DL Sly

Vroom:

You're an American classic -- fast, strong, and bold. You're not snobby or pretentious, but you have what it takes to give anyone a run for their money.

"Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

Hat tip to Cassandra, who credits Sly for the link.

To Be Cute

President Cute:

I guess we've all heard someone or other talk about Obama as being "cute." Cuteness is apparently highly valued, perhaps because it is nonthreatening. The nation has been so stressful, these last few years.

"Cute" means being childlike in some respects -- Obama's relative youth is often contrasted with McCain's age. It also means being harmless. A Yorkshire terrier barking and growling is "cute," for precisely the reason that a slavering Rottie engaged in the same behavior is not.

ABC News explores the question in its coverage of the Obamas' appearance on Good Morning America. The headline is adult and assertive: "Obama warns GOP, 'Lay off my wife.'"

But the subhead, which an editor chose to ensure you did not miss something located at the end of the story, is, "Obama loses argument with wife over getting a dog."

Michelle Obama actually overruled her husband while on "GMA" when they were asked whether their two daughters had yet to get the dog they were promised.

She said they had agreed to get the dog a year from now, while her husband said they will have "a year to test whether they are sufficiently responsible..."

But Michelle Obama cut him off, sayingy, "They are responsible."

He tried again by saying "Whether they are going to be responsible in the middle of winter to go walk that dog."

"We're getting a dog," his wife said flatly.

"When it's cold outside," Obama persisted.

His wife looked into the camera and said to their kids, "You guys are getting a dog."

When the presidential candidate again asked who would be walking the dog, the potential first lady replied, "You will. You will all be walking the dog."

"OK. All right," Obama conceded.

We'll leave aside the question of whether the TN GOP's ad was unfair, given that Michelle Obama made the comments at a political rally, and given that Obama himself "joked" that she would make a good Vice President. Certainly a man should stand up for his wife; he's under no obligation to be "fair" where she is concerned. A good man should be completely unfair in this regard: he should brook no slander on her honor, nor even the shadow or suggestion of one.

That much I approve of; but this aggressiveness is balanced by his wife's public humiliations, which ensure that he remains "cute." No viewer will be frightened away by his aggressiveness in today's interview. Obama doesn't come off as angry because of it; it is clear he remains harmless. This is apparently a chief reason for his success -- remember the other day when he was described by a supporter as "a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, [who] nearly splits the difference on gender as well."

Apparently that's just what a lot of people want. Exactly how it's meant to impress enemies at this difficult moment in history -- whether at war or the negotiating table -- is lost on me; but it may be just that many Americans want someone comforting. Perhaps Iran, too, will be won over to giving up their nuclear program just because he is so nonthreatening; why would they ever need a weapon?

Medieval Philosophy and Categories

Medieval Philosophy and Categories:

Dad29 has a fine post tying together three apparently disparate topics: gay marriage, the use of the pipe organ in church, and the Scottish philosopher Alisadaire McIntyre. Dad notes:

"What is missing in [so much of modern philosophy]....is any sense that BEAUTY has any objective quality whatsoever."

The other day, while discussing music, we had a musician point to what such an "objective quality" might look like.

Not long after Wagner, those who wrote 12-tone and other serial music, unfortunately wrenching Western music away from its tonal roots, were trying to make "new" art, defining themselves and their work as "not what has gone before." Now this is a frequent tactic employed by anyone searching for new things, but in this case they were abandoning the fundamental mathematical relationships that produce tonality itself, and the new structure created was insufficiently based in reality to resonate more than academically with human beings.

It is entirely possible, given the horror of WWI, that they were actively fleeing from the emotional leverages exerted by tonal music, perhaps looking to escape the ravages of passion althgether.

Emphasis added.

