Back in the day a German acquaintance of mine asked me to translate a phrase for him. The phrase was “bihag ng pagibig.” The question was asked as we were sitting at the Mega-Mall, a giant shopping center built across from the Asian Development Bank in Manila, where we had just finished delivering a report to a loan officer on a forestry project. We had just gotten back from the field, and not having enough time to get our own proper clothes were forced to borrow a shirts and trousers from friends who lived in the Corinthian Gardens, which was right beside the Bank. The results were barely correct, though somewhat comical. All my German colleague could find was a long sleeved orange satin shirt which billowed out at the elbows and a pair of trousers about four inches too short. All I could find for my part, was a white shirt and a suit jacket about eight inches too long. Despite being described as resembling “a couple of refugees from a Hungarian bordello” our presentation was a success. In order to celebrate we went up to have a drink at the Mega-Mall.
“How does it happen,” he asked eyeing the parade of lissome ladies who wandered past, “that all these beautiful women are all escorted by losers. Cheap leeches. How do they hang on to women far better than they are, how?” I considered the question momentarily and answered: “easy, it’s the bihag ng pagibig phenomenon“. “The what?” he asked me to explain. I said, “have you ever had a woman take you aside for advice and tell you that she can’t stand her boy friend? That he’s a good for nothing; takes her money; cheats on her; lies. Until finally you ask the obvious question: ‘why not leave him?’ only to get the answer: ‘but I still love him’. But I still love him.” I chuckled. I said, “that’s what bihag ng pag-ibig means. It means “the slave to love.” He turned the answer over in his mind for a while and finally he turned to me and asked, “can we play that game?” “Never,” I answered, “because we can’t take ourselves seriously. I mean, look at us. We look like a couple of clowns. And we’d hate ourselves for doing it, even if we could.”
Camille Paglia, writing in Salon, concludes that “I still love him” in an article describing the lies, deceit and imbecilities of Barack Obama’s health care program. And why does she think this, after listing out his catastrophic public policy? Well, because the President is so handsome and well spoken, that’s why.
Buyer’s remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at — representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do. …
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises — or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi … has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down. …
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? … As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut … How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again?
How is it possible? Why does it matter when whatever Obama does Camille Paglia can be counted upon to remain the bihag ng pagibig; the slave to love. The real power of the Left does not lie in its ability to out-argue the Conservatives but to out-friend them. When Pauline Kael said, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know,” she was expressing a rather ordinary sentiment. The Left is a culture; it is a circle of friends. Bill Ayers knows that once a youth is brought into the Leftist orbit they eventually surround themselves with a society, culture and artistic preferences from which they can never escape.
Just as every Church on Sunday contains a considerable number of parishioners who think the preacher is spouting hogwash, its safe to say that in every Leftist meeting hall there are an equal percentage of people who are inwardly rolling their eyes at the speaker’s exhortations. But to arise and call out the speaker would be just as unthinkable as a Catholic parishioner rising from the pews to accuse the priest of arrant nonsense. Many a Leftist and churchgoer stay seated not out of conviction, but out of the inability to walk away from a lifelong circle of friends, habits and modalities. It’s not just Hedda Nessbaum who stays and takes it. They all stay because “they still love you”.
The real secret to gaining on the Left isn’t to offer up a more cogent argument or to present more compelling facts. It’s to outfriend them; to open up a door that will make the undecideds out in the cold come in and feel loved. On the day conservatives sweep the Facebook groups they will sweep the world. Alas, all too many people want to be the bihag ng pag-ibig, and all too few can stomach what it takes to pull them in. Shane won’t do it, but Barack will. And as for those in the Left, it’s largely futile to imagine they will ever switch sides; ever walk out on their friends, theater groups, literary clubs, faculty bridge associations; ever walk out on their lives. Barack Obama will have to practically poison Camille Paglia before she will consent to abjure him, for to do so would be turn her back on too great a store of memory to easily relinquish.
Nobody else can ever know.
The part of me that can’t let go.I would give anything i own.
Give up my life and my heart, my home.
I would give everything i own
Just to have you back again.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
In the devestating quote from Paglia supplied by Wretchard she wrote: “At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at — representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad”.
One wishes she had given examples: bowing to the fat Saudi “king” – financer of jihadists, high-fiving Chavez, rolling over for the Mullahs, etc.
Here in Iraq with U.S. forces, the perception is that the President has placed a “kick me” sign on the back of the U.S. Army and told us to bend over.
he quote from CLaudia
Any doubters of Whiskey’s theories, now?
Because, writ large, this explains the women he describes, and the reactions of their worthless metrosexual sycophants, as well.
Reading Robert Conquest’s history of the terror, one is struck by how framed-up and abused Bolsheviks would grovel and confess to anything in order to return to the Party. The Party was their world. They had given up God for it; and it became their God. Everyone of consequence they knew belonged to it; every idea they thought came from it; all the sweet and exciting memories of their youth were bound up with it. The worst punishment the Party could inflict wasn’t the gulag; it was expulsion. I don’t think it’s a “woman” thing so much as the manifestation of a very powerful need to belong.
Think of it: if Paglia decided to renounce Obama it would change her world completely. But the same would be true of men. Someone (a man) related how he met up some old friends after a separation of years and found that he drifted far to the right of them politically. He just sat there and smiled at all the left wing jokes out of a kind of politeness for old times’ sake. But he had another world to return to after the reunion was over, so he could grin and bear it. But where does Paglia go if she shifts to the other side? The Left is a world; a womb. It isn’t a system of thinking so much as a web of supportive emotion.
Where does anyone go? Once you’ve made the leap, and actually done the difficult job of admitting that your basic premises were wrong and retooling your cherished notions and worldview to a more logical and mature (ie conservative/libertarian) point of view, the rest is easy.
I’ve long contended that one of the most difficult things to do is break free of the adolescent easiness of leftist thought. Human beings just aren’t very good at this on average. Being a leftist requires no difficult thinking, and is comforting, Also, he left gives you permission to go around thinking you are inherently smarter and better than most humans simply by agreeing with their core beliefs and talking points, without any actual requirements that you provide physical proof of your intellect or achievements.
Once you’ve accepted those college sophomore attitude of wearing emotion and adolescence on your sleeve and going about thinking that aomeone twenty years old with that particular mindset of believing that you got it all figured are inherently and irrevocably wrong, there’s a whole world opened up for you. Areas of thought, and people who think along those lines. Who will be happy to be with you, and will be better friends, anyway.
That should read:
“Once you’ve accepted that the college sophomore attitude of wearing emotion on your sleeve and that going about in life thinking that someone twenty years old with the particular mindset of believing that they have it all figured out is inherently and irrevocably wrong, there’s a whole world opened up for you.”
You nailed the story, Wretchard, and also properly differentiated Whiskey’s overly narrow assessment.
But it goes beyond a need to belong, I think. The allure of Barack Obama, beneficiary of the most unserious Presidential election of my lifetime, was the nearly complete ascent of the superficial over the substantive. I don’t mean run-of-the-mill superficiality over substance. That’s a feature that has been with us for quite some time. But note Paglia’s necessary swipe at George Bush for his inability to be a sufficiently presentable talking head. This is what always blows me away. The breezy prejudice of it all.
He doesn’t talk well enough?
His mannerisms aren’t acceptable enough?
I kept thinking to myself, “Are these people serious?” Yes, they were, and yes, they are. It’s quite striking. If we’re fortunate, this perfect storm arbitrarily pulled out of central casting will not be repeated in any election cycle for the foreseeable future.
Paglia, and anyone who thinks like her (leftist women and leftist metrosexuals alike) are, it would seem, more motivated by image than by facts on the ground.
Or how about absolute fear of ever having to admit, even once, that they were wrong, ever, about anything? This is a classsic symptom of leftists, everywhere, in their quest to prove that there’s no such thing as original sin and that humans are perfectible, primarily by government.
One is compelled to wonder what it would take to move her off the dime. But then, there are women who stay in marriages where men beat them like a dog, so perhaps the answer is ‘nothing’.
Or perhaps being Obama’s ‘Hedda Nussbaum’ brings with it that oh-so-craved victim cred that the left reveres.
Ah, Wretchard, you just need a shot of 0bamaCare from Dr. Mayer.
0bama and his cronies wouldn’t lie – would they?
http://tinyurl.com/lo8y34
Paglia’s job is images. Her life is images.
She’s in art.
That’s her spoken language and her thinking language.
Nice for her.
But it restricts her ability to understand what’s going on, particularly such things as results.
What result does a statue have? None.
The statue is itself, having no beginning and no ending outside itself.
Nothing else matters, or, for that matter, exists.
If you cannot refine your thinking by trying to match it up with results, your thinking isn’t going to change.
It amazes me to read Paglia’s vivid description of the rotten fish without her realizing it rots from the head.
It amazes me that Paglia so vividly describes the rotten fish without realizing it rots from the head.
I bet Whiskey’s eyes bulged out of his head as he read this article!
As a kid who grew up in a household owned by a extremely physical abuser. I used to spend enormous amounts of time trying to figure out why my mother let this turd do this to her. Once I grew large enough his arms no longer worked and he couldn’t stand up to kick her but he would still berate her verbally and she still doesn’t speak to me to this day over 40 years later.
Thanks for the phrase Wretchard. It makes it up into a tidy complete package. How do you phonetically speak it?
This is why it isn’t winnable with a contest of ideas. The Left will have to choose to leave their own ideology. Or we will continue to live in their world of excrement. Or we will have to eliminate their ability to gain control of power of govt…
My wife and I were hardly into politics, not committed to anything and slightly left while we were young public servants. After a 13 year run of Labor (in Australia), a longish dose of private enterprise, and the experience that comes with that and raising a family, we see the world through different eyes. Over time, I fell out of love with starry-eyed idealism and came to see the benefits of a tougher love. It is with suspicion and cynicism now that I observe the daily mediaprop-feed, and the tendril-trend towards lowering the voting age.
Paglia sees more clearly then most.
If you recall during the Clinton administration Rush’s theme that all the women were enamored of Bill Clinton through arousal.
Emotion is easy to connect to and the liberals have been using wmotinal arguments from the start.
However conservatives had their emotional touchstones also. Reagan was classic and Palin also has that same ability to connect emotionally to get that apt emotional phrase “death panels”.
The cult of Palin which I share to an extant has the warm connection emotionally and also she shares he same basic idealoigy I do.
Obama gained from the cult of personality. So does Palin which is why she was so quickly recognized as a threat to the left and they attempted to destroy it with ridicule.
This desire of emotional sharing is endemic to the human condition.
Remeber the old saying paraphrased “to be young is to be liberal or you had no heart. To be old is to be conservative or you had no head.”
“All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling.” Blaise Pascal
Duplicate removed.
Except it is an artificial world, paid for by other people’s
money. It properly is not a “Culture”, but a demimonde.
As some one once said: The superior man has friends; the inferior man joins cliques.
The solution here is to dry up its financial resources and then let the chatter away and spend their days giving one another awards.
One thing is for certain, this little sub-culture can not go on much longer. Unfortunately, they may take us with them.
The Left is a world; a womb. It isn’t a system of thinking so much as a web of supportive emotion.
Exactly, the left is too emotional & the right is too rational [The right offers too many prescriptions for solutions that are uncaring].
See: left brain / right brain: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/07/12/left-brain-right-brain/
Our goal, really, should be to help the two brains work together…. Both sides need each other, so that as a country, America, can gets is emotional & rational needs in sync.
Fundamentally, the goal of those on the right, should not be to oppose the left, but to learn from them & work with them; come up with solutions together.
I think that the Obama phenomenon is not a cultural driver or a first cause but a symptom of “something” much deeper and much more sinister in its implications.
The formation of the United States was in many respects the apogee of the Enlightenment. Thoughtful men, well studied in the history, philosophy and science of their times reasoned a never before seen polity that effectively encapsulated a Western version of the Proper Order.
The goodness of human beings was provided with a framework which would allow individuals to propsper on their merits while at the same time erecting insitituional restraints that would inhibit the ability of the bad actors to screw it up. That they got it right is evidenced by the fact that at no time in human history as the first 200 years have so many “little” people flourished so well.
Neither reason nor science get so much as a winking nod today. The Federal government is rushing to either destroy or confiscate the accumulated wealth of generations, the traditional father has been written out, a single mother or two queers and somebody else’s kid is the ideal family, and we measure our success in a hostile world by whether or not our enemies speak well of us. The American Psychiatric Association either has or is about to declare opposition to AGW a mental illness.
Today’s problems run much deeper than a personable guy who lies with impunity.
I think these formulations leave out the central component, self-hatred and the projected rage that results from it.
MarcH is right to focus on Paglia’s elevation of BO’s international displays of anti-Americanism. This betrays her assumption that we and she are bad and need to engage in some kind of self-expiation. Same with the women who choose losers and abusers.
Even though we’re talking about 1/5th of the U.S. population when we describe these liberals/leftists, their memes have been spread by the state-run media, so that most Americans seem oblivious to the fact that we are the first culture to firmly repudiate racism. A large component of the muddled center voted for Barry out of a misguided guilt, thereby adopting a racist motive and is now reaping the increase in racist tension that was predictable.
That center is now realizing, with varying degrees of horror, what we’ve done. The leftists like Paglia are still immersed in self-loathing out of a need to cling to the discredited philosophies and failed policies that inhabit their centers. They can’t face that, so they project it on everyone else, a primitive defense that implies that they will get increasingly nasty as they are cornered but that they will ultimately find what they are looking for, self-destruction.
3/wretchard: Someone (a man) related how he met up some old friends after a separation of years and found that he drifted far to the right of them politically.
That describes my life. Having gone off to a noted Ivy League university from a liberal/socialist home environment, my family was astounded to hear me questioning liberal dogma by my second year. I was embracing Reaganism and citing the Great Philosophers to undermine the socialist values with which I had been raised. At holidays, they would gang up on me 10:1 and try to convince me I was wrong. Then the attacks became personal. They began to call me Alex, after the TV character Alex P. Keaton, in what I interpreted as a subversive attempt to undermine my developing sense of identity. Each time they failed, I moved farther right. Their arguments were not based in facts or experience, but on surreal hopes and dreams. I knew in time, reality would pop their balloon.
For the past 25 years we grew far apart, rarely speaking and rarely visiting. They didn’t like that I told them that their generation (Boomers) and their nonsense were going to destroy the future for me and my children. It changed in the past year. In not so many words, they have said, “You were right.” They are far more vitriolic and opposed to the new administration than I am. Their retirement funds and health care stability are threatened by those very ideals they tried to impose on me. Now, they must live in the real world and are opening their eyes.
In the words of GB Shaw: “New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.”
I believe we are at the early stages of a Depression and as the fig leaf of government stimulus and media complicity fails, life will get harder. A harder existence will force more Americans to face reality. In that environment we will find our rebirth. Hard men and women will rise to meet hard times. The soft existence of welfarism and buying off incompetence will end. I only hope that the rebirth is not one of totalitarianism, but of rekindled Liberty.
#7 ” In their quest to prove there’s no such thing as original sin” they commit the original sin.
They place man, not God, the the center of their material universe. Their
beliefs deny the spiritual and their actions are antihuman as the last century seemed to prove.
It is exceedingly difficult for them to give up their primal illusion.
The troubles between right and left are as old as humankind.
Ever since the Selling of the President, actually it was long before, Dems have been trying to capitalize on the fact that people buy emotionally and defend the decision logically.
The problem is, there is no logical defense for this latest buying decision, and the folks who bought it are going to take out their anger and frustration with the stupidity of the purchase on the folks who did not “buy it”. While still somehow trying to defend the acquisition.
Sigh, “bihag ng pagibig”, could it be that love really does mean never having to say you’re sorry?
R Buckminster Fuller once mused,
“Love is metaphysical gravity”
The thought just tickles my sense of the ironic.
The left polices their own quite well. They use ridicule and shunning to an astoundingly effective degree. Witness how quickly Sarah Palin became an object of ridicule. This was as much a warning to the members of the left as anything else. I could not imagine a leftist today even being caught thinking a nice thought about Sarah Palin. To do so would result in immediate ridicule for himself, and that is too much of a risk. The thought police are on thought patrol and keep their own quite fenced in, with 12 foot fences and razor wire.
Mongoose is right, the left is indeed a kept culture. One can only hope that like kept women, the left would grow old and have its allure fade.
PB: I question that notion of the USA springing form the so-called “Enlightenment”.
Perhaps the Founders were informed to a degree by the “Scottish Enlightenment”, but the “French Enlightenment”, with its other Continental components, had much less impact, and a case could be made that they were repulsed by the latter’s positivism, excessive reliance on a rather simplistic notion of “reason” and, above all, its incredulity. One does observe that a sound knowledge of history–both ancient and nearer to their times–and a pragmatic understanding of human nature, much informed by Christian concepts, where their most profound guides.
