|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 13, 2004 :::
How many marbles can Kate Malcolm stake that she can argue against polygamy?
::: posted by dWj at 8:50 AM
(0) comments
I think of "chink in armor" (not in anything else, incidentally) before I think of the racial slur, though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that people of a different ethnic background than mine would think of the other meaning first. My first response to reading "Chink's steaks" was to misread it; it seemed odd enough that my mind changed it to "Cheese Steaks" until it became clear from later context that it wasn't quite that Dick Tracy generic.
I would hope Kate realizes that "cracker" is not a term that has been used "once". I believe the writer is exagerating a point, that point being that the writer believes the term "chink" to be one that is more often not used in the offensive manner, and perhaps was not offensive at the time of the naming of the restaurant. Which brings me back to the same point as my brother, that had the issue been pointed out to me I would have advised against its use 55 years ago; at this point, I wish to know what the nature of the term was 55 years ago, particularly in Philadelphia, and how the guy got the nickname in the first place.
People of different backgrounds are naturally going to respond differently to different words, both in terms of taking offense and in terms simply of applying meaning to them. This applies to different ethnicities, but to other differences in background as well. If this were a situation with more context, in which it was clear that the term "chink" was not being used as an ethnic slur, I would compare the situation to the "niggardly" flap in the D.C. public schools a couple years ago; there somebody heard a word that sounded like something offensive to him. Whether this is the offensive word or not is less clear here; it's certainly more plausible.
::: posted by dWj at 8:35 AM
(0) comments
Kate responds to my lack of concern over the name of "Chink's Steaks", a 55-year-old restaurant in Philly. It's quite possible that I have underrated the offensiveness of "chink" as an ethnic slur against Chinese people. Certainly, in my mind, it's quite similar to referring to a white guy as a "cracker" -- mildly archaic slang, slightly-less-mildly insulting, but not deeply offensive, or even -- and this is probably just me -- a syllable one automatically associates with Asians.
Kate is right that in the context of "Chink's Steaks", I wouldn't really think of a chink in armor. I'm not sure I'd think of the epithet, though. I'd probably assume that it was somebody's nickname, if I thought beyond "how's the food"? Writing about it now, it strikes me as a phonically inelegant name. It also reminds me a bit of "Toot Sweets", from "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". But I digress.
In Kate's original entry on the matter, she wrote:
Personally, I don't see that there's much of a question here. Replace the word "Chink" with almost any other racial epithet and the debate ends rather quickly. The name is offensive. Change it.
With some racial epithets the debate would end rather quickly. With "kraut", for example, I don't think it would be a big deal -- it wouldn't upset me, at least, and the name "Jens" is not as Mediterranian as you might think. I heard a Frenchman once say that he was offended by the name of the Frog Pond in Boston Common, but if the group we were in hadn't realized that he was joking, we would have assumed him to be deranged (as it happens, he was both).
Now, if I were advising someone nicknamed "Chink" on how to name a steak house that he's opening, and it occurred to me (or someone pointed out) that the name might be offensive to some people, I'd suggest that he choose something else. An offensive name isn't usually good for business. The stick in the gear-train, though, is that this place has been around for 55 years. I have an aversion to renaming established institutions (especially if there's been a brand built up, though I doubt any regulars would stop coming because they were confused by a name change). And I'm a little puzzled -- has this movement to get the name changed been around for that long, but never had much traction before now? Did someone suggest to the original owner -- shortly after he opened -- that he go with a different banner on the facade, only to be gruffly ignored? I assume the epithet has been around as long as the Union-Pacific railroad -- i.e., longer than the restaurant.
At any rate, I'll concede that I'm not much of an expert in racial epithets, and I probably underestimated how offensive "chink" is.
::: posted by Steven at 1:10 AM
(0) comments
Thursday, February 12, 2004 :::
I saw the beginning of Dennis Miller's new CNBC show tonight, and was disappointed. The jokes seemed to have been written by him, and many were pretty funny, but his delivery was entirely off. He lacked both passion and timing. It was almost as if he were reading something in a language he didn't understand.
::: posted by Steven at 10:29 PM
(0) comments
I imagine my first reaction to hearing that story was shared by many: "so, how rich is this one?"
Seriously, it's hard to know how seriously to take this. If it makes the Democratic race more competitive, though, I look forward to that. If it hands the nomination to Edwards, I don't look forward to that.
::: posted by Steven at 6:05 PM
(0) comments
Drudge reports on a story of infidelity by Kerry.
Update: To reemphasize, Drudge reports on a story of infidelity by Kerry. There are times when I don't mean anything by sticking the attribution at the beginning of the post, but this isn't one of those times.
::: posted by dWj at 3:21 PM
(0) comments
Give Lily Malcolm a visit for her birthday.
I have a few comments for Kate, too, but maybe not now. Well, here's the short version:
1. I don't think "chink" is automatically an Asian racial epithet. I would be more likely to associate the word with a "chink" in one's armor. Much like "cracker", it can be meant as an epithet, but it doesn't have to be. I don't think that particular analogy is entirely false.
