So both conventions are over; the first new polls are in and there are 58 days to the election. So some thoughts from your truly:
1) The Palin Pick. I have been a Palin fan for a while. She was not my #1 choice (but there was no way my #1 would have been chosen) nor I did not expect here to be chosen, but am happy she was. That said, let's not go crazy. I don't think McCain was a "genius" for picking her because that implies he knew what would happen after her announcement. I suspect he liked that fact that a) she was reformer and conservative and b) her personal story was as compelling as his...though in a very different way. But no one could have foreseen what happened last week.
2) Who Won the Convention War. This was an odd one. If it were a sports match all the statistics would indicate a Democratic victory. But the score ended up with the GOP winning (I think). Again, chalk it up to the sharpshooter from AK.
3) Rather Redux. Labor Day weekend was the scene of the most vicious media onslaught again a politician that I can recall. And like the fake TANG story promulgated by 60 Minutes in the 2004 election, it backfired. The main stream media simply did not get it. While most of them DID NOT offer stories, enough of the fringe (US Weekly, Atlantic) did to tar them all. Also, notably absent were sane voices on the major networks calling foul. The hue and cry from the Right was "show us a major media story that deeply probes something controversial about Obama..." So rumors about a McCain Affair 20 years ago is fair game, but false. Rumor about an Edwards Affair in the past two years is off limits, but true. Rumors about Palin (some 54 rumors) and her KIDS are fair game, and false. My liberals friends just don't understand the CONSISTENCY of the double standard and the ever shifting reasons for or against coverage that always seems to benefit the Democrats.
4) The New Reagan. Palin, for all of her qualities, is not the New Reagan. It is true she has the ability to connect with average folk, just like Reagan did, but time will tell whether her views are similar to the Gipper's. But I, for one, am not looking for the New Reagan. I am looking for a New Somebody Else. Maybe Palin will be that person.
5) The Obama Mystique. Despite the best efforts of the media to shield Obama from tough issues, at some point, people will start to look at him deeper. I suspect that will happen in the next 45 days and he will be found wanting. His claims have never matched his record. He is not a reformer; he is a guy who rode the wave of the Chicago political machine. He his record is very partisan. And on the "judgment" question, he has never admitted to one area where he has been wrong, such as the surge.
Right now momentum clearly favors the GOP. That can change tomorrow. Stay tuned.
8.13.2008
The Bear
Here is an interesting summary of the state of the Russia-Georgia war.
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/situation-report-russo-georgian-conflict
Kagan is a neocon, but I guess they know war... The most interesting thing I took from this is the personal aspect vis-a-vis Saakashvili. But this makes a lot of sense if you believe that Putin is just a simple kleptocrat - which I do. So this does look like a Genovese v. Gambino mob war. Though, again, its more like the Genovese versus a street pusher encroaching on their turf.
I don't buy the "reduce military capability" reason because a) Georgia just is not a military threat to Russia and b) unless you kill soldiers, weapons are easily replaced.
This is a message...all that is missing is the horse's head.
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/situation-report-russo-georgian-conflict
Kagan is a neocon, but I guess they know war... The most interesting thing I took from this is the personal aspect vis-a-vis Saakashvili. But this makes a lot of sense if you believe that Putin is just a simple kleptocrat - which I do. So this does look like a Genovese v. Gambino mob war. Though, again, its more like the Genovese versus a street pusher encroaching on their turf.
I don't buy the "reduce military capability" reason because a) Georgia just is not a military threat to Russia and b) unless you kill soldiers, weapons are easily replaced.
This is a message...all that is missing is the horse's head.
8.12.2008
Devil Went Down to Georgia
One thing I did not make clear is that I do think that if Georgia were in NATO, Russia may have been deterred. Maybe. The stakes would have been higher, but I still think the Russians would have done it. It is an easy way (and great timing) to send a message. By beating up on Georgia, other nations - Ukraine, Poland, the Baltics - get the message.
NATO is unprepared to defend itself. The Alliance is a near farce in Afghanistan with too many nations refusing to actually engage the enemy. So it comes down to the US; as it always does. We need to do something meaningful and thoughtful to show the world that while we have been caught flat footed in the situation, we will be proactive in the future. Supplying our allies with enough weapons to put a dent in a few columns of tanks would be a good start.
For over 40 years, Russia and the US avoided a direct shooting war choosing to work through smaller proxies, such as the Viet Cong (against the US) and the Afghan Muhajadeen (against the Soviets). It would seem that the Cold War is not over, but has reemerged. We can deny this or accept the reality and deal with it.
