July 2002 Archives

Michael Park of Fox News is reporting that a New York City lawyer has filed suit against the four big fast-food corporations, saying their fatty foods are responsible for his client's obesity. This is ridiculous enough. However, it has started another wave of pointless invective by conservatives. Their target? The so-called nanny-state. Blogger Dean Esmay writes:

So now where do the nanny-state elitists, money-grubbers and moralizing control freaks turn their attention? Conservatives and libertarians warned that fast food was next. It Has Begun. Alcohol is next on the hit list. Just you wait. If the Center for Science in the Public Interest doesn't think it's good for us, lawyers will find a way to line their pockets while "protecting" us from the evils of freedom of choice. God, it's just the simple truth: if it does not involve the pelvis, there is nothing the Left hates more than FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Well. I think it was Ralph Nader that said that a double cheeseburger was a weapon of mass destruction. If that is true (which it is) then why are conservatives getting hot under the collar, railing against the nanny-state? Hate to break it to ya pal, but the party's almost over! The nanny-state is going to be the only one left standing after all you guys drop dead of arteriosclerosis, lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver. I am so evil. Bwa-hahahaha!

Born on third base The knock on Bush 41 (and now Bush 43) has been that he was born on third base, but thought he had hit a triple. Cartoonist Tom Toles takes it a bit further:

Frank Murray writes in the Washington Times:

Mr. Clinton's epitaph may literally be written here in "Contemplation Grove," a secluded stand of trees at the south end of the [Presidential Library] grounds. That site is designed to hold a small chapel and a burial facility worthy of a state funeral, complete with power and fiber-optic television transmission facilities. There's some timidity in discussing funeral arrangements for a man approaching only his 56th birthday. When he was asked where Mr. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, might be buried, [the Little Rock Parks Director] answered with a bit of a smirk: "At her own presidential library."

In May of 1994, Kim Yung Soo, President of Kea So Joo, Inc. sent 1,500 letters to dog shelters around America soliciting all their unwanted dogs for $.10 a pound. The letter said in part:

Dog shelter kill million of dog, cost money...Dog shelter need money to operate. Where it get money? Hard to get money. Many people like to eat dog...Where do they get dog?...We buy all dog, regardless of size or color. We prefer big, young strong dog, but we take all dog from your dog shelter.

The outrage was palpable. Kim received dozens of death threats.

He also received dozens of offers to sell him cheap dog meat.

The police got involved. Then the media got hold of the story and the real fun began. They swallowed the whole story, hook, line and sinker. Because it was just that: a story.

It was yet another media hoax perpetrated by the (in)famous Joey Skaggs. This is the same Joey Skaggs who has said (and proven) that journalists are simpleminded, easily manipulated and will print almost any outrageous story you tell them. He has made a career out of proving that point every chance he gets. And, 35 years after he started, it's just as easy now as it ever was. You like this guy already, don't you? You should read his manifesto and remember that you can't believe everything you read or hear or see in the media.

Everyone has their place in the world. Alas, the place of conservatives is standing athwart history and yelling stop until, Wile E. Coyote-style, history runs them down, hurtles onward towards the horizon, and leaves them a laughingstock.

Conservatives have lost almost every intellectual fight since Caesar and Brutus took it outside, but what most normal people--and nearly all liberals--don't realize is that the world needs conservatives. Human beings are made for change, but when change happens too fast, disaster strikes. Just look at the '70s. Conservatives are the engine governors of intellectual life and without them, the world would be a shambles.

Being conservative isn't glamorous or fun. Liberals get all the good ink and all the credit for changing the world and all the parties at the Playboy mansion; conservatives get to keep the wheels from falling off the cart and serve as the punchline for jokes in the New Yorker.

Jonathan V. Last
The Weekly Standard

OK, here's the thing: just when I'm starting to think I like him, he gets up there and he looks like he's half in the bag...What is that?

I have loved baseball since I was 8 years old. I loved playing it and watching it. I became a student of the game and its history. I love its tradition. To those who say baseball is slow, I say: chess is slow. So what? I love it that the best sports movies are stories about baseball: The Natural, Bull Durham, Pride of the Yankees, Major League, and of course, Field of Dreams:

The one constant through all the years has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good, and what could be again.