This recourse to the “Enlightenment” to explain America is more of a 19th and 20th century attempt to characterize that period rather than an actual fact of those revolutionary times, and one must note that in this century those that push the “Enlightenment” construct have had their own agendas. Famously, Socialists have often posited that their “scientific socialism” is heir to the “great tradition of the Enlightenment. Comically, we see this in demonstrated by the EU politicians of our day. In the Anglosphere, the very term itself only appears in the mid 19th century. Whatever the case, let us admit that the term denotes a period and not a particularly philosophical or political movement: In these matters the “Enlightenment” contains many positions, some of which are quite contradictory. One is left with the image of Beethoven scratching out his dedication to Napoleon on the autograph copy of the his 3rd symphony upon hearing that Napoleon had declared himself Emperor.
I think that the sources of America are many, but chief among them are reactions to the 30 Years War and all that came with it, a reaction to the new entrenchment of the Ancient Regime after that war, and a good many happy accidents in the conditions of America’s development as a colony. The weight given matters of Faith in the history of our formation reflects this.
If the central points of the Enlightenment are the destruction of the old European aristocratic hierarchical order and an attendant suppression of religion as a guiding social and political institution, then one might well call WW1 the “apogee” of the Enlightenment, however bitter a pill this might be for our current professoriate to swallow.
elby @ 26
For a perfect example of what you said, read the comments attendent to Paglia’s essay. She is obviously starting to stray, and the denouncements will become harsher with time. she has been warned.
one must note that in this century=one must note that in the 20th century
(well this one too.)
I wonder if Ms Paglia knows the meaning of the word “feckless” in her description of W. So contrary to the bowing and scraping of her ‘hero’ to third world entities mentioned in a later post.
tomw
Last night, my husband and I attended a Town Hall meeting, armed with four legitimate questions for our representative. The room was packed….we were standing outside the room with about one hundred people who,also, could not enter the packed room.
We began talking with a policeman and a elderly man who was retired from the VA. Neither one of them liked the healthcare package as proposed by Emporer Obama. In the middle of the meeting (we could not hear a word of it) two twenty-something young woman came out and asked the policeman for help. This is what happened. Two very large men from ACORN (they were wearing bright red T-shirts that said ACORN) surrouded the woman in the meeting and told them that the reason they were there (the young woman) was becasue they hated Obama because he was black. One of the women said “I have MS…and I want to know what is going to happen to me under his plan). The man put his cell phone in her face to take her photo. When she put up her hand in front of her face, he started yelling, “She is attacking me. She is hitting me.” The girl did not even touch him or his cell phone. So they came out to ask the policeman to help them…and to escort them to their car. He (and my husband and I) escorted them to his car so that he could give them a ride to their car, which was located across the parkig lot. They were completely shook up and frightened that this man and his three coharts who followed all of us out of the building, were going to follow them home and hurt them. The large man from ACORN said that he called the sheriff and was going to press charges. The policeman talked to them for a long time…..diffusing the “made-up” situation and then drove the women to their car. So…this is how ACORN operates. Just wanted to let you all know…..these people were looking for someone vulnerable to create a big stir and to try to discredit the other folks at the meeting….who are concerned (like me) about losing our freedom of choice.
novanglus: Good for you! While the current “humanities” are a mess, your life shows the worth of their study and their proper application.
I would say that while, yes, the Left is “emotional”, what is really frustrating us is the fact that they are anti-illegal in the primary sense of the word. They “intellect” is little developed beyond the use of certainly rhetorical dodges. This confusion of mind and rhetorical is what really bedevils us.
And there is a difference between sentimentality and real, honest sentiment.
“Emotions” are not necessarily a thing to be feared or shunned, but of course they must not have absolute control of thought, discourse or decision.
tomw: I think that she means “icky”.
One does find a few malapropism in her writings.
Dananana: you should tell those people to file a police complaint and have an attorney speak to those people that have made this accusation and ACRON’s local office. These matters are quire legal actionable. Have her contact the local press.
This has to be faced now.
Mongoose: one needs to distinguish between the sceptical Enlightenment (human nature is as it is and reason allows us to apply the lessons of history and experience) and the radical Enlightenment (human nature has been repressed/can be moulded so the past is just a record of errors and follies which will be soon surpassed). The US is very much a founding of the sceptical Enlightenment which did indeed partly grow out of experience of the wars of religion.
The left sells a sense of being a member of the Club of the Virtuous and Enlightened. This emotional commitment is very powerful, because it becomes a matter of personal identity and tribal belonging.
It also means they are particularly likely to be in error, because it encourages suppression of inconvenient facts.
Mongoose
I’m not going to count the angels on the head of the Enlightenment pin. Suffice it to say the the formation of the United States was something very special in human history. I believe it was Franklin who said that we have given them a Republic – if they can keep it.
Under the current trajectory a reasonably competent person (lucky enough to avoid capture in war) that lived in the Han Dynasty will have had a better shot at a good life than somebody living in 21st Century America.
“The Party was their world.” Yes. The World – and as Schopenhauer pointed out and Kierkegaard reiterated and re-explained, the World is much more likely to be a merely *aesthetic* organizing meme, rather than an ethical one, among a certain kind of very common person. A person suffering from the institutionalized and nurtured emotional arrested development of his town and era, but who has been the prodigal recipient of the great summits of thought, which such a person can nevertheless only appreciate on the level of a collection of slogans. These slogans vaguely organize the loose network of interests which provide the coherence and experience-translating machine of his friend groups, myriad friend groups their culture, and their culture their politics. Nevertheless, in all this multitude, nothing but aesthetic attachment, ephemeral feeling, a large shining bouyant stupidity.
I agree that the influence of the authors of the Enlightenment and the subsequent ascendance of “the Aufklarung” as a cultural-phase polestar were very influential and provide the architecture of which the phenomenon I badly describe is a misunderstanding, but having observed a similar development in my friends on a small scale – for that’s what we’ve witnessed in my generation over the previous 8 years, a choice – I think the answer may be just this: it is merely aesthetic appreciation. The week after 9/11, I was sitting in a bar in NYC’s lower east side, a 20something, and was talking with a friend about how we were going to go into Afghanistan and destroy the Taliban, and how glorious the vengeance would be, since it was such a shiningly moral thing to do. “That’s YOUR morality” said a voice behind me, some hipster; “no that IS morality,” I said; “NO man that’s YOUR MORALITY” he yelled back. And so it went on. I felt like breaking his face, and delivering to him the ethical epiphany that all his experience and mind and acquaintances had totally rebelled against all their lives – while living off the fruits of those moral people who had preceded them and cared for them and let them debauch themselves. So I like Kierkegaard’s “aesthetic, not ethical.” I know for a fact these supreme well-credentialed people I know do not actually understand the authors of the Enlightenment; I’m pretty sure most of them haven’t even read more than 100 pages on the subject.
To wit – from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy Online (tell me this doesn’t hit the nail, writing in mid-19th Century):
“Kierkegaard presents his pseudonymous authorship as a dialectical progression of existential stages. The first is the aesthetic, which gives way to the ethical, which gives way to the religious. The aesthetic stage of existence is characterized by the following: immersion in sensuous experience; valorization of possibility over actuality; egotism; fragmentation of the subject of experience; nihilistic wielding of irony and scepticism; and flight from boredom.
The figure of the aesthete…finds its most sophisticated form in the author of “The Seducer’s Diary”, the final section of Either-Or. Johannes the seducer is a reflective aesthete, who gains sensuous delight not so much from the act of seduction but from engineering the possibility of seduction. His real aim is the manipulation of people and situations in ways which generate interesting reflections in his own voyeuristic mind. The aesthetic perspective transforms quotidian dullness into a richly poetic world by whatever means it can. Sometimes the reflective aesthete will inject interest into a book by reading only the last third, or into a conversation by provoking a bore into an apoplectic fit so that he can see a bead of sweat form between the bore’s eyes and run down his nose. That is, the aesthete uses artifice, arbitrariness, irony, and wilful imagination to recreate the world in his own image. The prime motivation for the aesthete is the transformation of the boring into the interesting.
This type of aestheticism is criticized from the point of view of ethics. It is seen to be emptily self-serving and escapist. It is a despairing means of avoiding commitment and responsibility. It fails to acknowledge one’s social debt and communal existence. And it is self-deceiving insofar as it substitutes fantasies for actual states of affairs.
But Kierkegaard did not want to abandon aesthetics altogether in favor of the ethical and the religious… [In] Kierkegaard’s pseudo-dialectic: the aesthetic and the ethical are both annulled and preserved in their synthesis in the religious stage. As far as the aesthetic stage of existence is concerned what is preserved in the higher religious stage is the sense of infinite possibility made available through the imagination. But this no longer excludes what is actual. Nor is it employed for egotistic ends.”
It was apparent during the campaign that Baraq’s preening narcissism was the driving force in his personality. (See Who sent you?)
I think his hold on many people is linked to their common narcissism. I think its also somehow related to their leftism. They are the smartest people in the world and they must be embracing the right ideas for everybody. Those who do not agree with them just arent smart enough to understand. If the poor dumb people resist, they will have to be forced to go along. This drives the inevitability and urgency of many of these efforts. The people dont know whats good for them so they can justify the use of ACORN or Organizing for America to suppress the opposition from the eevil pawns of the Insurance or Energy or Finance or (Your corporation of choice here) Industry.
Cross this analysis with AGW, as well as the healthcare or insurance change (whichever it is this week). The problem with us at BC is we just dont understand the fierce moral urgency of the need for them it make these terrible situations right. And remember: its for the children.
Dan “a large shining bouyant stupidity.”
Nice.
Well, it’s not just “love.” Team spirit is also involved.
Back during the Clinton Admin, when his personal failings finally became undeniable, I believe it was Susan Ireland, the head of NOW, who said that she would still support the President if it had been proved that he had robbed a bank and committed murder.
Clinton was on NOW’s team, and the fact that he clearly, obviously, and undeniably had abused women and broken the covenant of his marriage multiple times did not matter. Because NOW was not really the National organization of Women, it was the National Organization of People Who Think Like Us.
The greatest attraction of Leftism is that once you have your gilt-edged membership card there is nothing you can do in the way of personal failings that can ever get you kicked out. The Left is, at it’s core, a collection of Things We Think Are Good For Us And To Hell With Everyone Else.
Lorenzo: I contend that your distinction is a latter day intellectual construct and does not reflect historical reality. Also, the elements you attribute to your “Skeptical Enlightenment” occurs throughout much of European history and is not particularly confined to the 18th century. Read Aquinas or the Magna Carta. Read Newton or Shakespeare.
I think the distinction between the Scottish and Continental “Enlightenments” is more apt and historically true, and until lately has been the accepted one. Perhaps this is what you mean. If we are looking to characterize the major strains of thought about man, society and the state, these would seem to be most accurate historical and intellectual classification.
And, as I said before, it is unclear that either of these “movements” are the primary sources of our founding. One can just as well attribute it to pragmatism, a wish to escape the obvious problems of more recent European history and a good knowledge of the Classical World (i.e., Cicero, et al.). That, and being a very long way from England, having the English liberal tradition in one’s blood and having to pull wealth out of the land by good, old fashion hard work, as opposed to plundering Inca gold.
I see no evidence that the Founders had any sort of distinction in their minds between a “Sceptically Enlightenment” and a “Radical Enlightenment” as some sort of competing “schools”. This is just a latter day characterization and construct.
It was certainly the quite radical French (or Continental) “Enlightenment” that took the day in Europe, or at least in France, and with dire results. The term generally is used to denote this “enlightenment”, and it is an historical fact or period, as much as it is a a political or philosophic “movement”. I see no historical period or movement known as the “Sceptically Enlightenment”, though a good many academics of our time wish to invent such.
Perhaps you can, err, enlighten me on this one?
PB: I would urge you to pull back on the pessimism and despair. We may yet turn this around.
The average person in the HAN Dynasty had a much worse life than we have (though I realize that you exaggerate to make a point here).
Oh, and being concise and accurate is hardly “counting the angels on the head of the Enlightenment pin”. This is just evading matters. It is particularity important to get matters clear here because the left wields this “Enlightenment” construct of theirs as a club against their opponents.
Every day at what laughably I can call work I see the relentless socializing of the 20 somethings. Their focus is completely on exchanging networking connections for future benefit via the exchange of opinions regarding sports or music or clothes or sex or drugs or at the shallowest level politics. Note that at the same time they can be displaying an appearance, unshaven, funny shoes, possibly offensive graphics on their T shirts, that show no interest or focus on how the real customer will perceive them.This is genetic. There is some evolutionary benefit in having the species go through an adolescent phase in which this sort of grooming builds community and supports pair bonding. Perhaps at the level of neurology there is some connection between the sense of affirmation the adolescent receives from approval, in the form of dopamine, and the vulnerability to substance abuse that we explored in previous threads.
What is happening in the case of Paglia is an inability to move on and individualize her existence. This may relate to the declining rate of stable monogamous bonding in our society. The pair bond empowers the individual and permits it a greater space in which to maneuver separate from the collective.
Pat Santy (Dr Sanity) follows the Belmont Club on occasion. Let us hope that she adds a comment on this issue. Do any of our other medical practitioners have anything to say about my hypothesis?
As a teenager I devoured Robert Heinlein books. Some of his politics and sexual morality were a bit on the fringe but what I most admired were his protagonists. They were independent thinking, fun loving but no-nonsense people. They knew who they were and took life on it’s own terms. The heroes were honest, respected truth and were continually on the look out for flim-flammers. Most importantly they wouldn’t lie to themselves about reality (although RAH gave plenty of examples of characters who did-see the wife in Farnham’s Freehold for an extreme example).
I’ve tried to model myself to their virtues. What’s interesting is how threatening these characteristics are to the Left. Most threatening seems to be independence of thought. There is a strong group think on the Left. It seems to be immune to logic, facts and argument. As Wretchard has posted it seems to be more about identity, security and wish fulfillment than a coherent and emiprically derived political philosphy.
What I admire in Heinlein’s characters is repellant to many on the Left. How do I influence someone who fears and despises who I am and my values? How do you get people to move beyond the tribe?
The tragedy in Heinlein’s books is that those who would not accept reality were destroyed by their inability to adapt. But the hope was those that stood strong, although they couldn’t always save their society, friends or sometimes even themselves they did save their integrity. More importantly, they served as models for other truth seekers to follow.
Many Liberals crave and live for good feelings, oftentimes truth and justice must be avoided in order for these cravings to be satiated.
If you folks think ACORN is bad now, wait until the Census starts. Be prepared for questions such as: “Do you and or any other resident keep firearms in this house?”
dan: great stuff.
But where does Paglia go if she shifts to the other side? The Left is a world; a womb. It isn’t a system of thinking so much as a web of supportive emotion.
I’m not sure you’re correct about fear of rejection being Paglia’s motivation, wretchard. I haven’t kept up with her, but there was a time when she openly challenged many of the Left’s pieties. She defended Rush Limbaugh and accused the Left of demonizing him. She was kind of Andy Warhol and Tammy Bruce mixed.
I think there is something else going on with her, but even after spending twenty years in academia, I can’t put my finger on it.
This morning my wife and I were wondering if one reason we didn’t feel the “excitement” of our liberal friends about Obama was that we don’t watch much TV, don’t go to movie theaters, and read very little modern fiction. We wondered if this has kept us out of the current of the Left-leaning, pro big government culture that the media — television, movies, publishing — has created.
E.g. Last weekend we flipped on the tube for grins while we were eating lunch and watched part of an old Superman movie with Chris Reed. After much agonizing and self-searching, Superman decides humans can’t do what’s best for them and so he collects all the nuclear weapons on earth and flings them into the sun. The movie came out in 1987. Remember who was president and what was happening then?
Pump that kind of juvenile, Leftist stuff into the public head for 30 years, in low and high art, and you get a Paglia who’s borderline brainwashed. Lots of folks have caught that current in the mainstream and are floating along naturally. But I think Paglia is close to paddling out of it and looking back.
Over the last couple of years I’ve caught alot of flak for not towing the “party” line from my circle of associates.
Most of them are well educated, but poorly learned.
I’ve always defined the term friend to include those who I accept in spite of our differences i.e. mutual respect. I’ve become more and more aware that I’ve had a lot less friends than I presumed. I’m also aware that the friends I do have are the most precious blessing I’ve ever been bestowed.
At first when our differences began to become intolerable, I was unhappy about loosing a circle of my more fashionable fair weather friends. Now I consider it a blessing.
I am free. My friends are free. And like I usually respond in threads about islam – we will not submit.
When I’ve looked at the history of the USA’s founders I discovered that most of them died brutally, or were broken and then destroyed. But by their efforts and dedication they gave us something greater than themselves. Something that we still have in some parts today.
I think that likewise, many of us here will be broken and destroyed before these troubled times are done, but i hold a profound hope that our descendants can profit from our exertions, and prosper.
previous post evaporated…
testing
Apropos of all this, an interesting bit from Chesterton:
http://americanchestertonsociety.blogspot.com/2009/08/gkc-on-media.html
The money quote:
Reason was self-evident before Pragmatism. Mathematics were self-evident before Einstein. But this scepticism is throwing thousands into a condition of doubt, not about occult but about obvious things. We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening a mob with the news that grass is green.
Salt lick: I also think not watching TV has spared me the group think. I just don’t have the same knowledge set as those around me. I don’t know what the talking points are – until I hear them twice or three times in one day from different people after never before having heard the particular sound bite.