NATO is unprepared to defend itself. The Alliance is a near farce in Afghanistan with too many nations refusing to actually engage the enemy. So it comes down to the US; as it always does. We need to do something meaningful and thoughtful to show the world that while we have been caught flat footed in the situation, we will be proactive in the future. Supplying our allies with enough weapons to put a dent in a few columns of tanks would be a good start.
For over 40 years, Russia and the US avoided a direct shooting war choosing to work through smaller proxies, such as the Viet Cong (against the US) and the Afghan Muhajadeen (against the Soviets). It would seem that the Cold War is not over, but has reemerged. We can deny this or accept the reality and deal with it.
Georgia on My Mind
Obama has to be hacked. He was just trying to take a little time off and the freakin' Russians decide to remind us we live in dangerous times. Can we invade our neighbors? Yes, we can!
While McCain sounded more presidential than either Obama or President Bush, what we can actually do is limited. Reading the Responsible Side of the Blogosphere, there seems to be a few thoughts:
Glenn Reynolds is realistic in acknowledging there is nothing much we can do, but he is wrong on preventative measures.
Jerry Pournelle is relieved that Georgia was not in NATO, while John Noonan at the Weekly Standard sees NATO membership as a deterrent.
A few points: no there is nothing we can do. Strongly worded statements run the risk of making us look stupid. Whatever we say needs to communicate something to the Polands and Latvias of the world. Max Boot also suggested shipping Stingers and Javelins to the Georgians, but that, I think, just provokes Russia to reciprocate with the Iranians or Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.
That said, I think we can ship Stingers and Javelins to our allies as a deterrent. Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia (once things settle down) all could buy these from us to discourage future adventures.
As for NATO, it is useless. I am not a huge fan of entangling alliances (see Pournelle above), but I do think there is a place for a League of Free Democracies. The trouble with Georgia is that they can act more recklessly if they "know" NATO Is behind them. Not that they would, but we need a level of trust that I am not sure is or was there.
As for military alliances, I would ask the question: who would we go to war for if that country was invaded? Canada? Australia? Great Britain? Japan? Beyond that...Mexico? France? Taiwan? South Korea?
I hate to think we may be forced to chose.
While McCain sounded more presidential than either Obama or President Bush, what we can actually do is limited. Reading the Responsible Side of the Blogosphere, there seems to be a few thoughts:
Glenn Reynolds is realistic in acknowledging there is nothing much we can do, but he is wrong on preventative measures.
Jerry Pournelle is relieved that Georgia was not in NATO, while John Noonan at the Weekly Standard sees NATO membership as a deterrent.
A few points: no there is nothing we can do. Strongly worded statements run the risk of making us look stupid. Whatever we say needs to communicate something to the Polands and Latvias of the world. Max Boot also suggested shipping Stingers and Javelins to the Georgians, but that, I think, just provokes Russia to reciprocate with the Iranians or Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.
That said, I think we can ship Stingers and Javelins to our allies as a deterrent. Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia (once things settle down) all could buy these from us to discourage future adventures.
As for NATO, it is useless. I am not a huge fan of entangling alliances (see Pournelle above), but I do think there is a place for a League of Free Democracies. The trouble with Georgia is that they can act more recklessly if they "know" NATO Is behind them. Not that they would, but we need a level of trust that I am not sure is or was there.
As for military alliances, I would ask the question: who would we go to war for if that country was invaded? Canada? Australia? Great Britain? Japan? Beyond that...Mexico? France? Taiwan? South Korea?
I hate to think we may be forced to chose.
8.08.2008
Dancin'
I am sorry, but So You Think You Can Dance completely kicks Idol's ass.
The final four are actually REALLY talented and fun to watch.
AND the best dancer won. No disrespecting to the other three, but Joshua was the guy to beat...and no one could.
The final four are actually REALLY talented and fun to watch.
AND the best dancer won. No disrespecting to the other three, but Joshua was the guy to beat...and no one could.
Which Earlier Time Would You Prefer?
Obama, Obama...
From Campaign Spot: "America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."
"No longer what it once was"?
So which America would you like? The America in 1808? In 1908?
The fact remains that, for all our faults, this is the best of times to be an American. There are problems we need to face as a nation, but I am confident my childrens' future will be just fine.
From Campaign Spot: "America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."
"No longer what it once was"?
So which America would you like? The America in 1808? In 1908?
The fact remains that, for all our faults, this is the best of times to be an American. There are problems we need to face as a nation, but I am confident my childrens' future will be just fine.
