Pumpkin Posse
Which one doesn’t fit? Thanks to Mr. Escargot for putting the pic up. Looks great!
A Common Disaster
Are there more natural disasters these days? Could the end be near? My guess is no to both questions, but it does seem like the fires and floods are nastier than ever. Just last month Hurricane Isabel smacked North Carolina’s Outer Banks resulting in millions of dollars of damage to private property. Sarah and I stayed at a wonderful beach house in the vulnerable Corolla section of the Outer Banks this past summer. This strech of beach is only accessible by driving on the beach when the tide is out. Not exactly an ideal place to build million-dollar homes. It wouldn’t surprise me if the house was washed to sea. Now the fires raging in San Diego County have roared through upscale subdivisions and small agricultural communities and at least 17 people have died. After disasters like these, we usually read that a state of emergency was declared and agencies like FEMA get involved. At this point the headlines usually move on to the next disaster–natural or otherwise. Isn’t time to start asking serious questions about how unchecked growth and development are costing lives, millions (probably billions) of property damage as well as taxpayer-supported assistance through FEMA (an agency that handsomely rewards those who don’t plan well) and governmental relief? What is the libertarian response to this problem? If there should be no regulation as to where development occurs, should the government also refuse aid to the family who built their home on a fault line?
Back in 1948, Richard Weaver (a gradudate of the University of Kentucky who once belonged to the American Socialist Party and was later considered a great conservative thinker) wrote: “Nature is not something to be fought, conquered and changed according to any human whims. To some extent, of course, it has to be used. But what man should seek in regard to nature is not a complete dominion but a manner of living together, a coming to terms with something that was here before our time and will be here after it.”
More Terry and Bill
The Terry Gross and Bill O’ Reilly discussion continues on the internet. Signal vs. Noise, a blog mostly focused on web design, usability, etc. currently has 56 comments about the interview. Here are some good ones:
“O’Reilly was hilarious; he reminded me of a high-school bully. All bluster, intimidation, and thin-skinned defensiveness. The only valid point he made was that Terry Gross hadn’t grilled Al Franken in the same way, and thus he had grounds for feeling unfairly treated. But if he had nothing to hide, then why should he have felt uncomfortable being questioned?”
“I am such a geek! When I first read this, I thought, “Why in the hell would Tim O’Reilly get in a fight with Terry Gross over his tech book publishing?” I glanced over the first few comments and it still didn’t make sense. It makes MUCH more sense after reading the Fresh Air link that Bill O’Reilly would be mixing it up.”
“Terry Gross was, from the out-set, obviously uncomfortable and off balance compared to how she usually conducts interviews. She fumbled her words, spoke in circles, and generally had a difficult time getting down to the root question at hand. To my ears, she was unprepared and anxious about interviewing O’Reilly.
Truth be told, I listened to the interview expecting O’Reilly to be a prick. But Gross was clearly looking to goose O’Reilly.”
Margret Hoffman Survived the Holocaust
Margret Hoffman was born in Berlin in 1925. She lived through the Holocaust (although her mom wasn’t so lucky) and later secured passage to New York. At 78 years-old, Margret is a writer, activist, Quaker, and all around conscientious person. Continue reading…
Terry Gross vs. Bill O’Reilly
Bill O’Reilly refused to finish an interview with Terry Gross yesterday because she gave Al Franken an easy ride (”his book was satire,” she says) but seemed uncharacteristically antagonistic with the Fox News provocateur. Listen to the interview on Frrrrresh Air.
I don’t have cable so I haven’t seen his show, the “No-Spin Zone,” too many times. But from listening to his radio program a time or two, hearing this interview, and reading various things about him online and elsewhere, I don’t understand why he is often vilified as an “ultra-conservative.” In this interview, he claims to be for “strict environmental regulations” and decriminalization of marijuana. I understand that he is also an advocate of gay rights. Terry asks if shows like his create an atmosphere that do not foster solutions because there is so much bickering, etc. Yet folks like Al Franken clearly aren’t interested in constructive discourse and reaching across the aisles to acheive goals. Whether or not I agree with O’Reilly’s views on an issue, he seems much more dedicated to thinking critically rather than being emotional and ideologically driven. I think it’s safe to say that this man has a huge influence on the hearts and minds of people across the country. Because he claims to be willing to listen to solid arguments and reason, it makes sense that if a strong case is made, he might be a voice for that particular cause (or whatever). Rather than avoid his show, or simply bash him as a scary right-winger, why not convince him that you’re right and potentially change the attitudes of millions?
Twitter Stream