Dad goes on to talk about whether Truth has any objective reality. Aristotle and Aquinas certainly believed it did:

Aristotle taught that the ability to make correct judgments was about more than simply amassing the necessary data. It involves the training and formation of the person in virtue, so that he has the kind of mind and soul that can apprehend the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Such 'proper formation' is necessarily based on objective reality, or that which is True. Aristotle and Aquinas taught that knowledge of the Truth is simply conforming one's mind to reality.

The music gives us a concrete example of what is meant. Certain mathematical relationships produce tonality; and it is possible to learn these, and thereby to compose great, soaring music of the sort Wagner used.

It is also possible to abandon them; and you can still compose music. It will not be as beautiful, however, because it is further from the reality of what beauty is.

This is true even though one person or another may actually like it better. You, personally, may find rap music to be more stirring than Wagner. Some of this may be because of how you have been trained, and other parts of it may arise from ways in which you, personally, are different from what is usual. There's nothing inherently wrong with liking rap music better than Wagner. Personal preferences are fine, and a free society will make room for them.

The mathematics continue to exist, however, in spite of your preferences. Reality is still there, regardless of what your mind perceives.

I bring this up because of Mr. Sheldon's assertion:

I guess I'm not going to understand the need for a one-size-fits-all name if there is a dangerous possibility that it won't fit somebody.

Personal preferences can't swallow our ability to discuss things in common. I'm glad to make room -- gracious plenty of room -- for the individual Pursuit of Happiness. By all means, do what you think is right.

The fact that there are individual differences and personal preferences, however, shouldn't forbid us from looking for greater truths. Some things are bigger than we are. That was part of my point, below: because we know reality chiefly through what our brain reports to us, sometimes we need to listen to someone whose brain works differently than ours does. They may have had a wholly different experience of reality than we have had.

We should be able to try to sort out what is right between us, rather than say, "We can assert no lessons, because there is a dangerous possibility that someone else may not fit." Well, fine: let them bring their own lessons to the table, and we can add them to our debate about what the truth really is.

They should not preclude the debate. We should not refuse to try to understand, because we might leave out someone whose experience is different. I welcome them to the discussion, but we must have the discussion. It is their duty, as it is ours, to stand up and fight for what we believe.

A Word Missing from the Language

A Word Missing from the Language:

So there's this video.



I want to talk about it in a moment, but first, there is something more important.

I looked up the definition for "sexism" today, and I find that it is defined as "the sense that one sex is inferior to, or more valuable than, the other." We have a number of ways of expressing the same concept: "male chauvanism" or "female chauvanism," "misogyny," and so forth.

What we don't appear to have is a way of expressing a concept that recognizes the real differences between the sexes in a way that honors them. As far as I know, there is no word in the language for a "a sense that though the sexes are genuinely different, both are necessary and valuable." That is to say, we have a lot of ways of describing a problem, but we have no way of talking about the solution.

I've tried to use the term "chivalry" in this context -- that men should regard women, though different, as wonderful and valuable, and should take care to listen to their concerns and help make a world in which they feel welcome.

Two things happened when I did that, which point up the severity of the problem. The first is that it was pointed out to me, by a well-meaning and kind-hearted woman, that I was offering good advice to men, but nothing for women. If "chivalry" is right for men, what is the female version of recognizing the differences between themselves and men, honoring men, and trying to make a world in which we also feel welcome and valued? I have no answer to that question: there is no word I know of that applies.

The other thing that happened was that certain feminists received my use of "chivalry" as a sort of code-word for male chauvanism. I'm afraid the word has been tarnished by a combination of genuine bad acting by some men, by feminist unisexuals who want to pretend there are no differences, and by miscommunication between men and women who mean well, but talk past each other.

Cassandra and I have had far too many examples of this: I don't think you could easily find a more honest, or more kindly-intentioned, discussion of sex differences in America than the debates we have had over the years. They have often been hot, but never motivated by what the terms "sexism" or "misogyny" or "chauvanism" intend to imply -- nor their female equivalents.

