Bogus Gold

Bogus Gold Doesn't Live Here Anymore

2005-03-27T10:29:00.000-06:00

The move to Powerblogs is complete!!

Well, as complete as it can be, since the plan was to move the site over pretty much as-is and then start playing with the new features available.

Anyway, please adjust your bookmarks and blogrolls. I will not be updating this site going forward. All the new stuff will be at the new site - and the old stuff is over there too. A little bit of magic Chris from Powerblogs performed last night.

You're all invited over to have a look:

The New Improved Bogus Gold

A Multi-Media Inquiry into "Funny"

2005-03-26T13:21:00.000-06:00

I was surfing through my blogroll yesterday, when I came across this post by Ryan "Rambling" Rhodes: Most. Unfortunate. Logo. Ever.

I thought it was so funny, I called a certain woman I'm married to over to look at it. She didn't get it. For a really long time. Until I had practically explained it in detail.

Her attention was caught, however, by a bizarre picture on the other side of Ryan's page:

Afficianados of fine Internet cartoonery will immediately recognize this as the character Strong Bad. Wanting to share this hillarious fellow with said wife, I clicked over and played a Strong Bad cartoon for her. She didn't find it funny. In fact she walked away shortly after it began (I watched the whole thing of course).

This has me thinking. Might the fact that she didn't find Strong Bad funny be related to the fact that she didn't see the joke in the unfortunate logo?

So I invite anyone else to try. Take a look at the logo. See anything amiss? Then check out Strong Bad. Funny to you? Yes? No?

Report back on your findings. Remember, this is in the noble pursuit of scientific discovery. We might be on the verge of cracking the funny code!

Sending Back the Fishsticks

2005-03-25T22:35:00.000-06:00

Captain Fishsticks sailed into port today after recovering from a bout of scurvy. We welcome his return with the enthusiasm of a cheap Amsterdam prostitute on the return of a heavily-crewed fish boat with a fresh load of herring. Or something.

Anyway, Craig “Captain Fishticks” Westover decided to delve into the obscure news story surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo upon his return.

I hugely respect Craig. And he makes many good points in his post. Yet he devotes part of it to specifically disagreeing with me over statements I made here. And I’m happy to answer his challenges. (Read the rest of his post before diving into this part. He has some context one ought to understand before proceding into these arguments.)

First, Craig challenges the Constitutionality of the law passed to specifically allow Terri Schiavo’s parents to appeal their case to federal court.

Bottom line, Congress had no authority to issue special legislation.

(I mentioned the part about reading the rest of his post right? So if you didn’t, don’t blame me for getting lost in what follows.)

Three federal courts. Zero rulings challenging the constitutionality of the law, Craig. And as Hugh Hewitt has pointed out:

The first such complaint is that the federal government has no role in such matters. This will be news to the United States Supreme Court, which in 1990 decided the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health , 497 U.S. 261, (1990).

Not persuasive to one appealing to principle, I admit. Two wrongs don’t make a right of course. But we can at least agree that this removes the groundbreaking “unprecedented” element of the reaction.

But this isn’t the heart of Craig’s objection in any case. That comes in the next three points countering statements made here:

First -- yes, he is the only family member that wants Terri’s life ended (“killed” if you prefer; I don’t). He is also the only one with the legal authority and the sacramental authority granted by marriage to make the decision. If everyone in the family wanted her “killed” and he alone were holding out, would it change the morality or the legality of the situation? It would not.

A cop-out Craig. In almost any other situation Michael Schiavo’s condition of living with another woman with whom he has fathered two children would be admitted as evidence that he had abandoned his “sacramental authority.” (And for the record, according to my own faith, there is no sacramental authority that would ever entitle anyone to starve anyone else to death, ever. This is the same faith Michael Schiavo claims, incidentally. But I admit, our faith has no weight in the law of the land. I leave it to others to decide what weight it deserves in public opinion regarding this case.).

And Craig, preferring to use a term other than “killed” is a cop-out too. She wasn’t dying. She wasn’t even in pain. Despite this, some judge ordered people to stop allowing her food and water. Only in the most legalistic sense can this possibly be construed as anything other than killing her. Assert she doesn’t feel it. Assert she can’t comprehend it. Whatever. But she’s being killed as sure as depriving you of food and water would be killing you.

So we're left with legal authority. So let's strip it down further. Should one person be legally entitled to kill some other innocent person? It's not a dictatorship here. What do you think? I'm a "no freaking way," kind of guy. Is there a "Yes, provided the motives are pure" lobby? "Yes, as long as those killed have no ability to object?" Where do we draw the line here?

Second -- “Ask yourself this question: Should guardians be granted the authority to decide whether their wards live or die?” I am going to assume “within the constraints of law,” answer yes and re-ask “If not the guardians, then who?” Who is qualified to define the moral lines between withholding food and a do-not-resuscitate order? Or no order at all?

Not “no order at all” Craig. No guessing. If you don’t know for certain, err on the side of life. Wards are not the property of their protectors. They’re human lives with rights as inalienable from their “sovereign” as those you claim from your own government. If they don’t even have the right to life, that’s an admission they have no real rights at all. I reject that notion.

Third -- the difference between capital punishment and the Schiavo case is that no one, even by an act of breaking the law, consents to the state the power to take his life (which as discussed above is the authority consented to the state by allowing it to interfere in a spousal decision). The sacrament of marriage -- where two individuals leave their birth families to form their own union -- is a consensual agreement. One may disagree that Michael Schiavo is fulfilling his end of the bargain, but again, there is One more competent than I (or Congress) to judge that.

Woah, Craig. Now you’re scaring me. There is nothing in my marriage vow that says anything about giving my wife the right to snuff me out if I can’t voice an opinion on the matter. And let this post please surface in court some day if I’m indisposed and she tries to do so (To my wife: sorry about not doing the dishes last night.).

Not only is there nothing strictly legal allowing her such a privilege. There is no tradition that marital vows imply such a thing. There is simply the imperative of the moment that prefers to assume a euthanasia imperative. Which is a freaking radical change, Craig. And not something anyone ought to take as lightly as you seem to in this case.

More Trouble for Kooltopia

2005-03-25T16:06:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I offered some helpful advice to the people of Kooltopia to assist their emerging democratic revolution.

Unfortunately, their problems seem deeper than I realized. Today, Instapundit pointed out some photos of the newly dubbed "Tulip revolution" (which I was surprised to discover has very little to do with either the Dutch or Calvinists).

Here's a sampling:

*Sigh*

Let me try to explain this as delicately as I can, with a few examples of the marketing job being performed by the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon:

Anything coming through here? Steve? Mark? Bob? Lola? Are you getting this?

Please don't make me spell it out here. I wouldn't want to put a damper on your enthusiasm for democracy. But get your marketing people on this ASAP.

That's two you owe me.

Now That He's In, The Tent's Too Big

2005-03-25T15:21:00.000-06:00

From Professor Bainbridge:

With reference to Congress' intervention in the Terry Schiavo case, Andrew Sullivan opines that:

... religious zealotry cannot be incorporated into conservatism. It is the nemesis of conservatism. And it has to be purged in order for conservatism to be revived.

Andrew has spent a lot of effort trying to redefine conservatism to include gay marriage, but not people who go to church. Actually, to be fair, he includes people who go to church, but only under the provision that they support gay marriage too.

Andrew Sullivan is an excellent example of modern faux-tolerance. Pick a group with a grievance to champion, and then express extreme intolerance toward anyone who stands in the way of your grievance.

We're getting a lot of advice lately from people who seem to partially loathe the Republican Party how to reform it. I think I'd treat those statements with more credibility if they didn't advise us to broaden the tent by first purging everyone they disagree with. You find those kind of parties in places like China, and Cuba. And they are indeed very "big tent" kinds of entities. Heck, they don't even have opposition parties, because clearly everyone agrees with them. Political paradise!

Professor Bainbridge adds:

Hmm. I'm not sure a journalist who's British, gay, and a dissident Catholic, and who supported John Kerry in the last election would be our first choice (or 100th) as a go-to-guy on defining the proper bounds and content of American conservatism.

In any event, isn't the sub-text here pretty obvious? I suspect that what Sullivan really thinks is that there should be no room in conservatism for anybody who doesn't practice Sullivan's unique brand of cafeteria Christianity.

Tolerance for me, but not for thee. If you can't win a debate, ban the opposition. Those intolerant Christians cannot be tolerated any longer!

Any other bumper sticker ideas for Andrew's new campaign to save conservatism?

Jealous of the Easter Ham?

2005-03-25T13:53:00.000-06:00

The Ohligarch has a much needed "take your mind off serious matters for a bit" post today:

As God Is My Witness, I Thought Turkeys Stayed Outside
Near the building where I work, it is not unusual to see a flock of wild turkeys roaming around the neighborhood. Pittsburgh became a haven for the feathered monsters a few years ago after a controlled hunt in turkey-overrun rural areas of Pennsylvania drove the birds to seek refuge in heavily populated urban areas. (Source: Conversation with one of the hunters about two years ago. He took full credit, and looks forward to a turkey shoot within city limits.) Anyone who visits Allegheny Cemetery in the Lawrenceville section of the city can attest to this.

These urban turkeys have been nice, pleasant, unobtrusive creatures who never bother anybody -- until now. Trib columnist Eric Heyl tackles the matter of a turkey home invasion in an Allegheny County suburb:
Now, no one should feel safe in Carnegie. Not after the large wild turkey crashed boldly through the double-paned casement window in Suzan Barefoot's kitchen, filling the sink with broken glass and stray feathers. When she came upon the creature staring at her confrontationally in front of the stove, Barefoot realized the awful truth. She was the victim of a home invasion.

Nice title too. Anyone other than me catch the reference?

Outrage in the Center

2005-03-25T10:05:00.000-06:00

My goodness, so much over-the-top rhetoric coming from the political center lately. And what are they huffy about? What have you got? I'm hearing everything from how we're quickly plummeting into a theocracy, to how conservatism is in danger of becoming just like liberalism. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are being frequently cited as paragons of virtue in quarters where those names have never been held in much esteem before.

The only general agreement seems to be that the conservative movement is assuredly doomed.

Let's examine some of the statements:

From Young Curmudgeon:

There is an emerging consensus among intellectuals of the center-right that the conservative movement is falling apart under the stewardship of the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress. I'd heard talk like this for awhile and generally found it to be premature, but in this week of Schiavo and steroids the idea is now pretty much inarguable.

The same blogger links to an Andrew Sullivan article in The Times:

Beneath the surface, however, American conservatism is in increasing trouble. The Republican coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Democrats as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American right is splintering. With no obvious successor to George W Bush that splintering will deepen.

Joe Gandelman linked to this post by John Cole yesterday as his "must read" post of the day:

I have said it before- this is jihad for these folks. They don't give two hoots in hell about Terri Schiavo- this is about abortion, religion, and most of all, about power and control. Their concept of morality is king, you see- your behavior in the bedroom, your choice in sexual partner, your desires about end of life decisions, abortion, even the medication you use to ease the pain when you are dying of terminal diseases- their religious text should have authority over you, and if all these 'small-government strict constructionists states right's advocates' have to attain that through government proxy, so be it.

That kind of calm, dispassionate consideration toward the positions of a faction they disagree with is fairly typical of much of the commentary. Apparently there is no pro-life action allowed in the Republican Party anymore without the center freaking out over it. Because the pro-life crowd doesn't muster the rationality and careful diplomacy evident in the quote above. We're too extreme.

I think the most reasonable perspective on this comes from Michael Totten:

I factored in the wholly predictable Republican arrogance and obnoxiousness into my decision well in advance. So I’m not at all shocked that the party is behaving badly and that moderates are taking a walk. I know how they feel because I went through the same thing with the Democrats. If you’re on the center-left or the center-right both of our two parties will eventually steamroll right over the top of you.

If the Republicans want my vote again they are going to have to earn it. They only got part of my vote last time because I needed a port during the storm that blew the old left coalition to pieces. The Democrats could easily play the same role next time if they get their act together while the Republicans lose it.

Well of course. Come election time, voters in the center, just like everyone else, are going to have to choose on balance which candidates and parties best represent their interests. If anyone finds only candidates that perfectly match their every political opinion, then they're either very gullible, or prone to living in fantasy.

There is an element of utter narcicism in this collective shriek from the center, who seem to assume that social conservatives are always happy with every move the Republican party makes. You know, all that progress we've made rolling back Roe v. Wade just proves our every political whim immediately becomes law of the land. And the fact that every public school child starts his day with mandatory teacher-lead prayer establishes the supremacy of social conservatives beyond a doubt.

Incidentally, since these folks didn't similarly freak out over Bush's attrocious Prescription Drug Benefit bill, or his ill-considered furthering of federal intrusion into public education, I have a hard time believing the pressing issue here is concern for federalism. That may be one concern. But the passion over this seems to be driven by a virulent distaste for the pro-life element of the party, and especially the religious portions of that element. That's fine. Entitled to your opinion and all that. But so am I, and I disagree. And I'm capable of doing so without declaring that your dissenting opinon dooms everything.

Before these folks try to scare us with pronouncements of the Republican Party's doom for listening to the pro-life movement instead of public opinion polls, they might want to take a look at this post by Mitch Berg. Rumors of the imminent conservative crack-up seem to come around quite regularly. And we typically survive them just fine.

Assistance for Kryspatchistan

2005-03-24T15:10:00.000-06:00

Breaking news from Jay Reding:

Revolution In Kyrgyzstan

Anti-government forces in the embattled former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan have seized control of the capital city of Bishkek this morning as President Askar Ayakev is rumored to have fled to a Russian military base. The protestors also released opposition leader and former Vice President Felix Kulov from jail.

You know, I'm pretty good at geography. But for the life of me, except for the mention of the Russian military base, every location and name in that paragraph sounds like they were made up by a bad Tom-Clancy-wannabe novelist.

Not to diminish the importance of the struggle in Kehhokistan, or where-ever, but can we work on a more America-friendly version of talking about this place? We call Greece "Greece," even though they call their country "Hellas." Germany is "Germany" instead of "Deutchland." England is "The United Kingdom" instead of "Great Britain".... or wait... I mean "England" is to "The United Kingdom" as "Great Britain" is to... no that's not right either. Let's set England aside.

The important point is that we live in a nation with short attention spans and a disdain for places that sound funny. This does not work in favor of emerging democratic movements in places like Kewakistan, or where-ever, who might appreciate the support of the American public in their struggle against Ahab Aysok, or whoever, in Biscotti, or wherever.

Here are some helpful suggestions for renaming the place toward this end:

From now on Kyrgyzstan will be known as Kooltopia in American English.

Bishkek will hereafter be called Bitchin' City.

All the men in the country can choose between "Steve," "Bob," and "Mark," for names. The women will all be called "Lola."

The rest of you can send some money or something. I solved the big problem for you. De nada.

Terri Schiavo - Understanding the Other Side

2005-03-24T13:59:00.000-06:00

Much criticism from some quarters over this Peggy Noonan article.

I honestly think some of the outrage is artificially ginned up by people smart enough to grasp the point more accurately than they have. Nevertheless, I will agree it hardly made much of an effort to understand the perspective of the other side. And as the Terri Schiavo case seems to be coming to an end - a very bad end in my opinion - it's important we don't see those who disagree as members of an enemy camp, but rather as fellow citizens with whom we disagreed: people whom we ought to work to persuade to what we consider a better moral view of this kind of situation in the future.

The best attempt at such understanding I've seen so far comes from "anniebird" in the comments section of this post by The Anchoress:

... I think we need to remember that our brothers and sisters who believe Terri should die may view this as an act of compassion. They imagine a soul trapped within a body that refuses to allow it to express itself. They think that surely, after 15 years, every treatment avenue has been pursued, that she has regained all she can of her function, and that what is left is not a life she would want. They remember "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and ask themselves if they would want such a life. Their certain answer is No.

They are not troubled by the lack of inconclusive evidence that these were not Terri's wishes because they don't believe her husband has any ulterior motive. They think Michael is doing a difficult and honorable thing and that any suggestion that he is inappropriately invested in her death is not supported by evidence - there has been no definite proof of abuse. They are concerned about parents who love Terri so much that they might be keeping her alive for themselves, rather than for Terri's good.

They are troubled by the thought of starving someone to death, but soothed by the firm conviction of doctors who assure that this is painless. The traces of doubt are swept away by confirmation that Terri is brain dead - her "liquified cortex" prevents her from feeling pain - insurance that even if starvation is painful, this woman will not feel it.

Forgive the length of this post, friends. I wrote it because I want to point out to you that while I agree that we are witnessing the birth of a most evil culture of death, we must resist the urge to vilify our fellow citizens. To do this is to shut down conversation, and if we can't talk to each other, we can't be part of the Holy Spirit's work among us. Let us help with the softening of souls and the turning of hearts...a great battle awaits.

A healthier perspective on the matter than Peggy Noonan's, I believe.

Letter From an Old Marine to Terri Schiavo

2005-03-24T13:39:00.000-06:00

Hat Tip to Noodles at PRM for this. From the American Thinker (I'll only exerpt a bit, please read the whole thing):

Dear Terri,

You don’t know me and you never will. Unfortunately, I know a lot more about you than you could have ever imagined. I am not alone; there are millions of your fellow Americans who can say the same thing. The information I have been given about you is intimate, conflicting and disturbing. I try not to think about you, but the stories about you appear everywhere I look.

...

You see, Terri, this is my experience with protecting life. If there’s hope, if there’s a chance, if there’s a way then we should step into the fray and make it happen. The technocrats will always be there to criticize the efforts. They will sight laws and precedent and opinions. They always do. In Vietnam, they would have been the ones who said that the weather was too bad for the evacuation helicopter to fly into the landing zone where a young soldier or Marine was dying. Despite their pessimism, a brave air crew took off, rescued them and saved lives that were surely lost if they had listened to the pundits.

That’s what sticks in my craw, Terri. Globally, we seem willing to commit American lives to protect and save lives elsewhere, but right here under our noses, we lack the courage to step from behind the technical interpretation of law and personally ensure that everything has been done to protect yours. Just days ago, they ruled that your feeding tubes were to be removed.

...

Soon, Terri, you will be delivered from all this. You will find peace in a place where the purpose of your life is not restricted by the laws of man nor debated by those who have chosen to ignore the primacy of life. You will be whole and beautiful again. When you reach that place, pray for us and forgive us.

Rest in peace, Child of God.

Noodles is right. No one ought to be able to read this and remain unaffected.

Which One is the Stupid Party?

2005-03-24T12:47:00.000-06:00

From my compadre Gary over at TBFKADVK:

Move to Revoke Frist's Medical License

THIS sounds like another brilliant political move by the Left.

Besides, those dozens of surgeries Dr. Frist does gratis in Africa each year are probably not needed any longer.

The article at Swingstate Project characterizes the move as playing "hardball." If that's what they call shooting yourself in the foot these days, so be it. I doubt Republican strategists are shaking in their boots over the chance to push Frist's medical work into the forefront of national attention. Not that it will likely get that far.

I wonder if they'll push to remove this guy's blogging liscence for his scary statements about HIV also?

A Religious Case for Killing Terri Schiavo?

2005-03-24T11:27:00.000-06:00

This morning The Anchoress links to an article by Neal Boortz offering a religious argument in support of killing Terri Schiavo (though as the Anchoress notes, he refuses to call it “killing,” preferring the inaccurate euphemism “being allowed to die.”).

I’m afraid this post is going to get rather heavy into God-talk. Boortz frames his argument purely in religious terms, so it requires a religious answer. If that’s an uncomfortable topic for you, you’ll probably want to skip it.

Boortz’s main point seems to be that it’s not fair to keep her from her heavenly reward by trapping her in this mortal realm. He challenges religious supporters of preserving Terri’s life this way:

…Do you believe in God’s promise of everlasting life? Do you believe that the reward for a life well spent on this earth is a life with God in heaven after you die?

…perhaps you believe, as I do, that the human soul is so connected to and integrated with its earthly body that any transition will not be made until that body ceases functioning -- until death occurs.. That being the case, why do you so ardently desire that the soul of Terri Schiavo spend five, ten, perhaps 30 years or more trapped in a useless and non-functioning body, unable to move on to whatever reward awaits her? Isn’t 15 years enough?

I know Mr. Boortz is sincere here. But his argument contains fundamental errors.

The first is that this test could apply to anyone at any state in life. Heaven, by common religious consensus, is incomparably better than anything we could experience on earth. So why aren't we all bumping one another off with wild abandon to share the love? Perhaps there's something deeper Boortz is missing here.

It might be that he focuses entirely upon Terri Schiavo in isolation from those around her. A central belief of Christianity (I assume Mr. Boortz is speaking from a Christian perspective, but I may be wrong. In any case he’s directing his comments to a largely Christian audience, so this still applies) has to do with the duty we have toward other people – especially those less fortunate than us. From the Gospel of Matthew:

'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Christians are given a mandate by Christ not to abandon the least in society. This is generally taken to mean the lowliest, most vulnerable, and most needy among us deserve at very least the same respect we give our peers. If anything they deserve even more. We’re told to see Christ embodied in such people and treat them accordingly.

Allowing someone to die – particularly someone who would not be dying were it not for the conscious decision to starve them to death – is not considered a merciful act in Christian theology. It’s considered a grave sin.

