Bogus Gold

'Yah, I know the Frat Boys hate the Fratellis on the basis of politics. Not too helpful. Most of the best artists of our (probably any) generation endorse sucky politics.

The thing is, the first Fratelli album was freaking awesome! It was all punky yet dancy and introspective, yet only to the extent it made it even better. It was pretty much the perfect album for its genre and its age. Infectious. A bevy of hit singles to choose from. Hitting the right notes for the time.

Then comes the latest. And... what the heck happened?!

All at once there's nothing threatening. Nothing challenging. Nothing interesting. It's all so safe... so formulized... And the weird thing is the formulas don't seem to follow the previous album at all. They're some kind of bland "this should be more accessible" formula only a soulless studio drone might have preferred. Makes the whole thing tedious. Seriously.

I listened to the Fratelli's initial offering so often I almost wore out my headphones. I'm having a hard time thinking why I would subject myself to a listening of their next album again without payment.

Rating of the Fratellis first album: "Costello Music": 5 out of 5.

Rating of the Fratellis second album: "Here We Stand": 2 out of 5 stars.

I know it has happened before. But nothing is so fresh in my mind as this complete fall from GOOD.

Exhibit A in why I listen to less and less talk radio: Watch conservative talker Kevin James get pinned to the mat with ease by Chris Matthews over a wee historical point James had raised.

It's not that I expect everyone in the world to posses an encyclopedic command of every historical detail. But those who want to rant and demagogue over the appeasement of Neville Chamberlain should damn well crack open a book, or at very least consult Wikipedia, before attempting to lecture the nation about its applicability to a modern situation.

Chris Matthews is an intellectual lightweight about such things. But he toyed with James so easily before swatting him aside it was pathetic. Too many conservative talkers these days merely have the talk part. They replace intellectual firepower with a fair to middlin' stylistic aping of the genre's big dogs. Shall I name some names? Sean Hannity (obviously) is the king of this game. But Mike Gallagher didn't get the job due to his incredible intellect either. On the flip side Laura Ingraham is surely smart enough but she plays the role like a successful con job far too often. Michael Savage is so smart he turned an outright parody of the style into a hugely lucrative career.

But the act works. P. T. Barnum said no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public, and this whole talk radio industry tests that more and more.

For the record, the answer to Matthews' cocksure assertion that, "What Chamberlain did wrong was give Hitler half of Chekoslovakia" is...

No, you idiot. Chamberlain allowed a weaker power in constant violation of international treaties to bully the stronger free world time after time after time, watching passively as this same weaker power built itself to military parity and eventually superiority to his own nation. By the time Munich came around in 1938 Chamberlain's political career was so deeply vested in appeasement he could not politically afford to take a firm stand. He felt compelled to prove appeasement worked, rendering war unnecessary. Chamberlain watched Germany renounce Versailles, march into the Rhineland, annex Austria, flaunt military re-armament agreements, and on and on and on. His continual unwillingness to forcefully stand up to this early on in favor of keeping relations warm and communications open was one of the leading causes of the Second World War. Post-war documents show how weak Hitler's cause was. Any of half a dozen major showdowns with the West might have deposed Hitler by internal German opposition, because he could not afford to lose any of them. But because of Chamberlain's constant caving in to Germany's increasingly outrageous demands and actions he made Hitler look stronger and stronger and stronger among the German people. Chamberlain watched a yipping pup the allies could have kicked to the curb easily grow into a fearsome monster capable of destroying civilization because he was so committed to the principle of appeasement that he could be played the fool by anyone who didn't share his personal devotion to peace at any price. Munich was merely the capstone on the grave of appeasement. The plot itself was dug over years and years by a constant policy.

This is stuff Democrats like John F. Kennedy considered a basic lesson of the Second World War. Neither America's pig-headed disengagement from the world, nor Chamberlain style appeasement must be allowed to enable another power-hungry dictator to threaten the world's peace again. The partisan opposition to this perspective used to come from the Taft wing of the Republican Party (who favored the isolationist rather than appeasement position it should be noted). Now this new Chamberlainism bubbles up from many in the Democratic rank and file who seem to believe, like Matthews, that anything short of a full-blown Munich sellout to aggressive dictators is not a mistake. Because it averts war and war is bad, mmkay? That this happens to be precisely Chamberlain's foreign policy (remembering that Munich came as a crisis that nearly drove even Chamberlain himself to declare war) totally escapes them.

But I doubt Chris Matthews wants me on his show regardless. And I'm sure as hell not wasting my time trying to educate the talker-pretender. So pass the word along if you care.

As the Obamessiah's poll numbers recover from that embarrassingly off-script crazy pastor saga (largely due to a return to the hands-off media coverage that enabled his rise in the first place), the Democratic presidential race is returning to a study writ-large regarding the mental state of the Democratic electorate. To the extent you can set aside your belief that voters are by and large rational creatures it has its own special fascination. Especially in contrast to the substance that characterized the parallel Republican race earlier.

Let's reflect on that latter point for a moment. In the Republican primary there was much fluff and pompery attempted by many candidates trying to skate past the issues with airy proclamations that they represented the next Ronald Reagan. Time after time this strategy failed, as voters held candidates accountable for their positions on immigration (which almost sank McCain's campaign last summer), war (which resurrected McCain's campaign in the winter), domestic security, federal spending, the environment, and many more. The important thing was, there were clear differences between the Republican candidates regarding their policies around these issues, and what the candidates themselves represented. Rudy Giuliani was seen as the social liberal who would be a foreign policy hawk and a law and order guy at home. Mitt Romney was the guy who adopted all the right socially conservative positions (but perhaps too conveniently close in time to his presidential run) and brought a whiz-bang understanding of private sector business wisdom. John McCain was the "maverick" who may occasionally thwart his own party but possessed of an iron sense of honor, who would never compromise with terrorists and who's resume gave instant credibility over matters of war and peace. The list goes on (Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter, etc.). These were candidates with DEEP resumes and considerable track records of accomplishments by which to measure them, forcing them to explain themselves to one another and to the electorate exhaustively.

