I spent some time surfing liberal websites and found two underlying themes. First there is a lot of hatred in that group. It goes without saying that liberals hate Bush, Republicans and John McCain. Some of their groups are still trying to get Congress to start impeachment procedures against Bush. Yup, that’s just what this economy and shaky Wall Street needs right now.
I had also heard that there was division within the Democrat Party but I didn’t realize until today how deep it went. There is a YouTube video of Howard Dean in Charlotte making a stump speech for Obama. At first all you could hear was the rhythmic monotone chanting of “Yes I Can”. It actually was rather scary as it came across so militaristic*. Then off to the side were more protesters with their own signs. Although there was no organization in their protesting they were still able to interrupt Dean’s speech. If you thought they were McCain supporters you are wrong. It was a group of Hillary Clinton supporters. Wow. I have yet to see the media cover any of this.
Hillary’s supporters are beyond mad at Obama. One of their signs requested a roll call during their convention which Dean said would happen. I’ll believe it when I see it. For a roll call of how each state voted would clearly show that Obama was not the chosen one and narrowly won the primary. If they do show it then look for it around mid afternoon when no one is watching. There were also a number of blogs by Hillary supporters who write that they will never support Obama and will vote for McCain instead.
The second point is that the Democrats are doing the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In those elections, along with the current one, liberals are writing that the public is stupid to vote for McCain. I didn’t get it then nor do I understand it now. Because how much sense does it take to realize that if you want people to vote for your candidate then don’t call them stupid?
The recent polls still show McCain close to Obama, and in some polls actually surpassing Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the above contributes to McCain making a better show of it than expected.
* Shortly after Obama won his primary he sent out an email to say he was creating a “Fellowship”. He talked of sending people to training programs and then these "leaders" would be assigned where to work during the summer. When I first read this I was confused since not much happens in the summer. After that video I think I now understand the purpose of his “Fellowship” which in this light makes it all that much scarier.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Short Retort - A Followup
Apparently I wasn't the only one to like that article that I recommended in my prior Short Retort. Not only did Fox News like it, but they contacted the journalist and together created a very funny bit. While the author read his "parable" called The Child, Fox created a slide show of appropriate accompanying pictures. This turned a funny news article into an even funnier video clip. Here is the link to YouTube where you can see this hilarious video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0drwfnGlF_E Enjoy!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0drwfnGlF_E Enjoy!
Friday, July 25, 2008
Short Retort
The Drudge Report had a link to the following article and of course I had to read this: OBAMA MOCKED IN BRIT PAPER: 'He ventured forth to bring light to the world'...
It is extremely funny and especially interesting that it was written by a British newspaper. Then again, I couldn't see our newpapers writing anything detrimental about Obama so luckily the British have stepped in for us. Anyway, I think you will enjoy it.
It is extremely funny and especially interesting that it was written by a British newspaper. Then again, I couldn't see our newpapers writing anything detrimental about Obama so luckily the British have stepped in for us. Anyway, I think you will enjoy it.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Changing Everything But His Own Mind
For some reason I keep imagining the following scene…..
Dinner time and everyone is sitting around the kitchen table.
“I don’t like this.” said Joshua looking at the peas on his dinner plate.
“You haven’t even tried them.” Replies his Dad.
“Don’t care. I just know I won’t like them.”
“Why?”
.
“Because it’s green and looks funny and it smells!” Joshua is now building up to a full fledged temper tantrum.
“Stop that screaming and just eat your peas.” Dad is starting to get another headache.
“No. You can eat them.”
“Don't talk back to me like that. You can’t get down from the table until you try them." Dad's getting annoyed with his son's attitude. "How can you say you don’t like something if you haven’t even tried it? That doesn't make any sense” (Apparently Dad has forgotten that adolescent boys rarely make sense.)
“I don't care. I just know I don't like them.”
Father and son stare at each other.
“Oh alright”, Joshua pouts. He balances two peas on his fork, puts them in his mouth and starts to make a gagging sound. “Yechhhh! Are you trying to poison me? That’s really gross! You never listen to me. I knew they would be awful even before I tasted them. And I was right - they are awful and I don't like them! So now get the rest of them off of my plate!"
Dinner time and everyone is sitting around the kitchen table.
“I don’t like this.” said Joshua looking at the peas on his dinner plate.
“You haven’t even tried them.” Replies his Dad.
