For the uninitiated, The Bechdel Rule, or the Bechdel Test, is a way of judging movies based on the following criteria:

1) there are at least two named female characters, who
2) talk to each other about
3) something other than a man.

The rule was first introduced to the world by cartoonist Allison Bechdel in 1985 in a comic from her popular strip, Dykes To Watch Out For. According to Bechdel, it should actually be called The Liz Wallace Test, as her friend actually came up with it, but I’m sticking with tradition, so nevermind that. The test, or rather the difficulty in finding movies that pass it, is a testament to the shocking (not really) lack of diversity in Hollywood production, even in 2010. And the problem doesn’t end with gender, obviously. Take Deggan’s Rule, an offshoot of The Bechdel Test, coined by Eric Deggans of The St. Petersburg Times:

1) At least two non-white human characters in the main cast…
2) that’s not about race.

Now it would seem, as a white man, I’m not personally injured by the failure of most movies to pass either of these tests. Our stories are being told, our concerns are being addressed, our grievances are being aired; all is well in White Boy Town. But that is not so. First off, any group that only hears it own stories is not getting the full story. Surrounded by only look-and-think-alikes, it becomes impossible not to become parochial and stagnant. After all, one of the main social benefits of fiction is the encouragement of empathy, and these narrow narratives deny us its full expression.

But as much social harm as excluding half the population from being fully realized fictional characters does, I’d say it does even greater damage to movies as an art form. Think about it. Any screenwriter/director/producer that can’t think of anything more for a woman to do than be a girlfriend, wife, mother, or kidnapped daughter is probably going to lack imagination in other areas as well. A filmmaker who only sees minorities as Issues or wacky sidekicks is, more likely than not, a hack. After all, what are stereotypes if not clichés in the real world? But why talk in generalities? Let’s look at this year’s Oscar nominees.

Boy Toys

The most egregious current Oscar offenders on the Bechdel scale are Up in the Air and Crazy Heart. They violate the letter and the spirit of the rule. The two lead actresses, Vera Farmiga and Maggie Gyllenhaal, give solid performances playing what seem like strong female characters on paper especially since [SPOILER ALERT] neither one of them choose to stay with these dysfunctional men. But that’s pretty sad consolation, given that they still both function only as satellites in orbit around the world of the male leads. The little inner life that they possess is only there to contrast against the guy’s wants and needs. They are machines to initiate the protagonist’s redemption, never coming close to being flesh and blood people themselves. And that’s a large part of why, the Academy’s opinion aside, both of these films are infuriatingly predictable Hollywood hackery. Their surprises are telegraphed a mile away, their insight are focus-grouped within an inch of their life, and their honesty has had every bit of rough edge sanded off to make it palatable to a wide audience. Much of that has to do with the incredibly limited role women are allowed to play in these stories.  Once you know the gender, you know the role they play.

Let Me Help You Help Your People

But it’s in the racial sphere where this year’s Oscar nominees really muck it up. Take box-office juggernaut, Avatar, James Cameron’s attempt to “reinvent” cinema through the use of giant 3-D Smurf warriors and sledgehammer-subtle liberal soapboxing. Far be it for me to say David Brooks got something right, but, well, David Brooks got something right in his column blasting Avatar for continuing the long tradition of “The White Messiah Complex”, and calls it a “racial fantasy par excellence”:

It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.

Speaking of white saviors and supporting minority actors who exist only for the main character’s rdemption, let’s talk about Dangerous Minds Freedom Writers Gran Torino Radio Glory Road The Soloist Music of the Heart The Blind Side, a movie that people are forever going to be looking back at and saying, “That was up for Best Picture?” Using the cover of a true story, as usual, the movie tells the inspiring tale of one large, and largely mute, black teenage male and the saintly white lady who saves him from the life of homelessness and despair so common to ‘those people’. And, of course, learns a little bit about herself in the process. Ugh. While this has been a great vehicle for Bullocks’ redemption as an actress in the press, it’s been less effective for telling the true story of Michael Oher, who remains superfluous in his own movie, an oversized prop for Bullock’s character to lift up and lean on depending on her needs at the moment.

