Story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today about how a proposed smoking ban in the city of Eden Prairie may cause some companies to relocate. The insane thing is that the ban would eliminate smoking completely at private businesses including bars and restaurants and force hotels to have 75% of their rooms be smoke free.
The company featured in the article is a manufacturing company with a ventilated smoking room seperate from the rest of the facility so second hand smoke is not an issue but if the ban were passed not only would the smoking room have to be shut down but employees would not even be allowed to smoke outside of the building.
Unbelievable. Of course the ban only applies to Eden Prairie so workers who wish to continue to smoke may simply find jobs at companies in neighboring cities that aren't run by "we know what's good for you" leaders. Restaurant and bar patrons who want to enjoy a heater after a meal or with a drink will also simply bypass such businesses in Eden Prairie for friendlier climes. The net effect will be little or no reduction in smoking while a number of companies may bail out of the city taking their jobs and tax bases with em'. So why would the leaders of a city choose such a course of action? This excerpt and the quote from the mayor speaks volumes:
The City Council probably won't vote on the matter for several weeks and Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens said the proposal might change.
She will tour the Anagram plant and its designated smoking areas next week,adding that Ansolabehere's complaint has "some resonance." Still, she said, a broad-based smoking ban should be passed.
"It takes guts to deal with this issue," Tyra-Lukens said. "It's a known health hazard. How in good conscience do you not protect citizens from it?"
In expressing a very typical attitude for someone of her ilk the mayor doesn't really care whether the ban works or not or what the negative consequences might be. As long as SHE feels better then it's the right thing to do.
Friday, August 30, 2002
Ham Smothered in Gravitas
The closer we approach the one year anniversary of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, it becomes more and more clear that the popular culture and its icons simply don't know how to respond. It seems that almost since that fateful day itself, both prominent individuals and institutions have been making plans about how to properly commemorate what happened. Yet it's all still developing clumsily and piecemeal and most talking heads (particularly from the Left) still aren't sure what they're actually supposed to do or say, despite their often bold and always self-reverential comments to the contrary.
I get the sense that this stems from, in part, the modern generations' lack of experience with widespread tragedy. But I suspect it originates with how these generations have been conditioned to respond to episodes of tragedy or sadness or even mild discomfort. (and of course I blame the Liberal, therapeutic, egocentric culture for this). Typically anyone under 40 will respond to tragedy by: 1) being oblivious, because they're not paying attention; 2) laughing it off because they don't understand it or think that it must be somehow ironic; or 3) ruminating on how if affects them personally, followed by the drawing up of a list of grievances and reparations to be paid.
The events of 9/11/01 are of a scale that most aren't sure how to respond, in that their normal patterns of action don't quite fit anymore. You can't ignore it, you can't laugh it off, and there's no one to blame. (That is, besides the radical Islamicists. But since public schooling and a steady diet of cultural relativism don't equip one with critical thinking skills, and since they can't reasonably connect the Republican Party or Big Business to these events, the Left really has no worthy villains). So most blindly grope forward, trying to do what makes them personally feel good.
For example, TV news departments--instead of simply reporting on the facts of what occurred and what has transpired since, they're caught up in debating what video footage will be "appropriate" for the audience to see (that is, when they're not consumed by the decision of what earth tone Peter Jennings' suit should be so as to simultaneously communicate pathos as well as his fierce, Canadian resolve). The management of broadcast networks aren't sure whether or not they should be running advertisements at all. The MLPA (and its local mouthpiece, the proto-human Denny Hocking) consider their petty labor-management squabble as something that will be fighting for attention with our remembrances of this infamous day.
And now, for whatever reasons, Democratic and Republican candidates running for office around the country have agreed to stop campaigning for several days surrounding Sept. 11 - because it wouldn't be in the spirit of the day. Is it just me, or does this feel like some kind of admission that the reality of running for public office in 2002 is in itself offensive to American ideals. As if whatever they say in their ads and campaign appearances is necessarily disingenuous and crass and wince worthy during this small window of cultural sanity and sobriety.