“Don’t care. I just know I won’t like them.”
“Why?”
.
“Because it’s green and looks funny and it smells!” Joshua is now building up to a full fledged temper tantrum.
“Stop that screaming and just eat your peas.” Dad is starting to get another headache.
“No. You can eat them.”
“Don't talk back to me like that. You can’t get down from the table until you try them." Dad's getting annoyed with his son's attitude. "How can you say you don’t like something if you haven’t even tried it? That doesn't make any sense” (Apparently Dad has forgotten that adolescent boys rarely make sense.)
“I don't care. I just know I don't like them.”
Father and son stare at each other.
“Oh alright”, Joshua pouts. He balances two peas on his fork, puts them in his mouth and starts to make a gagging sound. “Yechhhh! Are you trying to poison me? That’s really gross! You never listen to me. I knew they would be awful even before I tasted them. And I was right - they are awful and I don't like them! So now get the rest of them off of my plate!"
~
Hmmm. Maybe some little boys never do grow up…
Hmmm. Maybe some little boys never do grow up…
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
He Who Laughs Last....
By now everybody has seen the cover of the New Yorker depicting Obama and his wife as Islamic terrorists. You can almost hear the magazine’s staff laughing at the thought that less educated, less sophisticated and less enlightened people actually believe this about the Democrat candidate. This cover was meant to redicule these rubes while the article defended Obama's patriotism. The only problem with this satire is that, as backed up by recent surveys, there really are a significant number of people who believe that Obama is associated with Islam and US radicals. They believe that instead of being a satire the New Yorker cover actually depicted the “truth” about Obama and his wife.
No surprise that Obama is furious. He has spent millions trying to establish that he is a patriotic American and that all the rumors are lies. And yet as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this cover erased a lot of the progress he had made. The TV news and cable shows continuously showed this cover and it is so provocative that people will remember the image long after they remember that it was to be a satire. The New Yorker cover also had an unintended result which might be a key to defeating Obama this fall.
The more I watch Obama, the more I feel that he is becoming a self righteous, self important man who believes in his own hype. Think about it. What kind of man would create a seal identical to the presidential seal? How egotistical is it to move his acceptance speech from the hall to a stadium where he can speak to the masses all gathered to worship him? Or to want to speak from the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, where only President Kennedy and Reagan have spoken? He really is beginning to think of himself as the next JFK and Martin Luther King rolled up into one.
Then along comes The New Yorker cover which seems to be ridiculing Obama and his wife rather than the intended satirizing of red state Republicans. And you know what? Obama’s reaction is showing a trait that could become an Achilles heel for him. He can’t laugh at himself. Barack has become such a stuffed shirt that he can’t tolerate anyone making fun of him or satirizing him. Sure, he has some humorous moments in his speeches but these are ones he approved and it never shows him in a negative or even awkward situation.
A few days before the latest problem he and his family had been interviewed by a tabloid gossipy TV show. It was light and fluffy and cute but he didn’t even like it when his own little girls teased him. Papa Obama was clearly uncomfortable although he laughed and went along with it. It appeared that he was also annoyed that his girls got more questions and coverage than he did. What could have been a wonderful PR moment turned negative when afterwards he said he regretted doing it and will not do any more family interviews. This interview was quickly followed by the New Yorker cover plus the callous remarks by Jesse Jackson. Barack might have diffused these situations if he laughed them off. Instead he got angry, righteous and superior which only served to prolong it all.
In the beginning of the year Obama seemed to be a likeable young man. Yet it seems as if he has changed into a pompous hypocrite who no longer tolerates anyone making fun of him and instead believes he deserves to be treated as someone who is destined for greatness. These new traits also include the inability to tolerate anyone making fun of him. And that is what the Republicans must do if they want to win. Show how rediculous he has become and laugh at him. For if he has become this arrogant and this self righteous when he is only a candidate for President, can you imagine what he will be like if he is actually elected President?
No surprise that Obama is furious. He has spent millions trying to establish that he is a patriotic American and that all the rumors are lies. And yet as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this cover erased a lot of the progress he had made. The TV news and cable shows continuously showed this cover and it is so provocative that people will remember the image long after they remember that it was to be a satire. The New Yorker cover also had an unintended result which might be a key to defeating Obama this fall.
