2004 Olympia, Wash. -

Liberal losers
Democrats lost a lot, and a lot of liberals are wallowing in the loss.

Posted November 27, 2004 9:00AM PST

Being sore losers, the leftist loons are acting like the sweeping Republican victory earlier this month was a crime. It's all sour grapes:

The ultracreepy Mr. DeLay de‑pantsed Democrats on Friday, sneering: "I understand the Democrat Party's adjustment to their national minority status is frustrating, but their crushing defeat … should show them that the American people are tired of the politics of personal destruction."

Well, yeah. Watching Bush supporters shred a war hero into a war criminal was tiring. — Absolute Power Erupts, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 21, 2004

Most of the right‑wing whackos' attacks on President Clinton were "the politics of personal destruction." Michael Moore's French‑approved attacks on President Bush, like Fahrenheit 9⁄11, were "the politics of personal destruction." But the political proctology exam to which both Republicans and Democrats subjected the opposition candidate was just due diligence. Messy, questionably invasive, at times, but necessary.

And the only reason Kerry's war record became such a huge issue, was because he made it a huge issue. To whine that the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth shredded "a war hero into a war criminal" is simply to ignore that most of what the Swifties said was both accurate and true.

To be fair, what is accurate it not always the truth. Take, for example, Dowd's complaint about the Department of Homeland Security:

This most secretive administration wants to stop the public from getting any facts that might challenge its story line.

The Department of Homeland Security is making employees and contractors sign pledges barring them from telling the public about sensitive but unclassified information. — Absolute Power Erupts, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 21, 2004

This is accurate, but it ignores the larger truth, which is that this has been common practice in private enterprise: for more than a decade, most corporations have required employees to sign nondisclosure agreements.

Dowd's diatribe continues:

The White House says it wants greater harmony, but it's acting like the thought police. Having run into resistance in their bid for global domination, the president and vice president are going for federal domination, pushing out anyone with independent judgment who puts democracy above ideology.

It's a paradoxical game plan: imposing democracy abroad while impeding it here. — Absolute Power Erupts, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 21, 2004

More sour grapes. Nothing President Bush has done can be construed as a "bid for global domination." Indeed, her contention that he's "imposing democracy abroad" contradicts it. And to say he is impeding democracy here ignores that he and the Republican party just won the largest number of votes in history. All of which tells us that Dowd, and liberals like her, are losers.

Losing sucks. I know pretty much all there is to know on the subject. But, the sniping of certain right‑wing pundits, like Kirby Wilbur and Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, losing isn't what makes you a loser.

The difference between losing and being a loser is, a loser wallows in the loss rather than learning from it and moving on. And a lot of Democrats, like Dowd, are wallowing in their loss:

Efficiency, economics and the environment
Smokestacks don't produce what we don't buy

Posted November 19, 2004 6:00AM PT

As the son of a retired‑Boeing engineer, with a degree in business management, I like efficiency almost as much as I like profits. But as a green‑blooded son of the Emerald City, I like my hills forested, my valleys verdant, and my inland waters teeming with life. This is why I don't understand the fight between leftist loons and right‑wing whackos over global warming:

Rush Limbaugh, the nation's leading talk-show host and normally a strong supporter of President Bush and the Republican agenda, today ridiculed the administration's apparent flip-flop on global warming, … "I don't believe there is any conclusive evidence of global warming," he said. "And I certainly don't believe that it can be attributed to human activity—and particularly not by activity by the United States. That is the political agenda behind the global warming scare. It is an anti‑West, anti‑U.S., anti‑free enterprise movement." — Limbaugh excoriates Bush on global warming, Talk‑show host wonders aloud how things might have been different under Gore, © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, June 3, 2002

Except there is evidence of global warming:

(Senator John McCain) took testimony from highly respected scientists who appeared one after another with more bad news about global warming. … The culprits were called by their names. They were automobile exhaust and smokestack emissions. Both help create the infamous greenhouse effect, which, the most recent findings show, is making its impact felt in the polar regions where the glaciers and ice sheets are melting. — McCain has right take on environment, Stanley Crouch, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, November 19, 2004

