Thursday, May 20, 2010
Thoughts on Rand Paul
I just saw Kentucky GOP Senatorial candidate Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow.
How absolutely awful!!!
He shot himself in the foot while it was in his mouth.
When someone asks you if you support desegregating lunch counters you answer the question with a firm yes. You don't digress.
The more and more Maddow asked him if he supported desegregating lunch counters and the more and more he didn't answer the question the bigger and bigger the hole he dug for himself.
Now if Paul were to have answered her question directly but she persisted with questions concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act here is what Paul should have said:
I know what you're trying to do. It's what liberals have been doing to conservatives for decades. You want to make me and other conservatives out to be racists and I won't let you do it. I expect better than that. Shame on you!!!
That would have put it all back on Maddow.
In fairness to Maddow, she didn't pick the Civil Rights Act out of thin air. Paul had discussed it in an interview with The Courier-Journal last month as well as in a subsequent interview on NPR's All Things Considered after winning the Kentucky GOP Primary earlier this week.
Under most circumstances when Paul says "I think a lot of things could be handled locally" that's fine but in the context of the American South circa 1964 that isn't fine. If your local solution is beating up people sitting at a lunch counter then we've got a problem. A big problem.
I understand that businesses have and should reserve the right to refuse service. But their refusal to serve has to be grounded in reason. Let's use a restaurant as an example. A restaurant is certainly within its rights to refuse service and to ask the customer to leave the premises if that customer is intoxicated, assaults another patron or employee of the restaurant or is otherwise unruly.
But if someone just wants a hamburger and a Coke and has the money to pay for it then on what grounds does the restaurant have the right to refuse service? A smart restaurant owner would see his customer not as a black man but as a hungry man or a thirsty one.
If a restaurant owner in 2010 were stupid enough to refuse service to black people all they would need to do would be go down the street to another restaurant whose owner would be more than happy to take their money. But prior to 1964 black people living in the South did not have that choice available to them. They were effectively barred from engaging in commerce. Their liberty was impinged and were restricted from pursuing happiness.
Now I am not aware of any restaurant, tavern or any other eatery in this country that presently has a policy of refusing service to black people. If there was we would know about it. The United States of America has actually made some progress since 1964 even if the Rachel Maddows of the world would be loathe to admit it.
But the fact of the matter is that Rand Paul is a product of the Tea Party and liberals have been trying to discredit it for some time now. If liberals can discredit Paul then it would go a long way in discrediting the Tea Party. That is liberal agenda item number one and Paul should know better than to play into their agenda. Talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gets him nowhere in a hurry.
With about 5½ months before election day, Rand Paul has time on his side. But he needs to use that time wisely.
How absolutely awful!!!
He shot himself in the foot while it was in his mouth.
When someone asks you if you support desegregating lunch counters you answer the question with a firm yes. You don't digress.
The more and more Maddow asked him if he supported desegregating lunch counters and the more and more he didn't answer the question the bigger and bigger the hole he dug for himself.
Now if Paul were to have answered her question directly but she persisted with questions concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act here is what Paul should have said:
I know what you're trying to do. It's what liberals have been doing to conservatives for decades. You want to make me and other conservatives out to be racists and I won't let you do it. I expect better than that. Shame on you!!!
That would have put it all back on Maddow.
In fairness to Maddow, she didn't pick the Civil Rights Act out of thin air. Paul had discussed it in an interview with The Courier-Journal last month as well as in a subsequent interview on NPR's All Things Considered after winning the Kentucky GOP Primary earlier this week.
Under most circumstances when Paul says "I think a lot of things could be handled locally" that's fine but in the context of the American South circa 1964 that isn't fine. If your local solution is beating up people sitting at a lunch counter then we've got a problem. A big problem.
I understand that businesses have and should reserve the right to refuse service. But their refusal to serve has to be grounded in reason. Let's use a restaurant as an example. A restaurant is certainly within its rights to refuse service and to ask the customer to leave the premises if that customer is intoxicated, assaults another patron or employee of the restaurant or is otherwise unruly.
But if someone just wants a hamburger and a Coke and has the money to pay for it then on what grounds does the restaurant have the right to refuse service? A smart restaurant owner would see his customer not as a black man but as a hungry man or a thirsty one.
If a restaurant owner in 2010 were stupid enough to refuse service to black people all they would need to do would be go down the street to another restaurant whose owner would be more than happy to take their money. But prior to 1964 black people living in the South did not have that choice available to them. They were effectively barred from engaging in commerce. Their liberty was impinged and were restricted from pursuing happiness.
Now I am not aware of any restaurant, tavern or any other eatery in this country that presently has a policy of refusing service to black people. If there was we would know about it. The United States of America has actually made some progress since 1964 even if the Rachel Maddows of the world would be loathe to admit it.
But the fact of the matter is that Rand Paul is a product of the Tea Party and liberals have been trying to discredit it for some time now. If liberals can discredit Paul then it would go a long way in discrediting the Tea Party. That is liberal agenda item number one and Paul should know better than to play into their agenda. Talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gets him nowhere in a hurry.
With about 5½ months before election day, Rand Paul has time on his side. But he needs to use that time wisely.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Elvis Costello Cancels Tour Dates in Israel
Elvis Costello announced on his website recently that he has canceled two shows he was to have performed in Israel on June 30th and July 1st:
I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlements and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security.
So Costello cancels a concert in Israel because some of the concert goers agree with his position?
That seems really well thought out.
The only consolation is that Costello's wife Diana Krall will still be performing in Israel in August.
However, other artists such as Carlos Santana and Gil Scott-Heron and Sting have also recently canceled performances in Israel. In these two cases it appears both artists were intimidated into canceling with Scott-Heron being heckled by concert goers in London until he agreed to cancel his date in Tel Aviv.
But then again perhaps it's just as well that Costello and company don't perform in Israel. In 2006, ex-Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters performed in Israel despite protests from Palestinian groups. However, Waters met with one of these groups (the Palestinian Campaign for an Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel) and agreed to move his concert and also spoke out against Israel's security fence.
Waters would also visit a section of the security fence and spray painted "no thought control" and "tear down this wall." He would compare Israel's security fence to the Berlin Wall. Never mind the Berlin Wall kept East Germans in while the security fence keeps Palestinian terrorists out. I wrote an article about it titled, "Hey, Suicide Bomber, Leave Those Kids Alone".
Now I must admit I've long been a Pink Floyd fan and still listen to their music despite Waters' ignorance. Elvis Costello's music, on the other hand, I could take or leave. From this point forward I'll take my leave.
I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlements and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security.
So Costello cancels a concert in Israel because some of the concert goers agree with his position?
That seems really well thought out.
The only consolation is that Costello's wife Diana Krall will still be performing in Israel in August.
However, other artists such as Carlos Santana and Gil Scott-Heron and Sting have also recently canceled performances in Israel. In these two cases it appears both artists were intimidated into canceling with Scott-Heron being heckled by concert goers in London until he agreed to cancel his date in Tel Aviv.
But then again perhaps it's just as well that Costello and company don't perform in Israel. In 2006, ex-Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters performed in Israel despite protests from Palestinian groups. However, Waters met with one of these groups (the Palestinian Campaign for an Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel) and agreed to move his concert and also spoke out against Israel's security fence.
