Robert J. Samuelson says yes.
Paul Krugman says no.
I say we’ll be arguing about this stuff for the next 100 years at least.
Women and humor
After Christopher Hitchens’ death I went back and re-read a couple of his old essays, including this one on women and humor (or their lack thereof). It’s written in his trademark style: witty, self-assured, and breezy; the musings of a gifted and vastly entertaining raconteur.
Hitchens loved to tweak and provoke his readers, and he got quite a bit of flak for this essay (mostly from humorless women?), especially for asking “Why are women…not funny?” Hitchens was well aware that there are a number of female humorists who are very funny indeed, but he correctly observed that, in general, it’s men who are more inclined to create humor than women are. Hitchens’ explanation was that it’s mainly because men are trying to appeal to women through humor, and women have no need to appeal to men that way because they’re already plenty appealing in other ways.
Now, it turns out that the subject of women and humor is one I’ve done a lot of thinking about (how humorless of me). Long before I ever read Hitchens on the subject I’d come to similar conclusions, although I’ve got something to add to his theory.
Hitchens is absolutely correct that the way to the heart of very many women (including, I must say, mine) is directly through the funny bone. But the same is not as true of men. But wait a minute, you say, that’s not true; my girlfriend/fiancée/wife has a great sense of humor and I love her for it. And though sometimes that’s certainly the case, I’ve got two questions for you: does she have a great receptive sense of humor or expressive sense of humor? And if the latter, is it as great as yours?
I’ve often noticed that when man praises a woman for her sense of humor, he’s likely to be talking about her receptive humor, the ability to appreciate the joke or well-turned witty phrase. That ability—to appreciate his humor—is something men like very much indeed. After all, who wouldn’t? But what one might call expressive humor—that is, the ability to make the quip—is often somewhat suspect when coming from a woman, at least for many or even the majority of men.
Expressive humor, so often a potent aphrodisiac for a woman when she perceives it in a man (a fact that Hitchens exploited to his great lifelong pleasure, because he was a very witty man), doesn’t tend to enhance her love life if she possesses the trait, unless she happens upon the uncommon man who finds it a turn-on (and there are such men), or unless she uses her gift sparingly. I’ve pondered why that might be so, and I’ve decided that humor is a decidedly aggressive act, even though it’s often a somewhat masked and de-fanged sort of aggression. It can be gentle or more barbed, but all humor has something of an edge, and as such is perceived in the gut as somewhat masculine.
It takes a strong man to love a funny lady. Fortunately, there are still enough strong men to go around, although it might take some extra looking to find one.
Kim Jong Il dies
Now comes the news that North Korea’s Kim Jong Il (age variously reported as 69 or 70) has died. It’s been rumored for several years that he’d been gravely ill with a stroke and then pancreatic cancer, but his official cause of death was announced as “exhaustion brought on by a sudden illness while on a domestic train trip.”
Who knows? One thing we do know—and have known for years—is that it most likely will be a case of “the Kim Jong is dead, long live the Kim Jong” for the North Korean government, which is expected to feature the succession of Kim Jong Il’s son Kim Jong Un, just as the former succeeded his own father in 1994. The people have been so sequestered from the world that it’s hard to know what they think at this point.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s Kim Jong Un’s Wiki entry. Some interesting facts:
Kim is thought to have been born in 1983 or early 1984. He attended the English-language International School of Berne, Switzerland until 1998 under a pseudonym…An older student chaperoned him all the time. In Liebefeld, he told his friend Joao Micaelo that he was the son of the heir to the North Korea leader, though Micaelo said he didn’t believe him at the time. He was described as a shy child who was uncommunicative with unfamiliar people and was only distinguished for his competitive nature, particularly in sports, and a fascination with the NBA and Michael Jordan. Allegedly, one friend claimed that he had met and even had pictures taken with Kobe Bryant and Toni Kukoc, but was unsure where…
His eldest half-brother, Kim Jong-nam, had been the favorite to succeed, but reportedly fell out of favour after 2001, when he was caught attempting to enter Japan on a fake passport to visit Tokyo Disneyland…Kim Jong-il’s former personal chef, Kenji Fujimoto, revealed details regarding Kim Jong-un, with whom he shared a good relationship, stating that he is favored to be his father’s successor. Fujimoto also claimed that Jong-un is favored by his father over his elder brother, Kim Jong-chul, reasoning that Jong-chul is too feminine in character, while Jong-un is “exactly like his father.”]
RIP Vaclav Havel
A brave man, dead at 75 after a long, fruitful, and eventful life that had many twistings and turnings, Havel went from prison as a dissident to a long tenure as president during a time of transition from the Communism he fought so long.
RIP.
Amazon reminder: there’s still time!
[NOTE: Bumped up from yesterday.]
There’s still plenty of time left to order from Amazon via the handy neo-neocon widgets on the right sidebar. I’m a big procrastinator, so I know. And there’s even time to sign up for 2 free months of Amazon Prime, which allows you to mail items for free.
