Steely Dad

I was reading my buddy Jason’s blog, Outnumbered, and came upon a rather interesting topic regarding which is the superior sex (no, not doggie compared to missionary). He was responding to a post by a blogger named Nic at My Bottle’s Up.  Read her two posts Women are the Stronger Sex and Sex, Continued. Then you can read my response below. (You might want to prepare a stiff libations before moving forward on this one. Don’t yell at me. You’ve been duly warned).

Dear Nic,

First I’d like to say, genius post. This is my first time visiting your blog so it definitely did the job for which it was intended. I applaud you for, dare I say it, having the “balls” (or should I say “ovaries”?) to speak your mind no matter the consequences. I admire that in a person, man or woman. Creating controversy is a noble ambition but keep in mind that if you’re going to throw something like this out there for the simple reason to create a buzz, you might want to be prepared with an oft-forgotten concept known as facts.

After I read your posts, I started to write what I thought would be a short comment but the more I wrote the more I realized the importance and depth of this topic. At first I tried to draft a witty response like Jason but I realized I’m not as funny as he is and that I had a difficult time finding the humor in mocking and stereotyping an entire group of people, even if that group just happens to be MEN. (I’m afraid that simply acknowledging that there does exist “some” men, according to your definition, which apparently includes donning a “hot” uniform, doesn’t get you off the hook. I suppose in your mind you can’t be a man hater because you’re married to one? There’s little to no difference between that line of logic and the one so many use to excuse their racist views because they have friends of various colors.)

So where Jason took the high road, I’m taking a more nuts ‘n’ bolts approach. Forgive me if it’s inarticulate. After all, I’m just a weak man who puked this on a page. In any case, here’s my take:

1. Are there weak men? Absolutely, but no more so than there are weak women. Just because a man is quiet doesn’t mean he is weak just as a “loud” or “assertive” woman is not necessarily strong.

2. Perhaps you’re aware that your post actually sheds light on the broader issue related to the disparity of acceptability. What do I mean by that? Well, what a woman can say about a man, a man cannot say about a woman. Case in point. I was sitting in the Den of Yentas last week when there was a guest speaker. I arrived late but from what I could tell, she was a physician. The group was discussing teenagers and the issue of what to do to prevent these horny kids from having sex. Sharing with the group the advice she passed along to her own daughter, the physician said, “I told her, ‘Never trust someone who has a penis.’” Hilarity ensued. And then she looked at me and said, “Sorry but it’s true.” Can you just imagine the community outrage if one woman was sitting amongst a group of men and one of them says, “Never trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn’t die”? It would go over like a lead fart but for some reason this very derogatory comment was received by a group of women as acceptable.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m completely in favor of groups celebrating their achievements and “differences” but only under two conditions: A) The right to do so should be equally enjoyed by ALL groups, even those with whom you might disagree. This includes, but is not limited to, MEN and B) Don’t do so at the expense of other groups. Celebrating your womanhood by positing that one sex is stronger than the other, and then basing that argument on sweeping generalizations (based on what data I have no idea), is tantamount to arguing that one race is superior to another or that one religion is right and any opposing viewpoint is simply wrong. Perhaps you can equivocate explain as to how this “battle” of the sexes is somehow different in scope? Stop and think for a moment if I’d written a post like yours only I stated that men are the stronger sex. Let’s even say I went a step further than you and provided actual evidence based on historical record. For example, I won’t go so far as to say “every” but certainly a “signigicant number” of human advancement, from the genesis of modern mathematics and classical philosophy to the atom bomb, from vaccines to putting man on the moon, has come at the hands of men, not women. Am I suggesting that men are the stronger sex based on this analysis? Not at all. I’m simply illustrating the fact that the barometer you use to demonstrate women’s superiority is flawed.

