In which the loss is regretted
Gail Collins makes the post-election case for Christine O’Donnell:
There were awful speeches from all sides on Tuesday night, but I liked Christine O’Donnell’s adieu. (“We’ve got a lot of food. We’ve got the room all night. So God bless you. So let’s party!”) That girl is so on her way back to cable TV.
You certainly have to admire Miss O’Donnell’s epicurean attitude towards defeat, if nothing else. On the other hand, some Kossacks are angry and bitter, counting down the days until America becomes a brown, third world country freed from the shackles of a constitution written by dead white sexist slave-owning men.
“We just have to be patient.
And wait for your hearts to stop beating.
And stop they will.
And for some of you, real damned soon, truth be told.
Do you hear it?
The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”
It is interesting how many Americans, particularly white Americans, absolutely refuse to understand that immigrants do not want America to remain America. Mexican immigrants want America to be an improved version of Mexico. Turkish immigrants want it to be an improved version of Turkey. Even the descendants of involuntary immigrants want America to become an improved version of an imaginary Africa. None of them will get exactly what they want, of course, but the significant fact is that they will transform it by the mere fact of their presence and so whatever it eventually becomes, it will not be what it was before. It will not be America or even recognizably American. And it must be recognized that the end of America is not only something that the likes of the Kossack quoted are anticipating, but something they believe is directly connected to the objectives of Obama and the former Congressional majority.
Meanwhile, the NYT is spinning like a thirty-something married woman’s rationalization hamster after being unexpectedly hit on by Brad Pitt/Justin Bieber/the Twilight guy:
“Tuesday’s election was indeed a “shellacking” for the Democrats, as President Obama admitted after a long night of bad news. It was hardly an order from the American people to discard the progress of the last two years and start over again. Mr. Obama was on target when he said voters howled in frustration at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. To borrow his running automotive metaphor, voters threw the keys at Republicans and told them to drive for a while, but gave almost no indication of what direction to drive in.
Right, the people voted for Republicans because they so enjoyed “the progress of the last two years”. This isn’t news or analysis, this is a feeble attempt at revising history as it’s being written.
You wanted it, you got it
If this woman’s lament doesn’t put an amused smile on your face today, well, you’re probably not a man under the age of fifty:
Let me tell you, dear ladies: the age of chivalry is dead.
Yesterday, I drove out of a car park in Kensington, London, to find the power-steering on my BMW had gone. The car wouldn’t move. Thankfully, I was in a cul de sac, not a motorway. I stopped and tried to pull over. My car was one foot from the kerb. I put my hazard lights on. Next to me was a building site full of men in fluoro jackets standing doing nothing. They could see my distress when I began peering under the bonnet. I got back in the car, and on my mobile phone to call the BMW breakdown service to get the vehicle recovered. I was in tears. Still no one bothered to help….
I had thought it was just my ex-husband who used to allow me to put petrol in the car while he sat warm in the passenger seat, but if my experience yesterday morning is anything to go by, it’s a generational phenomenon. As Top Gear’s James May said this week, young men have lost their masculinity, in that they can no longer fix things. And this loss of manners is far worse. Young working British men: you should be ashamed.
Be ashamed of what? The “f****** cow” is totally in the wrong here. And I wonder, were those nearby men really “doing nothing” or did she simply neither realize nor care how they were occupying themselves thanks to her female solipsism?
Women demanded legal and political equality and our great-grandfathers were foolish enough to grant it to them. So they used that equality to force the last three generations of men to spend between 12 and 16 years being drenched in feminist propaganda about how women were strong, independent, and equal to us, except of course for their intrinsic emotional and moral superiority. Once they had achieved sufficient political power, they then set about redefining the concept of equality in a successful effort to strip men of their legal rights and render them legally inferior in an extra-Constitutional court system where men are guilty until pronounced innocent. And then, after all this, they’re surprised when we don’t treat them like our great-grandfathers treated their great-grandmothers.
I am confident that I speak for many, if not most of the men of my generation in my instinctive response to this woman’s petulant demand that men be at her beck and call: F— you and fix it yourself, Ms Strong Independent Woman. It’s not my problem.
I suspect that these days, the average man is probably more likely to help a male stranger than to help women he doesn’t know. At least a man is likely to have the decency to be grateful and not take your assistance as some sort of rightful homage. As for chivalry being dead, I think it is pertinent to quote Isaac Asimov on the historical conventions of the concept.
“This is Helen as viewed through the eyes of courtly love. By the convention of the troubadours, a woman need not deserve love, she need merely be a woman.” And don’t forget, a woman’s chivalric champion was ideally supposed to be her adulterous lover. It is little wonder, then, that modern women lament chivalry’s death.
(HT: SB)
Killer police lying again
I wrote in the discussion that followed my previous post on the police shooting of the Pace University football player that we would be able to tell if the police were lying about committing murder or telling the truth about defending themselves on the basis of the eventual availability of the video evidence. Needless to say, I’m astonished that, in yet another amazing series of the sort of coincidences that somehow surround police shootings, all of the cameras in all of the squad cars tragically happened to malfunction at the very moment when Danroy Henry was shot and killed.
