Nice car - wanna fuck? Sure, I like your shoes.

We supposedly live in a male dominated society. Men wage wars, commit most violent crimes, earn more money, etc. Yet these mighty warriors get reduced to bumbling fools as soon as there is some female skin around.

Women bitch about being objectified, yet they willingly participate. Makeup, exercise, diet, manicure, pedicure, hair stylists, expensive clothes are all part of an effort to objectify oneself in order to attract those bumbling fools who run the world. Men do the same thing - weightlifting, hair styling, expensive car and clothes, power grabbing, etc. Women play with their hair, men flex their muscles. Women worry about their breast or ass size, guys worry about their dick or muscle size.

Ultimately it all comes down to pleasuring the senses of the other sex enough that they'll reproduce with us - preferably more than once to ensure an offspring arrives. If an offspring does not arrive automatically (Dionysus bless contraception) perhaps enough pleasure will be there to allow partners to break down the facade they've built up and actually find something more than fading assets.

In the end, we're in this together. Instead of misunderstanding and mistrusting each other (because, oh my Gray, we're so different) perhaps we should admit that we all play this silly game and get over it. It'll be much easier that way.

So, nice car - wanna fuck? Sure, I like your shoes.

The way forward on health benefits

Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post mulls pulling the plug on tax exemptions for companies to provide their employees with health insurance. Even though I benefit greatly from the current system I would support the measure. I think it's only fair that individual insurance accounts would be the only fair way to go. If companies want to provide health insurance without tax subsidies then more power to them.

The sticky stuff comes from free market forces as Mr. Mallaby skillfully points out. Health insurers would charge extravagant amounts to people who are deemed risky (as they already do). Needless to say risks can be assessed on a wide variety of items (such as race or genetic makeup) and the government would most likely need to limit the potential factors in order to equal the playing field.

Potential risk factors can be divided into three categories - genetic, environmental and personal. The genetic factors are perhaps easiest. If we, as a society, want to equal the playing field then all genetic factors need to be excluded (e.g. race, weak heart, cancer, etc.). I think most people would agree with this one. Personal choices should also be easy (e.g. smoking, obesity, HIV/AIDS, etc.) as I think most would agree that these factors are within our power to stop or control and thus should not be excluded. Environmental factors should be covered as well, with some firm limitations which would be aimed at preserving the environment by providing government/health insurer incentives for protecting it.

Needless to say the devil lies in the details. For example, gay men are at a higher risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. This scenario would walk the fine line between genetic and personal. Even though the current scientific thinking considers homosexuality as a genetic determinant there is still a lot of debate on this subject as a number of people still think it is a choice. Ultimately solutions are available. For example, gay men in terms of AIDS would not be covered for special protection (along with the rest of the population) thus encouraging safe behavior. This scenario could be likened to the situation young male drivers currently find themselves with higher insurance premiums than young female drivers.

A similar situation could exist in regards to cancer. Certainly there are people who are more prone to getting cancer who would be considered higher risk. Blanket coverage should not be provided, but rather a package of incentives for a lifestyle that would mitigate the possibility of cancer development as much as possible.

Bush's "ownership society" is a great idea. Discrimination is impossible to avoid in the insurance business, but solutions which encourage personal responsibility abound. We need to get away from the socialist welfare state mindset and focus on creating a free market, small government society. Protectionism needs to stop - on personal, corporate and societal level!

References:

1. "Ownership Society Still Needs Rules" by Sebastian Mallaby - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3160-2004Nov21.html

Pandering to your base

Robert Samuelson delightful insight makes it worth registering with Washington Post. In his latest he explores the politics of pandering to your base and thus creating the apparent values split.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38244-2004Nov9.html

Misunderstanding the left

Christopher Hitchins proclaims Bush to be a secularist due to his efforts to defeat the religious fundamentalists around the world. He also goes on to criticize the left for making excuses for the terrorists.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109377/

It seems like it's a mystery to the right (and perhaps the middle) on why the left keeps insisting on examining the reasons people attacks us. They prefer to view things in black and white. The terrorists are evil. Of course, they are terrorists (and therefore evil) because we disagree with their general objectives. If we supported their objectives they would be called freedom fighters. Snide comments aside I do not understand why there is not more desire to understand one's enemy. We can still kill them, but let's also try to understand what makes them tick. Granted, that might make them more human which would make it harder to kill them.

Yup, life's a doozy if you really think about it, but who wants to do that? Life is much simpler in black and white. They are evil because they oppose freedom (us) and therefore we will kill them. The mighty always reach for the sword first when there is disagreement. If you kill your opponent there is no more disagreement. Well, whadda ya know - it is simple after all.

Let the sleeping dogs lie

It's funny how people get very defensive about their habits/preferences that don't jive well with the norm. Here is an article that ends up being little more than a shoddy defense for one's habit.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108762/fr/ifr/

No need to get all defensive. You like your habit, you enjoy it - more power to you. The rest of the world doesn't need to understand it, as long as your partner does.

Personally it's not for me. I think it is important to establish a healthy relationship with clear boundaries for cohabitating lifeforms. For example, bugs do not belong in the house. Pets do not belong in bed or at the kitchen table. Kids do not belong in their parents' bed. That doesn't mean you don't love them... it just means that you are a separate person who needs their own space at times.

What happened in Election 04?

Kristof provides a brilliant analysis of this election.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html


Brooks provides a counter-point to Kristof's article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html

Well, it looks like it'll be four more years

... and this time the man's got a mandate. Not only a mandate, but what looks like a comfortable majority in both House and Senate. Hang on folks... there's gonna be some changes in the next few years. Dubya's gonna stir up some shit and it's gonna be hella exciting! Now, it may not be good exciting, but the adrenalin will fly either way. Yee-haw!!