The more I watch Obama, the more I feel that he is becoming a self righteous, self important man who believes in his own hype. Think about it. What kind of man would create a seal identical to the presidential seal? How egotistical is it to move his acceptance speech from the hall to a stadium where he can speak to the masses all gathered to worship him? Or to want to speak from the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, where only President Kennedy and Reagan have spoken? He really is beginning to think of himself as the next JFK and Martin Luther King rolled up into one.
Then along comes The New Yorker cover which seems to be ridiculing Obama and his wife rather than the intended satirizing of red state Republicans. And you know what? Obama’s reaction is showing a trait that could become an Achilles heel for him. He can’t laugh at himself. Barack has become such a stuffed shirt that he can’t tolerate anyone making fun of him or satirizing him. Sure, he has some humorous moments in his speeches but these are ones he approved and it never shows him in a negative or even awkward situation.
A few days before the latest problem he and his family had been interviewed by a tabloid gossipy TV show. It was light and fluffy and cute but he didn’t even like it when his own little girls teased him. Papa Obama was clearly uncomfortable although he laughed and went along with it. It appeared that he was also annoyed that his girls got more questions and coverage than he did. What could have been a wonderful PR moment turned negative when afterwards he said he regretted doing it and will not do any more family interviews. This interview was quickly followed by the New Yorker cover plus the callous remarks by Jesse Jackson. Barack might have diffused these situations if he laughed them off. Instead he got angry, righteous and superior which only served to prolong it all.
In the beginning of the year Obama seemed to be a likeable young man. Yet it seems as if he has changed into a pompous hypocrite who no longer tolerates anyone making fun of him and instead believes he deserves to be treated as someone who is destined for greatness. These new traits also include the inability to tolerate anyone making fun of him. And that is what the Republicans must do if they want to win. Show how rediculous he has become and laugh at him. For if he has become this arrogant and this self righteous when he is only a candidate for President, can you imagine what he will be like if he is actually elected President?
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Ultimate Reality Show
A decade or so ago it appeared as if everybody loudly proclaimed that they were “victims” based on their gender, religion, race, heritage etc. etc. It became so ludicrous that even white men, the group that everyone felt were the ones in control, soon believed that they were victims because they were now being excluded from opportunities going to minorities. We were told that political correctness was the solution to all of our problems. We had to make sure that everyone went through sensitive training and in order to be diverse we had to actively strive to include “victims” from each group.
Political correctness quickly filtered down to our schools. In order to be fair to all children, schools tried to eliminate any situation where a child might be perceived as a loser. To this end most of the games we grew up with were deemed inappropriate and it seemed as if every parent was given a “My child is on the honors list” sticker. And in both schools and work if you didn’t like someone then you were assumed to be prejudiced of whatever group the person was in. So if you disliked a person it was considered to be your fault and you needed to change because you had to like everyone.
Then along came a new show – Survivor. Shortly thereafter there were a slew of similar shows: American Idol, Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars, Project Runway, Hells Kitchen etc. etc. What these shows all had in common was the new idea of actually saying somebody was a loser. Instead of being inclusive, as we were told we had to be, these reality shows were actually kicking someone off the show and not only was someone ousted but they were often told why they were losers. We loved it when Simon would tell someone what we all wish we could say sometimes – that the person did not have any talent or that they were strange or creepy or weird.
How refreshing! After being beaten over the head with the notion that you must accept everyone and how it seemed as if everyone were victims and needed special treatment, here were shows that had people saying to someone “we don’t like you” or “you’re terrible no matter what your mother said”. Even those with disabilities were treated the same as everyone else and were given no special treatment. Regular folks, victims, minorities, disabled, and famous people were all treated equally and eventually were each called losers and kicked off the show. Wow. How politically incorrect is that? But we loved it as evidenced by the continuously high ratings these shows had.
Now we have the election, the biggest reality show there is. What makes this interesting is that it is also a clash of sensitivity against the Survivor type meanness. After watching both blacks and whites being called losers on reality shows will people be mean to both candidates? Or will all that sensitivity training and diversity create a fear of being called racist even if we simply are disagreeing with Obama’s positions? I guess it boils down to which is more important: To be a survivor; someone equally mean (or nice) to everyone and to identify who you like or don’t like, regardless of race, gender, religion etc. or to be politically correct and sensitive to people who are victims and to give them preferential treatment. So ask yourself this: Are you politically correct or are you a survivor?