Yet Boortz isn’t so ignorant he doesn’t know this. He simply thinks that’s not the situation here. He characterizes Terri’s situation like this:

Most of us are aware of the stories related by people who have near-death experiences. The usual scenario is a surgical procedure or some other medical emergency. These people describe a sensation of leaving their body at the very time the heart stops beating and the brain ceases functioning. They tell of floating above their body while watching doctors below working hard to resuscitate, to bring them back to life. As the heart once again starts beating and as the brain resumes its functions, they tell of a sensation of falling back into their own bodies to resume life.

We don’t hear from the patients upon whom resuscitation efforts are not successful. We don’t hear from them because they’ve left us. They’re gone to experience whatever lies beyond. They died.

Is it possible that the soul of Terri Schiavo has been floating – held in some prolonged and excruciating limbo – waiting for doctors to stop interfering with the process of her death? I believe that this is so, and that is why I have supported her husband’s desires to have her feeding tube removed.

Where to even begin here? I suppose the first place is that most of us take our faith a little more seriously than this. “Maybe” tales of near-death experience, even if titillating to a certain audience, don’t trump the clear words of the Gospel. And Boortz goes even beyond such tales into something completely novel and speculative, applying near-death experiences to the mentally handicapped.

The second problem is that Boortz yet again implies that Terri Schiavo’s brain has ceased to function. It has not. It functions at less than full health, but it isn’t “dead.”

Boortz’s position amounts to simply picking an arbitrary line at which he can consider someone dead. There are many mentally disabled people in the world. They’re either dead or alive in some real objective sense, and our personal opinion on the matter doesn’t change this. I think it’s absurd to start calling obviously living people “dead,” and there is certainly no Christian justification for such a thing. Worse than absurd, it’s an attack on their dignity and the value of their lives.

Mr. Boortz is an intelligent man. But he seems symptomatic of a cultural poison that has spread further and deeper than I had realized. Without using the term, he has come to accept the monstrous belief that certain lives aren’t worth living, and therefore have no rights that must be respected. It’s chilling. And it’s about as far from Christian belief as one can get.

UPDATE:

Glenn Reynolds seems to think Boortz's argument is sound, though odd coming from Boortz himself. Wow. That's two well-respected "right-wing" pundits floundering embarrassingly over this issue.

Guys, it's better to simply disagree than to argue from a religious basis neither of you seem terribly well founded in. Glenn would eat me alive if I tried to beat him on legal technicalities here. Why he doesn't realise he's putting himself in the same position by jumping into theology over this baffles me.

Though, to be fair, Glenn might not be endorsing Boortz's opinion.

On Schiavo Polls

2005-03-24T00:17:00.000-06:00

No offense Joe, but I really don't care. I've been a long-time critic of politicians who stick their finger to the wind and poll before they determine what they believe. I see no reason to change that now.

Issue oriented polls are fickle, and don't correllate to election results nearly as well as challengers would like. Poll-watch to your heart's content. I'm not offended. But please spare the rest of us from some kind of freak-out when election results don't square with your favorite pre-election poll.

For the record, the right to existence of Joe Gandelman's blog, The Moderate Voice, will never be subject to the opinion of a poll on this blog. We find such a right inalienable, and his value incredibly high regardless of the opinion of others. Yet at times we differ with his opinion. 'Tis the way of things. In no way should this fact invalidate the previous statements.

More Support for Terri Schiavo

2005-03-23T23:57:00.000-06:00

I'm a righty. I proudly admit it.

Slate is lefty. Not sure about the "admitting it" part, but everyone else knows it.

Yet this article published in Slate is one I whole-heartedly endorse: Not Dead at All
Why Congress was right to stick up for Terri Schiavo.

Powerblogs here I come!

2005-03-23T21:46:00.000-06:00

Things are in motion folks. As mentioned earlier, this blog will shortly be moving from Blogger to Powerblogs.

I'm psyched. I have the new domain purchased. I have the Powerblogs account. I'm looking around at the kind of features I've wanted for a long time that I suddenly have available. Should be fun.

For the record I have no real bad feelings about Blogger. They're the best free service out there. I wouldn't have started blogging if not for Blogger. But I'm ready to pay for something a step up.

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure how the cutover is going to happen. My plan is to keep blogging here until I get the thumbs up from the fellow helping to transfer my blog to the new site that it's ready. At that somewhat unpredictable time, I'll post a message here directing people to the new URL. And that should be the last post ever at this address.

Not sure about the etiquette for such a move. Am I supposed to throw a party? Should others send me gifts? I suppose I could go for the old reliable and involve alcohol in some fashion. But we'll leave that for Keegan's. Where I'll be tomorrow evening. And thirsty. Hint Hint.

Would You Want to Live Like That?

2005-03-23T10:30:00.000-06:00

“I would never want to live like that.” It’s a phrase we’ve heard repeatedly from people commenting on the Terri Schiavo case. And it’s a phrase that disturbs me.

First the disclaimers. No, I don’t think expressing such a sentiment makes you a bad person, nor do I think it aligns you by default with either side in the Schiavo case. I take it as an honest expression of horror at the thought that you might one day find yourself in such a condition. The reaction seems visceral, but honest.

Yet here’s my problem. I don’t see how someone can simultaneously hold such a belief and not devalue the lives of those who live in that condition. This is not the same as “demonizing” or “de-humanizing” such people. But it does suggest that they drop down the scale from whatever value you think your life has now, to whatever value you fear it would have in a condition like Terri Schiavo’s. And intentional or not, such a belief must affect your assessment of the value of those who actually are in that condition.

Without sinister intent, this can produce terrible results, as I think it has in the case of Terri Schiavo. If Terri was a walking, talking person as fully functional as she used to be, we would not be having this debate. No court would sanction, and the public would not allow, her husband to have her starved to death - even if she explicitly asked him for such a thing. Yet it has become clear that because she now lives in a state a vast majority of people have determined they themselves would not want to live in, the value proposition of her life has changed in the eyes of the public. Not in the eyes of every single person, but certainly in the eyes of enough to allow it to happen.

Let’s talk for a moment about the right to die. I have stated repeatedly that I would respect the expressed wishes of someone who wanted to die in a condition like Terri is in. I would respect it in the sense that I would not interfere. But I would still find it wrong.

I believe human life has a value the human mind can scarcely comprehend. I think it is far healthier to accept that concept than wait to be persuaded in every possible circumstance.

Two of the great moral teachers on this topic in my life have been Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul II.

The former was a champion of the value of lives that were also considered of little value. Lives about which I’m sure many people would also say “I would never want to live like that.” Not only did she care about them, she lived among them. And to the end of her days there was no human life in any condition that she did not find valuable.

Pope John Paul II has been one of the great pro-life advocates of our time. Not only has he written eloquent encyclicals on the topic, like Evangelium Vitae, he has constantly and consistently spoke out on the topic throughout his pontificate. And now, at the end of his life, he offers himself as an example of finding life’s value and dignity in the midst of terrible illness and personal suffering.

Yet there are those who also find the pope’s life not worth living anymore. There have been calls - some subtle, some outspoken – that he should also be “allowed to die,” despite the massive evidence that he has no such wish. And, yes, there have even been statements suggesting the pope has a duty to die because of his current condition. I can’t help but find this directly related to those same statements we’re hearing by so many regarding Terri Schiavo, “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”

We all fear death. Many of us fear suffering even more. And it is apparent that to some there is an even greater fear of the loss of dignity. I think this is a misplaced view of dignity. Real dignity does not depend on the opinion of others. It's inherent in every human life. The greatest danger you could offer to your dignity is to lose sight of that fact.

To those who have expressed a desire to die if ever in a condition like Terri Schiavo, I might not be able to persuade you. But I can at least offer this opinion. I want you to want to live. I want you to see your life posessing a value and dignity that doesn't go away because of unfortunate circumstance. I think we'd have a better society if people recognized that kind of value first in their own lives.

On the Minnesota School Killing

2005-03-22T21:18:00.000-06:00

Yes, I live in Minnesota. Yes, there was a spree killing here. Yes, it was tragic. No, I haven't mentioned it.

I'm not good writing about such matters. I don't see them as symptomatic of any great social ills. I see them as symptomatic of eternal flaws in the human character. We're capable of evil. Some of us will choose it.

It's an important topic, and I'm glad others are taking the time to cover it. It's simply not an area I'm especially good at, so I'll leave it to them.

Terri Schiavo - A Perfect Storm

2005-03-22T12:14:00.000-06:00

Like many others, I have been surprised by the passion displayed in unexpected quarters by the Terri Schiavo case. In the case of those who passionately share my belief that she has a right to live, this has been heartening. In the case of those who passionately want her to be killed it has been infuriating. In the case of those who passionately want everyone to shut up and stop talking about Terri it has been frustrating. In the case of those passionately stating falsehood as fact and characterizing those with superior information as ignorant it has been darkly amusing.

But it has got me thinking about where some of the passion is arising, and why every statement made by almost anyone involved with the case provokes another explosion in some quarter. Here are a few themes I’ve noticed coming together making this case such a “perfect storm.”

The first theme is probably the most obvious. There is a smouldering resentment among pro-life believers in this country that began when Roe vs. Wade removed the issue of abortion from the control of the legislature, and moved it into the courts. Since then, our courts have become the primary nemesis of pro-lifers, tossing out legislation in favor of life seemingly at whim. As such they have also become the primary hope for those opposed to the pro-life movement, who realize the tide has already turned against them in the legislature, and so cling with desperation to the continued behavior of the judiciary. This drives the kind of passion normally seen in elections into court cases, because there is simply no other recourse regarding this issue.

This leads directly into the second element of the storm which is an out-of-control judiciary. Somehow we have come to a point in this country when a shockingly large number of judges have decided to usurp legislative function. In the Schiavo case this has been a repeated theme. The other symptom of our out-of-control judiciary is its inflated self-importance. The resistance of judges in this case to simply stop killing Terri while there is still a chance - however remote - that her advocates might prevail simply cannot be squared with a judiciary respectful of its proper role.

A third element of the storm is the rapid de-valuing of life in society at large. People succumbing to this mindset deeply resent the pro-life movement. I can honestly say that as recently as five years ago I would never have believed that I would see a court order the execution of a mentally disabled woman. I knew there were advocates of such things, but this was so far outside the mainstream – I thought – that the danger was far in the future. I knew there were plenty of “right to die” advocates, but outside of men like Peter Singer I truly didn’t see such a movement quickly making the jump into forced euthanization. Yet in a shocking number of cases it has. And those who made that jump deeply resent anyone calling such a thing wrong - considering it logically bound with everything from living wills to their personal right to dignity.

A fourth element of the storm is rising anti-Christian bigotry among many of the more secular elements of society. We routinely see Christians – specifically Evangelical Christians and orthodox Catholics – written about in terms that would qualify as “hate-speech” if applied to protected minorities. If you haven’t been on the receiving end of such statements, you might not even notice. But it’s pervasive and common. This is why it wasn’t surprising to me in the least that one of the first arguments used to discredit the defenders of Terri Schiavo’s life was to label them with terms like “religious right-wing,” or “extreme religious right.” Those labels have power in anti-Christian circles, who need know little more about someone than the label to presume sinister intent.

Another element of the storm is the cynical-chic culture, which was captured quite well by James Lileks yesterday:

Then there are the people for whom this is an opportunity for horrid mockery, the people who care about nothing (but will find someday that nothing cares so much about them it has taken over their hearts completely.)

Perhaps a final element (at least the final one I’ll note) accounts for the “pox on both your houses” folks. Aside from occasionally take shots of opportunity at a particularly inviting target on either side, these people principally seem impassioned by the notion that this story isn’t over yet so they can go on to more important things. I suspect part of this motivation is a personal distaste for any political issue so divisive that compromise and resolution seem impossible, therefore leaving one with the horrid prospect of having to choose between “extremes”; “extreme” in this case being defined as something extremely politically divisive.

Terri Schiavo - Yes, It's Personal

2005-03-21T19:41:00.000-06:00

I have a confession. Part of my passion for the Terri Schiavo case is personal. I have a tendency to get angry about people who talk about the mentally disabled like they're lower forms of life, if in fact they're life at all.

This case boils down to whether or not it will be legal in America for the mentally handicapped to be forcibly put to death. Spin that in whatever flowery terms you'd like. Call my language biased. Retreat into legal arguments and pretend your real issue is about your respect for family rights. I don't care how you play it. I'll just observe the actions some of you enthusiastically endorse, others actively defend, and still others passively allow. Fine with me. A human life is a human life and the treatment you find tolerable toward such life will tell me more about you than all the rhetoric you can muster.

I have lived my entire life with mentally handicapped members of my own extended family. I married a woman who has a mentally handicapped sibling in her immediate family. I married her with the understanding that this sibling would be our responsibility one day. Those of you who have no such experience may not realize how ghoulish your pronouncements of Terri's "unworthy life" come across to some of us.

All these arguments people are making about how they would want to die if ever in such a situation... they strike me as a telling statement about how much value such people place in the lives of some members of my family.

I respect many people who make such statements. People can occasionally speak carelessly and hurt others without reflection upon what they're saying (guilty myself there at times) . I certainly hope that's what is going on here.

The simple fact is that none of you speaking from your current state knows how you would think or feel in the other. Yet your unwillingness to try to find value there - preferring death itself to finding value - is pretty hard to square with the likelihood you truly value the lives of some of my family members.

So yes, there is a personal angle here. I'm creeped out by so many people making arguments that apply to other disabled people just as much as they do to Terri Schaivo- arguments that weigh such lives as having less value than a dog. And I react with anger toward those offended that our government considers such matters more important than the price of tea in China; apologies to the huffy protestations and overall self-importance of the tea-lobby.

I think Terri's life is more important than such interests. I think all such lives are more important than such interests. And I used to live in a country where that notion was self-evident.

Time to sum up: Forced euthanization is immoral. It's not only not merciful, it's a cultural poison. People who advocate the killing of non-consenting innocent people ought to be societal pariahs, because they cause damage far beyond those they directly kill. They cause people to look at some of my own family members as something less than fully human, and that crosses a line for me that I will. Not. Budge.

Do The American People Vastly Support Michael Schiavo?

2005-03-21T18:37:00.000-06:00

When I heard about this poll this morning, I simply assumed it was another reflection of something I had encountered personally - people uninformed about the facts of the case. And indeed, it seems to be exactly that. But perhaps even more so for some disturbingly sloppy, biased, and/or lazy media problems.

From Captain Ed this evening:

However, a look at the questionnaire shows that ABC News completely misrepresented Terri's medical condition, which undoubtedly impacted the responses given. Question 2, which asks the central question, claims that Terri is on life support:
2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.
What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

Terri has never been on life support. The only medical treatment Terri received for the past five years has been food and water through a feeding tube, which is nothing at all like artificial life support. Artificial life support consists of ventilation for people unable to breathe on their own. The question sets up a strawman argument that so completely contradicts reality that the entire poll must be considered invalid.

And is this sort of thing effective?

Well it is according to the response of another blogger who is intelligent, media-savy, and fiercely independent. From The Moderate Voice this morning:

The question now becomes: "Do we have a Teflon Congress and President?" as a new poll shows Americans overwhelmingly give thumbs down on Congress and the President's stance on getting the federal government involved in the controversy over whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed or not.

I doubt ABC would let me reword their question, but just out of curiosity I wonder what the results would have been had the question been worded this way:

"2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and as a result is currently disabled. Her husband's selected doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible, yet other medical experts disagree. The judge in charge of the case will not allow those doctors with opposing views to testify.

Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive, yet her husband can produce no evidence regarding Terri's views on such a matter. Additionally, the husband has refused medical tests such as an MRI, which are standard in such situations to more accurately assess her condition. Many experts believe Terri would respond to therapy, but her husband has also refused to allow this.

Terri's parents have offered to take over the care of her, financially and personally. They want to allow further tests to determine her condition, and allow others to attempt therapy to improve her condition.

What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?"

How about it ABC? Care to run the poll with that as question number two and compare the results to the previous one?

Terri Schiavo - Public Perceptions of the Judiciary

2005-03-21T18:12:00.000-06:00

A good point by Hugh Hewitt on the radio just now. He pointed out that through the Schiavo case a lot of people are learning a lot about judicial indifference to fact, urgency, and justice, and that the judicial system itself may well pay a price as a result. And they will have brought it upon themselves.

Very true. A standing argument I used to have (but finally abandoned in disgust) was with people who liked to advocate legalism in defiance of the principle of justice. It's a potentially fatal flaw in our legal system. When the courts no longer represent justice, but merely the arbitrary will of men, they lose the respect essential to properly fulfill their traditional role in our society.

Obviously courts must respect the laws and procedures as written. But in places where judgement is allowed - and for a judge in his own courtroom there are many such places - it's the responsibility of those within the legal system to see justice done to the best of their ability.

(end of rational discourse - a heated rant to follow)

And I don't give a crap what they taught you in law-school. Many societies in history lost sight of this, and revolt and even revolution resulted. And revolts and revolutions typically suck for all sides involved, so knock it off and straighten the hell up.

If you can't come up with an argument for the legal system killing Terri Schiavo that goes beyond legalistic detail, 90% positive you're part of the problem. That's a hell of a lot greater certainty than it is that Michael Schiavo is acting in Terri's best interest in the case in question.

Countering Some Common Arguments Against Saving Terri Schiavo's Life

2005-03-21T13:48:00.000-06:00

In discussing the Terri Schiavo case, I have mostly focused on trying to get the facts out, since MSM reporting has been atrociously incomplete, in some cases biased, and in general plain lazy.

But there is also the rhetorical angle to consider. Ive noticed a few common arguments made some directly, some implied by those opposing the preservation of Terri Schiavos life. I thought Id collect a few of them for examination.

First is the argument that the federal government has no role here; that this should be a private matter among the family. Big problem here. In this case the family is divided. Actually, theyre not terribly divided. There is one and only one family member who wants Terri killed Michael Schiavo. Ask yourself this question: should guardians be granted the authority to decide whether their wards live or die? Also, since the right to life is a civil right recognized by our Constitution, upon which basis state sentences of capital punishment are routinely appealed to federal courts, why the exception here? Why are Terris federally protected civil rights less important than convicted murderers?

A variation of the first argument states that the will of the people of Florida is being trodden on due to federal intervention. This is simply false. The Florida legislature, not Judge Greer, is the best reflection of the will of the majority of Floridians. And the legislature passed a law to protect Terri which was signed by Governor Jeb Bush. A court decided it was unconstitutional. I will assert that the will of the people is far better represented by legislators who have to regularly return to the people to face re-election, than by a few judges. Our government is not designed as the rule of judges. It's the rule of the people. The judicial is our least representative branch of government, and therefore not useful as a barometer of the "will of the people."

Another argument is that the religious right is pushing this, because theyre trying to link it to abortion. This isnt so much an argument as a bizarre scare tactic attempting to influence those afraid of the big bad religious-right and/or the pro-abortion crowd. Yet despite hearing this repeated many places, I have yet to see someone spell out this link. So let me do it for you. It is indeed correct that those who see the value of the lives of the unborn, also see the value of the lives of the severely disabled. Therefore it is no surprise to find pro-life advocates fired up about both issues. However I have personally been surprised by how consistently so much of the crowd who occasionally fancies themselves pro-choice, but anti-abortion is coming around to the some lives are not worth living point of view (there are of course notable exceptions, but I truly expected more). The slippery-slope of accepting abortion, leading to support of assisted suicide, leading to involuntary euthanasia of unworthy lives was predicted by many pro-life advocates decades ago. One side seems to be advancing farther and farther down a radical path, while the other remains consistent to its core convictions. Perhaps its not the religious right who are the radicalized ones in this case.

A more infuriating argument comes from a legal mindset that apparently believes Judge Greers findings of fact are the final word, and over-rule anything, including reality. This deference to one branch of our government indeed to a single judge has no role in the history of our form of government. Far more significant rulings have been proven laughably wrong on the facts by later discovery. It turns out Dred Scott really was a human being and not property. It turns out the tomato really is a fruit and not a vegetable. Theres really no way to refute this, because its a statement of faith in a system in defiance of objective reality. I would simply argue that the role of a citizen in our form of representative government allows one to disagree with any court, any time, provided one remains within the boundaries of the law. Judge Greer's findings of fact are, at best, incomplete.

Then there are the predictable hypocrisy accusations. Since they seem to have such prominence in certain sectors, I suppose they deserve some mention. And the mention is this: Life is more important than rhetorical consistency. If you disagree, you scare the hell out of me. If my life is ever on the line, Im completely willing for every hypocrite, fornicator, fool, and fraud to come to my aid and save me. And speaking of hypocrisy, I find it rather hypocritical for anyone to accuse politician of scoring political points over this... and use that political basis as reason to oppose the actions attempting to save Terri Schiavo. Pot meet kettle. If you want politics out of this decision, practice that belief in your own rhetoric regarding this case, deciding right and wrong on the merits.

President Bush Signs Bill to Save Terri Schaivo

2005-03-21T02:05:00.000-06:00

From Powerpundit this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush early on Monday signed emergency legislation aimed at prolonging the life of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo.
"Today, I signed into law a bill that will allow federal courts to hear a claim by or on behalf of Terri Schiavo for violation of her rights relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life," Bush said in a written statement.

"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. This presumption is especially critical for those like Terri Schiavo who live at the mercy of others," he said.

Yes!! Especially to that final paragraph.

