I originally wanted to name this site Rhetoric Inc. but someone else had beat me to it when I was first setting up this blog. As you can see here the person who snagged the simple rhetoric.blogspot domain just put up one post and then abandoned it. I’m sure that was the fate of many of the good names for blogs.
So I settled on & Rhythm because of my love of music and because I thought it was neat pairing two words that both begin with Rh since there are only about a dozen such words to begin with.
But why rhetoric? And what is rhetoric anyway?
I was a speech communications major in college before switching to journalism and one of my favorite classes was Rhetoric. It was there that I learned about the art of speaking and writing that would dominate the rest of my professional career. I already knew how to do both fairly well by that point, but I did not have a full appreciation for its long history and importance in the making of Western civilization.
In recent years the term rhetoric has gotten a raw deal. It is most frequently used as a derogatory term that means the opposite of reality. It is almost cliché for someone to dismiss a politician today as someone who spouts rhetoric, not reality.
But rhetoric, according to Aristotle is how we come to understand reality.
A simple definition of rhetoric is “the art of using words skillfully in speaking or writing.”
Aristotle referred to rhetoric as the counterpart to dialectic, which is the art of logical discussion. Aristotle believed that dialectic was the best way to find the truth – by having a back and forth discussion in a logical manner where one person throws out an idea and another person adds to it or trys to counter it or knock it down.
In some ways, blogging is a kind of rhetoric and the discussions that occur in the comments section are the dialectic. I don’t know if we ever arrive at the truth this way, but I think we come closer than if we had stayed cooped up in our own thoughts without every exposing them for someone else to challenge or learn from.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Bush's aid promises falling short
Remember when President Bush promised to provide $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa during his 2003 State of the Union speech?
Here is the key passage:
I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.
That got him a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle! He won praises and accolades from political pundits from all across the ideological spectrum after that.
Too bad he lied.
Of course, the Wall Street Journal puts it a bit more diplomatically than that in their story on page A4 today (1/27/05). The headline reads:
Bush Falls Behind on Promises For Antipoverty, AIDS Funding
Now 3 years into that promise, counting the proposed budget for 2006, President Bush is still $6.4 billion short on fulfilling that comittment. And the Africa AIDS pledge is not the only one he is falling behind on. Bush also made promises to boost funding to combat poverty in developing countries.
Specifically, he promised certain levels of funding to the Millennium Challenge Corp., a newly created foreign aid agency. Bush promised $1.7 billion for 2004, and gave just $1 billion. He promised $3.4 billion for 2005, and provided just $1.5 billion. And he promised $5 billion for 2006, but his latest budget proposal only has $3 billion set aside. That means he is $4.6 billion short, so far.
But wait, you say. Shouldn’t these folks be happy to get anything? I mean, $5.5 billion isn’t chump change after all and so what if they were expecting $10 billion.
The point is that Bush makes these promises to gain political support. Who knows how many votes swung Bush’s way during the razor-close election last year because he made this bold $10 billion anti-AIDS pledge the year before. Here is a key passage from the WSJ story:
The shortfalls are raising alarms among health and antipoverty activists who had rallied to the president’s side when he promised tens of billions of dollars to help developing nations in Africa and elsewhere.
Wow! Health and antipoverty activists rallying to his side! I’ll bet they were worth quite a few votes.
And remember that the Millennium Challenge Corp. was the group that rock singer Bono worked with the Bush administration to help set up. I’ll bet all those pictures of Bush standing next to Bono were worth a few votes as well.
But while we are pinching pennies for international health and antipoverty efforts, we continue to pour billions and billions into the quagmire in Iraq. We will pass the $300 billion mark once Congress approves Bush’s latest request for an additional $80 billion.
So that leaves just one question. What should the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami think when they hear President Bush promising significant increases in aid?
Here is the key passage:
I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.
That got him a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle! He won praises and accolades from political pundits from all across the ideological spectrum after that.
Too bad he lied.
Of course, the Wall Street Journal puts it a bit more diplomatically than that in their story on page A4 today (1/27/05). The headline reads:
Bush Falls Behind on Promises For Antipoverty, AIDS Funding
Now 3 years into that promise, counting the proposed budget for 2006, President Bush is still $6.4 billion short on fulfilling that comittment. And the Africa AIDS pledge is not the only one he is falling behind on. Bush also made promises to boost funding to combat poverty in developing countries.
Specifically, he promised certain levels of funding to the Millennium Challenge Corp., a newly created foreign aid agency. Bush promised $1.7 billion for 2004, and gave just $1 billion. He promised $3.4 billion for 2005, and provided just $1.5 billion. And he promised $5 billion for 2006, but his latest budget proposal only has $3 billion set aside. That means he is $4.6 billion short, so far.
But wait, you say. Shouldn’t these folks be happy to get anything? I mean, $5.5 billion isn’t chump change after all and so what if they were expecting $10 billion.
