SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/11/2007 8:42:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Michael Ramirez
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily



ibdeditorial.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/11/2007 12:45:54 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Al Sharpton: Nappy Headed Race Ho?

By Mike S. Adams
TownHall columns
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

As you can see from the title of this column, I’m not too crazy about Al Sharpton. There are a number of reasons for the dislike, which has finally spilled over in light of his recent insistence on the firing of Don Imus – although, for the record, I want it known:

I don’t like Don Imus either!

When the present controversy broke out, I was initially confused over which part of the phrase “nappy headed ho” had set Sharpton off. After all, two years ago at one of my speeches I was called a “Little Milky” by a Pakistani professor at Monmouth College in Illinois. Rather than calling for her to be fired, I just made fun of her in a very public way.

After finding out that a fan of mine had recorded my speech – including the “Little Milky” remark - with a digital recorder, I transcribed and published the professor’s racist comment in a column. Next, I had a student post my column on her university’s electronic bulletin board so others – including her own students! - could make fun of her, too.

But I never lost my sense of humor by slipping into a state of Sharpton-like faux outrage. In fact, I even adopted “Little Milky” as my new nickname on www.FaceBook.com. I’m not going to let the anti-white racism of this professor (whose name, by the way, is Dr. Farhat Haq, which is pronounced “Far Left Crock”) ruffle my little white tutu.

Oh, and I almost forgot the best part. Al Sharpton, whose job it is to monitor racism, never came to my defense after I was victimized by the racial epithet. In fact, Sharpton doesn’t even know who I am. But we could change that in a second if I were to simply call Dr. Haq a “Little Brownie.”

But because I am white and don’t hurl racial epithets, I’ll never meet Al Sharpton. And that’s enough for me to conclude that Al really isn’t opposed in principle to racism. He just selectively discusses it in order to get free stuff including, but not limited to, free media exposure.

So, perhaps Al Sharpton is angry about the word “ho” instead of the phrase “nappy headed.” But when I think back to the Tawana Brawley episode I quickly realize this couldn’t be so. To be dubbed a “rapist” or even a “rape victim” is far worse than to be dubbed a “ho.”

Think about it. The proper way to analyze the Brawley episode and, in the process, judge the absolute moral bankruptcy of Al Sharpton is to first imagine you have a teenage daughter or sister. Imagine further that someone had concocted a false story that she had been gang raped and sodomized by a group of adult men. Clearly, the charges would be defamatory and would cause inestimable harm to your daughter’s (or sister’s) reputation and emotional well-being.

And that is the under-discussed problem concerning the Brawley episode. We all know Sharpton defamed (and was sued by) people he falsely accused of raping and sodomizing Brawley. But look what he did to Brawley. She was merely a teenager – a child, in fact – who obviously suffered from severe emotional and mental problems. She would not claim to have been raped, sodomized, and covered with fecal matter had she been mentally stable.

So when Sharpton continued to advance the false rape story (long after it was debunked) he was still defaming Brawley. And he still is today. It is senseless to say that Brawley consented to the dissemination of the story. She hadn’t the mental or emotional capacity to do so. She was just a very sick child living in a very sick country that treats anti-Semitic/anti-Caucasian bigots with greater respect than its war heroes.

So, shame on you, racist Reverend. And, shame on you, Don Imus, for consenting to an interrogation at the hands of Al Sharpton. He might not be nappy headed. But he certainly is a whore.


Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/11/2007 2:31:15 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Imus And Andy

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Editorial
Posted Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Political Correctness: Former Virginia Sen. George Allen lost his seat and a chance at the presidency for a racially insensitive remark. Is a two-week suspension for Don Imus enough? It depends on whose ox is gored.

We won't repeat what the "Imus in the Morning" host said about Rutgers' women's basketball team. Unlike the dust-up over President Bush's observation that Sen. Barack Obama was "articulate," or Newt Gingrich's advocacy of English immersion, it was genuinely offensive and deserved condemnation.

What struck us was that his most vocal accuser, the Rev. Al Sharpton, on whose show Imus begged forgiveness, is hardly the poster child for racial sensitivity. Big Al rose to fame back in 1987 by charging that New York prosecutor Steve Pagones "on 33 separate occasions" had "kidnapped, raped and abused" Tawana Brawley.



Al Sharpton is in no position to accept an apology from Don Imus.

Brawley was a 15-year-old black girl who went missing and was found four days later covered in dog feces with racial slurs written on her body. She claimed six white men, one of them carrying a badge, had raped her repeatedly in a woods in upstate New York. Sharpton accused Pagones.