Notwithstanding the evidence I prepared, I’d have the ACLU knocking on my door, Martha Burk would take a hit out on my life and I’d probably receive the ire of every mommy blogger in the entire blogosphere. Why? Because I said something untrue? No. I would be chastised because I said something that was contrary to the very fabric of their being regardless of its veracity. Why is it acceptable for you to write something like this but not for me? You won’t become the pariah of the woman’s movement. On the contrary, you will be hailed as a brave and heroic warrior (just read the comments on your blog left by other women). You’ll receive accolades and praise from your sisters. Me? I’d probably have my blog shut down.

Why is this caricature of men as the weaker sex not only acceptable but lauded and celebrated? One reason: men constitute the ONLY group of people NOT protected under the PC constitution. You can’t even comment on, much less be at all critical of women. Indeed, every race is off limits, religion is out and insulting someone for their sexual orientation will earn you epithets that make even me blush. So who’s left? MEN. No one ever gets blasted for hating on men. There is a double (heck, a quadruple) standard at play here. We’re not allowed to say anything that might be on our minds and we’re forbidden to fight for what we believe lest we be labeled misogynists, racists or “angry white men.”  If I disagreed with a feminist I’d be called a fascist (perhaps the most misunderstood and misused word in the English language) simply for the fact that I disagreed. If I disagreed with a homosexual I’d be called homophobic. I’ve been called a racist not because I said anything remotely derogatory about Obama’s skin color but because I have contrarian viewpoints regarding his policies. I’ve been labeled a racist for demonstrating my First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful assembly because I attended a rally against the massive expansion of government The Family Tea Party. So ask yourself, who wants this kind of headache? Who needs it? Often it takes a stronger man to remain silent, to wear his guns on the inside.

What you might view as “weak” is an effort by many men to avoid the perception of weakness. Men are expected to simply take whatever abuse is dished to us. We’re taught that firing back makes us look too sensitive and sensitivity is a sign of weakness. Therfore, we keep silent. Believe it or not, keeping silent might also save us from litigation and prison time. You laugh but there is a bill that’s already passed one chamber of Congress which in essence allows anyone who “perceives” a threat or “perceives” harm to be able to civilly litigate the perpetrator of that “perceived” threat (see H.R. 1913). The perpetrator can also face criminal charges. What does this mean? If you feel threatened by what I have to say, you can sue me. I could also be incarcerated. No wonder we’ve been silenced and castrated through a systematic campaign by the courts. The media is certainly complicit in this effort as well. Cinema, television and other media always put men in an inferior, albeit inaccurate, light. The incapable dumb guy who so badly needs his wife lest he stop breathing has become an acceptable and popular characterization. We all know he’d be lost without her. Think what would happen if they switched these roles around. Such a show would never be produced and the “angry white fascist” who floated the suggestion would be looking for a new job cleaning sewers. The media suggestion is so overwhelmingly powerful that some (know of any?) can’t help but apply these false notions to real life men in real life situations. However, you are guilty of accepting (and now promoting) the very same stereotypes that you, as an admitted feminist, have, by definition, so vociferously fought against. Funny how that works, huh?

3. Your “woman are superior” concept raises many tangential topics that perhaps you can explain. For instance, why is it perfectly acceptable for the gym Curves to exclude men but it’s not OK for Augusta National to exclude women? Also, why is it that only men are required to register with the Selective Service (that’s the draft) and women are excused from the obligation? Why do women’s organizations like the NCWO only boycott events like the Master’s but are silent about businesses like Curves? Why do these organizations “fight for the equality of women in the workplace” but one never hears them lobbying Congress for a bill to include women in the draft? Sort of looks hypocritical don’t ya think?

4. I’m a stay-at-home dad (SAHD) and as such I am required to multi-task on a daily basis. My wife is completely incapable of multi-tasking. She will happily admit she cannot walk and chew gum. There are several studies that suggest multi-tasking is not a sign of strength or intelligence. Quite the contrary, the ability to multi-task has been linked to an inferior intellect. I don’t need studies to prove the point. I have my own empirical data on which to rely. What data might that be? Well, I’m not that smart and I’m certainly not as smart as my wife. I can multi-task, she can’t. ‘Nuff said.