There are some bright spots in Oscar Land, though. Inglorious Basterds, despite the title, is more about Shoshanna Dreyfuss’s struggles than the boys, and its her scheming rather than theirs that saves the day. And while An Education doesn’t pass the Bechdel Test by the letter, it does in spirit. Still, it’s sort of the exception that proves the rule: even in a movie about a young woman learning to have an identity separate from men, she doesn’t have a real conversation with a woman apart from talking about her man. And while District 9 and Precious both have racially problematic elements, they’re nowhere near as bad as Avatar and The Blind Side in that regard.  The Hurt Locker, while unavoidably a guy’s story, could bring the first directing trophy for a woman in Oscar history. So, I guess like any progress, we have to keep repeating the mantra: baby steps. Even Hollywood can learn something if you give it enough time. Maybe.

Intertwining couples and singles in Los Angeles break-up and make-up based on the pressures and expectations of Valentine’s Day.

Funny that these characters can’t get dates; they all look like supermodels. Does the idea of the movie Valentine’s Day make you sick?

Watch my new video and decide:

Let the revels begin (Image via Wikipedia)

A number of people wished me a happy birthday on Tuesday, which was an odd coincidence as Tuesday happened to be the anniversary of the day I was born.

I’ve always felt proud of that accomplishment. Perhaps it’s immodest of me but when you think about how many people have never achieved it, I think I deserve some credit. Whatever else you may say of me, I did get born and I’ve lived with the consequences ever since.

Of course my birth happened a very long time ago, so long ago that I can’t even remember it. But it must have been very special because the authorities issued a certificate commemorating the event.

My late mother used to claim that she was somehow involved but she never went into detail so I suspected that she was probably just trying to grab a little of the glory for herself.

“You’ve got your own birthday,” I would remonstrate. “Don’t try to horn in on mine.”

Now that she’s gone, I sometimes wish I hadn’t beaten and kicked her so much. She was a pretty good sport about it, though.

I’m grateful for the birthday greetings I’ve received. Scientific studies show that saying or writing “happy birthday” does in fact make the recipient happier.

On the downside, I can’t help thinking that every passing minute brings me closer to the end of my birthday. When the time comes that it’s no longer my birthday, then what? Will I have to wait another year to be happy again?

Also I was surprised and not a little disappointed to find no mention of my birthday when I scanned The New York Times and Google News on Tuesday.

Now I understand why so many people don’t trust the media.

The truly weird thing is that no one ever wishes anyone a happy deathday. I mean isn’t that when you really need to be cheered up?

Well, it appears not – say the French.

After sniffing around for year and perhaps quaffing a glass or two of vino, French authorities charged 13 defendants including several wine co-operatives, executives from two wineries and the conglomerate Sieur d’Arques with selling Gallo wine which was labeled Pinot Noir, but was really the aromatic grape cut with far less expensive Merlot and Syrah. The quantity involved is a spectacular 3.57 million gallons worth nearly $5.5 million. That would be enough to fill 16 million bottles, or 460 oil tankers writes Decanter.com.

Perhaps I’m expecting a little too much know-how from duped winemakers Gallo who’ve been dealing with grape juice for over 75 years but they really should have been tipped off by some not-too-elusive clues. The amount of Pinot Noir that was exported from the Languedoc-Roussillon region in Southern France between 2006-2008, the window of deception, far exceeded the amount of previous years. In fact, this really was a case of wily Frenchmen turning water into wine. Though Sieur d’Arques’ suppliers produce a total of 15,000 hectoliters of Pinot Noir annually, 135,000 hectoliters were sold to the gullible Americans for its Red Bicyclette brand.

They may have saved several millions of euros by mis-labeling their red, but if found guilty, the companies involved will be shelling out in the hundreds of thousands for their trickery. And with the prosecutor calling for to 12 months of jail time, the sentencing will not be easy drinking.    

 Though this is allegedly the biggest wine con yet, it is merely one amongst a plethora of fine vintage cases dating back to the ancient Romans who suffered free-flowing volumes of manipulated, counterfeited and contaminated wine. 

