Chimp Vision

Via CUANAS, from Opinion Journal:

"George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to me. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs.


"Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." A Jordanian of deep political experience at the highest reaches of Arab political life had no doubt as to why history suddenly broke in Lebanon, and could conceivably change in Syria itself before long. "The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus."

Wonderful eagle-eye, that Pastorius, and this is inspiring.


Chimpy McHitler, they call him on the internet.



Our postmodern Western world is blind to the universe of possibilities. How the underqualified C-student child-of-privilege George W. Bush became the visionary of the Western World is beyond me. (The less prudent and worldly call it a miracle.)

The phrase "reality-based community" became a self-definition for our friends on the left, in reaction to this quote from an anonymous White House staffer:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality...we'll act again, creating other new realities..."

Now, this was taken as some neo-con psychosis, but how different is it from Bobby Kennedy?

"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were, and ask 'Why not?'"

Actually, Bush didn't have the vainglory to dream of things that never were; more like he wanted to help the things that already are to blossom. The desire for freedom and to be rid of tyranny goes back to at least the ancient Greeks, and no doubt further. I'm certain our real Vietnam mistake was that the Vietnamese were not offered freedom, only a slightly less abusive tyranny than that of the Viet Cong. All things considered, people go with the locals.

Bush isn't LBJ. And these Straussian neo-cons aren't the paranoid WWII generation who (properly) feared world totalitarianism.

Bush's belief in the "consent of the governed" means that he and his evil advisors have learned the lessons of history. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon tells us about the universal hunger for freedom.

The idea that Syria hasn't bathed the streets of Beirut with blood to preserve their little empire because they're afraid of George Bush rings true with me.

In 1982, the Syrians killed 25,000 people who hungered for freedom in one night (the "Hama"). The only difference I can see is C-student cowboy George Dubya Chimp on the world stage, being as reality-based as all get-out.

Strausscleaning

Idealist writes:

If I really believed our aims were so altruistic I'd be supportive and I suspect others in the world would be, too. However, I can't see it as anything other than a power grab by cynical Imperialist Straussians. I did read the Report for the 20th century by the Wolfowitz, etc. think tank whose name escapes me and it scared the hell out of me. I don't want to be an imperialistic nation. These guys are egotistical, cynical tyrannical creeps and I don't use those terms losely.

Well, let's look at the record. Much has been said about the philosopher Leo Strauss and his "followers." Little is understood. I assume you refer to this:

"The PNAC website states the group's "fundamental propositions", which are

American leadership is good both for America and for the world

Such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle

Too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

Sounds good to me. Weakness is not a strategy, and every nation has paid for theirs with their own blood. Further, the US today is not an imperialist nation. And further, with few exceptions, the rest of the world is corrupt and is incapable of putting moral imperatives into practice.

I'd be interested in anything substantive against the philosopher Leo Strauss besides the "noble lie" canard, which dates to Plato, not him.


It is true that Strauss had extreme difficulty with modern (not 1700-era, which is "classical") liberalism. His own philosophical quest began when as a Jew himself, he was appalled that the modern-liberal Weimar Republic lacked the power or the will to protect the Jews, and saw a fundamental flaw in the philosophy of "tolerance" as a First Principle.

Strauss was correct. The same moral inertia of Weimar persists in modern liberal Europe, and in many of your penpals, I'm afraid. Saddam's open support and reward of Palestinian suicide bombers was enough of an offense against humanity.

Modern Europe, and of course the openly anti-Israel UN, were and are quite content to let the Jews keep dying.

It is indeed no coincidence that many of the neo-cons and "Straussians" are Jews, although many others are Christian. And it is no coincidence that Saddam's support for the murder of Jews was not put forward as a reason to depose him. Europe, and the modern left, frankly don't give a damn.


(I once again recommend the CUANAS blog. The blatant anti-Semitism of the rest of the world goes shockingly unreported in the American media. Not much has changed since the 1930s, when Leo Strauss first sat down to think.)

