Today is the 52nd anniversary of what I used to consider the greatest radio station on the planet in its best format:
Today is the 52nd anniversary of what I used to consider the greatest radio station on the planet in its best format:
You need not be a fan of Los Angeles Clippers owner (for now) Donald Sterling to notice the hypocrisy and selective outrage over his apparent views of non-whites.
Let’s start with former Clippers coach, and former Bucks player, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
I used to work for him, back in 2000 when I coached for the Clippers for three months. He was congenial, even inviting me to his daughter’s wedding. Nothing happened or was said to indicate he suffered from IPMS (Irritable Plantation Master Syndrome). Since then, a lot has been revealed about Sterling’s business practices:
- 2006: U.S. Dept. of Justice sued Sterling for housing discrimination. Allegedly, he said, “Black tenants smell and attract vermin.”
- 2009: He reportedly paid $2.73 million in a Justice Dept. suit alleging he discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, and families with children in his rentals. (He also had to pay an additional nearly $5 million in attorneys fees and costs due to his counsel’s “sometimes outrageous conduct.”)
- 2009: Clippers executive (and one of the greatest NBA players in history) sued for employment discrimination based on age and race.
And now the poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee. …
What bothers me about this whole Donald Sterling affair isn’t just his racism. I’m bothered that everyone acts as if it’s a huge surprise. Now there’s all this dramatic and very public rending of clothing about whether they should keep their expensive Clippers season tickets. Really? All this other stuff I listed above has been going on for years and this ridiculous conversation with his girlfriend is what puts you over the edge? That’s the smoking gun?
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then?
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he’s just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn’t lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He’s just another jerk with more money than brains.
Allen West continues:
There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years?
It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t.
The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk.
But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private.
So where do we go from here?
Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood –pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.
Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted. …
Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States? …
Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no.
We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella –regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values?
I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you?
Herman Cain adds:
It’s become a blood sport in this country to pounce all over people if they say things in the wrong way, and what Sterling said was certainly detestable. But people’s words represent those honest moments when attitudes are exposed for what they really are, and I don’t see how we do ourselves any favors when we demand that people who think ignorant thoughts keep them to themselves. Let’s hear it, and then let’s deal with it. Donald Sterling has been a pretty questionable character for a long time.
By the way, have you noticed that he is catching no heat whatsoever for the fact that he has a girlfriend while he also still has a wife? (A wife who is weirdly quite involved with the running of the team. Interesting family this appears to be.) I guess purveyors of the culture condemn racist words because doing so allows them to appear morally superior, but they don’t condemn adultery because they want to reserve the right to engage in it.
At any rate, I hope you realize that there is really no way forward here that is going to satisfy anyone. If Sterling forced to sell the franchise, he cashes out and walks away with a fortune. If he keeps it but sponsors bail, that mainly hurts the players and others who work for the team – many of whom are black, by the way.
And I don’t know about you, but I am just a wee bit uncomfortable with the idea that we “punish” people because they say horrendous things. There is no law against saying such things, which is not to say we all have to put up with racist morons. But I believe people who reveal themselves to be ignoramuses tend to pay their own price along the way, and I’d rather see it happen that way than see big official officialdom mete out official “punishments” for things that are awful but are also within people’s constitutional rights to do and say.
Selective moral outrage has unintended consequences, such as what Virginia Postrel points out:
Earlier this month, Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s foundation pledged $3 million for kidney research at UCLA and made an initial payment of $425,000. In Sterling’s customary self-aggrandizing fashion, he took out ads in the Los Angeles Times touting his own generosity. (Although the ads were written as though they came from UCLA, savvy L.A. Times readers know the distinctively cheesy style of Sterling’s ads, which look the same whether they’re promoting apartments or his latest charity honors.)
Now, not surprisingly, UCLA has decided to return the money. “Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion, and respect,” the university said in a press release.
All perfectly understandable.
But it means that Sterling’s racist comments have now cost researchers precious funding in the fight against a racially biased disease. Blacks are more than three times as likely as whites to develop kidney disease and account for a third of U.S. kidney patients. Outrage won’t help their cause.
The NBA could. The league in a unique position to raise money for and awareness of kidney disease, which suffers from a low public profile and lack of celebrity representatives. It could start by donating Sterling’s $2.5 million fine to the UCLA nephrology program to replace the lost funds. More important, over time, it could give this debilitating and deadly disease the attention it deserves — encouraging screening, raising money for research and promoting kidney donation. It could turn the negative spillovers from Sterling’s disgrace into something good.
This summer presents the perfect opportunity for the NBA to embrace kidney disease as a cause. On August 8, Alonzo Mourningwill be inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. NBA fans know him as a defensive great and long-time center for the Miami Heat. He is also one of the country’s most famous kidney transplant recipients. His cousin Jason Cooper, who gave him the kidney, will be with him for the honors. Sports reporters will undoubtedly tell their story again. The league has a chance to add a new chapter.
And prying the Clippers away from Sterling (and his wife, who also owns the team) won’t be easy as some may think. Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:
Donald Sterling began his professional life as a personal-injury and divorce lawyer, and he is no stranger to taking on cases that other attorneys would find too distasteful to touch.
He has created just such a case for himself in the matter of Sterling v. World, the upshot of a recorded conversation between Sterling and his multiracial mistress in which the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, a noted employer of blacks, reveals that he’s really not all that fond of such folks.
The story is a lot more complicated than that – any story that also includes an aggrieved wife’s suing the mistress for the $1.8 million in gifts and favors bestowed by the hubby is plenty complicated – but that’s the heart of the tale. Sterling, who has been sort of a dottering dirtbag for years, was gotcha’d by an angry girlfriend and is suffering the consequences as meted out Tuesday by NBA commissioner Adam Silver. …
What we do know, however, is enough to render a judgment on Sterling. What he said was reprehensible – drunk, sober, or entrapped – and can’t be tolerated. Worse yet, it was bad for business.
The NBA studied the situation for two days before Silver walked out and handed down the death sentence. Sterling can’t go to games, practices, or the office. He can’t handle any of the business dealings of the franchise. The commissioner will ask the other owners to kick him out of the club, forcing Sterling, the longest-tenured owner in the NBA, to sell the team and disappear.
It was a harsh sentence, but not a difficult one for Silver to deliver. He was congratulated for strong action, and anybody who thinks he overstepped must be a racist, too. Everyone in the NBA hierarchy, including Dallas owner Mark Cuban, who previously worried about the “slippery slope” of ejecting unpopular owners, fell into line and joined the applause.
That’s fine as far as it goes, and the NBA would hardly miss the presence of Sterling, who has made a lot of money with business practices that grind down the civil rights of minorities, but any expectation that Sterling will take his whupping and leave is overly optimistic. The man is 80 years old, worth nearly $2 billion, is a fantastic egotist, and did we mention he cut his teeth chasing ambulances down the block? Shaming Donald Sterling is not an afternoon’s work.
Sterling has five days to respond to the commissioner. He will certainly find himself in a legal bind, since the NBA constitution virtually forces owners to sign away their litigation rights when judged by their peers to have screwed up the business in a dreadful financial or ethical way. Ted Stepien, briefly the owner of the Cavaliers, was encouraged to sell his team after nearly bankrupting it with terrible personnel decisions and his stated belief that half the roster should be Caucasian to attract fans.
That is an obstacle, but it is unlikely to keep Sterling from fighting back. He knows the commissioner’s actions were at least partially motivated by the bad publicity that caused some team sponsors to flee. He also knows that the league didn’t do anything when he was the subject of a Department of Justice investigation into his systematic unwillingness to rent residential properties to blacks and Latinos. …
Where the NBA is vulnerable – if that is its position on the past – is that Sterling hasn’t been convicted of a crime this time, either, aside from the crime of being a backward cretin. If that were prosecutable, you couldn’t build enough jails in this country. And further, Sterling will argue that the context of what happened was private and had nothing to do with his business or how it is run.
He might not be able to win, but $2 billion will buy a whole lot of billable hours for his legal staff, and this thing and the bad publicity Silver and the NBA want to quash could drag on for years. Will the other NBA owners really stay in line and strip Sterling of a holding worth $700 million if they think he might prevail and then sting them for monstrous damages?
It’s an interesting question, and like the entire matter, there is no precedent to use as a guide. What we know is that this is all about public perception, and that nothing could be of less interest to Donald Sterling. He will fight.
George S. Will on the adolescent occupant of the White House — him, not his daughters:
Recently, Barack Obama — a Demosthenes determined to elevate our politics from coarseness to elegance; a Pericles sent to ameliorate our rhetorical impoverishment — spoke at the University of Michigan. He came to that very friendly venue — in 2012, he received 67 percent of the vote in Ann Arbor’s county — after visiting a local sandwich shop, where a muse must have whispered in the presidential ear. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) had recently released his budget, so Obama expressed his disapproval by calling it, for the benefit of his academic audience, a “meanwich” and a “stinkburger.”
Try to imagine Franklin Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower or John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan talking like that. It is unimaginable that those grown-ups would resort to japes that fourth-graders would not consider sufficiently clever for use on a playground.
When Theodore Roosevelt was president, one of his good friends — he had been best man at TR’s 1886 wedding — was the British diplomat Cecil Spring Rice . So, when visitors to Washington wanted to learn about TR, they asked Rice about him, and Springie, as TR called him, would say: “You must always remember that the president is about 6.” Today’s president is older than that. But he talks like an arrested-development adolescent.
Anyone who has tried to engage a member of that age cohort in an argument probably recognizes the four basic teenage tropes, which also are the only arrows in Obama’s overrated rhetorical quiver. He employed them all last week when he went to the White House briefing room to exclaim, as he is wont to do, about the excellence of the Affordable Care Act.
First came the invocation of a straw man. Celebrating the ACA’s enrollment numbers, Obama, referring to Republicans, charged: “They said nobody would sign up.” Of course, no one said this. Obama often is what political philosopher Kenneth Minogue said of an adversary — “a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.”
