British History Without Winston Churchill

I named my Shih Tzu Winston for heaven's sake! What is Britain thinking? Nope, there's no good guys in the world. And no bad guys. Hitler and Stalin won't get a mention in history class, either. How do you learn history without historical figures? You don't.

Never Leaving The Nest, Never Wanting Them To

Angel Jennings touches a nerve with the article Emptying Nest Eggs, Not the Nest. It is one of the most emailed New York Times articles today:

In contrast to previous generations, when young people generally took control of their finances — and their lives — after graduating from college, more parents are supporting their offspring well into adulthood.

Well. The worrisome thing about this forever adolescence is that the umbilical chord never gets cut. The young person is infantilized into adulthood, is forever reliant and doesn't trust himself to take care for himself.

One benefit of my dysfunctional upbringing was that I had no intention of returning home to stay after graduating from college. No. Way. I got married. I got a job. I lived in a complete hell hole--which I still can't believe my parents and my husband's parents didn't see a problem with and would never allow my kids too live.....

See? When I was a kid, I walked a mile to school, at least, at age five. Five. I thought nothing of it, nor did my parents. I wouldn't dream of allowing my ten year old walk to school or my eight year old. Say I'm overprotective if you want, but the world has changed.

I wouldn't let my kids live in an apartment where baseball bat and gun battles were a nightly occurrence, and prostitution, and drug dealing, and wife beating and every other crazy thing you can imagine. I would pay the extra $200 a month so they could be safe...er.

Would I be making the right decision? Would I be delaying their adulthood? When does protection become over-protection? When does love actually turn into narcissism--salving the parents concern, but inhibiting the kid's development? It's tough to know the answers.

And ultimately, it isn't a good idea to indulge the kids when it means potentially having to rely on them in old age to survive. That's just selfish. So while robbing the nest egg isn't a good idea, is it just as wrong to give an extra egg away?

My Vietnamese nail guy couldn't fathom that I would have this dilemma, when I lamented all the teenagers with Mercedes and other impressive cars kids drive these days. He wondered why I wouldn't want the safest, best car for my child. Because the child's physical safety is only part of it. A kid is deprived of a dream is deprived of hope. Providing a child with everything makes them not work for anything. Why bother? Could this be a reason so many young people are depressed?

The answer isn't simple, or the same for any two kids. But I do think that as a society, we've become adept at giving children things that don't matter and depriving them of the things that do.

Hindu Prayers and Peace Harry Reid Style

This week I ignored an email from a well-meaning acquaintance that urged me to Take Action Now! about the Hindu clergyman praying in the Senate. I didn't take action.

While I believe this country is Judeo-Christian and founded on the principle that there is One God that we worship, I also believe that we have the freedom of expression here, too. And I think the choice perfectly reflected Harry Reid's belief system.

The substance of the prayer was this:

"We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven," he said. "May he stimulate and illuminate our minds."

This seems like a prayer to one God, the "Supreme" one, no less.

Those who disrupted the prayer were disrespectful. No, I don't think what they did was the Christian thing to do. They might want to spend their time praying for Harry Reid and the Hindu priest and for our country.

Captain Ed says this about the protesters:

Yes, I'm sure that these mouthbreathers think they're spreading the Word. I have little doubt that they think they can convert the heathen by shouting at them, acting rudely, and comporting themselves as fools. That's why they left no doubt as to their idiocy, let alone their utter lack of hospitality.

What I did find interesting was the Hindu priest's closing prayer:

"Peace, peace, peace be unto all."

It brings to mind this scripture, Jeremiah 6:14 (in fact, read all of Jeremiah 6 and tell me what you think):

"They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace."

And then, after saying peace, and living with a pretend peace this is the result in Jeremiah 8:15 (NASB):

"We waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror!"

Talking about peace, wishing for it and doing nothing doesn't create peace. There are too many people talking a good talk but unwilling to make the tough decisions and take the difficult course.

Betsy notes this nugget from the Harry Reid press conference:

Jake Tapper, not a known neoconservative, had a question for Harry Reid. He couldn't get an answer. After asking his question several times, Tapper tried once more.
TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question.

