www.downingworld.com
archives: June -- July, 2005
Feminism No Friend
of American Mothers
Sometimes, I sure am glad that the good ol' US of A isn't just
like those more "enlightened" and "progressive" nations
of Europe. I just read a story about how the U.S. stands apart from the rest of
the world in not granting generous,
paid maternity leave.
Two things stood out. The first:
"Across the ocean, in Sweden, Magnus Larsson is looking forward to splitting 16 months of parental leave at 80 percent pay with his girlfriend. They are expecting their first baby in a week."
What? In Sweden, a guy knocks up his girlfriend, and he gets rewarded by getting paid not to work? What kind of deal is that?
Compare that to here. In the U.S., when a girl gets pregnant out of wedlock, we set her up in her own place and let her live off the government. But if the boyfriend moves in, they have to keep it a secret, or he'll be expected to pay the rent. Additionally, we hear of deadbeat dads who don't work, because if they do, their check just goes to support their children.
But at least we maintain the expectation that a man should work to support his children -- and their mother.
Not so in Sweden. There, some schmuck knocks a girl up and it's, Congratulations! You've won the lottery!
Here's the second thing that stood out: An unexpected shot at the American feminist movement. In explaining why America lags behind Europe in maternity leave, we're offered this:
"Jane Waldfogel, also a professor at Columbia, says another part of the puzzle is that the European and American feminist movements had differing goals.
"In Europe, feminists emphasized special treatment for mothers, including maternity leave and child care.
"'The American feminist movement didn't want to hear anything about mothers,' Waldfogel says. 'They wanted equal rights for women and didn't emphasize special treatment.'"
Isn't that interesting? I think what it's saying is this: European feminists wanted to help women, and that by definition meant helping mothers. But American feminists wanted women to be just like men; that meant pretending that women aren't mothers.
Bird Brains
I tell you, the people of the future are going to look back and
think we were absolutely nuts. A story in the news this month around St.
Paul involved an osprey nest on top of a light pole at a high school football
field. At first, it was feared that Irondale High School would be unable
to use its football field, because it's a federal crime to bother a nesting
osprey (honest!).
Never mind that the field was there all along, and was being used this summer for things like marching band practice, and the bird didn't care. She put her nest right there despite the commotion.
Finally, it was determined that the nest was far enough from the field that the field could still be used. But that wasn't the end of it.
There's a story in the paper today about how the baby osprey were banded yesterday. Yes, while there was fear that noisy activity on the football field might scare off momma osprey so that she would abandon the nest, it was considered OK for someone to climb up to the nest, lower the baby birds to the ground, put metal bands around their legs, and put them back in the nest. Presumably, this won't bother momma bird at all.
But football practice would have?
Are these bird lovers bird brains?
"Patriotism
Lite"
I argued a couple of posts ago that the war in Iraq is not real
to most Americans, that's why it's possible to have a fictionalized account
of the war airing on TV (FX's "Over There") while the real war
is still going on.
This story by Thom Shanker of the New York Times supports that point of view. Here's an excerpt:
"The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.
"From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: If America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?"
Pot Calls Kettle
Black
Did you hear about this one? An 85-year-old grandmother is suing
the company that makes the popular "Grand Theft Auto" video game.
That game, previously rated for 17-and-older, was recently revealed to include
concealed pornographic content, and war re-rated for adults only.
Granny wants Rockstar Games to line her pockets -- and the pockets of her lawyers -- because she bought the then-17-and-older game for her grandson. Her 14-YEAR-OLD grandson!
Now that's chutzpa. Does she feel no shame herself? No embarrassment? No sense of responsibility? Evidently not enough to get in the way of a big payday.
She claims she didn't know it was for 17-and-older when she bought it, and when she found out, she had it taken away from her grandson. Well, Rockstar claims they didn't know the concealed porno was in the final version of the game. If you can make a mistake, lady, can't they?
You can read MSNBC's version of the story, or, read this one, for a European take on America's love affair with violence and fear of sex.
War: Just a TV
Show
I don't pay for TV, so I couldn't check it out myself, but I understand
that last night marked the debut of a new TV show on the FX network. Called
"Over There," the show is a fictionalized accounting of the war
in Iraq. The series is being billed as the first war-based TV show to air
while the war is still going on.
Isn't that....surreal? Doesn't it seem like there is something wrong here? I'm trying to come up with a good analogy. It seems like broadcasting a tell-all bio on someone who's on his deathbed. "I'm not dead yet!"
What it really comes down to, is it shows just how UNREAL the real war is to people. The real war is just a show on TV, anyway, so why not another, fictionalized version of it? What's the difference? It won't be long before we'll hear someone making some argument about the war in Iraq -- either for or against -- and the moron will cite as supporting evidence something that happened in the TV show.
This shows how uninvolved most of us are. If we had rationing, for instance; or if we had blackouts at night; or if we all knew and loved someone who was in harm's way -- under those circumstances we'd never stand for this new TV show. We'd say that it was in poor taste.
But we aren't under those circumstances. For most of us, the real war is just a TV show, too. So what's the big deal?
Do What You Can
to Help
Do what you can to help. I think that's what columnist Jane Eisner is saying by paraphrasing what she calls an old Jewish teaching: "We are not required to complete the work,
but neither may we desist from it."
I like that. I think it means that just because we can't feed ALL the hungry or solve ALL the world's problems, that's no excuse not to try to do what we can.
Eisner uses the saying while talking about genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. She writes that guilt may finally be motivating people in the U.S. to take notice of the slaughter in Sudan:
"I can attest: Guilt works. I heard this very message from my rabbi Saturday, and my conscience hasn't left me alone since. I can no longer pretend it's not in my job description to express outrage and demand action against what is being called the worst genocide since World War II.
"That historical analogy weighs heavily on Jewish people, and on Monday, they responded in kind. Just about every major religious and communal Jewish group in the nation signed a document calling upon President Bush to promote immediate and comprehensive international intervention in Darfur."
Well, that's settled then, right? Hardly. It's great that the signatories want "immediate and comprehensive international intervention," but they're nuts if they think it might actually happen. Well, at least it lets people assuage their newly-found guilt over Sudan. They showed they cared enough to do what they could -- demand that someone else do something. Better yet, they demanded that President Bush do something. That means that from now on, genocide in Sudan is Bush's fault. After all, they told him to do something. They've washed their own hands of the matter.
Do you suppose anyone who signed that document understood how it relates to Iraq?
President Bush is criticized for not getting more international approval and assistance for the invasion of Iraq. He tried. But not much of the international community would get on board. Would those who are newly concerned about Sudan want the U.S. to go it alone in Sudan, if that's what it takes? It's easy to say someone else should do something, but would they have Americans die alone to end this genocide? Do they care that much? Or would they just turn a blind eye again, like they do to Iraq?
I say that, because Iraq was also home to genocide. But with WMDs not found, critics say ending genocide in Iraq was not a good enough reason by itself to justify invading that country. They say that if we are going to justify the Iraq invasion based on mass graves and genocide, then we'll have to invade lots of other countries, too.
To which I say: Do what you can. We are not required to complete the work, but neither may we desist from it. Do what you can. That's a start.
It's illogical to say that because it is impractical to help in every country, we shouldn't help where we can. Otherwise, we'll have to extend the same logic to everything else we do, privately or via the government. I can't feed all the hungry, so I won't give anything to the food shelf. Government social programs don't solve every problem for everyone, so let's not have any at all.
Here's another saying that's relevant: Damned if you do; damned if you don't. Don't intervene in another nation, and after the killing's all done, you'll be blamed for not stopping it. Intervene, and you'll be criticized because you did.
It Just Don't
Add Up
One of the great things about the blogosphere is that it allows
any little "child" who believes his or her own eyes -- more than
what "they" say -- to call out, "The emperor has no clothes!"
There are a lot of things we've always been told that just don't bear up
under observation by our own eyes. Blogging lets people point that out.
For instance, I've recently been making frequent trips to a not-so-good neighborhood in Minneapolis. It's the sort of neighborhood where a lot of people can be seen sitting around on the stoop, drinking from a paper bag, while they wait for their next government check.
What "they" have told us for decades, is that people live in poverty like this because there aren't good jobs available to them.
Here's where it doesn't add up: The reason I've been visiting that neighborhood is because it is also the site of a large hospital. The hospital is a huge economic engine, and it's scary to think how much worse the neighborhood might be if the hospital weren't there. The hospital is a huge employer.
Now, I don't expect all the residents of the neighborhood to apply for jobs as doctors. But the hospital also employs many people in unskilled, entry-level jobs -- cleaning, etc. My own observation, made while walking the halls of the hospital, reveals something very interesting about many -- perhaps most -- of these low-level employees:
They are immigrants.
