What
is the Deal with... 2003-04 Select
[ Home
] [ Up ] [ Capitalism?
] [ Democrats and Economics? ] [ Caucasian Club?
] [ Post-War Iraq? ] [ the Thin Gray Line?
]
[ the Iraqi Citizens ] [ Jacko?
] [ Statutes of Limitation? ] [ MBAs?
] [ Slopping Hogs? ] [
Democratic Primaries? ]
[
Politics? ]
| What is the Deal with the Iraqi Citizens? 11/01/03 | |
|
When I was a young boy, my brother,
sister and I got a pet kitten. That kitten spent the first two or
three years of its life with us inside the house, never venturing outdoors. I don't know anything about feline cognitive ability, but it is probably reasonable to assume that the cat saw things outdoors through the windows or doors much in the same way as she saw things on television, simply moving images on the other side of a pane of glass. The things within the four walls of our house made up everything that cat knew about the world. One day my mother, tired of cleaning a litter box (since neither my siblings nor I would do that job), decided to try to train the cat to go outside to take care of "business." No sooner did my mother get outside with that cat than the cat "freaked out," clawing and wailing, leaping from my mother's arms and back into the house. The cat had just been thrust into a new world, utterly foreign and completely unknown and unsuspected, a world that cat could never have imagined. A recent National Review article[1] by Steven Vincent about his experiences with some Iraqi citizens reminded me of that cat. It seems that many in Iraq have no idea of what it is like outside of the four walls of Iraq. This is not surprising given the fact that for a generation, Iraqis have been allowed very little contact with the outside world and all of their "news" was processed and sanitized to reflect the view that Saddam Hussein wanted them to have. As Vincent described, some Iraqis are dismayed that the Americans cannot get the electricity turned on, restore peace and get everyone a job immediately. Why can't the powerful Americans do these simple things? Many are skeptical of the delays in bringing normalcy to their lives, thinking that there is a "vast American conspiracy" to keep the Iraqis down. It is not known just how widespread or ingrained such ideas about America, America's technological prowess and America's intentions in Iraq really are. It stands to reason that the Iraqis, after years of Saddam's propaganda, really don't know what to believe. They are skeptical of the things they can see, just like our cat (or your typical teenager). Obviously, a fearful and reticent populace, not knowing if the Americans and British will stay to finish the reconstruction or if they will leave as in 1991, is not approaching the rebuilding of their country with great enthusiasm. As Vincent points out, an attitude of "you broke it, you fix it" is not uncommon. There is not much the Americans and British can do to change attitudes in Iraq other than to continue to do the job at hand; getting electricity turned on, water running, schools opened and the nation secured. Gaining the trust and confidence of the Iraqi people will take time and it will not be easy, especially in light of the continued anti-American attacks and propaganda. Make no mistake, there is serious opposition to American presence in Iraq and that resistance will stop at nothing to rally public support against the Americans. The cat eventually became comfortable being outdoors and learned that the world she never knew was not to be feared. One day, hopefully in the not too distance future, the Iraqi people will learn that Americans too are not to be feared, but rather thanked. [1]http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vincent200310280822.asp |
|
![]() National Review |
|
|
Are You Fully Protected from Viruses?? |
|
![]() New Republic |
|
|
Career Guidance |
|
![]() |
|
|
Learn Spanish |
|
| What is the Deal with Jacko? 11/22/03 | |
|
Pop star Michael Jackson was arrested
last week and charged with multiple counts of child molestation in a case
involving a 12-year old boy. As the sordid story goes, it seems the boy, who happens to be a cancer patient, wished to meet Jackson and ended up spending some time at Jackson's California ranch, Neverland. Apparently Jackson supplied financial support to the boy's family for some period of time and his family apparently also stayed at Neverland. Almost immediately after Jackson surrendered to police, unnamed sources for Jackson indicated that the mother of the boy was "screwed up" and that she was a "scorned woman." I don't know anything about this boy's mother, but there can be no doubt that at least one person involved in this case is screwed up. Jackson's transformation from a wildly popular, extremely talented and relatively normal looking entertainer of the mid-80s to the freakish, 120 pound, garishly clown-like, unstable, alleged pedophile of today has been bizarre, to say the least. Starting with a