www.downingworld.com
archives: October, 2005
The Popular Kids
Polls
indicate that Democrat challenger Chris Coleman is likely to defeat incumbent
Democrat St. Paul mayor Randy Kelly in the election Nov. 8. (The mayoral
race is non-partisan, that is, no party designation appears on the ballot,
and the top two finishers in the primary advance.) St. Paul Democrats (who
did not endorse Kelly four years ago, either) are mad at Kelly for supporting
President Bush last fall.
I don't know how having a mayor with a good relationship with the President of the United States could be anything but good for a city, but most St. Paul Democrats don't seem to see the value in that.
Today, the St. Paul Pioneer Press front page carries a story headlined "Artists on the fence as St. Paul mayor vote nears. Many like Kelly, but Bush ties plague him." The story begins:
Photographer Ann Marsden says Randy Kelly has made a huge contribution to the arts in St. Paul during his first term as mayor. She thinks he was smart to make improving the city's cultural landscape one of the top priorities of his administration. She says Kelly "has done some great things and is very well respected in the arts community."
But when she heads to her polling place in the Mounds Park neighborhood, she won't vote for him.
Marsden, like most of the artists who live and work in the capital city, is faced with a dilemma. Kelly's list of arts accomplishments over the past four years is deep and varied - from spearheading the creation of an arts high school downtown to helping stabilize the Ordway Center for the Performing Arts to supporting the creation of a number of new performance venues throughout the city.
But artists, who generally lean to the left of center politically, are weighing that steadfast support against what many consider to be an unpardonable sin: The Democratic mayor endorsed Republican George W. Bush in the last presidential election.
This is nuts. The best word to describe it is "childish." This is childish behavior by St. Paul Democrats. They say Kelly does a good job, but they can't vote for him because of who his friend is!
It's just like a bunch of junior high kids who refuse to vote for the best-qualified kid for class officer, just because he's friendly with the nerdy (black, Jewish, gay) kid no one else wants to play with!
It's childish!
And narrow-minded. And here I thought artistic types prided themselves on being open-minded, tolerant, and free thinkers.
Stem Cells and
Ham?
Now,
we all know that a legitimate, big-time reporter for a legitimate, big-time
newspaper such as the Washington Post would never inject any bias
into a story. So how do we explain Rick Weiss' choice of words in a story about a new development in stem cell research?
Until now, however, the only way to get these cells was to destroy young embryos -- which, though smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, are deemed by some people as "the youngest members of the human family" and deserving of human rights.
"Though smaller than...," "some people," the quotes, I think we get the point.
Remember, upon this nation's founding and for the next 90 years, people were considered less than human and not deserving of human rights just because their skin was darker than the period at the end of this sentence. Now we look back on that, click our tongues, and say how terribly unenlightened our forefathers were.
I'm reminded of the words of Horton the elephant, in the Dr. Seuss classic "Horton Hears a Who." Horton discovers an entire world existing on a speck of dust, and protects it from harm, because "A person's a person no matter how small."
But not if you're an unborn person, apparently.
I wonder what Dr. Seuss had to say about abortion? It would be tragically ironic if the author of "Horton" was a pro-abortionist.
(I Googled "Dr. Seuss + abortion" and found that others have discussed this. A pro-life group has been sued by the Seuss estate for using "A person's a person..." in their materials, and some liberal Dr. Seuss fans are trying to explain this away because they have lionized the late Dr. for his other liberal views. Some serious cognitive dissonance going on. Meanwhile, Dr. Seuss' widow is said to have hosted a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. Hmmmm, very interesting.)
Is It Worth 2,000
Lives?
How
many more must die? Is it worth more than 2,000 dead just to maintain our
love affair with the automobile? Is our car culture worth 330,000 injured?
Are our cars our castles? Will we pay any price to keep our automobiles
sacred?
I refer, of course, to people using cell phones while driving.
According to a story by Damien Cave in the New York Times, a 2002 Harvard study estimates that drivers using cell phones cause 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in this country EVERY YEAR, while transacting such important business as speculating on who's sleeping with whom on "Desperate Housewives," or finalizing their draft picks for the fantasy football league.
Meanwhile, 2,000 brave troops die over a period of more than two-and-a-half years, while deposing a genocidal despot, bringing freedom to people who have never before known it, and battling an international terrorist network that vows to kill us all, and we hear "It's not worth it!"
It's a good thing Americans have their priorities straight.
Elsewhere in Cave's story on distracted drivers is this example of Things You Should Never Say to a Reporter.
Nancy Neumann, a 40-year-old mother of three, said police should not be able to penalize drivers for eating, drinking or talking to people in the back seat. "You can grab a soda without even looking, and you can swat your kids in the back seat without even looking," Neuman said.
Great, she's an expert on swatting kids without even looking. Well, look on the bright side, at least she doesn't have four kids.
Rosa Parks: "He's
Naked!"
With
the passing of Rosa Parks, the woman who had the courage to do what no one
else dared do, one question comes to mind: Why hadn't anyone else done what
she did? Why hadn't thousands of people, years earlier, refused to go to
the back of the bus?
Maybe it's a naive question. Maybe it was never that simple. But what was so special about Rosa Parks, that she could do what no one else would do? She was like the child in "The Emperor's New Clothes," the one who doesn't care what everyone else says or does, but believes her own eyes.
I think that story applies to so much in real life. In the case of Rosa Parks, we see that all it took was one voice saying "He's naked," and the facts could no longer be ignored.
Despite What You've Always Been
Told: Mass Transit Created Urban Sprawl!
Not
much time to write these days, with pumpkins season in full swing (click
on the cow pumpkin logo at the top of the web page for more info, http://www.downingpumpkins.com).
But I'll share this item, for which we could create a category called Despite
What You've Always Been Told.
We often hear that the automobile has created the suburbs and urban sprawl, with people travelling great distances to work. We are told by right-thinking "progressives" that this is a bad thing. We have been told that with modern zoning, business, industry and residential development have been separated, and this is a bad thing. We have been told that we should have "new urbanism," in which business, industry and residential development are intermixed. We have been told that we should build light rail trains and use the bus system, because public mass transportation is a good thing, and it is the key to bringing about the "progressives'" utopian vision.
I reiterate: the message is that cars are bad, and we must return to mass transit -- on rails, especially -- so we can reverse the current trend.
Well, have I got news for you.
I joined the Ramsey County Historical Society last spring, and along with that I get a publication called "Ramsey Country History." The Spring 2005 issue has a feature on the history of the streetcar system in St. Paul. Here's an excerpt from John W. Diers' article:
"The streetcar left its mark on St. Paul and Minneapolis. The Cities didn't have to be a hodgepodge of factories piled on top of shops and homes. Land use could be planned and zoned with residential neighborhoods organized near open spaces -- parks and lakes -- and industry and manufacturing near transportation -- the river or railroad lines. People could buy homes located away from commercial activities and travel to their jobs."
Do you see what I see? The streetcar -- public, mass transit on rails! -- created urban sprawl. It let people build houses outside the city proper. It let people live far from work. It let there be zoning to separate commercial and residential areas. It created the commuter culture. It brought about everything that the modern day "progressives" and "new urbanists" rail against!
The automobile didn't create urban sprawl or the suburbs; the automobile only furthered a process that was set in motion by the streetcars -- the same streetcars that today's light rail proponents so fondly point to as a symbol of their version of a modern utopia.
Men Need All the
Help They Can Get
Religion
is women's work. That's what a lot of people (men) seem to think. Writing
in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal today, Christine
Rosen writes about David Murrow's book
"Why Men Hate Going to Church," and about how women dominate the
pews and, increasingly in the so-called "mainstream" (liberal)
denominations, the pulpits.
Interestingly, men remain more involved in the Roman Catholic Church, and in conservative protestant denominations.
I was raised in the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which does not have woman ministers, and I now attend a church of The American Association of Lutheran Churches, another conservative denomination that does not ordain women.
And I have some thoughts on this.
In church, as in other aspects of society, the feminist movement worked from the mindset that if men did something, and women didn't, it wasn't fair. Women were being excluded. So women should be allowed to do the things the men were doing. The women thought the men were having all the fun, and not letting the women join in.
So, the women joined in. But a funny thing happened. Once the women started to do the "men's work," the men dropped out. They didn't have to do these things anymore, so they didn't. They just let the women take over. Let the women run the church council. Let the women be the pastors. Let the women take charge of religious matters in the household. If the men didn't have to do it, they didn't.
As it turned out, the women were rather like Tom Sawyer's victims, who paid him to paint the fence.
The truth about men is, they're a lot like children. If you want them to be helpful, you have to give them some responsibility and make them feel special. They have to feel that they are the only ones who can do something, or they'll gladly let someone else do it. If something is identified as "men's work," they'll do it. That feeds their egos. It makes them feel important.
The truth is, despite all the feminists with chips on their shoulders and suffering from inferiority complexes, men often times can't -- or won't -- compete directly with women. If women want in on the action, the men will just find something else to do. This applies to career fields and other activities beyond church. For example, roughly twenty years ago women sued for the right to join the Jaycees. They won their case. Now, from what I've seen, that organization is dominated by women. Young men who once participated because that was the thing young men did, now don't bother, because there are plenty of women willing to do it.
So, think of reserving the pulpit and certain responsibilities for men as a sort of affirmative action program, helping to keep men involved in the church, and showing the men of the congregation that faith is a manly pursuit, and not "women's work." With the way our society so often sees fathers as unnecessary, our churches don't need to send out the same message.
Your Thoughts Aren't Worth a Penny
It
bugs me when people say things that don't make any sense. Then it really
bugs me when the senseless saying catches on, and I hear it more and more.
The latest example is this, which we've been hearing a lot with the rash
of natural disasters that have struck recently:
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this disaster."
What is that supposed to mean? Your prayers go out TO the victims? What good is that going to do? If they were supernatural beings worthy of praying TO, they wouldn't be victims. You should be praying FOR the victims.
I suppose this comes about because praying isn't sophisticated enough for our modern world, so we no longer assume that everyone will pray. Instead, we give people the option of THINKING about the victims.
What good does that do? Sitting by the fire, drinking your pinot noir and THINKING about some poor hurricane victim in Mexico isn't going to do him any good. You need to DO something for him. Donate money, go be a volunteer worker, or even PRAY! All those things are DOING something that can help.
Buyer Beware!
More
Friday Fun from Downingworld.com
DNN DOWNING NEWS NETWORK
The Minnesota Vikings' on- and off-field troubles have erupted in a public dispute between new billionaire owner Zygi Wilf, and former billionaire owner Red McCombs.
Wilf says he was deceived, because while the team's image had been "cleaned up and polished" on the outside, the team was actually in terrible running condition when he bought it.
McCombs, who made his first millions as a car salesman, insists that the team was a real cream puff when he sold it to Wilf. There are no warranties and no refunds, says McCombs, adding that Wilf bought the team "as is."
While McCombs acknowledges it's not strictly true that the team was previously owned by a little old lady who only drove it on Sundays -- "there was that Christmas Eve game, but that's a church day, too, right?" -- the misunderstanding is understandable. McCombs said the confusion arose because the team had a player who only played on Sundays he felt like playing, and the rest of the time that player moved about as fast as a little old lady.
Meanwhile, Wilf has pledged to prevent the team from further embarrassing itself with what has apparently been an annual sex party, but which only came to a head when party organizers held it in a not-so-private venue. Wilf will call upon his real estate expertise, instructing the team that the first three rules of sex parties are: location, location, and location.
Is It Hypocritical
to Write a Letter to the Editor When You Can't Reason?
I
see the latest Democrat "talking points" are being circulated
among the apparatchiks. I read some letters to the editor today with the
theme that President Bush and Republicans are hypocritical (way overused
word, by the way, "inconsistent" is usually more appropriate)
because they said Democrats shouldn't block a Supreme Court nominee based
on his or her religious views, but now are talking up Harriet Miers' religious
beliefs as a plus. Michael La Fave writes:
Isn't it hypocritical for Republicans to complain about the Democrats putting a litmus test on Supreme Court nominees while Karl Rove is assuring James Dobson that Supreme Court nominee Miers is qualified because she is a born-again Christian?
No. No, it's not.
Liberals and Democrats consistently fail to understand the distinction between government and non-government. For example, if the government says a book can't be published or sold, that is censorship. But if Wal-Mart decides not to sell a book because they think it is in poor taste (or for any other reason, or no reason at all, for that matter), that is NOT censorship.
Likewise, if Senate Democrats -- as THE GOVERNMENT -- reject a Supreme Court nominee because of his or her religion, that may fall under the heading of an unconstitutional "religious test." But if the administration assures a private group of political supporters that the nominee will be to their liking, because he or she is in sync with them, that's something completely different.
Consider this, I think we can all agree that the color of someone's skin should not be a "litmus test" for a Supreme Court nominee. If a group of Senators said they would block a nominee because they didn't like the color of his or her skin, that would be wrong. But if a Democrat president were to assure the Reverend Jesse Jackson that his (or her) nominee was properly qualified because he or she was attuned to the black community and committed to civil rights, would LaFave have a gripe with that? I'm sure not. Nor would I. That would be perfectly fine, and completely expected.
Do Conservatives
"Lack the Necessities"?
Columnist
John Tierney nails it:
I am in debt to liberal scholars across America. After I wrote about the leftward tilt on campus, they sent me treatises explaining that the shortage of conservatives on faculties is not a result of bias. Professors helpfully offered other theories why conservatives do not grace the halls of academe:
1. Conservatives do not value knowledge for its own sake.
2. Conservatives do not care about the social good.
3. Conservatives are too greedy to work for professors' wages.
4. Conservatives are too dumb to get tenure.
I've studied these theories as best I could (for a conservative), but somehow I can't shake the notion that there just might be some bias on campus.
It's been 18 years since Los Angeles Dodgers executive Al Campanis was fired for saying that Blacks "lack the necessities" to be managers and general managers. But liberals now seem to be saying that conservatives "lack the necessities" to be college professors.
Tierney goes on to explain the reason that college faculties are becoming more and more imbalanced. He says the liberals have become so dominant (inbred), that they can't recognize any viewpoint other than their own.
Social scientists call it the false consensus effect: a group's conviction that its opinions are the norm. Liberals on campus have become so used to hearing their opinions reinforced that they have a hard time imagining there are intelligent people with different views, either on campus or in politics. Last year professors at Harvard and the University of California system gave $19 to Democrats for every $1 they gave to Republicans.
I think we can extend this myopic group think to the mainstream media, as well.
Do White Hoopsters
Need Affirmative Action?
The
National Basketball Association is implementing a dress code. Management
decided that millionaire players who dress like slobs and gang members were
not presenting a good image to the fan base.
Of course, we've already heard that this is "racist." Why? "Because most of the players are black," and the white guys in management are telling them they have to deny their culture and "dress like white people."
Hold on a minute. You say most of the players are black? Why is that? Are white players being discriminated against? No? It's just that the black guys have proven to be better players?
Well, if it's possible that black guys are better at playing basketball than white guys, isn't it also possible that middle-aged white guys might be better than young black guys at determining how to dress to present yourself well to the industry's customers?
If this dress code is racist, because it requires blacks to "dress like whites," then maybe the NBA is also racist against whites for requiring its players to be able to jump!
This is simply business. If players are dressing in a manner that threatens or turns off their customers, that's bad for business. If as a practical matter it means black people have to dress more "white" because most of the customers are white, so be it. It works both ways. White people catering to black customers should pick their style of dress based on their customers' expectations and comfort level, as well.
The Uncourtesy
Call
The
phone rings. I answer. A voice says, "Can I talk to (first name of
Mrs. Downing)?" I reply that she is not home and ask who is calling.
"This is a courtesy call. We'll call back later," I am told before
the caller hangs up.
It was someone who wants our money, I'm sure. But they must have no idea what "courtesy" means. Asking for someone by first name? Refusing to identify yourself when calling? Then saying you'll call back, regardless of whether we would like you to bother us again? Where's the courtesy in all that?
Brett Hull Retires
After 20 Seasons in NHL
What
does the retirement of the NHL's third-leading lifetime goal scorer has
to do with me? It's another sign that I'm not young anymore.
I attended college with Brett Hull at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. I'm not claiming he is a close personal friend of mine; in fact, I'm sure he couldn't even pick me out of a line-up as a fellow Bulldog. But our tenures overlapped, and it wasn't such a big school, at least back then. Plus, I know someone who does know him well, so I've heard news of what he's been up to off the ice over the years.
Hull was a freshman scoring sensation on the Bulldog team that went to the Final Four in 1985, my senior year. Many players from that team and the Final Four team of the previous year went on to play in the NHL. Hull was the last one left active. Now he has retired, too. I'm old.
Hockey fans may take interest in an observation I made many years after college. While the goal scorers get all the attention, Hull was the only UMD forward of that era to achieve real NHL success. Even Hobey Baker winner Bill Watson didn't have much success in the NHL. Meanwhile, four defensemen from those teams made it to the NHL, and three had lengthy NHL careers: Jim Johnson, Tom Kurvers, and Norm Maciver. What does that tell you? Like they say in football, defense wins championships.
The "Good
War" in Afghanistan
After
hearing someone say, for the umpteenth time, "I oppose the war in Iraq,
but of course I support the war in Afghanistan. That's really about the
war on terror," I have a question:
What if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq?
