The TOA of MNF-I has occurred, with General Odierno taking command. As a Lieutenant General, GEN Odierno commanded III Corps. III Corps served as MNC-I until last winter, when they returned home and XVIII Airborne Corps took over MNC-I's responsibilities. Now GEN Odierno is back to command MNF-I as a whole, and GEN Petraeus is going to become the combatant commander of US Central Command.
The headline of this article tells an important story, though: GEN Petraeus' tour as head of MNF-I was twenty months. The Surge units of the Army did fifteen months each, a grueling stint away from home and family. GEN Petraeus did what an officer is supposed to do: he asked nothing of them he did not do himself, and in fact did more.
His command of MNF-I will be remembered in history books as the time when we got the focus right, and began to reverse the chaos that had been rising in Iraq until his tenure. He leaves Iraq in a far better state than he found it.
At the appropriate hour, whenever that is for you, I suggest a toast to the gentlemen. In fact, I suggest three: one to their health, one in honor of their last assignment, and a last to hope for success in their next.
Toast to Petraeus
Ladies and Gentlemen, Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno:
Fine
Historical Accuracy, Eh?
Since we're getting complaints about the historical accuracy of the Old Guard's band, try the 7th Cavalry Drum and Bugle Corps on for size (sample viewer comment: 'Is the drum major sober?').
The 'Indian maidens' remind me of something...
Tax Cuts
Tax Cuts:
Look, we go through this every time. Kerry said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Gore said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Bill Clinton said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class in 1992, and this year Hillary Clinton and Obama have said it too.
The other thing all of these candidates have done is propose massive new spending, as for example on universal health insurance plans. When that gets crossways with the 'middle-class tax cut', which one do you think is going to give?
Me, too.
This puts us in a difficult position. On the one hand, you want to be fair to people -- even politicians -- and take them at their word when you can. On the other hand, I believe that there is close to 100% certainty that, if elected, President Obama would push through tax increases on the middle class and the rich, just as Clinton did.
Of course, Obama could be the one guy who means it, and he could be the one guy who -- when his pet programs turn out to cost too much -- chooses to cut taxes and forgo his desired reforms instead. My belief on the point aside, there's really no way to know for sure until and unless he does one or the other.
Still, surely it's fair to point out that the track record is not so good, the expected new spending is going to require more taxes, and I think they care much more about the new programs than they care about tax cuts.
When the McCain campaign says, "Barack Obama will raise middle class taxes," I think they're speaking the truth as a matter of fact -- I absolutely believe that he will, if elected. Yet it is necessary to make some nod to his claim to the contrary, since (unlike President Clinton) he hasn't proven himself false on the point. Not doing so is not playing fair, even if they believe -- as I do -- that they're right.
Looks like FOX News called out a McCain supporter for claiming Obama would raise taxes on the middle class. In fact, he has campaigned for cutting taxes on the middle class. He said:
I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy and a long-term fairness strategy, which is part of getting this country going again.Oh, wait, no. That was Bill Clinton who said that, before he was elected and enacted massive tax increases on the middle class (and everyone else).
Look, we go through this every time. Kerry said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Gore said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class. Bill Clinton said he was going to cut taxes on the middle class in 1992, and this year Hillary Clinton and Obama have said it too.
The other thing all of these candidates have done is propose massive new spending, as for example on universal health insurance plans. When that gets crossways with the 'middle-class tax cut', which one do you think is going to give?
Me, too.
This puts us in a difficult position. On the one hand, you want to be fair to people -- even politicians -- and take them at their word when you can. On the other hand, I believe that there is close to 100% certainty that, if elected, President Obama would push through tax increases on the middle class and the rich, just as Clinton did.
Of course, Obama could be the one guy who means it, and he could be the one guy who -- when his pet programs turn out to cost too much -- chooses to cut taxes and forgo his desired reforms instead. My belief on the point aside, there's really no way to know for sure until and unless he does one or the other.
Still, surely it's fair to point out that the track record is not so good, the expected new spending is going to require more taxes, and I think they care much more about the new programs than they care about tax cuts.
When the McCain campaign says, "Barack Obama will raise middle class taxes," I think they're speaking the truth as a matter of fact -- I absolutely believe that he will, if elected. Yet it is necessary to make some nod to his claim to the contrary, since (unlike President Clinton) he hasn't proven himself false on the point. Not doing so is not playing fair, even if they believe -- as I do -- that they're right.
Justifying the Sacrifice
Justifying the Sacrifice:
In the film Little Big Man, there is a scene where the Seventh Cavalry destroys a peaceful indian village to the sound of the Garryowen. The music is beautiful, and the carnage horrible. The movie uses the disparity to lay a charge of hypocrisy at the feet of the US military, both historic and -- as this was a Vietnam-era movie -- contemporary.
