A new book by Donald Carnage.
Inspired by Max Boot (Corrosion of Conservatism) and George Will (“The shabbiest President ever is an Inexpressibly sad specimen”) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html?utm_term=.7bf9d512df93
When “conservative” columnists don’t like “conservative” presidents, something must be wrong with the “conservative” president.
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Will. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Monday, January 02, 2017
Al Franken prescient about Trump?
"I think he's a joke, but maybe he's exactly the kind of joke the American people would like to see in the White House for the next four years."
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
- fictional Bill Kristol on fake "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
"He" is Al Franken whose only issue is ATM fees in "Why Not Me? The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency".
He followed "Kristol's" statement with one by "George Will": "Well, if he's a joke, he's a very bad joke." And more about sex and drug use.
Franken's book is a very off-the-wall take on a very disorganized campaign in which he says what he wants and does what he wants. He wrote it in 1999.
It is rather obvious that Franken didn't take himself seriously. Sometimes Trump doesn't either, but that was early on.
See also "If a clown can be President, why not a comedian?"
Monday, December 01, 2014
George Will and “Failing” schools
Here’s another letter to the editor that probably wasn’t published. This was in response to George Will’s “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”. It was published in February 2001. The only easily available copy I could find was from the Southeastern Missourian, 2001-02-03 at
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20010203&id=H60fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ftYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2443,4795189
The text of my letter, dated 2001-02-03 follows.
I am amazed how ideology leads a deep thinker like George Will to be as shallow as he is in “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”.
At the beginning of his article, he talks about “failing schools” and how transfers to other public schools or vouchers to private schools would allow students to leave these failing schools. He goes on to list what factors lead to students’ success but he says that schools can only influence one of those factors and that additional resources won’t change any of these factors.
He also compares the “success” of private schools to the “failure” of public schools but with a superficial assumption that the student populations are identical.
He gives a measure of the skills of public school teachers without examining whether his measure is appropriate to what the teachers are doing. He also links that measure to a comparison of “cognition” of American students with that of students in other developed countries.
Furthermore, he uses that measure to show that class size won’t make any difference.
From his article and from a couple hours of newspaper and Web research, I see a different picture.
First, if students are allowed to leave “failing schools”, which students will leave? The “failing” students who are most in need of “better” teaching, or the successful students who have the advantage of the five factors of
- number of parents in home
- days absent from school
- hours spent watching television
- quantity and quality of reading matter in home
- amount of homework
If the successful students leave, won’t the failing schools fail even more? If the failing students leave, won’t they be taking their problems to other schools and lead those schools to “fail”?
Will ignores that additional resources can change four of the five factors, including the only one he says that the schools can control - amount of homework. If classes are smaller, then teachers can give and check more homework. Schools can influence absenteeism with truant officers and counselors, neither of which work for free. Schools can help reduce hours spent watching television by providing more after school activities; activities like sports, music, and theatre cost money in material and staff time. Schools can provide a quantity of quality reading matter, but books and librarians cost money. The only factor additional resources can’t change is the number of parents.
Will writes that most failing schools serve inner-city children but inner-city Catholic schools “do better with fewer resources”. Are the public schools and the Catholic schools serving students with the same lack of success factors? Because some parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, might more of the success factors be present in those families? Will doesn’t raise this question. Furthermore, the Catholic schools can select their students; the public schools have to take all students.
Will states that “38 percent of American teachers had college majors in academic subjects” and implies that majoring in education makes a teacher inadequately trained. However, most schools don’t get deeply into “academic subjects” until junior high. Many elementary teachers teach a wide range of subjects, especially in the lower grades. In 1997 there were about 1.2 million secondary public and private teachers and about 1.85 million elementary teachers. That means about 39% of the teachers were junior and high school teachers. That is rather close to the percent of teachers who had a major in an academic subject.
