Monday, May 15, 2006
MOB Media Alert
Mark Yost, proprietor of Iraq Heroes and The Home Front, will be appearing on Your World with Neil Cavuto on FOX News at 3:30pm (Central) today to discuss his upcoming piece in "The American Spectator" about the unsung heroes of the war in Iraq.
Schadenball
Sure, our local nine might have blown a 7-3 lead yesterday, a loss that included one of the strangest triple plays I've ever seen (somewhere Bill James was laughing when he saw that replay), and they trail 3-1 early in today's series finale against the Pale Hose, but at least they haven't lost six in a row, including suffering a three game sweep at the hands of the rotten Royals, like a certain Ohio-based squad just has. Getting swept by the Royals? How humiliating. That's like an NFL team losing a game to the...
...Browns. Ouch.
UPDATE: It's now 6-2 in the seventh.
UPDATE II: Twins fall 7-3.
...Browns. Ouch.
UPDATE: It's now 6-2 in the seventh.
UPDATE II: Twins fall 7-3.
Hip To Be Safe
Joel Kotkin has a prescription for what ails many American cities in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required):
One good thing that can come out of the new census numbers would be a shifting away of urban priorities. Since the dot-com boom, many big city mayors -- such as Baltimore's Martin O'Malley and San Francisco's Gavin Newsom -- have placed their faith on selling their cities primarily as "hip and cool" for the "creative class." By luring talented singles, gays, artists and well-heeled empty-nesters, they hoped, their cities would prosper even as hoi polloi exited for the bland suburbs and exurbs. This explains the widespread enthusiasm among urban boosters for the construction -- often with city subsidy -- of concert halls, museums, fancy restaurants and boutique hotels.
The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety, maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform -- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility.
Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place.
It's advice that the leaders of Minneapolis would do well to heed. Instead of spending their time on smoking bans, making the city "greener," assuring gender and ethnic diversity in the ranks of the City's street sweepers, and where their next bribe is coming from (in the case of the City Council at least), they should concentrate on making the streets safe, the schools decent, and the burden of government on citizens and businesses tolerable. No, I'm not holding my breath.
One good thing that can come out of the new census numbers would be a shifting away of urban priorities. Since the dot-com boom, many big city mayors -- such as Baltimore's Martin O'Malley and San Francisco's Gavin Newsom -- have placed their faith on selling their cities primarily as "hip and cool" for the "creative class." By luring talented singles, gays, artists and well-heeled empty-nesters, they hoped, their cities would prosper even as hoi polloi exited for the bland suburbs and exurbs. This explains the widespread enthusiasm among urban boosters for the construction -- often with city subsidy -- of concert halls, museums, fancy restaurants and boutique hotels.
The evidence we have today should suggest that a different approach may be in order. Instead of luring the "hip and cool" with high-end amenities, cities need instead to address issues that concern businesses as well as working- and middle-class families. These include such basic needs as public safety, maintenance of parks, improving public schools, cutting taxes, regulatory reform -- in other words, all those decidedly unsexy things that contribute to maintaining a job base and the hope for upward mobility.
Given the growing challenge posed by the emerging boomtowns as well as the suburbs and exurbs, wannabe "hip cool" cities need to realize they can't thrive merely as amusement parks for the rich, the nomadic young and tourists. To remain both vital and economically relevant, they must remain anchored by a large middle class, and by families and businesses that feel safe and committed to the urban place.
It's advice that the leaders of Minneapolis would do well to heed. Instead of spending their time on smoking bans, making the city "greener," assuring gender and ethnic diversity in the ranks of the City's street sweepers, and where their next bribe is coming from (in the case of the City Council at least), they should concentrate on making the streets safe, the schools decent, and the burden of government on citizens and businesses tolerable. No, I'm not holding my breath.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Cassie Has Three Mommies
Leave it to the Strib to find just the right way to celebrate Mother's Day:
I am the proud daughter of three mothers: My biological mom, Susan; her partner, Kimmie, and my dad's second wife, Chrissy.
I am the proud daughter of three mothers: My biological mom, Susan; her partner, Kimmie, and my dad's second wife, Chrissy.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Strife
In Tuesday's Star Tribune, Deborah Caulfield Keillor Coleman Rybak (guess which names aren't real) reported that the most recent Twin Cities radio ratings were not kind to news, talk stations:
The winter radio ratings are in, and -- brrrrrrr -- the news was cold for Clear Channel's new FM talker, KTLK (100.3).
The station, which dumped its smooth-jazz format in January, drew just 2 percent of the region's approximately 2.6 million radio listeners ages 12 and older, down from a 3.4 share a year ago.
Only Rush Limbaugh, whose syndicated weekday show went live on KTLK (11 a.m.-2 p.m.), held his own. Among listeners ages 25 to 54, considered the "money demographic" among advertisers, Limbaugh drew a 3.7 share, the same as he did the year before on KSTP (1500 AM), which had him on tape delay in the afternoon.
Clear Channel Vice President Gregg Swedberg said the numbers were just what he expected. "Nobody here is really disappointed; it takes a while to change listening habits," he said. "It took [sister station] KFAN 10 years to get ratings."
Of course KFAN didn't have anyone near the stature of a Rush in their lineup either. Or a strong, clear FM signal. Or a highly publicized launch. Something tells me that Clear Channel is not going to wait ten years for KTLK to catch on.
How about the "Talk Station," with its spanking new lineup?
KSTP-AM, which rejiggered its lineup earlier this year, dropped a full point to a 3.6 share overall. The news was especially bad for its new morning team: Twin Cities newcomer Willie Clark and former KSTP newsman Jay Kolls drew only a 1.8 share among listeners 25 to 54 -- a 44 percent drop from the year before.
Wow. Never saw that one coming. I mean, everyone I've ever spoken to can't stand Willie Clark, but when a venerable station turns the mike over to a guy like Clark, they must have had some darn good reasons for doing so. Right?
Willie isn't less popular than Bob Davis. He just has a more selective appeal. I hope his cat hasn't gotten too comfortable in its new surroundings, because I sense another move looming on the horizon.
The exception was sports talk KFAN (1130 AM), which rose from a 2.5 share to a 3.3, boosted by such events as Kirby Puckett's death and Daunte Culpepper's trade to Miami.
Ahem, ahem. KFAN was not the only exception. If you take a closer look at the ratings, you will notice that WWTC, otherwise known as AM-1280 The Patriot saw its share go from a 1.2 to a 1.5, no doubt boosted by the expansion of the Northern Alliance Radio Network to four hours. The NARN show grew by 33% and The Patriot's ratings went up 25%. A fairly strong correlation I dare say.
And what of that Air America Minnesota station, home to Al Franken and one of the best Saturday pet shows in town, you ask? It didn't crack the top twenty. Must be the mold.
The winter radio ratings are in, and -- brrrrrrr -- the news was cold for Clear Channel's new FM talker, KTLK (100.3).
The station, which dumped its smooth-jazz format in January, drew just 2 percent of the region's approximately 2.6 million radio listeners ages 12 and older, down from a 3.4 share a year ago.
Only Rush Limbaugh, whose syndicated weekday show went live on KTLK (11 a.m.-2 p.m.), held his own. Among listeners ages 25 to 54, considered the "money demographic" among advertisers, Limbaugh drew a 3.7 share, the same as he did the year before on KSTP (1500 AM), which had him on tape delay in the afternoon.
Clear Channel Vice President Gregg Swedberg said the numbers were just what he expected. "Nobody here is really disappointed; it takes a while to change listening habits," he said. "It took [sister station] KFAN 10 years to get ratings."
Of course KFAN didn't have anyone near the stature of a Rush in their lineup either. Or a strong, clear FM signal. Or a highly publicized launch. Something tells me that Clear Channel is not going to wait ten years for KTLK to catch on.
How about the "Talk Station," with its spanking new lineup?
KSTP-AM, which rejiggered its lineup earlier this year, dropped a full point to a 3.6 share overall. The news was especially bad for its new morning team: Twin Cities newcomer Willie Clark and former KSTP newsman Jay Kolls drew only a 1.8 share among listeners 25 to 54 -- a 44 percent drop from the year before.
Wow. Never saw that one coming. I mean, everyone I've ever spoken to can't stand Willie Clark, but when a venerable station turns the mike over to a guy like Clark, they must have had some darn good reasons for doing so. Right?
Willie isn't less popular than Bob Davis. He just has a more selective appeal. I hope his cat hasn't gotten too comfortable in its new surroundings, because I sense another move looming on the horizon.
The exception was sports talk KFAN (1130 AM), which rose from a 2.5 share to a 3.3, boosted by such events as Kirby Puckett's death and Daunte Culpepper's trade to Miami.
Ahem, ahem. KFAN was not the only exception. If you take a closer look at the ratings, you will notice that WWTC, otherwise known as AM-1280 The Patriot saw its share go from a 1.2 to a 1.5, no doubt boosted by the expansion of the Northern Alliance Radio Network to four hours. The NARN show grew by 33% and The Patriot's ratings went up 25%. A fairly strong correlation I dare say.
And what of that Air America Minnesota station, home to Al Franken and one of the best Saturday pet shows in town, you ask? It didn't crack the top twenty. Must be the mold.
Your Reporting May Be Monitored For Accuracy
The most annoying aspect of the most recent NSA revelations, other than the shrill histrionics of those who claim that it's further proof that the days of Big Brother are indeed upon us, was the flagrantly misleading manner in which the story was being reported, especially early on. The first report that I read on the subject yesterday was from ABC News and it was titled, Government Monitoring About 200 Million Americans' Calls with the sub-title, "USA Today Reports That NSA Wiretapping Is More Far-Reaching Than Thought.
The impression given from the headline and sub-header was that the government is listening to the phone conversations of millions of Americans, especially with the link to previous NSA wiretapping controversy. Now, one could quibble about the meaning of the word "monitor." Here's a definition that seems relevant:
v. mon·i·tored, mon·i·tor·ing, mon·i·tors
v.tr.
1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver.
2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations.
3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people.
4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities.
5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination.
6. To direct.
Clearly the story's title would lead you to believe that the second definition is appropriate, when in fact, the monitoring that was actually going on in the NSA program is much closer to the third definition of the word. And in general, when you hear the word "monitor" used in regard to telephones, most people would assume that it means listening in. When you call a customer service line and hear the message"This Call May Be Monitored For Quality Purposes", you naturally assume that someone might be listening to the conversation.
Not until the 15th paragraph of the ABC story do you learn that:
According to USA Today, this massive NSA data collection program is used to analyze calling patterns that may be helpful in tracking down terrorists. This part of the spy program does not include listening to or recording Americans' conversations.
Not exactly what I would consider quality journalism.
Meanwhile, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross addresses the legality of the NSA program at National Review Online:
FISA distinguishes between "electronic surveillance," which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and "pen registers," which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn't involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute.
However, the definition of "pen register" in FISA shows that the statute doesn't regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not "include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider." That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action.
Nor would the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:
Imagine that.
The impression given from the headline and sub-header was that the government is listening to the phone conversations of millions of Americans, especially with the link to previous NSA wiretapping controversy. Now, one could quibble about the meaning of the word "monitor." Here's a definition that seems relevant:
v. mon·i·tored, mon·i·tor·ing, mon·i·tors
v.tr.
1. To check the quality or content of (an electronic audio or visual signal) by means of a receiver.
2. To check by means of an electronic receiver for significant content, such as military, political, or illegal activity: monitor a suspected criminal's phone conversations.
3. To keep track of systematically with a view to collecting information: monitor the bear population of a national park; monitored the political views of the people.
4. To test or sample, especially on a regular or ongoing basis: monitored the city's drinking water for impurities.
5. To keep close watch over; supervise: monitor an examination.
6. To direct.
Clearly the story's title would lead you to believe that the second definition is appropriate, when in fact, the monitoring that was actually going on in the NSA program is much closer to the third definition of the word. And in general, when you hear the word "monitor" used in regard to telephones, most people would assume that it means listening in. When you call a customer service line and hear the message"This Call May Be Monitored For Quality Purposes", you naturally assume that someone might be listening to the conversation.
Not until the 15th paragraph of the ABC story do you learn that:
According to USA Today, this massive NSA data collection program is used to analyze calling patterns that may be helpful in tracking down terrorists. This part of the spy program does not include listening to or recording Americans' conversations.
Not exactly what I would consider quality journalism.
Meanwhile, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross addresses the legality of the NSA program at National Review Online:
FISA distinguishes between "electronic surveillance," which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and "pen registers," which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn't involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute.
However, the definition of "pen register" in FISA shows that the statute doesn't regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not "include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider." That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action.
Nor would the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the numbers they dial:
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills...In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment or FISA. Of course, the fact that a government action is legal doesn't settle the case: There may still be ample room to oppose it. But there is a rush among broad sections of the Left to declare illegal any Bush-administration policies with which they disagree without being troubled by such trivialities as what the actual, settled law says. Here, this reflexive reaction appears dead wrong.
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" ...This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties...[W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
Imagine that.
Why We Don't Fight
How would the modern day media cover World War II? An intriguing hypothetical question, no doubt impossible to truly answer. But if anyone could even come close, it would be the incomparable Victor Davis Hanson, who takes a swing at it in a piece at NRO called In the Eye of the Beholder. The whole thing is quite delicious. Here are a few of my favorite savory portions:
A number of issues arise. Why is Henry Stimson ("Gentlemen do not read each other's mail") still Secretary of War? After the debacles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines tragedy, the Kasserine Pass disaster, the unforeseen bocage in Normandy, the Falaise Gap escape, the Anzio mess, the fatal detour to Rome, the surprise at the Bulge, the bloodbath at Tarawa, and now the Iwo Jima and Okinawa nightmares, is not five years of his incompetence and arrogance enough? A number of our retired generals seems to agree, who have recently bravely come forward to remind us that Sec. Stimson long ago tried to dismantle key elements of our intelligence services, attempted to curtail the operational command of our Army Air Corps generals in conducting bombings of Europe, and has on more than one occasion intervened to remove targets from Gen. LeMay's campaign over Japan.
As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes?all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of "The Sherman Tank Scandal? follows other revelations published in "Asleep at the Philippines," "The Flight of Gen. MacArthur," "Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily," "Do Americans Execute POWs?" "Torture on Guadalcanal," "Incinerating Women and Children?" and "Civilian Massacres in Germany"--publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent.
And:
Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations.
Yet even this government's propaganda efforts ring hallow, as we noticed with the recently released film footage purportedly showing Adolph Hitler incompetently handling a Colt .45 revolver. In fact, such a weapon, little known in Germany, is hard to load and shoot, especially the early model that the Fuhrer was shown trying to fire. To be fair, his apparent unease is not necessarily proof that Mr. Hitler was unfamiliar with firearms, much less fraudulent in his demonstration of military experience.
A number of issues arise. Why is Henry Stimson ("Gentlemen do not read each other's mail") still Secretary of War? After the debacles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines tragedy, the Kasserine Pass disaster, the unforeseen bocage in Normandy, the Falaise Gap escape, the Anzio mess, the fatal detour to Rome, the surprise at the Bulge, the bloodbath at Tarawa, and now the Iwo Jima and Okinawa nightmares, is not five years of his incompetence and arrogance enough? A number of our retired generals seems to agree, who have recently bravely come forward to remind us that Sec. Stimson long ago tried to dismantle key elements of our intelligence services, attempted to curtail the operational command of our Army Air Corps generals in conducting bombings of Europe, and has on more than one occasion intervened to remove targets from Gen. LeMay's campaign over Japan.
As we see thousands of Americans dying and our enemies still in power after four years of war, it is also legitimate to question the stewardship of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. The Sherman tank tragedy, the daylight bombing fiasco, the absence of even minimally suitable anti-tank weapons and torpedoes?all these lapses came on his watch, and the man at the top must take full responsibility for mistakes that have now cost thousands of American lives. Indeed, it is not just that America has worse tanks and guns than our German enemies, but they are inferior even to the rockets and armor of our Soviet allies. The recent publication of "The Sherman Tank Scandal? follows other revelations published in "Asleep at the Philippines," "The Flight of Gen. MacArthur," "Gen. Patton and the Atrocities on Sicily," "Do Americans Execute POWs?" "Torture on Guadalcanal," "Incinerating Women and Children?" and "Civilian Massacres in Germany"--publications in their totality that suggest a military out of control as often as it is incompetent.
And:
Indeed, what little we know comes to light only due to the brave efforts of a few unnamed operatives in the Office of Strategic Services who have in secret provided such information concerning patently illegal activities to the responsible news organizations.
Yet even this government's propaganda efforts ring hallow, as we noticed with the recently released film footage purportedly showing Adolph Hitler incompetently handling a Colt .45 revolver. In fact, such a weapon, little known in Germany, is hard to load and shoot, especially the early model that the Fuhrer was shown trying to fire. To be fair, his apparent unease is not necessarily proof that Mr. Hitler was unfamiliar with firearms, much less fraudulent in his demonstration of military experience.
Love Is A Better Teacher Than Duty
This week's Carnival of Homeschooling is dedicated to Albert Einstein and is chock full of homeschooling links as well as quotes from the great man.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Mark Your Calendars
A couple of upcoming summer events of note for local conservative radio listeners.
I. Tuesday June 13th at noon The AM-1280 The Patriot Golf Open:
Join Patriot listeners and sponsors for 18 holes of some of the best golf in Minnesota. Our scramble tournament will feature great giveaways, gimmick holes, and skill challenges. All on the twists and turns of Stonebrooke Golf Course in Shakopee. Box Lunch included. Cost $89 per golfer
I understand that just seeing Jay Larson hack away in his red, white, and blue knickers is worth the price of admission itself.
II. Saturday July 15th 11am-3pm The Second Annual AM-1280 The Patriot Listener's Appreciation Picnic at Boom Island in Minneapolis:
- Live broadcast of the Northern Alliance Radio Network including an on-air audience participation trivia contest with fabulous prizes for correct answers (well, we are conservatives aren't we?)
- Inflatables. (For the kids. Sickos.)
- FREE food (good catered stuff too, not like those nasty burnt brats your dad used to make at family picnics)
Captain Ed is hoping for the same potato salad that he enjoyed at last year's Patriot picnic. "Hey Ed, Idaho called. They're running outta potatoes."
- FREE Frisbees
- FREE WILLY! Sorry, got a little carried away there. But rest assured, there will be plenty of fun. And it is all free.
I. Tuesday June 13th at noon The AM-1280 The Patriot Golf Open:
Join Patriot listeners and sponsors for 18 holes of some of the best golf in Minnesota. Our scramble tournament will feature great giveaways, gimmick holes, and skill challenges. All on the twists and turns of Stonebrooke Golf Course in Shakopee. Box Lunch included. Cost $89 per golfer
I understand that just seeing Jay Larson hack away in his red, white, and blue knickers is worth the price of admission itself.
II. Saturday July 15th 11am-3pm The Second Annual AM-1280 The Patriot Listener's Appreciation Picnic at Boom Island in Minneapolis:
- Live broadcast of the Northern Alliance Radio Network including an on-air audience participation trivia contest with fabulous prizes for correct answers (well, we are conservatives aren't we?)
- Inflatables. (For the kids. Sickos.)
- FREE food (good catered stuff too, not like those nasty burnt brats your dad used to make at family picnics)
Captain Ed is hoping for the same potato salad that he enjoyed at last year's Patriot picnic. "Hey Ed, Idaho called. They're running outta potatoes."
- FREE Frisbees
- FREE WILLY! Sorry, got a little carried away there. But rest assured, there will be plenty of fun. And it is all free.
One Trick Pony Rides Away
In case you haven't been to the water cooler yet, Chris Daughtry was booted off American Idol last night.
There is significant surprise at this development among just about everyone, prompting even the normally reserved Powerline to use an exclamation point in their assessment of the situation.
Part of the surprise stems from this idea that the producers wanted a white male to win since a no white male has yet to be named American Idol. My response to that is since when does anyone care about white males? We have all the advantages, all the connections, all the privledges, right? Oh, you don't? Well, it doesn't matter. That's the template and it's fair to say that the producers of the AI work from that template.
But what of Chris' talent? He was okay, I guess. Okay in the make-every-song-sound-like-Nickelback kind of way. He could do the angst-ridden, petulant modern rock thing--but that's it. He had no stylistic range to speak of. And he came across as shy. Shy! This guy is supposed to be a rocker--have some confidence!
He lost me weeks ago when he attempted to make people believe that he came up with the arrangement he performed of Johnny Cash's I Walk The Line--an arrangement released years previously by the band Live which he copied note-for-note. The judges were apparently not aware of the Live version and gave him high marks for originality and "Making the song his own." Someone mentioned that he was "Uncomprimising."
The guy tried to pull a fast one, plain and simple. The producers realized what happened the next night (AFTER the voting was over) and had host Ryan Seacrest make a point of saying it was Live's version, but the damage to Chris' credibility was done. At least when he did the Red Hot Chili Peppers version of Stevie Wonder's Higher Ground he acknowledged it. But that still didn't keep the clueless judges from giving him credit for originality.
Chris is a marginal talent. He's not terribly charismatic and he clearly has ethical problems. Definitely not an American Idol.
But I have to say as much as I don't care for him, he's better than the guy that my wife can't decide looks more like a centaur or a leprechaun.
There is significant surprise at this development among just about everyone, prompting even the normally reserved Powerline to use an exclamation point in their assessment of the situation.
Part of the surprise stems from this idea that the producers wanted a white male to win since a no white male has yet to be named American Idol. My response to that is since when does anyone care about white males? We have all the advantages, all the connections, all the privledges, right? Oh, you don't? Well, it doesn't matter. That's the template and it's fair to say that the producers of the AI work from that template.
But what of Chris' talent? He was okay, I guess. Okay in the make-every-song-sound-like-Nickelback kind of way. He could do the angst-ridden, petulant modern rock thing--but that's it. He had no stylistic range to speak of. And he came across as shy. Shy! This guy is supposed to be a rocker--have some confidence!
He lost me weeks ago when he attempted to make people believe that he came up with the arrangement he performed of Johnny Cash's I Walk The Line--an arrangement released years previously by the band Live which he copied note-for-note. The judges were apparently not aware of the Live version and gave him high marks for originality and "Making the song his own." Someone mentioned that he was "Uncomprimising."
The guy tried to pull a fast one, plain and simple. The producers realized what happened the next night (AFTER the voting was over) and had host Ryan Seacrest make a point of saying it was Live's version, but the damage to Chris' credibility was done. At least when he did the Red Hot Chili Peppers version of Stevie Wonder's Higher Ground he acknowledged it. But that still didn't keep the clueless judges from giving him credit for originality.
Chris is a marginal talent. He's not terribly charismatic and he clearly has ethical problems. Definitely not an American Idol.
But I have to say as much as I don't care for him, he's better than the guy that my wife can't decide looks more like a centaur or a leprechaun.
Reality Is Not TV
After a week of listening to many Republicans demonstrate embarrassingly low levels of economic literacy in a futile attempt to score a few political points on high gas prices, I tuned in to C-SPAN last night and was reminded once again that, when it comes to ill-informed economic demagoguery, nobody does it better than the Democrats.
The setting was the largely empty chambers of the US House. The event was a dog and pony show masquerading as a forum staged by deservedly obscure Democratic Representatives complete with cheesy visual displays (did your 12 year old daughter make that graph for you?) and empty-headed rhetoric on the true state of the economy
For no matter what those pointed-headed dismal scientists tell you with all their fancy-schmacy numbers about GDP, low unemployment, consumer confidence, corporate profits, and the stock market, (you know, the statistics that have been used every since the science truly became dismal to measure economic performance?) these noble finders of fact know the real truth:
-The economy stinks and the ONLY people benefiting from it are the wealthiest 1% (and the oil companies)
-The middle class is being destroyed and we're on our way to becoming nothing more than a Banana Republic
-Republicans want to push the vulnerable into an "abyss" (yes, one of the Dems really did say that)
-The "Bush economy" is immoral
Anytime you hear the mention of morality in a discussion of the economy, you feel an instinctive need to put a protective hand on your wallet. For although none of these Dems openly proposed it last night, their obvious "solution" to the terrible state of the economy involved using the confiscatory power of the government to redistribute wealth. The not-quite-so-invisible hand of the taxman reaching into your pocket.
The spectacle was ably summarized by a female rep from Florida who asked, "How can anyone say that this economy is good when a gallon of gasoline costs three dollars?"
It's actually quite easy honey.
During the Clinton years, I don't recall the GOP trying to deny economic reality in such a manner. Sure, they minimized Clinton's impact on the economic boom and claimed that it would be even better if they were in power, but at least they were willing to face the facts as they were instead of living in some bizarro economic world (good is bad, up is down).
Whenever I force myself to listen to this nonsense for any length of time, I end up wondering if the Democrats spouting off are really that clueless about economics or whether they're cynically playing politics. Either way, the night demonstrated that any display of economic ignorance the Republicans can do, the Democrats can do better.
I realize that, as Stigler noted, anecdotes are not data, but when I witness displays of irrational dispiritedness such as last night's, I can't help but conclude that the current Democratic Party simply can't be trusted with the country's economic future.
UPDATE: While we're at it, how about raising a glass to the House GOP? (Nice to be able to say that for a change.)
House approves $70 billion tax cut bill
AND
House panel OKs bid to drill for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf:
A bid to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling for natural gas cleared a key House committee Wednesday amid concerns about rising costs at the gas pumps.
The 37 to 25 vote in the House Appropriations Committee came despite protests from Florida lawmakers, who remain largely united in efforts to fend off oil or gas drilling.
The proposal "directly contradicts the widespread belief that drilling off our coastlines would be devastating for the people of Florida and our nation," said Rep. Allen Boyd, a Panhandle Democrat. "Offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico...poses a risk to our nation's military readiness by placing severe restrictions on the ability of the Air Force and the Navy to train in airspace and naval zones in the Gulf."
But the House sponsor, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., suggesting the vote was a "seismic shift" in the debate over energy production, called it a "first step"' toward fixing an energy supply problem created more than a generation ago.
"The burden has now shifted onto those who oppose the safe production of domestic natural gas to explain to the American people why this country should continue to lock up vast reserves of energy while home-grown industries and the American consumer class continue to pay the highest prices in the world," Peterson said.
Amen.
The setting was the largely empty chambers of the US House. The event was a dog and pony show masquerading as a forum staged by deservedly obscure Democratic Representatives complete with cheesy visual displays (did your 12 year old daughter make that graph for you?) and empty-headed rhetoric on the true state of the economy
For no matter what those pointed-headed dismal scientists tell you with all their fancy-schmacy numbers about GDP, low unemployment, consumer confidence, corporate profits, and the stock market, (you know, the statistics that have been used every since the science truly became dismal to measure economic performance?) these noble finders of fact know the real truth:
-The economy stinks and the ONLY people benefiting from it are the wealthiest 1% (and the oil companies)
-The middle class is being destroyed and we're on our way to becoming nothing more than a Banana Republic
-Republicans want to push the vulnerable into an "abyss" (yes, one of the Dems really did say that)
-The "Bush economy" is immoral
Anytime you hear the mention of morality in a discussion of the economy, you feel an instinctive need to put a protective hand on your wallet. For although none of these Dems openly proposed it last night, their obvious "solution" to the terrible state of the economy involved using the confiscatory power of the government to redistribute wealth. The not-quite-so-invisible hand of the taxman reaching into your pocket.
The spectacle was ably summarized by a female rep from Florida who asked, "How can anyone say that this economy is good when a gallon of gasoline costs three dollars?"
It's actually quite easy honey.
During the Clinton years, I don't recall the GOP trying to deny economic reality in such a manner. Sure, they minimized Clinton's impact on the economic boom and claimed that it would be even better if they were in power, but at least they were willing to face the facts as they were instead of living in some bizarro economic world (good is bad, up is down).
Whenever I force myself to listen to this nonsense for any length of time, I end up wondering if the Democrats spouting off are really that clueless about economics or whether they're cynically playing politics. Either way, the night demonstrated that any display of economic ignorance the Republicans can do, the Democrats can do better.
I realize that, as Stigler noted, anecdotes are not data, but when I witness displays of irrational dispiritedness such as last night's, I can't help but conclude that the current Democratic Party simply can't be trusted with the country's economic future.
UPDATE: While we're at it, how about raising a glass to the House GOP? (Nice to be able to say that for a change.)
House approves $70 billion tax cut bill
AND
House panel OKs bid to drill for natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf:
A bid to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling for natural gas cleared a key House committee Wednesday amid concerns about rising costs at the gas pumps.
The 37 to 25 vote in the House Appropriations Committee came despite protests from Florida lawmakers, who remain largely united in efforts to fend off oil or gas drilling.
The proposal "directly contradicts the widespread belief that drilling off our coastlines would be devastating for the people of Florida and our nation," said Rep. Allen Boyd, a Panhandle Democrat. "Offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico...poses a risk to our nation's military readiness by placing severe restrictions on the ability of the Air Force and the Navy to train in airspace and naval zones in the Gulf."
But the House sponsor, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., suggesting the vote was a "seismic shift" in the debate over energy production, called it a "first step"' toward fixing an energy supply problem created more than a generation ago.
"The burden has now shifted onto those who oppose the safe production of domestic natural gas to explain to the American people why this country should continue to lock up vast reserves of energy while home-grown industries and the American consumer class continue to pay the highest prices in the world," Peterson said.
Amen.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Intrinsic Dignity and Worth
On last Saturday's Northern Alliance Radio Network show, we had Ramesh Ponnuru on to discuss his latest book, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life. We probably did not do justice to Ramesh's excellent work within the limitations of the half hour interview, but make no mistake about it, this is a significant book.
When it comes to the "life issues" of abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and infanticide, Ponnuru is an intellectual heavyweight and he pulls no punches in "Party of Death." He comprehensively expose the myths of Roe v Wade and logically eviscerates the various "pro-choice" arguments.
If you're like me and have found much of the embryonic stem cell/cloning debate murky and the positions difficult to sort through, "Party of Death" brings much needed clarity to the complicated, and at times overly-emotional, issue. It's an extremely well-written, clear, and relatively concise book that is going to become the go-to reference guide for "life issues" on the book shelves of well-read conservatives for years to come.
Joe Carter has a thoughtful review of "Party of Death" at the evangelical outpost.
When it comes to the "life issues" of abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and infanticide, Ponnuru is an intellectual heavyweight and he pulls no punches in "Party of Death." He comprehensively expose the myths of Roe v Wade and logically eviscerates the various "pro-choice" arguments.
If you're like me and have found much of the embryonic stem cell/cloning debate murky and the positions difficult to sort through, "Party of Death" brings much needed clarity to the complicated, and at times overly-emotional, issue. It's an extremely well-written, clear, and relatively concise book that is going to become the go-to reference guide for "life issues" on the book shelves of well-read conservatives for years to come.
Joe Carter has a thoughtful review of "Party of Death" at the evangelical outpost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)