While it should be obvious that wild‑eyed predictions—like The Day After Tomorrow—are environmentalist propaganda, scare‑tactics of the very sort attributed to the Bush Administration by such towering paragons (or is that "bloated blowhard"?) of virtue as Michael Moore, the evidence remains:

One of the most dramatic speakers was Drew Shindell, an expert on climate, who said that without changes in human behavior, we can look forward to the dry areas of the world becoming drier, while the northern regions suffer increasingly heavy rainfalls and sea levels rise due to those melting ice sheets and glaciers. — McCain has right take on environment, Stanley Crouch, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, November 19, 2004

How should conservatives respond to this? After consulting with many Boeing engineers, and spending countless hours pouring through scientific texts, I have come to the conclusion that to solve the world's problems we must turn to one of the most venerated sources of geek wisdom. Yes, Popular Mechanics magazine.

Along with other cool sources of engineering smartness, like Popular Science, we find solutions that combine barnyard wisdom with high tech know‑how to produce solutions to all of the world's problems. Or, at least give us some ideas about how to solve some of them.

These ideas combine the cutting edge with practicality, the principles of conservation with the principals of profits, and commerce with conservation. Not to mention a lot of other fun stuff.

Engineering is the door, economics is the lock, and efficiency is the key. On this side of the door, the problems caused by the technologies we have harnessed to solve older problems, on the other side, solutions to those problems. But these newer solutions cost money. Hence, the resistance from some, such as Rush Limbaugh, who assure us all is well with the world as long as we continue to drive our gas‑guzzling SUVs.

But his platitudes are a mirror image of the environmentalists' warnings.

The environmentalist extremists tell us we are doomed unless we return to the pristine pureness of an economy that relied on older technologies that, while less efficient, also affected only the local environment, rather than the global climate. But those older technologies cannot feed the world's hungry, they can't produce cures for the world's diseases, they can't care for the aged, and so they require that many of us must die.

The reasonable approach rejects this, as well as the other extreme.

We know our technologies pollute. Extremists on one side say that doesn't matter at all, while extremists on the other say it matters more than anything else. Reasonably, we accept that it matters and that we want to replace them with more efficient technologies, but those technologies need to be economical enough for us to afford them, and profitable enough for businesses to produce them.

Being reasonable, we know that global warming is not a crisis, yet, but that it will become a crisis if we put it off too long. So the question for reasonable people is, do we put it off, or do we exert pressure to make solutions enough of a priority to prevent it from becoming a crisis? The reasonable answer is to assure it doesn't become a crisis.

The way to assure this, is to change our consumption habits. The smokestacks won't produce what we don't buy.

Finding happiness through hyperbole
What does the fascist flavor of anti‑conservative commentary reveal?

Posted November 17, 2004 6:10AM PST

Although it once provided a jealous manager with an excuse to fire me, I like hyperbole. The subtle art of overstatement, through which dramatic descriptions bring attention to a small point. It is a subtle art, however, as overuse of figurative language can turn salient issues into tired clichés.

A prominent example of this, is the tendency among political commentators to overuse huffy adjectives to describe the opposition. We all do it, to some extent. The humorless loons on the left often point to Rush Limbaugh as a particularly egregious example. Maybe because they have no sense of humor, they think he really means it when he describes himself as "all‑knowing" and "all‑caring."

For whatever reason, however, while the hyperbole on the right is generally light‑hearted and playfully jocular, on the left it has a fascist flavor: their tone tells you they're deadly serious. Maureen Dowd's recent frothing about Christian conservatives is a case in point:

I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob—revved up by rectitude—running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels. — Slapping the Other Cheek, by Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 14, 2004

Following this condemnatory cry of fearful projection, her characterization of Arlen Specter's critics makes them sound like Puritans on a witch hunt:

The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74‑year‑old Arlen Specter through the Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee. — Slapping the Other Cheek, by Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 14, 2004

She ambles down a diatribe laced with such terms as "bloodthirsty feelings of revenge," "mob family," merciless "power puritans," and "ruthless efficacy," only to conclude with…nothing.

