If you are a sports fan and live in Chicago, the story unfolding on the South Side of the city where grown men in silly looking clothes and serious looks on their faces play a game that civil war soldiers called “Rounders” but that Chicagoans are currently referring to as “Hangman, is all too familiar. Outside of a magical, glorious run of 8 6 World Championships in 10 8 years by the Bulls, Chicagoans are inured to failure by their sports teams. It’s become a source of embarrassment for the city that the record of futility enjoyed by its baseball, football, and hockey teams has surpassed any other city’s sports franchises.

A large part of the feeling is tied up in the Chicago’s former nickname “The Second City.’ Chicago is not the “Second City anymore.” Los Angeles surpassed Chicago in population back in the 1970’s. And “The Third City” just doesn’t seem to have that snap, crackle, and pizazz as other nicknames that cities have attached to them either by default or design. “The Big Apple,” The Big D,” “Music City,” and “The Big Easy” are complimentary monikers that bring tourists who drop millions of dollars into the civic coffers, attracted by the reputations of those towns for fun and frolic. Hell, even Detroit is “The Motor City, despite the fact that few if any automobiles are built within the city limits today.

But Chicago? Chicago used to be “Hog Butcher to the World” until the hogs got all huffy and decided that the slaughterhouses of Kansas City were preferable to the cramped, dusky environs found in “The Jungle” of Upton Sinclair. And “The City of Big Shoulders” that poet Carl Sandburg saw has shrunk to “The City of Slim Hips” found in the gentrified neighborhoods on the city’s North side.

Not to worry. There would always be the Bears and the Cubs. What of the White Sox, you ask?

The White Sox have been an afterthought in the minds of Chicagoans for more than 100 years. This situation was exacerbated by the ownership of the franchise by the Comiskey family whose tight fisted policies toward both the players and fans were legendary in the sports world. Charles Comiskey, owner of the team during the infamous “Black Sox” betting scandal of 1919 reportedly made the players pay for washing their own uniforms. And while more competitive as a baseball team since the end of World War II than the hated Cubs, the team always seemed to come up short during crunch time.

On more than one occasion during the last few weeks I’ve had some troll send me an email gloating about the fall of my White Sox from invincibility. Invariably, the correspondent is some rube from the sticks, at which point I politely inquire as to the status of their major league franchise. This has proved itself to be an effective riposte because, of course, there is no major league sports franchise in Iowa, or South Dakota, or some such place where the people are dependent on minor league teams for sports enjoyment. Our teams may suck, but at least we’ve got major league sports franchises – or at least teams that call themselves such. I wouldn’t necessarily call the Blackhawks “Major League” anything given that their current owners, the Wirtz family, are more interested in their lucrative liquor distribution businesses than they are in putting a professional hockey team on the ice.

But with the national media finally turning their gaze to the White Sox, it’s become something of an embarrassment to realize that the “collapse” of the team is making more national sports news than the bitter division battle between the Red Sox and Yankees. What has happened is not a collapse as much as it has been evidence that there is in fact a God. For only God could make a team like the Cleveland Indians to scorch the American League as the Tribe has done in the last two months.

The Sox had a lead of 15 games on August 1st over the Indians. Since that time, the Sox have coasted home with a .500 record – 25-26. The Indians however, have been unconscious. Playing at nearly a .750 clip – including winning an unholy 17 out of their last 19 ballgames – the Indians have surged to a 37-12 mark during the same period. Not coincidentally, this is virtually the same record the White Sox had for the first two months of the season.

Alas, when tallying up wins and losses, it matters much more how you finish as season than how you start it. Thus, my Sox find themselves fighting for their playoff lives this week. And the prospect of a three game series to end the season in Cleveland that could decide everything has most of us who root for the South Siders having feelings somewhat akin to those of the hogs many years ago who were led into the pens of the stockyards to await their fate; an overwhelming desire to have it over with already.

There is still a good chance the Sox will make the playoffs if not win their Division outright. The Yankees and Red Sox also have a date with history and destiny next weekend. One of those teams will take two out of three games which means the Sox will still probably sneak in as the American League Wild Card entry in the playoffs as long as they don’t have a major swooning experience against the lowly Detroit Tigers who they play for four games in the lead up to the weekend war with Cleveland. And Cleveland may falter a bit when they play Tampa Bay’s youngsters who are led by the most intense man in baseball, manager Lou Pinella.

So the outlook, while grim, is not beyond hope. But after such a fine season during most of which the White Sox had the best record in baseball, it would be a shame if they were denied playoff entry at the last moment by some angry god who we Chicagoans offended many years ago and who has caused us untold amount of suffering when it comes to our lame, but loved sports franchises.

I don’t envy Hillary Clinton one bit.

With meticulous and calculated care over the last 7 or 8 months, Senator Clinton has crafted – brilliantly in my opinion – a centrist personae designed to entice moderates and perhaps even moderate conservatives to her banner while not alienating her base of support with the left wing of the Democratic party. It has been a tightrope walk worthy of a star circus performer. And what makes Mrs. Clinton’s political changeling strategy even more remarkable is that she’s had the assistance of some heavy hitting Republican conservatives as she maneuvers toward the center in anticipation of the election.

After initially voting for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq and then harshly criticizing Administration war policy in the lead up to the election last November, Mrs. Clinton took a high profile trip to Iraq with none other than John McCain and members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In Iraq, Mrs. Clinton praised the government of then Prime Minister Allawi and declared her belief that the insurgents were losing. Since then, she has come out against any kind of timed withdrawal from Iraq, stating that events on the ground should dictate the pace of the troops’ homecoming not an artificial timetable. Her views on Iraq won her praise from McCain and other Republicans while establishing her bona fides as a hawkish Democrat capable of leading the country in wartime.