To Michael Totten Regarding Terri Schiavo

2005-03-21T01:26:00.000-06:00

I'm about to use a writer I admire a lot as a symbol of something I consider pretty bad. On the offhand chance he ever discovers this blog, I hope he doesn't take it personally.

You see the problem isn't with him, or his values, or his morals. It's with his facts. And for some stubborn reason when it comes to the Terri Schiavo case the main people in favor of killing her want facts supressed, and for the life of me I can't understand why this is allowed without serious inquiry by a fairly large number of people I have no reason to believe intend anything untoward.

But facts are stubborn things. And I'm a stubborn man. So let's apply some of this stubborness to the recent post on the topic of Terri Schiavio from Michael Totten. In fact, I'll write this directly to Michael.

Let me get directly to the points where I disagree with you Michael, because I find them symbolic of a large segment of the public who retreat into safe cliches rather than confront some very uncomfortable truths about this case.

You state:

[H]ere’s a quick summary for those who are out of the loop: She’s been in some sort of vegetative state for fifteen years, her husband has fought to take her off life-support, and her parents have fought to keep her on it.

No Michael. That's not a "summary." It's a falsehood. She might be "vegetative" by legal ruling, but not in the sense 90 percent of us would use the term to mean. And, more to the point, she is not on any "life support" unless being allowed food and water is now to be considered the same as an artificial respirator.

A challenge to you Michael. Deprive yourself of only those things Terri Schiavo is being denied by court order, and let us know how well you do in a couple of weeks.

What's more, I'm sorry Michael, but you're making a terrific case for representing the very worst of the "non-partisan" politcal affiliation. Much of your argument amounts to digust that the two parties are at odds over this. And in the process you completely lose the value of a real, living, breathing, human life in your calculation. The lens of your political analysis appears as cold and calculating as that of any party apparatchik. Reactionary perhaps, but just as cold. And I've read you long enough to realize this isn't even how you think in general, so why on earth go there now?

You criticize "pull the plug." Michael, there is no "plug" in this case. It's food and water. That's the same "plug" we all have.

The difference here is that she relies on others to provide it. She's in the power of others. Is their decision sufficient reason to deny her food an water? Think seriously about this Michael. Take the Republicans and Democrats out of it. Don't think about elections. There's a real person who is really dying by court order who needs only food and water to live. On what basis should that be denied?

It is my contention that you don't need to get very deep into the facts of this case to become outraged with the rulings and outcome. But it is also my contention that the vast majority of people in favor of Terri's death are, intentionally or not, depriving themselves of fact and reatreating into safe assumption. Here are some facts for those of you in that camp.

And if you get tired of that come back and say so. It's the tip of the iceberg. I can give you plenty more if you're unpersuaded. Just be prepared to let the rest of us know what is sufficient basis to you for not killing a disabled person. That's a side of this debate going strangely silent as the rhetoric shifts all around.

Moving Rumors

2005-03-21T00:54:00.000-06:00

As I struggle with Blogger yet again this evening, it is probably an appropriate time to mention that there has been an executive decision here at Bogus Gold to finally leave the confines of Blogger. At least leave it shortly.

I purchased a domain tonight and am in negotiations with a particular service. Okay, it's Powerblogs.

I'm not sure how long this stuff takes, but very soon the address to get to this blog will be: www.bogusgold.com. The "blogspot" part will be gone with thanks for the good times, but no regrets for moving on.

I'll keep you updated. No need to do anything crazy with your bookmarks at this point.

Sunday Schiavo Roundup

2005-03-20T16:51:00.000-06:00

I've been away doing non-bloggy things on what I had assumed would be a fairly slow news weekend (save for those March Maniacs). Instead it has turned out to be a rather remarkable weekend in terms of the Terri Schiavo case. And bloggers are all over it. Here are a few interesting posts I found.

Muzzy at Blogizdat explained to his readers his passion for this case, before launching whole-heartedly into devoting his blog to this story for the next few days. He has a particularly interesting post regarding his inquiry into how different religious denominations are responding to this story via their websites.

The Anchoress reliably has several insightful posts on this topic. I particularly found this one poigniant: Blocking Terri's life: The role-reversals are complete In it she notes:

The Republicans, who normally don't like government intervening into private matters, feel compelled to do so, because there is every indication that this woman has not been given a fair shake, diagnostically, therapuetically or otherwise.

The Democrats, concerned about saving caribou in Alaska, have no concerns about saving a human being in Florida. Concerned about starving people all over the world, they contend that Terri's starvation will be peaceful and easy.

The world is upside down.

Taking that point further is Rick from Stones Cry Out, who posts Why I Am Not a Democrat:

Congressional Democrats gave me more justification for my choice of party affiliation today. Democrats blocked a voice vote on the bi-partisan Schiavo legislation, a tactic that will only delay the President's signing of the bill. Once the Republicans get a quorum, which may occur as early as 8 hours from now, the bill will be passed overwhelmingly by the House. The Dems know that the legislation will pass, but instead take this opportunity to placate their base and demonstrate to America that they are the party of obstructionism and not on the side of life. Despite my socio-economic liberal leanings, this is a clear example of why I am not a Democrat.

Coming from a family largely composed of pro-life Democrats, I have to wonder how many like myself came to find that party intolerable first and foremost over the issue of life. Also how many of their remaining pro-life faction they're losing over this case.

At Fraters Libertas, Atomizer posts some short but vivid comments regarding death by hydration, quoting a Neurologist and a former "vegetative" patient who had to endure the pain of dehydratiuon for days.

At Our House, David asks a question I wish I heard from more people. Noting that every "bio-ethicist" speaking on the Schiavo case supports snuffing Terri, David asks, "Are there pro-life bioethicists out there, and if not, why not?"

Good question. I have personal experience with some very articulate pro-life atheists. Not sure why such folks never seem to get represented in "bio-ethics" matters.

At Residual Forces, Andy has been posting on the Schiavo case quite a bit today. His initial post on the matter - Mixed Feelings on Terri - likely speaks for a lot of people.

On a similar theme many have noted, Jay Reding comments on the cruel absurdity of Terri Schiavo's method of execution:

If Schiavo must die, the way in which she’s being offed is absolutely disgusting. If Michael Schaivo wants his wife dead, let him put a bullet in her skull and end this pointless suffering. Let the judges who issued this order give her a lethal injection. ...

The state is torturing Terri Schiavo to death. This sort of thing is worse than what al-Qaeda would do — at least a beheading would be quicker.

And of course, biggies like Captain's Quarters and Michelle Malkin are well-worth keeping an eye on, as they're both offering extensive covererage to this issue.

Rep. Mark Kennedy on Congressional Action for Terri Schiavo

2005-03-19T13:11:00.000-06:00

I asked Congressman Mark Kennedy about the Terri Schiavo case this morning. He made two important points.

The first is that the House leadership has put members on alert to be prepared to return to Washington for action Monday or Tuesday of next week. This is encouraging, since I expected the Easter break to keep them away.

The second point is more frustrating. He said that there are enough votes in both the House and Senate to pass something protecting Schiavo's life, but their bills could not be reconciled before Friday's recess.

I went out to the House and Senate websites to investigate their respective actions.

The House version, passed on Wednesday March 16, is called the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. Here is the text of the bill passed by the House: HR 1332

According to Congressman Kennedy, The Senate wanted more time to deliberate this bill, and instead, on Thursday March 17, passed an act restricted to Terri Schiavo's case alone: S. 653

The Senate Act is a bit puzzling. A casual reading suggests that the Senate could only gain consensus about Terri Schiavo's case alone. I can't quite figure out what language in HR 1332 is the sticking point. It's not a long or complicated bill, and I haven't found any specific objections to HR 1332 by any Senator who agrees with S. 653.

In any case, Congressman Kennedy seemed optimistic that Congress would get something passed to save Terri's life.

Hitting the Campaign Trail

2005-03-19T07:44:00.000-06:00

If I can get my butt over to Woodbury in time, I'll be joining Rep. Mark Kennedy on the campaign trail this morning as he visits some local Republican BPOU conventions this morning. Pictures, interview questions and responses , etc., will be posted over at The blog soon to be known as Kennedy v. The Machine later this weekend.

Terri Schiavo - Execution Stayed (UPDATED)

2005-03-18T16:00:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Ed at Captain's Quarters for yet again providing some quick one-stop reading where people who only have a few free moments can reliably find breaking information on the important conservative stories of the day. He has two important posts on the Terri Schiavo case this morning:

Powerful Thing, A Subpoena (Updated!)

The salient point from this post is that members of Congress have issued a subpoena to both Terri and Michael Schiavo. He cites an AP story which states:

The Senate Health Committee has requested that Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, appear at an official committee hearing on March 28. Earlier Friday, a House committee was issuing congressional subpoenas to stop doctors from disconnecting the tube.

This is tremendously positive news for two reasons. The first is that it rewards those of us who have reliably been voting Republican for years in the hopes that the party's pro-life stance would produce some tangible benefit. This has been a long and often frustrating process. But today is definitely a tangible reward.

The second is that finally this woman in a "persistent vegetative state" according to her husband's hand picked experts can now appear in public, so people can see just how alive she is. Uncomfortable questions can be asked in a forum with national exposure which help bring some of the issues raised by Rev. Johansen's recent article into proper focus. As the public begins to see the monstrosity of this "legal" yet entirely immoral case, it will bring tremendous pressure on all the advocates of killing Terri to justify their actions. That is long overdue.

The second post is a bit less dramatic, but no less important:

Florida Judge Issues Stay

This one just happened within the past hour. Ed notes:

This sounds pretty temporary; the legal issues, though, certainly involve the federal subpoena, which Greer cannot overrule. It should keep Terri alive until at least the 28th. More as it comes through.

Still, the more lifelines the better. I'm encouraged to see legislators, judges, and executives like Governor Jeb Bush all bringing their efforts to bear. Even if not convinced one way or the other about the proper outcome, killing an innocent person by court-ordered starvation deserves every possible scrutiny.

UPDATE: The feeding tube was removed anyway by order of Judge Greer. Captain Ed has the most positive spin on this I've seen:

This may create a jurisdictional issue that will allow the case to be heard in federal court, as a Congressional subpoena should, in theory, overrule a state court's order when that order will make a federal witness unavailable to Congress.

I wish I could be that optimistic.

In my opinion the Constitutional responsibilities are pretty clear here. If (and I'll leave the veracity of that "if" to those who are experts) a Congressional subpeona carries legitimate force of law, and if (ditto from last "if) state officials willingly defied this, then the responsibility of the executive branch of the federal government is to step in and enforce federal law - meaning replacing the feeding tube and possibly prosecuting the state officials involved.

But I really seriously doubt either the Congress or the president has the stomach for that kind of thing. Not with so many of the public so ill-informed about the facts of this case by the vast amount of lazy/sloppy/biased MSM reporting on this case.

Additionally the blog Ed recommends, Blogs for Terri, has some truly disturbing information posted this afternoon. I won't cite it here, because it strikes me as unsupported at the moment. But we'll put a lot of this into the "outrageous if true" category.

Lunch-Blogging

2005-03-18T13:24:00.000-06:00

I think I’m the last person on earth who had never been to a Panera Bread café before. The free Wi-Fi, as well as a search for a half-way tasty meatless lunch (one more week to go in Lent) finally drew me in.

My impression? Not bad. Not bad at all. Lots of selections. Decently fast service considering I entered in the middle of the lunch rush. Comfy and plentiful seating. Fast-food style ordering, but no need to bus your own table. I’ll be back.

Blogger on the other hand has decided to make my lunch-blogging a royal pain in the posterior. In fact, the service has been truly sucky this entire week. I think I’m getting past the “yeah but it’s free” stage of my loyalty to this hosting service. More news on that later.

Terri Schiavo - Congressional Action

2005-03-17T15:32:00.000-06:00

I missed this yesterday. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), wrote an article for National Review Online, explaining how some members of Congress intend to act to save Terri Schiavo and others in similar circumstances:

Last week, I introduced my first piece of legislation in the Senate: The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act of 2005. This bill would ensure that incapacitated individuals — like Terri Schiavo — would have their due-process rights of habeas corpus when a court orders their death by removal of nutrition, hydration and medical treatment. My colleague from Florida, Congressman Dave Weldon has introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives.

This seems to be the actual verbiage of the bill, though I couldn't find confirmation of that yet.

Martinez describes it like this:

This bill is very narrowly written and a balanced approach to acknowledging the rights of individuals to refuse consent to medical treatment with the right to consent to treatment to preserve life. The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act would only apply when the following criteria are met:

There is a contested judicial proceeding because of a dispute about the expressed previous wishes or best interest of a person currently incapable of making a choice about lifesaving treatment;

There is no valid prior written directive on wishes from the now-incapacitated individual; and

There is a court order authorizing or directing the withholding of food, fluids, or medical treatment to sustain the individual’s life.

Senator Martinez encourages everyone to contact the Senators and Congressmen quickly to voice their support fot this bill. Time is critical.

According to Terri's Fight.org:

March 17, 2005 – The Senate is now considering HR 1332, an act titled the Incpacitated Persons Legal Protection Act. This act could save the life of Terri and many disabled people. Please tell your senator and others you want their support.

Lots of contact information at the Terri's Fight.org link above. Should take no more than a few minutes of your time to drop your Senators and Congressmen a note.

Terri Schiavo - Never Properly Diagnosed

2005-03-16T18:18:00.000-06:00

Hugh Hewitt was talking about this article by Rev. Robert Johansen tonight, regarding the Terri Schiavo case.

If you're one of those who doesn't find her upcoming death by intentional starvation no big deal, I urge you to read it. Once of the things I've found out about this case is how way off people's perceptions are about the real situation. Not their fault. Most MSM reports have never bothered to report much beyond calling her "vegetative," and citing only the barest facts of her husband's "guardianship.

A few points from the article linked above:

Many people believe that Terri Schiavo has had “the best of care,” and that everything has been tried by way of rehabilitation. This belief is false. In fact, Terri has had no attempts at therapy or rehabilitation since 1992, and very little had been done up to that point. Terri has not even had the physical therapy most doctors would regard as normative for someone in her condition. The result is that Terri suffers from severe muscle contractures, which have caused her body to become contorted. Physical therapy could remedy this, but husband Michael has refused to provide it.

Emphasis mine. You'll find that line becomes a recurring theme.

Terri has also suffered from what many professionals would regard as neglect. She had to have several teeth extracted last year because of severe decay. This decay was caused by a lack of basic dental hygiene, such as tooth-brushing. She also developed decubitus (skin) ulcers on her buttocks and thighs. These ulcers can be prevented by a simple regimen of regular turning: a basic nursing task that any certified nurse’s aide can perform. The presence of these easily preventable ulcers is a classic sign of neglect. Bob and Mary Schindler have repeatedly complained of Terri’s neglect, and have sought to remove Michael as guardian on that basis. Judge Greer was unmoved by those complaints as well.

Emphasis mine again. But can someone please explain how classic evidence of neglect does not factor in to his suitability to make "guardian" decisions about whether she lives or dies? I don't mean explain it legally. I want real moral reasoning that can justify ignoring this.

Now onto the even more shocking stuff that sends this case into moral abomination territory...

And, quite apart from the question of Terri’s therapy and care, it is entirely likely that Terri has never been properly diagnosed. Terri is usually described as being in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), and indeed Judge Greer ruled as a finding of fact that she is PVS; but this diagnosis and finding were arrived at in a way that has many neurologists expressing surprise and dismay.

I have read a lot of opinion on this matter siding with the husband on the basis of this "Persistent Vegetative State." If you're one of those, you need to read this:

Almost 50 neurologists all say the same thing: Terri should be reevaluated, Terri should be reexamined, and there are grave doubts as to the accuracy of Terri’s diagnosis of PVS. All of these neurologists are board-certified; a number of them are fellows of the prestigious American Academy of Neurology; several are professors of neurology at major medical schools.

...

Terri’s diagnosis was arrived at without the benefit of testing that most neurologists would consider standard for diagnosing PVS. One such test is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). MRI is widely used today, even for ailments as simple as knee injuries — but Terri has never had one. Michael has repeatedly refused to consent to one. The neurologists I have spoken to have reacted with shock upon learning this fact.

Got that? There are more accurate means of determining this vegetative state question available. They have been offered. The husband has repeatedly refused them.

How significant is this piece of information? Rev. Johansen interviewed a leader in the field of degenerative brain diseases about this topic:

In the course of my conversation with Dr. Morin, he made reference to the standard use of MRI and PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans to diagnose the extent of brain injuries. He seemed to assume that these had been done for Terri. I stopped him and told him that these tests have never been done for her; that Michael had refused them.

There was a moment of dead silence.

“That’s criminal,” he said, and then asked, in a tone of utter incredulity: “How can he continue as guardian? People are deliberating over this woman’s life and death and there’s been no MRI or PET?” He drew a reasonable conclusion: “These people [Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer] don’t want the information.”

There's much more in the article putting all of this into context. I encourage everyone to read it all. But if you can't in summary the unanimous opinion of every neurologist and neurological researcher contacted by Rev. Johansen was that the tests done on Terri simply cannot diagnose a "Persistent Vegetative State" for someone in her condition. There are such tests available. They're routine in such cases. And Terri's husband Michael has persistently blocked them. Every. Single. Time.

There are all sorts of bizarre facts about this case that just leap off the page at you... facts that the judge in this case had available and simply chose to ignore. There's this:

So why hasn’t an MRI been done for Terri? That question has never been satisfactorily answered. George Felos has argued that an MRI can’t be done because of thalamic implants that were placed in Terri’s skull during the last attempt at therapy, dating back to 1992. But Felos’s contention ignores the fact that these implants could be removed. Indeed, the doctor who put them in instructed Michael to have them removed. Michael has never done so.

And this:

Dr. Morin, when told that Michael had refused an MRI, and that Judge Greer had confirmed the decision, said: “He refused a non-invasive test? People trying to do the right thing want the best and most complete information available. We don't have that in Terri’s case.” Dr. Bell agreed with this assessment, saying, “It seems as though they’re fearful of any additional information.”

And this:

Dr. Cranford was the principal medical witness brought in by Schiavo and Felos to support their position that Terri was PVS. ...

But before that, one needs to know a little about Cranford’s background and perspective: Dr. Ronald Cranford is one of the most outspoken advocates of the “right to die” movement and of physician-assisted suicide in the U.S. today.
In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights. Perusing the case literature and articles surrounding the “right to die” and PVS, one will see Dr. Cranford’s name surface again and again. In almost every case, he is the one claiming PVS, and advocating the cessation of nutrition and hydration.

And more and more and more. I don't understand how anyone knowing the full facts of this situation can continue to support it.

Rev. Johansen summarizes the situation this way:

The whole history of Terri’s case over the past few years can be summed up as the efforts of the Schindlers, and those who value Terri’s life, to try to introduce additional information before the courts and other authorities. Some of this information consists of facts and arguments that were ignored or dismissed without adequate consideration; some has been the result of advances in the diagnosis and treatment of brain injuries over the last five years. On the side of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge Greer, their efforts have consisted almost entirely in trying to prevent any new information from being presented or considered.

There is no way any "guardian" who truly has the best interests of their ward in mind would behave the way Michael Schiavo has. There is no way any legal system devoted to protecting the rights of innocent people could continually rule the way Judge Greer has.

UPDATE:

Captain Ed weighs in with his take on the article. Most telling are his comments at the end of his post:

Up to now, my inclination was to consider this an unfortunate case of dueling experts and bitter family feuding. Now I think this is something more. The people who want the feeding tube pulled all seem to have vested interests outside of Terri's well-being -- Cranford wants to push an agenda for euthanazing people who he finds inconvenient, and Michael Schiavo appears to have a long history of neglect, or at least disinterest in pursuing the proper testing for his wife's condition.
As I wrote earlier, when in doubt, we should err on the side of life rather than death. As Father Johansen points out, grave doubts exist about Terri's true condition. It seems almost perverse to insist on pulling out her feeding tube until the proper testing can be done, and if Schiavo won't allow it, the court should demand it. A few more weeks to determine the real diagnosis of Terri Schiavo won't hurt anyone, and might just save a life.

Ka-Boom!

2005-03-16T15:07:00.000-06:00

Ouch! Kathy at Cake Eater Chronicles exploded my ill-tempered post of a couple of days ago on the topic of gay-marriage, leaving a smouldering heap in its place.

And I get the distinct impression she was taking it easy on me. Gotta remember to mind my manners better around her. I'd hate to get hit with that stuff at full-force.

A couple of points we'll call "teachable moments."

First, no obviously I don't really believe that everyone holding the position in question is truly a moron. I was just name calling. And that tends to piss people off. Sometimes that's appropriate. But the broader the group you insult, the less appropriate it's likely to be.

Second, I didn't really take the time to lay out something that could be coherently described as "making a case for my position." Combined with point one, this tends to create the opposite of the intended effect, minimalizing rather than advancing one's position. As Kevin Ecker noted:

And in my experience this "I BELIEVE THIS AND YOUR WRONG" *puts fingers in ear* "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA " type of argument is usually reserved for people that have nothing to support their position.

So go read Kathy beat the crap out of my post. In addition to the eviscerating my post stuff, she also has many thoughtful words on the topic itself, and only a couple I disagree with. And as for those, I'll get around to explaining the disagreement for real and with better manners sometime soon.