As a stay-at-home dad, I don’t have a “hot” uniform but I do get to hang with a lot of women. I also enjoy chillin’ with my male associates. This provides me with a unique opportunity to observe both sexes from the “inside” if you will. Like an ethnographer, I can compare and contrast these subtle nuances between the sexes.  I must be honest, Jason is definitely on to something. When women congregate in groups the topic of their lazy, incapable, good-for-nothing husbands will be invariably broached. In contrast, when guys get together, we drink beer, eat greasy food, watch sports, play cards and fart. That’s it. I pity the guy who comes to a bro bash and hopes to commiserate with his mates about how his ol’ lady isn’t being sensitive to his needs. That guy would be summarily excused and bets would be made as to when he sprouted the vagina. However, if a guy does in fact even mention his wife at all (and I’ve known guys for years and didn’t know they were married), it’s usually in the context that Jason mentioned, that of being demeaned, belittled, criticized and dismissed. For men, the topic of their superior partners is never a primary source of conversation but is more contextual in nature. The following is an excerpt from a real-life chat:

Dude A: “Bro, ya wanna go play some golf manana?”
Dude B: “I can’t, dude. My wife’s making me take her to the orchid show.  She claims I never spend time with her.”
Dude A: “What the fuck? Are you gay or something?”
Dude B: “I didn’t think so.”
Dude A: “No, man, you’re definitely gay.”

5. Birthing a baby does not a woman make. Every “female” in the animal kingdom bears children, some of them by the millions. This alone does not make them a woman just as planting the seed does not make one a man. Would you say that the only requirement to being a man is to impregnate a woman because, as you so eloquently put it, “his body has fulfilled its purpose”? The metamorphosis to manhood and womanhood occurs when one is accountable and responsible for his or her actions. In the case of children, this happens when one LOVES, CARES and RAISES a child. Unfortunately, raising children, contrary to pop myth, is NOT the sole province of women. Men are equally capable of caring and raising our offspring. So, no, pushing out a baby does not equate with womanhood. Many “women” get that far only to abandon the baby in a trash dumpster. Is she still a woman in your eyes? I’m sure you didn’t intend to but I think you belittle the importance of “motherhood” compared to “womanhood.” I know many “strong” women who make very “weak” mothers.

6. Since in your post you use the value of child birth and procreation as the gold standard for “womanhood” let’s take emotion out of the equation for just a moment and look at this biologically. A woman produces a paltry fraction of eggs compared to the number of sperm a man generates. In one “load” a man produces a thousand times more primordial ooze than a woman does in her entire lifetime. He is also able to impregnate multiple partners at the same time and long after a woman of equal age is able to achieve, and maintain, a pregnancy. One can deduce that the male species is biologically wired to procreate with many women. Women, under most circumstances (there are, of course, the occasional anomaly) can only procreate with one man at one time. So, based on this fact, and using your measuring stick, which is the stronger sex?

You will, undoubtedly, curse my name, call me an unenlightened Neanderthal and hate me for it but am I really saying anything different than what you’ve posted on your blog (only in reverse)? I don’t think so although I welcome your input. If you’re offended by what I have to say then perhaps you should be equally insulted by what you posted. For the record, I’m not at all outraged by your opinion; I only ask for an equally open forum for us weak men to speak our minds. Bottom line, I don’t believe one sex is superior to the other. If you’ll permit me a broad generalization, I honestly believe that men and women both possess strengths and weaknesses. Ideally the strengths of one offset the weaknesses of the other. The role of men and women throughout history has been different. Not equal and not the same, just different. Anyways, why do you care if there is a dearth of strong men? You’re lucky to have captured a rare bird in an endangered species so feel blessed, kiss your kid and rock another bottle of wine for in vino veritas. 

