There is no more unwavering supporter of Israel than I am and, from everything I have seen, Jews worldwide fully deserve their economic success and I congratulate them on it. But is their economic success a dirty secret that we must not mention? It seems to me that those who think we should not mention it must think that it is NOT deserved. Some silly Leftist lady did however mention it. Excerpt:
"Cindi Laws, a Seattle Monorail Project board member who runs a progressive research group committed to finding solutions to problems facing Washingtonians, said yesterday she plans to go through sensitivity training in light of recent remarks she made about Jews. After a sleepless night and waking up to newspaper accounts detailing her comments to labor leaders that Jewish property owners donated much of the anti-monorail money in last year's unsuccessful monorail-recall campaign, Laws called Rob Jacobs, regional director of the local Anti-Defamation League. Her call roused him from sleep. They talked about setting up some sort of anti-bias training for her and her campaign staff....
Laws made her comments about money from Jewish property owners during an Aug. 9 endorsement interview with the King County Labor Council after being asked to assess her election opponents. Laws' leading challenger for the board seat, Beth Goldberg, a county budget analyst and a monorail opponent, is Jewish. Laws said a Jewish candidate could "get that money more easily," according to notes taken by one of the union officials at the interview."
Source
Blaming the Jews for everything is of course an old and brainless tradition but the lady was not doing that. As far as I can see, she was just saying that Jews can raise money more easily because of their connections with a generally affluent community. That is probably true. So what is wrong with mentioning it? Treating Jews as unmentionable is what seems obnoxious to me.
Old-fashioned Expression Gets a Blast
Old-fashioned plain speech gets a drubbing in New York. Excerpt follows:
"Former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer said today that Jeanine Pirro does not have a "Chinaman's chance" of getting the Conservative Party's nomination for U.S. Senate, sparking criticism from Asian-American groups that consider the term offensive. "That level of racial insensitivity says something about our elected officials," said Glenn Magpantay, staff attorney for the New York City-based Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund....
When a caller to the program later questioned Spencer about his use of the phrase, the former mayor insisted it was not derogatory and referred to the experience of Chinese immigrants in building the nation's railroads. "It's an often-used cliche by talking heads all over the media," Spencer afterword in a telephone interview with The Journal News. "It is not derogatory at all and anyone who says it is is being a little bit political, I guess."
Source
I think the main objection really was to the term: "Chinaman". If he had bowed to current fashion and said "An Asian-American's chance" he might well have been praised for reminding people of discrimination against Asians! How pathetic.
Graffiti Cause Obesity?
Here's the latest bit of obesity-warrior logic. It's got a lot of publicity so let's look at it. Excerpt follows:
"City dwellers living in areas with little greenery and high levels of graffiti and litter are more likely to be obese than those living in pleasant areas with lots of greenery, say researchers in a study published on bmj.com today. Obesity levels are high and increasing worldwide, and studies have suggested that place of residence may be associated with levels of obesity and physical activity. Evidence also suggests that levels of incivilities, such as litter and graffiti, are linked to poorer health.
For respondents whose residential environment contained high levels of greenery, the likelihood of being more physically active was over three times as high, and the likelihood of being overweight and obese was about 40% less. In contrast, for respondents whose residential environment contained high levels of incivilities, the likelihood of being more physically active was about 50% less, and the likelihood of being overweight or obese was about 50% higher"
Source
At least some commentators seem to conclude from the findings concerned that living in nasty surroundings makes you fatter -- by discouraging you from going out and excercising etc. So the obvious Leftist conclusion is that we need to clean up people's suburbs for them so they will eat better, exercise more and live longer. So, as usual, poverty is the "underlying cause" of all problems.
But wait a minute! That chain of causes is pure supposition. That poor people in modern societies are more likely to be overweight wherever they live seems to be "overlooked". Could it be that fat people live in trashy places because they are too poor to live anywhere else? That is at least a lot simpler cause/effect relationship. Not all fat people are poor but most are. The bourgeoisie take more care of their looks. In science there is an old saying that correlation does not prove causation. The above case is a good example of where that applies.
And as for the claim that eating "better" and exercising more will cause you to live longer, that's just bunk, sorry to say. There have now been lots of lifespan studies showing that lifestyle changes do NOT lengthen your life. A few of them are summarized here
