Gov. Palin went after Sen. Obama on earmarks today.
One of the things she said was, "In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks, and that’s about a million dollars every working day."
This is the first thing Gov. Palin has said that suggests to me that she really doesn't have enough experience to understand Washington.
You need to recalculate that average. :)
Earmark Generosity
Earmark Generosity:
Wow
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel on Sarah Palin:
He was also a former Democratic candidate for President this year, and a committed liberal (who says he left the Democratic Party because 'it is a party of war!'). He's here appearing on a left-wing radio show.
Major points:
* Gravel says Gov. Palin is a great choice in spite of his ideological differences with her, and someone he respects;
* That she went up against the Republican establishment with courage, and has "put the people and integrity above party";
* That she has more experience than Obama, especially executive experience;
* That she hasn't been corrupted by the partisan process in Washington;
* That she was right on Troopergate, and showed strength in going up against the entrenched unions, just as she had gone up against the oil companies;
* And... well, listen for yourself.
He finishes up by noting that, while he won't vote for McCain, he won't be voting for Obama either.
H/t: Hot Air.
Oh, Son!
Oh, Son!
A man who has never fought for anything wants to call out a warrior on honor?
I can see why they were hoping McCain would define it for them. Plainly, they have no concept of what the concept might mean.
Here's a hint. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, don't focus too much on the words. Focus on the picture to the side. What's that doing there?
The worst thing for Sen. Obama about this comment is that there is no way to claim it wasn't scripted. It was a planned response by an Obama spokesman. There is no walking away from it.
Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why.Son!
A man who has never fought for anything wants to call out a warrior on honor?
I can see why they were hoping McCain would define it for them. Plainly, they have no concept of what the concept might mean.
Here's a hint. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, don't focus too much on the words. Focus on the picture to the side. What's that doing there?
PUMAs Live
PUMAs Live!
Gallup today:
In fact, Republicans didn’t shift much at all, trans-convention. Most of the bounce came from “pure” independents, whose support almost doubled from 20% to 39% in a week. McCain has opened a 15-point gap among independents overall, by far the widest gap in the race to this point. In contrast, the Democratic convention only provoked a small bump in this demographic for Obama, one that quickly evaporated.The Washington Post poll, though, paints a different picture:
McCain also scored among Democrats. Overall, he increased his draw by more than half, from 9% to 14%. Most of that came from conservative, “Blue Dog” Democrats, where McCain gained 10 points from 15% to 25%. Even his support among self-described “moderate” Democrats increased by five points, from 11% to 16%. Gallup even showed a two-point gain among liberal Democrats, but going from 2% to 4% probably is more polling noise than a real move.
A Washington Post/ABC News survey published on Tuesday found most of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention was due to a big shift in support among white women voters.One way to reconcile these findings? PUMAs live. In spite of assurances that they were a fake movement, or falling in line, they seem to be a real trend.
Hehehehe
In Which Grim Attempts To Refrain From Bursting Out In Laughter:
OK, I made it up until that last line. That was too much, though. You got me fair and square.
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias says:
OK, reader poll: Have any of you ever had a dream featuring anyone from the realm of politics? I don't remember my dreams very well, but of all the ones I can recall, never has there been a political figure in any of them. I mean, politics is serious business, but not that serious. Friends, family, loved ones turn up in dreams. Politicians?
Never for me. If your experience is different, though, shout out.
Ahem.
No, I can do this. Ahem. Today, we'll... discuss... this article.
I rarely remember my dreams, but for the past week, GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been haunting me. Night after night, she appears in my dreams, always as a scolding, ominous figure.BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
When I mentioned my Palin dreams to Slate colleagues, they volunteered their own. One Obama-supporting colleague dreamed she had urged her young son to kill Palin with a string bean. Another dreamed she was at a fashion show and Palin served her crème fraîche on little scooped corn chips. A third says, "In the Sarah Palin dream I keep having, she has superhuman powers but is not really a person at all. In fact, she is more like the weather with glasses and an up-do, pushing clouds around and pitching lightning bolts."
I suspect we are not unusual.
OK, I made it up until that last line. That was too much, though. You got me fair and square.
UPDATE: Matt Yglesias says:
I didn’t want to mention that I had a dream about Sarah Palin (she was driving a piece of farm equipment back and forth on the football field of the high school catty-corner to my house, laughing maniacally and I was trying desperately to install some kind of codec on my laptop so they could capture it on video) because it just seemed to weird and creepy. But according to David Plotz, Palin-related dreams are a growing national trend...No, I think your first instinct was correct, son.
OK, reader poll: Have any of you ever had a dream featuring anyone from the realm of politics? I don't remember my dreams very well, but of all the ones I can recall, never has there been a political figure in any of them. I mean, politics is serious business, but not that serious. Friends, family, loved ones turn up in dreams. Politicians?
Never for me. If your experience is different, though, shout out.
