Helpful spambot:
spam blockers are necessity these days with constant spam coming from the internet~’,
Preach it, brother, preach it!
Political mixed marriages
The NY Times interviews some couples who find themselves in mixed marriages of the political variety.
Note that, in the marriages described in the article, it’s the woman who’s the liberal and the man who’s the conservative. This ties in with statistics showing that, ever since a transition time somewhere during the 70s or early 80s, women consistently have been more likely to vote Democrat and men Republican.
Note also how polite and tactful the conservative men in the Times article are toward their liberal spouses, and the unwarranted condescension of most of the liberal wives towards their own conservative husbands. Here are some examples of what I mean [each quote is from a different liberal woman married to a different conservative man; emphasis mine]:
“It’s his character, his emotions, his appreciation of me that are important. And he is coherent in his own way. He has legitimate reasons for all the repellent ideas he holds.” [the article regards this as humor, and perhaps it is meant to be—but it doesn’t sound all that funny to me.]
“My friends might act dogmatic or superior or try to pick a fight,” [another liberal wife] said. “And it’s frustrating because he does know a lot. I know I’m right, but he is more articulate. And he’s kind, so how can he have these political beliefs ”” he doesn’t think that global warming is man-made ”” or appreciate people that I think are dangerous?”
“I had a history of dating Republicans. I found them interesting but misguided.”
“…[H]e’s not a pocketbook Republican.”
I’ve personally known a number of marriages of the mixed political variety. Almost all of them have conformed to this Democrat-woman Republican-man pattern. Almost all of them seem to be working out pretty well.
In the olden days, the couples I knew used to laugh that they shouldn’t bother to vote because their votes always canceled each other out. Now, however, there’s a lot less laughter.
[NOTE: This post ties into my previous one.]
The liberal religion and the devils on the right
This piece by Dennis Prager is one of the best summaries of the left’s attitude towards the right, and why it is so recalcitrant to change.
It also explains why the ostracism and demonization faced by liberal to conservative “changers” such as myself from their liberal or leftist friends and family is so commonplace, and no accident.
The Pueblo killing fields
Those noble savages: maybe not so noble after all.
Victor Davis Hanson…
…is brilliant, as usual.
Sure, Nancy. Sure you will.
“I will still be Speaker in five weeks,” [Pelosi] said. “I have big confidence in my candidates. They’re excellent; they’re battle-tested. They know what they believe, and they’re doing just fine in their districts.”
This is one of those uncomfortable moments when you’re speaking to a crazy-person and they’re getting all agitated and insistent and they say, “I will be Speaker of the House. You believe me, don’t you?”
And you resort to that thing you know is just going to make them come at you with scissors, but what else can you say? “I believe that you believe that, Nancy.”
Take a fashion(?) break
Every now and then, when the world is too much with me, I hie myself to the blog Go Fug Yourself for some light distraction. There I usually find an embarrassment of riches, and today is no exception.
In fact, there are so many abominable fashion choices of the rich and semi-famous there that I’m hard-pressed to choose the worst. But, if forced, I think I’d go with this frightfully fugly frou frou from Nicole Richie:
Joe Biden to base: stop whining
Joe Biden has asked the base to stop whining.
You might as well ask the sun to stop shining.
It’s not a great way to get them all voting,
But let’s not indulge in premature gloating,
Though right now I’d guess Barack’s looking around
Beneath that huge bus for more space to be found
About the right size for a guy who’s named Joe.
With friends like that, who is in need of a foe?
Well, Joe Biden has really put his foot in it this time. His gaffe may not be a big f**king deal, but it couldn’t have come at a worse time. Just when Obama and the Democrats are trying to rally the troops, Biden insults them by insinuating they are complaining babies with nothing to complain about.
And this from an administration that boasts one of the whiniest presidents ever: Barack Obama. When will they learn that insulting potential voters—be they Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers, or Democrats—is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
[NOTE: In related news, Obama told a NY fundraiser crowd recently, “Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.”
I say live by the sword, die by the sword. If the crowd compares you to the deity, it’s probably because you encouraged them to do so.
And now Obama is reduced to saying, “Well, at least the Democrats and I are better than the Republicans and Bush.” Ah, how the mighty have fallen.]
Ingrid Betancourt, Che, and FARC
In 2002, Ingrid Betancourt was running for Colombia’s presidency when she was kidnapped by leftist FARC guerillas and held in difficult captivity for six years along with fourteen other hostages. The group was freed by Colombian soldiers in the summer in 2008, and Betancourt has just published a book about her ordeal.
Betancourt is from an old and patrician Colombian family, and she has managed to rub a lot of people the wrong way. She tried to sue the Colombian government for damages for failing to prevent her kidnapping, despite the fact that it was that government who ultimately rescued her. Some of her fellow hostages have spoken out against her, a highly unusual practice for fellow-captives:
Clara Rojas, who was kidnapped with Betancourt in 2002, has claimed [Betancourt’s] book contains “lies and spite” regarding Ms. Rojas’s decision to have a child while held captive.
Rojas isn’t the only one with a bone to pick with Betancourt:
One of the American prisoners claimed that she was haughty, self-absorbed, stole their food, hoarded books, and risked their lives by informing the guards that they were CIA.
Keith Stansell, 44, a former Marine, told Associated Press: “I watched her try to take over the camp with an arrogance that was out of control. Some of the guards treated us better than she did.”
But for me, this was one of the more telling comments by Betancourt:
Betancourt says her time in captivity dispelled any romantic illusions she had about the FARC and their mission. “I am of a generation where we like Che Guevara, you know, the very romantic kind of revolution thing,” she says. “And in a way, I thought that the FARC was kind of a romantic rebellion against a system that I didn’t like either.”
