Archive for February, 2010

Doctor of Laws and Humane Letters in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

I learned this weekend that the University of Tennessee has decided to build on its ingenius policy of sauna rooms by giving an honorary degree to the king of pointlessly uncomfortable living, Al Gore himself. Chancellor Cheek sent out the memo Friday afternoon. Presumably, they must have been impressed with Mr. Gore’s accuracy in predicting the temperature of the planet during the last fifteen years. As described in the email by our esteemed Chancellor Jimmy Cheek:

 The degree — an honorary Doctor of Laws and Humane Letters in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology — will be granted at the commencement exercises for the College of Arts and Sciences on May 14. Mr. Gore will be the featured speaker at the ceremony, addressing graduates and their families along with the gathered faculty.

On the day commemorating a significant accomplishment in students’ lives, the relatively conservative UT students and their families get to be subjected to the mad ravings of a leftist scam-artist. Nice goin’, UT.

This will be only the third honorary doctorate granted by our campus, and it is fitting that it be bestowed on one of Tennessee’s most successful sons, whose career in public service and in business has been marked by visionary leadership and has made him a leading global figure and a respected voice on vital issues shaping our planet.

Mr. Gore’s “business” consists of 1) guilt-tripping productive citizens into paying him money to plant trees, 2) working at public universities other than UT, 3) producing pseudoscientific socialist propaganda films, and 4) accepting unearned monetary awards from international agencies. Meanwhile, he himself flies around the country in jets and uses up the electricity of a small neighborhood solely on his gigantic house while he preaches to others about the virtue of ascetic living. Al Gore is the scum of the earth, and this award is ridiculous. Even the name of the award sounds ridiculous, and rightly so.


Various thoughts about women

Wintery Knight recently posted an article from the Weekly Standard describing the whorishness of today’s women.

[T]here’s currently a buyer’s market in women who are up for just about anything with the right kind of cad, what with delayed marriage (the average age for a woman’s first wedding is now 26, compared with 20 in 1960, according to the University of Virginia-based National Marriage Project’s latest report); reliable contraception; and advances in antibiotics (no more worries about what used to be called venereal disease). No-fault divorce, moreover, has pushed the marriage-dissolution rate up to between 40 and 50 percent and swelled the single-female population with “cougars” in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. On top of it all is the feminist-driven academic and journalistic culture celebrating that yesterday’s “loose” women are today’s “liberated” women, able to proudly “explore their sexuality” without “getting punished for their lust,” as the feminist writer Naomi Wolf put it in the Guardian in December.

Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.

Just 3.3 partners on average. Hmm, well I guess that number could be worse! Of course, the study’s age range (15-44) probably fails to include a good number of widows and divorcées who remarry.

Overall, I would agree with the basic sentiment of the post — essentially, that most “women” these days are hardly worthy of the term.

But regarding how to interact with these unwomanly women, I find a danger in some of the complaining. For example, Wintery laments that women typically only judge men based on the following list of somewhat superficial attributes:

  • Being tall
  • Being aloof and disinterested
  • Playing a musical instrument
  • Well-dressed
  • Stylish shoes
  • A deep voice
  • Handsome face
  • Here I will come to the aid of women who care about these aforementioned factors. Most of these factors are actually natural and proper:

    Being tall — Signifies physical power

    Being aloof and disinterested — Signifies options

    Playing a musical instrument — Signifies intellect and depth of soul

    Being well-dressed — Signifies discipline and social awareness

    Stylish shoes — Probably the same as above, although as far as I can tell women don’t really care about this factor

    A deep voice — I’m not sure how much women care about this factor either, but it also signifies testosterone and power

    Handsome face — Signifies healthy genes

    The lament continues:

    Consider confidence. Confidence is something that women often say they want. The problem is that an attitude of confidence can be faked when it rests on nothing.

    This critique is absolutely true. But it is also absolutely true that a man without any confidence is still a boy. Confidence is not everything, certainly, but it is something. (Likewise, money is not everything, but it is something.)

    Overall, therefore, I see nothing wrong with this list except its incompleteness. A woman should also take into account a man’s moral character, for example, as well as his earning capacity. Moral character is particularly important if she wants a marriage to endure and wants to raise her children properly. But of course, while moral character is something, it is not everything!

