We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 23. 2007
Hollywood loves Cuba. Moonbattery. What should that tell all of us? Seriously, not as a rhetorical question. If someone defends or idealizes Fidel, doesn't that mean that they would like a Fidel here in the US? And is it not odd that someone would actually say that, in public?
Is envy really such a bad thing? Augean Stables
Another look at what the New Deal did to destroy America - and the thinking behind it. View from 1776. Totalitarianism always comes in the disguise of benevolence, or with the excuse of dealing with a "crisis." The guy or gal always "loves the people" but hates their freedom, which exposes their hidden contempt and arrogance. The power-hungry - not the money-hungry - are the enemies of freedom. Everybody wants some money, but few of us desire power over others: it is a disease.
The strategery behind the surge. Austin Bay
Illegal immigration will drive down skill and IQ levels, says ETS
Why Brit women aren't getting married. Stumbling and Mumbling. Those may be the economic reasons, but aren't the real reasons that they do not like sex, and prefer dogs, horses, and shooting, to romance?
What's a bigger kick to shoot than a 50 cal? See the video
Canadians admit: We didn't mean it when we signed Kyoto
The right time to quit smoking?
How they treat "internet addicts" in China.
Is Hillary's real enemy Ralph Nader? NY Sun
From Gov. Mark Sanford, in a piece at WaPo:
Yes it is: he is mostly on the same page as Maggie's Farm - except we don't take warming seriously. And, if real, we welcome it.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I believe the study about British women and sex focussed on middle aged women. There are many reasons for their feelings. For one thing, the higher rates of tolerated social alcoholism and smoking put a serious crimp in the physical performance of many middle aged Brits; male and female, and damage the relationships. Most women do not have satisfying sex when their relationships suck. Guys are luckier in that they can still have a satisfying sex life even when the love element is absent or heartbreaking.
For another, the Brits are notoriously out of shape in middle age. This obviously affects both partners. For another, many, many middle aged women there (as here) are being treated for conditions like depression and high blood pressure with medications that cause sexual dysfunction, and are not as assertive with more arrogant doctors and a less patient-oriented health care system as American women usually are about demanding something better. Cultural traditions of reticence and being a lady are perhaps incomprehensible to brassy broads over here, but it is unkind to jeer. Nothing as ravishing as an English rose in bloom, anyway!
Re: why they don't get married. First, separate out the underclass, the unemployed,and certain cultural groups that have higher rates of single parenting by accident or by choice. While it is true that women from groups that used to automatically get married there are marrying at less of a rate than before, the economic reasons are not all of the story. Both young men and women there, as here, have been scarred by the selfishness and self-indulgence of my generation and the rest of the baby boomers. The high rates of divorce, and dual career marriage (in which , notorioiusly, highly educated, often PC women sloughed their children off to be cared for by uneducated babysitters or day care instead of looking after them themselves) have absolutely trashed the kids. The poor women who wanted to raise their own children, but had to work, had even worse child care if they could not count on a relative for it. The kids? They don't want to go through divorces or the "relationships" or loneliness of their parents. They don't want to raise kids as neglected as they were. They clung to their peer group because there were few grownups worth emulating in their environment. Remember, Britain is not a society where people can find surrogate families at church very often, as is more possible over here. It is a society with a state Church but no soul. A crumbling nanny state--as if the nanny had become an alcoholic and was selling the children's food for her habits, and letting the kids starve and go neglected. Obviously, I am overstating the problem, trying to imagine what causes the young who don't marry to behave in that way.
I am devoted to two sisters there with graduate degrees, deep religious faith, and flourishing careers, who have been so scarred by their mother's two divorces, serial live=ins, mental illness and addiction, that both have vowed never to marry. It is tragic as both would make wonderful wives and mothers. But they are afraid to risk it.
Truth be told, if I were young I wonder if I would want to marry, either. Sex can fizzle in marriage. In middle age, most women have rich associations of friends, interests, volunteer work, and are making the best of even dead-end jobs to feel useful. Their men often crash and burn in middle age (remember the statistics on why many accomplished black women in this country no longer want to marry, because they do not want the less desirable partners who want them). Men are so likely to end up unemployed and underemployed, yet still expecting a live in housewife despite the wife having a full time job. More men either do not seek out or do not receive adequate care for their mental health and addictions. Most of the women I know who work do so because not only can they not live on the man's salary, but they have to have some insurance against the man's likely periods of unemployment.