Judicial Napolean Complex

2005-03-16T00:40:00.000-06:00

Hey you law-talking guys -and I know there are some of you out there - question for you: What the f*ck? Sorry. Let me rephrase. What the f*cking, f*ck?!!! Answers are welcome in the comments section.

Salient details are thus:

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the [gay-marriage] ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and saidthere appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

Got that? Judge can't figure it out. So he says it's not a law anymore. For the record, judges are not allowed to do that. We elect folks to local, state, and federal legislatures to make those decisions. This judge apparently didn't get the memo to that effect.

But of course, since only us old-fashioned moral scolds oppose gay-marriage anymore, no problem, right? As long as the result is what we want, why worry that we've just allowed someone to usurp the principle role of the principle branch of our democratic form of government? You'd have to be an extremist to oppose this, right?

No. You'd have to be a short-sighted moron to think that this judge is fit to serve another day on the bench. But expect every other government official to kowtow dutifully to this patently unconstitutional judicial decree until some other judge overturns it.

That's not the proper response in a representative government folks. We the people are sovereign. And we never delegated this judge or any other judge the right to overturn legislation on the basis that he or she can't find "rational purpose" to the laws the people have passed. You want to think this stuff out before deciding what the law should be judge? Run for the House or Senate, just like the rest of us.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this judge deserves more than impeachment. He deserves prison. His act, on top of being an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative perogative, is an attack on our form of representative government.

But none of that will happen. He'll sit fat and happy on his bench overwhelmed by accolades from those who approve of the ends he attempted to enable. Question for all of those folks though. Would you give similar weight to the opinion of the same judge had he ruled the opposite on the same basis - that he found no rational basis to allow same-sex marriage?

Of course you wouldn't. Nor should you. This is a rogue judge substituting his personal opinion for the law, and that's not something anyone should endorse. Impeach him. Remove him. Banish him from public discourse and the same for all his kind.

(Hat tips to Dennis Prager for alerting me to this today, and to Stones Cry Out and Flown to the Roll for finding the articles I linked to.)

UPDATE: As promised in the comments section below, law-talking guy Learded Foot kicks this decision around (lame pun intended).

Who Would You Be in 1400 A.D.?

2005-03-15T11:20:00.000-06:00

It's not even close to Friday, and already I'm indulging my fun-quiz obsession. I found this one via The Anchoress:

The Lord
You scored 18% Cardinal, 58% Monk, 44% Lady, and 56% Knight!

You are of the intellectual breed and yet you are also very interested
in war. You are of the aristocracy and head the cavalry a safe distance
from the carnage of the front lines. You believe in defeating your
enemy with not only might, but also wit.

You scored high as both the Monk and the Knight. You can try again to
get a more precise description of either the Monk or the Knight, or you
can be happy that you're an individual.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 6% on Cardinal
You scored higher than 93% on Monk
You scored higher than 81% on Lady
You scored higher than 78% on Knight

Link: The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test written by KnightlyKnave on Ok Cupid

Republican Prez in 2008 - Look into the Crystal Ball

2005-03-15T10:58:00.000-06:00

Hat-tip to Joe Gandelman at TMV for pointing out Larry Sabato’s recent “Crystal Ball” analysis of the 2008 Republican Presidential prospects.

Some highlights first. Then I’ll set you straight…

In order to achieve the task of grasping a third consecutive presidential term, the Republicans almost certainly must fulfill several conditions:

President Bush must have had a successful second term, with significant policy achievements in several areas.

President Bush must be relatively popular--which for this polarizing president means maintenance of a job approval rating around 50 percent or better in national surveys.

The economy must be fair to good, and the international outlook (terrorism, Iraq , etc.) must be generally acceptable to the American people.

Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the GOP must nominate a moderate-conservative within the American political mainstream, taking care not to go too far right but also not too far to the left of the dominant conservative activist corps.

No disagreement here. Incidentally, as to that final point, Sabato uses the term “moderate conservative” in contrast to just plain “moderate,” so don’t get your hackles up. All it means is the candidate has to be able to win over the center without losing the base. Undeniable.

Here’s the most intriguing paragraph:

Should a moderate somehow win the GOP nod, say in a split field of conservatives, this political earthquake would likely generate a third-party, right-wing candidacy that could doom the Republican nominee in the fall by splitting the GOP vote. There can be little doubt that conservatives would mount such an effort, arguing that the loss of the White House for a term or two would be worth the lesson to the party for its apostasy. Let us quickly add that, unlike some others and contrary to the early polls, we do not expect any moderate-liberal Republican to secure the nomination in 2008. The GOP base is simply too conservative, and the risks for the GOP of a moderate-liberal nomination would be obvious to most party activists.

You can read the detail in the original article, but yes. Sabato is saying McCain, Giuliani, Schwarzeneger, Hagel, Pataki, and all the rest of the “moderate” Republicans are out. And if they’re not, the Republican Party loses.

I’m not sure I agree with him about yet another third-party fiasco. I think the more likely result of alienating the base is losing your money, volunteers, grass-roots enthusiasm, and voter turnout. But the result is the same.

Sabato also believes Cheney remains in the running, despite repeated public statements to the contrary.

Obviously, if something--God forbid--should happen to President Bush before 2008 and Cheney has succeeded to the presidency, then he might well run for a full term. (Sadly, American history is replete with examples of presidential death and assassination, so this possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand.) Moreover, we should note that astute observers such as Fred Barnes, with their excellent instincts and contacts, regard the wily Cheney as tanned, rested, and ready for 2008--simply awaiting a late nod from President Bush or Karl Rove that will take the rest of the Republican field by surprise and storm.

I’m a Cheney fan and wouldn’t mind this a bit, though he’d have some pretty serious negatives to overcome in the general election, due to repeatedly playing the “evil genius behind the throne” role in the Bush presidency in so much media commentary for what will have been nearly eight solid years by that time; plus having prior business experience as CEO of (gasp) Halliburton.

Sabato also, and appropriately, dismisses the chances of Jeb Bush.

True enough, America has had plenty of political dynasties, from the Rockefellers and the Kennedys to the Adamses and the Harrisons. However, no family has been able to secure more than two presidencies, and no family member has ever succeeded another family member. It's just too much, and Jeb Bush senses it. Had JFK lived to serve two terms, Robert Kennedy might well have tried to capture the family's third term in 1968--the Kennedys were rumored to have been making plans along these lines--but our bet is that it wouldn't have happened. Americans have a love-hate relationship with their celebrities, politicians and entertainers alike, and the public is fickle. After all, voters in a nation born of anti-monarchial revolution will naturally recoil from the establishment of a political royal line. After a few years past 2008, Jeb may be a possibility, and who would bet against another Bush serving in the Oval Office at some point in the future? (Don't forget about Jeb's dashing Latino son, George P. Bush, who possesses the perfect profile for the century of ethnic diversity to come.)

He’s not the first commentator to peg George P. Bush as the true rising star in the Bush family, rather than his dad Jeb. Jeb, through no fault of his own, is just not a viable option in 2008. Even if the Republican Party would nominate him, too much of the public will simply not give the same family that much power in that short a period of time. And because of that, I don’t think he’ll run, and if he did I don’t think he’d win the nomination. There’s not a thing he could do to change it either, other than to wait it out eight or twelve years.

Then it gets confusing. The leader of the pack as Sabato sees it is Senator Bill Frist. His analysis of why is sound, but I just don’t see it. It's about the charisma, stupid.

Other names he tosses out include Senator George Allen, Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Rick Santorum, and some long-shots including Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

This is the part of the analysis we call “throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything sticks.” Some interesting comments worth reading, but not much you won’t see any number of other places. Until we come to this…

Earlier, we mentioned the possibility of a Cheney candidacy as the incumbent president. What about the opposite extreme? Health problems could force Cheney out of the vice presidency, giving President Bush the opportunity to name his own successor as party nominee and, possibly, chief executive. How does this sound: vice president and GOP presidential nominee Condoleezza Rice? Stranger things have happened in American history!

That’s the one that will gain the most excitement among Republicans. Once again, I don’t see it happening. Furthermore, I don’t think it would be a good idea if it did. Condi has never run for any elective office, and unless she possesses a genius never before seen in American political history, that means she’s not prepared to run for president.

Of course, that's exactly why analysts like Sabato are intrigued by it. What a story! I just hope the party base prefers winning to great storylines when the time comes.

Krokomotion

2005-03-15T09:45:00.000-06:00

Some commotion lately about Chris Krok dissing our favorite Lord of Darkness, David Strom of The Taxpayer’s League.

Not sure why. Krok is about as serious a political commentator as the “Joey” character from Friends. He’s just not that bright, though kind of personable and seems to mean well (for example, I'm sure he means to have a half-way decent radio show).

It’s just not that surprising that Strom’s argument sailed over his head and sent him ranting in a non-sequitorish direction. Nor is it surprising that the Strib editors pounced on the chance to print anything critical of David Strom.

Ahem. A Gay Marriage Dissenter

2005-03-15T01:06:00.000-06:00

Before I go to bed I thought I’d straighten something out. Those of you who support gay-marriage but are otherwise conservative. You’re morons.

Whoops! That was inflammatory. Hate to be inflammatory toward those who go along with the same movement that casts defenders of marriage being a man and woman thing as intolerant hate-mongers. No sir. Such folks are like delicate orchids who must be preserved from harsh rhetorical conditions. Moronic orchids to be specific.

Whoops! Look, let’s get through this together. You come forward and explain why every generation that came before you who agreed gay marriage was an oxymoron were stupid, and I’ll … well I’ll still call you a moron, but it will draw you out in the open as the egotist you are.

Folks, not supporting gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to oppress gays or anyone else. It doesn’t mean you hate anyone. All it means is you recognize that there is a reason that every previous generation rejected it – a reason a better than the narcissistic one that presumes every previous generation consisted of benighted bigots, unlike the “flower of morality” that our generation represents.

But marriage is about luuuuv. And gay people luuuuuuv each other too, right? Please.

When did public morality get reduced to the level of a seventh grade girl? Marriage is a hell of a lot more than teen-style puppy-love. So what is this marital “love” we’re talking about? Why has it become something that has become cross-culturally, and cross-generationally revered? Why is it something even anti-democratic societies have considered crucial to their civilzations’ sustainability back into ancient days?

We live in a generation that has been raised to think of the very pillars of our society in terms no different than our luxuries.

Marriage? That old thing?! I wish it came in blue. And so now it does.

“Conservative” supporters of gay-marriage like to portray themselves as tolerant and principled. I find them anything but. Their tolerance extends exclusively to the current zeitgeist, much like affirmative-action hiring. Their principles are inarticulate and shifty on this matter. They’re simply followers. People who never bothered to learn the importance of this particular pillar of society, but seize an opportunity to mask their ignorance as being “tolerant” and “progressive.”

Sorry. It’s just ignorant. And destructive to boot.

UPDATE: I'm noticing several visitors to this post well after the fact. For the record, while I believe in the point I was making to the extent that I still believe gay-marriage is wrong and certainly not something conservatives should support, I now admit this was a stupid way to make that point. See this post for some followup.

How The Heck Are you?

2005-03-14T20:15:00.000-06:00

Geeze-Louise!! Not only an insanely busy day, but Blogger decided to keep me locked out after I finally got the chance to post. I really, really need to get a better blog host soon.

Anything happen today? I was kind of occupied with the capitalistic endeavor known as making a living. Not a bad day. Just a busy one. Let's see what happened...

Hmmm.... (surf, surf, surf)

Nope. Apparently you didn't find much either. Slow news day, eh? That's fine. We need 'em now and then.

I watched the Truman Show on TBS yesterday evening. It's a lot better movie than I remembered it to be. Really. That's not a joke. I picked up all sorts of things rewatching I didn't catch the first time. Like Jim Carrey actually posessing acting talent of the non-zany variety for instance. Still... the premise is a bit silly. But if you ignore that, it's really quite enjoyable and even poigniant.

Let's see... other things...

Why even bother? Enjoy the evening. I'll be back tomorrow. And for the record, I like the new M.A.W.B Squad look.

Oh Yeah, I'm Supposed to Post at Two Blogs

2005-03-13T22:16:00.000-06:00

You know, one of these days I need to actually get back to posting at that other site I joined a short while ago. I really do intend to. It's just that... well... a Senate race isn't all that darn interesting two years out once you get past the speculation and hot rumors. And we've passed the latest batch of all of that.

Then factor in that Gary and First Ringer do a bang-up job on a regular basis. And regularly beat me to the punch on things I intended to post about. I'm about to the point that...

Well there was a Bloom County strip way back in the old days (it's not the one at that link - I can't find it via Google). Milo Bloom, reporting for the Bloom County Picayune, called up their local Congressman and asked awkward questions just so he could get a newsworthy response he could spin as a scandal. I've resisted the temptation so far. But just in case the Amy Klobuchar campaign should screen their calls until the news picks up.

The Return of the Non-Moonbat Left

2005-03-13T15:07:00.000-06:00

In the past couple of years, those of us on the right have become accustomed to a certain mindset on the left. One which, despite any amount of argument or evidence could never be shaken from endlessly repeating a new orthodoxy regarding President Bush. It might be summarized something like this:

I descended into dismay about Bush and his top people. I was driven deeper into it by
administration claims of war-on-terrorism presidential powers
that can only be called tyrannical: to seize anyone in the
world, anywhere in the world; to imprison and interrogate the
suspect indefinitely, incommunicado, with no semblance of due
process; even (if the president chooses) to torture him. Not to
mention Bush's feckless failure to prevent North Korea from
going nuclear, the Guantanamo abuses, the disdain for diplomacy,
the irresponsible approach to global warming, the fiscal
recklessness, the shifting of tax burdens from the rich to
future generations, the swaggering refusal to ever admit error,
the smirk, and more.

But like the greenery of spring emerging from winter's palate of grey and brown, there have been increasing signs that some of the adults on the left are starting to shake themselves out of their orthodox mantra and think for themselves. Some of them say things like this:

But no matter
how shallow, slippery, and smug Bush sometimes seems, if he ends
up changing the world for the better, he will be entitled to a
presumption of wisdom, even brilliance. Bush's soaring rhetoric
about "ending tyranny in our world" rang hollow to me on January
20, amid all the grim news from Iraq. Then came Iraq's January
30 elections and the freedom ferment around the region. So when
Bush spoke again of ending tyranny in a March 8 speech, the
grandeur of his aspirations seemed more in tune with reality.
The Arab spring has many causes, of course. But the big one was
Bush's removal of Saddam.

Stuart Taylor, Jr., writing in National Journal (HT - RCP), nicely captures both states of mind since he's the source of both comments above.

It's an article I find fascinating and hopeful. Not because I think he's come around to conservatism - highly doubtful. There's plenty in that article I could argue with. But I prefer to concentrate on the positive here.

Taylor and other left-leaning American pundits have simply decided they love their country and the principles of freedom more than they hate George Bush. And, speaking from the right, it was getting scary for a while as more and more previously responsible people among the left seemed to be heading the other way (hint: hoping for more troop casualties just because it would make Bush look bad sure as hell does mean you're not patriotic, despite any fevered denials or cries of "McCarthyism").

No, these folks haven't yet taken back the Democratic Party from the Howard Dean Yeeeeaaargh!! wing of the Party. But they're finding their voice. And as much as the partisan Republican in me might be disappointed - the moonbats are so much easier to beat in elections - the American in me thinks it's a good sign.

(And yes - for the record I know the non-moonbat left never really went away. But it got awfully quiet and marginalized for a while.)

Meanwhile at the Fortress of Solitude...

2005-03-13T14:38:00.000-06:00

A while back I wrote up some glowing words about my discovery that the Old Chicago restaurant chain had wi-fi (and beer! And wings!). Since then, I have made the place into my occasional sanity break -my Fortress of Solitude. I'm there now, in fact. A frosty pint of dark beer, a full plate of "firehouse jalapeno" wings, an attentive waitress, and no distractions.

This is huge to me, since my kids are now at the age that they occasionally all demand attention simultaneously. Sure, some day I'll look back on these days with fond memories of the days when my kids actually wanted me around. But in the mean time I need some way to deal with the fact that they can drive me positively batty at times. So the Mama and I made a trade off. I let her get out kid-free for a couple of hours, and she returned the favor.

Anyone else have a similar fortress of (sort of) solitude? Blogger-friendly or otherwise?

Light-Pollution - Friend or Foe?

2005-03-13T08:50:00.000-06:00

Light pollution. One more made-up name allowing busybodies and local media yackity-yacks to get worked up and bemoan progress.

The real kind of progress of course. The kind that produces jobs, increases lifespans, and provides more disposable income. This must be distinguished from the goal of "progressives," which seems to be some combination of luddism, malthusian pessimism, enviro-whining, and yearning for the heady days of stagflation. Plus the desire for all people everywhere to be distributed in the proper combination of hues and colors, but never ever significantly differ in ideology from prevaling "progressive" orthodoxy. All set to the soundtrack from "Hair" and live recordings from Woodstock of course.

Anyway, back to light pollution. It's a term applied to the shocking phenomenon that occurs when you're in an area with a lot of lights that cause the stars to be more difficult to see clearly. Lucky us, the Star Tribune discovered this burning issue today. Fortunately and reliably the article presents us with plenty of material to dispassionately ponder this pressing matter:

"I think it's a quality-of-life issue," said Maline Fish of Ham Lake, who with her husband, Dan, owns a telescope shop in Mounds View. Both are avid amateur astronomers. "If you can maintain the visual connection to the sky, I think people are more connected to their world. I think it's soothing to people."

Whenever a Minnesota newspaper or politician utters the words "quality of life," the rest of us have learned to grab our wallets. And who'd have thought the telescope shop lobby had such powerful influence in local Big Media?

When Dan Fish was recently talking about the Milky Way to a group of gifted and talented elementary schoolchildren, he got blank stares in return.

"And I realized, these kids have never seen the Milky Way," Fish said.

Dude, they thought you were talking about the candy bar. Work on your public speaking. Besides, until I read a study showing school kids have finally mastered the ability to place Mexico on a map, I'm not not worried about their mastery of the locations of objects in the heavens.

Artificial night light, particularly when it beams into the sky, is called "light pollution" by dark-sky advocates. Its impact was notable during last year's blackout in the northeastern United States, when New York City residents could suddenly see the Milky Way and meteors.

Could any of you utter the phrase "dark sky advocates" without giggling? Apparently unlike Bill McAuliffe who wrote this article, I notice that prevailing public opinion during the northeastern blackout was to get the d*mn lights back on, no matter how pretty the Milky Way or meteors happened to be.

Others in the discussion talk about "light trespass" -- unwanted light from residential, public, commercial and industrial neighbors. There's also plain old "glare" -- bright light in the eyes that can blot out backgrounds.

Prior generations just observed this stuff and learned how to cope. It took hundreds of generations to perfect the proper response - whining.

None of it is poisonous. It doesn't smell bad. It doesn't dirty the water. But that doesn't mean it should be ignored, some say.

There is no problem here. So let's fix it!

The article then goes on to describe actions many local municipalities are taking to combat this problem. And as long as it stays at the most basic and local level of government, I don't really mind. Though anyone who thinks this stuff comes without a price-tag ought not be allowed to make civic decisions. You want to pay more taxes for the city to replace streetlights with new ones that give off less "glare" (i.e. light), I'm not going to stop you.

But once the media grabs their latest "crisis," especially one that "isn't poisonous, doesn't smell bad, doesn't dirty the water, and simply cannot be ignored!" these decisions never seem to remain local. I thought perhaps the article was heading to some sort of state legislature activity. I'm so naive:

Now astronomers, lighting engineers and highway and traffic safety consultants are coming together to try to develop national lighting standards.

National standards means well get one and only one decision mandated from the Federal government that binds all of us. I believe "progressives" call this "diversity."

I'm all for research into lighting and safety. But why are astronomers involved? We know why. Because the priorities of this are all screwed up with moonbattery out of the gate. I don't want my driving safety at night weighed against the visibility of the Orion constellation.

The rest of us have a shorter name for light-pollution: "Light." We also have a sollution. Get out of the city once in a while. Of course that would require some sort of automobile. Possibly even an SUV. So this sollution has radical right-wing written all over it.

Yet once any person decides the government needs to protect us from the perils of freaking light-bulbs, the proper response is not government action. It's intensive therapy - up to, but not limited to, a serious butt-kicking by someone shouting "snap the hell out of it!"

An Invitation

2005-03-12T23:46:00.000-06:00

Swiftee has the right idea. "Spying" on public events is kind of creepy. Let's help our lefty brethren take the creep out of it.

Nick Coleman and/or Cubby, come on over (to Keegan's some Thursday night when you don't hide). Let's have beers. Let's trade insults and political jibes. Let's be freakin' human. If you play your cards right, you'll drink free the whole time.

I'll happily cough up the dough for any beer Coleman and/or Cubby cares to spend shooting the breeze with me. Maybe we'll end up best buds. Probably not. But we'd all get killer material for writing/radio out of the experience, so what's to lose?

Geek-Blogger Alert

2005-03-12T18:16:00.000-06:00

Anyone with technical blog savy might want to head over to Residual Forces to offer new blogger Andy some advice. He's struggling mightily, and has even switched to Blogspot until he figures the technical whozewhatits, geegaws, and jimjabs of Wordpress or Moveable Type - whichever comes first. I use neither, so I'm no help.

I happen to like Andy, and this moving URLs is going to play havoc with people blogrolling him, which sucks for a new blogger. So someone please go help.

