Archive for June, 2009

Talking Foreign Policy: Steve Schippert Guest Hosts For Me

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009


Download MP3

Melissa’s show can also be found on RFC Radio every Monday and Wednesday night at 10:00 pm Eastern.

To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!

When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.

Or Maybe Women Just Dig Different Kinds Of Dudes–UPDATED

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

When I did my post picking the hottest conservative guys, my criteria was simple: Were they datable? Now, many people saw the list and wondered at my choices. There was no “type”. Some guys were blond and blue eyed. Some guys were square-jawed. Some were scruffy. Some were baby-faced. Some were choir-boy innocent looking. They were all hot in their own ways and different women would pick different guys, depending on their unique likes and dislikes. I even mentioned that in my post.

Guys, on the other hand, are rather predictable. When a middle aged man dumps his wife, he often does not bother with a woman his own age with three kids in tow. No, he’s looking for the same thing he liked at 25: a 25 year old woman with big ta-tas, wide-set eyes, thin and looks good in jeans, or better yet, nothing.

So, some researchers confirm this with shaky science. Future Pundit says:

So why are men more consistent in their judgments? Do women differ from each other more than men do in their mating strategies? Or is the study picking up on greater variation over time in terms of what women want in men? In particular, how much of the female difference was due to the women being at different stages of their menstrual cycles? See my post Ovulating Women Prefer Smell Of Dominant Men and also my post Nursing Women More Attracted To Higher Pitch Male Voices. Monthly hormonal variations are going to cause women to feel more attraction to alpha men with more masculine features when the women are ovulating and then toward beta men to help raise the kids.

Another possible cause of the greater female difference might be due to age of the females. Does a 35 year old woman on average want different physical features (perhaps less masculinity) than a 20 year old woman? Maybe the full article gets into this. If anyone reads it post in the comments.

This strikes me as over-thinking it. Really, women like more variability in their men than men like in women. I know it’s difficult to fathom, but there are women who look at Brad Pitt or Cary Grant and say, I’d much prefer Mick Jagger. Men shake their heads and say, How did that dude get that girl? I am using popular stars, by the way, for an example. This happens in real life, too.

To continue using Hollywood examples. When you think of leading men, they all look differently. That is, my girlfriend Denise love, LOVE, LOVES that dude from George of the Jungle and Mummy, Brendan Frazier. Um, hello, yuck. But whatever. I met Ricky Gervais in New York. He had a group of girls fawning. Yes, he’s popular, and probably gay, but my interest level was somewhere between ho-hum and whatever. Paul Newman? Now, he was hot at any age. Robert Redford? Not-so-much. And there are a bunch of women who would disagree with me. I went through an Orlando Bloom, Legolas, phase and my girlfriends thought I had lost my mind. My sister preferred Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn. I thought he needed a bath.

When you think of leading ladies, though. They all look the same. There’s the Marilyn Monroe “type”. So the current iteration is Scarlett Johannsen before she lost her boobs to that silly notion called fitness. There’s the dark-hair, dark-eyed type. There’s the exotic type. Go through the ages and the women fall into a classic category. There is even more sameness when it comes to body type. Boobs, waist, butt in nice proportion. Symmetrical facial features. Did I mention thin?

Who is the current Audrey Hepburn (the “pixie”)? Who is the current Princess Grace (the patrician blond)? Hint: Sharon Stone was. No doubt, there’s a current one. Go through the list. They women fall into a category and everyone recognizes them as beautiful.

A guy would simply say, “Yeah, I’d do her.” Does she think? Does she carry a conversation? Does it matter? She’s hot or she’s not.

So scientists can try to get down to the why of the wiring, but I don’t think the study, however shoddy, is off-base. Women dig guys for all sorts of reasons and good looks ain’t always one of them.

Well, he’s good looking to her. And that’s all that matters.


If you’re interested, we will be talking about this topic and more on my RFC Radio show (Radio for Conservatives) and podcast (hit the podcast button tomorrow, when it will be updated). Tonight, on the show John Hawkins of Right Wing News and Tabitha Hale of Smart Girl Politics and Pink Elephant Pundit join me to talk Sarah Palin, Obama siding with dictators and more.

The radio show Right Doctor is on RFC Mondays and Wednesdays from 10-11 p.m. EST/ 9-10 p.m. CST.


Thanks for the link, Glenn, and the pressure. Man, speaking for all women?

When Democrats Don’t Get Their Way

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

This is what happens:

AIP Column: How Do Raise Taxes When There Is No Money To Tax?

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

My column for today takes on spending when there’s no money to spend:

Do the middle class and the working poor realize what the Democrats are doing to them right now? Check out this Cap-n-Trade calculator that shows how the new taxes will affect people based on income. This policy is a regressive tax aimed straight through the heart of the middle class [more here]. It will destroy job creation and limit business growth.

