The Rolling Stones had a big day today in 1963: They made their first TV appearance and released their first single:
The number one song today in 1975:
Five years later, Gary Numan drove his way to number nine:
Rich Galen didn’t favor Donald Trump’s pulling the U.S. out of the Paris global climate change treaty. (In contrast, I think it was Trump’s best decision since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.)
However, Galen points out:
Assuming you believe that less is better — as almost everyone does, save for a few people in Mingo County, West Virginia — then the more difficult question is: How do we pay for it?
We have a history of paying more for things we believe to be healthy. Organic foods come to mine even though there is almost zero evidence that organically grown foods and organically raised animals have any — any — health benefits.
A reporter from NPR — yes, that NPR — in 2012 wrote about a study that had been released in The Annals of Internal Medicine:
“When the researchers looked at the body of evidence, they found no clear benefits” [from eating organically grown foods].
In fact, one of the researcher made it even clearer: “There’s a definite lack of evidence” to support the advantages of organic food.Dear Mr. Mullings:
What about being poisoned by the pesticides in conventional food? What about that?Signed,
The National Association of People Who Demand Everyone Agree with ThemGlad you asked. That same article stated that the investigators:
“found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.”
I am not a climate denier. If gigantic sections of Antarctica are breaking off and floating away, I think that deserves some attention and concern. What I don’t understand is why the issues of whether the climate is changing and if it is, whether it is man-made, have taken on such a religious fervor.
You don’t think climate change is real? Fine. Smoke cigars in your house while the kids are playing on the floor in front of you.
You think climate change is the biggest existential threat since the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs? Fine. Drive an electric car and only recharge it at a place that gets its electricity from wind or solar farms. And, by the way, don’t take a federal subsidy to offset the cost of the vehicle.
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accords did not make me look for a high window out of which to jump.
I don’t agree with his decision, but it was but one of many in the first 136 days of his Presidency.
The long list of CEOs who also disagree with him on this decision can voluntarily abide by whatever rules the Obama Administration imposed while we were party to the Accords.
Easy Peasy.
There is some level of hypocrisy that attends to the outrage expressed by some of them. Tim Cook, the chairman of Apple (whose phones and tablets I swear by) wrote a letter to Apple employees after the President’s decision:
“Climate change is real and we all share a responsibility to fight it. I want to reassure you that today’s developments will have no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment. We power nearly all of our operations with renewable energy, which we believe is an example of something that’s good for our planet and makes good business sense as well.”
All well and good but most, if not all, of Apple’s products are assembled in China and now India.
The biggest polluter on the planet? China. Coming in at number four? India. (the U.S. and the EU are two and three).
Elon Musk made a big deal about quitting some panels he was on. The raw materials for Tesla batteries come from many places including the aforementioned China (graphite), Congo (cobalt), and the golden triangle of democracy and good governments Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia (lithium).
Maybe they should stop supporting polluters and dictatorships along with their legitimate concern for the global climate.
And, in Musk’s case, return all the taxes he didn’t pay through the tax breaks his companies have enjoyed.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds has several answers for all this hypocrisy:
But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?
That’s what one person asked on Twitter: “What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?
Well, okay. Since some states and cities are promising to live by the Paris agreement anyway, and since Trump’s rejection of that agreement doesn’t mean that Congress is forbidden to act, I have some proposals for legislation that will take climate change seriously indeed.
It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?
And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?
What if, indeed? One reason why so many people don’t take climate change seriously is that the people who are constantly telling us it’s a crisis never actually act like it’s a crisis. They’re all-in for sacrifices by other people, but never seem to make much in the way of sacrifices themselves.
Well, some might say, that’s why we need laws. Even people who are deeply concerned about climate change lack the self-discipline to change their behavior. So we need discipline to be imposed, by the force of government.
First, we need to tax the “blue zones.” That is, we need to impose steep taxes on property in coastal areas that will be flooded by the sea-level increases that global warming is supposed to bring. By discouraging people from living or building there now, we’ll save ourselves from big problems in the future. Sure it’ll drive down property values, but those values should go down — they’re values for property that’s going to be flooded anyway, remember?