6.16.2008
Father? Go Figure...
The normally solid Ann Althouse blows it big time. In criticizing here, I will give a shout out to Barack Obama, who called men to task for shirking fatherly duties.
Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.
But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.
Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.
This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.
UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."
Now I enjoy reading Ann, but knee jerk, shrill psycho feminism is unbecoming. Saying a father is critically important to raising children is like saying having two kidneys is better then just one.
But since modern feminism is deeply committed to an anti-male viewpoint and any expression of the need for a two parent household MUST imply women are worthless, Barack must be stopped.
Now I am hardly a Barack supported, but his statements here are dead on. The fact is single parent households are, statistically, more troubled environments and are a larger problem in the black community. The larger problem of what has become an anti-male society needs to be addressed, but the first step is to get men and women to be more responsible about child bearing.
This is NOT to demean the often Herculean efforts of single parent households - raising kids is tough for two parents let alone one. But I am perfectly capable of issuing a compliment without an implicit put down.
UPDATE: Ann claims she is not endorsing the feminist view. Hmmmm. I am not the only one who read it this way. She seems especially miffed at this, but she should re-read her main comment paragraph. I don't think we are "gnawing on a bone."
6.05.2008
The State v. Free Will
Ross Douthat has an intriguing post about - I think - when exactly does an act become immoral enough to warrant state intervention. I think Ross hits the nail on the head when he points out that the disagreement is one of when, not if.
I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."
Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.
I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.
I think everyone agrees that the immoral act of murder should be addressed by state action. "Envy," defined as a sin or vice, should not. Ross says, "we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate."
Not quite. I think you have a legitimate conflict between the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother to control her body. Assisted suicide is another area where there is this conflict between the will of the individual and the law.
I guess, I would ask Ross, "is this this disagreement so clear cut in your mind to warrant state action?" It might be to him, but I am torn on this issue prior to the viability of the baby. So, in my mind, God gave us free will to make these decisions and face Him on judgment day. Same with assisted suicide. It is not so clear in my mind to warrant taking away the choice if the individual to end his or her life.
5.22.2008
Lori Drew
So we have the tragic story of Megan Meier, the 13 year old girl who committed suicide after a 47 year old woman, Lori Drew, created a fictitious boy on MySpace, tricked Megan into thinking this boy liked her and then turn on her, calling her names, turning Megan's friends against her all of which caused Megan to hang herself.
Read this article.
The Feds are prosecuting her under cyber laws. But I wonder if this is manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is generally considered "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence." The key in this case is that Megan committed suicide, so Lori Drew did not directly kill Megan. But,
I wave an unloaded gun threatening people, one of which has a heart attack.
I put poison in a toothpaste tube, which someone uses and dies.
I yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.
This is clearly getting onto new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonymity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines. I am completely AGAINST criminalizing insults, but this was not a simple insult: it was a deliberate attempt, over a period of time, to cause (at least) emotional harm. And to be clear, it ONLY stopped because Megan killed herself.
Lori Drew's life is done, she will suffer financially and emotionally. I am concerned about the next time.
Read this article.
The Feds are prosecuting her under cyber laws. But I wonder if this is manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is generally considered "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence." The key in this case is that Megan committed suicide, so Lori Drew did not directly kill Megan. But,
I wave an unloaded gun threatening people, one of which has a heart attack.
I put poison in a toothpaste tube, which someone uses and dies.
I yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.
This is clearly getting onto new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonymity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines. I am completely AGAINST criminalizing insults, but this was not a simple insult: it was a deliberate attempt, over a period of time, to cause (at least) emotional harm. And to be clear, it ONLY stopped because Megan killed herself.
Lori Drew's life is done, she will suffer financially and emotionally. I am concerned about the next time.
5.20.2008
Evolution
Yuval Levin has one of the best pieces describing an agenda for conservatives that I have read in a long time.
It used to be, maybe only in some fictitious place in my mind, that conservatives believed in limited government. The "Reagan Revolution" was defined by fiscal and judicial restraint with a healthy dose of patriotism thrown in. (Reagan was NOT a social conservative in the mold of President Bush.) But beyond the rhetoric were concrete actions - cutting taxes; appointing conservative judges; rebuilding our military - that propelled the United States into a more stable and secure world position.
There is, I believe, shared national consensus that the federal government will be providing certain services, but the manner and level of intrusiveness is open for debate. Levin's proposal puts those issues front and center in a manner that draws clear distinctions between the parties and can serve as a rallying point for the down ticket.
Then, let the people choose.