I read. I grew up reading a book a day. I still read voraciously, but I don’t know anyone else my age who reads.
When I was an terrorism analyst I used to always get asked by superiors “how do you know that?”. I read the documents…
..Wretchard, It’s O.K. to let Whiskey out of the keep so he can participate in this discussion.
Pagila is caught between two impluses: the desire to see Obama succeed because he is so handsome (really??) and well-spoken (only as long as the teleprompter tells him what to say), and the desire to keep her column at Salon. One only needs to look at the content of the other articles posted at Salon to understand that she can only go so far in leveling her criticism at The One. Still, her comments are pretty biting.
“And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the “mob” — a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.”
Even she sees there is “trouble in paradise”.
Dananana, the tactics of the Left to attempt to stifle debate has not gone unnoticed. It is adding fuel to the fires of protest that have begun to burn. “I have never been active in politics before this” is fast becoming a meme of those standing up in the town halls to express their anger and dismay. If cooler heads in the Democratic don’t prevail they will rue the day that they unleashed the goons. There is a very strong chance that they have all but lost the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia this fall because of this. Whether or not the anger will carry over into the 2010 elections is the $64,000 question.
A friend of mine thinks Barack Obama is
1) very smart and thoughtful
2) is a pro-business/pro free-market politician
3) is not a socialist
He further believes that the “health care reform” bill is not socialized medicine and that when Obama says he doesn’t want to “immediately” get rid of private health care that’s not evidence he wants socialized medicine (saying so is “interpreting his words to mean whatever you want them to mean”).
Can anybody explain to me where this fanatic adherence to unreality comes from?
Bill Ayers knows that once a youth is brought into the Leftist orbit they eventually surround themselves with a society, culture and artistic preferences from which they can never escape.
Never? It rarely ever happens, but an occasional woman winds up blowing her abusive boyfriend’s brains out. Sometimes a battered wife gets a divorce. There comes a time when sufficient abuse can inspire a fury that breaks through the mental barriers of leftist indoctrination; it can happen.
Superb writing, as usual Wretchard…confirming what most of us guys have always known about the opposite sex…which isn’t much, of course. And, to top it off, you finish with a flourish by quoting the most profound and sublime composer from the wretched 70s…a one Mr. David Gates who discovered a way to put bread on his table by writing some of the sappiest and most insipid lyrics in the history of music…which apparently also made their way to your neck of the woods. And, for that, you have my deepest condolences and apology…baby, I’m a want you indeed!
Wretchard, your phrase speaks of the human condition; in our antiquity, exile from the tribe was death. In modern communities belonging is more than intellectual assent. And there are pathological expressions where community is used to absolve one from moral responsibility and even intellectual labor; not just party but church, union, nation and/or a “small circle of friends.”
However this deficiency plays out in political affiliation among “liberals” (or conservatives) it does not characterize the thinking of Camille Paglia! Reading the article, she is clear-sighted on the health care debacle as well as the classism pretending to be racism (stupid) in the Gates-gate and the Philly swimming pool incidents.
Her views of Bush and Obama on foreign policy are not mine, but they are not “prejudiced” because they are thought out–she is aware of her bias toward articulateness.
Groupthink? Ms Paglia has virtually reveled in her celebrity as backlash anti feminist. (She has been called, by liberals, worse names than Palin) If she covets inclusion in a special group its that group that includes Hitch, Simon and Silver (rip), that used to be known as liberal; the independent, fair-minded, informed, perspicacious, self-critical mind set that is yet ultimately protective of the right to individual, sovereign judgment: to call it like you see it and let others adjust.
Paglia has shown that she can dish it out even-handedly; what is more, she has shown she can take it. It is this last, important characteristic of the “old liberal” temperament that she does not share with Obama, and this recognition will be the rock upon which, I think, she will break with him.
(Full disclosure: I went to PCA, where she teaches. But seriously, we need to avoid “there’s only two kinds of people in the world” thinking.)
good thing that secret ballot.Ms Kael knew one person who said they voted for Nixon,heaven only knows how many actually did. Intellectual honesty and consistancy aren’t hallmarks of the political left,lots of people say one thing and do another,not all of them are politicians. Now with today’s attention spans,when the flavour of the month fades, they’ll be on to the next big thing.Ancient history used to refer to the time BC, now it’s last year.
Mongoose
A little less patronizing would not be a bad thing.
I am more than half serious about my reference to life during the Han Dynasty. One essential aspect of the “good life” that I think is lacking today is a national narrative. I suppose you could even extend that further to Western Civilization, as it is.
I mentioned the Han Dynasty because one requirment the central government imposed on all its administrators was a formal education in Confucianism. Although not an expert on Confucious I get the impression that Moses and Jesus would be very comfortable in his company.
One element of political thought from the Han Dynasty that I find appealing is the notion of “Proper Order.” In brief, Proper Order mandates that the primary responsibility of the central government and all its subdivisions down to the single administrator is to provide a framework that recognizes the intrinsic rationality and goodness of human beings, the importance of the family as the cornerstone of civil society, and the moral obligation of government to restrain its power when the exercise thereof would negatively affect the ability of the people to flourish.
Of course the ideal was seldom attained but there was always the standard of the Proper Order against which any political action could be measured, criticized, and hopefully corrected.
The Proper Order is a powerful notion.
Bob Smith #55:
Did you ever read Mig Pilot by Lt. Victor Bolenko?
He saw that things were so bad, so stupid, so poorly run in the USSR that he flew his Mig-25 to Japan and defected to the USA.
But even then his head stayed full of Soviet propaganda. Everything he saw he was convinced was a show for him, from the food from the restaurant across the street from hotel where he was kept in Japan to the 747 that took him to the USA to the shopping center near DC where they bought him some new clothes. To him, all were obviously Potemkim Villages, put-up facades, shows to present to visitors. As bad as it was in the USSR, it simply could not be that good in the USA.
And so it went, he still thinking in terms of the viewpoint he had been raised on. The USAF base he visited could not depict the way our military lived and worked, the way he was treated must have been special, everywhere. And then he asked to see a USN aircraft carrier. And there it hit him. They did not build that carrier just for him! And if the carrier was real then….everything was real! None of it was a show. It broke him, emotionally.
I don’t know what it would take for most of the Left to ever get to where Bolenko went.
PB: The average person in the HAN dynasty was a illiterate peasant that did not make it into middle age.
Also, as to this: “A little less patronizing would not be a bad thing.”
Just more evasion of my criticism of your notions of the “enlightenment”?
This is no better than the “head of the pin”. dodge before. Please response reasonably.
RWE,
The bracing shock of reality that Victor Bolenko experienced when he saw the aircraft carrier is one reason that I believe in 6 months of universal basic military service. The professional officer corps hates the idea but I think it would help many cross the great divide between childhood and being an adult.
It is my belief that the feminine “slave to love,bihag ng pagibig” phenomenon is much more destructive to not our political system, but to our modern personal and societal relationships than most realize.
From my perspective, the “slave to love/ Knight in shining armor” fantasy is an attempt by the feminine mind to resolve the conflict between the desire for love and a genuine caring moral relationship with a man and the feminine “survival of the fittest instinct to mate with the most ruthless, blackhearted Leader of the Pack/ Strong Man out there. The two desires are not reconcilable at all, but women from time immemorial have longed for a man who represents the best of these conflicting worlds.The Knight in Shining Armor/ Beauty and the Beast fantasies are promoted in almost all cultures and most women from the time they are little girls believe in these fantasies until the cruel realities of real live set in late adulthood. Most women truly “want it all” and will get downright pissed off when told that they can’t have it both ways.
These fantasies set women up to be conned and abused by a certain type of “Lady Killer” man; a dangerous, ruthless amoral user with simmering deep anger just below the surface, who none the less puts up a loving, socially acceptable facade complete with an wide array of sweet nothing lies that sweep her heart away.
Moral men need not apply for this “Lady Killer” stature; they just can’t fake the combination of simmering anger/danger and sweetness/caring.
The problem for our poliitics and our society is that too many women are taken in by these con artists. Women, because they want so much to believe their Knight in Shining Armour fantasies, virulently protect these con artists from the punishment they deserve for their misdeeds. To expose these guys for what they are would mean the female fantasy is just a bad dream, and too many women refuse to give up on that dream. It is too precious to their psyche.
Both Bill Clinton and Buraq are those kind of con artists. Both are dangerous, destructive men who can spin sweet nothing lies without the hint of remorse and are none the less acclaimed as great speakers and great men.
Until women face up to their fantasies, the Republic will continue to conned and abused by these Psychopaths.
The average person in the HAN dynasty was a illiterate peasant that did not make it into middle age.
If they all died off by middle age then they must have been prodigies. Here a few of the inventions from the period:
paper, block printing, iron plow, magnetic compass, full rudder, pharmacology, the negative number, modern agriculture, shipping, astronomical observatories, decimal mathematics, paper money, umbrellas, wheelbarrows, multi-stage rockets, brandy and whiskey, the game of chess…
You are obviously not aware that the majority of Han farmers were land owners.
Salt Lick, #48: This morning my wife and I were wondering if one reason we didn’t feel the “excitement” of our liberal friends about Obama was that we don’t watch much TV, don’t go to movie theaters, and read very little modern fiction. We wondered if this has kept us out of the current of the Left-leaning, pro big government culture that the media — television, movies, publishing — has created.
This has occurred to me as well. My TV viewing is more or less limited to sports, I only see an average of about 3 movies a year in theaters, and the only contemporary fiction I’ve read lately are Robert Ferrigno’s Assassin trilogy (which takes place in an Islamicized USA of the mid-21st century; that fact alone speaks volumes about its underlying politics) and J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter saga. (Speaking of which, as fictional villains go, Rowling’s Dolores Umbridge makes a much better metaphor for socialism than Batman‘s Joker ever did.)
aaron, #49: When I’ve looked at the history of the USA’s founders I discovered that most of them died brutally, or were broken and then destroyed. But by their efforts and dedication they gave us something greater than themselves. Something that we still have in some parts today.
I think that likewise, many of us here will be broken and destroyed before these troubled times are done, but i hold a profound hope that our descendants can profit from our exertions, and prosper.
Secular Leftists are often accused of trying to drive God out of the culture. But it seems to me that what they are really trying to drive out is the notion of multi-generational sacrifice for liberty that Aaron describes above. Driving God out is just part of that plan. After all, if there is no God, there is also no hope for an eternal reward in heaven, and therefore much less of an incentive to make such sacrifices.
Unsk, #64: Until women face up to their fantasies, the Republic will continue to conned and abused by these Psychopaths.
As Wretchard channeled David Gates to make his point, so I, once again, channel Don Henley to further illustrate yours, and his:
We’re like sheep without a shepherd
We don’t know how to be alone
So we wander ’round this desert
And wind up following the wrong gods home
But the flock cries out for another
And they keep answering that bell
And one more starry-eyed messiah (!)
Meets a violent farewell
If/when Obama ever falls out of favor with the tribe of the Left, it won’t mean the tribe’s in any danger of falling apart or coming to its senses. It just means Obama’s novelty has worn off, and they have gone looking for a new figurehead.
Life-O
I’m only licensed as a medical practitioner when attending a Shelia Jackson Lee town hall, but I’ll do my best with your challenge:
There is some evolutionary benefit in having the species go through an adolescent phase…
Adolescents are in the process of establishing their own identity, separate from the parents who have raised them. It creates a lot of counter-dependant behavior, where the kid is compelled to take a stand against the Ps as part of, well, to borrow your phrase (but use it in a slightly different context), individualizing his or her existence. They don’t have to rebel on everything, but most do need to rebel on something. I suspect the cliques they form with each other are so strong (during their adolescent years) because of the self-imposed semi-exile from their previous support group (a.k.a. Mom and Dad). They need someone to go to for validation.
What is happening in the case of Paglia is an inability to move on and individualize her existence. This may relate to the declining rate of stable monogamous bonding in our society. The pair bond empowers the individual and permits it a greater space in which to maneuver separate from the collective.
With our comfortable society, where people are generally insulated from the worst consequences of stupidity and expectation of grown-up behavior are less than before, a lot of people seem to be getting stalled in the adolescent stage of development. Paglia reminds me of some teenagers I’ve known in that she is capable of displaying a quite sophisticated and impressive intellect in one breath, and then utterly failing to make use of it in the next.
Adolescent behavior is annoying enough in a sixteen year old. In someone past sixty, it’s quite sad.
This mess is indeed deep and somewhere in the ether a keyboard smokes as a whiskey screed is stroked. I find myself holding breath as my browser refreshes. arron and Joshua, I enjoy and share your thoughts.
Wrechard’s essay on “bihag ng pagibig” reminds me of an old Irish ditty:
When I was single I wore a plaid shawl
Now that I’ve married I’ve nothing at all
Ah, but still I love him
I’ll forgive him
I’ll go with him
Wherever he goes
We went to an alehouse
And he ordered some stout
But before I could drink it
He ordered me out
…
You get the picture. Co-dependence. Happens when you do not have your own head squared away and you define yourself by your idols, whether personal relationships, big time celebraties, or political leaders acting as Messiah wannabes.
To all, another great conversation and just an observation…and at the risk of sounding unctuous…is there a better, more erudite blogger with a better, more civil audience of posters (present company excepted) than Wretchard? I mostly lurk because I can’t compete…with that I shall return to my refuge and continue to marvel at the Belmont Club.
Explain this. Why are strong, educated and committed conservative men completely turned in political philosophy by committed liberal progressive women. I submit Barry Goldwater and Tom Clancey as exhibit 1&2. Both would in my expectation be very unlikely to change in midstream. I’m sure there are many more examples but these came to my mind immediately upon reading the comments.
Add to that most conservatives tend to _not_ be joiners, tend to be “live and let live” and do your own thing. Most conservatives need a social circle, yes, but don’t take that as a primary motivation to do anything. It is a tough row to hoe from this side.
Robert Greene, in his book “The Art of Seduction,” notes that one of the early steps is to get the target to feel accepted by the seducer. We yearn for that acceptance. The seducer controls the degree of that feeling, first offering a taste, the possibility, then retreating a bit to cause a twinge of psychic pain, then relieving that pain with another taste of even more acceptance.
One of the current pop songs has the female lead singing “you accept me for what I am.”
That’s what Obama has been promising – acceptance for those who follow.
As to adolescence, my three sons each, when they turned 22, came to me and said exactly the same thing – “Dad, you were sooo right! I should have listened.”
I’m reading through the comments pretty fast on a lunch break, but I get the impression some folks don’t know Paglia is a lesbian. At best, she’s in love with what she thought was in Obama’s head, not his pants.
Maybe this is why the country did better when women couldn’t vote, very few worked outside the house? Just asking…don’t shoot the messenger!
Salt.
True.
But, as I said, Paglia is in art.
Image and presentation are her life. Obama’s image and presentation skills are superior, and actually make him look real to some.
To her, imo, it’s the fact that he’s so good at it. A skilled professional of the top class.
What, for somebody in Paglia’s position, is not to like?
It’s like kids idolizing top athletes. Good hand-eye coordination does not make you a good man. But try telling a twelve-year-old that.
Fantastic image and presentation skills do not make you a good man or good president.
But try telling somebody that when their entire life is about images and presentation.
Whitehall,
… my three sons …
There could be a TV show in that.
We’re all going to get rich!
What? Oh, never mind.
Salt Lick,
That was my point but I was trying to generalize it.
Charles White,
You need to prove that isn’t a logical fallacy. You could say this was a better country when toilets were all in a little shed outside.
AmmoGuy,
I was thinking precisely the same thing. I continue to be impressed–astounded really–at the high caliber, even tone, and insightfulness of the discourse on this blog. I have learned a great deal from our host and from the discussions and debates that his posts stimulate. Truth be told, I’d read a liberal blog if there was one that was this good.
starling says:
Truth be told, I’d read a liberal blog if there was one that was this good.
Programmer responds:
Well then, it wouldn’t be liberal, would it?
From personal experience, I can say that it’s far from impossible to “wake up” and realize you were wrong. I was essentially indoctrinated into the world of leftist though while going through college. I was never political and gave little (if any) thought to politics. While most of my courses were engineering related (and remained completely free from any political crap), I had more than a few “General Education” courses I was required to take – and in hindsight these courses were blatant indoctrination. I took a “Native American Studies” course (everything was great until the White Man showed up, and everything we’ve done since then was evil), a sociology course (unfairness is the root of all evil – we need to share our “resources”), and others like them. At the time, I remember just taking everything as fact, and not really questioning it; “Oh… so that’s how it is. Wow.”
It wasn’t until I became friends with several Russians who had manged to escape the iron curtain that my views changed. We’d have long talks about what things were like living in the Soviet Union. I learned that one measure of your income was in “chickens per week” (and for a white collar type person, it wasn’t many chickens). I remember talking about homeless people. “Well, at least no one was homeless over there. Everyone had a place to stay and food to eat, right?” The reply? “Anyone who refused to work was sent to a forced labor camp!”
