Infinite Monkeys |
|
|
|
Friday, October 31, 2003
Trick or Treat? Sounds Like a Trick To Me So, I'm visiting the numerous Bear Flaggers tonight, in between servicing the ghosts and goblins, when I discover Patterico's item about L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez. Can this be true? What manner of voodoo journalism is this? Clearly, the benefits of toiling in the fields of the vast right-wing conspiracy aren't as lucrative as I've been led to believe. It's Halloween! As of 7:45 p.m., we've had at least ten vampires, four Frankensteins, four ninjas, a couple of teenage girls dressed as babies, a handful of actual babies, five Hulks, many clowns (some quite ugly... "Insane Clowns"?), half-a-dozen "Scream" guys, seven or eight witches, a dozen or so vaguely threatening teenagers, Woody the Cowboy, Buzz Lightyear, a "gothic slayer," and the littlest veterinarian. Strangely enough, no firemen. All told, we've had about 80 kids tonight. No damage, er,...tricks just yet. Update @ 8:35 p.m.: We've had another vampire, a Monopoly-style plutocrat, a cowboy without his hat, a lady-in-red, and a football player with a real injury. You Can Have My Toy Gun When You Pry It From My Cold, Dead Hand Wasting no time after the bad pre-Halloween craziness in the Capitol yesterday, Rep. Ed Towns (D-Brooklyn, NY) is pushing a bill he introduced earlier this year that would make the manufacture, sale, or possession of a toy gun a federal crime. Madness. Simply madness. Here's the text of the bill. Hey, Are The Grocery Clerks Still Striking? My wife just called to report that the picketers have left the Ralphs down the street from her workplace. Did I happen to know why? As a matter of fact, no, I didn't. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, I learned quickly that the grocery clerks' union powers-that-be pulled the picketers from Ralphs and moved them to Vons in a desperate divide-and-conquer negotiating tactic. By making nice with Ralphs, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union hopes to regain a little customer goodwill and portray Vons and Albertsons as—hmmmm... what's the term?—"unconscionable ballbreakers" (my phrase*, not the union's, just so you don't think I'm pulling an Arkin). Anyway, I don't think it will work. I didn't think it would work before half of Southern California burnt to a cinder. No way it will work now. * Borrowed, of course, from Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese. Catholic Priest Good Guys (So Good, They Drive Bad Ghosts Away!) Mark Gauvreau Judge recounts the fascinating tale of Fr. Demetrius Augustine Gallitzin and "truest ghost story ever told" on the Taste Page of today's Wall Street Journal. Catholic School Bad Girls (So Bad, They're Good!) "The girls came and started kicking him and punching him, so I wasn't going to stop them," says a Philadelphia man who stood by as some 20 Catholic school girls pummelled the living hell out of a serial pervert. Good for them. The moral of this story? Don't miss with those Philly Catholic girls, man. They don't even care when the blood gets on their saddle shoes. Thursday, October 30, 2003
Panther Kicks Arse Part 1 - introduction Pardon my, um, Anglo, but there just isn't a better way to describe the latest release of Apple's Macintosh OS X operating system. This is version 10.3, a "mere incremental upgrade", but don't let that fool you - there are easily enough new features in this release to justify the cost. And for those of you who, like me, are among the few Mac users in your otherwise Windows-dominated environment, this release is a godsend. It is my hope that I will be able to offer a somewhat uncommon perspective on this product. You see, I am a "switcher". My Titanium PowerBook G4 is the first Macintosh I have ever owned, and practically the only Mac I've ever used, and I have worked with technology for almost 20 years now. At sixteen, I brought home my first computer (a Kaypro 4, running CP/M before IBM and Microsoft conquered the desktop), and I've never had a job that was not in the technology field. Currently, I am a partner in a consulting firm that specializes in systems management, chiefly of mobile and remote systems. We're Microsoft Partners and we know the MS server and desktop technologies inside and out. Before drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid, I was a die-hard OS/2 booster. Because of my experiences, it took me awhile to get used to the Macintosh. The way I described it during the first three months was, "using the Force", or "turning off my brain and embracing the Zen of my Mac." More accurately, I was "un-learning" Windows. Everything in Windows (and even OS/2, for that matter) was encumbered by the legacy of MS-DOS, and how that base operating system accomplished things. If you are a Windows "power user", you are always thinking about the underlying file system, the "foreground" and "background" processes, the different subsystems. Since the underlying OS on the Mac is BSD Unix, all of those systems were different, and I assumed I needed to understand them thoroughly in order to use my Mac effectively. But I was missing out on something that lifelong Mac users had long enjoyed - a GUI and application development model that truly shields the end-user from the underlying "machine" and still lets that user accomplish just about anything they want. In a certain way, I had to ask myself, "If I had never used a computer before in my life, what would I try?" The most straightforward example I gave to people was burning a CD. Historically, if you wanted to burn a CD with Windows you used a "CD Burning Application" such as Roxio's Easy CD Creator (the PC counterpart to Toast). You started a project, selected your files, arranged them in the directory structure you desired, inserted a blank CD, and committed the project to disc. When I first desired to burn a data CD on my Mac, I started scouring the Applications folder for the CD composition application, without success. "If I had never used a computer...what would I try?" I inserted a blank disc into the drive slot, it appeared on the desktop, and I started dragging files to it as if it were any other disc, removing and renaming files as I desired. When I went to eject the disc, it asked me if I wanted to "burn" the disc and commit the changes. Nothing more to it. I didn't need to understand that my Mac was storing pending changes in a cache and not actually writing them to the disc, the OS just took care of that for me. Now, before you start sending me e-mail about this, I know that WIndows XP does this, finally. But Windows 2000 didn't. Windows NT didn't. Windows 95/98/Me didn't. Microsoft, after years of forcing users to rely on third-party applications and understand the underlying file system and restrictions associated with CD composition, finally deigned to shield the user from all of that. Last December, I bought my PowerBook. My father-in-law had purchased one earlier in the year, and I played with it during visits to their house and family vacations with some curiosity. My only previous, and very limited, experiences with a Mac had been with the original "tan box" Macs and, later, OS 7. I didn't care for the older Mac OS, and I still don't, although I've grown somewhat more patient when I have to boot into OS 9 to allow my daughters to play some older games and educational programs. In the last ten months, I have grown to love my Mac, and I have also grown intimately familiar with many of its failings. In this series of articles, I will try to share both my love and my perspective on these weaknesses, in the (perhaps vain) hope that some of this will both reach and resonate with the folks at Apple, and future releases of the OS will be even better than the one I already love. Continued in the following post(s): Part Two Part Three Al Franken Is Just An Idiot "Supply-Side Jesus": This is offensive on so many levels, not least of which is its humorlessness. The Verdict Is In Hard to argue with this, although I bet some of my lawyer friends could make a strong case for a calamari compromise. Pay no attention to that... It takes a lot of words for someone who's blog is named It's Still the Economy, Stupid to deal with today's news that the GPD grew 7.2% in the last quarter. Now, I'm not the one to critique Teddy's assertions that the outlook is still bleak. Is it just boilerplate? That's for co-Monkey David and the others who contribute to Carnival of the Capitalists to decide. The Case Against Editors Maybe Kaus is rite. I say, let's hang the mad dogs! Update: Terry Teachout, quite coincidentally, posts a lament for the lost language of goons (a.k.a., factcheckers). I'm Saving Up My Pennies and Thinking About Taking Out A Second Mortgage... ...in anticipation of hearing the L.A. Philharmonic perform in the new Disney Concert Hall. Here are a couple of off-beat accounts of the three-night opening gala extravaganza spectacular: The New York Observer and L.A. Alternative Press (hat tip: L.A. Observed). One of my colleagues was a guest of a major donor on the second night and reported that it sounded as good as advertised. Michael Tilson Thomas is conducting Mahler's 6th in December. Can't wait. Oh! Berlioz in January! And Shostakovich's 8th in April! Time to sell more blood, I guess. Pessimistically Optimistic So I went back to bed around 4:30 this morning. Just as I was drifting off, the cat decided to puke on the comforter. I think I managed to get back to sleep around 5:15. Why didn't I sleep well last night? I thought for certain that my parents' house in Running Springs was going to burn down. The TV footage from there looked mighty grim. That house isn't my ancestral home exactly, but I have a lot of memories there. Literally. Most of the artifacts of my college days—articles I wrote for the student newspaper, letters, classnotes—are stored there. An entire wing of my library is housed there. So is my collection of New Republics and National Reviews, going back to 1989! But it's more than that. I proposed to my wife in that house. I holed up there with 10 gallons of water, about two weeks' worth of Dinty Moore beef stew, and many guns just in case Y2K went bad. My wife and I spent the first month of our marriage there, before we found our apartment. My son enjoyed his first Christmas with Grandma and Grandpa at that house, and saw snow for the first time. (He liked to look, but he did not like to touch.) A lot of memories. Well, the news this morning is pretty good. No homes were lost in Running Springs last night. The firemen held the line. And the weather is improving. We're not out of the (flaming) woods yet, but things are looking up. The Riverside Press-Enterprise is posting frequent news updates. Here's a graphic mapping the fire fronts. And here's a pretty nifty shot of a firefighter keeping watch on Highway 18 near Running Springs yesterday. Update @ 4:35 p.m.: KNBC's Chuck Henry (who lost a van the other day) just reported that firefighters in Running Springs have lost the fire! They don't exactly know where it is, but they're pretty sure it's still burning on at least three sides of town. The fog up there is pretty thick. So far OpinionJournal reports having "raised a grand total of $1, which exceeds our expectations by 100%. If the money continues coming in at this clip, we should have enough to go to Hawaii by 2020." So, perhaps James' candidacy for Black Leader, and his free trip to Hawaii, may be delayed. But can the nation wait? In other fund drive news, the... um – well, let's just call 'em utilitarian photoshop "skillz" of one of the Fraters Libertas have spawned this Hummel horror. Read the text there for the details on this creepy but worthy cause. Lastly, there is a much more serious cause that deserves your attention. To make the most impact on the California fire relief effort with every dollar, the Salvation Army is the most trustworthy and efficient way to go. Taken straight from their official site: "Monetary donations, earmarked Disaster Relief, may be sent to your local Salvation Army or made online at www.usc.salvationarmy.org or by calling 1-800-SAL-ARMY." They don't limit their aid based on faith. They share with all who are in need. And they do so with just about the lowest overhead costs of any charity out there. You know you've been thinking about ways you can help. Go ahead. It's quick. It's easy. [Insert Wilford Brimley quote here.] Schwarzenegger To Aid McClintock? The Times yesterday ran that headline without the question mark. I added it, not because I don't believe the story but because I'm curious what it will mean a year from now (and I'm too punchy to ponder it in detail at this hour). Anyway, McClintock apparently will not have a rich, moderate Republican challenger in the March primary, about which I was wrong and the Irish Lass was right. You Get What You Pay For Headline in today's Los Angeles Times: Wildfires Give Schwarzenegger a Chance to Reopen Tax Issue. It's a Skelton column, not an actual "news" story. Old George is practically drooling on his keyboard at the prospect of the governor-elect raising taxes. "The fires are giving Arnold Schwarzenegger a golden opportunity. They're allowing him to quickly choose the kind of governor he wants to be: practical or political. Flexible or rigid." He concludes: "The more people who move into the brushy foothills — or onto the mud slopes or the flood plains — the more it's going to cost to live in California. That means higher taxes." I hate to follow a gross oversimplification with another (hey, it's 3:30 a.m., I should be in bed. What's Skelton's excuse?), funding for public safety in California suffered because legislators and the governor decided to shovel surplus money into failed social-welfare programs and a massively bloated public-school bureaucracy, to say nothing of the long-term electricity contracts that locked in rates at absurdly high levels, and pay-offs to the public-employee unions. Oh, and illegal immigration isn't cheap, either. In other words, the more people who vote for spendthrift legislators, bond measures, and idiotic ballot initiatives, the more it's going to cost to live in California. That means higher taxes. Wednesday, October 29, 2003
A hearty belly-laugh goes out to Greg Knauss's "Devil's Dictionary". A particularly appropriate entry: Slashdot, verb To test, experimentally, what an infinite number of typing monkeys will produce. See also USENET. Aloha from Hawaii One of the only things I don't like about Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today feature is that it's like a blog that doesn't give you the ability to link directly to one of its several daily stories / posts. [UPDATE: When they refer back to a specific part of BOTW the following day they have access to the direct links. So I lifted one and replaced the general link above.] Tuesday's final entry read: Josh Marshall, who's been perhaps the blogosphere's biggest innovator when it comes to including actual reporting on his blog, took up a collection to raise money for a trip to New Hampshire. Marshall says he'll spend the last week and a half or so before the Democratic primary reporting on the Granite State campaign exclusively for his TalkingPointsMemo blog.[emphasis in original] Now, that's a fine idea. But what about our co-blogger James' candidacy? No, he's not running for President. But how much could there really be to cover at the Hawaii caucus? They'll need a good story like James running for the position of Black Leader: clearly an under reported political event. No, we don't have our "donate" button up yet, but that shouldn't stop you from emailing your credit card number, expiration date, and security code number (usually the last three digits on the back of the card, by your signature) to infinitemonkeys at zebra.net (Replace "at" with "@"). Pledges will work too. I'll email you my PayPal account info. As I've written before, "Won't you (dear reader) please consider throwing your support behind James and his candidacy? Okay, perhaps James hasn't convinced you that he's your man -- you've still got to admit that he's right about the need for a recall. It's an ironclad case. A no-brainer. (Okay, well... it's darn fun idea, anyway.)" Tuesday, October 28, 2003
The Fire This Time In my last dispatch, I reflected that maybe it would have been a good idea to clear the dry brush from our backyard before the outbreak of the largest wildfire in California history. Woulda coulda shoulda. Too late. We were evacuated early Sunday morning. No, that isn't quite right. The passive construction doesn't do justice to the experience. I'll start again. We had to flee our house around 3 o'clock Sunday morning, chased out by a roaring wall of fire. An hour earlier, we thought the danger had passed. In fact, my wife felt safe enough to go to bed. As we watched the orange glow creep southward, I quipped, "Well, unless the wind decides to make a sudden right turn, we should be OK." I should have kept my mouth shut. The wind shifted. Hard. I kept looking out my front window every ten minutes or so. The smoke was getting thicker. Was it getting hotter? My neighbor across the street thought so. About 10 minutes to 3:00, I went into my next door neighbor's backyard. Their wall is adjacent to the main boulevard that runs to our neighborhood, across from which a 20-foot-high wall of flame, driven by extremely hard Santana winds, moved quickly through the open, brush-filled field. The fire was maybe 15 feet from the road. What I would give to have seen the look on my face at that moment. I ran home. Gasping for breath, I shook my wife awake. "We... gotta go... now! The fire... is almost... to the road!" Let me tell you something about my wife. She is the very essence of grace under pressure. A model of composure. We've been through a lot in the last month, but she's handled it all pretty well, a few sleepless nights notwithstanding. "Calm down," she said. "You'll wake the baby." Well, yes, I just might wake the baby. We have to go! Now! No time to waste! I ran back outside. The fire had already reached the edge of the road. I figured it would only be a matter of minutes before the wind took the flames to our side of the street. Back into the house. "GET GOING!" I hollered. And then to the backyard I went, to give the bushes and the eaves one last hosing down. I prayed. I cursed. I got a mouthful of ash. I prayed some more. I saw the flames leap up behind my neighbor's wall. I dropped the hose and made tracks for the house. My wife was up, and our son was crying. "Get the cat," she said. "I'll get the van ready." The cat was hiding under the bed. "Kitty! Kitty!" I said, as calmly as I could muster. I snapped my fingers a few times. That's usually how I get her to come out. "Here, kitty! Come on out! Kitty!" Nothing. "GODDAMN IT! COME OUT!" Okay, so I lost it a little bit. "Come on, kitty...please?" Still nothing. I didn't want to leave her, but the fire was moving awfully fast. I went out of the bedroom and retrieved a few things—my cel phone, my keys. My wife came back in the house. "Where's the cat? Didn't you get her?" "No, she's hiding under the bed... we gotta go." "Not without the cat, we don't." Back into the bedroom. My wife closed the door. I moved the bed, and pounded on the mattress. The cat came running out. Thank the Lord! I snatched her up. My wife raced for the front door. From inside, I could hear her yelling to somebody across the street. It was our mysterious neighbor! We've only lived in this house for four months. In that time, we've never seen the people who live two houses to our left. "Hey! Look behind you!" my wife yelled. The roar of the fire was almost deafening. The flames were licking at the palm trees in mystery neighbor's back yard. "Oh, my God!" mystery neighbor cried. "I've been asleep! I thought the house was on fire!" "You've got to go!" my wife called back. Yes. So did we. I had the cat, but I didn't have my bags, or my laptop. My wife went to close the front door. "Wait, no!" I said. "I gotta get my stuff." She went back. "No!" I hollered. "Take the cat, take the boy, get out of here!" "Ben..." "GET OUT OF HERE!" She got of there. I grabbed my things. At least I had the presence of mind to lock the front door. All I knew as I sped away was that our house wasn't burning. But I fully expected to return to smoldering ruins. At midnight, the police came around to announce that a voluntary evacuation was underway. Many people, including our next door neighbor with the big house adjacent to main avenue, packed up their essentials and left. We gathered up the important documents and some pictures, as well as baby clothes and a few personal items. I packed a bag and my laptop and set them near the front door, just in case. Then I went into the back yard and started to hose everything down. We have a good tile roof, but wooden eaves. And all of that desert shrubbery that the previous owner bequeathed to us. We should have rented some goats. My wife and I decided that we wouldn't leave unless we absolutely had to. I put on a pot of coffee. We had more than one way out, so I wasn't too concerned about getting trapped. But I worried about those bushes. We kept the sprinklers running and my wife and I worked 15-minute shifts with the garden hose for the next couple of hours. Our 16-month-old son slept the whole time, blissfully unaware of the trouble outside. We drove a couple of blocks down away from the fire and pulled over next to the local fire station. I got out of the car. The wind was blowing so hard, it almost took the door off. When I looked back, all I could see was a bright orange glow through the smoke. I was choking on ash. I called my mom. "We had to leave," I said, calmer now. "Oh, God, no! Is there anything I can do?" she said. "Just pray for us," I said. "We're coming over." Then my mom started to cry. We took the 210 freeway through Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Claremont. The fire followed us. Part of the 210 was burning. The Baseline Avenue exit, which is usually the exit I take to get to work in the morning, was closed and an open field next to it was in flames. A wall of fire descended the mountain above Towne Avenue in Claremont, into Claraboya. It would consume 50 homes before the night was out. I was numb. My thoughts turned to The Aftermath. Our insurance would cover the cost of rebuilding the house, but not much else. All of my books, some of which I spent years looking for, would be gone and very difficult to replace. All of my music would be destroyed. A lot of our photos, including our wedding pictures, would be lost. On the bright side, we'd get to build the place the way we wanted. And we'd get to buy new wardrobes. For some reason, in the midst of trying to corral the cat I suppose, we forgot to take our clothes. (I did remember to pack a couple days worth of clean underwear, though.) My wife said, "Until we see it, our house is still there." I pretended to believe her. That's the beauty of our marriage. She's the soothing yin to my raging yang. Or something like that. We arrived at my parents' house around 4:00 a.m. We reeked of smoke and sweat. I didn't unwind until maybe 5:00, and even then I barely slept. My dad was at my folks' place in Running Springs, hoping to wait out the Old Waterman fire. They lost power up there the day before, and the phone lines weren't working very well. He had to leave Sunday night. It's touch and go right now, and they're not too optimistic. I didn't get ahold of him until 7:30 Sunday morning. He sounded sad at the news, but hoped for the best. When our son woke up, he was a little surprised to discover that he was in a different house. We began the trip back to Rialto around 8:30, stopping along the way for coffee, face masks, goggles, and gloves. We heard about the destruction in La Verne and Claremont on the radio, and learned that the Grand Prix and Old fires had merged and now threatened Devore and Glen Helen. But there was no news about what may have happened to our neighborhood, which lies only a few miles south of there. Most maps, in fact, haven't included us in the fire perimeter. The television coverage, needless to say, ignored us entirely. We arrived at our street around 9:30. Lo and behold, the house was there. The neighbors' houses were still there, too. Miraculously, no homes were lost in our neighborhood at all. Some trees were singed. Some grass was torched. Several telephone polls burned up across the street, and a few were still burning when we got there. But the firemen did a remarkable job. We owe them a great debt. That said, two days later, the place still smells like bad smoked cheese. But at least we're at home, safe and sound. Big Mother [Note: this is a pretty cheesy, sub-par post. New visitors would be well advised to scroll down to the next