REID: OK. This is not a debate.

TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?

REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?

Will Iraq have peace if American troops withdraw? Better yet, will America?

John Mackey Sows Wild Oats Anonymously Online

John Mackey, vegan co-founder of Whole Foods Market, posted anonymously on an internet message board and his ruse is being used against him by the FTC as he tries to buy his chief competitor Wild Oats Market. Besides posting opinions about Wild Oats executives, he also had some Glenn Greenwald worthy sock puppetry going:

At the same time, he wrote glowingly and anonymously of John Mackey.

“I like Mackey’s haircut. I think he looks cute!” Rahodeb wrote on April 28, 2000.

“You must not patronize any of WFMI’s stores,” the writer continued, using Whole Food’s stock symbol. “Tatoos, piercings, unusual dress and interesting haircuts are everywhere in the stores. In comparison, Mackey looks like a model for Brooks Brothers!”

Rahodeb’s final remarks were posted last August, after he lost a bet to another correspondent, Hubris12000, over Whole Food’s stock performance.

“Surgeon General and Boston Cowboy — you were both right about my true identity all along,” he concluded. “Congratulations on your cleverness.”

The only people who are truly anonymous on the web are Russian mafia hackers and even they get caught sometimes.

Not Only Will We Complete Each Other's Sentances...

....we are going to look alike, too? Depending on your spouse's looks, that could be good news or bad news. The study here.

Genetic influences are also a factor. A past study showed that genetically similar people have better marriages [Source: Live Science]. Such families have fewer incidents of child abuse and a lower rate of miscarriages. People also appear to be more selfless when involved with genetically similar partners.

So the key is to be similar but not too similar, if you know what I mean.

Of course, couples shouldn't be too genetically similar -- in most cultures, relationships between close relatives are taboo, and geneticists agree that diversity is important to a healthy gene pool.

Besides feeling that they work better together, why and how do people choose partners who are genetically similar? Asking for a DNA sample on the first date would be impolite. The answer may be equal parts personality -- derived in part from genetics and consistently ranked by people as important in a partner -- and the marriage models we have around us. In other words, many women say they want a guy like dad.

Well, some do. And some run away and try to find the exact opposite.

What If America Quits?--UPDATED

What if America leaves Iraq, gives up on spreading Democracy, retreats into it's island? Is America safer or a sitting duck?

I have always thought the idea of bringing the fight to the enemy is a good strategy. Like basketball, you can't win with good defense alone. You have to make more baskets than the opponent. The Democrats and their lily-livered Republican enablers hope to win the terrorist war by playing a little defense. It would be helpful if they'd admit they're playing a game that can be lost, in a big way. It would help if they attempted a basket instead of pretending that they have the luxury of being spectators.

In disturbing detail, Shrinkwrapped ponders what would happen if America quits. It would be worthwhile to read his whole post. Shrinkwrapped answers why quitting is preferable to the D.C. elites than to fighting, he says today:

I don't expect much from our Congressmen and women. They have very narrow definitions of success and failure in terms of policy. Success is getting re-elected and failure is losing their jobs.

That definition of success does not help America long-term. And why are the Senators under pressure from their constituents anyway?

It's a vicious cycle. Americans are nervous about any war. The press didn't want the war to begin with (just as they want to ignore Iran and Syria), they still don't want the war and have been relentless about the body count, and they don't want the war tomorrow, either. Ditto the far Left. The coverage reinforces anxiety of average Americans.

The press saying "we don't determine policy" like I saw one defender say of The New York Time's yesterday, is parsing words. They may not determine policy, but it would be a lie to say they don't serve as policy catalysts. With such misery coming from them, it's not surprising that the electorate is discouraged, which has been the goal from the beginning.

It's not that there isn't good solid information to look at about Iraq and other fronts on the war. It's the unwillingness to be informed. Or, to ignore the information. (Zawahiri being defensive, for example.) The majority of Americans, though, still get their information from the nightly news. They're not reading Michael Yon.