Second, we need to ban taxpayer-funded air travel to conferences. State legislatures could ban reimbursement for travel outside their states; Congress could require that no federal grant money be spent on air travel to conferences and similar events. A lot of academic conferences would fail, but that’s a small price to pay for saving the planet. And besides, it will encourage the development of Internet-based conference alternatives. A whole new industry might result: Green jobs!
Third, we need to ban private jet travel. At first I thought about just taxing it heavily, but with the planet at stake, that might not be enough. It’s nice that John Travolta can have his own Boeing 707, or that Leonardo DiCaprio can jet around the world speaking against climate change, but the carbon emissions involved set a bad example that outweighs anything he might say. So no more private jets. Bigshots will just have to fly commercial like everyone else, the way they did in the 1950s. (And sorry, Leo, but massive yachts have to go, too). Politicians, too, should have to fly commercial. No more government-funded “executive jets” for them.
Fourth, we need a luxury tax on mansions. Any home more than twice the size of the average American home should be taxed at 25% of its value per year. Celebrities and the rich enjoy great powers of persuasion — but with great power comes great responsibility, and they have a great responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us on climate change!
These proposals are just the beginning, and I’m sure that enterprising members of Congress and various state legislatures can come up with more. But the important thing is to set a good example: Treat climate change like the crisis you say it is, and maybe more people will believe that it really is a crisis.
The Rolling Stones had a big day today in 1963: They made their first TV appearance and released their first single:
The number one song today in 1975:
Five years later, Gary Numan drove his way to number nine:
Donald Trump may have done my favorite move of his presidency by pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate treaty.
Facebook Friend and meteorologist Mike Smith posted …
To my many liberal friends: Want more Republicans in Congress? Want Trump to be reelected to a second term?
Then, keep doing these silly total freakouts completely out of proportion to the facts of a situation.
The Paris Agreement was a joke that even Dr. James Hansen condemned. …
Trillions, yes, trillions of dollars for almost no positive effect. 0.01°C of averted warming? We can’t even measure that amount.
… with this response:
I have been in the electric vehicle business for over 20 years, and agree with pulling out of the farce that this (non biding) agreement was. The Paris climate accords were a terrible deal – it would have imposed vast costs on America, undermined our economy, cost U.S. jobs and let major polluters like China off the hook for decades while doing almost nothing to help the environment. The U.S. is already a leader in clean energy, having reduced CO2 emissions 12 percent in the past decade. We can do so much more with the $100 bil that the US would have had to spend for other countries getting a free pass. We can be more sustainable with our own agreement. Don’t be so quick to criticize- So glad we are pulling out of this bad deal.
Let’s free up the American economy to produce more and cleaner energy without these one-sided, job-killing global restrictions.”
Not to mention that Obama entered this deal illegally without required approval of congress. The solutions we need for to clean the air will happen in a more efficient way!
Arthur Milikh covers the worldwide reaction, which should not matter one bit:
Phony high-mindedness is also being deployed against Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, went around America’s head of state and chief representative to flatter the American public, reassuring the American public that France and the world still “believes in you.”
That global elites feel sufficient self-confidence to attempt to publicly shame the president of the United States is partly because other U.S. presidents have typically succumbed to similar pressures long before they became public.
Yet few arguments against Trump reveal as much as a recent Washington Post headline: “Trump made up his mind on Paris. Now the rest of the world will do the same on him.” In other words, the U.S. president’s deliberations should be derived from fear of elite ire, speaking on behalf of a world majority.Leveraging the alleged authority of the majority—not a national majority, but that of the world itself—Trump’s critics cite the fact that America, Nicaragua, and Syria are the only nations not subject to the Paris accord. The dogma that majorities are wise—half-believed, half-used as manipulation by advocates—is striking partly because of the elevation of nations like Iran and North Korea, suddenly viewed as committed environmentalists.
Using similar arguments, the Obama administration worked hard to obligate the American public, despite itself, to agreements that appeared to be treaties, but that have none of the legal or moral authority. The Iran agreement, for instance, proceeded in this way. From its example, one learned not only that such agreements are unenforceable, but that they contain a host of cash transfers, which would never stand the light of investigative inquiry if they were real treaties.