There is no point, and that's the point. The purpose of her tart little rant was simply to smear. Like a narcissistic queen bee abandoned by her drones, Dowd lets fly with a swarm of stinging invectives that express her feelings but tell us nothing about why we should share them. They may, however, reveal much about her own motives.

Everything we say about others expresses, in varying degree, unconscious projections of what we think about our self. The question is, to what extent is Dowd talking about herself? Why is she so afraid of people who hold strong religious convictions?

Although I am a non‑Christian conservative—I believe in God, but not Jehovah—I don't share her fear of Christians. To the contrary, many of my good friends are Christians. But I also have friends who are Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, a Sikh, Jewish and agnostic. So her fright seems silly, to me. But I think I understand.

What she's telling us, is that if she had the power, she would act with "bloodthirsty feelings of revenge," like a member of a "mob family" and a merciless "power puritan," to eradicate her opposition with "ruthless efficacy."

Now that's scary!

The hate-filled left
Leftists come out of the closet

Posted November 14, 2004 11:10AM PST

For decades, the left assured us that what distinguishes them, is that they are the "people who care about people." This, we have heard so much that it's a stereotype. But the stereotype never reflected what most of us experience, and was always claimed more often than confirmed:

A common and stereotypical depiction of Liberals and Conservatives is, "Liberals care about people while Conservatives care only about themselves." Another tired maxim has it "Liberals are Labor, Conservatives are Business." This simplistic caricature of the philosophical differences between Liberals and Conservatives is inaccurate and intellectually lazy. — The difference between Conservatives & Liberals, by Jerome Murray, Ph.D., 1992

While conservatives knew it wasn't true, and a lot of folks in the middle suspected it was false, it wasn't until the campaign of 2004 that we had confirmation from the left. What motivates them isn't love, caring, concern or enlightenment, but hatred:

"We hate Bush. We despise Bush," said the 17‑year‑old film student with hair bleached sunny yellow and thoughts of someday having a same‑sex spouse. He hails from Lebanon and has roots in Russia. "People there hate Bush, too." — Canadians ask: What were you thinking?, by M.L. Lyke, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, November 10, 2004

Everywhere on the Internet, people on the left proclaim their hate for Bush:

We are Americans, and we hate Bush. — Why we hate Bush

Why the vitriol? Personally, I think it arises from fanatical true believers, for whom a belief in their "progressive" truths depends upon demonizing those whom they oppose:

In short, the Left hates George W. Bush for who he is rather than what he does. Southern conservatism, evangelical Christianity, a black‑and‑white worldview, and a wealthy man's disdain for elite culture — none by itself earns hatred, of course, but each is a force multiplier of the other and so helps explain the evolution of disagreement into pathological venom. — On Loathing Bush, by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, August 13, 2004

Nonetheless, many throughout the world were shocked when we re‑elected Bush, and wonder what we were thinking.

What we were thinking, is that we need a leader who won't be cowed by critics into inaction when action is clearly warranted..

We were thinking we need a leader who knows and understands the principles that guide him, and applies those principles to solve rather than ignore the problems that confront us.

We were thinking that what two young men did 30 years ago mattered less than what they had done during the time since.

We were thinking that America stands for something good, great and decent, and we want a leader who stands for America.

And we were thinking that this man is George W. Bush.

Liberals advocate tyranny
War is a terrible thing, but there are times when peace is worse.

Posted November 14, 2004 11:10AM PST

On January 16, 1991, my friend Ann rushed into my office, at Microsoft where we both worked, to tell me that Operation Desert Storm had begun. We were at war with Iraq. But I had already heard the news, and when she found me weeping, with a snort she turned and rushed out the door.

As it happened, 4 months after that our department head, Nell, jealous of a compliment I paid to Ann, accused me of sexual harassment, and 6 months later fired me, sending me down a path of poverty, publishing and solitude, as I became expert on the subjects of sexual harassment, feminist dogma, and the tactics employed by the left.

