WHat do you mean by "cool" -- linguistically speaking, of course. I don't get it how La Raza gets cool money and everyone else gets something else. D'ya have a yardstick or something? And what about the lobbyists for pharmceuticals and the Enrons of the world. Does their take also get to be characterized as "cool"? The National Council of La Raza rakes in a cool $16 million per year, a combination of government grants, public support, and other revenues. The
The only strong-arm tactics I am interested in are from the Ashcroft Justice Dept., the IRA and the Pentagon's new privacy invasion security system (PISS for short). STrong-arm tactics by anti-def non-profits really in the same league as what the NAzi's did to Anne Frank? Really? Watchdogs, which details incidents of strong-arm tactics by anti-discrimination groups.
DIdn't get very far in your piece. It looked and sounded good in the beginning -- I thought it was going to be about the hair-trigger overreaction of so many of the groups like the Catholics over Hank's wife dressing as a nun and other stupidities.
But you really reveal malignant bigotry in your lengthy piece, and that is too bad and so sad.
Thom Prentice, Ph.D.
Austin, Texas
Likes Goodfellas, not
Sopranos
As a libertarian, I don't agree with Ted Grippo's attempt to
silence The Sopranos. The best way to fight stereotypes is with
real life accomplishments, which Italian-Americans certainly have
exhibited in this country.
However, you are wrong on three counts. First, the charge that the
show regularly portrays "Italo-Americans as uneducated, low life
brutes" is true. Come on, really. I don't know what episodes you've
been watching, but the few--admittedly--that I have watched were
overwhelmingly full of such characters. Fine, I don't have to watch
the show and I don't.
Secondly, as a weekly program it has more "influence" than, say, a
truly intriguing and artful work about the mafia, such as the film
Goodfellas, and so it must shade the rest of America's perceptions
about Italian-Americans. Terrible? Not compared to what other
ethnic groups undergo, sure. But stereotypes are still wrong so
don't slough it off. Why not a show, then, that suggests all
Arab-Americans are terrorists. I'm sure it would satisfy a popular
taste for stereotypes. Why is one acceptable and the other
not?
Thirdly, from what I've seen, this TV show isn't much good on
merit. The Sopranos glorifies violence for its own sake, which is,
of course, a right of the show's creators. Goodfellas shows the
violence in the context of what the mafia is: a sad group of
bullies who'd rather break heads than use their heads, not The
Sopranos bunch, who are portrayed as generally regular, if rough,
guys in the garbage hauling business with psychological problems
just like the rest of us.
Vito Racanelli
Brooklyn, NY
Re: Spoiling Things for the GOP (11/19)
No balance of power
Mr. Doherty,
Others have noticed. There is also Rachel DiCarlo of the Weekly Standard who notes several major races involving Libertarians. In the recent Oklahoma Governor's race, she cites as a factor "Independent candidate Gary Richardson, who ran on a Libertarian platform. Richardson collected an astounding 14.1 percent of the vote, to Henry's 43.3 percent and Largent's 42.6 percent."
May I suggest that in some future column you address two other aspects of the Libertarian/Republican voting debate? I've been a Libertarian for the past 30 of my 51 years and was active for about ten. One issue is that many Libertarians believe that showing the "balance of power" in elections would persuade major parties to become more libertarian -- but I'm not seeing this happen. The other issue is that, at least in the short run, a Republican loss means a Democrat win. As disappointing as the Republicans are -- for increasing taxes and spending and for limiting personal freedom -- they are less socialist than the Democrats.
These issues trouble me. What really seems to move the major parties towards free markets is the advocacy of new ideas from sources such as Reason, Cato, and free-market economists such as Milton Friedman. The votes for Libertarians don't seem to matter, at least not yet.
Until major parties respond to Liberatarian votes, in the short run a vote for a sure-to-lose Libertarian candidate is a choice of idealism over pragmatism; worse, it may be the mistake of forgoing the good in pursuit of the perfect. That said, I remain optimistic for the long view. I will continue to vote Libertarian because I cannot support the philosophy of the major parties and I believe that "free minds and free markes" are the best choice for the country's future.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.