Flash over to the Democratic race and one finds plenty of candidates with equally impressive resumes (Biden, Richardson, Dodd). The difference was how little impact they made upon the race, while inexperienced candidates with little to offer but rhetoric soared to the top of the polls. Obama, Edwards, and yes, Hillary.

It should be remembered that Hillary Clinton is only an "experienced politician" in the least conventional sense of the word. Yes, she's been close to matters of the utmost political importance for decades as First Lady of Arkansas and then of the United States. But after the one major political issue she had unquestionable accountability for (Hillarycare) went down in flames, she was carefully protected from clear positions of authority or accountability until she became a U. S. Senator years later. Her Senate record is weighty compared to Obama and Edwards, but hardly compared to most anyone else. And when it comes to matters of policy substance, it has been pointed out repeatedly there's almost no difference between Obama and Hillary (Edwards offered a slightly stronger whiff of anti-capitalism, but he's gone now and both remaining candidates have subsequently adopted his populist rhetoric too when necessary).

The real question is, what the heck is going on in the Democratic race? Why has that entire party chucked experience out the window and driven themselves mad over a choice between two major unknowns? Why has half the nation decided they could chant words like "hope" and "progress" and not have to worry about being bitten by the far more consequential presidential traits like "inexperience" and "ambition" in the end?

I think a keen look into part of the answer comes in this revealing piece in New York Magazine today attempting to rationalize the media's crush on Obama.

Contrary to the vast-left-wing-conspiracy visions of the right, much of the press never really loved the Clintons—they just feared and loathed their enemies more. The first people I ever heard viciously ragging on Bill Clinton, early in 1992, were a liberal reporter covering him and a writer then working as a Democratic staffer on the Hill. Part of it was visceral suspicion of the Clintonian political M.O. and character. And part of it, I think, was a kind of half-conscious intragenerational resentment.

Despite conservative conspiracy theories to the contrary, this jives very well with my memories of the Clinton era. The media would fall all over themselves to cover for the Clintons, but became exhausted and frustrated in the effort. They needed the Clintons because they knew how to win against Republicans. They had no one else on deck who seemed capable, as the subsequent George W. Bush presidency bitterly taught them. One has to remember, Democrats always believe their Republican opponent is unbelievably worse than their nominee. They thought Carter and Mondale were clearly superior to Ronald Reagan. Michael Dukakis was clearly superior to George H. W. Bush. And of course Al Gore, John Kerry, and any random third grader were clearly superior to George W. Bush. So to them this strange ability to win the presidency has little to do with the quality of their candidate. It all has to do with some mysterious formula of winning over the rubes who keep getting it wrong. The Clintons seemed to have this magical touch, and it grudgingly won over the liberal media.

That, in a nutshell, was at the heart of Hillary's once "inevitable" nomination. She didn't have to prove she was better than the other Democrats. It was presumed any Democratic candidate would be "better." The Clintons weren't about "better," they were about "winning."

So how the heck did Obamania emerge amid all this? Now we come to the most interesting part (subsequent emphasis mine).

...it’s ironic that the media and their fellow upscale Americans are now disposed to like Obama precisely because he resembles them in so many ways. The difference is he’s relatively unsullied, an exquisite, idealized version of themselves: educated, thoughtful, twigged to nuance, a lovely writer, well-traveled, witty, cool, dignified, candid, a little quixotic, a clued-in grown-up but not yet ruined by the ugly facts of Washington life.

And, mirabile dictu, a perfectly postmodern embodiment of compromise between the hard binaries of race and age. He’s both white and black. Born on the very cusp of the baby boom and Generation X, he’s both oldish and youngish. And as a skinny, athletic, gentle-seeming, virtually metrosexual man, he nearly splits the difference on gender as well.

What we're seeing here is the triumph of egotism over compromise. If Hillary Clinton's appeal was that she had that mysterious "winning" formula, Barack Obama's appeal is to every Democrat who believes they themselves know how to win too. It's as if a mass movement all believe that, "Sure John Kerry and Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, and on and on might not understand it. But I, (insert individual upscale Democrat's name here), am smarter than them. I know how to beat those nasty Republicans. And look - there's a candidate that is like an 'idealized version of myself.' He and I don't need Hillary in order to win the White House. It's a new era and finally people like me are calling the shots."

Why would a mass of people come to believe this all together? Because Obama's campaign rhetoric is an explicit demagogic appeal to this impulse. "We are the change we've been waiting for" is the thing in a nutshell, swelling the vanity of the individual voter into a cult of personality around Obama.

So where does Obama's appeal increasingly fall flat? Among anyone who looks at Obama and is unable to see their own idealized reflection. Don't take my word for it. Here's how the same article describes them:

Uneducated white people, residents of the so-called C and D counties, and the elderly—in other words, Hillary Clinton voters

There's a serious implication here, which I think Republican strategists ought to chew on. Hillary Clinton remains far and away the candidate more likely to win over any Republican in November. Why? Because while those "uneducated white people, etc." may not be enough in number to sway the Democratic nomination, they're far more significant in the general election.

Obama's cult of personality is built around a shared ego-trip. Hillary's campaign is (now that she's had to actually battle to win the thing) built around tough campaigning and often shameless pandering campaigning to the key demographics that swing elections. You want to know the Clinton's special "winning formula"? That's it.

With most every other key indicator favoring the Democrats in the general election, that Clinton "winning formula" is positioned perfectly for a November victory. Voters are by and large ready for a new party in the White House. Perhaps the Republican "maverick" represents enough of a break from the Bush presidency to suffice, but I wouldn't bet upon it. I don't like John McCain's chances against Hillary Clinton in November at all. But, of course, Obama stands a very good chance of keeping her name off the ticket.