The charge is that the beauty is a false overlay on something wicked. The truth, I think, is precisely the opposite: that the beauty is real, and the thing that has to be defended. It is not to make you feel better about the cruel reality of war; it is to remind you of why you thought to fight at all.
The Old Guard here captures the objective beauty missing in so much of our modern culture. It reminds us of the achievement of the West, and why we might fight for her.
The world is as we inherited it, both the good parts and the bad. We can neither claim credit for the good that came before us, nor can we suffer blame for the awful truths about the basic nature of our world. It is not our fault that life must feed on other life: we did not make the rules.
What we can do is recognize the beautiful, and defend it.
Et qui non habet, vendat tunicam suam et emat gladium:
Luke 22:36, as lived today.
A man who threatened to behead two women because they were Christians was attacked in self-defense early Saturday and injured so severely, police say, that his eye was to be removed.Indonesia? Colorado.
Russell Bowman, who called himself an atheist, showed up with a large knife at the women's apartment in the 700 block of Tia Juana Street about 3:15 a.m., police said.
Another resident grabbed a shotgun and ordered him to put the knife down. When Bowman refused and began approaching, the person hit him with the butt end of the weapon, police said.
What could it be?
Oh, Worry, What Could It Be?
Like all right-thinking people, I love the Fail Blog.
These folks would be proud.
Heh
Cookware?
That is to say: a time-tested formula that succeeded well on America's frontier, is so well-made that it has the potential to last forever, and one that continues to be valued in homes across rural America.
In some parts of America, cooking on black iron today seems hopelessly old-fashioned. Still, if you learn how to do it right, it makes food that is just better than food made any other way.
UPDATE: By comparison, Sen. Obama would be Pioneer enameled cookware. It's a lightweight, with a smooth exterior; but it scratches up quickly and will scorch food if heat is applied to it too fast.
Prof. Reynolds has a poll on Gov. Palin as a cookware line.
Which kind of cookware is Sarah Palin?I'm afraid he's more of a gourmet than I am, as I wasn't familiar with either of those lines, but I did enjoy the joke. If I may venture an alternate opinion, I would suggest she is best symbolized by Lodge Cast Iron Cookware.* All-Clad: Its tough, riveted construction matches her personality.
* Cuisinart Nonstick: Because so far attacks have slid off of her with no residue remaining.
That is to say: a time-tested formula that succeeded well on America's frontier, is so well-made that it has the potential to last forever, and one that continues to be valued in homes across rural America.
In some parts of America, cooking on black iron today seems hopelessly old-fashioned. Still, if you learn how to do it right, it makes food that is just better than food made any other way.
UPDATE: By comparison, Sen. Obama would be Pioneer enameled cookware. It's a lightweight, with a smooth exterior; but it scratches up quickly and will scorch food if heat is applied to it too fast.
Thinking on Texas
Thinking of Texas:
Since we are thinking of Texas tonight, and those who are riding out a potentially deadly assault, let us remember the Alamo.
Once you get past the initial music, it's a black and white film of John Wayne talking about David Crockett. I have another reason to be interested in that tonight, but it matters here too.
"I hope you'll do the best you can. I'll do the same. Don't be uneasy about me. I'm with my friends."
High level Iraq update
High Level Iraq Update:
I've written a top-down view, from a number of recent interviews. It's at BLACKFIVE.
Oh, and if you're coming to Vegas next week? Join us at the Penthouse Club.
Those pictures of me are from Baghdad. The baby picture is obviously fake. :)
Matagorda
Matagorda:
The night was still and the air seemed close; there was something in the atmosphere that made animals restless and men irritable. There lay over the town and the flatlands beyond a breathless hush that seemed like a warning.I don't believe I recall reading a government warning quite like this one.The truth of the matter was that Indianola had not long to live.
-"Matagorda," by Louis L'amour.
PERSONS NOT HEEDING EVACUATION ORDERS IN SINGLE FAMILY ONE OR TWO STORY HOMES MAY FACE CERTAIN DEATH.I've had to evacuate from hurricanes myself, and I've ridden out some lesser ones. Grim's Hall has some several Texas readers: those of you down Houston way, when you get to shelter, let us know if there's anything you need.
MANY RESIDENCES OF AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION DIRECTLY ON THE COAST WILL BE DESTROYED. WIDESPREAD AND DEVASTATING PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE IS LIKELY ELSEWHERE. VEHICLES LEFT BEHIND WILL LIKELY BE SWEPT AWAY.
Chesterton
Chesterton:
One man can drive a hundred, we have learned. The 'sweet hymns of hate' have faded with the years, and now we look upon an Iraq made freer and finer than it ever dared dream; but an Afghanistan in many ways little better than it was, for all we have done.
No longer full of wrath, where to from here? Is it enough? Russia is resurgent, strikes down our allies, sends heavy bombers into the Western hemisphere for the first time in history -- but her demographics fail. The Islamic world rises, but that is hope as much as peril. Iraq is surely a great hope; and yet we look at Pakistan, and Africa, and Iran, again at Russia.
