dave ["at" ] downingworld
[.com] -- If you'd like to know what I
think about a particular topic, drop me a line: 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's
Latest Thought....
I've thought of another link between abortion and immigration. Shouldn't a nation have a "choice" about whether or not it wants to become the "parent" to millions more? Shouldn't a nation have control over its own borders, the way a woman wants control over her own body? "Undocumented children" (unborn babies) are people too, you know. They're just looking for a better life with more opportunities in a new place.
Some people say that if we hadn't aborted millions of potential American citizens over the last 33 years, we wouldn't need workers from other countries. I don't know if the economics of it is that simple, but it's interesting to think about.
Too Late to Send Them Back
I agree on principle with those who say all 11-12 million illegal aliens should be rounded up and deported. But I don't think it's practical. I think it's too late. We've already lost the battle. All we can do now is "surrender" and ask for terms -- some sort of mandatory registration and pursuit of citizenship. Otherwise, what would we do, build concentration camps for millions of people while we "process" them? Let's not start down that road.
I've noted that one way the Mainstream Media plays into the hands of the Liberal Left is by adopting its terms. For example, people who used to be quite accurately and legally described as "illegal aliens" are now being written about as "undocumented immigrants," as thought there was just some sort of "mix-up in the paperwork."
And of course, long ago, killing unborn babies became just an issue of "reproductive rights."
So, I put the two thoughts together and came up with an idea. Why don't we stop calling the unborn baby a fetus, and instead, refer to the little one as an "undocumented child."
After all, it's just missing a birth certificate. That's just an inconsequential piece of paper. You know, like a visa, or a green card, or a work permit or such.
I know, you're buying the "undocumented" part, but you're hung up on the "child" part. You say it isn't a "child" until it's born. But I ask you, is it any more of a stretch than calling an uninvited and illegal invader, who crosses the border surreptitiously, an "immigrant"?
You may say that an "alien" can become an "immigrant" by going through the proper channels. Same with a fetus becoming a child. But instead of the "proper" channel, it's the birth channel (canal) the child must go through.
If you want to become an American, you have to go through the proper channels. There's no such thing as a "caesarean immigration," as much as some might wish that there were.
Screw the
Bill of Rights, I've Got a Right to Screw!
People surely can be selective in their "principles." Pioneer Press columnist Laura Billings got her thong in a bunch again recently over the issue of pharmacists who don't want to sell what they see as an abortion pill. I've got rights, some women yell, so you have to stock and sell me whatever I want.
Nevermind that most independent pharmacists in Minnesota quit selling cigarettes years ago, seeing tobacco as incompatible with their mission of promoting health and life. Nevermind that most pharmacies don't sell "Playboy" on their magazine racks, in keeping with the wishes of feminists. No, those decisions comply with the beliefs of the Left, so those restrictions of customers' "rights" are seen as "the right thing to do."
Then we've got coffee shops that use only "fair trade" coffee. And vegetarian restaurants that don't serve meat. It's a matter of principle. And they are cheered by the Left.
When Wal-Mart announced recently that it would stop selling guns at many of its stores, there was no concern expressed by the Left, worried that people would be deprived of a convenient, affordable way to exercise their Second Amendment rights. No, this decision was celebrated by the Left.
Women have fought for the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to work in the same jobs as men. It's sad that now the main concern of feminism seems to be ensuring that women can have sex as irresponsibly as men have been able to, and not suffer the consequences. And they demand that "choice" even after conception. That's a "choice" that men have never had. Historically, a man's only "choice" at that point was child support or a shotgun wedding.
But women demand "choice"...
It Doesn't Matter What You Choose, Just That You Have a Choice
At least that's some people's thinking, in this age when consumer or lifestyle "choice" is worshiped. (Unless you want to choose to smoke in a St. Paul or Minneapolis bar, of course. Then, the "progressives" know what's best for you. And no, I don't smoke.)
These days of course, "choice" is held up as a virtue of abortion. It's interesting then to learn of a new concept called the "choice mom." These are described as women as who intentionally become single parents by "choice," rather than through an unintended pregnancy, or as the result of divorce. I first encountered the term in a newspaper column otherwise unrelated to such issues. But the subject of that column turned out to be the author of a book about intentional single motherhood, so that got worked in.
How do these "choice moms" become pregnant? The column explains:
About half of the choice moms go to a sperm bank (though some of these facilities won't work with single women), and about a quarter of them adopt, Morrissette says. The rest are conceived with the help of a "known donor" - an ex-boyfriend, gay friend, other acquaintance.
That was the case for Morrissette. Both of her children were conceived with help from a friend she's known for many years. The children know him, but they rarely see him, she says.
I think it's interesting, with all the feminist complaining about issues of sex and reproduction being "unfair" to the females of the species, that we see illustrated here how women actually have more "choice" than men. A woman can decide she wants to have a child to raise by herself, then find herself a sperm donor -- whether anonymous, unwitting, or willing -- and there you go! Of course, in some of those scenarios, the unwitting father can then be saddled with 18 years of child support.
I can't imagine a similar scenario for prospective "choice fathers." Seems a man trying to accomplish this is going to end up in prison. Isn't that "unfair" to men?
Here's a new flash for some people: Men and women are different. And, life is unfair. And sex can lead to unintended consequences. And issues of reproduction can get complicated.
Maybe that's why society was for so long "uptight" and "repressed" about such matters, to hear our liberal friends tell it. Maybe that's why society expected a certain level of restraint and personal responsibility from us all.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we try to separate sex from "conceive."
I just read one of those claims that same-sex marriage is not a "threat" to marriage (Do opponents of same-sex marriage ever use the word "threat"?), because with a 50 percent divorce rate marriage is already "threatened" by mixed-sex marriages. And it is, of course. But that seems like "two wrongs make a right" reasoning.
I think what bothers me so much about that argument is that the people making it are the same bunch that led us into the 50 percent divorce rate, with their other "modern" and "progressive" ideas for mixed-sex marriage. You know, not being "judgmental," and the overall acceptance of divorce; making men and women the same, so that they don't need each other to make a whole; the idea that an individual must fulfill his or her own happiness at the expense of anyone else, including the children; the idea that two parents aren't necessary. You know, all those wonderful, new ideas that flew in the face of centuries or millennia of practice.
They don't have a very good track record. Why should we follow their advice this time?
I'm tired of hearing about "high gas prices" and "what is the government going to do about it?" Why do national news broadcasts have to start with the "high gas prices!" story day after day?
Of course I don't like paying more for gas. No one does. But where do we get the idea that the role of the President and the Congress is to monitor the price of a specific consumer product?
It's human nature to want to blame someone when we don't like what happens. Politicians and "big oil companies" are easy targets. The politicians know this, so they quickly point their own fingers at the oil companies.
There are two themes I keep hearing over and over, and they are at odds with each other. Still, that doesn't keep the same people from whining about both of them.
1) Gas prices are "too high," and the government should do something about it.
2) It's been more than 30 years since the first gas price shock caused by the first OPEC oil embargo, yet this country has done little or nothing to wean itself from gasoline and reliance on foreign oil.
Let's look at that. Why haven't we done more to move away from gas and oil? Could it be because gasoline has remained dirt cheap for decades? Of course it is. We've given lip service to the idea, but we've had little incentive to find substitutes for gasoline because until the past couple of years it has been cheap, cheap, cheap. And it's still not out of line with past prices, if we allow for inflation.
According to an Associated Press report, gas was going for $1.41 a gallon in March 1981, in the aftermath of the Iran hostage crisis. (And we know that the price went down from there.) The AP says that with inflation, that $1.41 gas would now be $3.12. Suddenly, that $2.84 gas down at the corner doesn't sound so bad.
If you want us to find alternatives to gasoline, or at least use less of it, then let the price remain "high." For 30+ years we've been hearing about new energy technologies that work, but cost more than that old-reliable petroleum. Let gas cost $3 a gallon, and we'll see those technologies, along with conservation measures and transportation alternatives, start to become mainstream.
Also, with high crude oil prices and "record profits" for oil companies, the companies now have both the means and the incentive to invest more in finding new sources of oil, and better ways of extracting it. Conversely, while prices were low, oil companies had neither the means nor the incentive to seek out new supplies.
We're also hearing the recurring charge that the "big oil companies" conspire to fix prices artificially high. I find that hard to believe. If they have that power, why hasn't gas been $3 a gallon all along? Gas prices go up, but they've also gone down. There have been times in the last decade when gas was under $1 a gallon. If it was in their power, why would the "big oil companies" allow that to happen? I bought a new vehicle in February, 2002, and my record book shows that the first time I filled the tank, I payed $1.03 per gallon. And that was even after 9/11.
No one wants to pay $3 a gallon for gasoline. But I believe that the cure for high prices is high prices. If the price is "too high," people will have to figure out how to use less gasoline. And there's little the government can do about it, in the short run, at least. Ed Lotterman writes on that today.
Stereotyping
OK Sometimes, Ink-Stained Wretches Say
Here's another thing I found interesting, just because that's the way my mind works. Since it's my Website, I'll write about it. It also raised a serious question in my mind.
Last week, a marijuana festival was planned for St. Paul's Macalester College. (The administration cancelled it after it made the paper.) The St. Paul Pioneer Press previewed the festival with a story headlined "It's, like, a pot fest, dude." The story contained lots of pot smoking cliches and stereotypes. It referenced munchies, laziness, lack of organization, stoner language, stuff like that. All in good fun, I guess.
But consider... What if the paper covered other festivals in a way that made light of the stereotypical way that its stereotypical participants were purported to speak? Would a story about Rondo Days -- a celebration of St. Paul's African-American community -- be headlined? "Homies Be Rockin' the Hood"? Would the story be written in "ebonics"? Would the story point out that the planned parade would not be too long, because this particular group doesn't like to work too hard? Would the story express amazement that this group of people was even able to be organized enough to put a festival together? Would the story point out that there would be plenty of fried chicken and watermelon available? That's how the story about pot smokers was written.
You might say there's a big difference between who people are, and what activity they do. And you'd be right. But where, exactly, do we draw the line? How do we decide which groups we can make fun of, and which groups must be treated with respect? Sometimes it gets hard to separate race/actions/lifestyles.
Would it be politically-correct to do a "humorous" send-up like this about clog dancing fans? I don't know. NASCAR fans? I think so. Country music fans? Yes. "Fundamentalist" Christians? Probably. "Fundamentalist" Muslims? No way! Gays? Of course not.
Hmmmm.... Maybe the Pioneer Press needs to be more diverse and tolerant. In this politically-correct day and age, does the Pioneer Press owe the Macalester College pot smoking community an apology?
I just read a news story about how high standards by pet adoption agencies can make it very difficult for a prospective pet adopter to gain approval. Some say these standards are necessary to ensure that every pet who gets a home gets a loving home for life. Others say that with tens of thousands of unwanted companion animals euthanized every year, any home is better than no home.
That's ironic, because the qualifications for adoption of humans have been broadened in recent years, under that same theory -- any home is better than no home. Marital status and sexual orientation, for instance, are no longer the factors they once were for potential adoptive parents.
Evidently, to some people at least, animals must be more important than people.
I was listening to a talk radio discussion of gas prices and energy conservation, when I heard a caller say that we should go to a four-day work week. That would save energy, he said, and give people more family time.
I had to chuckle.
Thanks to the Law of Unintended Consequences, I could see all those three-day weekends with more family time turning into more long driving trips "up north" to the lake or other destinations. We might burn more gas then ever!
Forget What
"They" Say; What Do You See with Your Own Eyes?
Don't let yourself be worn down by the constant revisionist history of the Anti-Bush Liberal Left (ABLL); look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. A new tape has come from Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, and even the Washington Post story on it supports suggests that President Bush is right -- and has been right all along -- when it comes to the Global War on Terror (GWT).
Exhibit A: A tenet of ABLL "thinking" and propaganda is that the global conflict between the West and the Islamic world is all a figment of Bush's imagination. Somebody should tell bin Laden. He thinks he's at war with the West. From the news story:
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden urged his followers to prepare for a drawn-out conflict with the Western world in a new audiotape broadcast Sunday, blaming what he called "a Crusader-Zionist war" for a long list of attacks on Islam in places from Darfur to Denmark.
Exhibit B: ABLL doctrine says that if President Bush really cared about things like human rights and ending genocide, he'd send the military into Sudan to end the slaughter there. There are bigger problems than some guy hiding in a cave. There was no real international terrorism problem until Bush created it with his "imperialistic, preemptive war." From the story:
The United States and other Western countries are supporting a plan to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur, where an Arab militia backed by the Sudanese government is fighting rebel groups. Both sides are Muslim. Tens of thousands of people have died in the conflict, and 2 million have been displaced from their homes.
And what is bin Laden's response. Once again, to the story:
[bin Laden] urged jihadists to go to the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan to fight international peacekeepers...
So, Bush is the bad guy and bin Laden is the good guy? Doesn't look like it, if we look at the facts.
Exhibit C: ABLL doctrine says that President Bush, Dick Cheney, and their friends from "Big Oil" are just after Iraq's oil. Interesting they'd say that. What is bin Laden's explanation for UN intervention in Sudan? Let's check the news story:
[bin Laden said] their real mission was "to occupy the region and steal its oil under the cover of maintaining security there."
