When I leave the land of Tech, riddled with male engineers, I shall head for the land of women.
Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction -- the world's first "women's town," where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.
The motto of the new town would be "women never make mistakes, and men can never refuse women's requests," Chinese media have reported.
I should eventually admit, what is readily obvious, that I don't really have any idea about how women work, or how men ought to relate to them; but it seems to me that most of the rest of the world is similarly clueless. Thus, in all likelihood I will continue to speculate irresponsibly.
This probably deserves a lengthy and thought-provoking response. For the reality is that men can never really refuse the requests of women, so long as they are actual requests. I don't deny that women do occasionally find that men will not bow to their whims, but this is usually either because women are not requesting but demanding or, if they are demanding, they are not adamant enough in their nagging.
Thus, in one respect, there is nothing new about this town in China. On the other hand, by admitting a common truth, the validity of that truth is somehow diminished. By claiming as a surprise that which is readily obvious brings that very claim into doubt. It is as if men founded a town where women could never over-power men physically. We would probably feel that any man who needed a town to tell him as much wasn't a very strong man, that he hadn't the foggiest idea of what a man was.
So too with these women. I can't help but feel that these women are the type I would never wish to talk to, much less live with. As a man, I can and must give in to the various requests of women, but I must be allowed to pretend that I have some freedom about it. Human beings do not behave well under compulsion, and this is especially true concerning men. It may be true that the world would be a better place if men would simply take out the trash without having the need of a request from a woman, but for my part, I cannot seem to remember when to feed myself, much less can I remember when to take out the trash. And, if given a choice, I would rather be free to beckon to beauty's request than be compelled to do something that is, I would argue, strongly opposed to my nature.
Now getting a beer from the fridge on the other hand...
Thursday, April 26, 2007
9/11, the Pending Sequel
Rudolph the twice-divorced Giuliani demonstrates what modern day conservatism is all about:
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
If he is so good at anticipating what a terrorist might do, one wonders why his city was hit. If you come from the camp of those who believe that the government has the capacity to prevent all terrorist attacks--which I don't--it's worth asking why we should believe that he's going to be able to do as president that which he couldn't do as mayor.
Two points. First, the terrorists do not hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a damn about our freedoms anymore than most of us care for them. On the other hand, they're not fond of us meddling in their business. We could try to pull out of the Middle East and see if they stop hating us but we sort of blew that chance some years ago.
Has it ever occurred to Rudi and the numb-nuts who support him that our "freedom for women" might not be a good thing when this freedom only means the ability to murder children? Muslims, unlike many of their Christian brethren, tend to be pro-life. And I know they're not big on freedom of religion, not because of hate per se, but simply because they take claims to universal truth rather seriously, and are wont to defend them, if need be with the sword, as Christians once did themselves.
I am by no means an expert on Islam. In fact, I know very little about it. But I know enough about it to know that I am by no means sure that "we... are in conflict with... [a] perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion". Islam has always been militant, as I have mentioned previously. It's entirely possible that what we are confronting in the Middle East is an authentic version of Islam. I am not saying it must be, only that it might. It's worth considering. If the Democrats don't understand the enemy, it's safe to say that neither do the Republicans.
The crowd thundered its approval.
Alas, not for me. The huddled masses no longer yearn to breathe free. But Rudi will make them feel safe. And that is all that matters.
“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.
If he is so good at anticipating what a terrorist might do, one wonders why his city was hit. If you come from the camp of those who believe that the government has the capacity to prevent all terrorist attacks--which I don't--it's worth asking why we should believe that he's going to be able to do as president that which he couldn't do as mayor.
The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.