She has also enlisted the help of former Speaker of the House and notorious liberal bugbear Newt Gingrich to promote health care issues. While the duo would seem to be the odd couple of the year, both are policy wonks with a passion for issues – similarities that seemed to overcome some of the more striking differences in their personalities.

Other Republican Senators like Bill Frist and Lindsey Graham have also had praise for Hillary’s ability to work with the other side and compromise to get things done. And that’s been the key to Hillary’s strategy; not only has she tried to sidle toward the center on issues of importance but she has also attempted to establish her credentials as a “can-do” Senator who is not only an advocate for issues but a leader who can accomplish what she sets out to do.

Indeed, Hillary’s transformation has been a marvel; that is, until this week. In the last few days Mrs. Clinton has run smack into the apparent contradictions of her transformation; she just can’t be all things to all people. This was never more evident when she agreed to meet with Mother Moonbat Cindy Sheehan and announced that she will vote “nay” on the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States.

There is no way that Hillary Clinton could have won in the primaries without voting against Roberts. And by meeting with Sheehan (albeit, in a brilliant political maneuver for both of them, she and McCain will meet Sheehan together thus giving each other political cover) Clinton maintains a tenuous connection with the anti-war left.

The vote against Roberts was a foregone conclusion. With the pro-choice 527’s dead set against him, Hillary would have been committing political hari-kari by supporting him. In her statement explaining her vote, Clinton tries rather lamely to have her cake and eat it to:

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation.

By appearing to straddle, she does herself no good with either moderates or her lefty base. That said, Clinton had very little choice in the matter seeing that the expectations for her candidacy have already generated an enormous amount of excitement among hard-left feminists and pro-choice advocates. These groups will make up the backbone of her candidacy in the primaries and she couldn’t very well alienate them by voting for someone who could very well be a deciding vote on overturning Roe v Wade. And unless the President’s next nominee to replace Justice O’Connor is pro-choice – a very unlikely possibility – she will probably vote against that nominee as well.

The Sheehan gambit with McCain came about as a result of a perceived slight on Senator Clinton’s part when the anti-war bus tour was in New York. Evidently, the home town papers made a big deal of Clinton not meeting with her then (no mainstream Democrat will touch Sheehan with a ten foot pole since her comments on Israel, 9/11, and Bin Laden have received widespread exposure) which necessitated the change in strategy. Although not as important as her nay vote on Roberts, the Sheehan meeting is still a potent signal to the anti-war left that she hasn’t entirely abandoned them.

Indeed, Clinton has been caught in a trap that every Democrat since 1972 has found themselves. In order to get nominated for the office of President, a Democrat must be liberal enough to energize the base of the party so that primary voters will come out in the dead of winter in Iowa and New Hampshire to support their candidacy and lefty donors will open their pocketbooks to supply enough funds to buy the TV time necessary to have a viable candidacy. But once nominated, the putative candidate then must scramble toward the middle of the political spectrum in order to woo the independents necessary to win the Presidency.

This has proven impossible for every Democratic Presidential candidate for the last 25 years except her husband. Bill Clinton was helped by the fact that he was a southern governor whose policies in Arkansas were necessarily moderate although during the primary campaign, he was able to sound an awful lot like a liberal. The end result for Clinton was that he was able to peel the deep southern states of Louisiana and Georgia away from the Republican column and deny Bush #41 the border states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Those states pretty much gave Clinton his margin of victory in the electoral college in 1992.

Due to the fact that the country is much more polarized today, Hillary will be denied any “Southern Strategy” to garner the necessary electoral votes to win in a general election. She won’t have to. With states like Florida and Ohio so closely divided as well as some other toss-up states like West Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, and New Mexico, it wouldn’t take much for a smart Democrat like Hillary to put together the 270 electoral votes necessary to win in the general election.

Hillary’s political moves this week were necessary but have set her back a bit in her quest to appear more moderate. There will be other pitfalls for her candidacy in the months ahead that will test her political skills to the limit including the possible failure of elections in Iraq, the rebuilding of New Orleans, and perhaps dealing with a Bird Flu pandemic as early as this winter. And there’s very little difference in politics between walking the tightrope and walking the plank; it’s all in how the balancing act is received by both your supporters and your political enemies.

Her husband was one of the best politicians in my lifetime. And while Hillary has demonstrated a knack for the sport, it remains to be seen if she has the skills and the staying power to make it all the way to the top.

Happy Blogiversary to the House!

It seems like only yesterday – in a “Groundhog Day” sort of way – that I decided to get in on the fun and start my own blog.

At the time, the impact of Rathergate was still being felt across both the MSM and the Shadow Media so my first post was a little finger exercise entitled “An Anchorman Fairy Tale.”

I know…Pretty lame.

It had been nearly 15 years since I had tried to write anything longer than a grocery list. This after spending the previous 15 years doing little else but writing for work and trying to write creatively. It didn’t take long to discover that I had a lot of work to do.

Writing is both a craft and a vocation. It is a much more personal art than acting, something I tried to make a living as in my immediate post-college days. While acting leaves you naked and exposed on a superficial level – your looks, how you sound, how you emote – writing exposes your soul, your consciousness, the very essence of you to the critical eyes of people who, even if they agree with you, may not like the way you express yourself.

Scary, that. And at first, it didn’t matter much because, like all new blogs, nobody bothered to read what I was writing. This turned out to be a very good thing in that those early posts were atrocious; ill informed, poorly organized, and at times, incoherent.

Later on, after writing 2,000 or 3,000 words a day, the writing got better. But something else happened I didn’t anticipate; I got addicted. The blog became something of a beast that needed constant feeding and tending. I’ve since made peace with that fact of blogging and now look forward eagerly each day to the challenge of finding something that interests me to post on.