Pagones sued and won a $65,000 judgment for defamation. In 1988, a grand jury concluded Brawley "was not the victim of forcible sexual assault" and the whole thing was a hoax. In 2002, when Sharpton was asked if he'd apologize to Pagones, Sharpton replied: "Apologize for what? For believing a young lady?"

In 1991, a 7-year-old black child was killed in a Crown Heights (Brooklyn) traffic accident when a car driven by a Hasidic Jew went out of control. Sharpton showed up to lead protests, calling Jews "diamond merchants" and saying, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." A young Talmudic scholar would later be surrounded by a mob and stabbed to death. Sharpton paid no lasting price, but then liberal Democrats rarely do.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the day before he was elected party chief, Howard Dean asked a gathering of black Democrats: "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many black people into a single room?" To roaring laughter, the former governor of Vermont, a state with a black population of 0.05%, delivered the punch line: "Only if they had the hotel staff in there." Har, har.

Imagine if Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had made such a remark.
As it was, he got into enough trouble for trying to humor former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, and lost his leadership role. Considerably less hostility has greeted the repeated use of the phrase "white n*****" by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a former KKK Grand Kleagle.

In 1994, USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux got away with saying on TV regarding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: "You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease."

In 2004, at a fundraiser for a Missouri senate candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton quipped: "As I introduce her, I want to end with her favorite quote, because I love this quote. It's from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of the gas station." Derail her presidential ambitions it did not.

Also assigning demographic stereotypes to this ethnic group was Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who opined last July: "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent — I'm not joking." And we're not laughing.

We wonder if a two-week suspension would have been enough had a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity said what Imus or Malveaux said. Why is a Trent Lott or a George Allen judged more harshly than a Byrd, Biden or Clinton?

Maybe they should have begged forgiveness from Al Sharpton.

ibdeditorials.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/11/2007 2:43:49 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Off Color

Cox & Forkum



coxandforkum.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/12/2007 12:44:48 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Miscreant in Our Midst

By Chuck Colson
Townhall.com Columnists
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Once again, a riveting crisis is gripping the nation. Now that we all know who the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby is, we have a new media obsession—radio shock jock Don Imus.

Is anybody surprised by Imus’s demeaning comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team? I have always found him to be deliberately outrageous, anti-Semitic, and generally offensive. If I hear his voice when I turn on the radio, I cut it off.

Like millions of Americans, I have watched the almost non-stop coverage of the Rutgers women’s basketball team. They are the classic Horatio Alger story. On the court, they were underdogs but won national fame by reaching the NCAA women’s finals. Off the court, they have responded to the Imus controversy with sensibility, intelligence, and thoughtfulness.

So, now we are confronted with a classic dilemma. Imus has made a racist, sexist slur on the public airwaves. But remember the First Amendment. What does CBS radio and MSNBC do? Well, MSNBC has already announced it will no longer carry his broadcast. Good.

But as a radio broadcaster myself, I respect freedom of speech, and I understand why broadcasters would defend their First Amendment rights. (Of course, there’s also another issue at stake: that is, Imus and others like him make millions of dollars a year for broadcasters. Media companies are businesses, after all. And don’t forget, controversy sells.)

In a free society, we have to protect free speech, unless it creates a demonstrable danger. So, I am really not so worried about what the broadcasters do here, whether they fire him or not.

But I do have a proposal: We can respect Don Imus’s freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech of others who copy him, like Howard Stern—a whole genre of broadcasters. But let’s balance it with our own freedom of choice. Let’s boycott the products of those companies that choose to promote Imus and his ilk on the air. Some companies have done that now with Imus. If he stays on CBS or any other network, watch or listen to some different network. The best way to silence an obnoxious bully like this is the remote-control switch.

The Sicilians used to have a very effective way of dealing with miscreants in their midst. They would simply turn their backs on them and refuse to speak to them. This is an excruciating punishment. I know what it is like to be shunned by the establishment, because I went through it in Watergate.

Christian broadcasters and leaders across the country ought to take the lead in this boycott, calling for a boycott of Mr. Imus and the products he promotes.

Then there’s the Washington establishment. For years, every political candidate has beaten his way to Imus’s door. Everybody selling a book has begged to get on his program. That needs to stop. Politicians and authors—all of us—ought to turn our backs on the shock jock bigot.

This will give a wonderful test of the character of this country. If listeners continue to listen to Imus and consumers continue to buy products advertised on his show, then we are responsible for Don Imus—and for insulting those beautiful young athletes at Rutgers.