These tactics include the "big lie," in which repetition and volume fill in for fact to make a thing true. And the left is employing this tactic with vigor in their mischaracterization of the war in Iraq.

One example of this is their characterization of conservatives as "obtuse," "stupid" and "complacent." Another is their oversimplification of the war on terror:

What about the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11? Unless my memory is faulty, I don't recall that they hailed from Iraq. But Bush has to have his deadly snipe hunt in Iraq anyway. — George W. Bush's Iraq, Scott C. Smith, Democratic Underground, September 29, 2004

That there were no Iraqis involved in 9⁄11 is, of course, true. The point often made, however, is that we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, instead. In this, critics ignore several realities: We had diplomatic relations with the Saudi government; officially, the Saudis opposed terrorism; to engage Saudi Arabia would be to engage the entire gulf region; and the terrorist network employs people from many nations.

Meanwhile, there were several compelling reasons to follow Afghanistan with Iraq. For one, the Hussein regime was actively supporting terrorists and promoting anti‑American terrorism. This has never been a secret; indeed, Hussein made a very big deal about it. As such, he posed a direct threat to the security of the United States, the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding.

Beyond his support of world‑wide terrorist activities, however, were other "frosting on the cake" reasons, including the following:

1. Deposing the tyrant liberated the Iraqi people from an oppressive and brutal regime.
2. The world‑wide network of terrorists are like swarms of biting insects. To kill one deters none. But drawing them to Iraq, where we can engage them in more conventional warfare, reduces the advantage afforded them by the anonymity in which they ordinarily operate.
3. Replacing Hussein with a government that has no ambition of conquering their neighbors will help stabilize the region.
4. Establishing a democratic government in Iraq will create a second beachhead against tyranny in the Middle East, alongside Israel.
5. The sanctions against Iraq provided Hussein with the means to blame the U.S. for his own atrocities. Ending the need for sanctions will now provide us with the opportunity to forge an alliance between the Iraqi and American people.
6. A prosperous and democratic Iraq, wedged as it is between Syria and Iran, will provide a political buffer.

There are many more reasons, but stabilizing the region ranks high on the list. During the past year‑and‑a‑half, one of my primary sources about the war on terror has been the weekly reports I receive from Strategic Forecasting, which provides invaluable insights into international affairs. Another, whom I've acknowledged before, is Michael Medved.

War is a terrible thing, but there are times when peace is worse, a fact protesters against this war evidently reject:

"I'm here to march for peace and just get our point across. We want to get out of Iraq, get our troops back and help rebuild people's lives over there that we've destroyed," (Jessica Davis) said. "And I hope that the Iraqi people and the Middle East people see that not all Americans support the war over there." — War-protest crowd ranges from babies to "grannies", by Judy Chia Hui Hsu, Seattle Times Snohomish County Bureau, November 07, 2004

To advocate peace over the war we have engaged in Iraq is to advocate for the continued tyranny of Saddam Hussein, his support of terrorism, his ambition to conquer his neighbors, and lasting unrest in the Middle East. Such a peace would have been far worse, for America, for the world and the Iraqi people, than this war.

Kerry's "conservative style"
Indian Country Today's endorsement of John Kerry is an embarrassment

Posted November 1, 2004 8:00PM PST

It was no surprise when Indian Country Today endorsed John Kerry. Despite a terrific year‑long Indian Country Today series, by Jerry Reynolds, assessing the presidents, from Nixon to Bush, in which they noted and praised the accomplishments of the current administration, it was very clear that the paper would come out in favor of Kerry:

Democrats have unified as rarely seen before and thrown their full support behind John Kerry. They should. They have a very decent, thoughtful and personally conservative man for a candidate: reasonable, patient, experienced man in the tempest of a chaotic, complex and unpredictable world. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

They're right. Despite that many Democrats see him as the lesser of two evils, I, along with many other conservatives, fully agree that John Kerry is a very decent and thoughtful man, and that he is reasonable, patient and experienced. Though not "personally conservative." But then, the editors at Indian Country Today probably have no more than a popular dictionary definition understanding of what "conservatism" actually is.

