By Will Saletan of Slate.com, via First Things blog.
Is Sarah Palin the first nominee on a major-party presidential ticket whose daughter got pregnant out of wedlock? Or is she just the first whose daughter didn’t get an abortion?
The reason you’re reading about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is that she’s taking it to term. If she had aborted it, you’d never have known.
…
Remember that before you judge or poke fun at Sarah Palin. She’s not the candidate whose daughter messed up. She’s the candidate who didn’t get rid of the mess.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Fair and Accurate?
The two things that are most bothersome about the local newspapers is that they act as gate-keepers of information that they don't want people to hear, and they develop a narrative of the news that is delivered.
A good example of the latter was the pictures in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Tuesday outside the Republican National Convention. The full-color image on page 1 was from the viewpoint of the protesters of a police officer spraying pepper spray straight at the camera. Pictures on the inside spread were also very favorable to the protesters. Images of the riot police showed them in threatening ways.
There was one solitary image of protesters engaging in an act of violence, even though that was the aim of so many.
When the Pioneer Press goes out of business, I will not shed a tear.
A good example of the latter was the pictures in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Tuesday outside the Republican National Convention. The full-color image on page 1 was from the viewpoint of the protesters of a police officer spraying pepper spray straight at the camera. Pictures on the inside spread were also very favorable to the protesters. Images of the riot police showed them in threatening ways.
There was one solitary image of protesters engaging in an act of violence, even though that was the aim of so many.
When the Pioneer Press goes out of business, I will not shed a tear.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tip Your Cap to the Danes (Again)
In the spirit of Mark Steyn, who has an unerring eye for small news stories of great importance, here is a small item worth noting.
Background on Random House’s decision not to publish is here.
When coupled with the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, I think we can make the case that the Danes have passed the Americans in supporting freedom of the press.
An American novel about the 6-year-old wife of Mohammed, Aisha, may end up being released in Denmark, after publishing company Random House dropped its plans to print the book.
Danish publishers association Trykkeselskabet has given its blessing to Sherry Jones' novel 'The Jewel of Medina' to be released in Denmark. Random House pulled out of its contract to publish the book after fear of reprisals from Muslims, and Jones' agent is looking for buyers.
Background on Random House’s decision not to publish is here.
When coupled with the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, I think we can make the case that the Danes have passed the Americans in supporting freedom of the press.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Called In
Yesterday I was listening to the First Team of the Nothern Radio Alliance (John Hinderocker, Chad Doughty, and Brian Ward), and I decided to call into the show. I was quite nervous, and the point I tried to make was kind of convoluted, but I think I did okay. I listened to the Podcast today and wasn't too embarrassed by what I sounded like. My call is around the 29th minute of the second hour of the August 9th show.
The guys were talking about the how the Democrats will not lift moratoriums on drilling for oil in ANWR, offshore, or recovering shale oil in Colorado. The point I made in my call was that this really exposes the fact the Democrats put a much higher value on environmental issues than they do on issues related to the working or middle class. The book What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank basically says that Republicans have fooled middle class and poor Americans with their "values" issues, and that it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have the best interests of these constituencies at heart. This debate about domestic oil exploration has been shown the Frank thesis to be false, because if it were true, the Democrats would allow the drilling for oil that would lower fuel costs, food costs, and improve the economy.
I have another theory that What's the Matter with Kansas is the equivalent on the left as Mark Steyn's America Alone is on the right. As a conservative, I think Steyn's argument in America Alone best describes the current international geo-politcial reality. I think that What's the Matter with Kansas explains the U.S. geo-political reality to lefties: How can Republicans win elections when most people are not rich? Because the Republicans have fooled the people, or the people are just dumb. Once they realize that they will be better off under Democrats, then the Democrats will win elections. (The book was written before the Democrats did win the House and Senate in 2006.)
But helping middle and working class Americans is demonstratably not a Democrat value. Their top three values are pro-choice, environmentalism, and bringing in European socialism. Helping middle class and working class Americans will always be a lower priority than those three--at least to the elite of the party.
The guys were talking about the how the Democrats will not lift moratoriums on drilling for oil in ANWR, offshore, or recovering shale oil in Colorado. The point I made in my call was that this really exposes the fact the Democrats put a much higher value on environmental issues than they do on issues related to the working or middle class. The book What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank basically says that Republicans have fooled middle class and poor Americans with their "values" issues, and that it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have the best interests of these constituencies at heart. This debate about domestic oil exploration has been shown the Frank thesis to be false, because if it were true, the Democrats would allow the drilling for oil that would lower fuel costs, food costs, and improve the economy.
