Posts
I finally got some solid production out of my running backs in week four, and combined with the always great Peyton Manning I cruised to an 86-72 victory. That brings me to 2-2 on the year so far, and ties for second place in my division.
Sun Runners: 86 Total Points
Peyton Manning, Ind QB 20
Steve Slaton, Hou RB 18
Ricky Williams, Mia RB 15
Patrick Crayton, Dal WR 1
Chad Ochocinco, Cin WR 14
Pierre Garcon, Ind WR 7
Todd Heap, Bal TE 4
Steelers D/ST, Pit D/ST 1
John Carney, NO K 6
Team Campman: 72 Points
Kyle Orton, Den QB 17
Steven Jackson, StL RB 7
Cedric Benson, Cin RB 8
Darren McFadden, Oak RB 0
Mike Sims-Walker, Jac WR 21
Jabar Gaffney, Den WR 0
Owen Daniels, Hou TE 4
Bengals D/ST, Cin D/ST 12
Rian Lindell, Buf K 3
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Meet the Stars of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Buffy book reviews)
MEET THE STARS OF BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Jan Gabriel (New York: Scholastic, 1998)
RATING: 4/5 Stakes
BACK-OF-THE-BOOK SUMMARY: “Buffy the Vampire Slayer is total must see—the coolest kickin’ hour of teen power on TV. Blazing into its third sizzling season, Buffy is the chosen show, funny and scary and heartbreaking and loving and real. It’s generation next, to the max. Sarah Michelle Gellar as the Buffster is one huge reason, but Nicholas Brendon as Xander, Alyson Hannigan as Willow, David Boreanaz as Angel, Charisma Carpenter as Cordelia, and Seth Green as Oz are the slammingest sidekicks a slayer, or her fans, could ask for. What’s their real life deal? Here’s the place to find out.”
REVIEW
“Slammingest”? “Generation next, to the max”? The back cover copy is lovely cheesy fun, obviously written by someone several decades older than the subjects of the book. Slang aside, Meet the Stars of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is actually a decent, short biography of the main actors in the show. Several chapters focus on Sarah Michelle Gellar, with individual chapters on David Boreanaz, Alyson Hannigan, Nicholas Brendon, Seth Green, and Charisma Carpenter (sorry Tony Head!). Written shortly after Season Two, the book is by no means comprehensive but the writing is breezy and eminently readable. Better yet, it’s not sycophantic and is willing to talk about some of the actors’ more controversial traits, such as Gellar’s reputation for bitchiness. To my mind, this is a cheaper and far more entertaining way to get a quick overview of the actors’ pre-Buffy work than the Watcher’s Guides.
Drug Reforms Significant
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)
Drug Reforms Significant
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
November 13, 2000
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
---H.L. Mencken
America has a long tradition of periodic mass hysterics that are forgotten or even mocked by later generations. In the 1920s, religious leaders preached earnestly about the demon-liquor. In the 1950s, every non-conformist was an instant commie and, therefore, an unparalleled threat to democracy. In 1999, thousands of Americans spent millions to prepare for the Y2K apocalypse.
And hysteria can go on for decades. An example: The War on Drugs. Fortunately, the end (while not near) can be glimpsed in recent ballot initiatives.
* California voters passed, by a 2 to 1 margin, a constitutional amendment requiring treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders. The law is expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise go to operate and construct prisons.
* In Massachusetts, voters narrowly defeated a similar measure 53 to 47 percent.
Colorado voters gave the nod to medical marijuana. Patients with debilitating conditions will now be issued identification cards enabling them to use the law as an affirmative defense should a prosecutor bring charges.
* Nevada voters also passed a medical marijuana law in a 65 to 35 percent decision. This makes 10 states that have voted to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
* Two states, Oregon and Utah, acted to limit police in the War on Drugs by requiring that proceeds from seized property must be used for drug treatment or public education instead of being added to law enforcement budgets.
* In Alaska, the broadest of all drug-related ballot initiatives failed 61 to 39 percent. The proposed law would have completely legalized marijuana (subject to regulation like alcohol), granted amnesty for all persons convicted of marijuana offenses and created an advisory group to study restitution for those convicted of marijuana offenses.
Although the measure failed, its proponents are surely encouraged by the result and will likely return with a less sweeping measure.
