Friday, July 11, 2003
Robertson supports murderous dictator
It's a shame that Pat Robertson is seen by many as the face of Christian conservatism. Here's the latest evidence that he's off his rocker. The Bible tells us "by their fruits ye shall know them," and Charles Taylor's actions do not show any evidence of a life transformed by faith. Robertson obviously views Taylor's words as more important than his actions.
It's a shame that Pat Robertson is seen by many as the face of Christian conservatism. Here's the latest evidence that he's off his rocker. The Bible tells us "by their fruits ye shall know them," and Charles Taylor's actions do not show any evidence of a life transformed by faith. Robertson obviously views Taylor's words as more important than his actions.
New and improved!
I decided to add headlines to my July posts, and all future posts will have headlines as well. It should make the blog a little easier to follow.
I decided to add headlines to my July posts, and all future posts will have headlines as well. It should make the blog a little easier to follow.
Governor Foster loses his cool
Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Jay Blossman (disclaimer: I am supporting Blossman's bid for governor) has launched a new ad saying that the state has its spending priorities mixed up because it has been spending money on wasteful legislative pet projects instead of things like the criminal DNA database that would have caught serial killer Derrick Todd Lee. Blossman's ad points out that if the DNA database had been funded in 1997 when the legislature first authorized its creation, Lee would have had his DNA taken when he was arrested for stalking and at least 4 more women would be alive.
Predictably, Governor Foster has taken umbrage with the suggestion that he might have made a mistake as governor. He's unapologetic about the fact that we were one of the last states in the nation to create a criminal DNA database. Instead, he calls Blossman "a sick little fellow" for pointing out that our spending priorities are out of whack. On his radio show yesterday, Foster actually got into an argument with the mother of one of the serial killer victims. I'm betting that the Blossman campaign wants Foster to do more of that.
Louisiana gubernatorial candidate Jay Blossman (disclaimer: I am supporting Blossman's bid for governor) has launched a new ad saying that the state has its spending priorities mixed up because it has been spending money on wasteful legislative pet projects instead of things like the criminal DNA database that would have caught serial killer Derrick Todd Lee. Blossman's ad points out that if the DNA database had been funded in 1997 when the legislature first authorized its creation, Lee would have had his DNA taken when he was arrested for stalking and at least 4 more women would be alive.
Predictably, Governor Foster has taken umbrage with the suggestion that he might have made a mistake as governor. He's unapologetic about the fact that we were one of the last states in the nation to create a criminal DNA database. Instead, he calls Blossman "a sick little fellow" for pointing out that our spending priorities are out of whack. On his radio show yesterday, Foster actually got into an argument with the mother of one of the serial killer victims. I'm betting that the Blossman campaign wants Foster to do more of that.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Volokh defends Baker
Eugene Volokh is defending Dusty Baker again. The reader he quotes is me, by the way.
My reply is that Dusty Baker's job is to win games. If Mr. Baker is sincere in his belief that certain races play better in the heat, then he regularly has to choose between obeying the law or playing the people he feels will help him win. I'm not saying that Baker has been breaking the law, only that seems likely and merits investigation.
Quite simply, I feel that it's reprehensible to stereotype others unless one has evidence that the stereotype is true (and I've not seen any such evidence in this case). Such statements by popular figures only serve to cause further divisions in our society.
I can just see two Chicago construction workers today. At 1:00 pm, the white guy tells the black guy, "I'm going to take a longer break than you. After all, you can handle the heat better than I can."
Eugene Volokh is defending Dusty Baker again. The reader he quotes is me, by the way.
My reply is that Dusty Baker's job is to win games. If Mr. Baker is sincere in his belief that certain races play better in the heat, then he regularly has to choose between obeying the law or playing the people he feels will help him win. I'm not saying that Baker has been breaking the law, only that seems likely and merits investigation.
Quite simply, I feel that it's reprehensible to stereotype others unless one has evidence that the stereotype is true (and I've not seen any such evidence in this case). Such statements by popular figures only serve to cause further divisions in our society.
I can just see two Chicago construction workers today. At 1:00 pm, the white guy tells the black guy, "I'm going to take a longer break than you. After all, you can handle the heat better than I can."
