Maybe marriage isn't all that pleasant for the man, either

I’m not any more a reader of the Tacoma News-Tribune than I am of the Seattle Times, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t notice what it puts on its front page. Last week there was a photograph of some people partaking in something called the “Annual Polar Bear Plunge” at some place called “Driftwood Point Park” on Lake Tapps, somewhere in the state of Washington. Frankly, the whole thing is moronic, and you wish some of these people would actually get sick like they deserve to. This year, the event had a “wedding” theme, which invited men and women to wear something resembling wedding costumes into the water. Apparently the otherwise bored News-Tribune reporter thought the only thing of interest to report from this event was a couple of self-obsessed divorced women who crashed the party to symbolically remove the “taint” of their ex-husbands. One of them fashioned a “wedding dress” out of an old T-shirt that once belonged to her ex-husband; they also brought along their daughters for indoctrination purposes.

Stories like this proliferate in women’s magazines, network morning shows, afternoon talk shows, supermarket tabloids, and broadcast and print news media. In fact, everywhere you look in the “mainstream” media women are invariably portrayed as innocent vessels of “abuse” by men. Women’s advocates go ballistic when there is even a tiny deviation from this, imagining that even token criticism of women in intimate partner relationships arouses accusations of “patriarchal” bias. I’ve read complaints about how in the movies single dads are as common as single moms—thus “skewing” reality; yet outside of films like Kramer vs. Kramer, the media in both television and films portray relational conflicts almost always in favor of the female viewpoint, while rarely giving detail to the unfairness and hardships of the life of men after divorce court. I am reminded of that every time I walk past the Prosecutor’s Office for the Family Support Division in Kent. The windows of the place are blacked-out so you can’t see who is perpetrating injustices inside. 

The problem is that the perception perpetuated by activists and the media is that men are the “problem,” or at least most of it; any imperfection from the other side is just in “reaction’ to the “faults” of men. Many of these complaints seem relatively petty, such as who does what percentage of the housework; others are a matter of denial. I recall some years ago a study out of the University of Washington which was a kind of “reality show” which examined the interactions between intimate partners. It was reported in USAToday that this study seemed to show that women were just as likely or more likely to incite conflict that could be interpreted as domestic violence (at least under the broad definition usually used); the outrage this sparked from women’s advocacy groups led to “re-interpretation” of the findings, and the study was never mentioned again. 

Yet on occasion you find people like Whitney “Take me to the laaake!!!” Mongiat. Oh sure, her (ex) husband kind of “encouraged” her psychotic fit, but a 30-year-old with the emotional stability of a four-year-old can’t be all that hard to “provoke.” But the principle complaint about the YouTube video release of Mongiat’s tantrum (at least from women) is that it was released to the public at all, exposing the kind of thing that women’s advocates prefer to keep hidden; spending five minutes in the same room with someone like this can be defined as domestic violence. 

Why would any man torture himself by being married to a high-maintenance woman who has such a high opinion of herself that she thinks that the universe revolves around herself? If you don’t kowtow to her every need, then you will never hear the end of a continuous stream of complaints, grievances and criticisms. You can’t do enough to satisfy a person like this; even your own time doesn’t belong to you, but to her “needs.” There is a website called Familyscholars.org which contains a story with the following comment by someone named “Melissa,” a single mother aged 31, who claimed to have many boyfriends. “I just never felt that anyone’s as loyal to me as I am to them. Even when I feel like I’m in a good relationship, there’ll be little things that they’ll do that will make me start wondering, ‘Do they really have my back?’” Isn’t there something wrong here? “Melissa” is 31 and has had “many” boyfriends. How long did she remain “loyal” to any one of them? What were those “little” things that she herself probably exhibited in greater number? If anything, these boyfriends were probably well rid of her changeable, self-obsessed personality. 