Adolescents also try to truncate arguments by saying that nothing remains of any arguments against their arguments. Regarding the ACA, Obama said the debate is “settled” and “over.” Progressives also say the debate about catastrophic consequences of man-made climate change is “over,” so everyone should pipe down. And they say the debates about the efficacy of universal preschool, and the cost-benefit balance of a minimum-wage increase, are over. Declaring an argument over is so much more restful than engaging with evidence.
A third rhetorical move by argumentative adolescents is to declare that there is nothing to argue about because everything is going along swimmingly. Seven times Obama asserted that the ACA is “working.” That is, however, uninformative because it is ambiguous. The ethanol program is “working” in the sense that it is being implemented as its misguided architects intended. Nevertheless, the program is a substantial net subtraction from the nation’s well-being. The same can be said of sugar import quotas, or agriculture subsidies generally, or many hundreds of other government programs that are, unfortunately, “working.”
Finally, the real discussion-stopper for the righteous — and there is no righteousness like an adolescent’s — is an assertion that has always been an Obama specialty. It is that there cannot be honorable and intelligent disagreement with him. So last week, less than two minutes after saying that the argument about the ACA “isn’t about me,” Obama said some important opposition to the ACA is about him, citing “states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other reason than political spite.”
This, he said, must be spiteful because expanding Medicaid involves “zero cost to these states.” Well. The federal government does pay the full cost of expansion — for three years. After that, however, states will pay up to 10 percent of the expansion’s costs, which itself will be a large sum. And the 10 percent figure has not been graven on stone by the finger of God. It can be enlarged whenever Congress wants, as surely it will, to enable more federal spending by imposing more burdens on the states. Yet Obama, who aspired to tutor Washington about civility, is incapable of crediting opponents with other than base motives.
Irrelevant yet amusing-t0-me side note: Note that Will called Obama “a Demosthenes.” Writing about Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management, Doug Giles, or his headline writer, wrote: “Bundy Made Boomhaeur Sound Like Demosthenes and Yet, Big Government Still Sucks.”
Of course, viewers of Fox’s “King of the Hill” know it’s not “Boomhaeur,” it’s Jeffrey Dexter “Wheels” Boomhauer III, as in:
The number one single today in 1965:
Today in 1970, the Jimi Hendrix Experience played the first of its 13-show U.S. tour at the Milwaukee Auditorium:
Walt Hickey discusses geographic self-identification:
Here’s a somewhat regular argument I get in: Which states make up which regions of the United States? Some of these regions — the West Coast, Mountain States, Southwest and Northeast are pretty clearly defined — but two other regions, the South and the Midwest, are more nebulous.
I’m from New York, and I generally consider anything west of Philadelphia the Midwest. This admittedly unsophisticated designation is frequently criticized by self-avowed Midwesterners. My boss, originally of Michigan, has many opinions about what, precisely, falls into the Midwest. So I decided to find out which states Midwesterners consider to be in their territory.
To get this broad-based view, we asked SurveyMonkey Audience to ask self-identified Midwesterners which states make the cut. We ran a national survey that targeted the Midwest from March 12 to March 17, with 2,778 respondents. Of those, 1,357 respondents identified “a lot” or “some” as a Midwesterner. We then asked this group to identify the states they consider part of the Midwest.
There are a lot of things here worth looking into. First, many people aren’t too sure about where the core of the Midwest is. Everybody selected at least one state for the question. But even Illinois — home of the preeminent Midwestern city, Chicago — was identified as Midwestern by just about 80 percent of respondents. …
Several self-proclaimed Midwestern sources I spoke with have a very limited definition of the Midwest: namely, their state and any state bordering it. Minnesotans thought they made up the true Midwest; Hoosiers thought they did. I can’t say either way. …
Indiana, Iowa and Illinois appear to be the core of the Midwest, each pulling more than 70 percent of the vote (that may partly be because of their substantial populations). Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota each pulled at least 60 percent of the vote, so we can probably put them in the Midwest without too much fuss. Ohio, Missouri and Kansas each got more than half.
As for the rest of the states, it seems unclear whether they’re in the true Midwest.
If anything, the Midwest is as nebulous as I’d expected. Too often, people refer to vast swaths of American territory as a solid region. It’s easy to break Americans into tribes such as “Midwestern,” but there are more subdivisions and diversity in these groupings than we generally acknowledge.
The first and most obvious question: If Wisconsin isn’t in the Midwest, where are we? The Great White North? (Better not answer that one. For this week we’re in The Great Gray North.)
This comes up when comparing states of the Midwest on such issues as business climate, because to compare Midwestern states, you have to define “Midwestern.”
One obvious definition would be to use the states of the Big Ten Conference — Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. Well, that’s the old Big Ten Conference, until Penn State joined. (Even though it could be argued that maybe western Pennsylvania is sort of Midwestern, but eastern Pennsylvania definitely is not.) Then Nebraska joined the now-Big T1e2n; Nebraska might be in the Midwest, but it’s also part of the Plains. And now that definition is obsolete with Rutgers and Maryland joining next year. No one with any brain cells thinks Maryland and New Jersey are in the Midwest.