Wine Scandal Hall of Fame

 1. Death By Tainted Wine – Italy, 1986
At least 20 people died and Italy, the motherland of the Bacchanalian beverage, was forced to temporarily freeze all wine exports when cheap tipple was adulterated with  methyl, or wood, alcohol to raise the wine’s alcohol content to the average 12 percent. The contamination only affected low grade booze that was sold to neighboring European countries to mix with their own local wines and the locally drunk, unpedigreed Vino di Tavolo that was sold at such low prices that only adulterated incarnations could be profitable. 

2. Not-So-Sweet, Sweet White – Austria 1985
A odorless chemical found in anti-freeze, diethylene glycol, was used by some white wine producers in Austria to sweeten their booze and upgrade the quality of drier whites to more expensive, fuller bodied, fruity offerings. Why not just add sugar, you ask? Well, that would be a pretty crass con as the addition of sugar is highly detectable. In small doses diethylene glycol is somewhat harmless and the amount used in the scam was low enough not to have any detrimental effect on drinkers. You would have to chug 28 of those adulterated bottles every day for two weeks to notice any effects, and by then you’d be long dead of alcohol poisoning. Still, anything that belongs in anti-freeze should stay in anti-freeze. 

3. Coloring Clarets – France 1973
Three wine merchants in the posh Bordeaux wine region “manufactured” some typically deep red claret which didn’t contain any of the world famous red at all. The conniving  trio mixed mediocre white wine with dark red wine to create 1.45 million liters of the perfectly colored concoction. Allegedly several old Bordeaux families who literally had the red stuff flowing through their veins they had been dealing with wine for so long, had bought the adulterated wine and re-sold it in bottles bearing prestigious Bordeaux labels.   

4. Oops, I Accidentally Made Me Some Tipple – US, Prohibition
A wine scam of the most unique varietal occurred during the prohibition when wine production was illegal. Grape growers would sell bricks of grape concentrate together with a packet of yeast. A warning label accompanying the curious duo would advise against combining the concentrate and yeast with water and sugar in a sealed pot and letting the mixture sit for seven days lest “an illegal alcoholic beverage” would result.

Image via Wikipedia

Working at newspapers for a long time, you notice something (heck, if you read Internet comments you’ve probably noticed the same thing): Everyone thinks you’re biased. Now, I’ve written a lot of opinion and commentary in my life, so of course I’m biased. But even the letters to the editor and comments on seemingly neutral news stories, if the subject’s the least bit controversial, tend to fall into the same trap: No matter how neutral or balanced the story, it’s always “biased” against side the letter writer or commenter is on.

Is this effect real? Do people really see bias where there is none? And, if so, where does this bias for seeing bias come from?

To be clear, truly neutral news reporting is pretty much impossible. Everyone has some opinion and some set of assumptions from which they’re working. But that doesn’t mean there’s no way to test if people are inventing bias in their minds — in addition to what might actually exist in the news. For instance, PsyBlog highlights this study from the 1980s, which showed a group of pro-Israel, pro-Arab, and neutral participants the same news reports of the “Beirut Massacre.” Keep in mind, they were all watching the same reports (from ABC, NBC, and CBS).

What happened?:

Here are the average ratings for the news coverage from each group:

• Pro-Israeli: 2.9 (perceived a marked pro-Arab bias)
• Neutral: 3.8 (perceived a slight pro-Arab bias)
• Pro-Arab: 6.7 (perceived a marked pro-Israeli bias)

As you can see the pro-Israeli participants thought the news reports were biased against Israel while the pro-Arab participants thought the news reports were biased against Arabs.

The neutrals thought there was a slight pro-Arab bias — which could indicate either that this is what the news reports actually had, or that the participants who called themselves neutral actually had a slight pro-Israeli bias. But again, the point isn’t to figure out if the broadcast leaned slightly one way or the other. The point is that these groups watched the same news and came to opposite conclusions as to which way it was biased. And each side thought it was biased against their side.

Why is this? Back to PsyBlog:

The study demonstrates what the authors call the ‘hostile media phenomenon’: people’s tendency to view news coverage about which they hold strong beliefs as biased against their own position.