Sounds like those on the ABLL think just like bin Laden. Or, bin Laden is making use of the useful idiots of the ABLL by adopting their own language.
Exhibit D: ABLL doctrine says, sure, the war in Afghanistan was OK, we just needed to crush the Taliban and capture bin Laden, but Bush couldn't even complete that job. But there's no need to pursue the war anywhere else. There's no GWT. One last time, let's check the news story:
Counterterrorism analysts said bin Laden was trying to portray himself as a champion for oppressed Muslims worldwide...
Once again, if there is no GWT, if Islamofascism is not at war with the West, would someone please tell them that?
Enough of the ultra-right wing, hate-filled screeds for now. Here's something a little lighter:
While sitting at my computer in my St. Paul office Saturday, I heard my name mentioned on the radio. That's not so amazing. Except that the radio station was in England. Let me explain.
About a year ago, I made a trip to England, and visited Cornwall, the area in the southwest from which my great-grandfather emigrated in 1906. Recently, I learned I could listen in to BBC Radio Cornwall, live, over a Webstream. I listen in sometimes, and it's fun to hear what's going on across the ocean, in an area I've visited. When they talk about certain towns or a traffic jam on a certain highway, I may recognize it as a place I've been.
(You have to remember, there's a six-hour time difference. So if I'm listening in the late morning, I hear the afternoon drive time. But here's a really good one: I was listening late one Saturday night, and it was early Sunday morning in England. But they were carrying a live broadcast of a Formula One auto race from... Australia! Where it was Sunday afternoon. That was surreal.)
Anyway, on Saturday, the "presenter," as the announcers are known across the pond, read a trivia question, and gave listeners a variety of ways to give the answer and be entered in a drawing. One method he gave out was his email address, so I dashed off an email to him, telling him where I was, and about my own connection to Cornwall.
It couldn't have been more than 10 minutes later, and there he was reading my email over the air, giving my name, my location, and my family connection to Cornwall!
What a small world it can be.
In comparison, I think of my great-grandfather and some of his brothers leaving Cornwall a century ago for the U.S., Canada, and Australia. It must have been months before they could get word back to England that they had arrived safely.
I have another "small world" story from the Swedish part of my heritage. Read about how I taught a modern-day Swede -- in Sweden -- an old Swedish word that has survived in my American family!
I've written before that the late Senator Paul Wellstone has become a Christ figure to his disciples. I even joked that I expected there to be reports that he had been seen alive on the third day after his fatal plane crash.
But yesterday I spied this actual bumper sticker: "Wellstone Lives."
You just can't make this kind of stuff up.
Maybe the owner of this car is a friend of the person down the street with the "Jesus is a Liberal" bumper stickers. (Yes, seriously.) You know, for all the rhetoric about conservatives and "ultra right wing religious fundamentalists" trying to "create a theocracy" and "mixing politics and religion," I've yet to see a bumper sticker reading "Jesus is a Conservative." Meanwhile, we've got the "Jesus is a Liberal" sticker and the "What Would Wellstone Do?" sticker.
Who's mixing politics and religion? The truth is, for many on the Left, there can be no separation. Because politics is their religion.
Attention
Kmart Shoppers: Overstock Sale on Lawyers
Some people say there are too many lawyers. This might support that claim.
In Sunday's "Parade" magazine, I saw a notice about a class action lawsuit against discount store Kmart for not providing proper access to people who use wheelchairs or scooters. The ad encourages people to join the suit as claimants, and says they are eligible if:
"...you use a wheelchair or scooter and shopped at Kmart, will shop at Kmart, or would have shopped at Kmart but for access problems, between May 6, 2003 and the end of the settlement term (approximately 2014)...."
Let me get this straight. They're giving you eight years in which to shop at Kmart and claim your victimhood, even if you've never shopped at Kmart before and maybe had no intention of ever shopping at Kmart? Does that make any sense? If there was a lawsuit over, say, exploding coffee makers, would we be given eight years to go out and buy one so we could cash in?
It seems bizarre to me. Here's the website if you want to study it for yourself: http://www.kmartaccesssettlement.com
I've been thinking about the similarities between the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape, and the Minnesota Vikings "love boat" sex cruise. Both involve athletes behaving badly in a sexual manner. Both were much-hyped and described in outrageous terms in original reports, but seem to have lost steam as they proceeded into the actual legal process.
Both have racial aspects.
But note that in that regard, they are mirror images of one another. Or perhaps I should say, one is a photographic negative of the other. What is black in one is white in the other, and vice versa.
In the Vikings case, the accused are black, and claim they are the victims of a racist prosecution. In the Duke case, the accused players are white, the accuser black, and many people aren't hesitant to express the view that, essentially, the players must be guilty, because they are white.
Isn't that racist?
The Duke case is truly a case where race matters.
But if the races of the accuser and the accused were reversed, I have no doubt that the story would be played completely differently. It would still be about race, but like with the Vikings, the lacrosse players would be claiming that they were being victimized because they were black. They'd be seen as victims because their season had been cancelled, without due process. There would be complaints that DNA samples were taken from every team member except the one white guy. Yes, if it were a basketball team with one white guy, the story would be played entirely differently.
I don't know what happened at Duke. I don't argue for anyone's guilt or innocence. But I know that race is indeed a factor. I also know that whatever side Whitey is on, Whitey will be portrayed as a bad guy. We hear a lot about how the white lacrosse players are a bunch of rich kids, "dripping with privilege," who think raping a woman is their "entitlement." Evidently, some pundits can get right inside the heads of people they've never met. Or they think they don't have to, because they know what "those people" are like. Can you imagine, if we turned it around, hearing a bunch of black basketball players described as gang bangers from the 'hood who can't be expected to treat a woman any differently? If someone did that, that claim then would become the focus of the story, surpassing the rape charges that started it all.
Always Bush's
Fault, Chinese Division
You probably heard that during Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to the White House Thursday, a woman protester created a disturbance, calling for an end to persecution of Falun Gong adherents in China. What I found really interesting was the way I heard the incident reported on the radio. It was reported as yet another embarrassment for President Bush, and it was noted with much gravity that the President apologized to his Chinese counterpart.
What's funny, is that the U.S. media has made a heroine out of Cindy Sheehan, who has done everything she can to embarrass President Bush and create disturbances around him. When she created a disturbance at the State of the Union address and was removed from the chambers, she was portrayed as a victim.
I guess it's always Bush's fault.
Some in this country claim that "Bush is the Terrorist" and Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. Do they sincerely believe that? If so, then I ask them:
Do you support using the full force and might of the U.S. military to undo our "mistake," spring Saddam from jail, and restore him to power? Would you support the U.S. military propping up Saddam until he can get his own despotic, genocidal and tyrannical house back in order?
If not, why? Wouldn't that be better for the Iraqi people?
I received a first-of-its-kind offer today. Via email, I was offered two tickets to a play in Minneapolis, provided that I would "agree to blog about the performance."
Hmmmm. I think not.
I can't go along with that, because I can't promise them anything. Though to be fair, they haven't said I have to promise to say nice things about the play. But I can't have you start wondering why I'm writing about what I choose to write about; wondering if I'm allowing myself to be manipulated to try to sell you something.
Still, where do I draw the line? If I simply received a pair of tickets in the mail, with no request made of me, would I object to that? That doesn't seem objectionable. Hey, free samples are nothing new, right? I think it's the explicit "chit-for-chat" nature of the proposition that bothers me. If they instead would have offered me a "free sample," in hopes that the quality of their product would earn a mention from me, that seems different. But is it really?
What do you think? Let me know if you have some thoughts on this. Perhaps if I query a theater critic, I'll find that this is essentially the way plays get reviewed. Or maybe I'll be told that the critic always pays his own way and arrives unannounced. I'll let you know if I learn anything.
A Republican
by Any Other Name... Would Be Just as Hated
I was talking to someone recently, saying I still don't know exactly who or what a "neocon" is supposed to be. Strangely, I noted, I never hear people describe themselves as "neocons." The term seems to be used primarily as a form of name-calling.
So this line from a recent letters-to-the-editor page in the Pioneer Press served as a timely example. One John Sipe of Cottage Grove referred to "every neoconservative ultra-right-wing religious 'weirdo' in the state."
Just another hate-filled term to tack onto the list, I guess. It doesn't really mean anything to the person that used it. It's just another hateful word to use against his "enemies."
But it doesn't make any sense, because from what understanding I do have of the term, it seems to me that "neocons" would be a group distinct from the "ultra-right-wing" or the "religious weirdos."
But not to Mr. Sipe. He hates 'em all so much, he doesn't even care to learn who it is he hates.
But a good letter makes a logical point.
In that same day's batch, there was a good letter that pointed out the illogic used by some of those who oppose a marriage amendment (this relates to my Monday post, "Words have meanings..."). Marv Drake of Woodbury wrote:
We didn't get a chance to vote on the constitutional amendment. I am amazed at the thought process of those who were against letting us vote on this. Some of them say, "We don't need an amendment because we're already protected by a law." Every profession has mostly good people and some bad ones -- even the judicial system. It only takes one of those judges to rule that our "law" is unconstitutional. It has happened in several states. It is a matter of "when," not "if" it will happen here.
Others say that the amendment would be "unfair and discriminatory." If that is true, then the current law must also be "unfair and discriminatory." Does that mean that they want our law rescinded -- you know -- the one that we don't need an amendment for?
This week the Mainstream Media is asking: "Has Donald Rumsfeld become a distraction?"
The answer to that is, "If you say so."
If they keep asking the question, then they make it so. If they don't ask the question, then he's not a "distraction." This is another case of the MSM helping to make the news, or creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, in that the act of observation itself changes that which is being observed. Like when a TV news shows scares us all week with reports of rising crime rates, then commissions a poll that confirms that crime is our number one worry.
Words Have
Meaning, But People Use Them to Obfuscate
I don't like a lot of the politically-correct euphemisms that get tossed about thoughtlessly these days. For instance, there's "homeless." "Homeless" seems to describe only a symptom; it doesn't tell us anything about a person's real problems. Then there's "affordable housing." What they really mean is either "subsidized housing" or "poor quality housing," because there isn't some magic way to create good housing on the cheap. Then we have "good jobs" or "living wage." But what exactly does that mean? What all of these have in common is that they deflect the focus away from the PEOPLE who have problems that need solving. They put the focus on outside factors -- the symptoms of people's real problems. Why doesn't someone have a home? Why can't someone hold down a job that pays enough to afford a home? Those are the real questions. If you really want to help a person, you have to address that person's problems. If we can eliminate people's problems like chemical abuse, poor work habits, lack of education and skills, etc., then we can get people into those "good jobs" that pay "living wages" so that they can find housing they can afford.
It needs to be about curing the illness, not just treating the symptoms. But the words we use actually get in the way. They make it harder to help people.
Another politically-correct word I'm tired of is "tolerance." People like to boast about how "tolerant" they are, but are they really? Think about it, and you'll see that you can only "tolerate" something that you don't like or approve of. If you think something is just fine, then you aren't being "tolerant," you simply approve of it. "Tolerating" something implies that you don't think it's right, but you'll put up with it. It suggests a sort of superiority over the one being "tolerated," because the "tolerant" individual holds the power to grant "tolerance" to those whose tastes or morals are not as refined as his own.
For example, if you have a neighbor with a loud motorcycle, and the noise bothers you, you can be tolerant by putting up with the noise out of neighborliness. But if you yourself enjoy listening to loud motorcycles, then you aren't tolerant, you just don't mind.
This would also apply to the current public debate over same-sex marriages. Someone might say that we should be "tolerant" of everyone's individuality, and allow same-sex marriage. But ask that person who preaches "tolerance" whether he personally disapproves of same-sex marriage. If he says "no," then he's not being "tolerant," he's just calling for everyone else to defer to his belief. (Maybe we could say he's being intolerant, because he thinks everyone should go along with him!)
Here in Minnesota, we're currently having debate over whether a constitutional amendment should be placed on the ballot, preventing marriage from being extended to same-sex couples. (Opponents say this would "ban" such marriages. I say that the word "ban" makes no sense, since you can't ban something that doesn't yet exist, and same-sex marriages don't currently exist. But the opponents like to try to set up the debate as though the amendment would "discriminate" and take something away from people. Of course, as we've discussed before, the mainstream media adopt terms such as "ban" because they are used by those on the Left. When those on the right use a term such as "protect" marriage, they are mocked, not parroted.)
In the debate over same-sex marriage, you'll hear people say, "We don't need a constitutional amendment, because we already have state law defining marriage as one man and one woman." That argument sounds good, but try pressing the person making it. Ask, "And do you think that the status quo is good? Do you want marriage to REMAIN defined as one man and one woman?" Chances are, he'll say, "No. I want that law overturned." That shows he's being insincere in arguing why we don't need an amendment. The truth is, he disagrees with the amendment, but isn't sincere enough to come out and say it. That's sort of like the people who want everyone else to "tolerate" what they themselves actually approve of.
Another term I don't like is "gay marriage." I prefer to use "same-sex marriage," because that's more accurate. If the law were changed and two men went to apply for a marriage license, would they have to prove that they were gay? I don't think so. I wasn't asked to sign an affidavit attesting to my heterosexuality before I could wed.
The fact is, gay people have been getting legally married all along -- just not to someone of the same sex. So let's call the proposed change "same-sex marriage," because that's really the specifics of it.
