James Lileks on the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse

Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist (and eminent Blogger) James Lileks has a continuously updated column that's a must-read for anyone who is interested in the Minneapolis I-35 Bridge collapse from a local perspective. I have mixed feelings about this story: I don't, for example, believe that the United States is living on borrowed time with regards to its road and bridges infrastructure. Some bridges need repair now, to be sure: but to conflate one incident with a imminent nationwide danger is exaggeration at best, fear-mongering irresponsibility at worst.

Of course, who is doing the fear-mongering?

National media is guilty first and foremost, with local media in cities other than Minneapolis following a close second. Quite simply, there is no reason for Chirs Cuomo to reporting live from Minneapolis, and even less reason for Chicago's local NBC-5 station to be sending their investigative reporter to do live feeds from the scene. I understand that there is ever-increasing pressure to fill newscasts with stories, whether they come from publicists hawking studies and celebrities or the NTSB.

What Lileks points out is the key query: "At what point is the story news, and at what point is it just Disaster P*rn****phy?"

The following excerpt says it all (http://buzz.mn/?q=node/2176)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:22 AM Headline over at KSTP:

“Hear the screams from inside the bus.”

You know what? I don’t want to hear the screams from inside the bus. I don’t want to hear someone’s kid shrieking in panic, begging her mom to come save her. Why would I?

This is the point in the story where we start to debate what’s news, and what’s just disaster-pr0n. I’m not making the comparison here, because they’re different events in every way. But nothing about 9/11 hit me as hard as the memorial wall on Grand Central Station, a collection of all the fliers and MISSING posters people had stuck up at the site after the Twin Towers were destroyed. They were mute, handmade pleas, and believe it or not, they didn’t need a voice over that said “for now the family sits and waits, wondering what the news will be” or whatever generic tag gets slapped at the end of the grieving-survivor boilerplate story.

I understand why they do those stories, but I have a hard time watchng them. I don’t want to wonder if the cameraman’s wondering how close he should go on the face to get the tears, because on one hand this person is experiencing great private grief, but on the other hand the light is hitting that teardrop just perfectly. Mostly I want them to leave the people alone. I don’t need to be told what they’re feeing. I can guess.

A Question about "Racial Profiling"

Drudge linked to an article in Yahoo! News about pressure being put on Maricopa Country, Arizona Sheriff Arpaio to end a phone hotline for reporting information about illegal immigrants. Latino "leaders" anf "faith-based" groups are angry, saying such a hotline is an exercise in "Racial Profiling".

PHOENIX - Latino leaders and faith-based organizations want Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to disconnect the hotline he created for people to report information about undocumented immigrants, saying it raises the chance of racial profiling.

But Arpaio said Wednesday that he won't disconnect the hotline and stressed that deputies would investigate people only if authorities had probable cause.

The hotline began last Friday and has received about 300 messages, which include tips about family and friends, employment, day laborers, drop houses and crank calls.

Arpaio said officials are analyzing the tips and officials have not acted on any of the calls.

"There's nothing unconstitutional about putting up a hotline," Arpaio said, pointing out that U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have similar hotlines.

Here's where my question comes in ...

Isn't "Racial Profiling" when you profile someone solely on the basis of race when no crime is, in fact, taking place? Since when did "Racial Profiling" come to encompass reporting law-breakers who happen to be primarily, but not exclusively, members of a particular ethnic group?

Has "Racial Profiling" become yet another ruse employed by Leftwing groups to eliminate not just courses of action available to law enforcement, but discussion of of issues where race has a a subordinate role?

"It's A Different World"

Granted, my blogging has been less than light lately. What brings me out of semi-retirement? The alternative universe lives in by John Forbes Kerry.

Via Breitbart.com http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3274, comes the amazing perspective of Sen. Kerry on South Vietnam post-U.S. pullout:

There was never a bloodbath after the U.S. left.

I kid you f**king not.

Sen. John Kerry said during a C-Span appearance that fears of a bloodbath after the US withdrawal from Vietnam never materialized. He says he's met survivors of the "reeducation camps" who are thriving in modern Vietnam.

An award-winning investigation by the Orange County Register concludes that at least 165,000 people perished in the camps.

Kerry's delusion is clearly in service of his party, as the Democrats' political fortunes are tied in to its ability to force a U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. But if you look at the C-Span video (featured in the Britbart link), he seems perfectly sincere, and completely unaware of what peoples' reaction is going to be to that assertion:

"Is he out of his f**king mind?!"

Fred Thompson Delivers a Lethal Smackdown to Michael Moore!

Thompson to Moore from breitbarttv on Vimeo

Over at Wizbang I came upon the story of Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore's challenge to a debate (a a damn shame it is that Fred doesn't have time for it ... I'd pay Barbra Streisand concert ticket prices to see Fred mop the floor with Michael!). The challenge came after Thompson wrote a rebuttal to Michael Moore's newest Mock-umentary, "Sicko", which purports to show how superior Cuba's Hollywood-lauded healthcare system is to that of the United States. The National Review piece can be found here . Perhaps it's this quote, among all the other equally lethal comeuppances that got Moore's goat:

You might have read the stories about filmmaker Michael Moore taking ailing workers from Ground Zero in Manhattan to Cuba for free medical treatments. According to reports, he filmed the trip for a new movie that bashes America for not having government-provided health care.