Two points here. First, if we're going to defeat terrorism no matter who gains the White House, then we should feel free to choose candidates based on other issues. Which is a bit weird, given that the only reason that the GOP gives for voting for them is that they're tougher on terror. Second, since terrorism has been with us since the dawn of time, it's idiotic to pretend that we will ever defeat it. Conservatives are supposed to understand that human nature cannot be improved upon. Man, though influenced by his environment, is flawed from within. In short, get used to terrorism. It's nothing new and it's not going away. Ever.“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”
Goodness I hope so. I still don't understand why invading a foreign country which neither attacked us nor was a threat to attack us, why keeping tabs on the people, why torturing enemy combatants were conservative in nature. This isn't Ike or Goldwater's party. It's not even Reagan's party.He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”
And the Republicans do? Listen to some of the remarks Rudi makes in the same article:Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”
Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”
Memo to Rudi: drop the idiotic rhetoric. Please. Eight years of dumbed down platitudes from Bush was eight years too many. I seriously can't take it. So stop. Please.Two points. First, the terrorists do not hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a damn about our freedoms anymore than most of us care for them. On the other hand, they're not fond of us meddling in their business. We could try to pull out of the Middle East and see if they stop hating us but we sort of blew that chance some years ago.
Has it ever occurred to Rudi and the numb-nuts who support him that our "freedom for women" might not be a good thing when this freedom only means the ability to murder children? Muslims, unlike many of their Christian brethren, tend to be pro-life. And I know they're not big on freedom of religion, not because of hate per se, but simply because they take claims to universal truth rather seriously, and are wont to defend them, if need be with the sword, as Christians once did themselves.
I am by no means an expert on Islam. In fact, I know very little about it. But I know enough about it to know that I am by no means sure that "we... are in conflict with... [a] perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion". Islam has always been militant, as I have mentioned previously. It's entirely possible that what we are confronting in the Middle East is an authentic version of Islam. I am not saying it must be, only that it might. It's worth considering. If the Democrats don't understand the enemy, it's safe to say that neither do the Republicans.
The crowd thundered its approval.
Alas, not for me. The huddled masses no longer yearn to breathe free. But Rudi will make them feel safe. And that is all that matters.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
No Column This Week
...or the next several months for that matter. My columns will appear again next fall. We have but one more week of class until I head back to good old St. Paul for two weeks before starting an internship in Steven's Point, Wisconsin. I hope to resume regularly scheduled blogging soon.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
A "Victory" For Pro-Lifers
I hate journalism in this country:
The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.
First, the majority is dubiously conservative at best. Alito and Roberts haven't made enough rulings to be considered conservative as yet.
Second, this wasn't a major victory. This is a tiny, and dare I say, insignificant battle in a war that has brought conservatives nothing buy defeat. This could turn out to be our Battle of Alamein, or it could simply be a bone which the GOP can throw at the base come election time to get them to once again support someone who doesn't really care about ending abortion. I'd put my money on the latter.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
Seeing how there is no constitutional right to abortion I can't see how it could.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.
I don't want to rain on the only parade the Pro-Life movement has had in the last thirty years, but saving two thousand lives, while certainly laudatory, hardly helps the more than one million fetuses who caught mother's ire and ended in death. It should also be noted that not a few women prolonged the decision to have an abortion because they could. My guess is that we'll see a very slight decrease in the amount of abortions performed in this country. If this latest ruling serves to eventually overturn one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history my hesitancy to rejoice will have been unnecessary. But until that day, there is still quite a bit of work to do.
UPDATE:
Drudge links to the reactions of the pretenders to the throne.
Let's start with the Democrats and her highness Hillary:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
Everybody's favorite Negro:
"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
Lastly, $400 haircut, man of the people, John Edwards:
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."
When you keep in mind that this decision bans only a specific form of abortion, a form so gruesome PETA would riot if it was applied to baby kittens, and you can understand why the Democrats have been wandering in a political wilderness for so long. Obama says he is a uniter or some such twaddle, but that doesn't stop him from taking an extreme position on this one. If you're terribly upset that the court allows Congress to decide if certain types of infanticide can be made illegal you need to take a look at your position. Next time you hear someone talking about how pro-lifers won't compromise on abortion, think back to the words of the three Democratic clowns.
Now on to the Republican stooges, starting with Rudy Giuliani:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”
Brave words from New York's former mayor. John McCain speaks in the same article:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) hailed the decision as “a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary.” The senator added that the ruling also “speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict-constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures.”