I have another theory that What's the Matter with Kansas is the equivalent on the left as Mark Steyn's America Alone is on the right. As a conservative, I think Steyn's argument in America Alone best describes the current international geo-politcial reality. I think that What's the Matter with Kansas explains the U.S. geo-political reality to lefties: How can Republicans win elections when most people are not rich? Because the Republicans have fooled the people, or the people are just dumb. Once they realize that they will be better off under Democrats, then the Democrats will win elections. (The book was written before the Democrats did win the House and Senate in 2006.)
But helping middle and working class Americans is demonstratably not a Democrat value. Their top three values are pro-choice, environmentalism, and bringing in European socialism. Helping middle class and working class Americans will always be a lower priority than those three--at least to the elite of the party.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Concisely Said
Every day when I read articles on the Web, I read something that is insightful. Someone directs new light on a subject or writes something I think in a direct and thoughtful way. Today, I read an article on Pajamas Media by Youssef M. Ibrahim. He was saying that much of the Islamic world thinks that an Obama presidency would yield great things including America's departure from Iraq, friendship with the Mullahs, and a defanged Israel. Ibrahim thinks Obama needs to burst these bubbles.
The U.S. bonds with Israel transcend any administration and the ascending Islamism of the past decade has become an existential challenge to Western civilization, of which the U.S. is guarantor. That fight is Obama’s as well as McCain’s and that of all future American leaders.
It is my contention that the Bush Doctrine will be a touchstone for future presidents, whether Republican or Democrat because it is the only hope the free world has against this "existential challenge to Western civilization." And America, as has been the case since WWII, is the guarantor.
The U.S. bonds with Israel transcend any administration and the ascending Islamism of the past decade has become an existential challenge to Western civilization, of which the U.S. is guarantor. That fight is Obama’s as well as McCain’s and that of all future American leaders.
It is my contention that the Bush Doctrine will be a touchstone for future presidents, whether Republican or Democrat because it is the only hope the free world has against this "existential challenge to Western civilization." And America, as has been the case since WWII, is the guarantor.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Land of Bush
I just finished reading Land of Lincoln by Andrew Ferguson. By visiting Lincoln sites, museums, and historical places, as well as meeting with Lincoln buffs, scholars, and even Lincoln haters, Ferguson attempts to understand who Lincoln was, and why people are so passionate about him today.
The more Ferguson looks at Lincoln, the more remote he seems. But in the final chapter he muses on the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in 1922. Three people spoke at the dedication: former president Taft, president Harding, and finally, Robert Moton, president of the Tuskegee Institute and the son of slaves.
Moton's insight was that the Founders "started on these shores the great experiment of the ages—an experiment in human relations, where men and women of every nation, of every race and creed, are thrown together." It was inevitable that the forces of freedom and the forces of bondage would meet in open conflict. By Lincoln's time, the question was were the principles of freedom of universal application.
Moton further made the point that many people think Lincoln's greatness was in preserving the Union. But that is not necessarily a great claim. The greatness was that he saved a particular kind of Union—a Union based on an idea.
While reading the quote from Moton, I couldn't help thinking of Bush and the Bush Doctrine. Here is Ferguson's quote of Moton from 1922:
"When the last veteran has stacked his arms, when only the memory of high courage and deep devotion remains, at such a time the united voice of grateful posterity will say: The claim of greatness for Abraham Lincoln lies in this, that amid doubt and distrust, against the counsel of chosen advisers, in the hour of the Nation's utter peril, he put his trust in God and spoke the word that gave freedom and to a race and vindicated the honor of a Nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
When I argue with people who think Bush is the worst president of all time and an immoral war criminal for the War in Iraq, I think about the difference between what President Bush thinks of the people of the Middle East and what the naysayers think of the people of the Middle East. President Bush's proposition is similar to that of President Lincoln: Freedom beats in the heart of every man and woman on earth, and if given the choice, they will choose freedom over bondage. The naysayers argument is basically that those people are always going to be most comfortable in a totalitarian system, and who are we anyway to say what their definition of freedom is.
Lincoln was close to being the president that presided over the dissolution of the Union, and then he would have been the "worst" president of all time. But history did not happen that way.
If the Bush Doctrine fails in the Middle East, I fear that it will be many generations before the people of the Middle East taste the fruits of freedom.
The more Ferguson looks at Lincoln, the more remote he seems. But in the final chapter he muses on the dedication of the Lincoln Memorial in 1922. Three people spoke at the dedication: former president Taft, president Harding, and finally, Robert Moton, president of the Tuskegee Institute and the son of slaves.
Moton's insight was that the Founders "started on these shores the great experiment of the ages—an experiment in human relations, where men and women of every nation, of every race and creed, are thrown together." It was inevitable that the forces of freedom and the forces of bondage would meet in open conflict. By Lincoln's time, the question was were the principles of freedom of universal application.
Moton further made the point that many people think Lincoln's greatness was in preserving the Union. But that is not necessarily a great claim. The greatness was that he saved a particular kind of Union—a Union based on an idea.
