| « | A project worthy of attention |
»
|
|
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Nothing Is As Lovely As Global Warming On A Tuesday In February
1. On "Female Presidents"
All right, so we haven't had one yet? So what?
One of Charles Hill's correspondents had a few things to say:
Of course, no one is saying that you should select a less qualified candidate over a more qualified one simply because of gender. But as I told my friend — I don't hold out a lot of hope for a "good" President, so if the choice is between Mediocre Candidate #1 (who is male) and Mediocre Candidate #2 (who is female), why can't we choose the female candidate?
Charles concludes his thoughts on the matter in a characteristically sardonic fashion:
I plan to sit back and watch the ceremonial rotting of the fruits of identity politics, convinced that eventually we will elect a woman to the highest office in the land, not so much because she's a woman but because she'll be so much better than any of the other candidates that time around. Given the sheer awfulness of some of the men we've seen, it's just a matter of time.
Hard to argue with that. However, your Curmudgeon will note that the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. We haven't yet had a female chief of service, much less a female Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor a female Secretary or Undersecretary of Defense. The electorate will have to be mighty impressed with a female candidate for the presidency to elect her into supreme authority over all the above.
Britain's "Iron Lady," Margaret Thatcher, faced a piercing test of her suitability as Prime Minister when the Argentinean junta decided to invade the Falkland Islands. She passed with flying colors. But we would have to expect our enemies -- and don't kid yourself; we've still got plenty of them -- to mount tests at least as trying upon the resolve and political courage of a female president. Consider how many of our enemies are overwhelmingly the devotees of a hyper-masculine, hyper-patriarchal creed and culture.
If Mrs. William Clinton should secure the Democrats' nomination and win in November, whether by fair means or foul, she'll face a test of her willingness to use military means in defense of American lives, American property, or an American ally within three months of her inauguration. Remember that you read it here first.
2. Property rights and the Seventh Commandment.
From Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna:
When I was twenty I married a Marine. We were both much too young so it was not fated to go well, but that is beside the point here....We were very poor. In fact, one time my E-4 husband “liberated” some C-rations from the flight line and they stretched our budget that month. I felt guilty at the time and eventually mentioned it to the chaplain. He looked at me and laughed and then said something I have used over and over through the years. He said, “Girl, your husband did nothing wrong and neither did you in eating those blasted things. The first law of moral theology is that an owner has to act like an owner. So if Uncle wanted to secure that food he should have set up a guard detail. Forget it.”
That chaplain understood something a lot of people never grasp: a claim of rights over a thing rests upon the willingness and ability to exert adequate control over it. The most fundamental characteristic of rightful property is the owner's ability to prevent it from slipping from his grasp against his will. If he can't do that, by what standard can he assert true ownership of it? The thing could go wandering off at any moment, with unpredictable consequences.
A man who leaves his car doors unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, has forfeited all claim to that car, on the grounds of inadequate control. A man who permits squatters to camp on his property for seven years, without attempting to evict them or demanding a fee for continued tenancy, has granted them a residence easement, on the grounds of inadequate control. And Uncle Sam clearly didn't value those rations enough to exert adequate control over them. An owner has to act like an owner!
God will decline to prosecute. Next case!
3. Teresa Heinz II?
Michele Obama doesn't have Mrs. Kerry's money, but she certainly has her talent for picking her teeth with her toenails:
…for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.
One of the reasons George W. Bush defeated Al Gore and John Kerry was that Laura Bush is so clearly and greatly superior to Tipper Gore and Teresa Heinz. Those men's wives cost them votes, quite possibly enough votes to tip two close elections. The upcoming election, if close, could present the same tableau.
Never doubt for a moment that the merits and demerits of a public figure's spouse will be counted against his own account. Bill Clinton exploited that quite well in 1992. John F. Kennedy benefited from it in 1960. But neither Barack Obama nor Mrs. William Clinton appear to appreciate the magnitude of the disaster their spouses are courting on their behalf.
Has anyone heard from Mrs. John McCain lately? She's attractive, intelligent, and patriotic, a worthy successor to Laura Bush. Given how little he has to offer American conservatives, she might be the best asset he's got...if his continent-sized ego doesn't preclude all consideration of the tactic.
Comments
Regardless of who is elected, I fear that the new president’s resolve will be tested. 1993’s and 2001’s attacks on the WTC were in the year of a new president. The attacks on Madrid’s commuter trains and London’s buses? Election time!
Remembering this, in spite of others’ dislike for the man, I think McCain would be the wrong president for some idiot to test with an attack. Hillary might surprise you - remember, when her husband was president, the liberal peaceniks never saw a war of his that they didn’t like. She can total a terrorist country without a word of opposition but with universal support.
Posted by mts on 02/20/2008 at 12:20 AMmts--when Mr. Hillary Clinton was President, his response to terrorism was to do things like blow up an aspirin factory.
Posted by on 02/20/2008 at 08:46 AMThanks, Fran. You have just given me the first good reason I have heard for voting for McLoser; his appealing wife. You are right; she is a lot like Laura Bush which overall is good (although LB has done a few dumb stunts like her dhimmi tricks with the muzzies where she covered up and acted like she was kow-towing to them). Otherwise, I can’t think of any reason at all to vote for a ticking timer like McBomb.
We don’t have a Maggie Thatcher in the current race, nor do we have any visible in American politics. If one would come along, I think she would have a very good chance at the Presidency, but not before.
Dymphna’s story is priceless. I laughed when I read that over at GoV and I laughed when I read it again here. I’m not sure that I agree with it, however. The fact that as you say, “God has declined to prosecute” is the same thing as innocent. Taking what is not ours is still stealing, no matter what the circumstances, and that is what was bothering Dymphna in the first place. In the earlier days of our country, when people placed more value in simple honesty, it was considered quite ordinary to leave your property unsecured, your home open, your barn open, etc. Everyone knew that what was in your house belonged to the owner of the house, in his barn belonged to the owner of the barn, on his land belonged to the owner of the land, etc. By your argument, everything must be locked up, alarmed, etc. I don’t think so.
Posted by on 02/21/2008 at 12:22 PMIsn’t a continent-sise ego reasonably expected from everybody making claims on US presidency? And both McCain’s democratic rivals have comparable-sise ego, too.
Posted by Sergey on 02/21/2008 at 05:21 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