It is not merely personal high regard that keeps the bad sentiments out, though she and I are good friends, and I think the world of her. Cassandra loves men in general, just as we are, though she finds us -- and indeed, me -- incredibly frustrating at times. I love women, and want them involved in my life and to be happy, but sometimes I just can't seem to convey what I mean to them -- though men reading the discussion immediately relate to what I'm saying. Cassandra and I, and some of you who have joined us, have tried as hard as anyone has to clarify the problems, and not wholly without success. It's difficult work, though I think it is also noble work.

Still, the very difficulty of the discussions underlines for me the importance of defining a concept of the sort I described above. It is clear that men and women have vastly different brains, and experience the world in such remarkably different ways that only through lengthy discussion can we even recognize that a difference exists. Over and over, we come down to, "I can't understand why you keep saying that," which is the literal truth. It is a starting point, for tying to understand, but it is also clear evidence of a real and deep division.

We need a word for people who recognize that the differences are real, but assert them only as a starting point for understanding and honoring the other sex. We need to divide this behavior, which is good and noble behavior, from "sexism" or "chauvanism."

I intend to revive the term "chivalry" for this purpose, at least as it applies to men. I don't know what the right term for women would be, and others may prefer a different word from "chivalry" even for men.

Such a term is necessary, though, in order to have an honest and respectful discussion about the role sex plays in our conceptions.

Now -- a less important matter -- the video.

One of the interesting features of the video is that then First Lady Clinton's speech to the Beijing Women's Conference is the underlay. If you listen to what she is saying, you can get a clear sense of why at least some people oppose her candidacy.

When she points to how "the market doesn't value" the choices of millions of women worldwide, she is pointing to something that is true: the market doesn't. For Senator Clinton, today, that is a problem to be solved through government intervention. The market should be tampered with to ensure it places value on the things we wish it would value.

For others, the market's values are without moral content. The market values what it does because those things produce wealth. For women who choose to do things that the market doesn't value in order to pursue things that they personally value, that is part of their choice.

Government meddling in the marketplace, because it restricts the market's natural choices, reduces the creation of wealth for the whole society. Any society is tied together -- a point Clinton is glad to raise when it suits her, but which remains true even when it does not. The rich do not prey on the poor; they are their customers.

If that is so, reducing the generation of wealth across society hurts us all, in order to favor the few that the policy is meant to aid -- so that certain women, in this case, who make unmarketable choices should also be able to be rich.

I've made some unmarketable choices in my own life. I spent a year cowboying. It was great, but there's no money in it.

I imagine that a great many men would love to have society restructured so that we can do things we find personally fulfilling -- like training horses -- without suffering financially. Probably all men would like that. I imagine all women would love to be able to do something they enjoy and find fulfilling, and also get rich.

The problem is that the world doesn't work that way. An attempt to make the world work that way for a certain class of women will hurt everyone else, to benefit the special class.

Again and again, the Left's solutions point that way: to benefit a class of people, at a cost to the whole society.

In defending the interests of those classes, though, she dishonestly adopts universal language: "Womens' rights are human rights," as if she were merely advocating that all people be treated equally, instead of some people receiving special consideration. She uses this basic dishonesty about her position to appear to be operating from a morally perfect place, and to tarnish those who disagree with her suggested policies. They don't deserve that, as it is certainly not less moral to believe that the wealth of the whole society is more important than the comfort of a special class.

That's really the core problem I have with Hillary Clinton. I think I was able to express it without unfairness, either to her or to her fellow women.

The images that play over the speech contrast very poorly.

What we're seeing from the Obama campaign is in fact sexism -- the use of negative female stereotypes, either in place of or to augment actual arguments. Had Sen. Clinton succeeded to the Democratic nomination, I don't doubt we would have seen it increasingly from Republicans as well.

A gentleman should not speak ill of ladies, even if he must sometimes criticize a lady. We may be different, even very deeply and subtly different, but that need not make us enemies.