I don’t usually push products, but here’s one I think many of you will like: the book Touching History by Lynn Spencer. The only thing wrong with it is the title, which seems too general to describe the contents properly. The subtitle, The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, is somewhat better, but it really doesn’t really begin to convey how exciting this book actually is.
Think you know what happened in the air on 9/11? Think again. If you haven’t read this book, you’re only aware of a small fraction of the story. The frantic attempts of controllers, NORAD, the FAA, and everyone involved to piece together an understanding of the whole picture unfolding in real time, and to intervene to save lives, makes for extraordinarily gripping reading. I devoured the entire book in a single night. Be prepared; you may, too.
The joys of amateur musicals
In the comments section of this thread from a while back, a number of people praised the old Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, and especially the charms of amateur productions. I’m in complete agreement. The librettos may be outdated in many ways, but the wholes are so far superior to anything written today that it’s no surprise that these old chestnuts are revived again and again.
I was raised on those scores, played on a shaky old player until the records had so many scratches on them that I sang along more from memory than from anything I could hear. I still can recite nearly every word of most of the lyrics of the classics.
I don’t know why I started perusing YouTube versions of the songs from “Carousel” a while back—culminating in the aforementioned post, as well as this one—but YouTube provides an almost endless supply of wonders for anyone who wants to do that sort of thing. Watching amateur production after amateur production, I was heartened by the fact that these musicals are still being performed and enjoyed, and that even today’s high school students aren’t too jaded to bring to their roles the dewy wonder of youth. Their versions very often make up in transcendence what they might lack in polish, power, and even in pitch.
Case in point—watch and listen to the glowing Julie in this high school production of “Carousel.” Her Billy Bigelow is a little callow and a little pompous (not an oxymoron in his case) and a little pitchy at times. But no matter; there’s something about the way she shines—and there’s something about him that’s engaging and touching, too.
Note also the almost operatic quality of the song with its recitatives; and I especially love the poignant and symbolic lines Julie delivers around minute 9:47, “The blossoms are just coming down by theirselves. It’s just their time to, I reckon.”:
The actors in the following clip of another song from “Carousel” aren’t high school students. But they’re amateurs. And what a voice on this Enoch (she’s no slouch, either)—although, unfortunately, the audio quality of the recording could be a bit better.
And since this is, after all, a mostly political blog, I can’t resist noting that the beginning of this song is a testament to capitalism, and the rest is a tribute to married life and parenthood. What could be more conservative?
Reagan’s eleventh commandment
Remember Reagan’s eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican?”
This year the interminable debate format and the large size of the field has made it almost inevitable that just about everybody’s been violating it, and it will end up hurting whomever is the eventual nominee (there will be a nominee eventually, won’t here? Won’t there?)
About the commandment:
In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it.:
“The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”
The goal was to prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater’s defeat in the 1964 presidential election. East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an “extremist” for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office. Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice.
The rule’s a problematic one, though. After all, it’s not as though the candidates are above criticism. The public has to figure out a way to tell them apart, judge them, and then vote in the primaries; and the MSM, the Democrats, and Republican pundits have been ever-so-helpful in assisting us—as have been (in the case of Herman Cain) a number of women we’ll never, never ever (mark my words) hear from or about again.
Sometimes the Republican candidates have joined in. But the net effect has been to do at least some of the Democrats’ dirty work for them. And it makes for all those great sound bites to be used by Obama in his campaign. But the debate format practically requires it.
As for Reagan—recently I was thinking that Reagan was governor of a somewhat liberal state (like Romney), although it’s nowhere near as liberal as Massachusetts. Could he be elected today?
I’m certainly not the only one who ever wondered that:
As governor, Reagan was the biggest California spender of the last half century. Under him, state spending leaped 177%…His first year as governor, Reagan raised taxes equal to 30% of the state general fund, still a modern record…As governor, Reagan protected the spectacular John Muir Trail in the Sierra from highway builders and Central Valley business interests. He blocked dam building on the Eel and Feather rivers. He and Republican Gov. Paul Laxalt of Nevada set aside their aversion to centralized, intrusive government and created a bi-state agency to control growth at Lake Tahoe. Reagan signed legislation creating the California Air Resources Board, leading to the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards.
…As governor, Reagan signed the nation’s then most liberal abortion rights bill. (He later called it a mistake.) He opposed a ballot initiative that would have permitted the firing of teachers for being gay.
President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.
I happen to think, however, that Reagan actually would be likely to be nominated again, even in today’s more doctrinally rigid climate. Why? Reagan was inspiring both rhetorically and personally—in other words, charismatic—to a degree that today’s candidates not only are not, but don’t even begin to approach.