America is finally beginning to understand there are always costs to legislating morality. In the War on Drugs, the cost is exorbitant. In April, we reached a record 1.86 million imprisoned adults. The Omaha World-Herald reported in April the U.S. now has the dubious distinction of being first worldwide for highest rate of incarceration. And, according to the Aug. 31, 2000, World-Herald, there are 1.5 million children with a parent in prison, a 60 percent increase since 1991.
The War on Drugs costs us in other ways too. We now know the White House drug policy office offered financial incentives to magazines and television networks that ran stories discouraging drug use. Public service announcements are one thing. But offering financial incentives to change a show's content comes dangerously close to censorship.
In Los Angeles, in the largest corruption trial in the city's history, many of the charges are related to manipulation of drug charges: The money is big, and the evidence easily manipulated.
Even proponents of the War on Drugs admit they are losing. In March, Barry McCaffrey (the government's so-called Drug Czar) appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee and testified that the prices of cocaine and heroin have fallen to record lows and remain widely available. His report also stated that 4.7 million people have tried methamphetamine and that its use is spreading. (World-Herald March 23, 2000)
As Mark Twain said about alcohol, "Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places and does not cure or even diminish it." The importance of even one state, such as California or Alaska, reforming its drug laws should not be underestimated.
These states provide a comparison and undermine the often-hysterical claims of law enforcement groups about what will happen if some drug use is legalized.
Just like Vermont undermined conservative claims about how the institution of marriage would be destroyed if GLBT people gained equality, so will conservative claims about mass violence and anarchy be undermined after reasonable drug law reforms are put into effect.
The issue is not simple, and there are legitimate grounds for debate. Drug abuse is a real problem. It ruins lives and can even kill.
The fundamental question, however, is how we should solve the problem. Shall we continue locking nonviolent drug offenders in cages? Or should we provide treatment and education but allow individuals to live their lives in the way they choose so long as they do not harm others?
After Nov. 7, the correct choice is becoming increasingly clear.
Drug Reforms Significant
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
November 13, 2000
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
---H.L. Mencken
America has a long tradition of periodic mass hysterics that are forgotten or even mocked by later generations. In the 1920s, religious leaders preached earnestly about the demon-liquor. In the 1950s, every non-conformist was an instant commie and, therefore, an unparalleled threat to democracy. In 1999, thousands of Americans spent millions to prepare for the Y2K apocalypse.
And hysteria can go on for decades. An example: The War on Drugs. Fortunately, the end (while not near) can be glimpsed in recent ballot initiatives.
* California voters passed, by a 2 to 1 margin, a constitutional amendment requiring treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders. The law is expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise go to operate and construct prisons.
* In Massachusetts, voters narrowly defeated a similar measure 53 to 47 percent.
Colorado voters gave the nod to medical marijuana. Patients with debilitating conditions will now be issued identification cards enabling them to use the law as an affirmative defense should a prosecutor bring charges.
* Nevada voters also passed a medical marijuana law in a 65 to 35 percent decision. This makes 10 states that have voted to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
* Two states, Oregon and Utah, acted to limit police in the War on Drugs by requiring that proceeds from seized property must be used for drug treatment or public education instead of being added to law enforcement budgets.
* In Alaska, the broadest of all drug-related ballot initiatives failed 61 to 39 percent. The proposed law would have completely legalized marijuana (subject to regulation like alcohol), granted amnesty for all persons convicted of marijuana offenses and created an advisory group to study restitution for those convicted of marijuana offenses.
Although the measure failed, its proponents are surely encouraged by the result and will likely return with a less sweeping measure.
America is finally beginning to understand there are always costs to legislating morality. In the War on Drugs, the cost is exorbitant. In April, we reached a record 1.86 million imprisoned adults. The Omaha World-Herald reported in April the U.S. now has the dubious distinction of being first worldwide for highest rate of incarceration. And, according to the Aug. 31, 2000, World-Herald, there are 1.5 million children with a parent in prison, a 60 percent increase since 1991.
The War on Drugs costs us in other ways too. We now know the White House drug policy office offered financial incentives to magazines and television networks that ran stories discouraging drug use. Public service announcements are one thing. But offering financial incentives to change a show's content comes dangerously close to censorship.