What do I think of the proposed Constitutional amendment? I don't think I can support it. It goes too far, in attempting to block non-marriage legal concessions to same-sex couples. And I think it's only reasonable and decent that we make some legal changes to better meet some of the needs of people who are making a life together. There are complications with home ownership, and health care decision making, for instance, where we could make it easier for people to legally designate a "partner" for such matters. And that doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with sexual orientation. It could benefit mixed-sex couples or "platonic" couples as well.
(Yes, I do think that mixed-sex couples should just get married. That's my personal belief, but I recognize that it has become increasingly common for couples to forego marriage. So you know what? I'm being tolerant!)
The media were making a big fuss last week about the announcement of the long-lost "Gospel of Judas," which reportedly paints a picture of Judas as Jesus' favorite and closest disciple, who was not a betrayer, but a loyal follower fulfilling his Master's orders. It seemed to me as though some reporters/commentators were pretty excited that this discovery represented a sort of contradiction of Christianity. And that pleased them.
But I immediately thought of the children's book "The True Story of the Three Little Pigs," by Jon Scieszka. In that book, the "villainous" Big Bad Wolf tells the story from his perspective, and according to him, he's not a villain at all.
How do we know that the "Gospel of Judas" isn't just a similar spoof of the traditional version of events? Can you imagine if 1,700 years from now, someone discovered a copy of the long-forgotten "Last Temptation of Christ" or "DaVinci Code"? How would they react? Would they think that their new discovery had changed everything?
One thing none of the reports have been perfectly clear on is whether the "Judas Gospel" represents the discovery of an heretofore unknown document, or whether scholars knew the document had existed, but the last known copy disappeared 1,700 years ago. That figure of 1,700 years is used, but it might refer only to how long this specific manuscript is believed to have been buried, rather than that the information it contains was last seen 1,700 years ago.
But then, there's nothing new about incomplete or unclear reporting. (They may just be following my rule: If you're unsure of the details, be ambiguous.) I noticed a couple of good ones in the reporting of this story. One print report referred to this event as the discovery of the "last surviving copy" of the "Judas Gospel." How do we know it's the last surviving copy? Before it was found, there we no surviving copies, as far as anyone knew. How do we know there aren't many other copies hidden away somewhere? If a member of a new species of monkey is discovered in the jungle, do we say the specimen is the "last surviving" member of its species? Or do we reason that there are likely more, and this is merely the "first discovered" one?
The second example comes from Ray Suarez, a reporter on PBS's "News Hour." (He's the guy with the haircut that makes it look like he's wearing a prayer cap. Not that there would be anything wrong with him wearing a prayer cap, but a person's haircut should not look like one.) Suarez reported that "for more than 2,000 years" Christians have considered Judas a villain.
Not so fast. Something don't add up. Scholars say Jesus was born about 3 B.C., going by our current calendar. It's now the year 2006 -- 2009 years later. Was Jesus a child when he was crucified? No, he's said to have been about 33 years old.
But the most important point I'd like to make is that "blaming" Judas is pointless. He merely carried out his role in a divinely-directed plan. The crucifixion and resurrection were prophesied hundreds of years before they happened, and must have been known to God always. It doesn't matter whether Judas acted in conscious response to the explicit, direct orders of Jesus, or if he had no free will and merely acted under divine direction. Judas did what was pre-ordained and needed to be done. What he did was the will and plan of God. He could not have done otherwise.
Likewise, it's ridiculous to "blame the Jews" for the crucifixion. Again, this was all God's plan. Would some Christians prefer that Jesus had not been crucified in our place? Would they prefer that we had not had our sins washed away by Jesus' blood?
St. Paul
Needs to Grow Up and Get a Job
While I've been complaining about St. Paul's resistance to modern retail development, I want you to know that I understand the feelings of those who don't like to see chains and "big boxes" moving in and replacing smaller operators in St. Paul. I, too, have a sort of distaste for the chains. But the fact is, they represent the modern retail reality. If St. Paul rejects them, St. Paul is condemning itself to being a second-rate city economically. The city has a responsibility to meet the modern retailing needs of its residents -- residents who otherwise are driving to Roseville, Woodbuy, Eagan, Bloomington to spend their money.
(One of the ironies here is that St. Paul is just one of a few cities that have been granted the special privilege of collecting a city sales tax. Then, the city does its best to make its residents leave the city and shop elsewhere!)
I'm sure many residents of Roseville complain about the proliferation of chain stores there, too. But that city reaps the benefits. Meanwhile, St. Paul refuses to play the game, living in a state of denial, convinced that it can keep us in the 1920s retail-wise. And when St. Paul's economy and tax collection can't keep pace with the surrounding suburbs, city leaders whine for more handouts, from metro-area revenue sharing, state aid, or federal grants.
St. Paul acts like a spoiled child who refuses to grow up and get a job. Instead, St. Paul wants to sponge off of others, and spend all of its time hanging out in cute little bookstores and coffee shops.
How long before the suburbs -- who are paying the bills -- say "Grow up and get a job, or I'm kicking you out on your own!"
Believe it or not, there's an odd link here to same-sex marriage. The same people who would support same-sex marriage, saying it's modern and progressive and gives people choices about how to live their lives as they see fit, want to use the power of the government to effectively ban others from exercising shopping choices that fit their own lifestyles, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of such stores. The "progressive" leftists want to use the government to make sure everyone lives just like them! They seem determined that chain stores and "big boxes" are a "threat" to the old order, and will destroy traditional retailing, to which we must cling. But as they would say regarding marriage, it's already too late to worry about that. Marriage -- and retailing -- as we used to know it, are already things of the past.
Enablers?
Co-dependents? Munchausen's System by Proxy?
I think the American Left may suffer from a sort of public policy version of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy. As you know, Munchausen's Syndrome is a condition where a patient fakes or causes his own illnesses, because he or she seems to derive some satisfaction from all the medical attention that results. Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy is when one person -- typically a parent -- causes someone else's medical problems, because of some sort of perverse pleasure derived from playing the caretaker role.
In the public policy realm, the Left seems to enjoy telling us how terribly everything is going -- the war, the economy, global warming, and so on -- and says that we should elect them to fix things. Yet, when they do take their turn in power, they don't fix anything, they just engage in policies that perpetuate the "illness" they have diagnosed. (How's that 40-year-old "War on Poverty" working out?) Then, they argue that we need to keep them in power so that they can continue "caring" for us.
Locally, the Leftists in St. Paul seem determined to do everything they can to undermine St. Paul's economic health -- opposing the airport levy, fighting chain stores that want to build in the city, banning smoking in bars, salivating over non-productive uses of the doomed Ford Plant land. Then, they can continue whining about how bad off poor little old St. Paul is, and they can blame the evil Republican governor and president for not giving them even larger handouts.
We're talking about people who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle. If they simply lit the candle, figuratively speaking, we wouldn't need them any more. They can't have that. They have to keep us down, so they can continue to promise to "save" us.
Hmmm. Isn't that just like the way Democrats and the poverty pimps have been "helping" minorities for decades?
Last night I attended a meeting of the Antient and Honourable John Adams Society. This is a group that gets together monthly to debate a resolution. Some of the debate is taken more seriously than other parts, but it does seem to reveal some interesting lines of thought and generate some good questions, while also being good fun.
Last night's question was "It's my life, and I'll die if I want to." That's pretty broad, and it allowed individuals to focus on particular aspects of the "right to die," whether that be suicide or extreme medical care.
The secretary kicked off the meeting by reading the minutes of last month's meeting, written in the form of rhyme. That inspired me to jot down this little poem, on the proverbial cocktail napkin:
There once was a man from
Nantucket,
Whose life went to hell in a bucket.
But rather than mend it,
He thought he would end it.
And so in despair he did shuck it.
Downing World made the paper today. Pioneer Press business beat columnist Dave Beal quoted from my Monday post about St. Paul's resistance to modern retailing, which was spurred by his Sunday column about suburban Roseville's relative retail dominance. (I had e-mailed a copy of the post to Mr. Beal.)
If you missed that post, it's several comments down, under the headline "Don't Build It, and They Will Leave." Along the way, you'll want to read the follow-up post "Reactionaries and Retro-gressives."
Those Who
Don't Remember the Past, or I Told You So
We're constantly reminded here in St. Paul about how the building of Interstate 94 through the heart of the city's Rondo neighborhood in the 1960s fragmented and severely damaged the city's black community. That freeway project was done, of course, in the name of "progress" and urban renewal.
Now, self-described "progressives" are hell-bent on building a light rail line parallel to I-94 and just a few blocks over, down University Avenue. They tell us this is key to urban renewal.
But University Avenue is both important to the city's black community, and the heart of a burgeoning Asian community. What effects would a rail line have on these minority communities? The white "progressives" pushing this don't want to address that issue.
I've been pointing out the Rondo comparison to city leaders for years, but they don't seem concerned. I once brought it up to former mayor Randy Kelly in a public meeting, but he and others in attendance just looked at me like I was a nut job, like I'd said that the Federal Reserve was unconstitutional and St. Paul should issue its own currency.
But now, someone's taking notice. Sunday's Pioneer Press carried this front page headline: "Rondo haunts light-rail debate."
It's about time. I told them so. Years ago.
Last WWII Flying
Ace Dies; Preceded by Cat Co-Pilot
American's last
surviving WWII flying ace, Col. Fred J. Christensen, has died at age 84.
His co-pilot Sinbad, a stray black cat who brought him good luck, died years
ago. I continue to believe that the obits provide some of the most interesting
reading in the papers. Read this one.
Reactionaries
and Retro-gressives
I continue to
make observations on the theme that liberals and conservatives have much
in common. They engage in the same kind of thinking and actions, but in
regard to different issues. Then, they criticize each other for it. The
latest example I've noticed relates to the theme of retail development in
St. Paul -- or the lack thereof -- which I mentioned a couple of posts back.
First, the conservatives. When conservatives argue that we can build a better future by returning to what worked in the past, liberals label them "reactionaries." The cry goes up, "And I suppose you want all the women to be barefoot and pregnant, and the colored people should ride in the back of the bus, too!"
But look at what's going on in St. Paul, where people who call themselves "progressives" work to keep "big box" retailers and national chains out of the city. These "progressives" want us to go back to a time of corner stores and the streetcars. That's the other big component of their thinking -- transit -- by which they mean light rail, the modern streetcar.
So while conservatives have been accused of wanting to return to the "Leave It to Beaver" days of the 1950s, self-described "progressives" seem to want to take us back to the 1920s!
But these liberals don't see themselves as old-fashioned. Rather, they see their yearning for the old days as the latest, modern thing. I suppose it's like any other fashion: the old stuff can be brought back as the latest thing, if you just call it "retro." So I've got a name for these "progressives" and liberals who pine for a Norman Rockwell world. "Retro-gressives," that's what I'll call them.
Immigrants Send
Mixed Messages
The front page
of my paper today reports on 30,000 people marching on the
Minnesota state capitol grounds yesterday to demand changes in immigration.
There's a big photo of a sea of people, many waving flags.
But I'm getting mixed messages. For example, here's Juan Carlos Anaya:
"If we are coming here, it is because we're looking for better lives," said Anaya of St. Paul, who came to the rally with his wife, Norma, and their three children. "We're peaceful people. We're honest people. And we're helping the economy grow."
OK, sounds like he has the right attitude. But later in the story he's quoted saying this:
"We're Latino, but we're Americans, too -- Central America. The American people are all one."
Wrong answer, pal. You can become an American. There is a legal process for that. But you're not already an American anymore than was any other legal immigrant coming here from any other continent. The American entitlement mentality had gotten so bad that even non-citizens -- even people who aren't legally supposed to be here -- come here and think this country owes them something.
But the biggest mixed message is in the front page photo. Amongst the U.S. flags are many, many flags from Mexico and other nations. This really confuses me. If the protesters want to reassure everyone that they are not a threat, that they just want to be Americans like every other American, why are they waving the flag of another country? To me, those flags symbolize an invasion by foreign forces, not new Americans. If they were in the uniform of a foreign army, would that still be OK?
Unfortunately, the answer you'd get from a lot of Americans is "yes." The "imperial" U.S. shouldn't be in Iraq, they'll tell you, but it's OK for foreign nationals to enter this country at will and move about with impunity, waving the flags of their homelands. Are some people crazy, or just plain stupid?
Don't Build It,
and They Will Leave
No, this isn't
a sports stadium rant. It's more important than that.
Business columnist Dave Beal had an interesting column in yesterday's Pioneer Press. He wrote about the retailing success of Roseville, a St. Paul suburb. Roseville is a big shopping destination for St. Paulites. As are other suburbs, such as Woodbury, Maplewood, and Eagan. And that's completely backward, as I've been telling city officials for years. People should flow into the central city to shop, not the other way around.
Beal notes that retail spending in Roseville was $1.37 billion in 2002, compared with $1.99 billion in St. Paul. Of course, St. Paul is a much larger city. Adjusting for population, Roseville's per capita retail spending in 2002 was $39,000. In St. Paul, it was a measly $7,000. That represents a lot of money leaving the capital city.
"By far, Roseville is St. Paul's downtown for retailing," Beal quotes Dave Brennan, the co-director of the Institute for Retailing Excellence at the University of St. Thomas. That's disgraceful: a central city -- a capital city! -- that relies on a suburb for its shopping "downtown." What an embarrassment!