More importantly, obligating the entire nation for generations to come requires Senate ratification, for no small reason. That is because the public should consent to being obligated to going to war, like in case of violation of the Iran deal, or of transferring billions of dollars to other nations, while stifling domestic interests, like in the case of the Paris Agreement.
This Obama-era approach in practice means rule not by the U.S. Senate, but rule by elite international opinion, hiding behind a seeming majoritarian consensus. These opinion makers, feeling neither moral obligations to the well-being of any particular nation, nor under any check to carry out their promises, aim to replace the deliberative function of the Senate.
Trump is right to not cave to this breed of influence. If the agreement is suitable for the U.S., the Senate must debate the matter and gain the public’s consent. Without this, public trust and republican honor are undermined, and our constitutional institutions are replaced with rule by international pressure.
You may have read that big business CEOs opposed Trump’s move. Jordan LaPorta explains:
Libertarians and true conservatives heralded the move as one of Trump’s best to date, but liberals and big business leaders have attacked the decision on the mainstream airwaves and on Twitter.
Massive corporation after massive corporation has come out in favor of the U.S. remaining in the deal, including heavy-hitters such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.
“We believe climate change is real,” said Ben van Beurden, CEO of Shell. “We believe that the world needs to go through an energy transition to prevent a very significant rise in global temperatures. And we need to be part of that solution in making it happen.”
Perhaps one of the most vocal critics of the president’s decision to leave the regulatory compact is Elon Musk, American entrepreneur and founder of Tesla Motors and Space X. On Twitter, Musk pledged to leave the president’s business councils because of his altruistic stand on behalf of mother earth. It’s quite touching, really.
Musk, like many other business elites, lobbied hard for Trump to keep America in the restrictive agreement. But the real reason Musk, Shell, Exon, and so many others wanted to the country to stay in the deal has nothing to do with the saving the planet — that’s just the “PR” reason. The real reason is that the agreement’s increased regulations on businesses work in their best profit interest. The thought is certainly counterintuitive, but it makes quite a bit of sense.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the incredibly high cost of business regulation in the United States, finding that Americans spent $1.6 trillion to comply with government mandates in 2016 alone. That money would be enough to constitute the world’s seventh-largest economy. But big businesses owned by the likes of Musk can afford these high costs, while their smaller competitors cannot. What this creates is an environment ripe for oligopoly, headed by a few big cartels. That’s not exactly what I would call a “free market.”
Musk and oil companies are no opponents to government intervention at all. In fact, the government subsidizes both Musk’s playthings and the entire oil industry to the highest degree.
It’s incredibly frustrating when people look at such system and cry wolf about the evils of “capitalism.” This is not capitalism; it’s corporatism writ large. Libertarian thinkier Albert Jay Nock put it best when he said “the simple truth is that our businessmen do not want a gov-ernment that will let business alone. They want a government they can use.”
But I guess you can’t put “Down with Corporatism” on a Che Guevera shirt and expect it to sell.
These big businesses wouldn’t be out any profit at all; they would just pass the cost to consumers in higher taxes. Too bad for you if higher energy prices mean no vacation for your family.
Instapundit has this revealing report:
RENT-SEEKERS GOTTA SEEK RENTS: German carmakers fear losing competitive edge after U.S. Paris exit.
“The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive,” Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement on Friday.
“The preservation of our competitive position is the precondition for successful climate protection. This correlation is often underestimated,” Wissmann said, adding that the decision by the Unites States was disappointing.
The VDA said electricity and energy prices are already higher in Germany than in the United States, putting Germany at a disadvantage.
Now we know what the Paris Accords were really about — hampering U.S. industries to make Europe’s more competitive.
Global climate change is occurring, but not principally because of human causes. The question therefore is what are you willing to give up for a negligible effect on the world climate?
Before this weekend’s Democratic Party convention in the suburbs of the People’s Republic of, the Associated Press reported:
Wisconsin Democrats say they are increasingly optimistic about their chances of knocking off Republican Gov. Scott Walker next year, even though a top-tier candidate has yet to emerge and they’re still recovering from a devastating 2016 election.
Democrats gathering this weekend for their state convention say liberals are energized in opposition both to President Donald Trump and to Republicans like Walker closely tied to him. Walker’s approval rating has been below 50 percent since early 2014.
