BlogWonks

What’s up my brothers? I just finished an interview with Dr. Allan Carlson regarding his new book, The Natural Family: A Manifesto, and cannot post it all here as Bobby Maddex accepted it for publication at Salvo where it will appear later in the year. Give it a click because he’s got some good essays up (no, none of them are written by me, lol). When the entire interview gets published I’ll post a link if he puts it online as not all Salvo articles go online. Anyway, I knew you guys would enjoy two of the questions which I’ve posted in below as they intimately concern the MND brethren.

BC: It seems to me that men face far more risks in marriage than do women—a biased court system, legal concepts like “equitable paternity” and marital rape, and severe punishment for those males who get divorced—so, given the nature of our misandric society—why isn’t cohabitation a better decision for men than marriage?

Dr. Allan Carlson: Well, I won’t say that it is because ultimately cohabitation is a wrong and immoral choice, but, for the reasons you just cited, it may have certain advantages. The key though is for us to change the laws to benefit marriage and the family. Men and women should be equal in the eyes of the law, but family autonomy must be taken into account. There are important differences between the sexes which have to be acknowledged in our law and public policy. People do things differently and they do different things well. Unfortunately, the law has become corrupted so we must restore its legitimacy.

BC: You argue that socialism gains greatly from the denigration of the family. I agree but don’t you find it ironic that so many women, even traditional women, vote for candidates who promise more and more government despite its eroding the foundation of marriage?

Dr. Allan Carlson: Well, the socialist movement plays very effectively on a deep historical problem that many do not recognize. Changes brought about by the industrial revolution have forever complicated family life and the rearing of children. This was a radically new change based on our history before 1800 when the majority of people worked and lived in the same place during their lifespan. Now that’s changed completely. Who will take care of the children is an important question in our times. Socialism promises a solution to the problem on everyone’s mind. It tells people that the state will ease their burden and take over childrearing and this appeals to many women and some men as well. Of course the joke here, the supreme irony, is that in Scandinavia feminism turned this into a very odd development. Women’s work became socialized and transferred to the state. The government then took on the traditional function of the home and family with the state providing child care. Then women, in turn, rejected the private sector and largely took jobs within the government. They continued to do what has traditionally been women’s work except now they provide child care for other people’s children. Their role has not changed but now they’re married to the state.

Good stuff! I’ll put a review of his book together in some form in the next week or two.

Last Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Fathers 4 Justice, CRISPE, and the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles staged a protest in front of the Family Relations Courthouse in Sacramento, California.The day preceding the courthouse protest, a couple of us (as private citizens accompanying another group) spent time in the state capitol, where we observed the functioning of our state government.

Sunday before last, May 20th, 2007, from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks park was the site of a Father’s Rally and picnic as the National Coalition of Free men welcomed Fathers 4 Justice to Los Angeles.  In reality, the event more widely welcomed Fathers for Justice to California.  People came from as far away as Sacramento (to the north) and as far away as San Diego (to the south).

Recently, a series of exchanges was printed in a local Caribbean News outlet (Caribbean Net News), regarding domestic violence in the Caribbean.  At times, the exchange of perceptions was rather robust.  One local Caribbean domestic violence advocate even went so far as to say this about Mr. Marc Angelucci, local President of the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles (NCFMLA):

“Mr Angelucci has sought to enter a discourse in a cultural context wherein he is out of his depth with little experience and knowledge. Mr Angelucci would be best advised to leave topics in this discourse to experts like Dr Spooner who have studied and understand the context of domestic violence in the English-speaking Caribbean states.”

Below are as many links as I could find, revealing the history of the aforementioned exchange of perceptions.  As you can see (below), I was fortunate enough to personally have a “Letter to the Editor” published.  It appears from what I could find, that Caribbean Net News graciously allowed me to have the last word in the matter:

“Today’s domestic violence industry, worldwide, follows (or advocates) a biased, gender feminist, domestic violence methodology, that systematically works to marginalize and exclude males. Anyone entering the domestic violence debate with only the knowledge provided by such biased, gender feminist propaganda is pathetically ignorant of the true dynamics of domestic violence to such an extent, that “misandrist” most precisely characterizes the junk science positions presented by them.

Domestic violence advocates in the Caribbean, or anywhere in the world, who base their positions on such corrupt, gender feminist, junk science as is so overwhelmingly present in the worldwide domestic violence industry today, can only have their position described as “so shallow they truly have no human depth at all,” in my opinion.”

