Outstanding food writer Michael Ruhlman tipped me off to the story. Apparently, the Chicago City Council voted yesterday 37-6 to repeal the ban, which Mayor Richard Daley had previously called “the silliest law the City Council has ever passed.”
The Chicago Tribune has the parliamentary details, and they are interesting.
But the bottom line is that the council did the right thing, and a city with some of the world’s best and most creative chefs (I’m looking at you Chef Achatz), finally came to its senses. I’m sure there will be foie gras celebrations across Chicago in the coming days.
I shall raise a glass of Sauternes tonight to celebrate.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about “endgames”. It’s very easy these days to get caught up in the back-and-forth of legislative battles that move the football a yard or two either way, but I’m convinced that most people don’t give much thought to what a touchdown for their party would really mean (sorry for the inartful football analogy. I blame Paul Helmke).
It seems kind of silly to me that we’d invest so much time, energy, and emotion on pieces of legislation that move us one step closer towards an ideal, while ignoring the larger discussion of whether or not these ideals even work. Are free-markets really a good idea? Are the “needs of the community” worth more than the “rights of the individual”? What are the real world implications of a progressive ideal?
There’s one place in this country where the progressive ideal reigns supreme. It’s a college campus. And it scares the hell out of me.
The left has long complained about “free speech zones” set up by the evil Republicans. Too bad the idea came from colleges back in the 1960’s. Today, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the 1st Amendment is threatened at 75% of our nation’s colleges and universities. Even worse, the larger the school, the more likely it is to have speech codes.
How about the 2nd Amendment? Yeah, I know. But not only are legally owned firearms banned on the vast majority of college campuses, you can’t even talk about them. At Tarrant County College in Texas, for instance, students who wanted to protest the ban on legally owned firearms on campus were told they could only wear their empty holsters in the designated “free speech zone” and students were told they could NOT wear their “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus” t-shirts… at all.
So in a progressive world, free speech has its place, as long as it’s pre-approved by the powers that be and regulated to specific locations. The right to keep and bear arms is relegated to the dustbin of history, and don’t even think about protesting the decision made by those in charge.
On college campuses, equality has been replaced with multiculturalism. If you want to see a segregated society, take a look at your local state university. This is nothing new, but the trend is for more seperation, not less. We have seperate graduation ceremonies for people of different skin colors these days, and it’s celebrated, not condemned! Viva la diversity… as long as you keep your diverse self over there.
And what of the actual purpose of higher ed? You know… educating folks? How do the progressives fare? Frankly, it seems not well. Piggybacking on this thought, if progressives aren’t allowed to hurt people’s feelings… how can people be allowed to fail?
The result can be something like this.
Who is to blame when students fail? If many students fail — a majority even — does that demonstrate faculty incompetence, or could it point to a problem with standards?
These are the questions at the center of a dispute that cost Steven D. Aird his job teaching biology at Norfolk State University. Today is his last day of work, but on his way out, he has started to tell his story — one that he suggests points to large educational problems at the university and in society. The university isn’t talking publicly about his case, but because Aird has released numerous documents prepared by the university about his performance — including the key negative tenure decisions by administrators — it is clear that he was denied tenure for one reason: failing too many students. The university documents portray Aird as unwilling to compromise to pass more students.
I’d encourage you to read the whole thing. Norfolk State faculty say that the administration “encourages” professors to pass at least 70% of their students… regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Buck the trend, lose your job.
Needless to say, I’m not an expert on college campuses, and there may be plenty of evidence out there that would prove me wrong. I hope to hear it, because I look at college campuses and see places where progressive politics and policies have been entrenched for decades, places where they are much closer to a “progressive endgame” than society-at-large… and I don’t see much of America anymore.
Looking at that story showing 64% of Democrat voters want the race to continue, I can’t help but wonder if this part of the 2004 Democrat Party platform has anything to do with it.
To those who are threatened, we pledge protection; to those who are victims, we promise
justice; to those who are hopeless, we offer hope. And to all Americans who seek a better future for
themselves, for their loved ones, and for our country, we say: your cause is our own.
How can you be the party of hope when you’re telling the first woman who could become president that it’s hopeless? Could it simply be that for many Democrats, hurt feelings aren’t something the party believes in anymore?
**Update**
Looks like we might be able to peg the number of Democrats who believe this at roughly 29%.
29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats disagree. Clinton supporters are evenly divided on the question.
Senator Obama wants major cutbacks to the NASA budget. He tells the Baltimore Sun: “NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,” he said. “I don’t think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn’t even pass for news anymore.”