Waters would also visit a section of the security fence and spray painted "no thought control" and "tear down this wall." He would compare Israel's security fence to the Berlin Wall. Never mind the Berlin Wall kept East Germans in while the security fence keeps Palestinian terrorists out. I wrote an article about it titled, "Hey, Suicide Bomber, Leave Those Kids Alone".
Now I must admit I've long been a Pink Floyd fan and still listen to their music despite Waters' ignorance. Elvis Costello's music, on the other hand, I could take or leave. From this point forward I'll take my leave.
Obama Says His Administration "Is Taking a Very Close Look" at AZ Law
Today, during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Obama stated:
And I want everyone, Mexican and American, to know my administration is taking a close look at the Arizona law.
And by taking a close look at the Arizona law does the President mean that someone in his administration will actually have read it?
Because we know neither Eric Holder nor Janet Napolitano have taken a close look at it. Ditto for State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
So Mr. President, who exactly in your administration is taking a close look at Arizona's immigration law?
And I want everyone, Mexican and American, to know my administration is taking a close look at the Arizona law.
And by taking a close look at the Arizona law does the President mean that someone in his administration will actually have read it?
Because we know neither Eric Holder nor Janet Napolitano have taken a close look at it. Ditto for State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
So Mr. President, who exactly in your administration is taking a close look at Arizona's immigration law?
A Civil Exchange With Rod McKuen on Obamacare
I am a fan of Rod McKuen's music and poetry. If you are unfamiliar with McKuen he is perhaps best known for translating Jacques Brel's works into English most notably "Le Moribond". North Americans would know the song as "Seasons in the Sun" which would become a big hit for Terry Jacks in 1974. McKuen also wrote the song "Jean" which became a hit in 1967 for Oliver.
Anyhow, I occasionally check in on McKuen's website. Every couple of days or so he writes a blog or what he calls a "flight plan." The flight plan he wrote on March 25th addressed Obamacare:
And this country is still going through a very mean season regarding decent health care for each of its citizens. One political party worked its butt off to finally get a bill passed that would guarantee some relief from the medical maze that sooner or later probably all of us will face. The other party did everything possible to defeat it and in the end, because they are the self confessed party of “No,” not a single Republican voted for the bill. Did they offer an alternative? No. Not one single member of the Not So Grand Old Party (never mind the group as a whole) offered an alternate strategy or plan of his or her own.
I knew this statement to be factually incorrect. After all, Representative Paul Ryan had put forward his own health care bill and also released a policy paper on the subject. There were also at least 70 other bills dealing with health care that had been introduced by various Republican members of Congress. So I figured why not just shoot him an e-mail to make him aware of his error. But I also figured it would be better to edify him with honey rather than vinegar.
Well, something I wrote struck a chord with him because he responded a few hours later mea culpa and all. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong. Earlier this week, McKuen posted our exchange on his "flight plan." As McKuen himself acknowledged in a subsequent "flight plan" in which he commented at length about the passing of his close friend Ted Raff:
I have never been as good a friend to my friends as I wish I could be. I almost always forget birthdays and anniversaries. I don’t like the telephone and I hate writing letters. I have unanswered e-mails dating back to April 2007; many have not been downloaded or even opened.
Getting a ‘Thank You Note’ from me for a gift or gesture is no doubt a surprise on the part of the recipient . . . because it usually arrives months after the fact, if it comes at all. Instead of being there physically in a timely manner, often I reach out mentally, assuming the person I love and am thinking about gets the vibes by telepathy or whatever. Of course they seldom do.
It makes McKuen's prompt response to my e-mail that much more meaningful particularly his last paragraph:
Thanks again Aaron for taking the time to write and for your reasonable and measured comments. (I hope we do meet face to face and I'm sure we will because whatever our political leaning it's obvious that we share a commitment to righting what we feel is wrong in the so-called system. This is a conversation that I look forward to continuing.) Warmest regards, Rod.
I, too, hope to continue this conversation with Rod McKuen in person.
Until then I'll leave you with McKuen and Johnny Cash exchanging poems about the railroad and singing a duet.
Anyhow, I occasionally check in on McKuen's website. Every couple of days or so he writes a blog or what he calls a "flight plan." The flight plan he wrote on March 25th addressed Obamacare:
And this country is still going through a very mean season regarding decent health care for each of its citizens. One political party worked its butt off to finally get a bill passed that would guarantee some relief from the medical maze that sooner or later probably all of us will face. The other party did everything possible to defeat it and in the end, because they are the self confessed party of “No,” not a single Republican voted for the bill. Did they offer an alternative? No. Not one single member of the Not So Grand Old Party (never mind the group as a whole) offered an alternate strategy or plan of his or her own.
I knew this statement to be factually incorrect. After all, Representative Paul Ryan had put forward his own health care bill and also released a policy paper on the subject. There were also at least 70 other bills dealing with health care that had been introduced by various Republican members of Congress. So I figured why not just shoot him an e-mail to make him aware of his error. But I also figured it would be better to edify him with honey rather than vinegar.
Well, something I wrote struck a chord with him because he responded a few hours later mea culpa and all. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong. Earlier this week, McKuen posted our exchange on his "flight plan." As McKuen himself acknowledged in a subsequent "flight plan" in which he commented at length about the passing of his close friend Ted Raff:
I have never been as good a friend to my friends as I wish I could be. I almost always forget birthdays and anniversaries. I don’t like the telephone and I hate writing letters. I have unanswered e-mails dating back to April 2007; many have not been downloaded or even opened.
Getting a ‘Thank You Note’ from me for a gift or gesture is no doubt a surprise on the part of the recipient . . . because it usually arrives months after the fact, if it comes at all. Instead of being there physically in a timely manner, often I reach out mentally, assuming the person I love and am thinking about gets the vibes by telepathy or whatever. Of course they seldom do.
It makes McKuen's prompt response to my e-mail that much more meaningful particularly his last paragraph:
Thanks again Aaron for taking the time to write and for your reasonable and measured comments. (I hope we do meet face to face and I'm sure we will because whatever our political leaning it's obvious that we share a commitment to righting what we feel is wrong in the so-called system. This is a conversation that I look forward to continuing.) Warmest regards, Rod.
I, too, hope to continue this conversation with Rod McKuen in person.
Until then I'll leave you with McKuen and Johnny Cash exchanging poems about the railroad and singing a duet.
Thoughts on Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter gambled and lost.
If liberals have a choice between voting for a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican liberals are always going to vote for the liberal Democrat.
That is why Joe Sestak will be facing Pat Toomey this November and why Arlen Specter's political career is now over.
If liberals have a choice between voting for a liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican liberals are always going to vote for the liberal Democrat.
That is why Joe Sestak will be facing Pat Toomey this November and why Arlen Specter's political career is now over.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Did Richard Blumenthal Have His Tim Johnson Moment?
When I learned that Connecticut Democrat Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal had falsely claimed he had served in Vietnam on multiple occasions I immediately thought of Tim Johnson.
Johnson was the manager of the Toronto Blue Jays during the 1998 season and had led them to a respectable 88-74 record. It's worth noting the Jays haven't matched that win total since.
Johnson would motivate players by telling them about his experiences in Vietnam. Except he never served in Vietnam although he did serve in the Marine Reserve.
When the story broke shortly before spring training in 1999 it became such a distraction Johnson would be fired before the season began and would be replaced by Jim Fregosi.
