Labor’s labours lost
Is this news from Britain a portent of things to come here?:
Deputy Labor leader Harriet Harman conceded the European election results were a “very, very bad defeat” for Labor but said Brown, 58, was “resilient” and would fight on.
Opposition center-right Conservative leader David Cameron challenged the prime minister to call an election.
“It would give the country a fresh start where we so badly need one, with an economy that is in difficulty, with a political system that is in a mess and with a government that is so weak it is just extraordinary,” he said.
Of course, the situation here is different in a host of ways, not the least of which is the Parliamentary system vs. ours. Another difference is that Labor has been in control in Britain for twelve years, so the “throw the bums out” feeling is focused strongly on that party. In the US, the Democrats have just come to power in the legislature in 2006, matched by the executive branch in 2008.
What’s more, Obama is very skilled at blaming his predecessors for everything that is going wrong—and most likely, everything that will go wrong for his entire administration and beyond. Another difference is that Obama is a very charismatic politician (even though I seem to be immune from whatever it is that draws people to him so strongly). Gordon Brown most definitely is not.
[NOTE: The title of this post is a riff on Shakespeare’s play. But could some hyper-grammarian among you explain to me why the play’s title contains an apostrophe in the second word: “Love’s Labour’s Lost?” Is it the possessive, or a contraction for “labour is?”]
“Obama is a very charismatic politician (even though I seem to be immune from whatever it is that draws people to him so strongly).”
Neo, ypu have an entire readership of your blog, with a few exceptions, who are also immune.
Despite the media being totally in the tank, I think folks may actually be starting to wake up to the fact that Obama and the present crop of democrats (and more than a few republicans) are the most corrupt, incompetant and ignorant bunch we have had in Washington in quite some time, if not ever.
neo,
This may make you feel a little better.
Yesterday as I was driving I had drive a little slower in order to allow another car to pull away from us in traffic.
The reason I had to do this was because someone had written a bit of political free speech across the rear window in large bold letters – the kind you usually see on car lots – and it was something I didn’t want to have to explain to my son.
As my wife and I were laughing hysterically, I still can remember that little red car disappearing into traffic with the words across the back window saying:
“F%CK OBAMA”
And yes, I did edit it for public consumption. They knew EXACTLY how to spell it…lol.
Not nearly as many people are entranced with The One as the MSM makes out there to be.
Harriet Herman, the destroyer of UK fatherhood. The queen mother of the 55%+ out of wedlock rate. May her reign of terror end soon.
It does seem that no matter where you go you find more people who are beginning to question Obama’s ideas and leadership. Many of them people who voted for him. When asked whether they voted for him and whether they would vote for him again, the answer is “Yes” to the first and “No” to the latter.
I do not believe he is that good a speaker realizing that I did not think Clinton was that good either. I use to go back and read Clinton’s speech and was amazed that anyone who asked a few question’s, like how, who, what, et al, would think his speech were more than adequate at best. Obama is no where as good extemporaneously as Clinton. Obama is adequate at a speech he does not have to defend, but one challenge and you get a lot of “ers” and “ahs”, et al or the usual dissembling.
I actually believe that with the results in Kuwait, Lebanon and the EU that the world is beginning to change just as we now want to make the mistakes they made. There is some cause to hope that we are beginning to turn the corner on the ideas that are an anathema to a free country. It just remains to be seen if we can alter Obama’s course before it does any more damage than it already has done.
“F%CK OBAMA”
I’m kinda surprised that car hasn’t been pulled over and given a citation (I’m sure something can be had), followed by a visit from the Secret Service…
No more moping. Pray for wisdom, then proceed. “Do not go gentle into that good night”–Dylan Thomas.http://www.bigeye.com/donotgo.htm
I am no Shakespearean scholar and don’t know the answer to Neo’s apostrophe question about “Love’s Labor’s Lost” — but this is 2009, and I’m curious, so I googled it. Lo and behold, it turns out that the title of this play has been the subject of scholarly squabbles going back to the 18th century as to whether the apostrophe in “Labor’s” should be there, whether there should be one in “Love’s”, whether there should be an “s” after “Labor” at all, and lots more. I don’t have time to put in the urls but, if you search “apostrophe Love’s Labor’s Lost” in Google, you can enjoy the academic disputation for yourself. One scholar accuses another of having “a genius for firmly grasping the wrong end of the stick” and another, in a book printed in 1904, introduces his extended discussion of where the apostrophes ought to go by quoting a scholar named Gilden, who, in 1710, apparently dolefully acknowledged “that he could not well see why the Author gave the play this name” and then resignedly added, “yet since it has past thus long, I shall say no more to it.”
We probably ought to figure out how to get it right, though, since I also discovered during my Google expedition that in Act IV of the play Shakespeare himself warns of the danger of misunderstood apostrophes. He has the character Holofernes scold another character for reading out loud poorly, as follows: “You find not the apostrophes, and so miss the accent; let me supervise the canzonet. Here are only numbers ratified; but, for the elegance, facility, and golden cadence of poesy, caret.”
