Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Serbian miners discover kryptonite.

Fictional or not, Superman had better watch out. We all know that kryptonite doesn't harm Earthlings, but it does horrible things to Kal-el. According to the Associated Press, it can be found in Serbia:

LONDON (AP) — A mineral recently discovered in Serbia has the same composition as kryptonite — the fictional substance that robs Superman of his powers — the British Museum said Tuesday.

When I first read this, I wondered, "does that mean the recently discovered mineral is fictional too?"

"Towards the end of my research I searched the Web using the mineral's chemical formula, sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide, and was amazed to discover that same scientific name written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luthor from a museum in the film Superman Returns," Stanley said.

I guess the British government had better put an around the clock alert out to keep Lex Luthor away from the Natural History Museum where they researched this mineral.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. And sometimes they mesh in such interesting yet coincidental ways

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, 123beta, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Right Nation, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

False accents, condescension and racism

OK, first of all, a lot of this comes from my memory of a conversation I heard on the radio this morning. I know I don't remember it exactly, so I'm not quoting anyone on the radio. Remembering that conversation and my reactions to it reminds me of my previous post. I heard the discussion, and I noticed something that I thought should be obvious. I tried to call in, but the lines were busy. Frustrating.

Anyway, the conversation was about Sen. Clinton's "southern" accent and the occasions when it appears. There are a lot of blog posts where bloggers note that it comes out most often when she is speaking to predominantly black audiences. WIStv has noted it as well, and asks if she'll bring it to Orangeburg.

Rush noted some articles about it, and that one of them specifically mentioned that her "southern" accent comes out when speaking to blacks. He played a soundbite of her with a horrible imitation of a southern drawl. He seemed to be saying that she was "pandering" to blacks when she did that.

The "program observer, who is black" noted that it was racist. I never did hear why.

I have to agree, but not for the reasons I heard on the radio. This is what made me want to call in. I think that these remarks go beyond pandering. The conversation on the radio turned discussion of "ebonics" and other languages, and how the attempts to use them were simply pandering to an audience.

I don't recall all of the details.

I think that this example of the use of a false accent is racist only in part because it's a transparent attempt to "sound like" the audience. What's worse is a Northern, white woman coming to the South and affecting a southern accent before a predominantly black audience is a bit degrading.

Consider the history. What one of our national sins is most closely associated with the South? Do I have to spell it out? A century and a half ago it was one of the many issues that divided our nation. That's right - slavery.

I don't think that this rises to the level of a deliberate, conscious effort to insult and degrade her audience when Sen. Clinton speaks this way to a black audience. I do think that it speaks to a different problem that our political class has. They're elitist (on both sides of the aisle). They look down on the rest of us (try writing to a congressman and parsing the response you get sometime when you disagree with them).

By going to a southern black audience and speaking with an obviously false southern accent, Sen. Clinton is more than simply "trying to sound like her audience". She may be trying to relate to them and have them relate to her, but to me it sounds more like a privileged plantation owner talking down to the house slaves.

I'm sure it's not deliberate. But it's still racist. And it points to the double-standards on the left. If this interpretation of her actions were to be presented in the mainstream, she could quite possibly rightly complain that her remarks or motives were misinterpreted.

Isn't it a shame that when a conservative politician makes an innocent remark, attempting to praise another politician of long service that the left pounces upon it as evidence of racism? Haven't a few Republican politicians been hounded out of office by the left over trivialities like this?

I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't like her politics, her arrogance, or her condescending attitudes. Even so, every politician does some silly things, or commits one or another gaffe. We need to move past these things to the real issues.

The sniping has got to end.

Originally posted at Bloggers for Civil Discourse.

Reacting to talk radio

Last night Karl, over at Leaning Straight Up, linked a post to yesterday's linkfests. I thought it was a rather interesting read, particularly because one of the people he discusses is a commentator that I almost always find myself in disagreement with.

Anyway, it got me to thinking about my own reactions to talk radio. Karl opened his post by describing how frustrated he gets listening to the radio at times because you occasionally hear a story that infuriates you and you can't call in and comment on it. I've often had similar reactions.

Most talk show hosts have a bias either to the left or to the right. The better ones can explain the reasons behind their bias, and can make a convincing argument for their side. The talk show host establishes the ground rules for the conversation. When a caller comes on and ignores the ground rules they're usually cut off quickly. I don't have a problem with that, but some people do.

I will sometimes be listening to a talk show and a caller will come on the line whose obviously reading from a script. At least it seems that way. These people are pretty easy to spot, and most hosts manage to pull them out of the script fairly quickly. It they can't be pulled out of the script, they're usually gone fairly quickly.