“I think there’s a ton of opportunity for Democrats,” said Democratic state Rep. Chris Taylor. “What we need to do is have a bold, inspiring agenda.”
Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate to win Wisconsin since 1984, with a narrow 23,000-vote victory that was the third-closest of any state he won. In that same election, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson outperformed Trump on his way to a surprising re-election win against former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
While Democrats are looking for a candidate to take on Walker in 2018, they also have to defend the Senate seat held by Tammy Baldwin. And they must rebuild a weakened infrastructure that has suffered repeated losses against Walker. His campaign operation was molded in part by Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, when he was state party chairman before leading the Republican National Committee.
Walker, who remains popular with his Republican base, has all but announced his re-election bid, saying he’s “ready” for another four years and questioning why he wouldn’t run again — given a bevy of positive economic data, including a 17-year low state unemployment rate.
His state budget proposal also is designed to give him something else positive to run on, with proposed funding boosts for K-12 schools and higher education after years of cuts.
Walker’s list of accomplishments as governor is long. He’s known best nationally for a measure ending collecting bargaining for Wisconsin’s public workers, spurring an unsuccessful attempt to recall him in 2012.
He also has worked with the Republican-controlled Legislature over the past seven years to enact a host of other conservative priorities. Those include requiring photo identification to vote; making the state right-to-work; legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons; making abortions more difficult to obtain; expanding school choice programs; freezing University of Wisconsin tuition; and cutting taxes by nearly $5 billion.
Walker’s critics say his agenda has devastated public education, severely harmed worker rights and wages, removed protections for the most vulnerable and weakened the state’s economy. While unemployment is low, Wisconsin lags its Midwest neighbors in private sector job creation, and Walker has yet to hit the promise he made in 2010 to add 250,000 private-sector jobs.
But it’s vital that Democrats have their own message rather than just running as counter to the Trump-Walker Republicans, said Joe Zepecki, a strategist who worked for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke in 2014.
“All of the makings are there for a really good year for Democrats if we can walk and chew gum at the same time,” Zepecki said.
Republicans cast the Democratic Party as in a state of disarray, frequently citing decisions by several potential candidates not to take on Walker, including Rep. Ron Kind, venture capitalist Mark Bakken and Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling.
“Wisconsin is a top 10 state for business and education with an unemployment rate at its lowest point since 2000, so it’s no surprise that serious Democrats are refusing to run against Wisconsin’s comeback,” said Walker’s campaign manager Joe Fadness
Milwaukee businessman and political newcomer Andy Gronik and state Rep. Dana Wachs, of Eau Claire, are two of the most frequently discussed possible candidates. At least a half-dozen more are possible.
Democrats quite obviously still can’t get past their seething hatred for Walker. And the list of Democrats who have declined to run dwarfs the list of those who might.
And the latter list may include, the Wisconsin State Journal reports:
Madison Mayor Paul Soglin said Saturday that he’s considering seeking the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018, the winner of which likely will challenge Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
It marked a reversal for Soglin, who said in December he had “no interest” in challenging Walker, who is very likely to seek a third term as governor.
Soglin said the surprising appeal of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, particularly in Wisconsin, is part of what changed his mind about a potential run for governor.
As a Madison liberal, Soglin told the Wisconsin State Journal Saturday, he used to believe it would be a struggle to sell himself to voters in a statewide election. But he noted Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist” with a large base of support in Madison, easily won the state’s 2016 Democratic presidential primary. Soglin was a Sanders delegate to last year’s Democratic National Convention.
“His success is one part of it,” Soglin said.
Soglin said he long has been encouraged to run for governor. What changed in recent months, he said, was the amount of encouragement he got from areas outside Dane County.
Soglin said Madison’s economic growth could be a focal point of a run for governor. He said Walker “is running around the state claiming economic victory” while much of the state’s job growth is happening in Dane County — a liberal area with a political philosophy that Soglin said is completely opposite of Walker’s.
“The (low) unemployment rate (Walker) boasts about is driven by what’s going on in the Madison area,” Soglin said. “If it can work here, it raises an interesting question: Can’t it work statewide?”