The point is that Bush makes these promises to gain political support. Who knows how many votes swung Bush’s way during the razor-close election last year because he made this bold $10 billion anti-AIDS pledge the year before. Here is a key passage from the WSJ story:
The shortfalls are raising alarms among health and antipoverty activists who had rallied to the president’s side when he promised tens of billions of dollars to help developing nations in Africa and elsewhere.
Wow! Health and antipoverty activists rallying to his side! I’ll bet they were worth quite a few votes.
And remember that the Millennium Challenge Corp. was the group that rock singer Bono worked with the Bush administration to help set up. I’ll bet all those pictures of Bush standing next to Bono were worth a few votes as well.
But while we are pinching pennies for international health and antipoverty efforts, we continue to pour billions and billions into the quagmire in Iraq. We will pass the $300 billion mark once Congress approves Bush’s latest request for an additional $80 billion.
So that leaves just one question. What should the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami think when they hear President Bush promising significant increases in aid?
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Michael Moore's Oscar goof
It looks like Michael Moore screwed himself out of an Oscar nomination this year by pulling the same kind of overreaching stunt that he did during the 2000 presidential election.
You may recall that Moore arrogantly withheld his film Farenheit 9-11 from the documentary category where it would have been a shoe-in to pick up a nomination all in the vain hope that doing so would improve his chances of securing a Best Picture nod. Well, no such luck. And if he had any sense at all he would have known better.
Farenheit had about the same chances of getting a Best Picture nomination as Ralph Nader had of winning the presidential election. Yet in 2000, Moore threw his support to Nader and thus helped pull votes away from Al Gore which proved to be crucial in George W. Bush’s election “victory.”
So Moore has learned nothing and that is too bad because his film should have at least been included in the Documentary category.
As for the other nominations, (you can read them all here) they were mostly predictable and since I haven’t seen any of the films I can’t really comment too much. I’m glad that Clint Eastwood snuck in to get a Best Actor nomination along with his Best Director nod. Likewise, I was happy to see Alan Alda’s surprise nod in the Best Supporting Actor category.
But I’m obviously not as excited about the Oscar race this year with no Lord of the Rings picture in the mix. So I’m predicting that The Aviator will sweep just about everything and Jamie Foxx will win Best Supporting Actor for Collateral to make up for losing the Best Actor trophy to Leo DiCaprio.
You may recall that Moore arrogantly withheld his film Farenheit 9-11 from the documentary category where it would have been a shoe-in to pick up a nomination all in the vain hope that doing so would improve his chances of securing a Best Picture nod. Well, no such luck. And if he had any sense at all he would have known better.
Farenheit had about the same chances of getting a Best Picture nomination as Ralph Nader had of winning the presidential election. Yet in 2000, Moore threw his support to Nader and thus helped pull votes away from Al Gore which proved to be crucial in George W. Bush’s election “victory.”
So Moore has learned nothing and that is too bad because his film should have at least been included in the Documentary category.
As for the other nominations, (you can read them all here) they were mostly predictable and since I haven’t seen any of the films I can’t really comment too much. I’m glad that Clint Eastwood snuck in to get a Best Actor nomination along with his Best Director nod. Likewise, I was happy to see Alan Alda’s surprise nod in the Best Supporting Actor category.
But I’m obviously not as excited about the Oscar race this year with no Lord of the Rings picture in the mix. So I’m predicting that The Aviator will sweep just about everything and Jamie Foxx will win Best Supporting Actor for Collateral to make up for losing the Best Actor trophy to Leo DiCaprio.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Bullies
While responding in the comments to the SpongeBob Attacked post, I was reminded of one of the reasons why I get my dander up when folks start bashing gays and other minority groups.
It dates back to when I was in junior high school many years ago and found myself the focus of a particularly nasty group of bullies. I was a soft-spoken, scrawny little kid whose family had moved around for most of my life so I didn’t have a lot of friends at school. Usually, kids like me would go pretty much unnoticed through the system, but for some reason I had attracted the attention of one of the popular kids who set out to make my life particularly miserable. He used to sit behind me in class and kick the back of my chair repeatedly throughout the day, ignoring my requests for him to stop. He also got a group of other kids to start calling me ‘mouse’ in a derogatory fashion. My only refuge back then was an elective speech communications class where I was with a completely different group of students and where I found that I had a knack for public speaking and debate - but that’s a different story.
Things came to a head one day in PE class when this bully turned yet another kid against me (a kid who I had just started to become friends with) and together they started throwing basketballs at me out on the court during a free basket shooting period. At the time I was pretty lousy at basketball and I probably looked pretty pathetic trying to shoot baskets but suddenly I found myself being bombarded with basketballs striking me in the back and the side every time I would try and shoot. While they were doing this they kept calling me a name over and over that I didn’t understand. They were calling me a ‘fag.’ The realization that my one new friend had turned against me was too much and I dissolved into tears.