While reading the quote from Moton, I couldn't help thinking of Bush and the Bush Doctrine. Here is Ferguson's quote of Moton from 1922:
"When the last veteran has stacked his arms, when only the memory of high courage and deep devotion remains, at such a time the united voice of grateful posterity will say: The claim of greatness for Abraham Lincoln lies in this, that amid doubt and distrust, against the counsel of chosen advisers, in the hour of the Nation's utter peril, he put his trust in God and spoke the word that gave freedom and to a race and vindicated the honor of a Nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
When I argue with people who think Bush is the worst president of all time and an immoral war criminal for the War in Iraq, I think about the difference between what President Bush thinks of the people of the Middle East and what the naysayers think of the people of the Middle East. President Bush's proposition is similar to that of President Lincoln: Freedom beats in the heart of every man and woman on earth, and if given the choice, they will choose freedom over bondage. The naysayers argument is basically that those people are always going to be most comfortable in a totalitarian system, and who are we anyway to say what their definition of freedom is.
Lincoln was close to being the president that presided over the dissolution of the Union, and then he would have been the "worst" president of all time. But history did not happen that way.
If the Bush Doctrine fails in the Middle East, I fear that it will be many generations before the people of the Middle East taste the fruits of freedom.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Deconstructing the Left
There are plenty of conservative commentators and columnists, but I've noticed that Mark Steyn elicits a tremendous amount of wrath from the people on the left side of the political spectrum. I have a couple of theories why this is the case.
1. The biggest thing he does is he "deconstructs" the narrative of the liberal left like very few others. The myths and narratives that the left has constructed over the past decades--especially regarding the sacred ground of multi-culturalism and tolerance--are holy. They do not like to be questioned on things where they have determined the way the world should work. Steyn is so good at seeing the places in the narrative that are weak. Deconstruction is a term that leftists like to employ when reading texts like the Bible, but it can work both ways, and Steyn does it well.
2. He talks about the big issues: Can our culture survive? What is the nature of freedom at the beginning of the 21st century? Is the narrative being spun by the mainstream media trustworthy? Policy issues come and go and get a lot of ink, but time after time, Steyn writes about the very core of who we are.
3. He is funny. The left is mostly humorless, and they hate to be laughed at. Steyn points out the absurdities that are on the left and does it with wit.
1. The biggest thing he does is he "deconstructs" the narrative of the liberal left like very few others. The myths and narratives that the left has constructed over the past decades--especially regarding the sacred ground of multi-culturalism and tolerance--are holy. They do not like to be questioned on things where they have determined the way the world should work. Steyn is so good at seeing the places in the narrative that are weak. Deconstruction is a term that leftists like to employ when reading texts like the Bible, but it can work both ways, and Steyn does it well.
2. He talks about the big issues: Can our culture survive? What is the nature of freedom at the beginning of the 21st century? Is the narrative being spun by the mainstream media trustworthy? Policy issues come and go and get a lot of ink, but time after time, Steyn writes about the very core of who we are.
3. He is funny. The left is mostly humorless, and they hate to be laughed at. Steyn points out the absurdities that are on the left and does it with wit.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Denny Hamlin and Jamie McMurray Revolutionize Restrictor-Plate Racing
While watching the race yesterday at Talladega, it looked like what had become a typical kind of race--it starts off interesting with a big group of cars, then the leaders eventually line up and drive around single file for most of the race. Under this way of racing, things get interesting during restarts and at the end of the race, but most of the race is fairly calm--just clicking off laps. I prepared myself for a fairly uninteresting middle part of the race.
Then on lap 33, something amazing happened: Jamie McMurray and Denny Hamlin moved out of line and basically touching nose to tail raced to the front of the pack. At first it seemed that they must have just had a good run, but when Denny Hamlin did the same thing with another driver (I think it was Montoya), I realized that something new and wonderful was happening to restrictor plate racing and it was this: two cars running nose-to-tail (touching each other the whole time?) could actually drive about 10 m.p.h. faster than the field running in a normal drafting line. I'm guessing that when the second car tucks that closely to the first car, the two create kind of a "super car" that moves through the air better than a line of cars that are not touching.
The tv announcers reported that Dale Earnhardt commented, "That was rude." I think it was more than "rude," it was a move that will change restrictor plate racing as long as they run this car.
The question, then, is why not just run that way lap after lap after lap. If two cars could hook up that way for 25 laps in a row, they might be able to lap the field. My guess is that it is not easy to do it for an extended period of time, and also, the second car in line isn't getting air, so it would have trouble with overheating.
It was interesting to watch the television broadcast, because the announcers didn't catch on too quickly to what we were all watching: a revolution in the way restrictor plate racing will happen in the future. D.W. eventually noticed and kind of expressed amazement, but Mike Joy never really got it.