If there is anything more unpopular in Wisconsin than a Milwaukee mayor (two-time gubernatorial loser Tom Barrett), it would be a Madison mayor. As for Madison’s economic success, if you can’t grow jobs in a state capital and a home of a world-class university, there is no help for you. Soglin has for years deluded himself into believing that he has something to do with the city’s economic success, and of course he won’t take any blame for the city’s rising crime and violent crime rates, including Tuesday’s murder.
Soglin, by the way, is 72, three years younger than Comrade Bernie, who won Wisconsin because of how horrible a presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who is three years younger than Soglin.
Not that my parents were paying attention, but the number one song two days into my life was:
Twenty-eight years later, the number one song was by a group that sang about aging nearly two decades earlier:
I was one day old when the Rolling Stones released “Satisfaction”:
Four years later, the Beatles released “The Ballad of John and Yoko”:
The short list of birthdays today includes Roger Brown, who played saxophone for the Average White Band …
What, you ask, was the number one song on this day in 1972? Your Lincoln dealer is glad you asked:
Birthdays today include Monty Python’s favorite saxophonist, Boots Randolph:
Curtis Mayfield:
I don’t know what the movie “Jupiter Ascending” was about, but a review from Castalia House pointed out …
But the acting and the dialog is not what ultimately ruined this film. Structuring it around a female romantic lead did. Here’s why:
Stinger: Bees are genetically designed to recognize royalty.
Jupiter: Boy, are you going to be surprised when find out what I do for a living.
Stinger: It’s not what you do, it’s who you are.
This is an inherently anti-pulp premise that is being grafted onto an otherwise pitch perfect expression of classical space opera. Granted, Tarzan was Lord Greystoke. Arthur was the son of Uther. And Luke Skywalker turned out to be part of a space dynasty. “Who you are” does matter in these things. But what these characters do matters more. And these characters proving their worth and their mettle matters even more.
I don’t know why it is, but for some reason… the moment a male lead is swapped out with a female one, all of this stuff seems to go out the window. Men and women are not interchangeable. The stories that spring up around them are qualitatively different. There is a reason why Andre Norton and Leigh Brackett and C. L. Moore and Francis Stevens defaulted to male leads, after all. …
The story would have taken on an entirely different tone if it had been structured around the Channing Tatum character. A disgraced veteran having to take a lousy job as a mercenary…? The girl he’s hired to protect turns out to be much more important than anyone realizes. Adventure ensues. Chemistry happens. One thing leads to another, and the big lunk finds himself getting married to a genuine space princess after rescuing her from THE WRONG SORT OF GUY that would have been married to her for COUNTLESS MILLENNIA???!!
Frankly, female leads just aren’t up for something that awesome.
… about which Russell Newquist adds:
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend over the last four decades or so (and perhaps longer). The iconic heroes of my childhood were all ordinary men. Luke Skywalker, John McClain, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones, etc. At least, in their original incarnations.
Consider Luke Skywalker from A New Hope (and, for a moment, pretend that none of the other films exist). He’s a nobody farmer on a backwards planet. His parents aren’t amazing to speak of, and certainly aren’t shown as royalty. He’s the son of a knight, nothing more. Even so, it proves to be a huge step up from his own life. Yet he goes on to rescue the girl, defeat the bad guy, and save the rebellion.
Next consider Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Again, pretend that the other films don’t exist. He’s an ordinary, everyday American. His parents? Not even mentioned. He earns his position himself, through hard work.
John McClain? A New York cop, an ordinary guy. Rocky Balboa? Another nobody. Every single hero Heinlein ever wrote? Still ordinary, self-made men.
Now, consider the transformations even some of these same characters have undergone over the decades.
Luke Skywalker? It turns out he’s the scion of the greatest royal family in the galaxy.
Indiana Jones? His big-name archaeologist dad set the stage.
But who are the big pop culture heroes of the new millennium?
- Tony Stark, heir to a megafortune
- Harry Potter, “chosen one,” son of great, heroic, famous wizards.
- Thor – a literal god, and son of the Allfather.
- The Starks of Winterfell, descended from kings.
- Buffy the Vampire Slayer – another transformation from just a random girl to a “chosen one.”
