|
"Defense is superior to opulence."
-Adam Smith |
Aboot Reader's Rep Home RSS Feed POSTS BY TOPIC 2010 Election Baseball Beer Beer of the Week Books Business Culture Drinking Economics Football Global Warming Health Care Hockey (02-05) Hockey (06-07) Hockey (08-09) Media-Local (02-04) Media-Local (05-07) Media-Local (08-09) Media National (02-06) Media National (07-09) Media National (10-11) Movies Music NARN (04-05) NARN (06-07) NARN (08-09) NARN (10-11) Politics-Local (02-03) Politics-Local (04-05) Politics-Local (06-07) Politics-Local (08-09) Politics-National (02-04) Politics-National (05-07) Politics-National (08-10) Ralphie Religion Separated At Birth? Television Terrorism Travel CHAD THE ELDER: rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Twitter SAINT PAUL: saintp at excite.com JB DOUBTLESS: abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com ATOMIZER: atomizer77 at yahoo.com SISYPHUS: NIHILIST IN GOLF PANTS: NihilistPaul at yahoo.com Twitter THE CRAZY UKE: karkoc5 at earthlink.net FEATURES Beer Ratings 
Recommended Reading Fraters At The Fair Hugh Hugs A Tree Separated At Birth? Travels With Ralphie ATOMIZER's A-LIST JB's SACK SITES SAINT PAUL'S SHOW STOPPERS ELDER's ELITE THE USUAL SUSPECTS IN AGGREGATE CENTER OF GRAVITY INVISIBLE AIRWAVES |
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Chad, JB, The Nihilist and Mitch have jointly typed several hundred words discussing John J. Miller's list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs. Every single one of them has dropped the ball in a fashion not seen since Darrin Nelson's end zone choke in the 1987 NFC Championship Game.
There is but one song in the entire history of recorded music that sums up true conservatism and it has heretofore gone unmentioned. Feast your right wing eyes on the lyrics to "Kill the Poor" by the Dead Kennedys: Efficiency and progress is ours once moreNeutron bombs, the end of the welfare state and joblessness, the eradication of crime and champagne fueled revelry. How much more conservative can you get?
You think it ain't on? Oh, it's on alright.
Just for fun read Hugh's post titled, Apollo Creed Wants a Rematch and see how many mistakes you can find: A few years back, on a visit to the Minnesota State Fair in discharge of my duties as the state's Commissioner of Hockey and Master of the Horse (appointed to both posts by Governor Pawlenty), I accepted an invitation from the Fraters gang to assemble a trivia team and meet in four-on-four competition (along with a dozen other teams) as is their regular habit on Tuesday evenings at Keegan's Pub. So I enlisted Lileks, his friend Swede the Giant Uke, and Michael Medved to take on the home team, and sure enough, the fix was in, and we could only achieve a tie. Fraters announced then that there would be no rematch. 1. Although Keegan's does have trivia on Tuesday night, the night that Team Fraters has made famous and the night that we had our first showdown with Hugh, was in fact Thursday. I warned Hugh about the side effects of mixing Scotch and diuretics. 2. Lileks actually has two friends that he regular refers to at The Bleat. One is the Giant Swede and the other is the Crazy Uke. Hugh apparently has blurred the two to create one composite character. 3. The fix was very much not in. If it was, then we would have won the competition, rather than finishing in a tie for second with Hugh's has beens. 4. Not only have we welcomed a rematch, we have openly called for one. You may recall that last year, Hugh skipped his annual visit to the Minnesota State Fair for fear of having to face our trivia prowess. You can run Hugh, but you can't hide. Now, Hugh has apparently faced down his demons and summoned up the courage to run the Keegan's trivia gauntlet again. As the president wouldn't say: Bring it on. This time we add Duane and drop the Lileks' posse. (Not that we don't like their taste in drink.) Hugh's squad is not the only one going through a rebuilding phase. He's dropping his boat anchors from the team and we're dropping ours (although if Bridget is available, we'd love to have her on board Team Fraters). We'll see ya in August Hugh.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
and Jamie Farr as The Sheik in Cannonball Run? Labels: Separated At Birth
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Reading the list of supposed conservative rock songs by John J. Miller, I have to laugh. The vast majority are vague songs that could go either way and at least one is patent leftist drivel. I've taken the time to go through them all and point out which ones should even be on the list (no need to thank me):
1. "Won't Get Fooled Again," by The Who. Pissed off hippies that jumped on a bandwagon that didn't produce the revolution they expected. NOT CONSERVATIVE 2. "Taxman," by The Beatles. I'll say CONSERVATIVE 3. "Sympathy for the Devil," by The Rolling Stones. Comparing this song to the Screwtape Letters is folly. NOT CONSERVATIVE. 4. "Sweet Home Alabama," by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Clearly CONSERVATIVE 5. "Wouldn't It Be Nice," by The Beach Boys. It is not necessarily pro-abstinence or pro anything else conservative. The line "There wouldn't be single thing we couldn't do" doesn't necessarily mean sex. And considering Brian Wilson was sleeping over at his girlfriend's house in high school WITH her parents permission--NOT CONSERVATIVE. 6. "Gloria," by U2. I'll use Miller's own words to indict him on this one: Just because a rock song is about faith doesn't mean that it's conservative. NOT CONSERVATIVE 7. "Revolution," by The Beatles. The point of the song is that the really radical radicals among the radicals were screwing things up for them. It isn't an embrace of anything conservative. NOT CONSERVATIVE 8. "Bodies," by The Sex Pistols. Punk is for disaffected teens and those who should know better so I don't listen to it and never did even when it was cool to do so. CAN'T SAY 9. "Don't Tread on Me," by Metallica. CONSERVATIVE 10. "20th Century Man," by The Kinks. CONSERVATIVE 11. "The Trees," by Rush. CONSERVATIVE 12. "Neighborhood Bully," by Bob Dylan. Who knows what the hell he's singing about (the problem with irony), but I'll grant it. CONSERVATIVE 13. "My City Was Gone," by The Pretenders. Teenage sentimentality and typical leftist whining at progress. NOT CONSERVATIVE (even if you are a crunchy con) 14. "Right Here, Right Now," by Jesus Jones. Vague as to what the little guy is talking about. There is no clear message, so NOT CONSERVATIVE 15. "I Fought the Law," by The Crickets. Miller called this The original law-and-order classic, WTF? I've never considered it a law and order classic by any stretch of the imagination and since both snotty English socialists The Clash and snotty American socialists Green Day BOTH covered it, I say NOT CONSERVATIVE 16. "Get Over It," by The Eagles. CONSERVATIVE. Who knew that the man (Don Henley) who referred to Reagan as "A tried old man" in the song "The End of The Innocence" and was an outspoken enviro would be part of something like this. CONSERVATIVE 17. "Stay Together for the Kids," by Blink 182. CONSERVATIVE 18. "Cult of Personality," by Living Colour. Another huge stretch by Miller on this one. Nothing terribly conservative about the message that people like strong leaders and it's, like, bad and stuff. NOT CONSERVATIVE 19. "Kicks," by Paul Revere and the Raiders. CONSERVATIVE 20. "Rock the Casbah," by The Clash. Nothing conservative in the lyrics once again. A song is on the list because some army guys request it in Iraq? NOT CONSERVATIVE 21. "Heroes," by David Bowie. I have a hard time believing David Bowie would write anything conservative and the lyrical evidence is flimsy, so NOT CONSERVATIVE 22. "Red Barchetta," by Rush. Pretty weak, but I'll grant it. CONSERVATIVE 23. "Brick," by Ben Folds Five. SP used to have this CD and pointed out the message to me several years ago. CONSERVATIVE 24. "Der Kommissar," by After the Fire. How do we know it's about East German life and not West German? Or even life in America? NOT CONSERVATIVE 25. "The Battle of Evermore," by Led Zeppelin. Miller said there were allusions to a cold war metaphor. What bong is he hitting? There's a bunch of mystical hippie-stoner nonsense and some LOTR references, but nothing conservative. NOT CONSERVATIVE 26. "Capitalism," by Oingo Boingo. Being a life-long heterosexual, I've never listened to Oingo Boingo, but Miller makes a strong case for this one. CONSERVATIVE 27. "Obvious Song," by Joe Jackson. On this one, Miller claimed For property rights and economic development, and against liberal hypocrisy... Complete hogwash. When you look at the rest of the lyrics you see it shows a typical leftist worldview: And the stars are looking down Through a hole in the sky And if they can see, they cry That's obvious And the walls are coming down Between the west and the east You don't have to be a hippie to believe in peace That's obvious . . . obvious There was a kid in the city selling crack to get by Got caught one day with a gun in his hand When a voice said, Okay, get 'em up in the air You're too young to live like this But you ain't too fast to die. Just another foot-soldier in a stupid little war Another sound-bite on the American scene Caught between the supplier only dreaming of money And the demand of the man with money Who needs a little help to dream So we starve all the teachers And recruit more Marines How come we don't even know what that means It's obvious OBVIOUSLY NOT CONSERVATIVE JOHN J. FLIPPIN' MILLER! 28. "Janie's Got a Gun," by Aerosmith. Feminist fantasy about taking revenge on an abuser. NOT CONSERVATIVE 29. "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," by Iron Maiden. Pretentious English rocker drivel with absolutely no conservative message. NOT CONSERVATIVE 30. "You Can't Be Too Strong," by Graham Parker. CONSERVATIVE 31. "Small Town," by John Mellencamp. Not political either way. It's a song about living in a small town. NOT CONSERVATIVE 32. "Keep Your Hands to Yourself," by The Georgia Satellites. Miller claims (with a straight face) "with lyrics that affirm old-time sexual mores" Affirm? The protagonist in the song is making fun of the woman that says no huggy no kissy 'til I get a wedding ring. NOT CONSERVATIVE 33. "You Can't Always Get What You Want," by The Rolling Stones. Again, nothing clearly conservative in any way. Although some people think the song references my home town of Excelsior, MN with the references to local crazy "Mr. Jimmy." The Stones played there in '65 at the amusement park. Anyway, NOT CONSERVATIVE 34. "Godzilla," by Blue Oyster Cult. Miller said A 1977 classic about a big green monster--and more: "History shows again and again / How nature points up the folly of men." And how is that conservative? NOT CONSERVATIVE 35. "Who'll Stop the Rain," by Creedence Clearwater Revival. Written as an anti-Vietnam War song,...and Miller still has the cahones to convince his readers that it's somehow conservative? Another WTF moment. NOT CONSERVATIVE 36. "Government Cheese," by The Rainmakers. I loved this song when I was in high scrool. CONSERVATIVE 37. "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down," by The Band. Despite its sins, the American South always has been about more than racism--this song captures its pride and tradition. Another huge WTF moment from Miller. The traveling hippie is refused a room by the oppressive inn keeper--how is that conservative? NOT CONSERVATIVE 38. "I Can't Drive 55," by Sammy Hagar. Socialists like to speed too. NOT CONSERVATIVE 39. "Property Line," by The Marshall Tucker Band. Liberals like their property too. They might want to raise taxes on YOURS, but...NOT CONSERVATIVE 40. "Wake Up Little Susie," by The Everly Brothers. Good one (finally). CONSERVATIVE 41. "The Icicle Melts," by The Cranberries. A pro-life tune sung by Irish warbler Dolores O'Riordan: "I don't know what's happening to people today / When a child, he was taken away 'Cause nine months is too long." Yeah, and "Linger" is about a child lingering during a partial-birth abortion...but, okay, CONSERVATIVE 42. "Everybody's a Victim, by The Proclaimers. CONSERVATIVE 43. "Wonderful," by Everclear. A child's take on divorce is how Miller describes it. NOT CONSERVATIVE 44. "Two Sisters," by The Kinks. CONSERVATIVE 45. "Taxman, Mr. Thief," by Cheap Trick. CONSERVATIVE 46. "Wind of Change," by The Scorpions. Simply a description of what was happening with The Wall. Nothing conservative, so NOT CONSERVATIVE 47. "One," Creed CONSERVATIVE 48. "Why Don't You Get a Job," by The Offspring. CONSERVATIVE 49. "Abortion," by Kid Rock. buy CD on Amazon.com CONSERVATIVE 50. "Stand By Your Man," by Tammy Wynette. Just because Motorhead covered it, doesn't mean it's a rock song. Doesn't count because it's country. NOT A ROCK SONG I come up with 22 out of 50 that even remotely qualify as conservative. I could probably name 22 country songs that are conservative off the top of my head and this is the best list Miller--with the power of his readers--could muster? Back to the drawing board Miller.
In a piece from National Review sure to tug at the heart strings of our own JB Doubtless, John J. Miller compiled a list of the The 50 greatest conservative rock songs:
But some rock songs really are conservative--and there are more of them than you might think. Last year, I asked readers of National Review Online to nominate conservative rock songs. Hundreds of suggestions poured in. I've sifted through them all, downloaded scores of mp3s, and puzzled over a lot of lyrics. What follows is a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs of all time, as determined by me and a few others. The result is of course arbitrary, though we did apply a handful of criteria. To see all 50, you'll have to read Miller's article. Here's the Top Five: 1. "Won't Get Fooled Again," by The Who. 2. "Taxman," by The Beatles. 3. "Sympathy for the Devil," by The Rolling Stones. 4. "Sweet Home Alabama," by Lynyrd Skynyrd. 5. "Wouldn't It Be Nice," by The Beach Boys. Personally, I found a number of songs on Miller's list to be stretching the bounds of credibility. But now, he's back with fifty more that fit his bill as conservative rock songs. This list includes healthy doses of Rush (the band), The Kinks, and Iron Maiden. Overall, its choices are probably on firmer ground than some of the selections on the original list. Let the debate begin. JB ADDS: What a crock! Won't Get Fooled Again is about hippie disillusionment with the "Revolution." There aint a damn thing conservative about that song. Calling the list a stretch is too kind. Now on the country side there is no question as to what the songs mean. "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way"--that doesn't need a lot of nuanced understanding (and weed) to comprehend.