marriage to Lisa Marie Presley to multiple cosmetic surgeries to holding his child over a balcony in Germany, Jackson has demonstrated over and over that he is in desperate need of psychological help. It is impossible for most "regular" people to understand what it is like to be in the public eye 24 hours per day. Jackson has lived in the public eye for almost his entire life. He has also never lived in the real world. Considering that Jackson was admittedly beaten and abused by his father and started his entertainment career at age 10, he has never known any sort of "normal" life. He cannot go to the mall, to a restaurant or a movie like most people. He is a prisoner of his fame and, not to excuse child molestation, given his history and life situation, Jackson's bizarre behavior cannot be a surprise to anyone. Jackson has earned millions and millions of dollars over the years, yet his is apparently teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. He now faces the prospect of being transferred from the prison of fame to a prison of razor wire. No matter how this case is resolved, whether Jackson is guilty of molestation or is a victim of a gold digger, his life should be an example of the enormous price that must be paid for a life of fame. That is a price that Jackson is apparently unable to afford. |
Save 50% on your next meal! |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learn Japanese |
|
| What is the Deal with Statutes of Limitation? 10/04/03 | |
|
On the eve of the California recall
elections, stories are breaking out all around alleging various acts of
boorish behavior by front-running contender Arnold Schwarzenegger. There have been recent allegations that Schwarzenegger took liberties with the placement of his hands relative to the physical space occupied by several women on various movie sets and in other settings over the past 30 years. No sooner had those allegations broke than it was revealed that Schwarzenegger allegedly praised Adolf Hitler when being interviewed for a book proposal in 1975, 28 years ago. Schwarzenegger issued a blanket apology to anyone that he may have "offended" in the past without acknowledging any specific improprieties. He indicated that he did not recall making any pro-Hitler comments and reiterated his contempt for Nazi Germany and for Hitler. Did Schwarzenegger touch any women inappropriately in the past 30 years? I don't know, obviously, since I wasn't there, but given the fact that he was a body builder and budding actor in those days, and based on conventional wisdom of the things that go on in Hollywood, it seems plausible. Did Schwarzenegger make any pro-Hitler comments 28 years ago? Again, I wasn't there. Maybe he did but they were tongue-in-cheek. Maybe he did and meant them. Maybe he didn't. At some point, a person's past becomes irrelevant. How many politicians today would want to face scrutiny over the things they may have done in their teens or twenties? There must be a point at which a statute of limitations applies to personal behavior, especially when considered along with a person's behavior today. If Schwarzenegger espoused the virtues of Adolf Hitler while campaigning for governor it is one thing, but to dig a tidbit of a quotation taken out of context from more than a quarter century ago is simply taking it too far. In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, each person casting a vote must decide whether these allegations of actions more than two decades ago have any relevance today and, even if they are true, do they likely reflect on Schwarzenegger's ability to be the governor of California today. Further, if these actions would be deemed to be relevant to Schwarzenegger's ability to govern, would the electorate be better off with either Gray Davis or Cruz Bustamante leading the state? ABC News and the New York Times, the media outlets that broke the Hitler story, are not without a horse in the race. Both of these left-leaning institutions cannot be assumed to be undertaking nothing more than objective reporting in this case. The timing of these stories is predictable. In the last few days before the election, it is a time-honored strategy to shower an undesirable candidate with dirt leaving him little time to clean up the mess before the voters go to the polls. Both ABC and the Times likely would stand behind this story as an example of good reporting. It looks to me more like a case of mining for dirt. |
GQ -- the gentleman's guide to fashion, women, fitness and more. Subscribe now! |
![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
Your Child... Helping, Sharing & Caring Visit www.BehaviorStore.com |
|
![]() |
|
|
Learn Russian |
|
| What is the Deal with MBAs? 11/29/03 | |
|
Worldwide shipping company, FedEx, has
recently been running a television commercial[1] in which the
shipping supervisor of a fictitious company asks a young man, on his first day
on the job, if he would help.