The trend isn’t universal, but it trends distinctly in favor of aristocrats and away from self-made, ordinary men. This isn’t a healthy sign for our society. Indeed, it’s one more symptom of our devolution from democratic rule to aristocratic rule. Jeffro rightly picks up on this as being anti-pulp. Yet it’s more than that – it’s distinctly anti-American.
I leave with one last passing observation: note this particular moment and its distinct reactionary nature to this phenomenon. I cite this as one (of many) reasons that this franchise performed so well.
Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Die Hard — those I have seen, and more than once. (Yippie ki-yay, mother … uh, I hate snakes.) Han Solo, of course, is …
A comment on Newquist’s Facebook post adds:
If you reach back further, the troubling trend becomes even more obvious. Look at thrillers from the 60s and 70s, Alfred Hitchcock movies, westerns, WWII movies. Look at Marathon Man, Three Days of the Condor, Day if the Jackal, North by Northwest. Up until the 90s, it was almost a requirement that a true hero was ordinary, even anonymous. The less remarkable, the better. It is interesting that Die Hard was originally shopped out as a sequel to Commando. How completely forgettable that would’ve been! Instead, the entire hook of Die Hard was that the main character is just a solid NYC beat cop — the kind of dude you’d see drinking and smoking and joking at the local sports bar on Monday night. The hero’s ordinariness was the secret to the film’s excellence and success. …
Of course, what makes the hero of any story heroic is that he/she performs extraordinary deeds. But the sense in which we mean it here is the ordinariness of the protagonist’s background. Gary Cooper in “High Noon”, for another prime example.
To which Newquist replied:
The point is that in good ol’ fashioned American fiction, and the pulps, a hero can come from anywhere and doesn’t have to be born to the right family. This is a stark contrast to most European fairy tales (of the variety Disney has resurrected so well) and many other cultures, such as Greek heroes (who were mostly descended from the Gods themselves). …
And also in contrast to what American fiction is becoming in the contemporary era.
Which brought this response:
McClane is an Everyman. He embarks on the hero’s journey, an ordinary person whose extraordinary courage and character rises to the top because it has a reason to.
That brought up this point:
I don’t see anyone but a man with Tony Stark’s resources building that suit. It’s vastly different than the one he built in the cave. As to the “chosen one” trope, I think that’s been with us as well, especially when it comes to super-heroes. Every teenager struggling with being an outcast wants to be the “chosen one” because that justifies their “uniqueness.” With the extension of pre-adulthood well into the 20’s and even beyond, is it any wonder that the same archetypes continue to speak to us longer?
Which brought up this point:
Studio heads in the 40s and 50s knew that audiences instinctively responded more to Everyman characters, individuals who stand out (if at all) due to traits of character, rather than a “birthright”: their bravery, boldness, even mischief. The sort of aristocrat/ noble birth stories that we see now would’ve got nixed as poor writing back in the Golden Age, wouldn’t sell tickets.
And …
When you remove the ordinary man and substitute the aristocrat as the hero, you end up with a society that is conditioned to applaud the aristocrat and consider the ordinary as lesser than, deplorable even.
There’s a whole lot more here about the subject and whether conservatives read fiction anymore, including contributions from conservative and libertarian writers. I’ll stop quoting except for one more:
Contrast today’s man-bun-wearing, latte-sipping, “can I do this now”-spouting, bonobo/hyena-colony male with Heinlein’s Everyman:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
It’s certainly not surprising to find bad storytelling in the entertainment world. How many remakes (including Star Wars) have we seen in the past few years?
This is where I consider my action hero alter ego Super Steve, Man of Action!!! (Which came, believe it or don’t, a Wall Street Journal story about a company that would custom-make action dolls. I wish I could find the illustration.) Would you believe a journalist who sits at government meetings when someone runs in with bad-guy weapons only to be subdued by the journalist? (When’s that concealed-carry class?) To quote myself:
There have been two journalist/superheroes — Daily Sentinel publisher Brit Reid and Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent. This piece is about an action hero, not a superhero, but clearly the fiction world has been remiss in casting as an action hero someone who doesn’t fit the stereotype of journalists as, well, Oscar Madison. (Is that a reporter’s notebook or a pistol in his jacket? Good question. Too late, the bad guy discovers that Man of Action isn’t holding a Nikon D7000 camera; it’s a rocket launcher. Imagine a journalist who starts an interview and then ends it by shooting or otherwise permanently subduing the interviewee.)