MoveOn.og is conducting an online poll to determine the organization's agenda going forward. You can vote for the top three "positive" goals to aspire toward here. My picks?
- A living wage for all - High quality education for all - Health care for all I'd also like to see them push for minature American flags for all, but that wasn't an option.
Last Saturday, we were honored to have Major Steven A. Givler join us on the Northern Alliance Radio Network to talk about Memorial Day and his experiences in Iraq. Major Givler has a book coming out in June called, Notes of Joy And Sadness: Letters And Paintings from Operation Iraqi Freedom. You can listen to the interview with Major Givler here.
After learning of our fondness for all things trivial, he e-mailed a true tale of multi-national (as well as multi-lingual?) trivia that appears in his forthcoming book: Happy Australia Day 26 January, 05 In one stroke on 26 January, 1788, Captain Arthur Phillips claimed Australia as a British colony, and established a thriving industry (a penal colony) on its shores. Not bad for a day's work. So impressive, in fact, that Australians have been celebrating the day ever since. Unaware of this, I was making my appointed rounds at work tonight, when I was collared by a couple Aussie colleagues (they refer to me as a "mate.") and dragged to a party in a tent adjacent to where I work. Along the way, in order to compensate for the shocking gaps in my knowledge of History, I was apprised of the significance of this important date, said apprisings arriving on high-volume beer-scented blasts delivered directly into my ear, the loudness the result not so much inebriation, as of a myth that has arisen about my being slightly deaf. My hearing is perfectly fine, but I seem to have great difficulty with the Australian language. Some claim it's similar enough to our language that a native English speaker should be able to understand it, but this, of course, is completely silly. They are separate and distinct languages, and while they may share some curse words, they have little else in common. I know this to be true, but I seem to be in the minority. Because of this, I frequently find myself asking Australians to repeat themselves. As a result, my "mates" have formed the opinion that I am somewhat hard of hearing. Far from causing them to shun me, this mythical handicap of mine seems to endear me to these kindhearted people, and they go out of their way to talk to me, asking, "How're ya goin' mate?" and - well I don't know what else they say, because I can't understand a word of it. I nod and smile and make what I hope are appropriate remarks from time to time, and I seem to be doing pretty well, because I'm often rewarded with a bone-crushing slap on the back, broad smiles and a stream of throaty vowels that sound as if I'm listening from under water. Times like these make me miss (even more than usual) my wife. They remind me of my first year or so in South Carolina, where her ability to translate Gullah, or whatever people were speaking to me, saved me from several beatings, and impressed on me the certainty that my life would never again be complete without her in it. She is not here though, so I get by as well as I can, which means I have become a master of reading body language, facial expression, and contextual elements of conversation too subtle even to be named. These clues provide me insights into the inscrutable utterings of my friends here, and allow me to "participate" in discussions that are completely beyond my understanding. An aside: How is it I can appreciate these modes of nonverbal communication when I cannot abide a mime? My skills of interpretation failed me tonight in the tent though, when my hosts were playing an enthusiastic game of Australian trivia. Not only did I not know any answers, I could not ascertain the meaning of a single question. At one point in the heated competition, it was the turn of my "mates" to answer a question. Whether in the spirit of inclusiveness, or because they themselves were unsure of the answer, I'll never know, all I can say for certain is that, after the question was posed, they all turned to me, and beerily shouted things like, "Gowedan givatraymate!" Well, there I was. A close-packed throng of inebriated amateur rugby players blocked the path to the door ahead of me, while all the men stood behind me. No way out. A quick survey of all my body language skills told me only that every ear in the bar was inclined in my direction, and that the fate of my team rested on my shoulders. A hush fell over the mob. Of such situations, international incidents are made. I raised my beer and shouted, "To Australia!" and, in the pandemonium that ensued, bought a brief respite, but it was over all too soon. Once again, the place fell silent, and I felt myself being crushed under the burden of the prestige of the United States. I ran through my small vocabulary of authentic Australian words and flung one out in desperation. "Dingo," I gasped. My team erupted in cheers, joined after a slight delay by our rivals, who were unhappy to lose a point, but glad to know that an American was so well informed about their country. Later, when things died down, I happened to see the list of questions lying on the bar. Apparently the one they had put to me was, "What was the first non-native species introduced to Australia?" Labels: NARN (06-07)
Monday, May 29, 2006
From Friday's Wall Street Journal:
It's a sign of some progress that the men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are not spit upon and shunned as Vietnam vets were. Yet there may be something more pernicious about mouthing 'Support Our Troops' while also asserting that many of them are poor, uneducated dupes who were cannon fodder overseas and have come home as basket cases, plagued by a range of mental, emotional and financial problems. The vast majority of vets don't fit that description. Many, like one returned Army guardsman we talked to, chalk up this portrayal to the media's fascination with bad news in general. As for his combat in Iraq, both 'going to war and coming home is very overwhelming,' he says. 'But you make choices in life . . . and through inner strength and support, I am making a choice that I want to be healthy.' In some cases, the depiction of military personnel as damaged goods serves the antiwar agenda. Yet retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Tom Linn sees more basic impulses at work. 'I honestly believe it is guilt' and even resentment, he says. The military type as misfit 'is a stereotype that a lot of people from the Vietnam era have held on to.' Then, as now, 'they saw men and women who did more than they did . . . and they'd compensate by casting those folks in an inferior status.' This Memorial Day, most of us will remember the Americans who have served their country since the Revolutionary War not with pity but with admiration. For those who want to show their gratitude, Major John Morris has some recommendations. He's deputy chaplain for Minnesota's Army National Guard and a founder of a state program called Reintegration: Beyond Reunion. Its broad goal, he explains, is to help returning guardsmen and reservists frame their "experience, to draw from it everything that they can to grow into productive citizens."
Saturday, May 27, 2006
I had the Ipod on shuffle last night and a song I didn't even know I had came on. It was the patriotic (cue dismissive sneer of leftists) story of a soldier killed fighting for his country.
It goes without saying that it was a country song since a topic like this is verboten in the world of the rock and roll, with their complicated shoes, hamburger sandwiches, french-fried potatoes and malted milks. The surprise was the song was from Billy Ray Cyrus from the same album that spawned the cultural epoch (greatest moment of western civ?) Achy Breaky Heart. Anyway, Some Gave All, a little something to consider this memorial day weekend: I knew a man called him Sandy Kane Few folks even knew his name But a hero was he Left a boy, came back a man Still many just don't understand About the reasons we are free I can't forget the look in his eyes Or the tears he cries As he said these words to me All gave some and some gave all And some stood through for the red, white and blue And some had to fall And if you ever think of me Think of all your liberties and recall Some gave all Now Sandy Kane is no longer here But his words are oh so clear As they echo through out our land For all his friends who gave us all Who stood the ground and took the fall To help their fellow man Love your country and live with pride And don't forget those who died America can't you see All gave some and some gave all And some stood through for the red, white and blue And some had to fall And if you ever think of me Think of all your liberties and recall Some gave all And if you ever think of me Think of all your liberties and recall, yes recall Some gave all Some gave all
Friday, May 26, 2006
At NRO, Myrna Blyth reminds us that Memorial Day is Not Just A Day Off:
Too many people today tend to think of Memorial Day as the three-day weekend when the pools open and the grill gets fired up for the first time of the season. But, of course, it is a lot more significant than that. The holiday, you may know, was originally known as Decoration Day, when flowers were laid on the graves of the Civil War dead, both Union and Confederate. After World War I, observances began to honor all who had died in any of America's wars. Today, amidst family picnics, the end of school, and, yes, the opening of pools, there are still many observances of the solemn nature of the day. Flags are lowered to half-staff from dawn until noon and many communities observe a moment of remembrance in ceremonies throughout the nation. I have been working on a book entitled How to Raise an American. In the book my co-author Chriss Winston and I not only explain why instilling patriotism in the young can be so very challenging these days; we also give lots of practical suggestions about how to deal with this situation. Some of our ideas, we think, will help parents make their kids understand the meaning of our country's most important holidays. She goes on to suggest some things that parents can do with their kids to help them understand the real meaning of Memorial Day.
The ever-salient Ted Dalrymple had an excellent piece in yesterday's WSJ (subscribe already!). He tears into the conventional wisdom that drug addicts are victims and specifically that heroin is easy to become addicted to and almost impossible to get off.
To wit, a person takes a little of a drug, and is hooked; the drug renders him incapable of work, but since withdrawal from the drug is such a terrible experience, and since the drug is expensive, the addict is virtually forced into criminal activity to fund his habit. The latter part of that quote has been standard orthodoxy on the left for years: addicts can't help it, it is a disease, they only commit crimes in order to feed their habit, they don't WANT to do drugs they have to, on and on. 'Rymple goes on to say that these degenerate addicts have been gaming the system for years: I have witnessed thousands of addicts withdraw; and, notwithstanding the histrionic displays of suffering, provoked by the presence of someone in a position to prescribe substitute opiates, and which cease when that person is no longer present, I have never had any reason to fear for their safety from the effects of withdrawal. It is well known that addicts present themselves differently according to whether they are speaking to doctors or fellow addicts. In front of doctors, they will emphasize their suffering; but among themselves, they will talk about where to get the best and cheapest heroin. But why are so many criminals hooked on smack? Aren't they committing crimes to feed their habit? What would make them do these things? Furthermore, I discovered in the prison in which I worked that 67% of heroin addicts had been imprisoned before they ever took heroin...In other words, whatever caused them to commit crimes in all probability caused them also to take heroin: perhaps an adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives. That was pure conservative intellectual gold right there--strong adversarial stance to the world caused by the emotional, spiritual, cultural and intellectual vacuity of their lives. Describes much of the left fairly accurately too, actually--the adversarial nature of their endless adolescent greviances against big business, the suburbs, religion and Normal Americans in general. But I digress. 'Rymple doesn't see a bright future for his view on dope and criminals being widely accepted, since: ...addicts and therapists have a vested interest in the orthodox view. Addicts want to place the responsibility for their plight elsewhere, and the orthodox view is the very raison d'ętre of the therapists. Finally, as a society, we are always on the lookout for a category of victims upon whom to expend our virtuous, which is to say conspicuous, compassion. Contrary to the orthodoxy, drug addiction is a matter of morals, which is why threats such as Mao's (who threatened to shoot anyone who couldn't kick junk), and experiences such as religious conversion, are so often effective in "curing" addicts. Drug addicts are scum. Low-lifes. Losers. The more clear we are on that point, the easier this issue is to deal with. The amazing thing about 'Rymple is the clarity of his reasoning: getting hooked on dope is an individual moral problem, not a medical problem or societal problem that we need to pour money into. So suck it up degenerates. The excuses are done.
After a rather lengthy absence, I returned to Thursday night trivia at Keegan's Irish Pub & Restaurant last night. Our team's results were not impressive, as we were barely able to answer more than half the questions correctly, finishing three behind the victors. However, what was far more disturbing was the nature of the quiz itself.
Rather than answering questions such as "Why are Marines called leathernecks?" or "What color is Guinness?", we were subjected to a series of queries lifted from the pages of Star magazine. Mindless celebrity gossip about the latest Hollywood starlet to adopt a baby from the Third World and give it a goofy name or who Colin Farrell was sleeping with three years ago is not our idea of a trivia quiz. At least not our idea of the kind of trivia quiz that men would willingly participate in. It appears that the creeping feminization of our culture has now infected the hallowed grounds of Keegan's Pub. Terry Keegan has become a softer, kinder, gentler quiz master, the Alan Alda of trivia if you will. Rumor has it that Phil Donahue will be making a special appearance as celebrity announcer soon, that Happy Hour will be replaced by "Feelings Hour," and that quiche will replace ground beef on the Keegan's menu. I even understand that if you happen to stop by Keegan's this Saturday, you'll likely find Terry wearing a dress. (sigh) Paging Harvey Mansfield. Professor Mansfield, please report to Keegan's STAT.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Mitch Berg brings us the sad news of the far too early demise of Joe Hanson. Joe was the original producer of the Northern Alliance Radio Network and held that job until about a year ago. Before that, of course, he was a fixture at KSTP-AM , working with local legends like Jason Lewis, Mischke, and the others. Back then, that was the only conservative radio outlet in town and a whole generation of young Republicans grew up listening to shows produced and enhanced by the genial Smokin' Joe Hanson.