It used to be, maybe only in some fictitious place in my mind, that conservatives believed in limited government. The "Reagan Revolution" was defined by fiscal and judicial restraint with a healthy dose of patriotism thrown in. (Reagan was NOT a social conservative in the mold of President Bush.) But beyond the rhetoric were concrete actions - cutting taxes; appointing conservative judges; rebuilding our military - that propelled the United States into a more stable and secure world position.
There is, I believe, shared national consensus that the federal government will be providing certain services, but the manner and level of intrusiveness is open for debate. Levin's proposal puts those issues front and center in a manner that draws clear distinctions between the parties and can serve as a rallying point for the down ticket.
Then, let the people choose.
5.14.2008
Country Roads
So I have been relatively silent on the political train wreck that is the Democratic primary. But the West Virginia primary has held up for all the world to see the completely dishonest treatment of race in the Democratic party.
The fact that Obama takes 90+% of the black vote is the "audacity of hope."
The fact that Hillary takes 60+% of the white vote is racism.
Read that again and think about it.
Tony Blankley makes a great point: it is time to have an honest conversation about race. But an honest conversation will be a rough one. I am afraid this Presidential race will set back race relations because of white resentment to the way they are being treated. They are being treated differently than blacks - call it electoral affirmative action - and are a bit perturbed.
Now, my comment is that "don't take the NYTimes personally." They have anointed their candidate and, rather than waste gray matter analyzing Obama's possible problems with West Virginians (or anyone else for that matter), just charge racism and move on. Simple.
But Americans do take their elections more seriously than the NYTimes. Leadership matters. Character matters. Obama's background, chosen associations, lack of legislative experience are all issues that resonate. To the extent that being black matters, it has come to the forefront that there is a subcultural of black racism and anti-Americanism that is deeply offensive.
Now, to be clear, I do not believe that the VAST majority of blacks really agree with Reverend Wright, but "go along to get along" is not an acceptable excuse.
The fact that Obama takes 90+% of the black vote is the "audacity of hope."
The fact that Hillary takes 60+% of the white vote is racism.
Read that again and think about it.
Tony Blankley makes a great point: it is time to have an honest conversation about race. But an honest conversation will be a rough one. I am afraid this Presidential race will set back race relations because of white resentment to the way they are being treated. They are being treated differently than blacks - call it electoral affirmative action - and are a bit perturbed.
Now, my comment is that "don't take the NYTimes personally." They have anointed their candidate and, rather than waste gray matter analyzing Obama's possible problems with West Virginians (or anyone else for that matter), just charge racism and move on. Simple.
But Americans do take their elections more seriously than the NYTimes. Leadership matters. Character matters. Obama's background, chosen associations, lack of legislative experience are all issues that resonate. To the extent that being black matters, it has come to the forefront that there is a subcultural of black racism and anti-Americanism that is deeply offensive.
Now, to be clear, I do not believe that the VAST majority of blacks really agree with Reverend Wright, but "go along to get along" is not an acceptable excuse.
4.14.2008
Oldie but a Goodie
From Hot Shots:
What should you do with an elephant that has three balls?
Walk him and pitch to the rhino...
What should you do with an elephant that has three balls?
Walk him and pitch to the rhino...
3.31.2008
Tilam v. Thew First - WSJ Later
Today's WSJ has a great editorial making the same point I made last week in greater detail. To wit, Hillary Clinton does not know squat about economics and her policies will cause the problems she is trying to prevent.
The quick recap, Mrs. Clinton is concerned we are headed for Japanese style malaise. My point was that the out-dated, government will "help," Keynesian solutions that Mrs. Clinton proposes is EXACTLY what caused the malaise in Japan.
The WSJ comes through with the data.
Of course, Tilam v. Thew readers had that info last week.
The quick recap, Mrs. Clinton is concerned we are headed for Japanese style malaise. My point was that the out-dated, government will "help," Keynesian solutions that Mrs. Clinton proposes is EXACTLY what caused the malaise in Japan.
The WSJ comes through with the data.
Of course, Tilam v. Thew readers had that info last week.
3.27.2008
Clintonomics
From the WSJ: "Hillary Clinton said she fears the U.S. is slipping into a Japanese-style economic malaise that will overwhelm the Federal Reserve's considerable powers.
"The Democratic presidential candidate said the U.S. government should be ready to buy troubled mortgages from investors and lenders to spur a recovery and avoid a lengthy period of stagnation because of unaddressed weaknesses in the financial sector."