Missouri seems to be in the Midwest according to the sports media, at least the sports media covering the St. Louis Cardinals. If Nebraska is in the Midwest, what about Kansas to the south and the Dakotas to the north? And what about Kentucky, which is mostly equidistant to the upper Midwest as Missouri?
I haven’t experienced this personally, but I’ve read numerous times that southern Illinois and Indiana seem to some more like the South — again, however you define that — than the Midwest.
This also comes up in, of all places, weather. The Farmers Almanac puts Wisconsin and everything else Midwest that is east of the Mississippi River in the “Midwest/Great Lakes.” West of that is the “North Central U.S.”

The Old Farmers Almanac divides the country into 18 weather areas …

… with Wisconsin split thrice. We southwesterners are supposedly in the Heartland, while Milwaukee and thereabouts are in the Lower Lakes, and the rest of the state is in the Upper Midwest.
Toyota’s announcement that it’s moving its U.S. headquarters from Torrance, Calif., to Plano, Texas, is raising interest.
As you can imagine, they’re not happy in Torrance, according to Reuters:
Torrance Mayor Frank Scotto, looking grim, said outside city hall on Monday that he had been blindsided by the move. A few feet away sat Pat Simpson, a Torrance resident for over 60 years, with her head in her hands. “Why do they want to tear this place apart?” Simpson, 72, asked. …
The two biggest employers in Torrance, which has a population of 147,000 according to city figures, are Toyota and Honda. Both have about 4,000 employees. Losing Toyota will mean an annual loss of $1.2 million in tax revenue, Scotto said, but the emotional toll and wider economic impact will be much bigger, he said. …
Whether the city can replace Toyota, and fill the 101-acre business park and headquarters it will leave behind, remains to be seen. Scotto said the city had a short list of companies similar to Toyota that are being courted to replace the Japanese car maker.
But conceding that the battle to keep Toyota was lost before it had even begun – “the train has already left the station,” Scotto said – he also said it takes the state of California, not a small city such as Torrance, to stop large manufacturers from leaving the Golden State.
Frank Portillo, a co-owner of Los Chilaquiles Mexican Grill next to the Toyota headquarters said he did not blame Toyota, although he might lose business himself. “The taxes are lower in Texas. There are fewer regulations. It’s cheaper for a company there. Why wouldn’t they leave California?”
Dale Buss sees it as a business climate issue:
For Japanese auto brands, the logic of keeping their U.S. sales and administrative arms in California is breaking down under the outsized penalties of conducting business in the Golden State and the changing dynamics of the North American automotive industry. So Toyota is leaving, according to Automotive News.
And where is Japan’s biggest automaker relocating its sales and marketing operations in America? Why, North Texas, of course. The move to Plano, Texas, will involve most of the 5,000 managers and employees at Toyota’s current Torrance, Calif., headquarters, the magazine said.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry apparently didn’t even have to make a recruiting trip to southern California to get Toyota to do this, although he has helped lure plenty of companies with that gambit over the last several years.
And yet Texas has scored one of the biggest prizes so far in its very focused, state-on-state battle with the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown to get plum companies now headquartered in California to abandon the bluest state for the reddest one.
Clearly, Perry caressed a trump card in the fact that Toyota has enjoyed a deep relationship with Texas through its $2.2-billion truck-assembly complex near San Antonio.
Plus, the fact is that, as Toyota has become a more U.S.-centric company with important assets all over the country, it makes sense for the Japanese market leader to distribute its operations in a new way. Toyota’s 14 North American manufacturing facilities now build 71 percent of the vehicles the company sells in the United States, up from 55 percent in 2008.
A half-century ago, Toyota and other Japanese brands clustered in southern California when they began their assault on the U.S. market because California offered the single best market opportunity for Asian brands coming to America and because the state’s location closest to Japan made logistics easiest.
For most of the time since then, California’s justified reputation as America’s automotive, societal, cultural, and economic bellwether continued to ratify the Japanese brands’ focus there. Consider how Toyota was able to grow its Prius hybrid line into the segment’s dominant brand by starting with an emphasis in California.
But now Toyota and most of it Japanese rivals are treating North America like their domestic market — meaning that a California lens isn’t always the best one. Maybe a new headquarters in Flyover Country will be. …
Besides, California’s business climate is becoming an even bigger downer. California has become infamous with business executives and owners there not only for high tax rates and complex taxing schemes but also for overzealous regulations and regulators that have managed to stifle the entrepreneurial energy of thousands of companies.
Even Hollywood movie studios have been souring about producing flicks in California, increasingly reckoning that the sweet tax breaks and assistance packages now offered by so many other states offset the legacy advantages and ideal production climate in California.
