Banner ad

Monday, February 06, 2012

Cruising the Web

Watching Madonna sing about Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly just made me long to be watching them instead of her boring performance.

At least you can now watch all the Super Bowl ads. And The Hill reminds us of the five most controversial ads of all time. Sometimes, it's hard to see what the fuss is about.

There is a trend of blacks preferring to be called "black" instead of "African-American." When this topic came up in one of my classes, the black students said they preferred "black." And that's good enough for me.

Read about why French parents are superior to American parents.

Mike Adams notes some good sense
on religious freedom from the Sixth Circuit. It just shows how vigilant we have to be that such cases are even necessary.

Michael Medved notes an interesting trend in our recent presidential elections.
Voters this year look set to continue an odd pattern that's prevailed in presidential politics for a quarter century. They will elect either a candidate with a famous father or with no father.

In one minute George Will slams pro-choice people who are truly anti-choice when it comes to abortion.

Glenn Reynolds writes on how we are starting to have more takers than makers in this economy.

Mark Wiberg comments on Clint Eastwood's ad for Chrysler.
I thought this commerical was well-made. Who doesn’t like Clint, right?

But the ad invites criticism. Would Dirty Harry ask for a handout? Hell no, he wouldn’t. He could build a car made out of his melted Smith and Wesson handgun, all while eating a sandwich and zinging bad guys with one-liners.

So, bringing in the city of Detroit as some city on the ‘comeback’ after being knocked down, and blah blah blah, was a bit disingenuous as it fails to mention they knocked themselves out. Detroit and the American car industry would not have made it to ‘half-time’ if it wasn’t for the Bail-Out ™. They were carried by the taxpayer to half-time, beaten and bruised by building inferior products, bloated management and union mismanagement and over-the-rainbow promises to it’s retiring workforce. People will debate for years whether the bail-outs work, and I’m no expert. The point of this post is that having cool music and the coolest American film icon in a commercial about American ‘can do’ is a bad idea when you bring a failure of a company like GM/Chrysler/Chevrolet....

So, it was nice to see Clint talk about how America will soon roar back (easier said than done), but when I think of Detroit and the auto-industry, I think of bailouts, the U.S. taxpayer being on the hook for a company that refuses to change, a company that thought the Chevy Volt was a good, affordable idea.

America will roar back in spite of Detroit, thank you very much. The rest of us will pick up the slack so crappy car or solar-energy producing companies can exist and disappear and reappear depending upon who is in the White House.(link via Instapundit)


Here's a history lesson for today's policy makers on the dangers of federal bailouts of states.

Michael Barone notes the President's isolation from talking with actual Republicans belies his claim that he tried to work with Republicans but they repulsed his efforts.

Marveling at Newt Gingrich's incredible concession speech in Nevada.

On the anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday, here's a contrast of the visions of America held by Ronald Reagana and Barack Obama.

4 comments:

ic said...

There is a trend of blacks preferring to be called "black" instead of "African-American."

"African-American" and all hyphenated-Americans never make sense to me. A white American never calls himself European-American. After all these years fighting for equality, calling oneself an hyphenated-American instead of "American" makes one an outsider ceding the right to call oneself "American" to the whiteys who need no prefix.

ic said...

Did Eastwood really say "it's Halftime in America..." as reported in Drudge? I never watched. But if he did, he's a definite stupid fool. If it's halftime, does it mean we only have another 200+ years?

Stan said...

I'll never forget a black college student gushing to an interviewer about how exciting it was to see Nelson Mandela in person, a famous person like him, an African-Amer.... errr, uh, someone of his race. He was an African-American. Nelson Mandela was the same race. But Mandela wasn't an African-American.

tfhr said...

ic,

You are exactly right. Not only does that ridiculous hyphen mockingly suggest subordination of a treasured birth right, it melds geographical ignorance with racism creating a profitable stew to exploit for those that stoop to identity politics.

I think simple ignorance is often enough to start the descent into racism but why not join the politically correct crowd and dash off another qualifier and seal fate? Stan even shows how it works with his example of a moron garbling up Mandela's nationality! Incredible - it reminds me of that idiot beauty contestant that sputtered out "US-Americans" when asked to amaze the viewing audience with her views on geography and education. She spoke volumes about political correctness and poor public education and did not realize it.

I know two "African-Americans" that have blond hair, blue-eyes, and funny sounding accents. They're not snowbird African-Canadians. One has been tempted to ply the public pockets for race based set asides but decency prevents. You don't have to be Nelson Mandela.

Taking racial financial awards away would impact my nephew, a blond, blue-eyed kid born in Germany. His father is half Cherokee and that means because my nephew is 12.5% Cherokee, he can qualify for certain federal grants to pay for his education. He never entertained the thought. Maybe that 12.5% makes him too proud but why do we even allow politicians to create such scenarios?

Clint Eastwood puzzles me. Does he not understand that Fiat, as a function of the bail out, now owns nearly 60% of Chrysler? Don't tell me we're going to be playing futbol in the second half. Considering that Chrysler required huge sums of hard earned American tax dollars to make it an attractive option for Fiat to buy, will someone please explain to me how selling an American corporation to a foreign owner was a cause worth celebrating? For crying out loud, they build more than a few of their product lines in Canada and Mexico! And I sure hope those assembly lines are staffed by an appropriate representation of African-Canadians and African-Mexicans, or we'd be racist for wanting to buy American cars in the second half.