GM,
CNN anchor Lou Dobbs stepped down last month, and he's out to make new friends. The self-proclaimed populist used to be about ridding the nation of illegal immigrants. Now, out of nowhere, he seems pretty focused on letting them know just how much he cares about their incorporation into American society--particularly those of Latin-American heritage. It should be noted, of course, that he may run for a New Jersey State Senate seat or even the presidency as a third-party candidate in 2012. It may be important for him to shake the image of a "racist," the favorite word of the American Left.
Since we're on the subject, I need to ask you what's acceptable to think and say in this country these days. Maybe I should ask a more liberal-minded person. After all, they're the ones who would accuse me of being backwards if I were to break the "rules." Still, I'm hoping you have more insight than I do. Here's the question: Is it considered racist to oppose illegal immigration? Is is considered racist to support the illegality of some types of immigration? Is it considered racist to prefer my own language to others? Is is considered racist to want to limit the number of people who represent a protected class and therefore have an advantage in employment over me?
A Google search of "Lou Dobbs racist" brings fascinating results. Take, for instance, the remarks made by this mastermind. In case you didn't watch the whole video, the creator (well, editor) accuses Lou Dobbs of being racist because he almost used the term "cotton-pickin'." What obviously happened is that Dobbs began to say "cotton-pickin'," an adjective used to replace profanity in the South, in referring to politicians of no particular race or party. He then realized that there were simpletons out there who would assume that, because black slaves often picked cotton in this country, the term was racist. He then resisted. If you ask me, that's going the extra mile to accommodate those who don't deserve accommodation! The editor, whose homepage can be seen here, sees differently: "And some people still say he's not a Racist... LOL." As a lifelong Southerner, I know two people who've claimed to have picked cotton: my dad and his grandfather. It's unpleasant from what I hear.
Sure, Dobbs is a birther. He's from Texas. He might even be a xenophobe as his accusers say. But now he's having to "change his mind" on immigration so the woefully misled won't hate him. A cotton-pickin' shame, if you ask me.
-JW
JW,
Your questions would be sweet if they weren't almost certain to keep you from ever getting a job. Yes! Of course it's racist to oppose illegal immigration. National borders are discriminatory. Of course it's racist to prefer English to other languages. All cultures are morally equal. Of course it's racist to deny historically persecuted groups an advantage in today's marketplace. Your whiteness and that of your fathers must be atoned for.
Joking aside, it is absolutely true that the white male's tightrope walk is getting wobblier. Consider the following truths, internalized during my time at Famous Northern College:
1) To acknowledge, or even to be aware of (see Orwell: doublethink), a non-white person's race is racist, unless you are doing so for the purpose of giving that person positive race-based consideration.
2) To assert the superiority of American or pre-Muslim-invasion European culture is racist, as all cultures are equal. Paradoxically, however, any given white person is morally inferior to any given non-white person.
3) All white misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All black misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture. All hispanic misbehavior is the result of flaws in white culture.
4) White people have an obligation to help non-white people. However, it is racist when they do so.
Can these "truths" endure the inevitable backlash? With the Lou Dobbses of the world being co-opted (and thus neutered) by the political system, I suspect they can, at least for a few more generations.
And yet here's Pulitzer Prize-winning writer David Mamet suggesting otherwise (and literally talking his way out of the Nobel):
"For just as personal advantage was derived by whites from the defense of slavery and its continuation as Jim Crow and segregation, so too personal advantage, political advantage and indeed expression of deeply held belief may lead nonwhites to defense of positions that, though they may be momentarily acceptable, will eventually be revealed as untenable."
Bold stuff. But we're unlikely to live to see it.
-GM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Bulls--t Championship Series: A Complaint
JW,
The Cowboys Stadium timekeeper had the right idea. Let that last second tick off the clock and watch as the BCS crumbles. It was a hopeful gesture--the kind of heroism that makes legends--and if the replay evidence hadn't incontrovertibly placed one second back on the board, we might be telling our grandchildren about the guy.
