Category: The Dish

A reader writes:

Your reader’s remark about Bruce Lee not being worthy of the top 100 list is very Western-centric. Beyond just being a martial artist, many Asians (largely Chinese) see Lee as the first propagator of Chinese values and worldviews in the Western world (unlike most Western films like ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s", or even the TV show ‘Kung Fu’ which Lee was turned down for over the white David Carradine).  Lee was the first cultural missionary-hero to millions in the East, not just the cultural artifact we in the West see him as.

You might also read one of his books for more insight into this amazing man. Chuck Norris makes foolish videos about how evolution shouldn’t be taught in the classroom, while Bruce Lee graduated with honors with a degree in Western philosophy, and injected a great deal of his writings on martial arts with both Eastern and Western philisophical concepts.  Don’t forget that martial arts is not just a mess of punches and kicks – there’s a much deeper aspect to it.

Finally, for what he is known to most of the world: martial arts.  Lee revolutionized hundreds of years of martial arts beliefs in a single lifetime. He broke free from the forms of Wing Chun and provided martial freedom in Jeet Kune Do.  In a sense, he invented martial pragmatism.

A case-study.

For some, it’s win-win:

"To be perfectly honest, when I started this blog I was a shaky little literary neophyte, and over the course of almost three years, blogging has taught me more about good books and good writing than I (honestly) think I could have gotten in most colleges. Moreover, it’s given me a level of self-respect for my writing that I couldn’t have bought anywhere."

Here’s one for Rick Hertzberg: an insurrection against the electoral college.

You can fool some of the people …

An economic study. No one has done a similar study on marijuana bcause it is not associated with violence in any form. That’s why beer is marketed to the tune of billions and pot is illegal. It all makes sense somewhere. Go ask Bill Bennett.

Here’s a very helpful fisking of the whole concept. Couldn’t agree more. Some have argued that I’m a hypocrite on this because I don’t have a comments section for each post. The reason in the past is that I didn’t have time to moderate it and I was afraid that it would fill up soon with some of the more charming material I receive by emails. Increasingly, though, I realize that not monitoring a comments section at all may be the only way not to censor it. Which has made me consider adding one. The major drawback from my point of view is that readers may be less inclined to write me their own emails, which are often the highlight of a day’s blogging. In a sense, by airing a few emails and selecting them personally and responding to them at times I already have a very tightly managed high-quality comments section. But, strictly speaking, you could do that as well as adding comments for those who see fit. I’m of two minds on this. But if I do decide to add comments, I don’t think heavy monitoring is in the cards.

Jeff Goldstein posits an inconvenient truth:

Progressives are loath to risk losing an important constituency by overplaying the gay rights angle within the black community. So while they give plenty of lip service to support of gay marriage, for instance, they consistently vote to defend ‘traditional’ marriage.

I disagree with Jeff that the right to a civil marriage license is not a civil rights issue. But I agree with him about the very awkward stance many mainstream Democrats have on the issue of marriage rights. It’s nothing new. Progressives have long failed to confront the deadly homophobia in many black churches, for example, churches that have enabled the deaths of tens of thousands by their bigotry and silence on black homosexuality, HIV and AIDS. Even ACT-UP was too scared to tackle the bigotry of many African-American pastors – and the closet in the black church that sustains it. In general, gay groups like HRC go along with Democratic inconsistency as well. They are part of a Democratic coalition that requires acquiescence in some black anti-gay bigotry to endure. If they have to put gay issues on a back-burner to sit at the table, that’s fine by them. And it’s fine by the Democrats, as long as the gays keep sending in the money. Which they do.

Joan Crawford defends "the Darwinian proposition". Who better? From the classic B-movie, Trog:

Is he ready to spill the beans?