Now, I have no expectation that Moore is going to tell the truth about Cuba or health care. I defend his right to do what he does, but Moore’s talent for clever falsehoods has been too well documented. Simply calling his movies documentaries rather than works of fiction, I think, may be the biggest fiction of all.

While this p.r. stunt has obviously been successful — here I am talking about it — Moore’s a piker compared to Fidel Castro and his regime. Moore just parrots the story they created — one of the most successful public-relations coups in history. This is the story of free, high quality Cuban health care.

Does anyone in DC remember the Marielitos?

Kim Priestap has a great post over at WizBangBlog regarding a proposal to detain the Guantanamo Bay facility and replace it with a US-based detention facility at Quantico, Virginia. As Kim states:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrat: Bring Guantanamo Detainees to the US

What a stunningly bad idea. James D. Moran (D-VA) wants to bring the worst, most dangerous terrorists this world has ever known, whose goals are to kill as many Americans as possible, to America. Some of these detainees are still in Gitmo because they are so dangerous that their own countries don't want them back. Yet, Moran thinks it would be a great idea to hold the Gitmo detainees in Quantico.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

A Virginia Democrat seeking to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would favor bringing detainees to secure East Coast locations, including Quantico Marine Corps Base.

Rep. James P. Moran, D-8th, said yesterday that he favors bringing Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with offenses to military brigs in the jurisdiction of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"That's the most conservative circuit court" in the nation, said Moran, a senior member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "So nobody can charge [the detainees] won't get a speedy and disciplined trial."

The ideas he floated provoked attacks from Virginia Reps. Eric I. Cantor, R-7th, the chief deputy GOP whip, and Jo Ann Davis, R-1st, whose district includes Quantico.

Virginians are not happy with Moran's idea, either, and I don't blame them one bit:

However, some residents near Quantico were taken aback by the possibility. "Nobody wants that kind of stuff here. Would you? Leave them where they are," said John Rogojan of Stafford County. His home along state Route 610 in northern Stafford is across the road from the Marine base's border,. The base includes land in Stafford and neighboring Prince William County.

It doesn't matter how secure Quantico is.The whole concept of having terrorists like those at Guantanamo who want to murder Americans on a massive scale here in our country is scary and dangerous.

House Republican Eric Cantor responded to Moran's idea:

"Virginians neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists with connections to 9/11 groups like al-Qaida in our commonwealth," Cantor said.

"This shocking lack of judgment demonstrates that liberal Democrats do not understand that these terrorists want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life. These dangerous, terrible people should not be allowed into our country."

He's absolutely right. Not only do the the Democrats not understand the terrorism threat, but I really question if they believe there is a terrorism threat.

Congressman Moran is on Fox and Friends now and is explaining how important it is to provide these evil, murderous terrorists due process. That's really his biggest concern? He thinks providing these terrorists due process is more important than protecting Americans from these terrorists by keeping them out of this country? He also said the jihadists use Guantanamo as a recruiting tool, but that's complete bunk. There weren't any Islamic terrorists in Guantanamo prior to 9/11, yet Khalid Sheik Muhammad had no problem recruiting hijackers for the 9/11 attacks. Nor were there any terrorists in Guantanamo when terrorists struck World Trade Center the first time. Or when they attacked our embassies in Africa. Or when they struck the USS Cole.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for myself, I see a clear correllation between this idea and the situation the U.S. found itself in 23 years ago. It's funny how this asshat (Congressman Moran / ed.'s note: change that "a" to an "o" and the irony is perfect!) doesn't remember the riots caused by disenchanted (& imprisoned) Cuban Marielitos.

For those of you who don't recall, in 1984 Fidel Castro opened up the Cuban port at Mariel, and told everyone who wanted to leave to, essentially, "get out while the gettin's good." Not just political dissendents were allowed to leave: Fidel opened the doors of the prisons and institutions for the criminally insane as well. Those who weren't convicted felons or (violently) mentally ill were allowed to stay in the U.S., but the doors that had been opened by Castro closed as soon as the boats left Mariel, and the U.S. was left to deal with those who were denied immigration status yet could not be sent back to Cuba.

Need I tell you that riots ensued in the institutions (in Louisiana and Georgia) where the disallowed Marielitos were housed, and that these same people had to be housed in Level 4 prisons on 23-hour lockdown? Need I also tell you how expensive this has been?

Let's face it: Guantanamo is cost efficient, legal and the conditions are probably superior to where these detainees will be housed once in the U.S., Quantico included.

In the end, I do believe Guantanamo will be closed as a political statement. With that in mind, I will enjoy hearing the Dems explain why they are spending ten times the amount of money to house these detainees here the U.S. they spent to keep them in Guantanamo.

I also eagerly await their excuses when the burden of this "humanitarian gesture" is to be shared by the municipalities in which these detainees are imprisoned (and I believe it will be in multiple locations, not just in Virginia). Imagine the uproar as those same Dem's contituents realize how there is now less money to go to them.

Project(RED) is a Failure

According to this article in Advertising Age, the celebrity-centered Project Red is a miserable failure (http://adage.com/article?article_id=115287).