But in captivity, she says she came to realize that the FARC was nothing more than the military wing of Colombia’s drug cartels. “It was as corrupt as the system; it wasn’t a response to the problems we have in Colombia.”
Lucky for her she wasn’t captured by Che himself. I am stunned at the woman’s previous ignorance and naivete; she seems to be one of those people who might say “Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué” (“I have a Che T-shirt and I don’t know why”). As I wrote :
That seems to be what it’s come down to: Che as poster boy (literally). Vargas Llosa calls him “the socialist heartthrob in his beret.” Perhaps that’s all he is now to most of those who sport his dark and brooding image on their “mugs, hoodies, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and of course those omnipresent T-shirts.”
Che’s visage has had remarkable staying power; I remember it was already in vogue when I was in college. He’s been dead for thirty-eight years now, and the legend only grows”“although, if he hadn’t been good-looking and photogenic, he’d probably be an obscure footnote to history by this time.
Although Che is far from forgotten, his true history is. How many of those sporting reproductions of his photo as a fashion statement know much about what he actually stood for and the crimes he perpetrated? For in fact, as the article’s title indicates, he was quite the “killing machine.”
I wonder whether Betancourt still finds Guevara to be a romantic and likable figure, or whether she’s brushed up on her historical awareness of the actual man and not the image.
And, in a delicious irony, some of her rescuers—who posed as aid workers and fellow guerillas in a clever operation designed to trick FARC into thinking they were confederates undertaking a transfer of the hostages to a new location—wore Che Guevara T-shirts:
As [Betancourt] looked closer, she saw that the men from the helicopter were wearing shirts emblazoned with the likeness of Che Guevara, the Argentine hero of the Cuban revolution. “I thought, this is FARC,” she said.
Placed in handcuffs, Betancourt got into the helicopter, still unaware of what was happening. “They closed the helicopter doors, the helicopter started flying and suddenly there was something happening,” she said.
“Suddenly I saw the commander who, during four years, had been at the head of our team, who so many times was so cruel and humiliated me, and I saw him on the floor naked with bound eyes.”
Then, the reality of her liberation hit home.
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
Good news from Venezuela
The results are in from Venezuela’s election: Chavez wins, but loses.
That’s not a riddle; let me explain. For quite some time, Hugo Chavez has enjoyed a supermajority in Venezuela’s legislature, which has enabled him to do almost anything he wants there. Although after this election he still holds a majority, he has lost his supermajority. By uniting against Chavez, the opposition managed to thwart him. And this occurred despite the fact that Chavez’s forces had gerrymandered voting districts in their own favor.
Venezuela is hardly out of the woods, though. Chavez will continue to command a large majority for at least five more years, until the next Congressional election. And just as the United States faces a possibly dangerous, power-mad lame duck session between November and January even if Democrats are voted out, so will Chavez enjoy his supermajority in Venezuela’s legislature until the new session is seated in January. An awful lot of damage can be done in that amount of time.
Obama and reviving the youth vote
Obama would like to energize the people who were instrumental in putting him over the top in 2008, the youth vote.
When a person is accustomed to having the magic touch, it’s hard for him to perceive that the gift he’s always relied on has deserted him. One of Obama’s greatest strengths was his appeal to naive youth, who were starry-eyed over his promise and his promises. But Obama now seems to be having a difficult time grasping the notion that, not only is Velma Hart exhausted, but those youths who fell in love with him two years ago aren’t so starry-eyed anymore. Reality bites, indeed.
What Obama may also be forgetting—or perhaps he never really appreciated—is that the youth vote is notoriously difficult to motivate to actually get to the polls. And the erstwhile Obamaphiles are no exception to that rule. It was 2008 that appears to have been the anomaly:
Another [University of Wisconsin] student, Madeline Coyne, 21, said she waited in line to see Obama when he spoke on campus in 2008. Now, she said, “the euphoria has dimmed down.”
Still, would she vote on Nov. 2?
“At the midterm elections?” Coyne asked. “Probably not.”
However, let’s not be too sanguine. Democratic strategists are not being altogether stupid in appealing to the youth vote. They know that Obama and the Democrats have lost the Independents, the group candidates usually need to win. The alternative path to victory is to significantly energize the base and increase turnout. And only a small increase can make a large difference in the ordinarily low-turnout midterm elections.
The key, however, is that word “ordinarily.” This is not an ordinary year. It’s the Republicans and Independents who are energized to vote and to turn out in large numbers, not the Democrats.
At least, let’s hope so.
Don’t forget The Forgotten Man
Note the following, from a 2007 (that is: pre-Obama, pre-financial meltdown) review of The Forgotten Man, the Amity Shlaes book on the Great Depression:
As Shlaes emphasizes, the New Dealers tended to see business as an institution to be squeezed rather than as a source of investment, invention, and growth. Their moves against private enterprise, and their threats to regulate large sectors of the economy, created a political climate hostile to investment.
Hmmm—sound familiar?
Also this:
Having seen at first hand the danger posed by federal intervention in the economy, Willkie won a large following with books, articles, and speeches challenging the anti-business premises of the New Deal and arguing that production and growth fit the needs and wishes of Americans far better than did redistribution. The idea of America, Willkie argued, was to encourage private enterprise, not to make war on it. So compelling was his case that he persuaded the Republican convention to nominate him in 1940 to run against Roosevelt on the issue of the government’s proper role in the economy…
Throughout this volume, Shlaes makes a brief not for those on the receiving end of government programs, to whom FDR constantly appealed, but rather for the Americans who received no such benefits but had to pay for them with taxes and the erosion of their freedom. Such “forgotten” men and women, as Willkie said, wanted not just benefits from government but the liberty “to take part in our great American adventure.”
History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme. Let’s just hope it diverges in 2012, when Obama— unlike FDR—is defeated.