Chivalry is not dead. Indeed, I belive it is time for it to reconquer.

Man's Best Friend.

LT G & company find a dog.

Open Minds

Open Minds:

I am sure glad to hear that the New Leaders will be men and women of Open Minds.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, “and he has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

“I think he’s trapped in that,” Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. “Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”

Harkin said that “it’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up."

Man, that's an indictment of almost our entire existing military. You're welcome for everything, Tom. And hey, thanks for voting to send our dangerous, close-minded volunteers to fight in Iraq for you.

WTF, over.

"Hitler's demands were not unreasonable."

I don't even have words for this sort of thinking.

(via Ace of Spades)

P. J. O'Rourke on Politicians:

After all my time covering politics, I know a lot of politicians. They’re intelligent. They’re diligent. They’re talented. I like them. I count them as friends.

But when these friends of mine take their intelligence, their diligence, and their talent and they put these into the service of politics, ladies and gentlemen, when they do that, they turn into leeches upon the commonwealth. They are dogs chasing the cat of freedom. They are cats tormenting the mouse of responsibility. They are mice gnawing on the insulated wiring of individualism. They are going to hell in a hand basket, and they stole that basket from you.

From the CATO newsletter linked here.

A Sacred Oath on our behalf

A Sacred Oath on Our Behalf:

The President's remarks were far more than that one small matter mentioned below. What he has sworn, in his capacity as the President of the United States of America, is nothing less than... well, read for yourself.

We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s independence, founded on the “natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.” What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael....

I have been fortunate to see the character of Israel up close. I have touched the Western Wall, seen the sun reflected in the Sea of Galilee, I have prayed at Yad Vashem. And earlier today, I visited Masada, an inspiring monument to courage and sacrifice. At this historic site, Israeli soldiers swear an oath: “Masada shall never fall again.” Citizens of Israel: Masada shall never fall again, and America will be at your side.

But Masada fell to Rome.

Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel’s independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar — the key to the Zion Gate — and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, “Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day.” Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: “I accept this key in the name of my people."

The President of the United States has taken an oath, before the parliament of Israel, that America will help them make real the promises they believe God Himself made to their nation. It is the same oath they require of their soldiers.

The Belmont Club says that this is the New Rome repaying the sins of the Old Rome:

Nothing can disguise the fact that six million Jews died, not in the Middle East, but in ovens which burned in the very heart of Europe. In countries that prided themselves in culture; that listened to Mozart; read books and vaunted their universities. When Golda Meir said with relief, on the occasion of the foundation of Israel that "For two thousand years we have waited for our deliverance. Now that it is here it is so great and wonderful that it surpasses human words" she was speaking of escape from a darkness within the very center of Western civilization.

Yet nothing great or wonderful is safe forever, and that darkness, that love for savagery, that admiration for the brutal, that was believed to have died beneath the ground in 1945 is on the march again. It is crawling out of books, lofty towers, places of culture in precisely the manner Camus warned us against. He said that the evil may be beaten, but it is rarely beaten forever; "that the plague bacillus never dies or disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen-chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when, for the bane and the enlightening of men, it would rouse up its rats again and send them forth to die in a happy city."

But we may not speak of it. And therefore it begins.

The focus on politics is misplaced. This is a question of religion, and sacred oaths. It is fearsome.

What a day

What A Day:

I was occupied a good portion of the day with family business, so imagine my surprise this evening to sit down and read the news:

A) President Bush, speaking before the Israeli legislature, gave a foreign policy speech that 'aides privately admitted was an attack on Obama.'



"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland, an American senator said..." Heh, yeah, that's pretty clear.

It's a fair attack, delivered in a speech in Washington, DC, in the President's role as the head of his party. An attack on a political opponent delivered before a foreign government, where a President speaks as the head of state for all Americans? That's the sort of thing we didn't used to do.

B) This Israeli parliament burst into applause.

