A Veneer of Certainty

Toby Keith is the Celine Dion of country music.

Shameless plug: Chateau de Valflaunes Hardiesse

Probably the smoothest, best wine I've tasted yet. Good with meats, fish or all on its own. Now that I've learned about the importance of decanting wine, the Hardiesse has really shined. It's not heavy on tannins to begin with but after an hour or so of resting in the decanter this wine really becomes a thing of beauty. I'm going to look into other wines from the region with similar terroir characteristics. This wine is a little pricey but definitely worth it.

Hardiesse has been difficult to come by lately. Spec's, the local gods of all things alcohol, have been unable to procure any lately. I'll have to check with Richard's and see what they can conjure up.

The average male gets a lot of messages about sexism and its causes and effects, but very little proactive guidance on the topic. Any number of news items and web sites remind us that sexism is, of course, still a factor; some of our guy friends dismiss any notion that we exhibit boorish behavior; and our fathers might not exactly be founts of benevolent wisdom on the topic, still scarred by bra-burning of the late 1960’s. The point is all these messages put the focus on reactions to sexism – real or perceived – but not what we should be doing to become better denizens of the planet. Our basic marching orders for equality are not as simple as lifting the toilet seat or occasionally doing the dishes, so I'll take a crack at it.

Guys, it’s really pretty simple:
- Treat women with the same level of fairness, equality and expectation that you would give to another man. This goes for home, workplace and social situations.
- Remember what your mom told you countless times: Don’t be a dick. Or maybe it was the Golden Rule. Either way, show women and men equal doses of respect and courtesy.
- When you see other men acting like jerks to/about women, speak up about it. To let that kind of thing go on just hurts us all down the road.
- Some women put themselves out there for objectification (i.e., Pam Anderson, Jenna Jameson, Judi Dench) but most women don’t and really resent it when we do that. When you find your eyes lingering on that cute co-worker’s cleavage, ask yourself if you’d want some fellow mouth-breather ogling your daughter like that.
- Life is all about change. Major social structures morph every 20 – 30 years or so and the rules from Then may not apply Now. There was a time when Tiger could only wear a golf bag at Augusta, now he wears the green jacket. The same goes for male/female interaction so expect changes to what is expected of us.

And a request for women: When you feel that sexist behavior is in play, open a dialogue about it. Help us become better men.

I think men have two big fears related to being perceived as sexist. One is that there is not a single, all-encompassing definition of sexism to which that we can compare ourselves for progress. The second is that with social structures in a constant state of flux, we feel we'll never catch up to "doing the right thing." The best we can do is try to follow some basic rules and take the heat for where we fail to live up to individual expectations.

[UPDATE: I highly recommend that the guys read this post about Feminism 101, especially if they have a negative view of the feminist blogs and their content. Read it and get a better understanding.]

Fearing "bad spirits" from Bush's visit, Mayan priests are going to "cleanse" an archeological site previously used for human sacrifice:

Mayan priests say they will purify the sacred archaeological site to rid it of any "bad spirits" after Bush is there.

"That a person like (Bush) with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked is going to walk in our sacred lands is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, director of a Mayan non-governmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, told The Associated Press.

These Mayans could learn a thing or two from Scooter Libby and the Veep's office, their having set the new gold standard for human sacrifice.

In the past I’ve watched with amusement and dismay as Democratic candidates get raked over the ideological coals by various special-interest groups. Barack Obama for not being “black enough”, as a recent example. The expectation that a candidate should embody all the goals and rhetoric of a single group is ridiculous and has been behind the huge degree of the factionalizing seen in the Democratic party. Candidates with plans for the betterment of the majority are shot down or marginalized to make room for ones with appeal to the few. Now the right is experiencing the same turmoil and I’m pretty jazzed about it.

It used to be that Republicans had a one-stop-shopping style of candidacy. The party faithful would rally behind a single candidate that embodied the larger part of their political and social goals. That rule appears to no longer apply. Giuliani and McCain are perceived as too liberal, Romney is a flip-flopper, and the only candidates palatable to the social conservatives appear to have meager party-wide support. Combined with the internecine shouting match about the party’s pandering to evangelicals and loss of focus on fiscal conservatism and smaller government, it all is adding up to a kind of factionalizing that usually is attributed to the Democrats. In the end, I think it’s a good thing.

I tend to think that government works better when no single entity – ideological or social – has a lock. We all gain a measure of protection when a narrow agenda cannot be pushed into law. Lack of a mandate marginalizes the more extreme factions of a party as well as lobbying efforts by organizations that typically do not have at heart the best interests of the nation. The enactment of large pieces of legislation requires coalition-building, the result being something that not everyone is entirely comfortable with but is probably better for all concerned. Conversely, if the past few years have taught us anything, when one party has majority control then all restraints are off and you have uncontrolled spending, expansion of government and ideologically-biased meddling in social affairs.

So let the splintering on the right continue unabated and maybe we’ll get candidates that have a vision for almost everyone.

[Update: And the fracturing goes on. A letter sent to a recent meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals by some of that organization's luminaries decried the group's taking a stand on global warming. One signatory of the letter hinted at a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, even...

One of the men who signed the letter, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, said global warming was part of a leftist agenda that threatened evangelical unity.

"We're not going to allow third parties to divide evangelicals, and I think that is what is happening in part with the global warming issue," Perkins said.

