Right Wing Nut House

The votes are in from this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is yours truly for my post “The Wild, Wild, Wild, Wild, and Wacky World of Cindy Sheehan.” Only a tie breaking vote by the Watcher himself prevented Dr. Sanity from finishing on top with her cogent post “The Lunatic Fringe.” Instead, the good Doc finished a close second.

The winning Non-Council post was Junkyard Blog’s “A Knife in the Back.”

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

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

There is a school of thought that believes the idea of loyalty to one’s country is a crass, outmoded concept not worthy of consideration by thinking people. Rather, loyalty if given at all, should be reserved for nebulous and ethereal entities like “humanity” or “the family of man.” International socialism has long advocated this global view of loyalty - except, of course, when the old Soviet Union was in trouble for one of its frequent deviations from civilized behavior. It was at this point that Moscow would crack the whip and leftists from Berlin, to London, to Los Angeles would dutifully parrot the party line, excusing the brutes in the Kremlin for all sorts of very unsocialist and inhuman atrocities.

Thankfully, this view of loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of citizens in the United States. Most Americans recognize the importance of loyalty to the government during a time of war when America’s sons and daughters are in harm’s way. This has never been more evident than when looking at how we view the war in Iraq.

According to the latest polls, barely 40% of the country approves of the way that President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq. But when asked if we should pull our troops out before the job of securing the country and helping the Iraqis achieve a stable, democratic government is complete fully two thirds of Americans say no. This slap in the face to the leftist narrative of how the American people see the war in Iraq seems to have been lost on this past weekend’s partygoers in Washington whose speakers continued to insist that the majority of the people opposed the war and wished the troops to come home.

Leave it to the left to never let the truth stand in the way of a good old fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign.

True, there are permutations within permutations in the poll numbers. One of the more remarkable tidbits to be found in these figures is the fact that the belief that the war was a “mistake” because no mass stockpiles of WMD were found has hovered near the 50% mark for more than a year. What makes it remarkable is that even though roughly half the nation thinks going into Iraq was an error, a sizable portion of those people also believe we should stay until the job is done.

The left would point to these Americans and call them confused. I think they should be congratulated for their loyalty. What the left sees as stupidity, I see typical American common sense. Most Americans - even those who opposed going to war in the first place - realize the dire consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The destabilization and possible collapse of the Iraqi government would place America in great danger and would be inimical to our national interest. This fact is so obvious that it calls into question why almost all of the speakers at the anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops.

To understand why one need only look a little closer at the motley collection of socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists, pan-Arabists, post modern deconstructionists, one worlders, and racialists who descended on Washington for their moment in the media spotlight. If there’s one thing the tatterdemalion left has become over these last lost years since the fall of the Soviet Union it is publicity deprived. They are absolutely starved for media attention. Even the anarchists can’t have a decent riot that hardly rates a blurb in The Guardian. Part of the problem is the fractured nature of their “coalition.” The only way they could get the kind of numbers necessary to get anyone to pay any attention to them was by inviting everyone in the world who has a grudge against America.

Hence, most of the podium speakers at the rally were not there to solely promote an anti-war agenda but rather each had their own particular anti-American ax to grind. The racialists called for an end to racism. The tribalists called for an end to capitalism. The primitives called for an end to industrialized civilization. The greenies called for an end to everything else. Yes, they all paid lip service to the anti-war message that brought them together in the first place. But their real reason for bringing their followers to Washington was to garner support from the hard-left moneymen like George Soros and leftist PR gurus like David Fenton who is currently managing Cindy Sheehan’s race toward obscurity. A few dollars here and there gleaned from the Smart Set in Washington will at least keep the mimeograph machines going and pay the rent for a few more months.

Not surprisingly, there was very little talk of loyalty. When “patriotism” was brought up, we were continually assured that yes, these were indeed patriotic Americans who only wanted to exercise their right to dissent from government. Of that, I have little doubt. The question isn’t whether they are patriotic Americans, the questions is are they loyal Americans?

The two terms are related but not mutually exclusive. Patriotism is a feeling, a “love or devotion to one’s country.” Loyalty, by definition, is an action word. It is “allegiance to one’s country” or “faithfulness to one’s government.” Many a traitor has come and gone calling themselves “patriots.” Few would agree that they were being loyal.

How does the left get around this little non-sequitur? They huffily point out that they are being loyal to the “idea” of America or “American ideals.” Since these ideals were present at the founding of the nation, it is perhaps gratifying that so many on the left have finally embraced the idea of strict constructionism - at least when it becomes a convenient explanation for their perfidy in giving aid and comfort to an enemy that is shooting at American soldiers overseas.

