Red Clay Citizen

Griffith or Taylor? It's a fair question for McCrory

As a devoted fan of the Andy Griffith Show, I know there is a difference between Andy Griffith and Andy Taylor. The former has spent his post-Matlock years shilling for leftwing political candidates. So if any of the candidates decides to take a shot back, well, the people of N.C. are clever enough to get the distinction--as well as see why anyone would take that shot.

Gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory makes the distinction and takes the shot. He says:

There is one political reality in North Carolina, and that is every four years about a week or two before the gubernatorial election, Andy Griffith the actor recommends one of the candidates." (Griffith's a Democrat who has made campaign commercials for Governor Easley and Lieutenant Governor Perdue, McCrory's opponent.) ...

Then McCrory said the character of Mayberry's Sheriff Taylor would today talk about gangs in small towns and the "revolving door" in the criminal justice system and that Otis the town drunk might not have his own cell and would be incarcerated with "maybe 15 or 20 other very, very dangerous people."

McCrory's saying that Andy Taylor would probably commit to different priorities than the actor-vist Andy Griffith would, even though neither has had experience dealing with contemporary issues like gang violence. We can quibble over whether McCrory is correct in his interpretation of the character if he were placed in America today. Heck, he may treat those very dangerous people in the manner of Otis -- asking Aunt Bee to bring by fresh biscuits and coffee when the scumbags awake. But the N&O would prefer that the distinction between Griffith and Taylor not be made, I guess. It might even be in poor taste if Griffith weren't already politically involved.

The paper's patronizing "Pat, Pat, Pat..." is meant to signify a critique of the Mayor's reference, but we're all waiting for the substance of said critique. Like him or not, McCrory is saying something very pointed that the paper is missing: Nowhere in N.C. is there a place that even vaguely resembles Mayberry (if there ever was). And he believes his opponent, whom Griffith supports, is out of touch with that reality. If she weren't, wouldn't we have seen any number of anti-gang, anti-illegal immigrant, or anti-crime bills put forth from her and her party? (That is, besides the token anti-gang bill cobbled together recently as a political tactic.)

A Sheriff Andy Taylor of today would be a more earnest and solemn man. He would find himself in a N.C. that in which summary executions occur perennially by members of foreign gangs. He would find himself cleaning up the Eve Carsons of the world, on the streets near Griffith's alma mater. He would find himself with very little prison space for Otis, because all manner of thugs and murders have pushed the town drunks into the arms of taxpayer-funded social workers. The moral character of Mayberry is, of course, nowhere to be found.
-Max Borders

The Best Commencement Speech You've Never Heard

P.J. O'Rourke speaks to graduates around America. A sliver:

Idealists are also bullies. The idealist says, "I care more about the redwood trees than you do. I care so much I can't eat. I can't sleep. It broke up my marriage. And because I care more than you do, I'm a better person. And because I'm the better person, I have the right to boss you around."

Get a pair of bolt cutters and liberate that tree.

Who does more for the redwoods and society anyway — the guy chained to a tree or the guy who founds the "Green Travel Redwood Tree-Hug Tour Company" and makes a million by turning redwoods into a tourist destination, a valuable resource that people will pay just to go look at?
-Max Borders

Looks like TCS is back!... w/Tom Wolfe

They've been going through a technical transition, but it appears they're back--with an interview with Tom Wolfe.

Preamble to the Constitution: Do you Remember?

We, the...
-Max Borders

Mamet: From Liberal to Classical Liberal

David Mamet has evolved. Perhaps the world's greatest living playwright, Mamet describes his tranformation with elegant simplicity in the Village Voice:

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

Too bad our government fetishists at NC Policy Watch can't seem to uncloud their own lenses. Mamet did, and the whole toothpick framework of progressive ideology came down:

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations" — the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live. And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world.

Harold 'Pinky' Pinter disagrees. But then again Pinter has as much trouble articulating anything in his own plays, much less on the questions about the nature of a free people. Anyhoo, props to David Mamet for his candor. He risks losing the self-hating thespians and champagne socialists of the salon who lap up his work like they lap up the hostile twaddle of the Koses and Krugmans of the world.

But I have to close with what Mamet says about the soft leftism of NPR:

"I felt my facial muscles tightening , and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the f--k up."