Well, Senator, perhaps if NASA’s budget hadn’t already been cut to the bone, they would be accomplishing a bit more. Like, say, going to the Moon and Mars in the next decade. Oh, wait…
Obama has portrayed himself as the “hope” candidate, but he’s prepared to turn his back on exploring our universe. That seems disingenuous. Oh, wait…
But at least Senator Obama’s position is clear. Senators Clinton and McCain seem content to puff around with vague generalities.
As a voter and strong supporter of a manned space program, I hope that the candidates will reconsider their positions. there is much hope in space, and much to learn out there in the great beyond. Our elected officials need to remember that.
Jim: Marshall… I’m finding this as frustrating as you are; it’s surprising that a guy who talks so much about hope and overcoming skepticism has so little interest in exploring the final frontier.
But I can’t help but wonder if NASA has become too large, slow-moving, and bureaucratic to truly lead in exploration. Has anything NASA has done in the past ten years been as exciting as SpaceShipOne winning the X-Prize? Maybe the Mars rovers. But it’s the risk-taking mad genius of the Richard Bransons of the world who are making space tourism a real possibility for the not-too-distant future.
We will probably see amazing breakthroughs in humanity’s exploration of the universe in our lifetimes. But increasingly, it feels like those breakthroughs will be driven by the private sector, not by the U.S. government…
Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was murdered a few days ago.
Mayor Michael Nutter quickly placed blame on NRA members.
“They owe an apology to the family…”
On Wednesday, officers arrested the last remaining suspect in Sgt. Liczbinski’s death. Mayor Nutter told reporters he confronted Eric Floyd.
“I looked him dead in the eye when he came in and told him how disappointed I was in him.”
Tougher talk for the legal gun owners in this country than for the man responsible for the death of a Philadelphia police officer? Welcome to Philadelphia.
Like most state highway departments, the Virginia Department of Transportation takes a lot of crap from people like me. Successes bring shrugs. Failures prompt outrage.
But on Monday night, I saw something so extraordinary that I want to credit VDOT and their partners in the Maryland Department of Transportation who together are working to rebuild the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which connects Alexandria, Virginia and Prince George County, Maryland by crossing the Potomac River.
The Wilson Bridge is one of the busiest in America, carrying as it does I-95 through traffic as well as Washington area commuters. Needless to say, the old bridge was not up to the task. Indeed, it was literally falling apart before it was taken down last year to make way for the new span.
Before the old bridge came down, I commuted each morning from my home in Fairfax County to my office at the Center for Individual Freedom in Old Town Alexandria. And each evening, I went home again.
I was lucky. I was reverse commuting. But even so, traffic around the bridge was a bear. And in the evening, traffic approaching the bridge from the Virginia side was so bad that the delays routinely extended up through the Route 1 interchange and into Old Town Alexandria, where is would snarl things for blocks in every direction.
Since I last commuted to Old Town, the project to rebuild the Wilson Bridge has progressed considerably. The first of two new spans has been completed. And the Route 1 interchange has been largely rebuilt.
On Monday, I returned to Old Town. As I zipped along the Beltway, I girded myself for my fate: Sitting in Wilson Bridge traffic at the height of the evening rush hour.
But as I approached, traffic didn’t slow. At all. Even as I pulled off onto the new Route 1 exit ramp, no one was stamping on their brakes. Only when traffic reached the threshold of the new span itself did things slow briefly. The result for Old Town was a small miracle. There were no delays at all. The long snake of traffic down Gibbon Street and up Route 1 were both nowhere to be seen. There were delays at all. For someone who sat in that morass everyday for nearly three years, it was absolutely breathtaking.
It’s damned unusual that a major highway improvement project exceeds expectations, but this one has certainly exceeded mine. Two thumbs up to the contractors and engineers who dreamed up the design and are turning it into a reality.
One final thought: If, like me, you’re worried about global warming and want to get carbon out of the air, support projects like this one. Think of how much exhaust and other pollutants will never be emitted thanks to this work. It’s extraordinary.
Cam says: Well, today at 3:15 I had to exit at Van Dorn to avoid the traffic that began at Eisenhower Avenue. Thankfully I have Sirius, so I listen to DC Traffic (Channel 152) on my way in. It’s definitely hit or miss… some days I can take the Beltway all the way down to Rt. 1. But at least 2-3 times a week I’m still taking Eisenhower Avenue into Old Town.
The FEC has been effectively shut down since December because the Senate refused to confirm appointees to the Commission, leaving it short of the quorum necessary to do business. The heart of the dispute was the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, who had previously worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
I celebrated the effective shuttering of the Commission because, well, I like freedom, and the FEC isn’t exactly a bastion of it. Indeed, the prospect of going through a Presidential election without a functioning FEC, matching funds or silly advisory opinions positively filled me with glee.