About the only vast remaining pocket of dynamism in the California economy is Silicon Valley, where the mastery of the global digital economy by companies ranging from Google GOOG +1.31% to Hewlett-Packard HPQ +2.27% has become so complete that they have been able to succeed despite the home-state business landscape.
In the annual Chief Executive magazine “Best States / Worst States” ranking that surveys CEOs for their opinions, Texas has been holding on to the No. 1 spot for a while; California seems permanently relegated to No. 50.
As Automotive News put it, “Despite the deep, creative talent pool in greater Los Angeles, doing business in California has become more expensive for companies and their workers.” Bestplaces.net said that the cost of living for employees is 39 percent higher in Torrance than in Plano, and housing costs are 63 percent lower in Plano.
Virginia Postrel follows up on cost of living:
Employees who relocate are in for a surprise. Contrary to the image promulgated by both critics and boosters, Texas is not an alien planet populated by barbarians with big hair.
With its cheap suburban housing and good public schools, Plano in fact offers a 21st-century version of the middle-class California dream that built towns like Torrance. It’s just been updated, with more immigrants, better restaurants and a lot more marble countertops.
In contrasting Texas and California, politicians and pundits tend to emphasize taxes and business regulation. But for most people on a day-to-day basis, the biggest difference between the two is the cost of housing.
Although Plano is one of the country’s richest cities, with a highly educated population and a median income of $85,333 compared to Torrance’s $70,061, it offers a much wider range of housing options. You can pay nearly $7 million for a five-acre estate in Plano — $3 million more than the most expensive listing in Torrance — but the average home costs less than $200,000, compared to $552,000 in Torrance. A Redfin search for three-bedroom houses costing less than $400,000 turns up 149 in Plano versus four in Torrance; lowering the threshold to $300,000 cuts the Plano supply to 73, while yielding nothing in Torrance.
As I’ve written elsewhere, Plano’s combination of inexpensive real estate and excellent public schools has cultural consequences. It allows for more traditional lifestyles, since many families don’t need a second income to live a comfortable middle-class life. Many mothers choose to stay at home or to work, often part-time, for personal fulfillment and luxuries such as family vacations. For both men and women, a life oriented around work rather than family is less common than in coastal enclaves of similarly highly educated people.
Simultaneously cosmopolitan and traditional, Plano will undoubtedly turn off some Toyota transplants. The conversational assumption that everyone belongs to a religious congregation of some kind — if not Christian, then Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist — will create culture shock. But a lot of people will discover that they can have a lifestyle they thought was a vanished American dream. As long as that’s true, companies are going to keep moving to Texas.
I’ve stated here before that Wisconsin needs to follow Texas‘ policies more than California’s. Texas has economically outperformed the entire country in the Obama economy.
Getting a car company the size of Toyota to move to Wisconsin isn’t going to happen since Chrysler (formerly in Milwaukee and Kenosha) and GM (formerly in Janesville) don’t have assembly plants here anymore. But when businesses with big facilities in one state leave that state for another, there are lessons politicians paying attention should learn.
The number one single today in 1960:
The number one British album today in 1966 was the Rolling Stones’ “Aftermath”:
Decide for yourself whether the various Republican presidential candidates meet the standards of Ronald Reagan, in Reagan’s words and the words of Paul Kengor, author of 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative:
1. Freedom
“this freedom principle was not just an American principle; for Reagan, it was a universal principle. Freedom was not the exclusive domain of Americans. Reagan said that freedom was one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.” All humans aspire to freedom. And when governments permit people to express their aspiration for freedom, especially in the economic sphere, freedom works. Reagan told the United Nations flatly, “the free market…works.” Conservatives thus needed to be freedom fighters. According to Reagan, conservatives should not simply be anti-big government or anti-communist or against high taxes and burdensome regulations, but, in the positive, “keepers of the flame of liberty.” By Reagan’s recounting, a conservative conserved freedom.”
…”There is, said Reagan, a spiritual center at the “heart of freedom.” It is there because each of us is made in the image of God “the creator.” It is this that is truly “our power” and “our freedom.” Honoring freedom was thus “redeeming” in the eyes of God. The Creator had created freedom. He had created man. He had created us to be free. Honoring freedom meant honoring the Creator and our divine right.”
2. Faith
“For the conservative, freedom requires faith; it should never be decoupled from faith. Freedom not rooted in faith can lead to moral anarchy, which in turn, creates social and cultural chaos. Freedom without faith is the Las Vegas strip, not the City of God. Freedom without faith begets license and invites vice rather than virtue. Faith infuses the soul with a sanctifying grace that allows humans in a free society to love and serve their neighbors, to think about more than themselves. We aspire to our better angels when our faith nurtures and elevates our free will. …
…[During a speech at Georgetown in 1988]: “He asked his audience to pray that America be guided by learning, faith and freedom. He quoted Alexis de Tocqueville…”Tocqueville said in 1835, and it’s as true today as it was then: ‘Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is more needed in democratic societies than any other. ‘” With a nod to his academic audience, Reagan warned “Learning is a good thing, but unless it’s tempered by faith and a love of freedom, it can be very dangerous indeed. The names of many intellectuals are recorded on the rolls of infamy, from Robespierre to Lenin to Ho Chi Minh to Pol Pot.”