In Los Angeles, in the largest corruption trial in the city's history, many of the charges are related to manipulation of drug charges: The money is big, and the evidence easily manipulated.
Even proponents of the War on Drugs admit they are losing. In March, Barry McCaffrey (the government's so-called Drug Czar) appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee and testified that the prices of cocaine and heroin have fallen to record lows and remain widely available. His report also stated that 4.7 million people have tried methamphetamine and that its use is spreading. (World-Herald March 23, 2000)
As Mark Twain said about alcohol, "Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places and does not cure or even diminish it." The importance of even one state, such as California or Alaska, reforming its drug laws should not be underestimated.
These states provide a comparison and undermine the often-hysterical claims of law enforcement groups about what will happen if some drug use is legalized.
Just like Vermont undermined conservative claims about how the institution of marriage would be destroyed if GLBT people gained equality, so will conservative claims about mass violence and anarchy be undermined after reasonable drug law reforms are put into effect.
The issue is not simple, and there are legitimate grounds for debate. Drug abuse is a real problem. It ruins lives and can even kill.
The fundamental question, however, is how we should solve the problem. Shall we continue locking nonviolent drug offenders in cages? Or should we provide treatment and education but allow individuals to live their lives in the way they choose so long as they do not harm others?
After Nov. 7, the correct choice is becoming increasingly clear.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Tales of the Slayer Volume 1
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Buffy book reviews)
Tales of the Slayer, Volume 1(2001)
RATING: 4/5 Stakes
SETTING: Before Season 1
T.V. SHOW CHARACTERS: None
MAJOR ORIGINAL CHARACTERS: Greece, 490 B.C.E.: Thessily Tessilonikki (Slayer); Thoas (Watcher); Phidippides (Messenger). London, 1586: Virginia Dare/White Doe (Slayer); John White (colonist); Eleanor Dare (colonist); Manteo (Croatoan Indian); Takes From Eagle (adopted father); Ceremonial Fox (elder conjuror). Hungary, 1609: Idilko Gellert (Slayer); Kurt Rendor (Watcher); Countess Bathory (villian); Jo Ilona (Bathory's servant). France, 1789: Marie-Christine (Slayer); Edmund de Voison (Watcher); L'Hero (Vampire leader); Mathilde (adopted girl). Kentucky, 1886: Mollie Prater (Slayer); Ethan Bentley (Watcher); Harly (lover). Munich, 1923: Britta Kessler (Slayer); Friedrich Lichtermann (Watcher); Erich Sahr (vampire). Florida, 1956: Asha Sayre (Slayer); Laurent (Watcher).
BACK-OF-THE-BOOK SUMMARY: "Into every generation a Slayer is born. One girl in all the world, to find the vampires where they gather, and to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their numbers. In our time, that girl is Buffy Summers. But Buffy is merely one Slayer in an eternal continuum of warriors for the Powers That Be. We've known of others: The Primal Slayer, who stalked the earth and the forces of darkness in fierce solitude . . . Nikki, the funky hipster whose demise at Spike's hands lent an urban edge to his wardrobe and a bigger bounce to his swagger. Slayers by nature have a limited life expectancy; for each one who falls, another rises to taker her place. Tales of the Slayer, Vol. 1 chronicles Slayers past who have influenced--and are influenced by--the traditional and mythologies of yore. From ancient Greece, to aristocratic Slayers holding court in revolution-era France, to the legend of the Bloody Countess Elizabeth Bathory, to 1920s Munich, each girl has a personal history, a shared moral code, and a commitment to conquer evil, regardless of the cost . . . ."
REVIEW
Tales of the Slayer (Volume 1) is an excellent collection of short stories and adds some much needed tension to the Buffy fiction line of books. The reason is simple: when reading about Buffy, Xander, Willow, etc., the reader knows for sure that they can't be killed off; when reading about these home-brewed Slayers, however, it's far from certain they'll survive the end of the tale. Indeed, all but one of the Slayers chronicled in Volume 1 end up dying--which one survives?
Well, that's why you have to read the book . . . Given the high mortality rate, the reader should expect stories more gruesome and tragic (some might even say depressing!) than average episodes of the television show.