Nick "Your Schools Are Burning!" Coleman, turns his excitable mind and simile-laden prose to a serious issue today: his inability to write a coherent column.

Oh, also he is apparently against people being shot. I presume there's some lobby in favor of this he wants us to oppose, but that first point seems to get in his way of pointing out whom this might be and how we ought to go about it. There's some blather in there about Glocks and gun sales, but also Minnesota shootings which may have nothing to do with either Glocks or legally obtained firearms; and there's a whole lot about an unintentionally funny demonstration at the state capitol. Oh heck, let's just take a lookie...

I went to a die-in at the State Capitol on Wednesday, marking the anniversary of last year's slaughter at Virginia Tech, where a deranged kid killed 32.

I brought my Glock.

Alright, so Nick went into a "die-in" at Minnesota's State Capitol to commemorate an undoubtedly tragic killing... in Virginia. Clearly those Minnesota legislators are slacking if they're supposed to be accounting for legislative problems in Virginia. Virginia, Minnesota I believe they've got somewhere in the docket. Virginia, as in one of the original thirteen colonies? Not so much. Thanks for breaking this story Nick!

But the truly shocking statement here is that Nick - a self-described licensed concealed gun permit holder - chose to bring his gun to an anti-gun rally! Wow! That's totally a man-bites-dog kind of story! I can't wait to read the significance of this interesting symbolic act!

I didn't really.

Oh. Never mind. He made it up, because engaging in an act of actual irony is so much harder than not doing it and saying you did.

For the record I am reacting to this Nick Coleman column while enjoying his incredible mastery of prose.

Not really.

It would have been weird and crazy to take a gun to an event marking a massacre, especially the very kind of gun used in the massacre. But then again, this country is weird and crazy about guns.

Weirder and crazier to take a gun you're legally licensed to carry along with you than it is to begin a column about the event claiming that you did? I'm not so sure.

I mean if he'd kept the thing concealed and didn't start a spree killing would anyone have actually noticed? See this is where the anti-gun nuts and gun-nuts ought to be able to find some common ground. The firearm in question surely holds the potential for dangerous misuse. But considering that most police forces in the United States equip their officers with the exact same gun Nick is bloviating about today, it's hardly a case where the mere presence of a Glock causes people to start dying. Must we freak out like we're making some nonsensical syllogism every time we see a model of a gun some maniac once used (A mad man killed innocent people with a Glock. Than guy has a Glock. Therefore that guy must be a mad man about to start another killing spree. Eeek!!!)?

I went to a local gun store Wednesday (I have a permit) and found I could get a nifty Glock 19 -- the 9-millimeter semiautomatic model that Cho Seung-Hui used on April 16, 2007 -- for less than what Cho spent.

He bought his Glock for $571 at a Roanoke, Va., gun store. I could have purchased one Wednesday for $550.

It was on sale! Who says Americans don't celebrate history?

I know... the lack of any transition here is kind of jarring to the uninitiated Nick Coleman reader. I should have warned you. And no, I didn't cut out anything. Nick jumped from pretending to carry a gun to a "die-in" at the Minnesota State Capitol to pricing the very gun he was pointedly NOT going to have with him at the event immediately after confessing he would never, ever consider such a "weird and crazy" thing.

And apparently Nick thinks prices should be driven by moral outrage, rather than supply and demand, or the desire of a store owner to turn a profit. A Glock firearm - specifically one of the most common and popular models of one of the most common and popular hand guns in the world - must never come down in price, since a crazy guy once used it to massacre people. In Nick's world that's just common sense. In the real world we have a term for this. It's abbreviated: WTF??!!

The die-in (it was called a lie-in, actually)

...except by Nick Coleman until just now...

...was organized by Protect Minnesota, an umbrella group representing five gun-control organizations pushing for tighter rules on sales and universal background checks on buyers. Thirty-two people wore black T-shirts that said, "Minnesotans Against Being Shot" as well as ribbons of maroon and orange (Virginia Tech's colors) made by families of the victims. One by one, to the solemn beat of a drum, they went down on the Capitol steps and remained motionless, as if asleep.

So... the point of a bunch of people lying down on the Capitol steps was to make people think they were... sleeping? The topic of guns makes people too sleepy or something? I mean, the fact that there's a lobby who thinks they're uniquely opposed to being shot makes me kind of giggle. The fact that people want the Minnesota legislature to do something about campus safety in Virginia makes me groan. But what is this strange reference to sleeping? I mean, didn't Nick call this thing a "die-in" when even the organizers didn't? So shouldn't the reference be "as if dead" rather than "as if asleep"? What's the point of talking about sleeping here at all?

It was like the state Senate, but without the pompous speeches.

Oh. It was all just to set up ... that. He'll be here all week, folks. Tip your waitress.

OK, it was one of those media events that is easy to mock...

Actually, a lot easier to ignore until Nick put his unique stylings on the proceedings.

...and, indeed, it was mocked by a few underemployed members of the gun-rights lobby who couldn't resist the temptation to spoil a somber moment by holding up frat boy signs to the effect that a teacher or student packing heat could have stopped the carnage, which is the kind of thing I wonder about when a cop gets shot.

Funny how those cops continue to carry firearms, eh? I mean... they just get shot anyway. What's the point?

And for the record, I have no problem with juvenile demonstrations receiving juvenile responses. Acting "somber" is not an adequate stand in for being mature and serious about a topic.

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. And sometimes people with guns kill other people with guns. It's as complicated as our feelings, and nobody's come up with a convincing response to slaughters such as Virginia Tech, especially proposals to let college kids carry guns on campus. Rep. Tony Cornish, a Republican from Good Thunder, introduced one such obscenely timed proposal Wednesday. Are you kidding, Cornish? Have you ever been to a kegger at Mankato or St. Cloud or the U of M and thought, "Cool! I hope these dudes have guns!"