Somehow, these folks have managed to cross an ocean and get a job at the hospital, despite their limited English skills.
Meanwhile, people living right there in the neighborhood, who could walk to work, who have the benefit of a free public education, who speak English as their primary language, sit on the stoop and drink.
Why? It ain't for lack of jobs, people. So stop blaming the government for not "creating good jobs" for these folks. Until they solve their other problems -- and let's provide them with help doing that -- they're not going to work, no matter how many jobs you put in front of them.
Marriage Takes
Another Hit
Captain Ed comments today on another troubling trend in marriage. It seems some couples
are rewriting their vows to remove the "unrealistic" pledge of
"'til death do us part." Instead, they're setting their sites
lower, going with something like "until our time together is over."
I promise to stay with you until I don't. Wow, that's really putting your heart on the line. If they're not willing to make a commitment, why should their guests? When shopping for wedding presents for the (temporarily) happy couple, forget the fine china; get 'em disposable paper plates instead.
You might also want to review some of my own marriage-related thoughts, including why the bride and groom should extinguish their individual candles after lighting the unity candle, on the Downing World marriage page.
What Else Could
It Be?
The letters-to-the-editor page might seem like a strange place
to try to prove or disprove the theory of evolution, what with the 200-word
limit and all, but that hasn't kept some of the local great minds from rising
to the challenge.
In the ongoing debate in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, one Tim Smith today defends the theory of evolution:
"There is ample evidence to support macroevolution of a species changing into another species. This evidence is found in the fossil records. At one time life existed only in the oceans and then over billions of years life evolved and eventually animals that live on the land became widespread. The geologic evidence indicates this enormous passage of time. If this change in the number of species and types of creatures living on the planet were not a result of evolution, then what was the driving force behind it?"
If it wasn't evolution, then what was it? He calls that scientific proof?
Sounds like Erich von Daniken reasoning: If it wasn't ancient astronauts, then what was it?
It reminds me of a friend who is prone to jumping to conclusions. One day I mentioned that I hadn't noticed his neighbor's very noticeable St. Bernard dog recently. He replied, "Someone shot it."
"That's terrible," I said. "Did they find it dead in the yard, or in the ditch somewhere? What happened?"
"I don't know," he explained, "It just disappeared one day."
"Then how do you know someone shot it?" I asked.
"What else could have happened?" was his response.
Hardly proof that someone had shot the dog.
Consider this analogy: Let's stack up all the years of Sears catalogs in sequence, with the oldest catalogs starting on the bottom. Then, let's dig down through the "strata" of pages. Near the top, we'll find microwave ovens. Further down, smooth-topped electric ranges. Then gas-burning stoves. Dig down far enough, and you'll find cast-iron, pot-bellied stoves.
That's proof that those stoves evolved. What else could it be?
Sure, the fossil record shows lots of critters that aren't around any more. But no one has any evidence of one species ever turning into another species.
Daylight Saving
Time: Let's Split the Difference
Congress is again considering extending Daylight Saving Time.
DST is already almost 7 months long. Doesn't that make DST, in truth, the
"standard" time? Our Standard time is now a minority of the year.
I have a proposal: Let's split the difference. Let's do a one-time adjustment. We'll all set our clocks 30 minutes ahead of Standard time, then leave them there. Forever. No more twice-yearly adjustments.
Random Checks
Won't Work
So, they're going to conduct "random searches" of backpacks
on the New York City subway. But we're being "reassured" that
there won't be any "profiling."
This is so stupid. What good will random checks do? Look, random drug testing or random tax audits may be effective, because people don't want to risk the consequences of getting caught. But what consequence does a suicide bomber have to fear? He's already decided he's going to blow himself up, why should he fear getting arrested? (Besides, he could rig his bomb so he could detonate it immediately if he gets randomly selected.) If the murderers know there are going to be only random searches, they know they'll still be able to get most of their killers through.
I'm not reassured knowing that there will be no profiling. Short of inspecting every backpack, profiling is the only thing that will work. How many Al-Qaeda bombings have been conducted by Norwegian Lutheran grandmothers? That's right, they've all been conducted by Muslim males, who've been almost exclusively non-European.
If you go hiking in the desert, do you avoid all snakes with rattles, or do you just randomly avoid a few snakes of any kind?
Eminent Domain: Officials not
Bound by Good Intent of Predecessors
Today brings another news story that can be linked to the eminent
domain issue. St. Paul is losing most of its Central Park, which I didn't
even know existed. According to the story in the Pioneer Press, Central Park has existed for several decades
as as group of grassy areas on several levels of a parking complex in the
Capitol area.
Originally, Central Park was a traditional, formal Victorian park, in a ritzy neighborhood. But as the neighborhood changed, it deteriorated. In the 1960s, the state took the land for state use, building a parking garage on the site of the park. Green space was incorporated into the parking garage, to replace the former park.
But now, the state wants more parking spaces, and most of the green space in the complex is being turned into more parking spaces. Critics say they were promised decades ago that the green space would always be there, but present-day officials say they can find no legal requirement to do so.
Here's the link to eminent domain: Government officials are not bound by the good intentions of their predecessors. Keep that in mind when you consider the ramifications of the Kelo decision, which may open up the floodgates to property seizing by well-intentioned officials. Despite the good intentions of those who seize private property for some noble public greater good, once the property is seized by the government, its use can stray far beyond the original noble intentions.
We saw that in the Wyoming, Minn., case I wrote about recently. A city council seized a farm to use for a new wastewater treatment plant. But the plant wasn't built. New members replaced old members on the council. To the new members, the property wasn't "that land we had to take because we really needed it." It was merely a city-owned asset. So when the opportunity came up to sell the land at a big profit, the city jumped on it.
Likewise with the Mounds View school district case I wrote about it the same post. The school district seized land for a school, but didn't build the school. Decades later, a school board made up of different people saw not the land they had no choice but to seize, but rather, just a greatly-appreciated asset they could sell for development.
So keep that in mind. Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Not Even a
Jew
Mexican President Vicente Fox got himself into how water with
his "not even blacks" comment. He's not the only one. Get a load
of this quote from Iraqi Suheil Abd Ali,
responding to a recent round of terrorist explosions:
"The one who did this has no morality. This suicide bomber isn't an Arab or a Muslim or even a Jew. He's not human."
"Even a Jew"? That shows something about how these folks think. And yes, it shows again how big of a role religion plays in all of this.
I've got to wonder, though. Has the average Iraqi ever even met a Jew?
Better Off
Dead
Yes, we'd be better off if Saddam were dead. I said that way before
he was captured. I said that Saddam had to die. Unfortunately, he didn't.
Now, I read that many Iraqis fear the Baathist insurgency will succeed, and
Saddam will return to power. (With
many U.S. political "leaders" calling for a timetable for retreat
from Iraq, who can blame them?)
Let's hope that putting Saddam on trial will result in him becoming a non-factor (and permanently so).
Still in Denial
about Islamofascism
I've been writing recently about how our politically-correct denial
that the war on terrorism is a religious war is hampering the battle. Here's
another example: In a guest opinion column in the Pioneer Press,
a young Muslim woman named Naheed Ali voices her concern that the latest round of Islamofascist attacks will create a backlash
against all Muslims. Her concern is understandable. But she falls into the
trap of denial. She writes, "I also hope that we can overcome the ill-conceived
political motives that bring on such attacks..."
I'm telling you again, it's NOT POLITICS! It's religion. It may not be her religion. It may not be the religion of most Muslims. But it is the religion of the terrorists that is behind their actions.
I've been waiting for the majority of Muslims to strongly and publicly denounce the actions of Islamofascists. There has been some action on that front. Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group has issued a fatwa -- a binding religious edict -- condemning the July 7 London bombings.
Czech Please!
And I'm Not Buying the Salad
I've always said that the traditional "melting pot"
description of America -- in which different people become one -- is what
makes us great. The more contemporary "salad bowl" analogy --
in which the U.S. is made up of diverse, separate peoples living within
the same borders -- is a recipe for disaster.
Whenever people divide themselves into groups, instead of considering themselves one, we have trouble. Check our Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Iraq, the Indian subcontinent, and many other examples, if you don't know what I mean.
Now, Czech president Vaclav Klaus says that the West's embrace of multiculturalism has brought on terrorism. Read it in the Prague Daily Monitor.
Hooray for
the Boy Scouts!
I spend the weekend at a Cub Scout camp with my son. We had BB
guns and archery, boats and pocketknives, hats-off and grace before meals,
and flag salutes and the Pledge of Allegiance. Scouting seems like the last
bastion of traditional boyhood and traditional values. Support the Boy Scouts
of America however you can, folks.