I would venture that all women world wide want the same thing from a mate: someone who is stably employed and productive and is not constantly whingeing about how he deserves better, a loving and passionate sexual partner who stays in shape and who doesn't abuse substances, a warm father, a spiritual companion who shares their religious and moral values, and hopefully someone they share at least a couple of fun recreational activities with besides sex. Just as you guys want a Victoria's Secret model who lets you hunt, shoot and fish whenever you like, keeps a clean and tidy house, and produces handsome, accomplished children. The point is, women and men are only human, and if they can find those things outside of marriage they are not likely to stay married for the sake of just one or two of those. Plenty of studies are showing that many middle aged women in this country as in England, tough it out until the children are launched, then finally say "Enough!"
The failed marriages that are inevitable, given our sinful natures, do not detract from the fact that it is still the best of an imperfect set of ways to raise chidren to grow up. Having both parents available to you, knowing that they keep their promise to stay together, and will be there to love your children together.
And as plenty of people in this blog have already said better than I, self-sacrifice and devotion have a way of benefitting the one who practices it as least as much as the object. This is, of course, the sad part of people not getting married or staying that way...
That video is very funny. I bet it was one shot only except maybe the last shooter.
Envy - it's unAmerican - in our personal lives and government.
"If someone defends or idealizes Fidel, doesn't that mean that they would like a Fidel here in the US? And is it not odd that someone would actually say that, in public?" Another odd thing is that George W. Bush is the one they say is a fascistic tyrannical dictator. Can you say "Cognitive Dissonance"?
The 1776 reference will no doubt not get the attention it deserves. I do applaud the posting of it, and do so with conviction.
One of the great advantages of the internet is that the history that isn't taught any longer in schools is available to those who care. The crux of the matter there is that too few have any deisre to know what happened in 1930 or 1776 or 1787. Tonights TV guide is ususally good enough for hoi polloi.
For those who are still reading this they would do well to look at the stages of progress that were already in place when FDR began socializing the United States. They might also be curious enough to look up Colonel House, FDR's right hand man and a man with too many Soviet contacts at the time to make one comfortable. Then procede connecting the dots to George C Marshall who was in 1933 promoted to Colonel. In 1939 he was appointed Chief of Staff and four-star General of the Army over more than 400 hundred more qualified and senior individuals.
Lest you think all of this is kookball stuff of the McCarthy era remember that almost all of the recently declassified material of that era PROVED that Sen. McCarthy was right in accusing the Executive Branch of allowing Communists to infiltrate the State Dept and many others. It's all out there now, you just have to want to know.
It is also heavily documented that , even at the time of the Yalta Conference that gave the Soviets eastern Europe thatFDR thought he could smooze Stalin..he didn't come close..Stalin spanked him badly and took what he wanted.
Test these sites.
The Yalta Sellout..heavily documented
George C. Marshall Got some explaining to do.
Yes. There were many fellow-travellers, but McCarthy was the wrong person to deliver the message, and, when the chips were down, he didn't have the goods - and he was up against some smooth customers.
1776's post probably deserves a separate post, if I find the time.
Well he did have the goods, but they were all classified at the time so he went with what he had.
That he was the wrong person, probably way too aggressive,and his second Roy Cohn was equally obnoxious, but now we have the facts, it's just that FDR is so "golden" as is G.C. Marshall that few will even examine the now unclassified documents.
To the kids today it might as well have been a million years ago ... plus no matter what we've moved on, what is, is and we seem to have our plate just about as full as one can get it.
We'll leave it to the esoteric historians....I know one thing..FDR brought many many people literally out of the dark with rural elecrification and other projects. The data may show that the worst of the Depression was over and that things were improving but without a heavier foot on the accelerator many many peoples lives would have continued to be lived in quiet desperation. He did OK for us, the eastern europeans maybe aren't so happy with him.
If I may...
I read the piece regarding the Educational Testing Service publishing a study, and the Christian Science Monitor bravely printing it. The study points out that over the next 25 years the Unied States' intelligence will fall due to the massive immigration.
This saddens me.
I do not mean to hog the comments section. Please forgive me.
I think the video on shooting the big rifle was a powerful piece of video.
H., just in case you need a reminder, you were recently given essentially carte blanche to post as often as you like. We all have the option to scroll. I like reading you myself, you are a font of interesting info, though others opinions may vary.
And, I forgot to add, it appeared too me that none of those shooter's had a proper stance. Even the last one, he just gutted it out. Not, mind you, that I would have made less of a fool of myself.