Will relates his perception that too few teachers had academic majors to how “American students’ cognition [compares] with students around the developed world”. Again, is he comparing similar groups of students? The Department of Education warns in Digest of Education Statistics 1999, Chapter 6 - International Comparisons of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/chapter6.html) “...international data users should be cautioned about the many problems of definition and reporting involved in the collection of data about the educational systems in the world.” Could it be that different kinds of students are being measured in different countries? For example, are the students being measured in some countries only those on an academic track as opposed to all students in the U.S.? If all students are being measured in those other countries, do they have the same mix of socio-economic classes as the U.S. does? More specifically, is there a large portion of students who lack some of the five significant success factors?
Finally, Will claims small class size “simply increases the attention each pupil gets from an inadequately trained teacher.” The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program in Wisconsin has shown that smaller class sizes give better results (Duluth News-Tribune, Jan. 18, 2001). As one teacher put it, with larger classes “it's a lot of tying shoes”.
Follow up email to the Washington Post:
In today's Star Tribune I found a more factual rebuttal than mine to George Will's Feb. 1st column on education. It is about the ACE (A Commitment to Excellence) program in Minneapolis. [The link I had no longer works. The article was from 2001-02-04.] In short, it is about a program that targets at-risk black males to give them tutoring and counseling to help them succeed. The $500,000 program is sponsored by the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, and Hennepin County Children and Family Services.
You can find a link to the start of the article at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69979742.html.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=20010203&id=H60fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ftYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2443,4795189
The text of my letter, dated 2001-02-03 follows.
I am amazed how ideology leads a deep thinker like George Will to be as shallow as he is in “Tall Order for a Few Federal Dollars”.
At the beginning of his article, he talks about “failing schools” and how transfers to other public schools or vouchers to private schools would allow students to leave these failing schools. He goes on to list what factors lead to students’ success but he says that schools can only influence one of those factors and that additional resources won’t change any of these factors.
He also compares the “success” of private schools to the “failure” of public schools but with a superficial assumption that the student populations are identical.
He gives a measure of the skills of public school teachers without examining whether his measure is appropriate to what the teachers are doing. He also links that measure to a comparison of “cognition” of American students with that of students in other developed countries.
Furthermore, he uses that measure to show that class size won’t make any difference.
From his article and from a couple hours of newspaper and Web research, I see a different picture.
First, if students are allowed to leave “failing schools”, which students will leave? The “failing” students who are most in need of “better” teaching, or the successful students who have the advantage of the five factors of
- number of parents in home
- days absent from school
- hours spent watching television
- quantity and quality of reading matter in home
- amount of homework
If the successful students leave, won’t the failing schools fail even more? If the failing students leave, won’t they be taking their problems to other schools and lead those schools to “fail”?
Will ignores that additional resources can change four of the five factors, including the only one he says that the schools can control - amount of homework. If classes are smaller, then teachers can give and check more homework. Schools can influence absenteeism with truant officers and counselors, neither of which work for free. Schools can help reduce hours spent watching television by providing more after school activities; activities like sports, music, and theatre cost money in material and staff time. Schools can provide a quantity of quality reading matter, but books and librarians cost money. The only factor additional resources can’t change is the number of parents.
Will writes that most failing schools serve inner-city children but inner-city Catholic schools “do better with fewer resources”. Are the public schools and the Catholic schools serving students with the same lack of success factors? Because some parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, might more of the success factors be present in those families? Will doesn’t raise this question. Furthermore, the Catholic schools can select their students; the public schools have to take all students.
Will states that “38 percent of American teachers had college majors in academic subjects” and implies that majoring in education makes a teacher inadequately trained. However, most schools don’t get deeply into “academic subjects” until junior high. Many elementary teachers teach a wide range of subjects, especially in the lower grades. In 1997 there were about 1.2 million secondary public and private teachers and about 1.85 million elementary teachers. That means about 39% of the teachers were junior and high school teachers. That is rather close to the percent of teachers who had a major in an academic subject.