Beal didn't compare Roseville's success to what's been going on in St. Paul. While St. Paulites flock to Roseville and other suburbs to spend their money in popular, modern stores, forces within St. Paul work to thwart the development of "evil" chain stores and "big box" retailers -- the very stores that St. Paulites flock to in the suburbs.
Beal cites the success of the SuperTarget in Roseville. The giant retailer wants to spend millions to similarly upgrade its store in St. Paul's mediocre Midway district into a SuperTarget. The city should be thrilled that it is getting the same interest and investment as the suburbs. But no. Groups in the capital city complain about Target's plans. They want an unprecedented two-story SuperTarget. They want the building closer to the street. They want it more "transit friendly."
On once run-down Grand Avenue, interest groups and sympathetic city politicians try to block successful national chains from moving in. Also in the Midway a few years back, a proposed Home Depot development project was abandoned after local voices cried out for "affordable housing" instead. Anyone wanting to improve their existing "affordable" (re: old) housing was left driving to the suburbs for building materials. (How "transit friendly" is that?)
Beal also highlighted a new 14-screen multiplex cinema being built in Roseville. When it is complete, an older 11-screen complex will be converted to other retail uses. St. Paul's movie theater screens total four. FOUR! In two pre-war, single screen buildings where the balconies have been converted into separate auditoriums.
Meanwhile, politicians in central-city St. Paul complain that they need more state aid, and more redistribution of metropolitan area wealth, because their city is too old and run down to compete with the booming economies of the suburbs that surround it.
Am I the only one who can see the connection?
Wedding Planner
Wins Jackslap Award
I haven't given
out the Jackslap Award lately, but Isaac the Wedding Planner has earned
it.
Isaac writes to syndicated advice columnist Harriette Cole:
I read your column routinely, and you're usually on target. Not this time, though. Your response to Jean in Seattle, regarding wedding gifts, was totally inappropriate: ' give a small check with a heartfelt card.' This is not proper etiquette for a wedding.
I was a wedding planner for more than 10 years, working in some of the nicest hotels in the New York area. In 2006, common etiquette requires guests to "cover their plate." Weddings can be extremely expensive. Even moderate weddings are expensive, averaging more than $100 per plate for a "no frills" ceremony.
If a guest came to a wedding bringing their mate and gave only a $50 or $75 check, this would be a total insult. My advice is, at the very least, cover your plate, and if you can't afford that, graciously decline the generous invitation.
Incidentally, it would be fine to send the "small check" only if the guest does not attend. I do not mean to sound harsh, but this is not a charity dinner.
No,
a wedding is not a charity dinner. But it is also not a fundraiser.
If the happy couple don't want their guests simply for their presence, rather
than their presents, then they shouldn't invite them in the first place!
I'm so sick of greedy people, thinking someone owes them something. Isaac
(I wonder if he pronounces it Isaaaaaaac, like Fraaaanck in "Father
of the Bride"?) says that if people can't afford to "cover their
plate," they should not accept the "generous invitation."
I think I missed the "generous" part. What exactly is "generous" about inviting people to something that you expect them to pay for? I have an idea for you, Isaac. Maybe people would find it easier to "cover their plate" if the weddings didn't cost so much in the first place. And I think a good place to start the cost-cutting would be by not hiring a wedding planner.
That about covers it, don't you think, Isaac?
Minneapolis to
St. Paul: Prepare to be Assimilated
The assimilation
of St. Paul is gaining speed. Yesterday, St. Paul's new mayor Chris Coleman met with Minneapolis mayor R.T. "Archie"
Rybak to pledge his fealty to his west metro lord and master. Oh, did
I write that out loud?! I meant to say, the two mayors met to pledge a new
era of cooperation between the Twin Cities. Said Rybak, "The Berlin
Wall has fallen."
(Rybak shows a lot of gall, using a metaphor like the Berlin Wall. It was liberals of Rybak's ilk who told us the people of Eastern Europe were happy living in their workers' paradise, and that President Reagan was going to get us all killed in a nuclear holocaust, making outrageous statements such as, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" They didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with the Berlin Wall back then.)
In the news story, St. Paul city council president Marilyn Lantry offers as a benefit of this new era of cooperation that St. Paul will be able to "piggyback" on Minneapolis' "311" telephone information system.
Great. Might as well. After all, their daily newspaper has already bought ours, and now St. Paul faces the prospect of losing its paper entirely. No problem, we can just "piggyback" on Minneapolis' newspaper. We'll just be another suburb of Minneapolis.
Cooperation can be good. So can competition. (Read my thoughts on how competition is itself a form of cooperation.) But St. Paul needs to be careful. Partnerships work best when the partners are true equals. When one partner sees itself as bigger, more powerful, or more important, as Minneapolis always has, the "partnership" lasts only as long as it serves the interests of the more powerful partner. (Think of Hitler's alliance with Stalin. It kept the Soviets out of Hitler's way until he was ready to turn on them himself. Hey, don't get on my case for dragging Hitler into this. Rybak started it. There would have been no Berlin Wall if not for Hitler choosing to turn against his one-time ally, the Soviets.)
Seriously, there are lots of ways that the two cities can cooperate. They have much in common, being two older, central cities, surrounded by post-war suburbs. They can and should work together to address the needs and concerns of the central cities, which are all too easy for the rest of the state to ignore. But the cities have always worked together in those ways.
One area where the boy mayors agree is that they both like to play with trains. They're all aboard and full steam ahead for light rail down University Avenue. Coleman complained that other cities, such as Denver, are way ahead of us when it comes to building light rail lines. So what? Is he afraid that all the low-income, transit-dependent people living in the University Avenue corridor are going to up and move to Denver? Come to think of it, that might be a good thing. Trains only work with high densities of people wanting to ride them. Let's have all the people who want/need to ride trains move to the cities that have them, and we can save the billions and billions of dollars we're planning to spend to build trains in the remaining cities. But I digress.
My concern is that St. Paul is going to find that this "partnership" is anything but equal. The Capital City is likely to find itself settling for scraps from the master's table, "sucking hind teat" like the runt of the litter. The mayors mention not bidding against each other with escalating subsidy offers to businesses that play one city against the other. That sounds like an idea with which I can get on board, but St. Paul better watch out. I can imagine "Archie" telling Chris, "Let us have this one, and we'll make it up to you down the road."
Ironically, this love fest took place at the studios of Minnesota Public Radio, in downtown St. Paul. As I recall, the city not long ago gave subsidies to MPR so that the broadcaster would not leave St. Paul for greener ($$$) pastures, going so far as to vacate a street so that MPR could build out over it.
Lotterman Aces
Immigration Issue
Ed Lotterman has
written a great column about immigration. Please read this one.
He does a great job of balancing the facts of the matter, without getting
bogged down in the political rhetoric.
Lotterman talks about not getting caught in a "false dichotomy" -- either/or thinking that insists one side is completely right and another side is completely wrong. On complex issues, both sides can be right, Lotterman says.
And I agree, especially in the case of immigration. Because the "immigration issue" is really two (at least) separate issues.
The first issue is whether a nation should be in control of its own borders, whether it should know and control who is entering from elsewhere. I don't see how the answer can be anything other than "yes."
How can that be controversial? The first order of business for any nation is to define and control its borders. After all, enforced borders are the very definition of what makes a nation. Otherwise what do you have, some sort of "virtual country," whose citizens live around the world? Like a "virtual corporation" whose workers are all tele-commuters?
Is it really OK for a nation to be illegally infiltrated by an unknown number of foreigners? And should those foreigners really be entitled to the same benefits as the nation's citizens?
Amazingly, a large number of Americans would answer, "Yes." And they'd say anyone who doesn't agree with them is racist, and doesn't want to allow any immigration.
But control of the immigration process and the number of immigrants allowed are two separate issues. I say we need to have control of who is entering our country. But I'm entirely willing to consider that we also need to allow a greater number of LEGAL immigrants.
People who say we shouldn't enforce existing laws because we need lots of immigrants to keep the economy humming miss the point. We can do BOTH! We can enforce our laws, but also change our laws if they limit the immigrant population too much.
Enforcing immigration law is rather like protecting a trademark. We've all heard the stories of the "evil, greedy, big corporation" that files suit against a small operator for trademark infringement. People say, "Oh, leave him alone. He's no threat to you." But the problem is, if a trademark owner doesn't defend its trademark consistently, the day comes when a legitimate threat of a competitor infringes on it. Finally, the trademark owner files suit to defend itself, and the judge says, "It's too late now. You've never defended it before. Obviously it was no big deal to you. I'm ruling your trademark has become a common, everyday usage, and your suit is dismissed."
In a way, immigration is similar. If we turn a blind eye, if we pretend it doesn't matter whether someone is in the country legally or not, whether someone is a citizen or not, pretty soon it really won't matter. Pretty soon there will be no distinction between who is an American and who isn't. If you are standing on American soil, you'll be an American. There will be no distinction between citizen and non-citizen. Is that where we want to go?
Taken to an extreme, we'll cease to be "America," the nation. We'll lose our national identity, just as a company loses its trademark. We'll just be a geographic spot on the globe.
Yes, this nation has always been unusual in that it is made up of people who came from all over the globe. But past immigrants were expected to enter the country legally, and then become Americans. What really scares me isn't vast numbers of immigrants, it's natural-born citizen Americans who think it doesn't matter who's entering the country, or why.
Two Sides to Every
Argument; But Media Play Favorites
Who hasn't said
to a parent (or at least thought it), regarding a sibling: "You always
did like him (or her) better than me!"
My children have provided me with yet another insight about adult behavior. Time and time again, I realize that my frustrations with "childish" behavior mirror similar frustrations with adult behavior. Increasingly, I'm becoming convinced that most people never actually grow up.
The other day my kids came in from playing outside -- one in tears, the other mad. Their simple game of catch had ended badly. Interestingly, neither would take any responsibility for doing anything wrong. Both said it was entirely the other child's fault. I heard two completely different versions of the same event.
It occurred to me that this is pretty much the same way it works with supposedly adult disagreements of a political nature. You talk to two sides, and you get two completely different stories. Just as you wonder whether the two kids were actually playing the same game, you wonder whether the opposing sides are actually talking about the same issue.
But here's the most important part. I can link this to liberal bias in the media. When we have two sides and two different stories, the mainstream media consistently report the story through the eyes of only one side -- the liberal or Democratic Party side. They adopt the terms and framework laid out by the liberals, thus skewing the discussion in their favor.
For example, let's look at abortion. One side talks about protecting unborn babies from being killed. The other talks about "reproductive rights" and "women's health." Whose side does the mainstream media take? It's obvious from the terms they use when reporting on the issue.
Then there's the current debate about "domestic spying." Why is it called "domestic spying"? Because that's the terminology used by Democrats. Defenders of the Bush administration can talk about "fighting terrorism," but the mainstream media isn't using that terminology.
MSM, you always did like them better than us! (For some reason I've just thought of Katie Couric. Why is her new job supposed to represent such an advance for women? It's not like she got the job because of her mind.)
President Bush
Prevents Flooding
I just heard a
news report on the radio, in which residents of the Red River Valley towns
of Minnesota and North Dakota are crediting the levees for saving them from
severe spring flooding.
But there was no mention of thanking President Bush.
I don't get it: If Bush is to blame when levees fail, shouldn't he get the credit when they work?
But then, no one blamed President Clinton when Grand Forks was devastated by first flooding, and then fire, in 1997. Clinton had had his entire first term to make sure Grand Forks was adequately protected by the federal government. Why didn't he?
Parlez Vous "Get
a Job"?
I heard on a news
broadcast that as many as a million Frenchmen may have been in the streets
protesting today.
You might ask them, Why aren't you at work? Don't you have a job? But I don't think they'd see the irony.
They're protesting legislation that would make it easier for employers to dump unneeded or no-good employees. Proponents say this will encourage employers to actually hire some more workers, reducing France's high unemployment rate.
Evidently they'd rather protest than work.
The Two Easters
One of the ironies
of the great St. Paul City Hall Easter Bunny Banishment is the way Christians have come
to the defense of the Holiday Hare, while at the same time distancing themselves
from him, saying, "He's not a Christian symbol anyway."
Some Christians would just as soon do away with the Easter Bunny, to preserve the religious integrity of their faith. In that sense, the city government is acting to further the cause of Christianity. Nevertheless, Christians have mostly defended the Easter Bunny in this case, perceiving -- accurately, I believe -- that he is being attacked as a surrogate for them.
But what gets lost in all this is the fact that there are two Easters: the Christian holiday, and the secular observance of the springtime. Just look at this ad for French's Onions (from last Sunday's newspaper coupon insert) and you'll see proof of that distinction. The ad features the Easter Bunny, and the word "Easter," but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.
But some people just don't get it. Like a recent letter writer to the Pioneer Press. Philip Jacobs wrote:
The "Easter" Bunny has nothing to do with Easter? Does that mean that the "Michelin Man" has nothing to do with Michelin tires or that the Jolly Green Giant has nothing to do with canned vegetables? Maybe the "American" flag has nothing to do with America?
It's fine to have a discussion about diversity and the display of holiday symbols in government offices, but get real. Next they will be saying that Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christmas.