From The Ballad of the White Horse:
"One man shall drive a hundred,And so did we, not so long ago. Like Geraint, struck with no just cause. So we rode to Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the corners of the world.
As the dead kings drave;
Before me rocking hosts be riven,
And battering cohorts backwards driven,
For I am the first king known of Heaven
That has been struck like a slave."
...
Roaring they went o'er the Roman wall,
And roaring up the lane,
Their torches tossed a ladder of fire,
Higher their hymn was heard and higher,
More sweet for hate and for heart's desire,
And up in the northern scrub and brier,
They fell upon the Dane.
One man can drive a hundred, we have learned. The 'sweet hymns of hate' have faded with the years, and now we look upon an Iraq made freer and finer than it ever dared dream; but an Afghanistan in many ways little better than it was, for all we have done.
No longer full of wrath, where to from here? Is it enough? Russia is resurgent, strikes down our allies, sends heavy bombers into the Western hemisphere for the first time in history -- but her demographics fail. The Islamic world rises, but that is hope as much as peril. Iraq is surely a great hope; and yet we look at Pakistan, and Africa, and Iran, again at Russia.
And each with a small, far, bird-like sightThe fools and the cheerful mad have the better part of this world. Perhaps the best thing is to resolve to be one or the other, and lay aside all fear. If the other choice is 'the despair that grows with the day,' then surely this is best. Hope and faith may sometimes seem like little more than foolishness or madness, but these are two of the best of things.
Saw the high folly of the fight;
And though strange joys had grown in the night,
Despair grew with the day.
And when white dawn crawled through the wood,
Like cold foam of a flood,
Then weakened every warrior's mood,
In hope, though not in hardihood;
And each man sorrowed as he stood
In the fashion of his blood.
For the Saxon Franklin sorrowed
For the things that had been fair;
For the dear dead woman, crimson-clad,
And the great feasts and the friends he had;
But the Celtic prince's soul was sad
For the things that never were.
...
Then Eldred of the idle farm
Leaned on his ancient sword,
As fell his heavy words and few;
And his eyes were of such alien blue
As gleams where the Northman saileth new
Into an unknown fiord.
"I was a fool and wasted ale--
My slaves found it sweet;
I was a fool and wasted bread,
And the birds had bread to eat.
"The kings go up and the kings go down,
And who knows who shall rule;
Next night a king may starve or sleep,
But men and birds and beasts shall weep
At the burial of a fool.
"O, drunkards in my cellar,
Boys in my apple tree,
The world grows stern and strange and new,
And wise men shall govern you,
And you shall weep for me.
"But yoke me my own oxen,
Down to my own farm;
My own dog will whine for me,
My own friends will bend the knee,
And the foes I slew openly
Have never wished me harm."
...
But Colan.... said, "And when did Britain
Become your burying-yard?
"Before the Romans lit the land,
When schools and monks were none,
We reared such stones to the sun-god
As might put out the sun.
"The tall trees of Britain
We worshipped and were wise,
But you shall raid the whole land through
And never a tree shall talk to you,
Though every leaf is a tongue taught true
And the forest is full of eyes.
"On one round hill to the seaward
The trees grow tall and grey
And the trees talk together
When all men are away.
"O'er a few round hills forgotten
The trees grow tall in rings,
And the trees talk together
Of many pagan things.
"Yet I could lie and listen
With a cross upon my clay,
And hear unhurt for ever
What the trees of Britain say."
Seven Years: Enid & Geraint
This is a poem I wrote seven years ago today, when I could no longer stand to watch the replayed news on television. I went out into the forest, down to the creek that ran through the woods. I crossed it halfway onto an island, and sat among the stones and wrote this. It may be one of the oldest 9/11 poems, as I wrote it around three in the afternoon on the very day. It draws, of course, on Tennyson, but it is not blank verse. Rather, it is in the old alliterative style of the Beowulf.
It happens to touch on a great deal we have been discussing lately, so it is even more appropriate to repost it today -- as I do every year on September 11.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
This is a poem I wrote seven years ago today, when I could no longer stand to watch the replayed news on television. I went out into the forest, down to the creek that ran through the woods. I crossed it halfway onto an island, and sat among the stones and wrote this. It may be one of the oldest 9/11 poems, as I wrote it around three in the afternoon on the very day. It draws, of course, on Tennyson, but it is not blank verse. Rather, it is in the old alliterative style of the Beowulf.
It happens to touch on a great deal we have been discussing lately, so it is even more appropriate to repost it today -- as I do every year on September 11.
Enid & Geraint
Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.
And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.
They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.
At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.
And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.
By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.
End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.
Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.
Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.
And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.
And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.
His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.
And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.
Earmark Generosity
Earmark Generosity:
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. :)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)