So after slowly learning the actual gritty details of living under communism, I became a Libertarian. When you hear what it’s like from someone who’s “been there” (two of my friends were also in the Soviet Army – some of those stories were… surprising), you’d have to be crazy to think it’s a good idea. And that’s not a figure of speach. Seriously crazy.
Capitalism may be a terrible system, but it’s heaven compared to all the alternatives I’ve seen.
Personally, I think that America was a better country when men, or women, wore real hats.
A heavy charge to lay against Jack Kennedy.
Wretchard continues to amaze.
I read the same article and quickly dismissed it. Yet Wretchard provides an eye-opening article from the same item. And, of course, does it with beautiful writing that causes you feel the understanding seep into you.
My momma didn’t raise no stupid kids yet I sometimes feel humble in the BC crowd.
“there’s only two kinds of people in the world”
I might have been wrong to use Paglia as an example. And you’re right about there never being two kinds of people in the world; I was led by association to that old memory of at a mall and it mapped over in an imperfect way.
Back about 1979, Dr. Peter Breggin addressed a libertarian meeting with a talk called “How To Talk To A Liberal”.
Recognizing the dangers involved in neatly dividing the human race into “liberal” and
“conservative”, he nontheless had noticed a key difference between the two general types of personalities.
The conservative operated from fear. After all there are damned evil people in the world
along with those who are merely inconsiderate.
They can take everything you have, prevent you from getting any more and generally destroy you, your family and your country.
The liberal on the other hand just wanted to show his good intentions. To demonstrate that he meant well was the primary, if not sole, driving force in all that he said and did.
Although Dr Breggin did not so state, if was obvious that there was a corrollary to that. Namely, consequences be damned. THAT was when I finally understood the old saying about the Road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
In the ensuing 30 years, that phenonomen seems to have reached widespread and pathological proportions. Dare I say even psychopathic proportions in places?
By any measurable standard, the actions of George W. Bush from 12Sep01 thru the end of his second term reduced terrorist capabilities
and rendered at least some of them harmless.
He is not condemned in spite of having done so
but BECAUSE he did so. Saddam/Taliban/ad naseum should have been left alone BECAUSE they were/are evil.
Obama”care”: is supported not in spite of the fact it will deprive people of what they have but BECAUSE it will deprive. Sarah Palin is condemned for saying “death panels” BECAUSE that is jolly well what the damned things
are.
Lucifer’s Brillance is blinding, is it not?
PS: Don’t know where copies of Breggin’s speech can be found, but if anybody stumbles across one, it is certainly worth listening to.
PPS: Whenever I encounter all this personally, I try not to mollify the speaker(s) in any way. Doubt that is possible anyway. Instead I try to make it plain that (a) I am their enemy and (b) they can’t do anything about it. Don’t know if that penetrates their fog but it does cut me some personal slack unless they want to get physical on the spot and I think I can still deal with that should the need arise.
Ive read Paglia for several years. What has impressed me about her in addition to the clarity of her prose was the unflinching honesty. She is pro-abortion but readily acknowledges that its a human being. (its something about autonomy — See my post above about narcissism)
I think before its over with, she’ll be as contemptuous of Baraq as she is of Clinton. She is as somebody said enamored of the delivery and the smoooooth. She may be a lesbian but she likes the idea of a Man in the traditional sense. She has been harsh on the metrosexuals. She simply hasnt awakened to the idea that O is the uberMetro.
Keep an eye on her. It wont take much longer before she throws him over the side. When she does it’ll not be pretty. These people really invest in their idols.
Re: waking up, I think it is happening for many right now- I have just put this up as part of a longer post:
..No, that sound that the Mainstream News Media is doing its best to filter out and cast in a prejudicial light is the sound of people waking up from the dream of being held in the warm embrace of a motherly and progressive government that wants to make everything “all right” and realizing that they have been encircled in the cold embrace of the mother of all boa constrictors- The Progressive Left. It is the cry of people who have finally found their resistance to the personal charm and political capital of the new administration and realized that if there is any hope of stopping the slow but inexorable strangulation that is already under way, they must act with passion and urgency. Like me, they are not just disappointed; they are in despair and futile rage…
http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2009/08/warning-to-republicans-we-are-not-doing.html
Sorry that I got here so late and I haven’t had the time to read everything, but I felt the need to post a couple of things I’d written that are on topic, combined with some items from my memory hole that keep jumping out like a Whack a Mole game.
As to Wretchard’s main intro, an eighteen year old lyric popped into my head:
Peter Cetera – “Big Mistake”
Keeps them all waiting
They’re standing in line
He never has to worry about being alone
Hes taking his own sweet time
The man’s mighty hot
Believe it or not
Every woman’s after what the big boy’s got
They know its all a lie but they’re taking their shot
He is such a smooth-talking man
They never want to let him go
Hell be gone when the morning comes
Then they’ll be the first to know
It’s just a big mistake
Such a big mistake
Well, it won’t be the first
It definitely won’t be the last one you make
Just a big mistake
Sooner or later they’re gonna find out
He never cares about the hearts he’s breaking tonight
He’s letting it all hang out
The man’s mighty tough
Better leave before it starts to get too rough
He such a smooth-talking man
They never want to let him go
He’ll be gone when the morning comes
Then they’ll be the first to know
It’s just a big mistake
Such a big mistake
Well, it won’t be the first
It definitely won’t be the last one you make
Just a big mistake……
Sinbad used to do a routine describing the bond between males and females. Sinbad said you can spot one, if you know what to look for, and at one point, he calls an audience member out, and says “look at you”– “I can tell you’re a man in a committed relationship”. (standing there, he was slightly overweight, he wore an old “polo shirt” and some docker type trousers, the net effect was- he’s probably a fine individual, but by todays superficial standards, he surely didn’t fit the “babe magnet” profile either.)
Sinbad says “That’s how they (women) mark their territory, they dress you.”
You and your friend fit this model, however accidentally, because, what object of a womens jealousy, a real babe, would have fallen ‘head over heels’ for you on that day? (at the ‘Mall’ perhaps). And if by some bizarre intervention of Cupid, a woman had fallen for you, you were already pre-marked for a brand new monogamous relationship that would make the archetypal female in this case, (e.g. -your existing commmitted-with-a-female relationship, your “espoused to”-) absolutely furious.
Despite her proclivities, Camille Paglia falls into the persistent Jungian archetype: “He (0bama) isn’t perfect, doesn’t fit my idea of the Knight in Shining Armour in its fantastic ideal, he may or may not slay the dragon, and bring about peace throughout the land, get men to lay down their arms and begin behaving as passive, nurturing metrosexuals, in absolute perfection, but, He’s My Man, and “I’m going to stick with him, even though he lies, and cheats and steals mine (and everybody else’s money, (through taxation)), but I’ll do it, because I guess I’m just “bihag ng pagibig.”, a slave to love”.
Camille (and this Archetype) wants to make herself the center of the universe, and dispense generosity and forgiveness on her deeply flawed, down-a-peg, roving eye, love slut: He promises to bring shining kingdoms home with him, promises all others the same, wanders off to seek the attentions and affections in greater quantities, calls on the dogs to those who see through it, all the while it is our loyal Camille, who remains the fulcrum upon which all forbearance and forgiveness pivots.
To put it in cruder fashion, our Camille, “wants One man to fulfill her every need”, despite his many flaws-
and the Clinton type, “wants every woman to fulfill his ONE need”.
0bama is no different than any Bill Clinton, he’s just a bit more bent on retribution, than he is on dispensing goodies for his cronies and the (other)’slaves’ (like Camille) to [this kind of] “love”.
I hate you wretchard: my ego finds the challenge of these type posts irresistible, when I could be doing so many other important things, like, uh, cleaning up around here, for one thing… Oh well, I guess I’m just a little bit “bihag ng pagibig.” myself. ;=)
And to piggy back on herb and yaacov Ben Moshe:
Paglia…
“I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way?”
…is easy to explain. From a play of intrigue a friend once started, but never finished:
“Supreme confidence in The Con. Power, raw power comes into view as soon as the shroud covering the ugliness of it is brushed away, or in an otherwise false, but supremely confident moment, is allowed to slide, supposedly from a slight wind, or draft. Its appearance and face reminds of the movies where a person, looking into a mirror, sees someone they trust in the reflection behind them and a warm sense of false security comes over them. And then, just for an instant, the beast that is there, allows itself to be seen. But why? Why would someone telegraph their true nature, when doing so might risk the operation?
“Two reasons; the first being a twisted sense of the character that resides behind the mask, and second, the perverse joy of the vision creating fear in the one seeing it, as an unsettling loss of confidence mounts in the unsuspecting target. Bottom line, the actor wants us to know…for later he can tell us truthfully with a disarming smile, ‘Don’t blame me, remember, I warned you. You at least suspected, or, you knew. You just wanted so badly for it to be, that you were willing to ignore what was obvious…you wanted so badly, to believe.’”
And one more movie quote from the memory hole:
To quote Sonny Landham (Billy) in the movie Predator:
RAMIREZ (whispering; imploring): “You know something Billy, what is it?
Billy turns – his face a mask of primal fear. He moves close to Ramirez.
BILLY: I’m scared.
Ramirez is frightened by this.
RAMIREZ (shaken): “Bullshit. You ain’t afraid of no man.”
Billy looks deep into his eyes, chilling Ramirez to the bone, looking at his with eyes which have seen on an instinctual level what the others have so far only begun to sense.
BILLY: “There’s something out there, waiting for us… and it ain’t no man.”
Some people that have not drunk the Kool-Aid are now sensing unease; others, a stark awareness attended by a knot in the stomach that won’t subside, and others, clear existential fear. You can see it in their eyes and demeanor at some of the Town Hall meetings. I am worried that the left is praying that some of those more naïve protesters will in some way, snap, to make the way clear for the Dim Mak.
We are on a knife’s edge and the left is clearly not going to back down. They have said as much with reference to the “nuclear option” – you know, the procedure that John McCain was too collegial to even think about.
This thing IS going to happen. Prhaps, in a perverse way, the Republicans themmselves have a “man crush” on President Obama – and he knows it. They will vote against the healthcare (ew, sorry, the Health Insurance bill) because they know they can without angering Teh One – their votes mean nothing in view of the Nuclear Option.
He will “allow” them that weakness, just this one time.
13. JFSanders031
“I bet Whiskey’s eyes bulged out of his head as he read this article!”
That was I thought in the first place too
about the purpose of this topic, I can say that I had the “reverse” experience, first, born in a traditional catholic middle, as I grew up in my studies and life I had to embrace the lefty consensuality to get on and not being left apart.
Though I never really felt in adequation with their political corrected views, but didn’t question them for so, I had to work and raise my children and prepare them to a successful life.
It’s only since a few years that I get more time to look for diverse informations that I can affirm my real inclination, but I had to learn how to be polemical and to assume my opinion.
Now I’m prepared to discuss with any lefty, I know who and where I stand for
…but only just a little bit.
#58 flying squirrel:
“Paglia has shown that she can dish it out even-handedly; what is more, she has shown she can take it. It is this last, important characteristic of the “old liberal” temperament that she does not share with Obama, and this recognition will be the rock upon which, I think, she will break with him.
Yeah, but I just wish that “this recognition will be the rock upon which, I think, she will break” him.
Here’s to hoping that Hell hath no fury,
and soon
Dave:
Actually, I’ve noticed that liberals do operate from fear. They tend to fear being perceived as mean people, as oppressors. They want to be seen as nice guys especially when they aren’t.
The problem is, of course, that being a nice guy isn’t the same as being a good guy. When faced with the choice of protecting one’s loved ones while being seen as a nasty monster or letting one’s loved ones suffer at the hands of a bully, the decision ought to be obvious.
Many liberals are oppressors; let there be no doubt about that. Oppression can come from overt brutality, but it can also come from a passivity that allows bullies to act as a liberal’s proxy. To the victim of brutality, there is precious little difference between a bully and the liberal who deprives him of the means to defend himself against that bully.
One of the most insidious forms of passive bullying is for a man to consistently put his family into one hazardous situation after another that is designed to get people in his family hurt, all the while acting as though nothing that happens is ever his own fault. For altogether too many liberals, the important thing isn’t whether someone gets hurt, but rather whether the liberal can plausibly claim the situation isn’t his fault. An old fashioned oppressor rapes his victim; a liberal oppressor puts his victim into the same cell as a hardcore rapist and then acts surprised when the victim gets hurt.
It is precisely for this reason that I am bitterly opposed to the “Open Society” ideal of George Soros; there is a difference between being open and being free. His ideal is to “open” societies whether they want to be open or not. Coercion and leverage do not equal freedom. Free people can choose not to be open when they don’t want to be open.
My own experience in adolescent liberalism is that immersion provokes one of two reactions — fascination or repulsion. Attending Berkeley in 79 was cool and hip and progressive and we had many “rallies” on Sproul to attend. One fine day Daniel Ellsberg came to speak to us and tell us how important that we think for ourselves and be independent from our parents. At noon, to demonstrate our independence and self-thinkingness, we were told to lie down on the plaza as though dead from nuclear attack. At 12:01 I stood, with my friend and maybe 5 other souls and saw the independent thinkers lieing as though dead at our feet. It was …. transformative.
Wretchard — Who cares about friends? I mean, why would a grown man who has his own independent income care about if his friends leave or go if he has his own family and separate, intimate relations? I can see it if his entire income and life depend on being part of the hierarchy (a career man in something) but not for a man with his own means. If you are a Steelers fan, for example, you only care about Bill Cowher and Mike Tomlin, not Bush or Obama.
For women of course the social network assumes much greater significance, particularly single women.
As for the question: “Why do women love bad guys?” the answer is simple. It’s hard-wired. The women SAY “I still love him” (but that begs the question of why she “loved” a bad/inappropriate man who’s flaws were on ample display from the beginning) but the real reason is that the man still exhibits social dominance. Their “love” being merely a response, hard-wired, to the social dominance (real or apparent) of a “bad” man who has an option to rise in power. Like men’s equally silly and inappropriate response to surgically created figures (which are also artificial).
Women and men are both deeply flawed, successful culture recognizes those flaws and attempts to construct rules and limitations against the different (but very real flaws) of each sex. Realism demands people understand no sex is “better” or “worse” than the other but very different in flaws and virtues, with no “White Knighting” or unabashed misogyny or the male equivalent being remotely useful in understanding wise and prosperity inducing politics.
Look at Paglia’s words. You might as well (and this from IIRC an avowed lesbian writer/thinker) see a woman praising her womanizing, abusive lover over a “nice guy” because he is outgoing, showy, and this performance makes him desired by others. The mate value of a man or the political value of a leader being determined by how many other (women/voters) he impresses.
And this selection criteria is because of assumed security and wealth sloshing around. Look at any picture on the Web of “Mystery” the famed Pick Up Artist (PUA). A complete peacock, the political expression of which is Obama. In good times, with security and money, women (and voters who are female-dominated) can afford a Mystery or Obama. [Mystery's quintessential photo is with his fur hat, eyeliner, tattoos, piercings, earrings, etc. and the political equivalent is the Obama-covers on every magazine and black velvet paintings in oil of Obama riding a Unicorn, which sadly do exist.]
This fails when the question is … how do I eat today? Tomorrow? How do I stay alive. This is Obama’s failure now in the polls (only 47% approval and dropping).
The moneyed, feminized elite will turn on Obama LAST and support him the most, because they can afford it. For those pressed against the wall financially, with ObamaCare (middle aged and elderly contemplating rationing and “death panels”), and punitive taxes/restrictions (the carbon police) we will see Obama’s stock fall very far, very fast.
Setting up a conflict with the very powerful (due to inordinate wealth) feminized elite who has Obama as their “Mystery” and everyone else.
White — The problem is not women voting. The problem is the collapse of the nuclear family, all around the globalized West, due to money and rising standards for women (in themselves GOOD THINGS) allowing women to cater to their worst, instead of their best, instincts. Women thinking of Husbands and Sons and Daughters is a good thing in politics, and a useful break on hyper-aggression. Women pursuing Mystery or Obama is a disaster, because it leads to hyper apologies abroad and disastrous peacocking behavior at home.
A sensible, male oriented Democrat would have packed in ObamaCare by now, given opponents an out/face-saving, and insured the jobless with a closed border and citizenship testing. And moved-on dot orged. A female-oriented Peacock MUST win because his entire structure depends on being the biggest Alpha Male (for female voters) and it is all he knows.
I’m one of those conservatives who sits quietly and smiles while friends and family members talk liberal/leftist trash. But the reason I’m quiet is that I’m not as articulate as they are. They seem to live to argue politics. They come to our gatherings with talking points memorized. As as if they spend their free time rehearing political arguments. I can’t remember anything substantial about the issues, at least I can’t remember them well enough to organize my thoughts and express them in a political discussion. When I try to take part in these discussions my thoughts get all jumbled and I fumble for words. Then they hammer me. After I get home and I realize, “Hey, I should have said such-and-such,” I could just kick myself. Which is why I end up sitting quietly and smiling. So I don’t do too much damage to myself with my kicking.
If you look at Sarah Palin, for example, her defenestration, and high negative poll numbers, are the result of younger women despising her.