Why do I keep harping on personal intangible characteristics, as I did in my recent piece in which I found Newt particularly lacking in that arena (although Romney’s not great either)? Because that’s what I see as political reality. It’s not the only thing, of course; candidates are indeed evaluated on their policy statements and their records of accomplishment. But not nearly as much as one might think, or wish. We are continually reacting on a nonverbal gut level to candidates, as we do to all the people in our lives. We may not always be able to explain what draws us to some people and repels us from others, but it’s powerful, and it matters in politics too. Usually, a lot.
[NOTE: It’s interesting, though, that Gingrich—one of the least personally pleasant candidates on that gut level of which I speak—is the candidate most explicitly intent on not violating Reagan’s eleventh commandment.]
Do men really want…
Don’t think so. But correct me if I’m wrong.
Congress strikes a blow for liberty—and incandescent light bulbs
Congress finally does something worthwhile, giving the incandescent light bulb we all know and love a stay of execution:
The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.
GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.
DOE’s light bulb rules ”” authorized under a 2007 energy law authored signed by President George W. Bush ”” would start going into effect Jan. 1. The rider will prevent DOE from implementing the rules through Sept. 30.
I positively detest all fluorescent light bulbs. And those energy-efficient mercury-based ones that go on ever-so-slowly are especially irritating (not to mention toxic in a landfill). What’s more, since waiting for them to come up to full power is so very annoying, I suspect many households (like some I’ve visited) keep them on all hours of the day and night just to avoid the delay, thus doing away with their purpose in the first place.
And I’ll believe this when I see it:
“In the real world, outside talk radio’s echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs, and give off just as much warm light,” said Jim DiPeso, the [Republicans for Environmental Protection’s] policy director. “The only difference is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. Same light, lower energy bills. What’s not to like?”
I can think of a few things, and so can he—although our objections might be moot if these new bulbs really work on the incandescent principle. But do they, and if so what do they look like? I can’t seem to find anything that addresses that question when I Google it—all the links seem to be about the ban.
[ADDENDUM: I found this, which mentions that the new bulbs are incandescent but doesn’t say what they are actually like, because the author has not yet seen them.]
[ADDENDUM II: Aha! Found some already-existing energy-efficient incandescent bulbs here, with consumer reviews. The opinions are not raves, although some people like them. And these bulbs are somewhat less energy-efficient than the standards Congress wants to impose. That doesn’t mean that the newer, not-yet-for-sale products won’t be better. If companies can manufacture a good incandescent bulb that is more energy efficient and not exorbitant, I would think most people would buy it without being forced to do so by Congress.]
RIP: Christopher Hitchens
The fact that Christopher Hitchens’ death has long been expected doesn’t make it any easier to see it announced.
I disagreed with him nearly as often as I agreed with him. But he was a writer of inimitable style and flair, always interesting, never boring, never offering the expected or the trite. Few if any ever emerged the victor from a verbal sparring with Hitchens, because he was as gifted and witty in extemporaneous speech as he was with pen and computer.
Hitchens was a political changer who started out a socialist and ended up somewhat to the right of that—although exactly where, it’s hard to say. But he was first and foremost an iconoclast, taking palpable delight in skewering idols of all kinds with his biting intelligence.
I’ll miss him. No one could write like him.
[NOTE: Here’s a little piece I wrote a while back that featured Hitchens describing an encounter he once had with Margaret Thatcher.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a heartfelt tribute by Christopher Buckley, one of Hitchens’ many friends. Hitchens sounds like an extremely entertaining (although challenging) person to know—but anyone who ever saw him speak could guess that. What most people may not have guessed is what a good friend he was to those who, like Buckley, were among those close to him.]
On Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal
Description and commentary here.
Sarkozy and Obama
I’ve never thought of Sarkozy and Obama as being similar. But an article about the former in the December 12 New Yorker contained a paragraph that, although about Sarkozy, could just as easily apply to the present attitude of a certain segment of the left towards Obama. Maybe not quite as strongly—but still, the same phenomenon:
“He’s hated,” Said Mahrane, a political reporter at the weekly magazine Le Point, told me. “And why is he hated? First of all, because he aroused crazy hope.” It is easy to forget the excitement that Sarkozy once inspired as a figure of national renewal and transformation. But the fervor with which he is now rejected can be properly understood only in relation to his original appeal—as a measure of disillusionment. “I adore Sarkozy,” a former member of his staff bold me, “but I’m very very very disappointed with his Presidency.” He had over-promised, and then he did not deliver on his program, the ex-staffer said: “I think that, in reality, he had no intention of doing so. At bottom, finally, he’s an old-school politician…a man of campaigns, a man of war, a man for taking power.” But he never learned to harness the machinery of government, the ex-staffer said, so “there are many battles he didn’t join because he didn’t know how to fight them.” As a result, “he hasn’t done anything—nothing but nothing.”
Let me emphasize that this isn’t my opinion of Obama. He never aroused hope in me, and I think that—unlike Sarkozy—he had every intention of doing many things that would be transformative and would take the country in a very leftward direction. But he didn’t have the expertise to do so—yet. Hopefully, he’ll never get the chance.