Instapundit Extra!
December 30, 2001
READER MEGAN MCARDLE (PENN '94)
READER MEGAN MCARDLE (PENN '94) SAYS U. PENN. DOESN'T WANT CORNEL WEST EITHER: Sir:
I must protest the callous way in which you and Mr. Tepper attempt to foist Cornel West upon us. I can only suspect that the cause is the kind of ignorant prejudice which caused Penn to be labeled the "armpit of the Ivies" while I was there. I am not only offended at such thoughtless stereotyping of the University
which gave the world the first computer, but also saddened at the ignorance of our recent history which enables Mr. Tepper to make such a thoughtless suggestion.
I was at Penn during the infamous water-buffalo incident. At least, it was infamous to us; perhaps less so to the non-Penn world. So to recap: a black sorority was staging a loud march up Locust Walk (Penn's main drag) during exam week, causing a transplanted Israeli to lean out his window and shout "Shut up, you water buffalo!" -- apparently an approximate translation of a Yiddish insult. This quaint vernacular landed him in a disciplinary hearing which had evidently been convened only in order to confirm what our Department of African American Studies had already decided -- water buffalo was a racial term. The professors involved couldn't produce any historical use of the term in a racial context. The shouter produced ample evidence of two things:
a) he spoke yiddish fluently
b) there was indeed a yiddish insult that could be translated as water buffalo (or not -- it's not clear that anyone had ever tried to translate it before).
Arguments from the department (via the administration) ultimately devolved to the premise that if you shout at black people, it is because they are black and not because they are noisy and disruptive. I was there, in that dorm. They were so noisy and disruptive that I, who grew up in Manhattan, had to decamp for my boyfriend's.
Later that year, I had the privilege of experiencing this myself -- my appalling roommate, who stole a great deal of money from me, brought me up on racial harassment charges for accusing her of stealing. An AA studies major, I might add, and she seemed to have internalized Mr. West's lessons: I did not like her.
She was black. Therefore, I was a racist. The preliminary hearing was convened during finals week, and while I was given a week's notice about the hearing time, I was not permitted to know in advance what the charges were. The anxiety caused me to blow finals in calculus and economics, which years later nearly kept me from getting into business school. But I digress.
I was exonerated, because my roommate was not only venal and vindictive, but also dumb as a bag of hammers -- but when I walked into that hearing, the presumption was clearly of guilt. They started the hearing by talking about sentencing. The final irony is that the same judiciary board that was ready to prosecute my alleged racial harassment told me that it wouldn't be worth it to prosecute my roommate for stealing, as she was about to graduate. Accusing someone of stealing is an expellable offense; actual stealing isn't. (And now I'm perilously close to sounding like those wackos at WAR. To clarify: I don't think blacks are living the good life on the backs of us poor ol' whites. I think racial harassment is horrendous, though I would rather see it dealt with by ostracism than expulsion. But I ALSO think stealing is horrendous.) Only the open confrontation of these practices by Alan Kors forced the administration to change the Orwellian show-trial atmosphere of disciplinary proceedings involving racial or gender-related accusations.
