(Random thoughts and observations from a day at the airport)
Traveling in Russia without speaking the language is like trying to decipher a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. While blindfolded. It can confound and exhaust even the most experienced of traveler.
The light snow falling at Moscow's Sheremetyevo 1 creates an even more dour day for the dour crowd assembled. The lifeless colors of the terminal makes the grays even grayer. You don't often see travelers in Russia smile. There's a grim resignation on most of the faces, especially the eyes. I wonder if that would make them good poker players.
Putting the first security checkpoint five feet inside the front door might not have been the best idea. Does anyone know what a line is?
Do the words "customer service" exist in the Russian language? Or does it just seem like "It's not my job" syndrome has run amok?
Flight delayed two hours. Through the security line twice. Five-hundred rubles from the cash machine. Is that enough? Over twenty dollars for water, potatoes, and fish of questionable origin? Forgot to grab a receipt. Damn.
Passes to the business class lounge. No, not this business class lounge, the one opposite the Irish Bar. Oh, you mean the one that doesn't exist?
Guys boarding the aircraft carrying plastic bags with loose cans of beer. What would the TSA think?
Down the stairs to the bus. Take the bus out to the plane. Exit the bus and stand outside in blowing snow to board. Does anyone know what a line is?
In my seat at last. Flight delayed again. Whiskey? Da, whiskey.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
A Blast Of Hot Air From The Past
Holman Jenkins looks at the science of Gore's Nobel at OpinionJournal.com (free for all) and mentions a name that brings back memories:
The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.
The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.
How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.
Svante Arhenius? The Svante Arhenius? Long before greenhouse gases and global warming became household terms, the name of the Swedish chemist was well-known within my cadre of friends in college. I'm not sure where we were first introduced to Svante--a meteorology class perhaps--but for some reason we latched on to him.
One of us wrote a paper that included a legitimate reference to Svante. From there, the legend was born. We attempted to work in a reference to Svante Arhenius in every paper we wrote for any class. In addition to being a famous chemist, he was also an expert on aviation safety, business law, urban planning, etc. I'm pretty sure he also had a small role in the Yalta conference (a paper I wrote largely from memory for a friend the night before it was due in exchange for a case of beer).
There wasn't any malicious motivation or fraudulous intent behind this. We were just having a little fun and tryng to give the name Svante Arhenius the attention it so richly deserved. It's nice to see that the legend lives on.
The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.
The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.
How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.
Svante Arhenius? The Svante Arhenius? Long before greenhouse gases and global warming became household terms, the name of the Swedish chemist was well-known within my cadre of friends in college. I'm not sure where we were first introduced to Svante--a meteorology class perhaps--but for some reason we latched on to him.
One of us wrote a paper that included a legitimate reference to Svante. From there, the legend was born. We attempted to work in a reference to Svante Arhenius in every paper we wrote for any class. In addition to being a famous chemist, he was also an expert on aviation safety, business law, urban planning, etc. I'm pretty sure he also had a small role in the Yalta conference (a paper I wrote largely from memory for a friend the night before it was due in exchange for a case of beer).
There wasn't any malicious motivation or fraudulous intent behind this. We were just having a little fun and tryng to give the name Svante Arhenius the attention it so richly deserved. It's nice to see that the legend lives on.
Almost Home
After traveling in Russia, spending a few days in The Netherlands is like being in Iowa. It's flat, the people speak and dress a little strangely, but overall it's not all that different from home. Especially in relation to where you've just been.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Who's Buried In Lenin's Tomb?
On Sunday, I had the "opportunity" to visit Lenin's mausoleum in Red Square, where the leader of the Russian Revolution lies in a state of perpetual rest. Talk about surreal.
In order to view the body of the man responsible (directly and indirectly) for some of the worst atrocities, repression, and mass murder of the 20th century you have to wait in line outside in the cold. Then, you surrender your cameras and cell phones (and pay a price for the privilege) and pass through a metal detector. Stern-faced guards command your to remove your head wear upon entering and you feel pressured to observe a respectful attitude of mourning.
For a moment you almost forget that this man represented an ideology that ultimately lost the Cold War. An ideology that attempted to remake society into a paradise on earth and would spare nothing to achieve it. An ideology of death. An ideology of terror. An ideology of evil.
And yet here he lies, in a place of respect and honor years after his promises of a New Man proved to deliver nothing but a new tyranny, a new society far worse than anything that came before it in Russian history. With the blood of millions on his hands, the mausoleum is not a place of honor, but one of shame.
In order to view the body of the man responsible (directly and indirectly) for some of the worst atrocities, repression, and mass murder of the 20th century you have to wait in line outside in the cold. Then, you surrender your cameras and cell phones (and pay a price for the privilege) and pass through a metal detector. Stern-faced guards command your to remove your head wear upon entering and you feel pressured to observe a respectful attitude of mourning.
For a moment you almost forget that this man represented an ideology that ultimately lost the Cold War. An ideology that attempted to remake society into a paradise on earth and would spare nothing to achieve it. An ideology of death. An ideology of terror. An ideology of evil.
And yet here he lies, in a place of respect and honor years after his promises of a New Man proved to deliver nothing but a new tyranny, a new society far worse than anything that came before it in Russian history. With the blood of millions on his hands, the mausoleum is not a place of honor, but one of shame.
It's The Little Differences
Drinking vodka before, during, and after your dinner? Meh. Gobs of mayo on your "salad"? Meh. Inefficient transportation and non-existent service? Meh. Getting ten grand for having a second child? Okay, maybe I could start to warm to Russia after all.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Da, It's Cold Enough For Me!
After spending most of my life in Minnesota (and doing some time in Grand Forks), I consider myself pretty hearty when in comes to colder climes. I can spend hours outside in heart of the Minnesota winter and--unless the temps or windchill dip well below zero--think nothing of it.
I thought I knew cold. But I had never experienced Moscow cold until this weekend. Believe me, it's an entirely different type of cold.
Minnesota can be cold. But usually it's a crisp, dry cold. In the Moscow it's a damp, bone-chilling cold that eats through whatever layers of protective clothing you're wearing and leaves a layer of deep frost on your vital organs.
It's also a subtle cold. It doesn't hit you at first like a sub-zero Arctic blast does. It's a creeping, gradual assault that really starts kicking in after a half-hour or so. After an hour, you're chilled to the core and you won't warm up by ducking inside for a quick warm-up either.
You need a prolonged period in the warmth before your insides begin to thaw. Even then the occasional chill will shoot through your body like a bolt to remind you of the beast that lurks outside. Muscovites know cold.
I thought I knew cold. But I had never experienced Moscow cold until this weekend. Believe me, it's an entirely different type of cold.
Minnesota can be cold. But usually it's a crisp, dry cold. In the Moscow it's a damp, bone-chilling cold that eats through whatever layers of protective clothing you're wearing and leaves a layer of deep frost on your vital organs.
It's also a subtle cold. It doesn't hit you at first like a sub-zero Arctic blast does. It's a creeping, gradual assault that really starts kicking in after a half-hour or so. After an hour, you're chilled to the core and you won't warm up by ducking inside for a quick warm-up either.
You need a prolonged period in the warmth before your insides begin to thaw. Even then the occasional chill will shoot through your body like a bolt to remind you of the beast that lurks outside. Muscovites know cold.
Reason #675 That You Should Read First Things
Richard John Neuhaus throws down in the December edition of FIRST THINGS (sub req):
"In this unconvincing book . . ." With those sniffingly dismissive opening words, Publishers Weekly reviews the forthcoming "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen (Doubleday).
We are informed that the authors "argue that the embryo has the capacity to develop into a rational being." These questions, says the reviewer, "continue to provoke controversy in relation to abortion as well as embryo research." I doubt there is much controversy about whether the reviewer was once an embryo and is now a rational, albeit misguided, being.
Body blow.
The resistance to clear thinking about these questions no longer astonishes. The historian of American religion, Martin E. Marty, is impressed by Garry Wills' discussion in his new book "Head and Heart: American Christianities." (At the risk of spoiling the suspense, Mr. Wills' Christianity, in contrast to that of his conservative opponents, is one in which the heart is informed by the head.)
Body blow.
Wills triumphantly points out that the Bible does not mention abortion and Thomas Aquinas "denied that personhood arose at fertilization by the semen." Thomas hadn't mastered modern biology and obstetrics? This is deeply disillusioning.
Left hook.
People who claim to be pro-life are inconsistent, says Wills. "My hair is human life," he notes, yet nobody wants to protect it from the barber. Now why didn't I think of that?
Another left.
From such fatuities one turns with appreciation to "Embryo" by George and Tollefsen. The persuasiveness of their carefully, even scrupulously, reasoned case is enhanced by the generosity with which they engage counterarguments.
And a right.
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard has said that, after long thought, he has arrived at the conclusion that "everybody's position on abortion is the right position." Presumably, Mr. Dershowitz, who is known as a very smart lawyer, does not believe in the law of noncontradiction. The great difficulty is in getting people to really think about abortion. There is, for instance, this dreadful muddle about "consciousness."
If only people would think through the fact, and the unavoidable implications of the fact, that the I that thinks and says I is the same I that once could not think and say I.
He lands a big right.
George and Tollefsen are models of rational exactitude in debunking every form of mind-body, soul-body dualism. They write: "So animalism—the view that we are, essentially, human beings, members of the species Homo sapiens—is not only true, but not really in tension with the view that we are also persons. The persons that we are, are not entities separated from our animal bodies; we are neither independent minds, spirits, nor brains. Rather these particular individuals . . . are themselves persons, have always been persons, and will cease being persons only when we cease to be, by dying."
The authors assiduously avoid invoking explicitly theological or religious arguments. While their brief is informed by the history of philosophical reflection, their argument rests on the rational capacity of human beings to think clearly. "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" is a luminous achievement. Not that it will persuade Garry Wills, Alan Dershowitz, and others whose certitudes are protected by an insouciant relativism that excuses them from engaging in rational argument.
And another right. They're calling it. It's over.
"In this unconvincing book . . ." With those sniffingly dismissive opening words, Publishers Weekly reviews the forthcoming "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen (Doubleday).
We are informed that the authors "argue that the embryo has the capacity to develop into a rational being." These questions, says the reviewer, "continue to provoke controversy in relation to abortion as well as embryo research." I doubt there is much controversy about whether the reviewer was once an embryo and is now a rational, albeit misguided, being.
Body blow.
The resistance to clear thinking about these questions no longer astonishes. The historian of American religion, Martin E. Marty, is impressed by Garry Wills' discussion in his new book "Head and Heart: American Christianities." (At the risk of spoiling the suspense, Mr. Wills' Christianity, in contrast to that of his conservative opponents, is one in which the heart is informed by the head.)
Body blow.
Wills triumphantly points out that the Bible does not mention abortion and Thomas Aquinas "denied that personhood arose at fertilization by the semen." Thomas hadn't mastered modern biology and obstetrics? This is deeply disillusioning.
Left hook.
People who claim to be pro-life are inconsistent, says Wills. "My hair is human life," he notes, yet nobody wants to protect it from the barber. Now why didn't I think of that?
Another left.
From such fatuities one turns with appreciation to "Embryo" by George and Tollefsen. The persuasiveness of their carefully, even scrupulously, reasoned case is enhanced by the generosity with which they engage counterarguments.
And a right.
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard has said that, after long thought, he has arrived at the conclusion that "everybody's position on abortion is the right position." Presumably, Mr. Dershowitz, who is known as a very smart lawyer, does not believe in the law of noncontradiction. The great difficulty is in getting people to really think about abortion. There is, for instance, this dreadful muddle about "consciousness."
If only people would think through the fact, and the unavoidable implications of the fact, that the I that thinks and says I is the same I that once could not think and say I.
He lands a big right.
George and Tollefsen are models of rational exactitude in debunking every form of mind-body, soul-body dualism. They write: "So animalism—the view that we are, essentially, human beings, members of the species Homo sapiens—is not only true, but not really in tension with the view that we are also persons. The persons that we are, are not entities separated from our animal bodies; we are neither independent minds, spirits, nor brains. Rather these particular individuals . . . are themselves persons, have always been persons, and will cease being persons only when we cease to be, by dying."
The authors assiduously avoid invoking explicitly theological or religious arguments. While their brief is informed by the history of philosophical reflection, their argument rests on the rational capacity of human beings to think clearly. "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" is a luminous achievement. Not that it will persuade Garry Wills, Alan Dershowitz, and others whose certitudes are protected by an insouciant relativism that excuses them from engaging in rational argument.
And another right. They're calling it. It's over.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Spreading The Word Of English Wit...
...one hotel room at a time. A few years ago, I accidently left one of my PJ Wodehouse collections at a Shanghai hotel room. Yesterday, when I went to pull out Black Mischief, Scoop, The Loved One, The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold--a compilation of four of Evelyn Waugh's works--on the flight to Moscow, I discovered (much to my consternation) that I had forgotten it in my hotel room in Chelyabinsk.
I had never read Waugh before, but a reader of Fraters hepped me that "Scoop" was an amusing take on the media. Unfortunately, I was only through the first four chapters of "Scoop" before my organizational lapse. I thoroughly enjoyed "Black Mischief" and the small portion of "Scoop" that I read.
Sigh. Oh well, I guess my loss is some hotel maid's gain. And Amazon's.
I had never read Waugh before, but a reader of Fraters hepped me that "Scoop" was an amusing take on the media. Unfortunately, I was only through the first four chapters of "Scoop" before my organizational lapse. I thoroughly enjoyed "Black Mischief" and the small portion of "Scoop" that I read.
Sigh. Oh well, I guess my loss is some hotel maid's gain. And Amazon's.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
No Respect
From the News in Brief section of this weekend's Moscow Times:
Journalists Help Spread HIV
Journalists and homosexuals top the list of social groups that most actively contract and transmit HIV, Vadim Pokrovsky, head of the Federal Center to Fight AIDS, told the Novy Region news agency Thursday.
He added that the most risky groups were the ones where homosexuals have the opportunity to actively socialize, and he also mentioned policemen, doctors and show-business figures as risk groups.
Pokrovsky said, however, that public perception about high rates of HIV among the homeless had been proven wrong. "Bums don't have sexual lives, and they have no money for [injectable] drugs," he said.
Journalists Help Spread HIV
Journalists and homosexuals top the list of social groups that most actively contract and transmit HIV, Vadim Pokrovsky, head of the Federal Center to Fight AIDS, told the Novy Region news agency Thursday.
He added that the most risky groups were the ones where homosexuals have the opportunity to actively socialize, and he also mentioned policemen, doctors and show-business figures as risk groups.
Pokrovsky said, however, that public perception about high rates of HIV among the homeless had been proven wrong. "Bums don't have sexual lives, and they have no money for [injectable] drugs," he said.
A Russia United Cannot Be Divided?
Although it hasn't garnered much attention in the US, there's a parliamentary election tomorrow in Russia. Actually, from what I observed in Chelyabinsk on Thursday and Friday and in Moscow today, it's not attracting that much attention here either. Sure, billboards for Putin's United Russia party are a fairly frequent sight and the media is breathlessly covering the last minute political maneuvering and machinations, but the average Slava Six Pack on the street just doesn't seem all that interested.
This could be due to the belief that the outcome is already all but determined--a sweeping victory for United Russia--and the fact that the choices aren't all that palatable. The number two party behind Putin's United Russia is the Communists. As much as some Russians may not be comfortable with Putin's autocratic rule, they aren't clamoring for a return to the days of the glorious workers paradise either.
Here are a few election eve items that caught my eye from the English Moscow Times newspaper:
The Russian version of Jesse Ventura:
It was only a matter of time before someone asked Alexander Karelin for his autograph.
Karelin, a State Duma deputy and a champion wrestler with three Olympic gold medals, was facing an audience of several hundred residents of this small, hard-up farming town in southern Russia. Perhaps not surprisingly, they had been badgering him with questions about bread-and-butter issues such as low military pensions.
Then came the softball. The autograph-seeker's request brought chuckles from the audience but a stern reprimand from Karelin, who has the No. 2 spot on United Russia's ticket for the Stavropol region.
"I understand perfectly well that many of you, even military pensioners, are here because of my successes representing Russia in sports," Karelin said at the Tuesday event. "But the reason I am here, above all, is to represent United Russia."
They even bear a slight resemblance. At least from behind.
If you thought the You Tube debates were a travesty, consider the timing of these debates:
As of Nov. 2, parties on the ballot were provided with free airtime for campaign ads and debates, and could also dip into their campaign fund coffers to purchase television ads. This, the Central Elections Commission stated, would ensure equal access to all parties.
But only 1.5 percent of the television audience watched the debates, which were broadcast at 7 a.m. and after midnight, according to the latest study by TNS Gallup Media.
Hey, we gave you equal time. We just didn't say when that time would be.
Last but not least, a story on some unique get out the vote efforts:
Millions of people across the country are expected to cast their ballots at polling stations Sunday to decide the makeup of the next State Duma.
But for many who intend to vote, the urge for an intimate medical checkup or to look like a punk might be as important a motivating factor as civic duty.
City administrations and election officials are outfitting polling stations with various attractions to bring out the vote, including cheap food, coupon books, hair stylists and doctors.
Voters in Omsk will be able to visit a gynecologist or urologist at polling stations, while Kemerovo voters can get haircuts in the style of punks or prisoners, the Trud newspaper reported Wednesday.
Bend over, spread your legs, and cough. Okay good, now that you've voted, you can see the urologist.
This could be due to the belief that the outcome is already all but determined--a sweeping victory for United Russia--and the fact that the choices aren't all that palatable. The number two party behind Putin's United Russia is the Communists. As much as some Russians may not be comfortable with Putin's autocratic rule, they aren't clamoring for a return to the days of the glorious workers paradise either.
Here are a few election eve items that caught my eye from the English Moscow Times newspaper:
The Russian version of Jesse Ventura:
It was only a matter of time before someone asked Alexander Karelin for his autograph.
Karelin, a State Duma deputy and a champion wrestler with three Olympic gold medals, was facing an audience of several hundred residents of this small, hard-up farming town in southern Russia. Perhaps not surprisingly, they had been badgering him with questions about bread-and-butter issues such as low military pensions.
Then came the softball. The autograph-seeker's request brought chuckles from the audience but a stern reprimand from Karelin, who has the No. 2 spot on United Russia's ticket for the Stavropol region.
"I understand perfectly well that many of you, even military pensioners, are here because of my successes representing Russia in sports," Karelin said at the Tuesday event. "But the reason I am here, above all, is to represent United Russia."
They even bear a slight resemblance. At least from behind.
If you thought the You Tube debates were a travesty, consider the timing of these debates:
As of Nov. 2, parties on the ballot were provided with free airtime for campaign ads and debates, and could also dip into their campaign fund coffers to purchase television ads. This, the Central Elections Commission stated, would ensure equal access to all parties.
But only 1.5 percent of the television audience watched the debates, which were broadcast at 7 a.m. and after midnight, according to the latest study by TNS Gallup Media.
Hey, we gave you equal time. We just didn't say when that time would be.
Last but not least, a story on some unique get out the vote efforts:
Millions of people across the country are expected to cast their ballots at polling stations Sunday to decide the makeup of the next State Duma.
But for many who intend to vote, the urge for an intimate medical checkup or to look like a punk might be as important a motivating factor as civic duty.
City administrations and election officials are outfitting polling stations with various attractions to bring out the vote, including cheap food, coupon books, hair stylists and doctors.
Voters in Omsk will be able to visit a gynecologist or urologist at polling stations, while Kemerovo voters can get haircuts in the style of punks or prisoners, the Trud newspaper reported Wednesday.
Bend over, spread your legs, and cough. Okay good, now that you've voted, you can see the urologist.
You Get What You Pay For
Earlier today, when I checked in to the hotel in Moscow, I was surprised to see a sign at the front desk advertising a complimentary mini-bar in the room. "Is it true," I asked incredulously "Everything in the mini-bar is free?" Assured that it was, I was jubilant. Free mini-bar? It don't get much better.
Upon arriving in room and cracking open said mini-bar (approximately thirty seconds later), I was disappointed--but not surprised--to find the complimentary mini-bar consisted of two bottles of water, one beer, one candy bar, one bag of peanuts, and one bag of potato chips. Gee thanks. Not exactly the packed to the gills offering that mini-bar dreams are made of.
So far I've only had a water, beer, and bag of peanuts. Anything left tomorrow morning is coming with me. What? I don't want to get ripped off.
Upon arriving in room and cracking open said mini-bar (approximately thirty seconds later), I was disappointed--but not surprised--to find the complimentary mini-bar consisted of two bottles of water, one beer, one candy bar, one bag of peanuts, and one bag of potato chips. Gee thanks. Not exactly the packed to the gills offering that mini-bar dreams are made of.
So far I've only had a water, beer, and bag of peanuts. Anything left tomorrow morning is coming with me. What? I don't want to get ripped off.
Must See TV
The first Sunday of every month brings a real literary oasis to the American public, the LIVE 3 hour In Depth interview on CSPAN. (And Dan Barreiro will be nowhere in the vicinity). Tomorrow, at 11 AM (central) features the man who should be running for President, and would have won, if brilliant, innovative ideas and the ability to communicate of them effectively were the primary requirements.
Former Speaker of the house Newt Gingrich will be our guest for In Depth on Sunday December 2nd, LIVE from Noon to 3pm ET. Mr Gingrich is the author of over a dozen fiction and non-fiction books, including: "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America," "To Renew America," "Lessons Learned the Hard Way," "Saving Lives & Saving Money," "Window of Opportunity," "The Art of Transformation," "Rediscovering God in America," "Gettysburg," "Grant Comes East," "Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant the Final Victory," and "1945." His latest books are "Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th" (co-authored with William Forstchen) and "A Contract with the Earth" (co-authored with Terry Maple)
Broadcast replays (central time):
Sunday, December 2, at 11:00 PM
Saturday, December 8, at 11:00 AM
Monday, December 10, at 2:00 AM
Ah Newt, what might have been.
BTW, on NARN today we had on the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, making the persuasive case that Mitt Romney is the conservative pragmatist's best left over option. I'm not entirely convinced, but it was a compelling discussion for those of us not entirely thrilled with any of the GOP field leaders. Podcasts up on AM1280 The Patriot Web site by Monday.
Former Speaker of the house Newt Gingrich will be our guest for In Depth on Sunday December 2nd, LIVE from Noon to 3pm ET. Mr Gingrich is the author of over a dozen fiction and non-fiction books, including: "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America," "To Renew America," "Lessons Learned the Hard Way," "Saving Lives & Saving Money," "Window of Opportunity," "The Art of Transformation," "Rediscovering God in America," "Gettysburg," "Grant Comes East," "Never Call Retreat: Lee and Grant the Final Victory," and "1945." His latest books are "Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December the 8th" (co-authored with William Forstchen) and "A Contract with the Earth" (co-authored with Terry Maple)
Broadcast replays (central time):
Sunday, December 2, at 11:00 PM
Saturday, December 8, at 11:00 AM
Monday, December 10, at 2:00 AM
Ah Newt, what might have been.
BTW, on NARN today we had on the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, David Keene, making the persuasive case that Mitt Romney is the conservative pragmatist's best left over option. I'm not entirely convinced, but it was a compelling discussion for those of us not entirely thrilled with any of the GOP field leaders. Podcasts up on AM1280 The Patriot Web site by Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)