C) Joe Lieberman said Bush was exactly right. (That link is to Think Progress -- if you read the comments, it may be helpful to note that the "Nazi" they are referring to is Lieberman, not the actual Nazis mentioned by the President.)

D) Obama was outraged at the suggestion that he might try to appease foreign enemies. He also said that his promise to meet personally with Iran and others "without precondition" was not to be read as appeasement, as there would be "preparation" for such talks.

E) John McCain asked just what Obama wanted to talk to Iran about, if it wasn't appeasement.

Allahpundit is right to ask two serious question. First:

A serious definitional question: What separates “appeasement” from negotiation generally? The right, I take it, would characterize negotiations with any aggressor as appeasement since it creates a perverse incentive by rewarding a malefactor for misbehavior. Want to talk to President Obama? Simple: Start your own nuclear program, build a proxy army in a neighboring state (or better yet, two neighboring states) and wait for him to beat a path to your door. The left, I’m guessing, would define the term more narrowly, as negotiation with an aggressor without a demand that he concede anything already gained. Signing a peace deal with Hitler in exchange for his promise that he won’t do anything bad from now on would be appeasement; signing a peace deal with him in exchange for his withdrawal from Czechoslovakia wouldn’t.

And second:

The question McCain should be asking is what Obama intends to do if that deal is struck and then we discover that Iran’s cheating, just like it was cheating in concealing its nuclear program in the first place prior to 2002 and just like it’s guaranteed to try to cheat post-bargain given how effectively nuclear facilities can be concealed these days. And instead of whining about “hypocrisy,” Obama should hit him with the counterfactual: What exactly is Maverick’s plan for dealing with them? We’re on the clock here; they’ll have a bomb circa 2015 at the latest. Is he going to fold his arms and wait for Israel to deal with it or is he prepared for airstrikes, an admission Obama doubtless would love to wring out of him? To which McCain’s reply, of course, will be to ask if Obama’s ruled out airstrikes no matter how dire the situation is.

The real policy on Iran appears to be "hope they fall into internal revolution," which is certainly possible. If they do, the investment in building Iraq's military as an regional ally will more than pay for itself.

Hope is not a plan, though; and tyrannical governments have proven very resilient at crushing internal revolts. So yes, what is left if not appeasement? Are airstrikes on the table? An offensive similar to the one that took down the Taliban, where we don't just hope for an internal revolt but openly aid one? Negotiation with preconditions? What preconditions?

Iraq is what everyone has been talking about, but Iran is going to be the big question that the next President faces. It's valuable, then, to see the general election campaign starting off with a chance to see what the candidates have to say about it.

Ghost Pandas.

LT G recounts the wierdness that is Iraq, at night.

Clever lads.

If this isn't proof that the UK is overrun with surveillance cameras, I don't know what is.

One of the most difficult things for a DIY label to do is to create an engaging music video on a shoestring budget. The Get Out Clause has found a novel way around this problem using a combination of Manchester’s state of the art CCTV system and a little knowledge of the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Act. The Get Out Clause set up at various locations around Manchester city centre where they knew there would be CCTV coverage and performed their new single Paper. The footage was then requested under the Freedom of Information & Data Protection Acts and a video was cut together in their home studio.

What's also telling is that all those cameras don't seem to be doing anything to reduce the crime rate, either. At least somebody has found a use for the things.

(via Art of the Prank)

An Oddity

An Oddity:

Bthun posted this link in the comments to an earlier post. It's to an article about how many Americans are now taking prescription drugs every single day.

The article says that 2/3rds of adult women and 52% of men are taking such drugs on a daily basis. I'm curious as to why there is a disparity, when I've always heard that women lived longer and were less subject to various diseases than men.

Is it that chronic medication increases as you grow older, and women live longer? Or is it that women are more likely to go to the doctor, and thus have the opportunity to be prescribed something? Or some other factor?