As it stands, we're set for another year of crowing from BCS apologists, whose rapture at a "clear" 1 vs. 2 in Pasadena (a bulls--t notion) hinged not just on a very close Texas field goal but on the mere milliseconds longer that Colt McCoy's insane third down pass needed to stay in the air to ensure bedlam. And that's before we get to Nebraska kicker Adi Kunalic's out-of-bounder that set up the game-winning drive in the first place. Even if you accept the premise that the unexplained, uncodified, and likely illegal hierarchy of BCS conferences places undefeated Texas over undefeated Cincinnati, you've got to admit that any system that requires year after year of miracles cannot forever endure.
As for McCoy, has any college athlete since Chris Webber displayed such a stunning lack of clutchness? Moments after watching him scramble to the very brink of losing, Musburger and Herbstreit speculated that McCoy was looking at the playclock rather than the game clock. I say he was having a flashforward to his future as the last man in a lonely NFL Draft green room. Take a look at last night's numbers and tell me if anybody's taking this guy with an early pick. Teams already know about the Heisman curse. The last thing they need is the I-Didn't-Deserve-the-Heisman curse.
And yet it will be McCoy rather than Tony Pike (whose fourth quarter performance Saturday defined clutchness) who advances, an injustice whose reversal would still leave out TCU and Boise State, teams for whom no amount of excellence, no matter how sustained, will ever be sufficient under the current rules. Like the annual season-ending injury for Greg Oden, the annual BCS debacle manages somehow to fulfill our worst expectations while still surprising us. I thought Auburn's 2004 screwing was the worst that could ever occur in a major sport. Now I know that 2004 was just a warm-up.
-GM
The Cowboys Stadium timekeeper had the right idea. Let that last second tick off the clock and watch as the BCS crumbles. It was a hopeful gesture--the kind of heroism that makes legends--and if the replay evidence hadn't incontrovertibly placed one second back on the board, we might be telling our grandchildren about the guy.
As it stands, we're set for another year of crowing from BCS apologists, whose rapture at a "clear" 1 vs. 2 in Pasadena (a bulls--t notion) hinged not just on a very close Texas field goal but on the mere milliseconds longer that Colt McCoy's insane third down pass needed to stay in the air to ensure bedlam. And that's before we get to Nebraska kicker Adi Kunalic's out-of-bounder that set up the game-winning drive in the first place. Even if you accept the premise that the unexplained, uncodified, and likely illegal hierarchy of BCS conferences places undefeated Texas over undefeated Cincinnati, you've got to admit that any system that requires year after year of miracles cannot forever endure.
As for McCoy, has any college athlete since Chris Webber displayed such a stunning lack of clutchness? Moments after watching him scramble to the very brink of losing, Musburger and Herbstreit speculated that McCoy was looking at the playclock rather than the game clock. I say he was having a flashforward to his future as the last man in a lonely NFL Draft green room. Take a look at last night's numbers and tell me if anybody's taking this guy with an early pick. Teams already know about the Heisman curse. The last thing they need is the I-Didn't-Deserve-the-Heisman curse.
And yet it will be McCoy rather than Tony Pike (whose fourth quarter performance Saturday defined clutchness) who advances, an injustice whose reversal would still leave out TCU and Boise State, teams for whom no amount of excellence, no matter how sustained, will ever be sufficient under the current rules. Like the annual season-ending injury for Greg Oden, the annual BCS debacle manages somehow to fulfill our worst expectations while still surprising us. I thought Auburn's 2004 screwing was the worst that could ever occur in a major sport. Now I know that 2004 was just a warm-up.
-GM
GM,
In 1997, the following was a novel concept--one met with great resistance.
"Let's match the two best teams against each other regardless of what conference they're in."