But one of the board members, the Rev. Paul de Vries, said, "It ought to be God's agenda, not the Republican Party's agenda, that drives us.

"We're actually tired of being represented by people with a very narrow focus," he said. "We want to have a focus as big as God's focus."

New stirrings over at Donklephant, re the possibility of AG Gonzales interfering in an investigation of the NSA eavesdropping:

The National Journal, citing government records and anonymous officials, says Gonzales advised Bush to shut down a Justice Department probe into the NSA eavesdropping program — even after learning that he would likely be a subject of the inquiry (here’s what I wrote about it back in May, when the probe was killed).

The tactic used to block the probe — denying security clearances to the investigators
involved — was unusual to begin with. Now add in the spectre of Gonzales the AG urging Bush to derail an inquiry that would have looked into the actions of Gonzales the White House counsel.

But the evidence is mounting, so Gonzales should be wary of offers to go fishing with Al Neri.

Update: This recent stuff reminds of another Attorney General who approved suppression of civil liberties, indefinite detention, and wiretap without court order: John Mitchell, Nixon's AG, convicted of conspiracy, perjury and obstruction of justice related to the Watergate break-in and coverup.

Take him to....DETROIT!

Off to Detroit, MI on business for a couple of days. Not much else going on until Alberto Gonzales inevitably falls on his sword.

When they leave home for the first time, most young adults are pretty giddy about it. Out from under the iron boot of Mom & Dad, free to stay out as late as you like, drink until your eyeballs bleed, sleep late, etc. The freedom gained by “cutting the cord” was sweet, indeed, but there comes a point where we realize that the Old Folks may have been right about some things, and what a sobering moment that can be.

A similar situation is developing with the new media, I think, with respect to citizen journalism. The old mainstream media is perceived as last-century fuddy-duddies, shackled to advertisers and editorial biases that skew the quality of their product and impose tedious strictures on their journalistic resources. Now, technology is enabling huge numbers of people to publish whatever content in text, audio or video format, providing new outlets for creativity and opinion. Who needs a public access channel when for almost no cost you can produce, edit and upload to YouTube your own show? But even this limitless potential doesn’t necessarily weed out the ills for which old media is excoriated.

In my previous post on the topic, I lamented about a perceived lack of accountability in the blogosphere, wondering where were the voices that called for caution with this new medium. Turns out that this is not a new question. Other, more-experienced heads than I have commented upon the same issue. Calls for self-policing, fraternalization and transparency are all getting serious consideration. GriftDrift has pointed out that for all MSM’s failings and death throes, the new media might still have some things to learn about gaining legitimacy with the unpodcasted masses. And Rebecca Blood's six principles are so wonderfully even-handed and attainable that I’m prepared to have her baby right now.

From what I can tell there has been some concern that establishing standards of conduct for the new media might lead to MSM-like restrictions like credentialing, a loss of journalistic freedom and a sense of elitism. This would be a valid point if those standards in any way influenced how new media could express itself or somehow controlled the quality of content. However, ethics have almost nothing to do with credentials or what organization you belong to. Affiliation does not bestow automatic trust.

Having standards and ethics in how we attempt to inform and educate is simply about establishing a framework of honesty in how we interact with others. It’s not an attempt to handcuff or influence anyone’s creative product. New media can hate on the MSM all it wants but when you consider information sources as a market, new media is going to have to offer people something better if it wants to really make a difference. Social media should also adhere to a social contract of fairness, transparency and accuracy.

For most of us who bolted from mom & dad’s nest with visions of unfettered adult pleasures in our heads, that moment of clarity about the attempted lessons from our parents was a big one; maybe got a few things very, very right for our own good. The new media would be well advised to learn from and take with it some of the hard-won lessons of the old media. Not all of the parent's methodology is necessarily a bad thing. Learn and grow.

Update: Polimom makes a few points about the immediacy of new media and the Edwards' announcement of the return of Elizabeth's cancer. The old media desire for the scoop remains, but is now coupled with the speed of the web and the trust relationships built by web sources. Perhaps getting very wrong a few times will be good for new media, since readers might develop a jaundiced eye and come expect better information.

See ya, John. Thanks.

I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing crap responses like "Someone should..." to a panoply of societal ills. If a respondent is as passionate about an issue as they make themselves out to be then they need to either be taking an active part in the solutions they recommend or shutting the hell up.

And that goes double for me.

At one time or another during the past few years I would ask myself the quintessential guy question: Am I ready for parenthood? Can I handle the pressure of diapers/feedings at 2AM? Would I be a good dad? Am I prepared to assume responsibility for my progeny until the day I die? Forget strained peas, questions like these are enough to make me soil myself.

While grocery shopping yesterday, I caught myself singing along with, then dancing to (more or less), the tune on the store muzak, "Word Up" by Cameo. I overheard a gaggle of nearby teen girls remarking sotto voce "oh.my.gawd" and exchanging looks of incredulity.

And then it hit me: I have reach a crucial milestone of being a parent. Parent of teenagers, at any rate. I am fully prepared to embarass them to a depth and breadth that defies metaphysical logic. I can bring off faux-hip in a manner that would make Milli Vanilli wince. A chorus of angels descended to trumpet this miracle.

Thankfully, I am not at the moment on the path to parenthood although I do endeavor to maintain my status as "cool uncle". In the meantime, I'll dial "L" for low and get it underway.