Anecdote is not evidence, of course, but I offer it to illustrate that the Water buffalo incident was not, in fact, isolated -- it was part of a pattern that was pervasive enough to turn an ordinary dispute between roommates into another of the racial incidents for which it was nearly impossible to present a defense -- and that this was common enough not to make the paper. Having experienced first-hand the nadir of Penn's racial balkanization, I find Mr. West's complaints eerily familiar. The base assumptions are the same as they were at those aforementioned show trials -- Mr. West is black, and therefore anyone who disagrees with him is a priori both wrong and racist. His fuzzy thinking is of a piece with his atrocious writing (I thought you were exaggerating until I studied the site) and his distressing judgement in releasing that CD. I am astounded that Mr. West could have gotten through such an extensive education without learning the rudiments of either grammar or logic; I will not speculate as to whether the fault lies with modern academic institutions in general, or the insular and insulated enclaves of ethnic studies, but ultimately the responsibility is Mr. West's, for his unwillingness to acknowlege or embrace objective standards, much less humility or self control (the reader may here insert his own editorial comments on middle aged academics releasing rap albums). If he is called upon to do so, he dismisses these standards as racist.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that my beloved alma mater does not need in any department. I have no wish to foist him on Harvard or Princeton. But I don't see why the big three should force their Hand-me-downs on us; our lower prestige does not mean that we have abandoned scholarship. We've endured our share of racial snake-oil salesmen; we don't need any more, and shouldn't have to take them while we're still healing from the last round. Frankly, I'm hurt that anyone would even suggest such a thing. Perhaps Bob Jones University, which has found a home for much third rate scholarship, and which clearly does not mind racially divisive rhetoric, could find a place for Mr. West. Well, I was with you until you got to the part about middle-aged academics releasing albums. . . . But then my problem with West isn't that he released an album -- it's that it sucks. And it sucks in a particular, self-centered, blowhard kind of way that's so typical of West and of so many Harvard academics.
December 07, 2001
MCDONALD'S UPDATE:I'm happy to say
MCDONALD'S UPDATE: I'm happy to say that I've had one of those jobs on the other side of the register: for years and years while an undergrad (in a longer undergrad career than most have) I worked at McDonald's. The recent experience you had there is typical, I think, and reflects the fact that, while the top management makes mistakes, they are willing to recognize that and correct it. For some time long before I started working there--really, from the time of my childhood at least--McDonald's prepared food in advance of a customer's order, in a uniform manner, and kept that food as hot as it could be, for what was not to be longer than 10 minutes, until it was served. By the mid 1980s, people began to think they had a right to have their hamburger how they wanted it, and other burger chains, such as Wendy's and BK, offered that option, which wasn't a big deal because those chains were much lower volume operations, and had designed their kitchens to prepare food as it was ordered. McDonald's did their best to respond, allowing special orders. That presented problems for McDonald's, since their kitchens were designed to produce food prior to order, not after. Speed of service on special orders was a problem, and that problem caused ripple effects because speed of service in the drive-thru, which for most McDonald's provides over 60% of revenues, effected sales and satisfaction. McDonald's top people, looking at the situation, decided that the basic model worked--the restaurants should continue to produce food prior to order--but that special orders could be accelerated, with a minimal loss of quality compared to the actual product most people received, if, instead of preparing sandwiches by toasting buns and cooking meat and then assembling the sandwiches, as a single process by a single person or team, the kitchen instead (1) toasted buns and kept them in cabinets (similar to what happens at other restaurants, though this cabinet wasn't heated), (2) cooked meat and kept it in steam cabinets, (3) assembled sandwiches, either individually or en masse, and(4) microwaved the wrapped sandwich. The microwave process was referred to as 'Qing', with Q standing for Quality. That, as anyone familiar with microwaves knows, was a bad idea: soggy bread, wilted lettuce, too hot condiments. (Not to mention smart ass employees asking other smart ass employees to 'add some quality to this' sandwich if it wasn't hot enough.) That microwave centered system had a terrible impact on customers' view of quality, which hadn't been particularly high to begin with (in part because warming bins weren't a great idea, either). So, after about 7 years, McDonald's decided to tear out the expensive microwave system and adopt a production system very similar to what is offered in other burger places. What McDonald's hasn't done is adopt some of the architectural features those places have, such as one line for customers. They may eventually, since the current system will continue to require a lot of people to implement during rush times (it looks like it takes about half again as many as the old system). The upside is, the food isn't bad. More than anyone wants to know, I'm sure. Good story. Say -- would a government-run restaurant have made these difficult and expensive changes to a system that wasn't making customers happy? Just wondering.
December 06, 2001
MORE CANADIANS, STILL!I would like
MORE CANADIANS, STILL! I would like to add my voice to the other Canadians who have thanked you for providing this excellent forum. I have very much enjoyed visiting your site in the past few months and it has been heartening to read comments from like-minded Canadians.