2. I agree that a lot of people seem to make bad arguments when good ones are available. Here in Massachusetts over the last few days, I've been hearing entirely unpersuasive ads by both sides in the gay-marriage debate. The anti-gay-marriage people want me to oppose gay marriage because it's new, and scary, and we should consider whether there might not be a good reason against it. This has a certain appeal to my Burkean side, but at some point, I feel they should actually offer a reason against it, rather than just suggesting that there might be one. Then the pro-gay-marriage people come on saying that "discrimination" is automatically bad, ignoring the fact that all laws, at some point, discriminate between those who follow them and those who don't. Is there a rational basis behind this particular discrimination? Nobody seems to want to say.
On his radio show tonight, Howie Carr was saying that, sure, homosexual lovers want to marry each other, but that he (Howie) would like to counterfeit money, and he's not allowed to do that. Even my landlord couldn't come up with a less apt analogy, and false analogies are his specialty.
Back in the debate over whether to go into Iraq, I was quite frustrated that the reasonable arguments against going in never seemed to get made. There were reasonable arguments, but we didn't hear them -- instead, we tended to hear "no blood for oil". There was a legitimate case to be made that we were best off letting the situation continue to simmer, as we've done with Cuba for the last half-century -- that it would be cheaper, easier, and no more dangerous. But instead we got the tin-foil hats.
3. The French government has never had religious tolerance. Further, it has never taken any position based on reason or principle, rather than the most visceral populism mixed with corrupt cronyist politics.
4. Neither has Bill O'Reilly.
I am way too tired to be blogging right now.
::: posted by Steven at 2:31 AM
(0) comments
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 :::
I think I want to point out the Economic Report of the President on this blog as well; I'd encourage people with little exposure to economic reasoning to read a chapter or two, preferably not the first one so much. Chapter 2 or 3 or 7 or 9 or even 4 would provide good exposure to basic economic reasoning.
::: posted by dWj at 1:27 PM
(0) comments
Penn embarrasses men's hoops, the Daily Princetonian reports, and I'm not sure I can put it any better. Penn 67, Princeton 52. At Cornell on Friday.
::: posted by dWj at 9:25 AM
(0) comments
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 :::
It would appear that Paris is no longer worth a Mass. The wearing of religious symbols in French schools will be banned in order "to protect France's secular traditions". France's secular traditions don't go back very far compared to its religious traditions -- perhaps to the French Revolution?
"The Republic and secularism are strengthened," said Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, hailing "the magnitude of this vote."
If secularism is defined as atheism, or at least the suppression of religious views, it may indeed have been strengthened. But since this quotation has probably been translated, I won't be critical of Mr. Raffarin for the choice of words. Both AP and the BBC cite protests by Muslims and "human rights" groups; AP also cites a protest by the World Jewish Congress. There is no word if there are any Christians left in France or, if so, what they thought.
::: posted by Eric at 6:36 PM
(0) comments
Incidentally, I no longer work in the Chicago Board of Trade building, though I will be there this Friday morning and probably the Friday morning or two after that.One of the great advantages to the new space is the quality of the coffee provided to the office; I've been meaning for some time to cut back dramatically on my consumption, and they are offering considerable help with this.
::: posted by dWj at 4:00 PM
(0) comments
Instapundit reports on CNN's treatment of the Zarqawi memo detailing the trouble al-Qaeda faces in Iraq.
::: posted by dWj at 3:57 PM
(0) comments
Monday, February 09, 2004 :::
A brief excursion around the web
Serious security problems resulted in the Treasury Department providing some classified documents to former Secretary Paul O'Neill for a book that painted an unflattering picture of President Bush and the inner workings of his administration. That's not good.
There's an interesting story in Fortune about abrupt climate change.
At the WSJ, a column calling for an investigation of the UN's "Oil for Palaces" program.
NRO has a column explaining that the Bush/AWOL charge has been definitively answered. Meanwhile, the Man Without Qualities doesn't think Kerry's service record will give him much of a leg up on the national security issue (nor should it).
Michael Kinsley writes about the Democrats' search for an electable candidate:"I'm actually for Dennis Kucinich," a Democrat might say, "because I like his position on nationalizing all the churches. But I'm supporting Joe Lieberman. His views on nearly everything are repellent to me, and I think that's a good sign." The main attraction of that Kinsley piece is that it's filled with bons mots (I especially like the word "heathenry").
And, if you still have time -- this is by far the least timely link on this list -- I recently found a long but interesting piece on History's Greatest Monster.
::: posted by Steven at 4:51 PM
(0) comments
In Ivy League men's basketball, Princeton went undefeated this weekend, though they needed overtime against Harvard. Meanwhile, Cornell got tore a new one by Yale; Princeton is the only team left with no conference losses, but Penn tomorrow night and Cornell Friday night will each supply them with another opportunity to acquire one.
::: posted by dWj at 10:16 AM
(0) comments
Eric writes on red states and blue states. I could swear I remember whatever network I was watching using the opposite colors in 1992, i.e. blue for Bush and red for Clinton, and, though the memory is less clear, I think in 1984 Reagan was blue and Mondale red.
::: posted by dWj at 10:01 AM
(0) comments
Sunday, February 08, 2004 :::
Howard Dean lost the support of the 1.5 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees on Saturday, yet another blow for a candidacy depleted by defeat. I can't be the only person who thinks this makes AFSCME look really, really bad.
::: posted by Steven at 1:13 AM
(0) comments
|
|
|
|