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the idea of the bill was to hand out firearms as freely as stale beer at drunken frat parties. As someone who - allegedly - completed Minnesota's process for legally acquiring a concealed carry permit, Nick would probably be better suited than most to point out the actual merits or detriments of any such bill. You know, how many college students would be able to meet the requirements and based on that how likely they might be to provide any change in protection in cases like the shooting in question - that kind of thing.

Yet, Nick being Nick, he can't resist reverting to the same kind of baseless jibes you could draw from any lefty yokel. Colleges are basically Animal House because that's snarkable when we're considering allowing the students to apply for concealed carry licenses. They're tender places of serious learning populated by our precious next generation only when they're facing down the other side of the gun barrel.

The die-in folks [wasn't it a "lie-in" or perhaps "sleep in" just moments ago? - ed.] had a spot of trouble with choreography. At first, they began prostrating themselves from the west end of a line of "victims," but that was wrong. They regrouped, helped the first few victims back to their feet and resumed falling down from the other end of the line as planned. You ever have one of those days?

One of those days where I needed to pad a column, so I started tossing in damn near anything I had in my notes regardless of how relevant it was to the point I forgot I was trying to make? Can't say that I have.

As silly as it was, it produced an emotional response. Some of the folks falling down were real-life parents of gun victims in the Twin Cities, and it is hard to see 32 people on the ground (I could only count 31, despite several tries) without a twinge of horror at the senselessness of the violence in the world.

Alright this column is starting to get random and senseless in its own horrific way. Nick counted 31 people over and over and came away convinced he saw 32 people on the ground. Which we earlier learned made Nick think they looked asleep. And somehow this whole package - we are to conclude - is impossible to witness without a jarring revelation about senseless violence worldwide. This from the guy who counts to 31 and apparently has a "twinge" making him unexplainably leap to 32.

One of the real-life victims' moms was Doris Thomas, whose 15-year-old son, Tony, was gunned down in north Minneapolis two years ago.

Wait... her son was gunned down in north Minneapolis? Tragic as that may be, wasn't this about concealed carry laws on college campuses? Or the sale price of Glock 19's? Or commemorating the tragedy of a year ago in Virginia? Oh wait... we must be on to the senselessness of violence now.

"It was very serene," said Thomas of her time lying on the steps, "dead." "I didn't have any strong thoughts or a vision. I just thought about my son and how there was truth to the words we are saying."

So were they lying "dead", "asleep", or just "serenely." This column has taken all three positions, and it's almost over. Will we ever know for sure? How random and senseless.

Then there's this matter of Nick quoting someone talking about the truth of the words they were saying, and not bothering to clue us in on what those words actually were. Welcome to your role as a mere prop for another one of Nick Coleman's egotistical ramblings Doris.

The Virginia Tech killer shouldn't have gotten a gun, because he should have been in a psychiatric ward. Virginia closed that loophole two weeks after the 32 died. But there remain many loopholes to shut, including in Minnesota, where some unlicensed sellers can still sell guns to unknown buyers without background checks. To tighten those laws is not anti-gun. It is pro-safety.

So, wait... the loophole which allowed the killer in question to get a gun has been closed. In Virginia. So that's not really the issue here. This protest in Minnesota was important because there are "many loopholes to shut." Umm... gosh, that sounds like it might deserve a column to point out what those might be... oh darn, Nick's almost out of space.

"It's harder to transfer title to my fishing boat than a gun," said St. Paul City Council Member Lee Helgen, who was displaying a gun shot map showing that the area north of the Capitol was well-sprayed with gunfire last month.

"Something is broken."

Yes, but the warranty on Nick has expired, so we have to keep him anyway. Ha! I keed.

Seriously, where in any of this was it established that Minnesota is having a problem stemming from the legal transfer of firearms? Because a bunch of shooting happened last month in Frogtown? Were any of these shootings the result of legally transferred firearms resulting from a specific legislative "loophole" we're supposed to support closing because they're somehow related to the spree killing at Virginia Tech last year?

Oh, if only some local columnist cared enough to look into such a matter to let us know! Don't bother Nick though. He's all done in his characteristic "I only care to the extent I don't have to research anything I can't easily Google" style, he's finished with the topic.

What we've learned:

A. Nick totally did not carry a Glock to a small demonstration of gun-control activists at the State Capitol. Suck on that, gun nuts!

B. If Nick counts to 31 several times it equals 32.

C. There are dangerous, unspecified loopholes regarding the transfer of firearms which Nick believes ought to be closed.

D. You don't have to write very well or make much sense to have your own column in the Star Tribune.

I've never bought Laura Ingraham's "I'm an authentic heartland conservative" act. Call me crazy, but the likelihood that an Ivy League educated lawyer from Connecticut just coincidentally grew up to love Nascar, country music, and a muscular U. S. foreign policy right at the moment blonde conservative chicks were a hot ticket as media pundits seems a little too... convenient.

But, not unlike Michael Savage who I think is a far more transparent (though still lucrative) conservative parody, I have to give Laura her props for her profitable demagoguery. She sticks her finger into the wind and reads the mood of the conservative mob better than most and has built a heck of a successful career out of it. So, you know, good for her on that count. These people are all basically living in the house that Limbaugh built anyway, and if he doesn't object why should I?

It's kind of amusing when her mask slips a little bit though and other people notice she seems to be faking her way through the mob's expected opinion on a topic. At such times she seems a little too obvious a parody of conservative opinion rather than a fellow traveler. Like Ace noticed when she ripped on Bret Favre for blubbing at his retirement announcement.

... but for crying out loud, Laura. Try not to descend into self-parody just to get some "hot" radio. ...

So come on, Laura. Lighten up. And butch up, too. Yeah, butch up. Because if you're doing this Brett-Favre-is-a-big-fat-blubbering-pussy schtick you're not really as flinty-tough as advertised. It's pantomime.

Gosh... do you think so Ace? Next you'll be telling me that hushed, reverent tone she drops into every time she uses the phrase "for the troops" is somehow practiced and artificial. Or that it's likely that she might secretly likes watching "Sex in the City" more than Nascar. Or that it's kind of weird for such a staunch pro-life, pro-family social conservative to remain single into her 40's. It's almost like she adopts certain positions because it makes her popular rather than having any substantial basis upon which she arrived at those opinions.

Anyway, I'm sure most of you reading this love your Laura and wouldn't dream of questioning her character and all. So, you know, go back to all that. I can take a little solace in the fact that certain cheeseheads will take her a little less seriously from now on.

Time to start preparing to overpraise the next sub-par Oliver Stone movie, as the political message is likely to hold much appeal out in Hollywoodland.

I caught Jonah Goldberg's appearance on The Daily Show last night, plugging his book Liberal Fascism.

I'm sure the show's typical viewers who substitute irony and snark for more difficult thinking about political philosophy got what they desired from it. Stewart was mooning to the camera in his usual manner, demonstrating pretty effectively that his knowledge of the book didn't go beyond its cover. But it's cool to be ignorant about uncool books. Also a lot easier than reading them.

Apparently a lot of people are writing in to Jonah all outraged over the shoddy editing and content-free interviewing, but hey... it's the Daily Show. Only morons go to that show for serious information. And you don't fix a moron problem by surprising them with unexpectedly scintillating new insights during the "interview" segment of a show built upon wall to wall snark. So it's not a big deal.

What is becoming interesting to me is how bent out of shape liberals are getting over the cover. It's obviously designed to provoke. But it's not exactly a new idea. Ever hear of a book called The Road to Serfdom, which is considered one of the building blocks of post WWII American conservatism? It had this crazy central thesis that Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and the increasing socialist tendencies in the West were all moving society in the same dangerous direction, merely at different rates. That unless we fundamentally rejected the socialist ideology underpinning modern (and increasingly illiberal) liberalism we were all "on the road to serfdom."

I haven't read the Goldberg book yet, but from the reviews I've scanned through his book sounds like an intellectual history along this same vein rather than an ideological polemic. Obviously the central thesis is challenging to lefty preconceptions, but that's kind of the whole point Goldberg was making by writing it. And they're going to have a darned difficult time refuting the thesis without cracking the cover.

Considering the left's perpetual predilection for depicting the current president and other Republicans as Nazis, you'd think they might have developed a wee bit more tolerance for the far more mildly provocative happy face with a scribbled on mustache on Goldberg's cover. But then the urge to silence and/or shout over rather than engage and debate ideas challenging their ideology is a trait increasingly on display from the modern left. And, dare one observe, it seems a little bit...

Because anyone who is able to pull off a book review beginning with this sentence:

This is a bad, vain, dull, repulsive book. Don't read it. I didn't.

... is simply not to be missed. I'll tease you with a few more choice quotes before scolding you to go read the whole thing.

You see there was this fellow, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who died early this year and is on his way to being forgotten but who, unfortunately, isn't quite there yet. ...

But I limped on. I made it all the way to page 12 before I was stopped cold by this sentence about Adlai Stevenson: "He is the one man in politics today who strikes an authentically new and fresh note." And that note would be? Ah, the note that was passed to Adlai in every classroom of grade school, high school, and Princeton--the small, crumpled piece of paper upon which was written, "LOSER!!!" ...

But Schlesinger dare not tell an outright lie. In one respect, Journals is a diary like younger sisters used to keep, with the key to the little lock on its pink vinyl cover conveniently "hidden" so that if big brother happens to read certain passages aloud to a particular handsome athlete .  .  .

Naturally we cannot expect a man with credentials such as Arthur's to be merely a jerk; he's an idiot, too. ...

Schlesinger's ability to make people look like cretins is by no means limited to himself.

Now go read the whole thing.

I'm on record as a fan of James Lileks' new gig as the Supreme-Poobah / Master of His Domain at Buzz.mn. However, despite my initial enthusiasm, I have discovered a fly - nay - a nasty-looking, angry horsefly in the ointment. Buzz.mn's idea of "community" apparently ends at the city limits of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

Check out their "neighborhoods" tab at the top. This feature is apparently intended so you can find out about things right in your own local community. Provided you live in one of the following:

Minneapolis:
- Downtown
- Northside
- Northeast
- Southeast / Prospect Park
- South / Uptown / Southwest

Saint Paul:
- Downtown / Crocus Hill
- East side / West side
- Como / Midway / St. Anthony Park
- Highland / Merriam / Mac-Groveland

Are these really the only communities Buzz.mn was able to locate? After all, according to the Metropolitan Council:

The Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area is a thriving community of 2.7 million people. A strong, diversified economy and a high quality of life attract people to the region and keep them here.

The metropolitan area is made up of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties and includes all or part of 188 cities and townships.

2.7 million people. 188 cities and townships. And Buzz.mn was able to locate only 2 cities comprising only part of 2 counties with a combined population of only 669,769 (Minneapolis - pop. 382,618, Saint Paul - pop. 287,151).

And lest we think this was an accidental slight, let's check out this from the "About Buzz.mn" page:

Soon, buzz.mn will move into a few test suburbs. Burnsville, Lakeville and Shakopee will be the first we'll work with, most likely in February.

This was written in fall of 2006. Still no Burnsville, Lakeville or Shakopee to date. Let alone Friendly Fridley.

No, it can only be assumed that Buzz.mn intends on treating us suburban metro dwellers not unlike the British Parliament treated American Colonists and we know how that turned out. That's right, they eventually teamed up to kick the snot out of the French and Indians. Not sure that lesson will apply here, but it's something to think about.

In the meantime I think suburban dwellers should remain skeptical about this Buzz.mn endeavor until they toss us a frickin' bone. Down to snooty urbanists, their microscopic yards, their convenient mass transportation options, and their exclusionist community web sites!