But writing, as I mentioned, is a craft. In olden days, there was a newspaper guild where youngsters would go through an apprenticeship, become a journeyman, and eventually make it to the point where they were allowed to write for a living. As late as the 1950’s, most major metropolitan dailies had apprentices. If they could put up with the grunt work for a few years as “copy boys” or gofers of one sort or another, they were rewarded with assignments like writing obituaries or other mundane tasks. If they proved themselves worthy, they would graduate to covering a beat.

Blogs have no such apprenticeship. We hit the ground running and off we go. And as I’ve discovered, there are many, many generous people out there willing to help, to advise, and to give you encouragement – especially in those early days when it’s easy to get discouraged at the fact that absolutely no one is interested in what you have to say.

For me, there are so many to thank that I don’t quite no where to begin. Certainly my blogmama Cao of Caos’s Blog should be mentioned first. It was her encouragement that kept me going in those very early days when most of my sitemeter stats were from me.

And Pat Curley from the dormant Kerry Haters and the very much alive and kicking Brainsters Blog who was one of the first to link to this site and also gave me a lot of support and encouragement.

Then there all my friends at The Wide Awakes, a site that Cao, Raven, and I started and through which I have enjoyed making many friends and blog buds.

TJ at NIF has almost singlehandedly put me within spitting distance of the top 100 blogs with his many links and kind comments.

Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker has been more than generous in accepting my articles for publication on that excellent site as well as offering his encouragement to write more.

John Cole who has challenged me to think, even when it’s gotten me into trouble.

I can’t forget the Watcher at Watcher of Weasels who, by choosing me for the Watcher’s Council, has given my writing an enormous amount of exposure.

Beth at MVRWC who has been there to help me through the rough spots by making me laugh.

And Michelle Malkin who has also been extraordinarily generous and encouraging.

There are dozens of others that deserve mention. However, this is not an Academy Awards acceptance speech and I am not Sally Fields. To the rest, you know who you are and I hope you know how much I appreciate your help and support.

And to all my beloved trolls – Steve, Kevin, Strawman, Jackie, and the rest – please keep helping to make my life interesting. This site wouldn’t be the same without you.

Cindy Sheehan, AKA “The Madonna of the Anti-War Movement,” AKA “The Catalyst of the Anti-War Movement,” AKA “The Grieving Mother Who is a Catalyst for the Anti-War Movement,” AKA “The Rosa Parks of the Anti War Movement,” AKA “Mother” Sheehan…

Jeez! The woman has more aliases than Jennifer Garner.

Here is a picture of Cindy surrounded by her adoring throngs of admirers as she waltzes toward the White House and her date with destiny: (HT: Little Green Footballs)

Nice photo, huh? Looks like Cindy is followed by legions of supporters marching toward the White House in that determined, earnest, lefty sort of way that reminds one of pictures of the Bolshies marching in the streets of Moscow in 1917.

Hell, even the news stories about Sheehan’s storming the White House are reminiscent of a revolutionary’s trek toward destiny:

Three weeks after leaving their dusty outpost in Crawford, Tex., and touring the country, several dozen families brought their antiwar message to the U.S. Capitol and the White House. They plan to join thousands of protesters Saturday at a march and rally on the Mall.

“Not one more!” they chanted as they walked up the West Lawn of the Capitol, referring to the number of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq.

One of the buses stopped in Baltimore yesterday morning so the families could address a crowd of supporters gathered at Timothy Dean’s Bistro on Eastern Avenue. People wiped away tears as they listened to soldiers’ parents rail against the war that had claimed their children’s lives—or threatened to do so.

The picture and story would lead you to believe that Sheehan is head of a mass movement, an unstoppable tide of humanity that will sweep George Bush and his war into the dustbin of history.

Not so fast. Here’s a wide view of the very same picture from above:

(HT: Confederate Yankee)

There are more legs on a centipede than there are people following Cindy Sheehan.

I frankly don’t care how many people show up at the anti-war rally in Washington this weekend. The organizers have made it clear that this is a march for “Peace and Justice” which means exactly the same crowd that showed up in New York during the Republican Convention will make an appearance on the Washington Mall this weekend. Most of the marchers will be not be demonstrating under the anti-war banner but instead, like all leftist rallies lately, will highlight topics as diverse as the environment, income redistribution, African debt relief, AIDS, homelessness, the mentally ill, and of course, the anarchists who seek out cameras like moths do a porch light.

This rally will probably mark the end of Mother Sheehan’s notoriety. And while they won’t do it, both the media and the more mainstream elements of the Democratic party should examine their motives in supporting this woman as long as they did. The fact that they would probably like us all to forget that fact says more about their towering arrogance and breathtaking stupidity than it does about Mother Sheehan’s ultimate demise.

As Avian Flu sweeps across Russia’s Ural Mountains, ravaging wild bird populations in the area that separates Europe from Asia and continues to threaten domestic bird stocks, the first signs of large scale human-human contact of the deadly virus are beginning to appear in Indonesia.

Health professionals from around the world have descended on Jakarta, Indonesia’s capitol city and home to 12 million people, to help contain the first truly serious outbreak of Bird Flu in a major human population center.

One of the largest cities in the world is now officially home to a Bird Flu epidemic.

Previously, humans infected with the virus were found mostly in rural areas of Viet Nam and Thailand. The outbreak in Indonesia’s largest city means that essentially, we are now at the mercy of whatever evolutionary track the virus takes. At the moment, Bird Flu can only be spread from human to human by direct contact with an infected person and either their waste products or saliva, blood, or other infected secretions. At least, this is the best guess of the experts.

The problem with a Bird Flu outbreak in a city of 12 million people boils down to simple mathematics. Each time the virus infects another human it has the opportunity when reproducing itself to mutate – change its genetic code – so that instead of spreading by direct contact it would be possible to become airborne and spread via casual contact just like any other strain of flu.

