Posted 6:46 PM by Walter
Sometime in the ungodly hours of Sunday morning, November 24, I found myself drawn to C-SPAN, once again. (What better way to cap off a dissolute night of revelry with ravenous young beauties?) This time, what caught my attention was a debate between Bill McGowan, author of Coloring the News, and Juan Gonzalez, president of theNational Association of Hispanic Journalists.

The debate was called at the behest of the NAHJ after McGowan’s book won a National Press Club Award, much to their chagrin. It seems that Mr. Gonzalez and his organization have made a bit of a crusade of challenging the assertions put forth in McGowan’s book. Apparently, it’s chapped many a minority buttock.

The premise of Coloring the News is that the slavish devotion to diversity at any price has brought about a diminution in journalistic integrity among major news outlets. According to McGowan, as a result of pressures being brought to bear on editorial boards and newsrooms by minority groups and journalistic groupthink, facts are being omitted, stories are being passed over, and voices are not being heard. To illustrate his point, he provided an anecdote not included in the first edition of his book, but to be included in the upcoming paperback edition.

A Philadelphia daily tabloid (the name of which eludes me) had run a story covering the number of fugitives being sought on murder warrants, and had included photos of some of the fugitives. As it turns out, all of the photos were of minorities, which (predictably) brought about threats of boycott and protest from local minority groups unless the paper apologized for its “error”.

Never mind the fact that all of the fugitive murder suspects were minorities. It didn’t matter, apparently. The advocacy groups in Philadelphia (one of whose leaders happened to be a relative of the mayor) accused the paper of implying that all black males were murderers by printing their photos. Despite the fact that the objective truth backed up the story, the daily issued an apology, saying that it was a mistake to print the photos.

So, we’ve come to the point where the facts may only be published provided they meet the standards of pressure groups. Even though publishing the pictures of dangerous criminals in a daily newspaper could lead to increased safety within the black community by getting suspected killers off the streets, the newspaper was forced to capitulate to pressures brought upon it by groups whose sole concern, it seems, is the way in which blacks are portrayed in the media. Obviously, the activists feel that sacrificing the lives of innocent people isn’t too high a price to pay in the pursuit of positive portrayal of minorities in the media.

At another point during the debate, McGowan brought up a couple of incidents of double standards where minority journalists are given a pass with regard to the content of their writings. Once such incident included a black journalist who took exception to a white woman’s description of a Colin Powell news conference. She’d been marveling at Powell’s abilities to handle the press, remain calm, and explain things in a straightforward manner. Unfortunately, she ended the soliloquy by pronouncing Powell to be the kind of black man that most whites wish all black men could be. (Again, my memory fails, but you get the gist.)

The black journalist had written a book in which he recalled this incident and professed that, at the time, he wanted to grab the woman by the throat and bash her head against the wall – specifically noting her “whiteness” in the passage – and McGowan had cited this passage in his book. Mr. Gonzalez took issue with him over its inclusion, stating that he’d failed to mention the fact that the woman had made a racist comment, thus inducing the rage that the black man had felt. Gonzalez felt that the woman’s comments were somehow proof that McGowan’s thesis was off base, as it showed that racism still existed in the newsroom.

The other incident was somewhat similar, in that a black journalist professed a desire to rip a white colleague’s lungs out due to his racial insensitivity.

Gonzalez, however, misses the entire point of McGowan’s citation of these incidents. After all, the fact that subtle racism still exists in certain newsrooms does nothing to disprove the notion that cultural diversity trumps objective fact in news coverage. The fact is, McGowan makes a very strong point, and Gonzalez’ challenge misses the mark completely, in that he was arguing a point that McGowan had not attempted to make in the citation.

What McGowan sought to illustrate was the fact that minorities are allowed to write things that, if said in the same context by a white person, would find him or her out of a job and with little hope of ever writing for a major publication in any capacity, ever again, for the rest of his or her life.

Just imagine George Will writing about William Raspberry, following an incident in which Raspberry said something about Bill Clinton being the kind of white man that blacks wish all whites could be, “I wanted to grab the first chair I could get my hands on and beat that black man until my arms were too tired to swing anymore.” The very idea is absurd.

But, there’s something bothersome about this, beyond the inequality inherent in the double standard. It seems to me that to accept this sort of writing from minority journalists, while labeling it as simple-minded racism when it comes from whites, does an extreme disservice to minorities. To blithely write it off as an expression of “black rage”, to me, seems patronizing at best, and racist at worst.

To me, it seems no better to accept this sort of writing from a black man, just because he is black, than it is to explain away Mike Tyson’s behavior as a consequence of his blackness.

A little later on in the debate, Gonzalez addressed the section of McGowan’s book that deals with the coverage of illegal immigration. He did so by pointing to writings from the Texas independence struggle, in which prominent Mexican writers noted the flood of Anglos moving across the border and wreaking havoc on their nation and its culture. I never quite figured out what his point was in bringing it up, though.