College football isn't run by normal, functioning people like you and me; it's run by unimaginative, unreasonable, traditionalist buffoons whose response to playoff talk is typically something as compelling as, "It just wouldn't work." A month ago, an SEC president looked me in the eye and said the SEC and Big Ten were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the football conferences. Not only do we allow these people to make decisions about college football; we allow them to breathe our air, eat our food, make way more money than we'll ever make, and decide what's in the best interest of America's youth!
Somehow, they were persuaded to go along with an idea called the Bowl Championship Series. Brilliantly, an actual committee was created to use already-existent bowls, already-existent polls, and already-existent computer formulas to select two teams to play in an actual national championship game. Well, sort of. The AP poll's voters could crown any national champion they wanted, but that could never be an issue, right? With the exception of this obvious mistake, this is the idea third graders would have come up with, and you wouldn't have to pay them to operate as an entire organization. If you were to ask someone what they did for a living, you might be astonished if they responded like this:
"I do a job anyone could do for a company no one wants, all the while blocking the progress of the entire industry."
If you meet that person, though, you've just met the most honest member of the BCS committee.
-JW
In 1997, the following was a novel concept--one met with great resistance.
"Let's match the two best teams against each other regardless of what conference they're in."
College football isn't run by normal, functioning people like you and me; it's run by unimaginative, unreasonable, traditionalist buffoons whose response to playoff talk is typically something as compelling as, "It just wouldn't work." A month ago, an SEC president looked me in the eye and said the SEC and Big Ten were "head and shoulders" above the rest of the football conferences. Not only do we allow these people to make decisions about college football; we allow them to breathe our air, eat our food, make way more money than we'll ever make, and decide what's in the best interest of America's youth!
Somehow, they were persuaded to go along with an idea called the Bowl Championship Series. Brilliantly, an actual committee was created to use already-existent bowls, already-existent polls, and already-existent computer formulas to select two teams to play in an actual national championship game. Well, sort of. The AP poll's voters could crown any national champion they wanted, but that could never be an issue, right? With the exception of this obvious mistake, this is the idea third graders would have come up with, and you wouldn't have to pay them to operate as an entire organization. If you were to ask someone what they did for a living, you might be astonished if they responded like this:
"I do a job anyone could do for a company no one wants, all the while blocking the progress of the entire industry."
If you meet that person, though, you've just met the most honest member of the BCS committee.
-JW
Saturday, December 5, 2009
An Inconsistent 'Truth'
JW,
By far the most significant underreported story of the year is the leaked email exchange between scientists at Britain's East Anglia University. News of the leak broke in late November to about as much fanfare as my sock selection, and though the Internet has aided in the story's longevity, it's perfectly conceivable that most people aren't aware of it.
In [the leaked emails], scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Unified view. Common cause. Hide the decline. It's not Conservative obstructionism or pigheadedness. It's liberals describing their motives and actions in their own words, and it's almost comically grotesque. After all, we're only two days away from the famed Copenhagen U.N. Climate Change Conference, and Barack Obama has already made a provisional pledge regarding the United States' cooperation. Congress is considering nation-altering measures even as we write, and the "fact" of man-made climate change is now so ingrained in the American consciousness that a scandal ten times this size could hardly shake it.
But consider what we can say with certainty:
1. Liberals are far more likely than Conservatives to use words like "profit" and "corporation" pejoratively;
2. Solutions to global warming are anchored to rationing methods that will make profit far more difficult and increase government control over business;
3. Academics who depart from global warming orthodoxy are routinely disciplined or denigrated (here's a particularly funny example);
4. All of our global warming information comes from scientists, and whatever peer-review mechanisms they have can clearly be perverted.
What we can't know for certain is whether or not the entire global warming concept is a minor hiccup in the Earth's history hijacked for partisan and ideological reasons. But we now know that it's not impossible. And that's news.
-GM
GM,
The scientific community's semi-collaborated position on global warming reminds me of why we now have a Democratic president--a very liberal one at that. African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Jews, college kids, people with white guilt, and actual liberals got together and said, "We may not all know what we want--or even agree about what we want, but we sure as hell don't want another Republican president."