Criteria
Criteria:
Still, Cohen's conceit that she is "exploit[ing her] mommyhood" is echoed on the Right, as well. Kay Hymowitz, who shares Cohen's big-city roots, worries about reinvigorating feminism's claim that women are in some sense better:
That's not an accident of birth, but a choice that tells us a great deal about who you are and what you value.
I am someone who believes that sex is a tremendously important factor in a person's life, perhaps the single most important biological factor -- though even so it is less important than some cultural factors. If you are going to do business with someone you've never met before, it is more important to know their nationality than it is to know their sex.
Edward Abbey said that he had once harbored dreams of becoming a great man; later, just a good man; and finally, had found it challenge and honor enough simply to be A MAN. There's a lot of truth to that: and it's a lesson Sen. Obama could stand to learn.
Gov. Palin is A WOMAN, whether she is a good woman or a great woman. She's made a lot of decisions and choices, and they look like good decisions and choices for the most part. There's much in that fact. Character counts, and Gov. Palin's embrace of motherhood is an important part of her character.
We used to say that nobody would run against motherhood or apple pie. The Left, this year, looks ready to do just that. The right shouldn't join them. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, and deserves its place of honor in our culture.
Richard Cohen notices that Obama won't fight, not for anything at all:
Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.Cohen isn't the first to notice this about Obama -- Maureen Dowd called him "a weak sister." I had forgotten how much Cohen's ilk hates "provincials" who don't have the good taste to wish they lived in some big city instead, and how irritating they would find it.
Still, Cohen's conceit that she is "exploit[ing her] mommyhood" is echoed on the Right, as well. Kay Hymowitz, who shares Cohen's big-city roots, worries about reinvigorating feminism's claim that women are in some sense better:
[C]entral to Palin’s red-state appeal is her earthy embrace of motherhood. She differs from mainstream feminists in that her sexuality and fecundity are not in tension with her achievement and power. If anything, they rise out of them. Instead of holding her back, her five children embody her energy, competence, authority, and optimism.There's a signal difference between getting "behind Clinton because she was a woman," and getting behind Palin in part "because she's a mom." The embrace of motherhood is about choices and values: the embrace of womanhood is not. You are born male or female, but you choose to become a mother -- and if you have five children, it is because you chose to embrace motherhood.
...
Still, whatever the appeal of red-state feminism, it should bring no comfort to anyone in favor of a more mature political culture. Red staters share with their blue-state counterparts a tendency to sentimentalize and trivialize politics. They heighten the salience of Lifetime Television–style personal stories and gossip. They reduce candidates to personalities, lifestyles, and gonads. Some blue staters got behind Clinton because she was a woman; red staters want to vote for Palin because she’s a mom. Both positions are misguided.
That's not an accident of birth, but a choice that tells us a great deal about who you are and what you value.
I am someone who believes that sex is a tremendously important factor in a person's life, perhaps the single most important biological factor -- though even so it is less important than some cultural factors. If you are going to do business with someone you've never met before, it is more important to know their nationality than it is to know their sex.
Edward Abbey said that he had once harbored dreams of becoming a great man; later, just a good man; and finally, had found it challenge and honor enough simply to be A MAN. There's a lot of truth to that: and it's a lesson Sen. Obama could stand to learn.
Gov. Palin is A WOMAN, whether she is a good woman or a great woman. She's made a lot of decisions and choices, and they look like good decisions and choices for the most part. There's much in that fact. Character counts, and Gov. Palin's embrace of motherhood is an important part of her character.
We used to say that nobody would run against motherhood or apple pie. The Left, this year, looks ready to do just that. The right shouldn't join them. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, and deserves its place of honor in our culture.
Scary:
Scary:They’re going to try to make me into a scary guy. They’re even trying to make Michelle into a scary person.
Why would a mayor ask such a question? Well, two good reasons: first, "banning" books is one of the most contentious issues in small-town America. Second, every library has a policy on how they deal with requests from patrons to remove items from the shelves. If any of you are mayors or county commissioners and don't know what that policy is where you are, you had better find out.
It may never come up, but if it does, it's going to touch a dangerous nerve in the American psyche. We as a people are opposed to banning books, or any restrictions on the quest for knowledge. At the same time, however, there are certain topics that strike us as inappropriate for the public space. Pornography and incitement to violence are likely to come to mind, but the real danger spot is children. We believe it is proper to shelter children from certain things, until they are ready. When the child is "ready" differs from family to family and from child to child. As a result, childrens' books that treat troublesome subjects will sometimes cause conflicts in small-town society.
Such conflicts are the more explosive because all sides believe they are acting out of the morally right position. The ones protecting the children don't feel they are doing anything wrong by protecting the children, and they point out correctly that their request in no way limits adult liberty (including the liberty to buy the book for your own kids if you really feel that it's appropriate for them). The ones against removing books from the shelves point to the importance of the First Amendment, and a basic shared understanding that Americans don't ban books.