Older women (plus 55) generally approve of Palin, as do men. It’s younger women who find her a negative figure, and it has to do with her personal life:
*Did not attend an Ivy league school.
*Did not marry a “big shot” like Bill Clinton or other “Alpha Male”1
*Did not have one designer eugenics yuppie baby at age 37.
*Did not abort her Down’s syndrome baby (this is the big one)
*Does not talk like an upper class person (they hate her accent)
*Is not liked by ‘important people’ like Tina Fey, P-Diddy, etc.
1. Women’s view of an Alpha male is not a man’s view. Women view Alpha males as the most socially dominant guys, like say Gavin Newsome, or Tony Villaraigosa, or Barack Obama, or Simon Cowell. Men view Alpha male as a combination of patronage networks and toughness. Todd Palin certainly qualifies for men as a tough hombre, and compares favorably to male favorite Brett Favre, the Iron Man of the NFL (consecutive start streak). Women just don’t see it that way.
Palin is done as a political figure because younger women can’t stand her. That demo group puts an inordinate amount of emphasis on social status, standing, social proof by celebrity endorsement, and other stuff. Older women, don’t, for the most part and cross-tabs at HotAir reported polls have the data for those inclined. Nevertheless, the Tina Fey mocking destroyed Palin’s career, as did Letterman’s, because younger women don’t like figures that celebrities mock. And Fey’s key points in mocking Palin were her “accent” which was not “posh” and her folksy ways (i.e. low-status “hillbilly” not NYC or Rodeo Drive) and her kids which are “trashy” instead of “cool” and the perception that “dumb” = not from NYC or LA.
This is basically, Obama’s core and he will never lose them (younger women). They love Obama for the same reason they hate Palin. It’s wrapped up in their identity. They have their own worldview which Fey accurately represents, and most young women idolize Fey and despise Palin. Because Fey went to the correct schools, has the correct accent, the correct amount of kids, the correct type of husband, and is endorsed by the correct celebrities.
It is not the job of men or anyone else to “rescue” women from their own freely chosen paths, of men, political figures, or anything else. It certainly is both effective and politically wise to ridicule stupidity. Younger women (as Obama’s core constituency) ridiculed as screaming “Twilight” fans? Effective I think. No one likes to be laughed at, particularly when the subject of the humor is true and they know it.
It’s time for Obama as tween Idol AND his female backers to be mercilessly mocked. Ridiculed from one end of the country to the other. If nothing else, any male follower will think twice about signing on for a “Twilight meets Scott Baio” phenomena.
I don’t have many friends anymore because most of my former friends are lefties. When we’re all together they just go on and on about leftist politics. They never shut up. It’s bad enough that they have leftist views. But I’m thinking it’s worse that they’re all about politics and little else. Heck, if they were conservatives and all they ever talked about was conservative politics I think I’d want them to shut up too. But when I’m with conservatives we don’t talk much about politics. “How ’bout Obama, ain’t he a stinker?” and that’s very nearly the extent of it. We quickly move on to other topics. Like, will Jay Cutler finally turn out to be the quarterback the Chicago Bears have been looking for over the past three decades. Or isn’t Denise Richards hot. Yeah, yeah, sometimes we discuss high culture stuff like, say, the Iliad. I am not kidding. But, really, it’s more fun to picture Denise Richard in the mind’s eye than than Achilles at the height of his wrath.
Where was I? Oh, yes … politics.
The Left is a culture; it is a circle of friends.
The problem with this statement is that it assumes a fairly superficial definition of friendship. I hesitate to take issue with Wretchard on any topic, but this one touches on long experience as well as reflection. One aspect of the current superficiality of the concept is a tendency to call almost any nonsexual relationship a “friendship.” Another is the use of “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” as a euphemism for sexual partner. It seems to me that “out-friending” the Left (an excellent idea, by the way) requires a rehabilitation of friendship as a form of human bonding with real guts to it, a valuation of other persons as unique individuals with all the lumps and bumps that go along with being human. And one of the delights of friendship–as writers as otherwise different as Dante and C.S. Lewis recognized– is that it doesn’t have to be a pair bonding, either. It is possible for a small group of people to be friends.
I would also question the implication (which Wretchard probably did not intend) that the Left is a community of genuine friends. Leftists seem to me to be bound together more by negative passions (hatred, anger, envy, pride) than by positive emotions. I wonder how many people remain within the Left out of fear of the fate awaiting dissenters as well as out of loneliness.
But the reason I’m quiet is that I’m not as articulate as they are.
Roughcut — the first few years I was on campus, I felt that way. Mostly because I was so agog at some things the Left said, I couldn’t muster a response. Example, a professor in charge of multicultural studies told me over dinner that he didn’t care if what he taught about black history was true (google Black Athena), as long as it improved his black students’ self-esteem.
All you can do is fall back on a common sense so simple you take it for granted. “But once those students find out you’ve lied to them, won’t they feel betrayed? And how will that affect their happiness and professional success?”
ATTENTION: THIS WILL NOT WIN YOU THE ARGUMENT. But stay calm, repeat your common sense statement, and smile. Maybe even shrug. It will have a certain effect, if nothing else to build YOUR self esteem.
#37 Dan, 39 herb:
Slightly OT, but at a comment section about a TVmovie knock-off of “the Da Vinci Code” (at Big Hoarywood, I think) I found this, vis a vis yours and other Kierkegaard references:
“…the appetite for Gnostic conspiracy-weaving has never been laid out more brilliantly than by Umberto Eco in “Foucault’s Pendulum”. Unlike [Dan] Brown, whose “brilliant” “research” apparently consisted of cribbing from the shabby “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, Eco exhaustively examines the whole gamut of Gnostic Ideologies, from Bogomils, Cathars, to the Albigensians, and to Masonic Orders,
“His conclusion is: the best way to keep a Cosmic secret such as (the) truth of the Gospels is to lay it out in the open where everyone can see it; the meek and the lowly of heart will find it, while the proud, clever bastards will continually confound themselves by twisting it into all manner of conspiracy theories, on the principle that God would only reveal himself to such superior creatures as themselves.
“it all boils down to what Jesus asks his disciples: “Who do you say that I am?”
Deception is still out in force, but has also now been relegated to paranoid bullies, such as ACORN, SEIU as in #31 Dananana’s harrowing “Tammany Hall” story of intimidation of the very demographic that put “The One” over the top:
(#22 novanglus:) “…in what I interpreted as a subversive attempt to undermine my developing sense of identity. Each time they failed, I moved farther right. Their arguments were not based in facts or experience, but on surreal hopes and dreams. I knew in time, reality would pop their balloon.”
And when this healthscare/deathcare balloon goes pop, they are all gonna be in one real bad mood: we must not back down, but not go overboard as they do all the time, with every media, (and in Dananana’s case) off camera “opportunities” they cannot resist the temptation to exploit.
“come in and abide with us (Camille), for the day is far spent”
The main point I was trying to make, which has somehow been obscured by the introductory story, is that social networks play a key role in politics. People are loyal to their social networks, whether the one-on-one or the one-to-many. Consequently, conservatives really have to win the battle of the social networks. They really have to create a place to belong if they want to attract those who need companionship, affirmation and support. That’s a large part of the world, and we all belong it at some part of our lives, whether as young people just looking, or as old people just saying goodbye.
Salt Lick — Thanks for your note. You’re right. And I do, in fact, do a lot of shrugging (while sitting quietly and smiling). My self esteem is in pretty good shape, actually, apart from wanting sometimes to kick myself for thinking of the things I should have said long after I should have said them. I’ve come to discover, quite by accident (certainly not by design!) that sitting quietly and smiling has an unnerving effect on ranting big-mouth lefties. They get noticeably uncomfortable. I’d like to say that this was a deliberate tactic I thought up but the truth is it’s something that just sort of happened in the course of things. Also effective is simply standing up and walking into another room in the midst of a leftie rant. The trick is to keep smiling and say nothing as you walk away. This drives them nuts! And it has the virtue of being easy for me to do since 1) I don’t have to do any talking; and 2) I really DO want to get up and walk away.
Hey, how do you make italics and emoticons in these threads?
There has been much discussion here about strong men. I am a man, but I would like to here and now acknowledge that there are some women (probably a vanishingly small minority) who, even by the silly standards that we men set ourselves, are strong beyond any conception of ours.
Real examples: Cleopatra, Boudicca, Jeanne Darc, Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Elizabeth II, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi. I think the best known fictional examples are probably all from Tolkein; Arwen, Galadriel and Eowen. Honourable mention to Ripley.
Which is really the weaker sex?
Wretchard, I’m not sure I know what you mean when you say that conservatives have to “win the battle of social networks.” Is this another way of saying we have to win hearts and minds? If so, whose hearts and minds are we after? I don’t think the hearts and minds of the vast majority of committed liberals and lefties are winnable, which is to say, changeable. Centrist voters–well, okay, yes. Or do you mean that conservatives should focus on strengthening the bonds of their own social networks? I’m all for that, but how does this translate into success in the cultural and political spheres?
RC/96; what you just wrote in your comment would be pretty strong to say –with that smile –in those discussions. Sort of effective, really, in the contrast with with the usual windbags.
***
Yep, yep, yep yep yep
(open snip)
“…on federal government websites. Cookies can be used to track an Internet user’s every click and are often linked across multiple websites; they frequently identify particular people.
Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.
“This is a sea change in government privacy policy,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Without explaining this reversal of policy, the OMB is seeking to allow the mass collection of personal information of every user of a federal government website.
(close snip)
Man, is it ever good to see ACLU doing something right for a change.
Obama and his core supporters are evil. obama is a twisted abandoned child who has learned to mask his hate except from folks like myself who also were abandoned. In may case it was due to infant illness for three months.
Rahm’s MD brother argues for letting old sick people die to save money regardless of the type of illness that they have. I understand that Rahm and Axelrod are practicing Jews. If the MD brother is as well then his creed is violated the core believe about life in the Jewish religion (and also in the Christian religion).
What we have is a type of nihilism that produced Hitler and the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.
Wretchard, I’m not sure I know what you mean when you say that conservatives have to “win the battle of social networks.”
One reason why the Tea Parties are having such an effect isn’t simply that they send a message. They create a place to “join”. The realization that you are not alone is a powerful one; and within limits, is a very positive one. There is a tendency among conservatives to stay apart. It’s part of the culture. Leave me alone. I want to be alone. That’s fine as far it goes, but politics is about group action. The Left has all sorts of groups. Singing groups, art groups, discussion groups, Facebook groups, etc. People like to make “friends”. That’s something every political movement should aim to generate. Generals from antiquity have known this. Men don’t die for causes, they fight for their friends.
Consequently, conservatives really have to win the battle of the social networks. They really have to create a place to belong if they want to attract those who need companionship, affirmation and support.
Not just one place, but many. Or maybe a house with many rooms, to use the Biblical image. If I think of my own social networks, I have a number of them: a church network, a professional editors’ network, an academic interests network, a college class network, a baseball fans network, a musicians’ network, a cat people’s network. . . on and on. So I think there’s an opening here for a lot of creativity in conservative social networking. Let a thousand networks form?
testing …
paglia, ha … “who would have known”? Everyone here.
#46 Joe Buzz:
Many Liberals crave and live for good feelings, oftentimes truth and justice must be avoided in order for these cravings to be satiated.
If you folks think ACORN is bad now, wait until the Census starts. Be prepared for questions such as: “Do you and or any other resident keep firearms in this house?”“.
Questions from census such as that were answered 224 years ago by the 5th Amendment, and that’s my story (to them) and I’m sticking with it.
And if they play the canard sucker-punch and ask– “so, you are refusing to answer the question?”
I’ll say– “Your question was already answered 224 years ago by the 5th Amendment.”
61. RWE: Thank you for the book recommendation. Just ordered it via Amazon.
62. Yep, military pro’s of all types (officer & enlisted) don’t want someone there who was forced into the military. Not if you can help it. You have to hire a “watcher” for every goofball who cops a ‘tude. Mediocrity sets in. The All Volunteer Force has done well.
Whether America overall is better off without a peacetime draft is debatable…but we didn’t have a draft for most of our history and did just fine. Society’s problems are spiritual, and bringing a de-moralized mentality into the military will just demoralize it. No thanks.
Wretchard: Thanks for clarifying. What you said makes sense. The Tea Party movement is impressive in that regard. I might add that men don’t just fight for each other, they also fight for honor, which is inextricably bound up in the dynamic of fighting for each other. But notions of honor and the things that are worth fighting (and dying) for also encompass patriotism and love of country. I’ve spent much of my adult life writing about the Second World War and in doing so I have interviewed and spoken with countless veterans of that conflict. I recently completed and had published a book about the Marines in the Pacific War. All the men I spoke with were motivated not only by concern for their buddies but also, and to a significant degree, by patriotism and honor, especially the honor of America (in addition to personal honor). I’ve noticed a trend among military historians to emphasize that soldiers fight mostly for their friends while at the same time de-emphasizing motives of patriotism and honor. I suspect this is a way for progressive historians especially of having their cake and eating it: they can laud the courage of soldiers and write about combat in great detail while taking a fashionably dim view of the higher concerns motivating the combatants. This is the progressive approach to military history, very politically correct. It was the approach Spielberg adopted in Saving Private Ryan, and it’s just plain wrong. At least it’s wrong where the men of the Second World War are concerned.
56. Alexis:
Bill Ayers knows that once a youth is brought into the Leftist orbit they eventually surround themselves with a society, culture and artistic preferences from which they can never escape.
Never? It rarely ever happens, but an occasional woman winds up blowing her abusive boyfriend’s brains out. Sometimes a battered wife gets a divorce. There comes a time when sufficient abuse can inspire a fury that breaks through the mental barriers of leftist indoctrination; it can happen.
Even better, when it happens we sometimes get fearless warriors like a Whittaker Chambers, a David Horowitz or other such…
Alexis, your #93: Good points. The worst bullies and brutes always seem to be fearful people. No courage to them Dunno about their self-esteem but they certainly lack self-respect. And the world is always picking on them.
Perhaps another way to express this would be
that conservatives operate from fear, liberals from phobia? Fear as in somebody might hurt you while phobia equals somebody might not like you?
At any rate, this mentality is causing problems.
For a quick glimpse inside another progressive liberal Obama supporting female mind, I submit:
Roxana Mayer .
Please make special note of how she justifies her extreme pretentiousness.
h/t to great blogging by Patterico by the way.
Tocqueville talked about “voluntary associations” as being the fabric of American society. Rotary, Lions, Elks, VFW, etc. are now seen as places for “old guys” to hang out (with some exceptions). The Tea parties coupled with talk radio say to many of the famously “silent majority” that they are in fact not alone in their beliefs, despite the constant media barrage to the contrary. It can be that knowing that their ideas and reactions are acceptable will lead them to form “voluntary associations” that will cement the opposition to the creeping fascism.
It occurs to me that the alternative media like PJM have provided a set of contacts and intellectual and factual support that was not available 15 years ago. I have friends who are 80 plus who are actively online. They still learn about stuff they lived through and knew nothing about. Had they known then what they know now, I expect that a number of outcomes would have been far different.
The interesting thing will be if this sleeping giant has truly been awakened. We’ll know in Nov’10.
Roughcoat There is a text formatting toolbar at http://codefisher.org/format_toolbar/
that works with Firefox. If your stuck with the Evil Empire, I caint hep ya
Roughcoat #113: Where do you reside sir?
If you happen to be in the vikcinity of Las Vegas, there will be a reunion of WWII P38 Pilots in September. Am sure you could pick up some material from them. I’ll be happy to
pay your entrance fee; banquet ticket; tour attendance etc.
And you will also get to meet a Luftwaffe Ace
from the same war.
I must go to work shortly; but will check back on this thread when I get home in the morning. If Wretch closes it, will look on following thread.
It wouldnt let me edit so I couldnt add a line at the beginning acknowledging the Boss’ post at 108.
Fletcher Christian #104: Well now, there is Carmen, Deety, Hilda, Friday and of course Mama Maureen. Not to mention Star, Empress of the Twenty Universes. And quite a few other Heinlein women whose names escape me at the moment. See Programmer. He can help you with all the big words.
We also have the gal who finally roped in John Christian Falkenberg. And then there are the three Amanda Morgans on Planet Dorsai.
Ever here of Betty Zane. Rest of Zane Grey’s womenfolks can match her.
Enough for the moment. We shall leave Louis L’Amour for the future.
Herb: Thanks for the tip! Unfortunately, I am a minion of the Evil Empire, but maybe I can find a way.
Dave: Wow, thanks for the head’s-up re the P-38 pilots’ reunion! Sounds great. I live just outside Chicago but I may be able to attend the event in Las Vegas. I’m certainly interested. Of course I’d pay my own way, but many, many thanks for your incredibly generous offer. [Wretchard: see how we are strengthening our social netwworks?! LOL!] The problem is with previous commitments having to do with the aforementioned book and other ongoing projects. I’ll look for your reply in tomorrow’s thread. Is it okay to post my most commonly used email address in this thread? I’m new here, and I don’t know Wretchard’s policy in this regard.
Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks again!