And come to think of it, I think they may be right. Can you imagine, right after watching a replay of those gruesome fireballs rising above the Manhattan skyline, jumping into an ad featuring the simpering voice of Paul Wellstone complaining about American businesses not paying their fair share of taxes, or claiming that he'll pull us out of the "Bush recession" by raising your taxes? Yes, these ads would indeed be deceptive, patronizing, and vile.
But, I dare say, these ads would be deceptive, patronizing, and vile even if 19 murderous Arabic savages hadn't slaughtered 3,000 innocents a year ago. It's just that nobody would notice or nobody would care--least of all the politicians responsible for putting these ads out. Yes, they should be ashamed of those ads and their rhetoric--but equally so on September 12.
Reasonably speaking, the anniversary of 9/11/01 should be the ideal time for politicians to be speaking to the American people. They'll have our attention like never before. And our interest will be properly framed by the brutal results of an appeasing, morally relativistic foreign policy. In fact, forget the ads, its the perfect time for a debate. Sit Wellstone and Coleman down for a 2 hour conversation on foreign policy. The topics would be 1) What were the causes of 9/11 and 2) how do we proceed in making sure it never happens again.
Given the fact that Wellstone believes 1) it was our fault it happened and 2) we should do nothing but apologize, redistribute wealth, and hope it won't happen again - there's no chance he wins that debate. This is the reason politicians like him will be silent on this day--because they have nothing worthwhile to say, and for at least one day, they know it.
I get the sense that this stems from, in part, the modern generations' lack of experience with widespread tragedy. But I suspect it originates with how these generations have been conditioned to respond to episodes of tragedy or sadness or even mild discomfort. (and of course I blame the Liberal, therapeutic, egocentric culture for this). Typically anyone under 40 will respond to tragedy by: 1) being oblivious, because they're not paying attention; 2) laughing it off because they don't understand it or think that it must be somehow ironic; or 3) ruminating on how if affects them personally, followed by the drawing up of a list of grievances and reparations to be paid.
The events of 9/11/01 are of a scale that most aren't sure how to respond, in that their normal patterns of action don't quite fit anymore. You can't ignore it, you can't laugh it off, and there's no one to blame. (That is, besides the radical Islamicists. But since public schooling and a steady diet of cultural relativism don't equip one with critical thinking skills, and since they can't reasonably connect the Republican Party or Big Business to these events, the Left really has no worthy villains). So most blindly grope forward, trying to do what makes them personally feel good.
For example, TV news departments--instead of simply reporting on the facts of what occurred and what has transpired since, they're caught up in debating what video footage will be "appropriate" for the audience to see (that is, when they're not consumed by the decision of what earth tone Peter Jennings' suit should be so as to simultaneously communicate pathos as well as his fierce, Canadian resolve). The management of broadcast networks aren't sure whether or not they should be running advertisements at all. The MLPA (and its local mouthpiece, the proto-human Denny Hocking) consider their petty labor-management squabble as something that will be fighting for attention with our remembrances of this infamous day.
And now, for whatever reasons, Democratic and Republican candidates running for office around the country have agreed to stop campaigning for several days surrounding Sept. 11 - because it wouldn't be in the spirit of the day. Is it just me, or does this feel like some kind of admission that the reality of running for public office in 2002 is in itself offensive to American ideals. As if whatever they say in their ads and campaign appearances is necessarily disingenuous and crass and wince worthy during this small window of cultural sanity and sobriety.
And come to think of it, I think they may be right. Can you imagine, right after watching a replay of those gruesome fireballs rising above the Manhattan skyline, jumping into an ad featuring the simpering voice of Paul Wellstone complaining about American businesses not paying their fair share of taxes, or claiming that he'll pull us out of the "Bush recession" by raising your taxes? Yes, these ads would indeed be deceptive, patronizing, and vile.
But, I dare say, these ads would be deceptive, patronizing, and vile even if 19 murderous Arabic savages hadn't slaughtered 3,000 innocents a year ago. It's just that nobody would notice or nobody would care--least of all the politicians responsible for putting these ads out. Yes, they should be ashamed of those ads and their rhetoric--but equally so on September 12.