Nihilism/"Annihilate," Meaning to Bring to Nothing

Complaining about political language is to me a lefty thing, and I have avoided it. Surely there's a basic core of an idea, even an opinion, that doesn't depend on manipulating words. But the media (yes, even FoxHitlerNews and of course Auntie Beeb) calling these homicidal/suicidal maniacs in Iraq "insurgents" has just got on my last nerve.

I understand WWII hero Rodger Young, who gave his life to save his platoon. I understand Japan's kamikazes, fighting for their homeland. I even understand Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove riding his H-Bomb to nuke the Russkies.

But in Iraq (and leave the US/UK military forces out of it), we've got psychotic Muslims killing innocent Muslims. For nothing.

Some sort of consent of the governed, if not democracy, will become the law of the land in Iraq. That's a fact. These guys are not even killing for God. They are dying not for God, but for themselves alone. They are building nothing. They are saving nothing. They are taking many people with them. For nothing. The self is a dead end.

Faithful correspondent Idealist writes:

But then I don't believe in one-sided wars. It's been called imperialism before.

A one-sided war is slaughtering innocents when the "opponent" refuses do the same. The imperialists, the murderers, the Islamofascists in this case, simply kill, with no achievable goal. Even the firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had an achievable goal in mind.

"Insurgents" is an insult to all our intelligence. They kill the very people they purport to save because their own self-annihilation is more important than even their fellow Muslims. They are terrorists and murderers, sociopaths. No other words will do.

Stairway to Hell

 

That's noted satanist Jimmy Page boogie-in' on down at the New York Stock Exchange. It all fits now, doesn't it?

Happy V-E Day!!!!!!

I'd bet less than half of Americans know what V-E Day is. It means Victory in Europe, and today is the 60th anniversary of the Nazi surrender.

There is some buzz in Europe, but the American media is almost completely silent about the occasion. Not surprising, since there are parallels to today's crises, and none of them suit our media's worldview.

President George Dubya Bush is over at the ceremonies, unabashedly (as is his style) noting that the Americans fought Hitlerism in the cause of freedom. Now it's true that the USSR, locked in a death struggle, did the heavy military lifting in defeating Hitler.

But it's also true that the US (and UK) could have come to an accomodation with Hitler and signed a separate peace, leaving the continent to the Nazis' tender mercies. If they had, Hitler could have turned his full attention to the USSR, which could not have survived.

I see many nations that owe their freedom to the US and UK trying to finesse the threats of today's world seeking some small diplomatic or economic advantage by making separate peaces with today's implacable ememies of freedom. I see many people in those nations whose understandable distaste for military history has caused them to miss its lessons.

Read the Butcher's Bill for the Second World War. The most shocking revelation is that civilian casualties, for perhaps the first time in military history, outnumbered those on the battlefield.

The lesson is that war is no longer some incestuous pastime for the testoterone crowd. We are past the age of border disputes. When the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

Good men doing nothing is still the biggest threat to freedom, justice and human dignity. There is no diplomatic solution to tyranny. Freedom and dignity are ideas, and your freedom and dignity were bought with blood, your forefathers' blood and willingness to shed it for such impractical ideas.


And so, after having his way in Afghanistan and Iraq, why is Bush still pushing, pushing, pushing? Politicking at WWII memorials, haranguing Putin?

In your heart of hearts, you know why. It's not about oil.

Perfect Result

Blair survives today's election, the Tories are up but their leader Howard's out, and in the biggest surprise of the day, the staunchly anti-Iraq war Lib-Dems pick up the Muslim vote.

Situation normal---status quo, and everybody in Britain's still miserable. I think they like it that way.

Doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-wah, Doo-wah, doo-wah, doo-waaaaaaaaaaah

Went to a university jazz recital last night, and there were quite a few 21st century phenomena. First, midway through the show, there was a power failure and the room plunged into darkness. Fortunately, only the keyboardist was electrified, and he sucked anyway, so the rest of the band kept cranking.