As best I can figure, there are only two reasons to point to these writings: (1) to point out that Anglos were, at one time, just as guilty as Mexicans when it comes to illegal immigration, and (2) to illustrate that Mexico once faced the same set of problems that the United States face faces today.

Case number one misses the point entirely, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with journalism and the coverage of immigration issues. If that was Gonzalez’ point, it was likely a throwaway line meant to elicit nods of agreement from the minorities in the audience, and give them something to chuckle about afterward. And, case number two only serves to bolster McGowan’s argument, in that Mexicans felt free to discuss the immigration problems openly when they were faced with the challenge of unsecured borders. It’s clear that the mainstream press in America isn’t as free to discuss the issue quite so frankly.

Eventually, the discussion turned to audience questions (which were written on cards and submitted to the moderator), and one stood out a little more than the rest. The question, directed to McGowan, asked whether a book could not be written from the exact opposite point of view, substituting “white” for “minority”. McGowan’s response, that the evidence to bolster that view wouldn’t fill a book, drew derisive laughter from the crowd and mockery from Mr. Gonzalez. Yet, when challenged by McGowan to cite any evidence to support the notion, Gonzalez was clearly at a loss.

The entire debate was indicative of the nature of left-leaning multiculturalists’ tactics in confronting criticism. Gonzalez’ argument was based on a presumption that hadn’t been proved: that McGowan is opposed to having more minority participation in the media. And, as McGowan said on a couple of occasions, that simply isn’t the case. What he opposes is the compromise of journalistic integrity for the sake of getting more minority influence in journalism, and Gonzalez & the NAHJ never bother to address that premise.

What the NAHJ seem most bothered by is the fact that McGowan decided to compile research in this vein at all. Gonzalez made the point that, of all the problems in the mass media today, the trends inherent in the overzealous push for minority recruitment make up only about 10% – 15%. I (and McGowan, incidentally) don’t really have an argument for that point. The truth is, the media have bigger problems, but I highly doubt that the NAHJ and I agree on what those problems are.

Still, that misses a big point. After all, does the fact that McGowan chose to focus on a problem that isn’t “the biggest one” make him wrong? In fact, numerous books have been published in recent years that cover various areas in which the media are deficient. Why would McGowan want to set about writing a book on subjects that had already been covered in great detail? One of the objects of writing a book is to get it published in the first place, and that’s what writers seek to do, isn’t it?

Furthermore, even when Gonzalez got around to attacking the substance of the book itself, instead of the author, he pulled facts that were meant to illustrate a point and attempted to refute them as though they were presented to illustrate something entirely different. The head-bashing and lung-ripping passages were prime examples.

All of this is nothing new, however. In truth, these tactics could be found in a Stalinist guidebook for controlling opposition. Underneath all the details of the NAHJ’s attacks against McGowan’s work lies a questioning of his motives. And, given the right atmosphere, that’s enough to convince the vast majority of a target audience that dissenters are not to be paid attention.

I wish McGowan all the luck in the world. It seems he’s awakened the dragon he seeks to slay.

Posted 1:57 AM by Walter
He’s Come Undone. Or, has he?

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) finally got around to deflecting the blame he’d been shouldering for the single worst run off-year Congressional campaign in modern political history. Of course, given the state the Democrats find themselves in at the moment, palming off responsibility is a delicate matter, considering the amount of finger pointing and backstabbing already underway.

Too much more infighting could fracture the party further than it already is, so the blame shift needs to tilt toward an entity that all Democrats can agree upon. Behold the Right Wing Media! Purveyor of lies, peddler of intolerance, and pilferer of retirement funds, the politically conservative punditry stands as the wellspring of all miscreancy. And Tom Daschle wants you to know it.

Speaking to reporters on his last day as Senate Majority Leader, the diminutive South Dakotan waxed conspiratorial on the myriad ways in which his life, and the lives of countless other Democrats, have been transformed into a Kubrcikean nightmare with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Brit Hume recreating “Singing in the Rain”, wingtips afoot, on their collective ribcage.

According to the Billy Barty of the Badlands, there was an alarming increase in physical threats to him, his family and, presumably, other prominent Democratic figures. Of course, he declined to lay out any specifics – who made the threats, of what nature they were, who (besides himself) had received them, when they were made, whether or when they were reported, or how many arrests had been made. But, aside from all of that, he made a case that the conservative media, or more specifically, talk radio, and more specifically still, Rush Limbaugh should be held responsible.

"What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren't satisfied just to listen," Mr. Daschle said. "They want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically and — on our families and on us in a way that's very disconcerting."

Rush, it seems, is guilty of injecting entertainment into politics, according to the Wee Willie Winky of the once Wild West. And, as he sees it, people just aren’t capable of making the distinction between the high-flying rhetoric of entertainers and reality.