3. Family
“It is in a family that children are not only cared for but, said Reagan, “taught the moral values and traditions that give order and stability to our lives and to society as a whole.”…In a decidedly conservative sentiment, Reagan insisted that it is up to families to “preserve and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish.”…Reagan insisted that our “concept of the family” “must withstand the trends of lifestyle and legislation.” And concepts like fatherhood, said Reagan, should mean what they have always meant in America…Not every new change or new law is right, nor is (said Reagan) every fad or fashion. “Progress” does not always progress toward the good (quite the contrary), especially when it latches on to the latest cultural dictate or fancy. The family, which is always older than the newest law or license, is a bulwark against the prevailing zeitgeist or latest cultural twaddle about ‘lifestyle.”…
4. Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
“Reagan’s concern for the right to life was…an outgrowth of his faith. The right to life was an issue he found inseparable from the life of Christ.In a January 1984 speech to religious broadcasters, he said, “God’s most blessed gift to his family is the gift of life. He sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in the manger.” Like nineteenth-century clergy who led the movement to abolish slavery, Reagan as a Christian saw himself as duty-bound to fight abortion, which he equated with slavery in terms of moral outrage and deprivation of human dignity. …
5. American exceptionalism
“In his [Reagan’s] partings words from the Oval Office, he said that he wanted an “informed patriotism,” and asked, “Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?…”…Reagan feared “an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let’s start with some basics: more attention to history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.” He hoped that not only educators but also parents would not fail the essential civic task, a task he saw as quintessentially American. With a smile for his national audience, Reagan gently asked children to hold their parents accountable, chiding, “And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do. A very American thing to do. For Reagan, it was as American as a shining city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed. An exceptional America. That’s how Ronald Reagan saw it.”
6. The Founders’ wisdom and vision
Reagan went to the Founders on behalf of emphasizing the importance of limited government, the significance of faith to America and its people, and the inherited exceptionalism of America–as a “Shining City” with a special destiny for all mankind. In his own time, he portrayed a nation with people facing another historic challenge two centuries beyond the American Revolution: a Cold War challenge. He borrowed the ideals and principles of the Founders in coloring a portrait of the American nation and system in this new challenging period. He contrasted that nation and its system with the totalitarian system of the USSR. And the America he portrayed to its people and the wider world in the 1980s was still the Founders’ America. He evinced an abiding, ongoing patriotic and intellectual loyalty to their thoughts and vision. Their vision would sustain us still, in yet another challenge. In short, Reagan connected his vision of government with that of the Founders. …
7. Lower taxes
“Reagan came to see the counterproductive nature of these excessive taxes. He thought the top rates so punitive they discouraged work, including his own. The so-called B movie actor was one of the top box-office draws at Warner Brothers. Reagan saw no incentive in continuing to work–that is, make more movies–once his income hit the top rate. He realized who suffered from that choice. It wasn’t Reagan; he was wealthy. It was the custodians, cafeteria ladies, camera crew, and working folks on the studio lot. They lost work. They lost money. Reagan was appalled. In speeches in the 1950s and 1960s, he blasted the progressive income tax as “right out of” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Indeed, the Manifesto calls for “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” It is point two in Marx’s ten-point program, second only to his call for “abolition of property.” Reagan viewed such rates–and the government beat that they fed–as symptomatic of what he called “creeping socialism.”
8. Limited government
“Reagan felt that by January 1981, when he was inaugurated, the federal government had subsumed far too many roles and duties that should have been left to the private sector or to local and states governments. As noted, he believed that FDR saw the New Deal as merely a “temporary measure” during a time of “national emergency.” He speculated that FDR would not have advocated a permanent cradle-to-grave system that deterred so many Americans from financial independence and prosperity. Again, Reagan felt that this had only gotten worse–much worse–with LBJ’s Great Society. All of these liberal “good intentions” had merely helped foster a “dependency class.” And as government grew, so did tax rates to fuel the federal Leviathan. When Reagan invoked the mantra of “freedom,” it was about freedom not only from Soviet/communist tyranny abroad, but also from out-of-control big government at home.”
9. Peace through strength
“Reagan long maintained that a buildup in U.S. military strength would decrease the likelihood of war and increase the likelihood of peace. It would also, he predicted, bring the Soviet Union to the negotiating table to reduce nuclear missile arsenals. American needed to build up its weaponry before both superpowers could build down. Thus, Reagan believed that heightened defense spending was worthwhile even if it heightened the overall budget deficit The trade-off justified the cost. …
10. Anti-communism
As for Reagan, driven as he was by the “twin beacons” of faith and freedom, he was aghast at the communist war on religion. He saw himself as a voice for the voiceless in the communist world, those captive peoples languishing in the “heart of darkness.” He unhesitatingly labeled the Soviet empire an “Evil Empire.”