As author Mya Frazier notes:

It's been a year since the first Red T-shirts hit Gap shelves in London, and a parade of celebrity-splashed events has followeed: Steven Spielberg smiling down from billboards in San Francisco; Christy Turlington striking a yoga pose in a New Yorker ad; Bono cruising Chicago's Michigan Avenue with Oprah Winfrey, eagerly snapping up Red products; Chris Rock appearing in Motorola TV spots ("Use Red, nobody's dead"); and the Red room at the Grammy Awards. So you'd expect the money raised to be, well, big, right? Maybe $50 million, or even $100 million.

Try again: The tally raised worldwide is $18 million.

There are many reasons for the failure of the Project(RED) campaign. Inferior-quality products selling at a premium over Gap's price point was the key issue in the clothing retailer's soft sales. Over-focus on celebrity instead of the charity's beneficiaries was also a large part of the problem: could anyone say what Project(RED) was actually about? No. But they could tell you it had something to do with Bono and Oprah, and maybe Gwyneth, too. Let's not even get started on the idiocy of American Express' "I am an African" campaign staring Giselle Bundchen and the aforementioned Ms. Paltrow (my cynicism about that campaign transcends rationality).

Motorola and Apple comprised the remaining Members of the Project(RED) quadrille: the former as a way of reviving its sagging RAZR sales amid the absence of new products, esp. in comparison to its closest competitor, high-end cell phone manufacturer Nokia. Apple, IMO, recognized early on that its Project(RED) contibution, the limited edition red Nano, was underperforming (a "fire sale" at it's Michigan Avenue store revealed many of them for resale, the reason for which was labelled as ((and I love this)) "Remorse") and put their participation on the back-burner. Smart move.

Around the time of the campaign's extravagant launch, I read an interview with one of the founders of Project(RED). He stated that creating a conduit for charity funding wasn't his real goal. Rather, (*and I paraphrase*), he wanted to engender a new business model whereby people were motivated to spend money by the cassociation of an item with a charitable cause (no matter how tangential the connection).

Project(RED)'s manifesto (see here: http://www.joinred.com/manifesto.asp ) bears this out:

RED is not a charity. It is a business model. You buy RED stuff. We get the money. Buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically in their communities.

If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. It's easy.

All you have to do is upgrade your choice.

While the founders of Project(RED) may think consumers weren't tuned into the blatant cynicism of such a statement, it would appear that in this, too, they underestimated their consumer.

So what do the charities think about endeavors such as this?

Non-profits are in fact quite concerned about what Project(RED) represents for the future of traditional giving, and whether such enterprises are a short-term or long-term trend:

Mark Rosenman, a longtime activist in the nonprofit sector and a public-service professor at the Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, said the disparity between the marketing outlay and the money raised by Red is illustrative of some of the biggest fears of nonprofits in the U.S.

"There is a broadening concern that business is taking on the patina of philanthropy and crowding out philanthropic activity and even substituting for it," he said. "It benefits the for-profit partners much more than the charitable causes."

High minded as RED may have seen itself, I think consumers saw through the "raising awareness" ploy. After all, 'awareness raising' seems to be all about a consumer experience, whether it is buying a pair of jeans or walking the Avon 3-Day Walk Against Breast Cancer. People are finding out that very little of the money they spend (or raise, as in the case of Avon) is actually seeing it's way to the charity, and they are getting hip to the fact that this may be just a high-minded appeal to conspicuous consumption.

Good News from the Anti-Celebrity Front

My friends know that I am offended by the degree to which our culture worships celebrity, followed closely by its worship of "celebrities". Yes, there is a distinction: we take fame to be the greatest of life's achievements. If it is we ourselves who are famous, all the better, but we'll gladly follow those who have it if we ourselves aren't the possessors of its elusive charms.

The hallmark of our veneration of celebrities (and, let's admit it: celebrity transcends actors, musicians, and sportsmen and now includes businessmen and entrepreneurs as well) has been the rise of the celebrity tabloid. People (an Enquirer in glossy, magazine form), In Touch, Us, OK!, Hello, In Style, Star, Enquirer, Vogue, etc. have enjoyed booming circulations, and most new title launches of the last ten-to-twenty years have been devoted (primarily) to actors and other entertainers.

That trend appears to be at an end. As this New York Post illustrates: "MAGS' CIRC SAGS" http://www.nypost.com/seven/02182007/business/mags_circ_sags_business_paul_tharp.htm.
The largest drops in circulation are amongst the oldest names in the biz, including Readers' Digest, down nearly 20% in circulation, followed closely by Woman's Day and Redbook. Each are relics of a 1950's sensibility, to be sure: however, once venerated titles such as Vogue (down 6%) are also in major trouble.

The most volatile segment is celebrity titles. Once the trend among new magazine launches, celebrity magazines are clearly in a downward cycle:

Bonnie Fuller, a high-profile editor who's reigned for years over a declining Star, could face fallout over the magazine's 15.9 percent plunge in newsstand sales in the second half this year from a year ago. Newsstand sales account for about half the Star's 1.5 million circulation, and its hands-on editor, Joe Dolce, already walked the plank this week, replaced by Candace Trunzo, from sister title Enquirer. Fuller is editorial director of the Star.

The biggest winners in the changing marketplace:

Among the winners, Meredith's Better Homes & Gardens saw circulation rise 6.8 percent, BusinessWeek was ahead 25.4 percent, CondeNast Traveler gained 19.9 percent, and Time Inc.'s Cooking Light advanced 8.9 percent.