And sometimes it never really matters in the first place. We live in a different world than when marriage was a “successful” enterprise. Back in the “old days” what could be done to occupy one’s “off time” seldom went outside the home; how one “amused” oneself was a “family affair.” It was only in stories about the idle well-off or rich did you read about “unfulfilled” women who blamed their “status” on their husbands—except that it is hard to sympathize with people who couldn’t at least occupy their time with helping people in less prosperous conditions than their own (which is why I found Kate Winslet’s character in Titanic less sympathetic than her “bad guy” fiancé). Today, the complexities of modern existence makes one’s useable time for “leisure” a precious commodity. For myself, writing this blog is my second “job,” and I spend more time in research than actual writing; thus I feel fortunate if I have a few hours left over each week, maybe to read a book or watch television. 

It thus comes down to a question of “freedom.” I suspect that many people these days who don’t have time to get to “know” each other marry out of lust, rather than love. When the “lust” has worn off, what is left? Certainly not love. Men, who probably don’t want to go through the games that women insist that they play again, are less likely to seek the conflict that leads to divorce, but women seem more “cognizant” of their loss of “freedom” and more likely than not instigate “issues” that are not meant to have a resolution that satisfies them, other than leaving the relationship. And men have much more to lose than women. Women know that if they “ask” they can get the bulk of community property and a portion of a man’s income—and more if children are involved. And depending on their age and appearance, they can always hook someone else in the same way as before. Some only wanted children to begin with; to some women, children are like pets—they are expected to give unconditional love without making “demands” of their own. 

There is this professor of psychology, Bella DePaulo, who is frequently quoted in the media as an “expert” on why it is just fine being single—for women. But let’s face facts, DePaulo is ugly as sin; while that is no crime, it is as good an explanation for her particular state as any. Nevertheless, unmarried women these days are portrayed as “strong” and “independent,” while unmarried men are still considered to have something “wrong” with them. In 1898, someone named Leon H. Hunt wrote the following in the Atlantic Monthly, and still has a ring of contemporary opinion:

On the whole, it may be conceded that this department of literature is overdone. We want books of quite another description. More interest should be taken in bachelors. Their need is greater, and their condition really deplorable. It is a misfortune to be unhappily married, but it comes near to being a disgrace not to be married at all. Marriage is a perilous undertaking, but what shall be thought of him who hesitates because it is perilous? We may not care to go to the length of affirming that bachelors are cowardly, but we must grant that they are socially nondescript. It is possible to respect a bachelor, but it is impossible to be at ease with him. Not without reason does the world speak of a married man as "settled." There is something final in the condition of a Benedict. You know where to find him, or at least you know where he should be found. But of a bachelor you know nothing. Bachelorhood is a normal condition up to a certain period in a man's life, and after that it is abnormal. He who elects to remain unmarried elects to become queer. It is wonderful how readily most men adapt themselves to the conditions of matrimonial existence. Almost any man can become a fairly respectable husband; but to be a successful bachelor implies unusual gifts. I once met in the Northwest a middleaged writer of verse who gave me four volumes of his works, "composed, printed, and bound" by himself. He said, "This country is crying for a national poet, and I want the job." But he was mistaken. This country is crying for help in taking care of its timid bachelors, help in marrying them off; and if they will not marry, help in getting them well housed and neatly mended. And the greatest need is the book which shall instruct the bachelor how to make glad the desert regions of his solitary existence, how to fill the vacuities with which his life is perforated.

Hunt notes that one “successful” bachelor who lived to the age of 92 only managed this because of his “unattractive” appearance, and his acceptance of that state. But times have changed. There are plenty of ways to rationalize what the consequences of marriage too often are: Loss of freedom, loss of money, loss of children, loss of status, loss of peace of mind. I may have briefly flirted with the possibility, but that was long ago; today, I can’t imagine being forced to genuflect to the perpetually unsatisfied needs of another person when life is so short, and I have so much I want to accomplish.

Spotty Packers didn't have any more "wishes" left to bail them out against overrated 49ers

Being a football fan can be a heart-wrenching experience, although sometimes you just have to accept the inevitable. After all, you are not the coach, even though you think you could do a better job. With first-and-goal at the nine yard line, you won’t get another set of downs unless there is a pass interference penalty in the end zone. The odds of scoring a touchdown on the ground decline radically after a first down run of one yard. So why—when your team supposedly has an “elite” quarterback and reliable receivers--do you run on second down, leaving only one more play for a pass attempt? When the Green Bay Packers thus settled for the tying field goal instead of scoring the go-ahead touchdown with 5 minutes left in their NFC Wildcard game, there must have been some wishful thinking going on that the Packer defense would come-up with a miraculous stop—or better yet, a turnover—to set-up a game-winning field goal try and escape with a miraculous victory over Colin Kaepernick and the San Francisco 49ers—a combination that had thoroughly embarrassed the Packers the last couple of turns. 