I R A Darth Aggie,
He won’t necessarily get pulled over. I live in a Southern rural area…lol.
The One did carry NC, but it was on the strength of polling in a few urban areas that outweighed the rural vote, plus there were even useful idiots in the rural areas that voted for Him – though not in the numbers prevalent in more urban environs, plus there was a large percentage that did stay home that day as McCain wasn’t a very inspiring candidate.
Scottie,
I’m in rural New Hampshire and it was the same story here. Obonga carried the urban areas, while McCain carried the rural ones. Same story across the country.
Collectivism thrives in urban places, and dies in the countryside.
I am very encouraged by the elections outcomes in Lebanon, Europe, and the impending doom for Labour in Britain. Now, if starting in 2010 we can begin to see the same happening in our country.
There, I went and done it, calling the president Obonga after huxley’s rebuke of my immoderate disrespect. But the fact is that I do not like this president and do not respect him. Notice I don’t capitalize the name of his office when referring to him?
Is this satire?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/08/two-democrats-in-new-york-abandon-ship-give-gop-control-of-state-senate/
If true it’s amazing…
Baklava, it appears to be true, at least according to Bloomberg and the NYT. Thickening the plot, both of the Democrats who switched sides were apparently under investigation for some scandal or another and were at risk of losing their seats anyway. Consistent with the tried-and-true opaque and secretive nature of the NY Legislature, nobody seems to understand exactly what happened or why.
I knew it. Democrats are crooked!
he he
“Obama is a very charismatic politician (even though I seem to be immune from whatever it is that draws people to him so strongly).”
I know what you mean about being immune to it. I can’t even imagine how someone could possibly be attracted to him. I honestly can’t see anything even remotely attractive in him as a political candidate, with the sole exception of his voice and reasonable good looks. I have, however, almost never heard him say anything that to me is not the most bland and meaningless political boilerplate.
There are some politicians which I don’t personally like, but for whom I can see the appeal, but for Obama, I can’t imagine why anyone sees anything in him. I find Carter more appealing, and Carter was a horrible president, and an even worse ex-president.
To see people describe themselves as being so emotional as to cry at his inauguration is something I honestly cannot imagine for any person real or imagined, except perhaps if the the President were one of my own children, and then only if he or she were the kind of President I could support. This kind of emotional reaction seems to me to be a real symptom of something important missing in these people’s lives.
His emotional appeal is also a deep mystery to me. I can’t fathom the range that it takes from a former student of mine wishing to have his children and being very upfront about her sexual attraction to him, to last week’s statement by the editor of Newsweek that he is God. Way too over the top for this poor old physical scientist to even try and comprehend.
I talked to a guy today that tried to tell me that it was the iraq war and the past 8 years that caused this. he says he is against communism, but still thinks obama is better than bush.
there was no piercing the veil, not even pointing out what all those get a house no money down commercials. (the guy himself couldnt buy them, but he could make money informing others how to find out if they qualify and how to game the system).
those in a collective left way are completely with heads in a fish bowl. they lived through iraq, and thats to blame. incredulity is the response to going back to carter and farther for other things.
they are hell bent on supporting him till its so bad they cant breath, and they will blame his predecessor rather than admit they have been so intelligent, so with it, so on top of it, and gamed right up the rear big time.
could some hyper-grammarian among you explain to me why the play’s title contains an apostrophe in the second word: “Love’s Labour’s Lost?” Is it the possessive, or a contraction for “labour is?”
as a prior person said, there is much hemming and hawing over it. though a lot of it has to do with which play on words the person picks out of all the potentials.
however, if one wanted to get a real line on it, one would first need to know the history of punctuation (which is quite modern and has even changed in my lifetime as to usages).
below is the link to a passable history of the subject
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation
The use of punctuation was not standardized until after the invention of printing. Credit for introducing a standard system is generally given to Aldus Manutius and his grandson. They popularized the practice of ending sentences with the colon or full stop, invented the semicolon, made occasional use of parentheses and created the modern comma by lowering the virgule.
ultimately one has to remember that shakespears original works were not printed but were manuscripts. the manuscripts would have been edited before being printed and at that point, guess what would have happened to any real intent of the bard in the title?
Nicholas Rowe and Ralph Crane are two names i came up with for earliest editors.
one can go here to see some images of manuscripts, but they also have some of shakespears original manuscript.
http://www.folger.edu/index.cfm
here is what i would guess is the truth.
shakespeare probably didnt care. he was never trying to be clever in writing, but in making things work verbally on the stage and be remembered so that lines were actually delivered. his writing is a testimony to how smart the average person is when they are not dumbed down, as much of his work was for the common man.
so i would guess that in the 1500s when they were taking his study and turning it into a print manuscript, the editors cleaned it up for print.
since then the argument has raged on because of the ambiguity of the apostrophe in it being used for two reasons, and often used when it shouldnt be.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe
(there is a special section on the plurals)
Count me as another who is completely immune to whatever it is that so mesmerizes his acolytes. I don’t even find him the least bit attractive (nor do I think Michelle is, but both their daughters are beautiful physically; I dare not think what notions fill their pretty little heads).