A lot of letter writers can't reason. They offer conclusions that don't follow their premises. Jacobs at least offers a conclusion that follows from his premise. The trouble is, his premise totally misses the point.
No one has argued that the Easter Bunny has nothing to do with Easter. The premise Jacobs should be addressing is whether the Easter Bunny has anything to do with Christianity, and the Christian Easter.
You know, I think in the past the City Parks and Rec Department has done some events in observance of Midsummer -- the summer solstice. Some might say that's just a good excuse to get the kids out in the fresh air on a the longest day of the year. But I associate that with Pagans and Wiccans. I'll be watching; they'd better not try it this year.
Coming Soon, to
a Bumper Near You...
Thanks to reader
Walter Huemmer, for the idea for this Downingworld original cartoon.
God Save the Super
We've got a new
superintendent of schools in St. Paul. All that's left to do is finalize
a contract -- figure out which luxury car she gets, when she can declare
herself a free agent, all of that. All this is accompanied by great pomp
and rejoicing over our new "savior."
It occurs to me that we treat these school superintendents like royalty. I mean, what exactly does the St. Paul School Superintendent actually DO? It seems like she's almost a symbolic figurehead. People fawn over her, and evidently she's supposed to help us feel good about being St. Paulites. But what does she actually DO? When a large district is "between Supers" -- the throne is vacant -- things go on as always on a day-to-day basis. Any "void" seems to be more emotional than practical. It's as though we are being told that we should feel "lost" without our leader.
The job of superintendent seems to be mostly to go from place to place, shaking hands and telling people they're doing a great job, hang in there, more help is on the way. The job seems mostly ceremonial.
When you think about it, being the Superintendent of St. Paul Public Schools is rather like being the Queen of England.
My Tax Dollars
at Work
St. Paul
is giving the heave-ho to a city logo adopted just two years ago,
and reverting to the "old" logo. That's two years too late, in
my opinion. We could have saved a lot of trouble -- and $20,000 -- if we'd
just stuck with the old logo in the first place. The old logo -- with its
capital dome -- actually represents the city. The "new and improved"
logo -- "St. Paul" in a semi-circle -- is a generic piece of nothing
that could be used by just about any city. Hey, maybe we could sell it second-hand
to someone!
But city officials prefer to look on the bright side. According to St. Paul marketing director Erin Dady:
"Overwhelmingly, we got positive feedback about dropping this logo."
Oh, it's a good thing, then! Reminds me of the guy who kept hitting himself on the head, because it felt so good when he stopped. Let's make lots more mistakes, then we can feel good about fixing them!
And the logo mistake doesn't represent a waste of $20,000 of taxpayers' money, plus unspecified private donations. Oh, no. Dady added:
"The process of getting that logo was quite good, we think. The materials involved are still quite valuable. The only unsuccessful part of the process was the end result."
The only unsuccessful part of the process was the end result?! By what standards does the City of St. Paul measure success? Would City Hall tell us that a war was a great success, even though we lost, because we learned some new patriotic tunes and the combat meals were really good for us? Would they tell us that an oil exploration project was a great success, even though we didn't find any oil, because we made lots of new friends along the way?
Reminds me of the old joke: Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Heroes Amongst
Us
I just got back
from a funeral. My wife and I were in Center City, Minnesota, for the burial
of her great-aunt, Ruby Nelson. Looking over the Chisago Lake Hillside Cemetery,
I remembered that it was only about 18 months ago that we were there to
bury Ruby's husband, Manfred. A color guard had been there that day to honor
the veteran Manfred, and I recalled thanking those gentlemen for their service,
both that day, and during their active military duty.
But today, I noticed something new. It was the gravestone for Manfred's brother, James, buried just last October. His stone noted that he had served as a Staff Sergeant in Gen. Patton's 6th Armored Division.
Wow, I thought, at my feet was a real connection to a famous name from textbook history. And it got me to thinking...
When Hitler dominated Europe, threatened freedom everywhere, and committed his atrocities, to whom did the world turn for its salvation? Did nobles and career soldiers and famous "heroes" ride to the rescue? I suppose they did, but they weren't nearly enough. When the fate of the world hung in the balance, it was up to the American "everyman" to set things right again.
Now here they lay, overlooking Pioneer Lake, interred in a small knob of land perhaps set aside for a cemetery because it was too gravelly to farm. But think where they had been. And where they had started.
Like millions of their American brethren who answered the call, they came from humble beginnings. Descended from immigrant stock and not so far removed from the boat themselves, while growing up they may have dreamed of little beyond someday having 80 acres of their own and a strong team of horses to farm it. They likely had never strayed far from home. But then, duty called, and they joined the millions who found themselves travelling to places they'd only heard of (and many they hadn't), crossing an ocean, and joining a battle half a world away. Many of the millions never came back. (For those obsessive/compulsive counters of American deaths in Iraq, count this: more than 400,000 American troops died in WWII.)
But most survived, and they came back home to little places like Center City, where they lived out a good several decades of civilian life, as unassuming, everyday people, and contributing members of society. So here lay Manfred and James, representing the millions -- world travelers, defeaters of Fascism, and once-and-forever small-town boys.
It's mind boggling and utterly humbling, standing in a little-known cemetery, surveying the small town and countryside around it, to realize that it was not politicians or generals, but little places like this -- thousands and thousands of little places like this -- that defeated evil.
We are forever in their debt.
Liberal Scolds
and Bible Bangers
When liberals
start to moralize, we're in for some laughs. And when they start to cite
the Bible as the arbiter of right and wrong in politics ("wall of separation,"
anyone?), it's time to roll on the floor.
The paper one day last week contained a slew of letters to the editor defending Minnesota State Senate majority leader Dean Johnson, who got caught telling lies about imaginary conversations with Supreme Court justices. (If you don't know anything about the story, here's a recap.) The letter writers said that poor Johnson is a victim, and the real bad guy is the fellow minister who recorded Johnson's lies.
"Slimy," "Judas," "not Minnesota Nice," not "Christian" -- these are some of the ways the letter writers describe the pastor who made the tape recording.
And columnist Laura Billings wrote, "I guess I missed the part of the Bible where God says it's cool to secretly record fellow Christians. Like most things we argue about nowadays, it's probably in Leviticus."
That's a good one. Be careful, Laura, if you're prepared to start using the Bible as the authority on proper secular political behavior. If we can't do something unless it's specifically permitted in the Bible, you could be in for some disappointments. For instance, I think we all missed the part of the Bible where God says it's "cool" for women to vote. And that part about same-sex marriage definitely isn't in there. But I do know there's a part saying it's "uncool" to bear false witness against your neighbor.
I think I know where the pastor who recorded Johnson went wrong. Instead of making a genuine recording of the lies Johnson had been going around telling, he should have just forged a tape and turned it over to "60 Minutes." Then, it wouldn't have even mattered that the tape was a forgery, what would have mattered was the "seriousness of the charges," and that everyone knew it was true anyway, even if the tape was really a forgery.
At least that's the way the liberals reacted to the forged memos attacking President Bush. And notice they never seem concerned about the ethics of anyone -- journalist or otherwise -- who leaks information damaging to the Bush administration.
But that's the way it is these days. In some ways, we're not too far removed from the Sunnis and the Shiites. Everything your side does is wrong; everything my side does is right. I have no doubt that if this same tape recording issue had come up in a way damaging to a Republican on the opposite side of the marriage amendment issue, these same letter writers would not be bothered. They'd be busy explaining how the recording was entirely justified
An Interesting
Quote from a Liberal Democrat...
A few months back,
former Vice President (and former Minnesota Senator) Walter "Fritz"
Mondale had this to say about Iraq:
I don't believe we can just walk out of there. But I do believe we have to have a plan for reducing the American presence in a way that will give the Iraqi government a decent chance to step up to the plate to do what they have to do to defend and govern themselves.
Some Iraqis want us to stay. But the fact that we are substituting for what a state and people should do for themselves is delaying the time when they should act on their own. I think it's time for Americans to reach a decent bargain with the Iraqi government that allows us to push more of this responsibility off onto the Iraqis. Give them time to do it, but tell them, "We're not just going to walk away and leave you alone, but this is something you increasingly have to do, and Americans will be around less and less to do it for you.''
That's an interesting choice of words coming from a liberal Democrat. Mondale seems to be saying that the Iraqis should be responsible for themselves, and that the U.S. is actually hampering the Iraqis' by doing things for them. That's how Mondale sees the War on Terror in Iraq.
But there's another war -- a 40 years and counting war -- where this is anything by position of liberal Democrats like Mondale. I speak, of course, of the "War on Poverty." The War on Poverty has created a permanent underclass, forever dependent on the U.S. government to take care of it. But what are the chances of Mondale looking at welfare programs and saying, "The fact that we are substituting for what...people should do for themselves is delaying the time when they should act on their own"? No, I'm sure Mondale wants more programs, more government spending. If ever a nation was "bogged down" in a "quagmire," it's the way the U.S. is caught in the self-perpetuating "War on Poverty."
Kill the Bastards
When people criticize
the South Dakota legislature's ban on all abortions, they often complain
-- in exasperation -- that the legislation bans abortion "even in cases
of rape or incest!"
As horrible as rape and incest are, I've never understood why some people think those circumstances of conception change everything. After all, being pro-life is about protecting the innocent, unborn child, isn't it? What has an unborn child, conceived under these terrible circumstances, done to deserve death?
So I thought, If we are going to punish the child -- with death -- for the sins of the father, why stop with the unborn? Why not do the same with the born? For example, we don't have capital punishment here in Minnesota. But we could make exceptions. Maybe we could use capital punishment only on murderers who are themselves the products of rape or incest. That would seem to be consistent with making exceptions that would have allowed killing the very same people before they were born, before they became murderers. Now that they are murderers, do they deserve life more than an unborn child?
Titillate. (Giggle)
I heard someone
use the word "titillate," and I thought to myself: "How odd,
a word that serves as an example of itself."
Dumb Letter of
the Day
If I ran the daily
paper, I wouldn't have enough letters-to-the-editor to fill the page. That's
because I wouldn't run any letter that was just plain stupid. (If I had
to run some of them, I'd have to add commentary.) And boy, are some of them
stupid.
Today's gem comes from one Chris Zann, who offers this brilliant "analogy" in response to South Dakota's abortion ban:
"It would seem appropriate that these male S.D. legislators who feel empowered to make determinations about a woman's body should enact legislation that would require any male in South Dakota responsible for an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to have a vasectomy."
How is that analogous to an abortion ban? Let's work backwards, starting with there being no laws at all. Let's say Zann's idea becomes law: Any man participating in an "unwanted or dangerous pregnancy" must undergo a state-enforced vasectomy. What, then, would be the analogous treatment for women?
The analogous treatment for women would be for any woman with an "unwanted or dangerous pregnancy" to be similarly permanently, surgically sterilized.
Abortion doesn't enter into the analogy.
I'll tell you what would be analogous to a state prohibiting women from having abortions: The analogous law affecting men would be a law prohibiting men from killing their unborn children.
Oh, wait, that's already the existing law: Men already have no right to kill their unborn children.
Mr. Zann, your point was.....?
Until a man has the right to force an abortion on a woman carrying his baby, or at least can disavow himself of all responsibility for the child once it is born, don't talk to me about abortion laws being some sort of "discrimination" against women.
Easter Bunny Booted
from City Hall; Giant Idol Remains
St. Paul,
Minn., human rights director Tyrone "Taliban" Terrill has kicked
the Easter Bunny out of city hall, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports
in a front page story today.
The Minneapolis-based Star Tribune reports that Terrill, in an e-mail to city council president Marilyn Lantry, said that a secretary must remove a cloth Easter Bunny and colored plastic "Happy Easter" eggs from her work area, because the items "could be offensive to non-Christians."
This is ridiculous. Especially to anyone who has ever actually walked into the lobby of the city hall/courthouse building. Visitors are greeted by a giant statue of Indians smoking pipes. It's now (only since 1994) officially known as "Vision of Peace," but for decades before that, since its installation in 1936, it was commonly known as the Indian "God of Peace." (Actually, it's just some white guy's idea.) This thing is 36 feet tall, and sits in a place of honor on a revolving pedestal. You can read more about it on this city webpage.
I want to know, when is "Taliban" Terrill going to call the governor's office and demand that the National Guard send some tanks over to blow that thing up? Clearly, it "could be offensive" to adherents of any religion that embraces the 10 Commandments' prohibition of graven images. And I believe that would include Jews, Muslims, and Christians.
I'm tired of this two-track approach to "diversity" and "multi-culturalism." Over and over, we are told to "embrace" and "celebrate" new additions to our local culture. We are told to be "tolerant" of those who are different. But when someone doesn't observe the prevailing and historical culture, we are told it must be censored out of deference to "inclusiveness."
You can't celebrate the diversity of one person by suppressing another. You can't exchange one culture for another, and claim you are being "diverse." Addition by subtraction is no way to achieve "multi-culturalism." The motto of the diversity movement should be "The more the merrier," not "Stop being you; it offends me." (It reminds me of something I read when Dennis Green was coach of the Minnesota Vikings football team. A reporter said that Green's coaching staff was the "most diverse" in the league, because something like 10 out of 18 people were black. I wondered: If all 18 were black, would the staff then be 100 percent, or perfectly, diverse? But I digress.)