Reasonably speaking, the anniversary of 9/11/01 should be the ideal time for politicians to be speaking to the American people. They'll have our attention like never before. And our interest will be properly framed by the brutal results of an appeasing, morally relativistic foreign policy. In fact, forget the ads, its the perfect time for a debate. Sit Wellstone and Coleman down for a 2 hour conversation on foreign policy. The topics would be 1) What were the causes of 9/11 and 2) how do we proceed in making sure it never happens again.
Given the fact that Wellstone believes 1) it was our fault it happened and 2) we should do nothing but apologize, redistribute wealth, and hope it won't happen again - there's no chance he wins that debate. This is the reason politicians like him will be silent on this day--because they have nothing worthwhile to say, and for at least one day, they know it.
Thursday, August 29, 2002
You're A Clever Little Monkey Aren't You?
This morning after my weekly Thursday hockey session the banter in the "room" turned to the possibility of war with Iraq. A few comments were made about the difficulty of warfare in cities and the fighting ability or lack therefore of that the Iraqi Army possessed. Pretty much the standard water cooler kind of stuff. And then one of the younger players chirped in with, "The whole thing is just a game designed to justify a military buildup."
I literally went numb. My first instinct was to leap across the room, grab the punk by the scruff of his neck, and introduce his head to the cement wall behind him. Then I wanted to ask this insightful little sage whether the three thousand people who were slaughtered on September 11th were part of the "game"?
Is this what passes for wisdom among the ignorantly cynical set these days? Are you going to start talking about the "military industrial complex" now oh witty one? I had thought that this cliched school of thought had been laid upon the ash heap of history with the end of the Cold War and the dramatic decrease in defense spending that accompanied it. Hmmmm. How does that work now? Oh yes, when there is a significant threat to the national security of the United States, be it Soviet expansionism during the Cold War or terrorist states and groups today, we spend more money on national defense. Quite a crazy concept isn't it?
Does this infantile seer of the real truth actually believe that the Bush administration is involved in a far ranging conspiracy to drum up a foreign threat (again-how much drumming is needed with three thousand dead bodies on our soil?) so that his buddies in the "military industrial complex" can profit from a 11% increase in military spending? There's gotta be an easier way to make a living.
I literally went numb. My first instinct was to leap across the room, grab the punk by the scruff of his neck, and introduce his head to the cement wall behind him. Then I wanted to ask this insightful little sage whether the three thousand people who were slaughtered on September 11th were part of the "game"?
Is this what passes for wisdom among the ignorantly cynical set these days? Are you going to start talking about the "military industrial complex" now oh witty one? I had thought that this cliched school of thought had been laid upon the ash heap of history with the end of the Cold War and the dramatic decrease in defense spending that accompanied it. Hmmmm. How does that work now? Oh yes, when there is a significant threat to the national security of the United States, be it Soviet expansionism during the Cold War or terrorist states and groups today, we spend more money on national defense. Quite a crazy concept isn't it?
Does this infantile seer of the real truth actually believe that the Bush administration is involved in a far ranging conspiracy to drum up a foreign threat (again-how much drumming is needed with three thousand dead bodies on our soil?) so that his buddies in the "military industrial complex" can profit from a 11% increase in military spending? There's gotta be an easier way to make a living.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
What Being a Conservative Really Means
No one has done more to explain the differences between the Left and the Right than David Horowitz. In a new piece at FrontPage magazine.com he explains why true conservativism is not defined by racial or ethnic identities but rather by shared beliefs and values. It's a long read but well worth your time. Here's a choice excerpt:
To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American Founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude towards every clause of the documents that constitute the Founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document.
My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; in the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties.
To be a conservative in America, from my perspective, then, is to defend where possible and restore where necessary, the framework of values and philosophical understandings enshrined in the American Founding. This should not be taken to mean a strict constructionist attitude towards every clause of the documents that constitute the Founding. If the framers of the Constitution had presumed to see the future, or had wanted to rigidly preserve the past, they would not have included an amendment process in their document.
My brand of conservatism is based on a belief in the fundamental truth in the idea of individualism; in the idea of rights that are derived from "Nature's God" and therefore inalienable; in the conservative view of human nature and the philosophy of limited government that flows therefrom; and in the recognition that property rights are the proven foundation of all human liberties.