Well, I'm not the only one who thought about Johnson. Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal wrote about the Johnson affair and how it relates to the current row over Blumenthal.
What Jones doesn't mention is that Johnson has never held another job in MLB, managerial or otherwise. Over the past decade, Johnson has managed in the Mexican League and in a couple of independent leagues. Currently, Johnson is at the helm of the Tuscon Toros of the Golden Baseball League.
If lying about one's military record can cost someone a managerial position in MLB and be relegated to the fringes of professional baseball then surely there should be similarly severe consequences for someone who is seeking election to the United States Senate.
Johnson was the manager of the Toronto Blue Jays during the 1998 season and had led them to a respectable 88-74 record. It's worth noting the Jays haven't matched that win total since.
Johnson would motivate players by telling them about his experiences in Vietnam. Except he never served in Vietnam although he did serve in the Marine Reserve.
When the story broke shortly before spring training in 1999 it became such a distraction Johnson would be fired before the season began and would be replaced by Jim Fregosi.
Well, I'm not the only one who thought about Johnson. Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal wrote about the Johnson affair and how it relates to the current row over Blumenthal.
What Jones doesn't mention is that Johnson has never held another job in MLB, managerial or otherwise. Over the past decade, Johnson has managed in the Mexican League and in a couple of independent leagues. Currently, Johnson is at the helm of the Tuscon Toros of the Golden Baseball League.
If lying about one's military record can cost someone a managerial position in MLB and be relegated to the fringes of professional baseball then surely there should be similarly severe consequences for someone who is seeking election to the United States Senate.
Thoughts on Mount St. Helens @ Thirty
I can't believe thirty years have passed since Mount St. Helens erupted.
I'm sure the people in Skamania County, Washington can't believe it either.
I was in the second grade at Ogden Community School in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Ms. Littleford was my teacher.
It seemed that ash spread everywhere. I remember my maternal grandparents sent us a pill bottle full of ash which came down where they lived in Coleman, Alberta in the Crowsnest Pass.
Some of the ash even reached us in Northwestern Ontario although not in a very large quantity. But I remember one hot afternoon during recess become that became nearly unbearable with those tiny particles running through the air.
It was also then when I learned that the Harry Truman who died at the foot of Mount St. Helens was not the same man who was the 33rd President of the United States.
I'm sure if something that cataclysmic were to happen today some people would either blame it on global warming or would chalk it up to a conspiracy theory. But there are times when nature can humble man and this was surely was of those times.
I'm sure the people in Skamania County, Washington can't believe it either.
I was in the second grade at Ogden Community School in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Ms. Littleford was my teacher.
It seemed that ash spread everywhere. I remember my maternal grandparents sent us a pill bottle full of ash which came down where they lived in Coleman, Alberta in the Crowsnest Pass.
Some of the ash even reached us in Northwestern Ontario although not in a very large quantity. But I remember one hot afternoon during recess become that became nearly unbearable with those tiny particles running through the air.
It was also then when I learned that the Harry Truman who died at the foot of Mount St. Helens was not the same man who was the 33rd President of the United States.
I'm sure if something that cataclysmic were to happen today some people would either blame it on global warming or would chalk it up to a conspiracy theory. But there are times when nature can humble man and this was surely was of those times.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Downfall of an American hero
America has experienced the painful downfall of one of its favorite heroes of the last decade — Tiger Woods. I have nothing new to add on l'affaire Tiger; rather I would like to focus on the general nature of the American hero — past and present. I will argue that the nature of the beast has indeed changed over the last half century. Then I will describe the key feature of the change, identify the main culprit responsible for the change and conclude with a speculation on what the change says about American society.
More than 40 years separate the eras in which two catchy slogans captured the American public's attention: "I Like Ike" (early 1950's) and "Be Like Mike" (mid 1990's). The difference in the slogans’ objects represents more than just a time lapse; it highlights a change in our culture in terms of our reference to heroes — who they are, why we admire them and what we expect of them. In previous generations our heroes usually were politicians and soldiers, scientists and philosophers, statesmen and authors. For example, if we hark back to the mid twentieth century, the most common heroes would certainly have included — in addition to Eisenhower — Churchill, Einstein, FDR, MacArthur, Salk, and maybe a writer like Steinbeck or Hemingway. A half century earlier, businessmen and philanthropists like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Astor would have supplemented a list that surely included T. Roosevelt, Wilson and Mellon. Today, the most admired lists tend to be dominated by athletes, entertainers, and celebrities — people like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and of course, Elvis. Leaders have been replaced by personalities. Why is that? Perhaps we can discover the answer if, having decided who, we consider why and what.
One of my Websters defines a hero as "one who is admired for his achievements and qualities; one that shows great courage." In the past we admired those who led heroic lives or accomplished heroic deeds; those whose great achievements were wrought at substantial personal risk and entailed courageous action. Today, we look primarily to those who are absolutely brilliant at what they do — on the court, on the screen, in the public eye, but without any attendant requirement of personal risk or courage. The difference is somewhat subtle. To perform heroic deeds requires courage, selflessness, willingness to take great risk. To be the best at one thing requires dedication, perseverance, raw talent. These are all admirable qualities. But I venture that yesterday's heroes manifested the latter qualities as well as the former, whereas today's heroes, while usually exemplary in the latter, are often lacking the former.
Why this subtle change? I think there are numerous reasons, many bound up with the massive culture shift that we have experienced over the last fifty years in the country. Here I would like to focus on one specific culprit — the media. I believe the media has played an enormous role in bringing about this change in the perception of heroism — for four reasons.
1. The muckraking, iconoclastic role of the media has escalated beyond bounds. No one is perfect of course, and while years ago the media was often complicit in hiding character flaws of our heroes, today they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to expose every possible wart that a potential hero might have. This applies particularly to politicians, soldiers and statesmen, making it nearly impossible for them to earn the unmitigated admiration of the public. John Kennedy was a womanizer, but the media did not report it. Conversely, every zip of Bill Clinton's trousers made the evening news.
2. Politics is a contact sport, but today it is bloodier than ever. The media has helped to drive a wedge through the body politic. The fault lines are clearly drawn and the media inflames the debate. In many ways the citizenry is divided down the middle and the opinions are so sharp that it is inconceivable that a man of the left could be admired by the people of the right — and vice versa. Thus it is hard to be a hero to the people if you start off with 50% of them detesting you. Because of this, political and religious figures don't have a prayer of garnering widespread public admiration. Reagan was loved by those on the right, despised by the left, and exactly the reverse pertains to Obama.
3. Celebrities sell ink and electrons. The public has a seemingly insatiable appetite for news about pop culture. Celebrities sell magazines, newspapers, books, films, TV shows, DVDs and all other forms of electronic media. Fewer and fewer people pay much attention to hard news, but the popularity of celebrity magazines and web sites, "reality" TV shows and music videos shows no sign of abating. The media encourages this and profits from it. Compared to Michael Phelps or Miley Cyrus, Hillary Clinton is a crashing bore.
4. The media has played a critical role in the vulgarization of the culture. The amount of violence, degeneracy and moral squalor that the media propagates is disgusting. The reputation of a classic hero cannot survive in that swamp; but it is not toxic to a modern celebrity. Moral degeneracy is just another "thing" that a celebrity can excel at.