"If entertainment becomes so much a part of politics," he said, "and if that entertainment drives an emotional movement in this country among some people who don't know the difference between entertainment and politics and who are then so energized to go out and hurt somebody, that troubles me about where politics in America is going."

Of course, it’s hard to argue that point. Especially when Alec Baldwin has provided us with memories such as this:

"We should go to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death. And then we should go to his house and kill his family."

One might be tempted to think that Daschle has, as the British are fond of saying, “gone ‘round the bend.” But, I’m not convinced. Actually, I’m not totally convinced that he’s merely trying to avoid being blamed for the November 5 losses suffered by his party under his leadership. In fact, I think this is a deliberate, concerted effort. I think we’re seeing the hatchling stage of a strategy put in place the day after the returns came in.

As many will recall, the months following the Republican takeover of Congress in ’94 were a slow, steady procession towards an eventual government shutdown for which “extreme right wing Republicans” were widely blamed. Until that shutdown, the idea that Bill Clinton would be a one-term president was conventional wisdom. He’d just lost both houses of Congress after a legislative session, which saw item after item of his agenda resoundingly voted down.

But, what remained of the Democratic caucus rallied around him. And, once Dick Morris was brought aboard, his fortunes slowly started to turn. Suddenly, Democrats all seemed to be reading from the same book, having memorized the same lines. The words “radical,” “extreme,” and “mean-spirited” were almost pervasive, and every Republican would have to face charges that they had careened away from the mainstream in American politics.

The next thing conservatives knew, they were responsible for the terrorist attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, in Oklahoma City. It was Rush Limbaugh’s relentless attacks on the government that drove Timothy McVeigh to kill over two hundred American citizens, they said. The conservative disdain for bureaucracy had dehumanized government workers, reducing them to nothing more than a potential body count for would-be anti-government radicals. And, Rush Limbaugh was the prime source for that disdain.Two years after taking over Congress for the first time in over fifty years, the Republicans lost to Bill Clinton, who had at one time been considered a prematurely lame-duck president.

Then came the Lewinsky affair. Clinton had been caught in a perjury trap, had influenced grand jury witnesses, secured a job for a 21-year-old intern with whom he “did not have sexual relations,” and settled a sexual harassment suit for $50,000. The independent counsel had plunked down a gigantic report, detailing crimes and misdemeanors in excruciating, exacting detail. The House of Representatives would eventually impeach him, and he would face possible expulsion by the Senate.

Yet, over the period of time that the investigation went on, there was a steady stream of attack on Kenneth Starr. He’d be called everything from a puritan to a pervert by the time he’d release his report. James Carville and Paul Begala would appear on every talk show that would have them, proclaiming that the whole matter was “just about sex”. Carville would eventually rail against Starr, calling for his kneecaps to be broken.

Hillary would soon go on the Today Show, and claim that she and her husband were the victims of a “vast right wing conspiracy” that had been out to get them from day one. “Four Years and Forty Million Dollars” would be the cadence, and the Democrats would march to it, all the way to victory in the ’98 mid-term elections. They’d managed to convince the public that the Republicans were out to overturn the ’96 presidential elections, and would ruin the lives of anyone who dared try to stop them.

Bill and Hillary Clinton had, yet again, halted the evil, mean-spirited Republicans and their vast right wing conspiracy to take over the government, with a little help from their friends. And, guess who’s in charge of shaping the message for the Democrats, now that they’re in trouble again?

Posted 8:51 PM by Walter
Sometime earlier in the year, something grabbed my attention while watching C-SPAN. (I only watch it when I’m tired of partying ‘til dawn with hot, sexy coeds and generally living The Good Life, though.) It was one of those sparsely attended debate forums with question-and-answer periods at the end you always see on the weekends, and late at night, during the week. Not that I’m particularly familiar with the C-SPAN schedule, or anything. I heard about all this through my less socially adept friends.

Nevertheless…

This particular debate concerned the Cuban economic embargo, and occurred between a gentleman named Dennis Hays, who supports the embargo, and a man whose name I can’t recall, but who vehemently opposes it. It was one of the best point-by-point demolitions of pro-Castro propaganda I’ve ever had the pleasure to watch. I’ve been an admirer of Mr. Hays’ ever since.

Hays, who now holds the title of Executive Vice President with the Cuban American National Foundation has a distinguished history with the U.S. Foreign Service and eventually served as the Ambassador to Suriname during the Clinton administration. Prior to that, he held the position of Coordinator for Cuban Affairs at the Department of State, but asked for reassignment after the administration ended the policy of welcoming Cuban refugees upon arrival in the United States, according to his Bio.

What brought all this to mind for me? Well, today’s Palm Beach Post has the story of eight Cubans who flew a Soviet-era crop duster to Key West in order to flee Castro’s oppressive regime and seek freedom in America. And, so far, it looks like they’ve found it.

But, the fact is, not every American is happy about these people finding safe haven on our shores. There are those on the right, as well as the left, who find this development objectionable, albeit for completely different reasons. On the surface, they seem to have similar positions. But, if one were to dig beneath the rhetoric and unearth the motivations, the true story becomes much clearer.

The objections on the right generally have to do with immigration policy. Undoubtedly, some of it has to do with racial issues, though most of it, I suspect, is an honest desire for consistency in the nation’s enforcement of immigration standards. “Why,” they ask, “are these people allowed to enter this country without being invited?” There’s a sense among some conservatives that Cuban refugees show up and claim benefits without ever having contributed in the way of taxes, as well as a belief that they take jobs away from American-born citizens who need them.

Part of me says, “fair enough.” People do have a right to expect their government to establish and defend their nation’s borders. If not, a nation like America, with all its wealth and opportunity, could soon find itself overrun by illegal immigrants seeking a piece of our abundant, but hard-earned, affluence. Left unchecked, illegal immigration can overwhelm a government’s ability to provide services for its citizens, as the people in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas can undoubtedly testify.

The objections from the left, while nominally the same, have a completely different tenor. Sure, they mouth the same questions. But, if you listen closely, there are always notes of underlying resentment and accusation. When they ask, “why are these people allowed to come into the United States,” it’s always followed by, “but not Haitians or Dominicans?”

The insinuation is clear, if not spoken. With the question comes the implication that Cubans are allowed in this country because of two things: (1) They aren’t as “black” as Haitians and Dominicans, and (2) they vote Republican. Nothing delights the left more than an opportunity to accuse conservatives of racism and hypocrisy, so the question is always asked with a smirk. (That’s right. The “smirk” is not the sole property of “dumb” Republican presidential candidates.)

But, aside from the fact that it’s an opportunity to tar conservatives with the hypocrisy brush, why do leftists find Cuban immigration preferences so objectionable? Why is it that, of all the people fleeing foreign nations under economic and political pressures, Cubans make up the only group that doesn’t meet liberal standards for welcome? Is it only because they tend to vote Republican, or is it something even deeper?

I submit that it’s the latter. After all, Elian Gonzales wasn’t even old enough to vote, but look at the energy they left expended on getting him on the first plane headed south from Miami. And, has anyone heard the words “fathers’ rights” come out of the mouth of a liberal at anytime when Elian wasn’t here? Janet Reno was in less of a hurry to get the kids out of the Davidian compound than she was in getting Elian out of Disney World.

And, wasn’t the trip to the Magic Kingdom the one thing that really sent the left over the edge? “You’re indoctrinating him!” they wailed. “It’s so cheap and sleazy!” But, those cries exposed everything one needs to know about the left’s position on Cuba. It reveals the very basic, most deeply held beliefs of those who call for “equal treatment” for all nationalities seeking refugee status.

You see, every time a Cuban lands on our shores, it’s an indictment of leftism. And, despite its protestations to the contrary, the American left has a huge, bulging soft spot in its heart for communism. Though they’re quick to say, “I have no love for Castro, or what he does to his people,” the fact remains that they have very few qualms with shipping back those who manage to escape his police state. But, is there any doubt that a child who managed to make his way into the US, fleeing Pinochet’s Chile would have been fashioned into a hero beyond the magnitude of Mumia Abu-Jamal?

Of course, the left has been quiet lately. Chances are, it’s not going to stick its neck out in an attempt to deport the eight Cubans who made it to Key West. They’ve got more trouble than they want in Florida, right now, after the double-digit victory for Jeb Bush in the gubernatorial race. The Cuban-American community is essentially rock-solid Republican, now that liberals have shown where their allegiances lie with regard to minority groups and immigration. And it’s not happy about the way it was treated in the months while Elian was still here.

To those on the right who are concerned, for whatever reason, about the consistency in enforcement of immigration policy, I’d only submit one argument: The tendency of conservatives to embrace Cuban refugees to the exclusion of so many others is, indeed, inconsistent. It’s hardly debatable. But, while the treatment may be uneven, it is symbolically important.

Our continued welcoming of these refugees is as much a slap at communism as their fleeing Castro’s Cuba. It also serves as a much-needed illustration of the differences in allegiances between the American right and the anti-American left. It’s a display of support for the ideal of freedom, and a stark reminder of just what it is about America that the left despises. After all, only a liberal could possibly see something unseemly in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck.

Posted 7:46 PM by Walter
I had a very late night, last night. Actually, I didn’t get to sleep until sometime after 8:00 this morning. I wasn’t out doing anything so noble as getting out the vote, or even paying particularly close attention to the election returns. The truth is, I was having a few drinks with a few friends, playing a little pool and, eventually, eating breakfast at the Waffle Hut (the best peanut butter waffle you ever had, a couple of eggs over-easy, and a half-order of biscuits n’ gravy).

