Your Weekly Rush

Listening to Rush during my lunch break, and caught the tail end of a story about a jury finding against a corporation. I didn't catch any of the details of the case, but twice caught Rush using the phrase "juries made up of people too dumb to get out of Jury Duty."

Rush has had problems with the Jury System for a long time. He apparently sees it as untrustworthy. In essense he doesn't trust the American people. The only reason, in Rush's mind, that a person would serve his community by serving on a jury, is stupidity. The idea that some might see it as a patriotic duty apparently doesn't occur to him.

Perhaps he would prefer cases be decided by Judges. Often well off, they would sympathise more readily with the wealthy. Perhaps they would have little empathy with any who would bring suit against corporations, and if they did, well, a judge is a public figure, and in many cases has to run for election.

I believe in the American people. I believe in the Jury System. I believe in the Bill of Rights. But everybody's entitled to their point of view.

Those Ivory Tower Unmanly Lily Livered "Deep Thinkers"

Thomas Sowell, in his article at Townhall.com today, follows the standard conservative policy of attacking some vaguely defined political left for not understanding the world situation and seeking to appease Iraq. He has appointed Senator Patty Murray as a spokesmen for the left after some foolish remarks she made. (She stated apparently that Osama bin Ladin's generosity in the third world was what made him so popular.) Sowell makes the comparision to the United States after Pearl Harbor, saying ". . . when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Americans woke up -- and grew up. The September 11th terrorist attacks have had a similar effect on the American public at large, but not on the American left in politics, the media, and academe." For those who are not aware, the chief opponents of World War II were Republican Isolationists, not pointy headed academics.

This is standard Conservative ideology. Academics cannot be trusted (unless of course they develop the "correct" opinions.) Sowell, like so many others, tries to play off America's natural dislike of any group of people who think themselves better than the rest of us. But he offers no proof. Senator Murry's comments were not made in a spirit of I know better than the rest of you, but in a discussion with high school students. I suppose Sowell doesn't need to prove Academia's moral failings; certainly many believe that anybody who chooses Academia as a way of life is weak kneed and lily livered. As he says, they are "consumed by their own sense of wonderful specialness."

This issue hits particularly close to home as I have a Master's degree in American History, and have considered returning to the Academic life. I've always had a hard time with the proposition that my interest in History makes me less of a man, less of a person, and unfit to comment on the issues of the day. On the other hand, I also struggle with whether or not to correct the misrepresentations and half truths generally believed.

Here's a bonus question;

Reconstruction failed after the Civil War because;
1. Nothern Carpet Baggers and Scalawags ran enormously corrupt governments, aided by foolish Blacks who proved incapable of Governing themselves.
2. Southern whites launched a campaign of terror against Unionist politicians (Northern or Southern) and blacks, involving murder, lynching, bombing, arson, and other forms of terrorism.

Journalism

Like Ann Coulter I am upset at the state of Modern Journalism. Why just today, I opened my newspaper of choice (largely because I get to look at it for free) and there on the front page was a multi-column opinion piece/editorial masquerading as journalism. It looked at an issue facing the American people and clearly argued one side of the issue.

Of course my newspaper of choice is the Wall Street Journal. One the front page one sees this article.



So in case you missed it it is the position of the Wall Street Journal that Bush would increase the efficiency of the system, but might not because he would be attacked for championing the rich over the poor. Gosh, do you think so? If Bush pushes for a repeal of the estate tax, a tax break for investment earnings, and accelerating the income tax reduction already in effect, some might see that as putting the interests of the rich over the poor.

If this article were a presentation of the issues, an attempt to give both sides of the story, than perhaps it would belong on the front page. But it doesn't. For example no mention is made of the opposing argument that exploring income taxes without an analysis of payroll taxes (Social Security) and sales taxes paints an unfair picture. When payroll taxes and sales taxes are factored in, our tax system flattens out quite a bit. Now I certainly appreciate that there are reasons (and not all of them selfish) that conservatives want to limit this discussion to income tax, but to not even address the question makes it clear that the Wall Street Journal has made up its mind on this issue.

Some Thoughts

"Most journalists are so stupid, the fact that they are also catty, lazy, vengeful and humorless is often overlooked." - Ann Coulter

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Journalists' quotes are as accurate as feminists' statistics about anorexia." - Ann Coulter

"If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend." - Abraham Lincoln

"Apart from being a college professor, there is no easier job in the universe than being a journalist. For 99.999 percent of writers, there is no heavy lifting, no physical danger, no honest day's work." - Ann Coulter.

I suppose it's unnecessary to point out the immense difficulty in being Ann Coulter. Aside from writing a column a week (here's this weeks, from which I lifted the above quotes) and appearing on TV regularly, she also does other stuff. So you can see her life is much more difficult than being a journalist.

More to come on a real newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, and their front page editorial on the Lucky Duckies of the world.

A Picture



Just to present both sides of the issue, without having to think or write. Plus pictures are cool.

An Honest Environmentalist

There are three kinds of environmentalists in the world, loosely speaking. The first group try to get businesses to pollute less, and are focused on community issues and the direct impact of pollution and waste. The second kind are the animal activists, who have some points but some extremism as well.