Having a good procedure means that insures all sides are treated with respect, and given a chance to see that the other side aren't "scary book-banners" or evil people who hate children. The exact nature of that policy may differ depending on the makeup and location of the community, but that is the goal.
The actual disposition of the book is really a small matter, since the library isn't really "banning" the book: it will still be available privately. Whether it stays or goes from the public shelves isn't as important as coming to a solution that the whole community can accept: if they decide to put it behind the desk, available only on adult requests, that's fine. If the community decides to remove it, that's fine. If parents who are troubled can be convinced to spend time reading every book before they hand them over to their children, that's fine too. What matters is that the community comes to the decision, and in a way that increases its members' respect for each other.
Still, it is an explosive issue, as anyone who has seen their community go around on it can attest. It's a wise mayor who wants to know just exactly what to expect, should the issue come up.
-Sen. Obama
Ed Koch is in the news today.
"The designation of Palin to be vice president," he said. "She's scary."By 'scary,' he means that when she was mayor she asked the librarian what the policy was on banning books. The town notes that no books were banned, and Gov. Palin says that she never intended to ban any -- she just wanted to know what the policy was.
Why would a mayor ask such a question? Well, two good reasons: first, "banning" books is one of the most contentious issues in small-town America. Second, every library has a policy on how they deal with requests from patrons to remove items from the shelves. If any of you are mayors or county commissioners and don't know what that policy is where you are, you had better find out.
It may never come up, but if it does, it's going to touch a dangerous nerve in the American psyche. We as a people are opposed to banning books, or any restrictions on the quest for knowledge. At the same time, however, there are certain topics that strike us as inappropriate for the public space. Pornography and incitement to violence are likely to come to mind, but the real danger spot is children. We believe it is proper to shelter children from certain things, until they are ready. When the child is "ready" differs from family to family and from child to child. As a result, childrens' books that treat troublesome subjects will sometimes cause conflicts in small-town society.
Such conflicts are the more explosive because all sides believe they are acting out of the morally right position. The ones protecting the children don't feel they are doing anything wrong by protecting the children, and they point out correctly that their request in no way limits adult liberty (including the liberty to buy the book for your own kids if you really feel that it's appropriate for them). The ones against removing books from the shelves point to the importance of the First Amendment, and a basic shared understanding that Americans don't ban books.
Having a good procedure means that insures all sides are treated with respect, and given a chance to see that the other side aren't "scary book-banners" or evil people who hate children. The exact nature of that policy may differ depending on the makeup and location of the community, but that is the goal.
The actual disposition of the book is really a small matter, since the library isn't really "banning" the book: it will still be available privately. Whether it stays or goes from the public shelves isn't as important as coming to a solution that the whole community can accept: if they decide to put it behind the desk, available only on adult requests, that's fine. If the community decides to remove it, that's fine. If parents who are troubled can be convinced to spend time reading every book before they hand them over to their children, that's fine too. What matters is that the community comes to the decision, and in a way that increases its members' respect for each other.
Still, it is an explosive issue, as anyone who has seen their community go around on it can attest. It's a wise mayor who wants to know just exactly what to expect, should the issue come up.
Good Stuff
Good Stuff from the Comments:
Meanwhile, The Lady of the Lake thread is still going on. Lumpenscholar and I had an exchange this morning that seems fruitful:
I want to tip my hat to you folks, who have generated a fine discussion in not just one but several of the comment threads below. I'd like to draw attention to a few of the remarks.
Fiacha has some advice for wife-seekers:
An old man told me how to find a good woman, ask, Can she ride? Can she dance? Can she shoot? Sounds terribly sexist, I am afraid, but its not about her capabilities nor is it a vetting process so I find someone that enoys my hobbies.I'm not sure I can improve upon that. If any of you would like to try, however, have at it.
A gun means many things to many people, to me it means the ability to stand up and protect,
A horse is a symbol of dealing wiht and utilizing that which can be both dangerous and intimidating but is very useful.
The ability to dance is about confidence and trust.
Meanwhile, The Lady of the Lake thread is still going on. Lumpenscholar and I had an exchange this morning that seems fruitful:
Well, I am late to this meeting of the Hall, it seems, and what a wonderful discussion it was to read.This has been one of the finest discussions we've had, and I want to thank all of you for participating in it. There is much here to consider even yet.
In hopes someone is tending the coals, restless of mind, and may be around to listen, and I hope to reply ...
Regarding Jeff's argument:
Grim, when we have a code for men, but for women you say "One of the chief things to understand about chivalry (and courtly love) is how heavily women influenced the ethic to begin with", it does indeed make it sound like men are servants and women can do whatever they please.