MaxedOutMama, an economist, is horrified:

It’s the inane nature of this bill that astounds me. We just cannot do it. Growing the food necessary to feed even our own population would emit more carbon than the final goals in the bill, even if every household in the USA was burning candles for light and had returned to the lifestyle that Paul Ehrlich used to recommend.

Okay, so in pursuit of a goal that’s nonsensical, for a problem that is international and that will not be addressed internationally (India and China, for example, are refusing to starve their people to death), we adopt legislation that either sets up an iron wall of tariffs or drives half the nation into poverty in about 15 years. This is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Let’s hope it can be stopped in the Senate. Even if it is, our nation has lost something here, and that something is the principal legislative body’s grasp on reality. It is as if the House of Representatives suddenly passed a vote to reduce gravity by 10 percent in order to lessen the costs of obesity to putatively cut Medicare costs in the future. Truly amazing.

Please go read the whole thing.

Discrimination Judicially Enforced If Sotomayor Had Her Way

Monday, June 29th, 2009

From CNN via (Allahpundit of Hotair):

A new national poll suggests that nearly two-thirds of Americans think white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut where discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam after too few minorities scored high enough on the test.

Monday the Supreme Court, in a five to four vote, ruled in favor of the white firefighters.

And of course, this kind of discrimination is “endemic”:

And fair-minded people are sick of the racial politics because it serves no one except Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton:

And yet, Judge Sotomayor believes a person’s skin color is sufficient reason to force companies to give people raises or promotions. From Stuart Taylor of the National Journal:

The Sotomayor-endorsed position allowed such a “race-based employment decision,” Cabranes added, even though the New Haven exams were “carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality” and even though the city had neither found nor tried to find a more job-related test.

The Cabranes dissent and the voluminous factual record that was before the Sotomayor panel flatly contradict the widely stated view that her position was justified by evidence that the exams were not job-related and that they discriminated against blacks in violation of the “disparate-impact” provisions of federal civil-rights law.

In fact, neither Sotomayor nor any other judge has ever found that the exams — one for would-be fire lieutenants, one for would-be captains — were invalid or unfair. Nor has any judge found that allowing the promotions would have violated disparate-impact law.

Rather, the Sotomayor-endorsed position was that under 2nd Circuit precedents, New Haven’s discrimination against high-scoring whites must be upheld based solely on the fact that disproportionate numbers of blacks had failed to qualify for promotion and might file a disparate-impact lawsuit — regardless of whether they could win it.

Judge Sotomayor would be, in essence, promoting institutional racism. The disturbing fact is that four Supreme Court Justices agreed with her and dissented from the majority opinion. Should Sotomayor become the new Justice, imagine how this case would have turned out.

The American people voted for Barack Obama hoping for a post-racial, Morgan Freeman-style America. In fact, by nominating Judge Sotomayor, President Obama has decided that identity politics should be front-and-center and that fomenting racial discontent are still essential to Democrat power.

Andrew Breitbart on the identity politics pecking order.

Michelle Malkin says racism lost.

William Jacobson notes:

One other interesting aspect of the case is the issue of “empathy.” Much has been made about Barack Obama’s desire for a Justices who show “empathy,” and Sotomayor made controversial off-the-bench statements regarding how a “wise Latina” judge would view cases (better or at least differently from white male judges). But in the second paragaraph of her Dissent, Justice Ginsburg noted that “sympathy” for the firefighters played no role in deciding the case. So what exactly is “empathy” as a valid attribute for a Supreme Court Justice? And if Sotomayor lets “empathy” enter into her decision making process, does that set her apart not only from Sandra Day O’Connor but also Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

National Review Online Ed Whelan says:

In footnote 10 of her dissent, Justice Ginsburg, agreeing with the position that President Obama’s Department of Justice took, states: “Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration [whether the City of New Haven in fact had good cause to act] would be in order.” But because the majority saw no need to remand, Ginsburg explains “why, if final disposition by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party.” (Emphasis added.)

In other words, Ginsburg doesn’t believe that final disposition of the case is appropriate. She and her fellow dissenters therefore believe that Sotomayor and her Second Circuit colleagues and the district court were wrong to grant summary judgment to the City of New Haven.

Perez Hilton Represents…

Monday, June 29th, 2009

Two weeks ago, I re-tweeted a disgusting little piece of Perez:

Hey, Zac Efron, if you wanna make a sex tape, I’m available!
7:07 AM Jun 19th from web

Perez Hilton

I retweeted it and said to other parents: Your kids know who this is and like him.

Today, Andrew Breitbart writes an excellent piece about identity politics using Perez Hilton as Exhibit “A”. He says:

If there is a person behaving more destructively in popular culture than Mario Lavandeira, I cannot think of one. He has used cruelty as a crass mechanism to build up his own celebrity and has utilized political correctness to protect himself while using it as a weapon to dehumanize those he doesn’t agree with.