When Reagan did so, his courageous candor and expression of undeniable truth was met with revulsion. Liberals blasted his (alleged) saber rattling and bellicosity. Nonetheless, Reagan held firm. In later defending himself for having dared to utter the truth about communism, he explained, “For too long our leaders were unable to describe the Soviet Union as it actually was…I’ve always believed, however, that it’s important to define differences.
And what were those differences? Said Reagan, “The Soviet system over the years has purposely starved, murdered, and brutalized its own people. Millions were killed; it’s all right there in the history books. It put other citizens it disagreed with into psychiatric hospitals, sometimes drugging them into oblivion. Is the system that allowed this not evil? Then why shouldn’t we say so?” …
11. Belief in the individual
In America, every person was and is a sacred reality. It was a “profound truth,” said Reagan, that the “soul,” more than the “physical,” was “truly important.” Because they have eternal souls, individuals are incomparably more important than a temporal state. For a noneternal state to attempt to deny an eternal individual was intolerable and unacceptable.
To Reagan, the individual is always superior to the state; the former is forever, the latter is fleeting. The individual takes form in the womb and remains just as vital throughout all stages of life. No matter what its stage or nation, the individual has a sacred dignity that must always be protected and defended.
To a conservative, surely a Reagan conservative, every individual is special, unique, a potential producer with value and new dreams and ideas, one who adds to the world, not subtracts from it; every new individual is not to be lamented as yet another burden on the state, on poverty rolls, on redistribution, on “overpopulation,” on the environment’s precious “limited” resources, as another mouth the government must feed. Every new individual, beginning in the womb, holds promise and is to be welcomed, not feared, shunned, and certainly not destroyed.”
Arguably Reagan didn’t always follow his own principles. The 21-year-old drinking age, enforced on the states by threatening to withhold federal highway funds, is a violation of freedom, limited government and a failure of belief in the individual. The growth of government didn’t stop, though it may have flattened out to some extent. (Of course, the tradeoff of bigger deficits and debt for the eventual destruction of the Soviet Union would seem worthwhile to those who do not recall the Cold War fondly.)
The historians’ question is: Did Reagan leave the U.S. in better condition than he found it? That’s easy to answer. Reagan got to work on fixing Jimmy Carter’s multiple messes. Barack Obama has spent his five years in office (it only seems longer) blaming George W. Bush for all his problems and demonizing Obama’s opposition. That’s not very presidential.
One other thing: Reagan loved his country, regardless of who was in charge in Washington. Obama doesn’t.
Today in 1976, after a concert in Memphis, Bruce Springsteen scaled the walls of Graceland … where he was arrested by a security guard.
Today in 2003, a $5 million lawsuit filed by a personal injury lawyer against John Fogerty was dismissed.
The lawyer claimed he suffered hearing loss at a 1997 Fogerty concert.
The judge ruled the lawyer assumed the risk of hearing loss by attending the concert. The lawyer replied, “What?”
One of my favorite liberals, Camille Paglia, sees the sham that is the 21-year-old drinking age:
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts and serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant. The age-21 rule sets the U.S. apart from all advanced Western nations and lumps it with small or repressive countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Congress was stampeded into this puritanical law by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who with all good intentions were wrongly intruding into an area of personal choice exactly as did the hymn-singing 19th century temperance crusaders, typified by Carrie Nation smashing beer barrels with her hatchet. Temperance fanaticism eventually triumphed and gave us 14 years of Prohibition. That in turn spawned the crime syndicates for booze smuggling, laying the groundwork for today’s global drug trade. Thanks a lot, Carrie!
Now that marijuana regulations have been liberalized in Colorado, it’s time to strike down this dictatorial national law. Government is not our nanny. The decrease in drunk-driving deaths in recent decades is at least partly attributable to more uniform seat-belt use and a strengthening of DWI penalties. Today, furthermore, there are many other causes of traffic accidents, such as the careless use of cell phones or prescription drugs like Ambien — implicated in the recent trial and acquittal of Kerry Kennedy for driving while impaired.
Learning how to drink responsibly is a basic lesson in growing up — as it is in wine-drinking France or in Germany, with its family-oriented beer gardens and festivals. Wine was built into my own Italian-American upbringing, where children were given sips of my grandfather’s homemade wine. This civilized practice descends from antiquity. Beer was a nourishing food in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and wine was identified with the life force in Greece and Rome: In vino veritas (In wine, truth). Wine as a sacred symbol of unity and regeneration remains in the Christian Communion service. Virginia Woolf wrote that wine with a fine meal lights a “subtle and subterranean glow, which is the rich yellow flame of rational intercourse.”
What this cruel 1984 law did is deprive young people of safe spaces where they could happily drink cheap beer, socialize, chat and flirt in a free but controlled public environment. Hence in the 1980s we immediately got the scourge of crude binge drinking at campus fraternity keg parties, cut off from the adult world. Women in that boorish free-for-all were suddenly fighting off date rape. Club drugs — ecstasy, methamphetamine, ketamine (a veterinary tranquilizer) — surged at raves for teenagers and on the gay male circuit scene.