Okay, now I will give you three guesses as to WHY Japan has been in a malaise for the past 10 years:
1) Japanese are lazy and the national savings rate is low.
2) Japanese businesses are non-competitive.
3) The government took on the burden of their banking crisis instead of letting the market sort things out.
The answer is 3. So Clinton, in all her economic wisdom, is proposing just the path the PUT Japan in its slow growth period.
Unbelievable.
"The Democratic presidential candidate said the U.S. government should be ready to buy troubled mortgages from investors and lenders to spur a recovery and avoid a lengthy period of stagnation because of unaddressed weaknesses in the financial sector."
Okay, now I will give you three guesses as to WHY Japan has been in a malaise for the past 10 years:
1) Japanese are lazy and the national savings rate is low.
2) Japanese businesses are non-competitive.
3) The government took on the burden of their banking crisis instead of letting the market sort things out.
The answer is 3. So Clinton, in all her economic wisdom, is proposing just the path the PUT Japan in its slow growth period.
Unbelievable.
3.20.2008
Madness 2008
Crap, everything that's going on - Spitzer, Wright/Obama, Paterson - can distract us from the really important things. March Madness is back, Baby!
As usual, I have been following basketball fairly closely this year, but I find myself in a very different camp then most of the sportwriters. Stewart Mandel says, this is the year of the favorite. The ESPN guys average Final Four Rank is 1.29 and no one has anyone seeded lower than 2. And even Dickie V. says no chance a 5 seed or lower makes the Final Four.
Hmmmm.
Okay, now I admit I always pick conservatively, but my humble opinion is that ANYONE can lose in the second round. Sure, I think UNC and UCLA are tough, but not unstoppable. And the teams ranked 3 through 6 have some solid players who can pull of the "upset." UConn got torched by Providence and WV (curse you, Joe Alexander), but have an outstanding point guard, a shot blocking god and two very strong forwards. Xavier, USC, Pittsburgh, Clemson, Louisville can all make a case that on any given day, they can win against anyone even if things don't go perfectly. Most importantly, all the top seeds have looked very vulnerable at times.
This may be the Year of the Favorite. More likely, it will come down to the point guard and great defense.
That said, Mr. Wimp picks:
UNC, Kansas, Texas, UCLA with UCLA beating UNC 82-75...
As usual, I have been following basketball fairly closely this year, but I find myself in a very different camp then most of the sportwriters. Stewart Mandel says, this is the year of the favorite. The ESPN guys average Final Four Rank is 1.29 and no one has anyone seeded lower than 2. And even Dickie V. says no chance a 5 seed or lower makes the Final Four.
Hmmmm.
Okay, now I admit I always pick conservatively, but my humble opinion is that ANYONE can lose in the second round. Sure, I think UNC and UCLA are tough, but not unstoppable. And the teams ranked 3 through 6 have some solid players who can pull of the "upset." UConn got torched by Providence and WV (curse you, Joe Alexander), but have an outstanding point guard, a shot blocking god and two very strong forwards. Xavier, USC, Pittsburgh, Clemson, Louisville can all make a case that on any given day, they can win against anyone even if things don't go perfectly. Most importantly, all the top seeds have looked very vulnerable at times.
This may be the Year of the Favorite. More likely, it will come down to the point guard and great defense.
That said, Mr. Wimp picks:
UNC, Kansas, Texas, UCLA with UCLA beating UNC 82-75...
2.11.2008
Men & Marriage
Cassandra over at Villainous Company offers some thoughts on men & marriage. (H/t Glenn.)
Overall, she makes some great points, but I still notice how no MEN are actually writing about this. So, to wit:
I am in my mid-40s, married for 16 years with three kids, two dogs and a house in the 'burbs. I waited until I was 28 to get engaged and it happened rather quickly. (When you know, you know.) Our marriage is not perfect, but I would not trade it for anything.
That said, I would never get married again.
This is not to say I regret my decision (I don't), but that absent this particular woman and the kids, I do not find the prospect of marriage to have any upside to me and I do see plenty of downside. I am not at all concerned about lacking for sex and if I want companionship, I'll get a dog. Thankfully, I can afford the maid service to keep the house in order and anything more complicated than a sandwich, I can order in or dine out. Finally, I am willing to admit that I take great pleasure in material things.
Okay, so why. Simply because (and I am generalizing here) men want the most from the least. I am lazy; I don't want to work hard. Women are hard work. ALL women. George Bernard Shaw said, "Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else." How true...