As anyone who ever got the chance to talk to him knows, he was a great guy. Friendly to all, except perhaps to a few callers whom he accurately determined as not air worthy. Believe it or not, conservative talk radio draws a few cranks calling in, and nobody was better than Joe in assessing, halting in their tracks, then terminating those conversations in an efficient manner. His barking "what do you want! No, they're not talking about that now!" then his laughter afterwards over clean dispatch are sounds I can still hear in my memory. Joe was a pro yet he was always patient and supportive to a bunch of radio amateurs trying to learn on the job what they were supposed to be doing. Joe left in a rather abrupt fashion from the Patriot and we never got a chance to say goodbye to him. That is a regret now. He was such a youthful looking and energetic guy, I never would have conceived of his death so soon. And I fully expected him to surface again somewhere. With the return of Jason Lewis, coincidentally just announced yesterday, I figured he'd be back on the air in short order. Alas, that was not meant to be. Our prayers are with Joe Hanson in the next world and with his friends and family here today. Labels: NARN (06-07)
Nineteen new beers have been added to the FL Beer Ratings list, including a couple of quality brews from Bell's (you wouldn't expect anything else) and a slew of suds from Sleeman's. Speaking of Canada and beer, the Oilers playoff run has led to a run on beer at bars in Edmonton:
Establishments throughout the city have been running low on suds during recent Oilers games because of beer-drinking fans knocking down brews. Hockey fans drinking beer? If that don't beat all. Labels: Beer
Catching up on the April edition of First Things last night, I came across an article by Joseph Bottum which brought me back to the days of my not-always-misspent youth:
In 1961, however, there appeared in the magazine Boys' Life three stories by Bertrand R. Brinley: "The Strange Sea Monster of Strawberry Lake," "Night Rescue," and "The Unidentified Flying Man of Mammoth Falls." Four more stories joined them to make up The Mad Scientists' Club, which the publisher MacRae Smith brought out in hardback in 1965--and which Scholastic Books quickly added to its paperback catalogue, along with the five additional stories that formed The New Adventures of the Mad Scientists' Club in 1968. Boys' Life, Scholastic Books and the Mad Scientists' Club? Talk about fond memories. I loved ordering books at school from Scholastic. Choosing your selections from the catalog, convincing your parents to pony up for a couple (which probably meant all of $5.80), the agonizing wait, and the excitement when the shipment finally arrived in the classroom. No doubt the foundation of some of the appeal of finding an Amazon delivery on my front steps today was laid by Scholastic Books. And for an adventuresome young lad, it didn't get much better than the Mad Scientists' Club: What Brinley layers on top of all this, however, is a kind of late 1950s or early 1960s gloss of something that he calls science, though it isn't really. The stories pay ready lip service to the experimental method, the glories of theory, and the high calling of the scientist. But what they are actually after is, instead, the simulacrum of science that is old-fashioned science-boy science--invention, in other words, and the problem-solving of elegantly and cleverly applied technology. Each story is like the latest patent-worthy plan for yet another genuine American apple-peeler, though in the case of The Mad Scientists' Club, the apple to be peeled is some traditional challenge of literary boyhood: adults to be bamboozled, rival clubs to be defeated, adventures to be had, dragons to be slain. The decline in the later book-length tales is proof, perhaps, of how surprisingly delicate a thing Bertrand R. Brinley pulled off with the early stories. They had comedy, and comradeship, and wish-fulfillment fantasy--and, most of all, they had that science-boy thing of chemistry sets that got used instead of gathering dust in a closet, of walkie-talkies that proved useful instead of being lost in the basement when their batteries died, of junkyards where you could actually find the eight-foot steel bar you needed to bring one of your ideas to life. Hopefully, no matter how much the world changes, there will always be a place in a boy's imagination to dream about the kind of adventures detailed in the Mad Scientists' Club. UPDATE: Jeff e-mails to remind me that the Mad Scientists' Club series has been reprinted by Purple House Press and is available for sale. Labels: Children
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Overstating the extent of the threat? Cherry picking data to make the case? Ignoring the views of dissenting voices? Implying connections that have not been proven?
Must be talking about the Bush administration's actions in the run-up to the war in Iraq, right? Try Al Gore's new movie. Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr., a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect, looks at some truly Inconvenient Truths: "An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see. It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."
Oilers slip past Ducks--Edmonton leads series 3-0
 I've never been cheering more for Big Oil. If you missed last night's contest, you missed a whale of a hockey game. Tune in Thursday night as the Oilers look to close Duck season early.
The poll has closed and, by a significant margin, the message you're sending is, "Run Newt, Run!"
60.6% of the respondents said that they would support Newt Gingrich for President in 2008 29.2% said they would not and 10.2% of you are too busy watching "American Idol" to make up your mind The people have spoken. Well, our readers have at least.
Last night on his talk radio show, Hugh Hewitt was dishing out some slightly amusing, if incredibly ill-informed, bashing of the greater Twin City metropolis of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Now, Hugh knows about as much about the Twin Cities as he does wine, hockey, music, and _____(fill in the blank), but I have to agree with Hugh that the 2008 GOP convention should not be held here.
In fact, as a blogger and hobby talk radio host, I am much more interested in seeing the Democrats bring their 2008 convention circus to town. We could witness the coronation of Queen Hil. Or the touching comeback of Al Gore (sure to melt even the coldest of ice-capped hearts). Or the return of the living dead, with John Kerry in the lead role. Maybe the Kos kidz fantasies will come true and Russ Feingold will be at the top of the Dem ticket (please, oh please). Or a dark horse like Chris Dodd (who?) might break away from the pack. No matter who eventually emerges as the Democratic candidate, the 2008 convention should be a riot (perhaps even literally). Cleveland or Tampa or some other second-tier city in desperate need of a shot of self-esteem can have the 2008 GOP convention. We want the Dems. (Memo to Hugh: Twins 6 Indians 5)
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
One of the more disgusting tendencies of the Left during the Cold War was their unwillingness to pass judgments on the relative moral standings of the two protagonists. This moral equivalency usually manifested itself it statements excusing the actions of the Soviet Union because the Untied States wasn't perfect.
"Sure, they have prison labor camps, but we lock up a disproportionate percentage of minorities in our jails, so how can you really say that we're better than them?" It's nice to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same as evidenced by this column in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Robert L. Jamieson Jr. criticizing Mike McGavick's suggestion that Iran be barred from this year's World Cup: Iran has no such repugnant policy. It has not implemented any diabolical plans, unless you count its push to become a nuclear power like the United States, China and other members of that club. Admittedly, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has invoked language that is tough, defiant and downright ugly at times. Sure, he questioned whether the Holocaust ever happened and has talked about the end of Israel (and of history for that matter), but is he really any worse than you know who? That just puts him in good company. In many parts of the world, President Bush doesn't exactly come across as a honeyed voice of reason, either. On the one hand you have the president of Iran and on the other the president of the United States. Who are we to judge?
A clear, comprehensive, concise, and combative defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq? Backed by ample evidence and examples? Penned by an administration official no less? Sounds too good to be true, right?
Well it is true. Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, demolishes four of the most oft-repeated accusations against the adminstration's actions, in an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal (available to all): Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Read the whole thing and then keep a copy handy for future reference. As past experience has well-proven, no matter how many times allegations of this nature are soundly refuted, they have a curious habit of popping up again and again.
Lost amid all the hype about football and baseball stadiums was the impact of the recent Minnesota legislative session on the one sport that truly matters: hockey. The results are mixed.
First the bad news. DECC Expansion Left Out Of Bonding Bill: A special referendum, months of lobbying, and plenty of support from Northland residents was not enough to secure money for the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center expansion at the Minnesota Capitol. The Legislative Session comes to a close on Monday, and funding for the DECC was left out of the bonding bill and the supplemental budget, money made available from the health impact fee. The DECC is home to the University of Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs and is badly in need of an upgrade. But there was also a silver lining in one of the stadium bills. Hockey Hall of Fame staying put: State Rep. Tom Rukavina, a DFLer from Virginia, made a big stop for Eveleth this weekend. A provision in the University of Minnesota's stadium bill that passed in the waning hours of the Legislative session commits about $80,000 in taconite taxes annually to keep the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in Eveleth, Minn. Citing sagging attendance, hall officials earlier this month said they wanted to close the museum's doors and look for a new home. St. Paul officials, including City Council Member Dan Bostrom, suggested the capital city would welcome a new Hall of Fame, particularly on the East Side. Granted, Eveleth is not exactly an easily accessible location for the Hall. But there's an undeniable appeal to having it located in a region that long has been a hockey hotbed for Minnesota and the country as a whole. Like the sport itself, a pilgrimage to the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame is not for the faint of heart or the casual fan. It requires a true dedication and devotion to hockey. It may not attract the most visitors, but it does draw those most passionate about the game. Keep the Hall in Eveleth. Let hockey be hockey.
Monday, May 22, 2006
My favorite part of yesterday's Pistons/Cavs game seven showdown occurred late in the game with the Pistons holding an insurmountable lead and the Cavs about to become the latest in a long line on Cleveland teams to disappoint their fans in the playoffs. ABC played a montage of some of the more ignomious defeats suffered by Cleveland sports franchises in the past. Red Right 88, The Drive, The Fumble, Jordan's last second shot to knock the Cavs out of the playoffs, and the Indians kicking away the 1997 World Series. Cleveland fans are fortunate that the Barons never made the playoffs in their brief existence.
It almost seemed cruel to mock these long suffering fans at the very moment their hearts were once again being broken. Almost.
Ann e-mails to bring our attention to a story from The Week Magazine on the North Pole being up for grabs:
Who stands to gain? The melting ice cap represents a colossal commercial opportunity. Russian icebreakers are already preparing to take tourists to the Pole for $30,000 each this summer, and the thaw could open up some highly lucrative shipping routes. A northeast sea route, north of Siberia, would allow shipping to sail from Europe to northeast Asia, cutting the journey by a third; and the fabled Northwest Passage through Canada's Arctic archipelago could be open to shipping in a few decades, cutting the journey from Europe to East Asia (now routed through the Panama Canal) by 4,000 miles. The greatest profits, however, are likely to be found under the ice. What is being discovered there? Oil and natural gas. A quarter of the world's untapped fossil fuels (including 375 billion barrels of oil) are thought to lie under the Arctic, and will become accessible as the ice melts. Industry experts now talk of a "black gold rush," as companies such as BP Amoco, Statoil of Norway, and the Russian giant Gasprom all race to tap already discovered reservoirs in the region. The Arctic, says Moscow-based energy analyst Christopher Weafer, "is the next energy frontier."
For some reason, we've been tapped as Power Line's Blog of the Week. Maybe it's because JB and Scott Johnson share a similar viewpoint on music (especially on Muddy Waters' contribution to Western civilization.) Or because Atomizer and Paul Mirengoff are both noted for the ability to imbibe early and often (Mirengoof is going to absolutely tear up the DC party circuit). Most likely it was Saint Paul's willingness to go over to John Hinderaker's house this weekend and perform some "jobs that American's aren't willing to do" (sod laying, Bonsai gardening, pool cleaning, car washing, etc.)
 Power Line News Well, whatever motivated the decision, we're honored to have been chosen. Although we must demur on the "paleocon" label that John has applied to us. I don't know if it's possible to come up with a tag that truly captures our political philosophy, but "paleocon" isn't it. If you have something better in mind, feel free to submit it for our consideration.
The story of our cat Lola showing an almost Atomizer-like taste for gin brought about a number of interesting responses.
JB puts her action to song: Well she walked up to me and she asked me to dance I said no not now you're just a cat Lola L-o-l-a Lola She dipped in my gin when I turned my back I said shoo you beast 'fore I pound you flat Lola L-o-l-a Lola EJ reports that gin fever is not restricted to felines: Major Lewis and his lovely wife had a yellow lab named Morgan, who used to visit us on the patio whenever we barbequed. Mom and Dad always had a big martini beaker filled with ice they'd leave in the kitchen to sweat the gin. Every weekend they went through quite a bit of gin and couldn't figure it out. They suspected us kids, but we only stole the beer. Anyway, they finally realized that every time they got up, they were putting their martinis down on the ground next to their chairs and then Morgan would get up from his usual spot, walk over to lap up all the gin he could from their glasses, and then quickly go back to his favorite spot and lie down. They finally figured out why he was so friendly and well-behaved because one Saturday evening Mrs. Lewis called Morgan to come home when we were all sitting outside grilling our supper and Morgan got up, knocked over all the tray tables and crashed headlong into the bushes before beginning a zig-zagging and stumbling jaunt all the way across our backyards to throw up on Mrs. Lewis's back porch. He threw up six olives and of course wreaked of alcohol. So that's how we met Major and Mrs. Lewis, who thereafter frequently came over for cocktails and brought Morgan, who always got his own martini. He'd lie on the ground with his martini between his paws and just lap it up. We gave him a glass that he couldn't quite get his nose in, but had just enough room to "sip" off the top. We'd refill it for him and give him another olive, but Mrs. Lewis insisted he not get so drunk that he couldn't walk home like a proper dog. We tried giving him beer and scotch, but he wouldn't touch it. He only liked gin. Beefeater. And he was always very well-behaved. Cool dog. And finally, Henry can't resist having a little fun: I always thought catatonic applied only to felines lapping up gin and quinine water. [Ba doom boom] Labels: Nature
Happy birthday to one of my favorite authors, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, born on this day in 1859. No matter how times I read them, I never tire of his tales of Holmes.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Lawmaker Accused of Hiding $90G in Freezer:
A congressman under investigation for bribery was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer. At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa. As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" according to the affidavit. Jefferson, who represents New Orleans, has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing. Another Democratic pol caught up in scandal? Almost starting to seem like a "culture of corruption" with them, isn't it?
Saturday night and I'm preparing to fire up the grill and throw a coupla steaks on. Before I head outside to 'que, I mix up a batch of Martinis made with "ridiculously good" Hendricks Gin, pour myself one, and set it on my basement bar. I then walk over to select a bottle of wine to serve with dinner.
When I return to the bar, I recoil in horror as I see one of our cats, Lola, standing with her hind paws on a bar stool, her face on the bar, tongue in my Martini. Tongue in my Martini!?!? It wasn't like she just had a sample sip out of curiosity either. She was lapping it up like a saucer of milk. Unbelievable. After shooing her away, I kept a close eye on her the rest of the night to make sure she didn't suffer any adverse reactions to the booze. She seemed fine, if a little more laid back than normal. In the future, I'll be mindful not to turn my back on my Martini when she's in the room. Cats dig gin. Who knew? Labels: Nature
Friday, May 19, 2006
What are the words that critics most often use when describing the foreign policy of the Bush Administration?