post, in which David discusses the fires.] "[In Norway, baby formula] is conspicuously absent from hospitals, and advertising it is banned." Today, Dennis Prager is talking about lacto-fascists. (My term, not his.) Yes, the La Leche League. Actually, that's just the American branch of the camp (I was going to say "coven" but that's so "American Movie"). Dennis was discussing this New York Times piece on Norway making a big societal-manipulation push away from bottle feeding. His point is about the larger issues of how in societies where moral clarity is lost or abandoned, people generally channel the energy that would normally be focused on moral issues into (oftentimes trivial) matters of health. He's got a point there. Having had two boys in the last eight years, my family and I have had our run-ins with the lacto-fascists. Hopefully I'll get to write about the grilling I got from the [I'd also like to point out a shocking connection discovered by Lileks today. Scroll down to the Atkins logo.] Unfortunately, I've got a test and two quizzes to administer today, and parent-teacher conferences, plus IRS details to clear up regarding our school's tax exemption paperwork. Yep. Busy, busy Monkeys. Ben's got a big deadline looming, so he's probably either evacuating his San Diego home or hunkered down in the office editing away. Robb is probably driving all over creation on business, since most flights between Arizona and So-Cal are cancelled. David is... well, no one knows what David and James are doing. I'm guessing they're putting together James' campaign platform. UPDATE: Ben doesn't live in San Diego. He lives in Rialto. That's in San Bernadino County. I think they call it the Inland Empire. Yes, there are fires there. They're just different fires than the ones burning San Diego. Now that I've received a lot of flak over my poor California geography, I'm beginning to remember that it's David who lives south of L.A., closer to San Diego. Robb and I live in Arizona, in different 'burbs around Phoenix. UPDATE: David writes, "I'm in La Jolla, which is in the city of San Diego." An unbelievable number of close calls with the fire--but my friends are all safe. My friends Terri and Allison were sure their home in the back part of Poway (near Rock Haven) was gone, but they got back and the fire had jumped Highway 67 but was stopped at their road, Coyote Creek Trail--it burned down to the road and no further. Another friend, Russell (who's promotion to Chief Petty Officer I swear I'm going to blog about soon) had a close call in Poway, but his house was OK. My friend Tom lives in University City near the 805, and had the fire get within a 1000 feet of his house. Ben had an even closer call and will blog on it here soon. My friend Magnus the blacksmith, who is on the 67 just south of Scripps Poway Road, had his home/workshop survive (thankfully--he's not insured and all the tools of his livelihood were there) but the wrecking yard and recycle center next to him burned. Another friend in Valley Center fled flames in the fields all around his house, but returned to find it intact (but all the fences around it burnt, and scorched earth inches from his back deck). (I literally just changed this sentence from "he lost his house" because I just got the e-mail.) A lot of close calls. Here's my favorite story, from a guy I know named Mark, who's wife Sandy's brother left his house Sunday: Sandy's brother, the one who lost his house Sunday morning, spent Monday evening driving one of his company's fuel trucks around to give diesel to the fire crews. At the end of the night they agreed to take him up the closed El Monte Road to see what was left of his place. They had run out at 4:30 in the morning when the fire came without warning. The last they saw of the place, the whole property was in flames, including the grove of oaks in which the house was nestled--a burning canopy around the house. Today, the property is scorched and black and the trees are burned and stark, as they stand with naked fingers surrounding and protecting his unscratched house. Monday, October 27, 2003
Doh! Time to improve my outlook:  You are Lamentations. Which book of the Bible are you? brought to you by Quizilla I should like to add this: Age of Chance's "1000 Years of Trouble" was the, uh, "record you were embarrassed to admit you liked, but you didn't need to be embarrassed, because nobody heard of the damn thing anyway" of hip-hop. Here's a challenge for those of you who can even listen to hip-hop long enough to compare it to real music. Name the hip-hop equivalent of these records: 1. The Velvet Underground - "Loaded" (i.e. the "commercial" album by a critically acclaimed band that you really liked the best, but told everybody you liked "The Velvet Underground and Nico" because it was cooler to like that record) 2. The Clash - "London Calling" (i.e. album by a previously good and critically acclaimed group that was now "firing on all cylinders") 3. R.E.M. - "Murmur" (i.e. debut album that caught everyone off-guard and effectively started a completely new "scene") 4. The Beatles - "Let It Be" (i.e. absolutely wretched excess that effectively ended the career of a previously magnificent group) 5. Joy Division - "Closer" (i.e. album by a group that everybody pretended to like, but were actually complete crap, unless you were one of the five people on earth like Paul Morley who had some kind of gnostic experience causing them to worship Ian Curtis as the new messiah of rock) Bonus: Name the hip-hop equivalent of the "Xanadu" soundtrack, and explain why. Sunday, October 26, 2003
Quiet Weekend Okay, so I've deliciously wasted the weekend. Yes, I've been worried about Ben's house and David's friends. But beyond some prayers, I've been distracting myself. Lots of tv. Little thinking. When VH1 finally took a break from "I Love the 80's Strikes Back" (hey, I was brushing up on my trivia skills... yeah, that's the ticket), they unveiled a new program called Supersecret TV Formulas. Not a bad show. But what struck me most about the show was the graphic design of the show's opening and promo graphics. They seemed strikingly reminiscent of Lileks' Institute of Official Cheer. Strikingly. While seeking the links at VH1's site, I ran across a mention of the Barenaked Ladies' latest, "Another Postcard" which is all about monkeys. I heard the song several weeks ago, but negelected to comment on it out of respect for the Fraters' Atomizer. I can understand why some may loathe the Ladies. I've never bought anything of theirs, and hadn't considered them, well... very much at all. Until I caught their comments during the 1989 episode of VH1's aforementioned 80's show. Remember, '89 was the year that the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique" came out. The Barenaked Ladies guys had it exactly right: the first and biggest single, "Hey Ladies," was the weakest track (though still a fun keeper) on the album. Yep. I turned to my wife and she shot me that look that says, "Yes, yes, you think Paul's Boutique is the Sgt. Pepper's of hip-hop." And it is. And the Barenaked Ladies get it. The segment went on, and the BNL guys rattled off an impressive string of Paul's Boutique lyrics. So, between that, and the new BNL single and video heavily featuring monkeys, I have to grant the Barenaked Ladies a second chance. And because I can't foresee another opportunity to throw it out there, I'll follow up my Paul's-Boutique-as-Sgt.-Pepper's theory with the only slightly less emphatic claim that the Beasties' "Check Your Head" is the "Physical Graffiti" of hip-hop. And yes, I was thrilled that in the '88 episode of I Love the 80's, Doug E. Fresh proclaimed Public Enemy's track "Don't Believe the Hype" THE hip-hop jam of '88. Now, this isn't a long standing theory of mine -- I'm thinkin' off the top of my head on this one -- but I'll argue that "It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back" is the "Never Mind The Bullocks" of hip-hop. (Yes, I can hear the Fraters and even Mitch Berg typing in protest already.) Observations while typing: HGTV's Space Pads show was really disappointing. Also, I was rudely shaken from my self deception -- that I might be able to go on with the rest of my life never having to hear "Walkin' On Sunshine" again. Oh, thank you Fisher Price, for punishing me with your Sweet Sounds Dollhouse ad. Oh, and Ed's Michael Ian Black is dern funny. (Hey, IMDB.com shows that he was "Johnny Bluejeans" on Viva Variety.) Car ad music is better than most of the music I hear on the radio (electronica streaming channels through iTunes radio not included). Okay, regular Infinite Monkeys programming resumes Monday. On CNN, Larry King is talking about Lady Di. If this were a trashcan fire in Manhattan, they'd be on high alert, total coverage. Someone I know through the San Diego Burning Man community just lost his house in Valley Center...he was having a huge party there next weekend; I imagine the energies of the community now will be focused on helping him clean up. Update: I was supposed to fly to Houston today, but flights out of San Diego were delayed or cancelled because the Mirimar air traffic control center had to be evacuated. So I'm going tomorrow. But at least I still have my house. Another update: The local news is calling in "FIRESTORM 2003." Man, I don't like local news. At least this time no reporter has made this mistake. Yet. Saturday, October 25, 2003
Fire The so-called Grand Prix fire in western San Bernardino County, which has been burning more or less out of control since Tuesday, is now about two miles from my house. We had a bit of a scare Friday morning, when the fire actually jumped the Interstate 15, but it didn't get very far. The winds died down and later shifted to the west, which came as something of a relief. Tonight, however, the situation is quite different. The winds blew the fire back down Lytle Creek canyon, across the road, and up to Interstate 15 once again. This time, police shut down the main road leading from our neighborhood to the freeway. We watched as flames crept ever closer to the service stations at the Sierra Avenue exit. Then, in a sudden burst of blue flame, the lights went out across the freeway. Then the streetlights went out on Riverside Avenue. We still have power in our neighborhood, but perhaps not for long. Still, it beats the chaos that's descended upon Rancho Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and parts west, to say nothing of the more than 200 families who lost their homes today in the Old Waterman fire, which broke out this morning and moved rapidly across the San Bernardino mountains and drove hard down the canyon. We can see the flames quite clearly from our backyard. Pretty big. My next door neighbor stopped by a couple of hours ago to report that we're "on alert" and that we may be evacuated. I'm not too worried right now, but all the same we've got the important documents and a few other things ready to go. My wife and I keep going outside every few minutes to see if the orange glow to the west is getting brighter. Ominously, perhaps, the wind is blowing in our general direction and it's gotten a bit more smokey in the last 20 minutes or so. For what it's worth, TV news has been next to worthless about the progress of the Lytle Creek part of the fire. But I guess that's to be expected. There's more destruction 10 miles or so to the north. Update @ 11:28 p.m.: The great orange glow to the west has dimmed considerably, which I take as a good sign. But the air reeks of smoke and the wind continues to blow our way, so who knows? Update @ 11:39 p.m.: Upon reflection, it probably would have been worth it just to pay some guy to clear all of the dry brush out of our backyard. When this thing is over, I believe we'll do just that. Gregg Easterbrook has lost his mind. That's too harsh, really, but he's certainly lost his way. I loved reading his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column (no link, as ESPN made it disappear completely--Soviet-style--when they fired him for his ill-advised remarks on Jewish Hollywood executives--no link for that either, as the whole thing is tiresome and easy to find on The New Republic website). I loved reading TMQ because it was fascinating to see a detail-oriented policy wonk apply his amazing mind to football. He always had a fresh take on things, and many, many nuances. But maybe blogging isn't his metier, or the anti-Semitic accusations put the zap on his head, but now he's lost all his nuance and is going for quick hits. Take a look at this nonsense about Iraq. Let me get this straight--we should abandon Iraq? This is actually the position of a lot of Congressional Democrats, even those who voted for the Iraq resolution, and it's frankly disgusting. Surely even if (perhaps even especially if) the reasons for the war were wrong, we have a strong responsibility to see that the vacuum left by the removal of the fascist Baathist party is not filled with something equally as bad. In fact, we have a responsibility to ensure that a democratic government is put in place, and we had that responsibility from the moment we took military action (that was in 1991, if I remember correctly). Coming from the "loyal opposition" in Congress, it's transparently demagogic. But coming from Easterbrook, who is smart enough to know better, it's horribly sad, and possibly the death rattle of a once promising career. I stopped by the Apple Store tonight at about 8:30 (the one in Newport Beach; we were up there to have dinner with friends), and there was a rope line, with a guy acting as bouncer and only letting people in slowly to buy Panther. I was wearing my Drew Carey-style glasses, and I wanted to walk up and say “man, look at me—I’m wearing the nerd glasses, I got my first Mac in 1985, if there were ever a line I should get to cut in front of, it’s this one! I'm on the list, I swear!” But I didn't. I decided to take the advice of Ogden Nash: if you're called by a panther, don't anther. Thursday, October 23, 2003
So Much For That Looks like my seasonal drink theory is out the window. We've had record-breaking, near-apocalyptic heat this week. The mercury has broken 100 degrees here in southern California for the last four days. A hundred in October! And there is little relief in sight. So it's back to gin . . . well, I'm still drinking brandy and soda, and the occasional Manhattan. But the gin is back in regular rotation. I make this confession, because the Elder compelled it. But I learned a lot about beer in the process. So I've been thinking about the Ghettopoly" scandal. And me being me, I starting thinking about what could be even more offensive. So I'm thinking and I'm brainstroming. And I think I've come up with a winner: "The Jive Bible." The Holy Bible translated into jive talk. That would be brilliant. And because I'm black, I'm protected. And the more they protest, the more I say things like, "why you protestin'? I'm jus' tryin' to take religion to my peoples in the street." And the more they protest, the more they look like idiots, you know? Ach! Earworms! At first, I thought this was going to be about the thing they put in Chekov's ear in "Wrath of Khan." But it's interesting in its own right. Turns out, I'm infested with the buggers. The Smearing of Janice Rogers Brown Having the thinnest of pretexts to oppose President Bush's nomination of California's Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court, the NAACP and the inaptly named People for the American Way have resorted to out-and-out racism to stop her. Powerline and NRO's Byron York have the disgusting details. Current drink: Coffee. Current song: "One Little Victory" by Rush on "Rush in Rio." Terri Schiavo: A Constitutional Lesson I cannot top Ken Masugi, so you should just go read him yourself. Wednesday, October 22, 2003
One Long Day, part three (start here and work your way up) 15 minutes later, as I wait by the elevator, someone finally arrives with my keys. I move to the new room, check my e-mail, and wish I hadn't ever asked for a room with working Internet access. My company's new web hosting provider has responded to one of my technical support requests, and has added an additional note that they "noticed" that Moveable Type is installed in one of our subdirectories. This is "not supported" and "banned" from their servers, and I have 24 hours to remove the files before they delete them. WTF????? This account includes a specific amount of storage space AND a limited amount of bandwidth. What could they POSSIBLY object to about our having Moveable Type installed? I can't imagine. But I'm furious and I respond accordingly. I'm also late for my shuttle. I race downstairs and manage to barely make the bus. While on the bus, I sit in the back and try to make a couple of calls to take care of outstanding business. Each time I start talking, the coach driver gets on the intercom and decides to tell us something "interesting" about Anaheim. I am unable to carry on a conversation, so I give up, exasperated. When we pull into the parking lot at Disneyland, he reminds us to take our tickets. Tickets??? Doh!!! In my rush to make the bus, I have left my pass in my room. Not only am I going to have to ride back to get my pass, I am going to have to wait ANOTHER 30 minutes for the next bus, because they can't wait for me to run up to my room and come back. While riding back, a plan is hatched: My hotel is the last of three hotels where this shuttle stops. If I get out at the first hotel, I can run across the parking lot, race up three flights of stairs to my room, and get back down to the lobby in time for the bus to arrive at my hotel. Despite my tremendous girth and generally poor physical condition, this plan actually works. I'm able to avoid the extra 30 minute wait, and somehow also avoid a fit of vomiting and/or a heart attack. From here, things start going "my way" a little more. I am able to get three good rides in before DCA closes, and then I walk across the lot to Disneyland and enjoy the "Nightmare Before Christmas" version of the Haunted Mansion two times without a significant wait either time. This modified version of the classic ride is a surprising improvement. I really appreciated the amount of re-decoration they were able to do while preserving the basic ride. I loved the movie, and the "little touches" were lots of fun. My favorite part? The room with the "Christmas Lists". "Good little boys and girls" are indicated with a jack-o-lantern, and "bad little boys and girls" are indicated with a skull and crossbones. Who were the bad little boys? Tim (Burton), Danny (Elfman), Vincent (Price) and Johnny (Depp). Delightful touch. When I got back to my hotel, I called home and talked to my girls. I've been coming to Orange County quite a bit recently, and every time I call home, Erika (my oldest at 6) asks me which rides I went on. I always seem to tell her that I had to work late and didn't get to go on any rides. She usually follows up by encouraging me to get up early and ride a couple of rides before I start work the next day. Sweet. Tonight, I tell her that I actually got to ride on FIVE rides, including some very exciting ones. "Good for you," she says, earnestly. No jealousy, nor any ambivalence because she wasn't able to participate - she is genuinely happy that her daddy got to take a break from work and enjoy himself. I almost cried. Super Fly wouldn't have cried, but I almost did. This put the evening on track. After a generally frustrating day, my trip to the parks, followed by a call home and this martinis-and-steak outing have really taken the edge off. I'm now on my third giant martini, blogging unselfconsciously and thinking about the days to come: Tomorrow, after work, I will fly up to Oakland and enjoy a reunion show of one of my favorite bands (Monks of Doom - with Jonathan Segel opening!) in Berkeley, and follow that up with an easy day of work in San Francisco that will pay all of my expenses except for the liquor. Things are pretty good. I may have to get up at 5:00am every now and then, and I may occasionally waste a trip, but I have a good job and two daughters who love the hell out of me. So what have I been bellyaching about? I receive a call at 9:30 - the plane is about to take off from Ontario. 45 minutes later, I'm sharing the squareness of my mini-van with someone else. No, wait. There will be no sharing here - she gets in the car and teases me, "Is this the best you could get? What happened to the convertible Mustang?" Grrrrrrr. We're heading down to Chula Vista for our "second" meeting. My passenger has a hankerin' for something at Jack in the Box (no, she isn't pregnant - I can't explain it) so we find one and go in to kill some time. No skin off my nose - they have Coke products, and my 6:00am latte is starting to wear off. I'd better get some more caffeine in me before I hold up a liquor store just for kicks. Meeting #2 goes as well as can be expected. We've been holding this customer's hand for about a year, and they have yet to make a commitment of any significance. On a recent account management call, we nominated them for "Biggest Financial Sinkhole 2003", and there is no serious competition at this point. This is not really anyone's "fault", per se. They've had a couple of notable organizational changes, and we've had to start over a couple of times. But it's still hard to get jazzed about flying to San Diego for a meeting that's not really going to go anywhere. Also, Meeting #2 reminds us that Meeting #3, originally scheduled with other folks within the same organization, is not going to happen. The latest reorganization of responsibilities has rendered this meeting irrelevant, so I am reminded that I got up early to fly to San Diego for a meeting that could probably have been handled over the phone. [Sigh] We finish up Meeting #2, and head back to the airport. I'm not flying home yet - I have an appointment in Orange County tomorrow, so I'm just going to drive up to Anaheim. We spend the drive moping about how we ever got into this position with this customer, and muse about how we might get things back on the right foot. I drop my salesperson off at Terminal One, and I get on I-5 and head north to Anaheim. It's early, and maybe I can squeeze a little something out of this trip. I have a "Southern California" pass for Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure. It's "supposed" to only be available to people who reside in Southern California ZIP codes, but they'll sell the thing to anybody who asks. When I bought it, I asked for the SC pass, produced my Arizona driver's license, and they processed the payment, no questions asked. DCA closes at 6:00pm, and Disneyland at 8:00, so maybe I can squeeze in a ride or two. The hotel is about a mile south of the park, and I stay there because they have complimentary high-speed Internet access in the room. You see, it's not enough to work 8-12 hours at the customer site, I need to be able to blog and/or work into the wee hours of the morning. I make great time driving up I-5, and arrive at my hotel at around 3:10pm. The next shuttle to the parks is at 3:35, so I've got plenty of time to unpack, check e-mail, and get back down to the lobby. But my Internet connection doesn't work. I replace the cable with my own, and still no IP address. Gah!!! I just want to check my stupid e-mail. I call the front desk, and they say they'll send someone up to check the connection. I make a phone call or two, and still nobody arrives. I call down again, and they let me know that my room has some sort of problem, and they'll send someone up with keys to a room with working Internet access. Another 20 minutes pass - valuable ride time is being consumed! I call down, and ask if I can just come down to the front desk and get the keys myself. They insist that someone is "on their way" to deliver my keys. [side note - I love the olives in my martini. I know this is sacrilege - the olive is for decoration, not for eating - but I always order an extra olive. Delicious!] I'm back at the Outback Steakhouse in Garden Grove, after one freaking long day where things took a LONG time to get on track. There is a giant Bombay Sapphire martini on the table, and I'm about to try to settle down. It all started at 5:00am. I know a lot of people get up at 5:00am every day, but it usually takes an act of divine intervention to get me up that early. I stay up late, and I get up late, and I'm fortunate enough to have a job that lets me get away with that most of the time. But today I had to be at a "sales call" in La Jolla at 9:00am, so I had to drag my sorry self out of bed at 5:00. Oh, did I mention that I didn't go to bed until 1:00am the night before? Yeah, it's going to be quite a sales call. The customer will look into my bloodshot eyes, see my hands shaking from the