In this case, it was a bunch of scientists who think they know what's best for the planet electing to get their story straight, whether they have matching data or not, for the greater good--as they see it. I suppose this is why conservatives reject utilitarianism. Lying is almost universally regarded as wrong, but if you really, really believe that conservative Americans are destroying our planet, I suppose a few white lies could only help matters. And to clarify, even lying about what you believe should be considered wrong.
This brings us to NBA Commissioner David Stern , who recently said he believes a woman will be playing in the NBA within the next 10 years. If I had my way--and if Stern were to make the best business decision--there wouldn't be a woman playing in the WNBA in 10 years! Stern knows without question that this could never happen. His statements actually prove the opposite of his conclusion:
"If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like."
Need I point out the utter lack of logic? "Women may now be as good at basketball as men used to be!" Sure, Commish, but what does that have to do with their ability to compete now? Stern knows a woman will never play in the league unless the liberals really get their way and the legal concept of BFOQ (bona fide occupational quality, meaning in this case that you have to be good at basketball to avoid being discriminated against in the hiring process) loses adherence. He knows what we know, but he also knows that he'll be better off if even one more person watches a WNBA game now--even to make sure women wouldn't stand a chance in the Association. I, for one, won't give him the satisfaction.
-JW
GM,
The scientific community's semi-collaborated position on global warming reminds me of why we now have a Democratic president--a very liberal one at that. African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Jews, college kids, people with white guilt, and actual liberals got together and said, "We may not all know what we want--or even agree about what we want, but we sure as hell don't want another Republican president."
In this case, it was a bunch of scientists who think they know what's best for the planet electing to get their story straight, whether they have matching data or not, for the greater good--as they see it. I suppose this is why conservatives reject utilitarianism. Lying is almost universally regarded as wrong, but if you really, really believe that conservative Americans are destroying our planet, I suppose a few white lies could only help matters. And to clarify, even lying about what you believe should be considered wrong.
This brings us to NBA Commissioner David Stern , who recently said he believes a woman will be playing in the NBA within the next 10 years. If I had my way--and if Stern were to make the best business decision--there wouldn't be a woman playing in the WNBA in 10 years! Stern knows without question that this could never happen. His statements actually prove the opposite of his conclusion:
"If you look at world records, let's say in track and field, you'll see how the women have moved up to what would have been records several decades ago for men," said Stern. "And you watch [the WNBA] and you see the shooting percentages, the passing and the like."
Need I point out the utter lack of logic? "Women may now be as good at basketball as men used to be!" Sure, Commish, but what does that have to do with their ability to compete now? Stern knows a woman will never play in the league unless the liberals really get their way and the legal concept of BFOQ (bona fide occupational quality, meaning in this case that you have to be good at basketball to avoid being discriminated against in the hiring process) loses adherence. He knows what we know, but he also knows that he'll be better off if even one more person watches a WNBA game now--even to make sure women wouldn't stand a chance in the Association. I, for one, won't give him the satisfaction.
-JW
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tiger Woods, We're Pretty Sure Your Wife Beats You
GM,
Kim Miller's 15 minutes of fame were as much about her as the Pistons' 2004 championship was about Darko Milicic. The nation was watching as Miller, on behalf of the Florida Highway Patrol, said in a press conference that Tiger Woods would be charged with careless driving and nothing else. Her follow-up rant about the dangers of careless driving was humorous, and it grieves me that I can't find it online. But check out this bit of breaking news--in the form of a quote from tigerwoods.com.
"I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart."
Whoah! I wasn't personally ready to believe that no alcohol, affairs, or domestic disputes were involved in recent events, but many of Tiger's fans still were. Yet he led his statement with the above sentence. Now, anyone who believed he just happened to wreck his car twice at 2 in the morning can no longer do so. After several days of absolutely nothing, he's given us too much! I don't think it's an accident either.