In other words, home decor, travel and cooking, and the corresponding appeal to appreciating what we have is winning out over living vicariously through actors and celebrities and the corresponding desire for elusive things that won't make us feel happy or fulfilled within the construct of our real lives.

To borrow a phrase from Martha Stewart: That's a good thing!

Ellen Goodman: Denying Global Warming = Denying The Holocaust

I wish I could say that I was shocked by the extent to which people will politicize Global Warming into something that no longer bears any resemblance to reality.

I wish I could say Ellen Goodman was an intelligent woman, and not a tool.

Her latest, in the Boston Globe, is among the most astonishing examples of moral equivalence I've ever seen: in this essay, Goodman equates denying Global Warming to denying the Holocaust.

Frankly, Goodman's metaphor makes more sense turned on its head than it does on its own merits:

• Across the country, anyone who disagrees with the Global Warming (GW) "Mission Statement" (that man alone is responsible for any and all climate issues) is hounded out of university and municipal positions, made subject to slander and libel, and their reputations destroyed.
• U.S. and European climatologists who say "the jury is still out on human-caused GW" are removed from their posts by politicians who knowledge of the issue is anything but scientific.
• In the National Socialist Party of the 1930's Germany, anyone who disagreed with tactics of the party leadership and the SS were removed from their positions, denied the right to practice their trade, exiled, and, in many cases, sent on to forced labor in death camps: the Nazis regularly shut down debate, ostracized those who would disagree with them, and in many cases killed them because they wouldn't abide by the party line.
  

I grew up in Skokie, Illinois, where many of my schoolmates didn't have great-grandparents, and in many case grandparents, Aunts and Uncles, because the Nazis had exterminated them. Goodman's sloppy, self-righteous attempt (see 2nd paragraph references to ownership of a Prius, saintly purchase of environmentally-friendly lightbulbs, and cliched use of the 'carbon footprint' canard) to save her pet issue by making such a grave equivocation offends me in the greatest possible way.

By The Way: Did you know that the world's worst polluters (China, India, Russia & former Soviet Socialist Rebuplics) are exempt from any and all restrictions on their own emissions, and "negative emissions" countries like Iceland are allowed to increase their emissions b/c their emissions don't yet equal that of other nations currently operating at an "emissions parity"?

Do you still think GW isn't about politics and economic redistribution 1st, and the environment 2nd?

Of course, Hurricane Katrina and its devastation of New Orleans (a Category 1 storm ((the weakest level of hurricane strength)) when it reached NOLA) is employed herein as a product of Global Warming, and not the failure of its improperly built and poorly maintained system of levees.

I hope Goodman catches hell for this not only making an insane, fallacious and offensive analogy. The fact that it is couched in such inane, self-aggrandizing papp should embarass the author, as well as other Lefties who are quick to use the same twisted logic in pleading their case.

===============================================

No change in political climate (Boston Globe, February 9, 2007)

On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.

No, I do not think that if everyone lit just one little compact fluorescent light bulb, what a bright world this would be. Even the Prius in our driveway doesn't do a whole lot to reduce my carbon footprint, which is roughly the size of the Yeti lurking in the (melting) Himalayas.

But it was either buying a light bulb or pulling the covers over my head. And it was too early in the day to reach for that kind of comforter.

By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

But light bulbs aside -- I now have three and counting -- I don't expect that this report will set off some vast political uprising. The sorry fact is that the rising world thermometer hasn't translated into political climate change in America.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is goodman@globe.com.

Is Barack Obama a 'Cult of Personality' phenomenon?

Here in Chicago, Sen. Barack Obama has been The Celebrity Politician for a several years.

I'll be honest in that I've always found some of the public regard for him to border on prejudice, and that hasn't altered with Obama's growing public profile. In fact, I think it's gotten worse: witness Joe Biden's controversial (and inherently, condescendingly biased) endorsement of Obama as a "clean, articulate black man", especially when compared to previous African-American presidential candidates.

I also am bothered by the fact that the most common refrain of Obama supporters is that he will, quote-unquote, "bring the country together".

Seriously, what does that sentiment really mean?

After all, are not dictators popular because they "bring their countries together" (albeit by force)? And please don't take that to mean that I am comparing Obama to a dictator. Rather, I am pointing out that someone who possesses a "Cult of Personality" is likely to be seen as being the savior of a country/culture that many of its citizens see as "adrift", or in need of a unifying cause. The fact that such a unifying cause is to be found in one person should be of instant concern: this is how dictators such as Napoleon, Hitler, Franco, Mao, etc. come to and maintain their power.

Here's just few reasons why I am a skeptic:

Exhibit A: Obama's 'returning king'-like visit to Kenya. I'll excuse him the photo op visit to Robben Island, but the manufactured, 'second coming of The Messiah' coverage of his visit to his Father's long-left-behind village was bizare and disturbing. "Who does that Brother think he is?" was something I heard from a number of my friends.

Exhibit B: His appeal to Hollywood, and his need for their approval. Hollywood is a place in which a presidential candidate must be a "Star": in other words, a "Cult of Personality" is necessary to capture their meandering attentions. This will not go over well with middle class Americans, who inherently distrust Hollywood on anything other than their ability to entertain them: "Tell me a story, but keep your political views to yourself, please!"