I live in a city where a public school consults an Imam to design an Islamic-approved
elementary school art program, and the public school administration building
proudly displays "Razanne the Muslim Doll."
City Hall features a giant graven image.
Yet, the Easter Bunny is too "offensive" to inhabit the same building.
As could be a lot of things. Starting with the name of the city. And why is city hall closed on Easter, anyway? Isn't that an endorsement of religion? I think all the politicians and city employees -- starting with "Taliban" Terrill -- should be on the job that day, lest the citizenry get the mistaken idea that they are all "endorsing" a religion.
Here's another idea: The guards who inspect anyone entering city hall to make sure they don't have an evil pocket knife on them, should also order any head scarves or other religious clothing items to be removed by those entering the building. Or at the very least, the city employees mustn't be allowed to wear such items. A taxpayer coming in to conduct business might be offended, or infer that the city is endorsing a particular religion.
City council member Dave Thune tried to defend the Easter
Bunny, saying, "I absolutely wonder how colored eggs and bunnies and
chickens are Christian. I'm a little puzzled how people can be offended."
Mr. Thune, don't feign ignorance. You're going down the wrong road. You're right that those decorative items aren't Christian, but they are associated with a Christian holiday. The point you should be making is that it doesn't matter. A lot of things may be associated with a particular holiday -- religious, secular, or both. That doesn't mean those items must be banned.
What's next? Will employees be prohibited from bringing turkey sandwiches in a bag lunch, because that turkey might be leftover from a Christmas dinner? I know that's a ridiculous example. That's my point. The whole thing is ridiculous.
"Taliban" Terrill should go. I've thought for years he's out of touch with the city of St. Paul. This is just the latest example. Ta ta, Tyrone.
(Top photo from City of St. Paul website. Other photos from Minnesota Historical Society website.)
Patience, Dave,
Patience (Where Have I Heard That Before?)
Yesterday I wrote
about Coach Froyen, and expressed my frustration that I had been unable
to get his story any coverage in the dailies.
My timing was off.
Today, there's a great story by Rick Shefchik in the Pioneer Press. They saved it for the last minute, as the state tournament begins today. I had no inkling they were working on anything, as they had not given me any response to the info I had been sending them for more than two years.
As it turns out, this is a story that plays better after simmering for awhile. With Braham playing for championship number three this week, it's a better story than if it had been written two years ago. The danger was, Braham could have been eliminated and not reached the tournament this year, in which case this story would have likely seen the circular file, or its digital equivalent.
The Coach Who
Wouldn't Die?
For the past two-plus
years, I've been trying to get someone at the daily papers interested in
this story. But no one will take an interest, so I'll have to write it myself.
It's a feel-good, yet bittersweet, sports story from my hometown.
My hometown is little Braham, Minnesota. If you're a basketball fan, you've heard of it, because the Braham boys basketball team has won the last two state titles in their class; last year went undefeated and was widely considered the best team of ANY size school in the state; this year got stopped just four games shy of tying Edina's state-record 69-game winning streak; and features the state's best and most-recruited player, Isaiah Dahlman, who is finally a senior.
They play at 8:00 pm Wednesday evening in pursuit of their third, consecutive, state title.
A lot of people in the state wouldn't recognize the name Braham if not for Isaiah Dahlman and the current run of basketball success. These three consecutive appearances are the ONLY appearances Braham has made in the state boys' tournament.
But if you were a basketball fan decades ago, you likely knew about Braham.
Braham had a successful basketball program for decades, under the direction of the legendary coach Len Froyen, who coached the hoops team for 37 seasons -- beginning in 1930 -- and compiled a career record of 402-176, winning many conference and district titles along the way. But he never made it to the state tournament.
(Coach Froyen's teams also won conference titles in football and golf. Ironically, the Canadian-born Froyen never coached hockey in Braham, and the school still doesn't have a hockey team.)
Len Froyen was inducted into the Minnesota Basketball Hall of Fame in 1967.
Although Coach Froyen retired from coaching and teaching, he didn't go away. He remained in Braham, and I had him as a substitute middle school gym teacher in the 1970s. A few years later when I was in high school, the new football field was named in his honor.
Coach Froyen lived to the ripe old age of 97. At the time of his death, Braham had still never appeared in the boys' state tournament.
Now, here's the hook to my story. Coach Froyen died September 26, 2003. Just a couple of months later, Braham began the first of three state-tournament seasons.
Coincidence? Or does Coach Froyen have some sort of other-worldly hand in this?
It's a great story. It's heartwarming to imagine the old coach providing some sort of guidance from beyond the grave. Yet, it's bittersweet, because he didn't live to see this.
At the time of Coach Froyen's death, I saw no mention in the sports sections of the Twin Cities dailies. (Even though I brought it to the attention of one of them, and sent them info.) But that was before Braham basketball became so well known again. I also think Coach Froyen's death didn't get the coverage it deserved because he outlived all the sportswriters who knew him. He was 97 years old! Anyone who recognized his name was dead, or at least retired.
But I don't understand why I haven't been able to generate any interest in the "Spirit of Coach Froyen" story angle. I've tried to make it easy for them. I've even suggested whom they could talk to to flesh out their stories. For example, there is former U of M and Minneapolis Lakers coach Johnny Kundla. Not only did he know Coach Froyen, but Kundla is the grandfather of Isaiah Dahlman. Now there's a tie-in for you!
Then there's legendary Minneapolis Washburn and U of M football coach George Wemier. Wemier crossed paths with Coach Froyen when he (Wemier) began his coaching career at Braham in the 1950s. He's still here in the Twin Cities, working part time as a college assistant coach. (I know because I met him last summer when he visited my dad in the hospital. My dad played football for the young coach, and has stayed in contact with him for 50 years now.)
I also offered them the name of my uncle, who is retired now, but who himself taught and coached in the Twin Cities for many years. He played under Coach Froyen in Braham, and can share stories about the coach's legacy. For instance, he told me that in college, while playing in a pickup basketball game, another student ID-ed him as a Braham grad, because of his mastery of Froyen-taught techniques.
I think this would make a great story angle -- Braham's success and the spirit of Len Froyen. I don't know why someone doesn't bite on it. I've done most of the work for them.
But you know what they say: If you want something done right, do it yourself.
Soup of the Day?
Your Choice of Stone or Nail
I'm pretty tight
with a penny, but I try not to be "cheap." I prefer "frugal."
I think it's important to distinguish the difference between "frugal"
and "cheap." In my mind, "frugal" is being wise with
your money. "Cheap" is when your penny-pinching starts to hurt
yourself or others. Here's an example to illustrate it: "Frugal"
is going out to dinner on a 2-for-1 coupon, which was freely proffered by
the restaurant. "Cheap" is tipping the waiter or waitress based
on the cost of only one meal.
There's a column called "Everyday Cheapskate" that appears in my newspaper. In it, the author, Mary Hunt, offers her tips for saving money, as well as tips contributed by readers.
The column offers lots of tips for frugal living, but from time to time, a line gets crossed into the realm of cheap. Consider this example from a recent column:
Lemonade from water: I just read a reader's tip about ordering only water for her family at restaurants. I have one better. My aunt showed me this trick: Order water with lemon (ask for extra lemons), then squeeze the lemons into your water, add some sugar/sugar substitute packets that are usually on the table, and you've got lemonade! I thought it was odd - and really cheap - at first, but it's a great money saver, especially at some restaurants.
- Meredith C., New York
Has this person no shame? This may go beyond cheap -- it sounds almost criminal. The restaurant is supplying her with a glass of ice water, lemons, and sugar -- all the makings of lemonade. But because she stirs it herself, she has convinced herself that it's "free." And she's so proud of herself, she's telling everybody what she does!
That lemonade isn't "free," it's "stolen."
This must be the dumbest, cheapest idea since the guy with the system for getting half-price milk. Instead of buying 1% milk, he bragged that he bought 2%, then mixed it 50/50 with water! He reasoned that this gave him the equivalent of 1% milk, at half price! How dumb can you get? While he may indeed have ended up with the equivalent of 1% butterfat in his glass of milk, he now had only half the calcium and vitamins he should have been getting from his drink. That guy was so cheap, he was hurting himself.
Way, way back, I worked at a truck stop owned by a guy who was so cheap he hurt himself. He had a lucrative account with a trucking company that fueled at least one vehicle a day. But he wouldn't keep the diesel tanks full. So after I'd told the truckers several times in the middle of the night that our 24-hour truck stop was our of fuel, the trucking company took its business elsewhere. He had a similar problem with the convenience store. Rather than let the local vendor stock his freezer with ice cream, for instance, he thought he could save money by bringing in ice cream from his other stores, located more than an hour away. So he trucked the ice cream and other supplies from there -- in an unrefrigerated truck.
So we put the messy ice cream products in the freezer, so the melted, leaking part could refreeze between the box and the plastic overwrap, in a very unappealing manner.
Oh, and one more -- the truckers never understood why our truck stop didn't keep in stock the sort of oil that they wanted to add to their engines. Nor did I.
Missing Links
This year, the
Minnesota state high school girls hockey tournament was played for the first
time at the Excel Center in St. Paul, home of the NHL's Minnesota Wild,
and the high school boys tournament. Previously, the girls' tournament was
played at other, smaller venues, including most recently, the new Ridder
Arena at the University of Minnesota. Ridder was built specifically for
the U of M's women's team, the pinnacle of female-played hockey in the state.
But some parents of girl hockey players thought that wasn't right. The girls were being deprived of the "same experience" the boys were getting, they argued in their lawsuit. Never mind that the girls' tournament doesn't draw anywhere near enough fans to require an arena the size of the Excel Center.
So, this year we had "equality."
With that background, maybe you'll see why I think this next part is strange.
This weekend, the girls basketball tournament was played at the Target Center in Minneapolis. That's the home of the NBA Timberwolves, and the WNBA Lynx. The Timberwolves are in the midst of their season; the Lynx (women's team) play in the summer, so they are in their off-season.
Despite that, I noticed that the court at the Target Center was decorated with the markings of the Lynx, not the Timberwolves! Evidently, special effort had been made, and expense incurred, to switch the floor markings so that the girls played on the "Lynx court."
What happened to the "same experience"? This seems sort of patronizing to me. If the boys get to play on the "Timberwolves floor" -- as they will next weekend -- doesn't that mean that the girls are being deprived of the same experience as the boys? After all, if playing on the ice used by the highest level of women's hockey in the state was not good enough for the girls, why should basketball be any different? One can hardly argue with a straight face that the WNBA is the equivalent of the NBA in talent level, prestige, or media coverage. Is this some sort of "separate but equal" policy designed to keep the women folk in their place?
Am I the only one seeing this link? If not, then I smell another lawsuit in the making.
A Nation of Immigrants
I read a good
St. Patrick's Day story in Friday's paper: Hmong students in St. Paul public schools are now being
graduated from high school at the same rate as white students.
Why is that a good St. Patrick's Day story? Because it shows that success is still possible in this country, for new immigrant groups as well as the previous ones. When the Irish were flocking to these shores a century or more ago, they were subject to discrimination, looked down upon, and forced to claw their way up from the bottom. They suceeded, and they succeeded so well that now EVERYONE wants to be Irish at least one day a year!
But some people can't wait to make race an excuse for everything.
In a St. Paul Pioneer Press story about Ramsey County juvenile curfew enforcement, the race card is played:
Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, said monitoring when kids go home is not the job of the police.
And he criticized what he called the unequal enforcement of the curfew law.
Last year, blacks made up 74 percent of the 453 youths brought to the Curfew Center. Ninety-four percent of all the young people were arrested in St. Paul.
Blacks between the ages of 10 and 19 made up 15 percent of all St. Paul kids in that age group.
"This simply reflects what the ACLU has been concerned about for a long time," Samuelson said. "Minorities are typically over-policed."
Hey, Chuckles, no joke: The relevant number here isn't what percentage of young people are black, it's what percentage of young people out in public after curfew are black. Show me that most of the young people out loitering on the street after curfew are white, but they don't get dragged downtown, and then we'll talk. But I'm seeing no evidence of that.
The truth is, some kids just aren't getting the parental supervision they need. Take this example from the curfew story:
Eugene, the 12-year-old, did not say much as he slouched on one of the center's plastic chairs around 1 a.m. Saturday. He knew there was a curfew, he said, but didn't know what time it was.
His mother, who declined to give her name, was not short on words.
"Well, we got the whole crew here!" she said as she walked into the center and gazed at her son and his friends. "The whole crew. One o'clock in the morning."
She told the center's staff that Eugene was not supposed to be on the East Side, where he was picked up.
"He knows better than this," she said.
But does SHE know better than this? My 12-year-old is home in bed long before 1:00 a.m. More important, my 12-year-old does not go out with friends, without parental supervision, period. But 12-year-old Eugene was out roaming strange parts of the city. How could any parent allow that?
But some do.
A number of years ago, I was working for the public agency that does wastewater treatment in the Twin Cities. We were in the process of some major construction projects, replacing major sewer lines. One project was taking place on the eastside of St. Paul, near a government housing project and subsidized apartments. The agency actually had to hire a 24-hour guard to stand watch over the construction trench area (despite it being fenced off), because small children were otherwise out there endangering themselves in the middle of the night. I'm talking 8-year-olds outside unsupervised at 2:00 a.m. Guess mommy didn't want to be disturbed while she was entertaining her boyfriend of the week.
By-products and
Filler
Hot Dog! An NCAA basketball tournament game in San Diego yesterday was delayed
70 minutes when a bomb-sniffing dog detected something "suspicious"
at an arena concession stand. Hmmm. What might sort of smell might have
gotten a dog excited? What sort of smell might have seemed out of place
at an arena concessions stand? I'm thinking the dog smelled something truly
unexpected -- a real beef wiener!
Look Me in the Eye When You Say That. I joked a couple of weeks back about "supermodel" and TV talk show host Tyra Banks going undercover in a strip club. I wondered, how could someone who'd been on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue appear as a stripper without being recognized? Well, with the help of a skilled make-up artist, it might be possible. Here's a description (and photos) of the stunt from the model's TV show website. Maybe it was possible for her to pose as a stripper and not be recognized. But then, the guys weren't looking at her face, anyway.
Whose University Is It, Anyway? Here in St. Paul, a controversy has erupted at the University of St. Thomas, over the Roman Catholic institution's desire to have cohabiting professors book two hotel rooms when they escort a group of students on a school trip. (The school would pay for both rooms. No one has suggested that bed checks will be conducted.) It sounds reasonable to me, but then, I'm a reasonable person. Some people think the school is "discriminating," and want to add in the issue of a lesbian professor traveling with her partner. I have one question for those who think the school should give its blessing to the unmarried profs sharing a hotel room: Does that go for unmarried students, as well? Would they have the school pay for a hotel room for a male student to share with his girlfriend? After all, they're all over 18. Might do wonders for enrollment. Just so mommy and daddy don't find out where that tuition money is going.
Wall Street Journal
Catches Up with DowningWorld
Downing's
Law: The easier a medium of communication,
the less permanent it is.
One of the reasons I started this website is that over the years, I've found I often have ideas that I'm not hearing expressed anywhere else. When I was younger, I figured that meant I just didn't know anything. If what I was thinking was of any value, someone "important" would be saying it for all to hear.
But as it turned out, I wasn't crazy, at least not all the time. Sometimes years would go by, and then all of a sudden the opinion leaders and media gatekeepers would be all abuzz with the idea I'd had years earlier.
I encountered an example of this earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal's online Opinion Journal. Douglas Gantenbein had a column about the death of film photography in the digital age. Referring to Mark Federman, who teaches at the University of Toronto's McLuhan Program, Gantenbein writes:
Mr. Federman, who thinks often about how societies "remember," sees digital photography as a disaster for historians. People delete pictures from their cameras' memory cards. Hard drives crash. PCs end up in the dump, photos still on board. And CDs full of pictures will become unreadable when their surfaces deteriorate (you heard that right--CDs are incredibly unstable). With all that, says Mr. Federman, we're on the verge of losing billions of pictures. "We will not have a record of the individual stories that are told by families from one generation to another through pictures," Mr. Federman says. "That is a wealth of human history that will simply be lost."
I concur. In fact, I concur so wholeheartedly that on July 15, 2004 -- in the first couple weeks of DowningWorld's existence -- I posted:
It seems in these days of digital cameras, web-based photo albums, e-mail and weblogs, people are taking pictures and writing more than ever. Yet, I can't help but wonder if years from now historians will curse us for leaving so little of permanence behind.
Yes, I extend the concept to written communication, as well. People send e-mail back and forth with greater frequency than they ever wrote paper letters. But what is the quality of those e-mail letters? And what is the permanence? Think of the shoebox full of letters in the attic, the letters from grandpa that grandma saved all her life. Think of the emotional and historical value of those letters, preserved through the decades. Thanks to e-mail, those days are history. And history is history.
We have stone tablets carved thousands of years ago, and still legible now. But last week's email may have been lost forever in a computer crash. Ironic, isn't it? It's a good thing the Egyptians didn't have e-mail back in 196 B.C., because I doubt the "Rosetta e-mail" would have lasted long enough to be discovered in 1799! Fortunately, they created the Rosetta Stone instead.
It's a general rule that the more you have of something, and the easier it is to come by, the less you value it. The same applies to communication. In the information age, we're overwhelmed with e-mail and photographs. Consequently, we take them for granted and value them little, especially on a piece-by-piece basis. Another e-mail or photograph is always coming along. Contrast that with the "old days," when a family might have one photograph of a departed loved one, purchased at great price from a photography study in the "big city." That photo is guarded and passed down from generation to generation as a precious treasure.
Which it is.
"No"
Means "No," But "Stop" Means "Go"
A judge has brought an end to Minneapolis' "photo
cop" program, in which automated cameras take photos of cars running
red lights, and then traffic tickets are mailed to the owners of the cars.
The judge issued his ruling in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil
Liberties Union.
But I'm not going to write about civil liberties.
If you've been visiting DowningWorld for some time, you'll know that I like to write about human nature. I'm going to write about the human nature aspect of traffic control.
Last night I heard a caller to a radio show say that if Minneapolis is truly interested in "traffic safety," rather than just collecting easy money from traffic fines, there is a better way. The caller said traffic signals could simply be reset so that as a light turns red, the light for the cross street also remains red for a few seconds. That would allow time for red light runners to clear the intersection before cross traffic started up.
And I thought to myself, Yeah, why aren't the lights set up that way?
Then I said to myself, But isn't that the purpose of the yellow light?
And it is, after all. Drivers are supposed to stop at a yellow light, unless they are too close to the intersection to do so. The yellow light is supposed to serve as the interval during which the intersection is cleared for safety, prior to the activation of the green light on the cross street.
In fact, the first traffic signals had no yellow light. They had only "stop" and "go." I'll bet the yellow light was created decades ago exactly for the purpose of solving the very traffic problem the "photo cop" is supposed to combat. (Learn more about the history of traffic signals.)
But what has happened? Too many drivers see yellow as no different from green. They just keep going on yellow, because they know the cross traffic is still stopped. If the lights were changed so that it was red both ways for several seconds, what do you suppose would happen? That's right, after a few years, drivers would run red lights even more than they do now, because they'd say "I've still got a few seconds" as they raced through.
Human nature being what it is, we could have five lights -- we could have 500 lights -- on the traffic signal, and drivers would disregard all but the final red.
Think about speed limits. Back when the freeways were 55 mph, people went 65, rationalizing that that was the "right speed," and 55 was unreasonable. Then speed limits (at least in Minnesota) went to 65, then 70 mph. Do people still go the "right speed" of 65? Some, perhaps, but it's not hard to find people going 75, 80, 85 mph.
It's human nature. People always want to get a way with a little more than they are supposed to. It's yet another way in which we never change from childhood.
Pioneer Press
in the Balance: How Ownership Matters
My daily paper,
the St. Paul Pioneer Press, is in limbo. Knight Ridder, which publishes
the Pioneer Press, along with 31 other dailies, is being sold to McClatchy Co., publisher of the Twin
Cities' other daily, the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune.
The fear is that McClatchy will shut down the Pioneer Press, so it can have the entire market to itself. McClatchy has said it will sell off the Pioneer Press. Some anti-trust experts say they will have to. Let's hope that is the case, and that the Pioneer Press continues to publish.
Losing the Pioneer Press would really hurt because it is the St. Paul paper. The Star Tribune bills itself "newspaper of the Twin Cities," but its origin is as the Minneapolis Tribune, and it continues to focus on downtown Minneapolis and the Minneapolis suburbs. St. Paul would be losing its newspaper. Maybe it's not my place to say, but I think it's a lot different from, say, Chicago or New York losing a daily, where each daily covers the same, singular city.
This newspaper deal shows how ownership matters. As I understand it, Knight Ridder has been up for sale because shareholders demanded it. They are unhappy with the returns they are getting on their investment. It's not that Knight Ridder isn't profitable, it's that Knight Ridder isn't profitable enough. The investors want to get out of the newspaper business and get into something that makes them even more money.
And that's their prerogative, I guess.
But the important thing to note is that these dissatisfied investors don't care whether Knight Ridder makes newspapers or knick-knacks. They just want to make money. As a result, they don't even care if the newspapers they own cease publishing.
Compare that to the way these newspapers started out. I've got to think that the individuals who started these papers long ago put ink to paper because they wanted to be newspapermen, not because they saw it as a way to make a good return on investment. To the contrary, I'll bet they did whatever it took to scrape by and keep publishing until their newspapers could support themselves.
In that way, they were like the farmers in my background. I'll tell you right out that no one decides to spend his life as a farmer because it's a good way to make a lot of money. A man (or woman) becomes a farmer because he wants to be a farmer. Then he tries to make a living at it.
Same for me, working as a freelancer. That's what I decided I wanted to do. Now, the trick is to pay the bills.
But the corporate beast has no career aspirations. No visions of civic service. No love of the land. The corporate beast has only an insatiable appetite for money.
And that's where ownership matters. We see it over and over. When founders of a company are long gone, and it becomes just a corporate entity, a way to make a return on investment for uninvolved investors, nothing else matters. Plants are closed in long-time company towns. Production goes overseas. Companies forgo their longtime purpose, and transform themselves from manufacturers into "financial services companies." The investors don't care, as long as they get their return on investment.
In another news media example, WCCO TV and radio used to be at the pinnacle of Twin Cities broadcasting. No one was more respected, or more trusted. Then, the company was sold to out-of-state investors. All they care about is the return on their investment. They demand higher profits. They order cuts. They make decisions that show no understanding of the market. It's a shame how far the once mighty WCCO has fallen. But the investors don't care. They don't care about their reputation. They don't care about their standing in the community. They just want their money.
No "Private"
Life in the Information Age
Is this the legacy
of the Clinton presidency?
I read a story that says college students may be damaging their career prospects by showing off their wild private lives on personal websites. A potential employer looking for information on the student may not be impressed when he or she encounters photos showing just how drunk the prospective employee can get. Here's an excerpt, concerning a student at, unfortunately, my alma mater, the University of Minnesota-Duluth:
To Ryan Schunk's point of view, what he does in his personal life is not an employer's business. He's not swayed by warnings from professors and isn't about to change what is posted on his Facebook page.
For one, Schunk's friend posted a picture of Schunk dancing on the stage at a bar after having too much to drink. While the University of Minnesota-Duluth junior admits that it's not a flattering photo, he's not about to be cowed by the specter of employers peeking in on his personal life.
"Whether or not they are going to or not, that's fine but I don't think it's any of their business," Schunk said. "You get to the point where, then you have to start watching what you are doing in your private life. It just seems ridiculous."
When did the idea that you have to watch what you do in your private life -- especially when your idea of "private" includes anything public but outside of the workplace (and even posted on the Internet!) -- become "ridiculous"?
I recall now a remark I heard first-hand from another Minnesota-Duluth student, regarding the Minnesota Vikings' sex cruise escapades. He said it was no big deal, this sort of thing goes on all the time, the players' only mistake was getting caught.
Is this what we should expect from people who came of age during the Clinton years? People who grew up hearing that it didn't matter what you did, what kind of man you proved yourself to be, as long as your actions were outside your official capacity?
Sorry, Schunk-the-drunk, but it doesn't yet work that way in the real world. Potential employers will judge you on your character, or what they infer about your character. They'll judge you on your tattoos and piercings, too. Earlier generations found out the same thing about long hair. Maybe you don't like it, but that's the real world.
Potential employers may assume that new hires had a lot of fun in college -- they may have done so themselves -- but they want to hire people smart enough to understand the concept of discretion.
You may wonder how this applies to me. By expressing myself on this website, do I risk alienating clients or potential clients? Absolutely. For a long time, that thought kept me from writing letters to the editor or guest opinion columns for the daily paper. But two years ago, I came to the realization that the people I was regularly doing business with generally shared my views. As for potential clients, the odds seem greater that someone would hire me because of my work on this site, than that someone would not hire me because of it. If it ever gets to the point where I meet someone who says, "I'd never work with you! You're that kook with the website!" that will be a good thing. To have that sort of notoriety would mean that DowningWorld has become a real success!
Random Design?
That's an Oxymoron
I went to the
Science Museum of Minnesota
today with a young one. Something caught my eye and got me thinking.
In a display demonstrating the concept of physical stress -- as in building trusses, or the human skeleton -- I read these sentences:
The femur is the largest, strongest bone in your body. It is designed to be the strongest where it bears the most weight.
Did you catch it? What was the word that caught my eye?
That's right -- "designed." The Science Museum of Minnesota says the human body has been "designed."
The museum doesn't say who or what "designed" the human body, mind you. But things don't design themselves. It something happens randomly, it's not designed. Do you suppose the museum is a proponent of "intelligent design?" After all, what other kind of design can there be?
This is where I think the debate over "intelligent design" is so silly. What are the opponents afraid of? Can't the evolutionists concede that maybe there is a design to evolution? When we look at atoms and molecules -- those orderly little building blocks -- it sure seems as though the world has some sort of design to it. Einstein identified laws of physics that explain how the universe works. That sure looks to me like there's some sort of design in place. In both cases, science shows us that matter and the universe are not random, but operate according to a system. That sounds like a design to me.
Whether or not you believe in the idea of God, you ought to be able to see that the universe has a design to it. If there is a design, there must be a designer. Whether people call that designer "God," "Mother Nature," "the Universe," "the Unknown Force," "Dark Matter," or "X," we at least ought to be able to agree that there is a design.