When I enlisted in the military, I signed a contract. I knew what was expected of me (even if only in ideal terms at the time), and I knew what I could expect. When a knight swore fealty, he had that same assurance: he knew what he gave, and he knew what he received in return. In an age and nation when men are routinely taken advantage of, and in a society that sees that abuse as proper revenge for historical wrongs, it is hard to embrace a moral contract of service that does not come with some clearly defined expectations.
douglas speaks to this, and I hope he can in some way communicate how he handles this with his daughter.
My answer, as far as I've thought it out to date, is that it is a lady's responsibility to be worthy of any service she may require of a knight. Likewise, when the roles are reversed and it is the lady who renders service to a knight (as also happened in the old stories), the knight can do no less than ensure he is worthy of such service. Indeed, receiving such service can be a great motivator to be worthy.
At the same time, a knight and a lady are both free to ignore those they consider unworthy of service. Not all women in distress are ladies worth rescuing, and not all men in armor are knights worth guiding.
In that vein, Grim, you wrote: "We've discussed Eleanor of Aquitaine... She was accused of every sort of unchastity in her lifetime ... and never lacked for knights ready to declare themselves her willing servants and true lovers."
Setting aside the guilt or innocence of the lady, I think that pointing out an action and saying a knight did it does not make for a valid exemplar. There were Good knights and Evil knights, true knights and false. If chivalry is to mean anything, it must give us virtue, it must point out the actions of true, Good knights and give them honor, and it must also point out the actions of false, Evil knights and damn them. If it is the case that virtuous knights rose to her defense, then it tells us something indirectly about her. On the other hand, she was a powerful, beautiful woman and there were enticing, less-than-virtuous reasons for knights to come to her defense.
Not all those who bear arms are virtuous, and while it may be best for us to see our enemies as fellows in chivalry who have agreed to this bloody contract, it does not make it true.
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 12:08 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still reading.
As to your first point:
In a more recent post, we've been talking about oaths: the oath of enlistment, the pledge of alliegence. None of them posit what you are asking for here: none of them say, "I promise X, and in return, I realize I shall receive Y."
Rather, they say, "I promise X." Your reasons for taking the oath are in a sense your own: the oath is about service, though, not benefits.
Why do you take the pledge, or swear the oath of enlistment?
Why would you pledge love to a lady?
De Charny's response is excellent here. I mentioned it above, as re: marriage, but it applies to love of this chivalrous kind also.
De Charny says -- not just here, but throughout his work -- that there are many kinds of good men; but then he tries to separate out the good from the better, and the better from the best, and says consistently: "He who does best is most worthy."
So in marriage, he notes that there are those who enter into the oath of love in expectation, and that is fine; but these are unlikely to have happy marriages. Their reasons to serve are not really based in love, but in considerations of gain, and therefore they will be unhappy 'for the devils must be at their wedding.'
Then there are some who marry for children, or to have company in their age, or for other good reasons; and they will be happy, and are doing better.
But the best of all are those who with their wives "live joyfully and pleasantly."
If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.
Yet if love is true, it is rewarded. Though not sought, all these things that a man might seek do come: for a true lover will give not only generously, but even of her last penny of money and her last ounce of strength.
The place to focus your mind and heart, then, is not on the gains you expect or demand. It is on finding what you love.
To your second point:
De Charny agrees -- and so do I -- that bearing arms is not virtuous in itself. He devotes a page to "those unworthy to be men at arms," which include: those who wage war without a good reason; those who attack without warning; those who are dishonorable, or cowards; and those who allow men under their command to behave in such ways, even if they would not personally.
Eleanor of Aquitaine was accused of very many things. She never lacked for defenders, and perhaps some of them were like the suitors who marry for money or gain. Yet perhaps the charges were false, given by the sort of men who seek through slander to hurt those whom they cannot hope to best in any honorable contest.
The old way to deal with such claims was in trial by combat, "And may God defend the Right." We have other ways, though I sometimes wonder if we have better ones. We have a media that chases madly after slanders against Gov. Palin, excusing themselves by claiming that they have no choice given their refusal to chase after John Edwards. These things are tried in a court of media, with no final end to the claim possible -- you can still today read conspiracy theories about every politician and public figure of the last decade. The proven ones are still denied; the disproven ones are still believed.
Much is made of the fact that, under the old system, a strong man might spread lies and simply kill those who dared to challenge him. Yet not enough is made of the fact that such lies carried a price, and a danger. Now they are free, and as numerous as a plague of frogs. In Eleanor's day, at least there was a brake on the tongues of cowardly men.
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:01 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In writing a draft of a post on this topic, I re-read Grim's original post. It seems he answered Jeff's concern and gave my own answer here:
The key things that matter are these: the lady is noble of spirit ... she is morally worthy of service ...
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 1:02 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right. And if she is worthy of love, and you love her, you and she will find "joyful and pleasant" rewards. :)
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:05 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your replies, Grim.