Of course it didn’t happen. Kaepernick once more left the Packers’ flatfooted while running for double digit yards at the most inopportune times. Every time the Packers needed a third down stop at a critical moment, there he goes again. Yet despite being out-played most of the game by a team most observers declared was much superior, the Packers still somehow had a chance to win this thing. After they took a 17-13 lead early in fourth quarter, it seemed like only a matter of seconds passed before the 49ers effortlessly sailed down to score a touchdown to retake the lead. The Packers did not burn off enough clock to justify not scoring a touchdown on their next possession when they had that first-and-goal; perhaps Mike McCarthy thought that if the 49ers scored, they would do so quickly as they had before, and there would still be time to respond. And once more McCarthy was out-smarted by the other side’s coach--who wanted to make certain that didn't happen. 

Even the supposed frozen weather that was supposed to immobilize Kaepernick didn’t materialize as predicted; instead of game time temperatures of -2 degrees, it was a downright “balmy” 17 degrees. For much of three quarters, it was the Packers who looked like they had never played in cold weather before. 

As a Packer fan, I’ve seen more than my fair share of disappointing results. The wild aerial circus that was the 1983 season ended with the Packers missing the playoffs on the last play of their season when Chicago kicked a field goal to win 23-21. In 2004, the Packers were a fourth-and-26 stop away from the NFC Championship game, before Donovan McNabb improbably connected on a 28-yard pass play to some nobody named Freddie Mitchell, which eventually helped propel the Philadelphia Eagles to the Super Bowl. In 2007, another Brett Favre interception in overtime against the sixth-seeded New York Giants ended a return trip to the Super Bowl. 

I suppose that deep down I realize that an 8-win team has no business beating a team that was a Seattle loss away from being the top seed from the NFC, that they were even “lucky” to be in the dance. But when you are a fan, sometimes common sense goes out the window, and you believe the even the most fanciful hallucinations, like your team has no chance unless the starting quarterback is in the game, when you know he’s “capable” of a stinker or two, like this game mostly was. Or your team’s banged-up defense will always get that interception to interrupt the opponent’s offense carving them up. You actually swallow whole the notion that your team even has a legitimate shot going all the way to the Super Bowl, like two 9-7 teams—the Arizona Cardinals and New York Giants—have done. 

Unfortunately, the Packers had already expended their three “wishes” against Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago, so when the playoffs arrived they had nothing to compensate for too-spotty play even against an overrated 49ers team--who would not even have made the playoffs themselves without last minute victories over Seattle and Arizona. It is probably better that the Packers lost now, because then the despondency that comes from being absorbed in a fantasy becomes even more pronounced the closer to the Super Bowl. It might also be pointed out that outside the 2010 Super Bowl run, Aaron Rodgers' playoff record is 1-4.

Coming out of the shadows

Following the Indianapolis Colts’ improbable come-from-behind victory over the Kansas City Chiefs in Saturday’s AFC Wildcard playoff game, certain commentators were expressing their “awe” about the continuing “legend” of Colts’ quarterback Andrew Luck. This “awe” seems to come more from hindsight than anything they thought before. In fact, Luck has been mostly in the shadow of his contemporaries Robert Griffin III, Russell Wilson, Colin Kaepernick and Cam Newton. Although Luck is just as “athletic” as these quarterbacks are running with the ball, he is seen more as a “traditional” passer, and not of the “new school” variety that has excited the fancy of the league.

The current “flavor” of quarterback “excels” in the “read option” playbook, meaning that if on pass plays the first target isn’t open, then the quarterback has the “option” of simply running with the ball, rather than stay in the pocket and look for alternate targets. The limitations of this was seen in last year’s Super Bowl, when down near the goal line with the game on the line, Kaepernick ran the same pass play on three consecutive downs, which the Baltimore Ravens’ easily defensed due to Kaepernick’s inability to switch gears and find secondary receivers. 