Since next to nobody in Los Angeles smokes anymore, nobody in the crowd had a lighter, but slowly, the stage was bathed in more and more eerie blue light issuing from the audience.


Everybody in LA has a cell phone. It was very cool.


So that was a first, and surely not a last.


I'm not much of a jazz fan, but I've come to appreciate the greats, if not the form itself, over the years. Black jazz critic Stanley Crouch got fired a few years back for saying that these new white kids just don't swing---you know, the thing that makes you tap your foot and sway to the beat. Instead, though they're highly technical and accomplished, the end result is poo-poo.


These freshly scrubbed yuppoids with no cultural connection to the music were attempting to recreate the genius improvisations of mind and soul, of Charlie Parker and John Coltrane, from painstakingly transcribed sheet music! I mean, that defeats the whole purpose of the thing.



The face of 21st Century Jazz. 


Well, I think you see where I'm going with this, if you recognize the folks in the photo from Galaxy Quest, aliens who built their entire reality by reassembling an old Earth TV show. Think of it the next time you hear some music that sounds perfect to the ear and brain, but has a hole in the middle where its heart (and your heart) ought to be.

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing, said The Duke (that's Ellington, for those who came in late), and that's all me and the estimable Mr. Crouch are saying.

OK, But You Didn't Get This From Me

Since most here gathered don't agree with The Philosodude but kindly read him anyway, he passes this on as a sort of twisted thank you.



 

Pants on Fire

So Tory chief Michael Howard is OK with calling Tony Blair a liar.

This shows how low the Tories have sunk, and the fact it's helping Howard in the polls says nothing good about the electorate, either, folks.

Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford, delivered a sermon on the danger of cheapening the debate. "The leaders of the three main parties are all honourable men," he said.

"It is quite wrong to imply that any one of those three is somehow fundamentally dishonest, whoever it is."

He added: "I think there's a great worry about using a phrase like 'liar'. That does imply somebody has deliberately told an untruth. That's very different from whatever degree of spin there might be."

Calling a man a liar used to land you with a pistol in your hand at dawn. I'd call the little dweeb out myself. Now it's just another word, with no consequences. (We have the same cowardly garbage here in the US, but that's another tale.)

I just don't get how wannabe leaders who act with zero class ever expect to receive respect themselves. Fortunately, they always lose.


Of all the folks from either party who have run for US President, I've never doubted they were sincere and honorable men with the best interests of the nation in mind. Blair would be at 60% in the polls now if he'd done nothing about anything, like your typical tut-tutting Eurocrat. (Oh, all those people dead, how unfortunate. That Saddam's such a murdering bastard. Someone should really DO something.)


I doubt the Tories (and half the Loud Left, if they ever stopped to think about it) really wish Saddam were still in power, filling mass graves while his lovely sons Uday and Attila throw the citizenry into paper shredders. So what's all the noise about?

After the smoke clears, we all have to live together under one leader after an election. Of what benefit to the nation are such tactics? No such thing as a Loyal Opposition anymore, just making each other miserable, forever and ever, amen.


Shame on Mr. Howard. I hope for a Conservative third-place finish and the end of his career. Things will have to get worse for the Tories before they get any better.


(Lib Dem Charles Kennedy is pulling much the same, but he's far more sneaky about it. Points for cleverness and actually being opposed to the Iraq war in principle, though.)

Addendum:The above comment about US Presidential candidates does not apply to Al Gore, who is once again acting like a freaking maniac.

Consumer Tip of the Day

Thanks to everyone who stopped by this past week and found...nothing new posted here. There were some great theological concerns (see below) and computer problems. I hope to get back to more frequent gems and to being my usual snarky and shallow self.

Today's tip is this: when you're considering a purchase, go to Google, type in the product name, followed by the word "crap." My Western Digital hard drive imploded after not even a year, so I did a search to see if the fault was mine.

