Here is my latest in a series looking at old adages in new times.  Enjoy. and all, or both, of my faithful readers, Merry Christmas.

What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

When I think about the adage “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with gender, or cooking. Like so many things, I first heard that saying from my mother who was trying to explain the basic concept of fairness. If it’s good enough for your sister, or brother, it’s good enough for you or, deal with it, everyone lives by the same rules.

At about the same time, around the fourth grade I think, I read George Orwell’s Animal Farm for the first time. No, I wasn’t some sort of aspiring radical, although this was the 60’s come to think of it. I thought I was getting something like Dr. Dolittle but man, was I in for an awakening! Orwell famously eschewed big words so the reading level was about right for the 4^th grade. It had drawings and talking animals. How was I to know it was a classic screed against totalitarianism translated in 37 languages and in it’s 12^th printing?

In one of the later chapters there is a big squeal and all the animals come out to see what the ruckus is about. The pigs, self-appointed intellectual betters who had taken power through strong-arm terror tactics, had just replaced the original constitution, written on the barn for all to see. The previous list of rules was replaced with one new rule: “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. The new rule at the Animal Farm replaced the goose and gander imperative.

I am reminded of this aphorism often, especially when I watch the news. It’s one of those sayings destined to social amnesia because by today’s standards its application has no place.

Examples? Two wartime Presidents, one from each party, the Democrat rounds up and inters immigrants here in the U.S. who happen to come from the nation who attacked us. The Republican detains combatants rounded up on foreign soil, who were actually trying to kill our troops, and holds them in a detention camp where the average weight gain is twenty pounds per detainee. The goose is considered a hero, perhaps even the all-time MVP of modern liberalism, but the gander gets compared to Hitler.

Here’s another. A Democrat advisor, under the guise of aiding the members of the 9/11 Commission, illegally removes classified documents from the national archives, by stuffing them in his pants and socks no less. When caught, and found guilty, he receives a slap on the wrist with a fine and 100 days of community service. The gander, a Republican White House advisor, is indicted for lying under oath in the investigation of a leak of classified information. Later, it turns out, there was no leak, no crime was committed, no one was harmed and national security was not compromised. Still, the trial proceeds and this advisor is facing prison time.

Apparently party affiliation has a lot to do with what’s good for geese and gander. Looks like Democrats are more equal than Republicans.

Of course both these examples are just examples of legions of double standards applied by the mainstream media. Indeed, the proliferation of the double standard is so pervasive its monitoring and documentation have become a cottage industry unto itself. Bernard Goldberg’s Bias was a bestseller, one of two on the same subject, is a literary example. The number of media watchdog blogs, indeed the mushrooming of the blogosphere itself is due in large part because the media routinely, either by habit or incompetence, or maybe even purposefully in some cases, all but refuses to report slantlessly. The success and dominance of Fox News was forged on the on the novelty of presenting both sides of the story. Yes, part of that success came from filling a void by giving voice to the conservative view. But the fact that there was a void proves the bias.

Probably the most unfortunate example of how the goose and gander imperative has been forsaken is affirmative action. Even how we talk about race today is fraught with double standards. If the imperative was applied consistently, black Americans who used the n-word would be as quickly condemned as non-blacks, - - but rather they are glorified and regarded as cultural innovators. To a lesser extent another example is how only a Jewish person can tell a Jewish joke. Almost invariably they throw in the standard disclaimer “it’s OK. I can tell this joke, I’m Jewish”. The disclaimer not only acknowledges the double standard, but the humor actually relies on it.

Part of the humor is the shock value. I can’t believe he said that! But behind the shock is the realization that if the wrong person said the same things, not only would it not be funny, but there would be hell to pay. The question is, who gets to decide who the “wrong” person is?

Perhaps the weirdest double standard regarding discussion of race today is how Bill Cosby gets demonized for trying to talk sense to his own community. Rappers glorify the gangster mindset by using the n-word, calling their girlfriend whores, advocating violence, cop-killing, and it’s all written off as “urban culture”. Cosby has the temerity to suggest these messages are harming his community and is derided and called an Uncle Tom.