I was saddened by the death of Ted Williams; this was one of the pillars of baseball's tradition, and a genuine American hero; Williams gave up 5 of the best years of his career to serve in the Armed Forces during World War II and the Korean War. That done, he still had career statistics that put him in the pantheon of the greatest players ever. Some say he was the best there ever was. I never saw him play. But I knew people that had. Eddie the mailman used to tell me about the towering fly balls that Williams would hit, acting out the part of the hapless outfielder, his back to the wall, watching another Williams home run disappear over his head. Williams was a complicated personality. Here's what Joe Saraceno said about him in USA Today:

If Joe DiMaggio was beloved for his icy elegance, the equally private Theodore Samuel Williams was positively bedeviled by the very magnitude of his own magnificence. Genius doesn't need confirmation.

Translation? Williams hated the sportswriters and didn't respect the fans much more than that. It took a novelist, John Updike, to describe the nature of the relationship between Williams and his constituency. It was part of a memorable story for The New Yorker describing the outfielder's final at-bat, a dramatic home run at Fenway Park before a sparse crowd on a cool, late September day:

Like a feather caught in a vortex, Williams ran around the square of bases at the center of our beseeching, screaming. He ran as he always ran out home runs — hurriedly, unsmiling, head down, as if our praise were a storm of rain to get out of. He didn't tip his cap. Though we thumped, wept and chanted, "We want Ted" for minutes after he hid in the dugout, he did not come back. Our noise for some seconds passed beyond excitement into a kind of immense, open anguish, a wailing, a cry to be saved. But immortality is non-transferable. The papers said the other players, and even the umpires on the field, begged him to come out and acknowledge us in some way, but he never had and did not now. Gods do not answer letters.

Rest in peace, Teddy Ballgame.

Recently I wrote about what happens now that the Supreme Court has blown a gigantic hole in the wall of separation between church and state. As bad as that decision was, it's over. But I contend that the law of unintended consequences may yet influence the eventual outcome. For example, I think the decision may cause private schools that accept public money to become more, well, public. This idea seems to cause anguish and confusion on both the left and the right. My friends on the left accuse me of capitulating. They insist that we liberals need to keep fighting the original fight until we can bring another case before the Supreme Court and, this time, win. They cite Brown vs. the Board of Education; that ruling struck down the idea of "separate but equal" embodied in an earlier Supreme Court decision (Plessy vs. Ferguson). Problem is, it took over 50 years to reverse the earlier decision. We'd like to think that we could prevail in our lifetimes. Those on the right question whether liberals can co-opt the school choice movement at all. Dean Esmay believes that the Democrats would have to transform themselves completely:

[T]he Democrats could try once again to re-embrace free market competition. They could also give more than lip service to the values they so cynically espouse, stop pandering to the teacher unions' paranoia, and get behind School Choice. It would be nice to see. If they got on board the Social Security Choice bandwagon, so much the better... But to do all that, not only will they have to abandon that segment of the left that hates the free market, they'll also have to abandon the McKinney/Hillary conspiracy axis, the Berkeley-style uber-doves, and the anti-corporate, anti-globalization youth movement that they've been trying to woo.

Not sure I know of any mainstream Democrats that are wooing the "anti-globalization youth movement." These folks are notorious no-shows on Election Day. Same with the "uber-doves." The only constituency that the Dems would anger would be the teacher's unions. That would take some guts and leadership. But I believe it could be done. For example, did you know that private school teachers are often represented by unions? Wouldn't it be logical at some point to promote the further extension of the unions into private schools? I should point out here that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer. But I have been known to associate with large numbers of plaintiff's attorneys. I am also a parent and a teacher and a payer of taxes. I can connect the dots; I can do the math. I think that the next phase in the voucher movement will be to establish the rules and regulations that govern private institutions that receive public monies. If this includes opening up a front wherein teachers unions can battle for position in private schools, so be it. I also believe that there will be court cases testing the concept of acceptable community standards in private schools. After all, do you want your tax dollars being distributed (even indirectly) to a local madrassas? At worst, this concept is arguable. At best, winnable. You might think this outrageous; but stranger things have happened. The bottom line is this: when public funds are re-distributed (even indirectly) to private parties, more (not less) strings will be attached.