First, a point of disagreement. My point about Eleanor's defenders was simply that, unless we know why they defended her, we cannot say it was virtuous behavior. When you put them forth as an example, I took it to mean that because knights did it, it was chivalrous, which I disagree with. Although of course I might have misunderstood your example.
On to more profitable points.
If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.
But-but-but, that takes COURAGE!
:-D
I have to laugh at myself, else I'll soon call myself a coward.
Yet if love is true, it is rewarded.
And that takes faith, and hope, to go with the charity of seeking to love in the first place.
As the Go players say, "Victory lies in the attack," i.e., you can't win if you're focus is only on not losing.
Thank you for posting on this. It is exactly what I needed right now. It is late and I need to move on, but I will revisit this thread soon.
From Ecclesiastes 9:7-10: "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun ... Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 2:46 am | #
Liking Althouse
I'm Beginning To Like Prof. Althouse:
This poll demands your attention.
I believe her when she says she's under a vow of "cruel neutrality." That's what makes it so funny.
On Shooting Short
On Shooting Short:
Information Operations, Texas Ranger style:
If you are fighting the right way, everything is part of your information operations. In this case, we have military deception (shooting short), which encourages the enemy to make a bad decision; and then a PSYOP, to make clear that the the Ranger can not only hit you, he can out-think you too.
The arms, by the way, are an 1860 Henry Rifle, a Sharps Rifle (which gave us the word "sharpshooter"), and a Walker Colt revolver.
The "Walker" was named for Sam Walker, one of the early famous Texas Rangers, who helped Col. Colt design it. He asked for a heavier ball than the .36 caliber ball used by the Patterson Colt, which the Texas Rangers had used successfully against the Commanche. The .44 caliber Walker model was huge -- later .44s were much smaller -- and prone to losing the lock on its reloading lever (see the video above, under "Walker Colt"), which slowed repeat shots.
As far as I know, it was not prone to the particular eccentricity attributed to it by Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven. Blowing up in your hand was not to my knowledge "a failing common to the model." But since we are on the subject, here is a beautiful piece of music from that movie.
I trust you are having a fine weekend.
Awesome
Awesome:
They are stored in the very top of my closet, on the top of my hat boxes, because I would never set anything on top of an American flag or a Bible. Why not? I really couldn't tell you why. It's just how I was raised.
I sympathize somewhat with the Obama supporters who are pulling their hair out over this story: 'Why can't we get past this kind of thing, and talk about what we think are the real issues facing the nation?' Substance is surely more important than symbol, yes. Yet there is a reason you can't 'get past' it, and that is this: you don't understand what these symbols mean to people.
Men are both rational and irrational. We have a part of our soul for each. The irrational part is not bad, and can be very good: it is what gives rise to love as well as hate, joy as well as sorrow. Even sorrow can be noble, when it points the way to the beautiful, for a man ought to be able to mourn the loss of something beautiful.
A man who wishes to lead must be the right kind of man: he has to win the loyalty and service of his fellows. This is the real meaning of the Marine Corps University motto, Ductus Exemplo, "Command by Example." It is not that you should set a good example in the hope that others will follow. It is that the example you set is what wins the right to command. Men follow you because their hearts tell them to do so.
Substance matters, no doubt about it. It is not enough alone, however: it never can be.
UPDATE: Think they found 12,000 people to give 'em to? Looks like it to me.
Hard to say for sure, though, since the NYT piece doesn't mention the flags. At all.
UPDATE: The NYT piece has now changed the picture, so it no longer shows the massive McCain-Palin rally. It now shows Sen. Obama standing in a small ring by himself.
This is one of those outstanding moments in life:
I suppose I should be embarrassed to admit that I have a few of those little, tiny flags that they distribute at the 4th of July around here. They're just made of very cheap cloth, but when they wear out and fall off the sticks, I have painstakingly folded them into tiny triangles and stored them until I could dispose of them properly. That day never comes, because it's a chore I continually forget, so I now have quite a few American flags to dispose of in the traditional fashion.This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.
They are stored in the very top of my closet, on the top of my hat boxes, because I would never set anything on top of an American flag or a Bible. Why not? I really couldn't tell you why. It's just how I was raised.
I sympathize somewhat with the Obama supporters who are pulling their hair out over this story: 'Why can't we get past this kind of thing, and talk about what we think are the real issues facing the nation?' Substance is surely more important than symbol, yes. Yet there is a reason you can't 'get past' it, and that is this: you don't understand what these symbols mean to people.
Men are both rational and irrational. We have a part of our soul for each. The irrational part is not bad, and can be very good: it is what gives rise to love as well as hate, joy as well as sorrow. Even sorrow can be noble, when it points the way to the beautiful, for a man ought to be able to mourn the loss of something beautiful.
