Town Hall Review
Brought to you today by "Dick Durbin is worse than Hitler for comparing our troops to the Nazis," and the letter "J."
Ben is a week late for our "Michael Jackson Town Hall Review," but we decided to accept his paper anyway, since he worked so hard on it. It's about how things were better in the days of silent movies, because back then we were judgmental and hypocritical. Oh, and it's also about how the Hays Code could have protected those those kids from being molested by Jackson, since the Code wouldn't have allowed those scenes to be distributed.
Last week, Michael Jackson was cleared of all charges in his child molestation case. As the verdict was announced, Jackson's fans cheered. Four days later, 400 Jackson fans gathered at the Chumash Casino in California to celebrate the pop star's acquittal. [...]Seventy-two years ago this month, former silent movie star Fatty Arbuckle died in his sleep at the age of 46. Twelve years earlier, Arbuckle had been accused of raping a young woman, Virginia Rappe, using a foreign object; supposedly, this had ruptured Rappe's bladder, killing her. Despite the fact that Arbuckle was later acquitted of manslaughter after two hung juries, he was essentially blacklisted from Hollywood. His career was over.Clearly, Arbuckle was the victim of injustice. Evidence strongly supports his innocence. But that was a different time and a different place: It was a place where even the suggestion of impropriety was enough to cause public scandal. It was a place where immorality was not tolerated. Judgmental? Yes. But was it better than today's no-standards society, where known child molesters like Michael Jackson are celebrated after their acquittals? Absolutely.
What I think Ben is saying is that it's better that a hundred innocent men's lives be ruined by false accusations than for one man whom Ben knows is guilty to get away with only having his life mostly ruined.
Americans have always been fascinated by celebrity, but it is only in the past few decades that scandalous celebrity behavior has been accepted by a willing public. For years, Hollywood covered up the private lives of its biggest stars.
Yes, the stars back then behaved just as scandalously as they do now, but a paternal studio system ruthlessly managed the publicity of its stars, and misled the American people about the true character of those stars. And that was good, because decorous lies are better than ugly truths.
For a long while after the demise of the Hays Code, Americans accepted celebrity scandal and movie immorality. The erosion of traditional moral standards in the 1960s made Americans more tolerant of immoral behavior on screen and off.
And it's because the Hays Code was abolished that people now aren't properly shamed and ostracized for the same acts that people did then, but privately.
But perhaps Americans are beginning to wake up to the degradation of our culture by celebrity worship and Hollywood's social liberalism. Most Americans now think Hollywood movies and the celebrity culture are out of touch with traditional values. A recent poll by AP/AOL showed that "most Americans think movie stars are poor role models and almost half say movies generally aren't as good as they used to be." Seventy-three percent of Americans would prefer to stay home and watch a DVD rather than go out to a movie.
Yes, most Americans now hate movies, because they can no longer model their lives after those of today's celebrities. So they stay home and watch DVDs of, um, well, movies. But at least they don't pay full ticket price to see them!
And per Ben, some movie critics are even calling for a return to the Hays Code. Well, one critic: Neil Minow. And he doesn't even seem to be a movie critic (at least, I can't find any of his movie reviews via Google). But the important thing is that many American's long for a return to a "Fatty Arbuckle society," where "we punish even the appearance of impropriety." Because if we could punish the appearance of impropriety in a court of law, we could have sent Michael Jackson to the chair!
Stossel finds that women make 25% less than men because women are lazy slackers who would rather go home and wash dishes, mop floors, and care for kids than stay at the office and put in the extra hours necessary to get promoted to the high-paying jobs.
Feminists keep demanding new laws to protect women from the so-called wage gap. Many studies have found that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Activists say the pay difference is all about sexism.. [...]But how could this be possible? Suppose you're an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women. Why would any employer ever hire a man?
Because they believe that men are better employees?
Nonsense. It's market competition that sets wages.
Oh, silly me, I guess I was wrong! It seems that the discrepancy in wages is all due to the totally fair and just "market."
Men do care about money -- and that, not wage discrimination, is why men tend to make more of it.
"Women themselves say they're far more likely to care about flexibility," says author Warren Farrell. "Men say, I'm far more likely to care about money."
Well, if masculinist Warren Farrell says something that contradicts what feminists say, then we should believe him, because the free market says that men are more valuable than women.
Farrell illustrates his findings at lectures by asking men and women to stand in answer to a series of questions about job choices, such as whether they work more than 40 hours a week, outdoors or in a dangerous job. Again and again, more men stand.
But why does society think that an outdoor job should be better paid than an indoor one -- one, say, that involves caring for 10 preschool children? Sure, you can get hot, cold, or wet while outside, but is that any more unpleasant than having to change 30 poopy diapers a day?
"We have been suckered into believing that because there are more men at the top than women at the top, that this is a result of discrimination against women. That's been the misconception. It's all about trade-offs. You earn more money, you usually sacrifice something at home," Farrell said.
Suppose two people have equal potential, but one takes on more demanding, consuming, lucrative jobs while the other places a higher priority on family. The one who makes work the focus will be more productive for an employer than the one who puts his or her home life first. The latter will get more of the pleasures of family.
Yes, she will get more of the family pleasures, such as cleaning, cooking, chauffeuring the kids, etc. See, women just naturally want to do that kind of stuff. And since men are cheated out of these pleasures because they have to work longer days at the office, then it's only fair that they make more money -- you know, to help assuage their grief at missing out on vacuuming.