Read the whole thing. This is good stuff, almost as good as Oleanna...
(Update: The Locker Room's take is good. They like the juxtaposition of the 'tragic view' that the Framers assumed when founding our government.)
-Max Borders

Ghetto Nihilism: Reflections on MLK Day

Civitas just had NPR's Juan Williams as a guest speaker. In his open forum discussion, he laid out a case against ghetto nihilism similar to this one made by Rod Dreher (whom I usually cannot stomach). Williams' basic point is that the black community must say "enough" to the adoration of no-account rap stars, pull itself up by the bootstraps, and stop buying into the victimology propogated by people like Al Sharpton, (not to mention so-called "scholars" in our institutions of higher education).

When it comes to all the trouble in the inner cities (gang violence, poverty, etc.) the problem many conservatives like to point to is a bankrupt culture - or set of cultural icons, such as hiphop stars and badboy athletes. But we should ask: are these causes or symptoms?

There are two major factors that could lead to all this death and ghetto nihilism in the black community, of which music and culture are probably just symptoms (albeit reinforcing symptoms):

a) the welfare state, which incentivizes people to live at subsistence poverty and abnegate personal responsibility;

b) drug prohibition, which creates high-profit margins on a black market. Gang wars are the result of protecting those markets and associated turf. Simple economics;

c) guilty white folks in academe who perpetuate the notion of institutionalized racism and the contemporary peddlers of race-baiting who feed upon such narratives;

When one considers all of these factors, it's a recipe for total failure in any urban community. But there is no political force in the world that will ever fully deny ghetto kids welfare checks. Nor is there a force strong enough to see decriminalization through. So these problems - particularly those in the urban black communities - are going to be with us for a long time to come. (One could say something similar about rural whites dependent on welfare and meth.) We can talk all day about Snoop Dog or lay blame at the feet of black athletes, but role models will never emerge from a community that the government has set up to fail.
-Max Borders

Color Andys Should be Banned

Being a liberty-loving person, I would never advocate banning anything. Well, except one thing: Andy Griffith episodes IN COLOR. Others agree with me (in spirit), according to this Dome post. I mean Howard Spraig? Opie a teenager? Come on. More Goober, no Barney? Give me a break.

Once, when I was living in Chicago, I tried to convince a yankee friend of mine to watch it -- to try it out just once. He was skeptical. I told him to find it on TV Land. The next day he came back to me and said he tried to watch it, but it just wasn't his cup of tea. In horror, I realized what had happened. "Was the episode in color?" I asked. "Yes," he replied.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..... came my plaintive cry. My chance at converting him was lost forever.

You see, Andy Griffith is the greatest show ever (maybe tied w/ Seinfeld). But black-and-white Andy. Let there be no confusion about this. (My three favorite episodes: "Opie the Bird Man" "Mr. MacBeavey" and "Dogs, Dogs, Dogs")
-Max Borders

"Gang of 88" Member on Michael Vick

Thanks to the Cantankerous Gentleman, I just found this curious article by one of the "Gang of 88" who - rather than keep her odious comments to herself in the wake of the Lacrosse scandal - offers us this little bit of (extra) sanctimony on race. The thrust? What Vick did was wrong, but he's being censured because he's black. And if we look in the mirror, we'll stop eating hamburgers:

As a strong advocate of animal welfare, I despise dogfighting. I have worked in dog rescue for many years, and know firsthand that pit bulls are among the sweetest, most devoted animals on earth. The pit bulls used in the dogfighting ring operated from property owned by Atlanta Falcons star Michael Vick deserved a far better life.

Yet, I find what's happening with Vick, who pleaded guilty Monday to a felony charge, alarming.

We need to face the fact that dog fighting is not the only "sport" that abuses animals. Cruelty also occurs in rodeos, horse and dog racing (all of which mistreat animals and often kill them when no longer useful). There are also millions of dogs and cats we put to death in "shelters" across the country because they lack a home, and billions of creatures we torture in factory farms for our food.

Vick treated his dogs very cruelly; there is no question about that. But I see one important difference between these more socially acceptable mistreatments and the anger focused on Vick: Vick is black, and most of the folks in charge of the other activities are white.

I'm not sure what's more disconcerting, that Kathy Rudy has such an early-1990's view of race in America, or that she's factored animals into the social contract. This so-called ethicist sounds more like a race-baiting hack with a vegan streak than an academic. And while she makes one valid point - that there are other ways to harm animals - it actually works against her position.