Would the liberals and Bush-haters be saying, "Way to go, President Bush. Take it to 'em. Don't back down. You're making us safer with the war in Afghanistan"?
Or, would they be saying, "Bush lied about Afghanistan. It's just like Vietnam. When will you bring the troops home? Give us a timetable for withdrawal," while the media gave daily updates on the death toll in Afghanistan? And would a mother who had lost a son in Afghanistan be a media heroine in the place of Cindy Sheehan?
I think it would be the latter. I know it would be.
When people claim to oppose Iraq but support Afghanistan, it's generally not because they've carefully weighed the two fronts and found them so different. Rather, they're just trying to have it both ways. They can attack Bush by opposing the war in Iraq, but at the same time, they embrace the war in Afghanistan, in order to show that they really do care about national security.
If there were only one war, they'd have to make a choice.
Don't Disenfrachise
Me!
I
received a phone call last night. The woman said it was a poll, and she
wanted to know who I would vote for for St. Paul mayor. When I get a call
like this, I like to ask, Who hired you to call me? That's because these
"polls" generally aren't from a news organization or a university
researcher; rather, they're actually being conducted by or for a candidate's
campaign, with the goal of getting out the vote for that candidate.
In this case, there was no need to ask. From the wording of the question it was obvious. I was asked whether I would vote for mayor Randy Kelly, or "DFL-endorsed Chris Coleman." Seeing as how the St. Paul mayoral race is officially non-partisan (no party designation on the ballot), and Kelly is also a Democrat, I knew this call was coming from the Coleman campaign or the DFL party on his behalf.
I declined to answer.
All parties and candidates play this game these days. They try to identify those people likely to vote for them, so on election day, they can call back and remind those people to go vote. If I had said "Coleman," I could expect them to call again on election day and remind me to vote, maybe even ask if I needed any help getting to the polls. But if I had said "Kelly," they would have crossed me off the list, not called to remind me to vote, and then hoped that I didn't remember to or bother to go vote.
Think about that for a moment. All candidates tell us how important voting is. How they want us all to get out and vote, even if it's not for them. But they don't mean it. If I'm not going to vote for them, they hope I don't vote. And while they are busy doing a "public service" reminding their likely supporters and even helping them get to the polls, they won't do the same for those deemed likely to vote for the other guy.
If you think about it, they are trying to "disenfranchise" anyone who isn't on their side. Considering what a hot word "disenfranchise" has become for the Democrats, this sort of tactic is especially hypocritical for them.
Biased, and Incompetent?
There's
a news organization that claims to be "Fair and Balanced." You
can decide for yourself whether they live up to their claims. But increasingly,
I'm building a case that the old-line, mainstream media is "Biased
and Incompetent."
I've documented many examples of the liberal bias of the MSM. I've grown to expect and accept that. But I can't accept incompetence. And here's an example of that.
On the ABC Radio news broadcast yesterday, the reporter said (I'm trying to get this as exact as I can remember) that conservatives have been assured that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers "will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and make abortion illegal again."
This is terrible reporting, if you expect reporters to deal in truth and facts.
Regardless of what Harriet Miers may already think of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court can not make abortion illegal. If Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, it would not mean abortion became illegal in this country. It would mean that the question of abortion would be returned to the states, where it was decided prior to Roe vs. Wade, with some states allowing abortions, and some not. Each state legislature would again take up the debate of whether to allow abortions in that state.
But that's not the way the MSM tell it. They want to get people all worked up that Harriet Miers will make abortion illegal. She can't do that. The entire Supreme Court can't do that. Yet the MSM tells people that Harriet Miers will make abortion illegal. Could it be..... liberal bias in the MSM? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
But here's the bigger question: How can any prospective justice say whether they would vote to overturn or uphold Roe vs. Wade? Doing either is dependent on a specific case being brought before the court. I'm totally opposed to abortion. I think Roe vs. Wade was a poor decision. But until I see the specifics of a specific case, I can't say how I would rule on it. I wouldn't uphold an unconstitutional law, for instance, just because a side effect was that it overturned Roe vs. Wade. It is possible, however, that I would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if presented with a case that directly went to the reasons Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision.
Unfortunately, there are those on the other side who are less open-minded, pledging that they would uphold Roe vs. Wade no matter what argument was placed before them.
Whose Side Are They On?
Like
many, I've often wondered that about the mainstream American media. When
it comes to the war in Iraq and the bigger war on terror, whose side are
they on?
Over the weekend, I kept hearing radio news reports about the Iraqi constitutional referendum. I wanted to know, Yes? or No? But all the MSM seemed to care about was finding some incidents of violence to report. (And they couldn't find many, but what they found, that was the lead story.)
Now I read this headline over a story at the bottom of the front page of today's paper:
"New Iraqi constitution apparently a winner"
"Apparently"? What's the significance of that word? It sounds like someone is disappointed, or at the very least, surprised.
This is another example of how the MSM keeps missing the big picture in Iraq. Sadam has been deposed. A successful election was held in January. Another successful vote took place over the weekend. Yet all the MSM sees, day after day, is, "Two more Americans killed today in Iraq."
If John Kerry were President, the MSM would be hyping this vote as a resounding success of the Kerry administration. Since Bush is still President, they pretend it is no big deal.
Another Thought
on Intelligent Design
Come
to think of it, for years I've been hearing evolutionists say that just
because they believe in evolution doesn't mean they don't believe in God.
Many have said they think evolution is just a mechanism that God used to
create the world.
Wait a minute. Aren't they describing Intelligent Design? Aren't they saying that evolution is Intelligent Design?
So why so much opposition to Intelligent Design Theory, when some evolutionists have been telling us all along that Intelligent Design is just part of evolution, and vice versa?
Defending "Science"?
Or Just Anti-Christian Bigotry?
Is
it just me, or is most of the mockery of and opposition to Intelligent Design
Theory really anti-Christian bigotry? Just take a look at this editorial
cartoon which ran in my newspaper today.
I'm no expert on Intelligent Design Theory, but as I've written before, the way I understand it, it's not about teaching Christianity. It's not about teaching Genesis as a science class. It's about merely acknowledging that life and the universe are so complex that some people think there must be some sort of designer behind it.
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of attack that decades ago was made against the teaching of evolution. Those who wanted to teach evolution theory were portrayed as atheists, communists, or pawns of the devil.
Where is the open-mindedness and inquisitiveness of the scientific community? Science has been CERTAIN about a lot of things in the past and was proved wrong -- by better science. But they don't even want to consider the possibility that evolution -- unproven, unobservable and full of holes -- explains everything perfectly. End of story. Case closed.
"Reproductive
Freedom" a One-Way Street
Maybe
you've heard about the Little Rock family that just had its 16th child, and is ready for more. Some people have expressed
disgust. They say other people shouldn't have so many children. Some, like
the woman in a recent post,
say others should have fewer children because "it helps the planet."
Sixteen kids isn't for me, but as far as I can tell, the Duggar family isn't asking anyone else to support them. If they can feed and raise 16 kids, good for them.
The population problem in the country and on this planet is not people having too many children, it's the wrong people having too many children. In many cases, the families capable of supporting children -- financially, emotionally, morally -- have only one or two kids. Meanwhile, the birth rates are higher in the families that depend on hand-outs and produce children who grow up to be another generation of adults unable to support themselves. (We should be very concerned about this trend, as it means with each generation, the ratio of self-supporting, productive people to dependent people grows lower. Much the same way the ratio of working people to people on Social Security continues to drop.)
But the Duggars appear to be an exception.
And whatever happened to "reproductive freedom"? I thought women were supposed to be free to "choose."
But that's not the case, really, pro-abortion forces want women to be free to choose, as long as they choose not to have children. For example, I once heard an educated woman I know make a disparaging remark about "those pro-lifers." Not much later, when she heard that a (self-supporting) family in the neighborhood had just had a fourth child, she made a face and said, "I have a problem with people having more than two children."
Apparently, she wants to be able to make her own choice, and, she wants to make everyone else's choice, too.
I'd link this to feminism in general, which for decades has told women and girls that they could choose their own destinies. They can be doctors, not "just" nurses. They can be athletes, not "just" cheerleaders. They can be professionals, not "just" housewives. That sounded good at first, but what has it turned into? It's turned into: You can't be a cheerleader, you have to be an athlete. You can't be a nurse, you have to be a doctor. You can't be a housewife, you have to be a career woman. To be "just" a nurse or cheerleader or housewife is being a traitor to the sisterhood.
B.S. What happened to "choice" and controlling your own destiny?
It's gone from men telling women what they can do with their lives, to other women telling women what they can do with their lives. Is that progress?
Amen, Brother.
Liberal/Conservative, Black/White, Christian/Muslim/Atheist: We Should All
Be Able to Agree on This
Syndicated
columnist Leonard Pitts offers some reflection on the 10-year anniversary of the Million Man March.
Ten years later, more than 65 percent of our children are still born out of wedlock.
Ten years later, we are still five times more likely to die of homicide.
Ten years later, still fewer than half of us own our homes.
Ten years later, we still marry less, go to jail more, die sooner.
Ten years later, the promises we made that crisp October lie fallow and unredeemed.
Pitts goes on to say that, yes, there are unfair, external factors working against Blacks...
But I also know that much of what is needed to fix our communities requires no white person's consent:
Get educated.
Seek a career, not a job.
Don't make children you can't support.
Understand that support means money. Understand that support means more than money.
Marry the woman. Model manhood for your children.
Save some money.
Buy a home.
Build a life.
Easier said than done? Yes, very much so. A guarantee of happily ever after? No such guarantee exists nor ever will.
Yet I persist in believing that for African America, changing the world lies in the embrace of these and other old school dictums. And that revolution can be as simple as having dinner as a family, checking homework and going to church on Sunday.
Amen. But this doesn't apply just to African-Americans, this applies to everyone.
Recently I was in a conversation and someone brought up the "we need to give more money to the schools" cliche. I countered that, if we really want to "fix" our schools and help the children -- the children for whom we're supposed to give more money -- what we really need to do is "fix" our social problems, "fix" people and families. We need to do that so kids don't start school with the dysfunctional backgrounds, learning-inhibiting problems, and lack of family support that doom many to failure.
With an incredulous look, my counterpart asked, "And how are you going to do that?" It was as if I had said we should simply ask Santa Claus to solve our problems.
It's a valid question. And a tough one to answer. Or maybe not. Was it Ronald Reagan who said there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers? I think that's the case here. The simple answer is that we need to begin by giving people the message that dysfunctional "families" that don't properly prepare children for school or support them once they start, are UNACCEPTABLE. We need to send a societal message that adults -- parents in particular -- need to act like responsible adults, not like eternal teenagers.
My counterpart said people already know that. But do they? Where do they get that message these days? Not in school, where we mustn't pass judgement on anything. (Or do we?) Not on TV or in other pop culture. No, look around at our role models -- real or fictional -- people are almost randomly making babies together these days.
Yes, we need to help the kids who need the help. But let's work so that in the future, there are not so many kids who need the extra help.
I feel sorry for those of you who didn't grow up on a farm. I can draw so many good lessons from the farm. Look at it this way: If the cows have gotten out and are on the highway, what do you do? You round them up, you call the vet for the ones that got hurt, you may have to call the rendering truck to haul away the ones that are dead or too far gone, but what else do you do? What's really the most important thing you have to do?
You fix the damn fence.
We do too much either/or thinking. It's the result of people taking sides, being polarized, thinking that in order for me to be right, the other guy must be wrong. The result is two sides thinking they are 100 percent right, while the other side is 100 percent wrong. But it's possible for both sides to be right about part of the issue.
In this case, those who say we need to fund programs to help at-risk children are right. They're like the cattle that got hit on the road. They need help, and no amount of complaining about the broken fence will change that.
But those who say we need to demand better of parents are right, too. They understand that we need to fix and maintain the "fence" to ward off future problems, to avoid future "vet" bills (school and social programs) and the "rendering truck" (prison or the morgue).
What seems to get lost in the debate is the fact that we can do BOTH things. One side seems to completely dismiss the idea of social change. The other side, calling for social change as the real, long-term solution, too often loses sight of the reality of the need to deal with the problems currently at hand.
Now, I know it's not as easy as just saying that people should get an education first, then get a job, get married (and stay married) and ONLY THEN have children. I know not everyone will get the message. I know not everyone will conform to the desired societal norm. There have always been those who don't follow this plan. But at present, as we refrain from "judgmentalism" and engage in moral relativism, following this plan is becoming less common than not following it.
But just because not everyone will get the message and follow it is no reason not to teach it. Right in our schools, we teach kids not to smoke, not to pollute, not to be "intolerant" (Oh, so we DO pass judgment in schools, after all!), even though we know some will still smoke, pollute, or be bigoted. Still, we try, and hope that most will get the message.
If as a society we begin to emphasize the message of the importance of education, work, marriage, and responsible procreation and child-rearing, we can't expect all of our social problems will go away. But we can expect there to be fewer problems.
Let's come to agreement and get to work maintaining the societal "fence," so we can stop having to call the vet (or the rendering truck) so often.
An Example of
Hateful, Anti-Christian Rhetoric
Here's
an example that I think illustrates what I've been talking about in my three
previous posts, about hateful liberals, and about Christian bashing.
Last week a Twin Cities group started a campaign to encourage families to reclaim Sundays as family time, and to not have youth sports scheduled for Sundays. Today there is a letter to the editor from one Deb Carlson, an apparent liberal, who says such a movement is unnecessary. She says just don't sign your kids up for so much stuff. And while you're at it, have fewer kids, she adds, because "it helps the planet." (See how I know she's a liberal?")
Carlson closes with this dose of venom:
Finally, you really should consider why you are choosing Sunday. Not everyone worships on Sunday, but it seems that I only hear "Sunday-worshippers" complaining about having a "special" day. That reminds me, we can't schedule on Wednesday nights, either, hmmm.
(When liberals really want to show you how smart they are, they pull out their most powerful weapon -- quotation marks.)
This sounds like a really nasty, hateful person.
Now, regarding the issue of youth sports and Sundays, Carlson and others say, "If you don't want your kid to play or practice on Sundays, don't sign them up." But it's not that simple. For example, kids don't sign up for "Sunday hockey" versus "Tuesday hockey." They sign up for hockey, and that means Sundays, too. It's really either Sunday hockey, or no hockey at all. I've discouraged my kids from starting hockey, because in Minnesota hockey becomes people's religion. Hockey first, no time for church. (Funny though, even people who didn't go to church because they needed to "sleep in" manage to get the kids to 8:00 am Sunday hockey practice.)
Carlson also doesn't get it. She writes that rather than making Sunday off limits, "The overscheduling problem is yours. You need to set your own family priorities. You need to take responsibility for your kids' schedules."
That's exactly the point. By speaking up, these parents hope to encourage others to speak up as well. If enough people say, "We'd rather not do this on Sundays," maybe things will change. The not-on-Sunday movement isn't trying to legislate their view onto everyone else, they are trying to stimulate a discussion and maybe arrive at a consensus. Unless someone speaks up, it's like "The Emperor's New Clothes."
It reminds me of the auto dealers. In Minnesota, you can't sell cars on Sundays. Once in a while, someone introduces a bill to change that. It's immediately opposed by the Auto Dealers Association. They like the current law just fine. Why? They know that they won't sell any more cars by being open on Sundays, they'll just have to staff the place an additional day. But if anyone opens for sales on Sundays, then everyone will have to open on Sundays to compete. Everyone will work more, no one will sell any more. Being forced to close on Sundays benefits all the dealers.
Finally, I'd say to Carlson, I don't know what kind of job you have, but if Sunday is not "special" to you, I sure hope you don't expect the boss to give you the day off. (If her type of "thinking" [I borrowed the quotes from her playbook] goes much further, it'll someday be declared unconstitutional for government offices to close on Sundays. Why? That's an "endorsement" [Not the word used in the Constitution, by the way, that word is "establishment." Big difference.] of religion!)
They Call their
Team "Indians"? Ohmigreatspirit!
I
get offended, too, you know. (See my two previous posts, if you haven't
already, referring to offensive Indian mascots and hateful liberals.) But
I don't count, because I'm not part of a protected, politically-correct
group.
As a Christian, I am offended by something I hear every day around me, on TV, and now I've even read it used in a news story in the daily paper:
"God, it's hot today!"
"Oh-my-God!!!"
And let's not forget that old standby: "Jesus Christ!" as exclaimed by those who are doing anything but praying.
(This has become so common, even Christians do it without thinking. But this is in violation of the second commandment -- not taking God's name in vain. This is what "in vain" means -- using God's name "in an irreverent or disrespectful manner," as my secular dictionary describes the phrase. Most people seem to thing that there is a commandment against "swear words," or what are better defined as vulgarities. That's not the case, although a Christian who wants to represent Christ well will refrain from using vulgarities that reflect poorly on the messenger.)
I'm offended. Doesn't that count for something?
I suppose if I complain, I'll be told, "Don't try to impose your religion on me."
But what if I went around proclaiming:
"Great Spirit, it's hot today!" or
"Ohmiallah! Did you see that mini skirt?"
We know what would happen. I'd be labeled hateful, insensitive, all that stuff. I'd be told to stop.