It goes without saying that having 12 million chances for the virus to mutate is extremely worrying.

Indonesian health officials aren’t standing around doing nothing. With the help of the World Health Organization (WHO) and teams of scientists and researchers from around the world, the battle to nip any Bird Flu pandemic in its infancy has begun in earnest. This article in today’s Asia Times details what officials term a “21 day Golden Period” where they hope to contain any serious outbreak:

The fate of millions of lives in Asia hangs on the speed with which a patient, infected with a human-to-human transmission of a mutated strain of bird flu, is diagnosed and prevention measures are implemented.

“We will only have a 21-day golden period to stop the virus spreading and becoming a pandemic,” said Dr Kumnuan Ungchusak, director of epidemiology at Thailand’s department o disease control and a key player in plans being mapped out to stall the virus ravaging Southeast Asia. “A longer delay, even a month, can be fatal.”

The new urgency follows the deaths announced Wednesday of two young girls admitted to Jakarta hospitals after they developed symptoms indicating bird flu. Nine others are currently under treatment for suspected bird flu in Indonesia.

Plans regarding what should be done with this 21 day “Golden Period” are both ambitious and problematic:

On Wednesday, Indonesia’s Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, told reporters in Jakarta that she considered the outbreak the possible start of an epidemic on the archipelago and that “most definitely there will be others as long as we are not able to identify positively the sources”.

The pandemic-prevention scenario is expected to follow two broad paths, she explained during an interview. The first is geared toward the immediate family of the patient diagnosed with the lethal virus. Each family member coming in contact with an infected relative will be given – within two days of the patient showing symptoms – a dose of Tamiflu, the only known drug capable of stopping the spread of a mutated form of the H5N1 avian flu virus. This regime of Tamiflu will be for a 10-day period, Kumnuan said.

More challenging, though, is to provide medication for the second part of this preemptive initiative. “It would require giving [medication to] around 10,000 people, 100,000 people or even one million who live within the area where this human-to-human form of the virus has been diagnosed,’’ the Thai epidemiologist said.

Attempting to put 10,000 people (much less a million) on a virus prevention regimen is certainly ambitious. What makes it problematic is that Indonesia has nowhere near the number of Tamiflu doses to make the plan realistic.

The WHO was also working with the government to source new stocks of the anti-viral drug Tamiflu from India to bolster local stocks, he said.

“It’s not very much, it’s rather puny. They definitely need some more,” Petersen said, adding that stocks being rushed from India were less than 1,000 doses.

Tamiflu is an anti-viral tablet that can help against infection. Several companies are working on a vaccine, but tests are not expected to begin until later this year.

Supari said Indonesia had 10,000 Tamiflu tablets.

If the entire country has only 10,000 Tamiflu tablets, how does this jibe with their ambitious plans to initiate an anti-viral regimen by dosing a million people?

Another troubling feature of the Indonesian plan is that while Tamiflu may be effective as an anti-viral agent, the effectiveness of other, less expensive and more widely available antibiotics which are used to treat the symptons of the virus after infection may have been overstated:

In the second paper, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta found that influenza viruses, particularly those from the dreaded bird flu strain, had developed high rates of resistance to the only class of cheap antiviral drugs available – drugs mainly used to treat flu once patients have caught it. These resistance rates have increased rapidly since 2003, particularly in Asia.

“We were alarmed to find such a dramatic increase in drug resistance in circulating human influenza viruses in recent years,” said Dr. Rick Bright of the disease control centers. “Our report has broad implications for agencies and governments planning to stockpile these drugs for epidemic and pandemic strains of influenza.”

Indonesian health officials are also at a disadvantage when it comes to quickly identifying Bird Flu victims due to a lack of resources and organization:

Earlier in the week, the head of WPRO said at a conference that there were still many gaps in the health surveillance systems, so pivotal to detecting a new virus and mounting a response within a limited time.

“At the national level we need to improve further the capacity for surveillance and virological investigation. In addition, we need greater cooperation in sharing specimen samples,” said Dr Shigeru Omi, WPRO’s regional director in New Caledonia, an island in the South Pacific.

“Vietnam is on par with Thailand in health surveillance, but poorer countries like Cambodia and Laos don’t have the capacity due to the lack of resources,” Cordingley told IPS. “This is also too big for the WHO and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) to handle. We need a lot of international help.”

While it may be too dramatic to portray what is going on in Jakarta as mankind’s last chance to arrest any potential Bird Flu pandemic, the amount of attention being paid by international health officials and the current outbreak being termed “an epidemic” by at least some of the authorities in Indonesia lead one to the inescapable conclusion that this may be a defining moment in the fight to prevent an outbreak of a disease that could decimate the human population of planet earth.

UPDATE 9/23

First of all I have to say it’s a little disconcerting that not very many bloggers are posting about this today. Glenn Reynolds has a little blurb from AP but otherwise, not much in the way of sounding the alarm.

An exception is Bird Dog at Maggie’s Farm. He has an outstanding post with an easy to understand explanation of exactly what a virus is and how the Avian Flu virus is different from other flu viruses. This is a post I will link to everytime I blog about Bird Flu. The information is invaluable for us lay people in trying to get a handle on a disease that looks more and more like it will change our lives forever. Thanks, BD.

I grew up with a tremendous respect for language and its utility for both function and beauty. Both of my parents were voracious readers whose tastes were grounded in the classics of western civilization, running the gamut from the Greeks to Studs Terkel. (Note: Anyone who doesn’t think Mr. Terkel is a master of language and idiom should read either Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression or Terkel’s heartfelt anti-war screed Hope Dies Last which I do not agree with one iota politically but is a beautifully written book nonetheless).

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.