As a whole, the various writers do a nice job with placing Slayers and Watchers into different geographical and chronological settings. My favorite would have to be Marie-Christine and Edmund de Voison, Slayer and Watcher in 1789 France--the aristocratic ethos has pervaded even their lives, to the point where they question whether saving the lives of the poor is really worth it. A little more variation in the stories' villains (almost all are vampires) would have been nice, but perhaps that is saved for subsequent books.
After finishing the collection, I was left with the question--did the Slayer matter? If we put Buffy and the Hellmouth to one side (where she saves the world every season), it seems like having one Slayer at a time would be like having only one police officer for the entire world. Sure, that cop will catch his or her share of criminals, but won't have any impact on the crime rate across the world--just like one Slayer couldn't possibly impact the number of vampires in the world.
Anyway, if you can handle stories set in the mythos but not featuring television show characters, Tales From the Slayer vol. 1 is well worth reading.
After 416
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan columns)
After 416
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
November 06, 2000
"The moments of freedom, they can't be given to you. You have to take them."
---Robert Frost
When the Initiative 416 campaign began months ago, the queer community sent out a cry of alarm. Opposing groups formed, canvassing started, rallies were held. Yet I did not take part; I was certain the measure would pass. Opposing it would simply be a waste of time and resources.
My certainty in its success has not changed, but I regret not having done more to oppose it. I have come to understand that the process of resisting is far more important than the outcome of tomorrow's vote.
From our defeat here, we have laid the groundwork for future victories.
Never before in Nebraska's history has there been such widespread public discussion of GLBT issues. Every speech was an opportunity to show we exist, that we have families too, and that our lives are worthy of respect and equality before the law.
Simply reading the newspapers should encourage us for the future. From the sidelines, it's clear that this was an issue Nebraska really struggled with. The letters pages were often filled with heated debate, but usually letters from 416-opponents outnumbered those of its supporters. Nebraska's two largest newspapers, the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star, even came out in opposition to the measure.
We saw leaders in high places put their jobs on the line to stick up for equality; Regent Allen's attack on Interim Chancellor Perlman only testified to the integrity of the latter, the dangerousness of the former and the real progress we have made.
We saw hundreds of students rally for our cause. Guyla Mills, at a recent hearing on campus, complained that she was "ambushed." She wasn't "ambushed" - she knew opponents and supporters of 416 would show up - she was simply surprised and overwhelmed by the number and enthusiasm of 416's opponents.
This youth activism is an example of what's happening around the country. Studies show that younger generations are increasingly accepting and supportive of GLBT equality. The future, if nothing else, is on our side.
Perhaps most importantly, dozens of religious leaders proclaimed their opposition to 416 and their belief in the essential dignity and equality of all Americans. No longer can anti-gay groups claim that this is a battle between the "religious" and the "godless." No longer can they claim the Christian view to support their prejudices.
Just as in the latter parts of the black and women's civil rights movement, the once-unified religious opposition toward equality is crumbling from within.
Even the polls are a testament to our progress - a solid third of Nebraska supports us, inconceivable a decade ago. The right wing's haste to abandon homophobic rhetoric and cloak themselves solely as "Defenders of Marriage" will undermine them in the future.
As Dan Rather said recently: "The conundrum the Republicans are facing now echoes the one with which segregationists of both parties were confronted as the black civil rights movement matured: Once bigotry falls out of mainstream fashion, it's hard to talk the accepted talk without walking the walk."
"When the prevailing political winds force a party to abandon prejudicial rhetoric, how can it continue to advocate prejudicial policy without wrapping itself in the cloak of hypocrisy?"
Like all civil rights movements, ours too will face setbacks. This is an issue, however, that the entire world is facing, and it is clear that the trend toward full equality is picking up steam.
The supporters of 416 will see tomorrow as a victory, but in reality, they have already lost - they will never again make us be silent, ashamed or secretive. Their dream of a 1950s-style patriarchy have already been shattered.
A conservative professor (and supporter of 416) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln likes to say that "as long as there are traditional families, there will be traditional family values." I know that as long as there are queer people, there will be queer families with just as much warmth, love and support.
Perhaps, someday, our families will coexist peacefully with mutual respect and full equality under the law. Someday, when he and other Nebraskans let them. Until then, however, the struggle continues.
After 416
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
November 06, 2000
"The moments of freedom, they can't be given to you. You have to take them."