A man who wishes to lead must be the right kind of man: he has to win the loyalty and service of his fellows. This is the real meaning of the Marine Corps University motto, Ductus Exemplo, "Command by Example." It is not that you should set a good example in the hope that others will follow. It is that the example you set is what wins the right to command. Men follow you because their hearts tell them to do so.
Substance matters, no doubt about it. It is not enough alone, however: it never can be.
UPDATE: Think they found 12,000 people to give 'em to? Looks like it to me.
Hard to say for sure, though, since the NYT piece doesn't mention the flags. At all.
UPDATE: The NYT piece has now changed the picture, so it no longer shows the massive McCain-Palin rally. It now shows Sen. Obama standing in a small ring by himself.
PUMAs
PUMAs On The March:
PUMAs for McCain.
H/t to Southern Appeal and Hot Air.
UPDATE: Link fixed above. Meanwhile, this one is not by a PUMA but cites one of Sen. Clinton's female advisors.
My favorite of the Sarah Palin "facts," by the way: "Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point north."
I have a certain fondness for the PUMA movement, as someone who has also spent a certain part of his life as a Democrat trying to move the Democratic Party away from some of its dumber ideas. (As is Armed Liberal of Winds of Change: see here).
So, today I notice three important posts by PUMAs moving against the Obama campaign.
Drawing the Line:
From the NYTimes an hour ago, we have this, Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin.... This is a career ending move for Obama for countless reasons.Hey, Precious! Fight Your Own Fights.
News last night from The NY Times, via Riverdaughter, that Obama has run home to Big Sister to plead with her to fight his battle with Saracuda Palin for him. Oh, the poor Precious! Can’t face a tough woman on his own, huh? What’s the matter Barack? Just tell Saracuda that she’s likable enough. Call her a Sweetie and tell the media that she gets moody and bitchy periodically when she’s feeling down. That oughtta work.These ladies seem a little... bitter? How about some video?
PUMAs for McCain.
H/t to Southern Appeal and Hot Air.
UPDATE: Link fixed above. Meanwhile, this one is not by a PUMA but cites one of Sen. Clinton's female advisors.
McCain has a strong woman? Well, the Obama campaign wants voters to know they’ve got one, too, and they’re going to deploy her to crush the moose hunting hockey mom from Alaska. In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to beat the woman the other guy picked....Yeah. Not good enough to be (even considered as!) my VP; good enough to save me from that evil Palin woman!
So, let’s get this straight. They didn’t choose her and her 18 million voters to put on the ticket. They gave the VP spot to Joe Biden. But now that Sarah Palin has arrived on the political scene, they’re promoting Hillary as the female answer to the Republican VP nominee. Awkward, to say the least. And as one female democratic strategist tells me, don’t think that Hillary hasn’t noticed.
My favorite of the Sarah Palin "facts," by the way: "Sarah Palin is the reason compasses point north."
Oaths
A Man's Oath:
I though Douglas had an insightful comment as well:
So: what oaths can you think of that we should consider? Every man might well write his own, but many have come before us, and had good ideas to consider. One of my favorites is from the old Boy Scout Handbook, written by Sir Baden-Powell (a knight himself, note). As far as I know, it does not have the historical accuracy that the Boy Scouts claimed for it -- Baden-Powell had a right to write a "Knight's Code" on his own, being one, but there seems to be no one before him that used it. Aside from that -- and a clumsy last verse -- it has some good qualities.
This is as true today as ever: Americans are of "high birth," the very highest, because we are free men and because we are citizens with a vote in the running of the most powerful government on earth; and because we are powerfully rich. Just yesterday I got a toy catalog in the mail with any number of toys for children of all ages, many priced over a hundred dollars each, some priced several hundred dollars each, and my wife remarked: "How rich we are! People have that kind of money to spend on toys for their four year old!" And more yet when he's five -- well, I don't, but obviously quite a few people have.
So, engendering pride and an ethic of service in the young is a good thing. Most of what is phrased here are good things. I think "not offending" is more an English than an American value (or necessarily a chivalrous value -- D'Artagnan was advised to fight duels at the drop of a hat).
There's the oath of enlistment. What else should we look at?
The latest discussion on chivalry has generated well over a hundred comments, plus now two poetic oaths from readers. Fiacha put forward this one:
Come dance with me...It's not that often, these days, that you see tough men moved to poetry. I write poems on rare occasion -- I wrote one on 9/11, for example, which will be reposted soon on the anniversary. It was once a man's business, poetry, and still today if you list the greatest poets, you'll go a long way down the list before you hit the first woman (Emily Dickinson? But how far below Homer and Shakespeare does she come?). We normally think of poetry as a female endeavor today, but that is really quite new.
Is it evil? For I believe in that which is better than I. Willing to strive for that which I cannot show proof. To suffer from a disease called faith. You say I am evil, for I have killed, I have caused harm, and I proclaim I will do so again, for I know the cost. You say I am a monster? Come dance with me...