I wasn’t planning on writing about this topic, and I realize it’s a bit of a shift from my other postings, but I felt compelled to comment.  Hey, sometimes you’ve got to get something off your chest and hope it starts a meaningful conversation.  Perhaps you’ll read it and let me know your thoughts.

On Tax Day last week I was driving my son to preschool as is our regular routine (although I usually have my daughter with me but she was at home with Mommy).  I had heard some “news” about these tax protests, which were officially being called “Tea Parties” and in other more mature corners of the media were being dubbed “tea bagging parties.”  If you watch ABC and CBS and networks of their ilk you probably heard very little about these demonstrations and what you did hear was probably disparaging and negative.

In any case, as I was driving it occurred to me that these protests would make a wonderful opportunity to teach my kids the sanctity of our rights, as Americans, to peaceful assembly and free speech.  As a dad and as an American, this is very important to me so I made the executive decision to skip preschool for the day, pick up the rest of my family and proceed to the nearest protest.  We were going to our first family tea party.

If you didn’t attend one of these rallies and you depended on the news media for information, I’m sorry to tell you but the unruliness reported is a huge exaggeration if not an outright prevarication.  I can’t speak for all the protests but I would describe the one I attended (and this was one of the major sites with about 7,000 people in attendance) as a peaceful and energetic gathering of people who seemed to be saying the same thing: they want a limited government, not a massive expansion of Big Brother.  I saw black people there, white people, young and old, male and female.  I saw dudes in suits and others with dreadlocks.  I saw parents with their kids and I listened to some inspiring speeches.  What I saw were Americans who were genuinely concerned about the direction in which their country is headed.

Did I see any violence or inappropriate behavior?  Let me put it to you this way: I’ve seen more violence and poor behavior at a Pop Warner football game.  How did the Tear Party demonstrations compare with the recent G20 Summit protests or anti-Bush rallies?  Say what you will but I NEVER SAW THIS AT THE TEA PARTY.

I took my family to the protest to demonstrate what a wonderful country we live in; that ours is a nation in which you can protest the government and not be thrown into a gulag (at least not yet).  The goal was to teach my kids that their right to protest was an unalienable right and they could make a bold but peaceful statement.  As I stood there with my son on my shoulders I couldn’t help but feel a sense of pride that we were participating in an integral part of the political process, that we were exercising our right under the First Amendment.  “Daddy,” he said, “this is cool!”

However, this sense of pride was substituted with feelings of frustration and disbelief when I watched news coverage of the events.  Most of the stories were hostile, scurrilous and offensive.  Some cable networks and news programs labeled these protests as “not fit for family viewing” and “anti-government” and “anti-Obama.”  Of course the usual Tinsel Town twits got in on the act.  One Hollywood personality, whose name does not deserve mention, opined that anyone who attended these rallies is a racist.  All of these descriptions would be laughable if they weren’t so utterly dangerous.  And whether or not you’re liberal or conservative, if you’re an American you should be concerned.  Look, I realize no one wants to read about this stuff because it’s nasty politics but it’s time we pull our heads out of the sand and start looking at our country through a logical lens.  

If my son watched the news coverage, what would he think of himself?  That he’s an angry racist or dangerous right-wing extremist?  If he began to believe what he heard, think he’d ever protest again?  Is this the lesson we want to teach our kids, to fear reprisals for speaking out?  That if you disagree with the government, at least the current one, you’re some sort of anti-government nut ball?  Do we want to teach them to be free thinkers or to fall in line with the rest of the sheep?  Do we want to teach them to fight for what they believe or to live in disciplined silence?  Do we want to teach them what is right or what is expeditious?  Do we want them to live or to simply exist?  It’s crazy to me that liberals, who hail themselves as the protectors of tolerance and the true agents of change, would openly harangue anyone for protesting anything.  Better yet, they completely dismiss the event as a right-wing conspiracy or refuse to acknowledge it at all.  Apparently Obama was not even aware of the protests.  Hard numbers are tough to ascertain but I think it’s safe to say that attendance throughout the 800-plus cities where protests took place was in the hundreds of thousands.  Hundreds of thousands of protesters and the president didn’t know this was going on?  Wow, that’s really just shocking.  Are politicians supposed to listen to the people or are the people supposed to listen, without protest, to the politicians?

