LC & IB Allahpundit goes poll-sniffing and finds some interesting results.
There are two points in particular that His Majesty finds worthy of note, and they both have to do with the British poll at the bottom of his post.
First, we’ve long had nothing but derision for our U.S. polls about public approval of the President’s handling of the war, seeing as how they invariably give you only three options: Approve/disapprove/don’t know because I’m dumber than snot and American Idol is coming on in twenty minutes.
This, they then proceed to wave around, calling it “proof that the American public wants out of the war” which, as we all know, is utter bullshit. Well, it may be true, but it’s certainly not a conclusion you can draw from a question posed like that. As an example, His Majesty’s answer to that question would have to be “disapprove”, not because we disapprove of the war, but because we disapprove of the half-hearted, over-sensitive, “on the cheap” way that the Pussy-in-Chief is “fighting” it.
But the Brits had the guts to actually give the general public a chance to be more specific about their view of the war by asking them if they wanted the government’s war policy to be more conciliatory/more aggressive/unchanged/don’t know because I’m dumber than a kidney pie and the rerun of East Enders is coming on in 20 minutes.
And guess what? The Hawks won. By a mile.
The second point, which Allahpundit also makes a note of, is that the women in the poll are even more hawkish than the men.
Now, before anybody starts cracking jokes about effeminate, pussy-whipped British men, we’d like to submit a personal theory of ours:
The result, over here (if anybody had the guts to run a poll that might make it look like we support the war), would be the same.
Ever heard the saying that “the most dangerous place in the world is between a mother and her child?”
There’s a reason that it doesn’t say “father” in there. Not that that’s a happy place to be either, but nothing is more ferocious, fanatical, fearless and dedicated to inflicting maximum pain than a mother who thinks her child may be in danger. Sure, if we men happen to be at hand when the shit hits the fan, we’re expected to be the ones picking up the axe and the club and defend the brood, for the very logical reason that we’re bigger and stronger by nature, but we’re not always there and guess who has to defend home and hearth then? And, in order to do that against unfavorable odds (because the assailant will generally be male), the lady of the manor will have to make up for the difference by being single-mindedly ferocious in fighting him off.
That and the maternal, protective instinct that has been misrepresented by Feminazis as meaning “warm, caring and compassionate” (i.e. “better than those brutal troglodyte patriarchs”) which is about as far from the truth as anything can be, at least when danger is rearing its ugly head.
So yes, His Majesty firmly believes that the numbers would break down in much the same way here.
Forget about that soft, pliant, timid soccer mom image that political strategists have been chasing for as long as they’ve been around, idiots that they are, because it just isn’t true.
If you doubt us, try snatching a kid from a mom the next time you’re at the mall.
We’ll send flowers.
Entries (RSS)
Polls are also easy to manipulate by limiting your pool of queried citizens. Zogby has been caught doing this a time or two. It’s amazing how the American public is against the war according to the latest poll taken in San Francisco, isn’t it?
“When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:36 pmAnd the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.”
Personally, I want a woman that will fight like a tigeress when threatened. It would give ME peace of mind knowing that she is more vicious than I am.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:49 pmThere’s also the fact that we freedom-loving women aren’t too crazy about the prospect of being forced to wear burquas and being treated as inferior to men.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:11 amGood point, Nanashi.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:36 amHere’s something I found REALLY interesting, the cretinous, scum-sucking, camel-fellating, goat-humping, misbegotten son of mohammed and a sow who has been given the task of setting off a nuke in America. The FBI has a 5,000,000 dollar reward for him.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46158
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:38 amYeah, the burqua crap makes me see red too. That whole subjugation-of-women culture pisses me off. I don’t understand how the feminists in this country can blithely ignore the threat of Islamofascism to the freedoms they supposedly champion. That goes for gay people, and loose Hollywood types as well.
When my brother was in Iraq, during the voting turnout, he said the women (particularly the old matriarchs) lead the way - they were much braver than the Iraqi men in this respect. I’m thinking this is because they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by it. I’ll bet burquas burn better than bras.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 amRowane: Hope that fucker isn’t working at Hanford.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:45 amIt would be the perfect place for him, since apparently a number of Muslims already work at that nuclear facility.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:46 amI’m glad I’m not the ONLY one who finds this strange, I was banned from a “right wing” site recently for even suggesting what needs to be done.
Can you imagine a Japanese citizen of America working in such a sensitive industry during WWII? I can’t, I’m only a few miles from one of the old internment camps which I think we should be re-opening and filling with the little-sheet-heads.
Death to Islam, and
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:45 amtheir mediot stooges!
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
These nuke-conspiracy-serial posters seem to know a lot about their subject for not being terrorists!
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:09 amThe Female of the Species
1911
When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the other’s tale –
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations-worm and savage otherwise, –
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger — Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue — to the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity — must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions — not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions — in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! –
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges — even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons — even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish — like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it cames that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice — which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern — shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
Rudyard Kipling
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:20 amHmmm, does anyone really believe that three outfits with long and dirty track records when it comes to factual reporting actually ran a honest poll?
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:28 amAh, I see I’m not the only to have thought of that one by Kipling. Saves me from having to go find it and post it myself . . .