David Brooks
on Supreme Court, Church & State
I received some good feedback on yesterday's post, regarding liberals
and the "separation of church and state." Several people encouraged
me to submit it to the Pioneer Press as a guest commentary. I think I will
work on it a little more and then do just that.
A column by David Brooks is a good follow up. Brooks, writing about whom the President should pick for the Supreme Court, discusses what professor and judge Michael McConnell has written about the "separation" issue. I think McConnell says it really well. Here's an excerpt from Brooks:
"McConnell (whom I have never met) is an honest, judicious scholar. When writing about church and state matters, he begins with the frank admission that religion is a problem in a democracy. Religious people feel a loyalty to God and to the state, and sometimes those loyalties conflict.
"So he understands why people from Rousseau and Jefferson on down have believed there should be a wall of separation between church and state.
"The problem with the Separationist view, he has argued in essays and briefs, is that it's not practical. As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right.
"In one case, a public high school allowed students to write papers about reincarnation, but a student who wrote on 'The Life of Jesus Christ' was given a zero by her teacher. The courts sided with the teacher. In another case, a physiology professor at a public university was forbidden from delivering an optional after-class lecture at the university titled 'Evidences of God in Human Physiology,' even though other professors were free to profess any secular viewpoints they chose. Around the country, Marxists could meet in public buildings, but Bible study was impermissible.
"McConnell argued that government shouldn't be separated from religion, but, as Madison believed, should be neutral about religion. He pointed out that the fire services and the police don't just protect stores and offices, but churches and synagogues as well. In the same way, he declared in congressional testimony in 1995, 'When speech reflecting a secular viewpoint is permitted, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis.' The public square shouldn't be walled off from religion, but open to a plurality of viewpoints, secular and religious. The state shouldn't allow school prayer, which privileges religion, but public money should go to religious and secular service agencies alike."
Amen, David Brooks (and Justice McConnell). Very well said.
Mr. Liberal,
Tear Down that Wall!
Liberal thinkers have repeatedly instructed me in these two facts:
1. You can't legislate morality.
2. There is a wall of separation between church and state.
So imagine my surprise when I read a column by Pioneer Press opinion writer Deborah Locke today. Ms. Locke is pleased as punch at what she sees as the influence on this year's Minnesota budget by religious leaders who called for more spending on social services, and higher taxes.
Referring to comments from the Rev. Stephen Adrian, talking about a church-led anti-poverty campaign, Ms. Locke writes: "People had to wrestle with the fact that a state budget is more than bound pages of numbers in columns. It's also a moral document, he said."
A moral document? The state budget is about imposing religious morality on the people of the state? That's quite a reversal from the usual position of liberals. I thought that when it came to religion and morality -- in issues such as abortion or marriage, for instance -- we were supposed to respect that all-important "wall of separation." What happened to that principle?
(The answer, of course, is that liberals don't really have principles. They just know what they want, and whatever gets them what they want is OK.)
Ms. Locke writes that the Rev. Adrian has some complaints about the new budget: "He is especially incensed that no additional money was provided for a state child-care program, which was drastically cut with the last legislative session. Steep co-pays make it difficult for parents to buy quality child care. His parishioners who removed their children from the church's child-care program because of those increases will not be returning anytime soon."
Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest? That his church stands to take in state money? The Rev. Adrian is unhappy that the state hasn't budgeted more money that will go to his church, and Ms. Locke seems sympathetic. Does this mean that she would also support a state budget that included vouchers that could be used at church-run schools?
I doubt it.
But here's perhaps the most scary part of Ms. Locke's column: She also writes about comments from Nancy Maeker, an ordained minister and bishop's associate for the St. Paul Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
According to Ms. Locke: "Maeker believes that more people should read the Bible for its message about people living in poverty. Don't be concerned with other issues in there, she said. See what God suggests about care for poor people and then get involved with the election process. Attend candidate forums. Become educated. Care."
Holy cow! Don't be concerned with other issues in the Bible, but get involved with the election process?
So, when pro-lifers focus only on parts of the Bible that support their cause, and then get involved in the election process, I guess we should expect liberals like Ms. Locke to say, "More power to them!"
Don't hold your breath on that one. Instead we hear, "Don't impose your religion on me!"
If we took these passages that I have excerpted from Ms. Locke's column, and just turned them around so that they were coming from conservative religious leaders, who wanted to implement their particular conservative religious/political agenda via the state government, Ms. Locke would be beside herself.
But apparently the "progressive" mind is much more "nuanced" than my knuckle-dragging conservative mind. Because it appears that I am being asked to consider it wonderful if church officials -- actual church officials -- direct government policy. Meanwhile, if lay people go to the polls and elect candidates who share their values and world view, that's creating a "theocracy."
Actually, I question Ms. Locke's assertion that the "people of faith" mentioned in her story are injecting their faith into public policy. While conservative people of faith may do that, my observation is that religious liberals do it the other way around -- they inject their politics into their faith. What I'm saying is that for many of these folks, they start with their political beliefs, then they try to use religion to prop up their pre-existing political beliefs. If that's not true, then how do you explain an ordained minister (Maeker) who says to ignore the rest of the Bible, and just read the parts that support a certain political agenda?
[Related posts: Everyone Loves Jesus (for Political Purposes) Which Came First? The Belief or the Church? Conservative Christians Must Learn to Speak "Secular"
Addendum: Maybe this is analogous -- religious liberals are about politics, not religion, the same way that the National Education Association is about politics, not education. Read this post from Captain's Quarters.
Karl Rove:
Deep Throat II?
The liberals and the media have defended "Deep Throat,"
regardless of what laws he might have broken, with an ends-justifies-the-means
defense. It doesn't matter what Mark Felt might have done; they're just
glad he brought down Nixon.
Why don't they rush to the defense of Karl Rove in a similar fashion? Read "Karl Rove, Whistleblower" in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal, and you'll think maybe Ol' Karl oughta be referred to as Deep Throat II.
It's Not Poverty,
It's Islam
So, today I read that at least three of the London bombers are
believed to have been British-born Muslims of Pakistani heritage. StarTribune editorial board, please note:
They were not products of third-world poverty, what
you call "the terrorist swamp" which must be drained. No, they were products of the first-world, except
for one thing: they were Muslims.
Please note the unifying characteristic in the terrorist bombings around the globe: they are being perpetrated by Muslims.
Even though these bombers were born in Britain, lived in Britain, and were British citizens, they turned on their own country, in favor of their Islamic ideology and heritage. (Interesting, in light of the way we in the U.S. continue to criticize our nation's internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Gosh, maybe some of those Japanese-Americans might have been as confused in their loyalties as these Pakistani-Brits.)
We're told that these killers represent only a small percentage of Muslims. If that's so, where's the outcry from the "Muslim Majority"? I heard Paul Harvey say today that many Muslims are afraid to speak out, because they don't want to be seen as supporting "the enemy" (the U.S.). If that's so, then I have to ask again, Which side are you on? Are you with us, or against us? If you think we're "the enemy" you don't want to side with, then you are with the terrorists. And you're against us.
Nations of the world and Muslims of the world, declare yourselves: Which side are you on?
Right and Left:
Different Issues, Same Thought Process
Conservatives and liberals might find it easier to have a dialog
if they realized how much they have in common. For example, both sides can
be exasperated by the other side's "illogical" or "stupid"
way of thinking. But I find that both sides often exhibit the same thought
process, just about different issues. Maybe if we learned to see something
of ourselves in the "other," we could understand each other better,
and we could show each other some more respect.
For example, there are conservatives who react in a knee-jerk manner to any proposal to regulate any type of gun. Never mind that the regulation in question might seem perfectly reasonable to most people. Can't start down that slippery slope, or pretty soon our right to bear arms will be taken away, they say.
In the same way, there are liberals who react in a knee-jerk manner to any proposal to regulate abortion. Never mind that the regulation in question might seem perfectly reasonable to most people (like ending partial-birth abortion). Can't start down that slippery slope, or pretty soon a woman's "right to choose" will be taken away, they say.
I've been writing recently that many Americans are in denial about terrorism. We have liberals who think we should "wage peace," or just withdraw from Iraq and pretend everything is OK.
Yes, it would be nice if it were that simple. But it's not. People who think that way are being naive. They may be well-intentioned, but they aren't being realistic.
Well, surprise! Conservatives can engage in the same sort of unrealistic, wishful thinking. Here's an example: sex ed.
There are those who support "abstinence only" sex ed, because kids simply have no business having sex. I agree, kids shouldn't be having sex. And it would be nice if things were that simple. But that's being naive. Kids do have sex, just as surely as there are terrorists hell-bent on destroying us.
