News from the Republic of Letters

Thoughts for the day

Will be updated every weekday if we can manage it.

Search This Blog

Sunday, January 10, 2010

APOLOGIES?

Truth need never repent.

This NOTE will be succinct: When a senator feels it necessary to apologize. that's a good reason to send him into retirement. What Senator Harry Reid said of then-candidate Barack Obama -- that he stood a good chance to make it to the presidency because he was light in color and didn't speak in Negro dialect -- was no more than a statement of obvious fact. His color and educated speech were an undeniable factor in his election: both for the things he was and the things he was not. What sane man would deny that? So what is this mania for public apology that drove Reid to un-state what he said in his book?

T0 append a little context, reflect on the Turkish gentleman who attempted t0 assassinate Jean-Paul II, Fresh out of his his two jail sentences, we hear that he is currently flogging his memoirs to TV and the movies. I doubt not of his success in this curious world. A crime can be detailed without any need for a public apology for 'inappropriate' language. So why not a sensible political observation?

2 comments:

  1. All true, but the issue here - in this country where we confuse philosophy with politics is a political issue. The Republican party finally has a legitimate gripe. If a republican said it there would be an outcry over such "bigoted" remarks from an elected official. Once more, the Republicans have gone too far by calling for Reid's expulsion from office and I'm sure the folks at Fox are having a field day with this, but as I said, for once they have a point... if only it were sharp enough for them to fall on.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To ANON

    I still feel that there is nothing bigoted whatever about the remark. If we were reporting to the police about X whom we had seen or known, we might easily say 'light-skinned' and 'educated speech'; and we would not have to apologize. I've had the same problem with discussing 'Jewish' issues. Why should we not discuss openly such a question as (e.g.) 'Jewish liberals' and their influence in the media? There is no comparable hesitation about Dead (or Living) White Males. There is far too much phoney sensitivity around. When Yale had 10% Jews and 10% Catholics, nobody squawked; I didn't shout 'discrimination' (being then a Catholic); nor would I expect Yale to apologize.

    ReplyDelete