I know you don't like Tiger, GM, and I can understand how he bothers you as a golfer. I can understand, too, how his attitude toward his adoring fans and putts that lip out could use some improvement. But the guy just admitted that he's made some mistakes in his personal life, and if you're Tiger Woods, "some" isn't nearly as many as you could make. I'm not saying we should congratulate the man, but he has surprised me by doing something that few athletes would do. That is, of course, unless there's more dirt under the rug that he knows will soon come out. Thoughts?
-JW
JW,
Who says I don't like Tiger Woods? Sure, he's joyless, robotic, pouty, uncharismatic, and famous largely for being "black," but that doesn't mean I don't like the guy. If I disliked him, I'd be jumping in the air in celebration of today's news that Tiger is planning to pay his wife to stay married to him ($5 million in cash and a generous revision of the pre-nup at last count). Instead, I'm doing quiet fist pumps at home while toasting Elin with Swedish vodka. Reports of my hatred have been greatly exaggerated.
As, it seems, have reports of Tiger's squareness. A 2002 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons lamented the fact that Tiger was once seen playing craps at a measly $25 a toss. We now know that he was probably being felated under the table by two cocktail waitresses. Throw in the fact that Phil and Amy Mickelson are notorious swingers, according to rumor, and we may have to rethink the entire golf world. (What's next? Fred Funk whacks 200-yard drive? John Daly makes charitable contribution?)
As to the Woods story, it's fairly obvious what happened if you're willing to put two and two together. Elin found out about Tiger's affairs, she beat the crap out of him, and he staged a car wreck to explain his injuries. The fact that the wreck was low-speed is evidence that Tiger's a p---y. The fact that Elin used a golf club to pry Tiger from the car is evidence that God likes irony. Frankly, I couldn't be happier!
So what's next for Woods? I predict a furious display of golfing at the Masters that falls just short of a fifth green jacket. Tiger still loses far more often than he wins, thank goodness, and a big win in Augusta would be far too predictable (and predicted) to actually happen. The only question is whether or not Elin will console him on the 18th green. I say yes. Clearly, the price is right.
-GM
Kim Miller's 15 minutes of fame were as much about her as the Pistons' 2004 championship was about Darko Milicic. The nation was watching as Miller, on behalf of the Florida Highway Patrol, said in a press conference that Tiger Woods would be charged with careless driving and nothing else. Her follow-up rant about the dangers of careless driving was humorous, and it grieves me that I can't find it online. But check out this bit of breaking news--in the form of a quote from tigerwoods.com.
"I have let my family down, and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart."
Whoah! I wasn't personally ready to believe that no alcohol, affairs, or domestic disputes were involved in recent events, but many of Tiger's fans still were. Yet he led his statement with the above sentence. Now, anyone who believed he just happened to wreck his car twice at 2 in the morning can no longer do so. After several days of absolutely nothing, he's given us too much! I don't think it's an accident either.
I know you don't like Tiger, GM, and I can understand how he bothers you as a golfer. I can understand, too, how his attitude toward his adoring fans and putts that lip out could use some improvement. But the guy just admitted that he's made some mistakes in his personal life, and if you're Tiger Woods, "some" isn't nearly as many as you could make. I'm not saying we should congratulate the man, but he has surprised me by doing something that few athletes would do. That is, of course, unless there's more dirt under the rug that he knows will soon come out. Thoughts?
-JW
JW,
Who says I don't like Tiger Woods? Sure, he's joyless, robotic, pouty, uncharismatic, and famous largely for being "black," but that doesn't mean I don't like the guy. If I disliked him, I'd be jumping in the air in celebration of today's news that Tiger is planning to pay his wife to stay married to him ($5 million in cash and a generous revision of the pre-nup at last count). Instead, I'm doing quiet fist pumps at home while toasting Elin with Swedish vodka. Reports of my hatred have been greatly exaggerated.
