Dr. Keith Ablow

I was incensed when I read this, which some of you may already have seen on my Facebook page. This blog doesn't aim to take down easy targets and everybody knows Jon Stewart does a better job than we ever could of making Fox News look ridiculous but I couldn't let this one pass.

Republican Presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich is married to his third wife. He cheated on his first two wives and he admits to that. He has also been accused of lobbying his second wife for an open relationship - a claim which he denies. UUJM takes no position on open relationships between consenting adults. UUJM is also open to the idea that a leader could still be very good at their job whilst having a sordid private life. We do not condone cheating but this blog isn't really about that. That would be too easy. This blog is about the rubbish logic Dr Keith Ablow uses to suggest Gingrich's weak moral fabric reveals personality traits that are desirable in a president. Hmmm....

Ablow starts by positioning him self as the unfairly battered defence lawyer, laying out a case for a client who deserves a fair trial in the face of the media who, "can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public." Well, well, well. Thank goodness you're here, Ablow. We need someone who is concerned about the economy, employment, promoting freedom and protecting the world from the threat of Iran. Game on.

Ablow makes a point of being "coldly analytical" rather than moralising. He'd have to really, wouldn't he? He's defending a cheat who hurt innocent people. He's also defending a hypocrite: Gingrich lead the charge against Bill Clinton's infidelity in the 1990s and has spent much of his career reciting tired tory cliches about "defending the institution of the traditional marriage."

The first point made by our Republican quack hack is this:

"Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him."

Whoop-dee-doo. Steve Earle has been married seven times. He's had six wives including one he moved with his "emotional energy and intellect" so much that she agreed to marry him twice. Steve Earle has "moved" more women than Newt Gingrich so he must be a better candidate for president, right? What's that Ablow? You don't think someone who is a vocal opponent of the death penalty and the Iraq War should be president? Didn't think so, dick.

On to A-blowhard's second point then. He notes that "two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married." Wow. Convincing women to be the other partner in a homewrecking affair. What a guy.

Ablow suggests that the former freaker of the house must be so attractive that voters might try and give him a third term. I suggest that Gingrich is a dispicable human being.

The doctor's fourth point is this:

"Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation."

To Ablow, this suggests Gingrich is unsparing, direct and follows his heart. What this actually shows is that he follows his cock. He lacks the mental fortitude to do basic things like remain faithful and, here's some jargon from that free market you folks love, keep the contract he agrees to that says "to death do us part." It also says "in sickness and in health" but Gingrich wasn't the least bit disturbed about cheating on his first wife when she had cancer or his second when she had multiple sclerosis. What a prick.

Gingrich is probably charming. He'd have to be given his looks have earned him comparisons to the Marshmellow Man and Dwight Schrute. The problem is, he doesn't have a single moral fibre to sew with. How anyone can argue that that is desirable in a leader is beyond me. Machiavelli argued that leaders might have to be cruel to be kind. He never argued they should cheat on their extremely sick wives while preaching the opposite.

So how is Ablow a doctor? Does he have a PhD in shitheadery or a medical qualification in Republican hackery from the school of Fox News? I've heard more logical arguments on the intersection of politics and morality from Doctor Dre, Doctor J and Doctor Pepper.

We welcome your comments.

Crime and Punishment

Crime totally sucks for the direct victims, and for society. It leaves us feeling violated and vulnerable, makes us weary of investing in economically productive activities, and keeps communities chained to a vicious cycle of unemployment and poor parenting (see above). But punishment also sucks. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" say the talk radio masses. Do you have any idea how much that actually costs? A report from 2009 noted that each prison cell built under the Labour Government (which got tough on crime to keep voters happy) cost taxpayers $643,000. Even under the new government's 'no-frills' plan, they're only dropping the cost by half (which we know won't happen in the end as costs invariably blow out with these sorts of things). So for every 100 extra people you chuck in jail, we have to pay between $32 and $64 million, not to mention the year-on-year expenses! To house another 100 crims! The talk radio trope then quickly moves to 'well if its so expensive, shoot them' which is a hilarious proposal. I mean, no industrialized democracy could possibly let the state kill people, right?

Maybe, just maybe, we need to revisit the whole 'crime' thing and find some better answers both as to causes and treatment. Hey, they might even be a hell of a lot cheaper! I'm not talking hiring people to hug rapists because their mummy didn't hug them enough, I'm talking about serious ways to reduce the burden on society of low-grade crims. If we take the easy way out and admit that all or most criminals are 'evil by nature and unreformable', we're pretty much fucked. Crime breeds more crime, and by the way the New Zealand's prison population in growing, before long we'll be exporting the stuff. (We’re probably already exporting it to Australia).

Sadly, if there is one thing that electorates can't resist, it's a good old 'I mean, society's going to the dogs, we need to get tough on law and order' appeal by a politician. Can nobody see this is a hackish trope calculated to produce exactly the response that you then provide? Are you that trusting of politicians' intentions? Surely not. Surely you realize that economic change of the sort our country has experienced over the past four decades, increasing rapidly over the past two, is always accompanied by new pressures in society? Do you really want to go back to the 1950s when there was 'no crime' (false), 'everyone was well behaved' (also false, it's just that you were mates with the local cop), 'people left their doors unlocked' (so what) and 'kids respected their elders' (if by that you mean quietly followed their example of binge drinking, domestic violence and drunk driving)? It's inevitable that times past acquire a rosy patina as memories fade, that's natural and human. But you also forget how regimented that society was, how the government had it's hand right up the arse of every sphere of economic life, taxing the shit out everything while preventing you from buying decent Japanese cars and drinking lattes.

