Thursday, December 02, 2004

Rather, States' Rights, and White Men

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal, has an interesting take on Dan Rather's career and the evolution of television journalism. She worked closely with him and seems to know him well. Using examples of others in public life, she illustrates the fact that mistakes and misjudgments don't negate a lifetime of accomplishment. Worth reading. She concludes,

People are complicated, careers are complicated, motives are complicated. Dan Rather did some great work on stories that demanded physical courage. He loved the news, and often made it look like the most noble of enterprises. He had guts and fortitude. Those stories he covered that touched on politics were unfortunately and consistently marred by liberal political bias, and in this he was like too many in his profession. But this is changing. The old hegemony has given way. The old dominance is over. Good thing. Great thing. Onward.

Thomas Sowell takes a refreshing look at the realities of federal debt, spending control, and taxes. He says, "...our tax system penalizes those who produce wealth in order to subsidize those who only consume it."

Jonah Goldberg's column in the Washington Times today and a Washington Post editorial yesterday discuss federalism, states' rights, and the power of the federal government under the commerce clause of the Constitution. It's interesting that liberals and conservatives alike are for or against federalism, which is to say the power of states defined in the Constitution, depending on the issue at hand. Whether states can be trusted to pass their own laws on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, marijuana use, sodomy, religious observance, and so forth depends too often on nothing more than the views of advocates. The fact is, federalism means that the people of each state have to be trusted to enact their own laws, except in those cases where powers have been specifically delegated to the federal government. Whether states will act in a way that an individual personally approves of is not relevant. Does anyone remember the Tenth Amendment?

Finally, Maureen Dowd has another sad, silly, confused column in the New York Times today. I've been reading her for as long as I can remember, and I used to think she was pretty sharp. Maybe she's been off her medication lately; I don't know. Today's column is supposed to be about how terrible it is that the three heavy-weight anchors of broadcast news, all white males, are most likely going to be replaced by other white males. I guess I understand this argument, even though it's both sexist and racist. But she wanders all over the place, including statements like this:

As my mom said, discussing her belief that Martha Stewart had been railroaded by jealous men, "If men could figure out how to have babies, they'd get rid of us altogether."

Well. Let me point out two glaring problems with that statement alone. First, no man in possession of his senses wants to have babies. Second, most normal men kind of like women, for a variety of reasons. Get a grip, Ms. Dowd.

1 Comments:

Blogger Gindy said...

This was my favorite quote for the article.

Nah. Those guys are hard to kill off. Indeed, white men are ascendant in Red State America.

11:07 AM, December 02, 2004  

Post a Comment

<< Home