Can you say "double standard"?
Christianity is at a crossroads in this country. There are those who tell us, "This isn't a 'Christian nation,' and it never was. Most people aren't Christians. Keep your beliefs to yourself."
But if that's so, then shouldn't Christians demand -- and receive -- the same type of kid glove treatment given to the other "minority" groups in this country? If we mustn't offend Indians, Muslims, gays, Blacks, etc., why is it OK to offend Christians?
Here's another example: those "fish" emblems some Christians put on their cars. The fish represents Jesus. It could be described as a "sacred" symbol. Yet, there is no shortage of parody fish to be seen on other cars, such as the "Darwin" fish with legs, or the fish with the words "and chips." Why is that OK? Why is that not "hate speech"? Where's the uproar from the politically correct crowd?
If someone made a parody Star of David, morphing it into a swastika, that wouldn't be funny, it would be branded "hateful." If someone parodied those "rainbow" bumper stickers, would that be funny? No, it would be "hateful." If someone sold a poster of, "I have a dream...fried chicken and watermelon three times a day," would that just be a humorous exercise of free speech? Of course not. You and I both know there would be an uproar about racist "hate speech."
But Christians are fair game. If we complain about what others are doing to us, we're told to butt out of THEIR lives.
If Even One Person
Is Offended...
Last
Wednesday I wrote about the issue of Indian mascots, and how the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorialized
(moralized) that if even ONE PERSON is offended, then it's wrong and shouldn't
be done. Today, the paper carries a couple of reader letters that seem intended to support the editorial board's view, but
logically are at odds with themselves.
Joe Paatalo says that if someone says they are offended, they are offended, so change the logo. It's that simple, he says. He also refers to the importance of "allowing people to define themselves."
But then he writes:
And, by the way, if your name happens to be Patrick but you prefer to be called Doug, then, by God, Doug it should be. It's not that hard.
Huh? What if a school or a team prefers to be called "Indians," whether or not they really are Indians. Under Paatalo's logic, shouldn't we allow them to define themselves?
And what about the guy named Patrick who calls himself "Doug"? What if that offends people who really are named Doug?
A consistent argument would seem to be: If you aren't an Indian, don't call yourself "Indian"; if your name is not Doug, don't call yourself "Doug."
Is it too much to ask people to stick to their "principles" for at least three paragraphs?
In the second letter, Robin Johnson answers "yes" to a previous letter writer who asked if a word is "offensive" if only a single person says so, in this case the word "pioneer," as in the name of the newspaper. Johnson explains:
If you are genuinely offended by the use of the word "pioneer" in the name Pioneer Press, Mr. Lorch, then the word can indeed be defined as "offensive."
But then Johnson continues:
The question will remain as to whether you have the power to convince others your stance should be shared by the majority.
Where did this "majority" bit come from? Johnson seems to be saying you need a majority to agree with you that you are being offended. But that's not what the editorial board said. They didn't talk about persuading a majority. They said if only one person is offended, he may demand that others do his bidding.
It's Easy to Be
"Tolerant" When Everything's Going Your Way
I
keep hearing and reading more and more hateful, narrow-minded, intolerant
rhetoric from supposed "liberals." They hate Republicans. They
hate President Bush. They hate Christians.
These are the same people who have always claimed to be "open-minded" and "tolerant." What gives?
I think the answer is simple. It's easy to claim you are "open-minded" and "tolerant" as long as you are getting your way. And the liberals and Democrats got very used to having their way, for a long time, especially in Minnesota.
But that's changing. Republicans rule Washington D.C. In Minnesota, we have a Republican governor and a Republican House of Representatives. Minnesota Democrats now control only the State Senate, and what was once a vast majority is slipping away there, as well.
In addition, liberals no longer enjoy a media monopoly. With talk radio and blogs, too much truth is getting out that they don't want to get out, and used to be able to keep from getting out.
Their whole world is falling apart. Whereas being "open-minded" and "tolerant" used to mean getting your way while paying lip service to other ideas, it now means sharing power and not always getting your way, and liberals suddenly think not being in charge is "unfair."
In response, the claws come out. And the hate.
I imagined this analogy: It's sort of like an antebellum plantation. The slave owner sees himself as righteous and benevolent, while he holds all the power in the system. But after the war, the Black man is freed. The plantation owner's whole world is turned upside down. He can no longer tell others what to do. He has lost his power. In response, he forms the KKK.
Yes, it's easy to be all goodness and light while you're getting your way. It's harder to be a good loser when the shoe is on the other foot.
Running Out of
Oil? We've Heard that Story Before, Chicken Little
You've
got to read this fascinating editorial
from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal.The WSJ says we're in
a classic "oil bubble" and prices will fall again. The editorial
also points out that we've been told repeatedly for 100 years that we were
running out of oil, and that way back in the late 19th century we were even
warned that we would soon run out of coal, and the Industrial Age would
grind to a halt. (Today, despite steady and increasing use, we have a 500
year supply of known coal.)
You have to register to access the WSJ site. If you can't get that to work for you, email me and I'll have the editorial emailed to you.
Lynch Mob Hangs,
Beats Christopher Columbus
Read
about King Banian's Columbus Day experience at St. Cloud State University. Sounds like there's some "hate
speech" going on, creating a "hostile environment" for European-American
students and staff.
What's In a Name?
History, Fact, Truth, Nothing Important
Today
is Columbus Day, not that it means anything to me. Just another day, but
no mail. At least I remembered this year, and didn't keep checking the mailbox
all day long.
But it's not Columbus Day everywhere. I hear in Duluth it was Native American Day. Columbus was evil, you know. Genocide, and all that.
Fine, then do away with the Columbus Day federal holiday. But don't pretend it's something else. If it's a federal holiday, that's a fact. Columbus is an important historical figure. That's a fact. Don't pretend that it isn't. I've had way too much of this Stalin-like historical revision and "newspeak" that keeps coming from the left.
Another example is people who would have us pretend that there is no long-standing observance called Halloween. It's a "fall festival" in many schools these days. If you don't want to recognize "Halloween," then why do any observance? Skip the celebration altogether. Don't have the celebration at the school and call it something else.
There was an interesting guest essay on this topic in Sunday's St. Paul Pioneer Press. Jacqueline Hesse writes about the folly of schools that shy away from Halloween because it is a "religious holiday."
My final example is the move to do away with B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Latin for "year of our Lord"). Now, the enlightened want us to use CE ("Common Era") for the present, and BCE ("Before Common Era") for that time before, well, before Christ.
Never mind the centuries of practice, history and tradition. Just throw it all out the window, because a few in the present think that someone might be offended.
The most ridiculous part of it is, if you ask a "Common Era" devotee what criteria is used to mark the beginning of the "Common Era," what can they say in response? The birth of Christ. That's what it is. That's the fact. That's the history. It can't be denied. Whether you are a Christian or not, whether you believe Jesus is the Son of God, whether you believe someone named Jesus of Nazareth ever even existed, you can not deny that His estimated year of birth was indeed used to establish the system we use for numbering years.
But there's another category of renaming that runs counter to the trend I've described -- proving once again that logical consistency is a scarce commodity in the human race. That's the trend toward renaming geographical features by going back to what they were previously called -- their original Indian names. They already had names, we're told, it was offensive and disrespectful to throw out that name and give them a new name.
Some people should listen to their own arguments.
Roe vs. Wade and
Oregon Assisted Suicide: Let's Be Consistent
Today
I heard someone criticizing President Bush and other conservatives who say
they don't want an "activist" Supreme Court that "legislates
from the bench," yet want the Court to negate Oregon's assisted suicide
law.
I agree. When we claim to be taking stands on important Constitutional "principles," we need to be consistent. If we oppose the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, saying that the Court invented a right that doesn't exist in the Constitution, and that the abortion question should be decided in state legislatures, then we should also support Oregon's right to make its own decisions regarding assisted suicide, another life-or-death issue.
And those pro-abortion types who laud Roe vs. Wade as a great action by a wise Court, they should support the federal government's judgement in this current case, as well. Even if it means the Court overturns Oregon's law.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Court has no business ruling on abortion, but must act to negate Oregon's assisted suicide law.
Principles are important, whether we like each specific outcome or not.
Spies and Immigrants
When
the news broke that a naturalized U.S. citizen working in the office of
Vice President Cheney was spying for his native Philippines, I thought the story would be played as "yet another"
incidence of incompetency in the Bush administration. But it hasn't been.
Why not? Must be because the alleged spy started his job while Al Gore was
Vice President.
We should be discussing the significance of this story as it relates to the integrity of our borders. Here we have a case of someone going through the legal channels and becoming a U.S. citizen, but turning out to be a(n alleged) spy. Meanwhile, there are those in this country who don't think we should give a rip who's coming across our borders under the cover of night. If a naturalized citizen working right under our noses can cause such trouble, what about some covert border-crosser from who knows where?
Our Constitution says only a native-born citizen can become President. Some want to change that. They say it's outdated. I say leave well enough alone. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
I Can't Give You
a Brain, But I Can Give You a Professorship
Such
is what the Wizard of Oz might have told some university instructors. We
know they're liberals, but can't they at least know how to reason? Is it
too much to expect them to share their area of expertise without making
their politics more important?
Increasingly, the answer is, Yes.
Kenneth Zapp, a professor of economics and director or graduate programs in the College of Management at Metropolitan State University (St. Paul), this week offered us his views in a Pioneer Press guest opinion column titled "Hurricane recovery poses basic obligation for U.S. government."
Here are the first two paragraphs of Zapp's commentary:
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution sets out fundamental purposes for government: "We the people of the United States in order to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare ."
The failure of the federal government to achieve tranquility, defense and welfare in the wake of Katrina is now legend. The question today is what we the people should demand our government do next.
Is he serious? Does he really think that "insure domestic tranquility" is supposed to represent some sort of guarantee that the federal government will make sure no one is inconvenienced by natural disasters? And I suppose he thinks "the pursuit of happiness" refers to what Bill was doing with Monica.
But he can't reason. Even about economics, his specialty. Get this:
The American people, however, reacted faster. Thousands of people volunteered direct service and millions of us gave generously. Businesses also gave: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce boasted that their members would contribute more than $100 million.
The sad reality is that while we the people responded quickly, we do not have the means to generate the level of financial support this disaster requires. The sum of all our giving will be but a drop in the ocean of funds needed. This is precisely why our forefathers created the federal government: to serve us in our time of need.
As an economist and as a citizen I am saddened by Bush's claim that he will not raise taxes to pay for this recovery. Why not? There is no more justified use of the funds we send to Washington.
Let me try to understand this. While individuals and businesses have given generously, we "do not have the means" to come up with enough money to clean up after the hurricane. This will require someone with more money than we have. That someone is the federal government. Where will the federal government get the money? By taking it from us in higher taxes.
But I thought we didn't "have the means"?
Add this economics professor to the pile of people who seem to think that the government, via taxes, just generates money out of thin air. If we don't have the money, how can the government get it from us?
It's gotten so bad that even economics professors don't understand that the government really has NO MONEY. It only can use OUR MONEY, after it takes it from us. The federal government is no Wizard, capable of conjuring up wealth from a bottomless magic purse.
You Didn't Tell
Me You Could Kill Me!
The
Supreme Court is considering an Oregon law that allows doctors to prescribe
deadly drugs to terminally ill
patients. OK, you already knew that, but I never claimed to be your go-to
source for breaking news. Rather, it's my goal to offer unique reflections
on the breaking news.
Regarding doctor-assisted suicide, I'm wondering this: If it's a legal "treatment" option, then is it also a patient "right"? And must the patient be advised of his assisted-suicide option and right, the same way he must be advised of all other treatment options and risks so that he can give his "informed consent"?
For example, a patient has a very serious case of cancer. He asks, "What are my options, Doc?"
The Doctor might say, "You could have surgery, which likely won't help, and you could die on the table. Or, you could undergo intense radiation and chemotherapy, which probably won't help, and will make you miserable. Or, you do nothing, enjoy your final days, and enter hospice care when the time comes."
Now, maybe an Oregon doctor has to add, "Or, I could give you some lethal pills to take."
The patient would ask, "Are there any risks with the lethal pill option?"
To which the doctor would reply, "There's always a slight risk that you will live."
But all macabre humor aside, imagine the potential for even more medical lawsuits. Survivors will sue for malpractice because the doctor didn't offer assisted suicide and the patient "unduly suffered." Or on the other hand, survivors will sue because the doctor "pushed" assisted suicide on the patient and now he's gone forever.
Real lawyers will be able to imagine even more possibilitie$.
Hey! Over Here!
Remember Us? We're St. Paul
Another
strange turn in the St. Paul mayoral race. Challenger Chris Coleman is bringing
in the heavy (or is that "big fat"?) artillery: Al Franken will
headline a Coleman fundraiser Oct. 15 in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis? Yes, according to what appears in the newspaper today.
Call me old-fashioned, call me naive, call me a dreamer, but I think political campaigns ought to confine themselves to their actual geographic area. Isn't this a faux pas by the man who would be mayor of St. Paul? I'll bet the Coleman campaign -- as all good Democrats do -- is careful to have the union bug appear on all the campaign literature, showing that it was printed at a union shop. In a similar way, shouldn't the Coleman campaign be sensitive to the implications of holding a high-profile campaign event in St. Paul's evil twin city?
Isn't St. Paul good enough for the man who would be its mayor?
I also think that, for the most part, campaigns ought to be confined to people who are actually involved in the race, that is, they can vote in the race and will live under its results. For instance, last year I received mailings asking me to contribute to South Dakota Republican U.S. Senate candidate John Thune, to help him defeat Democrat Tom Daschle.
I declined. Both because I'm not made of money, and on principle. What business of mine is it who South Dakotans elect? Shouldn't that decision be up to them? Now that he is in the Senate, John Thune does not represent me.
Whether Al Franken has any business meddling in the St. Paul mayor's race is questionable. I think it has been decades since he lived in Minnesota, and even then he didn't live in St. Paul. But there is a long tradition of high-profile partisans helping fund-raise for like-minded pols. You have to wonder, though, would liberal radio host Franken and failed presidential candidate John Kerry (also scheduled to visit the state in support of Coleman) give a rat's behind about the NON-PARTISAN ballot St. Paul mayor's race (between TWO DEMOCRATS) if incumbent Kelly hadn't backed President Bush for reelection last year?
I think this is mostly just mean-spirited partisan retribution. Someone dishonored "the family" and now will have to pay the price.
Regarding Kelly's support of Bush: There were some nasty, anti-Kelly, letters to the editor this week claiming that Kelly did himself in by "hitching his cart" to the wrong horse. (Isn't it "cart before the horse" but "hitch your WAGON"?) Are these folks in denial? Which horse won? George Bush won. He is still President. Had Kelly "hitched his cart" to John Kerry, how would that be of benefit to St. Paul? It wouldn't be. But it might be of political benefit to Kelly personally, in this mayoral race. Seen in that light, Kelly looks like a real leader who puts his city first, ahead of partisan political considerations.
Indian Mascots
a Complicated Issue
So,
what do I think of Indian mascots? Are they OK? Are they disrespectful?
I think on this issue I can unequivocally say... it's complicated.
I don't see that it is inherently disrespectful to have an Indian mascot. After all, mascots are chosen for their good qualities. Just as athletes aspire to be strong as Bears, brave as Lions or swift as Eagles, they strive to be swift, strong and brave as Indians, Sioux, Utes or Seminoles. Do I mean to equate Native Americans with animals? Of course not, no more than I'd suggest that Spartans or Trojans are mere animals because they also have been featured as mascots -- mascots with legendary strengths of body and spirit to be emulated by any athlete.
And let's not overlook that another reason Indian mascots have been chosen -- just as with Vikings or Cowboys -- is that there is an historical local connection. And consider what they say in show business: Any publicity is good publicity. If not for the Florida State Seminoles, how many of us would be able to identify the Seminole tribe? If not for the Utah Utes, how many of us would be able to name that tribe? And with name recognition comes the opportunity to educate about the history of America's natives, including both how poorly they were treated by the European immigrants, and the inequities they face in 2005.
If all the Indian mascots were eliminated, Indians might find themselves being totally ignored. So be careful what you wish for. Activists may think, "After we get rid of all the Indian mascots, we can move on to righting all the other inequities." They might find, instead, that once all the Indian mascots were eliminated, that was the end of the story. No more controversy means no more headlines. No more media spotlight. No more soapboxes.
Yet, we must never underestimate humans' ability to muck up a good thing.
It's the way Indian mascots have sometimes been utilized that I think is disrespectful. Some white guy dressed up as the "chief" and doing a stupid dance, THAT can be disrespectful and tasteless. Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians' doofus cartoon mascot, THAT can be disrespectful. The Washington Redskins -- not exactly a term of endearment -- THAT can be disrespectful.
As for the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux, that school seems to have struck a deal with the devil. The Fighting Sioux mascot has been under attack for some time, but despite that, their new hockey arena is said to be adorned by perhaps THOUSANDS of Sioux head logos. The benefactor who paid for the arena was adamant about that. It is very in-your-face, with no sensitivity at all shown to the fact that there is indeed a controversy and people have differing opinions.