I tell you this my soul is not beautiful, I carry shame for that I could not stop, guilt for the harm I have caused,and despair is burdan twists my spirit, I do not blame others for those things that I cannot change. I chose action instead of letting others carry the sword. I bring fire instead living in darkness. Come dance with me...
I have the tarnished and broken armor, and sword of one who works and builds and wants to selfishly protect what others have made. I gather to feed those I love, and to support the causes I believe. I am a monster because I am willing to make hard decisions and not expect others to do it for me. For those that call me monster, come dance with me...
Let me show you what truly is in a monsters heart, and learn about the darkness.
Please; you who call me monster bring me the key... for you are willing to sacrafice another, a child, while I am willing to sacrafice myself, and you call me monster? Come dance with me...
The lock and chains I wear are those I forge myself, off love, and friends, of hope, and faith, the codes and oaths and chants of old help me bind myself, so please bring me the key if a monster you wish to be...
For when I look into the lake, the reflection of a paladin is what I wish to see...
I though Douglas had an insightful comment as well:
I'll have to work on this, but it will take time. We take many oaths, though- Wedding vows, Pledge of Allegiance, Boy Scout Oaths, Religious Creeds (the Apostle's Creed for me, as I'm Catholic). I always make an effort, any time I'm repeating one of those- like the pledge, or the creed, that I not simply repeat it from rote, but consider what it means, and mean what I say. I only wish others would give such oaths the reverence they deserve, along with the deep consideration they require.I think I agree. And with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up fast, we have a proper occasion for swearing oaths, and rededicating ourselves to certain tasks.
The idea of the personal oath is an interesting one. It reminds me of the admonishment from an instructor in Architecture school that an artist should do a self-portrait at least once a year. The introspection required is a good excercise, and the product a good record of our growth (hopefully). This strikes me as another means of self-portrait. A useful exercise indeed.
So: what oaths can you think of that we should consider? Every man might well write his own, but many have come before us, and had good ideas to consider. One of my favorites is from the old Boy Scout Handbook, written by Sir Baden-Powell (a knight himself, note). As far as I know, it does not have the historical accuracy that the Boy Scouts claimed for it -- Baden-Powell had a right to write a "Knight's Code" on his own, being one, but there seems to be no one before him that used it. Aside from that -- and a clumsy last verse -- it has some good qualities.
The odd clumsiness of the last verse does not detract from the truth of it. It is true that young men in training were asked to do a great deal of humble tasks, from helping their lords dress and arm, to serving them at table. This teaches the high truth, "Respect your elders," but it also does a great deal to undercut the false pride that comes of high birth.The Knight's Code BE ALWAYS READY with your armor on, except when you are taking your rest at night.
Defend the poor, and help them that cannot defend themselves.
Do nothing to hurt or offend anyone else.
Be prepared to fight in defense of your country.
At whatever you are working, try to win honor and a name for honesty.
Never break your promise.
Maintain the honor of your country with your life.
Rather die honestly than live shamelessly.
Chivalry requireth that youth should be trained to perform the most laborious and humble offices with cheerfulness and grace; and to do good unto others.
This is as true today as ever: Americans are of "high birth," the very highest, because we are free men and because we are citizens with a vote in the running of the most powerful government on earth; and because we are powerfully rich. Just yesterday I got a toy catalog in the mail with any number of toys for children of all ages, many priced over a hundred dollars each, some priced several hundred dollars each, and my wife remarked: "How rich we are! People have that kind of money to spend on toys for their four year old!" And more yet when he's five -- well, I don't, but obviously quite a few people have.
So, engendering pride and an ethic of service in the young is a good thing. Most of what is phrased here are good things. I think "not offending" is more an English than an American value (or necessarily a chivalrous value -- D'Artagnan was advised to fight duels at the drop of a hat).
There's the oath of enlistment. What else should we look at?
Clothing
Politics and Clothing:
A commenter at Hot Air notes:
National Review has a piece on a certain article of Democratic Party clothing. The t-shirt is offensive, so please bear that in mind if you choose to click the link.
So I’ve been taking note of how many of those pro-Obama, anti-Hillary... t-shirts there are on the streets, and by my count the number is higher post-primary than before.Today, a top Obama supporter and fundraiser declared that Gov. Palin 'should be home taking care of her kids.' So apparently this is a theme for Obama supporters.
A commenter at Hot Air notes:
Shouldn’t [Sen. Obama] be in Kenya to take care of his African grandma[?] Oh, just remember his grandma can’t vote so she’s ain’t helping Micheele [sic] and Barry’s kids. And neither can Barry’s half brother who’s living on a $1 per day budget.A noteworthy observation, that.
"All's Hair"?
"All's Hair"?
Totally evenhanded. Uh, well, they're both Republicans, but other than that.
I don't know what Deborah Tanen is talking about. This kind of article is purely evenhanded.