Dave — Forgot to tell you … tomorrow (Friday) I’m spending the afternoon with a German veteran of the Eastern Front. He immigrated to the U.S. just after the war, has a family farm in northern Illinois. Learned about him from his daughter who is, like me, a border collie sheepherding fanatic–we go to the same trainer. Will be recording our conversation.
Neo-neocon has a post on Paglia. She says, “I wrote of Peggy Noonan the other day that, although she’s beginning to “get” Obama and what he’s about, she’s only halfway there. … Now comes Camille Paglia, a very different sort from Noonan but suffering from a version of the same problem. Paglia liked (and still likes) and supports Obama. But her innate honesty and common sense in some areas (not foreign policy, unfortunately) forces her into noticing just how terrible he’s been as President.”
Just great article and comments.
Paglia is always worth reading.
She loves art and Western Culture. Art is her touchstone.
She is what I call an honest liberal.
There are a few.
Hint: Obama and Slick Willy are not among them.
Remember she and Rush got along. Why? Because they are both very smart and basically honest.
Obama did us proud at the North American Summit? Not based on what I read.
“Obama reaffirmed the US position that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was his country’s rightful leader, a day before a mediation mission by the Organization for American States (OAS) begins.” http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT5wxWs4lxp1PrHH0-XFWVnqLFZw
Obama’s continued support for the would-be dictator Zelaya is a black, black mark on him as a leader.
While reading through these comments, I somehow stumbled upon a “Golden Moldy” on YouTube: Jefferson Airplane – “Crown of Creation” (Hey, I had older siblings who played it alot, OK?) But the line that I had almost forgotten, but which seems to me to be very relevant, is one of the “bridges” of the “song”:
“In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our mind,
In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction”
Since these folks were/are at the center of the 60′s hippie/leftist movement in San Francisco (I think they used to live in Speaker Pelosi’s district) it’s a perfect statement of how the Left (Then and Now) views dissent, or even how they view themselves; as one great big “collective mind.”
I gotta admit, sometimes I don’t understand the women. For instance, the sad case here of a lawyer lady, who was working with some prisoner program or other. She seemed to get fascinated by some convict, who anyone posting here could immediately see as a loser. This lady, however, who certainly should have known better, seemed to buy into his story, whatever it was. After he got sprung from prison, they hooked up, and, a year or so later, after she was living with him in some isolated farmhouse out yonder, the news came along that the place had burned down to the groud, with her in it, sans her flessh, only the bones remaining, a little ashy.
Turns out there was some idiotic dispute, involving some other folks too, and drugs, and money, and jealousy, and the convict had burned the farmhouse, his lawyer lady friend as well, and had hightailed it.
He was caught, convicted, this time not to get out anytime soon.
Sometimes women lose all good sense.
My wife of twenty five plus years is, however, a notable exception. She, at least, knows a good man when she sees one.
Women view Alpha males as the most socially dominant guys
Whiskey
For what it’s worth, our lawyer lady above got taken in by a turd that was hardly ‘socially dominant’.
Unless he was the alpha male in ‘C’ Block.
The difference between democrats and republicans can be expressed this way:
Democrats give you what you want, and think it’s what you need.
Republicans give you what you need, and think it’s what you want.
Also, democrats think all you need do is pass a law, but republicans realize enforcement is the most important.
“We have to do something”
Regarding the lyrics by David Gates, the song was written by him as he struggled with the death of his father. Puts them in a much different, or maybe at least a little less sappy and insipid, light.
128 bob
There are guys who live in bizarro mondo too. For instance, the sad case of a lawyer of the male persuasion who had to come clean earlier today about being a baby daddy. FWIW, anyone who gets involved with an obvious loony-tune like Rielle Hunter is no shining example of rational choice.
Sometimes men lose all good sense.
The thing that really gets me about Clinton and Edwards is not what relentless womanizers they are/were, but what terrible taste they had/have in women. I might put up with Lewinski or Hunter, both of whom I think are nuts, but neither one is even good looking!
2) Whiskey forgot to mention that another reason women hate Palin is the she did not make her pregnant teenage daughter get an abortion.
God help me, but I’m starting to agree with Whiskey. Most amazing, is that I read my wife the post and his comments and she agrees too. She has lived the reality in her past and now sees the tendency in women clearly.
I can’t speak for Wretchard, but I tend to doubt he was just speaking ill of women. The same disease afflicts men. Trying to put it into a gender vs. gender perspective just deflects from the reality.
As I see it, we can all become so connected to something which has the outer glamor of paradise, whether its ideology, religion, or a personal relationship, that we simply go into denial when the mask slips on the beautiful and we glimpse the maggots crawling within. The maggots must have been an hallucination, we think, and the more we see them, the more we are convinced its just a recurring hallucination.
After all, if it was reality, what does that make of our lives? Better not to reflect upon that. The truth may make you free, but the exit from prison may lead out into an empty and barren desert. That is what we fear.
135 Tcobb
Thank you for moving this thread past the gender war to the wider issue of addictive mindsets. Your comment about people’s attachments to ideologies, relationships, etc. reminded me of Ezra Pound’s lines from the Pisan Cantos:
I don’t know how humanity stands it
with a painted paradise at the end of it
without a painted paradise at the end of it
Pound had his own gallery of inner demons, of course, but he could diagnose some forms of cultural madness pretty accurately.
that Pound bit reminded me on Norm @ Cheers:
“Women, can’t live with ‘em, can’t live WITH ‘em.”
Camille will come around. I have faith.
Fletcher Christian asking which one is really the weaker sex tells us volumes about why merry old England is bending over for the muzzies.
The woman lawyer is a typical deranged liberal who thought she could reform that bad boy. He couldn’t give her his love because he had given it all to his cellmate.
Among gorillas, orangutans, and baboons, it is fairly obvious who the alpha males are; they are big strong mature males who muscle out the adolescents and weaker adults.
Among humans, it’s harder to tell. Who makes the decision that a man is alpha? Other men? Women? Harvard? The New York Times? The almighty dollar? Who?
Women want what they like and they aren’t all the same. Different women rate men differently; it’s a cultural thing. Some women want warriors. Others want musicians. Yet others want corporate executives. Some women want gourmet chefs. Some women want thieves. Others want confidence artists. Some women want money. Some women want masters at seduction. Some women want someone who will tell them what to do. Others want someone who will do what he is told. Some women want one man. Other women have such an appetite that not even twenty men could satisfy them. Okay, most single women I know about would like a man she likes to pay attention to her and notice her and care about her, but that is one of the few traits that most women have in common.
Single women? Which ones? A “single woman” who has been home schooled in evangelical Christianity may look at the world differently than a “single woman” from New Haven who has been raised by two lesbians. The very definition of femininity shifts from one society to the next, much as masculinity is defined differently in various places. For example, in some places, it is assumed that someone who wears earrings and plays soccer must be a girl; in other places, soccer players are boys and boys wear earrings.
Before we talk in sweeping generalities about how “single white female college students” vote, wouldn’t it be nice to at least comprehend that women come in various shapes, sizes, and proclivities? They don’t all think the same way. It would be senseless to claim that all single women are Obama supporters, just as it would be senseless to claim that all Louisianans are French, all New Yorkers are Jews, all Floridians are Cuban, all Texans are cowboys, or all Californians are hippies. So what if there are trends. Trends come and trends go. What was once in is now out and what was once out is now in; it’s as true for political fashion for as any other fashion. Statistics do not tell all.
Let’s not forget, to mix my metaphors, not every Omega is an alpha male. And not every alpha male is an Omega. Besides, for an Omega to be an alpha male may be the exception, not the rule.
#134 TXProle – my feeling exactly re Whiskey’s comments and I am a woman!
I rarely comment here because y’all usually have already expressed a viewpoint I concur with… that said, in my younger days, I was attracted to the player – it took me awhile to understand why. I’m the 1955 version and we were raised on James Bond, et al. Very cool, dangerous, love ‘em, leave ‘em men. It takes time to realize just how poor those men really are…
Wretch – I think your post was very clear and we’re all just riffing on it. Excellent post man, just excellent. I think your point explains virtually everything. As a once-philisophy major, and an earnest one, I realized a few years out of college that, really, almost no one is genuinely interested in ideas. The real emotional charge is the society. Which is, of course, reasonable. And yet, there are these prolixious aesthetic distractions. What counts for almost everyone is clan. A clan of free associations, however rationalized, is still a clan. Your metaphor was crystal clear.
PA Cat – so nice. I haven’t read the Cantos in a long time.
DW, it does and I regret being so sarcastic…which is why I rarely post anymore, just don’t have the time to do the research that keeps me from looking foolish on this challenging blog. So back to the refuge, I know when I am overmatched.
“Democrats give you what you want, and think it’s what you need.
Republicans give you what you need, and think it’s what you want.”
Or…. Republicans give you what you need and think if you want something get it your goddamn self…
Some women want money
Only some? If there’s any nearly-universal demand women make of men, it’s money.
It is mighty encouraging to see so many folks contributing to the commentary, especially so many saying they’re moved to comment after visiting and reading for long time.
It is notable that this article by W has prompted over a hundred and thirty comments in just a few hours since its posting. Usually that sort of response has taken several days of ferment and rumination by the readers.
Maybe this means people are moved to share their thoughts, and reassure each other by letting us all know there’s a larger community than we’d imagined…
I am regularly humbled reading the concise, tightly-reasoned comments of other folks who seem to have a much deeper grasp of logic than I ever will.
At the school I attended, there were lots of students who were clever, quick, excellent bullshitters, able to spew daunting volumes of specious factoids faster than this public school grad could ever respond. It’s still a tactic of many on the Left, who are more concerned with overwhelming argument than any sort of dialogue.
One of many great things about BC is that people can take time to think about things, marshall their thoughts, do a little research to find some supporting links or citations, and compose a post as part of a general exchange among people who are actually trying to get their minds around issues.
Long time ago I realized that the smartest person in the room can still get things wildly wrong. As often as not, they go wrong with a vengeance, obstinately, relentlessly, WRONG, because they are convinced they’re so much smarter than anyone else that their ideas are infallible.
Those of us who have been certified as shy of genius level have learned to muddle through with more research, study, testing of hypotheses, and abandoning stupid ideas once they’ve been shown to BE stupid. Oh, yeah… and we learn to connect with other folks who use similar methods. The things that are discovered – or “revealed” – by the so-called scientific method are not always what you expected. But you can depend on that kind of knowledge more than any consensus achieved by shouting and threats.
Tolkien in LOTR has one of his characters refer to Butterbur, the proprietor of the Inn of the Prancing Pony, as someone who may not seem overly bright, but who “in time will see through a wall.” There are a lot of people who can think things through and spot the contradictions and lies in a con or a sham.
And there are lots of lying bastards giving us lots of practice doing so.
Maybe the local hardware store will have a sale on roofing tar. I mind an Arkansas purveyor of chicken products that might be willing to give discounts on large orders of feathers.
response to :
88. RCM:
74. Whitehall:
and of course our host.
I give you Abby road’s B side
“Well you should see Polythene Pam.
She’s so good looking, but she looks like a man.
Well you should see her in drag,
Dressed in her polythene bag.
Yes, you should see Polythene Pam.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
“Get a dose of her in jackboots and kilt.
She’s killer-diller when she’s dressed to the hilt.
She’s the kind of a girl
Who makes the News Of The World.
Yes, you could say that she’s attractively built.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
“She’s comin’ in the house.
Oh, look out!
She came in throught the bathroom window
Protected by a silver spoon,
But now she sucks her thumb and wonders
By the banks of her own lagoon.
Didn’t anybody tell her?
Didn’t anybody see?
Sunday’s on the phone to Monday;
Tuesday’s on the phone to me.
“She said she’d always been a dancer.
She worked at fifteen clubs a day.
And though she thought I knew the answer,
Well I knew what I could not say.
And so I quit the police department
And got myself a steady job.
Although she tried her best to help me,
She could steal, but she could not rob.
Didn’t anybody tell her?
Didn’t anybody see?
Sunday’s on the phone to Monday;
Tuesday’s on the phone to me. Oh, yeah”
Does this kinda sum it up, or just muddle it more?
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?
PS With apologies to Mad Fiddler
Alexis#140, Thank you for stating very succinctly my complaint with Whiskey’s thesis. Folks aren’t made in cookie cutters.
presbypoet,
Democrats give you what you want, and think it’s what you need.
Republicans give you what you need, and think it’s what you want.
And you can’t always get what you want,
Honey, you can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometime, yeah,
You just might find you get what you need!
- M. Jagger & K. Richards
wretchard,
May I claim dibs on all quotes from Henry V?
Conservatives do believe in group bonding and social dynamics. Anybody who does not believe that has not been in the military. What is annoying about the social networking of the Left is the shallowness of it. What would they do if one day Obama was revealed to be as wizened a fraud in a wig as Michael Jackson was? Would they destroy Jack Kennedy because he had Addison’s disease? Would they accept an FDR today? Is there a narrower and less tolerant community anywhere then leadership of the Democratic Party? They make the Chinese Politburo look inclusive and broadminded by comparison.
146 Bob Smith
And then there are fortune hunters like Randolph Churchill (Winston’s father), Claus von Bulow, and John Kerry. Gigolos come in both genders.
Great discussion! BTW, Camille Paglia is a big fan of Sarah Palin’s and made no secret of her admiration. It was Palin’s originality, strength and charisma that attracted Camille – the “Diva” quality she has written about frequently.
Bob Smith:
Ever heard of pimps? They live off women. They are seen as low lives, and that’s because they are. But here’s the thing. Remember what Wretchard was talking about, women who are “slaves of love” to men? Pimps know how to do that to women.
According to the literature, the way pimps do it is usually through nonchalance. Forty years ago, it was called “cop and blow” on the street. It’s a game of not caring about the relationship as much as she does and then using that power to control the woman. These are the guys Wretchard is talking about, the men courtesans are notorious for falling over. The kind of man who takes money from a woman who charges everybody else.
Of course most woman are worried about money. Money is a form of security and a way of hedging against risk. Because of testosterone, men are attracted to risk. Likewise, a woman will usually avoid risk unless she gets a regular dose of testosterone. (Of course, some women get addicted to testosterone.) And then, there’s the maternal instinct. Once a woman’s maternal instinct kicks in, her hormones practically turn her into a different person. Maternity literally causes a woman’s brain chemistry to change.
Money is important and it certainly doesn’t hurt a man, but it is rarely ever the key to a woman’s heart. Self-confidence is more important. Think about why Michael Bolton would be so popular among women or why so many women crave romance novels. To parody Wretchard’s point about social networks, perhaps conservatives need to read a few cheesy romance novels to know what kind of hero would appeal to women voters.
Better yet,The Platter’s One and only you.
Only you
can make this world seem right
Only you
can make the darkness bright
Only you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for only you
Only you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, I understand
the magic that you do
You’re my dream come true
my one and only you, only you
Only you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for only you
Only you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, i understand
the magic that you do do
You’re my dream come true
my one my one my one and only you
While not quite bihag ng pagibig,
it is still the feeling that counts.
Re “May I claim dibs on all quotes from Henry V?”
Sorry, Wretchard, but–no. I was reciting Hank Cinque when you were knee high to a grasshopper. I reckon I’m old enough to be your father (albeit a very young father!). I memorized and recited Henry’s pre-battle speech for a Shakespeare class in high school. Also before a football game with our arch-rival.
Henry belongs to all of us!
Pity we can’t embed videos in the thread. Add that to the wish list.
Here is a link to the best live audio of the Stones from 1973 I could find, no good video but also none of the call and reply that marred later versions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPCRIFLjfPo
Roughcoat,
That wasn’t our host trying to be nervy (Alpha?) enough to claim Henry. It was the interlocutory that is commonly referred to by myself by use of the perpendicular pronoun. It was I.
Oooops!
Mr. Mind, Do I detect a student of “Yes, Prime Minister?”
My brother turned me on to that British comedy about the constant conflict between the self-serving civil service and the politicians who must regularly stand for election in the U.K.
It’s funny but HORRIFYING because so much of the humor comes from simply showing the underlying truth of the unabating self-aggrandizement of both groups.
Mad Fiddler,
Bingo. Or to be as precise as Sir Humphrey would expect, it was from the Yes Minister series episode The Skeleton in the Cupboard
Sir Humphrey: Minister I think there is something that perhaps you ought to know.
Jim: Yes Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey: The identity of the official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is, not shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whose present interlocutor, is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun.
Jim: Beg your pardon.
Sir Humphrey: It was I.
You are absolutely correct. As Mrs. Thatcher said (I have not looked up the quote), “every word is true.”
I love this concept of the Alpha Male. I don’t know if I’m an Alpha in human society but I am, and have to be, the Alpha to my two female border collies. There’s a pack dynamic going on–the border collies insist upon it. And you don’t know insistence until you’re on the receiving end of it from border collies. Truly. Every day they test me on this in ways that are by turns subtle, blatant, funny, and sly. If you don’t continually establish yourself as the Alpha to border collies they will step into the role. And before you know it they’ll be herding you around the house and the back yard.
I’m a little late to the thread – I was busy all day beating my womenfolk.