I think that most Canadians are very much pro-American. Unfortunately there is a streak of anti-American sentiment that runs through the heart of the Canadian intellectual elite and their representatives in the chattering classes. This anti-Americanism has its roots, I believe, in the those
colonists who left the American colonies at the time of the American Revolution because of their loyalty to George III. This, coupled with the chauvinism of elements of French-Canada, has resulted in it being acceptable for Canadians to feel that it is OK to look smugly down their noses to Americans and American institutions.
Canada purports to be a democracy but maintains fundamentally un-democratic institutions. Case in point is our appointed Senate and the absence of public or Parliamentary review in the appointment of our Supreme Court Justices. This situation has been worse in recent years under the Chretien regime.
Our current Prime Minister has silenced Parliament by not calling Parliament back from recess to debate bills and by his autocratic rule over his own caucus. Unfortunately the situation is only made worse by the fact that there is no effective opposition in this country. Canadians feel free to make snide remarks about the two-party system in the US without recognizing the intellectual bankruptcy of their comments in that we currently live in, effectively, a one party system - a one party system with a Prime Minister
who has abused his power on several occasions (eg exercising the power of the PMO to get loans from a Crown controlled bank to his cronies from his home riding in a transaction in which Canadians still do not know if he had any financial gain, abuse of the PMO by calling out the RCMP to forcibly remove [via pepper spray] students who were peacefully demonstrating against the invitation of the dictator Suharto to Canada).
The only message I would like to get across to our neighbours to the south is to know that the majority of Canadians support the US and are willing to help in any way possible.
Hopefully we will be able to remove the current government in the next election.
Thanks again for your work in maintaining the site.
Cheers,
Peter Carayiannis Thanks.
MORE CANADIANS! I keep getting
MORE CANADIANS! I keep getting email from Canadians who think this is exciting. Maybe some enterprising Canadian should set up a weblog or political-opinion website to raise these issues? Anyway, here's another, from Canadian Cathy Turner: Am very happy to see you have found a page where Canadians who actually think this way can speak openly about the 9/11events AND about the truth of our current Liberal government. I loved what they had written and thoroughly agree! Cretian, however is not all that much worse than anyone else in "the inner circle" in Ottawa. What they say publicly is a far cry from what they say privately or how they really feel. Typically "Canadian" to be nice - offend no one - stand for zip - cover your ass and enjoy the good life because our neighbours to the south will always look after our interests.
Our political middle is far further to the left than yours. As a result everyone fears the smug, intellectual backlash certain to be provoked by any overt show of enthusiasm for standing up and doing what needs to be done. Canadians tend to have this self righteous attitude that we are somehow superior creatures because we always remain aloof of anything that smacks of being "too American". This is all because, as 1 writer said, we feel inferior to the US.
I guess there are times when the US can appear a little overbearing but considering how much is at stake for all of us I believe they have every right to be overbearing!! He who pays the piper, in so many different
ways, should get to call the shots. It is always so easy to be critical of the guy at the top of the heap.
Also part of the political landscape in Canada is the never ending Quebec saga. No politician wants to offend Quebec. Costs us mega bucks to keep them happy. If they're not happy somebody doesn't get
re-elected.
Anyway - most thinking Canadians who understand just how lucky we are to enjoy the lifestyle we do KNOWS why this is possible and to whom we owe our support and gratitude. Even in a little place far removed from the sophisticated urban centres there are Canadian flags flying side by side with the Stars and Stripes. NYPD ball caps and flagged US/Canada T-shirts sold out in 24 hours. I have a lapel pin, sold by our local firefighters as a fundraiser, that I wear every where I go. While many are afraid to wear their hearts on their sleeves most Canadians feel very strongly that we should be involved and that we need to be more outspoken about who are friends really are in this world.