"arrogant, inept, reckless" "unilateralist" "dangerously simplistic" "neo-conservative" "aggressive" "militaristic" "hegemonic" "ideological" More than anything else critics claim that because the Bush Administration "views the world through a black and white lens", we've isolated our allies and created new enemies. They demand more nuance, more sophistication, less idealism and more realism from Bush. And yet these are exactly some of the characteristics that have marked what is probably the administration's biggest foreign policy coup (although you won't hear much about it in the media); the decision by Libya to renounce support for terrorism and give up its WMD programs. Just this week, the United States announced that it would resume diplomatic ties with Libya. On Wednesday, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal looked at The Libya Lesson: The story of how Mr. Gadhafi acquired and later abandoned his nuclear capabilities is reported nearby by Judith Miller. By 2003, Libya was in possession of 4,000 advanced uranium centrifuges and sufficient quantities of highly enriched uranium to make a 10-kiloton bomb, or nearly the yield of Hiroshima's "Little Boy." This is vastly more advanced than what Iran is suspected of possessing, not to mention what was ultimately discovered about Saddam's WMD programs. What changed Mr. Gadhafi's mind? A decade of international sanctions had an effect. A more proximate cause was Mr. Gadhafi's belief, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in Oct. 2001, that he was next. And when U.S. troops began deploying in Kuwait prior to the invasion of Iraq, Ms. Miller reports, Mr. Gadhafi phoned Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to pass this message to the White House: "Tell them I will do whatever they want." But the decisive factor was Mr. Gadhafi's belief that his best hope of escaping the American onslaught was to abandon his nuclear dreams. "The purpose of WMD is to enhance a nation's security," Mr. Gadhafi's son Saif told Ms. Miller. "But our programs did not do that." Had Mr. Gadhafi persevered, he may have had a functional weapon this year, or in 2008 at the latest, according to the head of the Libyan weapons program. Preventing that would have required a showdown with Libya akin to the present showdown with Tehran. Ultimately, the administration might have had no choice but to invade. It seems to us, however, that American interests are better served by deploying diplomats to the shores of Tripoli than cruise missiles and GIs. The WSJ also published a fascinating two-part series by Judith Miller (yes, that Judith Miller) that provided new details on how Libya was persuaded to give up its WMD programs. The first part, titled How Gadhafi Lost His Groove examined the reasons that the Libya dictator decided that he no longer wanted to be part of the WMD game: As the Bush administration struggles to stop Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, it might recall how Libya was persuaded to renounce terrorism and its own weapons of mass destruction programs, including a sophisticated nuclear program purchased almost entirely from the supplier network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's bomb. When Libya dramatically declared on Dec. 19, 2003, that it was abandoning its rogue ways, President Bush and other senior officials praised Libya and Moammar al-Gadhafi, the surviving dean of Arab revolutionary leaders, as a model that other rogue states might follow. In fact, the still largely secret talks that helped prompt Libya's decision, and the joint American-British dismantlement of its weapons programs in the first four months of 2004, remain the administration's sole undeniable -- if largely unheralded -- intelligence and nonproliferation success. And a key figure in that effort, Stephen Kappes, is now slated to be the next deputy director of the demoralized Central Intelligence Agency. With Hayden and Kappes on the way perhaps there is still a ray of hope for the CIA. Col. Gadhafi's hip, 34-year-old son, Saif-al-Islam, told me in Vienna -- where he earned an M.B.A. and lives when he's not carrying out tasks for his father, or studying for a doctorate in political philosophy at the London School of Economics -- that his father changed course because he had to. "Overnight we found ourselves in a different world," said Saif, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks. "So Libya had to redesign its policies to cope with these new realities." September 11th did change everything. At least for Libya. But a review of confidential government records and interviews with current and former officials in London, Tripoli, Vienna and Washington suggest that other factors were involved. Prominent among them is a heretofore undisclosed intelligence coup -- the administration's decision in late 2003 to give Libyan officials a compact disc containing intercepts of a conversation about Libya's nuclear weapons program between Libya's nuclear chief and A.Q. Khan -- that reinforced Col. Gadhafi's decision to reverse course on WMD. While analysts continue to debate his motivation, evidence suggests that a mix of intelligence, diplomacy and the use of force in Iraq helped persuade him that the weapons he had pursued since he came to power, and on which he had secretly spent $300 million ($100 million on nuclear equipment and material alone), made him more, not less, vulnerable. "The administration overstates Iraq, but its critics go too far in saying that force played no role," says Bruce W. Jentleson, a foreign-policy adviser to Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign and professor at Duke University, who has written the most detailed study of why Col. Gadhafi abandoned WMD: "It was force and diplomacy, not force or diplomacy that turned Gadhafi around . . . a combination of steel and a willingness to deal." No steel, no deal. And not without our allies. Our real allies anyway. Although the Camp David talks focused mainly on the impending Iraq war, Mr. Bush reportedly accepted Mr. Blair's proposal that they explore Col. Gadhafi's avowed interest in discussing WMD in exchange for lifting sanctions. In October 2002, Mr. Blair wrote a letter to Col. Gadhafi proposing such a dialogue; a few weeks later, Col. Gadhafi replied affirmatively: "I will instruct my people to be in touch with your people," a diplomat quoted his letter as saying. Col. Gadhafi, who Saif says avidly surfs the Net for news, had by now become even more anxious about press reports of Iraqi-Libyan nuclear cooperation. Stories sourced to senior Israeli officials accused Iraq of having sent nuclear physicists to Libya to work on a joint weapons program. Gadhafi sounds like he'd be right at home in Hollywood. "Hey Tony baby, have your people talk to my people. Maybe we can have lunch at the Tower Bar sometime." He's got a "hip son" and he "avidly surfs the net for news" too. This isn't exactly your standard image dictator here. The diplomatic lull soon ended, however. Libyans close to the Gadhafi family told me that after Saddam Hussein's sons were killed in a shootout with U.S. soldiers in Mosul in July 2003, Safiya, Col. Gadhafi's wife, angrily demanded that he do more to ensure that Saif and her other sons would not share a similar fate. It's comforting to know that even though you may be the dictator of your country, you're not immune to getting nagged by your wife. "Now you listen and you listen good Moammer. My babies are not going to get riddled with bullets and dragged out into the street. Do you understand that? So you get on that fancy phone and you call up whoever you need to call and make sure that doesn't happen. Am I making myself clear? Moammer? Are you even listening to me?" "Yes, dear." The second part was called, Gadhafi's Leap of Faith and looked at what the US learned from dismantling Libya's WMD programs: Several things surprised him: first, the relatively small number of Libyans involved in the WMD programs. "Though the Libyans I dealt with were knowledgeable, dedicated and innovative," he said, "there was almost no bench." "The same six people -- most of them American-educated -- did almost everything," said Harry L. Heintzelman IV, senior adviser on noncompliance. A second lesson was how relatively easy it was to hide elements of a WMD program, even in an open desert, "if there is a national dedication to do so," Mr. Mahley wrote in a "Lessons Learned" paper for an arms-control newsletter. Team members were also struck by the extent to which sanctions had complicated Libya's hunt for unconventional weapons, especially biological. Though U.S. intelligence officials still debate whether Libya has disclosed all aspects of its early effort to make or acquire germ weapons -- in particular, how much help, if any, was provided by Wouter Basson, head of South Africa's illicit germ-warfare program under apartheid -- sanctions apparently helped dissuade Col. Gadhafi from building an indigenous program. "The program, if you can call it that, just kind of fizzled out," said a member of the British-led biological team that first toured suspect Libyan sites and interviewed some 25 scientists during a two-week trip in the late spring of 2004. This does not mean of course that the deal with Libya was perfect. Far from it. Gadhafi is still in power and the Libyan people are still suffering under his regime. In fact, on Thursday another piece by a Libyan human rights activist appeared in the WSJ criticizing the diplomatic recognition: The State Department's decision undermines U.S. credibility. Realists say the administration is sending a positive message to the Arab world that it will reward good behavior in the war on terror. What despots hear, though, is that lip-service will obviate the need to reform or respect human rights. Re-establishing relations with Col. Gadhafi is not a victory and it may very well be a defeat unless Washington begins full-court pressure to force political change in Libya. One hopes that closer contact with the US and a turn away from being a rogue state will, in the long run, improve the situation in Libya and lead to freedom for the Libyan people. What this episode demonstrates conclusively is that the Bush administration is willing to take different approaches with different countries when dealing with threats from terrorism and WMD. Libya's continuing political repression and human rights abuses have prompted officials to cite Reagan's motto for dealing with the Soviet Union during its own tumultuous transformation: Trust, but Verify. "And this is exactly how we approached the case of Libya," said Mr. Bolton, now U.S. ambassador to the U.N., in a July 2004 speech. But not even the very conservative Mr. Bolton defends the halfhearted effort to assure Col. Gadhafi that he was right to renounce WMD. Calling Libya's about-face "an important nonproliferation success" because it "proves that a country can renounce WMD and keep its regime in power," Mr. Bolton told me recently that preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons "requires long-term strategic thinking and concentration." And a healthy dose or two of nuance.
Coming back from a walk last night I noticed a couple of door-knockers working our neighborhood. As I parked and walked through the garage to our condo one of them was knocking on our neighbor's door. Not wanting to be bothered in five minutes when he would knock on OUR door, I inquired as to who/what he was canvassing for.
"The American worker." Okay, I responded, but who is sponsoring this? I looked down at his signature sheet and saw AFL-CIO in big letters. Oh, so you are doing this for the AFL-CIO. "No, we are doing this for the American worker." My blood started to boil a little at this point. "Well, that may be your talking point but the reason you are out here is to gain influence and power for the union." "Sir that is not right at all. We are here to save American jobs and stop outsourcing" he retorted. Well sure, but it's FOR THE UNION, can't you just admit that? "But I'm not even in a union. Why would I be out here if I wasn't in a union" "Because you're a liberal and this is a liberal issue." "I am NOT a liberal." "You're not a liberal? You're out knocking on stranger's doors for the AFL-CIO but you're not a liberal." "No, I am a progressive" (At this point I have visions of throttling the little twerp, but continue the verbal sparring) "You're a lefty" "I am not a lefty, I am a left-winger and I suppose you are not a conservative" "Of course I'm a conservative. I have no problem admitting it. Is this really what you want to be doing with your life--playing these little rhetorical games with people and not admitting what you're trying to do?" "We are out here for the American worker" "Yeah, you said that. I just wish you could admit it was for the union" "We are here for the American worker" At this point I had to walk inside and close the door. I woke up today and found a "Know Your Rights In The Workplace" pamplet at my door. Sponsored by the AFL-CIO.
Jonathan Last has a great piece in today's Wall Street Journal (available to all) on the dubious merits of J-schools:
Those of us saddened by the declining fortunes of the newspaper industry had hoped that shrinking newspaper staffs would have at least one salutary effect: fewer journalism-school graduates. This has not proved to be the case. In 2005, newspapers cut 2,000 jobs; this spring more people graduated from journalism schools than ever before. On the education of young journalists, there has been much recent debate. There is one argument over whether or not journalists should aspire to objectivity and another about the liberal bias that permeates journalism programs. But the problem isn't that journalists are being taught improperly; it's that the foundations of journalistic education are faulty. The notion of a special program for journalists first surfaced at the turn of the century, when Joseph Pulitzer dreamed of founding a school of journalism at Columbia. In 1902, he offered the university $2 million to establish one. The administration wavered; Pulitzer's peers thought the idea ludicrous. As Michael Lewis once reported in The New Republic, a New York newspaper editor "suggested that one might as well set up a graduate school in swimming." Last goes to suggest that instead of teaching students how to be journalists, schools should focus on providing them with real knowledge: Instead of educating future journalists on the nuts and bolts of journalism--because let's be honest, it isn't rocket science or even carpentry--it would make more sense simply to teach them things. Facts, it turns out, are useful. Most people can write a nut graph after 30 minutes of practice, but comparatively few people can explain, say, econometrics, or fluid dynamics, or the history of the French Revolution. Aspiring journalists don't need trade-craft--they need a liberal-arts education that gives them a base of mastery in actual academic subjects. Such knowledge might help journalists avoid such embarassing mistakes as not being aware of the political views of John Kenneth Galbraith or knowing that the American military decoration for being wounded or killed in action is the Purple Heart, not the Purple Star (to cite two recent examples from the corrections page of the "paper of record"). Labels: Media-National (02-06)
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Since the coffers here at Fraters Libertas Inc. have been relatively flush of late, the executive board decided to reinvest a bit of our hard earned filthy lucre. Several untraceable transactions between accounts in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, and Dubai later, an order was placed with Amazon for purposes of continuous learning. Once the shipment arrived at an undisclosed location and was signed for by a Joe E. Sixpack, the contents were distributed by means of dead drops to the relevant parties.