Now the chickens may be coming home to roost for the University of North Dakota, which faces losing its role as host of an NCAA regional hockey tournament. Maybe if that new arena wasn't so over-the-top with the Sioux logo, the NCAA would have granted UND an exemption. Too late now.
Liberal Bluenoses
the New Victorians?
For
decades, the Left has preached to us that we are not to make moral judgements.
What others do is their own concern, not ours. It's not our business to
be offended by how others live their lives. At the same time, the Left has
told us that there are no taboos. Everything (sex, especially) is "appropriate"
for public discussion. We shouldn't be so "repressed."
But things seem all topsy-turvy these days. Self-described "progressives" act like reactionaries in their zeal to return to the past; meanwhile, conservatives advocate new ways of thinking and doing. "Liberals" preach "tolerance" and "open-mindedness," yet at the same time want to us to live life processed through a filter of political correctness.
The latest "Through the Looking Glass" moment comes to us courtesy of James Carville. The Democrat guru and Slick Willie pal appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show Friday, to discuss the "scandalous" remarks made by Bill Bennett earlier in the week. Bennett, while discussing abortion politics on his own radio program, had made reference to someone else's assertion that aborting all the black babies would reduce the crime rate. Bennett had said that even though that might be true, this was an example of "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do."
Predictably, all the mainstream media cared about was second-hand paraphrasings that Bennett had said we "should" abort black babies to lower the crime rate.
No doubt you've heard your fill of the Bennett flap. That's not what I'm going to write about. Rather, Carville's comments were worth noting.
Hannity asked Carville whether he thought Bennett had done something wrong. Carville said yes and no. Carville unequivocally said that he did not think Bennett meant his comments to be racist, nor did he think Bennett is a racist. Nonetheless, Bennett had done something wrong, Carville said.
So what was Bennett's crime?
Carville said Bennett should know that there are some things we just can't talk about, because people will be offended.
This, from a supposed leader of the "enlightened," "open-minded" and "progressive" side of the aisle: Civilized people don't talk about such things in polite company. Someone might be offended.
Well, gosh Mr. Carville, a lot of people are offended by a lot of things. Many people are offended by talk of same-sex marriage. Should we shove that under the rug? Historically, let's not overlook that evil Rosa Parks. When she refused to move to the back of the bus, she offended plenty of good ol' boy rednecks. Shame on her, right Mr. Carville?
Of course, people will say, "That's different!" Rosa Parks was right to offend people, because her cause was just, they will say. And because the people she offended needed offending.
Says you. And says me, too. But I thought we were supposed to move beyond moralizing and judgmentalism. I thought such rigid concepts of "right" and "wrong" had been thrown out the window. Who are we to judge?
So it's a surprise when I run into the sort of old-fashioned moralizing I encountered in a recent St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial about the NCAA and Indian mascots. The editorial board has stood firm in its opposition to any and all Indian mascots. This editorial is no exception.
The editorial is in regard to the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux, and how that institution is now being prohibited from hosting post-season NCAA tournaments (a men's ice hockey regional is scheduled there for March). The editorial board says it doesn't matter whether, as in the case of the Florida State Seminoles and two other schools (but not North Dakota), local tribes give their consent to the use of Indian mascots.
We were dismayed when the NCAA gave exemptions to the Florida State Seminoles, Central Michigan Chippewas and Utah Utes, primarily because the schools were able to convince local tribes to approve of their use of the mascots and names. In our view, that misses the point.
It doesn't matter if a logo and nickname are offensive to one tribal member or 1 million. The fact is they're offensive and they're wrong.
Well, that's it then. It's an open-and-shut case. The Pioneer Press editorial board has seen fit to decide for all tribes and all individuals what is offensive, what is right and what is wrong.
That's the sort of absolutist, I-'ll-decide-for-everyone-what-is-right moralizing that is almost unheard of in 2005.
Let's consider another controversial issue: abortion. I wonder, what would the paper think if someone said, "It doesn't matter if one woman or a million women decide to have an abortion, and can convince a doctor to perform an abortion. That misses the point. Abortion is offensive, and it's just plain wrong"?
Somehow, I think the editorial board would say "that's just one person's opinion," and that the speaker was being intolerant and trying to impose his morals on everyone else.
Or what if the NCAA said, no post-season tournaments at schools where the health service offers abortions? Because it's offensive, and JUST PLAIN WRONG? Where would the paper be on that one?
I guess it just depends on whose pet issue of an ox is getting gored.
What do I think of Indian mascots? I'll try to expound on that tomorrow. Meanwhile, here are some interesting reader letter rebuttals to the Pioneer Press editorial.
Nor Did He Say
Whether He Has Stopped Beating His Wife
Another
development in the strange St. Paul mayoral race. Democrat incumbent Randy
Kelly, under fire from party faithful (who didn't endorse him 4 years ago,
anyway) for backing President Bush last year, held a news conference yesterday
to tell the voters being angry about his Bush endorsement will not help
the city. I don't know that this will help him any. In fact, I'm sure it
won't, because the story in the paper
today makes Kelly look silly. But I direct your attention to this paragraph
from the story:
Billed as a "major announcement," his remarks didn't include any new initiatives or any expression of contrition for the endorsement in August 2004.
Does the reporter think Kelly should have expressed contrition? Is that the reporter's editorial comment?
There are a lot of things Kelly didn't say. He didn't say whether he's a falling down drunk. He didn't say whether he hates babies and puppies and pushes little old ladies in front of moving cars. Maybe the reporter should have included those "facts," too.
Forget So-called
"Global Warming," "Natural Ocean Cycle" Behind Hurricanes
We
keep hearing about how "global warming" is causing more intense
hurricanes. It's even on the cover of TIME magazine this week. The cover
story is: "Are We Making Hurricanes Worse?" Bulleted subheads
include "The Impact of Global Warming."
Meanwhile, buried on page 11 of my daily paper, I read a story headlined, "Intense hurricane in October is possible." The story includes these paragraphs:
Researchers also warn that the country should brace for 10 to 40 more years of powerful storms because of a natural ocean cycle now in the midst of the most active hurricane period on record.
"This has been the seventh hyperactive year since 1995," said Stan Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Not every year is going to be like this one, but there's going to be plenty of active years to come."
Hmmmm. A "natural ocean cycle"? Why isn't that on the cover of TIME magazine? Thirty years ago the magazine's cover warned us about the coming ice age; now it's all about "global warming." I don't think I'll be getting my science from TIME.
More on Two-Incomes
and the Income Gap: Bigger Pie vs. Equal Slices
Responding
to my previous post, in which I offered my theory that the rise of the dual-income
household has served to increase the gap between haves and have-nots, blogger
Craig Westover writes
me:
Your theory is interesting, and probably correct vis a vis the income gap, but it breaks down on the level of unseen productivity and overall wealth. The key is in your parenthetical "(And yes, I agree that they might not be as good at the jobs as the women who in fact perform them.)"
If the men are not as good as the women that have the jobs, their productivity will be less. Less productivity means less wealth produced. Less wealth produced means few jobs, less investment capital, and the like.
While a high-dual-income family might have considerably more than a low-dual-income family, as the result of a "better woman" in the job, both families have more wealth, albeit disproportionate. If equality is the goal, you have a point. If overall increase in wealth and the prosperity it brings is the objective, then there's a different angle.
Craig is, of course, right on the money (pun intended).
I attempted in my post to be descriptive, explaining what I think has been happening, rather than prescriptive, saying what I think should happen. It's not my intention to say that women shouldn't be in the workforce. As Craig points out, employing less-qualified men in place of better-qualified women would result in lower overall productivity in the economy, and my own personal philosophy is that it would be a mistake to drag down the overall economy for the goal of greater equity. Everyone being equally miserable is not a goal worth achieving, as just about everyone except Cuba, North Korea and the American Left has figured out by now.
But I think that if we are going to have discussions about things such as unequal wealth, we need to consider all the factors that go into creating that disparity, regardless of whether or not such a discussion is politically correct. I also think it's worth pointing out the irony that many of those who raise their voices the most loudly against inequity, are the same people who are the most adamant that of course every woman should have a career.
Now, let me talk a little more about my theory that the rise of the dual-income household widens the gap between haves and have-nots.
The truth is, we have always had dual-income households. The difference is, dual-income households used to be more common among those with lower incomes. That fact helped to close the gap somewhat. Let's get in the time machine and I'll show you what I mean.
Here we are in the old days. Look over there. That's the Smith house. Mr. Smith is a successful professional. He supports his family on a good salary of $100,000 a year (in 2005 dollars). With a good breadwinner like that, Mrs. Smith doesn't need to work. But she does volunteer work when she can. (Mr. Smith says, "No wife of mine is going to work! People will think I can't provide for my family!)
Now look across town, it's the Jones house. Mr. Jones has a good blue-collar job that pays him $40,000 a year. Mrs. Jones earns a little money, too, to help out. She works outside the house a little, does some babysitting (the term "daycare" hasn't been invented yet) for the neighbors, and takes in some sewing and mending work. She adds about $10,000 a year, for a household income of $50,000.
Finally, look way out on the edge of town. There's the Wilson house. Mr. Wilson works as a night janitor and makes $15,000 a year. To pay the bills, Mrs. Wilson has to work, too. Her unskilled job brings in another $15,000, for a household total of $30,000.
So, we've got $30,000 -- $50,000 -- $100,000. That's quite a spread. The poor family makes only 30% of what the wealthy family makes, and 60% of what the middle family makes. The middle family makes only 50% of what the wealthy family makes.
But what happens when the dual-income family becomes the norm?
The Wilsons see no change; they're still at $30,000.
The Joneses are now making $80,000, as Mrs. Jones goes to work full-time.
And the Smiths. Oh, the Smiths! Now that Mrs. Smith has a job like her husband's, their household income doubles, to $200,000!
The range has become $30,000 -- $80,000 -- $200,000.
Now, the Wilsons make only 15% of what the wealthy family makes, and only 38% of what the middle family makes. The middle family now makes only 40% of what the wealthy family makes.
This is just an example. It certainly doesn't represent everybody. My figures are arbitrary, and you may think all three families are "wealthy" or "poor" relative to yourself. But it does show how the advent of the dual-income household as the norm helps to further concentrate the wealth in the hands of the already wealthy. Meanwhile, those in the middle gain in absolute income, but lose ground relative to the wealthy. The poorest, on the other hand, gain nothing in terms of dollars, and fall even further behind both other groups, relatively speaking.
Two-Income Families
Widen the Gap Between Rich and Poor
I
read a David Brooks column
in which the New York Times columnist writes about the "education
gap" and how it is promoting inequality in America.
Brooks reminds me of one of my own theories, that the prevalence of two-income households also increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
I started thinking about this after noting one married couple where the man was an attorney and the woman was a doctor, and another couple where both people were well-paid, high-ranking managers in the state bureaucracy.
Once upon a time, those four well-paid jobs would have supported FOUR families. Now, they support only two, with double the prosperity.
Meanwhile, look around. People tend to marry someone similar. That means that the poorly-paid hotel maid almost certainly does not have a well-paid attorney for a husband, she has a poorly-paid janitor for a husband. So their "dual-income" family still scrapes to get by.
I can't avoid the fact that the "dual-income" household is the result of women entering the workforce en masse, many times in well-paid jobs that were once the exclusive domain of men. It seems reasonable that if women had not entered these fields, then more men would be filling the well-paid jobs -- men who instead are now in lower-paid jobs. (And yes, I agree that they might not be as good at the jobs as the women who in fact perform them.) That would result in well-paid jobs being spread among more households, and there would be less of a gap between haves and have-nots.
This reminds me of "Rosie the Riveter," and how after WWII, women were pressured to give up the "men's" jobs they took on while the boys were overseas, so that the returning soldiers could have those jobs. After all, they needed good jobs to support their families. Sixty years later, we look back on that and say how awful that was, how sexist and backward we were. But in a way, we're now seeing what happens if Rosie does keep her job.
So, what am I saying? Am I saying that women shouldn't work? No, that's not my intention. I just think this is something to think about. When people complain that the gap between the haves and the have-nots is getting wider, let's consider all the reasons why that might be. When a liberal couple who both are well-paid professors or bureaucrats complain about the lack of "good jobs" for the "working poor," maybe they should be asked, Why are you hogging two "good jobs" for yourselves?
Night or Day?
News item: Two Minnesota Vikings football players arrested during a disturbance at 3:30 a.m. Monday morning.
They gave no statement as to whether they were still out partying after
Sunday's game, or were up bright and early for a Monday morning workout.
Consider 3:30 am. What is it, exactly? If you're still out having a good time at 2:00 a.m., that's a "late night." If you get up at 4:00 a.m. to go fishing, that's an "early morning." But what the heck is 3:30 a.m.? Is it "late night" or "early morning"?
The 3 o'clock hour seems to be when night turns to morning. It's hard to define. Many years ago, I worked a graveyard shift (11 pm to 7 am) at a convenience store. The drunks would stop in on their way home until 2:00 or so -- sometimes later. Then, after just a little lull in business, the early morning commuters would start stopping in for their coffee. Some people were turning in for the night just about the same time others were rising to face the new day.
So, what the heck do you call 3:30 a.m.? Night? Or morning? Something to ponder.
Paranoia and Inflated
Self-Importance
When
I was a student, I had the strange experience of people I didn't know wanting
to pick fights with me. (Yes, I mean actual fistfights.) For some reason,
they didn't like me, when I didn't even know who they were!
So maybe this shouldn't surprise me.
But if you're like me, you're amazed at the way some people (Arabs) around the world are convinced that the U.S. is out to get them. The truth is, if they didn't blow things up, we'd hardly even know they exist. (Yet, their "logic" for blowing things up, is that we were already out to get them.)
Closer to home, the disaster in New Orleans has revealed that many poor Americans seem just as deluded and paranoid about the U.S. government being out to get them. But just like with the Arabs before 9-11, the truth is, before Katrina, most of us hardly even knew the New Orleans poor existed.
How Others See
Us....Might Surprise the Liberals
Those
on the left like to say that we need to start seeing ourselves as the rest
of the world see us. How does the rest of the world see us? They might be
surprised.
I know some folks who have travelled extensively in Eastern Europe in recent years. They told me recently that Ronald Reagan -- the "warmonger" Republican president who stood up to the Soviets -- is a hero in Germany, while the Democrats' favorite son, JFK, is the butt of jokes. You can buy coffee cups showing JFK saying, "I am a jelly donut," which is what he actually said when he tried to speak German and say "I am a Berliner."
Meanwhile, over in Poland, Herbert Hoover is a hero! Yes, that Herbert Hoover, the Republican president who gets the blame for the Great Depression. Hoover is a hero to the Polish people for the humanitarian and economic aid he helped bring to Poland following both World Wars.
Amazingly ironic, dontcha think?
Preparing for
the Last Hurricane
There's
a saying that the generals always prepare to re-fight the last war. Whatever
hindsight says they should have done, they prepare to do next time. Trouble
is, the next war is always different from the one that came before.
So it also is with hurricanes.
We heard all the criticisms of what should have been done to prepare for Hurricane Katrina. President Bush should have gotten involved. He should have gone to New Orleans to show that he cared. He should have called out the army. There should have been a mandatory evacuation. People should have been put on buses. We should have known that Katrina would be one of the most powerful hurricanes to ever hit land in the U.S., and people should have taken the warnings more seriously.
So, along comes Hurricane Rita. President Bush gets involved early. On Friday, a reporter asks, why are you going to Texas? What can you do to help? Won't you just get in the way?
There's a mandatory evacuation. The freeways are clogged. A bus full of old people burns up. Time to point fingers again. There should have been a better plan!
Hurricane Rita is taken seriously. People assume that it will be as powerful as Katrina, and hit a highly populated, low-lying area, just like Katrina did. But it isn't just like Katrina. The storm is downgraded and continues losing power as it hits land. Soon, it's no longer even classified as a hurricane.
More finger pointing. More questions. Why did we have to evacuate? Why can't we return yet? Why isn't there any gas? Why did you over-hype this storm? Next time, we're staying put.
Today, the President proposes giving his office more authority to put the army in charge during a natural disaster. Critics say, See, he really is a power-mad imperialist who wants to take away our freedoms and impose a military dictatorship! (Many of those same people asked why he didn't send the army into New Orleans to forcibly evacuate people.)
Three lessons -- One: Just like with wars, you can't prepare for the next hurricane based on the last hurricane. Two: People are never satisfied. Three: You just can't win.
Skin Too Thin?
Everything's Not About You
I'm
at the end of my rope.
A neighborhood bar on St. Paul's eastside has been renamed "The Noose" by its new owners, in recognition of the legend that a man once hanged himself in the building, and the owner's insistence that the man's ghost still haunts the building.
Whether or not "The Noose" is a proper name for a neighborhood bar is open for debate. But the name has become the subject of criticism for a reason that would never occur to most of us. According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
The name is meant to be humorous, but it hasn't gone over well with some black members of this diverse East Side neighborhood, where no ethnic group holds a majority [black, Hmong, white, latino]. The Rev. Luches Hamilton, pastor of nearby St. John's Church of God in Christ, said he's heard complaints about the name's link to lynching.
"A lot of black people were coming to me saying it was very offensive," Hamilton said. But after speaking with Yauch, Hamilton said he doesn't think the new owner means harm.
"My thing is to try to keep peace in the neighborhood," Hamilton said.
