Some Recent Columns of Note:

This isn't a general editorial page, of course, but there's been some recent columns running in our local newspaper that have brought up some interesting points somewhat worth looking at.

For instance, there's Cal Thomas' Sex and the city (of Washington).

This ran in our local paper on Saturday, November 24, and it raises some interesting questions about double standards and changing standards in the context of the Petreaus resignation.  I mentioned some of these exact same items here myself a bit earlier in my The Novelty of the Normal, and the Banalty of the Unusual... a writing dilemma, post, those being that there's a real double standard in what used to apply and what currently doesn't apply to most people, and is even lampooned in the popular media, but which is supposed to apply to high governmental officials.  It's a real oddity, and Thomas does a nice job summing it up.

Speaking of Petreaus, Froma Harrop mentions something that is apparent to any student of American history, on her blog, that being that our current crop of military men sure wear a lot of fruit salad.  She's unfair in her criticism of Patton, however, who normally didn't wear all of his decorations and who actually, contrary to widespread assumption, stuck pretty strictly to uniform regulations, all in all.

 

General Patton.  His modified B-3 aviators' jacket would have actually fit within the uniform standards of the time for a high ranking officer.

 

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, who actually oddly departed from the official uniform in the form of pleated trousers and the "egg salad" on this hat, which, however, may have been appropriate for his other rank of Field Marshall of the Philippine Army.

Speaking of Harrop, an interesting article hers is to be found in her recent article The Curious Item of Mitt's Gift List.  I like Harrop's observation's as a rule, and find that she doesn't really fit into the conservative or liberal camp, even though she protests that she's a liberal from time to time. But I think she's way off the mark here.  Her thesis is that statistics demonstrating that there's a flurry of new entrepreneurial endeavors by people when they hit age 65 supports an assumption that extending the ability to list children on parent's health care up to age 25 will result in the same.  The reason, she claims, is that people in their 40s and 50s are working for health insurance benefits.

No doubt, in some cases they are, but I've known people much younger than that who did the same. And is that so much the reason that people take one job or another that they continue to work at any one particular job?  I doubt it.  That is, I doubt that this will mean that people will suddenly be freed up to start new businesses because they no longer have to be concerned about their 20 something kid's health care.  Its the sort of simplistic view of the economy and everything in it that leads people to so many simple, erroneous, assumptions about it, and in turn leads to unreasonable political expectations.

George F. Will's article from just before Thanksgiving was one of his recent bests, although I don't like the irreverent title.  The article does a good job of pointing out some recent absurdities with some pretty acid wit, sweetened by an accurate concluding observation.