Exhibit C: The media, first and foremost here in Chicago, has granted Obama carte blanche. The Chicago Sun-Times Washington correspondent, Lynn Sweet, writes Tiger Beat-style mash notes about the junior senator from Illinois. This is the case with nearly every other correspondent, both in print and broadcast media. One day after accounts of Obama's sweetheart real estate deal with indicted Blagojevich svengali Tony Resko appeared, the story was swept under the rug. The fix is clearly in, and no one (at least until the Democrat nominee is chosen at the convention) will subject Obama to the type of scrutiny that is de rigeur for presidential candidates. Instead, we get correspondents like the aforementioned Sweet gushing about how locker room talk at the East Bank Club confirms that Obama has "almost zero body fat."

I have never liked the way Obama tries to play it both ways, exaggerating his African-American heritage and, for all effect and purpose, disavowing his white mother. In focusing solely on his ethnicity as a black man, he makes himself vulnerable to condescending, patronizing adoration as exhibited by Democrats like Biden, (Edward) Kennedy, etc., two men whose circles never interract with a black man or woman outside of a pre-arranged political event. Sorry, but their comments betray them as people who have ideas about African-Americans but no actual relationships with any. As with most of their political bent, theory (what you would ideally like something to be) has no correllation to reality. People are, as Oprah would say, what you would envision them to be.

IMO, Obama's two best-selling books are both helping and hindering his larger goals. I've heard seemingly independent commentators express cynicism about his other career, and whether or not his presidential aspirations are really about his lucrative publishing contracts. It isn't just Conservatives saying ...

"Barack Obama. Saving the world one multi-million dollar book deal at a time."

I think the "Cult of Personality' surrounding Obama is perhaps best evinced by how much adoration has been given over freely to him without examination or reflection, especially by celebrity Democrats (Oprah, George Clooney, Halle Berry, etc.).

Then there is The Speech.

Obama's keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 is routinely cited as evidence of his JFK-esque personnae. And yet that speech is nearly three years old! I know a couple who have listened to Obama speak in more personal, less scipted situations and they were disapointed. He seems uncomfortable in more intimate gatherings and, they said "the 'magic' just wasn't there." And yet, people so want Obama to be "The Perfect Black Man, "the Perfect African-American Presidential Candidate", that they willfully dismiss any evidence contrary to the Cult.

So what is your opinion? Is Obama's embrace of the "Cult of Personality" something that bodes well for his presidential aspirations, or is this something that will ultimately relegate his run to that of historical anecdote?

HELP: My nightmare is becoming My Reality!

So what's my problem? It's nothing monumental, like Bill Clinton's moved in next door and he shows up at odd hours (and little clothing) asking if I can spare a couple of eggs. No, it's far simpler, and thank heaven, far more likely to happen than that nightmare scenario.

It's that my beloved New York Yankees may well end up playing my hometown favorite, the Chicago White Sox. Some might look at it as a win/win either way, but I will find it torturous to root against Joe Torre and the Bronx Bombers. Nevertheless, I've got to go with the White Sox. Chicago needs the so much more, if only to get the media to start paying attention to the only club in town that actually plays a decent game of baseball, rather than the ubiquitous Cubs.

God, the Cubs really bite! And no, they're not cursed, at least not by the commonly assumed source - the Billy Goat Diner's aggrieved mascot. Nor is The Almighty's seeming animosity to blame. No -- the curse of the Cubs is Wrigley Field.

Why Wrigley? It's elementary. Wrigley Field is the "world's nicest beer garden", one that just happens to have a baseball diamond in it's locale. "People will come", not because of Ray Kinsella's prophecy, but because it such a lovely spot wherein to drink to excess. A Little League team could play there and still the people would come 38,000 strong. I honestly believe that. The Tribune Company, which owns the Cubs, is able to fill that stadium to capacity as is, and therefore has no reason to field a winning team. Why spend more money to get the same result, with a smaller profit margin? If I were them, I wouldn't.

Back to the Yankees/White Sox: I thought someone had slipped LSD into my beer Friday night when I saw Tino Martinez at First Base for the Yankees. How cool is that? Now, if only we could get Paul O'Neill back in the outfield, my dreams would be fulfilled!

As of this writing, Game 5 in Anaheim has yet to take place.

Do Democrats Have a Message?

One of the most ubiquitous phrases in politics is the concept of "Message". One is either "On Message" or "Off Message", meaning that you are successfully articulating the party's unifying theme or position. But what if you haven't any "message" at all?

The Denziens of D.U. might quibble with him, but Howard Fineman of Newsweek & MSNBC makes a strong case for how not having a "big idea" can render a party impotent. I agree with his contention that the Dems aren't articulating anything right now, but I'll carry it one step further by saying the Democrats haven't had a "message" for some time, and this has allowed the extremists within the party to take to the public stage. Combine this with the habit of establishment Democrats to simply and reflexively obstruct any and all Republican proposals, and you have a party that is in big trouble.