Each of us has been presented with a book to read, review, and pass on. Saint Paul was given first dibs and chose, Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam by Mark Bowden. Given Saint Paul's usual reading pace and the prodigious amounts of time he spends watching C-SPAN, I would expect his review to be posted no later than the end of the first quarter 2007. JB Doubtless has been tasked with Imperial Grunts : The American Military on the Ground by Robert D. Kaplan. Once "American Idol" wraps up, I expect JB to knuckle down and knock his assignment off shortly thereafter. Atomizer has been asked to digest Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror by Mary Habeck. Barring any unexpected binges, a resurgence of the Twins, or a sudden reoccurrence of the gout, Atomizer will likely have something to say on the book very soon. Whether he'll ever post it here is an entirely different matter. Lastly, I am plowing my way through Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam by John A. Nagl. The main thesis of Nagl's book is that the British counterinsurgency effort in Malaysia succeeded because the British Army was a learning organization, while the US Army was not such an organization in Vietnam and thus was unable to win the war. Nagl spent a year in Iraq as well and shares a few thoughts on what lessons of those two conflicts are applicable there as well as some reasons why Iraq is different. He believes that the US has the opportunity to be victorious in Iraq because the current Army is able to learn and adapt. We certainly better hope that is the case. An interesting side note in Nagl's book is a discussion on how it was Jomini much more than Clausewitz who proposed that the only way to win a war was to destroy the enemy's army on the battlefield. Over the years, that view has often been incorrectly attributed to Clausewitz, despite the fact that he, much more than Jomini, recognized the importance of the government and the people in ultimate victory, factors which became crucial to the revolutionary war concept espoused by Mao and adapted by many insurgencies in the 20th century. [Editor's note: The preceding paragraph was penned solely for the benefit of JB Doubtless and his buddies at the Claremont Institute.] Labels: Books
There's a new conservative organization in Minnesota that's been formed to attempt to counter the political efforts of liberal groups such as Wellstone Action (or should that be Wellstone! Action or maybe Wellstone Action!), TakeAction Minnesota, etc.. It's called the Minnesota Academy for Conservative Leadership:
Minnesota Academy for Conservative Leadership is a 501(c)(4) political education and training organization dedicated to advancing the conservative movement in Minnesota through electoral politics. The Academy was created to meet the challenges that conservatives face here in Minnesota from the burgeoning amount of liberal grassroots organizations pouring millions of dollars to reverse the recent trend of conservative electoral victories. Among others, the MACL board includes notable names such as Ronald Eibensteiner, Chris Georgacas, Brian LeClair, and former Congressman Vin Weber. They've even included the man least happy to pay for a better Minnesota, David Strom, head of the Taxpayer's League and bete noire of local liberals. And they've got a campaign tactics seminar set up for this summer: MACL's kick-off training seminar will be held July 21-23 in St. Paul. Open to conservative candidates, campaign leadership and activists, this training will combine intensive campaign tactics with issue breakout sessions, where attendees can get up-to-the-minute information on current issues facing Minnesota in the coming election. You've probably heard about Camp Wellstone. Just wait 'til you get a load of Camp Strom. Make that Kamp Strom to really rile the local lefties.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Here
is the story I saw last night on channel 5 regarding the sad state of the parks in Eden Fuggin' Prairie. Eden Prairie residents are becoming concerned about an increase in crime in area parks. Residents near Nesbitt Park Preserve tell police teens from outside the community are causing problems such as fistfights and graffiti. "It's almost like they take it over," says Ken Hallonquist of the Nesbitt Park Homeowners Association. "They almost kind of chase you away." A crowd of nearly 20 youths caused a melee a few weeks ago. Police eventually arrested one young man threatening others with a baseball bat. Not MPLS. Not even Hopkin(s). Eden Fuggin' Prairie. Not exactly what comes to mind when you think of roving packs of youts (Herman Muster to Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny: "Did you just say 'yout'?") brawling and grafitting a formally nice area. If you read the small story you will find no details that give any clue to what is actually going on, but the piece last night did get into it. Eden Prairie is home to 700-800 Somali families who are running into problems with youts from MPLS who are apparently reverse-commuting to play basketball at the parks. It is not clear if it is MPLS Somalis fighting Eden Prairie Somalis or MPLS blacks fighting Eden Prarie Somalis, but there has been a history of bad blood between the latter groups. For whatever reason, American blacks and Somalis do not get along. Here is an article saying that the biggest problem Somalis are facing is not "Racism" from whites but rather discriminatory behavior by blacks. "As a general trend, the two groups are having tensions," said Jacqueline Copeland-Carson, a scholar with the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and author of the book, "Creating Africa in America." Mr. Doerue says his children were picked on and targeted simply because they speak differently. Accents can also target immigrants as people less familiar with the system and thus more vulnerable to scams, robbery or attack. Some of the 30 to 40 Somalian families in town have faced other hostilities from black Americans. It would be interesting to hear from some Eden Prairie residents who have seen the park situation first hand because it sounds like things are out of control. Labels: Crime
Politicians, scientists, and writers fleeing Europe and coming to America to escape oppression and threats to their very lives? Sounds like 1938.
Try 2006. From today's WSJ (sub. required), Islamist Threats To Dutch Politician Bring Chill at Home: Three weeks after a Dutch court ordered her out of the building in response to complaints from Mr. Verhagen and other residents, she resigned from Parliament and said she would leave Holland altogether. Her decision follows a cascade of problems: angry neighbors, a government threat to revoke her citizenship and, more generally, growing public disenchantment with her denunciations of both radical Islam and more conventional Muslim doctrines. The travails of Ms. Hirsi Ali, 36 years old, raise questions about how Europe, seeking calm rather than confrontation, is grappling with the challenges posed by Islamic extremism in its midst. Born in Somalia and raised in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya, Ms. Hirsi Ali says the attitude of her neighbors smacks of World War II-style "appeasement." Others say they sympathize with her predicament but fault her for polarizing society with her attacks on Islamic custom as backward and incompatible with Western values. Let me get this straight: - Hirsi Ali says that Islam is backward and incompatible with Western values. - As a result, Islamists threaten her with death, drive her underground, and eventually force her to leave the country, conclusively proving her original assertion. - And now, SHE is criticized for "polarizing" society? I fear for the future of Holland. She's not the only one either: Across Europe, dozens of people are now in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists. Dutch police say politicians reported 121 death threats last year. The number this year will likely be much higher. Geert Wilders, a right-wing member of parliament who also lives in a high-security apartment owned by the state, says he has received 120 menacing emails and letters since January. One of the latest reads: "Oh you cursed infidel! Don't think you are safe from our mighty organization....It is our wish to kill you by decapitation. Your infidel blood will flow freely on cursed Dutch streets!" In Germany, several researchers, journalists and members of Parliament receive police protection because of threats by radical Muslims. Hans-Peter Raddatz, an Islamic-studies expert under police protection, recently moved to the U.S. Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, is also mulling a move to America, at the urging of friends and security contacts. He set off a global storm by publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. Twelve Danish cartoonists who drew the caricatures are staying out of public for fear of attack. Mr. Rose complains that Europe is going wobbly. At the height of the cartoon furor in February, Danish businessmen who criticized their publication were denounced as traitors to free speech. Since then, a segment of the public, eager for a return to calm, has favored a more conciliatory approach toward Muslim anger, Mr. Rose says. Peace (calm) at any price? It really is starting to sound like 1938 all over again. Labels: The Netherlands
It seems like Vox Day has once again managed to stir up a quite a shiite storm. If you've been hiding under a rock lately and missed the fun, just go to his site and start scrolling through the many posts on the controversy.
I'm not going to get into a detailed debate on the matter, but I would like to offer a little advice to the hyperventilating critics who have been harrumphing and thumping their chests in righteous indignation for the last few days. 1. Read the WHOLE piece that started the scrum. If you want to disagree with the comparison Vox employed because you believe that it's not relevant or appropriate, feel free. But don't read more into the article than what he wrote and don't attribute motives or viewpoints to him that are not in evidence. 2. Consider the source. Vox is a master provocateur. He loves to say the things that you're not supposed to say and knows how to push peoples' buttons. Don't think for a moment that he didn't know that his article would elicit exactly this sort of response. He wanted it to and by reacting to what he wrote in the manner that you have, you're playing right into his game. He's laughing at your ill-conceived outrage. 3. Vox Day is not a Nazi. In fact, he's an uber-libertarian and may be the farthest thing from a National Socialist that you could imagine. He likely believes that the only proper role for government is national defense and, if there was a way for each citizen to have their own F-22, he'd probably abolish it entirely. You can accuse him of being tactless and crude at times, but calling him a Nazi only demonstrates your own ignorance. That is all. UPDATE-- Rose e-mails to advise: WND has edited out the Nazi reference. You might want to post an update. If you want to read the original, unedited version of the article that started the firestorm, you can still find it here.
I was Googling for some info about a story on channel 5 last night about how parks in Eden Prairie (!) are not safe because of fights and came across a little gem about female firefighters.
Apparently a fire fightin' gal is trying to recruit more dames into the departments of Minnetonka, Bloomington, Chanhassen, Edina and Hopkin(s) by holding a Fire Service Expo on June 10. But what of minor details like brute strength that women generally lack and is generally needed for the fighting of fires? Oh, that. Well, she's got a solution: Female firefighters can do the job, Hanlon said, but they might use different techniques from male firefighters. For example, using an axe to ventilate a burning building requires, from males, significant upper-body strength. But women can learn different ways to hold the axe and use strength from their lower body to do the same task, Hanlon said. "We still have to do the job," Hanlon said, "but we can find other ways to do it." Like holding the axe with their toes? (Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces: "I want you to hold it between your knees!") Carrying an unconscious, 225 pound man from a burning building requires (from anyone) strength. Upper AND lower body strength. How would this fire fightin' gal suggest women approach this task? Perhaps they could grab an axe and (using lower body strength) chop the legs and arms off the victim making him easy to carry in pieces. They still got the job done (they can sew the pieces on later) they just found another way to do it. It's the same thing. But in case any of you MEN thinking about becoming firefighters were considering attending this fair, you are not welcome: When: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, June 10. Where: The fire training tower at 7252 Braemar Blvd., Edina. For whom: Women who live or work in Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington, Minnetonka, Hopkins or Chanhassen who are considering becoming firefighters. This program is not open to men; males who wish to inquire about firefighting may do so at their local departments.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Hugh Hewitt is a long suffering Cleveland Indians fan (all now pause to pity him). While the local nine have given the fans here in Minnesota very little to cheer about this year, I can't imagine the indignity of having to muster support every year for a team that hasn't won a World Series since the Truman administration. Add to that the fact that their current crew just got swept by the Kansas City Royals and you've got a fan base that is absolutely starved for nostalgia.
All of that pent up frustration must have been the compelling force behind Hugh's on-air plea last Thursday for an audio file of his beloved Tribe's futile attempt at capturing The Commissioner's Trophy in 1995. Since World Series rings are rarer in Cleveland than joy is in Mudville, I guess the next best thing for Hugh was the Indians' triumph over the Seattle Mariners in the A.L.C.S. eleven years ago. This was the file I sent to him. He was not too pleased. So, in the interest of restoring harmony with The Blogfather and forestalling his frequently irrational wrath, I present to Hugh...the Indians winning the '95 A.L. pennant You're welcome.
Survey looks at road rage across nation:
Stressed Miami drivers speed, tailgate and cut off other drivers so frequently that the city earned the title of worst road rage in a survey released Tuesday. AutoVantage, an automobile membership club offering travel services and roadside assistance, also listed Phoenix, New York, Los Angeles and Boston among the top five cities for rude driving. Minneapolis, Nashville, St. Louis, Seattle and Atlanta were rated as the cities with the most courteous drivers, who were less likely to change lanes without signaling or swear at other motorists. Having driven in a number of cities around the United States, as well as a few in foreign countries, I would have to concur with the assessment on Miami drivers. I never experienced the rage as much as the complete disregard for any road rules and the utter lack of courtesy for other drivers. Driving in Miami is a Darwinian challenge and only the fittest survive.
Got too many books and magazines cluttering up you house? Scott Johnson has a grand idea of how you can put them to better use:
Sergeant David Thul writes that he is serving with the Minnesota National Guard in Iraq. He asks a simple favor. If you have conservative books or magazines sitting around the house that you'd be willing to part with, he asks that you send them to him for his unit in Iraq. He says that the unit is short of reading material -- he read Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring about three months ago and it is still being passed around and read again. He says that books and magazines can be sent directly to the USO or to him: SGT Dave Thul Weapons Company 1-133 APO AE 09333-0000 It isn't enough that these brave soldiers are risking their lives in trying conditions to serve their country, they now also have to put up with reading Hannity? Our troops deserve better than this. Show how much you really support them by sending some spare reading material today. Some good reading material. UPDATE-- Tim e-mails to inquire: One question: If I sent my copy of "If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat" to the MN National Guard, would I receive thanks, or would I receive a knock at the door in the middle of the night and be the recipient of a blanket party?
Monday, May 15, 2006
Simpson's Episode 9F13 "I Love Lisa":
After Lisa gives Ralph a valentine out of pity, he falls for her. He invites her to the Krusty 29th Anniversary Show (Chief Wiggum got the tickets after "busting" Krusty at an adult movie explaining, "Krusty knows how to play ball") and, even though she thinks of him as nothing more than a pathetic paste eater, Lisa agrees to go with him. At the show, it all falls apart: It's the dreaded "Talk with the audience" part. As Krusty wanders the audience in search of a victim, Lisa quietly pleads, "Oh no, don't show me with Ralph." Too late. Ralph professes his love for Lisa and promises to marry her when he grows up. Unable to stand it any longer, Lisa lets out a prolonged yell and adds, "I don't like you. I never liked you. And the only reason I gave you that valentine is that nobody else would!" Watching a videotape of the incident, Bart narrates the scene frame-by-frame. "Watch this, Lis. You can actually pinpoint the second when his heart rips in half." He does so. Lisa covers her face. I thought of that scene as I listened to Hugh Hewitt's show last night. After Bush's speech, Hugh was doing his darnedest to put the best possible face on it. And since the proposals were not big on specifics, they left some wiggle room for positive interpretation. Then Hugh had Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers on to follow up. He asked about her for details about what sort of fencing the President had in mind. She replied by rehashing the well-worn excuse, "If we build a fence, they'll just build tunnels." Hugh was stunned, "staggered" is the word he uses to describe it, and momentarily fell silent. He came to back Myers again, unable to believe that she had really uttered those words. But she stood by them. We can't build a fence, we won't build a fence, stop talking about fences. If you listen to the show again, you can actually pinpoint the second when Hugh's political heart rips in half.
The idea of Newt Gingrich as a viable candidate for President in 2008 had always struck me as nothing more the Quixotic dream of people who spend too much time watching C-SPAN in their boxers. But after catching Newt's command performance on Meet The Press yesterday morning (full transcript here), I'm suddenly open to the possibility.