Video cameras in squad cars were “not operational” when police officers shot and killed a college football player during a disturbance outside a bar, prosecutors said in a document released Tuesday. The Westchester County District Attorney’s Office filed the document in objecting to a request from a lawyer for the student’s family to view audio and video recordings of the shooting. Danroy Henry, 20, a Pace University student from Easton, Mass., was killed Oct. 17 as he drove his Nissan near the bar in Thornwood near the university campus.
If you still believe that the police in the United States are subject to the law at this point, you are either not paying attention or you are willfully stupid. This is no longer a matter for debate. And since the politicians are unable to keep the police under control, the long-term solution is for the state constitutions to be amended ordering the complete disarming of all state and local police except for specially trained, non-militarized, non-SWAT teams who are answerable to scrutiny and prosecution by the state supreme court when police shootings take place. Armed Americans are not only capable of defending themselves from the criminally inclined, they can do so much more safely without the lawless “service and protection” of the armed police forces.
As long as the police refuse to be held accountable by the laws and conspire to protect the murderers and lawbreakers in their midst, they cannot be trusted with lethal weapons in public.
Horatio spins in his grave
They might as well knock down the column in Trafalgar Square:
Britain and France will launch a broad defense partnership on Tuesday that includes setting up a joint force and sharing equipment and nuclear missile research centers, a French government source said. Treaties to be signed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron at a meeting in London will pave the way for an unprecedented degree of military cooperation between the two neighbors.
Theoretically, this should be a great sign of peace and progress. Why, then, does it feel so… alarming?
Hardly
Carrie Lukas thinks the election results prove that women don’t favor security over freedom:
Women voters have also defied traditional stereotypes about skewing liberal. While it will take some time to get complete exit poll data, polls taken shortly before the election suggest a major shift in women’s voting habits. Early reports suggest women split nearly evenly in this election. As Mary Kate Cary reported in U.S. News, a recent New York Times poll showed undecided women breaking heavily for the GOP. In fact, women went from favoring Democrats by 7 points last month to giving the GOP the edge by 4 points in the New York Times’ latest polls. In other words, the famed gender gap — which somehow always refers to women’s tendency to vote disproportionately for Democrats rather than men’s tendency to vote Republican, has vanished.
Pundits will spend the next two years debating the meaning of the 2010 Election. But a few things are clear. The conventional wisdom that women all prefer government-provided safety over freedom has been put to rest, and female political leaders do not come in one mold. There are strong, unabashedly conservative women throughout the country who are prepared to fight for limited government and greater freedom. And they can win.
This is amusing. Remember, the “limited government” for which these supposedly freedom-loving women are fighting is one that is all of 2.8% smaller. They cling to their entitlements and “national security” spending as firmly as Linus clings to his blanket. And perhaps more to the point, it is possible that it is finally beginning to penetrate through many women’s skulls that there is no reliable security in the government spending money it doesn’t have in the first place.
Either way, I tend to see this as less reflective of a positive evolution towards liberty in women’s political consciousness and more reflective of the larger societal trend towards matriarchy and grass huts. Insty notes in response that the Tea Party is majority female, which is one reason I believe it has been so easily coopted by the Republican establishment.
Don’t get me wrong. I would very much like to believe that for the first time in human history, women have genuinely begun to value freedom over security. I just don’t believe this is credible interpretation of the recent electoral events. (HT Dr. Helen.)
Adios California
Not to belittle the historic electoral landslide, which despite the Republican inability to regain the Senate was an even bigger political event than 1994, I suspect the most significant result of last night’s election occurred in California. It wasn’t the failure of Proposition 19, which would have decriminalized marijuana and marked the first roll-back of the thirty-year Drug War, but rather the passage of Proposition 25 by a ten-point margin.
Why was this significant? Because California’s Republican legislators can no longer prevent their Democratic counterparts from raising taxes and increasing spending now that the number of votes required to pass the state budget and spending bills related to the budget has been reduced from two-thirds to a simple majority. As Kevin Williamson noted on NRO: “This election means two things for California: 1. It is now more likely to end up needing a federal bailout, and 2. It is less likely to find Congress receptive to that idea.”
California is already more or less insolvent, it’s just shuffling its debts around to delay the inevitable. But the relaxed budgetary controls as a result of the change to the state constitution almost surely guarantee that the legislature’s attempts to respond to the problem will be counterproductive and make what is already a disastrous situation even worse. It is remotely possible that the second re-election of Governor Moonbeam could somewhat meliorate this structural change, as despite being a Democrat he had a better record for fiscal conservatism than either Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But since the veto is much less reliable than simple math, I wouldn’t count on it.