I read an interesting sentence from Newsday columnist Sheryl McCarthy: "While no one, including myself, wants to encourage sexual activity among teenagers, the abstinence-only policy is flawed because it chooses idealism over helping young people with the lives they actually lead."
Choosing idealism, instead of actuality -- I think that sums it up well.
We could rewrite McCarthy's sentence like this: While no one, including me, wants to encourage war and killing among the people of the world, the peace-only policy is flawed because it chooses idealism over defending people in the world in which they actually live.
Same sort of thinking, different issue.
[One other statement in McCarthy's column about sex ed begs comment: "Frankly, I'm less worried about the fact a 17-year-old girl has sex with her boyfriend than I am about whether she has thought the decision through carefully, has chosen a caring partner, and is using a dependable form of birth control." Lady, in my opinion, if a 17-year-old has sex with her boyfriend, she by definition HASN'T thought the decision through carefully, or she WOULDN'T be having sex at 17. Likewise, I have to question the "caring" of a partner who has sex with a 17-year-old. If he really "cares," he won't put her at risk that way. In other words, forget McCarthy's third question -- about birth control, they should simply be abstinent! (But...we know that's not being realistic.)]
Does "Public
Use" Include Real Estate Speculation?
On the heels of the Kelo eminent domain case comes this story out of Wyoming, Minnesota. Several years ago, the city of Wyoming used the power of eminent
domain to take the Salokar family's farm, with the express purpose of building
a wastewater treatment plant. But the plant wasn't built. Instead, the city
eventually sold the Salokar farm, along with adjoining acreage, to Polaris
Industries -- at a profit of MILLIONS of dollars!
That follows another abuse-of-eminent-domain case in the Twin Cities. Way back in the 1960s, the Mounds View school district used eminent domain to take some land for an elementary school from an owner who intended to develop it. But the school was never built. More than 30 years passed, and the school district decided it would never need the land for a school. The district sold the land for millions. The former owner sued, arguing that the land had been taken from him unjustly, since a school was never built, and that he was entitled to profits from its sale. The courts ruled against him.
Both of these cases came even before the Kelo decision. What are we in for now? Will cities use their newly-affirmed powers to take desirable parcels of land and enter the real estate speculation game? Actually, since the city decides who builds what and where, there wouldn't be much speculation involved. A city with developable land can say to a prospective developer, "No, we can't approve your development on that land you own, but we've got a nice parcel we'll sell you at a price of our choosing."
What a racket.
I know someone who has a small farm right on the edge of a fast-growing small city north of the Twin Cities. Actually, the farm is within the city limits, but it is across the street from what you would consider the developed edge of the town. That makes this farm prime developable land. After Kelo, what's to keep that city council from saying, "We're taking your farm, because it's best for the public if we decide how it will be used in the future." They might do this without even having any immediate plans for the property.
So the city could buy it, then just wait. As development continues with the intensifying push north out of the Twin Cities, the value of that prime land will skyrocket. Finally, the city could look at offers from housing developers and decide it is time to sell, pocketing a windfall, at the expense of the previous owner.
Farfetched? Are you familiar with the Kelo decision? Did you already forget the Wyoming and Mounds View examples I've given you? I don't think it's farfetched.
Kelo Creates Odd Alliance
Opposition to the Kelo decision has created an odd alliance of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives object to this erosion of property rights, believing that property rights are the basis of liberty. Some liberals object to Kelo, because they think it will hurt the poor and minorities, and benefit the rich and white people.
Please note that conservatives object on PRINCIPLE. Liberals object because they don't like the particular outcome. If they saw Kelo as allowing the poor to seize the property of the rich, they'd be silent.
Fidel Defies
the Odds
Who'd have thought, 45 years ago, that Fidel Castro would still
rule Cuba in the year 2005? The Iron Curtain came down; the Soviet Union
came apart; and even China has turned its back on Mao. But Fidel hangs on.
Amazing.
Now I read that the Cuban community in Miami is running out of steam in its anti-Castro campaign. Is it pragmatism? Fatigue? Regardless, it's worth noting.
I used to take a hard line on Cuba. No trade, shun Castro, etc. But in recent years, I've been rethinking that. I wonder now if the fastest way to bring down Fidel wouldn't in fact be to welcome him with open arms. Send American tourists. Trade with him. Smother him with freedom and capitalism.
Cracking open doors to the West turned out to be the downfall of the Soviet Bloc. An awkward embrace of capitalism is undoing decades of Communist indoctrination in China. Maybe that's the way to defeat Castro -- let him think we have given up, and that he has won!
Harvesting
Flowers and Fetuses: Natural Selection at Work in Plants and Politics
Sometimes items come along just demanding to be linked. Recent
items involving evolution and natural selection, flowers and abortion, votes
and the Democratic Party, are just begging to be joined together.
First of all, let me say that I don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. As far as man developing from nothing, or one species evolving into another, I'm not buying it. I see that as distinct, however, from the Darwinian concept of natural selection, which holds that those most suited to survival will indeed survive and pass along their genes. To me, that's just common sense.
It's also not much different from selective breeding, guided by man. For instance, mankind selectively breeds dogs to produce new breeds. Yet, they are all still dogs. In agriculture, selective breeding has resulted in larger dairy cows that produce more milk, with a higher butterfat content. And selective breeding has produced leaner hogs which mature and get to market sooner. Yet, these are all still cattle and hogs. They haven't evolved into a different species.
It's the same with plants. Here's an interesting story, from Randolph E. Schmid, under the misleading headline, "Plant adapts by getting smaller after picking -- Lotus in areas not as popular haven't shrunk."
The story begins:
"When Charles Darwin explained evolution, the process he observed was natural selection. It turns out inadvertent human selection can also cause species to evolve.
"Take the case of the snow lotus, a rare plant that grows only at high levels in the Himalayas.
"Researchers have discovered that one species of the plant has been shrinking over time -- the one people like to pick.
"A snow lotus species called Saussurea laniceps is used in traditional Tibetan and Chinese medicine and is increasingly sought after by tourists. The largest plants are picked, and that occurs during their only flowering period.
"The result is that only smaller, unpicked plants go to seed."
Yes, and over time, the average height of the lotuses in this patch has decreased. Well, duh. But there's no evolution going on. (That's why I said the headline was misleading.) All that's going on, is that people are inadvertently cultivating this plant to make the specimens in this patch smaller. It's the same thing, in reverse, as if they were digging up the tallest plants and taking them to their greenhouses to propagate them there. That's the sort of thing botanists do all the time in order to produce the most desirable specimens.
But the reporter and headline writer try to make it sound as though the plants are somehow making themselves smaller as a defense (survival) mechanism, so that they won't get picked. That's not the case. The average height of the lotuses in the patch is decreasing merely because the short lotuses are the only ones left to reproduce.
(More evidence that reporters often have no understanding of what they are writing about.)
A related item comes from James Taranto, writing for the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal. Taranto writes about how the Roe vs. Wade decision has eroded support for the Democratic Party, in a variety of ways. Among the many different political ramifications of Roe vs. Wade, Taranto points to its effect on the number of Democratic voters. Taranto writes:
"Compounding the GOP advantage is what I call the Roe effect. It is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment, to observe that every pregnancy aborted today results in one fewer eligible voter 18 years from now. More than 40 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973, and these are not randomly distributed across the population. Black women, for example, have a higher abortion ratio (percentage of pregnancies aborted) than Hispanic women, whose abortion ratio in turn is higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Since blacks vote Democratic in far greater proportions than Hispanics, and whites are more Republican than Hispanics or blacks, ethnic disparities in abortion ratios would be sufficient to give the GOP a significant boost -- surely enough to account for George W. Bush's razor-thin Florida victory in 2000."
Very interesting. Not exactly "natural" selection perhaps, but it's an example of how human selection influences an overall population, just the same as those Himalayan lotuses.
Third item: Debate about the Roman Catholic church's stance on evolution. A cardinal is suggesting that belief in evolution is incompatible with Catholic faith. (This rather surprises me. I'm not Roman Catholic, and I'm surprised that, according to this story anyway, Rome embraces evolution theory.)
According to this story by New York Times writers Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who is close to the Pope, is arguing that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not."
OK, you sort of lost me there, Cardinal. And according to the argument I've put forth here, I don't believe "natural selection" violates either faith or common sense. So I'm not sure if we're quite on the same page or not. Anyway, the rest of you, read the story if you like.
Quarter
of U.S. Births to Immigrants: Ssshhh! It's Not PC to Notice!