recently ingested triple breve latte, turn to our salesperson, and say "why should I trust this drug addict to manage my remote and mobile systems?" At 6:00am, I stop and pick up the aforementioned latte. My favorite coffee house, the Soma Cafe which serves Tully's Coffee, isn't open yet when I drive by, and neither is the backup (Hava Java), so I have to settle for Starbucks a little closer to the airport. Fortunately, the barista knows how to steam the half and half properly, and I don't get a cup full of foam. Things are looking up. I get to the airport, walk up to the Southwest Airlines electronic kiosk, and get my boarding pass. It's 6:30 and I'm still in the "A" group. This is good news - a fairly empty flight. We board on time, push back on time, and take off on time. As we're speeding down the runway, my head nods against the window, and I'm asleep. When I wake up, things have gone horribly wrong. It's after 8:00, we're still in the air, and the captain has come on the intercom to tell us that there's a horrible fog over San Diego, and we're going to have to circle around for awhile until there's enough visibility to land. I nod back off, worried but too tired to care - nothing I can do about this, right? At 8:45, he wakes the plane up again and tells us we're going to be able to land. Again, I nod off until we're at the gate. 9:00. I'm supposed to already be at the meeting. My salesperson is flying down from Sacramento, and she's supposed to land about 10 minutes before my flight, but she's probably late, too. I call her cell phone, and it rolls straight to voice mail - rats! I don't have the customer's phone number (or even the contact name) to call and tell them we're late and why. Seconds later, my phone rings. She's in Ontario - they couldn't land in San Diego, and had to put down there until the fog cleared. Our 9:00am meeting (the reason I got up at 5:00 - remember?) obviously wasn't going to happen, but hopefully we'd still be able to make our second meeting, with a different customer, at 11:30. Hopefully. I'll go get the car and wait for her at the park across the street from the San Diego Airport. At the rental car place, they've decided that the perfect car for the perfect day is a Ford Windstar mini-van. When I fly in to Orange County, they seem to always give me a convertible Mustang, but in San Diego, I get a mini-van. I am reminded that Super Fly would never drive a mini-van, but today, I will not only be square, I will have my squareness on display for all to see. [side note - Nik Kershaw's "Wouldn't It Be Good" is playing over the intercom at Outback. Ironic that I should be whining about my day as he sings "I've got it bad. You don't know how bad I've got it. You've got it easy. You don't know when you've got it good." Probably a lesson to be learned here, but the first martini is gone, and has started to kick in. No lessons will be learned tonight.] And You Wonder Why I Want a Vacation from Politics? Because when I read stories like this, I just shake my head. What idiots. A Day Without Hugh is a Day Without Sunshine I'm taking a break from talk radio. Just for awhile, until the next issue goes to bed. I have three articles to write (an op-ed, a shorty, and a review-essay on progressive education that I've put off for a long, long time) and I don't need the added distractions. Besides, with Rush gone and Dennis Prager out today, I almost had no choice. When I tuned into Medved on the drive to lunch today, I found myself switching over the the classical station after a few minutes. I don't even remember what he was talking about. I just . . . didn't want to know. Burnout? Yeah, I guess so. Sorry, Hugh. So, I turned my attention to the large pile of CDs that have amassed on my desk over the last few months. (I know, I know. CDs are sooooo 20th century. I'll leave the MP3/iTunes discussion for another time.) There are the new CDs, and there are the perennials. If it's production time, that means Bruckner. Symphonies 5 and 6, especially. (Dresden Staatskapelle, Eugen Jochum conducting, in case you were wondering.) Sometimes twice a day. And, of course, there's always Mahler. I love Mahler. Why people think he's depressing, I don't understand. Well, maybe a little. Truth is, my musical inclinations are fairly promiscuous. Today's playlist: Supergrass, The Raveonettes, Mahler, Queensryche, Johnny Cash, Vaughn Williams, early Bowie, more Mahler, Soullive, Bruckner, more Bruckner, Tom Jones, yet more Bruckner, and Rush (the new live album, as a matter of fact). Why do I mention all of this? Ego, I guess. Look at me! See all the cool stuff I listen to? Also, if you click on the links and buy one or more of the albums, the place where I work will collect a couple of sheckels, which means my son eats, my wife is clothed, and I can . . . uh, buy more CDs. Mostly, it's a diversion from politics, from the day job. After the recall, after the war, after everything that's happened in the last couple of months, I could use a break. Break, shmeak. Got bills to pay. Busy, yes, but... Should have mentioned this before. Hugh Hewitt blogs: I have heard from my friends at Powerline and Little Green Footballs that denial-of-service ("DOS") attacks from Al Qaeda-connected web sites in the far east. The primary target of the DOS attacks was Internet Haganah. The best response, of course, is to drive legitimate traffic for Internet Haganah through the roof, thus bringing attention and support to the very site the bad guys want to shut down. Freedom at work.Has anybody heard about the DOS events being reported in the mainstream media? I haven't had time to look around. Additionally, Hugh is really getting the hang of this blogging thing. Check out his entries over the last two days. UPDATE: Well, at the end of the day, there's just one media story showing in a Google News search... and it's on WorldNetDaily. For a blog's take on events, see Mitch Berg's mini-round-up. And, just for the record... no, it wouldn't be Infinite Monkeys without one of use (okay, me) mentioning Hugh Hewitt. Noteworthy progress: I didn't mention his show today – just his blog. Busy Monkeys I'm swamped finalizing first quarter grades. Let me point out other items worth reading. Top on my list: A vitally important column by Claudia Rosett in today's OpinionJournal (WSJ). It's not easy reading. No, it's not full of George Will-words or Dickensian sentences. It's tough on the soul. But it has to be read. Most importantly, she links to a just released report called, "The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea's Prison Camps." It's from a group reputable group called the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. North Korea should be on your radar, and not just for nuclear matters. Don't be part of the ostrich caucus. I also have to second Ben's recommendation of Lileks today. It's an exemplary Bleat. Lastly, I'll point to Monday's Best of the Web Today (another OpinionJournal - WSJ feature). The lead article about the Easterbrook flap is the first one I've read that really explains the whole matter well. Can't Blog, Editing... I can't account for my fellow monkeys, but I'm much too busy with paying work to blog anything worthwhile until tonight. Meantime, read Terry Teachout's "About Last Night" and, of course, James Lileks. Tuesday, October 21, 2003
"The Kid Stays in the Picture" is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. Stylistically, it's wonderful, but it's also the amazing story of Robert Evan's life. So I'm intrigued (but a little horrified) that Comedy Central is turning his life into a TV show. Tagline: "One man has seduced the hottest women in the business, broken every box office record, and brought Hollywood to its knees. And that was just this morning. Kid Notorious: a life so unbelievable it had to be animated." St. Paul's recent posts about Paul Westerberg and the Replacements reminds me of how much I used to wish I lived in Minneapolis. The Replacements, Hüsker Dü/Bob Mould/Sugar, Trip Shakespeare/Semisonic. How great would it have been to see those bands live and in their prime? I'm a complete Trip Shakespeare fanatic, and it kills me that I wasn't able to hear them perform "Toolmaster of Brainerd" in person, complete with all manner of extemporaneous lyrics. One of my favorite TS songs is called "Lulu", a nostalgic song about a girl who loved Hüsker Dü even more than her man: Lonely when I hear that band That used to play when we were looking for music Lonely when I hear that band Do you remember, do you recall? Remember when you held my hand, You used to say "I love them so much." Lonely when I hear that band Do you remember, do you recall? Hüsker Dü, for those who remember the band OR the board game, means something like "Do you remember", and to make things even more clear, the album sleeve for Lulu included the quote as, "Dü you remember, dü you recall?" Sigh. On the other hand, I've never had to dig my car out from under a snow drift in order to go hear my favorite local band, either. Now, what song should I listen to...ah, yes. Here's one that will do double-duty: Current Song: "Dead Set On Destruction" from the album Volt by Trip Shakespeare Drink-o-Meter This little tester isn't quite as good as the survey I linked to yesterday (for starters, there is simply no way that I've pissed away $45,000 at bars . . . at least, as far as I can remember), but it is, as its creators say, "a bit o' fun." (Hat tip: The Corner.) A Brief History of the Imminent Threat Canard Stefan Sharkansky breaks it down so that even a Los Angeles Times editor could understand. Not "Why" So Much As "How" Former CIA chief James Woolsey reviews Gerald Posner's Why America Slept in today's Wall Street Journal. Woolsey finds a number of embarassing errors of fact, but seems to endorse the final result: "The 'why' may be unknowable... Whatever the reason, Mr. Posner's mosaic seems to me to get the big picture right with regard to 'how.'" As Robb's post below suggests, America still has a "how" problem. I was shocked, but not surprised, to read the Transportation Security Administration flack's statement about the indictment of the box-cutter kid yesterday. "Amateur testing like this does not in any way assist us or show us where we have flaws in our system." Right. Five weeks. Obviously, the TSA is doing a fine job on its own. Update: A choice bit from James Bovard's Terrorism and Tyranny: On October 20 [2001, just five weeks after 9/11] [Transportation Secretary Norm] Mineta, responding to reports of continued airport security flaws, publicly conceded that "an unacceptable number of deficiencies continue to occur. And the result is a growing lack of confidence and increasing criticism of the actions that are being taken by the Federal Aviation Administration. And I want to reverse that trend."... Six days later, Subash Gurung, a 27-year-old Nepali, was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after he successfully passed through airport security with seven knives, a can of Mace, and a stun gun. A checkpoint security screener confiscated two knives from Gurung but did not detect all the other potential weapon, which were discovered when he was selected for a random baggage search before boarding the plane. Mineta responded to the debacle by swearing he would have "zero tolerance" for airport security failures and vowing: "When I say zero tolerance, that means zero tolerance."I believe Mineta has kept to his word, which is why the feds are throwing the book at this kid. What? You don't think he meant somebody would get canned, do you? When you are not accomplishing your goals, arrest someone who has drawn attention to your failure. Brad asked for less hyperbolic commentary on the Pledge, and former National Review editor Joseph Sobran is an excellent source. In this article, Sobran clearly and concisely explains how both "sides" in the Pledge controversy are missing the point. On liberals' objection to "under God": But the phrase wall of separation between church and state isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. It was coined by Thomas Jefferson, who also referred to “God” in such official state documents as the Declaration of Independence, the reading of which in public schools would presumably violate the Constitution too, by the logic of the San Francisco judges. So, in fact, would every oath of office taken on a Bible by public officials, including these judges themselves. On conservatives attachment to the pledge: But conservatives treat the Pledge itself as if it were a founding, authoritative, and virtually sacred document of the Republic. It is not. It was written late in the nineteenth century — by a socialist, if memory serves — and the words one nation, indivisible were meant to indoctrinate children with the idea that no state may withdraw from the Union. And the solution? The solution is so obvious that it hardly occurs to anyone: the total separation of school and state. Tax-supported schools should not exist. The government should have no say at all in the formation of children’s minds. Education should be a purely private matter, left to parents and those who want to support them voluntarily. That way we could avoid endless and irresolvable quarrels about the Pledge, religion, sex education, phonics, the New Math, “values,” and all the rest. Read the whole thing, and then spend some time perusing Sobran's archives. He's a refreshing, pleasant advocate of the ideals of freedom. Oh, here's one more quote, from Sobran's light-hearted "speech" introducing his "candidacy for the presidency": What about the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? I would delete them. Lest you suspect I’m pandering to the atheist vote, I would repeal the entire Pledge. Americans should not be taught that they owe their allegiance to the government; the government is supposed to be their servant, not their master. The Pledge has helped make Americans the submissive sheep they are today. Monday, October 20, 2003
Hit piece It wasn't long ago that the NPR Ombudsman confirmed Nina Totenberg's "shock jock" status. Now, Matthew Hoy points out that, with the General Boykin flap, Nina's takin' it to a whole new level. Meanwhile, away from the bar... Robb's post yesterday, pointing to an anti-Pledge of Allegiance post at Polemics, which in turn pointed to an article by Thomas DiLorenzo, wound up starting quite a conversation between the Monkeys offline. First off, David and I were amused at how DiLorenzo snuck in a whack at a familiar California-based think tank: The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of allegiance to the omnipotent, Lincolnian state. Its purpose was never to inculcate in children the ideals of the American founding fathers, but those of [the Bellamy cousins] two eccentric nineteenth-century socialists. (Not surprisingly, among its staunchest contemporary defenders and promoters are the Straussian neocon Lincoln idolaters at the Claremont Institute.) [parentheses in original, emphasis added]Now, this was an interesting angle. I looked into the "defenses" from the Claremont Institute, but really couldn't find much more than defenses of the "under God" line by Krannawitter, Eastman, and the usual Claremont suspects when it has come up as a current news issue. I asked a Claremont fellow directly about the DiLorenzo's allegations, but he couldn't think of anything that strayed from the limited grounds I previously mentioned. Humorously, the unnamed Claremont insider added, "And I don't think we've come out in favor of Christian socialism, but I was gone for most of the month of September, so I may have missed the announcement." But why the DiLorenzo left-field swipe at the Claremont Institute? Well, in his review of DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln, Claremont Vice President Tom Krannawitter had ended his article describing DiLorenzo thusly: His unreal Lincoln inhabits an unreal world, so crudely and tendentiously drawn as to beggar belief. One wonders if the libertarian neo-Confederates have run out of front-line troops. In this screed, at any rate, they have sent a giddy, careless, half-educated boy to do a man's job. And it shows.Ouch. Now, I'm less than fully versed in the Lincoln-as-American-Atilla (or worse) school of thought, so I Googled the phrase, "The Union created the states," which DiLorenzo attributes to Lincoln. That lead me to a Donald Livingston article called, The Litmus Test for American Conservatism. (The only bright spot on that page was noticing that he had also written a book titled, Philosphical Melancholy and Delirium. C'mon, given the context, that's just funny...) From there, I sought some balance, and there it was: just a few results down the Google page: a Claremont Institute article – Mackubin Thomas Owens' The Case Against Secession. [What a first name... And really, I wasn't looking for a Claremont-only reading list – the search results just came back that way.] It's been a long time since we've gone down the Neo-Con vs. Paleo-Con road, but the Page Title for Livingston's "Litmus Test" article about Lincoln was "WHAT IS PALEOCONSERVATISM?" so I'll blame him for bringing it up. There's no way I can really convey the rest of the Monkeys' offline conversation. You just had to be there. But what follows is a retracing of my reading yesterday morning. After the articles mentioned above, I sought out more on the intra-conservative conflict, turning to Harry Jaffa's The False Prophets of American Conservatism. That was interrupted when an email arrived, suggesting that I read "Charles Kesler's piece [All Against All] on paleos, neos, and declaration cons, disguised as a book review." About half-way through, I... realized... that – yep, I've read it before. But it was worth reading again, and more fruitful now that I have some more exposure to the Paleo camp under my belt. But I could use more. There's got to be someone more coherent than DiLorenzo out there. (I mean, for example, his claim that the phrase under God "only serves to deify the state" is unsupported [unsupportable?] and it's just silly.) What would you recommend as the equivalent of Jaffa's and Kesler's articles, but from the other end of the intramural field? (infinitemonkeys at zebra.net) Blender Bender In my results from the web-based Cocktail Selector [see below], I got mostly girlie drinks, what with my being a super-taster and all. Some of the "selections" were reasonable, but the #1 drink made me hang my head in shame: Fuzzy Navel. The Manhattan came in at my #17. Some of the questions were difficult for me to answer well... Like the one about how the drink appears. Well, I said yes, that's important to me – thinking, I don't want it to look like a fruit cup or Hurricane. Just a straight highball glass and no garnish, thank you. But I think the selector thought I wanted drinks like the Blue Moon and the Malibu Barbie. I shouldn't have mentioned those here, as I'm sure I'll never live them down. (No, I've never ordered one.) Of course, I'm reminded of the Kids In The Hall skit about the guy who becomes a Girl Drink Drunk and keeps blenders and those little paper umbrellas hidden all over his home and office. (Cheers to Ben for coming up with the KITH transcript link.) Mmmmmmmmm, Monkey Glands... I ordered a Monkey Gland at my regular bar once. It's OK. They didn't have Benedictine, so I had to settle for Pernod. Obviously, Pernod is not for everyone. (Neither is Benedictine.) Francophobia notwithstanding, I happen to like both. Sometimes, I'll add a little Pernod to my mixture of gin and vermouth, which transforms a martini into something other than else. But too much Pernod in this or any other cocktail will kill the drink. I don't trust myself to free pour even a splash of the stuff, so I carefully pour into the bottle cap, just enough to cover over the bottom. Drinkboy's recipe seems to emphasize the fact that less Pernod is more. And Paul Harrington doesn't use nearly as much gin. I think it's a good name We've been sharing the results of our "selected" drink results offline [see post immediately below], but I just had to share this one: Monkey Gland Cocktail -Haven't had a chance to try it yet. Taking a NAAAAP In addition to recalling demagogic Black leaders, I'd like to second Mr. Patterico's motion to change the outmoded and offensive name of a venerable civil-rights group. Let's bury these regressive relics of the last century once and for all. The Primates' Influential Opinions "In Atlanta, Bishop J. Neil Alexander of the Diocese of Atlanta said the primates' statement reinforced his belief that the Anglican Communion would eventually work through its theological differences." Well actually, I was predicting schism. But no, the "primates" mentioned are not yours truly - we Monkeys. Nope, in what I thought a very odd term (to only recently come into my lexicon), the delegates to the Episcopal summit were called "primates." Though I was raised a lapsed Episcopal, I'd never heard of such a title. Of course, I'll be asking my great uncle about the origin of the term. His favorite website, AnglicansOnline.com, uses the term with a capital P, but I can't find a search feature, dictionary, or message board there. I'm pretty sure they have a list-serv email thing going. Perhaps we can solve the mystery of the term's origin with that. Have your own answer / theory? Email us at infinitemonkeys at zebra.net (Replace "at" with "@" obviously). Sunday, October 19, 2003
Sunday Reading Two non-political books I've got to get ahold of: According to the Rolling Stones and Cosmopolitan: A Bartender's Life. Both are reviewed in the New York Times today. A good review should tell you something interesting about the book, the author, the subject, or all of those things. Above all, it should leave you wanting to buy the dang book. Joe Queenan and Robert Harris accomplish that task very well, I think. Unless, of course, you care nothing about the Stones or bartending. In which case, carry on, nothing to see here. Saturday, October 18, 2003