---Robert Frost
When the Initiative 416 campaign began months ago, the queer community sent out a cry of alarm. Opposing groups formed, canvassing started, rallies were held. Yet I did not take part; I was certain the measure would pass. Opposing it would simply be a waste of time and resources.
My certainty in its success has not changed, but I regret not having done more to oppose it. I have come to understand that the process of resisting is far more important than the outcome of tomorrow's vote.
From our defeat here, we have laid the groundwork for future victories.
Never before in Nebraska's history has there been such widespread public discussion of GLBT issues. Every speech was an opportunity to show we exist, that we have families too, and that our lives are worthy of respect and equality before the law.
Simply reading the newspapers should encourage us for the future. From the sidelines, it's clear that this was an issue Nebraska really struggled with. The letters pages were often filled with heated debate, but usually letters from 416-opponents outnumbered those of its supporters. Nebraska's two largest newspapers, the Omaha World-Herald and the Lincoln Journal-Star, even came out in opposition to the measure.
We saw leaders in high places put their jobs on the line to stick up for equality; Regent Allen's attack on Interim Chancellor Perlman only testified to the integrity of the latter, the dangerousness of the former and the real progress we have made.
We saw hundreds of students rally for our cause. Guyla Mills, at a recent hearing on campus, complained that she was "ambushed." She wasn't "ambushed" - she knew opponents and supporters of 416 would show up - she was simply surprised and overwhelmed by the number and enthusiasm of 416's opponents.
This youth activism is an example of what's happening around the country. Studies show that younger generations are increasingly accepting and supportive of GLBT equality. The future, if nothing else, is on our side.
Perhaps most importantly, dozens of religious leaders proclaimed their opposition to 416 and their belief in the essential dignity and equality of all Americans. No longer can anti-gay groups claim that this is a battle between the "religious" and the "godless." No longer can they claim the Christian view to support their prejudices.
Just as in the latter parts of the black and women's civil rights movement, the once-unified religious opposition toward equality is crumbling from within.
Even the polls are a testament to our progress - a solid third of Nebraska supports us, inconceivable a decade ago. The right wing's haste to abandon homophobic rhetoric and cloak themselves solely as "Defenders of Marriage" will undermine them in the future.
As Dan Rather said recently: "The conundrum the Republicans are facing now echoes the one with which segregationists of both parties were confronted as the black civil rights movement matured: Once bigotry falls out of mainstream fashion, it's hard to talk the accepted talk without walking the walk."
"When the prevailing political winds force a party to abandon prejudicial rhetoric, how can it continue to advocate prejudicial policy without wrapping itself in the cloak of hypocrisy?"
Like all civil rights movements, ours too will face setbacks. This is an issue, however, that the entire world is facing, and it is clear that the trend toward full equality is picking up steam.
The supporters of 416 will see tomorrow as a victory, but in reality, they have already lost - they will never again make us be silent, ashamed or secretive. Their dream of a 1950s-style patriarchy have already been shattered.
A conservative professor (and supporter of 416) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln likes to say that "as long as there are traditional families, there will be traditional family values." I know that as long as there are queer people, there will be queer families with just as much warmth, love and support.
Perhaps, someday, our families will coexist peacefully with mutual respect and full equality under the law. Someday, when he and other Nebraskans let them. Until then, however, the struggle continues.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Ultimate Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Gift
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Buffy book reviews)
The Ultimate Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Gift
Teleplay by Joss Whedon, Novelization by TokyoPop (2005)
RATING: 4/5 Stakes
SETTING: Season Five
CAST APPEARANCES: Buffy, Spike, Giles, Tara, Willow, Xander, Dawn, Anya, Glory, Ben
BACK-OF-THE-BOOK SUMMARY: "Tokyopop presents Buffy's 100th episode as you've never seen it before--filled with behind-the-scenes photos, director and actor commentary, excerpts from the original script, and incredible stunts. In this chilling cine-manga adaptation of 'The Gift,' one of the most unforgettable and shocking episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the apocalypse is at hand in Sunnydale--again! This is the must-have tome for all Buffy fans, living and undead!"