Here is the list of links to that exchange:

Original “biased” (IMO) article on domestic violence by Dr. Spooner:

Commentary: Domestic violence is not women’s fault

Published on Monday, April 30, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1185–6-6–.html

Letter by Mr. Angelucci, responding to Dr. Spooner’s article:

Letter: Domestic violence article ignored male victims

Published on Friday, May 4, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/letters/letters.php?news_id=1308&start=0&category_id=7

Response to Mr. Angelucci by Ms. James:

In response to Marc Angelucci’s letter

Published on Monday, May 7, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1356–7-7–.html

Letter by Mr. Angelucci, responding to Ms. James’s rebuttal:

Letter: In response to Salome James’ letter

Published on Tuesday, May 8, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1373–7-7–.html

Response by Mr. Blumhorst to Ms. James’s attack on Mr. Angelucci’s first response:

Letter: Domestic violence issue

Published on Friday, May 11, 2007

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-1436–7-7–.html

I was very pleased to see Caribbean Net News include a working link to the story I wrote last year about the International Conference on Family Violence.  In that story I provided some detail about bias against men, present at that “International” Conference.  Thank you Wendy McElroy (Ifeminist), Mike LaSalle (Men’s News Daily) and all others who still having a working link to that story:

Men’s News Daily

http://tinyurl.com/2jc54o

Ifeminist

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0927blumhorst.html

At the end of that story is a picture of Mr. Angelucci (and the rest of our group), just smiling away “in our depth,” in our booth, at the ICFV, amidst the “International” domestic violence community).   

It’s not everyday that you get to speak to a legend, but that’s what happened to me last month when I found myself interviewing Jackie Mason. He was my uncle’s favorite comedian and I’d seen him on television numerous times so I was pleasantly surprised to hear his voice on the other end of the receiver. Although not included in my piece, the funniest parts of our exchange were due to my failing to recognize the rhetorical nature of his aside, “Is this understood?” I kept breaking in with “Yes, sir.” Hopefully, he got a kick out of that, but there’s no need to wonder what readers will think about his new book, Schmucks!: Our Favorite Fakes, Frauds, Lowlifes, Liars, the Armed and Dangerous, and Good Guys Gone Bad, as it’s got all the laughs that audiences have come to expect from him.

With the help of co-author, Raoul Felder, Jackie Mason has put together a mostly lighthearted series of vignettes illustrating the schmuckery of 62 persons who have done much to advance the cause of human misery. As one might expect, the principal offenders are mostly found on the left side of the political spectrum and include self-righteous nebbishes like Hillary Clinton, Cindy Sheehan, and Ramsey Clark along with entities like the ACLU, The New York Times, and Jews for Jesus. The entries are brief enough to ensure the attention and pleasure of the average reader.

Mason’s not the only famous comedian to lend his skills to political commentary. In recent years, cutups like Dennis Miller and Larry Miller have written articles well-regarded by conservatives, and this is far from a fledgling venture on Mason’s part as he has penned numerous columns with Felder for The American Spectator in the past.

Here, in Schmucks!, the wordplay is occasionally as clever as Mason’s stand-up bits. In fact, many of his fans of will recognize some of the material as emanating from his act. The shtick about restaurant critics, Cajon food, and Sushi appears in these pages as does his famous spiel about reform Jews. There is no question that all the comedic one-liners, such as, “you tell your boss who is so dumb he received a refund from a mind reader,” give the book added oomph. Material like that is seldom found in conservative best sellers and more than a couple of times I found myself laughing out loud. Perhaps the best turn of phrase involved Al Sharpton, whom they dubbed “the longest, unsustained, unsponsored carnival in America.” Halleluiah! Almost as good was their take on the Hilton Sisters, “You can’t spell hotel without ‘ho,’” and their treatment of the NCAA’s ban on “hostile” team nicknames was classic. They point out that none of the team names are truly offensive at all, but if they want to find some that are Mason and Felder are only too happy to oblige them as “Rampaging Wops, Big Heebs, or the Fighting Colored Folk” are exactly the type of nicknames that PC bureaucrats deserve.

There’s more here than just guffaws though. It’s good to see that at least somebody somewhere remembers the media’s false sense of outrage over Rick Lazio. During his 2000 debate with Hillary Clinton the former Congressman walked over and asked her to sign a pledge concerning campaign finance reform. She refused to do so, but a wholly vanilla situation got turned into “the Rape of Sabine Women” by legions of Hillaryophile journalists. It seems that our country has now confused being placed into an unscripted moment with full frontal oppression. Not in every society does an all-powerful, conquering superwoman insist on being treated like Our Lady of Fatima. If we really want to enhance the marketplace of ideas, we should convince the junior Senator from New York to go toe-to-toe with Mr. Mason in a debate. The venue for that battle would sell out faster than tickets to a Yankees-Mets World Series. Alas, it will never be as Hillary, nor practically any other politician, possesses a sense of humor let alone the ability to ever laugh in their own direction.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

The lamestream media told you:
Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The District of Columbia’s request to have a full-court (”en banc”) re-hearing of the Parker case — the case that reinstated the people’s ability to legally have an operating firearm in their homes — was turned down by the D.C. Court of Appeals on May 8, 2007.