Taking it to the Street
Peter King of Sports Ilustrated whips up some high expectations regarding the Vikings potential--or at least the potential for Randy Moss to have a huge year. There's also an accounting of some of the more assinine antics from Moss last year. For example
"Last year, after the Vikings handed Moss the richest contract for a receiver in NFL history, Moss said he played only when he wanted to play, and no one could make him play when he didn't feel like it. Against Tennessee in December, he either jogged or walked off the line of scrimmage on 21 plays. That's 39 percent of the game the guy didn't try. A disgrace--to the game, to his team, to himself."
According to this article, it appears Tice is confronting this situation head on--using both a carrot and stick approach. But when Moss decides to act out this year, I'm dubious as to the abilty of a first year, unproven head coach to maintain credibility--especially when Moss is in self proclaimed "street person" mode.
"Last year, after the Vikings handed Moss the richest contract for a receiver in NFL history, Moss said he played only when he wanted to play, and no one could make him play when he didn't feel like it. Against Tennessee in December, he either jogged or walked off the line of scrimmage on 21 plays. That's 39 percent of the game the guy didn't try. A disgrace--to the game, to his team, to himself."
According to this article, it appears Tice is confronting this situation head on--using both a carrot and stick approach. But when Moss decides to act out this year, I'm dubious as to the abilty of a first year, unproven head coach to maintain credibility--especially when Moss is in self proclaimed "street person" mode.
Friday, August 23, 2002
We Can and We Will
Opponents of US military action against Iraq claim that such an operation would divert resources from the on-going war on terrorism and impair our abilities to eliminate the threat from Al Qaeda. While I appreciate the fact that our military is not as large as in the past and that battling Al Qaeda requires deploying forces in far flung regions of the globe, I find this a bit tough to swallow. Consider if you will what our country was able to do concurrently during the Second World War:
- Send thousands of troops to England to train and prepare for D-Day.
- Maintain an air force in England capable of carrying out daily strategic bombing of Germany.
- Send millions of tons of supplies across the Atlantic Ocean to England while fielding naval forces to battle and finally eliminate the German u-boat threat.
- Send millions of tons of supplies to the Soviet Union often with convoys through the North Sea fighting off German subs and air attacks on the way.
- While all of the above mentioned were going on to invade North Africa, Sicily, and finally Italy.
- Build an immense Navy to battle the Japanese in the Pacific.
- Carry out two separate offensive thrusts against Japanese held territory in the Pacific with Nimitz leading the island hopping campaign in the Central Pacific while Mac Arthur pushed towards the Philippines through the Solomons and New Guinea. These campaigns covered thousands of miles with fighting from the Aleutian islands near Alaska to Guadalcanal.
- Send millions of tons of supplies to China to aid their cause against the Japanese.
- Send troops to China and Burma to fight the Japanese.
- While all this was going on we were also able to supply and aid resistance groups fighting throughout Europe including Norway and Greece, and in Asia in Vietnam and the Philippines. We also supplied food and other critical supplies to civilians all over the globe.
These are just some of the actions that popped into my head while thinking about this. The point is that we were capable of carrying out military operations almost anywhere and everywhere in the world during that time and we did. As I said earlier, I realize that our military is now only a fraction of the size it was during World War II and our economy is obviously in no way on a war footing, BUT to say that we cannot take out a tin horn dictator like Saddam while at the same time dealing with Al Qaeda seems to be an awfully pessimistic view to hold bordering on defeatist. We are the United States of America for Chrissakes not some has been, self doubting, European country looking for reasons why we will fail. If we are indeed at war then we should have the ability to fight a war wherever and whenever we need to.
- Send thousands of troops to England to train and prepare for D-Day.
- Maintain an air force in England capable of carrying out daily strategic bombing of Germany.
- Send millions of tons of supplies across the Atlantic Ocean to England while fielding naval forces to battle and finally eliminate the German u-boat threat.
- Send millions of tons of supplies to the Soviet Union often with convoys through the North Sea fighting off German subs and air attacks on the way.
- While all of the above mentioned were going on to invade North Africa, Sicily, and finally Italy.
- Build an immense Navy to battle the Japanese in the Pacific.