But googling "Western Digital" and "crap" turned up "Western Digital Eats Poo-Poo" and "their drives die left and right." If only I had known.

Next up is a Seagate hard drive. "Seagate" + "crap" = zero hits. So far, so good.

Killing for Religion

One of the most troublesome things about the Bible is when God orders the Israelites to massacre the wicked Canaanites down to the last man, woman and child.

How could God order such a thing? And if He did, does that all of a sudden make an evil thing Good, just because He ordered it? This is sometimes called the Euthyphro problem, referring to Plato's Socrates asking just that question.


It's a question that's been asked for thousands of years, most recently over at Philosoraptor. (Yes, The Dude is The Raptor's illegitimate and wayward blogson.)

It's a question that cannot be answered with brute reason---if this life is all there is, then all death is bad, case closed. And since today, Christianity and Judaism don't see their mission as to go around killing the wicked, this question is then simply a theoretical and theological one, and must be seen that way.

That's the short answer.


To understand the Bible as it understands itself (a good way for us to read anything), and since few of us read the Torah deeply or understand its background (me, too---I had to hit the books on this one), it's important to note that

a) Israel didn't go through with the genocide

b) The men of the Bible questioned God's commands just the same as we do and Socrates did

c) The Canaanites were so world-class wicked that they polluted the people around them

d) The righteous were spared

e) The rest had the chance to flee---Israel was not required to hunt them down and kill them; it was nations, not individuals, that were destroyed

f) Israel got exactly the same treatment when it became wicked after Solomon's death and was cast into the Babylonian Captivity

Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)

This essay by a fellow named Glenn Miller has a pretty comprehensive scriptural reading of the issue. Those with skepticism toward God, the Scriptures, etc., etc. should hear the arguments for the defense. It's the American Way.


I had to get some backup on this Will of God stuff, so I asked Brother Levi, a friend who's a sort of Rastafarian. For those not scriptually inclined, he recommended that sneaky moralist Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. Fortunately, it's here on the internet for free.

God Re-elected

Despite the world press' advice that the next pope be hip and groovy, they went and elected a Catholic anyway.

Go figure.

Cardinal Ratzinger's words on Monday, at the opening of the Conclave:

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth.

Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism.

Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

The rest is here, with a lot of Jesus Christ stuff not of interest to the general reader.


But Pope Benedict XVI's message will be clear---that material politics and sterile reason cannot be the salvation of man, although they have great potential to be his undoing. (See my favorite book for more on this, linked over there on the right...)


Addendum: No, he's not a Nazi. Geez, that didn't take long. From
The Times (UK)---

The son of a rural Bavarian police officer, Ratzinger was six when Hitler came to power in 1933. His father, also called Joseph, was an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move home several times.

In 1937 Ratzinger’s father retired and the family moved to Traunstein, a staunchly Catholic town in Bavaria close to the Führer’s mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden. He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941.

He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. “Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,” concluded John Allen, his biographer.

Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp.

Ratzinger has insisted he never took part in combat or fired a shot — adding that his gun was not even loaded — because of a badly infected finger. He was sent to Hungary, where he set up tank traps and saw Jews being herded to death camps. He deserted in April 1944 and spent a few weeks in a prisoner of war camp.

The Anchoress has more, and better.

Scotland Speaks

Our friend from the Land Downover, DKelly, offers his take on the UK election:

I believe it is be more accurate to say that this is the swing the Conservatives would need across the country to make the seat they need for a majority winable. There is actually a huge difference between this and actually requiring this percentage across the board.

That they need this result has little to do with the boundary changes, though they will not help for sure, and is far more deep seated.

There are two major problems.

The first is that the Conservatives are in exactly the same position as the one Labour faced in the 80s and early 90s, in that they have been reduced to their strongholds. At that time Labour needed a substantial margin of victory for a 1 seat majority. As an asside it should be noted that this was not assisted by the then latest boundary changes which had increased an already present advantage for the Conservatives. (History, like sprouts, has a tendency to repeat.)