This floors me. According to a story in Friday's paper, nearly a quarter of all births in the U.S. are to immigrant
mothers. Now, get ready to be really
floored. This is a record, higher than the peak reached during the previous
great immigration wave in 1910!
Now, get ready for some more to think about. Of those immigrant-mother births, 42 percent are to women who are in the U.S. ILLEGALLY! That makes 10 percent of ALL CHILDREN BORN in the U.S. the offspring of illegals.
But....we mustn't talk about it. It's not politically correct. We don't want to be "racist."
We've heard a lot in recent years about how Europe is changing -- being Muslim-ized by legal immigrants and their numerous offspring. A similar type of situation is happening right here -- illegally -- and we won't even talk about it.
Children born in the U.S. are automatically U.S. citizens, even if their parents are here illegally. That means the children can't be deported, and the children may also be a factor used to keep the parents from being deported, too. Meanwhile, they're using up public money in health and social services.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Maybe it's time for an amendment. Couldn't we add some language making it "born in the United States to mother who is in the country legally"? Or maybe, we don't need an amendment. If the Supreme Court can reinterpret the Constitution so readily, as they did in the Kelo case, maybe we just need the Supremes to act. The could rule that the Founding Fathers never foresaw the present situation, with a flood of illegal immigrants and babies living off the government. (Because, for one thing, they never foresaw anyone living off the government.) They could rule that the 14th Amendment assumed that the parents were in the country legally.
Surely, we need to talk about this. Ten percent of all births to illegal parents -- that's an awfully big elephant in the room that we are ignoring. Regardless of whether you think we should do something to reverse the trend, we should at least be able to agree that we need to talk about the issue, to plan for how it is changing our nation.
But that wouldn't be politically correct.
StarTribune
Still in Denial
In response to the London bombings, the empty heads at the StarTribune editorial
board remain in denial, clinging
to their belief that fighting terrorism is mostly a police matter:
"Fighting terrorism is going to be a long, hard slog, more like fighting crime than anything else. Sometimes it will indeed involve military action. But more often than not, it will involve quiet, determined law enforcement and intelligence work -- to discover the nooks and crannies where terrorists hide as they plot their next outrage -- and then destroy them before they act."
Before they act? Wouldn't that violate their civil rights?
And it's not their fault, anyway. The terrorists are merely victims of their own upbringing, right StarTribune?
"Giving hope and help to the world's poor will drain the terrorist swamp," the paper opines.
How they reconcile the terrorists-come-from-poverty argument with the fact that Islamic terrorism is well-funded with oodles of oil money, I don't know.
But I have to ask this: Did Hitler's Germany invade its neighbors and kill 6 million Jews because of the economic suffering post-WWI, or was it because of Nazi ideology? It was the ideology, of course, and to this day we don't hesitate to call Naziism evil. But when it comes to the evil of Islamofascism, we're too politically correct to call it what it is. It's evil. And a strain of Islam is what it is.
We're talking here about people who kidnap and kill a diplomat -- a fellow Muslim diplomat. They have no respect for law, no respect for civilization, no respect even for Islam, if it isn't their own perverted strain.
To these al-Qaida killers, Egyptian envoy (and fellow Muslim) Ihab al-Sherif was an "apostate," and the Egyptian government is the enemy because it is an ally of "Jews and Christians."
And we still pretend this has nothing to do with religion? Oh, no. We have to be politically correct. Even if it kills us.
History
Will Tell of Our Denial And Show Our Foolishness
I heard reference again today to "this war that Bush started."
Did Churchill start WWII? Was there no war while Neville Chamberlain and
American isolationists wallowed in their own denial? Of course there was.
But there seem to be plenty of people who imagine that the whole world was at peace, with everyone holding hands, singing "We Are the World,"* having oral-sex-that-isn't-really-sex, and spending the "peace dividend" on national health care, until President Bush -- totally out of the blue -- decided to start a war.
I'm reminded of this by reading today about the London attacks. There was a listing of previous Al Qaeda attacks, and it was starting to read like a history book. There have been attacks on London, Spain, New York (the same building twice -- 1993 and 2001), ships, embassies, nightclubs. A century from now, people will read history and marvel at what fools we were, that we could live (and die) in such denial, pretending that we were not at war.
Years ago already, I thought the same thing about political correctness. The people of the future will look back on us and think we were total idiots, because we were too politically correct to actually discuss and do something about the problems that faced us. Social problems related to race, broken families, behaviors detrimental to society -- these are all things we mustn't talk about because we might hurt someone's feelings. We ignore the elephant in the room. We pretend the emperor has clothes. Meanwhile, Rome burns.
Here's an example: Mexican President Vincente Fox said that his people are needed in the U.S. workforce to do the jobs that "not even" blacks will do. That was a really stupid thing to say. But how did people respond? Black "leaders" demanded he apologize for saying such a thing. They wanted his scalp (Oops! Is that expression offensive to American Indians?). Maybe I should say, they wanted a pound of flesh (Oops! Does that offend Jews? See how tough it can be to say anything if you must be politically correct?).
But here's my point: No one bothered to address why Fox might have said that. Do blacks get stuck with the crappy jobs? (Maybe.) Historically, have blacks gotten stuck with the crappy jobs? (Most definitely.) Is the unemployment rate higher for U.S. blacks than for other groups, even while unskilled illegal Mexican immigrants seem to have no trouble finding employment? (Yes.)
So, maybe if we actually asked and addressed those questions, we would learn and accomplish something that might actually help the cause of American blacks. But, no, we just demand an apology, and ignore the very real issue at the heart of the controversy.
The war against terror -- WWIII -- is hampered by the same sort of political correctness. Because of political correctness, we can't even define the war as what it really is: a war of radical Islamafascism against Western civilization. We won't even define our enemy; in our political correctness, we refuse to admit that this has anything to do with Islam. But it has everything to do with Islam. (Read this in the London Times. We're dealing with people who want us all dead or converted. And I don't think they really care which. [Thanks for the tip goes out to Gavin in England. Cheers, mate!])
We like to look back on those who came before us and think that we are so much smarter and more enlightened. We tsk-tsk at our forefathers who thought Africans were less than human. We smugly look down our noses at the Victorians who pretended that sex didn't even exist. We'll look just as dumb some day. The irony is that those who are the most politically correct now, are the same people who most haughtily look down their enlightened and sophisticated noses at those who came before.
*Musicians Mostly Hypocrites
Bob Geldof seems sincere, and in his defense (and no disrespect intended, either), he'd hardly be a household name if it weren't for his political/philanthropic ventures. But for the most part, I'm not impressed with these musicians who get to feel so special about singing at some Live 8 concert.
For the most part, they're hypocrites. They champion the poor, but they are decadently rich. They champion the environment, but in their pursuit of conspicuous consumption, they waste more than most people will ever have.
At some level, they probably feel guilty about their irresponsible lives. So an event like Live 8 gives them a chance to assuage their guilt, but at the same time, they also get to attend some more extravagant parties! Nice work, if you can get it. They get to feel important and feel like they are doing something, but they never have to actually change their own lives. And they get to put the blame on someone else.
It reminds me of the first verse of "Obvious Song," from Joe Jackson's 1991 album "Laughter and Lust."
There was a man in the jungle
Trying to make ends meet.
Found himself one day with an axe in his hand.
When a voice said "Buddy can you spare that tree,
We gotta save this world--starting with your land."
It was a rock 'n' roll millionaire from the USA
Doing 3 to a gallon in a big white car,
And he sang and he sang 'til he polluted the air,
And he blew a lot of smoke from a Cuban cigar.
You're
Either With Us, or Against Us
Despite what George Lucas (only the presence of Michael Jackson
keeps him from earning the title of "Adult Most Living in a Child's
Fantasy World." Skywalker Ranch? Sounds like a high-tech Neverland
to me.) might think, that's what it comes down to. Which side are you on,
people and nations of the world? Are you on the side of civilization? Or
are you on the side of Osama bin Laden and Islamafascism?
This is World War III. It has been for several years. The nations of the world must stand up and declare which side they are on. There's no pretending you can ignore the problem and it will go away. The bad guys are coming after you. They hate Western civilization. They hate democracy. They hate Christendom. They are not some sort of "patriots" or "freedom fighters." They are murderous, fascist thugs. They are not the equivalent of our Founding Fathers. Did George Washington blow up women and children? Did John Hancock wear a mask and sign the Declaration of Independence with a fake name?
No, and no. These Al Qaeda thugs are cowards. They hide their identities. They blow themselves up. Being a suicide bomber is not bravery. Being a suicide bomber is cowardice. If you're so brave, if your cause is so just, then stick around and bear the consequences of your actions.
