what if?

A Modest Proposal

And a quick diversion from the daily grind.

Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal might have been:  "Let them eat cake!"

Now you really can eat babies.  These sweeties are made out of marzipan!

Race

One four letter word.  So much complexity.

Odds are, for the first time in a presidential race, another definition of the word will come into play:

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.

An awful lot of words - but - can any of us truly agree upon what it all means?

The dictionary entry offers this disclaimer:

Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations—Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid—are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points—such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another—many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

My guess is that if you gathered groups of individuals to explain what they understand "race" to be, you would receive few answers that matched identically.  Race is a complex, deep, scientifically unclear, emotionally charged, and historically significant issue for the ages.

In my Twin City, St. Paul, an exhibition goes on display demonstrating what can happen when humans seek to classify other humans by "race".

The New York Times = The Enquirer?

Please.  Let's not insult the Enquirer in such a manner!

Really.  The Times is getting down right embarrassing.

It's a slam-dunk to the millions of military families whose service to this country should have left then with no doubts about their children being relegated to second-class citizenry. They sacrificed enough for their country without having to sacrifice the futures of their children. Any other conclusion would amount to a penalty for military service on those who did not volunteer.

The Founding Fathers recognized this. They passed a bill in 1790, three years after the adoption of the Constitution, which made clear that "natural born" applied to children born of American citizens "outside the limits of the United States". That law remains in effect and has never been challenged. At the least, it speaks to the intent of the founders when they used the term "natural born" in the Constitution.

It's beyond absurd to argue that John McCain doesn't qualify to run as an American for the presidency. The candidate or party that files a lawsuit to challenge him on this point runs the risk of alienating a large swath of the public who have served this nation in uniform, in diplomacy, and in government.

Besides, if the Times thinks this to be an issue, then why did they endorse McCain in January? Didn't they bother to do their research on him then?

Competition

Competition plays a large role in much of my life.  As a tournament bridge player, competition is the name of the game.  The better you do, the more you rate to win.  The more you do to learn, improve your game and secure superior partners and teammates, the higher you climb.

As a Realtor, it's much the same.  If I deliver top-notch products and services to my clients, then I rate to prosper with my business.  If I fail to improve, connect and listen to the needs of my clients, then I am unlikely to do as well as the next guy.

Competition is great.  Most people enjoy doing well - but you cannot unless you work hard and try your best.  Learning, improving, growing .... All of us should strive to include this in our lives.

Why, then, is it that so many Democrats seem to spurn competition?

The Democratic Party has become the anti-competition party.

It's true in education where Democrats, with their slavish devotion to teachers unions, oppose vouchers even for constituencies they pretend to champion such as minorities and the disadvantaged. Vouchers would force public schools into competition.

It's true with immigration, where many Democrats advance the phony argument that illegal immigrants displace U.S. workers by lowering wages. For low-skilled workers who refuse to get more skills or learn a new trade, illegal immigrants amount to competition.

And it's certainly true in the area of trade, where Democrats do the bidding of organized labor by fighting trade agreements and advocating protectionism. Trade, by its very nature, encourages competition by opening up markets across borders and seas.

La La La La

All that Pejman has to say is correct.  Ignore at your own peril.

And the fat lady is already belting out her arias.

Quote of the Day

Multiple times I have lauded the exceptional blog Booker Rising, masterfully managed by my friend Shay Riley.  If you are looking for a wealth of information about the black community, a wide variety of viewpoints, articles and comments on related issues, then Booker Rising is a must-stop for you.

Shay has a feature called "Quote of the Day."  National leaders, celebrities, politicians and more are quoted here.

Today, however, Shay has a very special guest.  Anyone doubt that this lady has wisdom beyond her years?

"I think the next president should lower taxes so people have more money to buy food and stuff, know what they're doing, and give me liberty or give me death! Mommy likes John McCain, and voted for him [in the Illinois primary earlier this month] so I guess I would vote for McCain. I think Barack Obama looks fine. That woman [Sen. Hillary Clinton] gets on my nerves because she is always crying."

Fair and Balanced

Many of my liberal friends believe that the line "Fox News; Fair and Balanced" is a joke.  I happen to think it's pretty accurate, but - who knows?  Perhaps it is indeed my bias that lends me to that opinion.