Yes, America is dealing with this in changing the rules of the Senate to let President Bush install judges on majority vote and bypass the "filibuster" rule, which permits a sizable minority to veto things. Then again, what goes around comes around.

The second is the rise of tactical voting, which collapsed the vote of the third party in many marginal constituancies and even some previously fairly safe Conservative seats in the 97 election simply to get rid of the Conservatives. As the general feeling in the country is that we aren't stupid (or forgetful) enough to have Howard, the non-blue vote is still dedicated to keeping the Conservatives out. This means that they pretty much one-on-one with the second favourite party in many 'must win' places, a problem Labour are less likely to encounter until there is a similar desire to remove them from power.

In these circumstances it is not surprising that they need over 40%, maybe it is surprising that it is not over 45% and a rod the Conservatives back very much of their own making.

So, your point is that the UK vote has a clear consensus of 60% anti-Conservative. Sounds about right.

The American system, which splits the executive branch from the legislative, deserves perhaps some respect. Knowing how to do the right thing is usually beyond the everyday concerns of mob rule, which is democracy in its purest and most nauseating form.

Although the Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches at this moment, many Americans are comfortable with split control, which is impossible in a parliamentary system.

The executive is expected to act, the legislature to frustrate. Or vice-versa, depending on the personality of the president. Not a bad system. It could accomodate Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair as head of state, while allowing Clement Atlee, Michael Foote, Karl Marx, or even Lib Dem Charles Kennedy as the legislative leader.

We Yanks ain't as dumb as we look sometimes.

In The Country Formerly Known as England

YahooNews has the latest update:

Labour is heading for a third General Election victory, according to a clutch of recently-published polls.

But the projected margin of Tony Blair's victory varied as pollsters put his lead over the Tories at anywhere between one and 10%...

An ICM poll for The Sunday Telegraph found Mr Blair was heading for another landslide victory and a majority of 158. That survey puts Labour on 40%, the Conservatives on 30% and the Lib Dems on 22%...

The Conservatives would win just one seat from Labour and end up with 155 MPs, 10 fewer than in 2001.

Well, as a committed American conservative, I think I'd still vote for Blair's party because the Tories are so pathetic. On the other hand, the article states that if Gordon Brown, the economic whiz Chancellor of the Exchequer whose views on other stuff are foggy as hell were party leader, the margin would be far greater.

The Independent just reported that Blair has agreed to hand over the PMship to Mr. Brown in (very) due time, keeping a (very) old promise.


None of the Above remains democracy's most formidable candidate, and it looks like he's about to win. I wonder what he's like. Anyone who says "things can't get any worse" has no imagination.

I wish us all a great deal of luck.

Immigration Man

¡La Migra!

Duck your head in and yell that into any Los Angeles restaurant kitchen, and you're likely to see half the staff bug out the back door.

It's slang for the immigration man, or in other words, "RAID!"


I've lived in LA for over 20 years and have been a dove on illegal immigration. Mexicans and Central Americans are legendary for never asking for handouts, only work. On freeway exit ramps, they won't be begging, they'll be selling oranges and peanuts. (Always oranges and peanuts, dunno why.)

Now our county health system has provided care of the last resort to everyone regardless of ability to pay, and proof of citizenship is not required or even asked for. (This system is never mentioned in the wail about 40 million uninsured Americans. It is indeed our medical safety net.)


But it does seem that illegal immigrants have achieved a critical mass and swamped the system. The same as above applies to our schools.

But that was true too in 1994, when California governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, got himself re-elected by riding his support for Proposition 187, which banned illegals from receiving public services. (187 was later thrown out by the courts, on some ground or another.)

But the damage was done. To save his own sorry ass, Wilson had once again attached racism to the GOP. The Latino vote, a bloc which would soon pass Blacks in size, looked to go heavily Democrat forever.