Essential Library for Men

Essential Reading for Men:

Since we're all reading Protein Wisdom now, let's talk about this book list. One Hundred "must read" books for men is quite an undertaking. It's an impressive list, mostly, but I think it's too biased in favor of literature-class books: those 20th century texts, and a few 19th century ones, that we are told are Great Novels. (Henry Miller in a list of books for men? Edward Abbey once called him, "Our finest lady novelist.") I would suggest you can dispense with those if you wish.

I would also dispute a few of the choices: Aristotle's Politics, for example. Not that you shouldn't read the Politics, but Arisotle's political ideals are an extension of his ideas on personal morality to the state. Until you've got the concept from his Nicomachean Ethics, then, you won't really grasp what he's trying to say in the Politics.

By the same token, The Republic is not what I'd suggest you read from Plato if you were only going to read one book. I'd suggest one of the earlier works that deal with Socrates more as a man and less as a literary device: perhaps the Crito, or the Laches.

With quibbles like that aside, most of the list is excellent. The non-fiction works are the best. The inclusion of the old Boy Scout Handbook is a wise stroke, and something we've talked about here before. I can think of several more nonfiction works that would better the list by replacing some of the novels, in my opinion; but the ones they suggest are very good.

Did I miss Louis L'amour in that list? It's hard to pick a book of his to include -- one would like to say, "Any three books by him," or just "every book by him." He's an odd character in that none of his books are indispensable, and they often repeat plots; but because of the "man v. nature" element of his books, all of them are worth reading in order to gain a deeper appreciation of the nature that surrounds you. If you don't want to read all of them, though, you can read pretty much any of them to get his underlying moral principles, which are the other lesson of his works.

GHMC Angel

Grim's Hall Movie Club: Angel and the Badman

Here's a movie that's been mentioned time and again in this hall. I'd like to propose that we watch it, this weekend.

It's one of those movies in the clear now, so you can find it for sale on any number of cowboy movie compilations. If you can't find it, though, the whole thing is availabe online (in multiple parts) here.

Who's with me for this one?

UPDATE: Cassidy, you are specially required to join us, assuming you have the power. This is a movie you should see, if you haven't yet.

This just makes me giggle.

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I wonder how he really feels.

Bthun

Congress and States Rights?

I don't have the background to know for certain what to think about this article on proposed immigration law, which bthun sends. I'm not sure how much Congress is trying to assert new authority, and how much it's extending something it already has the power to do.

Opinion from our friends who have been called to the bar is welcome.

Woohoo

Georgia Revises Handgun Carry Law:

With the governor's signature, a major update to Georgia firearms law has passed. The AJC's coverage is typically horrid, both wrong on the facts and biased against the law even in defeat; but it's an occasion for celebration all the same. (The text of the law is here.)

Two ways in which the article is wrong, for those of you in Georgia:

"Concealed weapons will now be allowed in state — and by extension — local parks."

Wrong: the Georgia Firearms Law permits you to carry openly or concealed.

Also wrong: "...by extension -- local parks." Georgia already has a pre-emption law that forbade localities from passing laws against carrying in local parks. So really, it's just the state parks, historic sites, recreational areas, and wildlife management areas.

Another error, although minor by comparison to these basic errors of fact:

"[The NRA and] GeorgiaCarry.org... argued that holders of concealed weapons permits — who submit to fingerprinting and a criminal background check — are no danger to the public and might even protect the public."

Actually, what we argued was that armed citizens would definitely protect the public.

GeorgiaCarry deserves a lot of credit for working to get this passed, as does the NRA.

The law doesn't take effect until July 1st, 2008, so don't let your eagerness get the better of you. (I'm looking at you, JHD. :)

Now, my next hope for Georgia law: fixing the knife laws, so that anyone with a firearms license may also carry a knife (openly or concealed). It doesn't make a lot of sense to permit the one and not the other.

Patriotism

Patriotism and a Woman:

Protein Wisdom was musing on proper patriotism, yesterday, as expressed by left and right. I think they both have it wrong.