On the other hand, during a critical fourth quarter drive that brought the Colts back from a 28-point deficit to within three, Luck ran 11 straight plays from the no-huddle offense—all but the first advancing the ball. It was on the final play of that drive when the name “Luck” seems to be an apt one. Many a game when the Colts seemed floundering, Luck pulled a rabbit out of the hat; here, Donald Brown fumbled near the goal line, but the ball bounced straight to Luck, who carried the ball into the end zone for a touchdown (it calls to my mind a 1980 game between Green Bay and Chicago, when Packer kicker Chester Marcol’s chip shot field goal in overtime was blocked by former Vikings great Alan Page; the ball ricocheted directly into Marcol’s chest, which he ran untouched into the end zone for the winning score). Luck’s ability to run the no-huddle in this situation in only his second season is likely paralleled only by the quarterback he succeeded.

Of course there are “reasons” why Luck hasn’t received the kind of attention his more “exciting” contemporaries are. He isn’t assumed to be an “explosive” athlete who can turn a broken play into huge gain—despite the fact that he can run with the best of the “running” quarterbacks. His supposed lack of being an all-in-one quarterback has been “proven” by some lackluster games in which the Colts have been inexplicably blown out (such as losses this season to St. Louis and Arizona) in which Luck seemed more a “liability” than the solution. Luck’s numbers have also been inconsistent, his passer rating in the bottom half of the league, and the number of touchdown passes he has thrown in each of his two seasons (23) doesn’t seem to be that of an “elite” quarterback (at least not comparable to Peyton Manning’s 55 this season). 

Yet just as “inexplicably” Luck led the Colts to wins this season over the 49ers, Seattle and Denver. He has led the Colts to consecutive 11-5 seasons despite the team being technically in a “rebuilding” phase. While these other quarterbacks are on teams with solid defenses, and  rely on the running game to take the pressure off the passing game, Luck has operated for most of the season with a virtually non-existent  running game and occasionally inconsistent defensive play. Trent Richardson has proven to be a disastrous acquisition, and fumbled on his only touch against the Chiefs; meanwhile, Kansas City quarterback Alex Smith had the best game of his career, completing 30 of 46 passes for 378 yards, four touchdowns and no interceptions in leading his team to 44 points. 

Yet down at one point 38-10 in the third quarter, Luck never flagged. After his first pass of the second half was intercepted, he settled down to 17 of 23 passing for 314 yards and three touchdowns; his interception in that run was in fact  a completed pass that  T.Y. Hilton juggled from his arms into that of the defender’s. Hilton later atoned on the 64-yard touchdown pass from Luck that won the game. Perhaps few thought such a comeback was possible, yet Luck’s ability as a “traditional” quarterback who plays from the pocket to search for multiple targets served him well in this game.

One suspects that it will take a Super Bowl run for Luck to come out from the shadows of the likes of Newton, Kaepernick, Wilson and RGIII; but with this win he may have actually started to change minds that are only now just beginning to “see.”

A New Year's resolution for 2014: Ignore the coming avalanche of rhetoric, and kick out those do-nothing House Republicans

With the New Year upon us, what do we have to look forward to?  Well, we are going to have to suffer another year of non-stop partisan political grandstanding, in which we will be told ad nauseam by Republicans what they are against, and not what exactly they are for. It is going on four years since the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have taken productive action on any law or bill since the new majority was elected in 2010; that is really the only thing we need to know. 

What chance is there to change this, meaning ending the Tea Party stranglehold on government business? Probably not much about those so-called Tea Party people, save to elect more “reasonable” people under the Republican banner. We (or rather, the media) can start by calling these people by their right names; the Tea Party is merely the extremist fringe of the Republican Party, elected in districts that are rabidly Republican to start with. All they have done is give themselves a “cute” name and all of a sudden they have the relevance and power out of all proportion.

