” in pulling out of the debate that pushed this story into the news and put pressure on Reid (who scarcely needs encouragement in this area) to have the Nevada Dems revisit the terms of the debate.
Which brings us to our exit question: If this shameless, pandering jackass is such an inveterate Fox-hater, what was he doing on Hannity & Colmes six weeks ago after the State of the Union — his 33rd appearance on the network since August 2000?

Oh, because that's different, you see.

UPDATE: The Las Vegas Review-Journal puts the nutroots behavior in perspective.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

Gun Control and Dred Scott

This article from the Wall Street Journal On-Line edition points out that the yesterday's gun control case from the D.C. circuit cites Dred Scott v. Sanford approvingly.

This is quite a turn about, considering Dred Scott's ignoble conclusion that black people weren't people. But that isnt' the portion of the case used.

What was used was a section where the court determined that the government lacked the authority to "abolish a slaveholder's property rights in his slaves merely by outlawing slavery in the new territories." Dred Scott cites various portions of the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms.

"Although Dred Scott is as infamous as it was erroneous in holding that African-Americans are not citizens, this passage expresses the view, albeit in passing, that the Second Amendment contains a personal right,"

says noted judge Laurence Silberman in yesterday's decision.

I don't take this as an attempt to rehabilitate Dred Scott, although there may be some liberals who say this. The important part of that infamous decision for Silberman was its recognition of various rights as individual, not state rights.

I hardly expect to see a plethora of cases citing Dred Scott now, but it point out that even discredited cases can have valid points in them.

If I Were President

Last night, it was time for the annual Open House ritual.

While gazing admiringly at the paper bag biography kits, the dioramas and art work, I found this sample of future greatness from our youngest daughter.

If I Were President

Underneath this heading were three sheets torn from a children's writing tablet stapled together like a book. This masterpiece read:

1. I would make everybody give me lots of money.

2. I would make everybody wear pink.

3. I would make everybody shake hands.

I'm still not entirely sure why she wants to make everybody shake hands. And wanting everybody to give her money seems to me to be a sure sign that she has a great future as a politician.

But requiring everybody to wear pink? Sounds like a great signature issue to run on! Too bad she's too young to run for president. I guess I can start the campaign fund for 2034. :)

Why Vaccinate Only Girls?

When Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to unilaterally mandate that girls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus, I wondered why only girls were getting the vaccine. Obviously, they get cervical cancer and boys don't, but girls also get HPV from boys. If vaccination against an STD is such a great thing, why not make it mandatory for all children?

Jessie Hill at
Prawfsblawg had the same question.

The rationale for this is presumably that only girls and women are capable of getting cervical cancer, the most serious condition caused by HPV, as well as that Merck has so far obtained approval of the drug only for women and girls. Yet, while the data are somewhat uncertain on its usefulness for boys, there might be some benefit for boys receiving the vaccine as well – such as protection against genital warts and penile and anal cancer. These latter two conditions are admittedly extremely rare, but cervical cancer is also rare (though much less so). In addition, it stands to reason that immunizing boys who can carry and transmit the HPV virus will further protect girls against HPV and cervical cancer, because it will increase the “herd immunity” effects of mandatory vaccination. If only girls are required to be vaccinated, it is likely that a larger percentage of those girls will nonetheless get the virus, as reported by a recent London Times article, which said that, according to one study, if boys are vaccinated “more than 90 per cent of cases of the disease caused by the four commonest strains of human papilloma virus (HPV) could be eliminated, instead of just over three quarters if only girls were vaccinated.” (Note: The study assumed that only 70% of girls would be vaccinated.) A similar argument was made here. (Thanks to the Reproductive Rights Prof Blog for the informative posts on this.) Of course, even if all girls are required to be vaccinated, some will not be, due to their own or their parents’ noncompliance, or due to religious or conscientious or health exemptions; in addition, for some subset of those who are vaccinated, the vaccine will not be effective. This is why it makes sense to require boys to be vaccinated as well.

I'd love to see the arguments presented against mandating vaccination of boys. But Hill goes on to question if this could be a Title IX situation.

So, I’m wondering whether there are any legal (constitutional, Title IX, etc.) implications to vaccinating only girls. It seems to me that there are, but I have heard so little on this issue that it makes me think I am missing something. Laws that would require only girls to be vaccinated would be gender discriminatory on their face; is this discrimination justified simply by the fact that the drug is only approved for girls at present? Or by the fact that girls are most likely to suffer the most serious consequences about HPV? And if the latter, don’t we at least have a narrow tailoring problem, since the law would be even more protective of girls if it required boys to be vaccinated as well, assuming the vaccine would not be harmful and would probably be beneficial to those boys as well?

I think this does present a Title IX problem since, as Hill points out, boys can have ill effects from HPV as well. The argument that only girls get cervical cancer doesn't take into account how girls can get the virus. If this really is a health issue, it seems to me much more reasonable to include boys in the mandate.

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Control Law

I heard about this story on the radio. It seems like the most damning opinion written about gun control legislation I've ever seen.From the Associated Press:

A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

The court also ruled the D.C. requirement that registered firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled and under trigger lock was unconstitutional.

The court went on to explain that the cramped definition of "militia" given by the District of Columbia disagrees significantly with writings from the founding fathers indicating that "bear arms" was an individual right.

The court stated that the Second Amendment could still be subject to restrictions such as gun registration. According to the A.P. if the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first time in 70 years it has taken up the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment.

Eugene Volokh has the decision boiled down to its salient points, including this one:

In determining whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee is an individual one, or some sort of collective right, the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right — “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation. We also note that the Tenth Amendment — “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” — indicates that the authors of the Bill of Rights were perfectly capable of distinguishing between “the people,” on the one hand, and “the states,” on the other. The natural reading of “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment would accord with usage elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.

Allahpundit at HotAir explains why the SCOTUS might take the case.