- Carry out two separate offensive thrusts against Japanese held territory in the Pacific with Nimitz leading the island hopping campaign in the Central Pacific while Mac Arthur pushed towards the Philippines through the Solomons and New Guinea. These campaigns covered thousands of miles with fighting from the Aleutian islands near Alaska to Guadalcanal.
- Send millions of tons of supplies to China to aid their cause against the Japanese.
- Send troops to China and Burma to fight the Japanese.
- While all this was going on we were also able to supply and aid resistance groups fighting throughout Europe including Norway and Greece, and in Asia in Vietnam and the Philippines. We also supplied food and other critical supplies to civilians all over the globe.
These are just some of the actions that popped into my head while thinking about this. The point is that we were capable of carrying out military operations almost anywhere and everywhere in the world during that time and we did. As I said earlier, I realize that our military is now only a fraction of the size it was during World War II and our economy is obviously in no way on a war footing, BUT to say that we cannot take out a tin horn dictator like Saddam while at the same time dealing with Al Qaeda seems to be an awfully pessimistic view to hold bordering on defeatist. We are the United States of America for Chrissakes not some has been, self doubting, European country looking for reasons why we will fail. If we are indeed at war then we should have the ability to fight a war wherever and whenever we need to.
Let's Hope That GWB Reads VDH
Victor Davis Hanson lays the rhetorical framework for Bush to follow as we prepare for the next theater in the war in this article at National Review Online.
Americans have no belly for a moral crusade to change the world; but when murderers come over here to butcher our own, and when a nut stockpiles nightmarish weapons to further his past agenda of death, they are quite willing to defend their culture and values to the bitter end. But they need to be told first that it is not power, nor revenge, nor ego, nor bellicosity that prompts American action, but a unique sense of justice amid a world that talks just, but in self-interested inaction proves itself to be precisely the opposite.
Americans have no belly for a moral crusade to change the world; but when murderers come over here to butcher our own, and when a nut stockpiles nightmarish weapons to further his past agenda of death, they are quite willing to defend their culture and values to the bitter end. But they need to be told first that it is not power, nor revenge, nor ego, nor bellicosity that prompts American action, but a unique sense of justice amid a world that talks just, but in self-interested inaction proves itself to be precisely the opposite.
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Profiles in Discouragement
More stupefying comments from Denny Hocking (the Twins representative to the MLPA) showed up in an article in the Star Tribune today. Within just a few sentences he reveals the lack of courage he has in his convictions (or just his lack of convictions) and his lack of understanding of the economic issues surrounding the game. His quote, on receiving a letter from a Minnesota legislator regarding the deleterious affect a players' strike would have on the chances of the Twins securing public funding for a new stadium in 2003:
It seems like I'm being blamed here, I'm part of a union. If 29 guys vote one way and I vote the other, how does that make me look to my peers?"
So is he saying that if it were left up to his own conscience he would vote against a strike? But because he doesn't want to look uncooperative in front of his "peers" (which I'm forced to conclude are 29 other slap-hitting, limited range utility infielders with pre-pubescent goatees)--he is compelled to simply go along with the crowd? Not exactly Henry Fonda/12 Angry Men-level courage here. In fact, it's overt cowardice. Yet he's presenting this as being justification for his actions--as if we'll all say "when you put it that way, of course you'd have to vote 'yes.'" And remember, this is just the vote authorizing a strike--not his personal decision to break a picket line or ignore the decisions of the union. This is a revelatory comment about the nature of this union--one in which absolutely no pubic dissent is accepted--lest anyone might be led to believe the players' themselves question the economic reality of someone like Denny Hocking making $1.1 million a year (it’s true). Let me remind you he’s currently hitting .249 with 2 home runs and 23 RBIs. And he has a team leading 9 errors--despite the fact he's only played in 2/3 of the team's total games.
But then again, reality is a subjective term for the players, as illustrated by Hocking's further comment:
Hocking said the Twins' survival depends on a new stadium. "It's apparent we can't survive in Major League Baseball because of the revenue we do not generate. Building a new stadium would generate that revenue," he said.
