http://goldsilver.com/crash_co.....e5ab3edcce

Batman is a figure of revenge, an ordinary man outwardly who terrifies villains in secret. That’s revenge. With an explicit moral code.

Women don’t get revenge, not in the male way. Revenge movies never do well with them. While guys get it very well. I suspect the fact that so little in the way of revenge-themed movies has been offered that even Nolan’s poorly executed revenge movie did well.

As for Obama, should disaster strike, he must satisfy men’s desire for revenge (if not the least of which is preventing a future attack). Women always say revenge never works because for them it does not but for men it does. Women’s power lies in beauty, and compassion, so revenge is irrelevant. Men’s power lies in status, and social standing, so revenge is critical not the least of which is upending an enemy and claiming his place.

Men HATE the Byronic Hero. Now women will always stick with that, particularly single women, but men hate that guy and assuaging Male jealousy is a huge task for any leader. Obama can’t do it, and is likely to lose men in all directions as soon as he has to make decisions.

For example, he can save Detroit and keep those guys working, or go Green and make status-happy single Women happy about saving the Polar Bears. He cannot do both. So either way he’s going to lose something, and his positioning himself as a Byronic Hero or the Return of JFK means someone is going to lose and become his enemy. Period.

Also, circumstances like nuclear proliferation are going to push him hard. He will look monumnentally stupid for saying he wants to kill defense projects and unilaterally disarm with nukes as a good example (women love this) after a city is nuked by a terrorist group “borrowing” one from Pakistan or Iran. His political opponents will play and replay those words and make him look weak and the “woman’s” candidate which he already is sort-of.

Quick how many guys like Justin Timberlake and Leonardo DiCaprio?

Any guy that plays Lord Byron too much makes himself dangerous male enemies. Obama will make them in spades. And no matter how much Katie Couric and the View love him, he has to produce bonafide results to lots of blue collar guys or he is gone.

If you want real world examples, contrast Russia with, say, Finland over 1917-1990. Contrast Hong Kong with China over 1949-1976. Contrast Singapore with Indonesia since 1959. Contrast Chile with Argentina since 1985. Contrast East and West Germany. Contrast Estonia with Belarus since 1991.

People tend to think about economic matters in terms of fairly splitting up the pie. Once you take growth into account, the size of the pie matters far more. Just compare England in 2008 with England in 1808. The poorest 10% could have their wealth and incomes doubled or halved and it would be a trivial difference compared to the overall growth in that period.

Anyway, if you want to read a good conservative economics book defending supply side economics and showing them to work, try Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics to start off with.

I really want some conservative fiscal policy titles, especially ones tht have real life examples where everybody (who actually worked) benefitted from it.

You’re totally correct that Obama didn’t deal with people in terms of ideas and concepts. I’d say that he engaged people’s emotions and especially their sense of tribalness or groupness. If you think about it, engaging that emotion is one of the services that a head of state provides. McCain (and Hillary) totally fail to provide that emotion that people want to get from their leaders. Hillary came across as someone who desperately wanted to be the president. McCain came across as the geeky kid running for class president who doesn’t realize he has no chance. Obama came across as a baptist preacher whipping his congregation up into a religious frenzy. He did NOT come across as a war leader firing “us” up to defeat “them”. He was all “we”.

From Obama’s stump speech with cynical additions for contrast:

That?s the future within our reach. That?s what hope is ? that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner, my inauguration. But only if we?re willing to work for it and fight for it, and vote for me, and give me money. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism and vote for me. To glory in the task before us of voting for me and of remaking this country into a country with me as its president, block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.

There is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, by voting for me, this spirit must break through to my inauguration.

This is the moment.

This is the moment, to vote for me.

This is our time.

This is my time to be president.

And if you will stand with me in seven days ? if you will stand for change, changing me from senator to president, so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you?ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice (Sorry, I’m at a loss here.); if you?re ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept: McCain, and finally reach for what you know is possible: me, president, then I will win this caucus, I will win this election, we will change the course of history, I will be president, and the real journey ? to heal a nation and repair the world and put up with me for eight years ? will have truly begun.