That night I learned that my family was moving and I never had to go back and face that situation again - something that was both good and bad. But I left with a determination that I would never allow myself to be bullied like that again, nor would I tolerate people bullying other kids. At my new school this new found determination must have rubbed off because I quickly made new friends and became somewhat popular. Years later I would look back on that moment as a turning point and constantly reflect on it whenever the subject of discrimination came up. I wouldn’t say that it is what made me a liberal, but it set the foundation for my later political beliefs.
It dates back to when I was in junior high school many years ago and found myself the focus of a particularly nasty group of bullies. I was a soft-spoken, scrawny little kid whose family had moved around for most of my life so I didn’t have a lot of friends at school. Usually, kids like me would go pretty much unnoticed through the system, but for some reason I had attracted the attention of one of the popular kids who set out to make my life particularly miserable. He used to sit behind me in class and kick the back of my chair repeatedly throughout the day, ignoring my requests for him to stop. He also got a group of other kids to start calling me ‘mouse’ in a derogatory fashion. My only refuge back then was an elective speech communications class where I was with a completely different group of students and where I found that I had a knack for public speaking and debate - but that’s a different story.
Things came to a head one day in PE class when this bully turned yet another kid against me (a kid who I had just started to become friends with) and together they started throwing basketballs at me out on the court during a free basket shooting period. At the time I was pretty lousy at basketball and I probably looked pretty pathetic trying to shoot baskets but suddenly I found myself being bombarded with basketballs striking me in the back and the side every time I would try and shoot. While they were doing this they kept calling me a name over and over that I didn’t understand. They were calling me a ‘fag.’ The realization that my one new friend had turned against me was too much and I dissolved into tears.
That night I learned that my family was moving and I never had to go back and face that situation again - something that was both good and bad. But I left with a determination that I would never allow myself to be bullied like that again, nor would I tolerate people bullying other kids. At my new school this new found determination must have rubbed off because I quickly made new friends and became somewhat popular. Years later I would look back on that moment as a turning point and constantly reflect on it whenever the subject of discrimination came up. I wouldn’t say that it is what made me a liberal, but it set the foundation for my later political beliefs.
Another liberal voice silenced
Jan Jarboe Russell, one of the last locally-based, politically-liberal columnists on the editorial pages of the San Antonio Express-News, ended her column Sunday.
Russell’s departure follows that of Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje, who also quit to pursue other writing projects a while back, and the late Maury Maverick Jr., who died in 2003.
I assume Russell’s departure will bring an end to the weekly Crossfiresque feature every Wednesday where she would have a back-and-forth debate with right-wing columnist Jonathan Gurwitz.
That leaves an editorial page filled with hardline conservatives like the above mentioned Gurwitz, Austin Bay, T.R. Fehrenbach and J. Francis Gardner and a bunch of wishy-washy moderates who rarely touch on issues of a political nature. If you read these columnists you probably could not tell whether they voted for Bush or Kerry in the last election because they restrict their writing to mostly local and non-controversial issues.
The only local columnists who could fairly be described as liberals are probably Susan Ives, who I’ve never found to be terribly engaging, and Mansour El-Kikhia, who is continuously villified by local conservatives. El-Kikhia raises the hackles of the far-right because he is an American of Arabic descent who refuses to be cowed by the political mood following 9-11 and is highly critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. I’m sure if El-Kikhia’s last name was Smith or Jones he would not get near the attention that he does, but as it is the right-wing reacts to him as if he were a member of al-Qaeda.
But don’t expect Russell’s departure to generate any acknowledgement from the far-right that the Express-News is not the bastion of liberalism that they claim it to be. That will only happen if the paper turns over editorial control to the Republican National Committee.
Russell’s departure follows that of Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje, who also quit to pursue other writing projects a while back, and the late Maury Maverick Jr., who died in 2003.
I assume Russell’s departure will bring an end to the weekly Crossfiresque feature every Wednesday where she would have a back-and-forth debate with right-wing columnist Jonathan Gurwitz.
That leaves an editorial page filled with hardline conservatives like the above mentioned Gurwitz, Austin Bay, T.R. Fehrenbach and J. Francis Gardner and a bunch of wishy-washy moderates who rarely touch on issues of a political nature. If you read these columnists you probably could not tell whether they voted for Bush or Kerry in the last election because they restrict their writing to mostly local and non-controversial issues.
The only local columnists who could fairly be described as liberals are probably Susan Ives, who I’ve never found to be terribly engaging, and Mansour El-Kikhia, who is continuously villified by local conservatives. El-Kikhia raises the hackles of the far-right because he is an American of Arabic descent who refuses to be cowed by the political mood following 9-11 and is highly critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. I’m sure if El-Kikhia’s last name was Smith or Jones he would not get near the attention that he does, but as it is the right-wing reacts to him as if he were a member of al-Qaeda.