There were two mechanisms at work here:

1. The truth is black and white: partisans generally thought that the truth about the Arab-Israeli debate was black and white. Any hint of shades of grey in the news reports was interpreted by partisans as bias towards the other side. In other words: any balanced report will seem biased to partisan viewers.
2. The news report was too grey: as well as thinking the Arab-Israeli issue was either black or white, partisans also perceived that the specific news report they watched was too grey.

Put simply: when we care about an issue, we tend not to notice all the points we agree with, and focus on the ones we don’t.

This isn’t to say, of course, that Fox isn’t conservative and MSNBC isn’t liberal. But when you’re looking for bias, you might also want to check your eyes.

There is an old, apt bromide in flying world: It’s easy to end up with a million dollars in the aviation business…just start with twenty million.

And so it has gone for the airline industry. Since the airline business began nine decades ago, airline companies have collectively not made a dime.

And these days the business is as bad as it ever has been. Facing high fuel costs, restrictive labor contracts, an epic recession and intense pricing pressure, the are grasping for ways to make a buck. We all know this – after all we are getting tenned and twentied to death to fly our bags, get some chintzy headphones, a flimsy pillow and thin blanket or a microscopic snack. How far off can pay toilets be?

I always assumed (perhaps it was denial) that this dysfunctional business model did not mean the safety bar was lowered an iota. But over the past nine months, while working on the PBS Frontline documentary “Flying Cheap”, I have learned that is not the case. Airline flying in the United States may be the safest means of travel ever devised since the invention of the wheel, but it is often not as safe as you maybe led to believe.

Over the past twenty years, the airlines have been doing what is common on so many other industries. They have been outsourcing.

The idea has its roots in deregulation. When Jimmy Carter took the government out of the business of dictating airline routes and rates, it was not too long before the airlines cooked up a new operating model we now call hubs and spokes. The idea: gather up passengers from smaller cities – get them to the larger airports – and stuff them into bigger planes for the longer hauls.

Hamstrung by expensive, restrictive union contracts, the big ”legacy” carriers were not structured to efficiently fly short runs in little airplanes. So they started hiring others to jump the puddles and came up with a scheme called “code sharing”. The legacy airlines paid commuter carriers to fly a certain number of flights to their hubs. The smaller carriers borrowed the name and livery of their clients – who would sell the tickets. These airborne contractors were paid by the completed segment (on time) – regardless of the number of passengers on board.

For passengers it made life much more simple. They could buy one ticket form a familiar brand name airline to take them from Peoria to Paris. Most of us would assume that the smaller airline would operate the same way as its larger customer.

But in fact the big airlines generally go out of their way to stay out of the business of their contractors. They point the finger at the FAA and say it is responsible for the maintaining “one level” of safety in airlines large and small. And that is technically true. But the legacy carriers exceed FAA minimums in almost every regard. They have discovered enhancing safety, maintenance and training programs actually accrues to the bottom line. Flying safer also means flying more efficiently.

But all of this requires some significant up front investments – which would put the smaller carriers at a competitive disadvantage. After all they win those flying routes by being the low bidder.

The major airlines do not send their maintenance and training experts – or their Sully’s -to to their regional contractors – because they prefer keeping a thick firewall between the operations.

Perhaps they are listening to their lawyers too much. As it stands right now, the big airlines are not liable when one of their outsource carriers crashes. If the laws were passed forcing that liability to be shared (“joint several liability” is the legal term of art), things would change about as quickly as Continental/Colgan 3407 went from a routine flight to a horrible disaster.

They say this industry has a “tombstone mentality” – meaning people have to die before things change. Let’s hope the souls we lost a year ago did not die in vain.

Image via Wikipedia

You open the doors and sigh.

Every magazine urges you to “shop your closet!”, as though there’s actually anything in there. You click through the hangers, booooored with what’s on them. These clothes are not you. Who would wear them? Did space aliens invade while you were asleep and suck out your every ounce of style?

This is where I have landed.

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that even cheapo’s like me, the “aspirational shopper” are heading back into stores. And this week, again, marks Fashion Week in Manhattan, which attracts 1116,000 people and during which a gajllion more garments will slither across the runways hoping to find favor with bloggers, retail buyers and editors.