    And so while I completely agree with condemning the sexual insanity of American culture, we must also maintain a realistic outlook and not attempt to create some bizarre “utopia” based on unnatural ideals. As mentioned above, we should not expect women to completely ignore their instincts. We should not expect them to be argued into love logically. A person wistfully dreaming about the day when women ignore their instincts is like a failed CEO crying at his desk over the fact that customers rejected his “brilliant” products. The products may have been brilliant and enlightened — but people will only pay money for products that they want.

    A lot of guys (particularly the intellectuals) whine that women fail to appreciate discussions about important matters. Whereas men might turn to the History Channel while bored (and actually learn something), a woman will instead turn to something pointless like TLC or The Bachelor. Anyone who has attempted discussing politics or religion or science with a woman has learned that these topics generally lead no where. There are a few women who enjoy discussing these matters logically, but not many.

    But just because a woman fails to appreciate important logical matters does not make her unvirtuous. It does not even make her useless. Women have their own qualities; affinity for important discussions simply is not one of them. Moreover, it is possible to be rather virtuous, yet also rather foolish. A relatively virtuous woman might foolishly marry a violent thug who beats her, leaves her, or winds up in prison. Although she made a dumb choice, she technically did nothing morally wrong. And if a nobler man managed to snag her instead, she would probably turn out to be a virtuous partner (although still unwise).

    Ultimately, while wisdom among women is useful, I think virtue is far more important. If a woman is unwise, it just means you cannot leave her in charge of very much without worrying about her dumb decisions. But if she is immoral, it means you absolutely cannot trust her whatsoever. (Think:  Audiotaped conversations, Legal fees, and Home DNA-hair-test kits.)

    And aside from dreaming that women will turn into manly intellectuals, a lot of dreamers also hope that women will suddenly respond well to the outdated flattery of “chivalry.” Personally, I think the whole “gentleman” idea is a bit ridiculous. This is 2010, not 1310. Chivalry arose during a time when the governments were weak and women did not pretend to be men. Women could actually get physically attacked because they were weaker. Nowadays, governments are strong, crime is low, both sexes can own guns, and women generally try to act as though they were men. It is human nature to hold in contempt those who give us unneeded and undeserved help and flattery. Therefore, desiring a return of chivalry in modern society is like dreaming for communism. It is unnatural and just doesn’t make any sense.

    Personally, I like to treat women with the same amount of respect with which I treat men. If I would open a door for a girl, I do it for guys as well! These women do not need any more affirmative action. Perhaps if a woman EARNS my continued respect and admiration by demonstrating friendliness AND virtue AND femininity, THEN I might consider treating her like a lady/princess — but not before.

    Now some of you might be asking, “Drew why are you posting about women? How full of yourself you are! Do you think you’re an expert or something?!” Of course not. In fact, I do not believe anyone can be an expert over today’s women — not in the modern climate. Women today are far too diverse, unpredictable, legally overempowered, and dangerous! But I still post about things that need to be said, regardless of whether I have mastered them. After all, this is the DREW BLOG, where you can always find 100% pure truth. Also, I am posting because the UT Federalist Society is having a feminism panel this Thursday and giving out high-quality pizza, but they wouldn’t let me be on the panel to give my own views about women. So there you have them, Kimmie!

    Religion of self-destruction

    Listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day, I heard about how the Catholic Church has offered some some environmentalist suggestions for Lent:

    As the Lenten season arrives, the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change has provided Catholics, schools and organizations with more tools and resources for its annual Catholic Climate Covenant
    . . . .
    [T]he Archdiocese of Washington’s Environmental Outreach Committee has created a particularly useful new tool: a calendar that lists 40 carbon-fasting measures individuals can take to reduce their carbon footprint.

    The calendar contains suggestion for each of the 40 days of Lent, beginning on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 17, with “Remove one light bulb from your home and live without the light for the next 40 days.” Other suggestions include, “Turn down your thermostat by at least one degree;” “Check windows and doors for a draft…” “Making travel plans? Consider getting there without flying;” “Check the tire pressure of your car today;” “Learn about mountaintop removal mining;” “Show reverence for life and for the Earth today by obeying the speed limit…”

    Take note of that last one the next time the fascists haul you into traffic court. A lot of speed limits have little to do with safety but are simply a corrupt tool of the environmentalists. But I will have to write about that later.