That’s not to say I wasn’t concerned about the elections, mind you. In fact, I found myself in a shouting match fairly early on, with a dedicated, rabble-rousing, union Democrat. And, to be honest, I started it all. Seems I was gloating over the victory of Bob Leeper, my State Senator who’d switched to the GOP not long after his last election. His opponent was a local union leader who’d received overwhelming labor and party support, since Leeper’s party switching had led to giving control over the State House to the Republicans. The Democrats were angry and highly motivated at the prospect of defeating him.

I just happened to be looking at the television screen at my local watering hole when the results popped up, showing him with a little over a hundred-vote advantage with 100% of precincts reporting. I just had to call it to his attention, and let him know that I was one of the hundred-plus votes that gave Leeper the victory. Not very good sportsmanship, I know. And, not at all a very wise thing to do, considering the man outweighs me by more than fifty pounds, now that I think about it. But, then, union members have counted on the intimidation factor in politics for years.

The shouting match lasted a couple of minutes, and consisted mainly of standard talking points. “Democrats are going to take your gun, kill babies in the womb, marry off your brother to someone who ought to be a drinking buddy, raise your taxes, and lose the war on terrorism.”

“Oh, yeah? Well, Republicans are just going to screw you out of your life savings and give it to some guy in a Brooks Brothers suit!”

Admittedly, the actual discourse wasn’t nearly so civilized and obscenity-free. But few real-life discussions on politics are. I’ve never had a political “debate” with anyone in a bar…or anywhere else, for that matter. They always seem to degenerate into invective, and often run right up to the line of fisticuffs. I don’t know if it’s my nature, or the nature of politics, but for some reason, things tend to get heated whenever the subject comes up.

In any case, Leeper’s victory was the first indication I had that the Republicans were going to have a big night. It was also the last indication I’d have before stumbling in at almost 5:00, this morning. For about a week, I’d had an inkling that it would be a good night for the GOP, and the sense that the Wellstone memorial pep rally would turn out to be largely responsible for it. That doesn’t exactly make me a modern day Nostradamus, and it’s far from clear that the “funerally” was a decisive factor. In fact, some have suggested that the Baghdad Three’s little junket to the House of Hussein was the point at which the Democrats began to sink in the public’s esteem. That seems at least as plausible, if not more so.

But, in all candor, I had no idea that it would turn out to be as big a victory as it did. I don’t exactly feel as though I missed the boat on that one, though. I never heard anyone predict anything approaching what happened last night. Not even Newt, of hyper-inflated projection fame.

But I sensed the mood. There was something about the coverage leading up to the election that planted a seed of optimism in my mind, which had grown gloom-wracked after the experiences of the last few election cycles. There seemed to be a distinct absence on television of video of charged-up hoards of the Democrat faithful, with the exception of the Minnesota ghoul-a-rama.

Instead, we were treated to various attempts by Al Gore to put a new shine on the turd that is his current political career. However, this is the only instance in memory where I can’t find fault with the ham-handed has-been. He really didn’t have a choice, other than to try to rally a base radicalized by the disingenuous effort to claim vote rigging victim status after an electoral loss. It was Al and his band of weasels who created the monster that jerked his party further to the left than wisdom would dictate. So, it was up to him to bind the tattered fringes of a rag-tag collective of the chronically indignant.

Now, the Democrats are paying the steep price of demagoguery. In trying to hold together the minority coalition that makes up the base of the party, the DNC ceded the crucial right-of-center independent vote to the Republicans. It seems almost as if their every move has been specifically geared to that end since the 2000 Presidential election was finally brought to a close. Why else on earth would the DNC have permitted David Bonior and Jim McDermott to trek off to Iraq without making the slightest attempt dissuade them for going or, at least, get out if front of the story in some way.

Of course, it’s highly dubious that the Democrats would intentionally undercut their chances so as to assure the Republicans both houses of Congress. I, for one, can’t imagine the Dems piling into a room and working to find a way to get themselves out of power because, deep-down, they know that Republicans are better at running the country during times of war. I suspect it was an honest (not a word I tend to use in reference to the Democrats) mistake on behalf of the more idealistic elements in the party.

Most probably, the Democrats have been getting a lot of armchair campaign direction from their friends in Hollywood and the publishing business. The tack taken by some members of the party bears a strong resemblance to the course of action suggested by the likes of Barbra Streisand, Michael Moore, and Bill Maher. For some time, the entertainment and media wing of the party has been shaking its finger in the DNC’s face, chiding it for not being more confrontational with the President.

After drifting in oblivion for a year and a half, it seems some of the party’s figures got sick of the lack of attention being paid them. Just about the same time Saddam’s favorite visiting Congressional delegation was singing his praises for honesty and forthrightness, Bill Clinton was in the UK, railing against Bush’s legitimacy, foreign policy and the economy. Meanwhile, Al Gore was saying the same things, here on our shores. You could practically hear the Hollywood crowd nerdily woof-woofing and pumping its fists in the air like a crowd of idiots still waiting outside to get into the long-since cancelled Arsenio Hall Show.