At least someone can keep a level head. (The Rev. Hamilton was also recently profiled in the paper for his BBQ business, which helps support his church and youth programs.)
From my perspective, this is just another example of people who are always looking for a fight, people who think everything is about them. But it's not. I don't see where this has anything to do with race. If it does, that would be terrible. But that's a terrible charge to make against the owners of the bar, when there is no evidence to back it up.
Put this one in the same category as the Great Gopher Ticket Scandal.
Moral Poverty
the True Blight in New Orleans
Writing
in World Net Daily, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson says moral poverty -- not material poverty -- explains the plight
of blacks in New Orleans.
The Bible Tells
Us So
The
Knight Ridder Washington bureau reports this week:
Seeking to defuse a central controversy of the culture wars, a Bible advocacy group will unveil a new textbook today [Thursday] that could open the door to widespread Bible courses in public high schools.
The textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence," was written to thread a constitutional needle by teaching, not preaching, about the Bible, its editors told Knight Ridder in an exclusive preview.
Verrrrrry interesting.
We teach Greek and Roman myths, and Aesop's fables. We teach folk tales and European fairly tales. In the quest for multiculturalism, our schools search out Native American and African myths and stories to teach our children. But strangely, the Bible has been strictly off limits for decades. Can't mention it.
That's a shame, because the Bible has been a huge influence in Western Civilization -- it has been one of the building blocks of Western Civilization, in fact. And it continues to be so, whether we realize it or not.
Scholars have been looking for a way to teach Bible courses in public schools for years, said Sheila Weber, a vice president of the Bible Literacy Project, a Virginia group that is publishing the 40-chapter book.
A source of faithful inspiration to many, the Bible also is a cultural touchstone that's crucial to young students, Weber said. For example, she said, the works of Shakespeare include 1,300 biblical references. She also noted that 60 percent of the allusions in one advanced-placement literature course had biblical references such as "walking on water."
The new book includes sections explaining the Bible's influence on literature, art, music and history.
Of course, not everyone is happy with this new book. Judith Schaefer of People for the American Way warns that the book must not endorse any religious perspective.
For example, she said, it can't say that the story of Adam and Eve represents mankind's fall from grace. That's a Christian view, she said.
I disagree. It's much more than that. It's also a philosophical view and a literary view.
But why should I be surprised by the response of PAW? Based on their track record, that group is not "for" the "American Way," it's against Christianity. Schaefer's response that we can mention the story of Adam and Eve but not what it represents, is sort of like the Klan saying we can let the dark-skinned people on the bus, but we still aren't going to admit that they are fully human.
Elsewhere on the Web, Adam Nicolson bemoans Bible illiteracy and its affect on our (formerly) shared culture in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal (registration required). (The similar headline? Great minds...)
Games That Can't
Be Won: Strikers and Stadiums
Economics
columnist Ed Lotterman today writes about game theory and how it applies to the airline industry. "Game
theory," Lotterman explains, "analyzes decision-making when the
best alternative in a situation depends on what someone else chooses to
do."
When it comes to games and the airline industry, now that Northwest Airlines has filed for bankruptcy it is clear what kind of game that airline's striking mechanics have been playing: a game they cannot win.
Here's how it went down: Northwest management, knowing the airline was on the brink of bankruptcy, made the mechanics union the sort of lowball offer that it would take for the airline to have any chance of avoiding bankruptcy. The union, not realizing -- or refusing to accept -- that the rules had changed and this was a new type of game, made a counter-offer and expected the airline to move in their direction. But Northwest wouldn't budge, because doing so meant certain bankruptcy. Management basically had nothing to gain by accommodating the union, and everything to lose.
As the strike wore on, the airline faced soaring fuel costs and growing losses. The airline then made an even lower offer to the striking mechanics, because even the original lowball offer was now too high to keep the airline out of bankruptcy. Aghast and insulted, the mechanics rejected that offer.
Finally, Northwest filed for bankruptcy protection, making the strike largely irrelevant. The strikers gained nothing, and may have hurt their chances of keeping their jobs.
It's now apparent that the mechanics were doomed no matter what.
--------
Lotterman explains that one of the simplest examples of game theory is the "prisoners' dilemma." (I learned of the "prisoners' dilemma" in college, but not in regard to economics. It was as part of the dynamics of communication.) In this example, two men are arrested for a crime. Interrogated separately, each is promised leniency if he turns against his partner. The police may have little evidence, and it may be most rational for each prisoner to remain mum, in which case both might go free. But on the other hand, each prisoner worries that his partner will rat him out, so both may confess and testify against the other, in which case both of them end up worse off than if they had kept their mouths shut.
At present, Minnesota taxpayers are being asked to pay for three new sports stadiums: a football stadium for the University of Minnesota, a football stadium for the professional Minnesota Vikings, and a baseball stadium for the professional Minnesota Twins.
Stadium politics seems like a good example of how we all get caught in the "prisoners' dilemma." We're told we must build a new stadium for our team or someone else will, and then we'll lose our team. But what if all cities, counties and states simply refused to play that game? There would still be just as many teams; they would have to play somewhere. Some teams might end up in different cities, but they would mostly stay in the same major cities, and overall, the taxpayers of the country would benefit. Tax dollars could go for something truly beneficial, while team owners and players would still get by, albeit with fewer millions.
But for some reason, we keep giving in. When it comes to game theory, the team owners seem to be a lot better at it than the taxpayers and their representatives.
No Boyz Allowed
For
decades, woman fought for access to men-only organizations and activities.
But with that battle won, they still weren't satisfied. Now they want women-only
organizations and activities of their own.
A story in my paper today notes that many women are joining women-only gyms and fitness centers. "It's nice to know that there aren't any men here," said Karen Segar, a member at a women-only fitness center. "Does that sound bad?"
Not to me, to be honest. But it should sound terrible to feminists, unless they believe in a double standard.
Which many do, apparently. Years ago, already, I read of a hospital that had a women-only floor: only women patients, only women doctors, only women nurses. It was said that some female patients were just more comfortable that way.
And if a man says he's "more comfortable" with a male doctor, he's called a sexist pig.
I recall a feminist newspaper columnist gushing about how great it was to have a women-only book club. It's nice to just be with the girls sometimes, she said.
Periodically I read of the wonders of girls-only schools, and how well the girls do without those awful boys around to distract them.
And let's not forget those directories of women-owned businesses, for women who are "more comfortable" hiring a woman attorney, a woman painter, or a woman auto mechanic.
Hey, all this is no skin off my nose. Except for all that hypocrisy.
Men have always known that sometimes it's nice not to have the opposite sex around. Now women have figured it out, too. When are they going to apologize to men?
Rita Will Be Bush's
Fault, Too, Regardless of Damage
As
Texas braces for Hurricane Rita, the damage the storm will cause is still
unknown. But there's one thing we can be sure of: Whether the damage is
a little or a lot, President Bush will get blamed.
If Galveston and Texas come through the storm relatively safely, it will be called evidence that Bush took care of his rich white Texas oil friends, but not the poor blacks in New Orleans.
If Galveston suffers severe damage, it will be said that it's because while Bush was governor of Texas, he squandered federal money given to the state by the wonderful Bill Clinton.
I don't even know whether Clinton or federal money were in any way involved with Texas hurricane protection while Bush was governor, but for purposes of my prediction, it doesn't matter; That's just what they will say. Remember the modern definition of "news": Anything that makes Republicans look bad.
Star Parker on
Bush's Race Rhetoric
Star
Parker -- a black woman -- takes President Bush to task for saying that the poor in New Orleans are victims of discrimination.
In an excellent column, she explains the real problem facing New Orleans'
black poor.
Everyone's a Victim,
or Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
I
think this has some sort of connection to the Chai Vang story, though it's
hard to pin down exactly what that link is.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press has a "Sainted & Tainted" section on the opinion pages each Saturday. This is a chance for people to give thanks and recognition to those who have done a good deed (the "sainted" part), and also an opportunity for people to vent and point fingers when they don't think others have treated them fairly (the "tainted" part). I like the "sainted" part just fine, but I could do without the "tainted." Too often, the one doing the tainting needs to be reminded that when you point the finger at someone else, you've got three fingers pointing back at you.
This past Saturday, we were treated to this doozy, from M.J. Toft of St. Paul:
Tainted: On Aug. 26 we were driving down Ruth Street in St. Paul's Sunray area and we suddenly had to come to a screeching stop because of a child who bolted out of his driveway directly into the line of traffic on his electric scooter. I yelled an expletive. The father heard what I said and approached us and yelled at me. The father ran up to his son and quietly spoke to him and sent him on his way. This man should have been more upset with his son rather than yelling at us. He needs to teach his son to be responsible while driving his scooter and he needs to watch for oncoming traffic.
Good thing Mr. or Ms. Toft didn't have a deer rifle with, or he/she might have felt that the father and son deserved to die.
I can't feel sorry for the "victim" Toft. Writing this "tainted" letter and expecting our sympathy pretty much proves that this is a person with a distorted view of reality. Makes me question whether any of the facts presented here are true. Sort of like listening to Vang defend his actions in killing six people.
So Minorities
Think Lynchings Are a Good Thing, Then?
Following
the conviction of mass murderer Chai Vang, the deer hunter who shot eight other hunters in Wisconsin, killing
six of them, I read the predictable story about how this was somehow a "racial"
issue, and Chai Vang got a raw deal because he is of Hmong heritage, while
his victims were white.
The story is headlined "Trial splits audience on racial lines" with a subhead of "Minorities question how a white jury could know how a Hmong hunter must have felt that day."
How he felt? He shot eight people. Repeatedly. Many in the back. Six died. Who cares how he felt? Maybe he felt really, really bad. So what? Does that permit him to commit mass murder?
Some think so. Vang said on the witness stand that his victims deserved to die. After the guilty verdict was delivered, several of Vang's relatives made the same statement to the media.
Why did they "deserve to die"? Vang alleges that they hurled racial slurs at him. But the only evidence of that is what Vang says, and he's changed his story several times. Besides, wouldn't someone facing life in prison say anything?
But that doesn't matter. Even if they called him lots of disgusting, hateful names, and it made him feel really, really bad, does that justify him killing people?
Of course not.
This concern about how Vang "felt" got me thinking, what about some "good old boys" who feel really, really bad because some black guy said something they find offensive to a white woman? Do we empathize with them, when they decide the black guy "deserves to die" and hang him from a tree?
That's what Vang and his defenders seem to be saying: If someone offends you in a racially-sensitive way -- kill 'em! They deserve it.
One of St. Paul's leading race-baiting activists, the Rev. Devin Miller, seems to think it's reasonable to think that Vang "felt" so bad that he had to kill six people:
"You can either say, 'This guy's really smart and he's going to play the race card,' or, 'He's telling the truth,'" Miller said. "And I'm thinking, you're in Wisconsin, northern Wisconsin, and here is a group of folks who don't think he should be on their property. I've been in places where maybe not necessarily racial epithets have been said to me, but you get the feeling, maybe I shouldn't be here. I think he was being sincere."
And if you're a white guy on the subway, and four black guys get on, and they don't say anything, but they make you feel like maybe you shouldn't be there, just whip out your gun and shoot 'em.
Yeah, right.
You should recognize the name Emmit Till. Emmit was the 14-year-old Chicago boy who was beaten, mutilated and murdered by two white men while visiting relatives in Mississippi. His "crime"? Whistling at, or maybe talking to, or maybe just walking past a white woman. In an outcome that astonished the world, his killers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, were acquitted by an all-white jury that deliberated less than an hour. (After which, free from fear of being retried, they admitted their crime and accepted money to speak about how they did it.)
I equate Vang's defenders with the all-white jury that sided with the white killers in the face of overwhelming evidence. That jury was racist. And so are those who defend Vang just because he, like them, isn't white. But a conviction in agreement with overwhelming evidence of guilt is no sign of racism, regardless of the race of anyone involved. It's simply justice.
Not surprisingly, the Rev. Miller (a black man) doesn't see things the way I do. He sees Vang -- the murderer -- as a victim, a modern-day Emmit Till.
More troubling, Miller said, is the feeling he gets that the town of Rice Lake has been blindly supporting the hunters, when the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
"The images that come to my mind is that of the rural South in the early '50s and '60s in justifying a lynching," Miller said. "You have the person of color on trial for being in a place where someone thought he shouldn't have been. If I'm a hunter, and I'm on somebody else's land, and I don't see a sign, I don't know what to look for. And if someone walks up to me with a gun, saying, 'Get the 'F' off my land, I'm not going to walk away with my back to this person."
With advocates like this, who needs enemies? Could Miller be any more wrong? Vang was not on trial for trespassing. He was not on trial for being a person of color in a place where someone thought he should not be. He was on trial for mass murder.
Vang and his defenders are the "lynchers" here. They justify and excuse the murder of six people who allegedly spoke "inappropriately" to a person of another race. That's just what Emmit Till's killers and the jurors who acquited them did. Vang is no victim. If you say he was justified in shooting these people because he felt offended, how can you not say the same for the killers of Emmit Till?
There's plenty of racism on display here, but it's from non-whites. Some of the worst racists I see are those who go around preaching against it. They judge every person of color innocent, and everyone pale-skinned person guilty. What is the definition of racism? Isn't it pre-judging people based on the color of their skin? That's what these people are doing. According to the newspaper, the Rev. Miller...
...said he can't help but think that the hunters used racial insults -- and possibly fired the first shot, as Chai Soua Vang contends. That's in dispute with the surviving hunters, who have testified that they didn't use racial slurs and that Chai Soua Vang fired first.
Why is it Miller "can't help" think the hunters used racial insults? Does he think all white people are evil, slur-spurring racists? What do we call it when a white person "can't help" thinking that the black guy next to him on the bus is going to mug him when they get off? We call that racism. You would call that racism, Rev. Miller.
Before I end this, I noticed one other interesting link between the Till case and the Vang case. The website where I looked up the Till case explains that:
"Mississippi politicians and newspapers unanimously condemned the murderers and promised swift justice. However, Mississippians became more defensive as for weeks the press bombarded them with harsh condemnations of racial violence in the South."
In the same way, Hmong-Americans no doubt feel themselves under attack -- whether or not they really are -- by association with Vang. That must put some Hmong on the defensive, and a closing of ranks to a certain extent explains their empathy for Vang. Nonetheless, it excuses nothing, just as Mississippians are excused of nothing that happened in 1955.
Constitution Day
Comes and Goes
Did
you know that Saturday (Sept. 17) was Constitution Day? I didn't, either,
until I read about it in Saturday's newspaper.
I'll bet you also didn't know that a new federal law requires schools that receive federal money to teach students about the U.S. Constitution on or near Sept. 17.
I asked my kids if they learned about the Constitution Friday. Nope. So this morning, I asked the principal of their school about it. Guess what? It was news to her, too. But I'm not writing to criticize the school. Hey, who knew?
Well, to be fair, some schools did know, and they were featured in the newspaper story. Doug Austin, assistant principal of Irondale High School, said, "You can't just (teach) it in a day."
He's right. But unlike those who might think that since the Constitution is too big of a deal to be taught in just one day, that's an excuse not to teach it at all, I argue that the Constitution needs to be taught as an integral part of social studies and current events curriculums. The Constitution is the foundation of what students learn in those areas. Do they know that? Or do they think our country is run according to public opinion polls and lawsuits?
Still, while I think teaching the Constitution is very important, I am always wary of Congress micro-managing our schools.
Apparently, Constitution Day is a new holiday this year. Interestingly, a "Constitution Day" is what I've always thought we should observe in place of Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
You see, I've got a bone to pick with MLK Day. Do you realize that MLK is the only American to have his own holiday? It's true. Washington and Lincoln even have to share a generic Presidents' Day. Columbus was not an American. MLK is the only American with his own holiday. Is that right?
Furthermore, I think that the emphasis on MLK Day should not be on one man, it should be on the ideas that he championed. There's too much "MLK worship" and not enough thought about what equality and civil rights are really all about.
And equality and civil rights are grounded in our Constitution, even though this nation may have egregiously ignored that fact for much of its history, with slavery (incorporated into the original Constitution) and Jim Crowe laws.
Nevertheless, the Constitution ultimately allowed us to triumph over those mistakes, and continues to protect the rights of all. We should recognize that.
New Orleans Flood
Offers Lessons in Poverty, Government, Charity
A
New York Times news story last week
led with: "Donations for the victims of Hurricane Katrina have come
in at a blistering pace that exceeds that of other recent disasters, charities
are saying."
The Times story quotes Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, describing her theory about why there has been such a "quick deluge of money." Palmer said:
"I really think the biggest reason has got to be people seeing government agencies not doing the right thing, and that drove them to support a private response and do it quickly by sending it online."
Interesting. While Bush-haters will see this as something more to blame the President for -- "He didn't do his job, so we had to do it for him!" -- I think there is a different lesson here. If the government NOT acting spurs individuals to act, then I propose that the converse is also true: When people see the government acting, then they think they don't need to do anything. They'll just let the government take care of it, and won't accept any responsibility themselves, either to take care of themselves, or to help others.
I read a criticism claiming that 100 years ago, after the Great San Francisco Earthquake and fires, dozens of relief trains were on the way to the City by the Bay within 24 hours. The critic wanted to know why, with our improved communications, we are slower now.
