Tuesday, October 21, 2014


Dear Joe,
I am sorry I hurt
you. Please forgive
me. Please.

The Wendy Davis Hat Trick

There have been 3 articles in the last several days about Wendy Davis's failing, flailing campaign that have got me to first shake my head, then cringe, and finally to drop my jaw in disbelief. Here they are:

Head Shake: Wendy Davis is Selling Baby Onesies

Cringe: Wendy Davis Questions Greg Abbott’s Support For Interracial Marriage When He’s Married To A Hispanic Woman

Jaw Drop: Wendy Davis Attacks Abbott With Dildos (Yes, dildos. Warning: the article also mentions "blowjobs" and how horrible it is that Abbott is against them also.)

You can't make this stuff up.

Picture hat tip goes to Legal Insurrection. Great shot, guys.

Josh Mandel Deserves Second Term as Treasurer

I remember that I was initially enamored of Mike Huckabee in 2008, but then he made a remark about Mitt Romney "getting rid of your job" or something. I immediately thought "But that's what I want a GOP President to do! Get elected, go to Washington and get rid of government jobs!" I guess I was a proto-Tea Party member.

So I'm all for re-electing Josh Mandel, and it should be a no-brainer for Ohioans. He's saved mucho dollars and reduced staff size in his department by 15%. That's a huge accomplishment in government where many officials are generally trying to spread the tax payers wealth around the office and then say they need more funding. He's just raked in endorsements from the Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Society of CPA's and the Canton Repository. Here's the CantonRep Editorial in its entirety.

Our view: Office has managed money well with fewer employees

In four years as Ohio treasurer, Josh Mandel has done a commendable job of managing the state’s money. The Repository editorial board believes he has earned a second term.

Mandel, a Republican, helped to maintain an AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s for the state’s $4 billion STAR Ohio investment fund despite a still-wobbly economy. He also saved several million dollars by refinancing some of the state’s long-term debt.

Yet Mandel also was able to cut the treasurer’s staff from 140 employees in 2011, when he took office, to 117 and to reduce his office’s budget by nearly $5 million. He also eliminated the department’s fleet of vehicles and got rid of a host of smaller expenses epitomized by a contract with a company that watered the plants in the treasurer’s office. Mandel’s switch to electronic banking ended the need for an employee to drive from Columbus to Cleveland daily to deposit thousands of checks.

Early in his first term, Mandel’s office created searchable databases of salaries for public employees in Ohio and of state-owned properties and buildings. Mandel also has been advocating legislation he proposed that would create an online database of state spending over the past five years and require future treasurers to keep the database current. The House has passed the bill.

Mandel has always worn his political ambitions on his sleeve, moving from Lyndhurst City Council and the Ohio House to the treasurer’s office in less than a decade and making an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate a year after becoming treasurer. His backing by North Canton businessman Benjamin Suarez, who was prosecuted but acquitted this year on seven of eight federal campaign finance-related charges, has given Democrats an opening as Mandel runs for re-election.

But given the outstanding performance of the treasurer’s office, his opponent, state Rep. Connie Pillich, hasn’t made a convincing case even for her key proposal, installing an inspector general in the treasurer’s office.

The Ohio Society of CPAs, in endorsing Mandel’s re-election, cited his efforts to pass the “online checkbook” bill and his receiving a clean audit from the state auditor’s office each year. Earlier this year, Mandel received an Excellence in Financial Management Award from the 15,000-member Association of Government Accountants for making “significant improvements for Ohio taxpayers.”

Josh Mandel has done just that as state treasurer and deserves a second term.

Maybe Mandel was a proto-Tea Partier too?

I'm fascinated with this

I always felt bad for the angel dude in the painting. He's thinking "Man, I worked so hard on the rhombohedron then they come along and say 'Oh, we just want two small tetrahedra, thanks' so I end up doing a double truncation and now I'm left with whatever this thing is."

So 500 years later we should celebrate the fact that someone decided to turn Dürer's useless lump into an awesome paperweight.

These reflections are probably at least somewhat rooted in my recent viewing of the most triumphant film Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Byron York explains why there is no Surgeon General

The Ebola scare has raised awareness that there is currently no one serving as Surgeon General. Is it all the Republicans fault like some liberal pundits claim? Of course not; they don't control the Senate explains Byron York. Excerpt:

There is, however, an Obama nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, who has not been confirmed by the Senate after more than a year of waiting. Why hasn't Murthy won Senate approval in all that time?