They're not considering the ramifications of retreat. The psychological boost to the enemy would be incalculable. Al Qaeda will joyfully reassert themselves if America backs away from Iraq. As it is, I think that many terrorists bide their time waiting for the next President to see his worth ala Britain. Do the Democrats believe that they'll be spared an attack because they are good people? And how will the populace react if America gets blasted with a Dem in charge?

If Senators have their way, America will retreat, maybe permanently.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit counts the costs of Iraq. Austin Bay has post-Iraq scenarios. All seven are interesting, but none of them address al Qaeda. And while the Sunni and Shia militias seem anti-al Qaeda now, they're counting on the U.S. soldiers to back them up. That will change in a power vacuum. The most likely scenario is a combination plus some other distressing additions:

• Kurdistan survives protected by the U.S. The rest of Iraq descends into chaos.
  
• The Sunni tribes band together, realign with al Qaeda and fight the Shia--to the death.
• Iraq oil output goes to zero. The economy tanks.
  
• Iran, with it's economic problems and internal unrest helps, but doesn't take over.
  
• A humanitarian crisis ensues.

• Syria invades Lebanon.
  
• Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel.
• China will up pressure on Taiwan.
• Russia will refuse to relent about Serbia and get pushier in Georgia.
  
• America watches in horror. The Left watches in satisfaction. Those people are animals anyway. This proves what a stupid idea it was to try to intervene in the first place.
  

Bailing on Iraq has far-reaching consequences. In short, every nefarious regime on the planet will feel emboldened.

TB: The Problem With Epidemics

The problem with epidemics, besides the virulent bug, is people. As the story of the contagious Arkansan TB patient who broke a hospital window and now roams the countryside illustrates, people don't like quarantine and quarantine is the ultimate method of containment.

Once preventative measures fail, and after that, medications fail, quarantine is the last defense against disease. It is very effective and has been used for thousands of years.

But quarantine isn't effective if, like the TB escapee, it's broken. In every epidemic, there are a few carriers doing most of the damage by infecting the most people. These are people who are either ignorant of their health status or they know their health status and purposefully or apathetically infect people they come across.

In this modern world, where individual rights are so elevated, I wonder if citizens would submit to quarantine to spare their neighbors their pain. The demonstration by the two American men infected with TB don't give me much hope.

More on the alarming spread of drug resistant TB worldwide.

How it might be dealt with:

"Holding the patient against their will is not ideal but may have to be considered in the interest of the public," Green-Thompson said in a statement issued by the South African Department of Health.

In the 1990s, New York City health authorities authorized the forcible detention of people who rejected TB treatment, some for as long as two years, ultimately leading to a significant dip in cases.

Change of View

I decided to change things around here a bit. Feel free to comment.

Sprint Fires Complainers: Customers You Don't Want To Serve--UPDATE

Sprint cut 1000 customers today, notifying them my mail that their contracts with the company would be discontinued:

Hundreds of cell phone customers are being given the boot, accused of being too high maintenance.
Sprint-Nextel is disconnecting more than 1,000 subscribers on grounds the clients call customer service too often and make "unreasonable requests."

Whatever happened to "the customer is never wrong"? People ask that until they work in customer service or own a business. There are some customers who are just wrong. There are some employees who are just wrong. And companies who unload the wrong have a lot more energy to expend on the positive.

G.E. under Chairman Jack Welch had a notorious policy of firing the bottom 10% of the company every year. The idea has a flaw, of course. Some managers hired much better people and were forced to eliminate good people, while other bad managers only had to remove 10% of their bad decisions.

A mentor of Steve and I, freaked his practice management consultant out when he summarily fired over 10% of his patients (doctors have a way to do this without abandoning them). There were people he wasn't helping, or didn't connect with, or who he dreaded seeing come to his office because they complained for the sake of it, or refused to consider, much less take, his advice, so he fired them. He said it was the most liberating decision in practice he ever made. His practice took off after that.

Why would firing be so helpful? Well, everyone knows the 80-20 rule: 80% of the people do 20% of the work. The opposite is also true: 20% of the people require 80% of the attention and, that, my friends, is a business killer. Not to mention, it's a kill joy generally.

My doctor friend came to dread the days when Ms. Poopypants had an appointment. Managers with Mr. High Maintenance spend their time reassuring instead of executing. Customer Service reps quarreling with Sir Difficult find themselves growling with everyone else.