NARN Anniversary

2005-03-12T15:47:00.000-06:00

Apparently it was the Northern Alliance Radio Network's first anniversary show today. Now that I've read that a couple places, it occurs to me that I knew that. Didn't recall it in time to actually listen to the show though. But they do replay it several times during the week, so I'll catch it eventually.

Pinkmonkeybird, a NARN groupie / stalker, live-blogged the show (but it's in a couple dozen posts, so hit the main page and keep scrolling).

Ohligarchy, the most MOB-like blogger not actually in or near the state of Minnesota, also listened and wrote some nice words about it.

A whole bunch of people from my blogroll were apparently also on, either as guests or callers. Jo (a.k.a. Token Female Blogger) from the Attic, Douglas from Belief Seeking Understanding, Swiftee from Pair O' Dice, The Dark Lord Strom, Radio Blogger (a.k.a. Hugh Hewitt's producer Duane), and possibly Nihilist in Golf Pants.

And while we're rattling off names, we might as well list who exactly among the Northern Alliance of Blogs does the radio show, because not everyone seems to know (or be able to distinguish between their voices):

Mitch Berg of Shot in the Dark, Chad the Elder and Brian "Saint Paul" Ward from Fraters Libertas, King Banaian of SCSU Scholars, Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters, Scott "The Big Trunk" Johnson and John "Hindrocket"Hinderaker of Powerline all have regular on-air roles. James Lileks has some kind of unofficial role as semi-regular guest and occasional participant, a la Steve Martin in the first season of Saturday Night Live. Atomizer from the Fraters has a more official role as remote broadcast post-production bartender. And I think Eloise from Spitbull occasionally wishes them well. So you can see the show truly spans the entire Northern Alliance of Blogs.

Congrats to all of them. Here's hoping your next year goes as well as the first. No pressure, but I wouldn't want to have to put you on the list.

Anyway, any NARNiac who hasn't already read these, might want to check out my interviews with Mitch Berg, and King Banaian. Both of them said quite a bit about their experience with, and the history of, the radio show.

Who Sucks?

2005-03-11T23:33:00.000-06:00

It occurs to me tonight that not enough attention is paid to the topic of who exactly sucks. Sure the accusation is tossed around often enough. But without regard to standards or principles how can we trust that someone accused of sucking truly sucks?

Not to worry. I'm here to help. In no way a definitive list, but offered as a guideline for your own assessment, I offer....

The List of People Who Suck

People who don't use turn signals
People who hold conversations with the window-person in the fast-food lane while others are waiting behind them
The French.
Anyone who keeps a "Kerry for President" bumper sticker on their car out of principle rather than laziness.
People who use "creative" tones for the ringer on their cell phone who do not pick up after the first ring.
Vegetarians.
Regular readers of any publication with the word "New York" in the title who do not live within commuting distance of New York.
Anyone upset about the poor availability of Mahi-mahi; anywhere, anytime.
Fans of Philadelphia sports teams.
Any white person who cannot turn off "hip-hop" slang when speaking with normal people.

You're welcome.

Nick Coleman - Weirdo

2005-03-11T14:14:00.000-06:00

Nick Coleman is weird. I know. Big surprise. But there is a noteworthy new development in his ongoing weirditude.

The guy has been paranoid for ages. We know this. Bankers are out to get him, just like they tried to get Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life. He constantly worries that someone somewhere thinks he’s somebody’s “monkey.” And of course the entire blogosphere – backed no doubt by mysterious Republican fat-cats – is out to get him because he “knows stuff.”

But his paranoia has taken a new turn suggesting he’s read too many Ian Fleming novels. He’s suddenly taken to cloak-and-dagger fantasy.

Earlier this week he sent a “secret agent” (who apparently works under cover as the producer on his radio show) to “infiltrate” (also known as not introducing yourself) the “61st Minute” event at the Marriott. And last night agent double-o-moonbat also apparently “infiltrated” Keegan’s. Since the place is open to the public and was quite a bustling place yesterday, I had assumed the non-bloggers there were something we call "customers." Now I know better. They were all spies. Welcome to a little slice of Coleman's paranoia.

This is not normal behavior. Walking into public establishments observing things and reporting about what you saw is usually done under the name “reporting,” even if it’s half-assed and crappy reporting a la Nick Coleman. But no. In Nick’s advanced delusional state, he’s a spymaster exposing the “right wing noise machine” by "infiltrating" our secret (though well-publicized) gatherings.

And it gets more paranoid and goofier still.

Local blogger and satirist Learned Foot at the Kool-Aid Report wrote “An Open Letter to Nick” today, challenging the spymaster to actually interview one of these bloggers he’s obsessed with “spying” on, and opining about.

Egotist that he is, Coleman seemingly Googled his own name, found the post, and responded... by noting that Learned Foot apparently made some reference to having a nuke, which Coleman took as a personal threat. Apparantly they don't teach "metaphor" at J-school.

But in any case, Learned Foot removed the scary metaphor, leaving the rest of us baffled about whether in Nick's advanced state of paranoia he truly believes bloggers build real nukes in the hopes of assassinating columnists.

Fitting in with his current delusional world of cloak-and-dagger, one is forced to assume Nick is pondering a way to use his spies to "out" bloggers for importing uranium from Nigeria to build their anti-columnist bombs (possibly framing an innocent Saddam Hussein for it to boot), perhaps at the instruction of his nemesis - the evil spymaster Karl Rove.

Friday Fun Quiz

2005-03-11T08:41:00.000-06:00

This one comes to us courtesy of Noodles at PRM:

Which famous leader are you?

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Perhaps a commentary on my hair this morning?

Some Flavah

2005-03-10T12:01:00.000-06:00

Blame Peg at What If? for pointing me to this one:

I taste like Peanut Butter.

I am one of the most blendable flavours; I go with sweet, I go with sour, I go with bland, I go with anything. I am practical and good company, but have something of a tendency to hang around when I'm not wanted, unaware that my presence is not welcome. What Flavour Are You?

(If you were not Peanut Butter you would be Alcohol.)

Misplaced Kudos

2005-03-10T11:43:00.000-06:00

I'm told He-Who-Knows-Stuff wrote a column that managed not to suck today. Well bully for him. I'm not linking to it. Unlike some others, I'm not inclined to compliment him for doing the job for which he is well paid. At least not until I see him devote some column space to pointing out a great Powerline post.

Besides, the man already spends gobs of time patting himself on the back. I'm afraid a complimentary pat from a blogger might throw off his rhythm.

Daily Distractions and Rather's Retirement

2005-03-10T11:04:00.000-06:00

Blogrolling acting up this morning. Blogger acting up and eating an entire post just moments ago. 'Tis not one of the better days to feel all is well in the land of blogdom. I really must move to a better blog hosting service soon.

But at least there is something tonight to take my mind off the frustration. It is the big trivia night at Keegan's, in which the perennial champion Fraters Libertas team (which typically includes Nihilist in Golf Pants, the presumptive J. B. Doubtless stand-in) runs the show. They write the questions. They grade the score-cards. They hold the notorious microphone of ridicule. Should be fun. Let's just hope they don't let Sisyphus contribute any art questions. Blech.

Abrupt shift without transition in 5... 4.... 3... 2... 1...

While performing my evangelical mission in the service of the Dark Lords Reynolds and Rove last evening, I missed the big shindig at the Marriott bidding Mr. Rather adieu. That's okay, because the Star Tribune sent a reporter, so I'll learn all about it. Or not.

But in any case, I'll take this opportunity to offer my own thoughts on Mr. Rather's departure. He went out with a whimper, instead of a bang, still lamely denying he holds any substantial blame for the incident which hastened his departure.

But the departure itself struck me as a great yawner. I didn't bother to watch the broadcast. Couldn't see any reason to. Despite providing occasional examples of outrageous bias and unintended comedy from his anchor chair, Rather, like the other evening news anchors, is a dinosaur. The news age has passed him by. People no longer look to the evening news broadcast to keep themselves informed about the world. Even those who do tune in, now also get news from other sources. Anchors like Rather are conductors on passenger trains in the era of the automobile.

With Rather's retirement, CBS could consider innovating their news coverage to meet the new times. But I suspect they won't. Instead they'll ride that creaky train ever further into irrelevance until one day they'll simply retire the broadcast altogether. And much like Rather's personal retirement, most people won't bother to notice that event either.

This Evening's Engagement

2005-03-09T22:56:00.000-06:00

I had the opportunity to speak about bloggers and politics in Minnesota to a local Young Republican group this evening. Much thanks to Brent Metzler (who also writes the blog Social Security Crisis) for inviting me. It was great fun pontificating about one of my favorite topics and personal passions to an interested audience.

It’s always a bit odd for those of us who are so deep into the blogosphere to explain our weird ways to those who aren’t. But I tried. Hope I succeeded.

Others in the group were interesting as well, but sadly I can only link to one other: Andy of Residual Forces is a fairly new blogger. Head on over and welcome him to the local blogosphere.

City Pages Misses Half the Story

2005-03-09T10:42:00.000-06:00

Paul Demko at City Pages cites this blog in an article today: Killer Moths Attack Strib!

Unfortunately, the story Demko is trying to milk today is a week old, and for some reason, Demko chose not to tell the entire story. Let’s help him out.

He gets the basics right. Hugh Hewitt did try to launch a “swarming the Strib” movement, assigning bloggers permanent beats covering the Star Tribune’s political coverage and exposing bias when found.

The problem is that, while the idea generated a bit of heat at the time Hewitt brought it up, it floundered within about twenty-four hours. Why? Well here is some of the commentary on the topic from the right side of the local blogosphere:

Margaret from Our House:

Hugh Hewitt wants us to start blogswarming the Strib (or the Star and Sickle, Red Star as it is affectionately known to conservatives in this state).

I think he's blogging up the wrong tree. He says we should swarm political writers like Dane Smith and Kevin Duchschere. But they aren't the problem. They are fair, hardnosed reporters. When they veer off it is usually because they are overdoing the middle of the road thing and overemphasizing some particular point of view. Or because they think it makes a more entertaining story.

David following up also at Our House:

I have friends who work at the Star Tribune, and I have never had a complaint about how any reporter has ever treated me.

And I have been dealing with these guys a LONG time. I trust their integrity implicitly.

Pat Lopez and Dane Smith are friends of mine, and Deborah Caufield Rybak has done excellent reporting on the tobacco settlement. I do have real problems with the track record of the Strib poll, and the editorial page is dominated by fruitcakes.

On this blog, I noted Hewitt’s plan to Swarm the Strib, but in the same post I plugged this post from What If? describing a meeting Peg Kaplan had with Star Tribune news editor, Anders Gyllenhaal. Among Peg’s observations:

While chatting with Anders, I realized that the majority of my anger came not so much with those who produced the news portions of the paper, but with the editorial pages. And, being a true ignoramus when it comes to how a paper is run, I didn’t realize that Anders had nothing – nothing – to do with those *&$% opinions that appeared each day!

So. My visit to the bowels of the Strib was a most educational experience for me. I learned that the guy at the top really cares and is devoted to his work. Anders clearly seems to have an open mind, too – unlike, uh, some other divisions in Strib-land. And, the editor also is obviously someone willing to go the extra mile to please his customers.

From Craig Westover:

In other words, if we can’t win the hearts and minds of the people with our own ideas, at least we can bludgeon the opposition's management and advertisers and shut them up.

Hugh’s idea smacks of boycott to me, which strikes me as just a tad bit collective for the people that supposedly support the notion of individualism.

King Banaian at SCSU Scholars added:

It seems as if the initial reaction to Swarm the Strib, an idea Hugh Hewitt broached on the air last night has, in the light of day, found cooler heads. ... After being out until 10:30 last night I flipped on my Replay Radio to listen to Hugh discuss the idea, listened to his callers (and note the new blog of a listener) and thought it sounded like amateur hour.

So while Hugh’s notion sounded great to some at first blush, it was quickly dropped. Hugh Hewitt hasn’t even mentioned it again, as far as I’ve heard. While many local conservative bloggers found plenty of reason to complain about the editorial pages of the Star Tribune, there simply wasn't much outrage about the basic reporting that rose above the level of "we don't subscribe to the Star Tribune." Hardly sufficient enthusiasm to get Hugh's proposed "blog swarm" off the ground.

Craig Westover noticed this same story today, and sent Mr. Demko an e-mail, noting:

From the comments I've received, with but a few exceptions, Minnesota bloggers have rejected Hewitt's call for organized action. To my knowledge, he hasn't mentioned it again on his radio show or posted about it, although I admit I am not a regular listener or reader.

In fairness, I think your article should have mentioned that while individually critical of the Star Tribune, the blogger community in Minnesota as a whole has rejected the tactic of digitally shouting down the opposition.

Good point. It remains to be seen if the ommision was intentional or simply left out because Demko didn't know about the rest.

If you're reading this Paul, feel free to chime in on that point.

MN GOP Blogroll - Some Advice

2005-03-08T20:28:00.000-06:00

Might as well go three for three and make all my posts today about blogs. Navel-gazing Tuesday - a new tradition. Or not.

Anyway, this one goes out to the Minnesota GOP. Particularly whoever runs the Minnesota GOP website.

Now overall, I think they do a decent job. It's a well designed website. Lots of good content. Useful links. Updated regularly.

But they have this little blogroll, appropriately titled "blogs,"and um... well...

There's not a bad one in the bunch I'll admit. But what exactly is the purpose of this blogroll? One would hope it's to direct visitors to the site to Minnesota GOPish kind of blogs. Or at least GOPish type blogs in general that might interest Minnesotans. And by that criteria, lets critique their list.

Lileks' "The Bleat" is a local hero and one of my favorite writers. So despite the fact that he's likely to write about politics less often than he writes about Jasper the dog, he's quite eloquent when he does so. No argument.

Free Republic. Hey, I've been a Freeper since 1999. Great site. It's not a blog. If you want a local blog with lots of contributors, how about our new local all-chick blog the M.A.W.B. Squad?

A Small Victory. Granted, she voted for Bush. But she lives in Long Island and rarely writes about politics at all, let alone Minnesota politics. I vote for The Kool-Aid Report to replace this one. They can write screeds as well as Michele, plus they're a Minnesota blog and unlike Michele they regularly write about politics.

Captain's Quarters. One of the best blogs in the country. And it's local and political. No argument.

Fraters Libertas. Obviously. Who else is going to give extensive coverage to Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation races?

Hugh Hewitt. Though national, the dude has not only taken an active interest in Minnesota politics, he's taken an active interest in promoting the local blogosphere. No argument.

Instapundit. The blogfather. I suppose one can't argue with this. Yet I will. Why a big national blog instead of something with more local focus people might not already know about. Everyone knows Instapundit. Why not give that space to Freedom Dogs?

Little Green Footballs. Similar to the above. It's big. It's good. But it's not local, and everyone already knows about it. Zap it. Put Craig Westover in its place.

Power Line. Duh.

Shot In The Dark. Another no-brainer, though it's nice to see Mitch didn't get snubbed because there is a gaping Northern Alliance hole about to follow....

I'm thinking about some kind of scholar-type guy in a Saint Cloudy kind of place. And I'm thinking about some sort of salivating bovine. Just freaking add them. Instead we get...

Tim Blair. On the basis of what? He had drinks with Lileks the one time? He's in freaking Australia. How about us fine folks over at the (shortly to be renamed)
TBFKADVK as a replacement? It's a blog devoted exclusively to Minnesota politics, and we occasionally offer original coverage of GOP candidates not covered in local mainstream media. On the other hand, we do offer piss-poor coverage of the electoral prospects for Tasmanian MP's.

MN Democrats Exposed. That one ought to be a model for other blogs selected. Local. Minnesota politics. Good quality. Not well known (yet).

And there are plenty of other great quality local GOP oriented blogs getting the snub here...

Nihilist In Golf Pants
Pair 'o Dice
People's Republic of Minnesota
Belief Seeking Understanding
Blogizdat
Our House
The Attic
Flown to the Roll
GigglePundit
Pinkmonkeybird
Plastic Hallway
PolicyGuy
Rambling Rhodes
Speed Gibson
The First Ring
The Whippersnapper

And that's just to name a few. With the Minnesota Organization of Blogs going full-steam, there are many more as well.

Minnesota GOP... either do the blogroll thing for real or don't do it at all. Going half-*ssed about it just makes you look out-of touch to the community you seem to be trying to engage.

"Bloggerists" and Related Matters

2005-03-08T17:45:00.000-06:00

Lots of blogging talk today. The topic is on my mind for reasons I’ll talk about later. Now is the time for those of you who find bloggers writing about blogging annoying to amscray.

Recently, during his experience covering the kickoff of Mark Kennedy on the campaign trail, The First Ringer coined the term “bloggerist” to reflect the fact that bloggers doing original reporting don’t quite behave the same as traditional journalists. It's an interesting observation, and I don't quite know where it will lead. The only safe bet is to cop out with an answer like, "it will lead to something new."

But one of the funny things I'm discovering in my own "bloggerist" adventures so far is how these "new" places aren't really breaking new ground in the basics of reporting. Heck, I freely admit I'm learning that as I go along. Craig Westover offers some terrific observations and advice on the topic, and I take it quite seriously.

But we are doing strange things in terms of story selection. We're covering things in detail - sometimes amazing detail - that traditional media sources entirely ignore. And I think the reason why is simple. We approach this stuff from the perspective of a reader. Why? Because we typically think of ourselves as readers first. With few exceptions, bloggers don't make their living by writing. The energy we pour into our blogs previously went into reading the newspaper, or magazines, or books. And most bloggers remain voracious readers.

I know from my own experience that the reason I put time and effort into getting interviews is because I got tired of waiting for someone else to do it. If I wanted to read intereviews of particular people that interested me, the only way to get them was to do them myself. Increasingly I'm finding the same about reporting basic news stories (the Star Tribune and Pioneer Press not even giving John Kline's endorsement of Mark Kennedy a single line of coverage for weeks - something I noted within minutes of it happening at TBFKADVK - hit me as a particularly eye opening moment).

And that leads to one of the most amusing and puzzling disconnects between threatened traditional journalists and the rising blogosphere. The thing many trads are missing is that bloggers generally have no intention of "replacing" traditional journalism. By and large we're frustrated readers who couldn't find anyone writing what we wanted to read.

It started with simple editorializing and commentary. But despite premature conclusions, it's not ending there. And why should it?

Right-Wing Bloggers Exposed?

2005-03-08T12:55:00.000-06:00

Deacon at Powerline notes a truly bizarre article in the American Prospect today. I’d summarize the gist of it briefly, but that would be a difficult thing to do. In general, it's about bloggers. It rambles along in heated fashion, but the revelations the writer seems to find shocking are things almost anyone else would consider extremely obvious.

One point Deacon takes personal umbrage at is where the article attempts to “expose” some conservative bloggers, Powerline among them, as … and here is where it gets difficult. As what exactly? I would like to say she offers some biographical information about Powerline’s contributors, but she does it in a style that suggests she believes it has some bearing on… and again we’re stuck. On what, exactly?

Is it news that bloggers possess partisan biases? News to whom? We’re not only not hiding that, it’s one of the central organizing factors in the blogosphere. Is it news that bloggers engage in politics in their personal lives? That’s how citizens participate in democracy in our country. Is it news that some bloggers were writing in other mediums before they had blogs? Again, news to whom?

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume the final paragraph on the article summarizes what the heck this article is supposed to be about. Let’s walk through it a bit at a time:

“But unlike traditional news outlets, right-wing blogs…”

The writer here is a partisan lefty, so her concern about partisan right-wing blogs seems to have a pretty simple motivation. If she truly thinks these observations only apply to the right, she’s a nutty moonbat, but even then we can accept that and move on. Let’s get to some of the … observations? Accusations? Still not clear:

“…blogs openly shill, fund raise, plot, and organize massive activist campaigns on behalf of partisan institutions and constituencies”

Run that language through a hyperbole-filter and we’re left with essentially this: “Bloggers participate in politics.” So far so good.

Then we get this:

“they also increasingly provide cover for professional operatives to conduct traditional politics by other means -- including campaigning against the established media”

“Provide cover” is a tricky phrase. It sounds sinister, but can anyone tell what exactly this means? Seems some “professional operatives,” another tricky, sinister, but ultimately empty phrase, also might use blogs. And they might criticize the traditional media. Yikes! Or rather. Duh.

We’ll take a little sanity break now. Everyone holding up okay? We’re almost done, and so far we’ve established that some bloggers are politically active, including some who work in politics, and some even criticize the traditional media. Where is the story here? Still not clear. Maybe the next bit will clear that up for us:

“instead of taking these bloggers for the political activists they are, all too often the established press has accepted their claims of being a new form of journalism”

I think we’re onto something finally. The writer is an idiot. She thinks something cannot be a “new form of journalism” unless it looks exactly like the old form of journalism. Had she bothered to ask, any number of bloggers could have told her that bias and partisanship are absolutely part of the blogosphere. That’s not a secret. The difference between bloggers and the “established press” is that bloggers admit it.

And then we come to the very end, and find perhaps the most telling statement of all:

“This will have to change -- or it will prove serious journalism’s undoing.”

Not sure where the American Prospect has been, but the “undoing” of “serious” (i.e. old) journalism has been a pretty big story for the past year or so. But in any case, it’s overblown. “Serious journalism” isn’t going away, no matter how many partisans decide they like writing also. It's all about finding an audience - same as it ever was. Only the medium has changed.

