Archive for December 29, 2010

This may sound counter-intuitive but the great skank debate reminds me of this story of my mother’s first date with my father back in 43.

My father had a brother named Sam ( I named my oldest after him) he was never married but was very “popular” as evidenced by the group of elderly ladies in the back of the church that people avoided looking at during his funeral. He also had one son who is one of the best looking men I’ve ever seen.

One day in 1943 my mother was at I believe the Elks club with a couple of girls she knew when Sam came swaggering in. Sam noticing the three of them came over. With the exception of my mother the girls were smitten and were all over him while my mother didn’t give him the time of day. This of course peaked Sam’s interest in my mother to the point where the other girls were displeased ending in one of them spilling a drink on her dress.

After coming out of the bathroom my mother was angry and did the one thing she could think of to get back at the two of them, though uninterested in Sam she agreed to go out with them the following week.

Well Sam being Sam was all hands and although times were different in 43 my mother being my mother was having none of it. Finally she had him pull over, got out of the car and took a Taxi home having enough of his amorous attempts.

When Sam got home his younger brother (my dad) asked how his date when, and Sam answered: “Cripes Dominic I’ve never seen anything like it, let me tell you something; if you want a good Catholic girl, that Mary is the one, she wouldn’t let me get anywhere with her.”

My father laughed, Sam laughed and the both forgot about it.

Two weeks later My mother was at the Elks again, this time with her older sister Grace and her husband. My father (a good-looking man in his own right) walked in wearing his Navy blues and was getting some attention when he noticed my mother.

My father was a much different kettle of fish than his older brother and noting the three at the table assumed that Grace (10 years older than my mom) and her husband (many years older than Grace) were her parents. So he approached the man who would eventually be my uncle and asked permission to dance with his “daughter”. Aunt Grace’s husband was taken aback a sec but decided to have a bit of fun with him and pontifically gave his permission. My father having done what he considered the proper and honorable thing then approached my mother and had this exchange:

Excuse me miss, your father has given me permission to ask you to dance.

(suspicious) My father? When did you talk to my father?

(slightly confused) Just now. He gave me permission so may I have dance?

(very suspicious) What are you trying to pull? My father isn’t here!

(confused and embarrassed) But he’s right there, I asked him and he gave permission (pointing to my future uncle now laughing)

Oh, well that’s my brother in law, not my father, but I’ll dance with you.

My father made a date with my mother for next week but was very embarrassed and told the story to his brother Sam that evening. When Sam asked the girls name he said excitedly “Mary Quartarone? That’s the girl I was talking about! Boy Dominic that’s the girl for you!”

Needless to say things worked out, his future father in law was impressed by the story and my parents were married in 1947 and enjoyed 40 years together until my dad death back in 87.

Why does this remind me of the Assange case? Just this. The best way to avoid a bad situation is to avoid it. The right thing is generally the smart thing and the smart thing would have been not to have Assange in the house. Does that mean the ladies “had it coming”? Certainly not. Does that mean Assange is guilty? I don’t know the facts and frankly neither does anyone outside of the parties involved, but one of the side effects of moral norms are the protections they provide to people.

If Assange is guilty he will hopefully get what he deserves, (and given the damage his wikileaks has done he deserves a lot) but I would suggest to any star struck young lady who finds herself in a social setting with a “player”, that my mother’s 68 year old example is the one to follow.

…the wikileaks releases continue to put lives in danger.

Heroes of the American Left, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, have destroyed the best hope for ridding Zimbabwe of madman Robert Mugabe by releasing U.S. State Department cables of communications between Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the leading opponent of Mugabe, and U.S. and E.U. officials, in which Tsvangirai secretly expressed support for sanctions against the brutal Mugabe regime as the only way to establish democracy in Zimbabwe.

He quotes this atlantic article that laments the results of the leak:

Any damage to democratic reforms from WikiLeaks likely comes not from malice but naivety. Assange is probably not best described, as Vice President Joe Biden recently put it, a “high-tech terrorist.” Rather, he, his organization, and their activist supporters believe that they can promote democracy by making an enemy of secrecy itself. What we’re seeing in Zimbabwe, however, is that those methods won’t necessarily be without significant collateral damage.

Chris it is not naivety, it is indifference. The goal is to hit the US and if some people who support democracy elsewhere end up dead who cares? This is the left, it is all about making ones self feel good (and no that wasn’t a reference to the great skank debate)

I’m with L Douglas Garrett:

The very idea that opposing Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF kleptocracy is in any way ‘treason’ against the nation of Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) is shall-we-say open to dispute… although the medieval definition of ‘treason’ as an indignity against the person or property of the monarch might fit. Were that to be so in this case, of course, that would simply advertise more widely what is already known; that R. Mugabe and company see the state as their personal property.

I’ll say it plainly: In my opinion, conduct by any citizen of that nation that expedites the departure of the Mugabe regime is patriotism.

That’s about it.

but the contrast is stunning. First Juan Williams

“‘There’s nobody out there, except for Sarah Palin, who can absolutely dominate the stage, and she can’t stand on the intellectual stage with Obama,’ Williams said.

“Palin, like Williams, is a Fox News contributor. And when Williams was fired by National Public Radio this year after saying he felt nervous when he sees Muslims on an airplane, Palin was among the conservative voices defending him.”

Allahpundit being allahpundit further quotes Williams

I think most Republicans now in the polls question whether or not she has the credibility to be president,’

There is just one problem with this line of thinking…the facts as Ian Lazaran notes:

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

And how many times has Sarah Palin led from the front while other GOP candidates have waited in the wings afraid to engage? This is what a leader does.

As for polls, forgetting that they are a snapshot in time people are forgetting that a presidential primary is in the works and the candidates running not named Palin need their supporters to attack her since they don’t dare to so on their own. There are plenty in the GOP how see Palin as a threat to their prerogatives and their power and will be happy to help the media along in trying to destroy her as long as they are not seen as doing so.

In his latest he laments the possibility that Israel will cease to be a democracy. Although on topic Israel Matzav answers him the better question is this. Why isn’t Jeffrey denouncing the lack of democracy among Israel’s enemies?

The idea that this fellow who worships at the altar of Fidel Castro is crying about the limits of democratic government is laughable. I hope the Babalu guys weren’t drinking when they saw this story.

The brilliant Ron Radosh explains the whys and wherefores of this kind of attitude now evident in David Remnick

“liberals like Remnick are simply tired of standing up for a cause that has become unpopular on the left.” In making his comment, Remnick announces that he is officially adopting the position taken a few years back by the London leftist intellectuals

Because in the end nothing is more important than being considered part of the right club. And in a slight variation of the old social club model being a supporter of Jews in Israel is enough to keep you out.

I’m with Fr. O’Malley on this one.