Well, first of all, I reject the idea that there was no immediate response to Katrina. To the contrary, supplies and equipment were already being positioned near the Gulf as the storm approached. But let's skip over that, and look at another difference.
I'll bet those relief trains in 1905 were not products of some government bureaucracy. They were likely products of charity and private industry -- the railroads themselves.
Everyone knows that if you want something done quickly, don't look to the government.
But these days, many Americans have gotten the idea that the government is responsible for taking care of everything and everyone. That makes it easy for individuals to take no action themselves, and just point fingers at the government for not doing enough. Have you heard anyone say, "Isn't it great that we have helicopters and men (and women) show up right away to rescue people from their roofs?" No, we take that for granted. All we hear is criticisms: The aid is not fast enough. It's not handled in the right way. President Bush didn't say the right things.
There's an assumption that the government should and will take care of everything.
But it hasn't always been thus. There's an amazing story you may have heard before, about how frontier hero Davy Crockett, in his role as a congressman, gave a speech against a charity bill -- money for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Crockett is said to have given this argument:
"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
"We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
That story, plus some very interesting background wherein Crockett further explains his reasoning, appears here. I don't know how historically accurate it really is, but it does a great job of explaining some important principles of conservative thought.
Elsewhere, Brendan Miniter, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues that our very reliance on big government is what doomed the poor in New Orleans. The welfare state -- "LBJ's Other Quagmire" -- let them down, he writes.
"Anyone who has taken a non-drinking-binge tour of New Orleans, venturing outside the French Quarter and Garden District, might have noticed that New Orleans was a failing city. Tourism kept it, well, afloat, but large swaths of the city were mired in poverty for decades. One out of four New Orleans residents was living below the poverty line, and tens of thousands of people were living in public housing. These are the people who were left behind in the flood and who have long been left behind by failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime well above the national average.
"The Lower Ninth Ward was one section particularly hard it by the blight of poverty. Another hit hard by both poverty and then the flood was the Sixth Ward, home of the infamous Lafitte housing project. Recently the murder of a teenager there sparked a high school class to write short, locally published books about Lafitte's horrible living conditions. One author and a Lafitte resident, Ashley Nelson, told NPR on Friday that her friends and relatives still hadn't been able to escape their flooded neighborhood.
"That's not to say there was a lack of funding or even a lack of interest in poverty 'elimination' programs. For decades city, state and federal officials poured good money after bad into public housing and other programs. In the 1940s the Housing Authority of New Orleans built several public housing apartment buildings near the French Quarter. As the decades passed more money and more programs followed. In 1993 the Clinton administration recognized that packing public housing units into a small space didn't eliminate poverty, but it did create ghettoes that were not well served by public transportation or emergency services."
Remember the dependent dolphins. Let's treat people with some respect. Let's expect more of them than we expect from dolphins. Let's not just give people some fish.
Yet, there are those who think the lesson of New Orleans is that we need MORE Great Society-type programs. More government housing programs. More people dependent on handouts.
Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Anyone who thinks the way to help the poor of New Orleans is more of the same failed policies has got to be nuts.
"More on
"Living Wage" -- Some Re-Thinking
In
my immediately previous post on "living wages," I said I didn't
understand what was meant by firms receiving city subsidies. I understand
that better now, and I've got more to say.
It's been fairly common for some time for cities to assist businesses either with some kid of grant or by giving some sort of property tax relief. This must be what is meant by "subsidies."
If that's the case, then it absolutely makes sense to consider the wages the subsidized business will pay its workers. The purpose of the subsidy is to benefit the city, through jobs and taxes, and a business in a sector where people earn higher wages is going to benefit the city more than a business that pays workers lower wages.
So it becomes a matter of return on investment. If public dollars are to be diverted to a private business, then the guardians of the public purse would be remiss not to consider the wages that business will be paying out in the city. If the wages paid are low, that business might not be worth having at the price the taxpayers are being asked to pay. The city may be better off letting that business leave, and concentrating on attracting businesses that do pay their employees well.
That still does not, however, mean that "living wage" legislation is the best way to handle this. Some industries simply pay better wages than others. It might not be fair, but it is reality. The city shouldn't try to force a low-paying industry to pay higher wages. Better, as I said, to let low-paying industries go, and concentrate on attracting higher-paying industries.
And as for firms that have contracts with the city, this, too, is a return on investment issue. As I said in my original post, what sense does it make to insist that vendors pay their workers more money? That will only result in higher prices being paid by the taxpayers. A city council that attempts to conduct some sort of social policy or wealth redistribution program under the pretense of conducting the people's business is out of line.
"Living Wage"
Really "Subsidized Wage"?
The
city of St. Paul is considering legislation that would require a so-called "living
wage" to be paid by businesses
that have contracts in excess of $100,000 with the city, or which receive
a city subsidy in excess of $100,000.
The wage would be determined by a formula linked to the federal poverty level. In July, for instance, the "living wage" would have been $12.09 an hour, or $10.24 if the business provided health care to the employees.
Advocates like to think that this is a way of making evil and greedy big businesses treat workers more fairly. But as an evil conservative, I know that you can't get something for nothing; the money has to come from somewhere. And in this case, the money comes from....
...the taxpayers of St. Paul.
Think about it. If a business has to pay higher wages in order to do business with the city of St. Paul, then that business will have to bid a higher price for the work it performs for the city. The city will pay more for the same services. (Or, businesses may decide not to bid for St. Paul contracts at all, resulting in fewer bidders, less competition, and again, higher prices paid by St. Paul.)
I'm not sure what qualifies as a "subsidized" business, and maybe it's just a hypothetical included to make sure all the bases are covered, but the deal still works the same way. If the business already needed a city subsidy, and now it has to pay higher wages, it's going to need a bigger subsidy. Again, that will cost the city more.
And how will the city pay more? Raise taxes, or cut services, like rec centers and libraries, and filling the potholes in the streets. But at least we'll be making sure that someone who may not even live in St. Paul is getting a "living wage."
This is along the lines of the Green Party mayoral candidate who wanted to impose a city income tax. They think they can just take and take, and there are no consequences. But really, what does simple economics matter, when you mean well?
The economic illiteracy of these folks is illustrated by a statement from Ryan Greenwood, executive director of Progressive Minnesota, who dismisses the notion that higher wages might hurt economic development. Greenwood says that won't happen, because the higher wages will likely be spent locally. "(The money) is not going to a stockholder in Delaware. It's going straight back into the Twin Cities economy."
Yes, but where is the money coming FROM? It's coming from others in the Twin Cities economy.
And note Greenwood's naked prejudice: Don't worry, the money's not going to a STOCKHOLDER! And not one in Delaware, which Greenwood may have picked because so many corporations are incorporated in Delaware, regardless of where their offices and plants are.
But stockholders are everywhere -- yes, even right here in St. Paul! And they include lots of everyday people -- who go to work everyday -- who have invested for their retirement.
But really, who cares about facts -- or a little collateral damage -- when you're so righteously involved in class warfare?
The "living wage" legislation is on hold for now. The sponsoring council member has shelved it for now, because supporters say it doesn't go far enough! A "coalition of labor, grassroots and religious organizations" objected to compromises that had been reached with Mayor Randy Kelly. That means we can expect it to rear an even uglier head in the future.
One more thing: What's with the religious groups involved here? What happened to that "wall of separation" that liberals are always talking about? Once again, as I've been pointing out to you periodically, that famous "wall of separation" doesn't apply when religion is used to support liberal politics.
ABC or WCCO, You
Can't Believe What You See on TV
ABC's
transparent use of leading questions in trying to get hurricane victims
to bash Bush is no isolated incident. It's very much similar to my own experience
in being interviewed by the WCCO-TV reporter at the State Fair. (September 5 post)
In my case there wasn't political bias involved, but the reporter used leading questions, clearly looking for us to say certain things to fit her story the way she wanted it to be. I was surprised after the pre-interview, when she initially spoke to us, that she wanted to proceed with interviewing us on tape, since our answers clearly didn't conform to what she wanted to hear. But it didn't matter to her, we found out much too late, because she just edited our comments to fit into her story, making us appear to say the opposite of what we had in fact told her.
To update you on my complaint with WCCO-TV, I sent a complaint to their news director last week. I had to send it through a gatekeeper, as they don't make his email or phone available to us commoners. (Too many complaints coming in otherwise?) After more than a week, news director Jeff Kiernan gave me this reply:
"Thank you Dave for your e-mail.
"I appreciate you writing WCCO TV.
"I have thoroughly reviewed your concern. I am confident that our story was accurate and did not misrepresent anything you or your wife said to us.
"Again, thanks for your e-mail."
Not much to work with. He never contacted me, so how could he have "thoroughly reviewed" my concern? Did he watch the raw video footage? Obviously not, or he would have seen that what I told him was true.
It's fitting. Template for the news, form letter for the complaint response. No need to gather any facts. Just pull it out of the file, fill in a few blanks and run with it.
I'm not letting this drop. I'll keep you posted on my next move.
Dependent Dolphins:
What a Metaphor for New Orleans' Poor!
I
hear some dolphins escaped captivity in New Orleans due to the flooding. But not to worry, animal lovers, the animals
have been found swimming together in the ocean. They are being hand fed
and will soon be recaptured and returned to captivity.
What's wrong with this picture? Isn't life in the ocean a positive turn of events for these dolphins?
Apparently not. The dolphins are so dependent on human handouts, they don't know how to fend for themselves. If they aren't recaptured and put back into an unnatural, controlled environment, where they will live off of handouts, they will starve. So the only humane thing to do is to make them dependent captives once again.
What an apt metaphor for the poor people of New Orleans, also displaced by the flood.
But let's use this opportunity to set those people free. Let's not put them back into the captivity of public housing projects, where they live off of handouts, just like captive dolphins. Let's use this opportunity to start over, rejecting 40 years of failed social policy that has not helped people, but rather, made them as helpless as those captive dolphins.
Let's give them the help they need to become self-sufficient. Let's teach them to fish, so to speak, rather than just give them the fish -- like we do with the dolphins. That's the humane thing to do.
ABC's Post-Speech
Bias Story Catches Fire
Critics
of Rush Limbaugh say that his listeners are mindless automatons who parrot
whatever their leader says on the radio. I'm not a regular listener, but
I beg to differ. When I first heard Rush (first read a bit of one of his
books, actually), I was amazed to hear someone who agreed with what I had
already figured out for myself, and wasn't afraid to say it.
An example came up today. Last night I wrote about ABC TV's flagrantly biased attempt to get hurricane victims to bash Bush last night after the President's speech (scroll down 2 posts). That was Rush's lead item on his show today. His reaction was exactly the same as mine. And bloggers all over the place are having at ABC over the network's naked attempt to set up a kangaroo court of Bush bashing, which instead backfired on Reynolds and Koppel. Guess they didn't know that black people had brains and could think for themselves. They just assumed all the po' black folks would repeat what the white liberals had told them.
I went to the ABC/Nightline website, but couldn't find any record of the biased interview. However, they did prominently offer, for my convenience, video of the President's speech, labeled: "Accepting Blame: The President takes responsibility for the response to Katrina."
That was their template -- the President is responsible -- so that's what they went with. All those positive remarks from the black hurricane victims? On the cutting room floor, evidently.
Some video of the interview session is available from The Political Teen
What Ya Got Under Yer Hat, Cowboy?
Actress
Renee Zellweger, after just four months of marriage to country music star
Kenny Chesney, has filed for an annulment, alleging unspecified "fraud."
Nonetheless, we at Downing World feel free to speculate on just what that fraud might be.
Top Five Reasons Renee Zellweger Wants an Annullment:
5) She found out the 37-year-old entertainer and sex symbol was not really a virgin.
4) When he finally took off that darned cowboy hat on their wedding night, he had a bald spot the size of the OK Corral.
3) She's seen his tractor, she doesn't think it's sexy, and it doesn't turn her on.
2) She's also not crazy 'bout his "farmer's tan."
1) Apropos his "tractor": She's unimpressed with his plowing technique; he always leaves a dead furrow.
I'm Asking You
Again, Don't You Blame the President?
I've
seen something amazing. But since it doesn't fit the Mainstream Media's
template, I'm sure "we'll speak of this no more." At least the
MSM will speak of this no more. I'm going to speak of it.
I had ABC TV on for the President's speech from New Orleans. Afterwards, with Ted Koppel anchoring, they went to reporter Dean Reynolds, live at the Houston Astrodome. Reynolds was prepared to ask a group of flood victims -- all of whom were black -- for their reactions to the President's speech.
Reynolds kept trying to get the flood victims to say something bad about the President. But they wouldn't. His frustration was evident, and he became more and more obvious in his attempts to put words into their mouths.
Reynolds asked one woman whom she blamed for disaster. She said it was the state and local government, not the President, who were to blame.
Reynolds asked another flood victim if the President should have done more to prevent the flooding. She said it was the fault of the mayor. She said federal funds were allocated to improve the levies, but the mayor didn't do anything about it.
Reynolds asked if something could have been done better to get people out. A woman replied, "I'm going to be completely truthful. I had the chance to leave. I just didn't take it seriously." Others said that the local officials should have done something with all those unused buses to get people to safety, but they didn't blame the President.
Finally, Reynolds got desperate. He said something like, "Is there anything the President should have done differently, like giving this speech sooner"? One woman agreed, "Yes, he could have given this speech sooner."
Gotcha! Reynolds finally drew blood. After putting words into her mouth.
Reynolds was totally flummoxed by the way these flood victims expressed their optimism and faith that they would return home, by the way they said they trusted the President and believed what he had said, and by the way they refused to say bad things about the President.
They didn't fit his template.
How much of this will be in tomorrow's news reports? None, I'm sure.
Poop Head
One
of the benefits of reading the advice columnists in the daily paper is that
it shows me I'm really pretty-well adjusted, relatively speaking. More so
than some people might think, actually. Yesterday, "Advice Diva"
Tara Solomon dealt with the issue of a woman who was afraid to go away for
the weekend with her boyfriend because... she
might have to poop!
Oh, how embarrassing! Can't let him know her body does that!
If she doesn't know this guy well enough to let him find out that she poops, MAYBE SHE DOESN'T KNOW HIM WELL ENOUGH TO SPEND THE WEEKEND IN A HOTEL WITH HIM!
Apparently, she's perfectly willing to share lots of other personal things her body can do, but not that! She has her standards!
I mention this stupid column only so I can get on my high horse again. I'll tell you this: Men have always been pigs. When women decided that it was "progress" to become more like men, that's when things really started going downhill.
(The "Advice Diva" is just as nutty as the woman seeking advice. Her solution? When the woman has to poop, she should run the shower and put a towel in the gap under the bathroom door, telling her boyfriend that she's enjoying a "sauna." That will mask the sound and odor.)
Modern, Caring,
Sensitive Quadriga: A Century of Progress, But Where Are We Now?
We
took a special tour of the Minnesota State Capitol building last night.
This is the centennial of the completion of the building -- Cass Gilbert's
masterpiece -- and the Minnesota Historical Society is offering some special,
members-only tours.
What was particularly special about this tour was that we were able to go out on the roof and see the Quadriga up close. The Quadriga is a gold-leafed statue that looks out from over the main entrance to the building.
I'll bet you didn't know that "quadriga" is not just the name of this statue (I didn't), although that is what the statue is commonly called. A "quadriga" is actually the term for a two-wheeled chariot pulled by four horses. The name of this specific piece of art is actually "Progress of the State."
And progress is a big theme throughout
the artwork that adorns the Capitol. A century ago, it was all about progress.
It was all about civilization, tilling the land, building things, making
things. Progress. (With a nod to the native inhabitants, as a part of the
state's past.)
And the Quadriga is no exception. Again, note its name: "Progress of the State." While the horses are named for the elements: "Earth, "Wind," "Fire," and "Water," the driver standing in the chariot is named "Prosperity." Meanwhile, the women standing alongside the horses are "Agriculture" and "Industry."
Like I said, it was all about progress.
I wonder, if such a statue were commissioned now, how would it differ? Well, first of all, there'd be a big fuss about why is the man riding and in charge, while the women stand by the animals. But let's forget that, and imagine that the statue still looks the same. How would it be described?
"Prosperity" is out. It's not fair. Some are more prosperous than others. We don't value prosperity anymore, we want equal wealth for all. The driver would have to be "Entitlement."
"Agriculture" rapes the land. "Industry" pollutes the skies and water. They're out. We don't value those anymore. What do we value? What could we name the women after?
"Tolerance" and "Diversity." That would be it.
(And "Fire," isn't that a bit violent? And it destroys all those trees. Wait, that's it! The fourth horse could be "Trees"!)
Insulted by the "R Word"
I voted for incumbent Mayor Randy Kelly in the St. Paul primary
yesterday. Kelly finished a disappointing second to fellow Democrat and
former city council member Chris Coleman.
I'm feeling pretty comfortable with either candidate. This is the fifth mayoral election since I've lived in St. Paul, but the first where one of the final two candidates wasn't a liberal wienie who I feared would do great harm to the city (unfortunately, one of the wienies won). Coleman is backed by some level-headed folks I respect, so he must be OK. What I'm getting at, is this is the first time where I'm not voting AGAINST someone. Either one can do the job. The choice this time is actually based on deciding who can do it better.