Will relates his perception that too few teachers had academic majors to how “American students’ cognition [compares] with students around the developed world”. Again, is he comparing similar groups of students? The Department of Education warns in Digest of Education Statistics 1999, Chapter 6 - International Comparisons of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99/chapter6.html) “...international data users should be cautioned about the many problems of definition and reporting involved in the collection of data about the educational systems in the world.” Could it be that different kinds of students are being measured in different countries? For example, are the students being measured in some countries only those on an academic track as opposed to all students in the U.S.? If all students are being measured in those other countries, do they have the same mix of socio-economic classes as the U.S. does? More specifically, is there a large portion of students who lack some of the five significant success factors?
Finally, Will claims small class size “simply increases the attention each pupil gets from an inadequately trained teacher.” The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program in Wisconsin has shown that smaller class sizes give better results (Duluth News-Tribune, Jan. 18, 2001). As one teacher put it, with larger classes “it's a lot of tying shoes”.
Follow up email to the Washington Post:
In today's Star Tribune I found a more factual rebuttal than mine to George Will's Feb. 1st column on education. It is about the ACE (A Commitment to Excellence) program in Minneapolis. [The link I had no longer works. The article was from 2001-02-04.] In short, it is about a program that targets at-risk black males to give them tutoring and counseling to help them succeed. The $500,000 program is sponsored by the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public Schools, and Hennepin County Children and Family Services.
You can find a link to the start of the article at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69979742.html.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Solitary Confinement - George Will a Liberal?
I often disagree with George Will, but he generally shows a reasonableness in his writing and doesn't take an automatic dogmatic position on many issues. He did so with his column "The Torture of Solitary Confinement", Washington Post, 2013-02-20 and republished in today's Star Tribune.
Will points out how psychologically damaging solitary confinement can be. Ironically, it was the Quakers who were influential in creating solitary confinement as a way to help prisoners gain some penance (thus, penitentiary). The colloquial "pen" wound up being more descriptive. Will also compares the three known water boarding cases to the tens of thousands who are put in solitary confinement.
I used to think that the conclusion of "El Secreto de sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes)" was quite appropriate for the crime. Now I have second thoughts, especially considering the number of people sentenced for crimes they did not commit.
Will points out how psychologically damaging solitary confinement can be. Ironically, it was the Quakers who were influential in creating solitary confinement as a way to help prisoners gain some penance (thus, penitentiary). The colloquial "pen" wound up being more descriptive. Will also compares the three known water boarding cases to the tens of thousands who are put in solitary confinement.
I used to think that the conclusion of "El Secreto de sus Ojos (The Secret in Their Eyes)" was quite appropriate for the crime. Now I have second thoughts, especially considering the number of people sentenced for crimes they did not commit.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Just what are conservatives conserving?
Just
what are conservatives conserving?
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Conservative – another sweeping term that is used as a pejorative by some and as a badge of honor by others. In many ways both views are wrong, conservatism is not necessarily a bad idea and is not necessarily the best idea. The problem is that the term conservative is used to describe a grab bag of conflicting ideas and to pretend that all who call themselves conservatives will adhere to all these conflicting ideas.
Both George Will and William Safire have catalogued the factions contained in the Republican party – economic, social, libertarian, idealistic, and cultural (1). Safire wrote that the economic conservative is against “enforced redistribution of wealth” and for reduced taxes; the social conservative doesn’t like the violence in entertainment and opposes partial-birth abortion; the libertarian “is pro-choice and anti-compulsion”, the idealistic conservative believes it is America’s role to extend freedom, and the cultural conservative prefers traditional to avant-garde and the thoughtful to the emotional. He offered more complex descriptions but space and copyrights limit my explaining more. He also offered some stands that “liberals” would agree with – consumer protection from monopolies, right of counsel, and keeping “fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.”
I would make a slightly different catalog: pro-business, religious right, libertarian, and militaristic. Pro-business is more pro-CEO of larger companies; religious right is enforcing one’s religious views on others; libertarian is as Safire described, and militaristic is projecting power more than defense. They are all mixed up in a weird dance of support and conflict. Some very large businesses provide the violent entertainment that the religious right opposes; businesses like military contracts but they don’t want to pay the taxes to pay for the contracts; the religious right supports the militaristic because they believe it is bringing on Armageddon, the battle to end all battles; the libertarians resent actions of the religious right; and the militaristic play on the desires of all to promote “freedom and democracy” even as they run roughshod over “freedom and democracy” here and elsewhere. Please note: I did not write “military” but “militaristic”. The members of the military may be behaving honorably but the “militaristic” have designs beyond “defense”.