Actually, to be clear, I work hard all day. My job is stressful (though I enjoy it) and involves near constant conflict or conflict resolution. I want my home life to be tranquil. It won't be. Why? Because I would also admit that I am hard work...if you are interested in changing me into some domestic lapdog or having me conform to the "Unrealistic Marriage Template" Cassandra talks about.
I certainly agree that there are tons of really wonderful women out there. So again, this is not to say I do not enjoy the company of women, but I would want the option of walking away at the end of the night.
More to follow...
Tdub???
UPDATE: Sorry, link fixed.
UPDATE II: See this post by William Voegeli...
Overall, she makes some great points, but I still notice how no MEN are actually writing about this. So, to wit:
I am in my mid-40s, married for 16 years with three kids, two dogs and a house in the 'burbs. I waited until I was 28 to get engaged and it happened rather quickly. (When you know, you know.) Our marriage is not perfect, but I would not trade it for anything.
That said, I would never get married again.
This is not to say I regret my decision (I don't), but that absent this particular woman and the kids, I do not find the prospect of marriage to have any upside to me and I do see plenty of downside. I am not at all concerned about lacking for sex and if I want companionship, I'll get a dog. Thankfully, I can afford the maid service to keep the house in order and anything more complicated than a sandwich, I can order in or dine out. Finally, I am willing to admit that I take great pleasure in material things.
Okay, so why. Simply because (and I am generalizing here) men want the most from the least. I am lazy; I don't want to work hard. Women are hard work. ALL women. George Bernard Shaw said, "Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else." How true...
Actually, to be clear, I work hard all day. My job is stressful (though I enjoy it) and involves near constant conflict or conflict resolution. I want my home life to be tranquil. It won't be. Why? Because I would also admit that I am hard work...if you are interested in changing me into some domestic lapdog or having me conform to the "Unrealistic Marriage Template" Cassandra talks about.
I certainly agree that there are tons of really wonderful women out there. So again, this is not to say I do not enjoy the company of women, but I would want the option of walking away at the end of the night.
More to follow...
Tdub???
UPDATE: Sorry, link fixed.
UPDATE II: See this post by William Voegeli...
2.08.2008
2.07.2008
My Advice to McCain
Okay, with Govenor Romney gone, McCain makes his first speech as the nominee. My advice to him is to point out the different roles that a Senator and the leader of a Party play.
When John Paul II died, I wrote a quick post on how different I would be if elected Pope (go with me on this). The point is that sometimes, your role is bigger than yourself. Sometimes, in some positions, you represent something else. As a CEO of my company, I did not feel I could just clown around as "one of the guys"; as Pope, I could not maintain certain views that I have (say euthanasia) because the Vicar of Christ needs to defend life.
Senator McCain needs to draw a distinction between being one of 100 and being the Leader of the Free World. And he needs to be clear that he means it.
When John Paul II died, I wrote a quick post on how different I would be if elected Pope (go with me on this). The point is that sometimes, your role is bigger than yourself. Sometimes, in some positions, you represent something else. As a CEO of my company, I did not feel I could just clown around as "one of the guys"; as Pope, I could not maintain certain views that I have (say euthanasia) because the Vicar of Christ needs to defend life.
Senator McCain needs to draw a distinction between being one of 100 and being the Leader of the Free World. And he needs to be clear that he means it.
Mitt Quit
Or actually "suspended his campaign." Too bad, I think he would have been a very good President, but the numbers were hard to overcome. Ultimately, Governor Huckabee was the cause of Governor Romney's demise, stealing social conservatives who would otherwise have voted for Gov. Romney.
Admittedly, I view Gov. Huckabee's with distain. It is a classic ego driven no-chance effort that aggravates intra-party divisions. His stupid statements on foreign policy and making the Constitution match the Bible made a mockery of conservative ideals and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Idiot.
Yet, he soldiers on and Governor Romney bows out for the good of the country.
Admittedly, I view Gov. Huckabee's with distain. It is a classic ego driven no-chance effort that aggravates intra-party divisions. His stupid statements on foreign policy and making the Constitution match the Bible made a mockery of conservative ideals and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
Idiot.
Yet, he soldiers on and Governor Romney bows out for the good of the country.
Around the (Political) Horn
For a guy that loves politics, I have not had much to say on the blog as of late. Part of that was an early recognition that Super Tuesday was the first clarifying event of the political season (it was...kinda) and partly because my early choice, Fred Thompson never took off.
But here we are. First off, for the Republicans, John McCain seems to be the choice - not a total lock, but pretty much so. Ultimately, I think McCain will be a good choice and I simply do not have the trepidation that other conservatives have.