I love him so, she sighed and blushed
So handsome and so cool
No matter if our freedom’s crushed
And jackboot Nazis rule
I wouldn’t like to see them here
The Nazi thugs I mean
But things like that I never fear
With Barack on the scene
He loves us so, we love him back
He gives us such a thrill
I grieve to see the Right attack
His every little bill
Of course I think it likely that
We’ll change the country’s mind
About this little healthcare spat
And recognize how kind
Our president and Congress are
And how we need them so
And how we need to have a czar
For every little woe
That ill befalls us womenfolk
When facing life alone
And which is why we never joke
About the scary tone
That comes out of the White House now
And causes us some pain
But nonetheless I tell you how
We love our man Hussein
#160: LOL!
A follow up about women:
Part of politics is anthropology, or trying to understand the mentalities of people who are essentially alien. Many women aren’t fans of Michael Bolton, but it would be wise to understand why he is so popular. Many women don’t read cheesy romance novels, but fans of cheesy romances are a major political constituency, one that is ignored at one’s peril. (In contrast, murder mysteries appeal to an audience that spans both genders.)
When faced with an alien mentality, it usually helps to read up on the subject.
Roughcoat,
My Belgian sheepdog only shoves me when he wants me to hurry downstairs at mealtime. Are the stories true that at a party a collie will gather up all the loose guests and make them stand in a compact group in one place? Reports are that they have such strong instincts that they unfortunately attempt to herd automobiles. That rarely works out well.
For those who care I offer two candidates for Sir Humphry’s longest sentence.
H/T http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk/yesminister/quotes.html
Well, it’s clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.
or
It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them, and that every member’s recollection of them differs violently from every other member’s recollection; consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials; from which it emerges with elegant inevitability, that any decision which has been officially reached would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, and any decisions which is not recorded in the minutes by the officials has not been officially reached, even if one or more members believe they can recollect it; so in this particular case, if the decision would have been officially reached, it would have been recorded in the minutes by the officials and it isn’t so it wasn’t.
walt, zing, meet elder:
We love our man Hussein
(who’s sane?)
We love our man who’s sane
(Hussein?)
#160 Roughcoat
Be careful, dogs tend to be communists. If I have some food, they want to have an immediate redistribution of the wealth. If I comply, they suck their fair share down in a heartbeat, before I’ve even had time to get my share up to my mouth. At this point, they want yet another redistribution of the wealth.
But like all good “progressives” the world over, they only believe in sharing the wealth when it means the wealth is coming their way, when its flowing the other way they tend to act like evil conservatives, who only care about themselves.
I can understand behavior like this in a dog, but I have a hard time understanding it in a human being.
But then there is the epiphany –people who style themselves as “progressives” are simply bitches or sons of bitches.
Clarity is a wonderful thing.
160 Roughcoat
If you don’t continually establish yourself as the Alpha to border collies they will step into the role. And before you know it they’ll be herding you around the house and the back yard.
As you doubtless know, cats (of either sex) don’t consider any human (of either sex) to be an Alpha anything (except possibly a bringer of food and sanitation engineer of the cat box). I sometimes think the feline resistance to herding may be one useful model among several for conservatives looking for a way to block the Left.
I’ve always liked the fact that “Wretchard” was originally the name of our host’s pet cat.
I’d be interested to see the statistical breakdown in the long-term relational outcomes and attitudes towards men among:
(a) women who grew up with a healthy, affectionate relationship with their fathers (and, no, I’m not talking about “pampered princesses” here — to the contrary, the type is probably more tomboy/jock and initiative-taking leader than “please daddy can I have that Miata in the window?”), and
(b) women who did not
Not to go all Freudian on my fellow BCers, but a father’s role in shaping his daughter’s attitudes towards men is not insignificant. I can’t say as I’ve ever met a woman who grew up as (a) above, who didn’t genuinely like guys; and what’s more, who seemed to prefer guy’s guys over just about every other type of guy.
But think about it. Just about every one of whiskey’s most infamous types:
the lazy princess
the hypersexual slut (affection seeker)
the angry misandrist/lesbian
the slavish alpha seeker
the wild chick
– is a product of, respectively:
a materially overindulgent, relationally stunted father
a hypercritical, affectionless father
a child molester
a severely controlling father
a severely controlling father (repeat is not a typo)
Oh, to be sure, once one reaches what should be adulthood, male or female, one is responsible for adjusting, reforming & improving one’s own attitudes, choices, and behaviors. “I’m this way because my parents made me this way” no longer tends to wash, say, into one’s third decade and beyond.
But my point is that women who live adult lives as one of the above were not (contrary to what whiskey believes) “hard-wired” that way … they were, in most cases, warped that way.
Men who get dumped on by lousy women are, far more often than not, experiencing the backwash of some other guy’s garbage. Thank your bros for the hos, gentlemen.
Doesn’t anyone here listen to John Mayer, fer cryin’ out loud?
W
Thanks again for the club. Tis a strange synthesis. Your perceptive mind throws out these thoughtful pearls. Then this world-wide audience jumps in to contribute. So strange that we seem to have invented a place trolls are either transformed into thoughtful individuals, or fear to tread. You lightly hold the reins, yet know when to kill comments.
This topic, partly about the difference between men and women, so hazardous to address in much of society generates light here, not just sound and fury.
A thought about stereotypes. They are a paradox. Both true and false at the same time. Grasp that nettle firmly. This applies to women. Not so much to men.
It is dangerous to think you understand women. Yet you must, if the species is to continue. Yet men who seem to understand women the most, seem the most dangerous to women.
PA Cat,
One of life’s mysteries is that women tend to prefer cats and men tend to prefer dogs. There are no firm rules on this and I for one appreciate both but as a general principle there is something to the proposition. Yet cats are far less communitarian then dogs are. Dogs live for the pack. They are nature’s stakhanovites. If anything cats are a distillation of the selfish indeed purely narcissist carnivore that uses and abuses women.
Everytime I read the poetry here I go back and start reading the prose in a rhythmic, sing-songy sort of way, THIS MUST STOP!! (just kidding, can’t live without it!)
I followed the link Yaacov Ben Moshe left and found this gem of a description. I wish I could have written such an accurate description of the Left.
“The progressive demands that we believe his claim that he serves a higher truth and a loftier goal. He tries to force us to accept the idea that his ideas are unassailably good. And, even if they fail to be good, his virtuous pretentions are supposed to indemnify him from guilt or shame. Even if he makes mistakes, behaves badly or cause harm, virtue will save him from blame. His “caring and good intentions” are supposed to trump the fact that he cares about the wrong things in the wrong way and his intentions are a humbug. Virtue is more than a sham- it is the prim, ruthless face of coercion. It is aimed outward, at others, as a self-justification; an accusation and, above all, a yearning for Utopia.”
This is the crux, in one paragraph, of a very good book, Thomas Sowell’s “The Vision of the Anointed.” Well done, Mr. Ben Moshe!
Buddy – Very nice.
We love the men in barracks
So long as they are Barack’s men
But if they are not Barack’s men
We don’t love the men in barracks
A Frenchman now who’s sane
Might say to you Whose Seine?
But what if he’s in Seine
Would you say that he’s Hussein?
My wife is in Mindanao for now, and she just told me she saw on TV the protestations at the Arlen Specter “town hall” meeting in Pennsylvania. I was in Bislig for an entire month in May/June, and barely heard a mention of Obama then (God knows I was thankful for that). This health care bill is blowing up in their faces – seriously, if it is reported on provincial TV in the RP? It is global news, and the world is watching.
BTW This is my first comment here, I love this blog, been reading it for many years, Thanks!
I don’t know why I just spent nearly an hour and a half looking around the neighborhood for my new little yellow kitty, adopted, except that he’s cute as heck. He’s just started going outside, and got spooked somehow.
It must be a heck of a sensory overload for ‘em, first time outside. All those smells, sights, sounds.
I’ve never had a cat that gave me the time of day, but I’ve had some really good dogs.
This kitty though kind of ran off with my heart, all yellow, and those yellow eyes too.
Besides, he jumps straight up when startled, like a helicopter taking off really fast.
This cute phase doesn’t last long.
In general, I’d take a communist dog over a libertarian cat most every time.
The reverse holds true for humans, however, every time.
170
I must take issue with you about cats’ supposed selfishness. First, cats aren’t the loners they are often made out to be. They can bond with other cats even when they aren’t litter mates; two of my cats who were adopted ten months apart have formed a close bond. Cats have been known to form colonies with communal nurseries (if that’s the best word) for the kittens. In addition, there are plenty of instances of mother cats allowing themselves to be taken by coyotes or other predators so that their kittens or other cats in the colony could escape. It might be a stretch to call their sacrifice altruism in the full human sense but it is most certainly not a distillation of narcissism.
As far as similarities to the use or abuse of women, I can’t forget the big ginger cat who lived on the floor of the hospice where my mother died. He sensed when she wanted companionship, slept on the foot of her bed for several nights during her last week, and was with her when she died–which I wasn’t able to be.
I think you are doing just a wee bit of projecting here.
Besides, he jumps straight up when startled, like a helicopter taking off really fast.
I used to think that was just cartoon cats. But, by gum, the ones in real fur really do do that, too.
Just remember that what we presently call “dog behavior” and “cat behavior” is just an observation point along an extended graph of the domestication (or, in the case of cats, not yet) story. From what I’ve read, dogs have been living with man for 15,000 years; cats, about 5,000 years.
Who knows, about 10,000 years from now, Fluffy may be communistically dependent on you and fetching your slippers on command. While Fido … well, what then? Will Fido have gone counter-revolutionary?
(“AS IF!” says the Siberian on the sofa. With glare of disdain, natch.)
mac,
“Virtue” was what inspired Robespierre the Incorruptible. His sincere minions were intending to replace God with Reason or The Supreme Being. In the name of Virtue anything is possible. The virtuous man, like Conrad’s Kurtz in Heart of Darkness has no restraints at all.
PA Cat:
You remind me of similar cases of I have heard about hospice/hospital cats, but the reaction of the patients is to interpret their visits as an omen of a bad future, and chased the poor kitty away, as if the canary created the toxic gasses in the mine.
I love critters, and am perpetually amazed at their senses relating to the well-being of their care-givers.
There was no cat ‘bonding’ going on here. I’m almost certain the big cat next door, who wanders over here once in a while, trespasses!, chased my little yeller feller off.
“A Frenchman now who’s sane
Might say to you Whose Seine?
But what if he’s in Seine
Would you say that he’s Hussein?”
***
No but I know who’s sayin’
it’s western author Grey, who’s Zane
(*groan*)
(never call a writer anal
some’ll shoot ya, i know Zane’ll)
This thread is making me think about putting on the dog and going tom catting around.
starling,
Reading down to save, something.
Drezner is good. He did not get tenure at Chicago. Their loss. Haven’t looked in the last year, thanks for the reminder.
@ programmer (80):
one of the best Liberal blogs I have read, one that deals with a lot of the same subject matter as BC, is the one authored by Daniel Drezner. He’s a professor of international politics at Tufts, relatively young (I estimated around 40) whose been blogging since he was an untenured assistant professor. Like the BC he draws a pretty erudite and well-mannered crowd of commenters, many with a good sense of humor, and many more with the ability to see pros and cons with everyone and everything.
Drezner’s blog got picked up by Foreign Policy magazine and lost some of the rougher edges I liked when it was his own, but I still find it a good read. Perhaps the best thing about his blog is that, like here, many commenters provide links to and excerpts from other resources. Drezner’s post on WJC’s recent Korean vacation is a good example.
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/05/quick_hits_on_the_clinton_field_trip_to_north_korea
In summary, it’s not the liberal Belmont Club, but I find it time well spent.
178 bogie wheel
According to archaeologists in Cyprus, cats have been domesticating humans for at least 8,000 years (the scientists found a human skeleton with a pet cat buried alongside, and carbon dating did the rest). So there’s not quite as much catching up to do (in either direction, as you noted) as you thought.
As for fetching, I won’t worry until one of the household felines shows up with a copy of the New York Times– which, of course, has only three legitimate uses: wrapping fish, lining bird cages, and training dogs.
Being staff for a cat of 19 years, has taught me to appreciate their strong sense of right and wrong. They know when breakfast is. If I try to sleep a few more moments, Ninja will leap up on the dresser. Soon things start to crash down. He is trying to get my attention. As soon as I tell him I will get up, he stops. He understands English. He also cares for our other cat. One afternoon, I told him I would feed them when I returned from the bank. I had to go before it closed.
My wife told me when my car returned to the house, Ninja ran into the back bedroom, where she and the other cat were. Ninja said something in cat, and both cats dashed out together to meet me at the front door.
Ninja is named in part for a pattern of hiding, if we said anything about going to the vet. We learned we had to spell certain words if he was in the vicinity. Or he would hide, and vanish like a ninja.
wretchard the cat wrote:
Maybe for the truly weak minded but this is not an absolute. Let me put it this way: Daddy was a Berkeley educated IWW organizer in the Central Valley of California even before Cesar Chavez was out of nappies. Mom was a Progressive Liberal of the Liberation Theology model. I was an early Lefty UNTIL I grew up. Now I am a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Not all of the Left is immune to reason.
Also:
True. It is wanting to be near the power. One of the ‘kewl kidz’. For examples you see Chris Buckley, Paglia, Kathleen Parker, Meghan McCain, Colin Powell and so many others who have sold their souls for a few pieces of silver to be on their perceived ‘right side of history’.
joe buzz @ 46:
I saw a “welcome mat” for the porch I may order. It said “Come Back With A Warrant”. That is what the ACORN borg units will get from me. They have the right, if they are indeed doing the census, to ask one question, “How many people live here?” Maybe one or two others but only pertaining to who lives here and their nationality. They have no right to ID or how many guns, etc. And I will tell them so in no uncertain terms.
RCM @ 90:
You do recognize that feeling, don’t you? That dread? Upon meeting one who is truly evil?
wretchard @ 102:
I understand your point but disagree on what is perhaps fundamentals. Trying to do what the Left has done, control the social networks is the strategy of the ’06 and ’08 failed elections from the conservative but really GoP side. Conservatives (Republicans) historically do badly when they try to be like Leftists. There is sold history behind this. What does work is a solid program of espousing principles and giving sold, real world examples of why that is the best course. We cannot make the mistake of trying to be like ‘The Other’ (varelse). We just end up being a shallow imitation. (A metrosexual trying to act like a ‘real’ man just ends up being a shallow imitation of the real thing and fails at it to boot.) Conservatives are ‘The Strongest Tribe’ and will be the winners in the end. That is the message that we must get out.
A good western writer named Zane’ll
Lift you, or really his crane’ll
High up in the sky
Until you must cry
That Zane’ll detain or his crane’ll
So, Wretchard. Should there be a “Fans of The Belmont Club” on Facebook?
I was sad cuz I had no insurance,
til I met a man
who’s doctor
had cut off both feet.
Damned insurance companies and saw conglomerates
190 Gaffe Prices
You do know that the Sawbones Society (aka the American College of Surgeons) cut off Obama at the knees yesterday, don’t you?
Now if only the urologists would follow up with an orchiectomy . . .
Hey buddy you can just shut up or I’ll come over there and rip your tonsils out
I was at an internet marketing conference in midtown Manhattan Sun-Tues. The broad themes of the conference were similar to some of the broad themes broached here. social(friends) networks created through places like facebook twitter blogs & more. Lots of stuff about character and being transparent & excellent and doing unique stuff. (Google knows all about you anyway–so why not.) High times all around as the industry is still young–the analogy was about like 50′s television or 30′s radio. I’ll post the speakers audio files when they become available online — but that won’t come in timely way.
You would think that a marketing conference would skew liberal. It it did skew liberal compared to this crowd. But my sense is that the dynamic of the medium is pushing the marketing crowd to be ever more conservative.
It was my impression that conservative online (friends)networks did a better job for Bush in 2000 and 2004 than than liberal networks did for the dems. However, in 2008 liberal networks did a better job for O.
But if you think about it — what would a friends network have to say about Gore Kerry & McCain.
What did we have to say about McCain last year?
Thank God for Palin.
179. Lifeofthemind:
The virtuous man, like Conrad’s Kurtz in Heart of Darkness has no restraints at all.
Jeremiah Jeremiah 17:9
“ The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
The rest of Jeremiah 17 makes pretty good reading too.
The bolt from the red, white and blue
155. The Wobbly Guy:
Anything you would like me to ask the old man if I get the chance?
back in the 70′s 80′s & 90′s I thought the old man was a perfect weathervane. Whenever I didn’t know which way the wind was blowing in world events–I’d check in on his opinions.
But as he’s gone private, I havn’t heard much from him lately. I’d like to hear if he thinks the ASEAN nations are headed for some kind of regional government. And if so, does he think this a good thing?
well buddy,
“A frenchan who’s sane
would’ve said WTF
Hussein is insane
A Sad buddy
gave him a green pass
once upon a time
before the desert storm
at Bash moors”
uh, from the tale of the thousand and one nights
ah ben désolé for walt the satyre
I omissed his smart in Hess style
women tend to prefer cats cuz they don’t need to be dominated, while a dog needs a “chief”, and as women usely don’t exert this role but let it to the men, so cats are easier companions for them
I don’t mind having both
well about women and men, there are not really definitly stereotyped in their role that cultural education gave us : I read an article few day ago about monkeys(gorillas and chimpanses) in their natural middle, observed by Jane Goudall first, then corroborated by scientists, that the dominant males that we used to accredite as definitive don’t mind to leave their place to a dominant female, and they likely become “metro-sexual” without any grievance towards her.