REVIEW
This is an interesting and unusual Buffy book. Labeled "cine-manga," the book basically layers photos of the scenes from The Gift into a comic book like format, and uses word bubbles to reproduce the character's speech. In other words, it's a picture-book style novelization of a great episode with some fun added features. The margins of many pages are filled with Buffy trivia, comments from the show's creators, and occasionally excerpts from the stage directions contained in the original script. Compared to the standard novelizations of episodes that Simon Spotlight produces, this book is a far more entertaining purchase and gives the reader who owns the actual episode on DVD a reason to own the book as well. Not essential by any means, but a fun little Buffy book all the same.
The Death of Liberalism
FROM THE ARCHIVES (Daily Nebraskan column)
The Death of Liberalism
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
October 30, 2000
So when a great man dies
For years beyond our ken,
The light he leaves behind him lies
Upon the paths of men.
--Longfellow
My friends, we are gathered here today to celebrate the life and mourn the unfortunate passing of a great and controversial figure in our shared history: liberalism.
The exact cause of death is still unknown, but his ill health appears to have been due to politicians increasingly avoiding him and by the "New Left's" embrace of centrist, pragmatic politics.
If you will allow me to misquote Shakespeare, we come here today both to bury liberalism and to praise him. His life, although fleeting, and his death, although sudden, must not pass unremarked. We are bettered by his having lived and enriched by the memories and challenges he has left for us.
The details of his early years are well known. Born during the 18th Century (a child of rationalism and individualism) liberalism always held two things close to his heart: freedom and equality. His striving for these ideals led directly to the American Revolution and the Civil War, but, after these early successes, he disappeared from society for decades.
Yet liberalism was not really gone, only waiting. He made a sudden and dramatic reappearance in the early 20th Century. You see, my friends, he returned to us in our greatest time of need. This proverbial savior of mankind rescued us from the throes of a Great Depression.
When Americans were literally starving on the streets, his disciples enacted drastic reforms in his name. Social security. Minimum wage. Free access to labor unions.
His great and still controversial successes continued.
In just a few decades, he helped humankind make more progress toward recognizing the essential dignity of the individual than we had made in centuries.
He was instrumental in the Civil Rights movement and strongly advocated free speech, due process, women's rights and racial equality.
His ill health began in the early 1980s. He began to wither under the attacks of his enemies. Soon he was known as "bleeding-hearted," "weak" and "soft on crime." All of society's ills were attributed to him, whether deserved or not, including high divorce rates, drug use, "immorality" and AIDS. There was nothing he could do to retain his image.
His steadfast supporters, the Democratic Party, stayed with him as long as they could, but eventually they abandoned him as well. They considered him a liability and felt they shouldn't be seen with him anymore.
Issues central to liberalism, like abolishing the death penalty and providing expansive welfare aid, were dropped in an effort to appeal to middle-class voters. In his greatest time of need, only a few hard-core activists and intellectuals really stood by him.
In some ways, liberalism was simply too naïve to survive in our 21st Century. He championed the weak and the powerless: the homeless, persons on welfare, people accused of crimes, children attending inner-city schools. Yet their powerlessness became his; these groups were either unwilling or unable to vote, and he suffered for it.
Some of his most successful reforms were simply co-opted by his enemies. Education for all, a persistent theme of liberalism, became the agenda of a political party that once proposed to abolish the Department of Education.
Conservatives, the most strident critics of Social Security in the early days, became its biggest defenders. They became "compassionate," at least to the extent necessary to appeal to the middle-class and the elderly, and robbed liberalism of his greatest strength.
Ultimately, however, liberalism was a victim of his own success. By eliminating the most shocking examples of society's evils, he lost support to eliminate the rest. It was hard for people to understand why he kept advocating racial equality when they no longer read about lynchings or saw police attack protesters with dogs on television everyday. He had trouble convincing people about reproductive freedom when they had either forgotten or refused to acknowledge the thousands of women who died from illegal abortions.
Yet, although he is dead, liberalism's achievements have stood the test of time. His life opened up an unprecedented freedom for intellectual inquiry and debate; a freedom that, although many treasure, few remember its origin.
His great economic reforms, social security and the minimum wage, are still with us today and stronger now than ever before. His most controversial civil rights successes, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Miranda vs. Arizona, and Roe vs. Wade have been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court.
We should remember liberalism with joy and not despair. There will be other movements and other causes. His spirit will live on, regardless of the label it operates under.