This is good news, maybe. It means the excellent original pro-rights decision stands. An en banc hearing could have overturned it.

Residents of D.C. can now keep a registered operable firearm at home (but apparently can’t buy one, or transport one through the District to their homes). Hey, it’s a good first step.

If it had been overturned en banc, the good guys would have appealed to the Supreme Court, which they believe has pretty good justices facing an excellent case. It’s a risk, as it always will be, but factors seem as good now as they may ever be.

Now it’s up to officials in D.C. to appeal to the Supreme Court. Will they? They hate guns, gun owners, and want the rights stripped away again from their innocent residents. They want the system they’ve had in place since 1976 — no Second Amendment for D.C. residents. Their criminals are heavily armed, but at least the public is not. “For safety.”

But they must know their case is weak, the plaintiffs are excellent, honorable, judicious individuals seeking their rights, not some sleazy bottom feeder trying to duck a sentence for some crime. Will they appeal?

They have little to lose. If SCOTUS overturns the Circuit, D.C. officials win. If the High Court affirms, they’re no worse off than they are now. Their direct concerns are local — but everyone knows the nation hangs in the balance. Will the big gun anti-gunners in Congress twist arms behind the scenes and convince them to leave this case alone?

If D.C. officials appeal, it will make the news, big time. If the High Court takes the case — another unknown — it will set the stage for the biggest gun-rights confrontation, maybe in our entire history.

The Washington Post argued in an editorial that the D.C. mayor owes it to the residents to appeal to the Supreme Court. In other words, the esteemed Post believes the city should spend its taxpayer’s dollars to try whatever it can to remove its taxpayer’s rights. The New York Times expressed its views in an editorial cleverly entitled, “The Right to Ban Arms.”

May you live in interesting times.

The lamestream media told you:
Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports that firearm and ammo sales leaped 23% in the fourth quarter of 2006. Although news media routinely jump all over impressive sales growth in other industries, it never covers the subject in this industry, for unknown reasons. Reporters could not be reached for comment.

The boost was lead by a stunning 56.4% increase in handgun sales, part of which was attributed to higher retail selling prices.

The stats are calculated from quarterly Pittman-Robertson federal excise taxes earmarked for state wildlife conservation and habitat restoration programs. During the quarter, $67.4 million was generated for conservation, compared to $54.9 million in the same period in 2005.

Total wholesale sales for the quarter was approximately two-thirds of a billion dollars. Maybe that’s just not a lot of revenue to newspapers — most of which have been losing money for years.

The lamestream media told you:
National Public Radio reports that four graduating seniors in Tucson have developed technology that could save the city millions of dollars at its landfills over the next 20 years. It’s not clear whether the city will implement the technology.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
What is the money-saving technology? The report didn’t say.

People reading news on air are readers, not reporters. They read material handed to them, produced by writers and editors who are not and cannot be identified. The readers, sometimes disguised as or mistaken for actual reporters, read the handouts whether the material makes sense, is rational, or contains gaping holes that make it meaningless.

Failure to read the material as written, or questioning it in any way, is grounds for dismissal, and is never done.

Role models are rather hard to come by for internet writers. Ours is not a magnificent brave world, but it is rather new and one of the scribes who always made a favorable impression upon me is Jeremy Lott. From humble beginnings, his career has progressed favorably and he is well-known and well-regarded within Conservadom. I’ve read and enjoyed scores of his pieces over the years, and I still take time out to devour whatever it is he posts. Currently, he is the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s current Warren Brookes Journalism Fellow and a contributing editor to Books & Culture. As an independent writer he’s appeared at practically every important conservative site such as The American Spectator in which he had an article last week.

BC: Jeremy, nice to meet you. For those who aren’t familiar with your latest book, what’s the central thesis of In Defense of Hypocrisy?

Jeremy Lott: Dan McCarthy brought to my attention a quote from Adam Smith that I wish I’d stuck in the book: “Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.”

It could just as easily have been called On Hypocrisy. I look at instances where people are charging hypocrisy and ask a few questions: (1) Is hypocrisy really the problem here or is it a distraction? (2) Say you could eliminate the hypocrisy. Would that have a good or a bad effect? (3) Are these hypocrisy accusations just somebody’s way of asserting his own virtue? The point is to get readers to think about these things and supply their own answers.