As, it seems, have reports of Tiger's squareness. A 2002 column by ESPN's Bill Simmons lamented the fact that Tiger was once seen playing craps at a measly $25 a toss. We now know that he was probably being felated under the table by two cocktail waitresses. Throw in the fact that Phil and Amy Mickelson are notorious swingers, according to rumor, and we may have to rethink the entire golf world. (What's next? Fred Funk whacks 200-yard drive? John Daly makes charitable contribution?)
As to the Woods story, it's fairly obvious what happened if you're willing to put two and two together. Elin found out about Tiger's affairs, she beat the crap out of him, and he staged a car wreck to explain his injuries. The fact that the wreck was low-speed is evidence that Tiger's a p---y. The fact that Elin used a golf club to pry Tiger from the car is evidence that God likes irony. Frankly, I couldn't be happier!
So what's next for Woods? I predict a furious display of golfing at the Masters that falls just short of a fifth green jacket. Tiger still loses far more often than he wins, thank goodness, and a big win in Augusta would be far too predictable (and predicted) to actually happen. The only question is whether or not Elin will console him on the 18th green. I say yes. Clearly, the price is right.
-GM
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Like Its Cheese, Swiss Logic Has Holes
JW,
If the sip of water you needed to stay alive would guarantee the extinction of, say, polar bears, would you take it? For the neo-pagan Left, the answer is no. For everyone else, it's yes. The instinct for self-preservation overrides the political symbolism.
As it happens, that very question was asked in Switzerland over the weekend, though in different terms. Presented with a referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets (the onion-shaped spires that dominate Muslim architecture and look vaguely like tits), 57% of voters agreed to do so. Muslims, the thinking seems to have gone, tend to avoid assimilation, preach our destruction on the street corner, and blow us up with bombs. Something should probably be done about them.
The problem, of course, is that taking away a mere architectural flourish is the equivalent not of drinking that water but of using it to wash your hands. The bear dies all the same--in this case, the Arab still rises against you--but you did nothing about your thirst. What the authors of the referendum (the nationalist Swiss People's Party) seem not to have understood is that the law's offending element is not the ban on spires but the assertion of non-Muslim will--the expression of a desire not to be converted. As every thinking person in the world now knows, the Swiss have brought jihad upon themselves. What they haven't done is halt in any meaningful way the spread of Islam by the sword.
Yet outrage--predictable, liberal, and disturbingly white--has followed the vote all the same. The referendum "ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland" according to the Times of London, as well as "a backlash in the Muslim world." The move "is a blow to freedom of religion" according to the Vatican (!), and it increases "the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Even apologists for the ban, such as Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, admit that it is "not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies." She's right, of course. How could it be?
Ironically, the fact that Muslim policy toward America seems to be unapologetic jihad may work in our favor, at least during my lifetime and yours. In Europe, the course has been set differently, and the spectre of Islamic government and Sharia law creeps ever forward. We already know that childless Europe will have to import their next generation. It seems that they've chosen poorly.
-GM
GM,
Speaking of Europeans, bad behavior, and decisions that make no sense, FIFA (translated to mean "International Soccer Association") is considering what punishment to give Thierry Henry, the French striker who committed an uncalled handball against Ireland. Soccer, if any part of you still wants to win Americans over, your effort is either pathetic or halfhearted.
GM, you recently impressed me when you said you've managed to avoid even seeing a replay of the obvious infraction. I, however, haven't been so lucky and am all too familiar with the history. It goes like this.
1. Player commits infraction; infraction not called; other team gets screwed.
2. Player admits to committing infraction but adds: "I'm not the ref. I played it; the refs allowed it. That's a question you should ask them."
3. Embarrassed by his team's unfair victory, player agrees with sore losers about how to resolve the miscarriage of justice.