But don’t expect Russell’s departure to generate any acknowledgement from the far-right that the Express-News is not the bastion of liberalism that they claim it to be. That will only happen if the paper turns over editorial control to the Republican National Committee.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Bush is a lousy public speaker
I studied speech communication in college before switching my major to journalism and took courses in public speaking, persuasion and American oratory. While that does not make me an expert, I still feel justified in saying that President Bush is a lousy public speaker.
There is something about Bush’s speeches that has always bothered me (aside from the content) and until the other day I couldn't quite say what it was. But yesterday NPR interviewed a professor of speech communications who analyzed Bush's inauguration speech and I think he nailed it. He replayed specific parts of Bush's speech and showed how Bush puts the emphasis on the wrong words. For example, when Bush says "At this second gathering..." he puts the emphasis on the word 'gathering' rather than on the word 'second.' He also pauses at awkward moments and doesn't have a natural rhythm in his cadence. What is sounds like is somebody struggling to read a difficult passage for the first time, with no idea how the sentence is going to end before they start reading it.
The professor noted that past presidents like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could make a speech sound better than it read on paper. Bush, he said, is the opposite. His speeches are better when you read them and sound worse when you hear them.
The professor speculated that Bush just doesn't like public speaking and is perhaps daydreaming about being back on his Crawford ranch in the middle of his speeches. He certainly doesn't make me want to continue listening. I am usually upset by some of the things he is saying, but then hearing him struggle through the speech like a junior high school kid being forced to read aloud from his textbook in front of the whole class is just painful.
One thing that Bush doesn't do is veer away from the text. So we don't get any of those endearing, mixed-up phrases that defined his father's speaking style. A good public speaker knows what he is going to say and only uses the prepared text or the teleprompter as a guide. They can read their audience and know when to elaborate on a point or cut another point short. Not Bush. He reads straight through the prepared text like it was chiseled on stone.
The good news, at least, is we will never have to be subjected to another inauguration speech by George W. Thank God.
There is something about Bush’s speeches that has always bothered me (aside from the content) and until the other day I couldn't quite say what it was. But yesterday NPR interviewed a professor of speech communications who analyzed Bush's inauguration speech and I think he nailed it. He replayed specific parts of Bush's speech and showed how Bush puts the emphasis on the wrong words. For example, when Bush says "At this second gathering..." he puts the emphasis on the word 'gathering' rather than on the word 'second.' He also pauses at awkward moments and doesn't have a natural rhythm in his cadence. What is sounds like is somebody struggling to read a difficult passage for the first time, with no idea how the sentence is going to end before they start reading it.
The professor noted that past presidents like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could make a speech sound better than it read on paper. Bush, he said, is the opposite. His speeches are better when you read them and sound worse when you hear them.
The professor speculated that Bush just doesn't like public speaking and is perhaps daydreaming about being back on his Crawford ranch in the middle of his speeches. He certainly doesn't make me want to continue listening. I am usually upset by some of the things he is saying, but then hearing him struggle through the speech like a junior high school kid being forced to read aloud from his textbook in front of the whole class is just painful.
One thing that Bush doesn't do is veer away from the text. So we don't get any of those endearing, mixed-up phrases that defined his father's speaking style. A good public speaker knows what he is going to say and only uses the prepared text or the teleprompter as a guide. They can read their audience and know when to elaborate on a point or cut another point short. Not Bush. He reads straight through the prepared text like it was chiseled on stone.
The good news, at least, is we will never have to be subjected to another inauguration speech by George W. Thank God.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
SpongeBob under attack
Dr. James Dobson, leader of the religous right advocacy group Focus on the Family, has completely lost it.
Apparently, Jerry Falwell going after Tinky-Winky, the purple Teletubby, wasnâ??t embarrassment enough for the religious right wingnuts. Now they are going after SpongeBob Squarepants, the popular childrenâ??s cartoon character.
At a recent blacktie affair that was part of Bushâ??s second term inaugural festivities, Dobson warned a group of Congressmen that SpongeBob is being used to promote tolerance of homosexuality to elementary school students.
Now Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
But the charge is flatly off-base, as the article makes clear. The video in question was produced by Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family." Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity.
Rodgers goes on to say that Dobson must have confused his organization with another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.
But even if SpongeBob was being used to promote tolerance, what would be so wrong with that? And why would a so-called Christian organization object so vehemently to it?
This story is funny, but it is also maddening because it is another example of a right-wing nutcase promoting hatred and bigotry under the guise of Christianity. There is nothing Christian in what Dobson and his group is doing. Rather, they are the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees who were always trying to trip up Christ in Biblical times.
At the end of the article, Mark Barondess, the lawyer for the We Are Family Foundation, said the critics "need medication." I would agree with that and add that the deranged Dr. Dobson probably also needs to be placed in an institution where someone can make sure he doesnâ??t go off of his medication and start attacking cartoon characters again.
Second Term Curse
The Washington Post has an interesting graph comparing the second terms of recent presidents and the problems they ran into.
Bush is starting off with the lowest approval rating (52 percent) of any modern president with the exception of Nixon. And he has the highest disapproval rating (46 percent) by far.