Almost two years ago, a close friend of mine—a dyed‑in‑the‑wool liberal Democrat who died only a few months ago—told me that most Americans have no real understanding of conservatism. He was irritated at me for calling myself a "libertarian conservative." Taking the hint, I went looking for a book to remedy my ignorance, and found The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. What an eye‑opener!

As I read Kirk's book, a large portion of my college education suddenly made sense, and not in an agreeable way. Jean Jacques Rousseau's nonsensical notions, which we had been taught—in the University of Washington School of Business, of all places!—as gospel, fell into context, where I clearly saw them for a fraud. No wonder they had never made any sense to me! Yet, his fantasies are key principles of liberalism, as a political philosophy.

A time was, that Democrat politics diverged as much from liberal principles as Republican politics does from conservative principles. But these days, with most of every flavor of conservatism loosely entrenched in the Republican party, there's little of conservatism left in the Democrat party: It has given over, almost entirely, to the same utopian ideas that motivated Marx and, worse, Hitler. Fortunately, most Democrats don't subscribe to those principles, which is why the Democrat party, as it exists today, is doomed. That's also why good people, like those at Indian Country Today, have, in good conscience, endorsed John Kerry.

What surprises me, however, is the mean‑spirited way they did it, dredging up standard liberal muck and slinging it at Bush without proof or apology, calling the eye‑witnesses to John Kerry's acts in Vietnam "brutal and deceptive," accusing them of slander and describing them as "disgruntled Republican operatives from the Nixon era."

They also attacked Bush on several levels, accusing him of being "instinctual," rather than intuitive, lacking integrity and competence, and, clearly pandering to the left's intolerance of religion, they attack his faith.

Proudly based on blind faith and a willingness to dismiss reasonable discourse, the GOP leadership even dangerously shuns scientific findings in support of a religious fervor that tolerates little or no variance of viewpoints on social, medical, or increasingly, political issues. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

Obviously, they are referring, by implication rather than honest statement, to his policy on stem cell research and position on gay marriage. These are both areas where the left has consistently lied, saying that Bush has banned stem cell research, and that Bush is attacking gays. But the truth is that he only limited federal funding of stem cell research, and that he sided with President Clinton, who signed the defense of marriage act in 1996:

Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it. — Anti gay marriage act clears Congress, CNN, September 10, 1996

This is not to say that all their accusations are without merit. Just misdirected:

Pushing Republican John Thune against incumbent Tom Daschle (D) in the South Dakota Senate race, (Pat Robertson) said on his Christian Broadcasting Network that "massive fraud" in the voting on Indian reservations will affect the closely watched Senate race. "The thing that I think is concerning many is the fraud on the Indian reservations. People go in there, and they … take advantage of people that are not totally literate or, I don't know what they do, but there has been massive fraud," he said. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

If Robertson said those things, then he's an old man out of touch with the times. They also lambasted Rush Limbaugh, who pounced on the story with "there those Injuns go again" kinds of statements that are typical of him. However, while their knee‑jerk prejudice against Indians is inexcusable, there really is voter fraud on Indian Reservations in South Dakota:

More importantly and recently, Democratic‑paid bounty hunters entice Indian voters to absentee ballot (early vote) at remote polls called "county satellites." Those bounty hunters enjoy pointing at a candidate's name on the ballot to ensure their candidate is selected while saying, "Kerry, Daschle, Herseth," etc. Bounty Hunters coach voters and essentially repeatedly become voters-by-proxy. … I am deeply saddened that Indians allow Daschle to hold "secret" meetings, vote to create corpses in a mother's womb, create communism across Indian reservations and exploit Indians during election years. — Exploits Indians, by Bruce Whalen, Rapid City Journal, October 18, 2004

Whalen, an Oglala Lakota of the Pine Ridge reservation, wrote in an email that he "witnessed testimony by voters and bounty hunters" concerning this, and that Democrat operatives will do their best to deny it, "but my own eyes do not deceive me."