It will be interesting to see if Daytona allows for this kind of racing, or if this will be unique to Talladega.
I hope NASCAR doesn't change the restrictor-plate set-ups too much, because this element adds a lot of fun to the race.
Then on lap 33, something amazing happened: Jamie McMurray and Denny Hamlin moved out of line and basically touching nose to tail raced to the front of the pack. At first it seemed that they must have just had a good run, but when Denny Hamlin did the same thing with another driver (I think it was Montoya), I realized that something new and wonderful was happening to restrictor plate racing and it was this: two cars running nose-to-tail (touching each other the whole time?) could actually drive about 10 m.p.h. faster than the field running in a normal drafting line. I'm guessing that when the second car tucks that closely to the first car, the two create kind of a "super car" that moves through the air better than a line of cars that are not touching.
The tv announcers reported that Dale Earnhardt commented, "That was rude." I think it was more than "rude," it was a move that will change restrictor plate racing as long as they run this car.
The question, then, is why not just run that way lap after lap after lap. If two cars could hook up that way for 25 laps in a row, they might be able to lap the field. My guess is that it is not easy to do it for an extended period of time, and also, the second car in line isn't getting air, so it would have trouble with overheating.
It was interesting to watch the television broadcast, because the announcers didn't catch on too quickly to what we were all watching: a revolution in the way restrictor plate racing will happen in the future. D.W. eventually noticed and kind of expressed amazement, but Mike Joy never really got it.
It will be interesting to see if Daytona allows for this kind of racing, or if this will be unique to Talladega.
I hope NASCAR doesn't change the restrictor-plate set-ups too much, because this element adds a lot of fun to the race.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
To Be Free or Not to Be Free, That Is the Question
I read once that the politial ideas spectrum was not left on one side and right on the other, but that the spectrum was essentially freedom on one side and the lack of freedom on the other side. Mark Steyn basically makes this point at the end of his Macleans column about the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.
Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Fuhrer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?
I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.
It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.
It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.
I am continually amazed by Mark Steyn's ability to cut through the fog of the various narratives of the leftest mindset and clearly state a coherent rationale for classic liberalism.
Well, look, the defenders of the present "human rights" regime started this whole free-speech-leads-to-the-Holocaust line. I'm not saying that Canada's thought-crime enforcers are planning to murder millions of people, only that (as Jennifer Lynch might put it) history has shown us that extraordinary government powers in the name of "reasonable limits" often lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. Whether or not I'm the new Fuhrer and Maclean's is Mein Kampf, Commissars Lynch and Hall are either intentionally inverting the historical record or, to be charitable, simply ignorant. But, if it's the latter, why should they have extraordinary powers to regulate public discourse?
I don't have as low an opinion of Canadians as Barbara Hall and Jennifer Lynch do. I don't believe your liberty is the conditional discretionary gift of hack bureaucrats advised by Marxist theorists. You defeat bad ideas — whether Nazism, Marxism, jihadism, Steynism or Trudeaupian pseudo-"human rights" mumbo-jumbo — in the bracing air and light of day, in vigorous open debate, not in the fetid corridors of power policed by ahistorical nitwits.
It's not a left/right thing. It's not a gay/straight thing. It's not a Jew/Muslim thing. It's not a hateful Steyn/nice fluffy caring compassionate Canadian thing.
It's a free/unfree thing. And the commissars are on the wrong side.
I am continually amazed by Mark Steyn's ability to cut through the fog of the various narratives of the leftest mindset and clearly state a coherent rationale for classic liberalism.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
Democrats have always counted on blue-collar Americans voting for them in elections. Since the Reagan Revolution, Democrats are disappointed to see so many in the middle class vote Republican. Thomas Frank wrote What's the Matter with Kansas? a couple of years ago to address this. His major thesis is that Republicans have fooled blue collar workers to vote on values instead of economic issues. If you are middle class or lower class, then you should vote Democrat, because that is the party that has your interests at heart.
I have a few problems with this thesis. First, does that also imply that anyone who is rich must vote Republican because that has your interests at heart? So many of the super-rich in this country are Democrats, why are they not voting Republican? Maybe it's because they have values that are more important to them than their tax rate. This leads to my second problem with Frank's thesis, which is a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. His very thesis is elitist: left-leaning voters can vote their values, regardless of income. But working-class voters have to vote his preferred way or they are sheep. Finally, I would say that values are what makes a person. If my tax-rate is 20% or 25% or 40% is less important than the values issues that are core to me: pro-life, traditional marriage, engaged foreign policy.
Living in the very liberal state of Minnesota, I also get a chance to see that when Democrats are in power, they make a lot of decisions that hurt working-class people. Here's a few that come to mind.