However, a Texas governor named Bush learned from Wilson's disaster, and refused to be painted in an anti-Hispanic light. He diffused the racism charges and he got around 35%-45% of the Hispanic vote in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, a surprising total that may have swung those elections his way. In doing so, he may have saved his party.

For the Republican Party or the administration to take the lead on immigration now would be suicide as long as the Democratic Party sits on the sidelines.

And everybody knows it.


If illegal immigration is indeed a threat to Joe Six-Pack, and it still fancies itself the party of the working man, the Democratic Party should take the politics out of it and this whole issue could be legislated in a few months.

The Democrats have less to lose than the Republicans by taking a stand on the immigration mess. If they don't think there's a problem, then they should say so. But as with Social Security and probably another dozen issues, America is held hostage by a party that refuses to lead or follow.

The Willies

Blogger.com tells your humble narrator (that's me) that your new favorite blog (that's this) got a referral and a long look from this blog.

Now I had to use the Google Spanish-English translator, but this is what it said:

EVERYTHING ARRIVES!!!!!
THE OLD WISE PEOPLE COUNT...
THAT The VIBORAS, CAN SWALLOW THEIR OWN POISON And WHEN THEY THROW TOO MUCH CAN BE CHOKED And BEEN ABLE TO HAVE WHOLE WEEKS OF NIGHTMARES, SPECIALLY FOR ALREADY The EXTINCT VIBORAS Of the NORTH SANTAFESINO, NIGHTMARES THAT WITH TIME ARE MADE MEAT TAKING REVENGE To ALL The VICTIMS BY The POISON.
MEMO: WITH MUCHISIMO AFFECTION, WE LOVE And WE WAITED FOR YOU To YOU HAS BEEN SLIGHT.
"THE SELECT HORDE".

I think the word's getting out. Dunno what it is, though.

The Duty to Beauty

The governor of Wisconsin is going to nix any law that would permit the hunting of feral cats, which are blamed for the deaths of 47 million to 139 million songbirds a year in that state.

It's not illegal here in California. At least I don't think it is.


 
I bagged this beauty with a thirty-ought-six and a 125-grain load in the Santa Monica Mountains, just outside Malibu. The taxidermy fees were a bit steep, and there's not much meat. But these buggers are a worthy adversary for the dedicated varmint hunter---clever and quick as, well, cats.

The songbirds in California are particularly beautiful; they sweeten the very air with their angelic calls and I do love them so. Both they and the Golden State are better off with "Fluffy" on my mantelpiece, where this ruthless killer can do no further harm.

I urge Gov. Doyle to reconsider his position on this vital issue of aesthetic good vs. evil.

The Where Are They Now File

 


That's supposed to be John Kerry, not Jesus.

It seems the good senator is trolling for hard luck stories from our troops in Iraq. I'm sure it's to help them, not embarrass the administration. Heaven forbid. If he does for the Iraq vets what he did for the Vietnam vets, well...never mind.

Thing is, after 20-odd useless years as a senator, I just can't explain John Kerry's sudden interest in politics these past couple of months.


Addendum: Just ran across plenty more on this at Polipundit.

Can't Live with 'Em, Can't Kill 'Em

Or maybe you can.

My new Harper's, which remains a supremely literate American treasure (founded 1856) despite its present left-psychotic editor's attempt to pervert it, has a letter citing a study that 75% of those who get Schiavoed are female.

They say it's because females are practical. So are their husbands, I reckon.

75% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Good strategy---get rid of him before he does you in. Practical.

(Went back and tidied this one up a little.)

Things Could Be Worse

The latest UK polls show Labour and the Tories in a 36%-36% tie. Still, constituency boundaries being what they are, Labour would still get a lead of 100-140 seats. The Conservative Party needs about 42% of the vote to win the PMship.

I dunno, our electoral college doesn't seem so bad.