James Lileks is now in charge of this place, which is therefore, without further knowledge or careful reading, bookmarked. Doesn't really matter to me if it's any good yet. With Lileks in creative control it surely will be.

I should note that all of those (myself included) who thought the Strib was absolutely crazy for canning his tiny column, "The Quirk," ought to consider writing a thank you or something to the folks in charge over there. This seems a vastly superior use of his many talents.

On the other hand one of the talents James does not seem to possess is the ability to identify Dorito flavors. In today's Bleat he comments on the mysterious flavor of Doritos X-13D:

Anyway, I think it’s steak, with a note of citrus, and leather polish.

No indeed. The wife nailed the flavor within five seconds (she's pretty good at this kind of thing). It tastes exactly like a Burger King Whopper. No foolin'. I'm pretty sure they can't name it that though, due to copyrights and stuff. Thus the naming contest. But that's the flavor to a tee.

Barbaro, the horse that won the Kentucky Derby last year and broke its leg just before the Preakness, was euthanized this morning. It's sad, but the experts told us recovery from such an injury was doubtful from the start. Anyway, that's not what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about the way the story was reported on the Star Tribune website.

Here's the title of the article:

Barbaro euthanized

And here was the beginning of the sub-header (which they just removed as I was writing this, darnit):

Barbaro's fight for survival may have reached a critical point. The Kentucky Derby winner suffered a significant setback over the weekend...

I would say this is a wee bit understated. Being euthanized is a bit beyond any "critical point" in a "fight for survival." It's a wee bit more than a "significant setback" as well.

I'm reminded of the classic Monty Python sketch, "The Dead Parrot." It would go something like this...

C: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That horse is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged whinny.

O: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

C: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?

O: Barbaro prefers kippin' on it's back! E's just havin' what we like to call ' "a significant setback." Remarkable horse, id'nit, squire? Lovely mane!

Alright, this is the part where all the horse-racing fans find this post via some search engine and yell at me for making jokes at the expense of Barbaro. So I'd just like to point out, I'm really making a joke at the expense of the Star Tribune which Barbaro just happens to be a part of.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a paper regarded among anyone to the right of Paul Wellstone as having a pronounced liberal bias; especially in its editorial section. This is not news.

However the newspaper's defenders have frequently noted how they strive for "balance" all the same. You know. It's not like they ONLY print the opinions of liberals and freeze out conservative voices entirely...

... except when they do. Like in today's letters to the editor section, which does exactly that, printing nine letters from liberals compared to zero from anyone else.

I'll spare you the agony of actually having to read the talking-point laden letters and summarize:

1. Condemns Bush's troop-surge plan in Iraq.

2. Wonders what planet President Bush and his advisers are living on.

3. Condemns former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny for being a stealth conservative who conspired to get the evil Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty elected.

4. Lauds former DFL Attorney General (and thrice failed DFL gubernatorial candidate) Mike Hatch for being an all around swell guy.

5. Lauds former Democratic Senator Mark Dayton for being an all around swell guy, and thinks he'd make a great governor.

6. Lauds the Democratic Party for being fiscally responsible, and condemns Republicans.

7. Calls for the legislature to ban cell phone use while driving.

8. Condemns creationists for not accepting evolution.

9. Claims our warm winter is the result of global warming, and calls on Minnesota's politicians to act on it.

Alright, technically numbers 7 and 8 don't have to come from liberals, but the one speaks of nanny-statism while the other implicitly attacks religious people so it's a fairly safe bet.

Who's editing the letters page these days? Is it still Tim O'Brien (of eminently mockable "Blog House" fame)? It would be kind of funny to see him try to spin this one.

"Readers Representative" Kate Parry might be more fun though (much of the following is actual Parry-spin lifted from a previous column):

"During the two years I've been in this job, several times readers have pointed out what appears to them to be political bias. Sometimes, but not always, the allegations come from those who disagree with a columnist's, or letter writer's political views.

I can see why readers' suspicions are sometimes raised. I work with managing editor Scott Gillespie to investigate these claims, no matter what the motivation.

Recently a reader suggested the Star Tribune's Letter to the Editor page printed exclusively pro-Democratic Party and anti-Republican Party letters. But when Gillespie, who is continuing to look into it, read the letters in question, he noted that he just didn't see it.

Etc., etc...."

When the newspaper's new owners contemplate how to grow the appeal of the Star Tribune, they might start by remembering that other half of the political spectrum... say by pretending not to loathe every one of them now and again.

So as not to forget the important stuff...




Season six begins one week from tonight. It will be mentioned here occasionally. Not unlike it was last year.

If you note the schedule, the show opens with the Minneapolis round of auditions. Homers take note.

In semi-related news Battlestar Galactica is back, but moved to Sunday Night starting January 21st. And does anyone think they're really going to nuke the planet?

Problem... The New York Times regrets running a big story damaging national security because...

...the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused.

"Breaking news! Legal things that are NOT compromising your private information are happening! You should be alarmed! Bush is clearly to blame!" Isn't that the Cliff Notes version of a good 35% of New York Times editorials in general?

Anyway, this isn't the thing that most disturbed me. I kind of knew/expected this... not the Mea Culpa part; just the reason for the Mea Culpa... all along. This is the part that most dusturbed me:

...the New York Times has an institutional bias in favor of damaging American security, at least when a government it doesn't like is in power.

This is the part that disturbed me. It's from Ace of Spades, and danged if I didn't just nod my head when I read it. Yep. When it comes to bias, my own tells me this is a true statement. And that can't be good. Still doesn't mean it isn't true.

Oh... and this is not the same as saying I think they WANT to "damage American security." Mostly I think that THEY think they MUST in the service of some higher ethic, like "saving the planet," or "thwarting Chimpy McBushitler." You know... noble and rational motives.

Anyway, I do agree with the observation, and it does disturb me.

No, not me. I'm still on break. But this was worth breaking blog silence over.