Lastly from Mitt Romney:
“Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said. “This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”
Words are fine and good, but they need to be backed up by actions. This is still the only thing the Republicans have done since Roe v. Wade was passed, and while the party does deserve some credit, they need to keep chipping away at abortion before I'll think about voting for them again.
The worst thing about this decision is that loyal Republicans can continue to pretend like there is a difference between the two parties. Never mind that this is one of only a few issues where the parties do actually disagree and that it was decided by the court. The parties are still basically the same, but they pretend otherwise so that we go along for the ride. They'll be parroting each other on most issues within two weeks. Count on it.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.
First, the majority is dubiously conservative at best. Alito and Roberts haven't made enough rulings to be considered conservative as yet.
Second, this wasn't a major victory. This is a tiny, and dare I say, insignificant battle in a war that has brought conservatives nothing buy defeat. This could turn out to be our Battle of Alamein, or it could simply be a bone which the GOP can throw at the base come election time to get them to once again support someone who doesn't really care about ending abortion. I'd put my money on the latter.
The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
Seeing how there is no constitutional right to abortion I can't see how it could.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.
I don't want to rain on the only parade the Pro-Life movement has had in the last thirty years, but saving two thousand lives, while certainly laudatory, hardly helps the more than one million fetuses who caught mother's ire and ended in death. It should also be noted that not a few women prolonged the decision to have an abortion because they could. My guess is that we'll see a very slight decrease in the amount of abortions performed in this country. If this latest ruling serves to eventually overturn one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history my hesitancy to rejoice will have been unnecessary. But until that day, there is still quite a bit of work to do.
UPDATE:
Drudge links to the reactions of the pretenders to the throne.
Let's start with the Democrats and her highness Hillary:
"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
Everybody's favorite Negro:
"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
Lastly, $400 haircut, man of the people, John Edwards:
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."
When you keep in mind that this decision bans only a specific form of abortion, a form so gruesome PETA would riot if it was applied to baby kittens, and you can understand why the Democrats have been wandering in a political wilderness for so long. Obama says he is a uniter or some such twaddle, but that doesn't stop him from taking an extreme position on this one. If you're terribly upset that the court allows Congress to decide if certain types of infanticide can be made illegal you need to take a look at your position. Next time you hear someone talking about how pro-lifers won't compromise on abortion, think back to the words of the three Democratic clowns.
Now on to the Republican stooges, starting with Rudy Giuliani:
“The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion,” Giuliani said in a statement on the 5–4 decision. “I agree with it.”
Brave words from New York's former mayor. John McCain speaks in the same article:
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) hailed the decision as “a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary.” The senator added that the ruling also “speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict-constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures.”
Lastly from Mitt Romney:
“Today, our nation’s highest court reaffirmed the value of life in America by upholding a ban on a practice that offends basic human decency,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said. “This decision represents a step forward in protecting the weakest and most innocent among us.”
Words are fine and good, but they need to be backed up by actions. This is still the only thing the Republicans have done since Roe v. Wade was passed, and while the party does deserve some credit, they need to keep chipping away at abortion before I'll think about voting for them again.
The worst thing about this decision is that loyal Republicans can continue to pretend like there is a difference between the two parties. Never mind that this is one of only a few issues where the parties do actually disagree and that it was decided by the court. The parties are still basically the same, but they pretend otherwise so that we go along for the ride. They'll be parroting each other on most issues within two weeks. Count on it.
An Insensible Vigil
I just got this in an email from my university:
*_VIGIL FOR VIRGINIA TECH_:* *Undergraduate Student Government will be sponsoring a vigil on behalf of Virginia Tech. The vigil will be held in the library today (WED) from 8-9PM. * There will be a small amount of singing, the reading of some religiously neutral passages, and a variety of undergrad and grad students speaking. Advocates from Counseling Services will be there to talk to any student who might feel the need. This vigil will be religiously neutral and USG encourages every student at Michigan Tech to come.