In addition to the attitude problems, there's just time. The 20% consume so much time that could be used in other productive ways. So, it can be a very good business and emotional decision to fire the complainers. You'll be healthier and wealthier. Best of all, the unhappy customer can find a better fit and find peace somewhere else.

UPDATE: Seth Godin's first reaction was the same as mine. And, like me (but in a much bigger scale) his readership balked. His second reactions was this:

Before you start firing customers, you better be committed to satisfying the rest of your customers. The giant flaw in Sprint's logic, as many readers have pointed out, is that plenty (almost half) of their customers don't like them. Getting rid of a nasty group of 1,000 isn't going to change that very much.

First job: get serious about customer satisfaction.

iPhone: Cheaper Is Better

Apple might be releasing a cheaper iPhone later this year. I do lust for it, but refuse to be an early adopter. I want the kinks out, the improvements made and the cheaper price.

Asthma Linked To Poor Nutrition

No big surprise that diet makes a difference.

To He Who Endures To The End

I read this and cried.

Via Ann Althouse

Christianity: The Life Affirming Religion

Is there any religion that beats Christianity for the inherent dedication to human rights, justice and respecting person and property? No. Is there any religion that frees women like Christianity?

Gina Cobb highlights more distressing news out of India regarding the treatment of females. Just to start....a newborn girl was buried alive, because she was....a girl.

HYDERABAD, India — A newborn baby girl was buried alive by her family in southern India on Thursday but was rescued when a farmer saw the baby's hand sticking out of the ground, officials said.

The two-day old baby, who had apparently never been fed, was recovering in a hospital in the Mahbubnagar district of Andhra Pradesh, said Charu Sinha, district superintendent of police.

I've written about India's female genocide and the long-term consequences, and the unwillingness of women's rights organizations to acknowledge that it is overwhelmingly the weak, disabled and female that get aborted. Abortion is used as a misogynist tool:

All I can conclude is that the women of NOW are as shortsighted as the unions. They will destroy themselves by clinging to an absolute and selfish ideal. Unwilling to admit that this glorious symbol of individual freedom--abortion--can be and often is used to manipulate and control women.

As usual, the feminists have it exactly backwards. Here is a sample from Pseudo-Adrienne regarding South Dakota's quest to make abortion illegal:

It would be wonderful if a clinic opened on Fire Thunder's land, as the state legislature has no jurisdiction over them. Unfortunately I would also predict the misogynist, pro-forced-birth lawmakers of South Dakota would pass a law bringing back the racist and genocidal (and soon sexist and patriarchal) *Manifest Destiny* in order to stop it. Nevertheless, it's great to see that those who are outraged by SD's bullshit are standing up and taking these anti-reproductive-rights bastards to task.

I understand the concept of a woman's body, a woman's choice. It is difficult having to live through a nine month pregnancy to produce a child the woman doesn't want. And then she is in the embarrassing position of giving up the baby--so everyone knows she didn't want it. So abortion is often about covering embarrassment--having sex with the wrong guy, having sex without thinking, having sex with a man who doesn't want a child. But it is the baby who suffers the mortal embarrassment wound.

In the United States where the shame from unwed pregnancy is gone, where girls can drop off a baby at a hospital or church, no questions asked, and where a woman can easily give her baby up for adoption, the rationale that the baby is life-ruining no longer carries the weight it once did. The discomfort index has become more stringent as Pseudo Adrienne, herself, acknowledges: forced birth. A woman is no longer shamed into raising ten kids in the United States, but she may endure forced birth. That would be horrible. But I'm digressing....

India (Hindu) and China (Buddhist, Taoist, Communist, Islamic), and all near eastern Islamic countries repress women and one of the most useful tools to do so is abortion. Women are forced into unwanted abortions of little women--girls. In India, older women are ostracized and humiliated. The truly misogynist cultures have serious psycho-sexual dysfunction and abortion is just one part of it.