I was in London just a few months ago, and I rode the Tube and the double decker buses, so these attacks seem very real to me, even though I sit here in the American Midwest.
I'll tell you this: These attacks will only serve to steel the resolve of the British Bulldog. He won't roll over play dead like the Spanish (chihuahua?) did.
How Quickly
a Year Goes By: Happy Birthday to DowningWorld!
I see my first-ever post was dated July 6, 2004. That means I've
been at this for a whole year now. And I never run out of things to write
about! I didn't know if that was possible, but so far it is.
So, I've been blogging for a year. Truth be told, I didn't start out a "blogger." I was just making a website where I could share my thoughts. I didn't know I'd write as much or as often as I do. Well, it turned out I'm a blogger.
My disappointment is that I really thought that if I kept at it this long, I'd have more readers by now. I need something drastic to give me my big break. Maybe if Tom Cruise jumped up and down on TV wearing a T-shirt with www.downingworld.com on it? Or maybe just if I mention Tom Cruise and Oprah and Lindsey Lohan (not sure if that's how to spell her name, and it's not important enough to find out) and Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton.... a few of the millions of celebrity-Googlers will find me by mistake!
And...How Quickly Technology Changes
I just read that Minnesota's own Imation is unveiling the world's smallest hard drive. (In this case, "smallest" refers to physical dimensions, not storage capacity.) I got a chuckle out of this excerpt in the newspaper story:
"At $159, though, it isn't cheap. Comparable 2-gigabyte drives from Hitachi, for instance, go for $25 to $35 less."
Two gigs for $159 "isn't cheap"? And we're quibbling over $25-35? How far things have come!
I remember when I bought my first "really big" hard drive. It was 200 mg -- just 1/10 the size of the new Imation drive. And it cost me $600! That's why I've got to chuckle that $159 "isn't cheap."
Great
White Hunters Strike Again?
As I noted in my June 28 post, we
humans always like to think that we are more enlightened and more knowledgeable
than our ignorant forebears.
For example, previous generations were so ignorant, so uncaring, that when they encountered the awe-inspiring beasts of the African plains and jungle... they shot them dead and hauled their hides and bones back to Europe.
When they encountered Sequoias and Redwoods that seemed to tough the sky... they cut them down and cut them up.
When they saw beautiful rock formations offering unmatched views... they quarried them for building stones.
But now, we know better; we have learned to explore and study our natural world without destroying it.
So when we enlightened humans of the year 2005 observe a comet and want to learn more about it, what do we do? We blast a big hole in it!!!
Do we really know for sure that this won't have any detrimental effects on the environment of space? Will future generations shake their heads at the memory of how the foolish, early space explorers left a path of destruction in their wake?
History repeats itself. Happens all the time. And we always think we know better than those who came before us.
Tax It
Up, Tax It Up, Buddy Gonna Shut You Down
The Senate Democrats (raise taxes and increase spending a lot)
and House Republicans (don't raise taxes, but still increase spending to
a lesser degree) can't agree on a budget, so Minnesota has been plunged
into a government shut-down today.
Both parties seem to think if they wait long enough, the other side will give in. Or maybe they just think the other side of the aisle will get more blame than they do. Actually, I think that's more likely the strategy of the Senate Democrats. They think that since the Republicans control 2/3 of the budget-passing stool (with Governor Tim Pawlenty), they can throw a wrench into the process and make the other guys take the blame.
With the exception of the physical violence part, it's really the exact same strategy as the terrorists now operating in Iraq. Over there, the terrorists cause as much killing and destruction as they can, including trying to upset daily life and make everyone miserable, hoping that in response, the people take out their anger on the U.S., instead. Same strategy here. By shutting down the government, the politicians hurt the people they are supposed to serve. But they don't care; they just want power for themselves.
Some people say that in the next election, we should vote out all the incumbents. Sounds good, except it has the same problem that comes to light when we think about term limits. In general, I don't like the idea of imposing term limits. After all, we can vote them out if they stay too long, right?
The trouble is, with the two-party system, voting out the incumbent means voting for the other party. And even if you think the guy from your party has overstayed his welcome, do you really want to install a guy from the opposing party instead?
Of course not. And that's the problem with voting out everybody. It would mean putting the "other" party in charge. And what' even worse than a shut-down? The "other guys" having a clear road to passing their own version of the budget.
Look, I don't want the Republicans to have to compromise, either. But that's the way the system works. If power is divided, then people will have to compromise. But the leaders, and too many voters, won't accept that. They want to win it all.
So, next election, we'll all go to the ballot box and vote for the same jokers who couldn't get the job done this time.
Target
Succeeds Growing from Minnesota Roots
There's a story in the paper today saying that Wal-Mart is going after Target's market niche: "The
shopper with more money who still likes a bargain."
According to the story, Wal-Mart's core group of customers have average household incomes of $40,000-$45,000. Target's core group averages $55,000-$60,000.
That should surprise no one. After all, Wal-Mart's base is small towns; the giant retailer only recently started entering the suburbs and central cities. But Target was born in and with the suburbs, and has grown with them. Target stores practically define the 'burbs, sprouting up wherever growth -- and money -- can be found.
Here in Minnesota, birthplace and home of Target, pretty much everyone shops there. I don't think Minnesotans even think of Target as a "discount store." To us, it's just a store where you can get pretty much anything. We joke about our favorite store, calling it "Tar-zhay," but no one sees any shame in shopping at the "discount store."
Part of that is because Target does such a good job of presenting an inviting shopping environment. The store has always been known for treating customers well. (In contrast, I gave up on K-Mart years ago, because it was dumpy, and the cashiers kept charging me full price on sale items.)
Another part is because we all like to think of ourselves as "middle class" -- even "the shopper with more money." Here, it's actually gauche to be upper class. People are apologetic about it. That's likely why upscale retailers like Neiman-Marcus have not thrived here.
Like I said, everyone wants to be "middle class." Growing up on the farm, I figured I was. We had enough to eat, clothes to wear, we weren't on any government programs, we paid full price for school lunches.
Then I went off to college and had my eyes opened. Those "middle class" kids from tony suburbs like Edina and Wayzata sure were a lot different from me!
Stable
Families Needed
I recently compared honor students listed in the paper, who usually
have two parents, with everyone sharing the same last name, to people who
are in the paper for the wrong reasons. Those in the paper for the wrong
reasons very often have confusing family structures.
Another example recently: A son has been arrested for beating his mother to death. He has one last name, she has another. Has she remarried? Don't know. Didn't seem to have a husband at the time of her death.
But I also picked up this tidbit (it was in the printed paper, but I can't find it in the online version of the story): Shortly before her death, the victim, who was 50 years old, had been celebrating the birth of her first great-grandchild. Good grief! A great-grandmother at age 50? How do you manage that? Do the math.
If she had a child at age 17, her child had a child at age 17, and her child's child had a child at age 16, that would make her a great-grandmother at age 50. That's quite a family tradition of early fertility.
Call me old-fashioned, call me judgmental, call me what you want. But I stand by my belief that traditional nuclear families, and traditional family values, are the backbone of a healthy society. When we deviate from that norm, we're on the road to nothing good.
Greatest
American? Let's Check the Calendar
A cable TV channel recently completed their competition for the
"greatest American." The winner turned out to be Ronald Reagan.
As much as I admire Reagan, I found him a surprising choice. I thought one
of the Founding Fathers would likely win the title.
But when I read in the paper that the criteria included who most "helped define what it means to be an American," Reagan did seem to fit the bill. He helped us remember who we were at a time when many had forgotten.
The choice of Reagan really has Pioneer Press columnist Laura Billings in a tizzy. (She's so consumed with her anti-Republican bigotry, she even attacked Abe Lincoln!) In her recent column, she complained of the "revisionist retelling of Ronald Reagan's time," and complained that during Reagan's funeral, "commentators claimed he had overthrown communism all on his own, with no credit given to 'the father of containment,' George Kennan, Mikhail Gorbachev or even Pope John Paul II."
How far the once mighty (in their own minds) have fallen. Now, Billings finds herself reduced to complaining that Reagan doesn't deserve ALL the credit for the fall of communism. But there was a time, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, when those of her ilk criticized Reagan for standing up against communism. They said Reagan was the bad guy -- the dangerous warmonger who threatened the world. They wanted us to be more like Eastern Europe. They thought communism was good -- Gorbachev was their hero.
And now they want Reagan to share the credit for something they opposed in the first place? I guess hypocrites have short memories. That's why they can't see their own hypocrisy. (Just like the terrorist-coddling liberals who now claim they have been offended by Karl Rove's accurate description of their previous actions.)