4. Governing body discusses how to punish player.
How does that sit with you? Soccer fans, go back and read items 1-4 and apply it to Michael Jordan's push-off on Bryon Russell, or Reggie Bush's pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame, or this strike call. In your world, the refs miss a call, and the player who benefited is to blame?! What was Henry supposed to do? Pick the ball up and hand it to the official?! Soccer fans act like he cheated in the same way that Sammy Sosa corked his bat! And if the act had been premeditated, isn't that an indictment of how bad the sport's officials must be? He actually took time to think that he could get away with blatantly touching the ball!
If the riots, oddball fans, and inescapable boringness of soccer hadn't already lost me, this horrible gesture would. Who's left to punish FIFA?
-JW
If the sip of water you needed to stay alive would guarantee the extinction of, say, polar bears, would you take it? For the neo-pagan Left, the answer is no. For everyone else, it's yes. The instinct for self-preservation overrides the political symbolism.
As it happens, that very question was asked in Switzerland over the weekend, though in different terms. Presented with a referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets (the onion-shaped spires that dominate Muslim architecture and look vaguely like tits), 57% of voters agreed to do so. Muslims, the thinking seems to have gone, tend to avoid assimilation, preach our destruction on the street corner, and blow us up with bombs. Something should probably be done about them.
The problem, of course, is that taking away a mere architectural flourish is the equivalent not of drinking that water but of using it to wash your hands. The bear dies all the same--in this case, the Arab still rises against you--but you did nothing about your thirst. What the authors of the referendum (the nationalist Swiss People's Party) seem not to have understood is that the law's offending element is not the ban on spires but the assertion of non-Muslim will--the expression of a desire not to be converted. As every thinking person in the world now knows, the Swiss have brought jihad upon themselves. What they haven't done is halt in any meaningful way the spread of Islam by the sword.
Yet outrage--predictable, liberal, and disturbingly white--has followed the vote all the same. The referendum "ensured international embarrassment for Switzerland" according to the Times of London, as well as "a backlash in the Muslim world." The move "is a blow to freedom of religion" according to the Vatican (!), and it increases "the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Even apologists for the ban, such as Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, admit that it is "not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies." She's right, of course. How could it be?
Ironically, the fact that Muslim policy toward America seems to be unapologetic jihad may work in our favor, at least during my lifetime and yours. In Europe, the course has been set differently, and the spectre of Islamic government and Sharia law creeps ever forward. We already know that childless Europe will have to import their next generation. It seems that they've chosen poorly.
-GM
GM,
Speaking of Europeans, bad behavior, and decisions that make no sense, FIFA (translated to mean "International Soccer Association") is considering what punishment to give Thierry Henry, the French striker who committed an uncalled handball against Ireland. Soccer, if any part of you still wants to win Americans over, your effort is either pathetic or halfhearted.
GM, you recently impressed me when you said you've managed to avoid even seeing a replay of the obvious infraction. I, however, haven't been so lucky and am all too familiar with the history. It goes like this.
1. Player commits infraction; infraction not called; other team gets screwed.
2. Player admits to committing infraction but adds: "I'm not the ref. I played it; the refs allowed it. That's a question you should ask them."
3. Embarrassed by his team's unfair victory, player agrees with sore losers about how to resolve the miscarriage of justice.
4. Governing body discusses how to punish player.
How does that sit with you? Soccer fans, go back and read items 1-4 and apply it to Michael Jordan's push-off on Bryon Russell, or Reggie Bush's pushing Matt Leinart into the end zone against Notre Dame, or this strike call. In your world, the refs miss a call, and the player who benefited is to blame?! What was Henry supposed to do? Pick the ball up and hand it to the official?! Soccer fans act like he cheated in the same way that Sammy Sosa corked his bat! And if the act had been premeditated, isn't that an indictment of how bad the sport's officials must be? He actually took time to think that he could get away with blatantly touching the ball!
If the riots, oddball fans, and inescapable boringness of soccer hadn't already lost me, this horrible gesture would. Who's left to punish FIFA?
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