    Of course, I do not present this story merely to gloat about the sorry state of the Catholic Church — with which I strongly disagree on numerous matters — but rather to demonstrate the link between global warming and ascetic religion. (Perceptive as I am, I have already pointed out this connection between environmentalism and asceticism previously.)

    Lent is all about making sacrifices merely for the sake of sacrifice. People embrace these worthless rituals because they have guilty consciences that need to be soothed. Lent punishes the practioner and thereby cleanses his conscience. Ascetic holidays are godless and stupid.

    The same can be said for global warming. Global warming is all about making practicioners feel better by performing little sacrifices such as turning their lights off, or taking faster showers, or whatever. It gives the practioner a warm feeling inside but serves no productive purpose. The modern environmentalist movement is generally without substance and is primarily just a godless religion. And to think that the House of Representatives just recently passed a global warming tax bill! Thank God the recent scandals, admissions, and weather have begun to cast such great doubt on this gigantic pagan hoax!

    Alright, enough posting for now. I need to go eat a steak or something. I shall close with God’s opinion on the matter:

    Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival . . . . Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. (Colossians 2:16-22)

    Bah, humbug

    Tomorrow, perhaps the most evil holiday in all Western culture comes upon us. I am referring, of course, not to Halloween or even to Labor Day, but rather to the diabolical holiday known as St. Valentine’s Day. This holiday negatively impacts coupled and single individuals alike.

    For the couples, the deleterious impacts are obvious. What used to be respectable men turn into spineless fools, heaping gifts upon their “lovers” in an effort to continue buying love. The businesses are the main ones imposing these values on us through their advertising. I lately heard that jackass from Lamon Jewelers, for example, describing how the “major leaguers” will buy their women expensive jewelry for Valentine’s Day while the chumps will only spend money on candy. But whereas the feminists typically love to demonize the evil corporations, not so in this case!

    I am not absolutely opposed to giving gifts and doing nice things, but I certainly despise this entitlement mentality. Seventy-five years ago, for example, engagement rings did not exist. Now, every would-be groom feels the need to blow thousands of dollars that could otherwise be put to better use. Similarly, whereas Valentine’s Day may have once been a fun holiday, the corporations and matriarchists have significantly corrupted it.

    And while the coupled males suffer from the coercion to offer entitlements, the singles suffer from being classified as second-class citizens. Although I haven’t actually notice it myself, I have heard that if you get on Facebook, you can observe a significant increase in the number of “relationships” being established during late January and early February. I do think it is possible for males to capitalize on this phenomenon by finding desperate women to date, but these pairings tend to be unstable. Men should remember that if they are single on Valentine’s Day, they are actually better off. We should not take our gifts for granted!

    Of course, there is at least one good thing about Valentine’s Day. That is, the day afterward, you can go to Wal-Mart and cheaply get lots of really good candy. I always thought the most romantic thing for Valentine’s Day would be to wait until the day after. Do you like chocolates, honey? Well, I just got you twice as many — because they were 50% off! Same goes for roses any everything else (except probably those stupid diamonds from that jackass jeweler). And you could avoid all the crowds at the restaurant. Things would even feel more individual and spontaneous and less herd-oriented — because no one else would be doing it!

    I met this chick recently who said that she hated the cliche nature of Valentine’s Day so much that if a guy ever proposed to her on Valentine’s Day, she would decline. Woman of my dreams.

    The green police

    I saw a pretty great television commercial during the Superbowl.

    The commercial jokes about arresting someone for using an incandescent light bulb. The truth is that Congress has already voted to prohibit these light bulbs. Although the government will not arrest individual consumers like in the commercial, any business that defies the law by continuing to produce light bulbs will certainly be punished.

    The television is prophecying! This future is coming if we do not stop it! The strange thing is that even though the commercial makes fun of all this environmentalist garbage, the company went ahead and produced a “green-friendly” car. It’s like they’re making fun of their own product. As well they should!