1. The Minnesota legislature recently passed a 5 cents a gallon tax increase. Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it, but that was overridden. Now, how in the world does 5 cents a gallon tax increase help Minnesota's lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
2. Immigration. Democrats are basically in favor of amnesty and lax enforcement of the borders. How does having millions of people willing to do cheap labor help the American blue collar man and woman? It doesn't. But the one-worlders like it.
3. Ban on incandescent light bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs are more expensive. How does having to buy expensive light bulbs help lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
4. Drilling for oil. There are vast oil reserves in Alaska and (seemingly) North Dakota. Having America produce more oil would help reduce the cost of heating homes, operating cars, and the transportation of goods. How does not allowing American oil companies to drill in ANWR and North Dakota help America's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists don't want oil drilled in these places.
5. Light rail. Democrats in Minnesota are in love with mass transportation. They love light rail especially. The only problem is that light rail is very expensive to build, it serves a miniscule population, and it operates at a significant financial loss. How does spending billions of dollars on light rail help Minnesota's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
6. Pork barrel spending. Both parties engage in pork barrel spending, that I will not deny. But ideologically radical leftists like spending more and more money on anything because it contributes to the redistribution of wealth, which is an unqualified good in their eyes. But how does pork barrel spending help middle and lower class Americans? It doesn't. But socialists like it because it redistributes money.
I have a few problems with this thesis. First, does that also imply that anyone who is rich must vote Republican because that has your interests at heart? So many of the super-rich in this country are Democrats, why are they not voting Republican? Maybe it's because they have values that are more important to them than their tax rate. This leads to my second problem with Frank's thesis, which is a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. His very thesis is elitist: left-leaning voters can vote their values, regardless of income. But working-class voters have to vote his preferred way or they are sheep. Finally, I would say that values are what makes a person. If my tax-rate is 20% or 25% or 40% is less important than the values issues that are core to me: pro-life, traditional marriage, engaged foreign policy.
Living in the very liberal state of Minnesota, I also get a chance to see that when Democrats are in power, they make a lot of decisions that hurt working-class people. Here's a few that come to mind.
1. The Minnesota legislature recently passed a 5 cents a gallon tax increase. Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it, but that was overridden. Now, how in the world does 5 cents a gallon tax increase help Minnesota's lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
2. Immigration. Democrats are basically in favor of amnesty and lax enforcement of the borders. How does having millions of people willing to do cheap labor help the American blue collar man and woman? It doesn't. But the one-worlders like it.
3. Ban on incandescent light bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs are more expensive. How does having to buy expensive light bulbs help lower income people? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
4. Drilling for oil. There are vast oil reserves in Alaska and (seemingly) North Dakota. Having America produce more oil would help reduce the cost of heating homes, operating cars, and the transportation of goods. How does not allowing American oil companies to drill in ANWR and North Dakota help America's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists don't want oil drilled in these places.
5. Light rail. Democrats in Minnesota are in love with mass transportation. They love light rail especially. The only problem is that light rail is very expensive to build, it serves a miniscule population, and it operates at a significant financial loss. How does spending billions of dollars on light rail help Minnesota's poor? It doesn't. But the environmentalists like it.
6. Pork barrel spending. Both parties engage in pork barrel spending, that I will not deny. But ideologically radical leftists like spending more and more money on anything because it contributes to the redistribution of wealth, which is an unqualified good in their eyes. But how does pork barrel spending help middle and lower class Americans? It doesn't. But socialists like it because it redistributes money.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Honest Voting
There has been a lot of talk about whether the cross-over vote (Republicans voting in the Democratic primary) helped Hillary win Texas over Obama. I am of the idea that cross-over voting isn't a good idea and shouldn't be encouraged by public pundits for the following reasons:
1. It's not honest.
2. It's something that Democrats do, and Conservatives should try not to imitate bad ideas by the Democrats.
3. Conservatives would be upset if we ended up with a candidate that was pushed over the top by cross-over Democrats. (Hey. . . )
4. The law of unintended consequences. Conservatives did this because they thought it might help John McCain by having Hillary and Obama spend more money before the general election. But who knows if this will be a helpful or not.
5. This adds to conspiracies on the left that the Republican machine messes around with elections.
6. This confirms bad stereotypes of Republicans with independent voters.
7. The media will figure out a way to spin this that will hurt Conservatives.
8. From an idealistic viewpoint, each party and their members should be free to put forth their best candidate. If you believe in the American system of government, you must believe that messing around in other people's organizations is not right.
9. Thanks to her primary victory in Texas, Hillary might be the 44th president of the U.S.
1. It's not honest.
2. It's something that Democrats do, and Conservatives should try not to imitate bad ideas by the Democrats.
3. Conservatives would be upset if we ended up with a candidate that was pushed over the top by cross-over Democrats. (Hey. . . )
4. The law of unintended consequences. Conservatives did this because they thought it might help John McCain by having Hillary and Obama spend more money before the general election. But who knows if this will be a helpful or not.