I never really understood the vigil thing. Maybe the ostensible solidarity helps the families of the victims. I'm really not sure. Truthfully I don't think that the students of Virginia Tech really care about the students of Michigan Tech, but then I'm callous enough to suggest that Michigan Tech students don't really care about the students of Virginia Tech either. I'd be lying if I said that I did.
If anyone from my school knows someone involved, then I might see a reason for a vigil, though it still depends on the strength of that connection. Otherwise I think it's a mite ridiculous. Today 157 people died when four bombs went off in Baghdad. At least that many babies will be aborted in the course of this day. The fact of the matter is that while the shooting was tragic, this sort of thing happens all the time, the world over. If we have to stop to hold a vigil every single time someone gets murdered we'll never do anything but hold vigils. Mumbling a simple prayer should suffice to take the place of a vigil.
I also couldn't help but notice that this is a religiously neutral event. First, it's not. The only reason you'd hold a vigil is that you believe that something good can come of it. You believe that there is meaning in tragedy, that there was some design behind these horrible events. Perhaps you even believe that the victims are in a better place, or that the murder is rotting in Hell. You can hold all these beliefs if you wish, but you can't pretend they're religiously neutral.
Second, dare I suggest that a rejection of religion is not only what gets us into this mess, but also prevents us from drawing any understanding from it? Everyone always asks why such a thing happened, to which we can scarcely make any reply save that mankind is dark. Remove all the externals influences you wish and this thing will still happen. Rousseau was right that everywhere man in chains, but he was wrong in suggesting that he was born free. It is only in re-birth that man has been freed from his chains. Religiously neutral passages will never help us understand the answer to this great riddle.
*_VIGIL FOR VIRGINIA TECH_:* *Undergraduate Student Government will be sponsoring a vigil on behalf of Virginia Tech. The vigil will be held in the library today (WED) from 8-9PM. * There will be a small amount of singing, the reading of some religiously neutral passages, and a variety of undergrad and grad students speaking. Advocates from Counseling Services will be there to talk to any student who might feel the need. This vigil will be religiously neutral and USG encourages every student at Michigan Tech to come.
I never really understood the vigil thing. Maybe the ostensible solidarity helps the families of the victims. I'm really not sure. Truthfully I don't think that the students of Virginia Tech really care about the students of Michigan Tech, but then I'm callous enough to suggest that Michigan Tech students don't really care about the students of Virginia Tech either. I'd be lying if I said that I did.
If anyone from my school knows someone involved, then I might see a reason for a vigil, though it still depends on the strength of that connection. Otherwise I think it's a mite ridiculous. Today 157 people died when four bombs went off in Baghdad. At least that many babies will be aborted in the course of this day. The fact of the matter is that while the shooting was tragic, this sort of thing happens all the time, the world over. If we have to stop to hold a vigil every single time someone gets murdered we'll never do anything but hold vigils. Mumbling a simple prayer should suffice to take the place of a vigil.
I also couldn't help but notice that this is a religiously neutral event. First, it's not. The only reason you'd hold a vigil is that you believe that something good can come of it. You believe that there is meaning in tragedy, that there was some design behind these horrible events. Perhaps you even believe that the victims are in a better place, or that the murder is rotting in Hell. You can hold all these beliefs if you wish, but you can't pretend they're religiously neutral.
Second, dare I suggest that a rejection of religion is not only what gets us into this mess, but also prevents us from drawing any understanding from it? Everyone always asks why such a thing happened, to which we can scarcely make any reply save that mankind is dark. Remove all the externals influences you wish and this thing will still happen. Rousseau was right that everywhere man in chains, but he was wrong in suggesting that he was born free. It is only in re-birth that man has been freed from his chains. Religiously neutral passages will never help us understand the answer to this great riddle.