Now, they’re sitting around in stunned silence, rationalizing away the disaster that resulted from getting what they wished for. It’s the corporate media, they’ll say, and the stifling of dissent that brought down their heroes. It was Bible-thumping rednecks and wild-eyed gun owners scaring away meek blacks and the elderly with the help of the brown-shirted local police. They’ll manage to convince themselves that the Democrats’ loss was the result of anything but what it really was – their own idiocy.

Posted 1:18 PM by Walter
I'm looking out the window behind my computer desk at a bright sunny day. The occasional bird flies by, lighting in the tree in my back yard for a moment, and then swoops down toward the mostly mowed lawn in order to gain lift to send him back upward, on to the next tree. Of course, he relieves himself on my truck as he passes. And, I'm not really bothered by it. What bothers me is the "mostly" mowed lawn. You see, I have to make it into a completely mowed lawn. And, it's hot out there.

Fortunately, there's a cooling period coming later in the week. That should be just enough to get me accustomed to the mild temperatures before it gets back up in the 90's. Ahh, but that's western Kentucky. We import our weather from east Texas through most of the summer. We're fortunate enough to have a few degrees knocked off the top by the time it gets here, but the humidity stays. It won't be long before I find myself reconsidering whether or not the Kyoto treaty was a good thing. Western Kentucky summer is enough to turn me into a raving greeniac, which is no mean feat.

With the possible exception of my plentiful hair and muscle tone, the love of summertime is the thing I miss most about my youth. No day was too hot, as long as it wasn't spent in school or on yardwork. Even into my twenties, I could work in an un-air conditioned factory for ten hours, come home wringing wet with sweat, hop in the shower and be ready to drink beer in the evening heat within twenty minutes. Then, I'd stay out 'til 3 a.m., partying like a nine-year-old Drew Barrymore, and be up and at it, ready to start work at 7 a.m. And I'd do the same thing all over again, when I got home.

Nowadays, as soon as the mercury starts into the upper eighties, I feel a sense of dread. I know that, at some point, I'm going to have to step outside and experience the swelter. Whether it's helping a friend run his concession stand on the weekends, or simply stepping outside to retrieve a muddy shoe dragged from the porch into the yard by a neighborhood hound, I know I'm going to suffer. It feels as though I've been ripped from my comforting, climate-controlled womb of a home, and cast into the infernal pits of hell itself.

At precisely what point in my life did I become such a sissy? When did I cease to glisten in the sun, and begin to wilt?

---

Well, I finally felt guilty enough about sitting in the cool, crisp air of my abode to make my way outside and position myself behind the mower. It wasn't the eternal stroll through hades I'd expected, since the humidity didn't seem quite as stifling as it usually is this time of year. I hear the neighbors' mowers humming in the background as I write this entry, and it makes the indoors seem all the more friendly a place. I'd like to make my way across the street with a pitcher of iced tea and a stack of tumblers, doling out refreshment to all the miserable souls in my vicinity, but you know how it is. Besides, none of my neighbors are bikini-clad coeds, home for the summer.

Don't get me wrong. I'm capable of the odd neighborly gesture to even the crustiest of retirees. Hell, I tilled a flower bed for an elderly man who lived two doors down on the other side of the road, once. He passed on years ago, and didn't leave me any money, though. So, now I restrict my gratuitous acts of philanthropy to a pretty narrow temperature range - usually between 70 and 72 degrees. And only on Sundays...when I feel like it.

I might be a little more community-minded if Voyeur Dorm would open a satellite residence in one of the houses on my street. There's one for sale, right next to the house of the old guy with the flower garden. And there's one right across the street from that one, and it happens to be right next door to a deacon at the local Baptist church, who scowls at me when I wave. What I wouldn't give to see a bevy of busty, exhibitionistic babes move in next to that house. I'd host a fundraiser for their top-dollar stereo system and paint the place pink for free, if it meant getting rid of that sactimonious skidmark.

(Don't get the impression that I'm anti-religious, anti-Christian, or even anti-Baptist. I've known many, and liked them plenty. The man in question just strikes me like a three-day-old cup of room temperature mayonnaise on a stomach full of lemon juice.)

Summertime, it seems, makes me cantankerous and disagreeable. Think I'll hit the shower and mosey on down to the club for some fellowship and suds.

Posted 6:50 PM by Walter
Back on the obesity front, I caught the re-airing of a C-SPAN "Washington Journal" roundtable featuring Margo G. Wootan, from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and John Doyle, from the Center for Consumer Freedom. While I didn't catch the entire segment, what I saw was a near-perfect illustration of the difference between the worldviews of conservatives and liberals.