Gingrich appeared to be on top of his game. He was well-spoken, engaging, and thoughtful as he delivered a stinging critique of the Congressional GOP's drift from conservative principles along with a few well-aimed barbs at particular Bush administration policies. His attacks were not designed to bring down Republicans, but rather to prod them to actions more likely to help them retain power. He also delivered a sterling defense of the decision to go to war in Iraq (it should be noted that he definitely has issues with the way the occupation has been handled): Iraq has been painful, we have learned some very difficult lessons, we are better prepared today if we have to do something than we were four years ago. But if you were to say, again, because all of history is looking forward. I would--I read the--as you know I'm on the Defense Policy Board--and I went--I read the initial report, the 100-page report the president got. Knowing what the intelligence community--not in the U.S., in Russia, in France, in Italy, in Britain--knowing what they believed in 2003, it would have been irresponsible not to have eliminated Saddam's regime in 2003. Every thrust by Russert was deftly parried by Gingrich, who calmly and confidently defended his own past actions, unabashedly defended conservative views, and articulated his positions in a manner sure to get the blood flowing among the most anemic members of the conservative base. Gingrich is in the unique position of being a Republican insider who's been outsider long enough to avoid being negatively associated with the party's recent struggles. He harkens back to the "good ol' days" of the Nineties when conservative Republicans could still be proud of the party's control of Congress. He does carry some baggage with him of course and I don't know how "electable" he'd be in a national race, but when you listen to him and then consider the alternatives, a "Gingrich in 2008" campaign starts looking awfully appealing. And realistic. Gingrich himself remains coy on the subject: MR. RUSSERT: But you're not, you're not ruling out running? MR. GINGRICH: I'm not ruling out running, but I'm also saying we have real things to do in '06. We have real things to do in '07. And it'll be nice to have a couple of years of talking about solutions, not just talking about ambitions. But I don't think he's running around Iowa because he likes to collect feed hats. Run Newt run. UPDATE: Kurt at Writing History was already on the bandwagon.
Mark Yost, proprietor of Iraq Heroes and The Home Front, will be appearing on Your World with Neil Cavuto on FOX News at 3:30pm (Central) today to discuss his upcoming piece in "The American Spectator" about the unsung heroes of the war in Iraq.
Sure, our local nine might have blown a 7-3 lead yesterday, a loss that included one of the strangest triple plays I've ever seen (somewhere Bill James was laughing when he saw that replay), and they trail 3-1 early in today's series finale against the Pale Hose, but at least they haven't lost six in a row, including suffering a three game sweep at the hands of the rotten Royals, like a certain Ohio-based squad just has. Getting swept by the Royals? How humiliating. That's like an NFL team losing a game to the...
...Browns. Ouch. UPDATE: It's now 6-2 in the seventh. UPDATE II: Twins fall 7-3.
Joel Kotkin has a prescription for what ails many American cities in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required):
One good thing that can come out of the new census numbers would be a shifting away of urban priorities. Since the dot-com boom, many big city mayors -- such as Baltimore's Martin O'Malley and San Francisco's Gavin Newsom -- have placed their faith on selling their cities primarily as "hip and cool" for the "creative class." By luring talented singles, gays, artists and well-heeled empty-nesters, they hoped, their cities would prosper even as hoi polloi exited for the bland suburbs and exurbs. This explains the widespread enthusiasm among urban boosters for the construction -- often with city subsidy -- of concert halls, museums, fancy restaurants and boutique hotels. The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety, maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform -- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility. Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place. It's advice that the leaders of Minneapolis would do well to heed. Instead of spending their time on smoking bans, making the city "greener," assuring gender and ethnic diversity in the ranks of the City's street sweepers, and where their next bribe is coming from (in the case of the City Council at least), they should concentrate on making the streets safe, the schools decent, and the burden of government on citizens and businesses tolerable. No, I'm not holding my breath.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Leave it to the Strib to find just the right way to celebrate Mother's Day:
I am the proud daughter of three mothers: My biological mom, Susan; her partner, Kimmie, and my dad's second wife, Chrissy.
Friday, May 12, 2006
In Tuesday's Star Tribune, Deborah Caulfield Keillor Coleman Rybak (guess which names aren't real) reported that the most recent Twin Cities radio ratings were not kind to news, talk stations:
The winter radio ratings are in, and -- brrrrrrr -- the news was cold for Clear Channel's new FM talker, KTLK (100.3). The station, which dumped its smooth-jazz format in January, drew just 2 percent of the region's approximately 2.6 million radio listeners ages 12 and older, down from a 3.4 share a year ago. Only Rush Limbaugh, whose syndicated weekday show went live on KTLK (11 a.m.-2 p.m.), held his own. Among listeners ages 25 to 54, considered the "money demographic" among advertisers, Limbaugh drew a 3.7 share, the same as he did the year before on KSTP (1500 AM), which had him on tape delay in the afternoon. Clear Channel Vice President Gregg Swedberg said the numbers were just what he expected. "Nobody here is really disappointed; it takes a while to change listening habits," he said. "It took [sister station] KFAN 10 years to get ratings." Of course KFAN didn't have anyone near the stature of a Rush in their lineup either. Or a strong, clear FM signal. Or a highly publicized launch. Something tells me that Clear Channel is not going to wait ten years for KTLK to catch on. How about the "Talk Station," with its spanking new lineup? KSTP-AM, which rejiggered its lineup earlier this year, dropped a full point to a 3.6 share overall. The news was especially bad for its new morning team: Twin Cities newcomer Willie Clark and former KSTP newsman Jay Kolls drew only a 1.8 share among listeners 25 to 54 -- a 44 percent drop from the year before. Wow. Never saw that one coming. I mean, everyone I've ever spoken to can't stand Willie Clark, but when a venerable station turns the mike over to a guy like Clark, they must have had some darn good reasons for doing so. Right? Willie isn't less popular than Bob Davis. He just has a more selective appeal. I hope his cat hasn't gotten too comfortable in its new surroundings, because I sense another move looming on the horizon. The exception was sports talk KFAN (1130 AM), which rose from a 2.5 share to a 3.3, boosted by such events as Kirby Puckett's death and Daunte Culpepper's trade to Miami. Ahem, ahem. KFAN was not the only exception. If you take a closer look at the ratings, you will notice that WWTC, otherwise known as AM-1280 The Patriot saw its share go from a 1.2 to a 1.5, no doubt boosted by the expansion of the Northern Alliance Radio Network to four hours. The NARN show grew by 33% and The Patriot's ratings went up 25%. A fairly strong correlation I dare say. And what of that Air America Minnesota station, home to Al Franken and one of the best Saturday pet shows in town, you ask? It didn't crack the top twenty. Must be the mold. Labels: Media-Local (05-07)
The most annoying aspect of the most recent NSA revelations, other than the shrill histrionics of those who claim that it's further proof that the days of Big Brother are indeed upon us, was the flagrantly misleading manner in which the story was being reported, especially early on. The first report that I read on the subject yesterday was from ABC News and it was titled, Government Monitoring About 200 Million Americans' Calls with the sub-title, "USA Today Reports That NSA Wiretapping Is More Far-Reaching Than Thought.
The impression given from the headline and sub-header was that the government is listening to the phone conversations of millions of Americans, especially with the link to previous NSA wiretapping controversy. Now, one could quibble about the meaning of the word "monitor." Here's a definition that seems relevant: v. monˇiˇtored, monˇiˇtorˇing, monˇiˇtors v.tr. 1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver. 2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations. 3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people. 4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities. 5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination. 6. To direct. Clearly the story's title would lead you to believe that the second definition is appropriate, when in fact, the monitoring that was actually going on in the NSA program is much closer to the third definition of the word. And in general, when you hear the word "monitor" used in regard to telephones, most people would assume that it means listening in. When you call a customer service line and hear the message"This Call May Be Monitored For Quality Purposes", you naturally assume that someone might be listening to the conversation. Not until the 15th paragraph of the ABC story do you learn that: According to USA Today, this massive NSA data collection program is used to analyze calling patterns that may be helpful in tracking down terrorists. This part of the spy program does not include listening to or recording Americans' conversations. Not exactly what I would consider quality journalism. Meanwhile, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross addresses the legality of the NSA program at National Review Online: FISA distinguishes between "electronic surveillance," which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and "pen registers," which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn't involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute. However, the definition of "pen register" in FISA shows that the statute doesn't regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not "include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider." That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action. Nor would the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial: [W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills...In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment or FISA. Of course, the fact that a government action is legal doesn't settle the case: There may still be ample room to oppose it. But there is a rush among broad sections of the Left to declare illegal any Bush-administration policies with which they disagree without being troubled by such trivialities as what the actual, settled law says. Here, this reflexive reaction appears dead wrong. Imagine that.
How would the modern day media cover World War II? An intriguing hypothetical question, no doubt impossible to truly answer. But if anyone could even come close, it would be the incomparable Victor Davis Hanson, who takes a swing at it in a piece at NRO called In the Eye of the Beholder. The whole thing is quite delicious. Here are a few of my favorite savory portions:
A number of issues arise. Why is Henry Stimson ("Gentlemen do not read each other's mail") still Secretary of War? After the debacles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines tragedy, the Kasserine Pass disaster, the unforeseen bocage in Normandy, the Falaise Gap escape, the Anzio mess, the fatal detour to Rome, the surprise at the Bulge, the bloodbath at Tarawa, and now the Iwo Jima and Okinawa nightmares, is not five years of his incompetence and arrogance enough? A number of our retired generals seems to agree, who have recently bravely come forward to remind us that Sec. Stimson long ago tried to dismantle key elements of our intelligence services, attempted to curtail the operational command of our Army Air Corps generals in conducting bombings of Europe, and has on more than one occasion intervened to remove targets from Gen. LeMay's campaign over Japan. As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes?all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of "The Sherman Tank Scandal? follows other revelations published in "Asleep at the Philippines," "The Flight of Gen. MacArthur," "Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily," "Do Americans Execute POWs?" "Torture on Guadalcanal," "Incinerating Women and Children?" and "Civilian Massacres in Germany"--publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent. And: Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations. Yet even this government's propaganda efforts ring hallow, as we noticed with the recently released film footage purportedly showing Adolph Hitler incompetently handling a Colt .45 revolver. In fact, such a weapon, little known in Germany, is hard to load and shoot, especially the early model that the Fuhrer was shown trying to fire. To be fair, his apparent unease is not necessarily proof that Mr. Hitler was unfamiliar with firearms, much less fraudulent in his demonstration of military experience.
This week's Carnival of Homeschooling is dedicated to Albert Einstein and is chock full of homeschooling links as well as quotes from the great man.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
A couple of upcoming summer events of note for local conservative radio listeners.
I. Tuesday June 13th at noon The AM-1280 The Patriot Golf Open: Join Patriot listeners and sponsors for 18 holes of some of the best golf in Minnesota. Our scramble tournament will feature great giveaways, gimmick holes, and skill challenges. All on the twists and turns of Stonebrooke Golf Course in Shakopee. Box Lunch included. Cost $89 per golfer I understand that just seeing Jay Larson hack away in his red, white, and blue knickers is worth the price of admission itself. II. Saturday July 15th 11am-3pm The Second Annual AM-1280 The Patriot Listener's Appreciation Picnic at Boom Island in Minneapolis: - Live broadcast of the Northern Alliance Radio Network including an on-air audience participation trivia contest with fabulous prizes for correct answers (well, we are conservatives aren't we?) - Inflatables. (For the kids. Sickos.) - FREE food (good catered stuff too, not like those nasty burnt brats your dad used to make at family picnics)  Captain Ed is hoping for the same potato salad that he enjoyed at last year's Patriot picnic. "Hey Ed, Idaho called. They're running outta potatoes." - FREE Frisbees - FREE WILLY! Sorry, got a little carried away there. But rest assured, there will be plenty of fun. And it is all free. Labels: NARN (06-07)
In case you haven't been to the water cooler yet, Chris Daughtry was booted off American Idol last night.
There is significant surprise at this development among just about everyone, prompting even the normally reserved Powerline to use an exclamation point in their assessment of the situation. Part of the surprise stems from this idea that the producers wanted a white male to win since a no white male has yet to be named American Idol. My response to that is since when does anyone care about white males? We have all the advantages, all the connections, all the privledges, right? Oh, you don't? Well, it doesn't matter. That's the template and it's fair to say that the producers of the AI work from that template. But what of Chris' talent? He was okay, I guess. Okay in the make-every-song-sound-like-Nickelback kind of way. He could do the angst-ridden, petulant modern rock thing--but that's it. He had no stylistic range to speak of. And he came across as shy. Shy! This guy is supposed to be a rocker--have some confidence! He lost me weeks ago when he attempted to make people believe that he came up with the arrangement he performed of Johnny Cash's I Walk The Line--an arrangement released years previously by the band Live which he copied note-for-note. The judges were apparently not aware of the Live version and gave him high marks for originality and "Making the song his own." Someone mentioned that he was "Uncomprimising." The guy tried to pull a fast one, plain and simple. The producers realized what happened the next night (AFTER the voting was over) and had host Ryan Seacrest make a point of saying it was Live's version, but the damage to Chris' credibility was done. At least when he did the Red Hot Chili Peppers version of Stevie Wonder's Higher Ground he acknowledged it. But that still didn't keep the clueless judges from giving him credit for originality. Chris is a marginal talent. He's not terribly charismatic and he clearly has ethical problems. Definitely not an American Idol. But I have to say as much as I don't care for him, he's better than the guy that my wife can't decide looks more like a centaur or a leprechaun.
After a week of listening to many Republicans demonstrate embarrassingly low levels of economic literacy in a futile attempt to score a few political points on high gas prices, I tuned in to C-SPAN last night and was reminded once again that, when it comes to ill-informed economic demagoguery, nobody does it better than the Democrats.