So, what do we expect of our heroes? In times past, we exacted a high moral standard. Heroes often failed to live up to those standards, but that does not change the fact that that is what we expected of them. They were role models par excellence, people who could inspire our dreams and elevate our spirits. Today's heroes are merely expected to be the best at what they do. Roger Federer and LeBron James are phenomenal athletes; it is a joy and a pleasure to watch them. But they do not change the course of history; they do not inspire men and women to challenge their ideas about life and society; they do not discover new products or technologies to improve our lives; they do not take great physical or personal risks to achieve their goals. The old heroes did these things, and their and our lives were richer for it. We had inspiration instead of titillation, admiration instead of perspiration.
Finally, what does the change in the nature of our heroes say about American society? I believe it is yet another reflection of our mutation from a society that prized rugged individualism into the nanny state. We are increasingly risk averse. Instead of demanding a level playing field upon which all individuals can compete and rise to heights that their talents and determination might take them, we look to the government and to "experts" to salve our wounds and smooth our path to a safe, but uninspiring destination.
More than 40 years separate the eras in which two catchy slogans captured the American public's attention: "I Like Ike" (early 1950's) and "Be Like Mike" (mid 1990's). The difference in the slogans’ objects represents more than just a time lapse; it highlights a change in our culture in terms of our reference to heroes — who they are, why we admire them and what we expect of them. In previous generations our heroes usually were politicians and soldiers, scientists and philosophers, statesmen and authors. For example, if we hark back to the mid twentieth century, the most common heroes would certainly have included — in addition to Eisenhower — Churchill, Einstein, FDR, MacArthur, Salk, and maybe a writer like Steinbeck or Hemingway. A half century earlier, businessmen and philanthropists like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Astor would have supplemented a list that surely included T. Roosevelt, Wilson and Mellon. Today, the most admired lists tend to be dominated by athletes, entertainers, and celebrities — people like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and of course, Elvis. Leaders have been replaced by personalities. Why is that? Perhaps we can discover the answer if, having decided who, we consider why and what.
One of my Websters defines a hero as "one who is admired for his achievements and qualities; one that shows great courage." In the past we admired those who led heroic lives or accomplished heroic deeds; those whose great achievements were wrought at substantial personal risk and entailed courageous action. Today, we look primarily to those who are absolutely brilliant at what they do — on the court, on the screen, in the public eye, but without any attendant requirement of personal risk or courage. The difference is somewhat subtle. To perform heroic deeds requires courage, selflessness, willingness to take great risk. To be the best at one thing requires dedication, perseverance, raw talent. These are all admirable qualities. But I venture that yesterday's heroes manifested the latter qualities as well as the former, whereas today's heroes, while usually exemplary in the latter, are often lacking the former.
Why this subtle change? I think there are numerous reasons, many bound up with the massive culture shift that we have experienced over the last fifty years in the country. Here I would like to focus on one specific culprit — the media. I believe the media has played an enormous role in bringing about this change in the perception of heroism — for four reasons.
1. The muckraking, iconoclastic role of the media has escalated beyond bounds. No one is perfect of course, and while years ago the media was often complicit in hiding character flaws of our heroes, today they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to expose every possible wart that a potential hero might have. This applies particularly to politicians, soldiers and statesmen, making it nearly impossible for them to earn the unmitigated admiration of the public. John Kennedy was a womanizer, but the media did not report it. Conversely, every zip of Bill Clinton's trousers made the evening news.
2. Politics is a contact sport, but today it is bloodier than ever. The media has helped to drive a wedge through the body politic. The fault lines are clearly drawn and the media inflames the debate. In many ways the citizenry is divided down the middle and the opinions are so sharp that it is inconceivable that a man of the left could be admired by the people of the right — and vice versa. Thus it is hard to be a hero to the people if you start off with 50% of them detesting you. Because of this, political and religious figures don't have a prayer of garnering widespread public admiration. Reagan was loved by those on the right, despised by the left, and exactly the reverse pertains to Obama.
3. Celebrities sell ink and electrons. The public has a seemingly insatiable appetite for news about pop culture. Celebrities sell magazines, newspapers, books, films, TV shows, DVDs and all other forms of electronic media. Fewer and fewer people pay much attention to hard news, but the popularity of celebrity magazines and web sites, "reality" TV shows and music videos shows no sign of abating. The media encourages this and profits from it. Compared to Michael Phelps or Miley Cyrus, Hillary Clinton is a crashing bore.
4. The media has played a critical role in the vulgarization of the culture. The amount of violence, degeneracy and moral squalor that the media propagates is disgusting. The reputation of a classic hero cannot survive in that swamp; but it is not toxic to a modern celebrity. Moral degeneracy is just another "thing" that a celebrity can excel at.
So, what do we expect of our heroes? In times past, we exacted a high moral standard. Heroes often failed to live up to those standards, but that does not change the fact that that is what we expected of them. They were role models par excellence, people who could inspire our dreams and elevate our spirits. Today's heroes are merely expected to be the best at what they do. Roger Federer and LeBron James are phenomenal athletes; it is a joy and a pleasure to watch them. But they do not change the course of history; they do not inspire men and women to challenge their ideas about life and society; they do not discover new products or technologies to improve our lives; they do not take great physical or personal risks to achieve their goals. The old heroes did these things, and their and our lives were richer for it. We had inspiration instead of titillation, admiration instead of perspiration.
Finally, what does the change in the nature of our heroes say about American society? I believe it is yet another reflection of our mutation from a society that prized rugged individualism into the nanny state. We are increasingly risk averse. Instead of demanding a level playing field upon which all individuals can compete and rise to heights that their talents and determination might take them, we look to the government and to "experts" to salve our wounds and smooth our path to a safe, but uninspiring destination.
YouTube is the World's Biggest Jukebox
Today, YouTube celebrates its fifth birthday.
I think the word "revolutionize" is overused but YouTube truly revolutionized the Internet.
We will never watch TV or listen to music in the same way.
The reason I say listen to music is because I generally listen to YouTube rather than watch it.
I think of YouTube as the world's biggest jukebox containing songs from the familiar to the obscure.
YouTube has given me to listen to music by artists whose recordings are nearly impossible to find.
Here are a few of my favorites. However, I must apologize for I cannot embed any of the videos.
Here's a song called "Histoire Sans Paroles" by Harmonium, a 1970s progressive rock group from Quebec. In English, histoire sans paroles means a story without words. It's a stunningly beautiful instrumental. The only drawback to YouTube is that you generally can't post videos longer than 10 minutes. So the song is in two parts which can be found here and here.
Most of you are probably familiar with The Byrds who had such hit songs as "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "Mr. Tambourine Man". However, you might not recognize the name Gene Clark. While he wrote or co-wrote many of their hits he was overshadowed by the likes of Roger McGuinn and David Crosby. Clark's solo career would also be eclipsed by both McGuinn and Crosby. But take a listen to "Echoes" (with the Gosdin Brothers) and "Silent Crusade." These songs were recorded a decade apart but the quality of his song craft is undeniable and deserves another hearing.
I also like YouTube because you can ask someone to post a video and more often than not someone will. Over the last few months I've become a big fan of Emitt Rhodes. While some of his songs were available on YouTube others were not. One such song was "Golden Child of God."
When I asked for this song to be posted beatlefan64 was more than happy to oblige.