Blacks and Women as Children
This week's article:
In modern America, be careful, lest you let a racial epithet slip. Just ask Don Imus. Less than two weeks after referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”, the popular radio talk show host suddenly found himself without a job. I'm not here to defend Imus' comments; they were crass, unfair and mean-spirited. Decorum demanded that he apologize to the Rutger's women. Yet apologies were not enough to mollify the wrath of the offended. Carelessly derogating African-American women is now an unpardonable sin. The story has been preposterously overblown. But it is indicative of the way we have completely lost our sanity in relating to race in this country. I offer several points:
1) There is no racial or sexual property of associativity. If one member of a group is maligned, the whole group doesn't need to go to Oprah for mass counseling. Imus owed an apology to the female basketball players of Rutgers University. If African-Americans and/or women were offended by his statement, they need to get tougher skin. I have no idea what it would be like to be either African-American or female, but that is completely beside the point. Imus' words applied to a minuscule segment of the population. It is the height of absurdity to require apologies for every single group which may be in any way affiliated with the people who was maligned. Those who disparage Hitler need not apologize to all Germans. And yet, every time a black person is offended, blacks in general are deeply wounded. What palpable nonsense.
2) The women who were actually offended should lighten up. Again, I'm a middle-class straight white male of European descent; but I didn't know that only those who were similarly classified were required to possess a spine. Listen to the words of one of the women from Rutgers: "All of our accomplishments were lost, our moment was taken away." She simply can't be expressing herself honestly. Every woman and every African-American should be deeply embarrassed by the actions of those on the basketball team. Can anyone imagine Bush, weakly warbling that his presidency is all for naught because a few liberals still think he stole the election from Gore and called him a daddy's boy? So why on earth do we accept such behavior from other adults?
3) During the entirety of the witch hunt to get Imus, no one has actually addressed his claim. I do not, for one instant, suppose that all of the women in question are either nappy-headed or hos. But if the claim is, as I suspect, absurd on its face, why was it treated so solemnly? All the women needed to do was explain that they were neither nappy-headed nor ho-ish, and dismiss Imus as an ignorant crank. Then the story would then have faded into blessed obscurity. Instead, we all had to dwell on the fact that Imus was a—fill in your negative adjective of choice—old man. For the first time I am wondering whether or not there is validity to his rash claim. If the women aren't nappy-headed hos, they're certainly acting like a whiny bunch of little girls.
4) Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson can go take a flying crap in the rain, to borrow from Allen Ginsberg. As Token so brilliantly noted in a recent episode of South Park, Jesse Jackson isn't the mayor of black people. As for Sharpton, I have but two words: Tawana Brawley. Granted, for the third time, that I am not black, I don't see the need to have a couple of clowns to entertain the media circus every time someone white says something stupid about someone black. If blacks were still getting lynched, I might see the need for a figurehead—though I'd question the judgment of appointing two hypocritical cretins like Sharpton and Jackon—but blacks are, thankfully, no longer being lynched. Aren't blacks strong enough to defend themselves against mere words?
As usual, I've plum ran out of room. I don't know how much racism lingers in this here country of ours. It may still be substantial. But as the boy who cried wolf could tell you, constantly complaining about mere trifles is a good way to get people to ignore genuine signs of trouble. And, as the boy could further note, when genuine trouble comes along, cold dark humanity generally believes that such ill fates are well deserved. Acting like little children may prove beneficial in the short-run—after all, Imus no longer haunts the airwaves. But in the longterm, acting like children is a surefire way to be treated like them.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre
By now everyone knows the news, so I'll just offer a few thoughts which spring to my mind.
1) The school isn't to blame on this one. Hindsight being 20-20 and all, they certainly should have alerted the students sooner, but it's preposterous to expect the school to know exactly what to do in an unusual situation like this. Of course now schools will probably have to go through drills so that everyone knows what to do in case this happens again. Also to ensure that we're properly terrified until the next time it does happen, which everyone knows it will.
The real problem with blaming the school is that it reveals not only cowardice, but extreme naivety about the dangers of life on the behalf of the average American. It is not the duty of the schools, or the government, to protect everyone. Even supposing that either possessed the capability to do so, they would then be so tyrannical as to present a far more ominous threat to the safety of those who foolishly seek protection where it shall not be found. If you want to prevent someone from killing you and yours, carry a handgun and don't be afraid to use it in self-defense.
