2blowhards.com: Lemmonex

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« Video Everywhere | Main | A Marathon Writer I Ain't »

May 11, 2008

Lemmonex

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Lemmonex takes her tax refund and invests it wisely.

A nice bit from Lemmonex's self-description:

"I have become increasingly ambivalent regarding politics; it is all a lie and they are all the same. Really. DC has embittered me further. Save yourself some trouble, pick one or two issues that are really important to you and just vote along those lines."

As far as I'm concerned, with that passage Lemmonex has shown herself to be a more profound and useful political thinker than anyone at The New Republic or National Review. How lovely that she's also a cheekily sweet and amusing blogger with her own earthy, frank, and insolent-yet-vulnerable tone. Knock on her door and you'll find a full-fledged person at home.

I ran into Lemmonex over at Roissy's.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at May 11, 2008

Comments

You made me blush--an almost impossible feat.

Posted by: Lemmonex on May 11, 2008 1:38 PM

I must say that I disagree with the idea of voting based on one or two issues. That kind of narrow thinking only makes things worse. I can think of some pretty reprehensible people who have similiar views to mine on certain issues. If that person is the only one on the ballot who has those views, should I vote for him even if he would otherwise be an embarrassment as an elected official?

Posted by: mikesdak on May 11, 2008 1:55 PM

"should I vote for him even if he would otherwise be an embarrassment as an elected official?" Surely you mean "her"?

Posted by: dearieme on May 11, 2008 2:05 PM

mikesdak: I agree to a certain extent and of course you make a good arguement re: electing potential embarassments. This being said, politics is about pandering and pleasing the masses. Do you really think you can find an elected official who will match with you on every issue? And even if they do match up on most things, a large amount what they say is canned spin. For me, I choose two things that matter to me, non negotiables (gay rights and choice) and a candidate must support these things in order for me to vote for them. After that, I can franklly overlook a lot. But would I vote for a pro-choice gay loving asshole who clubs baby seals and molests children? Of course not.

Posted by: Lemmonex on May 11, 2008 3:21 PM

You know, I wonder how long it would take for this little ball of love fuzz to dissolve into a pit of acid if the competition for money ever came up? As long as money is not an issue, things are fine. If scarce resources suddenly demand attention, "feelings" will quickly take a backseat to necessity. One of the main reasons for men and women to form sexual partnerships is for economic efficiency. One man and three or more women requires LOTS of resources. Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but this guy doesn't impress me as being loaded (at least with money). Have fun while your rouse works, pal.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on May 11, 2008 3:24 PM

I agree to some extent with Lemmonex about one or two important issues, but I use it the other way, as a deal breaker. For example, I don't care how good a candidate may be on tax cuts or tort reform, if he/she is wrong on immigration, it's a deal breaker. Why, you may ask? It's not immigration per se, it's immigration with our current quotas and policies, which guarantee that somewhere between 80-90% of our immigrants are poor, badly educated, and have no little or ability to do anything but menial work.

So you have a guy like Sen. McCain, who talks a good game when it comes to taxes, but wants to inflate the client pool of the welfare state through amnesty and loose immigration policy. I can't vote for a guy like that for the simple reason that he obviously doesn't have any ability to connect the dots and forsee the consequences of his actions. What else will he fail to think through?

Posted by: c.o. jones on May 11, 2008 4:23 PM

I can't agree with voting on one or two issues. I have met many people like that who vote on just, say, Abortion, uh, I mean, Life, no CHOICE and they can't seem to have an intelligent conversation about that very topic.

Personally, with how good they have all gotten at things like canned speeches and spin, well, I can not vote for a major party candidate. I really feel that you are just feeding the beast.

McGovern, whatever you thought of him, was offering a genuine choice. Reagan, again, whatever you thought of him, was offering a genuine choice.

Romney would not come out and say that he is basically a Libertarian. McCain will not say he is against lowering spending. Hillary will not come out and..., well, you get the idea.

So, back to my original point, I would love to hear someone like Lemmonex talk, at length, about the horrors of Partial Birth Abortion.

Or, say, someone like a McCain supporter talk about how bad the Iraq War has been.

But, that's just me.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on May 11, 2008 4:37 PM

Ah, Lemmonex, one of two female bloggers I read regularly (the other being Alias Clio, who is also half-Polish / half-French, has had run-ins with all manner of bad boys, and likes Jane Austen... hmmm). She's very girly but also has a realist's tough-minded eye for social dynamics -- a very rare combination.

I was hooked when she related a story about a women's studies course where she saw one of the key factors of female oppression unfold among her classmates: females tearing each other apart. Funny how that gets left out of the curriculum!