5. This adds to conspiracies on the left that the Republican machine messes around with elections.
6. This confirms bad stereotypes of Republicans with independent voters.
7. The media will figure out a way to spin this that will hurt Conservatives.
8. From an idealistic viewpoint, each party and their members should be free to put forth their best candidate. If you believe in the American system of government, you must believe that messing around in other people's organizations is not right.
9. Thanks to her primary victory in Texas, Hillary might be the 44th president of the U.S.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
This Is Our Country (Not Yours!)
Once upon a time, Chevy's theme song was "Like a Rock" by Bob Seger. For several years, while watching any sporting event, we had to listen to Seger sing one of his lamer songs to Chevy trucks spinning their wheels in slow motion over rocky terrain.
A couple of years ago, Chevy started playing "This Is Our Country" by John Mellencamp. The visuals in the commercial--lots of '60's protest kind of stuff--and the lyrics to the song initially hit me as kind of odd. Here are the lyrics of the song (those included in the commercial are bolded):
Well I can stand beside
Ideals I think are right
And I can stand beside
The idea to stand and fight
I do believe
There's a dream for everyone
This is our country
There's room enough here
For science to live
And there's room enough here
For religion to forgive
And try to understand
All the people of this land
This is our country
From the east coast
To the west coast
Down the Dixie Highway
Back home
This is our country
That poverty could be
Just another ugly thing
And bigotry would be
Seen only as obscene
And the ones that run this land
Help the poor and common man
This is our country
The dream is still alive
Some day it will come true
And this country it belongs
To folks like me and you
So let the voice of freedom
Sing out through this land
This is our country
From the east coast
To the west coast
Down the Dixie Highway
Back home
This is our country
When taken as a whole, it seemed to me to be rather obviously politically left of center. "The dream is still alive" seems to allude to Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but "this country it belongs to folks like me and you" strikes me as collectivist.
I assumed at the time that GM was making a pitch to a particular demographic, but this advertising campaign has gone on so long, that I think this is just their general pitch to American truck buyers.
Recently, John McCain had been using this song in his playlist at events. When Mellencamp found out, he sent a letter to McCain's campaign asking him to stop. Mellencamp's publicist elaborated for Fox News:
The letter explained Mellencamp was a liberal who had supported Democrat John Edwards, who recently dropped out of the race.
Publicist Bob Merlis said Mellencamp told him that the situation made him uncomfortable and he couldn’t imagine McCain would want to be associated with him.
“You know, here’s a guy running around saying, ‘I’m a true conservative.”‘ Merlis told The Associated Press. “Well, if you’re such a true conservative, why are you playing songs that have a very populist pro-labor message written by a guy who would find no argument if you characterized him as left of center?”
I like a couple of Mellencamp's songs quite a bit ("Cherry Bomb" and "Key West Intermezzo" being his best), but I think for him to get huffy that McCain is using his song at events should give GM pause about the person they are paying to sell their trucks. Are McCain and the people who support him not part of "our country"? Are they not "folks like me and you"? Seemingly, not to John Mellencamp.
A couple of years ago, Chevy started playing "This Is Our Country" by John Mellencamp. The visuals in the commercial--lots of '60's protest kind of stuff--and the lyrics to the song initially hit me as kind of odd. Here are the lyrics of the song (those included in the commercial are bolded):
Well I can stand beside
Ideals I think are right
And I can stand beside
The idea to stand and fight
I do believe
There's a dream for everyone
This is our country
There's room enough here
For science to live
And there's room enough here
For religion to forgive
And try to understand
All the people of this land
This is our country
From the east coast
To the west coast
Down the Dixie Highway
Back home
This is our country
That poverty could be
Just another ugly thing
And bigotry would be
Seen only as obscene
And the ones that run this land
Help the poor and common man
This is our country
The dream is still alive
Some day it will come true
And this country it belongs
To folks like me and you
So let the voice of freedom
Sing out through this land
This is our country
From the east coast
To the west coast
Down the Dixie Highway
Back home
This is our country
When taken as a whole, it seemed to me to be rather obviously politically left of center. "The dream is still alive" seems to allude to Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but "this country it belongs to folks like me and you" strikes me as collectivist.
I assumed at the time that GM was making a pitch to a particular demographic, but this advertising campaign has gone on so long, that I think this is just their general pitch to American truck buyers.
Recently, John McCain had been using this song in his playlist at events. When Mellencamp found out, he sent a letter to McCain's campaign asking him to stop. Mellencamp's publicist elaborated for Fox News:
The letter explained Mellencamp was a liberal who had supported Democrat John Edwards, who recently dropped out of the race.
Publicist Bob Merlis said Mellencamp told him that the situation made him uncomfortable and he couldn’t imagine McCain would want to be associated with him.