In search of guidance, I’ve  read Lucky and In Style and find them, mostly, overwhelming and terrifying. Who really has $750 to spend on a handbag?  The clothes they combine look bizarre and uncomfortable, even if they look really great on size 0 17-year-olds.

In vain, I read fashion magazines hoping I will find something useful. I now know the names of every designer and who just got fired and hired, even if I can’t possibly afford a $2,500 Prorsum dress or Proenza Schouler’s new handbag. I know how to tell Louboutins from Choos (not that I own either, since a pair of either costs more than my mortgage payment.)

I need a new look.

And so, I bought a pair of black suede shoes this week that would utterly horrify most people I know. They’re a version of a style now shown in every fashion magazine, and the kind of thing I would never have imagined wearing in a million years: too trendy, too high, too edgy. Perfect!

The sweetie’s eyes lit up when I put them on — especially since they add 4.5 inches to my 5′5″ height.

I’ve been in a style rut for a while, a combination of a severely restricted budget, (i.e. no shopping), currently wearing a size that many stores refuse to carry (why bother shopping when all you end up with is frustration?) and, perhaps most crucial, no cool gal-pal, a fashion mentor, as it were, to help me figure this style thing out.

Trying to kick-start your look just by reading magazines or watching “What Not To Wear” is like trying to practise Mandarin by reading a menu. You gotta work it.

So this out-of-character footwear is, I hope, the first step to a new (er) me. I’ll still reach for my go-to classics, whether an Hermes silk twill scarf or my beloved pale gray down jacket (bought with my discount when I worked retail), but it’s time to test-drive some new looks. Some, no doubt, won’t be great. (I live in the ‘burbs, so it’s not as though anyone will notice.)

What a style shift really demands, is a lot more than cash. It’s the confidence to try it and pull it off.

Journalists generally dress very badly, as much because their pay is low as the inherent clash between fashion and function. Fashion means drawing attention, while working well in journalism demands its deflection.  We’re there to observe, not to be observed.

Dressing to be warm, comfortable and unobtrusive may make for great reporting, but it can kill a wardrobe.

Have you ever re-booted your look? Where did you find inspiration? Did you have help?

Pictured: A Video Game Pirate

I just finished reading an Australian news story about James Burt, a 24 year old Brisbane resident who is facing a $1.5M fine for illegally distributing his copy of Super Mario Bros. Wii, which he received six days earlier than the release date. Nintendo actually hired a P.I. to track Burt down, and they claim his copy has been downloaded “thousands of times” since it was uploaded.

Is this verdict fair? Is one copy of Mario Bros. Wii put on the internet really worth $1.5M in damages? Most distribution of stolen property or grand larceny laws max out fines at around $7,500 to $10,000. So why the hell does piracy inspire such ridiculous sums of money? Is it legal to increase fines to such a preposterous proportion just to “make an example” of a pirate to other pirates? To me, that’s like saying you can cut off the hands of a murderer to “make an example” of him to other murders, which might be an effective deterrent, but we don’t do that in the U.S. (or presumably Australia), as it’s what’s known as “cruel and unusual punishment.” So to fine someone that large of an amount of money for an offense that minor would seem to be over the top, much like the recent verdict of the woman fined $1.9M for downloading twenty-odd songs from the internet.

That being said, I believe there should be a difference in punishment between someone distributing illegally gotten merchandise and someone taking it. If someone downloads a game illegally and is caught, it would seem to be fair that the punishment be the same as if that person was caught shoplifting the game from a store, which would likely be a fine of $250 to $500 and probation. On the other hand, a distributor of stolen goods (like say, someone selling copies of Mario Bros. Wii from the back of a van) should face a steeper penalty, like the aforementioned $10,000 fine and maybe even a bit of jail time or community service. Note that none of these numbers are anywhere close to $1.5M, and I can’t for the life of me figure out just who the hell thinks that kind of number is justified in cases like these. And in the case of a distributor like Burt, his offense would seem to be even less severe than someone selling stolen merchandise out of the aforementioned van, seeing as by giving it away for free, he’s not even profiting from the endeavor.