Mr. Lavandeira has used his sexual orientation as a shield to deflect criticism. But in the process he has hurt the cause of gay rights. That is why the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation took the Black Eyed Peas’ side. When GLAAD is at the forefront of a movement that actively scorns “hate” – or, as the bumper stickers call it, H8 – it’s impossible to defend the behavior of a gay activist who so actively practices it.

If as a society we are to continue making strides towards tolerance of all people, GLAAD has taken an admirable step in condemning hate’s most avid practitioner of hateful speech. While the Black Eyed Peas showed us that we can fight fire with fire, “Perez Hilton” has exposed the paradox of the activist left’s tolerance movement: You can’t fight H8 with H8.

People like cruelty. In a culture where failure is glorified (Dumbass videos), Perez Hilton fits right in. There is a reason why class warfare finally played this last election cycle. People want the rich to go down. People enjoy seeing the mighty fall.

Perez Hilton has been popular because he’s reflecting the culture…and then, of course, he gets the power, eventually, to create it, too.

While Perez Hilton is a disgusting creature, the sleazy American impulse he represents is even more vile.

Saul Anuzis Talks About Potential New Republican Primary Rules & Lots More

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

My guest tonight on Right Doctor my radio show for is Saul Anuzis, former state chair of the Michigan Republican Party and contender for national chair this last time. Saul is also working for American Solutions on the Card Check issue. In addition, he’s been named as one of 13 Republicans to be part of the rules committee for the Republican party. Not only that, but Chairman Steele has asked Saul to head a technology committee for the RNC. Saul’s busy.

In case you missed it, Saul and I talked Iran yesterday. You can download the podcast from iTunes. Saul is the child of Lithuanian immigrants. He knows about communism. His parents saw it fall and Saul took 25 trips to Lithuania to help the country set up Democracy. He knows totalitarian regimes.

Saul also knows socialism. His family lived it and now, in Michigan, his state suffers the consequences. Since I’m from Michigan originally, too, we have lots to talk about.

Today, Saul and I discuss the implications of Republican rules changes. Priority number one in my book? Close the primaries. That is, don’t let Democrats and Independents vote in Republican primaries. That way, Republicans at least increase the chances of having a more solid conservative nominated.

The discussion is fascinating. We talk about how the Democrats are trying to do an end around on Card Check and how they just might succeed. I hope you’ll listen in either tonight at 10 Eastern, 9 Central on or via the podcasts on iTunes.

About Senator Ensign: Only Someone With Morals Can Be A Hypocrite

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

I am so bored with Republican sex scandals. First, they are not nearly as potentially problematic to the rule of law and to policy issues as all the Democrat financial scandals. Second, the sex scandals are one more way for the Democrats to hamstring the Republicans.

Mostly, I’m just sick of the left screeching “hypocrite!” Good grief. If they had any morals whatsoever, they’d be capable of hypocrisy. It’s extraordinarily convenient to be amoral in Washington, D.C. Nothing is off-limits and no one can criticize because it’s not like the amoral pol ever claimed to believe any behavior is wrong, anyway.

So I talk about that and more in this Pajamas Media article It’s The Hypocrisy Stupid!

American Issues Column: Capitalistic Kindness, Socialistic Meanness

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

The main criticism of capitalism and the free-market is that they’re mean. But look at the states with socialistic policies and their unemployment rates and cost of living. Who is mean again?

See the gory socialist numbers at American Issues Project.

Also, smart guys like John Stossel, Jim Hoft aka Gateway Pundit and Danny Glover also write for the American Issues Project. Please include the website in your feed or stop by daily. The content is excellent.

I Believe It Matters

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

Why argue about things that never change?

A falser premise has never been written. Life is constantly changing. It is also constantly seeking homeostasis. The environment changes and a person reacts to it. A person changes and then changes the environment.

The United States is always changing. The world economic, political, technological, medical, legal, etc. environment is always changing. The changes are rarely predictable, and so, flexibility and resilience are required for survival.

In the case of American society, someone is making those changes. One or two individuals, and then more, together, and then groups of people together coalesce around an idea and that idea motivates them to change the environment around them.

Since the Vietnam era, the American left decided that America needed to look and be different. So, they went to school, became lawyers, teachers, community activists, media personalities, etc. They introduced their ideas into curricula, laws and conversations.

America has changed because people wanted America to change. It didn’t just happen.

And, if America is going to change again, to become different and better, it’s going to happen one idea, one person, one group, one education at a time.

The cynical notion that it doesn’t make a difference no matter what we do is not only not true, it’s self-fulfilling. And right now, people are discouraged. American citizens see a country that took scores of years to build being dismantled by the political equivalent of a two-year-old knocking over a building of blocks.

Well, who allowed America to turn into a nation of brats? We did. One person, one vote, one decision to skip the school board meeting at a time. The people who believe it matters make very different choices from those who cynically figure that they have no influence.

I believe it matters.