Unfortunately, true to form, the White House caved yesterday, aided and abetted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (You can read his statement below the fold.) Under an agree struck with Senate Democrats, the Senate will confirm three nominees and be allowed to defeat von Spakovsky separately.
So, in a few weeks, the FEC will be back up and running. What a total bummer.
UPDATE: Bob Bauer, one of the top election law specialists in either party (and is also Counsel to Senator Obama’s campaign) weighs in, accusing the White House of trying to shape the Commission in a way that benefits Senator McCain. Both the timing and the decision not to reappoint Commissioner Mason support Bauer’s argument. Professor Hasen also weighs in with similar thoughts. It’s hard to argue with either point of view.
So now, two of my favorite saw-horses have come together: Disappointment that the FEC is back in business and even more evidence that Senator McCain’s reformer persona is nothing but a disingenuous act by a fundamentally dishonest politician.
The contrast was almost too much to take.
On Saturday, Big Brown won the Kentucky Derby in commanding fashion, defying mountains of history by winning from the twenty hole and overcoming a lack of experience that many commentators said was insurmountable. If it wasn’t for the tragedy that befell second place finisher Eight Belles in the moments after she crossed the finish line, America would be buzzing today about the possibility of the first Triple Crown winner since 1978.
But the images of Eight Belles after she suffered the fatal fractures of both front legs will be seared into American memories, just as the images of Barbaro breaking down at the Preakness have been.
Much has already been written about Eight Belles’ injury, some of it particularly outrageous. But it’s clear now more than 24 hours after the race that horse racing has a serious problem.
According to Washington Post columnist Andy Beyer, who has covered horse racing for decades, it’s common knowledge within racing circles that horses have become more and more fragile as breeders have chosen speed over soundness and stamina. Indeed, Beyer himself has written about it many times.
But after two tragedies in two years in the only races that most Americans watch, it’s now common knowledge in every household, and it will dominate the discussion over the coming weeks as Big Brown pursues the Triple Crown. Some will insist that synthetic track is the answer. Others will attack the sport as inhumane.
The reality is that very little can be done.
In the days after Barbaro’s injury, I wrote that, “Barbaro’s devastating injury prompts a question: with the risks so high for man and horse, why do it at all?
“But the answer is simple, and it’s a fundamental element of being for these fine horses. Thoroughbreds are born to run. If they weren’t racing each other around the track, they’d be racing each other around the pasture. Running is their nature, coded into every fiber of their being by their DNA.”
Nothing about thoroughbred DNA has changed in the last two years. Great horses are still born to run, just as Eight Belles was.
And if you don’t believe me, consider her performance in the Derby. In the parlance of handicappers, she was clearly second best, dusting the third place horse by nearly 3 lengths, and coming in behind only Big Brown. By doing so, Eight Belles belies any suggestion that she ought not to have been in the race at all. She dueled with the boys, and bested all save one.
So we are left, as ever, with a simple choice. Do we celebrate these animals and their special gifts? Or do we take extreme measures and return them to their pastures and stalls?
I don’t believe we can protect them from their own nature. Great horses will run. There is no sin in watching them do so.
But we can and should do everything in our power to make it as safe as possible. If synthetic surfaces reduce injuries, every track should follow Keeneland’s lead and install them. If there’s more than can be done, the industry should do it. Our pleasure shouldn’t come at these beautiful creatures’ expense.
Needless to say, there has been a tremendous amount of coverage on this. I submit a few must-read items for your consideration:
The indispensable Andy Beyer’s post-race column. Keep checking back on his index page here in the coming days. For my money, when it comes to horse racing, there’s no better or more insightful commentator.
The normally annoying Sally Jenkins wrote a good column that really makes my point better than I can.
Superb on-going coverage from the New York Times’ horse racing blog, The Rail.
Sadness and defensiveness from local Kentucky columnists.
A few weeks ago, when the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright first hit the front pages, I wrote a post defending Senator Obama. I argued that it was unfair to hold the Senator responsible for what his Pastor might have said from the pulpit. Cam and Jim argued vociferously that the Senator’s failure to break from his pastor suggested bad judgment.
On Monday, as the whole world knows, Rev. Wright gave a speech and answered questions at the National Press Club, in which he repeated and defended his most bizarre and offensive utterances. He was joined by a cast of hundreds, including representatives of the Nation of Islam, anxious to get behind his delusional, racist and hateful views.
Yesterday, Cam published a powerful and personal post just below. And if you haven’t read it, you really must do so at once.
Cam’s post got me thinking and reflecting on my earlier defense of Senator Obama (one I’ve repeated, by the way, to incredulous looks from friends over the past few weeks.) For me, this is the central point of Cam’s post:
I’m starting to wonder if your comments distancing yourself from Reverend Wright are really sincere. I’m also wondering if you were really that close with him to begin with. I’m wondering a lot of things about you, but it boils down to one concern: are you lying to us now, or were you lying to us all along about Reverend Wright? Either way, it would make you the worst kind of politician. You know the stereotype: slimy, oozing with contempt for the voters, willing to say anything to get elected. The exact opposite of how you present yourself, basically.