The setting was the largely empty chambers of the US House. The event was a dog and pony show masquerading as a forum staged by deservedly obscure Democratic Representatives complete with cheesy visual displays (did your 12 year old daughter make that graph for you?) and empty-headed rhetoric on the true state of the economy For no matter what those pointed-headed dismal scientists tell you with all their fancy-schmacy numbers about GDP, low unemployment, consumer confidence, corporate profits, and the stock market, (you know, the statistics that have been used every since the science truly became dismal to measure economic performance?) these noble finders of fact know the real truth: -The economy stinks and the ONLY people benefiting from it are the wealthiest 1% (and the oil companies) -The middle class is being destroyed and we're on our way to becoming nothing more than a Banana Republic -Republicans want to push the vulnerable into an "abyss" (yes, one of the Dems really did say that) -The "Bush economy" is immoral Anytime you hear the mention of morality in a discussion of the economy, you feel an instinctive need to put a protective hand on your wallet. For although none of these Dems openly proposed it last night, their obvious "solution" to the terrible state of the economy involved using the confiscatory power of the government to redistribute wealth. The not-quite-so-invisible hand of the taxman reaching into your pocket. The spectacle was ably summarized by a female rep from Florida who asked, "How can anyone say that this economy is good when a gallon of gasoline costs three dollars?" It's actually quite easy honey. During the Clinton years, I don't recall the GOP trying to deny economic reality in such a manner. Sure, they minimized Clinton's impact on the economic boom and claimed that it would be even better if they were in power, but at least they were willing to face the facts as they were instead of living in some bizarro economic world (good is bad, up is down). Whenever I force myself to listen to this nonsense for any length of time, I end up wondering if the Democrats spouting off are really that clueless about economics or whether they're cynically playing politics. Either way, the night demonstrated that any display of economic ignorance the Republicans can do, the Democrats can do better. I realize that, as Stigler noted, anecdotes are not data, but when I witness displays of irrational dispiritedness such as last night's, I can't help but conclude that the current Democratic Party simply can't be trusted with the country's economic future. UPDATE: While we're at it, how about raising a glass to the House GOP? (Nice to be able to say that for a change.) House approves $70 billion tax cut bill AND House panel OKs bid to drill for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf: A bid to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling for natural gas cleared a key House committee Wednesday amid concerns about rising costs at the gas pumps. The 37 to 25 vote in the House Appropriations Committee came despite protests from Florida lawmakers, who remain largely united in efforts to fend off oil or gas drilling. The proposal "directly contradicts the widespread belief that drilling off our coastlines would be devastating for the people of Florida and our nation," said Rep. Allen Boyd, a Panhandle Democrat. "Offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico...poses a risk to our nation's military readiness by placing severe restrictions on the ability of the Air Force and the Navy to train in airspace and naval zones in the Gulf." But the House sponsor, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., suggesting the vote was a "seismic shift" in the debate over energy production, called it a "first step"' toward fixing an energy supply problem created more than a generation ago. "The burden has now shifted onto those who oppose the safe production of domestic natural gas to explain to the American people why this country should continue to lock up vast reserves of energy while home-grown industries and the American consumer class continue to pay the highest prices in the world," Peterson said. Amen. Labels: Economics
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
On last Saturday's Northern Alliance Radio Network show, we had Ramesh Ponnuru on to discuss his latest book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life. We probably did not do justice to Ramesh's excellent work within the limitations of the half hour interview, but make no mistake about it, this is a significant book.
When it comes to the "life issues" of abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and infanticide, Ponnuru is an intellectual heavyweight and he pulls no punches in "Party of Death." He comprehensively expose the myths of Roe v Wade and logically eviscerates the various "pro-choice" arguments. If you're like me and have found much of the embryonic stem cell/cloning debate murky and the positions difficult to sort through, "Party of Death" brings much needed clarity to the complicated, and at times overly-emotional, issue. It's an extremely well-written, clear, and relatively concise book that is going to become the go-to reference guide for "life issues" on the book shelves of well-read conservatives for years to come. Joe Carter has a thoughtful review of "Party of Death" at the evangelical outpost. Labels: Books
Bush says brother could be president:
President Bush suggested Wednesday that he'd like to see his family's White House legacy continue, perhaps with his younger brother Jeb as the chief executive. The president said Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is well-suited for another office and would make "a great president." "I would like to see Jeb run at some point in time, but I have no idea if that's his intention or not," Bush said in an interview with Florida reporters, according to an account on the St. Petersburg Times Web site. Not goin' happen. No way. No how. The American people have a limited taste for the idea of family dynasties in national politics. One Bush in the Oval Office was fine. Two Bushes was okay. Three Bushes? Now you're pushing it. Although it might be worth it just to see the hysterical reaction.
Technically, I don't believe that you're supposed to publish any of the exchanges that you have with the service people that you "adopt" through Soldiers' Angels, but I thought that this observation on Iraq by the soldier that I support was interesting and harmless enough to pass on. He's from Pennsylvania, by the way.
As for the weather it is hot a miserable again, but still early enough in the year to be rainy, hot, humid and miserable. I think that is part of the problem here, I would be a belligerent warmonger too if I had to live like this all my life. That's probably not a bad theory to explain some of the stuff that goes on in Florida as well.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Richard e-mails to speculate on possible ulterior motive for Wendy Wilde's run for Congress:
Is it just me, or is Wendy Wilde's Hail Mary attempt at a congressional seat nothing more than an elaborate ruse to allow retreat from her crime-addled Minneapolis neighborhood to the safety and comfort of the western suburbs, while at the same time maintaining her progressive liberal street-cred? It's the only logical thing about her campaign.
From an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal (sup. required):
Let no one say the European Union is soft on the war on terror. Its latest weapon is a "non-emotive lexicon . . . to avoid linking Islam and terrorism." Impossible, you say? Well, if anyone can talk about the slaughter of innocents without emotion while obscuring the killers' motives, it would be the sages in Brussels. The idea of drawing up politically correct guidelines for official EU parlance as part of the counter-terrorism strategy was endorsed by member governments in December. A work still in progress, the lexicon will likely be presented next month for ministerial approval. And so, "Islamic terrorists" could soon become "those who have an abusive interpretation of Islam," European Commission spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing told us. The word "jihad" might be banned too. That's because it "can also mean the internal struggle to become a better man," the spokesman explained. We're fairly sure that's not what Osama bin Laden means by the word. The EU's verbal acrobatics are intended to fight the radicalization of Muslims in Europe by avoiding words that could unnecessarily offend. "We want to take away any possible motivation or justification for people who are on the brink of becoming terrorists," Mr. Roscam Abbing said. You know I was thinking 'bout strapping some C-4 and rusty nails 'round my waist, stepping onto the Metro, and killing and maiming as many Jew-loving infidel Crusaders as possible, BUT then I saw how the sensitive Euros had decided to no longer offend my faith with their hurtful words and I decided to get a job peacefully working at the neighborhood boulangerie instead. Close call.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Note to Laura Ingraham: Visual Separated at Births are not well suited to the radio. Just sayin'.
Third District DFL:
On the DFL side, longtime radio personality Wendy Wilde, 45, secured a first-ballot victory Saturday over two other candidates, one of whom -- Kevin Ray Smith, a massage therapist who lives in Minnetonka -- has indicated he will run in the primary, said Kyle Lewis, district endorsements co-chairman. Wilde, whose real name is Wendy Pareene, has spent 29 years in the radio business, including jobs at WCCO (830 AM) and most recently on Air America Minnesota. She bills herself as a common-sense Democrat. Now living in Minneapolis, she plans to move into the suburban district, and has said she and her husband know the area well. Delegates met at Hopkins High School. Common sense and Wendy Wilde are not exactly words that listeners of her show on Air America would associate with each other. Her endorsement gives the DFL a trifecta of female candidates seeking Congressional seats that consists of Wilde, Wetterling, and Rowley. Talk about a witch's brew.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
...is my own cask of Single Malt:
Mr. Reynier soon encountered the problem facing anyone who starts up a single-malt distillery: You have to sink in about a decade of costs before you start to see any revenue from the new whisky. Bruichladdich has been able to dole out the fine whisky from the old stocks in the warehouse to keep afloat, but Mr. Reynier has had to look for creative ways to generate immediate cash-flow. One approach has been to sell whisky by the cask to connoisseurs willing to pay for it when the spirit comes off the still. Also among the distilleries making "cask offers" are Isle of Arran, which opened in 1995, and the recently revived Bladnoch. The folks at Bladnoch quip that their cask offer is for people "with more money than sense." But if you've got a use for a few hundred bottles of whisky, the price is right. It costs about $1,500-$2,700 to buy your own cask of whisky, depending on the size. This price includes 10 years of aging in the warehouse, but not bottling, labeling, delivery and taxes -- which cost three or four times more than the stuff in the cask. Add in all the back-end expenses and the total cost per bottle works out to about $27. Not bad given that my local liquor store is selling Bruichladdich's 10-year-old whisky for $55 and Bladnoch for $53. That's such a god deal that you'd be stupid not to buy your own cask of Scotch. Right, honey? In their version of "A Fine Romance," Louis Armstrong sings to Ella Fitzgerald that she is his "strong, aged in the wood woman." It's a nice metaphor for the good effects time can have on us -- the pleasant notion that aging isn't just about decay. I like the idea of putting away a cask of whisky upon some significant event in one's life -- the birth of child, say, or a 10th wedding anniversary. Let the spirit mature, marking the time that scurries along so furtively. Bottle it up to celebrate one's 25th anniversary or the kid's graduation from college. And be sure to share it with your friends -- after all, you'll have plenty to go around. Plenty? Let's not get crazy here. I suppose if I had my own cask I could share a dram or two.
Friday, May 05, 2006
My wife sent me an e-mail detailing an experience she had today:
Went to the MOA [Mall of America] to underwater world, Nathaniel was looking intently at all the fish. I think he liked it. We went to the book store and bought a couple more books for his library and went to Starbuck's and hung out for a while. We, then, went for one more QUICK walk thru underwater world. On the way out I noticed about 5 pre-teen girls (12ish, MAYBE 13) walking in a group together, 2 had jeans on, 1 had a long skirt with some gold metallic accessories (belt, purse) and 2 of them had VERY short black skirts on, just covering the tushy. Anyway, I was walking towards them and noticed this man in his late 40's, early 50's walking by himself. I thought immediately that this guy seemed a little creepy. The girls went up the escalator and the man followed but kept dropping behind until he was about half the escalator length away from them and almost bumped into me. I dropped a step behind him and watched him intently. He was trying to look up the pre-teen's skirts. I was staring at him the whole time while he was trying to be subtle about trying to look up the skirts, but not subtle enough. I kept watching him and he finally realized I knew what he was doing. When the girls reached the top of the escalator, they went up the next escalator. The guy paused, I kept giving him a "you are so disgusting" look and he paused on the floor we reached and pretended to be looking down at the "Fiesta de Mayo" occurring on the first floor. I walked around and turned back to see if he was still there and he literally disappeared. I kinda hung out for a minute or two see if I could see him around before I walked out to the car. I wanted to follow him but thought better with Nathaniel. But I wanted to make sure he wasn?t following me since I knew he was a pervy. When I knew all was clear, I left to go to the parking lot and put Nathaniel in the car, went in the backseat with him and locked the doors while I buckled him in. Then, I mistakenly made my car alarm thing go off so I just left it on until I was done buckling Nathaniel in. Nathaniel thought the noise was cool. Thank goodness we have a boy...the thought of my pre-teen walking around and a dirty old man watching her would make me want to poke the guy's eyes out...I wanted to poke them out today and I didn't know who the girls were. If we have a girl...she is wearing a huge sack until she is 21! I often wonder what in the world parents are thinking when they let their young daughters leave the house wearing clothes more suited for prostitution than play. Sure this guy might have leered at the girls even if they had been dressed more respectably. But why allow your daughters to draw attention to themselves unnecessarily? Some women are probably simply naďve about this and don't understand the nature of the beast. But dads? You know what lust lurks in the heart (among other places) of men. And you know, or you damn well should know by now, that, while most men are decent, there are some very bad guys out there with evil intentions. Your young daughter will likely not appreciate or understand your insistence that she not go out looking like a junior high jezebel, but one of your main roles as a father it to protect your family, not pimp it.
Builders savour drink with a bit of body to it:
HUNGARIAN builders who drank their way to the bottom of a huge barrel of rum while renovating a house got a nasty surprise - when a pickled corpse tumbled out of the empty cask. According to a police magazine website, the men, who were working in Szeged, in the south of Hungary, tried to move the barrel after they had drained it, only to find it was surprisingly heavy and were shocked when the body of a naked man fell out. The website reported that the man's widow had shipped the corpse back from Jamaica in the barrel of rum 20 years ago in order to avoid the cost and paperwork of an official return. Hmmm...Kind of tempting isn't it, Atomizer? Why bother getting planted in the ground when you could arrange to have your body sealed up in a barrel of gin? That way your friends could continue to enjoy the flavor of your presence long after you've passed through this vale of tears. "This gin ain't bad. A little bitter perhaps..."
Hugh Hewitt wishes that he had Ramesh Ponnuru booked to talk about "Party of Death" on his radio show.
Meanwhile, there is no wishing required for the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Ramesh will be joining us this Saturday at noon to discuss his new book and you can catch it live here. We'll try to put in a good word for you Hugh. Maybe. Labels: NARN (06-07)
Happy Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican celebration observed chiefly by Americans.
I've just about had it with the Diamond Trading Company.