The classical definition of conservatism is holding on to what is traditional and making change gradually. It is hard to find fault with this view, we all have a bit of conservatism in ourselves. The business owner who doesn’t alter his plans until he has looked thoroughly at what change will bring about. The religious person who prefers the King James Bible rather than reading the newer translations. The person who prefers older music or art to the latest trend. Or the person who eats the same thing for breakfast every day.
However, much of what passes for conservatism is more radicalism – the abrupt change of how things were. Large businesses destroy smaller competitors or businesses that are in the way of their expansion. The religious right takes small parts of the bible literally and ignores the larger truths accepted by more traditional churches. The militaristic ignore traditional international relations in order to act on their own worldview. It seems to me that what these conservatives are attempting to conserve is their power over others.
One way they attempt to conserve power is to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim that they are promoters of freedom and democracy. Freedom is not promoted by telling people how to conduct their private affairs, what they must believe, and what rituals they must perform. Democracy is not promoted by hiding information in the name of security or by taking checks and balances from voting to promote sales of technology.
One of the characteristics of current conservatism is unquestioning promotion of “approved” beliefs. Have you noticed that no matter how many news quotes from “conservative” sources, no matter how many letters from “conservatives”, and no matter how many opinion pieces by “conservatives”, if a newspaper or broadcaster has any news or opinions outside of this set of views, it is “liberal”? Very interesting because many newspapers and broadcasters are owned by “conservative” businesses.
A slogan that captures this mind set is RINO – Republican in name only. One of the supposed attributes of having only two political parties is that they each will cover a wide range of views – the so-called “big tent” parties. However, conservatives are increasingly demanding orthodoxy – a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. You can see this is the writings or hear it on radio shows of conservatives.
Rush Limbaugh is supposedly the master of not allowing anyone to contradict him with a different interpretation of facts. Ann Coulter hammers away with a repetitious call for orthodoxy. I’m having a tough time making it through her book Slander because of all the generalizations and selective quotes she makes to show how bad “liberals” are.
This orthodoxy carries over to support for President George W. Bush. About the only conservative commentators who might question Bush’s actions are William Safire and George Will. They may point out an inconsistency in something Bush said or did. Otherwise the President can do no wrong, unless it is not going to the right far enough.
Maybe George Bush doesn’t see himself as the Roman Emperor that Garry Trudeau depicts him as in “Doonesbury” (the empty helmet), but many of Bush’s supporters treat him as if his actions should no more be challenged than those of early Roman Emperors.
Remember, the Roman Republic fell when a general overstepped the limits the Senate set for him. Could the American Republic fall when a Commander-in-Chief reinterprets the Constitution and oversteps its limits? If so, conservatives will not have conserved freedom and democracy.
(1) William Safire, “Inside a Republican Brain”, New York Times, July 21, 2004 (Page may be available online only to subscribers)
©2004, 2007, 2013 Melvyn D. Magree
Monday, January 09, 2012
Conservatives, prudence, and the rest of us
George Will has written about "the central conservative virtue, prudence"; see
"What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich".
I thought again about this prudence in reading "Why I'm Giving Up Cynicism for New Year's" by Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine, 2012-01-06. McKibben wrote about the 234-194 Congressional vote "to force a quicker review of the [Keystone XL] pipeline":
"As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million."
This paragraph made me think about Will's "prudence" remark. Darn tootin' conservatives have "prudence"; they know better than to upset their paymasters.
Some of these same "prudent" conservatives are imprudent with facts and language. Maybe we should do our own fact and language change; let's call "campaign contributions" for what they are – bribes.
Now, dear reader, let me check your prudence. In the quote above "As important as the vote total…" what happened within minutes of the vote? Did those who voted "aye" receive within minutes "$42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry"?