Dr. Pat Santy has written at length about the culture hatred towards women especially in Islam:

I continue to think that the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements. Unveiling the women of Islam and eliminating their second-class status; empowering them in the oppressive Islamic countries where their individuality and self-expression has been crushed-- may cause a ripple effect that could eventually alter a family structure that encourages the development of generation after generation of dysfunctional and pathological men and women.

She continues:

Consider for a moment a culture that would prefer to let young girls die in a burning building than to risk having them run out of said building not clothed in properly modest dress; and tell me that such a society is less preoccupied with matters of sex than we are in the West.

Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women in every way possible -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.

The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.

And then there is Christianity where the rights of even the weakest count. It started with the Israelites under Pharaoh, where the midwives refused to kill the male babies and continues to Christ's example of letting the adulterous woman go free rather than stoning her. Christ through Paul made clear that women and men were equal before God. There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.

Abandoning Christian tenets means abandoning life-affirming rights and freedoms. As referenced before, from The Brussels Journal:

I’ve stated that post-Christian ideologies, arguably even Marxism, have expropriated ideas derived from Christian cosmology. However, they have been highly selective in which elements to use and which to discard. Christians believe in right and wrong, good and evil, something which Multiculturalists do not, except perhaps racism and discrimination, which are the only sins and one for which there can be no forgiveness. They have rejected crucial components of Christianity. Likewise, Socialists tend to view criminals as misguided individuals, at best in need of proper ideological guidance by Leftist social engineers, at worst as victims of society that should get an apology from us. They don’t believe in evil, except perhaps in those who reject their ideological guidance and wisdom.

By discarding the moral strand of Christianity, the West threatens to discard life itself. Abortion is just symbolic of the willful suicide.

Primitive religions and cultures use abortion and infanticide against women. It is a crime against humanity because life and life-giving bodies are snuffed out. It is suicide.

That Western women deny the essential gift of womanhood--the womb--and willingly accept being neutered and claim it as a freedom is the greatest delusion. A society intent on murdering women of all ages, a society intent on denying reproductive vitality, is a society doomed to destruction. Christianity stands in stark opposition to these death impulses.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.-- John 1:4

I am the way, the truth and the life. -- John 14:6

The best thing that could happen in India, China, Russia and every Islamic country is that they would be brought to understand Christ. Freedom and life would follow.

The Woodlands, Texas Crime--UPDATED

Woodlands residents beware. This via email and confirmed by the Woodlands Community Association:

My father just called me because I often walk to PC's shopping center to eat at Brooklyn Bagel.
A coworker of his just went there to run into Sear's around 1pm. As she left her car and was in the lot, 2 black males approached her with a gun, told her to get in their car....she hit her 'panic' button on her keychain and they bolted.

A few weeks ago, a mother who ran in to get her toddler at preschool nearly had her car carjacked with her infant in it.

The local newspaper, The Villager, rarely covers these events. They do get reported through an email neighborhood watch group. At least once every two weeks I'm receiving news of some violent attempt on women with children.

Since the police can't be everywhere, citizens need to be informed. It's no use pretending that this isn't happening. They should be widely publicized, along with descriptions of the would-be criminals, so people can be aware and protect themselves.

Here's how you can help:

In the future, and after you have contacted law enforcement, your welcome to enter this type of information into our resident “Service Request System” at the associations website, www.thewoodlandsassociations.org , and clicking on, make a request, request a service, criminal activity. This will allow us to follow-up on the activity through our reporting system.

Or, you can get a concealed handgun permit and arm yourself.


UPDATE: Thank you Kman for the link to The Woodlands Monitor. I'm going to add it to the blog roll. All sorts of great local info.

Breast Beating Heaving By Democrats

Pictures: We're going to play a game from Sesame Street: Which one does not belong with the other ones? I tried, in vain, to find a casual picture of Hill and Bill that wasn't staged. Every single picture was a press conference or a photo shoot, or, the staged beach shot. The only relaxed and happy pictures I could find were of their hippy years. Cute, but hardly current. So the beach shot it was. Otherwise, the pictures of Ms. Rodham-Clinton were all business. High collars and shoulder pads and uncomfortable looking poses with her in long dresses. She would be taken seriously. Serious women don't show cleavage. Serious women don't have cleavage.