Certain black celebrities attain their success by glorifying the most depraved and debasing aspects of their culture while one of their most revered and successful celebrities gets ostracized for calling them out on it. That’s so screwed up it’s a triple standard. One for black youth, one for the black adults who might happen to agree with Cosby, and one for us white folks, who, of course, are not allowed to comment due to insufficient pigmentation.

Truth is so malleable theses days it is too easy to conclude that either none exists or, if it does, it’s relative and situational. This morass renders moral relativism and its deformed offspring, non-judgmentalism. When morality is relative judgment has no roll. When judgment has no roll, anything goes.

Unfortunately in these politically correct times the purposeful avoidance of defining anything in black and white, and the intellectual requirement of thinking beyond those terms, leaves the impression that everything is the same shade of gray. It only follows that the more ambiguous we are in terms of morality the more immorality we can expect.

Only the seriously deluded advocate across the board moral absolutism but that doesn’t mean there are no moral absolutes. Or is there?  Some, hopefully a majority, still consider murder immoral while others, in growing numbers if handwringers are to be believed, think not killing those who refuse to submit to their belief system is immoral.

The Supreme Court recently applied the goose and gander imperative when they found that using skin-color, as a basis for college admission, was unconstitutional. Amazing that it takes nine jurists in robes to arrive at a conclusion that a typical ten-year-old would come to through basic intuition and only a general grasp of fair play.

Our entire system of education is based on meritocracy, which is quantified and translated through the grading system. Now, all of a sudden, when it comes time to reap the reward of those merits in the form of attending a prestigious university, the merits get kicked to the curb in favor of political correctness and social engineering. Sorry suburban or rural Whitey Honors Grad, but this disadvantaged urbanite, (newspeak for densely pigmented individual) with a lower GPA, gets to cut in front of the line. Don’t worry though; the diminished prestige of the school because of the lower standards will be more than made up for by the diversity. Cue the angelic chorus.

Somewhere along the line it was decided, by our moral betters no doubt, that compromising academics is an acceptable price to pay for diversity. The basis on which diversity trumps pure academia as the gold standard for a college environment is, as yet, unexplained, tested or proven. If there is science proving the superiority of diversity over meritocracy why haven’t we seen it? Certainly any such study would be widely known and, given the conclusions were sound, would be deferred to as proof of the theory. Rather, we get policy by good intention or atonement for past sins, regulation by guilt.

Well, at least they are consistent in that respect; both the formulation and enforcement of the policy have their basis in emotion rather than fact. Isn’t it curious though, how a policy for a purportedly democratic environment like a college campus was determined and bestowed from on high. Kind of reminds me of those pigs in Animal Farm. With this kind of leadership both the goose and the gander are cooked.

Good luck to Senator Johnson.  This one hits exceptionally close to home.

It's embarrassing to watch the media swirl around the medical misfortunes of a politician while we know full well they are more interested in the balance of power ramnifications than the mans health.

Worse yet the political calculators gliding overhead like vultures.  Depraved.  I hope and trust Republicans will show their characteristic classiness in dealing with this.  The White House comments bode well in that regard.

  
Exactly why this hits so close to home are explained in my comments on Mary Katherine Ham's blog post earlier today...

Health Update

I just heard on the radio that the Sen. Johnson did not suffer a stroke but from bleeding on the brain due to congenital veinous malformation. I almost drove off the road when I heard that because I had the same thing several years ago. I am seeing played out what might have happened had we not caught it in time. Basically it is a condition where veins and arteries somehow connect, not a good thing, especially in or near the brain, since they flow opposite directions. If it was the same or similar procedure as mine, other than draining blood, the operation would have been conducted while the patient was conscious because the procedure includes the risk of either inducing a stroke or causing other damage, i.e. loss of sight, slurred speech etc. The only way to catch these symptoms fast enough is by having the patient awake, and as in my case conversant, during the procedure. If he was anesthetized we won't know about those affects until he is revived. So to say the operation was successful could only mean that the bleeding was stopped, blood was drained, and the malformation was repaired. But it says says nothing about lasting damage. Either way I wouldn't wish it on anybody, even a Democrat. I pray for a speedy and full recovery. I have to brush up on the medical definition of congenital but if it means he's in for more of the same I don't see how he can function as a Senator, nor how he would want to. Frank Byrne