I'll never forgive those chuckleheads for foisting upon the incredibly gullible and hopelessly ignorant grooms-to-be of this nation the "helpful spending guideline" of two months salary as the price a guy should pay for an engagement ring. That little piece of information caused me no small amount of pain about two and a half years ago as I agonized over the fact that the properly priced piece of ice for my lovely bride's finger would condemn me to a diet of Ramen Noodles with Ketchup Sauce for about eighteen months. If that wasn't bad enough, the DTC's latest television ad campaign (the "I Forever Do" anniversary diamond) is simply beyond the pale. They weren't satisfied with coaxing me to trade a year of proper nutrition for an outrageously expensive engagement ring. Now, Big Diamond is trying to convince the incredibly gullible and hopelessly gem-infatuated women of this nation that receiving an auxiliary engagement ring is the only thing that will prevent their marriage from becoming a complete and catastrophic failure. Add to the above the whole Right Hand Ring nonsense and all men on this planet are doomed, courtesy of the Diamond Trading Company. Seriously, guys...knock it off. Don't any of you have wives? JB ADDS: Reminds me of the Ron White bit where he talks about how all the marketing campaigns of Big Diamond are wrong. He says the most accurate slogan would be: Diamonds...that'll shut her up
Thursday, May 04, 2006
This little tidbit from the Public Square section of the May edition of First Things caught my eye:
More specifically, in 1998 the U.S. Department of Justice listed 103,600 reported cases of sexual abuse in public schools, while in the 53 years from 1950 to 2003 there were 10,667 reported cases of clergy sexual abuse nationwide. That's ten times as many in a single year as instances of clerical abuse in more than half a century. Yet the media and the legal system, which profess to be concerned about protecting children, have little to say about abuse in public schools or other institutions. If that is true, it's an incredibly damning comparison. However, that 103,600 number seems hard to believe. I did a little research (very little) to try to confirm it, but, despite finding it cited often, I couldn't come across the original source. I noticed some references to 103,600 as the total number of sexual abuse cases reported in 1998, which seems more realistic. If anyone has any insight on this, I would appreciate it.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
In 2002, after returning from a trip to Germany, I prescribed a strong dose of leadership and vision to cure the country's ailments:
Schroeder's win means that Germany will continue to struggle economically without any prospect of the sort of long term changes taking place that are needed to right the ship. Of course, a Stoiber win would likely have meant the same. What Germany needs is a strong leader with a clear and uncompromising view of what needs to change and how to get it done. (A strong democratic leader of course.) In the early '80s both the United States and Britain had such leaders emerge and pull their countries out of the economic and psychological doldrums that they had become bogged down in. In the United States, the answer to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was Ronald Reagan. The answer to years of socialization of industry and bloated unions in Britain was Margaret Thatcher. Today, Germany needs its own Reagan or Thatcher to bring about the reforms required to free up the enormous potential of the German economic machine and once again make it the envy of the world. Unfortunately, during this last election, the choice for Germans was more like one between a Bill Clinton and a Bob Dole. Perhaps the apathy is understandable after all. When Angela Merkel emerged on the German political scene, there was hope that she could become the German version of Margaret Thatcher, a new "Iron Chancellor" if you will. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that those hopes are quickly being dashed (subscription required): Six months ago, Angela Merkel failed to win the German election outright and wondered aloud whether she'd have to resign as Germany's conservative leader. She managed to survive and grab the country's top job only through an awkward coalition with her bitter political opponents. Now she's one of the most popular leaders of any Western country. The secret of her success: She has all but abandoned the economic overhaul that she campaigned to bring to the world's third-biggest economy. The story of Ms. Merkel, who is meeting with President Bush in Washington this evening, reflects Europe's economic quagmire. Challenged by low-cost labor abroad, Western Europe desperately needs to become more competitive to escape from a trap of low economic growth and high unemployment. Most business leaders and economists agree that strong moves are needed to overhaul inflexible labor codes and trim the costly social safety net. What's missing are strong leaders to carry them out. The sad truth of the matter is that leaders in Germany, France, and Italy (to start with) know they are on an economic road to nowhere and that without reform they will fall further and further behind the rest of the world and imperil the very future of their peoples. But with electorates closely divided, strong interest groups increasingly resistant to any changes to the status quo, their parties splintered and weak, and their own interest in retaining power at almost any cost, they lack the political will required to push ahead with meaningful reform. They are paralyzed and unable to act. Meanwhile, the longer they wait, the more painful the reform process will be when it eventually does begin (assuming it ever does). Taken together with President Bush's doomed attempt to reform Social Security, you wonder if it's even possible in our current political age for a modern democratic nation to willingly make tough decisions, which may prove painful in the short term, in order to secure the country's long term well-being. Looking at the situation in places such as Germany today, it's difficult to be optimistic.
We are please to announce that Ramesh Ponnuru from National Review will be joining us this Saturday at noon on the Northern Alliance Radio Network show to discuss his new book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life:
Is the Democratic Party the "Party of Death"? If you look at their agenda they are. IT'S NOT JUST abortion-on-demand. It's euthanasia, embryo destruction, even infanticide--and a potentially deadly concern with "the quality of life" of disabled people. If you think these issues don't concern you--guess again. The Party of Death could be roaring into the White House, as National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru shows, in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Talk about scaring the life out of you. We'll also have our regular Loon of the Week and This Week in Gatekeeping features, plus LIVE updates on the Republican CD6 convention throughout the show from King Banaian. It'll be almost as good as being there. In fact, it'll be much better because you won't have to endure the mind-numbing boredom that typifies most of the time one spends at a political convention. Locally, you can listen to the NARN on AM-1280 The Patriot from 11am-3pm or hear it live on the 'net here. If you miss Saturday's show, there is a Sunday night replay at 9pm and podcasts are also available. Labels: NARN (06-07)
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Regarding my reference on Friday to the Democrats' attempt to bury MPR's snout even deeper in the public trough, long time Fraters reader and free lance pundit Gary Larson chimes in:
Is your Friday post about MPR for real? Funding for MPR in that bill for a constitutional amendment divvying up the sales tax? Wow! I was not aware. Reminds me, again, not to support public radio, MPR or any NPR-affiliate, whose list of contributors end up being used for Dems' pitches for campaign funds. I forgot once - or rather, my wife did, and we gave again, to support classical music, missing nowadays on radio. I say, buy the damn tapes for Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Beats supporting partisan radio. That it does. And it's guys like Gary who continue to support the struggling classical cassette tape industry in this nation and for that we should all salute him. To answer his question, yes Gary there is a plan by the Senate Democrats to play Santa Claus with the public money, by raising sales taxes three-eights of a percent statewide, for the next 25 years, and giving part of the proceeds to Minnesota Public Radio. Of the estimated $270 million dollars extra PER YEAR the government would confiscate from the Minnesota public, $59 million PER YEAR would go to the Arts, Humanities, Museum, and Public Broadcasting Fund. Of that, $13 million PER YEAR would go to pubic broadcasting. And I thought we had some sort of budget crisis in this state? Remember, this spending is above and beyond the millions public broadcasting already receives from the state and federal government. All of it your money being used to bring you the reasonable, objective commentary from the likes of Garrison Keillor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins. Odds are this scheme to attach MPR, in leech-like fashion, to the Minnesota Constitution won't pass. It has to survive a conference committee with a Republican led House of Representatives that is opposed to it. It has to be signed into law (I think) by a Republican Governor who is opposed to it. Then it would have to be approved via a public referendum. Insurmountable impediments, you might think. But, given the fact that this proposal is mixed in with a scheme to earmark funding for the sacrosanct fishing and hunting lobbies, things could get weird and I have no confidence that Republican leadership would necessarily stand on principle on this (or any) issue. And if it comes time for the public to vote on this proposal, DFL Senator Tom Rukavina gives us a peek at the level of rhetoric we will be subject to. His premise being that, of course we need to spend hundreds of millions more on environmental and conservation projects. But ... We all know that we're going to have to cut something to pay for this," he said. "And I don't think even our sporting community, our anglers and our hunters, want us to hurt senior citizens and vulnerable adults and all the other people who we've put fees on and co-pays on in order to pay for things." So, raising taxes to pay for public broadcasting is all about not hurting senior citizens and vulnerable adults? Just what is he saying about Garrison Keilor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins? The Elder Adds: Saint Paul is joined in his opposition to making funding for MPR a part of the state constitution by (gulp) the Star Tribune editorial board: Minnesota Public Radio listeners could not have missed the pleas for help in recent days. The Minnesota Legislature is about to put some public broadcasters in line for a dedicated share of sales tax money, an indignant MPR president Bill Kling huffed, and the House wants to leave out MPR! Call your legislator!... ...Kling has this much right: Call your legislator. Tell him or her that it's outrageous that some cultural organizations are in line for constitutionally favored status, while others are not. But then say that the remedy isn't to offer a constitutionally dedicated revenue stream to more organizations, but to do it for none of them. And if those legislators say that the arts and natural resources need more money, tell them they can pass a tax increase for those purposes, right now. It's rare day when the Strib editorial crew comes across a tax or funding increase that it doesn't like. Which demonstrates just how egregiously irresponsible this proposal really is.
JB's initial comments on Crunchy Cons raise some of the same problems that I had with the book. The Crunchy moniker is a non-starter. And Dreher does spend far too much time discussing food. He prefers organic food. We get it. Now move on to something that matters. Like the last chapter of book on religion, which only begins to scratch the surface of the topic.
There's also a critique of Crunchy Cons in the May issue of FIRST THINGS by Gilbert Meilaender. Unlike some baseless criticism of the book that has appeared in the comments section of local blogs, Meilaender's review is thoughtful, serious, and largely accurate. His conclusion neatly summarizes Crunchy Cons principle shortcoming: There is much that strikes me as on-target in "Crunchy Cons", along with a good bit that strikes me as misguided or ill informed, but where the book goes awry has less to do with the substance than with the tone. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted, if one really wants to be a prophet, one may need to be an itinerant; it is hard to hang around those who have been bludgeoned by our critique. No doubt such prophets are sometimes needed by all of us, but I wonder whether the tone of this book might not have been more successful had its author been less intent on demonstrating that those who live in ways different from his own are flawed souls--and more intent on depicting the goods he has found with invidious comparison with goods other enjoy. It was after all G.K. Chesterton, who Dreher seems to regard as one of the patron saints of his manifesto, who noted that "it is not familiarity but comparison that breeds contempt." JB OPINES ONCE AGAIN: Reading more of Crunchy Cons last night Rod kind of lost me. He described his house (an Arts and Crafts bungalow in a transitional neighborhood in urban Dallas) as having "Dignity" and "Humanity". Wha? Hey, I dig the old houses as much as the next Tangletown Mansion Dweller but dignity--a rare quality for even many human beings--in a house?
Illinois and North Dakota Change Mascots After NCAA Ruling:
The Illinois Fighting Illini and North Dakota Fighting Sioux have announced plans to change their mascots after the NCAA ruled their Indian mascots were too offensive to be shown on television. The decision was unrelated to the other recent NCAA actions requiring all teams who want to be televised to offer free abortions on campus and have at least on former terrorist enrolled as a student. Illinois announced that their new mascot will be the Organic Soy Milks. It was the least offensive mascot that the university could find. The University of North Dakota went one step further and has petitioned the state of North Dakota to change its name, since it is named after the Dakota Indians. The new state name will be North Plains. And their mascot will be the Natural Spring Water Ice Cubes. Officials at both universities thanked the NCAA for being the moral compass for their organizations. The NCAA is considering a ban on all animal mascots next after multiple complaints from PETA that these poor animals are being exploited. Or maybe he's really laughing.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons, is now blogging at beliefnet. You probably won't agree with everything that Rod says, but his perspectives might cause you to think twice about some of the cultural and relgious issues of the day.
(Via Margaret) JB OPENS HIS BIG TRAP: And just like that, a counter-crunchy movement has sprung up. Check out the Contra Crunchy Conservative. I am currently reading Crunchy Cons but don't quite know what I think about the whole thing yet. A few thoughts I have had about halfway through: 1. I hate the word "Crunchy" it just sounds wussy to even say the word out loud 2. He's right that being a conservative means more than your position on Iraq--how you lead your life is more important 3. Parents have to battle a depraved culture to raise a child with values 4. There seems to be WAY too much emphasis on food so far. I can only put that in perspective by seeing how much time he spends on more important things later in the book Stay tuned.
Usually it's not until August when I come out with my annual "stick a fork in the Twins" post. And at times my dismissal of the team has proved to be premature. But this year, even at this early date, I feel quite secure in unequivocally stating that the 2006 Twins are done.
Those who doubt me need look back no further than this past weekend's embarrassing series against the Tigers. Not only did the Twins get swept, already the third time this year they've been swept on the road by a Central Division rival, they were outscored 33-1! Thirty-three to one? That should not happen to a major league baseball team. At least not to one with any sense of pride. The Twins are now 3-12 on the road, with two of those wins coming against one of the few squads that can claim to be more pathetic than the Twins, the abysmal Kansas City Royals. Yes, Twins fans it's that bad. But I have a great idea how we can make things all better. Let's buy these losers a new stadium! It's hard to imagine that I could recommend a book penned by a couple of dyed-in-the-wool lefties that has glowing blurbs from Ralph Nader and Molly Ivins. But Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit is well worth a read. It was originally published in 1998, but much of what they covered is still relevant today. While I don't agree with the author's quasi-Marxist analysis and suggestions for where stadium money could otherwise be spent, it's hard to argue with their main point that publicly financed stadiums are nothing more than corporate welfare whose benefits to the community are dubious at best (believe it or not, Sid Hartman may be overstating the economic impact just a tad). Thanks to King for letting me read his single malt Scotch-stained copy of the book. And the thanks to the Twins for quitting early this year and saving me the trouble of wasting any more time watching their sorry excuse for baseball. Labels: Baseball
James e-mails to add some rather disturbing details on the "chicken hawk" label:
Not sure if you realized it, but pre-Iraq War a "chicken hawk" was an adult male sexual predator who preyed on young boys. I suspect it still is. One of the many reasons I didn't like that epithet. Yikes. Hopefully, Ed hasn't gotten inked up yet.
|
TALK O' THE TOWN 
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 3pm on AM 1280-The Patriot:
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