But, back to the Greatest American:
Who is the Greatest American? Well, you'd think it must be someone who has a national holiday in his honor. So let's go through the calendar and see what we've got. Here are the national holidays as I can recall them:
January -- New Year's Day. Then there's the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. That's one.
February -- Presidents' Day. Guess none of those guys is important enough for his own holiday.
March -- none
April -- none
May -- Drive Home After an Extra Day at the Lake Day (known in some circles as Memorial Day).
July -- Independence Day
September -- Labor Day
October -- Columbus Day! There you go, we have a contender....oh, you're right, he's not an American.
November -- Thanksgiving
December -- Christmas (or "Winter Holiday") Sorry, Jesus isn't an American, either.
So, that's makes it a battle between..... no battle at all. The Greatest American is obviously tRDMLKJr, the only American with a national holiday in his honor.
Imminent:
Who's Got the Dough? Mainly, It's a Can of Worms
The Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling is really going to open
up a can of worms. You've probably heard by now that a developer says he will ask to obtain Supreme Court Justice David Souter's
home, via eminent domain, so that
he can redevelop the site with a hotel.
I don't know how serious this proposal really is, but it has quickly illustrated the can of worms we've opened up. If the government of Weare, New Hampshire, refuses developer Logan Darrow Clements' proposal, they're opening themselves up to litigation.
The problem is the arbitrariness sure to be found in the way that eminent domain requests are granted. If Clements is turned down, he'll be able to argue that Weare is protecting Souter only because he is a big shot.
Now that the Supreme Court has made it so easy for government to take one person's property and give it to another, we're sure to see a huge amount of litigation. Previously, eminent domain litigation was about people trying to protect their property. Now, it will also be about people suing because they've been denied their request to take someone else's property. Local government are sure to play favorites in granting eminent domain requests, and that will lead to more litigation.
What a can of worms. As usual, when we abandon a traditional anchor of principle or morality, we create for ourselves a whole slew of new problems.
Bias
Is In His Genes
According to an interesting story by Benedict Carey of the New York Times, your ideology may be hardwired into
your genes.
According to researchers, while your political party allegiance may be more tied to environmental factors, your underlying beliefs and principles -- and where you line-up on the polarizing issues of the day -- are shaped by genetics.
(I'll buy the idea that the environment shapes your party allegiance. Here in Minnesota, where we've been brainwashed for years that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good, we've got no shortage of conservative-minded people who nonetheless call themselves Democrats (and vote for liberal Democrat candidates).
Interestingly, reporter Carey lets his own politics show through in the story. Yes, again, it's subtle, even unintentional. But that's what media bias is. If it were overt and intentional, it wouldn't be bias, it would be malice. Here are some examples:
Carey writes: "A child raised on peace protests and Bush-loathing generally tracks left as an adult, unless derailed by some powerful life experience. One reared on tax protests and a hatred of Kennedys usually lists to the right."
Great examples (not). Leftists love peace and "loathe" Bush -- an easy target these days. Meanwhile, those on the right "hate" America's royal family, and are greedy pigs who don't want to pay taxes.
Oh yeah, that's fair.
Second example: "Most of the twins had a mixture of conservative and progressive views."
"Progressive"? What happened to "liberal"? Only liberals refer to themselves as "progressive." Is there any doubt what's in this reporter's genes?
And they keep telling us there's no such thing as liberal media bias.
War of
the Words
We're at war, but we're fighting over words.
How could Durbin say that? He should apologize. How could Rove say that? He should apologize. Does Cheney really think the insurgency is in its "last throes"? He's lying to us.
The people of the United States are weak or stupid. Or maybe both. We need to concentrate on defeating the enemy. Instead, we fight amongst ourselves. There's an old saying, "Divide and conquer." People often misuse it. They think it means split up your forces and surround the enemy. That's not right. What it really means is divide the enemy, and then you'll be able to conquer him. That's what the Islamafacists -- with their willing allies the mainstream media and the Democrats -- are doing to us.
Does Cheney really believe that the insurgency (A misnomer, really. When the Allies landed at Normandy, were they resisted by Nazi "insurgents"? No, the "insurgents" were the French underground, fighting against the Nazis. The foreign "insurgents" in Iraq are no patriots.) is in its "last throes"? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's the kind of thing he needs to say. What else can he say? Should he wring his hands and say, "The insurgents are getting stronger. I don't know if we can beat them. If they keep it up, we'll have to withdraw and let them win"?
Of course not. There is a rhetoric that goes with conducting a war. If you hope to win, you have to act as though you are winning. If you despair, you will lose.
Did Churchill ever say, "We're doomed"? Of course not. It looked pretty bleak for Great Britain in 1940, but Churchill said Britain would win, and indeed she did.
Are we so stupid or so caught up in partisan bickering that we can't get with the program and go along with Cheney's rhetoric? Can't we show the bad guys that we are united, and that we intend to defeat them? If we can't show them that, then I don't know if we can succeed.
Think of a sports analogy. Before a game, a coach exhorts his team to win. He tells them they can beat the other team, even though they may be an underdog. And the team has to believe it, if they have any chance of pulling off the upset.
Meanwhile, we should be considered the overwhelming favorite in Iraq. But if we doubt ourselves, we can be beaten -- by ourselves.
I Told
You So
One reason I decided to start this website, is that for years I've
held views and made observations that are contrary to or ignored by the
media, only to eventually -- maybe after many years -- have some "expert"
come out in the paper saying what I had been saying all along.
You've no doubt heard about the 11-year-old boy lost in the Utah woods, who successfully HID FROM his rescuers for four days, because he had been taught not to talk to strangers.
Now comes this news flash: "Hard and fast rules like, 'Don't talk to strangers' can actually cause more harm," said Teresa Jacobs of the St. Paul-based Jacob Wetterling Foundation, named for Minnesota's best-known missing child.
That's what I've been saying for years. The fact is, more kids are going to NEED the HELP of a strange adult at some point, than are ever going to be the target of a malevolent stranger. And, if a child is indeed in danger from a stranger, his or her best hope for help is likely to be some other strangers.
But if we teach the kids that all strangers are bad... they'll run away from help, just like the boy lost in Utah. And if the bad guys know that the kids won't run to other adults for help... well, aren't we just encouraging them?
This principle has other applications. For instance, we tell convenience store clerks: "If you're robbed, just hand over the money. It's not worth getting shot over." And that's true. But, because the crooks know the clerk will just hand over the money, we certainly have more convenience store robberies than we would if convenience stores weren't seen as such easy pickings. (Plus, now the bad guys take the money AND shoot the clerk afterward, anyway.)
So, is "just hand over the money" really enhancing safety? Or are we encouraging robbers and killers to do more robbing and killing?
Concealed-carry of handguns is a similar issue. Opponents have said that the more people carrying (permitted) handguns, the more danger there will be. They say we'd be safer with no carry permits being issued.
But the bad guys don't care whether they have permits. They carry guns anyway. And when they are in a public place, they know that they are almost certainly the only one with a gun. So, by preventing the law-abiding people from having guns, are we promoting public safety, or just encouraging the bad guys to use their guns?
In this case, I think keeping guns away from the law-abiding majority is another example where, in Jacobs' words: "Hard and fast rules can actually cause more harm."
"This
War We Started"
I saw an editorial in a weekly paper with a headline reading "It's
Time for the Truth about this War We Started."
What's next for that newspaper? Maybe a headline reading: "Has the Mayor stopped beating his wife yet?"
Talk about a loaded headline. If the writer starts by feeding us the premise that "we started" the war in Iraq, it's obvious where she is going to end up. A central issue dividing people's opinions about the war in Iraq is the very question of "Who started it?"
Those who think the war was necessary tend to think that the other guys started it, and we put off joining in until we no longer had any choice. Many of those who oppose the war, on the other hand, delude themselves into thinking the whole world was getting along fabulously until "we started it."
Meanwhile, a poll shows 40% of the country thinks we should withdraw from Iraq. Then what? Iraq would be in chaos. You think a lot of people are dying now? The number pales next to how many would die if we left. (Or, next to how many were dying before we deposed Saddam.)
It's tempting to wish that we had never invaded Iraq. I try to imagine what the situation would be if we hadn't invaded. Well, you know what folks? If we hadn't invaded, it's not as though everything would be roses instead. If we hadn't invaded in 2003, we'd still be sitting around now debating what to do about Saddam and the threat he presented.
No, Really,
This Time We're Sure
A recent Newsweek magazine cover touted a story about the
"truth" about dinosaurs. I guess this story will tell us the new
"truth" about dinosaurs that trumps the previous "truth"
about dinosaurs.
This is an example of what I call the arrogance of science. They always think this time they've got it all figured out. Sure, our predecessors were idiots, but now we've got THE TRUTH.