But while I'm not anti-Coleman, he's been doing his best to make me that way. Coleman's campaign has attacked Kelly for the way the Mayor crossed party lines to support President Bush's reelection bid last fall. They're calling him "Republican Randy," like that's some sort of slur. Coleman supporters even have "Republican Randy" lawn signs.
Is "Republican" supposed to be some sort of slur? I vote Republican. We just seldom have a Republican on the ballot in city elections, so I've voted for Democrat Kelly. Republican voters may be a minority in St. Paul, but we are here. Doesn't Coleman realize that? Or does he just not give a damn about us?
What happened to "bipartisanship"? What happened to "tolerance" and "diversity"? What's with this name calling? It's as though Coleman is saying that I am an undesirable. Yet he claims to want my vote.
Would a candidate call his opponent "Gay Randy" or "Black Randy"? Of course not. But "Republican Randy" as a slur? I guess that's OK. (You may be saying, "But there's nothing wrong with being gay or Black. Exactly. And there's nothing wrong with being a Republican. So why is "Republican" being used as a slur?)
Fundamentalist
Watermelons -- Greens Make Strong Showing in Twin Cities Mayoral Primaries
Green Party candidates made surprisingly strong showings in the
mayoral primaries in St. Paul and Minneapolis yesterday: 19% in St. Paul
and 14% in Minneapolis. But both finished third -- behind two Democrats
-- and were eliminated from the race.
I first heard of the Greens more than 20 years ago, in college, while studying political science amongst other impractical subjects. The Greens had begun to exercise some political muscle in Western Europe. The professor told us that while they called themselves "Greens," some others called them "watermelons." I earned Brownie points by correctly guessing why: They're green on the outside, but red on the inside.
I think the same thing of the Greens here in the Twin Cities. They say they're all about clean air and clean water, but really, they've got an economic agenda. The don't like capitalism. They want to redistribute the wealth. Sounds pretty Red to me. (The Green candidate who garnered 19% of the vote in St. Paul was even proposing a city income tax! Does she want all the people who work for a living to leave for the suburbs? That's how these people think: If we could just get rid of all the people with money, the poor could live in some sort of Welfare Utopia.)
You know what the Greens are? They are FUNDAMENTALISTS! No one ever uses that term for people on the left, but it applies. Just as right-wing, religious fundamentalists may cling to their core principles regardless of the practical outcome -- because right is right -- left-wing, environmentalist FUNDAMENTALISTS cling to their belief that protecting any and all of nature is the most important, overriding principle.
Yet, a right-wing fundamentalist who wants to protect unborn babies is portrayed as someone who "wants to force her values on others," while a left-wing fundamentalist who wants to protect (someone else's) trees is portrayed as doing so out of a "deep and genuine concern for the earth."
Could that be the result of the double standard of the left-wing mainstream media? Of course it is.
Bush the Environmentalist
Restores Wetlands
I like the way that Jack Welch says Mother Nature "has been
given a pass" (previous post) when it comes to responsibility for the
destruction in New Orleans. Think about the irony here. Apparently, the
Bush critics think Bush should have done more to dominate and control (destroy!)
nature, in the form of better levees and such. Yet they are the same people
who say we mustn't do anything to disturb nature -- drill for oil, for instance,
or encroach on a wetland. Which is it? New Orleans and its levees are unnatural.
They prevent the natural Mississippi River flooding from taking place. They
result in more sediment and pollution entering the ocean.
Heck, by personally donning his SCUBA gear and planting those explosive charges under the levees, Bush was simply engaging in some wetlands reclamation. He should be a hero to the tree hugging crowd!
Jack Welch Analyzes
Hurricane Aftermath
Former General Electric Jack Welch offers an interesting analysis of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in today's
Wall Street Journal. Here's an excerpt:
"Mother Nature, perhaps for the first time in the case of a bona fide natural disaster, has been given a pass. Instead, the shouting has been about crisis-management -- or the lack thereof. Everyone from President Bush to the police chief in a small parish on the outskirts of the city has been accused of making shockingly bad mistakes and misjudgments. The Katrina crisis, you would think, is unlike any before it."
Welch argues that the Katrina aftermath follows the classic pattern of the five steps of crisis management, as he has witnessed it in the corporate world:
"The first stage of that pattern is denial. The problem isn't that bad, the thinking usually goes, it can't be, because bad things don't happen here, to us. The second is containment. This is the stage where people, including perfectly capable leaders, try to make the problem disappear by giving it to someone else to solve. The third stage is shame-mongering, in which all parties with a stake in the problem enter into a frantic dance of self-defense, assigning blame and claiming credit. Fourth comes blood on the floor. In just about every crisis, a high profile person pays with his job, and sometimes he takes a crowd with him. In the fifth and final stage, the crisis gets fixed and, despite prophesies of permanent doom, life goes on, usually for the better.
"We are a way off from the fifth stage in New Orleans, but the first four played out like an old movie."
Welch goes on to describe the specifics of how New Orleans fit the five-stage model. Interesting stuff.
After New Orleans,
Is Washington Next?
Kathleen Parker
does a good job analyzing the facts of race and poverty as involved in the
tragedy in New Orleans. Parker points out that for most of us -- whites
especially -- New Orleans is just a big, fun town where you can go to party.
"We don't see the poverty on the periphery," she writes, "Because,
to be blunt, it spoils our movie." Parker writes that the tourism industry
survives thanks to the poor who work in it.
And "the poor" in New Orleans, all too often, is synonymous with the black population.
That got me to thinking about what could be another disaster in waiting -- the nation's capital, Washington D.C.
It may not be flood prone, but the nation's capital is surely a tempting target for a terrorist attack. And think of all the times you've heard people say that the devastation in New Orleans resembles the aftermath of a nuclear attack. Could this be a preview of a disaster in Washington D.C.?
If I remember correctly, the majority of people who live in the nation's capital are black. And they aren't wealthy. What happens to them if an attack comes?
I've been to Washington D.C. once, when I was in college. I'd grown up in an area where pretty much everyone's ancestors had come from Germany, Sweden or Norway. I attended a college with a small minority enrollment. So I couldn't help but notice how many black people I saw and met. But here's the part that really hit me: Pretty much anyone who "served" me, a waiter, hotel staff, etc., was black. I felt rather awkward about that. It was as though all the blacks were subservient to me -- a white guy -- in some way. Yes, it was because I was "the customer," and the customer comes fist. But it was odd, and uncomfortable.
Let's Be Logically
Consistent
The next time someone says, "We have to save the rain forest,
because the cure for cancer might be in there," ask him about his position
on abortion. If he's "pro-choice," tell him, "We have to
save the unborn, because one of them might find the cure for cancer!"
What's with the
New Guy?
It seems odd that someone being nominated to join the Supreme
Court would also be nominated to join the Court as Chief Justice. Why the
"new guy" for Chief Justice? That's strange to me for three reasons:
1) He lacks experience of actually being a Supreme Court Justice. How prepared is he to preside over the other Justices? 2) He hasn't yet had an opportunity to earn the respect of the other Justices. 3) Most important, the President can't be sure yet what sort of Chief Justice John Roberts would be. We hear often about how Justice David Souter surprised Republicans by not being conservative once he joined the Court. I'd think the President would not want to take that chance with a Chief Justice appointee. I'd think he'd want someone with a Supreme Court track record.
Another thing about Supreme Court appointments: If the Supreme Court is part of one of our three branches of government -- the judiciary -- and acts in the system of checks and balances with the legislative branch and the executive branch, how much sense does it make that the President and Congress select and approve a Justice based on him doing what they want? The Court is supposed to see to it that the President and Congress don't overstep their own authority. Kind of defeats the purpose to have the judiciary branch picked by the other two branches, doesn't it?
Listen Up, Dads
Sorry this isn't available online, but the St. Paul Pioneer
Press has a feature they call "Ant Farm," in which they show
a large photo and just a few paragraphs of story on the front page of a
section, intended to "offer a glimpse of everyday life in various corners
of our community."
Today, there is a photo of a boy helping his father do some automobile maintenance. I love this quote from the father, Thomas Nelson Jr., of St. Paul:
"Ever since he [8-year-old Thomas Nelson III] was 1 or 2 years old, he went along with me to fix things. 'Dad, take me. I just want to be around you.' And either I spend time with my kids or somebody else will, you know?"
"Either I spend time with my kids or somebody else will."
What's implied is that "somebody else" won't teach your kids what you want them to learn.
Remember that, all you dads.
Remember
It's been four years. Many have forgotten, or act as though they
have. Don't you be one of them.
Al Gore Is a Nazi
(This post will have some people sputtering, "He's calling
Al Gore a Nazi!" so I thought I'd put it right into the title to make
their day for them.)
Former real-president Al Gore has joined the hiking-booted throngs marching lockstep to the tune of global warming. Gore, who preceded current real-president John Kerry, says that global warming is to blame for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina (even if the death and damage isn't as bad as first blamed on not-my-president George W. Bush).
Here's what I think: people who salute and sing "Global Warming" don't believe in global warming because of science; they believe in global warming because they want a reason to hate and blame those they don't like -- anyone who doesn't share their politics and lifestyle (so much for tolerance and diversity).
In this way, they remind me of American Southerners who blamed (or still blame) Blacks for their problems. Or, the best example, Nazis who blamed Jews for the very real economic crisis in between-wars Germany. Instead of "The economy is bad. It's the Jews' fault!" it's "The Earth is getting warmer! It's the suburban Republicans' fault!"
Scientists tell us that the Earth has gone through many periods of climate change, getting either cooler or warmer, for periods ranging from hundreds to thousands of years. Now, we detect a slight change in average temperatures and we're sure the sky is falling. But just a few decades ago, the fear was "the coming ice age." It was even on the cover of Time magazine.
I've written before about the Arrogance of Science, about how we think we know everything, but we laugh at the "ignorance" of those who came before us. Concerning global warming, I wonder sometimes if we're not being just like those "primitive" folks who saw the days grow shorter at the time of the winter solstice, and thought they needed to sacrifice a virgin (or a Democrat, if that was all that was available) to bring the sun back.
Before I go, I like to set the record straight. Al Gore is not a Nazi. The Nazis were National Socialists. Al Gore is a Democrat socialist who believes in concentrating power in the national government.
See the difference?
Nagin Lied, Not
So Many People Died
Now that the blame has been firmly fixed on George W., the truth
can come out. Now they are saying the New Orleans death toll won't be anything
near 10,000, like Mayor Nagin had said it would be. And they're saying New
Orleans will be dried out in about a month, not months and months like they
were saying. And much of the city will come through this just fine, it won't
all be destroyed.
That's all good news, of course.
Will anyone apologize to President Bush?
Hugo, Girl
In an ode to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, Kansas City Star columnist Mary Sanchez notes
that Chavez "sharply criticized the Bush administration's response
to Katrina's victims, accurately pointing out the poorest of the poor are
suffering the most."
Wow! A regular Einstein! I wonder if Chavez could accurately point out that the sky is blue! And that grass is green!
As I've said before, OF COURSE the poor suffer the most. They're poor. Being poor sucks. Money may not buy happiness, but it does bring with it the ability to mitigate many of life's problems. If you're poor, you have fewer options. If you're poor -- or elderly, handicapped, etc. -- every problem hits you harder.
Sanchez also suggests that Chavez should be paranoid about the U.S. and its intentions toward Venezuela, because "Some Web sites are reporting that Venezuela has uncovered plans for a U.S.-led invasion of the country."
Once we get past the shock of a print journalist and member of the Mainstream Media using as a source "some Web sites are reporting," I'd like to say: We'd better have a plan!
We should have a plan for invading any country that we might ever have to invade. That doesn't mean we intend to invade any country, just that we are prepared if the need arises.
The Bush-haters like to complain, "Bush had a plan for invading Iraq even before he said he decided to do it. That proves he intended to invade all along, and never considered other options."
No. It means he was prepared ahead of time for what he might have to do.
And isn't one of the big complaints we keep hearing that the federal government DOESN'T have enough plans? No plan for Iraq after the invasion. No plan for a flooded New Orleans.
"There should have been a plan!" That's the cry we hear. But why should there be a plan? Wouldn't that suggest that Bush had decided to flood New Orleans long ago, and never really considered having his hurricane miss the Crescent City? (That must have been quite a sight, Old George out there in the Gulf with a big fan, whipping up Hurricane Katrina.)
Doomed to Repeat
Our Mistakes?
We seem to have trouble learning from past mistakes. And no, in
this case I'm not even talking about building cities in areas prone to flooding.
I've heard that some gas stations are being plagued by a problem with their pumps. It seems that their pumps are not able to be set for a price of $3 or higher -- $2.99 is as high as they can go. Why this should be, I don't know, since it's not as though a place for an extra digit needs to be added. Some stations are dealing with this, I hear, by setting the measure to half a gallon, and then setting the price at half of the gallon price.
Deja vu all over again.
This is the same problem that hit stations more than a quarter century ago when prices first topped $1. Many pumps had been designed so that they had only places for two digits for cents, so they could go only up to 99 cents (for simplicity, let's just forget about the 9/10 part).
Why on earth would anyone design a pump that could go to 2.99, but not advance to 3-9 in the dollars' place? Makes no sense.
Six years back we were hearing about a problem with gravestones. When a spouse was buried, some stones had also been engraved with the surviving spouse's year of birth, and 19(blank) for the date of death, with the final two digits to be filled in when necessary. Trouble was, some of those survivors were still living and expecting to see the year 2000!
The really strange part is, they should have known better. I read where one old timer in the business said his father had told him they had the same problem when the year 1900 came around!
People just don't learn, do they? (And I didn't even mention that "little" Y2K problem with the computers that had only two digits for the year.)
Those Who Can't... Report
There's an old saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't,
teach." I think that's unfair to teachers. But I think we can apply
it to someone else:
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, report and second guess."
I say this because of the mainstream media's fixation on passing out blame for Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Maureen Dowd pretty much comes right out and says that President Bush personally killed people: "W drove his budget-cutting Chevy to the levee, and it wasn't dry. Bye, bye, American lives."
New Orleans was founded in 1718, but somehow, the fact that it sits below sea-level, waiting for a disaster to happen, isn't relevant until 2001, when George W. Bush becomes president? Bill Clinton didn't act to prevent this disaster. George H.W. Bush didn't act to prevent this disaster. Ronald Reagan didn't act to prevent this disaster. Jimmy Carter didn't act to prevent this disaster. Gerald Ford didn't act to prevent this disaster. Richard Nixon didn't act to prevent this disaster. Lyndon Johnson didn't act to prevent this disaster. John F. Kennedy didn't act to prevent this disaster. Dwight Eisenhower didn't act to prevent this disaster. Harry Truman didn't act to prevent this disaster. Not even the Democrats' favorite president, FDR, with all his New Deal public works projects, acted to prevent this disaster. I could go all the way back to President Thomas Jefferson, who purchased New Orleans from France in 1803.
But somehow, President Bush is personally responsible?
The media ask, Why didn't the government do something to prevent this? I ask, Why didn't the media do something?
I read years ago that this very disaster could happen. Why didn't the media continue to report the story? Why didn't Dan Rather begin each newscast from 1993 through 2000 with, "Good evening. The Clinton administration again today failed to act to prevent the destruction of the city of New Orleans"?
They knew. But they ignored it.
They'll say, "But it wasn't a story then." I say, if it wasn't a story then, then it's not a story now. If the story is that the government didn't do something, then it was a story while the government was not doing something. If the media -- and the populace, including those in New Orleans -- didn't think the issue was worth caring about before, how can they blame the federal government for feeling the same way?
Blame, Blame,
Blame
Local government officials find it easy to blame Washington for
the disaster in New Orleans. But despite Andy Borowitz's humor,
Washington finds it difficult to reciprocate. After all, that would be blaming
the victim, and besides, everyone hates the federal government, anyway.
But read this Wall Street Journal editorial explaining how New Orleans mayor Nagin and Louisiana Governor Blanco blew it.
Blame and "Refugees":
Not Everything is Black or White
Now I hear there is a flap about whether people fleeing New Orleans
should be called "refugees." Some blacks say "refugees"
has a negative connotation, and it's racist because so many of the (people
who used to live in New Orleans but now have gone somewhere else) are black.
I wondered, what does the dictionary say? So I looked up "refugee," and here's what I found:
"Refugee: One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution."
Interestingly, this specifically mentions reasons other than natural disaster. That suggests that the CONNOTATION of the word might make it not the best word to use in this situation, although based on the DENOTATION, it doesn't exclude these people.
But, it also says that a "refugee" is one who flees in search of refuge. How is "refuge" defined:
Refuge: Protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship. 2. A place providing protection or shelter. 3. A source of help, relief, or comfort in times of trouble.
I'd have to say the folks fleeing New Orleans are seeking shelter from danger and hardship. They need protection. That would make them "refugees."
Bottom line: It depends how you look at it. There is no definitive right or wrong here. If use of the word "refugees" distracts us from the real issue, then let's not use it.
[I've just heard a radio talk show caller trying to give a lesson on proper word usage in this situation. But he says we shouldn't call (people who used to live in New Orleans but now have gone somewhere else) "refugees" because of what that "infers." If he doesn't know the difference between "infers" and "implies" I don't think he's Mr. Language Expert.]