The moral of the story here is that yes, I do believe game piracy is wrong (unless it’s combating idiotic DRM issues), and there should be consequences for those who steal games or give them away for free. But because pirates are seldom actually caught, this allows companies to believe that when they do hook someone, they should be able to publically filet them to an inch of their life with fines that have no bearing whatsoever to actual damages caused by the piracy itself.

There is currently nothing short of a price fixing scheme going on in the video game industry right now. Game prices are WAY higher than that of any other form of media, but seemingly not for any good reason. You may argue that 60 hours worth of Mass Effect 2 is worth $60, but what about five hours of playing time of Halo Wars? The across the board, sky high prices of games exist solely because all the companies have agreed that’s how much games should cost, and frustrated consumers have turned to piracy for titles they think aren’t worth their hard earned cash.

In order to combat problems like this, game companies should be looking into straight-up digital distribution, and eliminating price-gouging middlemen like Gamestop which would make games more affordable for everyone, and would create a legal download system that would be a welcome alternative to brick and mortar purchases. This is already happening with places like Steam, which offers downloadable games on the cheap for PC users, but as of yet, there’s nothing really like that for consoles, though I predict that will change soon enough.

If you view piracy like a virus like most companies do, don’t try to stamp it out altogether, which is a feat you will find impossible. Rather study it, and maybe you’ll be able to come up with a cure.

Image by Ed Yourdon via Flickr

Why is it that we think we can jail our problems away? The Chicago Tribune obviously thinks so.

Their recent article, “CTA Panhandler arrested 178 times,” chronicled the daily begging of Clarence Ervin, a homeless man who traverses the Chicago El Green line, asking for money from its passengers. The article states that Ervin has been arrested 178 times.Among his 178 arrests are charges for panhandling, disorderly conduct, drug possession and assault and battery.

Obviously, something needs to be done in this situation. CTA riders expressed their fear of Ervin to Tribune reporters:

“Although I have been trained to ignore what happens on the Green Line after taking it for so many years, this guy … is getting more and more aggressive by the encounter,” said Christie, a CTA customer who asked not to be fully identified for safety reasons.

David, another regular Green Line rider, said: “I always ride in the front car of the train and in the back of my mind is the question: ‘Is today the day I have to fight?’ This guy doesn’t have a lot to lose, but I do.”

Their fears shouldn’t be overlooked. People with mental illness and drug abuse problems can be dangerous, and shouldn’t be allowed to roam free, hurting and intimidating citizens left and right.

But what is jail going to do for this guy?

The article quotes police officers, judges, riders and even a currency exchange employee, but not a single homelessness advocate or mental health expert.

At a time where our state can barely contain violent criminals in our prison systems, do we really have room for Clarence Ervin? And even if we did, is it really fair to say at this moment that this man deserves to be put away for life for panhandling?

Mental illness isn’t a crime. Drug abuse is, but it’s also an illness. Years of living on the streets can bring on both.

Not once does the article mention the possibility of rehab, of counseling, of interim housing or intervention. If mental health or homelessness experts were called to comment, no mention was made. The article has a clear solution – put this guy away – and puts the blame on cops and a legal system that doesn’t have enough teeth to crack down on criminals like Ervin.

Let’s say Ervin was put in jail, even for 10 years. What then? He’ll just be put back out there, having spent 10 years living on the taxpayer’s dime, no better off – perhaps worse.

This is the kind of article that makes me wonder what people are talking about when they say “objective journalism.” Clearly, the reporters and editors who put together this story have an idea of what should be done to this man. They interview the sources that back that up. It’s clearly an important local story, but there’s no objectivity to be found. It might as well be a 1,300 word opinion piece on criminalizing homelessness.

Should something be done? Yes. Should CTA passengers be safe from aggressive, perhaps even violent panhandlers? Yes.

But is jail the answer here? Probably not. Our nation’s complex social problems and journalism as a dying profession need more complex, thoughtful solutions than the ones offered.

Ervin may not be Chicago’s citizen of the year, but he’s still a human being. If the $55 a day he collects were put toward a mandatory comprehensive rehabilitation program, there’s a chance he could still be a productive member of society, instead of a nuisance to Green line riders or another guy in an orange jumpsuit.