It seems to me that when liberals protest they are considered revolutionaries; when conservatives protest they are called racists.  It’s still en vogue to openly call our recently retired president a war criminal.  In fact, you’re immediately considered an intelligent person by so doing.  But disagree with the current administration on any issue whatsoever and you’re a racist?  I’m confused.  We openly cheer for people in foreign countries who rebel against oppressive regimes but here in America if you are a perceived contrarian you’re brushed aside as a bigot and labeled an “angry white man”? To categorically label the massive number of protesters, people of different races, religions, sexual orientations and the like, as “angry white men,” is not considered racist?  Disagree and you’re a dangerous right-wing extremist?  Protest and you’re castigated?  Seriously folks, is this the society we wish to bequeath to our children? Is this the new social order we wish to leave as our legacy? Be careful for what you wish.

Look, there is much hypocrisy in our society, double-standards that don’t apply equally to the two main political philosophies.  I’m not interested in enumerating all such hypocrisies here (I have to get to bed, it’s 2 AM!).  Besides, a closed mind can never be a changed mind.  The point I’m making is that although we may disagree, although we may come from differing points of view, it’s our quintessential duty as Americans to protect each other’s right to express an opinion without being labeled a racist or hate monger or extremist.  As the old saying goes, I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  To be fair, both parties have engaged in attack-style rhetoric.  However, doing so only emboldens those you are attempting to silence and at the same time unveils your own ignorance.  Resorting to ad homonym attacks is a desperate and ineffective strategy that does nothing but to make fence-sitters think that the ones you name-call might actually have a legitimate cause or point. If we disagree it doesn’t mean we have to hate.  Our nation was founded on the principle of protest and our right to do so is, thus far, protected under the Constitution.  Protest is not a bad thing; it’s a good thing and when done respectfully it can even be a purposeful thing.  Why so many from the left are calling these protests “unhealthy” and “dangerous” should be insulting to anyone who calls him or herself an American.  Comments like these are dangerous!  One can never fear retribution for protesting against a government. Should that happen then America ceases to be.  Guard with all your will your right to speak and assemble freely.  At least that’s what I hope to impart to my kids.  

To be honest, I simply didn’t have the time, or inclination, to watch any of the Obama inauguration, except that butchered oath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMyPf4qvdbw. That was awkward.

Other than another swearing-in of a president who just so happens to have a higher level of melanin in his skin compared to the previous 43 pasty men who held the office, I guess I just didn’t see the “historical” component for which the entire nation was so obsessed. I know, I know, how unenlightened of me. But my three-year-old doesn’t notice that Obama is black and that John McCain is white (trust me, the boy recognizes both men as well as he can spot an In-N-Out seven miles away). That’s the way it should be, right? Oh, but he simply doesn’t understand, some will say. Doesn’t he, though? Isn’t the definition of being truly enlightened when we no longer say things like, “First black this” or “First brown that?” Aren’t we supposed to live in a color-blind society that judges a person by the content of his or her character rather than the color of his or her skin? If so, then why do the media bombard us with an unrelenting stream of “Obama-is-the-first-black-president” messages? (Technically, he’s the first biracial president because his mother is, yes, I know, how disappointing, white.) Can we simply refer to Obama like all the other presidents: Mr. President? I’m sure even he’s grown tired of the moniker.