Speaking of The Beatles, there are lots of Beatles fans on YouTube. Many of them cover their songs with varying degrees of success. So who does sing the best a capella version of "Because" from the Abbey Road album? Is it a trio of college boys at a bar? Or is it a quartet of high school girls sitting on a living room floor? You be the judge.
I think the word "revolutionize" is overused but YouTube truly revolutionized the Internet.
We will never watch TV or listen to music in the same way.
The reason I say listen to music is because I generally listen to YouTube rather than watch it.
I think of YouTube as the world's biggest jukebox containing songs from the familiar to the obscure.
YouTube has given me to listen to music by artists whose recordings are nearly impossible to find.
Here are a few of my favorites. However, I must apologize for I cannot embed any of the videos.
Here's a song called "Histoire Sans Paroles" by Harmonium, a 1970s progressive rock group from Quebec. In English, histoire sans paroles means a story without words. It's a stunningly beautiful instrumental. The only drawback to YouTube is that you generally can't post videos longer than 10 minutes. So the song is in two parts which can be found here and here.
Most of you are probably familiar with The Byrds who had such hit songs as "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "Mr. Tambourine Man". However, you might not recognize the name Gene Clark. While he wrote or co-wrote many of their hits he was overshadowed by the likes of Roger McGuinn and David Crosby. Clark's solo career would also be eclipsed by both McGuinn and Crosby. But take a listen to "Echoes" (with the Gosdin Brothers) and "Silent Crusade." These songs were recorded a decade apart but the quality of his song craft is undeniable and deserves another hearing.
I also like YouTube because you can ask someone to post a video and more often than not someone will. Over the last few months I've become a big fan of Emitt Rhodes. While some of his songs were available on YouTube others were not. One such song was "Golden Child of God."
When I asked for this song to be posted beatlefan64 was more than happy to oblige.
Speaking of The Beatles, there are lots of Beatles fans on YouTube. Many of them cover their songs with varying degrees of success. So who does sing the best a capella version of "Because" from the Abbey Road album? Is it a trio of college boys at a bar? Or is it a quartet of high school girls sitting on a living room floor? You be the judge.
Carrie Prejean Part Deux?
To paraphrase Yogi Berra it could be déjà vu all over again.
It appears that politics has reared its ugly head in the Miss USA Pageant last night. Actor Oscar Nunez (best known for the NBC show The Office) asked Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard if she supported Arizona's immigration law. Woolward replied that she supported states rights and that Arizona was within its rights to pass the law.
Woolard would finish runner up to Miss Michigan Rima Fakih.
Of course, a year ago Perez Hilton asked Carrie Prejean if she favored the legalization of same sex marriage and all hell broke loose.
Now this story might not have the legs the Prejean matter did unless Nunez goes on YouTube and calls Woolward "a dumb b*tch" and states her answer cost her the Miss USA title.
Interestingly, the crowd booed Nunez for asking the question rather than Woolward for replying to it. The crowd knew it was a loaded question.
Now I don't have a problem with judges asking general questions such as "What do you think is the greatest problem facing the United States or the world?" But when it comes to a specific matter such as gay marriage or the Arizona immigration the judges aren't actually interested in their opinion. The judges want to know who they can weed out if a contestant gives a politically incorrect reply.
Of course, it also gives judges an opportunity to play favorites. Now I don't deny Fakih is a beautiful woman and may well be worthy of being Miss USA. But would the judges have asked the Lebanese born Fakih what she thought of Hezbollah?
It appears that politics has reared its ugly head in the Miss USA Pageant last night. Actor Oscar Nunez (best known for the NBC show The Office) asked Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard if she supported Arizona's immigration law. Woolward replied that she supported states rights and that Arizona was within its rights to pass the law.
Woolard would finish runner up to Miss Michigan Rima Fakih.
Of course, a year ago Perez Hilton asked Carrie Prejean if she favored the legalization of same sex marriage and all hell broke loose.
Now this story might not have the legs the Prejean matter did unless Nunez goes on YouTube and calls Woolward "a dumb b*tch" and states her answer cost her the Miss USA title.
Interestingly, the crowd booed Nunez for asking the question rather than Woolward for replying to it. The crowd knew it was a loaded question.
Now I don't have a problem with judges asking general questions such as "What do you think is the greatest problem facing the United States or the world?" But when it comes to a specific matter such as gay marriage or the Arizona immigration the judges aren't actually interested in their opinion. The judges want to know who they can weed out if a contestant gives a politically incorrect reply.
Of course, it also gives judges an opportunity to play favorites. Now I don't deny Fakih is a beautiful woman and may well be worthy of being Miss USA. But would the judges have asked the Lebanese born Fakih what she thought of Hezbollah?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Cincinnati Reds in First Place in NL Central
Well, so it doesn't look the Seattle Mariners World Series triumph I predicted will come to pass.
But I did pick the Cincinnati Reds to win the NL Central. Today, the Reds beat the St. Louis Cardinals 7-2 courtesy of a complete game by Bronson Arroyo and now find themselves atop the division.
I realize there are four and a half months left in the season and so much can happen between now and October. But I don't know of anybody who picked the Reds and if they manage to win the NL Central it will be a nice feather in my cap.
But I did pick the Cincinnati Reds to win the NL Central. Today, the Reds beat the St. Louis Cardinals 7-2 courtesy of a complete game by Bronson Arroyo and now find themselves atop the division.
I realize there are four and a half months left in the season and so much can happen between now and October. But I don't know of anybody who picked the Reds and if they manage to win the NL Central it will be a nice feather in my cap.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Girl Who Sailed Around The World Hasn't Learned to Drive
Today, Jessica Watson became the youngest person to sail around the world solo nonstop.
The 16-year-old Australian landed in Sydney and was greeted by well wishers including Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who called her "Australia's newest hero." Her journey began last October.
Although Watson has just sailed solo she has not yet obtained her driver's license.
Watson, however, has been subject to criticism for her journey. Of course, some objected to her embarking on this at such a young age while others have made claims she didn't completely circumnavigate the earth. But even if there had been no dispute as to whether Watson had circumnavigated the globe the World Sailing Speed Record Council wasn't going to recognize her achievement anyway because of her age. A no win situation.
Well, whatever the World Sailing Speed Record Council thinks about Watson, I think it's a magnificent accomplishment. How many adults could have endured more than 200 days in rough seas all alone?
But Watson isn't the only young female who is sailing around the world. Sixteen-year-old Abby Sunderland (who is five months younger than Watson) is currently sailing around the world. However, she did have to stop last month in Cape Town, South Africa for repairs. But she still plans on circumnavigating the globe.
Then there's Laura Dekker. She's 14 and wants to beat out Watson. Dekker wanted to begin her journey last September. However, the Dutch authorities have been holding Dekker back. Dutch social services and the courts made Dekker a ward of the court in October. In December, Dekker ran away and somehow made her way to the Dutch island of Saint Maartens before she was recognized and returned to The Netherlands. However, this is due to end in July and it appears Dekker will set sail sometime before her 15th birthday unless the Dutch courts intervene.
I don't deny Dekker is very, very young. I also don't deny that sailing around the world solo is a risky proposition for anyone never mind a 14-year-old girl. But this 14-year-old girl was born at sea, has spent a good part of her life there and has been sailing boats since she was six. This girl isn't exactly into Justin Bieber. I think the Dutch government should leave Dekker alone and let her pursue her dream.