And one more thing, people don't have to come from another country to be "refugees."
Can't we forget all the black versus white crap and just get people some help?
A few nights ago, I saw people complaining on the "Nightline" TV news program that the reason they didn't get help sooner was that they were black. "We wouldn't be left in this situation if we were white," they claimed.
Monday on "Nightline," they visited Katrina victims in rural Mississippi. These victims claimed that they still had no help a week after the hurricane because they were rural, and FEMA cared only about the metropolitan areas. By the way, these "forgotten" people were white.
The lesson? When something terrible has happened to people, we can expect them to lash out and blame someone. But that doesn't mean their accusations are warranted. It's human nature to think we are the ones getting the short end of the stick. It starts when we are kids, and some people never get over it. Trauma like this only exacerbates the tendency.
Appeasers Everywhere,
But Appeasement Doesn't Work
A police officer died in the Twin Cities yesterday, hit by a fugitive trying to escape other officers
in a chase at speeds up to 100 mph.
Officer Shawn Silvera of the Lino Lakes Police Department was laying out Stop Sticks designed to puncture the tires on the fugitive's car. Officer Silvera was off the roadway, but the fugitive veered off the road and hit him.
This follows another recent incident in which a civilian motorist was struck and killed by another fugitive fleeing police at high speeds.
Whether police should engage in these dangerous chases is the subject of much debate. It's easy to say, "It's not worth it." It's easy to say, "People would still be alive if the police didn't chase that guy." It's easy to say, "No high speed chases; someone might get killed."
But you know what that sort of thinking is? It's appeasement. It's the same as saying that we shouldn't be engaged in the Middle East, because if we didn't, soldiers and civilians wouldn't have died.
But if we just let the terrorists have free reign -- and they know it, if we let the bad guys escape the police -- and they know all they have to do is hit the gas and they'll get away, what will be the result?
More terrorism. More crime.
Decades ago, there were those who said, "Let Hitler have Poland," then "Let Hitler have France." In this country, there were many prepared to "Let Hitler have England."
But appeasement doesn't work. It's the same all the way on up from the playground bully to foreign policy. Giving the bully what he wants just increases his appetite for more. Appeasement is only a short-term solution. Long-term, you've got to stand up for what's right.
And Your Point, Again?
The final tallies are in,
and Minnesota State Fair attendance this year was.... actually just a bit
higher than last year.
Makes WCCO's whole "Why is Fair attendance down?" story rather pointless.
(Tip of the hat to Michele for the link.)
Exactly What "Should"
the Response Be?
Regarding criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina, I have
just one question: How does the response this time compare to the response
the other times all of New Orleans has been flooded like this?
I'm just trying to get an idea of the "standard" response we usually get when a disaster of this magnitude happens. You know, so I can see if it's really any slower this time.
State Fair Follow-Up
(Read the Monday post immediately below this if you haven't
done so already.)
I'm going to follow-up on my complaint about how my family was portrayed on the TV news yesterday. I've just recently sent my complaint to the station; hopefully it will get through to the news director. I'm torn between thinking I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, and feeling that I'm justifiably angry that I've been made to look foolish by being erroneously portrayed on TV by an incompetent "journalist." Maybe back when I was younger, a pretty face was all I required of a TV reporter. But these days, I expect some actual professional ability. Reporter Terri Gruca didn't get the reference when I joked that no one goes to the Fair anymore because it's too crowded -- not even when I tried to explain, "Like Yogi Berra would say." Clueless.
Other thoughts from the Fair:
--If the hot dog is "about" a foot long, is it OK to pay "about" $3.75 for it?
--A corn dog seller told me that when she started out 23 years ago, corn dogs sold for 85 cents. They are now $3. As I recall, 23 years ago, a gallon of gas went for about $1.30 -- 50 percent more than a corn dog. Today, that corn dog goes for $3! With a similar increase, gasoline would be about $4.50 a gallon! Yet, no one demands that the governor or the president do anything about high corn dog prices.
Don't Believe
Everything You See on TV: Dave Quoted Out of Context to Fit the Pre-Written
Story
1. I've long believed that all too often, news reporters --
especially TV news reporters -- first decide what the story is, then go
out and get the sound bites to support it.
2. Many people quoted in news stories claim they have been misquoted, or that their quotes have been taken out of context.
I appeared on a TV news broadcast today, and I'm declaring WCCO-TV (channel 4) guilty on both counts. Here's what happened:
My wife, kids and I were at the Minnesota State Fair today. Around midday, we were walking through the intersection of Cooper and Cosgrove, and we spied a video camera set up in the street. We tried to pass by, walking behind the camera, when we were approached by a TV news reporter.
Reporter Terri Gruca, of WCCO-TV (Minneapolis), said she was doing a story about State Fair attendance being down, and about people not coming to the Fair as often as they had in the past. She asked about our attendance, and we told her we were attending only one day this year, same as last. We told her we liked to come two days, and had done so in the past, but we were able to FIND TIME TO COME only one day.
Labor Day, the final day of the Fair, is also advertised as a "bargain day," with special offers from some Fair vendors. Gruca asked if this was why we picked today to attend. My wife said no, we picked today because it's a holiday, and she didn't have to take off work to come. Our answers didn't seem to fit what Gruca was looking for, but she asked if she could interview us on camera, and we consented.
We repeated what we had said off-camera. Gruca also asked if we thought prices were going up, and we said yes, they were, and rising prices for admission and at the concessions might keep some people away. She asked if we noticed the final day bargains. My wife said no, except for the reduced rates on carnival rides. Gruca asked if we thought higher gas prices were keeping people away. I replied no, because it's little difference for people in the metro area, and for people outstate, the Fair is an event that's been on their calendars all year, and they are coming regardless. (Remember, I grew up on the farm; I was once one of those people.)
We sure didn't fit the template of the story Gruca said she was working on. I wondered, would we not appear in the final story, because we didn't fit what she wanted? Or would she reshape the story she initially thought she had, to reflect what we had told her?
Neither, as it turned out. Gruca used us in her story, but she cut-and-pasted our comments to fit what she was looking for, making it seem that we said things we did not. For instance, here's part of the on-air story:
Gruca: For many families, spending time at the fair has become tradition.
Me: "[We came] one day this year. I think that's what we did last year. We like to come a couple of days if we can."
Gruca: But for the past few years, one day is all the Downings could do.
Me: "It does seem like the prices just keep going up every year at the gate and the concessions. It seems to be a little faster than the rate of inflation."
Unidentified young lady: "A lot of people don't come out here because they can't afford it."
Gruca: Even the kids seem to notice.
Now wait just a minute. Gruca has us telling the world that we came to the Fair only one day because that's all we can afford! That is absolutely not accurate. We told her one day is all we "could do" -- as she put it -- because of time, not because of money.
Remember how I told Gruca I didn't think gas prices were a factor? She didn't use my comments, but instead found someone to give her something closer to what she had already decided:
Unidentified woman: "Gas prices could have something to do with it. Maybe people aren't coming in from outstate."
Not much conviction there. Sounds more like someone too polite to disagree with a leading question.
Finally, here's an excerpt from the story as it concludes:
Gruca: It just seems more are choosing to spend their money more wisely like the Downings -- on days when they can find bargains.
My wife: "The rides for the kids, we do notice that, there are half-price tickets."
Again, WE HAD TOLD HER that bargains were not the reason why we were at the Fair today. It was the only day we could find the time to go. She's painting us as poor folks who can only come to the Fair on bargain day. That's not the truth. That's not what we told her.
When one sees oneself misrepresented so badly, how can one believe anything he sees on the television news? But what do I know? I'm just a crackpot blogger; they're the Mainstream Media. If they say it, it must be so.
Check out the story for yourself on the WCCO-TV website. They have the video posted, as well as a transcript, which isn't quite the same as the actual broadcast.
Oh, one more thing. By the time the attendance count comes in from today, the Fair may have actually drawn more people than it did last year. Well, no need to let the facts get in the way of a good story idea.
We Don't Appreciate
How Good We've Got It
An interesting column by Ed Lotterman
today. The Economist writes about the supply of capital vs. the supply of
labor, and what happens as either becomes more scarce or more abundant.
Lotterman writes about what happened in Europe in the 1300s, after famines and plague reduced populations significantly:
"Labor became scarcer, especially relative to land. Wages and the prices charged by urban artisans rose. Fewer peasants meant land rents fell. The wealthy hated to pay more for goods and services while receiving less in rent. Laws were passed requiring workers to accept the old wage rates and for products to be sold at the old prices, but such anti-market regulations were largely futile. Some provoked popular uprisings."
You know what that makes me think of? Us. And the way people are calling for the government to "fix" gasoline prices one way or another. It's not fair! We want our cheap gas!
And if we were honest about it, we'd admit that many of us in this great country really are "the wealthy."
From a newspaper story about how people are dealing with rising gas prices, I offer these excerpts:
"'I went from eating out five nights a week to one or two,' [a college student] said."
Poor baby. Just ask for help in the grocery store, and they'll show you where to find the mac & cheese. But this really takes the cake:
"Kim and Todd Pawek, a Rogers [a Twin Cities exurb] couple wheeling their toddler into a Room and Board furniture store in Edina [the epitome of the cake-eater suburb, about 30 miles from Rogers], said they might postpone a planned trip to Las Vegas next month if prices keep rising. They estimated it will now cost them around $90 to gas up both their SUV and their Audi.
"'We saw gas for $3.17 and I thought, "We shouldn't be driving the Tahoe, we should be driving the car,"' said Kim Pawek, 33."
Yes, and when it comes time to really tighten the belt, I'll fire my chauffeur and drive the Bentley myself.
Criminy. Can you say, "Too much disposable income?" I thought you could.
Compare the Paweks' "problem" to those people who couldn't get out of New Orleans because they don't have a car -- any car.
And we whine about how rough we've got it. We're soft, and we're spoiled. Sometimes it makes me sick.
Thoughts on Katrina
--Someone was complaining that the news people aren't pointing
out something that is rather obvious: that Black people seem to be suffering
the worst, both in New Orleans and elsewhere on the Gulf Coast. I think
if they did, then they'd have to point out something equally obvious: that
Black people are doing most of the looting and perpetrating most of the
violence. I'll explain both of these obvious truths for you: a loot of poor
Black people live where the hurricane hit. And, being poor, they were less
able to get away. I did hear a pretty face on the TV point out to us
something else that is obvious: the poor are suffering the most. Well, duh,
lady. They're poor. The poor always suffer the most. That's because
they're poor. Being poor sucks. The poor suffer the most when gas prices
go up, when unemployment goes up; insert just about any bad variable you
want, the poor suffer the most. That's why you don't want to be poor. Being
poor is bad. But if the poor had everything the same as the not-poor, what
would be the incentive to not be poor?
--What's happening in New Orleans is enough to give one pause to reassess how one looks at events in the rest of the world. We're seeing that once people's basic needs are not being met, it doesn't take much for them to start acting violently. One New Orleans man I saw on TV said, regarding looting, "When you've been oppressed so much, it's OK to take something back." What's really scary about that, is that it is exactly the sort of mindset that breeds suicide bombers elsewhere in the world. The Romans had the famous "bread and circuses" to keep the masses fed and entertained, so that they would stay docile. We have welfare and TV. Take those away from people, and all hell breaks lose.
--Taking food, medicine and necessities -- NECESSITIES! -- isn't "looting." It's surviving. It's not morally wrong. Taking TVs and designer clothing is theft. It's wrong, plain and simple. Nevertheless, it seems little financial harm is being done to a flooded store when it is looted. Much of that merchandise is likely to be trashed, anyway, what with water damage, mold, etc.
--I heard someone say that the finger pointing and blaming being done by some Gulf Coast officials will discourage donations. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then it's just like the way that the anti-war crowd hurts the Iraq War effort with their blaming and complaining, encouraging the terrorists and hurting American resolve and morale.
--We've all heard the supposed oxymoronic one-liner, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." I think of that when I hear people blaming the government for the disaster in New Orleans, and at the same time, calling for the government to solve the problems. Why do they have such faith in the government to be able to set everything right? People have a love-hate relationship with the government. Sometimes, it even seems that the populace acts like an abused spouse who won't leave a batterer: "But I need him to take care of me!" So they keep going back to the very one who keeps letting them down.
--Some say that the Second Amendment is obsolete. In this day and age, we don't need guns, they say, the government protects us. What's happening in New Orleans should be enough to illustrate why we should all own our own little piece of the Second Amendment.
--I hope those Iraq War protesters, who think the government should do more about New Orleans, are signing up their own sons and daughters to be relief workers.
--One of the criticisms of the Iraq War, after the Iraqi Army was easily defeated, was that we were not prepared for the aftermath, and that our military is not equipped to keep the peace and provide relief aid. But now, we're hearing calls to send the Army to New Orleans, to keep the peace and provide humanitarian relief. Hmmmm.
--Someone said that the Democrats are trying to blame Republicans, saying that so-called "global warming" [Hey, if the newspapers say "so-called 'partial-birth abortion'" why can't I do the same?] is to blame for the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. Another person countered with, "Well, some conservatives played a similar blame game, blaming homosexuality and moral decadence for the 9/11 attacks on New York." Here's the difference: The terrorists have clearly stated that they do in fact want to destroy the West because of its moral decadence. Infidels!
Can We Have Kippers
for Breakfast?
The world's oldest person has died at age 115. Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper
died peacefully in her sleep Tuesday at a home for the elderly in Amsterdam.
Here's what caught my eye about the story: when asked the secret to long life, she advised people to "keep breathing," and eat pickled herring.
Gallons and Miles
Yet another example of how we divide ourselves by not understanding
that not everyone thinks just like we do, is evident in the issue of gas
prices and automobile choices. I recently listened to a Toyota Prius (hybrid)
driver rather self-righteously talking about how, despite higher gas prices,
people still weren't changing what they drive. She seemed surprised.
What, is everyone supposed to immediately go trade in their vehicles for something new, just because gasoline prices have increased (and perhaps only temporarily)? Does she really expect that? Consider, please, that even before the recent gas price run-up, the driver of a Chevy Suburban was already paying more for gasoline to operate that vehicle, rather than a small car. Suburban owners were making that choice, because they valued the use of the Suburban. Additionally, they paid a lot more money to buy that SUV in the first place, because that is the type of vehicle they really wanted. If someone is willing to pay $20,000 more for a Suburban, rather than a Taurus, do you really think that an increase in gas prices is going to trump all other factors?
Also, it can cost a lot of money to get a new vehicle. What about someone driving an OLD gas guzzler? It can be much cheaper to keep the old beast, and just pay more for gas, than to buy a newer vehicle that goes easier on the petrol. What about "the working poor"? Where are they supposed to get the money to go out and buy a Prius?
They may become commonplace in the future, but as of right now, a hybrid like the Prius is less an economical choice, and more a status symbol for those with the money to buy one. They are expensive vehicles. The irony is, the people who can afford them are also the people most able to afford expensive gasoline.
What I'd really like to point out, though, is that it's not just WHAT you drive, it's HOW MUCH you drive. We own a 1994 S-10 Chevy Blazer, which gets less than 20 MPG on average, and a 2002 4x4 Chevy truck that gets only about 11 MPG. But here's the thing -- we really don't drive very much. I work from home; my wife takes the bus or rides her bike. We're putting a combined total of about 12,000 miles a year on our two vehicles. By the standards of people in this state, that's not very much.
Yet some people, knowing nothing about me or my driving habits, would judge me for having a gas-guzzling truck, while they have gas-sipping mini-cars. But how much do they drive? How many gallons of gas do they use in a year? That's the real question.
I heard a caller to a radio program, bragging about how his car got really high gas mileage. And he really felt proud of himself, because he drove 60,000 miles a year, so he was really saving a lot of gas!
What an idiot. That's like the person who goes to the store for a pair of shoes, and since shoes are half price, buys 10 pair. "The more I buy, the more I save!" he tells himself. Yeah, right. Buy the whole store, and you'll be rich.
But that gets lost on people. They seem to think they have no choice about HOW MUCH they drive, only about WHAT they drive. For instance, the Prius driver I mentioned at the start feels pretty good about herself. But while she lives in St. Paul, she recently took a job in the suburbs, in a field in which she could work in any neighborhood in St. Paul. Driving is her decision. But people don't want to see it that way. They never want to look in the mirror, they just want to point the finger.
Having grown up on a farm, I find I often have a different perspective on things. Gas prices are no different. Farmers are really being hit hard by rising gas prices. But they can't do anything about it. They can't put a "fuel surcharge" on a loaf of bread. You know what? It's not fair.
But people say, "Life's not fair. If you don't like the rules of the game, don't be a farmer." Well, the same applies to everyone else. If you don't like paying more for gas, then don't be a commuter. Work near where you live.
If you'd like to know what I think about a particular topic, drop me a line: dave ["at"] downingworld [.com]. I may use it for a future blurb. But remember: I'm not really a know-it-all; I just play one on the Web. Thanks for tuning in, from your host David W. Downing.
dave
["at"] downingworld [.com]
HOME -- Public Affairs -- Marriage -- Ronald Reagan
Farm Life -- Slice of Life -- Humor
DowningCommunications -- Downing Pumpkins
keep count with WebCounter, http://www.digits.com/