Should Indian Country Today really be lambasting President Bush over this? Obviously, not. Not anymore than they should have trotted out the tired old liberal lament about the dead in Iraq:

Now with over 1,000 dead American soldiers and over 20,000 dead Iraqis (who among them al Qaeda?), and a chaotic spiral of violence passing for "liberation," we have much difficulty with this war, its now discredited justifications, its epic mismanagement and its current results that include hundreds if not thousands of dead innocents, including women and children. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

All these deaths are tragic, they are sad, but let's put the numbers in perspective. During his reign of terror, Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Fewer Iraqi people have died during this engagement as a direct result of this engagement.

Second, if 20,000 dead Iraqis and more than 1,000 dead American soldiers is reason for us to disengage, then what should we do in response to 43,220 Americans who were killed during 2003? That's how many Americans died from traffic "accidents," last year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The killing of good people, of innocents, is always a sad thing. Sad, whether at the hands of terrorists, sad, whether as "collateral damage," and equally sad when killed on our highways. Qualitatively, there is no difference. Conservatives "get it." Democrats, or at least the liberal ones, don't.

For Indian Country Today to have a bad opinion of Bush is one thing. For them to prefer Kerry is fine. If they want to endorse Kerry, more power to them. But to attack Bush on the basis of tired old muck that didn't stick to the wall the first several thousand times it was slung, impugns not Bush and the Republican party, but Indian Country Today and, by extension, all of Indian country.

Sad as all that is, however, the worst is that, in a stilly stunt intended to try to preempt the fact that we, correctly, identified Indian country as being fundamentally, in principle and in tradition, conservative, they are calling Kerry a conservative. And to support this, they rely on several false or insupportable statements. Beginning with attributing more intelligence to Kerry:

He has communicated clearly his commitment to lead the American people from a position of studied and well-informed planning, under strategies that include a higher intellectual rigor. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

What they rely on, is his well‑known proclivity for taking every position on every issue: e.g., "I voted for…before I voted against." Kerry is indecisive. Carter was, too, and look at all the trouble that caused us.

Next, they parrot Kerry's original campaign theme:

Kerry, the only actual war hero in the race, a decorated officer who faced deadly combat in his time and then came back to a courageous and risky role of war critic, in short, appears ready for a major role in international affairs. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

This is really embarrassing. First, was Bush Sr.'s heroic military service relevant when he ran against Clinton? No, although the fact that Clinton is a draft‑dodger ought to have been relevant. Was Bob Dole's heroic military service relevant when he ran against Clinton? Again, no. So why is the questionable military service of John Kerry relevant? It's not.

But it is relevant to point out that Kerry's assertion that he will rebuild American credibility and support abroad is predicated upon ignoring that France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq, and oppose us today, because they corrupted the "oil for food" program, they were set to make tankers full of money off Saddam, and then Bush blew the deal for them. The only way Kerry can win back their good will, is with bribes. And, as others have pointed out, the only way he can win support from everybody else, is to sacrifice Israel.

So, just why do the editors at Indian Country Today say that Kerry is conservative? Because of his style:

But the pulse of Indian country clearly beats more in time with John Kerry's. He projects and has the grasp of a more conservative style—a statesmanlike approach commensurate with managing a world crisis such as we are now facing. — John Kerry is conservative choice for President, Indian Country Today, October 22, 2004

This demonstrates, better than anything else, that they don't understand what "conservatism" is, or that they base their understanding on the single‑sentence definition found in most popular dictionaries. "Style" has nothing to do with it; substance, has everything to do with it. Kerry may be a man of means, but he is, by no means, a man of conservative substance.

I like Indian Country Today, I really do. A great deal of what they have published is of tremendous value, very insightful, historically significant, and just plain newsy. But, while I would have preferred them to endorse Bush, I wasn't troubled by their endorsement of Kerry. What does trouble me, is how they did it.