Blogosphere ignores Baker's racist remarks
Apparently, racism against white people doesn't really bother a lot of others in the blogosphere. The Power Line finds it unlikely that Baker would make managerial decisions based on his beliefs on playing ability, a stance I think is naive to say the least, John Hawkins thinks we should "cut Baker a little slack," while Boomshock thinks Baker's comments are "unfortunate" and "ignorant" and Eugene Volokh wonders if Baker might be correct and doesn't think he needs to apologize. Only Dan Drezner (scroll down to 7/9 and 7/8) calls for Baker to apologize. I guess I'm the only one who thinks he should be fired.
I really have to address Volokh's comments, because he usually is more thoughtful than this. Eugene, if I were in a leadership position in government or business, and I said that whites are smarter than blacks and tried to defend myself on the basis of truth (maybe quoting from The Bell Curve), would you argue that there is no evidence that I would act on my beliefs? How does this fit with your dislike of double standards?
UPDATE: ScrappleFace has it about right. Heh.
Apparently, racism against white people doesn't really bother a lot of others in the blogosphere. The Power Line finds it unlikely that Baker would make managerial decisions based on his beliefs on playing ability, a stance I think is naive to say the least, John Hawkins thinks we should "cut Baker a little slack," while Boomshock thinks Baker's comments are "unfortunate" and "ignorant" and Eugene Volokh wonders if Baker might be correct and doesn't think he needs to apologize. Only Dan Drezner (scroll down to 7/9 and 7/8) calls for Baker to apologize. I guess I'm the only one who thinks he should be fired.
I really have to address Volokh's comments, because he usually is more thoughtful than this. Eugene, if I were in a leadership position in government or business, and I said that whites are smarter than blacks and tried to defend myself on the basis of truth (maybe quoting from The Bell Curve), would you argue that there is no evidence that I would act on my beliefs? How does this fit with your dislike of double standards?
UPDATE: ScrappleFace has it about right. Heh.
Racism defended
Here's a sick column defending Dusty Baker's racism. The author, Ron Borges, actually hails Baker as some kind of folk hero because he "simply refused to wilt to the forces of political correctness."
Borges actually sees Baker as a victim: "Do we see some attempted denial of rights here? Only Baker’s, who some seemed to say should be denied the personal freedom to speak his mind." So, because I criticize racism, now I'm an oppressor trying to deny Mr. Baker his freedom of speech?
Follow me for a second, because this is important. Most of the games in Wrigley Field are played during the day, in the heat. Dusty Baker says that blacks and latinos play better than whites in the heat. It is logical to assume that Baker will put the players on the field who he believes will perform the best under game conditions. Doesn't this lead to the inescapable conclusion that Baker is discriminating against his white players based on racial stereotypes?
Ron Borges has the nerve to call Baker's disgusting tripe "the truth." So I guess he thinks that employers in cold climates should be free to discriminate against blacks, because whites work better in the cold, right?
Here's a sick column defending Dusty Baker's racism. The author, Ron Borges, actually hails Baker as some kind of folk hero because he "simply refused to wilt to the forces of political correctness."
Borges actually sees Baker as a victim: "Do we see some attempted denial of rights here? Only Baker’s, who some seemed to say should be denied the personal freedom to speak his mind." So, because I criticize racism, now I'm an oppressor trying to deny Mr. Baker his freedom of speech?
Follow me for a second, because this is important. Most of the games in Wrigley Field are played during the day, in the heat. Dusty Baker says that blacks and latinos play better than whites in the heat. It is logical to assume that Baker will put the players on the field who he believes will perform the best under game conditions. Doesn't this lead to the inescapable conclusion that Baker is discriminating against his white players based on racial stereotypes?
Ron Borges has the nerve to call Baker's disgusting tripe "the truth." So I guess he thinks that employers in cold climates should be free to discriminate against blacks, because whites work better in the cold, right?
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Freedom of speech -- for black people only
We all know that only white people can be racist, and the Democratic Party has certainly provided a lot of evidence for that with it's acceptance of Al Sharpton as a serious candidate for President, but here's more proof. Even Dusty Baker knows that there's a double standard:
"But as a black manager, I can say things about blacks that a white manager can't say, and whites can say things about whites that blacks can't say."
Only the first part of that is true, of course. Try to visualize the media response if a white manager had said, on a cold April day, "I'm playing my white players today because they play better in cold weather than blacks and latinos."