Political correctness quickly filtered down to our schools. In order to be fair to all children, schools tried to eliminate any situation where a child might be perceived as a loser. To this end most of the games we grew up with were deemed inappropriate and it seemed as if every parent was given a “My child is on the honors list” sticker. And in both schools and work if you didn’t like someone then you were assumed to be prejudiced of whatever group the person was in. So if you disliked a person it was considered to be your fault and you needed to change because you had to like everyone.
Then along came a new show – Survivor. Shortly thereafter there were a slew of similar shows: American Idol, Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars, Project Runway, Hells Kitchen etc. etc. What these shows all had in common was the new idea of actually saying somebody was a loser. Instead of being inclusive, as we were told we had to be, these reality shows were actually kicking someone off the show and not only was someone ousted but they were often told why they were losers. We loved it when Simon would tell someone what we all wish we could say sometimes – that the person did not have any talent or that they were strange or creepy or weird.
How refreshing! After being beaten over the head with the notion that you must accept everyone and how it seemed as if everyone were victims and needed special treatment, here were shows that had people saying to someone “we don’t like you” or “you’re terrible no matter what your mother said”. Even those with disabilities were treated the same as everyone else and were given no special treatment. Regular folks, victims, minorities, disabled, and famous people were all treated equally and eventually were each called losers and kicked off the show. Wow. How politically incorrect is that? But we loved it as evidenced by the continuously high ratings these shows had.
Now we have the election, the biggest reality show there is. What makes this interesting is that it is also a clash of sensitivity against the Survivor type meanness. After watching both blacks and whites being called losers on reality shows will people be mean to both candidates? Or will all that sensitivity training and diversity create a fear of being called racist even if we simply are disagreeing with Obama’s positions? I guess it boils down to which is more important: To be a survivor; someone equally mean (or nice) to everyone and to identify who you like or don’t like, regardless of race, gender, religion etc. or to be politically correct and sensitive to people who are victims and to give them preferential treatment. So ask yourself this: Are you politically correct or are you a survivor?
Monday, July 7, 2008
Summer Flip Flops
I seem to recall an old saying that went something like “You leave the dance with the one that brung ya.” This came to my mind after listening to the recent reports about how McCain and Obama are flip flopping on a variety of critical issues. Both candidates now seem to be moving towards the center in their need to acquire the largest voting base possible. But as so often happens, this is angering the far right and left supporters who elected these candidates in the first place. And any movement to the center can only hurt Obama more than it hurts McCain.
The far right has always been wary of McCain’s more centric outlook, as well they should be. He paid lip service to the basic tenants of the Christian right during the primary but now that he is the candidate he is moving back to the center again. No one is really surprised at this change, including the far right candidates. There is discussion of making this an issue during the convention but it is doubtful if much will happen. As long as McCain promises to stay the course in Iraq, continue to support the Second Amendment and be pro-life then most Republicans will continue to support him.
On the other hand, Obama cannot afford to anger the far left that elected him over Hillary this spring. Yet he did just that when he tried to sneak in during the start of the long weekend an idea of taking more time on bringing the troops home. But it backfired on him and Obama now has to spend time trying to explain that he didn’t really mean that. It is on this promise, of bringing home the troops immediately, that most differentiated Barack from Hillary and his supporters will not give him any leeway on this issue.
Yet if Barack stays true to his far left supporters then he won’t be elected. It is as simple as that. We have seen this happen time after time in the Democratic Party. Candidates who promote far left issues find themselves out of sync with the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton, the only Democratic candidate in the past 25 years to be elected, ran on a centrist theme from the start and therefore was not tied to far left extremist ideas. All the other recent Democratic candidates relied on far left supporters to win the primary and found they had very little room to move towards the center. And so they lost.
Barack Obama’s first effort to move slightly towards the center, even during a four day weekend when no one is supposed to be paying any attention, did become an issue and was met with resistance from his supporters. It will be interesting to watch over the next four months if Obama can become more centrist in order to appeal to a bigger voter block. Or perhaps I should rephrase it to read; if Obama’s supporters will allow him to move to the right from their far left stance. Can he appeal to more centrist voters or is he stuck with the far left ones that he brung to this dance?
The far right has always been wary of McCain’s more centric outlook, as well they should be. He paid lip service to the basic tenants of the Christian right during the primary but now that he is the candidate he is moving back to the center again. No one is really surprised at this change, including the far right candidates. There is discussion of making this an issue during the convention but it is doubtful if much will happen. As long as McCain promises to stay the course in Iraq, continue to support the Second Amendment and be pro-life then most Republicans will continue to support him.