Howard Fineman writes in Newsweek about the retirement of J.C. Watts, the only African-American Republican in Congress. Watts, a former star college quarterback from Oklahoma is said to be frustrated with his party's rigid conservative mindset:

Some conservatives never forgave Watts for his support of affirmative action, which he regards as a necessary but temporary stopgap. His analogy, not surprisingly, is to football: Affirmative action is like the NFL draft, in which the weaker teams are allowed to pick first. The goal: to level the playing field. To Watts, it seemed to be a matter of common sense.

They never forgave him? I'm surprised to hear this. After all, he said it was a temporary stopgap! Talk about vindictive. This doesn't sound like Reagan's big tent to me. Granted, Fineman does not write for the National Review; therefore in the minds of the conservatives he is referring to, his motives are suspect. In fact, I would predict that Fineman's assessment of Watts' situation will be discounted by the conservative intelligensia. That said, my hunch is that there is more than a grain of truth to his account.

Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, is deputy prime minister of Israel. I believe that before his career is over, he will be recognized as one of the great figures of our time. He recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal about President Bush's call for democracy in the Palestinian territories.

[I]t is still widely believed that all that is necessary to get the peace process back on track is to convince [Arafat] or some other Palestinian interlocutor that nothing will be gained through the use of terror. But with his speech...President Bush made clear that the source of the problem is the nature of the Palestinian regime, not this or that Palestinian leader. The president’s words point to a truth that many seem to have forgotten: that there is a fundamental difference between democratic leaders and dictators. Because democratic leaders are dependent on the will of the people, they strive to promote peace and prosperity, opting for war only as a last resort. By contrast, in dictatorships, external enemies become the dictator’s lifeblood, enabling him to divert discontent with his own repressive rule. Reared in the Soviet Union, I came to understand that international security and democracy are inextricably linked. President Bush’s speech suggests he shares a similar vision. The question now facing policy makers, both in Israel and around the world, is how to translate this vision into a workable peace plan.

Sharansky's words are backed up by experience. When he says he was "reared in the Soviet Union," he is really saying he was imprisioned in the Soviet gulag for several years for his advocacy of human rights for Soviet Jewry. He goes on to outline how he would implement Bush's plan. This is the road map that everyone has been looking for:

The first step would be the establishment of an international coordinating body.

[A] Palestinian Administrative Authority (PAA) would administer the areas under Palestinian control during a three-year transition period.

The PAA will be responsible for administering the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians in matters such as the economy, law enforcement and education.

Israel will be responsible for security and freedom of passage in all of the West Bank, and will retain the right to set up transition zones and buffer zones to prevent the resurgence of terror activities.

The PAA will be expected to develop the infrastructure for Palestinian democratic life...The distribution of international aid and assistance will be dependent on ensuring these freedoms.

The coordinating body will dismantle all Palestinian refugee camps, and a normal existence will be offered for those evacuated from the camps.

Arab countries, with assistance from the United Nations, will finance this effort.

An international fund will be established to create and finance industrial zones, infrastructure projects, and other economic activities in the PAA.

After a three-year transition period, free elections will be held in the areas administered by the PAA.

Israel will then negotiate the terms of a permanent peace with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Just as Germany and Japan had to undergo a process of rehabilitation in order to rejoin the international community following World War II, so today Palestinian society must undergo a transformation. I hope that we will not be sidetracked once again by accepting Arafat’s phony promises of reform or legitimating his call for snap elections. This will only serve to perpetuate dictatorial rule that will preclude the possibility of peace. Everyone who genuinely wants peace in our region should now heed the president’s call and work toward reforming Palestinian society. For only if the Palestinians are truly free can we hope to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East.

Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, is deputy prime minister of Israel. I believe that before his career is over, he will be recognized as one of the great figures of our time. He recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal about President Bush's call for democracy in the Palestinian territories.