Why can't the Democrats capitalize? With the White House on the ropes after Katrina, Dems waffle and wheeze

Conservatives can (and should) fight like Liberals

Brendan Miniter's piece in the Wall Street Journal online brings up a topic I have admittedly mixeed feelings about. The rules of political discourse have changed. The media deals in "soundbites": terse and shrill, they are designed to make the biggest point with the fewest words (not my forte, I know). Soundbites have evolved, or devolved IMO, into the verbal equivalent of smashmouth football. Execution of ones politcal opponents should be swift, powerful and certain to cause maximum damage.

Many Democrats believe this era began with the persecution of President Clinton, and its' progenitors were Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Granted, the Far Right did jump all over Clinton. But let's be honest: it isn't as if Clinton didn't open the door and invite them in. The Democrats gave it back as good as they got it, so no one comes out clean when looking back on the 1990's and the "politics of personal destruction". Americans have a long tradition of enjoying political sport. With the advent of terrorism, however, the stakes have been raised, and our tolerance for political sport is dwindling. Personal attacks, or character assassinations, are acceptable amusements available to the power class in times of plenty. Should they be acceptable in times like ours?

One of my complaints about the Bush administration is that they don't argue their point very well. Lacking skills in persuasion and P.R., they allow their opponents to frame the argument, and this has damaged their ability to convince the American public to stay the course in Iraq. I'd like to see them communicate their position clearly and forcefully. I'm just not sure I want them to come out swinging. To me, mean-spirited political discourse is the handmaiden of The Left (*I know this statement could go both ways. I'm merely expressing my opinion*), and I hate the thought of stopping to their level.

Evolving Tactics: Conservatives learn to fight like liberals.

Christopher Hitchens on Cindy Sheehan & A.M.A.

From last week comes Christopher Hitchens' assessment of "Gold Star Mom" Cindy Sheehan, courtesy of Slate. A.M.A., if you are unfamiliar, isn't the American Medical Association. Our newest acronym comes via lush extradinaire, Maureen Dowd, who unilaterally conferred upon Mother Sheehan "Absolute Moral Authority" by dint of having lost a child in Iraq. Somehow, I don't think MoDo would have been quite as generous had the Mom been a continued supporter of the war in which her son had given his life.

In his essay, Hitchens conveys why summary judgments such as Dowd's are off the mark, and the danger of painting people with too broad a brush. The killer paragraph, as only Hitch can write 'em:

I am at a complete loss to see how these two positions (ed.: that of Dowd & Sheehan's supporters) can be made compatible. Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

In my mind, Christopher Hitchens is the only person who can write the expression "I dare say" and not sound like a pufftah.

Can long-term addicts truly be rehabilitated?

Quite frankly, I don't think so. It's entirely unrealistic to think that long-term substance abusers/adicts can be rehabilitated. Anyone who makes a lifestyle out of alcohol, drugs, or other self-abusive behaviors is an addict, and many if not most addicts move on to something else once they have stopped using. People who know addicts know what I mean. Too often they can tell therapists, the court, the friends and family exactly what they want or need to hear.

Addicts should be judged on their actions, not their words.

Which brings me to the "inspiration" for my post: Courtney Love.

Tearful Courtney Love ordered into rehab facility

A judge ordered a tearful Courtney Love into an in-patient substance abuse facility on Friday after the troubled rock singer admitted to violating the terms of her probation by using drugs.

Love broke down in quiet sobs as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rand Rubin warned that he was prepared to send her to jail because he felt she needed "to hit rock bottom" before she was ready to overcome her drug addiction.

But Rubin said the performer's lawyers persuaded him to give her one more chance to avoid incarceration by placing her immediately into a "chemical dependency center."

"I'm convinced that you need either a long-term (treatment) program or a long-term stay in the county jail," Rubin said.

Forgive me for my lack of pity for the addict/victim, but hasn't Courtney had enough chances?

Granted, Courtney Love can afford to pay for her own rehab. But what about those men and women who are given as many chances as she? Each chance an indication of prior failure, I might add. Is it right that the city, county or state government should pay for repeated incidences of willful failure to abide by sobriety?

I feel the same way about the meth addicts profiled in the 8th August 2005 Newsweek cover story America's Most Dangerous Drug. The human toll of this drug is clearly illustrated in this anecdote about a suburban Chicago mom:

Kimberly (Fields) tried drug rehab but failed, and she couldn't care for her children, according to divorce papers filed by her husband, who moved out last year. She was arrested three times for shoplifting—most recently, police say, for allegedly stealing over-the-counter cold pills containing pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient used in making meth. By the time cops came banging on her door with a search warrant on June 1, Kimberly, now 37, had turned her slice of suburbia into a meth lab, prosecutors allege, with the help of a man she'd met eight months earlier in an Indiana bar, Shawn Myers, 32.

Fields, the article goes on to mention, lived with her two young children in her home-turned-methlab, and lest I go off on a tangent about what sort of scumbag would expose their children to meth's known proclivity for spontaneous explosion, I'm going to focus on what I saw as the article's *largely ignored* revelation: the fact that Kimberly Fields and every other current or former meth addict profiled had already failed at rehab, many numerous times. Combine this with the unprecedented number of people requiring advanced life support and plastic surgery due to their careless handling of the drug during it's "cooking" process.