To the extent good traditional journalism is performed, the blogosphere is simply another medium for broadcasting it. What this writer apparently doesn’t like is that other things can be broadcast too. In effect, everyone now has a printing press. If they don’t like the way the “established press” is reporting something, they can report it differently themselves. This is scary, why?

Well it’s scary to two kinds of people: Those who have tremendous self-interest and/or investment in the old media model, and those who rely on the more monopolistic, “few-presses” model of the traditional press, for whatever reason.

Not sure which perspective this article was written from. Perhaps a bit of both. But despite devoting 3,395 words to the topic, all it amounts to is someone who suddenly woke up to the blogosphere and just realized some of the implications… implications the rest of us have been talking about for the past couple of years rather openly.

Nightly Freedom Post

2005-03-07T23:43:00.000-06:00

John McCain - Get the Money Out of Other People's Politics

2005-03-07T22:17:00.000-06:00

I have already contended that on the basis of his attack on freedom of speech on the Internet John McCain has set himself outside of supportability for any within the blogosphere. Tonight Captain Ed goes further, citing evidence of potential conflict of interest on the part of Senator McCain:

After a non-profit group closely associated with McCain and which pays a six-figure salary to one of his aides received $200,000 in donations from Cablevision, McCain wrote a letter of support to the FCC pushing Cablevision's regulatory positions

Ed cites more:

McCain told the AP that he sees nothing wrong with this arrangement:

"If it was a PAC (political action committee) or if it was somehow connected to any campaign of mine, I would say to you, that's a legitimate appearance of conflict of interest. But it's not," McCain told The Associated Press.
"There's not a conflict of interest when you're involved in an organization that is nonpartisan, nonprofit, nonpolitical."

Lovely. I post a link to a candidate I support and the feds can come and put me away. But people throwing buckets of cash at McCain's lackeys to gain his support is no problem according to Johnny-Boy.

This man is NOT ELECTABLE in 2008. He not only will never be president, he ought never be re-elected Senator. He's an embarrassment. The Republicans' own shameful version of Kleagle Robert Byrd.

Interview Reflections

2005-03-07T21:28:00.000-06:00

Interesting to observe how the Jeff Johnson interview has been received. I didn't really know what to expect.

A few observations.

First, it is a long way from the elections of 2006, and it appears there isn't a whole lot of pressing interest in this particular race yet. That's ok. That will change in time, and the same interview can be brought forward later on.

Second, I got some really nice feedback from some bloggers I truly respect. Short of the accolades of millions, having nice words from people you admire comes second (Okay, maybe first, but I need to experience the accolades of millions at least once to know for sure). They found specific things to take issue with, and constructive criticism is always appreaciated, but the overall positive tone made the effort feel worth the trouble.

As to my own feelings? Mixed. I made the mistake of becoming enthused about the candidate after meeting him. So I wanted everyone to take such an interest. But why should they? The election of the Minnesota AG in 2006 is hardly a pressing issue for most people. Even politically active center-right Republican people.

Baby steps. I'm learning how to do this politcal interview thing. And I'm still learning how to market it in the blogosphere. The next such interview will be different, and hopefully better as a result.

MN Attorney General Candidate Jeff Johnson Interview

2005-03-06T17:55:00.000-06:00

Jeff Johnson is currently Assistant Majority Leader in the Minnesota State House of Representatives, and candidate for the Republican nomination to become Minnesota's next Attorney General.

I met Rep. Johnson in his office, across the street from the Capitol in Saint Paul. More information about Rep. Johnson is available here, and here.

Me: First Question. Why politics instead of the private sector?

JJ: Well, I’ve done both. And actually am doing both right now. Since I graduated from law school I’ve always been in the private sector and continue to be. But since I was a kid, I’ve had an interest in politics and government and in policy things. I always knew that I would run for office some day. Honestly I thought it would be when my kids were grown up and I was closer to retirement. But this opportunity to run for the House kind of fell in my lap.

Me: How did that happen?

JJ: Well… It would have been 2000. And I had been very active in our Senate district Republicans. I was treasurer, and was helping out with the campaigns. Henry Van Dellen was the incumbent Republican House member, and had been in for ten years or so. And he had an opportunity to start a business and make a whole bunch of money. He had been endorsed in 2000 to run again, and probably wouldn’t have even had a DFL opponent. And I think it was about two weeks before the filing deadline in June, he called me up and said, “I’m pulling out of the race.” And he called up a few other people who had been active. And I literally had about forty-eight hours with my wife to decide. We had one little boy then. And I thought, when it happens like this, you can’t really pass it up. I think it’s supposed to happen that way. So I just jumped at it.

And that campaign was about getting the endorsement. Because out in our district unless you’re kind of freaky, and you get the Republican endorsement you ought to be able to win. So it was literally a two week campaign. I had my list of two hundred people to convince to vote for me. And that’s what I did for two weeks.

So it kind of just came out of the blue.

Me: In brief how would you describe your experience as a legislator so far?

JJ: I’ve loved it.

I came in knowing that I wasn’t going to do this all that long though. I had always said that it would be either three or four terms. And this is my third term. Because I think there’s some really good people who have been here a long time. But I just think turnover is good in the legislature. Because there are lots of great people who are just waiting to try this and could come up with some new ways of handling things.

I have liked it but I’m ready to move on. Either to the private sector full-time, or the public sector full-time.

Right now I’m doing this, and then I have my own business, and also work for the law firm. And I know my wife is ready for me to have one job. Whether it’s here or somewhere else I don’t know.

But it’s been a great experience. And I would recommend it to anybody who can swing it from a career / financial perspective, which isn’t always so easy for a lot of folks. But if you can do it…. If you put your mind to it you really can change some things, and pass some legislation that actually affects peoples lives.

There are some people here who I think choose not to do that. They’re here for whatever reason. But there are others who really make a difference. And that’s kind of cool.

Me: In the Legislature, what are some of your highlights, and what are some of the things you didn’t really like?

JJ: Highlights for me were passing legislation that I thought mattered. And in particular, I’ve had a bill every year, except for this year, that eliminates mandates on schools – state mandates on our school boards – that I think is important. We’re constantly complaining about not enough money and not enough local control. And I found out very quickly, when you actually try to eliminate mandates it’s like World War Three. Because they’re there because some political interest got them there. Usually Education Minnesota, but sometimes other folks. But we actually accomplished some of that, and eliminated some mandates.

And a big tort reform proposal I had, the Joint and Several Liability revisions, that was probably two years ago. We had been shooting at that for twelve years, and finally got it passed a couple of years ago, and that was my bill.

So those are two highlights from the legislative perspective.

Also… I really enjoy the people here. On both sides of the aisle. There’s just a lot of really good folks here that are trying to do the right thing. Some of them I couldn’t disagree with more about how they go about it, but they’re here for the same reason I am – because they think they can make life better for Minnesotans. So that has been a highlight for me.

This is kind of cheesy I think, but when school groups come in, I just think that’s so much fun. Because they’re so eager to learn what the place is about. And generally they’re pretty honest about what they think. They tend to ask the toughest questions of anybody that comes in, because they’ll just say whatever is on their minds. So that’s been fun.

The lowlights? The time is difficult. Especially when you’re doing anything on the outside, and you have a family. And that’s been hard. We’ve been able to do it as a family, and I’ve still been able to… I turn down a lot of evening things so I can just go home and be with my kids. And no one has ever complained about that. So it’s something you can do. You can balance your family life with this, but you really have to work hard at it, and sometimes tick a few people off. I do get frustrated. There are plenty of folks who have family problems. Once they come here they end up divorced or whatever. And then they blame it on being in the legislature, which is just a bunch of BS, because… If you decide you’re going to make it work, you can make it work. Just like being an accountant or a lawyer or whatever. It’s up to you.

That has been hard, but doable.

And then just that so many people take everything so personally. And if you happen to disagree with them on a political issue, you’re a bad person. Or you’re not as good a Christian as they are. I’ve heard that… I’ve gotten plenty of letters from people who say, “Because you’re not willing to fund things the way I would, where are your Christian values,” or, “How can you call yourself a Christian?” Which just drives me crazy. I just don’t think you have to get that personal about things.

That’s been that hardest part, probably.

Me: I’ll phrase this as generally as I can and you can answer it however you’d like: Why are you running for Attorney General?

JJ: I have watched what’s happened in the Attorney General’s office the last six years. And there is truly an opportunity there to do some things as Attorney General to make a difference. And they’re not happening right now because the office has become all about Mike Hatch, and Mike Hatch wanting to move on to higher office. And it seems to me every important decision that’s made over there is based on Mike Hatch’s political future as opposed to what should the Attorney General be doing for Minnesotans.

In particular… What I have spent the majority of my time on here are K-12 issues, and kids issues. And that’s what I think the Attorney General’s office should be focusing on primarily is kids – the most vulnerable folks in our society – and how to keep them safer. I’m not one of these people who claims that I care more about children than the other guy just because we disagree on things. I’m sure Mike cares very much about kids too. But it certainly has not been a priority.

And a perfect example of that is … I’m carrying the Meth bill in the House. We haven’t seen it nearly as significantly in the Twin Cities, but it is just devastating rural Minnesota. And what it’s doing to kids out there and families… it’s really kind of scary.

And I never heard Mike Hatch say a word about Meth until a month and a half ago or so, when all of a sudden it was all over the papers and all over TV, and became the most important media issue out there. And then all of a sudden he has a press conference and decides that he’s going to have this legislative agenda to tackle it. He had his press conference. Never heard a word about it from him since. He got his press. And that was that. He hasn’t been around here trying to convince us to pass anything that he would want. It was a publicity grab like he’s so good at, and nothing more.

We should have an Attorney General who’s working on issues like that. And working on sexual predators with the governor, rather than making a political issue out of it.

That’s the main reason I’m running. I’d like to see someone do something different over there.

Me: How would you handle those issues, if you were in office, differently than Hatch did?

JJ: They’d be on the top of my agenda. There are legislative things that need to be done to fix them. I would be out front proposing the agenda as the Attorney General – as the chief law enforcement officer in the state. And then working that legislative agenda to get it past.

I have pretty good relationships on both sides of the aisle. That’s going to get strained a little bit more now because I’m running for higher office. But what I have been able to accomplish over here has mostly been accomplished quietly, just because that’s how I think I get things done better. And so you sit down with key legislators, both in the Senate and the House; you work with the Governor, and the bureaucrats over in the agencies, and you actually get these things done, rather than get a headline out of it and then move on to your next victim.

That would be a main difference. I wouldn’t just talk about these things. We’d actually get some of them done.

Me: What is your assessment of the state’s lawsuit against tobacco companies? That’s one of the crown jewels of Mike Hatch’s term in office. (Post-Interview Correction: It was AG Humphrey who preceded Hatch as Minnesota AG who conducted this lawsuit)

JJ: No one has asked me that question before. To be honest… I think Attorney Generals around the United States, including in Minnesota have gotten a little out of hand with litigation. That is probably a good example of it.

I did not follow that case real closely because it started when I wasn’t even back in the state yet from Chicago, where I worked for a while. But in the reading I’ve done of it the lawsuit seemed a bit farfetched to me. But I think it worked because public opinion… You know everybody hates tobacco companies, just like we all hate insurance companies now, and we hate fast food companies and pharmaceuticals. And the Attorney General, and Attorney Generals all over the country, realized that is we put enough pressure on these folks they wouldn’t have the guts to actually take the lawsuits to fruition, because if they lost it would be three times what the settled for.

I have to be honest with you. I’m not exactly sure what I would have done. It’s a little hard, I think, as Attorney General to say… Everybody else is suing the tobacco companies, you can get in on it and make billions for the state. Do you just pass it up and say that’s no good? I’m not sure what I would have done.

But I can tell you that I’m going to have less of an interest in using litigation against big companies than Mike Hatch does. Because in the long run I don’t think it’s all that great for the state, because it affects your business climate. It affects who wants to come to Minnesota; who wants to expand in Minnesota; who wants to leave Minnesota, from a business perspective. And that affects average people like you and me who are looking for jobs.

The other thing on that issue that really bothers me is the Attorney General’s power to hire an outside law firm that made hundreds of millions of dollars on this case. Forgive me, I don’t know what the final number was. But it was hundreds of millions of dollars. It made multi-millionaires out of about thirty or forty lawyers at Robins, Kaplan. I actually have a bill that I haven’t introduced yet that says if the Attorney General’s office feels that it doesn’t have lawyers capable to handle a case like this, and determines they have to go outside, that they have to use the bidding process just like any other agency would in choosing a contractor. You might not always take the lowest priced provider, because they might not have the skills. But you have to do it out in the open. And that choice certainly wasn’t done that way, and they ended up with an awful lot of money that probably should have gone to the taxpayers.

Me: What are your ideas about tort reform?

JJ: I was chief author of the Joint and Several bill, and I think that has been a very positive thing for the state. I’m supportive of tort reform, although not every proposal, because like anything else any change is called reform even if it doesn’t necessarily improve things.

I have a bill right now… There are several statutes in Minnesota that provide for attorney’s fees recovery of plaintiffs, if they win a lawsuit. For example in a sexual harassment case, if the plaintiff wins they recover all their attorney’s fees from the defendant... the company that harassed them. But there’s no similar provision that provides that the defendant gets their attorney’s fees if they win the case. And I have actually a couple of bills. One of them is called Modified Loser Pays. Essentially it says that in any case if you make an offer of settlement, and the other side turns it down, whether you’re plaintiff or defendant, if the other side turns it down and then you go on to trial and you do worse by a certain percentage than that offer of settlement, you’re going to have pay the attorneys fees for the other side from the point of that settlement offer on. That’s probably not going to pass because it’s pretty bold.

One that probably has a better shot says that for all of these statutes that provide for plaintiffs to recover their attorney’s fees… same concept. If the defendant makes an offer and they do worse at trial they don’t get to recover their attorney’s fees from that point going forward. So they’d still get some of their attorney’s fees, they wouldn’t have to pay the other side, but they wouldn’t recover as much in attorneys fees.

To me that is the best way to deal with what I think is the biggest problem in our legal system – frivolous lawsuits, that have just gone rampant, especially in the employment context.

There’s a bill out there to cap med-mal damages. Which I support, but I’m not enthusiastic about, because I think it’s kind of a simplistic answer to a complex problem. But it will come to my committee and we’ll pass it out. And I’ll support it. But I think there are better ways of doing it. That is one.

There’s also a bill for some class-action reform, which is probably the best bill out there for tort reform purposes. Essentially it doesn’t allow the trial lawyers to recover ninety percent of the money, and then the folks who were supposedly hurt get a handful of bucks. The perfect example of that was the Blockbuster case a few years ago. I can’t even remember why blockbuster was sued, but they were sued by a class of several thousand people. And in the end the lawyers recovered seven million dollars and each of the plaintiffs got some coupons for free movies. That’s screwed up. And the class action bill deals with that to an extent. I think that’s an important issue that the Attorney General should be leading on. But that certainly won’t happen as long as a DFL’er is in there.

Me: Do you have aspirations to office beyond Attorney General?

JJ: Not right now. I don’t know what would happen in ten years, or fifteen years, or twenty years. I truly want to be Attorney General to do something with that office. And my thought would be you probably can’t do that in four years anyway. I think you probably need eight years, or maybe longer if possible.

So right now the answer is no, but it could conceivably change.

Me: If elected what do see as the two or three largest issues you’d be confronting?

JJ: I think tort reform is one of them. It’s certainly one I would spend time on. I think…

I put these two together: the meth, and the sexual predator issue. I put them together because they’re both crime issues. They deal a lot more with kids than anybody else. And those two… Unless we somehow get that solved in the next year and a half, before the next election, those two would be probably my top priority.

I also think the morale over in the Attorney General’s office is extremely low. From the lawyers I know over there. Mike Hatch really cleaned house of long-term lawyers over there that really had great skills but weren’t political and wouldn’t put up with the fact that everything was about partisanship and Mike Hatch. And a lot of them left… I’ve talked to a lot of them and they won’t go public with it, because they’re scared to death of the guy, he’s rather vindictive… But morale is really low over there. And you have so many good people that could be brought back again with a good Attorney General.

I think that’s a huge issue because one key job of the Attorney General’s office is to assist county attorneys in higher profile, more complex, criminal prosecutions that they just can’t handle in their own small offices in rural Minnesota. And there has really been … Most of the best criminal attorneys over there have left because they don’t want to work under the circumstances they had to work under. So there’s been a real de-emphasis on that part of the job… that part of the role of the office. One thing I would work on very quickly is to get some of those people back, and get some other good career criminal prosecutors who would be willing to come in and really beef up that part of the office.

Me: Switching gears a bit, and part of the reason I’m here, what is your strategy for engaging blogs like you would other reporters?

JJ: This came from Larry [Colson, Jeff Johnson’s eCampaign coordinator – ed.] because he knows this better than I do. I follow blogs to a certain extent, but not as much as some people have I suppose.

Out goal is to treat you folks just like we would treat the Star Tribune, or the Detroit Lakes Tribune, or whatever. If we have a press release to send out, we’re going to send it to you and everyone else. If we’re going to have a press conference, you guys will be invited to it just like anybody else. Larry, and I now, have been trying to watch what’s happening. We’re always watching what’s happening in newspapers and on TV to see if we get coverage and what it looks like. We’re going to do that with blogs as best we can now too. And try to follow up with people when they have questions, or want to meet and just talk. Essentially it’s the same media strategy we would have with the more traditional folks. And frankly I think we’ll probably get fairer coverage from you guys.

Me: I’m going to throw some strange stuff at you now. Getting a little lighter.

JJ: Okay.

Me: Three favorite blogs.

JJ: I like Powerline. But every conservative in Minnesota does now. I love Steyn Online. I just think he’s very entertaining. And probably Hugh Hewitt’s site. Those are the three that I probably look at the most. Although now all of a sudden I’m looking at lots that I’d never heard of before, just because of this whole thing, and seeing my name here or there.

Me: Three favorite books.

JJ: That I have read? Oh gosh. That’s a great question.

My favorite political book, and this isn’t a real deep book, but it’s called What It Takes by Ben Kramer. I don’t know if you’ve ever read it. But for a political junkie, it’s a great book. It’s about the 1988 presidential race. And he actually got inside access to three different Democratic candidates. It’s a fascinating book, and it’s very entertaining.

I hate to say this because this sounds so self-serving. But I read the Bible every night. And to me that’s probably the most important book that we have in our house.

I don’t know if you’ve read the Left Behind series or not. I’ve read about seven of them. And I’m right in the middle of the sixth or seventh one. I don’t even know what number. If you’re going to ask me what book I’m enjoying the most now, it’s probably that one.

Me: What is the most important reason people should support you for Attorney General?

JJ: Because I believe that we need an Attorney General who truly is concerned about how that office can help people rather than help himself or herself. And we absolutely have to have a different direction in that office. And maybe it won’t be Mike Hatch running. It might be Matt Entenza. It might be David Lillehaug. I don’t see their philosophy all that different, frankly. They’ll see it solely as a stepping stone to something bigger. And I recognize it can be that. It traditionally has been that. But if it’s used that way you really are not accomplishing anything for the people in Minnesota. And actually you’re moving backwards, as I think Hatch has because he’s poisoned the business climate in this state by his “sue first ask questions later” attitude.

I think changing the focus of that office is the number one reason they should vote for me.

A Glorious Sunday in March

2005-03-06T16:39:00.000-06:00

I'm on my backyard deck. Wearing a sweater, but no other jacket. Having a cigar (a La Aroma de Cuba Churchill). The boy is frolicking in the backyard on the swings. And it's still officially winter.

March is a weird month in Minnesota. Goes to extremes. This is about as extremely good as we can expect. I'm sure we'll be buried in snow again before the month ends. But we take this month one day at a time. And no complaints today.

Gratuitous Disclosure

2005-03-06T10:02:00.000-06:00

I've noticed a disturbing trend developing among certain bloggers (disclosure: I myself am a "blogger"). In reaction to challenges that bloggers may have hidden connections, some have decided it is necessary to disclose connections - not matter how tenuous or obvious - to virtually anything they write about. I don't want to name names here (disclosure: I have a few names in mind), but there are times when such "disclosure" gets a bit silly (disclosure: I myself have been known to be "silly" at times).

I understand the desire to not have ones' integrity compromised, or even seemingly compromised (disclosure: umm... i got nothing this time). But I implore bloggers to think more carefully before they "disclose" something in the future (disclosure: I have occasionally watched "Futurama"), lest they descend into parody.

Sanity Break!

2005-03-05T22:36:00.000-06:00

Sanity break! (Insert an "in" before "sanity" as appropriate)

Enough transcribing for tonight! Who IS that boob asking the follow-up questions on the recording?! Doesn't he know someone has to transcribe this stuff?! I'll be asking the Bloggers Union to look into him.

Yeah, yeah, it will be done in time to publish tomorrow night. Chill out. I needed to stop tonight before I started inserting my own editorial comments in place of the actual words of the candidate.

Not that I disliked the candidate. Quite the opposite. I found him terrific.

It's my own sarcastic/cynical side that wants to interject. And that's just not good for faithful transcription.

So instead it's a rousing dose of Meatloaf's Bat out of Hell, bourbon on the rocks, and Frogger! Hoo-yah!

Light Posting

2005-03-05T19:59:00.000-06:00

Light posting for a bit. I need to finish the Jeff Johnson interview transcription.

