Plains Plutarch

On February 7, 2012, in Barack Obama, by WhittleseyObyrne184

Mari Sandoz’s struggles as a writer were a metaphor for the landscape of her origin, the Great Plains. A wind-whistled place, home to drought, blizzards, tornados, and plagues of grasshoppers, its very hardness has branded it America’s most provincial and uninteresting region. From this unforgiving milieu she fashioned eighteen books with the tenacity of a homesteader harnessed to a plow. Maybe her career would have been easier if — like her celebrated contemporary Willa Cather — she had not waited until later in her life to leave. Born in Hays Spring, Nebraska in the Sandhills in 1896 to Swiss immigrants Jules and Mary Fehr Sandoz, Mari Susette Sandoz was the eldest of six children. Her father Jules Sandoz was a rancher who believed that children should not only work, but know hard labor. Mari as a child performed ranch work under harsh conditions. She once went snowblind after digging a number of floundering cattle out of a huge snowdrift. Jules also discouraged his daughter’s precocious reading and writing. He was the first obstacle that she would surmount. Another was a failed marriage when at 18 she wed a neighboring rancher named Wray Macumber, a man identical to her father in temperament. Sandoz’s success with her later historically oriented books can ironically be partially credited to her father. “Old Jules” knew many hard-bitten men who had connections to the old pre-agricultural life on the plains: grizzled trappers and buffalo hunters, and veterans of the Indian wars. Many an evening in Mari’s youth saw the family host at their table one or more of these characters with their interesting stories to tell, and she seems to have absorbed every detail — historical and otherwise — in these “silent hours of listening behind the stove or the wood box, when it was assumed, of course, that I was asleep in bed.” Abandoning her marriage, and despite lacking a high school diploma, Sandoz managed to enter the University of Nebraska in Lincoln in 1922, thanks to the help of a kindly administrator. But her struggles as a writer were just beginning. Later in life she claimed to have collected a thousand rejection slips for submitted short stories. This is likely an exaggeration, and may include work in a variety of forms: essays, journalism, etc. In 1934 she took a job as the associate editor of Nebraska History magazine, the publication of the Nebraska State Historical Society. Sandoz was nearly 40 when she published Old Jules (1935), the story of her immigrant father’s struggle to build his Nebraska ranch. Her big breakthrough came in 1942 with Crazy Horse: Strange Man of the Oglalas , a biography of the legendary Sioux chief based on an unconventional research modus operandi where, as she wrote, “I have used the simplest words possible hoping… to say some of the things of the Indian for which there are no white-man words, [and to] suggest something of his innate nature.” During her career she also published six forgettable novels such as Slogum House (1937) and Capital City (1939), books that disappeared without much notice, though the latter was an excoriation of life in Lincoln that earned her so much local opprobrium that she moved to Denver to escape it. Sandoz could write competent but bland fiction, while excelling at nonfiction. It seems this apprenticeship in imaginative mediocrity forged a style suited to serve her true calling, the writing of history and memoir related to the Great Plains. For instance, the Crazy Horse biography demonstrated that Sandoz could vividly describe events from the native point of view. Another book in this vein was The Battle of the Little Bighorn (1966), her take on one of America’s noteworthy military disasters, and controversial with Custer scholars at the time because she refused to contribute to then-fashionable George Armstrong Custer hagiography. She is especially admired for an historical trilogy: The Buffalo Hunters (1954), The Cattlemen (1958), and The Beaver Men (1964) — books covering a century of Plains history and promoting the idea that until the arrival of dryland wheat farmers late in the 19th century, the region’s economic worth was produced almost exclusively by the flesh and fur of animals. There were few trees to cut on the sea of grass, and though gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874, oil and gas development wouldn’t proceed until the 20th century. The Great Plains only reluctantly bestows its riches. The author’s most successful book was Cheyenne Autumn (1953), a Book-of-the-Month Club selection and story of an 1878 breakout of 300 Northern Cheyennes from an “Indian Territory” (Oklahoma) reservation as they strove to return to their ancestral homeland on the Yellowstone River in present Montana. The book reads like a novel with its brisk action and treatment of the historical dramatis personae such as Chief Dull Knife and Generals George Crook and Nelson Miles. The Indians (with women and children in tow) run and fight their way north for fifteen hundred miles in a futile quest that cost many lives and ultimately sent the fugitives back to the reservation. In the book’s preface she wrote that this was a period “that turned a free hunting people into sullen agency sitters.” It inspired the 1964 film starring Richard Widmark and James Stewart, and directed by John Ford, the latter’s last western. Sandoz hated the movie because — typical of Hollywood meddling with historical realism — Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were added to the plot, two historical characters who had nothing to do with the Cheyenne odyssey. It was her last disappointment. Sandoz died (1966) of cancer not long after the film’s release. A life of stamina and determination with a sharp, metaphorical prairie wind in her face was over. But the Plutarch of the Plains left behind a great American legacy.

Original post:
Plains Plutarch

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

Stanford Professor’s New Book: ‘Is Marriage For White People?’

View post:
Stanford Professor’s New Book: ‘Is Marriage For White People?’

