Of Swamps and Pests

We're busily "draining the swamps" of terrorists, this time in Fallujah, and it seems to be going well as I write. Bush is doing as he said he would if reelected. On this score, I'd like to recommend the sharp analysis of Norman Podhoretz, whom I recently heard of via my subscription to the Intellectual Activist Daily, which I highly recommend. He describes in excellent detail the current world situation and the Bush Doctrine. It's a long, but very worthwhile, read. Today, he writes about the Bush mandate, a subject I have discussed here at length, along with everyone else. While he does not assert, as I have, that his mandate is strictly secular (outside the Defense of Marriage Act -- see Mark Steyn), he does state what he thinks the mandate is. "Bush went to the American people and said, in effect, 'Here I am. I grasped that 9/11 was a turning point in American history and will continue to pursue a confrontational path with radical terrorists in my next term. I took this nation to war in Iraq and I will fight it in my next term until it is won. I pursued economic policies that are bearing fruit and will blossom in time if we can institutionalize them in my next term. I said I would work to fix the Social Security system, but there was too much else to do; I will focus on that in my next term.'" Podhoretz also debunks the main talking point of the left: that Reagan's landslide was a mandate (It wasn't.) -- and therefore, Bush's win was not (It is.). My readers would be right if they detect a growing appreciation for Norman Podhoretz and Mark Steyn on my part.

Speaking of Mark Steyn, I suspect that he is able to make such solid observations about American politics precisely because he is not American. I quoted him yesterday on why Americans oppose gay marriage despite being tolerant of civil unions. I was amazed when I read this. He managed to describe in words almost exactly how I feel about that issue. I'd struggled to explain this point to some very liberal friends at work and didn't quite succeed a few days earlier.

Inevitably, along with discussions of the American character come discussions of the character of the different sections of America. Being a Southerner, I always take an interest in such speculation. I ran into a couple of comments about the culture of the South today. Matthew May of the blog American Thinker, speculates on how Condoleeza Rice might do in the South: "The natural question is whether Dr. Rice would have appeal and support in the South – can a black woman win there? The answer is yes. Leftists, especially those found sipping wine at Martha’s Vineyard, insulting wait staff in New York City restaurants, or making tedious movies in Hollywood, love to characterize and portray Southerners as tabacky-spittin’, hood wearin’, bitch slappin’ drunks who enjoy chasin’ nigras for kicks. Contrary to their wish that the world be trapped in a ‘60s time warp, however, the rest of the nation – especially the South - has moved on and evolved." I'd say he's right on the money, both about how Yankees see us and about how Dr. Rice would do in the South.

William J. Stuntz gives an interesting post-mortem of the election in terms of Eastern-vs.-Western American cultural outlooks. I think he's on to something, but he ends up having to explain too many exceptions. At any rate, he classes Southerners mostly with Westerners, but with some distinctions. In discussing Bush, who has been called a Southerner and a Westerner, Stuntz classes him as the latter. "White Southerners (the modifier is important) are instinctive pessimists, perhaps because their ancestors lost a great war. They are rooted, not just to the land but to one particular piece of it, in a way Westerners aren't. Even their religion is different, more respectful of church authorities. Bush's Methodism is fiercely independent; it draws more inspiration from the Pope than from his own church's bishops. And Bush is Reagan-like in his fondness for taking big chances, rolling the dice." I think he's essentially correct about this, though my Southern pride compels me to point out that poker was likely invented in Mississippi. (And I would have loved to see Gore lose New Mexico to Bush by playing a hand of five-card stud!)

I move now from the South culturally to speak briefly of swamps. (For the benefit of my Northern readers, I don't live in one, though Houston was once indeed a swamp!) I read an interesting article today in the Houston Chronicle to the effect that mosquitoes are soon to become immune to "all pesticides." Appearing in an Old Media outlet, the article failed to mention DDT at all. I guess it has become the "non-person" of pesticides. This article does a nice job of making the case for "rehabilitating" it. "The 1972 U.S. ban on DDT is responsible for a genocide 10 times larger than that for which we sent Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg. It is also responsible for a menticide which has already condemned one entire generation to a dark age of anti-science ignorance, and is now infecting a new one."

And finally, for one last pest, to tie together my themes of swamps and pests: will Yasser Arafat just die already? The "Palestinians" are in dire need of a valid reason to pass candy around!

-- CAV

P.S. Captain Ed has just added another P.E.S.T. to the list. Hilarious and true! (Though Michelle Malkin points out that it's not fatal!)