I anticipate those numbers will only get worse for Bush as the Iraq war drags on and his efforts to dismantle Social Security get picked apart by his own party.
Democrats should not hesitate to pound on Bush with every opportunity just like the Republicans did to Clinton. They should become the "We told you so..." Party and constantly remind voters of his failures, screw-ups and countless lies.
It should be a fun four years.
Bush is starting off with the lowest approval rating (52 percent) of any modern president with the exception of Nixon. And he has the highest disapproval rating (46 percent) by far.
I anticipate those numbers will only get worse for Bush as the Iraq war drags on and his efforts to dismantle Social Security get picked apart by his own party.
Democrats should not hesitate to pound on Bush with every opportunity just like the Republicans did to Clinton. They should become the "We told you so..." Party and constantly remind voters of his failures, screw-ups and countless lies.
It should be a fun four years.
iMacG5
We're getting new computers at my work next week and I can hardly wait.
The Apple - iMac G5 looks like a flatscreen computer monitor without the computer part. That's because the computer is contained in the monitor itself. Pretty cool!
The Apple - iMac G5 looks like a flatscreen computer monitor without the computer part. That's because the computer is contained in the monitor itself. Pretty cool!
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Busy, Busy
I've been busy at work after a nice 3-day weekend. Haven't had much time for blogging. I've got some lengthy posts in various degrees of preparation but none are ready to go up yet.
In the meantime, here is a news brief from The Onion | America's Finest News Source that made me laugh:
Caged Saddam To Be Highlight Of Inaugural Ball
WASHINGTON, DC—Attendees at the Independence Ball, one of nine officially sanctioned galas celebrating President George W. Bush's second inauguration Thursday, will be treated to a viewing of a caged Saddam Hussein, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "What better way to honor the president than with a physical symbol of his many first-term triumphs?" McClellan said as Hussein rattled the bars of a cage already suspended above the ballroom where the event will be held. "And I must compliment the planning committee. Outfitting Gitmo detainees with iron collars and forcing them to serve appetizers was an inspired stroke."
In the meantime, here is a news brief from The Onion | America's Finest News Source that made me laugh:
Caged Saddam To Be Highlight Of Inaugural Ball
WASHINGTON, DC—Attendees at the Independence Ball, one of nine officially sanctioned galas celebrating President George W. Bush's second inauguration Thursday, will be treated to a viewing of a caged Saddam Hussein, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "What better way to honor the president than with a physical symbol of his many first-term triumphs?" McClellan said as Hussein rattled the bars of a cage already suspended above the ballroom where the event will be held. "And I must compliment the planning committee. Outfitting Gitmo detainees with iron collars and forcing them to serve appetizers was an inspired stroke."
Friday, January 14, 2005
The Final Frontier
The European Space Agency's Huygens space probe has completed its seven-year mission to land on Titan, Saturn's largest moon, with almost flawless perfection.
It's hard to believe that somebody planned this whole mission sometime back in 1997 and then waited this long to see it come to fruition. Amazing!
It's hard to believe that somebody planned this whole mission sometime back in 1997 and then waited this long to see it come to fruition. Amazing!
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The real Social Security crisis
Democrats might as well admit that there really is a Social Security crisis.
I know the facts are on the side of those who say the Social Security crisis is a myth and that it has been manufactured by the Bush administration.
But facts don’t matter in this case. The reality is that Bush has another four years to wreak havoc on this country and that fact alone is the reason why Social Security is in a crisis. Having a president and a Republican administration that is intent on slashing benefits and eliminating the guarantees that are at the heart of Social Security is the real crisis we are faced with today.
While this is a serious concern, I am also optimistic that the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration will undercut their efforts to do too much damage to Social Security. I would expect that Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security will be signed into law about the same time that his manned mission to Mars gets under way.
Just remember that the same folks who are insisting that Social Security is going to go bankrupt are the ones who swore that Saddam Hussein had enormous stockpiles of WMDs.
I know the facts are on the side of those who say the Social Security crisis is a myth and that it has been manufactured by the Bush administration.
But facts don’t matter in this case. The reality is that Bush has another four years to wreak havoc on this country and that fact alone is the reason why Social Security is in a crisis. Having a president and a Republican administration that is intent on slashing benefits and eliminating the guarantees that are at the heart of Social Security is the real crisis we are faced with today.
While this is a serious concern, I am also optimistic that the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration will undercut their efforts to do too much damage to Social Security. I would expect that Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security will be signed into law about the same time that his manned mission to Mars gets under way.
Just remember that the same folks who are insisting that Social Security is going to go bankrupt are the ones who swore that Saddam Hussein had enormous stockpiles of WMDs.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Intellectual diversity
I should know better than to ever read something by right-wing hack Thomas Sowell, but his most recent column titled "Left’s intolerance discourages diversity" that ran in the Express-News on Tuesday is just appalling.