Don’t get me wrong, my fellow citizens, I am not holier than thou. I lie all the time. Especially to my wife, mother, friends, co-workers, and strangers at random. But when it comes to dutifully banging one — and only one — person: I. Am. A. Champion. You could put me in a room full of horny Playboy models, and I guarantee you, none of them would sleep with me.

Now, I understand that some voters might expect a little more from their elected officials than marital fidelity. And I’ll admit, I can’t budget my own checkbook, so I’m not entirely sure how I’ll deal with the fiscal mess that is New York State right now. Albany is ugly and boring, so I’ll be doing most of my gubernatorial work from my Manhattan apartment. Also, full disclosure: I’ve got little use for bi-partisanship. We’re passing gay marriage first, or I’m not signing a single bill. The government can grind to a halt, state employees won’t be paid, I don’t care. Good Government = #2, My Agenda = #1.

But, since you’ll never catch me in a closet that doesn’t exist with a woman who shouldn’t be there, what do you care? I’ll wake up every morning knowing that the fate of New York rests with my willingness to masturbate in the shower instead of showering with an intern. And I won’t let you down.

Still, it is curious that so many men seem incapable of following my path of monogamy. Yet we’ve come to expect public outrage whenever it turns out that another elected official likes to have sex with many different women. Is there any way we can get the powerful and the people on the same page about this issue?

Cheating 101 after the jump.

A couple of months ago, I wrote:

Rich and powerful guys cheat even when they are married to much more attractive, intelligent, and/or loving women than the ones they cheat with. I could explain why this is, but it’s an entirely different topic that is hard to explain unless you’ve ever had a penis.

Allow me to elaborate.

I don’t buy the biological imperative argument of cheating. You know the argument, it goes something like: “Man. Must spread seed. Boobies too powerful. Arrggghh.” Many of you have made that argument or heard it yourselves. I understand that’s how it works in the animal kingdom, but I also understand that Homo sapiens sapiens are blessed with marvelous powers of reasoning and self-awareness. Everyday, we overcome biological instincts in order to fit in with the rest of society. For instance, if another man hit on my wife, and I was a chimpanzee, I grab two of my friends and we would systematically rip off the other guy’s testicles. That’s how animals roll. If I can overcome the urge to mercilessly brutalize my wife’s ex-boyfriends (not saying that those urges don’t exist), then I can overcome the urge to contribute to the continuation of the species by banging a drunk co-ed.

What I do believe is that our modern society has decided to equate sexual adventures with power, prestige, and social acceptance. We’re told — especial as men — that real men have multiple liaisons with any woman they want, at any time, under any circumstance, the more the better. If a buddy has sex with an especially attractive woman, I’m going to respect him (or envy him, pretty much the same thing in Manworld) and treat him like he’s cool. If I don’t have sex with an especially attractive woman, my buddies will make jokes about my spinal column. My female friends will say things like “aww, how cute. You’re such a decent guy.” And I’ll be faced with the desire to shoot firearms, just to regain a measure of machismo.

That’s not nature, that is nurture.

Notice that these arguments don’t have anything to do with one’s spouse or significant other. Cheating, of course, has little to do with the person you are cheating on.

And so, most men are only one low-self esteem day away from having an affair. It starts off innocently. You want to feel like you “still got it” so you flirt with some attractive person. She (to your surprise) flirts back. And now you’re caught. If you do the right thing and back off, well, then you have to deal with the fact the you are a loser with no game. If you press the issue, well, don’t get me wrong, boobies are really powerful.

All of these issues are compounded when you are rich and/or powerful. In Manworld, you only get minimal credit for having a lot of money, or holding a prestigious position. “Ooh, you may be rich but I can kick your ass.” “Kick your ass” is always followed by “and take your woman.” (Manworld is a fantasy place where women sleep with whomever wins the cockfight. I know women find Manworld funny.)

What’s the point of kicking somebody’s ass if it doesn’t involve a woman? What, you think think the snooty rich guy has WMDs in the trunk of his Beamer?

As Machiavelli teaches us: “It makes [The Prince] hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content.”