Is the United States suddenly enlightened because we elected a biracial man to lead our country or were we ever in need of enlightening in the first place? Will Zimbabwe wallow in the shadows of darkness until it elects a minority to lead the country? Is China a racist nation because it has never had a non-Asian leader? Can Iraq or Iran achieve this new level of enlightenment only if they elect a Jew as leader? What about good ol’ France, the country that believes it is far superior to all other countries and that the world would cease to spin on its axis should France decide it to be so? Is France any less enlightened because it has yet to elect a person of color as its leader? Why is it that all these other countries feel it is within their right to judge us when very few countries, if any, have ever elected a minority person to the highest office?

The message is extremely confusing to me so I can only imagine how confounding it must be for kids. First, we must celebrate this watershed moment in American history that we have finally seen the arrival of a man who isn’t completely white holding the nation’s highest office. Yet, then we are not supposed to treat people differently because they are black or brown or pink or purple. Does anyone think that Obama’s inauguration was any different than the previous presidents’? Was he provided, shall we say, a little more flare? Was he treated any differently by reporters and the media in general? Why? Is it because we are actually unable to see past the color of his skin? Are we supposed to recognize that this man is in fact black, or at least partially black? Should we celebrate it but not too much? Is that what we’re supposed to do? Acknowledge but don’t relish? Seriously, I don’t know.

We teach our kids to be color blind but are we practicing what we preach when, according to Gallop, 43% of whites voted for Obama while only 3% of blacks voted for McCain? www.gallup.com/poll/108040/Candidate-Support-Race.aspx. If that isn’t basing a decision on skin color I’m not sure what qualifies.

I know, I’m a racist for even mentioning such a thing. Can we move on now?

Look, Obama is a man just like any other. We can safely assume he sleeps, eats and breathes in precisely the same manner as the rest of us. Perhaps we should we stop thinking it’s so special because he’s biracial.  The only purpose that serves is to delay the day when we will be truly enlightened and see people in my three-year-old son’s terms: “cool” and “not-so-cool.” Color or race never factor in for this enlightened little boy.

I, for one, plan to treat President Obama as I have all his predecessors: I will make fun of his bloopers, his blunders and his mannerisms. I might go a little easy on Obama, not because he is biracial but because he has that awful stammer. Making fun of the man’s stammer is just mean.

In any case, I think the only time I will really celebrate is when the first gay-black-Hispanic-Asian-Mormon-transgender paraplegic becomes president and no one mentions the fact that the person is the first gay-black-Hispanic-Asian-Mormon-transgender paraplegic president. I’d also celebrate if someone I personally knew called 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue his (or her) crib and I was allowed to crash there. I hear the White House crème brulee is something special.

People spend six and sometimes seven figures on weddings, bar mitzvahs, Sweet 16s. Heck, I used to work at a company where the owners threw their dead dog a funeral (replete with limousine and all the dog’s favorite cuisines from all 12 of his favorite restaurants. I kid you not) that must’ve cost them 10 Gs. So what’s $160 million to celebrate the swearing in of our new leader?

All of life’s important milestones deserve to be celebrated with complete ostentation, gross prodigality and an unabashed disregard for responsible fiduciary practices. In other words, it’s advisable to spend extravagantly especially when your financial house is in total ruin and there exists not a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that things are on the mend. Oh, that’s right, we’re banking on hope to solve our economic misery. Let’s see if this works: I hope I find a million bucks in my pocket. Damn, nothing but an old quarter and some lint but that’s not to say the hope that Obama brings will have a similar fate.

So come on, people, let’s not be this cheap, this stingy, this, dare I say, miserly, when we are celebrating the arrival of our Savior. How much would you be willing to pay to celebrate the Second Coming of Jesus? By most media accounts Obama, after all, is the Messiah. Think about it. This is the man who will fix all the ills of the world. Apparently, Obama has already solved the nation’s financial woes (why else would we be in such a celebratory mood?) and for so doing is being compared to Abe Lincoln before he’s even taken the oath of office. One saved the union; the other will plunge the nation into a deeper financial abyss with his own soiree. Don’t you totally see the comparisons?