Never mind that the next round of research and theories will probably say that the geniuses of 2005 had it wrong, too.
Why can't science say "We don't know"? Yes, science does discover many solid laws of nature, but there are also many theories alternately embraced and then thrown out along the way. But while each generation of scientists laugh at those ignoramuses who came before them (Bad air causes disease. Yes, we're sure of it. And maggots spontaneously generate in rotten meat.), they appear absolutely certain of their own theories. Guess what? Some day they'll be someone else's "ignoramuses."
U.S.
Out of Big Apple!
I heard some encouraging news out of New York City today. The murder
rate is down! Yes, for the first time since 1961, the Big Apple is on track
to record fewer than 500 homicides!
That means for more than 40 years, more than 500 people have been murdered annually in New York City. Sometimes, probably a lot more. (Let's check, going to the Internet......according to this story, it went as high as 2,245! Another story says that was in 1990.)
Think about that folks. For more than four decades, people in New York have been dying violent deaths at a rate higher than we are losing troops in Iraq. In a peak year, more people were murdered in New York City than U.S. troops have been killed -- in total -- in Iraq.
And for what? Nothing! They aren't dying for some greater good. They aren't dying to liberate someone else. They aren't dying for principles bigger than themselves. They aren't dying to make the world a safer place. They're just dying.
Yet we accept that. Where's the outrage? Why aren't there demands for a timetable for a withdrawal from New York City?
People's minds are really strange. We accept some risks, but get hysterical about others. People don't buy insurance, because "Nothing's going to happen to me." But they go out and buy lottery tickets because "Someone's gotta win it!"
We got something like 30,000+ dead in New York City, but it's no big deal? And 1,700 dead fighting evil, and it's time to throw in the towel?
Go figure.
Robin
Hood and His Monetary Men
Sort of a fun economics column from Ed Lotterman today. He postulates that, in some cases, crime DOES
pay. For society, that is. Lotterman writes: "Occasionally, theft is
economically efficient, leaving society better off than if it had not occurred."
An interesting premise.
Lotterman offers the example of a Bulgarian welder, who stole equipment from the government-owned shop where he worked, so that he could weld on his own time -- and for his own dime. "...the stolen assets produced substantially more for society than if they had stayed in government hands. Society had more goods and services because of the theft than if it had not taken place."
Probably true. But that got me to wondering: If you believe as I do that, generally, a dollar does more good in the the hands of a private individual than it does in the hands of the government, then is cheating on your taxes good for society?
Stereotypes
on Parade
From an actual Associated Press news story in the paper today:
"Wells Fargo hopes the crowds attending San Francisco's gay pride parade get a good look at its employees singing show tunes atop the stagecoach-themed float the bank entered in its hometown event on Sunday."
What would they do on an MLK Day parade float? Eat watermelon and fried chicken?
Suburbs
to City: Give Yourself Up; We've Got You Surrounded
The Twin Cities metro area is a mess. There are the Twin Cities
of St. Paul and Minneapolis (St. Paul is NOT a suburb of Minneapolis, for
those of you who get that impression from the national media. St. Paul is
older than Minneapolis, and it is the state capital.), but then there are
more than 100 separate municipalities in several rings of suburbs around
the central cities.
That leads to some conflicts.
Most recently, some Ramsey County suburbs (ringing St. Paul) object to a new plan for a shared 911 call center. They say that under the new, property-tax based plan, the suburbs will pay more than they have under the old plan, and they call that "subsidizing" St. Paul.
I grew up not in the city, or the suburbs, or even in a town. I grew up on a farm in the country, so maybe I have more of an outsider's perspective on this. I live in St. Paul, and one of the things I find strange is the suburbs. The distinction between the "city" and the suburbs is artificial. Someone can live on the other side of the river, or the other side of a street marking the city boundary, and then they say, "Don't bother me with St. Paul's problems. I live in Maplewood."
Meanwhile, that person has the benefit of working a well-paid job in downtown St. Paul, visiting St. Paul's parks and cultural amenities, and knowing that in the event of a real public safety emergency, St. Paul's full-time, professional public safety forces will come to the aid of his volunteer fire department.
But ask him to pay for something that supports St. Paul, and he acts like he lives 100 miles away. Meanwhile, the suburbs build community centers and water parks, and say, "These are for our residents only," or "If you don't live here, you'll pay more to use it."
But they're all too happy to enjoy St. Paul's Como Zoo -- free of charge.
If we can chop things up like this, then why not do it with St. Paul's neighborhoods, too? There are fewer 911 calls to my neighborhood than to other parts of St. Paul. Why should I pay as much as the people who live in those neighborhoods? Maybe my relatively well-off neighborhood should secede from St. Paul and tell the run-down neighborhoods to go solve their own problems.
Nice
Business Youse Got Here....
There's been a lawsuit filed against Visa and MasterCard, and against several of the nation's major banks.
Retail businesses are unhappy with the fees they pay with every credit card
transaction.
Of course, ultimately it's the consumer who pays. If the store didn't have all those fees, prices could be lower. But for reasons of convenience -- as well as "points" and rebates -- we're increasingly using plastic to pay. It has become the norm at many businesses, which see little cash come into the till.
Retailers feel trapped. The reality of the marketplace is that they have to accept credit cards to be competitive. From their perspective, it's almost a protection racket run by the credit card companies: "Nice little business youse got here, Pally. Be a shame if no one bought anything from you. Sign up for our credit card program, and we'll see that nothing bad happens to you."
Meanwhile, it's the consumers who ultimately pay the price, enriching huge banks in the process.
Flag
Burning and "Hate Crimes" Share Link
As it does regularly, a
proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning has re-entered
the public debate. I think burning the flag is a terrible thing.
But I also think outlawing flag burning has a lot in common with "hate crime." What "hate crimes" are to the Left, flag burning seems to be to the Right.
I've written before that I oppose the idea of "hate crime," because "hate crime" really means that we are punishing someone for his thoughts. And as Americans, we have the right to think whatever we want -- however unpopular.
So, if you beat someone up, that's assault. It's a crime. But it doesn't matter whether you beat the person up just because you're mean, or you did it because you "hate" the color of his skin. In my mind, the crime you have committed is the same. Now, if it comes out in your trial that you are a bigot who would beat someone up because of the color of his skin, then I will think you are not just mean, but total scum. You have shown the world what you really are. However, the government does not get to increase your sentence just because you are racist.
Americans have a right to be racist thinkers. We just don't have a right to beat people up.
I think to be consistent, I have to apply the same reasoning to flag burning. If you burn the flag, I'm free to think that you are scum. In my mind, you have exposed yourself for what you really are -- a hater of America and everything it stands for.
But if it's your own flag, that's your choice. By burning your flag, you'll show everyone that you hate America; but the government can't lock you up for those thoughts.
Of course, you still can't burn MY flag. And you can't burn a flag in a crowded theater. But if you do those things, the government should not be able to punish you more than if the flag you burned was the flag of a chess club.
I talked about being consistent. Note that we do presently have "hate crime" laws. Those are backed by Liberals, who generally oppose attempts to ban flag burning (no consistency there). So if our nation is going to be consistent, we need to either ban flag burning also, or do away with "hate crimes" (my preference). Conservatives aren't particularly consistent on this, either.
Finally, let me be clear about this: While flag burning and "hate" should not be ILLEGAL, that does not mean they should ever be ACCEPTABLE. But let the America-haters and the race-haters reveal themselves for who they are, so we can keep an eye on the scum.
"Hour
Car" the New "Yellow Bike"?
Several years ago, we in
St. Paul were blessed with the Yellow Bike program. Dozens of old bikes
were fixed up and painted yellow, then left around town for anyone to use
as needed. It was a nice, warm fuzzy idea.... that anyone with a brain knew
would fail. And it did. Before the summer was over, most of the bikes had
disappeared or were ruined, taking with them the funding dollars and efforts
that could have been used in a much more productive way.
Now, St. Paul has the "HourCar." The story is in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today, but not the whole story (more on that later). HourCar is a car-sharing program. People sign up and pay a monthly membership fee, then they can reserve a car and use it, paying for hours of use and mileage. HourCar is being touted as a way for people to have the use of a car, without being burdened with ownership and maintenance costs.
That does sound like a good deal. I mean, people rent other things that they use only occasionally, right? Like garden tillers or concrete tools. Trailers or party tents.
Ah, but this is different. HourCar isn't a service being offered by a privately-owned, for-profit rental company. No, HourCar is a program of the Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC), a St. Paul non-profit.
And since the program is run by a non-profit, you know what that means. That's right, it doesn't pay for itself. It depends on someone else's money. Whose? Well, yo