Why? Because post-Reagan conservatism rests on three "types" of conservative positions. The first is fiscal conservatism; the second is nationalism (or foreign policy conservatism); and finally, social conservatism. Very rarely (and certainly not in Reagan's or the Bushes' cases) does a Republican nominee embrace all three. Social conservatism was not a priority for Reagan and fiscal conservatism is not a priority for the current President Bush. All three, one could argue, were foreign policy conservatives first and foremost.
McCain is a foreign policy conservative first and foremost with small government instincts. He is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (Note that one socially conservative principle is to appoint judges who follow the Constitution, which is often a point where non-social conservatives - such as your humble narrator - find common ground with SC.)
For me, fiscal conservatism is first; foreign policy conservatism is second and, excepting judges, social conservatism does not move the needle at all. The fact that McCain has flipped my first two priorities does not really bother me. The fact that he pisses Jim Dobson off might be a feature rather than a bug. (I want Jim Dobson's morality foisted upon me as much as I want Gloria Steinem's.)
For the Democrats, things are far dicier. Barack Obama is an interesting candidate - for 2016. I concede he is inspirational and a great speaker, but he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and has promised to raise my taxes. Not endearing. I think his message is one that will attract attention, but he simple does not have any real experience and his resume does not compare to Senator McCain. I also think that most people will vote substance - not style - in the private confines of the voting both.
Then there is HRC. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure with all Bill's baggage and none of the charm. She is one VERY smart lady - give her credit - but does not have the touch of a true politician. But she has shown she will do anything - anything - to win. And that sort of viciousness should never be under estimated. Is the country ready for another dose of Clinton mores?
But here we are. First off, for the Republicans, John McCain seems to be the choice - not a total lock, but pretty much so. Ultimately, I think McCain will be a good choice and I simply do not have the trepidation that other conservatives have.
Why? Because post-Reagan conservatism rests on three "types" of conservative positions. The first is fiscal conservatism; the second is nationalism (or foreign policy conservatism); and finally, social conservatism. Very rarely (and certainly not in Reagan's or the Bushes' cases) does a Republican nominee embrace all three. Social conservatism was not a priority for Reagan and fiscal conservatism is not a priority for the current President Bush. All three, one could argue, were foreign policy conservatives first and foremost.
McCain is a foreign policy conservative first and foremost with small government instincts. He is not a social conservative by any stretch of the imagination. (Note that one socially conservative principle is to appoint judges who follow the Constitution, which is often a point where non-social conservatives - such as your humble narrator - find common ground with SC.)
For me, fiscal conservatism is first; foreign policy conservatism is second and, excepting judges, social conservatism does not move the needle at all. The fact that McCain has flipped my first two priorities does not really bother me. The fact that he pisses Jim Dobson off might be a feature rather than a bug. (I want Jim Dobson's morality foisted upon me as much as I want Gloria Steinem's.)
For the Democrats, things are far dicier. Barack Obama is an interesting candidate - for 2016. I concede he is inspirational and a great speaker, but he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and has promised to raise my taxes. Not endearing. I think his message is one that will attract attention, but he simple does not have any real experience and his resume does not compare to Senator McCain. I also think that most people will vote substance - not style - in the private confines of the voting both.
Then there is HRC. Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure with all Bill's baggage and none of the charm. She is one VERY smart lady - give her credit - but does not have the touch of a true politician. But she has shown she will do anything - anything - to win. And that sort of viciousness should never be under estimated. Is the country ready for another dose of Clinton mores?
1.25.2008
Friday Thoughts
Reading Yglesias (a hard Keynesian) on economics is like reading someone arguing creationism - it takes a lot of denial for Matt to argue taht way.
NYTimes endorses McCain and Romney/Giuliani breathe a sigh of relief. Pinch has destroyed a national treasure.
Republicans everywhere are smiling that Democrats notice that Bill Clinton is a liar. Though admittedly that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is...
Every day that passes convinces me that the Democratic primaries are making Obama is a more dangerous candidate and Hillary a less dangerous one. If Bill is pissed at the press now, Chris Wallace will make his head explode on national TV.
The economy will be the win-lose issue as usual. Iraq has calmed down and there have been no major terrorist attacks in the Western world. I am less confident that plays well for Republicans.
To astute observers, the military is at a cross roads. The US Armed Forces does not have one major force delivery platform that was introduced later then the 70s, excepting drones. The F-22/F-35 are starting to come online in small numbers; DD(X) destroyers are JUST being built (the "as needed" CG(X) and LCS are not started yet). Ironically, the Army is making better strides with FCS, but that is due to lower marginal cost and higher enemy contact. Someone needs to be worrying about this now.