I have got to figure out how to write that scene. Maybe something like: A bad guy is released from prison on a technicality. He tells the journalist interviewing him upon his release that, yes, he did kill the person for which he was charged with murder but let out.
ME: So what are you planning to do now?
BAD GUY: I’m going to go out and flaunt my wrongful release!
ME: Are you sure you should be making plans for your future?
BAD GUY: Why?
ME: Because you don’t have a future. (Quizzical look on bad guy’s face erased by my gunshot to his gut.) So what’s it like to die?
Newquist counts among his Notables Larry Correia, a libertarian fiction writer and a soldier in the cultural cold civil war between conservatives and libertarians on the correct side and Social Justice Warriors on the wrong side. Read Correia‘s recent thoughts for why you should be a fan of his.
I believe I’ve written here before (and if I didn’t, I am now!) that one major failing of entertainment, be it TV, movies or fiction of the kind we’re discussing here, is the negative portrayals, or nonexistence, of fathers and husbands. I’m not suggesting going back to the days of Jim Anderson (“Father Knows Best”) or Steve Douglas (“My Three Sons”), but since “The Cosby Show” ended it’s difficult to find shows where the male lead is a husband and father who may have quirks but is not a buffoon. (And there’s one fewer with the cancellation of ABC-TV’s “Last Man Standing,” or so I’m told.) One reason I can’t stand Disney Channel is that all the shows I accidentally watch seem to have fathers with two-digit IQs, along with irritatingly verbally precocious children who should be told to shut their mouths.
Almost half of Americans are married. I’d estimate that fewer than a quarter of adults portrayed on TV are married. I understand why that is — because the producers of dramas want their male heroes to have potential multiple love interests. Certainly TV series like “Moonlighting” jumped the shark when, in this case, the sexual tension between Dave and Maddie ended with their jumping into bed, and “Mad About You” jumped the shark when baby made three. Even series with relatively normal parents — for instance, “My So-Called Life” — had something off about the parents. (She was too bossy and he was too namby-pamby in this case. It must have been a ’90s thing.)
Off the top of my head my favorite father portrayal might have been either Dan Conner of “Roseanne” (who, by the way, is dead, but that may not matter for the reboot), or Hank Hill of “King of the Hill.” Dan worked hard to provide for his family, though he really didn’t have a handle on how to handle his daughters, and Roseanne talked too much. (Like whenever she opened her mouth.) Hank was a propane salesman who had a son he didn’t understand, but he strove to do the right thing. (Hank was certainly more normal than his friends.)
Of course, we fathers would be much wittier if we had writers writing for us. Imagine that Super Steve walks into his house.
STEVE’S HOT BLONDE WIFE: “How was your day?”
ME: “Fine. I shot the guy I was interviewing. He had it coming. At least he won’t claim he was misquoted.”
WIFE: “(Insert child’s name here) has a (insert sport event here) tonight.”
Actually, come to think of it that last line isn’t fiction.
Because the National Spelling Bee took place this week, Google Trends promoted this map:
Notice that Wisconsin is the only state that, according to Google Trends, has the biggest problem spelling its own name. People (Hawaii’s most queried word) have been making fun of Wisconsin for that reason, but I think that is less appalling than those in Oregon lacking the sense to know how “sense” is spelled, Are people in Rhode Island lying when they claim they can’t spell “liar”?
As an alleged spelling expert, I find this to be a stereotype-breaking map, Most people probably think North Carolina is in the Bible Belt, so why would “angel” be difficult to spell? Is Mississippi so poor that its residents don’t know what a “nanny” is, or West Virginia and Connecticut so unfamiliar with Disney works that neither state’s residents can spell “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”? (I’m sure you’ll agree that that is something quite atrocious.) Of course, as a former spelling bee contestant I can say that “Wisconsin” would never come up in a spelling bee, because proper nouns are not included in spelling bees.