It would have been better, had they simply followed the lead of others in Indian country, who made it clear that their vote is bought by Kerry's promises that he would give us more money. That, at least, would have been honest.

Appreciating Osama?
Does Washington state policy require employees to approve terrorism?

Posted October 31, 2004 2:50PM PST

A year ago, on November 1, 2003, the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services issued an updated and revised version of its administrative policy on Discrimination and Harassment Prevention. Some of it is perfectly reasonable, but, typically, much of it is a compilation of politically correct nonsense.

One new item, in particular, stands out. It defines harassment in such a way that, incredibly, an employee could be required to express approval of terrorism, because "lack of appreciation" is now defined as harassment.

"Hostile work environment" includes harassment on the basis of gender (sexual harassment) and harassment as a lack of appreciation and respect for diversity in the workplace based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, disabled veterans status, Vietnam Era veterans status, disability, age (over 40), sexual orientation, marital status, use of a trained guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability or any other protected class. — Administrative Policy No. 6.02—Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services, November 1, 2003

So if a coworker expresses admiration for Osama bin Laden, not only am I required to respect their opinion, but also to express approval of their creed.

We have to chop things pretty fine to understand why, but this is precisely what happens when political correctness sides against common sense. So to defend against liberal lunacy, we have to do it, too.

By definition, appreciation is, among other things, a judgment or opinion, especially a favorable one. The opposite of "lack of appreciation" is the expression of appreciation. Creed, by definition, includes a system of belief, principles, or opinions. Consequently, by definition, if we do not express a favorable opinion of a person's system of beliefs, principles or opinions, then we are, under this policy, guilty of harassment.

This means that employees of the state of Washington who work for DSHS can now be required to show approval for terrorists if one of our coworkers praises Osama bin Ladin.

Husband hunting
Are sexually provocative clothes appropriate in the workplace?

Posted October 31, 2004 2:50PM PST

Is sexual conduct in the workplace okay? According to advice columnist Daneen Skube, it is if you're "husband hunting":

Q: My co-worker wears provocative outfits, heavy makeup and seriously large hair. She gets tons of attention. Is playing sexy at work actually helpful to your job?

A: Only if you're looking for a husband and not a career. — Interpersonal Edge, by Daneen Skube, Seattle Times, October 31, 2004

Ignoring what's politically correct, reasonable people know that it's normal and natural for women and men to engage in mating rituals and courtship behaviors. That includes the workplace, and the hypersensitivity of feminist freaks aside, people are gonna do it.

There's nothing the mad scientists of the loony left in their liberal lab coats can do about it, no matter how many lawsuits they file and how many regulations they pass in their effort to mold humankind to fit their ideological view of the world.

As I have pointed out many times since 1992 (see Sexual Harassment, by Rod Van Mechelen), however, the fallout from the heyday of fascist feminism includes the fact that women who dress provocatively at work are sexually harassing their male coworkers.

According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Ellison v. Brady (1991), provocative outfits can also be construed as hostile environment sexual harassment.

This is not explicitly stated in the opinions, but when this landmark case established that there is a unique "reasonable woman standard," the court explicitly stated that in cases when the alleged victim is male, the appropriate standard is of a "reasonable man."

To most men, a woman in a "provocative outfit" is engaging in "conduct of a sexual nature." Hence, if it is unwanted and has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile work environment, then it can be actionable sexual harassment.

Would heterosexual male coworkers not want a female coworker to dress sexy? Consider this: Men know that if they pay attention, that puts them at risk of being accused of sexual harassment. Not by the woman who's showing off, but by her female coworkers, who are likely to resent the attention she draws to herself.

Consequently, a "reasonable man" will not want female coworkers engaging in "conduct of a sexual nature," such as by wearing low cut tops, tight pants or short skirts, because if some do, he will naturally take notice, and when he does, some of his other female coworkers will resent it and be inclined to accuse him of "conduct of a sexual nature," thereby putting his job at risk.

Insane? Of course it is. But so is androphobia, and most of the liberal lunacy that marches with fists held high under the misandrist banner of feminism.