I defy my friends on the left, however, to read this post by Ed Morrissey and then be able to tell anyone with a straight face that their beloved New York Times is "fair and balanced."

The Times may have the slickest, sharpest advertising around, in depth feature articles and quality bridge columns.  "Fair and balanced," however, has not been associated with news reporting at the Times for a while.

Think that may be a factor in this?

One Life to Give

Private jets.  Multiple mansions.  Designer clothes and vehicles.  Dazzling jewelry.  Generally, these are the hallmarks of the uber-wealthy.

For one man, however, something beyond the glittering materialism of this world matters.  What is it?  Giving.

Read about a remarkable man who made a fortune - then gave it all away.

Feeney correctly foresaw a pent-up demand for foreign consumer goods, especially liquor. Over the years DFS opened dozens of duty-free shops across the world. Feeney learned Japanese and did deals with tour guides to divert travel groups through their outlets. "We caught a wave," he said. DFS became a global retail empire, a moneymaking machine that made its partners super rich. In 1988, Forbes magazine included Feeney in the top 20 of its 400 richest people list, estimating his worth at $1.3 billion.

But Feeney did not belong on the list. In 1982, he had secretly and irrevocably transferred his entire 38.75 percent interest in DFS to a charitable foundation, keeping less than $5 million for himself. The decision to give his wealth away was not sudden, he said. "I did not want money to consume my life." The decision to create a foundation came after Feeney made his first major bequest of $700,000 to Cornell University in 1981, and was besieged with requests. He turned to a legal friend, Harvey Philip Dale, a brilliant New York law professor, who advised him on setting up a mechanism to handle future donations. The foundation -- in reality a number of separate foundations collectively known as The Atlantic Philanthropies -- was registered in Bermuda to avoid disclosure requirements. To maintain secrecy, the organization did not bear his name -- almost unheard of in the world of philanthropy. Feeney declined even to take personal tax deductions on his giving.

Beneath the Surface

Most people believe that liberals and Democrats are more sympathetic to gay interests than conservatives and Republicans.  Count me among those who think this is accurate.

But, not all is what it seems on the surface.

Some Republicans - some very high up - can and have expressed support for those in the gay community.

Allow the Gay Patriot to explain.

Strange Bedfellows

Thanks to my animal-loving friend, Roxy, at Critter Blog for this!

Blue Moon

How often do I agree with Paul Krugman?  Not.  Very.  Often.

But - here is that blue moon monent.

Ignore the snarky dig relating to the fact that President Bush is a recovering alcoholic.  Read on and see why we have lost our collective minds by putting ethanol in our tanks.

Increased demand for the grain helped boost food prices by 4.9 percent last year, the most since 1990, and will reduce global inventories of corn to the lowest in 24 years, government data show. While advocates say ethanol is cleaner than gasoline, a Princeton University study this month said it causes more environmental harm than fossil fuels.

``We are mandating and subsidizing something that is distorting the marketplace,'' said Cal Dooley, a former U.S. congressman from California, who represents companies including Kraft Foods Inc. and General Mills Inc. as president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association in Washington. ``There are no excess commodities, and prices are rising.''

Innovation and creativity to cut back (or better control) our use of fossil fuels?  I'm all for it.  Ethanol, however, is not the answer, for a myriad of reasons.

Do Not Stay Silent

Please read this, and then pass it on and post it yourself.

We cannot stay silent.

 

Tragic News for Leftists

Due to free markets, capitalism and freedom in general, the world is getting wealthier.

The last quarter century has witnessed remarkable progress of mankind. The world’s per capita inflation-adjusted income rose from $5400 in 1980 to $8500 in 2005.Schooling and life expectancy grew rapidly, while infant mortality and poverty fell just asfast. Compared to 1980, many more countries in the world are democratic today.

The last quarter century also saw wide acceptance of free market policies in both rich and poor countries: from private ownership, to free trade, to responsible budgets, to lower taxes. Three important events mark the beginning of this period. In 1979, Deng Xiao Ping started market reforms in China, which over the quarter century lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In the same year, Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in Britain, and initiated her radical reforms and a long period of growth. A year later, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, and also embraced free market policies. All three of these leaders professed inspiration from the work of Milton Friedman. It is natural, then, to refer to the last quarter century as the Age of Milton Friedman.