Alcohol relaxes, facilitates interaction, inspires ideas and promotes humor and hilarity. Used in moderation, it is quickly flushed from the system, with excess punished by a hangover. But deadening pills, such as today’s massively overprescribed antidepressants, linger in body and brain and may have unrecognized long-term side effects. Those toxic chemicals, often manufactured by shadowy firms abroad, have been worrisomely present in a recent uptick of unexplained suicides and massacres. Half of the urban professional class in the U.S. seems doped on meds these days.
As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but there are many problems with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and willpower and can produce physiological feminization in men. Also, it is difficult to measure the potency of plant-derived substances like pot. With brand-name beer or liquor, however, purchased doses have exactly the same strength and purity from one continent to another, with no fear of contamination by dangerous street additives like PCP.
Exhilaration, ecstasy and communal vision are the gifts of Dionysus, god of wine. Alcohol’s enhancement of direct face-to-face dialogue is precisely what is needed by today’s technologically agile generation, magically interconnected yet strangely isolated by social media. Clumsy hardcore sexting has sadly supplanted simple hanging out over a beer at a buzzing dive. By undermining the art of conversation, the age-21 law has also had a disastrous effect on our arts and letters, with their increasing dullness and mediocrity.
That last paragraph may be a leap into Conclusionland, but the rest certainly makes sense. Yes, alcohol can be a gateway drug to harder drugs, but so can marijuana. Yes, alcohol poses problems in society, but legal drugs do. (The most common gateway to heroin? Prescription painkillers.)
There is no question that the 21-year-old drinking age has had the unintended side-effect of encouraging binge drinking. Police are dealing with, in some ways, bigger alcohol-related programs when the 21-year-old national drinking age was supposed to eliminate all that. And any police officer in a college town — except perhaps college towns where the college is a Bible college — that they write a lot of underage-drinking tickets.
There is an opening here for the Republican Party if the GOP had more Republicans like U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and less government-is-good-when-we’re-in-charge Republicans. Glenn Harlan Reynolds wrote last year:
Republicans do badly with young voters, and one of the main reasons is that they’re seen as uncool. This is probably unfair — it’s not Republicans who are imposing college speech codes on students — but it’s the perception.
As a reader of my blog named Jeff Wimble wrote:
“Everything comes down to the movie ‘Footloose.’ For a large majority of people, thepolitical question is, ‘How would the sanctimonious preacher from the movie ‘Footloose’ feel about this subject?’ They answer the question, and then take the opposite position.
“This mind-set is absolutely ingrained in a lot of people my age (a couple of years younger than Gen-X). For every preachy moral conservative I’ve met in real life, I’ve seen 20 on TV. For each Baptist I know in real life, I’ve seen 10 in movies. To me, they are all the preacher from ‘Footloose.’ ”
OK, the media do their best to give that impression — for example, playing up the unfortunate rape comments of Missouri Republican candidate Todd Akin, and playing down the equally unfortunate rape comments of Colorado Democratic legislator Joe Salazar.
But it’s also true that the GOP doesn’t do as much as it can to counter the “Footloose” factor. So here are a couple of suggestions.
First, get rid of the federally mandated 21-year-old drinking age. Introduced by Republicans (it was spearheaded by Elizabeth Dole) in the 1980s, it was always a lousy idea. The result has been more, not less, alcohol abuse on campus, as student drinkers have moved from public venues, where there was supervision, to dorm rooms and frat houses, where there’s less.
And it’s fundamentally unfair. At 18, people can sign contracts, get married and sign up for student loans that will haunt them for decades. They can join the military and go off to die in foreign lands. But federal law presumes they’re too immature to have a beer.
Would the preacher from “Footloose” support repealing the federal drinking-age mandate? No. And that’s yet another reason for Republicans to do so.
Cellphones are another place where young people are oppressed by The Man. As of this year, unlocking your cellphone — putting in a new SIM card so that you can use it with the carrier of your choice — is a felony for which you can potentially get five years in prison and a half-million-dollar fine.
This benefits cellphone carriers, who can lock you into their networks — but not the users of cellphones, a group that includes pretty much everyone under 30. The College Republicans have already come out in favor of repealing this prohibition; their older counterparts — you know, the ones in Congress — should follow their lead.
As a bonus, this ban actually comes courtesy of a librarian. You see, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits something called “circumvention” technology — and leaves interpretation of that broad yet vague term to the Librarian of Congress, who recently ruled in favor of the carriers.
In fact, the GOP should take the lead in revising the DMCA (and other onerous intellectual-property laws). The act generally lets motion-picture and record-industry moguls exploit their consumers, who are disproportionately young. It’s been used to shut down many music-sharing sites, readers for the blind, and other technologies. …
There are a lot of opportunities along these lines, and a smart, young, libertarian-leaning Republican in the Senate — like, say, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio — could get a lot of mileage out of seizing them, both personally and in terms of brightening the GOP image.