The 2008 election will be historic. A black or woman or divorcé might be president. That means a black or man or second or third wife might be First Lady. The possibilities for salacious journalism are boundless. The New York Times is leading the charge.

Let's contrast the New York Time's coverage, shall we? Here's the style section's take on Fred Thompson's wife:

Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?

And here's the take on Hillary Clinton's husband...I mean Hillary Clinton:

Whether she likes the idea or not, Hillary Clinton is the country's latest fashion icon. She is neither dowdy nor clothes-crazy. Like thousands of successful working women, she wears tailored sportswear that sees her through eventful days. She keeps up with fashion without latching onto the extreme designs of fashion leaders. So she is not very likely to be seen in a Calvin Klein see-through georgette, but is highly likely to be seen in a Donna Karan long black skirt.

One doubts there will be stories about Bill Clinton's sartorial flights of fancy. It's difficult enough to get a story about his flights of fancy--and those are relevant to the office of First Lady/First Husband. Hillary Clinton should have kicked Bill to the curb a long time ago. That would preclude a presidential run, though. Hillary is not presidential material without Bill.

There will be no articles about Bill's blouse. There will be no articles about Bill. There will be articles about Michelle Obama's plunging neckline, right? I know, she looks great, but so do the Republican wives. Is the Time's avoiding Michelle Obama because they're racist? Maybe Michelle would be a riské First Lady since she's willing to don a plunging neckline. I can't even write that sentence with a straight face. How can a writer at the Time's write about Thompson's wife with a straight face?

So we have Michelle Obama ignored and Hillary Clinton's husband ignored and then there is Hillary. You notice how Hillary is praised as a "fashion icon" of the "successful working women" sort? I find this story sexist, too, but taken at face value, it's still fawningly false. Who thinks Hillary Clinton is a fashion icon? She's a handsome woman. She is neither beautiful nor ugly. She has gotten more image-conscious and done better with her wardrobe choices, but "icon"? Please.

What lies underneath this animus toward beautiful Republican wives? What is it with the Democrats obsession about sexy Republicans and sex in general? Freud would have a field day with leftist fixations. At the moment, Fred Thompson's wife's bosom seems to have the left all atwitter. Usually, the left is obsessing over homosexual Republicans. It's always something about sex and Republicans, though. What it is is a big case of transference.

I think that Leftists are entirely uncomfortable with their own sexuality.

I know, it's counter-intuitive. They're supposed to be the open-minded, free-love folks. But the Left has a major Madonna-Whore complex. You can be a cheatin' scallywag or preening Queen renting rooms to prostitutes or you can be a long-suffering wife, but you most certainly cannot be a married heterosexual male or female who really digs sex--with his or her spouse. There's a name for those people: sell outs.

After years of women's studies propaganda and the old saw about Dead White Guys, the only safe way to be a hip, in woman is to be single and slutty, or single and career-oriented, or Married In Name Only (M.I.N.O--I just made this up, oops! Googled it). The MINOs don't share names, don't share bank accounts and ignore gender differences and they rarely, if ever, have sex. It's rape. Life, sex, womyn and everything that matters in the world is deadly serious.

The good Leftists fit the miserable description--otherwise they betray feminism. Sex is dirty. The female shape is to be covered. Burqas are beautiful. The feminists are the real Madonnas. Giggling like pre-pubescent boys about boobies and trying to pass it off as news, they are the church ladies cluck-clucking about sex and sexiness. Or they're the Whores. But they can't be both.

It is axiomatic that happy heterosexual married couples are soul-chrushingly boring or more likely, don't really exist. And then there are the breeders. At least those who've bought the progressive perspective hope to be the truth. They hope committed married conservative couples don't have exciting sex lives. They better be dull and buttoned up, platonic and angry. If the Republican wives are sexy and smart, feminine and strong, quiet and intellectual, engaging and educated, it defies narratives.

Unfortunately, the Republican women seem like an interesting and beautiful and accomplished lot. Looking at the pictures, reveals an energy and spark. Democrats just can't stop writing about these women.

Expect more breathless reporting about Republican wives. Expect more exposés about breasts. The Left just can't get enough of living vicariously through the Right's sexiness.