To hear some of the president's advocates tell it, it's the Republicans' fault. "GOP blocks Surgeon General nominee," tweeted Eric Boehlert of the pro-Obama group Media Matters. "After blocking surgeon general nominee, Republican blames Obama for surgeon general vacancy," added another pro-Obama group, ThinkProgress.

Before getting into the details, here is the basic fact about charges that Republicans are blocking the surgeon general nominee: There are 55 Democrats in the Senate. Since Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules to kill filibusters for nominations, it would take just 51 votes to confirm Murthy. Democrats could do it all by themselves, even if every Republican opposed. But Democrats have not confirmed Murthy.

Why haven't they confirmed him? It turns out that the guy is embarrassingly political and obsessed with guns. He's behind the whole "Guns are a health care issue" nonsense, you know, asking Jimmy where daddy keeps his revolver when he's getting a check-up.

In 2008 Murthy, a Yale-trained physician currently affiliated with Harvard, founded a group called Doctors for America. Actually, he first called the organization Doctors for Obama; after Obama's victory, Doctors for Obama became Doctors for America. The group devoted itself to lobbying for passage of Obamacare.

The organization's political focus continued after the Obamacare battle was won. In 2012, Murthy got a lot of attention when he expressed frustration with opponents of his preferred gun control policies. "Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns," he tweeted, "putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue."

In January 2013, after the Sandy Hook shootings, Doctors for America sent a letter to Congress advocating an assault weapon ban, universal background checks, mandatory waiting periods, a gun buyback program, and other proposals favored by gun control groups.

If nothing else, the letter showed that Murthy's approach to his profession remained deeply political. In any event, Murthy's activism came back to haunt him in November of 2013, when the president nominated him to be surgeon general.

So this guy is poison to Democrats seeking re-election in "red" states.

The National Rifle Association took a strong stand against Murthy, a position that caught the attention not only of Republicans but of red-state Democrats seeking re-election.

"Murthy's previous statements about gun control being a public health issue made him toxic to Democrats in cycle like [Mary] Landrieu, [Mark] Pryor, and [Mark] Begich," says one senior Republican aide.

So the truth is that there is bi-partisan opposition to confirming Vivek Murthy, and anyone who blames the Republican minority — who cannot filibuster under the new Senate rules — is lying.

"We are creating a cultural shift in how we live and eat!"

"If we keep pushing forward, we have the potential to transform the health of an ENTIRE GENERATION!!"

Well, sort of. As long as they eat all their meals at school.

There's all kinds of reasons why liberals don't want to touch SNAP, EBT or any of those programs. They know what it's really about: vote buying and control.

This video is cute, sort of funny and instructive of a double standard. But I don't think the interviewees see any double standard at all, even after they have it revealed to them. That's because they see the two things entirely differently; to them it's an "apples and oranges" situation, excuse the healthy food metaphor. Making a school lunch healthier at the expense of yumminess is fine for one reason: the kids don't vote yet. However, someone with an EBT card in their hand is going to be miffed if they can't buy what they want with it and it's going to be perceived as the deprivation of an entitlement. This might very well be reflected at the ballot box. If you've spent any time with welfare recipients you know this for a fact. Any real understanding of the power of the modern day liberal left relies on this welfare-pawn machinery.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Huh? Wha? What's SB5?

More bad news for Ed FitzGerald. The memory of the voter defeat of Senate Bill 5 is the great hope of the Democrats if you follow FitzGerald's Facebook page or the comboxes in PD articles. But it doesn't seem like it is going to matter:

George Edge of Grove City and Judy McLaughlin of Canton both voted against Senate Bill 5 in a statewide referendum nearly three years ago.

Both had union members in their household when they opposed the law, which would have stripped many collective-bargaining rights from about 360,000 state and local government workers.

But now both say they are voting for the re-election of Gov. John Kasich, even though he led the campaign to pass the measure.

The two voters are part of a modern political phenomenon in Ohio: the turnaround from a 62 percent to 38 percent defeat of the collective-bargaining law in November 2011 to an apparent runaway victory for Kasich coming on Nov. 4.

Why would celibate gay men cohabit?