My first thought was if the Left has discouraged diversity, what would our nation be like if it had all been left up to the Right? Would we still have Jim Crow laws and segregated schools and separate lunch counters? Who are they trying to kid here?
Sowell begins his column by mentioning the recent end of Albert Hunt's weekly column on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Hunt was the sole liberal who was given space on those pages and I was distressed last week when I learned that his tenure there was ending, and here we have Sowell using this as an example of the Right’s superiority in supporting ideological diversity. Let's see.... One column per week in an editorial section that is otherwise solidly hard-right - and it is ending with no new liberal taking up the vacant slot. And this is Sowell’s idea of diversity.
Imagine for a moment if the Express-News tried something like this. The paper is constantly berated by the Right as a bastion of liberal bias, and yet they make a point of having not one, but usually two or three conservative columnists on their page everyday - not just once a week. What if they had only one conservative once a week. Would Sowell applaud them for their ideological diversity too?
So the question really is whether or not Sowell is competent enough to be writing a newspaper column in the first place. But let’s go on.
Sowell goes on to talk about when he used to be a professor at UCLA (out in that liberal paradise of California) and notes that they had a "staunchly conservative" economics department there. Hmmmmm. But because they were so interested in having ideological diversity they deigned to hire one professor with more liberal ideas even though he wasn’t really up to snuff with the rest of them, or so Sowell says. Well, there you go. Once again Sowell has demonstrated the Right’s vastly superior interest in maintaining a diversity of ideas in academia.
Next, Sowell claims with no supporting evidence that academia today consists "soley of people ranging from the left to the far left." I would assume he means everyone except for UCLA, the University of Chicago, and those "few good small conservative colleges like Hillsdale or Grove City."
But the best part is when Sowell explains what happens to all those poor conservative intellectuals who are barred from entering the halls of American academia:
"One reason for the prominence of conservative think tanks is that so many top scholars who are not leftists do not find a home in academia and go to work for think tanks instead."
Oh, yeah. And maybe the other reason is MONEY$$$$!!! Did it occur to Sowell that the existence of so many conservative “think tanks” is due to the gobs of corporate money that funds them?? I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine that most college professors make a pittance compared to what they pay at some of these big think tanks. Gee, why don’t we ask Sowell himself who gave up his job at UCLA to become a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the conservative Hoover Institution. What do you think, Sowell? Would you like to give up your cush position at the Hoover Institute to go teach an economics class at some public university?
My first thought was if the Left has discouraged diversity, what would our nation be like if it had all been left up to the Right? Would we still have Jim Crow laws and segregated schools and separate lunch counters? Who are they trying to kid here?
Sowell begins his column by mentioning the recent end of Albert Hunt's weekly column on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Hunt was the sole liberal who was given space on those pages and I was distressed last week when I learned that his tenure there was ending, and here we have Sowell using this as an example of the Right’s superiority in supporting ideological diversity. Let's see.... One column per week in an editorial section that is otherwise solidly hard-right - and it is ending with no new liberal taking up the vacant slot. And this is Sowell’s idea of diversity.
Imagine for a moment if the Express-News tried something like this. The paper is constantly berated by the Right as a bastion of liberal bias, and yet they make a point of having not one, but usually two or three conservative columnists on their page everyday - not just once a week. What if they had only one conservative once a week. Would Sowell applaud them for their ideological diversity too?
So the question really is whether or not Sowell is competent enough to be writing a newspaper column in the first place. But let’s go on.
Sowell goes on to talk about when he used to be a professor at UCLA (out in that liberal paradise of California) and notes that they had a "staunchly conservative" economics department there. Hmmmmm. But because they were so interested in having ideological diversity they deigned to hire one professor with more liberal ideas even though he wasn’t really up to snuff with the rest of them, or so Sowell says. Well, there you go. Once again Sowell has demonstrated the Right’s vastly superior interest in maintaining a diversity of ideas in academia.
Next, Sowell claims with no supporting evidence that academia today consists "soley of people ranging from the left to the far left." I would assume he means everyone except for UCLA, the University of Chicago, and those "few good small conservative colleges like Hillsdale or Grove City."
But the best part is when Sowell explains what happens to all those poor conservative intellectuals who are barred from entering the halls of American academia:
"One reason for the prominence of conservative think tanks is that so many top scholars who are not leftists do not find a home in academia and go to work for think tanks instead."
Oh, yeah. And maybe the other reason is MONEY$$$$!!! Did it occur to Sowell that the existence of so many conservative “think tanks” is due to the gobs of corporate money that funds them?? I don’t know for a fact, but I would imagine that most college professors make a pittance compared to what they pay at some of these big think tanks. Gee, why don’t we ask Sowell himself who gave up his job at UCLA to become a Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the conservative Hoover Institution. What do you think, Sowell? Would you like to give up your cush position at the Hoover Institute to go teach an economics class at some public university?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Happy 2 Year Blog Anniversary!
Next week is my two year blog anniversary. I put my first blog post up on Jan. 10, 2003.