“You know, here’s a guy running around saying, ‘I’m a true conservative.”‘ Merlis told The Associated Press. “Well, if you’re such a true conservative, why are you playing songs that have a very populist pro-labor message written by a guy who would find no argument if you characterized him as left of center?”
I like a couple of Mellencamp's songs quite a bit ("Cherry Bomb" and "Key West Intermezzo" being his best), but I think for him to get huffy that McCain is using his song at events should give GM pause about the person they are paying to sell their trucks. Are McCain and the people who support him not part of "our country"? Are they not "folks like me and you"? Seemingly, not to John Mellencamp.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Happiness
There have been books written recently that note that conservatives are happier than liberals and that religious people are happier than non-religious people. I think the main reason is that belief in something bigger and more important than yourself allows a person to understand the big picture--not to focus so much on the present, whether it is good or bad.
I recently received a letter from Touchstone magazine that included the following quote from a book called "The Monastic Way: Ancient Wisdom for Contemporary Living" by Jean Leclercq. The sentiment in these lines struck me as just about right.
"We must love the age we live in. It should be evident that from the point of view of faith the best age for each of us is the one in which God has placed us, the one he has given us and we must give back to him, the one in which we can give ourselves to him. It's a great thing to be alive! A great grace simply to exist! God has chosen our age for us: this age that we receive from him and that is ours is the only age we have at our disposal. We have no right to prefer another one. . . . If we compare our age with those of the past, so far as we know them, ours is not the worst of them all, or even worse than many of them; it is better than many, and perhaps better than all of them."
I recently received a letter from Touchstone magazine that included the following quote from a book called "The Monastic Way: Ancient Wisdom for Contemporary Living" by Jean Leclercq. The sentiment in these lines struck me as just about right.
"We must love the age we live in. It should be evident that from the point of view of faith the best age for each of us is the one in which God has placed us, the one he has given us and we must give back to him, the one in which we can give ourselves to him. It's a great thing to be alive! A great grace simply to exist! God has chosen our age for us: this age that we receive from him and that is ours is the only age we have at our disposal. We have no right to prefer another one. . . . If we compare our age with those of the past, so far as we know them, ours is not the worst of them all, or even worse than many of them; it is better than many, and perhaps better than all of them."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Common Sense about the Environment
Nowadays, everyone has to be "green". The debate on global warming is considered settled, we have to all worry about our imprint on the globe, and we need to have no more than two children. To disagree with the environmental narrative is to be thought of as an imbecile or worse.
I would like to see the beginnings of a common sense response to environmental issues: don't waste, pick up after yourself, recycle, and reuse.
I would like to see the beginnings of a common sense response to environmental issues: don't waste, pick up after yourself, recycle, and reuse.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Mpls Public Library
I work only a block from the new downtown public library, and I do use it once in awhile. But I have to admit to disliking the design of the building. It is very glassy with a tremendous "wing" on top of it that doesn't seem to have any purpose.
Today, they had to block off an area under the corner of the big wing because water and snow was dripping onto the ground where people walk to the front door. In fact, the handicapped entrance on the near side of the building was closed. So a large, useless design element is causing unforseen problems for the library. No surprise.
Today, they had to block off an area under the corner of the big wing because water and snow was dripping onto the ground where people walk to the front door. In fact, the handicapped entrance on the near side of the building was closed. So a large, useless design element is causing unforseen problems for the library. No surprise.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Average temperatures vs. Normal temperatures
Today in the Twin Cities, we have a high temperature of somewhere around 0° F—it's obviously very cold. The average high temperature for today's date is 30° F. This caused me to think of something that has bothered me for awhile. So often when I see a television weather report or read a weather forecast in the newspaper, I'll see the average high or low temperature described as the "normal" high or low temperature for that date. I think that using the word "normal" to describe the average temperature is odd, and probably not very accurate.
I did an online search and came across a 10-year old article by Chuck Doswell of the National Severe Storms Labratory in Norman, Oklahoma. Here is some of what he says:
I give thought to this question when we have a warm spell and a co-worker describes it as "creepy". What's creepy about a warmer than average day? For every degree the temperature varies from the "normal" high or low, some people see it as de facto global warming. If there wasn't a political price to pay for this, it would be humorous. The fact that the global warming believers can't enjoy a mild winter day is almost funny. If it's not cold, then it's "creepy".
Today the temperature is not within 30° of the average high for the day. I would guess that this is as normal as a temperature reading of 10° or 20° or 40° would be for any particular February 20. In fact, you might be able to make the case that it is more normal to be 5°–10° warmer or cooler than the average high or low temperature. In Minnesota, if we get weather from the north, it is going to be cold—probably colder than average. If we get our weather system from the west or south, it will probably be mild at this time of year.