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress
Tagged with:
 

John King’s Big Favor

On January 20, 2012, in Barack Obama, by Onoshobishobi

[Posted by Karl] He did everyone a favor, but especially Newt Gingrich : Mr. Gingrich delighted much of the audience at the debate with his attack on the moderator, John King, of CNN, who began the proceeding by asking the former House speaker about his ex-wife’s allegations that Mr. Gingrich asked “to enter into an open marriage.” Mr. Gingrich met the question with cold anger, winning roars of approval from the debate audience as he said through nearly clenched teeth, “I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.” But he ultimately said of his ex-wife Marianne’s allegations, reported first on Thursday by ABC News, “The story is false.” Given the conventional reaction, GOP fundraiser/consultant (and Newt fan) Nathan Wurtzel nailed it: “Clearly, most of the political press I follow never heard the line ‘Never get mad except on purpose.’ “  Or as Jonah Goldberg noted: Newt’s opening answer was very strong and will be replayed a lot. But I thought it was overstated and, as he kept going, it became clear he was trying to squelch the issue rather than express his true rage. When he was all lovey-dovey with John King after the debate, it underscored that it was as much performance as anything else. Completing the trifecta is John Podhoretz (a Mitt Romney fan, afaik): “I find it astonishing that people are falling for his being outraged at being asked about his character.” Newt’s ample personal baggage is one of the generally-known things about him — probably as much as they know about his Speakership .  Like the issues raised about Mitt Romney — Bain, the tax returns, etc. — the marriage issue is not going away , so Republicans (and ultimately all of us) are better served discussing it sooner rather than having regrets later.  So thank John King; it’s a pretty good bet Newt did. –Karl

See the article here:
John King’s Big Favor

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Santorum Won, Solidly

On January 20, 2012, in Barack Obama, by TrevorLandon

Tonight was by far Rick Santorum’s best debate. He dominated the proceedings. He still has a big problem with saving his best line for last, sometimes after mind-numbing stats or details that come BEFORE his main point rather than to illustrate a point he already has made. But he was on target all night, and drew blood from the others on a number of occasions. Newt Gingrich’s best moment was at the beginning. He absolutely blew away John King’s question about his marriage. After that, Newt was Newt. It was hardly his best performance, not by any means, but he was mostly effective throughout. Ron Paul is losing his effectiveness. He is now rambling all over the place. He’s fading. Mitt Romney had an excellent night for most of the two hours. But he did an absolutely horrible, memorably horrible, job dealing with a question EVERYBODY knew was coming, which was his whether he would release his tax returns. It REALLY detracted from his otherwise very good performance. It made him a net loser in the debate — EXCEPT that I don’t think most voters really care about his tax returns. So I’m just correcting what

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress

Santorum Doesn’t Pander

On January 10, 2012, in Barack Obama, by Markisacopyrightthief

Rick Santorum’s round of verbal fisticuffs Thursday with college students in New Hampshire again proves that he won’t shift his socially conservative views to match the state he’s running in. That mark of virtue will cost him votes Tuesday. It’s no surprise that Santorum has faced a barrage of criticism in the Granite State for his support for traditional marriage. New Hampshire is one of three states that have legalized same-sex marriage by legislative vote rather than judicial intervention. The Republican primary electorate’s libertarian instincts is significantly different from that of Iowa and South Carolina, where evangelical Christians carry more clout. Even so, Santorum didn’t hold any punches last week when he engaged in a back-and-forth with students over same-sex marriage and polygamy. His adversaries in the crowd contended that Americans’ right to pursue happiness means that government must recognize same-sex unions. Santorum took that line of reasoning a step further: If happiness is the basis of state-recognized marriage, what’s the practical difference between homosexual marriage and polygamy? It’s a legitimate point that gets to a core issue of the marriage debate: What constitutes marriage from a societal standpoint? Supporters of traditional marriage often point to factors beyond love, such as procreation. Love is obviously a critical part of any good marriage, but from a societal standpoint, it’s secondary. One of the primary reasons for the state to recognize marriages in the first place is that heterosexual marriage produces children. Even in situations where a couple can’t procreate — or choose to not do so — the biological mechanics are there for the perpetuation of the human race. Because supporters of same-sex marriage can’t make that same claim, they resort to basing the core fundamental of marriage on love. Fine. But what if a polygamist loves his partners? What if he is in a committed, long-term relationship with them? If homosexuals’ right to pursue happiness is infringed by government’s refusal to recognize their unions, then polygamists’ right to happiness also is abridged. The trouble for liberals is that the idea of polygamy gives them pause. They feel comfortable with same-sex marriage, but polygamy is a bridge too far. That could very well change in a few decades. Years ago, the idea of same-sex marriage was foreign even to many on the left. For now, though, they don’t like the concept, or at least don’t like the political unpopularity of it. The frustration over Santorum’s point — and the frustration was obvious, as the college student struggled to answer — doesn’t change its legitimacy: If legal recognition for same-sex relationships is required, the same standard must apply to polygamy in order to maintain a coherent line of reasoning. That said, it’s a nuanced point that most people won’t take the time to understand. And leftists’ narrative — denouncing Santorum for comparing homosexuals to polygamists — obviously will play better with the media, and with many voters in New Hampshire. Despite his socially conservative views, a CBS News Poll puts Santorum in the top-three tier of candidates, a few percentage points behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Santorum’s current standing of 14 percent is a huge jump since mid-September, when he polled at only 1 percent. The RealClearPolitics polling average puts Santorum in second place, though barely. Romney will win New Hampshire, but second and third place showings Tuesday will go a long way in deciding whether Santorum will be the Mike Huckabee of 2012 — a socially conservative Republican who surprises in Iowa, then fades in New Hampshire and South Carolina — or a different force altogether. Regardless of the results, it’s refreshing to see a national Republican candidate stick to his guns on positions he cares deeply about, even if they aren’t as popular with primary voters in New England.

Original post:
Santorum Doesn’t Pander

Find or Create Hilarious Merchandise at CafePress