Yes, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has a lot on her plate: a pregnant teen daughter, a son on his way to Iraq, an infant with Down syndrome and a looming national election.I'm sure we all remember the last time the media took to mocking a Republican figure over hair: John Bolton.
But must her hair suffer?
Totally evenhanded. Uh, well, they're both Republicans, but other than that.
Awesome
Sukiyaki Western Django:
The film Django was also apparently inspirational to the director Robert Rodriguez, whose title character in El Mariachi uses a guitar case for the same purpose as the coffin. As I imagine most of you know, Rodriguez and Tarantino have since worked together on a number of cult-movie projects (mostly bad ones); and now Tarantino is hooking up with the Japanese effort here.
That makes it dangerously likely that the film will get lost in in-jokes; but I suspect, from the description, that it will be hard to forget in any case.
This sounds like a highly memorable movie.
A lone gunslinger rides into town, ties his horse to the hitching post, and strides down the middle of Main Street. Two rival gangs come flooding out of their respective hideouts: the White Gang on one end of the street, the Reds on the other. There's a buried treasure hidden somewhere nearby, and everyone's crazy to find it, so the lone gunman stands between the two gangs and makes them an offer.Now, by "memorable" I don't mean to imply "good." On the other hand, the director has quite a reputation, and the Japanese have already mined this ground with some profit. For example, the famous cult film Django's trailer will explain a mystery to anyone who saw Cowboy Bebop's mushroom episode on the Cartoon Network. The anime's makers apparently felt no explanation for the reference was necessary, suggesting their audience will be familiar with the Spaghetti Westerns -- and not just the Eastwood ones.
"Witch axe gonna by it. Marvy rose? What there—if tank glut treasure, no pain."
Welcome to Sukiyaki Western Django (First Look), the English-language Western by Japanese director Takashi Miike. The all-Japanese cast, augmented by Quentin Tarantino in two cameo roles, learned their English dialogue phonetically and attack their lines as if the words were small furry animals that need to be beaten into submission. The dialogue is crammed with weird, Christopher Walken-esque line readings and bizarre placement of emphases—phrases like "You old biddy," "Dang!" and "You reckon?" become hilariously divorced from meaning.
The film Django was also apparently inspirational to the director Robert Rodriguez, whose title character in El Mariachi uses a guitar case for the same purpose as the coffin. As I imagine most of you know, Rodriguez and Tarantino have since worked together on a number of cult-movie projects (mostly bad ones); and now Tarantino is hooking up with the Japanese effort here.
That makes it dangerously likely that the film will get lost in in-jokes; but I suspect, from the description, that it will be hard to forget in any case.
Shales
Tom Shales Speaks:
Does he think none of us were alive in the 1980s?
It is unfortunate, he says, that the media is being falsely portrayed as biased.
It's unfortunate considering the strong showing of Palin that the Republicans have again decided to run against "the media" as well as against the Democrats, and to portray themselves as poor, abused victims of media aggression. Giuliani, who has made a second career of courting the press, referred sneeringly to "the left-wing media." Mike Huckabee spoke of "the elite media." And a poorly made film about Ronald Reagan, shown to the delegates on Tuesday night, included the outright lie that "the media hated" Reagan, when just the opposite is closer to the truth.!!!
Reagan's time in the White House was a virtual love affair with the press, whom he charmed as infectiously as he charmed the whole country.
Does he think none of us were alive in the 1980s?
The Palin Speech
The Palin Speech:
I stayed up too late last night so that I could watch this speech, and then read some of the early commentary.
The speech was good: a sketch of an introduction, a sketch of the line of attack she intends to pursue through the election, a sketch of a biography of John McCain for those Americans who still don't know his heroic story -- of which there remain a few who are unaware, a few more that are vaguely aware, and others who are aware of the story but not the powerful details. In and of itself, it was only a sketch of each of these positions, with the details to be filled in later: but that is important too.
This is why books have introductions: to take a moment to sketch the overall picture for you, before they delve into details that you might not understand without that framework. If she can fulfill the promise of the introduction, she should have no trouble with Obama and Biden.
Let's talk a moment about the importance of our reaction to Gov. Palin. For the last few days, we've been angry at her mistreatment by the press and Obama loyalists, and especially her family's. We've defended her, fought back a bit against the attacks, and praised Sen. Obama for taking a better road.
Last night, she seemed to show that she was capable of defending herself without such help. Yet look again, not just at her but at her family. They are smiling and proud, even Bristol, who was the target of the worst of the attacks.
That comes from this: from the tremendous support that they have received, and -- especially at the convention -- has let them understand the depth of conviction with which so many Americans are ready to fight alongside them. You can see that confidence in their faces. You can hear the reason for it in the wild cheers and applause. They have reason to be smiling, they have reason to be proud.
A few days ago I said I had never before seen the press try to destroy a candidate outright in her first week. Now we have all seen them try: and the wave has burst against the rock.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)