But what the Tea Party is in fact is a façade to conceal racial paranoia. It is no “coincidence” that the Tea Party was formed practically the day after Barack Obama was elected in 2008; the election of a black man drove these people insane with nightmare visions of a world where the “bottom rail” is on “top.” The talk about the budget, debt and taxes was always a shibboleth, because they didn’t seem to mind much about it during the Bush years when the Republicans controlled all branches of government.  What this is really about is their fear of “income redistribution” if it benefits people who isn’t a “real,” white American—as they envision themselves.

As for the “non-radical” Right House districts, Republicans have spared no effort to insure that their “RedMap” strategy since the 2008 election has borne fruit. Despite the fact that in both 2010 and 2012 more votes were cast for Democratic candidates than Republicans in the House, Republicans still won a large majority of seats both times. The Republican State Leadership Committee hasn’t bothered to conceal its strategy:

As the 2010 Census approached, the RSLC began planning for the subsequent election cycle, formulating a strategy to keep or win Republican control of state legislatures with the largest impact on congressional redistricting as a result of reapportionment. That effort, the REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP), focused critical resources on legislative chambers in states projected to gain or lose congressional seats in 2011 based on Census data.

The rationale was straightforward:  Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.  Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.

What it has been concealed has been its tactics.  In Wisconsin,  redistricting was done in secret by a law firm hired by Republicans; a lawsuit demanding the release of records of how the redistricting was done revealed that “hundreds of thousands” of relevant files were destroyed. How did the Republicans win 13 out of 18 House seats in Pennsylvania in 2012 when Democrats won a majority of the total House candidate vote?  Some claim that it is due to geography, not to gerrymandering by Republicans, because Democratic-leaning voters tend to reside in more compact urban areas, while Republican voters tend to be more spread out in rural areas. But how can this be? House districts are supposed to be divided into equal population units of 710,000 people. This argument only makes sense if Democrats win by significantly higher margins in the urban districts than Republicans do in rural districts.  

Others, such as the Princeton Election Consortium, believe that gerrymandering has had a far greater effect on the House swing than “structural” considerations. “Packing” votes tightly in certain districts, and diluting opposition votes elsewhere—often with the help of computer software that makes this something than can be constructed in a matter of hours—is the principle method of achieving this result. According to the PEC, Republican gerrymandering had a five times greater effect on the House turnaround than any other variable; gerrymandered districts accounted for nearly the entire change of seats from Democrat to Republican.

This suggests that the Republicans have high-jacked government business by fraud, and the supposed “shift” of the electorate to the right after 2008 is more myth than  reality. Claims after the 2008 elections that the Republican Party was “dead” were obviously self-serving hyperbole; on the other hand, the impression left by the media that the Tea Party signified a “dramatic” shift in the public mood was proven to be overstated by Obama rather handily winning reelection and the Democrats gaining seats in the Senate in 2012.  

Nevertheless, Republicans control the governorships and legislatures in six states that are nominally Democratic-leaning nationally—Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Gaining control of such states’ redistricting process—and passing voter suppression laws—have had the effect of taking election process away from voters who do not normally vote in the manner that puts Republicans in control. Before the last term ended, the Republican-controlled legislature in Wisconsin passed a new voter ID bill, laws that cut absentee voting hours, made it more difficult for people with special needs to vote , and authorized the employment of thuggish “poll watchers” to harass presumably “Democratic-looking” voters.

Wisconsin Republicans also passed a measure to make recall elections nearly impossible.  Many have questioned how this formerly “progressive” state can tolerate such regressive actions that disenfranchise the electorate; some speculate that this is due to the influence of the alliance of “big money” and the religious right in the state. Another factor may be the influence of illegal “dark money”—in which the Koch Brothers are implicated—which is currently part of “John Doe” investigation in the state. 

What we need to realize is that Republicans are all about power—for themselves and their billionaire backers. In fact, Republicans these days are little more than “fronts” hand-picked by the corporate powers behind the scenes. They use the propaganda of fear—particularly racial fear—to keep enough  of the below the median wage white voters in line.  What people with broader minds must do is see Republican partisan rhetoric for what it is, and send the message that we have seen what they “stand” for, and it is time to drop the chute on them.