Jason Lewis joins KTLK

Conservative radio talker Jason Lewis will make his reentry into Twin Cities airwaves August 7, when he debuts on KTLK (100.3 FM). Lewis will take over the Monday-Friday 5 p.m.-7 p.m. timeslot currently occupied by Brian Lambert and Sarah Janacek.

Suddenly the theme to "Welcome back Kotter" is stuck in my head. Anyway... Welcome back Minnesota's Mr. Right!

While Learned Foot is busy covering Mitch's blog, writing about Bruce Springsteen and whatnot I presume, someone has to step up and police the Star Tribune Letters to the Editor. Today that someone is me.

Playing the role of Rodney King to my aggressive policing is one Larry "The Loon of Two Harbors" Zozbot. Or something like that. He's got a Z in his name anyway, which presumably stands for "Zany." Or "Zero." Or "Zucking stupid."

Larry received the supreme honor of having his letter named "Letter of the Day," by that crack (addled) Star Tribune letters page staff. And in so doing he provided a little textbook example of how one might go about achieving a similar honor.

A. Start with a historical anecdote from a time that strokes liberals' comfort zone. If your letter criticizes the president, for example, Watergate is always a safe choice.

"How do you know that, Mr. Chairman?" asked John Ehrlichman at the Senate Watergate hearings.

Sen. Sam Ervin's reply: "Because I can understand the English language. It's my mother's tongue."

B. Boldly kiss the asses of the Strib's editors.

The June 10 editorial, "When faith trumps fact, words don't mean what they used to," astutely observed the corruption of today's language just as the late senator from North Carolina did 33 years ago.

C. Make a half-assed attempt to tie your comfy anecdote to something relevant to your point. Note: Don't work too hard at this part. The effort alone is sufficient.

The sad thing is Ervin's exchange was with a Nixon aide (Ehrlichman) who represented a deceptive White House that could not hold a candle to the Orwellian accomplishments of today's Bush administration and propagandist-in-chief, Karl Rove.

D. Launch an ad hominem attack against a Republicans, while lauding Democrats as heroes.

Where else but in a bizzarro, up-is-down universe can a cowardly chicken-hawk like Rove shamelessly label war veterans John Murtha and John Kerry "cut-and-runners"?

It really is that easy, folks. Thanks Loony Larry, for the fine tutorial.

Incidentally Loony Larry, should you at some point want to turn this letter into an actual coherent argument, here's a helpful tip for you:

When the parallel you're trying to draw involves abusing the English language to twist the truth, it's probably best not to demonstrate your own inability to distinguish between a word describing a previous act of military service and a phrase describing a contemporary policy position. Because you might discover that veterans can and do advocate cutting and running clear to the other side of the planet at times.

Oh... also... [sound of Larry being hit with Taser followed by sound of him collapsing to the ground]

Move along people. Nothing more to see here.

I’ve been getting a bit a laugh out of this post at Patterico's Pontifications today, in which Patterico exposed an L. A. Times columnist who made up fake Internet identities (a.k.a. “sock puppets” in Internet slang) to defend and flatter himself in third person voice in the comments section of his own blog as well as others.

But after the amusement wore off I realized there might be more to this than it appears. In fact, perhaps this was a stroke of genius! This guy just discovered that you don’t actually need any other people in order to have a lively conversation in the blogosphere! Say goodbye to site visit counters, and say hello to multiple-personality syndrome!

I’m pretty sure a lot of new commenters to my site are going to have a few words about this, so I’ll open the floor to their comments.

Apparently stung by yet another Pulitzer shut-out, the Star Tribune's editors decided to let it all hang out on the editorial page today. And by "let it all hang out," I mean... um... this:

A magnolia in Minnesota seems an improbability. Even 20 years into its annual performance, the delicate tree in the yard near the creek appears to exclaim spring's coming against odds. The feat is less remarkable than its planter once thought -- for Magnolia stellata, it turns out, is deemed a "likely survivor" in these parts. But "likely," the gardener knows, is a proposition quite apart from "certain": Daring to bet on what seems an almost-sure thing, she tells herself, is the best way to learn the meaning of "almost."

Ah, so it's a story about a Magnolia tree surviving in Minnesota, is it? Kind of interesting, I suppose. Though why it's on the editorial page rather than in the Lifestyle section is a bit baffling. Still, perhaps there's some detail which will enlighten us to the reason. Perhaps Big Business is threatening to strip mine the pleasant little meadow within which this miracle magnolia sits.

Thus the gardener neither bets nor assumes. Come April, she listens for the sound of whiteness ["sound of whiteness?" wtf?! - ed.] -- for the coming of spring's first and loveliest blossoms. Just how she knows that the day has arrived even she can't say. But once it's at hand she's quick to travel across town for a visit: She leans on the picket fence encircling land she once called her own -- and conducts her yearly conversation with the tree.

Umm... shouldn't we be getting to some kind of relevance by now? Yes, magnolia trees are pretty. And I suppose people who think about things like "the sound of whiteness" and hold annual conversations with trees could be considered poetic and charming, rather than dangerously delusional. At least until they axe murder someone at the beckoning of their leafy overlord. But I digress... surely some kind of important point is coming along in the next paragraph...

It's remarkable, this magnolia: its thousand-flower chorus, its audacious reach toward the sky, its radiant insistence on being beautiful no matter who is looking -- or not looking. Indeed, the gardener wonders for a moment whether anyone else basks in the tree's blessedness as she does.

Holy freakin'... Look, I know you would have preferred to travel the coffee house circuit as a famous poet rather than being stuck writing unaccredited editorials at a newspaper perpetually Pulitzer punked, but that's no reason you should be inflicting phrases like, "its radiant insistence on being beautiful no matter who is looking -- or not looking" on the rest of us. This is supposed to be an editorial (definition: "An article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers.") Do you even HAVE a point here?