The print issue details how many areas are having trouble coping with the financial burden these accidents create, and venerable institutions like Vanderbilt University's Burn Center are finding themselves unable to collect from Medicaid the full cost of treating meth-related burn injuries. Lesser institutions are considering closing down their burn units, as they are going broke. What this means for a child burned in a house fire is clear: the "critical hour" (during which a person might, receiving treatment in 60 minutes, have a chance of surviving traumatic injury) becomes "hours". With the local burn unit closed down, that critically-burned child will likely die. All because habitual drug abusers choose to use, no matter the risks.

Is it time to start talking about whether or not we begin to say "No more?" I think so.

What issue will be the undoing of Tony Blair?

Iain Murray: "Europe Adds Headache to Blair's Post-Election Hangover"

I like Tony Blair. He's young, bright, earnest and articulate in ways many of us hoped the younger "new guard" within the Clinton administration would be. I also feel oddly indebted to him: his support of the United States in our efforts to dismantle terrorism and prevent another September 11th is not to be dismissed as political opportunism. He's paid a price for his standing fast with the United States, and as an American I want somehow to reward that loyalty. But I'll be damned if he doesn't make me crazy - not sometimes, but most of the time.

I could talk about the appalling lack of foresight towards the rising immigration problem, and Britain's partiality towards Muslims. His patently silly belief in the value of the EU and it's revolting Socialist Manifesto/Constitution defies explanation. Same goes for the degree to which Britons are taxed: just because the exchange rate is skewed towards the dynamic Pound Sterling does not mean that Britons have more money than they could possibly spend at home. Housing prices are on the verge of collapse: they question is "when" not "if" Britons will find themselves owing more to the lending society than their home is actually worth. Each of these issues was put to the public on 5 May, and the public has made their choice.

None of these points bother me nearly as much as his continued devotion to pseudoscience. In making the defining issue of his G8 Chairmanship the legitimization of further ratification of "The Kyoto Protocol", Blair has decided that he wants to be the Euro Al Gore. It boggles my brain.

Enough, however, of my rant: read Iain Murray's piece about how Blair's Euro-Kyoto affectations may in fact be his undoing, not his partnership with George Bush. He's says it far more aptly than I.

Kyoto and it's undoing of the EU

Iain Murray: "Europe Adds Headache to Blair's Post-Election Hangover"

I like Tony Blair. He's young, bright, earnest and articulate in ways many of us hoped the younger "new guard" within the Clinton administration would be. I also feel oddly indebted to him: his support of the United States in our efforts to dismantle terrorism and prevent another September 11th is not to be dismissed as political opportunism. He's paid a price for his standing fast with the United States, and as an American I want somehow to reward that loyalty. But I'll be damned if he doesn't make me crazy - not sometimes, but most of the time.

I could talk about the appalling lack of foresight towards the rising immigration problem, and Britain's partiality towards Muslims. Same goes for the degree to which Britons are taxed: just because the exchange rate is skewed towards the dynamic Pound Sterling does not mean that Britons have more money than they could possibly spend at home. His niaive belief in the value of the EU and it's revolting Socialist Manifesto/Constitution defies explanation. Housing prices are on the verge of collapse: they question is "when" not "if" Britons will find themselves owing more to the lending society than their home is actually worth. Each of these issues was put to the public on 5 May, and the public has made their choice.

None of these points bother me nearly as much as his continued devotion to pseudoscience. In making the defining issue of his G8 Chairmanship the legitimization of further ratification of "The Kyoto Protocol", Blair has decided that he wants to be the Euro Al Gore. It boggles my brain.

Enough, however, of my rant: read Iain Murray's piece about how Blair's Euro-Kyoto affectations may in fact be his undoing, not his partnership with George Bush. He's says it far more aptly than I.

"Dave Matthews Apologizes" for $100, Alex ...

Correct Response: "What was the tour bus dump onto a Chicago River architectural boat cruise!"

Snarky 'Daily Double' Response: "What is his band's music!"

Terry Armour: Band is Sorry for the Mess

Dave Matthews finally comes clean.

In his first public comments since his tour bus driver dumped 800 pounds of raw sewage onto a sightseeing boat on the Chicago River last August, Matthews apologized to fans and to the city during an interview on WXRT-FM 93.1 Tuesday.

"We're just so embarrassed and we're truly, truly sorry about what happened in Chicago," Matthews told WXRT's Bobby Skafish. "We will keep doing things to try to help keep that river clean . . . we want to do our best to turn this thing around."

Last week, the eco-friendly band agreed to pay $200,000 and to keep a log of when and where its tour buses empty their septic tanks to settle a suit. The settlement followed last month's guilty plea by bus driver Stefan Wohl to charges of reckless conduct and discharging contaminants to cause water pollution.

One for the "Perpetuating the Stereotype" files

Yes, I am familiar with Pvt. Jessica Lynch. I have great respect for women
like Specialist Shoshanna Johnson, one of the 1st female Iraq POW's. They are a tribute to the kind of women we want fighting alongside (if not on the frontlines) the men of our Armed Forces. It must be said, however, the I have always had a great deal of reservations about women in combat.

It's not the idea that we are the "weaker sex". It's not that we aren't capable of heroism and sacrifice. It's just that we can make such asses of our selves, with little or no help from "the guys". After all, it's not unusual outside of wartime to read newspaper accounts of drill sergeants who sleep with their recruits. It is also not unusual to have several enlisted female Navy personnel return from extended tours-of-duty pregnant by one of their shipmates. In the case of the drill sergeant, the enlisted women said that they slept with him not out of romantic interest, but as a means of obtaining favors and being able to opt out of some of the more rigorous requirements of basic training.