Maclin Horton reflects on Eve Tushnet's commentary and opines. Excerpt:

I admit that I really don't see a good resolution for that problem. One thought the question provokes, though, is that her vision of some sort of place for "celibate partnership" (there's a link to further discussion of that idea in her piece) is something that I can see more easily workable for lesbians than for gay men. Despite the abundant evidence, most women don't really understand just how commanding and obsessive the male sex drive is. They may understand it as an observed datum, but since they don't experience it, they still tend to underestimate its power.

Well put.

A problem that I have seen growing for some time within the whole "purpose of sexuality debate" is the downplaying of the difference between male and female and the accenting of the differences in orientations. I don't care if same-sex attraction is completely innate—a position of which I am highly skeptical—the gender of a person is always more determinative of behavior. And behavior, as all men and women know, is what lands you in trouble as far as your relationship with God goes, whether or not there is a risk of pregnancy.

The old cynical line is that men use relationships to get sex and women use sex to get relationships. And although we as Christians want to rise above the wrongful use of others for whatever purpose and enter into a covenant of mutual self-giving, we can't deny the truth of the difference between the genders with regard to sexual urges.

There is a mistaken belief out having to do with gay men, that they can most easily be compared to women. Unfortunately this seems to lead people to forget that their bodies are still male and they have the same fundamental hormones that heterosexuals do.

Perhaps on the surface gay men exhibit feminine traits to attract other men. But having had some experience being around them, they remind me more of men who have not learned to control their male urges, and maybe they would rather not learn. Hence they form sexual relationships with other men so they don't have to.

I'm sure this observation is very offensive to some homosexuals, but the same observation about sexual immaturity and irresponsibility can be made about other men in general. Sports teams, for example; remember the Duke LaCrosse team? In my hometown, the few gang-rape scandals had to do with drunk girls and the HS football team.

But going back to male effeminacy—are gay men really more like women, or are they simulating secondary characteristics? Can we all acknowledge that they are not trying to be more like women in the sex drive department? For example, one gay guy I knew in Pittsburgh wanted to fix me up with his female cousin whom, he assured me, had enormous breasts. I seriously never heard any other human talk about his own relative this way. But it cannot be doubted that this is men's locker room talk, not women's.

Andy Warhol made close study of men who worked extremely hard to look like women consciously, i.e., drag queens. He made these astute observations in his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol. Excerpt:

Among other things, drag queens are living testimony to the way women used to want to be, the way some people still want them to be, and the way some women still actually want to be. Drags are ambulatory archives of ideal moviestar womanhood. They perform a documentary service, usually consecrating their lives to keeping the glittering alternative alive and available for (not-too-close) inspection.

To get a private room in a hospital you used to have to be very rich but now you can get one if you're a drag queen. If you're a drag queen they want to isolate you from the other patients, but maybe they have enough for a ward now.

I'm fascinated by boys who spend their lives trying to be complete girls, because they have to work so hard—double-time—getting rid of all the tell-tale male signs and drawing in all the female signs. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying it's not self-defeating and self-destructive, and I'm not saying it's not possibly the single most absurd thing a man can do with his life. What I'm saying is, it is very hard work. You can't take that away from them. It's hard work to look like the complete opposite of what nature made you and then to be an imitation woman of what was only a fantasy woman in the first place. When they took the movie stars and stuck them in the kitchen, they weren't stars any more—they were just like you and me.

Emphasis mine. In other words, picturing a woman in a non-sexual place like a kitchen and the fetish dissolves with the fantasy. Only for the length of a Hollywood flick can a woman remain raring for hot romance. Whereas a man is ready jump into bed 24 hours, 7 days a week.

This is why I would suggest that "celibate partnership" is probably not possible for most healthy, young (under 85) homosexual men if they plan on being in close quarters together at all. Maybe a gay man should consider having a "celibate partnership" with a lesbian if he is really not attracted to women and he is serious about celibacy? I have a friend who owns an apartment which he rents to such a couple. He is gay and is a cook at a restaurant. She is a lesbian and works in a very physical construction job and appreciates coming home to good meals. Who knows; maybe they'll fall in love, or maybe they already have a very deep fraternal love for one another.

But just to conclude before I ramble much longer. When Maclin describes the male sex drive as "commanding and obsessive" he is spot on, and this is true for guys who are trying not to let themselves run off on a feeding frenzy. The idea that there is any less drive on the part of men because they are gay isn't supported by any evidence. And I think we need to stress that the reality of male and female is in mankind's immovable roots while this concept of orientation is out in the branches where there is far more fluttering and flexing.