The 16-year-old Australian landed in Sydney and was greeted by well wishers including Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who called her "Australia's newest hero." Her journey began last October.
Although Watson has just sailed solo she has not yet obtained her driver's license.
Watson, however, has been subject to criticism for her journey. Of course, some objected to her embarking on this at such a young age while others have made claims she didn't completely circumnavigate the earth. But even if there had been no dispute as to whether Watson had circumnavigated the globe the World Sailing Speed Record Council wasn't going to recognize her achievement anyway because of her age. A no win situation.
Well, whatever the World Sailing Speed Record Council thinks about Watson, I think it's a magnificent accomplishment. How many adults could have endured more than 200 days in rough seas all alone?
But Watson isn't the only young female who is sailing around the world. Sixteen-year-old Abby Sunderland (who is five months younger than Watson) is currently sailing around the world. However, she did have to stop last month in Cape Town, South Africa for repairs. But she still plans on circumnavigating the globe.
Then there's Laura Dekker. She's 14 and wants to beat out Watson. Dekker wanted to begin her journey last September. However, the Dutch authorities have been holding Dekker back. Dutch social services and the courts made Dekker a ward of the court in October. In December, Dekker ran away and somehow made her way to the Dutch island of Saint Maartens before she was recognized and returned to The Netherlands. However, this is due to end in July and it appears Dekker will set sail sometime before her 15th birthday unless the Dutch courts intervene.
I don't deny Dekker is very, very young. I also don't deny that sailing around the world solo is a risky proposition for anyone never mind a 14-year-old girl. But this 14-year-old girl was born at sea, has spent a good part of her life there and has been sailing boats since she was six. This girl isn't exactly into Justin Bieber. I think the Dutch government should leave Dekker alone and let her pursue her dream.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Law & Order Cancelled
Today, NBC announced it has cancelled Law & Order after 20 seasons on the air.
The final episode will air on May 24th.
If it had remained on the air for another season it would have surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest running series in the history of television.
But its ratings have declined steeply in recent years. Besides, you can't keep something on TV for the sake of keeping something on TV if people are losing interest. Or as former Law & Order star Michael Moriarity put it last December in an article on breitbart.com, "Methuselah was the longest running star of the Bible...but I hardly think his memory brings a smile or tear to anyone's eye."
Law & Order became far more stridently left-wing and thus both less appealing and interesting.
Of course, Law & Order became far less interesting once Jerry Orbach left the series and then left this mortal coil.
However, L&O fans can still watch Law & Order:SVU as well as Law & Order: Criminal Intent on the USA Network. However, L&O:CI isn't the same without either Vincent D'Onofrio or Kate Erbe even if Saffron Burrows is deliciously gorgeous.
NBC and series producer however are due to launch Law & Order: Los Angeles in the fall. A lot of scenes in L&O revolve around walking outside and L.A. doesn't exactly lend itself to travelling by foot.
The final episode will air on May 24th.
If it had remained on the air for another season it would have surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest running series in the history of television.
But its ratings have declined steeply in recent years. Besides, you can't keep something on TV for the sake of keeping something on TV if people are losing interest. Or as former Law & Order star Michael Moriarity put it last December in an article on breitbart.com, "Methuselah was the longest running star of the Bible...but I hardly think his memory brings a smile or tear to anyone's eye."
Law & Order became far more stridently left-wing and thus both less appealing and interesting.
Of course, Law & Order became far less interesting once Jerry Orbach left the series and then left this mortal coil.
However, L&O fans can still watch Law & Order:SVU as well as Law & Order: Criminal Intent on the USA Network. However, L&O:CI isn't the same without either Vincent D'Onofrio or Kate Erbe even if Saffron Burrows is deliciously gorgeous.
NBC and series producer however are due to launch Law & Order: Los Angeles in the fall. A lot of scenes in L&O revolve around walking outside and L.A. doesn't exactly lend itself to travelling by foot.
Selig: 2011 All-Star Game Stays in Phoenix
Yesterday, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig told reporters he had no plans to move the 2011 All-Star Game which will be played in Phoenix. The Commish made his comments following a meeting in New York with MLB owners.
Selig has been pressured by opponents of Arizona's immigration law to move the mid-season classic.
The MLBPA has condemned the law although they have not yet announced any specific measures they will take against it.
San Diego Padres superstar Adrian Gonzalez announced earlier this month he would stay away if the game were held in Phoenix. Despite Gonzalez's stature unless other big name players join him methinks the owners (whom Selig represents) will stand their ground on this one.
Selig has been pressured by opponents of Arizona's immigration law to move the mid-season classic.
The MLBPA has condemned the law although they have not yet announced any specific measures they will take against it.
San Diego Padres superstar Adrian Gonzalez announced earlier this month he would stay away if the game were held in Phoenix. Despite Gonzalez's stature unless other big name players join him methinks the owners (whom Selig represents) will stand their ground on this one.
Boston Bruins Choke
What a difference twenty-four hours makes.
Last night, the Boston Garden witnessed triumph when the Celtics upended the Cleveland Cavaliers to advance to the NBA Eastern Conference Final.
Tonight, it bore witness to one of the most monumental collapses in sports history. The Boston Bruins fell 4-3 to the Philadelphia Flyers in Game 7 of the NHL Eastern Conference Semi-Final.
A week ago, the Bruins had a three games to none lead and were set to clinch.
Tonight's game was emblematic of the series. The Bruins jumped out to a 3-0 lead in the 1st period. But the Flyers scored four unanswered goals.
The Bruins become the third team in NHL history to blow a three games to none lead. The Detroit Red Wings couldn't clinch it against the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1942 and in 1975 the Pittsburgh Penguins couldn't put away the New York Islanders.
As for the Flyers, they will advance to the NHL Eastern Conference Final against the Montreal Canadiens.
But at least Boston fans still have the Celtics to rally around.
Last night, the Boston Garden witnessed triumph when the Celtics upended the Cleveland Cavaliers to advance to the NBA Eastern Conference Final.
Tonight, it bore witness to one of the most monumental collapses in sports history. The Boston Bruins fell 4-3 to the Philadelphia Flyers in Game 7 of the NHL Eastern Conference Semi-Final.
A week ago, the Bruins had a three games to none lead and were set to clinch.
Tonight's game was emblematic of the series. The Bruins jumped out to a 3-0 lead in the 1st period. But the Flyers scored four unanswered goals.
The Bruins become the third team in NHL history to blow a three games to none lead. The Detroit Red Wings couldn't clinch it against the Toronto Maple Leafs in 1942 and in 1975 the Pittsburgh Penguins couldn't put away the New York Islanders.
As for the Flyers, they will advance to the NHL Eastern Conference Final against the Montreal Canadiens.
But at least Boston fans still have the Celtics to rally around.
A Question for Eric Holder
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly admitted to not having read Arizona's recently passed immigration law during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Writing in The Boston Herald today, Holly Robichaud asks, So can we conclude that the Obama administration has rushed to judgment? Were they ever going to give the law a fair chance? I think we all know the answers to these questions."
This leaves me with one question.
How can the Attorney General of the United States consider a court challenge to a law he has not taken the time to read?
Writing in The Boston Herald today, Holly Robichaud asks, So can we conclude that the Obama administration has rushed to judgment? Were they ever going to give the law a fair chance? I think we all know the answers to these questions."