I suppose all of this makes me something of an ethno-centric elitist. Ask me if I care. No one will be able to convince me that the English language in the hands of a master like Longfellow is anything but a thing of beauty, something to be loved and cherished forever. It is perhaps an outmoded concept that children should learn, memorize, and recite classic verse in that it gives them a confidence with language that many young people lack today. One need only listen to an interview with a typical 18 or 19 year old on MTV to be shocked by their inability to express themselves. And while it’s unlikely that the language skills of today’s youngsters has been anything but nominally affected by de-emphasizing the study of classic verse in high school, it nevertheless is indicative of a lack of concern regarding verbal and written communication skills among educators in general.

What brought on these reflections regarding poetry and language were two separate blog posts; one by the eclectic and enjoyable group of bloggers at Maggie’s Farm who, in addition to highlighting a “Bird of the Week” and writing of their experiences on a rural New England farm, also regularly post poetry on the site. No commentary or analysis; just good verse from excellent poets. Their most recent poetry post was Kipling’s “Tomlinson” which tells the story of a working class man confronting his life and mortality, told in Kipling’s inimitable style of plain, rollicking language and precise meter:

Now Tomlinson gave up the ghost in his house in Berkeley Square
And a Spirit came to his bedside and gripped him by the hair
A Spirit gripped him by the hair and carried him far away,
Till he heard as the roar of a rain-fed ford the roar of the Milky Way:
Till he heard the roar of the Milky Way die down and drone and cease,
And they came to the Gate within the Wall where Peter holds the keys.

“Stand up, stand up now, Tomlinson, and answer loud and high
The good that ye did for the sake of men or ever ye came to die
The good that ye did for the sake of men in little earth so lone!”
And the naked soul of Tomlinson grew white as a rain-washed bone.
“O I have a friend on earth,” he said, “that was my priest and guide,
And well would he answer all for me if he were by my side.”

The other blog post that started me thinking in this direction was an interesting piece from Jesse Taylor, proprietor of the center-left blog Pandagon. Taylor’s impassioned “In Defense of Cursing” echoes many of my own ideas about the proprietary nature of blogs and being able to publish whatever one pleases. In particular, Taylor takes on those who object to his use of language when he tries to refute what he sees as the idiocy of rightwing “nutjobbers:”

Why do I curse? One, because it’s my site. In my work for Jerry, in my work for eVote way back when, in any non-Pandagon work I do in the future, if the person writing my checks asks me not to curse, then I will not. But this is my site, which I pay for, on which I write what I want. More importantly, if you track my cursing, you’ll notice I often go several points without uttering anything stronger than “crap”. I have rules for this s**t, you know.

Now Taylor and I wouldn’t agree on what time the sun rises much less anything politically. And I find his hysterical rants against imagined conservative sins to be laughably shallow and desperately juvenile, full of the typical paranoia and hyper-exaggeration that passes for “analysis” on lefty blogs these days.

But when it comes to the scatological use of language, Taylor has few equals. My own past efforts in this regard degenerated into incoherence which is why I don’t try to use cursing to express myself anymore. I just don’t have the knack.

But in many ways, Taylor and I are two sides of the same mirror. He and I share a passion for politics as well as the driving necessity to use language in order to move, to provoke, to chastise (as opposed to simply criticize), to enlighten, and to poke fun at the opposition. For Taylor, the judicious use of obscenity is a calculated effort to shock his readers’ sensibilities and force them to confront language he sees as either imprecise or downright misleading:

For some reason, “You’re a f**king racist idiot” is a more offensive statement than “black people have less native intelligence than other races, and embrace poverty accordingly”. Even worse is the “the major goddamn drain on the budget is the tax cuts, as the federal budget has shown every f**king year since 2002”, which simply blows “the tax cuts have increased revenue, because that’s the power of fiscal conservatism” out of the water. A lie, an insult, a grossly racist imputation is afforded legitimacy because it’s said nicely.

Obviously, I believe Taylor is exaggerating the intent and dissembling the facts of the two statements he chose to highlight. But for his purposes, the obscenities served him well. Which brings me to my final point; does such language contribute positively to political discourse? Does it matter?

The short answer to both questions is no. It’s his blog and he can swear if he wants to. And as for political discourse, I’m sure Mr. Taylor would agree that neither he nor I are interested converting anyone. Polemicists are mostly about expressing their own opinion in as controversial and disputatious manner as possible and may the devil take moderation.

Even many conservative friends have taken me to task for being unyielding in this regard. “Can’t we all just get along” is a fine sentiment but hardly germane to politics as it is practiced today. Yes there are times when I bow to reason and logic to agree with Democrats and the left. But on The Really Big Issues of war and peace, the destruction of our culture versus the preservation of many of our values, and the best way to promote freedom and democracy at home and abroad, I stand as a man of the right and damn those who oppose me.

The votes are in from this past week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner is The Sundries Shack for Jimmie’s biting commentary on Islamism entitled “Memorial to Millions of Dead Jews Offensive to Muslims.” Finishing tied for second was a thoughtful article called “Regression” by Dr. Sanity and Dymphna at Gates of Vienna’s excellent analysis of Bill Whittle’s “Tribes” essay (which won going away in the non-Council category) “Sheepdogs Driving the Bus.”

If you’d like to participate in the Watcher’s Council vote go here and follow instructions.

GLENN REYNOLDS SAYS “DON’T MISS IT!”

I’m sorry to disappoint all of you who thought that your post highlighted the most clueless cluebat of the week, but I’ve got him. In fact, this guy will definitely make the short list for Cluebat of the Year.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy was in Israel on a state visit and was taken to the Holocaust Museum and Memorial Site in Jerusalem, Yad Vashem, On September 8 during the visit, he asked – while perusing maps of European sites where Jewish communities had been destroyed – whether British Jews were not also murdered. That is, he was under the impression that Britain had been conquered by Hitler during World War II. At least we assume that he knew that it was World War II that Hitler started and not the Peloponnesian War.