[I]t is still widely believed that all that is necessary to get the peace process back on track is to convince [Arafat] or some other Palestinian interlocutor that nothing will be gained through the use of terror. But with his speech...President Bush made clear that the source of the problem is the nature of the Palestinian regime, not this or that Palestinian leader. The president’s words point to a truth that many seem to have forgotten: that there is a fundamental difference between democratic leaders and dictators. Because democratic leaders are dependent on the will of the people, they strive to promote peace and prosperity, opting for war only as a last resort. By contrast, in dictatorships, external enemies become the dictator’s lifeblood, enabling him to divert discontent with his own repressive rule. Reared in the Soviet Union, I came to understand that international security and democracy are inextricably linked. President Bush’s speech suggests he shares a similar vision. The question now facing policy makers, both in Israel and around the world, is how to translate this vision into a workable peace plan.

Sharansky's words are backed up by experience. When he says he was "reared in the Soviet Union," he is really saying he was imprisioned in the Soviet gulag for several years for his advocacy of human rights for Soviet Jewry. He goes on to outline how he would implement Bush's plan. This is the road map that everyone has been looking for:

The first step would be the establishment of an international coordinating body.

[A] Palestinian Administrative Authority (PAA) would administer the areas under Palestinian control during a three-year transition period.

The PAA will be responsible for administering the day-to-day lives of the Palestinians in matters such as the economy, law enforcement and education.

Israel will be responsible for security and freedom of passage in all of the West Bank, and will retain the right to set up transition zones and buffer zones to prevent the resurgence of terror activities.

The PAA will be expected to develop the infrastructure for Palestinian democratic life...The distribution of international aid and assistance will be dependent on ensuring these freedoms.

The coordinating body will dismantle all Palestinian refugee camps, and a normal existence will be offered for those evacuated from the camps.

Arab countries, with assistance from the United Nations, will finance this effort.

An international fund will be established to create and finance industrial zones, infrastructure projects, and other economic activities in the PAA.

After a three-year transition period, free elections will be held in the areas administered by the PAA.

Israel will then negotiate the terms of a permanent peace with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Just as Germany and Japan had to undergo a process of rehabilitation in order to rejoin the international community following World War II, so today Palestinian society must undergo a transformation. I hope that we will not be sidetracked once again by accepting Arafat’s phony promises of reform or legitimating his call for snap elections. This will only serve to perpetuate dictatorial rule that will preclude the possibility of peace. Everyone who genuinely wants peace in our region should now heed the president’s call and work toward reforming Palestinian society. For only if the Palestinians are truly free can we hope to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East.

This is the only article you will read today that quotes Benjamin Franklin and Whoopi Goldberg in the same paragraph. In his excellent biography of Benjamin Franklin, H.W. Brands writes that Franklin was an early proponent of paper money. Not hard to understand because he was also a printer vying for the contract to print the legal tender for the state of New Jersey. But Franklin was more than just an opportunist; he had actually given a great deal of thought to the matter. Here's what Brand says about Franklin's thinking:

[Franklin believed that] the opposition to paper often reflected an unwarranted reverence for [gold and silver]...These were nothing more than convenient measures of something more intrinsic: the amount of human labor that went into any commodity. [Franklin wrote] "Suppose one man employed to raise corn, while another is digging and refining silver; at the year's end, or at any other period of time, the complete produce of corn, and that of silver, are the natural price of each other; and if one be twenty bushels and the other twenty ounces, then an ounce of that silver is worth the labor of raising a bushel of that corn." This fundamental principle had an important corollary: "The riches of a country are to be valued by the quantity of labor its inhabitants are able to purchase, and not by the quantity of gold an silver they possess."

Franklin wrote this in 1735. It seems to foreshadow a system of economics wherein intellectual capital might actually have a tangible value. In any case, Whoopi Goldberg said the same thing as Franklin except...differently:

Honey, after they drop the Bomb, all the Kruggerands in the world ain't going to help you. Hell, it'll take 1,000 of them just to buy one can opener."