On the other hand, Obama cannot afford to anger the far left that elected him over Hillary this spring. Yet he did just that when he tried to sneak in during the start of the long weekend an idea of taking more time on bringing the troops home. But it backfired on him and Obama now has to spend time trying to explain that he didn’t really mean that. It is on this promise, of bringing home the troops immediately, that most differentiated Barack from Hillary and his supporters will not give him any leeway on this issue.
Yet if Barack stays true to his far left supporters then he won’t be elected. It is as simple as that. We have seen this happen time after time in the Democratic Party. Candidates who promote far left issues find themselves out of sync with the rest of the nation. Bill Clinton, the only Democratic candidate in the past 25 years to be elected, ran on a centrist theme from the start and therefore was not tied to far left extremist ideas. All the other recent Democratic candidates relied on far left supporters to win the primary and found they had very little room to move towards the center. And so they lost.
Barack Obama’s first effort to move slightly towards the center, even during a four day weekend when no one is supposed to be paying any attention, did become an issue and was met with resistance from his supporters. It will be interesting to watch over the next four months if Obama can become more centrist in order to appeal to a bigger voter block. Or perhaps I should rephrase it to read; if Obama’s supporters will allow him to move to the right from their far left stance. Can he appeal to more centrist voters or is he stuck with the far left ones that he brung to this dance?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Disco, Manilow and Obama
I wrote over half of an article before I realized that my conclusion wasn’t what I thought it would be. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Yet in light of these unexpected findings I am now feeling optimistic about John McCain’s chances in the upcoming election. So how did I come to this conclusion?
My initial premise was that going back to Peter lying about knowing Jesus over 2,000 years ago right up to today, people lie about liking someone if it might be dangerous or unpopular or simply uncool to admit they liked or knew that person. For example, how was it that disco was so popular back in the 70’s if everybody now say they despised it back then? Same with Barry Manilow, who everyone hated yet he still managed to sell millions of albums. Or more recently, if everyone says that Amy Winehouse is, at best, sad and, at worst, mentally deranged, how is it that her Back To Back CD is the biggest selling album of all time on Amazon.com?
I went on to say that this same phenomenon happened during this election where people are lying both for and against the candidates. Obama’s message of change is what everybody says they want. And yes, his race is also a major issue but a positive one, for to say you are voting for Obama proves you are not a racist, right? On the other hand, everybody hates Bush and the Republicans and therefore they dislike John McCain, too. Plus everyone is saying he is too old to be president, and more importantly, voting for him might indicate that you are a closet racist. Therefore if you want everyone to know that you, too, want change and are popular, cool and definitely not a racist then you tell them you are for Obama and against McCain and those awful Republicans.
I continued by saying that we saw this during the primaries. Obama easily won in the caucuses where people had to publicly indicate who they wanted and may have feared being considered a racist or even uncool if they literally didn’t stand in Obama’s corner. On the other hand when people voted in the secrecy of a voting booth where no one would know who they chose then Obama lost.
Where I got in trouble with this article is that based on all of the above I would assume that people are continuing to lie and say they are for Obama in order to look good to the pollsters. So a review of the polls should therefore show that Obama is decisively beating McCain, right? But he’s not. A few polls show he is ahead but only by single digits and one recent poll showed that they were tied!
What does this mean? How can McCain be doing so well when everyone knows that Obama is the man of the hour. He’s even on the cover of Rolling Stone and you can’t get much cooler than that! What about the historically known premise that people tend to lie to pollsters to make themselves look good? This would mean lying that they are for Obama because lets face it, nobody would lie about voting for McCain thinking that would make them look popular. So if you factor in that some people are lying about planning to vote for Obama and if he currently only leads by a few points, at most, then, oh my, it might mean that McCain is actually in the lead.
If the election were held today I wouldn’t be surprised if, to the shock of everybody, McCain is the winner. But the election isn’t for another 4 months and a lot can happen. Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be quite so certain that everybody will be voting for him, even including those who are standing in his corner. As for McCain? He needs to let people know that a vote for McCain is definitely not racist nor a third term for Bush. Most of all McCain needs to let us know that it is ok to support him and maybe even popular and cool to vote for him. Although just like disco and Manilow, if you want to deny you liked McCain after the fact, well, once McCain is elected and in the White House he probably wouldn’t even mind if you denied him three times.