Oh!  The agony of it all!

Two Quickies

No - NOT what you think!  Heh heh heh.

I am still inundated with "that which I must do."  So - no time for long blogs.

But, quickies?  You bet!

First, incredible long odds on something.  Today, I "enjoyed" continuing education for my real estate license all day.  In the afternoon, our class consisted of watching DVD's of focus groups.  Buyers and sellers who purchased in the past year reflected on their experience, their realtor, what they liked, did not like, etc.  Most of us sat there, slack jawed (myself included) until suddenly, I realized that one of my clients was on the screen!

I was a bit fearful at first that he would say something unpleasant.  Indeed; he began with a statement that "My Realtor said that newspaper advertising was ineffective, and did not use it.  I was unsure about that...."  But - virtually all that he said following that was positive.  I particularly was happy that he repeated what I tell all my clients:  "Buying and selling a home is a very personal process.  If you do not feel comfortable with me, for whatever reason, even after we have begun, let me know.  If you wish to change to someone else, then that is what we should do."  Who wants to force someone to be their client?!  Not I. 

Anyway - while I'm sure the odds are low that I would be in a class where a DVD with 8 buyers and sellers show up - here is what contributes to the miniscule odds.  My client purchased a townhouse - and - the Realtor who represented those sellers was sitting next to me at the seminar!  There are about 12,000 Realtors in the Twin Cities, and obviously tens of thousands of buyers and sellers each year.  What are the odds that two of us, connected to this individual, would be sitting next to one another today?

OK - second quickie!  My friend Professor Keith Burgess-Jackson links to this new blog which should have you rolling in the aisles.  The professor links to his favorite.  Of the ones I have read - this one is mine.

Take It Away, Shay

Two funerals in a week.  Work commitments.  Continuing education.  Coverage of a junior bridge tournament.

Who has time to blog?

Fortunately, my (younger) friend Shay is like the U.S. Postal Service:  come rain or shine, she does it!

Millions of words have been written about Michelle Obama's statement the other day about being "proud".  As usual, few summarize and analyse the situation quite as well as Shay.

I can rattle off a bunch of things that, from her adult life, Mrs. Obama can point to with pride. Three words immediately came to my mind upon hearing her comments: Civil Rights Movement. How about a country that has provided many opportunities for her - coupled with her own hard work - to graduate from Princeton University, Harvard Law School, become a lawyer and have a successful career? To create the sort of life that she wants? Not to mention the middle-class upbringing that she had on Chicago's South Side, prior to all of these achievements. Mrs. Obama ain't starved a day in her life. Most of the world would love to be in her shoes! How about a country with the world's lowest black poverty rate? A country that played a role in bringing down communism? Assistance to Africa? How the country came together after 9/11? The donations that were raised by Americans after the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina? Going old school, the abolitionist movement?

With her statement, Mrs. Obama not only did a slap in the face of America's history, but a major slap in the face to the generations of black Americans who paved the way for her to be able to do what she does today. That was a key reason why my 63-year-old uncle was so ticked off at the 44-year-old Mrs. Obama, because my uncle actually lived in Jim Crow Alabama and has seen America's growth and the road that was paved for Mrs. Obama and us. This is a growth that Mrs. Obama, in her implied victimology rhetoric, ignores until it involves her husband. The statement also made me wonder if Mrs. Obama has ever traveled abroad, and thus would be less apt to dismiss what she has here in America.

And when you're done appreciating her efforts - you can see a few shots of part of what has kept me from much blogging:  a high school bridge tourney!

Two for You

My thanks to Gay Patriot for today's two excellent links.

Presidential support for liberating Iraq.

Yes we can!  The original.

Time in a Bottle

When we are young, life seems to stretch out in front of us, seemingly forever.  Concepts like wrinkles, aches and pains, chemotherapy, hip replacements and the like are almost unfathomable.

Yet, time does not stay in a bottle.  Unless we are one of those who perishes young, that which we cannot imagine in youth eventually visits.