For that is what the demonstrators in Washington forgot to mention in all their sloganeering and speechifying; the fact that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq have only one chance to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Iraqi government and gaining power. And that is only if America walks away before the job is done.

They are hoping that history repeats itself and America abandons an ally to its fate as a result of both timid policy makers and domestic opposition to the war. And since this hope is all that the insurgents have to go on (for they can never defeat the US military on the field of battle), leftist opposition to the war can only be judged as disloyalty. They can call themselves patriots if they want. There is no way we can look into their souls and judge their love or hate for the United States. But we can certainly judge their loyalty based on their actions - actions that have the practical affect of encouraging the insurgents in Iraq to up the body count of Americans to test the mettle of our citizenry to stay the course until the job is well and truly done.

As the democratic process in Iraq moves forward in fits and starts and the Iraqi people slowly and cautiously march toward an uncertain future that may yet include sectarian violence and other setbacks in achieving national unity, the need for our troops to stay and assist them in this historic task will remain great. And to sustain our elected leaders in this hard, slogging task with our loyalty will become more and more critical as time goes by. It no doubt is the greatest test of our fealty to the United States government that many of us will ever have. But it will be absolutely necessary for us to win through to total victory and bring our sons and daughters home in triumph.

Due to circumstances beyond my control, the 15th edition of the Carnival of the Clueless will be delayed until tomorrow.

I was unexpectedly called into work this morning and rather than trying to finish when I get home later this evening, I’ll just publish first thing in the morning on Wednesday.

I can promise a a passel of cluelessness so make sure you stop in and visit first thing in the morning.

Calling all bloggers!

You have until Monday night at 11:00 PM to get your entries in for this week’s Carnival of the Clueless.

Last week’s Carnival was the best yet with 34 entries from both the right and left side of the political spectrum hammering those individuals and groups among us who are truly clueless.

Here’s what we’re looking for:

Each week, I’ll be calling for posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT..

You can enter by emailing me, leaving a link in the comments section, or by using the handy, easy to use form at Conservative Cat.

WHITE SOX SLUGGER PAUL KONERKO (L) CONGRATULATES PITCHER MARK BUEHRLE (R) FOLLOWING THE CLUB’S 4-1 VICTORY OVER MINNESOTA ON SUNDAY

There’s a hint of fall in the air here in Chicago. The leaves on the few elm trees that remain following the Dutch Elm blight that took so many of the beautiful giants in my youth are beginning to turn as are the gangly sycamores and noble hickory whose easy to reach lower branches have given dozens of generations of Midwestern boys both the thrill of accomplishment in climbing their first tree and the misery of their first broken bone as they would occasionally plunge willy-nilly from those same inviting limbs landing awkwardly on the ground.

One other tree also has begun its seasonal transition; the beloved Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), a friend to early settlers due to its ramrod straight trunk which was used extensively in the construction of log cabins. More recently, Midwesterners discovered another use for the tree’s wood: It makes wonderful weapons for baseball batsmen.

There is no more difficult feat in sports than a baseball batter’s attempt to hit a round ball careening toward him from a little more than 60 feet away, inches from his person, at more than 90 miles per hour with a rounded stick of wood weighing on average 34 ounces. The 5 ounce ball of tightly wound horsehide around a plug of cork can be made by the pitcher when thrown to dip, to shoot left or right, to slide, to flutter, or to hop like a scared rabbit.

It can also be made to curve so that when leaving the pitcher’s hand, the ball appears to be making a bee line straight for the batter’s head only to fall harmlessly, knee high, over the outside corner of the diamond shaped home plate. The 18 inch sideways break of the ball while dropping 10 inches causes the knees of the best major league hitters to turn to jelly as their rear end obeys the natural law of self preservation and attempts to flee even while the highly developed mammalian brain of the batter fashioned over 50 million years of evolution is screaming at the rump to stay put so the player can swing the bat. All to no avail. The pitcher tries not to smile too broadly because he knows the next one he throws may not be as perfectly delivered. It may in fact hang like a ripe plum, low and inviting over the middle of the plate, at which point the batter swings and connects and sends the ball flying into the next zip code.

This is the essence of baseball; the eternal struggle between pitcher and batter. The one-on-one face off in baseball is the most lovely of human competitive endeavors as it reveals all of the characteristics of sport that captures us and demands our attention. There’s courage, guile, physical prowess, and a will to win at stake on every pitch. It is what makes baseball such a sublime and elevating experience for those of us who love the game and hold it so close to our hearts.