Missed it by that much Earlier this month, in the wake of NPR labeling Hugh Hewitt a "shock jock," co-Monkey David pledged, "I'm going to start calling Nina Totenberg a shock jock." Well, NPR's Ombudsman points out that it's not Nina who's the shock jock – it's Fresh Air's Terry Gross. Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan. (Click on Sullivan's link for the meat of the Ombud's excerpted quote.) Quick Clarifications Just a quick response to Brad's response to my response to Ben and Brad's original posts: Traveling from church to church: Hyperbole, perhaps, but the article does quote speeches from three different churches in a single year. This wasn't exactly a one-off. "These people" are the people we are killing, and who we "need to kill" in order to "defend our faith". Not Muslims in general, but not just "radicals", either. For example, we killed thousands of soldiers in Iraq who, as far as we know, did little other than defend their country's borders. Seeing as King George the 41st pretty much carpet-bombed the soldiers who invaded Kuwait into oblivion, and ten years had passed since without an invasion of another country, we can't pin that crime on the people we killed. We pretty much killed a bunch of Iraqis who refused to overthrow their ruler when we asked them to. When are we going to invade Cuba? Are we going to send troops into Forsyth County, GA to flush out the KKK menace if the Georgia National Guard doesn't hurry up and take care of things? And don't forget the Chinese - they've got an ass-whoopin' coming, for sure. Of course, we took care of the Branch Davidians when they wouldn't revolt against their despot. Maybe we should have just send the BATF in to set fire to Baghdad. Sorry, that was more of a rant than a clarification. The point is, he's connecting the killing to the defense of Christianity. It doesn't matter who "these people" are in that context. "The General is talking about followers of Bin Laden" - Ah, so then why are we killing people in Iraq again? "Back up the truck / back the truck up" - Actually, believe it or not, I was never aware of the "Nerf curses" angle there. I was just trying to get the "vehicle" of our conversation off of the "side road" of the L. A. Times' (significant journalistic) error (which Lileks addresses exquisitely - see the link in Ben's post) and back to the "crossroads" where we ask the right question: Is "Christian Jihad" a fair editorial characterization of General Boykin's position. Based on the MSNBC article we've been discussing, I think that answer is quite clearly, "Yes." Current Song: "Let's Have A War" from the album Repo Man: The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack by Fear (sorry, too perfect - I also considered "Killing In The Name" by Rage Against The Machine) Speaking of casting one's opponents as "evil"... Did anyone else notice how the sound crew at Yankee Stadium played the Star Wars "Imperial March" theme behind the announcement of the Marlins' lineup for Game One of the World Series? Yep, then for the Yankees' players they switched to one of the familiar "good guys" themes from Star Wars. (Which, beyond the initial irony of the Yankees casting the upstart Marlins as "imperial," meant that the Yankees' music was a "rebels'" theme – see, they're the "Yankees." Oh, nevermind.) I didn't think it could get any cornier until I saw Clay Aiken ( As long as I'm griping about ball game singers... whose idea was it to get Smashing Pumkins' Billy Corgan to sing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" for the Cubs in the NLCS Game Seven? Hometown boy or not, you didn't need hindsight to tell that was a bad idea. "Hmmm... a Depression Rock 'singer.' That's what'll get 'em motivated in Game Seven!" Let me take a few moments to wiggle my way back from that "egregious" charge in Robb's post. The "equivocation" was based on the quote from the LA Times article that said nothing more than: On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."...and on the controversy that the comment had caused according to Medved's show earlier in the day. That's what Mark Roberts was responding to. He didn't reference, and I had not seen, the MSNBC article at the time. Yes, the now evident (to me) particulars of Boykin's views go beyond the basic concept that "there is no authority except from God." But the arguments that I was responding to yesterday were really addressing that plainly orthodox idea - not the details of how Boykin weaves a construct from them. But you're right, Robb; miracles and general sovereignty are disparate chapters in any systematic theology. As an aside, I must note with some amusement, the odd image that popped into my head when I read that MSNBC piece this morning and got to the part in Boykin's slide show where the account reads, "[PICTURE OF SATAN]" I mean, I wonder what sort of "picture" it was. All I can see in my head is a clip from the South Park movie, with Satan and Saddam in bed. I'll let your comment about "depos[ing] another country's ruler while killing thousands of soldiers and others who never attacked us," go with little more than a link to this substantive piece by Jon at QandO ("Questions and Observations") and a link to the executive summary of the Kay report. (A shorter summary of the summary can be found here. Now, it sounds like Robb's zeal for distancing himself from Boykin's theological details may have caused him to swerve toward "obscuring the truth" of the General's overall position. Robb characterizes his actions as "traveling from church to church, suggesting that we need to kill these people in order to defend our faith." That reads to me as though "these people" means Muslims as a broad category. Perhaps I'm just reading it wrong. It's certainly not what the end of the Times article has the General advocating: In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.The General is talking about followers of Bin Laden – not followers of Mohammed. Yes, at one point in the MSNBC article he is quoted as saying that the enemy is is not Bin Laden, but Satan. But I think that reads pretty clearly as one lesser enemy being subordinate (rhetorically speaking, though it does read as a bit of a pun) to the greater enemy. Speaking of puns, I think that the objection that speaking in local churches may have an effect on international policy or opinion seems to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without the media spotlight and furor, these sorts of comments wouldn't really reach the "Muslim street." Okay, if I go into my disagreements over the nature of why they hate us (no, not just because we "meddle" in the Middle East, but over issues of their resentment of modernity, and other things) I'll never ever get this post up on the blog. I'll save that for a time when I've got matters better organized (yeah, I that makes me laugh too). No, I don't agree with Boykin's reasoning on exactly how Bush wound up in the White House, on his understanding of the nature of the modern state called Israel, or his end times outlook and its attendant rhetoric. But I don't think the whole controversy is just about him. I should also like to point out that my original post on the topic dealt almost entirely with the LA Times' manipulative handling of quotations and inferences. Lastly Robb, the saying isn't "back up the truck." It's "back the truck up" (see, so it's just a letter or two off from saying, "back the f--- up." Which may or may not have been the tone you were going for.) Friday, October 17, 2003
Making drugs illegal doesn't help anybody. Mandatory minimums don't help anybody. Rush is addicted to painkillers, and has been for several years. And you know what? He was TOTALLY FUNCTIONAL on those pain killers. He is a remarkably successful talk radio host, "contributing to society" and all that. Let's say he doesn't kick the habit. Does he "deserve" to go to jail? Of course not. And neither do the thousands upon thousands of people arrested each year for possessing, consuming, or even growing their own drugs. Prosecuting drug users preemptively for what they MIGHT do while high is ridiculous (on par with arresting a drunk in a bar before he even has a chance to get behind the wheel of a car), and adding drug charges to another crime is no different from mandating stiffer sentences for "hate crimes". Should heroin addicts have access to free government health care, welfare, and unemployment? Of course not. But neither should tee-totaling moral straight-arrows. The problem is with the government providing those services at all, not the fact that the system is abused. If we completely legalized all drugs (including freeing up prescription drugs) tomorrow, we would be better off than we are now, with a huge percentage of our prisons filled with people who have been sucked into both the penal system and organized crime because of illegal drugs. We never should have started the "war on drugs", and we lost it before it ever started. Let us all learn from Rush Limbaugh: drugs don't turn people into resource-sucking criminals. To end on a positive note, I did want to praise this quote from Brad: "If you believe in the Lord's sovereignty, then you believe that He is in control of who occupies positions of leadership, from Pharaoh, to Nero, to Napoleon, to Lincoln, to Clinton. Sovereignty is sovereignty." Brad, I am glad to see you are finally including George W. Bush in the list with the other tyrants that you list above. Well done! Okay, let's back up the truck here. The L.A. Times "jihad" thing was plain wrong, but let's look at the Boykin quotes and see if we're not obscuring the truth ourselves here: [excerpted from MSNBC story] [PICTURE OF PRESIDENT BUSH] "And then this man stepped forward. A man that has acknowledged that he prays in the Oval Office. A man that's in the White House today because of a miracle. You think about how he got in the White House. You think about why he's there today. As Mordecai said to Esther, 'You have been put there for such a time and place.' And this man has been put in the White house to lead our nation in such a time as this. General Boykin was NOT saying some thing that, as Brad put it, is a "non-radical, commonplace belief among Christians". He was saying God divinely intervened in our election process to place someone in the White House to accomplish a specific task. This is not "run-of-the-mill" sovereignty talk, and it is egregious equivocation to say that "a man that's in the White House today because of a miracle" means the same thing as "there is no authority except from God". "But who is that enemy? It's not Osama bin Laden. Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. You go back and look at our history, and you will find that we were founded on faith. Look at what the writers of our Constitution said. We are a nation of believers. We were founded on faith." Again, Boykin is blurring (vigorously erasing, really) the line between the mission George Bush is on (to depose another country's ruler while killing thousands of soldiers and others who never attacked us) with God's mission of (eventually) destroying Satan and his kingdom. This language is inexcusable, and it's the same load of crap that they fed everyone to get them to fight the Crusades (on both sides). Sure, you can nit-pick the words and decide that he's not saying THAT, but this was a slide show in a church! Do you really think on the first listen, with the slides he's showing, that the congregation is going to understand that he's NOT using religion as a justification for this "war"? One more, for the road: "And we ask ourselves this question, 'Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us so much?' This is simply crackpot dispensationalist hooey. First of all, the "party line" on why we are committed to Israel is because they're the only democracy in the region, not because they're God's chosen people. Ask a dozen congressmen from both parties why we're committed to Israel, and I'm guessing you might get ONE of them who says we need to be on Israel's side because God's on their side. Second, they don't hate us because "our religion came from Judaism", they hate us because we meddle in the region and support Israel. They didn't blow up the Vatican - their targets were symbols of American (and Western) economic and political power. The more we trivialize hard-line Moslem objections to our presence in the region and reduce them to "they hate us because we're Christians", the more we will have to rely on endless displays of brute force to pacify the region. General Boykin does no service to the cause of peaceful co-existence on this planet by traveling from church to church, suggesting that we need to kill these people in order to defend our faith. Take the Times to task for using an emotionally charged word and attributing it to Boykin, but don't forget to give Boykin the criticism he rightly deserves. More Thoughts on the Grocery Store Strike My office is about 200 yards west of a Ralph's supermarket. As I drove in to work yesterday morning, I noticed that the striking clerks had posted a large sign on a lightpost facing the street. It read: "Health Care Died Here." There was a huge bouquet of flowers placed beneath it. Seeing stuff like that, I can't believe this strike will succeed. But the Teamsters aren't helping. Newlywed Rich e-mails with some very perceptive thoughts on the strike: [T]here is no reason to paint yourself as cold-hearted for being against the strike. The fact is (like it or not) that the checkers provide a service that is worth a certain amount, and that's what they should (and will, over time) get. The value of that service is determined by the free market in all its glory. It's that cold, hard reality that people seem unwilling to accept. Artificially increasing their compensation doesn't change this reality—stores will just have to compensate by increasing per-worker productivity via capital investments and then firing or not hiring checkers in the future.I'm actually trying to do some honest-to-goodness reporting on this (as opposed to the speculative and ill-informed crap I've posted on the subject thus far), so I hope to have a more substantive write-up in the next couple of days, with, like, numbers and stuff. Keep your fingers crossed. Where Are The Quotes? The I've read this charge of hypocrisy a lot (Jonah Goldberg, admittedly not one of my favorites, answers it pretty well, I think), but I've yet to see it backed up with so much as one quote. Now, I don't deny that transcripts of Rush's alleged occasional denunciations of junkies may exist. But I haven't seen them, and I don't remember hearing anything along these lines from Rush on the air. If anyone can point me to a source (Newsweek, maybe? I dunno), please drop me a line at infinitemonkeys@zebra.net. Thanks. Lileks on the L.A. Times and Christian "Jihad" Upon further reflection, perhaps I should have gotten extra worked up. Update: Just read the L.A. Times's editorial on Boykin. I'm trying to decide if it's worse than William Arkin's op-ed yesterday. I think it may be. Thursday, October 16, 2003
General Monkey Business This evening, Ben emailed after hearing me call in to the Hugh Hewitt show. Snippets from Ben's email are in blue. Heard you out of the corner of my ear. I had some people in my office. Got the gist, though. To be honest, I'm having trouble getting extra worked up about this. [He was writing about the LA Times' handling of the General Boykin is an evangelical! story. Hugh has blogged extensively about this today.] I wasn't gonna write/say anything about this until I heard the opportunity to call and play into the theme of no one really believing the LA Times. Then some real questions came into mind. I was actually playing for a laugh with the "angle" that I accused Hugh of missing. Of course, I got on the air, felt like I was beginning to trip over my words and forget key waypoints along my train of thought (I knew it was the last segment of the hour, when calls sometimes get less than 30 seconds)... so I tumbled into the punchline without the proper set-up. Hence, crickets chirping in the background. [No, it really wasn't that bad. Hugh was gracious and was actually treating my point as legitimate punditry. Happily, Hugh asked some good questions which allowed me to wrap up the call with a few real thoughts.] Apart from the obvious, predictable, and deplorable evangelical bashing, what's the big deal? How is the L.A. Times' collaboration with NBC News any different from, say, the long standing relationship between the New York Times and CBS News? Fair point. But why (dishonestly) describe the audio and videotapes as having been obtained "exclusively" by NBC? And why (dishonestly) hand off the credit for breaking a story? Is there any precedent for such maneuvering? I don't really claim to understand the advantage to be gained, other than to gain a wider audience coupled with the gravitas that comes with "exclusive" scoops. Part of what caught my attention is that someone's not telling the truth about the origin and development of this as a media football. Note, incidentally, that the phrase "Christian jihad" doesn't appear in the news story. It's appears in the op-ed, where it is at least defensible as the author's opinion, even if it is a bit confusing in context. The op-ed was written by the very guy who spearheaded the "journalistic" version of the story. He's the guy who has assembled all of the transcripts and tapes of the General, so for him to put "jihad" inside quotation marks right after the word Christian is just misleading. Italics? Sure. Inside hyphens or dashes? Okay. But to put it in Reuters-style "scare quotes" shouldn't go unchallenged. For the author to express such a thought in his op-ed there's no need for any special formatting on those words. But I really don't think that the little excerpted quotes in the news story were presented properly according to their context and particular audiences. And particularly, it seemed opportunistic to me for the writer or editor to split "pollster" John Zogby's quote in two. I noticed it on my very first read through the article. For no reason that I can see, one of Zogby's sentences is split out as its own stand-alone paragraph. It was the one in which Zogby was commenting on how the General's comments may affect polls in the Middle East: "It is exactly the wrong thing to do." [That's actually the sentence that they formatted as a new paragraph - not my feeling about the editing.] See how that highlights it. But there was no grammatical reason I can see for not printing it seriatim in the preceding paragraph, with the sentence that immediately preceded it. If there were sentences omitted in the original quotation from Zogby, then use an ellipsis. Now I'm no newspaper man. I could be off base. But it struck me as manipulative. Not only does the comment seem highlighted, but it seems to distance it from Zogby's comment on polling and cast it as a judgment on the General's behavior itself. Perhaps Zogby (a fine pollster who's known to lean left personally) believes that, but his intended meaning is difficult to decipher now that his quotation has been bisected. Does this sort of tweaking happen all the time when it comes to anti-evangelical bias? Yes. It's not a shocker. It's not huge. But pointing it out isn't a waste of time. Neither is defending a man as honorable as General Boykin. Appendix: For listeners who heard Hugh's guest the next hour, theologian Mark Roberts, make reference to General Boykin's expressed belief that "God put George Bush in the White House," and how it was a non-radical, commonplace belief among Christians, here's the verse he referenced: Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. (NKJ)If you believe in the Lord's sovereignty, then you believe that He is in control of who occupies positions of leadership, from Pharaoh, to Nero, to Napoleon, to Lincoln, to Clinton. Sovereignty is sovereignty. my dad reminisced about a high school fieldtrip he took to a General Electric factory in the early '50s. The students were given a demonstration of a prototype called something like "Balls and Strikes." It used light beams to track pitches relative to the height of a batter. Of course, dad told me, the device could never be used in actual baseball games. The umpire's union wouldn't have stood still for it. And, in any event, it would have taken a crucial element of humanity out of the game. I guess that's right. I wonder how a new-and-improved version of that device would be treated now? Most of the humanity drained out of Major League Baseball a long time ago. Well, for those Monkeys and Monkey aficionados who haven't heard, that day has come. More Baseball First off, I think the Yankees are doomed. Curse or no curse. There is a higher power at work ere. It's what Sabermatrician Bill James call "the law of competitive balance." Here it is as follows: "The exists in the world a negative momentum which acts constantly to reduce the differences between strong teams and weak teams, teams which are ahead and teams which are behind, and good and bad players. The corollaries are:To put it in English: The Yankees have more to lose. Like the Cubs if they don't win, it's a disaster. Anything short of winning the World Series will failure by the New York press. The moment they're bounced out, sports writers will pull out the knives and electron microscopes and begin The Probe. The Autopsy of the 2003 New York Yankees. It'll put the probe of Challenger explosion to shame.1. Every form of strength covers one weakness and creates another, and therefore every form off strength is also a form of weakness and every weakness a strength. Pointed questions will be asked. Heads will roll. Steinbrenner will have a bloodletting. Lynch mobs calling for the head of Joe Torre will form. The whispers about Derek Jeter will grow. Insinuations about Jason Giambi will be made. On and on and on it will into winter, and probing by sports writers will only because by then they'll probing the Giants and the Jets and the Knicks. What about the New Jersey Nets and Devils? And what about the Islanders? Don't those guys get probed? No, nobody cares about those teams. Anyhow, the whole point is, the Yankees will enter the Seventh Circle of New York Hell if they lose Game 7 tonight. And they will. Because they're conscious of this. They'll playing tight. The Red Sox will be loose. Mark my words. Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Conservative and Libertarian Bloggers for the Grocery Store Strike Stormwind at Corner of Babble and fellow Bear Flagger Kevin Murphy of The Interocitor make the case for the supermarket employees' strike. CoB's argument doesn't persuade me much, but Murphy did cause me to pause for a moment. He writes: Never mind that Albertson's loses money because it won't computerize inventory, Vons loses money befause parent Safeway buys grocery chains and then ruins them and sells them off at a loss, and Ralphs makes money hand over fist by having the most understaffed stores in the business.Yes, that sounds awfully bad. But such poor business practices (in the case of Albertson's and Vons) reflect badly on the bottom line, and shareholders will notice sooner or later. As for Ralphs, if service is poor, customers will vote with their feet. The fact remains, these big chain stores run on very slim profit margins. Even with sales rebounding at Albertsons, for example, profits are down. I think the long-term outlook for the grocery clerks looks pretty grim. While we watched the first part of the Cubs-Marlins game tonight, my dad reminisced about a high school fieldtrip he took to a General Electric factory in the early '50s. The students were given a demonstration of a prototype called something like "Balls and Strikes." It used light beams to track pitches relative to the height of a batter. Of course, dad told me, the device could never be used in actual baseball games. The umpire's union wouldn't have stood still for it. And, in any event, it would have taken a crucial element of humanity out of the game. I guess that's right. I wonder how a new-and-improved version of that device would be treated now? Most of the humanity drained out of Major League Baseball a long time ago. I bring that up because I notice Ralphs is taking the lead in removing the human element of customer service with the installation of those automated check-out stands. I was a bit put off by them when I first encountered one at a store in La Jolla a few years ago. Over time, my initial negative reaction turned to ambivalence, and my ambivalence became acceptance. If running my items past a scanner and bagging my own stuff means being spared the typical check-out banter and saves me some bucks in the long run, I cast my lot with the robots. Sorry to be such a cold-hearted bastard about this, but, to repeat what I wrote yesterday, when college-educated workers making just shy of $10 an hour are forking over $35 a week for health insurance, I have a hard time getting worked up over part-timers making almost $18 an hour who are being asked to pay a measly five bucks a week. Yeah, I know. I'm going to Hell. Then again, Mr. Murphy gives no quarter to the MTA mechanics currently on strike in Los Angeles. On that score, at least, we agree. My friend Robert e-mails to say that "Monkeys and alcohol do mix," which readers of this blog have known for a long time. I say, give these monkeys some of those robotic arms and let them provide security. Yes, you heard me, I'm advocating monkey bouncers. I know those words may haunt me someday. Deeper meaning behind the New York Times Red Sox gaffe? You be the judge. (Thanks to my friend Guy for pointing me to this.) Rush and Newsweek Nathaniel Stewart at No Left Turns performs a lovely dissection of Evan Thomas's article in Newsweek on Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction. A sample: The fact is Limbaugh makes his living discussing daily world and national events in law, politics and culture in a way that has captivated 20 million Americans every weekday for the past 15 years. But I’m sure any ol’ schlub could do that.Hard to top, except perhaps to ask: Evan who? News-what? Does anybody still read that thing? Sometimes a baseball team and its 95-year-old curse are not enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sometimes you need a little help from your fans. Can't We All Just Get Along With Our 22-Year-Old Girlfriends? Looks like my neighbor Rodney King is in trouble again. What I want to know is, why does this guy keep following me around? A few years ago, he got popped on a drug bust at the Howard Johnson's down the street from my apartment. Then there was some odd business a few weeks before we moved involving Rodney, a car, and a stranger's living room. Now this. I may have to file an restraining order or something. Do Baseball Curses Exist? (Yup They Do) A co-worker and I were talking about baseball and the Chicago Cubs' implosion in Game 6 of the National League Division Series. We came to the conclusion that the Cubs will lose Game 7. For a variety of reasons, mostly baseball, but the ultimate reason they'll lose is, because the Cub Curse is real. We're not saying we believe in magic and superstition. Rather we believe in the irrationality of group psychology. See, the Cub curse is fiction. It doesn't exist rationally. But to the mind of an irrational Chicago Cub fan it is real. To a Chicago Cub baseball player it is real. Real in that you have to answer questions about it from beat reporters and such. Even though it's a fiction created by circumstances that are beyond your control. Logically