If that's his actual understanding of the situation--I weep for the future (said in the tone of the maitre d' in Ferris Buehler's Day Off). He's conveniently (or purposely, due to ignorance) leaving out a big part of this equation. Under the current system, the only way to generate all that revenue is to have someone else (the public) build you the stadium for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then you (that is, owners and players) get to reap all the profits from it, in perpetuity.
That is the only way to sustain the current economic model in baseball--and the only way that Hocking will earn $1.1 million. Grossly simplified, the owner's position is to change the model so as to limit expenses (salaries) and thus diminish (somewhat) the requirement of public subsidy. The player's stance is to refuse this change and to ensure tax dollars continue to subsidize their salaries. And that is why Hocking will vote to strike, despite his apparent raging bout of conscience.
It seems like I'm being blamed here, I'm part of a union. If 29 guys vote one way and I vote the other, how does that make me look to my peers?"
So is he saying that if it were left up to his own conscience he would vote against a strike? But because he doesn't want to look uncooperative in front of his "peers" (which I'm forced to conclude are 29 other slap-hitting, limited range utility infielders with pre-pubescent goatees)--he is compelled to simply go along with the crowd? Not exactly Henry Fonda/12 Angry Men-level courage here. In fact, it's overt cowardice. Yet he's presenting this as being justification for his actions--as if we'll all say "when you put it that way, of course you'd have to vote 'yes.'" And remember, this is just the vote authorizing a strike--not his personal decision to break a picket line or ignore the decisions of the union. This is a revelatory comment about the nature of this union--one in which absolutely no pubic dissent is accepted--lest anyone might be led to believe the players' themselves question the economic reality of someone like Denny Hocking making $1.1 million a year (it’s true). Let me remind you he’s currently hitting .249 with 2 home runs and 23 RBIs. And he has a team leading 9 errors--despite the fact he's only played in 2/3 of the team's total games.
But then again, reality is a subjective term for the players, as illustrated by Hocking's further comment:
Hocking said the Twins' survival depends on a new stadium. "It's apparent we can't survive in Major League Baseball because of the revenue we do not generate. Building a new stadium would generate that revenue," he said.
If that's his actual understanding of the situation--I weep for the future (said in the tone of the maitre d' in Ferris Buehler's Day Off). He's conveniently (or purposely, due to ignorance) leaving out a big part of this equation. Under the current system, the only way to generate all that revenue is to have someone else (the public) build you the stadium for hundreds of millions of dollars, and then you (that is, owners and players) get to reap all the profits from it, in perpetuity.
That is the only way to sustain the current economic model in baseball--and the only way that Hocking will earn $1.1 million. Grossly simplified, the owner's position is to change the model so as to limit expenses (salaries) and thus diminish (somewhat) the requirement of public subsidy. The player's stance is to refuse this change and to ensure tax dollars continue to subsidize their salaries. And that is why Hocking will vote to strike, despite his apparent raging bout of conscience.
Say the Right Thing
Dennis Prager mentioned this story on his radio show today and it is quite interesting. Spike Lee was in Wilmington, North Carolina and spoke about education:
One of the keys to success, he believes, is education.
"I was very fortunate when I was growing up the slave mentality wasn't
espoused in my house," he said. "Education was valued. It was expected that
I would go to college."
He also grew up when those who were smart and did well in school were
respected.
"Now many African-Americans are ridiculed if they speak correctly, go to
school and aren't on a corner drinking a 40," he said. "How is it that the
values that our parents taught us, our grandparents taught us, have been
turned around?"
"Parents, we have to be vigilant with our children, not let them watch
television without adult supervision," he said.
Mr. Lee said that music videos, with their images of liquor, expensive cars,
gyrating semi-nude women and "bling-bling" are a problem.
"BET does one of the biggest disservices to black people," he said of the
cable channel. "You have to think, 'What is the content? What is the
message?'
"That's worse than crack," he said.
The director also encouraged people to not support those who promote a
message that doesn't benefit black people
"You don't have to go to their movies. You don't have to buy their records. A
whole lot of black people don't want to say anything about R. Kelly," he said
about the entertainer who is being accused of child pornography. "Well, I've
got a daughter."
Full story
Can you imagine the reaction if a black conservative or a white person had made the same comments?