So let’s leave it to the good sense of the American people and the free market. Mr. Imus has his right of free speech—I have my freedom of choice, and I have already made it.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/12/2007 2:01:45 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    Why aren't these keepers of the First Amendment flame 
coming to the defense of Don Imus? It's because they have
a double standard. Evangelical Christians, practicing
Roman Catholics, politically conservative Republicans,
home-schoolers and others who are not in favor among the
liberal elite are frequent targets for the left. Anything
may be said about them, and it frequently is. But let
someone insult the left's "protected classes," be they
African Americans, homosexuals or to a lesser extent,
adherents to the religion of "global warming," and they
must be silenced and punished.

Free Speech Double Standard

By Cal Thomas
Townhall.com Columnists
Thursday, April 12, 2007

Talk show host Don Imus has been suspended for two weeks from the CBS radio network and MSNBC's simulcast of that show because he touched the "third rail" of free speech: he insulted African Americans, some of whose self-appointed "leaders" have a direct line to the media to express their outrage.In fact, outrage is the primary currency of the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Without it, no one would ask them to come on their programs.

Imus' remarks about black women on the Rutgers University female basketball team were the same kind of stuff (and worse) that one can hear in hip-hop "music." Hip-hop "artists," who are mostly black men, frequently demean black women. Their lyrics approve of rape and other violent acts against black women, who are referred to as "hos" and "b------," and other names that cannot be printed here.

Imus' comments about the Rutgers women were offensive by the standards that used to exist in America. The hypocrisy comes when people who have "pushed the envelope" beyond what used to be called acceptable boundaries of taste and community standards now appeal to the standards they helped to eliminate. Corporate executives who trade in the worst of the hip-hop filth are not required to apologize or stop polluting the airwaves as well as minds and hearts with their filth. That's because it makes them gobs of money and money covers a multitude of "sins."

The hypocrisy extends to Jesse Jackson, who appeared on Fox News Channel. In an interview with John Gibson, Jackson criticized Imus for his remarks. It would have been a good moment for Gibson to ask Jackson if he felt empathy for Imus, since Jackson once called New York City "Hymietown," which many regarded as an anti-Semitic slur, but Gibson did not bring it up.

Like Michael Richards, who launched a racist tirade at an audience member during a stand-up comedy routine, Imus is now doing the apology tour. He groveled on Sharpton's radio show, saying he meant no offense and acted as priest and penitent by declaring himself "a good man."

It will never satisfy until people whose careers are built on taking offense have extracted his last pound of flesh and worn out their welcome on the cable TV shows. That will happen when the media tire of the Anna Nicole Smith story.

Where are the First Amendment defenders in all this? They have fled Imus as if he's radioactive. Jackson suggested that the famous journalists who appear on Imus stop showing up in order to register their displeasure over his remarks. Will they? Most are liberals who might be expected to share the outrage over Imus' comments. But all have egos and the stroking they get from Imus, along with the feedback they receive from those who matter to them, may overcome any reluctance they might otherwise have to appear on his show.

During the 1980s, social conservatives who tried to control pornography, including that subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts, were told such things were the price we must all pay for a "healthy First Amendment." Artists must be free to express themselves. If certain people object to what is on TV, they can change channels, or turn it off.

Why aren't these keepers of the First Amendment flame coming to the defense of Don Imus? It's because they have a double standard. Evangelical Christians, practicing Roman Catholics, politically conservative Republicans, home-schoolers and others who are not in favor among the liberal elite are frequent targets for the left. Anything may be said about them, and it frequently is. But let someone insult the left's "protected classes," be they African Americans, homosexuals or to a lesser extent, adherents to the religion of "global warming," and they must be silenced and punished.

Was Don Imus racially insensitive and offensive? According to my standards, he was. But my standards no longer matter. They have been thrown overboard in favor of a different philosophy. Call it "Anything Goes." Look up the lyrics to that classic Cole Porter song and you have the mentality that passes for contemporary communication and entertainment.

If the Imus case went to trial, no jury in the land would convict him because the prosecutor would not have a universal standard by which to hold him accountable.

Cal Thomas is America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist and co-author of Blinded by Might.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/12/2007 3:19:19 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Snoop weighs in

Greg Pollowitz
Media Blog

Snoop Dogg on why it's unfair to compare his lyrics to what Don Imus said:


<<< "It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh—, that's trying to get a n—-a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha——as say we in the same league as him." >>>

and...