He Who Pays the
Piper...
I find that a
lot of truth exists in those simple little sayings we've heard all our lives.
In today's paper, economics columnist Ed Lotterman writes:
The adage that whoever pays the piper calls the tune is one of the oldest laws of economics.
Lotterman goes on to cite examples of foreign aid, farm subsidies, welfare payments, and institutions of higher education that, with the recent Supreme Court decision, can lose federal funding if they bar military recruiters from campus.
I'd like to comment on another example: The way that, increasingly, the federal government uses the threat of withholding money in order to make the states surrender their own sovereign powers, and do what Washington wants.
I've written before that we're losing sight of the basic fact that the U.S. federal government is a creature of the states, NOT the other way around. The states are not some sort of administrative districts created by Washington, the way that the states apportion counties. Far from it. This nation was created when 13 sovereign nation-states decided to form a constitutional federation, and gave certain, limited powers to a federal government.
Historians say that states remained paramount until the Civil War. That event was a turning point, and federalism has been increasing ever since. Now, we have people like the radio caller I heard last week, who blamed President Bush for the hurricane damage to New Orleans, because as he explained, the federal government "outranks" the states, so Bush should have pushed the mayor and governor aside, said "I'm in charge now," and forcibly evacuated everyone.
Yeah, right.
Back to the federal government calling the tune. States have the authority to make traffic and liquor laws. But in recent years, we've had Washington dictating speed limits, seat belt laws, drinking ages, and the legal blood alcohol content for drivers. How? By threatening to withhold federal highway money if the states do not pass laws to comply with Washington's wishes.
He who pays the piper...
These days, we pay most of our taxes to Washington, which then turns around and generously "gives" the states some of their own taxpayers' money back (And some more than others. I believe Minnesota gets back less than its taxpayers contribute.) Consequently, states have handed over a huge amount of their autonomy to the federal government.
It makes you wonder, what were the states thinking nearly 100 years ago, when they authorized the 16th Amendment, the amendment that gave the federal government the power to levy an income tax? I think they had no idea what sort of monster they were creating. It would be interesting to study the debate that went on at that time.
Hey! Why don't I do that?
Here's a website I found that expounds on the history of the 16th Amendment. I can't vouch for its accuracy, or whether the author has a hidden agenda. It seems pretty straightforward, and presents an interesting story, including the claim that the 16th Amendment was a political scheme introduced by the Republicans to trick the Democrats, but it backfired on the Republicans, who thought it would never go through!
Here's another history of taxation in the U.S., on the U.S. Treasury website.
It's important to note that at first, only the wealthiest of Americans -- less than one percent -- paid any federal income tax. And the tax began at only 1 percent, progressing to a whopping seven percent for the most wealthy.
I'll bet back when they were ratifying the 16th Amendment, the states had dollar signs in their eyes. Populist legislators were excited about the chance to "tax the rich" for the greater good. They had no idea how much of their own power they were giving up.
The "'piper principle" works on an individual basis, too. We hear a lot of calls these days for someone to do something about the cost of health care. Individuals want employers to pay, or the government to pay. But when the "deep-pocketed" payer starts to say what doctor you can see, or what treatments it will pay for..... oh, oh! That's the flip side of letting someone else pay.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. It's a fact.
Now That's Funny!
I encountered
this in the funny pages Saturday. Not on the opinion page, mind you, but
in the comics section. I didn't think it was very funny.
Nonetheless, I thought I'd offer up some "equally funny" alternate punch lines the man could deliver:
1. Actually, all the birds are Democrats. They think they're entitled to handouts. They think they should be able to just show up and someone will feed them. But the greedy ones are the union leaders and "advocates" for various "communities" who live high off of the "powerless" they claim to represent.
2. They're the females. Isn't that just like a woman?
3. Well, what do you expect from a bunch of colored birds?
Pretty funny stuff, don't you think? No, me neither, actually. Although they are about as funny as the one the cartoonist went with.
High Praise Indeed
Regarding my essay on patience, which appeared in Sunday's Pioneer
Press as a guest editorial, Walt H. of St. Paul writes:
Your column is a keeper; I put it on the refrigerator to remind myself that there are still people with some common sense out there.
Thanks, Walt, that's quite a compliment. This may be the first time in decades anyone has put my work up on the refrigerator!
Democrats Back
Cheney for President
I was reading
a letter to the editor that said "it's time to dump Bush." What
does that mean, exactly? We're two-and-a-half years away from a presidential
election, and Bush ain't even running! Did this fellow mean "impeach
Bush!" like so many others write? Maybe.
But have the Bush haters thought this through? What would happen if President Bush were impeached and removed from office (two separate steps, by the way)? I've got news for the Bush haters: removing Bush would not make John Kerry president. No, if Bush were removed from office, the new president would be... Dick Cheney! Would they really prefer the "evil puppetmaster" instead of the puppet?
Hey! I Know That
Guy!
I got a surprise
late Sunday night when I was finally getting a look at the morning paper:
I was in there!
Earlier in the week I had submitted an essay to be used as a guest column on the opinion page, but I hadn't gotten any response to my submission yet, so I didn't know whether it would be used. I was waiting patiently for a response, and there I was! You can read my column on "patience" on the St. Paul Pioneer Press website.
It's Good for
the Goose, But Men Don't Want to Gander at the Ganders
I was hearing
the Oscar talk today, and there was a lot of mentioning of the movie Brokeback
Mountain (Which I have not seen, and will pass no judgement on. I have not
seen most movies, by the way.) and it got me to thinking.
I've heard a lot of comments about men not wanting to see the movie because it makes them uncomfortable, threatens them, upsets them, disgusts them, or such. It's been suggested that women are more comfortable with the premise of the movie. The conclusion some would have us draw, is that therefore there is something wrong with men.
Well, you know what? Men and women are different. Why shouldn't they have different reactions? Women are allowed to be made uncomfortable by things that don't necessarily bother men. Let me give you an example.
We've all heard of women being traumatized by a flasher. I don't doubt that a women who has been confronted by an exhibitionist may genuinely feel frightened or violated. However, I can't really understand it. The typical guy would not consider a female flasher a threat; she'd be seen as either a treat or a laugh, depending on what she looked like. Either way, the experience would be seen as an amusement, something to tell everyone about.
But to women, the male flasher must represent a threat of something more. We accept that, and don't call women "flasherphobes" for being made uncomfortable by an exhibitionist. Isn't it reasonable to allow men to be made uncomfortable by something, as well?
It seems women are more comfortable with the idea of men being lovers. I remember way back in high school, one of my female classmates remarked, "Two guys I can see, but two girls? Ewwwww!" Of course, that's pretty much just the opposite of how the guys feel. And why wouldn't it be? I mean, since a heterosexual woman finds men attractive, she can see why a man might find a man attractive, as well. And heterosexual men, since they think women are attractive, can't blame women if they find women attractive, too. Hey, women are beautiful, right guys? Guys are dirty and hairy and ugly. Come to think of it, why would any woman be attracted to men?
But I digress.
Anyway, if Brokeback Mountain is selling tickets mostly to women, that shouldn't be a surprise. It sounds to me like the kind of movie women would prefer, even if its stars were one cowboy and one cowgirl. (Now, if it starred Angelina Jolie and Paris Hilton, you might see a few guys in the seats.) And consider, if you will, that the "groundbreaking" TV shows featuring gay male characters also tend to draw a female audience.
Straight guys aren't interested in watching a story about gay guys? So what?
The Boob Tube
My daily
paper, on its TV listings page, includes a rundown of who/what will be on
the "talk shows" each day. Just reading the topics on some of
the syndicated daytime shows can be entertaining, especially during sweeps
time. You gotta laugh at topics like, "I married my transsexual exotic
dancer mother-in-law, and now I'm having her baby!"
But Wednesday I saw one that really left me wondering. I wish I had seen it in time to catch the show. Here it is:
THE TYRA BANKS SHOW: Tyra goes under cover as a dancer in a topless club to find out why men go and what they do there; Tyra interviews a couple whose relationship was destroyed by his addiction to strip clubs; veteran dancers of strip clubs.
Now hold on minute. Tyra Banks is a "supermodel." She's been on the cover of Sports Illustrated. She's on TV five days a week. And she's going "undercover" as a topless dancer? She doesn't think anyone will recognize her? Exactly what kind of "cover" is available to a topless dancer, anyway? It's not like being a dog sled driver or a beekeeper, that's for sure. Is she planning to conceal her true identity with some really confusing earrings? False eyelashes? A bag over her head?
No Fair! I Want
Candy, Too!
I was writing recently about the way children
illustrate human nature so well, using the example of the kindergartners
who demand
that the candy be taken away from the only child in the class who has any
That principle came into play quickly, in an unexpected place.
I read a story about the contemporary Christian band Third Day, which was in the Twin Cities this past weekend. (Sorry, no Web link available, but it was in the St. Paul Pioneer Press entertainment section Feb. 23.) The story caught my eye because the headline alluded to the band having a sponsorship deal with Chevrolet.
Having a corporate sponsor for a Christian band could be controversial, and indeed, it has been so for Third Day, to some extent. After all, when a band signs on to take a sponsor's money, the band is opening itself up to having to do the bidding of the sponsor. So I can immediately see where the band would have concerns about hitching its wagon to a corporate sponsor.
But there's more "controversy." It seems someone else wants a piece of candy, too.
"I think Chevrolet is sending a message to other Americans who might not share that particular religious belief that the company is favoring one religious group over another, and that's very divisive," said Rabbi James Rudin, a senior interfaith adviser to the New York-based American Jewish Committee. "I mean, under that premise, then they should be sponsoring concerts for Jewish people. They should be sponsoring shows that feature Islamic music or doing something for Roman Catholic youth days. [Dave asks: Aren't Roman Catholics already included under the "Christian" banner?] I think this is a slippery slope, because it opens up Chevrolet, and General Motors in particular, [Dave here again. Shouldn't that be "General Motors, and Chevrolet in particular..."?] to criticism that they favor one religious group over another."
Poor Rabbi Rudin. He didn't get a piece of candy.
Isn't that ridiculous? The Rabbi is jealous. You can also tell that he's a Democrat, because he thinks that if someone succeeds or has good fortune, it should be taken away from him. Because it's not fair. I, on the other hand, have a simple, but opposite perspective. I think that if Rabbi Rudin wants a corporate sponsor for a Jewish concert, he should go out a get one. More power to him. But it doesn't have to be Chevrolet. Chevrolet is interested in selling vehicles, and maybe New York Jews aren't their target market, the way that, say, rural Christians who fancy pickup trucks might be. But another company may be interested in sponsoring a Jewish event. However, it's not Third Day's responsibility to make that happen.
Chevrolet should be free to treat a Christian band the same as any other band. And a Christian band should be free to operate in the same ways as any other band. As should a Jewish band, or a Muslim band. That's equality. Equality of opportunity and equality of treatment. But the good Rabbi thinks equality means equality of results. He's all about politics, and he's obviously a lefty. "Divisive"? "Divisive" is separating everyone into competing groups, envying the others, and demanding that their gains be taken away from them.
And following Rabbi Rudin's reasoning, how can Chevrolet sponsor anyone?
If Chevrolet sponsors a secular band, isn't that still "favoring" one group's religious views over another? What about if the band members are atheists? What if they are drug users? Alcoholics? Misogynists? Homosexuals? Rain forest savers? Third World debt forgivers? World hunger enders? Literacy campaigners? America lovers? America haters? Republicans? Democrats? Does that mean Chevrolet is favoring one lifestyle or belief over another?
Apparently, if you agree with Rabbi Rudin.
Isn't my way better than Rabbi Rudin's way? I say Chevrolet is free is sponsor any group. It's a business decision, not an ideological or spiritual endorsement. Rabbi Rudin seems to be saying to the members of Third Day, for whom the band is their business and the means by which they support their families, "Because you are Christians, you are not allowed to conduct business as are non-Christians." He's saying to Chevrolet, "Because they are Christians, you mustn't do business with them." That's pretty scary, when you look at it that way. Even Rabbi Rudin -- especially Rabbi Rudin -- should be able to see that.
Liberals, Your
Racism is Showing
The liberals and the Mainstream Media got
pretty excited this week. They were convinced "full-blown civil war"
was now inevitable in Iraq. Much to their disappointment, such has not yet
become the case.
We know why they want civil war in Iraq -- anything to make President Bush look bad -- but why were they so sure their wish was about to come true? Why are they so sure Iraqis will resort to civil war? Could it be because they think those people can't do it any other way? Do they think that's just the way those people are? Do they think when it comes to wanting peace and valuing the safety future of their children, those people are somehow less civilized than we are? Are those people inferior and incapable of ruling themselves peacefully?
And this crazy ports issue. Why all this concern about letting "foreigners" run U.S. ports? "Foreigners" have been running these same ports. Yes, Great Britain is a U.S. ally. So is the United Arab Emirates. It's just that, well, you know, those people shouldn't be running our ports.
The Wall Street Journal says it's not racism, but protectionism. They're probably right. The Journal notes that the Democrats yelling the loudest about "security" concerns just happen to be recipients of contributions from the longshoreman's union.
Coincidence? There are no coincidences in politics. That's why they say, Follow the money.
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/