2) Which brings us right to the next point. I told one of my friends yesterday that we could count on a full-court press clamoring for more gun control within 48 hours. That flood of nonsense has started already. Allow me to rebut with this piece from WorldNetDaily:
More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virgina Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.
Gun control doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws; if the murderer couldn't have obtained a hand-gun legally does any one doubt his ability, or his intention to buy one on the black market? Confiscating all the guns might work, and indeed did work quite well--for the Nazis. But I question the wisdom of allowing the government to have all the guns. Proponents of gun control neither think rationally nor do they have much of a grasp on history, so the bemoaning will not recess, and if we're not careful, we're going to see so more nefarious legislation.
3) As always, this media circus presented all involved with massive ratings. It's rather amusing watching the television clowns milk tragedy for personal gain but aside from watching a little of the Factor to laugh at O'Reilly, we're all better turning the dang thing off.
4) As Vox points out, referring to the incident as "American" gun violence is disingenuous. We now know the killer was from South Korea. I'm picturing Michael Moore visiting South Korea and lamenting the pervasiveness of gun violence there, while making a trip to their benevolent northern neighbors in his next propaganda film.
5) Last and most certainly least, Imus almost made it. This is one problem with writing my columns so many days in advance. I'm almost required to write another one, but I think I'll simply accept the moniker of antiquated so long as no one calls me antediluvian.
UPDATE:
Drudge just posted the ratings from last night's broadcasts. Two pittance if you can guess who won.
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., APRIL 16, 2007
VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,546,000
CNN LARRY KING 2,574,000
CNN COOPER 2,535,000
FNC GRETA 2,349,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,304,000
CNN ZAHN 2,014,000
TOTAL DAY
FNC 1,636,000
CNN 1,267,000
MSNBC 525,000
1) The school isn't to blame on this one. Hindsight being 20-20 and all, they certainly should have alerted the students sooner, but it's preposterous to expect the school to know exactly what to do in an unusual situation like this. Of course now schools will probably have to go through drills so that everyone knows what to do in case this happens again. Also to ensure that we're properly terrified until the next time it does happen, which everyone knows it will.
The real problem with blaming the school is that it reveals not only cowardice, but extreme naivety about the dangers of life on the behalf of the average American. It is not the duty of the schools, or the government, to protect everyone. Even supposing that either possessed the capability to do so, they would then be so tyrannical as to present a far more ominous threat to the safety of those who foolishly seek protection where it shall not be found. If you want to prevent someone from killing you and yours, carry a handgun and don't be afraid to use it in self-defense.
2) Which brings us right to the next point. I told one of my friends yesterday that we could count on a full-court press clamoring for more gun control within 48 hours. That flood of nonsense has started already. Allow me to rebut with this piece from WorldNetDaily:
More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virgina Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.
At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.
Gun control doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws; if the murderer couldn't have obtained a hand-gun legally does any one doubt his ability, or his intention to buy one on the black market? Confiscating all the guns might work, and indeed did work quite well--for the Nazis. But I question the wisdom of allowing the government to have all the guns. Proponents of gun control neither think rationally nor do they have much of a grasp on history, so the bemoaning will not recess, and if we're not careful, we're going to see so more nefarious legislation.
3) As always, this media circus presented all involved with massive ratings. It's rather amusing watching the television clowns milk tragedy for personal gain but aside from watching a little of the Factor to laugh at O'Reilly, we're all better turning the dang thing off.
4) As Vox points out, referring to the incident as "American" gun violence is disingenuous. We now know the killer was from South Korea. I'm picturing Michael Moore visiting South Korea and lamenting the pervasiveness of gun violence there, while making a trip to their benevolent northern neighbors in his next propaganda film.
5) Last and most certainly least, Imus almost made it. This is one problem with writing my columns so many days in advance. I'm almost required to write another one, but I think I'll simply accept the moniker of antiquated so long as no one calls me antediluvian.
UPDATE:
Drudge just posted the ratings from last night's broadcasts. Two pittance if you can guess who won.