<<< "Kick him off the air forever," he said. "Ban him like they did [Adam] 'Pacman' Jones. They kicked him out the [National Football] League for the whole season [for numerous violations of the NFL's personal-conduct policy, including multiple arrests], but this punk gets to get on the air and call black women 'nappy-headed ho's.' " >>>

For the record, Snoop Dogg pleaded no contest today to felony gun and drug charges and Jones was banned for the year because he has had 10 incidents involving the police since 2006, including a shooting at a Vegas night spot that left a man paralyzed.

(h/t Rex P.)

media.nationalreview.com

mtv.com

showbuzz.cbsnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/13/2007 10:14:18 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    [These liberals have] shown that they don't disapprove for
moral reasons; it's simply because Everybody's Talking
About It.

The Imus Formula

By Duncan Maxwell Anderson
American Thinker

In the post-Easter crucifixion of the "Imus in the Morning" radio show that substituted for news this week, the hypocrisy would make a Pharisee blush. All of a sudden, it's supposedly shocking that Don Imus referred to the Rutgers girls' basketball team with language that is routine on millions of "rap" recordings willingly bought by white and black kids alike for lo these 20 years.

Never mind, even, that such jokes have been a staple of Imus' show for decades. Where have these shocked detractors been? Over the years, he has referred to Gwen Ifill of the New York Times as "a cleaning lady," called tennis-playing Venus and Serena Williams "animals" and compared the forwards of the New York Knicks to gorillas. Race aside, he routinely uses foul and sexually degrading language to middle-aged women who are guests on his show.

Curiously, those abused women on his show, strident feminists all, usually giggle appreciatively. I refer to columnist Maureen Dowd, reporters Andrea Mitchell, Claire Shipman, and Cokie Roberts, and plagiary-challenged historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, to name a few. But then again, they are usually on his show to promote their books.

Liberal male authors and reporters fawn all over Imus, too: Tom Friedman and Frank Rich of the Times; network broadcast faces Bob Schieffer, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Jim Miklaszewski, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville, Mike Wallace, and Brian Williams; print reporters like Jeff Greenfield, Mike Lupica, Howard Fineman, Jonathan Alter, Evan Thomas, and Pete Hamill.

Is it possible that these same liberal solons-who solemnly pondered the possible racial implications of a Republican Senator from Virginia who referred to an opposition gate-crasher at one of his events as "Mr. Macaca"-never listened to the general content of Imus's show? Not even while they were on hold, waiting to go on the air? With few exceptions, the liberal reportariat is silent, because Imus is suddenly not okay. They've shown that they don't disapprove for moral reasons; it's simply because Everybody's Talking About It.

For years the Imus program has functioned as an electronic playground exempt from the norms of PC.
Like Al Gore spewing CO2 in his private jet with the environmentalists' blessing, when the respectably liberal authors and reporters call the Imus show, they are exempt from the blue-nosed speech prescriptions they offer the rest of us. They can't say the nasty stuff themselves (Al D'Amato found out the hard way), but they can safely chuckle along. No one will write a nasty "Style" piece about them in the Washington Post or sue them for "creating a hostile environment" for hanging out with Imus and the boys to flog their book to his audience.

The critical thing to realize is that Imus's show has two elements, each of which keeps the other alive. The parade of left-wing opinion makes the show respectable in the slavishly PC New York ad market. Meanwhile, Imus's sex-and-bigotry shtick is the element that ensures that someone, somewhere, will actually listen to the show-specifically, sports-obsessed young males. And the show can be very funny.

Imus has a certain blowhard charm, kept more or less honest by the relentless teasing he endures from other members of the cast. They work together with split-second timing. Bernard McGuirk, a Buchanan conservative (isolationism and all), is mordantly witty and quick. Rob Barlett's parodies are often works of genius, making fun of Imus' liberal friends and their heroes. That creates the balance that has let the show survive. That, plus the fact that Imus gets politicians and liberal reporters to laugh at his raunchy jokes.

The staple of the show is Guy Humor. It's over-the-top, so I don't often listen. It's anti-Bush, which annoys me. And the racial stuff is cheap, but at least it's equal-opportunity. He hits Jews, Evangelicals (Imus says he loves Jesus), Catholics and priests in particular (Bernard nails him if he goes too far), Puerto Ricans, illegal aliens, Italians, and so on.

Now, if you take away the trash talk, what you're left with is a series of suck-up interviews with lefties selling books. In other words, Air America. Not a very promising business model, is it?

After the PC storm blows over, I can't believe CBS radio, the Imus show's owner, and MSNBC, its former simulcaster, would go for a gelded Imus, and I'll bet the liberal reportariat won't let the pressure reach that level.* After all, if the Imus show folds, where will all those liberal reporters promote their books? Sean Hannity?

