« Murthafuckas | Main | Dark-Sided »

November 20, 2005

What Came First, the Chickenhawk or the Egg?

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

On October 26, 1965, the military lifted its ban on drafting childless married men.

On July 28, 1966, Dick Cheney's eldest child, Elizabeth Cheney was born. That's nine months and two days after the military lifted its ban. This earned him his fifth deferment from the draft.

I'm not saying that Elizabeth Cheney should feel bad about being conceived in draft avoidance. People get conceived under embarrassing circumstances fairly often, and I'd feel pretty good about my existence preventing my Dad from having to fight in a bad war. I do wonder, though, what draft avoidance sex is like.

November 20, 2005 in Republicans | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83496c2c969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Came First, the Chickenhawk or the Egg?:

Comments

I do wonder, though, what draft avoidance sex is like.

Desperate, mechanical, and Republican?

Posted by: JimPortandOR | Nov 20, 2005 3:02:01 PM

I just think it's impressive Dick got the job done on literally the first try. Say what you want about his smirk or evil conscience- he's living up to his name.

Posted by: SP | Nov 20, 2005 5:55:44 PM

Have you no shame, sir? At long last, have you no decency?

Posted by: Mastiff | Nov 20, 2005 7:35:56 PM

The depths to which you stoop to insult your political opponents continue to disgust me.

Posted by: Mastiff | Nov 20, 2005 7:37:15 PM

Uh, Mastiff, do you think that draft avoidance sex wasn't going on? Or do you think it's not worthy of comment? As the above post suggests, I find it sort of amusing.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Nov 20, 2005 7:44:20 PM

Yeah, the other side of the debate is so high-minded, aren't they? They say nasty things about the people who actually fought in the war. People like Cheney are people you want to defend?

And, besides, do you laugh? Ever? I thought Neil's post was pretty funny.

Posted by: Pepper | Nov 20, 2005 7:46:56 PM

I think Mastiff is upset because it is improper to bring sex into political debates. The least we can do is model the same respect for individual's personal lives/behaviors that the Republicans show each day.

Oh, wait. . .

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 20, 2005 8:58:03 PM

Good to see you guys have set aside research into Clarence Thomas' college movie rentals and started keeping tabs on Lynn Cheney's ovulation cycles.

And you wonder why you're the minority party.....

Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2005 9:28:58 AM

Not just draft avoidance sex, but draft avoidance sex with Lynn Cheney. Uhhhuhuhuhuh. (shudder)

I agree with my esteemed colleagues from the right: It's far worse to speculate on the private intimate life of a stranger than it is to publicly comment on your foes' patriotism or devotion to country.

Posted by: Jimmm | Nov 21, 2005 9:42:07 AM

Ummm, Clarence who? We're the ones who obsess over sex? We're the ones who drag people's private lives into the public sphere and use them as political fodder?

Projection:

In psychoanalytic theory, a mechanism of defense in which various forbidden thoughts and impulses are attributed to another person rather than the self, thus warding off some anxiety (e.g., "I hate you" becomes "You hate me").

Most health plans cover a certain number of counseling visits each year. If you are a Republican and you think that Democrats are the ones who obsess over and want to regulate the sex lives of complete strangers, you may want to avail yourself of this benefit.

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 21, 2005 10:13:32 AM

I guess its not just me then. This is a pretty low blow and not worth the space taken up on Ezra's blog.

Posted by: Adrock | Nov 21, 2005 10:57:05 AM

"We're the ones who drag people's private lives into the public sphere and use them as political fodder?"

Uh, yeah, that's what this post did. What part don't you understand?

Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2005 2:48:18 PM

My dad's number was coming up for Vietnam, he learned from the draft board, and so they got busy and had me. I am proud to contribute to draft evasion. My ancestors fled Germany to avoid the draft too. Let those who want wars fight the wars.

Posted by: Aaaargh | Nov 21, 2005 3:17:12 PM

Uh, yeah, that's what this post did. What part don't you understand?

Sorry, RW. I was thinking about dragging people's personal lives into national political debates, launching investigations into every relationship they've ever had and then having pundits discuss them on the nightly news, trying to pass amendments to the Constitution regulating personal relationships, sentencing 18-year-olds to 17 years in prison for having (gay) sex with an underage kid when (straight) sex would have only gotten him 1 year, if that - you know, stuff that matters more than a couple of people chuckling over propitious timing. I guess I forgot conservative logic, which says that writing books with unfounded speculation on a person's sexual orientation and/or affairs they have had (and getting excerpts in newspapers and on TV before it's published) is less hurtful than this post on this blog.

You people just do not get it. Ever.

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 22, 2005 12:24:21 AM

Somehow I have been labeled a Puritain for objecting to this post. Those who know me probably realize how absurd that characterization is.

I have no problem with "bringing sex into political debates" per se, but please enlighten me as to which political debate was being furthered here. This seems more like a sniggering cheap shot against a hated figure than any semblance of reasoned discussion.

I'm particularly confused about how Mr. Cheney's sexual skill or lack of same ("I do wonder, though, what draft avoidance sex is like") would impact anything worth talking about.

I suspect that the pious defenders of free expression that have piled on here would be aghast if I tried to make a policy argument that since anal sex transmits numerous diseases, it should be outlawed and classified as attempted murder. (I have not yet made such an argument, but I would have no problem making it if I concluded that it is justified.) Yet that is truly "sex in political debates," not this sophomoric crap.

Grow up.