a player knows that there are no such things as curses. He knows. But the constant curse talk plants a seed in his head. And even though he knows it doesn't matter, it kinda does. Anyhow, to get back to Game 6. The Cubs up 3-0 in the 8th inning. Five outs away from the World Series. Things begin falling apart. Marlins stage a comeback. Cubs lose. Everyone blames it on The Curse. There is no curse. If Cubs weren't Cubs but say the Padres, people would just they've had a run of bad luck. But because of the history, the winning and the losing take on greater significance. And now we come to Game 7. because that thing that doesn't exist, actually does. Today the Cub's opponent today isn't the Florida Marlins-- it's The Curse. And again, its not a magical thing or anything cosmic-- it's purely psychological. See the thing is, an entire town expects you to lose. You own fans expect you to blow it. In fact they've already given up. They were weeping in the stands after Gasme. Seriously. They think you lost the series after Game 6. You're playing in a giant vortex of negativity. All because people believe in a curse that doesn't exist. See, the Marlin's can just go out tonight and just play. If they lose, they had a great season. They were a wild card team, they came out of nowhere, nobody expected much out of them. They can just go out and play and have some fun. But if the Cubs lose, it is a total disaster of cosmic significance, proof that The Curse does exist. The game isn't just a game for them, it's everything. They're playing against history and an ironic fact: that that thing that doesn't exist, in fact does exist. It's as real as it will ever be tonight. Tonight, this game will be anyhing but fun for the Cubs tonight. And that's why they'll lose. Tuesday night, Hugh Hewitt put his homepage blog to good use. Here's his take on an idea that's already long overdue: the thoughtful blending of old and new media. When the revolution comes, I want to run PBS. Here's why.For those of you wondering, why PBS? you must remember that Hugh was a longtime PBS guy, hosting Life & Times Tonight on Los Angeles' PBS affiliate for a decade. PBS also allowed him to create and host a six-part series, "Searching for God in America," back in '96. Okay, this wasn't supposed to be a Hewitt commercial. My promo-gene kicked in there for a second. I just wanted to make it clear that Mr. Hewitt has suffered long term exposure to PBS and should be granted a modicum of grace for his seemingly odd choice of preferred post-revolution venue. First order of business: I now make all of my chums here at Infinite Monkeys "Honorary Brothers." And to all of the dudes over at Fraters Libertas. And anybody else who endorses me. And I'm also willing to give the title to radio host Hugh Hewitt for an on-air of my recall effort. When I first heard that the case for the full appropriations (read: $$$) package requested for the rebuilding of Iraq was going to be featuring a sad story about how so many of our troops over there were without proper body armor due to a funding shortage, I thought, what a pathetic sob-story... It sounded like the same hat-in-hand treacle that we get stateside when it comes to budget allocation time -- it's never the questionable or "pocket" programs that seem to be needing. No, it's "we don't have enough to fund the prison," or "our firefighters don't have money for training." No, when it comes to civil budgets, it's always the emergency services that have the high profile needs. It sells well. [Now, before anybody jumps on me, let me make it clear that I know that certain branches of the service (ahem... Marine Corps - cough...) regularly get the short end of the supply stick. I remember all too well preparing for Desert Shield/Storm with busted old Vietnam-era gas masks and virtually useless yet debilitating chemical/biological protective suits. No, our gear didn't come close to comparing with the Air Force's choice equipment. Not our masks, suits, vehicles, admin equipment, nuthin'... The Marine Corps is a small force with an even smaller piece of the budget pie. Been there, done that (though, no, I didn't personally see combat - I got shot at in the states once, but that's a story for another post). And no, our military doesn't receive anywhere near the salaries they deserve. Still, the appropriations plea based on a lack of necessities for our fighting forces seemed to wreak of marketing spin.] But it turns out that there may actually be some validity to the body armor claim. Phil Carter over at Intel Dump looks into the the matter. (Hat tip to The Elder at Fraters Libertas for the link.) "... and we're here to help you." Unions. Hate 'em. [see post below] In my neck of the The other thing contributing to the decline of the AZ roofing industry? Insurance costs. Oh, no... not just increases. Massive increases combined with many, many companies no longer willing to cover construction contractors. What do I mean by "massive'? How about an increase of 130% from one year to the next? Oh, it gets better. How about only having two companies bid for you business? How about only one? And isn't it nice when that one makes it plain as day that they don't intend to carry you for more than a year? Yep, they were at least honest about how they were taking a gamble on being able to pocket the premium, on a "bet" that they wouldn't have to pay any claims over the course of the one risky year. And no, the policy wouldn't cover any multiple-occupancy buildings (i.e. condos). And what is the underlying reason behind these insurance horrors? Lawyers. Specifically, newly discovered ways to bilk the protections set up around latent defect lawsuits. Not just "newly discovered," but newly propagated, fertilized, and encouraged. Firms are now running lucrative seminars for other lawyers on how to take advantage of new legal precedents that have been set in California courts over the last several years. Now it's spreading across the west. (First stop - Arizona.) No, I won't bore you here with the details of how long-existing funds already set aside by builders and owner/occupants have been ignored and hushed up by the lawyers, in favor of the more deep-pocketed targets (read: suable contractors). Nor will I mention how the biggest coup is how the litigious buzzards have found a way to circumvent the builders' right to repair any defects alleged. Nope. Won't get into that... might get me riled up. These sorts of seminars aren't limited to latent defect issues. Have you ever wondered why mold suddenly became such a big issue? Didn't hear about that one? Well, friend, then you probably haven't bought a house recently. Mold is the new boogie man. But hasn't mold been around for...well, a long time? Yep. But it's only reached a level of hype to put it on par with termites and lead paint recently. Perhaps it has something to do with some folks who stand to gain promoting the idea that "Mold is Gold." Yep. Lawyer bashing. I'd be ashamed... if I had to go out of my way to do it. But so many of 'em just make it so dad-gummed easy! (I know I'm painting with a broad brush. If there's a more specific term that would label the objects of my ire, by all means, let me know - email address upper lefthand corner. Oh, and unions too. Yes, they had a time and a place. And in some places it's still that time. But it ain't here. Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Mister, We Could Use a Man Like Allan Pinkerton Again The more I read and hear about the grocery clerk strike in Southern California, the more irritated I get. It turns out that 70% of the striking workers are part-timers. Part-timers with full health benefits. They are being asked to pay $5 a week for individual coverage and $10 to $15 a week for an entire family. And they're probably going to have to pay a co-pay. Here's what I have to say about that: Boo-freakin'-hoo. I know good, hard-working, college-educated people who get paid $8.75 and hour and have to pony up $35 or more a week for health insurance. Non-union, obviously. But they provide a vital service. As supermarket customers have learned the specifics, through talk radio and elsewhere, the union has changed its tune a bit in the last day or so. But it may not matter. As my newly married friend Rich observes, these people can (and probably will) be replaced with soulless, cost-effective robots. Customers don't like to be harassed. And the big chains work on very small profit margins. The union is short-sighted and it will destroy itself. No truncheons necessary. From the Mailbag Rob at The Mulatto Advocate sends us these words of support: For you James, a voice from the past:Thanks, Rob. Won't you (dear reader) please consider throwing your support behind James and his candidacy? Okay, perhaps James hasn't convinced you that he's your man -- you've still got to admit that he's right about the need for a recall. It's an ironclad case. A no-brainer. (Okay, well... it's darn fun idea, anyway.) Remember: Yes on the Recall -- Maybe on James. (I'm holding out my full endorsement until I'm afforded "the honorific" status.) N.B. The field is still wide open. Could you be another challenger? A running mate? A rogue judge who'll try to thwart the effort? Take a stand! (No matter your color...) [ATTN: Pat P. -- "R.B." = Brad] You Are A Subject/You Reap What You Sow The detectives at The Smoking Gun offer up a collection of complaints from motorists who've fallen victim to some of New York's not-so-finest toll-takers. Some of the incidents are kind of amusing. But I have to say, on the whole, I'm disgusted by these tyrannical little tax-funded highwaymen. Based on these complaints (assuming they're true), why do these people continue to draw a paycheck? I assume they're unionized. Speaking of unions, I'm thinking very seriously (well, semi-seriously; OK, I'm not at all serious) about getting one of these temporary grocery clerk jobs. At $20 an hour, it would almost be worth it. I can't believe this strike, the first of its kind in Southern California in 25 years, will be successful—reports from Palm Springs, L.A., and San Diego to the contrary. It's hard to argue that these workers are starving; $17-an-hour works out to about $34,000-a-year. Granted, that doesn't get you as far as it used to, but in this two-wage-earner-household world of ours, it isn't bad. All of those stories repeat some variation of the line that the grocery clerks need to strike because non-union "big-box" stores like WalMart are killing them and their managers are cutting their health benefits. That's not quite correct. Only he L.A. Times story provides a semi-coherent explanation of the health-care controversy. At the heart of the matter is the demand by employers that workers begin to contribute to their own health plans to the tune of $65 a month. Oh, and they'll need to start paying a co-payment. Shocking! What is this, the 19th century? Most of us, even those of us in the pay of the VRWC, contribute to our health insurance. And most of us have to fork over a co-payment when we go to the doctor. That's the cost of doing business. I fear the United Food and Commercial Workers Union doesn't understand what it's asking for. If the union succeeds, it's very likely that grocery stores will cut personnel and/or raise prices. Yes, the clerks may benefit in the short term. But the customers will pay. And, given the choice, those despised "big box" stores start to look better and better. Spousal Terminology II "Ball-and-chain" doesn't work for me, and the "little lady" is almost too literal. But as long as we're going down this road, let me put in a good word for "my old lady." I know it sounds like something only a biker or dissolute musician would say. All the same, I find it rather charming. (Or, I did, until I encountered this. Leave it to Harry Chapin to ruin everything.) I had the occasion to use the punchline "You're no lady, you're my wife!" once. Once. Spousal Terminology My newly married friend Rich says it's "very weird" to refer to his better half as "my wife." Personally, I find it very easy. "Rich's wife, blah blah blah..." See! Simple! But I can see how calling Rich's wife "my wife" may cause some confusion at parties and all those things. I wouldn't call Rich's wife, "my wife," however, because the woman who is legally and spiritually my wife would probably object and quite likely cut my throat from ear to ear. Here's my recommendation: substitute "my" for "the," as in "However, the wife watches 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' so I have caught enough bits..."; or, "As I was telling the wife the other day, it was better than chicken-fried bacon grease"; or "I'd stay for another cocktail, fellas, but if I don't get home soon, the wife will cut my throat from ear to ear." And so on. You get the idea. With a little practice, it becomes second nature. Governor Arnold at Work (with apologies to Saturday Night Live) [ dissolve to interior, governor’s office, Governor Schwarzeneggar being interviewed by a reporter ] Reporter: And finally, Governor many are questioning whether you really fix the budget crisis Governor Schwarzeneggar: [slow ] Well.. all I can say is.. I didn't know. And, well.. we're trying to find out what we can do exactly, because.. well none of us really know what we can do… Reporter: Well, thank you, Governor. Governor Schwarzeneggar: [ shaking her hand ] Well.. I hope I've answered your questions as best I could.. given the very little I know. Goodbye, and God bless you. Thank you very much. [ she exits the governor’s office, as Schwarzeneggar suddenly alters his personality to a take-charge attitude ] Okay, get back in here! [ his staffers enter the governor’s office from the adjacent room ] Alright, let's get down to business! I'm only going to go through this once, so it's essential that you pay attention! 1: Chuck! Chuck: Yes, Sir! Governor Schwarzeneggar: You'll spearhead our new operation to take on the state employees unions. You tell them they will cut a deal with me, or I’ll cut jobs! 2: Larry! Larry: Yes, Sir. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Well.. I'm afraid you're going to have to resign. But.. first you'll make a public statement supporting me, which I wrote myself. It's over there on the word processor, just key in and press 5. Larry: But I didn’t do anything! Governor Schwarzeneggar: It’s symbolic gesture Larry-- to the people of California that I’m not afraid to let heads roll if I don’r results. Larry:But sir— Governor Schwarzeneggar: I’m sorry Larry. I’ll need you out of your office by 5:00 this afternoon. Richard! Richard: Yes, sir! Governor Schwarzeneggar: I want you deliver this to the Assembly Speaker. It’s my budget. I drafted it last night. Richard: Budget:? Governor, you’re going so fast! There’s so much about California’s budget that even I don't understand.. Governor Schwarzeneggar: And you don't need to understand! I'm the Governor! Only I need to understand! Is that clear? Richard: Yes. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Alright. [ presses button to make art print on wall lower to reveal a multi-colored map of California ] Johnson, you're new, here's how we run things. The red counties are the counties … Aide: [ entering ] Excuse me, Governor Schwarzeneggar? Governor Schwarzeneggar: Yes? Aide: It's your 11:30 photo opportunity - the little girl who sold the most Girl Scout cookies? Governor Schwarzeneggar:Damn! Okay, let's get it over with. Everybody out. [ staffers get up ] Come on, come on! Move! [ they exit ] This is the part of the job I hate! [ the Girl Scout enters, as Governor Schwarzeneggar alters back to his "Arnold" personality ] Well.. hello, little girl.. what's your name? Girl Scout: Lisa Meyers. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Well, Lisa.. if you're that good a saleslady.. maybe I could use you to lobby the State Assembly.. [ laughs ] Well, it was nice meeting you. Aide: Come on, Lisa, come on. Girl Scout: Bye. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Bye bye! [ Girl Scout exits governor’s office ] Okay, back to work! [ staff re-enters ] the public school system needs more money. We've got $65.2 million tucked away in Zurich. Now, if we hold it there for another 30 days, at 7.28% interest, that's.. roughly.. $400,000. Staffer #1: [ with calculator ] $397,200.. Governor Schwarzeneggar:... and 85! I know! Don't waste my time! But.. if we take out only $20 million, we lose.. let's see, let's see.. that's.. Staffer #1: $121,800.. Governor Schwarzeneggar: and 16! Thank you so much! [ intercom buzzes ] Yes? Voice on Intercom: Governor? It's Mr. Kuran Hasaf Husad. Governor Schwarzeneggar:Alright, put him on the speaker. Voice on Speaker:[ speaking in Arabic accent ] Governor Schwarzeneggar:[ Schwarzeneggar responds in Arabic accent ] Voice on Speaker: [ Arabic accent ] Governor Schwarzeneggar: [ Arabic accent ] Makka lanna ho, makka channy hey! Voice on Speaker: [ laughing ] Makka channy ho! B'aska lim. Governor Schwarzeneggar: B'aska lim! [ hangs up ] Well, gentlemen, I just concluded a very lucrative deal with the Saudis. Staffer #2: Governor, it just occurred to me. What if something happens to you? You're the only one who knows what's going on. Governor Schwarzeneggar: [ angry ] And that's the way it's going to stay! To quote Montesquieu: "Power without knowledge is power lost!" Aide: [ entering ] Mr. President, it's Danny DeVito. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Oh, Damn! Now?! Aide: He says he's had an appoinment with you for two months now. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Oh, alright, alright.. let's get on with it. Everyone out. [ they exit, as Danny Devito is shown in ] Hello, Danny. [ they shake hands ] Danny DeVito: : I'm having the hardest time getting used to that! Governor Schwarzeneggar: Well, we sure had great times back in Hollywood.. Danny DeVito: : Aw, you can say that again, Arnie, we-we-we certainly did, yeah! Governor Schwarzeneggar: Well.. it was good seeing you, Danny. Danny DeVito: :Well, wha-wha-what are you talking about? I just got here, for crying out loud! Governor Schwarzeneggar:Well, I know, but.. uh, I have a.. well, a meeting. Danny DeVito: : Well, that's just great! That's just great! I'll just stick around, that's it, I'll just stick around, and it'll be wha-what? Educationl for me! Yeah! Governor Schwarzeneggar: Danny, I'm sorry, you can't stay. Danny DeVito: : Well, come on, Arnie.. Governor Schwarzeneggar: Danny! Don't make me have to kill you! Danny DeVito: : Kill me? Wha-what? Kill me! Wha-wha.. since when is it a crime to visit your friend? I mean, what are you gonna do, have your body guards boys come in here and just blow me away? You've changed, Arnie, you've really changed! Governor Schwarzeneggar: Oh, Danny, please try to understand.. Danny DeVito: : [ turns to leave ] For crying out loud! You've turned into a real jerk, you know that, you sonofa.. [ exits ] Governor Schwarzeneggar: Please, Danny.. okay, good! [ staff re-enters ] Alright, now listen. I want to discuss the budget cuts…. [ cut to a clock on the mantel, the hours speeding by rapidly ] [ cut to close-up of Schwarzeneggar behind his desk in great thought ] Governor Schwarzeneggar:..so, if we cut the $72 million from transportation [notices that his staff is fast asleep.] Ed? Chuck? Hello-o! Well, just me again.. great. [ checks his watch ] 3am.. [ dials phone ] The banks should be opening in Zurich right about now.. [ speaks German into phone as the scene pans out and ends ] Bring Me the Head of Jesse Jackson-- On a Platter, Like They Did That Dude, John the Baptist!!! Now a lot of people have been asking how I can recall Jesse Jackson as black leader, when he wasn't elected in the first place. And I say that's exactly why he should recalled in the first place. This is America! We should have a democratically elected Black Leader! I don't care if it's me-- even though I know I'll make a wonderful Black Leader-- this thing is bigger than me! It's about due process. It's about choice. it's about African Americans finally having a say in their leadership. Yeah. Now a lot of people have been asking how will this election work? When will it be held? Are black people the only ones who can vote for the Black Leader? First off, the election will be held March 17, 2004. The recall effort and the election for Black Leader. I won't bore you with the details, but we will be working with local voting boards. And yes, only black people can vote for Black Leader. However, there are some exceptions, those non-black persons who have been given the honorific "Honorary Brotha" by a brother, or the honorific "Honorary Sista" by a sister before Dec. 31, 2003, may vote for black leader. For example, Monkeys Dave and Ben, may vote for Black Leader, whereas Monkey Robb cannot. Dave and Ben were lucky, I gave them the honorific when I was in college. Hell, I gave the honorific to everybody back then. There's this guy Phil-- he's the whitest white boy on the planet, and he'll admit it too-- I made him an honorary brother. And Pete, he's Chinese, I made him an honorary brother too. I blame the liquor for that one. Those were some crazy, crazy days. Irish whiskey flowed freely back then. Irish whiskey and rum. And vodka. And gin. And tequila. Hell, once we even got drunk drinkng Boone's strawberry wine. I've calmed down since the salad days of my youth--the past 10 ten years I've only bestowed the honorific on two people. And not for the lack of people trying either. People are always trying to cozy up to me and stuff. But I know what they want. Metaphorically speaking, it's like I'm a girl with big boobs. She knows why she's getting them free drinks. Yeah. What was I talking about again? Oh yeah, the election. Honorary brothas & sistas. March 17, 2004. Liquor makes you crazy things. Yeah that's right. Let's get back on track here. Y'know, there are a lot of honorary black people out there too. Like Bill Clinton, he's obviously one. George Clooney is one, not so obvious, but he is. All of the white players in the NBA are honorary brothers. Except for Keith Van Horn of the New York Knicks. He is not an honorary brother. Lot of football players are honorary brothers. Quentin Taratino is an honorary brother. Same with the Pope. Physicist Steven Hawking is an honorary brother. So is economist Paul M. Romer. Author Dean Koontz is an honorary brother. Tommy Hilfiger is an honorary brother. Johnny Cash was an honorary brother. The Rolling Stones are honorary brothers, The Beatles, however are not. Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Namath is a honorary brother. All of the white dudes who played on San Diego Chargers during the halcyon Don Coryell years are honorary brothers. Oakland Raider owner Al Davis, I hate to say, is an honorary brorther. So is former San Diego Padre first baseman Steve Garvey. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is an honorary brother. Anyhow, if you want to become an honorary brother, I'd be more than happy to make you one, but it comes with a price: a $1,000 contribution to my campaign and a solemn pledge to vote for me on election day. Now, I know what you're thinking, that the trading of cash and your vote for the title honorary brother has to somehow be illegal. Technically you'd be right. But my lawyer has found a neat wat to get around it. See, it works like this: you send in $1,000. And somehow some black dude, a black dude that I don't even know, somehow bumps into you and "hey dude, you're an honorary brotha," and then he runs off never to be seen again. It's all about plausable deniability. That's what the lawyer says anyhow. It's expensive, I know, but honorary brothahood opens up doors. Ask Ben. Ask Dave. They'll tell you it's worth it man. It's a cool beyond cool. All right kiddos, got to go, but remember on March 17, 2004 vote for me as Black Leader. Monday, October 13, 2003