[I]t is fair to infer that Obama tends to attract those who disagree that that “we should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong,” which seems entirely consistent with Obama’s view of patriotism (and of Israeli nationalism). As Michael Barone would put it, it is the difference between Jacksonians and academics. For the New Left, the idea that disagreements over foreign policy stop at the water’s edge died in Vietnam.

The New Left view can be usefully contrasted with a metaphor Rick Moran has used to describe liberal patriotism:

I think it is apparent that some on the right love America in a different way than some on the left. Think of the right’s love of country as that of a young man for a hot young woman. The passion of such love brooks no criticism and in their eyes, the woman can do nothing wrong. They place the woman on a pedestal and fail to see any flaws in her beauty, only perfection.On the other hand, love of country by many liberals is more intellectualized – perhaps the kind of love we might feel for a wife of many years. The white hot passion may be gone and her flaws might drive you up a wall at times. And it is difficult not to dwell on her imperfections. But there is still a deep, abiding affection that allows you to love her despite the many blemishes and defects they see.

It isn’t that most on the left love America any less than those on the right. They simply see a different entity – a tainted but beloved object that has gotten better with age.

Alternatively, it could be argued that some on the left (esp. the New Left) treat America like the girlfriend they hold to a standard of perfection and always find wanting, complaining about her to their friends in her presence. And that some on the right love America like their wives, acknowledging her past and present flaws, while recognizing that those flaws might not be corrected overnight, or even in his lifetime. And that most American husbands do not find it useful to publicly take sides in an argument against their wives, even when they might privately do so. Or to dismiss their wives’ concern that there may be an intruder in the house.

It is wonderful — not to mention politically smart — that Obama has started talking more about the greatness of America and its ideals. However, should he be elected president, he will be elected president of the nation as it is, not of its ideals. Obama claims he wants to bring Americans together. If he truly does, he will have to accept that he cannot cavalierly dismiss the views of his fellow citizens anymore than he can dismiss the views of his wife.

Insofar as you want to make a metaphor wherein the country is a woman, both of these concepts are wrong. If America is a woman, she is your mother.

You should love her because she bore you into the world, and gave you every chance you had as a youth. You should love her because she defended you, nursed you while you were weak, and gave you a chance to grow strong. You should love her without failing because it is your duty, and because no man can hate his mother without destroying a part of himself.

Of course, "patriotism" is from the Latin patria, in turn derived from Pater, which means "Father." Still, it is usual to think of America as being a woman, in part because the name takes a feminine form. Whether you love her as a mother or as a father, however, love her that way.

Obama was right (this once)

Obama was Right:

ABCNews takes Obama to task on Iraq. Well, he deserves all he gets on that score, as his Iraq plans demonstrate neither an understanding of the military nor reasonable judgment as concerns the fate of millions of Iraqis or the stability of the region.

Yes, he deserves all he gets... almost.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

Agriculture is indeed tremendously important to Iraq. The Tigris and Euphrates river valleys are very fertile, which is why so many ancient civilizations were rooted in Mesopotamia -- a fact even an ABCNews reporter might have learned in school if he'd been listening. If not, he might have learned it from the US military, which has been talking for quite some time about efforts to set up agricultural unions and coops, chicken and fish farms, help refurbish tractor factories, and so forth.

Why is it that, five years into the war, the media still have this concept that Iraq is a Saudi Arabia-style desert where nothing grows but oil? The reporter objects to Obama's "pushback" on the issue, claiming that he has reported on Iraq "extensively" and that the claim strikes him as "doubtful."

OK, well, it's still true. Iraq needs agricultural experts, and there's much to be gained from deploying them. Not only does the agricultural industry exist in Iraq, it's the main industry in much of the country. Not only is Mesopotamia fertile, it's fertile enough that -- when it begins to be fully developed again -- it will be a major source of wealth and food in a time when food prices are rising worldwide.