She remembers almost all of her adolescence, and still refers to males as "boys," but she never comes across as desperately trying to re-live her youth like many of her peers. Ironically, this makes her appear much more youthful than them, since a vulnerable core is a hallmark of youth, whereas launching an aggressive campaign to convince the world that you "still got it" smacks of way-past-their-prime middle age.

Posted by: agnostic on May 11, 2008 5:16 PM

Dearie me: Touche...I stand corrected.

Ian: I am backing away after this, but I actually can talk about the "horrors" of partial birth/dialation and extraction/late term...whatever you choose to call it depending on your agenda. I see both sides, I have weighed the options, and I know where I stand. Thankfully, I am no longer a self-righous college student and feel no need to get combative over such topics; I live by my moral code, and you can live by yours. We can happily co-exist in this world.

Posted by: Lemmonex on May 11, 2008 5:18 PM

I think Michael's last linking to 'rina' supercharged traffic to her site, so now it's only open to invited readers. At least that's what I think happened. Some bloggers just want to stay small Mr Blowhard!

Posted by: simon on May 11, 2008 6:16 PM

Not to turn this into a pro/anti abortion thread, but I never understood the passion pro.

I mean, with reliable birth-control, providions for cases of rape or mother's health, the fact that even with Roe v Wade repealed each state still makes its own abortion laws.... why do the pro-choice people care so much?

I'm vaguely on the so-called "Choice" side, but would be happy to have the mindset of someone who makes Abortion policy the most important issue in politics.

Posted by: PA on May 11, 2008 8:08 PM

since a vulnerable core is a hallmark of youth, whereas launching an aggressive campaign to convince the world that you "still got it" smacks of way-past-their-prime middle age.

agnostic: You might consider taking your own advice!

Posted by: gk on May 11, 2008 9:45 PM

Ha, yet another example of this confusion. When I report things on the internet, that is because the internet does not know me in any way, and I occasionally need to inform it what I am like for the purposes of the post.

Do you really think I tell anyone in real life what a weekend I had, in specific detail? No, because they can tell. In real life, things speak for themselves.

Some people refuse to believe that blogging really is just a hobby to fill downtime in the blogger's day. No one gives a shit about their internet following.

Posted by: agnostic on May 11, 2008 11:49 PM

I'm going to hazard a guess that the unfortunate Rina found that Michael 2B's link brought her a flood of some of the more unpleasant kind of male commentary. A woman who writes online about provocative subjects always runs this risk; the more so if she's young and pretty. That's one reason why I take care to emphasize my creeping crone-ness in my blog, and when I post on Roissy's site. I can't swear that's why my commenters mostly behave themselves, but at any rate it seems to work.

I like Lemmonex's blog very much, though I have to ration my reading of it because it always makes me hungry. Other than the coincidence of our ethnic backgrounds, though, our blogs are quite different, so it seems odd that Agnostic finds a common thread of some sort between us - if that indeed is what he means. And, of course, our politics are quite different too, as I take precisely the opposite stand on the two issues she names.

Posted by: alias clio on May 12, 2008 8:28 AM

We can happily co-exist in this world.

I wish that were true, but, when your politician wins the elections and takes away my Raw Milk, well, then, we can't happily co-exist. (Canada, for instance, has Raw Milk banned everywhere. People who are lucky enough to live near an American state that does have it, can cross over and still get it.)

I could give examples that involve Abortion, or Teachers Unions.

A Missouri teachers union started up to represent teachers without all of this political garbage that you get with the NEA (and AFT). Well, just two years after their start-up, and drastic rise, the NEA worked to BAN them from negotiations. The result: that new union HAD to get political.

Lemmonex, I hope this does not come as some sort of attack on you. Actually, I basically do what you do...I vote on one or two issues, locally at least.

But, it is ultimately futile. And, all of this must make me sound like some aweful pessimest, but, I am actually very optimistic about America's future. But, that is a rant for another day.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on May 12, 2008 9:56 AM

The thing is, suddenly there seem to be so many "big issues." I mean, 10 years ago I had no idea that I'd have to worry about the U.S. starting up a network of extra-legal prisons where people disappear for years on end and are tortured until they go insane. Or that one of the major political parties would be openly in favor of that.

Posted by: Steve on May 12, 2008 12:58 PM

The fact that she still votes at all indicates to me that she stil has a ways to go.

Posted by: TGGP on May 14, 2008 12:56 PM

TGGP -- I'm with you on that. But she's young yet, and at least she's graduated past the "I'm looking for a candidate I can believe in" stage. Plus she's an irreverent and very amusing writer and personality. That package makes her lots more appealing than many pro writers. Credit where credit's due.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 14, 2008 2:48 PM