The Dreaded Rhubarb wrote:

"They want to have children and realize that their lives are never going to get better. They're never going to have a decent job"

I feel sorry for these kids, though, just as I would feel sorry for a kid that was born unwanted because of some restrictive abortion law. I think wanting a child is a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the equation.

While you certainly can't stop a woman from having her baby, that doesn't mean that she isn't being reckless and ultimately selfish by having a child she can't provide for.

I think my views are shaped by the fact that my own childhood was impacted by some questionable decisions made by my own very young parents who spit before I was talking.

WRAL-TV is the station that has refused to run this ad, and it has been owned for decades by very conservative guys who hired Jesse Helms to do editorials in the 1960s (which is how Helms went from a behind-the-scenes political sleezebag to a Senate-office occupying sleezebag). It just shows how far to the right the NCGOP is...the (conservative, good old boy) Democrats still control state-level politics here (despite this being a solid red state for federal offices), and the GOP is a little more wing-nutty here than in most states where there is more competition.

Neoconservative, American Enterprise Institute Fellow, and former Bush (W, that is) speechwriter David Frum says whether or not conservative think rising inequality is ideologically problematic, it's starting to create a big *political* problem for them, and could be part of the reason they are on the outs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html?pagewanted=all

Also recommended is P.J. O'Rourke's "We Blew It" from the Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15791&R=13CD72E897

And the dialogue of prominent conservatives over on Slate. (Tucker Carlson has almost redeemed himself in my eyes for the veiled swipe he takes at Bush & Palin's speaking skills).

http://www.slate.com/id/2203800/entry/2203801/

I never thought I'd be this fascinated by Republican strategy! But then again, it has almost been a given for my entire 36 years that *Republican* strategy worked and *Democratic* strategy was the puzzle to be figured out.

Sure, it's rollicking good fun to read the red-meat reactions on the more reactionary websites and blogs, but I'm surprised at how interesting the dialog is from the intellectual & libertarian wings of the GOP as they try to figure out what's ahead for them for the first time since 1980.

As Oscar the Grouch pointed out, the jazz metaphor raised by Paglia is so wrong it's funny.

Sarah's tortured speech is the opposite of the quicksilver playing of a bebop saxophonist, who must negotiate tricky chord changes at a breakneck tempo. That would be more like what Barack Obama is able to do.

Sarah is like a third rate balladeer on American Idol who doesn't really have a gift for phrasing or a deep knowledge of music, but cleans up well and sings more or less on key (perhaps she makes use of a wide vibrato, rhetorically speaking, to mask her pitch uncertainties :)).

Comparing Sarah to a bop musician just shows how little Paglia knows about jazz...jazz is not just making shit up on the spurt of the moment with a week's worth of training. It's an art that requires incredible mental dexterity, years of practice, and above all, nuance and taste.

Republicans have always aired their differences in public, just not on the populist media like Limbaugh and Fox News.

The "impenetrable unified front" has always been a little more mythical than factual, even at the height of Republican power. They are quite open about the various parties-within-the-party that make up the coalition, making references to "the Forbes wing", "the SocCons" "the libertarian wing" etc. etc. As "the party of ideas", they take pride in their intellectual debates.

If you poke around (see my earlier post for three recommendations), you'll find plenty of sniping and even some thoughtful writing too. In particular, the big question seems to be whether Christian Conservatives are costing more centrist votes than they bring in fundamentalist votes. But their is more to it than that.

I'm a married guy. Like many married guys, I've had moments of doubt about my decision to marry.

That said, what's with all the bitter divorced men who act like marriage is a giant scheme to strip them of assets that wasn't revealed to them until it was too late? Divorce has been common for four decades in the United States. There is nothing new about alimony or dividing your property up with the ex. There is nothing new about custody arrangement usually favoring the mother. Them's the rules. Most men still benefit from the fact that their spouses shoulder more of the housework than they do, so when you talk about life not being fair, that goes for both sexes.

As for the Peter Pans described in City Journal...as usual, the analysis completely ignores class and geography and assumes everyone is a college-educated 21-35 yr old professional in a metro area. Strange, because this isn't Cosmopolitan or even New Woman...it's a conservative journal of ideas. Half of men today still marry having had six or fewer sexual partners. Divorce rates are lower than anytime since 1970. We have an economy that absolutely depends on the contributions of emancipated women--we can't compete internationally by rolling back women's lib (not that I'd want us to). China has more twice as many men as we have people total...and Chinese women aren't all home taking care of the one child permitted. What's the point, really, of blaming women's liberation? What does Kay S. Hymowitz propose the U.S. do? And why is economic Darwinism just fine, but every other kind of Darwinism problematic? Conservatives have such a fraught relationship with Darwin.