Some callers are just naturally long winded. They sound as though they are reading long passages from a book. The ones that really amuse me never seem to hear the host try to respond to a point.

Sometimes the host puts them back on hold for a moment just to get a word in edgewise. When the host takes them back off of hold there they are, still running on in the same diatribe as though they were never off the air.

People like that are idiots. Talk radio is either about the host saying what interests the host, or about a conversation when the host allows callers on the air. It's not an opportunity for speechmaking and pontificating from the listener.

There are actually a few things about talk radio that occasionally make me want to reach over and shut it off. I listen to it for entertainment, but I don't find idiots entertaining, and I don't find shouting matches entertaining either.

I used to listen to some interesting talk shows on my drive home in the evenings. Then one day, Michael Savage was on the air during my normal drive time. I hate Michael's show. I find that there are quite a few things he says that I agree with, but there are quite a few things he says that are just plain over the top. I don't like to listen to that much venomous spew either. The way he insults people that disagree with him is particularly infuriating.

I listened to Bill O'Reilly for a while when the lineup shifted a bit. Mostly I listened because there wasn't much of an alternative, and then Bryan Suits was on the radio opposite his show for a while. It wasn't hard to switch. Bryan is a down-to-earth kind of guy who debates well with his listeners and isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong. He gets moody sometimes, but that just seems to add to his personality.

Bill O'Reilly has an absolute certainty about the things he says. That's not so bad in itself, but his show starts to sound as if he's pontificating sometimes. He gets that way about the oil companies and their "obscene" profits. This is when I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's wrong on this particular topic, but no caller has ever been able to get past his iron clad certainty that he's right, even when their arguments are superior to his.

Bryan Suits has moved into an earlier part of the lineup on the radio, and now Mark Levin is on opposite Bill O'Reilly. I much prefer listing to Mark Levin. Even so, there's quite a lot I find irritating about his show. I really hate the "name calling". I know it's meant to be humor, but it's just irritating.

I also don't really care for the way he cuts people off that disagree with him. He gives them the "20 second liberal clock", but it often takes these people more than 20 seconds to make a point. His abrasive manner towards people that disagree really puts me off.

It also gets annoying to listen to people call in for no purpose other than to say "I agree", or to say how great the host is. I don't listen to the radio to hear a group of people gush about the host, I listen to hear ideas and to hear them debated.

Don't get the idea that I don't like listening to Mark Levin. He's frequently right on a lot of issues, especially with regard to our courts, and our Constitution. I find him entertaining, and despite the "thank me for your call" sort of stuff he's really a solid person. I particularly like the way he recognizes that the men and women who serve our country in the uniformed services (not just the military) are in some ways better than those of us who don't.

I used to listen to Sean Hannity. Sean is an intelligent man, and he asks good questions when he does interviews. He argues well and makes some rather convincing points. I don't listen to his show anymore though, except on occasion.

One reason is that it's on at a time when I don't have access to the radio. A larger reason though is that it gets tiresome listening to his personal appearance schedule for a third of every hour. Why else does he have a website anyway?

An even larger reason though is the nature of some of the "discussions" on his show. This particular problem isn't just confined to his radio show though, it's also very evident on Hannity and Colmes. What am I talking about? Well, Sean isn't much of a moderator when he allows discussions between guests with differing viewpoints. He lets them talk over each other. This frequently leads to shouting matches, and I won't listen to that. Click - off goes the radio.

I've already wandered off into areas that I didn't really think I would when I started this post, and I still haven't gotten to what I really thought of when I started considering my reactions to talk radio. So, I guess I'll close this with my most frequent source of frustration with talk radio.

Often, when discussing an issue a talk show host makes really good arguments. The conversation with the callers goes on and on, with lots of give and take on both sides. Both sides make very good points and the debate gets interesting. What frustrates me though is that there's often a point that I can see that I wish the host would raise, and they never do.

That doesn't make me want to turn off the radio, but it does make me want to call in. There's never enough time to do it though. I'm either driving on my way to work, or to an appointment, or I don't have access to a phone, or even worse, there's not enough time left on the show to call in and have a hope of getting on the air.

That can be maddening. It's not that I think I've got all of the answers, because I don't. But sometimes when you're not directly engaged in a conversation, ideas or relevant facts can spring to mind and grab hold of your attention and it's frustrating not to be able to address them, or hear the conversation address them when they seem so obvious.

I don't know how many of you have the same experience, and I have it a lot less often than I used to. Maybe it's because I have a medium where I can express my opinion whenever I want to in this blog.

When it happens now, I can always write about it. So can you if you think I've missed something important, or if you disagree with me. That's why the comments section exists on every post.

Thanks for reading my ramblings.