Friday, March 10, 2006

Another reason to like the WBC

This story just came across the wires at Over Epinionated World Headquarters. And we have to say we are pleased.

Puerto Rican police quickly intervened and took the Cuban official -- Angel Iglesias, vice president of Cuba's National Institute of Sports -- to a nearby police station where they lectured him about free speech.

"We explained to him that here the constitutional right to free expression exists and that it is not a crime," police Col. Adalberto Mercado was quoted as saying in El Nuevo Dia, a San Juan daily.

The brouhaha gathered steam Friday when Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma, called the sign-waving "a cowardly incident." Cuba's Revolutionary Sports Movement exhorted Cubans to demonstrate in Havana late Friday, saying U.S. and Puerto Rican authorities were involved in "the cynical counterrevolutionary provocations."

Now if we can just get the folks int eh box seats of the next Cuban game at the WBC to wear these:

Thursday, March 09, 2006


I wasn't really interested in the World Baseball Classic. And I am mildly disgruntled that our neighbors to the north are now beating us at their sport as well as ours. But seeing 'Tek in that Uni made me smile. And cheer. Go USA!

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

We are all Tar Heels

Not much mention has been made of the terrorist attack on the campus of UNC-CH last week. I'm a Tar Heel Grad from '96. And like everyone else, I was shocked to learn about the terrorist attack on my old school. The Carolina Review, a wonderful publication, asks what is gained by calling this a terrorist act. First, You gain moral clarity by calling it terrorism. One of the bloggers for the Carolina Review's blog wrote this.
And so, even if this is an act of terrorism, which it very well may be, some greater good is served by NOT calling it terrorism. In a post-9/11 world, the very word terrorism has connotations that spark panic, fear, and irrational hatred.
In fairness to David, he wrote about how it is a terrorist act. His thoughtful post is worth a read in its entirety so you can judge for yourself. I commented on the post. This is a reprint of what I wrote.

I respond: To not call something what it is, you are sending the message you are afraid to face reality because it has consequences. To quote Albus Dumbledore fromt he Harry Potter novels, "Fear of a name, increases fear of the thing itself." Let's not be afraid to say that this is what it is. When we stop saying that what happened last week is terrorism, we enable two things. First we allow the perpetrators of terror to see we bury our heads in the sand at the first mild sign of provocation. Perhaps Mr. Taheri-azar is unconnected to a cell. That's fine, but the minute he attacks innocents to support a politcal agenda, he declares his allegiance with our enemies in the global war on terror.

Secondly, the purveyors of irrational hatred are responsible for their actions, as clearly as Mr. Taheri-azar is for his. We do ourselves no favors by shying away from declaring an act of terrorism an act of terrorism, just because someone else might use that declaration to support a cause we oppose. In fact if our motivation for pulling punches is because we may give the racists in our world a weapon, then we sacrifice some of our moral high ground. We were wronged. And we must respond with clarity of thought and of purpose.

I was a student at UNC ten years ago when the Mother's Day fire at Phi Gamma Delta took five lives in the hours before graduation. Those fires were a tragic accident, and the Carolina campus rallied together to mourn our fallen friends and also to make sure the same fate did not befall others, by promoting solutions that ensured better fire safety in buildings in Chapel Hill. This vicious, and I daresay evil attack, gives us Tar Heels another chance to show our mettle. And the conservatives on campus need to be there as leaders. Buck up.

Now is not the time to go wobbly.

Friday, March 03, 2006

CNN goofs again, or should it be still

Excuse me, Wolf, Jim Dobson is a Doctor, not a Reverend. Make a note of it. Hopefully this chart helps.


Example One from March 1, 2006 and again Example Two from May 1, 2005.

Aren't journalists supposed to care about accuracy? Any journalist who willfully disregards factual correction, really should be taken to task.