BC: What is it about hypocrisy which so uniquely angers people?

Jeremy Lott: The moral free riding. I, the hypocrite, put on an act to convince people to think better of me but then go out of character when I think they aren’t looking.

BC: Could we not say that the hypocrite is superior to a good many other people due to his knowing right from wrong? Even if he doesn’t “walk the walk,” isn’t his knowledge of proper behavior a point in his favor?

Jeremy Lott: Hypocrisy is valuable because it doffs its hat to the good, even when our behavior is not so good. It also works to limit that behavior. Good parents, for instance, tend to watch their swearing and otherwise act better around their kids because they understand that they’re being watched like hawks. They want to start the kids off on the right foot, and it changes them.

BC: I found your subtitle intriguing, “Picking Sides in the War on Virtue?” Is there a war on virtue at the moment? Wasn’t that battle lost long ago?

Jeremy Lott: In a piece for the Dallas Morning News, I clarified this, calling it an “undeclared war on virtue.” Attacks on hypocrisy are usually attacks on moral distinctions, and I think that struggle will go on for quite some time.

BC: Along the same lines, does the culture war still rage? It seems rather one-sided at the moment. Is there any hope for conservatives in the decades to come?

Jeremy Lott: It depends on what they want to accomplish. One of the reasons that Iraq is such a mess is that the U.S. went in with fuzzy or unworkable objectives. So my question to conservative culture warriors is this, “What concrete things do you want to accomplish?” It won’t do to complain about a Carteresque malaise. And if you want to use the government to enforce all but the most basic norms, then you’re rendering unto Caesar something that frankly does not belong to him.

BC: Let’s turn to political correctness. Isn’t cultural Marxism all about hypocrisy or, at least about the adoption of fake virtues?

Jeremy Lott: Hmm. I argue in the book that hypocrisy accusations are a cheap way of arguing for our own virtue. I am denouncing these really bad guys and so, “Oh what a good boy am I.” PC denunciations can serve the same function.

BC: Is hypocrisy a partisan issue? The political left appears to be uniquely enflamed by it. They often use it as an argument stopper. Once they establish that a person doesn’t always practice what he preaches then they maintain there’s no reason to listen to their opinions about anything.

Jeremy Lott: Hypocrisy accusations are a staple of leftist rhetoric and also conservative talk radio palaver. Boy it’s been fun trying to make that case on right wing talk shows.

BC: How’d you get into writing? Was it an accidental career path? I always liked your story—which of course I’ll let you to tell.

Jeremy Lott: In the nineties I was part of the now largely forgotten amateur e-zine movement. It was fueled by new technology — which made it possible to publish stuff online but not so easy that just anybody could do it (i.e., blogs) — and Clinton hatred. A few people took notice of my zine work and so, during college, I was able to freelance to pay the bills. After accidentally graduating, I decided that the night job would be a better fit.

BC: So far you’ve worked at Reason and The American Spectator, where do you plan on going from here? Are you disillusioned by the world of political writing?

Jeremy Lott: To answer your first question, it’s up in the air at the moment. I took a detour into the think tank world for the last few years. My current job as the Warren Brookes Journalism Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute is great, but it’s only a one year gig and few fellowships would give me as much freedom.

The second book, a comic history of the vice presidency, should be finished in June. I’ll have between then and the end of September to line up a new gig. If anybody out there is interested in one slightly used writer, drop me a line.

As for the second question, it assumes that I was “illusioned” in the first place, no?

BC: Thanks, Jeremy.

Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.

The lamestream media told you:

The highly authoritative International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that mankind is responsible for global warming. If massive changes aren’t made quickly, under international control, the planet may be doomed and life could become extinct.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Accuracy In Media (AIM), the Wash., D.C.-based non-profit media watchdog, notes that the IPCC conclusions and policy recommendations have been released in advance of the scientific research. With the policy preceding the actual results, pressure is mounting to ensure that the science matches the announced plans.

AIM quotes noted Harvard physicist Lubos Motl on the decidedly unscientific approach, “In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived.”

Measuring national coverage, AIM notes that The Washington Post did say that the science hasn’t been completed before the conclusions were heralded, in paragraph 20 of a 21 paragraph story. The New York Times waited until paragraph 40 (out of 44) to mention the same trivial detail.

Motl mockingly calls this, “the vastly superior post-modern scientific method.” The media calls it fair, balanced, ethical, unbiased, spin-free, news of record.

The variable output of the sun, considered by many to be the main driving force of Earth’s temperature, has been missing from “news” reports. Experts note that climate changes, because that’s what climate does.

Learn more about AIM’s efforts to hold the media accountable and how you might help too: www.aim.org.