This leaves me with one question.
How can the Attorney General of the United States consider a court challenge to a law he has not taken the time to read?
Chris Christie for President
The Huffington Post is in, well, all in a huff about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie taking a liberal columnist Tom Moran to task for asking him about his "confrontational tone" during a press conference yesterday.
"You know Tom, you must be the thinnest-skinned guy in America," replied Christie. "Because if you think that's a confrontational tone then you should really see me when I'm pissed."
I know that Christie has a lot of work to do in New Jersey but this guy should consider a run for the White House because our allies should respect us and our enemies should fear us. Under the Obama Administration it's the other way around. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, the Kim Jong-Ils and Faisal Shahzad's of the world might think twice before pissing off Chris Christie.
"You know Tom, you must be the thinnest-skinned guy in America," replied Christie. "Because if you think that's a confrontational tone then you should really see me when I'm pissed."
I know that Christie has a lot of work to do in New Jersey but this guy should consider a run for the White House because our allies should respect us and our enemies should fear us. Under the Obama Administration it's the other way around. The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, the Kim Jong-Ils and Faisal Shahzad's of the world might think twice before pissing off Chris Christie.
The Pipes of Peace?
Yesterday, Daniel Pipes wrote a most interesting article in National Review Online about Arab acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. This article can also be found on Pipes' website.
Pipes, through the Middle East Forum, commissioned on poll on attitudes towards Israel as a Jewish state in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. According to the poll, approximately 20% of those surveyed accept Israel as a Jewish state. Pipes sees cause for optimism:
Although 20 percent constitutes a small minority, its consistency over time and place offers encouragement. That one-fifth of Muslims, Arabs, and even Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state suggests that, despite a near-century of indoctrination and intimidation, a base for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict does exist.
Would-be peacemakers must direct their attention to increasing the size of this moderate cohort. Getting from 20 percent to, say, 60 percent would fundamentally shift the politics of the Middle East, displacing Israel from its exaggerated role and releasing the peoples of this blighted region to address their real challenges. Not Zionism but such, oh, minor problems as autocracy, brutality, cruelty, conspiracism, religious intolerance, apocalypticism, political extremism, misogyny, slavery, economic backwardness, brain drain, capital flight, corruption, and drought.
I wish I shared Pipes' optimism. I don't dispute that 20% of the Arab world has no problem living alongside or in proximity to a Jewish state. However, this 20% doesn't exactly go around the streets of Amman, Beirut, Cairo and Riyadh wearing Hug a Jew Today t-shirts. I don't see how you get from 20% to 60% support if those 20% aren't willing to speak out much less wear their support on their sleeves.
Let us also remember that Israel has had a formal peace agreement with Egypt for over three decades and a formal peace agreement with Jordan for over fifteen years. When only 26% of Egyptians and 9% of Jordanians support the idea of having a Jewish state as a neighbor it tells me an overwhelming majority of their populaces would just as soon see Israel driven into the sea.
I don't fault Pipes for trying to find a sliver an optimism in a cloud of despair. But unless individual Arabs (be they Muslim or Christian) take it upon themselves to speak out in favor of Israel I think that Arab acceptance of the Jewish State is little more than a pipe dream.
Pipes, through the Middle East Forum, commissioned on poll on attitudes towards Israel as a Jewish state in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. According to the poll, approximately 20% of those surveyed accept Israel as a Jewish state. Pipes sees cause for optimism:
Although 20 percent constitutes a small minority, its consistency over time and place offers encouragement. That one-fifth of Muslims, Arabs, and even Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state suggests that, despite a near-century of indoctrination and intimidation, a base for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict does exist.
Would-be peacemakers must direct their attention to increasing the size of this moderate cohort. Getting from 20 percent to, say, 60 percent would fundamentally shift the politics of the Middle East, displacing Israel from its exaggerated role and releasing the peoples of this blighted region to address their real challenges. Not Zionism but such, oh, minor problems as autocracy, brutality, cruelty, conspiracism, religious intolerance, apocalypticism, political extremism, misogyny, slavery, economic backwardness, brain drain, capital flight, corruption, and drought.
I wish I shared Pipes' optimism. I don't dispute that 20% of the Arab world has no problem living alongside or in proximity to a Jewish state. However, this 20% doesn't exactly go around the streets of Amman, Beirut, Cairo and Riyadh wearing Hug a Jew Today t-shirts. I don't see how you get from 20% to 60% support if those 20% aren't willing to speak out much less wear their support on their sleeves.
Let us also remember that Israel has had a formal peace agreement with Egypt for over three decades and a formal peace agreement with Jordan for over fifteen years. When only 26% of Egyptians and 9% of Jordanians support the idea of having a Jewish state as a neighbor it tells me an overwhelming majority of their populaces would just as soon see Israel driven into the sea.
I don't fault Pipes for trying to find a sliver an optimism in a cloud of despair. But unless individual Arabs (be they Muslim or Christian) take it upon themselves to speak out in favor of Israel I think that Arab acceptance of the Jewish State is little more than a pipe dream.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Washington Times Notes My Tribute to Lena Horne
The Washington Times has noted my tribute to Lena Horne.
The article can be found both on the IC mainpage and at The American Spectator.
The article can be found both on the IC mainpage and at The American Spectator.
Kagan in Praise of Radicals and Socialism
"The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."
Read more....
Read more....
Celtics Upset Cavaliers in Six
It appears LeBron James has played his last game in a Cleveland Cavaliers uniform.
The Boston Celtics defeated the Cavs 94-85 in Game 6 of the NBA Eastern Conference Semi-Final.
The Cavs were heavily favored to win an elusive NBA title.
The Celtics jumped out of the gate but as the season lingered they showed their age getting blown out by likes of the Milwaukee Bucks and the Charlotte Bobcats.
But the Celtics cooled the Miami Heat in the first round of the playoffs and now having triumphed over the Cavs they will face the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Final.
As for LeBron you can expect him to sport a New York Knicks jersey this fall.
The Boston Celtics defeated the Cavs 94-85 in Game 6 of the NBA Eastern Conference Semi-Final.
The Cavs were heavily favored to win an elusive NBA title.
The Celtics jumped out of the gate but as the season lingered they showed their age getting blown out by likes of the Milwaukee Bucks and the Charlotte Bobcats.
But the Celtics cooled the Miami Heat in the first round of the playoffs and now having triumphed over the Cavs they will face the Orlando Magic in the Eastern Conference Final.
As for LeBron you can expect him to sport a New York Knicks jersey this fall.
Royals Fire Hillman, Hire Yost
The Kansas City Royals have fired manager Trey Hillman and have replaced him with former Milwaukee Brewers skipper Ned Yost.
They did so after the Royals defeated the Cleveland Indians 6-4 this afternoon. It marked the first win of the season for Zack Greinke who won the AL Cy Young in 2009.
Hillman had been at the helm of the Royals since 2008. However, Hillman was no more successful than his predecessors. Hillman guided the team to fourth place finishes in the AL Central in both 2008 and 2009 going 75-87 and 65-97, respectively. The Royals were 12-23 at the time of Hillman's dismissal.
Yost managed the Brewers from 2003 to the last couple of weeks of the 2008 season. He was abruptly dismissed in September 2008 and it was left to Dale Sveum to lead them to the NL Wild Card.