From the first, I aways figured I just didn’t hear his Pied Piper’s tune that seemed to enchant everyone around me.
I live in NYC, a center of Obama worship, but even I have lately noticed some surprising comments. I generally keep my mouth shut when out in public, for obvious reasons, but every so often my frustration/fear/revulsion spills over and I find myself muttering under my breath. It’s amazing how keen some people’s hearing is, and more than once, I’ve been surprised to find someone confirming my thoughts, and even expanding upon them. Who would’ve thunk it?
One friend of mine was not only seriously crushing on Obama during election season, but believed with every fiber of her being that his election would solve all ills, both here and abroad. She took the day off from work on the day after the elections and had a giant party just for herself, her young daughter, and a couple of friends who also worked at jobs where they COULD take a day off for something like this, because she said it was the happiest day of her life. Which, as a mom myself, I have to say must have been overstating the case. Right?
But anyway, funnily enough, though I see her all the time, she doesn’t actually talk about him any more. It could be that she’s finally sussed out my politics and is being “sensitive” to my feelings, though there’s significant projection there – I don’t get offended by others’ choices, but she does, I think – or else she’s less enamored of him now that he’s changed his address.
I work in an office where EVERYone supported Obama, often loudly and in messianic terms. NONE of them talk about him now.
Labour lost Wales?!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/06/08/labour-sink-to-shock-defeat-91466-23813564/
Scottish National Party beat Labour?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5475428/European-elections-2009-SNP-beats-Labour-into-second-in-Scotland.html
Unfortunately, as describe by Scottish friends while I was in Scotland: “Th’ SNP? Near enough to communists, ye ken….”
Labour is not far enough left for Scotland. SNP believes in secession from the UK and taxing themselves into prosperity.
They aren’t actually communist, they are tribalists–advocating “sharing the Scottish wealth” among the Scottish only and nationalizing Scottish industries (especially oil production) once they seceed.
Actually, I guess that would make them National Socialists….
I work in an office where EVERYone supported Obama, often loudly and in messianic terms. NONE of them talk about him now.
I’ve had a couple of previously Obama-mad supporters denounce him. I know a few more who won’t talk about him and get sheepish when I call them on it.
They say: “Well I felt like he would be good for America and I wanted a change, but not this. I didn’t think he would do this….”
I rejoin: “No one knows what happens next. We’ve never f’ed up this bad.”
(Yeah, I know it should be “badly”, but saying “badly” loses the impact when spoken.)
I know I couldn’t stand Clinton, and I can’t stand Obama for similar reasons– they come across as too slick; they remind me of a guy I dated until I realized words had no value to him– they were just tools to get into someone’s pants.
They “felt” like they were trying to project that they agreed totally with whatever their audience thought. Shoot, I don’t even agree with my HUSBAND on everything….
With Bush, for Zel Miller’s speeches I’ve seen, shoot even in general life… I trust the folks who are a bit less slickly general in their sincerity, who I can read as believing something deeply and, though they don’t want to offend you, they hope you can work with them– and maybe be swayed to what they believe.
Another way in which Britain differs from the US is they don’t have a conservative party, the Tories have been trying to become Labour Lite. Although I sometimes wonder if the US has still has a conservative party either.
Hussein Obama, with his hoisted chin, has always struck me as an oily con-man. Watch his eyes when he listens to people–there’s calculation, not warmth, in those pupils.
Besides which, he’s a first-class dick.
And a ruthless one! just look at what he did to all his political opponents, if you want to know this man’s true nature.
And Shakespeare, the Divine Willy, always meant all the meanings — at once — that could be construed from any of his lines. Always working on several levels. Playing with it.
But shouldn’t it be, for you Americans, `Labour’s labors lost’?
re: apostrophe
A swatted mosquito?
R.B. Glennie: American’s would ordinarily leave out the “u” in labor. I left it in the second “labor” in the title to better resemble the play’s title.
In the first place there does not seem to have been an apostrophe there. So it becomes a fairly simple phrase: loves labours lost. It is true that punctuation and spelling was more fluid in the sixteenth century but I would not call the mid-1590s when the play was written the 1500s. There is almost a century between the two, a century when the English language developed rapidly.
On the subject of the European elections, don’t get carried away. It actually does not matter who is in the European Parliament. These are merely indications to the existing parties. And let us not forget that for all their swaggering, the Conservatives did not do as well as they should have done. The fault is not in their stars but in themselves. 😉