Unfortunately right now our culture seems interested in finding out whatever we can, instead of using discretion about what’s relevant and what’s not, and instead of thinking about whether the enormous pain we are about to inflict on the individuals involved (including innocent family members) is really worth it. Politicians are not the Kardashians. Their claim to fame isn’t who they are, but what they do.

Writes Katria Trinko at NRO.


Thanks to Daughter C, we have experiencing a “Bourbon Crisis” here at the Farm. Miss M has declared a BYOBYFB state. BYOBYFB is rather G.M.O.Y.A.


Despite The Bourbon Crisis, I think I’m capable of reading Katria’s post. And I have a few questions.

1. Should be, “Unfortunately,”

2. That’s a really bad sentence.

3. I do believe the Kardashians claim to fame is who they are. But I don’t know. 

4. “Their claim to fame isn’t who they are, but what they do.” Who is “they?” The Kards or politicians? 

5. Isn’t what you do in one-to-one correspondence with who you are?

4 Responses

  1. I told my husband that I’d give them about 5 years, but divorce would be in the cards. He thinks I’m nuts. Nice to know the thought has occurred to others – and maybe I’m _not_ nuts! Then the question is…why? why the divorce, and why are there those of us who think it’s coming? And I can’t answer that. For two reasons:
    first, I can’t say what there is that makes me think it in the first place, though I think it has something to do with body language and the personalities they’ve shown, and second: I’m not sure what benefit either of them gets from divorce. Separation that is effectively a divorce, yes. But legal divorce??? messy, property devouring, reputation destroying, and probably a limiting factor on the speech circuit money making. Not smart, in other words. And though I strongly dislike their politics, I wouldn’t accuse either of them of being “not smart”.

    However…reading the link made the quoted paragraph more comprehensible. I think what she’s saying is that the Kardashian’s fame is based on their personal lives, personalities and personal actions. A politician’s fame is theoretically based on what they _do_ professionally – not on their personal lives. Although it is undoubtedly true that some factors of their personal lives give us a clue to their characters – and character _is_ relevant to their professional lives. imo.

    And I can’t decipher your acronyms beyond BYOB…!

  2. The acronyms are close friend/family jokes. And you got that one right. Daughter C needs to BYOB.

    From all appearances, I do not think they are a happy couple– in the sense of being their age, in their positions, liking each other, and so forth. Here’s what I think. I think she is very unhappy with he, and he knows it. That’s why she keeps trying to build him up (to who she wants him to be) and he keeps eating burgers & fries and imploring the media not to “tell” on him (because he knows he’s not what she wanted/expected). It was one thing to carry on this charade in Chicago, but now she finds herself on the biggest stage ever, and she’s disappointed. He’s a wimp.

    Regarding the cited post: See point #5. Agree. Character is relevant.

  3. Never a good plan to marry someone with “potential” with the expectation of “making” him or her into the ideal mate. Which also makes me wonder about those who can’t understand that Obama _doesn’t_ love America. If you want to “transform” the loved object, you don’t love it. You want it to fit some ideal you have in mind and the object is just raw material.

    It doesn’t work with children either – and you have more influence there than almost anywhere.

Comments are closed.