All too often it seems that women act less like Shoshanna Johnson, and more like lazy, juvenile opportunists.

Case in point: The Sun's headliner. US girls' muddy shame.

American girl soldiers have been shamed in a mud-wrestling scandal.

Photographs taken by colleagues showed them grappling and exposing their boobs at a party in an Iraqi PRISON.

Some of the 30 pictures reveal male soldiers cheering on two women in bras and panties in a mud-filled paddling pool.

In others, military policewomen bared their breasts or flashed thongs for male comrades with cameras.

Investigators probing a breakdown of discipline at the US Army’s Camp Bucca jail were told sergeants also lent their rooms to squaddies for sex.

Ironically, the soldiers had been assigned to guard Iraqi inmates being transferred there from scandal-hit Abu Ghraib jail.

Blonde prison guard Specialist Deanna Allen, 19, was demoted to private after being pictured grinning as she flashed her boobs.

Most of the soldiers pictured in the audience wear T-shirts emblazoned with Army logos, but at least one appears on snaps in full uniform.

The morning news shows were -- of course! -- practically twitching over the story this morning, showing a slew of pictures (including a blurred shot of the aforementioned Pvt. Allen doing her best 'Girls Gone Wild' impersonation).

To Pvt. Allen: I "get" that blowing off steam is a necessary part of the process of coping in a war-time environment. But do you have to make yourself the star of a burlesque revue? How is this appropriate behavior for a soldier ... any soldier? And when are you going to realize that that you represent all women in the military, who must now work far harder than the requisite "110 %" in order to earn our respect?

Pvt. Allen's demotion is sure to be decried by so-called feminist groups, but isn't equal rights concurrent with equal responsibility, and thus equal consequence?

If not, it certainly should be, so as to not sully the reputations of enlisted women, who follow the code and conduct themselves with courage, self-awareness and battle-tested skill.

Dems' Cynicism in the Face of Democracy's Triumph

NY Post: Democrats' Depressing Denial

In this morning's online edition of the Post, the editors rightfully take Sens. Kerry & Kennedy to task for their openly cynical (if not outright derrogatory) attitude toward the Iraqi elections. In so doing, not only are they pandering to the lunatic fringe of the party, they deny the courage and commitment of the Iraqi people to exercise their newfound right to vote, and their joy in doing something we Americans take for granted. I'd like to see Massachusettes voters come out to vote if mortar fire, suicide bombs and Al Qaeda terrorists might be waiting for them outside the local public school or police station.

"Kerry, in his first broadcast interview since losing last November, suggested that there was something illegitimate about the election because the turnout in some areas wasn't even larger.

And, he warned, "no one in the United States should overhype this election."

Which makes you wonder just what — short of the kind of craven U.S. bugout he prescribed for Vietnam — Kerry would deem an important development.

After all, the point of the war was to begin pushing the Arab Middle East out of its dead-end rut of tyranny and the export of terror. And Iraqis made a huge step forward in that regard Sunday — in an election that many on the left predicted (and, no doubt, privately hoped) would be a failure.

Kennedy, meanwhile, stuck by his pre-election demand for immediate U.S. withdrawal — and even refused to term the voting a success, saying Bush "must look beyond the election" and "demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term design on their country."

Even after the most significant political development in Iraq since the invasion, Kerry and Kennedy couldn't summon the grace to acknowledge progress.

Millions of Iraqis, many at grave personal risk, turned out to vote. That is, a clear majority of the Iraqi people on Sunday endorsed America's vision of their future — and in so doing sanctified the sacrifices so many young Americans have made on their behalf.

This was a stunning repudiation of the terrorists — and a signal moment in the eternal quest for human freedom. The Kerry-Kennedy failure to recognize that illustrates their personal moral myopia — while the Democratic Party's failure to celebrate it demonstrates its institutional lack of ethical bearings.

Day-uhm! Well said.

Oh, this is just too funny!

Well, at least it is to me. You see, I don't think much of people who can't enjoy a night out (whether at the local or a nightclub) without snorting a line. From Britain's Sky News comes the most amusing story 've seen in quite a while:

WD-40 USED TO FIGHT COKE

"A new weapon is being launched in the war on drugs - WD-40.

The household lubricant, usually used for such challenges as loosening rusty screws or stopping creaky doors, is being deployed by pubs and clubs. They are spraying it onto lavatory cistern tops to stop punters going into the toilets to snort a line of cocaine.

The oil-based, colourless WD-40, disssolves cocaine so when the user spreads it on a surface that has been sprayed, the drug turns into a mush and is unusable. If the taker does try to snort it and it gets up the nostril they will end up with a bad nose bleed.

The use of WD-40 is the brainchild of PC Graham Pease, a liquor licensing officer, who first launched the idea in Bristol. He said: "When the drug comes into contact with the WD-40 it becomes unusable. "It congeals into a mess then semi-dissolves and prevents it being sniffed."

Carl Brown, landlord of the Mailcoach Inn, Swindon, said: "It makes the blood vessels in the nose bleed; at first I found tissues and pools of blood. It's proving very effective."

Ingenious, innovative & cheap. You gotta love it!