- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 24, 2004

We don’t understand

“The prize for the most unintentionally humorous reason given by a liberal for why President Bush defeated John Kerry … has to go to Alan Woods, an Ohio State drama professor quoted in the Chicago Tribune: ‘We are now reaping, in election results, the consequences of the colossal reductions in art education.’

“Mr. Woods was trying to figure out why Americans re-elected the president, even though the nation’s artists told them not to.

“Bruce Springsteen organized his fellow rock stars … with John Mellencamp, the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, James Taylor and others staging concerts to elect Mr. Kerry. …

“Hollywood did its part to instruct the masses, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ being only one of the anti-Bush movies. …

“And all to no avail. What is wrong with this country, that it doesn’t listen to its artists? Mr. Woods has concluded that America just does not understand art, and that’s what we get for cutting back on art education.”

Gene Edward Veith, writing on “Artists can’t fathom why John Kerry lost,” in the Nov. 20 issue of World

Freedom and enemies

“[T]he zaniest of media-libertarians understand that they may not disclose military secrets. If that principle is accepted, is it then so very wrong for the defenders of freedom to ensure that that freedom is not used as a weapon against them? …

“So what was an independent camera crew doing with frontline troops in the course of urban fighting — the filthiest kind of war there is? An ‘atrocity’ of some kind is sooner or later bound to happen, the revelation of which can serve to assist only one side in this war. Why, therefore, allow cameras to be free to record what can only be of value to your enemy? …

“Our common enemy has vision, dedication, courage and intelligence. He is profoundly grateful for whatever [tidbits] come his way: our media have a moral obligation to ensure that we are scattering absolutely none in his direction.”

—Kevin Myers, writing on “A Marine’s got to do what a Marine’s got to do,” Sunday in the London Telegraph

Killer dogs

“Known for strong mouths and aggressive behavior, pit bulls have become … the target of anti-dog activists. … Pits (Staffordshire terriers, their partisans prefer to call them) usually make wonderful, safe pets. But when they do attack, they often cause much more damage since they have a greater ability to injure people.

“Violent dogs have become a profound issue for the dog culture and a mushrooming public health risk for Americans. … According to the Humane Society, last year more than 800,000 people — more than half of them children — were bitten seriously enough to go to a hospital. ……

“Owners who buy aggressive dogs for security may be kidding themselves: The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burglar or human attacker are 1 in 177. The odds that the victim will be a child are 7 in 10.”

Jon Katz, writing on “Dog Bites Man,” Nov. 19 in Slate at www.slate.com

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide