Hugh Hewitt wishes that he had Ramesh Ponnuru booked to talk about "Party of Death" on his radio show.
Meanwhile, there is no wishing required for the Northern Alliance Radio Network. Ramesh will be joining us this Saturday at noon to discuss his new book and you can catch it live here. We'll try to put in a good word for you Hugh. Maybe.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Partying Without Borders (Or A Clue)
Happy Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican celebration observed chiefly by Americans.
Shine On You Crazy Diamond
I've just about had it with the Diamond Trading Company.
I'll never forgive those chuckleheads for foisting upon the incredibly gullible and hopelessly ignorant grooms-to-be of this nation the "helpful spending guideline" of two months salary as the price a guy should pay for an engagement ring. That little piece of information caused me no small amount of pain about two and a half years ago as I agonized over the fact that the properly priced piece of ice for my lovely bride's finger would condemn me to a diet of Ramen Noodles with Ketchup Sauce for about eighteen months.
If that wasn't bad enough, the DTC's latest television ad campaign (the "I Forever Do" anniversary diamond) is simply beyond the pale. They weren't satisfied with coaxing me to trade a year of proper nutrition for an outrageously expensive engagement ring. Now, Big Diamond is trying to convince the incredibly gullible and hopelessly gem-infatuated women of this nation that receiving an auxiliary engagement ring is the only thing that will prevent their marriage from becoming a complete and catastrophic failure.
Add to the above the whole Right Hand Ring nonsense and all men on this planet are doomed, courtesy of the Diamond Trading Company.
Seriously, guys...knock it off. Don't any of you have wives?
JB ADDS:
Reminds me of the Ron White bit where he talks about how all the marketing campaigns of Big Diamond are wrong. He says the most accurate slogan would be:
Diamonds...that'll shut her up
I'll never forgive those chuckleheads for foisting upon the incredibly gullible and hopelessly ignorant grooms-to-be of this nation the "helpful spending guideline" of two months salary as the price a guy should pay for an engagement ring. That little piece of information caused me no small amount of pain about two and a half years ago as I agonized over the fact that the properly priced piece of ice for my lovely bride's finger would condemn me to a diet of Ramen Noodles with Ketchup Sauce for about eighteen months.
If that wasn't bad enough, the DTC's latest television ad campaign (the "I Forever Do" anniversary diamond) is simply beyond the pale. They weren't satisfied with coaxing me to trade a year of proper nutrition for an outrageously expensive engagement ring. Now, Big Diamond is trying to convince the incredibly gullible and hopelessly gem-infatuated women of this nation that receiving an auxiliary engagement ring is the only thing that will prevent their marriage from becoming a complete and catastrophic failure.
Add to the above the whole Right Hand Ring nonsense and all men on this planet are doomed, courtesy of the Diamond Trading Company.
Seriously, guys...knock it off. Don't any of you have wives?
JB ADDS:
Reminds me of the Ron White bit where he talks about how all the marketing campaigns of Big Diamond are wrong. He says the most accurate slogan would be:
Diamonds...that'll shut her up
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Statistically Significant
This little tidbit from the Public Square section of the May edition of First Things caught my eye:
More specifically, in 1998 the U.S. Department of Justice listed 103,600 reported cases of sexual abuse in public schools, while in the 53 years from 1950 to 2003 there were 10,667 reported cases of clergy sexual abuse nationwide. That's ten times as many in a single year as instances of clerical abuse in more than half a century. Yet the media and the legal system, which profess to be concerned about protecting children, have little to say about abuse in public schools or other institutions.
If that is true, it's an incredibly damning comparison. However, that 103,600 number seems hard to believe. I did a little research (very little) to try to confirm it, but, despite finding it cited often, I couldn't come across the original source. I noticed some references to 103,600 as the total number of sexual abuse cases reported in 1998, which seems more realistic. If anyone has any insight on this, I would appreciate it.
More specifically, in 1998 the U.S. Department of Justice listed 103,600 reported cases of sexual abuse in public schools, while in the 53 years from 1950 to 2003 there were 10,667 reported cases of clergy sexual abuse nationwide. That's ten times as many in a single year as instances of clerical abuse in more than half a century. Yet the media and the legal system, which profess to be concerned about protecting children, have little to say about abuse in public schools or other institutions.
If that is true, it's an incredibly damning comparison. However, that 103,600 number seems hard to believe. I did a little research (very little) to try to confirm it, but, despite finding it cited often, I couldn't come across the original source. I noticed some references to 103,600 as the total number of sexual abuse cases reported in 1998, which seems more realistic. If anyone has any insight on this, I would appreciate it.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Just Not Today
In 2002, after returning from a trip to Germany, I prescribed a strong dose of leadership and vision to cure the country's ailments:
Schroeder's win means that Germany will continue to struggle economically without any prospect of the sort of long term changes taking place that are needed to right the ship. Of course, a Stoiber win would likely have meant the same. What Germany needs is a strong leader with a clear and uncompromising view of what needs to change and how to get it done. (A strong democratic leader of course.) In the early '80s both the United States and Britain had such leaders emerge and pull their countries out of the economic and psychological doldrums that they had become bogged down in. In the United States, the answer to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was Ronald Reagan. The answer to years of socialization of industry and bloated unions in Britain was Margaret Thatcher.
Today, Germany needs its own Reagan or Thatcher to bring about the reforms required to free up the enormous potential of the German economic machine and once again make it the envy of the world. Unfortunately, during this last election, the choice for Germans was more like one between a Bill Clinton and a Bob Dole. Perhaps the apathy is understandable after all.
When Angela Merkel emerged on the German political scene, there was hope that she could become the German version of Margaret Thatcher, a new "Iron Chancellor" if you will. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that those hopes are quickly being dashed (subscription required):
Six months ago, Angela Merkel failed to win the German election outright and wondered aloud whether she'd have to resign as Germany's conservative leader. She managed to survive and grab the country's top job only through an awkward coalition with her bitter political opponents.
Now she's one of the most popular leaders of any Western country. The secret of her success: She has all but abandoned the economic overhaul that she campaigned to bring to the world's third-biggest economy.
The story of Ms. Merkel, who is meeting with President Bush in Washington this evening, reflects Europe's economic quagmire. Challenged by low-cost labor abroad, Western Europe desperately needs to become more competitive to escape from a trap of low economic growth and high unemployment. Most business leaders and economists agree that strong moves are needed to overhaul inflexible labor codes and trim the costly social safety net. What's missing are strong leaders to carry them out.
The sad truth of the matter is that leaders in Germany, France, and Italy (to start with) know they are on an economic road to nowhere and that without reform they will fall further and further behind the rest of the world and imperil the very future of their peoples. But with electorates closely divided, strong interest groups increasingly resistant to any changes to the status quo, their parties splintered and weak, and their own interest in retaining power at almost any cost, they lack the political will required to push ahead with meaningful reform. They are paralyzed and unable to act. Meanwhile, the longer they wait, the more painful the reform process will be when it eventually does begin (assuming it ever does).
Taken together with President Bush's doomed attempt to reform Social Security, you wonder if it's even possible in our current political age for a modern democratic nation to willingly make tough decisions, which may prove painful in the short term, in order to secure the country's long term well-being. Looking at the situation in places such as Germany today, it's difficult to be optimistic.
Schroeder's win means that Germany will continue to struggle economically without any prospect of the sort of long term changes taking place that are needed to right the ship. Of course, a Stoiber win would likely have meant the same. What Germany needs is a strong leader with a clear and uncompromising view of what needs to change and how to get it done. (A strong democratic leader of course.) In the early '80s both the United States and Britain had such leaders emerge and pull their countries out of the economic and psychological doldrums that they had become bogged down in. In the United States, the answer to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was Ronald Reagan. The answer to years of socialization of industry and bloated unions in Britain was Margaret Thatcher.
Today, Germany needs its own Reagan or Thatcher to bring about the reforms required to free up the enormous potential of the German economic machine and once again make it the envy of the world. Unfortunately, during this last election, the choice for Germans was more like one between a Bill Clinton and a Bob Dole. Perhaps the apathy is understandable after all.
When Angela Merkel emerged on the German political scene, there was hope that she could become the German version of Margaret Thatcher, a new "Iron Chancellor" if you will. Today's Wall Street Journal reports that those hopes are quickly being dashed (subscription required):
Six months ago, Angela Merkel failed to win the German election outright and wondered aloud whether she'd have to resign as Germany's conservative leader. She managed to survive and grab the country's top job only through an awkward coalition with her bitter political opponents.
Now she's one of the most popular leaders of any Western country. The secret of her success: She has all but abandoned the economic overhaul that she campaigned to bring to the world's third-biggest economy.
The story of Ms. Merkel, who is meeting with President Bush in Washington this evening, reflects Europe's economic quagmire. Challenged by low-cost labor abroad, Western Europe desperately needs to become more competitive to escape from a trap of low economic growth and high unemployment. Most business leaders and economists agree that strong moves are needed to overhaul inflexible labor codes and trim the costly social safety net. What's missing are strong leaders to carry them out.
The sad truth of the matter is that leaders in Germany, France, and Italy (to start with) know they are on an economic road to nowhere and that without reform they will fall further and further behind the rest of the world and imperil the very future of their peoples. But with electorates closely divided, strong interest groups increasingly resistant to any changes to the status quo, their parties splintered and weak, and their own interest in retaining power at almost any cost, they lack the political will required to push ahead with meaningful reform. They are paralyzed and unable to act. Meanwhile, the longer they wait, the more painful the reform process will be when it eventually does begin (assuming it ever does).
Taken together with President Bush's doomed attempt to reform Social Security, you wonder if it's even possible in our current political age for a modern democratic nation to willingly make tough decisions, which may prove painful in the short term, in order to secure the country's long term well-being. Looking at the situation in places such as Germany today, it's difficult to be optimistic.
Party Over, Oops, Out Of Time
We are please to announce that Ramesh Ponnuru from National Review will be joining us this Saturday at noon on the Northern Alliance Radio Network show to discuss his new book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life:
Is the Democratic Party the "Party of Death"?
If you look at their agenda they are.
IT'S NOT JUST abortion-on-demand. It's euthanasia, embryo destruction, even infanticide--and a potentially deadly concern with "the quality of life" of disabled people. If you think these issues don't concern you--guess again. The Party of Death could be roaring into the White House, as National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru shows, in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Talk about scaring the life out of you.
We'll also have our regular Loon of the Week and This Week in Gatekeeping features, plus LIVE updates on the Republican CD6 convention throughout the show from King Banaian. It'll be almost as good as being there. In fact, it'll be much better because you won't have to endure the mind-numbing boredom that typifies most of the time one spends at a political convention.
Locally, you can listen to the NARN on AM-1280 The Patriot from 11am-3pm or hear it live on the 'net here. If you miss Saturday's show, there is a Sunday night replay at 9pm and podcasts are also available.
Is the Democratic Party the "Party of Death"?
If you look at their agenda they are.
IT'S NOT JUST abortion-on-demand. It's euthanasia, embryo destruction, even infanticide--and a potentially deadly concern with "the quality of life" of disabled people. If you think these issues don't concern you--guess again. The Party of Death could be roaring into the White House, as National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru shows, in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Talk about scaring the life out of you.
We'll also have our regular Loon of the Week and This Week in Gatekeeping features, plus LIVE updates on the Republican CD6 convention throughout the show from King Banaian. It'll be almost as good as being there. In fact, it'll be much better because you won't have to endure the mind-numbing boredom that typifies most of the time one spends at a political convention.
Locally, you can listen to the NARN on AM-1280 The Patriot from 11am-3pm or hear it live on the 'net here. If you miss Saturday's show, there is a Sunday night replay at 9pm and podcasts are also available.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Constitutional Crisis
Regarding my reference on Friday to the Democrats' attempt to bury MPR's snout even deeper in the public trough, long time Fraters reader and free lance pundit Gary Larson chimes in:
Is your Friday post about MPR for real? Funding for MPR in that bill for a constitutional amendment divvying up the sales tax? Wow! I was not aware.
Reminds me, again, not to support public radio, MPR or any NPR-affiliate, whose list of contributors end up being used for Dems' pitches for campaign funds.
I forgot once - or rather, my wife did, and we gave again, to support classical music, missing nowadays on radio. I say, buy the damn tapes for Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Beats supporting partisan radio.
That it does. And it's guys like Gary who continue to support the struggling classical cassette tape industry in this nation and for that we should all salute him.
To answer his question, yes Gary there is a plan by the Senate Democrats to play Santa Claus with the public money, by raising sales taxes three-eights of a percent statewide, for the next 25 years, and giving part of the proceeds to Minnesota Public Radio. Of the estimated $270 million dollars extra PER YEAR the government would confiscate from the Minnesota public, $59 million PER YEAR would go to the Arts, Humanities, Museum, and Public Broadcasting Fund. Of that, $13 million PER YEAR would go to pubic broadcasting. And I thought we had some sort of budget crisis in this state?
Remember, this spending is above and beyond the millions public broadcasting already receives from the state and federal government. All of it your money being used to bring you the reasonable, objective commentary from the likes of Garrison Keillor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins.
Odds are this scheme to attach MPR, in leech-like fashion, to the Minnesota Constitution won't pass. It has to survive a conference committee with a Republican led House of Representatives that is opposed to it. It has to be signed into law (I think) by a Republican Governor who is opposed to it. Then it would have to be approved via a public referendum.
Insurmountable impediments, you might think. But, given the fact that this proposal is mixed in with a scheme to earmark funding for the sacrosanct fishing and hunting lobbies, things could get weird and I have no confidence that Republican leadership would necessarily stand on principle on this (or any) issue.
And if it comes time for the public to vote on this proposal, DFL Senator Tom Rukavina gives us a peek at the level of rhetoric we will be subject to. His premise being that, of course we need to spend hundreds of millions more on environmental and conservation projects. But ...
We all know that we're going to have to cut something to pay for this," he said. "And I don't think even our sporting community, our anglers and our hunters, want us to hurt senior citizens and vulnerable adults and all the other people who we've put fees on and co-pays on in order to pay for things."
So, raising taxes to pay for public broadcasting is all about not hurting senior citizens and vulnerable adults? Just what is he saying about Garrison Keilor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins?
The Elder Adds: Saint Paul is joined in his opposition to making funding for MPR a part of the state constitution by (gulp) the Star Tribune editorial board:
Minnesota Public Radio listeners could not have missed the pleas for help in recent days. The Minnesota Legislature is about to put some public broadcasters in line for a dedicated share of sales tax money, an indignant MPR president Bill Kling huffed, and the House wants to leave out MPR! Call your legislator!...
...Kling has this much right: Call your legislator. Tell him or her that it's outrageous that some cultural organizations are in line for constitutionally favored status, while others are not. But then say that the remedy isn't to offer a constitutionally dedicated revenue stream to more organizations, but to do it for none of them. And if those legislators say that the arts and natural resources need more money, tell them they can pass a tax increase for those purposes, right now.
It's rare day when the Strib editorial crew comes across a tax or funding increase that it doesn't like. Which demonstrates just how egregiously irresponsible this proposal really is.
Is your Friday post about MPR for real? Funding for MPR in that bill for a constitutional amendment divvying up the sales tax? Wow! I was not aware.
Reminds me, again, not to support public radio, MPR or any NPR-affiliate, whose list of contributors end up being used for Dems' pitches for campaign funds.
I forgot once - or rather, my wife did, and we gave again, to support classical music, missing nowadays on radio. I say, buy the damn tapes for Prokofiev and Shostakovich. Beats supporting partisan radio.
That it does. And it's guys like Gary who continue to support the struggling classical cassette tape industry in this nation and for that we should all salute him.
To answer his question, yes Gary there is a plan by the Senate Democrats to play Santa Claus with the public money, by raising sales taxes three-eights of a percent statewide, for the next 25 years, and giving part of the proceeds to Minnesota Public Radio. Of the estimated $270 million dollars extra PER YEAR the government would confiscate from the Minnesota public, $59 million PER YEAR would go to the Arts, Humanities, Museum, and Public Broadcasting Fund. Of that, $13 million PER YEAR would go to pubic broadcasting. And I thought we had some sort of budget crisis in this state?
Remember, this spending is above and beyond the millions public broadcasting already receives from the state and federal government. All of it your money being used to bring you the reasonable, objective commentary from the likes of Garrison Keillor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins.
Odds are this scheme to attach MPR, in leech-like fashion, to the Minnesota Constitution won't pass. It has to survive a conference committee with a Republican led House of Representatives that is opposed to it. It has to be signed into law (I think) by a Republican Governor who is opposed to it. Then it would have to be approved via a public referendum.
Insurmountable impediments, you might think. But, given the fact that this proposal is mixed in with a scheme to earmark funding for the sacrosanct fishing and hunting lobbies, things could get weird and I have no confidence that Republican leadership would necessarily stand on principle on this (or any) issue.
And if it comes time for the public to vote on this proposal, DFL Senator Tom Rukavina gives us a peek at the level of rhetoric we will be subject to. His premise being that, of course we need to spend hundreds of millions more on environmental and conservation projects. But ...
We all know that we're going to have to cut something to pay for this," he said. "And I don't think even our sporting community, our anglers and our hunters, want us to hurt senior citizens and vulnerable adults and all the other people who we've put fees on and co-pays on in order to pay for things."
So, raising taxes to pay for public broadcasting is all about not hurting senior citizens and vulnerable adults? Just what is he saying about Garrison Keilor, Nina Totenberg and Bob Collins?
The Elder Adds: Saint Paul is joined in his opposition to making funding for MPR a part of the state constitution by (gulp) the Star Tribune editorial board:
Minnesota Public Radio listeners could not have missed the pleas for help in recent days. The Minnesota Legislature is about to put some public broadcasters in line for a dedicated share of sales tax money, an indignant MPR president Bill Kling huffed, and the House wants to leave out MPR! Call your legislator!...
...Kling has this much right: Call your legislator. Tell him or her that it's outrageous that some cultural organizations are in line for constitutionally favored status, while others are not. But then say that the remedy isn't to offer a constitutionally dedicated revenue stream to more organizations, but to do it for none of them. And if those legislators say that the arts and natural resources need more money, tell them they can pass a tax increase for those purposes, right now.
It's rare day when the Strib editorial crew comes across a tax or funding increase that it doesn't like. Which demonstrates just how egregiously irresponsible this proposal really is.
Striking The Right Tone For Your Pitch
JB's initial comments on Crunchy Cons raise some of the same problems that I had with the book. The Crunchy moniker is a non-starter. And Dreher does spend far too much time discussing food. He prefers organic food. We get it. Now move on to something that matters. Like the last chapter of book on religion, which only begins to scratch the surface of the topic.
There's also a critique of Crunchy Cons in the May issue of FIRST THINGS by Gilbert Meilaender. Unlike some baseless criticism of the book that has appeared in the comments section of local blogs, Meilaender's review is thoughtful, serious, and largely accurate. His conclusion neatly summarizes Crunchy Cons principle shortcoming:
There is much that strikes me as on-target in "Crunchy Cons", along with a good bit that strikes me as misguided or ill informed, but where the book goes awry has less to do with the substance than with the tone. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted, if one really wants to be a prophet, one may need to be an itinerant; it is hard to hang around those who have been bludgeoned by our critique. No doubt such prophets are sometimes needed by all of us, but I wonder whether the tone of this book might not have been more successful had its author been less intent on demonstrating that those who live in ways different from his own are flawed souls--and more intent on depicting the goods he has found with invidious comparison with goods other enjoy.
It was after all G.K. Chesterton, who Dreher seems to regard as one of the patron saints of his manifesto, who noted that "it is not familiarity but comparison that breeds contempt."
JB OPINES ONCE AGAIN:
Reading more of Crunchy Cons last night Rod kind of lost me. He described his house (an Arts and Crafts bungalow in a transitional neighborhood in urban Dallas) as having "Dignity" and "Humanity". Wha? Hey, I dig the old houses as much as the next Tangletown Mansion Dweller but dignity--a rare quality for even many human beings--in a house?
There's also a critique of Crunchy Cons in the May issue of FIRST THINGS by Gilbert Meilaender. Unlike some baseless criticism of the book that has appeared in the comments section of local blogs, Meilaender's review is thoughtful, serious, and largely accurate. His conclusion neatly summarizes Crunchy Cons principle shortcoming:
There is much that strikes me as on-target in "Crunchy Cons", along with a good bit that strikes me as misguided or ill informed, but where the book goes awry has less to do with the substance than with the tone. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted, if one really wants to be a prophet, one may need to be an itinerant; it is hard to hang around those who have been bludgeoned by our critique. No doubt such prophets are sometimes needed by all of us, but I wonder whether the tone of this book might not have been more successful had its author been less intent on demonstrating that those who live in ways different from his own are flawed souls--and more intent on depicting the goods he has found with invidious comparison with goods other enjoy.
It was after all G.K. Chesterton, who Dreher seems to regard as one of the patron saints of his manifesto, who noted that "it is not familiarity but comparison that breeds contempt."
JB OPINES ONCE AGAIN:
Reading more of Crunchy Cons last night Rod kind of lost me. He described his house (an Arts and Crafts bungalow in a transitional neighborhood in urban Dallas) as having "Dignity" and "Humanity". Wha? Hey, I dig the old houses as much as the next Tangletown Mansion Dweller but dignity--a rare quality for even many human beings--in a house?
Somewhere Iron Eyes Cody Really Is Crying
Illinois and North Dakota Change Mascots After NCAA Ruling:
The Illinois Fighting Illini and North Dakota Fighting Sioux have announced plans to change their mascots after the NCAA ruled their Indian mascots were too offensive to be shown on television. The decision was unrelated to the other recent NCAA actions requiring all teams who want to be televised to offer free abortions on campus and have at least on former terrorist enrolled as a student.
Illinois announced that their new mascot will be the Organic Soy Milks. It was the least offensive mascot that the university could find. The University of North Dakota went one step further and has petitioned the state of North Dakota to change its name, since it is named after the Dakota Indians. The new state name will be North Plains. And their mascot will be the Natural Spring Water Ice Cubes.
Officials at both universities thanked the NCAA for being the moral compass for their organizations. The NCAA is considering a ban on all animal mascots next after multiple complaints from PETA that these poor animals are being exploited.
Or maybe he's really laughing.
The Illinois Fighting Illini and North Dakota Fighting Sioux have announced plans to change their mascots after the NCAA ruled their Indian mascots were too offensive to be shown on television. The decision was unrelated to the other recent NCAA actions requiring all teams who want to be televised to offer free abortions on campus and have at least on former terrorist enrolled as a student.
Illinois announced that their new mascot will be the Organic Soy Milks. It was the least offensive mascot that the university could find. The University of North Dakota went one step further and has petitioned the state of North Dakota to change its name, since it is named after the Dakota Indians. The new state name will be North Plains. And their mascot will be the Natural Spring Water Ice Cubes.
Officials at both universities thanked the NCAA for being the moral compass for their organizations. The NCAA is considering a ban on all animal mascots next after multiple complaints from PETA that these poor animals are being exploited.
Or maybe he's really laughing.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Make Room In Your Top 11 Blog List Nihilist
Rod Dreher, author of Crunchy Cons, is now blogging at beliefnet. You probably won't agree with everything that Rod says, but his perspectives might cause you to think twice about some of the cultural and relgious issues of the day.
(Via Margaret)
JB OPENS HIS BIG TRAP:
And just like that, a counter-crunchy movement has sprung up. Check out the Contra Crunchy Conservative.
I am currently reading Crunchy Cons but don't quite know what I think about the whole thing yet. A few thoughts I have had about halfway through:
1. I hate the word "Crunchy" it just sounds wussy to even say the word out loud
2. He's right that being a conservative means more than your position on Iraq--how you lead your life is more important
3. Parents have to battle a depraved culture to raise a child with values
4. There seems to be WAY too much emphasis on food so far. I can only put that in perspective by seeing how much time he spends on more important things later in the book
Stay tuned.
(Via Margaret)
JB OPENS HIS BIG TRAP:
And just like that, a counter-crunchy movement has sprung up. Check out the Contra Crunchy Conservative.
I am currently reading Crunchy Cons but don't quite know what I think about the whole thing yet. A few thoughts I have had about halfway through:
1. I hate the word "Crunchy" it just sounds wussy to even say the word out loud
2. He's right that being a conservative means more than your position on Iraq--how you lead your life is more important
3. Parents have to battle a depraved culture to raise a child with values
4. There seems to be WAY too much emphasis on food so far. I can only put that in perspective by seeing how much time he spends on more important things later in the book
Stay tuned.
Mad Max? More Like Sad Sacks
Usually it's not until August when I come out with my annual "stick a fork in the Twins" post. And at times my dismissal of the team has proved to be premature. But this year, even at this early date, I feel quite secure in unequivocally stating that the 2006 Twins are done.
Those who doubt me need look back no further than this past weekend's embarrassing series against the Tigers. Not only did the Twins get swept, already the third time this year they've been swept on the road by a Central Division rival, they were outscored 33-1! Thirty-three to one? That should not happen to a major league baseball team. At least not to one with any sense of pride.
The Twins are now 3-12 on the road, with two of those wins coming against one of the few squads that can claim to be more pathetic than the Twins, the abysmal Kansas City Royals. Yes, Twins fans it's that bad.
But I have a great idea how we can make things all better. Let's buy these losers a new stadium!
It's hard to imagine that I could recommend a book penned by a couple of dyed-in-the-wool lefties that has glowing blurbs from Ralph Nader and Molly Ivins. But Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit is well worth a read.
It was originally published in 1998, but much of what they covered is still relevant today. While I don't agree with the author's quasi-Marxist analysis and suggestions for where stadium money could otherwise be spent, it's hard to argue with their main point that publicly financed stadiums are nothing more than corporate welfare whose benefits to the community are dubious at best (believe it or not, Sid Hartman may be overstating the economic impact just a tad).
Thanks to King for letting me read his single malt Scotch-stained copy of the book. And the thanks to the Twins for quitting early this year and saving me the trouble of wasting any more time watching their sorry excuse for baseball.
Those who doubt me need look back no further than this past weekend's embarrassing series against the Tigers. Not only did the Twins get swept, already the third time this year they've been swept on the road by a Central Division rival, they were outscored 33-1! Thirty-three to one? That should not happen to a major league baseball team. At least not to one with any sense of pride.
The Twins are now 3-12 on the road, with two of those wins coming against one of the few squads that can claim to be more pathetic than the Twins, the abysmal Kansas City Royals. Yes, Twins fans it's that bad.
But I have a great idea how we can make things all better. Let's buy these losers a new stadium!
It's hard to imagine that I could recommend a book penned by a couple of dyed-in-the-wool lefties that has glowing blurbs from Ralph Nader and Molly Ivins. But Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit is well worth a read.
It was originally published in 1998, but much of what they covered is still relevant today. While I don't agree with the author's quasi-Marxist analysis and suggestions for where stadium money could otherwise be spent, it's hard to argue with their main point that publicly financed stadiums are nothing more than corporate welfare whose benefits to the community are dubious at best (believe it or not, Sid Hartman may be overstating the economic impact just a tad).
Thanks to King for letting me read his single malt Scotch-stained copy of the book. And the thanks to the Twins for quitting early this year and saving me the trouble of wasting any more time watching their sorry excuse for baseball.
Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My
James e-mails to add some rather disturbing details on the "chicken hawk" label:
Not sure if you realized it, but pre-Iraq War a "chicken hawk" was an adult male sexual predator who preyed on young boys. I suspect it still is. One of the many reasons I didn't like that epithet.
Yikes. Hopefully, Ed hasn't gotten inked up yet.
Not sure if you realized it, but pre-Iraq War a "chicken hawk" was an adult male sexual predator who preyed on young boys. I suspect it still is. One of the many reasons I didn't like that epithet.
Yikes. Hopefully, Ed hasn't gotten inked up yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)