The young man initially accepts, but when he realizes he is being asked to help with shipping a huge pile of packages, he balks explaining, "I don't do shipping." The supervisor counters, "No, no, no. It's very easy. We use FedEx.com. Anybody can do it." Young man: "You don't understand. I have an MBA." Supervisor: "Oh, you have an MBA? In that case, I'll have to show you how to do it." Voiceover: "FedEx.com makes shipping so fast and easy, even and MBA can do it." I'm sure most people don't think twice about this ad. Why? Because it is the Caucasian male that is disparaged. It should be noted that the shipping supervisor is an African-American female. I wonder what the reaction would be if the roles were reversed? Would this advertisement still be on the air if the shipping supervisor were a Caucasian male and the young MBA was an African-American female? "Oh, you have an MBA? In that case, I'll have to show you how to do it." Not so funny, is it? Now, I'm not out to make a case for political correctness here, although I too am a Caucasian male that happens to have an MBA and could, if so inclined, exercise my right to express offense and outrage. Actually, I find the commercial to be quite humorous because frankly, it is humorous. The young MBA portrays an attitude of superiority and implies that shipping work is beneath him. This is definitely not a good attitude to put on display on one's first day on the job and I must say, is not typical of the people I know that have MBA degrees. On the other hand, this advertisement does demonstrate the double-standard in America when it comes to who is fair game at which to poke fun and who is not. I'm sure FedEx and their advertising agency didn't choose the actors to play the roles of supervisor and weasel-like MBA at random. Undoubtedly FedEx's purpose with this commercial is to emphasize the ease of use of their website and to have some fun at the expense of an unsympathetic character. In the process they do walk a fine line in that they could use no one other than a Caucasian male for the role of the MBA without setting off the alarms of political correctness. [1]http://www.fedex.com/us/about/advertising/tvads/mbawm.html?link=4 |
|
|
Over 100 Different Flavored Coffees! CoffeeAM.com |
|
|
|
|
|
2 For 1 Special at TreeGivers.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Verdienen Sie viel Geld für's Anschauen von noch unveröffentlichten Film Trailern
Learn German |
|
| What is the Deal with Slopping Hogs? 12/06/03 | |
|
The hogs in Congress are busy gorging
themselves at the public trough again. Actually, I hesitate to use the word "hogs" to
describe the members of Congress because I believe the analogy is an insult to hogs. According to a Heritage Foundation report[1], the 2004 omnibus spending bill is a budget buster loaded with unnecessary and wasteful spending on pet projects ranging from $75,000 for the Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz to a staggering $5 million for Project Socrates. I've written[2] about Congress' penchant for wasteful spending in the past, but it seems that they didn't get the message. I wonder if they ever will? Our President doesn't seem to have any qualms about spending our money either. There has been nothing out of the White House advocating fiscal responsibility. With large (and justifiable) expenditures authorized for the war in Iraq and large (and irresponsible) entitlement spending on tap for Medicare recipients, a few more million here and there probably won't be noticed. At least that seems to be the prevailing attitude in D. C. If you had a bottomless pot of money at your disposal (as Congress does), would you not dig deep to help out with all of the great projects that your friends came up with? How about $400,000 for the Speed Art Museum or $270,000 for sustainable olive production? Hey, if you're going to spend money for sustainable olive production, you'd better cough up the $90,000 for olive fruit fly research, right? That's just what your Congress did. Just how did we get to the point where our Federal government can spend $250,000 of the taxpayers' money on the Studio for the Arts in Pocahontas, Arkansas? The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." The plain language would seem to indicate that the Federal government does not have any powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. It seems unlikely that the Founding Fathers would have included a Constitutional clause to authorize Congress to spend money for "Web Wise Kids," so how do they get away with spending not only $600,000 for web surfing youth but an additional $225,000 for the construction of the Blue-Gray Civil War Theme Park? Surprisingly, this power is granted by the Constitution. That is if you take a very broad interpretation of the Constitution and what, exactly, the phrase "general welfare" actually means. Both the preamble to the Constitution and Article I, Section 8 contain language that authorizes the government to promote the "general welfare." Article I, Section 8 specifically grants Congress the power, "… to lay and collect taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the … general Welfare … " There you have it. Those few words give carte blanche to the trusted members of Congress to take our money and hand it out willy-nilly for any project that has a nice ring to it. You probably didn't know that every citizen of the United States is a welfare recipient, did you? How about a million dollars each for the First Tee program and the Hal Rogers parkway? No problem. Need six million for the Treasure Island Bridge or two million for Parents Anonymous? Take it. Would you like $270,000 for potato storage? Got change for a million? Congress has even seen fit to waste $100,000 of your money on "public service recognition week." You call that public service? The next time you hear a Senator or Congressman complain about the budget deficit or how we can't afford one thing or another, just ask how much he or she authorized for Kennedy Center Potomac River Pedestrian and Bike Path. (Answer: $5 million.) [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm377.cfm [2] http://www.pieofknowledge.com/archive/050403_Pork.html |
Cultural commentary, journalistic insight, the best cartoons and a FREE gift! THE NEW YORKER just $1 an issue |
|
eTrust EZ Armor from Computer Associates |
|
|
To book hotels online Click here |
|
|
|
|
|
Adagio Teas Best Tea Online |
|
|
|
|
|
Hurry, Next
$1-Million Drawing at 3pm TODAY! Picking 7 numbers could win you 7 figure$ Play LuckySurf free now! |
|
|
|
|
|
Learn French |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
©2003-2005crazycatmaninorangehat |
|||