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:10 amSpeaking as a Limey myself, I would like to remind readers of two points which seem to have been overlooked. Firstly, that public support for a more hawkish foreign policy is not necessarily concomitant with support for the Iraq debacle. I’m a staunch Israel supporter and would gladly back a more hawkish approach to our dealings with Tehran, Damascus, and Beirut. However, I consider the Iraq war to be a horiffic foreign policy blunder of grotesque proportions. The other British poll cited by Allahpundit indicates that a significant proportion of Brits agree with me. Bottom line: it’s perfectly possible to support a hawkish foreign policy while simultaneously opposing hawkish actions of the past.
Secondly, this poll was taken a mere three days after the recent terror alert. This may have skewed results somewhat.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:14 amThis also reminds me of one of the first moments in college when I realized just how full of sh*t the Women’s Studies Dept was– when one of them gave that old stupid line about “If wimmyn were in charge, there wouldn’t be any more war . . .”
My first thought about hearing that was “Er, I really don’t think that nukes and PMS mix very well. . .” And there is the momma-bear instict as already mentioned. ^_~
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:23 amHere, Crusader:
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/kipling_ind.html
The complete collected poems of Kipling.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:23 amWhy, thank you Wil!
At home, I have the Complete Kipling in one big tome, a Christmas gift from long ago, and much used–esp in high school, when I memorized “Gunga Din” for extra credit in English class. I’ll save this link so I can now have access at work ^_^
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:26 amThat’s why I have it. My three volume set of his works doesn’t fit well in the briefcase…
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 amLC Will & Crusader Coyote,
You read Mr. Kipling’s verse. How much of his prose are you familiar with?
Just curious.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 amI have READ some of his non-poetic offerings, but must admit that most of that is somewhat in the past (*blush*). His poetry has always been much more interesting. Perhaps curious to note, as an ex-military type, I don’t know many Soldiers (etc.) who don’t enjoy his poetry. I have met several who have never heard of Kipling, but once introduced, turn into huge fans.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 amRe: Kipling
I came at it from the other end. I read the prose first, and then developed a taste for the verse. My parents read to me as a child, and introduced me to THE JUST SO STORIES, THE JUNGLE BOOKS (a LOT less cute than Disney), PUCK OF POOK’S HILL and REWARDS AND FAIRIES, and that most subversive of schoolboy books STALKY AND COMPANY.
Since then I’ve read about five sixths of what the man wrote - some of his later short stories I find impenetrable and I’ve never made it through THE LIGHT THAT FAILED, NAULAHKA; A STORY OF EAST AND WEST, THE STORY OF THE GADSBYS, or THE IRISH GUARDS IN THE GREAT WAR. That still leaves a lot of ground to cover.
If you ever get interested I should like to recommend:
FROM SEA TO SEA: Kipling’s letters back to his paper on traveling east from India. He visits Japan and recognizes the Japanese infantry as ‘bad little men who know too much’, crosses to America and sees Yellowstone, and ends by meeting Mark Twain. Most editions either split this into two volumes or leave out a lot, but it’s worth chasing down.
THE CITY OF DREADFUL NIGHT (title not original with Kipling; he’s quoting) An explore around Calcutta, plus visits to the coal fields, the railway shops, and an opium factory.
Anyway, have fun.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 amRe: Kipling
When I was little, my Dad read me the Just So Stories, the Jungle Books (way better than the movie!), and Puck of Pooks Hill. [I remember in a writing assignment in elementary school, we had to write a fairy tale. I wrote my own “Just so story” instead, but my teacher didn’t mind so much, since mine was the only story she’d actually enjoyed. . .]
But, when were were on vacations, road trips up to Cape Cod or down to Florida, we had these tapes of this woman (I think it was Leslie Fish?) singing Kipling’s poetry– to the point that there are many of his poems I now cannot read without humming along–> including the one above. And then I’d start singing them at Girl Scout Camp. . . Some of those went over real well, I can tell you. (*smirks*) I think “Tomlinson” was my favorite to sing, at the time.
Heh, still is, now that I think about it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:09 amAn Amazon is simply the undomesticated side of a woman.
All women have an inner Amazon. Those that acknowledge her, and embrace her at the appropriate times, know the feeling of fearlessness and power when she is turned loose to protect those she loves.
She loves unconditionally, and will fight unapologetically. She can inflict pain to protect, while at the same time she can heal the pain inflicted by others.
She feels fear, but will not allow it to control her, but will embrace it and use it to propel her forward to the fight.
She doesn’t know retreat. She will continue on until the object of her wrath is subdued, and the object of her devotion is no longer in danger.
She never battles without cause.
Love the woman…but respect her inner Amazon.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:34 amTry singing “Danny Deever” in the halls of your elemetary school. That was a lot of fun…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:57 am“Danny Deever” was for the showers–in both camp and PE. Nothing like the sound of counselors or instructors muttering as I left “What the hell was she singing about?”
“For they’re done with Danny Deever, you can ‘ear the quickstep play,
The regiment’s in column, an’ they’re marchin’ us away;
Ho! The young recruits are shakin’, an’ they’ll want their beer today,
After hangin’ Danny Deever in the mornin’!”
[*does little white-girl booty-dance*]
Good stuff. . .
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:22 pmThe first poem I ever memorized was “If”. As an assignment for 3rd grade.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:43 pmI’m fond of both ‘If’ and the revised version:
If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs….maybe you don’t understand the situation.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:08 pm