No griping. This is for your benefit. I already know what he said.

Is It Speech or Money?

2005-03-05T16:22:00.000-06:00

A central absurdity to McCain-Feingold in regard to stifling speech on the Internet is how we came to this point.

I remember the heated debates between the pro campaign finance reform McCain backers and conservative skeptics during the Republican primary preceding the 2000 election. A central conservative argument is that contributing money to a candidate was an act of free speech. The campaign finance reformers scoffed at the notion. Money isn’t speech! Speech is speech, they said. In time this is the notion that carried the day and was signed into law.

Well now we’ve come full circle. Since giving money to a campaign is now regulated by McCain-Feingold, suddenly all sorts of things are being assigned monetary value. Including publishing your words on the Internet. And once you assign it a monetary value, all other considerations of freedom seem to go out the window.

If the published word – regardless of medium – is not an example of free speech, then no such example exists.

I’m willing to give politicians a chance to set things right with a mea culpa. But those who stubbornly insist on this course, regardless of party, should be remembered for the enemies of freedom they are, and kicked to the curb when they come up for re-election.

In a Charitable Mood

2005-03-05T15:27:00.000-06:00

I see Blogger is up to it’s blazing speed again. And I have not migrated to a better blog hosting service yet, why? Oh, right. It’s free. Less money spent on blog-hosting, means more to spend on … charitable donations of course. What did you think I was going to say? Booze? Sheesh. (I was only thinking that)

And indeed I am in a charitable mood today. Why? Because Learned Foot at The Kool-Aid Report has pointed out an interesting twist on the FEC / McCain-Feingold dustup.

Thus Speaketh the Foot:

Because you know what is coming: if the Feds wish to characterize a hyperlink as an in kind contribution for campaign finance purposes, then it really can't justify disallowing tax deductions for links to charitable organizations (so called "501(c)'s").

Interesting to see where this all shakes out. But I would be interested to see how the government can possibly call a hyperlink a contribution in the one case and not the other.

Not that they won’t try. This is after all a power grab, not a faithful act of responsible government.

But other than the forever after unsupportable Senators McCain and Feingold (incidentally, all you McCain for Pres in ’08 bloggers – time to move on to option B), I can’t imagine a whole lot of politicians wanting to run for re-relection trying to defend that contradiction.

Thanks McCain-Feingold

2005-03-04T23:23:00.000-06:00

Chris Muir

The Fetching Cedar Revolution

2005-03-04T22:44:00.000-06:00

I'm a married man. Happily married. Need I even add that?

But as Ryan at Rambling Rhodes recently noted, some of the lasses of the Cedar Revolution are rather fetching. Yet I post these pictures here purely to demonstrate my support of their cause. Really.

Okay. You got me. But I still DO support their cause.

(pictures via the Big Guy)

A Confession

2005-03-04T19:15:00.000-06:00

I admit it. I've been spending too darn much time playing Frogger since Muzzy pointed it out yesterday. And I'm still no good. I miss the big comfy controls at the arcade.

*Sigh*

The 80's did have some good qualities.

Spring in Site - Tomatoes on the Mind

2005-03-04T18:42:00.000-06:00

Agriculture warning: The following is only intended for those who till the soil to grow food. The traditional version is the farmer. His modern suburban equivalent is the gardener.

Snow may still be on the ground. But the calendar says it's March. And we all know what that means. That's right. Only a month or so before we start germinating tomato seeds for our summer garden. That means it's time to get those orders in for seed varieties you don't currently have in stock.

My seed supply was actually pretty low this year. Not to worry. Tomato Growers Supply Company had plenty to spare. I'm cutting down on the number of plants this year. But being a tomato fanatic, that still means I need some variety.

This year I ordered:

Early Wonder
Black Cherry
Black Krim
Jaune Flamme
Eva Purple Ball
Brandywine - Sudduth's Strain
Stump of the World
Sun Gold
Green Grape
Azoychka

This will supplement seeds in stock

Neves Azorean Red
Brandywine OTV
Sweet Million
Snow White
Marianna's Peace
Black Prince

There are already a few varieties it's gnawing at me for leaving off my list this year. So we'll see how well this list holds out.

New Diner

2005-03-04T18:22:00.000-06:00

Say, for those of you who missed the Bleat this morning, Lileks has a new Diner out today. Better than the last. Quite fun really.

Friday Fun Quiz

2005-03-04T14:39:00.000-06:00

Well... fun for some anyway.

It's the Commonly Confused Words Test. (hat-tip Accidental Verbosity)

My results:

English Genius
You scored 100% Beginner, 100% Intermediate, 87% Advanced, and 83% Expert!

You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

Test statistics:

Compared to users who took the test and are and in your age group:
100% had lower Beginner scores.
100% had lower Intermediate scores.
100% had lower Advanced scores.
100% had lower Expert scores.

Okay, okay. I've finally mastered English. Time to get to work on Esperanto like I've always wanted.

James Madison Comments on the FEC

2005-03-04T10:13:00.000-06:00

Jay Reding makes an excellent point regarding the recent FEC statements about stifling political speech on the Internet:

Democracy is sustained by the multiplicity of voices contained within - as James Madison wrote in the Federalist #10:
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

What the FEC is trying to do is exactly what James Madison warned us about over two centuries ago. They’re trying to reduce faction by reducing liberty - which is a dangerous and foolhardy thing to do. Stifling the free exchange of ideals in the way the FEC plans to is an affront to the basic values of our Republic.

In a nutshell, that's a pretty good summation of the impetus behind the campaign finance reform movement that birthed the McCain-Feingold atrocity.

Nick Coleman's Dilemma

2005-03-04T09:36:00.000-06:00

Nick Coleman, the local moonbat columnist who has clearly become obsessed with the Minnesota Organization of Blogs recently, finds himself confronting an uncomfortable dilemma.

Earlier in the week Learned Foot from The Kool-Aid Report posted a poll asking readers to choose:

Who / what will Nick Coleman shamelessly exploit in his newspaper "column" for his own ideological ends this week?

The choices were the following:

The three Minnesota soldiers killed in Iraq last week (look for him to attend one of the funerals)
The children of public school teachers and administrators that were coerced into "rallying" at the State Capitol this week
All of the above.

The poll responses were nearly 75% for "All of the above." And the result?

An exerpt from Coleman's Wednesday column (as noted on KAR):

Several thousand voters converged on the Capitol on Monday to demand that the governor and Legislature return to basics and provide adequate funding for education. It even seemed that the governor might be starting to grasp that Minnesota has been hurt by repeated political slams against the schools, and that he will never get the big chair on Air Force One at this rate.
And from Friday's column:

David Day was given his hero's farewell Thursday, the last of three Minnesota soldiers who died in Iraq to be remembered in small-town rituals that included prayers, tears, rifle volleys, helicopter flyovers and unanswered questions about a faraway war that brought three promising young men home for good.

This leaves Nick with two plausible explanations for the accuracy of the predictions:

He has become a formulaic and predictable hack columnist suitable for replacement by a software program.
The Minnesota Organization of Blogs is two steps ahead of him and/or can see the future.

There is of course the alternative moonbat explanation:

The Right-wing Noise Machine, who have spies everywhere, clearly got worried when they discovered this hard-headed Speaking Truth to Power columnist was onto their child-hating, war-mongering scams, and sent out their disinformation bah-log-gers in an attempt to discredit him.

No need to set up a new poll on this one Learned Foot. The one Nick would go with is a bit too easy to figure out in this case.

McCain-Feingold Power Grab

2005-03-03T22:35:00.000-06:00

John McCain and Russ Feingold. Two rumored presidential hopefuls who ought not earn a dime of revenue, or a word of support from any blogger, from now until forever.

Not only was their "campaign finance reform bill," which was lauded for taking the money out of politics, proved laughably ineffective by the last election. Now they are pushing the FEC via a lawsuit to stifle political speech on the Internet. It seems as long as they call it a "contribution" instead of "speech," they see no First Amendment violation.

Obvious to anyone but a modern judge, this violates the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. Heck, it might as well spit on the Constitution altogether. It's simply a power grab by a bi-partisan elite who fear the power of democracy the Internet is enabling. They want something easier to control. Well tough.

Let's not hold back assigning blame here. I'm a Republican. And my party gets no free ride on this. George W. Bush signed this bill into law. It passed a Republican controlled House and Senate. John McCain himself is at the very top of the front-runner list for the Republican nomination in 2008. Every one of them should be eating crow until they burst until this is resolved.

Time to rattle their cages and let them know this stops now. There can be no attempt by the government - regardless of party - to stifle poltical speech on the Internet without shattering the comfy partisan lines in unpredictable ways. I'll join the Koslings before I support another Republican who would back this travesty.

Captain Ed from Captain's Quarters is encouraging everyone to write their Senators. He has composed a letter himself, and encourages others to read it, and send it in an e-mail to both of your state's senators with your own words at the top speaking your endorsement of it.

That's a starting point. We'll see how things begin to shake out from there. Justice will be done.

It has been a remarkable year. We've watched the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Purple Revolution in Iraq, are seeing the unfolding of the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. Democracy is on the march. And the self-styled potentates at the heart of American government are not beyond its reach.

Jeff Johnson Interview Update

2005-03-03T11:01:00.000-06:00

I did the interview with Rep. Jeff Johnson this morning. I'll probably start working on transcribing it this evening, but doubt I'll finish before tomorrow. And since weekend traffic is low, and I don't want to bury it, I plan on publishing Sunday night.

Cato Institute Releases Annual Fiscal Report Card for Nation's Governors

2005-03-02T22:16:00.000-06:00

The Cato Institute has released its annual fiscal report card of the nation's governors. Who came out on top?

This year, four governors receive the grade of A: Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Craig Benson of New Hampshire, Bill Owens of Colorado, and Judy Martz of Montana

And the bottom?

Four governors receive Fs for their poor performance in dealing with the state fiscal crisis: Bob Holden of Missouri, Bob Taft of Ohio, Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania, and James McGreevey of New Jersey.

Everyone else is in between. The full report is in PDF format here.

(Hat Tip to The Moderate Voice)

Good or Evil?

2005-03-02T21:53:00.000-06:00

Turns out this site is more good than evil. I even took a test to prove it:

Take THAT Howard Dean!

And I like the potential slogan: Bogus Gold - More Than 2/3's real Good!

(Hat-tip Army of Mom)

Jeff Johnson Interview Prep

2005-03-02T19:10:00.000-06:00

I'm interviewing Republican Attorney General Candidate Jeff Johnson tomorrow morning in his office. If anyone has any particularly insightful questions, feel free to shoot them to me in the comments section here, or by e-mail.

When Our Courts Become a Joke...

2005-03-02T10:23:00.000-06:00

Iowahawk today:

WASHINGTON, DC - In a far-reaching decision that will likely create complicated consequences for the American livestock and wedding-planning industries, the Supreme Court this morning ruled 5-4 that all US marriage dowries "must include three non-diseased oxen."

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited "the weight of the expansive penumbra surrounding the historically emerging and prevailing opinions of tribal shamans from Lesotho to Myanamar" in issuing the historic ruling in American Cattleman Association vs. Modern Bride, Helverson, et al.

There's more...

Besides expanding the rights of male clanspeople in dowry disputes, the sweeping 600 page Supreme Court opinion clarified U.S. law in across a broad spectrum of civil, economic and traffic codes. Among the highlights:

Citing EU and Belgian case law, the Court declared that signage on U.S. Interstate Highways must be translated to both French and Flemish by 2007.

The Court also reconciled a number of conflicting Japanese/US traffic standards, ruling that starting Friday, motorists may drive on either side of American roads.

In another civil finding, the Court noted prevailing Nepalese-Canadian-Yemeni standards in opening the way for legalized stonings at arranged gay marriages.

The ruling overturned a 7th Circuit ruling by declaring "The First Rule of Fight Club" unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

By a 5-4 margin, it reversed death sentences for prisoners convicted of crimes committed while juveniles; however, the Court ruled that states may voluntarily terminate prisoners as "extremely late-term abortions" under Roe v. Wade.

Overturning a previous decision by a European panel, the Court declared Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg as winner in the 2003 Eurovision Song Contest.

In a surprise finding, the Court ruled itself unconstitional; but, citing the tradition of international courts ignoring US court rulings, said that this ruling itself was unconstitutional.

First as tragedy. Next as farce.

A Byrd, Some Nazis, and a Klansman

2005-03-01T21:32:00.000-06:00

Once again the Great and August Senator Robert Byrd (D-KKK) lectures us from the Senate floor about the great danger to the Republic posed by ... Republicans.

From Captain's Quarters:

Senator Robert Byrd, defending the minority's right to filibuster on the Senate floor today, wound up his speech by comparing Republican efforts to eliminate the hijacking of the Senate on the Constitutional duty of confirming federal judges to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Not only did Byrd imply that the GOP equates to the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, he's so proud of doing so he's posted the speech to his own website

Ed goes on to cite the "Nazi" portion of the speech, and there is absolutely no denying that Byrd was drawing a direct correlation. Of course Ed corrects the cherry-picked history Byrd used to make this analogy.

The problem is that Ed is an "extreme right-wing blogger without journalistic credentials," according to the audience Byrd intended his statements to affect. The mainstream press is part of that audience. So those who hear Byrd's words will not see any correction. They'll go on believing they are living in a time exactly like the end of the Weimar Republic (and as someone who has studied the history of that era a bit more deeply than watching Saving Private Ryan, and The Longest Day, might I just take a moment to mock those who consider themselves "educated" and believe this analogy is even close).

Also, the matter Byrd is protesting is not a change of law, but a change of internal Senate rules. And the proposed change is allowed by those very same rules. Why is changing this rule "nuclear" when unprecedented fillibustering of appelate judicial nominations is not? But we'll be talking about this for a while now. Let's focus back on Kleagle Byrd's incindiary comments.

Once again the indefatigable Captain Ed does the heavy lifting here so we don't have to. If Byrd wants to remind us of Nazis, is it not appropriate to remind others what Byrd was doing when the goose-step was all the rage?:

More important is the disgusting and deranged implication of death camps and genocide towards Byrd's political opponents just because they propose to change the Senate's rules -- not laws, just the internal rules -- to allow for majority rule on one particular task. Perhaps this point eludes someone who spent the Nazi years belonging to a group that paralleled the same racial philosophies of Hitler himself, but Byrd should know better than to demean the millions of victims of the real Nazis by invoking them as an insult to people who simply oppose Byrd politically.

Byrd, with his attempted filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the last person who should be standing in the well of the Senate, calling anyone a Nazi. Why the Democrats have defended this doddering old embarassment for decades is beyond any explanation but the most base and cynical: he votes the right way. Republicans shunned Trent Lott for waxing nostalgic for an old Dixiecrat on his birthday. Will the Democrats do the same for the lunatic who has befouled the political environment with this intellectually, morally, and historically bankrupt foolishness?

Just a wild guess here Ed, but no. They won't. So let's shine the spotlight on the lovely record of Kleagle Byrd so his allies can feel reeeeeeally good about their inability to disassociate themselves from him, now or ever.

It's not that Byrd is so good, you understand. But what choice do they have when Nazis are taking over the government?

UPDATE: Following the advice of Ed in his update, and Stones Cry Out, I read Radioblogger's remarks on this speech. Since I'm in general agreement with his conclusion, allow me to quote:

I didn't participate in Hugh's latest Vox Blogoli about whether to use the nuclear option, because I wasn't convinced about the political effect of the guaranteed blowback by the MSM. Not anymore. Senator Frist, push the button. I'm tired of these relics maliciously spinning history and reality. Let them complain. There's a lot of Senate seats by the Democrats up for grabs, and I don't think either Nelson want this kind of a fight. Maybe the sane part of the Demoratic Party can start to regain control from the hacks.

The DNC chair says Republicans are evil. The senior Democrat in the Senate says we're Nazis. And the MSM continue to portray Republicans as the party of "hate." Enough. Their card has been played. We're "Evil Nazis" even before any action is taken, I'm afraid being called "Extremely Evil Nazis" doesn't hold much threat. Take back the Senate from the ravings of Klansmen and give the judicial nominees a floor vote.

Once Again Late to the Party

2005-03-01T21:08:00.000-06:00

All of those out there who have been telling me House is a fantastic show were right. I watched it for the first time tonight. I don't even like the "hospital show" genre and thought this show was terrific. Original, funny, unpredictable, interesting characters. I'll be doing the "Season Pass" thing on Tivo for this one.

Funny thing is that I most know Hugh Laurie - who plays Dr. House on the show - from his days on Black Adder. That dude has acting range to go from the zany upper-class twits he played on that show to this character.

The Star Tribune - Jeckyll or Hyde?

2005-03-01T18:23:00.000-06:00

First this Jeckyll side. From Peg Kaplan today:

I sent an email (not my first) to the [Star Tribune] editor, Anders Gyllenhaal. He responded politely, as he had always done previously. But this time, he extended a most gracious invitation. “Why don’t you come to the paper, Peggy,” he offered. “We can meet and talk for a bit, and then you can see how we decide what to do for the next day’s paper afterwards.”

Eagerly, I took Anders up on his offer.

Once downtown, I met a man truly committed to producing a worthy paper. Anders seemed genuinely interested in my opinions; what did I like and dislike about the Strib’s news coverage? What would I change? What did I read, and why did I like it?

Much more there to ponder. Worth a serious read.

But then we come to the "Hyde" side of the Star Tribune. Thats' the one we're accustomed to harping about here. But Hugh Hewitt proposes an idea to deal with Mr. Hyde:

So it occurred to me: Why not do for the entire miserable paper [The Star Tribune] what has been done for Nick [Coleman]? In a word: accountability.

What, I thought, would be the result if enough bloggers from across the country agreed to be part of a "swarm the Strib to reform the Strib" project? Collect at one web site a daily digest of commentary on the lapses in objectivity and logic and the flights of lefty fancy that the paper daily indulges. If there were enough blogger volunteers, two or three could be assigned "beats," say, the second editorial every Tuesday and Thursday, or the political reporting of Washington bureau correspondent Paul Sand or politics reporters Dane Smith and Kevin Duchschere. Not every article would be a hack job, of course, and the idea of instant and certain accountability as to facts and choice of subject might even temper some of the ideological zeal of the Strib's troops. Especially if the web site also made it easy to contact Strib management and Strib advertisers.

I am suggesting an "anti-Strib," a virtual newspaper of sorts, the journalistic equivalent of a shadow government.

More thoughts on this later. But one thing seems clear. Bloggers sitting back and simply accepting MSM business as usual is a thing of the past. The swarms that took down Rather and Eason Jordan were primitive compares to what's coming. Smart newspapers will embrace the technology themselves, and learn to use it. Those that don't will be gradually marginalized in readership and influence.

Domain Confusion and Anonymous Blogging

2005-03-01T09:15:00.000-06:00

Well this is interesting...

At least four Internet domain names that potential DFL gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidates might like to have, including Attorney General Mike Hatch and Patty Wetterling, have been purchased by a blogger to direct visitors to a weblog critical of Minnesota Democrats.

It's also a little weird and amusing because in the next paragraph:

The websites -- including www.mikehatchforgovernor.com and www.wetterlingforsenate.com -- are registered to Domains by Proxy, an Arizona-based company that acts as a front for people who want to shield their website registration information from the public.

They provide links redirecting traffic to the website in question, so we know they know how to do that kind of thing. But no links to anything else... like Domains by Proxy, Attorney General Mike Hatch, Wetterling for Congress, DFL, etc. etc. You get the idea. Baby steps I suppose.

Anyway, the website in question is one I read regularly: Minnesota Democrats Exposed. That's where I found out about this incidentally. And as usual, the story broke there before the Strib printed it.

There are several posts there on the matter, including an explanation of motive, and a defense of his right to publish anonymously.

I have mixed feelings about the domain registration. I know the practice happens - as MDE points out the DFL itself isn't lilly white in this area either. Surprising to no one, the Strib didn't find that newsworthy.

Still, I'd prefer neither side engaged in this kind of thing. I suspect any benefit in gaining traffic is counter-balanced by offending people who arrive there by accident and aren't happy with the slight of hand.

That being said, the attack on his right to publish anonymously is disturbing. I would think that especially in the area of political speech, this was recognized as essential. Anyone ever hear of The Federalist Papers?

Newspapers themselves constantly defend their right to protect the identity of their sources, for the obvious reason that those sources might be subject to retribution if their identity was known. Our secret-ballot voting system is based on the idea that you should not have to publicly expose your political preferences to have a right to participate in our political system.

From the left, Flash has his own thoughts on the matter.

Just a Ramble

2005-02-28T20:50:00.000-06:00

Just a ramble tonight.

I feel awful. Not emotionally. I just have a cold. My mood is actually pretty good. I've had several ideas to write about today, but the suckiness of the body defeated the amiability of the mind every time. So go elsewhere for the important stuff tonight. Where this post goes is anyone's guess at this point, but "serious and topical" is not a likely outcome. You've been warned.

I truly do enjoy the television show American Idol, and this year looks like it will be a good one. Those who don't really watch the show think the attraction is in watching people ridiculed by the judges. Not true. The early auditions piece - which brought us William Hung last year - is really the least compelling part, and the ratings bear this out. What's interesting is to watch a bunch of truly talented people compete to see who can sing and perform the best. This year the talent pool is deep.