Can't really comment anymore pithfully than Steyn or thoughtfully than Bill Bennett.  Links below:

My only comment would be to accuse the commission of being drunk, given the of their work, but mainly because they are really not of the crack or cocaine set.  But man the scotch must have been flowing pretty freely to come up with this.

When a key feature is to recruit Iran and Syria to our cause, alcohol must be involved.  I've experienced this type of clarity myself, but I eventually I sobered up.   

First the inestimable Mark Steyn:

Must Study Harder [Mark Steyn]

You have got to check out the story of Katy Texas where a stone cutter decided to start Friday night pig races on his property when his new Muslim neighbors suggested he move.  Problem is his family has been there since the 1800's 

 key graph:

I would imagine people like Mr. Baker are so sick of watching moderate Muslims stay seated when asked to stand up against radical Islam, and so sick of watching their fellow Americans lay down when confronted with the sensitivities of sharia-observing Muslims, that they figure a good old-fashioned pig race is in order, just to show they're not gonna get pushed around.

As they say, read the whole thing  www.townhall.com/blog  scroll down to the Mary Katherine Ham post with the piggies coming around the bend.  Only in America and only in Texas.

It appears I have a sense abou these things. 
This from a passenger on the U.S. Airways flight delayed by the flying Imams

“I think it was either a foiled attempt to take over the plane or it was a publicity stunt to accuse us of being insensitive,” Pauline said. “It had to be to intimidate U.S. Airways to ease up on security.”

hat tip to Pajamas Media where they link the entire police report in pdf. 

You think terrorists know details are routinely unreported for political effect?  Nah.

I had the pleasure of having my Great Aunt Carrie as my third grade teacher. She was sharp as a tack, tough as nails and showed no favoritism to relatives. I have been remembering her lately because it was from her I first heard the expression “one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel.”

It’s funny how an adage with so few words can so aptly describe a complex human dynamic. Basically, a corrupt individual can reflect poorly on the entire group, or worse, spread the corruption. In that case she was referring to some goof-off in the back row who was disrupting the class and inspiring others to dothe same.  It wasn’t me because this was back when one of the greatest fears in life was facing your parents after school if the Principal called home. My old man was a bricklayer. He made his living by the daily routine of five to seven hundred reps with a five-pound brick in his left hand and an even heavier trowel in the right. The fear of God is one thing but the fear of a backhand swat was a little closer to home.

We see the rotten apple theory played out in a variety of arenas. A handful of corrupt congressmen brought the approval rating of the entire body to historic lows. Similarly, a few bad actors in Enron, Global Crossing, and Tyko give rise to the general cynicism about evil corporate America. Loudmouth celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, Alec Baldwin and others cast a credible doubt on the intelligence of the entire Hollywood community.

As examples continue to add up it is more and more apparent the rotten apple adage is not just a theory. In the geopolitical arena it is manifesting itself in increasingly dangerous ways.

The recent incident involving the six Muslim Imams on a plane in Minneapolis brought this adage to mind. A quick review of the reported incident; prominent display of worship (where’s the ACLU when you need them?) prior to boarding the plane, occupying unassigned seats, requesting seat belt extenders even though their waistlines belied the need, and loudly denouncing the U.S. and it’s policies.

Surprising to no one but the Imams, this behavior made some passengers nervous, so nervous in fact that they actually suspended their political correctness, complained, and had them escorted off the plane.

The offenders now have the audacity to complain they were signaled out because of their religion !? Well. Yeah! Fellas, you did everything short of bullhorns and spotlights to bring attention to your religion. How could you expect anything but? We Americans may be a bit slow on the uptake but we eventually notice things shoved in our faces.