NYTimes endorses McCain and Romney/Giuliani breathe a sigh of relief. Pinch has destroyed a national treasure.
Republicans everywhere are smiling that Democrats notice that Bill Clinton is a liar. Though admittedly that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is...
Every day that passes convinces me that the Democratic primaries are making Obama is a more dangerous candidate and Hillary a less dangerous one. If Bill is pissed at the press now, Chris Wallace will make his head explode on national TV.
The economy will be the win-lose issue as usual. Iraq has calmed down and there have been no major terrorist attacks in the Western world. I am less confident that plays well for Republicans.
To astute observers, the military is at a cross roads. The US Armed Forces does not have one major force delivery platform that was introduced later then the 70s, excepting drones. The F-22/F-35 are starting to come online in small numbers; DD(X) destroyers are JUST being built (the "as needed" CG(X) and LCS are not started yet). Ironically, the Army is making better strides with FCS, but that is due to lower marginal cost and higher enemy contact. Someone needs to be worrying about this now.
The Billionaire and the Poor
Bill Gates is trashing capitalism. Larry Kudlow destroys his premise. In particular, it is always fascinating to me how capitalism can be blamed for failure in Africa...a place were capitalism is no where to be found. (If it were, they would not be dirt poor.)
One thing the Kudlow gets wrong most people do...he says that Gate is a "guy without a college degree who invented a new technology process in his garage that literally changed the entire world." Uh, no. Gates and Microsoft did not invent anything...they licensed DOS technology and re-licensed it to IBM. In other words, Gates is a billionaire because he was a smart and savvy middleman. Further, it is pretty clear that they rode IBM's sales prowess and the emergence of the PC to greatness. The right place at the right time.
I am not begrudging Gates that, but let's be straight on how this all happened.
One thing the Kudlow gets wrong most people do...he says that Gate is a "guy without a college degree who invented a new technology process in his garage that literally changed the entire world." Uh, no. Gates and Microsoft did not invent anything...they licensed DOS technology and re-licensed it to IBM. In other words, Gates is a billionaire because he was a smart and savvy middleman. Further, it is pretty clear that they rode IBM's sales prowess and the emergence of the PC to greatness. The right place at the right time.
I am not begrudging Gates that, but let's be straight on how this all happened.
1.23.2008
Where are the Adults?
The markets are in a downward spiral and looking for some adult supervision. They will not get any from Washington.
The current credit crisis resulted from easy money policy and interest rates that were too low. This provided lenders with non-market incentives to over commit (including not doing diligence - a substantial amount of subprime mortgages foreclosures involve fraud) and viola! problems. The "solution" of easing the cost of credit (lower interest rates) and coming to the rescue does not provide the market medicine needed; Clinton's moratorium on foreclosures doesn't either; and each "solution" convinces the markets (US and world) that we are stupid or unserious about the problem.
The plain fact is no one has a stimulus solution because there is none. The best we can do to provide a sound, long term policy and structure and let the markets work it through.
Secretary Paulson, shame on you, you should know better. George Melloan certainly does.
The current credit crisis resulted from easy money policy and interest rates that were too low. This provided lenders with non-market incentives to over commit (including not doing diligence - a substantial amount of subprime mortgages foreclosures involve fraud) and viola! problems. The "solution" of easing the cost of credit (lower interest rates) and coming to the rescue does not provide the market medicine needed; Clinton's moratorium on foreclosures doesn't either; and each "solution" convinces the markets (US and world) that we are stupid or unserious about the problem.
The plain fact is no one has a stimulus solution because there is none. The best we can do to provide a sound, long term policy and structure and let the markets work it through.
Secretary Paulson, shame on you, you should know better. George Melloan certainly does.
1.22.2008
Fred is Gone
Thompson has dropped out. This has left a lot of righties on the political front scratching their heads...me included. (Frank J. has taken it surprisingly well, but I hope he continues to educate us on Fred Thompson.)
While I have been a bit busy to comment on politics, I will have some time in the next week to reflect and post on Thompson, the economy, politics, sports and all the other subject I know shit about.
I'll leave you with this, courtesy of Theo Sparks (btw, site NSFW sometimes):
While I have been a bit busy to comment on politics, I will have some time in the next week to reflect and post on Thompson, the economy, politics, sports and all the other subject I know shit about.
I'll leave you with this, courtesy of Theo Sparks (btw, site NSFW sometimes):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)