One of the keys to success, he believes, is education.
"I was very fortunate when I was growing up the slave mentality wasn't
espoused in my house," he said. "Education was valued. It was expected that
I would go to college."
He also grew up when those who were smart and did well in school were
respected.
"Now many African-Americans are ridiculed if they speak correctly, go to
school and aren't on a corner drinking a 40," he said. "How is it that the
values that our parents taught us, our grandparents taught us, have been
turned around?"
"Parents, we have to be vigilant with our children, not let them watch
television without adult supervision," he said.
Mr. Lee said that music videos, with their images of liquor, expensive cars,
gyrating semi-nude women and "bling-bling" are a problem.
"BET does one of the biggest disservices to black people," he said of the
cable channel. "You have to think, 'What is the content? What is the
message?'
"That's worse than crack," he said.
The director also encouraged people to not support those who promote a
message that doesn't benefit black people
"You don't have to go to their movies. You don't have to buy their records. A
whole lot of black people don't want to say anything about R. Kelly," he said
about the entertainer who is being accused of child pornography. "Well, I've
got a daughter."
Full story
Can you imagine the reaction if a black conservative or a white person had made the same comments?
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
What Would China Do?
Bryan Preston asks that troubling question about
China and Iraq at National Review Online.
China and Iraq at National Review Online.
Monday, August 19, 2002
The Kane Mutiny
Last Friday night, in preparation for watching the Twins-Red Sox game on TV, I was channel surfing for a viable alternative to watch during the expected lulls during the game. Yes, the game promised to be a good one, featuring the pitching match up of Pedro Martinez and Joe Mays. But I knew that this alone wouldn't prevent me from searching for mental stimulus during segments of the game that were found lacking in this regard.
Included in this "lacking" category would be any time the Red Sox were batting. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but something about their lineup just strikes me as dreadfully dull and frankly, offensive. Maybe it's their names, letter confabulations such as "Daubach" and "Merlroni” and most egregious "Trot." Just the thought of these being shouted in the hoarse, whiskey soaked bark of a Southie is enough for me to withdraw my attention in disgust.
So in my search for a diversion, while blurring past all the important cable news celebrities (O'Reilly, Chung, Matthews, Brooke Burke) I came upon C-SPAN, which was broadcasting a panel discussion on slavery reparations. Discussions of this topic come up about once every couple of months on C-SPAN.
As I've watched many of the previous presentations, I figured this was going to be another exercise in revelatory hate mongering, logic high crimes, and grammatical misdemeanors, by some of the most inarticulate members of the Left. (Which given the competition, is not an insignificant accomplishment--it's like being the foulest smelling pile of viscera on the slaughterhouse floor).
But, much to my pleasant surprise, this panel was put together by the Heritage Foundation and consisted of minority group members who opposed the concept of slavery reparations. Of the four panel members, I recognized only Linda Chavez (who was typically brilliant). However, all four were good in both the presentation of their beliefs and in the comprehensive understanding of the issues on which they spoke. Their sense of isolation from the mainstream of minority opinion (or at least the opinions of the minority leadership) was obvious, and their stance of righteous dissent was impressive and well taken.
The most compelling rhetoric came from a columnist from the Baltimore Sun, named Gregory Kane. He nailed all of the more common points I've previously heard (well articulated by David Horowitz and George Will, among others). However he also spoke of his personal disdain for the notion of accepting a monetary gain based on the suffering of his forbearers. He acknowledged that race is still an issue in American life, and that it still affects him. But also that the situation had improved greatly since he was a child. And his childhood experience was better by several magnitudes compared to when his parents were children. And his parents' experiences couldn’t even come close the sufferings imposed upon the previous generations who were actually held in bondage. And, according to Kane, the thought of making a personal profit based on the wrong commited to previous generations, given the relatively benign conditions faced now, only served to cheapen their experiences and memories and was personally revolting to him.
He's exactly right of course, and these words seem to resonate with the black audience in the crowd, more so than the other more semantic and abstract arguments forwarded by the likes of Horowitz, et al. I’ve never seen or heard of Gregory Kane before, but upon reading his back columns from the Baltimore Sun archives, it appears he leans conservative (which takes guts given his status as a black columnist in a majority black city), and he's a voice that merits listening to.
