I was in Canada the first time someone pointed a gun at me.
James R. Rummel
All’s Fair in Love and Divorce
There are some fascinating posts that I’d like to bring to your attention. The first one is to be found at Glenn’s. He discusses a book where a woman successfully disguised herself as a man in order to gain insights into how the other side lives. One passage that made an impressions was where the author entered the dating world, only to find that many women were distrustful and downright hostile to any man because they had been through failed relationships where a man had treated them badly.
Glenn links to a post at Dr. Helen’s, his wife’s blog. The good doctor was surprised to find that many men are shunning marriage, fearing jail due to false accusations about being an abuser if the relationship goes sour and a divorce is necessary.
Dr. Helen links to this essay on a blog called DADvocate. The author discusses why he and many other men are no longer interested in marriage. The potential penalties are too severe, while most women don’t bring enough to the table to make it worthwhile.
The posts are all interesting. Click on the links and give them a read. But what I want to talk about are the claims that men are risking jail time every time they tie the knot.
Bad News is Good News for Your Political Opponents
Long time reader Robert Schwartz was kind enough to give me a heads up to an op-ed that was just printed in the UK Spectator. (Free registration required.) The author was Mark Steyn, and the subject is how the Democrats are desperate to find the One Big Issue that will prove to the electorate once and for all that the Bush administration is corrupt, incompetent, or involved in nefarious skullduggery. Just as soon as that happens, the reasoning goes, a royally pissed electorate will vote the Republicans out and the Democrats in.
It could be that we’ll elect a Democrat for President in 2008, but to regain control of Congress in the numbers that the Dems dream of would mean that the voters would have to be pissed in the English sense instead of the American. As Steyn points out in his essay, the opposition is just not offering much of substance. Instead they’re pinning their hopes on a Republican blunder so amazingly huge that anger will motivate those going to the polls instead of reason. They just don’t get it that, since 9/11, the world has changed and they had better change with it.
Rice Speaks Out
01:00 Condoleeza Rice is having a live press conference right now, talking about Iran and its nuclear program.
01:02 Rice said that there was no peaceful rationale for Iran’s defiance of the international community. Is the flag going to go up?
01:03 No, nothing that dramatic. The US is going to work with other countries and try to get some sort of resolution.
01:04 The reporters are clueless. One of them even asked if the US would put the matter in front of the United Nations Security Council! Might as well put it in front of UNICEF for all the good it would do, even though a few of the EU countries are calling for just that. (Probably to appease the voters in case an invasion is necessary.)
01:05 Another reporter asked what support the US was going to have from China and Russia, two countries that Rice mentioned specifically. She dodged with a bit of non-specific pablum, but it was a good question.
01:06 CNN had cut from the Alito confirmation hearings for Rice’s little talk. Even they realize that nothing is going to happen because they just went back to that incredibly tedious show.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN
Iran broke the seals placed on their nuclear facilities a few days ago so they could continue working on atomic weapons. This indicates that they’re either rather close to a working bomb, or that they just don’t think anyone will try anything. It’s not good any way you look at it.
So why did Rice hold this little talk with reporters?
It’s probably just a way to ratchet up the pressure a little bit. You know, lay the groundwork in case a military solution is necessary. That is the only conclusion I can reach since I don’t see anything changing due to what she said.
UPDATE
I pretty much figured that there was a chance Condoleeza was going to announce something momentous during her press conference. It appeared to me that CNN and Wolf Blitzer figured the same thing judging by how they quickly cut back to the Alito hearings after it was obvious that Rice was just clarifying the official US position.
The situation can’t be allowed to continue the way it is now. Sooner or later something will have to be done or else Iran will develop some nuclear WMD’s.
Milblogger Murdoc Online has an interesting post where he discusses the chances for a variety of outcomes. I think it’s a little early to bet one way or another, but I’d have to agree with Murdoc until conditions change.
One for Ginny
Austin Bay has a thoughtful essay posted over at Strategypage.com. The subject is the role of rhetoric in the political process.
Ancient Greek rhetoricians admired — and feared — powerful speakers who had the gift of emotional appeal and exhortation. My worn copy of “A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms” lists over 50 types of emotional appeals. From “amphidiorthosis” (“to hedge or qualify” a dangerous or bold position ) to “threnos” (a lament), thoughtful minds in the fourth century B.C. had analyzed every plea, supplication, ploy and gambit.
Yet there’s strong evidence a healthy democracy requires rhetorical showmanship and convincing verbal drama. (Hesoid argued that effective justice also requires it, since a ruling judge must persuade aggrieved parties justice has been served and not partisan interest.)
So Bay starts out by pointing out that artistic use of language is necessary for grand political debate, and that debate is necessary for democracy. He then uses recent remarks by Pat Robertson and Ted Kennedy as examples of how this process can go wrong.
Bay’s essay is insightful and to the point, and I urge everyone to click the link and give it a read. But what struck me was the way that these incidents have been handled in the media. Both Robertson’s and Kennedy’s remarks were hateful and should never have been uttered. I notice, however, that the press condemned Robertson while giving Kennedy a pass even though Kennedy was uttering actual lies while Robertson was merely expressing an opinion.
Why is this so?