The current point of contention between the two groups, as demonstrated on the show, is a push to federally mandate the publishing of nutritional information on food served in restaurants. Now, being on a diet myself, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea, at first. But, as Mr. Doyle was quick to point out, there's more behind this "attempt to inform" than the desire to better serve the health needs of the public. It's also a great opportunity to fatten the wallets of trial lawyers out of the deep pockets of major restaurant chains.

It works like this: First, they lobby for, and eventually push through, a piece of legislation with a name like the Nutritional Information and Consumer Empowerment, or "NICE" Act. This requires that all restaurants make readily available and easily accessible the amount of fat, calories, carbohydrates and sodium in each of their entrees. What a great idea! I could haul my fat, bloated self into any restaurant across the country, study the information, and make an informed decision about my dietary needs before ordering the Super-Sized Triple Bacon Three Cheese Pizza Burger with Hot Fresh Pork Rinds and Maple Syrup Milk Shake Extreme Value Meal.

Once they pass it to me through the drive-thru window, it's off to my local assault lawyer, who makes arrangements with the dietetics department at the nearest liberal arts college to have the meal analyzed. Once it turns out that there's more fat than advertised, it's Fat City, baby. Johnny Tort, Esq. contacts the corporate headquarters of the restaurant in question, threatens a multi-million dollar lawsuit, unless they settle out of court and save everyone a lot of money, time, and bad publicity. The legal department at the corporate headquarters informs the CEO that it would be easier to just go ahead and write out the check. I'd get about two-thirds of the settlement (before taxes), the attorney gets his third, makes a hefty donation to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, as well as the American Trial Lawyers Association, who then turn around and write big checks to Democrat candidates across the country.

Those Democrats are then lobbied by the recently enriched Center for Science in the Public Interest to push through even more stringent regulations on the fast food industry. And before you know it, we're all stuck eating raw broccoli, which is suddenly a choking hazard for children under three, and thus, should be processed into a fine powder and mixed with water before serving, lest there be more lawsuits and further enrichment of lawyers, public interest groups, lobbyists, and politicians.

But, to the hard-bitten, anti-corporate, trust fund hippy, this sounds pretty good. After all, it's a well-known fact that Applebee's beats its servers for underselling black market steaks. But, this doesn't only cover the major chains. Maw and Paw's Kettle takes it in the shorts, too. Maw and Paw are notoriously careless about their serving sizes and figuring the fat/lean ratios in their hamburger steaks when patting them out. Not to mention the high school drop-out they just hired because they're getting too old to run the kitchen themselves.

Mr. Doyle tried valiantly to point this out to Ms. Wootan. Of course, her response was that this could be legislated in a way that gave flexibility to the restaurants. Perhaps a margin of error could be written in to protect the restaurant industry against overly strict regulations. But, as Mr. Doyle said, we already have the basic sense of how fattening foods are, as well as the choice to patronize restaurants which already voluntarily make the information available. And, it was at this point where Ms. Wootan's position laid itself bare. She made the case that it would be nice if we could go to any restaurant we wanted to visit and have full knowledge of what the food consists of, nutritionally.

Well, of course it would be nice. It would be nice if I could go to any casino and know beforehand how much money I would lose that night. It would also be nice if I could go into a bar knowing ahead of time that I wouldn't end up buying drinks for some hot young chick all night, only to get a "thanks for the drinks, my friend is here, so I have to go" at the end of the evening. How wonderful it would be if I could go to a baseball game, secure in the knowledge that my team is going to win. And, wouldn't it be great if I could go to any public establishment with the promise of a nice, fat settlement if I don't feel completely and utterly catered to?

In my feud with portliness, I have to face the fact that there are some places I can't go and expect to be served belly-friendly fare. Part of the benefit of dieting is that it builds self-discipline and asks the dieter to look out for his own self-interest. I've come to accept the idea that I have to eat at home and choose my meals with the waistline in mind if I expect to wear 32w/34l jeans. I can't expect Outback Steakhouse to change the way it does business under the threat of a lawsuit, just because I ate too many Whoppers from the Burger King across the street last week. They weren't the ones who made me fat. That was me.

And, for what it's worth, my diet's going just fine, no thanks to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I'm a living testimony to the righteousness of the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Posted 12:27 PM by Walter
For some reason, I've put off writing about the demise of Politically Incorrect ever since I heard about it, weeks ago. It's not like I don't have any opinions on the show, or its host. To the contrary, I'm almost bursting with them. It's just that they tend to change.

One minute, I think Bill Maher is an ass and his show is nothing more than a nation-wide mooning. The next, I think Bill Maher's an ass who happened to be right about something and the show is an occasionally entertaining nation-wide mooning. But, Politically Incorrect isn't completely without merit. Anne Coulter is a guest now and then, and she's consistently enjoyable.