Update: I was wrong. MSNBC has cancelled Imus, after sponsors pulled their ads. CBS will be next to feel the pressure. A gelded Imus will not sell.

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (26588)4/18/2007 2:35:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    I'm all in favor of acid wit and barbed satire. But too 
many partisans on both sides sound like Beavis and Butt-
Head, tittering over trivia....
    The reality is that much of political correctness - the 
successful part - is a necessary attempt to redefine good
manners in a sexually and racially integrated society.
Good manners are simply those things you do to demonstrate
respect to others and contribute to social decorum. Aren't
conservatives the natural defenders of proper manners?

Political-Correctness Kabuki Theater

By Jonah Goldberg
Townhall.com Columnists
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Everything worth saying about the Don Imus thing - which isn't much - has been said already. We've now moved beyond Imus to the "national dialogue" phase of this familiar cycle. This is where we're supposed to tackle hard questions and deep truths about our society.

People have been calling for national dialogues and conversations for decades. It usually works something like this: Liberals say we need a frank discussion about race (or class or gender) in this country, and then they proceed to bludgeon any conservative stupid enough to take them up on their offer.

Consider a recent non-Imus example: Newt Gingrich said last month that bilingual education keeps some people in the "ghetto." Within hours, the same "let's have a frank dialogue" crowd denounced the former House speaker, insisting that he apologize for being so frank. And Gingrich promptly complied.

That's how the political-correctness Kabuki theater works. There's a reason so many were quick to point out that Imus' "shocking" shtick is museum-lecture dull compared to what black rappers spew on a regular basis. Too often, political correctness is a fixed fight where white guys get beat up for things others are allowed. The selective enforcement of PC shibboleths undermines the credibility of liberal do-gooders. For example, when campus administrators turn a blind eye to goons burning conservative newspapers or shouting down right-wing speakers, it makes it hard to take them seriously when they bleat about free speech.

But don't get me wrong. For the right - not to mention the creators of "South Park" - political correctness can be the gift that keeps on giving. The earnest leftists of the academy who seriously use "herstory" for "history" or "ovular" instead of "seminar" make it easy to discredit the entire PC project as a lot of pretentious, even Orwellian, nonsense.

But pointing out these excesses has costs for conservatives, too. Standing up to political correctness has become an unlimited warrant to be rude for its own sake. And if you catch flak for it, you can just say you were defending free thought. Ann Coulter, for example, justifies her cruder barbs and insults on the grounds that she's pushing back against the liberal thought police. Sometimes she's even right. But calling John Edwards a "faggot" is hardly a triumph of conservative principle.

I'm all in favor of acid wit and barbed satire. But too many partisans on both sides sound like Beavis and Butt-Head, tittering over trivia. More important, if political correctness is as absurd as so many people think it is, why is it so successful? This newspaper, your local schools, police and fire departments, city hall, your church and workplace all likely subscribe to vast swaths of what was once called a politically correct agenda, from rules barring sexual harassment to the language you can use in casual conversation or e-mails. Surely if PC is the Orwellian imposition so many conservatives claim it is, Americans would reject it the way they resisted other alien impositions, such as the metric system, bidets or David Hasselhoff's Germanic personality cult.

The reality is that much of political correctness - the successful part - is a necessary attempt to redefine good manners in a sexually and racially integrated society. Good manners are simply those things you do to demonstrate respect to others and contribute to social decorum. Aren't conservatives the natural defenders of proper manners?

Remember that D.C. bureaucrat who lost his job for using the word "niggardly" correctly in a sentence? That was outrageous overkill, but I don't know that many well-mannered white people who would use "niggardly" in a room full of black people either, for fear of offending. The problem with political correctness resides in the demand that new manners be created from scratch, which is bound to turn people off. I mean, did we really need to replace "old" with "senior" or purge "Dutch treat" from the vernacular?

PC's problems become even more acute when the left insists on smuggling larger agendas into what should be a polite conversation about what constitutes politeness. There's remarkable overlap between conservative and liberal complaints about the culture. But when traditionalists talk the language of decency and morality, the left hears bigotry and theocracy. And when liberals talk about sensitivity and white privilege, the right hears something totalitarian. The result is that the two sides hold separate conversations. And when they do talk to each other, each side is listening for hidden agendas.

Perhaps the reason the national conversations always sputter out is that they start off too ambitious. Rather than tackling America's fundamental problems, we could start by talking about how we should talk.


Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.

townhall.com