The third kind promise a worse life for you and your children. They promise that either we will change our ways to live austere lives, possibly returning to 18th century technology, or the world is doomed. Most prefer not to put it that way, but that is what they are promising. George Monbiot is this third kind of Environmentalist, and he's written an article entitled, "Our Quality of Life Peaked in 1974. It's All Downhill Now."

In it, Manbiot basically says that everything sucks and will continue to suck. He is firmly anti capitalist, calling capitalism "a millenarian cult . . . built upon the myth of endless exploitation." He concludes his article by saying "We need to reverse not only the fundamental presumptions of political and economic life, but also the polarity of our moral compass. Everything we thought was good - giving more exciting presents to our children, flying to a friend's wedding, even buying newspapers - turns out also to be bad." It's all very cheery, and according to Mr. Manbiot, should begin happening in the next 5 to 10 years.

Environmentalist have to figure out a way to sell their point of view as something positive, not this terrible end of time situation. But they don't seem interested in doing that--I suppose it's less morally pure.

Big Car Safe. Small Car Dangerous. Me Pick Big Car.

Lisa: But mom, I read that sport-utility vehicles are more
likely to be in fatal accidents.
Bart: Fatal to the people in the other car. Let's roll.
The Simpsons. "Marge Simpson in Screaming Yellow Honkers"

Well, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has recently printed an article arguring that if SUV's are forced to more closely adhere to the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, people will die. Yes, people, just like you and me will die. The article argues; "Advocates of higher CAFE standards for sport utility vehicles argue that this would reduce the hazard that SUVs pose in collisions with cars. The evidence for this is far from clear, because assessing the overall safety effects of reducing one vehicle's mass in a multi-car collision is complex."

Oh wait a second, I read the wrong part of the article, here's the part I want, "But in single-vehicle accidents, small SUVs are much less safe than large ones. A higher CAFE standard for SUVs would encourage sales of small SUVs." See Big SUV's are safer. They even quote a 2001 National Academy of Science report to suppor this allegation.

So, to boil it down, Science cannot comment on the effect of a giant SUV crashing into a smaller car (say, a Toyota Camry), because "multi car collision[s] are complex." But Science says that if you own your own SUV and drive it into a tree you will be safer in a bigger SUV.

Looked at a certain way, it almost sounds like the people at the Competitive Enterprise Instutite believe that people who can afford SUV have more valuable lives than those of us in smaller cars.

Happy New Year.

Letter Mania

The front page of the Wall Ztreet Journal today haz an article on how "Z" iz the new "S." You all know how dedicated I am to following current trendz. But this zeemz overly annoying to me. I think I may, in luddite-like fazhion, revert to uzing the letter "S."

On the other hand there's zomething wonderfully zatizfying in writing "Wall Ztreet Journal"

The Good Old Days

Once upon a time, Man created Art, Literature, Philosophy and Criticism. These were wonderfully precious gifts and they remained the province of the few with the wit or talent to appreciate them. Most people were born and lived and died without Literature, Philosophy and Criticism. Most people couldn't read, and although they had some crafts and storys they created for their communities, the world of "higher" ideas was forever closed off to them.

Then an inventor and printer named Gutenburg commited an evil travesty. He invented a device that allowed dozens of copies of books to be printed and spread among the peoples of the world. Those noble protectors of literature and "higher" thought, the upper classes, did their best to prevent these words from drifting out into the society at large. Unfortunately, they failed. It turned out that people had a desire for information and ideas and stories that books could fulfill. And with the invention of the Printing Press, and the invisible hand of capitalism, many printers began printing books for the masses to read.

Oh what a hew and cry went up among the "cultured" classes. Reading in The Century, December 1885, one finds this passage, directed to Sunday School Librarians.

"If the books which they find in these libraries are, as a rule, silly and shallow fictions, their intellectual tastes may be so depraved by their reading, that they will become visionary and restless creatures, wholly unfit for the serious business of life. That a book should be hurtful to young readers, it is not necessary that it should teach bad morals; the mischief is done quite as effectually by an overwrought sentimentalism as by a lax morality. . . . The trashy fiction still disseminated through them is sufficient to addle unnumbered brains and injure unnumbered lives."

But America didn't heed this warning or the countless others like it--bringing us down to the present day, a truely deplorably time when there are dozens of "popular" mediums, dedicated to finding as many participants as possible. These include Movies, Music, Books, Television, the Internet, and so on. Unlike in the golden ages of mankind, there isn't a specific class of people who decides what is proper and what is improper for viewing or reading. The critics still exist, but they largely serve no purpose. If only they still served their valuable purpose of telling people what to think. If there was a class of people set aside that could read the literature and news and ideas and tell us what was good and what was bad and what was true and what was false, well think how wonderful life would be.

Norman Solomon, a critic who has had the misfortune to be born in modern times makes a simlar lament in his latest column, a review of the year 2002. He comments, "A culture accustomed to finding substantial meaning in TV commercials and an array of phony prime-time shows is unlikely to rouse itself to human connection and moral action when the nation's powers-that-be decide on yet another war."

All joking aside, Solomon does make the standard and correct point that it's troubling to have so much of our media controlled by large corporate oligarchies--but I still remain convinced that the truth is available to all who want to see it. And that in a free society, you are going to find people who look at exactly the same information as you do and come up with different conclusions.