Carnival of the Capitalists It's so new that I guess I can't just leave it up to the usual suspects to spread the buzz. Check out the inaugural edition of Carnival of the Capitalists, graciously hosted by BusinessPundit. Host Rob describes the subject matter as a "weekly roundup ... intended to be a 'Best Of the Blogosphere' for posts covering business, economics, stocks, accounting, taxes, business law, and related topics. More info can be found in [his] first post on the subject." I don't care for direct democracy. I won't go into the depth of my disdain in this post, but to give you an idea of "where I'm at", I don't believe the President or any other national office holder should be elected directly (even with the imaginary buffer that is the electoral college). Instead, I think the legislative representatives should be selected by the individual state legislatures, and the chief executive should be selected by the state governors. Dang! I said I wasn't going to go down this road... But I enjoyed watching the California recall process, because if there's anything I enjoy less than direct democracy, it's party politics. Party politics give the electorate yet another excuse to not think about their actual responsibilities and blindly vote for their party. As if we Americans NEED another excuse not to think. Don't get me wrong, I think the existence of political parties COULD be valuable in helping people sort out the beliefs of candidates and their own positions, just as denominations help (in some small way) people distinguish between the myriad variations of Protestantism. But there should be no recognition of the parties in the electoral process. If parties want to go off and hold primary elections (at THEIR OWN EXPENSE), then more power to 'em, but it should not affect whose names appear on the ballot, merely the official endorsement of the party and the direction of campaign funds. In California, the parties had to do just that. Arguably, the Democratic party was slightly more "successful" - they were able to get a single candidate on the ballot. He lost, but they could have been absolutely crushed if they had multiple candidates. The Republicans did not have the pure success of selecting a single candidate, but Arnold used the party affiliation in an appropriate way - "this party most closely represents my viewpoint". All ballots should be non-partisan. I'm not saying anyone who gets 65 signatures should be able to get on any ballot, but any candidate that meets the criteria (whatever they are) should appear on the ballot, with no party affiliation next to their name. If people are too stupid to find out what a candidate stands for before going to the polls, and have not at least bothered to pick up their party's list of recommended candidates and positions, then they shouldn't get the crutch of being able to vote for whoever has the "R" or "D" next to their name. Fellow monkey Robb asks about ordering martinis in restaurants, and the meaning of the inevitable question from the waitress (after "vodka or gin?"): "up?" Yes, "up"? means "no ice."? "Neat"? also means that, but (correct me if I'm wrong here, Ben) I don't think you'd use that for a mixed drink. I have no idea why someone would drink a martini with ice, but I;ve seen it. If you're sitting at the bar, you can discuss vermouth ratios with the bartender. Usually you'll just get a hint of vermouth (I've seen bartenders pour a little in with the ice they are using to chill the glass, then dump the whole thing and add the shaken gin). I don't really object to that, though, because as Ben taught me, freshness is the key to good vermouth (and probably one of the reasons it has a bad name). Like wine (which is what it is) vermouth will oxidize quickly, so buy the small bottles, keep them in the refrigerator, and replace them every month of two. So unless you trust your bar to be a) taking care of their vermouth or b) using enough to be going through it quickly (for example, some steak houses do use a lot of vermouth, probably to save money on expensive gin) then you should just drink your cold gin and be happy. I need some links, so here is an article on vermouth from FoodTV (FoodTV is notorious for changing links, so click quickly). It praises Vya, which is my favorite. And on the subject of manhattans, I'm fond of Tipsy Cherries, which are cherries in whiskey.?I've also seen cherries in sweet vermouth (the link, by the way, is just for the picture;?you should be able to find them at a store near you). Sunday, October 12, 2003
Planet of the Apes: Rise of the Machines What would happen if monkeys gained control of a robot army? I don't know, but this can't be good news. Can an Actor Govern California? That's the question Vermont Royster asked in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, not long after Ronald Reagan took office in Sacramento. The answer: Yes. If you're Ronald Reagan. And quite likely if you're Arnold Schwarzenegger. But so what? Arnold may be an anagram for Ronald, but Schwarzenegger ain't Reagan. As we will see soon enough. Now Your Drink Is Out of Season After posting the item below on the Manhattan, I paid a visit to our friends over at Fraters Libertas. There I discovered that the Elder is stuck on our Martini debate of a few weeks ago. The Elder comes down in favor of a 30-to-1 ratio of gin-to-vermouth, while misattributing to me a preference for a 3-to-1 ratio (in fact, I go for a 3.7-to-1 ratio, but, in a pinch, I'll round up to 4). In the spirit of comradely good fellowship, I would urge the Elder to revisit the classic martini recipe. But rather than mixing up the bathtub stuff he may be accustomed to, I would encourage him to seek out some top-flight gin (or, barring that, Boodles) and some decent vermouth. Quality ingredients make all the difference. Incidentally, the reason I heard for the gradual elimination of vermouth in these drinks (the Martini as well has the Manhattan) had to do with odor. Vermouth smells. So does gin, which is why vodka has gradually overtaken it as the base spirit of choice in the martini (in the words of the old Smirnoff ad, "it leaves you breathless"). All of this has something to do with the three-martini lunch, which, of course, went the way of dodo almost two decades ago. The point is, gin rules. Unless it's autumn. Then you should be drinking whiskey anyway. Sunday Night's Alright for Drinking For every drink there is a season. Spring and Summer are the seasons of white liquor. Rum. Vodka. Tequila. Blessed, blessed gin. The gin-and-tonic. The gimlit. The Negroni. And, above all, the Martini. But now, it's Autumn. As the leaves turn, so does our liquor. Autumn, therefore, means whiskey. Whiskey means bourbon and rye. And rye means Manhattans. Admittedly, the Manhattan cocktail is not for everyone. Neither is rye. But the fact remains, it's Manhattan season. The origin of the Manhattan is almost as controversial as that of the Martini. In truth, the Manhattan predates the Martini. I quote the Stork Club Bar Book (1946): Whatever may be the present vogue for Martinis, a drink which became firmly established as Londons type gin became more widely available in the United States, make no mistake about it: the Manhattan was the archetypal short mixed drink and blazed a trail for all others to follow. Nor, accomplished bartenders will point out, is it necessary or even advisable to use the finest and oldest proof spirits in making the most accepatable Manhattan. The smoother and sweeter the whisky, the less volume or incisiveness will be possessed by the finished cocktail and it has often been remarked that the most exciting Manhattan is one compounded with ordinary quality bar whisky rather than the rarest overproof article. It is perhaps the only mixed drink where this generally obtains.Some say Winston Churchill's mother mixed the first Manhattan at New York's Manhattan Club in 1874. This is unlikely, as Sir Winston was born in November of that year, at Blenheim Castle, in the U.K. Others say the drink was concocted in honor of a Supreme Court Justice named Truax. Just one problem: there was never a Justice Truax on the high court. And so, like the Martini, the true origins are lost to the ages. One thing is for certain, though: they don't make 'em like they used to. With the passing of years, bartenders have come to treat the Manhattan as a kind of whiskey Martini. That is to say, as a cocktail glass filled with chilled bourbon and a cherry garnish, with only a hint of sweet vermouth and often none at all. This is a mistake. To put it in terms even our Objectivist friends can understand: a Martini is a Martini and a Manhattan is a Manhattan. Here, then, is how a proper Manhattan should be made: 2.5 oz. decent rye whiskey 0.75 oz. sweet vermouth 1 dash Angostura bitters garnish with maraschino cherry Here is the perfect Manhattan ("perfect," I hasten to add, has nothing to do with metaphysics): 2.5 oz. decent rye whiskey 0.50 oz. sweet vermouth 0.25 oz. dry vermouth 1 dash Angostura bitters garnish with cherry and lemon twist My preferred rye is Old Overholt. Jim Beam makes a perfectly respectable rye, but some folks may have qualms about the way it's made. I like Noilly Prat vermouth, although lately I've been using Vya, which is a bit more expensive (but worth it). For a variation on this theme (albiet a shorter drink), I highly recommend Drink Boy's essay on the origins and proper mixing of the Manhattan. Cheers! Saturday, October 11, 2003
Minnesota Isolationism To the Fraters' Elder: I don't remember the exact title bestowed, but didn't Gov. Pawlenty officially charge Lileks with the duty of overseeing the Minnesota-North Dakota Border? Don't just complain into the wind, Elder. Turn to the guy who's responsible for the leaving the door open to these radio interlopers. Turn on the spotlight that makes the silhouette of a matchbook appear on the clouds over the Twin Gotham Cities. Yeah, I'm one of two of the Monkeys who are based in Arizona, but ever since King referred to us as "the western outpost of the Northern Alliance," I feel compelled to pull my weight in matters Minnesotan. I also feel humbled and honored, considering the company -- SCSU Scholars, Fraters Libertas, Mitch Berg's Shot in the Dark, the real heavy hitters at Power Line, the Commisioner who gave the Alliance its name, Hugh Hewitt, and of course, Lileks himself. King flatters us. Of course, we'll have to consider the "membership" unofficial until the Lord High Ceci n'est pas une post Co-Monkey Robb, it's not that we've stopped talking to you... all of our emails to you have been getting bounced back by your Cox mail servers for days. Please email me with alternate contact info (including phone - I've lost your numbers). Friday, October 10, 2003
lapsus lingua Two posts below, Ben offers a fictional future quotation from Arnold Schwarzenegger, but fails to capture one his most prominent filler-clichés: "all those things." (Of course it comes out more like "all doze tings" and occasionally gets embellished with extra words, "all of doze tings" or "all doze kinds of tings." Ben had Arnold saying "and what have you..." No. It's more like the phrases above, and all doze sorts of tings. I'm actually amazed that I haven't heard anybody else pick up on this. I actually entertain myself when hearing Arnold talk by listening for...well, these kinds of things, and counting them. He doesn't do it when he's working from well structured talking points, but as soon as Arnold goes off script, the phrase pops up frequently. UPDATE: Robb informs me, "...actually Darrel Hammond had the “all doze tings” (and similar phrases) down cold a couple of weeks ago on SNL." Well, to quote Emily Latella, "Nevermind." Get Ready, McClintock, For the Big Payback! From the L.A. Times story on Schwarzenegger's transition team, near the very end (where the most interesting bits are usually buried): Not every political perspective will be represented on the transition team. Although Schwarzenegger invited aboard Simon, who endorsed his candidacy after dropping out of the election, he did not extend a welcome to state Sen. Tom McClintock, the only other prominent Republican who remained in the race on election day.McClintock endorsed Rogers's failed bid for U.S. Congress last year. Ah, well. Let's Go Whole Hog Very well, David. I'm willing to take odds on when—not if—Schwarzenegger raises taxes. Before or after next November? He'll explain it this way: "The people of California know that I am, in principle, against taxing. I said so in my campaign, and I meant it. Well, we did the independent audit. We found a lot of waste. In the end, even after cutting many thousands of state jobs and what have you (all those things), it wasn't enough. So, in cooperation with Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature, we've had to make some hard choices . . . " And he might get away with it, too. After all, "only Nixon could go to China." Update: Turns out, I'm not the only one. L.A. Observed is taking odds that nothing happens with the contemptible car tax. (Not without reason.) The comments, particularly the one by Bob Pinzler (posted around the same time as this item), are interesting, too. Arnold Conservative Betrayal Countdown OK, it's time to start the "Arnold Conservative Betrayal Countdown." (Yes, I'll take suggestions for a better name). How long before Arnold betrays a core conservative principle? I'm not talking about making nice with Willie Brown; I mean a substantive policy betrayal (or what will be perceived as a betrayal, even if it's consistent with Arnold's former publicly held positions), like endorsing gay marriage legislation, enacting draconian gun control laws, or banning Hummers in California. Or, God forbid, raising taxes. I'm talking about an actual policy initiative, not just an off-the-cuff statement by Warren Buffet. E-mail me with your predictions, at the address on the top of the page. Ben will be the primary barometer of dismay, but I reserve the right to be the final arbriter of this admittedly subjective contest. Prize will be an old 1964 Barry Goldwater for President button I have lying here on my desk. (By the way, I'm an Arnold supporter, and I'll place a side bet that the betrayal won't bother me all that much, either because it's consistent with my own libertarian/free market beliefs, or it's part of a larger compromise with--and outmanuevering of--the wacko legislature.) Not So Odd Fellow Bear-Flagger BoifromTroy offers five reasons why Willie Brown is a good addition to Schwarzenegger's transition team. Limbaugh's Addiction Wow! Rush Limbaugh just confirmed on the air that he is addicted to painkillers and announced that, immediately following today's show, he is checking into a treatment center for the next 30 days. (Drudge has the story, naturally. And here is Rush's statement.) He became addicted, he said, following unsuccessful back surgery six years ago. (Man, I can relate.) He didn't have much to say about the pending criminal investigation, except that some of what's been reported hasn't been accurate. No surprise there. Well, I certainly wish him the best, and I pray he can get his demons under control. Most of all, I hope he beats 'em in time for dinner next month. I'm sure I'm one of the last to hear about this, but I like this idea. I'm not sure of the point they are making (it's certainly not a violation of the Constitution to be searched at the airport). But it's cool to carry around the Bill of Rights... Cavalcade of Stars! Gov.-elect Schwarzenegger announced his transition committee yesterday. Chaired by Rep. David Dreier, it includes some great people, such as the Claremont Institute's Eloise Anderson, former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, Reagan White House veteran Peter Hannaford, Pacific Research Institute President Sally Pipes, and Bill Simon. But there are also a few, shall we say, oddities: Willie Brown? Jim Hahn? It's hard to fault Arnold for choosing the people he did. Many of them are big, big names, celebrities in their own right. You go with what you know. Are you interested in applying for a job in the Schwarzenegger administration? Download your application here. SAG card not required. Recall Jesse Jackson, Part Deux I would like to make another announcement. In addition to recalling all of the Black Leaders, I would like to now announce my candidacy for Black Leader of America. I think I'd make a pretty good Black Leader. And it'd be pretty cool to have President Bush call me up and stuff, and summon me to the White House, and advise him on all things black. Yeah, I could totally see it man. Heck, I might even make a move on Condoleezza Rice while I was there. I don't know if any you guys have noticed, but she's a mighty fine lady. Mighty fine. And I wouldn't mind that she's older than me either. I mean, I've dated an older woman. And they know stuff, you know what I'm saying? Oh yeah. I was like "Hey baby, what are you doing? I-I've never done that before! Oooh! Hey! Mmmn! Baby, they're gonna have to call the Supreme Court on us!" Anyways, what was I talking about? Oh yeah...recall all Black Leaders. Vote for me as the new Black Leader! And I want school vouchers. Now! Okay, talk to you guys later. Hugh Hewitt rightly condemns LA Times columnist Steve Lopez's editor for allowing him to call Arnold "Gropenfuhrer." Of course, it's spelled "Gruppenfuehrer," but get it? It's a joke--a combination of "grope" and...well, try typing "Gruppenfuehrer" into Google to see a list of sites detailing the horrors of the Nazi S.S. Man, I wish I subscribed to the L.A. Times so I could cancel my subscription. Thursday, October 09, 2003
Proclaiming throughout all the land... Tonight Power Line features a quintessential piece on the current events surrounding the Liberty Bell. (Yes, Liberty Bell current events. I had no idea either.) I looked for a good place to begin and end a quotation from the post, but the economy of Hindrocket's prose is too thorough to allow for abridgment. I rarely say this -- read the whole thing. They're Out There. They're Really Out There. Rebecca Reynolds-Silverberg joins the growing chorus of San Franciscans clamoring for the city to make its own way in this wacky, koo-koo, crazy world of ours. "I think we should secede from the union," Miz Reynolds-Silverberg tells a sympathetic newspaper. "I don't want to live in California anymore. We're totally surrounded by idiots." The Demographics, They Are Achangin' I live in San Bernardino County, in the foothills near the base of the Cajon Pass, sort of the left ventricle of the heart of the Inland Empire. My congressman is Joe Baca, a three-term, reputedly "moderate" Democrat (Lifetime ACU: 17; ADA 2002: 95) who won his last election with a commanding 67% of the vote. My state senator is Nell Soto, a Democrat. My state assemblyman is John Longville, a Democrat, and, again, a somewhat moderate one. But 57% of voters in my district went with Bush in 2000, so Berkeley it ain't. Knowing this, I think I was somewhat justified in worrying about certain irregularities my wife and I experienced on election day. So, how did San Berdu vote in the recall? Better than average. And for whom did voters cast their ballots on question two? Not Bustamante. (I note that McClintock fared pretty well here, too.) Joel Kotkin noticed the outcome as well, and thinks it may signal the dawn of a new moderate political trend for the GOP in California, if the Republicans play it right. (Which is exactly what some of us, and Robert Novak, are afraid of.) The crux: For Democrats, the most ominous development in all of this may be the fact that the Inland Empire represents the demographic future of California. At a time when domestic migrants have been leaving Los Angeles and San Francisco in droves, notes Bill Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer, they have been flocking to the Inland Empire: The region is experiencing population growth of 2 to 3 percent per year, compared with San Francisco's loss of about 4 percent of its population between 2000 and 2002. The Inland Empire region has also lost far fewer 25-to-34 year-old voters in the last decade than either California or the nation in general, and has gained an impressive number of people in the 35-to-44 year old category.Read the whole thing. Yesterday, I turned on my local public radio station, and caught a great report on Chinese reaction to Arnold's election. Yes, that's right. Even though the official news service in China didn't report it, word was out--and they were excited. The gist of the report was that the Chinese yearned for the kind of direct democracy we have here in California. I bet they do. But wait--did you say this was on NPR? Aren't they the ones who called Hugh a "schock jock," and apologize for left wing nonsense around the world? That doesn't seem right. Well, it's not. It was on PRI's "The World," and you can listen to it here. Scroll down to "Chinese Reaction Report." Trendsetter or Poseur? Nuts. And here I believed I was the only one who thought "Hail to the Thief" sucked. Clearly, I need to get out more. Weird Michael Medved stuff. Today on the radio, Michael Medved reported that one of the few phone calls that Arnold Schwarzenegger made on his election night was to Siegfried Fischbacher (yes, the non-hospitalized half of Siegfried & Roy). I can't find a news story on the call, so I could be falling for a prank. Anyway, Medved quoted Siegfried as saying, "Imagine the presence of mind that the governor must have had..." to think of Siegfried & Roy during such a momentous occasion. I have to ask, "what was his state of mind?" I mean, it's a nice gesture... he's a fellow entertainer... but for his election night phone call short-list to include President Bush; the president's father, former President Bush; and Nelson Mandela, the former president of South Africa; Kennedy in-laws; and Siegried?!? From the Mailbag Reader Cameron Wood adds this to Ben's post about comments made by Cal. State Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose): Vasconcellos: "Davis is a tragic figure." I noticed James used the F-word today, and wanted to point out he didn't use it indecently, according to the FCC. Geek post Sure we've heard about how many theaters across the country will be showing the first two Lord of the Rings movies in a sort of marathon right up to the midnight release of The Return of the King. But what I kept me from being especially exuberant was my assumption that the first two movies would be the original theatrical releases (sans Extended Footage). Well, I was wrong. They will be showing the extended versions! Though presumably, just the first two films will feature the additional scenes - gotta have something to market next year, after all. (I doubt they'll even have the extended ROTK finished by then, if the production schedule mirrors that of the first two films. But I could be wrong. If I am, see the email address in the upper left hand corner of this page.) Here's a list of theaters by city along with a search by title & zip code feature. (Thanks to FARK.com) And Now, For An Encore, Let's Recall Jesse Jackson So Urban Outfitters came out with board game based on "Monopoly" called "Ghettopoly." Which I have to admit, is pretty fucking funny. And course now "black leaders" are all up in arms. I'm going to tell you something: this so-called black leadership--who I might add, I did not vote for and do not recognize--don't get it. See, most black kids, and in fact most kids in Generation Hip Hop, are gonna love this game. See, the cat's outta the bag. The genie's outta the bottle. Pandora's Box has been opened. Black Leaders, the people you supposedly lead, revel in this shit. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, everybody acts as if they're in a rap video. It's beyond caricature, man. It's satire. It's so satire, it's beyond satire, and into something deep and meaningful: and that is, the truth. And the truth is Black Leaders , you're barking up the wrong tree. Like you always do, Black Leaders. Reflexively lashing out at Urban Outfitters, when they're not even the purveyors of the "ghetto thing." Yeah. I mean come on, black people do harm to their image on their own. I mean have you seen the Youngbloodz music video on MTV, Black Leaders? Black people have turned making stereotypical images of themselves into a multi-million dollar industry. And you're complaining about a board game. See, that just shows how out of touch you are, Black Leaders. I didn't vote for you guys and you guys don't speak for me, and to be frank, I don't particularly like you either. Anyhow, the whole point of this post, I've decided to take inspiration from my home state of California, and I'm starting a recall of Black Leaders. All of them. The way we'll do it is, we'll start with Jesse Jackson and move our way down. There'll be some I'll keep around. Like the Rev. Al Sharpton. Because, y'know, he serves my purposes. But believe me, after the Democratic Primaries are over, he's a goner too. I can see tt's gonna be this sort of national movement y'know, a kind of metaphorical Soviet style purge. Yeah, exactly like that. With people being erased from news pictures and stuff and being replaced with the true believers of The New Order. A new day is dawning, Black Leaders, and when that day dawns, one, we'll finally get school vouchers, and two, I won't have to listen to you people get your panties in a bunch over a silly board game Anyhow, gotta go now and start my fund raising. And If any of you people out there wanna help, send me a check. It's all for a good cause, and hey, I think it's tax deductable. Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Don't Go Away Mad... From KPIX in San Francisco, more potentially good news in the wake of the recall: State Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose, said he might quit in the face of Schwarzenegger's election.As a noted Bay Area TV commentator observed in an e-mail: "The man who gave us the state commission on promoting self-esteem. Guess his self-esteem is kind of low right now." As for me, I'd like to be the first to say to the Senator: Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease! Pretty, pretty please! With sugar on top! And don't let the door hit you on your pompous rump on the way out... "How Can Any Man Be A Democrat Who Is Sincerely A Democrat?" More reaction from our progressive brethren to last night's upsetting upset: State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica), to Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub: "I am really sad. I’m more angry than anything. And I haven’t even started thinking about what the Senate will need to do in order to save the state." Best. Interview. Ever. I just heard "Baghdad"/Bullet Bob Mulholland on KFI's John and Ken Show. Here is the transcript of the exchange, in full: John Kobylt (Host): Baghdad Bob, welcome to the John and Ken Show. How are you?You almost feel bad for the slime. Almost. Following an NRO link David posted below, I wound up running across a fine defense of a classical school (Hillsdale Academy) for which I have long had much respect. Yep, Jonah Goldberg gives Richard Just, editor of the American Prospect Online "what for," after Just not-so-subtely charged the school with racism. Today Mitch Berg (at Shot in the Dark) comes through on a promise and delivers an insightful look into what several prominent left-leaning blogs are running with (seems to be scissors) in the wake of the recall outcome. Here's the latest talking-points theme that some MoveOn-type friends of mine were emailing about just after midnight last night. Peter(?) from Phoenix called in last night to the special latenight recall edition of the Hugh Hewitt show. Usually when a caller comes on with a plan to offer something they think will be funny, it just shows how difficult live radio really is. But Peter's was the exception. (If this strikes you as less than humorous, it's my fault for botching the retelling.) Hugh's producer Duane had been playing clips of Democratic " That's when Peter sealed it, by mimicking Baghdad Bob, saying, "There are no Republicans in Sacramento..." Okay, I guess you had to hear it. (Note to Hugh & Duane - you've got to have it on tape; it's worth replaying.) John J. Miller at NRO's The Corner has this to say about McClintock: My guess is we've heard the last of him, except as an occasional speaker at right-wing confabs. This saddens me. Is anybody more optimistic? Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Power Line's Hindrocket caps off a temperate post on Arnold's future with reasonably positive observation: I disagree with the idea that Arnold is "hardly a Republican at all." His life is a quintessential Republican life; he has long expressed admiration for Milton Friedman and other undoubted conservatives; on social issues he is a moderate, but a moderate is not a liberal; he is open to taking on the illegal immigration lobby. Could these convictions be overridden by perceived political necessity? Sure. But the voters aren't crazy to think that Arnold, who really doesn't need politics, the L.A. Times or anything else, is more likely to hang on to his principles than most.Okay, I added the link to co-Monkey David's Arnold/Friedman story. I'm sorry, but I just can't get over that post. (Repetitio mater studiorum -- Repetition is the mother of learning.) I'm too tired to repeat myself again tonight. I have lengthy and barely comprehensible notes on what I've seen and heard this evening. Let me just leave you with this: the only people more deluded than the McClintock supporters tonight are the hard-core Democrats. Hugh Hewitt points to Howard Dean's statement, which is a howler. Tomorrow, I'll sort through the comments of Mulholland, Feinstein, Jackson, Brown, and Sharpton (who, by the way, sounded like a dyed-in-the-wool constitutionalist with Matthews tonight!). But I'm wiped out. And a bit tipsy. And so, to bed. Ahh... just below, David hits on a little-covered aspect of the "spoiler" angle. I seem to remember some of the more churlish sounding Spoilers in the election? Nope. Spoilers in the spin? Possibly. UPDATE: Exit poll on FoxNews (tv - no link) shows a breakdown of the Recall Question vote: Republican voters -- 90% yes on recall, 10% no on recall (working from memory - it may have been 89/11) 2nd UPDATE: Here's that Fox News exit poll link. (It was 89/11.) I'm hearing the Democratic spin everywhere (usually posed as a question by a reporter): if the Arnold vote is less than than "No on Recall" vote, he's not "legitimate." Pshaw! I'm not focusing my efforts today on answering Jon's and Josh's (of Polemics.us) responses to my "morality of supporting Arnold" post. But I do want to point out a good zinger that Josh returned about my question on if pure principles trump electability, then why not write in your favorite dead guy? [cue rimshot] Josh answers, "...dead men can win elections. See the last Missouri senate race." [ba-dum-dum] Touché. Okay, now for one more line that I thought was funny. Jon wrote, "Brad worries that Bustamente could win in such a scenario. I say, 'so what?' A few years of Schwarzenegger or Bustamente [sic] will make virtually no difference." No difference between Schwarzenegger or Bustamante? Well, for starters there's the $4.2 billion car tax that Cruz has ignored, but the Friedman fiscal conservative vows to reverse. Oh, and two more words: Worker's Comp. [Oops, there I go again - caring about the temporal welfare of Californians. I'm so shortsighted...] I don't get Ben's take (just below) on celebrating McClintock's (projected) 12%. I mean, in my book, the only factor that keeps him from being a "spoiler" is Arnold's higher than anticipated numbers, not Tom's. And at what point would you consider Tom a "spoiler"? Much higher and it would be proper to say that he "split the vote" and a loss to Bustamante would be seen as the Republican Party's fault for not magaing matters better. And it seems a little too convenient a definition if he's only a "spoiler" if he gets less than 10%. (As I figure it, such a low requirement for "spoiler" status carries with it the built-in excuse that if Arnold only lost by less than 10%, then it was his own fault.) Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Ben. That seems to be a theme today. Well, that and beating up on him. (Sorry, Ben. It's not personal.) Monkey David misunderstands me. First, I was careful (but perhaps not as clear as I should have been) not to jump on the early exit polls. Again, I don't think the trend is going to hold and I stand by my prediction of this morning: the recall will win 53%-47%, Schwarzenegger gets 40%, McClintock gets 20%. Second, my point was not that 12% (if it holds) is something to celebrate, but merely to note that the theme of McClintock-as-spoiler turns out to be false. Third, and finally, Schwarzenegger is as much an outsider (for good and ill) of the Republican Party establishment as McClintock is. The Republican Party isn't going to tell Schwarzenegger what to do. The power of both parties have been on the decline for 30 years now. I predict that the success of this recall will be seen as another big blow to the parties. I disagree with my co-monkey Ben. I think the history of a minority candidate trying to use a small poll result as a power base is poor; it's not as if McClintock could claim that he could "deliver" that block to another candidate. George W. Bush, for example, won't be coming to McClintock, hat in hand, begging him to campaign for him in 2004. McClintock is far more likely to be blamed for the Republican party's failure to "coalesce behind a single candidate," especially if he doesn't completely get behind Governor Schwarzenegger. Now, the cheap shot: 12% is lousy, when you consider that he failed to even reach the percentage of people (21%) who believe in alien abductions. Or, even more implausibly, that he failed to even reach the percentage of people who think Bustamante would be a good governor. The Night Is Young Drudge is reporting that "early afternoon exit polls show 57% vote 'yes' for recall . . . 47% for Schwarzenegger, 34% for Bustamante, 12% McClintock . . . ." With more than four hours left before the polls close (to say nothing of the 1.2 million absentee ballots waiting to be counted), the story is, of course, "developing." (And Drudge's track record with exit polling isn't exactly stellar.) It's certainly much too early to start popping corks on the bubbly. But if this keeps up, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to spin a defeat of such magnitude. Experience tells us, however, that these early trends almost never hold up. Hugh Hewitt is asking what McClintock's early 12% showing tells us about the Golden State's electorate. Well, I think it says that McClintock's supporters cannot be written off as easily as, say, Ralph Nader's. Suppose the early exit polls do hold up. I think it will give the lie to the argument (taken by Brother Hugh and others) that a vote for McClintock is a vote for Davis and Bustamante. A vote for McClintock is a vote against the corrupt "progressive" establishment in Sacramento, and for free and limited government. I still don't trust Schwarzenegger, and I think he will do little to advance the goals of the Republican Party in California. Indeed, when the post-mortem is written about this election, a large part of the story will be the implosion of both parties. The Democrats couldn't sustain their strategy, and the Republicans couldn't coalesce behind a single candidate. But that's a subject for later. For now, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show. Voter Anxiety, P.M. Edition More voting irregularity from San Bernardino County. My wife just called from our polling place, asking about how provisional balloting works. For reasons we cannot begin to explain or understand, she was re-registered in Santa Clara County. She hasn't lived in Santa Clara in almost four years. Even more bizarre, the address on her sample ballot was correct. Either our little corner of San Berdu was suddenly incorporated into a county some 400 miles to the north, or "Motor Voter" strikes again. Anyway, the volunteer at the polling place tried to get my wife to fill out the entire provisional ballot form. "Wait," my wife asked, "you don't mean for me to fill out the whole thing do you?" "Yes," the volunteer replied. "That's what our supervisor told us to do." "But," my wife answered, "this part says 'not to be filled out by provisional voter.' " Evidently, the supervisor was out to lunch. (Figuratively and literally, I guess.) Several minutes of back-and-forth followed (including the phone call to me). The part not to be filled out, incidentally, is a section for a witness to affirm that the voter really lives where she says she does. In other words, the poll workers wanted my wife to witness her own affidavit. It all got sorted out eventually. My wife said she saw about a dozen or so provisional ballots, all of which were filled out wrong. She also wondered about the way these optical-scan ballots work. "I asked the lady if people were having trouble with these things. She said people were handing her ballots that had circles and checks and "x"'s. I asked what would happen to those ballots, and she just shook her head and said, 'I don't know.'" Yeah, and I'm a Chinese jet pilot. So we know that about a dozen provisional ballots in my precinct were spoiled, and Lord knows how many regular ballots were botched. The upshot: It's just as well, as we live in a predominantly Democratic neighborhood. That's direct democracy for you! I wonder if Arnold had trouble sleeping last night? After today, he'll either be Governor-elect...or still just a multi-millionaire movie star. Voter Anxiety, A.M. Edition I voted this morning at a middle-school near my house. Lots of hustle and bustle over there, just as the brainiacs predicted. (It's a PDF. See Weintraub for the short take.) Two oddities worth noting: I was listed on the rolls twice. Now, it's possible in all the confusion of the last several months (what with moving and all) that I re-registered more than once. Between Motor Votor and those persistent fellows camped out at Lowe's, I may have done just that. But I doubt it, mostly because my name was spelled two different ways, one right, one very wrong. Hmmm. What's that smell? Could it be the stench of . . . voting irregularities? Second, what's with these damned optical-scan ballots? I know, I know, they're so easy even a child could fill one out. But there's a large chart (printed helpfully in English and Spanish) that shows how thick the line is supposed to be. It must be a single line! And it can't be too thin, either! Oh, crap. Did I make my lines too thick? Straight enough? Will my vote be counted? Should I call an election attorney right now or wait until Bustamante's urban guerrillas take to the freeways? Gah! I miss the chads. The Recall: My Prediction The recall passes with 53% yes—wide enough to be significant, but too close to be considered a true landslide. Schwarzenegger wins question two with 40%. Bustamante gets 35%, McClintock gets 20%, and the freaks split up the rest. I think the late hits on Arnold prevent him from crushing Davis and Bustamante utterly, but they don't cost him the election. As I've said before, this isn't 1992. (Originally posted, in slightly different form, on California Republic.) Monday, October 06, 2003
It's... it's... don't tell me! Watching Horatio's Drive (3 posts down). Enjoying it. Meanwhile, got this from a friend. Co-Monkey Robb will enjoy it. It also may be suitable as a sort of warm-up exercise for the musical powerhouse players on the Northern Alliance & Friends Trivia Team. We're Sweden! I just witnessed this ad, brought to me by Governor Davis and his lackeys in the public-employee unions: "Under a Democratic governor, we've passed domestic partnership legislation, banned greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, strengthened laws protecting a woman's right to choose, enacted the nation's toughest gun safety laws, worked to stop offshore drilling, passed the eight-hour work day, increased the minimum wage and expanded family and medical leave. The Republicans fought against each of these issues. If they get rid of the governor, what do you think they'll try to get rid of next?" This is the greatest ad ever, I must say. By far the most honest spot I've ever seen (as far as these things go, anyway). In a word, Democrats gave us socialism. What will the Republicans do? As Arnold put it the other week, "Progress, not politics. Bipartisanship, always. And the will of the people is paramount." In two words then, not much. Politics, Not Progress Quoth the Wall Street Journal: "What the recall represents is a referendum on the record of modern 'progressive' politics." Indeedy-do. What variety of progress will Californians choose on Tuesday, I wonder? Horatio Hornhonker The snappy Flash animation ad reads, "It all began with a bet. Fifty bucks that I could drive coast to coast. But this was 1903! We didn't have maps... gas stations...sometimes we didn't even have roads! But I did have a great mechanic... a dog named Bud... and plenty of adventures along the way. Horatio's Drive: America's First Road Trip - A film by Ken Burns. Looks interesting. Tonight on PBS, just under two hours from the time of this post. Warning: Groaner I wish I could think of a clever way to work these in, but I guess I'll just have to settle for an observation: Schwarzenegger's team must be relieved that nobody's describing Arnold's campaign handshaking as "gladhanding" or "pressing the flesh." (Speaking of eyerolling over Arnold's hands...) !!! You know how The Daily Show's Jon Stewart will feign shock by rubbing his eyes and going "whaaaAAAaaahhh?" Combine that with a classic double-take (or a spit-take) and you'll have an approximation of my reaction to Hugh Hewitt's homepage this morning. His blog finally has permalinks. I guess I can drop the quote-marks from the phrase Hugh Hewitt's "blog." (Way to go, Lynne!) The QuickTime movie that you'll see is the "daytime" version. The version I just saw on Adult Swim replaced the words "ordinary untoasted sub" with "processed piece of crap." No kidding! So, for those of you keeping score, the rule is this: 1. You may not have the phrase "processed piece of crap" in your commercial before 9:00pm 2. You MAY show a grown man actively sucking the teat of a real live wolf before 9:00pm Sunday, October 05, 2003
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Brian : I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly! Girl : Only the true Messiah denies His divinity. Brian : What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah! Followers : HE IS! He is the Messiah! Dump California, Dump the Dems (Not Necessarily in That Order) "If you destroy the integrity of a nation’s citizenship, pretty soon you won’t have a nation to be a citizen of," says Mark Steyn. And here's Steyn on the groping business, from the Telegraph on Saturday: "The story here is that California is in crisis. The electorate understands that; its media don't." A Gathering of Crows My wife and I have been out of town, and out of touch, for the last couple of weeks (more on that soon). I'm catching up on the news just now. I read the Los Angeles Times story about Schwarzenegger's alleged sexcapades, as well as the follow-up in today's paper. My reaction: This is supposed to be shocking? This is "the other shoe" (scroll down, if you haven't already read it)? Wasn't this known at least a year ago? Yes, yes, it's all part of a shameless partisan hit job. Who, but the blindest L.A. Times editor, thinks otherwise? But, to reiterate: Arnold Schwarzenegger is a swine. Plenty of details at 11. Will this change the minds of voters? Maybe a little. I doubt it. This isn't 1992, or '96 for that matter. The "People," God love 'em, want a moderate candidate they think can win whose name isn't Davis. For better or worse, that's Schwarzenegger. Does this suggest anything about the sorry state of the Republican Party in California? About the corruption of the electorate? I believe it does, but what the hell do I know? Will Schwarzenegger betray Republicans if, in fact, the recall prevails and he wins a plurality of the vote this Tuesday? Sure he will. And to think otherwise would be more naive than those of us who thought that Tom McClintock was the best man for the job all along. He is, but it doesn't matter. The fix is in. But know this: When the betrayal comes, and it will, some of us aren't going to let you miserable SOBs forget it. You put your faith in this man. You made the case, which came down to nothing more than "he can win." Fine. You knew the risks. You're going to suck it up. All of it. And you don't get to leave the table until you finish every last morsel of crow. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'll eat double my share. Current drink: Sapphire martini. Current song: "Last to Know" by Rick Holmstrom on the album "Hydraulic Groove." "I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord,' it lies, and lies dangerously." C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer and scholarIn response to my Sept. 12th post criticizing McClintock supporters, Jon Luker, proprietor of Polemics.us, just chimed in yesterday. What follows is my admittedly disjointed reply. To my eyes it would appear that voting for McClintock makes about as much sense as limiting oneself to never voting for one of the actual candidates on the ballot in, say, the national Presidential election, but instead, writing in the name of the Christian man you most admire and wish were in the race. You'd have your conscience satiated. You'd be a man of integrity. Sure you could drive home from the polling place humming "It Is Well With My Soul," but what end would your actions be serving? What effect would your vote have that your internally held belief would not? Sure I believe Tom McClintock's views line up better with mine than the other 134 candidates. But what is voting for him going to achieve? I'd rather have R.C. Sproul govern California than Cruz Bustamante, but I'm not gonna suggest that writing him in would be a good idea. Come to think of it, I'd rather have St. Augustine govern. What's the difference between voting for McClintock and writing in a dead guy? No, really. Other than the point of pragmatism (that the dead guy can't win), what is the difference in principle? The California Recall Election is not a primary. There are only two choices. On my trip to California last month, I spoke to (admittedly, a very small sample of) folks about the candidates. It's an extremely liberal place. Even the casual "conservatives" I ran into there were nowhere near willing to vote for someone they considered as "far right" as McClintock. Does that please me? Of course not. But that's the situation there. Either Arnold is going to be governor, or Cruz is. Period. I feel obligated by conscience to make a choice between supporting the lesser of two evils. Anything else would be to play pretend. My desire to support a candidate "who can win" is not about my feeling good for having made a popular choice. It's not about being able to point to a majority to justify my beliefs. I think part of the disconnect between me and many conservatives who disagree with me is that I haven't bought into the idea that the two parties are identical. I'm sorry I just don't buy it. Yes, yes... I'm willing to listen, but I'm still not convinced. No, this isn't the place for me to try to lay out my counter arguments. To tell you the truth, I don't think I'm anywhere near having them formulated. Sorry. That may be disappointing to some. I haven't got it all figured out. And for the sake of my sanity, I'm not pushing myself too hard or too fast to come up with a systematic cosmology of my politics. As unpopular as it may be with the hardcore rationalists or strict theocrats, I'm still playin' bit by bit. I just know I'm not convinced that I'm living in a world in which I'm being manipulated in an Oceania / Eurasia construct. [Now, before you assume Jon is a pottymouth, let me make it clear that I was the first one to interject PG-13 language into the debate.] Jon says, "It takes balls to vote our conscience." I think "it takes balls" to stake out a position in which I stand against the tide of several of my brothers in the faith, including some of my co-Monkeys. I've been registered Libertarian in the past. I've played the "principled" hardball. But I find it a primarily garrisoned position, far behind the lines. I do not seek a social gospel of purified politics. It seems to me that "it takes balls" to recognize the distinct common grace aspects of getting dirty in the temporal solutions to temporal issues. And I don't see a direct connection or imperative between Post-Millennialism and a Christian effort at governmental reclamation. Where is the Biblical basis for such a cause? [Okay, now I'm getting off into territory based on some of the discussion topics on the discussion boards at Polemics... steering the thought back toward the original issue] Jon continues, "It takes spiritual fortitude to trust God for the results of voting our convictions (according to our faith)..." Now this strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary point at which to take a stand and turn things over to faith in God's Providence. Couldn't the same thing be said having reached a conclusion to stay out of the political arena altogether? I'll keep my hands clean and leave it up the the secularists - it's all under God's control anyway. Or couldn't I also, with my position, supporting Schwarzenegger, claim that I am exercising my faith in God's Provision by trusting Him to use the Friedman-esque sinner who I think will help the California economy, and help center-right thinking folks break their socio-political taboo against Republican, for His own ends? Furthermore, Jon's parenthetical "according to our faith" line strikes me uncomfortably. I'm not certain just how that was supposed to be interpreted, but in light of the overall tone of Jon's piece, I read it a bit like it's saying, "C'mon, Brad, a good Christian would support McClintock." An unreasonable interpretation, you say? In his very next sentence, Jon tries to contrast my position with "our heroes in the faith." In his metaphor, Jon likens my political pragmatism to Gideon hypothetically questioning a direct command from the Angel of the Lord. But, I ask you, with what direct command do I appear to be remonstrating? And yes, I've read Theognome's BIBLICAL SHPERES [sic] OF LAW: OF GOD AND GOVERNMENT- PART 1 post and I don't think it makes an ironclad case (of course, it's only part one, but nonetheless...). [Upon review, however, I will acknowledge that my interpretation is undeniably influenced by the content of some Polemics discussion board posts, and not just by Jon's response to my post alone.] Couldn't it be argued that Martin Luther, remembered (wholly accurately?) for his uncompromising steadfastness, had supporters alongside him who appreciated his principles, but contributed to his progress through their understanding and use of temporal political maneuvering? No, I'm not drawing any parallels between Arnold and Luther. Don't be ridiculous. And let's remember that I'm not supporting Arnold as a candidate for Deacon or Elder at my church. Perhaps one of the main points on which the Polemics crowd and I disagree is the nature and role of government. Clearly, there seem to be some fundamental points of divergence, but I'd guess they are deeper than the usual topics that will be brought up in current events banter. Let me close with what I think is an applicable selection from Don Eberly. No, I don't know too much about him (All I know is that he has graduate degrees from George Washington University and Harvard University, he's the director of the Civil Society Project - a national initiative advancing ideas to strengthen America's social institutions and social ethics - and his work is covered regularly by The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Newsweek, The New York Times and National Public Radio), but I found his critique of rightwing Christian conservatives on ModernReformation.org interesting: ...What very few Christian activists seem to appreciate fully is that institutions such as the state, marriage and the family, and culture are common grace institutions. They existed prior to the revelation of redemption. When evangelicals confuse the work of moral and cultural renewal with the redemptive work of Christ, they give the appearance of promoting cultural Christianity, civil religion, or worse, a gospel, not of grace but of morality and legalism. As sociologist Peter Berger has stated, anytime we embellish a particular cultural, political, or moral agenda with the authority of the Christian Gospel, the result is a manifestation of "works-righteousness" which is "ipso facto, an act of apostasy."Elsewhere in the article, Eberly explains: It is odd that American Christians have a need to present their reforms in Christian terms, conveying several false ideas to a watching world: one, that Christians believe in preferentially appointing or electing Christians, as if they are more worthy leaders; and second, that there is something unique or superior about morality that carries a Christian label. Neither of these principles was considered true by Reformation theologians. Recall the famous quote* by Martin Luther, "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian" or John Calvin's expression of confidence in the natural capacity of the unredeemed to rule justly.