One reason for Wisconsin’s difficulties with “Wisconsin” may have to do with what the always-accurate Wikipedia reports:
The word Wisconsin originates from the name given to the Wisconsin River by one of the Algonquian-speaking Native American groups living in the region at the time of European contact. French explorer Jacques Marquette was the first European to reach the Wisconsin River, arriving in 1673 and calling the river Meskousing in his journal. Subsequent French writers changed the spelling from Meskousing to Ouisconsin, and over time this became the name for both the Wisconsin River and the surrounding lands. English speakers anglicized the spelling from Ouisconsin to Wisconsin when they began to arrive in large numbers during the early 19th century. The legislature of Wisconsin Territory made the current spelling official in 1845.
The Algonquin word for Wisconsin and its original meaning have both grown obscure. Interpretations vary, but most implicate the river and the red sandstone that lines its banks. One leading theory holds that the name originated from the Miami word Meskonsing, meaning “it lies red”, a reference to the setting of the Wisconsin River as it flows through the reddish sandstone of the Wisconsin Dells. Other theories include claims that the name originated from one of a variety of Ojibwa words meaning “red stone place”, “where the waters gather”, or “great rock”.
So “Wisconsin” is a combination of Miami, Algonquin or Ojibwa and French, going from “Meskonsing” or “Meskousing” to “Ouisconsin” to “Wisconsin.” “Oui” means “yes” in French, for what it’s worth. Clear as mud (or “clair comme de la boue” en français), but the red references might explain the decision of the University of Wisconsin to adopt red (to be precise cardinal, as you know) as its color.
The more annoying issue that we residents of Red Water Rock (in order in French, “rouge,” “eau” and “roche”) face is national sports announcers’ inability to pronounce this state’s name correctly. Badger fans who didn’t get to Pasadena certainly enjoyed the 1994, 1999 and 2000 Rose Bowl wins, except for ABC-TV’s Bob Griese’s pronouncing “Wisconsin” with the accent on the first syllable instead of the second. (Griese is from Evansville, Ind., and played for Purdue. Some people argue that southern Indiana and southern Illinois are, or sound like they are, in the South, so perhaps that has something to do with it.)
If you think spelling in American English is difficult now, read Hannah Poindexter:
English has always been a living language, changing and evolving with use. But before our modern alphabet was established, the language used many more characters we’ve since removed from our 26-letter lineup. The six that most recently got axed are:
Eth (ð)
The y in ye actually comes from the letter eth, which slowly merged with y over time. In its purest form, eth was pronounced like the th sound in words like this, that or the. Linguistically, ye is meant to sound the same as the but the incorrect spelling and rampant mispronunciation live on.
Thorn (þ)
Thorn is in many ways the counterpart to eth. Thorn is also pronounced with a th sound, but it has a voiceless pronunciation — your vocal cords don’t vibrate when pronouncing the sound — like in thing or thought.
Today, the same th letter combo is used for both þ and ð sounds. There is a pronunciation difference — thorn is a voiceless pronunciation and eth is voiced — but that’s just something you pick up as you learn to speak. Of course, you’ll never hear about this in school, because that’s English for you.
Wynn (ƿ)
Wynn was incorporated into our alphabet to represent today’s w sound. Previously, scribes used two u characters next to each other, but preferred one character instead and chose wynn from the runic alphabet. The double u representation became quite popular and eventually edged wynn out. Ouch.
Yogh (ȝ)
Yogh was historically used to denote throaty sounds like those in Bach or the Scottish loch. As English evolved, yogh was quickly abandoned in favor of the gh combo. Today, the sound is fairly rare. Most often, the gh substitute is completely silent, as in though or daughter.
Ash (æ)
Ash is still a functional letter in languages like Icelandic and Danish. In its original Latin, it denoted a certain type of long vowel sound, like the i in fine. In Old English, it represented a short vowel sound — somewhere between a and e, like in cat. In modern English, æ is occasionally used stylistically, like in archæology or medæval, but denotes the same sound as the letter e.
Ethel (œ)
Ethel also once represented a specific pronunciation somewhere between the two vowels o and e, though it was originally pronounced like the oi in coil. Like many clarifying distinctions, this letter also disappeared in favor of a simpler vowel lineup (a, e, i, o, u) with many different pronunciations.
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 