I suspect that we are more involved than we know. In order not to provoke the left our leaders are likely not telling us much. Our capability in a military sense is limited (you folks have always looked after that for us) but I think most Canadians would and will do everything they can to help. Our Prime Minister can't even speak a coherent sentence publicly so it is better he keeps a low profile!! I hear very little criticism - just great concern. We know that our way of life is also on the line. We also know that the US will protect us. It must be nice to know that someone will protect you.
December 04, 2001
EVEN MORE CANADIAN COMMENTARY:I am
EVEN MORE CANADIAN COMMENTARY: I am a Canadian, and I share a perverse inferiority complex with 30 million other Canadians. Americans can't possibly understand what makes us
tick. We constantly compare ourselves to the U.S. and we always make sure we come up on the short end of the stick. The secret about Canada is that we have it so good up here that we refuse to believe our good fortune and we are scared to stand up for ourselves in case we antagonize someone else. Yes, our federal government is a source of shame, but we willingly voted for them for a third consecutive term. Why? Because Jean Chretien and his merry band of idiots were the safe choice, the party least likely to mess up our good life here. In three or four years we will have the opportunity to totally annihilate the Liberals, just like we did to the federal Conservatives when we got tired of Brian Mulroney. In the meantime, this great, silent country of ours will carry on in spite of itself.
It was that great Canadian genius, Marshall McLuhan, who taught us about the global village. September 11th proved him so right. The World Trade Centre was part of my village, and I want to get the bastards as much as you Americans do. This is tribal warfare on a global scale and I want to be a part of your tribe no matter how badly you try to screw us on trade issues. Hey, we kept Great Britain alive from 1939 until 1941 when you chaps joined the war, without any fanfare. You just have to ask and we'll give you all the support in this war that we can muster, even if we have to do it behind our government's back. This is not something new. We sent our ships to assist in the blockade of Cuba in the missile crisis, without letting our Prime Minister know about it.
Regards,
Rick Glasel This is all very interesting stuff.
STILL MORE ON CANADIAN POLITICS:Part
STILL MORE ON CANADIAN POLITICS: Part of the reason that you hear so little about us is that our governemnt has, in fact, done as little as possible. The Liberal Party has three main constituencies: Quebec-centred French Canada, which tends to be very isolationist, and opposed
participation in both World Wars; and immigrants in Ontario, who make up some 40% of the population of the province, and an even higher percentage in Toronto. The Liberals also draw heavily on immigrant voters in Vancouver, the second-largest English city; and the soft left. The Liberals brought in economic protectionist laws in the 1960s in a Vietnam-era wave of anti-Americanism that was pretty much an official policy in the Trudeau Liberal administration. So Chretien walks a fine line: preventing a realistic Opposition party from forming in Canada's fragmented right, and keeping his constituents happy. Chretien is best understood as a 50s-style ward heeler, with no real democratic instincts, and no program other than to get re-elected and keep the patronage jobs flowing to his party's supporters.
Imagine how America would be if the President decided which bills Congress would debate, how much time would be spent on them, whether they would end up in a Congressional committee, who that committee would hear, and what its report would say. Then, added to that, think of a system in which the President appointed an almost powerless Senate and assigned political jobs without confirmation hearings. That, I'm afraid, is democracy in Canada: a very warped version of the Westminster system, with almost no checks and balances. Add to it a broadcast media dominated by the goverment-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (TV and Radio) and a national newspaper chain whose owner was the biggest corporate contributor to the Liberals last year and who used to be a provincial Liberal leader.
Want to free a struggling nation? Send a few busloads of Marines.
Mark Bourrie
Parliamentary Press Gallery, Ottawa
(I write for legal publications such as law Times
newspaper and Canadian Lawyer magazine, and for
magazines across the country.) You know, a friend of mine was engaged in trade negotiations with (meaning against) the Canadians a few years ago. He said that during dinners, etc., the Canadians kept bringing up the question of whether the United States would take on Canada if it broke up (which they saw as inevitable, eventually), or whether it would try to cherry-pick British Columbia and Alberta while letting the rest go its own way. My friend's response was to wonder whether the U.S. polity wanted to take on a bunch of voters who were used to Canadian politics, at which the Canadians glumly nodded. Given that these were Canadian officials, it's kind of a disturbing story. Apparently, though, Canadian politics really are that dysfunctional.