We all know that only white people can be racist, and the Democratic Party has certainly provided a lot of evidence for that with it's acceptance of Al Sharpton as a serious candidate for President, but here's more proof. Even Dusty Baker knows that there's a double standard:
"But as a black manager, I can say things about blacks that a white manager can't say, and whites can say things about whites that blacks can't say."
Only the first part of that is true, of course. Try to visualize the media response if a white manager had said, on a cold April day, "I'm playing my white players today because they play better in cold weather than blacks and latinos."
Steve Forbes backs President Bush
It's good to see my old boss praising Bush. When I signed onto the Forbes campaign, I was also suspicious of dubya's record as Texas governor. I was very concerned about his temperment and about whether he was truly a conservative. Did President Bush prove us wrong? Yes. I believe that history will long admire his leadership at a critical time for our nation.
Would Steve Forbes have also made a great President? I believe that answer is also yes. Steve wouldn't have waffled on affirmative action, he wouldn't have pushed a giant new entitlement program (prescription drugs), and I know that his post- 9/11 foreign policy would have been decisive and forceful. I hope that Steve Forbes someday again makes an impact on the national political scene -- he's a good man.
It's good to see my old boss praising Bush. When I signed onto the Forbes campaign, I was also suspicious of dubya's record as Texas governor. I was very concerned about his temperment and about whether he was truly a conservative. Did President Bush prove us wrong? Yes. I believe that history will long admire his leadership at a critical time for our nation.
Would Steve Forbes have also made a great President? I believe that answer is also yes. Steve wouldn't have waffled on affirmative action, he wouldn't have pushed a giant new entitlement program (prescription drugs), and I know that his post- 9/11 foreign policy would have been decisive and forceful. I hope that Steve Forbes someday again makes an impact on the national political scene -- he's a good man.
Monday, July 07, 2003
Tim Blair treats us to a fisking
A wonderful post from Tim Blair about genetically modified foods.
The liberal, reactionary opposition against GM foods is not only odd because their stance hurts the world's poor. It is also odd because opposing GM foods is anti-green. As one of the comments to Tim's post noted, more efficient use of land means a smaller demand for agricultural land.
For many years, the single greatest goal of many environmentalists has been stopping the destruction of the world's rainforests. The primary cause of rainforest destruction is the increasing demand for agricultural land to support the earth's growing population. GM crops have the potential to reverse this trend and allow more land to become rainforest. More rainforest would increase the consumption of carbon dioxide and will help slow global warming! For a liberal, what is there about this not to love?
Well, if disabled members of a disadvantaged minority group working under a government-funded program had developed GM foods that were being distributed around the world by the UN ... (I obviously don't need to finish this sentence). It's only because evil US corporations will benefit that liberals of the world oppose GM foods.
This is the same reason that liberals support the invasion of Liberia but not Iraq.
A wonderful post from Tim Blair about genetically modified foods.
The liberal, reactionary opposition against GM foods is not only odd because their stance hurts the world's poor. It is also odd because opposing GM foods is anti-green. As one of the comments to Tim's post noted, more efficient use of land means a smaller demand for agricultural land.
For many years, the single greatest goal of many environmentalists has been stopping the destruction of the world's rainforests. The primary cause of rainforest destruction is the increasing demand for agricultural land to support the earth's growing population. GM crops have the potential to reverse this trend and allow more land to become rainforest. More rainforest would increase the consumption of carbon dioxide and will help slow global warming! For a liberal, what is there about this not to love?
Well, if disabled members of a disadvantaged minority group working under a government-funded program had developed GM foods that were being distributed around the world by the UN ... (I obviously don't need to finish this sentence). It's only because evil US corporations will benefit that liberals of the world oppose GM foods.
This is the same reason that liberals support the invasion of Liberia but not Iraq.
Abolish Michael Kinsley instead
I was going to write that Michael Kinsley's article in Slate was just about the most idiotic thing I had read this year -- and then I saw that JunkYardBlog had already said it, plus a lot more. Just in case he left anything out (see also this post), he refers us to Eve Tushnet, who also tells it like it is. I'll only add that the fact that Kinsley's article is being treated seriously indicates how sick our society has become.
I was going to write that Michael Kinsley's article in Slate was just about the most idiotic thing I had read this year -- and then I saw that JunkYardBlog had already said it, plus a lot more. Just in case he left anything out (see also this post), he refers us to Eve Tushnet, who also tells it like it is. I'll only add that the fact that Kinsley's article is being treated seriously indicates how sick our society has become.