An occasion of this magnitude deserves our magnanimity, not the ire that stems from a sincere concern we are spending too much on demonstrating to the world that ours is a leader of celestial stock. We are, for Pete’s sake, commemorating the historic nature of this particular presidency. Instead of asking are we spending too much I’m asking are we spending enough. Seriously. I’m wondering what sort of message we are sending to the world when we are only willing to spend $160 million on this monumental shift in American history. Are you kidding me? If we shelled out double it still wouldn’t be enough to truly capture the essence of our enthusiasm. How will other nations take us seriously if we only spend a paltry $160 million on a gala for a man who has already done so much for our great nation? How will such an insignificant sum translate to those nations whose respect we so desperately crave?

Instead of importing Disa orchids (which are simply gorgeous, by the way) from New Zealand for the inauguration, I think it would be better to fly the entire assemblage of humanity that is descending upon D.C. to New Zealand so that they can see this flora in its natural habitat. Yes, that would be a much more appropriate commemoration. For $160 million, I think it can be done. In fact, for $160 million I bet we could buy the entire nation of New Zealand and they’ll throw in the Disa orchids for free.

Why not spend $160 million? Don’t we deserve it? Doesn’t Obama deserve it? Never mind that we can’t afford it, he and we deserve it. Isn’t it an American tradition, a rite of passage, to spend frivolously on things we can ill afford? Besides, there has been a pall over our nation lately with all the depressing news about the economy and terrorism and the violence in the Middle East. We need a little distraction, a diversion, something to look forward to and have a good time. Indeed, we’ve always been taught to spend money we don’t have in order to preserve the appearance that we do have it and lots of it. This presidential inauguration is just another shining example of our brilliant philosophy. I for one support it and anyone who disagrees must be a raging fascist pig! Who are we, the minions, to question the intelligence and judgment of our leader? The man graduated from Harvard, people, and we all know that Harvard graduates are way more smarter than the rest of us losers. People like us couldn’t possibly comprehend the enormity and complexity inherent in such issues as deciding between the Jonas Brothers and New Kids on the Block. (Apparently “the Kids” were unavailable. Either that or they are right-wing conservative scum.)

Seriously, aren’t we all making a big fuss about nothing? It’s only $160 million, kids, and $160 million doesn’t buy what it ustah. Say, sonny, when I was your age I could buy the world and moon for $160 million. Today it only buys some dude who hasn’t even started his job a quaint, albeit dignified, celebration. And nothing screams dignity like Bow Wow.

Don’t you think we all should be given a party when we are hired for a new job even before we’ve proven our worth? That makes more sense than to have it at the end as an at-a-boy for a job well done. I mean most professional athletes are paid a guaranteed signing bonus before they even score a touchdown, a goal or a basket so why should the Leader of the Free World be any different? In addition to throwing him a huge kegger at the end of his term, as an acknowledgment of his accomplishments (and believe me, there will be plenty of them) and service to our nation based on performance, let’s demonstrate our gratitude for all he’s already accomplished. I can just hear you fascist right-wing Nazis asking, “But what accomplishments?” Hello? He’s already, like, given our nation hope and that’s way more important than tangible things like jobs, affordable gasoline and/or a free market economy.

Trust me, folks, we don’t want to commit the same egregious error twice. I mean we only spent like $40 million on Bush’s party and we all know how that story ends. Nicht gut! By giving Obama a $160 million party we are sending him a firm message that we love him. If we were to spend twice that amount then we’d be showing him that we love him that much more. Returning to the wedding analogy, in my experience there is a direct proportional relationship between the cost of a wedding and the amount of love the couple shares. You see, the more expensive the wedding the happier the couple and the greater the potential for a successful marriage. So, contrary to what you might be thinking, that the couple is only celebrating with such ostentation in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact that there really isn’t anything substantive about them, they are instead demonstrating their unbridled and unyielding love for each other. Show Obama the love, people, and relish in the fact that for $160 million America will have put on the best, if not the most expensive, party EVER!  Alrighty then, who’s ready to rock some brews?