November 8, 2009
In Connecticut a furor has arisen over the wording on a memorial for those who were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The town of Kent is putting up a memorial to a young man, James Gadiel, from there who was killed that day in New York City. Work on the memorial has been halted, though, because his father, Peter Gadiel, demands that it say his son had been “killed by Muslim terrorists.” He claims any other wording is “too soft” and would only be caving in to “political correctness.”
I’m no fan of “political correctness” myself, but what the elder Mr Gadiel wants is just not done on monuments of this sort. “Political correctness” is not at issue here … rather, custom and propriety are. If it were, there’d be lots of World War II memorials saying, “Blown up by Nazi bootlickers” or “Shot by imperialist Nips,” and Korean War memorials saying, “Slaughtered by Red invaders.”
I get that the elder Mr Gadiel is angry about his son’s death, but his emotions should not dictate what the town of Kent does with its money. He may appear — as the father of the deceased — to have the moral authority to make this decision, but the cold reality is that he does not.
What has made this case worse than it needed to be, is that the bellicose and sanctimonious Bill O’Reilly has taken up the Gadiel cause and rallied the troops of the Right against the town of Kent, condemning their “political correctness.” Unfortunately — and as usual — O’Reilly’s furor is displaced; his claim is, as I explained, moot.
October 29, 2009
House Minority Leader John Boehner is whining about the length of the latest healthcare reform bill. It’s too long, he says. I agree it’s long, but to assume that all bills that long must, by definition, be “bad,” is not logical.
The truth of the matter, as Slate explains, is that lots of bills are long. The length of many of them is because pork is thrown in, in order to encourage members to vote for it. “Omnibus spending bills,” which are nearly an annual ritual in Congress, typically number well over 1,000 pages.
Sorry Mr Boehner, but the length of this bill has nothing to do with whether or not it’s good or bad.
Concentrating on one aspect of this bill while ignoring the rest is hypertrivia. Opposing the bill because Democrats authored it, is partisanism. Whining about yet another version of a healthcare bill — which has been worked on in Congress in one way or another since January, with none of it going anywhere — is hyperreacting. Appealing to people’s fears of “bureaucracy” … which is not evidenced in the number of pages in the bill, especially if those pages are more Congressional pork than anything else … is emotivism. Let’s grow up, Mr Boehner, and stop being maturity-deprived.
September 28, 2008
If it’s not American-flag lapel pins, it’s bracelets bearing the names of deceased soldiers. Unbelievably, a conflict is brewing over whether or not Barack Obama has permission to wear such a bracelet. As ABC’s Jake Tapper reports, it was given to him by the soldier’s mother. But the soldier’s father (who divorced the mother) is a McCain fan and has apparently decided that Obama doesn’t have permission to wear it.
Exactly where his right to give or deny such permission — aside from the emotional hook of being the soldier’s father — is not exactly clear. Maybe I missed the law that was passed giving fathers of deceased soldiers this permission?
At any rate, the mother is apparently waffling … she gave Obama the bracelet, then later said he shouldn’t wear it, but then was happy he had it at last Friday’s debate.
There’s a lot here I confess not to understand … beginning with the relevance to being president, of whether or not one has “permission” to wear bracelets of this type, not to mention exactly who is entitled to grant it and under what conditions s/he can do so. When you get right down to it, what do bracelets have to do with the Oval Office? Answer: Absolutely nothing whatsoever!
While this probably means a great deal to the two parents (and one of them is confused about it), it really has nothing to do with who should be president, and should play no part in the election.
But it does … because Americans have been fooled into thinking that sentimentality means something. It doesn’t and never will, but most refuse to understand it. Thus the two parties will keep pulling the wool over Americans’ eyes and prevent them from making a bona fide, rational choice based on the facts.
September 17, 2008
You know, up until now I wasn’t quite sure what was going on in this election. Really. It was all a mystery. But Gov. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas finally figured it all out, and was happy to explain it for us ignoramuses who didn’t know:
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius publicly considered the possibility that Sen. Barack Obama’s race might be a factor in this year’s presidential election during an appearance here Tuesday.
“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked in response to a question about why the election is so close. “That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
I really must congratulate the Governor for arriving at this determination and then informing us. I honestly had no idea, until now, that Sen. Barack Obama was an African-American! I simply hadn’t known! How wonderful of the Gov. to inform me!
OK, end of sarcasm.
Please. This is getting old already. Yes, Obama is African-American. Yes, some whites will not vote for him because of that. So yes, it does make a little bit of difference.
But if you think this election is about Sen. Obama’s race, guess again. The same issues would matter, regardless of who the Democratic party chose as its nominee!
This is an example of two tactics: First, hypertriviality (i.e. making a big deal out of something minor), and second, emotivism (i.e. dismissing as a racist anyone who won’t vote for Obama). Sorry, Kathleen, I ain’t taking that bait.
September 17, 2008
Gov. Sarah Palin is resisting the Alaska legislature’s investigation into her firing of her public-safety commissioner. I suppose that’s understandable, no one (politician or otherwise) typically wants an investigation into their affairs to go far. But worse than her simply not cooperating, there’s now an effort underway to use the courts to terminate the investigation:
Five Republican state lawmakers on Tuesday filed a lawsuit seeking to halt an inquiry into Gov. Sarah Palin’s dismissal of her public safety commissioner, arguing that the Legislature has exceeded its authority by conducting a “McCarthyistic investigation.”
The lawsuit, filed in the state’s Superior Court, comes as the McCain-Palin campaign has escalated its involvement in the bipartisan inquiry, providing Ms. Palin’s lawyer with help and mounting a public relations offensive.
Note the gratuitous reference to McCarthyism … this is, of course, an appeal to emotion meant to marginalize the investigation and make it seem a baseless witch-hunt. So not only is Gov. Palin engaging in Nixonianism, McCain’s campaign is dismissing it using the emotivism tactic.
This article includes the (expected) caveat:
The [McCain/Palin] campaign said Tuesday that it had no involvement in the decision to file the lawsuit.
I assure you this is absolutely not true — anything being done on behalf of either McCain or Palin is being coordinated by their campaign staff. The extent of their involvement may be small, but do not be fooled into thinking they did not approve of this maneuver. They most certainly did. (By the same token I expect that there are Obama factors in Alaska fueling this investigation from their own angle.)
That Palin would attempt to defy her own legislature on an investigation she had previously claimed to want to cooperate with, is also more than a little immature. A true conservative who really believes in the rule of law would not want to interfere with it, in such a way … but that apparently isn’t stopping her.