Tonight the "rocker" Bo Bice just about brought down the house in a defiantly non-pop performance at the end of the show. Totally unexpected he had that in him. Even the judges seemed stunned. But I still think Anwar Robinson has the inside track to win the whole thing.

Why is this relevant? It's not, as far as I can tell. But if this guy can take a month off to play with Legos, give me at least a night to ramble about mindless television programming.

Incidentally, I'd like to say that my favorite commentary about Idol is the blog Michele Catalano set up: Idol Tongues. Truly, I'd like to. But I can't.

The best site to follow the show remains Television Without Pity.

(insert transition music to shift the mood to something unrelated to the previous topic)

What the heck is it about my blogroll that attracts such attention? Ever since I posted that I'm playing with it and culling down the list, I've had people totally unexpectedly pleading not to be cut - even certain people who have far better blogs than mine (*cough* Varifrank *cough* Anchoress*).

Listen folks. I don't know who is spreading the word, but I'm not the heir to Instapundit's traffic when he dies. If you like reading this blog, great! Glad to have you around.

But being on my blogroll guarantees you not much more than me reading your blog. Which is nice, granted. I'm told I have lovely eyes, and the thought of them pausing to take in the text you wrote is no doubt appealing. But still. Blogads isn't bothering to track it.

But thanks all the same

(this time I'm controlling the transition music. And it's something super-funky! Think George Clinton, only better.)

Big themes of the day as far as I can tell... something going on in Lebanon. And the Democratic Leadership continues to marginalize themselves. Eh.

Yes these are important stories. But in both cases I rather feel I've been talking about this stuff for a while. You want an "I told you so," take a rain-check. Don't have the energy tonight.

And that is disappointingly all tonight. Hope to feel better soon so I can get back to pestering you on a more regular basis.

The Pontiff and the Will to Live

2005-02-28T09:39:00.000-06:00

The Anchoress offers a very nice refutation to a disturbingly widespread strain of thought about Pope John Paul II, by responding to a Newsweek article on the pontiff by Christopher Dickey:

And Dickey seems just flabbergasted, no confounded...no, he seems almost downright insulted, that the Pope has not put forth a living will, with instructions on when the plug may be pulled so we can stop this damned impositioning of his will upon the oppressed Catholic people, and maybe finally get a pope in there who will get on board with the times! Let's go, JP, baby, move it on! We want a Pope Jason who is gonna start living the age throughout the faith and come to speed with abortion, divorce, gay marriage and euthanasia! If only the Pope had left some instructions, we maybe wouldn't have bothered with the tracheotomy, the other day!

Shrug. Maybe it's just me, but that's the sense I'm getting from Dickey, here. He thinks the pope has left no instructions.

Dickey doesn't realize - probably does not want to realize - that the pope, by NOT leaving "instructions" is giving us a tremendous instruction. He is saying, "leave what is alive, alive. The living person may not be living the life YOU'D like...but it is the life they HAVE, and it's not your job or anyone else's to get in the way of it, or shorten it, when doing so may very well be interrupting a larger plan that you (because you are not God) simply cannot comprehend."

She also (appropriately I think) ties this to the Terri Schiavo case, and even our current president. Read the whole thing.

Whatsisface v. Kennedy - So Are We On The Take?

2005-02-27T22:06:00.000-06:00

Gary from ... um... TBFKADVK (we're getting together to pick another name later this week, honest!) has an important post tonight about the funding of our openly pro-Kennedy blog. I added a few of my own thoughts to the end of the post.

Like a Car Crash

2005-02-27T19:10:00.000-06:00

Today Varifrank pointed me to an interesting dustup between center-left blogger Jeff Jarvis, and far-left blogger Oliver Willis. It's like a car crash. I shouldn't watch, but it's hard to look away.

Here we see Willis attempting to villify Jarvis for not being ideologically pure enough according to Willis (and no doubt many others like him):

It is actually in large part the folks within the Democratic Party who think like Jeff who lost the last election for us. The weakest points for the Democratic Party have been their moments when they have shunned what it is to be a Democrat (intelligent answers to complex dilemmas, common sense over corporate cronyism, justice over calculated acts of violence) in order to be "just like the Republicans" (ie. voting for the Bush tax cuts or the war in Iraq).

The weirdest thing about this sort of thing is that I've seen it once before... only from the right. I was a regular at Free Republic during the leadup to the 2000 election, and I admit now that I was on the wrong side much of the time. The wisdom of experience.

I backed Alan Keyes' ideologically pure vision (stop the snickering. I was younger, pro-life was my number one issue, he is an electrifying speaker on that topic, and he wasn't quite so weird yet) and opposed Bush's more moderate appeal. I had a hard choice to make when Keyes not only was out of the race, but clearly wasn't going to carry much influence at all in the party.

I argued and debated and read. But eventually came to see reason. I backed Bush despite the fact that we didn't 100% agree on every issue (partially thanks to this guy, though he may not remember our exchanges at the time). Since then I have come to learn that this is the essence of the American political system - compromise and coalition building. And it happens within parties far more often than between them.

This is why the Jeff Jarvis' of the world so interest me (though my interest and respect taints those of his ilk within their own party - blame Heisenberg). Jarvis is simply trying to understand the electorate and allow his party to build a winning coalition. It's not exactly a new idea.

But unlike among the Republicans in the 90's, the radicals have won control of the party. It's not that there aren't sane and intelligent voices who belong to the Democratic Party and would vote against my candidate. That's a given. It's how marginalized this element of the party has become.

Jarvis calls it the "politics of immaturity":

They operate on schoolyard rules:
: 'If I don't like your game, I'll take my ball and go home.' (See 'one-man circle jerk.' Clever product placement here.)
Or to promote them a few years, they operate on junior-high clique rules:
: 'If you talk to them then you can't be my friend.'
It's all about trying to create an exclusive club. It's all about exclusion.

They measure people on whether they (a) agree totally with them and (b) attack the other side with the same vitriol as they do and (c) dare to ever think of criticizing our side.

This is the politics of immaturity.

And I've seen this all before. It certainly does exist on the right. It's just marginalized.

Hugh Hewitt is convinced that this is a good thing. He believes only a true demolition can shake up the left into regaining some sense about the electorate and the country, and they have yet to experience that.

Me? I'm not so sure. The lack of a serious opposition is giving Republican elected officials a free hand to ignore the interests of their own base - where else can we go? From drilling in ANWAR, to Bush's prescription drug benefit for seniors, to the skyrocketing federal budget, to border and immigration control, there are plenty of things the Republican base has to complain about. But whom do we complain to? There is no credible opposition proposing anything better.

But since the current "center" of the Democratic Party sees the current administration as extreme right-wing as they can possibly conceive, they're not likely to even be capable of intellectually honest inquiry, let alone effective electoral strategizing.

This is the element the Willis/Kos/Atrios contingent of the Dems just totally can't see. Must be frustrating to be a Jeff Jarvis in that party these days.

The question is whether the party purges itself of centrists like Jarvis the way they did pro-lifers, or whether they can find a way to reconcile the ideologues with the pragmatists. My current assessment leans toward the former.

If You're Going to Watch The Oscars...

2005-02-27T18:24:00.000-06:00

... and for the record I'm not, this is the way you ought to go about it. A little wine, a little company, and a whole lot of snarky commentary.

Lighter Fare

2005-02-27T14:58:00.000-06:00

You're right. I am normally more talkative than this. Just a mood I'm in. It will pass. Meanwhile, here are a few fun things to pass the time:

If you're a fan of the television show Good Eats (and if you're not, you should be), here's a great site where a fan(atic) has taken the time to transcribe every single episode. Being a tomato fanatic myself, here are the links to transcripts of the Good Eats tomato episodes: Tomato Envy & Pantry Raid II: Seeing Red

And speaking of tomatoes, here is my favorite place from which to order heirloom tomato seeds: Tomato Growers Supply Company. The site is rather oddly organized, but poking around in there should reveal a staggering number of tomato varieties - both heirloom and hybrid -including pictures and descriptions. The scary thing is that in their print catalog, they have even more varieties in stock than you see on their website.

A couple of weird things via Michele at ASV:

Design yourself as a Lego, and Gallery of Unfortunate St. Patrick's Day Cards

And as if he didn't already have his hands full with his expected run for the 6th District (and just as his opponent shows signs of bolting the race in apparent fear), a local Elvis impersonator is planning to run for pope! (Note to the candidate: You platform looks solid to me. Simply find a way to get me named to the College of Cardinals and my vote is yours.)

Terri Schaivo Update and My Thoughts

2005-02-25T22:20:00.000-06:00

My mood was bad enough tonight before I came across this (hat-tip Flown to the Roll):

Man Cleared to Remove Wife's Feeding Tube

I have promised a couple of people that I would better articulate my position on the assisted suicide issue in general. This isn't going to be that piece. The specifics of this case take this so far beyond the general point, that I'd rather concentrate just on that alone tonight.

From the judge we get this:

"The judge wrote that he was no longer comfortable granting delays in the long-running family feud, which has been going on for nearly seven years and has been waged in every level of Florida's court system. He said the case must end. 'The court is no longer comfortable granting stays simply upon the filings of new motions,' Greer wrote. 'There will always be 'new' issues.'

All Things 2 All responds:

It is disturbing to hear a judge sounding irritated because there will always be reasons why a beautiful woman should not be starved death. The issues are not new - they are the same issues that have needed to be addressed. Terri Schiavo is not on life support, she simply needs a feeding tube when nutrition and hydration are required. She is not comatose nor is she terminally ill, she is disabled. There are conflicting medical reports about her neurological functioning, and eye witness accounts that she can speak some words and is emotionally responsive and interactive with those she knows. Despite Michael Schiavo being awarded over $1 million for her rehabilitation she has never received any therapy. Her opportunity to regain more function has been prevented from being explored. Most importantly, a person should not be deliberately starved to death because some-one who has legal guardianship finds their existence inexpedient. The issues are the same, and one hopes they will finally be heard. Terri Schiavo is a woman in God's image. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do to me" - Jesus

If you're thinking about this case in some abstract sense of the right to die, you're fooling yourself. When they starve this woman to death in three weeks it will be murder. Legally approved murder. Like what they do to only the very worst convicted criminals - and only then after exhausting every other possible legal appeal.

Only it won't be exactly like that, because starving a convicted fellon to death violates the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. For good reason. It is without a doubt both cruel and unusual.

And for those who argue that maybe her mind is so far gone she won't even be able to comprehend, I respond with this: Did you just say, maybe?!!! Maybe we're not sentencing an innocent person to an agonizing death we don't even give to people on death row?! MAYBE?!!! To me that "maybe" screams STOP. This isn't some minor quibble. If you think that maybe you are about to treat an innocent human being worse than the law allows you to treat a felon on death row, or a dog for that matter, you don't go ahead and do it!! The side basic ethics requires you to err on here is crystal clear, and all the legal pleadings and abstractions can't change that.

This isn't a debate in philosophy 101, this is a real human life. What's more she has real parents who are asking the courts for nothing more than allowing them to take over her permanent care, since her "guardian" would prefer to snuff her.

Just to reiterate, she is not on life support, nor is she unconscious. She just needs assistance to eat and drink. So does my 10 month old. So do a lot of people.

In related news (yes it is), the Pope is recovering, though he required an operation to provide him assistance to breathe. Others I will not link to are starting to pipe up about what a worthless life he now leads. They're not exactly calling for him to be "euthanized." Not yet anyway. But there is a definite correlation between the way Terri Schiavo's life is devalued, along with the lives of others who become frail and vulnerable, and no one is so powerful to be immune from the sentiment.

If your mind is "maybe" persuaded the life-devaluers have a point, how about maybe erring on the side of caution and life, instead of leaning the other way?

The Star Tribune Admits It's A Surrogate of the Democrats?

2005-02-25T16:18:00.000-06:00

I admit I was skeptical too. Around here, we're accustomed to watching the Star Tribune act like Minnesota's media wing of the Democratic Party, but we're certainly not accustomed to hearing them admit it.

Yet from today's editorial page:

This, alas, is how the Democratic Party works: Rather than debate issues on the up and up, it depends on surrogates to go directly at an "enemy's" strength. In Swift Boat Veteran's case it was their effective debunking of Senator Kerry's inflated claims of military heroism. In the case of President Bush, we're guessing it's the fact that his Social Security reform proposals might actually gain public approval.
Oh, and of course you can wait for the protestations that the Democratic National Committee had nothing to do with the anti-Bush campaign. But of course you wouldn't swallow that, would you?

Whoops! Clumsy me. Never could quite figure out this cut-and-paste stuff. Turns out everything in bold above was garbled in translation. Here's what the Strib editorial actually said:

This, alas, is how the Bush White House works: Rather than debate issues on the up and up, it depends on surrogates to go directly at an "enemy's" strength. In Kerry's case it was his distinguished war record. In the case of AARP, we're guessing it's the group's reputation as a rather stodgy but dependable and trustworthy advocate for seniors.
Oh, and of course you can wait for the protestations that the White House had nothing to do with the anti-AARP campaign. But of course you wouldn't swallow that, would you?

If you've ever done symbolic logic diagramming, plot both of those statements out, and see if you can find any difference. I certainly can't.

So despite their attempt to yet again smear the Bush administration by innuendo rather than... I dunno, providing actual evidence or something, just thinking out loud here... we have to leave open the possibility that this is in fact a carefully encoded confession of what many of us have suspected all along.

Jeff Johnson Talks About His Faith

2005-02-25T15:28:00.000-06:00

Douglas at Belief Seeking Understanding has an excellent post today involving an e-mail exchange he had with candidate for Minnesota Attorney General, Representative Jeff Johnson.

Douglas asked Johnson to "share something about how his faith affects his conduct in public life."

The responses were refreshingly candid. Here's an example:

I grew up in a Lutheran family, with parents of very strong faith, but also with the underlying philosophy that your religious beliefs are a mostly private matter that are to be shared in church, but not worn on your sleeve elsewhere. To this day, while my Christian faith guides every decision I make, I'm still probably not as comfortable proselytizing or boldly testifying as some Christians are (or as the Bible might encourage).

Here Johnson knows he's speaking to an evangelical audience. But rather than pander by adopting the language of an evangelical, he speaks about his actual religious formation and admits a possible weakness.

But there is more to the exchange than just this. In my opinion, Johnson comes across as both sincere and humble in his understanding of faith in his political life. Read the whole thing.

There Goes The Neighborhood?

2005-02-25T13:12:00.000-06:00

The revolution continues.

Discussing this with Craig Westover last night at our weekly conservative indoctrination session was interesting. He pointed out that a lot of bloggers hearing about politicians getting into blogging are reacting with the same elitism as journalists griping about bloggers getting into journalism.

True to a point. But not entirely without reason. Journalists started griping about bloggers after they had already been around, writing and gaining audience for a while. In this case we're frequently getting A BIG PRONOUNCEMENT about a particular politician having a blog before anyone actually does anything.

But that's politics. It's a dirty business, but I'd rather others do it than me. So to that extent I'll give them a break.

Also, I did suggest that Mark Kennedy start a blog on his web-page the very day I discovered his web-site, so I can hardly be classified as anti-politician blogging. Though I have a very real worry that poltico-blogs are going to range from the formulaic to the ghost-blogged to the so carefully vetted they'll be as dry as reading press releases.

But Craig made what I think is an excellent observation in response to that. All it takes is one. And the others will have to follow. Here's how he explained it, best as I can recall:

Say you're one of the candidates in a race seen as a long-shot. The press doesn't give you much attention. The party gives you the cold-shoulder. What do you do? Start writing bluntly and provocatively on your blog. That attracts the attention of blog-readers, who link and call attention to it. Uncomfortable questions arise for the more front-running candidates, and if they don't respond they start to lose credibility. Suddenly, the minor candidate is forcing other campaigns to engage in conversation instead of canned sound-bites.

A healthy thing for our electoral process as well as the blogosphere, eh?

Tommy's Excellent Adventure

2005-02-25T09:58:00.000-06:00

What I want to know is when the heck did this happen, and who has been hiding it from me?

The "this" I refer to is of course:

Tommy Lee loves horticulture, finds chemistry to be unbelievably hard and was shocked when he found out he had to be out of bed at 6 a.m. in order to be on the Memorial Stadium field by 7 for band practice.

That early rising schedule is just one of the jarring lifestyle changes that the former Motley Crue drummer has encountered in "Tommy Lee Goes To College," the tentative title of a NBC reality television show that has been filming on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus since early October.

Tommy Lee - the former Motley Crue drummer, and co-star of the steamy sex-tape with his ex-wife Pamela Anderson - has apparently enrolled at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. And he apparently did so last fall. And why should I even care about that?

Because they're playing their cutesy little reality show dangerously close to something far more important! They let Mr. Motley Crue into the band at Nebraska football games!!!

To demonstrate how much Nebraska's culture (I'm 100% Nebraskan on my dad's side) is focused around that football team, I watched every televised Nebraska game available last year - on pay-per-view when necessary - travelled to one game in person, listened to the rest of the games on the radio, and follow them in the news year-round (especially through here), and discuss them with my family - some of whom live in Lincoln and Omaha - on a regular basis, and this is the first I've heard of Mr. Lee's little adventure. It apparently wasn't a big enough story to squeeze in between speculation about Bill Callahan's first year as Nebraska's head coach, transitioning (painfully) from option football to the West Coast offense, and struggling with our team to its first losing record in 41 years.

Anyway, Mr. Lee seems to have behaved himself so far. And I can hardly blame him for the losing record last year, when there is such a wealth of material among the new coaching staff to condemn instead. But if I see even one cutesy little distraction from a game because of Tommy's Excellent Adventure next year, Mr. Lee will be hearing from me and about a gazillion other Husker fans.

Nick Coleman - Somebody's Monkey

2005-02-24T12:26:00.000-06:00

For some reason, on his new radio show Nick Coleman has apparently taken to repeatedly insisting that he is "nobody's monkey." When one parses through the Nick-speak, this seems to be the Nickster's quaint way of stating that he is not beholden to another - he's free to write or say what he wants.

That's well and good. I have no trouble accepting that he acts like a partisan leftist hack by choice rather than compulsion. We've got a lot of those around here.

But there certainly is one item of note that would seem to challenge this notion. He gets a regular paycheck from the Star Tribune, a subsidiary of the McClatchy Company.

Well sure, but he's a professional reporter, right? Well no. According to his editor he's a columnist and when challenged in the past has stated Coleman's work: "... involved no reporting, and that the column's factual misrepresentations were tobe read in that light."

Okay, that's fine. But he is at least a columnist right? And all columnists in a big metropolitan area make big money, right? Well, no. It turns out they don't. What's more Coleman knows enough about this stuff to blab about it on his radio show.

But does he blab about the salary issue in general? No. Only about the financial goings on at a newspaper which just happens to rival his current employer. On the topic of the financial goings on at his own company - including how much he is paid - he's oddly silent. If Westover's pay is ridiculously low, what's the average columnist at the Strib making Nick? It's relevant to your point isn't it?

What's that sound, you ask? It's Nick screeching and hanging from the trees, because it turns out he is somebody's monkey after all. He's a bought and paid for monkey of The Star Tribune.

So Nick, now that you've broken the story, I'm dying to hear you tell everybody what what all the Strib columnists make. You brought the topic up, after all, so we can only assume you don't find such matters too private to discuss. A Strib monkey wouldn't tell us, because it might make the paper look bad. But you're nobody's monkey, right?

Go Look

2005-02-24T08:42:00.000-06:00

No time to post anything original this morning. Fortunately, a couple of others did the work for me.

First, go read the First Ringer's first-hand account of a day on the campaign trail with Mark Kennedy.

Then, especially if you're a member of the Minnesota Organization of Blogs, go read Swiftee's warning about the new MOB blogroll.

And would someone please trackback to Learned Foot already? I would but I... um... gotta run.

Terri Schaivo - Other Voices

2005-02-23T22:05:00.000-06:00

Peg at What If? has a post regarding the Terri Schiavo case.

We're not on the same page on this, but I encourage others to consider her position. And I mean that. Consider it. What does it mean ultimately for good or ill?

I respect Peg, but I truly think she's wrong here. But her opinion certainly deserves better than casual dismissal. What do you think?

The Diner is Back

2005-02-23T18:46:00.000-06:00

To me, the big news came this morning. The Diner is back. Sort of.

It was one of my favorite radio shows, back in a period when I listened to a lot of them - mostly on am 1500 KSTP at the time (am 1280 the Patriot didn't exist yet). No kids yet. I worked days. The wife worked nights. I got my heavy political talk from Jason Lewis back then (who has sadly moved on to greener pastures). But as much as I enjoyed that stuff, I always looked forward to the time Jason wrapped up and politics essentially went to bed until morning. And in that respite came two wonderful, unpredictable, and totally unique radio shows. One of them is still around - The Mischke Broadcast. The other was The Diner (at the end of the dial).

I just listened to Lileks' new podcast version of the Diner tonight. The professional equipment is gone. The myriad supporting cast are gone. The callers are gone. But blissfully so are the commercials.

And you know what else? It kind of, sort of, works. It's not a clone of the old Diner, but you can certainly tell they're related. And not simply because you hear Lileks' voice.

The Diner was attitude... mood... it made you feel laid back whether that was your intention or not. But it also drew you into that state of mind with your curiosity and inquisitiveness piqued. If any of that makes sense to you, I'm amazed. But just listen a while, and maybe you'll agree.

Welcome back to The Diner!