CABLE NEWS RACE
MON., APRIL 16, 2007
VIEWERS
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,546,000
CNN LARRY KING 2,574,000
CNN COOPER 2,535,000
FNC GRETA 2,349,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,304,000
CNN ZAHN 2,014,000
TOTAL DAY
FNC 1,636,000
CNN 1,267,000
MSNBC 525,000
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Ban the Cell Phones
It's the only thing we can do, really:
Also, whenever human beings are doing dubious damage to the environment, they must rectify their behavior immediately. This is because liberty is not nearly as important as appeasing our mother the earth. Therefore in order to ensure that harvests continue we must ban cell phones. Since I do not own one of the dreaded devices, this will not affect me in the least; and anyone who suggests that I am only offering this suggestion because I loathe cell phones would be a liar. It is not wise to under-rate my love for mother earth.
Dropping the sarcasm for a bit, there are a few important lessons here. First, it is very important to make sure a theory is sound before we go off chasing it like little children. A theory is a fine thing, but it may be an entirely wrong one as well, and as fine as it may be, it does little good unless it is correct in its analysis of the facts.
Second, humans are a bad influence on the environment. Human history is riddled with attempts by man to conquer the earth. Genesis begins rightly with the command from God to "subdue the earth". Now, cell phones may not have been developed with this specific task in mind, but any attempt to enhance civilization will carry with it the possibility, if not likelihood, of ill effect upon the environment.
Last, but certainly not least, man's quest to make life safer will always be a foolish one so long as man is mortal. It seems like a platitude, but it is a very important truth. Before ceding any liberty to the powers that be, it is imperative to make sure that the deal is well worth it. Powers once given to the government are seldom returned, at least not until the revolution. It's going to take a long time before, say, certain states start allowing patrons to smoke in bars again. It merits keeping in mind.
[Scientists] are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.
The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.
Since scientists--one almost feels the need to capitalize the word in reverence--are making these claims, we have no choice but to believe them. As anyone who believes earnestly that something must be done about global warming could tell you, scientists are never wrong. About anything. That there are scientists on every side of any new-fangled theory is irrelevant; those scientists who happen to disagree with your opinion are not scientists at all, and are probably being paid large amounts of money by nefarious corporations such as HaliBurton. Thus these scientists must be believed.Also, whenever human beings are doing dubious damage to the environment, they must rectify their behavior immediately. This is because liberty is not nearly as important as appeasing our mother the earth. Therefore in order to ensure that harvests continue we must ban cell phones. Since I do not own one of the dreaded devices, this will not affect me in the least; and anyone who suggests that I am only offering this suggestion because I loathe cell phones would be a liar. It is not wise to under-rate my love for mother earth.
Dropping the sarcasm for a bit, there are a few important lessons here. First, it is very important to make sure a theory is sound before we go off chasing it like little children. A theory is a fine thing, but it may be an entirely wrong one as well, and as fine as it may be, it does little good unless it is correct in its analysis of the facts.
Second, humans are a bad influence on the environment. Human history is riddled with attempts by man to conquer the earth. Genesis begins rightly with the command from God to "subdue the earth". Now, cell phones may not have been developed with this specific task in mind, but any attempt to enhance civilization will carry with it the possibility, if not likelihood, of ill effect upon the environment.
Last, but certainly not least, man's quest to make life safer will always be a foolish one so long as man is mortal. It seems like a platitude, but it is a very important truth. Before ceding any liberty to the powers that be, it is imperative to make sure that the deal is well worth it. Powers once given to the government are seldom returned, at least not until the revolution. It's going to take a long time before, say, certain states start allowing patrons to smoke in bars again. It merits keeping in mind.
Dropping the N-Bomb
I believe it's called hip-hop:
If people found radio host Don Imus' comments about the Rutger's women's basketball team offensive, why are people at South Carolina State University lining up to hear similar words from rap artists?
In one song from a performer at Friday's concert, the n-word is used more than 100 times...
WIS asked students at on campus about the concert and the lyrics. One student, Kendra Johnson, says, "The radio host was out of line when he said it. Some rap artists may be out of line, but they don't mean no harm."