We will tolerate any religion up to the point where it is abused to cow and intimidate. To believe you could behave this way without consequence shows an utter detachment from reality. More likely, this religious demonstrations was deliberately overplayed for the sole purpose of playing the victim card. Lord, or Allah, knows there is always a compliant press at the ready to report anything with even a hint of political incorrectness, especially in a blue state like Minnesota, home of the first Muslim Congressman.

I hear one of the workshops at their recent convention was entitled “Low Level Terror Just For Fun: Making Infidels Squirm By Abusing the Rights of Speech, Religion, and Press, All at The Same Time!”

Assuming the more charitable detachment from reality reasoning for moment, here’s a couple of hints as to why some of us might find their behavior somewhat alarming:

1) Practitioners of their religion hijacked some airplanes a few years ago and used them to destroy the World Trade Center Towers.

2) “Allah Akbar”, the words used in their public prayers at the airport were also used by the hijackers of flight 93 as caught on tape, and also by other fellow believers before they chopped off Daniel Perles head, also recorded, but this time on video.

3) Islamic leaders the world over repeatedly advocate death to the west and infidels for the crime of not sharing their belief.

4) Islam considers democracy a form of sacrilege.

5) Many in their religion believe martyring themselves to kill infidels is a ticket to heaven.

These are not secrets. They are published, broadcasted, sermonized in Mosques and printed in their children’s textbooks. The only thing surprising about these facts is the number of people who choose not to believe them or don’t take them seriously.

Their sensitivity about religious persecution is a tad disingenuous on one hand, a total load of crap on the other.

So long as the list above guides even a tiny minority of that faith the entire religion remains justifiably suspect. It is our moral obligation to call them to task because their responsibility of self-policing has been near completely shirked. No one wants to meddle in the inner workings of the Muslim faith but their steadfast inaction has allowed the rottenness to spread.  Not taking care of their problem is making it our problem. This shirking has resulted in a kill-or-be-killed standoff pitting Muslims against the world.

They have more patience, having been in battle for centuries while we only decided to fight back about five years ago. They have more willing martyrs. We have far superior means of annihilation. Can they truly believe it is in the best interest of their religion to put that reality to the test?  When can we expect moderates to join the fight?
 
The truly rotten apples of Muslim believe that the death of millions, indeed even the destruction of all mankind, is preferable to the existence of a single non-believer. This fanaticism drives their resolve more than our love of freedom drives ours. At this writing more efforts are being put into engineering some sort of elegant capitulation than stiffening our resolve. So long as that is the case superior firepower means nothing.

When a Christian fundamentalist says or does something stupid he gets slapped into submission or shown the door by his own moderate flock but apparently that is too much to expect from Muslims. Preserving the sanctity of a faith requires a vigilant and ongoing internal purge of its malefactors. The time for the moderate majority of Muslims to take back their religion is long passed due. The longer it takes the more the entire religion looks, or is, complicit.

The last thing the world needs is for the distinction between moderate and fanatic Islam to become meaningless.  This is the situation that moderates make worse by their reluctance to self–police in any meaningful fashion.

The fanatics are the rotten apples of the Muslim world and their taint is infecting the entire faith. Accusing us of intolerance is a weak substitute, diversion, or delay tactic, for the necessary task of cleaning their own house. Until then accusations of our intolerance only serves to reinforce theirs. Such accusations cannot be taken seriously while they tolerate the perversion of their own faith from within. We should not be expected to respect their religion when they don’t.

Moderate, tolerant, peace-loving Muslims should be leading the charge against terror. Those closest to the problem are in the best position to fix it. If they don’t, the resulting destruction is inevitable and when it comes to them, deserved, because the failure to do so makes them part of the problem.  

It must be the humanist strain in me that holds out hope that moderates will rise to the occasion. Hope truly is difficult when so many in their ranks conflate victory with death. The hope is that moderates prevent that mentality from reaching a critical mass.

Hope may be all we have and it is entirely dependent on our resolve. As one crumbles surely the other will follow.

These days even non-believers should consider prayer.