Now if you read Machiavelli, you’ll note that the quote above essentially represents the only restrictions he puts on his totalitarian leader. That’s right, the poster boy for the Eric Cartman “I do what I want” style of leadership has only two prohibitions: don’t steal the people’s money or their women.

So it was then, so it is today. The American public will suffer any manner of totally incompetent leadership. Negligent fiscal understanding, disastrous military strategy, obvious stupidity, nothing that a campaign slogan can’t fix. But when it comes to outright thievery, we get pissed. And when somebody puts his penis where he’s not supposed to, there is hell to pay. (Note: I’m really interested to see what happens when a woman with a national profile gets caught banging the pool boy. If Sarah Palin started banging her receptionist — played by Jack McBrayer — would that be an issue? Or are we so sexist that it would be passed off as “still hot”?)

In any event, I think the public overreacts to political infidelity because there is still that unconscious fear that if a leader can have sex with any woman he wants to, he might come for your spouse or significant other. As a society, we can’t let that happen. Shame him, shun him, keep him away from my wife! See honey, I’m much more attractive and charismatic than that dirty old codger, Bill Clinton.

And so, my fellow Americans and my fellow New Yorkers, you can trust me. Not to tell you the truth — but I mean come on, you don’t even care about the truth anymore (see e.g. the health care debate). The one thing you can count on is that I will never, ever, come to your town and try to have hot, powerful, enjoyable sex with your wife. Unlike most men who seek high office, the only thing I’m interested in is having the power to remake the world as I see fit. All you men out there with multiple girlfriends and huge … gun collections, I can see how manly you are. I won’t try to fight you. Just cede your right to self-governance to me, and I promise I will go home every night to the same woman. A woman who, miraculously, isn’t ashamed of my simple ambitions to rule the world.

Image via Wikipedia

For a country founded on the spirit of the enlightenment, the United States pays a bizarre amount of respect to Edmund Burke. The Irish philosopher and patron saint of “conservatism” is cited widely by American political elites from all ends of the political spectrum. David Brooks of the New York Times is often found penning paens to Burke, and a think tank in Washington bears his name. Meanwhile, on the alleged left, many have approvingly cited the similarities between Barack Obama’s governing style and the musings of the eighteenth century philosopher.

Yet there is much that is objectionable and repellent in Burke’s writings. It would been more appropriate to title his seminal work, Reflections On The Revolution In France, Reactionary Histrionics On The Revolution In France. It is little more than a litany of complaints and objections to rationality (yes, this from a “philosopher”), and the equality of man. (Indeed, in a remarkable confession of elitism, Burke admits that he feels more sympathy for people who are “exalted” rank. Hence his fealty to aristocracy.)

Many of Burke’s contentions are sinister, but, happily, they are no longer dangerous. After all, it is unlikely that, under leadership of the intellectual and multicultural Obama administration, America will reject racial equality or the pursuit of rationality. Yet, there is one strain of Burke’s thought that has infected (if not infested) the mentality of the Obama Administration and much of our political elite. And that is a deep suspicion of technological and social progress.

Burke took pleasure in contrasting the allegedly noble conservatism of his adopted home of England with the nefarious progressive revolutionaries of France. He claimed, “thanks to our sullen resistance, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers . . . we are not the converts of Rosseau.” Further, “instead of casting away our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree.” And according to Burke, this is a good thing. Innovation and progress are bad things – dangerous things.

Alas, this strain of thought is one that is now embraced by the Obama administration. Consider the President’s wrong-headed attack on risk, which will forestall economic and technological innovation and progress. Or look to Obama’s science and energy policies, which are designed to reduce humanity’s “footprint” on the Earth. This is a “Burkean” approach, in that it seeks to limit the pace and scope of human progress.

It is also a dangerous and and potentially disastrous approach. With economic growth and hiring stagnant, America needs to encourage risk-taking and innovation. Likewise, the societal and cultural gains that readily available electricity, transport, and modern conveniences have wrought need to be maintained and expanded.

Edmund Burke was a reactionary and an enemy of progress. Hopefully, progress will pass him by and our elites will come to treat him in the way he so poetically deserves: forgotten, ignored, and passed by.