Maher, though, has to be one of the most grating personalities ever to be hired to a position with more contact with the public than a strip club disc jockey. When caught up in heated disagreement, his demeanor isn't so much hostile and intimidating as it is childish. His debate technique calls to mind Nellie Oleson from Little House on the Prairie.

But, I do have mixed feelings about the cancellation. The reasoning behind it - his supposed anti-American statements - seems at least a little dishonest. I'm as conservative as they come, and just as patriotic as all the folks who jumped at the chance to pillory Maher over the "we've been the cowards" remark. But, as far as I was concerned, the statement was just another provocative utterance from a man whose livelihood depends on polemic. I certainly didn't take it as, in any way, an attempt to paint the United States as the bad guy in the 9/11 terror attacks.

That's not to say that I don't have a beef with what he said. I take issue with just about half of everything that comes out of his mouth. In this case, I happen to think that the charge of cowardice was leveled at the wrong offender. When he said "we" were the cowards, it exposed one of the many faults I find with him. The fact is, had George W. Bush been in office at the time that the cruise missiles were launched into bin Laden's camp, he wouldn't have painted the yellow stripe down the back of the American people in the collective sense. No. He would have said, "the true cowards are this administration."

But, since Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office at the time that the long distance retribution took place, he couldn't bring himself to be as specific. That, after all, would have been one small affirmation of everything that conservative Republicans said about Clinton for the entire eight years he held power. And, of course, Bill Maher is loathe to acknowledge the righteousness of the folks who went after Clinton for so long, and were proven correct so often.

Granted, he does occasionally make attempts at fairness, if only for the sake of appearances, toward the Bush administration. The "what did he know, and when did he know it" flap is one instance, as well as the DUI conviction gaffe, back in the campaign. (And, to be honest, there are probably other instances where he made fair-minded gestures that I haven't seen.) But Maher soiled his nest with conservatives, long ago.

Since the "cowards" controversy started, I've had the theory that he would have found many more Republican and conservative defenders had he shown George W. Bush some semblance of respect. But, when he spent the better part of the months leading up to the elections calling him "Drinky McDumbass" and insinuating that he was a cokehead, he used up about 90% of his credit with the right. He showed that he was either incapable of (or, unwilling to) extending a hand in fairness to their candidate.

One of the things he likes to point toward as an indication of his high-minded principles is the fact that he doesn't make jokes about Michael Jackson's rumored pedophilia and child molestation. Maher makes the case that he's never been convicted of anything like that, and since he's such a high-profile personality, he's an easy target for charges like that. That said, I can't help wondering where he's hiding his information about Bush's cocaine bust and conviction. I also wonder why it is he would insist on perpetuating the notion that Bush is a lush when, by all accounts, he's put his drinking days behind him. Bush's past drinking problems are at least as irrelevant to his leadership capabilities as Clinton's trysts with Monica are to the national debt. And why didn't Maher ever call the past president "Jerky McSink", or "Stogie McThong"?

Leaving all of this behind, I still find a good deal of fault with Maher's take on the war on terrorism, and the way America should react in the years following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. He seems convinced that we, as Americans, can better ourselves by considering what we do that makes the bad guys hate us so. To Bill, this is the golden opportunity to better ourselves. He feels their hatred is, at least in part, justifiable. He hates some of the very same things about Americans that they do. Particularly, gluttony and ostentatiousness.

And, I suppose he is correct in the sense that Americans are growing fatter and shallower with each generation, and that these aren't good things. But, is terrorism a good reason to change these things? It seems to me that it would be somewhat akin to handing over your lunch money to the schoolyard bully, just because your mom gives you more than you really need, and he really resents that. Or, more applicably, it would be like a fat kid going on the Slim-Fast diet to keep from being picked on at school, rather than eating as much as he wants and hitting the weights when he gets home.

I say this is more applicable because one of Maher's points of mockery was Bush's exhortation to America to get back to the mall in order to show the terrorists that we've not been defeated. Despite Bill's dismissal of it as shallow and greedy, it makes a lot of sense, considering that we live under a system wherein our defense is paid for by tax revenue generated by shoppers. When you buy that handbag, lady, you're buying a welding rod to be used on the next armored personnel carrier built for the Army. Sir, go ahead and get that angle grinder. That's a rivet in an F-14.

All that aside, it seems Maher is pretty selective about the things he sees as justifiable reasons for the Islamic extremists to hate us, and thus, attack us. There are plenty of reasons, not the least of which are the strippers and scantily clad women for which Bill professes such an affinity. They're not crazy about the drinking and drugs, either. Nor, the rock music and porn flicks. Ah, but those aren't legitimate reasons for them to hate us, I guess.

So, today, I'm going to pick up a six-pack, a vial of crack, a copy of Hustler, take them home and listen to Marilyn Manson while I flip through the satellite porn channels. If I don't, then the terrorists win.