She wincingly recalls a plan she once hatched to take the tree with her on moving day; it would have been quite a feat, but not beyond trying. The unearthing experts, however, couldn't promise she'd end up with a living tree once the deed was done.

Today the gardener laughs to recall when "owning" the magnolia meant so much that she contemplated risking its life. What folly, she wonders, led her to think of tearing a tree from the Earth --carting if off as one might a rocking chair? Hadn't the magnolia shown for years on end its passion for blooming right where she'd planted it?

This is starting to resemble one of those metaphors that sounds brilliant and cutting at three in the morning, but come the light of day you wonder what on earth you were thinking. Is this this some kind of three-bong hit Jonathan Swift attempt to say something about illegal immigration or perhaps sports stadiums? Or is it, in fact, as weird and without purpose as it seems at first glance. Perhaps the conclusion will clarify for us.

Thus does the admiring visitor find consolation in the fact that the tree remains rooted in its home ground: Whenever she yearns for a visit, she'll know right where it is. The magnolia, blooming for doubters, believers and all spring rejoicers, belongs to the Earth, and welcomes all who appreciate its gift.

That's a big nope.

Anyone else out there care to chime in and explain this thing to me? Especially in terms of what the heck it's doing on the Star Tribune editorial page? Or, in lieu of that, explain how something like this barfed its way onto the page and out the door without one of the editors saying "stop!"

"Pick something in the Strib and mercilessly mock it" seems to be pulling away at the polls. Tomato blogging hasn’t conceded the election yet, but I think the presumed winner is ready to give his victory speech:

The Star Tribune letters to the editor page is ably covered by certain other blogs, save for one aspect. Little attention is ever given to the frequently bizarre selections made by that page’s editors to highlight as their “Letter of the Day.” Case in point...

Letter of the Day: Mayoral rapprochement gives hope for future.

I noticed a quiet development that I think will be the best thing to happen locally since I first became a resident of the Twin Cities 40 years ago. It is the embryonic efforts of the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul to create greater cooperation between the cities.

First of all, let’s be clear that it was some frustrated liberal arts grad involved with the editing of the letters page who chose the word “rapprochement” here. It’s a word that conjures up Nixon going to China, or Reagan meeting Gorbachev. It is not a word typically chosen to describe a vaguely Brokeback relationship developing between the mayors of neighboring American cities long dominated by a common political party.

Yet this particular letter writer might think “rapprochement” is actually understating the significance at hand here. After all, she thinks this is the “best thing to happen locally” for the past 40 years. The best thing. Think about the perspective this woman is coming from for a moment before going forward.

Another clue this letter writer is not the brightest twinkle in the chandelier: this “quiet development” she has somehow caught wind of has actually been featured in local media several times. Including (guess where) in the Star Tribune (article no longer available on their web site, but presumably available to their letters editorial staff).

When I lived in St. Paul, I found it a lovely city with an interesting history. I now live in Minneapolis, another dynamic and interesting city.

Wow! Such an amazing eye for details the rest of us might miss! No wonder this blew away the “letter of the day” selection committee. I wonder if she’ll get a book deal out of this.

Greater cooperation between these two cities with their very different individual characters can only improve both.

Woah, woah! Slow down, little missy! Improve upon what exactly? You’ve already explained that one city is lovely and interesting, while the other is dynamic and interesting. How can you possibly go up from there? Will Saint Paul spread its “lovliness” to the apparently unremarkably appearing Minneapolis? Will Minneapolis ship a few crates of “dynamism” over to Saint Paul? Will they just have a rip-roaring good time swapping stories about their respective “interestingness?”

Or, as I suspect, is this a paean to cooperation in the Sesame Street sense of the word? You know, “Cooperation is good. Yay, for cooperation!” But let’s not try to put too fine a point on what exactly will be cooperated upon. And God forbid any skepticism suggesting that two mayors cooperating upon a bad agenda isn’t likely to bring about wonderful things.

I don't know either mayor, but both appear to deserve their offices. How encouraging it is to find people in high office working to make the future better. There is a ray of hope in these contentious and divisive times!

Oh, that’s astute. Both “appear to deserve their offices?” I think so too, on the basis of each winning the most votes and all. But I have a feeling we’re dealing in that fuzzier sense of “deserve” here. She thinks they deserve to be mayor in much the same sense as McDonald’s Mayor McCheese – they just make her smile.

And it’s encouraging “to find people in high office working to make the future better”? Better how? Oh, right. By joining hands and singing the cooperation song. That will make the future – this afternoon perhaps – considerably brighter. Not sure this is the best strategy for tackling property tax reform or revisions in city zoning ordinances, but I’m sure that will all work out somehow in the end too.

After all, how hard can it be when all life’s important lessons were learned in kindergarten? For some of us a little too literally.

But hey, it's the letter of the day. Just so you know what the Strib considers Deep Thoughts.

With the nation teetering on the brink of empiricism, analysts warn that appeals to the authority of analysts may no longer prove sufficient.

“The country has given up on them, er… I mean us,” said one prominent analyst. “The public is just tired of hearing one analyst after another tell people what they themselves supposedly believe.”

Inside the analysts camp, embattled true believers doggedly insist that notion is utter nonsense and offer hopeful scenarios for their recovery.

"Times like this create public anxiety," said one hopeful analyst, “but we’re focused on projecting the mood of the public with or without their cooperation, or even, should it come to that, their input.”

Overnight is always a lifetime in politics, and analysts have been pegged wrong before, only to confound their skeptics by rebounding.

“Analysts still command the lion’s share of the press, as well as almost all the speaking engagement dollars,” said one analyst backer. “If they start to reflect majority opinions accurately, they could see a real come back.”

A recent Fuzznik opinion poll showed that 53% of the public believed analysts were “akin to something I scraped from the bottom of my shoe.” That’s up from 44% a mere six months ago.

“They’re past the point of recovery,” noted a prominent critic of impeccable credentials. “The public is way ahead of the analyst class, and they’ve lost faith in them.”