My initial premise was that going back to Peter lying about knowing Jesus over 2,000 years ago right up to today, people lie about liking someone if it might be dangerous or unpopular or simply uncool to admit they liked or knew that person. For example, how was it that disco was so popular back in the 70’s if everybody now say they despised it back then? Same with Barry Manilow, who everyone hated yet he still managed to sell millions of albums. Or more recently, if everyone says that Amy Winehouse is, at best, sad and, at worst, mentally deranged, how is it that her Back To Back CD is the biggest selling album of all time on Amazon.com?
I went on to say that this same phenomenon happened during this election where people are lying both for and against the candidates. Obama’s message of change is what everybody says they want. And yes, his race is also a major issue but a positive one, for to say you are voting for Obama proves you are not a racist, right? On the other hand, everybody hates Bush and the Republicans and therefore they dislike John McCain, too. Plus everyone is saying he is too old to be president, and more importantly, voting for him might indicate that you are a closet racist. Therefore if you want everyone to know that you, too, want change and are popular, cool and definitely not a racist then you tell them you are for Obama and against McCain and those awful Republicans.
I continued by saying that we saw this during the primaries. Obama easily won in the caucuses where people had to publicly indicate who they wanted and may have feared being considered a racist or even uncool if they literally didn’t stand in Obama’s corner. On the other hand when people voted in the secrecy of a voting booth where no one would know who they chose then Obama lost.
Where I got in trouble with this article is that based on all of the above I would assume that people are continuing to lie and say they are for Obama in order to look good to the pollsters. So a review of the polls should therefore show that Obama is decisively beating McCain, right? But he’s not. A few polls show he is ahead but only by single digits and one recent poll showed that they were tied!
What does this mean? How can McCain be doing so well when everyone knows that Obama is the man of the hour. He’s even on the cover of Rolling Stone and you can’t get much cooler than that! What about the historically known premise that people tend to lie to pollsters to make themselves look good? This would mean lying that they are for Obama because lets face it, nobody would lie about voting for McCain thinking that would make them look popular. So if you factor in that some people are lying about planning to vote for Obama and if he currently only leads by a few points, at most, then, oh my, it might mean that McCain is actually in the lead.
If the election were held today I wouldn’t be surprised if, to the shock of everybody, McCain is the winner. But the election isn’t for another 4 months and a lot can happen. Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be quite so certain that everybody will be voting for him, even including those who are standing in his corner. As for McCain? He needs to let people know that a vote for McCain is definitely not racist nor a third term for Bush. Most of all McCain needs to let us know that it is ok to support him and maybe even popular and cool to vote for him. Although just like disco and Manilow, if you want to deny you liked McCain after the fact, well, once McCain is elected and in the White House he probably wouldn’t even mind if you denied him three times.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Treating Flood Victims Equally
Last week all up and down the Mississippi entire towns were immersed under water as levees were breached or destroyed. Throughout the sporadic news coverage you couldn't help but noticed the unacknowledged elephant in the room. Although none of the reporters mentioned it, the public whispered among themselves what the politically correct news organizations were afraid to discuss. Of course I speak of New Orleans.
I was going to say that it was impossible to watch the horrible results of the century breaking floods without comparing it to the floods in New Orleans except that the mainstream media did just that – ignored any comparison to Katrina. The sad truth is that if someone did do the comparison they would risk being called racist because any comparison of Katrina vs. today's flood victims would not be favorable to the residents of New Orleans, who just happen to be African American. And God help the journalist who gives a nonfavorable report about blacks, even though it is true.
During the floods tens of thousands of people in the Midwest were homeless as their houses were literally washed away or engulfed to the roof tops in water. And yet there was no outrage at being jammed into relief areas, nor was there any talk of gunshots or rapes or even looting as there was with Katrina. There was some concern about FEMA but there were also a lot of discussions about simply helping out their neighbors and themselves. These displaced citizens talked about rebuilding their towns and communities whereas after Katrina it seemed as if the cry to rebuild primarily came from outsiders, actors, musicians and the like, and not from the residents. Multiple fundraising events were held for the New Orleans residents but you haven’t heard of too many celebrities coming to the aid of Iowans. Nor have you heard of these Midwesterns looking for cash handouts such as initially occurred after Katrina.