If you thought the contributions were instantaneous, please read the quote again. "[W]ithin minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that…"
How easy it is to slant things to our own thinking!
"What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich".
I thought again about this prudence in reading "Why I'm Giving Up Cynicism for New Year's" by Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine, 2012-01-06. McKibben wrote about the 234-194 Congressional vote "to force a quicker review of the [Keystone XL] pipeline":
"As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million."
This paragraph made me think about Will's "prudence" remark. Darn tootin' conservatives have "prudence"; they know better than to upset their paymasters.
Some of these same "prudent" conservatives are imprudent with facts and language. Maybe we should do our own fact and language change; let's call "campaign contributions" for what they are – bribes.
Now, dear reader, let me check your prudence. In the quote above "As important as the vote total…" what happened within minutes of the vote? Did those who voted "aye" receive within minutes "$42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry"?
If you thought the contributions were instantaneous, please read the quote again. "[W]ithin minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that…"
How easy it is to slant things to our own thinking!
Thursday, December 29, 2011
"More conservative"? Another form of holier than thou?
Among the Republican candidates for President there seems to be a race to be "more conservative" than the other candidates, especially "more conservative" than Mitt Romney. There also seems to be some attempts to show that they are "more Christian" than the other candidates, especially "more Christian" than Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Most of this "more Christian" seems to be quite the opposite of the teachings of Jesus: Golden Rule, "be not like the hypocrites who pray in public", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and many other teachings that show humility and forgiveness.
This "more conservative" seems to mean that a candidate is more following "more religiously" a laundry list of stances that seem to be more aligned with corporate and certain religious interests. "More conservative" seems to have nothing to do with more cautious consideration of issues. Or to take a definition from George Will, "more conservative" does not seem to mean "more prudent".
Electing "more conservative" officials also means electing "more dangerous" officials. If they are following a laundry list of issues, will they be able to change as circumstances change. In other words, can they follow the advice of the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln: "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."
This "more conservative" seems to mean that a candidate is more following "more religiously" a laundry list of stances that seem to be more aligned with corporate and certain religious interests. "More conservative" seems to have nothing to do with more cautious consideration of issues. Or to take a definition from George Will, "more conservative" does not seem to mean "more prudent".
Electing "more conservative" officials also means electing "more dangerous" officials. If they are following a laundry list of issues, will they be able to change as circumstances change. In other words, can they follow the advice of the last great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln: "As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew."
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich
George Will wrote a good critique of Gingrich that anyone who values good government would appreciate, "Gingrich - The Anti-Conservative", Washington Post, 2011-12-20.
Will is very displeased with Gingrich's disdain for the judiciary. Gingrich thinks that judges should appear before elected officials to justify their decisions and can be summarily dismissed.
Will writes that Gingrich is not a historian but often plays one on television. Will is right on with this because I think a historian would be familiar with the Federalist papers:
"A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
- Federalist No. 22, supposedly written by Alexander Hamilton
Hm! That reads as if Alexander Hamilton was in favor of "activist judges".
I often enjoy reading George Will's columns; he can be very thoughtful. But he loses it when he becomes partisan and overextends himself in generalizations. In the above article he faults Gingrich for not having "the central conservative virtue, prudence…" This may be a trait of classical conservatives, but unfortunately too many who call themselves conservatives now rush into the issue of the day "without due diligence". Will goes on to compare the "conservative virtue" to "progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." I don't think this wish for "untrammeled power" is an attribute held by only one sort of politician; politicians of all kinds can be too unwilling to ride roughshod over opposition.
George Will shows this same polarization on "The Great American Debate" with Christiane Amanpour as he argues about legalization of marijuana with Barney Frank. Will makes a remark about "liberalism's aversion to information". Sorry, George, but an "aversion to information" is found all over the political map, especially among those who think their particular ideas are the truth.
This bit of repartee, not a debate, can be found on "Barney Frank Challenges George Will on Marijuana". The full show can be found on http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate.
Will is very displeased with Gingrich's disdain for the judiciary. Gingrich thinks that judges should appear before elected officials to justify their decisions and can be summarily dismissed.
