Burtonia, the Compound

Because desperate diplomatic and legal efforts are underway to have all traces of this image removed from the internets, study it while you can (click for larger view).

Husbands, Wives, and Hate

I immoderately enjoy Spengler's column in Asia Times, but this last week's edition stuck out for a number of reasons. First was the subject (Obama), second was an unusually vituperative tone, and third was the amount of personal information disclosed. Something about Obama must have struck a nerve.

But that's not what this post is about. Spengler makes an off-hand generalization, key to his argument: "Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common."

At first glance, it seems like one of those remarks that are both plausible and insightful, mostly because you've never thought about it before. It reminded me of Tolstoy's famous opening line in Anna Kerenina ("All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.") As many have noted, Tolstoy is as wrong. A moment's reflection is enough to convince one of the exact opposite.*

So is Spengler correct? I think not. Certainly not in my own marriage. There are lots of things I hate that my wife either loves or is indifferent toward (e.g. coffee and Apple Computer respectively). On the other hand, my wife is not as much of a hater as I am, though there are few things I can think of (talk radio, rodents). Of course, these examples are trivial and may not answer as proof. However, in my observations of other marriages, I can think of enough counter-examples to call the universality of his pronouncement into question.

Any thoughts?

* It would be interesting to discuss why people might be attracted to Tolstoy's assertion.

Os Strikes Back

Finally, a high profile l'Abri insider responds to Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God. My Review was here.

Tin Whiskers

Because I don't think you have enough to worry about: the transition to lead-free solder alloys increases the chance that all that electronic gear you are buying will shortly be junk. iPod users will be hit hardest, I suspect.

Hanna on Huck

Hanna Rosin is an editor at the Atlatntic. She wrote a piece for Slate on the "secret" Huckabee Sermon Tapes. There's not much there except for speculation, but she does manage to get her hands on one sermon (from Ebay). Here she excerpts Huck the pastor:

"How many times do we find ourselves on the surgery table of the Almighty God, who is trying to work His surgery to make us more like Christ, and we say 'God, let me out of here! Lord, don't touch me!' " he thunders towards the end. "It's not that we can't be Christians. The sad fact is most of us don't want to be enough to try our faith to the point of patience and perseverance."

Here is her reaction, which ends her essay:

It's one thing to know a presidential candidate was a pastor; that sounds worthy and leaderlike. But it's quite another to actually hear him work himself up into a lather about committing to Christ and not back it up with a joke.

Which Law for Christians?

Great series of posts at Pulpit Magazine concerning the Christian's relationship to Mosaic law (HT Christian Mind). So far, it's consonant with my relatively recent understanding of this difficult subject.

For me, an interest in the topic started when my mother told me tatooes were verboten because of a passage in Leviticus proscribing them. It piqued my curiosity and I spent a fair bit of time a few years back researching the issue (law - not tatooes).

Tech Tears

Has Microsoft ever made you cry? The company recently made this guy cry, but in a good way. Of course, because he can't talk about the Big Secret, it's a blogging sensation. Well, in certain circles.

If it's just some kind of telescope thing, I'll hang my head in shame for my geek brethren.

Stuff White People Like

Best blog I've read all week.

Some of my favorite posts are here, here, here, here, here, here.

I'm guily here and here (I've never been to a writer's workshop, but my Walter Mitty fantasy is to be a writer).

Point to ponder - what is most subversive about the blog's title?

Trashing Simon Brett

If my last post seemed a bit splenetic* to you, I apologize. In my defense, I feel more than usually provoked these days.The cultural producers of our times sweat great rivers of oily self-righteousness and that putrid flow sometimes overwhelms my delicate equilibrium.

As an example, I hold before you one Simon Brett, a British author of murder mysteries. I recently went on vacation and one of my favorite ways to relax on holiday is work through a small pile of fiction. I usually include at least one murder mystery and this time I chose an author totally unfamiliar to me. As I read The Body on the Beach, I became increasingly agitated. Let me tell you why.

This author is competent if uninspiring as a mystery writer. He does exhibit that fraternity's (or should I say sorority?) annoying habit of periodically inserting let's-summarize-what-we-know-now interludes, as if the author's duty were to help the reader cram for a final exam. But what led me to consign the book to the landfill was a steady drip of left-wing condescension that served no literary function. In fact, I imagine Mr. Brett probably was unconscious of his sanctimony as he wrote - it undoubtedly comes as naturally as breathing.

For example, he is indignant that the Council Flat dwelling proles stick satellite TV dishes on the sides of their homes. Not because they are filling their heads with cultural garbage, but because of the shillings pouring into Rupert Murdoch's pockets. He draws one of his peripheral characters as snobbish, domineering, materialistic, gossipy, judgmental, gauche, and shrewish. She treats her servants poorly, runs down her husband, and goes out of her way to look down her nose at everyone. It would be one thing if she were funny, in a Dickensian sort of way, but it's clear that Brett either couldn't pull that off, or actually thought he was painting a believable portrait. Oh yes, I almost forgot. He applies one other characteristic to this thoroughly repellent creature. Can you guess what it is? The most natural thing to go along with those other traits would be...her devout Christianity.

The final straw for me was a throw-away line regarding "Bourgeoisie virtues, which are for the most part financial virtues." It told me in one sentence how shallow this man is; how little thinking he has done about the Bourgeoisie, about virtue, or about finances. Bah. When I could stand it no more, I threw the book into the rubbish half-read, which afforded me the most pleasure I received from Brett's labours.

* pertaining to the spleen, also ill-humoured.

World Changing Wannabe's, Take Note

Neil Young says that music cannot change the world. When I read that, I did a couple of fist pumps and let out a loud whoo-hoo. Now we're gettin' somewhere! Neil, here are some other things that can't change the world, so you won't waste your time:

Fad haircuts
Poetry
Bumper stickers
Fair trade coffee
Another sequel to Mortal Kombat
Your own precious self

Purloined Primaries and Confounded Caucuses

I have never voted in Wisconsin primary* in which the results meant anything. I thought this year would be different, but I am disappointed once again.

Now I wonder how much mischief idle Republican voters can make in the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses. Those contests will make a difference. Even if I thought such trickery to be ethical (which I don't), I would be terrified that my machinations might have horrible, unintended consequences. For instance, if I thought Hillary was the weaker candidate and I voted for her in the primary, and she were elected president, could I look at myself in the mirror? Or would it result in a lot of razor nicks on my already scarred face?

*It may be the case that I have never voted in a Wisconsin presidential primary at all. My memory fails me.