When we think of liberalism, we should smile and be comforted with the knowledge that, if even for one brief shining moment, he made it possible for all of us to dream of something better. And this, my friends, is all one could ever ask for, in life or in death.
(c) 2000 Jeremy Patrick
The Death of Liberalism
Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)
Daily Nebraskan (www.dailyneb.com)
October 30, 2000
So when a great man dies
For years beyond our ken,
The light he leaves behind him lies
Upon the paths of men.
--Longfellow
My friends, we are gathered here today to celebrate the life and mourn the unfortunate passing of a great and controversial figure in our shared history: liberalism.
The exact cause of death is still unknown, but his ill health appears to have been due to politicians increasingly avoiding him and by the "New Left's" embrace of centrist, pragmatic politics.
If you will allow me to misquote Shakespeare, we come here today both to bury liberalism and to praise him. His life, although fleeting, and his death, although sudden, must not pass unremarked. We are bettered by his having lived and enriched by the memories and challenges he has left for us.
The details of his early years are well known. Born during the 18th Century (a child of rationalism and individualism) liberalism always held two things close to his heart: freedom and equality. His striving for these ideals led directly to the American Revolution and the Civil War, but, after these early successes, he disappeared from society for decades.
Yet liberalism was not really gone, only waiting. He made a sudden and dramatic reappearance in the early 20th Century. You see, my friends, he returned to us in our greatest time of need. This proverbial savior of mankind rescued us from the throes of a Great Depression.
When Americans were literally starving on the streets, his disciples enacted drastic reforms in his name. Social security. Minimum wage. Free access to labor unions.
His great and still controversial successes continued.
In just a few decades, he helped humankind make more progress toward recognizing the essential dignity of the individual than we had made in centuries.
He was instrumental in the Civil Rights movement and strongly advocated free speech, due process, women's rights and racial equality.
His ill health began in the early 1980s. He began to wither under the attacks of his enemies. Soon he was known as "bleeding-hearted," "weak" and "soft on crime." All of society's ills were attributed to him, whether deserved or not, including high divorce rates, drug use, "immorality" and AIDS. There was nothing he could do to retain his image.
His steadfast supporters, the Democratic Party, stayed with him as long as they could, but eventually they abandoned him as well. They considered him a liability and felt they shouldn't be seen with him anymore.
Issues central to liberalism, like abolishing the death penalty and providing expansive welfare aid, were dropped in an effort to appeal to middle-class voters. In his greatest time of need, only a few hard-core activists and intellectuals really stood by him.
In some ways, liberalism was simply too naïve to survive in our 21st Century. He championed the weak and the powerless: the homeless, persons on welfare, people accused of crimes, children attending inner-city schools. Yet their powerlessness became his; these groups were either unwilling or unable to vote, and he suffered for it.
Some of his most successful reforms were simply co-opted by his enemies. Education for all, a persistent theme of liberalism, became the agenda of a political party that once proposed to abolish the Department of Education.
Conservatives, the most strident critics of Social Security in the early days, became its biggest defenders. They became "compassionate," at least to the extent necessary to appeal to the middle-class and the elderly, and robbed liberalism of his greatest strength.
Ultimately, however, liberalism was a victim of his own success. By eliminating the most shocking examples of society's evils, he lost support to eliminate the rest. It was hard for people to understand why he kept advocating racial equality when they no longer read about lynchings or saw police attack protesters with dogs on television everyday. He had trouble convincing people about reproductive freedom when they had either forgotten or refused to acknowledge the thousands of women who died from illegal abortions.
Yet, although he is dead, liberalism's achievements have stood the test of time. His life opened up an unprecedented freedom for intellectual inquiry and debate; a freedom that, although many treasure, few remember its origin.
His great economic reforms, social security and the minimum wage, are still with us today and stronger now than ever before. His most controversial civil rights successes, such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Miranda vs. Arizona, and Roe vs. Wade have been repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court.
We should remember liberalism with joy and not despair. There will be other movements and other causes. His spirit will live on, regardless of the label it operates under.
When we think of liberalism, we should smile and be comforted with the knowledge that, if even for one brief shining moment, he made it possible for all of us to dream of something better. And this, my friends, is all one could ever ask for, in life or in death.
(c) 2000 Jeremy Patrick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)