So he (and it tends to be "he") will make more money, even though she would be equally productive and equally rewarded if she made the same choices.
But the question that Stossel doesn't answer is: if she would be equally productive if she put in the longer hours, why doesn't she make the more financially lucrative choices? And why doesn't her husband want the job with more flexibility so that he can take care of the kids and house, and she can focus on her job? Oh, and why are are top female executives usually childless (and frequently unmarried), while top male execs usually have a wife and children?
One irony is that some people, especially young women, may make the choices that lead to the pay gap precisely because they have been taught the job market shortchanges women. Women who see the market as hostile may put their hearts into their homes instead of their careers -- thus making less money.
And another irony is that some people, especially male managers, may make choices that lead to the pay gap because they've been taught (by people like Stossel and Farrell) that almost all women want undemanding jobs that allow them the flexibility to care for children and husbands -- and so, even though many women put their hearts into their careers, they may not be considered for the high paying jobs because they are women. A thus they make less money.
But the market isn't hostile. The market is just. It rewards you for the work you do, not for the work you choose not to do.
I think that it's interesting that when men make more than women, it's because the market is just, and men simply deserve to make more. But when Stossel's wife's ex-boyfriend's book gets more media attention than Stossel's does (and the ex gets booked on more talk shows than Stossel), it's because the ex is a liberal and Stossel is a libertarian, and the market is unfair to non-liberals.
David will be our representative "Dick Durbin Must Be Strung Up To Prove That We Are Better Than the Nazis" columnist for today.
It's important that we don't let Dick Durbin off the hook too quickly. And, it's important that we not let his shills and enablers turn the tables by saying Republicans are merely attacking him to switch the subject from our alleged abuse of terrorist POWs.
Yes, per the lesser Limbaugh, we shouldn't let the Democrats distract us from denouncing Durbin -- we must not let them switch the subject to the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo. Whether or not Americans did mistreat some prisoners -- tortured them, even -- the important thing is that Dick Durbin and the Democrats "have done more to harm America's international image and undermine and jeopardize our military than anything they falsely imagine President Bush to have done." Because it's a well known fact that talking about the mistreatment of prisoners is way worse than abusing them, in that talking about the abuse stirs up our enemies, but merely committing abuse causes those enemies to respect and fear us.
So, if the war isn't going as well as we were promised, we know who we have to blame: Dick Durbin and Harry Reid.
All responsible Democrats must shout to the world in no uncertain terms that America, as a matter of philosophy, policy and practice treats its prisoners of war better and more humanely than has any other war captor in world history -- bar none, and that any departures are a rare exception to the rule.
I'm responsible, so I guess I have to do what David says. So here goes:
America, as a matter of philosphy, policy, and practice, treat its prisoners of war much better and more humanely than the Soviet, Cambodian and Nazi regimes did. Therefore, we don't need to worry about any "departures" or "exceptions to the rule," and shouldn't even dream of discussing whether our current philosophy, policies, and practices need to be improved -- because, hey, we're better than Hitler, after all.
Happy now, David?
In one of his most pathetic columns ever, Dr. Mike pens an imaginary classroom discussion between some conservative Christian students and Timothy Shortell, who is #2 on the wingnut "Most Hated" list (right after Dick Durbin), now that Ward Churchill has been thoroughly shredded by their rapier wit. You probably won't be surprised to learn that Dr. Mike's fictitious student characters clean the floor with Dr. Mike's imagined Shortell character.
Do you have any evidence that Jesus’ claims to be divine were fabricated by the authors of the New Testament?
No, I don’t. But that does not mean I believe those claims. I certainly do not. I did not intend for this to become a discussion of my personal religious views. Those views are irrelevant.
No, they are not irrelevant, just irreverent. You have just called a man a “liar” and “great” within the span of a few moments. You seem to consider yourself great-even greater than Augustine, Aquinas, Bach, Berkeley…
Please don’t repeat the whole list, David.
…and all of those other guys. If you are a great man, are you also a liar?
How dare you suggest that!? I have never told a lie in my life!
Well, you must be divine.
And so on.
Anyway, if you enjoy that sort of thing, I suggest that you read Robert Benchley's "Take the Witness." It's an essay about how Benchley imagines that he would show up the snide D.A. (I see Hamilton Burger in this role), if Benchley were ever called as a witness in a court case. Here's an excerpt from it:
Q: You think you’re pretty funny, don’t you?
A: I have never given the matter much thought.
Q: Oh, you haven’t given the matter much thought, eh? Well, you seem to be treating this examination as if it were a minstrel show.
A: (very quietly and nicely) – I have merely been taking my cue from your questions.
Q: Perhaps you would rather I conducted this inquiry in baby talk?
A: If it will make it any easier for you.
Q: (furious) – I see. Well, here’s a question that I think will be simple to elicit an honest answer. Just how did you happen to know that it was eleven-fifteen when you saw the defendant?
A: Because I looked at my watch.
Q: And just why did you look at your watch at this particular time?
A: To see what time it was.
Q: Are you accustomed to looking at your watch often?
A: That is one of the uses to which I often put my watch.
Q: I see. Now it couldn’t, by any chance, have been ten-fifteen instead of eleven-fifteen when you looked at your watch this time, could it?
A: Yes, sir. It could.
Q: Oh, it COULD have been ten-fifteen?
A: Yes, sir – if I had been in Chicago.
But Dr. Mike is good too -- in his own mind.
6:00:10 AM
No comments:
Post a Comment