It’s hard to believe I’ve kept this thing going for two years already. A lot of other bloggers have come and gone during that period and it is still uncertain what is going to happen with blogging in the future. Recent studies have shown a blog explosion during the past year with blog readership rising dramatically. I can’t say that my own blog readership has seen any corresponding growth, but I like to think that my persistence will pay off in the long-run.
It’s hard to believe I’ve kept this thing going for two years already. A lot of other bloggers have come and gone during that period and it is still uncertain what is going to happen with blogging in the future. Recent studies have shown a blog explosion during the past year with blog readership rising dramatically. I can’t say that my own blog readership has seen any corresponding growth, but I like to think that my persistence will pay off in the long-run.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Blogging MIAs
It looks like we’ve lost another one. Alamo City Commando has apparently pulled down his Express-News Watch blog site. Unlike other blogger MIAs, Commando didn’t just stop posting to his site, he deleted it. So as best I can tell it is gone. That is too bad. While I didn’t agree with most of Commando’s views, I thought they were a constructive place to start a dialogue on important issues.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the media has a left or right bias so much as it has a money bias. Newspapers are businesses and they will tend to favor the views of their readership in an effort to sell the most papers.
But many more people probably share Commando’s views than mine, so it is important for newspapers to address his criticism’s straight-on, correct mistakes, defend their integrity and rebuild their trust with the public.
Commando’s departure from the blogging scene will also put the Alamo City Crossfire site on hiatus. The next debate topic was supposed to be on global warming, but it looks now like that may not happen. I’ll go ahead and keep my link to the site in the event that I can one day attract some other folks to participate in a debate or a dialogue on the major issues of the day.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the media has a left or right bias so much as it has a money bias. Newspapers are businesses and they will tend to favor the views of their readership in an effort to sell the most papers.
But many more people probably share Commando’s views than mine, so it is important for newspapers to address his criticism’s straight-on, correct mistakes, defend their integrity and rebuild their trust with the public.
Commando’s departure from the blogging scene will also put the Alamo City Crossfire site on hiatus. The next debate topic was supposed to be on global warming, but it looks now like that may not happen. I’ll go ahead and keep my link to the site in the event that I can one day attract some other folks to participate in a debate or a dialogue on the major issues of the day.
Hall of Fame 2005
There is no question that Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg belong in the Hall of Fame. I’m very happy that both were voted in this year. I’m not sure, but I would imagine that the recent enthusiasm for underdog teams like the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox helped boost their chances as Sandberg was a Cub for his entire career and Boggs spent most of his time with the BoSox.
However, just to put things into context I will point out that Boggs and Sandberg both fell far short of posting the career numbers achieved by Pete Rose.
Boggs is celebrated for being one of the few batters in history to surpass the 3,000 hit mark just before retiring after 18 seasons. But even if he had played six more seasons to match the number of years that Rose played, it is unlikely that he would have caught up to Rose’s record 4,256 hits mark. In fact, he would have to have averaged more than 200 hits per season (208 to be precise) during his final six years to have caught Rose. Boggs had just 80 hits during his final season.
There is still one year left for the Baseball Hall of Fame to redeem itself. If Bud Selig would reinstate Rose’s eligibility he could still be voted in to the Hall in 2006 before the matter goes to the Veteran's committee. As I have noted previously, I think that Pete Rose has suffered enough for the heinous crime of gambling on baseball. The fact that none of his gambling activity impacted his playing career should make his induction into the Hall of Fame a simple matter. It’s not like he was pumped up on steroids, afterall.
However, just to put things into context I will point out that Boggs and Sandberg both fell far short of posting the career numbers achieved by Pete Rose.
Boggs is celebrated for being one of the few batters in history to surpass the 3,000 hit mark just before retiring after 18 seasons. But even if he had played six more seasons to match the number of years that Rose played, it is unlikely that he would have caught up to Rose’s record 4,256 hits mark. In fact, he would have to have averaged more than 200 hits per season (208 to be precise) during his final six years to have caught Rose. Boggs had just 80 hits during his final season.
There is still one year left for the Baseball Hall of Fame to redeem itself. If Bud Selig would reinstate Rose’s eligibility he could still be voted in to the Hall in 2006 before the matter goes to the Veteran's committee. As I have noted previously, I think that Pete Rose has suffered enough for the heinous crime of gambling on baseball. The fact that none of his gambling activity impacted his playing career should make his induction into the Hall of Fame a simple matter. It’s not like he was pumped up on steroids, afterall.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Shame, shame
The House Republicans caved on their plan to gut the House Ethics rules in a bid to prop up their corrupt leader Tom DeLay.
Normally, I would say that such a reversal was due to a healthy sense of shame finally asserting itself. But according to the story linked above, it was just another cold, political calculation just like everything else these Republicans do.
A spokesman for DeLay said Democrats will now lose the one talking point that Republicans believed might have been effective against them.