Yes, some of the difference is due to local politics, with New Orleans government being known as corrupt and inefficient. I honestly don’t know much about the local politics of the affected towns last week but I doubt if they are as scandal ridden as New Orleans and Louisiana. But the major difference is the people themselves. And that is what no one dares to mention because you would immediately be labeled as racist. Next thing you know you have to apologize to everyone, take diversity training and be reprogrammed to be politically correct in the future.
The sad thing is that the way the politically correct ran to aid New Orleans is the racist action, whereas comparing them to those in the Midwest is an act of equality. Comparing the two groups is saying that both are equal to each other regardless of color. You are granting each the same respect as the other and treating them as equals. Shouldn’t we make a judgment based on character and the actions of a person or group of people with no regard to race? And isn’t that the goal – to treat everyone equally?
On the other hand, those who pleaded and sobbed and lectured the country to assist the residents of New Orleans did a major disservice to them. Yes they needed assistance but these politically correct activists treated the New Orleans citizens as helpless victims who needed to be taken care of. That kind of “help” strips away self esteem and any initiative to help themselves. Think about it. Apparently the politically correct assume that the flood victims in Iowa and elsewhere can take care of themselves but those affected by Katrina couldn’t. How insulting and racist is that?
I was going to say that it was impossible to watch the horrible results of the century breaking floods without comparing it to the floods in New Orleans except that the mainstream media did just that – ignored any comparison to Katrina. The sad truth is that if someone did do the comparison they would risk being called racist because any comparison of Katrina vs. today's flood victims would not be favorable to the residents of New Orleans, who just happen to be African American. And God help the journalist who gives a nonfavorable report about blacks, even though it is true.
During the floods tens of thousands of people in the Midwest were homeless as their houses were literally washed away or engulfed to the roof tops in water. And yet there was no outrage at being jammed into relief areas, nor was there any talk of gunshots or rapes or even looting as there was with Katrina. There was some concern about FEMA but there were also a lot of discussions about simply helping out their neighbors and themselves. These displaced citizens talked about rebuilding their towns and communities whereas after Katrina it seemed as if the cry to rebuild primarily came from outsiders, actors, musicians and the like, and not from the residents. Multiple fundraising events were held for the New Orleans residents but you haven’t heard of too many celebrities coming to the aid of Iowans. Nor have you heard of these Midwesterns looking for cash handouts such as initially occurred after Katrina.
Yes, some of the difference is due to local politics, with New Orleans government being known as corrupt and inefficient. I honestly don’t know much about the local politics of the affected towns last week but I doubt if they are as scandal ridden as New Orleans and Louisiana. But the major difference is the people themselves. And that is what no one dares to mention because you would immediately be labeled as racist. Next thing you know you have to apologize to everyone, take diversity training and be reprogrammed to be politically correct in the future.
The sad thing is that the way the politically correct ran to aid New Orleans is the racist action, whereas comparing them to those in the Midwest is an act of equality. Comparing the two groups is saying that both are equal to each other regardless of color. You are granting each the same respect as the other and treating them as equals. Shouldn’t we make a judgment based on character and the actions of a person or group of people with no regard to race? And isn’t that the goal – to treat everyone equally?
On the other hand, those who pleaded and sobbed and lectured the country to assist the residents of New Orleans did a major disservice to them. Yes they needed assistance but these politically correct activists treated the New Orleans citizens as helpless victims who needed to be taken care of. That kind of “help” strips away self esteem and any initiative to help themselves. Think about it. Apparently the politically correct assume that the flood victims in Iowa and elsewhere can take care of themselves but those affected by Katrina couldn’t. How insulting and racist is that?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Save Children from Art and Music Classes
Art and music classes should be abolished in all schools. There I said it! Actually, I never really thought about this until recently when we had to have budget cuts in our local schools. The outrage over cutting back on art and music classes was never ending and you thought the children would end up as boorish dolts without it. This made me take a second look at it and to start questioning the decision to have these classes in the first place.
Seriously, when was it decided that art and music should be standard classes taught to all children? Why art and music? Why not drama or band, too? Or here’s a better idea, why not classes in logic or ethics or things they might actually need when they grow up? What is the big deal in teaching art and music to children other than to give jobs to third rate artists and musicians? The more I thought about this the more I realized I not only agreed with the administration’s decision to cut these classes but I now think it shouldn’t have been offered in the first place. I know I sure wouldn't have missed them.