Included in this "lacking" category would be any time the Red Sox were batting. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but something about their lineup just strikes me as dreadfully dull and frankly, offensive. Maybe it's their names, letter confabulations such as "Daubach" and "Merlroni” and most egregious "Trot." Just the thought of these being shouted in the hoarse, whiskey soaked bark of a Southie is enough for me to withdraw my attention in disgust.
So in my search for a diversion, while blurring past all the important cable news celebrities (O'Reilly, Chung, Matthews, Brooke Burke) I came upon C-SPAN, which was broadcasting a panel discussion on slavery reparations. Discussions of this topic come up about once every couple of months on C-SPAN.
As I've watched many of the previous presentations, I figured this was going to be another exercise in revelatory hate mongering, logic high crimes, and grammatical misdemeanors, by some of the most inarticulate members of the Left. (Which given the competition, is not an insignificant accomplishment--it's like being the foulest smelling pile of viscera on the slaughterhouse floor).
But, much to my pleasant surprise, this panel was put together by the Heritage Foundation and consisted of minority group members who opposed the concept of slavery reparations. Of the four panel members, I recognized only Linda Chavez (who was typically brilliant). However, all four were good in both the presentation of their beliefs and in the comprehensive understanding of the issues on which they spoke. Their sense of isolation from the mainstream of minority opinion (or at least the opinions of the minority leadership) was obvious, and their stance of righteous dissent was impressive and well taken.
The most compelling rhetoric came from a columnist from the Baltimore Sun, named Gregory Kane. He nailed all of the more common points I've previously heard (well articulated by David Horowitz and George Will, among others). However he also spoke of his personal disdain for the notion of accepting a monetary gain based on the suffering of his forbearers. He acknowledged that race is still an issue in American life, and that it still affects him. But also that the situation had improved greatly since he was a child. And his childhood experience was better by several magnitudes compared to when his parents were children. And his parents' experiences couldn’t even come close the sufferings imposed upon the previous generations who were actually held in bondage. And, according to Kane, the thought of making a personal profit based on the wrong commited to previous generations, given the relatively benign conditions faced now, only served to cheapen their experiences and memories and was personally revolting to him.
He's exactly right of course, and these words seem to resonate with the black audience in the crowd, more so than the other more semantic and abstract arguments forwarded by the likes of Horowitz, et al. I’ve never seen or heard of Gregory Kane before, but upon reading his back columns from the Baltimore Sun archives, it appears he leans conservative (which takes guts given his status as a black columnist in a majority black city), and he's a voice that merits listening to.
Friday, August 16, 2002
Who Falls Next?
St. Paul raised some good points below in his latest post on that nature of the Al Qaeda threat and the proper response to it. I think the only difference between those of us who are calling for immediate action against Iraq and those who wish to tackle Al Qaeda first (St. Paul, Brent Scowcroft, and Lee Harris) is just a matter of timing.
I've been in favor on taking out Saddam long before 9/11 when I first heard that he could have nukes by 2005. I certainly wish to continue the pursuit and elimination of Al Qaeda forces around the world but I don't think a major US military effort is required for it. To use Special Forces and air power in small regional actions should not limit our ability to take on Iraq at the same time. I too agree that the Saudi house needs to be cleaned out but I question whether that can be done while Saddam is still in power.
After a regime change in Baghdad and access to all that sweet Iraqi crude it would be much easier to turn up the heat on the Saudis or actually throw some heat their way if the need be. Our difference is over which domino we want to knock over first.
I've been in favor on taking out Saddam long before 9/11 when I first heard that he could have nukes by 2005. I certainly wish to continue the pursuit and elimination of Al Qaeda forces around the world but I don't think a major US military effort is required for it. To use Special Forces and air power in small regional actions should not limit our ability to take on Iraq at the same time. I too agree that the Saudi house needs to be cleaned out but I question whether that can be done while Saddam is still in power.
After a regime change in Baghdad and access to all that sweet Iraqi crude it would be much easier to turn up the heat on the Saudis or actually throw some heat their way if the need be. Our difference is over which domino we want to knock over first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)