Roughcoat: The Unit is 82nd Fighter Group;
their website has complete details of planned activities. Reunion is 9-13 Sep. Hotel is Hilton Garden Inn at 7830 Las Vegas Blvd South.
If you think you can make it, get a ticket now. Prices are headed straight up especially for that return leg. (Suggest coming back on 14th if possible so you can make the optional Grand Canyon Tour on Sunday.
If you are close to Midway I do recommend
Southwest as their times are superior
and they do not have those hidden bag charges etc. However, if you are closer to O’Hare go ahead and use those lines.
Oldest man there will be 98 in December.
Was Senior officer when they dive-bombed Ploesti.
A Crew Chief took a dramatic photo of when the Queen Mary rammed a Royal Navy Cruiser and killed 338 British sailors. He will be there.
And have you ever heard of the Angel of Ploesti? One of the most incredible stories
you will ever hear.
My top secret cell number is 650 922 3482.
I often cannot hear it but will check for messages frequently. Use that number to give me your email address and I will at least send you my write up on Princess Caradja
and how she kept over 1700 POWs from being “rescued” by Stalin.
Then there is the story of “Johnny Walker” and the Polish Spitfire pilots. The Squadron Commander who was forced down and whose rookie wingman landed and told him “now you fly”.
Then there are the stories I haven’t heard yet. Have I whetted your appetite enough?
Gee, I really hope you can make it. It certainly should be a treat.
20. Peter Boston:
The formation of the United States was in many respects the apogee of the Enlightenment.
……..
The USA was at the time of the revolution mostly calvinist. This was the case of the Dutch,Swedish, German, reformed churches as well as the French Huguenots,Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans. These are the f five points of calvinism developed at the Council of Dort in Holland in the early 1600′s at the time of Descartes in France and Galileo in Italy– or just before the 30 years war.
Calvinism was the religious cultural milieu in which the American revolution occurred. I would even go so far as to argue that the American revolution was the second try at a Calvinist revolution–the first being the Huguenot revolution in France–two hundred years earlier. (Though this was more like a civil war.)
The Calvinists believed that man was basically evil (see Jeremiah 17:9). It was from this initial belief about the condition of man that the founders derived the basis for constructing government.ie Men needed to be constrained with all manner of checks and balances.
(This distinguishes from the french revolution of 1789 which held that man was basically good–perhaps derived from Rousseau–but that conditions could make him bad.)
That said some of the founders like Jefferson, Adams &Franklin were children of the enlightenment. Here it should be understood that in politics the enlightenment was the result of the 30 years war and the decades of subsequent intermittent religious warfare in Europe. That is, the winner of the religious battle between the denominations was the state. Enlightenment in politics meant state power was dominant over church.
Almost to the day of the completion of the American revolution the USA began its long march away from Calvinism.
Cats = social parasites
Dogs = social parasites
Goldfish = good with beer
For Alexis – we do generalize but for a reason. We’re interested in political group behavior since aggregrate votes count.
Now here’s another generalization – women who prefer dogs prefer the stronger “men’s man” men. Women who prefer cats will make due with betas.
umm, if you go on Agility grounds, you’ll see many women with big dogs that are “gay” women
oh scusi, I dunno why your name appears
re: Roughcoat 113:
Roughcoat,
If you have published your findings regarding the motivations among WWII fighting men, I would love to read it. What is the name of your book on the Marine Corp?I have seen that old saw “men fight only for their companions” over and over again. I never believed it entirely – MacPherson did a study on Civil War soldiers that indicated that idealism constituted a major reason for fighting and there is anecdotal evidence from other eras, so I assumed that since the belief in question was based on interviews of American WWII and Korean War veterans only (I believe) it was culture-based, not a world-wide rule.
If the WWII vets don’t fall into that catagory either, then the whole basis for the notion that men fight only out of comradship falls apart completely, it would appear. Of course, that still leaves open the question of how much patriotism and idealism is bound up emotionally with friends, family, and other more tangible parts of our lives…
If you don’t want to tell me the book title in public for privacy reasons, you can send an email to greywolf25(at)gmail.com if you like.
dogs have masters
cats have personal assistants
Note that #204 borrowed my screen name. That wasn’t me!
I disavow #204.
Wow, over 200 comments, most of them about cats…
RE: lack of trolls
The Belmont Club: “Where trolls fear to tread”
Only half O/T, but….Well, in view of the contention that men revere those “who were there on St. Crispin day” with them (as a band of brothers) how long before that well argued point is enjoined to eliminate the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?
Bill Clinton seems to think that America is a much different place with respect to gays in the military than it was when he was buoyed with (apparently) certain (unfulfilled) guarantees from General Powell:
http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-clinton-tells-heckler-where-he-ought-to-go/
Clinton also makes gratuitous disparaging remarks about Town Hall protesters…so what else is new?
I disavow #204. oh scusi, I dunno why your name appears #205
78. Lifeofthemind:
“Charles White,
You need to prove that isn’t a logical fallacy. You could say this was a better country when toilets were all in a little shed outside.”
Better? Perhaps. More “in tune” to the hard, gritty realities in life and certainly “less dependent on strangers” than we are today. How foolish would it have been “back then” to wax philosophical about whom should be paying for your welfare and “how much” ought to be your entitlement.
Certainly, being tied to the land as a farmer encouraged one to be a tad closer to “the truth” than much of what passes for encouragement today. Miss that very small window during the planting season and there was no crop to allow you to eat – for the year. People cared for each other back then what with raising barns as a community or helping others by sending charity from the local church. But if you didn’t plant your own crops or help raise other’s barns, pretty soon you received no help from your neighbors. That may have resulted in a hard reality, but reality nonetheless.
That reality provided oodles and oodles of incentive to be “a good neighbor” and act accordingly, and in many ways that small part made it better.
Too bad we couldn’t have made all those gains in medicine, material quality of life gains, and gone to the moon without spoiling our original sense of the importance of community and respect for our neighbors.
Roughcoat
I’ve noticed a trend among military historians to emphasize that soldiers fight mostly for their friends while at the same time de-emphasizing motives of patriotism and honor…and it’s just plain wrong. At least it’s wrong where the men of the Second World War are concerned.
Thinking about this, my Uncle was an infantryman in the 3rd Army across France and into Germany. Reading his (unpublished) memoirs, I was struck by how he was becoming disconnected from his unit towards the end of the war. Too many guys he’d known were dead, and the new guys died so fast he didn’t want to get to know them. But he kept on soldiering. Also throughout the narrative, he never spoke of anyone doing it “for good ol’ Fred” or whoever. They did their jobs because the jobs needed doing, not because they were trying to give meaning to somebody’s death. When he wrote of seeing guys killed, there was a matter-of-fact sadness about it but it never seemed to impact his view of “the mission.”
He wrote about one fight where he kept on firing his maching gun even though he was sure that made him Target #1 for a German tank. He was providing covering fire for a squad of engineeers crossing a street to blow up a pillbox holding up the advance. The way he wrote it, it was clear he didn’t keep firing because he didn’t want those engineers to get killed, he kept firing because he wanted them to get across the street.
Of course he didn’t write about patriotism and honor either, I suspect for the same reason he didn’t write about air and sunlight – they were a given and only remarkable when absent. (UPDATE: when he wrote about motivations at all, it was to get home, and getting home required finishing the job, which was defeating the enemy.)
FWIW, Speilberg and Hanks didn’t really take the “for my buddies” road in Band of Brothers.
RCM,
Concur, note you can’t concat.
The literature on small group cohesion was based on studies of the German Army IIRC.
It was considered a correction to the myth that Prussian militarism and the spirit of Fredrick the Great was behind the German successes in both world wars. What the research results emphasized was the importance of good front line leadership, that is to say the sergeants. It also helps to remember that the nazis were not a Prussian /lutheran/ aristocratic outfit. They were at heart Austrian and Bavarian /catholic and petit bourgeoisie.
LotM –you’re so right –Hitler’s WWI record –Iron Cross, enlisted man, helped him enormously –thru the 20s and 30s enabled to a large degree by his waving the bloody shirt he co-opted ‘the people’ who ‘were Germany’ so that the Prussian/Lutheran/Aristocrat officer corp, unwilling to demoralize their own troops in denigrating that enlisted bloody shirt, had no alternate object to express patriotism.
Obama –even if he could draw ‘the people’ into a personality cult (as he’s trying) has no ‘bloody shirt’ to create a similar treble cleft. Kerry did but he ruined it in front of the Kefauver Committee. The left keeps getting trapped between what it wants and what it can admit to wanting.
Vox Populi is the only thing that springs the trap tho. That may be the current miscalculation –if indeed it has been one –Vox Populi amped on the net wasn’t what they thought it was.
Expect an analog to Hitlerian ‘the people let me down’.
“Too many guys he’d known were dead” JMH@213.
I am reminded of Donald Burgett’s “Currahee!”.
All of Burgett’s training section had been killed in a training accident, and so he jumped into Normandy with strangers. Getting separated from those strangers did not seem to affect his motivation, the 18-year old just pressed on and did what he could. Maybe that was why Eisenhower endorsed the book so strongly.
Did you ever read Mig Pilot by Lt. Victor Bolenko?
No. Sounds fascinating. I long time ago I read a thriller that reads a lot like a fictionalization of the event. I can’t recall the name.
Gigolos come in both genders.
Why do you think I’m accusing women of being gigolos? I’m accusing women of having a gross double-standard when it comes to money.
My Man, by Maurice Yvain
It’s cost me a lot
But there’s one thing that I’ve got
It’s my man
Cold and wet, tired you bet
But all that I soon forget
With my man
He’s not much for looks
And no hero out of books
Is my man
Two or three girls has he
That he likes as well as me
But I love him!
I don’t know why I should
He isn’t good
He isn’t true
He beats me too
What can I do?
Oh, my man I love him so
He’ll never know
All my life is just despair
But I don’t care
When he takes me in his arms
The world is bright, all right
What’s the diff’rence if I say
I’ll go away, When I know
I’ll come back on my knees some day?
For whatever my man is
I am his forever more!
Right is Right and Left is Left, and never the twain shall meet.
Anyway, that was Oswald Spengler’s understanding of the relationship between basic political philosophies, and it’s my understanding, too. However, our friend Richard Fernandez does not seem to share in that assessment. Let’s very respectfully take a look at this quote:
“The real secret to gaining on the Left isn’t to offer up a more cogent argument or to present more compelling facts. It’s to outfriend them; to open up a door that will make the undecideds out in the cold come in and feel loved. On the day conservatives sweep the Facebook groups they will sweep the world.”
There is a profound fallacy involved in this type of thinking. It is in the same family as that fallacy which causes many modern religious people to reduce the essence of Christianity to some ersatz “social doctrine.” Such people forget that the Church’s first priority is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ’s love to man, and therefore she undertakes to love them and to better their lot. There is no sense in having the betterment without the Gospel, for the Church does not exist to be some religiously-themed Red Cross knockoff. She exists to redeem souls, to sanctify the world, and to lead us into all truth; and the truth, be it said, is larger than our material well-being as such.
In the present context, the fallacy has consequences less eternal but no less erroneous than the secularization of Christianity. The political Right cannot seek to become more like the Left without losing its identity in the process. As a purely practical matter, we may note that this strategy has already been tried and found wanting (notice that President John McCain remains a fixture of Alternative History); but more importantly, once we de-sensationalize Richard’s argument by removing the references to humanitarian warmth and internet technology, we see that it reduces to little more than a blatant endorsement of panum et circenses. The Right is here exhorted to use any means at its disposal to purchase the affections of prospective coreligionists.
Now here are the facts as Spengler saw them, and as I think most clear-headed people see them. Tools like social networking, affection-peddling, and outcast-courting are not morally neutral techniques of which the Left has availed itself and the Right has not (but yet may, to its advantage); they are subversive practices which issue from the very heart of Leftist ideology and remain forever bound up with it. As G. K. Chesterton once observed, the morality a man really has is not the morality he discusses, but the morality he takes for granted. It is taken for granted by the Left that “numbers win the battle,” and that man’s greatest good is found in living a comfortable life on earth. To these ends, they assemble coalitions (mobs) to act as unwitting soldiers for them by making empty promises of material abundance and justice (the greatest good for the greatest number). They see nothing transcendent, nothing noble, nothing worthy of sacrifice, and no value in the individual or in the strugglings of great souls.
The Right is very different. We believe first and foremost in the transcendent, and we allow it to inform our every political decision. We put the good of the soul above all earthly goods. The Right draws its strength not from numbers but from the innate superiority of its principles, the very principles that Wretchard says aren’t enough to win with. Remember, there can never really be any such thing as a conservative party, for the whole notion of governing parties is liberal through and through. The party is basically the engine and the incarnation of liberal thought: it is mean, “democratic,” supra-individualistic, and irreligious. The party’s vision begins and ends entirely in the earthy plain. The Right, on the other hand, consists of free and responsible souls who will stand or fall only according to their faith: it is (not coincidentally) the principle of righteousness which triumphs over numbers, weight, and all other material factors.
We remember that God raised up a Moses, a Gideon, a David, an Elijah, and a Daniel to fulfill His mighty purposes, against every sort of earthy odds. I have yet to read about Him raising up a collective to do anything. If the Right wishes to succeed, it must do so by having a ‘Thermopylae” moment: it must stand in the breach and intercede, rooted in nothing but faith. This is the sign of its election. To resort to other means indicates a lack of faith and a dangerous dilution of principle. We must decide what we really believe. The opportunity to stand tall and prevail is even now upon us. We must hope and strive to prove worthy of it
Matt Beck @219: The Right is very different. We believe first and foremost in the transcendent, and we allow it to inform our every political decision.
You know, I think this may not be so true anymore. It used to be, though. Indeed, when Russell Kirk set out his six basic and crucial principles of conservatism, a belief in a transcendent order headed the list. As if, in order to be conservative, that’s what you had to start with. But over the course of, especially, the last twenty years, this particular prerequisite seems to have been largely discarded and that may explain conservatism’s dearth of vitality today.
When Peter Boston said, The formation of the United States was in many respects the apogee of the Enlightenment, I think he said something that a lot of people on “our side” would agree with. But the Enlightenment was all about the enthronement of human reason and nature and inevitable progress, all of which supports the idea of the perfectibility of man and society. The Enlightenment was secular humanism through and through. The Founders were far more influenced by the Reformation than by the Enlightenment.
The Biblical proposition that man was created in the image of God is the basis of the dignity of the human being. Without that Biblical truth, man’s human reasoning is bound to consider things like cost/benefit ratios and conclude that grandma can just take a pill. Without acceptance of Biblical truth, nature is all there is – nature “red in tooth and claw” – and no morality can ever be found in nature anywhere.
There does seem to be a lot of vitality happening right now with the townhall meetings on healthcare, but I have some doubts about whether that’s enough.
Those who put their faith in worldly order
Not controlled by the order of God,
In confident ignorance, but arrest disorder
Make it fast, breed fatal disease,
Degrade what they exalt.
–T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral
Karen Yvonne – Biblical truth such as the fact that according to the Bible lighting a candle (thus breaking the Sabbath) is punishable by death? Or that it’s perfectly acceptable and in fact admirable to call down bears from the hills to rip a gang of children to pieces because they make fun of your baldness?
I believe in the Golden Rule. Many, perhaps most, people who call themselves Christians do not. Or at the very least don’t follow it.
I would also add to the Golden Rule the Wiccan one: “An ye harm none, do as thou wilt.” In my humble opinion, these two rules are all one needs to be good.
#15 RAH, You’ve just explained it all to me. With this.
“The cult of Palin which I share to an extant has the warm connection emotionally and also she shares he same basic idealoigy I do.
“Obama gained from the cult of personality. So does Palin which is why she was so quickly recognized as a threat to the left and they attempted to destroy it with ridicule.
“This desire of emotional sharing is endemic to the human condition.”
Thanks! Seriously, I’ve been bewildered about how instinctively, snarlingly venomous the Left has been about this good woman, and you’ve just nailed it. She’s the only Republican they see who can make the same kind of powerful EMOTIONAL connection they specialize in.
As one 30-something liberal of my acquaintance said after her RNC convention speech, “Did you see Sarah Palin last night? We’re so screwed.”
That’s why they feel they have to destroy her. Because we have the arguments (most of them); if we add the passion, they really are screwed.
“Clever cat earns ‘high school diploma’ online”
is there a correlation with “female” aptitude to get through educational items and the female inclination for preferring cats to dogs ?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32420644/ns/tech_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
@#218 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlehVpcAes&translated=1
@#218 the french version by Mistinguett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_43tgFprrY
Mad About Mad Men: http://bit.ly/PHtbD
uh, did “Whiskey wrote the scenario ?