I would not be surprised if the eventual bankruptcies of California and Illinois become one of the more important issues of the 2012 election. If the bipartisan Republican-led bank bailouts were enough to inspire the Tea Party, who can imagine what effect a bipartisan, Democrat-led state bailout will have on the electorate? Rick Santelli asked us if we wanted to pay for our neighbor’s mortgages, but most Americans would much rather do that than pay for California’s teachers unions, prison guards, and imported Mexicans.
Election 2010
This is an open post. Please feel free to comment with any breaking news about the various exit polls and election calls. I’m going to stay up for part of it, but not the entirety, so someone else will have to fill in with the color commentary. But if nothing else, it will be amusing to see a bigger mid-term bomb than the 1994 one.
Let’s you and him fight
An example of how failing to keep your woman’s tongue under control can get you killed, even if you’re a Marine:
A 23-year-old Marine who lived in Metairie was fatally stabbed following an argument with a man who defamed the Marine’s wife. The suspect yelled derogatory comments at Ryan Lekosky’s wife as the couple walked about 3:30 a.m. near the intersection of Dauphine and Iberville streets in the French Quarter, police said. Lekosky tried to intervene in the altercation between his wife and the suspect. The suspect turned on Lekosky, stabbing him several times. The suspect then returned to his vehicle and drove away on Dauphine Street, toward Canal Street. Lekosky died from his wounds.
The root problem is that men haven’t really figured out what they can and cannot do in defense of women’s honor anymore. In the days of yore, the Marine could have simply killed the guy out of hand and few would have thought twice about it; back then, defaming a man’s wife was a killing offense. Now, most women would be horrified at a male companion who, at the first derogatory word directed her way, immediately pulled out a .357 and fired six shots into the offender’s face. At the same time, not considering themselves proper targets for physical violence, most women won’t hesitate to escalate a verbal situation and if a man shrugs off a verbal assault directed at a woman with him, he is often going to be attacked by her for not coming to her defense.
So, what to do? It’s hard to say and it’s somewhat of a catch-22. All we can really conclude from the limited amount of information here is that it is a very bad idea for the man to assume that because he is not party to the verbal altercation, he will not be attacked first in the escalation. Once the situation transforms into a violent altercation, an attacker can be expected to attack the potentially more dangerous opponent first, which means that interceding in a manner that leaves you open to the other guy is a bad idea. The two-fold challenge is a) how to prevent the situation from developing into a violent one without causing your wife or girlfriend to develop contempt for you simply because you’re not foolish enough to fall for the old “let’s you and him fight” game, and b) how to extricate the two of you from an escalating situation without either of you getting hurt.
All of this presumes, of course, that you’re not dumb enough to escalate a verbal situation to a violent one on the basis of your own emotional reaction.
The first thing to do is to encourage her to blow it off. What do the words of some drunk idiot with an 85 IQ have to do with her? Of course, this is probably much easier to pull off if you’re carrying; she’s unlikely to accuse you of being a coward who won’t stand up for her if you ask her how many times she would like you to shoot the guy in the skull with your .40. Faced with such an offer, she’ll likely do an immediate 180 and start trying to encourage you to move along. Women are excited by male posturing and fisticuffs, not blowback and brain matter.
However, if a woman is feisty and responds by getting in the idiot’s face, the best thing is probably to physically withdraw her while keeping her between you and the opponent and keeping your focus on him. You can explain later that you were concerned about the bad guy hurting her and so forth; it’s better that she be angry with you for forcibly extricating her from a potentially dangerous situation than be contemptuous of you for failing to act at all. And if she does get hurt, well, she’s an adult and she bears the responsibility for her decision to confront the idiot, not you. But the likelihood that she’ll be attacked in a lethal manner is quite small since she won’t be perceived as a serious threat so the worst that’s likely to happen is that she’ll get punched or slapped. Undesirable, but she’ll live.
Of course, the biggest problem is that men in general, and white knights in particular, usually respond in a pompous and unprepared manner, paying more attention to the woman than they do to the potential opponent. That’s understandable, since most of what they’re doing is a chivalrous show for the woman’s benefit anyhow, but it’s not the best strategy in the event that the other guy isn’t posturing.
Of course, it’s perhaps worth recalling that chivalry was the show knights put on for other men’s wives.
On the record
For future reference, the final generic ballot polls from the major polling operations:
For his final pre-election prediction, Nate Silver projects it as follows as of November 1st:
Hse: Rep 233 Dem 202
Sen: Rep 48 Dem 52
Gov: Rep 30 Dem 19 Ind 1
I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, nor do I pay sufficient attention to it to even know who is running for what office in the various states in most cases. But based on the macro socionomic trends, I think Gallup and Rasmussen will prove to be the more reliable polls and Republicans will win 51+ Senate seats tonight. We’ll find out soon enough.
Now go out there and vote for libertarians who have no hope of winning because every vote matters and this is the mostest importantest election ever! Unless you’re in Delaware, Kentucky, or Nevada, of course, in which case you absolutely must vote for Christine O’Donnell, Rand Paul, or Sharon Angle just to upset the mainstream media poohbahs.