So much of this seems like common sense that you almost have to believe that people try to delude themselves about the weather.
I did an online search and came across a 10-year old article by Chuck Doswell of the National Severe Storms Labratory in Norman, Oklahoma. Here is some of what he says:
Most folks view the world through egocentric eyes; they act as if their own personal experience is representative of the entire planet's experience for all time. . . . Whenever the weather exceeds someone's range of experience (and folks tend to have short memories, so their perception of their experience is often limited to the last few years), then it is loudly proclaimed as something "abnormal" or unusual, often tinged with dire forebodings about the future.
Of course, when you read and hear about the weather from the media, you often are told what is "normal" for that day—the normal high temperature, the normal low temperature, and perhaps the normal amount of precipitation for the year up to that date. Thus, you are given "information" that represents what is "normal" on any particular date for your town. Have you ever thought about what those numbers mean?
I give thought to this question when we have a warm spell and a co-worker describes it as "creepy". What's creepy about a warmer than average day? For every degree the temperature varies from the "normal" high or low, some people see it as de facto global warming. If there wasn't a political price to pay for this, it would be humorous. The fact that the global warming believers can't enjoy a mild winter day is almost funny. If it's not cold, then it's "creepy".
Today the temperature is not within 30° of the average high for the day. I would guess that this is as normal as a temperature reading of 10° or 20° or 40° would be for any particular February 20. In fact, you might be able to make the case that it is more normal to be 5°–10° warmer or cooler than the average high or low temperature. In Minnesota, if we get weather from the north, it is going to be cold—probably colder than average. If we get our weather system from the west or south, it will probably be mild at this time of year.
So much of this seems like common sense that you almost have to believe that people try to delude themselves about the weather.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
6 things to keep in mind about Levant, Steyn, and the Canadian HRCs
1. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are under investigation by the Canadian government because of commentary and images they published in Canadian magazines.
2. Levant and Steyn did not initiate these confrontations with the Canadian HRCs.
3. Neither Levant nor Steyn considers dismissal of the complaint to be a victory.
4. The 12 Danish cartoons are on Wikipedia for anyone with internet to see.
5. Regarding the Levant videos, some people feel like Ezra Levant is bullying a woman just doing her job. But when she asks Levant, "What was your intent and purpose of publishing the article and cartoons?" she is the government, working in an immoral capacity. She is the bully. That the government of Canada asks that question of a magazine publisher is an outrage.
6. In a very insightful point that Mark Steyn made, the willingness of the liberals to coddle the radical Muslims hurts the average Muslim more than anyone else. They excuse actions and arguments that should be met with united condemnation. So it is the regular Muslim, looking to fit into his society who bears the weight of constantly justifying himself to his fellow citizens.
2. Levant and Steyn did not initiate these confrontations with the Canadian HRCs.
3. Neither Levant nor Steyn considers dismissal of the complaint to be a victory.
4. The 12 Danish cartoons are on Wikipedia for anyone with internet to see.
5. Regarding the Levant videos, some people feel like Ezra Levant is bullying a woman just doing her job. But when she asks Levant, "What was your intent and purpose of publishing the article and cartoons?" she is the government, working in an immoral capacity. She is the bully. That the government of Canada asks that question of a magazine publisher is an outrage.
6. In a very insightful point that Mark Steyn made, the willingness of the liberals to coddle the radical Muslims hurts the average Muslim more than anyone else. They excuse actions and arguments that should be met with united condemnation. So it is the regular Muslim, looking to fit into his society who bears the weight of constantly justifying himself to his fellow citizens.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Celebrating a touchdown
Watching the Giants-Cowboys game Sunday night, I was interested to see Brandon Jacobs throw the ball against the play clock after scoring a touchdown. Through the years, this has been one way of celebrating a touchdown—throwing the ball hard against the base of the stands. I think it all started during a Bears-Vikings game in 1992. The Bears were winning 20-0 in the 2nd half. The game was in Minnesota, and Bears QB Jim Harbaugh threw an interception that Todd Scott returned for a touchdown. There was a sign attached to the wall behind the endzone that said "Iron Mike" or something like that related to Mike Ditka, and Scott threw the ball at that sign. The Vikings ended up winning that game 21-20, and ever since, throwing the ball against the wall behind the endzone has been something that players do once in awhile.
The genesis for some of these celebrations are lost in the cloud of the past, but another football first I can remember seeing was Leroy Butler doing the first "Lambeau Leap" after scoring against the Raiders in 1993.
In racing, Alex Zanardi may have been the first to do donuts in the open wheel series, but the first time I saw a stock car winner do donuts after a victory was when Buckshot Jones won a Busch race at the Milwaukee Mile in 1998 or somewhere in that time frame. Before then, they would just drive to victory lane. Now it is customary for the winner to do some sort of celebratory spinout or burnout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)