The minister apparently was not content with this answer, which was given by the museum curator, and persisted, asking: “Yes, but were there no Jews who were deported from England?”

How beautiful is that? First, he’s French. Second, he’s a prominent member of the Chirac government. Third, he’s an educated Frenchman, a doctor of medicine with a Masters in Biochemistry – so of course Chirac makes him head of the foreign office. Third, how delicious is it that he made a fool of himself in Israel!

Compare this former Minister of Culture and his education with our own Secretary of State Condi Rice’s educational pedigree; University of Denver cum laude and Phi Betta Kappa in Political Science at age 19. A Masters degree from the University of Notre Dame and PHD in International Studies from the University of Denver.

Making Philippe Douste-Blazy Minister of Foreign Affairs would be like Bush making Dr. Phil Secretary of State. And at least Dr. Phil seems like he’d be smart enough to keep his yap shut and not make an utter, clueless fool of himself on the international stage.

Okay..I’ve started us off on the right foot. Why not spend a relaxing few minutes perusing this week’s gaggle of goose-brained jamokes whose cluelessness has been highlighted by our excellent bloggers and blogettes.

Réussir au monde qu’elle n’est pas asse’à être stupide, vous doit également être poli. (To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.)
(Voltaire)

I dunno, Volty. It’s obvious you’re unfamiliar with the way French diplomacy works these days. “Rude and Stupid” is the title of the French Diplomat’s Handbook.
(Me)

**********************************************************************************

Wouldn’t you have loved being at the Hitchens-Galloway debate the other night? Well our Carnival Golden Girl Pamela from Atlas Shrugs was there and in her usual dainty, ladylike way hooted and hollered at Galloway and his moonbat supporters, drawing the ire of the lot of them. She’s got pics too!

The Squib has some interesting news from our friends north of the border and the Parti Quebecois. Evidently, the French-speaking seperatists will now require their candidates to be “floor-lickingly drunk.” Should make for an interesting campaign…in a French sort of way.

Van Helsing has Cindy Sheehan in the crosshairs of his crossbow (didn’t you people see the movie?) and regrets that the New Orleans “occupation troops” have been too professional to do the world a big favor.

Hey Ward Churchill fans! Those perspicuous pachyderms at Elephants in Academia have your updates for you. Um…make sure you step very carefully around there. Churchill left several steaming piles behind.

Pat Curley at Brainsters tells the story of a brainless hippy deported from Australia on rather specious grounds. The real story is found on the goofball’s website that includes some interesting ideas about what to do with money.

Beth at MVRWC has an absolutely hysterical post about her “Idiotarian Commenter of the Year.” Attention lefty wankers: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT venture there if you value your hide.

Harvey at Bad Example has some advice on “How not to run an NFL Website.” Being a fan of my beloved Bears, it doesn’t surprise me that the hated Packers are that clueless.

Northstar at The People’s Republic of Seabrook has the skinny on the clueless duo of Rene Zellweger and Kenny Chesney’s annulment after celebrating their fifth anniversary. That’s their fifth month anniversary.

The Soccer Dad takes on the mad mullah’s terrorist President, Mr. Ahmadinejad for his comments regarding the feds response to Katrina. I guess he forgot the fact that it took 6 days for his military and relief people to get to the site of Iran’s last earthquake. Must be the radiation from all that enriched uranium frying his brain.

Minh-Duc has written a fantastic essay on the Pledge of Alliegiance and why atheist Michael Newdow is barking up the wrong tree with his opposition to the words “under God” in the pledge. Great stuff from a Carnival favorite.

We’re all familiar with the fine art of fisking. Well AJ at The Strata-Sphere does a first class job of fisking Cindy Sheehan’s commentary via Michael Moore’s blog that’s as detailed and thorough a job as you’re going to see.

What’s this? One of our gentle homeschoolers at The Common Room being rude? America is truly in trouble if Equuschick can’t hold her tongue. Alas, read the post and you’ll see she was more than justified in her verbal takedown of a “generous” customer.

Tony at More than Loans worries that Bill O’Reilly now has him “defending” child molesters. Don’t worry, Tony. Mr. “O” has gotten to all of us at one time or another.

Mr. Right forgoes the satire this week (I know…I miss it too) but makes up for it by linking to what has to be the moonbattiest site on the internets.

Wonder Woman at North American Patriot has more on Cindy Sheehan and her Magical Mystery Bus Tour. Check out WW’s site for some excellent commentary from a “conservative atheist.” (Join the club!)

Not content with trying to ban smoking outdoors on your own property, the PRMC (People’s Republic of Montgomery County), according to Matt Johnston, has now decided to inhibit free speech – once again on your own property. Would somone please send the Montgomery County Commissioners a copy of the US Constitution?

Mensa Barbie dons a skintight fireproof racing suit (I wonder if she likes NASCAR?) to give us the most clueless world record listed in Guiness. Judging by the result, the gentleman’s work should be exhibited at the Guggenheim as a sterling example of modern art.

Cao at Cao’s Blog sums up the firestorm over the “Crescent of Embrace” in the memorial for the passengers of Flight #93. Excellent piece with some original thinking.

Fausta at Bad Hair Blog “unmasks” Hugo Chavez for the moonbat moron that he is. Maybe “The Laughing Goat” is reading the tea leaves a little too closely.

Mean Ole Meany is picking on Mary Landrieu so you don’t have to. Now, what’s this about his female dog named “Roger” and Blackjack Dealer School?

Reaganites Unite want us to turn down Vincente “Crazy like a” Fox’s offer to flood the US with laborers to help rebuild New Orleans. As if they don’t have enough problems already…

Flash! The Nose on your Face informs us that the same judge who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional has now ruled that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional! Great political satire!

Raven takes the Euro-twits to task for their attitude toward Iran’s suggestion that it share its nuke technology with other Islamic states. Quoth the Raven: Nevermore. “It’s all a bunch of bulls**t. Iran has no interest in energy production and anyone who believes this should live in France or Germany.”

Scientist-philosopher Bergbikr from TMH Bacon Bits takes on that noted Climatologist (or is it gynecologist?) Bill Clinton for his comments on global warming and hurricanes on Meet the Press. Wasn’t that debunked within about 15 minutes of when it first appeared?

Miriam pines for the good old days when women had never heard of PMS and no one had ever heard of “midlife crisis.”

Robbie at Urbangrounds has some issues with Rolling Stone Magazine and their editorial policy. How a great mag went south. Pity.

Batya at Shiloh Musings spanks Likud leader Uzi Landau for comparing himself to Harry Truman. I agree with Batya that the party of Begin has seen better days and better leadership.

Watching Barbara Boxer is a full time job for Elisa at Boxer Watch. There are times, Elisa says, when Babs makes her job too easy!

Mark Coffey has the perfect machine for those of us missing our daily laughfest from the New York Times editorial page. It’s “The Times-o-Matic.”

Mr. Satire blesses us with two uproarious posts this week: “President Bush Asks Nagin, Blanco and Brown To Evacuate Americans to Andromeda Galaxy” and “Mephitic French PM de Villepin Suggests Shower and Soap To Combat Welfare Fraud.

Finally, here’s my takedown of one of the lefty trolls who email me from time to time.

When the history of the twentieth century is written a hundred years from now, I suspect that there will be a paragraph or two on William Jefferson Clinton. While there will be volumes written about the Roosevelts, Wilson, Reagan, and even Johnson, I doubt whether Clinton’s legacy will rate much attention from future historians for one simple reason; nothing much happened during his Presidency.

Clinton had the misfortune (from his own perspective) of being the very first “post-cold war” President. For more than 50 years, through economic crisis, war, and the standoff with communism, the American Presidency was where the action was. But following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the stirrings of democracy in Russia, it was as if the hot air was let out of a balloon. Suddenly, the Presidency as an office, began to revert to something closer to what the founders intended; a Chief Executive who disposed what the Congress proposed. While it’s true that the Presidency still wielded enormous power in foreign affairs, the American people made it crystal clear with the defeat of Bush the elder (and the election of his son in 2000) that they wanted a President who stayed at home to mind the economic store and not go gallivanting off on foreign adventures.

“It’s the economy, stupid” was more than a catch phrase for the Clintonistas; it was a mantra that when repeated ad nauseum signified the changing nature of the Presidency. While it was generally true that even during the cold war the American people voted their pocketbook when casting a ballot for President, that simplistic explanation never took into account the underlying relationship between an American citizen and their President.

When catastrophic nuclear war was a real possibility, the American people wanted a President that they could poke in the chest and feel a hardness, something more substantial than the platitudes and bromides heard during an election campaign. This is why the vote for President is the most personal, most complex vote any American makes. The decision to vote for one man over another was always based on intangibles, something that President Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell brilliantly elucidated during the Democratic primary campaign of 1980.

Caddell believed that even though Senator Ted Kennedy had a 30 point lead over Carter in the fall of 1979, primary voters would turn against him once his “character” was made an issue. For Caddell, it wasn’t just Chappaquiddick that was in play, it was Kennedy’s ultra liberal “squishiness” that the Democratic voters wouldn’t be able to stomach. To illuminate Kennedy’s character problem, Caddell then designed a series of “man in the street” interviews with ordinary Americans that were absolutely devastating in their impact. Carter turned that 30 point deficit into a series of stunning primary victories that destroyed Kennedy’s presidential ambitions forever.

Clinton’s problem in 1992 was similar to Kennedy, but the election dynamic had changed. The character issue now dealt with how closely Americans could identify with their President on a personal level. This was a luxury not available to Democratic Presidential aspirants from Adlai Stevenson to Michael Dukakis. So Clinton’s venality could be seen in the context of personal peccadilloes that all men are either tempted to engage in or are actually guilty. In a very real way, Clinton’s faults became political pluses; something Republicans to this day refuse to acknowledge and could never understand.

Recently, Clinton has engaged in a series of activities designed to create a legacy that will overshadow the inconsequentiality of his time in office. His participation with the President’s father in both Tsunami and hurricane relief are, I’m sure, heartfelt efforts to assist the humanitarian efforts in these twin disasters. And while many Republicans have criticized his “Clinton Global Initiative” as an exercise in hubris, the fact is it successfully brought together world leaders in an organized way to talk seriously about problems facing all of humanity.

This is no small achievement which unfortunately has been overshadowed by the aftermath of Katrina. But leave it to Bill Clinton to mix the selfless with the selfish, the heartfelt with the heartless. In an interview on This Week, Clinton blasted President Bush for his Administration’s handling of relief efforts in the immediate aftermath of Katrina as well as the President’s policies in Iraq, the economy, and even Afghanistan:

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticized George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction.”

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism “and undermined the support that we might have had,” Bush (sic) said in an interview with an ABC’s “This Week” programme.

Clinton said there had been a “heroic but so far unsuccessful” effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

John Hinderacker at Powerline allows himself to engage in a little hyperbole on the issue of past-presidents criticizing their successors:

This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.

This is true up to a point. While Eisenhower never overtly criticized Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco – an operation planned under his Administration – he let it be known to several prominent newspaper friends that he was unhappy at Kennedy’s performance. And acting as a surrogate for his former boss, Richard Nixon was harsh in his criticism of Kennedy’s handling of the matter.