Will Yost be to the Royals in 2010 what Jim Tracy was to the Colorado Rockies in 2009?
They did so after the Royals defeated the Cleveland Indians 6-4 this afternoon. It marked the first win of the season for Zack Greinke who won the AL Cy Young in 2009.
Hillman had been at the helm of the Royals since 2008. However, Hillman was no more successful than his predecessors. Hillman guided the team to fourth place finishes in the AL Central in both 2008 and 2009 going 75-87 and 65-97, respectively. The Royals were 12-23 at the time of Hillman's dismissal.
Yost managed the Brewers from 2003 to the last couple of weeks of the 2008 season. He was abruptly dismissed in September 2008 and it was left to Dale Sveum to lead them to the NL Wild Card.
Will Yost be to the Royals in 2010 what Jim Tracy was to the Colorado Rockies in 2009?
Does the Times Square Terror Plot Have a Boston Connection?
FBI agents are searching a residence in Watertown, Massachusetts in connection with the attempted terrorist attack in Times Square.
Once again so much for Faisal Shahzad being an "isolated extremist."
UPDATE: A Mobil gas station in Brookline was also searched and has resulted in the arrest of two men here in Massachusetts and one in Maine. The three men are of Pakistani origin and are believed to have helped fund Shahzad's attempted attack.
Once again so much for Faisal Shahzad being an "isolated extremist."
UPDATE: A Mobil gas station in Brookline was also searched and has resulted in the arrest of two men here in Massachusetts and one in Maine. The three men are of Pakistani origin and are believed to have helped fund Shahzad's attempted attack.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Girls High School Basketball Team Denied Trip to Arizona
The Highland Park High School Varsity Girls Basketball Team is being denied an opportunity to play in a tournament taking place in Arizona.
Players at the suburban Chicago high school had been raising money for months through bake sales to finance this trip. All their efforts are now in vain. And for what?
School officials cited safety concerns. But students and parents believe it is little more than a misguided protest against Arizona's new immigration law. A local school official states the trip to Arizona "would not be aligned" with the school's "beliefs and values. I liked the observation of one parent in particular:
The school has sent children to China, they’ve sent children to South America, they’ve sent children to the Czech Republic, but somehow Arizona is more unsafe for them than those places. The beliefs and values of China are apparently aligned since they approved that trip.
This decision will not hurt Arizona in any way, shape or form. Life will go on. The only people this decision hurts is the members of the Highland Park High School Varsity Girls Basketball Team. Why punish them for the hard work they've put in both on the court and off of it?
Players at the suburban Chicago high school had been raising money for months through bake sales to finance this trip. All their efforts are now in vain. And for what?
School officials cited safety concerns. But students and parents believe it is little more than a misguided protest against Arizona's new immigration law. A local school official states the trip to Arizona "would not be aligned" with the school's "beliefs and values. I liked the observation of one parent in particular:
The school has sent children to China, they’ve sent children to South America, they’ve sent children to the Czech Republic, but somehow Arizona is more unsafe for them than those places. The beliefs and values of China are apparently aligned since they approved that trip.
This decision will not hurt Arizona in any way, shape or form. Life will go on. The only people this decision hurts is the members of the Highland Park High School Varsity Girls Basketball Team. Why punish them for the hard work they've put in both on the court and off of it?
Obama Envoy Claims Creation of Israel is The Source of Middle East Conflict
Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard draws our attention to an article in Commentary written by Jennifer Rubin.
Rubin writes about an interview given by Rashad Hussain to Asharq Alawsat, a Saudi owned, London based Arabic international newspaper.
Who is Rashad Hussain? Three months ago, Hussain was appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Prior to that he had been Obama's Deputy Associate Counsel. At the time, Obama appointed Hussain as Special Envoy comments he made during a 2004 panel discussion came to light. During the discussion he lambasted the prosecution of Sami al-Arian as a "politically motivated prosecution." Hussain and the White House initially said he had no recollection of making any such comment. However, irrefutable evidence of his statement came to light Hussain called his statement "ill conceived."
Well, now Hussain has made some more ill conceived statements in his Asharq Alawsat interview. Halper was struck by Hussain's claim that the Obama Administration would work "to erase the hostile feelings caused by the administration of former President George W. Bush."
I too am shocked by them. But I am not surprised. When you consider how overt President Obama has been in his criticism of former President Bush it should not come as a surprise when Obama's subordinates are publicly derisive of the 43rd President.
But here's something that really should raise red flags (not the ones you would see at a socialist or communist rally). When asked about settlement construction in Jerusalem, Hussain states in part:
President Obama is committed to calming the situation in the city of Jerusalem, and finding solutions that are both acceptable to the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is also a clear position by the president to reject any settlement building in east Jerusalem, and there is a statement to this effect from the US administration, which has many ways to settle the conflict in the region that has lasted for 60 years.
So what exactly took place in the Middle East a little over 60 years ago? That would be the creation of the State of Israel. Or what the Palestinians like to call "Nakba" which literally means cataclysm.
Some reporter in the White House press corps should ask Robert Gibbs if the Obama Administration agrees with Hussain's declaration that conflict in the Middle East has lasted for 60 years. Then reporters should follow up by asking Gibbs if the Obama Administration believes the creation of the State of Israel is the source of that conflict. It could go a long way in explaining the Obama Administration's implacable hostility towards Israel.
Rubin writes about an interview given by Rashad Hussain to Asharq Alawsat, a Saudi owned, London based Arabic international newspaper.
Who is Rashad Hussain? Three months ago, Hussain was appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Prior to that he had been Obama's Deputy Associate Counsel. At the time, Obama appointed Hussain as Special Envoy comments he made during a 2004 panel discussion came to light. During the discussion he lambasted the prosecution of Sami al-Arian as a "politically motivated prosecution." Hussain and the White House initially said he had no recollection of making any such comment. However, irrefutable evidence of his statement came to light Hussain called his statement "ill conceived."
Well, now Hussain has made some more ill conceived statements in his Asharq Alawsat interview. Halper was struck by Hussain's claim that the Obama Administration would work "to erase the hostile feelings caused by the administration of former President George W. Bush."
I too am shocked by them. But I am not surprised. When you consider how overt President Obama has been in his criticism of former President Bush it should not come as a surprise when Obama's subordinates are publicly derisive of the 43rd President.
But here's something that really should raise red flags (not the ones you would see at a socialist or communist rally). When asked about settlement construction in Jerusalem, Hussain states in part:
President Obama is committed to calming the situation in the city of Jerusalem, and finding solutions that are both acceptable to the Palestinians and the Israelis. There is also a clear position by the president to reject any settlement building in east Jerusalem, and there is a statement to this effect from the US administration, which has many ways to settle the conflict in the region that has lasted for 60 years.
So what exactly took place in the Middle East a little over 60 years ago? That would be the creation of the State of Israel. Or what the Palestinians like to call "Nakba" which literally means cataclysm.
Some reporter in the White House press corps should ask Robert Gibbs if the Obama Administration agrees with Hussain's declaration that conflict in the Middle East has lasted for 60 years. Then reporters should follow up by asking Gibbs if the Obama Administration believes the creation of the State of Israel is the source of that conflict. It could go a long way in explaining the Obama Administration's implacable hostility towards Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)