Wamp said the move "took the bullets right out of [Democratic leader] Nancy Pelosi's gun."
Took the bullet out of her gun.... Hmmmmm. I think the bullet was already in their ass, and that is what prompted the sudden reversal. I’m also sure that Pelosi’s smoking gun has more than just one bullet.
Expect to see more caving from this Republican Congress in the near future (i.e. Social Security privatization).
Normally, I would say that such a reversal was due to a healthy sense of shame finally asserting itself. But according to the story linked above, it was just another cold, political calculation just like everything else these Republicans do.
A spokesman for DeLay said Democrats will now lose the one talking point that Republicans believed might have been effective against them.
Wamp said the move "took the bullets right out of [Democratic leader] Nancy Pelosi's gun."
Took the bullet out of her gun.... Hmmmmm. I think the bullet was already in their ass, and that is what prompted the sudden reversal. I’m also sure that Pelosi’s smoking gun has more than just one bullet.
Expect to see more caving from this Republican Congress in the near future (i.e. Social Security privatization).
Monday, January 03, 2005
More about me
I think I just did one of these, but here’s another by request:
Three names you go by:
Mike
Mike W. Thomas (my byline)
Daddie (This one is new, but it’s wonderful to hear)
Three screennames you have:
MWThomas87
(that's it)
Three things you like about yourself:
My political views (I agree with myself on most political issues)
My tastes in books, music and movies
I’m easy to get along with
Three things you dislike about yourself:
Procrastination
Disorganization
Too self-centered
Three parts of your heritage:
Welsh
British
Cherokee (1/16th)
Three things that scare you:
Republicans in positions of power
small spaces (claustrophobia)
tornadoes
Three of your everyday essentials:
newspapers
coffee
having my son run up and give me a hug when I get home from work
Three things you are wearing right now:
slacks
flannel dress shirt (It is January after all)
new socks I got for Christmas
Three of your favorite bands/artists (at the moment):
U2 (although I still haven’t got their new album)
Bing Crosby
Los Lobos
Three of your favorite songs at present:
I’m an Old Cowhand (From the Rio Grande) by Bing Crosby
Don’t Worry, Baby (Los Lobos)
Don’t Talk About Love by Cole Porter as sung by Danny Kaye
Three things you want to do in the next 12 months:
Throw away junk and get organized
Build a swingset for my son
Write some good stories
Three things you just can't do:
Solve a Rubic’s cube
Read “Finnegan’s Wake” by James Joyce
Explain why Bush deserved a second term as president
Three of your favorite hobbies:
Blogging
Collecting books, music, movies and baseball cards
Reading/Writing
Three things you want to do really badly right now:
Go home and play with my son
Watch some of the movies I got for Christmas
Clean up from the holiday mess
Three careers you're considering:
Keep doing what I’m doing
Editorial writer
Press secretary for President John Kerry (doh!)
Three places you want to go on vacation:
England
Disney World and Epcot
Hawaii
Three things you want to do before you die:
Write a book
Travel more
Watch my great-grandchildren graduate from college
Three names you go by:
Mike
Mike W. Thomas (my byline)
Daddie (This one is new, but it’s wonderful to hear)
Three screennames you have:
MWThomas87
(that's it)
Three things you like about yourself:
My political views (I agree with myself on most political issues)
My tastes in books, music and movies
I’m easy to get along with
Three things you dislike about yourself:
Procrastination
Disorganization
Too self-centered
Three parts of your heritage:
Welsh
British
Cherokee (1/16th)
Three things that scare you:
Republicans in positions of power
small spaces (claustrophobia)
tornadoes
Three of your everyday essentials:
newspapers
coffee
having my son run up and give me a hug when I get home from work
Three things you are wearing right now:
slacks
flannel dress shirt (It is January after all)
new socks I got for Christmas
Three of your favorite bands/artists (at the moment):
U2 (although I still haven’t got their new album)
Bing Crosby
Los Lobos
Three of your favorite songs at present:
I’m an Old Cowhand (From the Rio Grande) by Bing Crosby
Don’t Worry, Baby (Los Lobos)
Don’t Talk About Love by Cole Porter as sung by Danny Kaye
Three things you want to do in the next 12 months:
Throw away junk and get organized
Build a swingset for my son
Write some good stories
Three things you just can't do:
Solve a Rubic’s cube
Read “Finnegan’s Wake” by James Joyce
Explain why Bush deserved a second term as president
Three of your favorite hobbies:
Blogging
Collecting books, music, movies and baseball cards
Reading/Writing
Three things you want to do really badly right now:
Go home and play with my son
Watch some of the movies I got for Christmas
Clean up from the holiday mess
Three careers you're considering:
Keep doing what I’m doing
Editorial writer
Press secretary for President John Kerry (doh!)
Three places you want to go on vacation:
England
Disney World and Epcot
Hawaii
Three things you want to do before you die:
Write a book
Travel more
Watch my great-grandchildren graduate from college
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)