You are trending perilously close to M.A.D. and if you do not desist, you will force me to unleash my deadly horde of "semen-stained dress" jokes…

Posted by: Mastiff | Nov 22, 2005 2:42:02 AM

Mastiff,

The humor may be in bad taste - no, it is in bad taste. It is even sophomoric. Who cares? Life is full of cheap shots, and tacky humor has a long, if not refined, pedigree in human history.

But why would you bring up Welch's response to McCarthy? Was it intended to be funny? Sorry that I didn't get it. Perhaps it was in bad taste.

What bothers me is the way in which you took a lighthearted, if uncultured, bit of snark and turned it into politically based condemnation of an entire movement. Really, lighten up.

As for "semen-stained dress" jokes, go ahead. There's probably people here who know a few that you don't. But most of us know the difference between tasteless jokes and policy, a distinction that is lacking in your comments about anal sex. If Dick Cheney wanted to have draft-avoidance sex, fine. While it may be indicative of a lack of character on his part regarding fulfilment of what was at the time considered the duty of every able-bodied male (Hey, Clinton was a draft-dodger!), there's been no policy proposals in this thread until you brought one up.

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 22, 2005 3:07:27 AM

"I was thinking about dragging people's personal lives into national political debates, launching investigations into every relationship they've ever had..."

Oh, you mean like Larry Flynt offering a million bucks for dirt on any house impeachment manager, which received the sound of crickets in the form of criticism from the left (you know how some folks continually change the goalposts when the scenario doesn't meet their needed criteria). Or do you mean the outing of Jeff Gannon or the continued attempts at outing folks on americablog (I'm sure you never read, right?)?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the other guys are WORSE and your guys don't do the "real" type of damage. And even though those gay marriage proposals have failed in every blue state, it's still the conservatives that are sexually repressed, I know.

Damn Republicans looking into the sex lives of others. What was this post about, again?

Posted by: RW | Nov 22, 2005 9:28:03 AM

So is the false equivalence method of debate something that is hard-wired into the conservative mindset, or is there a summer camp where they all learn and practice it?

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 22, 2005 11:33:28 AM

Okay, so this post was intended in some part as a Cheney smear. But a bigger motivation in posting it was amusement at the idea of people tying their sex lives so tightly to military policy.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Nov 22, 2005 12:27:08 PM

Granted, Neil. But remember, "Correlation does not equal causation."

That said, I've wasted way too much of everybody's time on this. I must have been in a bad mood or something. Back to my underground lair!

Posted by: Mastiff | Nov 23, 2005 12:37:55 AM

"So is the false equivalence method of debate something that is hard-wired into the conservative mindset, or is there a summer camp where they all learn and practice it?"

Um, Stephen, if you'll actually scroll up and READ you'll see that there were several comments criticizing the premise of the thread (you guys keep saying dissent is great, so I assume it's okay here) and someone chimes in with a snarky comment including:

Ummm, Clarence who? We're the ones who obsess over sex? We're the ones who drag people's private lives into the public sphere and use them as political fodder?

Projection:

In psychoanalytic theory, a mechanism of defense in which various forbidden thoughts and impulses are attributed to another person rather than the self, thus warding off some anxiety (e.g., "I hate you" becomes "You hate me").

Most health plans cover a certain number of counseling visits each year. If you are a Republican and you think that Democrats are the ones who obsess over and want to regulate the sex lives of complete strangers, you may want to avail yourself of this benefit.

And you're able to morph that into a critique about conservative debating tactics that include "a false equivalence method of debate"? I know that the different sides see things differently, but when an alternate reality comes into view, problems can ensue.

If someone's doing something nefarious while they're in office, then they're open game but let's just say that looking into the sex lives of folks is an iffy proposition to be undertaking and leave it at that and leave the "it's okay if it's done to the other side" to the hyper-partisans. I don't like it when it's done to Dems (I spoke out when Lehane put out the fake story about Kerry having an affair) and I don't like it when it's done to GOPers.

Posted by: RW | Nov 23, 2005 9:06:57 AM

Oh, hell, never mind....YOU were the one who brought that into the debate, and now you're railing against it (in between interjecting the very-adult drive-by ad hominem attacks from the comfort of your computer). Go argue with yourself.

Good lord. I'm sorry I wasted my time.

Posted by: RW | Nov 23, 2005 9:08:25 AM

RW,

Mastiff brought up smearing political opponents. You brought up Clarence Thomas.

I'm sorry that your computer is uncomfortable. At least, I assume that's what you are talking about since you are carrying on a debate using a computer and yet the fact that I am doing the same thing is somehow upsetting. As for "adult drive-by ad hominem" attacks, I'm not really sure what you could possibly mean by that.

I'm not sorry you bothered. I've had a lot of fun watching you blame others for talking about things you've brought up and working yourself into a lather over how victimized you are by all of this. Maybe if you bought a new office chair you wouldn't be so damn cranky.

Posted by: Stephen | Nov 23, 2005 3:08:28 PM

"Mastiff brought up smearing political opponents."
The post is a smearing of a political opponent.

"You brought up Clarence Thomas."
You brought up Republicans (knee-jerk).

"I'm sorry that your computer is uncomfortable."
The reference is to ad hominem attacks presented from the comfort of one's computer. As in, it's awfully easy to talk trash anonymously from one's keyboard.

" As for "adult drive-by ad hominem" attacks, I'm not really sure what you could possibly mean by that."
Now, you do.

"I've had a lot of fun watching you blame others for talking about things you've brought up..."
That's fun? Nice life. Might I suggest you get another.

Posted by: RW | Nov 27, 2005 7:50:43 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.