Without launching into any deep philosophical treatises on the very idea of animal rights, I'd say that what Michael Vick did merely crossed the bounds of our culture's sense of decency -- right or wrong, black or white. And while in the strictest sense, Vick may not have violated anybody's rights with his behavior (because animals don't have those), the practice has been proscribed by law precisely because people like her have been shaming people into throwing animals the scraps from our moral and legal tables. On the question of whether the law is right in the Vick case? Let's just say I don't really have a dog in that fight.

But to compound her bass-ackwards notions of animal rights with accusations of racism? Wow. Not only have many whites defended Vick, but many blacks have excoriated him. Whether people want to protect puppies comes down not to the color of their skin, but how much empathy they extend to animals. I would encourage people to mock such "ivory" tower diatribes (see picture above), take note only long enough to know what you're paying for at Duke, and suggest that your kids not to take classes from lecturers like this -- whose ideas of scholarship are little more than how-to guides on self-loathing.
-Max Borders

Healthcare: Coletti Spells it Out for the Demogogues

This is an excellent piece on some of the issues in healthcare reform. Those who blindly blame greedy corporations for our healthcare woes never look to the actual source of all the pathologies -- the government.

Coletti doesn't go as far as to accuse the left of trying to destroy healthcare markets with regulation. For the record, I do. Lemme borrow from an upcoming piece I wrote:

I believe the majority party actually knows about these pathologies. In fact, I believe they are making concerted efforts at the state and federal levels to exacerbate these problems in the name of consumer protection and insuring children. Whether through expanding children’s Medicaid into the middle class (which drives up premiums), increasing the number of state mandates (which drives up premiums), or limiting competition through keeping the tax code intact (which drives up premiums), the party in power is using regulation to crank down the government vise in anticipation of a final outcry from Americans who are tired of paying these rates and who have no idea why it’s happening. And with that outcry, they will then be able to sell America a single-payer system like Castro’s.

Will Hypocrisy End the Culture War?

If the death of Jerry Falwell didn't, this surely will. -Max Borders

Autobot or Decepticon?

Bad humor for libertarians.

Out in Schofield : Sex Ed

I can't entirely disagree with some of the wisdom in Rob Schofield's NC Policy Watch piece on sex education. But what these kind of arguments over "THE CURRICULAR MONOLITH" fail to take into account, is that increased emphasis on educational choice and diversity would make this discussion moot.  That is, many parents don't want their children to be taught sex ed. Period. Despite the pragmatism in Schofield's viewpoint, it still denies parents' choice, conferring it into the hands of so-called 'experts.' There is something profoundly elitist about this struggle for what our kids ought to be taught. From arguments over Intelligent Design, to arguments over banana-condoms--all could be resolved easily if choice came first. Indeed, would Mr. Schofield like it if his kids were forced to take courses in free-market economics?

Imus be racist, Youmus' be too

I was pleasantly surprised to see this post by Steve Turner over at the Progressive Pulse. This "test" to see whether you should be indignant about Imus's stereotypes made me chuckle:

Do you make assumptions about the decency of others when you see the following: an NRA sticker on a pick-up truck; a thin, smoking woman in a fur; a panhandler; luxury cars parked at an all-white WASP country club; an atheist with an ACLU card; an obese man using food stamps in a supermarket check-out line talking on a cell phone; a bearded man holding a Koran at the check-in line at the airport; a male hairdresser; a Hummer with a magnetic yellow “support the troops” ribbon; an Irish bartender; a televangelist asking for donations; or a comment by Dallas Woodhouse.

He has a point.  But the first thing we should realize about stereotypes is that people often try very hard to evoke the stereotype in us.  So the obligation of breaking down stereotypes falls not just on people making them, but those signaling them. Second, it's become something of a fashionable cliche to say that stereotypes exist for a reason. But they do. People are evolved to make categories and to put people and things in them.  The fine discriminations required truly to know every individual we see (i.e. to get beyond the stereotype) would blow our neural circuitry.  That's why the best we can do is take some time to get to know people in our communities better. Not everyone.  Just what we can manage. Otherwise, putting people into boxes is hardwired in us.  We humans are groupish creatures.

Howling Mobs after Blacksburg

Michael Rosen weighs in on America's gauche propensity to turn random tragedies like Blacksburg into debates about this, that, and the other pet cause.