Will writes that Gingrich is not a historian but often plays one on television. Will is right on with this because I think a historian would be familiar with the Federalist papers:
"A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
- Federalist No. 22, supposedly written by Alexander Hamilton
Hm! That reads as if Alexander Hamilton was in favor of "activist judges".
I often enjoy reading George Will's columns; he can be very thoughtful. But he loses it when he becomes partisan and overextends himself in generalizations. In the above article he faults Gingrich for not having "the central conservative virtue, prudence…" This may be a trait of classical conservatives, but unfortunately too many who call themselves conservatives now rush into the issue of the day "without due diligence". Will goes on to compare the "conservative virtue" to "progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." I don't think this wish for "untrammeled power" is an attribute held by only one sort of politician; politicians of all kinds can be too unwilling to ride roughshod over opposition.
George Will shows this same polarization on "The Great American Debate" with Christiane Amanpour as he argues about legalization of marijuana with Barney Frank. Will makes a remark about "liberalism's aversion to information". Sorry, George, but an "aversion to information" is found all over the political map, especially among those who think their particular ideas are the truth.
This bit of repartee, not a debate, can be found on "Barney Frank Challenges George Will on Marijuana". The full show can be found on http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate.
Monday, June 20, 2011
How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
The Coffee Party put a link on Facebook to "How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality", Fareed Zacharia, Time, 2011-06-16. When Zacharia was a student, he interviewed George Will, who told him that "Conservativism is true." Although Zacharia thought the statement a bit arrogant, he wrote that down through the ages conservative thought has been based on how the world was, not on some abstract principles. Current American "conservatives" have gone from the pre-Reagan realism to a laundry list of abstract principles.
I knew the Republican Party was in trouble when it nominated Ronald Reagan, an abstractionist, over John Anderson, a pragmatist. I knew it was in even further trouble when it described those Republicans who didn't fully subscribe to a laundry list of abstract principles as RINOs - Republicans in name only. Actually RINOs are realists insist no orthodoxy.
I knew the Republican Party was in trouble when it nominated Ronald Reagan, an abstractionist, over John Anderson, a pragmatist. I knew it was in even further trouble when it described those Republicans who didn't fully subscribe to a laundry list of abstract principles as RINOs - Republicans in name only. Actually RINOs are realists insist no orthodoxy.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Don't conform your way, conform my way!
Poor George Will doesn't like so many people wearing jeans for almost all occasions. See "Demon Denim", George Will, Washington Post, 2009-04-16
He called it an "obnoxious misuse of freedom" and other diatribes. He doesn't like the undifferentiated look. Now look in the back page of a company annual report. If it weren't for the women on the board, everybody would look a lot a like. The suits of the men look undifferentiated all dark gray or blue, maybe with different colors of ties.
Will confesses to having a single pair of jeans. I confess to having one suit (pin-striped), a tweed jacket, a camel jacket, and several pairs of slacks. I will wear them if I feel I must, but I avoid wearing them. I much prefer my blue jeans for almost all occasions. They are comfortable and not baggy; if I get them dirty they are easily washable. And if I tear them, they become strictly work clothes.
I guess George Will wants us to go back to the undifferentiated time when all men wore suits and wore fedora hats. That time was an obnoxious misuse of conformity.
He called it an "obnoxious misuse of freedom" and other diatribes. He doesn't like the undifferentiated look. Now look in the back page of a company annual report. If it weren't for the women on the board, everybody would look a lot a like. The suits of the men look undifferentiated all dark gray or blue, maybe with different colors of ties.
Will confesses to having a single pair of jeans. I confess to having one suit (pin-striped), a tweed jacket, a camel jacket, and several pairs of slacks. I will wear them if I feel I must, but I avoid wearing them. I much prefer my blue jeans for almost all occasions. They are comfortable and not baggy; if I get them dirty they are easily washable. And if I tear them, they become strictly work clothes.
I guess George Will wants us to go back to the undifferentiated time when all men wore suits and wore fedora hats. That time was an obnoxious misuse of conformity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)