And I don’t know how you get beyond that Senator. You’re either A) the worst judge in character the world has ever seen or B) another lying politician who just wants to get elected and thinks Americans have the intelligence of tree stumps. Either way, when it comes to the content of your character… you fail. You could have walked out of that church at any point over the past twenty years. You could have used your big speech in Philadelphia to put to rest this issue, not claim the Reverend Wright as a member of your family. Because of your failure of character, you’re now merely following the conventional political wisdom instead of exhibiting true leadership and principle.
Having reflected on this, and heard Rev. Wright’s expanded views on Monday, my own concern is actually somewhat different. I’m now wondering if Barrack Obama is a racist the way his pastor evidently is.
Let me step back for a second.
The speech that Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered in Washington in front of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963 is justifiably one of the most famous ever given. In it, he articulates his vision for race relations in America. The central passage won’t be unfamiliar to anyone:
Even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
It’s this last point that has always had the strongest, most emotional impact on me. “They will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” Dr. King said. For me, Dr. King’s ideal was simple and wonderful: that race would, someday, simply no longer be a factor. Some have called this the dream of a colorblind America.
At the time that Dr. King delivered his speech, white America had a long way to. In the speech, he focuses on the south, but the race riots of the later 1960s and 1970s revealed divisions in Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Washington and almost every major city across the country.
I’d like to think that we’ve come a long way, but, to be sure, we haven’t achieved Dr. King’s dream.
For that, I increasingly point the finger at people like Dr. Wright, Al Sharpton, and others who try to channel anger and leverage hate and fear for their own personal gain. For me, they aren’t just holding back progress. They are actively contributing to a culture of racism that they claim to deplore. They aren’t after equality. And they are openly hostile to Dr. King’s dream that “little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” By implication, Dr. Wright and his ilk want to return America to the days of separation.
For me, Senator Obama seemed like just the opposite. Even though his political record suggests that he is a conventional liberal, his rhetoric was soaring and hopeful. His stark repudiation of the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s approach to campaigning — refusing to campaign as a black man and instead propounding a vision of hope for all Americans regardless of race — was and is very appealing to me.
So it is, therefore, exceedingly difficult to resolve these views which Senator professes with his decision to sit for twenty or more years in the pews in front of a man who seems so full of hate.
On this basis, Cam wonders if Senator Obama is being insincere in his views or lying about his relationship with Rev. Wright.
Let’s consider, briefly, the implications of both possibilities.
If Senator Obama is being insincere, then we can assume that he shares his pastor’s views, at least on some level, but by definition, it’s impossible to know to what degree. That leaves me in a troubling quandary, because I certainly don’t want to put a paranoid hate-monger in the White House. (And to be clear, I’m not saying that he is. Just that it might be an open question.)
If Senator Obama is lying, and he contrived the depth of his relationship with Rev. Wright as a political convenience, perhaps to ingratiate himself with the black community in Chicago, his claim to be a “different kind of candidate” is revealed to be a simple falsehood as well.
In either circumstance, I am compelled admit that my earlier defense of the Senator was a mistake.
In the practical world of politics, however, Cam might be right when he suggests with a touch of irony that “we’ll be too distracted by American Idol and the price of gasoline to remember any of this come November.”
I certainly hope not. This episode may provide our first window into the real Barrack Obama, the man who might be our President. We would do ourselves a grave injustice if we manage to overlook it.
UPDATE: The first thing Mike Huckabee has said in this campaign that I agree with:
“[Obama’s] campaign is not being derailed by his race, it’s being derailed by a person who doesn’t want him to prove that we have made great advances in this country,” Huckabee told reporters. … “Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America,” Huckabee said.
Well said, Governor.
The American Justice Partnership is an amazing coalition of organizations working on legal / tort reform at the state level. Dan Pero is the President, and he’s been doing a great job for the last couple of years. Today, the Partnership announced a new blog, which Pero is authoring. I’ve checked it out, and it looks pretty good. It’s definitely a resource for anyone who is interested in legal reform.
You can check it out at AmericanCourthouse.org.
On a personal note, I’m amused and happy to see Dan join the blogosphere. I worked for Dan a couple of years back at the Sterling Corporation. I can say that Dan is one of the smartest and most knowledgeable folks I’ve ever worked for, but Dan was not exactly known for his technical prowess. So his arrival in the blogosphere is yet another testament to just how friendly the medium can be.
Welcome, Dan. I look forward to reading your contributions in the months to come.