To believe that we can a) turn back the clock and b) retain only everything 'good' that the ticking clock has given us is just bullshit pure and simple. We're in new times with new pressures and new challenges to overcome. Let's have a scrap of new thinking to go with it please.

Oh, and The Sensible Sentencing Trust is poorly named. Very poorly named. On an unrelated note, the novel 'Crime and Punishment' is probably very good. I haven't read it though.

Happy Birthday to Us!

Kia ora koutou,

This is the second post for 2012. I was too busy ripping out Simon Doull, so I forgot to wish you all a crappy new year last time. Crappy new year. 2011 was mighty shit with the Thugby World Cup, Alasdair Thompson's outdated outbursts, snow in Wellington, Black Swan, honours, EARTHQUAKES, songs about earthquakes, and all sorts of other awfulness. If the rubbish line up at Bug Diy Oet is anything to go by, 2012 promises to be just as much of an abomination.

We're not here today to celebrate the end of a terrible year. Shauny and myself would like to pat ourselves on the back for turning one! Over the past twelve months, our blog has been viewed nearly 5,500 times. Only, like, half of those have come from us refreshing the screen. Even though most of you only tune in to tell us we're shit, we would like to thank you for your readership. We'd especially like to thank those that spread the wise words of UUJM through social media or word of mouth. That view count is a direct line to my self-esteem and I can never get too much of that.... We'd also like to thank our guest columnists, Richard 'Mayer Slayer' Flanagan and Helena from Seatoun. It's cos of you guys that people sometimes accidentally read something written by me or Shaun.

To mark our first birthday, me and Shauny would like to post a list of things that aren't shit. Don't worry, we'll be back to hating next week.

We like:

- The 'h' in Whanganui.

- The two 'h's' in MicHael LHaws.

- Gavin Larsen, Nathan Astle and Chris Harris - New Zealand cricket offered kids heroes at one point.

- Steve Braunias - This is funny. So is this. I think he spelled 'Lhaws' wrong though, see above.

- Gay soldiers.

- Starting the national anthem with Māori.

- Putting the macron on the 'ā' in 'Māori.'

- New Zealand micro-breweries - once upon a time, Macs and Monteiths were impressive brews but as time goes on, they're increasingly guilty of dropping the ball. Thank goodness for the latest generation of craft brewers. Three Boys, Emersons, Croucher, Epic and Tuatara all make good piss. Good on you team! Sorry Tui, you didn't make the cut.

- Speed limits.

- Sweetman hating your favourite band. Fat Froggy's Dip are bad. Sucks Sucksty are worse.

- Feminism

- Helen Clark's pantsuit

- Kiwi beaches that are at least great for walking on even if the weather is rubbish.

- Slower drivers pulling over at safe moments.

- Alton Worthington.

Feel free to add to our list, give props to your favourite brewery or tell us we're wrong. Whatever your response, thanks for reading!

Simon Doull

Simon Doull is shit. How is this loser equipped to commentate international cricket matches? He has an unspectacular test bowling average of 29.3 but at least he has an underwhelming number of wickets with 98. This unimpressive record continues into his ODI figures: 36 wickets at 40.52 with an economy rate over 5 runs an over. He wasn't particularly fast or particularly accurate or particularly economical. Why would I turn to him for "expert" insight on Sachin Tendulkar or Shane Warne? (Warne can commentate while playing better than Doull can from the commentary box!) The Greek Finance Minister might be a player on the world stage in his field but he's clearly not fit to hawk his wares as a consultant. Oh, and he didn't start hitting on Possum Bourne's widow as soon as the driver died, nor is he associated with that horrifying entity known as The Rock radio station. Come to think of it, the Greek Finance Minister probably knows more about women, music and international cricket.

I mean, let's compare "Doully" with Mark Richardson. "Rigger" is easily New Zealand's best test batsman since Martin Crowe. His average would've been better than Crowe's if he'd had an Andrew Jones or a John Wright or whoever to bat with him for lengthy periods of time. He's also a favourite of the beige brigade having embraced his nickname (a nod to his slowness in scoring and running) and partaken in the running races in the skin tight suit against members of the opposite team. He's also consistent funny in a self-deprecating fashion on The Crowd Goes Wild. All of this means Rigger is a guy I'm willing to take insight from. Doully doesn't share any of these characteristics desirable in a commentator.

In saying that, while Rigger may be qualified, he is rarely illuminating. More than can be said for Doully though. Sheesh. All Simon Fool offers is greasy haircuts, tasteless beards, open collars revealing trashy gold chains and earrings that scream, "I'm a wanker." He looks like he should be on Outrageous Fortune but given everything about the guy is shit, we wouldn't dare give him the opportunity. Yes, he may have lead the New Zealand bowling attack but he did so when our cricket team was at its worst with a combination of wides and half volleys delivered at a donkey drop medium pace. Rubbish.

So what do you think? Are we being too harsh on Doully or are we on the money, as usual? Have we taken down the wrong guy? Does Simon Drool annoy you less than some of the other commentators?