*[I think Luther's original quote may have cast the Christian as a "donkey." Perhaps it's a translation thing.] I'll save the rest of the Theonomic Reconstructionism issues for the Polemics discussion boards. We Monkeys told you people there'd be more celebrity carnage, and once again, one of our prophecies have come true: Tiger Mauls Magician Roy Horn in Las Vegas Show LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - Famed Las Vegas magician Roy Horn of the "Siegfried and Roy" duo remained in critical but stable condition on Saturday after being mauled by a white tiger during a performance on his 59th birthday, his spokesman said. The 7-year-old male tiger, named Montecore, grabbed Horn's forearm about halfway into the Friday night performance, witnesses said. When Horn tried to fend the tiger off with his microphone, the tiger lunged and bit him on the left side of the neck, causing profuse blood loss, they said. Horn was conscious when he was rushed to University Medical Center and underwent about two hours of surgery, said his spokesman, Dave Kirvin. "It's just sad and extremely unfortunate. The doctors are encouraged that he will recover, but it will be several days until the full extent of his injury is known," Kirvin said. Spectators were horrified by the scene. "There were a couple of gasps, and people thought it was part of the act, and then it was real quiet," audience member Paul D'Antonio, who was sitting about 15 feet from the stage, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "It literally drug him by his neck off the stage like a rag doll," D'Antonio said. The show has been canceled indefinitely and the tiger is being quarantined at the hotel, according to Kirvin. You know, the first thing I thought after reading the story was "I wonder if that tiger's neutered?" And then the second thing I thought was, "Y'know technically if the authorities wanted to they charge the tiger with a hate crime. I mean if the tiger was human, this would an obvious case of gay bashing." And then the next thing I thought was "Y'know, i actually live in a time where there's a possibility that the Cubs and the Red Sox could actually end up meeting in the World Series. I mean it's a remote chance, I mean the Red Sox are totally stinking it up, but still a possibility. What if they met up, in the World Series? It would be like a bizarro world kind of thing. Like the immovable object meeting the unstoppable force. The cosmological consequences would unimaginable. The city that lost would have to disappear from the face of the earth. Like the City of Atlantis or Pompeii or something. Yeah. That's why it won't happen. Red Sox fans and Cub fans will both be sorely disappoint. Again. Anyhow, what was i thinking about? Oh yeah, Sigfried and Roy. Man, even the tiger kinda looks gay. He's gotta be neutered." Friday, October 03, 2003
An article in this week's Onion is funny. This is not funny. Really. It's not. He has serious injuries. I'm not smiling. I mean, I'm thinking of a joke I heard earlier. David's post just below ought to carry the title: Bringing you the best in intelligent political shock. This morning on NPR, Hugh Hewitt was described as an "AM radio shock jock." What the...? Now, I have to admit that I don't get to catch Hugh's show every day. In fact, I almost always miss Mondays. Maybe that's the day he does the fart jokes and has strippers as guests. I know James Lileks is on Mondays, and that seems like something in which he'd want to participate. Or maybe they mean shock jock in the sense that clear, reasoned center right thinking is shocking to the NPR reporter's ear. That kind of makes sense, actually. I'm going to start calling Nina Totenberg a shock jock. You can hear the reference here. Scroll down to "On the Campaign Bus with Arnold Schwarzenegger." It's 2 minutes and 9 seconds into the piece... Thursday, October 02, 2003
Telestrator in the Kingdome The fuss over Rush Limbaugh's QB comments and ESPN resignation can pretty much be divided into the offensively gleeful and the defensively apologetic. Bucking the trends, King at SCSU Scholars offers the most thoughtful (by far) treatment I have yet run across. Oh, and until more (dependable) details are available, I am playing the Sgt. Schultz card on the Limbaugh/pain-killer issue. Status of gauntlet: DOWN - UPDATED The Fraters have come up with a good idea; a sort of post-sporting-age duel alternative. Public team-trivia matches. Now the Fraters are currently competing in regional matches, honing their skills. What's lacking is a sort of "major league" for trivia, short of the glitzy, commercially interrupted Jeopardy! tv show. I think that The Elder's idea might fit somewhere on a relative level between a top bill Pay-Per-View boxing event and an Ultimate Fighting cage-match. (Okay, okay, given Hugh Hewitt's relative obscurity outside of the Minnesota Governor's office and the blogosphere, it might be more like Tanya Harding's boxing on basic cable.) [insert segue here] When Hugh was speaking here in Phoenix (okay, Scottsdale) at a book-signing dinner, the topic of trivia-smarts came up. During the Q&A, I had asked a question about Prager's insistence that it did not matter what college one attended, and how Hugh's book made the exact opposite point. In gently explaining Prager's brilliance but disconnection from many street-smart aspects of how the real world works, a discussion on wordly-wisdom among Salem Radio personalities arose. It was funny. Hugh polled the audience, "If I was on Jeopardy playing against Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, who do you think would win?" He asked for a show of hands. Prager? A few hands. Hugh? A respectable showing of hands. (At this point, Hugh's producer, Duane, standing off to the side, exclaimed "You guys are SOOO wrong!") Medved? A majority of hands went up. Hugh explained, "If it was a mostly political current events episode, I might have a chance. But Medved knows EVERYTHING!" Given his public statements, I believe Hugh has practically given a de facto acceptance to the trivia challenge. UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt emails, "Brad: I have accepted the Fraters challenge, provided I get Lileks to cover the Hummels questions. HH" See, the "B" in "R.B." approximately stands for "Brad." Hugh would probably have you believe that the "R" stands for "Richelieu." Next to the LA Times, this post looks classy... Hugh Hewitt's site today features a fierce criticism of the Despite Jonathan Chait's mischaracterizations, Hugh's above stooping to a birdcage campaign. But I'm not -- you really should cancel your subscription to the Times. If you can't / won't do that, at least buy a bird. And as long as we're scraping the bottom of the barrel with scatological allusions, I should point out that this week will undoubtedly feature one ("Bullet") Bob Mulholland flinging way more than any monkey. A copy of this morning's LA Times' may yet prove useful outside the birdcage -- kind of like the protective barriers that the folks in the first few rows at a Gallagher show hold up Consider yourself inoculated. UPDATE: As I type there's a new update to the LA Times article which claims that: "At his first stop, a rally at the Orange County Fairgrounds [today], the actor [Schwarzenegger] was upstaged by the presence of woman [sic] who claimed that the actor threatened to rape her and her friend in 1978. A shouting match broke out between Arnold supporters and protesters." [emphasis added]The two folks I know who were there report having absolutely no idea what the paper could be referring to. Might there have been some shouting protestors there? Possibly. Somewhere. Did they "upstage" Schwarzenegger? Puh-leeeze... [BTW, "threatened to rape"? Does that make sense? What would the context of that threat look like? Wouldn't something done under the "threat" of rape be just as coercive, just as wrong as forcible rape itself? Just sloppy phrasing on the part of the journalist, maybe? Sure, that's the ticket. Couldn't be anything other than that. Awfully convenient, though...] Andrew Sullivan writes, "The press just keeps getting classier, doesn't it?" UPDATE 2: Hugh Hewitt's 7:30 PM entry (no direct link available) includes the following:"The Sacramento Bee's Dan Weintraub, appearing on my show this afternoon, agreed that the Times' online piece was misleading in its characterization of Arnold's early morning remarks and flatly dismissed the idea that the candidate was "upstaged" at the Orange County rally. 'Nothing upstaged Arnold,' Weintraub said. The veteran reporter/columnist also added detail to the woman making the rape allegation, noting that it widely known on the press bus that the stunt had been arranged by Democratic Party operatives. The Times' report continues to carry the thoroughly flawed report as of this posting." Update for Posterity: An October 5, 2003 Los Angeles Times headline (+ byline) reads, Readers Angry at The Times for Schwarzenegger Stories -- The newspaper's reports on women who say they were groped by the candidate prompt about 1,000 people to cancel their subscriptions. [emphasis added] SoCal political insider Hugh Hewitt adds in the Weekly Standard, "that's the number released by the Times; who knows what the real total is." No report yet on any rise in the sale of birds. Patrick at Patterico's Pontifications was kind to link to my post asking why folks are voting for Arnold, and has also posted feedback he's received on the subject. There are some interesting pieces of feedback, including one that bestows on me the coveted title of "lackey". Specifically, I am referred to as "that lackey you cite." I couldn't be more proud. Patrick was also kind enough to come to my defense. Pay him a visit, won't you? Chait Monger-er-ing Not that we have any defense against Chait's labelling "incoherent drooling knuckle-draggers" -- I mean, we call ourselves "monkeys" and write about moonshine... But Mitch Berg follows up an excellent call on Hugh Hewitt's show with a capstone piece on Chait's Self-Proclaimed Hated. [I should note that we're humbly honored to have been mentioned by Mitch (and by Hugh yesterday on the air) in the same sentence with heavy-hitters like Powerline and Exultate Justi. You guys flatter us.] Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Accident How to blog this? Why to blog this? Well, it's not the sort of thing that you write thinking, yeah, I'll be posting this. You just write and decide later. It was a very unusual night. Driving home from our weekly dinner with my folks on the other side of town, we were nearly home, about one exit from where we always get off the freeway. Out of nowhere, a white full size van swerves into my lane, almost clipping my left front fender. I actually had to move over to keep from getting hit. It was the sort of thing that made me think at first he's coming close...he's coming close...he's still coming all the while assuming that, any moment now, the driver is going to realize his error and quickly right his drift and get back in his own lane. But he's still getting closer...DANG! By then he was past us. The van was going 15 or 25 mph faster than we were so by the time he was over far enough to clip us, he was beyond the front of our vehicle. We were in the far right of three lanes. As we watched him steer back into the center lane, I was surprised to see him continue on into the far left lane - the fast lane. With my two boys in the back (8 and 4) I euphemistically observed, "That guy is not driving well." My wife stated more accurately, "That person is clearly impaired. He's gonna cause an accident." About the time I was agreeing with her, the van was about a tenth of a mile ahead of us, now swerving across the lanes again. And then it happened. The van had crossed three lanes again, this time from left to right. It crashed into the wood and metal barricade that separated the freeway from an off ramp, rode up, spun, flipped I-don't-know-how-many times. Before it hit the ground, we could already see flame. And you could hear the impact. Dust/smoke all around. Amazingly, there were no cars right near the van when it crashed. Traffic came to a halt. Or at least I did. The van lay before us in the center lane, on its side, pointing back at the oncoming traffic, its roof crumpled, fire inside the driver/passenger area. A small fire, but sizable enough to look worrisome right from the start. "Do you have your phone?" Hazard lights - on. I got out. There was no one else between our car and the burning van. I got out and began heading cautiously toward the accident. About then I realized that there might not have been enough time elapsed yet for the freeway traffic to have responded to what would need to be a complete stop. Would the cars behind the first line of witnesses stop in time? As I peered back into the headlights to see if I was going to get run over, I caught the unmistakable configuration of the lights of a motorcycle cop. Praise God! The cop weaved through the cars and drove up nearly to the van. By now flames were growing. I still couldn't make out the details of the scene. Is that someone's back in a white shirt up against the windshield? nnnnnnn...No, I don't think so. The police officer was off his ride by now and was approaching the burning van carefully, but with haste. That's when I realized that there was a man lying on the ground about ten to fifteen feet this side of the van - not moving. The officer glanced at him, but wasted no time in getting around to each entry or window accessible on the now dangerous looking fiery van, obviously checking for other occupants. There were none. Not wanting to spook the officer, I stayed back by his bike. I figured the last thing he needed was someone charging in to make matters worse. When he looked my way, I called "How can I help?" He waved me over to the injured driver who had clearly been thrown from the van. It was obvious that we had to move this guy away from the van which was now really beginning to burn just feet away. As he began to give me instructions on how we needed to keep his neck stable, the officer noticed a few more guys who had come out of their vehicles and approached the scene. He waved another man over and quickly assigned us each a role in moving this guy. First we had to roll him over onto his back. I had to pull one of his arms from a position outstretched over his head to down by his side, and I was responsible for the feet and keeping his legs straight as we rotated him. The officer orchestrated the moves. Okay, we're going THIS way - carefully. I was astounded to have realized that the guy was breathing. He was moaning rhythmically. Not trying to speak. Just moaning softly. He was covered in bits of glass, road grime, (bits of metal?), and some blood. There was a small puncture wound on his lower abdomen. You know, at this point I think he was wearing a shirt, but it wasn't buttoned. His jean shorts were torn and pulled nearly down his rump. Now came the time for the move. Two more onlookers were waved in by the officer. By now smoke was billowing up off the flaming wreck, but not directly toward us. What was odd was how little embers from the van seemed to gently rain down around us. One of the guys who came to help seemed concerned about the few that landed on the driver. It seemed then, and even more so now, to have been an odd thing to worry about, given the driver's overall condition. But then again, I don't think any one of us was fully in command of his facilities. Except the motorcycle cop, who focused us back on the task at hand. He was stabilizing the neck. My job was to get one leg and to stabilize the pelvis as best as I could. UP! Over, over, over, over, past the motorcycle, keep going, keep going, okay - down slowly... Somewhere during all that, a woman had come up and announced that she was an off-duty police officer. Our motorcycle cop mentioned a vest in his saddlebag and in no time, she was wearing the day-glo vest, popping flares and managing traffic. By the time the first officer had asked if anyone present was an EMT or paramedic, I could already hear sirens. This all seemed to happen in... maybe two minutes. The woman who jumped into service had cars clearing the way, heading down the off ramp, but hugging the wall in order to allow other emergency response vehicles to arrive. And did they ever arrive. It was amazing. Highway patrol. City police. More motorcycle officers. Neighboring city police (that spot on the freeway is right between two 'burbs). Trucks from two fire companies. Soon an ambulance. After that a police helicopter. The armada of public servants that seemed to materialize out of thin air was honestly awe inspiring. That's what I focused on when I got back to our car and I had to come alongside my wife, who was doing her best to talk the boys through the middle of the experience that there was no way to completely shelter them from. They had seen the beginning, and now it seemed that the best thing to do was to explain how all of the people were there to help, and that the guy on the ground (now invisible behind the paramedics and fire crew) was in good hands. It was a tough bit of parenting. We watched as the fire crew brought a hose to bear and worked to extinguish the fire. Just before the water began to flow, I heard the first "POOOMF!" It was a small explosion inside the van. You couldn't see it. My wife later reported that she hadn't heard it. But she heard the second one. It was much louder. But again, if you hadn't been able to hear it, you never would have known that there was any explosion. It wasn't Hollywood. And for that I am thankful. Several other witnesses and I had been asked to remain on the scene in order to give statements. Well, we were going to be there a while. The upside, as I rationalized it, was that the boys would have a chance to see a sort of denoument to the event. That's when I noticed how filthy my hands were. One of the guys who had helped carry the driver wound up with a good deal of blood on his hands. Next to him I looked clean. But as the minutes passed by, I began to realize just how my hands were covered in grit, grim, and..well, and few stains I couldn't be quite sure about. Luckily, one of the policemen found a squeeze bottle of that waterless hand-washing disinfectant gel. I got a healthy handful and sent the officer in search of the other guys who had helped carry the driver. The boys asked lots of questions. Good questions. Reasonable questions. After doing my best to field some of them, I had to fill out a report on what I had seen, who I was, what happened, etc., etc. Don't give a blogger an incident report to fill out if you're in a hurry. Yep - details. My biggest concern in filling out the report was documenting how appropriately cautious and professional the first officer on the scene was. The last thing I'd want to see happen is for him to suffer any ill-effects in the legal aftermath of this incident. But my desire to accurately capture everything that had happened was in conflict with my impulse to draw our part in the event to a close so I could abbreviate my kids' exposure to the whole sad affair. But it seemed that the worst of it was over, and unavoidable at that. By the time we were dismissed, the traffic had been routed off the freeway at the exit a mile back up the road, so we were there in the middle of a vacated stretch of roadway. The police helicopter was still illuminating the scene. It was an unusual atmosphere to say the least. We drove down the off ramp alone, past the five or six stumps that had once been posts holding the now mangled metal that used to be a median guardrail. Now we're home. It's late. The whole thing wound up a little over an hour. I washed my hands again. And again. (Beside the few smudgy stains left after the disinfectant wash, I kept finding little black marks on myself. They looked like I'd carelessly handled the black pen I used to fill out the report. Then I realized, they were where the little embers of the fire had landed and streaked on me.) The boys are in bed. We prayed for the driver. We gave thanks for the police officers, for the firemen, for the paramedics, for the ambulance, for all of them. Even the helicopter. I was in the kitchen being overly critical of how I handled myself during the event as my wife and I sort of debriefed the whole experience. She convinced me pretty quickly to knock it off, and reminded me how I did just what I should have, given my responsibilities to my family. (I won't go into the details of my second-guessing myself about those few seconds before I saw the motorcycle cop arriving.) About then my third grader came out -it was just a few minutes after he was put to bed. A few more questions. Was anyone else in the van? Did we know the man's name? My wife talked with him and let him stay up and snuggle on the couch a while longer. He seems like he's processing the whole thing pretty well. Well, that's it. I just needed to get it out. Ooh, wow - it's late. Should I post this? I don't know. Well, it'll be easier than retelling more and more truncated versions of the story to friends and family over the next few days. Posted or not, I'm glad I wrote about it. I'd like to include a rant about drunk driving, but what more really needs to be said? I guess I'll just end by thanking and praising the men and women in uniform who really, really impressed me tonight. I'm truly heartened knowing that there are so many good folks out there, and around here, who are willing to put themselves in harms way, for their fellow man. All you professionals in emergency service, I thank you. You've got a place in this family's prayers. |