They may not have meant any harm, though her comment is evidence that someone is having a pejorative influence upon the young lass's ability to speak proficiently. Alternatively, she could merely be a product of the public schools. And don't forget that this young woman is a university student. Education and intelligence are occasionally related, but they are not necessarily so.
More importantly, whether or not someone intends harm is irrelevant. It could be argued, probably fairly easily, that Imus didn't mean harm either. Whether or not he did in fact harm people, and to what extent they were harmed is the issue at hand. The same applies to the hip-hoppers, who likely possess similar good intentions. I think it's fairly obvious that rap music does have a substantial impact on the "black community" and that a good deal of it is not positive. To what extent rap harms blacks in America is a matter for debate.
Last but not least, the double standard in terms of which words can be said by whom has reached staggering proportions. Even were I allowed to do so, I would refrain from using the n-word because it is a stupid word to use, save in reference to Flannery O'Connor's fine story "The Artificial Nigger" which offers a brilliant commentary on race relations in the deep south. Gratuitous use of the epithet is crass and classless, no matter who is making use of the word. The pea shooter of Don Imus isn't doing a fraction of the damage to the "black community" that rappers are doing.
Of course this is just the opinion of a white fellow who doesn't listen to much hip-hop.
If people found radio host Don Imus' comments about the Rutger's women's basketball team offensive, why are people at South Carolina State University lining up to hear similar words from rap artists?
In one song from a performer at Friday's concert, the n-word is used more than 100 times...
WIS asked students at on campus about the concert and the lyrics. One student, Kendra Johnson, says, "The radio host was out of line when he said it. Some rap artists may be out of line, but they don't mean no harm."
They may not have meant any harm, though her comment is evidence that someone is having a pejorative influence upon the young lass's ability to speak proficiently. Alternatively, she could merely be a product of the public schools. And don't forget that this young woman is a university student. Education and intelligence are occasionally related, but they are not necessarily so.
More importantly, whether or not someone intends harm is irrelevant. It could be argued, probably fairly easily, that Imus didn't mean harm either. Whether or not he did in fact harm people, and to what extent they were harmed is the issue at hand. The same applies to the hip-hoppers, who likely possess similar good intentions. I think it's fairly obvious that rap music does have a substantial impact on the "black community" and that a good deal of it is not positive. To what extent rap harms blacks in America is a matter for debate.
Last but not least, the double standard in terms of which words can be said by whom has reached staggering proportions. Even were I allowed to do so, I would refrain from using the n-word because it is a stupid word to use, save in reference to Flannery O'Connor's fine story "The Artificial Nigger" which offers a brilliant commentary on race relations in the deep south. Gratuitous use of the epithet is crass and classless, no matter who is making use of the word. The pea shooter of Don Imus isn't doing a fraction of the damage to the "black community" that rappers are doing.
Of course this is just the opinion of a white fellow who doesn't listen to much hip-hop.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Blame the Genes
...for ADHD:
On a more serious note, this should again suggest that science, divorced from a system of ethics, is merely the satisfaction of an intellectual itching. As such, it should neither be feared, nor especially reverenced. Unless of course it's accompanied by a--correct--moral code, whereon it regains the high status we reserve for it today.
A research team led by Professor Johannes Hebebrand of the University of Duisburg-Essen in western Germany studied 329 families in which one child had attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder syndrome.
They found that a great majority -- around 70 percent -- had a combination of three mutations in the gene for the so-called dopamine transporter linked to hyperactivity.
It figures that the Germans would be behind this. I'm not doubting the validity of his assertion, though I'm more than skeptical about the diagnosis, not to say the very existence of ADHD. But I do wonder whether we need to prevent the hyperactive from breeding--good luck--or whether we ought to welcome them, if not as Supermen, then certainly as the predecessors thereof.On a more serious note, this should again suggest that science, divorced from a system of ethics, is merely the satisfaction of an intellectual itching. As such, it should neither be feared, nor especially reverenced. Unless of course it's accompanied by a--correct--moral code, whereon it regains the high status we reserve for it today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)