Those of us with a passion for the game are now a distinct minority in America. It wasn’t always so. The fact that there are dozens of reasons why this is true tells us more about America than it does about the popularity of baseball. While there are many that bemoan the fall of baseball from its preeminent position as the number one sport in America, one cannot escape the fact that the game has fallen victim to what is the essence of America itself; an unalterable and inexorable fact of life in this country that things do not remain the same, that society and culture are in a constant state of motion.

America has changed. Baseball hasn’t.

Baseball couldn’t change. The game itself is draped in tradition, in memory. There is no other game seen through the prism of remembrance quite like baseball. Whether sitting on the back porch in 1950’s and 60’s suburbia listening to the hissing, static filled play-by-play on radio while the fireflies blinked to announce their presence and the sweet smell of Jasmine filled the nostrils with the scent of summer, of family, of a shared passion. Or perhaps in the city you sat on the front stoop with every other house on the block blaring out the call of the game, a broadcast legend conducting a city wide symphony of sound, mothers with babies, fathers with sons, and the young, the old, laughing, talking, arguing, loving. A neighborhood, a community united around a passion so intense that enmities were temporarily forgotten as “the boys” or “the bums” performed extraordinary feats of effortless athleticism with both the workmanlike attitude of the blue collar hero and the pizazz of a circus performer.

Yes, that America existed at one time. And while memory may skew some of the details and gloss over much of the unseemly realities from those times, there is no doubt that baseball for much of the country occupied a privileged position in the hearts and minds of the people. In a time before the total saturation of sports, before ubiquitous replays, before free agency made players into hobos, before steroids turned the players into Frankenstein monsters, before rape trials and murder trials and divorces and scandal after scandal there was the pitcher, the batter, and the lovely dance of strategy and possibility. To bunt or not to bunt. To swing away or hit and run. To pitch out, or put the rotation” play on, or simply to play “straight up.” This was actually part of the national conversation when baseball was king.

But America stands still for no one. Certainly not for a game that used to be known as “The National Pastime.” For that is what one did when a game was in progress; pass the time in other pursuits while the game itself functioned as the background to daily life. While we sat on the porch listening to the game, as a family we would be laughing, joking, carrying on, reading, knitting - all the things that families do together that cements the bonds of love and affection we hold so dear and make life itself fill up with joy and satisfaction. Of course, utter silence would reign when some pivotal point in the game was occurring. But otherwise, baseball was important for what it meant as a shared experience for the family, for the neighborhood, and for the larger community in which we lived.

But those things have faded in significance. The reason why is not really important. It’s not like one can get in a time machine and take America back and deposit her in some other reality. Some refer to that period as a simpler time, a misnomer if there ever was one. It’s never been “simple” being an American. The ability to change, to adapt has always been the most highly prized attribute in American society. “It’s good to be shifty in a new country” was actually an adage taught in grammar school in the 19th century. The unbridled pace of change that makes America such a hugely vibrant and vital place also makes it a scary, even depressing milieu to live. For many, the psychic cost of change is too much to bear and broken lives and shattered families litter the seascape of our society like the flotsam and jetsam of a shipwreck following a huge storm.

Change is neither good nor bad; it simply exists. And the changes in American society that have caused the game of baseball to lose its luster and hasten its fall from grace say more about us as a people and how we interact with each other than it does about the game itself. It is ironic that while sports - all sports - currently occupy such a lofty position in the national psyche that the essence of the games and their original purpose as a uniting expedient for American communities has been lost. Now the games are shared experiences nationally. There is not quite the same feeling of intimate association with a particular team and its players. Sports is very big business. The franchises are owned by giant corporations rather than the gentleman sportsmen of the past. The Yawkeys, the Comiskeys, the Wrigleys and other former owners used to take a personal interest in seeing that their teams were competitive. This is not necessarily true today as the relentless rise in salaries has necessitated that the bean counters dictate how competitive a team might be in a given year. Can’t afford that extra $15 million a year for a front line pitcher? Oh well, maybe one of the kids we drafted last year will come through and allow us to be competitive until September.

This is what passes for strategy in today’s game.

But even the machinations of heartless corporations can’t dim my love and affection for baseball. Try as they might, neither the players nor their hated nemeses the owners can destroy the game. Even if some mighty wind arose and swept away every major league club, their high priced players, their greedy owners, their luxury boxes, their cookie-cutter stadiums, and especially their grasping, conniving, insufferable sports agents, the world would go on. In fact, it doesn’t take a soothsayer to know that even if such a calamity were to occur, the very next day, somewhere in America, whether on a farm or in a back yard or city park, young boys would gather to play the game. Which also says a lot about America. Some things will never change. And I suspect that despite the popularity of other sports, there will always be just enough of us who love baseball to keep it alive.

Not everything in America changes. And that is a good thing.

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.