"The last few years, we’ve spent July Fourth at the house of friends who have had the assembled company read the entire declaration. It’s a longer document than one thinks; the charges against the king take quite a while to get through."
...From Bill Kristol's op-ed piece today. Another interesting turn of phrase considering the source: "The people are conservative. Liberty sometimes requires the bold leadership of a few individuals."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Again with the Separate but Equal
"As teenage boys saunter into the sumptuously appointed men’s grill room, their mothers are relegated to the ladies’ grill, down the hall with a hot plate, some card tables and no bar. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28countryclub.html?hp
"Mr. LaRocca said the attorney general’s findings were “not binding” and that he hoped “it would not come” to a lawsuit. The renovated club will have the same formal dining room now used by men and women, and separate male and female grill rooms but with “equivalent accommodations,” he added."
So what if separate really is equal? Will the men squeal when the governor is in the Ladies' Grille making deals with female businesspeople, shutting the men out from potentially lucrative situations?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28countryclub.html?hp
"Mr. LaRocca said the attorney general’s findings were “not binding” and that he hoped “it would not come” to a lawsuit. The renovated club will have the same formal dining room now used by men and women, and separate male and female grill rooms but with “equivalent accommodations,” he added."
So what if separate really is equal? Will the men squeal when the governor is in the Ladies' Grille making deals with female businesspeople, shutting the men out from potentially lucrative situations?
Here is an excerpt taken from Brooks' op-ed piece today:
"Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans."
"Sam's Club" Americans represent 3/4 of this nation's population...in a two-party system, shouldn't we all be the party of Sam's Club Americans? Democrats may not have been running the country well, but the programs they support have helped a lot more Sam's Club Americans than trickle-down. Maybe I should read the book...I'd look for it to explain how we can progress beyond the small government vs. social programs dichotomy into a system that manages to do both. That is way beyond the "Grand New Party"; if Douthat and Salam have a plan that serves the working class and diminshes government, we won't need a Grand New Party--we'll have transcended both parties.
"Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans."
"Sam's Club" Americans represent 3/4 of this nation's population...in a two-party system, shouldn't we all be the party of Sam's Club Americans? Democrats may not have been running the country well, but the programs they support have helped a lot more Sam's Club Americans than trickle-down. Maybe I should read the book...I'd look for it to explain how we can progress beyond the small government vs. social programs dichotomy into a system that manages to do both. That is way beyond the "Grand New Party"; if Douthat and Salam have a plan that serves the working class and diminshes government, we won't need a Grand New Party--we'll have transcended both parties.
The Age-Old Question: Is She For Real?
Just some tidbits from Ann Coulter.
Do you think she exists as a persona for conservatives to love or liberals to hate...do you think she makes more money because people love to hate her, or because people actually listen to her? I hope it's not the latter...
Do you think she exists as a persona for conservatives to love or liberals to hate...do you think she makes more money because people love to hate her, or because people actually listen to her? I hope it's not the latter...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
To Each Her Own
Read about excellent sheep. This isn't necessarily the premise for this blog, just a starting point.
Like good products of elite colleges, AM and I appreciated the article's validity on several levels but took issue with it in other ways. In righteous self-awareness, we agree that "because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." [AM: "i know many people with that affliction"]. Is it an affliction, or a fairly universal condition (or both)? Don't members of a less elite class find themselves in the similarly paradoxical position of aspiring to the upper class without being able to converse with anyone in it? Remembering, of course, that not every elite student cares about helping the working class, and not every member of the working class cares to be anything but.
This assertion of a major fallacy in elite education seems to contradict the author's main point: that more students are matriculating and graduating with material goals and buying into a system whose main "societal function" is to replicate the class structure. In my experience, however, he fails to address what I see as a significant portion of the graduating class of 2007; that is, those, like my good friend AM, who are entering the world in corporate positions so that they may learn to game the system for the greater good. They are attempting to effect change from within society's walls, unlike those rare students extolled by the author, who reject society for solitude in a quest to contemplate and (I'm assuming as a corollary) bring about the "good society".
So we go round and round in the small questions and learn to distract ourselves from the cosmic ones. In the sociology department, we spend more time studying the mechanisms of social change movements than the validity of their ends. Does normativeness even have a place in the classroom?
Now for a personal whine: As an elightened liberal arts degree-holder, I can't in good conscience say that my job is better than a comfy mindless job that pays the bills but does nothing for society or doesn't at least come with the kind of paycheck that says "sure I sold my soul but I have my own charitable foundation", yet I wonder if I personally could be happy in that sort of position. It's like supporting abortion rights even though you yourself could never commit such an unconscionable act. We try and say we're not better, just different, and maybe in some cases that's true, but in the end it just comes off like "separate but equal". Inherently, it's not.
Like good products of elite colleges, AM and I appreciated the article's validity on several levels but took issue with it in other ways. In righteous self-awareness, we agree that "because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." [AM: "i know many people with that affliction"]. Is it an affliction, or a fairly universal condition (or both)? Don't members of a less elite class find themselves in the similarly paradoxical position of aspiring to the upper class without being able to converse with anyone in it? Remembering, of course, that not every elite student cares about helping the working class, and not every member of the working class cares to be anything but.
This assertion of a major fallacy in elite education seems to contradict the author's main point: that more students are matriculating and graduating with material goals and buying into a system whose main "societal function" is to replicate the class structure. In my experience, however, he fails to address what I see as a significant portion of the graduating class of 2007; that is, those, like my good friend AM, who are entering the world in corporate positions so that they may learn to game the system for the greater good. They are attempting to effect change from within society's walls, unlike those rare students extolled by the author, who reject society for solitude in a quest to contemplate and (I'm assuming as a corollary) bring about the "good society".
So we go round and round in the small questions and learn to distract ourselves from the cosmic ones. In the sociology department, we spend more time studying the mechanisms of social change movements than the validity of their ends. Does normativeness even have a place in the classroom?
Now for a personal whine: As an elightened liberal arts degree-holder, I can't in good conscience say that my job is better than a comfy mindless job that pays the bills but does nothing for society or doesn't at least come with the kind of paycheck that says "sure I sold my soul but I have my own charitable foundation", yet I wonder if I personally could be happy in that sort of position. It's like supporting abortion rights even though you yourself could never commit such an unconscionable act. We try and say we're not better, just different, and maybe in some cases that's true, but in the end it just comes off like "separate but equal". Inherently, it's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)