In grade school I despised art and music classes in the same way other children feared and hated gym class. I can’t sing. Even worse, I can hear how off tune I am but for the life of me I can’t find the right note. Heck, I can’t find any note on the scale. So it was embarrassing for me and painful for everybody when it was my turn to sing. And forget musical instruments. After two years of piano I still couldn’t find middle C on the keyboard! Hard to believe but I was even worse in art class. I couldn’t draw a straight line much less any type of picture. The undeterminable blobs on paper were cute when I was 5 but made me feel like an imbecile as I grew older. I was equally bad at mobiles, shadow boxes and anything requiring visual arts. To make it worse, I “inherited” this ineptitude from my parents so they were no help, either.
I do realize that the other purpose of art and music is to teach children to appreciate them; to broaden their knowledge of the “finer” things in life. If that is the case, why stop at art and music, why not also teach drama, ballet, band, cinema etc.? And who decides what is “good” art and music and what should be taught? Why is it that “old” is always considered to be better than “new”? Perhaps if they tried to try to cover other types of music and art it might have been more interesting but they only ever taught classical music (and I don’t mean the 1960’s). So year after year it is the same old dead artists and composers, except for that one when you had that one music teacher who tried too hard to be one of the kids by playing your music. And what other class was being shortchanged so that a 10 year old boy could listen to Bach (and most likely fall asleep)?
I admit to being impressed when my 6 year old niece looked at a print of Starry Starry Night that was on my wall and commented “I like your Van Gogh.” Wow. When asked how she knew this she said she learned it on Baby Einstein, a TV show. So again, who needs an art class if she is getting it elsewhere?
There are so many things to teach children today that I no longer see why we are using valuable class time for art and music. I would vote to eliminate these classes forever and instead teach students computer programming or science or spend more time on reading, writing and arithmetic. Yes I know that this is a very politically incorrect view. Too bad. Let kids appreciate art and music on their own time – use class time to teach them the skills they need to survive in this world.
Seriously, when was it decided that art and music should be standard classes taught to all children? Why art and music? Why not drama or band, too? Or here’s a better idea, why not classes in logic or ethics or things they might actually need when they grow up? What is the big deal in teaching art and music to children other than to give jobs to third rate artists and musicians? The more I thought about this the more I realized I not only agreed with the administration’s decision to cut these classes but I now think it shouldn’t have been offered in the first place. I know I sure wouldn't have missed them.
In grade school I despised art and music classes in the same way other children feared and hated gym class. I can’t sing. Even worse, I can hear how off tune I am but for the life of me I can’t find the right note. Heck, I can’t find any note on the scale. So it was embarrassing for me and painful for everybody when it was my turn to sing. And forget musical instruments. After two years of piano I still couldn’t find middle C on the keyboard! Hard to believe but I was even worse in art class. I couldn’t draw a straight line much less any type of picture. The undeterminable blobs on paper were cute when I was 5 but made me feel like an imbecile as I grew older. I was equally bad at mobiles, shadow boxes and anything requiring visual arts. To make it worse, I “inherited” this ineptitude from my parents so they were no help, either.
I do realize that the other purpose of art and music is to teach children to appreciate them; to broaden their knowledge of the “finer” things in life. If that is the case, why stop at art and music, why not also teach drama, ballet, band, cinema etc.? And who decides what is “good” art and music and what should be taught? Why is it that “old” is always considered to be better than “new”? Perhaps if they tried to try to cover other types of music and art it might have been more interesting but they only ever taught classical music (and I don’t mean the 1960’s). So year after year it is the same old dead artists and composers, except for that one when you had that one music teacher who tried too hard to be one of the kids by playing your music. And what other class was being shortchanged so that a 10 year old boy could listen to Bach (and most likely fall asleep)?
I admit to being impressed when my 6 year old niece looked at a print of Starry Starry Night that was on my wall and commented “I like your Van Gogh.” Wow. When asked how she knew this she said she learned it on Baby Einstein, a TV show. So again, who needs an art class if she is getting it elsewhere?
There are so many things to teach children today that I no longer see why we are using valuable class time for art and music. I would vote to eliminate these classes forever and instead teach students computer programming or science or spend more time on reading, writing and arithmetic. Yes I know that this is a very politically incorrect view. Too bad. Let kids appreciate art and music on their own time – use class time to teach them the skills they need to survive in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)