I wonder why? Is it because they know that America will ensure that things there never get too out of hand? Unlike most other countries, they needn't fear invasion. And they know that the U.S. wouldn't permit one anyway, or a serious civil war. So it leaves little room for externally-provided focus. I guess. But I don't think the Marines are going to solve this problem. Sorry. You guys will have to fix things for yourselves -- though perhaps with some encouragement from down south.
CANADA UPDATE: Some interesting letters
CANADA UPDATE: Some interesting letters from Canadians, too long for InstaPundit but worth reprinting here: Canada is a First world country with a Third world government. Thus, the puzzle of the 80% and its pathetic marches in favour of capitalism. Those are the people who believe in honesty, and working, and keeping the contracts they make, and paying their bills and their taxes. The other 20% are the ones with the political and social power. They have constructed a vast unproductive bureaucracy that feeds off the work and wealth of the first 80%.
How is this possible? Well, we get to vote every 4 years or so, for a "parliament", but in reality, the Prime Minister and his cronies run the country in between elections. If a Member of the House of Commons is very good, and does exactly what the "Leader" of his party tells him to do, he may be rewarded with a "fact finding" trip to a low level seminar on "women's rights", or "the law of the sea", held in some third world country with questionable plumbing.
Remember all that old dull stuff about "checks and balances" that you had to learn about in your American civics classes? That is what Canada is missing. But in our "niceness", we believe our nice quiet system is superior to the loud fighting of the American government. Yes, we are nice and quiet and polite, and all of our political decisions are made by a very few "nice" corrupt people in expensive restaurants, behind closed doors.
Heather
Whitehorse, Yukon Niceness is, well, nice. But when it becomes the be-all and end-all, it simply empowers the non-nice. The situation that Heather describes sounds unstable to me, though. Reader Evan McElravy sounds a more hopeful note from McGill University in Montreal: It's interesting but I think there has been a bit of a change in tone vis à vis the U.S., at least here in Mtl. which is traditionally a quite left wing city. The fire department has been flying U.S. flags on all their trucks and the Illuminated Crowd, a very famous statue on av. McGill Collège downtown had little American flags stuck into the hands of some of the people. I thought that was a nice touch and not what I'm used to seeing here.
On campus, the idiot left has quieted down somewhat, which I think seems mostly to be because people aren't just ignoring them anymore. They were used to having the last word and it seems some people aren't giving it to them. I wouldn't want to exaggerate this too much, at least in the crowd I travel in it's rather gauche to be positive about the war, and on the campus in general it's best not to be too triumphalist, but I was pleased to read this large and very lucid collection of angry letters to the editor in the left-wing McGill Daily today, regarding the Comm. for Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights - very active group here, with lots of support from other leftist groups - who brought notoriously anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying Israel Shamir to speak last week. There was a lot of popular anger on campus about it, which, aside from our very large Jewish student population, many of which are politicized with Hillel and B'nai Brith and other pro-Israel groups, I don't think would have happened before. Read if you are interested here. I find it interesting is the first letter, where the author worries about "sensitivity" getting in the way of discussion. I guess the shit flows both ways, eh Martin? I wonder what he'd say if someone tried to give a talk making the opposite point. I've rarely seen hypocrisy displayed so baldly (and he's been reading his Chomsky too!).
By the way, the Canada Loves NY Day DID get some CNN publicity weekend before last, when PM Chrétien came to New York and met with the mayor in advance. Looked like a dork too, I might note.
Evan McElravy Thanks for these thoughtful updates. Canada doesn't get enough attention in the States -- I think that Canadians have gone on and on about how boring and nice they are that American media now assume that there just can't be any news there. Perhaps this is some sort of a plot. . . .
|
|
