Click here for DaTechGuyBlog.com Same Fedoras, Same Cannoli different domain.
Please Help DaTechGuy pay Da Bills
Click for the latest show
on Morning Joe and elsewhere.
If we hadn’t stayed in Germany, Japan and South Korea for decades after World War II (and Korea) how long would we have had to wait for the next major war?
How many years would it have been before either Russia, China or North Korea conquering the weakened powers, or from rearmed Japan or Germany culturally unchanged and rearmed decided to reassert themselves?
Take your time, my K of C thing isn’t till later tonight.
I’ve always remembered a particular episode of Gilligan’s Island (Gilligan vs. Gilligan available online here) that had a particular exchange between Mr. Howell and the Russian spy posing as Gilligan. Mr. Howell puts his chess piece on an illegal square. Mr. Howell reacts indignantly:
Mr. Howell: Young man are you accusing a Howell of cheating? I’ll have you know I’m far too wealthy.
Spy Gilligan: To cheat?
Mr. Howell: No, to be accused!
It reminds me that there once was a time when our icons such as JFK were far too important to have their dirty laundry aired in public.
How does that relate to The Rangel/Waters issues? Consider this; as Black America gradually progressed in rights and influence, they also gradually took the places at the seats of power that their growing influence and the slow progress toward legal equality demanded.
Like all men and woman those people who attained power and office were individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses and foibles. However those foibles while they might be known in their own communities were not aired to the general pubic. Not because the community approved but because you didn’t tear down your own when it took so long to get to the mountaintop (this is of course not unique to the Black community). As blacks migrated to the democratic party and as the party became more dependent on their vote, it became a priority for the party as well to keep any problems in house with a tact cloak of silence. Thus any such suggestion became a racial issue and the proponent of such questions a racist.
Now however things are different, the digital age forces light on things that were once hidden (read Rev Wright) and with our first black president (sorry Bill Clinton) it is impossible to pretend that African American’s place in American society is defined primarily by the sins of the past.
James Clyburn not withstanding, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters ethics issues have nothing to do with race and everything to do with actions. The actions against them are not signs of the return of the Jim Crow past meant to keep Black America underfoot. It also shows we have progressed beyond the equally offensive but less violent era of tokenism.
This is the sign of a new era where we can look at a member of congress of any race and see…a member of congress. This means we can judge said member not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I think that’s progress and America in general and the Black community in particular are better off for it.
Update: Morgan Freeman knew what he was talking about.
As does Col Allen West:
…first of all I must link to Roxeanne De Luca’s excellent piece that not only linked to mine, but puts the lie to his anti-intellectual point that the professor tried to make:
While Bielat is the only one of those guys (and gals) who pulled off the double-Ivy education, one can hardly call the small army of JDs, CPAs, MBAs, and professors “anti-intellectual”. One then has to wonder at Bainbridge’s assertions: who, among this growing conservative movement, is really “anti-intellectual”? Are we stupid? uneducated? have the audacity to think that our BC, Georgetown, and Tufts educations are not so dismal as to disqualify us from public debate and office? or just not relentlessly focused on degrees obtained two decades ago? is what is happening in Massachusetts not representative?
As they say, read the whole thing as the young lady with TWO DEGREES of her own defends the tea party she is so much a part of.
Secondly and more importantly as I re-read his piece I noticed something that I hadn’t caught in his 10th point, lets review:
Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan? emphasis mine
Even Ronald Reagan? EVEN RONALD REAGAN?! That sentence, the idea that: Today’s conservatives are so dumb they even make Ronald Reagan look smart, well-read and articulate, brings me back to my college days.
Starting college 8 months into Reagan’s first term I recall the way that liberals treated Reagan with disdain and/or fear. My favorite professor the spectacular Ed Thomas, (the best history teacher I ever had) used to talk about how Reagan “Scared him”. Liberals reacted with glee when he got the nomination. They couldn’t believe he won.
But I also remember how elite conservatives absolutely HATED him. They hated his small town background, they hated that he was a Hollywood actor, they hated his abandonment of realpolitik saying bluntly what the Soviet Union actually was, they hated him because he was so comfortable in his own skin and beliefs they he didn’t feel the need to seek their approval.
Most of all they hated that due to his success and popularity among the idiot people that they had to pay homage to someone so obviously beneath them to get elected or to be supported.
Remind you of anyone today?
We have seen this last point often in the last few years among the leftist media and pols (who can’t believe and won’t forgive Reagan for drawing more sympathy in death than Ted Kennedy) who now avoid criticizing him, acting as if they had been with him all the time.
I had almost totally forgotten the absolutely visceral hatred some Republicans had for Ronald Reagan. Thank you Professor Bainbridge for reminding me of an important lesson from the days of a full hairline.
Update: An Instalanche in my sleep. Very odd to wake up and find my first post of yesterday to be linked by Glenn at the very end of the day. Nice to have you all. You may want to check out the article I put up at Examiner.com on the subject called:
Conservatives in Massachusetts should be grateful not embarrassed by the Tea Party that answers the point concerning Tea Parties.
Following up on his first rate post on Howard Zinn this weekend Stacy puts up a new article at the American Spectator:
Revelation of Zinn’s support for Stalinism is unlikely to affect his standing with liberals, whose main response to the FBI disclosures was to express shock that an official of Boston University tried to get Zinn fired in 1970. Zinn’s liberal admirers obviously share his anti-American perspective, in which the FBI poses a greater danger than any foreign enemy. It was that view Zinn meant to express when, in 1986, he condemned the U.S. bombing of Libya in response to a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable,” Zinn wrote.
That such a condemnation could be applied more truthfully to Zinn’s communist heroes, who slaughtered millions of innocents in pursuit of an unattainable socialist paradise, is an irony the professor apparently never contemplated.
This is uncharitable of me but I suspect he did contemplate it and brushed it aside as all fans of totalitarianism do. What are mere lives when compared to the cause? The irony that he did this from the safety of America where he was free to make a living off of his support for our foes is not lost on me.
Those who promote his views have much to answer for.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 