When I was much younger myself, my perception of death and loss was so unlike what it is today.  I would look at older friends who lost parents, at "advanced" ages like 70, 75 or even 80... and I would think, "Well; we do not live forever.  Death at an old age is expected."  The older I become myself, however, and the more mortality for those I most love - and myself - marches closer to reality, the more my sentiments change.  I realize that there is no "good" time to lose those for whom you most care.  When a parent dies, it matters not whether they were 68, 80 or 100.  It's a loss.

This past week, one of my close bridge friends lost his dad.  His father also happened to be a good friend of mine, too.  The "political-bridge" lunch bunch met for some 15+ years, arguing, shouting and railing about politicians and policies, bridge hands and bidding.  A lot of emotion and a lot of disagreement - but, underneath it all we were all friends.  Tough to see the group diminished so.

Another dear friend of mine sits at her mom's bedside, waiting.  Her mother is an astounding 103+ years old ....  Though my friend and I knew she would never last forever (despite it seeming at times that she would!), the letting go is still so hard.  My friend is someone full of courage, spirit and fight - and all the exceptional qualities of my friend clearly were inherited from her mom.  My love is with both of them as they face these final days together.

I am lucky.  My parents still reside in their sunny Florida home, enjoying delicatessen, theatre and friends.  Although serious health issues do now face them, our family looks forward to celebrating their 60th anniversary (!!) soon. 

They no longer look like the lovebirds they did the day of their wedding.  And, to hear some of their battles, you'd wonder if they would make it to sixty years without a knock-down, drag out fight!  Everyone's love is individual, though, and with all its flaws, theirs still works.

None of us can keep time in a bottle forever.  While you have it though - be sure to appreciate it.  When it is gone, no power on earth can return it to that flask. 

Free Speech

Americans spend billions of dollars on clothing, cosmetics, housing, automobiles, vacations, restaurant dining, and so forth.  Why, then, are so many bothered if people wish to contribute financially to political speech?

Of all our rights, one of the most precious is the ability to communicate our views about political philosophy and government.  Insuring that others know of what we think and believe sometimes takes money - and a lot of it.  Assuming that we, the people, know the source of spending in political speech, why should it be fettered?

Bradley Smith and Steve Simpson make the case that we should keep our political speech free.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the government cannot limit what an individual spends to promote her political views, even if she tells people how to vote. It is common sense that groups of individuals should have the same rights. No one should have to sacrifice the First Amendment right to associate in order to exercise the First Amendment right to speak.

Imposing limits on groups such as SpeechNow.org ends up hurting the very people whom backers of campaign finance regulation always claim they're trying to help -- people of average means who must pool their resources to be heard -- while leaving the field to the very wealthy to spend what they please.

Those are among the claims SpeechNow.org and its members made in a lawsuit filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It challenges the constitutionality of requiring independent groups of citizens to register and organize as political committees. For the first time, federal courts will be asked to decide whether independent political speech by groups of individual American citizens has the full protection of the First Amendment.

Would a victory for SpeechNow.org allow groups of citizens to spend unlimited funds to influence the outcome of elections? Yes. And that is exactly why SpeechNow.org should prevail.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to urge political change, and elections present an ideal opportunity to affect policy by affecting the political futures of those who make it. That requires telling voters how they should vote.

A victory for SpeechNow.org would bring federal campaign finance laws into line with the constitutional principles of free speech and association, and bring them closer to the First Amendment that most Americans already believe we have.

Hero

It isn't that often that you hear about a real hero.

Here is one.

Eye Shadow Is Better

Sometimes I think I am one of the clumsiest and most accident-prone persons on the planet.  Surely within the top ten.

This morning, my latest trick was to somehow get a chunk of toothpaste very close to my left eyeball.  Fortunately, I didn't get it right in the eye.  But, I discovered that having minty fresh fumes very close to your eye is still not terrifically comfortable.  Getting it out of the area ain't so easy, either.

Impressed?

You should be.  About 20 years ago, I pulled off an even more dramatic act.  In a rush, I quickly dotted lens drops into my contact lens and put it in my eye - only to realize moments later that I had wet my lens with cleaning solution.  The pain was so great, I literally was unable to pry my eye open.  Rushed to the opthamologist, he had to somehow paralyze my eye so he could get the lid up.

Little known facts about your blogmistress.  Aren't you glad you checked in today?