Sunday, November 09, 2008

Army men marry nurses

It's not always so by a long chalk but there is a lot of it nonetheless. So how come? I think it is in a way a good answer to the common Leftist accusation that the military are "murderers". Talk about the pot calling the electric kettle African-American! Nurses are those who succour the sick. Why would such people want to associate with soldiers if soldiers really were "murderers"?

It's even true in my own life. My military career was of no moment to anybody but me -- but I did enjoy it greatly and I am still proud to identify myself as an Army man. I was in a professional corps rather than being one of the guys at the cutting edge -- in the infantry, sappers etc. -- but nonetheless I have had rather a lot to do with nurses. I even married one. And the lady in my life these days is also a nurse.

It's really no mystery. Both occupations bring you into sharp contact with real life. Both occupations are incompatible with illusions. Stupid theories tend to get detonated by harsh reality.

It's interesting how nurses speak of their choice of occupation as "going nursing". It's not "doing nursing" or "becoming a nurse". It is a vocation. It is a venture into a way of life. And the armed services are like that too. Both occupations are very demanding, in their own way, and both often subjugate their own needs to a higher cause.

So from all that is it any surprise that both military men and nurses tend to be conservative?


For those who take an interest in political history, I have just put up on Paralipomena a most revealing article by a historian about the Great Depression. I am something of a student of the period but there is a lot of good stuff there that even I did not know.


Sarah answers back

After all the lies that the press invented about her during the campaign, all that the latest flood of unsourced allegations show is that the press realize she might unseat Obama in 2012

Sarah Palin refused to rule out a run for the White House in four years' time as she hit back at extraordinary allegations from aides to John McCain about her "hillbilly" shopping sprees and breathtaking ignorance. As the controversy over her vice-presidential candidacy intensified following the Republican defeat on Tuesday night, Mrs Palin responded to a barrage of anonymous allegations from the McCain camp, including binge-buying of luxury clothes and a claim that she did not know that Africa was a continent....

Landing in Anchorage, Alaska, after one of her aides described the allegations as "unfair and sickening", Mrs Palin was greeted by crowds chanting "2012!", to which she replied: "We'll see what happens then." Addressing the Africa allegation, she said: "If they're an unnamed source, that says it all. I won't comment on anyone's gossip based on anonymous sources. "That's kind of small, of a bitter type of person who anonymously would charge that I didn't know an answer to a question. So until I know who's talking about it, I won't have a comment on a false allegation."

She has also denied going on shopping sprees. Nicolle Wallace publicly defended Mrs Palin yesterday, taking to a morning television show to call her "the most undiva politician I have ever seen". Mr McCain's aides say they were also dismayed that, without informing the campaign hierarchy, Mrs Palin scheduled a call from President Sarkozy of France just before the election. In fact, the call was from Marc-Antoine Audette and his fellow comedian, Sebastien Trudel, who are notorious for prank calls to heads of state. Mrs Palin appeared to believe that she was talking to Mr Sarkozy and when told that she would make a good president herself some day, she replied: "Maybe in eight years."

On Wednesday, as the finger-pointing began, Mrs Palin said: "I have absolutely no intention of engaging in any of the negativity because this has been all positive for me." She said it was time to savour Barack Obama's victory and "not let the pettiness, or maybe internal workings of a campaign, erode any of the recognition of this historic moment".

Meanwhile, interview requests from such talk-show luminaries as Larry King and Oprah Winfrey poured in to Mrs Palin's office in Alaska. "The intensity of all the interest is amazing. Everyone wants to talk to her," said Bill McAllister, her spokesman.


Michelle Malkin has more. And there is a good Canadian comment here. And a bit on the possible source of some of the accusations here.



by Walter E. Williams

For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I'm going to name this branch of economic "science" wackonomics and apply it to some of today's observations and issues.

Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew's warning (19:24), "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.

Wackonomics can help us understand what some people call the income distribution. The logical extension of wackonomic thought is that the unequal or unfair distribution of income is the handiwork of a dollar dealer who distributes dollars. The dollar dealer might deal one person a million dollars a year while dealing most others a mere pittance like $10, $20 or $30 thousand a year. Thus, the reason why some people are wealthy while others are poor is because the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multi-nationalist, or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the government takes the ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners. Wackonomics might have a greed-based explanation for income inequality. There is a pile of money called income and greedy people got there first and took their unfair share. Similarly, economic justice requires a redistribution of income.

Wackonomics isn't just practiced by the uninitiated. This year's Nobel Laureate, Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, gave one rendition of wackonomics in his column "After the Horror," New York Times (9/14/01). Krugman wrote, "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could do some economic good." He went on to point out how rebuilding the destruction in New York and Washington, D. C., would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. For practitioners of non-wackonomics, this reasoning doesn't even pass the smell test. If Professor Krugman's vision is correct, and extending his logic, the terrorists would have made an even larger contribution to our economic well-being had they been able to fly a plane into the White House and destroyed buildings in other cities.

Wackonomics isn't all bad. There's an upside to it. It spares people the bother of having to understand the complexities of the world.



List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


1 comment:

Dennis said...

What do soldiers and nurses have in common?


They both fight cancer.

I'm a retired Infantryman (National Guard) and a Registered Nurse. Both professions (in the West, anyway) are primarily about helping.

The leftist hatred towards the military uses the Eastern or third world militaries typical behavior as a template for all, i.e. conquerors, looters, rapists, etc.

Western militaries therefore get accused of all manner of crimes when they mostly do good, while mobs of uniformed thugs are given a pass simply because they ARE criminals.