Also, Jimmy Carter regularly criticizes American policy under his successors although no one pays any attention to him. Anyone who heard his speech at the Democratic Convention knows that Mr. Carter never let tradition stand in the way of a pouty, sanctimonious rant.

So while not unknown, it is unusual for a President to lash out at a successor in this manner. The language Clinton uses as well as the forum – a Sunday morning talk show – was designed to get the maximum amount of exposure for at least two 24 hour news cycles. In other words, Bill Clinton once again is the talk of the town, something I’m sure he relishes more than anything except returning to the White House.

And that ultimately what this may be about. One could probably say that this marks the official beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. The titular head of the Democratic party has fired a shot across the bow of the campaign of any putative Republican nominee. For unless President Bush self destructs, or the economy goes south in a big way, or progress in Iraq is arrested or reversed, the President will have an enormous say in who is standing at the podium delivering an acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican convention. And it should go without saying that the nominee will have run in the primaries on Bush’s record of achievements. Hence, the Clinton political challenge should be seen in the context of him being a stalking horse for his wife Hillary.

As he makes the transition from statesman to surrogate, Clinton may find that his statements will receive more critical scrutiny from the press. It is unfortunate that his current rant against the President will not. As Hinderaker says quite correctly, Clinton “flat out” lied:

Clinton’s assertion that there was “no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction” is a flat-out lie. The Consensus Estimate of the American intelligence agencies has been made public, and we have quoted from it and linked to it on many occasions. America’s intelligence agencies said, with a “high degree of confidence,” that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. These were the same intelligence reports that Clinton received as President, so he is well aware of them. His statement was not a mistake, it was a lie.

Lori Byrd at Polipundit has even more evidence from Clinton’s own mouth and reiterated as recently as 2003 that his Administration firmly believed that Saddam had WMD.

So the question isn’t really about the ex-President’s selective memory, it’s about attacking the current occupant of the White House on behalf of his wife’s forthcoming Presidential candidacy. And it may even be about the great unspoken question of Hillary’s candidacy: What role will Bill Clinton have in her administration?

With the world such a dangerous place again, Americans appear to be inclined to couch their Presidential vote in terms of personal security, something John Kerry found out to his detriment in 2004. Will Bill Clinton add to or subtract from a Hillary Presidency in this regard? Will Republicans be able to use the fact that America was sleepwalking through the 1990’s as al Qaeda gathered its forces to attack us? Or will the presence of Bill Clinton allow Americans to think back to the days before 9/11 when the world seemed a much simpler and less stressful place?

Bill Clinton is the wild card of the Presidential campaign of 2008. And I suspect, that fact gives him an enormous amount of pleasure. Because win or lose, the Clintons are about to make history – something any ex-President would give their right arm to achieve.

One of the more interesting things about having a post linked by dozens of liberal blogs is the different kind of clientele this site has gotten recently.

My Katrina Response Timeline was linked to by more than 180 blogs and dozens of forums and chat rooms. Not all of them, however, were conservative. And the fallout from this has been literally dozens of lefty trolls whose comments and emails have given new meaning to the term “hate mail.”

I’ve had to delete a dozen or so comments on my posts due to obscene language. I’ve deleted 3 or 4 others for being overly insulting. But it’s the volume and ferocity of the emails that has surprised me.

Here’s one from an admirer in Canada:

Rick – I read your article “The greatest political appointee in history”, and checked on John Adam’s biography. I came across the following quote:

‘...On November 1, 1800, just before the election, Adams arrived in the new Capital City to take up his residence in the White House. On his second evening in its damp, unfinished rooms, he wrote his wife, “Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof.” ’

I assume you and the rabble you are arousing believe Bush to be honest and wise.

Adams also made peace with the French, but I also assume that, as Superhawk, you probably wouldn’t make peace with anyone, but believe only in total domination of America over the lesser mortals that inhabit the rest of the planet.

I will have to read more to try to understand your arrogance and aggressiveness.

Tomorrow, I will tackle your article on Cindy Sheehan to see if it is anything more that a load of abusive garbage – suitable for rabble, I suppose.

Garbage like this I can handle. It only proves my point regarding liberal elitism. This one, however, was too good not to give a response:

I don’t usually involve myself in abject stupidity, but I really must say that you folks have taken this theme to unbelievable heights!! A masterful job if ever I have seen one and I have been on this earth quite a long time.

A staunch, unshakable Republican (?) friend of mine sent me your site with the comment that he considers the views expressed here as “main stream” America. If that is so, I am truly sorry and saddened for this nation and the American people.

If what I have read here is an example of the American “main stream”, then the “Grand Experiment” has failed!! As I read what is written here, I see in my minds eye shades of Goring and Gobles; I taste the flavors of Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Benito Mussolini. My mind cannot help but conger up images of Torquemada’s Spain!

You are one sick bunch of little boys and girls!

Mind you, I am not a Democrat, a liberal, Green or Libertarian. I am not a Republican, conservative, or Neocon, and I’m Damned sure not one of you!! I am a pragmatist. Under normal circumstances, I will not put my hand on a hot stove, stand in the rain without cover, or piss in my own, and everyone else’s, Post Toasties as you are so gleefully doing.

I feel very sorry for your mommy and daddy, they must have been very kind hearted – or they would have drowned your silly ass at birth!

I didn’t have the heart to tell the idiot that I was the only writer on the site. Instead, I took the ignorant wretch to school with this response:

Thank you for your note. However, I feel it necessary to correct it for the numerous mistakes made in context, spelling, and grammar.

Rick Moran
RWNH

The only response I got from the gentleman was “I rest my case,” whatever that meant.

Actually, he proved himself smarter than I thought…He quit while I was ahead.